My early perception, Patriots 3rd best in AFC East

[Rob0729]

Dollars "spent" in any 4-5 year window is meaningless.

Well, it really isn't. If Kraft is willing to spend in that window especially since it is during the time when the new CBA grew the cap exponentially. If the Pats are willing to spend $105 million of real money in 2006 and $117 million in real money in 2007 (and Jonathan Kraft said they are low estimates), it means that given the cap flexibility, they aren't afraid to spend money.

Prior to 2004 is not a good indicator because that was a period of time where managing the cap was far harder and teams were forced to cut good players when their salaries got too big. That means real dollar spending would be much different than it is now.

 

[emoney_33]

Well, it is about as much as a recent historical trend considering it was during the time when the cap expanded exponentially. The last two years the Pats didn't spend as much, but it was because they were restricted with amortized bonuses from their spending years when they signed Brady, Moss, Seymour, Thomas, and a few other to big deals with big bonuses. The Pats have spent up to the cap nearly every year. They aren't like some of the smaller market teams that leave $5-10 million of cap space on the books.

That's the point. They spend to the cap every year, and thus they spend ALL possible money allowed. What years they happen to actually dish out the most cash is irrelevant.

 

[Rob0729]

That's the point. They spend to the cap every year, and thus they spend ALL possible money allowed. What years they happen to actually dish out the most cash is irrelevant.

It is relevant that the argument is that whether the Pats are cheap and afraid to spend money and the historical trends show that when the Pats have the cap room, the Pats have spent. The new CBA signed in 2006 expanded the cap exponentially and the Pats spent a fortune in real dollars in 2006 and 2007.

 

[emoney_33]

Well, it really isn't. If Kraft is willing to spend in that window especially since it is during the time when the new CBA grew the cap exponentially. If the Pats are willing to spend $105 million of real money in 2006 and $117 million in real money in 2007 (and Jonathan Kraft said they are low estimates), it means that given the cap flexibility, they aren't afraid to spend money.

Prior to 2004 is not a good indicator because that was a period of time where managing the cap was far harder and teams were forced to cut good players when their salaries got too big. That means real dollar spending would be much different than it is now.

Real dollars spent is going to end up equaling the sum total of the cap in all years. If you pick isolated years you will get plus or minus but any team that spends to the cap each year will eventually spend ALL possible money. Again any 4-5 year window span is irrelevant.

 

[emoney_33]

It is relevant that the argument is that whether the Pats are cheap and afraid to spend money and the historical trends show that when the Pats have the cap room, the Pats have spent. The new CBA signed in 2006 expanded the cap exponentially and the Pats spent a fortune in real dollars in 2006 and 2007.

:sigh: Why is it so hard to understand?

The Pats SPEND TO THE CAP EVERY YEAR.

This means whether the dollars came out of their wallet 5 years ago, this year or in 5 years means NOTHING to the argument of being "cheap". They CANNOT spend more than the sum total of the cap in all years. Which years they spend more money (bonuses etc...) is only relevant to strategical discussions, NOT to being "cheap".

 

[Rob0729]

Real dollars spent is going to end up equaling the sum total of the cap in all years. If you pick isolated years you will get plus or minus but any team that spends to the cap each year will eventually spend ALL possible money. Again any 4-5 year window span is irrelevant.

That isn't true. There are plenty of teams that don't spend to the cap. Many teams leave cap dollars on the table. Others play with the books to take future cap dollar hits in the current year and perpetually do that.

A four to five year window is not irrelevant because that the rules changed in 2006.

 

[emoney_33]

That isn't true. There are plenty of teams that don't spend to the cap. Many teams leave cap dollars on the table. Others play with the books to take future cap dollar hits in the current year and perpetually do that.

A four to five year window is not irrelevant because that the rules changed in 2006.

I don't care about other teams. The patriots spend to the cap every year, they don't let cap money die. Whether they dish it all out this year or next year or in 5 years is IRRELEVANT to the "cheap" discussion.

You cannot spend more than the cap, period.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Here are some numbers:

NFL.com Blogs Blog Archive Moneyball, NFL style

NFL.com Blogs Blog Archive More Moneyball (the economics of wins and losses)

The Patriots are #1 in cost per win, but only #10 in actual dollars spent. That doesn't really make them 'cheap' on the sliding scale, since they were still in the top half of the league in player spending, but they did spend over $150 million dollars less than the #1 spending team in the NFL from 2004-2008. The fan base proudly talks about players taking less to play for the Patriots. It's really no surprise that the negative people would spin that in a negative manner, just as it's no surprise that the homers spin "spending to the cap" into actual spending, when it's not.

Geesh Deus

Just think, I praised you for an actual intelligent post a few days back.

You can only spend to the cap. "Actual" means nothing because that's why it's called the cap. However, over time the cap and actual do have to converge.

 

[Rob0729]

:sigh: Why is it so hard to understand?

The Pats SPEND TO THE CAP EVERY YEAR.

This means whether the dollars came out of their wallet 5 years ago, this year or in 5 years means NOTHING to the argument of being "cheap". They CANNOT spend more than the sum total of the cap in all years. Which years they spend more money (bonuses etc...) is only relevant to strategical discussions, NOT to being "cheap".

It isn't hard to understand because I understand that. What you don't understand, there are probably about a third of the teams in the league who don't. Why is that so hard to understand.

There are teams that perpetually spend towards the bottom of the league in money.

The thing you still don't get is that I agree that you cannot spend more the adjusted cap, but you certainly can spend less and teams do spend less. There is a cap floor and there are teams who try to get up to that limit as much as most teams try to get to the cap ceiling.

 

[emoney_33]

It isn't hard to understand because I understand that. What you don't understand, there are probably about a third of the teams in the league who don't. Why is that so hard to understand.

There are teams that perpetually spend towards the bottom of the league in money.

The thing you still don't get is that I agree that you cannot spend more the adjusted cap, but you certainly can spend less and teams do spend less. There is a cap floor and there are teams who try to get up to that limit as much as most teams try to get to the cap ceiling.

This entire point was about the patriots being cheap and how dollars spent in any window is irrelevant. You can't determine that team A is not spending to the cap because their dollars spent in this window was whatever. Dollars spent by itself is meaningless in any 4-5 year window.

I don't know if you quoted me to go off on a side tangent for no reason at all or if I wasn't clear initially.

 

[Rob0729]

Geesh Deus

Just think, I praised you for an actual intelligent post a few days back.

You can only spend to the cap. "Actual" means nothing because that's why it's called the cap. However, over time the cap and actual do have to converge.

There are games you can play to allow you to spend more money than the cap allow and the Pats play them. You have the use of NLTBE that are easily met which allow you to spend over the cap without actually going over. Many of the NLTBE are anything, but not likely to be earned bonuses. There are also ways to convert signing bonuses to roster bonuses or visa versa which will give you more or less cap space to spend. If you have extra money at the end of the year, you can convert future money into that year. So there are plenty of ways to cheat the cap by making room you didn't have or may it look like you spent more to the cap.

 

[Deus Irae]

Geesh Deus

Just think, I praised you for an actual intelligent post a few days back.

You can only spend to the cap. "Actual" means nothing because that's why it's called the cap. However, over time the cap and actual do have to converge.

The Patriots do not spend to the cap, in actual spending. That's just reality. It doesn't automatically make them evil, wrong, mean or even cheap. I personally have no problem with them only being #10 in spending from 2004-2008, although the fact that there's such a gulf between what they've spent and what the Redskins have spent does tend to undercut the "we can't afford player 'X' because of the salary cap" arguments. Your personal shot is not only useless, it's ridiculous given what my post was stating. Then again, I'll just consider the source.

And it's called a "cap" because that's the theoretical spending ceiling. The Patriots, like pretty much all other teams, make maneuvers within the rules to play with the numbers.

 

[Rob0729]

This entire point was about the patriots being cheap and how dollars spent in any window is irrelevant. You can't determine that team A is not spending to the cap because their dollars spent in this window was whatever. Dollars spent by itself is meaningless in any 4-5 year window.

I don't know if you quoted me to go off on a side tangent for no reason at all or if I wasn't clear initially.

Well, it is relevant when talking about an uncapped year. Especially when it is some of the most recent figures after they added luxury box revenue and other revenues to the cap making the cap grow by about 50% in three or four years.

If the Pats are willing to spend nearly $120 million in any given year, why wouldn't they be willing to do it this year? When their real money allocated to be spent this year so far is around $65 million, why is it hard to believe that the Pats won't spend $55 million in real money this year if they are given an opportunity and they don't feel they are ruining future cap situations by doing so.

Belichick has been running this team for ten years. Four years is nearly half his tenure. Kraft has owned this team for 16 years. Four years is a quarter of his tenure of ownership. That is a significant period of time considering the tenures of both Belichick and Kraft.

 

[Deus Irae]

It is funny that the top 3 teams between 2004-2008 in terms of money spent have a combined playoff record of 4-9. The Texans were sixth and they didn't have a single winning season over those years. The Vikings were 5th and were 1-2 in the playoffs over those years. The Saints were 7th and had an 1-1 playoff record and went 8-8 in 2004, 3-13 in 2005, 7-9 in 2007, and 8-8 in 2008. Meanwhile the Pats had two playoff appearances and one win. The only teams that had close to the success the Pats had over that period during that time period and spent more were the Colts and Steelers.

Part of it is luck, part is management. Teams like the Patriots, Steelers and Colts will tend to be paying near the top because they've invested in top shelf quarterbacking, which makes a huge difference in whether or not a team can win consistently. That's smart management, as opposed to a Redskins team that pays for players at lesser positions. It's a damning indictment of the Daniel Snyder era in Washington.

It's also why I was so much in favor of going after Clady and Oher in the draft. If you've got greatness at QB and you decide to build your offense heavily around the passing game, my thought is that you've got to protect him first and worry about everything else second. To me, protecting your most expensive investment just makes sense.

 

[emoney_33]

Well, it is relevant when talking about an uncapped year. Especially when it is some of the most recent figures after they added luxury box revenue and other revenues to the cap making the cap grow by about 50% in three or four years.

It's not relevant when talking about an uncapped year that hasn't happened yet.

If the Pats are willing to spend nearly $120 million in any given year, why wouldn't they be willing to do it this year? When their real money allocated to be spent this year so far is around $65 million, why is it hard to believe that the Pats won't spend $55 million in real money this year if they are given an opportunity and they don't feel they are ruining future cap situations by doing so.

Let's stop projecting what is going to happen in one uncapped year that has yet to happen. The argument was the Patriots are cheap, and they have proven they are not. Then people like Deus can't seem to grasp the fact that cap games are simply spreading the money into other years, but for the Patriots at least it is all spent or going to be spent.

Belichick has been running this team for ten years. Four years is nearly half his tenure. Kraft has owned this team for 16 years. Four years is a quarter of his tenure of ownership. That is a significant period of time considering the tenures of both Belichick and Kraft.

And they have proven to spend to the cap and spend wisely, if it's not worth it this year push it to the next year. I don't get your point?

 

[Rob0729]

It's not relevant when talking about an uncapped year that hasn't happened yet.

The argument of the Pats being cheap only comes into effect in an uncapped year. If they manage to extend the CBA, the argument is irrelevant.

Let's stop projecting what is going to happen in one uncapped year that has yet to happen. The argument was the Patriots are cheap, and they have proven they are not. Then people like Deus can't seem to grasp the fact that cap games are simply spreading the money into other years, but for the Patriots at least it is all spent or going to be spent.

This board is for speculation. If we don't speculate what the Pats are going to do in the offseason this year, why not close down this board until March 5th?

And they have proven to spend to the cap and spend wisely, if it's not worth it this year push it to the next year. I don't get your point?

The argument isn't whether the Pats managed the cap wisely. It is whether the Pats are cheap or not. The information that Deus provided supports the argument that they are not cheap.

 

[furley]

Right now. Yes, 3rd best in the AFC. Jets are stacked and I hate to break the news to the pom pom squad on this message board, Sanchez is going to get better. Miami is playing a 3rd place schedule, you know that Parcells will hit in the draft so look for their young talent to be more impressive. Also, Henne already started to play solid end of season. The Pats playing SD and Indy vs Miami playing Tennessee and KC is enough to make the difference.

And here I was thinking I was the only sports fan who's capable of speaking objectively.

Miami is only two years removed from winning the AFC East division. They'd finished 11-5 in 2008--losing in the Wild Card game.

Looking over Miami's schedule this season, they'd lost some close games... Most notably, a four point lost at home to Indianapolis, a twelve point lost at home to New Orleans, a five point lost on the road to the Jets, a three point lost on the road to Tennessee, a seven point lost at home to Houston and a six point lost at home to Pittsburgh. With a better defense, maybe they win a few of these. I understand I didn't watch their games this season but it isn't as if Miami just laid down to these opponents.

With a 7-9 record, I expect Miami to have a favorable schedule. As said, Miami has nice young talent on defense and have hired a new defensive coordinator who'd helped to improve a struggling Denver defense into a respectable one. In 2009, Nolan turned around a Broncos defense that ranked twenty-ninth in total defense in 2008, to seventh this season. You don't believe he'll have a similar affect on Miami, who'd ranked twenty-second, with more talent.

I really think the Dolphins general manager will attempt to surround Henne with more weapons, and that begins with a top wide receiver. I've to believe that Boldin (twenty-nine) is the most available top wide receiver this off-season. I mean Miami desperately needs play-makers in the passing game beside Ronnie Brown who's their running back. Moreover, I think you've to keep Ginn Jr. as he offers your team big play ability on special teams. Dolphins like Hartline and Bess so Camarillo might be expendable. The question is, what will they've in second-year tight end John Nalbone.

 

[emoney_33]

The argument of the Pats being cheap only comes into effect in an uncapped year. If they manage to extend the CBA, the argument is irrelevant.

People are calling them cheap for not spending to the cap in capped years. Again, you can't argue that they are cheap based on what you THINK they are GOING to do. This is stupid to even debate, I mean seriously.

This board is for speculation. If we don't speculate what the Pats are going to do in the offseason this year, why not close down this board until March 5th?

Big difference between speculation and accusing the Pats of being cheap.

The argument isn't whether the Pats managed the cap wisely. It is whether the Pats are cheap or not. The information that Deus provided supports the argument that they are not cheap.

You cannot use an uncapped year that hasn't happened yet and wasn't a guarantee to argue they are cheap. That makes NO sense. The only way to argue that they "managed the cap wisely" and that they are "cheap" is to argue that they KNEW 100% there was an uncapped year coming for the past 2-3 years.

None of this makes any sense. They cannot be deemed cheap if they spend the maximum allowed on a consistent basis. A cheap team lets unused cap money die, they do not push it forward.

Nevermind, this argument is pointless.

 

[Deus Irae]

And here I was thinking I was the only sports fan who's capable of speaking objectively.

Miami is only two years removed from winning the AFC East division. They'd finished 11-5 in 2008--losing in the Wild Card game.

Looking over Miami's schedule this season, they'd lost some close games... Most notably, a four point lost at home to Indianapolis, a twelve point lost at home to New Orleans, a five point lost on the road to the Jets, a three point lost on the road to Tennessee, a seven point lost at home to Houston and a six point lost at home to Pittsburgh. With a better defense, maybe they win a few of these. I understand I didn't watch their games this season but it isn't as if Miami just laid down to these opponents.

With a 7-9 record, I expect Miami to have a favorable schedule. As said, Miami has nice young talent on defense and have hired a new defensive coordinator who'd helped to improve a struggling Denver defense into a respectable one. In 2009, Nolan turned around a Broncos defense that ranked twenty-ninth in total defense in 2008, to seventh this season. You don't believe he'll have a similar affect on Miami, who'd ranked twenty-second, with more talent.

I really think the Dolphins general manager will attempt to surround Henne with more weapons, and that begins with a top wide receiver. I've to believe that Boldin (twenty-nine) is the most available top wide receiver this off-season. I mean Miami desperately needs play-makers in the passing game beside Ronnie Brown who's their running back. Moreover, I think you've to keep Ginn Jr. as he offers your team big play ability on special teams. Dolphins like Hartline and Bess so Camarillo might be expendable. The question is, what will they've in second-year tight end John Nalbone.

The Dolphins opponent list is already available:

Home: Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, New York Jets, Cleveland Browns, Pittsburgh Steelers, Tennessee Titans, Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions

Away: Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, New York Jets, Baltimore Ravens, Cincinnati Bengals, Oakland Raiders, Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings

Compare to the Patriots:

Home: Buffalo Bills, Miami Dolphins, New York Jets, Baltimore Ravens, Cincinnati Bengals, Indianapolis Colts, Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings

Away: Buffalo Bills, Miami Dolphins, New York Jets, Cleveland Browns, Pittsburgh Steelers, San Diego Chargers, Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions

2010 AFC opponents - NFL - CBSSports.com Football

New England would seem to have a tougher schedule as the bolded games are the difference, but getting the Colts/Packers/Vikings/Bengals/Ravens at home makes the schedule more palatable, while the Dolphins face Ravens/Bengals/Packers/Vikings on the road.

 

[Kontradiction]

Agreed. He played his best game vs the Pats so that is why I think Pats fans are so high on him. He is nothing more than an average QB. He isnt going to lose many games for the Dolphins, but he wont win any for them either.

Boy, Pats fans are really in denial on Henne. I'm not saying he's going to be the next Montana, but he will be a solid quarterback, given that the Dolphins put some weapons around him. The guy had Devone Bess and Brian Hartline, as his best two receivers. He had absolutely nothing (and please don't bring up Ted Ginn because he's a bust as a receiver). Living in South Florida, I watched the Dolphins almost as much as I watched the Pats and I can tell you first hand that the majority of the INT's he threw were the kind that bounced off of his receivers' hands and into the hands of the defense. I can't really remember him throwing many boneheaded picks. Not to mention that if he sucks so bad then what does he make our defense, given that he carved us up like a turkey on Thanksgiving.

As for the Pats, well, they are in a wierd place right now IMO. They are at a point where a couple of good moves and Brady's health (both mental and physical) improving can make them simply awesome again. On the flipside, they are also at a place where a couple of bad moves this offseason plus lack of improvement on both fronts from Brady could thoroughly close the window a bit more on the team's chances for another Super Bowl. It all depends on what we do in the draft and in free agency. Making a snap judgment about the team at this point, either way, is just a bit of a waste of time... especially since it's pretty much a given that we're going to be fielding a different looking team next season.