Pats bring CB Ty Law in for physical ????

[shmessy]

I must have missed the memo on this one. When did it get circulated

Ooops...BB is gonna kill me for leaking that!

However, we need a smart, veteran, badass safety who instinctively knows the Pats defensive scheme in there until Rodney can be 100%.

Given the additional bulk and his love of hitting, Ty (at the right price) projects perfectly there.

He makes no sense to me at CB for this team at this time at the money he wants.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

Ooops...BB is gonna kill me for leaking that!

However, we need a smart, veteran, badass safety who instinctively knows the Pats defensive scheme in there until Rodney can be 100%.

Given the additional bulk and his love of hitting, Ty (at the right price) projects perfectly there.

He makes no sense to me at CB for this team at this time at the money he wants.

If Law doesn't make sense to you as a CB (and the lofty price ti would command) then why would you believe he'll take even less money to be converted to a safety

 

[shmessy]

What in his history gives you the impression that Ty is shifting to safety this season and lowering his market value? In his mind, he's the top CB in the game, with 10 INTs and a Pro Bowl appearance. He's not going to switch to a position that gets paid less money.

We could see Ty come back as a safety, but it will be a few years down the line, after somebody signs him to a big money deal then cuts him after two years.

Who says the CB offer he gets somewhere else would automatically be more than a Safety offer he gets? Sure, top CB's on average make more than top Safeties, but it sure doesn't look like there are a ton of suitors lining up outside of KC and NE.

If KC (or someone else) offers him more, fine. However, our need for him isn't really at CB (I like the depth and young kids - - and he's 33, bulked up and probably a little slower than a few years ago). From the Pats vantage point, he best projects as Rodney Insurance.

You assume I was talking about it from TY'S perspective.

 

[shmessy]

If Law doesn't make sense to you as a CB (and the lofty price ti would command) then why would you believe he'll take even less money to be converted to a safety

Only if the market isn't there for him. He'll jump for the most money AS LONG AS IT'S OFFERED.

It probably will by someone else, but if it isn't and his stock does a NASDAQ (circa 2000-2002) then this scenario could project. I give it a 20% chance.

 

[dryheat44]

Only if the market isn't there for him. He'll jump for the most money AS LONG AS IT'S OFFERED.

It probably will by someone else, but if it isn't and his stock does a NASDAQ (circa 2000-2002) then this scenario could project. I give it a 20% chance.

And what happens if/when Rodney is healthy?

 

[Ring 6]

Who says the CB offer he gets somewhere else would automatically be more than a Safety offer he gets? Sure, top CB's on average make more than top Safeties, but it sure doesn't look like there are a ton of suitors lining up outside of KC and NE.

If KC (or someone else) offers him more, fine. However, our need for him isn't really at CB (I like the depth and young kids - - and he's 33, bulked up and probably a little slower than a few years ago). From the Pats vantage point, he best projects as Rodney Insurance.

You assume I was talking about it from TY'S perspective.

I think a lot of people either werent watching Ty Law play corner for this team, or are blinded by dislike.

Eric Warfiled, Chad Scott, a rookie 7th rounder compared to Ty Law is ludicrous. Ellis Hobbs, Randall Gay and Asante Samuel have yet to play near Law's level.
Perhaps Law isnt what he used to be but we have no one who has ever been what Law used to be.

There is absolutley no way in the world Ty Law would walk in here as anything but the starting corner.

As far as Law 'bulking up' he spend 6 months plus not being able to work out, not being able to WALK for much of that time. What did you expect from him when he got healthy late, and barely was ready to play for the season, 100% health, and in perfect shape?
Law didn't bulk up, he wasn't ready for the season conditioning-wise.

 

[shmessy]

And what happens if/when Rodney is healthy?

That's why it's called "insurance" and not "investment".

I hope never to have to cash in my homeowner's policy also. But with $12 million in cap space and severe questions at Safety (please tell me Rodney will be 100% in the 1st half of the season), I believe Ty would be a good fit here as a safety if the others offers dry up for him.

Like I said - - - probably a 20% chance.

 

[Brownfan80]

Great. Either way, we're likely to have seven CBs (I think?) so it's basically a gamble on who gets injured (Starks, especially, had prior injury concerns). How do you figure that Law would address those concerns?

Also, it's not a question of keeping Andrews over Law straight up. Factoring in money, my low opinion of Law, etc., I'd rather have Andrews (unless we get a good deal on Law).

I would be more open to the possibility of Law coming here to play safety, a la Woodson, since Harrison probably won't be back to start the season (and when he does return, who knows if he'll be able to play at his previous level).

I'm of the mind that if Law ends up here it'll be on our terms and that BB will have thought out all the financial implications. It's not a matter of 'for the money' to me since we have it and the FO will surely use it wisely.

I don't really care if Law comes or not, but I think that if he does he'll significantly improve our situation in the secondary. As an option at S, as an option at CB. This is a unique year in that we have a large bit of cap room and not alot to spend it on, so the money issue is not as big this season for me as it might be in past seasons.

If we're thinking about another run at the Superbowl THIS season Ty Law helps us more than Willie Andrews in the present. That's the basis I'm going on and I'm sure that if Ty is signed it'll be for team friendly money and a short deal, otherwise he won't be signed at all. Either way I'm not too concerned, because if we don't land Law, then it wasn't best for the team anyway, but if we do, we found a way to make it team friendly and I'm grinnin'.

Of course, if I'm posting in mid-October about how much I hate Ty Law's untimely penalties, please don't remind me about these posts.

 

[shmessy]

Andy Johnson wrote: "I think a lot of people either werent watching Ty Law play corner for this team, or are blinded by dislike."
__________________________

You misunderstand my point. Ty was a GREAT CB for us (perhaps even better than Haynes).

But that was 2 years, a shattered foot and twenty pounds ago. He's 33 years old and has always loved to play physical. If indeed he has lost a step, then this would be a good move for all parties involved.

Given the new circumstances (last time I checked, Andy, it wasn't 2003). I don't understand where you got the impression that I was demeaning his prior CB performance with us. IMHO he could be a great fit (at the right price) at Safety.

 

[Brownfan80]

I think a lot of people either werent watching Ty Law play corner for this team, or are blinded by dislike.

Eric Warfiled, Chad Scott, a rookie 7th rounder compared to Ty Law is ludicrous. Ellis Hobbs, Randall Gay and Asante Samuel have yet to play near Law's level.
Perhaps Law isnt what he used to be but we have no one who has ever been what Law used to be.

There is absolutley no way in the world Ty Law would walk in here as anything but the starting corner.

As far as Law 'bulking up' he spend 6 months plus not being able to work out, not being able to WALK for much of that time. What did you expect from him when he got healthy late, and barely was ready to play for the season, 100% health, and in perfect shape?
Law didn't bulk up, he wasn't ready for the season conditioning-wise.

I'm with you on this one 100%. I wonder what tapes people were watching of our CBs last season. Surely it wasn't the same tapes I saw.

 

[dryheat44]

That's why it's called "insurance" and not "investment".

I hope never to have to cash in my homeowner's policy also. But with $12 million in cap space and severe questions at Safety (please tell me Rodney will be 100% in the 1st half of the season), I believe Ty would be a good fit here as a safety if the others offers dry up for him.

Like I said - - - probably a 20% chance.

I understand insurance well enough. In your scenario, Ty comes in to play safety as Rodney insurance. Got that. My question is that in your scenario, when Rodney gets 100%, or close enough, does Law sit on the bench? Is he cut? Does he force Eugene to the bench? Play nickel?

 

[JackBauer]

I'm with you on this one 100%. I wonder what tapes people were watching of our CBs last season. Surely it wasn't the same tapes I saw.

NEWS FLASH: The entire defense looked putrid during the first 2/3 of last year.

 

[Brownfan80]

NEWS FLASH: The entire defense looked putrid during the first 2/3 of last year.

Yep, but when the defense got better it's because the front 7 made it so, not because the secondary suddenly got better. We allowed the most yards and forced the fewest turnovers through the air that we ever have (edit: in the BB era) last season. That's partly because the front seven was in flux, and partly because the secondary was not near what it once was. With Rodney and Ty off the field at the same time for the first time in several seasons that secondary was horrid. Coverage was a word I began to laugh at until the front seven saved the day. But even after they saved the day our secondary could do hardly more than merely tackle. Go back and watch all the timely turnovers that OTIS, Law, Rodney, Milloy, Tebucky, Buckley and crew forced back in the day. You need playmakers in your secondary. Last season is evidence that we're lacking that.

 

[dryheat44]

Lets not forget that Law was barely able to jog this time last year.
He was not in shape and was recovering from a foot injury, that had to have left his wheels well less than 100%.
You just dont get that back during a season.

I dont think he played real well in 2005, but I'm pretty sure he will be better in 2006.

My biggest concerns in keeping him a year ago were that at his age and with the severity of the injury would he ever recover.
In my opinion his recovery was late and affected his 05 season, but he DID recover.

I'd love to have him here in 06. If he plays like he did last year, he is worth it. If he plays like last year PLUS being 100%, he is a steal.

You bring up a valid point about his injury, and how he was considerably less than "game shape" entering the season. However, I don't think the assumption should be that Law is back to where he was pre-injury. I think the assumption should be that two years of age and the injury have taken their toll on his game. His game was never speed, so he's got that going for him. Unfortunately, he undoubtedly is struggling with the new "emphasis" rules, and physicality was his game.

You are also dead-on to say that the youngsters aren't at Law pre-injury level. But they don't have to be. They only have to be better than Law as-is level. With experience gained from last year, they might be. I'm not willing to say that come September 2006, Ty Law will be a better cornerback in our system than Asante Samuel, Randy Gay, or Ellis Hobbs.

 

[DESERTPAT]

I will always remember the "Great" (his discription) Mike Haynes as a Raider. Bringing him back to wave to the crowd with the likes of Steve Grogan, Andre Tippett and Steve Nelson was a travesty. Ty Law is a mercenary and I hope he never wears a Patriot Uniform again. Raymond Clayborn was a true Patriot and should be remembered as the best Patiots d-back of all time. Law lovers crack me up - BB made Ty Law, not the other way around.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

I will always remember the "Great" (his discription) Mike Haynes as a Raider. Bringing him back to wave to the crowd with the likes of Steve Grogan, Andre Tippett and Steve Nelson was a travesty. Ty Law is a mercenary and I hope he never wears a Patriot Uniform again. Raymond Clayborn was a true Patriot and should be remembered as the best Patiots d-back of all time. Law lovers crack me up - BB made Ty Law, not the other way around.

I don't think BB gives two hoots about any of this. Bottom line for BB will be whether or not Law can help him win a SB next year and at what contract cost. We all here are speculating as to what $ the parties are tossing around but, anyone who believes that Law wouldn't help make this Patriot team better is, with all due respect, seriously delusional.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Wow. That's not even close to accurate. I'd put him behind Barrett AND the two safeties.

In fact, he's no longer with the Jets partly because they have two kids in Strait and Miller who they feel can improve on Law's performance.

No way! He is no longer with the Jets because they would have had to give him an 11.5 million dollar bonus.

If he played so poorly, why is it that Herm Edwards is trying to get him to sign with KC?

I think ten interceptions speak for themselves. I agree with those you marginalize all his penalties on the fact that he was playing overweight due to his lengthy recovery time and possibly not completely healed either.

He is most likely better than any CB we now have ... I don't think we NEED him, I like the DBs we have, but I think he could make our team better. At the reasonable price, I would want us to sign him.

 

[shakadave]

Sure Law had 10 INT's partly because they threw his way a lot, because he wasn't playing like the Ty Law of old. But remember he has phenomenal ball skills, possibly the best in the game. He catches balls over his head, balls at his ankles, balls behind him. If he lets up lots of receptions that other DBs would have stopped, but snares 10 INTs for us, I'm not sure that's not worth it! Turnovers are way more important than yards allowed. And it's not like everybody ran up huge numbers last year by picking on Law all day. Plus he'll be a little healthier in 2006 than in 2005.

Probably none of this matters, since the Pats won't pay him 7 million let alone 10 million. (I don't think anyone will pay him 10m, but Ty does.) If it were up to me, I'd pay him 3m with an "unlikely to be achieved (cap-wise)" 9m bonus for winning the Super Bowl!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ring 6]

You bring up a valid point about his injury, and how he was considerably less than "game shape" entering the season. However, I don't think the assumption should be that Law is back to where he was pre-injury. I think the assumption should be that two years of age and the injury have taken their toll on his game. His game was never speed, so he's got that going for him. Unfortunately, he undoubtedly is struggling with the new "emphasis" rules, and physicality was his game.

You are also dead-on to say that the youngsters aren't at Law pre-injury level. But they don't have to be. They only have to be better than Law as-is level. With experience gained from last year, they might be. I'm not willing to say that come September 2006, Ty Law will be a better cornerback in our system than Asante Samuel, Randy Gay, or Ellis Hobbs.

I disagree. If he came back and played at a reasonable level (I agree pro-bowl doesnt mean good, and 10 Ints dont mean good, but he was better than any corner we had last year) after having a very short (too short) rehab, why would you assume age caught up to him? I would make that assumption if he had a reasonable time to rehab and was still out of shape.
Look at it this way, if he was 22 when that injury happened, he still wouldnt have been in shape to start the season.

I can't believe how easily we have forgotten 2 months of WR running rampanty through our secondary to the point where every team we faced couldnt wait to go deep on us.

You missed my point on the youngsters vs Law.

You are saying maybe Law isnt what he was. I am saying we dont have anyone who EVER WAS what Law was.
In other words, even if Law has declined, he has quite a way to come down and still be better than anyone else we have at the position.

 

[Ring 6]

Sure Law had 10 INT's partly because they threw his way a lot, because he wasn't playing like the Ty Law of old. But remember he has phenomenal ball skills, possibly the best in the game. He catches balls over his head, balls at his ankles, balls behind him. If he lets up lots of receptions that other DBs would have stopped, but snares 10 INTs for us, I'm not sure that's not worth it! Turnovers are way more important than yards allowed. And it's not like everybody ran up huge numbers last year by picking on Law all day. Plus he'll be a little healthier in 2006 than in 2005.

Probably none of this matters, since the Pats won't pay him 7 million let alone 10 million. (I don't think anyone will pay him 10m, but Ty does.) If it were up to me, I'd pay him 3m with an "unlikely to be achieved (cap-wise)" 9m bonus for winning the Super Bowl!!!!!!!!!!

If you discount 10 Int because they are throwing at him a lot , how do you account for all of our corners, who had to get thrown at more combined than Law not having 10 combined? I can understand expllaining away an extra pick or 2, but not 10.