SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.And play him where?Levi Jones T
Kyle Van Den Bosch DE Ten
Keith Bulluck LB TEN
Antonio Bryant WR
Randy McMichael TE
Nate Burleson WR
Willie Parker RB
Jimmy Kennedy DT
Brandon LLoyd WR
Larry Johnson RB
Josh Reed WR
Justin Bannan DT
Chris Chambers WR
David Carr QB
Levi Jones T
Kyle Van Den Bosch DE Ten
Keith Bulluck LB TEN
Antonio Bryant WR
Randy McMichael TE
Nate Burleson WR
Willie Parker RB
Jimmy Kennedy DT
Brandon LLoyd WR
Larry Johnson RB
Josh Reed WR
Justin Bannan DT
Chris Chambers WR
David Carr QB
Favorites in bold
I got some realistic free agents for you, they can sign anybody! The Pats are in one of the biggest sports markets and it's uncapped. It's not a matter of "if" the Pats can sign them, it's whether they "want" to sign them.
And play him where?
I like both, but neither is a good fit for a 3-4
Attitude problems and will want a huge paycheck
Sure, why not. Definitely on the decline though
Sure
Pass. Unless it's a one year dirt cheap deal
Meh. Not sure how he'd fit the scheme
Only if there is a time machine set to a few years ago. Lloyd has 36 catches over the last 3 years. Johnson was always a bit overrated and is declining (and a moron). Reed is slower than continental drift and is limited to slot duties, for which Edelman is just fine.
Sure. Nice depth player
Revived his career a bit last year, but I'd still pass unless he was cheap (And I doubt he will be)
Baffling. Hoyer is fine as a #2.
They've spent plenty of money in the past and I don't see how that would change just because of a stadium that was built in 2002. They've manged the cap extremely well since BB has been head coach. Again they're in one of the largest markets in sports. If they were the Colts and had to pay for their own stadium, they'd be f*cked!Does anyone here have a detailed understanding of the Pats' debt structure? Comments like the one above always fail to take this into account, and I don't know enough about it to speak to it with authority. What I do know is that Gillette cost north of $300M to build, was privately funded, and that the Pats have hundreds of millions in debt (I think I remember seeing $280 million as the number). Teams like the Colts, OTOH, had the bill footed by the Indiana taxpayers, so they don't have to account for this kind of debt service. It's pretty stupid to disparage the Pats' willingness to spend without taking any of this into account.
They've spent plenty of money in the past and I don't see how that would change.They've manged the cap extremely well since BB has been head coach. Again they're in one of the largest markets in sports. If they were the Colts and had to pay for their own stadium, they'd be f*cked!
When there was a FA they wanted, they would pay for him as money was rarely an issue. As long as this team sells tickets and wins games, they won't have any problem signing free agents. That is why I won't be surprised if the Pats sign Mankins, Wilfork and Peppers.
That's the whole point. You're saying that, because there's no cap, and they're a large-market team, they can afford whoever they want. AKA they have an inherent economic advantage... which isn't true, if you actually look at the situation in any depth. Whatever advantage they have, there's also a handful of significant disadvantages that you've failed to account for: it's a privately funded stadium, no PSLs, etc. etc.--all things that, as fans and taxpayers, we should appreciate rather than failing to take them into consideration and then ripping on the team for being 'cheap'.
It's a pretty huge pet peeve of mine when anyone implies, let alone states, that Kraft is cheap. Newsflash: if that was true, you'd be a fan of the St. Louis Patriots. Not to be a jerk, but maybe you should go and actually learn your team's history before you throw around that type of accusation. Kraft came to own the Patriots by buying Foxboro Stadium for $25M, then refusing to let Orthweim break the team's contract with the stadium to move it to St. Louis (he was offered $75M; surely a cheap man would have sprung for this). If that wasn't enough, he then bought the Pats for $175M (at the time, NFL record). And the icing on the cake, of course, is that he turned down the Hartford deal to build Gillette in Foxboro, despite the whole thing being privately financed. There's no argument to be made that Kraft is cheap: it's obviously and demonstrably untrue. There is absolutely nothing credible to it, and his entire history of actions says the opposite. If you think the Pats are cheap, then it's because you're too ignorant to have any idea what you're talking about, end of story.
Anyways, to get back to the core point, the reality of the financial situation isn't even close to what you're trying to claim. The Colts, which I used as my example for a reason, may be a smaller market team, but they also don't have hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to service. That's a sizable constraint, and if you don't know enough to recognize that, then you should probably refrain from pretending to be some expert on why Pats make the financial decisions that they make.
Levi Jones T
Kyle Van Den Bosch DE Ten
Keith Bulluck LB TEN
Antonio Bryant WR
Randy McMichael TE
Nate Burleson WR
Willie Parker RB
Jimmy Kennedy DT
Brandon LLoyd WR
Larry Johnson RB
Josh Reed WR
Justin Bannan DT
Chris Chambers WR
David Carr QB
Favorites in bold
LOL some of your phrases gave me a good laugh. Good stuff.
"Reed is slower than the continental drift." LOL
That's the whole point. You're saying that, because there's no cap, and they're a large-market team, they can afford whoever they want. AKA they have an inherent economic advantage... which isn't true, if you actually look at the situation in any depth. Whatever advantage they have, there's also a handful of significant disadvantages that you've failed to account for: it's a privately funded stadium, no PSLs, etc. etc.--all things that, as fans and taxpayers, we should appreciate rather than failing to take them into consideration and then ripping on the team for being 'cheap'.
It's a pretty huge pet peeve of mine when anyone implies, let alone states, that Kraft is cheap. Newsflash: if that was true, you'd be a fan of the St. Louis Patriots. Not to be a jerk, but maybe you should go and actually learn your team's history before you throw around that type of accusation. Kraft came to own the Patriots by buying Foxboro Stadium for $25M, then refusing to let Orthweim break the team's contract with the stadium to move it to St. Louis (he was offered $75M; surely a cheap man would have sprung for this). If that wasn't enough, he then bought the Pats for $175M (at the time, NFL record). And the icing on the cake, of course, is that he turned down the Hartford deal to build Gillette in Foxboro, despite the whole thing being privately financed. There's no argument to be made that Kraft is cheap: it's obviously and demonstrably untrue. There is absolutely nothing credible to it, and his entire history of actions says the opposite. If you think the Pats are cheap, then it's because you're too ignorant to have any idea what you're talking about, end of story.
Anyways, to get back to the core point, the reality of the financial situation isn't even close to what you're trying to claim. The Colts, which I used as my example for a reason, may be a smaller market team, but they also don't have hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to service. That's a sizable constraint, and if you don't know enough to recognize that, then you should probably refrain from pretending to be some expert on why Pats make the financial decisions that they make.
That's the whole point. You're saying that, because there's no cap, and they're a large-market team, they can afford whoever they want. AKA they have an inherent economic advantage... which isn't true, if you actually look at the situation in any depth. Whatever advantage they have, there's also a handful of significant disadvantages that you've failed to account for: it's a privately funded stadium, no PSLs, etc. etc.--all things that, as fans and taxpayers, we should appreciate rather than failing to take them into consideration and then ripping on the team for being 'cheap'.
It's a pretty huge pet peeve of mine when anyone implies, let alone states, that Kraft is cheap. Newsflash: if that was true, you'd be a fan of the St. Louis Patriots. Not to be a jerk, but maybe you should go and actually learn your team's history before you throw around that type of accusation. Kraft came to own the Patriots by buying Foxboro Stadium for $25M, then refusing to let Orthweim break the team's contract with the stadium to move it to St. Louis (he was offered $75M; surely a cheap man would have sprung for this). If that wasn't enough, he then bought the Pats for $175M (at the time, NFL record). And the icing on the cake, of course, is that he turned down the Hartford deal to build Gillette in Foxboro, despite the whole thing being privately financed. There's no argument to be made that Kraft is cheap: it's obviously and demonstrably untrue. There is absolutely nothing credible to it, and his entire history of actions says the opposite. If you think the Pats are cheap, then it's because you're too ignorant to have any idea what you're talking about, end of story.
Anyways, to get back to the core point, the reality of the financial situation isn't even close to what you're trying to claim. The Colts, which I used as my example for a reason, may be a smaller market team, but they also don't have hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to service. That's a sizable constraint, and if you don't know enough to recognize that, then you should probably refrain from pretending to be some expert on why Pats make the financial decisions that they make.