Report: Pats sign DT Tommy Kelly

[Nunchucks]

I hate the way BB builds a team, it is very boring. We always have a ho-hum off-season and a frustrating draft.

However, I cannot argue with the results.

 

[grux]

I think if the Pats manage his reps this could be a very good signing. The front office has done a nice job of bringing in a mixture of vets and young players.

 

[shmessy]

Folks, I've already had to delete over 15 posts in this thread which focused on 'which CB or WR we should draft' or breakdowns of the WR situation.

You are merely wasting your time posting that in a thread that is about Tommy Kelly and how the Patriots address their DL through FA.

Any discussions about WR's or CB's in the draft should be in the relevant threads. I'm sure it's innocent and nobody meant to hijack, but it's best to keep threads on subject. People see the thread titles and want to read about that subject, not tangents.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

[JDot]

Contract details..

Overall terms: Two years, maximum value of $5 million ($1 million in guaranteed money)
Signing bonus: $1 million

Full break down here..

Inside Kelly's two-year deal - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

I would think this contract indicates the Pats believe he still has some gas in the tank.


Sorry if this was posted already..

 

[Rob0729]

Contract details..



Full break down here..

Inside Kelly's two-year deal - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

I would think this contract indicates the Pats believe he still has some gas in the tank.


Sorry if this was posted already..

Pretty reasonable deal even if they do think he has something left. A $2 million cap hit is nothing if he ends up being the Kelly of 2011 rather than 2012.

 

[Ivan]

Keeping your own players doesn't make up for anything.



.

Disagree on this, keeping your own players keeps you from creating holes and new needs and basically keeps you from getting worse. I wanted 1-2 impact players in this free agency and I'm disappointed they didn't come away with any that could be classified as such, but I also expected that doing so would have cost them at least Talib, if not Talib and Vollmer. Now that we are this far into free agency and they apparently still have around 8 million in cap space it is clear they could have gotten at least 1 impact free agent and still have kept both but it is hard to see who they would have gotten in this market. Avril was a good deal but I'm guessing they didn't see him as a fit, and Wallace and Harvin simply cost too much and aren't worth what they got. Overall it really wasn't that good a market imo and they have added some vets who can provide leadership and who could be really good players for them. Are they better than they were at the end of last season? I would say barely, and that's only because i considered Talib to be a rent a player and didn't expect him back, signing him, even for 1 season should make them better defensively for the entire season next year if he stays healthy. Wilson should help them on first and second down and Kelly and Armstead should improve their interior DL. Amendola is a gamble on a younger player replacing Welker for the long term and he should be a really good player for them, but the claims he is an upgrade are crap. Vollmer was the most important move imo because he not only means they are set at both tackles for the foreseeable future but also gives them back-up at LT if Solder should go down, and creating a gaping hole at RT would have been bad news for them and would have meant expending more resources to try and fill that hole. So while i don't think they have improved their team that much to this point they have set themselves up to get much better in the future because they won't have to backfill and can focus on upgrading the units that need it rather than trying to fill holes that were newly created. WR is clearly the biggest need and i would expect them to address it in coming weeks, and the pass rush and defensive backfield still need some work. We'll see where they go from here, i will wait until they are done and see how the roster shapes up before passing judgement on the offseason as a whole.

 

[Brady2Moss]

B2M, I understand your opinion is based on TK's 2011 vs 2012 comparison. Certainly your opinion of TK for 2013 may end up correct. However, there are alternate and reasonable explanations for the down 2012 year in lieu of "he has declined sharply": Nagging injury he played through, Raiders were an appallingly awful team/organization in 2012, new coach-new scheme-inappropriate use of TK. This is not to say, again, you are wrong because his 'down' sample is only one season. With only one season as the sample we all will have to wait and see what transpires in 2013 before an educated judgment can be made.
With insufficient data to know a likely conclusion, I choose to take an optimistic view based mostly on my hope that it all works out. You on the other hand choose to take the more pessimistic view. Nothing is really left to say other than we will know the 'score' in December. If you prove to be right then you earned your stripes on this one considering you stayed the course no matter the counter argument.

Agreed. I'd love to be wrong if those reasons turn it true ill gladly eat the crow because it means well have a better defense. In the end it's 2 million cap hit, not a huge deal to argue about. Lets hope he gives us one more good year !

 

[Deus Irae]

I love the walmart analogy, however, I disagree with your implied conclusions. If you have a limited budget, lets say $200 to spend, would you rather buy one shirt at Nordstroms or 2 shirts, 2 pairs of pants, a jacket and socks from walmart?

The shirt from Nordstroms might be a bit more fashionable, but it doesn't keep your ass warm when its cold, and if you spill mustard on it you have an expensive rag and nothing else to show for it.

Having dealt with Nordstroms customer service and quality vs. Walmart customer service and quality, I can tell you that the Nordstroms purchase is probably the better deal in the long run.

 

[Deus Irae]

Disagree on this, keeping your own players keeps you from creating holes and new needs and basically keeps you from getting worse.

When you're flush with cash, keeping your own players is what you're supposed to do, so keeping them doesn't make up for anything.

 

[shmessy]

Having dealt with Nordstroms customer service and quality vs. Walmart customer service and quality, I can tell you that the Nordstroms purchase is probably the better deal in the long run.

Of course it is, however (as moosekill wrote, and you ignored) you can't go out in public with a top quality shirt and a bare ass.

 

[Joker]

Walmart customer service??? you mean you discovered the mythical unicorn?

I think they have a customer service college in Wal-Mart ,Tennessee somewhere back in the hills and upon graduation the grads disperse to all four corners of the U.S.

 

[shmessy]

When you're flush with cash, keeping your own players is what you're supposed to do, so keeping them doesn't make up for anything.

Only if they are worth keeping at their age and price.

Blindly keeping them just because "you are supposed to" is foolish.

 

[Deus Irae]

Of course it is, however (as moosekill wrote, and you ignored) you can't go out in public with a top quality shirt and a bare ass.

That part of the analogy was inapplicable (since it wasn't a perfect analogy), as I'm sure you know. Teams field 53 man rosters, not 50 +/-, so you'll always have your "ass" covered (unlike you with your poor troll posts). However, my response really was about the two listed companies. I'd rather shell out $60 for a pair of shorts at Nordstroms than $15 for one at Walmart. The return policy and customer service have always made that the better choice for me. At Nordstroms, I've been able to return items years later. At Walmart, I couldn't do that without buying the company first.

 

[Deus Irae]

Only if they are worth keeping at their age and price.

Blindly keeping them just because "you are supposed to" is foolish.

Where did I say you had to keep every player? I expect it's obvious to everyone that's not trolling (likely why you missed it) that you'd only be looking to keep the players you actually wanted to, you know, keep.

 

[BradyManny]

Obviously this is not football related...but I can confirm Nordstrom's will let you return just about anything.

 

[shmessy]

Where did I say you had to keep every player? I expect it's obvious to everyone that's not trolling (likely why you missed it) that you'd only be looking to keep the players you actually wanted to, you know, keep.

Post #268 Deus Irae: "When you're flush with cash, keeping your own players is WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, so keeping them doesn't make up for anything."

(caps mine)

 

[Sicilian]

That part of the analogy was inapplicable (since it wasn't a perfect analogy), as I'm sure you know. Teams field 53 man rosters, not 50 +/-, so you'll always have your "ass" covered (unlike you with your poor troll posts). However, my response really was about the two listed companies. I'd rather shell out $60 for a pair of shorts at Nordstroms than $15 for one at Walmart. The return policy and customer service have always made that the better choice for me. At Nordstroms, I've been able to return items years later. At Walmart, I couldn't do that without buying the company first.

I think a more apt analogy would be both teams are going to Walmart, one is buying a name brand the other is buying a Walmart knockoff. Some of the knockoffs will be just as good at a bargain of the price. Others will be clearly inferior. In both cases, the return policy is the same. Aka, if Mike Wallace tanks with the Dolphins, they can't go trade him in for another top wide receiver any more than the Pats can with their cheaper alternatives. There is no Nordstrom's return policy in the NFL.

 

[Deus Irae]

Post #268 Deus Irae: "When you're flush with cash, keeping your own players is WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, so keeping them doesn't make up for anything."

(caps mine)

I know the post. My response still stands and makes sense, which is far more than your response can claim. You keep Patrick Chung if you want him. You don't keep him if he's become your 4th or 5th option as a safety because he's not getting the job done, just like you don't hang on to player #53 if you sign an upgrade.

Again, this should have been common sense. Your hyped-up desire to troll seems to have compromised your ability to spot something even that obvious.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think a more apt analogy would be both teams are going to Walmart, one is buying a name brand the other is buying a Walmart knockoff. Some of the knockoffs will be just as good at a bargain of the price. Others will be clearly inferior. In both cases, the return policy is the same. Aka, if Mike Wallace tanks with the Dolphins, they can't go trade him in for another top wide receiver any more than the Pats can with their cheaper alternatives. There is no Nordstrom's return policy in the NFL.

The Walmart thing isn't mine, for the record. There was a report put out on the radio that the Patriots felt the FA market would be slow and low, and that they'd be shopping at Walmart. I've just been using it as a result.

The bottom line to the analogy is pretty much how you laid it out, though. You can either invest in a couple of top FAs or you can invest in a bunch of lesser players. Both strategies work when they work. Both strategies suck when they fail. The problem for the Patriots, and the teams fans, is that the lesser player strategy has been failing a lot more than it's been succeeding in the post-2004 era.

 

[Sicilian]

The Walmart thing isn't mine, for the record. There was a report put out on the radio that the Patriots felt the FA market would be slow and low, and that they'd be shopping at Walmart. I've just been using it as a result.

The bottom line to the analogy is pretty much how you laid it out, though. You can either invest in a couple of top FAs or you can invest in a bunch of lesser players. Both strategies work when they work. Both strategies suck when they fail. The problem for the Patriots, and the teams fans, is that the lesser player strategy has been failing a lot more than it's been succeeding in the post-2004 era.

Fair enough. To be honest though, neither strategy seems to have worked for any team in the league consistently. It seems the one thing every Super Bowl winning team has in common is two or three consecutive years of good drafting (and of course great QB play as a given). I think when you draft well, which free agent strategy you prefer becomes almost irrelevant.