Tired about all this "All In" talk

[Bruins29]

You make sure you get into the tournament ever year. After that, whatever. Sure you try to have a balance deep team with great skill players and solid backups. But how many times has the better team lost....

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Nothing guarantees you a ring. Going all in does not guarantee a ring. Playing it conservative does not guarantee a ring. So to say it is not smart to go all in because it doesn't guarantee a ring is pretty darn silly, isn't it?

You are running the risk of sucking for years..maybe longer if you constantly go all in with contracts ect..something the pats will never do

 

[SB39]

Not at all. There is a lot more risk in going "all in" because you are mortgaging the future to win now. You gamble on going "all in" one year, you risk being mediocre for a number of years. You do what the Pats and several other teams do and you are consistently Super Bowl contenders.

Another of your many errors is your apparent belief that going "all in" is a 1 year proposition followed by certain mediocrity. Just by going a little heavy on 1 particular season does not automatically consign you to 8-8 the next 10 years.

 

[SB39]

You are running the risk of sucking for years..

With intelligent people running the show, there is virtually no chance of that happening. Oh sure it will happen when your GM sucks, but not when they are good.

You act like there's no risk in playing it safe. I have no doubt that if the 2006 team had simply spent just a reasonable amount on a WR, then there would be 4 Lombardi's in Foxboro right now, not 3.

 

[Run DMC]

Mankins was one of the worst pass blocking guards in the NFL last year and we desperately needed another pass catching TE for the inevitable Gronk breakdown. I am done questioning BB, I think we're in damn fine shape.

 

[Rob0729]

Another of your many errors is your apparent belief that going "all in" is a 1 year proposition followed by certain mediocrity. Just by going a little heavy on 1 particular season does not automatically consign you to 8-8 the next 10 years.

For someone who who apparently cannot read, you should really not be acting like other people have many errors. When did I ever say it is an "1 year proposition followed by certain mediocrity"?

Here is what I wrote:

you risk being mediocre for a number of years

That means you go "all in" there is a chance you could sabotage your team for many years, not "certain mediocrity".

 

[PatFanCraig]

OK first off the media overstates with all in be. It just means a team is willing to spend to fix a glaring weakness or add an impact player or 2 through FA and maybe even a trade as in trade next years #1 for an impacts player of need. The patriots rarely add impact players unless they get some bargain. They got lucky with Revised wanting a ring. Sad thing is its not like they made another splash since Revis did not re require a mega contract. I think not signing Emmanuel Sanders will really haunt them if he turns out to be a go to guy to go with his blazing speed and big play ability. When his price went up above 3 mil the patriots settled on Brandon the slug Lafell. Really?! Over 2 mil a yr more. The only reason I'm OK with that is because I'm a big believer in Dobson and Kenbrell will break out and both are faster than given credit for. Only prob is if your going to sign a WR do it right and spend the extra $$. I just don't like how they played it cheap and signed a $3mil waste of cap space. I would rather them not signed a WR at all.

As far as so called going all in hurting a team for more than a yr or 2 is a myth. Show me one team in salary cap turmoil more than a season or 2. The salary cap is so flexible. And its usually these teams that are supposed to be in cap trouble from spending making another splash signing. Look at broncos paying Manning and still spending away. Let's see if they are in cap trouble next yr or yr after. Another thing if you have a QB and hit on a couple draft picks every draft you can easily get by a year where your cap is tight and like I said have you ever seen a team in cap trouble for like 5 years.

Look at seahawks with all the talent they been signing in FA then they are still locking up their own impact players and will still sign Wilson to a blockbuster contract. They even retained Bennett. Only players they cut or let go are mediocre expendable replaceable talent. And your saying the the patriots can't keep McCourty and Solder who is far from a top LT so far. While worrying about Ridley like he can't be replaced with some talented backup RB out there cheap who just needs carries to hit over 1000 yards. I'm not upset over Mankins unless they try starting Wendell at center next to connolly at RG who will crumble going up against a powerful DLine. Because Mankins play wasn't up to his standards although he was far more stout than Wendell or Connolly. But I think if bill takes the time to coach Fleming at RG to play opposite of Cannon at LG then the line can actually be better than with Mankind who wasn't worth $10 million a year any longer and they will be better off using that $$ towards an impact player or resigning Revised and McCourty

 

[PatFanCraig]

Da#n spell check keeps changing revis to revised even after programming Revis in. Anyways I don't think Revis or McCourty will break the bank unless McCourty rivals Earl Thomas this season and Revis is still the clearcut best or at least arguably the best after this season becausehe is 5 yrs older than Peterson and Sherman. How many shutdown corners were still shutdown beasts well into their 30s. Champ was still good but clearly no longer the best. Even Deion Sanders slipped as did Law,McCallister and Rolle. Revis can remain in conversation as best maybe for all of 2014 and all of 2015.

 

[Rob0729]

OK first off the media overstates with all in be. It just means a team is willing to spend to fix a glaring weakness or add an impact player or 2 through FA and maybe even a trade as in trade next years #1 for an impacts player of need. The patriots rarely add impact players unless they get some bargain. They got lucky with Revised wanting a ring. Sad thing is its not like they made another splash since Revis did not re require a mega contract. I think not signing Emmanuel Sanders will really haunt them if he turns out to be a go to guy to go with his blazing speed and big play ability. When his price went up above 3 mil the patriots settled on Brandon the slug Lafell. Really?! Over 2 mil a yr more. The only reason I'm OK with that is because I'm a big believer in Dobson and Kenbrell will break out and both are faster than given credit for. Only prob is if your going to sign a WR do it right and spend the extra $$. I just don't like how they played it cheap and signed a $3mil waste of cap space. I would rather them not signed a WR at all.

As far as so called going all in hurting a team for more than a yr or 2 is a myth. Show me one team in salary cap turmoil more than a season or 2. The salary cap is so flexible. And its usually these teams that are supposed to be in cap trouble from spending making another splash signing. Look at broncos paying Manning and still spending away. Let's see if they are in cap trouble next yr or yr after. Another thing if you have a QB and hit on a couple draft picks every draft you can easily get by a year where your cap is tight and like I said have you ever seen a team in cap trouble for like 5 years.

Look at seahawks with all the talent they been signing in FA then they are still locking up their own impact players and will still sign Wilson to a blockbuster contract. They even retained Bennett. Only players they cut or let go are mediocre expendable replaceable talent. And your saying the the patriots can't keep McCourty and Solder who is far from a top LT so far. While worrying about Ridley like he can't be replaced with some talented backup RB out there cheap who just needs carries to hit over 1000 yards. I'm not upset over Mankins unless they try starting Wendell at center next to connolly at RG who will crumble going up against a powerful DLine. Because Mankins play wasn't up to his standards although he was far more stout than Wendell or Connolly. But I think if bill takes the time to coach Fleming at RG to play opposite of Cannon at LG then the line can actually be better than with Mankind who wasn't worth $10 million a year any longer and they will be better off using that $$ towards an impact player or resigning Revised and McCourty

Several things:

• I never said that teams are in salary cap turmoil for more than a year or two. Going "all in" doesn't mean you go into cap hell or heck for years. Where going "all in" can really hurt you is that you are not building for the future and when these high priced marquee talent either get old or they are cut because their salaries out value their performance, the team hasn't groomed their replacement or they don't have talent in other areas. It isn't all about the salary cap.
• The Broncos and Seahawks are a bad examples of "all in" teams (at least until this year and we do not know the fallout of that yet). Most of both team's star players are still playing under their rookie deals at least until this past offseason where several of the Seahawks' star players got new deals. Players like Richard Sherman, Demaryius Thomas, Von Miller, Earl Thomas, Julius Thomas, and Russell Wilson are/were making well below their market value. That allowed both teams to overpay in other areas. When Brady's salary drops next year (assuming they don't redo his deal), the Pats will be in a similar position in theory.
• The Seahawks, in a few years when all their newly retained players start to make real money on their new deals, will not be able to do what they did in the last few years. And they still have a few players still locked up from two years ago when the free agent salaries were unusually low. They have yet to be be faced with a Wilfork or Mankins situation where they have a former stud player on the wrong side of 30 making over $10 million on the cap. They will in several years.
• I was not impressed with Sanders last year when he was made a focal point of the offense in Pittsburgh. I know he looked good in the preseason, but we need to wait until the real guns fly.
• The Pats' biggest need at WR was big red zone targets. In the last two years when Gronk went down, that is what killed the Pats. Brady has almost never had problem moving the ball in the open field. It is when they got into the red zone where things fell apart because guys like Edelman and Amendola are better open field options than red zone options. LaFell addresses that need. How well? We will see in the about a week.
• Overall I like the receiving corp and I don't think Sanders was a need. We may find out that it might have been worth signing him to keep him from Manning, but that is something for another day.

 

[ausbacker]

Several things:

• I never said that teams are in salary cap turmoil for more than a year or two. Going "all in" doesn't mean you go into cap hell or heck for years. Where going "all in" can really hurt you is that you are not building for the future and when these high priced marquee talent either get old or they are cut because their salaries out value their performance, the team hasn't groomed their replacement or they don't have talent in other areas. It isn't all about the salary cap.
• The Broncos and Seahawks are a bad examples of "all in" teams (at least until this year and we do not know the fallout of that yet). Most of both team's star players are still playing under their rookie deals at least until this past offseason where several of the Seahawks' star players got new deals. Players like Richard Sherman, Demaryius Thomas, Von Miller, Earl Thomas, Julius Thomas, and Russell Wilson are/were making well below their market value. That allowed both teams to overpay in other areas. When Brady's salary drops next year (assuming they don't redo his deal), the Pats will be in a similar position in theory.
• The Seahawks, in a few years when all their newly retained players start to make real money on their new deals, will not be able to do what they did in the last few years. And they still have a few players still locked up from two years ago when the free agent salaries were unusually low. They have yet to be be faced with a Wilfork or Mankins situation where they have a former stud player on the wrong side of 30 making over $10 million on the cap. They will in several years.
• I was not impressed with Sanders last year when he was made a focal point of the offense in Pittsburgh. I know he looked good in the preseason, but we need to wait until the real guns fly.
• The Pats' biggest need at WR was big red zone targets. In the last two years when Gronk went down, that is what killed the Pats. Brady has almost never had problem moving the ball in the open field. It is when they got into the red zone where things fell apart because guys like Edelman and Amendola are better open field options than red zone options. LaFell addresses that need. How well? We will see in the about a week.
• Overall I like the receiving corp and I don't think Sanders was a need. We may find out that it might have been worth signing him to keep him from Manning, but that is something for another day.

Like most things in life @Rob0729, a well hatched plan must meet with timing. In my experience, timing is a fundamental and driving force behind many things. The Seahawks are the beneficiaries of such a notion (and good on them). At this point, they are successfully navigating those shores.

 

[Rob0729]

With intelligent people running the show, there is virtually no chance of that happening. Oh sure it will happen when your GM sucks, but not when they are good.

You act like there's no risk in playing it safe. I have no doubt that if the 2006 team had simply spent just a reasonable amount on a WR, then there would be 4 Lombardi's in Foxboro right now, not 3.

If the Pats are run by intelligent people and there is virtually no chance of hurting the team by going all in, why don't they do it? Why doesn't other smart GMs like Ozzie Newsome or Ted Thompson do it? Why do less intelligent GMs like the puppets that work for Daniel Snyder and Mike Tannebaum go "all in"?

Playing it safe does have the risks, but it is easier to overcome. You can fix a problem like having Reche Caldwell as your best receiver easier than giving top dollar to a bust like Adalius Thomas (which could be considered an "all in" type of move).

In the AFC Championship Game in the 2006 season, the Pats scored 34 points and held a 21-6 lead at halftime. The Colts scored 32 points in the second half of that game. The reason the Pats didn't win the Super Bowl in the 2006 season was because they didn't have a line backer who could cover Dallas Clark (he was covered by Eric Alexander in his first start of the season and I think only start of his career and showed why he was a career back up in that game). People want to blame the lack of receivers for not winning the Super Bowl that year, but they lost that game on defense, not offense. People like to rewrite history and put the blame on the lack of WRs.

 

[DarrylS]

Doesn't BB have a quote about, "we are building a team, not collecting talent"...

Perhaps my unabashed BB homerism makes me blind, but every year we are at the top.. but you need a lot of things to go your way, last year injuries seriously impacted this team.. we continue to get younger, faster and more athletic... i.e. this team is being rebuilt on the fly, without missing a beat.

IMO this team is "all in" every year...

 

[luuked]

Several things:

• I never said that teams are in salary cap turmoil for more than a year or two. Going "all in" doesn't mean you go into cap hell or heck for years. Where going "all in" can really hurt you is that you are not building for the future and when these high priced marquee talent either get old or they are cut because their salaries out value their performance, the team hasn't groomed their replacement or they don't have talent in other areas. It isn't all about the salary cap.

This is exactly what you can see happening with the Falcons right now. They went 'all in' and traded away their draft to get Julio Jones. In seasons where everything went their way in terms of injuries this looked like a great move by Dimitrov. However, once they lost starters their lack of depth and missing draft picks really started to show. And they are now in a situation where they need immediate difference makers from their draft (and their starters to stay healthy) or they might be stuck around mediocrity for some time.

If they don't turn it around this year, it will only validate Belichicks advice to Dimitrov even more. I still think that it wasn't that he actually thought that Baldwin was as good as Julio Jones but that all the draft picks + Baldwin would have been more valuable than Jones. And given how their team fell apart last year and doesn't look very convincing this year it is hard to argue against that.

 

[1960Pats]

Doesn't BB have a quote about, "we are building a team, not collecting talent"...

Perhaps my unabashed BB homerism makes me blind, but every year we are at the top.. but you need a lot of things to go your way, last year injuries seriously impacted this team.. we continue to get younger, faster and more athletic... i.e. this team is being rebuilt on the fly, without missing a beat.

We have different meanings to the term "at the top."

The goal should be to win it all, not just to be a contender every year.

Which would you rather have? A team that's in the hunt every year but doesn't take it all the way or a team that has it's ups and downs but wins the SB twice in 5 years. That's an easy answer for me.

 

[DarrylS]

We have different meanings to the term "at the top."

The goal should be to win it all, not just to be a contender every year.

Which would you rather have? A team that's in the hunt every year but doesn't take it all the way or a team that has it's ups and downs but wins the SB twice in 5 years. That's an easy answer for me.

After having been a fan for over 50 years and struggling through the pyss poor years, prefer this current scenario to anything previous... we will win another Superbowl..

When you hit the tournament, need some things to fall your way.. the whole idea of having 13 winning seasons in this salary cap era is unheard of..

You cannot "win it all" unless you contend every year... winning is part of the NEP culture and not something you turn off and then turn on...

 

[ausbacker]

After having been a fan for over 50 years and struggling through the pyss poor years, prefer this current scenario to anything previous... we will win another Superbowl..

When you hit the tournament, need some things to fall your way.. the whole idea of having 13 winning seasons in this salary cap era is unheard of..

You cannot "win it all" unless you contend every year... winning is part of the NEP culture and not something you turn off and then turn on...

The Patriots were a few plays away from having 5/5 and a few plays away from having 0/5. That's the fine line in professional sports.

It's remarkable how quickly people forget the lean years when winning becomes the norm.

 

[AzorianPats]

We have different meanings to the term "at the top."

The goal should be to win it all, not just to be a contender every year.

Which would you rather have? A team that's in the hunt every year but doesn't take it all the way or a team that has it's ups and downs but wins the SB twice in 5 years. That's an easy answer for me.

I dunno about you, but I'd rather have a championship team, that contends every year over anything else.

This whole going all in talk is for the birds!

 

[patman52]

All summer is was we need another weapon at TE if Gronk is hurt, Then when the trade happened it was all, lets see the BB lovers defend this, with Mankins is old, overpaid, and slipping. Then Mankins goes on TV in his Press conference and confirms those things and that he loves the pats. You could here the whosh of hot air escaping as that popped their bubble.

 

[Rob0729]

This is exactly what you can see happening with the Falcons right now. They went 'all in' and traded away their draft to get Julio Jones. In seasons where everything went their way in terms of injuries this looked like a great move by Dimitrov. However, once they lost starters their lack of depth and missing draft picks really started to show. And they are now in a situation where they need immediate difference makers from their draft (and their starters to stay healthy) or they might be stuck around mediocrity for some time.

If they don't turn it around this year, it will only validate Belichicks advice to Dimitrov even more. I still think that it wasn't that he actually thought that Baldwin was as good as Julio Jones but that all the draft picks + Baldwin would have been more valuable than Jones. And given how their team fell apart last year and doesn't look very convincing this year it is hard to argue against that.

Thanks. I was trying to think of a good example of an "all in" strategy where a team went "all in" where it hurt the team, but didn't affect the cap. I thought of RGIII with the Redskins but they are the poster boys of going "all in" every few years doing nothing other than waiting until they are good enough shape to go "all in" again to get nothing from it.

 

[Rob0729]

I dunno about you, but I'd rather have a championship team, that contends every year over anything else.

This whole going all in talk is for the birds!

People talk about how they rather be the Giants. But they forget the Pats won three Super Bowls and then had a decade where they competed for a Super Bowl almost every year and almost won two other Super Bowls. The Giants won two Super Bowls and look to be out of the playoff hunt for the foreseeable future.