One season too early rather than one season too late

[Ring 6]

I've seen this posted a lot here since I joined.

People are saying that is how Belichick operates. But with the Edelman extension at his age, Brady being under contract until he is 42 and some of the older players he often brings in I don't see this.

What are examples of "one season too early"?

Maybe McGinest or Vrabel but those seemed to me like just the right time not a season early.

Can someone show me where this idea that Belichick does this comes from?

 

[n6249c]

I've seen this posted a lot here since I joined.
People are saying that is how Belichick operates. But with the Edelman extension at his age, Brady being under contract until he is 42 and some of the older players he often brings in I don't see this.
What are examples of "one season too early"?
Maybe mcginest or vrable but those seemed to me like just the right time not a season early.
Can someone show me where this idea that belichick does this comes from?

Ty Law? Mankins? Seymour? Wilfork?

Revis wasn't really a year early, even though a lot of this board thought he should be back.

There are also a lot of short term rentals and cap casualties. Bennett, and Welker, for example. Seller might even be an example of the year too early category.

 

[Ring 6]

Ty Law? Mankins? Seymour? Wilfork?

Revis wasn't really a year early, even though a lot of this board thought he should be back.

There are also a lot of short term rentals and cap casualties. Bennett, and Welker, for example. Seller might even be an example of the year too early category.

Law was injured and left as a free agent.
Seymour was in his prime and was a money issue.
Wilfork and mankins seemed more like it was time than a year early and mankins was a money issue.

I don't think cap casualties fit because we are talking about a year early rather than a year late, not a player not being worth his pay.

 

[jmt57]

I thought the quote came from one of the books on Belichick, perhaps Education of a Coach.

If there is one thing we have learned from watching him over the years, he is not stubborn to the point of being inflexible, even for his own guidelines. Look for example at how the coaching strategy and roster management has evolved over years, as the rules and style of play in the NFL had changed.

In regards to Edelman I would assume he simply believes the risk analysis makes it worth extending him to the recently signed contract. Another player may be in the opposite situation; each case is unique.

 

[bruce_w]

Compare edelman to Welker and butler toasante Samuel and you will know all about bill belichick

 

[deroc5050]

Julian Edelman for the past several seasons is one of the most irreplaceable Patriot players. Go back to 2015 when the Pats started losing all of its offensive talent. When Julian went down the offense was not the same and if I remember correctly ended up going to 2-4 down the stretch run.

He came back for the playoffs and against KC the Patriots looked like the Patriots again. And if not for a missed extra p0int, we could be talking about the Patriots 4 peating this season.


Gronk and Edelman change the way the offense works.

Who knows this year with all the talent they have. But thats how its been.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I don't think that's necessarily the whole story. BB has brought on veterans past their prime as well. It's about the value.

If a player like Seymour is declining but wants to get paid like he's still at his peak, then he's gone a year early. If he's willing to take less money and a lesser role, there may be a place for him.

If Edelman wanted $10M/year, this extension doesn't happen. Brady's salary cap hit is lower than Mike Glennon's. There's tremendous value in the deals that they have.

 

[Oswlek]

Law was injured and left as a free agent.
Seymour was in his prime and was a money issue.
Wilfork and mankins seemed more like it was time than a year early and mankins was a money issue.

Despite your objections, every one of those examples meets the criteria. The idea that certain guys were "money issues" is largely irrelevant because that isn't a mutually exclusive characteristic. Unless the pipeline is overflowing with young talent, you simply aren't going to move on from a decent player on a cheap contract even if that player is approaching the end. So "money issues" are virtually impossible to avoid.

That Law left as a free agent is also irrelevant since he was certainly open to returning if NE opened up the checkbook for him. Instead, NE let a good CB leave a year too early.

 

[Ring 6]

Despite your objections, every one of those examples meets the criteria. The idea that certain guys were "money issues" is largely irrelevant because that isn't a mutually exclusive characteristic. Unless the pipeline is overflowing with young talent, you simply aren't going to move on from a decent player on a cheap contract even if that player is approaching the end. So "money issues" are virtually impossible to avoid.

That Law left as a free agent is also irrelevant since he was certainly open to returning if NE opened up the checkbook for him. Instead, NE let a good CB leave a year too early.

Objections?

Perhaps we are talking about 2 different things.
When I hear getting rid of a player one year to early is better than one year to late I hear getting the last good year out of a player is worth sacrificing in order to avoid enduring their bad year.
None if that had to do with money.

I'm not sure how Seymour would fit because he was in his prime, he just wanted more money than the patriots were willing to pay.
Same with law, who also was damaged goods.

The fact that the value of a player and the contract you would offer depend upon age and remaining skill is a given. I don't see where it has a place in determining if the patriots have acted as if getting rid of a player one year too early is better than keeping them one year too late.

 

[Deus Irae]

I've seen this posted a lot here since I joined.

People are saying that is how Belichick operates. But with the Edelman extension at his age, Brady being under contract until he is 42 and some of the older players he often brings in I don't see this.

What are examples of "one season too early"?

Maybe McGinest or Vrabel but those seemed to me like just the right time not a season early.

Can someone show me where this idea that Belichick does this comes from?

It's always been more of a guide than a rule, and it's been used to justify questionable moves, as well. Mock it. It's fun.

 

[Ring 6]

It's always been more of a guide than a rule, and it's been used to justify questionable moves, as well. Mock it. It's fun.

Yeah that's what I thought. Can't see it as a strategy that's been used.

 

[Oswlek]

Objections?

Perhaps we are talking about 2 different things.
When I hear getting rid of a player one year to early is better than one year to late I hear getting the last good year out of a player is worth sacrificing in order to avoid enduring their bad year.
None if that had to do with money.

I'm not sure how Seymour would fit because he was in his prime, he just wanted more money than the patriots were willing to pay.
Same with law, who also was damaged goods.

Money is integral because there would be no concern about a "year too late" if everyone was on minimum contracts. You'd keep bringing players back until it was clear they'd been wrung dry and cut them at that point. It's cap/contract implications that are the primary drivers of the "year too early" concept.

I don't think you've fully thought this one through.

Your recollection of Law and Seymour's situations is faulty as well. Law was still very good when he left and he had an excellent season with the Jets. NE just decided he didn't have enough left in the tank to offer a multi-year contract to, which makes him a quintessential case. That he was a FA isn't a big factor because NE could have retained him had they chosen to.

As for Seymour, he did want a lot of money, but it was more complex than that. In addition to Richard, the FO had extensions for Brady, Wilfork and Mankins due as well. Even if Seymour's request was reasonable, he was likely going to be moved anyway because the team couldn't afford everyone, they viewed the others as having a longer shelf life and Oakland made a very attractive offer. That Seymour's relationship with Bill had soured made the decision that much easier.

 

[TheFlyingWedge]

In the book 'Patriot Reign' or 'Education of a Coach' Bill references the '02 season where he kept a few players around for a season too long. He spoke about how he was reluctant to make too many changes because they had just won a Super Bowl. That was a rough year where they missed the playoffs and had a truly mediocre defense.

 

[varjao]

Edelman is a lightweight guy who is smart and knows how to exploit defenses, not to mention his raport with TB12. Even if he loses a step he will still be effective and for a guy of his frame 32 is not that old in these days with all the supplements for muscle recovery available and sports science still evolving.

 

[Oswlek]

One other thing, you imply that guys like Willie and Vrabes don't fit because they were at the right time, but this is another mild misrepresentation on your part. The guideline isn't "either a year too early or a year too late", it's really, "try to nail the timing perfectly, but if you do err, make sure it's on the early side."

As such, the better question is, when was the last time NE retained a player who was clearly running on fumes?

 

[Deus Irae]

One other thing, you imply that guys like Willie and Vrabes don't fit because they were at the right time, but this is another mild misrepresentation on your part. The guideline isn't "either a year too early or a year too late", it's really, "try to nail the timing perfectly, but if you do err, make sure it's on the early side."

As such, the better question is, when was the last time NE retained a player who was clearly running on fumes?

I'm not going to get into "last time", but one of the most famous of the BB Patriots fits that description. Hell, he IS that description.

Troy Brown

 

[jmt57]

I'm not going to get into "last time", but one of the most famous of the BB Patriots fits that description. Hell, he IS that description.

Troy Brown

Very true, but in 2006 could Reche Caldwell or Doug Gabriel have been counted on to knock the ball away from Marlon McCree after TB12's third playoff interception vs SD?

Re-signing Troy Brown in 2007? Yeah, that was certainly a head-scratcher. Could have been worse of course; imagine if he had signed with the Jets after visiting them as a free agent.

 

[DarrylS]

The way I understand the Edelman contract is that it really is a two year contract extension, as the third year can be voided without a significant cap hit..

Seymour, Mankins and even Milloy are not the best arguments as stuff happened behind the scenes that caused BB to make this decision early, rather than late when it might impact the team.. have to wait for the book to understand why BB cast off these players.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I've seen this posted a lot here since I joined.

People are saying that is how Belichick operates. But with the Edelman extension at his age, Brady being under contract until he is 42 and some of the older players he often brings in I don't see this.

What are examples of "one season too early"?

Maybe McGinest or Vrabel but those seemed to me like just the right time not a season early.

Can someone show me where this idea that Belichick does this comes from?

BB said it after the 02 season.

 

[farn]

Some people are too busy looking for guiding philosophies & such. BB cares about winning.

Can you help us win ? Are you worth the money you are being paid ? Yes ? We keep you. No ? Time to move on.