One season too early rather than one season too late

[Deus Irae]

Faulk, Brown and Bruschi didnt have a gradual decline, they fell off the cliff. And each was outperforming their contract up to the last day

Brown was not outperforming his contract.

 

[BlacknGold77]

Brown was not outperforming his contract.

repeating things doesn't make them true

2005:
39 rec
466 yds
2 td
$765k

2006:
43 rec
384 yds
4 td
$810k

 

[Deus Irae]

repeating things doesn't make them true

2005:
39 rec
466 yds
2 td
$765k

2006:
43 rec
384 yds
4 td
$810k

You're right. Repeating things don't make them true. However, using raw statistics without sufficient context, and ignoring the 2007 contract, doesn't make a false assertion true, either.

 

[pazrul72]

18-19 Brady plus whoever comes next is certainly better than 18-whatever jimmy.
It's funny how people make this out like we will have to play without a QB when Brady is fine if we don't keep jimmy. There are many other QBs.

Also the assumption that jimmy will be the QB for 15 years is astounding.

But for ****s and giggles let's say jimmy becomes drew Brees.
Tom Brady has more playoff wins and SB wins in the last 3 years than Brees has in his career.

Would you have dumped Brady 3 years ago? He was 37. What if Giselle complained about concussions then?
Is there a QB on the planet that you would go back and say you would have traded straight up for Brady after 2013 and it would have been better for the franchise?

Brady is not only the GOAT but presently the best QB in the NFL.
how many SBs are you willing to give up so you can have the unknown guy who's name you know instead of the unknown guy who comes later?

what is jimmys contract were up a year ago. Would you have cut 39 year old Brady so as not to lose jimmy?
If jimmys conteact was up this offseason would you have sent Brady packing?
If Brady is the same QB in 17 as he was in 16 are you honestly getting rid of him at that point?
For what?

You're the one who always gives people crap for dealing in hypotheticals so I find it amusing as hell that you are asking, but I will give this a whirl. Nobody is saying get rid of Brady for 2017 it's very clear he is the best QB on the team and gives them the best chance at bringing home #6. That's 90% most likely true in 2018 and I would bet 70% true in 2019. Before the new data points came out I was firmly in the trade Grop for a kings ransom and ride with Brady and lots of new shiny toys for as long as he can camp. The biggest shock and indicator for me as to what Bill thinks is that he wasn't traded and Schefter is saying they want Grop long term. That says to me they do think he isn't just some replaceable jag and he is significantly better then "whoever comes next".

Above average hell even Tony Romo caliber QB's are HARD to find. **** the best QB in the AFC east, not named Brady, in the last 15 years is probably Chad Pennington. Chad freakin noodle arm Pennington! You think any of them would kill for a QB of Grops apparent potential? If, and yes I totally get how HUGE an if it is, but IF Grop is Drew Brees level good moving on from Brady a year early (2018) needs to be considered. Yes you might be giving up a Super Bowl, **** I will even spot you with this loaded roster the potential for 2, but you get 8-12 years of entertaining,in the hunt, if everything goes right win it all football.

Bree's won it all in 09 when the bounces went his way and he had an opportunistic defense for a change. I definetly think Grop could do the same and he will have the foundation Bill built over nearly 2 decades to support him. Bill might retire soon but the patriot way has been engrained in every inch of the franchise and I trust Patricia or McDaniels to add their own flavor but keep enough of what they have learned from the master to have the patriots always be a Green Bay, Steelers, Broncos caliber franchise. Playoff contender with a few deep runs. AFCCG every year? Yeah probably not the next generation isn't Billicheck and Brady but they have the potential to be damn good.

To answer your questions, yes if Brady plays as good in 17 as he did in 16 and I truly believed in Grop I would move on. As a fan it would kill me cuz I LOVE Brady and would take a prime Brady over anyone else ever but as a rational thinking fan Bill has taught over the years I get the decision and would be at peace with it. If Grop had been up last year....ugh. Glad he wasn't cuz that is a tough one but again IF he is as good as I think he is....yeah I would have traded Brady. My ideal would be for Grop to sign a long term contract with lower 18 numbers to give Brady a shot at a three peat and then take over but I don't think that is going to happen. The business side of football can get ugly and I see someone being very very very unhappy next March.

 

[n1997y]

Teams lose players to free agency all the time.
I'm talking about whether there is a pattern of getting rid of a player while they can still play well to avoid keeping them for the year they decline. I don't see it.
You have simply listed every player who didn't finish his career here, plus light who retired.

Thanks for asking a good question and sparking an interesting conversation. Hope you'll stick around and continue to contribute.

That said, I think some of your discussion has shown you are limiting the question too much by trying to eliminate economics. Remember, BB has college degree in that subject. I think you have to view all his roster moves through that lens.

Thing is, if you exclude players who leave in free agency because the Pats did not make them a rich enough offer, you pretty much restrict the discussion to players who were cut or traded. I'll contend that the decision about whether and how much to offer a free agent belongs in this discussion, but for sake of this particular comment I'll let that go.

Both of those (trade or cut) decisions have economic implications, as even just cutting a veteran will have a cap hit associated with it. So I think the best analysis would be comparing trades, those being the cases where the team clearly decided to move along from a player still having value, versus cuts, where the team dumped a veteran player without getting anything in return and possibly taking a cap hit. Seems to me that if you look back there are more trades of significant players than there are cuts of aging stars. That to me validates the premise that Belichick will let go of a good player while he still has something left in the tank more than running him until he's got nothing left. Ymmv of course.

 

[Ring 6]

You're the one who always gives people crap for dealing in hypotheticals so I find it amusing as hell that you are asking, but I will give this a whirl. Nobody is saying get rid of Brady for 2017 it's very clear he is the best QB on the team and gives them the best chance at bringing home #6. That's 90% most likely true in 2018 and I would bet 70% true in 2019. Before the new data points came out I was firmly in the trade Grop for a kings ransom and ride with Brady and lots of new shiny toys for as long as he can camp. The biggest shock and indicator for me as to what Bill thinks is that he wasn't traded and Schefter is saying they want Grop long term. That says to me they do think he isn't just some replaceable jag and he is significantly better then "whoever comes next".

Above average hell even Tony Romo caliber QB's are HARD to find. **** the best QB in the AFC east, not named Brady, in the last 15 years is probably Chad Pennington. Chad freakin noodle arm Pennington! You think any of them would kill for a QB of Grops apparent potential? If, and yes I totally get how HUGE an if it is, but IF Grop is Drew Brees level good moving on from Brady a year early (2018) needs to be considered. Yes you might be giving up a Super Bowl, **** I will even spot you with this loaded roster the potential for 2, but you get 8-12 years of entertaining,in the hunt, if everything goes right win it all football.

Bree's won it all in 09 when the bounces went his way and he had an opportunistic defense for a change. I definetly think Grop could do the same and he will have the foundation Bill built over nearly 2 decades to support him. Bill might retire soon but the patriot way has been engrained in every inch of the franchise and I trust Patricia or McDaniels to add their own flavor but keep enough of what they have learned from the master to have the patriots always be a Green Bay, Steelers, Broncos caliber franchise. Playoff contender with a few deep runs. AFCCG every year? Yeah probably not the next generation isn't Billicheck and Brady but they have the potential to be damn good.

To answer your questions, yes if Brady plays as good in 17 as he did in 16 and I truly believed in Grop I would move on. As a fan it would kill me cuz I LOVE Brady and would take a prime Brady over anyone else ever but as a rational thinking fan Bill has taught over the years I get the decision and would be at peace with it. If Grop had been up last year....ugh. Glad he wasn't cuz that is a tough one but again IF he is as good as I think he is....yeah I would have traded Brady. My ideal would be for Grop to sign a long term contract with lower 18 numbers to give Brady a shot at a three peat and then take over but I don't think that is going to happen. The business side of football can get ugly and I see someone being very very very unhappy next March.

We officially disagree 100% on every opinion you have in this matter. No sense communicating any further. Have a wonderful year.

 

[Ring 6]

Thanks for asking a good question and sparking an interesting conversation. Hope you'll stick around and continue to contribute.

That said, I think some of your discussion has shown you are limiting the question too much by trying to eliminate economics. Remember, BB has college degree in that subject. I think you have to view all his roster moves through that lens.

Thing is, if you exclude players who leave in free agency because the Pats did not make them a rich enough offer, you pretty much restrict the discussion to players who were cut or traded. I'll contend that the decision about whether and how much to offer a free agent belongs in this discussion, but for sake of this particular comment I'll let that go.

Both of those (trade or cut) decisions have economic implications, as even just cutting a veteran will have a cap hit associated with it. So I think the best analysis would be comparing trades, those being the cases where the team clearly decided to move along from a player still having value, versus cuts, where the team dumped a veteran player without getting anything in return and possibly taking a cap hit. Seems to me that if you look back there are more trades of significant players than there are cuts of aging stars. That to me validates the premise that Belichick will let go of a good player while he still has something left in the tank more than running him until he's got nothing left. Ymmv of course.

But I limit it on purpose. If the point is to determine whether there really is a plan to get rid of players a year too early rather than a year too late you cannot include examples that are most likely for different reasons.
In other words if a player is cut or traded because his salary ballooned you can't really say they got rid if him a year too soon, they hit rid if him because he wasn't worth the cost.

Many considerations go into personnel decisions. I just don't see evidence of a pattern if saying this guy is still good but the end is coming so I better get rid of him now instead of being stuck with him next year if he declines. It doesn't make sense either.

 

[TommyD4207]

repeating things doesn't make them true

2005:
39 rec
466 yds
2 td
$765k

2006:
43 rec
384 yds
4 td
$810k

How did he do in 2007?

 

[stinkypete]

A little shift on the conversation, but I would argue that Vrabel was let go a year too late. He didn't have much gas left in that tank by 2008.

 

[RDS11]

The OP has a good question, and I believe most opinions provided so far are based on the athlete inevitable decay due to 'old' age. As in, should the Patriots get rid of X a year before his level of play drastically decline, or should they try to milk everything they can get out of that player.

Somehow, I don't think Belichick sees it this way; that's the same guy who kept Seau on the roster until he was 40 (and not even close to the Hall Of Famer he was in his prime), Phifer until he was 36, Otis Smith until he was 37, each of them having starting role in their last year as Patriots, but not as productive as they were in their prime. On the other end, he traded 29 years old Richard Seymour, 27 years old Jamie Collins and 26 years old Chandler Jones, and let go a 30 year old Ty Law. I don't think age is the defining factor here; performance in relation to their contract (or contract demands) is the key.

If a player on the decline accepts a lesser role (and a lesser salary) while still providing something to the team, Belichick has shown he will keep those aging players around. But if he feels the player is not worth the contract the agent is looking for, he will cut the losses early and try to get the maximum value he can get, as Jones and Collins can attest. Most of the time, these decisions have nothing to do with age.

 

[Simpelton]

But I limit it on purpose. If the point is to determine whether there really is a plan to get rid of players a year too early rather than a year too late you cannot include examples that are most likely for different reasons.
In other words if a player is cut or traded because his salary ballooned you can't really say they got rid if him a year too soon, they hit rid if him because he wasn't worth the cost.

Many considerations go into personnel decisions. I just don't see evidence of a pattern if saying this guy is still good but the end is coming so I better get rid of him now instead of being stuck with him next year if he declines. It doesn't make sense either.

You're way too focused on the literal meaning of words. Seems to me that you're trying to have it too easy. You want the golden, obvious, 1oo%, this-is-definitely-why-they-moved-on example of a player, and football just doesn't WORK like that. There's always going to be about half a million reasons why any player isn't kept.

And it's not like "a year too early" is a cornerstone of Belichickan philosophy, like it's the driving principle that informs all of his roster moves or something. It's just one thing he believes about roster construction. Probably most of his economic and practical thought processes sign off on any one decision he might make long before we hear of it. I can understand the dire for that obvious right-on-the-nose example, but you aren't going to get it because no NFL decision is ever made in that clear and obvious a manner.

 

[Ring 6]

You're way too focused on the literal meaning of words. Seems to me that you're trying to have it too easy. You want the golden, obvious, 1oo%, this-is-definitely-why-they-moved-on example of a player, and football just doesn't WORK like that. There's always going to be about half a million reasons why any player isn't kept.

What else would I want in order to price or disprove that one year too early is an active philosophy in the organization?
Surely if it were there would be examples that were for that reason and not others.

And it's not like "a year too early" is a cornerstone of Belichickan philosophy, like it's the driving principle that informs all of his roster moves or something. It's just one thing he believes about roster construction.

But there is no real evidence he does believe that.

Probably most of his economic and practical thought processes sign off on any one decision he might make long before we hear of it. I can understand the dire for that obvious right-on-the-nose example, but you aren't going to get it because no NFL decision is ever made in that clear and obvious a manner.

That's not close to true. Many players are cut because of money. Others because a better player beats them out. Others because their skill declines. Others because they never improve. Others because of effort. Others because they never progress.
Many of these factors can be directly pointed to. I don't see where one year too soon can be and I actually think there may be more evidence of, lacking other factors, BB errsin the other direction.

 

[stinkypete]

"A year too early" was a phrase coined by fans to describe a phenomenon unique to this team.

Posters are right to cite Brown, Bruschi, Phifer, OTIS, Vrabel and Seau as counter-examples to the cases of Milloy, Law, Seymour, Welker and Mankins. I would add Amendola and Ninkovich as players who are being kept around well past their primes.

I would assume that the ratio of production per cap dollar is the key factor here. Every guy who was kept around was willing to play for team friendly deals. Every guy who was cut or traded dug in his heels for more money. I point to the cases of Seymour and Mankins, two players who were paid when they held out as young, emerging stars (Seymour in 2005 and Mankins in 2010) but were traded as aging stars. When the money no longer matches the projected production, the player is shown the door.

And yes, Seymour was in decline by 2009. He may still have been a top 10 interior lineman in the league, but he was never the same dominating force after his injury in 2005 as he was before.

Belichick has not hit 100% of the time when making these decisions. One could argue that the choice to pay Moss instead of Samuel was a mistake. But, most of the time, he has been right.

 

[Ring 6]

"A year too early" was a phrase coined by fans to describe a phenomenon unique to this team.

Posters are right to cite Brown, Bruschi, Phifer, OTIS, Vrabel and Seau as counter-examples to the cases of Milloy, Law, Seymour, Welker and Mankins. I would add Amendola and Ninkovich as players who are being kept around well past their primes.

I would assume that the ratio of production per cap dollar is the key factor here. Every guy who was kept around was willing to play for team friendly deals. Every guy who was cut or traded dug in his heels for more money. I point to the cases of Seymour and Mankins, two players who were paid when they held out as young, emerging stars (Seymour in 2005 and Mankins in 2010) but were traded as aging stars. When the money no longer matches the projected production, the player is shown the door.

And yes, Seymour was in decline by 2009. He may still have been a top 10 interior lineman in the league, but he was never the same dominating force after his injury in 2005 as he was before.

Belichick has not hit 100% of the time when making these decisions. One could argue that the choice to pay Moss instead of Samuel was a mistake. But, most of the time, he has been right.

Moss/Samuel is a poor example.
Moss had 2 good years left, Samuel sucked as soon as he cashed the check.

 

[BlacknGold77]

How did he do in 2007?

was injured and started the year on the PUP list and retired....hence my "outperforming his contract until fell off a cliff"

 

[Oswlek]

Ring, it's really strange how you can have your flaw pointed out several times yet remain oblivious to it.

Let's try a different tack; please provide an example of a player - any player on any team in the salary cap era - who would meet your criteria.

 

[Simpelton]

I asked for examples of players who were let go based on the premise of one year too early is better than one year too late.
I'm not sure why you attribute a flaw to my QUESTION
You seem to think that since there are no players that fit the criteria then the criteria is flawed when it reality it just means no one believes in getting rid of a player a year too early being better than a year too late.

Or it possibly means that very few roster moves are made lightly, and most have a whole suite of reasons and justifications, including year-too-early.

Also that you can argue that anything doesn't exist if you invent excuses out of the aether to claim that all possible relevant examples of that thing "don't count." No-true-Scotsman fallacy is a very real thing, and it is VERY rampant in your and Ring 6's posts.

Refusing to re-sign a player because you think he won't be good for the life of the next contract is exactly "year-too-early" despite all the "that don't count because" you can pull out of your keister to pretend it isn't

You're attempting to treat a roster building philosophy like it was a rule, and arguing that because it isn't enforced as rigidly as a rule might be, it's clearly not a philosophy. That's asinine nonsense, I'm sorry. Someone can have a prejudice towards cutting a guy early rather than risking overpaying them, and still take that exact risk when they think the benefit outweighs the risk. Philosophies are guidelines, not rules, they exist to govern how you manage nonexceptional circumstances while leaving you free to cope with exceptional situations on an ad-hoc basis should the need arise. ANYONE who lets a good opportunity to improve the roster go by the board because of a philosophy is a moron. I'm glad BB is not a moron.

Intelligent people have their philosophical rules AND know how and when to bend and/or break them. That is a thing that can happen, and I'm glad that Bill Belichick is that intelligent. Pointing to times when BB bent his own rules as if to argue that means he doesn't have rules is projecting an incredibly rigid mindset onto Bill Belichick, a mindset I'm glad he's wise enough to not actually possess.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Is it a year too late if the player takes a reduced salary for a reduced role? No.
Is it a year too late if you're paying a player to be a starter and he can only perform a backup role adequately? Yes.

In other words, the salary given to the player is an *essential component* in determining "a year too late". For whatever reason, Andy doesn't seem to grasp this. Perhaps this post will help (but I'm not holding my breath ).

 

[doesntmatter1]

Moss/Samuel is a poor example.
Moss had 2 good years left, Samuel sucked as soon as he cashed the check.

Samuel was actually awesome after he signed his check. For some reason I have seen quite a few eagle games and he was a ball hawking machine. In his first year there he had timely interceptions in both of their playoff games. You simply didn't throw in his area without risking an interception. For some reason he started to have tackling issues with phi that he didn't have here but I attribute that to different scheme etc. Things fell of the rails for him after he basically ripped his nuts.

Overall, I have always seen Samuel as the biggest fa mistake we have made. If we had paid him we probably don't suffer through Wheatley, Wilhite, Deltha Oneal, Chad Scott, Dowling etc. The bleeding didn't stop until McCourty came along imo.

 

[patfanken]

I see the Edelman deal much differently than some. To me it was all about the Pats giving Edelman one year of top WR money (IIRC $9MM+ this season) as a reward for all he's accomplished. The last 2 years of the contract are basically $2MM in salary and $2MM in incentives. This is pretty much a great deal for the Pats for someone who has been as productive as Edelman.

Even if he declines after this season, he's looking at costing the Pats only around $3MM/yr. That's less than what they offered Welker, and I consider Edelman to be the more versitile WR./

Now he has 3 more seasons to build his brand b0th nationally and in NE, and never have to worry about being a cap casualty. The Pats get a quality receiver/PR who is happy and will never be a drain on the cap if he's hurt.

The same philosophy is seen in the Chung deal. Basically you show your appreciation to a good veteran player and motivate him and it costs less than a POTENTIAL million to do it.

BTW- look for the media to turn the Chung, Gronk, and Edelman deals into "Imagine how Butler feels when he sees these deals" Of course they will ignore the fact the Pats offered Butler more than twice what he'll be earning this season and he turned it down.