Why didn't Belichick light up his Benjamins on fire like that when Brady was here?

[fnordcircle]

I think whatever opinions are held regarding the topic question were formed long ago and are so dug in that debate would yield nothing. What matters most now is the team has spent, early and often, probably even overpaying in most instances, all of which is counter to their history. This is an attempt, whether good or bad, time will tell, but an attempt nonetheless to get back into contention right now. I think some of these signings (specifically at WR) are getting a bit blown out of proportion, and I still say tell me who's the starting quarterback and I'll tell you the record, but the outcome of all this will be the final chapter of Belichick's legacy.

Shut up, Crawhammer.

 

[crawhammer]

Shut up, Crawhammer.

How's that going to happen?

 

[Kontradiction]

Bill Belichick underestimated how well Tom Brady would age is the main reason. Given the rest of the roster, he didn't think Brady was worthy of the all in treatment what he figured would be the last few years of his career.

I believe Bill Belichick was surprised at how well Brady did at Tampa. He probably thought Brady wouldn't do as well on the deep throws but there is a difference between throwing the ball deep to Evans/Godwin vs what the Patriots had in 2019-20 and even the year before that.

For sure if Brady had stayed and the opt outs didn't happen last year, Patriots wouldn't have this much cap space. But there is almost always a way to create cap space. The question is if you are thinking medium to long term which Bill Belichick is also paid to do is whether or not it is worth it.

It is okay to admit that Bill Belichick with 20/20 hindsight may have made the wrong decision with Brady. More of Belichick's decisions have been very good than bad.

This is way too reasonable a take for this message board.

 

[Deus Irae]

They mortgaged the future to win

No, they didn't do that. I don't know how many times it has to be said.

 

[TheRainMaker]

No, they didn't do that. I don't know how many times it has to be said.

I really would like to know what exactly "mortgaging the future" means. A term that gets loosely thrown around.

 

[n6249c]

TROLL question.

FIFY

 

[ahmed]

BB assigned more resources to defense than offense because he knew Brady could succeed with less.

Brady is no longer around, therefore more resources need to be assigned. Not to mention the offense is more depleted this year than any other year.

My gripe is he could have remade a bunch of contract last year or year before and kept Brady around by pushing the cap hit to this year.

 

[fnordcircle]

How's that going to happen?

Shut up, crawhammer.

 

[lancerman]

Brady played 9 years of his career here with the greatest Tight End ever. 6 years with the receiver who redefined the slot position. The best RB in 04. A top 3 all time WR from 07-10.

 

[patfanken]

The arguments on this thread are the SAME ones that have been rehashed over and over and over and OVER again on many other threads going ba.ck a over the past year.

I am BEGGING the mods to simply lock this down. Nothing new or worthy insights to be found here. It is a waste of space.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

He NEVER had 65 million in cap space, EVER.

He had almost that much—about $61M—when the 2017 season began and he signed Gilmore.

 

[woolster22]

 

[XLIX]

I really would like to know what exactly "mortgaging the future" means. A term that gets loosely thrown around.

I am not saying the Patriots did or didn't do it, or that they are or aren't doing it, but I would define the phrase as....

Mortgaging the future is when a team signs or restructures a lot of star players giving them low up front cap hits but heavy salary cap hits down the line (or high dead cap numbers). This creates a situation where they can have a stacked roster for several years, but will have to face a year or two of cap hell in the not-too-distant future.

 

[TheRainMaker]

I am not saying the Patriots did or didn't do it, or that they are or aren't doing it, but I would define the phrase as....

Mortgaging the future is when a team signs or restructures a lot of star players giving them low up front cap hits but heavy salary cap hits down the line (or high dead cap numbers). This creates a situation where they can have a stacked roster for several years, but will have to face a year or two of cap hell in the not-too-distant future.

I would agree with this and why it doesn't fit what is being said about the Pats because they didn't have many star players.

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

I really would like to know what exactly "mortgaging the future" means. A term that gets loosely thrown around.

It’s something we haven’t done to this point.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Haven't read the whole last 3 pages. Somebody help me out. Did the OP produce example after example of years that BB did not spend to the cap, for all intents and purposes?

Did he establish definitively that even in 2019, Brady's last year, we did not get on the hook for $10 million guaranteed to one Antonio Brown, before "renegotiating" to $5M after the fact, based on certain off-field issues... just for example?

Hold the phone! Has the OP established a talking point that's never been true before... is it true now?

People are "dug in" because this board has a bunch of really smart cap guys (and btw, I ain't one of 'em). The Pats have spent what they had to spend, or at least that seems to have been the answer in the past, year after year after year. Maybe that's not the answer now.

It's pretty simple. They could only keep the band together for 6 super bowls and 20 years end to end. I know that's just terrible work by "Bill the GM" or somesuch, wahhhhhh.

FFS, move on. Brady doesn't play here. He'd spent a career delaying gratification, and whether it was the Guerero situation, the Jimmy G saga, or whatever, Brady eventually internalized all the business decisions in NE (roster vs. roster of "Brand X," perceived respect factor, suspected agism from the Brady perspective, etc.) as trumping whatever remaining desire he had to play for YOUR New England Patriots. Their interests diverged. It's over. Then, as Brady is wont to do, he won the fackin' Super Bowl.

We see it too dude.

But is it because the Patriots do not spend enough? Welp, in a universe of unknowns, you seem to have settled on a thoroughly disprovable hypothesis, and good on you. I mean, if a theory's not falsifiable, what good is it? But if it's falsifiable, and has been falsified, time to stop patting yourself on the back for fair play on the falsifiability count, and find another theory.

I mean, am I wrong? Have we not spent enough money to win or something in the past?

I really would like to know what exactly "mortgaging the future" means. A term that gets loosely thrown around.

I dunno either, but in this interest rate environment, maybe we're crazy not to. 2% becomes 4% and whoa nelly, payments go through the roof... not to mention the knock-on effects on demand in the market.

 

[pazrul72]

I really would like to know what exactly "mortgaging the future" means. A term that gets loosely thrown around.

It’s what they did with Brady to a certain extent. He counted 13 Million dollars from the pats last year despite not throwing a single pass. That was in exchange for having the 13 million for the 2019 cap. Or kicking the can down the road if you prefer. It’s an accounting gimmick where you can take future money and use it now. I don’t know specifically where they used that money but 13 million can buy you two decent starters. The downside is, and you saw this last year, you have to pay that money after the player is gone so you can’t afford to sign new players for a year. Think a 6.5 million DT helps stop the run for another win or two and the pats are a playoff team? Or how bout a TE that did more then waste space? A LB to fill in for Hightower? Instead they had to let Collins and KVN go, but now they have the cap room to replace those departed players.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Shut up, crawhammer.

WAHHHHHH you're CANCELING HIM!!!!

 

[Joker]

 

[Deus Irae]

I mean, am I wrong?

Yes