Can we now start to think the whole “Kraft is cheap” was more of a Belichick philosophy?

Wozzy · Mar 16, 2026

Actual Pats Fan said:
I think Drew passed for almost as many yards as anyone in history. He sure won a lot of games for us. He's rightfully recognized and appreciated for what he did, and he really cared too.

I get pissed at overrating him, and the myth that we sucked forever before him(it was 3 Flutieless seasons). As good as Drew was, I would never start him over Grogan, Plunkett or Parilli(or of course Flutie).

Drew was a great driver, but he had no short game. He wasn't efficient.

A lesson to be learned for Drake Maye and Josh McDaniels right now.

Build a short game, you aren't deadly until you can bleed opponents to death in the playoffs.

upstater1 · Mar 16, 2026

Actual Pats Fan said:
Had Bledsoe not got hurt, it's probably 8-8, like the others.

Look, Bledsoe was highly capable of leading the Patriots to a winning season. Most of his seasons with the Patriots were winning seasons. What happened in 2000 was irrelevant. That was a team in transition. It actually took another 2 years to get all the pieces in place. The idea that Bledsoe's injury is what lead to a great season? I should think that the team came together. Don't get me wrong, Brady was already showing signs of being better in the offense (and Belichick recognized that right away) but all they needed to do was manage the offense that year. They didn't have the offensive weapons that they had just 2 years later.

upstater1 · Mar 16, 2026

One-If-By-Sea said:
I am a BB supporter that thinks his time ran out. Having said that, BB took veiled shots at Kraft all the time.

Kraft had lapel pins to wear to support his cause(s), Vrabel wears the pins, BB refused to wear the pins. BB said Kraft was cheap at one point, and had to retract or clarify his comment. BB complained about everyone, the reporters, the Krafts, the league, etc. BB didnt complain about the players or the fans.

A lot already went down between them by the time the things you mentioned happened.

I don't want to get into politics, but Kraft shouldn't assume his employees have the same politics that he does. I certainly don't have Kraft's politics either. I also have no doubt that the pin thing bugged Kraft a lot, but it was not right that Kraft foisted it on Belichick. I have problems with what Kraft does with his foundation, but that has nothing to do with football...

Ring 6 · Mar 16, 2026

Rob0729 said:
He didn’t complain until people started to point the finger at him for a bad roster and he tried to deflect blame to the owners.

He didn’t complain at all. One time he stayed a fact about cash spent.

Ring 6 · Mar 16, 2026

Rob0729 said:
I was only talking specifically about when he blamed Kraft for being cheap.

He never did that.

Ring 6 · Mar 16, 2026

One-If-By-Sea said:
I am a BB supporter that thinks his time ran out. Having said that, BB took veiled shots at Kraft all the time.

Kraft had lapel pins to wear to support his cause(s), Vrabel wears the pins, BB refused to wear the pins. BB said Kraft was cheap at one point, and had to retract or clarify his comment. BB complained about everyone, the reporters, the Krafts, the league, etc. BB didnt complain about the players or the fans.

Bb wore the pin. Everyone lost their **** about where he wore it. He never refused to wear it, that is not true.
He did not ever say Kraft was cheap.
He discussed cash spending one time, which was stating a fact. He never said or implied Kraft was cheap.

Your memory is poor.

One-If-By-Sea · Mar 16, 2026

Ring 6 said:
Bb wore the pin. Everyone lost their **** about where he wore it. He never refused to wear it, that is not true.
He did not ever say Kraft was cheap.
He discussed cash spending one time, which was stating a fact. He never said or implied Kraft was cheap.

Your memory is poor.

Don't look at this hand, while I wildly wave the other hand. LOL. You are a treasure.

Vindicate · Mar 16, 2026

One-If-By-Sea said:
I am a BB supporter that thinks his time ran out. Having said that, BB took veiled shots at Kraft all the time.

Kraft had lapel pins to wear to support his cause(s), Vrabel wears the pins, BB refused to wear the pins. BB said Kraft was cheap at one point, and had to retract or clarify his comment. BB complained about everyone, the reporters, the Krafts, the league, etc. BB didnt complain about the players or the fans.

He didn't refuse, he just wore it very low on his shirt. Just to be clear. Also I remember the interview where BB made the comment about cash spending, it was this:

“At some point, the reconciliation has to come. Our spending in 2020, our spending in 2021 and our spending in 2022, the aggregate of that, was we were 27th in the league in cash spending. Couple years we’re low, one year was high, but over a three-year period, we are one of the lowest spending teams in the league.”

Edit -

And when he later clarified, a few months later, he elaborated:

""Cash spending isn't really that relevant. It's cap spending," Belichick said on WEEI's Greg Hill Show. "So teams that spend a lot of cash one year probably don't spend a lot of cash in the next year, because you just can't sustain that. So we've had high years, we've had low years, but our cap spending has always been high. And that's the most competitive position you can be in. So that's really -- the cash spending, there's no cash cap. There's a salary cap and we spend to the salary cap, that's what's important."

I mean, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I do think BB showed some frustration publicly, I just wanted to get the verbatim of those quotes for folks.

Ring 6 · Mar 16, 2026

One-If-By-Sea said:
Don't look at this hand, while I wildly wave the other hand. LOL. You are a treasure.

So you agree he always wore the pin and never called Kraft cheap but you don’t like those facts. Got it.
You are a fool.

Ring 6 · Mar 16, 2026

Vindicate said:
He didn't refuse, he just wore it very low on his shirt. Just to be clear. Also I remember the interview where BB made the comment about cash spending, it was this:

“At some point, the reconciliation has to come. Our spending in 2020, our spending in 2021 and our spending in 2022, the aggregate of that, was we were 27th in the league in cash spending. Couple years we’re low, one year was high, but over a three-year period, we are one of the lowest spending teams in the league.”

Edit -

And when he later clarified, a few months later, he elaborated:

""Cash spending isn't really that relevant. It's cap spending," Belichick said on WEEI's Greg Hill Show. "So teams that spend a lot of cash one year probably don't spend a lot of cash in the next year, because you just can't sustain that. So we've had high years, we've had low years, but our cap spending has always been high. And that's the most competitive position you can be in. So that's really -- the cash spending, there's no cash cap. There's a salary cap and we spend to the salary cap, that's what's important."

I mean, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I do think BB showed some frustration publicly, I just wanted to get the verbatim of those quotes for folks.

His first comment was in response to “record spending in 2021”.

Wozzy · Mar 16, 2026

Vindicate said:
He didn't refuse, he just wore it very low on his shirt. Just to be clear. Also I remember the interview where BB made the comment about cash spending, it was this:

“At some point, the reconciliation has to come. Our spending in 2020, our spending in 2021 and our spending in 2022, the aggregate of that, was we were 27th in the league in cash spending. Couple years we’re low, one year was high, but over a three-year period, we are one of the lowest spending teams in the league.”

Edit -

And when he later clarified, a few months later, he elaborated:

""Cash spending isn't really that relevant. It's cap spending," Belichick said on WEEI's Greg Hill Show. "So teams that spend a lot of cash one year probably don't spend a lot of cash in the next year, because you just can't sustain that. So we've had high years, we've had low years, but our cap spending has always been high. And that's the most competitive position you can be in. So that's really -- the cash spending, there's no cash cap. There's a salary cap and we spend to the salary cap, that's what's important."

I mean, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I do think BB showed some frustration publicly, I just wanted to get the verbatim of those quotes for folks.

What Bill said was accurate, or what I said earlier. Teams that have cap space spend, those that don't aren't spending. That's not a criticism, it was his philosophy for decades. The Patriots cap spending is partly what allowed them to remain at the top of their division for most of two decades.

If there were some comments that were snarky, during the 2022 preseason the Pats held joint practices with the Raiders in Nevada and Belichick publicly praised the Raiders' practice facilities. He called them "the Taj Mahal of football facilities," stating they were "better than anything I've seen" and commended the field, weight room, offices, indoor facility, and overall setup. Many took this as a criticism of the Krafts.

zoostation · Mar 17, 2026

Actual Pats Fan said:
What you're saying at the end there ain't true, unless you're just referring to prolific passing stats.

Would any other active quarterback in 2001 have been able to lead that Patriots team to the title? No.

Yes

UrbanCowboy · Mar 17, 2026

Stu Pidassle said:
By any account, a 20 year run of success in a league whose rules are designed to prevent that from happening is commendable. Depending upon your point of view, the philosophy behind that success is either shrewd or cheap. The missteps along the way shape the perspective of the fans more than the things that went right. Since BB brought the invest in a deep middle class of players vs spending on a few stars, he deserves the label you think fits from the football perspective.

totally. What I'm curious about is whether that "deep middle class" approach still makes sense. I'm leaning toward yes due to the prevalence of injuries. Your high paid player(s) gets hurt, and it's over. If you lose middle-classers, you can keep going. I'd pay Drake (or a top 10 QB), and maybe 1-3 other Top 3's at their position. Gonzo, Milt... what do you think?

Stu Pidassle · Mar 17, 2026

UrbanCowboy said:
totally. What I'm curious about is whether that "deep middle class" approach still makes sense. I'm leaning toward yes due to the prevalence of injuries. Your high paid player(s) gets hurt, and it's over. If you lose a middle-classers, you can keep going. I'd pay Drake (or a top 10 QB), and may 1-3 other Top 3's at their position. Gonzo, Milt... what do you think?

While kind of boring, I think it still makes sense. Injuries, players who decline and players who develop are as impactful as a small number of stars. I also think that the related cap to cash year over year model is the right way to run the team. Every year is about maximizing the talent for that year based on the foundation of drafted players without spending future resources.

upstater1 · Mar 17, 2026

UrbanCowboy said:
totally. What I'm curious about is whether that "deep middle class" approach still makes sense. I'm leaning toward yes due to the prevalence of injuries. Your high paid player(s) gets hurt, and it's over. If you lose middle-classers, you can keep going. I'd pay Drake (or a top 10 QB), and maybe 1-3 other Top 3's at their position. Gonzo, Milt... what do you think?

Also, outside of Rugby, football has the most players on the field of any sport, and if you count offense/defense as 22 starters, it has the most starters of any sport, so of course the middle class approach that spreads the most talent across the 22 (and injuries as you point out) seems smart.

The one underrated part of the Patriots approach was bonuses. For some bizarre reason, Felger hates bonuses. Which makes no sense. Making more money for production seems to be exactly what we would want, and when Belichick STILL used to give players bonuses even when they DIDN'T meat their goals, that showed that players would get paid IF they stayed with the program and process.

TheRainMaker · Mar 17, 2026

upstater1 said:
Look, Bledsoe was highly capable of leading the Patriots to a winning season. Most of his seasons with the Patriots were winning seasons. What happened in 2000 was irrelevant. That was a team in transition. It actually took another 2 years to get all the pieces in place. The idea that Bledsoe's injury is what lead to a great season? I should think that the team came together. Don't get me wrong, Brady was already showing signs of being better in the offense (and Belichick recognized that right away) but all they needed to do was manage the offense that year. They didn't have the offensive weapons that they had just 2 years later.

You're ignoring that managing the game was never Bledsoe's style. He's a big play-down field thrower who was slowing getting nerfed during the Carroll years starting with Marin's departure. Also, it didn't help that Bledsoe's mechanics were slowly deteriorating and got really sloppy by 1999. After the 6-2 start that season, he was 7-18 in the next 25 games. There was more than enough to see that he was struggling badly and was becoming high maintenance.

He flat out didn't fit what personnel BB had surrounding him with and the offense Weiss was running. Only throwing to Glenn in 2000 wasn't enough. He was passing under Center a lot because Damien Woody was so worthless snapping the football. Mike Compton helped in 2001, but he still looked extremely uncomfortable and impatient against Cincy and later the Jets. Glenn was now gone and Brown was his main WR which is only something a guy like Brady could deal with.

At some point, Bledsoe would've gotten pulled because of his poor play had he not gotten hurt. The documentary pointed out that Brady's chance to play was inevitable. There's no way Bledsoe would've gone 11-5 with that team and a 9-7 record at best wouldn't have been enough to make the playoffs. They would've lost the tie breaker to Seattle. Brady went 11-3 and he would've gone at least 12-4 had he started the entire season. Brady could've beaten the Bengals week 1 or Jets week 2.

upstater1 · Mar 17, 2026

TheRainMaker said:
There's no way Bledsoe would've gone 11-5 with that team and a 9-7 record at best wouldn't have been enough to make the playoffs. They would've lost the tie breaker to Seattle. Brady went 11-3 and he would've gone at least 12-4 had he started the entire season. Brady could've beaten the Bengals week 1 or Jets week 2.

I don't believe there was no way.

There were plays Bledsoe could make that year that Brady couldn't. Bledsoe basically was QB for the AFCCG (we were scoreless when Brady was in there). So we won that game, we could've won others with him, we could've beaten the Rams too.

I do agree with you that Belichick would've probably preferred and/or moved to Brady without the Belichick injury. I also agree that Bledsoe was more turnover prone (interceptions).

I posted in order to say that I still think the team makes the playoffs that year with a good record, and that too many people are taken with the idea that we went 5-13 in the Bledsoe games under Belichick and instantly turned it around under Bledsoe. I was mainly arguing that the team turned things around after a whole season of personnel transactions and being under Belichick.

Actual Pats Fan · Mar 19, 2026

TheRainMaker said:
I started watching during the Drew years, so that's all I knew. I was not a fan of Brady early on and wanted the team to win with Bledsoe. After the Super Bowl win, I knew it was time to move on even though I was meh on Brady.

The mania over Drew is very real, and due to several factors:

-The Flutieless early 90's (3 years) was made out to be three decades by local media and fans. Ownership's financial collapse and the run down old stadium helped. And Drew was a really good player, and a really good guy, and he really played hard for us. It was a super media story for him to be the savior - and indeed, he did drag that team to the playoffs all by himself in '94. Why was I immune to the mania? (The flying elvis helped). But the Pats have been dumped on irrationally and unjustly since the 60's. It was FUN to be winning, but it was winning again - not for the first time ever. Bob Kraft saved the team...but he loves Drew. I think it was going to be hard emotionally on so many people (including Drew) to demote him regardless, and Belichick was the right man to do it. I had thirty years of following the team to help me see that Tom was special, and it was a tremendous opportunity.

Actual Pats Fan · Mar 19, 2026

TheRainMaker said:
You're ignoring that managing the game was never Bledsoe's style. He's a big play-down field thrower who was slowing getting nerfed during the Carroll years starting with Marin's departure. Also, it didn't help that Bledsoe's mechanics were slowly deteriorating and got really sloppy by 1999. After the 6-2 start that season, he was 7-18 in the next 25 games. There was more than enough to see that he was struggling badly and was becoming high maintenance.

He flat out didn't fit what personnel BB had surrounding him with and the offense Weiss was running. Only throwing to Glenn in 2000 wasn't enough. He was passing under Center a lot because Damien Woody was so worthless snapping the football. Mike Compton helped in 2001, but he still looked extremely uncomfortable and impatient against Cincy and later the Jets. Glenn was now gone and Brown was his main WR which is only something a guy like Brady could deal with.

At some point, Bledsoe would've gotten pulled because of his poor play had he not gotten hurt. The documentary pointed out that Brady's chance to play was inevitable. There's no way Bledsoe would've gone 11-5 with that team and a 9-7 record at best wouldn't have been enough to make the playoffs. They would've lost the tie breaker to Seattle. Brady went 11-3 and he would've gone at least 12-4 had he started the entire season. Brady could've beaten the Bengals week 1 or Jets week 2.

Before Tom's first start, the season was under the gun from then on. There was explicit pressure every game, not just for Tom to develop, but to win as much as we could to avoid being eliminated. I started some counts, and am shocked so far to see that very few guys on that team did not have playoff experience already. Tom, the rookies, Roman Phifer, Damien Woody, Lonie Paxton - That's practically it!!

Actual Pats Fan · Mar 19, 2026

What you're saying at the end there ain't true, unless you're just referring to prolific passing stats.

Would any other active quarterback in 2001 have been able to lead that Patriots team to the title? No.

zoostation said:
Yes

Warner, Manning, Favre, Gannon, Green, Collins, Plummer, Garcia, Johnson, McNair, Brunell, Fiedler, McNabb, Kitna, Stewart, Grbac, Chandler, Griese, Testaverde...Bledsoe.

No way.

Just as, in 1981, how many other active quarterbacks besides Montana could have led that 49ers team to the title?

Plunkett? I think he was hurt.

459	19K

7	531

17	677

Can we now start to think the whole “Kraft is cheap” was more of a Belichick philosophy?

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

In the Starting Line-Up

HoustonPatsFan

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

The GOAT

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Pro Bowl Player

Pro Bowl Player

Pro Bowl Player

Similar threads

📅 This Week in Patriots History: