A Brady story that could be better

[Miguel]

If Breer erred regarding the 30% rule, a simple note to him will likely result in a follow up clarifying and/or apologizing.

I will write Breer but given that he is now on vacation I do not expect a response anytime soon.

 

[PatsFan37]

Do not know why I was surprised that the Brady extension was Breer's choice for the number 1 storyline. Personally, I would have chosen something about that happens on the field - lack of a pass rush, Welker, the youth in the secondary.

Not to play semantics, but Breer titles this "top 10 questions." rather than "top 10 storylines." See, if he had said top 10 storylines, I'd disagree with you. Brady's contract is the biggest storyline, since the mediots define storyline priority. You are right, however, that it's not even close as a top 10 question.

The point, for me as a fan, is that Brady's contract will not affect his play unless he stays away from OTA's or camp because of it (and I believe Brady when he said his reason for being in CA was his family).

The capologists among us are rare birds. But even for you, Brady's contract is not a top 10 question so why would it be for me?

Top questions should focus on the 16 Sundays. So even Mankins contract is not a top question, since the depth on the interior line without him is better than the quality depth at OLB or RB, IMHO. To me, the top 2 questions are who rushes the passer and how do they spread the carries? Number 3 and 4 might be who starts at ILB on running downs and who is opposite Moss on the outside?

To this fan, contracts are storylines. Not questions for Sunday.

 

[Miguel]

Not to play semantics, but Breer titles this "top 10 questions." rather than "top 10 storylines." See, if he had said top 10 storylines, I'd disagree with you.

Breer does say:
"Part 1 in a 10-part series examining storylines leading into Patriots training camp"

 

[PatsFan37]

Breer does say:
"Part 1 in a 10-part series examining storylines leading into Patriots training camp"

I stand corrected. Breer clearly wants us to think his top storylines are also the top questions.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Do not know why I was surprised that the Brady extension was Breer's choice for the number 1 storyline.

...because it was designed to get your attention... and did!

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Only fools think a fanbase unified mindlessly behind a team serves that fan base well. Bruins fans learned that lesson all too well over the course of 20+ seasons, and the accepting fan base of the Cubs continue to demonstrate it daily.



1.) That's as true with a united group as one divided.

2.) Everyone makes mistakes. If Breer erred regarding the 30% rule, a simple note to him will likely result in a follow up clarifying and/or apologizing.

3.) The 30% rule does appear to do as Breer claimed. What has happened is that teams have found a way to circumvent it by using 2 signing bonuses, not option bonuses or roster bonuses:

How 49ers circumvented the 30-percent rule | National Football Post

4.) Miguel's use of Robinson was a mistake, within the context of the extension point. Robinson did not sign an extension. He was a free agent who signed a contract with a new team. Perhaps you should tell Miguel that his voice serves no purpose, since he was apparently "misinformed". Me, I greatly appreciate Miguel's input, even if he's only human and is capable of error.

Ferguson did, and his EXTENSION included a $3.9M option bonus payable in the next league season...as well as multiple roster bonuses due and tied to his reporting to and attending training camp midway through a deal with no injury guarantees (I assume to preclude any second thoughts remorse driven holdouts down the road).

The JETS could have done his extension via large signing bonus or genuinely guaranteed money, but opted not to for a variety of compelling reasons. Signing bonus isn't recoverable and there are apparently additional rules in place that preclude teams from fully guaranteeing money depending on the amount (or lack of) of cap space they ended the 2009 season with by prescribing there will be future penalties assessed in the event they could not have absorbed cap adjustments/charges retroactively had the deal been signed in 2009. The JETS FO has apparently acknowledged that in their case this is a factor in their ability to construct deals.

Right or wrong, Miguel's voice always serves a purpose because he has a better understanding of this topic than any mediot within a hundred miles of Foxboro and when he states something he backs it up by either proving it or disproving it and acknowledging he was mistaken on those rare occasions when he is. Can't say that for any mediot hereabouts other than Reiss. Both Breer and Shalize have had time to reassess and post additionally and neither has revisited this topic although both are back ot continued posting.