All it Takes - Some Moves

[Bostonian1962]

With all the "sky is falling" talk about the Pats not doing anything yet in free agency, let me throw this off ya.

First, do NOT underestimate the re-signing of Neal. That OLine is going to be our best in a very long time.

More importantly all it's going to take is for a move, or two, or three and peace will be restored.

I'm telling you that LaVar Arrington will make this D special. He is such a talent. Great, class guy. Does alot, with his wife, in the community. Still young.

Ty Law could sign here.
Moulds would probably love to play here, if he doesn't end up in Philly.

Now the three aforementioned players will have to come down in their asking prices, and that may not happen. All I'm saying is that "stuff" could still happen. The sky is not falling. Lotta time between now and camp. Also, there are always a few moves they make that nobody sees ahead of time.

No doubt that will happen again this year. Chill my peeps! In BB we TRUST!!

 

[Ring 6]

I agree, with one exception.

I dont look for 'name' players.

IMO, the bigger the name the more likely they are to deliver less than expected. That is, they are beyond the point of producing what their 'name' says they will.

Moulds is a case in point. No way is Eric Moulds going to play going forward as well as he did in building his reputation.
BB tends to look for rather than the Moulds who isnt what he used to be, the 'next Moulds' that isnt seen that way yet.

If you use Mike Vrabel as an example, there were probably plenty of players in the NFL at the start of 2001 who, at that point had proven capable of playing at the level Vrabel has since 2001. The problem is that most of them have probably digressed since then, while Vrabel reached his potential.
If you look at the 2001 FA class of OLBs there were probably quite a few who you would have predicted to be good in the role Vrabel has played. My bet is some are retired, others play declined, and some have become backups.
I would bet Vrabel was the best choice of all, but based on his resume to date, he wouldnt have been near the top of the wish list.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I agree, with one exception.

I dont look for 'name' players.

IMO, the bigger the name the more likely they are to deliver less than expected. That is, they are beyond the point of producing what their 'name' says they will.

I've been beating this drum since joining this forum. The thing is, I know that the moment I say "definitively" that Arrington, or Moulds, or whoever, won't be the next hire, they'll turn around with some knowledge I do not have, and pick one of them up.

20 million... that's a lot of moves. The first place that goes is into any moves designed to keep Branch and Seymour in town a long, long time. Now that that has become popular wisdom, in fact, I would not put it past BB/SP to freak us all out, promote Marquis Hill, and let Seymour go.

SACRILIGE! Of course, I don't think that one is really coming, but it is not inconceivable.

But the no-name philosophy is why Brad Kassel is more interesting to me than Arrington, and why the Javon Walker/Eric Moulds speculation meant nothing to me, until Moulds was actually worth a phone call to the Pats.

The original post is absolutely right though, that there's no need to panic. The Pats are not known for going nuts in the early "fire sale" stages of free agency. In fact, Moulds' agent said recently the Pats may not move fast enough for Moulds. Okee dokee. If that's how you do business, fine.

What do we know about somebody who says "pressure is on, do the deal by Thursday, or we go elsewhere?" Hint: think about a guy trying to sell you a used car before you leave the lot. To me, that gave our guys more reason to take a step back, certainly not a reason to get into a heated, frenzied bidding war.

It's just another way the Pats bore us into Lombardi trophy after Lombardi trophy. Eh well. I need the Zs anyway.

PFnV

 

[arrellbee]

20 million... that's a lot of moves. The first place that goes is into any moves designed to keep Branch and Seymour in town a long, long time. Now that that has become popular wisdom, in fact, I would not put it past BB/SP to freak us all out, promote Marquis Hill, and let Seymour go.

SACRILIGE! Of course, I don't think that one is really coming, but it is not inconceivable.

I think your point is WELL taken. It shouldn't surprise us if Belichick and Pioli DID, in Seymour's case, consider him worth the top DE contract. On the other hand, it shouldn't surprise us if they refuse to meet his demands. Free agent signings, or the lack thereof, and the draft should give us some clues about what the Patriots are thinking about Seymour. While an extension in the near future for Branch seems more of a possibility, although still slim, I for sure don't see any extension to Seymour until late in the summer if at all. Another tactic that I wouldn't be at ALL surprised at would be for the Pats to franchise Seymour figuring that somebody will be sure to sign him and the Pats will at least get the significant value of a first round pick for Seymour. Just a possibility to ponder.

 

[flutie2phelan]

....
BB tends to look for rather than the Moulds who isnt what he used to be, the 'next Moulds' that isnt seen that way yet.

If you use Mike Vrabel as an example, there were probably plenty of players in the NFL at the start of 2001 who, at that point had proven capable of playing at the level Vrabel has since 2001. The problem is that most of them have probably regressed since then, while Vrabel reached his potential.
....
I would bet Vrabel was the best choice of all, but based on his resume to [then], he wouldnt have been near the top of the wish list.

So it sounds like we should keep watching Mrs Beisel ... er, i mean her husband.

 

[Ring 6]

20 mill is really not as much as it seems.
We need to take as much as 5mill away for the 52nd and 53rd player, plus practice squad and in season moves.
The rookie class will also take part of that, although with the rule of 51 it shouldnt be more than maybe 3 mill.

Now we are down to 12 mill.

That is roughly 1/8th of the cap, or the amount you would spend on 1/8th of your players, about 6 guys.

Does anyone doubt we have 6 FAs left to sign, including our own?
There certainly is no glut of cap money going on here.

What you are seeing now is an approach that says quality spread across quantity is what we need, not a couple of big names and fill in with scrubs.

 

[tkayo]

20 mill is really not as much as it seems....

The real problem is that there are suddenly a lot of teams with quite a bit of room under the cap, which is distorting the FA market beyond the percentage the cap actually moved. So, to sign decent FAs this year, teams have to pay those guys more than thier actual value.

 

[DaBruinz]

20 mill is really not as much as it seems.
We need to take as much as 5mill away for the 52nd and 53rd player, plus practice squad and in season moves.
The rookie class will also take part of that, although with the rule of 51 it shouldnt be more than maybe 3 mill.

Now we are down to 12 mill.

That is roughly 1/8th of the cap, or the amount you would spend on 1/8th of your players, about 6 guys.

Does anyone doubt we have 6 FAs left to sign, including our own?
There certainly is no glut of cap money going on here.

What you are seeing now is an approach that says quality spread across quantity is what we need, not a couple of big names and fill in with scrubs.

Andy -
Come on. There is no way that the 52nd and 53rd players and ALL the practice squad take 5 Million. The 52nd and 53rd players will be making 2 year vet minimum. So, at best they take a million combined. The 8 practice squadders, even if they signed full contracts the way the Pats did with Hochstein, would take up 1.5-2.4 million at most.

That is only 3.5 million and that is being very generous with the amounts.

If you want to include some money to cover injuries, another 2 mill, then I could see where you got your 5 mill.

The rookies will take up 4 million, but much of that will end up being figured into the salary cap. I think, last year, we saw a net difference of about 1.5 million after the rookie signings.

That would still bring us down to the 12 million you mentioned since the Pats are actually sitting around 18 million.

However, that 12 million will probably become around 8-9 million after Branch signs an extension as Branch is currently only counting 1.25 million against the cap. I could see his extension adding 3-4 million in new cap hits.

Signing Seymour to an extension should free up some money as well.

So, The Pats are probably working with 8-10 million in reality.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Full range of possibilities, as regard Seymour, anywhere from "Hill can do the job" (I don't think so,) to "frontload frontload frontload." I think what we've seen in the past is the Pats go easy on the big name acquisitions, which gives them flexibility to take the hit (frontload) in a cap-inflated year, were Bruinz assertion completely correct.

Thing is, this is the new cap level now, not an anomaly. So the only difference is that demand for FAs is high right now, because all teams have the money to do the job. On the other hand, money gets cheaper over the years from here on in, as is always the case, and if you feel close to "okay" with your lineup, it might not be a bad idea to lock in the must-haves during this year. It remains to be seen whether the unexpectedness of the windfall really inflates current FA values, or whether this is the new status quo.

I'm more high on Kassel every day, in terms of LB possibilities. But only if he's cheap-ish. Of course I still can't find any verification that this is the case.

Always interesting,

PFnV

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Full range of possibilities, as regard Seymour, anywhere from "Hill can do the job" (I don't think so,) to "frontload frontload frontload." I think what we've seen in the past is the Pats go easy on the big name acquisitions, which gives them flexibility to take the hit (frontload) in a cap-inflated year, were Bruinz assertion completely correct.

Thing is, this is the new cap level now, not an anomaly. So the only difference is that demand for FAs is high right now, because all teams have the money to do the job. On the other hand, money gets cheaper over the years from here on in, as is always the case, and if you feel close to "okay" with your lineup, it might not be a bad idea to lock in the must-haves during this year. It remains to be seen whether the unexpectedness of the windfall really inflates current FA values, or whether this is the new status quo.

I'm more high on Kassel every day, in terms of LB possibilities. But only if he's cheap-ish. Of course I still can't find any verification that this is the case.

Always interesting,

PFnV

Hill, Green, Wright, and Thomas can handle replacing Sey when he's traded for Green Bay's pick at #5.

 

[flutie2phelan]

Hill, Green, Wright, and Thomas can handle replacing Sey when he's traded for Green Bay's pick at #5.

"Please, sir, may i have more?"
As in ... upon which franchise collegian do you bestow the 5th pick?

 

[jczxohn1]

"Please, sir, may i have more?"
As in ... upon which franchise collegian do you bestow the 5th pick?

Hawk? The only one on the board who fits.

 

[DaBruinz]

Hawk? The only one on the board who fits.

From what I have seen, Hawk is more of a 4-3 OLB than a 3-4 OLB.

If the Pats are going that high its to take Mario Williams if he's still on the board.

 

[IcyPatriot]

From what I have seen, Hawk is more of a 4-3 OLB than a 3-4 OLB.

If the Pats are going that high its to take Mario Williams if he's still on the board.

Yes...Mario would look great with the flying Elvis.

 

[jczxohn1]

From what I have seen, Hawk is more of a 4-3 OLB than a 3-4 OLB.

If the Pats are going that high its to take Mario Williams if he's still on the board.

Jets may take him at #4---Hawk could start anywhere in any system, IMO. Plus, he's supposed to last to #5.

 

[Bostonian1962]

I agree, with one exception.

I dont look for 'name' players.

IMO, the bigger the name the more likely they are to deliver less than expected. That is, they are beyond the point of producing what their 'name' says they will.

Moulds is a case in point. No way is Eric Moulds going to play going forward as well as he did in building his reputation.
BB tends to look for rather than the Moulds who isnt what he used to be, the 'next Moulds' that isnt seen that way yet.

If you use Mike Vrabel as an example, there were probably plenty of players in the NFL at the start of 2001 who, at that point had proven capable of playing at the level Vrabel has since 2001. The problem is that most of them have probably digressed since then, while Vrabel reached his potential.
If you look at the 2001 FA class of OLBs there were probably quite a few who you would have predicted to be good in the role Vrabel has played. My bet is some are retired, others play declined, and some have become backups.
I would bet Vrabel was the best choice of all, but based on his resume to date, he wouldnt have been near the top of the wish list.

AJ, I almost always agree with you. You have a good head on your shoulders. Do doubt you could be right about Moulds. I totally hear you about the star thing. I really do. But, man, I just have this strong feeling about what LaVar Arrington could do for this team. I may end up being wronger than wrong, and I will admit it. Let's face it, he may be out of our price range. But, he is a huge talent.

I'll never forget something a dear, dear, friend said to me. It's something I think is the most profound thing. He said "Always", no wait "Never.....". Just kidding, I guess what I am trying to say is Time Will Tell.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Lawson at 21? Or for that matter, Kassel in FA, skip Lawson, pick up Tye Hill? the guy runs a 4.3, for Christ's sake. Having a corner that young that runs that fast would have to count for something. Then once he's a superstar, get some comp picks or something and watch him move on...

PFnV