Curran: Bills coming due for Patriots dynasty after this season

[JarOfMayo51]

$27M to Brady?

Yes

McCourty is worth $13.4M?

Yes, tho I bet he restructures

$10.3M to Hightower?

Yes

Allen is worth $7.4M?

No

 

[TheRainMaker]

This article is laughable.

Trey Flowers isn't getting an $80M Contract. It's not happening. I love Trey. He's a good, but not GREAT all around DE. He'll be lucky to get a contract that is 5yr/$45-50M . Curran is smoking Cheap stuff thinking $80M.

The 2015 Salary Cap was 155.2M. The 2017 Salary Cap was $167M. The 2018 Cap was 177.2M. The Patriots have 43 players under contract totalling $169M currently. OTC is projecting the cap to be $195M. I think the 2019 Cap is likely to be around $188M-$190M.

Allen won't be back at $7.4M. And it's unlikely that McCourty will be back at $13.435M. Gronk is unlikely to be back at $12M as well. A simple extension can drop Brady's contract down from the $27M it's supposed to be.

His claim that the 3.0 Version isn't being developed is laughable as well. What do you call Rivers, Wise, Wynn, Michel, Dawson, Bentley, Sam, Jackson, and Crossen? That's not counting Berrios and Andrews who are on injury lists. They also have numerous draft picks for next year.

Curran acts like Josh Gordon isn't an RFA and that Dorsett is going to cost 4-5M to re-sign..

These are the sorts of articles that show how out of touch Curran is.

Looks like you read my mind. This was my biggest take away from that article and was just about to ask about that $80M number. You and I seem like the only people that think Flowers’ ceiling is around $10-$11M per year.

My one worry is that if the media keeps hyping him up with this “quiet storm” nonsense, then he may get lucky like Oliver Vernon did. He was up and down in Miami and got $17 per year. His agent earned every dollar of his commission.

 

[tasmlab]

On this team, the coach and GM are one and the same. So, bringing in players who can't fit the scheme, or can't play to the expected level, is at last in part (using your words), some shortness of vision or incompetence by the coach, because BB the GM isn't bringing in players that BB the coach thinks can't get it done.

Okay, "in part" is reasonable. I would think putting incompetence or shortness of vision assessments on BB would be damnation to nearly everyone else whose ever had the job. Even if we are maybe seeing the worst of it right now.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Tom Curran has changed quite a bit in the last year, or so. Up until that time I never considered him a "homer", just a guy who was fair and not a hater. But, around the time of the Wickersham piece, he began to be more of a gloom and doomer. I believe it's largely related to the fact that he and his sons are fairly long-standing Guerrero clients. He definitely took Brady's side in the at least perceived Brady/ BB rift.

Yeah, pretty much. Curran has had this weird arc to his career, where he mostly sucked until 2010 or so, then was pretty solid until a couple years ago, and now he's worse than ever. My wildly speculative guess is that he went to bat for the Pats after Deflategate, and basically everything he's done since then has been an overreaction the other way to avoid being perceived as a Patriots brown noser or whatever. The result has been a steady procession of stupid takes, and this one is no different.

I don't think I'm a homer, there are a lot of things about this team that worry me now and going into the future. I think we're the third best team in the AFC that will not make the Super Bowl without a major elevation in their play at every phase of the game. The stuff Curran's focusing on, however, barely moves the needle for me.

 

[n6249c]

The title is somewhat confusing. This is not Kellerman yapping every year about Brady's demise. Curran's points are exactly what Patsfans have discussed over the last few years. Free agents, contracts, and cap hits. If someone is upset with the article then they should cut and paste an example.

Meanwhile the Pats have played in three of the last four Super Bowls. That certainly validated all the doom and gloom and sky falling rhetoric.

 

[n6249c]

...
I don't think I'm a homer, there are a lot of things about this team that worry me now and going into the future. I think we're the third best team in the AFC that will not make the Super Bowl without a major elevation in their play at every phase of the game. The stuff Curran's focusing on, however, barely moves the needle for me.

yes. But the Pats routinely elevate their game through the course of the season and into the playoffs. It’s like a horse race: the horse leading in the first turn frequently fades, and it’s the horse that’s ahead at the wire that wins. Similarly in the NFL it’s how they are playing in January that matters, not September or even November. That, and how lucky or unlucky with injuries.

 

[Deus Irae]

Meanwhile the Pats have played in three of the last four Super Bowls. That certainly validated all the doom and gloom and sky falling rhetoric.

The Patriots of the post-2009 era have often won as much "Despite X" as they have "Because of X". Such has been the greatness of the Brady/BB duo.

 

[n6249c]

The Patriots of the post-2009 era have often won as much "Despite X" as they have "Because of X". Such has been the greatness of the Brady/BB duo.

Truth is that almost all teams are flawed. It’s really which team overcomes its flaws that determines the ultimate winner.

 

[Deus Irae]

Truth is that almost all teams are flawed. It’s really which team overcomes its flaws that determines the ultimate winner.

The Patriots have won because they've had Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. That doesn't mean that people haven't been right about the team in general, or other players/coaches in specifics. So passive aggressively insulting people about "all the doom and gloom and sky falling rhetoric." is ridiculous. It's probable that no QB in history (or at least the SB era), other than Brady, gets the Patriots the wins in 2014 or 2016, and those are just the SB wins, specifically.

How many other QBs/coach duos in the SB era could even have dragged the 2011 and 2017 SB teams to the SBs, never mind kept them close once they got there? Montana in his prime paired with Walsh, maybe?

 

[MainePatsFan26]

Boy, I've read some half-assed takes in my time, but this one has thoroughly blown my mind.

Making a team good is very difficult. Turning them around, however, usually only takes a positive tweak/change. Some teams are on a perpetual downward slope. Just look at the Falcons. Turning things around from that descent may only take a new coach or scheme rather than roster changes.

With the idea of turning things around being easy, the thing that is ludicrous is that roster issues can be overcome in virtually no time. Building a solid roster is a three or four year process with the Patriots skating by because of a few key pieces that mask the other problems (as other posters note). With Brady struggling (by Brady standards) and the offensive line having issues, the team this past month looks questionable. We've got enough tools, however, to compete if we can make some of those tweaks/changes to the scheme.

 

[n6249c]

The Patriots have won because they've had Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. That doesn't mean that people haven't been right about the team in general, or other players/coaches in specifics. So passive aggressively insulting people about "all the doom and gloom and sky falling rhetoric." is ridiculous. It's probable that no QB in history (or at least the SB era), other than Brady, gets the Patriots the wins in 2014 or 2016, and those are just the SB wins, specifically.

How many other QBs/coach duos in the SB era could even have dragged the 2011 and 2017 SB teams to the SBs, never mind kept them close once they got there? Montana in his prime paired with Walsh, maybe?

Thing is, critiquing the team for its flaws without considering its strengths is taking a distorted view. Having Brady and Belichick is as much as part of the picture as is having Roberts and Waddle. So when Chicken Little posts about the latter while ignoring the former I’ll have my fun calling them out. Sorry if you don’t like it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Thing is, critiquing the team for its flaws without considering its strengths is taking a distorted view.

I expect that the number of people who actually critique the team for its flaws without considering its strengths is approximately zero.

Having Brady and Belichick is as much as part of the picture as is having Roberts and Waddle.

Depends on what picture your claiming it to be. Team strength is wildly different from ability of one or two elite persons. Just ask Wilt Chamberlain (you'll need a medium to do it).

So when Chicken Little posts about the latter while ignoring the former I’ll have my fun calling them out. Sorry if you don’t like it.

You can do what you want, but you're being disingenuous when you do it, because nobody ignores Brady/Belichick. The repeating issue, for at least 12-13 years (2006 or 2007), has been about the surrounding parts.

 

[IllegalContact]

"I don't have anything to defend my dumbass statement so I'll go for a lazy burn."

Turning a team around isn't easy, numbnuts.

Sounds like you’re describing yourself.....you don’t have anything to defend your moronic statement so you’ll just act like an @sshole

Plenty of teams turn it around quickly ... look it up dumbfuk

 

[IllegalContact]

I've read the article but i'm not sure what Curran means by, "Because a 3.0 version of this dynasty is not currently being developed." Is he implying that 2009 was the "in development" and this year is a "measured" title march and next year is the "3.0 development cycle"?

He’s listening to Felger and maz too much

 

[Coolade2]

High drama click bait article.. deal with it when it's here... Maybe?

 

[captain stone]

It didn't have to be this way.

 

[libra957]

Tough to read this without a good chuckle.

 

[fnordcircle]

Sounds like you’re describing yourself.....you don’t have anything to defend your moronic statement so you’ll just act like an @sshole

Plenty of teams turn it around quickly ... look it up dumbfuk

I don't have to defend my statement because the history of the league is clear. You're only arguing this because this is the internet and if someone says the sky is purple they'll defend it to their dying death for some dumb reason.

If turning a team around was easy teams would do it all the time and they'd not bother with holding onto the coaches who can sustain excellence because why bother with that hefty price tag.

Instead what you see is a league full of a few teams with superior front offices who have remained competitive while there's a constant churn of also-rans and teams like the Jets, Bills, Raiders, Lions, Browns, Cardinals, Bears, Vikings et al who save for some outliers remain mired in mediocrity or abject misery year after year.

There's nothing easy about turning around a losing team and by saying it is you're undermining all the work (and some luck) a guy like Belichick had to do to make it happen.

 

[maineman209]

3.) Let Gostkowski walk. We will miss his kick offs and accuracy....but there are a lot of FA kickers out there that would be 80-85% as good....but pennies on the dollar. Gost is making like 3-4M a year.

Gost's 2018 cap hit is actually $5M.

If the overriding goal is to maximize cap space, sure, let Gost walk. If it's something else that includes winning games, letting the current best kicker in the league (second best kicker in league history) walk to save <2.5% in total cap expenses doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[RobertWeathers]

He’s listening to Felger and maz too much

God help these guys when 1/2 the fan base jumps ship when the team goes 9-7 and the pink hats stop listening and reading about the team.