PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Former Patriots and "home town" discount


Status
Not open for further replies.
Miguel said:
The Eagles made it to the NFC championship game 4 straight years and to the Super Bowl last year. But they should have changed their modus operandi in the spring of 2005. That is truly the power of 20-20 hindsight.


Perhaps they could have won more NFCC games or SBs had they not used this approach to the cap.

Are you saying since they won at some level, they must have managed the cap to its fullest extent?

When did anyone say they should have changed it only in 2005?
Are you supporting that not using all the cap money is good cap management?
I would say they did a good job in personell and coaching, but why is it not possible they did it despite cap management?
 
Irony ...

Miguel said:
You can't replace a McNabb, Owens, Westbrook, Hank Fraley, Tra Thomas. and Lito Shepard during the season. That's 4 Pro Bowlers and over $25 million in cap room NOT playing for the Eagles.

No team in the NFL can afford to have 4 Pro Bowlers and over $25 million in cap room not playing for them. Imagine the Patriots without Harrison, Light, Seymour and Brady.

Why don't you change that to:

No team in the NFL can afford to have xx ProBowlers and over $yy in cap room not playing for them. Imagine the Patriots without Harrsion, Light, Law, Bruschi, Dillon/Faulk, Seymour, Koppen, Givens, yada, yada ..."

I didn't have to imagine it, I SAW it!
Result:
10-5, AFCE champions and in the playoffs, and ... the team no one wants to face...
 
Miguel said:
The Eagles' owner did not pocket the $10M. The Eagles have a history of extending players during the season. This year they extended Westbrook and Akers.

If they are using all of the cap, but using it in an unorthodox manner, then there is no issue. I thought the brunt of this discussion was that they failed to use all of the cap resources.
 
Arizona Patsfan said:
Why don't you change that to:

No team in the NFL can afford to have xx ProBowlers and over $yy in cap room not playing for them. Imagine the Patriots without Harrsion, Light, Law, Bruschi, Dillon/Faulk, Seymour, Koppen, Givens, yada, yada ..."

I didn't have to imagine it, I SAW it!
Result:
10-5, AFCE champions and in the playoffs, and ... the team no one wants to face...

Because the Patriots never have over $25 million in cap room sitting on the sideline.
Because the Patriots never have 17 players on IR/NFI, or PUP.
Because the Patriots never had Brady on IR. I happen to believe that the QB position is the most important position.
Because I doubt that if the Patriots had Brady on IR that they would be a SB contender today.
 
AndyJohnson said:
If they are using all of the cap, but using it in an unorthodox manner, then there is no issue. I thought the brunt of this discussion was that they failed to use all of the cap resources.

Mikey had opined that the Patriots' system left them dependent on a few key players. I then contended that every team is dependent on a few key players bringing up the Eagles. Mgteich then disagreed with my side point that the Eagles have managed the cap well. In retrospect, I should have brought up the Panthers instead. They made it to the Super Bowl one year. Failed to make the playoffs the next and are now in the hunt for the playoffs. Why?? Because they lost a few key players to injuries during the 2004 season.
 
Miguel said:
Mikey had opined that the Patriots' system left them dependent on a few key players. I then contended that every team is dependent on a few key players bringing up the Eagles. Mgteich then disagreed with my side point that the Eagles have managed the cap well. In retrospect, I should have brought up the Panthers instead. They made it to the Super Bowl one year. Failed to make the playoffs the next and are now in the hunt for the playoffs. Why?? Because they lost a few key players to injuries during the 2004 season.
OK, I came in late.

I dont understand how anyone could think the Patriots approach leaves them dependant on a few players???????? The whole key ot the dynsaty has been getting by with key players injured, and while letting veterans walk if necessary.
 
By the way how many players do we have on IR,PUP, etc.
It cant be a long way below 17.
 
AndyJohnson said:
Perhaps they could have won more NFCC games or SBs had they not used this approach to the cap.
And perhaps they never had made it to 4 straight NFCC games or to the Super bowl without using their approach.

Are you saying since they won at some level, they must have managed the cap to its fullest extent?[/quote]
No.


Are you supporting that not using all the cap money is good cap management?
I do not accept the premise of your question. Every team spends to the cap, either by signing replacements for injured players, extending players or by use of the phony LTBE move.
I would say they did a good job in personell and coaching, but why is it not possible they did it despite cap management?
I do not understand this question.
 
AndyJohnson said:
By the way how many players do we have on IR,PUP, etc.
It cant be a long way below 17.

The Patriots have 12. But the Patriots are way below the Eagles in terms of the number of Pro Bowlers, the number of Game 1 starters, and the amount of cap money sitting on the sidelines.
 
Miguel said:
And perhaps they never had made it to 4 straight NFCC games or to the Super bowl without using their approach.

Are you saying since they won at some level, they must have managed the cap to its fullest extent?
No.



I do not accept the premise of your question. Every team spends to the cap, either by signing replacements for injured players, extending players or by use of the phony LTBE move.

I do not understand this question.[/QUOTE]

If they are leaving cap dollars unspent, which again I assumed was the gist of this conversation, then cap management is probably not a reason they won, but something they overcame to win.

If you are saying they used up all of their cap dollars, then my points do not apply.
And yes, the LTBE thing, if I understand it correctly, is using up cap dollars, because while it doesnt use them all this year, it gives you more for next year, which evidently you will use.
 
Miguel said:
The Patriots have 12. But the Patriots are way below the Eagles in terms of the number of Pro Bowlers, the number of Game 1 starters, and the amount of cap money sitting on the sidelines.

Its kind of tough to compare without really looking inside the numbers.

How many games were missed? If you go on IR week 3 thats different than week 15. What players and positions are they. Example, the Pats 6 DBs on IR. McNab and westbrook are a lot of the argument that the Eagles have lost important players, but at the same time, they went out AFTER the season was already over.
This is a complex question. The reality is that the Pats were able to overcome theirs (and have for many years) and the Eagles were not. To compare gets into one of those 'what would our record be if we played the Seahawks schedule-type things). Could the Eagles have overcome injuries similar to what we had, who knows? Could we have overcome injuries similar to theirs? Again, we dont know.
 
Miguel said:
Are you equating $25 million with 14 million?The last time I checked Seymour, Dillon, and Bruschi are not on IR. Are you contending that if the Patriots had $25 million of cap space on IR (4 Pro Bowlers) that they would still be a SB contender?? My main point is that every team has a few key players on it and if those few key players go on IR during the season that team will not do well. In the Eagles' case they lost 7 starters from Game 1.

No, I am not equating 25 million to 14 million. What I am equating is that with the 12 million in UNUSED cap space that Philly had, the 25 million isn't what it seems.

Also, Westbrook will have missed as many games as Seymour did. Bruschi as many as McNabb. Harrison more than any of the players you mentioned. Dillon as many games as Westbrook. And all of them are Pro-Bowl Caliber players. Light is as good as any tackle on the Eagles. Just because a player was IRed, you can't look at it strictly in that terms. You should also be looking at it in terms of games missed.

What I am contending, Miquel, is that the Eagles had a lot more problems that the players going onto the IR. And that there were plenty of teams who lost key players for a lengthy time.

Miguel said:
My main point is that every team has a few key players on it and if those few key players go on IR during the season that team will not do well. In the Eagles' case they lost 7 starters (4 of them Pro-Bowlers) from Game 1. The Eagles have 17 players on IR/NFI/PUP.

When a team enters the season well under the cap, they have the ability to extend key players like a Westbrook or Akers. The Eagles already have 57 players signed for the 2006 season.

The Pats have lost how many starters from game 1? Ty Poole, Rodney Harrison, Matt Light, and Dan Koppen. But that doesn't tell the WHOLE story. It doesn't talk about the games that Ashworth missed to injury, foricng Gorin to play at RT.

When a team enters the season with 12 million in cap space, yet contract problems with several players (Westbrook, Owens) that team has issues.

I could care less if the Eagles have 57 players signed for next year. The fact is that the Pats have had significant players missing and still found ways to stay competative and pay their players.
 
Miguel said:
Please name a player picked up during the middle of the season who has gotten a big contract. I can't recall any. I'm willing to bet $$$ that close to 100% of the players signed during the season to replace an injured player signs a contract that pays him the minimum for his years of experience. As long as a team has enough money to sign replacement players, having more than enough is not going to help them.

Miguel -
Peerless Price got a million. Anthony Thomas signed for more than the minimum with the Saints.

Also, Miguel, as MG pointed out to you, the Eagles could have used the money to prevent contract situations (Westbrook, Owens) and to provide themselves better back-ups than what they had on their team.

BTW, Miguel, an in season contract extension to Westbrook would have been more likely to increase the amount of free cap space since Westbrook was on a 1 year deal. At least, going by many of the examples you have posted regarding players like Seymour.
 
Miguel said:
The Eagles made it to the NFC championship game 4 straight years and to the Super Bowl last year. But they should have changed their modus operandi in the spring of 2005. That is truly the power of 20-20 hindsight.

Miguel-
As you can see by my handle, I am a Bruins fan. I relate what you are saying to the way the Bruins management ran the team. Do just enough to put a compteative team but not enough to seal the deal on a championship team. After awhile, the fans and players don't want to play because the team ISN'T spending money.

Now, Miguel, can you tell us what Lurie does with the Cap money he doesn't spend? As far as I know, that money goes into his pocket. He doesn't have to return it to the league. Do you know differently?
 
Miguel said:
Because the Patriots never have over $25 million in cap room sitting on the sideline.
Because the Patriots never have 17 players on IR/NFI, or PUP.
Because the Patriots never had Brady on IR. I happen to believe that the QB position is the most important position.
Because I doubt that if the Patriots had Brady on IR that they would be a SB contender today.

Miguel -

You are right. The Pats have never had over $25 MILLION in cap room on the sidelines. Well, unless you include the 6.8 million in dead money from this year. Also, that doesn't happen because the Patriots spread the wealth the way they do. When they had Koppen, Dillon, Seymour, Bruschi, Starks, Poole, Light, Givens and Harrison, (9 starters) the Pats were without about 19.4 million in cap space. That is better cap management than losing 5 guys who total over $25 million while you still have $12 million on the books.

You're right, the Patriots haven't had 17 players on the IR/NFI list. So what. That doesn't change the fact that the Patriots have started more players than any other team in the league (44).
 
DaBruinz said:
Now, Miguel, can you tell us what Lurie does with the Cap money he doesn't spend? As far as I know, that money goes into his pocket. He doesn't have to return it to the league. Do you know differently?

I do not accept the premise that Lurie does not spend up to the cap. The Eagles' history of extending players during the season and their use of the LTBE incentive tells me so.
 
Miguel said:
But your point is not valid for all of the players. Some Patriots players did give the Patriots a discount (Colvin, Bruschi, Gorin, Hochstein). Those 4 players could have all gotten better deals. Ty Law was released and this board was full of predictions that his career was over and that he would be lucky to get a big payday. Well, Ty Law made close to $6 million this year. If anything, this board underestimated Ty Law's worth.

Dillon did not get a $10 million signing bonus.
He got a $3 million signing bonus this year along with a $1 million salary.
Next he is due a $3 million salary and a $3 million option bonus. If the Patriots do not pay the option, Dillon's 2006 salary is then increased to $6 million and becomes guaranteed.

What would you have done with Dillon??

I think it's hysterical that this thread was started by someone whose mantra used to be the Krafts are cheap. :rolleyes: Mikey's true agenda seems to be to prove the Pats (whatever they do) are always wrong. But he does occasionally instigate some interesting discussions.

You and mg and AJ seem to be arguing semantics. You tend to equate good cap management with with actual long range financial management of the cap and it's implications going forward. They equate it with fielding the most talented/deep team within or preferably right up to it's limits. Both views have merit from entirely different perspectives. Planning in advance on how players will be acquired, extended, retained is an important long range view, though it does little good if the team you field as a result each season is coming up just short of the goal - as has been the Eagles fate the last few seasons. But in the Eagles case this season I tend to agree with you - no amount of additional spending would have likely remedied what ails them. They weren't not paying TO to be cheap, it was on principal - the principle of not caving in to the posterboy for dysfunction. But without McNabb, despite his shortcomings, they were toast - as we too would be without Tom. Would a downhill RB or another elite receiver have helped? Possibly somewhat early on, but not nearly enough without a Pro Bowl QB. And our determination to utilize versatile plug and play type backups won't fly everywhere. The players and coaching staff have to buy into it, because it does impact paychecks and egos along the way. Mg sometimes contends that Eagles players are/should be disgusted to see that cap money languish on the table. But I have a feeling most of them would prefer to see it spent on them (the starters) rather than spread around among their backups.

As for your out of left fieldish Law comment though, he was reportedly only due to get $2.5M plus some playing time incentives, and not much more unless they made the playoffs. He is only getting $6M this year now because they restructured and gave him a $3M bonus in week 11, even though they were disappointed in overall his performance, because apparently it helps them out somehow cap wise going forward.

Some excerpts from a recent JETS Insider column by the Daily News Rich Cimini:

"When the Jets signed Ty Law in August, they envisioned him as the final piece in their championship puzzle. Eleven games into a Jets career that almost certainly will be one-and-done, Law is the puzzle. The former All-Pro cornerback is tied for fourth in the AFC with five interceptions, but he has offset those big plays with a team-high nine penalties. Because of his championship pedigree, Law commands respect in the locker room, but there are those who see him as nothing more than a hired gun, using the Jets as a brief stopover on his way to another free-agent score.

One thing is certain: Law's wallet is getting bigger.

Two weeks ago, the Jets quietly renegotiated his contract, giving him a $3 million signing bonus, according to sources. The move baffled some league insiders, but the Jets did it because they received some concessions that will help their salary cap in future years. It certainly didn't help this year; his cap number jumped from $2.9 million to $3.6 million.

Counting bonuses, Law will make $6 million this season, a huge amount for a player who has been less than advertised. "What's clear is that his skills have declined," one NFL scout said yesterday. "He looks heavier than ever before and he's not as athletic as he used to be. To compensate, he has to do a lot of holding and grabbing, which explains all the penalties."

Law is struggling with the crackdown on illegal contact - aka the Ty Law Rule. He has more penalty yardage (73) than interception-return yardage (50). He has committed three illegal-contact penalties, and the only player in the league with more is the Redskins' Walt Harris (four), according to STATS.

If Law makes his fifth Pro Bowl, it'll be a crime, according to our scout...

His surgically repaired left foot, which scared away many potential suitors, still is bothering him. According to Herm Edwards, Law aggravated his foot injury on the Saints' winning drive in the fourth quarter, causing him to miss the final three plays, including the 30-yard TD pass to Devery Henderson.

Law isn't a liability, but he's no longer an elite corner. According to STATS, he has allowed completions on 21 of the 33 passes thrown at him, a ratio that puts him 20th among 103 corners. Not bad, but not great. Law's renegotiated contract still includes that $11 million option bonus, payable next March. The Jets aren't going to pay that kind of dough to a 32-year-old corner; they may approach him about restructuring again. They realize he's not the Law of old but they believe he has value as a second-tier player at a premium position."


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/370238p-314945c.html
 
Last edited:
DaBruinz said:
Miguel -
Peerless Price got a million. Anthony Thomas signed for more than the minimum with the Saints.
How many players have been signed in the middle of the season to replace injured players in the salary cap era?? Hundreds. Naming two players does not invalidate my point.

Also, Miguel, as MG pointed out to you, the Eagles could have used the money to prevent contract situations (Westbrook, Owens) and to provide themselves better back-ups than what they had on their team.
20-20 hindsight.

BTW, Miguel, an in season contract extension to Westbrook would have been more likely to increase the amount of free cap space since Westbrook was on a 1 year deal. At least, going by many of the examples you have posted regarding players like Seymour.

Westbrook's salary of $1,430,000 remained the same so his cap number had to go up with his extension.
 
AndyJohnson said:
It seems to me the point is if they had spend the additional cap $$ across the roster, they would have been in better shape to handle the injuries.
I agree once the season started extra cap room wouldnt help, but they could have had better depth, or better starters at the healthy positions if they spent up to the cap.

Aside from the fact that we all seem to agree Starks was a bust, it seemed like BB & SP DID prioritize quality depth in the secondary and elsewhere following last year's injuries

Of course, the injuries that occured there this year were even more profound

We only have 53 spots on the roster so you can only carry so many backups'

...and if we were able to look back at our August posts, I'm sure a great many people like me were going on and on about the quality of depth on this team - the problem was we needed all that and more this season
 
Last edited:
JoeSixPat said:
Aside from the fact that we all seem to agree Starks was a bust, it seemed like BB & SP DID prioritize quality depth in the secondary and elsewhere following last year's injuries

Of course, the injuries that occured there this year were even more profound

We only have 53 spots on the roster so you can only carry so many backups'

...and if we were able to look back at our August posts, I'm sure a great many people like me were going on and on about the quality of depth on this team - the problem was we needed all that and more this season

I was talking abou tthe Eagles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


2024 Patriots Draft Picks – FULL LIST
MORSE: Patriots QB Drake Maye Analysis and What to Expect in Round 2 and 3
Five Patriots/NFL Thoughts Following Night One of the 2024 NFL Draft
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/26: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Patriots QB Drake Maye Conference Call
Patriots Now Have to Get to Work After Taking Maye
TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf and Jerod Mayo After Patriots Take Drake Maye
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/25: News and Notes
Patriots Kraft ‘Involved’ In Decision Making?  Zolak Says That’s Not the Case
MORSE: Final First Round Patriots Mock Draft
Back
Top