I guess Bill is going to coach them up...

[wilfork is beastin']

I'm not ready to hold last year against Mayo, I believe his injury had much to do with his play

He also seemed to be playing better as the season went on, like in the Jags game where he was all over the field.

 

[JackBauer]

Mayo did suffer a sever MCL injury and returned possibly quicker than he should have. A similiar MCL injury kept Anthony Gonzalez (Colts) out the entire season. Mayo's regression could have been injury related. In fact, it is likely it was.

Seemed to me watching his lateral movements that there was definitely something still bothering him.

 

[mcmurtry86]

This should make for an interesting discussion.......

Kindly list all the great FA signings* that the Patriots have made beyond the first, let's say, 3 weeks, of free agency in each year. Let's set the cutoff year as 2005.





*Let's consider "great FA signings" as players we can all agree had major positive impact upon the team, either in terms of wins or the way teams were forced to play the Patriots.

Why are we using 3 weeks as the cutoff as we aren't even 2 weeks into the signing period right now (when people are panicking). Why are we limiting it to just free agent signings and not trades? Why are we using 2005 as a cutoff?

But, just to humor you, here are the notable (not always good) moves and dates under Belichick since 2001. I've put in bold all the moves I deem to be important ones made after the first week in FA:


2009:


August 6 - Traded a 2010 3rd round pick and a 2010 4th round pick for Derrick Burgess
March 19 - Signed Joey Galloway
March 10 - Signed Leigh Bodden and Nathan Hodel
March 5 - Traded for Greg Lewis
February 28 - Traded Matt Cassel and Mike Vrabel for the 34th overall pick
February 27 - Signed Fred Taylor and Chris Baker

2008:


September 1 - Signed Deltha O'Neal
April 7 - Signed Victor Hobson

2007:

April 29 - Traded for Randy Moss
March 13 - Signed Kelley Washington and Donte' Stallworth
March 5th - Traded for Wes Welker
March 3 - Signed Adalius Thomas, Kyle Brady and Sammy Morris

2006:


October 9 - Signed Jabar Gaffney
September 11 - Traded Deion Branch
August 18th - Signed Junior Seau
March 17 - Signed Reche Caldwell.

2005:

May 10 - Signed Chad Brown
April 14 - Signed Monty Beisel
March 13 - Signed Tim Dwight
March 4 - Traded for Duane Starks


2004:

June 8 - Signed Terrell Buckley
April 19 - Traded for Corey Dillon
March 31 - Signed Keith Traylor
March 15 - Signed Josh Miller.

2003:

August 19 - Traded for Ted Washington
May 16 - Signed Don Davis
March 12 - Signed Rodney Harrison, Rosevelt Colvin, and Chris Akins.
March 11 - Signed Tyrone Poole.

2002:

July 14 - Signed Victor Green
April 21 - Traded Drew Bledsoe
April 19 - Signed Grey Ruegamer.
March 28 - Signed Cam Cleeland.
March 22 - Signed Christian Fauria.
March 12 - Signed Donald Hayes and Rick Lyle.
February 14 - Signed Ken Walter

2001:

August 3rd - Signed Roman Phifer
June 7th - Signed Antowain Smith
April 2nd - Signed David Patten and Mike Compton
March 22nd - Signed Anthony Pleasant
March 16th - Signed Mike Vrabel
March 6th - Signed Larry Izzo

2000:

September 9th - Signed Joe Andruzzi
August 23rd - Signed Otis Smith
July 16 - Signed Bobby Hamilton


You'll note that the vast majority of the key players from the Super Bowl run came on-board AFTER the first week of FA (Today being the end of the first week of the offseason). Now, if you want to dismiss the contributions of Vrabel, Pleasant, Hamilton, Patten, Andruzzi, Otis Smith, Anotwain Smith, Phifer, Fauria, Washington and Dillon, all of whom brought in later in the off-season, all of whom were integral parts of championship teams, be my guest.

Arbitrarily picking 2005 and FA only are a nice way to attempt to make your point. Unfortunately, Belichick acquires talent in a number of ways, at a number of points in the year. To imply that the Pats only get key FA signings the first week is ridiculous. Even using your silly 3 week cutoff (how is that relevant when we have no way of knowing what the Pats will do in the next two weeks?), there are still a number of key guys brought in after that time period.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm not a proponent of saying "The Patriots will definitely.....", but it's the offseason.

As for 2006, aren't you forgetting about the Ghost?

No, he's a special teams player. I noted that I wasn't referring to them in my post.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why are we using 3 weeks as the cutoff as we aren't even 2 weeks into the signing period right now (when people are panicking). Why are we limiting it to just free agent signings and not trades? Why are we using 2005 as a cutoff?

I used 3 weeks because that just about finishes the month of March this year. It was a simple cutoff for an easy breaking point. I used 2005 because that's the post Super Bowl era.

But, just to humor you, here are the notable (not always good) moves and dates under Belichick since 2001. I've put in bold all the moves I deem to be important ones made after the first week in FA:

So not following my request is humoring me? Interesting theory.....

You'll note that the vast majority of the key players from the Super Bowl run came on-board AFTER the first week of FA (Today being the end of the first week of the offseason). Now, if you want to dismiss the contributions of Vrabel, Pleasant, Hamilton, Patten, Andruzzi, Otis Smith, Anotwain Smith, Phifer, Fauria, Washington and Dillon, all of whom brought in later in the off-season, all of whom were integral parts of championship teams, be my guest.

You know, perhaps if you had taken the stick out of your ass, this could have been an interesting discussion. It's a shame you decided to take a different approach. However, since you did:

2009: Bodden is the only positive FA addition you noted, and he was signed within the first week.

2008: You only listed two additions, and neither had impact.

2007: Thomas, Brady and Morris were signed on day 2 of the free agency period. Moss and Welker were trades, and Welker was obtained in week 1 of the free agency period. Washington and Stallworth were signed in week 2 of the free agency period.

2006: Seau came out of retirement so we'll qualify that even though it's an exceptional circumstance situation, Gaffney was a late cut, so he qualifies, and Caldwell was on March 17.

2005: Good luck trying to put a positive spin on any addition you noted.

Arbitrarily picking 2005 and FA only are a nice way to attempt to make your point. Unfortunately, Belichick acquires talent in a number of ways, at a number of points in the year. To imply that the Pats only get key FA signings the first week is ridiculous. Even using your silly 3 week cutoff (how is that relevant when we have no way of knowing what the Pats will do in the next two weeks?), there are still a number of key guys brought in after that time period.

Using the names you gave, the team has found a whopping total of 3 free agents of note outside the 3 week window since the end of 2004. In addition, and again using your names, there was one good trade (Moss) and two other signings of positive, if fleeting, impact (Stallworth, Washington) during the general free agent period. In addition, Gaffney and Seau were pulled in as very late additions.

That's it. Pulling the "it's early" out of your ass, you are basing that argument on, to be generous, 6 players from 2005-2009, according to the list you proffered (Moss, Washington, Gaffney, Seau, Caldwell, Stallworth). That's an average of less than 2 per season, and that's even counting a special teams player and a player that was demoted over the course of his only season with the team.

Let's break out the champagne and have a party, because you are just on a roll with your arguments.

 

[mcmurtry86]

I used 3 weeks because that just about finishes the month of March. I used 2005 because that's the post Super Bowl era.

Ah yes, so the way they built their Super Bowl winning teams was actually the wrong way! Why would you throw out the most successful years (and off seasons)? If anything, those years prove you can build a great team AFTER the first week

So not following my request is humoring me? Interesting theory.....

No but they were silly and arbitrary cutoffs. Ones for which you have not offered anything other than flimsy reasoning

You know, perhaps if you took the stick out of your ass, this could have been an interesting discussion. It's a shame you decided to take a different approach. However, since you did:

Being angry and hostile isn't a very good way to make any sort of argument. And in fact, does more to damage the "interesting discussion" this could have been than anything I posted

2009: Bodden is the only positive FA addition you noted, and he was signed within the first week.

Bodden was signed on the 11th day of the offseason. Maybe you live in a world where weeks are 11 days long, but I don't

2008: You only listed two additions, and neither had impact.

Ok, so no conclusions to be drawn here

2007: Thomas, Brady and Morris were signed on day 2 of the free agency period. Moss and Welker were trades, and Welker was obtained in week 1 of the free agency period. Washington and Stallworth were signed in week 2 of the free agency period.

Ok so Thomas and maybe Morris. Brady wasn't significant (seeing how you like to disqualify players for not being "impactful enough). Welker was a trade (disqualified by your rules), Washington was special teams only (disqualified), Moss was a trade (disqualified), and judging by most of your rants this year, Thomas has been a bust (not really proving your point)

2006: Seau came out of retirement so we'll qualify that even though it's an exceptional circumstance situation, Gaffney was a late cut, so he qualifies, and Caldwell was on March 17.

Why doesn't Gaffney qualify? He had a big impact, and teams cut veterans like him all the time. Caldwell, much maligned for the AFCCG drop but still useful, came well after the first week.

2005: Good luck trying to put a positive spin on any addition you noted.

I didn't try to put a positive spin on anything, merely point out when players get added

Using the names you gave, the team has found a whopping total of 3 free agents of note outside the 3 week window since the end of 2004. In addition, and again using your names, there was one good trade (Moss) and two other signings of positive, if fleeting, impact (Stallworth, Washington) during the general free agent period. In addition, Gaffney and Seau were pulled in as very late additions.

Ok, and by your "rules", you added zero players. What exactly is your point?

That's it. All you people pulling the "it's early" out of your ass are riding on, to be generous, 8 players from 2005-2009, according to the list proffered by McMurtry86. That's an average of 2 per season, and that's even counting a special teams player and a player that was demoted over the course of his only season with the team.

Why don't the pre-2005 years count? Was there some radical change in the NFL offseason between 2000-2005? Or are you ignoring them because they fly in the face of your cherry picked point? The Pats have signed MORE FA early in the post-Super Bowl run era. If anything, that should eliminate the hyperventilating over "not signing anyone first week, how will they possibly field a winner!"

Let's break out the champagne and have a party, because you people are just on a roll with your arguments.

Your sarcasm is duly noted.

Bottom line is: The Patriots "dynasty" years were built on guys brought in AFTER the first week of the offseason. Trades, FA, draft, waiver wire guys. There are a few exceptions (Colvin, Harrison), but far more guys who were picked up later than the 2nd Friday of the offseason.

Unless you can provide a legitimate reason as to why we should discard half of Belichick's tenure here (the more successful half, both in results and in roster building), I don't see a reason to continue this discussion.

In any event, the Pats will need to continue to (like in 09) draft well, and try to add key players through trades and free agent signings.

 

[JackBauer]

No, he's a special teams player. I noted that I wasn't referring to them in my post.

I missed that part. My bad.

 

[Deus Irae]

Ah yes, so the way they built their Super Bowl winning teams was actually the wrong way! Why would you throw out the most successful years (and off seasons)? If anything, those years prove you can build a great team AFTER the first week

Because it hasn't happened since 2004 and this is 2010? How are you missing something that obvious?

No but they were silly and arbitrary cutoffs. Ones for which you have not offered anything other than flimsy reasoning[/QUOTE]

The 2004/2005 cutoff is clearly not arbitrary. The 3 weeks number was obviously arbitrary, and I explained the reasoning. In my follow up post, which you are commenting on here, I even took the players within that 3 week window and counted them, so you've got no *****.

Being angry and hostile isn't a very good way to make any sort of argument. And in fact, does more to damage the "interesting discussion" this could have been than anything I posted

You were the one who started with the snarky comments. You should have heeded your own advice if you truly believe in it.

Bodden was signed on the 11th day of the offseason. Maybe you live in a world where weeks are 11 days long, but I don't

You are correct. My brain switched Bodden with Lewis, which you had on the line below.

Again, notice your snarkiness even as you were acting as if it was me being "hostile". Do you practice such hypocrisy for a living?

Ok so Thomas and maybe Morris. Brady wasn't significant (seeing how you like to disqualify players for not being "impactful enough). Welker was a trade (disqualified by your rules), Washington was special teams only (disqualified), Moss was a trade (disqualified), and judging by most of your rants this year, Thomas has been a bust (not really proving your point)

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on free agent additions, regardless of when signed, as well as adding in the trades. Let it be noted that I put Brady in because he was TE2 that season, and got a lot of use. I also gave the benefit of the doubt on Thomas. Pulling them off the list certainly doesn't help your argument.

Why doesn't Gaffney qualify? He had a big impact, and teams cut veterans like him all the time. Caldwell, much maligned for the AFCCG drop but still useful, came well after the first week.

Wait..... I said that Gaffney qualifies, and I put Caldwell on your list, and you post this? You give me grief about the 11 days thing, but you can't be bothered with reading comprehension. Classic!

I didn't try to put a positive spin on anything, merely point out when players get added

And my point with the response was that your 2005 list had nothing but duds, be it due to their own deficiencies or external circumstances.

 

[Deus Irae]

Ok, and by your "rules", you added zero players. What exactly is your point?

1.) There was no reason for me to add players. It was your list, which is what I was pointing out. I didn't even look elsewhere or ponder other players. You may have missed players that would help your argument, for all I know, because I never thought past your list.

2.) The point is obvious: the team has averaged less than 2 'positive' additions per season via free agency (and trades and unretirements, for that matter) since the last time it won a Super Bowl. In other words, the notion that "there's plenty of time for free agents" has been barely more than irrelevant with regards to eventual team makeup over that stretch of time.

Why don't the pre-2005 years count? Was there some radical change in the NFL offseason between 2000-2005? Or are you ignoring them because they fly in the face of your cherry picked point? The Pats have signed MORE FA early in the post-Super Bowl run era. If anything, that should eliminate the hyperventilating over "not signing anyone first week, how will they possibly field a winner!"

It should be pretty obvious. It's not as if there's no Super Bowl delineation to point to.

Bottom line is: The Patriots "dynasty" years were built on guys brought in AFTER the first week of the offseason. Trades, FA, draft, waiver wire guys. There are a few exceptions (Colvin, Harrison), but far more guys who were picked up later than the 2nd Friday of the offseason.

Unless you can provide a legitimate reason as to why we should discard half of Belichick's tenure here (the more successful half, both in results and in roster building), I don't see a reason to continue this discussion.

In any event, the Pats will need to continue to (like in 09) draft well, and try to add key players through trades and free agent signings.

The reason is abundantly clear. Your willful blindness regarding the reason for a 2004/2005 split is your problem, not a problem in the question.

 

[Deus Irae]

I missed that part. My bad.

No problem. It's certainly no worse an "oops" than my confusing Greg Lewis' signing date with Bodden's.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

No problem. It's certainly no worse an "oops" than my confusing Greg Lewis' signing date with Bodden's.

I love the blowing kisses part of an argument

 

[PatsFanSince74]

No problem. It's certainly no worse an "oops" than my confusing Greg Lewis' signing date with Bodden's.

OK, Deus, I've followed much of the debate and I take and grant your main points.

So, what is your view, if indeed the odds are against adding impact FA's at this stage and if (my addition) it is unlikely that Rookies will have the kind of year-one impact at key positions that we need?

If we are left with the likelihood of BB having to "Coach Up" essentially the same team as last year, is it possible that these players will be able to improve enough to make a more meaningful run against what might be a tougher schedule (I don't assume that the schedule will be tougher, but it is certainly the contemporary CW) this year? A "more meaningful run" would be defined as winning the Division again, but having a realistic chance of going deeper in the Playoffs.

If the answer is "No" or "It's possible but not likely," then how do you, at what is admittedly an early stage, see the Pats prospects in 2010?

My view is and has been that it's just too early to tell and I'm willing to see how things unfold over the next few months, both for the Pats and others, but you've made a convincing argument that "what you see is what you get," so I'm (sincerely) wondering "what you think."

 

[eom]

this thread is ridiculous.

 

[muzz]

Re: I guess Bill is going to coach them up..

exactly and Brandon Tate

Tate and Crable.

Why didn't ya say so......

Championship!! :bricks:

 

[Deus Irae]

OK, Deus, I've followed much of the debate and I take and grant your main points.

So, what is your view, if indeed the odds are against adding impact FA's at this stage and if (my addition) it is unlikely that Rookies will have the kind of year-one impact at key positions that we need?

Ok, my $.02:

Most of what this team will ultimately be able to do will rest upon the health and play of Brady. As bad a year as Belichick had last year (and don't let the homers fool you, because BB sucked in all football-related phases of his job last season), the Patriots were a healthy Welker, a consistent Brady, and a traded DE away from being legitimate Super Bowl contenders. When Brady is Brady, he's just that good.

If we are left with the likelihood of BB having to "Coach Up" essentially the same team as last year, is it possible that these players will be able to improve enough to make a more meaningful run against what might be a tougher schedule (I don't assume that the schedule will be tougher, but it is certainly the contemporary CW) this year? A "more meaningful run" would be defined as winning the Division again, but having a realistic chance of going deeper in the Playoffs.

I think that people tend to favor the positives with their own teams and drum up the negatives with other teams. For example, Patriots fans will pimp Chung, even though he barely saw the field last season, but they'll denigrate Davis and Smith down in Miami. To my way of thinking, this is a mistake. For example, I expect Vollmer to establish himself as a quality OT this season and to be the best of last year's draft picks again, and I expect Butler to improve, although he's got a long way to go and people over-hyped his performance last year. I do not see Chung, Butler, McKenzie and company becoming dominant players this season. If the only significant additions to the team are tight ends, this team will have the same problems as last season, with Brady not having Welker for a portion of the season. I expect the team to draft a DE with either the first or second pick, but rookie D-linemen often struggle a lot, as Mr. Jackson demonstrated in K.C.

That's a somewhat longer version of "anything's possible, but Brady would have to play out of his mind in the playoffs for the team to have a real chance".

If the answer is "No" or "It's possible but not likely," then how do you, at what is admittedly an early stage, see the Pats prospects in 2010?

My view is and has been that it's just too early to tell and I'm willing to see how things unfold over the next few months, both for the Pats and others, but you've made a convincing argument that "what you see is what you get," so I'm (sincerely) wondering "what you think."

Well, if you figure that one draft pick will flash as a starter, Vollmer will improve, Butler will improve enough to be at least a serviceable CB2, and that one FA signing will have positive impact, and you combine that with a healthy Brady and the return of Welker at 90%+, I'd expect that the team will be above average for the first portion of the season, and then will improve from that as Welker gets back into the offense.

Like you, I think it's far too early to tell but, at this stage, I don't see this team being capable of running the table in the playoffs, and I'm not sold on them beating out the Jets for the division. I do, however, expect my position on this to change for the better, since I expect Belichick will make more quality moves than he has over the past 2 seasons.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Ok, my $.02:

...

Like you, I think it's far too early to tell but, at this stage, I don't see this team being capable of running the table in the playoffs, and I'm not sold on them beating out the Jets for the division. I do, however, expect my position on this to change for the better, since I expect Belichick will make more quality moves than he has over the past 2 seasons.

Thanks for stepping up, Deus.

I find little with which to disagree in your assessment, especially "it's far too early to tell."

I think I'm a lot easier on Belichick v.2009 than you are. He was dealing with a plethora of moving pieces, including a rebuilding secondary and what had to be a transformed locker-room with the losses of Brewski, Vrabel, Seymour and Rodney. So, I'm cutting him some slack (and still think he was right to go for it in Indy).

I make the latter point because I completely agree with you that Brady is the key. He should be at 95+% of his former self (allowing for two years of time and gravity) from day one this year. So, I think that Belichick and Brady in the past have proven that they can make the whole greater than the sum of its parts, and I anticipate their doing so again this year.

I think that Wes at 90+% is a wish rather than a certainty, given the toll of his injury on WR's who make a living planting and cutting. I see the O Line as a big plus and completely agree on Vollmer. We also agree on the muted impact of rookie D Linemen, but I too hope they make a move in the draft in that direction. In addition, I was amazed in the past at Piolichick's ability to turn lead into gold in the offseason and am not giving up on that fantasy, but we do miss the Pioli part of that equation.

So, in some sense, I guess I agree with the, presumably cynical, topic of this thread to some degree. I think that Brady and Belichick together have the capacity to get a lot more out of a team than any other qb/hc tandem in the NFL. Whether that means another trophy or even a Division Title, well, it's way too early to tell.