McGinest: "Pats don't take care of their players that are still productive"

[DaBruinz]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

Were going into a different realm so lets get this back on track. People are looking at this as a shot at the Pats, maybe it is, maybe it isnt. Why would a player take less money here when another team values their services higher? Maybe Willie is just shedding light on the situation involving Wilfork and why he may or may not be coming back. I agree with Willie, he hasnt said anything bad about the Pats but now all of the sudden he is some bitter old vet? I dont buy it.

Willie has been bashing the Pats since they cut him. He got caught lying about what transpired prior to his being cut. And he's bashing them again.

For you to say otherwise is just a fantasy on your part.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

After more posts sympathetic to McGinest I have to say it again-

BB is made out to be cold-hearted when he insists he'll do what's best for the Pats, but when the players do the same thing everyone nods their heads knowingly and says, I don't blame him for taking the money. Fine, then let's not hear anymore whining about a team doing exactly what 99% of the players plan on doing - taking care of themselves first.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

So you're claiming that it's wise to pay players based on anything other than how you think they'll perform over the duration of the contract? Maybe I'm missing something, because that seems like a pretty bizarre stance to take.

I'm saying that all teams do it. And, yes, it's wise to do.

To use an example:

Player "A" has been to the pro bowl for every year of his career, and is considered the best at his position. The team thinks he'll continue to be the best at his position for another 5 years.

Player "B" has never been to a pro bowl, and is a relatively unheralded free agent. The team thinks, however, that he'll break out this season and be the best at his position for the next 5 years.

The two positions are valued at the same level by the team.


Now, do you think that the team is going to offer player "B" the same contract as player "A"?

 

[TriplecHamp]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

So they should have invested ~$25M a year in Seymour and Samuel?

Seymour and Samuel made a combined 5.55M last year...

If you ran an NFL team, you would end up as the Redskins. The idea that you don't pay the middle roster but should overpay for the top-end talent turns you into a top-heavy team with no depth and crappy middle roster. That makes you... NOT the team of the decade.

Willie is wrong and so are you. "Taking care" of your players in the sense that you should overpay for your veterans is how you kill the team, not how you make it better. The patriots have a mission statement of fielding a competitive team EVERY year not just one or 2 years here and there.

Is it really hard to understand that operating under this philosophy has created the TEAM OF THE DECADE? Yet you want to complain that they don't do things that would make them worse... I don't get it.

They have been the BEST team of this decade but you question the very philosophy that got them there.

Im pretty sure I said that the "middle roster" (Green, Kaczur, etc.) were overpaid, thats money that could have gone to guys like Sey or Samuel. You say that Samuel is overpaid I say that Green is overpaid, who would you rather pay for. Signings like Shawn Springs and Adalius Thomas certainly havnt helped either but lets leave them out of it. You act like our Sh*t doesn't stink because we won three SB's in the first half of the decade and were team of the decade. Its time for you to wake up

Willie has been bashing the Pats since they cut him. He got caught lying about what transpired prior to his being cut. And he's bashing them again.

For you to say otherwise is just a fantasy on your part.

Okay, can you show me an article, an excerpt, or anything that has Willie "bashing" the Pats? In another thread you also said Keith Bullock hates the Pats, any proof of that?

 

[emoney_33]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

I'm saying that all teams do it. And, yes, it's wise to do.

To use an example:

Player "A" has been to the pro bowl for every year of his career, and is considered the best at his position. The team thinks he'll continue to be the best at his position for another 5 years.

Player "B" has never been to a pro bowl, and is a relatively unheralded free agent. The team thinks, however, that he'll break out this season and be the best at his position for the next 5 years.

The two positions are valued at the same level by the team.


Now, do you think that the team is going to offer player "B" the same contract as player "A"?

The reason they offer player B more money is because the probability he meets their expectations is much higher and the risk lower.

Everyone arguing this topic is more or less right, it's just being caught up in semantics right now. You aren't directly paid for past performance, but past performance is a factor as it raises the likelihood of what you will do in the present and future.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

Seymour and Samuel made a combined 5.55M last year...

The team could not have signed them for 5.5M combined, you can ignore signing bonus all you want but that 5.5M number that you just threw out there is disingenuous at best. I haven't looked at the numbers but their cap numbers for 2009 combined have to be close to $20M. That is going to increase when Seymour lands his next big contract.

Also don't forget, that you are not only signing Seymour for the big cap hit he'll take and most likely will NOT live up to going forward but you also lose a high 2011 draft pick.

Im pretty sure I said that the "middle roster" (Green, Kaczur, etc.) were overpaid, thats money that could have gone to guys like Sey or Samuel. You say that Samuel is overpaid I say that Green is overpaid, who would you rather pay for. Signings like Shawn Springs and Adalius Thomas certainly havnt helped either but lets leave them out of it. You act like our Sh*t doesn't stink because we won three SB's in the first half of the decade and were team of the decade. Its time for you to wake up

overpaying for Green and Kaczur hurts you a lot less than overpaying for Samuel and Seymour. If there was no salary cap you would have a valid point.

I never once claimed that all decisions were perfect. YOU are arguing against the direct PHILOSOPHY of the Patriots. You are claiming they should award their top players even though they aren't worth it. You are arguing that the philosophy that made them the team of the decade is bad.

Obviously you can go and point out bad decisions and/or contracts/players that didn't work out. But you are equipped with hindsight and you aren't looking at the big picture or totality of it. Thomas was worth the money at the time, there was nothing indicating he would become such an attitude and disappointment.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

He was a damn good KR.

Agree, Patjew. As long as he is healthy, Hobbs would be a fine KR and dime back...

However, he is another one that squawked once he left. I just don't like that stuff, but time heals all wounds...

 

[emoney_33]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

I love how he always brings up who Samuel picked off, but never mentions 3 of Bodden's 5 picks were personally deposited by the great Sanchise and the 4th was a wounded duck that wasn't even really close to Garcon. In both cases forget who they were against. 9 INT > 5 INT.

I never argued Bodden was better because of his INTs. It's people like you who (wrongly) believe that INT numbers are the only barometer of a CBs worth so I had to point out that Samuel had at MOST 4 INTs against "good" QBs, and that's ignoring any ducks or thrown to him passes which I don't really care to go find out as INTs are only one part of the story and I understand the types of CBs Samuel and Bodden are.

You love to beat that dead horse of more completions were completed against Samuel than they were Bodden. Yes, typically when you play LCB you are matched up with the #1 WR so you are going to give up more catches. It's much harder to limit the catches of a Brandon Marshall or Reggie Wayne than of an Eddie Royal or Pierre Carcon.

Unless you are actually a good cover corner, which Samuel is NOT.
Now it should be easy for you to list me 10-15 LCBs that allow at least as much if not more completions than Samuel... Or you can just continue to make up stuff.

Seriously Leon Hall better than Asante? Have you ever watched any Bengals games or do you just base your arguments off stats from ProFootballFocus? I mean you watch him play vs the Jets and he got toasted by Braylon Edwards quite a few times, one of which should've definitely been a TD if Braylon didn't have brick hands. You watch him play vs San Diego and you see Vincent Jackson shred him by scoring two long TD's on him and going for over 100 yards. It seems like you just list CB's who are in the top 10 on that website. And by the way that website that you swear by has Tramon Williams and Terrell Thomas as top 12 corners, better than Nnamdi Asomugha. Go figure.

That website lists how they played in 2009. It is surely at least a little flawed and their overall ranking numbers aren't gospel. I never once claimed their overall ranking numbers were a depiction of the best CBs in the league. They are a relatively accurate depiction of they played that year, and the peripheral numbers which I like to look at seem more or less accurate.

Asomugha is special in the sense that teams just won't throw to his side, they just won't.

HOMER. No other way to say it. Overrate Patriots players, think the Pats are always right, and hate on/undervalue players who left the Pats on bad terms.

This is not what I've done though, as much as you want to portray that. I've said Samuel was overrated while he was here. He is not a top 5 CB, never has been and never will be. Hobbs outplayed Samuel frequently while they both were here.

Bodden is by far better than Samuel, Moss is by far the best WR in the NFL, etc., etc., etc.

Moss IS the best WR in the NFL still (at worst top 3). Never said "by far" in either case. Bodden was a better CB in 2009 than Samuel. I prefer Bodden's abilities over Samuel's. Bodden can actually cover and be effective allowing more schemes. Samuel is a risk taker zone hawk that limits the schemes that can be played on his side and usually requires safety help dedicated to cover for the high risk.

I assume you've forgotten guys like Marvin Harrison catching wide open bombs for a TD because Samuel jumped the fake and only remember when Samuel INTs because he jumped the route. Apparently since Samuel was so far out of the picture, it wasn't his fault. Just like the Tyree catch, his man but he's not in the picture when it's caught so you assume it wasn't his coverage responsibility.

Anytime someone disagrees with your opinion, you take it personally and try to insult their intelligence.

I've only insulted someone once or twice of which was retaliation and have since apologized. Stop stalking me though, thanks.

 

[patsfan-1982]

here is a site with all the CB stats ProFootballFocus.com - By Position


Leigh Bodden, was thrown at 90 time with 45 comp thats 50% comp for 515 yerds and 4 TD's with a QB rate of 59.3


Asante Samuel, was thrown at 67 times with 45 comp 67.2% for 590 yerds and 5 TD's with a QB rate of 80


note samuel did play over 100 more snaps then bodden.



PS. look at Darrelle Revis stats they are pretty amazing he was thrown at the most of any corner but only give up 36% comp and a QB rate vs him of 32.3

 

[emoney_33]

here is a site with all the CB stats ProFootballFocus.com - By Position


Leigh Bodden, was thrown at 90 time with 45 comp thats 50% comp for 515 yerds and 4 TD's with a QB rate of 59.3


Asante Samuel, was thrown at 67 times with 45 comp 67.2% for 590 yerds and 5 TD's with a QB rate of 80


note samuel did play over 100 more snaps then bodden.



PS. look at Darrelle Revis stats they are pretty amazing he was thrown at the most of any corner but only give up 36% comp and a QB rate vs him of 32.3

Yeah the two things that really stand out are:

Revis numbers are flat out amazing even while being tested a LOT
Asomugha was only thrown at 28 times, TWENTY EIGHT!?

Samuel's numbers were MUCH better in 08 than 09

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

Agree, Patjew. As long as he is healthy, Hobbs would be a fine KR and dime back...

However, he is another one that squawked once he left. I just don't like that stuff, but time heals all wounds...

We must remember separate things, or I must have missed something. I remember Hobbs being unbelievably classy once he left... to the point where even people that hated on him when he was here had to stop and say, "wow, that was classy".

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

We must remember separate things, or I must have missed something. I remember Hobbs being unbelievably classy once he left... to the point where even people that hated on him when he was here had to stop and say, "wow, that was classy".

He was 97% complimentary - except here.

Eagles still have duel at cornerback | Philadelphia Inquirer | 09/01/2009

Hobbs thought he deserved a contract extension for his play. Coach Bill Belichick and the Patriots obviously felt otherwise, so now Hobbs is going into the final year of his rookie deal and will be paid a base salary of $2.55 million.

"The trade was beneficial for me, because I started going down the wrong path," Hobbs said. "There were going to be plenty of problems there. When it happened, it was more of a relief for me. I felt like I didn't get my just due when I was there, but I'm one of many that didn't get their just due there. It has happened before, and it won't stop. I was just one guy before the next guy."

So my issue with him or anybody that would want to return to their previous employer is either, "do you feel the same way", and/or "has the situation or dynamic changed enough for you to be comfortable".

Based on what he has said, I don't things have changed enough over a year to change his tune.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

He was 97% complimentary - except here.

Eagles still have duel at cornerback | Philadelphia Inquirer | 09/01/2009

Hobbs thought he deserved a contract extension for his play. Coach Bill Belichick and the Patriots obviously felt otherwise, so now Hobbs is going into the final year of his rookie deal and will be paid a base salary of $2.55 million.

"The trade was beneficial for me, because I started going down the wrong path," Hobbs said. "There were going to be plenty of problems there. When it happened, it was more of a relief for me. I felt like I didn't get my just due when I was there, but I'm one of many that didn't get their just due there. It has happened before, and it won't stop. I was just one guy before the next guy."

So my issue with him or anybody that would want to return to their previous employer is either, "do you feel the same way", and/or "has the situation or dynamic changed enough for you to be comfortable".

Based on what he has said, I don't things have changed enough over a year to change his tune.

Eh, I took that to say that he felt he should have still been a Patriot. And I agree with him. We wouldn't have had to break the bank to keep him and a backfield of Bodden, Hobbs, Butler/Springs would have been a pretty good secondary, IMO. Was what he said chippy? Yeah. But not enough to not put him in a Patriot uniform again.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

Eh, I took that to say that he felt he should have still been a Patriot. And I agree with him. We wouldn't have had to break the bank to keep him and a backfield of Bodden, Hobbs, Butler/Springs would have been a pretty good secondary, IMO. Was what he said chippy? Yeah. But not enough to not put him in a Patriot uniform again.

Loved him as a return guy. Liked his spunk. Thought he played tough. Never heard a bad word about him as a teammate.

However, I did not like him as a starting corner nor as a nickel back. I just didn't think he was all that good. He would have been a fine as the dime.

Quite frankly, I think his opinion of himself was the primary reason BB shipped him out of town. I could speculate if that was reflected in any potential contract talks but I don't know that.

Look at it this way, BB could have hung onto him in 2009, let him walk in FA and if he produced somewhere else in 2010, they'd get a 6th or 7th as compensation in 2011.

My .02$

 

[TriplecHamp]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

The team could not have signed them for 5.5M combined, you can ignore signing bonus all you want but that 5.5M number that you just threw out there is disingenuous at best. I haven't looked at the numbers but their cap numbers for 2009 combined have to be close to $20M. That is going to increase when Seymour lands his next big contract.

Also don't forget, that you are not only signing Seymour for the big cap hit he'll take and most likely will NOT live up to going forward but you also lose a high 2011 draft pick.



overpaying for Green and Kaczur hurts you a lot less than overpaying for Samuel and Seymour. If there was no salary cap you would have a valid point.

I never once claimed that all decisions were perfect. YOU are arguing against the direct PHILOSOPHY of the Patriots. You are claiming they should award their top players even though they aren't worth it. You are arguing that the philosophy that made them the team of the decade is bad.

Obviously you can go and point out bad decisions and/or contracts/players that didn't work out. But you are equipped with hindsight and you aren't looking at the big picture or totality of it. Thomas was worth the money at the time, there was nothing indicating he would become such an attitude and disappointment.

Their total Cap figure was about 19M last season. Why overpay for Green or Kaczur, they aren't deserving of what they are paid. I am arguing against the direct PHILOSOPHY of the Pats. When Brady's contract is up the Pats will most likely reward him correct? Why shouldn't we have rewarded Assante? The Colts made it work with Peyton and the rest of their D, why cant we? The NFL has changed over the last 4-5 years, Offenses are getting better and Defensive players are going to be coming at a premium, especially pass rushers and Corners.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

Their total Cap figure was about 19M last season. Why overpay for Green or Kaczur, they aren't deserving of what they are paid.

They are VERY good backup and role players. Green (who's contract is up) has consistently been a solid contributor in our defense as is absolutely worth the $4M he made. Kaczur has usually done a solid job filling in on the line, but he did get hurt this year. Also you have to look at what the worst case scenario is. If they had to cut Green last year, the cap hit would have been ~$3M. Kaczur's cap hit if cut is under $1M this year. So their contracts are/were not nearly as bad as you try to make them out to be. And they have been solid contributors here over their careers. When Seymour has gotten hurt in the past for example Jarvis has filled in admirably. Now if you overpay for Seymour at the expense of a guy like Jarvis, you have to overplay Seymour and hope he doesn't get hurt.

I am arguing against the direct PHILOSOPHY of the Pats. When Brady's contract is up the Pats will most likely reward him correct?

We will not 'reward' him. We will pay him according to what the best QB in the NFL should be paid based on what he will produce. If it was highly likely that Brady would be a bad QB in the future they would not pay him just because of what he did in the past.

Why shouldn't we have rewarded Assante?

Because he is NOT worth it. Could you tell me what strengths and weaknesses Samuel has? What limitations does he have? What limitations does he impose on what you can do schematically and with your safeties? Is there any risk is there to jumping a route before a QB commits to the throw? Why did Samuel lead NFL CBs in opponent's YAC in 2009? Why hasn't he brought the Eagles to the promise land?

The Colts made it work with Peyton and the rest of their D, why cant we?

I guess that worked out for them considering they haven't gotten nearly what they should for the money they pay Sanders and once Freeney was slowed down (hurt) the D is significantly worse.

Also do you really believe their defense is good? It's built to play with a lead, and it's built around the very premise that Peyton and the offense will give the team an early lead.

If they were as good as you claim, why did they allow 34 points to the Patriots and 31 to the Saints in the SB?

The NFL has changed over the last 4-5 years, Offenses are getting better and Defensive players are going to be coming at a premium, especially pass rushers and Corners.

Samuel is NOT ever going to be worth $10M, you simply have no idea what kind of corner he is or you overvalue him because he was once a Patriot. He is a zone hawk that requires safety help and is a HIGH risk player who allows significant yardage and scoring opportunities. He generates turnovers (mostly against bad QBs) but at the expense of allowing a lot of yardage, especially a lot of YAC because he's out of position. Cover corners should be at a premium, not limited risk takers in the form of Samuel that limits what you can do schematically.

Seymour is definitely a rare talent and is capable of dominating his side of the line. But he's past his prime, his production and abilities will start to decline, he will command a king's ransom and there is a high probability that he will not live up to what he will earn in his next contract. If they locked up Wilfork earlier then they probably could have kept Seymour and tagged him, but who knows if Seymour would have held out.

Bottom line is that Seymour and Samuel are isolated cases that you are talking about, but there are many more where you can argue the same type of "he's still productive, reward him" crap. Neither Seymour or Samuel are so spectacular that you change your philosophy and bend over backwards to keep them. BTW, I can all but guarantee you that Willie is not talking about only Seymour and Samuel.

The Patriots have allowed 0 players go who have lived up to the contracts they received. That's a pretty damn good success rate of properly evaluating the talent they have. You can't always replace the player that left, but I don't know how anyone can argue against the Patriots philosophy. It generated 3 SBs, the best team to ever play, a team that went 11-5 (and would have been dangerous in the playoffs) after an injury to its HOF QB in week 1... the TEAM of the decade.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

They are VERY good backup and role players. Green (who's contract is up) has consistently been a solid contributor in our defense as is absolutely worth the $4M he made. Kaczur has usually done a solid job filling in on the line, but he did get hurt this year. Also you have to look at what the worst case scenario is. If they had to cut Green last year, the cap hit would have been ~$3M. Kaczur's cap hit if cut is under $1M this year. So their contracts are/were not nearly as bad as you try to make them out to be. And they have been solid contributors here over their careers. When Seymour has gotten hurt in the past for example Jarvis has filled in admirably. Now if you overpay for Seymour at the expense of a guy like Jarvis, you have to overplay Seymour and hope he doesn't get hurt.
Role players should be payed accordingly, IMO they are overpaid along with AD, and a few others on this team. If you want to pay for depth go ahead and be my guest. Mike Wright is just as good as if not better than green and his Cap hit is almost 3M less. Jarvis Green should not be making that much more than Mike Wright.

We will not 'reward' him. We will pay him according to what the best QB in the NFL should be paid based on what he will produce. If it was highly likely that Brady would be a bad QB in the future they would not pay him just because of what he did in the past.
How is paying him according to what the best QB in the NFL should be paid not being rewarded. If the Pats dont Reward Brady, we will need another QB in the next 2 years. James Harrison was "rewarded" for being the best Defensive player in the league last season, rewarding is getting what you deserve, not solely based on what you will do in the future because nobody can see into the future. You look at what a player did most recently and their age and how it projects to the future. You reward them accordingly and Peyton Manning will be heavily rewarded trust me so the Pats better be ready to pony up if they want to keep Brady.


Because he is NOT worth it. Could you tell me what strengths and weaknesses Samuel has? What limitations does he have? What limitations does he impose on what you can do schematically and with your safeties? Is there any risk is there to jumping a route before a QB commits to the throw? Why did Samuel lead NFL CBs in opponent's YAC in 2009? Why hasn't he brought the Eagles to the promise land?
Can you tell me the Patriots scheme and what they did last year? Tell me why we were so bad on third down D two years ago and why we played 10-15 yards off the ball last season?

I guess that worked out for them considering they haven't gotten nearly what they should for the money they pay Sanders and once Freeney was slowed down (hurt) the D is significantly worse.
And we haven't gotten sh*t from AD. When Wilfork went down was our D not worse?
Also do you really believe their defense is good? It's built to play with a lead, and it's built around the very premise that Peyton and the offense will give the team an early lead.
Their D is better than our D.

If they were as good as you claim, why did they allow 34 points to the Patriots and 31 to the Saints in the SB?
See above.

Samuel is NOT ever going to be worth $10M, you simply have no idea what kind of corner he is or you overvalue him because he was once a Patriot. He is a zone hawk that requires safety help and is a HIGH risk player who allows significant yardage and scoring opportunities. He generates turnovers (mostly against bad QBs) but at the expense of allowing a lot of yardage, especially a lot of YAC because he's out of position. Cover corners should be at a premium, not limited risk takers in the form of Samuel that limits what you can do schematically.
Bodden had how many picks against quality QB's?

Seymour is definitely a rare talent and is capable of dominating his side of the line. But he's past his prime, his production and abilities will start to decline, he will command a king's ransom and there is a high probability that he will not live up to what he will earn in his next contract. If they locked up Wilfork earlier then they probably could have kept Seymour and tagged him, but who knows if Seymour would have held out.
Thats why statisticly he had his best season in 2008 who knows if Wilfork will hold out?
Bottom line is that Seymour and Samuel are isolated cases that you are talking about, but there are many more where you can argue the same type of "he's still productive, reward him" crap. Neither Seymour or Samuel are so spectacular that you change your philosophy and bend over backwards to keep them. BTW, I can all but guarantee you that Willie is not talking about only Seymour and Samuel.
Until names are named were all just guessing.
The Patriots have allowed 0 players go who have lived up to the contracts they received. That's a pretty damn good success rate of properly evaluating the talent they have. You can't always replace the player that left, but I don't know how anyone can argue against the Patriots philosophy. It generated 3 SBs, the best team to ever play, a team that went 11-5 (and would have been dangerous in the playoffs) after an injury to its HOF QB in week 1... the TEAM of the decade.

5 years+0 rings= some tweaking needs to be done. Not a major overhaul but some minor tweaking. The Colts and Steelers systems have been just as productive recently

 

[emoney_33]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

5 years+0 rings= some tweaking needs to be done. Not a major overhaul but some minor tweaking. The Colts and Steelers systems have been just as productive recently

Forget it you aren't even arguing any of the points, you simply keep going off on tangents.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

Forget it you aren't even arguing any of the points, you simply keep going off on tangents.

Thats what I thought, the second half of the decade has been good for us but we haven't won it all, you think that you can just re-hash the same old Sh*t from the first half of the decade and bring it over to this decade like things haven't changed, typical homer.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

Thats what I thought, the second half of the decade has been good for us but we haven't won it all, you think that you can just re-hash the same old Sh*t from the first half of the decade and bring it over to this decade like things haven't changed, typical homer.

2007 was a mirage, my fault. On another point, does it make you feel cool to call someone a "homer"? As if you are some completely objective unbiased analysis robot.