Not Mortgaging the Future

[40yrpatsfan]

Do you really think the defense is going to produce the amount of points off turnovers like they did last year. The defensive points scored was amazing. I'd be shocked if that happened

But you're right. They managed to win that many games despite little to no offense and end of the game blunders in two games

We really only got schooled once, by Chicago. The D played great and they'll be even better this year. With a better offense and just an average amount of luck, we're gonna be a tough out.

 

[rochrist]

Many posters were calling it a reach, an overpay, and it got worse after week one when the defense and especially Gilmore struggled in a new situation. Butler, the CB opposite him was probably not communicating the way he should, because Gilmore got the contract Butler thought he deserved.

I'm speaking mostly to the tenor of this thread and why spending through the nose doesn't always equal success. In Butler's case they paid Gilmore instead, but there have been too many cases to count where the team moved off a vet player fans insisted was crucial only to replace him with a cheaper sometimes better rookie.

Look right now... fans are clamoring for an expensive WR (Juedy, Hopkins) as if that will cure the problem hiring Bill O'Brien has probably already solved. And there's the possibility that Tyquan or the kid they draft in the 4th or 5th round will become as good or better than these expensive vet options that fans insist we need. Fans can't envision an unknown quantity becoming a success, a #1 WR... it has to be the expensive name brand... always, even if it's extremely overpriced and/or the player is past his prime.

Shiny hood ornament.

 

[Wozzy]

We really only got schooled once, by Chicago. The D played great and they'll be even better this year. With a better offense and just an average amount of luck, we're gonna be a tough out.

This ^

And I would say with that Chicago loss, there were a lot of variables at play. Rainy wet conditions facing an option QB, starting Mac then pulling him after three series... it was an odd game all around.

The coaching changes with Obie on offense, Klemm at OL and Judge fixing special teams is a massive upgrade that's being completely being undersold.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

We really only got schooled once, by Chicago. The D played great and they'll be even better this year. With a better offense and just an average amount of luck, we're gonna be a tough out.

We have to admit they played a ton of backups

 

[stinkypete]

The problem with the 2024 - 25 cap argument is the players it does not include. Next year Dugger, Uche, Henry, Brown, Parker, Borne, Giseski and Bentley are free agents. You can argue that many roster on this list could be improved, but that is going to take some cash. In 2025, the free agents include Judon, Jon Jones, Andrews, Barmore and Stevenson, and either Mac Jones gets his 5th year option or we've moved on.

Draft or bust.

 

[lancerman]

The problem with the 2024 - 25 cap argument is the players it does not include. Next year Dugger, Uche, Henry, Brown, Parker, Borne, Giseski and Bentley are free agents. You can argue that many roster on this list could be improved, but that is going to take some cash. In 2025, the free agents include Judon, Jon Jones, Andrews, Barmore and Stevenson, and either Mac Jones gets his 5th year option or we've moved on.

Draft or bust.

Exactly. If Geskicki has a really good year this season, all of a sudden now because you didn't pay him longer term this year, he has leverage to say "okay tag me and pay what an elite TE gets paid OR give me the best deal the market will allow".

It's not always a good thing to not have some guys locked up longterm. The cap goes up incrementally each year. If you think a guy might be here longer, it's smarter sometimes to get them onboard longterm because each susbequent year will be cheaper than it seems when you sign the contract. So yeah 2024 seems fine now, but a lot of those guys will be more expensive to keep in 2024 than they would have if you gave them 2-3 year contracts this year.

 

[mgteich]

The team would be MUCH better off with less cap money in 2024, with it being reduced by extensions and the acquisition of a top player.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Exactly. If Geskicki has a really good year this season, all of a sudden now because you didn't pay him longer term this year, he has leverage to say "okay tag me and pay what an elite TE gets paid OR give me the best deal the market will allow".

It's not always a good thing to not have some guys locked up longterm. The cap goes up incrementally each year. If you think a guy might be here longer, it's smarter sometimes to get them onboard longterm because each susbequent year will be cheaper than it seems when you sign the contract. So yeah 2024 seems fine now, but a lot of those guys will be more expensive to keep in 2024 than they would have if you gave them 2-3 year contracts this year.

The contracts can be structured to have a low cap hit to start. Lots of ways to structure things. The only contract situation to avoid at all costs for the team is multi-year guarantees. If any team pays a bit more later on a few contracts while avoiding long term contracts and guarantees on a lot of contracts that is a win for the team.

 

[50-yard-line]

Exactly. If Geskicki has a really good year this season, all of a sudden now because you didn't pay him longer term this year, he has leverage to say "okay tag me and pay what an elite TE gets paid OR give me the best deal the market will allow".

It's not always a good thing to not have some guys locked up longterm. The cap goes up incrementally each year. If you think a guy might be here longer, it's smarter sometimes to get them onboard longterm because each susbequent year will be cheaper than it seems when you sign the contract. So yeah 2024 seems fine now, but a lot of those guys will be more expensive to keep in 2024 than they would have if you gave them 2-3 year contracts this year.

Maybe Gesicki didn't want a longer term deal coming off a year where he wasn't even used much. He gets back to normal this year, as expected, and he'll get a much better deal.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

Maybe Gesicki didn't want a longer term deal coming off a year where he wasn't even used much. He gets back to normal this year, as expected, and he'll get a much better deal.

True. But if we offer to extend him after a few games we could get him cheaper than if we wait until he's a free agent. From the player perspective there is always the risk of injury and so many prefer not to gamble but to take the "sure thing" now.

Just to be clear on the whole thread, the point about having essentially no commitments in the out years is that it gives you maximum flexibility now, and no risk of dead money if a player is injured or declines. But it obviously has a downside too, as it means you have no team left in 2025 if you do nothing.

The other issue is just when you want to go all-in and push all your chips onto the table - that implies signing big contracts with much of the cap hit pushed off into out years. A Super Bowl this year seems quite unrealistic (I think we are 70-1, the lowest projected chance in a long time). So maybe they are looking at next year, with the hope we make the playoffs this year and then sign some alpha players next year.

 

[VectorPrime]

Most of the posts on the first page of this thread are moronic in the extreme. We have a team coming off what was really a 9 or 10 win season but for some crazy sh*t that went down, with a fully intact above-average defense, a team with a good young QB entering his 3rd year, good weapons, best HC in the business, good OC and DC, good young front office, picking #14 with 11 picks total, 4 years removed from their 3rd SB in 5 years, and they're all bellyaching and criticizing like we're the gd Houston Texans.

And with all that as a base, now we learn that we also have the absolute BEST cap situation in the league looking forward. The horror of it all. These are dark times indeed.

“We have a team coming off what was really a 9 or 10 win season”

I agree, just like how going into 2008 we were really coming off a 19-0 season and we really threepeated after winning Super Bowl 53 because really we did win Super Bowl 52 if you think about it.

 

[lancerman]

Maybe Gesicki didn't want a longer term deal coming off a year where he wasn't even used much. He gets back to normal this year, as expected, and he'll get a much better deal.

Yeah.... which doesn't change the fact that now if he does produce, the Pats don't have him locked down and will need to pay him a high market value that is not diminished because of the current cap increase in order to keep him. Which still equals.... a negative situation for the Pats, even though right now he contributes to being a reason our future cap is so free.

 

[50-yard-line]

Yeah.... which doesn't change the fact that now if he does produce, the Pats don't have him locked down and will need to pay him a high market value that is not diminished because of the current cap increase in order to keep him. Which still equals.... a negative situation for the Pats, even though right now he contributes to being a reason our future cap is so free.

And if we had locked him down longer, some here would be whining "suppose he really is the guy we saw last year? Why didn't Miami keep him, huh?"
Everything is a negative situation. EVERYTHING.

 

[lancerman]

And if we had locked him down longer, some here would be whining "suppose he really is the guy we saw last year? Why didn't Miami keep him, huh?"
Everything is a negative situation. EVERYTHING.

If they were playing well and showing progress it wouldn't be.

 

[50-yard-line]

If they were playing well and showing progress it wouldn't be.

The hell it wouldn't.

Nephew told me how the big news on Felger and Mazz is how much Pasternak sucks...
Misery all the time.

 

[lancerman]

The hell it wouldn't.

Nephew told me how the big news on Felger and Mazz is how much Pasternak sucks...
Misery all the time.

Nobody gives a **** about Felger and Mazz

 

[n6249c]

True. But if we offer to extend him after a few games we could get him cheaper than if we wait until he's a free agent. From the player perspective there is always the risk of injury and so many prefer not to gamble but to take the "sure thing" now.

maybe, maybe not. Many players prefer to bet on themselves and don’t sign a lowball offer just because it’s on the table. Seems a lot of posters on here think all the team has to do is make the right offer and it’s sure to be accepted. Sometimes it’s not the team willingness to make a good offer but instead it’s really the player willingness to accept that offer that’s the issue.

 

[DarrylS]

They wouldn't be. I question if they still are or even were in the first place.

Winning makes everything better....

 

[DarrylS]

Nobody gives a **** about Felger and Mazz

As much as I don't there are quite a few folks out there who listen and believe the BS on Sportstalk radio.. many time I have over heard someone saying something their heard, and I say "Listening to the radio, eh"??.. and they kinda slither away sheephishly.