One season too early rather than one season too late

[RobertWeathers]

So what you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that he is decisive and trusts his evaluation and will move on from any player when he feels it's time, and the trite cliche "better to get rid of them one year too early rather than one year too late" is misunderstood and misused?

I would accept that.

I see a pattern of what I typed above but fail to see one of the way the phrase is being used.

Thanks for the post.

I think Lawyer Milloy might be a good example. In 02 LM didn't record a sack, int, FF or fumble recovery. He was 30 and making $5-6m.

It was Bill's assessment that he was not going to get $5m in 2001 LM production in 2003 and beyond.

He tried to renegotiate his deal, the player disagreed and obviously he was cut.

Same story with McGinest in 2006 and you could argue Wilfork in 2015 and Mankins in 2014.

 

[Ring 6]

I think Lawyer Milloy might be a good example. In 02 LM didn't record a sack, int, FF or fumble recovery. He was 30 and making $5-6m.

It was Bill's assessment that he was not going to get $5m in 2001 LM production in 2003 and beyond.

He tried to renegotiate his deal, the player disagreed and obviously he was cut.

Same story with McGinest in 2006 and you could argue Wilfork in 2015 and Mankins in 2014.

Thanks. I'm kind of looking at this if as one year too early is a philosophy you wouldn't include a guy he tried to keep.
I get that money is a factor but that's not "one year too early" that's "you aren't worth it THIS YEAR". And that's kind of the point in trying to get to here.
A philosophy of one year too early is better than one year too late, is kind of self defining.
One year to early means you want him this year and he can help you but getting rid if him today is better than keeping him while he can help at the expense of enduring his decline the next year.

As I said to me this topic has rim its course and I won't be replying any more because I have no interest in contentious back and forths that seem to happen a lot here, not my style, but I wanted to respond to your thoughtful post.

 

[Oswlek]

I don't understand "factors" to consider.
The players that would fit into this category are players who are aging still playing well but nearing the end, so he gets rid of them now rather than endure their decline. I mean isn't the phrase self explanatory?

I know you don't, that's the problem.

You say that economics cannot be considered because that is mutually exclusive with the "too early" philosophy. I disagree, but fair enough, so what factors are not exclusive? Is a trend downward contradictory? How about having younger players in the pipeline? Is it even possible to cut a player "too early" without supplemental motivation? (Hint: no)

Edit: I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm trying to help you see that you've restricted your terms to the point that they literally exclude all possibilities by definition.

You can answer however you want. You do not need to satisfy "his" parameters, only your own as you see fit. I suspect this guy is a troll.

I don't think he's a troll, but you're right that there is an interesting discussion to be had here if the question were formulated properly.

 

[BlacknGold77]

I know you don't, that's the problem.

You say that economics cannot be considered because that is mutually exclusive with the "too early" philosophy. I disagree, but fair enough, so what factors are not exclusive? Is a trend downward contradictory? How about having younger players in the pipeline? Is it even possible to cut a player "too early" without supplemental motivation? (Hint: no)

EXACTLY.

The whole point of "1 year early" is purely economics and the cap. Its done to continually avoid any bad contracts eating valuable cap space so that the team as a whole can have max talent at all positions.

Its the philosophy that this 15 year run has been based on. Interchangeable parts...team over individual. Moving on from players earlier rather than later is what keeps it going

 

[Ring 6]

I know you don't, that's the problem.

You say that economics cannot be considered because that is mutually exclusive with the "too early" philosophy. I disagree, but fair enough, so what factors are not exclusive? Is a trend downward contradictory? How about having younger players in the pipeline? Is it even possible to cut a player "too early" without supplemental motivation? (Hint: no)



I don't think he's a troll, but you're right that there is an interesting discussion to be had here if the question were formulated properly. It's unfortunate that this seems to be lost on Ring.

Ok although I said I am through, and I am through arguing, since you asked me a direct question I will respond.

The question literally is whether there is a philiosophy that it is better to get rid of a player one year too early than one year too late.
That by definition means he is valuable to you this year but you believe next year he will no longer be, obviously because of age and diminished skill.

So it really is a mutually exclusive thing.
If there is a strongly held philosophy that sacrificing a player that can help you this year because you do not want to endure his decline.
Economics conflate the issue. Getting rid of say mankins because what you could get plus 10 mill in cap space was better for you THAT SEASON wouldn't price a "one year too soon philosophy"

I recognize there are many factors that go into roster management. I'm just saying that I are no evidence that there is a philosophy that if you believe a player has one good season left then feel he is likely to decline a lot after that, that the best move is to dump him today.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

One other thing, you imply that guys like Willie and Vrabes don't fit because they were at the right time, but this is another mild misrepresentation on your part. The guideline isn't "either a year too early or a year too late", it's really, "try to nail the timing perfectly, but if you do err, make sure it's on the early side."

Exactly. It's not "either a year too early or a year too late". It is "it's better to let the guy go a year too early than it is to let him go a year too late." With the obvious implication that it's best of all to let the guy go at precisely the right time.

 

[Oswlek]

FWIW Ring, I removed the unnecessarily snide final sentence in my comment above and added an edit for clarity. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[BobDigital]

If he hits all incentives it just falls short of a 3 year 21M dollar deal.

He would be the 23rd highest paid WR in the game as of now.

Seems reasonable to me. After all the clear #1s are off the board there are not many guys I put over him.

 

[Deus Irae]

But Brown was even playing corner at the end. Didn't he intercept Bledsoe? Anyway, Brown had value even at the end as a punt returner.

He only had 27 punt returns in his last 4 seasons combined. He also didn't register a tackle or assist (defense) post-2004.

 

[pazrul72]

I agree that there is a year too early is better then a year too late philosophy does get used by the pats but I think it is misused/misunderstood a lot by posters on here. I don't believe it is used as much on contracts already signed. They trust their evaluations and are constantly updating them thru self scouting. Once a player's production no longer meets the money they are being paid they are ruthlessly restructured or cut with very rare sentimental contracts (troy Brown and Bruschi are the only two I can think of).

Where the philosophy does apply IMO is in how they offer contracts. Lets say player A is 31 years old and has been a solid starter for 8 years but in their opinion he has one good starter caliber year left and two solid role player years. They will sign that guy to two years of role player money with incentives but not 3 years of starter money and if that's not good enough they will find someone younger and cheaper. They want the player and think he could help them win but won't pay extra for the year "too late".

Now how this applies to the GOAT and Grop. I think it's very reasonable to expect two more elite years 2017 and 2018 from Brady. He has shown ZERO decline and has in fact gotten better, which is just inhuman. That said there is a point where father time will win. Is that in 2 years? 3 years? 5 years? 10? Who the hell knows but with everything that has come out, Grop not being traded, Schefter's report about keeping him long term, and Giselles comments I think counting on Brady for more then 2 years would be unreasonable. If, and yes I am aware that is a huge unknown only Bill even has a clue if, Grop is truly a starting level above average QB letting Brady go after 2017 and signing Grop long term would be a year too early versus a year too late as IMO Brady will still be the better QB with a higher chance of bringing home a championship in 2018 and I wouldn't bet against that being true in 2019 as well. Long term health of the franchise though, if Grop is as good as it appears Bill thinks he is, the pats stay a year in year out playoff contender for 2019- 2028 or 32.

So the question is what do you want 2018 and maybe 2019 Brady or 2019-2028 Grop? Based on everything I am seeing I think Bill is leaning with the second option and while it hurts my fandom I don't disagree with it and trust Bill to make that call correctly.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I agree that there is a year too early is better then a year too late philosophy does get used by the pats but I think it is misused/misunderstood a lot by posters on here. I don't believe it is used as much on contracts already signed. They trust their evaluations and are constantly updating them thru self scouting. Once a player's production no longer meets the money they are being paid they are ruthlessly restructured or cut with very rare sentimental contracts (troy Brown and Bruschi are the only two I can think of).

Where the philosophy does apply IMO is in how they offer contracts. Lets say player A is 31 years old and has been a solid starter for 8 years but in their opinion he has one good starter caliber year left and two solid role player years. They will sign that guy to two years of role player money with incentives but not 3 years of starter money and if that's not good enough they will find someone younger and cheaper. They want the player and think he could help them win but won't pay extra for the year "too late".

Now how this applies to the GOAT and Grop. I think it's very reasonable to expect two more elite years 2017 and 2018 from Brady. He has shown ZERO decline and has in fact gotten better, which is just inhuman. That said there is a point where father time will win. Is that in 2 years? 3 years? 5 years? 10? Who the hell knows but with everything that has come out, Grop not being traded, Schefter's report about keeping him long term, and Giselles comments I think counting on Brady for more then 2 years would be unreasonable. If, and yes I am aware that is a huge unknown only Bill even has a clue if, Grop is truly a starting level above average QB letting Brady go after 2017 and signing Grop long term would be a year too early versus a year too late as IMO Brady will still be the better QB with a higher chance of bringing home a championship in 2018 and I wouldn't bet against that being true in 2019 as well. Long term health of the franchise though, if Grop is as good as it appears Bill thinks he is, the pats stay a year in year out playoff contender for 2019- 2028 or 32.

So the question is what do you want 2018 and maybe 2019 Brady or 2019-2028 Grop? Based on everything I am seeing I think Bill is leaning with the second option and while it hurts my fandom I don't disagree with it and trust Bill to make that call correctly.

re: Brady. Your points are valid. With TB12 its all about managing the risk in having a highly productive but older player. BB is on record as saying with an older player, you never know when their time comes. It could be a gradual decline or they could fall off a cliff.

Clearly with TB12, his contract is VERY reasonable for his elite play. Certainly he deserves more $, but if in December he starts to deteriorate or suffer a major injury in which as an older player he'll need more time to come back from, the team's belief is it is also reasonable to absorb. While we all agree that BB needs to account for the "TB12 factor", the actuary inside him can't have Tom's cyborg-like body be the end-all-be-all to determine how he manages the production/salary/cap balance of older players.

 

[tasmlab]

Tedy, Troy and Kevin were ceremoniously kept until their last gasping breaths as football players. I was fine/happy with seeing "a year too late" and seeing these icons retire as Patriots.

 

[AzPatsFan]

EXACTLY.

The whole point of "1 year early" is purely economics and the cap. Its done to continually avoid any bad contracts eating valuable cap space so that the team as a whole can have max talent at all positions.

Its the philosophy that this 15 year run has been based on. Interchangeable parts...team over individual. Moving on from players earlier rather than later is what keeps it going

A not so obvious corrolary is that BB will have a repalcement on the roster who if not the equa.l is thought to be able to grow into the position, or at least be adeqaute. Some projected replacements don't work out due to injury or just inadequacy. Then BB will try to get one more year out of the older player. Mostly it fails to be satisfactory. For example Bruschii, injured Mayo, Vrabel, Dobson etc.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree that there is a year too early is better then a year too late philosophy does get used by the pats but I think it is misused/misunderstood a lot by posters on here. I don't believe it is used as much on contracts already signed. They trust their evaluations and are constantly updating them thru self scouting. Once a player's production no longer meets the money they are being paid they are ruthlessly restructured or cut with very rare sentimental contracts (troy Brown and Bruschi are the only two I can think of).

Where the philosophy does apply IMO is in how they offer contracts. Lets say player A is 31 years old and has been a solid starter for 8 years but in their opinion he has one good starter caliber year left and two solid role player years. They will sign that guy to two years of role player money with incentives but not 3 years of starter money and if that's not good enough they will find someone younger and cheaper. They want the player and think he could help them win but won't pay extra for the year "too late".

Now how this applies to the GOAT and Grop. I think it's very reasonable to expect two more elite years 2017 and 2018 from Brady. He has shown ZERO decline and has in fact gotten better, which is just inhuman. That said there is a point where father time will win. Is that in 2 years? 3 years? 5 years? 10? Who the hell knows but with everything that has come out, Grop not being traded, Schefter's report about keeping him long term, and Giselles comments I think counting on Brady for more then 2 years would be unreasonable. If, and yes I am aware that is a huge unknown only Bill even has a clue if, Grop is truly a starting level above average QB letting Brady go after 2017 and signing Grop long term would be a year too early versus a year too late as IMO Brady will still be the better QB with a higher chance of bringing home a championship in 2018 and I wouldn't bet against that being true in 2019 as well. Long term health of the franchise though, if Grop is as good as it appears Bill thinks he is, the pats stay a year in year out playoff contender for 2019- 2028 or 32.

So the question is what do you want 2018 and maybe 2019 Brady or 2019-2028 Grop? Based on everything I am seeing I think Bill is leaning with the second option and while it hurts my fandom I don't disagree with it and trust Bill to make that call correctly.

18-19 Brady plus whoever comes next is certainly better than 18-whatever jimmy.
It's funny how people make this out like we will have to play without a QB when Brady is fine if we don't keep jimmy. There are many other QBs.

Also the assumption that jimmy will be the QB for 15 years is astounding.

But for ****s and giggles let's say jimmy becomes drew Brees.
Tom Brady has more playoff wins and SB wins in the last 3 years than Brees has in his career.

Would you have dumped Brady 3 years ago? He was 37. What if Giselle complained about concussions then?
Is there a QB on the planet that you would go back and say you would have traded straight up for Brady after 2013 and it would have been better for the franchise?

Brady is not only the GOAT but presently the best QB in the NFL.
how many SBs are you willing to give up so you can have the unknown guy who's name you know instead of the unknown guy who comes later?

what is jimmys contract were up a year ago. Would you have cut 39 year old Brady so as not to lose jimmy?
If jimmys conteact was up this offseason would you have sent Brady packing?
If Brady is the same QB in 17 as he was in 16 are you honestly getting rid of him at that point?
For what?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Tedy, Troy and Kevin were ceremoniously kept until their last gasping breaths as football players. I was fine/happy with seeing "a year too late" and seeing these icons retire as Patriots.

Yes that happened because they agreed to contracts that were very team friendly.

 

[jmt57]

Regarding meaning of "year too early":

Keep in mind that the guideline, theory, edict, whatever you want to call it, is all based on projections. It is an executive decision based on an unknown, a prediction of the most likely scenario.

It does not mean the team literally wants to move on from a player when he is still going to have one more productive season. It is simply a decision based on an assessment that the player has X% chance of still playing at his current level, versus Y% chance of his production dropping off (and therefore the team being better off with another player). It doesn't mean 'let's move on even though we know this guy is going to have a good season'.

In most cases contracts play a big role in the decision. If a player is wanting a five year contract but the projection is that he will taper off quite a bit after two years, what decision do you make? You can try to make a bogus contract with phony salaries late in the deal, where you can cut him after two seasons without repercussions, but what if he and his agent don't fall for that and want more guaranteed money? This is a possible example of being better off walking away a year too early, rather than being saddled with an albatross of a contract and cap hit (ie, year too late).



When I have the time later I'll dust off Education of a Coach and see if I can find the quote.

 

[Oswlek]

Yes that happened because they agreed to contracts that were very team friendly.

I think it's reasonable to suggest that all three would likely have moved on anyway had it not been for their tenures.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I think it's reasonable to suggest that all three would likely have moved on anyway had it not been for their tenures.

A huge factor no question.

Bill allowed them to stay here because they still added value, were model NEPs and were willing to work cheap. In turn, why they chose to stay here was maybe a little bit of loyalty, their family situation and they just didn't want to deal with a different situation with another tea at the end of their careers.

 

[Deus Irae]

Tedy, Troy and Kevin were ceremoniously kept until their last gasping breaths as football players. I was fine/happy with seeing "a year too late" and seeing these icons retire as Patriots.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that "Everyone is the same" and "Better a year too early" both have exceptions.


And, IMO, that's a good thing. In a world with almost no loyalty, it's nice to see some at least once in a while.

 

[BlacknGold77]

I think it's reasonable to suggest that all three would likely have moved on anyway had it not been for their tenures.

true, but at the same time Faulk and Brown had other factors.

1. They were still producing up to the end:

Faulk's last full season: 65 carries for 335, 37 rec for 301
Brown's last full season: 43 rec for 384 and 4 td
Bruschi's last season: 38 tkl 37 ast in 13 games

Faulk, Brown and Bruschi didnt have a gradual decline, they fell off the cliff. And each was outperforming their contract up to the last day

Faulk tore his ACL and that effectively ended his career. Troy Brown tried to go in 07, but started on PUP and couldnt crack the depth chart

Bruschi came back from the stroke, but retired a couple years after for his health and family.

2. All 3 were in position groups that had zero depth in their final years. There wasnt the luxury of moving on for a younger replacement because there werent any in house