One season too early rather than one season too late

[BlacknGold77]

I've seen this posted a lot here since I joined.

People are saying that is how Belichick operates. But with the Edelman extension at his age, Brady being under contract until he is 42 and some of the older players he often brings in I don't see this.

What are examples of "one season too early"?

Maybe McGinest or Vrabel but those seemed to me like just the right time not a season early.

Can someone show me where this idea that Belichick does this comes from?

A lot of the older players he brings in are 1 year 'show me' deals, and about half dont even make the opening day roster.

and moving on doesnt mean traded. its the same when he lets guys walk as FA

Law
Mankins
Wilfork
Seymour
Watson
Welker
Vinatieri (his biggest "error" here, but we still have Gostkowski)
Branch
Samuels
McGinest
Light
Vereen
BJGE
Ridley
Vrabel
Milloy

 

[Ring 6]

Money is integral because there would be no concern about a "year too late" if everyone was on minimum contracts. You'd keep bringing players back until it was clear they'd been wrung dry and cut them at that point. It's cap/contract implications that are the primary drivers of the "year too early" concept.

I don't think you've fully thought this one through.

Your recollection of Law and Seymour's situations is faulty as well. Law was still very good when he left and he had an excellent season with the Jets. NE just decided he didn't have enough left in the tank to offer a multi-year contract to, which makes him a quintessential case. That he was a FA isn't a big factor because NE could have retained him had they chosen to.

As for Seymour, he did want a lot of money, but it was more complex than that. In addition to Richard, the FO had extensions for Brady, Wilfork and Mankins due as well. Even if Seymour's request was reasonable, he was likely going to be moved anyway because the team couldn't afford everyone, they viewed the others as having a longer shelf life and Oakland made a very attractive offer. That Seymour's relationship with Bill had soured made the decision that much easier.

Law was coming off lis franc surgery.
Seymour was in his prime.
We will have to agree to disagree. I was discussing whether the patriots try to get rid of players before they are done rather than when they are done, not the economics of the cap.

 

[Ring 6]

A lot of the older players he brings in are 1 year 'show me' deals, and about half dont even make the opening day roster.

and moving on doesnt mean traded. its the same when he lets guys walk as FA

Law
Mankins
Wilfork
Seymour
Watson
Welker
Vinatieri (his biggest "error" here, but we still have Gostkowski)
Branch
Samuels
McGinest
Light
Vereen
BJGE
Ridley
Vrabel
Milloy

Teams lose players to free agency all the time.
I'm talking about whether there is a pattern of getting rid of a player while they can still play well to avoid keeping them for the year they decline. I don't see it.
You have simply listed every player who didn't finish his career here, plus light who retired.

 

[Ring 6]

BB said it after the 02 season.

Do you have a link to the actual comment?

 

[borg]

The premise must factor in production, salary and/or salary expectations.
Players like Mankins whose salary exceeded their production were easy jettisons, especially given the return compensation.
Players like Law and Welker had loftier salary expectations than NE was willing to meet at that stage of their careers.
A player like Seymour, still with plenty of tread on the tires, likely was evaluated based on intangibles...ie....passion, motivation, locker room presence....and return compensation.

 

[Nunchucks]

I'm not going to get into "last time", but one of the most famous of the BB Patriots fits that description. Hell, he IS that description.

Troy Brown

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.

 

[Oswlek]

I was discussing whether the patriots try to get rid of players before they are done rather than when they are done, not the economics of the cap.

And, as I've illustrated, there is no way to separate the approach and the economics.

The question you are asking essentially reduces down to, "what players have been moved on from for no other reason than being too early rather than too late?" This is not a useful query.

If you think I'm misrepresenting your point, then what other factors are we allowed to consider?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Do you have a link to the actual comment?

Its in the book about him written by Halberstam.

Don't misconstrue what BB means.

He means he will not accept a level of risk and keep players who he projects will be in decline who have a salary & cap consumption level that cannot be logically rationalized.

Its just like a stock. If the stock is performing well but its chewing up your portfolio spend budget then thats ok. If its leveling off and you project it will lose 15 points over the next 12 months then you dump it.

 

[Nunchucks]

A lot of the older players he brings in are 1 year 'show me' deals, and about half dont even make the opening day roster.

and moving on doesnt mean traded. its the same when he lets guys walk as FA

Law - This was a contract issue, Law wanted to make more money than Belichick thought he was worth at that age
Mankins - Perfect example of moving on early
Wilfork - Perfect example of moving on early
Seymour - Seymour had a few good years left, but the Patriots traded him for a pick and didn't want to pay him
Watson - Moved on early, wasn't worth the dollars
Welker - Perfect example of moving on early
Vinatieri (his biggest "error" here, but we still have Gostkowski) - Would have won the superbowl if they kept him
Branch - Perfect example of moving on early
Samuels - Didn't want to pay him
McGinest - Definitely moved on from him early
Light - Retired
Vereen - Signed for more money
BJGE - Signed for more money
Ridley - Signed for more money
Vrabel - Good example of moving on
Milloy - Perfect example of moving on early

How's that look?

 

[Froob]

Ty Law? Mankins? Seymour? Wilfork?

Revis wasn't really a year early, even though a lot of this board thought he should be back.

There are also a lot of short term rentals and cap casualties. Bennett, and Welker, for example. Seller might even be an example of the year too early category.

True, and then a lot of people claimed in hindsight they thought he was never going to re-sign to begin with when he came here lol.

 

[Ring 6]

And, as I've illustrated, there is no way to separate the approach and the economics.

The question you are asking essentially reduces down to, "what players have been moved on from for no other reason than being too early rather than too late?" This is not a useful query.

If you think I'm misrepresenting your point, then what other factors are we allowed to consider?

I am not here to argue.
I asked a question.
People are wont to say bb believes in getting rid of a player a year too early rather than a year too late. This literally means he would rather not keep a player for his final good season if that means he keeps him fit his first bad season. I asked people to show me a pattern of this.

Giving examples of a player in his prime he wanted more money than BB had or could afford is not an e smoke of this (Seymour).
A player who had a career threatening injury and couldn't run at the time he signed a free agent contract certainly clouds the analysis of whether he represents a pattern of one year too soon.
Your own comments seem to indicate you understand this. I'm not sure why you would be using these players as an example or actually even responding when your belief is that you can't separate any factors.
I guess your answer would be "I don't know" because there are too many factors.

I'm just looking for someone to show me a pattern that BB prefers to forgo a players last good season to avoid being stuck with him for his first poor season. I see no such pattern.

Again, we can agree to disagree but I'm not going to go further in debating what the question is.

 

[Ring 6]

How's that look?

I don't think you can take players in their prime (watson, branch) or players he offered contracts to (walker, milloy) and call them "moving on".
Many of the others look like moving on because it was time and they weren't worth the money rather than a year too soon.

Again the topic is "a year too soon is better than a year too late" not getting rid of overpaid players.

 

[BlacknGold77]

How's that look?

pretty much agree, I tend to count the ones who signed for more money under the 'moving on' banner if they were let go to be replaced by a cheaper option...basically the running backs.

BJGE replaced by Ridley
Vereen replaced by White/Lewis
Ridley replaced by Blount

Listing Light was a major brain cramp on my end. Got him and Mankins mixed up

 

[Ring 6]

Its in the book about him written by Halberstam.

Don't misconstrue what BB means.

He means he will not accept a level of risk and keep players who he projects will be in decline who have a salary & cap consumption level that cannot be logically rationalized.

Its just like a stock. If the stock is performing well but its chewing up your portfolio spend budget then thats ok. If its leveling off and you project it will lose 15 points over the next 12 months then you dump it.

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.

 

[Nunchucks]

I don't think you can take players in their prime (watson, branch) or players he offered contracts to (walker, milloy) and call them "moving on".
Many of the others look like moving on because it was time and they weren't worth the money rather than a year too soon.

Again the topic is "a year too soon is better than a year too late" not getting rid of overpaid players.

Milloy's production had slipped. Belichick wanted him to take a pay cut, Milloy refused and the Patriots cut him right before the season. Milloy's play never returned to a level worth talking about. Belichick cut them because their play was slipping or was about to slip and he did not think they would be worth the money....it is kind of the same thing. Some like Samuel, who was in his prime, Belichick did not think was worth the money, but others were definitely on the back 9, like Seymour, Vrbel, Milloy, etc.

 

[Oswlek]

I am not here to argue.

All evidence to the contrary. I'm aware that you, "asked a question", the problem is - as I've pointed out several times - your question is not a good one when limited by your definitions.

If you are sincere in you inquiry, would you please answer the question I asked of you? What factors are we allowed to consider?

 

[Ring 6]

All evidence to the contrary. I'm aware that you, "asked a question", the problem is - as I've pointed out several times - your question is not a good one when limited by your definitions.

If you are sincere in you inquiry, would you please answer the question I asked of you? What factors are we allowed to consider?

I don't understand what your point is here.

The question is what are the examples of belichick getting rid of a player one year too soon so as to not have to keep him one year too long.

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?

You aren't getting rid of a player one year too early rather than one year too late when he is in his prime and wants a big contract. Or when he has already declined to the point he is overpaid. Or when he had had foot surgery and can't run when it's time to make a decision.
"He makes too much" isn't exercising a philosophy of one year too early is better than me year too late, it's managing your roster TODAY.

I think you are missing the one year too early concept. That means he is valuable to you today and you would otherwise keep him but you want to move on now because after this year he will decline.

 

[Nunchucks]

All evidence to the contrary. I'm aware that you, "asked a question", the problem is - as I've pointed out several times - your question is not a good one when limited by your definitions.

If you are sincere in you inquiry, would you please answer the question I asked of you? What factors are we allowed to consider?

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.

 

[Ring 6]

Milloy's production had slipped. Belichick wanted him to take a pay cut, Milloy refused and the Patriots cut him right before the season. Milloy's play never returned to a level worth talking about. Belichick cut them because their play was slipping or was about to slip and he did not think they would be worth the money....it is kind of the same thing. Some like Samuel, who was in his prime, Belichick did not think was worth the money, but others were definitely on the back 9, like Seymour, Vrbel, Milloy, etc.

He wanted milloy on the team but couldn't afford him under the cap. I get that milloy was overpaid but this wasn't getting rid of him a year too soon rather than a year too late. I'd he took the paycir he would have stayed for a few more years.

Seymour was literally in his prime.

I get there are reasons but I'm talking about the specific reason the concept implies : get rid of a productive player today because I don't want him around if he isn't productive next year.
That is a major sacrifice in the present to avoid something that seems insignificant in the big picture.


In any event I am not hear to argue.
I won't be posting any more in this thread.
Folks can take in whatever direction they want.
I simply had been hearing something I saw no pattern of and asked people to show me the pattern I was missing.
I'm satisfied at this point it's just not there.

I appreciate all of the responses go Pats!!!

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Wish I had seen this before I said it was my final post.
Dude what's up with that?
I am new here, I read things on the board that don't make sense to me and ask posters to show me why it is being said and you come up with this? A troll? Funny.

That's ok though. Everyone has their own way of posting. If that is yours I have no problem avoiding you.

Have a great day.