The one point I can make of any significance is that the Pats are moving toward the Colts' metrics, in terms of cap distribution.
Two years ago, we had 2 guys making $5M or more. Early this century, it was one guy.
In 2008 - not counting an attempt to retain Moss, if he wants $5M or more - it will be 7 guys.
The cap itself has exploded, but our curve from early this century (when we got the idea our structure was different by design, and that it was a good thing,) has marched progressively toward "what everybody does."
The one difference I can point to, especially this year, is that the Pats have often gotten great value out of their pick-ups in FA, as in the Moss case (but that does not account for the special "Moss risk," i.e., possible locker room cancer.)
Ideas like the Colts having the credit card out at all times, while the Pats are fiscally responsible, need to be substantiated. Looking at the Colts cap page through ianwhetstone.com, and boiling down their numbers to scatter plots, at first I thought I saw something very different between the two teams.
Yes, we do have a nice thick "middle class" curve section, but as we load up this off-season, we're well away from the "one or two very special player club" model. Judging from this year -- and it seems to be a trend -- we are adding guys into "the club Jr.," where Brady still stands alone but we seem like we'll pay a handful more guys disproportionate money, in terms of a raw distributive analysis.
The we get to the famously subjective judgments of value. We can say "yes, but our A. Thomases and [next year] Donte Stallworths [if we keep him,] are worth every penny, whereas your Marvin Harrisons and Dwight Freeneys are not."
These evaluations are truly beyond what we can make definitive, last-word statements on. But they are the stuff on which fan boards thrive.
The question of "unique [structural] model," though, seems to be fading into league history, from what I can see -- and may well have been a mirage in the first place, an epiphenomenon of the media and popular culture dissecting the effect of a youthful team (in 01-04) without accounting for the fact that they will, eventually, pressure the team itself to pay them.
Of course, we do not let every veteran go, but have shown that we are more than willing to do so. We have established the scarcity and desireability of the
priviledge of playing for NE, and that has had a measurable effect, in some very special cases. That's no small achievement, in an era when players routinely look at their situation as purely dollars and cents. We have taken "winning", a commodity in which we are flush, and -- possibly by luck, possibly by design -- turned it into another competitive edge (Moss, Dillon.) You could say the Colts did the same, luring AV in part because he would still have a chance to compete for rings. They were willing to deal Edge, and replaced him very capably. They do not operate out of cloying fear, the kind that would send huge money chasing after Edgerrin. They operate sanely, and find the most capable new running back they can. (Well, second most... we took the one they wanted
)
It will be interesting to watch the effect of the departures from Indy, just as we bled free agents (and even players under contract) into the negotiasphere for a couple of years after the 2001-2004 run. So far, however, they are treating the phenomenon just as we have, with the discipline they will need to maintain a long-term core.
It's funny we argue so vehemently about organizations that, like us, demonstrate the discipline to avoid the "house of cards" collapse that awaits teams that mortgage the future.
But then again, those are the very teams that are there to compete against us on the field, year after year.
PFnV