Ty Law Question

[Pats726]

I dont get the Traylor thing. He was CUT, it had nothing to do with $$.
BB decided that he did not want Traylor on his team.

Why would we have been better with him?
Personally, I thought he was horrible in 2004 anyway. He was not a good fit for our system. He would show up making some plays in the backfield, but the truth is that was because free lanced and didnt keep his gap discipline.
For every play in the backfield he made, there were 2 more where he freelanced his way out of position and hurt us.

I don't get that one either..I agree..I didn't see his loss last year as big...

 

[belichickaholic]

Ty with the Jets 4 wins!

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

It's too bad that Ty Law didn't do his part to help the Jets. I guess he was responsible for all their woes. I guess he should have taken them all the way, on his own.

Damn, Ty. You should have had at least 11 ints last year to help the Jets.

 

[Pats726]

Ty Law with Jets: 10 interceptions

Patriots defense combined: 10 interceptions

Enough of this..if we would have had Law stuff.... you haven't answered the question of who you would have cut ON last year's team to equal the 10 mil plus that Ty would have gotten if he wasn't cut. It's great to say that the team would have been in the SB if Ty had stayed...that is all well and good..but it is hardly honest that you do NOT say a word about who from last year's team is NOT on the squad because of that 10 mil plus salary... It's great to add him on and say if he were here X would have happened..BUT maybe when you see who you would have had to take away from the squad, the Pats might not have even reached the playoffs. Law's salary was large...way large..and that was why he got cut.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Pats726: I already mentioned that Miguel, or anyone with all the cap numbers, might prove me wrong. I think I could probably find some way to keep his salary cap hit (different, I think, than his actual salary). I wasn't there and this is in hindsight. It is not like Bioli is always perfect 100%, and in hindsight they might have kept Ty instead of the scrubs they brought in. I understand that they didn't want to schuffle the team around, like you suggest, but normally they are able to micromanage the player's salaries fairly well.

Traylor would have filled in when the D-Line struggled and Wilfork was looking totally lost. We needed the depth for a handful of games. But if you don't agree, it doesn't much matter now because it's just my speculation. I just think Starks and Chad Brown and all those stiffs were not the real mistake, so much as letting a D-lineman go and, mainly, a #1 CB go. But this is in hindsight.

For the same reason I would have overpaid Law last year, I would be tempted to do so again this year. This is probably more important than me bringing up last year, but I feel that Law will make a difference now just like he would have then. I think what Law did with the Jets strengthens the reason we want him back.

 

[belichickaholic]

10 int's means they were THROWING AT HIM! They were throwing at him for a reason. How many pass interference penalties did he have last year? More than a 10 million dollar CB should have! Jets fans didn't even want him back at that price!

This has already been discussed ad nauseaum as you said. I'm just saying he isn't worth the big money any more that's all. In my opinion he'll be stifling the growth of the younger players.

 

[CrazyDave]

If you mean the cost of Branch, whatever it is, outwieghs the potential damage of losing him I agree.

Heres another way to look at it.

Brady is the best QB in the NFL. Hypothetically, and if he wasnt who he is, being the best means he costs $2mill more than the 2nd best. But he wants 3 mill more.
Do you want Brady plus what you can use the 3mill on or the 2nd best QB.

IMO, there are players that you need to overpay. Not necessarily because they are a Brady, but also because of the gap to the replacement.

The discussion on trading Branch fits this. Lets say we could trade Branch for a #1 next year, or let him play out his contract and become a FA next year.

There is certainly value in getting the #1 pick, but what does that do to this year?
Is sacrificing this year worth it to gain things in the future? To me it is not.

I'm with you on this. Especially when you get most of your players for say, 15% discount. If you're saving money on 8 of 10 guys, logic says that with the remaining 2, you'll have to buck up. Somethings gotta give.
I also believe in "relative value". What is a player worth TO US.
Willie is a good example. Cleveland payed him because he's just worth more to them.

 

[shakadave]

The point I was really driving at was the qualifying wanting Law back with 'at the right price'.

Wouldnt the right price be what we can afford on the cap? And given our cap situation we should be able to outbid other teams.

Put another way, if in a vacuum Laws value to the Pats is 5mill a year, and the market dictates it will take 8 mill to sign him, if we could afford 8mill under the cap, wouldn't 8mill be the right price?

I may not be saying this very clearly.

Andy, I understand your question and it's a good one. I think it boils down to your earlier assumption that if we don't sign Law, we'll have money that we're not using:

"Wouldn't the alternative be to just not spend the cap money?"

Answer: No.

One way or another, we will spend every penny up to the cap this year. If we don't sign Law (and maybe even if we do) we'll take our "extra" cap money and give some to Seymour this year (so as to create more cap room in upcoming years); re-up Branch and/or Graham and/or Koppen; sign the rookies, etc.

One point you hinted at is the idea that it might be better to use cap money this year rather than save it for the future. Why pay re-signing bonuses now to players we already have for 2006? There's a certain logic to that idea --- adding Ty Law vs. not having him around in 2006 is a big difference. But adding Law does come at a cost, because any cap money we don't use now on Seymour, Branch, Graham, Koppen will be money we have to come up with next year to the detriment of next year's roster.

To summarize, using the cap dollars now for non-Law purposes is a long-term investment in the 2007-2009 Patriots!

 

[gomezcat]

I'm not sure that we need Ty Law that badly. Look at the young corners coming through: Samuel, Hobbs (whose physical style I particularly like), Gay and so on. They are prone to mistakes. However, given an extra year's coaching in this system and a fully fit front seven, I think we'll see a lot of improvement.
OK, Ty got the 10 picks last year, but how many times did he get burned? (It isn't a rhetorical question, as I don't know the answer). Edit: belichickaholic has made the same point. Is he slowing at all? Is his body what is was, pre- injury? How will his team mates react to him returning? If he brings veteran LEADERSHIP to the secondary, then perhaps he would be worth 2-3 Mill. Anything more than that seems a gamble, tying (excuse the pun) up a lot of money in someone who could hardly walk just over a year ago.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

I'm not sure that we need Ty Law that badly. Look at the young corners coming through: Samuel, Hobbs (whose physical style I particularly like), Gay and so on. They are prone to mistakes. However, given an extra year's coaching in this system and a fully fit front seven, I think we'll see a lot of improvement.
OK, Ty got the 10 picks last year, but how many times did he get burned? (It isn't a rhetorical question, as I don't know the answer). Edit: belichickaholic has made the same point. Is he slowing at all? Is his body what is was, pre- injury? How will his team mates react to him returning? If he brings veteran LEADERSHIP to the secondary, then perhaps he would be worth 2-3 Mill. Anything more than that seems a gamble, tying (excuse the pun) up a lot of money in someone who could hardly walk just over a year ago.

I agree with several points above. My enhancements to those valid points:
1) the young guys are pretty decent to good but need reps (during game conditions) to improve. Give it to them unless we get more injuries in training camp and suddently become thin in DB's.
2) Veteran leadership ie. on the field (not locker room). If it looks like Rodney H. won't be back before mid-season, then restoring the 'Law' in the secondary would be very important. The secondary looked lost last year after RH went on IR. So RH's return date would be a big factor for me regarding Law.
3) I would be willing to spend far more than 2-3 Mill for Law but I disagree with the premise that the cap money (excess) won't be spent / or would be wasted somehow. They will find a way to spend it ensuring good financial health in the future years. Still I would pry open Kraft's wallet for about 6-7 Mill this year for Law - maybe also throw in a steak knife set as well (the knives would REALLY help him FEED his family).
4) Secondary concerns become more paramount when the team is facing top flight QB's this upcoming season. Looking at our schedule - I can't really say the opponent QB's put the fear of God in me. Farve, Loseman /Holcomb, Jets QB carousel, Chicagos' QB Grossman, Brad Johnson, etc. Most of the opposing QB's are not in the top 10 except for Culpepper - he is AWESOME and will give the Fins at least DOUBLE the wins this year. (snicker) P.S. I bet you didn't know Culpepper has been to the Pro Bowl. (Do you smell Troll chum in the water). Oh, great -just what we need to screw up a good thread. Bomb Denmark, Bomb Denmark.

 

[TNPatsFan]

It's true that the "10-interception" stat can be deceiving. Lots of mediocre db's have had a high single season INT total at some point in their career. However, Ty is still better than any corner back currently on the Patriots roster.

 

[arrellbee]

10 int's means they were THROWING AT HIM! They were throwing at him for a reason. How many pass interference penalties did he have last year? More than a 10 million dollar CB should have! Jets fans didn't even want him back at that price!

This has already been discussed ad nauseaum as you said. I'm just saying he isn't worth the big money any more that's all. In my opinion he'll be stifling the growth of the younger players.

Gomezcat had a concurring opinion.

My three cents (inflation you know) is that 10 interceptions as a statistic doesn't necessarily tell you how good a cover corner Ty Law was. It is VERY possible that it does, but there is also a significant possibility that it distorts the issue. Why?

To me the interceptions that 'count' in evaluating how dominant a corner is are the ones where the QB has thrown about the best ball he can and the receiver and the corner are both there and the corner comes away with the interception. A corner can get partial credit for intercepting a mis-thrown ball but I don't give him much credit at all if he couldn't have defended a properly thrown ball. To me that is failing at the corner job and just getting lucky. Likewise an interception on an overthrown ball or a tipped ball where the corner isn't even near any receiver doesn't add any credit to the corner as far as I am concerned.

So how about Ty Law last year ? I can't answer the question completely but I'd love to hear from someone who can go back and check. I can comment on 4 of his interceptions. 1 of the 4 came on what I label as a solid corner interception. Ball thrown well and he just covered tightly enough and cleverly enough to be able to get the ball instead of the receiver. However, on the other 3, he was not even close to the receiver but just happened to be in the right place when the ball was overthrown or tipped. Since he wasn't directly covering any receiver, he was either in the proper place in a zone and got lucky - or - he should have been somewhere else on his proper cover responsibility and got really lucky. The 3 weren't even difficult catches which would give the corner some credit for being a ball-hawk.

So in terms of 'meaningful' interceptions, he can't have had more than 7 - which is still good, but some of those might just have been luck also - I don't know. I'll bet Belichick has the films and knows !! !! !! !! And as gomezcat also referred to, I'll bet Belichick also knows if or how often he got burned or didn't cover the way he should have. I guess I trust Belichick to make a very informed decision and value judgment.

I think Pats726 mentioned an extremely pertinent question. Who else do you let go to make room for Law ?? It's a zero sum game - only so much money. And we DID spend to the cap last year. Miguel could probably tell us if we had any left after injury replacement signings.

Similar to that, but I believe totally pertinent, is that the reason we HAVE the extra cap room is because we didn't overpay for the 15 other players that some or many on the board wanted to spend on - or more accurately, HAD to spend on or it was a blunder on the part of Belichick/Pioli. I for one like that they made the choices they did. I think I'll err on the side of figuring they know what they are doing for now and not worry about who they HAVE to keep or get. I'm just fascinated by observing what decisions they make.

 

[belichickaholic]

10 int's is pretty good yeah, but maybe if the Jets had spent their money a little more wisely, they would have had more than 4 wins.

 

[Pats726]

I think I could probably find some way to keep his salary cap hit (different, I think, than his actual salary). I wasn't there and this is in hindsight. It is not like Bioli is always perfect 100%, and in hindsight they might have kept Ty instead of the scrubs they brought in.

I don't wish to belabor the point..but Ty had a cap hit that was way out of whack..if I recall..10 mil..more??? That was why they cut him..It's just very cavalier to say keep him..and they could have found a way and/or and they make mistakes and such....making it sound so easy to have kept him at that rate. Firstly, do you not think both Pioli and BB tried to find a way to keep him and keep at a reasonable salary?? I am SURE they tried to and Ty would not go for it..that simple. Ok fine, even if you subtract the "scrubs" they brought in, I am sure you are short several millions..so who else do you cut???
It's not as easy as you think...the salary cap plays a LARGE part of the roster puzzle..it's not just you keep him and have the SAME TEAM as well. THAt doesn't fit..which makes it all the harder to predict who is kept who isn't etc.

For the same reason I would have overpaid Law last year, I would be tempted to do so again this year.

I agree with bringing Law back this year..it's a different situation financially. The team is under the cap by a LOT this year and can afford him. I don't know whether I would overpay for him..but I surely would try to sign him...no doubt about that..

 

[Ring 6]

10 int's means they were THROWING AT HIM! They were throwing at him for a reason. How many pass interference penalties did he have last year? More than a 10 million dollar CB should have! Jets fans didn't even want him back at that price!

This has already been discussed ad nauseaum as you said. I'm just saying he isn't worth the big money any more that's all. In my opinion he'll be stifling the growth of the younger players.

If 10 Ints come because they threw at him a lot then why did all of our corner have less Intsd combined? I would assume all of our corners combined got thrown at more than Law alone.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, I understand your question and it's a good one. I think it boils down to your earlier assumption that if we don't sign Law, we'll have money that we're not using:

"Wouldn't the alternative be to just not spend the cap money?"

Answer: No.

One way or another, we will spend every penny up to the cap this year. If we don't sign Law (and maybe even if we do) we'll take our "extra" cap money and give some to Seymour this year (so as to create more cap room in upcoming years); re-up Branch and/or Graham and/or Koppen; sign the rookies, etc.

One point you hinted at is the idea that it might be better to use cap money this year rather than save it for the future. Why pay re-signing bonuses now to players we already have for 2006? There's a certain logic to that idea --- adding Ty Law vs. not having him around in 2006 is a big difference. But adding Law does come at a cost, because any cap money we don't use now on Seymour, Branch, Graham, Koppen will be money we have to come up with next year to the detriment of next year's roster.

To summarize, using the cap dollars now for non-Law purposes is a long-term investment in the 2007-2009 Patriots!

It is my understadning we can resign all of those guys--if they agree to--and sign Law.
I would prefer to spend money this year to increase our chance of winning the SB as opposed to raising Seymours cap number this year in order to lower it next.
If its $3mill difference, I have always believed $3mill spent today is better than 3 mill spent next year, primarily because the standard here is to compete to win the SB THIS year.
We aren't talking 20 mill. The cap management is fluid enough that the impact of "pushing 3mill of Seymours contract from 06 to 07" will have a 3mill advantage this year, and less than a 3mill disadvantage next year, because there a) is a year to deal with it, and b) the decision we will make on personell next year are different than they would be this year. For example, today we may think we need that 3mill next year to sign Graham. If Graham has a poor year, or Watson has a great one and Thomas proves a strong backup, then we wouldnt need that 3mill for Graham next year. (I just used that as an example there are many players who fit the mold of predictive value 7/06 and actual value 4/07 may be very different)

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I think SunnyDenmark made an interesting point about the quality of QBs we will face next year, I hadn't thought of that.

The reason I brought up my own speculation that we could have won a couple more games last year (and been even closer to a superbowl) with Law, and a good back-up D-Lineman to cover for Seymour, is to suggest that I would hate to make the same mistake this year IF we can possibly sign Law to a somewhat fair deal.

What I said about last year is strictly HINDSIGHT, not anything we can really discuss because it's just a speculation. However, let's not make the same mistakes twice, if we need a #1 CB and we can't be 100% confident that Hobbs will be a #1 CB from day one, I say get Law back if you don't overpay much. I would even blow a good one year salary on him as a stopgap measure if it doesn't take away from signing others. Let him make his one year salary and then let him go for another deal next year if it's the only way to sign him.

I'm not saying Bioli should have, or could have, carried his salary cap hit last year, just that in HINDSIGHT, they might have tried harder if they knew what a bunch of scrubs they would end up with instead. I also think they would have tried to have a better back-up for Seymour as well.

 

[shakadave]

It is my understadning we can resign all of those guys--if they agree to--and sign Law.
I assume not. (See next comment below.)

I would prefer to spend money this year to increase our chance of winning the SB as opposed to raising Seymours cap number this year in order to lower it next.
If its $3mill difference, I have always believed $3mill spent today is better than 3 mill spent next year, primarily because the standard here is to compete to win the SB THIS year. The point you make here is the one I said is a valid one. Only I don't think it's $3m we'll add to Seymour's deal for 2006, I think it's at least $6m. And I don't think $3m could sign Law, I think it will take at least $5m. We aren't talking 20 mill. The cap management is fluid enough that the impact of "pushing 3mill of Seymours contract from 06 to 07" will have a 3mill advantage this year, and less than a 3mill disadvantage next year, because there a) is a year to deal with it, and b) the decision we will make on personell next year are different than they would be this year. For example, today we may think we need that 3mill next year to sign Graham. If Graham has a poor year, or Watson has a great one and Thomas proves a strong backup, then we wouldnt need that 3mill for Graham next year. (I just used that as an example there are many players who fit the mold of predictive value 7/06 and actual value 4/07 may be very different) I like the concept you bring up of predictive value. But I think we don't save/reserve money for next year for specific players. Rather, we just know that whatever extra money is in the bank next year will help somewhere.

. . . .

 

[jczxohn1]

10 int's means they were THROWING AT HIM! They were throwing at him for a reason. How many pass interference penalties did he have last year? More than a 10 million dollar CB should have! Jets fans didn't even want him back at that price!

This has already been discussed ad nauseaum as you said. I'm just saying he isn't worth the big money any more that's all. In my opinion he'll be stifling the growth of the younger players.

He had 14 penalties called against him. 9 accepted, 5 declined (which means the play resulted in more yds than the penalty). Can he play smarter? Sure. Ty obviously went b***s to the wall last yr to prove himself. I tend to agree with you about the younger players, but we may need him anyway. IMO, the key is Biesel. If he can play acceptably in the middle and Vrabel can stay in Willie's spot, Ty's presence isn't critical. If not, and Vrabel has to move back inside, Ty would be a great asset on that side.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

The penalties are by far the biggest concern with him....

Not whether he still can play.