"Patriot Way" running out of steam? (1 Viewer)

[Aaronstory]

For years we've heard that the Patriots had the cap era "figured out" and that they would let players go and be able to replace them with someone on the roster.

It seems the cap era is catching up to the "Patriot Way", no? They are spending like the Redskins at the moment, and I have to say I'm shocked they aren't getting more press attention about the arrogance of their dealings with veterans coming back to haunt them. $12 million upfront for Stallworth? Didn't they just trade away Tom Brady's favorite WR because they didn't want to pay that kind of money?

It just seems really out of character and I was interested in getting everyone's thoughts as to why they have made such a drastic change in their approach to free-agency.

 

[KTM]

Difference in Branch was he was acting like a little ##### to get his money. If I remember correctly the deal they offered him actually had $12M in guaranteed.

 

[Slinger]

I think this extra spending has to do with the extra cap space available. I'm not a Patriots fan (far from it), but I've learned to not question their front office.

 

[Rabbid Patriot Homer]

I think it's less drastic than you're making it out ot be.

The Adalius Thomas signing was a big ticket signing, but no bigger than the Roosevelt Colvin signing a couple of years ago. Peter King said (I have not looked into this myself), that the deal that Colvin signed was worth more, on average, relative to the salary cap at that time than Adalius Thomas' did this past year. Part of the "Patriot Way" was not to just not spend money, despite what many think.

Secondly, the salary cap has gone through two years of huge growth. This won't keep happening. It seems only logical that spending should adjust to how much room you have to spend - no?

Thirdly, perhaps for the 195th time written on this forum, the Patriots WERE willing to sign Deion Branch to the money he got in Seattle - they were NOT willing, however, to rip up the last year of his contract and pay him that money immediately. They believe that doing that would open a Pandora's Box to all the other players on the team who will be entering a contract year - Watson, Wilfork, Warren, etc. Had Branch gotten the last year of his contract ripped up to get the big contract, there could have been a number of other players who opted to do the same. But the point that get's lost in the Branch discussion is that they HAD offered him the contract he got with Seattle - they only offered it a year later than Seattle did. Branch was UNDER contract.

Really the only two big signings are Thomas and now Stallworth. Welker wasn't for big money, nor was Morris and Brady, who are both on short contracts. They're just role players.

 

[Mr.Happy]

The Pats did pretty well last season with a weak WR core so this can only help.

The real benifit is that it frees us up to draft two defensive backs in the first round this year. Once we do this, that team is going to be sitting pretty.

 

[Aaronstory]

I think it's less drastic than you're making it out ot be.The Adalius Thomas signing was a big ticket signing, but no bigger than the Roosevelt Colvin signing a couple of years ago. Peter King said (I have not looked into this myself), that the deal that Colvin signed was worth more, on average, relative to the salary cap at that time than Adalius Thomas' did this past year. Part of the "Patriot Way" was not to just not spend money, despite what many think.Secondly, the salary cap has gone through two years of huge growth. This won't keep happening. It seems only logical that spending should adjust to how much room you have to spend - no?Thirdly, perhaps for the 195th time written on this forum, the Patriots WERE willing to sign Deion Branch to the money he got in Seattle - they were NOT willing, however, to rip up the last year of his contract and pay him that money immediately. They believe that doing that would open a Pandora's Box to all the other players on the team who will be entering a contract year - Watson, Wilfork, Warren, etc. Had Branch gotten the last year of his contract ripped up to get the big contract, there could have been a number of other players who opted to do the same. But the point that get's lost in the Branch discussion is that they HAD offered him the contract he got with Seattle - they only offered it a year later than Seattle did. Branch was UNDER contract.Really the only two big signings are Thomas and now Stallworth. Welker wasn't for big money, nor was Morris and Brady, who are both on short contracts. They're just role players.

Thanks for the insight. I'm a Packer homer, but live in the East Coast, so I follow the Pats a bit, but nearly as closely as the Packers. I wasn't fully aware of the Branch situation, which is why I asked. The Packers did the same thing with Walker, so I understand the reasoning behind it better now. Interesting note about the Thomas/Colvin contract comparison. I'll take a look. Thanks again.

 

[Bri]

Some teams enterred the offseason with a good amount of cap $.

While I love the signings for the most part, Bruschi, Brown, Dillon, and Graham could all be gone and they'll be difficult to replace.

Thomas might be a good looking TE but IMO Graham was the best blocking TE.

Bruschi, the heart of the D.

Brown, so clutch such a good lockerroom leader

Dillon, well Maroney better be ready

The additions get all the press but the subtractions will be sorely missed.

 

[Bill]

Thirdly, perhaps for the 195th time written on this forum, the Patriots WERE willing to sign Deion Branch to the money he got in Seattle - they were NOT willing, however, to rip up the last year of his contract and pay him that money immediately. They believe that doing that would open a Pandora's Box to all the other players on the team who will be entering a contract year - Watson, Wilfork, Warren, etc. Had Branch gotten the last year of his contract ripped up to get the big contract, there could have been a number of other players who opted to do the same. But the point that get's lost in the Branch discussion is that they HAD offered him the contract he got with Seattle - they only offered it a year later than Seattle did. Branch was UNDER contract.

 

[Boston]

*With the cap going up so much it's much more difficult to bargain shop. There's just too many teams with tons of cap space.

*Brady will be 30 this year. I firmly believe the Pats know they have about a five year window to really get things done. Once Brady leaves all bets are off. I think that's playing a part in them being a little more aggressive.

*The biggest mistake you can make with the Pats is trying to pigeonhole what they do. They constantly surprise even the most ardent Patriot follower and this offseason is another example of the fact that you just never know what they will do.

*The Pats have no big free agents next year and they have some wiggle room. I'm interested to see how some of these contracts are structured.

 

[Serenity Now]

The Pats have always spent up pretty close to the cap each year, until last year. What they didn't do was spend it all on just a couple players, they spread it out more through the middle tier guys.

They did end the season with more money available than in prior years. I think that the spending they're doing this year says something about their evaluation of what will be available to them in the draft this year versus their needs. Most rookie WRs aren't really ready to make an impact in their first year and this was a need area for them. Hopefully Stallworth has enough brains to pick up the system and the work ethic to make himself a reliable target. :fingerscrossed:

 

[Buckna]

There is a massive thread from August/September where we sliced and diced the reported deals Branch was offered. The Patriot's offered Branch what was essentially a 4 year 19M contract with 4M guaranteed (the actual offer was an 18M 3yr extension where he would play the 2006 season on his original contract's $1M base salary.)

This was well under the market rate that the Jets and Seahawks offered at the time. When Branch was traded he got the market rate from Seattle. Stallworth's contract is somewhat close to that and they have put up similar statistics and health concerns over their careers. The Pats still got a 1st for Branch and ended up spending similar money on a similar player a year later, so I'd say they are doing okay in the end.

 

[Tommy Collins]

Hopefully while they're spending all this money they'll pay the guys from Queer Eye for a Straight Guy to buy Bellychick a new wardrobe.

 

[Buckna]

Thirdly, perhaps for the 195th time written on this forum, the Patriots WERE willing to sign Deion Branch to the money he got in Seattle - they were NOT willing, however, to rip up the last year of his contract and pay him that money immediately. They believe that doing that would open a Pandora's Box to all the other players on the team who will be entering a contract year - Watson, Wilfork, Warren, etc. Had Branch gotten the last year of his contract ripped up to get the big contract, there could have been a number of other players who opted to do the same. But the point that get's lost in the Branch discussion is that they HAD offered him the contract he got with Seattle - they only offered it a year later than Seattle did. Branch was UNDER contract.

The information about the Pats motivation and not wanting tear up the last year of the existing contract is correct, but this is incorrect from a money standpoint. The Pats offered a 3 year extension with 18M in new money, of which only $4M was a guaranteed signing bonus (also another $4M roster bonus in '07 so we could call it $8M guaranteed). He would have played out the last year of his contract for 1M so it was essentially a 4 year 19M contract.The Seahawks gave him $39M over 6 years with $13M guaranteed. That is a huge difference in guaranteed money and per year averages.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think it's less drastic than you're making it out ot be.The Adalius Thomas signing was a big ticket signing, but no bigger than the Roosevelt Colvin signing a couple of years ago. Peter King said (I have not looked into this myself), that the deal that Colvin signed was worth more, on average, relative to the salary cap at that time than Adalius Thomas' did this past year. Part of the "Patriot Way" was not to just not spend money, despite what many think.Secondly, the salary cap has gone through two years of huge growth. This won't keep happening. It seems only logical that spending should adjust to how much room you have to spend - no?Thirdly, perhaps for the 195th time written on this forum, the Patriots WERE willing to sign Deion Branch to the money he got in Seattle - they were NOT willing, however, to rip up the last year of his contract and pay him that money immediately. They believe that doing that would open a Pandora's Box to all the other players on the team who will be entering a contract year - Watson, Wilfork, Warren, etc. Had Branch gotten the last year of his contract ripped up to get the big contract, there could have been a number of other players who opted to do the same. But the point that get's lost in the Branch discussion is that they HAD offered him the contract he got with Seattle - they only offered it a year later than Seattle did. Branch was UNDER contract.Really the only two big signings are Thomas and now Stallworth. Welker wasn't for big money, nor was Morris and Brady, who are both on short contracts. They're just role players.

I consider Welker's contract on the big side. Isn't he getting 4.5 million a year?

 

[nerangers]

I agree with Boston and the five year window of opportunity here. I think you will see the grooming of Brady's replacement in about two years for when the time comes.

I said it in another thread ... How the salary cap has changed the last two years has changed how other teams are doing business. FA are being picked up over market value since there is more to spend. If you wait to do some bargain shopping, those players you need are gone.

I think the Patriots have viewed what they need, and saw some good Free Agents that can fill those holes prior to the draft. I think the Patriots are sincere when they say they will draft the best player on the board at that pick. Except for CB/S, I think the Pats have done a nice job in filling some holes. It is going to be an interesting Patriots draft for sure.

Most of the signings have not been so extravagant if you look at what was given up and the price difference. Thomas is probably the biggest signing, and he fills one the the biggest needs. I would not be surprised to see the Pats sign Hartwell as well.

I think the Patriot Way is still intact, there was just a lot more wiggle room. This is what Pioli said about the FA market and the Pats so far:

Has this been the most active offseason since you’ve been involved with the Patriots?

“I don’t think it has been. You go back to the 2001 offseason, in our second year here, we signed 23 free agents that year, and 17 of those free agents ended up on our team that won the Super Bowl that year. I think maybe there seemed to be a bit slower activity the last couple of years.”

 

[nerangers]

I think it's less drastic than you're making it out ot be.The Adalius Thomas signing was a big ticket signing, but no bigger than the Roosevelt Colvin signing a couple of years ago. Peter King said (I have not looked into this myself), that the deal that Colvin signed was worth more, on average, relative to the salary cap at that time than Adalius Thomas' did this past year. Part of the "Patriot Way" was not to just not spend money, despite what many think.Secondly, the salary cap has gone through two years of huge growth. This won't keep happening. It seems only logical that spending should adjust to how much room you have to spend - no?Thirdly, perhaps for the 195th time written on this forum, the Patriots WERE willing to sign Deion Branch to the money he got in Seattle - they were NOT willing, however, to rip up the last year of his contract and pay him that money immediately. They believe that doing that would open a Pandora's Box to all the other players on the team who will be entering a contract year - Watson, Wilfork, Warren, etc. Had Branch gotten the last year of his contract ripped up to get the big contract, there could have been a number of other players who opted to do the same. But the point that get's lost in the Branch discussion is that they HAD offered him the contract he got with Seattle - they only offered it a year later than Seattle did. Branch was UNDER contract.Really the only two big signings are Thomas and now Stallworth. Welker wasn't for big money, nor was Morris and Brady, who are both on short contracts. They're just role players.

I consider Welker's contract on the big side. Isn't he getting 4.5 million a year?

Welker - new contract $18.1M/5 yrs, $9M guaranteed.

 

[dparker713]

Dont forget, that teams MUST spend something like 85% of the cap each year. The cap floor combined with the higher cap have led to some silly money being spent this offseason.

 

[Rabbid Patriot Homer]

Thirdly, perhaps for the 195th time written on this forum, the Patriots WERE willing to sign Deion Branch to the money he got in Seattle - they were NOT willing, however, to rip up the last year of his contract and pay him that money immediately. They believe that doing that would open a Pandora's Box to all the other players on the team who will be entering a contract year - Watson, Wilfork, Warren, etc. Had Branch gotten the last year of his contract ripped up to get the big contract, there could have been a number of other players who opted to do the same. But the point that get's lost in the Branch discussion is that they HAD offered him the contract he got with Seattle - they only offered it a year later than Seattle did. Branch was UNDER contract.

The information about the Pats motivation and not wanting tear up the last year of the existing contract is correct, but this is incorrect from a money standpoint. The Pats offered a 3 year extension with 18M in new money, of which only $4M was a guaranteed signing bonus (also another $4M roster bonus in '07 so we could call it $8M guaranteed). He would have played out the last year of his contract for 1M so it was essentially a 4 year 19M contract.The Seahawks gave him $39M over 6 years with $13M guaranteed. That is a huge difference in guaranteed money and per year averages.

Incorrect. You are talking about New England's INITIAL offer to Branch before the holdout. After things developed awhile, after Branch hold out and things got uglier, the Patriots offered him a 5 year, $31 million year with $11 in gauranteed money. Seatle ended up signing him to a 6 year, $39 million deal with $13 in gauranteed money, which, obviously, is more, but the notion that the Patriots didn't want to pay Branch is a myth. He got an extra year and a little more, and forced his way out of town to get it.http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/deljzc/tag/DeionBranch

http://seahawks.scout.com/2/567754.html

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Thirdly, perhaps for the 195th time written on this forum, the Patriots WERE willing to sign Deion Branch to the money he got in Seattle - they were NOT willing, however, to rip up the last year of his contract and pay him that money immediately. They believe that doing that would open a Pandora's Box to all the other players on the team who will be entering a contract year - Watson, Wilfork, Warren, etc. Had Branch gotten the last year of his contract ripped up to get the big contract, there could have been a number of other players who opted to do the same. But the point that get's lost in the Branch discussion is that they HAD offered him the contract he got with Seattle - they only offered it a year later than Seattle did. Branch was UNDER contract.

The information about the Pats motivation and not wanting tear up the last year of the existing contract is correct, but this is incorrect from a money standpoint. The Pats offered a 3 year extension with 18M in new money, of which only $4M was a guaranteed signing bonus (also another $4M roster bonus in '07 so we could call it $8M guaranteed). He would have played out the last year of his contract for 1M so it was essentially a 4 year 19M contract.The Seahawks gave him $39M over 6 years with $13M guaranteed. That is a huge difference in guaranteed money and per year averages.

Incorrect. You are talking about New England's INITIAL offer to Branch before the holdout. After things developed awhile, after Branch hold out and things got uglier, the Patriots offered him a 5 year, $31 million year with $11 in gauranteed money. Seatle ended up signing him to a 6 year, $39 million deal with $13 in gauranteed money, which, obviously, is more, but the notion that the Patriots didn't want to pay Branch is a myth. He got an extra year and a little more, and forced his way out of town to get it.http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/deljzc/tag/DeionBranch

http://seahawks.scout.com/2/567754.html

Branch was a little beeeotch.

Same caliber player as Stallworth,

I'll take Stallworth, 8 days a week.

 

[msommer]

Plus when so many teams are trying to copycat the "Patriot" way, the pickings get slimmer in that category, and at the same time it gets perhaps a bit better in the upper tier. That aside growing cap has mandated a change in immediate strategy - I'd be surprised if these contracts are not back loaded and the guaranteed money is coming in roster bonuses as opposed to signing bonuses, to alleviate possible cap hits in the future

 

[Aaronstory]

Thirdly, perhaps for the 195th time written on this forum, the Patriots WERE willing to sign Deion Branch to the money he got in Seattle - they were NOT willing, however, to rip up the last year of his contract and pay him that money immediately. They believe that doing that would open a Pandora's Box to all the other players on the team who will be entering a contract year - Watson, Wilfork, Warren, etc. Had Branch gotten the last year of his contract ripped up to get the big contract, there could have been a number of other players who opted to do the same. But the point that get's lost in the Branch discussion is that they HAD offered him the contract he got with Seattle - they only offered it a year later than Seattle did. Branch was UNDER contract.

The information about the Pats motivation and not wanting tear up the last year of the existing contract is correct, but this is incorrect from a money standpoint. The Pats offered a 3 year extension with 18M in new money, of which only $4M was a guaranteed signing bonus (also another $4M roster bonus in '07 so we could call it $8M guaranteed). He would have played out the last year of his contract for 1M so it was essentially a 4 year 19M contract.The Seahawks gave him $39M over 6 years with $13M guaranteed. That is a huge difference in guaranteed money and per year averages.

Incorrect. You are talking about New England's INITIAL offer to Branch before the holdout. After things developed awhile, after Branch hold out and things got uglier, the Patriots offered him a 5 year, $31 million year with $11 in gauranteed money. Seatle ended up signing him to a 6 year, $39 million deal with $13 in gauranteed money, which, obviously, is more, but the notion that the Patriots didn't want to pay Branch is a myth. He got an extra year and a little more, and forced his way out of town to get it.http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/deljzc/tag/DeionBranch

http://seahawks.scout.com/2/567754.html

I'll take Stallworth, 8 days a week.

You'll take him 8, but he'll only play 3, because he'll be hurt the other 5.

 

[redman]

I don't sense that these guys have quite the same character problems, but I'm wondering how similar this hastened attempt to accumulate talent by the Pats (rather than drafting and developing it) will resemble the attempt by the Chiefs in the mid-90's under Schottenheimer that ended up being a and finishing Marty's coaching tenure there.

 

[phthalatemagic]

*Brady will be 30 this year. I firmly believe the Pats know they have about a five year window to really get things done. Once Brady leaves all bets are off.

I disagree with that. Why don't you think BB will be able to find another good QB? He probably hasn't looked becuase he hasn't had to.

 

[Balco]

*Brady will be 30 this year. I firmly believe the Pats know they have about a five year window to really get things done. Once Brady leaves all bets are off.

I disagree with that. Why don't you think BB will be able to find another good QB? He probably hasn't looked becuase he hasn't had to.

I agree, the guy has a knack for finding the good qbs. Lets not forget in Cleveland he dumped Bernie Kosar for the future multiple pro bowler Todd Philcox.

 

[phthalatemagic]

*Brady will be 30 this year. I firmly believe the Pats know they have about a five year window to really get things done. Once Brady leaves all bets are off.

I disagree with that. Why don't you think BB will be able to find another good QB? He probably hasn't looked becuase he hasn't had to.

I agree, the guy has a knack for finding the good qbs. Lets not forget in Cleveland he dumped Bernie Kosar for the future multiple pro bowler Todd Philcox.

I guess that settles that?

 

[Pat Patriot]

*Brady will be 30 this year. I firmly believe the Pats know they have about a five year window to really get things done. Once Brady leaves all bets are off.

I disagree with that. Why don't you think BB will be able to find another good QB? He probably hasn't looked becuase he hasn't had to.

I agree, the guy has a knack for finding the good qbs. Lets not forget in Cleveland he dumped Bernie Kosar for the future multiple pro bowler Todd Philcox.

Didnt he replace Kosar with Testaverde? I do recall it was Vinnie that led the Browns past Parcell's Patriots in 1994.

 

[Balco]

*Brady will be 30 this year. I firmly believe the Pats know they have about a five year window to really get things done. Once Brady leaves all bets are off.

I disagree with that. Why don't you think BB will be able to find another good QB? He probably hasn't looked becuase he hasn't had to.

I agree, the guy has a knack for finding the good qbs. Lets not forget in Cleveland he dumped Bernie Kosar for the future multiple pro bowler Todd Philcox.

Didnt he replace Kosar with Testaverde? I do recall it was Vinnie that led the Browns past Parcell's Patriots in 1994.

Testervede was post Philcox. There was a huge uproar in Cleveland when BB dumped Kosar (a little unwarranted IMO, because BErnie was on the downside of his career), but Todd Philcox? I was just pointing out that even Bill Belichek makes some mistakes when evaluating talent. Rare. But it happens.

 

[Balco]

Found a couple articles about "Berniegate"

Cleveland's Reaction

Belichek

And you are right, I believe. It looks like Vinny was injured when BB made the move to Philcox. Not sure who ended the year as the starter, I am guessing VT.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I don't think it matters a great deal, since BB is clearly a different and better coach than what he was in Cleveland.

 

[tombonneau]

I don't know that this is the end of the Patriot Way; it is simple Darwinism.

Adaptability is the name of the game. That which is willing to change evolves.

IMO, that is what you are seeing the Patriots do right now. It is an evolution of their management philosophy.

Given the new CBA there has been a change in the FA environment and BB/Pioli recognize that it means you will have to spend early for the guys that you want since there is too much $$$ out there.

That's exactly what they did.

It's going to take the market a year or two to normalize to the point where there will still be value out there later into FA.

Until then, spend for who you want now before the Niners overspend for that same guy.

 

[Balco]

My favorite quote from the Mortenson article (2nd one I linked):

"Yet, it still might be a personality flaw that has betrayed Belichick, whom the Giants did not consider head-coaching material because of his people/management skills."

Those Giants had it right.

 

[Balco]

I don't know that this is the end of the Patriot Way; it is simple Darwinism.Adaptability is the name of the game. That which is willing to change evolves.IMO, that is what you are seeing the Patriots do right now. It is an evolution of their management philosophy.Given the new CBA there has been a change in the FA environment and BB/Pioli recognize that it means you will have to spend early for the guys that you want since there is too much $$$ out there.That's exactly what they did.It's going to take the market a year or two to normalize to the point where there will still be value out there later into FA.Until then, spend for who you want now before the Niners overspend for that same guy.

The only concern I would have is a Pats fan, is will they have enough $$$ to sign their key players? I have been a big believer that for the 3-4 to really work, you need versatile D Lineman. We know Seymour is the best DL in the game, able to play end and tackle equally well. Ty Warren and Vince Wilfork (Wilfork at the Nose) are also extremely important. Are they signed long term? And I am sure Brady will seek to get his contract renegotiated at some point since he is woefully underpaid. Should be interesting to see if BB/Pioli use the same stance as they did with Deon Branch.The Patriots don't have to throw a ton of $$$ on lineman because their system relies on 3 step drops and quick decisions by their qb (by the way, he is pretty good at quickly finding the open target), they just need to find guys who can open holes in the running game and hold their pass blocks for 2 seconds.

 

[tombonneau]

I don't know that this is the end of the Patriot Way; it is simple Darwinism.Adaptability is the name of the game. That which is willing to change evolves.IMO, that is what you are seeing the Patriots do right now. It is an evolution of their management philosophy.Given the new CBA there has been a change in the FA environment and BB/Pioli recognize that it means you will have to spend early for the guys that you want since there is too much $$$ out there.That's exactly what they did.It's going to take the market a year or two to normalize to the point where there will still be value out there later into FA.Until then, spend for who you want now before the Niners overspend for that same guy.

The only concern I would have is a Pats fan, is will they have enough $$$ to sign their key players? I have been a big believer that for the 3-4 to really work, you need versatile D Lineman. We know Seymour is the best DL in the game, able to play end and tackle equally well. Ty Warren and Vince Wilfork (Wilfork at the Nose) are also extremely important. Are they signed long term? And I am sure Brady will seek to get his contract renegotiated at some point since he is woefully underpaid. Should be interesting to see if BB/Pioli use the same stance as they did with Deon Branch.The Patriots don't have to throw a ton of $$$ on lineman because their system relies on 3 step drops and quick decisions by their qb (by the way, he is pretty good at quickly finding the open target), they just need to find guys who can open holes in the running game and hold their pass blocks for 2 seconds.

I think despite the new CBA, maintaining excellence is still achieved through the draft and through signing your own top players. As much of a piece of #### as he is, Bill Polian understands this and its why Indy has been competitive year in and year out. Same as (for the most part) Philly & Pittsburgh.And NE understands it too.I think they will extend Warren & Wilfork in a similar way as they did Seymour.Brady will have to get an extension in a few years once the likes of Phillip Rivers are earning more than him and his contract becomes antiquated. But to say he is woefully underpaid is untrue. I think last year he hasd the highest cap number of any player in the NFL.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

*Brady will be 30 this year. I firmly believe the Pats know they have about a five year window to really get things done. Once Brady leaves all bets are off.

I disagree with that. Why don't you think BB will be able to find another good QB? He probably hasn't looked becuase he hasn't had to.

I agree, the guy has a knack for finding the good qbs. Lets not forget in Cleveland he dumped Bernie Kosar for the future multiple pro bowler Todd Philcox.

Didnt he replace Kosar with Testaverde? I do recall it was Vinnie that led the Browns past Parcell's Patriots in 1994.

Testervede was post Philcox. There was a huge uproar in Cleveland when BB dumped Kosar (a little unwarranted IMO, because BErnie was on the downside of his career), but Todd Philcox? I was just pointing out that even Bill Belichek makes some mistakes when evaluating talent. Rare. But it happens.

To say that BB dumped Kosar for Todd Philcox is pretty disengenuous, the only reason Philcox played was because Testaverde's shoulder was banged up. There is no doubt that the move was Kosar to Testaverde and imo it was clearly the right move.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

I dunno....

Three Super Bowls...

A last minute loss in the AFC Championship Game this year...

and arguably THE BEST offseason in the NFL.

The Patriot Way is alive and well as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Balco]

I don't know that this is the end of the Patriot Way; it is simple Darwinism.Adaptability is the name of the game. That which is willing to change evolves.IMO, that is what you are seeing the Patriots do right now. It is an evolution of their management philosophy.Given the new CBA there has been a change in the FA environment and BB/Pioli recognize that it means you will have to spend early for the guys that you want since there is too much $$$ out there.That's exactly what they did.It's going to take the market a year or two to normalize to the point where there will still be value out there later into FA.Until then, spend for who you want now before the Niners overspend for that same guy.

The only concern I would have is a Pats fan, is will they have enough $$$ to sign their key players? I have been a big believer that for the 3-4 to really work, you need versatile D Lineman. We know Seymour is the best DL in the game, able to play end and tackle equally well. Ty Warren and Vince Wilfork (Wilfork at the Nose) are also extremely important. Are they signed long term? And I am sure Brady will seek to get his contract renegotiated at some point since he is woefully underpaid. Should be interesting to see if BB/Pioli use the same stance as they did with Deon Branch.The Patriots don't have to throw a ton of $$$ on lineman because their system relies on 3 step drops and quick decisions by their qb (by the way, he is pretty good at quickly finding the open target), they just need to find guys who can open holes in the running game and hold their pass blocks for 2 seconds.

I think despite the new CBA, maintaining excellence is still achieved through the draft and through signing your own top players. As much of a piece of #### as he is, Bill Polian understands this and its why Indy has been competitive year in and year out. Same as (for the most part) Philly & Pittsburgh.And NE understands it too.I think they will extend Warren & Wilfork in a similar way as they did Seymour.Brady will have to get an extension in a few years once the likes of Phillip Rivers are earning more than him and his contract becomes antiquated. But to say he is woefully underpaid is untrue. I think last year he hasd the highest cap number of any player in the NFL.

I agree with you on the draft (that is why I questioned the Welker deal). To be successful you have to do well in the draft, especially hitting on late rounders (which the Pats have done really well with in recent years). All of the successful teams have built their core through the draft and then supplemented with some free agents.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

For years we've heard that the Patriots had the cap era "figured out" and that they would let players go and be able to replace them with someone on the roster.It seems the cap era is catching up to the "Patriot Way", no? They are spending like the Redskins at the moment, and I have to say I'm shocked they aren't getting more press attention about the arrogance of their dealings with veterans coming back to haunt them. $12 million upfront for Stallworth? Didn't they just trade away Tom Brady's favorite WR because they didn't want to pay that kind of money? It just seems really out of character and I was interested in getting everyone's thoughts as to why they have made such a drastic change in their approach to free-agency.

Where are you getting this 12 Mil up front number?From what I have read it is less than 4 mil up front?I do not see a big change in philosophy from the NE front office. Yes, they did spend big on AD but they feel he is a franchise type player at a position of need. Not all that much different than what they did with Colvin a few years back (as a percentage of cap). They may have over spent a wee bit for Welker but Morris, Brady and Stallworth are all very resonable imo.

 

[tombonneau]

I don't know that this is the end of the Patriot Way; it is simple Darwinism.Adaptability is the name of the game. That which is willing to change evolves.IMO, that is what you are seeing the Patriots do right now. It is an evolution of their management philosophy.Given the new CBA there has been a change in the FA environment and BB/Pioli recognize that it means you will have to spend early for the guys that you want since there is too much $$$ out there.That's exactly what they did.It's going to take the market a year or two to normalize to the point where there will still be value out there later into FA.Until then, spend for who you want now before the Niners overspend for that same guy.

The only concern I would have is a Pats fan, is will they have enough $$$ to sign their key players? I have been a big believer that for the 3-4 to really work, you need versatile D Lineman. We know Seymour is the best DL in the game, able to play end and tackle equally well. Ty Warren and Vince Wilfork (Wilfork at the Nose) are also extremely important. Are they signed long term? And I am sure Brady will seek to get his contract renegotiated at some point since he is woefully underpaid. Should be interesting to see if BB/Pioli use the same stance as they did with Deon Branch.The Patriots don't have to throw a ton of $$$ on lineman because their system relies on 3 step drops and quick decisions by their qb (by the way, he is pretty good at quickly finding the open target), they just need to find guys who can open holes in the running game and hold their pass blocks for 2 seconds.

I think despite the new CBA, maintaining excellence is still achieved through the draft and through signing your own top players. As much of a piece of #### as he is, Bill Polian understands this and its why Indy has been competitive year in and year out. Same as (for the most part) Philly & Pittsburgh.And NE understands it too.I think they will extend Warren & Wilfork in a similar way as they did Seymour.Brady will have to get an extension in a few years once the likes of Phillip Rivers are earning more than him and his contract becomes antiquated. But to say he is woefully underpaid is untrue. I think last year he hasd the highest cap number of any player in the NFL.

I agree with you on the draft (that is why I questioned the Welker deal). To be successful you have to do well in the draft, especially hitting on late rounders (which the Pats have done really well with in recent years). All of the successful teams have built their core through the draft and then supplemented with some free agents.

Yeah, as a fan, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid yet on Welker. It seems a steep price to pay. I'm trying to use the thinking that Welker is young enough (25) that ostensibly you can kind of just say "well its like we spent our 2nd rounder on Welker" and in essence just "drafted" him. This makes it easier to swallow.I mean, if they spend this year's #2 on a guy who produces to the level that (hopefully) Welker does this year, I'd be thrilled.Plus, WRs start so notoriously slowly in the NFL (with rare Colston-like exceptions) that I think its smart to let another team absorb the learning curve cost of a guy like Welker, then you just grab him when he is ready to really start producing.

 

[Balco]

I don't know that this is the end of the Patriot Way; it is simple Darwinism.Adaptability is the name of the game. That which is willing to change evolves.IMO, that is what you are seeing the Patriots do right now. It is an evolution of their management philosophy.Given the new CBA there has been a change in the FA environment and BB/Pioli recognize that it means you will have to spend early for the guys that you want since there is too much $$$ out there.That's exactly what they did.It's going to take the market a year or two to normalize to the point where there will still be value out there later into FA.Until then, spend for who you want now before the Niners overspend for that same guy.

The only concern I would have is a Pats fan, is will they have enough $$$ to sign their key players? I have been a big believer that for the 3-4 to really work, you need versatile D Lineman. We know Seymour is the best DL in the game, able to play end and tackle equally well. Ty Warren and Vince Wilfork (Wilfork at the Nose) are also extremely important. Are they signed long term? And I am sure Brady will seek to get his contract renegotiated at some point since he is woefully underpaid. Should be interesting to see if BB/Pioli use the same stance as they did with Deon Branch.The Patriots don't have to throw a ton of $$$ on lineman because their system relies on 3 step drops and quick decisions by their qb (by the way, he is pretty good at quickly finding the open target), they just need to find guys who can open holes in the running game and hold their pass blocks for 2 seconds.

I think despite the new CBA, maintaining excellence is still achieved through the draft and through signing your own top players. As much of a piece of #### as he is, Bill Polian understands this and its why Indy has been competitive year in and year out. Same as (for the most part) Philly & Pittsburgh.And NE understands it too.I think they will extend Warren & Wilfork in a similar way as they did Seymour.Brady will have to get an extension in a few years once the likes of Phillip Rivers are earning more than him and his contract becomes antiquated. But to say he is woefully underpaid is untrue. I think last year he hasd the highest cap number of any player in the NFL.

I agree with you on the draft (that is why I questioned the Welker deal). To be successful you have to do well in the draft, especially hitting on late rounders (which the Pats have done really well with in recent years). All of the successful teams have built their core through the draft and then supplemented with some free agents.

Yeah, as a fan, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid yet on Welker. It seems a steep price to pay. I'm trying to use the thinking that Welker is young enough (25) that ostensibly you can kind of just say "well its like we spent our 2nd rounder on Welker" and in essence just "drafted" him. This makes it easier to swallow.I mean, if they spend this year's #2 on a guy who produces to the level that (hopefully) Welker does this year, I'd be thrilled.Plus, WRs start so notoriously slowly in the NFL (with rare Colston-like exceptions) that I think its smart to let another team absorb the learning curve cost of a guy like Welker, then you just grab him when he is ready to really start producing.

Thats one argument though I just don't get as far as Welker compared to a 2nd round receiver. Many Pats fans are saying that Welker would be better than a WR taken in the 2nd round. Well, yeah, of course he would. But who says that the Pats would take a WR?

 

[tombonneau]

I agree, I'm just saying its an argument that helps me offset the cost in my head.

Plus, end of the day, football is played and won on the football field. And when Welker is making killer 10 yard catches on 3rd and 8, I won't care what the Pats paid for him.

 

[Serenity Now]

Once again, it seems like early reports of the Pats spending like drunken sailors is greatly exaggerated. The details coming out on Stallworth's contract structure make way more sense:

Stallworth will receive an initial signing bonus of $1 million, a roster bonus of $1.6 million and a $300,000 workout bonus, to go along with his 2007 base salary of $700,000. That totals $3.6 million for the coming season.It's after the 2007 season, however, when the really big money could potentially kick in.For the Patriots to retain Stallworth for the 2008 season, they must pay him an option bonus of $6 million by Feb. 25, 2008. There is a subsequent roster bonus of $2 million due on March 1, a second roster bonus of $1.6 million based on playing time, a base salary of $1 million and a $400,000 workout bonus. That totals an exorbitant $11 million for 2008, or a two-year total of $14.6 million.

 

[Boston]

As far as the Patriot way goes...outside of Thomas if you take the players the Pats have signed in free agency (Stallworth, Welker, Morris and Brady) and the players they have resigned (Izzo, Yates and Evans) their combined signing signing bonuses are less than what Denver gave Graham. That's type of scenario fits pretty well into what they have done in the past.

 

[PMENFAN]

It's a pretty good deal for a quality receiver. Thought it was quite surprising to me. If the reports of the substance abuse program are true, that's even more surprising. He's hands down the best receiver to don a Pats uni in the last 10 years, or at least the most potential. Lets see how it pans out. I see it as a one year deal, because the rest of the contract is WAY out of character, and it plays into the stated goal of a 1 year deal for Stallworth, and going for more money. I could be wrong, but Jackson (assuming injury and out for year) should be back at end of year and for 2008.

I love the Thomas deal. This makes 6 years in a row with at least one LB signed at LB in free agency. Two have been, IMHO, the best LB available. So, this is not groundbreaking. Strong character, team guys, they will go and get.

I like the Welker deal. Faulk and Brown are too old for Punt/KO returns. Hobbs willbe on D more next year. Welker fills that role, AND, he can catch 60 balls. Why isn't that worth $just under $3 million a year? And, I fully expect Welker to get better. Put it this way. Do you think receiver X will play better under Tom Brady or Joey Harrington? I don't care what type of receiver it it. Welkers assets, quckness, getting open quick, and creating seperation quickly, play into the patriots gameplan to a T. He's not the donfield threat of a Stallworth, but He's a Whayne Chrebet type of guy. You can debate it ad naueeum (we have) but I think it's a great trade.

The MOrris and Brady deals deal iare nothing. They sign role players every year.

As a whole, they're picking up more in free agency than I expected. I fully expected them to be active on draft day, trading and accumulating picks. They haven't many holes left to fill, nor roster spots left. Why draft a lot of players with no room? Accumulate picks for the future, when they're more useful, and hopefully better spent

 

[bostonfred]

* "The Patriot Way" was never to skimp on free agents. It was to have quality depth at every position. That quality depth came cheaper in 2001 than it does in 2007, but they're doing the same things - they replaced their major free agent losses as or before they happened, with the exception of wide receiver which is happening a year late. They're deep at every position except linebacker and the secondary, and have a bunch of guys who can play multiple positions. If anything, I'd say this year is the best example of their Superbowl winning offseason moves since 2001.

* The Stallworth deal is exactly what both sides wanted - Stallworth wanted either a one year deal, or a multi-year deal; the Pats wanted to see what he would do before they signed him to something long term. Win-win. It's not huge money, especially in 2007 numbers. And the Pats look good in terms of major free agents in the next few years, because they used last year's extra cap money to lock up several players to longer term deals. It also looks like the way the roster bonuses are set up is intended to allow the Patriots to push some money back as "likely to be earned" and apply it across 2007 and beyond vs. 2008 and beyond if they decide to keep him.

* The Branch deal was never a short offer. Branch had no leverage in negotiating a contract extension that tore up his existing deal, so he threatened to hold out. The Patriots were probably correct in the long term to refuse to tear up an existing deal, and correct not to offer him a contract for more than he was worth, but it also may have cost them another Superbowl. If they'd been able to put their foot down on the Colts' throats in the second half of that game, things might be a lot different right now.

* I like Brady, Maroney and the D a lot in fantasy this year. Those are the only Patriots I'd even want on my roster. That includes Watson, whose fantasy value has taken a huge hit this offseason as he's no longer the a top option in the passing game. Brady's numbers took a hit last year with the dearth at wide receiver and they should be back up to their previous levels or maybe even higher this year. Maroney should have a lot more room to run this year as teams can't stay as close now that the Patriots have better players on the outside and some vertical speed. He should also benefit from being the #1 guy on a team that should once again win a lot of games in a weak division.

 

[redman]

My favorite quote from the Mortenson article (2nd one I linked):

"Yet, it still might be a personality flaw that has betrayed Belichick, whom the Giants did not consider head-coaching material because of his people/management skills."

Those Giants had it right.

Well, "people skills" is obviously why they hired Tom Coughlin.

 

[Z-Dog]

I don't see what's so stunning here. The Pats have always signed important FAs, and have been willing to spend on guys they thought were worthwhile.

What's different about the Pats this offseason more than any other is that they've traded for and signed WRs. Given how they struggled all last season with obtaining reliable WRs after the Branch debacle, this is no surprise. Everyone agreed that the Pats biggest needs going into the offseason were another playmaker at LB, and a new WR corps. They got both, BFD.

 

[nerangers]

I think the Patriots still know what they are doing. I just read a nice breakdown of the Stallworth contract and you can see how thought out it was. Plus, if things work out well, there is no reason the Pats and Stallworth could not renegotiate in 2008.

from Profootball dot com

But, contrary to the report, the deal does not include $12 million in guaranteed money. And it is not a straight six-year deal.

Instead, a league source tells us that it's a one-year deal with an option for a second year, and then an option for four more years.

In year one, Stallworth gets $1 million to sign, a workout bonus of $300,000, a base salary of $700,000, and a $1.6 million roster bonus payable if he makes the 53-man roster at the start of the reason.

Stallworth also can earn up to $400,000 in incentives. He'll get $100,000 if he catches 70 passes, another $100,000 if he catches 75 passes, another $100,000 if he catches 80 passes, and $100,000 if he is on the Pro Bowl team.

A $6 million option bonus is due shortly before the start of the 2008 league year, but after the deadline for designating franchise players. This requires the team to either pick up the option, or to allow Stallworth to hit the market unfettered by the franchise tag.

In 2008, there's also a $2 million roster bonus due on the first day of the league year, a $400,000 workout bonus, a $1 million base salary, and a $1.6 million roster bonus payable if he makes the season-opening 53-man roster.

In 2009, there's a $2 million option bonus, payable after the franchise tag deadline but before the start of the league year. If the option is exercised, the deal runs through 2012.

Also in 2009, Stallworth will receive a $400,000 workout bonus, a $1 million base salary, and a $1.6 million roster bonus based on making the season-opening 53-man roster.

In 2010 through 2012, the deal has the same terms in each year: $500,000 workout bonus and $4 million salary.

In all, it's a one-year $3.6 million deal that can be worth up to $4 million, or a two-year, $14.6 million deal that can be worth as much as $15 million, or a three-year, $19.6 million deal that can be worth as much as $20 million.

The Pats can then add on additional years at $4.5 million each, with a maximum contract value of $33.5 million.

But the only truly guaranteed money is $1 million. Not $12 million.

 

[PMENFAN]

I think the Patriots still know what they are doing. I just read a nice breakdown of the Stallworth contract and you can see how thought out it was. from Profootball dot comBut, contrary to the report, the deal does not include $12 million in guaranteed money. And it is not a straight six-year deal.Instead, a league source tells us that it's a one-year deal with an option for a second year, and then an option for four more years.In year one, Stallworth gets $1 million to sign, a workout bonus of $300,000, a base salary of $700,000, and a $1.6 million roster bonus payable if he makes the 53-man roster at the start of the reason. Stallworth also can earn up to $400,000 in incentives. He'll get $100,000 if he catches 70 passes, another $100,000 if he catches 75 passes, another $100,000 if he catches 80 passes, and $100,000 if he is on the Pro Bowl team.A $6 million option bonus is due shortly before the start of the 2008 league year, but after the deadline for designating franchise players. This requires the team to either pick up the option, or to allow Stallworth to hit the market unfettered by the franchise tag. In 2008, there's also a $2 million roster bonus due on the first day of the league year, a $400,000 workout bonus, a $1 million base salary, and a $1.6 million roster bonus payable if he makes the season-opening 53-man roster.In 2009, there's a $2 million option bonus, payable after the franchise tag deadline but before the start of the league year. If the option is exercised, the deal runs through 2012.Also in 2009, Stallworth will receive a $400,000 workout bonus, a $1 million base salary, and a $1.6 million roster bonus based on making the season-opening 53-man roster.In 2010 through 2012, the deal has the same terms in each year: $500,000 workout bonus and $4 million salary.In all, it's a one-year $3.6 million deal that can be worth up to $4 million, or a two-year, $14.6 million deal that can be worth as much as $15 million, or a three-year, $19.6 million deal that can be worth as much as $20 million.The Pats can then add on additional years at $4.5 million each, with a maximum contract value of $33.5 million. But the only truly guaranteed money is $1 million. Not $12 million.

That's a decent, palatable, contract. He really only gets huge money one year. He has a good year, gets paid, and they get him for good money. Thanks for the breakdown. Now, he certainly has my blessing to give them reason to consider paying him in year 2.

 

[Serenity Now]

I think the Patriots still know what they are doing. I just read a nice breakdown of the Stallworth contract and you can see how thought out it was.

from Profootball dot com

But, contrary to the report, the deal does not include $12 million in guaranteed money. And it is not a straight six-year deal.

Instead, a league source tells us that it's a one-year deal with an option for a second year, and then an option for four more years.

In year one, Stallworth gets $1 million to sign, a workout bonus of $300,000, a base salary of $700,000, and a $1.6 million roster bonus payable if he makes the 53-man roster at the start of the reason.

Stallworth also can earn up to $400,000 in incentives. He'll get $100,000 if he catches 70 passes, another $100,000 if he catches 75 passes, another $100,000 if he catches 80 passes, and $100,000 if he is on the Pro Bowl team.

A $6 million option bonus is due shortly before the start of the 2008 league year, but after the deadline for designating franchise players. This requires the team to either pick up the option, or to allow Stallworth to hit the market unfettered by the franchise tag.

In 2008, there's also a $2 million roster bonus due on the first day of the league year, a $400,000 workout bonus, a $1 million base salary, and a $1.6 million roster bonus payable if he makes the season-opening 53-man roster.

In 2009, there's a $2 million option bonus, payable after the franchise tag deadline but before the start of the league year. If the option is exercised, the deal runs through 2012.

Also in 2009, Stallworth will receive a $400,000 workout bonus, a $1 million base salary, and a $1.6 million roster bonus based on making the season-opening 53-man roster.

In 2010 through 2012, the deal has the same terms in each year: $500,000 workout bonus and $4 million salary.

In all, it's a one-year $3.6 million deal that can be worth up to $4 million, or a two-year, $14.6 million deal that can be worth as much as $15 million, or a three-year, $19.6 million deal that can be worth as much as $20 million.

The Pats can then add on additional years at $4.5 million each, with a maximum contract value of $33.5 million.

But the only truly guaranteed money is $1 million. Not $12 million.

That's a decent, palatable, contract. He really only gets huge money one year. He has a good year, gets paid, and they get him for good money. Thanks for the breakdown. Now, he certainly has my blessing to give them reason to consider paying making him restructure in year 2.

Fixed that for you.

 

[redman]

As you all know, I'm a 'Skins fan and my team is probably the one that's the most contrasted with the Pats' approach. What is noticeable to me is not so much that this offseason is a departure for the Pats, it's just that because it's the Pats making these signings people are giving them the benefit of the doubt and analyzing these deals more closely than they would if it was the Redskins making these same signings. When the Redskins sign someone the reflex reaction is to say, "There they go again! " rather than to examine what they're doing.

For example, critics never seem to differentiate between pre-Gibbs and post-Gibbs in terms of the team's approach - it's always "Snyder did this"; but everyone is always very careful to differentiate Belichick's NE days from his Cleveland days, or not to confuse pre-Belichick with post-Belichick moves in NE even though it was the same owner there.