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

[rabidfireweasel]

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.

I think this is because Gibbs has not been particularly successful in the his return to coaching. The three year results since his return have been similar to three years before him- 21-27 with Gibbs, 20-28 with Spurrier and Marty. The time away from the game certainly didn't help him.Belichick however, clearly learned some things after having difficulty in Cleveland. He addressed his mistakes. He has had a plan and has turned a team that was voted in a poll after the 2000 season as "the team furthest from an NFL" championship into a powerhouse- going 70-26 since then. That is why he gets the benefit of the doubt, and Gibbs and many others do not.

 

[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.

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 had forgotten about the 5yr extension offer, but both offers were made at the same time. Also, the numbers on that random person's blog you linked to are incorrect:

Although it had been widely speculated that Branch would find no suitors after the Patriots told him he had seven days to negotiate an acceptable contract with another club and then a trade with New England, Branch and agent Jason Chayut came up with two similar offers, from the Jets and Seahawks. Both were six-year deals worth roughly $39 million with $13 million upfront and $23 million spread over the first three years. That is about 30 percent higher than New England's best offer, a five-year, $28 million deal with $11 million guaranteed. The Patriots had also offered a three-year extension with an $8 million signing bonus split evenly over two years and salaries of $1.4 million, $4.3 million, and $4.75 million.

Link: Boston Globe ArticleNE's offer was a 5yr extension, so it and the 6yr offers were equivalent in length. That's significantly less money ($10M) than either the Jets or the Seahawks were willing to pay.

 

[redman]

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.

I think this is because Gibbs has not been particularly successful in the his return to coaching. The three year results since his return have been similar to three years before him- 21-27 with Gibbs, 20-28 with Spurrier and Marty. The time away from the game certainly didn't help him.Belichick however, clearly learned some things after having difficulty in Cleveland. He addressed his mistakes. He has had a plan and has turned a team that was voted in a poll after the 2000 season as "the team furthest from an NFL" championship into a powerhouse- going 70-26 since then. That is why he gets the benefit of the doubt, and Gibbs and many others do not.

Believe me, I'm not confused about the reasons for this. Winning is apparently not only its own reward, it's its own justification. When you've won three championships in four years it's going to rapidly become axiomatic that your way is The Right Way To Do Things. I just think that the overwhelming tendency to look for the wisdom in Belichick's and the Patriots' personnel moves is as one sided and lazy as is the overwhelming tendency to look for fault at the Redskins moves. It's an interesting contrast, and not just because one team has been far more successful than the other.

 

[bostonfred]

Although it had been widely speculated that Branch would find no suitors after the Patriots told him he had seven days to negotiate an acceptable contract with another club and then a trade with New England, Branch and agent Jason Chayut came up with two similar offers, from the Jets and Seahawks. Both were six-year deals worth roughly $39 million with $13 million upfront and $23 million spread over the first three years. That is about 30 percent higher than New England's best offer, a five-year, $28 million deal with $11 million guaranteed. The Patriots had also offered a three-year extension with an $8 million signing bonus split evenly over two years and salaries of $1.4 million, $4.3 million, and $4.75 million.

Link: Boston Globe ArticleNE's offer was a 5yr extension, so it and the 6yr offers were equivalent in length. That's significantly less money ($10M) than either the Jets or the Seahawks were willing to pay.

Those deals averaged out to less than .5 million a year difference. The reason Branch threatened to hold out is not because of the contract size, but because he wanted the last year of his rookie contract torn up. His argument was that he shouldn't have been asked to sign a longer-than-average rookie contract, which is why he was using the funny money contract numbers, but that's a separate conversation from what numbers the Patriots actually offered for his services.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

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.

I think this is because Gibbs has not been particularly successful in the his return to coaching. The three year results since his return have been similar to three years before him- 21-27 with Gibbs, 20-28 with Spurrier and Marty. The time away from the game certainly didn't help him.Belichick however, clearly learned some things after having difficulty in Cleveland. He addressed his mistakes. He has had a plan and has turned a team that was voted in a poll after the 2000 season as "the team furthest from an NFL" championship into a powerhouse- going 70-26 since then. That is why he gets the benefit of the doubt, and Gibbs and many others do not.

Believe me, I'm not confused about the reasons for this. Winning is apparently not only its own reward, it's its own justification. When you've won three championships in four years it's going to rapidly become axiomatic that your way is The Right Way To Do Things. I just think that the overwhelming tendency to look for the wisdom in Belichick's and the Patriots' personnel moves is as one sided and lazy as is the overwhelming tendency to look for fault at the Redskins moves. It's an interesting contrast, and not just because one team has been far more successful than the other.

I actually think the lazy thing is trying to define "a Patriot way." There isn't one, other than trying to build competition at all positions and have quality talent throughout the roster. That is it. It is nearly impossible to gauge what they will do. People simply try to contextualize how what they just did fits in with what they have always done. Belichick will have a pass in NE for a long time. I think he loses his free pass in national media (like Shanahan, Vermeil, Holgren) the NE doesn't make the AFC championship game.

 

[Buckna]

Although it had been widely speculated that Branch would find no suitors after the Patriots told him he had seven days to negotiate an acceptable contract with another club and then a trade with New England, Branch and agent Jason Chayut came up with two similar offers, from the Jets and Seahawks. Both were six-year deals worth roughly $39 million with $13 million upfront and $23 million spread over the first three years. That is about 30 percent higher than New England's best offer, a five-year, $28 million deal with $11 million guaranteed. The Patriots had also offered a three-year extension with an $8 million signing bonus split evenly over two years and salaries of $1.4 million, $4.3 million, and $4.75 million.

Link: Boston Globe ArticleNE's offer was a 5yr extension, so it and the 6yr offers were equivalent in length. That's significantly less money ($10M) than either the Jets or the Seahawks were willing to pay.

Those deals averaged out to less than .5 million a year difference. The reason Branch threatened to hold out is not because of the contract size, but because he wanted the last year of his rookie contract torn up. His argument was that he shouldn't have been asked to sign a longer-than-average rookie contract, which is why he was using the funny money contract numbers, but that's a separate conversation from what numbers the Patriots actually offered for his services.

How does 29/6 vs 39/6 equal a only 0.5 difference? It's not funny math at all, it's reality.

 

[Boston]

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.

I think this is because Gibbs has not been particularly successful in the his return to coaching. The three year results since his return have been similar to three years before him- 21-27 with Gibbs, 20-28 with Spurrier and Marty. The time away from the game certainly didn't help him.Belichick however, clearly learned some things after having difficulty in Cleveland. He addressed his mistakes. He has had a plan and has turned a team that was voted in a poll after the 2000 season as "the team furthest from an NFL" championship into a powerhouse- going 70-26 since then. That is why he gets the benefit of the doubt, and Gibbs and many others do not.

Believe me, I'm not confused about the reasons for this. Winning is apparently not only its own reward, it's its own justification. When you've won three championships in four years it's going to rapidly become axiomatic that your way is The Right Way To Do Things. I just think that the overwhelming tendency to look for the wisdom in Belichick's and the Patriots' personnel moves is as one sided and lazy as is the overwhelming tendency to look for fault at the Redskins moves. It's an interesting contrast, and not just because one team has been far more successful than the other.

The Pats were absolutely ripped last offseason for not being a player in free agency, letting Givens, AV and Willie go and than dealing Branch. To say that BB gets a free pass is simply not true and revisionist history.

 

[Boston]

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.

I think this is because Gibbs has not been particularly successful in the his return to coaching. The three year results since his return have been similar to three years before him- 21-27 with Gibbs, 20-28 with Spurrier and Marty. The time away from the game certainly didn't help him.Belichick however, clearly learned some things after having difficulty in Cleveland. He addressed his mistakes. He has had a plan and has turned a team that was voted in a poll after the 2000 season as "the team furthest from an NFL" championship into a powerhouse- going 70-26 since then. That is why he gets the benefit of the doubt, and Gibbs and many others do not.

Believe me, I'm not confused about the reasons for this. Winning is apparently not only its own reward, it's its own justification. When you've won three championships in four years it's going to rapidly become axiomatic that your way is The Right Way To Do Things. I just think that the overwhelming tendency to look for the wisdom in Belichick's and the Patriots' personnel moves is as one sided and lazy as is the overwhelming tendency to look for fault at the Redskins moves. It's an interesting contrast, and not just because one team has been far more successful than the other.

I actually think the lazy thing is trying to define "a Patriot way." There isn't one, other than trying to build competition at all positions and have quality talent throughout the roster. That is it. It is nearly impossible to gauge what they will do. People simply try to contextualize how what they just did fits in with what they have always done. Belichick will have a pass in NE for a long time. I think he loses his free pass in national media (like Shanahan, Vermeil, Holgren) the NE doesn't make the AFC championship game.

Agreed. The one constant is you never know what they'll do. No matter how much you follow them you are still constantly surprised by their moves.

 

[bostonfred]

Although it had been widely speculated that Branch would find no suitors after the Patriots told him he had seven days to negotiate an acceptable contract with another club and then a trade with New England, Branch and agent Jason Chayut came up with two similar offers, from the Jets and Seahawks. Both were six-year deals worth roughly $39 million with $13 million upfront and $23 million spread over the first three years. That is about 30 percent higher than New England's best offer, a five-year, $28 million deal with $11 million guaranteed. The Patriots had also offered a three-year extension with an $8 million signing bonus split evenly over two years and salaries of $1.4 million, $4.3 million, and $4.75 million.

Link: Boston Globe ArticleNE's offer was a 5yr extension, so it and the 6yr offers were equivalent in length. That's significantly less money ($10M) than either the Jets or the Seahawks were willing to pay.

Those deals averaged out to less than .5 million a year difference. The reason Branch threatened to hold out is not because of the contract size, but because he wanted the last year of his rookie contract torn up. His argument was that he shouldn't have been asked to sign a longer-than-average rookie contract, which is why he was using the funny money contract numbers, but that's a separate conversation from what numbers the Patriots actually offered for his services.

How does 29/6 vs 39/6 equal a only 0.5 difference? It's not funny math at all, it's reality.

The Patriots were willing to spend roughly 6 million per year on Branch. They just weren't willing to tear up his existing contract. You can spin it from Branch's perspective to say what money Branch would have gotten, but that's irrelevant to the conversation about how much the Patriots were willing to pay him. From their perspective, they already had him at 1 million for 2006 (or, as it turns out, the right to trade him). From their perspective, they DID offer him almost 6 million per year.

 

[PahtyTom]

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.

As hard as it is to admit, they are smarter than me.

 

[Serenity Now]

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.

I think this is because Gibbs has not been particularly successful in the his return to coaching. The three year results since his return have been similar to three years before him- 21-27 with Gibbs, 20-28 with Spurrier and Marty. The time away from the game certainly didn't help him.Belichick however, clearly learned some things after having difficulty in Cleveland. He addressed his mistakes. He has had a plan and has turned a team that was voted in a poll after the 2000 season as "the team furthest from an NFL" championship into a powerhouse- going 70-26 since then. That is why he gets the benefit of the doubt, and Gibbs and many others do not.

Believe me, I'm not confused about the reasons for this. Winning is apparently not only its own reward, it's its own justification. When you've won three championships in four years it's going to rapidly become axiomatic that your way is The Right Way To Do Things. I just think that the overwhelming tendency to look for the wisdom in Belichick's and the Patriots' personnel moves is as one sided and lazy as is the overwhelming tendency to look for fault at the Redskins moves. It's an interesting contrast, and not just because one team has been far more successful than the other.

I'm pretty sure that one big thing Belichick learned is that having a guy like Scott Pioli as GM is worth its weight in gold. I'm not sure if everyone saying, "Belichick did (this/that/the other thing)" is tantamount to the way most of us call all tissue Kleenex, but Belichick is not solely responsible for all these moves good or bad.Personally I think it's a synergy thing. Just like many players, they're really only as good as the system they're in. The Belichick/Pioli/Front Office/Scouting combo is a good one.

 

[Buckna]

Although it had been widely speculated that Branch would find no suitors after the Patriots told him he had seven days to negotiate an acceptable contract with another club and then a trade with New England, Branch and agent Jason Chayut came up with two similar offers, from the Jets and Seahawks. Both were six-year deals worth roughly $39 million with $13 million upfront and $23 million spread over the first three years. That is about 30 percent higher than New England's best offer, a five-year, $28 million deal with $11 million guaranteed. The Patriots had also offered a three-year extension with an $8 million signing bonus split evenly over two years and salaries of $1.4 million, $4.3 million, and $4.75 million.

Link: Boston Globe ArticleNE's offer was a 5yr extension, so it and the 6yr offers were equivalent in length. That's significantly less money ($10M) than either the Jets or the Seahawks were willing to pay.

Those deals averaged out to less than .5 million a year difference. The reason Branch threatened to hold out is not because of the contract size, but because he wanted the last year of his rookie contract torn up. His argument was that he shouldn't have been asked to sign a longer-than-average rookie contract, which is why he was using the funny money contract numbers, but that's a separate conversation from what numbers the Patriots actually offered for his services.

How does 29/6 vs 39/6 equal a only 0.5 difference? It's not funny math at all, it's reality.

The Patriots were willing to spend roughly 6 million per year on Branch. They just weren't willing to tear up his existing contract. You can spin it from Branch's perspective to say what money Branch would have gotten, but that's irrelevant to the conversation about how much the Patriots were willing to pay him. From their perspective, they already had him at 1 million for 2006 (or, as it turns out, the right to trade him). From their perspective, they DID offer him almost 6 million per year.

At least admit it that you are "spinning" it from the Pat's perspective then as well. 99% of the time the old contract is thrown out the window when a new one is negotiated or an extension is signed. They certainly thought Brady was worth tearing up the last few years of his contract when he signed an extension.I agree they didn't want to set a precedent of bowing to players that hold out, but the reality is they wanted to keep him on the payroll for 6 years at 29M which was a lot less money. It's fine if they didn't think Branch was worth more than that and their perogative to offer him what they want (in fact I applaud them for sticking to their guns), but there's no way anyone can argue they were willing to pay the "same" amount of money as the Jets or Seahawks.

 

[bostonfred]

At least admit it that you are "spinning" it from the Pat's perspective then as well. 99% of the time the old contract is thrown out the window when a new one is negotiated or an extension is signed. They certainly thought Brady was worth tearing up the last few years of his contract when he signed an extension.I agree they didn't want to set a precedent of bowing to players that hold out, but the reality is they wanted to keep him on the payroll for 6 years at 29M which was a lot less money. It's fine if they didn't think Branch was worth more than that and their perogative to offer him what they want (in fact I applaud them for sticking to their guns), but there's no way anyone can argue they were willing to pay the "same" amount of money as the Jets or Seahawks.

The Patriots had Branch for $1 million for 2006. When Branch refused to sign, the Patriots traded their rights to his $1 million contract in 2006 to the Seahawks. That was much better for Branch because they tore up his $1 million contract. But that doesn't change the fact that the Patriots were willing to spend $6 million per year to have Branch, or another receiver, from 2007 on. You claimed at the start of the thread that the Patriots weren't willing to pay market value. They were. They just weren't willing to give up an asset which was apparently valuable enough to get them a first round pick. That's not a question of whether they're willing to pay his market value, it's a question of whether they're willing to rip up their longer-than-normal rookie contracts, whether they're willing to extend players who threaten a holdout, or whether they are willing to trade players who they value for a first round pick. But it's not spin to say that they never made a (significantly) below-market offer to Branch, any more than it's spin for Branch to say that the Patriots' offer starting in 2007 was worth signfiicantly less to him than the Seahawks' offer starting in 2006 once the Seahawks were willing to trade for him. Both of those are facts.

 

[Da Guru]

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.

The Pats basically got Stallworth and a #1 pick for Branch..pretty good deal.

 

[GregR_2]

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.

The Pats basically got Stallworth and a #1 pick for Branch..pretty good deal.

There is an aspect of money, or players or draft picks where having them now makes them more valuable than getting them a year later. That's why an NFL team won't swap a pick in a round this year for one next year. Generally a pick a year later is considered 1 round worse than the same pick this year. Is this one of those cases with Branch and having to wait a year to get the payoff?One can make an excellent argument, with how close the AFC Championship game was, that they very likely may have made it to and won the Super Bowl this year had they had Branch.Perhaps going forward they might be better off, but then again if a few key players go down or just get old and don't perform like they used to, their window might not be as open as before and they'd have been better cashing in on Branch early.In that context, it's Stallworth + #1 pick for Branch + Super Bowl championship, I'm not sure you call that a good deal. Of course we don't know for sure if they'd have won with Branch so this is all hypothesizing, but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless.

 

[David Yudkin]

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.

The Pats basically got Stallworth and a #1 pick for Branch..pretty good deal.

There is an aspect of money, or players or draft picks where having them now makes them more valuable than getting them a year later. That's why an NFL team won't swap a pick in a round this year for one next year. Generally a pick a year later is considered 1 round worse than the same pick this year. Is this one of those cases with Branch and having to wait a year to get the payoff?One can make an excellent argument, with how close the AFC Championship game was, that they very likely may have made it to and won the Super Bowl this year had they had Branch.Perhaps going forward they might be better off, but then again if a few key players go down or just get old and don't perform like they used to, their window might not be as open as before and they'd have been better cashing in on Branch early.In that context, it's Stallworth + #1 pick for Branch + Super Bowl championship, I'm not sure you call that a good deal. Of course we don't know for sure if they'd have won with Branch so this is all hypothesizing, but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless.

IMO, Branch would not have had much impact on the AFCC game. The Pats inability to run the ball cost them another SB title, not their WRs. Where Branch may have impacted NE was in their regular season. Conceivably, Branch could have helped them win one more game and thus the AFCC title game would have been in NE and perhaps had a different outcome.As far as the Branch equation, essentially what N.E. is getting will be one year of Stallworth + Welker + Washington + 1st round pick = Branch. In fact, I suspect in hard dollars that the Pats will get all those players for less than Branch's salary (especially when you add in Branch's bonus money) for 2007. The new breed of Patriots receivers all signed one year deals with a limited chance of hanging around longer. However, they may well have added clauses that they would get a $10 million bonus if they married Angelina Jolie and fathered a child that was born within the next 12 months because that would be as likely as happening as say Stallworth getting his $10 million in roster and option bonuses a year from now.I still think Branch will put up ho-hum numbers from here on out and he likely will not be worth the $6.5 million that he earns per season. I don't know what his actual deal pays him now (vs the inflated numbers in the future), but I am not sure he is more than an average NFL WR1.