SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Mar 30, 2017 7:45:59 GMT -5
By the way Sean Payton just said the Saints won't sign Butler to an offer sheet and give up the 11th pick so perhaps we can put that discussion to bed. The more each day passes, the more it looks like Butler will be here on a one year 3.91 million dollar tender contract next year. The Saints have only been "kicking the tires" and the Patriots haven't been playing ball, according to reports. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 30, 2017 7:51:08 GMT -5
By the way Sean Payton just said the Saints won't sign Butler to an offer sheet and give up the 11th pick so perhaps we can put that discussion to bed. The more each day passes, the more it looks like Butler will be here on a one year 3.91 million dollar tender contract next year. The Saints have only been "kicking the tires" and the Patriots haven't been playing ball, according to reports. The Saints, like the Patriots, also lost 4.5m more in cap space yesterday because of money they borrowed back in previous years. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 30, 2017 7:53:19 GMT -5
The Packers had a very good idea. Also as good as Farve was, he was never Brady. I'm willing to bet on Brady for the next 3 years. You can think that's foolish at his age, but I learned a long time ago to never bet against Brady. Just look at his last game. At no point did I ever think it was truly over, because we have Brady. Not just a good QB, but the best clutch QB ever. Again for me if it's 3 years of Brady versus 1 year of Brady and 10 years of Jimmy, I chose the 3 years of Brady. Just look at how much Luck has won. Bill is going to leave shortly after Brady does. So it's not like you get 10 years of Bill and Jimmy. You going to really force out Brady after next year if he's playing well? Just so you can play Jimmy? Jimmy was a default backup, because they weren't going to bring in another QB with Brady coming back. All week long the talk was that Edleman could see playing time if they needed a QB. In my opinion it was all about having the Bills have to prepare for two QBs. Brissett had a thumb that was so messed up he needed season ending surgery after the game and yet Jimmy didn't play. So we don't truly know how many games Jimmy would have missed if Brady didn't come back. If I remember right it was all about how much pain Jimmy could play through and you wouldn't know that unless he played. Not a major worry, but it is a red flag. It's not about who's going to be good for longer for me, it's who gives you the best chance at winning the most titles. You seem to be ok moving on from Brady next year, so we can have Jimmy for 10 years. If you don't know when Brady declines you could be costing us a title or two. I don't want to become the Colts. Sure they got a good QB for years, but they went from having a good chance at a title every year to not really having much of a chance. You are 100% correct that only Bill's opinion matters. If the Browns offer #12 and 2-3 second rounders and Bill declines, it means one of two things. Bill thinks Jimmy is better than a Romo or they worry Brady walks away if he wins another title next year. If Bill thinks that highly of Jimmy then try and sign him long-term. No need to move on from Brady if he's still playing at a high level. You could always franchise Jimmy for two years, which gives Brady 3 years. It would be tough under cap, but if he's that good it's worth it. All this is well and good but yesterday's conversation had nothing to do with personal feelings or making likely predictions of out comes. From the start it was only about acknowledging there were different ways this could play out, some of which are not a story book ending here for Brady. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 30, 2017 7:57:12 GMT -5
Why do you think Bill retires shortly after Brady is done here? Is that simply based off of their ages? Like you think Brady will be here another 3-5 years and Bill is about to be 65 so just mathematically you think it will be that way? Or are you making an assumption on Bill not wanting to coach a different QB?
Also, taking Brady out of it, do you think Belichick would start making short term decisions for his own selfish benefit because he won't care about how things are when he's gone?
|
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 8:11:01 GMT -5
Part of the reason the Colts had not very much of a chance was that they went all-in for Manning. They came away with one title, and ended up with a thin roster when they -did- luck out on getting another franchise QB. They put all their money and made their roster top-heavy, which resulted in no depth when the inevitable injuries hit. They're -still- digging their way out of that one. The reasoning was exactly the same as you're grousing: 'they didn't know how long they would have Manning, so they went for it, because they didn't want to cost themselves a chance at an extra title or two'. And that's exactly how they ended up in that situation when they -did- luck out and had Luck.
The Packers didn't do the same for Favre - they kept the roster stacked, let Favre go, and played Rodgers because by then they felt that Rodgers gave them a better chance to win long-term.
Also, the sheer ridiculousness of franchising a QB so you can make him play backup two years is... well, a very good way to thin the rest of the roster and NOT give either QB a chance to win. Tagging a QB like that for -two- years would cost like, about 40+ million over that two years. It would -not- be worth it. At all. That kind of money would cost you perhaps half the depth of the team, and actually make you exactly like the Colts.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 30, 2017 8:15:22 GMT -5
If Bill franchises Jimmy it's not because he's looking at him as a backup QB, it's because he's looking at him as a top starting quarterback option. In his eyes the money would be an expensive insurance policy on the most important spot on the field. Yes, it will cost them elsewhere but with good roster management that's doable.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 30, 2017 8:23:17 GMT -5
This was a good read... if you are a Pats fan, I really suggest making www.patspulpit.com a regular read. They proved a lot of things for you to read and think about and also have a daily links post that gathers content from videos and articles into one place so you don't have to go searching for it on your own. I always find things there that doesn't show up on teamstream. www.patspulpit.com/2017/3/29/15085952/the-patriots-recent-drafts-led-to-bill-belichicks-2017-offseason-shopping-spreeThis is an interesting take on why trading 5 years of the first rd pick for even just 2 years of Cooks likely provides more value. I am very interested to see what they do with Cooks in two years because I find it hard to believe Belichick will pay top dollar for a Wide Receiver. Personally, I think it's a bad use of cap space so I'm expecting Cooks to be a 2 year player in NE. |
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 8:59:04 GMT -5
Pats Pulpit -is- a great read.
And I think Bill would franchise Jimmy for one year, easily enough, if he felt Brady was gone after two years, but I have a hard time picturing him doing so two years in a row. He'd be negotiating a long-term contract after the first tag, I imagine.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 30, 2017 12:06:12 GMT -5
Why do you think Bill retires shortly after Brady is done here? Is that simply based off of their ages? Like you think Brady will be here another 3-5 years and Bill is about to be 65 so just mathematically you think it will be that way? Or are you making an assumption on Bill not wanting to coach a different QB? Also, taking Brady out of it, do you think Belichick would start making short term decisions for his own selfish benefit because he won't care about how things are when he's gone? Bill is on record saying there's no way he's coaching in his 70s, that's me paraphrasing it. Has nothing to do with the QB. Things could change, but that makes sense. He's not going to coach forever. I don't think so, but you never know. |
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 12:18:48 GMT -5
Bill was on record as of saying that 'not coaching in his 70s', but that was on a documentary in 2011 covering... whichever team he'd just gotten coaching that had wore him out.
That's about the last time we've heard him say anything on the matter - over the past few years, though, that seems to have gone away quietly. Interpret the silence as you will, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 12:19:24 GMT -5
Addition:
The latest 'rumors' post-Super Bowl said he wanted to outlast Brady, from a Michael Freeman report. Eh. That could be a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 30, 2017 12:46:58 GMT -5
Part of the reason the Colts had not very much of a chance was that they went all-in for Manning. They came away with one title, and ended up with a thin roster when they -did- luck out on getting another franchise QB. They put all their money and made their roster top-heavy, which resulted in no depth when the inevitable injuries hit. They're -still- digging their way out of that one. The reasoning was exactly the same as you're grousing: 'they didn't know how long they would have Manning, so they went for it, because they didn't want to cost themselves a chance at an extra title or two'. And that's exactly how they ended up in that situation when they -did- luck out and had Luck. The Packers didn't do the same for Favre - they kept the roster stacked, let Favre go, and played Rodgers because by then they felt that Rodgers gave them a better chance to win long-term. Also, the sheer ridiculousness of franchising a QB so you can make him play backup two years is... well, a very good way to thin the rest of the roster and NOT give either QB a chance to win. Tagging a QB like that for -two- years would cost like, about 40+ million over that two years. It would -not- be worth it. At all. That kind of money would cost you perhaps half the depth of the team, and actually make you exactly like the Colts. The Colts have talent, your looking at the difference a truly elite QB makes and just a good one in Luck. It's been what 5 years since Manning left. You could build a team from scratch in that time. The exact thing happened in Dallas with Romo. A bunch of those teams were very talented. There's just a huge difference between a good QB and a great one. That's why Dallas looked better under Prescott. I don't know if he'll be a better overall QB, but when games on the line he raises his play. When the games on the line certain QBs raise their games, some are the same and some buckle under the pressure.
Tagging Jimmy is not ideal. Thing is will be sign a long-term deal without knowing how long Brady will play? Tagging him could be only way to keep him. I just don't see the Patriots moving on from Brady while he is playing great.
Half the team depth??? You do know how the Patriots are built right? Nevermind the cap keeps increasing. It will hurt your depth, but it won't come even close to what you think. If they cut Danny, even after signing rookies they would have 20 million in cap space. That's what happens when you trade a Chandler Jones for Mitchell and Thunley, instead of paying Jones. The way the Patriots draft and develop players would allow them to do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 30, 2017 12:54:42 GMT -5
Bill is going to retire at some point, no? Most people set an age to retire and do it. Heck more people retire early. You have to assume that's his goal until he says something different.
|
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 14:08:28 GMT -5
Christ on a bike, why is it so inconcievable that in order to -keep- Garoppolo, the Patriots -have- to move on from Brady?
You can't keep Garoppolo sitting on the bench -three- years at least. Two is at least concievable enough, but if he's the kind of player that'd be content sitting on the bench instead of starting, he's not the kind of QB you'd want to start for your franchise as a competitor.
And yes, I -have- watched the team being constructed. So let me turn that back on you.
I turn that right back on you. Given the way the team was built, does franchising a BACKUP QB two years in a row make any sense at all
And...
The whole idea that you can miss out on 1-2 TITLES while you have the Greatest becasue you didn't put enough around him... well, I submit the Patriots did exactly that in 2009-2012, because they were willing to rebuild their franchise without tearing it down. It worked, they built something that kept things going with more titles than the 1 or two more they might have gotten if they'd, say, signed Deion Branch or held on to Richard Seymour. Frustrating, no doubt, and I've heard the whinging about how they could have won more if they'd invested the money in Branch. Thing is, the picks from Seymour and Branch turned into players for this current generation that's -how- Tom Brady is in position right now to have won two of the last three Super Bowls.
That kind of management is why I just don't see the Patriots letting Brady play till he drops. They'd have to be planning for life without Brady, and no, franchising Garoppolo two years in a row is not one of those. One maybe, and that would presume Brady only plays two more years. It's why I think you'd have to overwhelm Belichick with offers more than, I think, has been done so far.
The real trick, I imagine, is whether Belichick is the type who would max out -his- career. So far, no real signs of it, I think. Just typical Belichick for the most part with 'get good players as cheaply as possible'.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 30, 2017 14:14:45 GMT -5
Simple Tom Brady is best QB ever and still playing at an elite level. It's that simple. Get back to be whenever Brady starts to decline.
I have to say you amaze me in that your love for Jimmy means your willing to just get rid of the best QB ever while he's still an elite QB. How does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 30, 2017 14:24:56 GMT -5
I haven't seen one person here suggest moving on from Brady right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 30, 2017 14:27:59 GMT -5
Did you miss digit talking about trading Brady instead of Jimmy?
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 30, 2017 14:33:13 GMT -5
Did you miss digit talking about trading Brady instead of Jimmy? Perhaps or I misread it... I didn't think he meant now I thought he was talking at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 14:42:05 GMT -5
You are correct, rjp313jr. At some point. I did suggest Belichick might do the unexpected and trade Brady instead of Garoppolo,
|
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 14:44:48 GMT -5
And I don't love Garoppolo as much as Brady. I just think counting on him 'until he declines' is -not- a viable long-term strategy because you do NOT want to be caught during his decline phrase. At this point, I'd go year to year with him regardless of what he says, and planning like that would be a wiser course of action than "do everything you can while he plays great, then he'll retire when he declines"... yeah, I don't trust that idea one single bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 31, 2017 8:39:18 GMT -5
Switching things up a bit... since the bulk of NFL free agency is over as the NFL draft has very little predictable affect on teams in year one I decided to take a quick(ish) look at where the Patriots competition will come from this year. After reviewing things I think the 5 most obvious teams are Oakland, Pittsburg and Houston in the AFC and Atlanta and Dallas in the NFC, but each of those teams has massive question marks.
Oakland - if Carr comes back strong then I think this is the team that is potentially the biggest threat.
Pittsburg - great offense - maybe even better than the Patriots with Bryant returning but that defense and their head coach get eaten alive by New England
Houston - if they get Romo then things can change drastically if he stays healthy but without that their offense is terrible. But they have the best front 7 in the league and know how to game plan against the Patriots so it can be a potential stumbling block if they match up. Losing their best corner will hurt a lot tho.
Dallas - that offense is very very good and the QB could be special which can trump all else but they just lost most of their secondary and did nothing to replace it.
Atlanta - returns almost all their players and added Poe to the defense but losing the amount of coaching they did on the offensive side of the ball will be interesting to watch. All we heard was house important Shannahan was to them so now we find out how true that is. I tend to think they are right back at the top of the NFC.
Denver - defense is another year older - young QBs would need to take massive steps forward and Thomas is soft (just wanted to add that in)
Indy - Ha
Green Bay - sorry we saw how flawed they were last year and it doesn't seem like they got much better. Perhaps they get a better running game but they lost 2 of their better offensive linemen and hope to cover that up with better blocking at Tight end... their pass defense was worst in the league last year by some measures and they haven't really addressed it.
Carolina - maybe last year was a one year dip... I don't think Newton is a winning player tho. I'll never get the image of him not trying to get the fumbled snap on the super bowl out of my head...
Arizona - too old
Seattle - I could see one more run from the Legion of boom out of this group but I always questioned their staying power.. sure they were awesome when Wilson and all those guys were on rookie contracts but now they are making money and taking cap room...
Other than these teams (I may have overlooked someone), I think the dark horses this year are Tennessee and Tampa Bay.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 31, 2017 9:15:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 31, 2017 9:56:09 GMT -5
I wonder if they bring Blount back... I kind of hope they don't - I never thought he was a good short yardage back... he had that one epic goal-line run but beyond that he is way too slow
To the line and generally runs too high to plow forward for a yard or two... yea he carries half a team when he gets a full head of steam but that doesn't happen at the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 31, 2017 9:59:22 GMT -5
I'm just hoping Burkhead can take over Blount's role - he seems very good at short-yardage from the stats I saw brandied about when he was signed. If he can, his versatility would give the Patriots a lot more room to disguise run/pass plays, especially if they ever get Gronk and Allen on the field at the same time. With Lewis's injury history, Burkhead would help out in making it difficult to diagnoise run vs pass.
Has James White improved his running skill enough to make it even trickier? He seemed to in the Super Bowl, but that also seemed like a function of the Falcons just flatout running out of gas at the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 31, 2017 10:39:41 GMT -5
I wonder if they bring Blount back... I kind of hope they don't - I never thought he was a good short yardage back... he had that one epic goal-line run but beyond that he is way too slow To the line and generally runs too high to plow forward for a yard or two... yea he carries half a team when he gets a full head of steam but that doesn't happen at the line. I don't think they bring him back. I think Burkhead replaced him. |
|
|
