Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Belichick: GFIW?


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 There is no Rev


  • through the velvety hallway


  • 23,627 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:06 PM

I was thinking about the talk of the Patriots' interest in Revis and it got me thinking: when, if ever, do we think Belichick goes into GFIN mode?

 

One of the hallmarks of this decade+ long run has been Belichick's job security and the stability of having Brady locked up. This stability and security has allowed him to make personnel decisions with an eye to the long run viability of the team. As such, he hasn't had the incentive that some coaches do to gamble on a players for top dollar or do anything that might mess up the cap for a few seasons (compare and contrast: Rex Ryan and the Jets).

 

Is there some point where that changes? That the calculus for Belichick becomes one where you blow the wad to get another ring before going out even if it's risky towards the longer term prospects of the team?



#2 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 16,292 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:16 PM

I was thinking about the talk of the Patriots' interest in Revis and it got me thinking: when, if ever, do we think Belichick goes into GFIN mode?

 

One of the hallmarks of this decade+ long run has been Belichick's job security and the stability of having Brady locked up. This stability and security has allowed him to make personnel decisions with an eye to the long run viability of the team. As such, he hasn't had the incentive that some coaches do to gamble on a players for top dollar or do anything that might mess up the cap for a few seasons (compare and contrast: Rex Ryan and the Jets).

 

Is there some point where that changes? That the calculus for Belichick becomes one where you blow the wad to get another ring before going out even if it's risky towards the longer term prospects of the team?

I think they should go into GFIN mode.  As we all know, the most important position in football now is the QB.  Brady does not have many top-flight years left in him, so if I were Belichick I would try to surround him with as much premium talent as I could.  Just like he did in 2007 when he traded for Randy Moss, I think he should roll the dice and try to trade for Revis.  Revis is at a serious position of need, so I'd pull out all the stops to get him.  If they can get him, you also franchise Talib because Revis' 2013 salary is low and you could afford to pay a higher price for Talib.  You then sign Revis to an extension and let Talib play out his franchise year.



#3 Harry Hooper


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,523 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:16 PM

Finally using both #1 picks in last year's draft was cited by some as a "go for it" move.



#4 MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

  • 4,078 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:18 PM

If it's not the next two years with Brady then it's virtually never. Even Belichick, or perhaps Belichick most of all, must realize that Brady is a once-in-a-generation franchise player and that every historical indicator says he's got maybe two great years left.

 

If he doesn't see himself leaving any time soon, then he continues to play the consistently-high-level card and doesn't mortgage the future to squeeze one more ring out of Brady. But if he has any inclination toward leaving, he's got to take a shot here.

 

But what does that even look like? Back-heavy contracts? Actually using all of the cap? Trading future picks to move up this year? Giving Welker his money?

 

We've seen what happens (the Jets) when teams try to spend their way to a title.  



#5 redsahx

  • 1,407 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:21 PM

Just like he did in 2007 when he traded for Randy Moss, I think he should roll the dice and try to trade for Revis.  Revis is at a serious position of need, so I'd pull out all the stops to get him.  If they can get him, you also franchise Talib because Revis' 2013 salary is low and you could afford to pay a higher price for Talib.  You then sign Revis to an extension and let Talib play out his franchise year.


I can't envision a scenario where the Jets trade Revis to New England. However I do think we've seen signs of Belichick getting more aggressive such as trading up twice in the first round last year and emptying out his middle round picks for this draft by trading a 4th for Talib.

#6 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 11,117 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:22 PM

Finally using both #1 picks in last year's draft was cited by some as a "go for it" move.

 

 

There was also many that cited the potential weaknesses of this draft as the reason for using both.  Additionally, the change in rookie contracts/value is a huge part of that calculus.  It's very possible BB feels stockpiling picks doesn't carry the same weight as it did before the change.



#7 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 16,292 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:23 PM

I can't envision a scenario where the Jets trade Revis to New England. However I do think we've seen signs of Belichick getting more aggressive such as trading up twice in the first round last year and emptying out his middle round picks for this draft by trading a 4th for Talib.

I agree that it's a longshot, but if the Patriots have the best deal on the table for him they'd be stupid not to take it.  As I stated, the Patriots would have to pay a bigger price but I think it would be worth it.



#8 Dollar

  • 3,296 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:29 PM

I can't envision a scenario where the Jets trade Revis to New England. However I do think we've seen signs of Belichick getting more aggressive such as trading up twice in the first round last year and emptying out his middle round picks for this draft by trading a 4th for Talib.

 

Agreed.  Unfortunately, the Pats haven't stocked up as many draft picks as they usually have this time of year.  While I don't see them going after Revis, I could see Belichick going after a few talented players on some teams who are trying to start fresh and cut salary.  Names that come to mind are TJ Ward (S Cle), Aaron Ross (CB Jax), Chris Houston (CB Det), or maybe even Adrian Wilson (S Ari).  If Belichick is going to go for it all this offseason, it could be seen as mortgaging the future a bit by sacrificing some future draft picks, but at this point I'd definitely be okay with that. 


Edited by Dollar, 26 January 2013 - 12:30 PM.


#9 Kenny F'ing Powers


  • posts 18% useful shit


  • 5,498 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:36 PM

I honestly believe that BB's coaching mentality, "Focus on what we have this week" is the same mentality he takes regarding his career. I think he's going to manage the cap/draft the way he always has, and the year he decides to retire the team will be managed the same way it is today.



#10 FL4WL3SS


  • Mrs. Dennis Wideman


  • 6,151 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:40 PM

I can't envision a scenario where the Jets trade Revis to New England. However I do think we've seen signs of Belichick getting more aggressive such as trading up twice in the first round last year and emptying out his middle round picks for this draft by trading a 4th for Talib.

He was more aggressive in the draft last year because the value has changed for high first round draft picks. It's pretty much as simple as that. To point to his drafting strategy in a year where the entire pay scale of the draft changed as an indicator of him going for it now is misguided.



#11 Toe Nash

  • 3,079 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:44 PM

There's a good amount of diminishing returns involved, I'd say. As discussed in many threads, it's not like they haven't had a team capable of winning it all the last few years, with a few more breaks (and in the SB years, maybe just one more break). Certainly they could trade a bunch of picks to get a certain player or two, but how much would that really increase their chances of winning, even that year? If they had a mediocre base it would probably make more sense to go all-in in the hopes of getting one ring, even if it hurt you further down the road.

 

I'd rather have a relatively high chance of winning until Brady retires and then still have a decent team for the next coach to build from than have a slightly higher chance of winning with a much bigger drop-off afterwards. I think BB feels similarly even if he's not going to be the one to coach those future teams. Perhaps he feels he owes it to Kraft.



#12 Jungleland

  • 597 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:46 PM

I don't want to see them ever GFIN unless they have absolutely zero faith in Ryan Mallet or whoever the QB of the future du jour is in a few years when Brady's done. No go for it now move will ever guarantee a Super Bowl, and as long as you have a healthy Brady, you're going to be in the running with some of the best odds to win it all. On top of that, I think the seeds are thus far in place for a successful tradition to a post Brady-era. The only thing GFIN moves guarantee is that that transition will be more difficult. Knowing that the odds favor the Pats being among the final 4-6 teams every year with Brady and that it takes a great deal of luck to win the whole shebang, I don't see why BB would want to start mortgaging the future for the present. Toe Nash's argument of diminishing returns is almost exactly how I feel about it.



#13 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 16,292 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:58 PM

I don't want to see them ever GFIN unless they have absolutely zero faith in Ryan Mallet or whoever the QB of the future du jour is in a few years when Brady's done. No go for it now move will ever guarantee a Super Bowl, and as long as you have a healthy Brady, you're going to be in the running with some of the best odds to win it all. On top of that, I think the seeds are thus far in place for a successful tradition to a post Brady-era. The only thing GFIN moves guarantee is that that transition will be more difficult. Knowing that the odds favor the Pats being among the final 4-6 teams every year with Brady and that it takes a great deal of luck to win the whole shebang, I don't see why BB would want to start mortgaging the future for the present. Toe Nash's argument of diminishing returns is almost exactly how I feel about it.

 

Diminishing returns is all well and good, but is a scenario where they mortgage picks or a high price tag to improve the secondary that diminishing?  I agree in pretty much every other position except for coverage LB this is the case, but there needs to be a major upgrade at CB and more depth at safety.  I'd be in favor of aggressively pursuing options that Belichick has not gone after or elected to pay a premium price for in the past.



#14 WheresDewey

  • 8 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:59 PM

Are we really sure Belichik will retire with Brady?  I think he has the pride (or perhaps hubris) to want to prove his success isn't dependent upon Brady (or Parcells).  I think he will coach at least a few seasons after Brady retires, health willing. 



#15 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,461 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:06 PM

I don't think we'll see Belichick totally mortgage the long-term at the expense of the short term.

1) Outside of Brady, the team is reasonably young. It's not like a Celtics situation where it's all old dudes.

2) QB is the most important position, but Belichick philosophically approaches it like it's just another position (hence me yelling at the TV with 5 minutes left in the fourth quarter up 21 and Brady's still in there). Position-by-position, he assesses his short-term and long-term options and prioritizes accordingly. I don't think he subscribes to the belief that the Pats have no chance at a Super Bowl without Brady and all of their planning should depend on his projected window of effectiveness.

3) I don't think Belichick would shift into the GM role after retiring from coaching, but I do think he'll stay in the organization in some capacity. I don't think he'll want to screw the team over on the way out the door.

4) The Krafts are involved with some of the salary cap pieces and are going to have to sign off on short-term cap shenanigans that are going to damage the team long-term. I doubt they're willing to do that.



#16 Jungleland

  • 597 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:20 PM

Diminishing returns is all well and good, but is a scenario where they mortgage picks or a high price tag to improve the secondary that diminishing?  I agree in pretty much every other position except for coverage LB this is the case, but there needs to be a major upgrade at CB and more depth at safety.  I'd be in favor of aggressively pursuing options that Belichick has not gone after or elected to pay a premium price for in the past.

 

Secondary is an enormous area of need, I won't disagree with you on that. I suppose part of the problem with such an argument is not knowing exactly what "going for it now" would really entail. Throwing a first round pick at the Jets for a likely one-year rental of Darelle Revis would be foolish, in my opinion, as it's incredibly unlikely that he'd be around beyond the upcoming season. On the other hand, if there's a situation like 2007 where you can trade a fairly significant chunk of the draft for value guys that will be easier to keep around for the long haul, the possibility becomes much more reasonable. The problem is the incredible unlikeliness finding the cornerback and safety equivalents of an incredible slot receiver on a bad offense and the second best receiver of all time coming off two down years with plenty left in the tank.



#17 Bergs

  • 3,119 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:07 PM

What the fuck is "GFIW"?



#18 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,366 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:11 PM

Assume it's "Go For It...When?"

#19 Wilco's Last Fan

  • 385 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:12 PM

What the fuck is "GFIW"?

Presumably "go for it when".

Edit: Damn. Too slow on the trigger.

Edited by Wilco's Last Fan, 26 January 2013 - 02:12 PM.


#20 Al Zarilla


  • SoSH Member


  • 21,357 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:18 PM

Go for it while Band B are still here. 



#21 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,814 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:24 PM

I'm a 100% against this.  Every season is more or less equally important to me so I have very little interest in, for example, sacrificing wins in 2015 and 2016 to help the 2013 team win.  



#22 Trlicek's Whip

  • 2,976 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:25 PM

Great thread. Thinking about the entire concept of GFIN, has there been an NFL team that was obviously in GFIN that with picks/FA/moves then *won* the Super Bowl? 

 

I guess any teams that repeat tend to GFIN, with the awareness of an aging core player group.

 

But a lot of NFL teams sort of find themselves peaking at the right time, get some breakouts, some breaks, then win it. Like the 1st Patriots championship.

 

It seems that when it's a conscious decision to do so that it's tricky. Either because the attitude is "we just won the SB, we're fine, we just need to lock up our key contributors" so nothing is really changed out of loyalty to the group that brought you there, or the rotisserie/fantasy football approach where you buy an All-Pro at every position the next year to be "same, only better." 


Edited by Trlicek's Whip, 26 January 2013 - 02:27 PM.


#23 Scoops Bolling

  • 2,869 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:36 PM

Great thread. Thinking about the entire concept of GFIN, has there been an NFL team that was obviously in GFIN that with picks/FA/moves then *won* the Super Bowl? 

 

I guess any teams that repeat tend to GFIN, with the awareness of an aging core player group.

 

But a lot of NFL teams sort of find themselves peaking at the right time, get some breakouts, some breaks, then win it. Like the 1st Patriots championship.

 

It seems that when it's a conscious decision to do so that it's tricky. Either because the attitude is "we just won the SB, we're fine, we just need to lock up our key contributors" so nothing is really changed out of loyalty to the group that brought you there, or the rotisserie/fantasy football approach where you buy an All-Pro at every position the next year to be "same, only better." 

The Elway Broncos are probably the best example of a successful GFIN team.



#24 There is no Rev


  • through the velvety hallway


  • 23,627 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:42 PM

I don't think we'll see Belichick totally mortgage the long-term at the expense of the short term.

1) Outside of Brady, the team is reasonably young. It's not like a Celtics situation where it's all old dudes.

2) QB is the most important position, but Belichick philosophically approaches it like it's just another position (hence me yelling at the TV with 5 minutes left in the fourth quarter up 21 and Brady's still in there). Position-by-position, he assesses his short-term and long-term options and prioritizes accordingly. I don't think he subscribes to the belief that the Pats have no chance at a Super Bowl without Brady and all of their planning should depend on his projected window of effectiveness.

3) I don't think Belichick would shift into the GM role after retiring from coaching, but I do think he'll stay in the organization in some capacity. I don't think he'll want to screw the team over on the way out the door.

4) The Krafts are involved with some of the salary cap pieces and are going to have to sign off on short-term cap shenanigans that are going to damage the team long-term. I doubt they're willing to do that.

 

These are all very good points. Belichick has to be aware, though, of the difference in the narrative of his legacy should he win another Super Bowl versus if he does not. Insofar as another win cements his place in football history, it makes the payoff that much greater. I could even imagine Kraft signing off on a move that he might not otherwise. I don't mean mortgaging the whole future, obviously--Kraft is a business man, after all--but precisely because they are only a piece or two away, they might see the cost-benefit analysis as favoring trading a future pick or something when they otherwise wouldn't.

 

Schilling knew that if he wove himself into Boston's narrative and won the World Series, that could maybe push him over the hump for the HoF, and that influenced his decision to come to Boston. Belichick, Brady and Kraft are looking for best team legacy ever. Uncommon stakes.

 

 

 

I'm a 100% against this.  Every season is more or less equally important to me so I have very little interest in, for example, sacrificing wins in 2015 and 2016 to help the 2013 team win.  

 

I haven't decided if I would be against it or not, myself. It just occurred to me to wonder if Belichick's incentive structure might be different given the phase of his career and the stakes.

 

Basically, I'm nerding out a bit.


Edited by Reverend, 26 January 2013 - 02:44 PM.


#25 Papelbon's Poutine


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,667 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:45 PM

Yeah the Broncos really went for it when they spent that 6th round pick on Terell Davis.

#26 Buck Showalter


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,009 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:45 PM

Are we really sure Belichik will retire with Brady?  I think he has the pride (or perhaps hubris) to want to prove his success isn't dependent upon Brady (or Parcells).  I think he will coach at least a few seasons after Brady retires, health willing. 


Bingo!

BB ain't going anywhere.

#27 Dollar

  • 3,296 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:57 PM

Yeah the Broncos really went for it when they spent that 6th round pick on Terell Davis.

After losing to the Jaguars in the '97 Divisional playoffs, the Broncos acquired fullback Howard Griffith, kick returner Darrien Gordon, and defensive linemen Neil Smith and Keith Traylor.  All were established veterans at that point, and contributed to the Broncos consecutive Super Bowl wins.  Whether or nor I'd call that good free agent signings, or true GFIN moves, I'm not sure.  But they didn't just sit back and let their two championships happen.

 

edit: you could also throw in the Bill Romanowski acquisition the year before.  Getting an aging guy like that is a clear GFIN move.


Edited by Dollar, 26 January 2013 - 02:59 PM.


#28 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,434 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:01 PM

Let's be honest -- this is Revis thread by another name, and that ain't happenin'. It ain't happenin' because Red October has probably accurately pegged the premium required to get Revis here -- two 1sts and Mallet -- and because that's not the way this franchise is run. It's not that the team is beyond reactionary moves. It made them in 2007 when Moss and Welker came aboard. BB maybe still is feeling sore about the dreck he ran out at WR in "06, which might well have contributed substantially to not playing the Rex Grossman Bears in the SB that season. A Lombardi lost. But the Pats got both players on the cheap, taking advantage of the hell hole that Oak had become and Miami undervaluing Welker. CB is a heartache for us, but Revis ain't coming cheap and he wouldn't guarantee anything.

#29 There is no Rev


  • through the velvety hallway


  • 23,627 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:04 PM

I take your point, but I was actually wondering if there were other non-Revis possible moves the team could explore and was wondering what other thoughts people had.

 

Or it may just be a weak and likely quiet offseason as someone (phragle?) posted elsewhere.



#30 Toe Nash

  • 3,079 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:07 PM

After losing to the Jaguars in the '97 Divisional playoffs, the Broncos acquired fullback Howard Griffith, kick returner Darrien Gordon, and defensive linemen Neil Smith and Keith Traylor.  All were established veterans at that point, and contributed to the Broncos consecutive Super Bowl wins.  Whether or nor I'd call that good free agent signings, or true GFIN moves, I'm not sure.  But they didn't just sit back and let their two championships happen.

 

edit: you could also throw in the Bill Romanowski acquisition the year before.  Getting an aging guy like that is a clear GFIN move.

 

And they broke the rules to do so, no? That sounds like GFIN in the sense that they didn't care what happened in the future.

 

http://www.gazette.c...salary-cap.html



#31 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,434 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:08 PM

I take your point, but I was actually wondering if there were other non-Revis possible moves the team could explore and was wondering what other thoughts people had.
Or it may just be a weak and likely quiet offseason as someone (phragle?) posted elsewhere.



Quiet, perhaps, but not necessarily weak. They certainly are making moves: http://profootballta...er-cfl-product/

#32 There is no Rev


  • through the velvety hallway


  • 23,627 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:12 PM

Quiet, perhaps, but not necessarily weak. They certainly are making moves: http://profootballta...er-cfl-product/

 

Others note that the NFL doesn't have much place to make moves. Belichick goes hunting in Canada.

 

I love that man.



#33 Papelbon's Poutine


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,667 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:19 PM

After losing to the Jaguars in the '97 Divisional playoffs, the Broncos acquired fullback Howard Griffith, kick returner Darrien Gordon, and defensive linemen Neil Smith and Keith Traylor.  All were established veterans at that point, and contributed to the Broncos consecutive Super Bowl wins.  Whether or nor I'd call that good free agent signings, or true GFIN moves, I'm not sure.  But they didn't just sit back and let their two championships happen.
 
edit: you could also throw in the Bill Romanowski acquisition the year before.  Getting an aging guy like that is a clear GFIN move.


Signings which are made by teams, especially the Pats, every year. Was Brian Waters a GFIN move by Bill last year? Was Junior Seau? These types of moves aren't really what are being discussed here, or at least not how I see the point of the thread. To a certain extent, GFIN has to involve mortgaging the future, be it draft picks or cap hell.

#34 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,461 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:19 PM

These are all very good points. Belichick has to be aware, though, of the difference in the narrative of his legacy should he win another Super Bowl versus if he does not. Insofar as another win cements his place in football history, it makes the payoff that much greater. I could even imagine Kraft signing off on a move that he might not otherwise. I don't mean mortgaging the whole future, obviously--Kraft is a business man, after all--but precisely because they are only a piece or two away, they might see the cost-benefit analysis as favoring trading a future pick or something when they otherwise wouldn't.

 

Schilling knew that if he wove himself into Boston's narrative and won the World Series, that could maybe push him over the hump for the HoF, and that influenced his decision to come to Boston. Belichick, Brady and Kraft are looking for best team legacy ever. Uncommon stakes.

 

I haven't decided if I would be against it or not, myself. It just occurred to me to wonder if Belichick's incentive structure might be different given the phase of his career and the stakes.

 

Basically, I'm nerding out a bit.

Belichick's legacy is already pretty cemented. Noll's the only coach to win 4 SBs, and Belichick has a better WL% and will pass him in wins next year. Gibbs and Walsh are the only other coaches with 3 SBs and Belichick has more wins, more conference championships, and a better winning % than either. Shula and Lombardi are the only HCs with 2 SBs that have a better win %. Only Shula has more conference championships, and only Landry has as many. He's the only head coach to win 3 SBs in 4 years. He's 9th in wins, can climb up to 6th by the end of next season, and can go as high as fourth with 2-3 more seasons. And of course, he's the only one who did his damage in the salary cap era.

 

Belichick's already in the GOAT discussion, and has a compelling argument. It would be nice to think a fourth championship would make him the greatest with a bullet and no one could question it, but I don't know that that's the case.

 

If I'm the Krafts, I want to be in a position to hire the next Belichick (or at least the next Tom Flores, George Seifert, Bill Cowher / Mike Tomlin, etc.) and build the kind of enduring dynasty that Pittsburgh, Dallas, San Francisco, etc. have.



#35 axx

  • 4,967 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:25 PM

Are we really sure Belichik will retire with Brady

 

No, but BB will be 61 when next season starts. It's just that the "projected" time they will retire just happens to match up fine. Brady did say he wants to play until he's 40 though, although I wonder if that will really happen.



#36 Scoops Bolling

  • 2,869 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:18 PM

And they broke the rules to do so, no? That sounds like GFIN in the sense that they didn't care what happened in the future.

 

http://www.gazette.c...salary-cap.html

This is what I was referring to, and was something I thought was more common knowledge. The Broncos' knowingly broke the salary cap rules in the last couple years of Elways' career in order to retain the team they had and bring on additional veterans. They were absolutely following a "GFIN" strategy.



#37 bschase2

  • 76 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:42 PM

Why do we assume that BB will retire and walk away.  Isn't more likely that he will retire from coaching and still be involved in football decisions?



#38 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,461 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:15 PM

Why do we assume that BB will retire and walk away.  Isn't more likely that he will retire from coaching and still be involved in football decisions?

He feels like it's critical to a head coach to be allowed to make personnel decisions. I don't think he would subject the next head coach to someone else buying his groceries.

 

I'd expect him to have some sort of advisory role; I imagine the Krafts will give him a major voice in the choosing of his successor. Maybe he'll pop into the film room from time to time. I don't he'd want to step on the subsequent head coach's toes though.



#39 DrewDawg


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,915 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:37 PM

I agree that it's a longshot, but if the Patriots have the best deal on the table for him they'd be stupid not to take it. 

.

 

It'd have to be the best offer by a lot, because there is a cost to the Jets of playing against him the next 6 or whatever seasons.  So, simply saying the best deal doesn't really encapsulate everything the Jets will look at.



#40 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15,155 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 12:41 AM

After the lockout, BB traded picks for (it turned out, washed up) former stars. The next year, he traded UP and made two first round picks. 

 

He's been in GFIN mode since the lockout. The roster rebuild/turnover from the 07-09 teams is nearly complete. This current crop of young players will all get expensive soon (although locking up Gronk, etc. has helped). Brady's contract is ticking.

 

What about the last two years, as it regards personnel acquisition decisions, suggests that the Patriots are not in GFIN mode?



#41 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,461 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 01:54 AM

After the lockout, BB traded picks for (it turned out, washed up) former stars. The next year, he traded UP and made two first round picks. 

 

He's been in GFIN mode since the lockout. The roster rebuild/turnover from the 07-09 teams is nearly complete. This current crop of young players will all get expensive soon (although locking up Gronk, etc. has helped). Brady's contract is ticking.

 

What about the last two years, as it regards personnel acquisition decisions, suggests that the Patriots are not in GFIN mode?

They traded a fifth and a sixth for Ochocinco and a fifth for Haynesworth, and both those guys re-structured their contracts so the financial outlay was limited. They paid more for Derrick Burgess and Greg Lewis in 2009.

 

The Patriots are trying to win the division, conference, Super Bowl every season, so in that sense they are "going for it now" in the strictest sense, but I don't see them making moves that have negative long-term consequences, which is what I think most people mean when they talk about GFIN. At any rate, I don't see them more in GFIN mindset than they've ever been.



#42 Salva135


  • Cassandra


  • 1,143 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 03:13 AM

After the lockout, BB traded picks for (it turned out, washed up) former stars. The next year, he traded UP and made two first round picks. 

 

He's been in GFIN mode since the lockout. The roster rebuild/turnover from the 07-09 teams is nearly complete. This current crop of young players will all get expensive soon (although locking up Gronk, etc. has helped). Brady's contract is ticking.

 

What about the last two years, as it regards personnel acquisition decisions, suggests that the Patriots are not in GFIN mode?

 

After the lockout, BB traded picks for (it turned out, washed up) former stars. The next year, he traded UP and made two first round picks. 

 

He's been in GFIN mode since the lockout. The roster rebuild/turnover from the 07-09 teams is nearly complete. This current crop of young players will all get expensive soon (although locking up Gronk, etc. has helped). Brady's contract is ticking.

 

What about the last two years, as it regards personnel acquisition decisions, suggests that the Patriots are not in GFIN mode?

 

This.  He's been in GFIN mode and has simply lost.  He can't overload much more in Brady's tenure to increase the possibility of a Super Bowl.   They've done the best they can.   Injuries happened, Brady has had some poor play, they lost.   Either it's going to happen or it's not.   The team was set up to win it all, and I believe that.



#43 redsahx

  • 1,407 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 03:15 PM

He was more aggressive in the draft last year because the value has changed for high first round draft picks. It's pretty much as simple as that. To point to his drafting strategy in a year where the entire pay scale of the draft changed as an indicator of him going for it now is misguided.

I was pointing to his moving up to grab two defensive players, along with trading for a key defensive need midseason as a sign that he is being aggressive (mainly he appears sick of having mediocre defenses holding the team back). I am well aware of the changes in the draft payscale.



#44 RSN Diaspora


  • molests goats for comedy


  • 5,240 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:41 PM

Are we really sure Belichik will retire with Brady?  I think he has the pride (or perhaps hubris) to want to prove his success isn't dependent upon Brady (or Parcells).  I think he will coach at least a few seasons after Brady retires, health willing. 

 

I doubt he retires with Brady, but I don't think it's pride or hubris. By all accounts, BB has nothing else in his life other than football and probably wouldn't enjoy retirement.



#45 Darnell's Son

  • 4,359 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:50 PM

I doubt he retires with Brady, but I don't think it's pride or hubris. By all accounts, BB has nothing else in his life other than football and probably wouldn't enjoy retirement.

 

I agree with this. To take it one step further, he doesn't seem like the kind of guy to take a front office position like Holmgren did, and more importantly, he doesn't seem to have a future in TV, although I would love to hear his analysis of football every Sunday(or everyday for that matter). So there would be no ease into retirement. He would go from working 80+ hours a week to what?



#46 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16,476 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:12 AM

Great thread. Thinking about the entire concept of GFIN, has there been an NFL team that was obviously in GFIN that with picks/FA/moves then *won* the Super Bowl? 

 

I guess any teams that repeat tend to GFIN, with the awareness of an aging core player group.

 

But a lot of NFL teams sort of find themselves peaking at the right time, get some breakouts, some breaks, then win it. Like the 1st Patriots championship.

 

It seems that when it's a conscious decision to do so that it's tricky. Either because the attitude is "we just won the SB, we're fine, we just need to lock up our key contributors" so nothing is really changed out of loyalty to the group that brought you there, or the rotisserie/fantasy football approach where you buy an All-Pro at every position the next year to be "same, only better." 

 

1994 49ers. Totally mortgaged the future of the team to enter salary cap hell to put one over on the Cowboys. 



#47 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,814 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:27 AM

I don't see the trades up for Jones and Hightower as being indicitive of a GFIN mentlity.  It's pretty obvious that they thought the talent in the middle rounds wasn't a great fit for the Patriots this year--in addition to using a third and a fourth to move up from 27 and 31 in the first to 21/25 (which you might not do if you like the talent in the third and the fourth), they apparently shopped the Tavon Wilson pick without takers, they traded their late second to Green Bay for pennies on the dollar according to the trade chart.  They didn't mortgage future picks anywhere, they just moved up towards the top or way back in the draft. 

 

Also, the value of the draft picks they used (late first and later rounds) didn't really change as a result of the CBA.  The new CBA greatly increases the value of top six or seven picks, but the value of later picks didn't change much relative to each other: new CBA and old CBA rookie contract values and lengths, outside of the top ten, are very similar.

 

Now it does look like at least a short-term change in approach (get a few guys you really like instead of a bunch you're no as sure on) but whether that's because of how this draft board and trade opportunities sorted out or because of a larger change on philsophy is hard to determine.


Edited by Shelterdog, 28 January 2013 - 09:34 AM.


#48 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,434 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:37 AM

This is true.

It's also true that they didn't do last year what they have spent much of the last dozen years doing -- building future drafts. The cupboard seems, comparatively, shockingly bare as we look at the offseason needs.

So while they didn't liquidate the 401 K account, they didn't contribute anymore either, and I'd be a bit surprised if they started now. This is appropriate given Brady's age.

EDIT:

I have a hard time seeing Kraft going down this path, or BB nudging him down it. It pays off only if you win the SB, and there is too much you can't control -- injury, improvement in other teams. If you make a deal with the salary cap devil or loot future drafts, you may quickly find yourself on a 5-yr rebuilding program.

Edited by dcmissle, 28 January 2013 - 09:55 AM.


#49 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,543 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:04 AM

It'd have to be the best offer by a lot, because there is a cost to the Jets of playing against him the next 6 or whatever seasons.  So, simply saying the best deal doesn't really encapsulate everything the Jets will look at.

 

 

The Jets are not trading Revis to the Pats under any circumstances whatsoever. Really.

 

And what about BB, after 12 years here, makes anyone think he thinks it would be a good idea to spend $35 million on Brady and Revis next year? The foundation of the Pats' success has been in building deep teams, not top heavy ones. 

 

Or that it would be a good idea to send a billion draft picks/players for a guy fond of renegotiating his contract every year.



#50 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,814 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:07 AM

This is true. It's also true that they didn't do last year what they have spent much of the last dozen years doing -- building future drafts. The cupboard seems, comparatively, shockingly bare as we look at the offseason needs. So while they didn't liquidate the 401 K account, they didn't contribute anymore either, and I'd be a bit surprised if they started now. This is appropriate given Brady's age.

 

I suspect other teams are sick of trading future high picks for lower picks in the present, and the trade opportunity is largely gone for a while--Bill doesn't have Al Davis to kick around any more.

 

What wouldn't surprise me is if the change in approach came about because of the stagnant cap.  If you can consistently get players like Donald Thomas and Marquice Cole and Will Allen and Spencer Larsen and Derrick Martin for roughly veteran minimum salaries, do you really need fifth round draft picks?  It's obviously not an all or nothing proposition but it does look like we have two drafts in a row where we won't have a lot of picks in rounds three though six.


Edited by Shelterdog, 28 January 2013 - 10:14 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users