Are the Pats the worst team in the NFL?

[Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache]

But is there any precedent for such deals? I think I'd do it if the price was right.

Brock Osweiler.

To some degree, Jared Goff.

Yup

They certainly wouldn’t trade for him to be on the roster, but to accept him in a trade and immediately cut him?

So essentially it would be the Pats (or some other team) using their cap space to "buy" a bunch of draft picks from Cleveland, which would then in turn free up a ton of cap space for the Browns in the next few years?

Yes. No way the Pats would want Watson anywhere near Foxborough

This is a fun transaction to speculate on but it's almost too fun for it to actually happen.

That's sortta my take as well

Thinking out loud about the structure of a deal a little bit:

• Cleveland would need gets out of Watson's huge cap hit and salary. Also significantly, they get to turn the page. My impression from a distance is that Browns fans are as demoralized and miserable about the state of the team as Pats fans were when Brissett was starting. Only there's no clear way for the pain to go away. And it sounds like things are getting really toxic between Watson, the coaches, and the front office. Like they're all locked in the foulest smelling bathroom ever. Let's take the scenario that by the end of the season people are pretty desperate to get Watson out of town.
• The league isn't going to like the idea of one team outright buying tons of draft picks, for reasons. Dunno much of what's behind this, only that their position has been pretty consistent. At the same, they will presumably like something that gives Browns fans a reason to have optimism again, and for everyone to move past what has been a rolling PR disaster for the Browns and the league
• Other owners are not going to want it to look like the Browns are getting off the hook lightly for signing Watson to that insane contract. They'll want leverage against the next player who demands similar terms.
• Everyone is going to want to save face, and appear like they're getting what they said what they wanted, status quo ante

So, what about something like this?

• Cleveland trades Watson to New England prior to June 1. The Browns take a ~$80M cap hit next year, which forces them to trade away some of their vets and reset
• New England cuts Watson, absorbs the remaining ~$90M cap hit into the ~$138M of space we have next year
• Cleveland sends the Pats, say, their second and third round picks in '24, along with the right to-- for some number of times each draft-- swap a Pats pick for any Browns pick up to 32 slots higher in the same draft. So, if the Pats had the 63rd pick (late 2nd round) and Cleveland had the 38th pick (high 2nd round), we could take theirs for ours. This would obviously be most beneficial on the first day of the draft. And, say, give us a mechanism to trade for another team's pick in the late first round, and then swap that pick for one of theirs high in the first round.

I'm playing around with the pick swap concept because it keeps us from outright getting tons of picks from the Browns, which the league won't like, and which will be harder for the Browns to sell to their fans. At the same time, it gives us something of clear value and other NFL owners a reason to resist handing out Watson-sized contracts.

This is all spitballing about something that will never happen, of course

 

[SMU_Sox]

It only makes sense if you are getting at least 2 first rounders because that's just an insane amount of cap space and cash. If Cleveland wants to do it for a haul (say two 1's and a 2) I'd think about it. If not then no. And I don't think Kraft would be ok with it. Even for two 1s and a 2 I am not sure the math makes sense but 1) you could always trade down and get even more picks, and 2) the best way to get young elite talent is through the draft (no guarantee here) and they really need that now. To me the risk is worth the reward but it isn't my money or morals.

 

[BaseballJones]

It only makes sense if you are getting at least 2 first rounders because that's just an insane amount of cap space and cash. If Cleveland wants to do it for a haul (say two 1's and a 2) I'd think about it. If not then no. And I don't think Kraft would be ok with it. Even for two 1s and a 2 I am not sure the math makes sense but 1) you could always trade down and get even more picks, and 2) the best way to get young elite talent is through the draft (no guarantee here) and they really need that now. To me the risk is worth the reward but it isn't my money or morals.

There's no moral question here. In this scenario, nobody would believe that the Pats are actually trading FOR Watson, because they'd turn right around and release him - that would be the idea. It would simply be a way to buy a lot more draft picks, but in no way could anyone construe this as the Patriots "wanting" Watson or anything like that.

 

[cshea]

Yup





Yes. No way the Pats would want Watson anywhere near Foxborough



That's sortta my take as well

Thinking out loud about the structure of a deal a little bit:

• Cleveland would need gets out of Watson's huge cap hit and salary. Also significantly, they get to turn the page. My impression from a distance is that Browns fans are as demoralized and miserable about the state of the team as Pats fans were when Brissett was starting. Only there's no clear way for the pain to go away. And it sounds like things are getting really toxic between Watson, the coaches, and the front office. Like they're all locked in the foulest smelling bathroom ever. Let's take the scenario that by the end of the season people are pretty desperate to get Watson out of town.
• The league isn't going to like the idea of one team outright buying tons of draft picks, for reasons. Dunno much of what's behind this, only that their position has been pretty consistent. At the same, they will presumably like something that gives Browns fans a reason to have optimism again, and for everyone to move past what has been a rolling PR disaster for the Browns and the league
• Other owners are not going to want it to look like the Browns are getting off the hook lightly for signing Watson to that insane contract. They'll want leverage against the next player who demands similar terms.
• Everyone is going to want to save face, and appear like they're getting what they said what they wanted, status quo ante

So, what about something like this?

• Cleveland trades Watson to New England prior to June 1. The Browns take a ~$80M cap hit next year, which forces them to trade away some of their vets and reset
• New England cuts Watson, absorbs the remaining ~$90M cap hit into the ~$138M of space we have next year
• Cleveland sends the Pats, say, their second and third round picks in '24, along with the right to-- for some number of times each draft-- swap a Pats pick for any Browns pick up to 32 slots higher in the same draft. So, if the Pats had the 63rd pick (late 2nd round) and Cleveland had the 38th pick (high 2nd round), we could take theirs for ours. This would obviously be most beneficial on the first day of the draft. And, say, give us a mechanism to trade for another team's pick in the late first round, and then swap that pick for one of theirs high in the first round.

I'm playing around with the pick swap concept because it keeps us from outright getting tons of picks from the Browns, which the league won't like, and which will be harder for the Browns to sell to their fans. At the same time, it gives us something of clear value and other NFL owners a reason to resist handing out Watson-sized contracts.

This is all spitballing about something that will never happen, of course

I don't think the Browns would be interested. They've already invested 3 first round picks, a third and 2 fouths plus a quarter of a billion guaranteed in Watson. The contract, no move clause and the off field problems with Watson makes him virtually untradeable. But let's say he waives his no trade (he won't). Even if the Browns are picking up some percentage of the money, the cost to get another team to take him, even if it's just to cut him, would be astronomical. Multiple first round picks. I guess in a hypothetical where the Browns are willing to part with 3 first round picks or something, sure, conbsider it but I don't think it makes sense for Cleveland. It's just digging the hole deeper.

The Browns are probably going to havea top 5 draft pick this year (unless they turn it over to Winston which it appears they won't...likely because of ownership). They should just hang on to Watson, draft a QB. Run the clock out on Watson's contract. They'd have an expensive QB and a cheap one on a rookie deal so between the two it averages out cap wise.

 

[DJnVa]

This is a fun transaction to speculate on but it's almost too fun for it to actually happen.

No part of speculating on acquiring Watson is fun.

 

[SMU_Sox]

There's no moral question here. In this scenario, nobody would believe that the Pats are actually trading FOR Watson, because they'd turn right around and release him - that would be the idea. It would simply be a way to buy a lot more draft picks, but in no way could anyone construe this as the Patriots "wanting" Watson or anything like that.

Kraft would have to pay Watson though... do you think he wants to give his money to a piece of shit like him? I don't. There is a moral question because you are using a sex offender and a rapist to benefit the team. He isn't playing for you but he is sure cashing your checks .

 

[Mystic Merlin]

Kraft would have to pay Watson though... do you think he wants to give his money to a piece of shit like him? I don't. There is a moral question because you are using a sex offender and a rapist to benefit the team. He isn't playing for you but he is sure cashing your checks .

Kraft absolutely isn’t giving almost 100M guaranteed over two years to a player who we know will not play for the team, much less a guy with his profile.

 

[Justthetippett]

Kraft would have to pay Watson though... do you think he wants to give his money to a piece of shit like him? I don't. There is a moral question because you are using a sex offender and a rapist to benefit the team. He isn't playing for you but he is sure cashing your checks .

Easy fix, just put the payments in escrow for Watson's future settlement payments!

Old Bob isn't going near a sex scandal. He got lucky as hell from a PR perspective with his spa daliance. Somehow has not been completely creep shamed. He's not opening that can of worms again.

 

[Reverend]

I’m trying to imagine a world where Robert Kraft decides to spend his reverse-salad days talking about this.

Edit: Like what @Justthetippett , but even more so. Even without it causing people to think about his own scandal, what would be the cost - benefit calculation for Bobby at his age? And then the fact that JtT raises amplifies that to 11. I’m not seeing it.

I thought Maye starting would clear out some of the “We’re bored, so hear me out…” discussions from the media.

 

[BaseballJones]

Kraft would have to pay Watson though... do you think he wants to give his money to a piece of shit like him? I don't. There is a moral question because you are using a sex offender and a rapist to benefit the team. He isn't playing for you but he is sure cashing your checks .

Fair point. I just think it would be obvious to everyone that the Pats aren't actually wanting WATSON though - that it would just be a way to get extra picks. But I'm sure this won't happen for a bunch of reasons.

 

[8slim]

Yeah, it would never happen for the reasons given.

Morality of paying Watson aside, would it even be that good of a deal for the Pats? Great to have the picks and all, but we'd essentially be out of the FA market for, what, 2 years? 3 years? Even if we crushed those drafts, we're only talking about adding 4-5 players a year, and not all of them would be starters. That seems less than ideal!

 

[SMU_Sox]

Yeah, it would never happen for the reasons given.

Morality of paying Watson aside, would it even be that good of a deal for the Pats? Great to have the picks and all, but we'd essentially be out of the FA market for, what, 2 years? 3 years? Even if we crushed those drafts, we're only talking about adding 4-5 players a year, and not all of them would be starters. That seems less than ideal!

You'd have 46mm cap hits in 25 and 26. They could stomach that (to an extent of course - they have 130mm+ cap space next year). I don't see how it makes sense for Cleveland to do that though. They need young talent too and are already down picks from Watson. Stranger things have happened but this feels like an executive speculated a bad idea and writers went with it because it makes for conversation and clicks. Plus... it's juicy.

What entices me is that this team needs OT (x2), WR, and edge help. All of those positions tend to be first rounders (especially edge and LT). So they could use those picks. Since this isn't an option they could always just trade back and hope someone really wants a QB. As long as they can get another first rounder in the next 2 years they should be ok. Then you just have to hope your pick hits.

 

[Remagellan]

I don’t think the NFL allows pick swaps. You either trade the pick or you don’t. So there’s no “higher of our pick or team two’s pick”.

Given all they’d be taking on, including the PR hit, it would have take at least two 1s and two 2s for it to be worth it. As stated above, the best path for the Browns would be to bench him and cut him as soon as it makes the most economic sense.

I’m not on the “Mayo already sucks” train, but if the Browns fired Stefanski, I’d dump Mayo and hire him in a heartbeat. Because if the Browns dump Stefanski because of this mishegas, they’d be compounding what is already an awful situation for their fans.

 

[tims4wins]

I don’t think the NFL allows pick swaps. You either trade the pick or you don’t. So there’s no “higher of our pick or team two’s pick”.

Only when they take a pick away! They learned their lesson after 2007.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Yup





Yes. No way the Pats would want Watson anywhere near Foxborough



That's sortta my take as well

Thinking out loud about the structure of a deal a little bit:

• Cleveland would need gets out of Watson's huge cap hit and salary. Also significantly, they get to turn the page. My impression from a distance is that Browns fans are as demoralized and miserable about the state of the team as Pats fans were when Brissett was starting. Only there's no clear way for the pain to go away. And it sounds like things are getting really toxic between Watson, the coaches, and the front office. Like they're all locked in the foulest smelling bathroom ever. Let's take the scenario that by the end of the season people are pretty desperate to get Watson out of town.
• The league isn't going to like the idea of one team outright buying tons of draft picks, for reasons. Dunno much of what's behind this, only that their position has been pretty consistent. At the same, they will presumably like something that gives Browns fans a reason to have optimism again, and for everyone to move past what has been a rolling PR disaster for the Browns and the league
• Other owners are not going to want it to look like the Browns are getting off the hook lightly for signing Watson to that insane contract. They'll want leverage against the next player who demands similar terms.
• Everyone is going to want to save face, and appear like they're getting what they said what they wanted, status quo ante

So, what about something like this?

• Cleveland trades Watson to New England prior to June 1. The Browns take a ~$80M cap hit next year, which forces them to trade away some of their vets and reset
• New England cuts Watson, absorbs the remaining ~$90M cap hit into the ~$138M of space we have next year
• Cleveland sends the Pats, say, their second and third round picks in '24, along with the right to-- for some number of times each draft-- swap a Pats pick for any Browns pick up to 32 slots higher in the same draft. So, if the Pats had the 63rd pick (late 2nd round) and Cleveland had the 38th pick (high 2nd round), we could take theirs for ours. This would obviously be most beneficial on the first day of the draft. And, say, give us a mechanism to trade for another team's pick in the late first round, and then swap that pick for one of theirs high in the first round.

I'm playing around with the pick swap concept because it keeps us from outright getting tons of picks from the Browns, which the league won't like, and which will be harder for the Browns to sell to their fans. At the same time, it gives us something of clear value and other NFL owners a reason to resist handing out Watson-sized contracts.

This is all spitballing about something that will never happen, of course

Why would the Patriots(or any team) do this? Paying Watson over half of their cap space not to play for them?

 

[Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache]

Stranger things have happened but this feels like an executive speculated a bad idea and writers went with it because it makes for conversation and clicks. Plus... it's juicy.

This feels spot on to me

And, in fairness, I wrote it up over here and got this whole discussion going about a crazy idea that won't happen because... it's juicy

 

[astrozombie]

This feels spot on to me

And, in fairness, I wrote it up over here and got this whole discussion going about a crazy idea that won't happen because... it's juicy

Yeah, this is definitely what it is. It's sad that the Pats are so bad it's something we're discussing, even if it is less "should the Pats do it?" and more "well, that's certainly something".

 

[Bowser]

This past off season, the Pats seemed to have some difficulty giving their $$$ away to high-priced free agents. This would be a good remedy...

 

[ManicCompression]

This past off season, the Pats seemed to have some difficulty giving their $$$ away to high-priced free agents. This would be a good remedy...

Considering that the big shiny object everyone wanted to overpay - Calvin Ridley - has been dogshit this year with an inexperienced QB, might not be the worst thing.

 

[NextBigThing8184]

Considering that the big shiny object everyone wanted to overpay - Calvin Ridley - has been dogshit this year with an inexperienced QB, might not be the worst thing.

Ridley was never going to be worth what he got but it’s not like the money they did spend was particularly well spent. The extensions for Peppers, Onwenu and Stevenson are all questionable right now. The ~20M they spent on Takitaki, Osborn, Watts, Hawkins, Hooper, Leverett and Okorafor seems like money poorly spent - none of those guys are giving you anything undrafted or minimum salary guys couldn’t (and 3 are off the roster already)

 

[ManicCompression]

Ridley was never going to be worth what he got but it’s not like the money they did spend was particularly well spent. The extensions for Peppers, Onwenu and Stevenson are all questionable right now. The ~20M they spent on Takitaki, Osborn, Watts, Hawkins, Hooper, Leverett and Okorafor seems like money poorly spent - none of those guys are giving you anything undrafted or minimum salary guys couldn’t (and 3 are off the roster already)

I think the takeaway is that neither strategy is likely to pay off because free agency has a very limited ceiling, particularly for a bad team, and the pats should focus on building through the draft.

There’s a contingent of folks here who think the Pats would’ve been better served with the Titans offseason of signing Ridley, Pollard, and drafting an LT high. Where did that get them? It’s all pointless without a quarterback.

The pats took a lot of small bets that they can easily get out of. That’s not the case with a guy like Ridley. I’d probably give them a C for the offseason - around average - just because they got Maye. They were never going to solve all of their problems in one offseason with as many holes on the roster as they had, so next year is going to be really telling w/r/t this front office and their ability to evaluate players.

 

[dirtynine]

Man, I loved all the re-signings in the offseason. It had the feel of “we have something here, we just need to let it cook”. Or, at the very least, “these guys can help us take the next step.” I don’t know much about the NFL but I didn’t feel it was incorrect to go down that path.

The reality is that, like me, the GM and coach may have mis-evaluated the utility of a bunch of the roster. They are paid to evaluate this stuff, so I don’t feel that bad about being wrong.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

I think the takeaway is that neither strategy is likely to pay off because free agency has a very limited ceiling, particularly for a bad team, and the pats should focus on building through the draft.

There’s a contingent of folks here who think the Pats would’ve been better served with the Titans offseason of signing Ridley, Pollard, and drafting an LT high. Where did that get them? It’s all pointless without a quarterback.

The pats took a lot of small bets that they can easily get out of. That’s not the case with a guy like Ridley. I’d probably give them a C for the offseason - around average - just because they got Maye. They were never going to solve all of their problems in one offseason with as many holes on the roster as they had, so next year is going to be really telling w/r/t this front office and their ability to evaluate players.

I think you're exactly right that free agency has a limited ceiling. The basic problem for a bad NFL team is that cap space isn't all that useful because (a) the best players almost never hit free agency, and not many of the "next best" players do either and (b) when very good players do end up as free agents, they usually have multiple suitors and don't want to play for a terrible team even if that team makes the best financial offer. In this context, its not a terrible strategy to take a bunch of cheaper punts, hope you strike gold on one or two, and focus on just not making bad longer term commitments. That strategy will often yield shit results in the short term, almost by design, but it doesn't burden you in the long run.

In the end, the draft is the only real way to truly rebuild roster talent and its going to be a long term process for a franchise near rock bottom like the Patriots were last offseason. The good thing is that if you can both solve QB and stack 2-3 good drafts in a row at the same time then you can bounce back pretty easily (the Lions and Texans both good recent examples).

 

[Reverend]

In the end, the draft is the only real way to truly rebuild roster talent and its going to be a long term process for a franchise near rock bottom like the Patriots were last offseason. The good thing is that if you can both solve QB and stack 2-3 good drafts in a row at the same time then you can bounce back pretty easily (the Lions and Texans both good recent examples).

Agree on all, and to reemphasize this here what others have also said: Hitting on the QB is the most important element by far. Like, really far. I think they did that, so I’m cool just watching them try to develop him and a few other pieces until next draft. I thought that that was what most of us had signed up for, but perhaps I was mistaken.

 

[Justthetippett]

I think you're exactly right that free agency has a limited ceiling. The basic problem for a bad NFL team is that cap space isn't all that useful because (a) the best players almost never hit free agency, and not many of the "next best" players do either and (b) when very good players do end up as free agents, they usually have multiple suitors and don't want to play for a terrible team even if that team makes the best financial offer. In this context, its not a terrible strategy to take a bunch of cheaper punts, hope you strike gold on one or two, and focus on just not making bad longer term commitments. That strategy will often yield shit results in the short term, almost by design, but it doesn't burden you in the long run.

In the end, the draft is the only real way to truly rebuild roster talent and its going to be a long term process for a franchise near rock bottom like the Patriots were last offseason. The good thing is that if you can both solve QB and stack 2-3 good drafts in a row at the same time then you can bounce back pretty easily (the Lions and Texans both good recent examples).

Agreed on FA. It's just not a very good main vehicle for a rebuild. It's how good teams pad their rosters and add depth. I would add that trades can bring big dividends. The Stafford trade has been a key for Detroit. A lot of people killed BOB for the Tunsil trade but he's been a very important player for them. Rebuilds have to be around the high value positions (QB, OT, CB, WR and EDGE), so basically you exhaust your options to land those, the draft obviously being the preferred route. (Now I'm convincing myself the Pats should only draft for those four remaining positions - not QB - take as many swings as they can, and backfill the rest - obviously not realistic but I doubt it would work out worse than their last five years of drafts.)

 

[NextBigThing8184]

I think you're exactly right that free agency has a limited ceiling. The basic problem for a bad NFL team is that cap space isn't all that useful because (a) the best players almost never hit free agency, and not many of the "next best" players do either and (b) when very good players do end up as free agents, they usually have multiple suitors and don't want to play for a terrible team even if that team makes the best financial offer. In this context, its not a terrible strategy to take a bunch of cheaper punts, hope you strike gold on one or two, and focus on just not making bad longer term commitments. That strategy will often yield shit results in the short term, almost by design, but it doesn't burden you in the long run.

In the end, the draft is the only real way to truly rebuild roster talent and its going to be a long term process for a franchise near rock bottom like the Patriots were last offseason. The good thing is that if you can both solve QB and stack 2-3 good drafts in a row at the same time then you can bounce back pretty easily (the Lions and Texans both good recent examples).

Not sure the Lions or Texans are great examples actually. They both had 2 first round picks in both 2022 and 2023, both had extra 2nd rounders in that period, and both of them had solved LT before their turn around (Decker to the Lions in 2016, Tunsil to the Texans in 2019).

The Lions had 7 top 50 picks, the Texans had 7 top 62 picks (including both 2 and 3 overall)

That kind of draft haul, and not needing to solve LT, is a lot more than just about any other rebuilding team will have other than the Bears perhaps

 

[ManicCompression]

Not sure the Lions or Texans are great examples actually. They both had 2 first round picks in both 2022 and 2023, both had extra 2nd rounders in that period, and both of them had solved LT before their turn around (Decker to the Lions in 2016, Tunsil to the Texans in 2019).

The Lions had 7 top 50 picks, the Texans had 7 top 62 picks (including both 2 and 3 overall)

That kind of draft haul, and not needing to solve LT, is a lot more than just about any other rebuilding team will have other than the Bears perhaps

Which speaks to the total lack of talent on the roster at the end of the BB regime. They don’t have good enough players to trade for an extra first round pick. All of the “well actually his drafts and free agency weren’t that bad” talk is about a team that can’t even be stripped for parts.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Not sure the Lions or Texans are great examples actually. They both had 2 first round picks in both 2022 and 2023, both had extra 2nd rounders in that period, and both of them had solved LT before their turn around (Decker to the Lions in 2016, Tunsil to the Texans in 2019).

The Lions had 7 top 50 picks, the Texans had 7 top 62 picks (including both 2 and 3 overall)

That kind of draft haul, and not needing to solve LT, is a lot more than just about any other rebuilding team will have other than the Bears perhaps

I think that's a little bit extreme. Having double firsts two years in a row obviously helped the Texans rebound quickly, but they also had no firsts in 2020 or 2021 and no second in 2020 (in substantial part due to the Tunsil trade).

The Lions first "turned it around" in 2022 and that was on the back of just having one extra 1st that turned out to be a bust in Jameson Williams. They just crushed the 21 and 22 drafts outside of that pick. Stacking on the double first 2023 draft then helped them step up another level but they had already made a big jump.

Even without extra firsts, you can improve a lot if you stack 2-3 really good drafts in a row while also solving the QB position. Its much easier said than done but I'm confident that the Patriots will be a playoff team come 2026 or 2027 if (a) Maye turns out to be an above average NFL starter and (b) they crush the 2025 and 2026 drafts.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Which speaks to the total lack of talent on the roster at the end of the BB regime. They don’t have good enough players to trade for an extra first round pick. All of the “well actually his drafts and free agency weren’t that bad” talk is about a team that can’t even be stripped for parts.

I mean... guys don't go for 1sts anymore generally except at 1 position. Both teams we're talking about traded legit top QBs to get those picks. If the Patriots had that type of QB.... they wouldn't need to make the trade because they'd be a contender. Yes BB had some bad drafts, but that isn't why they can't trade for 1st round picks, it's because they never had a bad team with a top vet QB. Other positions generally get you 2nds, 3rds, pick swaps.... they just made one of those deals this year with Judon. Hypothetically could they likely get a 1st for Gonzo... yeah maybe but it's a pointless trade.

 

[DJnVa]

The Lions first "turned it around" in 2022 and that was on the back of just having one extra 1st that turned out to be a bust in Jameson Williams.

Calling Jameson WIlliams a bust is tough grading. He's been injured. He's finally healthy and on pace for 50+ catches, 1000+ yards.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Calling Jameson WIlliams a bust is tough grading. He's been injured. He's finally healthy and on pace for 50+ catches, 1000+ yards.

That's fair, probably the wrong word. My point was simply that he hasn't been a notable factor in their turnaround up to this point so having an extra first round pick in 2022 wasn't really that significant. They mainly just crushed their own picks in 2021 and 2022.

 

[johnmd20]

I mean... guys don't go for 1sts anymore generally except at 1 position. Both teams we're talking about traded legit top QBs to get those picks. If the Patriots had that type of QB.... they wouldn't need to make the trade because they'd be a contender. Yes BB had some bad drafts, but that isn't why they can't trade for 1st round picks, it's because they never had a bad team with a top vet QB. Other positions generally get you 2nds, 3rds, pick swaps.... they just made one of those deals this year with Judon. Hypothetically could they likely get a 1st for Gonzo... yeah maybe but it's a pointless trade.

Do you get an alert every time someone says something negative about Belichick so you can defend him in some way, shape, or form?

Belichick left this team bereft of talent. This is proven by their weak season in 2022, their 3nd worst in the NFL record in 2023, and their worst in the NFL record so far in 2024.

 

[dynomite]

Do you get an alert every time someone says something negative about Belichick so you can defend him in some way, shape, or form?

Belichick left this team bereft of talent. This is proven by their weak season in 2022, their 3nd worst in the NFL record in 2023, and their worst in the NFL record so far in 2024.

I don't mean to turn this into yet another Belichick re-hash -- we've had plenty of this -- although I don't think @Cellar-Door was blindly defending BB.

Anyway, speaking of, maybe this should go in the Celebrating What It Is/Was, but I was just procrastinating in a meeting and noticed how closely the 00s/10s Patriots dynasty aligns with the Niners 80s/90s "dynasty" (I'm counting Young and Montana as one to make the point). I know we've talked about this, but it's pretty wild.

1981-1999 (after which Young retires): 5 Super Bowl wins, 10+ wins every season except 2
2001-2019 (after which Brady leaves): 6 Super Bowl wins, 10+ wins every season except 1

The worrisome case history here is:

- After that Niners dynasty ended, they only made the playoffs in 2 of the next 12 seasons (which were the only 2 seasons they won 10+ games)
- After the Pats dynasty ended, by year's end they will have made the playoffs 1 of next 5 seasons (only one of which they won 10+ games despite playing 17)

I bring it up only because I'm trying to remind myself how good we had it, and the precedent for the last true two decade "dynasty." In other words, no franchise could continue to be good indefinitely (although it is annoying that the Packers since 1992 have gone directly from Favre to Rodgers to Love).

 

[ManicCompression]

I mean... guys don't go for 1sts anymore generally except at 1 position. Both teams we're talking about traded legit top QBs to get those picks. If the Patriots had that type of QB.... they wouldn't need to make the trade because they'd be a contender. Yes BB had some bad drafts, but that isn't why they can't trade for 1st round picks, it's because they never had a bad team with a top vet QB. Other positions generally get you 2nds, 3rds, pick swaps.... they just made one of those deals this year with Judon. Hypothetically could they likely get a 1st for Gonzo... yeah maybe but it's a pointless trade.

This isn't true, because WRs and LTs and CBs could all collect first rounders in a trade still, but okay... how about even second rounders? Or third rounders? Judon was one. Barmore, White and Gonzo are the others (including Maye), but they're too young to trade and, honestly, the jury is still out that they're THAT good. Is there a single player on the current roster beyond those three who could net the team something better than a fourth rounder in a trade?

I don't think so. And I don't think there are too many other teams that can make that same claim. I'll stand by my statement that this team roster sucks so bad that we can't even benefit from breaking it down. BB created a team with a ton of replaceable dudes at comparatively unimportant positions and zero to few blue-chippers at any position. It's a deep ass hole to dig out of and it's going to take longer to rebuild because of that.

 

[Cellar-Door]

This isn't true, because WRs and LTs and CBs could all collect first rounders in a trade still, but okay... how about even second rounders? Or third rounders? Judon was one. Barmore, White and Gonzo are the others (including Maye), but they're too young to trade and, honestly, the jury is still out that they're THAT good. Is there a single player on the current roster beyond those three who could net the team something better than a fourth rounder in a trade?

I don't think so. And I don't think there are too many other teams that can make that same claim. I'll stand by my statement that this team roster sucks so bad that we can't even benefit from breaking it down. BB created a team with a ton of replaceable dudes at comparatively unimportant positions and zero to few blue-chippers at any position. It's a deep ass hole to dig out of and it's going to take longer to rebuild because of that.

Very very few players who are not QBs have been traded for 1st round picks in recent years, I think it's something like 3 in the last 5 years? As to 2nds and the like.. sure I guess, though even 2nds have become much more rare the past few years.

Teams make 1 or 2 trades every few years of that type, and it's usually aging stars (Davante went for a 3rd, Amari Cooper a 3rd) the Patriots just made one, they got what will likely be one of the 3-5 highest picks traded for a player. The idea that teams are out here just trading players for picks left and right isn't in line with reality. The Patriots in many ways developed a roster short on top end talent because:
1. Yes they missed a couple picks
2. They had very few high draft picks in the 1st, which is usually where the type of stars or superstars that might get you a 2nd or even the rare 1st get drafted.
3. They were in an unprecedented 20 year contention window that involved squeezing every drop they could out of the roster before they lost the best QB to ever play. The last 2 years is the near inevitable result of that. If they had traded Brady for multiple 1sts or the like they could have the type of deal you're discussing.
4. They let their star QB who the entire roster was built to accomodate (including reducing spending on flashy WRs) go for nothing rather than trading him. If they hadn't agreed to not franchise Brady they could undoubtably gotten a non-trivial return for him.

The roster is bad, that's why BB got fired and why is was likely deserved, but it's not some wild outlier, it's part of the cycle most teams go through.
As to blue chippers... I'd say the Patriots have between 3 and 4, which isn't good, but isn't worst in the league.... this is just a regular bad team, people trying to make it out like this roster is the worst thing ever are just not in touch with the league as a whole, probably not surprising given the Patriots were such a success outlier.

 

[Auger34]

Is anyone in this thread acting like this is an all time worst team? Or anyone on this board?

The question is around whether they are one of the worst this year…and they 100% are.

 

[ManicCompression]

Very very few players who are not QBs have been traded for 1st round picks in recent years, I think it's something like 3 in the last 5 years? As to 2nds and the like.. sure I guess, though even 2nds have become much more rare the past few years.

Teams make 1 or 2 trades every few years of that type, and it's usually aging stars (Davante went for a 3rd, Amari Cooper a 3rd) the Patriots just made one, they got what will likely be one of the 3-5 highest picks traded for a player. The idea that teams are out here just trading players for picks left and right isn't in line with reality. The Patriots in many ways developed a roster short on top end talent because:
1. Yes they missed a couple picks
2. They had very few high draft picks in the 1st, which is usually where the type of stars or superstars that might get you a 2nd or even the rare 1st get drafted.
3. They were in an unprecedented 20 year contention window that involved squeezing every drop they could out of the roster before they lost the best QB to ever play. The last 2 years is the near inevitable result of that. If they had traded Brady for multiple 1sts or the like they could have the type of deal you're discussing.
4. They let their star QB who the entire roster was built to accomodate (including reducing spending on flashy WRs) go for nothing rather than trading him. If they hadn't agreed to not franchise Brady they could undoubtably gotten a non-trivial return for him.

The roster is bad, that's why BB got fired and why is was likely deserved, but it's not some wild outlier, it's part of the cycle most teams go through.
As to blue chippers... I'd say the Patriots have between 3 and 4, which isn't good, but isn't worst in the league.... this is just a regular bad team, people trying to make it out like this roster is the worst thing ever are just not in touch with the league as a whole, probably not surprising given the Patriots were such a success outlier.

I’m not out of touch with the league. I’m saying this roster sucks, it sucks because of Bill, and it’s going to take a long time to get out of that. You seem to agree with that point.

There are posters in here trying to shine a piece of shit and pretend like the last 4-5 years of team-building were totally fine, and it clearly wasn’t considering where we find the team today. You don’t get to equal footing with the Panthers by being competent, despite all of the context you want to dress up the post Brady era with.

 

[Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache]

There are posters in here trying to shine a piece of shit and pretend like the last 4-5 years of team-building were totally fine, and it clearly wasn’t considering where we find the team today. You don’t get to equal footing with the Panthers by being competent, despite all of the context you want to dress up the post Brady era with.

Honest question: can you point to a specific post that you think is an example of this?

I can't think of anything I've read on SOSH that was based on the idea that the last 4-5 years of team building were 'totally fine'... but I keep up with way less than 100% of the threads and posts around here

 

[ManicCompression]

@Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache different thread but:

The “total wasteland” of draft classes which yielded Gonzalez, White, Douglas, Sow, Stevenson, Barmore, Dugger, Jennings, Uche and Onwenu (plus Boutte and Baringer)

Their drafting hasn’t been great but people act as if every draft was a total disaster. The net over the last 5 BB drafts is just under average in terms of quality players. Obviously 2022 looks awful but every team has bad drafts and bad stretches

The total wasteland of drafting yielded a bunch of guys Wolf had no problems paying fairly decent money to retain.

And I’m not going to dig through all of the threads we’ve had on this subject, but similar reviews of BB in free agency the last few years, where we’re supposed to believe that the sum product of just around average drafting and free agency performance is one of the worst three teams in the league multiple years in a row.

 

[Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache]

Ah, gotchya-- I see what you're saying

Thanks for the follow up

 

[SMU_Sox]

@Cellar-Door what is your definition of a blue-chipper? To me that’s a top 10 caliber player at his position. Maybe top 5 if you get very granular with position subtypes.

They have 3 potential guys in Gonzo, Barmore, and Maye but right now the closest is Barmore and he’s on the cusp… or was anyway. Onwenu is usually a top 10 OG but he isn’t playing like that right now and I am not sure if he will in a zone heavy scheme.

 

[Cellar-Door]

@Cellar-Door what is your definition of a blue-chipper? To me that’s a top 10 caliber player at his position. Maybe top 5 if you get very granular with position subtypes.

They have 3 potential guys in Gonzo, Barmore, and Maye but right now the closest is Barmore and he’s on the cusp… or was anyway. Onwenu is usually a top 10 OG but he isn’t playing like that right now and I am not sure if he will in a zone heavy scheme.

I take it as top 10 or so player at his position, with BoD given to younger players, or rookie drafted in the top 5 who was considered to have that potential at QB (and as such teams would treat like one)... I put Barmore, Gonzo and Maye as my 3 with Onwenu having fallen out. I don't really know how to judge the safeties given the position is weird/role specific. I am probably being a little generous, but I also do that around the league because top 10 is so fuzzy around the edges

 

[NextBigThing8184]

@Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache different thread but:



And I’m not going to dig through all of the threads we’ve had on this subject, but similar reviews of BB in free agency the last few years, where we’re supposed to believe that the sum product of just around average drafting and free agency performance is one of the worst three teams in the league multiple years in a row.

Convenient that you quoted that one and not the one where I stated that I agreed the personnel moves on offense didn’t pan out.

They had to restock the whole roster basically given the amount of premium talent they lost. I think BB actually did an excellent job restocking the D. Obviously it imploded on offense thanks to Mac not working out.

I don’t think any GM could have feasibly replaced all the talent they lost in a short period. BB did better than expected on D and worse on offense. But the reality is, if Mac was a top 12-15ish QB (not elite but solid starter a la Geno Smith perhaps) BB would probably still be here.

I think there were 4 major things that more or less simultaneously went wrong in the rebuild

Brady left, necessitating a high pick on QB which more or less forced BB into Mac or a less palatable option. Had they not drafted Mac, I don’t know what they would have done but it seemed like a fine and obvious idea

JJSS over Meyers clearly didn’t pan out as hoped. I think the logic made sense (wanted someone with play making YAC ability and whiffed on the eval of JJSS’s knee or declining skill)

Paying Mason instead of Thuney. I don’t think BB wanted to have 3 highly paid interior OL (all 3 were top of market at their respective positions when signed). Probably should have let Mason go and retained Thuney.

Not planning for the LT beyond Trent Brown. Stuck with Wynn too long maybe? Not sure what the plan at LT would have been in 2024 had BB still been around but neglecting the position after Wynn was a mistake.

Now, in a world where Mac isn’t terrible, an offense of Jones, Stevenson, Bourne, Douglas, Henry (and Boutte and Meyers) with an OL including Thuney, Andrews, Onwenu is a competent group.

I know that’s a lot of hypotheticals but really he found a lot of the right pieces. A WR group of Douglas, Meyers, Bourne and Boutte isn’t great but it’s not a wasteland. That OL is rock solid inside. Stevenson and Henry are good starters and Jones (in this world) would be competent

The difference between “decent if boring” and “wasteland” is really 2-4 major decisions that all went terribly despite making sense on paper coinciding with a massive talent drain on both sides of the ball.

I don’t think it’s spit shining shit to point out the D was restocked pretty well and BB found some solid medium term offensive pieces (including Henry and Bourne in FA). He failed massively at finding a QB and a dynamic #1 WR. That’s going to sink any offense.

 

[chilidawg]

Convenient that you quoted that one and not the one where I stated that I agreed the personnel moves on offense didn’t pan out.

They had to restock the whole roster basically given the amount of premium talent they lost. I think BB actually did an excellent job restocking the D. Obviously it imploded on offense thanks to Mac not working out.

I don’t think any GM could have feasibly replaced all the talent they lost in a short period. BB did better than expected on D and worse on offense. But the reality is, if Mac was a top 12-15ish QB (not elite but solid starter a la Geno Smith perhaps) BB would probably still be here.

I think there were 4 major things that more or less simultaneously went wrong in the rebuild

Brady left, necessitating a high pick on QB which more or less forced BB into Mac or a less palatable option. Had they not drafted Mac, I don’t know what they would have done but it seemed like a fine and obvious idea

JJSS over Meyers clearly didn’t pan out as hoped. I think the logic made sense (wanted someone with play making YAC ability and whiffed on the eval of JJSS’s knee or declining skill)

Paying Mason instead of Thuney. I don’t think BB wanted to have 3 highly paid interior OL (all 3 were top of market at their respective positions when signed). Probably should have let Mason go and retained Thuney.

Not planning for the LT beyond Trent Brown. Stuck with Wynn too long maybe? Not sure what the plan at LT would have been in 2024 had BB still been around but neglecting the position after Wynn was a mistake.

Now, in a world where Mac isn’t terrible, an offense of Jones, Stevenson, Bourne, Douglas, Henry (and Boutte and Meyers) with an OL including Thuney, Andrews, Onwenu is a competent group.

I know that’s a lot of hypotheticals but really he found a lot of the right pieces. A WR group of Douglas, Meyers, Bourne and Boutte isn’t great but it’s not a wasteland. That OL is rock solid inside. Stevenson and Henry are good starters and Jones (in this world) would be competent

The difference between “decent if boring” and “wasteland” is really 2-4 major decisions that all went terribly despite making sense on paper coinciding with a massive talent drain on both sides of the ball.

I don’t think it’s spit shining shit to point out the D was restocked pretty well and BB found some solid medium term offensive pieces (including Henry and Bourne in FA). He failed massively at finding a QB and a dynamic #1 WR. That’s going to sink any offense.

This leaves out the offensive coaching, which was poor the last 2 years and doesn't seem to have taken a great leap forward this year.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Very very few players who are not QBs have been traded for 1st round picks in recent years, I think it's something like 3 in the last 5 years? As to 2nds and the like.. sure I guess, though even 2nds have become much more rare the past few years.

Teams make 1 or 2 trades every few years of that type, and it's usually aging stars (Davante went for a 3rd, Amari Cooper a 3rd) the Patriots just made one, they got what will likely be one of the 3-5 highest picks traded for a player. The idea that teams are out here just trading players for picks left and right isn't in line with reality. The Patriots in many ways developed a roster short on top end talent because:
1. Yes they missed a couple picks
2. They had very few high draft picks in the 1st, which is usually where the type of stars or superstars that might get you a 2nd or even the rare 1st get drafted.
3. They were in an unprecedented 20 year contention window that involved squeezing every drop they could out of the roster before they lost the best QB to ever play. The last 2 years is the near inevitable result of that. If they had traded Brady for multiple 1sts or the like they could have the type of deal you're discussing.
4. They let their star QB who the entire roster was built to accomodate (including reducing spending on flashy WRs) go for nothing rather than trading him. If they hadn't agreed to not franchise Brady they could undoubtably gotten a non-trivial return for him.

The roster is bad, that's why BB got fired and why is was likely deserved, but it's not some wild outlier, it's part of the cycle most teams go through.
As to blue chippers... I'd say the Patriots have between 3 and 4, which isn't good, but isn't worst in the league.... this is just a regular bad team, people trying to make it out like this roster is the worst thing ever are just not in touch with the league as a whole, probably not surprising given the Patriots were such a success outlier.

Going back to 2019, I'd argue there's been more trading of high picks (1st and 2nd rounders) than I've ever remembered. If you remove the QB trades, and eliminate trades involving 1st rounders going back and forth (or comparable draft spots), these are some of the trades involving high draft picks, and I'm sure I'm missing quite a few. These are the trades that BB basically didn't make, and IMO, these are the types of trades that probably would have led to Brady staying.


Stefon Diggs went for a 2nd rounder this season
Brian Burns brought a 2nd rounder back
Patriots gave up a 2nd for Mohamed Sanu
Jax traded Jalen Ramsey for 2 1sts
Pitt gave up a 1st for Minkah Fitzpatrick
The aforementioned Tunsil trade with 1sts
Cleveland gave up a 1st, a 3rd and Jabril Peppers for OBJ and Vernon
KC got a 2nd for Dee Ford
Jamal Adams and a 4th brought 2 1st rounders back to the Jets along with a 3rd rounder and McDougald
Buffalo gave up a 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th for Diggs
SF traded DeForest Bucker for a 1st.
Arizona traded Hopkins for a 2nd
Von Miller got a 2nd and a 3rd
Tennessee gave up a 2nd for Julio Jones
Orlando Brown and a 2nd brought back a 1st, 3rd and a 5th
Miami gave up a 1st for Bradley Chubb
AJ Brown got 2 1sts
Arizona gave up a 1st to get Hollywood Brown and a 3rd
Tyreek got a 1st, 2 2nds and a 4th
Adams was traded for a 1st and a 2nd when he went to the Raiders
Bears traded Mack for a 2nd and a 6th
Montez Sweat went for a 2nd
Leonard Williams went for a 2nd and a 6th




IMO, it's not even the big, top of draft trades that make the difference. It's the Jalen Ramsey for a 3rd rounder, Joe Mixon for a 7th rounder, Trent Williams for a 3rd and a 7th, but as an organization, a lot of these are guys in contract years, so you have to be ready to commit to signing them. But there is absolutely a LOT of guys out there in the trade market on a yearly basis that could fill holes. We just haven't done much of it as an organization in quite a while.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Going back to 2019, I'd argue there's been more trading of high picks (1st and 2nd rounders) than I've ever remembered. If you remove the QB trades, and eliminate trades involving 1st rounders going back and forth (or comparable draft spots), these are some of the trades involving high draft picks, and I'm sure I'm missing quite a few. These are the trades that BB basically didn't make, and IMO, these are the types of trades that probably would have led to Brady staying.


Stefon Diggs went for a 2nd rounder this season
Brian Burns brought a 2nd rounder back
Patriots gave up a 2nd for Mohamed Sanu
Jax traded Jalen Ramsey for 2 1sts
Pitt gave up a 1st for Minkah Fitzpatrick
The aforementioned Tunsil trade with 1sts
Cleveland gave up a 1st, a 3rd and Jabril Peppers for OBJ and Vernon
KC got a 2nd for Dee Ford
Jamal Adams and a 4th brought 2 1st rounders back to the Jets along with a 3rd rounder and McDougald
Buffalo gave up a 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th for Diggs
SF traded DeForest Bucker for a 1st.
Arizona traded Hopkins for a 2nd
Von Miller got a 2nd and a 3rd
Tennessee gave up a 2nd for Julio Jones
Orlando Brown and a 2nd brought back a 1st, 3rd and a 5th
Miami gave up a 1st for Bradley Chubb
AJ Brown got 2 1sts
Arizona gave up a 1st to get Hollywood Brown and a 3rd
Tyreek got a 1st, 2 2nds and a 4th
Adams was traded for a 1st and a 2nd when he went to the Raiders
Bears traded Mack for a 2nd and a 6th
Montez Sweat went for a 2nd
Leonard Williams went for a 2nd and a 6th




IMO, it's not even the big, top of draft trades that make the difference. It's the Jalen Ramsey for a 3rd rounder, Joe Mixon for a 7th rounder, Trent Williams for a 3rd and a 7th, but as an organization, a lot of these are guys in contract years, so you have to be ready to commit to signing them. But there is absolutely a LOT of guys out there in the trade market on a yearly basis that could fill holes. We just haven't done much of it as an organization in quite a while.

Good post in general.

In terms of Brady staying if we were more active, I'm no so sure. We traded a 1st for Cooks in 2017 and then a 2nd for Sanu in midseason 2019 so I'd say we were pretty active in this market at the tail end of the era. The trades just didn't work out and neither did the many high draft picks we devoted to offense in that window (Wynn, Harry, Michel).

Post-Brady, I think the big problem in terms of exploiting the trade market is that guys have to want to sign for you. Some guys will just want the most money but others, especially further along in their careers, want to go to a place where they can win or in the case of WRs want to go to a situation where they can put up big numbers. We were ready to open up the bank vault, both in money and picks, for Aiyuk but he wasn't interested. That's been a tough sell for a while.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Good post in general.

In terms of Brady staying if we were more active, I'm no so sure. We traded a 1st for Cooks in 2017 and then a 2nd for Sanu in midseason 2019 so I'd say we were pretty active in this market at the tail end of the era. The trades just didn't work out and neither did the many high draft picks we devoted to offense in that window (Wynn, Harry, Michel).

Post-Brady, I think the big problem in terms of exploiting the trade market is that guys have to want to sign for you. Some guys will just want the most money but others, especially further along in their careers, want to go to a place where they can win or in the case of WRs want to go to a situation where they can put up big numbers. We were ready to open up the bank vault, both in money and picks, for Aiyuk but he wasn't interested. That's been a tough sell for a while.

Well, it's really from both perspectives here though, not just going out and trading for guys, it's also moving your guys for draft picks (which is what the other posters were talking about). When it became clear in 2020 that we were going to be rebuilding and brought in the corpse of Cam Newton to play QB, that was when the time to start moving pieces really should have taken place. Instead, the team went into the FA market and tried to build a winner around a rookie QB in 2021 (although I'd argue that they didn't commit nearly as many resources to the offense as would have been required to do that, especially when you look at those trades above and see a bunch of guys going places with young QBs (Hill/Tua, Allen/Diggs, Brown/Hurts).

But guys will go where they are going to get paid. I don't buy and have never bought into the "destination teams" stuff, except when the player has a no-trade. If you pay them, they will come. Maybe you have to pay more than say, Miami or Houston, but so be it. I'm never going to be the guy worrying about our owner's wallets. If the Pats wanted Aiyuk, they simply didn't open the vault wide enough. If they wanted Adams or Amari Cooper, there's a way to make it work. It just wasn't Bill's model, and IMO, it worked precisely because Tom Brady was able to turn chicken shit into chicken salad like no other player in the history of the game. Funny enough, I believe Bill Belichick was able to turn chicken shit into chicken salad on the defensive side of the ball like no other coach in the history of the game. Thus, you have a 20 year run like we had. We lost Brady, and our offense has been a mess ever since from a talent and execution standpoint, and we've lost Bill, and now those defenders who were always in the right place at the right time simply aren't. The only way out from this without Tom and Bill is talent.

This offseason, they better build an offense and give a young quarterback a chance, or we'll be doing all of this over again in 2027.

 

[Bongorific]

Patriots gave up a 2nd for Mohamed Sanu

You serious Clark?

 

[Deathofthebambino]

You serious Clark?

What am I missing?

 

[astrozombie]

Good post in general.

In terms of Brady staying if we were more active, I'm no so sure. We traded a 1st for Cooks in 2017 and then a 2nd for Sanu in midseason 2019 so I'd say we were pretty active in this market at the tail end of the era. The trades just didn't work out and neither did the many high draft picks we devoted to offense in that window (Wynn, Harry, Michel).

Post-Brady, I think the big problem in terms of exploiting the trade market is that guys have to want to sign for you. Some guys will just want the most money but others, especially further along in their careers, want to go to a place where they can win or in the case of WRs want to go to a situation where they can put up big numbers. We were ready to open up the bank vault, both in money and picks, for Aiyuk but he wasn't interested. That's been a tough sell for a while.

I may be misremembering, but the offensive skill positions were only part of the problem. I recall a lot of Brady eating sacks and getting knocked down that last season and I thought part of the reason he wanted to leave NE was so that he wouldn't get mauled as much. That was now 5 years ago and the O-line situation has gotten worse. So unless some of that draft capital was going to the O-line as well, Brady was already out the door.
FWIW, just another piece of evidence in how important Scar was to the success of those teams.