Bart Scott: The Latest Tom Jackson or Onto to Something?

[joe dokes]

This is a near impossible bar to clear and I am not sure that you can make any definitive statement.

With that said.....one of the things that is fascinating about the Patriots success has been how narrow the margin has been in every playoff run - both the years they have won and the years they have lost. There has been a bounce of the ball, or a call, or an injury, or a play selection that has either led to them lifting a Lombardi in the process (From tuck rule to a pass playcall at the goal line), or getting knocked out (A guy who would never catch another ball in the NFL making the play of his life, Gronkowski getting injured, Wilfork slipping and allowing a first down on a pivotal 3rd down). Other than the year that Baltimore really beat them soundly and Brady got booed, most every playoff run has been tight (NB: I could google this to get actual scores, but I am way too lazy for that).

Arguably the most "coin tossy" of their SB victories was the last one. You had the ref screwups in Baltimore on the Hoowamnui stuff ( you need to get confirmation from the defensive captain that he understands. This was not done. I personally think that the Ravens were given enough time to make their substitutions on at least one of the plays, but I wouldn't say that on Ravensluverz.com) and then the Butler play.

In the hypothetical where they don't win that Super Bowl, they have now gone ten+ seasons without lifting a Lombardi despite having two potential GOATs landing in their laps outside of the first round. Would you feel as confident saying that letting go of that talent early was the right move in that situation? I honestly don't know.

I think that the non-dominance is a function of being in the SB hunt every single year, without some of the in-between seasons that every other regularly good team has had. (to name 3--Broncos 2006-11; Steelers: for every 2 10+ win seasons they seem to have one 8 win season; Packers, seasons of 8,8,8 and 4 wins since 2005)). This will likely be the 14th straight 10+ win season and 15 out of 16.

It may be impossible, in the salary cap era, to both crush your opponents and compete every single year. That's how you end up in a cycle where you very easily could have 6 SBs or none.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

In the hypothetical where they don't win that Super Bowl, they have now gone ten+ seasons without lifting a Lombardi despite having two potential GOATs landing in their laps outside of the first round. Would you feel as confident saying that letting go of that talent early was the right move in that situation? I honestly don't know.

It's an interesting question that has debated here more than a few times. There are lots of voices on this board (and elsewhere in the sports media and for sure on sports radio) who wanted (or still want) the pats to "GFIN" to get another Lombardi during the Brady window. BB has made it clear he's not going to do that, and Kraft seems to support the idea that the goal is to put a team on the field who has a legitimate shot at a deep playoff run every year, without materially sacrificing next year's chances for this year's.

This was mentioned in another thread, but if you want to play the "what if" game and you take a look at the Pats Super Bowls it could just as easily look like this:

2001 - They had no business winning this one - No Lombardi
2003 - Tossup, but give them the close win over the Panthers - Lombardi #1
2004 - Head and shoulders the best team in the league - Lombardi #2
2007 - Greatest team I've ever seen in my lifetime. - Lombardi #3
2011 - Even with a hobbled Gronk probably should have beaten that Giant team - Lombardi #4
2014 - Another tossup. Assume Carroll hands it off to Lynch - No Lombardi

So you could easily play the "ball bounces in funny ways" game to re-distribute the Championships so that they have the same number, but no more than a 3 year gap in Championships over a 15 year period. Would that change how people think about letting talent go early?

All in all I don't know how you can argue with Belichick's overall roster construction philosophy. He obviously makes mistakes, Collins and Jones may very well be two of those. But I'm comfortable overall with the way he thinks about managing his roster over the long term to maximize his team's Super Bowl chances.

 

[reggiecleveland]

This may get mocked, but whatever.

I would have sworn the NFL would have held off forever from the baby, whining stuff. There was a time that you did not trash talk people that won. When you lost, by code of honor, you had to shut up. When the game was over, even if you hated the guy that beat you, part of what he won was your silence. I have given up on youth and high school sports, too many coaches from different generations, but I would expect at the pro level you at least wait until somebody loses to chirp.

I can't imagine PeeWee Reese, or Duke Snider trashing the Yankee way, even though they beat them once in 55. Whitey Ford blatantly cheated but the old timers shake it off as over, because he didn't get caught by the ump. If anything his reputation as a winner is enhanced. Isiah Thomas and Rodman were pilloried for trashing Bird, largely because they did so after getting beat.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Also, what was the Wilfork slip? I don't remember that but it's possible I blocked it out amongst all the bad juju plays.

Didn't Wilfork slip on a critical third down play in their AFCG against Denver, which led to them starting a drive that ended in a TD which got the momentum going for Denver? I don't mean to open up a house of horrors, goodness knows I have my own from this season alone, but I thought I remembered that. I watched that game at a million o'clock from a bar in Switzerland so I maybe wrong, but for some reason I always considered that loss as being a game the Pats could have won......reasonable people could absolutely disagree.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

But "football is a game of inches" we are always told. One could easily argue that the amazing thing in this run has been not the fact of only one Lombardi since 2004, considering TB & Gronk, but that short of those two, can you name one sure fire HOF player in that run? Randy Moss maybe/probably. Who else?
Perhaps BBs strategy of roster-building which emphasizes the importance of players 40-60 on the depth chart is just as important (if not more so) than the standard strategy of loading up the top of your roster (cf. Indy ca 2001-2008, Denver ca 2012-2016).

Very reasonable point. Although when I think of other dynasties - other than the older ones, where veteran's committees have gone back for later rounds, I am struggling to think of ones that had more than 3-4. I guess Rodney Harrison might have a shot.....Dan Koppen should have his own wing, Matt Light should be on the ballot but probably won't be......a lot of Pro Bowlers, but not many HoF talents outside of the two guys who weren't drafted in the first round (still amazing to me).

 

[InstaFace]

At the end of the segment Scott said Belichick isn't loyal to anyone but himself. You could feel the hatred oozing out of Scott. And he is wrong. BB is loyal to nothing but winning games for the Patriots. Does anything else matter?

He's also intensely loyal to his former coaches and coordinators. His staff from his Cleveland years is like a murderer's row of coaching talent, and he's gone to bat for most of them - or stayed in very close contact - basically to a man. But then, he doesn't have a salary cap for coaches to work with.

 

[esfr]

If Bart Scott had said BB doesn't value the talent of his players highly (or as highly) I would agree with him - is that even controversial? His and the organizations valuation of players is consistently below that of the league, in general. Bill and FO rarely pay, what is perceived as fair market value for players. Not even Tom Brady is paid "market" even allowing for a subjective assessment of market. This approach has been an unqualified success by any definition. To what extent is that a function of TB12 or the philosophy or the system. Maybe the future will reveal. I do believe that it's possible to have sustained success by de-valuing individuals but it's not crazy to suppose that players don't want to be reminded of the personal financial sacrifice in very visible ways as they have been forced to over the last 12 months. We have every reason to believe BB knows exactly what he is doing, but I am really interested to watch what goes on the next couple of weeks.

 

[ifmanis5]

If Bart Scott had said BB doesn't value the talent of his players highly (or as highly) I would agree with him - is that even controversial?

Of course BB values talent. All he ever says in any presser he's ever given is that the players decide the games and that they are the most important part of the game. Perhaps he should hand out more dumb contracts like giving $54 million dollars to Jairus Byrd to prove he "values" players? Being smart with how he handles the cap doesn't mean he doesn't value talent.

 

[pappymojo]

If Bart Scott had said BB doesn't value the talent of his players highly (or as highly) I would agree with him - is that even controversial? His and the organizations valuation of players is consistently below that of the league, in general. Bill and FO rarely pay, what is perceived as fair market value for players. Not even Tom Brady is paid "market" even allowing for a subjective assessment of market. This approach has been an unqualified success by any definition. To what extent is that a function of TB12 or the philosophy or the system. Maybe the future will reveal. I do believe that it's possible to have sustained success by de-valuing individuals but it's not crazy to suppose that players don't want to be reminded of the personal financial sacrifice in very visible ways as they have been forced to over the last 12 months. We have every reason to believe BB knows exactly what he is doing, but I am really interested to watch what goes on the next couple of weeks.

If that were true, how can you explain how high the Patriots salary is each year? If the Patriots were paying all of their players at salaries below the rest of the league, the team salary would be below the rest of the league. But it is not.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

If that were true, how can you explain how high the Patriots salary is each year? If the Patriots were paying all of their players at salaries below the rest of the league, the team salary would be below the rest of the league. But it is not.

Right. Because the Pats tend to pay out more money to the "middle-class" guys, don't blow their wad at the top end, and build for depth rather than load up at the top.

It's certainly OK to quibble with some of the specific decisions that are made: after Sunday night the early returns on the defense without Collins aren't good. Overall view however shows a long-term period of dominance that shows they must be doing something right.

 

[esfr]

If that were true, how can you explain how high the Patriots salary is each year? If the Patriots were paying all of their players at salaries below the rest of the league, the team salary would be below the rest of the league. But it is not.

The explanation is they don't. The Patriots are 25th out of 32 teams in cap spending in 2016. For commitments in 2017 they are currently at 30 out 32 teams with only Browns and Buccaneers having less $ committed. As far as cash spending in 2016 they are 28th out of 32 teams.spending $30M less than the Broncos!

But aside from that...I should have been more specific - the undervaluing of players compared with "market" tends to be at the elite level of talent. If you look at the Patriots salary distribution by position they generally spread salary out across more players, deeper into the roster. I assume that is designed to a) prevent a huge performance decline in case of injury and b) always managing the roster with an eye on the future.

Don't get me wrong, it's worked and I have faith in BB. But my faith isn't absolute and I don't see anything wrong with wondering aloud if the teams "frugality first" mindset can cause blowback.

 

[Dotrat]

It's an interesting question that has debated here more than a few times. There are lots of voices on this board (and elsewhere in the sports media and for sure on sports radio) who wanted (or still want) the pats to "GFIN" to get another Lombardi during the Brady window. BB has made it clear he's not going to do that, and Kraft seems to support the idea that the goal is to put a team on the field who has a legitimate shot at a deep playoff run every year, without materially sacrificing next year's chances for this year's.

This was mentioned in another thread, but if you want to play the "what if" game and you take a look at the Pats Super Bowls it could just as easily look like this:

2001 - They had no business winning this one - No Lombardi
2003 - Tossup, but give them the close win over the Panthers - Lombardi #1
2004 - Head and shoulders the best team in the league - Lombardi #2
2007 - Greatest team I've ever seen in my lifetime. - Lombardi #3
2011 - Even with a hobbled Gronk probably should have beaten that Giant team - Lombardi #4
2014 - Another tossup. Assume Carroll hands it off to Lynch - No Lombardi

So you could easily play the "ball bounces in funny ways" game to re-distribute the Championships so that they have the same number, but no more than a 3 year gap in Championships over a 15 year period. Would that change how people think about letting talent go early?

All in all I don't know how you can argue with Belichick's overall roster construction philosophy. He obviously makes mistakes, Collins and Jones may very well be two of those. But I'm comfortable overall with the way he thinks about managing his roster over the long term to maximize his team's Super Bowl chances.

Don't forget 2006--a barely failed 4th-Down conversion and a flu bug that hit about 25% of the starters in the AFCCG probably cost them another Lombardi.

 

[Van Everyman]

To get this back on topic, or at least oriented toward the question in the OP, I do think there's something to be said for how the media reacts when BB moves an established veteran.

We all make fun of Tom Jackson for his 2003 comments now, but let's not forget that the locker room was completely shocked by the Lawyer Milloy news. IIRC, Brady himself said something like, "Man, that's cold." So it's not like Jackson was pulling his comments out of thin air. He just overstated the depth of the players' feelings in the wake of a really bad beat down by a divisional rival led by two of the Patriots' recently departed emotional leaders. And perhaps to Jackson's credit, he did a pretty good mea culpa at the end of the year.

But the media always seems to take every contract decision that the Patriots make, whether it's cutting a veteran or Brady taking a hometown discount, and turn it into a narrative that Belichick is arrogant or sees players as replaceable parts. There's probably some truth to both. I mean, does he really think the secondary would fall apart without Logan Ryan? Is Joe Thuney essential to the success of the offensive line? My guess is that he looks at players partly through the prism of raw talent but as much, and probably even more, as a matter of how coachable they are – and how capable they are of executing the coaches' game plan.

If that's arrogant, I'm fine with it.

 

[pappymojo]

The explanation is they don't. The Patriots are 25th out of 32 teams in cap spending in 2016. For commitments in 2017 they are currently at 30 out 32 teams with only Browns and Buccaneers having less $ committed. As far as cash spending in 2016 they are 28th out of 32 teams.spending $30M less than the Broncos!

But aside from that...I should have been more specific - the undervaluing of players compared with "market" tends to be at the elite level of talent. If you look at the Patriots salary distribution by position they generally spread salary out across more players, deeper into the roster. I assume that is designed to a) prevent a huge performance decline in case of injury and b) always managing the roster with an eye on the future.

Don't get me wrong, it's worked and I have faith in BB. But my faith isn't absolute and I don't see anything wrong with wondering aloud if the teams "frugality first" mindset can cause blowback.

I agree that the Patriots undervalue elite level of talent or at the very least near-elite level of talent. With that said, I think this year is a bit of an outlier (as is next year) or perhaps even that it represents a paradigm shift in how the Patriots construct their roster.

In past years, I would have expected the Patriots to sign some of their pending free agents or underpaid players to new contracts during the year. We haven't seen that happen yet this year. This could be a reflection of how the Patriots value their players, but I wonder if the Patriots are simply planning on rolling over their cap savings into future years in an effort to build up a cache of money - similar to how the Raiders paid out a lot of money to free agents this year. It almost seems to me that the new CBA encourages roster construction based on a longer time-frame - sort of a four-year plan instead of one-year plan.

 

[joe dokes]

Don't get me wrong, it's worked and I have faith in BB. But my faith isn't absolute and I don't see anything wrong with wondering aloud if the teams "frugality first" mindset can cause blowback.

I struggle with the concept of "my faith isn't absolute" and the fact that the team has been at or really close to the top for the last 15 years. Nobody thinks BB is completely infallible; and everybody thinks this run will end sometime. The team has had this mindset for this entire run, so whether its called blowback, homicidal rage or bimblynimblywickets, it doesn't seem to have ever affected the team's on-field success. It only seems to affect the perception of the team by those who have no rational basis to criticize the team's overall performance but have to push some kind of storyline because when the red light goes on, you can't have your thumb up your ass.

Its certainly possible that there has been some sort of shift in player attitudes over the past 5 years, such that BB's way wont work on players born after 1995, but it doesn't sound like anyone is talking about that. So to me all the hedging sounds like reserving the right to say "I told ya so" someday.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

The explanation is they don't. The Patriots are 25th out of 32 teams in cap spending in 2016. For commitments in 2017 they are currently at 30 out 32 teams with only Browns and Buccaneers having less $ committed. As far as cash spending in 2016 they are 28th out of 32 teams.spending $30M less than the Broncos!
.

The problem is that "Cap Spending" and "cash spending" is kind of a nonsense number - it rolls bonuses into the years they're paid out, instead of the years they count against the cap, which leads to a huge amount of misleading volitility.

As to the example of the Broncos, the Pats only 300K more cap space available than the Broncos right now, because they didn't give out any huge bonuses this year to inflate the number.

in 2015 they had the 3rd least cap space. In 2014 it was 6th. Typically, by this point in the season, the Patriots have about enough cap space left to sign 2 or 3 vets incase they have a bunch of injuries.

Not having a lot of money committed to the future just tells you that they manage their cap well.

 

[Van Everyman]

Didn't Wilfork slip on a critical third down play in their AFCG against Denver, which led to them starting a drive that ended in a TD which got the momentum going for Denver? I don't mean to open up a house of horrors, goodness knows I have my own from this season alone, but I thought I remembered that. I watched that game at a million o'clock from a bar in Switzerland so I maybe wrong, but for some reason I always considered that loss as being a game the Pats could have won......reasonable people could absolutely disagree.

Unless I'm somehow misremembering, I'm pretty sure Wilfork was on IR with the Achilles injury for that game in 2013.

 

[Stitch01]

The explanation is they don't. The Patriots are 25th out of 32 teams in cap spending in 2016. For commitments in 2017 they are currently at 30 out 32 teams with only Browns and Buccaneers having less $ committed. As far as cash spending in 2016 they are 28th out of 32 teams.spending $30M less than the Broncos!

But aside from that...I should have been more specific - the undervaluing of players compared with "market" tends to be at the elite level of talent. If you look at the Patriots salary distribution by position they generally spread salary out across more players, deeper into the roster. I assume that is designed to a) prevent a huge performance decline in case of injury and b) always managing the roster with an eye on the future.

Don't get me wrong, it's worked and I have faith in BB. But my faith isn't absolute and I don't see anything wrong with wondering aloud if the teams "frugality first" mindset can cause blowback.

This is factually wrong. They do. Their cash spending and cap spending over time is not anywhere near 25th and 30th. Their cash spending number in a single year doesnt measure anything of worth. This has been discussed ad nauseum on here, the idea that the Patriots dont spend cash is a myth. The idea that the Pats dont spend cap space is a myth.

The Pats dont usually pay free agent/open market dollars for top talent, but that's a different assessment than saying they are "frugal" or "dont value players"

 

[ifmanis5]

This is factually wrong. They do. Their cash spending and cap spending over time is not anywhere near 25th and 30th. Their cash spending number in a single year doesnt measure anything of worth. This has been discussed ad nauseum on here, the idea that the Patriots dont spend cash is a myth. The idea that the Pats dont spend cap space is a myth.

The Pats dont usually pay free agent/open market dollars for top talent, but that's a different assessment than saying they are "frugal" or "dont value players"

Exactly.
We're getting dangerously close to Tony Maz "Kraft is cheap, Mikey, he's cheap I tell ya!" hot take territory.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Unless I'm somehow misremembering, I'm pretty sure Wilfork was on IR with the Achilles injury for that game in 2013.

You are almost certainly right. "Whoever was playing DT" then. Again, I could be confusing games, but I thought it was a game where the margin of victory was much more narrow than the score.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Nobody thinks BB is completely infallible; and everybody thinks this run will end sometime.

I've been gone for a while but I'm assuming that this is your first day posting here?

 

[j-man]

if anything he shouild thank NE Shanczez and rex ryan for having their games of their lives in 2010 or he is just on local ny radio

u can hate jackson all u want but without that comment do u win the 2003 super Bowl because if KC beats INDY in 03 they beat u in 2003 basiclly had the 1999 rams off but no def whatsoever

 

[j-man]

Bill has a good 5-10 years left but if i am mr kraft i am worryed about loseing both MCD Patrica to HC Jobs elsewhere i think u try and sign MCD or patrica with the understanding by 2019 or 2020 he is NE head coach and tell bill u can be GM forever if u want but i dont want a Tom Landery 1988 season by 2025

because u dont want to be Dallas 1988-1989 Denver 2009-2010 or Oakland 2004-2013

 

[pedroia'sboys]

I struggle with the concept of "my faith isn't absolute" and the fact that the team has been at or really close to the top for the last 15 years. Nobody thinks BB is completely infallible; and everybody thinks this run will end sometime. The team has had this mindset for this entire run, so whether its called blowback, homicidal rage or bimblynimblywickets, it doesn't seem to have ever affected the team's on-field success. It only seems to affect the perception of the team by those who have no rational basis to criticize the team's overall performance but have to push some kind of storyline because when the red light goes on, you can't have your thumb up your ass.

Its certainly possible that there has been some sort of shift in player attitudes over the past 5 years, such that BB's way wont work on players born after 1995, but it doesn't sound like anyone is talking about that. So to me all the hedging sounds like reserving the right to say "I told ya so" someday.

I think this is crap. Most of the Pats young players we're college team captains and outstanding members of the community. They all admit he's hard on them expects them to do their job, but all in the end say how much they respect him and his professionalism. Cyrus Jones has struggled I think he will figure it out.How many young players have the Pats had became disgruntled now compare it to league avg.

-Let's be honest even with CJ off field incident he was gone regaurdless. Thuney has been everything you can ask for. As for Mitchell there's just to many weapons for him to get on the field. I wouldnt take back the deal.CJ was not going to be here next year, they were not given him a Vernon deal.
Ryan-is struggling. He was out of this world last year. he's just not as good as last year and not as bad as he looks now. Nothing to do with attitude.
Sheard-is puzzling. He was great last year, is in his prime contract year. Based on his comments it seems more off a production issue than a attitude problem.

Salary cap issue is a joke. We talk so much about value in baseball but when BB+Pats don't overpay for top talent theyre cheap. I'm not giving chandler Jones 90 million never. Use that money to resign Cannon/Hightower. They want a 53 man deep roster. I think it has been working.
The upcoming contract that will be fascinating is Butler. I think the they give him the largest contract in Pats history for a defensive player. Unless he gets a ridiculous offer next season and if he does adios.

 

[JerBear]

Most of the Pats young players we're college team captains and outstanding members of the community.

I know this is a typical talking point about patriots drafts, but aren't most players in the NFL draft college team captains? I can't imagine many draftees weren't captains except on the deepest teams.

 

[mcpickl]

The explanation is they don't. The Patriots are 25th out of 32 teams in cap spending in 2016. For commitments in 2017 they are currently at 30 out 32 teams with only Browns and Buccaneers having less $ committed. As far as cash spending in 2016 they are 28th out of 32 teams.spending $30M less than the Broncos!

Well, yeah. These two things pretty much go hand in hand. The Broncos have spent 30M more in cash than the Patriots! Which is why, they have 25M more committed to next season already than the Patriots! Exclamation points for both!! That's pretty much how it works. When you have guys committed into future years, you have to pay them in advance via signing bonuses. It doesn't mean one team is cheap and the other extravagant. Just means one team has put some of next years spending on their credit card this year. All that matters is how much you've spent of your cap.

Since 2011 when NFL teams were able to rollover unused cap space, the Patriots have done it every season. This season, that total rollover was 1.35M. So going into this year, of a possible 640M in cap dollars since 2011 the Patriots spent 638.65M. That's pretty good! You know what a team that doesn't want to spend on their players would do? Rather than rollover their unused cap, they would shove that savings in their owners pocket, which you're allowed to do. Only three teams didn't rollover all of their unused cap space this year. You know who one of those teams was? The Denver Broncos.

 

[tims4wins]

Scott continues to troll

“Gronk’s on his way out (of New England),” Scott said. “Because of injuries, and they don’t stick with you when they see you slipping. Now, what happens when you have a big man that starts having back problems -- he’s only in his seventh year, and he has two years remaining. And guess what? They already brought in his replacement and they can get [Martellus Bennett] for cheaper.”

Host Damon Amendolara correctly pointed out that Bennett, 29, is older than Gronkowski.

“Don’t matter,” Scott replied. “Less wear and tear on the body.”

 

[ShaneTrot]

Whenever I think of Bart Scott, I think of this play. He is #57

 

[ifmanis5]

I looked at his Twitter. Not as Troll-ish as I was expecting.
Except from Jan 10, 2015. AFC Div playoff Pats at home against the Ravens (Pats won 35-31)...
Is "Mr. Glass" Brady or Gronk?

 

[Ralphwiggum]

"They don't stick with you when they see you're slipping"

I mean, he phrases it in an intentionally inflammatory manner, but yeah.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

I'm confused, I thought this was a business comprised of individuals seeking to maximize corporate revenue and personal income.

In fairness, Bart Scott took a discount out of loyalty to the Ravens rather than signing a lucrative contract in free agency with another team.

 

[InstaFace]

Whenever I think of Bart Scott, I think of this play. He is #57

Man, what a great play. I wonder what happened the next 5 plays or so?

 

[Bleedred]

Since 2011 when NFL teams were able to rollover unused cap space, the Patriots have done it every season. This season, that total rollover was 1.35M. So going into this year, of a possible 640M in cap dollars since 2011 the Patriots spent 638.65M. That's pretty good! You know what a team that doesn't want to spend on their players would do? Rather than rollover their unused cap, they would shove that savings in their owners pocket, which you're allowed to do. Only three teams didn't rollover all of their unused cap space this year. You know who one of those teams was? The Denver Broncos.

Source?

 

[CantKeepmedown]

Scott continues to troll

“Gronk’s on his way out (of New England),” Scott said. “Because of injuries, and they don’t stick with you when they see you slipping. Now, what happens when you have a big man that starts having back problems -- he’s only in his seventh year, and he has two years remaining. And guess what? They already brought in his replacement and they can get [Martellus Bennett] for cheaper.”

Host Damon Amendolara correctly pointed out that Bennett, 29, is older than Gronkowski.

“Don’t matter,” Scott replied. “Less wear and tear on the body.”

Well, he's got Kirk Minihane on his side. He was saying this morning that he wouldn't be surprised if the Pats cut or traded him this off season. He thinks Belichick is sick of having to deal with injuries and he's not reliable enough anymore.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Bart Scott and Kirk Minihane. Add in John Tomase and you've got a real murderer's row of football knowledge there.

 

[joe dokes]

One day, Gronk and Brady and BB will no longer be good at their jobs. The Bart Scott can howl into the void about he was right. And first.