DE Michael Bennett Traded to Dallas for a 7th

Time to Mo Vaughn

RIP Dernell
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
7,202
I think Bill must view this as addition by subtraction. His method only works if you have the right guys in the room. He needs guys like Terrence Brooks to work their asses off all week and learn the game plan even with little chance of seeing snaps. That’s possibly why Bill is the first off the sideline to slap Brooks on the helmet when he gets a pick.

How many public one game disciplinary suspensions can you recall under Belichick? We think this one was playing time related, right? That is just a square peg in a round hole in this locker room. Maybe Bill would be an even better coach if he were more player friendly. It’s hard to imagine, but who knows? And it’s a good question as players get more and more control through the NFLPA and direct fan social media interaction, whether Bill can adapt or whether the pool of guys willing to do it his way will diminish.

But for now, this is what it is, and the risk is that you lose a guy like Bennett. It will hurt if he becomes needed in the future but we actually should feel lucky that it is just depth and a few million in cap space.
I think it may very well just be addition by addition (of $2.6M in cap space). Bennett is a talented player (he had very good production in the limited snaps he played), who was going to see minimal use with the current Patriots scheme. Similar to Josh Gordon a number of DEs jumped ahead of him including Wise it appears. In addition to the money it also frees up one more roster spot, which is helpful because the Patriots have depth at DL/LB and not other areas.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
Baring injury this seems extremely likely to happen, so basically the Patriots moved down 20-25 slots in the draft to have Bennett on their roster.
I guess with the usual caveat about how he might fetch a compensatory pick if he signs as a free agent after next year. Given his cap number next year, though, I'm not sure it was that realistic he wouldn't be cut anyway. The real cost is the cap room he occupied this year and will occupy next year. I guess in the end we paid about 1.5 million per sack.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
Yeah, I can see two sides. You make a good point. It's really hard to know without being in that world, since it's such a unique world.

My instinct is that power dynamics are changing in the NFL and that the next great coach might find a way to make it work in a less hierarchical way. I know that this kind of goes against conventional wisdom and the way things have been done for many many years, and so it's very clear that I could be wrong. The Pete Carroll approach has some downsides and you definitely cannot run any organization of 100 people by committee -- especially where many of the employees have more job security and make more money than the boss. And you need someone to manage a very very competitive group of players. But there's always more than one way to run a railroad. Perhaps the NFL will, after the Patriots dynasty, just revert to one-off parity peaks and valleys, but I tend to think someone will be an innovator the way Belichick has been, and when I wonder what kind of innovation makes sense in the mid-21st Century, you could imagine some coach who finds way to be more progressive. And, whatever it is, you can almost guarantee that it will turn our stomachs -- just the way that all innovation tends to turn the stomachs of the old guard who have gotten used to something. (I should note that when it comes to innovation in a changing game -- Belichick is actually the master. I'm more talking about innovations in how staff and players relate.)

It just feels to me as though there may be a bit of a paradigm shift underfoot, that I'm not sure Belichick could or would want to incorporate. I think it's more than a few years away, though, so it probably doesn't make any difference for him. But for present purposes, where you have to commit substantial resources limited by the cap to individual players, my way or the highway is always going to be a bit risky.
It's funny in that from the outside, BB is seen as mostly an old-school dictator, and there's plenty of that, but as shown in the posts about plane seats and never trashing players, internally he is nearly as much of a "players' coach" as some of the rah-rah machines out there. Maybe there's a dynamic that players can accept...if the results are there, I'm all yours on the field and in training and practice. But it has to be different outside the lines. I think BB *has* adapted to that. I dont recall his saying anything about off-field Gronkowski that even the most-thin skinned Gronk-defender could turn into criticism.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Yes, he is seen as a dictator from the outside. Here's the thing though... I think one of the things that makes him (and his players) successful is that he spells out to a T exactly what he needs/wants from players. What habits, what approach, what effort level. How they are to approach football as their craft - and do what is necessary to be successful. That's not a guarantee of success - it is after all a business. But those with enough talent and enough drive (and the right combination of roster permutations to permit them a spot) to follow the blueprint are positioned to enjoy as much success as possible. He also holds them accountable for everything within those expectations. As a player I can't imagine there is anything worse then getting cut from a team and not knowing why. Wondering if you left something on the table that could have put you over the top. I imagine that doesn't happen very often in New England (Malcom Butler aside). The answer might suck (i.e. you were dead even with one other player positionally on the depth chart - but we cut you both because we lost 3 OL and need an extra body), but in the end that approach puts a players success or failure as much in their own control as it can be. Isn't that the best case scenario for a player? To me, that is what sets him apart as a players coach.

There are other things as well (mentioned upthread and all over the site). Treating all players mostly equal. Not publicly blaming a player. Doing everything he can to make them successful. Requiring them to learn secondary (and tertiary?) responsibilities that allow them to be more versatile and valuable (even if it is to another team in the long run). Looking under every rock in game preparation so the players know they are going to be prepared for any situation to the best of the coaching staffs ability. Working as hard as the players do for their success. I mean, what player doesn't want those things if they really want to win?
 

queenb

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 6, 2016
236
Yes, he is seen as a dictator from the outside. Here's the thing though... I think one of the things that makes him (and his players) successful is that he spells out to a T exactly what he needs/wants from players. What habits, what approach, what effort level. How they are to approach football as their craft - and do what is necessary to be successful. That's not a guarantee of success - it is after all a business. But those with enough talent and enough drive (and the right combination of roster permutations to permit them a spot) to follow the blueprint are positioned to enjoy as much success as possible. He also holds them accountable for everything within those expectations. As a player I can't imagine there is anything worse then getting cut from a team and not knowing why. Wondering if you left something on the table that could have put you over the top. I imagine that doesn't happen very often in New England (Malcom Butler aside). The answer might suck (i.e. you were dead even with one other player positionally on the depth chart - but we cut you both because we lost 3 OL and need an extra body), but in the end that approach puts a players success or failure as much in their own control as it can be. Isn't that the best case scenario for a player? To me, that is what sets him apart as a players coach.

There are other things as well (mentioned upthread and all over the site). Treating all players mostly equal. Not publicly blaming a player. Doing everything he can to make them successful. Requiring them to learn secondary (and tertiary?) responsibilities that allow them to be more versatile and valuable (even if it is to another team in the long run). Looking under every rock in game preparation so the players know they are going to be prepared for any situation to the best of the coaching staffs ability. Working as hard as the players do for their success. I mean, what player doesn't want those things if they really want to win?
And not even if they want to win: I think the biggest (only?) downside from a player perspective of playing for BB -- that you get let go "early" rather than rewarded for past performance with a future contract -- is something that ultimately helps more players than it hurts. The blue chippers he lets go of "early" always get massive pay-days elsewhere in part because they've demonstrated success as part of a winning culture. And I would bet the middle and low end cast offs talent-wise probably get more looks around league than do comparable players that get released by other teams.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
My impression / understanding is also that while Belichick has very high standards and very high accountability and discipline to force players to meet those standards, he is not overly autocratic. I can think of several examples off the top of my head of on-field freedom that Patriots players have:
  • Didn't it come out that the players were calling some of the blitzes this past Sunday?
  • Brady in Belichick's office in one of the NFL Films docs suggesting a backside adjustment on a play (and Belichick appearing receptive)
  • Brady pushing for the field goal in the last Super Bowl
  • I can't find it, but I seem to remember that the defensive backs suggested the technique they play on Cover 0 (playing off with eyes on the QB rather than pressing tight)
  • Pepper Johnson (I think he's talking about coaching rather than playing here FWIW): "One of my attractions to him was he was the first coach that, granted, it was my first experience in the NFL, that didn’t try to tell me how to do something. He told me what he wanted done, and then he allowed me the freedom to get it done however I had to get it done, and if I if I couldn’t find a way, then I would ask him - I was big enough I would ask him, and he would tell me.”
  • Even something as simple as route conversions. We lament that Patriots receivers don't get all the complicated adjustments (probably overblown), but what they come down to is that instead of just running a route, players are charged with deciding what route will get them open.
I think it's fair to say that the Patriots system isn't for everybody. I do think it has very high standards, but I don't think it's dictatorial.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
I think that in Bennett's case, it was an instance where how the Patriots were going to use him wasn't optimal for his personal stats. For a player that is looking at his end of career stats and trying to make a case for the hall of fame, or even for a player that is looking at his next contract, I can't get too upset with a player for wanting an opportunity to perform. I believe that there was something similar when we traded Chandler Jones to the Cardinals. Not everyone is going to buy in to the team first approach and that's okay. Both sides tried, but it didn't work out. End it as cleanly as you can and move on.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,753
Pittsburgh, PA
It's funny in that from the outside, BB is seen as mostly an old-school dictator, and there's plenty of that, but as shown in the posts about plane seats and never trashing players, internally he is nearly as much of a "players' coach" as some of the rah-rah machines out there. Maybe there's a dynamic that players can accept...if the results are there, I'm all yours on the field and in training and practice. But it has to be different outside the lines. I think BB *has* adapted to that. I dont recall his saying anything about off-field Gronkowski that even the most-thin skinned Gronk-defender could turn into criticism.
I think Gronk is a great example of BB's humility and servant-leadership. Despite appearing to be from different planets, with Gronk's partying ways anathema to NFL culture and more-often seen in the NBA, Belichick was once mic'd up talking to him - and I remember a scene where he asks Gronk "Gronk, I heard [crazy off-field situation], is that really true?" Uh, yeah coach. "Whatever works for you" - and he laughs about it.

In other words, he doesn't ask for anything from the players other than what amounts to his core principles. He doesn't ask for conformity in personality type (though there's a convergence there), or how they spend the offseason, or whatever. He's very clear about what he demands of his players, and if they meet that, then truly none of the other BS actually matters.

For the rest of us, it's a bit like a company saying "we don't have a face-time culture, we value work/life balance", but then the reality is that there's a ton of pressure to be at your desk at 8pm... vs going to a place that REALLY IS about that stuff, and as long as you get your work done on time nobody cares about the "how" or "when".
 

Red Right Ankle

Formerly the Story of Your Red Right Ankle
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
11,937
Multivac
In a league where one of the owners is Jerry Jones, I have no idea how you can say partying is anathema to NFL culture.

That said, I agree with the rest. BB doesn't seem to bother about the off field stuff unless it affects the on field stuff. That works in his favor as players don't feel cramped or controlled.
 
Last edited:

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,753
Pittsburgh, PA
In a league where one of the owners is Jerry Jones, I have no idea how you can say partying is anathema to NFL culture.

That said, I agree with the rest. BB doesn't seem to bother about the off field stuff unless it affects the on field stuff. That works in his favor as players don't feel cramped or controlled.
For the players. Rules don't apply to the owners, we know this.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
Yeah, I can see two sides. You make a good point. It's really hard to know without being in that world, since it's such a unique world.

My instinct is that power dynamics are changing in the NFL and that the next great coach might find a way to make it work in a less hierarchical way. I know that this kind of goes against conventional wisdom and the way things have been done for many many years, and so it's very clear that I could be wrong. The Pete Carroll approach has some downsides and you definitely cannot run any organization of 100 people by committee -- especially where many of the employees have more job security and make more money than the boss. And you need someone to manage a very very competitive group of players. But there's always more than one way to run a railroad. Perhaps the NFL will, after the Patriots dynasty, just revert to one-off parity peaks and valleys, but I tend to think someone will be an innovator the way Belichick has been, and when I wonder what kind of innovation makes sense in the mid-21st Century, you could imagine some coach who finds way to be more progressive. And, whatever it is, you can almost guarantee that it will turn our stomachs -- just the way that all innovation tends to turn the stomachs of the old guard who have gotten used to something. (I should note that when it comes to innovation in a changing game -- Belichick is actually the master. I'm more talking about innovations in how staff and players relate.)

It just feels to me as though there may be a bit of a paradigm shift underfoot, that I'm not sure Belichick could or would want to incorporate. I think it's more than a few years away, though, so it probably doesn't make any difference for him. But for present purposes, where you have to commit substantial resources limited by the cap to individual players, my way or the highway is always going to be a bit risky.
https://www.patriots.com/video/michael-bennett-7-28-it-s-nice-when-you-have-a-coach-that-sees-you-as-a-human
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
+1. I have yet to hear Belichick call out a player on his team for a mistake. After a tough loss he will sometimes say "we need to play better, take care of the ball better, coach better. That's everyone in the room" and leaves it at that. Very few coaches seem willing to follow that model.

Internally, players may get an earful. But that's at least kept internal, and players do seem to respect that.

Same goes with players that are traded away.
They also don’t get on players for not being as fast or as strong as the other guy if they execute correctly. They don’t confuse bullying for leadership. They don’t ask you to do shit you can’t do. Etc.

It’s always sounded to me like there is a lot less bullshit involved with being on the Patriots at the end of the day. Maybe it’s a matter of player preference of what different players like. Like, some people really don’t like dry wit. It is what it is.

It's funny in that from the outside, BB is seen as mostly an old-school dictator, and there's plenty of that, but as shown in the posts about plane seats and never trashing players, internally he is nearly as much of a "players' coach" as some of the rah-rah machines out there. Maybe there's a dynamic that players can accept...if the results are there, I'm all yours on the field and in training and practice. But it has to be different outside the lines. I think BB *has* adapted to that. I dont recall his saying anything about off-field Gronkowski that even the most-thin skinned Gronk-defender could turn into criticism.
It’s the opposite, in fact. Belichick asked him if he didn’t think the partying might get in the way. Gronk was like, “No coach—it makes me grind harder!” and Bill was like, OK, if you say so.

Edit: just saw Insta’s post that I had missed.
 
Last edited:

MonstahsInLeft

Member
SoSH Member
Some post-game quotes from McCourty about BB seem to confirm the players appreciation:

Patriots Players Pay Tribute to Bill Belichick for his 300th win

"And then I think his ability to give ownership to the players. There’s a lot of times for us as defenders, we go out there and he’ll tell us like, ‘Hey, you’ve got five different options right here. Whatever you see best, by formation, by personnel, make the call...'Nine of out 10 times, I trust you’re going to make the right decision. So, I don’t want to tell you what to do and ruin the game.’ As he always says, ‘coaches mess up games more than anything'...I think that’s why you see us playing so fast as a defense right now because if something goes wrong on the field, we don’t have to look to the sideline. We’re sitting there talking to each other like, “I’ve got to do this next time. I’ll do that.”

The comparison to a coach like Kitchens seems especially glaring after that game.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
My impression / understanding is also that while Belichick has very high standards and very high accountability and discipline to force players to meet those standards, he is not overly autocratic. I can think of several examples off the top of my head of on-field freedom that Patriots players have:
  • Didn't it come out that the players were calling some of the blitzes this past Sunday?
  • Brady in Belichick's office in one of the NFL Films docs suggesting a backside adjustment on a play (and Belichick appearing receptive)
  • Brady pushing for the field goal in the last Super Bowl
  • I can't find it, but I seem to remember that the defensive backs suggested the technique they play on Cover 0 (playing off with eyes on the QB rather than pressing tight)
  • Pepper Johnson (I think he's talking about coaching rather than playing here FWIW): "One of my attractions to him was he was the first coach that, granted, it was my first experience in the NFL, that didn’t try to tell me how to do something. He told me what he wanted done, and then he allowed me the freedom to get it done however I had to get it done, and if I if I couldn’t find a way, then I would ask him - I was big enough I would ask him, and he would tell me.”
  • Even something as simple as route conversions. We lament that Patriots receivers don't get all the complicated adjustments (probably overblown), but what they come down to is that instead of just running a route, players are charged with deciding what route will get them open.
I think it's fair to say that the Patriots system isn't for everybody. I do think it has very high standards, but I don't think it's dictatorial.
Tims4wins provided this link to a Curran article ( https://t.co/wVAe0xudZB ) in the other thread... and it has a pretty heavy dose of what you are talking about in it.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,753
Pittsburgh, PA
It's probably a surprise that Belichick went to bat for him afterwards. Must mean whatever was the cause of the suspension isn't something that ought to worry an acquirer going forward.
 

Oppo

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2009
1,576
Ya, what’s be going to say? He’s a malcontent? He’s toast?
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
There is nothing to be gained by an organization bad mouthing a player on the way out the door - especially if the player's main gripe is playing time. If the Pats were less loaded on the D side of the ball, or weren't using a scheme that failed to maximize Bennett's contributions - Bennett would probably be contributing in a way he'd be content with. It would be no surprise that BB would tell Garrett that basic truth, it would be more of a surprise to me if he did anything but that.
 

Willie Clay's Big Play

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 30, 2017
327
There is nothing to be gained by an organization bad mouthing a player on the way out the door - especially if the player's main gripe is playing time. If the Pats were less loaded on the D side of the ball, or weren't using a scheme that failed to maximize Bennett's contributions - Bennett would probably be contributing in a way he'd be content with. It would be no surprise that BB would tell Garrett that basic truth, it would be more of a surprise to me if he did anything but that.
Well said. The characteristics that lead to MB's discontent are what you want in a player, but maybe with a little more prudence mixed in. Having a player that feels he can help the team and wants to be on the field isn't malicious. MB didn't manage those feelings how the Pats would've liked, but can't knock the guy for wanting to get out there and make some plays.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
My guess (emphasis on GUESS) is that Bennett told Bielema that he should be doing what he's always done -- shoot gaps, get upfield, and wreak havoc in the backfield. Bielema told him some version of "2-gap or else." Bennett said "that's dumb." Bielema took offense, took it as insubordination, and Belichick had to back his position coach.

But deep down BB knew that Bennett was not right for his system (which changed once the strength of the team became apparent -- i.e. their incredible LB corps) and thus it was time to send him away.

PS: I hope all those people who were lambasting Baltimore for giving up Bailey for cap space and a draft pick, are not the ones in this thread praising the Pats for giving up Bennet for cap space and a draft pick.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,991
Newton
It's probably a surprise that Belichick went to bat for him afterwards. Must mean whatever was the cause of the suspension isn't something that ought to worry an acquirer going forward.
I mean, Bennett wanted to play and by all accounts still could. Sure, he can't yell at a coach during practice about it. But competitiveness and the fundamental desire to play more is something I'd imagine Bill would respect and pass along to a suitor.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,753
Pittsburgh, PA
There is nothing to be gained by an organization bad mouthing a player on the way out the door - especially if the player's main gripe is playing time. If the Pats were less loaded on the D side of the ball, or weren't using a scheme that failed to maximize Bennett's contributions - Bennett would probably be contributing in a way he'd be content with. It would be no surprise that BB would tell Garrett that basic truth, it would be more of a surprise to me if he did anything but that.
Well said. I meant "surprise" in the sense that it was news. Belichick has a deeply-felt appreciation for all players and I'm sure has only positive things to say about players when speaking externally. You can count on one hand the number of times we've heard him badmouth another player (Freddy Mitchell, anyone?). But we didn't know that he'd explicitly gone to bat for Bennett. And I agree that he wouldn't risk his reputation for the sake of pumping up someone who was broken down just to get him off the roster and get a 7th-rounder.

PS: I hope all those people who were lambasting Baltimore for giving up Bailey for cap space and a draft pick, are not the ones in this thread praising the Pats for giving up Bennet for cap space and a draft pick.
Why? Bethel (I assume you meant) was his team's best player at his position, and his team is a contender. Bennett was far down the depth chart, and cost a lot more cap space on a team where that was more precious. Even more bizarrely, Harbaugh (famously) comes from a ST coaching background and probably appreciates the value of quality ST play as much as anyone in the league, Belichick included. Whereas anyone with eyes could see that Bennett, for perhaps scheme reasons, wasn't delivering anything close to his signed value for the Patriots, despite not being washed up last year in Philly. If Dallas can get that value out of him, god bless, because it wasn't going to happen while on the NE roster.

I don't think the two situations are so parallel as to be fodder for charges of hypocrisy. If anything, the parallel aspect that interests me the most is that both players will get a chance, in the remaining games of this season, to exact revenge upon the team that gave up on them.
 
Last edited:

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
There is nothing to be gained by an organization bad mouthing a player on the way out the door - especially if the player's main gripe is playing time.
While there is nothing to be gained by bad-mouthing a player on his way out the door, there is something to be lost by saying Bennett is an awesome teammate if, in fact, that's not true. I expect credibility among fellow GMs and coaches is a pretty valuable commodity for future negotiations, and I further expect Belichick's word is respected because he doesn't bullshit potential trade partners.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
While there is nothing to be gained by bad-mouthing a player on his way out the door, there is something to be lost by saying Bennett is an awesome teammate if, in fact, that's not true. I expect credibility among fellow GMs and coaches is a pretty valuable commodity for future negotiations, and I further expect Belichick's word is respected because he doesn't bullshit potential trade partners.
Agreed, but I was only speaking to the 'surprise' (which has since been clarified) of BB speaking positively about Bennet.

To the broader point (derailing a bit longer from Bennett), it's a small club this GM group. Credibility IS important, and a draft pick isn't worth damaging that - by either falsely talking up or down a player.