Either that or they didn’t realize how much a good quarterback and stable coaching situation matter to free agents. They really don’t have anything other than money to offer these guys. Rookie coach with a rookie QB isn’t much of a selling point. And most will take a little less to be on a team that could compete.
The Jets have a QB and are more of a contender than New England is. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
We know they did go after at least 1 of them.
I would be rather gobsmacked if the Patriots of all teams didn't get this after two decades of VIP Shopper status during free agency. There's no point in making big commitments to guys whose skills aren't worth it. Being ready to spend a ton on actually-talented guys to protect your new QB and/or to give them a binkie to throw to is defensible, but if the price tag is really offensive rather than merely profane, you have to cut bait.
Because they aren't interested in 8 figure stop gaps for 2024? All the guys that we seem to be bothered about, other than Ridley, are one-year deals. Williams, Allen, Smith. They are million dollar 17 game rentals unless you are hoping to franchise any of those guys -- which I don't think anyone is. It seems clear to me that the Patriots don't want to use their cap for one-year guys. They've already spend $8 to $12 million on Brissett to allow our rookie to have a mentor. Now we want to spend another $15 to $23 million for one year of Williams or Allen to develop a QB that might not even start until half-way through the season? I can see an argument for it, but I also can surely see the argument against it.
sure, as long as those teams are willing to overpay and the FA is looking for a big deal. Most players are looking for that, but some have other interests.
I fully understand how it works. I just really wanted those two players and yeah, I wish New England had ponied up more money for them.
In those 30 years (1992-2022), GB made it to 9 conference championships, 3 Super Bowls, and won 2 Super Bowls.
Yup. They just went away from a philosophy that was much more successful than the Packer way when coupled with an All-World QB. What about the Chiefs way? Are we trying that one next? Just do whatever you can to improve your team by whichever means (I don't know why we keep acting like paying players in free agency takes away from their ability to build through the draft) and hope you hit on the QB. Anything else is just empty air.
Which is why it's borderline criminal to go into an off-season with 100 million in cap space and huge question marks at QB, OT and WR (one could argue the three most important and more highly paid positions in the game today) and then have to use the draft to fill all three of those spots. They can sign KJ Osborn on a one year deal and no one complains about how he won't be there when the team is actually good or whatever, but no way they could have been in on Allen, Smith or Williams for some reason. There's value in filling a need and providing your young QB with a more favorable environment while getting first hand knowledge into how a veteran fits into your system and culture and then having an advantage to potentially re-sign him.
I think overpaying for 3-4 year deals would be a mistake. I totally don't get the hesitation about overpaying on a one year deal. You pretty much have to use the money anyway. As you pointed out, and the radio guys have going berzerk over, is they have now set themselves up where they need to hit on QB, WR, and LT in the upcoming draft. It would have been nice if they could have just spent some money to get one of those three taken care of for a year. It's not about going to out and trying to win a Super Bowl or go deep in the playoffs. It's about having your team not be a laughing stock and/or wrecking your rookie QB. 8-9 would be a heck of a lot better than being 6-11.
I don't think Williams wanted a 2 year deal, I think like Uche he wanted a 1 year deal in the spot that set him up best to put up numbers and hit FA. If he wanted a multi-year deal I think NE might have been more of a contender.
Wasnt "having another good QB sitting around for awhile" part of that "way" that ensured the 30yr run?
Yeah, the Packer way was... always be looking for your next QB even if you have one, and don't pass on a potentially elite guy even if you won't start him right away.
If that's part of it, it will only apply to the Patriots in 15 years if they hit on the guy at 3.
If only Bill listened to McDaniels and did the same thing by taking Lamar instead of the 2nd best RB at Georgia.
Unless there was some dramatic overpay, he clearly wanted a 1 year deal. If a team with a better QB and better season outlook offers comparable money, it is what it is.
This one too.
Developing a QB is much easier when you have a guy like Williams to throw to. Think of signing him as an investment in your QB's development, regardless of whether it helps you in the win column. Same thing with a LT.
What’s the cap implication for a signing like Mike Williams for 2025? If the team thinks they need to build for a couple of years, wouldn’t a deal like that make sense as it’s not impacting your future cap space? I may be wrong about that because I don’t know how the future cap works.
All cap space carries over. So if they pay $18m for a player for 2024, it means they have $18m less in 2025.
Is it? Don't we always say stuff like Mac Jones only looked good in Alabama because he had a bunch of NFL caliber receivers on there? Isn't part of becoming better at your job facing challenges that you overcome? I know it didn't work out for Mac Jones, but wouldn't you rather find out your QB of the future can cut it as an NFL QB throwing to mediocre receivers and then you truly unleash his talents when you eventually acquire a true #1? It was like Brady up until he got Moss.
Mike Williams is a very good NFL WR (when healthy). He's a legit #1. But he's not all-world. He's not Justin Jefferson or A.J. Brown. I'd like for my rookie to have some good players to throw to. Yes I think it would help his development. But YMMV.
Yeah, I think it would be more accurate to say that having good WRs gives you easier decisions and helps your performance. Now that may help you develop for confidence reasons, but it doesn't really make you more skillfull.
I think that we say that Mac Jones' teammates across the board were head and shoulders about the competition, not just his Wide Receiver group. His OL was good, his backs were good, his defense gave him favorable field position on the regular. He had time to sit back and throw without constantly worrying about decapitation.
Troy Brown was excellent for the time period in which he played.
That was his years 8,9 and 10 in the league, before that he was a #4 WR (maybe #3 some years), the idea that he was some #1 WR stud isn't very accurate. He's a guy who had a 3 year breakout period when given a big role in the offense, much like many of these #2, #3 guys we're talking about do when given a ton of targets. There is no indication he was any different than a Bourne, Osborn, Parker (actually Parker had far more consistent success), Juju (again was actually a real #2 at one point).
