Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    Does the release of veteran free agents mean that the free agents were bad or the rookies were more talented than expected? I think it is the rookies stepped up negating the need for the "more expensive/less upside" veterans. Anybody else think of this reason for the veteran free agents being cut?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pats-fan-2007. Show pats-fan-2007's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    A reporter asked BB a similar question. BB gave a predictable, but insightful, answer.

    He said that these rookies give the Pats a better chance to win this year.

    I've noticed a trend the last few years, where college players are coming into the NFL more ready than before.

    It's too difficult to find veteran FA that are worth their money. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    Some of it is all the above.  Have the FA the Pats have brought in been worth their money? The amount of dead money that has been on the books would say that some were bad additions.

    I think its a balancing act between drafting and filling in with FA. Honestly though if your bringing in a quality FA most rookies aren't going to subplant them in their first year.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    Kelly is still here at least.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:

    Kelly is still here at least.



    Kelly looks like a great addition, I hope he stays healthy!

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

     

    People are cut for three reasons:

     

    • They aren't good (or in some cases healthy)
    • Others are better
    • They don't fit with the scheme that's emerging

    In some cases, it may be a combination of some or all of the above.    

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from teegee. Show teegee's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...


    Don't forgot Danny A.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    People are cut for three reasons:

     

    • They aren't good (or in some cases healthy)
    • Others are better
    • They don't fit with the scheme that's emerging

    In some cases, it may be a combination of some or all of the above.    

     



    You forgot one. Rooks are cheaper. When it comes to the Pats, regardless of cap space at the time, I do think BB likes a good deal (secret couponer maybe?). I think it's burnt him in the past being too strict about price point but I think he loves a bargain. If he's going to spend money on something that's unproven on the team he'd rather take a low money chance than have to commit to a FA that might fail and might him look bad. Lets face it BB has a massive ego, which any great coach would, and he doesn't like to take critizism. After A. Thomas, back in the day, I don't think he wants to take questions about it. Instead I think he likes to take praise for finding that 1 late round gem or UDFA that no one else saw, even if that means carrying 12+ rooks every year and only having half as many stick the next year. Because honestly we all remember the 1 UDFA that contributed something to the team but how many people remember the failed UDFA's it took to find that one? It might be the right way or the wrong way but I think we'd all like to see a couple more starting caliber players brought in when we have the space to spend and I'm not talking blockbusters pickups but how about a starting caliber SS or a 3rd DT or and extra CB?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...


    I think if you are doing your due diligence and drafting well, you are going to be forced to cut a good percentage, almost 50%, of your veteran free agents. When you bring them in, you don't know how they are going to work out. So I would be bringing in at least two people for every position I feel needs an upgrade. It isn't like in the real world where you can bring someone in and try them out for three months. Then if they don't work out, let them go and then get someone else. If they did that the season would be over and they would still have that hole in the roster. With BB, I think he drafts some people to fill the hole and uses the "aging" veteran free agent as "insurance/tutor/speed dial candidate" during training camp hoping the rookie wins. The dead money is the price of education and insurance.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    The Pats bring lots of guys in to see how they fit the system and what they have left in the tank. I'm not surprised that many don't make it. I hope BB is right and the rookies give them the best chance to win this year, that bodes well for the future too. According to the latest nubers I can find (post roster cut downs), the Pats have the 9th most cap space currently available, about $13.4 million. Of the playoff teams from last year, only Green Bay ($15.6 m) and Cinci ($18.5 m)have more. The others with more space are Cleveland, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Miami, Philadelphia and Carolina. Pats are in pretty good shape if they decide to make a move to bolster the roster, either a trade or low cost free agent.

    https://nflplayers.com/reports/RunPublicReport.aspx?report=top51
     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    People are cut for three reasons:

     

    • They aren't good (or in some cases healthy)
    • Others are better
    • They don't fit with the scheme that's emerging

    In some cases, it may be a combination of some or all of the above.    

     

     



    You forgot one. Rooks are cheaper. When it comes to the Pats, regardless of cap space at the time, I do think BB likes a good deal (secret couponer maybe?). I think it's burnt him in the past being too strict about price point but I think he loves a bargain. If he's going to spend money on something that's unproven on the team he'd rather take a low money chance than have to commit to a FA that might fail and might him look bad. Lets face it BB has a massive ego, which any great coach would, and he doesn't like to take critizism. After A. Thomas, back in the day, I don't think he wants to take questions about it. Instead I think he likes to take praise for finding that 1 late round gem or UDFA that no one else saw, even if that means carrying 12+ rooks every year and only having half as many stick the next year. Because honestly we all remember the 1 UDFA that contributed something to the team but how many people remember the failed UDFA's it took to find that one? It might be the right way or the wrong way but I think we'd all like to see a couple more starting caliber players brought in when we have the space to spend and I'm not talking blockbusters pickups but how about a starting caliber SS or a 3rd DT or and extra CB?

     



    Yeah, I should have added that! I guess you could add future potential too, which also comes into play.  

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    In response to csylvia79's comment:

    Some of it is all the above.  Have the FA the Pats have brought in been worth their money? The amount of dead money that has been on the books would say that some were bad additions.

    I think its a balancing act between drafting and filling in with FA. Honestly though if your bringing in a quality FA most rookies aren't going to subplant them in their first year.



    Yeah but I think BB brings in two types of free agents. Those that are worth their money and expected to contribute immediately, ie. Amendola and Kelly. And the take a flyer guys like Wilson and Washington.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

    The Pats bring lots of guys in to see how they fit the system and what they have left in the tank. I'm not surprised that many don't make it. I hope BB is right and the rookies give them the best chance to win this year, that bodes well for the future too. According to the latest nubers I can find (post roster cut downs), the Pats have the 9th most cap space currently available, about $13.4 million. Of the playoff teams from last year, only Green Bay ($15.6 m) and Cinci ($18.5 m)have more. The others with more space are Cleveland, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Miami, Philadelphia and Carolina. Pats are in pretty good shape if they decide to make a move to bolster the roster, either a trade or low cost free agent.

    https://nflplayers.com/reports/RunPublicReport.aspx?report=top51
     



    I never get this argument this time of year. What FA's can they bring in at this point that would cost that much? Usually you get retreads, cuts someone else didn't want, or off the street FAs. All of which go for next to nothing as far as contracts go.

    Looking at trades, trades don't happen often during the season. Most of the time you might see a half a dozen trades all season and the vast majority are minor moves.

    Now the one saving grace I would say is that they can carry over cap room into the next year. However, this year $5mil can't be carried over. It was already carried over from last year. So of that $13.5mil, $8mil could be used next year. Now even that wouldn't be bad considering the $7.5mil in deadspace from Hernandez (well worth it to get him off the team) but, I see Brady's window closing and I saw the contracts handed out this year as being extrememly reasonable in critical areas of need.

    Now the next argument takes place that they want to resign players. Looking over the roster the players that stand out the most as the most likely to get raises if they extend are Spikes, McCourty, and rumor is they want to extend Ridley. Now this may be true but even with front loaded deals the 3 of them alone would have a hard time consuming the full $13.5mil available and any funds they use to extend players will just take away from and cap to carry over, since that needs to be used first before the $5mil carried over from last year.

    All in all to me it points to either they should have spent earlier in FA on better players for either depth (DT, CB), for actual starters (SS), or not bother spending at all and carry as much into next year as possible which puts egg on Krafts face for saying they would spend to the cap. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

     

    The Pats bring lots of guys in to see how they fit the system and what they have left in the tank. I'm not surprised that many don't make it. I hope BB is right and the rookies give them the best chance to win this year, that bodes well for the future too. According to the latest nubers I can find (post roster cut downs), the Pats have the 9th most cap space currently available, about $13.4 million. Of the playoff teams from last year, only Green Bay ($15.6 m) and Cinci ($18.5 m)have more. The others with more space are Cleveland, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Miami, Philadelphia and Carolina. Pats are in pretty good shape if they decide to make a move to bolster the roster, either a trade or low cost free agent.

    https://nflplayers.com/reports/RunPublicReport.aspx?report=top51
     

     



    I never get this argument this time of year. What FA's can they bring in at this point that would cost that much? Usually you get retreads, cuts someone else didn't want, or off the street FAs. All of which go for next to nothing as far as contracts go.

     

    Looking at trades, trades don't happen often during the season. Most of the time you might see a half a dozen trades all season and the vast majority are minor moves.

    Now the one saving grace I would say is that they can carry over cap room into the next year. However, this year $5mil can't be carried over. It was already carried over from last year. So of that $13.5mil, $8mil could be used next year. Now even that wouldn't be bad considering the $7.5mil in deadspace from Hernandez (well worth it to get him off the team) but, I see Brady's window closing and I saw the contracts handed out this year as being extrememly reasonable in critical areas of need.

    Now the next argument takes place that they want to resign players. Looking over the roster the players that stand out the most as the most likely to get raises if they extend are Spikes, McCourty, and rumor is they want to extend Ridley. Now this may be true but even with front loaded deals the 3 of them alone would have a hard time consuming the full $13.5mil available and any funds they use to extend players will just take away from and cap to carry over, since that needs to be used first before the $5mil carried over from last year.

    All in all to me it points to either they should have spent earlier in FA on better players for either depth (DT, CB), for actual starters (SS), or not bother spending at all and carry as much into next year as possible which puts egg on Krafts face for saying they would spend to the cap. 




    I think it would be wise to extend players like DMC and Ridley now using some of that cap space. If you are wanting to resign them anyway then you will be using cap space sooner or later. Might as well take full advantage of what they can now. If there is some left over for next year then it can offset some of AH.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    I think it would be wise to extend players like DMC and Ridley now using some of that cap space. If you are wanting to resign them anyway then you will be using cap space sooner or later. Might as well take full advantage of what they can now. If there is some left over for next year then it can offset some of AH.

     



    Oh I agree, but even resigning them won't spend the full $13.5 mil available even with front loaded deals. So the question still is, if they had the extra $5mil that can't be carried over to next season and they plan to extend certain players then why not spend a little more in FA on critical areas such as SS for younger starting caliber players. Such as, say they extend McCourty and Ridley and use up $7mil in cap space doing it (btw that a huge raise for both considering it's in addition to their current pay raises). Well they'd still have just over $6mil in cap space but they lose $5mil at the end of the year so they only carry over $1mil into the next year. That $5mil is a complete lose which could have been spent on a starting caliber player for this year as many contracts given this year ended up being short term. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from fanonymost. Show fanonymost's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    not sure we can comment about other teams, but let's look at the Pats : 

    2012 - By my count, they brought in 12 ( Allen, Ballard, Cole, Fanene, Fells, Gallery, Gonzalez, Gregory, Larsen, Lloyd, Scott & Stallworth ). Of these, 6 stuck ( Cole, Fells, Gregory, Lloyd, Scott & Stallworth ), 1 was kept as a known PUP ( Ballard ), 2 were placed on IR ( Allen & Larsen ) and 3 were early releases when found to be physically unable to continue playing football ( Fanene, Gallery & Gonzalez ). None were cut in favor of a rookie. 

    2013 - They tried out 9 ( Amendola, Armstead, Benard, Green, Kelly, Svitek, Tebow, Washington & Wilson ) and traded for Blount. Of these, 4 stuck ( Amendola, Blount, Kelly, Svitek ) with 1 more ( Armstead ) likely to be evelated to the 53-man roster once he heals up, 2 landed on IR ( Green & Wilson ) and 3 were cut ( Benard, Tebow & Washington ). One might argue that Benard & Washington were rookie-vs-VFA casualties, but TT flunked out of his own doing ( or not doing, as the case may be ).

    Seems like 2 starters were found each year ( Gregory & Lloyd, Amendola & Kelly ) plus 2 other decent reserves ( Cole & Fells, Blount & Svitek ). These results may be about what one can expect given the absence of any big-name/big-money signings, a fairly strong returning cast and a solid crop of rookies that the staff believes has good growth potential as the season progresses.

    Post 28 ... a long way to go before I become relevant.Wink

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    In response to fanonymost's comment:

    not sure we can comment about other teams, but let's look at the Pats : 

    2012 - By my count, they brought in 12 ( Allen, Ballard, Cole, Fanene, Fells, Gallery, Gonzalez, Gregory, Larsen, Lloyd, Scott & Stallworth ). Of these, 6 stuck ( Cole, Fells, Gregory, Lloyd, Scott & Stallworth ), 1 was kept as a known PUP ( Ballard ), 2 were placed on IR ( Allen & Larsen ) and 3 were early releases when found to be physically unable to continue playing football ( Fanene, Gallery & Gonzalez ). None were cut in favor of a rookie. 

    2013 - They tried out 9 ( Amendola, Armstead, Benard, Green, Kelly, Svitek, Tebow, Washington & Wilson ) and traded for Blount. Of these, 4 stuck ( Amendola, Blount, Kelly, Svitek ) with 1 more ( Armstead ) likely to be evelated to the 53-man roster once he heals up, 2 landed on IR ( Green & Wilson ) and 3 were cut ( Benard, Tebow & Washington ). One might argue that Benard & Washington were rookie-vs-VFA casualties, but TT flunked out of his own doing ( or not doing, as the case may be ).

    Seems like 2 starters were found each year ( Gregory & Lloyd, Amendola & Kelly ) plus 2 other decent reserves ( Cole & Fells, Blount & Svitek ). These results may be about what one can expect given the absence of any big-name/big-money signings, a fairly strong returning cast and a solid crop of rookies that the staff believes has good growth potential as the season progresses.

    Post 28 ... a long way to go before I become relevant.Wink



    First, I don't think it really matters how many posts you make, well except to some, but that you make clear cut points. And in this case you have. But there are some things I'd like to look at more closely.

    In the 2012 case of the players you listed 1 has stuck (Cole) and he was actually cut then resigned so a fringe player in that case. I do think this is important when discussing the ability to not only sign FA but also to keep them on the team. If the majority of FAs you sign aren't good enough to last past a year they are easily replaced by younger most cost effective rooks who might also be fringe players to begin with. This speaks of course to the quality of both the FAs and draft/UDFA picks. If they can't last more than a year what good are they?

    In the 2013 case you listed Blount as a FA but he was actually a trade (minor clarification). Armstead is also a rook and should be treated as a UDFA (just another nip pick thing on my part). But, short of that you can sum up the FA period as Kelly (good pick up), Amendola (Welker lateral move for the moment), and Svitek (who was on the roster bubble according to reports). Considering the cap flexibility prior to FA and currently available in combination with the holes and depth that was present prior to FA which is still present to me again this points to quality of the FA pickups compared to cheaper and younger counter parts. If the FA pickups had higher quality I don't think we would see the same number of UDFA's on this team as a whole. I'd also like to point out that 2 UDFAs were waiver pickups that might not make it through week 1 with the way they've adjusted the roster in the past week. 

    It would be interesting to do this exercise next year and see how many of the FAs picked up this year and UDFAs last more than this year. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from quinzpatsfan. Show quinzpatsfan's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

    Does the release of veteran free agents mean that the free agents were bad or the rookies were more talented than expected? I think it is the rookies stepped up negating the need for the "more expensive/less upside" veterans. Anybody else think of this reason for the veteran free agents being cut?



    I'm not sure I agree that most or majority of FAs were cut.  We signed Talib, arrington, Volmer, ammendola, Kelly, a wilson as our "big" free agents, none were cut.... 

    Ballard and fells got beat out by sufield, no surprise there kids a stud,

    Washington, beat out by someone

    Jenkins...  Beat out by anyone, was really just an insurance policy

    I"m sure there's more vet free agents that we're beat out, this was just off top of my head.  Either way we have a super young team, lot's of 1st and 2nd year players.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

     

    The Pats bring lots of guys in to see how they fit the system and what they have left in the tank. I'm not surprised that many don't make it. I hope BB is right and the rookies give them the best chance to win this year, that bodes well for the future too. According to the latest nubers I can find (post roster cut downs), the Pats have the 9th most cap space currently available, about $13.4 million. Of the playoff teams from last year, only Green Bay ($15.6 m) and Cinci ($18.5 m)have more. The others with more space are Cleveland, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Miami, Philadelphia and Carolina. Pats are in pretty good shape if they decide to make a move to bolster the roster, either a trade or low cost free agent.

    https://nflplayers.com/reports/RunPublicReport.aspx?report=top51
     

     



    I never get this argument this time of year. What FA's can they bring in at this point that would cost that much? Usually you get retreads, cuts someone else didn't want, or off the street FAs. All of which go for next to nothing as far as contracts go.

     

    Looking at trades, trades don't happen often during the season. Most of the time you might see a half a dozen trades all season and the vast majority are minor moves.

    Now the one saving grace I would say is that they can carry over cap room into the next year. However, this year $5mil can't be carried over. It was already carried over from last year. So of that $13.5mil, $8mil could be used next year. Now even that wouldn't be bad considering the $7.5mil in deadspace from Hernandez (well worth it to get him off the team) but, I see Brady's window closing and I saw the contracts handed out this year as being extrememly reasonable in critical areas of need.

    Now the next argument takes place that they want to resign players. Looking over the roster the players that stand out the most as the most likely to get raises if they extend are Spikes, McCourty, and rumor is they want to extend Ridley. Now this may be true but even with front loaded deals the 3 of them alone would have a hard time consuming the full $13.5mil available and any funds they use to extend players will just take away from and cap to carry over, since that needs to be used first before the $5mil carried over from last year.

    All in all to me it points to either they should have spent earlier in FA on better players for either depth (DT, CB), for actual starters (SS), or not bother spending at all and carry as much into next year as possible which puts egg on Krafts face for saying they would spend to the cap. 



    At this point, yes, they are mostly retreads. Injuries are going to happen and you are going to have to employ some of those retreads. This is inevitable. You also evaluate if any of the new retreads or practice squad eligible players from other teams are better than your existing retreads, rookies, and practice squad eligible players. It is still good to have that money available. If Thompkins or Dobson gets hurt, would Lloyd be on call? What would he cost? If Ridley or Vereen go down early, can you swing a deal to get another back? Having money available for a rainy day is a good thing. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

     

    At this point, yes, they are mostly retreads. Injuries are going to happen and you are going to have to employ some of those retreads. This is inevitable. You also evaluate if any of the new retreads or practice squad eligible players from other teams are better than your existing retreads, rookies, and practice squad eligible players. It is still good to have that money available. If Thompkins or Dobson gets hurt, would Lloyd be on call? What would he cost? If Ridley or Vereen go down early, can you swing a deal to get another back? Having money available for a rainy day is a good thing

     



    But do you need $13.5mil? The Pats, have never added more than $3mil to the roster during the season with the exception of extensions. When dealing with the FA's available during the season you are mostly looking a min deals that aren't guaranteed so you can dump them and not have them count against the cap further than what you paid them in total. In addition any signing bonuses a player receivers is on the team that originally signed them, hence why you can't just trade for Fitz because the dead money Ari would absorb makes the deal nearly impossible. So essentially you are only on the hook for bonus they earn during the year and future bonuses along with remaining base salary. Which for the most part most remaining salaries aren't a considerable chunk during the season. Even then you aren't going to get a top end guy because no one will trade a top end guy during a season so you are either looking at a over priced vet that a team just wants to dump, a trouble maker, or a JAG. You don't need $13.5mil during the season unless you plan to carry it over till next season, however, the Pats can't carry over $5mil of it already. So even if they use $3mil they are essentially saving $5mil for next year by wasting $5mil for this year. Not a great thing when Brady's window is closing 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...


    Thanks for keeping this thread civil.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from fanonymost. Show fanonymost's posts

    Re: Does the release of veteran free agents mean...

    an interesting ( perhaps ) addendum to my previous post : 

    Of the 5 ( not counting Stallworth ) FAs from the 2012 squad, only 2 ( Gregory & Cole ) remain on the 2013 roster, although Fells may still return IMRHO. By my count, these 2 plus this year's trio ( Amendola, Kelly & Svitek ) are the only FA pick-ups on the entire team. Maybe it's just the reigning Belichick/Kraft philosophy to refrain from shopping for higher-priced veterans in order to obtain core long-term contributors for your football team. I wonder what a similar analysis of other top-flight NFL teams might yield.

    84hrs until kick-off ... 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share