In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
In response to pezz4pats' comment:
In response to Muzwell's comment:
In response to pezz4pats' comment:
Oh, Thanks guys, I finally get it.
So when the Pats extend guys or don't re-up guys or or let FA's hit the market, or trade guys or sign others discards, due to cap hits, it's called due diligence or doing their "home work" or more commonly "BB in the weeds" but when other teams do it, it's called "CAP HELL".
Did anybody say the Pats were immune to the salary cap, because I haven't read that anywhere? Please point to it.
Name a guy in his prime that the Pats would like to have kept and who walked because of the cap? Only ones that come to mind are Branch and Samuel and in each of those cases, there was a major disagreement as to the player's value.
If you lose your LT, your RT and a valued DT in the same year because you don't have cap room (not because of perceived value), that's a big setback. It's not a value issue, it's just not managing resources. They'll make due, but it's not good business no matter how you spin it.
I can't think of a comparable situation with the Pats, but maybe my memory is failing...
So when the Pats lose guys like Branch, Samuels, Seymore, Welker and maybe Edelman and Talib it's due to "Value issues" and is not cap related? Hmmm
Wonder how much it cost to replace those guys that have never really been replaced with talent?
How about losing 90% of your receivers in one year? Is that not a problem?
Wouldn't replacing talent like Branch, Moss, Welker over a period of time, be a better option? Signing guys like Jackson, Price, Galloway, Ocho and Lloyd to replace those guys putting them in cap hell with dead money is not an issue?
How about the 20 DBs they drafted and the FA pick ups who were never good enough and also caused DM, putting them in cap hell?
Or the Pass rushers since they lost what they had prior to 2007 who were replaced with junk?
Regardless of the reason, which some choose to ignore, it all comes down to bad contracts, ending with the same results unless you think 3 contracts for your QB in 4 years, to create additional cap and relieving dead money, is a good thing.
I'm still trying to figure out where the 20M in cap they had last year, went.
Oh yea, more dead money, to be determined......
Please learn the players' names who played here. Its Samuel and Seymour, not how you spelled them. Ugh.
Samuel and Seymour left due to greed. So did Branch. That has nothing to do with cap management, moron.
They got rings, wanted to showcase their Pats cache to rape another franchise, which is exactly what they did, moron.
The Pats have NEVER, EVER been in a cap hell. Ever. And they never will be. Getting old and transitioning the team is not a cap hell. It's called scaling back, getting ROI on your chips (Cassel, Vrabel, Seymour), and drafting well, which is EXACTLY what BB has done.
Brady has SUCKED badly in the postseason lately and we're all still waiting on him.
Who knows if he'll ever wake up.
Greed? How about the Pats didn't want to pay them and ended up paying out the butt with FAILURES, for not doing so. The Pats are in cap hell more than you think.
Brady's restructures hide that. FACT
That ship has sailed.
22 teams have a better cap situation than the Pats. Dead money (for years) keeps their space lower than it could be. It's a vicious cycle, robbing Peter to pay Paul the Bust. That's what BAD contracts do. Most teams endure it for a year or so and bounce back while the Pats dead money is continuously high.
50M in 3 years, ugh.
BB's teams have sucked for years, not the QB he keeps extending.
Learn the game.
You aint winning no SB's with S HITTY DEFENSES and receivers that drop 7 balls a game.
Never happened and never will.
Gotta run. You have fun in your cap hell, now, ya hear! LOL