Segment on ESPN about Pats "business" model....

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

    Segment on ESPN about Pats "business" model....

    ...  pretty damning about the consequences being it may have, if not ouright, cost the team a couple more SB trophies.

    That is my take.  Yes, money is money, but, break up a succesful formula for some money?  I do not recall the Pats ever being in cap hell, or even close, so, why did they do what they did to key players like Law, Malloy, Seymour, Brown etc?  It is amazing the run the team has had these last 12 years, but, one would think there should be more than 3 SB trophies in the case.

    Thoughts from any of you who saw that?

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Segment on ESPN about Pats

    There are no guarantees agcsbill. It defies logic seeing so many people claiming to be smarter than Belichick.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mike-J-D. Show Mike-J-D's posts

    Re: Segment on ESPN about Pats

    Didn't see it.  But the team has been a couple plays away from having literally 3 more in the case.  The business model put them in a position to contend for it just about every year.

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

    Re: Segment on ESPN about Pats

    The piece consisted mostly of interviews with players who left the Pats over contract issues.  For the most part, they asked the players if operating as it did, did it result in costing the team a couple more championships.  The players said yes for the most part. I tend to agree.

    For Pats fans, when key players are lost due to contract squabbles, players many here feel could give a few more years of great play, the question that arises is why play such hard ball when there are no players on board who can step right in right away.  IMHO, letting a Lawyer Malloy, Ty Law, Syemour etc go, with fingers crossed you can replace them with lower cost options, did not serve the team too well if you count SB trophies since 2005, when this "business" approach started.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mike-J-D. Show Mike-J-D's posts

    Re: Segment on ESPN about Pats

    Of course the guys who left are going to say the team would have been better with them even if they were getting paid a lot more.  Milloy left and the Pats won 2 more SBs.  Law and Seymour didn't have much left when they departed. 

    If a couple breaks went our way in '06 and the SBs against the giants, the Pats would have 3 more and we'd never be talking about this.  They don't of course--- but I refuse to believe that it is because of the business model.  I would say the model allowing flexibility lets them contend every year.  Opening up the bank vault for anyone who's made a play in the NFL rarely works long term.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Segment on ESPN about Pats

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The piece consisted mostly of interviews with players who left the Pats over contract issues.  For the most part, they asked the players if operating as it did, did it result in costing the team a couple more championships.  The players said yes for the most part. I tend to agree.

    For Pats fans, when key players are lost due to contract squabbles, players many here feel could give a few more years of great play, the question that arises is why play such hard ball when there are no players on board who can step right in right away.  IMHO, letting a Lawyer Malloy, Ty Law, Syemour etc go, with fingers crossed you can replace them with lower cost options, did not serve the team too well if you count SB trophies since 2005, when this "business" approach started.

    [/QUOTE]

    Who was interviewed again? What are they supposed to say to satsify their egos and defend against their selfish and irrational contract demands at the time?

    There is only one player I can think of, maybe 2, where their holding out or BB moving on, hurt our SB chances. Deion Branch in 2006. Seymour in 2010.

    That's it. That's literally it, unless you think Vrabel in 2010 would have also put that team over the top, which I am not convinced an old and done Vrabel by 2010 would have done anything of substance.

    At every turn, BB had an answer.   Law leaves, Samuel promoted.  Ted Washington leaves, Vince Wilfork.   Bruschi retires, Mayo comes in.

    WHo are these players that are claiming their old self would have helped in SB 41, 42 or 46?

    Ty Law was cooked by 2007.  McGinest, same deal. The guy was like 35 years old. Seau to me at his older playing state was better than McGinest in 2007.  

    Every player that BB walked from minus Branch, was either done, retiring or nowhere near the contract amount they were seeking. 

    BB's legendary and brilliant cap approach started back in the early 1990s in Cleveland when he was cleaning house in Cleveland.  He then got a chance with full control here in 2000 and has stuck to it this whole time.

    Do you realize how dumb they sound or you sound if you agree?  Punishing BB for drafting great players who want to take advantage of their cache in a great environment here?  Are you this obtuse?

    Milloy?  Milloy wasn't worth what he was looking for with an extension and Rodney clearly provided an upgrade.  Eugen Wilson was a fine draft pick who complemented Rodney well.

    What are you talking about?

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh, more ego talk.  We have all seen how aware you are of all of these egos.  Didn't Leon Washington get cut because of his ego?

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Segment on ESPN about Pats

    DeadAhead...  point is this:  If the Pats DID keep some of these players, would it have made a difference? 

    Is being so strict to this business model, other than saving the Pats contract $$$$, really advantageous to the team to win championships?  What did the Pats do to bolster the lineup when a key player is lost in which fans here would actually say:  "Losing that player is tough, but, look who they got as a replacement.  Can't wait until next season!!"  Amendola for Welker was not exactly universally accepted, for example.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Segment on ESPN about Pats

    The Patriots have been decimated with injuries this season, yet they continue to win. Why is that? The answer is the Patriots business model.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Segment on ESPN about Pats

    Maybe the Patriots are content with getting to the playoffs.  They know Brady will keep them in contention.  It's really the only reason I can think that they would constantly let very good players walk away.

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

    Re: Segment on ESPN about Pats

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    WHo was interviewed? Can you answer the question please?  I want to know who your source is. And, don't lie. THe fact you want answer this TWICE now is suspicious.

    [/QUOTE]

    Off the top of my head, I recall Lawyer Malloy, Ty Law, Damien Woody.

    Do you REALLY think I'd make this up?  The segment was at the tail end of the morning ESPN NFL show around 11:45AM today.  Can't find any link to it. 

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Segment on ESPN about Pats

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    WHo was interviewed? Can you answer the question please?  I want to know who your source is. And, don't lie. THe fact you want answer this TWICE now is suspicious.

    [/QUOTE]

    Off the top of my head, I recall Lawyer Malloy, Ty Law, Damien Woody.

    Do you REALLY think I'd make this up?  The segment was at the tail end of the morning ESPN NFL show around 11:45AM today.  Can't find any link to it. 

    [/QUOTE]

    So, Law, Milloy and Woody think they were all paramount as they went off and ravaged the teams they ended up on?

    Buffalo and Atlanta overpaid a cooked Milloy.  Law used the Jets and his fat self in 2005 to get 10 INTs and not tackle (Remember LT undressing him in a game in NJ?) and Damien Woody wento the freaking Lions of all teams becuase the Lions were dumb enough to overpay for a Center who can't snap to a shotgun who played Guard.

    Meanwhile, we either won or were in title games without all of these players.

    NE won 2 rings with Milloy.

    NE won 1 ring without Woody.

    NE won 1 ring without Law. Law got hurt on Halloween weekend of 2004. NE then went on to back to back title games in 2006 and 2007.  

    If the team got worse due to walking from these players, then you and they'd be right.

    This is nothing more than former Pats players trying to protect what they were once a part of on ESPN. Bruschi does this on an almost weekly basis with his comments.  

    I am not saying you made it up. I am asking you for details on who your sources are with the premise they are presenting.

    I just biyatchslapped the premise.

    [/QUOTE]

    Never said the team got worse.  The premise is did the loss of these players, and others over the years who were key contributors to the team, contribute to the inability of the Pats to continue to win SBs?  It is an observation, not a statement.  You can either agree it may have or not.  That is all.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Segment on ESPN about Pats

    There's is something broken in our "team building" approach, weather it's a weak scouting department, ego, treating it a little too much like a business, or all the above...something is broken. You don't go into the last three off seasons with 25 plus million to spend and come away with what we ended up with. You just don't. And remember all those years we had more draft picks than anyone else? We ended up drafting half a million busts with all that.

    A month ago Bill Belichick was praising Tommy Kelly saying the Raiders really did a great job drafting him, because accroding to him "he had never even heard of him prior to that draft". And it wasn't till he saw him play in the NFL until he realized what a "great find" Kelly was. You never heard of Tommy Kelly prior to the draft??!! I still have a 3 dollar draft publication in my closet with a picture of Tommy Kelly in the defensive tackle section. I bought that thing at Market Basket...it listed his strengths, his weaknesses and how they projected him in the NFL. Bill has a 15 million dollar scouting department and he never heard of the guy. Makes me understand how Tavon Wilson was drafted.

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

    Re: Segment on ESPN about Pats

    ESPN should do a segment on what cokehead LT was and his son is or maybe segment about Disney kids that turn into crack pros.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Segment on ESPN about Pats

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    The piece consisted mostly of interviews with players who left the Pats over contract issues.  For the most part, they asked the players if operating as it did, did it result in costing the team a couple more championships.  The players said yes for the most part. I tend to agree.

    For Pats fans, when key players are lost due to contract squabbles, players many here feel could give a few more years of great play, the question that arises is why play such hard ball when there are no players on board who can step right in right away.  IMHO, letting a Lawyer Malloy, Ty Law, Syemour etc go, with fingers crossed you can replace them with lower cost options, did not serve the team too well if you count SB trophies since 2005, when this "business" approach started.




    News flash... the "business approach" coincided with Brady's contract going into Peyton manning stratosphere.  this is the obvious fallout from having a once in a generation QB....  THEY COST A LOT OF MONEY...!!!!!

    This contract takes the place of like 5 other players.   End of story...

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Segment on ESPN about Pats

    There's nothing mysterious.  BB simply will not pay more for a equally talented player that he can get for less.  All the over the hill players can't face the fact their skills were diminished.

     

    Considering the Patriots have been the most successful team of the cap era in both wins and SB's it seems bizarre anyone could fault their business model.  Unless the argument is that the Patriots have a bad business model it just works better than every other team's business model.  

    Is there any evidence that someone else has a better plan?

    This is like some pundit looking at Warren Buffet and saying his investments haven't been very good. 

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share