Tom Brady

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

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    I'd hate to lose Vollmer unless we had another stud tackle to replace him with. I really don't look forward to going back to the days when that position was manned by guys like Ryan Callaghan and Nick Kazcur.

     

     

     



    I was pleasantly surprised with how good Cannon looked last year. Then again, he played alongside one guy in practice during the year as opposed to a revolving door in preseason.

     



    I liked him as a back up, but based on what I saw last year, he wasn't anywhere close to Vollmer's   skill level and would be a big step backwards as a starter.  Of course, he's still quite young, so he could develop.  His body type, though, makes me wonder if he'll ever be the kind of athletic tackle the Pats seem to want.  i wonder if they move him to guard eventually.

     

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

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to TFB12's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     


    You are correct a 100%. He is a great quarterback, but this thread is more inline with...what if Mallett is a first round talent like rusty claims and what if Brady is so much at fault, like he claims?

     

    in truth, if you trade Brady, it's over. The security blanket, the guy that covers up for free agent mistakes, the guy that makes an average running back look good, the guy that made two tightends multi millionaires is gone..over...see yah. Then what? At least we got something for him and there's some cap space. We are left with a new QB that is considered a first round talent by rusty. We possibly could add much more talent to go around Mallett. We could keep things simple for him - he could make simple reads and go heavy to Gronk...that could land us in the playoffs. As long as the defense becomes super strong and the offense is loaded around Mallett (two things Brady doesn't have) we may win a playoff game. the following season? I think teams will know exactly what/how to stop Mllett, they will see his one read offense and take it away. They will make him reset and move his feet and we will be back in the pack with everyone else. Any mistake made from that point going forward will be magnified 100%. Bad draft? Boom! Bad free agent signing? Can't have it....can't survive it. Bad coaching decision? We'll lose the game. Brady is our magic carpet and we've been riding it for ten years.

     



    NO, I get what you are saying and I get the meaning of your original post.  I just like to point out to who ever reads this thread or who ever thinks otherwise why this team is as good as it is year in and year out.  I think Mallet has some good QB qualities but he isn't ready.  He wont be read for a few years.  If anyone (Rusty) thinks he can come in and play like TFB did when he got his start then they/him is out of their minds.  This team takes a major hit when Brady leaves, it's called the rebuilding years.

     

     



    The team is rebuilt. Youngest D in the league. They just need health when it matters.  Gronk, Talib and Jones out are huge impacts on both sides of the ball.

     

    The biggest misconception with gogly eyed fans like you, who only care about high flying stats and Randy Moss plays, is this "deep theat" rhetoric. That was never heard of here during the 3 SBs in 4 years.

    The fact is, if Weis told Brady to go deep, he went deep. It didn't matter if it was Patten, Branch or a rare Bethel Johnson try.

    Lloyd gets deep as well as anyone but we have a QB who SUCKS at throwing deep and refuses to use playaction every week.

    So, what good is it? He'll be 36 in Sept.

    I could not disagree more with your analysis and people who agree with you. Get 2007 out of your head. The entire team, the fans, etc, are waiting on Tom Brady.  You're just going to have to deal with that fact.

    He's got two GOLDEN LOOKS these next 2 years assuming he's here for 2014, too.  Golden.

    NE will win the division next year and lose no less than 4 games. They'll end up with a #1 or #2 seed again and we'll be all crossing our fingers he gets his head out of his rectum in the AFC title game for once.

    It's the absolute truth.

     




    A couple of things...one, Lloyd can't get deep, he runs a 4.7, so saying he gets deep "as good as anyone" is a sign that you don't really watch football and therefore should be much more cautious when speaking about it.  Two...this rebuilt team you keep speaking of will be in dire straits when Brady leaves (unless of course a Aaron Rodgers replaces him). This team is far from rebuilt - rebuilt teams have a defense that doesn't have to trade for a thug corner rental half way through the year. And when thug corner goes down, a rebuilt team/defense wouldn't fall apart. Rebuilt teams don't have 10 second round picks that can't play or millions in dead money on old washed up free agents that couldn't either. This baby is far from rebuilt.

     

     

     



    Getting deep is not about speed in this offense, It's about running good routes consistently. That's what finds you open, deep. Duh.

     

    You sound like Al Davis thinking throwing Willie Gault out there meant he was a great deep threat.  Willie Gault ran a 4.3, but he wasn't surprising anyone, obviously.

    Lloyd gets deep and gets behind DBs constantly or would so more with more Brady playaction like the old days.

    Besides, Brady's deep ball is AWFUL. It's only good when he uses playaction, which of course means establishing the run and him being under center. Go check the gamelog from the AFC title game, professor. LOTS of shotguns. Way too much.

    We're a long way from the final 1st down play to Reche Caldwell, down the sideline, over the shoulder of Jammer in San Diego in the divisionals. A LONG WAY from that.  Truth hurts, Hurlie.

    Brady needs to sharpen his skills on the perimeter and deep before I care about who is running a 4.7 for us on the flanks. My god, are you so clueless when it comes to analyzing this team.

     



    I can agree to a point...speed isn't the only ingredient to getting deep. If for instance a receiver has the ability to get a cornerback to turn his hips the wrong way, he will run right by them down the field. Terry Glenn was good at that, he'd get a receiver to bite on a double move and he'd be gone...of course terry also had 4.4 speed as well. You can have a receiver that is tall and can get body position on a corner to come down with deep balls, that can work too. A headsy vet can use all sorts of tricks to get a little room to get deep, but he's going to have to be able to run under a 4.6. Think about it - Welker is as headsy, quick, crafty as you can get, yet his 4.6 speed can't get him open deep. Lloyd is half the player Welker is, with less speed...he may get open on 15 yard outs, ins, and crosses, but he's not going deep unless there's a breakdown or there's a slow corner in single coverage. This guy can't eat up a corner's cushion. This guy won't split a couple of safeties and sky for a ball...no way...not now.

    I like him, I think he's a good smart player that helps the offense, but he's no deep threat.

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

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    In response to gr82bme's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    Hmmmm, Tom Brady, you mean the guy that has almost a 22 million dollar cap hit in 2013 and 2014?  That's like 1/6 of the cap.  Did you know no team has ever won a superbowl spending that much money on one player?

     




    Do you ever consider that, as he's done several times in the past, TB will willingly re-negotiate his deal for cap relief?  With respect to "no team has ever won a superbowl...."  You should no first hand about this - Jets spend less on Revis and where did that get them?  One more thing - if the Jets had a chance to trade for TB, would you support it?  Silly Jet fans, 40 years of futility causing their dumb fans to troll other fans' boards.  It's sad really - but kind of funny too.

     

     



    Just to be clear, Brady cannot renegotiate his contract, because after this year, he has 1 year left on his deal. The most the Pats can push off from his salary this year into next is a $5 million dollar bonus. That will lower Brady's cap hit this year to $17 million, but push it next year to $27 million. 

     

    The only answer for cap relief from Brady's contract is to extend his contract. I think you are looking at at least 5 years and $100 million to extend him, taking him to his 42 birthday. 

    My thoughts on the Pats salary cap issues are pretty clear, even though Rusty does not understand them;

    1) Brady's contract is too high a percent of the total, and extending him for 5 more years is risky

    2) Vince is in a similar situation. He is over 30, has a lot of wear and tear, and has the wrong body type to extend into his 35th year

    3) Mankins simply won't renegotiate after getting jerked around and losing half a seasons pay

    4) The Pats have no obvious high salary cuts that don't make the team worse. Cutting Ghost or Lloyd, in my opinion weakens the Pats while saving them money. Cutting Fells, Larsen really doesn't save much money. 

    5) The Pats have 18 free agents, with a good 15 of them making contributions to the team of great value. While losing Chung is not much of a hit, I contend losing Arrington, Cole, Edelman, Woody, Thomas, Huma will weaken the team as they all contributed. Not to say the Pats cannot resign them, but if they wish to resign 2 of the big 3, it will be hard to bring back many of the 2 nd tier contributors. 

     

     

    Are you saying a player can only restructure once over the life of a deal?  Please post the rules that you are claiming so we can see those please.

    Please post the CBA rules on player contracts.

     

     



    No, I am saying that a player can only renegotiate over the life of his current contract. Brady has this year and next year on his contract, so money can only be pushed into one year, which is next year. The Pats can push $5 million bonus money into next year, making next years cap hit $27 million, not good. The Pats can EXTEND Brady's contract, and then push money into those extended years, when the cap will be higher. The problem is that you are extending Brady into years when QB's age and performance do not equate to $20 million dollar salaries. 

    A player can renegotiate as many times as he and the team wish over the life of his contract, but they can only push money out to the last year of the current contract, which in Brady's case is next year. 

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

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    In response to gr82bme's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    Hmmmm, Tom Brady, you mean the guy that has almost a 22 million dollar cap hit in 2013 and 2014?  That's like 1/6 of the cap.  Did you know no team has ever won a superbowl spending that much money on one player?

     




    Do you ever consider that, as he's done several times in the past, TB will willingly re-negotiate his deal for cap relief?  With respect to "no team has ever won a superbowl...."  You should no first hand about this - Jets spend less on Revis and where did that get them?  One more thing - if the Jets had a chance to trade for TB, would you support it?  Silly Jet fans, 40 years of futility causing their dumb fans to troll other fans' boards.  It's sad really - but kind of funny too.

     

     



    Just to be clear, Brady cannot renegotiate his contract, because after this year, he has 1 year left on his deal. The most the Pats can push off from his salary this year into next is a $5 million dollar bonus. That will lower Brady's cap hit this year to $17 million, but push it next year to $27 million. 

     

    The only answer for cap relief from Brady's contract is to extend his contract. I think you are looking at at least 5 years and $100 million to extend him, taking him to his 42 birthday. 

    My thoughts on the Pats salary cap issues are pretty clear, even though Rusty does not understand them;

    1) Brady's contract is too high a percent of the total, and extending him for 5 more years is risky

    2) Vince is in a similar situation. He is over 30, has a lot of wear and tear, and has the wrong body type to extend into his 35th year

    3) Mankins simply won't renegotiate after getting jerked around and losing half a seasons pay

    4) The Pats have no obvious high salary cuts that don't make the team worse. Cutting Ghost or Lloyd, in my opinion weakens the Pats while saving them money. Cutting Fells, Larsen really doesn't save much money. 

    5) The Pats have 18 free agents, with a good 15 of them making contributions to the team of great value. While losing Chung is not much of a hit, I contend losing Arrington, Cole, Edelman, Woody, Thomas, Huma will weaken the team as they all contributed. Not to say the Pats cannot resign them, but if they wish to resign 2 of the big 3, it will be hard to bring back many of the 2 nd tier contributors. 

     

     

    Are you saying a player can only restructure once over the life of a deal?  Please post the rules that you are claiming so we can see those please.

    Please post the CBA rules on player contracts.

     

     



    No, they can restructure as often as they want.  All rkarp is saying is it doesn't help much to restructure when you only have a year left, because there's not a lot of time left to spread the increased bonus over. You can lower this year's cap hit but only by significantly increasing it next year.  This assumes, of course, you're restructuring by turning base into bonus, which is what is typically done with players you aren't threatening to cut.  The alternative is to ask for a pay cut from the player, but that usually only works if you are going to cut the player and the player can't get much in free agency.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

     

    I think Brady will restructure anyway..hopefully the cap space won;t be a problem.

    It is interesting that the entire question of trading Brady is no longer Taboo. Yes, I get this is a 'if what Rusty says is true then why not get rid of Brady thread' but I think it should be considered. 

    To know for sure the Pats have to pull a SF for a few games, bench Brady and play Mallet.

     Give Mallet the preseason, if he does well give him a start...or two. If he is terrible, go back to  fired up Brady. In that case the Pats need a new backup and have lost their entire investment in Mallet cause his value would be 0 on a trade.

     



    You're right, it's no longer taboo. And as much as it may seem like this is a bash rusty thread, it really isn't. If he is correct about what he has said about Brady over the past three years and if he is correct about Mallett being a first round talent, then this should happen. How much does Brady cost? How old is he? How much was really his fault? And what is the talent level of Mallett? These things I'm sure have all been discussed by Belichick and his staff, if the answer is it was Brady's fault and Mallett is as good as Rusty says, the you can bet that Brady will be dealt before the draft. I personally don't think ate the case and here's why...

     

    As much as I'd love to see Brady's cap number less, he may still be worth evey penny of that number for the simple fact he makes so many players around him better. Gronk and Hernadez are very nice players, but Brady had a lot to do with them having contracts that total 90 million between them. As for Mallett, to me he looks like nothing more than a tall, strong armed QB. Just based of the little he's played, it looks like he can't see the field or make quick decisions. Will he be able to stand there and make any throw? Yes and that does have some sort of value, but that's not something that is going to make you win lots of games - teams will take away those first looks, like they did with Bledsoe.

     



    Agree on TB worth.
    My guess is that even if Mallet has the full offense healthy and given 4 starts he would pale compared to TB. But who is to say? If there is one common theme running through the history of the NFL is no one has been able to look at a QB in college and know whether they will be just good or great. Sometimes they get it really wrong.

     

    The only real way to know is give them some starts in the pro's.

     

    the comment

    "Gronk and Hernadez are very nice players, but Brady had a lot to do with them having contracts that total 90 million between them"

    does that mean the Brady effect is to make 'nice' players into expensive players? Don;t like the sound of that.

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

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to TFB12's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     


    You are correct a 100%. He is a great quarterback, but this thread is more inline with...what if Mallett is a first round talent like rusty claims and what if Brady is so much at fault, like he claims?

     

    in truth, if you trade Brady, it's over. The security blanket, the guy that covers up for free agent mistakes, the guy that makes an average running back look good, the guy that made two tightends multi millionaires is gone..over...see yah. Then what? At least we got something for him and there's some cap space. We are left with a new QB that is considered a first round talent by rusty. We possibly could add much more talent to go around Mallett. We could keep things simple for him - he could make simple reads and go heavy to Gronk...that could land us in the playoffs. As long as the defense becomes super strong and the offense is loaded around Mallett (two things Brady doesn't have) we may win a playoff game. the following season? I think teams will know exactly what/how to stop Mllett, they will see his one read offense and take it away. They will make him reset and move his feet and we will be back in the pack with everyone else. Any mistake made from that point going forward will be magnified 100%. Bad draft? Boom! Bad free agent signing? Can't have it....can't survive it. Bad coaching decision? We'll lose the game. Brady is our magic carpet and we've been riding it for ten years.

     



    NO, I get what you are saying and I get the meaning of your original post.  I just like to point out to who ever reads this thread or who ever thinks otherwise why this team is as good as it is year in and year out.  I think Mallet has some good QB qualities but he isn't ready.  He wont be read for a few years.  If anyone (Rusty) thinks he can come in and play like TFB did when he got his start then they/him is out of their minds.  This team takes a major hit when Brady leaves, it's called the rebuilding years.

     

     



    The team is rebuilt. Youngest D in the league. They just need health when it matters.  Gronk, Talib and Jones out are huge impacts on both sides of the ball.

     

    The biggest misconception with gogly eyed fans like you, who only care about high flying stats and Randy Moss plays, is this "deep theat" rhetoric. That was never heard of here during the 3 SBs in 4 years.

    The fact is, if Weis told Brady to go deep, he went deep. It didn't matter if it was Patten, Branch or a rare Bethel Johnson try.

    Lloyd gets deep as well as anyone but we have a QB who SUCKS at throwing deep and refuses to use playaction every week.

    So, what good is it? He'll be 36 in Sept.

    I could not disagree more with your analysis and people who agree with you. Get 2007 out of your head. The entire team, the fans, etc, are waiting on Tom Brady.  You're just going to have to deal with that fact.

    He's got two GOLDEN LOOKS these next 2 years assuming he's here for 2014, too.  Golden.

    NE will win the division next year and lose no less than 4 games. They'll end up with a #1 or #2 seed again and we'll be all crossing our fingers he gets his head out of his rectum in the AFC title game for once.

    It's the absolute truth.

     




    A couple of things...one, Lloyd can't get deep, he runs a 4.7, so saying he gets deep "as good as anyone" is a sign that you don't really watch football and therefore should be much more cautious when speaking about it.  Two...this rebuilt team you keep speaking of will be in dire straits when Brady leaves (unless of course a Aaron Rodgers replaces him). This team is far from rebuilt - rebuilt teams have a defense that doesn't have to trade for a thug corner rental half way through the year. And when thug corner goes down, a rebuilt team/defense wouldn't fall apart. Rebuilt teams don't have 10 second round picks that can't play or millions in dead money on old washed up free agents that couldn't either. This baby is far from rebuilt.

     

     

     




    Yes, some do make trades before a season to finish off a spot on the field.  Ours just happened to be during the season.

     

    2010 season BB dealt away Maroney and Moss and added Branch to tweak what he wanted.  BB does a lot of unconventional things, but yes, the base of our D has been rebuilt. Just like the offense has been rebuilt with Gronk and Hern as the down the middle focal points. A small tweak or move here or there is not uncommon for teams in and out of seasons. But, for all intents and purposes, it's been rebuilt. You just don't accept it because you have Tony Mazz and others telling you BB stinks in doing so.  Well, you're wrong.  As usual. Those are very good young players all trending in the right direction.

    All the names (MAyo, Nink, McCourty, Spikes, Hightower, Jones, and now Dennard on the outside), get used to it. Those are the names.  Note how its built, too. The best players are down the middle.  Right way to do it whether it's baseball, hockey or football.  BB will add more to those names in 2013, but the base is obvious. Wilfork has a good 5 years left, too.

    Again, some of those guys would have a ring on their fingers if your QB had just a solid 4th qtr in SB 46. Truth hurts. And don't thuink for a second you can say Brady got them to that SB. He didn't. He was awful. Spikes's INT in the 4th should have put the nail in the coffin.

     

     



    It depends on how you define "rebuilt", it sounds to me like you classify rebuilt as having 11 guys with a pulse on the field. There it's been rebuilt....told you so.

    Saying Wilfork can play another 5 years is a joke - this guy has been used and abused more than any defensive lineman in the NFL, why? Because Ron Brace went boom! Because Haynesworth went boom! Because Fenene went Booooom! They have no one to rest him...to reduce his minutes. This guy is being used more than an old chevy plow truck.

    The defense is "rebuilt through the middle"? We don't have a safety. We have no one other than Wilfork that can play defensive tackle well enough to rush from the middle. We are weak up the middle in coverage and pass rush. Spikes can't cover third string tightends. Our safeties get embarrassed by buffalo's tightends for gods sake. Mayo is good in the middle, when you put him outside he is average at best...he gets blocked by backup tight ends and can't reach runners to the perimeter. This is the NFL... You're not supposed to be able to get outside consistently as a runner - they do it on Mayo regularly. We have one pass rusher and that's only becauwe we traded up to get him. Aside from a thug that we traded a fourth for (Talib) we don't have corners that can turn their head or play anything other than the slot. This is not a good thing. We have some nice solid players, we have some poor ones, and we have very very few guys that are special. We are the definition of average on the defensive side of the ball. This is rebuilt? Imagine how they'd be if Belichick wasn't their coach...my heavens!!

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

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

     

    I think Brady will restructure anyway..hopefully the cap space won;t be a problem.

    It is interesting that the entire question of trading Brady is no longer Taboo. Yes, I get this is a 'if what Rusty says is true then why not get rid of Brady thread' but I think it should be considered. 

    To know for sure the Pats have to pull a SF for a few games, bench Brady and play Mallet.

     Give Mallet the preseason, if he does well give him a start...or two. If he is terrible, go back to  fired up Brady. In that case the Pats need a new backup and have lost their entire investment in Mallet cause his value would be 0 on a trade.

     



    You're right, it's no longer taboo. And as much as it may seem like this is a bash rusty thread, it really isn't. If he is correct about what he has said about Brady over the past three years and if he is correct about Mallett being a first round talent, then this should happen. How much does Brady cost? How old is he? How much was really his fault? And what is the talent level of Mallett? These things I'm sure have all been discussed by Belichick and his staff, if the answer is it was Brady's fault and Mallett is as good as Rusty says, the you can bet that Brady will be dealt before the draft. I personally don't think ate the case and here's why...

     

    As much as I'd love to see Brady's cap number less, he may still be worth evey penny of that number for the simple fact he makes so many players around him better. Gronk and Hernadez are very nice players, but Brady had a lot to do with them having contracts that total 90 million between them. As for Mallett, to me he looks like nothing more than a tall, strong armed QB. Just based of the little he's played, it looks like he can't see the field or make quick decisions. Will he be able to stand there and make any throw? Yes and that does have some sort of value, but that's not something that is going to make you win lots of games - teams will take away those first looks, like they did with Bledsoe.

     



    Agree on TB worth.
    My guess is that even if Mallet has the full offense healthy and given 4 starts he would pale compared to TB. But who is to say? If there is one common theme running through the history of the NFL is no one has been able to look at a QB in college and know whether they will be just good or great. Sometimes they get it really wrong.

     

    The only real way to know is give them some starts in the pro's.

     

    the comment

    "Gronk and Hernadez are very nice players, but Brady had a lot to do with them having contracts that total 90 million between them"

    does that mean the Brady effect is to make 'nice' players into expensive players? Don;t like the sound of that.



    Well no, I think he just makes players better and thus they end up costing more, but Gronk would probably be an all pro no matter who he played with, I don't know about Hernadez. I think Hernadez is a nice talent...a great pick in the 4th, I just don't know of he is worth that 45 million dollar contract, but maybe he is?

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    Hmmmm, Tom Brady, you mean the guy that has almost a 22 million dollar cap hit in 2013 and 2014?  That's like 1/6 of the cap.  Did you know no team has ever won a superbowl spending that much money on one player?

     




    And what is the cap hit for that pathetic excuse for a QB on the jets, genius?

     

     



    not 22 mil.

     




    How much per TD for dirty, vs how much per TD for Brady?

    Hey troll, at least ther jets are getting more INTs per for their money.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Tom Brady

    Hey Rusty.

    Simple question.  Would TB have to had restructured at all last year (causing big problems in cap for the next 2 years) if the team didn't have 18M in dead money due to drafting ineffective players and signing umproductive FA's?

    How about even half that amount? 

    Wouldn't they be able to sign their top FA's this year if not for the same problem?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

     

    Are you saying a player can only restructure once over the life of a deal?  Please post the rules that you are claiming so we can see those please.

    Please post the CBA rules on player contracts.

     

     

     



    No, I am saying that a player can only renegotiate over the life of his current contract. Brady has this year and next year on his contract, so money can only be pushed into one year, which is next year. The Pats can push $5 million bonus money into next year, making next years cap hit $27 million, not good. The Pats can EXTEND Brady's contract, and then push money into those extended years, when the cap will be higher. The problem is that you are extending Brady into years when QB's age and performance do not equate to $20 million dollar salaries. 

     

    A player can renegotiate as many times as he and the team wish over the life of his contract, but they can only push money out to the last year of the current contract, which in Brady's case is next year. 

     



     

    Agree,44 million is too much to spread even over 5 years and still be able to come up with a salary number that TB would accept but actually frees up the cap space today without causing a worse problem in 4 years. I guess they will take the hit this year, see what he looks like but I still think they will renegotiate next year if it looks like playing until 40 is a possibility.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    In response to gr82bme's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    Hmmmm, Tom Brady, you mean the guy that has almost a 22 million dollar cap hit in 2013 and 2014?  That's like 1/6 of the cap.  Did you know no team has ever won a superbowl spending that much money on one player?

     




    Do you ever consider that, as he's done several times in the past, TB will willingly re-negotiate his deal for cap relief?  With respect to "no team has ever won a superbowl...."  You should no first hand about this - Jets spend less on Revis and where did that get them?  One more thing - if the Jets had a chance to trade for TB, would you support it?  Silly Jet fans, 40 years of futility causing their dumb fans to troll other fans' boards.  It's sad really - but kind of funny too.

     

     



    Just to be clear, Brady cannot renegotiate his contract, because after this year, he has 1 year left on his deal. The most the Pats can push off from his salary this year into next is a $5 million dollar bonus. That will lower Brady's cap hit this year to $17 million, but push it next year to $27 million. 

     

    The only answer for cap relief from Brady's contract is to extend his contract. I think you are looking at at least 5 years and $100 million to extend him, taking him to his 42 birthday. 

    My thoughts on the Pats salary cap issues are pretty clear, even though Rusty does not understand them;

    1) Brady's contract is too high a percent of the total, and extending him for 5 more years is risky

    2) Vince is in a similar situation. He is over 30, has a lot of wear and tear, and has the wrong body type to extend into his 35th year

    3) Mankins simply won't renegotiate after getting jerked around and losing half a seasons pay

    4) The Pats have no obvious high salary cuts that don't make the team worse. Cutting Ghost or Lloyd, in my opinion weakens the Pats while saving them money. Cutting Fells, Larsen really doesn't save much money. 

    5) The Pats have 18 free agents, with a good 15 of them making contributions to the team of great value. While losing Chung is not much of a hit, I contend losing Arrington, Cole, Edelman, Woody, Thomas, Huma will weaken the team as they all contributed. Not to say the Pats cannot resign them, but if they wish to resign 2 of the big 3, it will be hard to bring back many of the 2 nd tier contributors. 

     

     

    Are you saying a player can only restructure once over the life of a deal?  Please post the rules that you are claiming so we can see those please.

    Please post the CBA rules on player contracts.

     

     

     



    No, they can restructure as often as they want.  All rkarp is saying is it doesn't help much to restructure when you only have a year left, because there's not a lot of time left to spread the increased bonus over. You can lower this year's cap hit but only by significantly increasing it next year.  This assumes, of course, you're restructuring by turning base into bonus, which is what is typically done with players you aren't threatening to cut.  The alternative is to ask for a pay cut from the player, but that usually only works if you are going to cut the player and the player can't get much in free agency.

     

     

     




     

    So, if they extend Brady into 2015 and 2016, when the cap goes up in 2015, the extension can be used to spread the bonus over from the previous deal, correct?  So, he'd be 39 starting the 2016 season and that might be it for Brady unless he wants to sign a 1 year deal in 2017. Something to that effect.

    RKrap's major malfunction on this topic is that he doesn't get that BB is leveraging his knowledge of Kraft telling him that the cap won't go up until 2015.  He doesn't seem to get that NY wildly spent into the lockout with no apparent knowledge the cap would be lower and flat for a LARGE portion of the first part of the CBA deal.  I warned of this with Phat Rex, but he kept pissing in the wind.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Brady's 4 year deal was specifically under the knowledge that the cap would go up in 2015, not 2013 or 2014.   This would mean, assuming Brady wants to keep playing, is healthy, etc, BB and Brady can just sit down and start doing 2 year deals, instead of 4 or 4+ year deals. A 2 year extension, say AFTER this season, would allow for the restructure and the cap is UP in 2015, so that would mean they'd be covered.

    So, barring it being illegal linking two diffeernt deals together under the new CBA rules (one deal old CBA, one new CBA), if Brady is extended, that should allow the new life of a deal to spread out the bonus money off a restructure in 2014.

    Correct?

    RKrap keeps acting like only the Jets have some special personnel powers that BB doesn't have, which is not only a sign of mental illness, it's funny at the same time.



    Yes correct. The question is does he extend 3/$75 or 5/$125 or something like that, paying him into his forties. 

    I am not saying the Jets have special powers. I am saying the Jets have inconsequential players to cut saving already $31 million, with relatively little impact on the field. I am also saying the Jets have a lot of leeway with numerous high salaried players to push money to future years such as Mangold and Brick, as well as Cro and Harris. I also don't see the Jets having free agents of consequence they need to resign. They don't have anyone free at the level of Wes or Talib or Vollmer. 

    I do think the Jets do resign Landry, Bell and DeVito. I am not saying that is necessarily good, I am just saying they do it. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    Hey Rusty.

    Simple question.  Would TB have to had restructured at all last year (causing big problems in cap for the next 2 years) if the team didn't have 18M in dead money due to drafting ineffective players and signing umproductive FA's?

    How about even half that amount? 

    Wouldn't they be able to sign their top FA's this year if not for the same problem?

     




    Personally, I don't like Brady's contract numbers at all.  He certainly cashed in big time. Dead money or no dead money, he's not playing up to the level of that salary.  It's why I felt Mankins should have been dealt for a 2nd rder. Never pay on past laurels.  BB did it twice. Once with Mankins and he probably had little choice into the lockout and the fact Brady had to take the lead via the union as the lead QB into the lockout, especially after taking a below market deal back in 2006 I think it was.

     

    I think it's an issue last year, where he did restructure to help go after FAs like Brandon Lloyd or Gregory, resign some key guys and still be in position moving forward.

    You can't keep ignoring Brady is paid more now and performing worse in these postseasons. That's something you simply cannot run away from at the end of it all.




    Brady's cap hit was under 8 MM last year.  He outplayed that by week 8.

    The problem, while TB is somewhat responsible, is a defense that sends every opposing QB to Canton to get fitted for their jacket immediately after the game.

    That 18mm in dead money sure would have helped in that sense.  That would have bought a real conerback and pass rusher and safety, at least,  instead of what we got.

    More players that have to be replaced.  More dead money.  YEAH!!!

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

    Re: Tom Brady

    I also think the 2015 cap is in the range of $127-$129, which is higher than this years $121, but is not unlimited. 

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    Hey Rusty.

    Simple question.  Would TB have to had restructured at all last year (causing big problems in cap for the next 2 years) if the team didn't have 18M in dead money due to drafting ineffective players and signing umproductive FA's?

    How about even half that amount? 

    Wouldn't they be able to sign their top FA's this year if not for the same problem?

     




    Personally, I don't like Brady's contract numbers at all.  He certainly cashed in big time. Dead money or no dead money, he's not playing up to the level of that salary.  It's why I felt Mankins should have been dealt for a 2nd rder. Never pay on past laurels.  BB did it twice. Once with Mankins and he probably had little choice into the lockout and the fact Brady had to take the lead via the union as the lead QB into the lockout, especially after taking a below market deal back in 2006 I think it was.

     

    I think it's an issue last year, where he did restructure to help go after FAs like Brandon Lloyd or Gregory, resign some key guys and still be in position moving forward.

    You can't keep ignoring Brady is paid more now and performing worse in these postseasons. That's something you simply cannot run away from at the end of it all.

     




    Brady's cap hit was under 8 MM last year.  He outplayed that by week 8.

     

    The problem, while TB is somewhat responsible, is a defense that sends every opposing QB to Canton to get fitted for their jacket immediately after the game.

    That 18mm in dead money sure would have helped in that sense.  That would have bought a real conerback and pass rusher and safety, at least,  instead of what we got.

    More players that have to be replaced.  More dead money.  YEAH!!!

     




    Sure. So when Balt's D gets lit up in the postseason, EXCEPT when our O can't do anything for an entire half, it sure seems odd you wouldn't focus on that. Hmm. #1 rated offense and then 13 points, yet again, well below their season average.

     

    So, really, what good is it if Brady :outplayed" his salary by week 8, if Brady says his favorite ring is "the next one"?  Care to explain that contradiction?

    What about last year when Brady was gof awful in the AFC title game and subpar in the SB itself?

    What was his salary then?

    Talib and Jones being hurt didn't help NE's D int he titel game this year. Has nothing to do with this "dead money" claim. Take away any team's top CB and best pass rusher on the egde and it has an effect. It's just too bad NE, 6-1 without Gronk saw their star QB fold again.

    Been a LONG, LONG time since Brady had a strong postseason all the way through, wouldn't you say? 2006.

    Yep. 2006. And the offense in the second half vs Indy folded then, too.  Tell us, what was the "dead money" hit in 2006? lmao

    Every time you spin from the truth and try to deflect toward BB, I will remind you of these things.

     

     

     




    Funny, I see the O with the lead and the D colapsing in all those games other than 2009 where the D sucked from the very first drive.

     

    How many points did flacco score in the second half of a 13 possession game?  6

    Yet he has a ring.  How'd that happen?  his D got picks and fumble recoveries and made a goal line stand.  His ST also scored.  Without those, he loses.  Without those TB loses.

    Get a brain.

    Funny how you make excuses for the D when Talib and jones go down but make no allowance for the O with their best player missing and the others acting like they were catching hot potatoes without oven mitts.  5 drops, Balt had 19 all year.!!!!

    50% completion for LLoyd, 68 for wes and 66 for Hern.  Pfft.  Balt had 4 recievers with 100% completions in the SB.  pfft

    Never said TB was great.  Never!  Get that straight right now and quit twisting every word every poster says.  It's just very obvious there were a lot more problems then him.

    Serious problems, that have been replaced over and over and over only to create more serious problems like 15% of the cap being eaten up by dead money.

    Tom Brady can't fix all of those, although he tries and does compensate for the majority of them.

    The fact that you expect him to speaks volumes about you knowledge or lack of it.

    PS, most of his cap hit has been in the 12-14m range with 2010 being the highest @ 17M.  That was also his MVP by a land slide year.  I think he earned that and everything in between. 

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Tom Brady

    Brady's salary was $8 million because the Pats pushed money to 2013 and 2014. They owe him $44 million these last 2 years. This allowed Mankins Romney and Wes to be franchised, but made this year and next difficult. 

     

Share