Asante Talking About A Trade

[MattsPats]

Well put....

It all just makes the legend of Bruschi and the legend of Troy Brown all the more special.

Go Patriots!

Maybe we should only draft guys with the initials TB?

 

[CleatMarks]

If he thinks he's worth 10 million a year, find a team willing to pay him that and let's make a deal. If he's worth 10 a year, he's worth a couple of first round picks.

 

[EasyBigFella]

This is merely a negotiating tactic from Samuel to move things along. Unless they can make a deal to get Landry, he knows the Pats have to sign him. I think this one gets done before draft day.

 

[JD10367]

This is merely a negotiating tactic from Samuel to move things along. Unless they can make a deal to get Landry, he knows the Pats have to sign him. I think this one gets done before draft day.

This is where I disagree. The Patriots NEVER feel they "have to" do ANYTHING.

Honestly: Samuel's the #1 corner only 'cause we don't have any better. He's not worth what he's asking, nor do I think he's that great. Good, yes. A solid young guy, yes. For the right price, he can stay a Patriot for a long time. But he's no Deion Sanders, no Ty Law. He's not a guy you say, "If we sign him, we know that one half of the field is shut down for the whole season."

I'm sure the Pats would rather have him. Of course, I'm sure they would rather have had Branch. They WILL make do without Samuel. If he thinks they won't or can't, then he's making the same mistake every former Patriot has made for the past seven years...

 

[MattsPats]

Don't forget we also have Ellis Hobbs, who is (according to Phil Rivers) "the sorriest corner in the league!"

 

[Darth Despot]

Odd that Rivers completed less than 50% of his passes, didn't throw a TD and lost in the playoffs with the "Sorriest" CB in the league lining up against him.

 

[MattsPats]

Odd that Rivers completed less than 50% of his passes, didn't throw a TD and lost in the playoffs with the "Sorriest" CB in the league lining up against him.

Maybe that's how he hurt his foot: putting it in his mouth?

 

[P4E]

Maybe that's how he hurt his foot: putting it in his mouth?

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

 

[Brownfan80]

Odd that Rivers completed less than 50% of his passes, didn't throw a TD and lost in the playoffs with the "Sorriest" CB in the league lining up against him.

I've pointed out in the past that the Sorry Corner in question broke up 3 or 4 Sorry Passes from the Whiney Mouthed QB in question during the game that preceded his oft-quoted comment.

If a Sorry Corner can make your passes look like Lame Ducks, then what does that make you as a QB, Rivers?

 

[EasyBigFella]

This is where I disagree. The Patriots NEVER feel they "have to" do ANYTHING.

Honestly: Samuel's the #1 corner only 'cause we don't have any better. He's not worth what he's asking, nor do I think he's that great. Good, yes. A solid young guy, yes. For the right price, he can stay a Patriot for a long time. But he's no Deion Sanders, no Ty Law. He's not a guy you say, "If we sign him, we know that one half of the field is shut down for the whole season."

I'm sure the Pats would rather have him. Of course, I'm sure they would rather have had Branch. They WILL make do without Samuel. If he thinks they won't or can't, then he's making the same mistake every former Patriot has made for the past seven years...

Well, the Patriots don't 'have' to do anything, but since they have put all their chips on the table to win it this year, it would seem counterproductive to pay a bunch of guys big cash and enter the season with a potentially fatal flaw in the secondary.

 

[JamesLavin]

since they have put all their chips on the table to win it this year

Hey! You guys are supposed to let me know when Pioli pulls a Ditka and trades away our entire slate of next year's draft picks!

--James

 

[EasyBigFella]

Hey! You guys are supposed to let me know when Pioli trades away next year's draft picks!

--James

You dont get the sense that the Patriots are going for it all this year? Doesn't mean they can't win it again in three years, but it looks like there's a lot more urgency on this season than in season's past. If they let Samuel go via a trade now, it would be a step back, thats for sure.

 

[JamesLavin]

You dont get the sense that the Patriots are going for it all this year? Doesn't mean they can't win it again in three years, but it looks like there's a lot more urgency on this season than in season's past. If they let Samuel go via a trade now, it would be a step back, thats for sure.

I believe Piolichick is (are?) doing what Piolichick always does: Trying to set the team up to compete for a championship every season.

This year, they had much more cap room, and they struck quickly in free agency because there were a few special guys available and because they anticipated that salaries would skyrocket because so many teams have so much cap room.

So it's not a change in philosophy at all but in ability to pay and the speed with which they moved because the predicted performance-per-dollar as a Patriot is higher with A. Thomas than with many "big name" free agents of the past.

They also love to address needs before the draft, as they did in trading for Corey Dillon, for example.

And they're signing guys like D. Stallworth and K. Washington to "show me" contracts, which is also part of their M.O..

If they start trading away 2008 draft picks, I'll have to reassess, but I see nothing that says they changed their philosophy this offseason.

--James

 

[Denism]

I believe Piolichick is (are?) doing what Piolichick always does: Trying to set the team up to compete for a championship every season.

This year, they had much more cap room, and they struck quickly in free agency because there were a few special guys available and because they anticipated that salaries would skyrocket because so many teams have so much cap room.

So it's not a change in philosophy at all but in ability to pay and the speed with which they moved because the predicted performance-per-dollar as a Patriot is higher with A. Thomas than with many "big name" free agents of the past.

They also love to address needs before the draft, as they did in trading for Corey Dillon, for example.

And they're signing guys like D. Stallworth and K. Washington to "show me" contracts, which is also part of their M.O..

If they start trading away 2008 draft picks, I'll have to reassess, but I see nothing that says they changed their philosophy this offseason.

--James

Spot on James

Personally, i cant understand this attitude of "putting all their chips on the table to win it this year"

Can someone give me some good / proper arguments to support this?

Pioli has said it himself, we had alot of cap space & there was some good players out there in the FA so the pats whipped them up, why is that "putting all their chips on the table to win it"

 

[Wandering Athol]

I could make an argument that they're loading the team up for a 3 to 4 year run while Brady's still in his prime. Belichick's not going to coach here forever either, for that matter.

Once either of them are gone, there's a good chance this merry-go-round stops spinning.

 

[Webslinger]

I could make an argument that they're loading the team up for a 3 to 4 year run while Brady's still in his prime. Belichick's not going to coach here forever either, for that matter.

Once either of them are gone, there's a good chance this merry-go-round stops spinning.

Spot on assessment WA.

 

[JamesLavin]

I've got a ton of respect for WanderingAthol, but this post isn't your finest work.

I could make an argument that they're loading the team up for a 3 to 4 year run while Brady's still in his prime.

What does "loading... up for a 3 to 4 year run" mean??? Is Belichick sacrificing the team six years from now to field a better team in 2007? I don't even know how he could do that. Or are you merely saying that we're not putting all our chips on 2007?

Can you name any team that's not either putting all its chips on 2007 or spreading out its chips over the next few seasons?

Belichick's not going to coach here forever either, for that matter.

Are you saying he'll be coaching elsewhere in 3 to 4 years and is therefore secretly selling off 2011 draft picks to stockpile players now? Or are you simply pointing out he'll retire some day?

Once either of them are gone, there's a good chance this merry-go-round stops spinning.

One blind-side hit on Brady and we're the Raiders? Is that what you're saying? We're that paper thin? Of course, without BB we won't win every other Super Bowl. But how does that have anything to do with whether we're "stocking up" for a run?

Your posts are often very informative, but this reads like a meaningless fluff piece.

--James

 

[-JJ-]

I could make an argument that they're loading the team up for a 3 to 4 year run while Brady's still in his prime. Belichick's not going to coach here forever either, for that matter.

Once either of them are gone, there's a good chance this merry-go-round stops spinning.

That's what I feel. The line on both sides is locked up till 2009.
The team still has good players. Brady won't be here forever and maybe not BB.

They were 27 mil under the cap. Adalius Thomas can be had.

NOW was the time. Load both barrels and pull the trigger with the goal to win 1,2, or 3 SBs. Not only did they pull the trigger..they did it fast.

This is definitely a year of lock and load for the next 3 years.

 

[-JJ-]

I've got a ton of respect for WanderingAthol, but this post isn't your finest work.

What does "loading... up for a 3 to 4 year run" mean??? Is Belichick sacrificing the team six years from now to field a better team in 2007? I don't even know how he could do that. Or are you merely saying that we're not putting all our chips on 2007?

Can you name any team that's not either putting all its chips on 2007 or spreading out its chips over the next few seasons?

Are you saying he'll be coaching elsewhere in 3 to 4 years and is therefore secretly selling off 2011 draft picks to stockpile players now? Or are you simply pointing out he'll retire some day?

One blind-side hit on Brady and we're the Raiders? Is that what you're saying? We're that paper thin? Of course, without BB we won't win every other Super Bowl. But how does that have anything to do with whether we're "stocking up" for a run?

Your posts are often very informative, but this reads like a meaningless fluff piece.

--James

Generally you look ahead in 3 year increments. Pioli said they're not putting all their chips for this one year (and they're not) but rather looking at the next 4-5 years. Fact is Brady won't be around forever. Maybe not even Pioli.

By locking and loading for a 3 year run they're still not putting the team in a dismantled shape by 2010 because of the way they did it. But the team will change a lot in 2010.

 

[Wandering Athol]

I've got a ton of respect for WanderingAthol, but this post isn't your finest work.

No, it's not. I've been struggling to find the time to post here lately, hence the 3-sentence hookline, but bear with me for a second and I'll try to further develop my point. It's not something that just came to me in the middle of the night.

What does "loading... up for a 3 to 4 year run" mean??? Is Belichick sacrificing the team six years from now to field a better team in 2007? I don't even know how he could do that. Or are you merely saying that we're not putting all our chips on 2007?

It means signing bonuses were converted into roster bonuses last season to clear up space under the cap in future years.

It means draft picks were used for more expensive veteran role players this offseason.

It means contract offers from agents of players at "need" positions were lifted - early and often this offseason.

It means productive veteran players in 2005 & 2006 were let go, and their roster spots filled with lesser, CHEAPER talent.


My eyes and intuition tell me that the Pats went into mini-rebuild mode after the loss of Weis and Crennel. Many of their player personnel decisions with their own guys and outside free agents lead me in that direction. This would not be unusual: many businesses have 5-year plans.

However, you're also not going to find a Tom Brady in every draft, or every 30 drafts for that matter. The Pats need to surround Brady with the talent to win Super Bowls while he's in his prime, which I'm estimating to be another 3-4 years. Last year in particular, I felt the Pats entered the season with subpar talent (and had capspace to remedy some of their problem areas, regardless of the Branch situation).

Here's the list of key players set to become free agents or probably retire by 2009/2010: Brady, Seymour, Light, Neal, Mankins, Watson, Wilfork, Green, Vrabel, Faulk, Maroney, Hobbs. That's a lot of talent possibly walking out the door. If the Pats use both of their first-round picks in this upcoming draft, I'll feel even stronger about my hunch.

Can you name any team that's not either putting all its chips on 2007 or spreading out its chips over the next few seasons?

Ah, but how many GMs and coaches have the job security of Pioli and Belichick?

Are you saying he'll be coaching elsewhere in 3 to 4 years and is therefore secretly selling off 2011 draft picks to stockpile players now? Or are you simply pointing out he'll retire some day?

He will retire some day. Brady will hang up his cleats as well. When either of those two things happen, lightning-in-a-bottle will be harder to reproduce I think than many people think.

One blind-side hit on Brady and we're the Raiders? Is that what you're saying? We're that paper thin?

No. You're the Dolphins since Marino; the Broncos since Elway - good, but not good enough.

Of course, without BB we won't win every other Super Bowl. But how does that have anything to do with whether we're "stocking up" for a run?

Because it is human nature to want to go out on top. I've got to believe Belichick has learned a thing or two from Parcells about exit strategy: surveying the landscape, timing his departure from coaching the New England Patriots around 2009/2010, especially if there's another Lombardi or two sitting in Gillette Stadium by then, could be very appealing I'm speculating.

Or then again, maybe not. I'm just connecting the dots.

Your posts are often very informative, but this reads like a meaningless fluff piece.

It was just a summation of the tripe I've been posting in piecemeal here over the last year or so. The Wandering Athol chronicles must be read as a whole set James, not as isolated posts.



FWIW, I think the Pats are having a great offseason - their best since 2004.