In this article, Chris Gasper makes the case that the Patriots either fucked up their efforts to deal Butler or are taking an "all-in" approach that represents a major strategic shift in Belichick's approach, perhaps brought on by his impending retirement.
I am, shall we say, skeptical. My overall take on this article is that it is such trash that I, on reading it, scrolled back up expecting to see Volin's byline. But I thin it is worth discussing - maybe I am wearing my BB-colored glasses.
With regard to not trading Butler:
In any case, I go into this kind of story very skeptical, but here is where Gasper comletely loses me:
This year's limited number of picks in the early rounds has certainly been unprecedented for the Patriots to approach the draft, but I'm more inclined to think it is the product of circumstance rather than some kind of shift to win-now mode.
I am, shall we say, skeptical. My overall take on this article is that it is such trash that I, on reading it, scrolled back up expecting to see Volin's byline. But I thin it is worth discussing - maybe I am wearing my BB-colored glasses.
With regard to not trading Butler:
When was the last time the Patriots cut bait on an RFA? Everyone on the above list was either unrestricted or a long-time veteran.Either the Patriots misjudged the Butler situation and missed out on the first two rounds of the deepest draft in recent memory or they are loading up for Belichick’s run at history.
This will get spun into being the plan all along -- to keep Butler and pair him with Stephon Gilmore to form one of the premier cornerback tandems in the league. There is a lacuna in that logic, however. It runs contrary to a report from Albert Breer of The MMQB, who tweeted Friday that the Patriots pursued the 42d selection and another pick from New Orleans in exchange for Butler.
It would fly in the face of the Patriots’ long-standing pursuit of value propositions and past history of moving on from ostensibly essential players like Lawyer Milloy and Ty Law and trading ones such as Deion Branch, Richard Seymour, Mike Vrabel, Logan Mankins, and Chandler Jones. Getting into the first two rounds of this year’s draft represents better value than waiting until 2019 to get a third-round compensatory pick for a departed Butler.
The Patriots have parted with better players than Butler and not broken stride.
How much of the big Gilmore splash is related to the Patriots having an unusual amount of money coming off of the books (and hence a ton of cap room)?Or it could be that we have been looking at the wrong window. Belichick, who turned 65 last month, appears unmoved by the Brady Window, but moved to action by his own.
There has been exigency in the Patriots approach this offseason. They signed Gilmore to a five-year, $65 million deal, sent their first-round pick to the Saints for wide receiver Brandin Cooks, swapped their second-round pick for Panthers defensive end Kony Ealy and a third-round pick, picked up tight end Dwayne Allen (and a sixth-round pick) from Indianapolis in exchange for their fourth-rounder, and signed running backs Rex Burkhead and Mike Gillislee.
In any case, I go into this kind of story very skeptical, but here is where Gasper comletely loses me:
At this point I think we've descended from logic into pure political spin. Is hanging onto a backup QB with a lot of value on the trade market really an indication of "all in for 2017"? Throughout their run, the Patriots have pretty routinely gotten key on-field contributions from rookie players drafted in rounds 1-4.(Given the bounty that was surrendered for unproven quarterbacks in this draft, declining to deal Garoppolo also signals Belichick is all in for 2017.)
This year's limited number of picks in the early rounds has certainly been unprecedented for the Patriots to approach the draft, but I'm more inclined to think it is the product of circumstance rather than some kind of shift to win-now mode.