Over the last several weeks and particularly over the last few days, a theme has emerged that the Patriots are more focused on dollars than being a Super Bowl contender. We're hearing that they are more financially driven than championship driven.
Tommy Kelly's widely quoted comments were along those lines:
Similarly, Tom Brady was seen talking with Trent Dilfer and Steve Young before the Chiefs debacle, and those two were very critical of the Mankins move (a move Tom reportedly hated), and raised similar questions about the Pats' aspirations. They didn't connect the dots as tightly to saving money as some others have, but they did say that the Pats have not given Tom adequate weapons or protection on the offensive line.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/09/30/espns-steve-young-trent-dilfer-very-critical-of-patriots-management/
Ben Volin tackles the issue, at least partially, in his article in today's Globe. He points out the many areas that the Patriots should have addressed this past off season and their current $14 mm salary cap excess, among other things.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/09/30/patriots-should-have-done-more-this-offseason/Tuo1sO254rgP7STwvN0OKM/story.html
Then there's the Mankins move itself. While there were reports of Mankins having slipped in recent years, he was by all accounts the leader of the offensive line, arguably the best of the Pats linemen and someone who Brady valued highly. The move seemed to be largely financially driven and horribly timed, and evoked memories of similar late training camp ejections of accomplished veterans in prior years (Seymour and Milloy).
Pardon me for including the CHB in this post (and please do not click on that link), but he summarizes what a lot of people have been saying -- though in classic Curly Haired Bitch fashion, in the midst of an article supposedly decrying the piling on going on now -- about the Patriots' self inflicted problems, as follows:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/09/30/patriots-went-down-hard-and-there-lot-piling/thvbeAZAPiiuRhTMzOCBCL/story.html
Finally, the Patriots are reportedly -- according to Miguel's cap analysis -- 31st in spending on player salaries for 2014.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/09/30/belichick-doesnt-always-do-whats-best-for-the-team/
******
So what are we to make of all of this? Is it an overreaction to a brutal loss? Or is there some truth to the allegation that BB/Kraft have somehow morphed into Sinden/Jacobs, or that they have always been that and just managed to hide it or manage around it well over the years? Or putting aside the comparisons to the Bs of the past, is the focus on money indeed part of why they have seemingly regressed and left the cupboard too bare. (Yes, it's only 4 games, and maybe they will somehow do what they always seem to do and play better as the season progresses).
There are obvious counters. One, the Pats have been wildly successful, and it's convenient now to look for easy excuses. Two, the recent Revis contract shows that they are willing to spend. Three, the mantra out of Foxboro has been for years that the Pats spend on the whole roster for depth reasons rather than on just the upper tier. Four, as some have pointed out, if the Pats want to make money, a good way to do that is to go deep into the post-season, so the connect the dots arguments being made right now are overly simplistic. Five, the Patriots indeed have spent big on some other contracts -- Amendola and Arrignton, to name a few -- and while the return has not been good, it's unfair to ignore those efforts. Maybe the problem is that they just aren't good at roster construction, not that they are cheapskates.
Speaking for myself, I have some trouble believing that BB/Kraft are so myopic as to have made the Mankins move, for example, largely to improve Kraft's return. That ignores some of the supposed benefits of the move (a needed offensive option in Wright, who has inexplicably been ignored for the most part since he arrived, the 4th round pick, the chance to use the salary cap savings on locking up McCourty or Revis, and the hope that whoever would replace Mankins would give the Pats performance that was not far off what they would have gotten from Logan). My instinct is also that given the scale of the Pats' operation, it is hard to believe that saving $6-7 mm on a player would be how they would make it all work.
Still, the points made in Volin's column resonate with me. Before the season, I was more than a little bit agitated at the Pats' failure to do more than add Brandon LaFell to the receiving corps and hope that the sophomores would all somehow turn the corner. I posted that here a few times and the response from some was that with Gronk back, they would be fine. Indeed, I think a lot of people in the football universe thought that. I was also baffled by their failure to add a pass rushing specialist and their apparent decision not to bid on any of the available defensive ends this past off season. I don't think I mentioned that here but I know that many others did so.
In any event, I will be curious to see how people react to this.
Tommy Kelly's widely quoted comments were along those lines:
http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/patriots/content/20140929-tommy-kelly-questions-patriots-commitment-to-winning.ece
Similarly, Tom Brady was seen talking with Trent Dilfer and Steve Young before the Chiefs debacle, and those two were very critical of the Mankins move (a move Tom reportedly hated), and raised similar questions about the Pats' aspirations. They didn't connect the dots as tightly to saving money as some others have, but they did say that the Pats have not given Tom adequate weapons or protection on the offensive line.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/09/30/espns-steve-young-trent-dilfer-very-critical-of-patriots-management/
Ben Volin tackles the issue, at least partially, in his article in today's Globe. He points out the many areas that the Patriots should have addressed this past off season and their current $14 mm salary cap excess, among other things.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/09/30/patriots-should-have-done-more-this-offseason/Tuo1sO254rgP7STwvN0OKM/story.html
Then there's the Mankins move itself. While there were reports of Mankins having slipped in recent years, he was by all accounts the leader of the offensive line, arguably the best of the Pats linemen and someone who Brady valued highly. The move seemed to be largely financially driven and horribly timed, and evoked memories of similar late training camp ejections of accomplished veterans in prior years (Seymour and Milloy).
Pardon me for including the CHB in this post (and please do not click on that link), but he summarizes what a lot of people have been saying -- though in classic Curly Haired Bitch fashion, in the midst of an article supposedly decrying the piling on going on now -- about the Patriots' self inflicted problems, as follows:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/09/30/patriots-went-down-hard-and-there-lot-piling/thvbeAZAPiiuRhTMzOCBCL/story.html
Finally, the Patriots are reportedly -- according to Miguel's cap analysis -- 31st in spending on player salaries for 2014.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/09/30/belichick-doesnt-always-do-whats-best-for-the-team/
******
So what are we to make of all of this? Is it an overreaction to a brutal loss? Or is there some truth to the allegation that BB/Kraft have somehow morphed into Sinden/Jacobs, or that they have always been that and just managed to hide it or manage around it well over the years? Or putting aside the comparisons to the Bs of the past, is the focus on money indeed part of why they have seemingly regressed and left the cupboard too bare. (Yes, it's only 4 games, and maybe they will somehow do what they always seem to do and play better as the season progresses).
There are obvious counters. One, the Pats have been wildly successful, and it's convenient now to look for easy excuses. Two, the recent Revis contract shows that they are willing to spend. Three, the mantra out of Foxboro has been for years that the Pats spend on the whole roster for depth reasons rather than on just the upper tier. Four, as some have pointed out, if the Pats want to make money, a good way to do that is to go deep into the post-season, so the connect the dots arguments being made right now are overly simplistic. Five, the Patriots indeed have spent big on some other contracts -- Amendola and Arrignton, to name a few -- and while the return has not been good, it's unfair to ignore those efforts. Maybe the problem is that they just aren't good at roster construction, not that they are cheapskates.
Speaking for myself, I have some trouble believing that BB/Kraft are so myopic as to have made the Mankins move, for example, largely to improve Kraft's return. That ignores some of the supposed benefits of the move (a needed offensive option in Wright, who has inexplicably been ignored for the most part since he arrived, the 4th round pick, the chance to use the salary cap savings on locking up McCourty or Revis, and the hope that whoever would replace Mankins would give the Pats performance that was not far off what they would have gotten from Logan). My instinct is also that given the scale of the Pats' operation, it is hard to believe that saving $6-7 mm on a player would be how they would make it all work.
Still, the points made in Volin's column resonate with me. Before the season, I was more than a little bit agitated at the Pats' failure to do more than add Brandon LaFell to the receiving corps and hope that the sophomores would all somehow turn the corner. I posted that here a few times and the response from some was that with Gronk back, they would be fine. Indeed, I think a lot of people in the football universe thought that. I was also baffled by their failure to add a pass rushing specialist and their apparent decision not to bid on any of the available defensive ends this past off season. I don't think I mentioned that here but I know that many others did so.
In any event, I will be curious to see how people react to this.
