What might a Patriots 'reset' look like?

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
3,968
I'm starting to come around to the very real possibility that Tom Brady will be playing elsewhere next season. If he wants to be paid ~$25 million next season, I don't see how the Patriots do that and retool their roster the way they need to. If Brady leaves, I don't see the point in paying ~$15 million for some retread non-Brady. I think I'd rather just go with Stidham and 'reset'. I'm not talking about intentionally tanking. But, I do have to admit I feel a little envious of the Dolphins right now. They had lousy season last year, but now they are set up with lots of draft picks and cap space to contend next season. So, what might a reset look like for the Pats?

Do you trade a player like Edelman? He'll be 34 next year, and would seem more valuable to a real contender than to a team that might win somewhere between 6 and 9 games.

What about Gilmore? Of course he was a fantastic player for the Pats. But, he's 29 and would seem to be someone they could get valuable compensation for.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
20,119
South Korea
Hey @NomarsFool, appreciate starting a new thread but would the topics be overlapping with the existing "off-season" threads? Since we have a Brady/QB thread, would this be a defense/offense-specific thread?
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
5,246
You say that you are not talking about intentionally tanking but then say you are envious of the Dolphins who went 5-11 and traded Minkah Fitzpatrick and Laremy Tunsil for draft picks.

I think Bill has no interest in trying not to win, but I do think he would trade almost anyone for the right deal. The Dolphins trades happened during the season, however. I think their team kind of sucked when they decided to make those deals.
I don't see that as being too likely.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
The Pats will have an elite defense next season, even if Van Noy and McCourty are gone. And if TB12 is gone, the only reason those two wouldn’t be back would be because BB thinks there are better options.

So there will be no “reset.” If Brady is gone, you sign a retread like Andy Dalton for short money to compete with Stidham for the QB job, and you put together a roster with fewer obvious holes than this year’s. Four of the past twelve Super Bowl winners were no better than 10-6, and the 2017 Eagles weren’t expected to be elite; there’s nothing wrong with planning to be pretty good and hoping to catch lightning in a bottle.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
26,970
Van Noy is in line for his Flowers/Woody big deal. He's not coming back whether Brady is here or not.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
26,132
Melrose, MA
The real question is... given the NFL salary cap, draft, and rookie deal rules, along with the need to fill out a 53 man roster, what does a rebuild 'look like'?

Draft picks are only here for 4-5 years before they (if they are good) get paid. So if you tank for picks, and it puts you in a multiyear rebuild cycle, your initial set of picks will need to get paid right when you are getting competitive again.

This also isn't the NBA, where success is driven by top of roster talent.

The key factor is economics: NFL teams have very limited resources (cap room and draft picks), and a big roster to fill. So a guy who is a great player to have on your team at $5 million might be a liability at $10 million.

How does all of that shake out into a rebuilding strategy?
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
3,968
Draft picks are only here for 4-5 years before they (if they are good) get paid. So if you tank for picks, and it puts you in a multiyear rebuild cycle, your initial set of picks will need to get paid right when you are getting competitive again.

This also isn't the NBA, where success is driven by top of roster talent.
Agreed. But, I'd also say this isn't the NBA where you draft 19 year olds and have to wait 4-5 years before they are true stars. Not a ton of rookies have a big impact their first year (except for WRs the Patriots DON'T draft) :) but I think they are usually contributors by year 2 and 3. It would seem to me that good roster construction in football (and baseball) involves having a good base of useful young players on inexpensive deals, so that you can spend the premiums you need for the really elite (and expensive) skill positions where you need them.

I don't see the Patriots, with the poor drafts they have had in recent years, being in a position to have that good base of useful young players. Just seems hard to imagine getting back to being a really good team without some sort of reset, to me.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,755
Mansfield MA
I don't see the Patriots, with the poor drafts they have had in recent years, being in a position to have that good base of useful young players. Just seems hard to imagine getting back to being a really good team without some sort of reset, to me.
I agree, they don't have that base. But how does "resetting" get them that base? They have to draft better, and they have to develop the young players they have better. There really aren't any shortcuts around that.
 

jmanny24

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
423
I agree, they don't have that base. But how does "resetting" get them that base? They have to draft better, and they have to develop the young players they have better. There really aren't any shortcuts around that.
I know it may sound simplistic, but drafting better might be helped by less value searching i.e. trading down, and select talent in the spots you're at.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,238
Hingham, MA
I know it may sound simplistic, but drafting better might be helped by less value searching i.e. trading down, and select talent in the spots you're at.
I think pretty much everyone would disagree. Drafting is a crapshoot, the more picks you have the better chance you have to hit. It’s not about value searching.
 

Dick Pole Upside

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
4,409
39.932N, -85.848W
They’ve been projected to receive 3 3rd round compensatory picks this year based on last year’s free agent losses (headlined by Flowers). One contingency is to plan on a similar haul next year if they let Messrs. Thuney, Van Noy, and/or McCourty go. Then I think you’ll see Trader Bill accumulate cap space and picks for the 2021 season. This assumes Brady doesn’t return.
 

shoosh77

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,453
New Canaan, CT
They’ve been projected to receive 3 3rd round compensatory picks this year based on last year’s free agent losses (headlined by Flowers). One contingency is to plan on a similar haul next year if they let Messrs. Thuney, Van Noy, and/or McCourty go. Then I think you’ll see Trader Bill accumulate cap space and picks for the 2021 season. This assumes Brady doesn’t return.
I think you mean 2 comp 3rd rounders to go with their own to get to 3 3rds. Also in line for a two other later round ones.

If Brady leaves I don’t think it would crazy to see Jules traded to that team, probably for something in the 3rd or 4th round. Ugh, this is depressing.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,770
The Pats will have an elite defense next season, even if Van Noy and McCourty are gone. And if TB12 is gone, the only reason those two wouldn’t be back would be because BB thinks there are better options.

So there will be no “reset.” If Brady is gone, you sign a retread like Andy Dalton for short money to compete with Stidham for the QB job, and you put together a roster with fewer obvious holes than this year’s. Four of the past twelve Super Bowl winners were no better than 10-6, and the 2017 Eagles weren’t expected to be elite; there’s nothing wrong with planning to be pretty good and hoping to catch lightning in a bottle.
I don't know if the D will be "elite" next year, because for the second half of the year this year, they were good, but not great, and certainly not "elite". But I agree - they do have enough talent coming back that, unless they really do tank which I cannot fathom them doing, the team has a solid foundation to be good. Maybe not great, but good. Even if they bring in a veteran like Dalton. Ugh, hurts to even say that. But to show you that it's possible, look at Ryan Tannehill. Good offensive line, outstanding running game, decent receivers, decent defense. Here were his career numbers before this year, and then here were this year's numbers:

Before 2019: 62.8%, 7.0 y/a, 123 td (4.2%), 75 int (2.6%), 87.0 rating
2019 with Ten: 70.3%, 9.6 y/a, 22 td (7.7%), 6 int (2.1%), 117.5 rating

I'm not saying Dalton will make that kind of leap. I am saying that it's totally possible that for a year or two he could be good enough for the team to be in the playoff hunt, with a puncher's chance.

His career numbers: 62.0%, 204 td (4.6%), 118 int (2.7%), 87.5 rating. Virtually identical to Tannehill's before Tannehill's breakout year this year. And though he has never won a playoff game, Dalton has led his team to five playoff appearances. In Cincinnati. With that team and head coach.

No, I'm not trying to talk anyone into Andy Dalton being any kind of savior if Brady leaves. I'm just saying that it's happened before with other teams that they bring in a middling veteran QB and he plays pretty well and the team ends up having a good year. It's very possible if he came here, saving the Pats money, and they used that money to upgrade elsewhere, that the Pats could be pretty darned good.
 

jmanny24

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
423
I think pretty much everyone would disagree. Drafting is a crapshoot, the more picks you have the better chance you have to hit. It’s not about value searching.
Yes the more chances you have to hit from a drained talent pool from where they began.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
26,132
Melrose, MA
I don't see the Patriots, with the poor drafts they have had in recent years, being in a position to have that good base of useful young players. Just seems hard to imagine getting back to being a really good team without some sort of reset, to me.
Fair point. Which leads to the question... what does the optimal 'reset' in the NFL look like? It's not NBA-style tanking. It's not MLB or style trades of veterans for prospects.

An NFL reset can potentially involve:
  • Letting productive FAs walk to save on cap room and acquire extra draft picks, but the Patriots pretty much do this routinely anyway
  • Trading players under contract, usually for draft picks, but the NFL cap rules make this a bit less of a thing than in other leagues
  • Hitting on draft picks and value free agents, but this is critical whether or not one is trying to do a reset
Tossing Stidham into the fire is a legitimate 'reset' move. If the Pats believe that he is QB of the future, getting him game experience (and the opportunity to figure out whether they are right about him) is important, and the sooner the better from a value perspective.

We have, for 2 decades, been focused on moves made to continue the dynasty that it's hard to even think about how to 'reset' given NFL rules. Assuming we all agree that it is time to rest, what does that mean?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,238
Hingham, MA
Yes the more chances you have to hit from a drained talent pool from where they began.
The Pats draft board looks different than every other team though. You can argue on that point and may have something there. But I don't think you can argue against accumulating picks, whenever those picks may be
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Yes the more chances you have to hit from a drained talent pool from where they began.
No one is suggesting that more picks is better, no matter what. You do have to place some bets in the first round; a lot of the high-end talent goes in those first 30 picks, and you need to get your fair share.

The preponderance of the evidence, however, suggests that the draft is a crapshoot. Perhaps a few teams are stupid, but over the long haul, it’s impossible to do materially better than other non-stupid teams. At least, I think most people who’ve looked at it closely from the outside have reached that conclusion.

This is a reality that’s hard to absorb from the inside. If you’re the person responsible for managing the huge effort that each NFL team devoted to the draft, it must be easy to lose sight that all your efforts will only allow you to tread water, not falling behind your competition. I wouldn’t be surprised if you have to convince yourself otherwise at times to stay motivated to do all the work, which is totally necessary.

But if you are able to remain mindful of that reality, you can take advantage of competitors who are not similarly mindful. Some will think they can sustainably outperform their competition in the draft. In their zeal to trade up, you can often extract greater value than a dispassionate analysis would suggest is warranted if you’re willing to trade down. Being willing to do that is probably the only sustainable competitive advantage you can actually get in the draft.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,238
Hingham, MA
But if you are able to remain mindful of that reality, you can take advantage of competitors who are not similarly mindful. Some will think they can sustainably outperform their competition in the draft. In their zeal to trade up, you can often extract greater value than a dispassionate analysis would suggest is warranted if you’re willing to trade down. Being willing to do that is probably the only sustainable competitive advantage you can actually get in the draft.
This is really well put. I believe there is no evidence that trading up results in getting a good player. Teams like to believe they have targeted the right guy and they trade up, but all teams are fairly bad at projecting these picks. So you try to take advantage of that. I think BB's / the Pats' advantage in that area has dissipated over the years - it was a major factor in the early 2000s (hello Kyle Boller) - but it still exists to a degree.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,420
Suppose Stidham earns the starting job out of camp and the Pats have shored up the offensive line and made some investments in offensive skill player positions - what's a good comp for what we'd need to see out of him in year 1 to give the team a shot at playoff contention and optimism that he can grow into the job in year 2 and beyond?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,238
Hingham, MA
Suppose Stidham earns the starting job out of camp and the Pats have shored up the offensive line and made some investments in offensive skill player positions - what's a good comp for what we'd need to see out of him in year 1 to give the team a shot at playoff contention and optimism that he can grow into the job in year 2 and beyond?
Brady in 2001? I don’t mean the title. Just managing the team / game, composure, showing ability to progress through reads, etc.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Suppose Stidham earns the starting job out of camp and the Pats have shored up the offensive line and made some investments in offensive skill player positions - what's a good comp for what we'd need to see out of him in year 1 to give the team a shot at playoff contention and optimism that he can grow into the job in year 2 and beyond?
Wentz on the 2017 Eagles was somewhere around league average, and they were the best team in the league. The rest of the Pats won’t be quite that good, but if Stidham is in the fat part of the curve, and they have average execution/luck spending the money they aren’t paying Brady, they will be a good team.

The catch is that asking a 1st-year starter who wasn’t heralded coming into the league to be average, or close to it, is asking a lot. That’s why I like bringing in a veteran like Dalton (or Fitzy, or whomever you like) to compete for the job — there’s a decent chance one of the two will be average-ish.

In case it’s not clear, the whole “smile and hope for the best” nature of this scenario is a great reason to bring back TB12 for one more run, even though that means fielding a roster with a lot of holes.
 

EL Jeffe

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2006
819
In terms of a roster "reset" I think it's instructive to look back at what Belichick did in 2000 and 2001. He moved on from aging (washed-up), high-priced vets like Bruce Armstrong, Ben Coates, Shawn Jefferson, Max Lane, Chad Eaton, etc., and generally tried replacing them with cheap, 1-year deals for veteran free agents. He didn't do anything out of the ordinary with his drafts (trading vets to stockpile picks, aggressively moving up or down, etc.).

There was a good-sized roster churn in 2000, but really the only guys he brought in who amounted to anything were Bobby Hamilton, Grant Williams, and Otis Smith.

2001 saw a good-sized roster churn as well and was when NE had its transformative free agency class (but mainly cheap deals IIRC; Vrabel, Phifer, Cox, Patten, Izzo, Pleasant, Buckley, Antowain Smith, Marc Edwards).

He never force-fed rookies playing time in those two reset years. The 2000 team was lousy, but really on JR Redmond and Greg Robinson-Randall got much run. He didn't play stiffs like Dave Stachelski or Jeff Marriott for the sake of playing rookies. 2001 really only saw two rookies contribute as well: Seymour and Light. Belichick didn't force rookies like Kenyatta Jones or Jabari Holloway out there. Belichick is always going to play the best guy, period.

So if history is a guide, and there's a true reset looming, I don't think you'll see Belichick trade vets to stockpile picks. He may cut some aging, overpriced players (I've seen Edelman mentioned in this thread; he's not overpriced. I think he's more likely to move on from Hightower than Edelman), but I don't think Belichick will try to rebuild through the draft. He'll go for cheap volume in free agency and hope to hit on some, and mix his draft classes between plug-and-play and developmental types (like he always does).
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
3,968
Does the NFL salary cap allow you to pay things forward at all with players? For example, if you had a really good player, and extra cap room in a given year, can you sign them to a deal that is massively front-loaded (assuming you are comfortable with the risk, of course). I'm wondering if that is another way that teams can reset, in a way, you use your extra cap space in year 1 so that in year 2 you have more cap space to get other players.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,755
Mansfield MA
In terms of a roster "reset" I think it's instructive to look back at what Belichick did in 2000 and 2001. He moved on from aging (washed-up), high-priced vets like Bruce Armstrong, Ben Coates, Shawn Jefferson, Max Lane, Chad Eaton, etc., and generally tried replacing them with cheap, 1-year deals for veteran free agents. He didn't do anything out of the ordinary with his drafts (trading vets to stockpile picks, aggressively moving up or down, etc.).

2001 saw a good-sized roster churn as well and was when NE had its transformative free agency class (but mainly cheap deals IIRC; Vrabel, Phifer, Cox, Patten, Izzo, Pleasant, Buckley, Antowain Smith, Marc Edwards).

So if history is a guide, and there's a true reset looming, I don't think you'll see Belichick trade vets to stockpile picks. He may cut some aging, overpriced players (I've seen Edelman mentioned in this thread; he's not overpriced. I think he's more likely to move on from Hightower than Edelman), but I don't think Belichick will try to rebuild through the draft. He'll go for cheap volume in free agency and hope to hit on some, and mix his draft classes between plug-and-play and developmental types (like he always does).
The big difference is that he's competing for those low-priced system fits with way more teams now. Houston, Baltimore, NYJ, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Detroit, and Tennessee, maybe a couple more are all basically running on his front office philosophies. The hit rate on those low-priced FAs hasn't been very good of late, and the price hasn't been as low as it used to be either.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,755
Mansfield MA
Does the NFL salary cap allow you to pay things forward at all with players? For example, if you had a really good player, and extra cap room in a given year, can you sign them to a deal that is massively front-loaded (assuming you are comfortable with the risk, of course). I'm wondering if that is another way that teams can reset, in a way, you use your extra cap space in year 1 so that in year 2 you have more cap space to get other players.
You can roll over unused cap space, so there's no real advantage in doing this.
 

Was (Not Wasdin)

family crest has godzilla
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2007
2,285
The Short Bus
I cannot see BB going the "bridge" QB route, unless he can find one really cheap, like Tannehill this year (making only 2.5 against the cap). I think the NFL as a whole has shown that you either need a top tier QB who gets paid like one and produces at that level-Rodgers, Wilson, Cousins, or (and increasingly more likely) you need a young QB on his first deal who plays well enough and allows you to use the money saved other places (Lamar, Watson, Mahomes, Josh Allen, Wentz). I cant see signing a guy in that middle bracket-guys like Chase Daniel or Ryan Fitzpatrick at the low end, and Carr, healthy Alex Smith, or Dalton at the high end. It's not that they are overpaid, its They just dont do that much more for you than a bargain QB could.
 

EL Jeffe

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2006
819
The big difference is that he's competing for those low-priced system fits with way more teams now. Houston, Baltimore, NYJ, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Detroit, and Tennessee, maybe a couple more are all basically running on his front office philosophies. The hit rate on those low-priced FAs hasn't been very good of late, and the price hasn't been as low as it used to be either.
This is definitely fair. Certainly Jamie Collins worked out this year, and players like Burkhead and Guy over the past few seasons. As the Belichick tree has branched out and as NE's FA competition (and draft player evaluation) have found their way onto other clubs, we've seen Belichick adjust. He's used the draft pick trade market very much to his advantage: KVN, J. McCourty, Shelton, etc. have worked in his favor. There have been misses too, as there always will be. But Belichick is always evaluating and adjusting his methodology accordingly. He's managed to stay ahead of the curve while remaining true to his basic principles of player acquisition.

So the larger point being, I don't think a NE reset is going to look anything like Miami's or Cleveland's. It's highly unlikely to be a fire sale for picks or several splashy transactions. It'll be methodical and value-based.
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
5,242
Overland Park, KS
We can say they have drafted poorly but they kill it with the UFAs, JC Jackson, Jonathan Jones and Adam Butler come to mind.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
3,968
Are they better than most other teams? I'm not being snarky, I'm really asking the question. We see UDFAs come in and have an impact for the Patriots because we follow them. But, my hypothesis would be that other teams also snag some UDFAs that contribute as well.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,814
I can't wait for the reaction if we go into the season with Stidham but use the savings of not paying Brady to get some weapons.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,770
Brady's 2019 cap hit was $21.5 million. His cap hit, if he's not here, for 2020 will be $13.5 million. So they'd save $8 million. I don't know that $8 million gets you "some weapons". Maybe one nice TE, given that the following guys had these salaries in 2019:

Jimmy Graham - 10 m
Travis Kelce - 9.4 m
Jordan Reed - 9.4 m
Kyle Rudolph - 9 m
Greg Olsen - 8.6 m
Zach Ertz - 8.5 m
Delanie Walker - 8.5 m
Trey Burton - 8 m
Jared Cook - 7.5 m
Cameron Brate - 6.8 m

Of course, if they keep Brady and sign him to, say, 2 years at $22 m per year, then the $13.5 m gets spread out over two years. So the 2020 cap hit for Brady would end up being $28.75 m, which would be $15.25 more than if Brady is let go. And $15.25 million could get you likely *two* pretty nice weapons.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
5,246
You can roll over unused cap space, so there's no real advantage in doing this.
I don't think this is true. I think you can roll salary over within each separate four year window. With the looming CBA I think this might even be in limbo.

Edit: I think I was mixing up the 89% salary cap rule (which I think is for a four year period) with the salary cap rollover (which, I guess isnt).

Regardless, I would be uncomfortable building a roster based on salary cap rollover rules going into the new CBA (it's set to expire after the 2020 season). In other words, there is no guarantee that the current salary cap rules which extend into the 2021 season.

Edit 2: I think if you tried to do what Nomarsfool asked for this coming season you might run into a similar violation to what the Cowboys and Redskins got 'caught' doing ten years ago.
 
Last edited:

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,814
Brady's 2019 cap hit was $21.5 million. His cap hit, if he's not here, for 2020 will be $13.5 million. So they'd save $8 million. I don't know that $8 million gets you "some weapons". Maybe one nice TE, given that the following guys had these salaries in 2019:
If he's here his cap hit will likely be more than that--so, say it's $25M if he's here, versus $13.5 if he's not. And yes, we have to sign another QB either way, but here's the thing: it was kind of a joke.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,770
If he's here his cap hit will likely be more than that--so, say it's $25M if he's here, versus $13.5 if he's not. And yes, we have to sign another QB either way, but here's the thing: it was kind of a joke.
It's cool if it was a joke, but it may also be what happens.
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,589
I agree with the thoughts above that there will not be a full "reset." I suspect BB may be excited to go back into the lab without Brady and McD (in theory) and cook up an offense that works with the pieces they've got/can get.
 

JMDurron

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,924
The Pats will have an elite defense next season, even if Van Noy and McCourty are gone.
You seem very confident on this front, but I’m not quite so sure. From Milloy to Harrison to D. McCourty, most of the good defensive units under BB have had a “QB of the secondary” at safety out there to keep the secondary on the same page from play to play. The drop off from McCourty to Harmon/new guy may have an outsized impact relative to that player’s physical skills alone.
 

j44thor

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
9,464
You seem very confident on this front, but I’m not quite so sure. From Milloy to Harrison to D. McCourty, most of the good defensive units under BB have had a “QB of the secondary” at safety out there to keep the secondary on the same page from play to play. The drop off from McCourty to Harmon/new guy may have an outsized impact relative to that player’s physical skills alone.
I'm much more concerned about the front 7 than secondary next season. They were at best average against the run and will likely lose some combo of KVN, HT, Shelton, Simon and even if they don't those players are likely to decline. They have virtually no one you would expect to improve in the front 7 next season either.
 

shoosh77

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,453
New Canaan, CT
A hard reset this year likely nets 4 decent comp picks and a high draft pick for 2021 draft. If you let Brady and the rest sign elsewhere and limit yourself to basement shopping, the reboot could be done quickly. Bonus points if Stidham is the real deal.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,755
Mansfield MA
A hard reset this year likely nets 4 decent comp picks and a high draft pick for 2021 draft. If you let Brady and the rest sign elsewhere and limit yourself to basement shopping, the reboot could be done quickly. Bonus points if Stidham is the real deal.
How does it speed up the reboot to let all the good players walk?
 

shoosh77

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,453
New Canaan, CT
How does it speed up the reboot to let all the good players walk?
Can you afford all of KVN, DMac, Brady, Shelton, Thuney while adding even league average TE? I’m not advocating a tear down. What I’m saying is I’d trust Bill with a bushel full of picks and $100mm in cap room for 2021 to build a contender very quickly.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
26,970
Trading Gilmore feels possible.
Bedard did a chat yesterday which had questions about trading Gilmore. Trading Gilmore cancels the multiyear spreading out of his signing bonus for the Pats, meaning something like a $15m cap hit for 2020.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
32,708
Hartford, CT
Trading Gilmore feels possible.
More likely that they let DMC go. They save only 3M against the cap by trading Gilmore, and I want to keep the best corner in the game for another year of likely prime play. The odds of them turning the assets and minimal cap space they get into a net bigger return over the next few years aren’t high.
 

Kramerica Industries

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,008
nh
More likely that they let DMC go. They save only 3M against the cap by trading Gilmore, and I want to keep the best corner in the game for another year of likely prime play. The odds of them turning the assets and minimal cap space they get into a net bigger return over the next few years aren’t high.
Gilmore to the Lions feels right to me. Quinn and Patricia will be desperate to save their jobs.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Can you afford all of KVN, DMac, Brady, Shelton, Thuney while adding even league average TE? I’m not advocating a tear down. What I’m saying is I’d trust Bill with a bushel full of picks and $100mm in cap room for 2021 to build a contender very quickly.
Culture is critical in football, and has been a source of competitive advantage for the Patriots. You can’t turn over the roster in the drastic way you’re suggesting and expect BB to rebuild something like the current culture in a short period of time.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,682
BTW I don't think a full reset is needed, not yet anyway. You would need to be OK with only making the playoffs/winning the AFCE and not winning the SB.

9-7 wins the AFCE next year, maybe even 8-8.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,770
BTW I don't think a full reset is needed, not yet anyway. You would need to be OK with only making the playoffs/winning the AFCE and not winning the SB.

9-7 wins the AFCE next year, maybe even 8-8.
My first reaction to this was: you're crazy, because the Jets are improving (after a disastrous start, they finished 7-9), Miami played well the second half of the year, and Buffalo was 10-6 and is on the rise. Oh, and the Pats have a brutal schedule next year.

Then I remembered: all the other AFCE teams also have brutal schedules next year. So it's kind of even from that standpoint. I still think you'll need 10 wins to win the division though. I think Buffalo gets at least 9.