1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

The Myth of “The Way:” The way to build a NFL franchise is…

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Bruce, Mar 16, 2007.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +0
    The Myth of “The Way:” The way to build a NFL franchise is…
    __________ (Fill-in the blank with your favorite Myth)

    For several years it has been popular to hold the New England Patriots up as the model for how to build a franchise. Who could argue with the outcomes they were achieving? – the only team in league history to win three Super Bowl championships in a four-year span.

    In this copy-cat league, many teams have attempted to emulate the Pats, but to this point all have failed to find exactly what that key is or is not to their success. Part of the reason for this failure is the NE Patriots don’t believe there is a single way to build a franchise – they never have.

    For example, in 2001 the New England Patriots signed 17 veteran free agents, yet folks will say they do it only on draft day – bull feathers. This season (once again) New England was a MAJOR Player in free agency, but many will insist it is a new phenomenon or a one time thing – it isn’t. The only thing that was different this season was the targets, which of course are based each season on the market, what a team has for CAP space and who is available.

    In Bill Belichick’s own words:

    ”In my mind, it’s not a philosophical thing to do or not to do. Just because something wasn’t done in another year doesn’t mean that if the opportunity had been there it wouldn’t have been done. To me, we’re taking the same approach that we have every season – do what you think is best.”

    There is no ONE way to build a NFL franchise or to be a General Manger. Instead there are multiple ways. History shows that most who attempt will fail. History also shows that those who succeed are the benefactors of many things rather than a following a simple philosophy to success.

    Many are quick to point to San Francisco’s deep plunge into free agency and declare them to be emulating the Washington Redskins – nothing could be further from the truth.

    Rather than being guided by an impulsive wealthy owner (like Snyder in WA), San Francisco began preparing for this plunge into free agency long before last week. Starting last summer, planning meeting were held monthly between Nolan( HC), McCloughan (VP of player personnel), owners John and Jed York, Paraag Marathe (director of football operations) and Lal Heneghan Ex VP of football operations) to discuss salary cap, the roster, the draft and free agency.

    The scouting department was directed by this group to spend at least half of their time scouting potential free agents during the ’06 season. Based upon the scouting reports and these monthly discussions the group above narrowed a target list to 20 potential FA they might have interest in these meetings.

    Some noteworthy things stand out in how they executed their plan: they only signed guys that were no older than 26 years old (CB Nate Clements, SS Michael Lewis, NT Aubrayo Franklin, WR Ashley Lelie, LB Tully Banta-Cain); all contracts were structured to avoid future salary-cap entanglements and they never deviated from their plan – for example they targeted Thomas, but when the Patriots move over their threshold they moved on.

    Yet you will find no shortage of folks who will attribute any and all plunges into free agency as if they are all based upon the Washington Redskins poorly planned blind spending sprees. They will ignore the fact that Washington (the most profitable franchise in the NFL) failed to consider such important factors as developing team cohesion and a unified plan that was integrated throughout the organization, and their (Washington’s) missteps resemble the Detroit Lions more than most other NFL clubs..

    Some would argue that draft day is the most important off season day in a GM’s job. While clearly an extremely important part of the process each season, it can easily be overshadowed by a multitude of other events.

    For example Oakland’s’06 implosion can be traced to hiring Art Shell to be their Head Coach, but failing to get their front office on board with Shell’s philosophy about discipline and developing young players. A behind the scene power struggle between Art Shell and Mike Lombardi was ugly and left the franchise bleeding until Davis declared Lombardi the winner and they began the process of starting over. Good luck with “winning that power struggle” Mike, sometimes winning really means losing.

    Another factor that most ignore is the unique management structure of so many of the NFL franchises – and none is more unique than the ownerless Green Bay Packers. Green Bay’s management structure is quite different than any in the league and in that context let’s consider for a moment Ted Thompson.

    Ted Thompson is a first time General Manager. Yes, he was hired by Ron Wolf and gathered valuable experience under the mentorship of Mike Holmgren, but he is his own man. He has a plan to build his franchise and it is based upon a combination of his experience before and after accepting the job and the many adjustments he will make along the way in his growth and development.

    The job of being a GM and building a winning franchise is not confined to draft day, or free agency… it is much more than a full time job. It includes hiring and firing staff throughout the organization; retaining, obtaining (and abstaining) players in free agency; crafting draft days that fit together like jig saw puzzles; seize trade opportunities and structure them to the team’s advantage, fixing problems (by hook or by crook) as they arise – from disgruntled players, to career ending injuries; having the vision to have a plan and the flexibility to adapt to ever changing conditions… just to name a few of the many complex job duties that go with the job.

    Ted Thompson’s success or failure will be more the result of his ability to adjust, adapt and to grow as it will be sticking to a mythic plan. Like him or loath him, the Packer organization from CEO to casual fan hopes he grows himself into the job and some shots at a few Lombardi trophies before he is through.
     
  2. CaliforniaCheez

    CaliforniaCheez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Whoever the author is, on the scouting and personnel side, he has not fired anyone.

    The McCarthy article in the Press Gazette said that the Packers had lists and boards of potential free agents also.

    Success is rarely attributable to doing what is fashionable.
     
  3. Bruce

    Bruce Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +0
    If you mean the author of the article -- that would be me/

    If you mean the author of the Packers plan -- that would be Ted Thompson.

    I agree that "Success is rarely attributable to doing what is fashionable." -- that was one of the themes of the article.
     
  4. gopackgo

    gopackgo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    730
    Ratings:
    +0
    ...to clone Brett Favre.
     
  5. retiredgrampa

    retiredgrampa Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    804
    Ratings:
    +0
    A very real test in TT's stewardship will be how he prepares and is prepared for life after Favre. So far I see very little preparation, at least at QB. Nobody else gets to play except Favre. That situation will worsen IF Rodgers is traded away. At least, he has potential if draft status is of any significance, along with his success in college. If TT & MM don't think Rodgers can play, it would be wise to get rid of him now, draft a new guy and work with him. I doubt if Ingle Martin has what it takes.
     
  6. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks for writing that and posting it, Bruce. It's a very good read, and I agree with it in general. But as for the Patriots, of those 17 free agents they signed in 2001, do you have any idea how many of them contributed to the team's success? That was the year after their first Super Bowl, and they failed to make the playoffs that year, then won two championships in a row after that. Maybe one of those 17 free agents was Rodney Harrison, and maybe another was Roosevelt Colvin, and both those guys proved to be good signings, but I can't think of any of the others. Ted Washington, maybe?

    So yes, they've used free agency to help their team, but I still can't think of them signing any big time free agents until after they won their first Super Bowl. I still think free agency is better used, inm general, for adding the finishing touches or sustaining a team's success than for building a team from the ground up.
     
  7. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0

    Great article Bruce, this is what I've been saying. There is no blue-print or how-to guide. This also lays to rest the Patriots FA myth that gets thown out all the time. You can buld a team in many different ways but all require you to be competent. That's where the Packers issues lie
     
  8. PackOne

    PackOne Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,013
    Ratings:
    +4
    Stay injury free .... win. Don't ... lose.
     
  9. 4packgirl

    4packgirl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,415
    Ratings:
    +0
    great coaching on both sides of the ball. oh & talent at key positions would help a lil bit too.
     
  10. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think it's obvious that TT's plan for life after Favre is to not rely on the QB so much.

    The push for a new running scheme was for the running game to carry more of the load on offense. Last year was the first try at it and it failed. Of course that could be due to rookies on the OL and the veteran players learning the new scheme.

    The major push last year to improve the defense was to obviously take pressure off the offense and the QB.

    The moves thusfar aren't about having a replacement QB, but instead that the next QB won't be as critical to GB's success. In theory this would make us better now (less pressure on Favre to produce and therefore fewer INTs) and in the future. It'll just be interesting to see how this young team grows together and whether or not TT is making the right moves.

    GO PACK GO!!!
     
  11. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    The Patriots sign 2nd tier free agents. They usually always do. The last big splash they made in free agency prior to this year was Rosevelt Colvin. New England and most successful teams get majority of their starters from the Draft. The Steelers of 2005. Buccaneers of 2003. Ravens of 2000. Colts of 2006. You go up and down the roster and that's the way it is. Most teams use free agency to bring in camp bodies and primary for depth. Most of the signings end up getting released anyways but a good portion stay on as depth. That’s where the Packers are struggling in my opinion. They bring in undrafted free agents and 2nd year players for depth. Eventually someone very important is going to go down and we’ll have a very inexperience player backing him up. Say someone like Scott Wells. That’s when the Packers are going to start experiencing problems. I believe that is Ted Thompson's biggest problem to date as GM. He tries to much to find the next undrafted star.
     
  12. Bruce

    Bruce Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +0
    Of course drafting well is essential to success in the NFL, but it is not the only way that teams are built and the whole NE was built through the draft was a myth -- and BB would be the first to tell you that is true;

    I mentioned that the 2001 New Engand Patriots as a great example.

    In 2000 they were finished last (5th) in their division at 5 - 11. During the offseason they signed 17 free agents that season and turned around and shocked the World by transforming into AFC champions in '01 and Capped the season by winning the Super Bowl in January '02.

    There were 10 starting FA of the 22 starting positions on offense and defense, 14 of 25 if you include the Kicker, Punter and long snapper.

    Edwards at FB - FA(Clev)
    Smith at HB - FA(Det)
    Comton at G - FA(Buf)
    Andruzzi at G - FA(GB)
    Patton at WR - FA(Clev)
    Smith at CB - FA(Det)
    Hamilton at DE - FA(NYJ)
    Pleasant at DE - FA(SF)
    Phifer at LB - FA(NYJ)
    Vrabel at LB - FA (pit)

    K - Vinatieri, P - Walters, LS - Paxton

    Free agents also made up a substantial portion of their depth including former Packer T-buck Buckley as their nickel CB.

    They have augmented that success by wise trades, signings, releases...

    In no way does this diminish the importance of the draft, however it confirms what Bill Belichick’s meant when he said:

    ”In my mind, it’s not a philosophical thing to do or not to do. Just because something wasn’t done in another year doesn’t mean that if the opportunity had been there it wouldn’t have been done. To me, we’re taking the same approach that we have every season – do what you think is best.”

    And to put it into Packer perspective, just look at the current starting offensive and defensive backfields:

    QB Favre -- trade
    HB Morency -- trade
    FB Miree -- FA
    CB Harris -- trade
    CB Woodson -- FA
    SS Manuel -- FA
    FS Collins -- drafted
     
  13. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    I think another part or two of the Patriots success that hasn't been mentioned..

    They sign (more often than not) that are gamers and have a fire inside of them. They have a drive to win and accept there role, how many times other than Branch and this year Samuel do you hear a ton of whinning out of the players on the roster. They accept their role on the team and follow their leaders on the field.

    There is the another clear issue on the Packers.. We don't have enough leaders on the field. Porky and AADP have said a couple times.. we lack leadership on the field. IE... Farve and Barnett are vocal leaders on the field... Al Harris is a great player... but he isn't a leader on the field. Think back to the super bowl years... you had emotional leaders on the field as well as "coaches" on the field. Gilbert was a emotional leader.. White was the both emotion and glue. Bultler and Robinson... keep the secondary in line.. Freeman and Frankie "bag of dognuts" got the O jacked up.. and so on.

    And the lastly, you have to have coaches that take advantage of the players the GM brings in. Fit them into the scheme so to speak. Look at Washington as an example. In past years they went out and signed the biggest names on the market, but I think a major part of the issue is that just adding players without respect to the schemes you run is a mistake. Don't tell me the players forgot how to play when they got there, no they didn't fit the "game plan". Portis, Springs, Archuleta, Carter, Coles, etc were productive players. Not to simplfy the issues in Washington, but players have to fit the identity of the style of game you play. Something the Pats do very well is identify players that fit the philosphy of the coaches and game plan. But they miss to.. remember Starks... failed because he couldn't play in space.

    In closing, you have to be selective on the players you bring in, if you bring in a (Dillion or Moss) they have to know their role, and THERE IS A LOT MORE TO BUILDING A TEAM then adding talented players:)

    My daughter was talking through this so I hope it all makes sense:)
     
  14. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0

    Bruce, you are again correct. I pointed this out several times last year. Being active in FA does not spell doom or automatically put you in "cap hell". Those are 2 big myths. You have to do it selectively granted but if there is a guy out there that can really upgrade the team, you haveto pull the trigger, even if it means spending alittle more.
     
  15. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: The Myth of “The Way:” The way to build a NFL franchise

    None of these signings were major free agents such as a Nate Clements. That’s what people want out of the Packers. They have the money and they need to go out and spend it on the top 3 free agents. That’s ridiculous to think and the fact is some believe that. These guys New England signed are far from that kind of level. In fact one could argue that both Frank Walker and Jimmy Wilkerson fall into the same class as some and probably most of the players listed above.

    Also were those players the core of the three Super Bowl teams? I honestly doubt it. They were signings that fit within the Patriots scheme and they ended up contributing. I said last year that most teams, like the Patriots, build the core of their teams through the Draft and use free agency to fill in the missing pieces. This is an example. They didn't spend on big time names as you provided above. They found role players that can come in and be their missing link. The result was very successful.
     
  16. Raider Pride

    Raider Pride Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,868
    Ratings:
    +2
    Bruce,

    I asked you a million times who you write for. You never answer me?

    I have come to the conclusion that you are really not a Bruce at all.

    I think you are actually Mitch Albom and you just hang around here for fun.

    You sir are too good of a read to be a poster.

    P.S. Loved your book "The five people you meet in heaven."

    R.P.
     
  17. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks for clarifying, Bruce. I had the year wrong. I was mixing up 2002 with 2001. I didn't know the Patriots had that many free agents that year, although I do agree with Porky that none of them were high-profile signings, with the possible exception of Vrabel. They did something pretty rare, which is to win a Super Bowl without any "star" players. (Ironically, Bledsoe was their only "star," and the team didn't take off till after he got injured.)
    Willie McGinest was maybe a borderline star player.
     
  18. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: The Myth of “The Way:” The way to build a NFL franchise


    Porky, where is it that you see Packer Fans wanting Nate Clement like signings? You threw the statement out there so I would expect that this was based on something said.

    The fact is I don't think NEAR ANY fan expected TT to sign Clements or anybody with a contract his size. Justin Griffith is not Nate Clements! Randy McMichael is not Nate Clements! Kevin Curtis, Drew Bennett, Joe Horn are not Nate Clements! There are plenty of mid-level guys that could have contributed. Thats what NE did as Bruce pointed out. Frank Walker is not a mid-level signing. He is a scrap heap signing. I don't even dislike the move but comparing Walker to Vrabel, Andruzzi, and Hamilton is ridiculous. Perhaps you forget what these guys accomplished.



    Hamilton led the Patriots with a career-high seven sacks in 2001

    Hamilton teamed with Anthony Pleasant for 13 sacks (seven and six, respectively) in 2001. It was the highest sack total by a Patriots defensive line tandem since defensive ends Brent Williams (8.0) and Gary Jeter (7.0) totaled 15 in 1989.

    Hamilton led all NFL defensive lineman during the 2000 season with 79 tackles

    Vrabel enjoyed the most productive season of his career in 2005, leading the team with a careerhigh 114 tackles (80 solo) while starting all 16 games for the first time in his career.

    Vrabel enjoyed another strong campaign in 2004, finishing second on the team with 5.5 sacks and fourth on the squad with 76 tackles (59 solo).

    Vrabel led the Patriots with a career-high 9.5 sacks in 2003, the most by any Patriot in the Bill Belichick era and the most by a Patriot since Willie McGinest notched 9.5 sacks in 1996. Vrabel accomplished the feat despite missing three games due to injury.

    In 2003, Phifer recorded 133 tackles (90 solo), marking his second consecutive season with more than 100 tackles and eclipsing the 100 tackle mark for the fifth time in his 13-year career.

    Phifer finished the 2001 regular season as the second leading tackler on the Patriots with 92 stops (71 solos).

    The Patriots offensive line allowed only 31 sacks of Tom Brady during the 2002 season, their lowest sack total since they allowed 30 sacks in 1997.

    Andruzzi started all three postseason games in 2003 as part of an offensive line that did not allow a sack in the playoffs as Tom Brady attempted 126 passes and the Patriots claimed the Super Bowl XXXVIII championship.

    Compton was one of three Patriots offensive lineman to start all 19 games in 2001 (Joe Andruzzi and Greg Robinson-Randall).


    And these guys were not part of the core Patriot team?


    I didn't make the comparison to the NE Patriots, the pro-Ted crowd did. The facts show that NE did use FA to build an important part of thier team.

    I don't was Clements type signings but I don't want rejects like Boerigter, O'Dwyer, Little, or Freeman's either. Some Mid-Level guys would be nice.
     
  19. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: The Myth of “The Way:” The way to build a NFL franchise

    They contributed in key ways but I don't believe they were the core or heart and soul of the Super Bowl teams so to speak. I would say Tom Brady, Richard Seymour, Teddy Bruschi, Willie McGinest, Matt Light, Adam Vinetari, and Ty Law. I believe that's the core of the Dynasty right there. Although New England could very well win another Super Bowl this year, so to be fair, the Dynasty isn't probably over. However in the span of 3 in 4 years, I believe those are the guys that lead the way.

    As for the guys and the Frank Walker comparison. Instead of comparing their statistics after they signed with New England look back and see who they were before they got there.

    Mike Vrabel

    41 tackles in 4 years with the Steelers. Yet you considered him a 2nd tier signing for the Patriots in 01??? Please be kidding me?

    Joe Andruzzi

    Andruzzi started a total of 4 games in 3 years for the Packers before he signed with New England.

    Your boy Bobby Hamilton

    Injured the year before. Only played in 7 games and only had 7 tackles. Two previous years he had 21 tackles and 24 tackles. Only respectable season he had prior to signing with New England was 1996. Outside that he wasn’t all that special.

    The fact is the Packers bringing in Frank Walker signing can be compared to New England bringing in those three at that time. Now by no means am I saying Walker ends up contributing as much as those three. Probably not. I‘m not putting that much into the Frank Walker signing. Then again nobody put that much into New England bringing in those three either. I'm not ignorant enough to say I can foresee the future. I can't. I do know info from the past and to say Vrable, Hamilton and Andruzzi were major signings or even mid tier signings is ridiculous. To say they were lights years better than Frank Walker at the time when they signed the dotted line with New England is ridiculous.

    People on blogs said GB should make a Nate Clements like signing.
    The radio here in Green Bay. Refpacker who is a member here feels we have all kinds of money to bring in a big name like Adalius Thomas, London Fletcher, and Nate Clements and we should do so.

    Brett Favre knows how to run a team better than TT

    For the record. What’s so great about Drew Bennett and Kevin Curtis? Curtis is going to earn over 10 mil this year as is Bennett. Are they that special? Between them they have an outstanding ONE 1,000 yard season. Does Green Bay really need to spend money on guys who are overrated and not going to come close to living up to their contract? I said back in September that I didn’t want Bennett or Stallworth because they were overrated. I’m all for bringing in players and I'm all for overpaying when you need too. An example of that would be the Packers need at TE and Safety right now.
     
  20. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0
    The stats were in response to your these guys not being part of the "core team". This is simply false.

    Guys leading the team in sacks, tackles etc are somehow not part of the core team? That is strange to say the least.


    At the time of the signing they were bigger names than Frank Walker. Bobby Hamilton had a few good years, and played in all 16 games, something Frank Walker has never done.

    Anthony Pleasant was certainly well known. Antowain Smith was a former 1000 yard back, Roman Phifer at several solid years.

    NE also brought in other guys over the years. Does Ted Washington ring a bell? Far from a nobody.

    The icing on the cake is the way the Pats are attacking FA's this year. So much for following thier lead, huh?

    Furthermore I see you were unable to find anyone complaining about GB not signing Nate Clement like guys. Please don't state things that were never said on here. You may have read it in a blog but that does not speak for everyone or even the majority.

    Drew Bennett and Kevin Curtis have done way more in this league then Frank Walker. In fact, Drew Bennett has outperformed Moss over the last 3 years and would have come cheaper.

    Mid-Level guys, thats all I want. The exact same way NE built thier franchise
     
  21. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: The Myth of “The Way:” The way to build a NFL franch

    I was not referring to the 2001 team specifically. I was referring to core of the Dynasty. That's 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. None of the guys listed except maybe Vrable made up the core of the team throughout the Dynasty. Then again it’s a matter of opinion and hardly a fact but if they were then I would assume most would be around and most on that list are not.

    Ted Washington played one season by the way. It‘s a misconception that people often bring up when trying to dispute the way New England builds their franchise.

    Also you initially said Andruzzi, Vrabel, and Hamilton. I'll let Hamilton slide because at least he was somebody but no way was Vrable a 2nd tier signing at that time or light years ahead of Frank Walker. Looking at the statistics they are to similar to separate from one another.

    Did you read my post? Probably not since I clearly listed a name which I probably shouldn‘t of. If you are that paranoid where you don't believe me then look everything up yourself. I clearly gave one link and they‘re many more. Other members will a test to his opinion on the subject. It his opinion which he can have. Also, Who are you to say this when you ran away for months and months? Packer Nation also expands larger than this forum.

    I was not comparing Walker to either or. So what does that say anything about? Also where is it that you keep bringing Walker into this? Because I said he was the same level of a Mike Vrable signing which one can clearly argue based on the statistical argument for the first four years.

    Why would Bennett and Curtis be cheaper? Based on bonuses and base salary both should make over 10 million this season. Actually if Moss is traded for on his current contract that puts him at 9.5 million I believe. He‘ll make over 11 next season. Then the fact that Moss will be forced to restructure if he's traded in all likely hood. Moss could realistically see his salary cut in half if he's dealt. You can't say one is cheaper than the other when the fact is it depends on how the contract is restructured in Randy Moss' case.

    Moss numbers are right on par with both Kevin Curtis and Drew Bennett. He was also hurt in 2004. In fact Moss had 1000 yards and 8 touchdowns in his first year with Oakland. That‘s considered a bad year for him but if either Bennett or Curtis had a year like that, it would be consider a successful season. The expectations Moss has set for himself based on previous Pro Bowl years (something Curtis had not had and Bennett has maybe one) are pretty ridiculous and that‘s why he‘s considered “washed“ up by people who just don't like him. Moss also offers more potential in my opinion than both. That’s just my opinion on Randy Moss though.
     
  22. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: The Myth of “The Way:” The way to build a NFL franch

    Why would most be around? There is FA, people who retire and so on. Your reasoning does not support the facts. A guy who record 133 tackles is somehow not part of your "core team"? A guy who starts 16 Games on the O-Line and does not allow a sack is not part of the "Core Team"? a 1000 yard back is not part ether? Yet Willie McGinest who never totaled more than 50 tackles a year was part of it? It's absurd

    In his first three years in New England, Phifer amassed 334 tackles, ranking him first on the team ahead of Tedy Bruschi (275) and Ty Law (224) over that time span.



    So what? It shows that NE brought in guys to fill voids via FA. Who cares if it was 1 year or 5 years?

    Secondly, I didn't initially just mention those 2. It seems you left out guys like Pleasant, Smith, and Phifer who were mentioned. Let's not pick out the guys who fit your argument and ignore the rest.



    This is bogus, somehow when somebody wants to see a FA signed they all the sudden want the guy who costs 90 million. This is simply not the case. The point of this whole thread is to point out NE brought in FA who were not 90 million dollar guys. Having said that they clearly did not sit on thier hands either. It's always turned into an all or nothing thing which it simply is not!

    Actually you stated that Walker was comparible to NE FA's. As I have shown for the most part the guys NE brought in were quite a bit more accomplished than Walker



    As far as Curtis and Bennett go, I was pointing out mid-level guys who were available. You know......not Nate Clement like guys. If you don't think Moss will be more expensive than Curtis or Bennett you are living on a different planet.

    The bottom line is I don't care if we land Moss, Bennett, Curtis, Stallworth, etc, but I would like more than some guy who has barely seen the field in thier career. This is exactly what NE did in FA and I was told that TT is following thier lead 50 dozen times.
     
  23. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: The Myth of “The Way:” The way to build a NFL franch

    Again, I'm not talking about the 2001 Patriots. I'm talking about 01,03, and 04 Patriots. To say over the course of those four seasons which produced 3 Super Bowls, that the guys listed here were the "core" of the team is a big time stretch. Though I supposed it depends on what you define the core of the team as and clearly you define it as something else. I usually pencil in the leaders of the team and your key positions such as QB, CB, DE, and OT. McGinest was a leader. Anyone who says otherwise was not following the New England very carefully. Why debate a matter of opinion over and over? Makes no sense.

    First I sure hope a LB gets more tackles than a Cornerback. If your secondary is making to many tackles and particularly your corners, then something is clearly wrong. Also, Phifer didn't start a game for New England in 2004. Are you implying Phifer was more of a leader than McGinest and Bruschi? If so that goes against everything that has been stated.

    He is a scrap heap signing. I don't even dislike the move but comparing Walker to Vrabel, Andruzzi, and Hamilton is ridiculous. Perhaps you forget what these guys accomplished.

    Taken directly from your post.

    Were you even here? No. He stated over and over that we have the money to spend on the big names and he specifically listed Nate Clements as one and that if we have the money we should use it because that's what it was for. He did not say all but he did give a list of examples he wanted to see which specifically included Nate Clements. It’s his opinion and based on everything that I’ve read from sporting blogs on sporting news to listening the radio it's one others shared as well.

    My direct quote below

    In fact one could argue that both Frank Walker and Jimmy Wilkerson fall into the same class as some and probably most of the players listed above.

    Your the one who decided to speculate on which ones I was referring too. To say I meant them all would be a bold assumption on your part and in an inaccurate one. Though Vrable and Andruzzi were the main two and pretty much because of the success they went on to have after they signed with New England and the success prior.

    Why do you pass something you believe over as a fact when it has nothing to back it up? It comes down to what Moss' contract will be restructured too. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the only way a team trades for Randy Moss is if he takes a pay cut. Most reports agree with that assessment and most report say he will. He's due 9.5 million this year which ironically is reportedly around the same value that both the total salary of Drew Bennett and Kevin Curtis this season. John Clayton reported about a week ago, on I believe the Dan Patrick Show, that Moss could see his base salary drop to about 5 million a year if he is traded because in all likely hood he‘ll have to restructure his contract. He actually stated a team might want to make it a 4 year 20 million dollar contract which is actually right around the same market as both Bennett and Curtis who signed for 6 years 30+ each with bonuses. Pending how the contract is done with Moss, the contract could be very friendly to a team and he actually has the potential to live up his deal. He has done so in the past. Neither Curtis or Bennett have proven on a consistent basis that they can indeed get it done. One things is for certain Moss will receive a similar deal to the too. On the open market he'd probably see a way higher deal than the two but that's not the case. He's stuck in Oakland and he wants out. He has little leverage.

    If this is what this was all about then I'm drastically confused on why you decided to quote me on this subject. I have said repeatedly that I hope Green Bay signs 2nd tier free agents as well rather than the big names. I am actually hoping to see a guy like Mike Doss brought in before it's to late. I wanted Justin Griffith as much as anybody. I believe that's how you fill your missing links. Currently I'm as disappointed as anybody with this years free agent approach by the Packers. Heck if they can't get a deal done for Moss then why not Antonio Bryant who is a pretty decent deep threat.
     
  24. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: The Myth of “The Way:” The way to build a NFL franch


    You are rather selective when responding.

    I stated this fact

    You responded with

    UHHHHH doesn't it say Tedy Bruschi there as well. You know the same Tedy Bruschi you called a "core player". Last time I checked he was a LB. How odd that you mention the CB, Law, but not Tedy

    It's par for the course. McGinest is now part of the "core team" for his leadership but Phifer, Andruzzi, Smith and such are not because they only led the team in tackles and ran for over 1000 yards and such. C'mon man

    Another point that you seem to not understand is that I am not strictly talking about 2001. Perhaps you should re-read the stats I posted


    I see stuff from 2000-2005


    Whatever the case I am done. This post has served it's purpose of disspelling popular myths on how NE built it's franchise. Clearly you can see above how NE approached FA and how important those FA's were to thier success. NE again has chose to be rather active in FA this year and I would not bet against NE being a contender next year. FA is very important when building a team. Attacking it aggressively is a gamble. You may go 4-12 or 12-4. However sitting on your hands doing nothing will likely result in years of mediocrity. It's finding that spot somewhere in the middle, and mixing them with solid drafts, etc that seems to be the key to success.
     
  25. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Okay Pyle and Porky... you win an award for the longest back to back to back to.... ahhhh long arsh posts:) Good points though Gents!
     

Share This Page