Bleacher Report - Articles by Samer Ismail

Patriots Kicker Stephen Gostkowski: Worth His Weight in Gold

Samer Ismail — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:08:47 -0500

At $1,100 an ounce, 210 pounds of gold is worth about $3.7 million.

Patriots placekicker Stephen Gostkowski, whose rookie contract expires this year, could get that much or more as a signing bonus next year.

Gostkowski's performance against the Dolphins, which earned him AFC Special Teams Player of the Week honors, aptly demonstrates why he was selected to his first Pro Bowl last year, and is a good candidate to do it again this year.

First, he converted all five of his scoring chances, converting four field goals and an extra point in the Patriots' 27-17 victory. Gostkowski ranks first in scoring per game, with 73 points in eight games, and is on pace to become only the second player in NFL history to score 500 points in his first four seasons in the league.

Second, he managed to neutralize the Dolphins' Ted Ginn Jr., who had returned two kickoffs, each over 100 yards, for touchdowns just a week before. Remarkably, after an offside penalty on James Sanders wiped out a touchback, Gostkowski, backed up to his 25, kicked the ball even farther the second time, again recording a touchback, and keeping Ginn off the field.

Finally, even on Ginn's longest return, it was Gostkowski who corralled Ginn out of bounds, stopping a potential touchdown from even reaching Miami's 40. Gostkowski's willingness to mix it up on returns is no surprise; in the season opener against Buffalo, Gostkowski, jumping in long after the scrum had formed, recovered Leodis McKelvin's fourth-quarter fumble to set up the game-winning drive.

The most remarkable thing about the 25-year-old Gostkowski, though, is that recent history suggests he might still get better. Last year, Gostkowski converted 90 percent of his attempts, the highest rate of his career. The vast majority of players who have converted at a higher rate have done so after their 30th birthdays.

An even scarier thought is that kickers can play well into their 40s: New Orleans Saints kicker John Carney is 45.

Fortunately or unfortunately for New England, Gostkowski's four-year rookie deal runs out this year. Mike Reiss, when he was with the Boston Globe, predicted that as a free agent, Gostkowski could earn about $3 million a year, which would make him one of the highest-paid kickers in NFL history. If he does reach the free market, it wouldn't be surprising at all to see Josh McDaniels and the Denver Broncos make a serious effort to sign Gostkowski, kicking Matt Prater to the curb. After all, McDaniels did just that this season, dumping Mike Leach to sign Patriots long snapper Lonie Paxton.

The other likely player for Gostkowski's services if he reaches free agency would very likely be Indianapolis. Although Adam Vinatieri is signed through 2010, there is no guarantee the Colts will keep him around next year. Vinatieri's inability to handle kickoffs has already forced Indianapolis to bring in a kickoff specialist. The thought of possibly replacing Vinatieri with Gostkowski would have to appeal to them.

Things may not reach that point, though.

If 2010 is uncapped, then Gostkowski, with his four years of service, will only be a restricted free agent. The Patriots could then offer him a tender of $2.4 million, which would require a team to cough up a first-round draft pick if they signed him away, or the highest tender, of $3 million, which would require first- and third-round picks. Either tender would likely keep Gostkowski in New England; as good as Gostkowski is, he isn't worth $3+ million per year and a first-round draft pick.

And in a rather perverse twist, the Patriots might actually be best off slapping the franchise tag on Gostkowski as they did with Vinatieri. The franchise tag only requires the average of the top five salaries the previous season, and requires two first-round picks in compensation. Thus, they would save money and get a higher return if they couldn't keep him. (This would, of course, require that they reach satisfactory arrangements with their other priority free agents, defensive tackle Vince Wilfork and guard Logan Mankins.)

The best solution for Patriots fans, of course, would be a long-term deal that keeps Gostkowski in Patriot blue, and piling points on the scoreboard, for years to come. About four months from now, we'll know what happens.

What Should the Penalty Be for Tampering with Michael Crabtree?

Samer Ismail — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:02:22 -0400

Earlier this week, the San Francisco 49ers filed charges against the New York Jets, claiming they had tampered with the Niners' ability to sign rookie holdout Michael Crabtree.

Earlier this month, Deion Sanders suggested that there was not one but two teams willing to pay Crabtree $40 million over five years, about twice the amount of money that the Niners were offering.

This raises the question of how Sanders would know that fact. It seems fairly clear that Sanders didn't call the other 31 teams' GMs and ask "Would you pay $40 million for Crabtree?" It also seems fairly clear that those GMs didn't call Sanders, either.

It is possible that he heard this from his agent, Eugene Parker, who is also Michael Crabtree's agent? But then that would require that other teams have been in contact with Parker, which would be prima facie evidence of tampering.

The Niners are familiar with tampering charges. After all, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell punished them in 2007 for tampering with Chicago Bears linebacker Lance Briggs.

This raises a significant question. What should the punishment be if one or more teams did, in fact, tamper with the Niners' ability to sign Michael Crabtree?

First off, let me be clear: I am not saying that tampering has occurred. I do believe, however, there are grounds for the NFL to conduct an investigation.

Second, I am not a lawyer, but I do think that treating this as a legal case would be useful. I also point out that I have not seen the NFL's constitution or by-laws, so some of these suggestions may not be possible.

That said, if tampering were proven, and I were the NFL Commissioner, my penalty would have three components.

1. "Criminals" shouldn't profit from their crimes

Bank robbers aren't allowed to keep the money they steal. So why should a team be allowed to commit tampering here and then sign the player?

Quite simply, they shouldn't.

The Niners currently hold the right to sign Crabtree for a maximum of six years. Therefore, the first part of the penalty would be that, until the end of the 2014 season, any team found guilty of tampering would be prohibited from adding Crabtree to their roster, as a free agent, by draft, or by trade, without the explicit permission of the Niners.

This would be true even if the Niners relinquish their rights to Crabtree and he re-enters the draft.

2. "Compensatory" damages for San Francisco

Tampering in this case is so damaging because it may have completely destroyed San Francisco's ability to ever bring Crabtree aboard. They may be able to salvage something in a trade, or they may be forced to relinquish his rights altogether if they can't find a willing trade partner.

This means that they will have gotten absolutely no benefit at all from that No. 10 draft pick in 2009.

Thus, to compensate the Niners for their loss, they should get another first-round draft pick next year, unless they are able to trade his rights to another team.

So, how would they get that pick?

3. "Punitive" damages against the tampering teams

Teams should not be allowed to try to poach other teams' first-round draft picks, period.

The penalty should be high enough that no team even considers the idea, so I would force teams to forfeit their next two first-round draft picks. The highest such pick in 2010 would go to San Francisco, if the Niners couldn't trade Crabtree's rights.

The penalty against the Niners in the Briggs case was the loss of their fifth-round draft pick, and a forced swap of third-round draft picks with the Bears.

So while it may not be possible to force teams to give picks to other teams, it should be possible to force a trade.

So, if the Niners can't outright be given a pick, then they should be "forced" to trade the lowest pick they have in 2010 for that additional first-rounder (I'm sure they'd lose a lot of sleep over it).

The difference between the Briggs case and this one is that Briggs was about to become a free agent. Although the Bears could have franchised him (and, in fact, they did), their "window of exclusivity" only ran for one season.

Here, by trying to drive a wedge between Crabtree and the Niners, the teams guilty of tampering may have helped deny the Niners five or even six years of Crabtree's service.

Perhaps Crabtree would have been a bust. Then again, he could have been Rookie of the Year. Unfortunately, the Niners may never have a chance to find out.

So, if some other team or teams played a role in denying the Niners that chance, the punishment should be a severe one.

Standing Pat: Will New England's Quarterback Roster Gamble Pay Off?

Samer Ismail — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:56:50 -0400

The New England Patriots are no strangers to quarterback controversies.

They had to weather one in 2001 when Drew Bledsoe returned from the chest injury that had sidelined him; in his absence, a young second-year quarterback named Tom Brady started winning games. Head coach Bill Belichick, of course, chose Brady, and the rest is history.

They faced another one—at least in the minds of fans—in 2006, when the Patriots had one backup for Brady: Matt Cassel. He was a second-year quarterback who had never started a game since high school, and he was Brady's only backup.

That controversy, of course, erupted in full force in the fall of 2008 when Brady was lost for the season in Week 1 against the Kansas City Chiefs. Despite many calls in the media to bring in a veteran to take the reins, Belichick stuck by his backup quarterback.

Cassel more than repaid Belichick's faith; while Cassel may never have Brady's skill as a passer, by season's end the Patriots were responding to Cassel as field general just as they did with Brady.

After Brady's injury, the Patriots finished the season with three quarterbacks: Matt Cassel, Kevin O'Connell, and Matt Gutierrez.

Cassel, of course, was traded to Kansas City in the offseason. Gutierrez was waived in the 2009 preseason when the Patriots signed Andrew Walter, who had been released by Oakland.

At that point, though, things got interesting.

The Patriots cut O'Connell in a surprising move, just a week before the season started. Then the Pats cut Walter, who didn't even get a chance to play in the last preseason game.

Thus, the Patriots started the 2009 season with just two quarterbacks on the roster: Brady, a former Michigan Wolverine, and undrafted rookie free agent Brian Hoyer (pictured above), a former Michigan State Spartan.

(The Patriots also signed another quarterback, Isaiah Stanback, to the practice squad, but the Dallas Cowboys spent much of the last two seasons trying to convert him into a wide receiver. Similarly, the Patriots have a quarterback, Julian Edelman, that they drafted this year; now they're trying to convert him to a wide receiver in the Wes Welker mold. Neither, however, would be what fans would consider a "veteran" quarterback.)

Bill Belichick, for whatever reason, has decided that, at least in the short term, it makes sense for him to carry just two quarterbacks on the 53-man roster. This decision carries three main risks.

First, the NFL incentivizes carrying a third quarterback. A team carrying two QBs on their 45-man roster can dress a third quarterback who can enter the game if the first two QBs get hurt, or at any point in the fourth quarter.

By eschewing a third quarterback, the Patriots lose this advantage, and must deactivate eight players, instead of seven.

Second, should the Patriots be planning to sign a veteran quarterback, they run the risk of Brady getting injured first. If (God forbid, Patriots fans must be thinking) that should happen, then they would lose much of the leverage they might currently have, either in terms of what it would cost them to trade for a backup, or how much they might have to pay a street free agent, such as an AJ Feeley or a Jeff Garcia.

Rumors on cutdown day had the Patriots trading for Feeley, but that did not materialize, perhaps for the same reason that the Patriots might have decided to wait to sign a third quarterback: Veterans who are on the roster for games in Week 1 have their salaries fully guaranteed, while those signed after the first game do not. (For this reason, it's possible the Patriots might re-sign Walter, if Walter is willing to return.)

Third, the Patriots expect to make a run in the playoffs every year. If they do as well as they hope, they will fall under the Final Eight Plan, which, as I've written about before, will restrict their ability to sign free agents. So, if they don't sign one this season, it may be difficult for them to sign one next year.

All in all, it's difficult to gauge what the Patriots are planning. Clearly, either Hoyer must be further along in his development than even Brady and Cassel were as rookies, or Belichick is willing to roll the dice that Brady won't get injured in the next few weeks. Although it is reminiscent of the situation in 2006, at least Cassel had the benefit of a full year in the Patriots system, rather than a single offseason.

In Hoyer's defense, he had much more time as a starter in college than Cassel did.

What do you think about the Patriots' gamble? Will it last beyond Week 1? If not, who do you think the Patriots will bring in?

New England Patriots Trade Richard Seymour to Oakland Raiders

Samer Ismail — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:28:44 -0400

A week ago, the New England Patriots shocked many in the NFL when they abruptly cut ties with quarterback Kevin O'Connell, a third-round pick from 2008.

They shocked even more people today when Mike Reiss of the Boston Globe broke the news that the Patriots have traded three-time All Pro defensive end Richard Seymour—to the Oakland Raiders.

Even more surprisingly, the compensation for Seymour, drafted in 2001, and now on the last year of his contract, is a first-round draft pick.

But, according to Adam Schefter that draft pick is in 2011, not 2010.

It's not clear whether this move has been in the works for a while, or if this was something that happened "out of the blue." But it's clear that with three key players for the Patriots—Seymour, defensive tackle Vince Wilfork, and guard Logan Mankins—all set to be free agents in 2010, that it was unlikely the Patriots would be able to keep all three of them.

And since the best compensatory pick available is a third-round pick, the Patriots probably decided that a 2011 first was a significant upgrade from a 2011 third.

It is possible, though, that having two first-round picks in 2011 may allow them to, in essence, trade into the first-round of 2010. Using their newly-acquired first-round pick in 2011, and one of their high picks in 2010, they might convince another team to cough up a high pick in 2010 (it would be infinitely amusing, of course, if that team were the Raiders).

The immediate effect for the Patriots is unclear. On the one hand, the Patriots have traded away one of their best defensive players, and have an extra roster spot to fill, but on the other hand, they've gained $3 million in cap room (to squash one rumor that's been suggested, though, it's unlikely that the Patriots can trade for Julius Peppers: they would need to have $16 million in cap room, when they only have about one-third that amount, even after trading Seymour).

Clearly, though, there are more moves afoot from Foxboro.

Farewell, 54: Patriots Linebacker Tedy Bruschi to Retire

Samer Ismail — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:17:44 -0400

The average NFL career is less than five years.

Patriots linebacker Tedy Bruschi defied the odds more than once in his 13-year career.

But that career, according to Al Michaels on tonight's Sunday Night Football broadcast, will come to an end at a press conference tomorrow.

Bruschi was one of just a handful of players on the 2009 Patriots roster who played in all three of New England's Super Bowl victories, and his many contributions to the team over the years will never be forgotten.

I'm sure every Patriots fan who saw Super Bowl XXXIX will remember Bruschi holding three fingers up in celebration after that victory.

And anyone who saw his interception return in the snow, and the ensuing snow fireworks at Gillette Stadium, will never forget that memory.

They'll also remember his selfless dedication to the team: more than once, Bruschi said he'd never play for any other team.

But, most of all, Patriots fans should remember his perseverance. A few days after his first and only Pro Bowl appearance, Bruschi suffered a debilitating stroke. Not even a year later, he was back on the field, helping his Patriot teammates beat the Buffalo Bills.

All of that said, though, Bruschi must have realized that the time had come to hang up his cleats and give way to the younger linebackers. These include Jerod Mayo, last year's Defensive Rookie of the Year, and Gary Guyton, an undrafted free agent who nevertheless found his way onto the field in Week One of last year.

When Bruschi had his stroke, Patriots owner Robert Kraft offered to tear up his contract and give him another job with the Patriots.

Patriot fans can only hope that offer still holds, and that Bruschi takes advantage of it.

New England Patriots Cut 2008 Third-Round Pick Kevin O'Connell

Samer Ismail — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:16:32 -0400

A year ago, many Patriots fans were clamoring to send Matt Cassel packing, and to make Kevin O'Connell, a rookie from San Diego State University, Tom Brady's backup.

In March, the Patriots traded Matt Cassel to Kansas City, and many Patriots fans expected O'Connell to be Brady's understudy.

Earlier this month, the Patriots brought in Andrew Walter, recently released from the Oakland Raiders, as a backup, and waived Matt Gutierrez.

Today, the Patriots released Kevin O'Connell.

The move came as a surprise to many fans, as can be seen at this thread on PatsFans.com.

Count me among the confused, as well.

Perhaps the writing was on the wall when O'Connell threw not one but two interceptions in his second-half stint against the Washington Redskins on Friday night; in any case, reports throughout camp had him struggling at times.

On the other hand, given that O'Connell was a third-round pick, and that Bill Belichick had never cut a third-round pick before the start of his third season, many people, myself included, expected O'Connell would at least be given a second season to work things out as the scout team quarterback.

Another factor weighing into this calculation is that O'Connell had $471,000 in signing bonus that would hit the Patriots' already relatively tight cap if they released him this off-season.

Nevertheless, the Patriots felt that, for whatever reason, O'Connell simply did not have what it takes to be a quarterback for the New England Patriots.

The surprising move leaves two quarterbacks—Walter, and UDFA rookie Brian Hoyer—behind Brady, but it also means that if, the Patriots have to turn to a backup this season, they won't have anyone on the roster with more than a few months in the Patriots' system.

Moreover, other than Brady, only Hoyer is signed beyond the 2009 season.

(Anyone who thinks this is reason to say, "The Patriots should have kept Cassel," that was basically impossible after last season. They would have either had to pay too much, or, if they had had the foresight to sign him to a reasonable deal before the season had started, would almost certainly have received an offer too good to pass up.)

It remains to be seen if we will ever find out what prompted this sudden move. It also remains to be seen whether the Patriots will bring in another veteran quarterback behind Brady.

Finally, it seems that the question now is not if the Patriots will take a rookie quarterback in 2010, but when.

An Uncapped 2010 in the NFL Could Hurt Teams and Players

Samer Ismail — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:19:04 -0400

A few months ago, I wrote an article here at B/R on the impending poison pills added to spur both owners and players to negotiate a new Collective Bargaining Agreement before the salary cap expires at the end of the 2009 league year.

Unfortunately, the two sides appear to have made little progress; with the current league year now half over, it appears quite likely that 2010 will be an uncapped year.

(Before I continue, let me note that there is zero chance of a lockout or strike in 2010, which is the final year of the CBA. The CBA specifically mandates that the final year be uncapped, and also forbids both strikes and lockouts while it remains in force. A strike or lockout in 2011, however, is quite possible if no new CBA is signed by then, as Peter King recently warned.)

While many in the NFL, and in the public, see the expiration of the salary cap as a good thing, it may not be nearly as beneficial as it might appear at first glance.

Teams

For teams, there is one major downside, the Final Eight Plan, that affects only the teams that reach the Divisional Round (the second week) of the playoffs.

Teams that lose in the second week will be limited in their ability to sign unrestricted free agents. They'll be able to sign one UFA to a large contract (more than about $5 million per year), and as many players as they want to small contracts.

Teams that reach the Conference Championships, however, get both presents and coal in their stockings. Win or lose, by being one of the final four teams, they will be subject to three major limitations:

They can resign their own players with no additional restrictions beyond those placed on any other team.
Beyond that, however, they can only sign one free agent for each one they lose, and the departing free agent's new contract sets a limit on the size of the new player's contract.
The teams can trade for players given franchise and/or restricted free agent tenders, but they cannot circumvent the above rule by trading for a player they couldn't sign as a free agent.
The teams are free to sign players that clear waivers, but not all players go through the waiver process before becoming UFAs.

In very simplistic terms, if 2010 is uncapped, 2009 is not the year a team wants to be Cinderella showing up at the ball.

Players

For players, there are four major downsides.

First, the owners' obligations to player benefit plans is either greatly reduced or non-existent. A tiff erupted between NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell over the possibility that the NFL could reduce disability and/or pension payments for disabled payments (which the NFL wisely chose not to do). Similarly, the owners won't have to contribute to pension plans and other benefits for current players.

Second, many players who were expecting to be free agents won't be. Currently, players reach unrestricted free agency after four years of service. If the salary cap goes away, that number becomes six years. So, players now in their fifth year, such as Patriots guard Logan Mankins, will only become unrestricted free agents if a new CBA is signed this year.

Those players will instead become restricted free agents, which means that their teams can restrict their rights for relatively small salaries. So, while Mankins might easily earn $5 million per year in free agency, the Patriots could tender him, requiring a first-round pick in return, for about $2.5 million.

Somewhat paradoxically, this may mean there are fewer quality free agents available, rather than more, a fact that might please teams such as the New England Patriots that have many players with contracts expiring in 2009.

Third, not only does the dreaded franchise tag remain, but teams get an additional transition tag (which allows teams right of first refusal on any offer sheet signed by tagged players).

Finally, and most importantly, in addition to the salary cap, there is also a salary floor. In 2009 teams are required to spend a minimum of 87.6 percent of their salary cap allotments. If 2010 is uncapped, however, then owners are free to spend as much or as little of their money as they see fit. The net result may not be more money for every player, as players might hope, but rather for a select few.

It's hard to say exactly what will happen if 2010 turns out to be uncapped. But it stands to reason that many people who might be looking forward to it now will be unhappy if it actually comes to pass.

The Third Phase: New England Patriots 2009 Special Teams Preview

Samer Ismail — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:05:58 -0400

New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick is fond of talking of "all three phases of the game": offense, defense, and special teams.

As dramatic as the Patriots' makeover of their secondary has been this offseason, an even larger change has taken place on its special teams units.

Long time special teams coach Brad Seely is gone, replaced by Scott O'Brien (no apparent relation to quarterbacks coach Bill O'Brien), whose first coaching gig in the NFL was as Bill Belichick's special teams coach when Belichick coached the Cleveland Browns.

Ellis Hobbs, the NFL record holder for longest kickoff return, was traded to the Philadelphia Eagles. Long-time special teams captain Larry Izzo was allowed to walk in the offseason, and is now a member of the New York Jets. Long snapper, and snow angel-maker-extraordinaire, Lonie Paxton was lured to Denver by new head coach Josh McDaniels.

So, what questions do the Patriots need to answer this offseason?

How will they adjust to the new rules?

The NFL quietly adopted a rule this offseason banning three-man wedges on kick returns. Now, only two players are allowed to run in front of the kick returner to drive away members of the opposing kick coverage unit, and those players have to maintain a certain distance from one another.

It's not entirely clear how this will affect the composition of the unit. For example, will it make having a large body on the coverage unit less desirable or more desirable? In the past, the Patriots have used defensive linemen such as Mike Wright and LeKevin Smith as "wedge-busters." The good news is that every other team has to deal with the same issues, so teams will definitely be testing each other this preseason.

Will the Patriots use as many "specialists" on special teams?

Bill Belichick is well-known for liking versatile players. Nevertheless, it is striking to note that the Patriots not only maintain a full battery of specialists—kicker, punter, and a dedicated long snapper—but they have also routinely devoted several of the other spots to players who played almost exclusively on special teams. Kick returners, kickers, and punters aren't all by themselves, after all.

In 2008, they had four such players, who were active every week that they were healthy, but almost never saw the field on offense or defense: Matt Slater and Ray Ventrone, both wide receiver/safety hybrids, along with the aforementioned Izzo and Kelley Washington, now in Baltimore. Moreover, none of these players were brought in primarily as return men; even Slater, often vilified for his fumble against the Steelers, was not brought in solely as a return man.

Given how loaded the Patriots are with talent, they may be forced to cut some of these ST-only slots, but, on the flip side, they've also brought in a number of players best known for their ST contributions, such as "linebacker" Vinny Ciurciu, who was coached by O'Brien in Carolina.

It's quite likely that the Patriots will continue to keep roster slots open for ST gurus, but it will probably be fewer than in 2008.

Who will fill Ellis Hobbs' shoes?

This will be one of the most intriguing questions in camp. Will one player beat out the others and be the primary kick returner, or will the Patriots go with a "return man by committee" approach, as they've done at running back?

The likely contenders are fourth-year running back Laurence Maroney, who did an outstanding job at returning when called upon to do so back in 2006; Terrence Wheatley, a second-year cornerback who was an outstanding returner for Colorado; Darius Butler, a rookie cornerback from Connecticut; and, depending on his rehab, possibly even rookie wide receiver Brandon Tate from North Carolina.

On punt returns, it seems likely that Wes Welker and Kevin Faulk will rotate duties, although it wouldn't be surprising to see a rookie like Julian Edelman of Kent State see time there, since he actually has a faster shuttle time (a measure of a player's ability to change directions quickly) than Welker.

Who will win the long snapper battle?

Paxton's departure from Foxboro resulted in a long-snapper carousel: Denver released their snapper, Mike Leach, who signed with Arizona, who released their snapper, Nathan Hodel, who then signed with the Patriots.

Nevertheless, the Patriots decided not to put their eggs all in one basket, and drafted Jake Ingram from Hawaii in the sixth round; Ingram was the only long snapper drafted in 2009. Ironically, because of issues related to the competition (since the Patriots will not carry two snappers), Ingram was the last of the Patriots' 12 rookies, other than the injured Tyrone McKenzie, to sign a deal.

OTAs and minicamps have not yielded a clear favorite here, so it's a question of experience versus youth and cost. The Patriots have had this quandary at punter in the past (Chris Hanson versus Danny Baugher, Aaron Perez, and Mike Dragosavich), and experience has won out every time. Will experience prevail at long snapper too?

Will the Patriots be able to keep their kicker?

Fourth-year kicker Stephen Gostkowski recently went to Hawaii for his first-ever Pro Bowl, and was also selected first-team All-Pro. At the end of the season, Gostkowski, who in just three seasons already ranks in the top 250 in NFL history in points scored, will be a free agent—if there's a new CBA; Mike Reiss of the Boston Globe expects that as a free agent Gostkowski could land a contract worth $3 million a year. If 2010 is uncapped, however, Gostkowski will be a restricted free agent, meaning the Patriots can keep him for less than that while requiring other teams to pony up a first-round pick to sign him away.

The Patriots aren't terribly flush with cash—they have a few million in cap room available—so they probably won't extend Gostkowski in midseason unless they have to. If it looks likely a new CBA will be signed, though, don't be surprised to see Gostkowski signed to a long-term deal.

In "conclusion"

Right now, there are a lot of moving parts, so it's very difficult to make any sort of projections. The Patriots' special teams in 2009 could be awe-inspiring, or just plain awful, or anywhere in between, but it will definitely be interesting to watch.

When Did the New England Patriots Become the Reform School of the NFL?

Samer Ismail — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:48:42 -0400

On Friday, Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com opined that many people in the media believe that "the New England Patriots could be a perfect destination for former Falcons quarterback Mike Vick," and that, "there could be something to the chatter."

This post has now been regurgitated on other sites, ignoring the fact that there is no evidence to back up Florio's assertion.

Moreover, speaking of former Titans' and Cowboys' cornerback Pacman Jones, Matt Williamson of Scouts Inc. said, "I think New England would be a good fit. They're so firm there, and people come there and rejuvenate their careers."

As a Patriots fan, I'm rather flattered that the media recognizes that the Patriots, as an organization, are the team best-suited to deal with "problem children."

That said, it's frustrating to see the media basically suggest that the Patriots are actively looking to bring wayward players into the fold.

The evidence consistently cited in favor of these arguments is that the Patriots were able to revive the careers of Corey Dillon, frustrated by years of losing with the Bengals, and Randy Moss, who was stuck in the continuing disaster that is the Oakland Raiders.

That ignores two factors.

What the Patriots expect

First, in return for providing the goal-oriented, us-against-the-world mentality that helps players do their jobs, the Patriots demand personal accountability.

In other words, they're willing to support players who've made mistakes, but they demand that those players work to keep themselves out of trouble in the future.

For example, when special teams star Willie Andrews was arrested for marijuana possession, the Patriots did their best to help Andrews clean up. Unfortunately, Andrews was unwilling to live up to that trust; he was charged with assault a few months later, and immediately cut from the team.

As another example, Moss' 2007 contract was structured so that he would earn almost half his pay in the form of incentive bonuses for recording a certain number of receptions. (Given Tom Brady's propensity for spreading the ball around in the past, achieving those would not be easy if Moss missed any significant amount of time.) Moreover, Moss knew that any major slip-up would end his tenure as a Patriot.

In other words, yes, the Patriots might be able to accomplish what others haven't with Jones and/or Vick.

But, that said, if they manage to convince the Patriots to take a chance on them, they'd better be prepared to make the changes they need to make in order to fit in. Or they might find themselves filing their retirement papers sooner than they expected.

Why bother?

Second, the Patriots have nothing to gain by bringing in malcontents simply for the sake of doing so.

When the Patriots are willing to take chances, it's because they feel that the potential gains significantly outweigh the risks. Clearly, Moss and Dillon were worth the risk.

There is no chance of them signing Vick, for example, unless he would provide a significant boost to the offense, and as I've written before, there's no reason to think he would.

Kevin O'Connell would be able to run the offense better, and they've already got a potential Wildcat quarterback, Julian Edelman, who would cost significantly less than Vick would. The same argument can be made for Jones, given that the Patriots added cornerbacks Shawn Springs, Leigh Bodden, and Darius Butler and safety Patrick Chung in the offseason.

What I'd like the media to understand is this: Michael Vick and Pacman Jones need the Patriots far more than the Patriots need them.

But if either of them want that chance, they're going to have to convince Bill Belichick and Robert Kraft that they're worth the effort, because the Patriots aren't going to make the first move.

Three Reasons the New England Patriots Will Not Sign Michael Vick

Samer Ismail — Fri, 22 May 2009 00:37:11 -0400

Many sports journalists—including those at The Boston Globe, ESPN, and even here on B/R—believe the New England Patriots are a likely destination for Michael Vick.

They are mistaken. Even setting aside issues of whether Vick deserves another chance, here are three reasons why.

1. Once again, the salary cap rears its ugly head.

Vick is still under contract to the Atlanta Falcons and is scheduled to earn a $9 million salary for 2009.

Clearly, the Falcons are not going to pay Vick that money, but if they trade him, the team that trades for him has to absorb that cap hit before they can sign him to a new contract. Since the Patriots don't have $9 million in cap space available, they would have to have several players renegotiate contracts to create that cap space.

2. Vick doesn't fit the Patriots at quarterback.

Many writers who see Vick as a fit for the Patriots see him as a potential backup to Tom Brady in New England.

He's not.

Bill Belichick has shown over the last few years that what he wants most in a backup quarterback is the ability to run the same offense the starter—namely, Brady—can run. Matt Cassel was able to do that, albeit with fewer deep bombs and more short passes, which is why the Patriots felt no need to bring in a veteran backup.

The Patriots see a lot of potential in their current backup quarterback, Kevin O'Connell. Bringing Vick in as the backup and demoting O'Connell to third-string QB would not help O'Connell's development.

O'Connell is a quarterback who can run. Vick would be a running back who can throw; given that at his best he wasn't completing 60 percent of his passes, it's hard to see how that would improve the Patriots.

That's also ignoring that the Patriots would also have to dump at least one of their current quarterbacks, which would make it harder for them to operate their QB development pipeline.

3. The Patriots don't need the Wildcat offense.

The other argument appears to be for using Vick as a Wildcat quarterback. (This argument has been made—rather incoherently—by John Clayton, who notes that Miami used the Wildcat last year; therefore Vick might interest the Patriots.)

As a fan at PatsFans.com noted, the Patriots using the Wildcat would make for a good change of pace—from scoring too many points.

The problem with the Wildcat offense is that it would require taking Brady off the field, and no one can possibly argue that would make the Patriots better either.

Moreover, if the Patriots want to practice against the Wildcat offense, they may already have drafted a rookie who can run the Wildcat in Julian Edelman. (Edelman even has similar stats to Vick's too.)

Finally, since the Patriots don't have glaring holes at either running back or wide receiver, it's hard to see how the Patriots could possibly fit Vick onto the roster.

If Belichick and Robert Kraft feel adding Vick to the team is worth it, I, as a Patriots fan, would give them the benefit of the doubt, but very grudgingly. That said, for the reasons above, I just don't see it happening.

Top Ten Signs You're Probably a New England Patriots Fan

Samer Ismail — Fri, 08 May 2009 00:04:16 -0400

Note: Not all of these things apply to me (one obviously so). I leave it to you to figure out which ones do.

From the home office in Foxboro, Massachusetts, here are the Top Ten Signs You're Probably a New England Patriots Fan:

10. You own a Patriots jersey—for a player like Stephen Gostkowski or Matt Cassel.

9. You decide that this year, you're going to arrive at Gillette Stadium on Saturday night, and leave Monday morning, so you can avoid the traffic on Route 1.

8. You've considered naming your kids Wilfork, Moss, or Bruschi.

7. You actually care about the looming training camp battles at long snapper and third-string quarterback.

6. You have to think how you're actually supposed to spell "Bills," "Jets," and "Dolphins."

5. You have a man crush on Wes Welker (not that there's anything wrong with that).

4. You have 9/14/09 circled on your calendar—along with the words "REVENGE SHALL BE OURS!"

3. Learning that Bill Belichick probably won't draft the players you covet, you stop coveting players, and start lusting after picks in next year's draft.

2. You think like this Patriots fan did.

And the number one sign you're probably a New England Patriots Fan is:

1. When someone asks you what's for dinner, your response is It is what it is.

Economics 101: Why New England Patriots Drafts Are Such Mysteries

Samer Ismail — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:51:20 -0400

If there is one constant about the plethora of mock drafts out there, it's that the vast majority of them will get draft picks for the New England Patriots wrong.

In fact, sometimes they're hilariously wrong.

The good news is that Patriots head coach Bill Belichick has revealed the Patriots' philosophy regarding the draft.

The bad news is, even if you do understand how the Patriots approach the draft, the best you can do is make an educated guess as to what the Patriots will do.

So, what is the Patriot Way?

To quote Belichick's recent press conference:

Q: "This will be a successful draft if we—

BB: "Improve our team."

It sounds really silly when you first hear it, but that is the Patriots' paramount goal. Not "get the best rookies we can."

Not "fill our needs." Simply "improve our team."

So, how do they determine if they've improved? There's a very simple economics concept that gives the answer. There is one major drawback associated with it, though, which I'll address later.

That concept is utility, which Webster's simply defines as "fitness for some purpose or worth to some end." In the context of the NFL, it's what the player brings to the team.

The Patriots' goal is to get as much utility out of each pick as possible. Here are some examples of how that has affected the roster in the past, and how it might play out this year:

1. Who will the Patriots select in the first round?

Obviously, the more talented the player, the more overall utility that player adds. On the other hand, that utility comes at two costs.

First, there is the salary associated with picking that player. The higher the pick, the greater the cost. At some point, the cost of adding that player outweighs the utility that player provides.

For example, even though the Patriots don't currently have a fullback on the roster, there really isn't much sense in drafting one in the first round, because they don't use the fullback enough to justify paying a first-round salary for one.

Second, remember that there is a fixed limit on roster size. Thus, in order to add a rookie, another player has to be let go. So the question is not really how much utility will a player add, but how much additional utility will he add?

This is why, despite Mel Kiper's predictions to the contrary, it is unlikely the Patriots will draft a running back in the first round. Given that the Patriots already have five NFL-ready running backs, paying a first-round salary to a rookie while letting go one of the backs they already have really doesn't add very much utility to the team.

2. Trading picks for established players

As I've written before, the Patriots are not averse to trading picks for veterans. They've done it several times in recent years, perhaps most notably in 2007 when they traded second— and seventh—round picks before the draft for Wes Welker and a fourth—round pick during the draft for Randy Moss.

In both cases, the Patriots made a determination that the utility of adding that veteran, at that salary, was comparable to—if not outright better than—any rookie they might have been able to draft at that pick.

Also, given that all the Patriots got from those three picks is two All-Pro players with 390 receptions for over 4,500 yards and 45 touchdowns, it seems rather unlikely they could have done any better with those picks in the draft.

The Patriots already traded one pick for a player in 2009 (Philadelphia wide receiver Greg Lewis). Pat Kirwan and Vic Carucci seem convinced the Patriots will trade more picks for disgruntled Carolina defensive end Julius Peppers to convert him to a 3-4 outside linebacker.

I've already argued why I think this trade makes no sense, but it is at least theoretically possible that the Patriots feel that the utility he brings would be worth the rather steep price tag.

3. Trading up in the draft

The Patriots aren't averse to trading up in the draft, although they seldom do it in the first round. In any case, the utility decision here is a relatively simple one: Do you expect more utility by taking one better player or by taking two players that grade out lower in your system?

4. Trading picks for future picks

Here is one of the inevitable conundrums that faces a team with a well-stocked roster and many draft picks: Is it better to use those picks now, or push them forward into future drafts?

For New England—which has a league-high 11 draft picks, and a league-high four first-day picks—trading picks forward is part of the Patriot Way.

The Boston Globe quoted advice Jimmy Johnson once gave Belichick: "Picks are like money and you can always put them in the bank and they can draw interest."

The Patriots have taken that advice to heart; of the 41 trades made during the draft that have resulted in a team receiving a pick in a future draft since 2000, the Patriots have made eleven, more than any other team.

But if you think that those were all made because the Patriots didn't like the players available at that pick, think again. Belichick admitted last year that he was on the phonewith Shawn Crable, planning to pick him at No. 69 when San Diego called with their trade offer.

The Patriots made that trade and were still able to get Crable with their next pick, but they felt there was enough utility in gaining a second-round pick in this year's draft to risk missing out on Crable.

Given the current uncertainty regarding the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and the poison pills that might come into play if a new one isn't negotiated before the start of the 2010 season, the Patriots might be even more eager than usual to trade a pick or two into the future.

So, what's the problem with the utility concept?

It is, by definition, a matter of team preference. In other words, in order to use utility to figure out exactly what the Patriots would do, you'd need to know exactly what factors the Patriots use in determining a player's utility.

For example, since need factors into utility—the less talent you have at a position, the more utility a good player can add—how much of a need do the Patriots see at each position?

A lot of pundits have OLB tagged as a position of need for 2009, but perhaps the Patriots see the expiring contract of Richard Seymour as a bigger problem, and decide to take the best defensive lineman they can get in the first round.

Similarly, how much do the Patriots crave versatility? Would Connor Barwin or Pat White, who play multiple positions, provide more utility than, say, Brian Cushing or Mohammed Massaquoi, who have more experience at their chosen positions?

Of course, since the Patriots don't say much about their evaluation process, it makes it that much harder for people to predict what they do.

And when they ignore the concept of utility entirely, that's when hilarity results (as when many amateur mock makers felt the Patriots would try to move up for Darren McFadden).

A couple of predictions

I'm not going to try to predict actual players; that requires far more skill and analysis than I have time to do. (I'll admit I'm also afraid that by naming the players I want, I might be dooming their chances of becoming Patriots.)

That said, based on my assessment of utility—which I freely admit may not be how the Patriots assess it—I will make these predictions:

The Patriots will select a total of four players in the first three rounds.
The Patriots will end the third round with at least one extra pick in either the first or second round of the 2010 draft.
The Patriots will not select a quarterback before the fourth round; if they select Pat White before then, it will be primarily as a wide receiver. They will select a quarterback in the last four rounds.
The Patriots will not select a running back in the first round.
The Patriots will select at least one linebacker in the first two rounds.
The Patriots will select at least one defensive back, most likely a safety, in the first three rounds.

After the draft, we'll see how close my predictions come to the truth.

New England Patriots' Top Draft Picks of the Decade

Samer Ismail — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:17:01 -0400

Recently, John Czarnecki of Fox Sports graded team's draft efforts from 2003 to 2008, and gave the Patriots the only A+. This came on the heels of a mathematically correct but horribly shortsighted Forbes.com article that noted the Patriots had the lowest percentage of draft picks from the last three years still on the roster. That article penalized the Patriots for having several late draft picks when they were already incredibly well-stocked with talent in 2007.

Needless to say, most NFL analysts would agree with the latter sentiment more than the former. Surprisingly, though, both of these articles miss some of the key moves the Patriots have made to make themselves so good over the last 10 years.

Honorable Mention: Undrafted Free Agents

A little-known secret of the Patriots' success is their ability to find talent among undrafted free agents. Nearly every year, at least one UDFA makes the opening-day roster. In 2008, that honor went to Gary Guyton, a linebacker from Georgia Tech, who was active for all but one game; his playing time earned him a $200,000 bonus from the NFL (not a bad chunk of change for a player earning just over $300,000 for the season).

Similarly, BenJarvus Green-Ellis came in and stabilized the running back position when it was overwhelmed by injuries (with Laurence Maroney, Sammy Morris, and former Patriot LaMont Jordan all on the sidelines), scoring five touchdowns in a six-game span.

The two biggest UDFAs for the Patriots have been two linemen, Stephen Neal and Mike Wright. Neal, a wrestler at Cal State-Bakersfield, never played collegiate football but did beat Brock Lesnar for the NCAA heavyweight crown. Since 2003, he's been a stalwart of the offensive line. Wright, who came out of Cincinnati and can play any position on the defensive line, was recently resigned to a four-year deal that could pay him over $10 million.

5. Trading a first-rounder to San Francisco in 2007

When Deion Branch held out in 2006, the Patriots were able to trade him to Seattle for a first-round draft pick in 2007. They used that pick, 24th overall, to draft Brandon Meriweather (who, ironically, was the hero of the Patriots' 2008 game in Seattle). They then traded their own first, 28th overall, to the San Francisco 49ers for the Niners' fourth-round draft pick in 2007 and their first in 2008.

Clearly, the Niners, who drafted Joe Staley, saw him as the missing piece they needed—as did many draftniks, who predicted the Niners as a playoff team.

Fortunately for the Patriots, the Niners were very, very wrong. The Patriots, who at one point might have ended up with the third pick in the draft, ended up with the No. 7 pick in the 2008 draft.

The Patriots then traded the No. 7 pick to New Orleans, for the Saints' first and third-round picks. With the third-rounder they took Shawn Crable, and with the first they selected Jerod Mayo, the near-unanimous Defensive Rookie of the Year.

And what happened to that fourth-rounder in 2007? That, of course, was traded to the Oakland Raiders for Randy Moss, whose career was reborn after Moss traded Oakland's black for New England's navy blue.

4. Trading a seventh-rounder to Miami in 2007

Well before the draft, the Patriots traded second- and seventh-round draft picks to the Miami Dolphins for wide receiver Wes Welker. What makes the seventh-round pick so interesting is that the Patriots, had they wanted to, could have signed Welker, then a restricted free agent, to an offer sheet that the Dolphins could not have matched and would have required only a second-round draft pick in return.

But, by adding in an extra pick, one which almost certainly would not have made the roster, the Patriots avoided unnecessary enmity, and landed a player that Belichick had been drooling over for years.

Some people might also wonder why the Patriots gladly gave up a second for Welker, but were able to finagle Moss for just a fourth. It's simple, really: with Moss, there was still a certain amount of risk of an epic meltdown. With Welker, there wasn't any question of whether it would work; only of how spectacular the fit would be.

Given the number of teams trying to find their own Welkers, I'd say that fit is nearly perfect.

3. Drafting Tom Brady in the sixth round in 2000

As more than one Patriots beat writer has said, "He's pretty good." The NFL Network declared Brady the greatest "steal" in the history of the draft.

Fortunately for the Patriots, when they were deciding between Tom Brady and Tim Rattay with this pick, they trusted their quarterback coach. The late Dick Rehbein advocated for Brady, and the rest is history.

So, how can Brady possibly be only the third best pick of the decade? Read on.

2: Drafting Matt Cassel in the seventh round in 2005

At this point, you might think I'm crazy. How could Matt Cassel be a better pick than Brady?

It's simple. The Brady pick represents skill aided by a ton of luck. Even the Patriots admit that they had Brady at the top of their draft board well before they got around to selecting him.

Drafting Cassel, however, was entirely about recognizing talent, and using the draft to their advantage.

After Cassel finished his career as a backup at USC, about all he could look forward to was signing on with a team as a UDFA. His former offensive coordinator Norm Chow had talked to him about joining the Tennessee Titans, while his teammate Carson Palmer wanted him to join the Cincinnati Bengals.

The Patriots, however, had other ideas.

When they saw what little game tape was available, they saw a quarterback with all the physical and mental tools needed to be successful in their system after a year or two of grooming. They also saw a quarterback no other team would be willing to "waste" a draft pick on, so they were able to draft him in the seventh round with the 230th pick.

Even if he had never started a single game for the Patriots, this would have been a fantastic pick.

While some teams have struggled for years just to find a single quality starter, let alone a competent backup, the Patriots, for a seventh-round salary, found a quarterback good enough that they didn't have to worry about the backup position for three years.

In 2006, in fact, Cassel was Brady's only backup when the season began. (And, by the way, this should help dispel the myth that Cassel was in danger of being cut before the 2008 season began—no one in Foxboro felt that way, least of all Cassel's coaches.)

The fact that Cassel did get the chance to start, and played well enough to keep the Patriots in the playoff hunt all season long, and then netted them a second-round pick in this year's draft, just makes it all the sweeter. (And it also cost Denver Jay Cutler, which at this point is icing on the cake.)

No. 1: Trading a first-round pick to the New York Jets in 2000

And, finally, the draft pick that a lot of people forget. Who did Robert Kraft get when the Patriots traded their first-rounder in 2000? The "failed" former head coach of the Cleveland Browns, Bill Belichick. Need I say more?

New England Patriots Prepare for the NFL's Poison Pills in 2010

Samer Ismail — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:08:37 -0400

By now, you've probably heard that the NFL is facing the possibility that there will be no salary cap for the 2010 season. You may also be aware of the fact that it places limitations on teams' ability to defer payments into the future, and also increase the time needed to achieve free agency from four years to six.

You may not know of the existence of the Final Eight Plan, a provision in the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement which may haunt several franchises next year.

The basic principle of the Final Eight Plan—which will go into effect if there is no salary cap—is to prevent a mass movement of free agent talent in 2010 to the top teams from 2009.

In a nutshell, it places restrictions on the eight teams that reach the Divisional round of the playoffs. In other words, the two teams with byes in each conference, and the four teams that win their Wild Card games will have a harder time pursuing free agents.

The main restrictions on the four teams that reach the Conference Championship round are:

They can resign their own players with no additional restrictions beyond those placed on any other team.
Beyond that, however, they can only sign one free agent for each one they lose, and the departing free agent's new contract sets a limit on the size of the new player's contract.
The teams can trade for players given franchise and/or restricted free agent tenders, but they cannot circumvent the above rule by trading for a player they couldn't sign as a free agent.

The four teams that lose in the divisional round are subject to the same rules, except that they are also allowed to assign free agents to relatively small contracts (and one free agent to a contract with a first-year salary of $5 million or more).

There's also one more loophole, which I'll get to a little later in this article.

So, what does this have to do with the New England Patriots? It's simple, really.

The Patriots, with quarterback Tom Brady returning, appear poised to make another run deep into the playoffs, which would mean they'd be subject to the Final Eight Plan—and they seem to have insulated themselves from its effects in three ways.

Using their 2009 draft picks

The Patriots have six draft picks in the first three rounds—No. 23 in round one; No. 34, 47, and 58 in round two; No. 89 and 97 in round three. It is the most of any team in the NFL. They also have five more picks in the remaining four rounds.

That said, the Patriots simply do not have that many holes in their roster. Sure, they could use another linebacker or two, and depth at other positions, but there is essentially no reason for the Patriots to use all 11 picks this year.

What will probably happen is that the Patriots will trade at least one of their eight tradable picks (the Patriots' three compensatory picks can't be traded), quite likely one of their three second-rounders, for a pick in 2010.

Since the Patriots have traded picks ahead almost every year during Belichick's tenure, there's no reason to assume this year will be any different.

Using the compensatory pick system

As noted, three of the Patriots' 11 draft picks this year are compensatory picks, awarded when a team loses more quality free agents than it signs.

One rule regarding this system, though, is that in order to count as a "quality" free agent, those free agents must reach free agency via an expired contract. Players who are waived by their previous team do not count against the teams signing them. More importantly, they also do not count as free agents in the Final Eight Plan.

In other words, any player who gets cut by his old team is fair game for everyone.

This is where the Patriots seem to have slipped under everyone's radar.

With the possible exception of former Cardinals center Al Johnson (whose contract may not be large enough to count under any circumstances), all of the Patriots' 2009 free agent signings—Fred Taylor, Shawn Springs, Leigh Bodden, Chris Baker, Joey Galloway, and Nathan Hodel—were players released by their old teams.

Not one of them will count against the Patriots in determining compensatory picks, which means the Patriots could get as many as four picks on day two (for Jabar Gaffney, Heath Evans, Lonie Paxton, and LaMont Jordan).

It seems highly, highly unlikely that this is just by chance alone. Whether or not it's a "dry run" for 2010—when the only agents they'll likely be able to sign are those waived by their own teams—is impossible to say. What does seem fairly clear is that the Patriots are trying to accumulate compensatory picks for 2010.

Using contracts

As stated above, the Final Eight Plan allows the top four teams to sign a new free agent for each one they lose. That rule might explain why the Patriots were willing to sign Leigh Bodden to a one-year deal that prohibits them from using the franchise tag. Should his career take off, and the Patriots be unable to resign him, they will then be able to sign a new free agent to a contract with a similar cap hit.

The same holds true for any other free agents the Patriots might lose, such as defensive linemen Richard Seymour and Vince Wilfork. If the Patriots aren't able to extend their contracts, they at least will have the ability to land a blue-chip free agent.

All in all, the Patriots are showing once again why they are one of the best-managed franchises in all of sports.

Economics 101, or Why Julius Peppers to the Patriots Makes Little Sense

Samer Ismail — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:35:46 -0400

A couple of weeks ago, Vic Carucci of NFL.com reported that the New England Patriots are expected to trade for Julius Peppers, the defensive end for the Carolina Panthers, presumably for the No. 34 pick the Patriots received from Kansas City for quarterback Matt Cassel and linebacker Mike Vrabel.

At the annual NFL owners' meeting, Carucci argued that the trade was "picking up steam."

I'm not going to argue here whether or not it makes sense for the Patriots to trade for Peppers from a competitive standpoint, because it's largely a moot point.

That's because, for three reasons, this trade makes almost no sense from a financial standpoint.

1. Peppers hasn't signed his franchise tag yet.

The Panthers franchised Peppers, just as the Patriots franchised Cassel. Unlike Cassel, who signed his tender before free agency began, Peppers has yet to sign his tender. Thus, the Panthers, by league rules, cannot conduct trade talks for him, because he is not under contract.

Any negotiations at this time must take place through Peppers' agent, as the franchise tag does allow the player to negotiate with any team he chooses.

Moreover, Patriots head coach Bill Belichick has said, in an interview on WEEI, that he does not want to conduct negotiations through an agent, as would be required.

And Belichick even reiterated that the Panthers cannot conduct negotiations until Peppers signs—which raises the question of how these talks could be "picking up steam" when, by NFL rules, they're not even allowed in the first place.

2. The Patriots may not have enough cap room to give him the contract he wants.

Three weeks into free agency, the Patriots had about $7 million in free cap space, according to Patscap.com (an invaluable resource on Patriots salary information).

At least $2 million to $3 million of that amount will be needed to sign rookies and provide for a practice squad and insurance if the Patriots need to sign a street free agent in mid-season.

That leaves about $4 million in free cap space the Patriots might be able to use to sign Peppers.

Unfortunately, that puts the Patriots up against one of the poison pills currently in place because 2010 is slated to be a season without a salary cap: for any contract signed in the 2009 league year, contract salaries cannot increase year-to-year by more than 30 percent.

So, for example, if the Patriots gave him a $3 million salary in 2009, the most they can pay him in 2010 is $3.9 million. Signing bonuses don't count as salary, but, of course, they are prorated, and part of it would have to be paid in 2009.

The upshot of this is that, if Peppers really wants to play for New England, he's either going to have to accept a relatively small salary, or the Patriots would have to be so enthusiastic about getting Peppers that they'd be willing to trade away one or more key players to get him.

3. Even if Peppers signs his tender and agrees to a contract the Patriots can afford, they still might not be able to get him.

Patriots fans who were paying attention when the Patriots traded for Randy Moss might recall a nugget buried in some of the articles about the trade: Tom Brady had to renegotiate his contract before the Patriots could sign for Moss.

That's because, even though Moss renegotiated his contract, NFL rules require that a team trading for a player absorb his current hit into their salary cap before they renegotiate.

With Moss, that meant the Patriots had to fit his $9 million Oakland Raiders salary for 2007 into their cap.

And that means that, right now, if Peppers signs his tender, the Patriots would need to find a way to absorb that contract, which is more than twice the size of their available cap space.

Maybe there's a way around this, but it's not something that anyone on NFL.com, or any other major sports site, has discussed.

The only way I can think of—Peppers signing a renegotiated contract before he's traded—would either leave the Panthers taking a cap hit for no reason, or force Peppers to run the risk that the Panthers will renege on an agreement to trade him after he signs the new contract (although I suppose poison pills might work to prevent that).

The idea of Peppers as a Patriot is an intriguing one. But, at the moment, it appears to be far more a pipe-dream than a promise.

Economics 101: Why Matt Cassel Plus Mike Vrabel Equals No. 34

Samer Ismail — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:03:24 -0500

The sudden trade of Patriots linebacker Mike Vrabel to the Kansas City Chiefs on the first day of agency for "an undisclosed draft pick" stunned most Patriots fans.

The trade of Patriots quarterback Matt Cassel to the Chiefs did not surprise nearly as many people.

The fact that both players only netted the Patriots a single pick in the 2009 draft—Kansas City's second rounder, No. 34— mystifies everyone, including longtime Patriots beat writer Tom Curran (although, to his credit, Mike Reiss of the Globe predicted that the Patriots would get a second for Cassel).

Of course, this raises the question of why the Patriots would "settle" for such low compensation, especially in the light of previous trades. The short answer is: economics.

In particular, three economic concepts explain the Patriots' dilemma.

Supply and demand

Thanks to the salary cap, payroll dollars have a fixed supply. Cassel's franchise tag accounted for $14.6 million—over 10 percent—of the Patriots' 2009 salary cap allotment. Vrabel's contract ate up another $3.3 million that could be saved with a trade (about $1 million was dead money from his last signing bonus).

Had the Patriots not traded Cassel and Vrabel, they would have been more or less out of salary cap room; moreover, there isn't a whole lot of cap room available in other players' contracts, and it is plausible that the Patriots felt they could replace Vrabel's production, at least, at a much lower cost.

On an interesting side note, though, as of yet, Cassel has not agreed to a long-term deal with the Chiefs. If a new Collective Bargaining Agreement is reached, it is likely Cassel would then become an unrestricted free agent.

If a new CBA isn't reached, and the salary cap goes away, Cassel would then be owed a minimum of 110 percent of his 2009 salary, or about $16 million.

Thus, Cassel may have little incentive to sign a long-term deal with the Chiefs this year, unless they're willing to fork over $30 million in guaranteed money, which may help to explain why the Chiefs only offered a second.

Opportunity costs

In economics, the alternatives that are given up when one option is chosen are known as opportunity costs. For example, if you spend $10 on a pizza, you can't also spend that same $10 on a movie ticket.

In this case, the opportunity cost referred to the cost of trying to wait for a better offer for Cassel. In this case, those opportunity costs would be the inability to sign other free agents, and the inability to try and re-sign their own free agents.

While the $18 million freed up by trading Cassel and Vrabel won't solve all the Patriots' free agent questions, it will certainly help in retaining and/or extending some of those free agents, such as nose tackle Vince Wilfork.

Given the choice between a first-round pick in the mid-teens and losing more of their free agents on the one hand, and the No. 34 pick and retaining more of their free agents, the Patriots chose the latter.

Cost-benefit analysis

Here's where things get interesting: according to reports in the Denver Post the Tampa Bay Buccaneers were trying to pursue a three-way trades that would have given the Patriots their first-round draft pick, sent Matt Cassel to Denver, and sent Cutler to Tampa Bay. Moreover, according to Lions+were+trying+to+get+Matt+Cassel+--+to+get+Jay+Cutler" target="_blank">the Detroit Free Press, the Lions were attempting to do the same thing.

Although the Broncos decided against it (although, by all indications, not quickly enough), it raises an important question: If the Broncos had said yes, would the Patriots have agreed?

Probably not.

That's because the gain in draft order (Tampa Bay has the No. 19 pick, and Detroit has Dallas' pick at No. 20) would have come at the cost of sending Cassel to a team in much better position to make use of his talents: Accuscore.com predicts that Cassel alone would give the Chiefs about four points per game, and about three more wins per season.

(Of course, if anyone thinks Cassel alone would be enough to turn the Chiefs' fortunes around, I've got a great deal on a stadium!)

Adding Cassel to the Broncos, however, would potentially be much trickier to the Patriots, since the two teams will meet in Denver this season, and a resurgent Denver team might have caused problems for the Patriots.

Of course, this entire assessment could be completely off base—after all, the only people who know for sure are folks who'll probably never let us know why.

Of course, the true judge of who, if anyone, got the short end of the straw on this trade will be time: How will Cassel and Vrabel do with the Chiefs, and what will the Patriots do with their No. 34 pick?

Matt Cassel Will Sign a Long-Term Deal in 2009—But Where?

Samer Ismail — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:39:14 -0500

A couple of weeks ago, here on Bleacher Report, I discussed the possible outcomes of the Patriots franchising Matt Cassel. In that article, I proposed five possibilities. One of those—that another team could sign Cassel to an offer sheet—is off the table now that Cassel has agreed to the tender contract.

After thinking about this further, though, I now believe that there are only two possible outcomes: the Patriots must either trade Cassel before the draft or shortly thereafter, or sign him to a long-term contract. They simply cannot wait to see how Brady does in training camp.

The simple reason for this is economics: Cassel's franchise tag salary has counted $14.6 million off the Patriots' salary cap since the day they extended the offer. Until they trade him or sign him to a new deal, it will remain there. If the Patriots had $40 million in cap space, it probably wouldn't matter.

Unfortunately, after Cassel's offer, the Patriots only have about $5 million in cap space (and quite possibly less). Moreover, thanks to the CBA's poison pills in place because of the impending disappearance of the salary cap in 2010, it will be difficult—not impossible, but difficult—for the Patriots to obtain significant amounts of additional cap space by reworking player contracts (on the other hand, as you'll see in a moment, those same rules might also help the Patriots with Cassel).

Keep in mind that the Patriots also face a deadline to extend Cassel: if the Patriots do not sign Cassel to a long-term contract by July 15, then the only contract he can sign with the Patriots is a one-year deal, at the franchise tender, which means no salary cap relief.

Thus, the Patriots' two options:

1. Sign Cassel to a long-term deal

The main advantage to this is that the Patriots can spread out any signing bonus over five years, rather than having to absorb it all in 2009. Thus, they could sign Cassel to, say, a five-year, $47 million contract and have a salary cap hit of just $7 million in 2009. The main disadvantage to this type of contract, however, is that the poison pills require that any dead money incurred in 2009 must be charged against the 2009 cap—which means that the Patriots would be unable to trade Cassel in 2009.

On the other hand, such a move would not prevent the Patriots from trading Cassel in 2010. If the salary cap is preserved, the likely worst case scenario would be the Patriots spreading out the remaining signing bonus over 2010 and 2011, while the best case scenario would be no salary cap at all, in which case the dead money would be irrelevant.

Even better still, Cassel would arguably become even more attractive: teams trading for him would be able to take on the remainder of his contract, which would likely be significantly less than the going rates for quarterbacks in the top 10-15 picks of the draft, so the Patriots might actually get significantly more for Cassel than they could in 2009 (when the team signing Cassel would also have to pay his signing bonus).

2. Trade Cassel soon

Of course, unless a team is willing to give up draft picks and pay Cassel $14.6 million for a one-year rental, Cassel will need to sign a new long-term deal with whatever team trades for him. The biggest advantage, again, is that Cassel's cap hit for the Patriots would drop to zero.

All in all, a trade is probably the best-case scenario for the Patriots, if they feel that 2008 rookie Kevin O'Connell can hold the fort if Brady's not ready to go when the season begins. The longer Cassel remains with the Patriots, though, the less likely this becomes. Nevertheless, I'd say right now the probability of Cassel being traded is at least 60 percent.

So, where are the likely landing spots for Cassel? I'll answer that question soon—in fact, part of my answer will be a response to Sports Illustrated's Peter King, who says he'll talk about this in Monday Morning Quarterback this week.

But for now, let me just point this quote out to the Chiefs fans who believe that either Tyler Thigpen is the long-term answer or that Chiefs GM Scott Pioli should be able to find another Matt Cassel in the back end of the draft: "Quite honestly, there is no other Matt Cassel." So said Pioli himself. It may be an admission of the difficulty in finding another quarterback with as much upside as he and Bill Belichick saw in Cassel in 2005.

Matt Cassel Is Franchised: Now What?

Samer Ismail — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:17:46 -0500

In a move that surprised almost no one, the Patriots have franchised Matt Cassel. So, what does this mean for Cassel, for the Patriots, and for the rest of the league?

First off, it means that the Patriots have offered Cassel a one-year contract worth just over $14.6 million—and that entire amount hits their salary cap today.

Second, it means that Cassel will officially be able, when the free agency period begins on Feb. 27, to negotiate contracts with other teams.

Third, it means that if another team wants to sign Cassel, that team must either (1) sign Cassel to a long-term offer sheet that the Patriots refuse to match, and give the Patriots two first-round draft picks; or (2) work out a long-term contract acceptable to Cassel and a trade package acceptable to the Patriots. Either way, if there is a "bidding war" for Cassel's services, it will be a very strange one. (The most important consequence of this is that it will be nearly impossible for the New York Jets, who are already over the cap and not in the Patriots' good graces, to sign Cassel.)

As I've said before, anyone who says they know exactly how this is going to turn out is lying. That said, there are basically five possibilities:

The Patriots keep Cassel under the franchise tag for the entire season. This is, by far, the least likely possibility. The Patriots only have about $20 million in cap space, so they would be left with only about $5 million, before other moves, to sign free agents; sign rookies, practice squad players, and injury replacements; and extend their own players. This would happen only if the Patriots already feel that neither Brady nor 2008 third-round draft choice Kevin O'Connell is capable of leading the team in 2009, and maybe not even then.
The Patriots keep Cassel under the franchise tag, and trade him just before the trade deadline. As Floyd Reese, now the Patriots' senior football advisor, said just a few weeks ago, "A team like New England can sit back and bide their time. . . . There's always teams out there in need of a quarterback, teams who'll think 'We don't like this guy. We can't win with him.'" This is slightly more likely, since the Patriots would regain close to $10 million in cap room if they trade him before the Week 6 deadline, but it would still leave the Patriots in a quandary for six months.
The Patriots sign Cassel to a long-term deal. Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk thinks this is a reasonable possibility, and I (for once, at least) agree with him that it's reasonable. The biggest problem with this option, though, is that given the current cap rules (since 2010 is slated to be uncapped), it is almost impossible for the Patriots to craft a deal that would be acceptable to Cassel yet allow them to trade him in 2009, when his value is highest.
Another team signs Cassel to an offer sheet, which the Patriots refuse to match. Again, because this requires two first-round draft picks, it's relatively unlikely that a team will be inclined to go this route, especially since they might get a better deal negotiating with the Patriots. That said, a truly desperate team might just be willing to do it. (From the Patriots' standpoint, this is the best possible outcome: Cassel's cap hit comes off the books as soon as the Patriots refuse to match, and the Patriots get maximal compensation for him.)
The Patriots willingly trade Cassel to another team. This is, by far, the most likely outcome. By all indications, Brady's rehab is proceeding on pace (as his Mexican vacation and golf outings suggest) for him to start in Week 1. Also, don't discount the possibility that O'Connell has progressed enough to be ready to start. In 2006, the Patriots were willing to start the season with Cassel as Brady's only backup. Most importantly, while the Patriots would probably not fare as well in a trade as they would if Cassel were signed to an offer sheet, they'd still get the salary cap relief.

There are a few other possibilities, but they are so unlikely or so bizarre as to not be worth mentioning.

In any case, all of Patriot Nation anxiously awaits the outcome of this unusual situation.

Update: On February 7, 2009, Cassel accepted the tag. Thus, scenario #4 (another team signs Cassel to an offer sheet) is no longer operable. The other four scenarios, however, are all still in play.

Coming soon: An analysis of where Cassel might be playing in 2009.

Three Reasons the New England Patriots Will Not Trade Tom Brady

Samer Ismail — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:11:15 -0500

Ever since Matt Cassel became the fifth NFL quarterback to throw for 400 yards in back-to-back games, there has been talk that the Patriots should keep Cassel and trade Tom Brady. While Drew Bledsoe is living proof that it's at least theoretically possible the Patriots would trade Brady, it is extremely, extremely unlikely, for three reasons.

First, Brady is still in the process of rehabbing his knee. While he has been spotted in Boston walking without a limp, that's not the same thing as being ready to play in the NFL. Moreover, trades in the NFL are almost always conditioned on a player being able to pass a physical.

Second, trading Brady is illogical from the standpoint of getting value. On the one hand, if Brady is healthy, and able to perform at close to the same level as his 2007 season, he's a better quarterback than Cassel, and trading him would be utterly illogical.

On the other hand, if he's not able to perform to that level, that would drastically lower his trade value; in other words, Brady's value will likely never be lower than it is right now.

Third, one of the stated reasons for trading Brady is his $14.6 million cap hit, and how the Patriots would be able to use the money they save to sign other players. Unfortunately, this argument rests on a flawed understanding of either the salary cap or Brady's contract. Brady'scap hit for 2009 consists of:

$6.6 million in prorated bonuses from previous seasons. There is nothing the Patriots can do to change this.
$3 million in roster bonus. This is due on the first day of the league year, and the Patriots cannot trade him before this is due, so it will hit the 2009 salary cap. [If it doesn't, then Brady would be a free agent, and that's not going to happen, either.]
$5 million in salary. If the Patriots were to trade Brady before the 2009 season begins, this money would come off the cap. So, the Pats would have an extra $5 million, right? Wrong.
If the Patriots trade Brady, then, because 2010 is slated to be an uncapped year, the signing bonus prorations originally scheduled for 2010 must be accelerated and accounted for in the cap for 2009. Those prorations total $3.7 million.

Thus, the Patriots will save a whopping $1.3 million in cap room by trading Brady--and that's before you start factoring in the millions it would take to keep Cassel long-term.

Again, it's at least theoretically possible the Patriots will trade Brady. But it's very, very unlikely, because it just doesn't make much sense.

Matt Cassel and the Franchise Tag: Myths and Facts

Samer Ismail — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:41:10 -0500

Update: I originally wrote this article in January 2009. I have added updates in italics, and left the original text unchanged.

Michael Lombardi of NationalFootballPost.com, a former Belichick employee, has been saying for a while now that the Patriots simply have to franchise Matt Cassel. Since then, there've been a number of misconceptions about the situation that need to be addressed. Here are some that have cropped up in various newspapers and message boards:

1. Myth: The Patriots have already franchised Cassel. Fact: The two-week period for designating franchise players begins 22 days before the start of free agency on March 1. So, at the moment, any talk of Cassel being franchised is hypothesis, not fact.

Update: The Patriots franchised Cassel on February 5, 2009, the first day they could do so.

2. Myth: If the Patriots franchise Cassel, Cassel must be a Patriot in 2009. Fact: The Patriots can, in fact, trade Cassel after he signs the tender.

3. Myth: If the Patriots franchise Cassel, they are obligated to pay him over $14 million. Fact: If Matt Cassel signs the franchise tender, then the money becomes guaranteed against both skill and injury if he plays under the contract. In other words, if he signed the tender and then, God forbid, suffered a Brady-like injury in Week 1, the Pats would still owe the $14 million. And if he doesn't sign the tender, the Patriots do not owe him anything; he would, of course, have the option of sitting out the season.

Update: According to ESPN, on February 7, 2009, Cassel accepted the tag. Thus the above guarantees are now in force.

4. Myth: If the Patriots franchise Cassel, the Patriots can send Cassel anywhere they want. Fact: The Patriots cannot trade Cassel unless he signs the tender; he isn't officially on the roster until he does. After he signs the tender, though, he can still torpedo a trade by refusing to negotiate a new contract with another team, which would force that team to carry his $14 million contract in 2009 if they went through with the trade.

Update: Since Cassel has signed the tender, they can now trade him, with or without his permission, as soon as the free agency period begins on February 27.

5. Myth: If the Patriots franchise Cassel, he can't negotiate a new long-term contract with the Patriots. Fact: When players are franchised, they can negotiate a new contract—but only until July 15. After that point, they can only sign a one-year contract that can't be renegotiated until the end of the season. Thus, the Patriots could place the franchise tag on Cassel and then, for example, sign him in May to a two-year deal.

6. Myth: The Patriots can't franchise Cassel, because they have no intention to keep him long-term. Fact: There is no requirement in the Collective Bargaining Agreement that the Patriots make any attempt to sign Cassel to a long-term contract. There is a requirement that teams and players act in good faith in negotiations, but the Patriots could only violate that if they tried to force Cassel to go somewhere he doesn't want to go.

7. Myth: If the Patriots franchise Cassel, a team looking to sign him would have to give up two first-round draft picks. Fact: This myth conflates two scenarios. On the one hand, if a "hostile" team signs Cassel to an offer sheet before Cassel signs the franchise tender, the Patriots then have seven days to match the offer. If they don't, Cassel's new team would owe two first-round draft picks. On the other hand, if Cassel, the Patriots, and the new team hammer out a trade, he can be traded for as much or as little as they can agree upon. (A similar scenario happened when the Patriots traded for Wes Welker: they actually gave up more than they would have had to give up had they signed him to an offer sheet.)

Update: Since Cassel has accepted the tender, he cannot be signed to an offer sheet by any other team.

8. Myth: If the Patriots don't franchise Cassel, they're guaranteed to receive a third-round compensatory pick. Fact: Again, a kernel of truth here: if Cassel signs a large contract with another team, the Patriots would be in line for a possible third-round compensatory pick—in 2010. And even that would be contingent upon the Patriots losing more quality free agents in 2009 than they sign.

Update: Since Cassel is now under contract for 2009, the Patriots cannot receive a compensatory pick for him in 2010. If he stays under the tag, they could earn a compensatory pick in 2011.

9. Myth: There is no downside to Cassel signing the franchise tender the minute it's offered to him. Fact: There is one specific disadvantage to doing so: if Cassel signs the tender, he loses the ability to negotiate with teams without the Patriots' permission. In the grand scheme of things, though, this isn't a major disadvantage, unless a team the Patriots would not normally deal with is willing to pay the two first-round draft picks mentioned above.

Update: This is no longer operable, since Cassel signed the tag.

10. Myth: Offering Cassel a franchise tender has no downside for the Patriots. Fact: The moment they offer Cassel the franchise tender, the entire amount of the tender will be applied to their salary cap. Given that the Patriots are estimated to have about $20 million in cap space available at the moment, they will be placing a significant limitation on their ability to sign free agents, which is already fraught with some difficulty, because of the rules that affect contracts heading into a year without a salary cap, as 2010 currently is. Thus, if they do franchise him, they don't want this situation still unresolved when training camp opens.

Update: The $14.6M franchise tender was applied to the Patriots' salary cap on February 5, and will remain there until and unless he is signed to a long-term deal or traded.

11. Myth: If Tom Brady isn't available to start the season, the Patriots can trade Cassel when he is ready. Fact: Again, this isn't entirely false, but there's a significant caveat. If Brady is healthy enough to start by, say, Week 5, the Patriots could carry Cassel and then trade him; they would have to pay him 1/17th of the franchise tender each week until then. However, if Brady ends up on the Physically Unable to Perform list, then he will not be eligible to return until after the trade deadline. That might be the worst possible situation, as Cassel would be untradeable at that point.

Update: The above is true, but the wording of the CBA is ambiguous on whether or not a player traded after July 15 while still under the franchise tag can sign a multi-year contract with his new team.

In conclusion, it might be possible to add one last "myth"—that anyone knows exactly what is going to happen. Matt Cassel's situation is, in almost every respect, unparalleled in NFL history—and no one can say for sure what's going to happen.

The Rise of Matt Cassel (Part 1): Why His Success Isn't a Surprise

Samer Ismail — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:58:38 -0500

A legend is gone, and the New England Patriots need a replacement. They call on a young, untested player waiting in the wings.

He does well initially, but a few weeks into the season, he struggles. The fans start saying, "End the experiment. Bring in a veteran." Bill Belichick, however, sticks to his guns: He trusts his staff's ability to evaluate young talent, and they feel he's got what it takes; that young talent just needs a bit more time.

Ultimately, the young, inexperienced player becomes a more experienced one, and when the Patriots need him most, he delivers.

Obviously, this is the Matt Cassel story, but it's not only his story; it's also the story of the Patriots' kicker Stephen Gostkowski, who was asked to fill the very large shoes of the legendary Adam Vinatieri. In a sense, Gostkowski had it even rougher than Cassel, since he was replacing a player who was still playing every week.

Gostkowski was lights out during the 2006 preseason, converting 9-of-9 field goals, including a 54-yard kick against the Giants. A couple of weeks into the season, he had a three-game stretch where he made just two of five kicks (two of the three misses were blocked), and vocal Patriots fans were asking Belichick to bench him. They wanted him to bring back Martin Gramática, whom Gostkowski had beaten out for the job in the preseason.

Belichick, though, wisely never lost his faith in Gostkowski, and he delivered down the home stretch. Gostkowski converted 8-of-8 field goals in his rookie postseason and became only the second rookie in NFL history to kick a game-winning field goal in the playoffs. And, of course, this year Gostkowski was voted to his first Pro Bowl.

(Cassel's 2008 season has followed much the same arc, but that's for part two of this story.)

The ultimate lessons here? First, the Patriots know how to nurture talent properly. They went out of their way to protect Gostkowski from having to deal with the media in the run-up to the AFC Championship Game in 2007, just as they kept the game plan relatively simple for Cassel's first couple of games. If other teams managed responsibilities and expectations as well as the Patriots, there'd be far fewer first-round busts.

Second, the Patriots know how to find talent that fits their philosophy: hard working, easily coachable, intelligent, with the physical attributes they want. They found those things in Gostkowski in 2006, just as they found them in Cassel in 2005.

Cassel's story is far from complete; even the chapter on the 2008 season has at least one more game to go, and maybe more, if the Patriots get the help they need.

Coming in parts two and three: a look at the 2008 season, and where Cassel might play in 2009.