NFL Teams and Players Will Suffer In An Uncapped 2010

Unless the NFL and the NFL Players Association miraculously come to an agreement on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement in the next two months, 2010, the last year of the collective bargaining agreement, will be uncapped.

Executive director of the NFLPA, DeMaurice Smith, recently reiterated a statement made by his predecessor, the late Gene Upshaw, that if the cap goes away, the players will never agree to it again.

That belief might be misplaced, for a number of reasons.

There is one reason why some teams won’t like an uncapped year: the “Final Eight Plan,” which prevents teams in the Divisional Round (the second week) of the playoffs from going on New York Yankees-like spending binges.

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 unrestricted free agents.

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

We already know three teams that will be subject to the Final Eight Plan: Indianapolis, San Diego, and New Orleans. The NFC team that claims the other first-round bye is guaranteed to be the fourth, and the Wild Card winners will be the other four.

But there are more reasons why players won’t like it.

 

1. Two years of free agents are thrown under the bus.

Right now, it takes four years of service for a player to reach unrestricted free agency. In 2010, however, the lack of a salary cap also triggers a clause in the CBA that pushes the bar to free agency to six seasons.

Thus, all the players from the classes of 2005 and 2006 with expiring contracts will potentially be restricted free agents, subject to one-year tenders at rates of $1 million to $3 million, rather than unrestricted free agents.

According to the Associated Press, 212 players will be affected by this change, including Denver Broncos quarterback Kyle Orton, Dallas Cowboys receiver Miles Austin, New England Patriots guard Logan Mankins, and San Diego Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman.

Moreover, each team still has its franchise tag, which could further reduce the availability of free agents.

2. The “Final Eight Plan” will limit the demand for free agents.

As mentioned above, the Final Eight Plan limits the demand for free agents. And what happens when demand drops?

Prices tend to fall. Even if something is rare, it’s cheap if there’s no market for it.

With fewer blue-chip players available, those few that do reach free agency might get top dollar, but it’s likely that a lot of other players will earn less than they might have with a larger market.

3. There’s no “dead money” to worry about.

The CBA allows teams to spread out the bonus money a team gives a player over the length of the contract. If a player is cut or traded, however, any remaining bonus money from future years “accelerates” onto the current cap and/or the next year’s.

For example, the Redskins could not have cut Albert Haynesworth this year, as they would have had to cut other players just to fit his signing bonus into this year’s cap.

With no cap in 2010, though, teams might be able to cut such “dead weight” with little or no impunity. It wouldn’t be surprising to see some first-round draft busts, such as the New York Jets’ Vernon Gholston, or “problem children” such as the Patriots’ Adalius Thomas, handed their walking papers next year.

4. Owners don’t have to pay as much.

A tiff erupted between 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.

More importantly, while the CBA places a maximum amount that teams can spend on player salaries, it also places a minimum amount; this year, teams are required to spend 87.6 percent of their salary cap allotments on player salaries.

When the salary cap goes away, though, that floor will go away as well, so stingy owners could decide to save money by simply spending less on their rosters. Moreover, other benefits, such as contributions to the players’ pension plans, would also be suspended in an uncapped year.

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.

 

Read more NFL news on BleacherReport.com

Patriots K Stephen Gostkowski: Worth His Weight in Gold

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.

On Sunday, against the Miami Dolphins, Gostkowski easily demonstrated 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.

Read more NFL news on BleacherReport.com

What Should the Penalty Be for Tampering with Michael Crabtree?

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.

Read more NFL news on BleacherReport.com

The New England Patriots: Will Their Roster Gambles Pay Off? Part 1: QBs

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?

Read more NFL news on BleacherReport.com

New England Patriots Trade Richard Seymour to Oakland Raiders

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.

Read more NFL news on BleacherReport.com

Farewell, 54: Patriots Linebacker Tedy Bruschi to Retire

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

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

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

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?

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.

Next Page »

NFL Sport Channel Latest

• Just How Far Would You Go?
• Sorry Rex, But It Isn’t Happening
• Super Bowl Predictions: Five Stat-Free Reasons Why the Eagles Will Reach The Super Bowl
• Seahawks Attempt to Turn Corner With Heavy Pursuit of Pete Carroll
• Bill Cowher Unlikely to Coach in 2010