I say no. I think the Patriots are good enough to maintain status quo. Win the AFC East, compete for a bye, win a playoff game or two, get into the AFC Championship game, and then lose to a better Denver team.
Someone said it best early in the year. The Pats and Broncos clearly went after it a little in FA. Some called it an "arms" race. But can we rank the top 5 free agent signings between the two teams?
1) Revis (Pats)
2) Talib (Broncos)
3) Ware (Broncos)
4) Sanders (Broncos)
5) Ward (Broncos)
Broncos seemed to really spend to make themselves more competitive with the NFC teams. Patriots made one move which relatively replaced a piece from last season to try to keep up at the time with Denver who brought in Talib. They also brought in Browner, but think that move was overrated by some. Browner a physical depth player. Not the starting CB some led us to believe.
But now with injuries mounting for a team that is around $15 million under the cap, isn't it fair to question if the "Patriot" way is the best way? Or was Brady simply good enough to elevate their play in the past? Is Brady a big reason why we have seen the Patriot way good for 12+ wins, and a few Super Bowl appearances in the last decade?
I look at the roster now, I see no depth across the board. Yet all this money to spend. You obviously can't be loaded at every position or spend every dollar you have, but they got rid of guys like Mankins and Kelly over essentially $2.5 million. I believe Pats are still responsible for $4 million of Mankins on cap this season. Could still have plenty of cap flexibility, and more depth. But why would they do that?You could have Mankins, Kelly, Tim Wright, another decent LB or guy like Emmanuel Sanders, and still have had $8-$9 million still in the pocket.
I needed another place to rant. So someone please rant with me
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)