Im dont recall Brady having too many run plays. I dont expect them to get rid of plays when Cam takes off, that threat will be threat, I suspect Cam will be dialed back and ask to not run so much.
Obviously Bill wanted Cam and got him.
Although I don’t disagree with anything you said, for clarity sake, if I buy a team and I publicly announce that I am never going to sign any free agents, on the Grounds that my business plan involves drafting developing and then trading for purposes of replenishing, Would I be subject to a grievance merely because I decline to sign any free agents?
Would that be true even if it’s public? I suppose the question has already been answered, and the owners stepped over the line, but how fine is the line?
Was there any punishment for an owner who defied the directive and signed a high dollar free agent anyway? Was it even a directive, actually a direct order, a command or majority vote of the owners? Or was it just, “I don’t think you should do this because it’s not financially wise“?
If the very act of discussing the issue is itself grounds for agreements, that seems a little draconian.
They will have to adjust to a system that matches the QB. I’m sure Bill B is prepared to exploit Cam’s strength. He is not a traditional pocket passer anymore than Jackson is. They can preserve him somewhat by reducing or eliminating the planned run plays. I don’t think you can get rid of the plays where Cam will take off as that’s who he is.