betterthanthealternative

The assertion that the Pats lose more than they should, particularly in this past year, has become unquestioned truth. But is it?

This past year there were four players of note who left: McGinist, Vinitiari, Branch, and Givens.

McGinist was at the end of his career, hardly projected to be a big impact player on the field. Most teams lose one or two of these a year.

Givens is a second string wide reciever.

Vinitiari is one of the best at his position, ever, so that one hurts, although the kickoffs were short.

Branch is a good, not great, WR, and the timing of his leaving was difficult.

So the team lost two players of real impact, another to pseudo-retirement, and another that was good for two big plays a year. Is this more than the average good team loses in an average year?

patfanken

EXCELLENT point, I think a lot of this comes under the banner of "the grass is always greener....." Compared to other teams, I think we lose a bit more because of their perceived value as being multiple superbowl winners, but probably not more than the OTHER good teams in the league.

I think we have filled in our losses pretty well. I would like to think that we'd be better off with Willie's experience, but I don't think we are lacking anything ATHLETICALLY. The fact we lost BOTH starting WR's, plus didn't sign or traded the other 3 on the depth chart makes those loses more obvious, but in the long run, I think 1-5 we might EVENTUALLY be better.

AV's loss COULD hurt, but through 7 games, I'd have to say that our kicking game is ACTUALLY better, given the fact Gotkowski is the best KO man in the league....and Adam wasn't. Believe me having a team start on the 25 or LESS is significant compared with having them start on the 35 or MORE, which was the case last year.

Will this kid be able to kick the game winner, I'm sure he will. Will he miss some game winners, I'm sure he will. Adam missed several game winners as well. Just ask Pete Carrol. AND speaking of production under center, let me remind everyone that in the last games the Pats played of 2003, 2004, and 2005, the GREAT AND POWERFUL AV missed THREE FG attempts INSIDE the 40.

JoeSixPat

There's no simple answer to this question - and in fact the question itself isn't so simple either.

All teams have players that approach and become free agents

I think we all agree that with 3 SBs in 4 years, the Patriots were/are a dynasty

As such, there is going to be a higher demand for, and a higher price tag for, Patriots players who approach or go into free agency.

Since the Patriots front office will not overpay - which is what got them the 3 SBs in the first place - when that happens, the team is often outbid.

This offseason was also somewhat unique as the new CBA $$ allowed many GMs to spend like drunken sailors - again, something that the Patriots won't do.

But even when "losing" players, one has to look beyond a simple "who we lost" stat.

For example, we "lost" Damien Woody. What happened? Koppen stepped in and became a top tier C - and in fact has been resigned long term.

Was it a bad thing that we lost Woody? Not at all - Koppen did as good a job - in fact better considering Woody's longsnapping - at a lower price for quite a few years.

The point is, when the Patriots lose players they often fill those holes with younger, cheaper, players with more upside and potential. It doesn't always work out but, then again, we are 6-1 at this point, and if you look at teams that added former Patriots players, you're not going to find too many with better records.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

psychoPat

arrellbee

Thanks to BetterThan for an inciteful observation. Thanks to patfanken for some facts to provide a pragmatic perspective. Appreciate your contributions ken - hope to see many more posts here.

The following link let's you look at free agent losses/pickups for all the teams:
http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/freeagents
Some AFC teams are interesting. The Steelers signed a lot of their own free agents. The Chargers had an interesting small list of player movement. The Dolphins had the largest amount of player turnover with the most additions (sparse draft choices this year). It is interesting that the media pundits would pick them as so dominant with such a huge change in roster composition (including a new QB).

njpatsfan

Last year, 150+ FAs changed teams, as compared to 107 the year before. This was primarily due to the overheated FA market that occurred due to the large (and unexpected) increase in the cap. Thats an average of a little less than 5 players per team.

Given the larger amount of money chasing FA's, and the percieved "premium" that players from a successfull franchise will command, I don't think that we got hit signficantly more than any other successfull team. Anyone think we should have topped any of our FA's offers ?

R

patsox23

One thing that kind of bugs me is that PATRIOT LOSSES are so blown up, but when a team like Indy loses Edgerrin James (arguably a bigger impact player than any that we lost), and 1 1/2 starters (David Thornton and, sometimes starter Larry Tripplet) there aren't nearly the same number of articles, nor the degree of hyperventiliation. It's ridiculous, and obviously so.

patsox23

One thing that kind of bugs me is that PATRIOT LOSSES are so blown up, but when a team like Indy loses Edgerrin James (arguably a bigger impact player than any that we lost), and 1 1/2 starters (David Thornton and, sometimes starter Larry Tripplet) there aren't nearly the same number of articles, nor the degree of hyperventiliation. It's ridiculous, and obviously so.

patsox23

sorry 10 characters

betterthanthealternative

[QUOTE=arrellbee]The following link let's you look at free agent losses/pickups for all the teams:
http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/freeagents

That's perfect, thanks. Looks like the Pats are very average in all three categories.