"Uncertainty Theory": How the Pats Do Business? - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***mayoclinic*** · 06-05-2012, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doesntmatter1

There's no way I can argue with our success but we definitely are too conservative. In the past we definitely favored proven vets and we didn't trust younger guys with potential and we don't always cover our bases well but it seems like things are changing for the better. I'll give a few examples.

We preach competition but sometimes vets win just by showing up. In 09 terrence nunn clearly outperformed galloway and greg lewis but galloway who sucked more than anybody made the team. Same thing with saving spots for troy brown and kevin faulk. Yeah I love them but faulk's spot could have been spent scouring the league for safeties and tight ends since we only had two. In my eyes sterling moore should have never been cut at any point last year or even tiquan when faulk was doing absolutely nothing. We had gerrad warren sitting at home waiting for injuries to happen to get signed but he should've always been on the team and faulk should've been by the phone instead.

Also BB always plans for the future but the trading of ellis hobbs til this day made no sense too me. We already lost samuel so you go and get rid of our next best guy and kick returner for basically nothing(rich orhberger). And then we get rid of our next kick returner(tate) for ocho. The waste of money and draft picks on derrick burgess and tully made no sense. Tully had the worst 10 sack season i have ever seen and was pissed we resigned him but these failures finally opened up bb eyes.

We are struggling with a 3-4 pass rush and he finally goes to a 4-3 with carter and anderson and we get the best pass rush since 07. We may very well go back to a 3-4 but jones who projects to do exactly what carter did says otherwise and just the fact that he was willing to trade up for him shows BB is done being stubborn and is going to put a fix to some of the most glaring problems we have seen for a long time. I can really tell things are changing because there are guys im not too fond of but the guys that just flat out held us back are slowly disappearing and im pretty low on whipping boys. BJGE lack of speed is gone, pretty sure sergio brown won't see the field and we got gaffney and lloyd. Also i rewatched the raider game and that shows how ocho can make it in this offense imo. As it stands, the only guys I flat out hate are edelman(hate him as a wideout), sergio brown(no need to explain), and myron pryor(his pass rush doesnt make up for his subpar run defense).

Wow, there's a lot of things to respond to here. I'll start by reiterating Ken's point above: the Pats aren't afraid to make mistakes, and they aren't afraid to "admit" them - or at least, to move on from them. In fact, I argued in the OP that they probably assume that mistakes are an inevitable consequence of personnel management in the NFL.

There's no doubt that BB has favored veterans. One could argue that his track record of success justifies his belief. I certainly agree with you that there have been cases in which he has been conservative to bring young players along or has slowed their development in favor of keeping a veteran presence in the lineup. I think that in 2010 he was forced to start more youngsters than he would have liked and was pleasantly surprised by the results, and that he seems to be a bit less conservative about letting rookies earn playing time. Jerod Mayo, Sebastian Vollmer, Devin McCourty, Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez, Brandon Spikes, Jermaine Cunningham and Nate Solder all got considerable playing time as rookies, and for the most part did well.

I agree with you to some extent about some of the cuts, and keeping spots for veterans. I wasn't in favor of bringing back Kevin Faulk in 2011, or of keeping a roster spot for Nick Kaczur in 2010. I think many of us hated giving up a 3rd and a 5th for Derrick Burgess. Again, I think it's inevitable that mistakes will be made. You roll the dice on players, and they don't always work out. Brian Waters was a brilliant pickup. Chad Ochocinco and Albert Haynesworth weren't. It wasn't obvious at the time that that was how it would work out. I think what does matter is, as Ken stated, the Pats seem to be willing to cut their losses and also to learn from their mistakes. That alone would put them ahead of most teams in the NFL, many of whom repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

***mayoclinic*** · 06-05-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

Obviously, we can only go by what we have in front of us, but that does seem to be the case. As for me being a stickler, it's true that I tend to do that in debates or discussions that are less informal than just a general chat. That's a lesson I was taught repeatedly throughout my educational career. I'm sorry if you feel I've taken it too far here, I just thought it was worth pointing out given your overall thesis.

I don't think you've taken it too far at all. The term "stickler" was not meant to be used pejoratively in any way, and I apologize if I gave that impression. I value your input, I didn't take your initial point negatively at all, and I'm happy to qualify the statement from my OP.

***patchick*** · 06-05-2012, 03:47 PM

From the Adalius Thomas & Mario Williams examples above, I'd like to propose another risk management principle:

In veteran player evaluation, one significant risk factor is how well the player will adapt to YOUR system, coaches and teammates. That means that your own veteran FAs are a safer investment than comparable players from outside the organization.

BTW, I'm with Mayo in thinking "risk averse" is the wrong description of the Patriots. Risk-averse decision makers will regularly turn down the choice with the highest expected value in order to minimize the risk of negative outcomes. Belichick has shown himself to be among the LEAST risk-averse coaches in the league in terms of going for it on fourth down, etc.

I think the Patriots' approach is more about dispassionate assessment of what risks really are -- not allowing conventional wisdom, fear or "falling in love with a player" to blind you to what the rational best move actually is.

***mayoclinic*** · 06-05-2012, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick

From the Adalius Thomas & Mario Williams examples above, I'd like to propose another risk management principle:

In veteran player evaluation, one significant risk factor is how well the player will adapt to YOUR system, coaches and teammates. That means that your own veteran FAs are a safer investment than comparable players from outside the organization.

It's interesting that the Pats have been noted to be one of the organizations that practices "system specific scouting" to a great degree, but that has not always carried over to the selection of outside free agents. Guys like Joey Galloway and Chad Ochocinco were not the most obvious system fits to succeed with the Pats. Though Adalius Thomas was regarded as a perfect fit in many ways, and he flamed out spectacularly.

It seems like the Pats have been particularly careful this offseason to sign external FAs with experience in their system, either through prior experience (Jabar Gaffney, Donte Stallworth) or familiarity with coaches (Brandon Lloyd, Daniel Fells, Spencer Larsen).

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick

BTW, I'm with Mayo in thinking "risk averse" is the wrong description of the Patriots. Risk-averse decision makers will regularly turn down the choice with the highest expected value in order to minimize the risk of negative outcomes. Belichick has shown himself to be among the LEAST risk-averse coaches in the league in terms of going for it on fourth down, etc.

I think the Patriots' approach is more about dispassionate assessment of what risks really are -- not allowing conventional wisdom, fear or "falling in love with a player" to blind you to what the rational best move actually is.

As I understand it, Brother Everlong is using "risk aversion" as a "term of art" from psychology and business, and as such, the term is more encompassing than I had originally thought it. For example, I'm guessing - and this is pure speculation on my part - that Brother Everlong would argue that going for it on 4th down is a risk averse strategy based on the calculation that other options are actually more risky, and that the actual calculus of risk aversion includes your "dispassionate assessment of what risks really are". As such, I'm not as "averse" to "risk averse" as I first was, though the term is perhaps not the most transparent.

***patchick*** · 06-05-2012, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayoclinic

As I understand it, Brother Everlong is using "risk aversion" as a "term of art" from psychology and business, and as such, the term is more encompassing than I had originally thought it. For example, I'm guessing - and this is pure speculation on my part - that Brother Everlong would argue that going for it on 4th down is a risk averse strategy based on the calculation that other options are actually more risky, and that the actual calculus of risk aversion includes your "dispassionate assessment of what risks really are". As such, I'm not as "averse" to "risk averse" as I first was, though the term is perhaps not the most transparent.

Hmm...could be, but that's not the way we used it back when I got my psych degrees, and it's not the way it's used in the investment world. A risk-averse investor puts a higher weight on predictability and avoiding significant negative events, e.g. through fixed-income vehicles, at the potential expense of upside. Punting is a classic risk-averse behavior.

EDIT: the alternate definition of "risk aversion" you described sounds to me just like "playing the odds."

***mayoclinic*** · 06-05-2012, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick

Hmm...could be, but that's not the way we used it back when I got my psych degrees, and it's not the way it's used in the investment world. A risk-averse investor puts a higher weight on predictability and avoiding significant negative events, e.g. through fixed-income vehicles, at the potential expense of upside. Punting is a classic risk-averse behavior.

EDIT: the alternate definition of "risk aversion" you described sounds to me just like "playing the odds."

I'm in over my head on this one, so I'll defer to others with more experience in the business and psychosocial realms.

***AndyJohnson*** · 06-05-2012, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

Someone out there has posted that the Patriots have never cut a top four (I believe he/she posted that it was round four, I haven't double checked it) round player in year one. It's tough to argue that the team's not handing some guys jobs when that sort of thing is happening.

Drawing a conclusion from an incorrect assumption is a bad practice.

patfanken · 06-05-2012, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayoclinic

Though Adalius Thomas was regarded as a perfect fit in many ways, and he flamed out spectacularly.

I think this is revisionist history at worst, or just inaccurate at best as a description of AD's time in NE.

1. Signed in 2007 I don't think anyone would complain about his first season with the Pats, where he played multiple positions and did it well, culminating in a great performance in the super bowl. One that MIGHT have made him the MVP if the the Pats had won.

2. In 2008 he was the defensive MVP before he was lost for the season with a broken arm.

3. It wasn't until 2009, when his skills started to diminish at a rapid rate, which unfortunately coincided with his conflict with BB over how he was being used on the defense. BTW- this conflict would be hard for the Pats to predict since he clearly played several LB positions in his first 2 years with no complaints.... at least none that leaked out.

Of course the mediots concentrated on the conflict, but the fact that he didn't play in 2010 for anyone points more to the fact that he was done after the 2009 season as a player

I've looked at AD's time with the Pats as being 2 good years and one bad one, and if the Pats made any mistake, it was more in that they misread his longevity to play at a high level, than his willingness to sacrifice for the team.

It might have been a "disappointment" because the Pats ultimately didn't get their "money's worth". But they got 2 good years out of him, which is more than most big money FA's give their teams. Certainly an overall disappointment, but by no means a "bust"

BTW- I wonder if the example of AD's swift decline of his skills is one of the reasons a long term deal with Welker has been delayed.

***patchick*** · 06-05-2012, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

Drawing a conclusion from an incorrect assumption is a bad practice.

Andy, counterexamples are helpful to stamp out this circulating meme. Kareem Brown is one who comes to mind.

***Deus Irae*** · 06-05-2012, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick

Andy, counterexamples are helpful to stamp out this circulating meme. Kareem Brown is one who comes to mind.

I didn't originally know for certain what this was about, so I had to un<ignore> Andy for a moment. There may be examples that don't fit that person's thesis, as Andy seems to be claiming, but Mr. Brown is not one of them. Brown made the 2007 squad. He wasn't waived until November of that year.

I can see the confusion, though, given how I'd originally written my post. It should be about who was cut prior to the start of the season. In other words, it should have read cut rather than making the 'final' 53.

My apologies for the lack of clarity. I should probably go find the person's post for the exact language, but I didn't think it that big an issue, frankly.