mayoclinic

It's the slow season, so I've had some extra time to think and engage in "amateur analysis" - always a dangerous thing. And a bunch of stuff has gotten me thinking about the way the Pats approach the draft, roster competition, team-building in general, and contracts. And I'm not sure I can lay all this out clearly, but it seems to come down to a fundamental belief in "uncertainty" as a guiding principle of the NFL.

Most of us crave certainty. We want to plug players into slots, lock them up long term, and watch them perform to expectations. But the NFL doesn't work like that very often. Injuries occur. Veterans age and their skills deteriorate, sometimes at an unexpected rate. Some rookies (and new veterans) fail to develop or adjust at the expected rate, while others develop more quickly than expected.

It seems to me that the Pats tend to incorporate uncertainty into their business and coaching model more than most teams. Some examples:

1. The Pats believe in diversification. Things don't always work out as expected, so don't throw all your eggs in one basket. Trade back in the draft and acquire more picks. Double up on draft picks at critical positions. Sign multiple free agents at positions of need, and combine signing veterans with drafting rookies. This has multiple benefits: it functions as a portolio diversification strategy to limit risk; it allows players to develop at different rates without putting huge pressure on them to immediately perform, because there are other options; and it generates depth.

2. Don't overspend at the top. The Pats tend to throw less money at "top end" players and get tied up in long term contracts which could strangle the team if those players didn't pan out. Compare this approach with, say, that of the Jets. This is sometimes called being "cheap" by fans and the media, but I think it's more a factor of the team's business model than being frugal. The Adalius Thomas situation in 2009 was a painful reminder of how a long term contract can strangle a team.

3. Invest at the middle/bottom. The Pats are probably more willing to throw money at depth than more teams. Depth compensates to some degree for uncertainty. Logan Mankins is coming off an injury, Brian Waters is 35 and contemplating retirement. So the team re-signs both Dan Connolly and Dan Koppen as well as Robert Gallery, giving them added flexibility. That may be overkill, but Gallery also gives them flexibility at tackle with Matt Light contemplating (at the time) retirement. If Nick McDonald or Ryan Wendell develops enough to make Koppen expendable, then the team could cut him. But it gives them insurance. Similarly with the approach to WR. Half the guys signed may end up getting cut, but it gives the teams options and doesn't lock them in to any one guy having to achieve. The Pats are also willing to tie up a role player long term, since the cost is low and it provides insurance against uncertainty. Ryan Wendell and James Sanders are good examples. But that doesn't guarantee them a roster spot if they are outperformed.

4. Adjust for performance. The Pats believe in competition. Let guys fight it out to earn their spots. Don't hand guys jobs. There are very few exceptions, and even some of the biggest names on the team talk about the constant competition and need to prove themselves. Compare this with a guy like Joe McKnight for the Jets who was drafted with an expectation and then handed a job that he has never proven himself able to perform, resulting in a better player being cut and going to a competitor.

5. Factor for error. The Pats believe that error is a reality of personnel evaluation in the NFL, and in cutting their losses and moving on. The Pats draft/sign rookies and sign veterans in the belief that those moves have a reasonable potential of working out, but they realize that not all moves will work out as expected, and they tend to cut their losses and move on sooner than most teams, without any beating of the breast or gnashing of teeth in frustration. Chris Baker, Darius Butler, Brandon Meriweather, Chad Jackson, Albert Haynesworth ... the list goes on and on of guys that the Pats have let go because they didn't live up to expectations and had underperformed their contracts, or became distractions to the team. Can you imagine that Santonio Holmes would still be on the team if the Jets were run the way the Pats are?

6. Expect the unexpected. The Pats believe that change is a constant in the NFL, and in adjusting. Randy Moss is acquired for a 4th round pick in 2007, gets a $30M 3 year contract in 2008, and is traded for a 3rd round pick in 2010. Leigh Bodden gets signed to a 1 year deal in 2009 and has a great year, gets a 4 year deal and never plays another regular season game for the team, and gets cut a year later. Tull Banta-Cain gets re-signed on a low-budget deal, has 10 sacks, gets a 3 year extension, underperforms, and is cut. Andre Carter gets signed on a low-budget 1 year deal, has 10 sacks, injuries his quadriceps, and may be done for his career. Things are constantly changing, and seldom work out as planned, and the team needs to be able to adjust for that.

This is a bit rambling, and again, it's just my thoughts. And it's not absolute. But it seems to me that the Pats tend to operate more according to these kind of "uncertainty principles" than do most teams. Nothing is set in concrete, and the team adjusts more fluidly than most teams do to a changing environment. It allows them to find guys like Rob Ninkovich, and dump guys like Shawn Crable.

We (and the media) spend countless hours trying to predict how things will work out and pinning our hopes on guys working out as planned. Things seldom work out as expected. 2012 probably won't be any different. And the Pats will continue to thrive because they adjust to uncertainty better than the rest of the league. Indeed, they seem to incorporate it into their basic philosophy.

Thoughts?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"OVER Loading at ANY position can create a Fatal Advantage. THAT is what interests ME. Attacking With Concentrated Force. THAT is what WINS. In the words ~ more or less ~ of General Patton: 'I'm fighting a WAR, here. Let the B*****ES worry about their FLANKS.' " - Off the Grid

"The key to any successful organization is to anticipate things, not react to them." - Michael Lombardi

everlong

Risk aversion is a concept in psychology, economics, and finance, based on the behavior of humans (especially consumers and investors) while exposed to uncertainty.

Risk aversion is the reluctance of a person to accept a bargain with an uncertain payoff rather than another bargain with a more certain, but possibly lower, expected payoff. For example, a risk-averse investor might choose to put his or her money into a bank account with a low but guaranteed interest rate, rather than into a stock that may have high expected returns, but also involves a chance of losing value.

Risk aversion is the business and economic principal that they adhere to. They want all of their bases covered, they don't want all of their eggs in one basket.

__________________
"When Peyton Manning was a kid he used to go to bed at night and dream about throwing the winning touchdown for the Saints in the Superbowl. And on Sunday he did."

There's only two conclusions for Patriots fans on rookies. They are either a bust or being fitted for their bust in Canton.


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

PlainOldEd

Meanwhile, the Jets employ the "Schrodinger’s quarterback" philosophy. That is to say, until you observe something it exists in all possible states. So therefore if they don't observe the Sanchize (i.e. turn a blind eye). He is simultaneously a franchise QB and a bust.

I don't blame them, since once they open the box and look they will observe that he is a 100% bust......

mayoclinic

I think it's more than just risk aversion. An investor who optimizes for risk aversion tends to accept a lower return on investment as a trade off for more security. The Pats take plenty of gambles - investments in volatile stocks with "growth potential", to continue the analogy - but they do so in a very calculated way, and with portfolio diversification to limit their exposure. They'll take a risk on an Alfonzo Dennard, but do so in the 7th round, and balance it with a much "safer" rookie (Tavon Wilson) and veteran (Steven Gregory) signing.

Look at the interior OL, for example. Logan Mankins is the major portfolio investment. Brian Waters is a short term investment that is relatively reliable. Dan Connolly is a medium investment, also relatively reliable. Dan Koppen is a short term investment with known risk that balances some of the volatility in the portfolio. Robert Gallery is a bit of a wild card investment, but the cost and duration have been carefully limited; if it pays off, then a further investment could be warranted. Ryan Wendell is a small investment in a known quantity with limited upside, but very limited risk. And Nick McDonald is the small cap stock with growth potential. If he pans out, then the portfolio could pay off lucratively, but if he flops, then the other bases are covered. Throw in a couple of UDFA fliers (Markus Zusevics, Jeremiah Warren) and the Pats have achieved not only risk aversion but also growth potential. That's a very desirable combination from an investment perspective.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"OVER Loading at ANY position can create a Fatal Advantage. THAT is what interests ME. Attacking With Concentrated Force. THAT is what WINS. In the words ~ more or less ~ of General Patton: 'I'm fighting a WAR, here. Let the B*****ES worry about their FLANKS.' " - Off the Grid

"The key to any successful organization is to anticipate things, not react to them." - Michael Lombardi

everlong

It's the same thing.

You don't see the Pats taking guys in the first round who don't meet all their criteria but they'll roll the dice in the middle rounds on a Dowling, Gronkowski or Tate who are undervalued because of their injuries in college. These are acceptable risks. Generally these picks became available by not taking risks in the first round and gaining multiple picks in later rounds. In some cases they pass on a risky player in the first round and take a developmental player later in the draft and couple him with a Carter and Anderson.

The risk aversion is in wasting\using a high pick on one boom or bust player. Just like in the FA market it's wasting a large chunk of the cap on one player like a Mario Williams. In baseball terms it's value over replacement player or VORP with the added factor of the salary cap thrown in. If you can have Carter and Anderson for a fifth of Williams in terms of salary and coupled they give you twice the depth and 75% of the production you've achieved risk aversion on several different layers.

__________________
"When Peyton Manning was a kid he used to go to bed at night and dream about throwing the winning touchdown for the Saints in the Superbowl. And on Sunday he did."

There's only two conclusions for Patriots fans on rookies. They are either a bust or being fitted for their bust in Canton.


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

mayoclinic

Nice thoughts, especially the VORP stuff. It will be interesting in light of this to see how the Pats handle the Gronkandez contract situation over the next 2 years.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"OVER Loading at ANY position can create a Fatal Advantage. THAT is what interests ME. Attacking With Concentrated Force. THAT is what WINS. In the words ~ more or less ~ of General Patton: 'I'm fighting a WAR, here. Let the B*****ES worry about their FLANKS.' " - Off the Grid

"The key to any successful organization is to anticipate things, not react to them." - Michael Lombardi

PATSYLICIOUS

I think you're theory is pretty accurate. The Pats IMO use the perfect mixture of trying to win now and keeping the future in mind. In a one and done format, it's the smart way to do things as 'superteams' have it harder in this league than any other. Give yourself the biggest window and most opportunities to win.

__________________
Organized madness
The young Gott-stra
Young Frank Sinatra

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.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

Zeus

I have a minor (possibly semantic) disagreement with this. Maybe it's best to say I would voice the same sentiment in a slightly different way.

I don't think the Patriots area at all risk averse. In fact, they take plenty of risks, but where they do take risks, they seek a significant upside while being careful are careful to manage the downside (as you have pointed out).

Haynesworth was a highly speculative investment. They managed the downside by acquiring him for a low draft pick and by keeping his compensation low. The upside was a potential difference maker at a critical position. Not really risk averse though, because there was a high probability that this investmewnt would fail (as it did).

The draft strategy involves taking calculated risks like this fairly often. This is indeed facilitated by the tactic of trading down (or into the future) to accumulate more picks. The selection of players with questions (injury, legal, character, etc.) has a greater risk of failure for each individual pick. In the cases of Gronkowski and Hernandez, they acquired first round talents at a much lower cost both in terms of the draft pick and the salary cap dollars expended. Cannon and Dennard are other recent examples -we'll see what the future holds for them.

On the other hand, there are many cases where things didn't work out quite so well (or at all). You have to accept this as the cost of employing the strategy and be willing to bust on both the pick and the money involved. The big question is where you end up overall - did the hits outweigh the misses? If you are careful about structuring the bets so that there is a healthy upside while the downside is limited, you should be okay.

__________________
"And the anger and the yearning, like fever in my veins, set the fire burning ..." WZ

mayoclinic

The closest they've come that I can think of off the top of my head has been Tyrone McKenzie, who went on IR year 1 and then was cut year 2 and signed to the PS, before being finally released in November 2010. He was beaten out for a roster spot by UDFA Dane Fletcher.

As I said, it's not perfect. I think that if you invest a high pick in a player that it's not unreasonable to give them at least 1 season to fully evaluate them, so I'm not surprised that the Pats would be unlikely to cut such a player in year one. There has to be some "developmental time" factored in for rookies. But that by no means guarantees them any playing time, or even being on the game day roster (Taylor Price was inactive for 15 games as a rookie).

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"OVER Loading at ANY position can create a Fatal Advantage. THAT is what interests ME. Attacking With Concentrated Force. THAT is what WINS. In the words ~ more or less ~ of General Patton: 'I'm fighting a WAR, here. Let the B*****ES worry about their FLANKS.' " - Off the Grid

"The key to any successful organization is to anticipate things, not react to them." - Michael Lombardi