"Replacement value"...

[patfanken]

The threads on the Samuel negotiation, Rodney restruction, and the Seymour salary revelation got me to thinking in more detail about the Pats salary schedule and the key words to describe it. I think the best words are "replacement value". What is it going to cost the Pats to replace the talent on the field.

Pretty simple you say?. I think not. I think there are many factors that probably go into the calculation. Let me try and break down the more obvious ones and others can add their thoughts.

1. The Pats play a rather unique defensive and offensive systems. While most teams commit to a single system like some version the "tampa 2" or some version of the West Coast offense; the Pats are committed more to there specialized techniques (especially on D) and recognition, than any set alignment. And even though the Pats ARE a basic 3-4 team, we should know by now that THEIR 3-4 is radically different the one used by SD, and Pittsburgh.

Basically BB has designed a system that allows him the possibility to scheme radically different alignments every week, because within those vastly different scheme the players are using the same techniques week to week, only their alignment and keys are different. Sounds easy but is extremely difficult. It is ANOTHER reason that defense seems to be able to survive DESPITE the many injury hits its taken over the past 4 seasons. It is also another reason why the Pats value certain elements of a player's skills that many other team don't. Which leads us to #2.

2. Versitility - That has become a catch phrase for all Patriots teams during this 6 year run. In order to make #1 work, you need players who can play multiple positions. This is in stark contrast to what other teams do. For example.

The Tony Dungy school of thought is polar opposite to BB's. He believes in lining up in the same alignment with the same keys (relatively speaking of course) and even though the defense will KNOW where you are and what to expect, the defense GAINS more than it loses because the players will rarely make mental errors, and their play recognition will improve because they always know where they are supposed to be and are seeing the play develop from the same positon play after play. Same for their offense, Wayne and Harrison ALWAYS line up on the same sides. That HAS to help their execution. Obviously history has shown that, though vastly different, BOTH systems will work under the right circumstances and the right leadership

Getting back on point. Because the system requires players who HAVE to learn and play multiple positions a player who might have fewer physical measurables might be more valuable because of his ability to fit into this system, than a player who is a better athlete, but finds it hard to adapt to all the shifting around. A Key example of this I think, is Antrell Hawkins. Here was a journeyman CB, AT BEST, in Cinci no less, who come here and has been more than effective playing both safety spots

On the offensive side you see almost all the OLmen being able to play both sides and BOTH G and T. All the WRs generally have to learn to play all three WR positions. (see the side note) TEs have to learn to play the tight, flexed, & spread positions, PLUS learn all the motions used in the Pats running game as virtual pulling Gs. AND don't get me started on special teams.

SIDE NOTE: one of my concerns for early this season is the communication and timing of our new WRs. First because of all the reasons we have talked about before, but also because it was reported that in the OTA's Moss and Stallworth were both playing both outside WR positions, plus the slot. I'm not sure that either guy was asked to be that versitile before in the other systems they ran. If I remember correctly in the WC offense the WRs usually line up in the same positions most of the time. Just something to keep an eye on.

BOTTOM LINE here is that in the Pats system versitility is paramount to the success of the total team effort, thus it is an important factor in figuring out a players total value to the team in its salary structure. Players like Corey Dillon who only do 1 thing have to do that thing VERY WELL in order to be on this team long term. On the other had a much lesser talent like Patrick Pass lasted 7 seasons BECAUSE he could do a lot of things.

3. Rarity - certain positions are harder to find than other positions. The hardest positon is QB - A "franchise" QB is the hardest to find. With all the so called talent, all the coaching and training, etc; the QB position has evolved over the last 20 years to become perhaps the HARDEST position to excell at in professional sports. If you were hard pressed to rank them, it would be difficult to find 15 QBs who you would rank as a Franchise QB... and that's probably stretching it. So it becomes apparent that in your salary structure, if you have a QB who is truly a "franchise" player, then you pay him accordingly. On the other side, if you are paying a player LIKE a franchise QB and he isn't producing at that level, it can REALLY hurt your team on the field as well as the salary structure..

The other truly rare find is the elite DLman, regardless of what type of defense you play. The good lord has created very few human beings who have the size, speed, strength, and competitive nature who can play the DL at an elite level. When you find one, you pay him at the top level. We happen to have 3 and that will cost us. It will be interesting to see if we can keep all three LT.

After that I think CB is the next toughest. I don't think its that tough physically, however finding the guy who has the right mental outlook is very hard. Think about how mentally tough a CB has to be when the average QB in the league is completing 6 of 10 passes. ERGO, it is tough to be a DB when you KNOW that MOST of the time you are going to lose the battle.

Lately it seems that the S position has had much more of an impact on the game that just 5 years ago. Watch the effect that guys like Ed Reed, Rodney, and last season, Bob Sanders, have on the game. It makes me start to wonder if finding the elite S is starting to become even more important than finding the elite CB. Look what the Colts accomplished with 2 very pedestrian CBs and a great S

Another position that BB seems to value is TE. Clearly a guy who has the sizen and toughness to block NFL DEs and DT, and threaten a deep zone and be able to catch the ball in traffic is a hard nut to find. However I get the feeling that BB is willing to invest a lot of draft picks to fill this hard to find position, but BECAUSE the TE isn't one the field every down these days, he isn't be willing to pay market value (OVERPAY) for a FA TE, hence the departure of Daniel Graham.

I know we all crave them, but the reality is that LBs are a dime a dozen to most teams, simple because there are just more of them coming out of college every year. Perhaps a case can be made for the Pats who seem to look for a LB type that is different from a lot teams. Its why the Pats look to proven Vets and low draftees that they hope they can develop over time. However that is more a fuction of the amount of time that it takes to learn the techniques and get comfortable in the system, than it is finding players who have the physical attributes

BOTTOM LINE, that is why you might pay a A Thomas big bucks because of his PROVEN, UNIQUE skills, however by and large LBs are in the middle class of the Pats payscale. The best example of that is Rosey Colvin. He was the AThomas of 2003, but his catastophic injury has turned him from a "unique" talent into a very competent solid vet OLB. No one here will be shocked when next year Rosey will be asked to renegotiate that contract down to the middle class level inorder to pay the likes of Warren and Wilfolk. He's been fortunate the the Pats have had enough cap room the last few years that it hasn't been necessary to ask him to take a well deserved pay cut.

Even more available are the WRs. There are ALWAYS several proven vets out there EVERY YEAR, plus another 20 guys who will be there in the draft who have great measurables. Just look at what the Pats did this off season. Even BEFORE the Moss trade, they essentially were able to revamp their WR corp, WITHOUT picking a WR in the draft. You pay the best of them market value, BUT NEVER OVERPAY. Over paying their WRs has hurt the Seahawks in a lot of places.

SUMMARY - I think the main factor in identifying the way the Pats build their salary structure can be summed up in the phrase "replacement value"

Just food for though. I look forward to your additional thoughts, because my offerings were just a starting point.....and there are STILL 3 more weeks before camp opens up.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Excellent post, as your long ones always are.

 

[stinkypete]

Excellent analysis, to which I would add one more thing.

Defensive linemen. After the franchise QB, I believe the defensive line is a teams most important asset, regardless of scheme. Even the Colts defense, which was awful at times last year, has a defensive line that is tremendous at what it has to do.

The Patriots version of the 3-4, while it thrives on its versatility, requires big, space clogging defensive linemen to operate properly. When we switch from a 3-4 to a 4-3 (or more exptic scheme) it is rarely a defensive lineman, but a linebacker that fills that 4th line position. Remove Seymour, Wilfork or Warren from the rotation, and you've put a significant hole in the defense (case in point, the AFC championship game).

If there's one position worth "overpaying" for, it is defensive line.

 

[PatFan1932]

D-line is definitely next in line to QB... I second that post!

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Nice post, PFank. I'm going to boil down and extrapolate here, which you can feel free to say "isn't the idea at all..."

I. The Versatility Theorum
1) versatility trumps pure physical tools in the Pats' system

II. The Value Hypothesis
1) the Pats system is a sufficiently odd (and flexible) bird that the training put into a player, and the player's fit with the system, may in fact be the greater part of the player's "true worth" to the Pats.

III. Various Corollaries
1) Although the individual players can not be physically inept, success at the NE Patriots system is not necessarily the result of gifts that will allow them to excel in another system.
1a) The Givens Corollary Caveat Emptor, when you are buying a successful Patriot's negotiating rights. He might only be selling half of what you think you're buying.
1b) The Branch/Samuel Corollary When a player goes past the Pats' FO dollar value in his self-estimation, he is in large part attempting to sell back to the organization the system dynamics and training that made him marketable in the first place. This is the case with any free agent -- but to the extent that the system is unique, the ploy is less successfully transferable, at least in terms of moving the skills themselves.
1c) The Millen Corollary For any given bonehead personnel move an NFL FO could pull, there is a bonehead in charge of an NFL Front Office which will pull it (thereby cancelling the implication of Corollary 1b)

Boiling down...

- It's hard to get a guy who is right for the Pats system
- It's hard to train that guy in the Pats' system
- Execution will be spottier unless the right coaching and training makes the versatility vs. familiarity tradeoff work well enough to allow flexibility without giving up performance. The "balance sheet" for this tradeoff gives you more tools at the coaching level, in exchange for a much more confusing ground-level responsibility
- A player who is good in the Pats' system -- to the extent that the system is truly an anomoly -- is likely to have more skill areas that do not translate to other systems. If the Pats' system is "different" beyond the degree that all systems are different from one another, this is a consideration in free agency discussions. If in fact we see the differences more clearly because we follow this team, this is not a consideration.

So the Pats will actually "overvalue" players in terms of the market, by considering how hard it is to replace them, even if other teams would value them less. "Unique"/rare talent, such as Brady, is a good example. The question of what happens with Warren and Wilfork also comes into play, but later.

The Pats will "undervalue" players in terms of the market, if they consider the skills necessary to be replicable through other sources... obviously the "more things you can do," the higher the Pats value you.

And every time we have this kind of system-wide conversation, it makes you wonder...

Which category does [Free Agent A] fit into?

More often than not, I end up thinking it's a shame that a good fit's been busted up. You think about guys who do well within the Pats system, try to sell that perception back to the Pats' front office, and fail to do so successfully. Givens.... Branch.... now probably Samuel.

But of course, players are free to use the terms at their disposal.

Another question this analysis bring up though -- Wes Welker is (as is shown by his contract,) a pretty good bet to excel in this system. But Stallworth and Moss, seem less good bets. Probably the Pats have shied away from "deep threat" name guys for this very reason. But the FO has found a way to "try them out" for the Pats system with little/no first-year commitment.

The possibility remains, though, that these types of guys are doomed to be worth more in the eyes of other systems, than in the eyes of the Pats, in the future. Being known for physical tools rather than versatility DOES translate. People will make their run at Moss, obviously. Stallworth might not be seen as worth 11M to the Patriots.

More rambling and wandering... excellent post, PFank, it started the gears turning.

PFnV

 

[rookBoston]

Love this thread. Excellent post PFK.

One thing that I wonder about, is when the FO set's their "target price" in negotiations, do they account for "switching costs" as well? Undoubtedly, they look at a player, evaluate how rare is this individual's overall package as it fits to the scheme, and determine what level of an offer that person is worthy of. All well and good, but they need to tack on an extra 5% or 10% on top of that, to account for the value that the player is established in Foxboro, knows the system, knows his teammates, understands the rhythm of the week and BB's expectations. If they don't add a small premium for players like Samuel... and in prior years Ted Washington, Vinatieri, Law, Branch, Givens etc... then they aren't recognizing full cost of ramp up time and replacement risk involved in bringing a new player into the system. Washington in particular-- I think the negotiating difference was fairly small, and they didn't fully appreciate the ramp up time before Wilfork would be ready to take the reigns.

I did disagree a little with what you posted regarding "rarity". I agree that DL and TE are premium positions in recruiting, because the combination of physical skills are very rare... soft hands, route running, run blocking, blitz protection all in a body that is 250-270#...?

But I dont think that CB or S are particularly rare talents to be successful in this scheme. Randall Gay, Asante Samuel, Ellis Hobbs... these were not highly recruited individuals. The question is a matter of mental agility coupled with physical agility... but the demographic pool of 5'11 200# atheletes is much larger than the pool of 6'3 320# monster-men. The result is that BB has chosen to invest Day Two picks and UFAs to fill his roster. 2007 was the first year he really upgraded his secondary with rare talent in the form of Merriweather. And the reason is because his roster was already stacked at DL and TE.

And your claim that 3-4 LBs are a dime a dozen... I completely disagree. They are the rarest of the rare. This is the most mentally demanding position on D, playing alternately in coverage, in run support, in pass rush-- all predicated on what happens when the ball is snapped and how other players act and react. BB expects his LBs to be coaches on the field, diagnosing each play in real time and getting to a spot before the O does. The reason that BB hasn't taken a LB early in recent drafts is because none of them meet his criteria, which are so strict that I wonder if he'll find more than one of two in any draft class that he's interested in. Very few 255# players actually play LB at the college level. Three approaches: (1) grow your own, which means take a college DE and try to convert him-- Bruschi, (2) sign someone from the Bears or Ravens who have already made the conversion--Rosie, Adalius--at top dollar, (3) draft the finished product-- Lawrence Taylor... good luck finding another one like him. After passing on Harris and Posluszny this year, I'm more mystified than ever in what BB expects to see from a rookie LB prospect.

 

[Mainefan]

Great thread, manna for a football fan impatiently waiting for training camp.

 

[PatsFan37]

After that I think CB is the next toughest. I don't think its that tough physically, however finding the guy who has the right mental outlook is very hard. Think about how mentally tough a CB has to be when the average QB in the league is completing 6 of 10 passes. ERGO, it is tough to be a DB when you KNOW that MOST of the time you are going to lose the battle.

Well-thought out post. Have to disagree here about CBs.

Short note here on talent:
Fast -- straight-line speed: 40 time (Bethel J.)
Quick -- agility: cone drills (Branch, Hobbs)
Tall -- I think we know what that means
Big -- wide and strong, relative to position: Wilfork, Dillon
Football smart -- ability to quickly see plays develop (Bruschi, T.Brown, Harrison, Brady)
Book smart -- can learn the playbook, recognize static formations and their meaning (Brady, Harrison)

Then there are specific skills: kicking, blocking, catching, throwing.

CBs are exceptionally fast and quick. To be a top CB you have to stay stride for stride with the top WR's, anticipate cuts, out leap them for the ball, catch the ball. They need unusual physical gifts. They also have to be football smart, to study film and recognize when a QB is staring down a WR versus looking off the safety. That's why top CBs are worth tens of millions.

Different systems call for different sets of physical talents. The Pats don't rely on a tall #1 WR, preferring a mix-it-up offense that pressures the defense into leaving someone open. That's why a quick, football-smart slot receiver is worth a 2nd round pick. The same offensive strategy wants a versatile TE who can block and catch, rather than a pure pass-catching TE.

What makes a Pats OLB tough to find is that they need the size and speed and blocking techniques of a 4-3 DE, with the agility to cover in the short zone, as well as being football smart and book smart. Draft picks need so much time to develop that they're out of their rookie contracts by the time they're ready. Which means you need someone with Koppen's or Bruschi's attitude to re-sign for a reasonable price.

Apparently, BB hasn't yet seen the right combination of talent, intelligence and attitude at the right place in the draft and has preferred the security of veteran LBs. He'll have 2 first-round picks next year, so we'll see what happens.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Love this thread. Excellent post PFK.

One thing that I wonder about, is when the FO set's their "target price" in negotiations, do they account for "switching costs" as well? Undoubtedly, they look at a player, evaluate how rare is this individual's overall package as it fits to the scheme, and determine what level of an offer that person is worthy of. All well and good, but they need to tack on an extra 5% or 10% on top of that, to account for the value that the player is established in Foxboro, knows the system, knows his teammates, understands the rhythm of the week and BB's expectations. If they don't add a small premium for players like Samuel... and in prior years Ted Washington, Vinatieri, Law, Branch, Givens etc... then they aren't recognizing full cost of ramp up time and replacement risk involved in bringing a new player into the system. Washington in particular-- I think the negotiating difference was fairly small, and they didn't fully appreciate the ramp up time before Wilfork would be ready to take the reigns.

I did disagree a little with what you posted regarding "rarity". I agree that DL and TE are premium positions in recruiting, because the combination of physical skills are very rare... soft hands, route running, run blocking, blitz protection all in a body that is 250-270#...?

But I dont think that CB or S are particularly rare talents to be successful in this scheme. Randall Gay, Asante Samuel, Ellis Hobbs... these were not highly recruited individuals. The question is a matter of mental agility coupled with physical agility... but the demographic pool of 5'11 200# atheletes is much larger than the pool of 6'3 320# monster-men. The result is that BB has chosen to invest Day Two picks and UFAs to fill his roster. 2007 was the first year he really upgraded his secondary with rare talent in the form of Merriweather. And the reason is because his roster was already stacked at DL and TE.

And your claim that 3-4 LBs are a dime a dozen... I completely disagree. They are the rarest of the rare. This is the most mentally demanding position on D, playing alternately in coverage, in run support, in pass rush-- all predicated on what happens when the ball is snapped and how other players act and react. BB expects his LBs to be coaches on the field, diagnosing each play in real time and getting to a spot before the O does. The reason that BB hasn't taken a LB early in recent drafts is because none of them meet his criteria, which are so strict that I wonder if he'll find more than one of two in any draft class that he's interested in. Very few 255# players actually play LB at the college level. Three approaches: (1) grow your own, which means take a college DE and try to convert him-- Bruschi, (2) sign someone from the Bears or Ravens who have already made the conversion--Rosie, Adalius--at top dollar, (3) draft the finished product-- Lawrence Taylor... good luck finding another one like him. After passing on Harris and Posluszny this year, I'm more mystified than ever in what BB expects to see from a rookie LB prospect.

Couldn't agree more. I was going to post something similar but you nailed it with one possible exception - strong safety. He's nearly on a par value/significance wise with Bill's LB's. We've only won when we had a special one on the roster and active including without his head stuck up his ass (where Lawyer's got stuck in the afterglow of XXXVI).

When Belichick has talented young defensive linemen and heady veteran linebackers backed up by a savvy SS, he can coach up willing young or aging CB's with just sufficient talent to get their job done.

Not to say he doesn't appreciate ultra talents who play the position. He told Ed Reed at the pro bowl after a particular play, "if I had you and those two corners (one of whom was Champ) that's all I'd need - ALL". He also realizes with three of those on the roster it's all he could afford.

I think the fact that we got Rodney for a song (compared to Reed - who Bill still laments passing up in the 2002 draft which is one reason why he didn't pass on Merriweather this year) reportedly entering his dotage, and Tedy is an agents nightmare negotiating from the heart, and Vrabel is a 'tweener who appreciated the opportunity he got here and renegotiated accordingly, has skewered the financial perception that we don't/won't pay for ILB's or Safeties. We just got lucky in that so far we haven't had to. They and Tom (another guy who chose not to squeeze them) are the true foundation of the dynasty which was built as much on brains as brawn.

As for adding a little premium to retain guys who fit, remember during the time when most of those negotiations were underway we were right up against a pre 2006 cap and impending labor uncertainty. I do think Bill underestimated the value of the unique skill set it takes to be a really good WR here and has learned a tough lesson - yeah, they don't have Randy Moss like physical talents but they have to be pretty darned adept mentally as well as personally driven to master a sight adjusted offense. I think he paid a premium to acquire Troy Browns replacement this offseason because he now more fully appreciates that. Injuries and the flu ultimately did his team in in the AFCC, but I guarantee you it gnaws at him that had they had Branch on the field or a youthful Troy Brown they probably would have found a way to make just one or two more plays that would have kept a crumbling defense off the field and fate out of the Colts hands and in their own. He hopes he's recitified that with offseason moves this year.

But I also think after 2002 he determined that some level of turnover and infusion of either sheer talent or veteran hunger are requisites for teams determined to win multiple championships. Too much comfort in the system (or too many comfortable players or players mulling their next deal or concerned about how the system impacts their pro bows profile on the roster) can lead to an almost subconscious teamwise malaise or lack of focused urgency, while an infusion of new wide eyed talent or aging veteran talent with a burning desire to win a ring before it's over can be necessary to re-energize and re-focus even the most successful of teams on the opportunity at hand. You just need to pre plan for those replacements better and not let yourself get caught off guard when you lose someone you hadn't apparently anticipated losing.

 

[patfanken]

Love this thread. Excellent post PFK. I did disagree a little with what you posted regarding "rarity". I agree that DL and TE are premium positions in recruiting, because the combination of physical skills are very rare... soft hands, route running, run blocking, blitz protection all in a body that is 250-270#...?

I don't understand how you would disagree since what you wrote is exactly my feeling. The skills needed to play TE and DL are very rare. However since in today's NFL the TE might not aways be an everydown player, BB invests heavily in the draft to find his TEs rather than in the FA market where they would have to overpay for a premium talent

But I dont think that CB or S are particularly rare talents to be successful in this scheme. Randall Gay, Asante Samuel, Ellis Hobbs... these were not highly recruited individuals. The question is a matter of mental agility coupled with physical agility... but the demographic pool of 5'11 200# atheletes is much larger than the pool of 6'3 320# monster-men. The result is that BB has chosen to invest Day Two picks and UFAs to fill his roster. 2007 was the first year he really upgraded his secondary with rare talent in the form of Merriweather. And the reason is because his roster was already stacked at DL and TE.

Again we are in agreement. Finding the physical qualities to play CB isn't as rare as some might think. However finding an athlete who has the physical qualities AND is mentally and physically tough enough to rise to being an elite CB IS very rare.

Also findind a true "shutdown CB" allows a defense to become INSTANTLY more dangerous because of the things you can do schematically, BECAUSE you have a "shutdown CB". This might be the sticking point in the Samuel negotiations. The Pats MIGHT think that while a great playmaker, Samuel ISN'T a true shut down CB, a la McAllister and Baily, yet is a premium CB within the Pats system.

And your claim that 3-4 LBs are a dime a dozen... I completely disagree. They are the rarest of the rare. This is the most mentally demanding position on D, playing alternately in coverage, in run support, in pass rush-- all predicated on what happens when the ball is snapped and how other players act and react. BB expects his LBs to be coaches on the field, diagnosing each play in real time and getting to a spot before the O does. The reason that BB hasn't taken a LB early in recent drafts is because none of them meet his criteria, which are so strict that I wonder if he'll find more than one of two in any draft class that he's interested in. Very few 255# players actually play LB at the college level. Three approaches: (1) grow your own, which means take a college DE and try to convert him-- Bruschi, (2) sign someone from the Bears or Ravens who have already made the conversion--Rosie, Adalius--at top dollar, (3) draft the finished product-- Lawrence Taylor... good luck finding another one like him. After passing on Harris and Posluszny this year, I'm more mystified than ever in what BB expects to see from a rookie LB prospect.

Well finally a true disagreement...well sort of. I think the physical attributes the Pats are looking for in a LB (and understand the there are distinct differences between what they need on the inside and outside positions), are readily available in college. However the difference here is that the readily available players are often not playing LB in college, so there is a huge ramp up time (3 years at LEAST) to get a player ready to play this complex system as you so astutely pointed out.

So its not that these players aren't there, they just require a very long (relatively speaking) time to get ready to play the position in a Patriots system. I think BB feels that the colleges don't product LBs that can fit that mold. However they do have a number of DEs who can be MADE into what the Pats need, but the development time is too long to justify a high draft pick....in most cases. That's why I think he feels he gets better value letting OTHER teams train college DLmen to become LBs or draft them low and hope they get another AD or at least a TBC.

 

[LA Pats Fan]

Love your post but don't understand the title.
Basically the Patriot System boils down to

1) Smart Players - since our system is complex and metally demanding BB needs players that are smart - football smart that is - Smart is the differnce between Tom Brady and Drew Bledsoe. I still believe today Bledsoe is the more gifted QB, but made many more bad decisions. It is like this at every key position

2) Versatile Players - Our system is not only complex, but changes, between opponents and even between halves. BB is know as one of the best 1/2 time adjustment coaches. Versital players allow changes to be made without compromising effectiveness. In addition, injuries are a certainty. To win the superbowl a team has to overcome any injury. Versitility = depth = ability to overcome injury

3) FootBall Players - Bellicheck Loves players who LOVE football. This is severly underestimated in my opinion. Players who love the game are not as concerned over money as much as being around others who think the same way. When they are not playing they want to be involved, reviewing film, talking - See SMART above - players who truely love the game learn so much more.

If you look at the 3 traits above - just start thinking about the Patriot Roster and it easy to see why they are PATRIOTS.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I disagreee

The third (and fourth fifth and sixth) most important players are not CBs, but rather are red chip, experienced LBs. BB wants "bend don't break Defense. He funnels the defensive job to LBs and wants guys that will do an above average job, play after play after play...

Proof of the pudding is the teams that won Lombardi's playing CBs like OTIS, rookie Gay, rookie Samuels et cetera, as well as Lawyer.

 

[tailgater]

1) Smart Players - since our system is complex and metally demanding BB needs players that are smart - football smart that is - Smart is the differnce between Tom Brady and Drew Bledsoe. I still believe today Bledsoe is the more gifted QB, but made many more bad decisions. It is like this at every key position

One big piece you missed. As Rodney put it in 2003 "Being unselfish and being willing to sacrifice" is a key component to the makup of this defense. Everybody HAS to do their job, and everybody has to know they will do their job.

Harrison was perfect for this defense in a way lawyer Milloy couldn't be at the time. Rodney bought into it immediately and became the face of the defense. Milloy never wanted that. He was a great player but had a different attitude about how to play the game.

 

[GoWhalers]

I've got to disagree with the above comment about Milloy. Say what you will about the bitter way with which he left the team, but unselfishness and team player were definately Milloy's traits.

The reason he left had nothing to do with his approach towards the game, but the fact that he was asked to take a pay cut after winning the Super Bowl. That would piss me off too -- despite the fact that Belioli was correct for asking. There was better talent out there for a better price (god bless Rodney).

Still, Milloy was a team guy. No two ways about it.

 

[patsfan7578]

Very few 255# players actually play LB at the college level. Three approaches: (1) grow your own, which means take a college DE and try to convert him-- Bruschi, (2) sign someone from the Bears or Ravens who have already made the conversion--Rosie, Adalius--at top dollar, (3) draft the finished product-- Lawrence Taylor... good luck finding another one like him. After passing on Harris and Posluszny this year, I'm more mystified than ever in what BB expects to see from a rookie LB prospect.

Would Posluszny or Harris start at LB for the Patriots this coming season had either one been drafted by the Patriots? If you select one of these guys with a 1st round draft pick, they'd better start and make an impact. I don't think that is the case here. I agree that they need to younger here, but as the 1st post in the thread suggested, they do that by selecting these types of LB later on in the draft, and in some cases, convert DEs.

 

[patfanken]

The reason he left had nothing to do with his approach towards the game, but the fact that he was asked to take a pay cut after winning the Super Bowl. That would piss me off too --

Actually he was asked to take a paycut not after a superbowl win, but after a 9-7 in which Milloy played poorly, had ZERO interceptions, ZERO forced fumbles, ZERO fumble recoveries, and was a liability in coverage. Those stats are ones that might have "pissed off" the Pats FO.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

...you nailed it with one possible exception - strong safety. He's nearly on a par value/significance wise with Bill's LB's. We've only won when we had a special one on the roster and active including without his head stuck up his ass...

I'm not convinced a "special" SS is as critical as you suggest Mo.

There are two years in the Belichick era where "winning" fell truly short, 2000 and 2002 when the Pats failed to make the playoffs. My expectation for my Pats is they will make the playoffs, that's winning (as opposed to Winning).
In the past two years they met that expectation, the loss to Denver was bitter since it was primarily self inflicted. Last year's loss to Indy was more circumstancial, it hurt but wasn't bitter for me - crap happens and it had to happen in substantial quantities to help Indy make the grade.
James Sanders, who appears to be developing nicely, probably is not "a special one" as you defined SS, yet. The Pats still "won" with him, and they "won" with Artrell in 2005. Having that special SS makes a significant difference, and Rodney likely would have been enough of an edge in Indy and would have been a real nice to have in 05.
Sanders more or less got the Pats in the right place before Indy had the breaks go to them to win the game, and Artrell didn't make any bonehead mistakes during the Denver meltdown as I remember that game. I'd argue your point about having a Rodney or equivalent to win was invalidated by a couple guys who did Rodney's job for him these past couple years.

...Smart is the differnce between Tom Brady and Drew Bledsoe. I still believe today Bledsoe is the more gifted QB, but made many more bad decisions.

I think what you mean Drew had the more gifted arm, Tommy had to be a better "quaterback" because he did not have the laser, rocket arm that allowed Drew to muddle through.
Touching on the Pats' loss to Indy last year, Peyton lost Stokely last season and had to wait on Addai's development, he was forced to play more quarterback than he had been required to do in years past with his quick strike offense. He played a smarter game against the Pats because he had learned to be more Brady-style quarterback than laser, rocket arm gunslinger. May whomever knocked Stokely out for the season be forever cursed.

Would Posluszny or Harris start at LB for the Patriots this coming season had either one been drafted by the Patriots? If you select one of these guys with a 1st round draft pick, they'd better start and make an impact.

I don't expect Meriweather to start, he may, but that seems unlikely - impact is another thing.

When NFL Network replayed the Snow Bowl a few weeks back, I noticed that Seymour did not start against Oakland. Ty Warren, Vince Wilfork, and Laurence Maroney platooned their first seasons. Graham split time with Fauria, and Watson would likely have done the same if he hadn't been injured. It would appear the only true first round "rookie starter" is Mankins.
As to impact, Warren and Wilfork were not impact rookies, neither were Graham and Watson for that matter. Seymour may have been, I was still in the service and otherwise distracted when it came to watching his rookie games. Maroney was an impact player before he was injured.
Harris will most likely be splitting reps with the NYJ. I'd have expected him to split reps in NE if he had been drafted. He may still prove to be an "impact" rookie, but that's another big if.
Pos did not appear to be in any danger of being drafted by either the Pats or the Jets. Great kid, I think he'll do well for Buffalo in the Tampa-2, but I don't think he's a fit for a Belichick-style 3-4. San Diego style, maybe, though he seems to be just a tad slow in coverage so he'd not have been Donnie Edward's replacement.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I'm not convinced a "special" SS is as critical as you suggest Mo.

There are two years in the Belichick era where "winning" fell truly short, 2000 and 2002 when the Pats failed to make the playoffs. My expectation for my Pats is they will make the playoffs, that's winning (as opposed to Winning).

In the past two years they met that expectation, the loss to Denver was bitter since it was primarily self inflicted. Last year's loss to Indy was more circumstancial, it hurt but wasn't bitter for me - crap happens and it had to happen in substantial quantities to help Indy make the grade.
James Sanders, who appears to be developing nicely, probably is not "a special one" as you defined SS, yet. The Pats still "won" with him, and they "won" with Artrell in 2005. Having that special SS makes a significant difference, and Rodney likely would have been enough of an edge in Indy and would have been a real nice to have in 05.
Sanders more or less got the Pats in the right place before Indy had the breaks go to them to win the game, and Artrell didn't make any bonehead mistakes during the Denver meltdown as I remember that game. I'd argue your point about having a Rodney or equivalent to win was invalidated by a couple guys who did Rodney's job for him these past couple years.

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Your arguments are contradictory for openers and I'm using the Belichick definition of winning...

I'm not dissing your developmental or depth players. I'm underscoring what I believe is Belichick's philosophy as it relates to significance within the system. He runs his defense through his LB's and Safeties. Anyone who can't see that just needs to go rewatch the last 5 minutes of any of our championships ultimately all won by 3 points. Even in victory when his safeties falter down the stretch or are lost, the defense collapses to the point winning is significantly imperiled. Fortunately more often than not he has been able to rely on his QB who's skillset is tailor made for close and late to stave off defeat. That wasn't enough in Denver because of uncharacteristic meltdowns snowballing offense and ST and lack of available sufficiently talented supporting cast in Indy. Yet even as you state, having that lynchpin SS available in either of those games might have carried the day.

Belichick is always ahead of the curve. Safeties used to be the unloved stepchildren of NFL secondaries playing along side the fawned over corners - not so lately. The copycat league is realizing one great safety can cover up a multitude of sins, in a secondary and beyond. Even if he only plays in a handful of games a year, as Tony Dungy apparently realized since he is willing to manage his somewhat fragile impact safety on a truly as needed basis. Yet they remain a substantially cheaper to acquire or maintain on average than even merely above average corners - many of whom seem to believe they are secretly Champ Bailey.

I think we drafted Meriweather for two reasons - because BB lived to regret not taking Reed when he had the chance due mainly to some youthful character concerns and as the position profile elevates it will only get harder to snag another undervalued Rodney Harrison in FA. And his system really requires one - not to compete perhaps, but to win by his definition.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I've got to disagree with the above comment about Milloy. Say what you will about the bitter way with which he left the team, but unselfishness and team player were definately Milloy's traits.

The reason he left had nothing to do with his approach towards the game, but the fact that he was asked to take a pay cut after winning the Super Bowl. That would piss me off too -- despite the fact that Belioli was correct for asking. There was better talent out there for a better price (god bless Rodney).

Still, Milloy was a team guy. No two ways about it.

As Ken pointed out, he played poorly in 2002. By his own admission he had some maturity issues - didn't take the game seriously after winning just one ring. This was a disappointment for Belichick who was initially drawn to Lawyer because he projected as a football matters guy.

But the problem went beyond a single off year performance wise. Milloy was the undisputed leader of the defense, the guy who convinced the others to buy in to Belichick, the guy who orchestrated the defensive game plan that silenced the Rams for 3 quarters in a Cinderella Superbowl victory. Only after 2001 he became a clubhouse instigator, chiding players to get their recognition and not allow the system to take all the credit. Even on the eve of XXXVI he was the player who went to BB complaining that veterans were being disrespected because some less tenured players had better room assignments. Belichick was floored because he though he had stamped out that culture of entitlement mentality and here was his team captain raising it's ugly head on the eve of the biggest game of their lives. He had to do something to avoid discontent, but rather that cave in to player room swaps he asked his coaches and staff to swap rooms with the malcontents. I think Bill knew then their might be a problem brewing going forward even if they won.

So was he a team player on the field? Yeah, kinda, for a while. But it was shortlived. Turns out he wasn't chugging the koolaid so much as sipping it until his ring arrived. Had he continued playing like an impact player in 2002 Bill might have looked the other way on the bad influence issue. But he wasn't, so the contract restructure was Bill's way of asking Lawyer to get back on the koolaid, and he refused. And that is why he ultimately had to go.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Your arguments are contradictory for openers and I'm using the Belichick definition of winning... You mean "we're preparing for this week's game? Win one game at a time?"

He runs his defense through his LB's and Safeties. Anyone who can't see that just needs to go rewatch the last 5 minutes of any of our championships ultimately all won by 3 points. Even in victory when his safeties falter down the stretch or are lost, the defense collapses to the point winning is significantly imperiled. Yep, he runs his D through those positions, so throwing a reserve Safety, or two, into that mix is going to be rough - how often do you expect a reserve QB to go in and lead the team down the field for a TD on their first series against a playoff caliber team? I'm usually just happy if they don't turn it over on the first series before they get into the rythm of the game.

Yet even as you state, having that lynchpin SS available in either of those games might have carried the day. Sure, and it might have not even been necessary if his presence led to one more regular season win and homefield advantage, but unless the "only" definition of winning is to win the Super Bowl (which I ain't buying even if BB strives to get there each year), then BB's defense can and has still made the playoffs with a lesser light at SS, all other positions being consistent. Considering how hard it is to make the playoffs, especially after the rebuilding/injuries the past couple years, your point that a Harrison-level player is needed is a stretch.

Belichick is always ahead of the curve. More often than not, but I don't think always is quite gospel.

Safeties used to be the unloved stepchildren of NFL secondaries playing along side the fawned over corners - not so lately. The copycat league is realizing one great safety can cover up a multitude of sins, in a secondary and beyond. Sure, but the thread on Rodney's contract negotiations says Safety has a long way to go to match CB or DE or QB or LT top dollar. That doesn't sound like the money is matching primary impact position standards yet. A quick look at Miguel's cap page suggests Rodney's contract hasn't even matched Vrabel's or Colvin's, and they're primarily OLBs and not the ILB Field Generals.

I think we drafted Meriweather for two reasons - because BB lived to regret not taking Reed when he had the chance due mainly to some youthful character concerns and as the position profile elevates it will only get harder to snag another undervalued Rodney Harrison in FA. Let's assume BB lives with regrets over not drafting Reed in 2002 (whom NFL.com's draft history lists as a FS by the way). It remains to be seen where Meriweather plays, certainly SS doesn't suggest itself as the first choice, and your original point was that BB needed an elite SS to make his D run best. So, with Reed and Meriweather in the equation are you expanding your point to mean 'an elite S' or is it still elite "SS?".

I was going to post something similar but you nailed it with one possible exception - strong safety. He's nearly on a par value/significance wise with Bill's LB's.

And his system really requires one - not to compete perhaps, but to win by his definition.

I'm still trying to remember the first time I've read or heard BB indicate that winning the SB is the only definition for winning...what is the quote outside Pioli's office, we're building a big, strong fast football team that will win the Super Bowl or die trying?