Does the Patriots Business Model work?

I know what you all are about to say..duhh, look at the last 10 years of dominance!

Look at the sell-outs, the point of business is to make money, Kraft has been making truckloads of it. By that definition they are successful!

It's pretty, seemingly, cut and dry really.

Ok, I get that. I am not on one side or the other really, just curious to know what us pats fans think of it.

My only comment on the model is the hard numbers they have for positions, if they have them. Or maybe they have a range, I don't know...

Should there be room for 'executive decisions' to be made in certain circumstances that still keep the model intact, on certain players.

For instance, yeah, this position gets this dollar amount but in this specific instance, we can through maybe 2 more million, max, at a player. Add up that 2 million over a roster and you are into a cap hit that's for sure.

I just think that in some instances, maybe there is room to maintain the integrity of the business model, yet still build in some room for flexibility where situations permit.

Or are the hard numbers the absolute line in the sand.

Dunno, just asking...

Halifax_Pats_Fan said:

I know what you all are about to say..duhh, look at the last 10 years of dominance!

Look at the sell-outs, the point of business is to make money, Kraft has been making truckloads of it. By that definition they are successful!

It's pretty, seemingly, cut and dry really.

Ok, I get that. I am not on one side or the other really, just curious to know what us pats fans think of it.

My only comment on the model is the hard numbers they have for positions, if they have them. Or maybe they have a range, I don't know...

Should there be room for 'executive decisions' to be made in certain circumstances that still keep the model intact, on certain players.

For instance, yeah, this position gets this dollar amount but in this specific instance, we can through maybe 2 more million, max, at a player. Add up that 2 million over a roster and you are into a cap hit that's for sure.

I just think that in some instances, maybe there is room to maintain the integrity of the business model, yet still build in some room for flexibility where situations permit.

Or are the hard numbers the absolute line in the sand.

Dunno, just asking...

Click to expand...

First off of course the business model works. Duh look at the last 10 years.

second I believe the kind of flexability you are refering to has been very much evident through the years and while there are limits they wont cross I dont think there are set in stone formula's to those limits.

I would use two examples of this which are somewhat related.

1) Randy Moss - I dont think anyone thought paying a WR like they did with Randy was in the business model. Despite how successful paying that money was (remember this was after the 07 season) this shows they are willing to go higher than there normal model under the right circumstance.

2) look at the collesal shift in spending from the defensive side of the ball to the offensive side of the ball. Again you can argue whether that was the right move (we won SBs when more was spent on D and we lose them now that more is spent on o) but it clearly shows that they are flexible in where they spend their money. Right now it looks like we might be shifting back to spending more on D and it set limits on what they would spend on Wes and now everyone wants to question the model because they didnt spend 2 extra mil on him its a little nuts if you ask me.

Halifax_Pats_Fan said:

I know what you all are about to say..duhh, look at the last 10 years of dominance!

Look at the sell-outs, the point of business is to make money, Kraft has been making truckloads of it. By that definition they are successful!

It's pretty, seemingly, cut and dry really.

Ok, I get that. I am not on one side or the other really, just curious to know what us pats fans think of it.

My only comment on the model is the hard numbers they have for positions, if they have them. Or maybe they have a range, I don't know...

Should there be room for 'executive decisions' to be made in certain circumstances that still keep the model intact, on certain players.

For instance, yeah, this position gets this dollar amount but in this specific instance, we can through maybe 2 more million, max, at a player. Add up that 2 million over a roster and you are into a cap hit that's for sure.

I just think that in some instances, maybe there is room to maintain the integrity of the business model, yet still build in some room for flexibility where situations permit.

Or are the hard numbers the absolute line in the sand.

Dunno, just asking...

Click to expand...

The TE position is the clearest example that NE is willing to go well beyond the "normal" model. Consider the draft capital used, roster space reserved, and most recently the $$$ spent.

The Kraft's look at the value of the franchise, attendance, competitiveness, respect within the nfl ownership community and the general value of the brand. In all of these, the patriots have been a huge business success since Kraft bought the team.

The team has won or tied for the division every year since 2001. This is accomplished through discipline and planning. We do not mortgage our future for a higher percentage chance of winning this year; that is not the patriot way. We are rarely major free agent players, except for an occasional serious need. We tend to re-sign and extend our own.
It was indeed unusual for three of the top UFA's to be patriots.

I would suggest first defining exactly what the Pats Business Model is, to insure people are talking about the same thing first. It sounds to me that HPF's definition is based primarily on hard numbers (or more accurately, percentage of cap/budget) for specific positions. While I consider that to be part of the 'Pats Business Model', I don't think of it as a primary aspect of it.

To me the Pats Business Model reflects several philosophies, including:

• Spreading cap money/budget throughout the entire roster, and avoiding being too top heavy with that limited resource.
• Balancing long term planning with short term goals. The idea is that by being competitive year in and year out you increase your chance at a championship, rather than going all in one year and worry about rebuilding later.
• Better to lose a player a year early than to hold on to him a year too long.

Correct me if I am wrong but the biggest debate that fans have with the Patriots Business Model is that balance of going for it all now versus being competitive year in and year out. Exhibit A would b the gnashing of teeth anytime the Pats traded down for multiple picks or traded a pick into a future year; exhibit B would be letting certain starters walk away in free agency; and exhibit C would be the annual rallying cry to sign a certain coveted free agent.

So, what is the question: that the Pats should be more flexible at budgeting cap space and budget for specific positions? Or their balancing of short term vs long term competitive goals?

I guess it all depends on what the goal is of say the owner (Robert Kraft).

I believe his main goals are to be competitive, make money, give the fans a team worth cheering for on a year in, year out basis.

If that's his goal then obviously, he is doing quite well. If he has another goal like winning the SB every 4-5 years, then we'd have to assume he's doing so-so at best.

The interesting thing I see is the rest of the division. What are their goals and how does their team get run/operations to support that model? I find it intriguing that they (Bills, Dolphins, Jets) have had very little success since BB/Brady took over. You would think that the "parity" would have balanced things out. so either it was really broken (like the 1st pick being a significant killer with cap), the team has figured out the best use of the existing system, or some combination of that mixed in with Luck.

I see no evidence that the #s are inviolate lines in the sand. While yes their value per position model is followed the vast majority of the time, we've seen Moss, offers to Welker at above mkt, Mayo, AD and others be the exception to the rule. They've lost most of their players and opportunities because of their mis-judgements of player and market. They spend to the cap and also put more cash up front than most. It's flawed judgements not strict adherence to a spreadsheet printout where they and any other well run franchise goes wrong.

Any Patriots model is complete speculation. There is no officially pushed model and there never has been. It's just a bunch of people guessing writing books and articles. Somewhere along the line, people have started accepting these "guesses" as fact.

One reason the Pats' way of doing things works is who they have at QB. If they had a regular dude at QB, like Mark Sanchez or Kevin Kolb for example, I doubt they'd see nearly the same kind of success. Yes, we can point to their 2008 season with Cassel, but that year they had one of the easiest schedules imaginable, and I don't think they would have kept that up year after year.

It is a good model, but it helps a lot having #12 in the lineup every week.

RelocatedPatFan said:

If that's his goal then obviously, he is doing quite well. If he has another goal like winning the SB every 4-5 years, then we'd have to assume he's doing so-so at best.

Click to expand...

I think on the surface everyones goal is to win the SB every year so on that note he fails(as do 31 other owners) but the funny thing about the arbutrary numbers you just used. He has owned the team about 20 years and won 3 SBs so he is averaging a SB win for every 6-7 years. When compared to 4-5 years this is "so-so at best" but when compared to a different set of logic like if all things were equal you would get 1 out of 32 years then it is absolutely amazing.

Depends - if you think winning your division every year, making the playoffs, and winning a game or two in the playoffs is a sign of a business model "working", then yes. If your barometer of success is super bowls, then no, I'd say it needs some work. The way the Pats do business - not going after expensive free agents, trading "down for value", always trying to get guys on the cheap, putting your own free agents through the ringer before resigning them - has not won a super bowl in eight seasons. And that's a crying shame when you have one of the best, if not the best players in the game at the most important position in the game.
I and I'm sure plenty of other Pats fans would trade those awesome division titles and one and done/one playoff win seasons in 05, 09, 10, 12 for one or two more Super Bowls (maybe 06 and/or 07/11 and a couple of 9-7s, 8-8s, or 7-9s (which might have happened if they went the extra mile and signed some guys and the risk of "cap hell" for one or two seasons.....
But that's just me, I must be a "spoiled, entitled fan"....

Any football business model with Tom Brady as the QB would work.

Yes, of course, it great to have one of the top QB's.

Kraft would never have a regular dude at QB. We have had a pro-bowl QB just about since the day Kraft bought the team. When Brady eventually leaves, Kraft will find another pro-bowler.

ivanvamp said:

One reason the Pats' way of doing things works is who they have at QB. If they had a regular dude at QB, like Mark Sanchez or Kevin Kolb for example, I doubt they'd see nearly the same kind of success. Yes, we can point to their 2008 season with Cassel, but that year they had one of the easiest schedules imaginable, and I don't think they would have kept that up year after year.

It is a good model, but it helps a lot having #12 in the lineup every week.

Click to expand...

Halifax_Pats_Fan said:

I just think that in some instances, maybe there is room to maintain the integrity of the business model, yet still build in some room for flexibility where situations permit.

Or are the hard numbers the absolute line in the sand.

Dunno, just asking...

Click to expand...

It's pretty easy to have a successful business model when you are a perennial Super Bowl Championship contender with one of the best ever under center week in and week out.

It will be very interesting to see how successful the business model is after the Belichick/Brady era winds down, and we see a couple years of those inevitable 6 win seasons.

Why do you believe that management will choose to do things in such a way as to deliver a couple of 6 win seasons? They've figured out how to do otherwise. Kraft didn't just get lucky with BB, and BB didn't get lucky with Brady. This isn't a role of the dice any more than innovation is luck at Apple and price leadership is luck at Walmart.

Wolfpack said:

It's pretty easy to have a successful business model when you are a perennial Super Bowl Championship contender with one of the best ever under center week in and week out.

It will be very interesting to see how successful the business model is after the Belichick/Brady era winds down, and we see a couple years of those inevitable 6 win seasons.

Click to expand...

I don't think that the primary goal of the business side of the Patriots is to win the Super Bowl every year. I really don't believe that Kraft's business people evaluate every year as a failure that they don't win that game. They've got other metrics that are more about long term value of the team and short term profitability. Super Bowl wins help, but aren't necessary, certainly not every year or even every fifth year.

And on the football side, if BB was given a choice to win the Super Bowl every four years, do you think he'd consider himself a 75% failure as a head coach?

signbabybrady said:

I think on the surface everyones goal is to win the SB every year so on that note he fails(as do 31 other owners) but the funny thing about the arbutrary numbers you just used. He has owned the team about 20 years and won 3 SBs so he is averaging a SB win for every 6-7 years. When compared to 4-5 years this is "so-so at best" but when compared to a different set of logic like if all things were equal you would get 1 out of 32 years then it is absolutely amazing.

Click to expand...

Halifax_Pats_Fan said:

I know what you all are about to say..duhh, look at the last 10 years of dominance!

Look at the sell-outs, the point of business is to make money, Kraft has been making truckloads of it. By that definition they are successful!

It's pretty, seemingly, cut and dry really.

Ok, I get that. I am not on one side or the other really, just curious to know what us pats fans think of it.

My only comment on the model is the hard numbers they have for positions, if they have them. Or maybe they have a range, I don't know...

Should there be room for 'executive decisions' to be made in certain circumstances that still keep the model intact, on certain players.

For instance, yeah, this position gets this dollar amount but in this specific instance, we can through maybe 2 more million, max, at a player. Add up that 2 million over a roster and you are into a cap hit that's for sure.

I just think that in some instances, maybe there is room to maintain the integrity of the business model, yet still build in some room for flexibility where situations permit.

Or are the hard numbers the absolute line in the sand.

Dunno, just asking...

Click to expand...

You are inventing an approach that has proven not be what they use and asking if it is a good approach? I donlt understand the point.


'

Yes. They went 11-5 with MFC...

No...it doesn't work..it's horrible...Kraft should sell the team to someone from St Louis...then rehire Bobby Grier as player personnel head and bring in Marty Schottenheimer as head coach...then they can sign Tony Eason's kid to a ten year 100 million dollar guaranteed contract to play QB...sign four or five HUGE well known names at any position to megadeals of six years or more and dedicate 90% of the cap to like 10 guys....there...THAT'S much better....

I'm with Joker. have we looked at Arizona's business model? Maybe Minnesota? The JETS'? Now those guys know from models.

:attention: