The Individual vs. the Team

And the Browns have cut Ben Tate, signed as a UFA only 8 months ago, unhappy about his role in a RBBC rotation. Meanwhile, the "relentless, anonymous brilliance of the New England Patriots" rolls on.

ZoisKing said:

My memory is fuzzy on it, so I went and researched it. It was apparently a new contract he wanted, and New England wasn't going to give it to him. That, and as you've said, his skills diminishing were the biggest pieces of the trade to Minny.

As for on the field, if he wasn't getting the ball he wasn't playing all out. He would dog it fairly often. He never was a great all around receiver, and that's that, but he could have at least tried running more routes even when he wasn't the primary receiver on a play. From my perspective, he was lazy out there his last year here.

Click to expand...

Moss' ticket out of town came in the Jets game. Revis went out, Moss had the mismatch of a lifetime on Cromartie and Moss quit on the team. There were 2 Ints caused by him slowing up when he had Cromartie beat, and by tipping a ball that he made no effort to really try and catch. It was blatantly obvious to me that he was saying FU to BB and the team, and BB responded with an FU of his own.

mayoclinic said:

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:



http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/...ield-before-game-is-over/stories/201411180148

Weird stuff, if true. I can't recall players on a team ever pushing for someone to be released.

Click to expand...

The Martin/Incognito issue comes to mind

Really good topic and one that is very tough for fans to see or measure. I don't think Blount and Brooks are unique in their attitude, moreso there actions.
Guys that aren't playing (Dobson, Dennard) were stars their whole lives so it naturally must be very frustrating for them and something they simply have not had much experience with.
This is where I see a combination of the team setting expectations while at the same time recognizing their importance (black jerseys for practice players of week) and the leaders really setting the tone not only by their long hours but also their selfless styles by not discussing individual accomplishments, just team ones.

I also believe Belichick drops players that display these attitudes (Adalius Thomas, Spikes, Kelly) which further emphasizes to the team that me first attitudes are not tolerated.
Belichick was asked one time at a press conference what makes a player a leader and responded "Someone who puts the team goals ahead of their own individual ones" and that was it.
This more than anything is the Patriot way and I still see the espn experts that were former players completely miss the boat on this.
Last night I heard Dilfer talk about the turnaround and he was critical of himself for writing them off after the KC game but then he described the Patriots way of "empowering the players to express themselves so they can accomplish their own goals" which is so far off base. Its like he just grabbed that line from some Organizational Behavior course and liked the sound of it and used it. It just left me shaking my head and changing the channel.

I think Patsfanken really provided excellent thoughts on this topic.

Wow that got a lot more replies than I thought it would. Usually I directly reply to the person but i'll keep this general.

Me first can mean a lot of things. Being me first does not automatically hurt your team. Players want to show what they have but are smart enough to know that the better the team does. The deeper its run the better they personally look. When I said Revis was a me first guy I didn't mean it hurt the team. He will do what helps the team win as that is what is best for him personally. There is this quote in The Untouchables tributated to a player (forgot his name) and it goes like "I play for myself but I get nowhere without the team".

Also me first to me means you want to get all the money you can which is not unfair at all. That in a round about ways hurts the team but you can not fault a guy for doing it.

What about the player that took a pay cut to help his team? Now he wants to show what he can do before they let him go in favor of a younger player but they elect to play the younger guy to give him the experience. The team asked the player to take less and failed to return the favor. He helped the team when he didn't have to but was not helped when he could use it.

Is it okay for the team to ask of the player but not the player to ask of the team? Does that make him selfish? I don't think so. But now he is called a me first player that puts himself above the good of the team. Also what if a team is up 17 points and your 2nd RB wants to be put it with 4 minutes left? The game is in hand but you decide not to do it and instead feed your workhorse the yards so he looks better and is happy. It didn't help or hurt the team in that case. What if you told that backup you would feed him more and then you get a young player who is better than you thought and suddenly your rotating turns into a lead back run game. Is the player now being selfish cause he was told one thing and now another is happening and he is not allowed to show he is still an effective runner in his own right?

Probably the right move is to be classy and just shrug it off as that is the way it is. However I think the player gets the raw end of the scrutiny unfairly a lot of the time.

SacPete1 said:

Last night I heard Dilfer talk about the turnaround and he was critical of himself for writing them off after the KC game but then he described the Patriots way of "empowering the players to express themselves so they can accomplish their own goals" which is so far off base.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is that far off base. I heard the same interview and Dilfer's point wasn't that NE allowed everyone to do their own thing, it was that they empowered everyone by making even the smallest contributor feel that their actions contribute to team success.

mayoclinic said:

Two numbers from Jonas Gray's game on Sunday night stand out to me:

1. 0 negative rushes on 38 attempts
2. 104 yards (out of 199) achieved after contact.

Click to expand...

3. Had 16 carries with 5 yards or less to go for a first down, and he picked up that first down 13 times.

BobDigital said:

Coaches in the NFL have different levels of tolerance for a me first type of player. BB has a much lower tolerance than most. However a few points.

#1 Bill has employed me first players in the past and signed guys fully knowing what they are. However he only does this is they produced to a high level justifying their ego. Revis is a recent example of this, He is not the trouble maker Blount can be but still is clearly me first

Click to expand...

Not sure why you're singling out Revis. Other than his desire to get paid, Revis has always been a good team player and teamate.

Moss would be a better example if you want to pursue that line.

BobDigital said:

Wow that got a lot more replies than I thought it would. Usually I directly reply to the person but i'll keep this general.

Me first can mean a lot of things. Being me first does not automatically hurt your team. Players want to show what they have but are smart enough to know that the better the team does. The deeper its run the better they personally look. When I said Revis was a me first guy I didn't mean it hurt the team. He will do what helps the team win as that is what is best for him personally. There is this quote in The Untouchables tributated to a player (forgot his name) and it goes like "I play for myself but I get nowhere without the team".

Click to expand...

I don't think you are defining 'me first' the same was as most people do. Me first by definition hurts the team because you put yourself and your personal success ahead of the team success, ie will do things that are not best for the team but make you look good.

Also me first to me means you want to get all the money you can which is not unfair at all. That in a round about ways hurts the team but you can not fault a guy for doing it.

Click to expand...

I think everyone wants to get all the money they can, but thats not a me first attitude.

What about the player that took a pay cut to help his team?

Click to expand...

I don't believe there has ever been one. Some take paycuts instead of being cut. Others take the same money in a different form (ie convert salary to bonus) to create cap room, but that is not a pay cut.

Now he wants to show what he can do before they let him go in favor of a younger player but they elect to play the younger guy to give him the experience. The team asked the player to take less and failed to return the favor. He helped the team when he didn't have to but was not helped when he could use it.

Click to expand...

This just doesn't happen. Players do not take paycuts unless its to prevent being released. Players who accept less to stay recognize their job is on the line.

Is it okay for the team to ask of the player but not the player to ask of the team? Does that make him selfish? I don't think so. But now he is called a me first player that puts himself above the good of the team.

Click to expand...

This just isn't the way it works though. Has a player ever given back his signing bonus because he underperformed? Players agree to play for X amount of dollars and the team agrees that IF IT STILL WANTS THE PLAYER thats what it will pay. It is not a 2 way street. The contract is subject to the team still liking the deal, or they can cut him. Pay cuts come in lieu of cuts. You cannot treat NFL contracts under the assumption that they are expected to be honored by the team no matter what, because they are not signed with that expectation. Every player that signs an NFL contract knows a few things:
1) The team can terminate at any time, and the amount he is given up front is because of that
2) Some of the money is guaranteed the rest is not
3) In many cases that years were added at the end for cap purposes and the team probably will not want them back at that cost.

Also what if a team is up 17 points and your 2nd RB wants to be put it with 4 minutes left? The game is in hand but you decide not to do it and instead feed your workhorse the yards so he looks better and is happy.

Click to expand...

Again, a scenario you made up that doesn't happen.

It didn't help or hurt the team in that case. What if you told that backup you would feed him more and then you get a young player who is better than you thought and suddenly your rotating turns into a lead back run game.

Click to expand...

What if you told him? What kind of argument is that? Do you have any example of this happening?
Also since when does an NFL team promise playing time, even if a younger better player comes along? No player is entitled to a job, roster spot or amount of playing time.

Is the player now being selfish cause he was told one thing and now another is happening and he is not allowed to show he is still an effective runner in his own right?

Click to expand...

Strawman because coaches don't indiscriminately promise playing time. In your fantasyland example the young player earned the playing time, so he would be the one screwed by not playing.

Probably the right move is to be classy and just shrug it off as that is the way it is. However I think the player gets the raw end of the scrutiny unfairly a lot of the time.

Click to expand...

When they act like a selfish bad teammate of course they do. When they decide to work harder to earn more opportunity they do not.

Wow Andy that was pretty detailed. I will go a lot faster and general to answer some of your points.

I don't believe there is only 1 type of me first player. Generally I think it is someone who puts personal success and praise over team success and praise. However when talking about something like "me first" there is no 1 simply definition to a term like that.

Holding out your play to get the contract you think you can is definitely me first. It hurts a team and trying to get the absolute highest money you can takes it away from a team and limits options to sign other players. If a player over preforms their contract a team will say stick to the deal a lot. If a player underperforms it is often a case of "sign a new deal for a lower number or you are gone".

Never been a pay cut? Is Brady making as much as he can this year? is he only worth 14 million compared to what his peers get paid? I think he is being under paid and has been in the past.

To say a scenario I brought up never happens is a very bold statement.

As far as a player being told he would be in a committee and then moved to a back up or bench roll. Happens every year. Blount is a good example this year. Was brought in to be part of a committee and then effectively benched for Bell. That is why he was mad.

Also players pad their stats at the end of games with the game in hand all the time. Not just QBs but all players. Players know their numbers matter cause come contract talk time they will be brought up.

I know I didn't hit on all your points but it was a lot and just wanted to address these particular ones.

Mike the Brit said:

You'd be very naive to think that this kind of issue never comes up on the Patriots -- though you're right that BB makes it a principle never to let them develop, even if it leads to parting company with a talented and expensive player. What's different is that BB's policy of keeping team matters private and out of the media means that, when there is a problem of this kind, it doesn't get publicity.

Click to expand...

Hell, Kyle Brady apparently went AWOL in the middle of the 2007 season (to the point that they actually had to go out and find him) and we didn't find out for a long time.

mayoclinic said:

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:



http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/...ield-before-game-is-over/stories/201411180148

Weird stuff, if true. I can't recall players on a team ever pushing for someone to be released.

Click to expand...

Joseph Randle says hi.

ctpatsfan77 said:

Joseph Randle says hi.

Click to expand...

????

Joseph Randle has problems, and he had issues with Dez Bryant, but I don't recall anything about Bryant or anyone else actually lobbying the team for his release.

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story...dle-disagreement?ex_cid=Twitter_espn_11802147

Down 24-13 going into the 4th quarter. If I'm Pittsburghs coach, I'm riding Bell all the way to the end of the game. Playoff implications are on the line and I'm not going to worry about Blounts feelings over the betterment of the team.

If teammates are so willing to throw him under the bus it really says a lot. Or Pouncey has a Incognito stranglehold over the locker room which I doubt. They aren't nicknamed the Squeelers for nothing. I'm sure they will Squeel the details soon enough what was going on with Blount.

mayoclinic said:

2 reports from ProFootballTalk today caught my eye:



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-blount-left-field-before-conclusion-of-game/

And:



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...h-says-49ers-moving-onward-with-ahmad-brooks/

Blount, of course, became a national sensation with the Pats last year and helped carry the offense down the stretch. The Pats chose not to match a 2 year $3.85M contract offer from the Steelers. Brooks was outstanding during the latter part of the season and playoffs last year for the 49ers. Now both guys are apparently unhappy with their roles and their playing time.

BB's always been about the team, not the individuals. What can be achieved when you get 53 guys on the same page, doing their job and without ego is staggering - but very, very hard to achieve. Guys like Jonas Gray and Tim Wright have been great examples so far this season, stepping up and performing when called upon - but also guys like Stevan Ridley, Danny Amendola and Aaron Dobson, who have dealt with decreased playing time, stats, and/or injuries without becoming distractions.

I love the talent level of this Pats team. But I also love the unselfishness and lack of ego, at least so far. Maybe Blount's pouting is another case of BB knowing better than the fan boards, and explains a decision that many of us found perplexing. In any case, I'm very happy with the way this team is developing as a team.

Click to expand...

Agree completely. This team reminds me more of how the 2003/2004 team's played the game than any we have seen since then. They obviously have a long ways to go to achieve what those teams did but they play the game in a way that is very similar imo. they are a game plan team that is predicated on all units executing their parts and they have the balance and depth to pull that off on a weekly basis. they are able to look at the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents and adapt to them and force teams to play out of their comfort zones. Looking really good so far but there is a long way to go.

Patriot Missile said:

If teammates are so willing to throw him under the bus it really says a lot. Or Pouncey has a Incognito stranglehold over the locker room which I doubt. They aren't nicknamed the Squeelers for nothing. I'm sure they will Squeel the details soon enough what was going on with Blount.

Click to expand...

And, right on cue:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000430790/article/pouncey-legarrette-blounts-release-a-blessing

BobDigital said:

Wow Andy that was pretty detailed. I will go a lot faster and general to answer some of your points.

I don't believe there is only 1 type of me first player. Generally I think it is someone who puts personal success and praise over team success and praise. However when talking about something like "me first" there is no 1 simply definition to a term like that.

Click to expand...

I would disagree. Me first means you put your individual goals ahead of the teams.

Holding out your play to get the contract you think you can is definitely me first. It hurts a team and trying to get the absolute highest money you can takes it away from a team and limits options to sign other players. If a player over preforms their contract a team will say stick to the deal a lot. If a player underperforms it is often a case of "sign a new deal for a lower number or you are gone".

Click to expand...

Every player should get as much as he can.
Again, though you seem to not get the way an NFL contract works. The player is obligated to it. The team is obligated to the guaranteed portion and has an option on all of the rest.
You are describing the way the NFL and NFLPA has AGREED to structure contracts as if the teams are wrong. The players get large signing bonusses in return for that.

Never been a pay cut? Is Brady making as much as he can this year? is he only worth 14 million compared to what his peers get paid? I think he is being under paid and has been in the past.

Click to expand...

Brady did not take a pay cut. Brady had an ENORMOUS amount of guaranteed money at a very advanced age in return for a lower annual pay.
Brady very likely could have gone and got more, but is a rare case of a player who FINANCIALLY puts the team first.

To say a scenario I brought up never happens is a very bold statement.

Click to expand...

Not at all. And even if it were, what is the point? A coach is not at fault for how much he plays the backup, and not playing does not give the player a right to quit.

As far as a player being told he would be in a committee and then moved to a back up or bench roll. Happens every year. Blount is a good example this year. Was brought in to be part of a committee and then effectively benched for Bell. That is why he was mad.

Click to expand...

Certainly does not happen. Coaches do not promise players roles. Players compete for roles.
Are you seriously telling me that NFL coaches tell players "You will play X amount, I promise" and keep playing them when someone else is better? Come on.
Blount is not a 'good example'. In what way was 'he brought in as part of a committee'? That may be what you think the Steelers were aiming for, but players are not brought in and guaranteed a role.
Bell outperformed Blount, so its Bells job. Blount is a crybaby.

Also players pad their stats at the end of games with the game in hand all the time. Not just QBs but all players. Players know their numbers matter cause come contract talk time they will be brought up.

Click to expand...

What would that have to do with anything?

I know I didn't hit on all your points but it was a lot and just wanted to address these particular ones.

Click to expand...

Honestly I think you just have a wrong inmpression of how playing time is earned in the NFL. If you can show me any examples of players being promised and guaranteed a role that they would keep even if the guy behind them outplayed them, then I'd be open to your conspiracy theories, but I don't think that exists.

mayoclinic said:

And the Browns have cut Ben Tate, signed as a UFA only 8 months ago, unhappy about his role in a RBBC rotation. Meanwhile, the "relentless, anonymous brilliance of the New England Patriots" rolls on.

Click to expand...

Thought Tate had a lot of talent and would break away from Foster and be a star. Either he is unlucky and gets injured a lot or the guy just doesn't play with pain well. Either way I'm glad the Pats didn't sign him if he can't get on the field. Could definitely see him in a Colt uniform next week.

I just don't get why Blount went to Pitt if he was this concerned about his carries, I mean he had to know he was going to be playing behind Bell. Maybe he didn't have a lot of offers or else he really liked getting high with Bell

meatface said:

I just don't get why Blount went to Pitt if he was this concerned about his carries, I mean he had to know he was going to be playing behind Bell. Maybe he didn't have a lot of offers or else he really liked getting high with Bell

Click to expand...

I think that there was more going on than Blount just being upset about carries. I wouldn't be surprised if after the weed fiasco early in the season his life in Pittsburgh was made uncomfortable by Tomlin.

Also I assume he went there because it was the highest and safest offer. Not about snaps at all.