"Uncertainty Theory": How the Pats Do Business?

[mayoclinic]

Kareem Brown
Jabari Holloway
Garrett Mills, Tyrone McKenzie and Brock Williams never played a game in NE although they spent a year on IR.
Since it seems that the silly implication is that BB would keep a player to make his draft record look better, they would both certainly count.
Given that it is rare for any team to cut a player drafted in the first 4 rounds in his 1st year, that list pretty much dismisses the theory.
There is nothing to see here.

Nice list.

I think that the bolded statement is the most important one. There is a tradeoff between cutting a player too soon (before they have had time to be evaluated, to learn the system, or to develop) and keeping them too long (after they have demonstrated a lack of ability or fit). I don't think it's unreasonable to keep players drafted in the first 4 round at least into their 1st season. The Pats seem as decisive as any team about cutting losses with relatively high picks who underperform. Chad Jackson, Kevin O'Connell and Tyrone McKenzie were cut pretty darn fast given their initial draft status.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think we may read a bit too much into single/a few examples. We don't do it in trades as much, because we don't see as many of them, but the Chad Johnson trade shows the team still willing to take the risk, even giving up picks in the process.

 

[jah]

Nice list.

I think that the bolded statement is the most important one. There is a tradeoff between cutting a player too soon (before they have had time to be evaluated, to learn the system, or to develop) and keeping them too long (after they have demonstrated a lack of ability or fit). I don't think it's unreasonable to keep players drafted in the first 4 round at least into their 1st season. The Pats seem as decisive as any team about cutting losses with relatively high picks who underperform. Chad Jackson, Kevin O'Connell and Tyrone McKenzie were cut pretty darn fast given their initial draft status.

Does anyone know of any rookies taken before round 5 that were cut the same year they were drafted? I originally thought Mills was one of them but turns out he stayed on the roster his rookie year before he got waived.

 

[Deus Irae]

Kareem Brown
Jabari Holloway
Garrett Mills, Tyrone McKenzie and Brock Williams never played a game in NE although they spent a year on IR.
Since it seems that the silly implication is that BB would keep a player to make his draft record look better, they would both certainly count.
Given that it is rare for any team to cut a player drafted in the first 4 rounds in his 1st year, that list pretty much dismisses the theory.
There is nothing to see here.

I forgot to put you back on ignore, so I can see this post. I'll keep you off it as long as we can remain civil.

Every player you listed here made the team, even if it was via the IR. The theory holds up, to this point, even against your purported examples.

 

[Deus Irae]

Does anyone know of any rookies taken before round 5 that were cut the same year they were drafted? I originally thought Mills was one of them but turns out he stayed on the roster his rookie year before he got waived.

Kareem Brown was waived in November of his rookie year, but he made the original 'final 53'.

 

[mayoclinic]

It's when you cut a clearly superior player based on draft status, a la Woodhead, that the fallacies have claimed you.

The Pats cut Tyrone McKenzie in 2010 in favor of UDFA Dane Fletcher, even though McKenzie hadn't played a regular season game for them and was a 2009 3rd round draft pick. They cut Taylor Price in 2011 in favor of UDFA Tiquan Underwood even though Price was a 2010 3rd round draft pick. They cut Rich Ohnrberger in favor of UDFA Ryan Wendell in 2010 even though Ohrnberger was a 2009 4th round draft pick. They traded away former 1st round pick Laurence Maroney in favor of UDFA BenJarvus Green-Ellis during the 2010 season.

I think it's pretty clearly established that draft status does not guarantee roster position on the Patriots. Does anyone believe that Jermaine Cunningham's 2nd round draft status will give him an advantage over 6th round pick Markell Carter? If it comes down to one spot, whoever plays better and shows that they can do more for the team will have the advantage, regardless of where they were selected. I don't think that that is the case with every team in the NFL. And it's important for signing depth FAs and UDFAs - players know they can win a spot and playing time based on their performance. As I noted in another thread, Seattle tried to sign Nick McDonald off of the Pats' PS last year, but McDonald's agent convinced him to stay with the Pats. 4 weeks later he was starting against Indy. Rob Ninkovich was signed as a LS and to be an extra body at LB. Now he's a key player on defense. Players know they will have a fair competition with the Pats, including the chance to move up the depth chart.

 

[Deus Irae]

....Does anyone believe that Jermaine Cunningham's 2nd round draft status will give him an advantage over 6th round pick Markell Carter?...

I believe that, if it were the rookie year for Cunningham, it would absolutely give him an advantage.

 

[patchick]

Does anyone know of any rookies taken before round 5 that were cut the same year they were drafted? I originally thought Mills was one of them but turns out he stayed on the roster his rookie year before he got waived.

Every player you listed here made the team

It seems like an unnecessarily rigid criterion to say the players couldn't even make it out of their first training camp. Honestly, that might go beyond "cutting your losses" to knee-jerk decision making.

Isn't the real question whether the Patriots are willing to cut their loses with unpromising drafted players faster than most teams, rather than some arbitrary combo of draft cutoffs and roster cutoffs?

Unfortunately, a meaningful comparison to other teams would be a hellish amount of work. Plus how do you distinguish between a team that's free from the sunk costs fallacy vs. a team that just made a lot of lousy draft pick? Strange to think of any metric where cutting high picks is a positive!

 

[patchick]

I believe that, if it were the rookie year for Cunningham, it would absolutely give him an advantage.

That seems reasonable to me, since:

A. Just a few months removed from the draft, the potential you showed in college is still somewhat relevant;

B. A 6th-round pick is much, much more likely to clear waivers to the practice squad than a 2nd-round pack;

C. Cutting a 2nd-round pick before his first game will incur some significant cap acceleration.

 

[jah]

It seems like an unnecessarily rigid criterion to say the players couldn't even make it out of their first training camp. Honestly, that might go beyond "cutting your losses" to knee-jerk decision making.

Isn't the real question whether the Patriots are willing to cut their loses with unpromising drafted players faster than most teams, rather than some arbitrary combo of draft cutoffs and roster cutoffs?

Unfortunately, a meaningful comparison to other teams would be a hellish amount of work. Plus how do you distinguish between a team that's free from the sunk costs fallacy vs. a team that just made a lot of lousy draft pick? Strange to think of any metric where cutting high picks is a positive!

I'm just curious about whether or not it should be assumed that a fourth round pick will make the 53.

 

[Deus Irae]

It seems like an unnecessarily rigid criterion to say the players couldn't even make it out of their first training camp. Honestly, that might go beyond "cutting your losses" to knee-jerk decision making.

Isn't the real question whether the Patriots are willing to cut their loses with unpromising drafted players faster than most teams, rather than some arbitrary combo of draft cutoffs and roster cutoffs?

Unfortunately, a meaningful comparison to other teams would be a hellish amount of work. Plus how do you distinguish between a team that's free from the sunk costs fallacy vs. a team that just made a lot of lousy draft pick? Strange to think of any metric where cutting high picks is a positive!

Well, no. The real question (or at least the one I'd been responding to) was whether players were 'given' jobs. The issue has moved from there to some attempt at defending against the assertion, but needlessly IMO, since Mayo seemed to be in sync with my point, even if my original questioning was because of me being a bit of a stickler about the language. Also, I stated my belief that the Patriots seem to do it less often than most teams back several posts.

Beyond draft picks, one could certainly point to Troy Brown's last year with the club as something that, if not a gift of a job, was certainly close to one.

As for it coming down to "that might go beyond "cutting your losses" to knee-jerk decision making", I don't agree. After all, is it knee-jerk decision making to cut the 5th rounders and below?

 

[mayoclinic]

I believe that, if it were the rookie year for Cunningham, it would absolutely give him an advantage.

I agree, as I've stated above. Draft status is relevant right after the draft. Tavon Wilson, who was projected as a late round/UDFA pick but who was taken day 2, is more of a sure thing to make the roster than Alfonzo Dennard, who was projected as a day 2 pick but ended up going in the 7th round. One guy is going to get a bigger contract than the other, with more guaranteed money. But if both guys make the final 53 their draft status won't impact their playing time. And it will be essentially irrelevant a year from now.

 

[Deus Irae]

That seems reasonable to me, since:

A. Just a few months removed from the draft, the potential you showed in college is still somewhat relevant;

B. A 6th-round pick is much, much more likely to clear waivers to the practice squad than a 2nd-round pack;

C. Cutting a 2nd-round pick before his first game will incur some significant cap acceleration.

You bring up solid points, and I can think of some reasons to go the other way with the idea (For example, giving an advantage to a 2nd rounder who's being outplayed by a lower round player could send a bad message to the team), which is why i'd mentioned a preference for an individualized pattern of decisions rather than a blanket "cut/no cut" notion. I'd guess that we're not very far apart on this issue, in terms of how much favoritism we'd show to higher picks.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree, as I've stated above. Draft status is relevant right after the draft. Tavon Wilson, who was projected as a late round/UDFA pick but who was taken day 2, is more of a sure thing to make the roster than Alfonzo Dennard, who was projected as a day 2 pick but ended up going in the 7th round. One guy is going to get a bigger contract than the other, with more guaranteed money. But if both guys make the final 53 their draft status won't impact their playing time. And it will be essentially irrelevant a year from now.

While I think the relevancy might be more, or less, depending upon just how how high the draft pick was, I'm in basic agreement with your point, and I think it's the right way to go. I'm not sure that we can find too many coaches who don't abide by this for the most part though, especially with Davis no longer running things in Oakland, so I'm not sure how much it separates teams.

 

[mayoclinic]

Beyond draft picks, one could certainly point to Troy Brown's last year with the club as something that, if not a gift of a job, was certainly close to one.

That's another can of worms entirely. Kevin Faulk last year also comes to mind.

I think there's a lot of things that factor into the final decision about who to "give" a roster spot. Current caliber of play is by far the most important. Long term potential is clearly another factor, and that probably influences rookies. It may also by some time for a new vet who has to learn the system (Ocho, for example). Character and leadership clearly factor in, and that may be one area in which guys like Kevin Faulk and Troy Brown "earned" their roster spot as opposed to being "given" it. BB clearly values locker room stability, team chemistry and leadership, and wants to balance youth with experience. Those things will factor in as well. Since the decision process is not transparent, what seems "earned" to one person may appear to be a "gift" to another. I don't know what the right answer is. But I still believe that the Pats' are more decisive about cutting loses and more competitive about allowing players to play their way onto the roster than most teams in the NFL.

 

[patchick]

I'm not sure that we can find too many coaches who don't abide by this for the most part though, especially with Davis no longer running things in Oakland, so I'm not sure how much it separates teams.

That reminds me...wasn't it Oakland (under Davis) that cut Stryer Sulak BEFORE camp, without ever signing him to a contract?

 

[Ring 6]

I forgot to put you back on ignore, so I can see this post. I'll keep you off it as long as we can remain civil.

.

Key word of course

 

[Ring 6]

I forgot to put you back on ignore, so I can see this post. I'll keep you off it as long as we can remain civil.

Every player you listed here made the team, even if it was via the IR. The theory holds up, to this point, even against your purported examples.

Those players never played a game.
I must be misunderstanding the theory.
Those are 4 examples of guys who have never seen the field for the Patriots that were drafted in the first 4 rounds.
It is extremely rare for any team to give up on a player before his first season. The draft position is a strong indication of their expectation of the player, so it would follow that it is very difficult for a player starting with high expectations to be given up on before a regular season game.
This is really a non issue, as it is the common practice of every NFL team, and a very understandable one at that.

 

[Gumby]

That seems reasonable to me, since:

A. Just a few months removed from the draft, the potential you showed in college is still somewhat relevant;

B. A 6th-round pick is much, much more likely to clear waivers to the practice squad than a 2nd-round pack;

C. Cutting a 2nd-round pick before his first game will incur some significant cap acceleration.

BINGO.

This is the point Deus and Andy in all their jabbing back and forth never come to.

The structure of the outside forces (NFL-NFLPA etc) driven rookie salary cap drives that the Patriots are FORCED to invest a certain amount of guaranteed money in any Rd 1-4 pick. So in any decision to cut a round 4 pick; the evaluation is going to partially be: how much better is this rd 5-UDFA competitor vs the SUNK COST that we already have invested in the Rd 4 guy. Almost invariably, especially with considering the whole unpredictability theory that Andy started with, the margin of improvement to your team by cutting the rd 4 guy is not going to be that big.

Then too; it is only if you are in a tight roster decision that it comes down to a cut one or the other decision. It could be (imo in most cases) that BB is keeping BOTH the UDFA and the Rd4 guy on the roster and just waiting to see who pans out. That doesnt mean the Pats still view the rd4 choice as a best choice at the 53 cut down point; but that they view it as the choice they have to live with.

SIDENOTE: I think the risk terms folks were grasping at are:
'risk averse' - avoid choices w/ too much down side w/o value evaluation
vs. 'managed risk' - using calculated risk and comparative value evaluation

 

[mayoclinic]

BINGO. This is the point Deus and Andy in all their jabbing back and forth never come to.

I think all the "jabbing" has been relatively civilized. Both guys have a lot to offer, and you have to make allowances for differences of style and temperment. I personally think it's a big plus to have input from both.

The structure of the outside forces (NFL-NFLPA etc) driven rookie salary cap drives that the Patriots are FORCED to invest a certain amount of guaranteed money in any Rd 1-4 pick. So in any decision to cut a round 4 pick; the evaluation is going to partially be: how much better is this rd 5-UDFA competitor vs the SUNK COST that we already have invested in the Rd 4 guy. Almost invariably, especially with considering the whole unpredictability theory that Andy started with, the margin of improvement to your team by cutting the rd 4 guy is not going to be that big.

Then too; it is only if you are in a tight roster decision that it comes down to a cut one or the other decision. It could be (imo in most cases) that BB is keeping BOTH the UDFA and the Rd4 guy on the roster and just waiting to see who pans out. That doesnt mean the Pats still view the rd4 choice as a best choice at the 53 cut down point; but that they view it as the choice they have to live with.

I think that for new players, whether rookies or vets, it DOES matter how high they were picked, how much of a signing bonus they got, how big and how long term their contract is, etc. There's certainly going to be a bias the higher a player was selected or the more money they were paid to sign. It would be bad business to sign a high rookie pick and give them a substantial bonus and then cut them before the season started because they were struggling or were outperformed by a UDFA. I think it would require egregious circumstances (i.e., a major off field incident) for something like that to happen. Same thing with a vet signing - you don't give a guy like Jonathan Fanene (just to pick someone) a 3 year contract with a signing bonus of $3.85M if you think he is going to be on the roster bubble. Realistically, a guy like Fanene is probably not fighting for a roster spot, he's fighting for playing time. But the clock starts ticking pretty fast with both rookies and vets, and if they don't perform the team can move on pretty darn quickly. As was pointed out, this may not be that much of a deviation from the norm in the modern day NFL, though it does seem to me that the Pats are on the quick side to cut their losses and move on.

SIDENOTE: I think the risk terms folks were grasping at are:
'risk averse' - avoid choices w/ too much down side w/o value evaluation
vs. 'managed risk' - using calculated risk and comparative value evaluation

Works for me, but again, I'll defer to others in matters of business/psych terms of art.