"Uncertainty Theory": How the Pats Do Business?

[Why?PJ]

Playing the devils advocate, how does this principle play in terms of a player mindset. Do we have instances where an accomplished player simply said "Thanks but no thanks" and go elsewhere.

I know it is all business and nothing personal but I would assume the road goes both ways..

Any insights ?

The players that would say that wouldn't be interested in the Pats in the first place, because they would want top dollar.

 

[mayoclinic]

There was good article a few months back following the Fanene signing. The article discussed how targetting the mid level, "depth" guys early makes the Patriots much more desireable bucause that player segment always has inherent worry about their contracts.

Good point. The Pats usually avoid the first week feeding frenzy of free agency. By the time they go after many of the blue collar middle tier players, those guys have been sitting around for a week watching the action and wondering when their phones will ring.

I also think that the Pats have a reputation for guys being able to earn their way onto the roster, and earn playing time. Seattle tried to sign Nick McDonald off of our practice squad last year to their regular roster, and it was McDonald's agent who convinced him to stay with the Pats because he felt McDonald would have a better chance of long term success. My guess is that that kind of thing is pretty unusual.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The Patriots also pay particular attention to the business end of the equation. As Jason noted they have few players signed beyond 2014 probably for multiple reasons. Not the least of which is they are waiting for this reality to set in on the other side:

daniel kaplan‏@dkaplanSBJ

If NFL projections correct, won't be until the 6th yr of new 10-yr CBA that cap exceeds level in last yr (2009) of capped year in old deal

40m daniel kaplan‏@dkaplanSBJ

...and staggering of media deals leads to almost no cap increase projection in 1st year of mega new TV deals

40m daniel kaplan‏@dkaplanSBJ

Benefits will rise sharply though, but media deals will not spike the cap, not even a bit. Offsets from artificially higher caps in 11-13...

42m daniel kaplan‏@dkaplanSBJ

IN SBJ, NFL tells teams to project flat salary caps thru 2015: 2013 ($121 mln); 2014 (122 mln) 2015 (125 mln), and then in 2016 $130 mln.

So those eager for the team to spend it's present excess cap need to realize there are reasons not to. Having at least several million in rollover will put them in position to remain flexible through the flat caps.

 

[mayoclinic]

The Patriots also pay particular attention to the business end of the equation. As Jason noted they have few players signed beyond 2014 probably for multiple reasons. Not the least of which is they are waiting for this reality to set in on the other side:

So those eager for the team to spend it's present excess cap need to realize there are reasons not to. Having at least several million in rollover will put them in position to remain flexible through the flat caps.

Yup. Robert Kraft has been adamant that he sees the cap having virtually no growth for a while, and the Pats have planned accordingly. Meanwhile other teams may get into cap trouble, resulting in the need to cut players that they would like to keep, making those players available for smart teams who have rolled over cap space and have some room to judiciously spend.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I really focused on the argument on page 1, which seems semantic.

"Risk aversion" is how you characterize someone else's risk-management strategy. After all, if you're invested 100% in junk bonds, you can call someone with 70% in investment-rated growth stocks and 30% in an international growth fund "risk-averse."

If you're invested 100% in Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, you can look at a guy with 10% in blue-chip stocks and 90% in TIPS as a risk taker.

You can say "the fund has a really risk-averse asset allocation," but you're just saying it compared with other such entities. So we're all talking about places where the Pats take chances, and other places where they diversify, multiplying their chances of hitting on a "big gamble."

This works a couple of different ways: the "currency" of draft picks, and the currency of currency. With draft picks, you can look at last draft as the example where the Pats thought the value was not in making a bunch of "value" picks. It takes a lot to make the Pats trade up, and they did it twice in the first round in 2012, because they reasoned that that's where the real value was. Then they strung out their remaining picks to get a large crop from which to choose - in essence, trading meh picks for a lot of gambles they could afford.

With actual cap space we all know they mitigate risk by doing "show-me" deals when those deals are available. They also did the Gronk extension in a smart way, showing the "big" bucks to a guy for the long term, when that guy is, to all appearances, a unique talent in a league in a TEward lurch.

Highlighting value of Gronk deal - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

What's his deal cost in two years? Again, the deal can be seen as mitigating the risk. Just as senior citizens have "longevity risk" -- a "curse" of a long healthy life -- you get "superstar risk" when you hit in the draft. Couple that with the role that TE is beginning to play, not just in Foxborough but throughout the league, and the big deal looks positively bland projected into future years.

So I think the initial thread title, "uncertainty theory," is more accurate. Everybody in his right mind is "risk averse," if you include in your definition of risk aversion the risk of opportunity cost. The Pats are just very good at recognizing that every decision mitigates one or another kind of exposure, and that they have a variety of exposures to mitigate (including the exposure created by every previous move.)

As said earlier, all the eggs are never in one basket... but I don't know how often you see a pure example of that, ever since Ricky Williams first came out.

 

[mayoclinic]

As a corollary to this thread, I was thinking about about how BB seems to approach personnel selection and roster building, and came up with the following basic principles, some of which have already been discussed in this thread:

1. BB wants to build a team, not collect talent.

This has been said many times, but it's really true. BB is all about the team, not about the individuals. I keep reading about how various teams have enough "talent" to win it all. Well, 32 teams (or close to it) probably have enough talent to win it all. It's not about talent, it's about getting 53 guys on the same page, buying into the same values and philosophy, and working as one. One key guy out of shape or malcontent can wreck a season.

You see this over and over with BB. He won't necessarily keep the most talented player, he'll try to assemble the best team. He'll cut a guy like Albert Haynesworth in mid season to send a message. He'll have players wear jerseys without numbers to send a message that no one is any different from anyone else. He'll introduce the units at the Super Bowl rather than introduce individuals. BB wants guys who are truly passionate about football, and who will work harder and buy into the team concept whole heartedly, not uber talented guys who are focused on their own achievements. That's why I doubt he would ever have given a guy like Kellen Winslow a second thought.

2. BB values a balance between experience and potential.

It's easy to get carried away with upside and long term potential. But I think BB really values veteran leadership and experience. He keeps bringing in guys like Will Allen, Bobby Carpenter and Joseph Addai - every year he brings in some new faces. As much as it's easy to fall in love with potential, BB is always going to be much more conservative about balancing youth and potential with experience and a history of production. He knows that talent only goes so far and that the roster keeps turning over, so he'll often settle for a short term veteran benefit over a long term developmental prospect. Personally, that sometimes drives me crazy when he cuts a guy I like in favor of keeping a veteran on the tail end of his career, but it seems to have worked pretty well overall.

3. BB believes in competition.

I think that BB believes that champions are forged in the heat of competition, starting in training camp and going through the regular season and playoffs. Adversity is your friend. Finding guys who thrive on it and respond to it is the trick.

I keep seeing BB bring in more and more players to keep the level of competition up. He cuts Anthony Gonzalez and Chad Ochocinco, and then brings in an ultra-competitive guy like Jesse Holley. Holley may not be the most talented WR in the world, but he will work his *ss off. Guys like Bobby Carpenter and Julian Edelman thrive on the competition and embrace it. This avoids an attitude of entitlement and fosters a team-first approach, and also helps get guys ready for the regular season. When you've worked your butt off to win a roster spot, you're going to keep working all season long to hang on to it.

4. BB believes in constant roster improvement.

BB keeps trying to make the roster deeper and stronger at every spot. Just because a player earned a job doesn't mean they will keep it, or that they are a lock for the next year. We see guys every year who were successful the year before and who are cut, traded, or allowed to leave. Kelly Washington. Sam Aiken. Tully Banta-Cain. Brandon Tate. BenJarvus Green-Ellis. James Sanders. Etc.

People keep thinking that guys are "safe" because they've been successful before. Not so. If BB can upgrade a roster spot, he will. Signing a Brian Waters or a Rodney Harrison. Picking up a Danny Woodhead or a Jake Ballard when they unexpectedly become available. The same applies not only to roster spots but to depth. Danny Woodhead's been a good 3rd down back for us for 2 years, but if Shane Vereen outperforms him, so much the better. Competition is good, and upgrading the roster is always a good thing.

On the business side, I think the team is careful about long term contracts and who they invest in as "core players". The roster is constantly being churned and upgraded, and tying up too much long term money in your current group may prevent signing someone who is an upgrade. As Mo has discussed, the team is very careful about managing its cap space so that it has room to maneuver.

5. BB believes in trying again and again.

We've seen over and over again that BB has some kind of personnel goal in mind, and he keeps trying to fill it. If one player doesn't succeed, he cuts his losses and moves on, but usually tries again. We've seen this over and over again: draft Lee Smith and sign UDFA Will Yeatman, lose them both, then grab Jake Ballard off waivers; draft Ted Larsen and lose him for a roster spot, grab Nick McDonald off waivers; steal Josh Barrett from Denver and sign UDFA Jeff Tarpinian, but also draft Nate Ebner. The clock starts ticking as soon as someone is signed, and if they don't work out then BB moves on and keeps on trying. Keep drafting competition, and keep throwing darts at an area until you find a player who fits and can stick. When they don't stick, move on without ado and without remorse.

As a corollary, BB doesn't get attached to any one player, but he seldom closes the door on a player either. Guys like Branch, Gaffney and Stallworth leave and come back. He tries to get a player one year and fails, and sometimes gets that player later on down the road at a cheaper price - Robert Gallery is one possible example. Daniel Fells also comes to mind. If BB can't get his guy he doesn't cry about it but moves on, but he always keeps an eye out for available talent.

6. BB is pragmatic about player evaluation.

I think BB understands that you keep aiming at an ideal roster in terms of skill set and personalities, but that you never attain it. Injuries and imperfect player evaluation play a role. You keep honestly evaluating your players, and you don't fall in love with them. We keep hearing other coaches hyping up their guys early on. Not BB. "We liked him or we wouldn't have signed/drafted him, now we'll give him a chance and see what he can do" is about the most you get. But BB is very rigorous about assessing what the personnel on the roster are capable of doing, and he will make appropriate adjustments to scheme to take advantage of strengths and cover up weaknesses. BB's ultimately a pragmatist. He's going to keep tinkering with personnel and scheme until he finds something that works, rather than being wedded to a given set of players or a given approach.

There may be others that I've left out, and none of these are absolute. I'm open to thoughts/suggestions. But I think that these tenets explain a lot of the roster moves and decisions that BB has made over the years. It makes sense, and he seems to be pretty consistent. And his results have been pretty darn good.

 

[mgteich]

I was taught to call this Game Theory. For me, the Uncertainty Principle/Theory is something entirely different.

Everyone who plays (the 32 GM's) have their own rules and tendencies, and their own estimate of the rules and tendencies of others.

Your last post focuses on some of Belichick's principles. You arguements are well stated.

With regard to risk aversion, patfaninva is correct. From what perspective is risk averse? Some would consider him a wild risk takers. others would consider him a hopeless conservative.

 

[mgteich]

I think that you state well some of the principles of a good coach and GM. I don't think any of these are unique to Belichick.

BTW, I stongly disagree with the assertion that 32 teams (or close) have the talent to win in all.

Talent does indeed count for something. You can choose to believe that Belichick and our staff would have brough JAX to the Super Bowl in 2011. You can choose to believe that the difference between our defense and that of PITT is a matter of coaching, and that talent doesn't a large difference. I simply disagree.

BTW, part of football talent is the ability to learn, the ability to work with other players and personal discipline. Raw talent (raw combine numbers, ignoring on the field abilities) means little in the nfl.

As a corollary to this thread, I was thinking about about how BB seems to approach personnel selection and roster building, and came up with the following basic principles, some of which have already been discussed in this thread:

1. BB wants to build a team, not collect talent.

This has been said many times, but it's really true. BB is all about the team, not about the individuals. I keep reading about how various teams have enough "talent" to win it all. Well, 32 teams (or close to it) probably have enough talent to win it all. It's not about talent, it's about getting 53 guys on the same page, buying into the same values and philosophy, and working as one. One key guy out of shape or malcontent can wreck a season.

You see this over and over with BB. He won't necessarily keep the most talented player, he'll try to assemble the best team. He'll cut a guy like Albert Haynesworth in mid season to send a message. He'll have players wear jerseys without numbers to send a message that no one is any different from anyone else. He'll introduce the units at the Super Bowl rather than introduce individuals. BB wants guys who are truly passionate about football, and who will work harder and buy into the team concept whole heartedly, not uber talented guys who are focused on their own achievements. That's why I doubt he would ever have given a guy like Kellen Winslow a second thought.

2. BB values a balance between experience and potential.

It's easy to get carried away with upside and long term potential. But I think BB really values veteran leadership and experience. He keeps bringing in guys like Will Allen, Bobby Carpenter and Joseph Addai - every year he brings in some new faces. As much as it's easy to fall in love with potential, BB is always going to be much more conservative about balancing youth and potential with experience and a history of production. He knows that talent only goes so far and that the roster keeps turning over, so he'll often settle for a short term veteran benefit over a long term developmental prospect. Personally, that sometimes drives me crazy when he cuts a guy I like in favor of keeping a veteran on the tail end of his career, but it seems to have worked pretty well overall.

3. BB believes in competition.

I think that BB believes that champions are forged in the heat of competition, starting in training camp and going through the regular season and playoffs. Adversity is your friend. Finding guys who thrive on it and respond to it is the trick.

I keep seeing BB bring in more and more players to keep the level of competition up. He cuts Anthony Gonzalez and Chad Ochocinco, and then brings in an ultra-competitive guy like Jesse Holley. Holley may not be the most talented WR in the world, but he will work his *ss off. Guys like Bobby Carpenter and Julian Edelman thrive on the competition and embrace it. This avoids an attitude of entitlement and fosters a team-first approach, and also helps get guys ready for the regular season. When you've worked your butt off to win a roster spot, you're going to keep working all season long to hang on to it.

4. BB believes in constant roster improvement.

BB keeps trying to make the roster deeper and stronger at every spot. Just because a player earned a job doesn't mean they will keep it, or that they are a lock for the next year. We see guys every year who were successful the year before and who are cut, traded, or allowed to leave. Kelly Washington. Sam Aiken. Tully Banta-Cain. Brandon Tate. BenJarvus Green-Ellis. James Sanders. Etc.

People keep thinking that guys are "safe" because they've been successful before. Not so. If BB can upgrade a roster spot, he will. Signing a Brian Waters or a Rodney Harrison. Picking up a Danny Woodhead or a Jake Ballard when they unexpectedly become available. The same applies not only to roster spots but to depth. Danny Woodhead's been a good 3rd down back for us for 2 years, but if Shane Vereen outperforms him, so much the better. Competition is good, and upgrading the roster is always a good thing.

On the business side, I think the team is careful about long term contracts and who they invest in as "core players". The roster is constantly being churned and upgraded, and tying up too much long term money in your current group may prevent signing someone who is an upgrade. As Mo has discussed, the team is very careful about managing its cap space so that it has room to maneuver.

5. BB believes in trying again and again.

We've seen over and over again that BB has some kind of personnel goal in mind, and he keeps trying to fill it. If one player doesn't succeed, he cuts his losses and moves on, but usually tries again. We've seen this over and over again: draft Lee Smith and sign UDFA Will Yeatman, lose them both, then grab Jake Ballard off waivers; draft Ted Larsen and lose him for a roster spot, grab Nick McDonald off waivers; steal Josh Barrett from Denver and sign UDFA Jeff Tarpinian, but also draft Nate Ebner. The clock starts ticking as soon as someone is signed, and if they don't work out then BB moves on and keeps on trying. Keep drafting competition, and keep throwing darts at an area until you find a player who fits and can stick. When they don't stick, move on without ado and without remorse.

As a corollary, BB doesn't get attached to any one player, but he seldom closes the door on a player either. Guys like Branch, Gaffney and Stallworth leave and come back. He tries to get a player one year and fails, and sometimes gets that player later on down the road at a cheaper price - Robert Gallery is one possible example. Daniel Fells also comes to mind. If BB can't get his guy he doesn't cry about it but moves on, but he always keeps an eye out for available talent.

6. BB is pragmatic about player evaluation.

I think BB understands that you keep aiming at an ideal roster in terms of skill set and personalities, but that you never attain it. Injuries and imperfect player evaluation play a role. You keep honestly evaluating your players, and you don't fall in love with them. We keep hearing other coaches hyping up their guys early on. Not BB. "We liked him or we wouldn't have signed/drafted him, now we'll give him a chance and see what he can do" is about the most you get. But BB is very rigorous about assessing what the personnel on the roster are capable of doing, and he will make appropriate adjustments to scheme to take advantage of strengths and cover up weaknesses. BB's ultimately a pragmatist. He's going to keep tinkering with personnel and scheme until he finds something that works, rather than being wedded to a given set of players or a given approach.

There may be others that I've left out, and none of these are absolute. I'm open to thoughts/suggestions. But I think that these tenets explain a lot of the roster moves and decisions that BB has made over the years. It makes sense, and he seems to be pretty consistent. And his results have been pretty darn good.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Patriots also pay particular attention to the business end of the equation. As Jason noted they have few players signed beyond 2014 probably for multiple reasons. Not the least of which is they are waiting for this reality to set in on the other side:



So those eager for the team to spend it's present excess cap need to realize there are reasons not to. Having at least several million in rollover will put them in position to remain flexible through the flat caps.

It depends on how you spend that cap money, though. If you spend it doing things like paying Welker a big first year number on a new contract, for example, you lower the cap spending for him in future years. Renegotiated deals with other players can be worked the same way.

 

[mgteich]

I agree with the principle but not with some of the examples.

Belichick certainly wanted to keep Banta-Cain and Green Ellis. Others offered much more than Belichick was willing to pay.

And please, please don't again bring up the cutting of James Sanders as an example of roster improvement. Belichick cut Sanders and Meriweather early. His IMPROVEMENTS were Barrett and Sergio Brown. Belichick also brought in Ihedigbo as a Ster and as an emergency #4 safety (a good move). At minimum, Belichick might have seen some of the preseason before evaluating whether both Barrett and Brown would be more valuable than James Sanders. James Sanders played S, nickel and dime; and he was a top STer (Belichick's type of player). Obviously, Belichick paid off bigtime when Chung and Barrett were injured, and Sergio Brown was so aweful at safety that he needed to be replaced by street free agents.

..

4. BB believes in constant roster improvement.

BB keeps trying to make the roster deeper and stronger at every spot. Just because a player earned a job doesn't mean they will keep it, or that they are a lock for the next year. We see guys every year who were successful the year before and who are cut, traded, or allowed to leave. Kelly Washington. Sam Aiken. Tully Banta-Cain. Brandon Tate. BenJarvus Green-Ellis. James Sanders. Etc.
.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I was taught to call this Game Theory. For me, the Uncertainty Principle/Theory is something entirely different.

Probably the best way to frame it yet, but I bet in the specific context you'd confuse more people (since we're talking about the game of playing a game.)

I've sent along apologies on the OP's behalf to Werner Heisenberg. Unfortunately, the envelope was never opened, so my apology was accepted but also rejected. Both Shrodinger and Heisenberg, however, remain fully dead.

 

[Digit]

As said earlier, all the eggs are never in one basket... but I don't know how often you see a pure example of that, ever since Ricky Williams first came out.

Peyton Manning, Colts for most of the 00's decade?

A tremendous amount of resources invested basically in one guy and short-changing everything else finally came to roost in 2011.

I could never understand how the Colts got away with this for years in shortchanging the defense so much here, the lack of investment in a backup QB, and so on.

I'm wondering if they'll do the same thing with Luck.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Peyton Manning, Colts for most of the 00's decade?

A tremendous amount of resources invested basically in one guy and short-changing everything else finally came to roost in 2011.

I could never understand how the Colts got away with this for years in shortchanging the defense so much here, the lack of investment in a backup QB, and so on.

I'm wondering if they'll do the same thing with Luck.

Back around 2004 I was all psyched to take the cap money allocated to different players and turn it into scatter-graphs -- they showed what you describe, to a certain extent. We had Brady in a class by himself, Seymour in a somewhat less exalted class by himself, a big middle class, and rooks. The Colts (for example) had a smaller, less well compensated middle class, cheapies, and Manning.

I kept track for a while then gave it up. One reason was the difficulty in getting cap numbers from different teams and adjusting them to reflect front-loading, back-loading, blah blah blah. The other reason was it was clear where we were going -- the Pats are like everybody else, though with a little more emphasis on the bargain signing (Moss 1-year "prove it" deal, then Foxborough discount thereafter,) and on treating the "supporting cast" well. But if someone is worth the money, BB pays the money. He's not that tightwad we hear about from the would-be superstars.

With regard to your Colts comparisons -- I don't think we spend terribly much on our backup QBs. We do tend to keep drafting and evaluating, and in that regard, did a better job than Indy. But I'd have trouble believing that Mathis, Freeney, guys like that, got zippo when their deals came up. We know Peyton and Brady were the outliers on their respective teams by a mile. They're both HOFers at the most important position... so I'm not surprised. We're not talking about what you pay Blaine Gabbert here. In terms of the rest of the Colts' payroll, and the scatter-gram of who got what in recent years, I doubt it's that different from the Pats' situation. They hit big in the draft many, many times, and they didn't all just stay in Indy for the sushi.

 

[mgteich]

I think that we have overstated the case.

Belichick has NEVER cut a player drafted in the first round in his rookie year, NEVER. Players who are injured and then out of the game for a year is a completely different situation. Yes, players drafted in the top 4 rounds have been injured and then have not made the team in their 2nd year.

Has Belichick ever cut a 2nd round in his 2nd year, barring injury? How about a 3rd rounder? I disagree that it won't matter next year than Wilson was drafted in the 2nd in 2011 and Dennard in the 7th. 2nd rounders get a couple of years to contribute.

With regard to Cunningham (and Brace), we are talking bout players who have been injured. But much more to the point, I expect that the round they were drafted might have caused them to be kept for an additional year. How many years do you think Brace would have had if he were a 7th round draft choice? Would he have even made the roster in his rookie year? He was the slowest player drafted.

BOTTOM LINE
I think that draft choice does matter for at least a couple of years.

And with regard to free agents, Belichick does have a penchant for bringing in former 1st rounders to see if they have anything left.

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.

 

[mayoclinic]

BTW, I stongly disagree with the assertion that 32 teams (or close) have the talent to win in all.

Talent does indeed count for something. You can choose to believe that Belichick and our staff would have brough JAX to the Super Bowl in 2011. You can choose to believe that the difference between our defense and that of PITT is a matter of coaching, and that talent doesn't a large difference. I simply disagree.

OK, I exagerrated a little. Shoot me. But not my that much. The 2001 Pats are a good example that teamwork can overcome talent. They were 5-11 (IIRC) the year before and 5-5 to start, and then pulled things together as a team. There's not that much difference between 6-10 and 10-6. Every year at least one team goes from worst to first in their division and becomes a contender. Consider the teams that probably have adequate talent to win the SB this year:

- AFCE: New England; the Jets and Buffalo probably aren't that far off
- AFCN: Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati
- AFCS: Houston; Tennessee probably isn't that far off
- AFCW: San Diego, maybe Denver; Oakland probably isn't that far off from a talent perspective
- NFCE: NY Giants, Philly, Dallas; Washington probably isn't that far off
- NFCN: Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit
- NFCS: New Orleans, Atlanta; Tampa Bay probably isn't that far off, and maybe even Carolina
- NFCW: San Francisco; Seattle and possibly Arizona aren't that far off

Again, this is from just a pure talent perspective, not from whether those teams play up to the level of their talent. But that's 15 teams with another 7-10 on the cusp. As far as I can tell only Miami, Cleveland, Indy, Jacksonville, Minnesota and St. Louis don't currently have an adequate talent base (and St. Louis might actually be close from a talent perspective).

Almost every team in the NFL has a lot of talent. Look at Cincinnati and St. Louis. The Bengals went from pitiful in 2010 to the playoffs last year, have a strong young nucleus, and extra draft picks in 2013. Talent isn't the problem. St. Louis has a talented young DL, a young franchise QB to build around, and a lot of other talent on both sides of the ball, and their loaded for the future with draft picks.

Even BB probably couldn't bring Jacksonville to the SB this year. But next year ... I wouldn't bet against him. Jacksonville is probably at least as good as the Pats were when BB took the team over in 2000.

 

[mayoclinic]

Belichick has NEVER cut a player drafted in the first round in his rookie year, NEVER. Has Belichick ever cut a 2nd round in his 2nd year, barring injury?

You wouldn't expect anyone to. That would be crazy. The use of a 1st or 2nd round pick signifies that the team sees a high degree of potential and upside in a prospect, and it would be horrible business and personnel management to cut him in his rookie year without giving him a chance to develop. Maybe if he turned out to be a serial killer, but then he'd have more pressing issues to deal with, anyway.

How about a 3rd rounder?

Kevin O'Connell, cut in training camp of his second year. Taylor Price, cut during the regular season in his second year. You discount Tyrone McKenzie because of an injury, but I'm not sure why - he wasn't injured when he was cut. The team cut him, paid him extra to stay on the PS, and then cut him during the season. They obviously saw enough to move on.

I disagree that it won't matter next year than Wilson was drafted in the 2nd in 2011 and Dennard in the 7th. 2nd rounders get a couple of years to contribute.

With regard to Cunningham (and Brace), we are talking bout players who have been injured. But much more to the point, I expect that the round they were drafted might have caused them to be kept for an additional year. How many years do you think Brace would have had if he were a 7th round draft choice? Would he have even made the roster in his rookie year? He was the slowest player drafted.

BOTTOM LINE
I think that draft choice does matter for at least a couple of years.

And with regard to free agents, Belichick does have a penchant for bringing in former 1st rounders to see if they have anything left.[/QUOTE]

 

[mgteich]

Yes, parity is wonderful.

Aaah, we are back to Parcells. Everyone is 0-0 in the playoffs. If you have a shot at the playoffs, you ahve a shot at the Super Bowl. OK, we're on the same page. I might have said that almost all teams have enough talent to have a shot at the playoffs.

The 2001 Super Bowl Team had arguably the worst talent of any winner in the history of the Super Bowl. I wouldn't use them as an example.

OK, I exagerrated a little. Shoot me. But not my that much. The 2001 Pats are a good example that teamwork can overcome talent. They were 5-11 (IIRC) the year before and 5-5 to start, and then pulled things together as a team. There's not that much difference between 6-10 and 10-6. Every year at least one team goes from worst to first in their division and becomes a contender. Consider the teams that probably have adequate talent to win the SB this year: - AFCE: New England; the Jets and Buffalo probably aren't that far off - AFCN: Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati - AFCS: Houston; Tennessee probably isn't that far off - AFCW: San Diego, maybe Denver; Oakland probably isn't that far off from a talent perspective - NFCE: NY Giants, Philly, Dallas; Washington probably isn't that far off - NFCN: Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit - NFCS: New Orleans, Atlanta; Tampa Bay probably isn't that far off, and maybe even Carolina - NFCW: San Francisco; Seattle and possibly Arizona aren't that far off Again, this is from just a pure talent perspective, not from whether those teams play up to the level of their talent. But that's 15 teams with another 7-10 on the cusp. As far as I can tell only Miami, Cleveland, Indy, Jacksonville, Minnesota and St. Louis don't currently have an adequate talent base (and St. Louis might actually be close from a talent perspective). Almost every team in the NFL has a lot of talent. Look at Cincinnati and St. Louis. The Bengals went from pitiful in 2010 to the playoffs last year, have a strong young nucleus, and extra draft picks in 2013. Talent isn't the problem. St. Louis has a talented young DL, a young franchise QB to build around, and a lot of other talent on both sides of the ball, and their loaded for the future with draft picks. Even BB probably couldn't bring Jacksonville to the SB this year. But next year ... I wouldn't bet against him. Jacksonville is probably at least as good as the Pats were when BB took the team over in 2000.

 

[mayoclinic]

The 2001 Super Bowl Team had arguably the worst talent of any winner in the history of the Super Bowl. I wouldn't use them as an example.

But that's the point. You don't need that much talent to make the playoffs, and the salary cap and free agency ensure that no team has a huge talent disparity over the others. It's not like the 1960's Packers, or even the 1990s Cowboys. You can't count on 31 teams having Matt Millens for GM making inept picks year after year - teams will amass talent, and can catch up pretty quickly in that department. But what you do with that talent is another matter altogether.

 

[Deus Irae]

But that's the point. You don't need that much talent to make the playoffs, and the salary cap and free agency ensure that no team has a huge talent disparity over the others. It's not like the 1960's Packers, or even the 1990s Cowboys. You can't count on 31 teams having Matt Millens for GM making inept picks year after year - teams will amass talent, and can catch up pretty quickly in that department. But what you do with that talent is another matter altogether.

Time has shown that the 2001 team had plenty of talent. The significance of 2001, IMO, is that it showed both how critical the QB position is and how significant the fit v. talent debate really is or, at least, can be.

 

[mayoclinic]

Time has shown that the 2001 team had plenty of talent. The significance of 2001, IMO, is that it showed both how critical the QB position is and how significant the fit v. talent debate really is or, at least, can be.

Again, that's my point. MgTeich says they were perpahs the "least talented SB champion ever" and you note that they had "plenty of talent". They did. And they utilized it better than anyone else, which is more important.