"Uncertainty Theory": How the Pats Do Business?

[mgteich]

It seems that there are 2 points.

1) Very few teams should be counted out of the playoffs (say 6); almost everyone has enough tlent to get that far.

2) That the minor disparity in talent in the 20 potential playoff teams is more than made for by solid coaching.

My conclusion is that owners should pay coaches a lot more and players a lot less.

We are spoiled. We have the best ownership, coach and quarterback in football. So, from where we sit it seems that talent doen't matter. I think that talent matters a lot. As I indicated before, talent includes the ability to learn, to recognize, to cooperate well with others, and to have discipline in your apporach to the game. That is part of football talent.
To be more direct, being a TEAM player and being able to learn the playbook is part of football talent.

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]

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.

But my point went to your notion of "The 2001 Pats are a good example that teamwork can overcome talent". 2001 wasn't just teamwork overcoming talent, although that was part of the overall equation. It was also a talented QB who'd become a bad fit being replaced by a talented QB who was the perfect fit, and a great head coach taking advantage of the tendencies of an offensive coordinator who was both miscast as a head coach, and fatally flawed in his inability to adapt his game plan.

Teamwork is important, and it can overcome talent deficits to various degrees depending upon the sport/activity involved. On the other hand, the list of what would be considered "likely" Super Bowl contenders is a pretty small one, and the list of teams that are "not that far off" is much smaller than you opined in your earlier post, IMO, precisely because talent does matter a great deal.

Some of what we're saying may be similar, though stated differently. I just think that talent is getting a bit of short shrift here.

 

[Deus Irae]

It seems that there are 2 points.

1) Very few teams should be counted out of the playoffs (say 6); almost everyone has enough tlent to get that far.

32 teams
12 playoff teams

That means that more than 1/3 of the league is going to the playoffs, which means that you've got a playoffs which delves deeply into the mediocre level of teams. It's not surprising that most teams would have a chance to make the playoffs.

On the other hand, the number of teams with little/no chance to make the playoffs is similar to the number of teams likely to be heavy favorites to win in the playoffs. That's because you're getting rid of the middle area in both directions.

I'm not really seeing the significance in your point here. How many Super Bowl winning teams (let's avoid some disagreement and say post 2001) do you figure were more a product of coaching than talent?

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

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.

Derek Jeter has noted many times that most professional athletes have about equal "talent". It's his opinion that the mental aspect is what separates stars from busts.

Besides, with 11 guys on the pitch at the same time, coaching in football will always be critical. Too many moving pieces for coaching to be a sideshow.

 

[willdeespats]

Besides, with 11 guys on the pitch at the same time, coaching in football will always be critical. Too many moving pieces for coaching to be a sideshow.

I think you are absolutely right. One of the toughest aspects of being successful is remaining there. And this means working and coaching to avoid complacency which is a killer. A prime way to do this is to never accept 'good enough' and always to be 'raising the bar'. I think BB knows and practices all this in all facets of the game. Even though he let them out early from mini-camp, I feel certain that when training camp starts, the bar will have been raised again.

 

[mgteich]

I was merely summarizing mayo's argument that talent doesn't matter much and that almost any team has change to win the SB. I've said several times that I disagree with that position.

I don't think teams win primarily based on coaching. Both coaching and talent are important. Of course, player evaluation and the draft are also important (a role of coaches, scouts and the front office). This is part of securing talent, so is a subset of talent.

I agree with you that the number of teams who might reasonably win the SB is relatively small (NE, HOU, CIN, PITT, KC and BALT in the AFC). I wonder if the giants would have made our 2011 short list?

32 teams
12 playoff teams

That means that more than 1/3 of the league is going to the playoffs, which means that you've got a playoffs which delves deeply into the mediocre level of teams. It's not surprising that most teams would have a chance to make the playoffs.

On the other hand, the number of teams with little/no chance to make the playoffs is similar to the number of teams likely to be heavy favorites to win in the playoffs. That's because you're getting rid of the middle area in both directions.

I'm not really seeing the significance in your point here. How many Super Bowl winning teams (let's avoid some disagreement and say post 2001) do you figure were more a product of coaching than talent?

 

[patfanken]

I was merely summarizing mayo's argument that talent doesn't matter much and that almost any team has change to win the SB. I've said several times that I disagree with that position.

I don't think teams win primarily based on coaching. Both coaching and talent are important. Of course, player evaluation and the draft are also important (a role of coaches, scouts and the front office). This is part of securing talent, so is a subset of talent.

I agree with you that the number of teams who might reasonably win the SB is relatively small (NE, HOU, CIN, PITT, KC and BALT in the AFC). I wonder if the giants would have made our 2011 short list?

I think you should add one thing to your list of what makes a team exceptional. That's the team's ability to develop the talent that they acquire and make them BETTER players.

I believe that 90% of the players in this league are of equal talent and that EVERY team has a number of those elite players scattered throughout the roster. The beauty of the game of football (at least in my humble opinion) is that (in successful teams) the sum is
ALWAYS greater than the individual parts.

The Pats are CONSISTENTLY better because of the coaching, system, and motivational environment that these players play in. More times than not, their team WILL BE better than the individual parts. They will take better care of the ball. They will create more TO's. They won't take dumb penalties, etc All the little things that every team has the potential to do, but few do them as well as the Pats, and THAT's why they are continually in the hunt for a trophy

EVERYBODY has talented players on their team. Lots of them. But not every team is successful, and VERY few are successful on a consistent basis. We are VERY VERY lucky to be followers of one who is.

 

[Deus Irae]

I was merely summarizing mayo's argument that talent doesn't matter much and that almost any team has change to win the SB. I've said several times that I disagree with that position.

I don't think teams win primarily based on coaching. Both coaching and talent are important. Of course, player evaluation and the draft are also important (a role of coaches, scouts and the front office). This is part of securing talent, so is a subset of talent.

I agree with you that the number of teams who might reasonably win the SB is relatively small (NE, HOU, CIN, PITT, KC and BALT in the AFC). I wonder if the giants would have made our 2011 short list?

You'd have to go back and read what people were saying. Then again, for a lot of years, Super Bowl losers were missing the playoffs the following year. When it comes to dealing with people, few, if any, systems that generalize are going to have 100% success on the micro level.

 

[mayoclinic]

I was merely summarizing mayo's argument that talent doesn't matter much and that almost any team has change to win the SB. I've said several times that I disagree with that position.

I think you should add one thing to your list of what makes a team exceptional. That's the team's ability to develop the talent that they acquire and make them BETTER players.

The Pats are CONSISTENTLY better because of the coaching, system, and motivational environment that these players play in. More times than not, their team WILL BE better than the individual parts. They will take better care of the ball. They will create more TO's. They won't take dumb penalties, etc All the little things that every team has the potential to do, but few do them as well as the Pats, and THAT's why they are continually in the hunt for a trophy

EVERYBODY has talented players on their team. Lots of them. But not every team is successful, and VERY few are successful on a consistent basis. We are VERY VERY lucky to be followers of one who is.

Ken, thank you for expressing this much more clearly than I did. I wasn't trying to suggest, as Mark interprets it, that "talent doesn't count much". Talent is necessary and crucial. But in the era of the salary cap, free agency and parity, "everybody has talented players on their team" - lots of them, as you rightly point out. It's how teams develop those players and make them fit together as a whole that makes the difference between the successful and not-so-successful teams. Not just to make the individual players better, but to make the team greater than the sum of the parts. And in an era in which players constantly move on to other teams and it's common to have 25-33% roster turnover, being able to do that year after year is truly extraordinary. It's not like the old days when if you were fortunate and good enough to build a superior team you could then let it dominate for several years. Every year is a new challenge in team-building.

Perhaps a better way of saying what I intended is not that every team has the talent to win the SB, but that the majority of teams have enough talented players on their team to develop into a SB contender. Whether the coaching staff is able to develop that talent and make those players mesh together into a cohesive team is another matter.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It seems that there are 2 points.

1) Very few teams should be counted out of the playoffs (say 6); almost everyone has enough tlent to get that far.

2) That the minor disparity in talent in the 20 potential playoff teams is more than made for by solid coaching.

My conclusion is that owners should pay coaches a lot more and players a lot less.

We are spoiled. We have the best ownership, coach and quarterback in football. So, from where we sit it seems that talent doen't matter. I think that talent matters a lot. As I indicated before, talent includes the ability to learn, to recognize, to cooperate well with others, and to have discipline in your apporach to the game. That is part of football talent.
To be more direct, being a TEAM player and being able to learn the playbook is part of football talent.

It is here, not so much in other places. Scouts see talent as raw athletic ability. And to an extent coaches are tempted to agree. That is what the combine measures. Intangibles are often overlooked because they are difficult to quantify. Sometimes elite talent is the complete package. But more often than not it isn't. They all have a decent level of talent or they wouldn't make it this far, as ken eludes to. Bill tends to do better with the well rounded but somewhat less obvious talent who are perhaps not quite as athletically gifted as the most elite guy but determined to prove he is just as significant a football player when it counts. Maybe that is why he defers to the film. That is who Brady is. That's what he saw on film. The unheralded winner who didn't get annointed but didn't listen to his detractors. He's made himself into an elite player given the opportunity to at the next level, he wasn't born particularly physically gifted, he was simply wired and raised to make the most of whatever gifts he could muster and driven to win any challenge.

All too often elite players have never really been challenged, nor had to compete (at least not once the college offers arrive) or in some cases overcome adversity. As Bill is fond of saying, there are no red shirt seasons at this level. Players tend to rely on what got them there, be it talent or hard work. Sometimes if they perceive it was all talent they become difficut to coach. And they come to resent scheme. They aren't prepared to embrace the mental portion of the equation that exists at the next level. Many prefer to train on their own, after all they know how to train. They believe they just have to show up good to go because they don't get the value of preparation in unison.

Even Seymour who was raised by Milloy to get yours (credit, accolades, $$$) relative to your talent and who bristled at times over credit being given to scheme said the season after he'd left here that if he were building the perfect team from scratch he'd start with the effort guys and just sprinkle some elite talent among them in as his winning formula. Those effort guys need good coaching and scheme and opportunity to allow them to maximize their individual and collective talent. All of that is available here. Other places, not so much at least as consistently. Too many coaches and FO personnel fighting for their own lives.

 

[mgteich]

I generally agree with your comments.

There are few coached organizations with solid ownership/FO, but as you say, not so many.

One thing did strike me after ready your post. Our coach and GM are not worrying about their jobs each year. This allows Belichick a lot of freedom in his personanel choices and decisions.

It is here, not so much in other places. Scouts see talent as raw athletic ability. And to an extent coaches are tempted to agree. That is what the combine measures. Intangibles are often overlooked because they are difficult to quantify. Sometimes elite talent is the complete package. But more often than not it isn't. They all have a decent level of talent or they wouldn't make it this far, as ken eludes to. Bill tends to do better with the well rounded but somewhat less obvious talent who are perhaps not quite as athletically gifted as the most elite guy but determined to prove he is just as significant a football player when it counts. Maybe that is why he defers to the film. That is who Brady is. That's what he saw on film. The unheralded winner who didn't get annointed but listen to his detractors. He's made himself into an elite player given the opportunity to at the next level, he wasn't born particularly physically gifted, he was simply wired and raised to make the most of whatever gifts he could muster and driven to win any challenge.

All too often elite players have never really been challenged, nor had to compete (at least not once the college offers arrive) or in some cases overcome adversity. As Bill is fond of saying, there are no red shirt seasons at this level. Players tend to rely on what got them there, be it talent or hard work. Sometimes if they perceive it was all talent they become difficut to coach. And they come to resent scheme. They aren't prepared to embrace the mental portion of the equation that exists at the next level. Many prefer to train on their own, after all they know how to train. They believe they just have to show up good to go because they don't get the value of preparation in unison.

Even Seymour who was raised by Milloy to get yours (credit, accolades, $$$) relative to your talent and who bristled at times over credit being given to scheme said the season after he'd left here that if he were building the perfect team from scratch he'd start with the effort guys and just sprinkle some elite talent among them in as his winning formula. Those effort guys need good coaching and scheme and opportunity to allow them to maximize their individual and collective talent. All of that is available here. Other places, not so much at least as consistently. Too many coaches and FO personnel fighting for their own lives.

 

[mayoclinic]

Sometimes elite talent is the complete package. But more often than not it isn't. They all have a decent level of talent or they wouldn't make it this far, as ken eludes to. Bill tends to do better with the well rounded but somewhat less obvious talent who are perhaps not quite as athletically gifted as the most elite guy but determined to prove he is just as significant a football player when it counts.

All too often elite players have never really been challenged, nor had to compete (at least not once the college offers arrive) or in some cases overcome adversity. As Bill is fond of saying, there are no red shirt seasons at this level. Players tend to rely on what got them there, be it talent or hard work. Sometimes if they perceive it was all talent they become difficut to coach. And they come to resent scheme. They aren't prepared to embrace the mental portion of the equation that exists at the next level. Many prefer to train on their own, after all they know how to train. They believe they just have to show up good to go because they don't get the value of preparation in unison.

Even Seymour who was raised by Milloy to get yours (credit, accolades, $$$) relative to your talent and who bristled at times over credit being given to scheme said the season after he'd left here that if he were building the perfect team from scratch he'd start with the effort guys and just sprinkle some elite talent among them in as his winning formula. Those effort guys need good coaching and scheme and opportunity to allow them to maximize their individual and collective talent. All of that is available here. Other places, not so much at least as consistently. Too many coaches and FO personnel fighting for their own lives.

Outstanding post. Really nice stuff. :youtheman:

I posted this recently on the draft forum, but it's relevant here as well. 2 years ago Maurice Jones-Drew wrote this as a guest columnist for Peter King's MMQB about what separates great players from the average ones:

Mediocrity or greatness? That is the question.

The NFL consists of the world's most superior athletes .... Whether we're talking about superstars like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady or the 53rd player on a roster, the athletic and physical ability of NFL players is nothing short of phenomenal. With that said, there is still a very clear split between players considered "NFL good" and those considered "NFL great."

Why is that? In my brief four years in the NFL, I've come to believe the answer to this question rests with "want-to." In other words, because the talent level of most NFL players is so high, the question of greatness ultimately boils down to whether players "want to" do the things necessary to be great. These players and others who are considered the best at their respective positions indeed are blessed with god-given abilities, but they don't rest on these talents. They work to maximize them. While others are sleeping or partying, the great ones are running hills, lifting weights and studying film. They do this not because a coach has instructed them to do so. They do it because they simply desire to be the very best.

Most people never see the sacrifice these players make to pursue greatness. They only see the finished product on game day. But rest assured that any player on the field whose performance separates him from his peers has made that possible because of the willingness to push himself to his physical and mental limits. ... The formula has always been and always will be the same: Talent + "Want-To" = Greatness.

Now, although the formula appears rather simple, in actuality it's pretty complex. The decision to pursue greatness can be a scary one for a couple of reasons. First, the physical and mental sacrifice required is enough to make many shy away from making the commitment. I'm talking about a true grind. ... For many, just the thought of having to pay such a huge price is enough to bail on greatness and simply get by.

Second, the pursuit of greatness forces the athlete to put his ego aside and face the limitations of his athletic ability. ... That's some heavy stuff to consider for a professional athlete. In some ways it's understandable why many players would rather not have those questions answered. Instead, they accept mediocrity, especially when average pay at the NFL level is pretty darn good.

Maurice Jones-Drew*fills in for Peter King's Monday Morning QB - Maurice Jones-Drew - SI.com

Jones-Drew writes from a player's perspective rather than from a team-building one. But the point applies as well. You need to have a "core" group of guys not only form an elite physical talent perspective, but from a desire or "will to greatness" perspective who push the rest of the team to greater levels. Just look at the recent mini camp with Brady screaming because the level of intensity wasn't high enough at times. You want a superstar or two like Brady or Ray Lewis who burns more intensely than anyone else and who pushes their team harder. You want a few guys like Wes Welker who have driven themselves to stardom by the sheer will to succeed (not that they don't have exceptional ability as well at some level). And you want some blue collar JAGs who've scraped and fought just to make it. Guys like Jesse Holley who worked night shifts as a security guard before getting a shot at the NFL, or like Bobby Carpenter who fell from grace as a former 1st round pick and is now fighting for a roster spot. Even if those guys don't make the team, they'll push the other players and make them better.

As you note, "all too often eite players have never really been challenged, nor required to compete". But that's much less true here. There's intense competition for roster spots and for playing time. And too many coaches are afraid to push the players. BB has the luxury of job security, but sometimes it's just a matter of will and approach. Look at what Greg Schiano's doing down in Tampa Bay. Dumping guys like Kellen Winslow who won't get with the program. Pushing players harder. Establishing discipline. DT Gerald McCoy - the #3 pick overall in 2010 - recently credited Schiano with helping teach him how to properly tackle for the first time, noting that he had never been put through formal tackling drills either in college or in his first 2 years in the NFL. That's incredible.

It takes a strong personality and a lot of chutzpah to deal with all of the big egos and elite talents on an NFL roster and mold them into a team. A few eggs have to be broken to make an omelet, and BB isn't afraid to break eggs. And he's pretty masterful at his ability to find players who are on the same page in terms of their willingness to put aside their egos for the team, and to balance personalities as well as talents. As Ken notes, we're incredibly fortunate to be witnessing all of this.

 

[Joker]

In other words, because the talent level of most NFL players is so high, the question of greatness ultimately boils down to whether players "want to" do the things necessary to be great. These players and others who are considered the best at their respective positions indeed are blessed with god-given abilities, but they don't rest on these talents. They work to maximize them.

I read this and I think..."he just threw the entire NBA under the bus..."

The Patriots and other NFL teams that stress work and things necessary to win are the foundation teams of this league...what I fear most is the Rex Ryan/Jet team philosophy that stresses press releases and individuals bragging in the press as the "new" way to NFL success..."if we say it's so then it must be"...they strike me as the Miami Heat of the NFL with all their huge "stars" and the LeBron-like Tebow circus sideshow.

 

[mayoclinic]

This has been given it's own thread, but it's worth posting here as well. Pat Kirwan looks at factors contributing to "roster depth", and ranks the Pats as the best team in the NFL in that regard:

Right way to build roster depth? Patriots, Steelers, Bears, Cowboys, Lions do it best - NFL - CBSSports.com News, Rumors, Scores, Stats, Fantasy

Kirwan's list of key depth areas is interesting, and totals 14 critical "non-starters":

1. A backup quarterback who can go at least 2-2 if he had to take over for a month straight.

2. A second running back who could be a 1,000 yard back if he had to take over or at least generate 75 yards of offense a week as a runner and receiver.

3. A third wide receiver who could go in for a starter down and generate 4-6 receptions a game as an X or a Z.

4. A second tight end who could be a legitimate threat as a blocker or receiver.

5. Two experienced backup offensive linemen. A swing tackle for either side and an inside player for the guards/center. Experience required because they will not get many reps in practice until injuries occur.

6. A third defensive tackle already in a rotation that could play a whole game well if a starter went down.

7. A pass rush specialist that could play some run down situations if a starter went down.

8. A fourth corner back that could bump up to the nickel corner if that player had to replace an injured starter.

9. A third safety that can start or provide a defense with an opportunity to play some ‘Big Nickel' when needed.

10. Four core special team players that could help on offense or defense in a pinch.