"Uncertainty Theory": How the Pats Do Business?

[Snapper]

As long as we're parsing words in this thread, we should distinguish between "handing guys jobs" and "handing guys roster spots". Of course the guys drafted 1-4 pretty much get a roster spot; it's a few months after they're drafted, and so you're still judging them more on potential than performance. I don't see how that negates the notion that Belichick makes everyone compete for a job.

But whether they actually see action goes more on performance. That's why the whole Taylor Price experiment was so frustrating, the classic case of keeping a guy on the roster on potential until you can no longer wait for it to bear fruit.

There's no hard and fast rule. Tom Brady's starting job isn't at risk, obviously. Speaking of which, I think Brady should be added to this discussion. The Patriots kept a fourth QB on projection; there was no way he was going to see any time in the 2000 season, but they kept him because they didn't want to risk losing him. So was that "handing" Brady a job? He wasn't going to contribute to 2000; he wasn't going to hold on kicks or be a gunner.

Then, in '01, he jumped up the depth chart on performance, leapfrogging Huard and by many accounts outplaying Bledsoe during the preseason. So was Bledsoe "handed" his starting job at the start of '01? I don't think so, and I'm as big a Bledsoe critic as you'll find. Belichick weighed it out, and went with the veteran presence over the second-year guy who had already come so far building up in the offseason and moving up to backup QB. A lot of this comes down to judgment calls.

On the flip side, Belichick chose "veteran" over "potential" last year with Ocho over Tate, and probably chose wrong. Not that Tate necessarily was going to develop as a 3rd WR, but given Ocho's production, I bet Belichick would have preferred to have that KR on the roster late in the season.

 

[Deus Irae]

Key word of course

This post of yours is a perfect example of why you keep ending up on ignore.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

The BB Patriots have apparently never had a pick in the top four rounds fail to make the team out of camp in their rookie year. What other teams have/haven't done is irrelevant to that point. Mayo and I are good with our respective takes, he's modified his notion slightly, taking my position into account. He seems to be basically in agreement with my position, or at least not hostile to it (see his 9:40 am post), and we've moved on.

At this point, discussing this further serves no purpose.

 

[Snapper]

Come to think of it, isn't any third quarterback you keep "handed a job", by some folks' definitions here?

 

[mayoclinic]

Come to think of it, isn't any third quarterback you keep "handed a job", by some folks' definitions here?

It depends what you mean by "handed a job". The team makes calculated decisions about how to allocate roster spots, such as whether or not to keep a 3rd QB. That calculus certainly includes the potential value of the 3rd QB vs. the other players who could be kept with that roster spot. So the 3rd QB is competing against a 5th RB / 7th WR / 10th OL, and against other suitors for the 3rd QB spot. In 2008 Kevin O'Connell beat out Matt Gutierrez for the 3rd QB spot. In 2009 Brian Hoyer beat out O'Connell, Gutierrez and Andrew Walter for the backup spot, and the team decided that carrying a 3rd QB did not outweigh the value of keeping 5 RBs and 10 OL on the opening day roster. Maybe O'Connell was "handed a job" in 2008. Or maybe he "earned" it based on the team's assessment of his potential and upside at that time.

 

[mayoclinic]

For all we talk about BB not being sentimental about keeping vets, that's more about late-career guys. Has he EVER let a top player walk away after completing his rookie contract?

I guess it depends on how you regard a "top" player. Karen Guregian notes today in an article for the Herald that between 2000 and 2008 Matt Light was the only 2nd round pick who the Pats signed to a second contract:

Pats’ second effort pays off - BostonHerald.com

Eugene Wilson was allowed to "walk away" after his rookie contract expired. Deion Branch forced a trade with his holdout and contract demands. And 4th round pick Asante Samuel was allowed to "walk away" after a deal in which he agreed to play one extra year under the franchise tag. In all cases the Pats put a value on the player, and when the player's demands exceeded that value they were allowed to walk. I think you can make an argument that at least Samuel and possibly Branch were considered "top players" at the time, based on the franchise tag designation for Samuel and the 1st round pick the Pats got for Branch, as well as the magnitude of the contracts they received on the open market.

As Guregian notes, the Pats' recent success with 2nd round picks Pat Chung, Sebastian Vollmer, Rob Gronkowski and Brandon Spikes as well as with 4th round pick Aaron Hernandez will set up some potentially delicate contract negotiations:

The Patriots’ newfound second-round success will have a price, and that will begin to take shape next year, if not sooner. One league source said the Patriots and Chung have not engaged in discussions over an extension, though it’s early in the process. Another league source said, “ ‘Early’ is not in the Patriots’ vocabulary” when it comes to contract extensions, and plenty around the league were shocked when they broke from the mold to sign linebacker Jerod Mayo to an extension last December.

Yet, while the Patriots are said to be “difficult” with new deals, league sources polled for this story also conceded the Pats are “consistent” with their negotiations. They’re also not the only team that operates this way. The Patriots, like any team, have most of the leverage in negotiations for early extensions in part because of the franchise tag. Plus, sources said, the Patriots love to reference quarterback Tom Brady [stats]’s decision to take less money for the good of the team in 2005, just after his third Super Bowl victory.

That will surely come into play when discussions inevitably begin with Gronkowski, who is on track to become the highest-paid tight end in NFL history. While considering others’ contracts, one independent league source projected Gronkowski would be worth an average of $9 million to $10 million per season. Gronkowski and the second-rounders aren’t the only ones with tricky contract situations on the horizon. Wide receiver Wes Welker and tight end Aaron Hernandez (whose deal expires after 2013) are also part of that group to further complicate matters.

The Patriots have to consider each contract as part of a collective measure, which will increase the level of difficulty on an individual basis. Then again, that’s partly because of a recent run of success with their second-round draft picks, and that’s a good problem to have, even if it’s challenging to manage.

 

[Gumby]

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.

Agree both have lots to offer. I didn't intend the 'jabbing' to be taken as "uncivil" or derogatory in any way - just message board back-forth. But that said; I do truly find their ability to take umbrage at each other's casual comments quite hilarious at times. (see above discussion of the word "WE" :singing

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.

I think you are essentially saying the same thing I meant as well.

i.e. The pats have to pay these draftees some guaranteed money just based on what the guy drafted above and below them got. That is a SUNK COST.

The guy with no sunk cost (or less) is not going to bump the sunk cost guy off the roster until they give the rd4 guy a full chance to succeed. TC doesnt necessarily prove a darn thing and so the 53 cut down day is way too early to cut bait on a top draft choice.

 

[patchick]

i.e. The pats have to pay these draftees some guaranteed money just based on what the guy drafted above and below them got. That is a SUNK COST.

The guy with no sunk cost (or less) is not going to bump the sunk cost guy off the roster until they give the rd4 guy a full chance to succeed. TC doesnt necessarily prove a darn thing and so the 53 cut down day is way too early to cut bait on a top draft choice.

I totally agree with your premise. But since this has turned into such a linguistically precise thread, "sunk costs" is an interesting one.

The "sunk costs fallacy" is essentially the old saying "throwing good money after bad." You go to the mechanic, he tells you that your 10-year-old car requires $3,000 worth of repairs and probably isn't worth fixing. But you know you just put $1,500 of work into that car last month, and if you don't fix it now, that money will be wasted! The fallacy is in not recognizing that the $1,500 is gone either way. The theoretical "rational decision maker" judges based on expected future costs, and doesn't cry over spilt milk.

But in the salary cap environment, sunk costs and future costs have a more complicated relationship. A 3rd-round rookie is already paid for in cap dollars, and given acceleration for amortized bonuses it might cost more to cut him than keep him. So for the car analogy, it would be a little like spending the extra $3,000 to fix the car, then paying a junkyard to take it, and shelling out for a new car.

As you said earlier, you'd only do that in year one under extreme circumstances. 99 times out of 100, you take the "free" year of the pre-paid player and try to tease out the potential you saw him. And if you really think you're have a chance at a great deal on a more reliable new car, just keep both in your garage through the snowy season.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Haynesworth was a highly speculative investment. They managed the downside by acquiring him for a low draft pick and by keeping his compensation low. The upside was a potential difference maker at a critical position. Not really risk averse though, because there was a high probability that this investmewnt would fail (as it did).

.

Nice point!

Speaking of Haynesworth, did he even play much when he got traded to the Jags(?)?

Wonder if that moron realize what a great opportunity he missed last season.

 

[Joker]

It depends what you mean by "handed a job".

yes, it does..it certainly does...that could mean any number of things in Las Vegas , for example...as does "sunk costs" followed by "throwing good money after bad"....:hijacked:

 

[mayoclinic]

yes, it does..it certainly does...that could mean any number of things in Las Vegas , for example...as does "sunk costs" followed by "throwing good money after bad"....:hijacked:

Since we're being linguistically precise, we should differentiate between "handed a job" and "a hand job".

 

[Deus Irae]

Since we're being linguistically precise, we should differentiate between "handed a job" and "a hand job".

And excellent, and important, point. If you're a Vegas native, you're probably more interested in the former, whereas a visiting male will likely be much more appreciative of the latter.

 

[patchick]

Since we're being linguistically precise, we should differentiate between "handed a job" and "a hand job".

Could you give us a quick rundown of the respective risks involved?

 

[mayoclinic]

And excellent, and important, point. If you're a Vegas native, you're probably more interested in the former, whereas a visiting male will likely be much more appreciative of the latter.

Or, in the words of Off the Grid, WHY NOT BOTH???

 

[mayoclinic]

Could you give us a quick rundown of the respective risks involved?

It depends on the medical status of the individuals involved with respect to certain transmissible diseases.

Note, BTW, that this is another difference between the Pats and the Jets. A "foot job" is much more likely to be at issue with the Jets. :bricks:

 

[Joker]

the Vegas code phrase for that would be getting a foot in the door...

 

[Ring 6]

This post of yours is a perfect example of why you keep ending up on ignore.

I agree with that 100%.

 

[mayoclinic]

the Vegas code phrase for that would be getting a foot in the door...

So would it be correct to say that the first step in getting handed a job with the Jets is to get your foot in the door?

 

[mayoclinic]

PFT reports that Cleveland is likely to name Brandon Weeden the starting QB prior to the beginning of training camp:

Brandon Weeden may be named Browns’ starter before camp | ProFootballTalk

That's the kind of thing that I think is hard to imagine happening on the Pats. Imagine BB saying "we drafted Chandler Jones in the first round for a reason, of course he's going to be our starting DE right away". Not.

Weeden may turn out to be great, or he may be a bust. But why not evaluate how he does with pads on and under pressure before making that decision?

 

[mayoclinic]

Albert Breer writes about fighting a "sense of entitlement" among some of the players on the Dallas Cowboys:

Playing in Dallas, on what Bill Parcells called the NFL's "main stage," players can be microwaved into stars and, if they're not careful, inherit an accompanying sense of entitlement. It plagued the 2008 Cowboys. It hit the 2010 Cowboys, too. And it's no coincidence that the former was coming off the club's best season since the days of the Triplets, and the latter was stocked with players who'd won the club's first playoff game in 13 years.

To be clear, this isn't about [disgruntled CB Mike] Jenkins. He's just an example of the challenge that the Cowboys face in looking for the types of players who can handle a spotlight that's complex in its trappings.

Sense of entitlement changes which players Cowboys pursue - NFL.com

The Pats seem to strive - on both a business and an organization sense - from avoiding the limelight. There hasn't been much of a sense of entitlement since at least 2009, which is an anomaly for a BB team. Players embrace the competition and buy into the team approach and their specific roles, or they aren't around very long.