Why hasn't the Patriots' philosophy caught on in the NFL?

[everlong]

If you look at Cassell's 2008 and the one good year he had with the Chiefs he was lucky enough to play against a really weak schedule both years. When he played good teams both of those years he was awful. I've done the comparison before on here and it's very telling.

 

[rochrist]

Belichick's solo history strongly suggests otherwise.

Won a playoff game with the Browns. Beat Parcells to do it. I have every confidence of Modell hadn't burned that place to the ground around him, he would have continued to build on his success.

 

[PlainOldEd]

To be fair its a lot easier to get players who want to win come to the Patriots than say the Cleveland Browns



The Cleveland Browns have over $100m in cap space.

Cleveland could be the most improved team in the NFL this year. They have some talent already imagine if they sign Hightower and trade pick 12 for Jimmy G and don't whiff on the #1 pick. They could go from 1-15 to 8-8 or even 9-7.

 

[Deus Irae]

He went 11-5 with a QB who hadn't played since high school.

He missed the playoffs with a team that was undefeated the year before.

I have 16 years of achievements to my argument.

No, you don't. Go re-check your argument.

You selectively leave them out as if they were gifted to him.

No, Andy, I don't. What I don't do is allow you to make misleading arguments.

 

[farn]

I think the OP underestimates how much smarter/dedicated BB & TB are in comparison to others around the League.

 

[ScottishPatriots]

Cause it doesn't work without Brady, amazing how much easier everything is when you have the best QB of all time and he's willing to be unpaid.

 

[Deus Irae]

Won a playoff game with the Browns. Beat Parcells to do it. I have every confidence of Modell hadn't burned that place to the ground around him, he would have continued to build on his success.

Go re-read (or read for the first time) Andy's argument, and then revisit my responses. In fact, you can just start with this part of Andy's argument:

Well, Belichick IS the philosophy. While he certainly wouldn't have 5 without Brady, I think its fair to say that BB probably would still have had the most successful run in the NFL (or close to it) with someone else. Keeping in mind that whoever that would be would have been coached, prepared, held to standards, and engulfed in the system and schemes, which would have elevated whoever eventually became acceptable to somewhere between what they are and what Brady is.

and my response:

Belichick's solo history strongly suggests otherwise.

and my follow up response later in the thread:

You've got "But moving forward", which would be at least arguable, but you've not nothing history based.

You can argue that you think BB could do it going forward. You can't reasonably take the position that his past argues for such an outcome, because the facts are clearly to the contrary.

 

[sb1]

He went 11-5 with a QB who hadn't played since high school.
I have 16 years of achievements to my argument. You selectively leave them out as if they were gifted to him.

Agree about BB and Cleveland. Tough to use 2008 as a benchmark though.. the Pats did miss the playoffs, and they had trouble not just beating but staying competitive with the few good teams they played that year

 

[Ring 6]

He missed the playoffs with a team that was undefeated the year before.



No, you don't. Go re-check your argument.



No, Andy, I don't. What I don't do is allow you to make misleading arguments.

OK, I will go with Belichick has proven how good he is, and you can go with he hasn't if that makes you feel good.

 

[Ring 6]

Agree about BB and Cleveland. Tough to use 2008 as a benchmark though.. the Pats did miss the playoffs, and they had trouble not just beating but staying competitive with the few good teams they played that year

Hard to kill a coach for going 11-5 with a QB who hadn't played since High School.

 

[Ring 6]

Go re-read (or read for the first time) Andy's argument, and then revisit my responses. In fact, you can just start with this part of Andy's argument:



and my response:



and my follow up response later in the thread:



You can argue that you think BB could do it going forward. You can't reasonably take the position that his past argues for such an outcome, because the facts are clearly to the contrary.

The last 16 years are part of his resume.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Usually when someone is successful, other people try and copy it. Like, when Apple introduced the iPhone, a bunch of other manufacturers soon introduced similar phones.

In football that doesn't seem to apply. The Patriots have been successful, but nobody is copying their philosophy:

- The Patriots have had success with a smart pocket quarterback. Do teams copy that? Not at all. Every team seems to want a quarterback as big, strong and fast as possible.

- The Patriots have had success with a complex offense based on timing and reads. Does anyone copy that? Almost nobody.

- The Patriots have had success hiring players who want to win, not chase statistics. Does anyone else copy that philosophy? Not to my knowledge.

- The Patriots have had success hiring a head coach with a profound understanding of football, rather than a cheerleader. Does anyone else copy that? Almost nobody - owners all want the Hollywood coach who makes a lot of moving speeches and is "good with players".

- The Patriots have success not paying ridiculous contracts, but focusing on team strength. Again, nobody, or almost nobody, seems to even try to copy it.

I'm not saying every team should be a clone of the Patriots. But why doesn't some other team at least try to adopt some of the philosophy that was successful over nearly two decades for the Patriots?

It's not so much a "system" or even "philosophy" - it's situational football and that requires intelligent coaches prepared for all possibilities - and members of a team smart enough to execute.

It requires Belichick finding "his" types of guys - usually versatile and smart - who some may think were "reaches" in the draft but if Bill likes them, he knows he needs to grab them before someone else

Belichick spends his money on quality depth with versatility and the easier/quicker way to go from mediocre to good for most teams IS in spending that money on a big name free agent (Revis for example - when he was good - BB was fine at $12 mil for a year but other mediocre teams need to pay up - he filled the slot much cheaper and used the money for that quality depth elsewhere

After that the "sytstem" becomes a process of developing a different offensive and defensive game plan for every team they play. Sounds simple but again, smart coaches, and smart talented players are needed

And how often have we seen even GOOD teams show they are unable to implement that same "system"? Pretty much every other team is in that boat - heck Pittsburgh basically used the same zone defense they used all season - except it didn't come close to working on the Patriots - and they really weren't even able to adapt at halftime, coming out and playing the same zone D.

Just funny when you hear others saying "we're JUST a system team"

Um yeah - and that system is very complicated and if just "any" team could do it, they would - but they can't so they don't.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The Patriot Way:

1) Hire one of the best (if not THE best) HCs in NFL history
2) Draft the greatest QB of all time in the 6th round - a guy who over the course of his career happens to be willing to take less money than he is worth to help the team

Yeah, I can't figure out why more teams don't copy that either...

I know that was in jest, but I think there are actual lessons in both.

Kraft hired BB because he felt he was the right guy for the job. He obviously wasn't a sexy pick, or a popular one. Kraft might have been the only guy in New England happy about that hire.

And yes, BB has rewarded that faith, but Kraft also learned to be a different owner after Parcells. That often gets overlooked.

As for Brady, drafting him in the 6th round isn't a sign of good scouting. It's more like, "Really? We took Dave Stachelski ahead of Brady???" But still, it took a lot to draft another QB, let alone keep 4 for the entire year. Some teams or coaches are set in how they do things, so they may say, "We have our starter, our backup, our developmental guy," and that's that. But BB was willing to be open-minded about it. Sometimes we have 4. Sometimes we have 2. There's no set template, he is willing to be open-minded.

And then sticking with Brady even after Bledsoe came back, that was a huge moment in the franchise's history. That's when he ignored just the finances, the name on the jersey, the history, and went with the guy that was playing better. Every coach and team talks about it, but few actually do it.

So it seems like those two things are no-brainers, but in fact, they were incredibly gutsy calls at the time.

I also think lots of teams do try to follow the Patriots, but it's not easy. They take the easy road sometimes, they don't have the patience, they are afraid of looking dumb by having draft picks go bust instead of benching them when they're not performing. There's too much ego involved, or too many meddlesome owners, or not enough patience.

And as much as the national media likes to ***** about BB being arrogant, there's nothing in actual evidence about that. BB surrounds himself with smart people, wants to be challenged constantly, re-thinks things, and wants to get better every day. Any national media writer who says otherwise hasn't done their homework and is being totally lazy.

 

[mosslost]

It takes commitment, a lot of it. It also takes a lot of brains and a rethinking of how a football organization is run, not to mention a completely different approach to games.

I think the biggest reason why it doesn't happen is because coaches are worried about the hot seat. They don't want to "take the chance" on implementing a new paradigm and have it blow up in their faces. Also, there are stories like that of McDaniels; not understanding why it worked here when he went to Denver.

But when you run things like that, the day-to-day grind is dull to watch. We don't often get the sexy draft picks, sexy signings, or all the hot press. As you alluded to, coaches want the good optics, because it will help them keep their jobs just a little longer.

And don't forget the role TFB plays in it. This is a superstar, GOAT player, and he SUBMITS to the system. How many players have commented that was a large part of getting them to buy into the "Patriot Way" when they walked through the doors?

This is kinda scattershot, but those are my thoughts.

It also takes being willing to let seemingly critical players leave like Collins, trade Jones, and maybe now even Hightower.... In the long run the "winning value" of having won 2 Super Bowls while all three were on rookie deals may be hard for the average fan to understand. We really do root for laundry to a very large extent.

 

[MagicMarker]

The key to success is simple to understand, but very hard to achieve. Everyone has the same salary cap, so the secret is have as much talent as possible provide more value than his contract.

The first way to do that is to draft well. Players on their first contracts are cheap.
The second is to convince players to accept a deal less than they could get elsewhere. How many players on the Patriots far out perform their contracts? Start with Brady, but Gronk, Edelman, Blount, Branch -- all of those guys could earn more elsewhere. It's a question of understanding value.

Some failure is an owner who is a fan rather than a football guy. Think Steven Ross paying QB money for a DT (Suh). They were playing a two gap defense which doesn't make sense if you're going to put your money on the defensive line. But, he wanted to chase the shiny object.

The Patriots do pay some players top of the market (like McCourty), but they better earn it.

If you're looking at one other team that has the same sense of "value", I'd say Denver. They pushed Peyton Manning into taking a pay cut and walked from Osweiller when his price exceeded the value they put on him. I expect them to get good for a long time (although their lack of quarterback is going to hurt them).

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Usually when someone is successful, other people try and copy it. Like, when Apple introduced the iPhone, a bunch of other manufacturers soon introduced similar phones.

In football that doesn't seem to apply. The Patriots have been successful, but nobody is copying their philosophy:

- The Patriots have had success with a smart pocket quarterback. Do teams copy that? Not at all. Every team seems to want a quarterback as big, strong and fast as possible.

- The Patriots have had success with a complex offense based on timing and reads. Does anyone copy that? Almost nobody.

- The Patriots have had success hiring players who want to win, not chase statistics. Does anyone else copy that philosophy? Not to my knowledge.

- The Patriots have had success hiring a head coach with a profound understanding of football, rather than a cheerleader. Does anyone else copy that? Almost nobody - owners all want the Hollywood coach who makes a lot of moving speeches and is "good with players".

- The Patriots have success not paying ridiculous contracts, but focusing on team strength. Again, nobody, or almost nobody, seems to even try to copy it.

I'm not saying every team should be a clone of the Patriots. But why doesn't some other team at least try to adopt some of the philosophy that was successful over nearly two decades for the Patriots?

It has its roots in Parcells' approach. No team ever won a Super Bowl after losing its first game of the season-until his Giants. It's not easy to copy or reproduce. You do need the right kind of coaches - and players. It helps to have a superstar - Taylor, Brady - but not necessarily a team of superstars. It's not just hard work, it's hard work in the right direction, and an atmosphere where all the players are included. Simms got yelled at by Parcells I believe, just like Brady is by Belichick.

 

[n6249c]

Cause other teams don't have Tom Brady. That is the simple answer. BB is able to do the things he does cause of having Brady. Without him none of it would work.

The Patriots philosophy imo is a tad overrated. I think it is a very good one but it has a lot of issues with it and if you replace Brady with any other QB it falls apart.

Hard to ask your players to take less when your QB won't. Also you need a QB to get it done without true elite weapons and win with his mind. Easier said than done.

Gotta disagree. On a couple of counts. First, it's not all about Brady, he seldom plays defense. And when he tried in the Super Bowl he missed the tackle! So there's a lot Belichick does that has nothing to do with Brady. On top of that, look at what Belichick did with Cassel, Garapollo and Brissett. BB has shown he can make it work without TB.

Biggest reason teams can't copy the Pats is that they don't have the GOAT head coach, coaching the GOAT QB. Duh.

 

[n6249c]

Belichick's solo history strongly suggests otherwise.

Disagree. Small sample sizes distort, and magnify other factors. Close analysis of his results as HC before NE shows evidence he was victim of factors beyond his control there. His record with Cassel JAG and Brisket is not too shabby.

 

[Deus Irae]

Disagree. Small sample sizes distort, and magnify other factors. Close analysis of his results as HC before NE shows evidence he was victim of factors beyond his control there. His record with Cassel JAG and Brisket is not too shabby.

You can disagree all you want. You'll be wrong, as the history is not debatable, but that's still your privilege. You'll certainly be no more wrong than Andy.

 

[wolverinejoe80]

i feel like seattle is doing similar things albeit worse. usually they aren't breaking their banks on many top players.