The Patriots championship drought aligned with Mankins Patriots career (2005-13), which makes his legacy one of the most polarizing on this forum. I personally felt like he was overpaid and not worth it, especially considering how many times in the postseason he got gashed (Jets, Ravens, Giants) and was completely overrun like a JAG. That is somewhat mitigated because he played through some gruesome injuries, including an ACL tear in 2011, but it also became a pattern to expect each year. My opinion: Mankins shouldn't be judged negatively because he didn't win a Super Bowl alone, though criticism of how he actually played at times during those runs is worthy of legit criticism. And I think spending that much money on a guard is a bad economic investment considering they've often found good interior linemen in the middle rounds. Unless you're talking about a John Hannah type of player, I don't like the value there. I think it's a valid point that they let him go and didn't suffer that much at the position, even though he was still good for a year in Tampa Bay. Rare bad investment by Bill. All that said, this approach of Super Bowl winner = good; no Super Bowls = bad is beyond ridiculous. There are a lot of factors and luck involved in winning a Super Bowl. And if anyone would take Deion Branch or Troy Brown (Super Bowl winners) over Randy Moss (Super Bowl loser) in their primes because they think that gives you a better chance to win, that is a really, really dumb conclusion. Tom Brady is a 14X pro bowl player...I don't really see what your point is about pro bowls being irrelevant; they do give an indication that a player is good. More good players give you a better chance to win the Super Bowl, generally speaking.