Individual Matchups and Unit Versatility

[mayoclinic]

There's been a lot of discussion on the board the past few weeks about matchups, especially with the Pats' secondary: how to match up with the Thomases and Sanders, with TY Hilton and the Colts' TEs, with Calvin Johnson and Golden Tate, and with Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb. There's also been talk of offensive matchups, and a lot of attention given to BB "playing chess" with moveable pieces.

I suggested earlier this week that the Pats would not rely on finding specific individual matchups, but would vary things quite a bit to keep Green Bay and Aaron Rodgers off balance:

I don't think it will be that simple. I think that BB will always be aware of all 3 of these guys on every play, but I think he'll change things up to avoid getting predictable. Some (perhaps even most) of the time it may be as you describe. But I would also expect Revis on Nelson with Browner on the TE and Arrington/Ryan on Cobb; some Cover 3 zone; and other variations. Aaron Rodgers is no Matt Stafford and won't be easily confused, but they've got to mix it up and keep him guessing a bit.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...o-take-away-from-aaron-rodgers.1113805/page-2 (post #28)

Ken brought up a similar argument:

In some respects, I think everyone is wrong about how we are going to play them, because if I were Patricia, I'd do it ALL. I'd never be in the same coverages for any length of time. I'd have Revis on Nelson one series, on Cobb the next and, and be in a match up zone the next. Imagine the confusion when Rodgers and his receivers keep thinking the are going to get one thing and constantly get another. That's a lot of wasted sideline time trying to figure out a pattern when there is none.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...d/threads/its-on-to-green-bay.1113714/page-11 (post #212)

I think there's a more general point here. Most of the time teams focus on getting personnel with superior size, speed and skills who are likely to win individual matchups, and put them in position to win those matchups. Whether it's having dominant pass rushers or set of offensive skill players, most teams scheme to find favorable matchups and win with them. When they work, the results are spectacular. When they fail, those teams generally lose (as Denver did in the SB against Seattle, who was able to match up with them favorably).

Green Bay and Denver are good examples of such matchup teams. Get a QB like Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers and give him some choice weapons, and they will win most of the matchup battles. When a team doesn't have the personnel to matchup, it can get embarrassing fast (Julius Thomas' "it's too easy!" vs. the Jets, or Jordy Nelson vs. the Bears, or Mario Williams against the Jets' OL). The problem is that you don't always match up favorably all the time, or win all the matchups. Plus players who are likely to win these matchups the vast majority of the time come at a high cost, and injuries can cripple a unit.

A lot of people think in terms of these kind of individual matchups, and spend a lot of time wishing that the Pats' had someone like Demaryius Thomas, Calvin Johnson, Von Miller, etc. The media tends to obsess with them. "Imagine how dominant our defense would be with one more elite defensive lineman", or our offense with an elite deep threat WR, regardless of cap cost, schematic fit, chemistry, and other factors.

I don't think that BB thinks this way. I don't think he cares all that much about individual matchups compared with overall team performance, and I actually think he has put together almost the perfect roster on both offense and defense in terms of versatility, flexibility and depth. Both the offense and defense are capable of matching up with any team in the NFL, and play a variety of styles. The offense can spread them out, use 2 TEs, go run heavy, and throw in a lot of play action - and they can vary the emphasis between these approaches from week to week, and make in-game adjustments. On defense they are moving to a defense that can stop the run while playing sub, which can throw front 6/7 looks ranging from a 5-2 to a 2-4-5 or even an amoeba front, and a variety of nickel, big nickel and dime packages. They can play an aggressive man or various zone combinations, and mix and match defensive backs to create confusion.

All of this gives the Pats a tremendous advantage in terms of game planning and preparation. We know what we have to do to beat GB: limit Aaron Rodgers' scrambling, limit big plays to Nelson and Cobb, stop Lacy from running wild, and stop GB from forcing turnovers. Not easy, to be sure, but pretty much a known challenge. The challenges were similarly clear against Denver, Indy, and Detroit. OTOH, the challenge for teams facing the Pats is much less clear. Will the Pats go run-heavy against the Packers' porous run defense with Gray and Blount, or gash them with 2-TE sets, or spread them out? It isn't entirely clear, and it makes it much harder for teams to prepare against the Patriots.

This also has implications come playoff time. The Pats' have the personnel and the schematic flexibility to match up with pretty much any opposing offense and defense out there. They could come out against teams that they've already played with a completely different game plan to what they used during the regular season.

Individual matchups obviously are still important. You can't lose all the individual matchups and do well as a team, and having players who match up individually allows you to create tremendous mismatches. Having a Darrelle Revis, who will shut down WHOEVER he matches up against most of the time, or a Rob Gronkowski who can draw double and triple teams and still be an impact player with his run blocking, is a huge advantage. But having the ability to mix and match players and vary the matchups is a fundamentally different approach on both sides of the ball than what we've seen in the past (having Aqib Talib shadow the other teams' best WR, for example), and what other teams are capable of doing. And we can vary the emphasis within a game to "change things up", putting even more pressure on opposing teams to adjust.

My personal goal is not to have an offense that sets all kind of records (we've had plenty of that) or a defense that leads the league statistically, but to have units on both sides of the ball who are playoff ready and who can match up with any team and win. I think we're moving in that general direction on both sides of the ball.

Food for thought.

 

[hwc]

Yes. It's not about the one-on-one matchups. It's the complete toolbox that Belichick has assembled (especially in the secondary) to play any coverage against any combination of receivers lined up anywhere in the formation. It's not just Revis and Browner, it's the depth.

For example, as much as people in this forum like to rag on Arrington, he's arguably the best third corner in the NFL. Logan, Butler, or Dennard are pretty darn good 4th corners.

The Pats have the ability to play zone or man or any combination AND put any number of different players on the opponents receivers if they start playing formation games -- all with an effective insurance policy/center fielder in McCourty.

BTW, in prepping for Rodgers and Nelson, I'm quite sure the Pats secondary heard Belichick screaming "GTFB" at them all week. He'll spit nails if Nelson get his weekly reception, 50 yards downfield, uncovered in the end zone. You have to figure that the Pats will concede some short crossing routes, just to avoid the deep ball penalty for biting the short ball cheese... Something to keep in mind when it appears the Pats are "letting them" march down the field with the dink and dunk.

 

[mayoclinic]

Yes. It's not about the one-on-one matchups. It's the complete toolbox that Belichick has assembled (especially in the secondary) to play any coverage against any combination of receivers lined up anywhere in the formation. It's not just Revis and Browner, it's the depth.

For example, as much as people in this forum like to rag on Arrington, he's arguably the best third corner in the NFL. Logan, Butler, or Dennard are pretty darn good 4th corners.

The Pats have the ability to play zone or man or any combination AND put any number of different players on the opponents receivers if they start playing formation games -- all with an effective insurance policy/center fielder in McCourty.

There are a lot of people who have suggested that Browner could be a cap casualty next year, while clamoring that Revis be extended at all costs. I'm all for extending Revis. But the real value is having such a deep and talented secondary that you can mix up the matchups. It's not just putting Revis on the other team's best WR and hoping you can cover the rest with your spare parts, or having Revis lock down one side of the field and hoping that will limit opposing offenses. The Pats can get creative, and they have. They can put Arrington (or Ryan, or Butler) on a speedy, elusive receiver like Emmanual Sanders, TY Hilton, Golden Tate or Randall Cobb; they can have Browner try to clobber the guy at the line of scrimmage and then use safety help to limit the liability if he gets beat. They can shift Revis during the game when someone is gashing them, as they did with Reggie Wayne during the Indy game. They can use Browner to match up on TEs, or they can use someone like Jamie Collins.

The "mix and match" isn't limited to the secondary. We've seen it with a 2-4-5 (or was it a 4-2-5 with a zone blitz? no one seemed to be able to definitely decide) with 4 guys flipping between pass rushers and coverage/second level support. Darius Fleming is another guy who could potentially fit that mold. We've seen a 3-4/4-3 hybrid with Ninkovich and Jones alternating between playing a 5-tech position and dropping back as an OLB. We've seen multiple guys play a hybrid LB/S role - Nate Exner, Pat Chung and Jonathan Casillas. On offense we've shown the ability to do just as many things, causing a slew of articles about the "incredible morphing Patriots" or similar themes.

The Pats are about as versatile as Mystique. No other team does so many things, and does them well. It's practically like having a 12th man on the field - how do you stop the Patriots when you don't know what kind of game plan you will have to stop, and where they can adjust it on the fly and mix it up so that the opposing team spends "a lot of time trying to figure out the pattern when there is none". This is MUCH harder to attack than simply scheming to neutralize the few "elite" impact players that a team has on each side of the ball. And it makes the team much less dependent on any single player, even guys as great as Revis and Gronk.

 

[mayoclinic]

An interesting tidbit from Reiss' Quick Hits highlights another area of positional versatility - the up-tempo offensive:

Bill Belichick’s remarks to Scott Zolak on Patriots All-Access this week, when reviewing how the offense hoped to attack the Lions, highlighted how tempo can be an effective weapon for an offense. Belichick said the goal was to keep the Lions’ defense on the field for about 15-20 extra plays, in part because they hadn’t played extended snaps in most of their games this season. Mission accomplished: Including penalties, the Patriots ran 81 offensive snaps. Entering the game, the Lions’ defense was averaging 64 snaps per game, as the 81 easily were a season high for them. The Patriots have a lot of ways to attack the opposition and few teams push the tempo as well as they do.

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-...3213/quick-hit-thoughts-around-patriots-nfl-6

Another example of something which was not so much an individual matchup as a schematic approach which worked because of unit versatility and depth. Making Detroit play 25% more defensive snaps may have helped wear down a very physical and disruptive front 7. Throw in LeGarrette Blount and you have a combination of jabs and body shots that few teams can match.

You need players who can execute when called upon, guys who can "just do your job" and do it well. But if they do, then the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts.

 

[Marqui]

There are a lot of people who have suggested that Browner could be a cap casualty next year,

What is that based on, do team teams normally cut good players after the 1st year of a contract?

 

[everlong]

This is the anti-Felger argument. He always clamors for the Pats to spend more money, trade up not down in the draft and that spending a lot of money and getting stars is what wins. His "the cap is crap" motto saying the Pats could spend what they want to but chose not to yet forgetting he was claiming the Jets built it right when they had a mini run going to two AFCCG's.

The fact is IMO you need both, you need a blend. If you take Gronk or Revis out of the lineup you take away big matchup advantages which change how aggressive the Pats can be and how they can exploit matchup advantages. However because the Patriots don't rely on just one matchup they are much more bulletproof than say Denver losing Sanders or Arizona losing Peterson. For one game in a vacuum if you suspended Gronk and Nelson for today's game even though the Pats lost the better player I'd give them an even better chance of winning due to their depth. However for the long term you take him out and that offense is dramatically different.

I don't think you can build it like the Jets did with a top heavy roster but you absolutely need some difference makers on both sides of the balls to create mismatches. The Patriots like to exploit those mismatches as much if not more than any team in football.

If there was a WAR (wins above replacement) stat for football Gronk would no doubt be at the top of his position and near the top of the league. Revis in that top 3 or so of his position. Then there's the trickle down effect of now having to pull Aarington out of the slot where he's shined and making two positions weaker.

I'm not advocating Revis at any cost however I would advocate extending themselves beyond there normal value system. If they want a player at 90% of market go and pay him the full 100% if that's what it takes. Better that than paying Starks, O'Neil and some of the other flotsam and jetsam whatever it was they "earned".

 

[DarrylS]

If you believed the hype the Pats were poor match ups for the Bronco's, two weeks ago they were poor match ups for the Colts and this week they are a poor match up against the Packers... but somehow in this chess game BB/Patricia/McDaniels have come up with outstanding game plans and the players have executed them well..

When I watch other NFL games am amazed a how poorly they control and manage the game, last week at the end of the first half the Lions with about 2:20 to go in the game they did not seem to know what to do... they wasted 20 seconds and used the half to stop the clock... then tried to do something. But what does that say about confidence in your offense against the Patriots... many teams play not to lose, instead of playing to win..

The whole tempo thing mentioned in the previous post is another example, many teams try it but seem to do so ineffectively as the context does not make much sense.. up tempo is a strategic decision..

While Brady and the team execute as best as any group in the NFL, the coaches put them in a position with some well thought out game plans...

 

[mayoclinic]

This is the anti-Felger argument. He always clamors for the Pats to spend more money, trade up not down in the draft and that spending a lot of money and getting stars is what wins. His "the cap is crap" motto saying the Pats could spend what they want to but chose not to yet forgetting he was claiming the Jets built it right when they had a mini run going to two AFCCG's.

The fact is IMO you need both, you need a blend. If you take Gronk or Revis out of the lineup you take away big matchup advantages which change how aggressive the Pats can be and how they can exploit matchup advantages. However because the Patriots don't rely on just one matchup they are much more bulletproof than say Denver losing Sanders or Arizona losing Peterson. For one game in a vacuum if you suspended Gronk and Nelson for today's game even though the Pats lost the better player I'd give them an even better chance of winning due to their depth. However for the long term you take him out and that offense is dramatically different.

I don't think you can build it like the Jets did with a top heavy roster but you absolutely need some difference makers on both sides of the balls to create mismatches. The Patriots like to exploit those mismatches as much if not more than any team in football.

If there was a WAR (wins above replacement) stat for football Gronk would no doubt be at the top of his position and near the top of the league. Revis in that top 3 or so of his position. Then there's the trickle down effect of now having to pull Aarington out of the slot where he's shined and making two positions weaker.

I'm not advocating Revis at any cost however I would advocate extending themselves beyond there normal value system. If they want a player at 90% of market go and pay him the full 100% if that's what it takes. Better that than paying Starks, O'Neil and some of the other flotsam and jetsam whatever it was they "earned".

The 2001 team had very few players who were individual matchup nightmares, but lots of guys who did their job. But I agree it's not an either/or situation.

As I said above, you have to be able to execute. It doesn't matter what kind of fancy schemes you throw at teams if your blockers can't block, your receivers don't run their routes or drop the ball, and your defenders can't tackle. And I agree that having some guys who can dominate at their position helps a lot. But you have to have the right kind of guys - not selfish me-first players who are focused on stats and their own success, but team-first guys. Gronk is just as happy blocking someone into the next area code or drawing a triple team so that an uncovered teammate can score as he is making the splash play that shows up on the highlight films. Regis just quietly does is job to perfection, and seems to be thriving as part of a team-first approach, doing whatever is asked of him without a peep. How many times do we hear of star players complaining that they weren't involved enough, or seemingly focused on their own individual performance?

There are 3 problems that I see with adding "elite" playmakers and designing around them:

1. They generally take up a lot of your cap space, so you have to be careful how many you add, and the wrong one can mess your cap up big time. Elite skills can erode quickly over time, and sometimes are not as elite as expected.

2. They have to have the right mentality and buy into a team-first approach, and they have to have a skill set and versatility which fits into the overall approach. Getting a guy with terrific skills who doesn't fit doesn't help.

3. Relying too much on winning individual matchups makes you more predictable, and more vulnerable to setbacks if an impact player is injured or neutralized.

I am NOT advocating a "you can win without good talent" approach. It takes more than flotsam and jetsam (there's got to be a great joke in there somewhere), as you say. But I think that there is a different emphasis and a more subtle approach that the media generally completely misses in their "analysis", and I think that most people focus far too much on a few individual matchups and performances ("5 players to watch", "key matchups for the game", "3 up, 3 down", etc.) rather than on these kind of issues broader issues.

 

[mayoclinic]

What is that based on, do team teams normally cut good players after the 1st year of a contract?

I personally don't think it's at all likely, and I think it would be a terrible idea, but the argument is generally based on (1) expectations that the Pats will have some cap space issues in 2015 and have to make some hard choices, (2) Browner having a $5M+ cap hit next year and no dead money if cut, making him an attractive cut candidate, and (3) the (in my opinion mistaken) belief that the secondary can be nearly as good without him because of Revis and the positional depth.

 

[everlong]

The 2001 team had very few players who were individual matchup nightmares, but lots of guys who did their job. But I agree it's not an either/or situation.

The 2001 team had nobody on offense you would consider an individual matchup nightmare but the defense had quite a few.

I am NOT advocating a "you can win without good talent" approach. It takes more than flotsam and jetsam (there's got to be a great joke in there somewhere), as you say. But I think that there is a different emphasis and a more subtle approach that the media generally completely misses in their "analysis", and I think that most people focus far too much on a few individual matchups and performances ("5 players to watch", "key matchups for the game", "3 up, 3 down", etc.) rather than on these kind of issues broader issues.

I agree the media over plays it thus my Felger reference. I think many teams fall into it as well. That's why BB's theme of taking away what they do best works so well. When SF came into Foxboro the last time and went play action and threw it down the field it was brilliant on Harbaugh's part. He didn't fall into the bang your head against the wall trap.

In the salary cap era you simply cannot load up on top talent however you have to have some of it.

 

[patchick]

This is the anti-Felger argument. He always clamors for the Pats to spend more money, trade up not down in the draft and that spending a lot of money and getting stars is what wins. His "the cap is crap" motto saying the Pats could spend what they want to but chose not to yet forgetting he was claiming the Jets built it right when they had a mini run going to two AFCCG's.

The fact is IMO you need both, you need a blend. If you take Gronk or Revis out of the lineup you take away big matchup advantages which change how aggressive the Pats can be and how they can exploit matchup advantages.

The thing about Gronk and Revis is that the Pats didn't have to sacrifice other parts of the team to get them. They got lucky on a 2nd-round pick and a last-minute cap casualty.

The way I see it is that targeting depth and versatility is a recipe for building a consistently competitive team. Getting lucky on a couple of impact players can then elevate a competitive team into a special team: Moss and Welker in 2007, hopefully Revis & Gronk in 2014.

But if you go all-in to land the impact players, you give up the year-in, year-out quality for a brief flash of competitiveness followed by doldrums. You mention the Jets' 2 good years; in a thread on the draft board I looked at the Falcons. Dimitroff & co. bet the farm that Julio Jones would be an impact WR, and bet right -- yet ended up the worse for it, because in the long run that boring, workaday farm was worth more than the shiny prize. (The Patriots used picks lower than what Atlanta gave away to draft a passel of players including Dont'a Hightower, Chandler Jones, Shane Vereen and Stevan Ridley.)

 

[mayoclinic]

The thing about Gronk and Revis is that the Pats didn't have to sacrifice other parts of the team to get them. They got lucky on a 2nd-round pick and a last-minute cap casualty.

The way I see it is that targeting depth and versatility is a recipe for building a consistently competitive team. Getting lucky on a couple of impact players can then elevate a competitive team into a special team: Moss and Welker in 2007, hopefully Revis & Gronk in 2014.

But if you go all-in to land the impact players, you give up the year-in, year-out quality for a brief flash of competitiveness followed by doldrums. You mention the Jets' 2 good years; in a thread on the draft board I looked at the Falcons. Dimitroff & co. bet the farm that Julio Jones would be an impact WR, and bet right -- yet ended up the worse for it, because in the long run that boring, workaday farm was worth more than the shiny prize. (The Patriots used picks lower than what Atlanta gave away to draft a passel of players including Dont'a Hightower, Chandler Jones, Shane Vereen and Stevan Ridley.)

The OP addresses issues on several levels:

1. Roster building. The kind of approach described has obvious implications for how you build your team, and the type of players you go after. The goal is to build a deep, versatile and balanced team on both sides of the ball with the constraints of the salary cap and 53 man roster limit, with lots of potential mismatches rather than a few. You need guys with multiple skills rather than one trick ponies, guys with high football intelligence and discipline, and guys who are willing to do whatever is required for the good of the team. That eliminates a large number of high profile prospects and FAs. Every year we see people go into heat for high priced FAs who would strain the overall structure of the team, many of whom are questionable fits. Thinking in terms of this kind of direction helps identify guys who may be good fits.

2. Game planning and in game adjystments. Having a team which can morph between a number of different approaches on both sided of the ball gives a tremendous advantage. How do you want to match up against Detroit ' s formidable DL? Do you want to play hurry up? Use multiple RBs out of the backfield and a lot of screens and misdirection to make the run and wear them out? Spread the out, use 2 TE sets, or play action? Run the bal down their throats when they're starting to tirr, with an overloaded line? And you can mix and match those elements (some without changing personnel), and make in game adjustments. And there are just as many options on defense.

 

[SVN]

http://www.footballbyfootball.com/column/patriots-point-of-view-nowhere-to-run
From chatham

What I can tell you is linebackers Dont'a Hightower and Jamie Collins are playing at an extremely high level, but they've been tested in base defense runs much less than in the sub run game that teams like Denver and Indianapolis major in. How they handle the Packers scheme runs from regular defense will be a big hurdle, as the Packers run a number of unusual backfield arrangements, including Pistol and loaded offset looks. Don't be surprised if the Packers have success early in these scheme runs. The ground game war for the Patriots will be won on in-game adjustments.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Excellent topic & thoughts from Mayo, Ken, et. al.
It brings me to a theme I've mentioned here previously. I was never a big fan of the 2007 style approach because late in December it became apparent that capable DCs with quality players were able to take away the key component and what remained was insufficient even with WWW at his prime. Once Moss was contained with the relatively cheap expenditure of resources, the remaining offense was not versatile enough. In sharp contrast, if a team devotes the considerable resources to suppress Gronk, what remains is still able to move the chains in myriad ways. And even contained, Gronk is still wreaking havoc blocking. Strong running attack, versatile big play 3rd down back threat from Vereen, Edelperson everywhere, Wright in the Red Zone and of course LaFell. Key is a QB smart enough to analyze the defensive response and utilize the different tools in the appropriate situations without missing a beat.

 

[mayoclinic]

Excellent topic & thoughts from Mayo, Ken, et. al.
It brings me to a theme I've mentioned here previously. I was never a big fan of the 2007 style approach because late in December it became apparent that capable DCs with quality players were able to take away the key component and what remained was insufficient even with WWW at his prime. Once Moss was contained with the relatively cheap expenditure of resources, the remaining offense was not versatile enough. In sharp contrast, if a team devotes the considerable resources to suppress Gronk, what remains is still able to move the chains in myriad ways. And even contained, Gronk is still wreaking havoc blocking. Strong running attack, versatile big play 3rd down back threat from Vereen, Edelperson everywhere, Wright in the Red Zone and of course LaFell. Key is a QB smart enough to analyze the defensive response and utilize the different tools in the appropriate situations without missing a beat.

Gronk can be an impact player without making a catch, by drawing double and triple teams and by his blocking. Remember him laughing about drawing a triple team to free up "my man Shane"? He is the only offensive skill player in the NFL who can dominate a game without touching the ball.

 

[everlong]

The thing about Gronk and Revis is that the Pats didn't have to sacrifice other parts of the team to get them. They got lucky on a 2nd-round pick and a last-minute cap casualty.

I agree on the sacrifice part but it wasn't really luck. They targeted both. I was huge on Gronk that year and thought it was a no brainer to take him in the second. Revis wasn't a last minute cap casualty. That makes him seem bargain basement which he wasn't.

The way I see it is that targeting depth and versatility is a recipe for building a consistently competitive team. Getting lucky on a couple of impact players can then elevate a competitive team into a special team: Moss and Welker in 2007, hopefully Revis & Gronk in 2014.

Agreed on the way to stay competitive but that's a different argument than winning a championship and being an elite team. This team is the first elite version since 07.

But if you go all-in to land the impact players, you give up the year-in, year-out quality for a brief flash of competitiveness followed by doldrums. You mention the Jets' 2 good years; in a thread on the draft board I looked at the Falcons. Dimitroff & co. bet the farm that Julio Jones would be an impact WR, and bet right -- yet ended up the worse for it, because in the long run that boring, workaday farm was worth more than the shiny prize. (The Patriots used picks lower than what Atlanta gave away to draft a passel of players including Dont'a Hightower, Chandler Jones, Shane Vereen and Stevan Ridley.)

I agree thus my Jets point. You have to pick your spots. You still need to fit in those top tier cogs though. To your point not selling the farm on them is just as important and getting them. You miss out on Jamie Collins and Bryan Stork chasing a Julio Jones and you're not elite. It's a balancing act. I'm just saying lets not pretend the top tier talent isn't what pushes you over the top but it's not the only thing either.

 

[everlong]

Gronk can be an impact player without making a catch, by drawing double and triple teams and by his blocking. Remember him laughing about drawing a triple team to free up "my man Shane"? He is the only offensive skill player in the NFL who can dominate a game without touching the ball.

It's like getting Calvin Johnson and Daniel Graham (in him prime as a blocker) in one player.

 

[patchick]

I agree on the sacrifice part but it wasn't really luck. They targeted both.

Can't agree with you there. Wasn't it lucky to have a shot at a talent like Gronk at a lower draft pick than they spent on players like Laurence Maroney, Chad Jackson and Ras-I Dowling (not to mention TEs Graham and Watson)? And it wasn't lucky for the best CB in the league to suddenly become available in the midst of free agency...the day AFTER the Broncos opened their vaults for Aqib Talib?

Conversely, wasn't it BAD luck to suffer the incredible string of injuries (and arrests ) the Pats faced in 2013?

Every team has plenty of good and bad luck. It's layering that luck over a strong foundation of skill that distinguishes the perennial contenders from the pack.

 

[mayoclinic]

You have to pick your spots. You still need to fit in those top tier cogs though. I'm just saying lets not pretend the top tier talent isn't what pushes you over the top but it's not the only thing either.

I certainly never intended to claim that top tier talent isn't important. Indeed, the Pats a ton of guys who can create mismatches:

- Brady
- Gronk
- Vereen
- Edelman
- Revis
- Wilfork (at least in the past, and still close to it)
- Jones
- Hightower
- Collins
- McCourty
- And down the line, Easley

I think they have as many guys who can create mismatches as any team I can think of. They just spread things out more, and no one amasses gaudy stats. Hightower will probably not make the pro bowl, but he is playing as well as any LB in the NFL this year IMO, and Collins isn't far off.

You have to pick your spots, as you say. The Pats traded up to get Gronk, Jones and Hightower, they went after Revis when he became available. If you're going to pay big money or use high draft capital then you want to be pretty sure that the player you are targeting fits your system, both in terms of skills and temperament.

 

[everlong]

Can't agree with you there. Wasn't it lucky to have a shot at a talent like Gronk at a lower draft pick than they spent on players like Laurence Maroney, Chad Jackson and Ras-I Dowling (not to mention TEs Graham and Watson)? And it wasn't lucky for the best CB in the league to suddenly become available in the midst of free agency...the day AFTER the Broncos opened their vaults for Aqib Talib?

It was lucky, for them, that he was hurt the year before coming out or he would have been a top 15 pick. All those other players were bad drafting not bad luck.

Conversely, wasn't it BAD luck to suffer the incredible string of injuries (and arrests ) the Pats faced in 2013?

Every team has plenty of good and bad luck. It's layering that luck over a strong foundation of skill that distinguishes the perennial contenders from the pack.

Losing the center of your defense was awful luck for last year but getting Collins and Hightower that experience is certainly paying off this year.