JoeSixPat said:
You might want to review the additions and subtractions of the team in the offseason thus far.
I guess if you are of the opinion that a WR corps that lacked depth last year got stronger with the replacement of Givens, Dwight and Davis with Reche Caldwell then I suppose you have a point.
I don't know about you, but I kindof felt like Willie McGinest had some big plays for us here and there, as did Adam Vinatieri (and its a big "if" on whether Gramatica can get the job done)
Many of our other players aren't getting any younger and you may have noticed quite a few people around here actually talking about using a 1st round draft choice on a TE.
Yeah, I'd say we have some holes to fill.
That doesn't mean we go off an panic like some have, but that doesn't mean we ignore some very basic realities - that our subtractions by far outweigh our additions and free agency has not been a significant resource for us thus far.
I have a TOTALLY different outlook on this, which I will try to explain, because your points are valid.
I dont think this Patriot dynasty has at all been about the 'playmakers' or the 10 guys whose name is most recognized. Sure, they have made wonderful contributions but every crappy team in the NFL can point to a David Givens or Willie McGinest. The difference is we call them 'winners' here.
We have not won because of the good play of good players. Every team in the NFL has that.
We have won because of the OVERALL talent level on the field, but much more because of the 'worst' 5 players on the field than the best 5 in any given unit.
In other words, while every team has strengths, we have lacked weaknesses. This was most apparent to me in 2001. We were not real good at anything, but every player we put on the field could hold their own and not be dominanted by a star player, could beat a mediocre player a little more often than not, and could dominate a bad plater.
In 02, we had severe weakness that got exploited.
In 03 and 04 we actually, believe it or not, had a better team than we played like, but the depth was so strong we went 34-4 with an unbelievable and unprecented (for a Champion) amount of injuries.
What happened last year?
Who were the biggest liabilities on the roster? The players that instead of being on the field and being at least adequate, were on the sidleines and replaced by bad players, many plucked off the street.
Rodney Harrison, ultimately sucked last year. Because in his place was a collection of stiffs who got burned consistently. HIS POSITION killed us. That cant happen and have you still be head and shoulders above the league, because the weakest link in the chain hurts 10 times more than the strongest one helps.
So, that leads us to BBs approach to the 05-06 off-season.
We lost some pretty good players. Guess what, we still have as many good players as anyone.
Why did we ALLOW McGinest, Givens, Vinatieri, etc to leave? We admit that we will be WORSE at their positions. But we will not suck there. We could have afforded to keep all of them. We CHOSE not to. Why?
2 reasons.
1) The cost of keeping them and keeping those positions at that level, is outweighted by how much we can improve the overall team with the same money. Not if you are caught up in name power, and playmaking, but definitely if you accept that the worst 2-3 players we put on the field in the 4th quarter of game #11 of next season will be MUCH better than the ones we did last year.
Do not expect to 'replace' these guys. We won't. Expect that we will be worse at K, #2 WR, OLB (or ILB depending on where Vrabel ends up) but understand that you will not see QBs torching our secondary because we have guys on the field who are liabilities.
The money will be spent on upgrading either the worst of the starters, or the depth of the team. That will increase the overall talent level. I am MUCH more concerned with players like Stone, Freeman, Starks, Evans, Poteat, Troy Brown at corner, Klecko, Wright as a rookie, TBC, etc, etc needing to be relied upon in the inevitable event of injury than I am about who our #2 WR will be. You can downgrade that spot to medicore, and the net result is a big gain if in turn you upgrade a spot that has a terrible player at it to mediocre.
2) Loom at the history of our losses to the roster.
Woody, Washington, Law, Andruzzi, Givens, McGinest, Vinatieri, Milloy to name a few.
What did they all have in common? EITHER they had an injury history or were at a point in their career where they were a large injury risk (McG and AV fit the second, you are playing with fire to think they can both be counted on for 32 games the next 2 years, or in AVs case, 32 fully healthy ones) By the way, I accept Vinatieri is no more injury prone than any kicker, but no less either, and surely more than in the past, so AT HIS PRICE the risk is high.
We have all read about BBs 02-03 off-season approach of getting faster and younger on D.
To me his 05-06 off-season approach is just as clear.
1) We have had a ton of injuries.
2) We overcame them with depth in 03 and 04 but depth was eroded and we couldnt overcome them in 05
3) We need to revamp the roster so we are less likely to have injuries
4) We need to protect against injuries by having a 53 man roster full of quality depth.
The plan many would have had for BB would have been to pony up for the big name players, because how can we replace them. BBs plan is to accept downgrades in some spots (if you dont accept it ahead of time it happens anyway and you are unprepared. No team gets better everywhere in an off-season) and use that money to upgrade many others.
To give it a mathematical analogy:
(We assume 100= stud player who plays every down when healthy, 80 equals decent full time player, 50 equals good backup, and 10 equals barely belong in the NFL)
I will give up 3 100s and replace them with 80s if that means I upgrade 10 10s to 50s. THAT is exactly what BB is in the process of doing.
The signings wont impress you NOW. The draft will, as always be questioned.
But during the season, we will (hopefully) see fewer games lost to injury, but if not see all of these questionable acquisitions step in and play adequately. We may miss a game winning kick, but we won't see receivers running wide open in the secondary, which would have meant we never had the shot at a game winning kick. We may miss a big play form Willie, but it will result in a decent play by someone else, followed by the absence of big plays against us.
Put one final way: It is NOT about the plays we make, it is about the plays the other team doesnt make, on both sides of the ball.
I will take a team of the 53 most average players in the NFL and put it up against 90% of the teams in the NFL, and it will win, very often. Those average guys will never be liabilities and they will expose the other teams liabilities.
Think about this: Do "big plays" win games? Are 'big playmakers' typically hoisting Lombardis? Or when they do isnt it because they are on a team that doesnt get exploited in any area?
Name the last team to win it all that sucked at anything? Name the last team that was great at one thing that won it all? (And dont give me the Rams of 2000, because they were #1 in defense)
The 2005 Patriots sucked at some things, all related to good players not being on the field and their replacements being explited. That NEVER happened in 01, 03, 04. BB is committed that while we may not be as good at what we do well (its foolish to think you always will be) we will not suck at anything in 2006.
Get ready, the Lombardi is coming home!!!
