Asante Samuel: Not re-signed. Richard Seymour: Traded. Ellis Hobbs: Not re-signed. Matt Cassel: Traded. Mike Vrabel: Traded….the list continues. When you look at that list, what do those players make you think of? They make me think of what the Patriots of 2010 would look like if they retained an all-pro defensive back, an all-pro defensive end, and three quality players who ultimately made the team better. I’m not writing this to demean the Patriots philosophy nor to say it is invalid, because, let’s face it, Bill Belicheck is slightly more experienced in all things football then I am. I am merely espousing my thoughts on how the Patriots manage their team and deal with player personnel.
Before I really delve into the issue, let me talk a bit about why I decided to write this article in the first place. I read today that Randy Moss is disgruntled with the team. He feels that they don’t value him enough to re-sign him during the next off-season; therefore he believes the 2010-2011 season will be his last bearing the blue and silver. This situation perfectly highlights the patriot’s philosophy in managing their team. They value no player to highly, no player’s skills so transcendent that they cannot replace them with a well-used draft pick. Cold blooded right? Why pay an aging Randy Moss thirty million dollars when they can stock pile mid- round draft picks and turn them into a stable of usable wide receivers? All for a price much less then Moss would require. That is the philosophy that underpins the Patriots organization, and the reason that they have let go of so many talented players over the years.
Of course, the philosophy outlined above has a lot of merit. The Patriots are the most adept in the NFL at recognizing when a player is declining in talent and then pulling the plug. They did it with Richard Seymour in 2008 and got a first round draft pick in return. A brilliant move. As long as the draft pick is used well, the Patriots turned a player on the tail end of their career (albeit a great one) into young, first-rate talent. Although, there is risk involved with this type of move, because a team is trading away proven talent for unproven players. Though the organization is saving money, who really knows if the new players they acquire will match the talent lost?
Belicheck also has supreme confidence in how his system works. Though he values elite “A” grade talent, the Patriots believe that they can substitute “B” grade players in and still have success. A grade “A” talent is expensive, and a team can only have so much of it. If a team overloads on supreme talent the rest of their roster is thin, and depth will be severely lacking. By sticking a roster mostly with B talent a team is able to create excellent depth and have a roster completely full of solid players while a team that focuses on A grade will need to fill a large portion of the roster with lesser talent. This is not saying either philosophy is better; it is just two ways to approach the game. There are examples of both styles through-out the NFL. The Indianapolis Colts are perhaps the greatest example of a team that chooses to load up on A grade players while sacrificing other parts of the team. They have Peyton Manning, Dwight Freeney, Reggie Wayne, Bob Sanders, Jeff Saturday, Dallas Clark, and Garry Brackett: all of which are all-pros that the Colts pay a lot to keep. They have had all these players for at least eight years, a testament to the unchanging nature of the Colt's team. Though this has worked for them thus far, they would be screwed if they had a bad injury to a couple of those elite players. But look at the 2008 Patriots, the season they lost Tom Brady to a knee injury, yet still managed to go 11-5, missing the play-offs because of the ludicrously asinine….ahem, unfortunate NFL division system. A testament to both the depth of the New England Patriots and the system that Bill Belicheck has created.
Which philosophy is better? I don’t know. Over the past nine seasons the Patriots have won three Super Bowls, and appeared in four. The Colts have won one Super Bowl, and appeared in two. Advantage: Patriots. But wait. The Colts have won 12 or more games the past seven seasons, and have had greater success than the patriots over the last two. Advantage: Colts. In addition, the Patriots have restocked their roster with a ton of young players over the past couple of years and are going through a transition period after letting go of many of their proven talent. The Colts on the other hand have remained steady and the model of consistency. So what is better? Seven seasons of high play-off seeding and a championship or three super bowls in four seasons’ yet only one Super Bowl appearance in the last six? What’s the answer? Cliché warning: only time will tell. I believe what happens over the next five years with the direction of the Pats and Colts will provide at least a framework for answering that question. If the Colts continue to be a consistent 12 win machine and the Patriots drift into mediocrity we must side with the Colts. But if the Patriots trend upward and appear in or win another Super Bowl, the pendulum swings the other way.
No comments:
Post a Comment