Talent and Depth Versus Value, New England Style

[pbmax]

From Aaron Schatz at http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/footballoutsiders blog on Fox Sports:


There¹s only one problem with the Patriots¹ strategy of choosing depth over highly paid stars: They forgot to go out and actually add depth. With the Branch trade, the Patriots are now $13.8 million under the salary cap for 2006, yet they have depth problems at the same positions where they lost free agents this summer: wide receiver and linebacker.


Anyway, the Pats made the best of a bad situation by getting the first-round pick from Seattle. If they think Branch is just a replaceable part, though, they're making a big mistake. Branch has been the best WR on the Pats for the last three years.
Somehow, this sounds all familiar. You could have the best value per player in the league and still manage to be horrible.

And yes, stating the obvious, you can't adhere to finding value while ignoring depth and talent.

[Fritz]

What interests me here is not the specifics of the paragraph; it's that the Patriots - everyone's model for a winning organization - have so quickly fallen into disfavor.

The organization has the same basic management and head coaching pieces in place. Have they gotten dumber? I thought maybe their having won a Super Bowl or two would have bought them some credibility, but alas, no. It's no longer a good thing, it seems, to be compared to the Patriots.

I remember sitting in front of my TV at the end of the Packers' last Super Bowl win, thinking that no matter what happened in the future, I'd always have that moment. I still cherish it.

The league is built for parity. I'm willing to have some patience with TT partly because of that. If he's not getting it done by the end of next year - if it's not clear at the end of 2007 that this team is on the way up and will be a force to be reckoned with in 2008 (I'm talking conference championship/Super Bowl) - then I"ll be ready to cut TT loose. But I'm willing to give him that kind of time.

Now, if you're a Lions fan or a Saints fan, it's a different story. The league, as I said, is designed for a turnover of championship teams over time. If you don't ever, ever get to the Super Bowl, something's wrong. Really wrong.

[ahaha]

Remember how the media tried to make out the Patriots as the model franchise for unselfish players who just want to win? What a steaming load of BS that was. The number one concern for any player, except maybe a few vested veterans, is their financial future. The Patriots, just like any other successful team, are now seeing an erosion of talent due to free agency and the salary cap.

[pbmax]

The media do love to run either one way or the other depending on how conventional wisdom is going, but that doesn't make the Patritos dumb.

They were 10-6 last year with a secondary that might have been worse than the Packers after injury. And the Broncos beat them with a tough interference call and a big return on an int.

So I think its entirely possible they blew it on Branch, but are still a good franchise. And Brady makes them look better just like Favre.

[vince]

From Aaron Schatz at http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/footballoutsiders blog on Fox Sports:


There¹s only one problem with the Patriots¹ strategy of choosing depth over highly paid stars: They forgot to go out and actually add depth. With the Branch trade, the Patriots are now $13.8 million under the salary cap for 2006, yet they have depth problems at the same positions where they lost free agents this summer: wide receiver and linebacker.


Anyway, the Pats made the best of a bad situation by getting the first-round pick from Seattle. If they think Branch is just a replaceable part, though, they're making a big mistake. Branch has been the best WR on the Pats for the last three years.
Somehow, this sounds all familiar. You could have the best value per player in the league and still manage to be horrible.

And yes, stating the obvious, you can't adhere to finding value while ignoring depth and talent.
Perhaps you meant to say "cheap players" instead of "value" but talent is 9/10 of the "value" equation... You don't have value without talent. If you're looking for "value" that, by definition, means you're looking for talent, albeit at a price below "market value"...

Someone in a previous, but related, thread quoted someone from New England saying somthing to the effect of, "The key to winning championships is getting more people on your team to 'outplay' their contract."

While logically self-evident, it seems to escape most people's thought process when they promote going out and signing a slew of veteran players on the downside of their peak for more money than they'll be worth...

Of course it's not this simple, as players contracts are not all one-year, but the simple logic is still very important...

Every team "spends" the same number of dollars. Some teams will overpay for the "talent" (which translates into wins and losses) that they're getting. Other teams will pay the right amount relative to players' talent. Others will get more talent than they pay for. Since they all spend the same $$, these are the teams that win the championships.

"Value" is the key to success.

[pbmax]

Perhaps you meant to say "cheap players" instead of "value" but talent is 9/10 of the "value" equation... You don't have value without talent. If you're looking for "value" that, by definition, means you're looking for talent, albeit at a price below "market value"...

Someone in a previous, but related, thread quoted someone from New England saying somthing to the effect of, "The key to winning championships is getting more people on your team to 'outplay' their contract."

While logically self-evident, it seems to escape most people's thought process when they promote going out and signing a slew of veteran players on the downside of their peak for more money than they'll be worth...

Of course it's not this simple, as players contracts are not all one-year, but the simple logic is still very important...

Every team "spends" the same number of dollars. Some teams will overpay for the "talent" (which translates into wins and losses) that they're getting. Other teams will pay the right amount relative to players' talent. Others will get more talent than they pay for. Since they all spend the same $$, these are the teams that win the championships.

"Value" is the key to success.
By value I mean a ratio: cost of player versus how much does he contribute to winning

And by this definition, guards do suffer, because even the best can't win games by themselves. How many Super Bowls did John Hannah take New England to? One, I believe. And the MVP of that team had to be Mosi Tatupu, even if only for his name.

Everyone doesn't spend the same amount of money, the cap is a accounting construct, the amount of money the team spends is usually in excess of their cap dollars. Even by cap measurement, some teams are closer to the cap floor than ceiling and others only use up their cap by the end of the current season.

So, yes you need talent to win, but that talent costs a variable amount of money, so value counts.

But to get back to the original point, great value (low cost/large contribution to winning) doesn't give you playoff capable players by default.

Losing talent, even if the value looks low beacuse of its high price, hurts if there isn't any depth to fill its place. See Branch and Wahle.

[pbmax]

Someone in a previous, but related, thread quoted someone from New England saying somthing to the effect of, "The key to winning championships is getting more people on your team to 'outplay' their contract."

While logically self-evident, it seems to escape most people's thought process when they promote going out and signing a slew of veteran players on the downside of their peak for more money than they'll be worth...
I agree with you here. And I think we are making the same point. You want value and players outperforming their contracts is a good indication of the former.

But if you don't have talented depth to replace players you are going to lose, your team may get worse, even if the personnel decision is a wise one in terms of value.

losing Wahle, Branch, Harrison or Walker may make sense from the value and salary cap implications. But without adequate replacements, its a losing proposition on the football field.

You cannot do it too often or you will be constatly rebuilding.

There must be talent coming in on the cheap. Sherman couldn't do it, T2 is having a rough go as he waits for the draft picks to develop.

[Partial]

From Aaron Schatz at http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/footballoutsiders blog on Fox Sports:


There¹s only one problem with the Patriots¹ strategy of choosing depth over highly paid stars: They forgot to go out and actually add depth. With the Branch trade, the Patriots are now $13.8 million under the salary cap for 2006, yet they have depth problems at the same positions where they lost free agents this summer: wide receiver and linebacker.


Anyway, the Pats made the best of a bad situation by getting the first-round pick from Seattle. If they think Branch is just a replaceable part, though, they're making a big mistake. Branch has been the best WR on the Pats for the last three years.
Somehow, this sounds all familiar. You could have the best value per player in the league and still manage to be horrible.

And yes, stating the obvious, you can't adhere to finding value while ignoring depth and talent.

I agree. Maybe the hardcore TT fan boys will take this to heart and realize his system isn't guaranteed to work by any means. By the time the team is competitve without adding some key players via free agency, they will all be free agents and demanding big contracts (what you're trying to avoid by buiding through the draft). That fact, paired with my thoughts that going too young is a potentially fatal mistake (joey harrington syndrome) are prime examples of why TT's approach isn't perfect.