The Patriots Players – how did they get here?

by hythlodaeus on Apr 7, 2009 10:58 AM EDT

With the draft coming up, I thought it would be fun to take a look at the current roster and try to figure out, how the players presently signed got here.

I focus on the latest acquisition, so Banta-Cain and Stephen Neal are both counted as free agents, even though they were originally drafted and signed as undrafted free agents by the Patriots. Lots of players are released more than once or they go on and off the practice squad, so I distinguish between undrafted rookie free agents (URF) and free agents (FA) by whether they have only been signed by the Patriots – like Matt Guiterrez - or whether they were actually signed by another team at some point – like Neal. So here goes:

Postition	Draft	URF	FA	Trade	Waivers	Total
QB	2	1				3
RB	2	1	2			5
WR	1		2	3		6
TE	2	1	2			5
OL	5	1	7		1	14
K	1					1
P			2			2
LS			1			1
DB	5		5			10
LB	4	4	3			11
DL	5	1	1			7
Total	27	9	25	3	1	65

So, what are the trends? First, it is obvious that the Patriots work all sides of the personal business. The draft and free agency are the most important areas, but players are also brought in as undrafted rookie free agents, by trade and sometimes on waivers. Secondly, there are some positional trends. An undrafted free agent better be a linebacker if he wants to stick with the team, but most positions are covered by various means.

There are two exceptions: Defensive linemen are almost exclusively found in the draft. This reflects a) that Belichick considers the D-line extremely important and b) that players suited for the D-line are really difficult to find. In a comment to another post I argued we should trade up for a linebacker rather than a defensive lineman. This at least suggests, that the Patriots are more likely to target a D-lineman there - and perhaps they should be.

The other major exception is wide receiver. After major busts (Bethell Johnson, Chad Jackson) the Patriots have apparently given up on drafting them, and I don’t think it is a coincidence that they have not even relied on free agents but have actually pursued players through trade. On the one hand projecting wide receivers from college to the pros is notoriously difficult, and on the other hand only second-layer receivers make it to the open market, so the front office has realized it has to pony up with draft picks to other teams for developing receivers.

Obviously not all these players will play the same amount of snaps – actually, not all of them will even make the season-opening roster – so let’s take a look at the starters. This is tricky to project at this point. I have assumed 3 wr, 1 te, 1 rb on offense and a 3-4 line-up on defence. I have further assumed that Maroney will start over Taylor and Morris, that Watson will start over Baker, that Bruschi will start over Guyton, and that Neal will start over Yates.

Postition	Draft	URF	FA	Trade	Waivers	Total
QB	1					1
RB	1					1
WR			1	2		3
TE	1					1
OL	4		1			5
K	1					1
P			1			1
LS			1			1
DB	3		1			4
LB	2	1	1			4
DL	3					3
Total	16	1	6	2	0	25

A couple of interesting things can be found here. First, the draft is much more important for filling the starting line-up than for filling the roster. Two thirds of the starters on offense and defence have been drafted by the Patriots and only 1 undrafted rookie makes it. (Pierre Woods) It is also clear that free agents and undrafted rookies are fine for adding depth in the defensive backfield or along the offensive line, but come crunch time the Patriots still rely on the draft. Considering the musical chairs approach and comical amount of players used in the secondary over the last 5 years, this surprised me.

The views expressed in these FanPosts are not necessarily those of the writers or SBNation.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Nice analysis

The Patriots have the system right, not being married to one form of acquisition over the other whether filling gaps, adding depth, or building for the future. Your point about the DL though is right on and relevant because of the number of key personnel up for new contracts. You can’t just pick these guys up and expect them to perform so it’s important to take care of the guys we have.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Apr 7, 2009 10:45 AM EDT reply actions

D-line and extensions

I am a bit worried that nothing has happened with especially Vilfork yet. He seems due for an extension, and I really wonder whether it will be possible to keep Seymour, Vilfork and Mankins next year.

Obviously I agree that you should get useful players any way you can, and the Patriots are probably more aware of this than anybody. Still, I would like to compare this data with some other teams to see if teams have a distinct profile.

by hythlodaeus on Apr 7, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Uncapped year

The possibility of an uncapped year might influence thinking. As far as I understood Mike Reiss’ mailback today, Wilfork and Mankins will not be free agents if that happens.

by hythlodaeus on Apr 7, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions

My understanding is that Mankins, having less than six years experience, would not be a free agent. Seymour and Wilfork would be free agents, but the Patriots could use both a franchise and transition tag, essentially having the option to retain the two should they so choose.

by Pie McKenzie on Apr 7, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Nicely done

FP’d and slightly edited to add tags and such for search engines (content left untouched).

Blogger at SBNation's Patriots blog, Pats Pulpit

by MaPatsFan on Apr 7, 2009 10:59 AM EDT reply actions

Thanks!

by hythlodaeus on Apr 7, 2009 1:21 PM EDT reply actions

For Contrast

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2009/4/7/826494/where-do-indys-players-come-from

the Patriots have as many players who have come from other teams in their starting lineup as Indy has on their whole roster.

I got Summer hatin' on me cuz I'm hotter than the sun. Spring hatin' on me cuz I ain't never sprung
Winter hatin' on me cuz I'm colder than Y'all. And I will never, I will never, I will never Fall.
-Lil Wayne, Mr. Carter

by shake n bake on Apr 7, 2009 9:53 PM EDT reply actions

Adam Vinitieri is Indy's only starter going into next year who has played a snap for another team.

by shake n bake on Apr 7, 2009 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Interesting

that although both franchise have quiet different philosophies when it comes to building a winning team, both methods have been successful.

It's a bird, it's a plane... no it's Supermathis!!!

by AussieColtsFan on Apr 7, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Remarkable

There is a slight difference in method – Stephen Neal would move from FA to URF using your approach since he never actually played for the Eagles – but it doesn’t change much.

I have started looking on some other teams, and I am pretty sure the amount of draftees and URFs on the Colts roster is outstanding. My guess is this reflects not only the philosophy on ADDING players, but also the willingness to resign their own midlevel free agents.

by hythlodaeus on Apr 8, 2009 3:05 AM EDT up reply actions

the top guys and cheap guys stay

the gaps get filled in with rookies and guys who have kicked around other teams practice squads/offseason rosters.

by shake n bake on Apr 8, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions

I think a big reason why that worked so well in Indy

is that Dungy was really a teacher to the players. He wasn’t the kind of coach that drew up all kinds of crazy schemes and radically different gameplans. He took young players and taught them to execute the defense he and Monte Kiffen designed in Tampa. The offense was a little more varied because offenses generally are, but it was the same focus on execution as opposed to varying schemes.

by shake n bake on Apr 8, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions

there’s probably a lot of truth in what you wrote, though i wouldn’t underrate the patriots coaching staff as player development guys, particularly at the QB position. I think the Colts were good or got lucky on a number of key guys (Bob Sanders) and that they sacrifice depth to keep certain key players. If you disagree, look at the drop-off when certain guys are missing.

by Pie McKenzie on Apr 8, 2009 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Nice Work

This is good research and a nice piece of analysis. I wonder where all 32 teams would fall out in this breakdown and how that compares to the Patriots.

by ProfessorTodd on Apr 8, 2009 1:49 PM EDT reply actions

Good job!

I would probably put Banta-Cain and Stephen Neal under our drafted and UDFA columns (yes, despite your explanation!) but that’s just a tiny nitpick. I’ll be giving this a rec. Good stuff.

Also, I agree with the analysis on the wide receivers. I don’t think the Patriots have necessarily “given up,” but I do feel that they found it much easier to aggressively pursue the guys they wanted through trade. Randy Moss was a no-brainer, and Belichick has frequently mentioned how Welker and Lewis “killed us” when we played against them (which is one thing I love about Belichick – he goes right after the guys who give us a difficult time). Mike Reiss recently touched on the difficulties of projecting a college wide receiver to the NFL:

I have kept a lot of notes from conversations that I’ve had with Bill Belichick over the years, and his thoughts on scouting college receivers have stuck with me. Here is what he once told me about why receivers in college are tough to scout, which might explain why the Patriots have been more inclined to acquire veteran receivers than rely on the draft, where they’ve been burned a few times (e.g. Chad Jackson, Bethel Johnson):

1) Press coverage. There is little press coverage in the college game, but plenty of it in the NFL. Projecting how a college receiver will fare against press coverage is a great challenge. Also, with more off coverage in college, receivers are more apt to body-catch instead of catching the ball away from their body (which is critical in the NFL).

2) Assessing the production. Receivers that put up big numbers often receive good grades in the scouting process, but a key question to ask is how much of that production is a result of a good quarterback or a team’s offensive system (e.g. at Tennessee, Peyton Manning made receiver Marcus Nash a first-round pick, but Nash didn’t pan out in the NFL).

3) Intermediate passing. There is less intermediate passing in the college game. Instead, there are more screens and plays in which a big receiver can out-jump a defender. In the NFL, receivers must rely more on intermediate routes and separation with quickness. That can be difficult to project because scouts don’t see it much in college.

4) Mental approach. In some NFL offenses, like the Patriots’ attack, route adjustments after the snap are a big part of the scheme. Because there is less of that in college, it is difficult to assess how a receiver will adapt to the pro passing game. It’s one thing to run a 4.4 time in the 40-yard dash, but can the player react when coverages shift and the quarterback is being blitzed?

by NESilver on Apr 8, 2009 9:30 PM EDT reply actions