NE culture/"The Patriot Way" (from DVP trade thread)

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Not for one year.  You can totally make your play by having a rookie contract, a few guys who you are getting value from before they re-sign for big money, etc.
But the longevity of the Pats reign comes from start contract work.  ...not only in keeping Brady for value, but for getting rid of a bunch of guys at their prime payday...Vinatieri et al.

Vinatieri didn't leave for more money.  Patriots had offered him just as much money.  He wanted to play in a dome stadium rather than outside in the windy northeast.  Different players have different goals.   Some it is about the money, others it is about being on a winning team, and for some it is about individual stats.  Weather plays a greater role in the kicking game than any other aspect.  Adam choose a dome team in division where all the non-dome teams were in good weather. 

[Dolfanalyst]

Vinatieri didn't leave for more money.  Patriots had offered him just as much money.  He wanted to play in a dome stadium rather than outside in the windy northeast.  Different players have different goals.   Some it is about the money, others it is about being on a winning team, and for some it is about individual stats.  Weather plays a greater role in the kicking game than any other aspect.  Adam choose a dome team in division where all the non-dome teams were in good weather. 

I'm interested in your take as a Patriot fan -- how would you explain how the Patriots managed to function for 20 years, despite wide variation in personnel during that period?  Certainly Brady and Belichick were mainstays, but coaches and players alike came and went, yet their dominance persisted.  And we're not just talking about "being good" for 20 years -- we're talking about a special ability to right themselves in the face of adversity in an uncanny manner -- mounting unlikely comebacks in games, rarely going on losing streaks, starting seasons poorly (for them) and then rebounding -- all of these are indications of some kind of unique resiliency that isn't explained by merely "being good" at coaching and quarterbacking in my opinion.  In my view they reflect something more deeply woven into the fabric of the organization -- the "Patriot way" as it's been called.

[dolphins4life]

I'm interested in your take as a Patriot fan -- how would you explain how the Patriots managed to function for 20 years, despite wide variation in personnel during that period?  Certainly Brady and Belichick were mainstays, but coaches and players alike came and went, yet their dominance persisted.  And we're not just talking about "being good" for 20 years -- we're talking about a special ability to right themselves in the face of adversity in an uncanny manner -- mounting unlikely comebacks in games, rarely going on losing streaks, starting seasons poorly (for them) and then rebounding -- all of these are indications of some kind of unique resiliency that isn't explained by merely "being good" at coaching and quarterbacking in my opinion.  In my view they reflect something more deeply woven into the fabric of the organization -- the "Patriot way" as it's been called.

I have another theory. I think he wanted the challenge of helping the colts rise to the top.  His first season, he kicked eight or ten field goals in the first two playoff games.

Another theory is that he saw the Polamalu interception overturn his last year with New England. He thought maybe he would go there because the colts were clearly the nfls darling franchise.  Sure enough, the colts won his first year there because of horrid officiating.

Now, the packers are the nfls darling franchise

Spare me your bullshit rhetoric, please.  Just watch the games. 

[dolphins4life]

None of those teams had QBs that could lead the league in passing at age 44, regardless of their salary.

Did they have quarterbacks that could will their opponents to turn the ball over and over again?

[dolphins4life]

I'm interested in your take as a Patriot fan -- how would you explain how the Patriots managed to function for 20 years, despite wide variation in personnel during that period?  Certainly Brady and Belichick were mainstays, but coaches and players alike came and went, yet their dominance persisted.  And we're not just talking about "being good" for 20 years -- we're talking about a special ability to right themselves in the face of adversity in an uncanny manner -- mounting unlikely comebacks in games, rarely going on losing streaks, starting seasons poorly (for them) and then rebounding -- all of these are indications of some kind of unique resiliency that isn't explained by merely "being good" at coaching and quarterbacking in my opinion.  In my view they reflect something more deeply woven into the fabric of the organization -- the "Patriot way" as it's been called.

Part of it is due to playing in a toilet division

Miami had three playoff appearances in that span

The jets had five

The bills had two or three

The patriots were a lock to win their division every year

[Dolfanalyst]

Spare me your bullshit rhetoric, please.  Just watch the games.  

Yeah I won't be responding to you here, beyond this.  Take care.

[dolphins4life]

Fair enough

[Spider-Dan]

Comb through all the quarterbacks in history who had that ability for a sustained period in the NFL and you’ll find that almost none of them experienced a dynasty.

Comb through "all the quarterbacks in history" that had the ability to lead the league in passing in their mid-40s and you'll have a very short list that excludes every dynasty but one.

This line of reasoning isn't even historically applicable, since there has only been one team* that has won more than 2 Super Bowls since the introduction of the salary cap: BB's Patriots.  So what "dynasty" can we even compare them to, when the salary cap wasn't even a factor for all the earlier dynasties?

*technically DEN has won 3, but there was no continuity between the 1998-99 championship teams and the 2015 championship team

[Dolfanalyst]

Comb through "all the quarterbacks in history" that had the ability to lead the league in passing in their mid-40s and you'll have a very short list that excludes every dynasty but one.

This line of reasoning isn't even historically applicable, since there has only been one team* that has won more than 2 Super Bowls since the introduction of the salary cap: BB's Patriots.  So what "dynasty" can we even compare them to, when the salary cap wasn't even a factor for all the earlier dynasties?

*technically DEN has won 3, but there was no continuity between the 1998-99 championship teams and the 2015 championship team

If the distinction you're making between the Patriots' success and the success of other teams with QBs of similar ability hinges on the existence of the salary cap, that lends even more credence to the effect of Brady's pay cuts on their success.  Presumably teams unbeholden to a salary cap historically would've been free to surround elite QBs with unlimited talent, yet an extremely small percentage of those QBs enjoyed dynasties.

If you're viewing the likelihood of the Patriots' success as being diminished by the existence of the salary cap -- as anyone should -- then that suggests that salary cap management was a key ingredient of their unlikely success.  And now we're back to Brady's regular pay cuts as a key element of salary cap management.  Paying an elite QB like an elite QB would've diminished their ability to surround him with the talent necessary to function at that level for 20 years.  Present-day teams just lost the two best receivers in the league -- Davante Adams and Tyreek Hill -- for that reason.  They couldn't pay their elite QBs and their stud receivers.

And for me the salary cap issue isn't only technical -- i.e., number crunching and money management -- but also symbolic of selflessness on Brady's part and the cornerstone of an "all for one and one for all" team culture that created.  Again if the best player on the team, if not the league, is the one making the monetary sacrifice so that the team can pay other players and win, it's a short step from there to a team culture of selflessness.  The effect of that in the locker room is pervasive and powerful in my opinion.  If arguably the best player in the league is going to those lengths to help the team win, nobody on the team will feel comfortable giving less than 110% for the team.  That best player will have essentially established a team culture in and of himself.

If Patriots player X (insert the name of any player) is making more money himself by virtue of Tom Brady's monetary sacrifice, player X certainly isn't going to feel comfortable giving less effort than Tom Brady.  And if Brady's effort is stellar, well now the whole team's is.

An incredible example of leadership, and why he can go elsewhere and immediately replicate that, while the Patriots struggle to in his absence.

[Spider-Dan]

I would reject the idea that the Patriots had greater success than every other team in NFL history because their players were more inspired by Tom Brady out of hand.  But I ESPECIALLY reject the idea that their success was due to the inspiration from Tom Brady taking less money.  This sounds like the kind of premise that an extremely unimaginative owner would try to promote.

Again: rather than reaching for mystical reasons like "NE just wanted it more than every other team to ever play," I think "Bill Belichick is an outstanding coach and Tom Brady is an exceptional QB" are sufficient explanations.  No other QB in NFL history has played at the level Brady has for the length of time he has.

[Dave Gray]

I would reject the idea that the Patriots had greater success than every other team in NFL history because their players were more inspired by Tom Brady out of hand.  But I ESPECIALLY reject the idea that their success was due to the inspiration from Tom Brady taking less money.  This sounds like the kind of premise that an extremely unimaginative owner would try to promote.

I fully subscribe to that theory, at least as being part of the reason.  Tom Brady taking less money when he could've gone on the open market and got a lot more allowed the Patriots to keep giving him help.  I don't see what's so controversial about that.

[Dolfanalyst]

I would reject the idea that the Patriots had greater success than every other team in NFL history because their players were more inspired by Tom Brady out of hand.  But I ESPECIALLY reject the idea that their success was due to the inspiration from Tom Brady taking less money.  This sounds like the kind of premise that an extremely unimaginative owner would try to promote.

Again: rather than reaching for mystical reasons like "NE just wanted it more than every other team to ever play," I think "Bill Belichick is an outstanding coach and Tom Brady is an exceptional QB" are sufficient explanations.  No other QB in NFL history has played at the level Brady has for the length of time he has.

Belichick and Brady are certainly great and first-ballot Hall of Famers, but their presence alone doesn't explain "the Patriot way" -- the team's uncanny pattern of resilience in the face of adversity, most notably reflected in unlikely comebacks in games, the relative absence of losing streaks, and the ability to turn seasons around after starting them poorly.

When you watched the Patriots in the 2017 Super Bowl against the Falcons for example, you "knew" on some level they were far and away more likely than any other team in recent history to mount that comeback and win that game, and you weren't surprised when they did it -- after all, they're "the Patriots."

That knack for playing that way represents something far more than just talent at head coach and QB.  That's a team culture variable.  And they displayed that for 20 years across a vast variety of situations.

That was what was responsible for their dynasty.  You remove that and they're still a great team, make no mistake, but they don't exhibit that pattern of extreme dominance for 20 consecutive years.

[Dolfanalyst]

I fully subscribe to that theory, at least as being part of the reason.  Tom Brady taking less money when he could've gone on the open market and got a lot more allowed the Patriots to keep giving him help.  I don't see what's so controversial about that.

Lots of variables made the Patriots great 2001-2019, most notably Belichick and Brady, but what made them "the Patriots" during that period was their team culture in my opinion.  When people look back at that team in 20 years, it's being "the Patriots" that will make them distinctive.  People will remember the way they played and how that made them dominant and distinctive, and that's a function of their culture.

[Tenshot13]

Belichick is a coattail rider, Brady's back must hurt.

[Spider-Dan]

I fully subscribe to that theory, at least as being part of the reason.  Tom Brady taking less money when he could've gone on the open market and got a lot more allowed the Patriots to keep giving him help.  I don't see what's so controversial about that.

That's not the claim being made.

The claim being made is that Brady's decision to take less money inspired the rest of the team to play better.  And that's just mysticism; it's indistinguishable from the kind of "Brady just wanted to win more than any other QB ever" claims that sportswriters love to peddle.