The New England Patriots: A Decade of Frustration

By the start of the 2014 season, it’ll have been ten seasons since the New England Patriots defeated the Philadelphia Eagles in the 2004 Super Bowl. That’s right—a decade’s worth of chasing after what’s come to be an almost impossibly elusive fourth ring.

What’s worse, a decade feels more like an eternity when one considers that Corey Dillon was in his first year with the Patriots a decade ago; Vince Wilfork was selected 21^st overall in the draft a decade ago; Charlie Weis was still the offensive coordinator a decade ago.

That’s not to say all has been misery for the New England faithful over the past decade. Quite the opposite, actually. Since the 04’ season, the Patriots have accomplished plenty:

A gaudy 110 regular season victories;
8 AFC East titles in nine year;
A perfect 16-0 regular season;
8 playoff appearances;
5 AFC Championship appearances; and
Two Super Bowl appearances;

Missing from the aforementioned list of accomplishments, however:

A Super Bowl victory

With that in mind, a decade’s worth of time seems like an appropriate place to stop, take a step back, and evaluate why the Patriots haven’t won a Super Bowl during that time. First, though, let’s take a look at the last nine Super Bowl winners to see if there’s any indication of what matters most when it comes to building a Super Bowl champion:

Pittsburgh Steelers;
Indianapolis Colts;
New York Giants;
Pittsburgh Steelers;
New Orleans Saints;
Green Bay Packers;
New York Giants;
Baltimore Ravens; and
Seattle Seahawks

If the last nine Super Bowl Champions prove anything, it appears that success is greatly predicated on having an elite head coach, a borderline elite quarterback, and—to a lesser extent— franchise stability. To that end, Bill Belichick is an elite all-time head coach. Tom Brady is a hall of fame caliber quarterback. Yet, the Patriots are notably absent from the above list of Super Bowl champions.

Obviously, having a great head coach and quarterback isn’t enough. Opinions differ amongst Patriot prognosticators when it comes to explaining why the Patriots have come up short over the last decade. Fingers tend to point at one of the following:

Organizational philosophy;
Draft selections;
Free agent signings; and
Spygate

Of the aforementioned factors, which is most determinant of New England’s Super Bowl failures? Tough to say. However, below is an analysis of each factor, accompanied by a number from 1-10 evincing the impact of each factor: 1 being the least determinant, 10 being the most.

Organizational Philosophy: Organizational philosophy refers to the way in which a team approaches the building of the roster. Put another way, organizational philosophy refers to a team’s tendencies when it comes to things like free agent spending and draft philosophy i.e., moving up or down in the draft. For example, the Green Bay Packers have a tendency to build their team through the draft. They rarely spend in free agency. Conversely, the Miami Dolphins have (recently) spent money early and often in free agency (see Mike Wallace, Brent Grimes, Brandon Albert).

As to the Patriots, there tends to be two major philosophical criticisms.

First, the Patriots tend to let players walk in free-agency so as to avoid paying for (what the team believes to be) past performance. Notable players the Patriots have let walk in free agency include:

Asante Samuel;
Deion Branch (traded after holding out in the final year of his contract);
Adam Vinatieri;
Wes Welker; and
Danny Woodhead

Of the players the Patriots chose not to resign, Asante Samuel likely represents the biggest mistake. Bringing him back wouldn’t have come cheap as he signed a six-year, $56 million contract with the Philadelphia Eagles prior to the 2008 season. That said, the Patriots tried—and repeatedly failed—to fill the void left at cornerback when Samuel left. Notable free agent disappointments include: Fernando Bryant, Lewis Sanders, Jason Webster, Deltha O’Neal, and Shawn Springs.

Similar to free agency, the players brought in through the draft leave a lot to be desired. Such players include: Darius Butler, Patrick Chung, Jonathon Wilhite, Terrance Wheatley, and Ras-I Dowling.

The results on the field reflect such mistakes: in three of the five years following Samuel’s departure, the Patriots ranked as one of the five worst teams in terms of passing yards allowed per game during the regular season. Needless to say, resigning Samuel would have been money well spent.

Was it a mistake not bringing back Tom Brady’s favorite receiver after the 2005 season? A valid argument can be made that losing Deion Branch potentially cost the Patriots a chance at a Super Bowl in 2006 (consider that Reche Caldwell led the team with 760 yards receiving in 2006). However, after leaving New England for Seattle, Branch missed significant time due to injuries. Further, the Patriots hardly missed Branch from 2007 through 2010 (he rejoined the team in 2010) as they consistently led the NFL in just about every offensive category.

Beyond Samuel and (to a lesser degree) Branch, it’s hard to fault the Patriots for letting key players walk in free agency. Adam Vinatieri was replaced by Stephen Gostkowski. Since coming into the league, Gostkowski has made 85.6% of his field goals which is good for the fourth highest percentage among active kickers. By comparison, Vinatieri has made 83% of his field goals.

Wes Welker’s replacement was supposed to be Danny Amendola, but in reality, Julian Edelman became the guy to replace Welker’s production in the slot. In 2013, Edelman caught 105 balls for 1,056 yards and six touchdowns, quickly erasing any doubt the Patriots made a mistake letting Welker go. By comparison, Welker had 73/1,134/10 in his first season with the Denver Broncos. The question then isn’t whether the Patriots should have let Welker walk in free agency, but whether they should’ve looked in-house for his replacement instead of signing Danny Amendola to a five-year, $31 million contract.

Last, Shane Vereen likely didn’t do enough to silence those who questioned the Patriot’s decision to let Danny Woodhead walk in free agency; Woodhead had a stellar first year in San Diego while Shane Vereen missed a lot of time due to injuries. However, having Woodhead on the roster in 2013 would have done little to help the Patriots beat the Broncos in the AFC Championship.

Potential Effect: 5 out of 10.

The second philosophical criticism concerns the Patriots’ constant desire to trade down in the NFL Draft. Such an approach is believed to favor quantity over quality. Since 2005, Bill Belichick and his staff have made a trade in every draft. Those who disagree with such an approach tend to point to potential players that could’ve been selected had the Patriots avoided trading down. For example, in 2009, the Patriots had two chances to select Clay Matthews; instead, they traded down (twice). In 2010, the Patriots had multiple chances to select a game-changing wide receiver; first, Demaryious Thomas and then Dez Bryant. Instead, the Patriots elected to trade back. Compounding such frustration is the fact that all three players filled a void at positions of need. Another (less spoken of) player the Patriots had the chance to select was Daryl Washington—a Pro Bowl linebacker for the Arizona Cardinals who was selected with a pick the Patriots owned, and subsequently traded away.

Conversely, there’s plenty of ammunition for those who support the Patriots when it comes to trading down in the draft. First, the Patriots have selected more than a few talented players as a result of trading down. Recently selections include: Stevan Ridley, Marcus Cannon, Aaron Hernandez, Devin McCourty, Jerod Mayo, and Julian Edelman. Second, trading down in the draft—a lot of the time—includes future draft picks. Thus, the Patriots are constantly afforded great flexibility to move around the draft board, and or trade picks for current players. Such an advantage can’t be understated.

In the end, however, it’s a bit of an analytical impossibility to gauge the significance of such draft day trades because there’s no telling who the Patriots would have selected had they not traded down. Further complicating such an assessment, is the fact that the Patriots have (surprisingly) traded up in the draft nearly as much as they’ve traded down. Therefore, it’s appears to be a bit of a moot point when arguing for or against such a draft day philosophy.

Potential Effect: 2-3 out of 10.

NFL Draft (Players Chosen): If determining the effect of draft day trades is difficult, then determining the effect of players chosen in the draft may be nonsensical. I say that because the NFL Draft is an inexact science—the ultimate exercise in hindsight critique. That said—in an attempt to avoid overthink things—below is a list of players taken in the first four rounds of each draft from 2005-2012 (2013 is excluded due to the inability to properly assess such picks at this time). The list also includes notable players selected later in the draft as well as picks traded away for players. The picks are divided into three categories. “Hits” include those players that significantly contributed to the team’s success. “Misses” include those players that failed to contribute in any meaningful way to the team’s success. Last, “debatable” refers to those players whose contributions can be argued one way or the other.

Hits

Logan Mankins;
Nick Kaczur;
Ellis Hobbs;
Stephen Gostkowski;
Jerod Mayo;
Sebastian Vollmer;
Devin McCourty;
Rob Gronkowski;
Brandon Spikes;
Nate Solder;
Shane Vereen;
Stevan Ridley;
Chandler Jones;
Dont’a Hightower;
~~Aaron Hernandez~~;
Matt Cassel;
Matthew Slater;
Julian Edelman;
Zoltan Mesko;
Brandon Deaderick;
Marcus Cannon;
Alfonzo Dennard;
Wes Welker;
Randy Moss; and
LeGarrette Blount;

Misses

Chad Jackson;
David Thomas;
Garret Mills
Kareem Brown;
Terrence Wheatley;
Shawn Crable;
Kevin O’Connell;
Jonathan Wilhite;
Ron Brace;
Darius Butler;
Tyrone McKenzie;
Jermaine Cunningham;
Taylor Price;
Ras-I Dowling;
Tavon Wilson;
Jake Bequette;
Isaac Sopoaga;
Jeff Demps;
Greg Salas;
Albert Haynesworth; and
Chad Johnson

Debatable

James Sanders;
Laurence Maroney;
Brandon Meriweather;
Patrick Chung; and
Brandon Tate

There’s little debate that, from 2006-2009, the Patriot’s selections leave a lot to be desired. That said, I’d ask those who criticize the Patriots to point to a team that’s done a better job over the last decade: I’m confident that doing so would have many concluding that the Patriots have fared just as well as any other team in the league.

Potential Effect: 2-3 out 10.

Spygate: Admittedly, It’s painful to give credence to such an asinine argument, but many—including a certain (former) St. Louis Rams running back—still feel it’s appropriate to point to Spygate in support of New England’s inability to win a Super Bowl since 2004. In short:

Post Spygate, the New England Patriots have failed to win another Super Bowl.

Post Spygate, 26 other teams have failed to win a Super Bowl.

Post Spygate, the New England Patriots have accomplished the following:

87 regular season victories;
6 playoff victories;
4 AFC Championship appearances;
2 Super Bowl appearances; and
A perfect regular season record

Post Spygate, the New England Patriots are exactly who they were before Spygate—one of the most successful franchises in the NFL. To those who argue that New England’s success was a result of improperly stealing signals: don’t let facts get in the way of a good story.

It’s worth noting, however, that the Patriots lost a first round pick as a result of Spygate. The pick—31^st overall in the 2008 NFL Draft—was a valuable asset. Absent forfeiture of the pick, the Patriots would have been able to draft the likes of Jordy Nelson or Brandon Flowers, both of which were available when the Patriots would have been selecting. Who knows what the Patriots would’ve done with the selection. That said, there’s no denying the significance of losing out on a first round selection.

Therefore, the impact of Spygate on New England’s Super Bowl chances can’t be outright dismissed.

Potential Effect: 1 out of 10.

Free Agency/Trades: During the 2000 season, the Patriots went 5-11. The next year, an improbable Super Bowl run. Two years later, a second Super Bowl Title. A year later, a third Super Bowl: Dynasty cemented.

Logically, the question then becomes: how? How could a franchise, historically marred by mediocrity, rifle off three Super Bowl victories over a four year span? Most—and for good reason—point to Tom Brady. The truth is, the Patriots’ success during their early 2000’s run may have had more to do with the players acquired through free agency and trades, and less to do with #12. Blasphemous, I know, but consider the following players brought in from 2001-2004:

Mike Vrabel;
David Patten;
Larry Izzo;
Terrell Buckley;
Bryan Cox;
Antowain Smith;
Roman Phifer;
Rodney Harrison;
Roosevelt Colvin;
Ted Washington;
Corey Dillon;
Anthony Pleasant; and
Keith Traylor

Conversely, the Patriots have been far less successful acquiring talent over the last decade. That’s not to say they’ve missed all-together (see Randy Moss, Rob Ninkovich, Wes Welker, Mark Anderson, and Brian Waters). However, the last decade has been littered with free-agent/trade missteps, including:

Jonathan Sullivan;
Doug Gabriel;
Adalius Thomas;
Fernando Bryant;
Deltha O’Neal;
Joey Galloway;
Shawn Springs;
Derrick Burgess;
Torry Holt;
Quinn Ojinnaka;
Marcus Stroud;
Chad Johnson;
Shaun Ellis;
Albert Haynesworth;
Jonathan Fanene;
Daniel Fells; and
Anthony Gonzalez

Looking back, maybe the bar was set too high as it relates the players brought in from 2002-2004. Maybe the law of averages would have it that a tapering off in free agency was inevitable. Or, maybe the whole notion of “things being different in New England” has been a bit overstated—a sort of false reality that has led Patriot decision makers astray from what had them winning in the early 2000’s. Put another way, maybe the “Patriot way” has been a bit more myth than reality. For example, the following defense is uttered every time the Patriots sign (or trade) for a player with character concerns: “Corey Dillon had character concerns before he was traded to the Patriots and he changed his ways when he arrived in New England.” Such a defense was argued when the Patriots brought in Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth in 2011; and lest we forget that, as well as Randy Moss played for the better part of three seasons in New England, he was eventually traded less than five weeks into the 2010 season.

Add those things up and maybe it’s time to accept that Corey Dillon was more of an exception as opposed to the rule when it comes to bringing in players with character concerns. That’s not to say the Patriots’ failings in free agency can be attributed entirely to they’re practice of bringing in players of questionable character, but it may be dangerous to continue bringing in such players with the belief that there’s some sort of character cleansing that occurs when one steps through the door at Gillette Stadium.

Potential Effect: 8 out of 10.

Over the last decade, the New England Patriots have served as a case study in the supremely-talented-but-can’t-get-over-the-hump franchise. In fact, it’s hard to argue that any team has been more successful than the Patriots over the last decade, which is (I guess) an accomplishment, in and of itself, when one considers that they’ve won zero championships during that time. To that end, could it be the Patriots are simply held to an unfair standard? Could it be that trying to determine why they’ve gone so long without another title may have us missing the point? Instead, maybe it’s time to concede that the Patriots, more than any other franchise in the NFL, have built a perennial Super Bowl contender year in and year out, and any attempt to make sense of their shortcomings simply becomes an exercise in paralysis by analysis.

Fortunately, such an evaluation may cease to exist after the 2014 season. After all, the Patriots now have (arguably) the best coach, quarterback, and defensive player in the NFL. Here’s to the future.

Home/Patriots News