Good book on running an NFL team called The War Room

[InmanRoshi]

Originally Posted by koolaid

The Patriots have come very close to winning 5 superbowls in the modern era. They came 1 win away from playing for a SB this season. If some of you guys think we don't have anything to learn from them I would strongly disagree.

Should we emulate the Chiefs under Pioli, since he was one of the co-founders of the New England front office architecture?

It's pretty easy to do, I don't know why Pioli couldn't recreate it in Kansas City....

Step 1: Find a first ballot Hall of Fame QB in the 6th round.

Every other step thereafter: Do some other stuff.

I read War Room. It was a good light read, providing a little interesting behind the scenes bantor that takes place in a War Room or Front Office. It wasn't anything overly revealing and ground breaking, and tended to go towards the Michael Lewis tired tropes of "Genius mastermind bucking the establishment conventional wisdom" and giving Belichick too much of a tongue bath. I'm not a Belichick hater, but the gushing love fest where every move and decision is unbridled genius was too much.

[burmafrd]

Originally Posted by jnday

They have been in a position where they could compete for a Super Bowl appearance every year. They are a playoff team every year. I would say that is as good as it gets with league parity.

I would not. I would trade being close for 10 years with winning say 2 rings in those ten years and having two or three losing years or such in the mix.

For 8 years now they get close but cannot get it done. Like the Atlanta Braves were- won division title after title but only won 1 World Series.

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by Galian Beast

There is no emulating the Patriots without winning the 3 super bowls, in which I think they were able to do because they cheated.

Any ill gotten gains from cheating can't simply be emulated by trying to mirror their management system.

I've said it before the value of your organization goes up when you win 1 super bowl, let alone 3.

This allows you to trade players at much higher value than their market value.

This allows you to manage your cap by not retaining high priced veterans, but instead by rebuilding your team through the draft with these high valued draft picks obtained through trades.

This also allows you to trade down and get multiple picks in early rounds and spread the value across your team.

All of this originates from the value achieved through trading, which was achieved through winning, which was achieved through cheating.

I think that's a stretch. How long does this winning luster last for the Patriots? It's been 8 years since their last SB and they traded Seymour a full 4 seasons after that last SB as well.

Saying they get better picks because they win is basically saying the rest of the league is stupid, in which case the Patriots have a clear mental advantage over everyone else.

Their returns don't explain why crappy teams also get good returns on traded players. Lions sure weren't winning before the Roy Williams trade and Jared Allen commanded a hefty price for a pretty lousy KC team. Their returns also don't explain why other teams who are recently very good don't get the same returns. Steelers got what for Santonio? They get the returns that they do because they are willing to make those moves. Other teams are not.

Their winning doesn't explain how they get good bargains on the other end when acquiring players via a trade. Welker and Moss were pretty cheap and they snagged Talib on the cheap as well this season. Given that you can count on them picking late in the draft, their picks are likely viewed as less valuable than a pick from a team who could be good or bad. I guess when you win a SB, your entire roster gets a 10X multiplier for value and even when you trade for other team's players, you still get a hell of a deal.

But even if we assume they do get some sort of boost through voodoo mind control or whatever, they still have to pick the players and they've done a good enough job at that to remain competitive.

They're always picking late and frequently trade back and thus take on greater risk by waiting for the talent pool to dwindle before picking.......yet they're practically a lock for the playoffs every single year and the one time in recent history that they didn't make it was one of the ridiculously small percentage of the time when 11 wins isn't good enough.

If you want to say that somehow picking in the last few picks in the draft is an advantage for the Patriots, have at it. I'm sure most people would disagree with that. Winning 1, 2 or even 3 SBs doesn't set a team up for eternity. Hell, it only took Dallas a few short years after their run to fall into salary cap hell and find themselves in a position with zero talent on the roster.

They won those games while cheating no doubt, that doesn't explain why they are still good today. They're a well run team, simple as that.

[koolaid]

Originally Posted by InmanRoshi

Should we emulate the Chiefs under Pioli, since he was one of the co-founders of the New England front office architecture?

It's pretty easy to do, I don't know why Pioli couldn't recreate it in Kansas City....

Step 1: Find a first ballot Hall of Fame QB in the 6th round.

Every other step thereafter: Do some other stuff.

I read War Room. It was a good light read, providing a little interesting behind the scenes bantor that takes place in a War Room or Front Office. It wasn't anything overly revealing and ground breaking, and tended to go towards the Michael Lewis tired tropes of "Genius mastermind bucking the establishment conventional wisdom" and giving Belichick too much of a tongue bath. I'm not a Belichick hater, but the gushing love fest where every move and decision is unbridled genius was too much.

All I was saying was that one of the most successful sports teams of the last decade does some things well, and that we could use some of those strategies to become a more competitive franchise. They are a successful business and it seems a pretty common thing for businesses to learn from each other or copy each other. I haven't read the book so I cant comment on it.
Personally, I think their success has a lot more to it than just Tom Brady

[yimyammer]

Originally Posted by koolaid

The Patriots have come very close to winning 5 superbowls in the modern era. They came 1 win away from playing for a SB this season. If some of you guys think we don't have anything to learn from them I would strongly disagree.

no kidding, its remarkable how dismissive some folks are, I guess that makes it easier to deal with what you have (or don't have)

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

I would not. I would trade being close for 10 years with winning say 2 rings in those ten years and having two or three losing years or such in the mix.

For 8 years now they get close but cannot get it done. Like the Atlanta Braves were- won division title after title but only won 1 World Series.

Are you serious? Do you even realize what you are saying, burm?


Patriots: Last 10 Seasons

• 2003: 14-2: Super Bowl Champion
• 2004: 14-2: Super Bowl Champion
• 2005: 10-6: Divisional Loss
• 2006: 12-4: Conference Championship Loss
• 2007: 16-0: AFC Champion
• 2008: 11-5: Rare 11-win team to not make the playoffs
• 2009: 10-6: Wildcard Loss
• 2010: 14-2: Divisional Loss
• 2011: 13-3: AFC Champion
• 2012: 12-4: Conference Champion Loss

Let me get this straight.


Over a ten year span you would take:

• "Being Close"
• 2 Superbowls Championships
• 2-3 Losing Seasons, Leaving 5 Seasons Of Playoff Appearances

AS OPPOSED TO:



The Patriots Last 10 Years:

• Won 2 Superbowls
• Played In 4 Additional AFC Championship Games
• Played In 2 Additional Superbowls
• ZERO Losing Seasons

Do you not see how ridiculous this is? Come on, man. I know you're not that hardheaded. You can hate the Pats all you want but your argument here is completely ridiculous.

You're establishing a 10 year period to measure while only giving the Patriots credit for their last 8 years. Furthermore you are clearly only doing it because if you actually gave them credit for those 2 additional years, you would completely crap on your preferred 10-year hypothetical.

They have been better than your 10 year preference but you are willfully ignoring the fact that they got their Superbowl wins at what would be the beginning of their run. You can't reasonably cut out those first two years just to make your argument stronger. Winning 2 Superbowls in 10 years at the front of the decade under examination and winning 2 Superbowls in 10 years at the end of the decade under examination are the same. You won 2 Superbowls in 10 years.

Burm, this is easily one of the most cherry-picked and distorted depictions of reality that I have ever seen on this board. I don't mean that to insult and I am certainly not exaggerating. It's pretty clear you've late your hate cloud your judgement.

[Wolfpack]

Ernie Accorsi wrote a book also and its worth the read.

[InmanRoshi]

Originally Posted by koolaid

Personally, I think their success has a lot more to it than just Tom Brady

Given that Tom Brady will be 36 next year, I suppose we'll find out pretty soon. Pioli certainly was a miserable failure with "the blueprint" without Brady.

[jnday]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

I would not. I would trade being close for 10 years with winning say 2 rings in those ten years and having two or three losing years or such in the mix.

For 8 years now they get close but cannot get it done. Like the Atlanta Braves were- won division title after title but only won 1 World Series.

Comparing them to Dallas, I would say that I would rather have a shot every year instead of all these years with one playoff win. I have a great amount of respect for them keeping a quality team on the field year after year. That is something that very few teams have been able to do. Some other teams may compare to them, but the Cowboys are not even close. Dallas doesn't have a couple of rings to show for the last 17or so years. They are just a well run team that I can't stand, but I do respect. They are much like the Cowboys of the 70s.

[jnday]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

Are you serious? Do you even realize what you are saying, burm?


Patriots: Last 10 Seasons

• 2003: 14-2: Super Bowl Champion
• 2004: 14-2: Super Bowl Champion
• 2005: 10-6: Divisional Loss
• 2006: 12-4: Conference Championship Loss
• 2007: 16-0: AFC Champion
• 2008: 11-5: Rare 11-win team to not make the playoffs
• 2009: 10-6: Wildcard Loss
• 2010: 14-2: Divisional Loss
• 2011: 13-3: AFC Champion
• 2012: 12-4: Conference Champion Loss

Let me get this straight.


Over a ten year span you would take:

• "Being Close"
• 2 Superbowls Championships
• 2-3 Losing Seasons, Leaving 5 Seasons Of Playoff Appearances

[View Full Quote]AS OPPOSED TO:



The Patriots Last 10 Years:

• Won 2 Superbowls
• Played In 4 Additional AFC Championship Games
• Played In 2 Additional Superbowls
• ZERO Losing Seasons

Do you not see how ridiculous this is? Come on, man. I know you're not that hardheaded. You can hate the Pats all you want but your argument here is completely ridiculous.

You're establishing a 10 year period to measure while only giving the Patriots credit for their last 8 years. Furthermore you are clearly only doing it because if you actually gave them credit for those 2 additional years, you would completely crap on your preferred 10-year hypothetical.

They have been better than your 10 year preference but you are willfully ignoring the fact that they got their Superbowl wins at what would be the beginning of their run. You can't reasonably cut out those first two years just to make your argument stronger. Winning 2 Superbowls in 10 years at the front of the decade under examination and winning 2 Superbowls in 10 years at the end of the decade under examination are the same. You won 2 Superbowls in 10 years.

Burm, this is easily one of the most cherry-picked and distorted depictions of reality that I have ever seen on this board. I don't mean that to insult and I am certainly not exaggerating. It's pretty clear you've late your hate cloud your judgement.

You stated my argument so much better than me.

[Yakuza Rich]

The brilliance of the Patriots is that they use their success to their advantage.

I've gone over it a million times....

Since 1999, only 47% of the diviison winners have returned to the playoffs the following year.

In fact, from 1999 to 2011, the most that ever returned to the playoffs was 5. That was the 2003 division winners returning to the 2004 playoffs. 2012 was unusual in that of the 2011 division winners returned to the playoffs this season (New England, Baltimore, Denver, Houston, Green Bay and San Francisco).

So we see parity in full effect as if a team wins the division, they are more likely to MISS the playoffs the following year than they are to MAKE the playoffs again.

And generally, it affects every QB not named Peyton Manning or Tom Brady.

But what the Pats do is that they don't rest on their laurels with their roster even when they are having great success, particularly when they were cheating.

Instead, they got rid of over priced players, stockpiled picks, traded away players that were overrated because there's a myth in 'The Patriot Way.' And they have not been afraid to change schemes on offense and defense.

Too many teams, the Cowboys included, will rest on their success. Some part of it is 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Other part is just not having the foresight to understand that you're a real target for parity when you're on top.

What's funny is that I know many Patriots fans that outright criticize their drafting as of late. Including Bill Simmons, who has written how poor the Patriots have drafted outside of the 2012 class. And even in Tom Brady's draft class, he was the only player that did anything in the league.

For me, I'm far more interested in the Packers' process and as of late, what the Seahawks are doing to take somebody like a Richard Sherman and turn him from WR to CB and make him one of the best CB's in the game.







YR

[DallasCowboysRule!]

Originally Posted by jnday

Should a copy be sent to the GM and FO people in Dallas? I know they need it, but is it written with small words so that they can read it?

Jerry won't read it. It's not a pop up book.

[Verdict]

Originally Posted by InmanRoshi

Given that Tom Brady will be 36 next year, I suppose we'll find out pretty soon. Pioli certainly was a miserable failure with "the blueprint" without Brady.

I was thinking about this the other day ..... If the Patriots really are who everyone makes them out to be, they should trade Brady for 3 first round picks and 3 second round picks to some really bad team since he is 36 and already starting to show his mortality.

If The Hoodie is the coach that everyone thinks he is he will start his dynasty all over again, and Mallett will turn out to be the next Tom Brady, and all of a sudden, they have room created by jettisoning Brady to acquire more free agents to make the team even better.

Then again, if Brady is the only reason this machine has run so well, for so long, the Pats will hold on to Brady until he has no useful life left and he has no trade value, just like we did with every one of the Triplets.

[Verdict]

Originally Posted by Yakuza Rich

The brilliance of the Patriots is that they use their success to their advantage.

I've gone over it a million times....

Since 1999, only 47% of the diviison winners have returned to the playoffs the following year.

In fact, from 1999 to 2011, the most that ever returned to the playoffs was 5. That was the 2003 division winners returning to the 2004 playoffs. 2012 was unusual in that of the 2011 division winners returned to the playoffs this season (New England, Baltimore, Denver, Houston, Green Bay and San Francisco).

So we see parity in full effect as if a team wins the division, they are more likely to MISS the playoffs the following year than they are to MAKE the playoffs again.

And generally, it affects every QB not named Peyton Manning or Tom Brady.

[View Full Quote]But what the Pats do is that they don't rest on their laurels with their roster even when they are having great success, particularly when they were cheating.

Instead, they got rid of over priced players, stockpiled picks, traded away players that were overrated because there's a myth in 'The Patriot Way.' And they have not been afraid to change schemes on offense and defense.

Too many teams, the Cowboys included, will rest on their success. Some part of it is 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Other part is just not having the foresight to understand that you're a real target for parity when you're on top.

What's funny is that I know many Patriots fans that outright criticize their drafting as of late. Including Bill Simmons, who has written how poor the Patriots have drafted outside of the 2012 class. And even in Tom Brady's draft class, he was the only player that did anything in the league.

For me, I'm far more interested in the Packers' process and as of late, what the Seahawks are doing to take somebody like a Richard Sherman and turn him from WR to CB and make him one of the best CB's in the game.







YR

Interesting and insightful post. Good job.

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by Verdict

I was thinking about this the other day ..... If the Patriots really are who everyone makes them out to be, they should trade Brady for 3 first round picks and 3 second round picks to some really bad team since he is 36 and already starting to show his mortality.

If The Hoodie is the coach that everyone thinks he is he will start his dynasty all over again, and Mallett will turn out to be the next Tom Brady, and all of a sudden, they have room created by jettisoning Brady to acquire more free agents to make the team even better.

Then again, if Brady is the only reason this machine has run so well, for so long, the Pats will hold on to Brady until he has no useful life left and he has no trade value, just like we did with every one of the Triplets.

Maybe their system takes a little bit of both and one without the other isn't as good as they are together.