A great deal of the Patriots success is due to roster construction. For the Patriots, they are often happy to sign a good player who has both position flexibility and a willingness to sacrifice personal stats (do your job) for the greater good. That is what they value.The central flaw in this argument is that the premise is incorrect. The Patriots have had lots of players on their team that are either HOF worthy or almost that good. The issue is that most of them weren't on the team A) very long; and/or B) at the same time as one another.
Law, Milloy, McGinest, Vinatieri, Seymour, Light, Wilfork, Moss, Welker, Revis (one stellar year), and Gronk may not all make it to the HOF, but they each had HOF level stints with the Patriots.
But the thing that makes the Patriots able to succeed year after year is exactly because they don't hang on to those guys beyond the point where it no longer makes financial sense. So by their very operational design, the Patriots are not going to have reputation guys on their team for a particularly long time.
It's the same thing that everyone misses when they talk about the team salary and start calling the Patriots cheap because they let a free agent of theirs sign else where. While the Patriots don't often spend as much as other teams for their star players, they are happy to spend more than other teams on the middle-class of their roster.
How often have the Patriots sat out the first two days of the free agency period and then swooped in to sign a bunch of guys in those later days? Additionally, the Patriots are also more willing than other teams to allow players who lack draft pedigree to win starting positions.
If you look at some players that have been a part of this team over the years, you see some players like Vrabel, Ninkovich, Welker, etc. who were brought in as free agents (often on cheap deals) and put in a position to thrive. Then you have other players like Chandler Jones and Collins where the player was drafted but then, in many ways, held back from accumulating their stats until their rookie contracts drew to a close and they were traded in advance of their next contract. Then you have players who were given an opportunity to win a starting job on a cheap contract (Lewis, Butler, etc.), established themselves as very good players and then walked in free agency. Regardless of whether or not you consider any of the players I mentioned stars, it is clear as day that the Patriots employed those players at their height of their value (based on salary and production).
It's a little hard to establish definitive ideas of roster construction as the Patriots are always evolving and the league is always changing (comp picks, rookie contracts, etc.), but long story short: it's not a bug; it's a feature.
Last edited: