The 'Patriots-Way' Forward Part II: The Culture War

"Organizational culture is always reflected in performance."

The current state of the New England Patriots has its roots as far back as when the team won its most recent Super Bowl. The team relied on the remaining high-level talents of veterans that were ‘buy in guys’, which for the Patriots team culture had a lineage of leadership going all the way back to the Super Bowl run in 2001-02. This is an underappreciated aspect of the Patriots’ twenty-plus year era of excellence: the mantle of leadership in the locker room can be traced back from the present to the genesis of the run. This rare phenomena created a locker room culture where the players largely policed themselves and held each other accountable in the overall interest of the whole. Here, the coaches didn’t have to lay a heavy hand of discipline or micromanage the players and could largely focus on game-planning and preparedness. During the last Patriots Super Bowl run, the fans witnessed a team with an aging roster and in the prior years, the coach/front office repeatedly failed to adequately fill any of the eventual holes that were hiding in plain sight in the draft or in free agency. As I wrote in a prior edition of Patriots Way-ward, the interest of ‘keeping it going’ with a veteran-laden roster led the team to misevaluate, underutilize or downright marginalize young talent.

Couple this with a series of drafts in which the coach/general manager consistently avoided high end talent in favor of more speculative talent while signing low to mid-market free agents. In regard to the draft, it is critical to remember that all talent in the draft comes with risk, but to eschew proven talent and prefer to spend draft capital on less proven talent with seemingly lower risk, still carries high risk because if they don’t pan out, they’ll have little value elsewhere if a team wishes to trade them. In essence, it is a better risk to select high end, proven talent in the draft as they may retain some semblance of value that can be used to acquire draft capital for the purpose of using the asset for another bite at the apple if they don’t meet standards. This scenario came to a head during the 2019 season as the dependable ‘buy in’ veterans that once carried the culture left or lost a step and gradually lost steam as the season progressed. As this form of valuable personnel walked out of the door, there was nothing left to fill the vacuum of leadership.

When Belichick had the money in 2021, it was in the aftermath of letting the team’s ultimate ‘buy in’ guy walking in free agency. He spent lavishly on personnel that was in reality hit or miss; in trying to reboot the team, two tight ends were acquired as well as two receivers and a defensive end. During the dynasty era, these individuals would have walked into a locker room with a clear hierarchy of leadership demanded accountability that they had to fall in line with. In 2021, as they were coming from other organizations and cultures and had to fill a growing leadership vacuum that left expectations which were next to impossible to fulfill under the circumstances. Loyalty and ‘buy in’ is fleeting when teams invest significant capital into multiple free agents; when the losing starts, there is no cultural stopgap, which accelerates the degradation of the roster culture. A disturbing trend was highlighted after the season when the Patriots let an all-pro caliber cornerback walk in free agency. In the following year, one of the most productive and reliable receivers was shortchanged during negotiations and allowed leave. The team then signed a free agent to the same contract that had never proven himself in the environment, wasn’t as dependable and came with a different cultural mindset.

Additional personalities that are not oriented to fitting into Belichick’s vision were brought aboard through the draft to play along with the underutilized talents that had to sit due to inefficient reliance on veteran talent. Under this sort of arrangement, lines of communication will eventually get crossed or misconstrued. Methodologies will get questioned. Cryptic social media posts will appear. Whispers that were once in isolated corners of the locker room and tamped out by the ‘buy in guys’ become more pronounced because the proven, dependable and loyal ‘buy in’ guys are no longer there. Impressionable rookies and underinvested talent have yet to acquire the stroke to correct dysfunction. Disillusionment will begin to set in. The end result of this creates a fertile environment for the Patriots’ current 2-7 record.

When younger players see the players that performed at an all-pro level and played prominent roles in winning games get low-balled at the negotiation table and ultimately leave, it limits their incentive since they are rarely put into such a position to succeed and increase their value. In essence, they are in a position to play for the team in order to pad someone else’s legacy but are fighting against it in order to maintain some semblance of leverage so they can get a market level contract. So, when players get ‘redshirted’ as rookies and lose a year of productivity, are constantly rotated out, have their snap counts limited, are placed on injured reserve or inexplicably benched for common errors, it comes across as a sabotage. When anybody in a position as an employee, no matter how much money they make or how well they do, sees that there is no predictable level of earning power, the employer will rarely receive their maximum output.

The on-field product that the fans see today is an outgrowth of mismanagement behind the scenes spilling into game day performances. One can ask the question of whether hiring more coaches that are thought to align with the personality of the coach/general manager change this trend. I would retort that with a series of questions: 1) “Does performance improve when an individual who holds the lion’s share of power gets the privilege of watching everything change around them (only with their consent, of course) while nothing changes with their role?”; 2) “Will the team be forced to overpay in free agency because the prevailing leadership of the organization has become so unattractive, only money will get players to sign?”; and lastly, “What kind of roster culture is created when a bunch of mercenaries that are only there because your team outbid everyone else?” Under these circumstances, when adversity comes, the entire arrangement will fold like origami.

If the players notice that ownership is only keeping the coach in his position for the sole purpose of chasing a personal achievement of becoming the winningest coach in NFL history to the detriment of their goals and well-being while constantly preaching the gospel of team, a major disconnect is bound to form. On one hand, the coach has no problem with decreasing or limiting a player’s earning potential through shrewd snap count management and contract restructuring, yet he can chase his personal goals while being the highest paid coach in the league. He will never be asked to take a pay cut if the team doesn’t make the playoffs or fails to win a certain number of games, yet he has the authority to dictate such terms for the players. In essence, he is financially falling upwards with the power to hurt everyone else’s money as the only voice that matters in the building from the field to the practice facilities, the weight room, and exhibits final say over the entire the front office.

There are no advocates or alternate opinions between the player and the coach besides the coach’s inner circle network of yes men who convey the same message as the coach/general manager. The new generation of NFL player sees this arrangement and realize that it is not conducive to winning football games or their career prospects. The current state of the Patriots is basically encapsulated like this: The players are playing and talking like the coach and his staff are not in the trenches with them. A cheesy pre-game or halftime monologue cannot get them back in, and neither will more practice or a disingenuous proclamation to ‘start over’. As we saw with one of Belichick’s most prized pupils in Josh McDaniels, you cannot bring an overlord, inflexible mentality to a group of men who have personal and financial aspirations, families and motivations that are more sensitive and tenuous. The coach can get fired and get all of the remaining money on their contract while the player, who can have their career cut short or severely debilitated every Sunday, carry all of the risks of pay reductions, unforeseen cuts and trades.

A player will only be willing to take on this risk when they know that there are other invested people in the foxhole that share the same perspective as it concerns football and winning; with the winning comes the money. Yes, the coach is on a different plane, but it is their job to make the personal sacrifices to bridge that gap, establish trust and share in the risks. Players will no longer run through a brick wall for a guy who sits up on high and is seemingly impervious to the consequences of losing. When Belichick lost the players that once bought in, those who aren’t familiar with what was, will eventually question the arrangement through their statements, attitude and play.

In an ever-changing, increasingly innovative, high risk and competitive arena that is professional football, asking a 70+ year old individual to change their behavior, adopt a new outlook, embrace younger cultures or otherwise reconfigure how they operate after years of their tried-and-true methods working for them, is a fool’s errand. Going out of one’s way in order to hire only coaches that fit in or can co-exist with this individual foolishly bypasses swaths of younger coaches that could bring innovation and creativity, as well as better methods of connecting to the players into an otherwise calcified organizational arrangement.

The Kraft family is likely hesitant in truly exploring the prospects of letting go of Belichick because an organization that was crafted around the identity and methods of one individual, stands a high chance of being left without an identity of its own. This is true to a limited degree, but the organization will be around long after Belichick has left the earth and there is an abundance of organizations that experienced great runs that had to tackle this dilemma. The San Francisco 49ers took years to recover after the Bill Walsh/George Siefert era. The Buffalo Bills are just now becoming consistent winners after the Marv Levy years. The Dallas Cowboys still haven’t recovered after the Jimmy Johnson era. The New York Giants fans of today who were highly critical of Tom Coughlin wish they had that magic back. The Andy Reid era in Kansas City will eventually pass, but remnants will remain because his ‘buy in’ guys will still be there to carry it forward. Yes, the Patriots' path to recovery could take years, but what kind of damage could be further inflicted upon the franchise if the Belichick era isn’t voluntarily ended in the immediate

and instead, left to die a slow death (on his terms) while he’s in hot pursuit of a personal goal that has nothing to do with building the next generation of great Patriots players or competing for championships?

Update: It appears Patriots ownership is getting the message:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1721257164302405674

Part 3 of "The 'Patriots Way' Forward" will publish on 11/13/23.