Football,f1 motorsports,NBA,Premier League

The first ever college football playoff committee rankings were released today, and as expected, the initial standings incited drama and controversy.  While I agree with many of the pundits that there is nothing to be overly concerned with in terms of which particular teams are currently located in the top four as there is plenty of football still to be played, I do take issue with the process and the apparent priority demonstrated by these initial rankings.

The destruction of the BCS and the inception of the playoff system was purported to have three general goals: increased objectivity, increased access and increased transparency.  While I have argued since the prospect of a committee was being discussed that this vastly decreased objectivity, this is not the current point of issue, though hopefully some are beginning to see the light on this topic.  Access has certainly increased to the Championship Game as four teams will now have an opportunity as opposed to two, though access to the major bowls can be seen as more limited for teams outside the power five in the new system.  My main concern on the day of the first rankings release, however, is the third goal, transparency.

If you watched ESPN’s half hour coverage of the rankings and heard Committee Chairperson Jeff Long speak, you likely were as unsatisfied with the results as I was.  The head of the playoff committee didn’t provide any tangible information or detail, avoided most of Rece Davis’ questions and actually spoke about the wrong team on two occasions.  Hopefully with time, his on-air appearances improve, but I am more concerned with the lack of information that the woeful stage presence.  We were given no description of the committee’s voting process, no information on the importance of any of the possible metrics and no information on the particulars of the results.  In short, we put the first nine weeks of the college football season into a black box, and it spit out a list of teams ordered 1 to 25.  Transparency indeed.

After my disappointment with the telecast, I recalled how upsetting it was during the BCS era to see people rage about a systems and its lack of transparency due generally to ignorance of the available information.  I would hate to suffer the same fate to the playoff system, so I headed towards their official website.  After some searching, I did find a general description of the selection method proposed and adopted by the committee on June 20, 2012, as well as another statement by Jeff Long given as a press release along with the first rankings.  The statement is as follows:

The College Football Playoff selection committee met for the past two days and we engaged in a lively and detailed discussion about who the best teams are in college football, as of October 26.  We debated, we reviewed facts and statistics, and we used our judgment.  There are 18 one-loss teams in the FBS and the differences between many of these teams are slight.  The bottom line is it’s early, it’s close and it’s going to change. – Jeff Long

Thanks Jeff, that’s about as insightful as your ESPN appearance and it sounds to me like you’re already making excuses for the rankings.  If the committee isn’t going to put the effort into the first set of rankings that they are the last set, I would rather they not release them at all, and if they did, take ownership of your product and don’t have your spokesperson tell us it doesn’t matter if they’re wrong because they’ll change anyway.

So the press release didn’t help much. 

The selection process description actually was a bit more helpful, and I encourage everyone to read it.  It is too detailed to go into here, but it can be found on the official website under College Football Playoff Selection Committee Voting Process here.  Essentially, the format is such that everyone votes for six teams, they then take the six teams with the most votes and revote to place them in order.  The top three are ranked accordingly and the bottom three are put back into the mix.  They then repeat this process, ranking three more teams on each iteration until they have a set of 25.  The most important part of this process description, however, was the very last line.  It reads, “All votes will be by secret ballot.” Transparency indeed.

While I can understand the desire of privacy for the individual votes of each member of this committee, and let’s face it, privacy in this case is necessary to ensure the personal safety of these committee members from fans crazy enough to take matters into their own hands, I see no reason to keep the number of votes each team received private.  This information would allow us to see, much like in the AP or Coaches’ Polls, the separation between the fourth and fifth ranked teams.  Was it a tight split between Ole Miss and Oregon, or do the Ducks have some work to do?  Are the top ten teams separated by just a few votes, or is there a significant drop off somewhere?  This is the kind of data that I found disturbingly absent from the initial rankings, and unnecessarily so.

In addition to this lack of data, a recap of this process would be extremely beneficial to all the fans.  To my knowledge, this process has never been explained other than the policy being passively posted on the website.  Furthermore, this is simply the policy that was adopted over two years ago.  I have no way of knowing whether this is actually what took place over the past two days in a boardroom in Dallas.  The only ones that know that are the twelve committee members that sat around that boardroom table, and without a better explanation from Jeff Long, we’ll never really know.  Transparency indeed.

Finally, in addition to the utter lack of transparency into the new process that was demonstrated tonight, I, like many others do have concerns with the overall result.  My largest issue is that while three of the four teams placed in the top four slots are playing in the same division, and will thereby suffer additional losses, if the season ended today, this is what we would be left with.  The excuse that Jeff Long provided, and many of the talking heads repeated, that these are not the final rankings and we should therefore, not be upset by them, implies that either these rankings were not given the same scrutiny as the final rankings will, or that this committee is not looking strongly enough at conference alignments. 

The blindness to conference affiliation was actually a point of emphasis by Jeff Long in his short interview, and it is understandable given the result not only of three playoff teams in the same conference, but actually in the same division.  But while conference affiliation should not be dragging second tier teams into the final four, it should be used to diversify the playoff field.  The reason being is that these committee members are generally using statistical information as well as head to head matchups and common opponents to determine the rankings, as evidenced both by their stated metrics and by the resulting rankings.  These metrics, however, are skewed based on the limited conference cross over which occurs in college football.

Any decent college football statistical analyst will tell you that because there are 126 teams in the FBS and only 12 games in a season, the comparative stats do not truly converge to a desirable degree.  This means that because teams in a conference play other teams in their conference the majority of the time, statistics from one conference to another can hold a wide range of error associated with them.  Stats like strength of schedule, strength of record or FPI all rely on generally well connected data, which college football does not have, so comparing these stats between Oregon and Ole Miss for example, is misleading.  While the Rebels outrank the Ducks in these categories, due to the error on the stats, a clear distinction cannot truly be made.  Thus, the importance of giving a team from an unrepresented conference the benefit of the doubt where the playoff field is concerned.  If this was not the case, why wouldn’t we simply use the computer rankings from the BCS system and be done with it? 

Bottom line – irregardless of first or final rankings, don’t give me three teams from the same division and leave the highest ranked team from another power five conference on the bubble. 

And more importantly than that, if the situation does occur, let’s institute the transparency into the system to tell me how it happened, why it happened, and try to fix it for the next go around.  This is a new system that is bound to have some problems along the way, but with a transparent, open process, we can try to make it the best system yet for college football, its players and its fans.

The first ever college football playoff committee rankings were released today, and as expected, the initial standings incited drama and controversy.  While I agree with many of the pundits that there is nothing to be overly concerned with in terms of which particular teams are currently located in the top four as there is plenty of football still to be played, I do take issue with the process and the apparent priority demonstrated by these initial rankings.

The destruction of the BCS and the inception of the playoff system was purported to have three general goals: increased objectivity, increased access and increased transparency.  While I have argued since the prospect of a committee was being discussed that this vastly decreased objectivity, this is not the current point of issue, though hopefully some are beginning to see the light on this topic.  Access has certainly increased to the Championship Game as four teams will now have an opportunity as opposed to two, though access to the major bowls can be seen as more limited for teams outside the power five in the new system.  My main concern on the day of the first rankings release, however, is the third goal, transparency.

If you watched ESPN’s half hour coverage of the rankings and heard Committee Chairperson Jeff Long speak, you likely were as unsatisfied with the results as I was.  The head of the playoff committee didn’t provide any tangible information or detail, avoided most of Rece Davis’ questions and actually spoke about the wrong team on two occasions.  Hopefully with time, his on-air appearances improve, but I am more concerned with the lack of information that the woeful stage presence.  We were given no description of the committee’s voting process, no information on the importance of any of the possible metrics and no information on the particulars of the results.  In short, we put the first nine weeks of the college football season into a black box, and it spit out a list of teams ordered 1 to 25.  Transparency indeed.

After my disappointment with the telecast, I recalled how upsetting it was during the BCS era to see people rage about a systems and its lack of transparency due generally to ignorance of the available information.  I would hate to suffer the same fate to the playoff system, so I headed towards their official website.  After some searching, I did find a general description of the selection method proposed and adopted by the committee on June 20, 2012, as well as another statement by Jeff Long given as a press release along with the first rankings.  The statement is as follows:

The College Football Playoff selection committee met for the past two days and we engaged in a lively and detailed discussion about who the best teams are in college football, as of October 26.  We debated, we reviewed facts and statistics, and we used our judgment.  There are 18 one-loss teams in the FBS and the differences between many of these teams are slight.  The bottom line is it’s early, it’s close and it’s going to change. – Jeff Long

Thanks Jeff, that’s about as insightful as your ESPN appearance and it sounds to me like you’re already making excuses for the rankings.  If the committee isn’t going to put the effort into the first set of rankings that they are the last set, I would rather they not release them at all, and if they did, take ownership of your product and don’t have your spokesperson tell us it doesn’t matter if they’re wrong because they’ll change anyway.

So the press release didn’t help much. 

The selection process description actually was a bit more helpful, and I encourage everyone to read it.  It is too detailed to go into here, but it can be found on the official website under College Football Playoff Selection Committee Voting Process here.  Essentially, the format is such that everyone votes for six teams, they then take the six teams with the most votes and revote to place them in order.  The top three are ranked accordingly and the bottom three are put back into the mix.  They then repeat this process, ranking three more teams on each iteration until they have a set of 25.  The most important part of this process description, however, was the very last line.  It reads, “All votes will be by secret ballot.” Transparency indeed.

While I can understand the desire of privacy for the individual votes of each member of this committee, and let’s face it, privacy in this case is necessary to ensure the personal safety of these committee members from fans crazy enough to take matters into their own hands, I see no reason to keep the number of votes each team received private.  This information would allow us to see, much like in the AP or Coaches’ Polls, the separation between the fourth and fifth ranked teams.  Was it a tight split between Ole Miss and Oregon, or do the Ducks have some work to do?  Are the top ten teams separated by just a few votes, or is there a significant drop off somewhere?  This is the kind of data that I found disturbingly absent from the initial rankings, and unnecessarily so.

In addition to this lack of data, a recap of this process would be extremely beneficial to all the fans.  To my knowledge, this process has never been explained other than the policy being passively posted on the website.  Furthermore, this is simply the policy that was adopted over two years ago.  I have no way of knowing whether this is actually what took place over the past two days in a boardroom in Dallas.  The only ones that know that are the twelve committee members that sat around that boardroom table, and without a better explanation from Jeff Long, we’ll never really know.  Transparency indeed.

Finally, in addition to the utter lack of transparency into the new process that was demonstrated tonight, I, like many others do have concerns with the overall result.  My largest issue is that while three of the four teams placed in the top four slots are playing in the same division, and will thereby suffer additional losses, if the season ended today, this is what we would be left with.  The excuse that Jeff Long provided, and many of the talking heads repeated, that these are not the final rankings and we should therefore, not be upset by them, implies that either these rankings were not given the same scrutiny as the final rankings will, or that this committee is not looking strongly enough at conference alignments. 

The blindness to conference affiliation was actually a point of emphasis by Jeff Long in his short interview, and it is understandable given the result not only of three playoff teams in the same conference, but actually in the same division.  But while conference affiliation should not be dragging second tier teams into the final four, it should be used to diversify the playoff field.  The reason being is that these committee members are generally using statistical information as well as head to head matchups and common opponents to determine the rankings, as evidenced both by their stated metrics and by the resulting rankings.  These metrics, however, are skewed based on the limited conference cross over which occurs in college football.

Any decent college football statistical analyst will tell you that because there are 126 teams in the FBS and only 12 games in a season, the comparative stats do not truly converge to a desirable degree.  This means that because teams in a conference play other teams in their conference the majority of the time, statistics from one conference to another can hold a wide range of error associated with them.  Stats like strength of schedule, strength of record or FPI all rely on generally well connected data, which college football does not have, so comparing these stats between Oregon and Ole Miss for example, is misleading.  While the Rebels outrank the Ducks in these categories, due to the error on the stats, a clear distinction cannot truly be made.  Thus, the importance of giving a team from an unrepresented conference the benefit of the doubt where the playoff field is concerned.  If this was not the case, why wouldn’t we simply use the computer rankings from the BCS system and be done with it? 

Bottom line – irregardless of first or final rankings, don’t give me three teams from the same division and leave the highest ranked team from another power five conference on the bubble. 

And more importantly than that, if the situation does occur, let’s institute the transparency into the system to tell me how it happened, why it happened, and try to fix it for the next go around.  This is a new system that is bound to have some problems along the way, but with a transparent, open process, we can try to make it the best system yet for college football, its players and its fans.

For the New England Patriots, 2014 is is starting to look a lot like 2013 did. Last season started with a strong defense and an improving offense. But the defense struggled after key injuries, and the team made up for it by going all-out on offense to beat opponents in shootouts.

It worked out okay for the Patriots last year; they ended up 12-4 and got to the AFC Championship Game. However, they might have learned the wrong lesson -- they might think they can overcome injuries no matter what. And as the injuries mount in 2014, the team has less depth quality depth than last year, giving them an even slimmer margin for error.

Injuries are a fact of NFL life, for General Managers, coaches, and especially for players. But the Patriots shouldn’t be surprised that missing starters are trouble for them, based on last year. And yet, they voluntarily left themselves short-handed before the season even started. (As noted here in my 2014 season preview: https://linkonym.appspot.com/?http://http://www.footballnation.com/content/patriots-lack-depth-self-inflicted-wound/31723/yourpatriots.blogspot.com/2014/09/patriots-2014-season-primer.html.)

Here is where they went wrong, and what (if anything) they can do about it.

Linebacker

The New England defense dropped off sharply when starting linebacker Jerod Mayo went down in 2013. That’s why it was so odd that they let Brandon Spikes, their other inside linebacker, walk in free agency. Spikes was a solid player whose excellent anticipation of run/pass and heavy-hitting style gave the defense a real attitude. Spikes signed a 1 year, $3.25 million contract with Buffalo, hardly a king’s ransom if the Patriots wanted to protect themselves at this position.

What makes the release of Spikes even stranger is that the Patriots reportedly wanted to switch to a four-linebacker set in 2014. But the absence of any decent fourth linebacker forced them to move back to the 4-3 for opening day, as they suited up only four LBs for that game. And as stated earlier, this move was voluntary -- the Patriots knew they were thin at linebacker after last year, and made themselves thinner by letting Spikes go, even though they had plenty of money to spend.

As with many positions on the field, the Patriots starting linebackers are very good. Mayo paired with first-round pick Dont’a Hightower and the Pats first pick in the 2013 draft, the improving Jamie Collins. But cutting Spikes made them thinner at the position, something they should have avoided after seeing what Mayo’s injury did to them last year. They just traded for Tennessee linebacker Akeem Ayers; but even if he picks up the defense quickly, it will be a struggle to catch up.

Possible solution: get in a time machine and re-sign Spikes; other than that, not much else they can do, unless they can engineer another trade.

The Defensive Line

Everyone knows big Vince Wilfork, and he continues to play well (though not quite up to his former Pro Bowl standards). But injuries to Sealver Siliga, Chris Jones, and Dominique Easley exposed a lack of depth on the defensive line that will be difficult to fix. The unnecessary cut in this area: DL Tommy Kelly, a solid player from last year who is playing well for the 5-1 Arizona Cardinals.

Without Kelly to step in for Siliga, the Patriots are getting gashed in the running game. In non-overtime games last year, the most rushing yards the Patriots gave up was 169 (Bills). This year they’ve given up more than that three times already: 191 to the Dolphins, 207 to the Chiefs, and 218 to the Jets. And it’s unlikely to get better, especially with the Mayo injury compounding the depth problems on the defensive line.

When Kelly was released, some in the media and fandom wondered why. It turns out he had incentives that he was unlikely to reach as part of a defensive line rotation, so he asked for his release. But if the Patriots had learned the proper lessons from 2013, they would have redone the contract to guarantee the incentives and keep him in New England.

Possible solutions: the team reportedly signed DL Alan Branch, who was released by the Buffalo Bills after missing off-season workouts and being arrested for DUI. And they will bring sometime starter Joe Vellano up from the practice squad. Beyond that, they’ll have to wait and see if Siliga can return from IR in time to help.

The Offensive Line

This is the most obvious one of all. The 2014 Patriots lost their long-time offensive line coach, Dante Scarnecchia. And then doubled-down on that potential problem by trading their best offensive lineman, Logan Mankins, just before the season started.

The lack of depth was obvious even before injuries hit. The Dolphins sacked quarterback Tom Brady 4 times (23 yards) on opening day, and shut out the Patriots offense in the second half. By week two, New England was using six offensive linemen just to better protect Brady, and as small injuries started to pile up, they continued that crutch for a few weeks.

The nadir came in Kansas City, where the Chiefs completely dominated the game, pressuring Brady and stuffing the Patriots running game all night long. Since then, the line has played better. But they still give up outside pressure too quickly and have trouble opening holes from running formations and short-yardage situations.

And again, this was at least partially voluntary. They probably couldn’t stop Scarnecchia from retiring, but they could have given new coach Dave DeGuglielmo more to work with. The Mankins trade freed up salary cap space, but it’s doubtful they can use that to sign an offensive lineman of consequence at this point in the season. So DeGuglielmo is left coaching-up low draft picks and free agents no one else wanted.

Possible solutions: it’s unlikely a new lineman would help at this point, so better health on the line, along with backs and receivers who get open faster, would be the best elixir.

Running Back

A knee injury cost the team it’s best running back, Stevan Ridley, who is officially out for the year. The Patriots have decent backups at this position, though Brandon Bolden isn’t proven yet, and Shane Vereen is better on third down, or at least out of the shotgun formation.

If only the Patriots could find a back to replicate Ridley’s 773 yards and 7 touchdowns from last year. Oh wait… they had one on the roster last year, LeGarrette Blount, who had 772 yards and 7 touchdowns (and averaged 5 yards a carry to Ridley’s 4.3). Alas, Blount is a backup in Pittsburgh now, signing for a 2 year, $3.85 million contract with the Steelers. Pretty short money if the Patriots wanted some insurance at running back.

Possible solutions: given the complexities of pass protection in the Patriots scheme, they can’t just pick up any back; but if the current roster isn’t good enough, they could sign free agent BenJarvus Green-Ellis, who knows the offense and never fumbled in four seasons in New England.

Summary

Even with injuries at some key positions, you can never count out the Patriots. Last year’s injuries looked devastating, but they kept it together for a 12-4 year and another playoff bye. As long as they have Brady and head coach Bill Belichick, they will be a threat in the playoffs.

However, there is no denying that the team hamstrung itself this year. No team stays 100% healthy, and it’s clear the 2014 Patriots didn’t learn the right lessons from the 2013 Patriots. The drop-off from starter to backup is very steep at almost every position.

The team is at least $10 million under the salary cap (more, according to some sources). And $3.25 million for Spikes, a maximum of $2.5 million for Kelly, $2 million to retain Mankins, and $1.4 million for Blount this year would fit nicely under that number.

For the balance of the season, it will likely be “next man up” in New England. But in future years, they need to manage their depth better. Last year should have shown them that the “next man” isn’t always good enough.

For the New England Patriots, 2014 is is starting to look a lot like 2013 did. Last season started with a strong defense and an improving offense. But the defense struggled after key injuries, and the team made up for it by going all-out on offense to beat opponents in shootouts.

It worked out okay for the Patriots last year; they ended up 12-4 and got to the AFC Championship Game. However, they might have learned the wrong lesson -- they might think they can overcome injuries no matter what. And as the injuries mount in 2014, the team has less depth quality depth than last year, giving them an even slimmer margin for error.

Injuries are a fact of NFL life, for General Managers, coaches, and especially for players. But the Patriots shouldn’t be surprised that missing starters are trouble for them, based on last year. And yet, they voluntarily left themselves short-handed before the season even started. (As noted here in my 2014 season preview: https://linkonym.appspot.com/?http://http://www.footballnation.com/content/patriots-lack-depth-self-inflicted-wound/31723/yourpatriots.blogspot.com/2014/09/patriots-2014-season-primer.html.)

Here is where they went wrong, and what (if anything) they can do about it.

Linebacker

The New England defense dropped off sharply when starting linebacker Jerod Mayo went down in 2013. That’s why it was so odd that they let Brandon Spikes, their other inside linebacker, walk in free agency. Spikes was a solid player whose excellent anticipation of run/pass and heavy-hitting style gave the defense a real attitude. Spikes signed a 1 year, $3.25 million contract with Buffalo, hardly a king’s ransom if the Patriots wanted to protect themselves at this position.

What makes the release of Spikes even stranger is that the Patriots reportedly wanted to switch to a four-linebacker set in 2014. But the absence of any decent fourth linebacker forced them to move back to the 4-3 for opening day, as they suited up only four LBs for that game. And as stated earlier, this move was voluntary -- the Patriots knew they were thin at linebacker after last year, and made themselves thinner by letting Spikes go, even though they had plenty of money to spend.

As with many positions on the field, the Patriots starting linebackers are very good. Mayo paired with first-round pick Dont’a Hightower and the Pats first pick in the 2013 draft, the improving Jamie Collins. But cutting Spikes made them thinner at the position, something they should have avoided after seeing what Mayo’s injury did to them last year. They just traded for Tennessee linebacker Akeem Ayers; but even if he picks up the defense quickly, it will be a struggle to catch up.

Possible solution: get in a time machine and re-sign Spikes; other than that, not much else they can do, unless they can engineer another trade.

The Defensive Line

Everyone knows big Vince Wilfork, and he continues to play well (though not quite up to his former Pro Bowl standards). But injuries to Sealver Siliga, Chris Jones, and Dominique Easley exposed a lack of depth on the defensive line that will be difficult to fix. The unnecessary cut in this area: DL Tommy Kelly, a solid player from last year who is playing well for the 5-1 Arizona Cardinals.

Without Kelly to step in for Siliga, the Patriots are getting gashed in the running game. In non-overtime games last year, the most rushing yards the Patriots gave up was 169 (Bills). This year they’ve given up more than that three times already: 191 to the Dolphins, 207 to the Chiefs, and 218 to the Jets. And it’s unlikely to get better, especially with the Mayo injury compounding the depth problems on the defensive line.

When Kelly was released, some in the media and fandom wondered why. It turns out he had incentives that he was unlikely to reach as part of a defensive line rotation, so he asked for his release. But if the Patriots had learned the proper lessons from 2013, they would have redone the contract to guarantee the incentives and keep him in New England.

Possible solutions: the team reportedly signed DL Alan Branch, who was released by the Buffalo Bills after missing off-season workouts and being arrested for DUI. And they will bring sometime starter Joe Vellano up from the practice squad. Beyond that, they’ll have to wait and see if Siliga can return from IR in time to help.

The Offensive Line

This is the most obvious one of all. The 2014 Patriots lost their long-time offensive line coach, Dante Scarnecchia. And then doubled-down on that potential problem by trading their best offensive lineman, Logan Mankins, just before the season started.

The lack of depth was obvious even before injuries hit. The Dolphins sacked quarterback Tom Brady 4 times (23 yards) on opening day, and shut out the Patriots offense in the second half. By week two, New England was using six offensive linemen just to better protect Brady, and as small injuries started to pile up, they continued that crutch for a few weeks.

The nadir came in Kansas City, where the Chiefs completely dominated the game, pressuring Brady and stuffing the Patriots running game all night long. Since then, the line has played better. But they still give up outside pressure too quickly and have trouble opening holes from running formations and short-yardage situations.

And again, this was at least partially voluntary. They probably couldn’t stop Scarnecchia from retiring, but they could have given new coach Dave DeGuglielmo more to work with. The Mankins trade freed up salary cap space, but it’s doubtful they can use that to sign an offensive lineman of consequence at this point in the season. So DeGuglielmo is left coaching-up low draft picks and free agents no one else wanted.

Possible solutions: it’s unlikely a new lineman would help at this point, so better health on the line, along with backs and receivers who get open faster, would be the best elixir.

Running Back

A knee injury cost the team it’s best running back, Stevan Ridley, who is officially out for the year. The Patriots have decent backups at this position, though Brandon Bolden isn’t proven yet, and Shane Vereen is better on third down, or at least out of the shotgun formation.

If only the Patriots could find a back to replicate Ridley’s 773 yards and 7 touchdowns from last year. Oh wait… they had one on the roster last year, LeGarrette Blount, who had 772 yards and 7 touchdowns (and averaged 5 yards a carry to Ridley’s 4.3). Alas, Blount is a backup in Pittsburgh now, signing for a 2 year, $3.85 million contract with the Steelers. Pretty short money if the Patriots wanted some insurance at running back.

Possible solutions: given the complexities of pass protection in the Patriots scheme, they can’t just pick up any back; but if the current roster isn’t good enough, they could sign free agent BenJarvus Green-Ellis, who knows the offense and never fumbled in four seasons in New England.

Summary

Even with injuries at some key positions, you can never count out the Patriots. Last year’s injuries looked devastating, but they kept it together for a 12-4 year and another playoff bye. As long as they have Brady and head coach Bill Belichick, they will be a threat in the playoffs.

However, there is no denying that the team hamstrung itself this year. No team stays 100% healthy, and it’s clear the 2014 Patriots didn’t learn the right lessons from the 2013 Patriots. The drop-off from starter to backup is very steep at almost every position.

The team is at least $10 million under the salary cap (more, according to some sources). And $3.25 million for Spikes, a maximum of $2.5 million for Kelly, $2 million to retain Mankins, and $1.4 million for Blount this year would fit nicely under that number.

For the balance of the season, it will likely be “next man up” in New England. But in future years, they need to manage their depth better. Last year should have shown them that the “next man” isn’t always good enough.