Here we go again

Ron Borges takes Bill Belichick to task in his Football Notes column this week. The main thrust is that Belichick's vaunted "plans" for how to build a team don't seem to be working out all that well this offseason, in large part because players and other teams have "plans" too, and not all of them include what the Patriots have in mind.

Let's set aside for the moment how ridiculous the premise of the column is -- I mean, after all, of course players and other teams have their own plans and ideas. It's not like the Patriots somehow summon Svengali powers and make the rest of the NFL do their bidding. But regardless, Borges uses this flimsy rationale to once again take pot shots at Belichick. To wit:

That's the problem with putting so much of your faith in plans and so little of it in players. Sometimes the plan works. Sometimes others intercede. And sometimes you end up with Tyrone Poole, Duane Starks, Chad Scott, Chad Brown, Monty Beisel, and Jarvis Green expected to make significant contributions to another trip to the Super Bowl.

True, last year's acquisitions weren't spectacular. But they were joining a very deep and very talented team -- a team which had it not melted down against the Broncos might very well have won its fourth Super Bowl in five years. None of those guys was supposed to have a huge impact on the team. And which one of them contributed to the loss against Denver? None. It was the old reliables -- Troy Brown, Kevin Faulk, Tom Brady, and yes, the great Adam Vinatieri. And despite that, they easily could have won that game if a few breaks went the other way. I'm not suggesting that the best team didn't win the game that day -- the Broncos clearly outplayed the Pats. But is there anyone out there who actually thinks that the two best teams in football met in the Super Bowl last year? Frankly, the Pats, Broncos and Colts were all better than those teams. All right, back to Borges:

In professional sports, you can't plan for everything. For much of the time since Belichick and Pioli arrived in Foxborough, they've hit on their plans well in excess of the norm. They were right on some big decisions like signing Rodney Harrison and Mike Vrabel, getting Dillon when he was cheap, drafting Richard Seymour, Dan Koppen, Matt Light, and several other solid starters. (Leave out Tom Brady, because when you draft a tight end from Harvard ahead of a guy who wins three Super Bowls, that's not a plan -- it's luck, which every successful plan needs.) No plan works all the time, however. Neither do the majority of the players you import. You have hot streaks and cold streaks. Sometimes fate intervenes. Sometimes bad luck. Sometimes you might even make a mistake. That's how it is.

All right, Captain Obvious. Great analysis. Yes, the Pats made some brilliant moves, and others haven't panned out. And yes, some of football (and life) is based on luck. But when the methodology has produced 3 Lombardi trophies, why are you so quick to jump on them? Despite having an off year, the team had a solid shot to win its fourth trophy -- despite losing Rodney Harrison and (effectively) Corey Dillon!

Maybe Borges comments on le affair Vinatieri are the most revealing:

Last week, there was much debate on talking-head radio about the defection of Vinatieri, who left for more money and a place where he felt wanted. It was fascinating to listen to the Friends of Bill, who once fawned over Vinatieri while mocking a guy they called ''Mike Vanderjerk," explain how suddenly the man was now ''Mr. Vanderjagt" and he was a better kicker than Vinatieri.

Vinatieri was suddenly the 19th-rated kicker in the league while Vanderjagt was sixth. Vinatieri's kickoffs were no longer deep enough. His field goals weren't long enough. His consistent conversions of every big kick since 1999 were ancient history, even though he did it twice more last season. Conveniently, the fact that Vanderjagt missed a 46-yard kick indoors on his home field with a playoff game on the line against the Steelers was downplayed, as was the fact that, regardless of how deep Vinatieri's kickoffs went, they went deeper than those of Vanderjagt, who doesn't kick off at all. The FOBs even talked about Vinatieri's age, as if 34 were decrepit. Vanderjagt is 36, but who's counting if he's coming to Foxborough?

They didn't talk about the fact that only one kicker among the top 19 scorers attempted fewer field goals than Vinatieri or that Vanderjagt kicked 11 more extra points, which was nearly half the difference between them. They did talk about how Vinatieri was now overpaid, because we all know no one in the NFL except Scott Pioli can add and subtract. Then Vanderjagt signed with Dallas and he was back to being Vanderjerk again.

So in a nutshell, here's what apparently bothers Borges: Belichick and Pioli are willing to stick to their performance/economics analysis of player evaluation, and some knee-jerk fans on sports radio support them regardless of what they do because they've won 3 Super Bowls. Um, Ron? Maybe you should just realize that most sports radio is entertainment directed at the lowest common denominator (hence the homophobic jokes and such), and not actually based on in-depth thought or analysis. After all, isn't that a columnist's job?