The Pats and Personnel: Why Vince Wilfork Could Be a Problem

In the age of the 3-4 defense, good nose tackles are extremely hard to come by. The big men play an integral role in stopping the run and tying up blockers, sacrificing individual accomplishment for overall team success.

That's why all of New England sat up and took notice when Vince Wilfork skipped OTAs over a contract dispute.

Luckily, the problem has resolved itself (Wilfork showed to the mandatory three-day minicamp), but this situation got me thinking about the dangerous game the Patriots play with personnel.

The advent of the salary-cap caused a huge re-alignment in the NFL. High-spending teams could once secure a core of talented players for their entire careers. Now, teams can no longer afford to retain the services of players who are past their primes.

The cap destroyed certain teams in the mid-to-late '90s, as front offices struggled to comprehend the esoteric complexities that made up the new system. Media wags wrote eulogies for the age of dynasties.

The age hadn't been slain—merely wounded.

One of the first consistently successful teams to emerge in the wake of that confusion was the New England Patriots. Bill Belichick and Scott Pioli took over an aging team mired in mediocrity, and slashed at it dispassionately.

Over the years, the team has rid itself of popular veterans like Lawyer Milloy, Ty Law, Ben Coates, and Drew Bledsoe without a second thought.

The cuts worked because they led to Super Bowl wins. Fans like championships more than individual players. Free agents were willing to sign with the team for below market value because it offered them a chance at a ring.

As someone once said, winning is a great deodorant.

As much as the cuts were necessary, though, the team has been exceptionally lucky. Each time, they gambled that a young understudy or cheap veteran would be able to take the place of an entrenched player. Each time, their gamble paid off.

That is, until Asante Samuel.

Samuel was the first great miscalculation of the Belichick/Pioli front office. His rookie contract ran out after the '06 season, and he wanted to be paid commensurate with the other top corners in the league.

The team disagreed, leading to an eventual agreement that the franchise tag would be placed on Samuel for one year, after which he would be free to pursue other opportunities.

Samuel left, and the New England secondary hasn't been the same since.

Another similar situation could be seen with the Eagles, who approach team-building the same way.

After a stellar season that led to a Super Bowl appearance, Terrell Owens asked the team to pay him in a way that reflected his production (he was slated to make $4.5 million). The team refused, and Owens was able to split the locker room in two.

Owens may be an instigator, but he had to have a point to win followers in the locker room. His contention: The Eagles underpaid players, then cut them once they became too expensive. Sound like another team you know?

The question has become: How long until the Pats personnel policy bites them once again? If another key cog (like Wilfork) leaves, how much harder will winning become?

The worst case scenario? An important player leaves the team, hurting its win total. Free agents see the team degrade, making them less likely to sign. The lack of new blood further wounds the team, and the vicious cycle continues.

Though the Patriots' personnel policy may be a necessity in the salary-cap age, they must be sure to pay the right people the right amount.