How the Patriots have stocked positions - New England Patriots Forums

Fencer · 09-02-2008, 04:13 AM

Early in the BB era, almost every position was stocked with either holdovers or cheap FAs, as a matter of necessity. But BB and Pioli have been here long enough that there's a decent sample size to look at.

DL -- Draft (and UDFA) all the way, especially high picks.

OL -- Draft and UDFA as the preferred tactic (e.g., all the starters counting Neal), at all levels of pick (1, 2, 3, 5, UDFA for the current starters, with some 4s starting in the past). Other team's cast-offs commonly make it to "valued backup" (Hochstein, Ashworth), but not starter.

TE -- High draft picks for the top 2 TEs. The #3 can come from anywhere.

WR -- With all due respect to Branch and Givens, the acquired vets have worked out better than the draftees. Now there's a new crop of youngsters trying to change that at the bottom, but the top 4 are all acquired vets.

RB/FB -- So far they've hit on 1 first-rounder (although that is often debated), developed the holdover 2nd-rounder Faulk, and brought in a lot of vets. Other draftees and UDFAs haven't fared very well.

QB -- Draft mainly, with the occasional (but increasingly rare) vet backup.

CB and S -- They're obviously trying to staff the positions with young, often economical draftees. But vets continue to be in the mix.

LB -- Mayo is the first draftee to even come seriously close to being a starter. But the tea leaves suggest LB will be treated more like DB in the future.

K/P/LS -- Sample size isn't big enough to generalize from.

Schmo · 09-02-2008, 04:38 AM

Good idea for a post, but IMO you could be a little more specific... percentage of roster spots occupied by drafted players (in which round they were picked), or vet free agents for instance. I guess it's easier to say this than to compile the info tho.

Still, the emphasis on DL is always a clear indication of the most important position on the defense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you look at BB's defence, the easiest postition to band-aid is CB, which is the most pressing issue on most people's mind right now.

Fencer · 09-02-2008, 05:23 AM

I don't have the slightest interest in calculating or seeing precise percentages -- the sample size is too small.

I COULD have listed players, from memory or properly researched, who I had in mind when thinking about this -- but for that I was too lazy.

Schmo · 09-02-2008, 05:45 AM

I don't blame you.

***Lloyd_Christmas*** · 09-02-2008, 01:02 PM

I think we have done reasonable well at WR through the draft. B.Johnson and C.Jackson didn't pan out, but Branch and Givens did. Moss and Welker are still better, but I'd call this position a good mix between draft and FA over the years.

Good topic for discussion IMO.

jeffbiologist · 09-02-2008, 01:14 PM

You mention how the team is made up but you dont mention an opinion of what has worked/what hasnt. There is nothing wrong with getting LUCKY with TB, nothing wrong with admitting defeat with the WRs, nothing wrong with stating BBs man-love for TEs. I think its wrong to compare LB futures to that of CB....if Mayo goes in the tank for one reason or another I can see BB scrapping the whole LB class and going back to the vet-only rule he has (very successfully)lived by.

signbabybrady · 09-02-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fencer

Early in the BB era, almost every position was stocked with either holdovers or cheap FAs, as a matter of necessity. But BB and Pioli have been here long enough that there's a decent sample size to look at.

DL -- Draft (and UDFA) all the way, especially high picks.

OL -- Draft and UDFA as the preferred tactic (e.g., all the starters counting Neal), at all levels of pick (1, 2, 3, 5, UDFA for the current starters, with some 4s starting in the past). Other team's cast-offs commonly make it to "valued backup" (Hochstein, Ashworth), but not starter.

TE -- High draft picks for the top 2 TEs. The #3 can come from anywhere.

WR -- With all due respect to Branch and Givens, the acquired vets have worked out better than the draftees. Now there's a new crop of youngsters trying to change that at the bottom, but the top 4 are all acquired vets.

RB/FB -- So far they've hit on 1 first-rounder (although that is often debated), developed the holdover 2nd-rounder Faulk, and brought in a lot of vets. Other draftees and UDFAs haven't fared very well.

QB -- Draft mainly, with the occasional (but increasingly rare) vet backup.

CB and S -- They're obviously trying to staff the positions with young, often economical draftees. But vets continue to be in the mix.

LB -- Mayo is the first draftee to even come seriously close to being a starter. But the tea leaves suggest LB will be treated more like DB in the future.

K/P/LS -- Sample size isn't big enough to generalize from.

Very nice post, I like the idea and for the most part the anlysis is pretty good.

I think you underate the Patriot running game. While it only had one season of domination (CD 1600) it has been more than adequate the entire time. It seems BB perfers the guys who can grind out the tough yards with out much negative yardage over the guys who can light the world on fire but may pay for it with a few drive ending mistakes. Which actually lends me to wonder about Maroney, I think he is good could be great but just not like the other guys he usually goes for. I think Three guys with different skill levels but similar skill sets would be Antoine, Corey, and Morris all were/are good at making sure their runs end up positive obviously corey was capable of more.