Leave No Doubt

Is this one by Fox Sports, who gives the Pats an A+

Patriots drafts: A different perspective - Reiss' Pieces - Boston.com

FOX Sports on MSN - NFL - Draft review: How every team ranks from 2003-'08

I don't remember what criteria Forbes based their assessment on.

__________________
edit...2012 BABY!

ALP

a large part for forbes was how many rookies actually made the team

which as pats fans we know is a bs method, since the pats have a team like no toher in the NFL

__________________
Last time I lived in New England the Pats became a Dynasty

Then I moved away and they haven't won since

...now I'm moving back, and a Lombardi I predict

ctpatsfan77

The criterion, singular, was the percentage of players from the last three drafts (2006-2008?) who were on a team's roster (which, of course, took absolutely no notice of things such as the Pats having eight late picks on a team that was already stacked).

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ctpatsfan77

FYI—the Pats are the only team to get an A+. Six other teams get an A or A- (IND).

At the opposite end, Lions and Jaguars get Ds (no one got an F), while C-s went to the Saints, Raiders, Titans, LOLphins, and JEST.

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Box_O_Rocks

Yeh, it's nice to be loved, but John Czarnecki giving you some love is like being groped by a bum on main street...

__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

klinefan

Pats drafted more bums than a hobo convention. A "C" I could "see", but A+? Are you kidding? Guss Scott? Chad Jackson? Mincey? You could name 10 of them.

Jackson 2

Go ahead and name them.

TruthSeeker

Using the simple raw statistics he lists at the end of each team discussion, the A+ grade is certainly arguable as the Patriots had 5 pro bowlers (3 teams with 6; vast majority had 1 or 2) and 17 starters (the most of any team).

Still, the analysis was a little simplistic but so much better than Forbes which was so fraudulent that it's a good reason to never trust anything Forbes prints.

Pujo

Once you've named 10, please name the busts from the 31 other teams. Then we'll know where the hobos have been going.

BradyFTW!

You're actually holding it against the Pats that a LB that they drafted in the 6th round hasn't turned into an NFL player? Do you have any idea what the success rate for 6th round picks is?

Do you think that it's even possible to have a 100% success rate on draft picks? Check out the breakdowns sometime: the first 2 rounds are traditionally the only ones where you can be even reasonably confident that you're getting a player who will be a solid NFL player. By most objective standards, the Pats have been the best-drafting team of the past decade.

Of course, it doesn't hurt to have Ernie Adams running the board in the war room, either.

http://www.patriots.com/history/index.cfm?ac=drafttrade

2008: DROY, jury's still out on the rest
2007: one first-day pick, one starter. Plus, if you're inclined to count it, trades for Welker and Moss.
2006: Probably the most divisive draft we're going to find. Jackson washed out because he blew his ACL out, Maroney's had injury trouble but been very productive when healthy, and we got an all-pro kicker in the 4th round. Le Kevin Smith also is shaping up as pretty good depth, and there are some people that seem to like David Thomas (I'm not one of them). Not the Pats' best draft, but by no means a bad one.
2005: 7 picks, only 3 of them on the first day, and 5 of them started for an 11-5 2008 team. Absolutely phenomenal draft.
2004: 4 first day picks: one all-pro, one starter, a tragic death and a washout. Once again, a very good draft by any reasonable measure.
2003: 6 picks in the first 5 rounds: a borderline-allpro starter, an all-pro, a starter, another onetime starter whose career was derailed by injuries, a washout, and a JAG. Exceptionally good draft.
2002: 6 picks total, only 2 first-day, yields 3 starters, a starter-caliber backup, and 2 washouts. Exceptional draft.
2001: 3 first-day picks, two consistent all-pros and anchors of their respective lines.

I want to know how that consistent track record of remarkable success can be considered a "C" by anyone with more than four functioning brain cells.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.