Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.