Thoughts on the roster... - Page 5 - New England Patriots Forums

***patchick*** · 09-06-2009, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctpatsfan77

I guess that's true if you don't count resigned ERFA Gutierrez.

Ah, how quickly I forget! You're right, Gutierrez was still on the roster.

Still though, with the only #3 QB competition being a guy they'd already cut in the past the Pats were a pretty attractive destination. Imagine that instead of going undrafted, Hoyer had been taken in the 7th by a team like the Eagles or Bucs. He could easily have gotten fewer snaps in camp and the preseason, slipped through the cracks and been quietly cut. I'd definitely rather be a priority UDFA than a 7th-round pick.

patriotscpfc · 09-06-2009, 09:32 AM

Can't start threads

Richard Seymour being traded to the Oakland Raiders. per Twitter.

ramon · 09-06-2009, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lampshade

It is interesting.

Mike Reiss (I think) had the facts on league-wide roster makeups, and UDFAs were, I believe, the 3rd most populous group, trailing only 1st rounders and 2nd rounders.

I'll try and find the stats.

edit: actually, I was WAY off. UDFA are far and away the most populous group:

League averages (Patriots in brackets)
First round -- 7.9 (12)
Second round -- 7.0 (5)
Third round -- 6.5 (7)
Fourth round -- 6.2 (5)
Fifth round -- 5.1 (6)
Sixth round -- 5.0 (5)
Seventh round -- 5.3 (3)
Undrafted -- 21.6 (23)

Following up on roster breakdown by draft pick - Reiss' Pieces - Boston.com

If the stats above are not interpreted correctly they can be misleading. Since ususally a team has only one draft choice per round per year, over a ten year period only at most 10/53 draft choices from any round could make the team. If even 50% of the draft picks from a given round are cut traded or injured then you are already down to less than 10%.

Since for any year you can bring in an unlimited # of UDFA to evaluate as opposed to usually only one choice per round it makes sense that you will have more UDFA.

The key stat is what % of first rounders drafted are still on the team 3-4 years later...same question fro all rounds and UDFA

PatsCanDoIt · 09-06-2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick

It makes sense, compared to any individual round. Every year you bring in a slew of UDFAs vs. one 4th, one 5th, etc. Even if only, say a third or a quarter of the UDFAs are as good as drafted players, they're still at a big statistical advantage.

There's another advantage, too -- unlike draftees, the better UDFAs get to choose their team. They look for the best fit and the best roster opportunity.

Patchick you're awesome! You pointed out the fallacious reasoning nicely.

Looking at the decline from first rounders to sixth rounders; most teams seem to only scout about 200 players. So fifth, sixth and seventh rounders are throw-a-way picks in a sense. Teams just have more data on fifth and sixth rounders and so they draft the players that are scouted more heavily. I'm thinking if the 600th best prospect were to be scouted as much as the top 10 overall things would even out. It's just cheaper to pay 11 UDFAs for training camp than the yearly salaries of even more scouts.

Quote:

Ninkovich on 53
Crable to IR

At one point I was high on Crable just like many here. I then found out that edge rushers don't need to be fast. They do need great agility(20yd shuttle) or great explosiveness(vertical jump) or insane college sack numbers. Crable fails all three prerequisites. He vertical flat out sucks at 28 inches. He runs 40 yards straight ahead at 4.61sec but 20 yards side to side at a very poor 4.55sec. He only had 16 total sacks in 47 games.

To compare; Rob Ninkovich played against the same competition in the Big Ten and had 16 sacks in 24 games. Rob wasn't even the starter in 2004. Rob can jump 6.5" higher, recording a 34.5" vertical. He also ran the short shuttle in 4.18sec.

Now to be clear he has had a knee injury and may have lost some explosiveness but as far as rushing the passer is concerned; Rob Ninkovich was, and probably is still more athletic than Shawn Crable.

PatsCanDoIt · 09-06-2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick

It makes sense, compared to any individual round. Every year you bring in a slew of UDFAs vs. one 4th, one 5th, etc. Even if only, say a third or a quarter of the UDFAs are as good as drafted players, they're still at a big statistical advantage.

There's another advantage, too -- unlike draftees, the better UDFAs get to choose their team. They look for the best fit and the best roster opportunity.

Patchick you're awesome! You pointed out the fallacious reasoning nicely.

Looking at the decline from first rounders to sixth rounders; most teams seem to only scout about 200 players. So fifth, sixth and seventh rounders are throw-a-way picks in a sense. Teams just have more data on fifth and sixth rounders and so they draft the players that are scouted more heavily. I'm thinking if the 600th best prospect were to be scouted as much as the top 10 overall things would even out. It's just cheaper to pay 11 UDFAs for training camp than the yearly salaries of even more scouts.

Quote:

Ninkovich on 53
Crable to IR

At one point I was high on Crable just like many here. I then found out that edge rushers don't need to be fast. They do need great agility(20yd shuttle) or great explosiveness(vertical jump) or insane college sack numbers. Crable fails all three prerequisites. He vertical flat out sucks at 28 inches. He runs 40 yards straight ahead at 4.61sec but 20 yards side to side at a very poor 4.55sec. He only had 16 total sacks in 47 games.

To compare; Rob Ninkovich played against the same competition in the Big Ten and had 16 sacks in 24 games. Rob wasn't even the starter in 2004. Rob can jump 6.5" higher, recording a 34.5" vertical. He also ran the short shuttle in 4.18sec.

Now to be clear he has had a knee injury and may have lost some explosiveness but as far as rushing the passer is concerned; Rob Ninkovich was, and probably is still more athletic than Shawn Crable.

captain stone · 09-06-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cstjohn17

This quote from Mike Reiss really stuck out to me:
"The makeup of the roster seems to indicate that the four-man line is going to be a more prevalent part of the defense going forward. The Patriots still have the flexibility to play 3-4 at times,but they would probably want to improve their linebacker depth if that is the long-term approach."

That is a scary statement, it appears they are stuck in a nowhere land with the LBs. Not enough depth and quality to play a base 3-4 and the wrong people to play a 4-3 consistently. The DLine is not perfectly setup for a 4-3 either, rushing 4 big DT types may stop the run but doesn't create much of a pass rush, that puts the onus on TBC and Burgess who at least in pre-season can easily be handled 1:1.

I don't know what this means for the future, do they scout 4-3 players? 3-4 players or both? For years it has been obvious that the LBs needed some new additions. This is just another example how not being proactive in this area has impacted the roster.

I very much agree. This is a strange-looking front 7, and I still have no effin idea from where the pass-rush will come. And obviously losing Seymour will not help that situation, at all. Don't be surprised if we see a lot of high-scoring games during the first half of the season, from both the Pats & their opponents.