Disco Volante

You're right, they're not good.

QB: Tom Brady, Matt Cassel
O-Line: Matt Light, Dan Koppen, Logan Mankins
WR: Deion Branch
CB: Asante Samuel
LB: Jerod Mayo
D-Line: Richard Seymour, Vince Wilfork, Ty Warren, Jarvis Green
K: Stephen Gostkowski

They only drafted the greatest QB of the decade and a backup who went 11-5.

They then draft three All-Pro offensive linemen and an entire defensive line including two All-Pro players. Top that off with last season's defensive rookie of the year @ linebacker, a Super Bowl MVP wide receiver, an All-Pro cornerback and arguably one of the best kickers in the league right now and you have a bunch of bad drafters.

__________________

primetime

this is from 10 years of drafting with a bunch of picks, id expect them to get some good players, even the raiders and lions hit occasionally

also lets not act like matt light and dan koppen are all-pros

as for brady they got really lucky but that was a one in a million thing, you cant point to him and say 'well this is a reason theyre great drafters!' remember they almost took tim rattay

Jimke

Correct! The Giants aced the 2007 Draft. Some of these players

helped them beat the Patriots in the Superbowl.

aeg

I actually look at this as a pretty good record (not great by any stretch).

My take is that Pats:

• Do very well in first round
• Do well in rounds 5 and later (esp. if consider UDFA successes)
• OK in fourth round
• Have mediocre record in rounds 2 and 3

I came to this conclusion in a very quick and dirty way ... First, by lumping together players into 3 categories:

• rounds 1 - 3, all should be expected to stick and contribute for several years
• round 4, should be maybe 50/50 ish
• rounds 5 - 7, any contributors are pleasant surprises

Of course, you could be much more detailed (looking at percentage of players who contribute based on the exact round), but this simpler way makes it easier to summarize.

So, based on this, any misses from 1-3 are "bad picks", hits from 5-7 are "good picks" and 4s could go either way. Again, I am just taking a simple high-level approach, not being concerned with differences between active, starter, and All-Pro.

Adding the years 2000-2008 drafts (ignoring UDFA hits), we get:

1st: Every pick still active so no "bad picks" (lets not debate Maroney).
2nd: 2 bad picks, Jackson and Johnson; Klemm bordeline bad pick; Hill didn't do much but we'll never know if he was about to reach his potential or not; Jury out on Wheatley
3rd: Williams and Scott bad picks, Redmond borderline bad pick, Crable so far looking like a bad pick but too soon to write him off
4th: I see pats about 6 for 14, less than 50% (i count contributors as Wilhite, Ghost, Sanders, Asante, Jarvis, and Robinson-Randall)
5th to 7th: Seems like 4 "good picks" in this category: Brady (natch), Cassel, Givens, and Koppen and TBC is borderline "good". Some others (Willie Andrews, Patrick Pass, Antwan Harris) had a moment or two but not enough to be considered a good pick.

Ironically, it seems that their recent trading strategy (stockpiling extra 2s and 3s) does NOT play well into their drafting strength. Hopefully, the results from 2009 draft will change my perception, when -- in five years or so -- we look back on 6 contributors taken in rounds 2 and 3 this year

Jimke

Had Dick Rehbein not been persistent, the Patriots would not have drafted

Brady and there would not be three Superbowl rings.

Jackson 2

Assessing the relative quality of their drafts and their ability to draft well is only meaningful when compared with the same type of empirical data from every other team over the same time period. In addition, the data needs to be evaluated in terms of the relative quality of the players still in the NFL. For example, if 50% of Team A's players are still in the league and 50% of Team B's players are still in the league, their drafting skills are not necessarily comparable. The number of starters, Pro-Bowlers, positions, etc. also must be taken into account. It's not an easy thing to assess.

Tunescribe

The 2006 draft frustrates me. I had very high hopes for Chad Jackson, tight ends Thomas and Mills, and O'Callaghan. At least one of those tight ends should've stuck.

ctpatsfan77

Thomas might have had he not had the misfortune to injure himself in the spring of 2007.

Well, that, and the Patriots not signing TE stat killer Wes Welker. . . .

Also, on a minor note, you might want to indicate the players that are "out of the NFL" but were in the NFL earlier this year.

__________________
"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.

Snarf

I think the most interesting point about this data is that it illustrates exactly what is important when drafting: choosing players who will succeed, regardless of position.

We always get people questioning drafting calls every year wondering why they chose a DB over a LB or whatever. I guess the point is, it's far more important to select the best player available at ANY position than risk taking a player in a position you need help at where perhaps their odds of making the cut aren't so good.

Deus Irae

Since most people start the griping about the Patriots draft in 2006, let's take a look at the top 3 rounds for both Pittsburgh and New England:

Pittsburgh:
2006
Santonio Holmes
Anthony Smith
Willie Reid

2007
Lawrence Timmons
Lamarr Woodley
Matt Spaeth

2008
Rashard Mendenhall
Limas Sweed
Bruce Davis

New England:
2006
Laurence Maroney
Chad Jackson
David Thomas

2007
Brandon Meriweather

2008
Jerod Mayo
Terence Wheatley
Shawn Crable
Kevin O'Connell

Pittsburgh has 9 picks, New England has 8

Each team has drafted one player that's out of the NFL (Reid, Jackson)

Pittsburgh has 3 starters from that group

New England has 3 starters from that group

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius