bucky

I know we do this every so often, but haven't seen it recently. Every year, it gets easier to judge a previous draft class. Just curious as to how people on this board would rank the previous drafts. I did not include the UDFAs because (1) I don't remember all of them from each year and (2) they weren't actually drafted and made the decision to come to the Pats.

Here’s how I would rank them:

1) 2002 – amazing success rate. Branch was a huge steal and is a very underrated WR.
2) 2000 – 1 word, Brady. They also were able to get a number of contributors despite having no 1st round pick and only 3 picks in the first 4 rounds.
3) 2003 – Drafted 4 solid starters. 7 of the 10 draft picks are still with the team 3 years later and have been contributors.
4) 2005 – Could net 3 starters with potential for more. This rating is based primarily on potential.
5) 2001 – As much as I love Seymour and Light, they were pretty high picks. The rest of the picks (1 3rd rounder, 2 4th rounders, and 5 late rounders) didn’t amount to squat in the NFL. That’s not a very Patriots-like draft.
6) 2004 – Watson and Wilfork are solid starters, if not more. But 4 of the 8 draftees lasted only 1 season on the roster and the other 2 have made no contribution so far.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And here are all the classes individually:

2000 - this class may not be a fair comparison because it was BB's first year, SP wasn't here yet, and there was no 1st round pick. I'm still including it because it netter Tom Brady.

2) Adrian Klemm OT Hawaii
3) J.R. Redmond RB Arizona State
4) Greg Robinson-Randall OT Michigan State
5) Dave Stachelski TE Boise State
5) Jeff Marriott DT Missouri
6) Antwan Harris DB Virginia
6) Tom Brady QB Michigan
6) David Nugent DT Purdue
7) Casey Tisdale LB New Mexico
7) Patrick Pass RB Georgia

Net results: 1 great QB, 1 jack-of-all-trades RB still on the team, 3 players (Redmond, Robinson, Harris) who were not quite starting caliber, but contributed to 1 superbowl win. 4 guys who didn't amount to anything.

2001

1) Richard Seymour DT Georgia
2) Matt Light OT Purdue
3) Brock Williams DB Notre Dame
4) Kenyatta Jones OT South Florida
4) Jabari Holloway TE Notre Dame
5) Hakim Akbar DB Washington
6) Arthur Love TE South Carolina State
6) Leonard Myers DB Miami
7) Owen Pochman K Brigham Young
7) T.J. Turner LB Michigan State

Net REsults: 1 perennial Pro-Bowl DL, 1 consistant top 20 LT, 8 guys who were a bunch of junk.

2002

1) Daniel Graham TE Colorado
2) Deion Branch WR Louisville
4) Rohan Davey QB LSU
4) Jarvis Green DE LSU
7) Antwoine Womack RB Virginia
7) David Givens WR Notre Dame

Net Results: incredibly efficient draft class. 1 starting TE, 2 starting WRs, 1 very valuable backup DL. Only 1 guy who is out of the league. 4 major contributors to 2 Superbowl titles. Also, a probable 4th round compensation pick in the 2007 draft.

2003 - here's where the evaluation starts to get a little more unclear.

1) Ty Warren DT Texas A&M
2) Eugene Wilson CB Illinois
2) Bethel Johnson WR Texas A&M
4) Dan Klecko DT Temple
4) Asante Samuel CB Central Florida
5) Dan Koppen C Boston College
6) Kliff Kingsbury QB Texas Tech
7) Spencer Nead TE Brigham Young
7) Tully Banta-Cain DE California
7) Ethan Kelly DT Baylor

Net Results: 1 starting DL, 2 starting DBs, 1 starting C. All 4 are solid starters and were key contributors to the 2 Superbowl wins. This is probably the make or break TC for Bethel, Klecko and TBC. All 3 could be cut, or could emerge as valuable contributors. All 3 made small, but legitimate contributions to the SB titles. 2 guys out of the league, 1 guy released, playing for another team.

2004 - hard to fully evaluate this draft.

1) Vince Wilfork DT Miami
1) Ben Watson TE Florida
2) Marquise Hill DE LSU
3) Scott Guss S Florida
4) Dexter Reid S North Carolina
4) Cedric Cobbs RB Arkansas
5) P.K. Sam WR Florida State
7) Christian Morton CB Illinois

Net Results: 1 starting DL, 1 starting TE, 2 big question marks, 4 guys released and playing for other teams. Watson has Pro Bowl potential.

2005 – just for kicks
1) Logan Mankins OG Fresno State
3) Ellis Hobbs CB Iowa State
3) Nick Kaczur OG Toledo
4) James Sanders S Fresno State
5) Ryan Claridge LB Nevada-Las Vegas
7) Matt Cassell QB Southern California
7) Andy Stokes TE William Penn

Net Results: We know Mankins is a starting caliber OL. And we know Stokes is already out of the league. Hobbs and Kaczur appear to be of starting quality. The other 3 are unknowns.

arrellbee

You can look at it another way by slicing it by rounds.

I did only 2001 thru 2005 since 2000 was probably not a BB/SP full scouting and evaluation effort:

First, the 1st round draft picks are the most important overall for the Pats. You only have to look at the players selected in rounds 1 thru 4. There are as many or more starters in the 1st round alone as there are altogether in rounds 2 thru 4.

!st round: ALL 6 on the team and ALL starters: Seymour, Warren, Graham, Wilfork, Watson, Mankins.

2nd round: ALL 5 on the team and 3 starters: Wilson, Branch, Light and Bethel Johnson and Marquise Hill.

3rd round: Only 4 picks but 3 still on the team. Potentially two starters in the future: Hobbs, Kaczur, and Gus Scott. Obviously Hobbs and Kaczur were important contributors and starters with the injuries last year. Brock Williams is gone.

4th round: Gets MUCH more problematic. That's why rounds 1 thru 3 are so crucial. Only 4 out of 9 still on the roster - less than 50%. But, 4th round is still important. Jarvis Green and Asante Samuel are important players. Klecko and Sanders are perhaps borderline - but there have been any number of borderline players who became really important contributors later. Players who didn't work out: Davey, Cobb, Haloway, Kenyatta Jones

To say again, the first round is the most key evaluation for how successful teams are in drafting. The thing that so many teams seem to do is to take some risk on their first round pick and/or perhaps do a not-so-good job of determining if the 1st rounder will be a solid starter for the team. And that's the critical aspect - your first rounder MUST be a solid multi-year starter. You can't argue with the Pats success in doing that. So many media types don't see to get that and will moan that they didn't pick a higher profile 'superstar' player. But how many teams have gotten bit on those players. You must get solid value for the pick and the Pats do that.

Second round is obviously highly important also. Some of the draftnik analysts say you get your best dollar for performance value from high second round picks - but again presuming that you pick a player who will give you multiple years of solid and mostly starting contribution. The Pats are for sure batting over 50% in the second round (with all 3 of those players solid starters) while school is still out on on Bethel Johnson and Hill.

The Pats haven't had all that many 3rd round picks and those most recently. So it's a little hard to tell yet. But it looks promising - David Thomas this year will be an important factor in figuring out how well they have done in the 3rd round.

A lot of fans get all excited about 4th thru 7th round picks, but it's a real toss-up as to whether you get players below 3rd round. The best evaluation of how good a team is in drafting in the lower rounds is probably whether they end up with a few solid contributors from these lower rounds - perhaps 1 a year.
2001 - none
2002 - Green (4th), Givens (7th) - good year !
2003 - Koppen (5th), Samuel (4th), Banta-Cain (7th), Klecko (4th)
2004 - bust
2005 - Sanders (4th), Claridge (5th), Cassel (7th) - who knows yet
You get the feeling that the Pats aren't hitting a lot of winners lately in the lower rounds. I wonder if that's just the odds showing up or if they should change their evaluation criteria for the lower rounds - perhaps back to how they did it in 2000 (Brady & Pass), 2002, or 2003.

Lloyd_Christmas

Ranking (Best at the top):
2002
2003
2005 (although it is a little early to know)
2004
2001
2000

Comentary:

2000: Hit: Brady; Miss: everyone expect Pass (a couple of them were so-so but not compared to where they were drafted) To miss on the top picks is worse than in 2001, where they at least made decent high picks.

2001: Hit: Seymour, Light; Miss: Everyone else... not even a so-so among them

2002: Hit: Graham, Branch, Green, Givens; Miss: Davey, Womack. Womack was a late pick gamble on an injury prone RB. Davey is the only flub up.

2003: Hit: Warren, Wilson, koppen, and Samuel; Miss: Klecko, Kingsbury, Nead, Johnson, and Kelly. Undetermined: Tully Banta-Cain. Still the 2nd best draft, netting 4 starters. Johnson could still turn it around. Kelly was a good gamble late as was TBC who I think will have a break out year.

2004: Hit: Wilfork, Watson; Miss: Maybe everyone else. Hill and Gus have potential, but this could be another 2001 type draft

2005: Hit: Mankins, Hobbs, Kaczur; Possible hits: Cassel, Claridge, Sanders; Miss: Stokes

patpatriot

Remember, many of those "misses" are still drawing a paycheck on an NFL roster or practice squad. Even some of the guys we may cut this year (Klecko?) will end up on a "coaching tree" squad as example players. To hit on second day picks statistically is very hard and each hit representing a starting player is an exponentially bigger win vis a vis the overall team salary cap (see Samuel vs any other starting NFl CB salary-wise.. the difference pays for Brady and Seymour).

I wonder what the Pats "hit" rate is for 1st day picks vs other NFL clubs? Does having their own scouting staff play into a winning formula? I'll leave that to a "numbers" guy (Miguel?).

rookBoston

I think you are overestimating what a 7th round hit looks like, if you think that TBC is a "miss" or TBD. Any 7th rounder that sticks on the roster and provides useful depth is a hit. If he does nothing more for the Pats than what he's done to date, TBC is clearly a hit.

Same with Rohan Davey. How is he a miss? Juest because he didn't turn into a pro-bowl QB? He wasn't drafted to become a pro-bowl QB. He was drafted to provide depth. Why have unreasonable expectations do you have for the kid? Here's what he accomplished: he won the #2 QB job and allowed BB to release Damon Huard off the roster and draft a young QB in his place. that's a few million dollars in cap space. For a 4th rounder, that's a success. As soon as his rookie contract expired, he was released. But that's precisely what he was drafted to do. He totally met expectations.

If you try to hold every draft pick to a David Givens or Tom Brady standard, you are totally over shooting. A player like Antwan Harris, who was a valuable ST contributor and provided meaningful depth in the secondary (and even came back to the Pats off the shadow roster for a short stint) was not a miss. He was a contributor and a role player. That is a very reasonable expectation for a Day Two pick.

__________________
"We want to build a big, strong, tough, smart, fast, disciplined football team that will consistently compete for a championship."
-- Scott Pioli, from the Patriots scouting manual

bucky

I agree with you on TBC. He's been valuable to this team over the 3 year period. That's why I rated the 2000 draft as highly as I did. Guys like Harris, Pass, and even Klemm and Randall all hung around for a while and provided some help on the field. On the other hand, Ethan Kelly didn't provide any value to the team over the 2 years he was here and if either Gus Scorr or James Sanders get cut this year, they'll definitely be "misses". I think we're getting very close to getting a good read on the full 2003 draft class. It's do or die time for Klecko, Bethel and TBC. I will not be shocked if none of the 3 is on the Pats' week 1 roster. The scenario is similar for Samuel and Wilson, this should be the year they take the game to the next level.

patsox23

FANTASTIC thread. Not sure I agree with every syllable, but tremendous work put in and solid insight.

Gon_Trevil

Notice how all our first round picks (until Maroney anyway) have been either linemen or TEs (who are part-time linemen). Big boys all around.

Bostonian1962

Nice post. It's interesting though, to see you and others dismiss 2001 because Seymour and Light were high picks. If you remember, plenty of folks blasted those picks, so it wasn't so automatic. They were right about Seymour and Light, and drafted them, when others wouldn't have.

stinkypete

2003 - netted 4 starters with potential for more, solid special teams players, we would not have won SB38 without this draft

2002 - built the core of the passing offense for 4 years

2005 - built the o-line for years to come, solid depth players on defese who could all be starters by 2008

2001 - got the anchors on both lines, how many teams do that in 1 draft

2004 - still holding out that Hill and Scott both become contributors

2000 - as much as I love Brady, that pick was 97% luck, nothing else to show for

2006 has the potential to wind up at or near the top