Some Perspective on the draft - New England Patriots Forums

***AndyJohnson*** · 04-30-2007, 10:29 AM

I think there is no question we could have gotten better football players by staying in round 1 and 3, maybe moving up, packaging day 2 picks, and essentially turning our 10 picks into the 5 highest they would convert to.

Why didnt we?

Here is a theory.

I think it is very reasonable to say that aside from possibly ILB, and maybe corner,(on top of the obivous S choice) the needs we were filling were for guys who would be special teamers, reserves and developmental guys. Whoever we were drafting unless they were a S or ILB, would have had a tremendously difficult time getting on the field. We are deep at YOUNG at most positions. At most spots on the roster we either have young starters, or guys drafted in the last 2 years who are developing nicely.

In the 4th we took a DT. Now we could have taken a better DT in the 1st, 2nd (trading down) or 3rd. But that player would get the playing time consistent with a guy taken on the 4th or later anyway. The OL we took are developmental guys, but what would we have done with Staley? He would sit, and for how long? We spent the last 2 drafts getting 3 quality OL who are developing well. Is there value in a round 1 pick that only represents a small upgrade from Kaczur and OCallahan? Even if Staley were 'round 1 value' does 'round 1 value' still equal round 1 value when it sends round 2 value to the bench?
Additionally, many of the players chosen who will make the team will be doing it on special teams. Often you find as good, sometimes better, sts ability in round 2. Richardson may have flaws as a corner, but be a better special teamer than a day 1 corner who is a better corner. (see willie andrews as an example)

I do not think BB saw no players he wanted, but rather saw no VALUE in that the value added to the ROSTER SPOT didn't warrant the pick.

What you end up with is a bevy of role players who could develop and are doing it at about the league minimum cap hits.

This creates more free agent flexibility down the road, but also allows us to afford a marquee draft class in 08, or whenever the trade to the future train stops.
At some point, age will creep in to the roster as a whole, and openings will occur. We had tremendous positive gains in free agency this year. Last year we had net losses. What will 08 or 09 bring?

Look at it this way:
If the extra #1 that should project to the middle of the round, and the extra #3 that should project to the top, could be used in any year you choose, would you have rather had them in 2006 when we had a net loss in FA, or in 2007 when we had a net gain? From a value of the roster spot perspective, there were more players equalling an upgrade that held day 1 value in 2006 than in 2007. Trading into 08 says that even if the identical guy is on the board at 28 in 08, he may hold much more value to us than he did at 28 this year because there is a place for him to get on the field as quickly as a #1 should.

This all seems to make sense to me outside of the LB position. LB is an enigma. It is a very important position, but we never draft them. I think its a case of us asking LBs to do different things than most teams. (Even many other 34 teams play 1 gap) I also think that what we need them to do is entirely different than any college program. I think that a guy in college who is protypical for our LB position either isnt playing LB, or in addition to the skills we want, has the skills others want to, and is drafted way too high for value.
It cannot just be that BB doesnt care about depth at LB. He overloads on depth at almost every other position. I think in the end, BB looks at what is available, and although he needs more LBs, sees no one that can play in this system nearly as well as the next choice at another position.
When we get into the later rounds, we are picking guys who must change positions, or who were not that great in their college system, but project to this one.

I'm not concerned about LB. Our system, all things equal, plays 4 LBs in the base D, but only puts 4 on the field together for less than half the snaps. (Possibly more if you count LBs playing DE on 3rd down)
Really we have 3 1/2 LB positions. Now when our LB talent is loaded, BB figures out a way to get them all on the field more often, but the implication is we are weak if injuries happen. If one LB wnet down, we would need someone to step in and play maybe 30 snaps a game. The 4 we have are versatile enough that any one of the 4 going down would be handled the same way, with the same replacements.

Yes, I would love to have 3 solid veteran former starters, and 2 #1 draft picks behind our 4 starting LBs so no matter what happened we would never have a problem. I'd like to have Manning backing up Brady too.

BB had the chance to take Harris for ILB depth. He could have taken him at 28. He could have traded down. He could have traded up from 91. Instead he CHOSE NOT TO HAVE DAVID HARRIS ON THE TEAM.
Many fans felt that drafting Harris would have 'solved' the LB depth problem. If that is the case, then BB choosing not to says that he feels he has better options. We shall see.

***BelichickFan*** · 04-30-2007, 10:49 AM

The reason I think they punted on #28 is just the chance at greatness. The consensus here seems to be that SF is on the way up and that'll be a bottom half of the first round pick. I disagree. That was a bad team last year. B A D. BAD. Yes, they've added some talent. And lost Norv Turner which could hurt Smith. Their division is stronger and playing the AFCN they have 3 very tough games there. I think 8-8 is their best case. With about 4-12 the worst.

This trade was taking a shot at a top ten pick. We took a shot with Baltimore's #1 and didn't get it, although we got Big Vince. We took a shot with Seattle's #1 and didn't get it, although I like Meriweather. Now we have another shot at being a good team, maybe even a SB winner, and still picking in the top ten. It may not happen but it's a rare chance to be a really good team and get a top pick.

Pats726 · 04-30-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

I think there is no question we could have gotten better football players by staying in round 1 and 3, maybe moving up, packaging day 2 picks, and essentially turning our 10 picks into the 5 highest they would convert to.

Why didnt we?

Here is a theory.

I think it is very reasonable to say that aside from possibly ILB, and maybe corner,(on top of the obivous S choice) the needs we were filling were for guys who would be special teamers, reserves and developmental guys. Whoever we were drafting unless they were a S or ILB, would have had a tremendously difficult time getting on the field. We are deep at YOUNG at most positions. At most spots on the roster we either have young starters, or guys drafted in the last 2 years who are developing nicely.

In the 4th we took a DT. Now we could have taken a better DT in the 1st, 2nd (trading down) or 3rd. But that player would get the playing time consistent with a guy taken on the 4th or later anyway. The OL we took are developmental guys, but what would we have done with Staley? He would sit, and for how long? We spent the last 2 drafts getting 3 quality OL who are developing well. Is there value in a round 1 pick that only represents a small upgrade from Kaczur and OCallahan? Even if Staley were 'round 1 value' does 'round 1 value' still equal round 1 value when it sends round 2 value to the bench?
Additionally, many of the players chosen who will make the team will be doing it on special teams. Often you find as good, sometimes better, sts ability in round 2. Richardson may have flaws as a corner, but be a better special teamer than a day 1 corner who is a better corner. (see willie andrews as an example)

I do not think BB saw no players he wanted, but rather saw no VALUE in that the value added to the ROSTER SPOT didn't warrant the pick.

What you end up with is a bevy of role players who could develop and are doing it at about the league minimum cap hits.

This creates more free agent flexibility down the road, but also allows us to afford a marquee draft class in 08, or whenever the trade to the future train stops.
At some point, age will creep in to the roster as a whole, and openings will occur. We had tremendous positive gains in free agency this year. Last year we had net losses. What will 08 or 09 bring?

Look at it this way:
If the extra #1 that should project to the middle of the round, and the extra #3 that should project to the top, could be used in any year you choose, would you have rather had them in 2006 when we had a net loss in FA, or in 2007 when we had a net gain? From a value of the roster spot perspective, there were more players equalling an upgrade that held day 1 value in 2006 than in 2007. Trading into 08 says that even if the identical guy is on the board at 28 in 08, he may hold much more value to us than he did at 28 this year because there is a place for him to get on the field as quickly as a #1 should.

This all seems to make sense to me outside of the LB position. LB is an enigma. It is a very important position, but we never draft them. I think its a case of us asking LBs to do different things than most teams. (Even many other 34 teams play 1 gap) I also think that what we need them to do is entirely different than any college program. I think that a guy in college who is protypical for our LB position either isnt playing LB, or in addition to the skills we want, has the skills others want to, and is drafted way too high for value.
It cannot just be that BB doesnt care about depth at LB. He overloads on depth at almost every other position. I think in the end, BB looks at what is available, and although he needs more LBs, sees no one that can play in this system nearly as well as the next choice at another position.
When we get into the later rounds, we are picking guys who must change positions, or who were not that great in their college system, but project to this one.

I'm not concerned about LB. Our system, all things equal, plays 4 LBs in the base D, but only puts 4 on the field together for less than half the snaps. (Possibly more if you count LBs playing DE on 3rd down)
Really we have 3 1/2 LB positions. Now when our LB talent is loaded, BB figures out a way to get them all on the field more often, but the implication is we are weak if injuries happen. If one LB wnet down, we would need someone to step in and play maybe 30 snaps a game. The 4 we have are versatile enough that any one of the 4 going down would be handled the same way, with the same replacements.

Yes, I would love to have 3 solid veteran former starters, and 2 #1 draft picks behind our 4 starting LBs so no matter what happened we would never have a problem. I'd like to have Manning backing up Brady too.

BB had the chance to take Harris for ILB depth. He could have taken him at 28. He could have traded down. He could have traded up from 91. Instead he CHOSE NOT TO HAVE DAVID HARRIS ON THE TEAM.
Many fans felt that drafting Harris would have 'solved' the LB depth problem. If that is the case, then BB choosing not to says that he feels he has better options. We shall see.

Andy...I agree...Why take a top player who will end up getting paid a lot and sitting..why not TRADE for next year and see who/what develops..I agree..and not only did teh Patriots really tool up for development, but they also traded and got picks for next year...This years draft does NOT have the flash that everyone wants..but I bet in the end, will be a solid one...

SunnyDenmark · 04-30-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pats726

Andy...I agree...Why take a top player who will end up getting paid a lot and sitting..why not TRADE for next year and see who/what develops..I agree..and not only did teh Patriots really tool up for development, but they also traded and got picks for next year...This years draft does NOT have the flash that everyone wants..but I bet in the end, will be a solid one...

"why not TRADE for next year and see who/what develops.".

Yes precisely. Andy also alluded to it - but I will be more direct on why it is good to defer from this weak class to next years draft by addding picks in the 1st and 3rd rounds.

Will Rodney or Teddy B retire after this season? Will Sameul be here as well? How about the FA's after this coming season: E. Wilson, Gay, Hawkins, Caldwell, Gaffney etc. Can we resign Ty Warren to an extension? Will Donte Stallworth and K. Washingtons (basically) one year contract be extended by paying their roster bonus next Spring? and so on.....These names are (mostly) NOT minor role players but core players or players in skill / high demand positions, ie. filling these potential holes by next years FA won't come cheap. We can't be the Redskins every year in FA.

Hence, defering some picks from this years relatively weak class to next years' draft is a great strategy. We will see where the holes develop (list from above) and then either fill them in FA or via the (supposidly stronger) draft next year. We have the firepower in picks next year to really get some good players and (plagerizing Andy) - they won't be sitting on the pine all year. Sure they can sit and read the playbook until they nod off Zzzzz... but there is no substitute for experience.

Go Pats!

Metaphors · 04-30-2007, 02:44 PM

Great stuff! Here are a couple of more...

I think this draft is a sign that Bruschi has more left in the tank than we realize. He is only under contract through this year and turns 34 in June, and I was thinking the Pats need his replacement now to prepare for 2008. Now I'm thinking there is a chance he comes back on a short deal and splits time in 2008 with his eventual replacement. A lot will depend on the success of the team this year and how effective he plays, which leads me to...

I think that Bruschi will be more of a disruptive force this year than in recent memory. Aside from declining performance due to age, Bruschi has been used very conservatively lately (for good reason due to missing players). The result has been that it is fairly easy to spot and avoid Bruschi in the defensive scheme. With the addition of A.Thomas and Meriweather and the return of Wilson and Harrison from injury, I see Bruschi being moved around and being around the ball a lot more. The result being more disruptive plays (sacks, forced fumbles, interceptions, etc). So I believe that we will see improvement this year at Bruschi's position...just not by replacing him with a draft pick.

I think that BB is raising the standards for the Pats defense. A.Thomas and Meriweather are examples of new additions that allow the defense to change formations without substitutions. Seymour, Vrabel and Wilson (when healthy) also have this characteristic. Colvin and Warren seem to be developing into that type of player as well. The "bend-but-don't-break-wait-for-a-mistake" defense seems to be transforming into a "prevent-offense-from-getting-into-a-rhythm" defense. Same players on the field, same pre-snap read...totally different post-snap formation. I know every defensive unit has this as a goal, but it is very difficult to pull off effectively. The linebackers and safeties are especially critical since they need to do everything well...blitz from anywhere, cover man or zone and support the run. A.Thomas fits this description and I believe that Meriweather was targeted for the very same reason. I also think that none of the LBs in this draft had a ceiling high enough to deserve a 1st day pick (and 4-5 year commitment) based on this criteria.

***Lloyd_Christmas*** · 04-30-2007, 04:17 PM

Trading out of #28 was a great move when you consider the compensation. SF's #1 next year (Which will be higher than #30 and is likely to be in the top 15) plus a 4th rounder this year which was used to aquire Randy Moss.

I don't any further explanation is necessary.

I understand the slight question at LB. I would have liked to seen 1 more solid backup-quality vet or a day 1 picked used there. Overall, we are stacked so long as Asante doesn't choose to ride the pine all year. I'm not overjoyed at RB, but this many threats at WR and TE, we will be fine at RB.

solman · 04-30-2007, 07:02 PM

We didn't keep our #1 and our #3 because there was more value in the 2008 picks we were offered than there was on the draft board at the time.

BB said it himself earlier today.

I don't know why we are looking for complicated explanations, when the answer is so simple.

patsfaninpa · 04-30-2007, 07:56 PM

Here's our picks if we keep all of them.
1A Meriweather
1B D.Harris - ilb ....maybe Poz..
2 M. McCauley - cb - Fresno St...
3 J. Moore - olb - Nebraska

None of our draft picks would have started. We have R.Moss,W.Welker
a 1 and 3 in 08. Put me in the 7-9 or 8-8 camp for SF. Oakland's 3. Definately, a top 5 in Round 3.

capetide · 04-30-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

I think there is no question we could have gotten better football players by staying in round 1 and 3, maybe moving up, packaging day 2 picks, and essentially turning our 10 picks into the 5 highest they would convert to.

.

You cant trade compensatory picks.

***fgssand*** · 04-30-2007, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lloyd_Christmas

.

I understand the slight question at LB. I would have liked to seen 1 more solid backup-quality vet or a day 1 picked used there. .

Table seems set for Jr..he knows the system and seemed to be effective to me last year. Otherwise, maybe Hartwell, but it was said he was leaning towards Cinci. Any other vets with brains and ability out there??