scott99

In the last 10 drafts, Belichick rarely drafts the BPA. He usually picks the guy who fits the Patriots system, his system, and he never apologizes for it, nor should he. He hasn't been 100% perfect, though he has made some funky head scratching picks that have worked out, for example two picks that I hated at the time, but worked out perfectly (Branch in 2002 and Mankins in 2005, shows how much I know). The two times he went with the BPA, in 2006, he got burned (Jackson and Maroney).

That being said, looking back at the last few drafts, I say to myself, where would this team be IF they had drafted Clay Matthews Jr and Dez Bryant. Those are two high impact guys that would have helped this team in two areas that are sorely lacking. A pass rushing demon and a large deep threat stud receiver. So I wonder to myself, should (and would) the Pats trade up for one of those kind of players this year with so many picks ? Would they trade up for a Von Miller or Julio Jones, I think getting one of these two would make the Pats a very dangerous team, and get rid of a very large need. But I think the Pats stick with their gameplan. What do you all think ?

randomk1

Normally i would say no but this year we have alot of picks so BB could definately do something unexpected if he feels very strongly about a certain player.

Box_O_Rocks

Sebastian Vollmer, Rob Gronkowski, and Algernon Crumpler ask "who is Clay Matthews Jr.?"

__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

sbpatfan

I can see an argument for Matthews, even if he's one of the most overrated players in the league, but Bryant? Really? I can't even imagine how bad the defense would of been without McCourty last season. Can anyone even imagine the crap show of Arrington / Butler for a full year? Plus Bryant has done nothing but prove all of his critics correct this offseason by doing stupid things.

Tyler.Durden

It's so hard, because we are judging college football players, BB is selecting players who will be 1) the best NFL players. 2) NFL players who can perform a function on a BB offence or defence.

A player rarely reaches their potential as we see it coming out of college. It's a different game to be honest. Otherwise a draft would be moot and players would be assigned.

No point drafting a player if there isn't a spot for him on the team now or in the future.

So i'll stick for the patriots way.... just like last year, that will do just fine.

capetide

Bringing up players like Bryant and Matthews is a fool's game. Every time has to make decisions and plenty of teams passed on those players too.

BB is constructing a team that is being overhauled WITHOUT having to become bad in order to do so. The defense is almost completely rebuilt. The offensive line is the next need and will probably begin this week. What other team in history has been able to win multiple SBs then rebuilld while maintaining their status as a SB contender??? Other than the uniqueness of there being no free agency prior to the draft, why change the team's approach to roster construction now? Should we copy the approach of those who are less successful?

Rob0729

I agree. Bryant is still all hype over production and he seems to be a headcase. Not only would the Pats have missed out on McCourty if the Pats took Bryant, there is a chance that the Jets might have taken McCourty over Wilson. Imagine having to face the combination of Revis and McCourty over the next few years.

I still don't get the infatuation with Bryant. He seems like a good, but not great WR so far. When Bryant gets 80 yards in a game, the media gushes over the guy like he got 180 yards. His rookie season was plagued with injuries and controversy and more hype over production. Meanwhile McCourty is showing signs of being an elite CB in this league and was a strong DROY contender (in most years, he would have won).

Personally, I think the Dez Bryant over McCourty part of the original poster's argument shoots down the who "BPA over the Patriot Way". The Pats could have settled for Bryant when they could have had McCourty. Besides, if the Pats went BPA, who is to say that they didn't think that McCourty was the best player available and they thought McCourty was a better player than Bryant. So far, they would be right.

Rob0729

First, I already talked about Bryant. The Pats did get a high impact guy at a position of need and his name is Devin McCourty. Right now, I wouldn't trade McCourty straight up for Bryant even if everything was equal like contracts. A shutdown CB is one of the hardest things to find.

Second, you assume that the Pats considered Matthews and Bryant the best players available. As I said in the last post, Bryant is more hype than production. I still don't get why people talk about this guy like he has already proven to be the next Larry Fitzgerald. As for Matthews, he was no slam dunk at the time he was drafted. There were rumors of steriod use and his production in college didn't indicate he would be nearly as successful as he has become. Also, he might not have been as successful in a two gap 3-4. Everyone are playing Monday Morning QB with Matthews and act like he was a slam dunks guaranteed prospect before he was drafted. He wasn't a top 5 pick for a reason.

Third, the Pats do take the best player available every draft. Their draft board is usually very different than what most of the experts have. They don't use the scouting services that most teams and the media use. That means they have a lot of players much higher than most and have a lot of top prospects off their board.

Fourth, I think the Pats may trade up in this draft and have done it in the past. They traded up quite a bit to get Daniel Graham. They traded up one spot to get Ty Warren.

MoLewisrocks

BPA is really a misnomer. It doesn't do a team any good to select the best player available if best really just means most athletic or gifted or overhyped by people who don't have to construct a roster that meshes rather than the most talented player who best suits your scheme and system. Draft a gifted WR who can't or won't block downfield or who is inconsistent in their route running because their talent has always compensated and you don't have a good fit here. Talent matters, but is doesn't always translate to functional value on the field. It's fine to move up for a superior talent that fits your scheme and system, but moving up just to reach for perceived superior talent is a tail chasing endeavor best left to teams who don't have a well established system who are looking for someone or something to build around or drafting based on need. Belichick would rather have the sufficiently talented player who projects as highly motivated and coachable and functionally adaptable within his schemes. Which is why he tends to focus on talent groupings and not individual talents when he sets his draft board. That flexibility is also what enables him to move around and trade down and even out and to stockpile picks for later years.

It truly is what it is here, and it's not remotely broken so fixing the approach isn't necessary except in the minds of those who now believe unless you win it all every year it must be.

ctpatsfan77

This isn't a hypothetical question: knowing what you know now about McCourty, would you really take Dez Bryant over him?

And given that there were significant questions regarding Matthews (including the dreaded 'S' word), I can understand why Belichick passed on him, even if I do wonder how it would have worked out. Then again, the Pats probably wouldn't have landed GRONK last year with Matthews on the team in 2009. [Also, FWIW, I still think they should have taken Connor Barwin over either Brace or Butler in 2009, but that's just me. . . . ]

__________________
"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.