RayClay

Yeah, provocative title, but think about it. If having the best picks, or the best class mattered by itself, Pitt, Indy and the Pats should have been in the dumps a number of years, while Detroit and others prospered with their vast talent advantage.

It's a major way to acquire talent, but only one way. It doesn't fit well some years, is major others. Developing players is as important if not more important.

Did we stay in contention the latter half of this decade because we had a 7th overall pick once? We didn't even use it (10 for Mayo).

The only prime pick that made a difference in our entire championship and post championship contention every year was the #6 for Seymour.

I believe it's something to think about. We still have a very green team from the last two years and development might mean more than future acquisition right now for our defense.

By the way, I sure didn't feel this way on draft day to be quite honest. I'd love to see a facsimile of Seymour sometime soon, but I think it's good perspective.

More is lost by not developing talent than not drafting it, and I'll stand on that statement.

__________________

TriplecHamp

Saying the draft doesn't matter is stupid. Teams that are bad at drafting continually find themselves drafting in the top 10.

randomk1

Really? Look at GB's roster and see how many drafted guys they have in the lineup and some are big stars obviously.

Pittsburgh is known for building through the draft.

The Lions suck because they think you build teams by drafting WR's.

BradyFTW!

I have no idea how you get from A to B. The reason why the Steelers, Colts and Pats are good every year is BECAUSE they draft well.

Teams like Detroit and Oakland consistently fail because, even with premium picks, they still draft poorly. The one real point that you could maybe make from your observation is that a team's drafting skill matters a whole lot more than its drafting position, but has anyone ever argued that that isn't the case?

Elijah

I haven't noticed that about the Lions. I HAVE noticed that the Bills think a team is built by drafting offensive skill positions regardless of need (except for this year). That Spiller pick never made sense to me.

A_Ghost_In_The_Machine

Check out their drafts in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (aka the Millen years). 3 top ten picks, 3 WRs, none of which has really made any impact (an argument could be made for Roy Williams but regardless he hasn't lived up to his draft position). They then took a year out by drafting a LB but came right back and drafted WR Calvin Johnson in 2007 (which actually worked out for them)

Fencer

First Pats championship team:

Brady (& Bledsoe off the bench)
Light & Woody
Troy Brown
A few plays from Redmond & Faulk
Willie, Ted J, Bruschi
Law & Lawyer
Even Antawn Harris (made two good plays in the post-season run)

Yeah, there were tons of FAs in there. But with all due respect to Adam V., Patten, and others, a whole lot of the plays were made by draftees.

Other Pats championship teams:

It gets easier to just list the FAs & vet acquisitions that mattered -- Rodney, Vrabel, Adam V., Dillon, Ted Washington, Neal, and a few others. Most of the key players were drafted.

__________________
"To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness." -- Oscar Wilde

RayClay

Teams that have picks in the top ten usually end up picking in the top ten.

Sounds like you think the Patriots always have great drafts. You wouldn't know it by this board.

Obviously have good draft pickers is important, but is it as important has having good coaching, stability and player development? I don't think so.

If you have none of those things and also don't know how to build a cohesive team (which has nothing to do with drafting) you can have a great draft every year and not succeed.

Of course it's stupid to say bad drafting is better than good drafting, but that's not what I said. It's one factor.

__________________

RayClay

I'm obviously not saying there is a substitute for drafting players, there isn't.

To say that drafting, in the absence of knowing where players fit, when to draft (trade, back out) is to ignore the fact that the best teams prosper when they have a lot of high picks and when they don't. That wouldn't be true if the draft itself was a huge factor. It's a tool.

Your example shows that. All the drafted players had been around for years, yet the team was sloping downhill.

__________________

RayClay

It's because they do everything well. Posters here have noted a number of pre 2009 drafts where we had huge nees and seemingly mediocre drafts.

They don't miss on high #1s (though they have on low #1s). Maybe that's because they trade out if there's not sure thing talent there.

__________________