Triumph

Full time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick I took my standard of success for a 2nd rounder to be "became a regular starter." Here's the breakdown: Steelers: 8 total picks, 4 successful, 50% hit rate. Patriots: 14 total picks, 7 successful, 50% hit rate. So that's dead even at 50%...though I had to be verrrry generous to the Steelers to make it so. 3 of their 4 "successes" were only half-time starters during their rookie contracts, or only became starters in their 4th season. All 7 of the Patriots' "successes" were full-time starters by season 2.

Quite frankly, who really knows about Vollmer either?


I just question whether or not if .500 is successful. Seems average.

If Tom Brady completes only half his passes, hes Mark Sanchez or Matt Cassel. A WR on the Pats isnt going to be around very long dropping 50% of his passes when Welker is catching 70%. FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2011 WIDE RECEIVERS

patsfaninpittsburgh

It's also where you are.

People tend to kinda forget that 2008-2011 was about roster tunrover.

Only Vince is still here from the 2007 defense.

2012 drafting could be selective because the roster has already been rebuilt.

patchick

My apologies, lousy phrasing on my part! I said "regular starter" the first time, which is what I meant and what I should have said throughout. I considered Spikes a regular starter for those years, just as I consider Aaron Hernandez a regular starter for last year even though he didn't start every game (depending on matchups and formations). And most importantly, I applied the same standard to the other teams.

patsfaninpittsburgh

You are comparing second round draft success with pass completions?

Huh?

patchick

Need clearly plays a part, but...doesn't the lack of impact players on the 2011 defense show that the Patriots had a clear need for defensive playmakers in the 2011 draft? As I recall, everybody here thought so at the time.

As for stockpiling in the past then cashing it all in this year, the Patriots have actually been remarkably consistent in how much "chart value" they spend in the top 2 rounds -- between 1814 and 1940 points each year since 2008. (For perspective on how amazingly consistent that is, consider that if they'd spent ONLY the #7, #8 or #9 overall pick each of those years, they'd have had greater variability!)

40yrpatsfan

I think the Pats have done a remarkable job of re-inventing this team over the past 3 years while still winning the division each year and going to the SB last year, and good drafting has been a big part of that.

The only nit I'll pick is people continually claiming that the Pats MO on draft day is to always trade back, and that this year represented a new philosophy. I believe that BB actually has no tendencies and just decides based on the specific circumstances at that moment. He's never been afraid to move up, and has done so several times over the years when there's a guy worth moving up for at a fair cost.

That said, each year his team is different and has different needs. When completely rebuilding like he was from 08-10, he needed a lot of picks so trading back to get them made sense in a deep draft (depth of the draft field is a huge factor).

This year he wasn't as impressed with the depth (our 2nd round pick is evidence of that), and he also had the chits to move up and get a couple of guys with impact potential so he did it - no change of philosophy involved.

The only change of philosophy I've seen is molding the D to be faster and more flexible, which is heartening. We've been too slow and too ineffective on the pass rush, and he seems committed to adjusting that.

mgteich

Belichick has a remarkably good record with second round draftees (and first). Obviously, there are those who expect a record of 75% - 100% starters. This doesn't happen for any team.

I have always thought that it the THIRD round where Belichick has been less successful.

patfanken

When I started reading this article it reminded me of a statistics course I took when I was in college. It didn't go well there either. . However despite the fact that I didn't get a whole lot from the article, I have gotten a lot from the comments and one struck me as a great "summing up" statement, and it was from PatChick

BB accumulates pick for a very simple reason. More shots at the prize. PatChick's research points out the simple truth about the draft. Even in the best of organizations, you are going to miss as often as you hit. The more picks you have the more chances you have to pick good players. So the Pats "50%" yielded almost twice the hits as the Steelers simply because BB managed to manipulate the draft to accumulate more picks in the so called "sweet spot".

It also could be one of the reasons BB was unable to get the kind of value we would expect when he traded down this year. By now when BB calls about a trade, opposing GM's automatically feel they are about to get screwed, so their inclination is to pass.

mayoclinic

Baltimore assistant GM Eric DeCosta agrees with you:

Baltimore Ravens | News | John Eisenberg: Ravens Cracked The Code

The article is a good read on the Ravens' drafting philsoophy, and is worth checking out.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"OVER Loading at ANY position can create a Fatal Advantage. THAT is what interests ME. Attacking With Concentrated Force. THAT is what WINS. In the words ~ more or less ~ of General Patton: 'I'm fighting a WAR, here. Let the B*****ES worry about their FLANKS.' " - Off the Grid

"The key to any successful organization is to anticipate things, not react to them." - Michael Lombardi

patsfaninpittsburgh

ken

Great job. It's too bad this actually has to be explained.

It's even better than that because extra picks doesn't also mean extra roster spots.

More people to fill a constant numbers of spots means more discarding.

The success rate is actually better.