Dimitroff on Falcons trade and a bit on Belichick - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***Clonamery*** · 05-02-2011, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

There were rumors.....

A lot of rumors. Means what? That's right.

MaineMan · 05-02-2011, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by convertedpatsfan

The average takes into account 2006 to 2008, which were our worst drafts ever. I'm not saying they don't count. But if you look at the entire body of work, including 2000 to 2005, you get a very different picture.

You can look at Brady's last 3 play off games and conclude he is an awful pressure QB who won't ever win a Super Bowl. You'd be wrong, but that's the conclusion you could draw from limited data.

I think the up-and-down thing has worked great. I don't understand the criticism, and can only conclude you're not looking at what happened but rushing to judgment. But consider:

In 2006, we didn't actually move much at all, sitting and picking in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th rounds. In the 2nd, we made a big move up to get Chad Jackson which obviously didn't pan out, but it's the type of move a lot of people on here want us to constantly do. But not an up-and-down kind of draft.

In 2007, we traded away our second and third. We hit on our 1st rounder (which came via trade oddly enough), then had a late 4th, late 5th, 4 6ths and 2 7ths that we missed on. We moved a bit on two of those picks, but most were comp picks or else we didn't move at all. Obviously not a great draft, but not as if we had a ton to work with either.

In 2008, this was probably the worst draft we did because of the misses in the 2nd and 3rd. But again, we did not move up and down much. The big move was dropping down and selecting Mayo, and the extra pick went towards Crable. Bust, but that was a pick we didn't have and only generated during the draft by moving. We stayed put in the 2nd and drafted a bust. We stayed put in the 3rd and 4th as well.

So the up-and-down nature of business had absolutely nothing to do with the 2006 to 2008 drafts. To blame that style on the poor drafting during those years is absolutely incorrect.

Agree 100%.

However, IMO, the "Crable = Bust" tag should always come with an asterisk. It's not as if he didn't perform due to BB overestimating his talent, but from BB not having the super-prescience to know that Crable (with no prior significant injury history) was going to be on IR for two consecutive seasons. Same could be applied to the McKenzie pick. To include either of them as part of an indictment of BB's drafting is just silly. That would be comparable to saying that the Giants were stupid to have drafted Chad Jones in 2010.

Conversely, Wheatley, though he showed a ton of talent in college, DID have an injury history and was a risky pick, so perhaps BB deserves a "demerit" for making that bet and losing.

***convertedpatsfan*** · 05-02-2011, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaineMan

Agree 100%.

However, IMO, the "Crable = Bust" tag should always come with an asterisk. It's not as if he didn't perform due to BB overestimating his talent, but from BB not having the super-prescience to know that Crable (with no prior significant injury history) was going to be on IR for two consecutive seasons. Same could be applied to the McKenzie pick. To include either of them as part of an indictment of BB's drafting is just silly. That would be comparable to saying that the Giants were stupid to have drafted Chad Jones in 2010.

Conversely, Wheatley, though he showed a ton of talent in college, DID have an injury history and was a risky pick, so perhaps BB deserves a "demerit" for making that bet and losing.

I agree to an extent. I go back and forth on Crable. The injuries played a part, but when he was healthy last year, he didn't do much either. Part of that could be lack of PT stunted his growth. I don't know what to make of him, really.

And I'm sure most will give demerits to BB for taking an injury risk like Wheatley. But to me, those are calculated risks and you can't win every single one. Does that mean you don't try? Sometimes the worst hand in poker wins. It's about measuring the risk vs. the potential reward. For Wheatley, yes, we lost. But if we take 3 or 4 risks like that, we'll win 1 or 2, and they'll be huge wins. Ras-I might be that big win that is worth 5 to 10 lost hands. We don't know, but so long as the proper risk assessment is made, I'm okay with continuing to take those chances. Mallett is a prime example of that, risky choice in the 1st, great risk/reward in the 3rd. Ditto Cannon in the 5th, or Tate in the 3rd in 2009. The hands that lose aren't failures in my mind. They're just hands that didn't work out, but they had to be played.

TriplecHamp · 05-02-2011, 11:46 AM

I don't like the actuall trade itself because I feel like Atl gave up a lot for an unproven player but at the same time, I like the idea of "going for it".

bucky · 05-02-2011, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaineMan

Agree 100%.

However, IMO, the "Crable = Bust" tag should always come with an asterisk. It's not as if he didn't perform due to BB overestimating his talent, but from BB not having the super-prescience to know that Crable (with no prior significant injury history) was going to be on IR for two consecutive seasons.

Well, BB won't put you on the IR with a pulled hammy if he thinks you have a chance of contributing when healthy. Crable was a very bad pick. You're right on your demerit w/regard to Wheatley though.

Synovia · 05-02-2011, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DW Toys

I don't understand why we are so high on BBs Draft ability. It amuses me that he jumps in and out and up and down. He must be bored on Draft day. Our Drafts are mediocre at best if you throw out one year. We hit on one or two players in the past and it was great last year but the average sucks. They did a ranking and we are like 14th. This up and down stuff has not worked out as well as some say.

And yet, we have one of the youngest teams in the NFL, its almost entirely home drafted, and we went 14-2 last year. Hrm.

Synovia · 05-02-2011, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by convertedpatsfan

And I'm sure most will give demerits to BB for taking an injury risk like Wheatley. But to me, those are calculated risks and you can't win every single one.

The Patriots draft in the last 8 or so picks every single year, and because of that, they don't have access to Premium talent that doesn't have some sort of asterisk.

Once you get outside the top 15 or so picks, you no longer get the high-upside, high floor type players. You get guys who either have high floors and low ceilings, or high ceilings and high bust risks (either because of low floor, or because of injury risk, or whatever).

Every year the patriots take a bunch of high ceiling guys knowing that a couple will be outright busts, but one or two will turn into starter quality players. Teams like the Lions/Browns/etc can draft those low ceiling guys and know they'll still be good enough to start. The Patriots have to worry about roster space.

MaineMan · 05-02-2011, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky

Well, BB won't put you on the IR with a pulled hammy if he thinks you have a chance of contributing when healthy. Crable was a very bad pick. You're right on your demerit w/regard to Wheatley though.

Probably not. But Crable did go to IR, so, one might think the injury was something more than a pulled hammy, at least the second go around. I mean, I could see BB redshirting a rookie with a pull if he thought the guy wasn't going to contribute a lot his first season and he had other positions to take care of that he needed the roster spot for. Don't think he'd redshirt the guy for a second consecutive year with a minor injury unless he'd shown amazing promise during his healthy window (which I'm not sure Crable did). Ergo, year two would likely have been something more than minor.

In any case, this IS the Pats were talking about. Probably no team gives up more obscure and misleading injury information. So, if WE are hearing that it was a hammy, it was likely something completely different. Like maybe he tripped and fell down the stairs and landed on his head?

Big Bucks · 05-02-2011, 03:18 PM

If they wanted a good NFL tried and tested WR why didn't they go get Vincent Jackson before he signed his tender. I'm sure San Diego would be willing to take two 1sts.

Ultimatley I'd imagine both players will be on the same amount of money too.

Synovia · 05-02-2011, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Bucks

If they wanted a good NFL tried and tested WR why didn't they go get Vincent Jackson before he signed his tender. I'm sure San Diego would be willing to take two 1sts.

Ultimatley I'd imagine both players will be on the same amount of money too.

Thats actually a pretty good question. Its probably a small chance Jones is better than Jackson, who is already elite, and there's a good chance hes never anywhere near as good.