Off The Grid

You drafted the CornerBack.

You took a bite.

And then you drafted another CornerBack.



That's like drafting an whole Secondary!!

From now on, when you draft a CornerBack, just take one bite...and end it!!



Well, I'm sorry, Timmy...

I don't draft that way.

__________________

Off The Grid

No need to read any article: This is a theme that's been kicked around these parts for years.

And frankly, I think there's nothing to it.

There's no particular advantage to doubling down, so why would he make a point to do so?

__________________

Why?PJ

yea, because BB has been doing it for years.

The advantage is you get 2 players at a position of need, and hopefully they can learn from each other and both become decent players. Or at least one of them is good.

But there is certainly an advantage of 2 players coming in trying to learn a new system together.

__________________
Silence is Golden
I have been broken
Safe in my own skin
So nobody wins

Off The Grid

Unsubstantiated, sarcastic drivel is no substitute for a point. Simmer down.

What I'm saying ~ quite clearly ~ is that I highly doubt he makes a point to Double Dip.

Yet I'm more than open to the possibility that he makes it a point to do so.

But your weak, blank assertion will hardly suffice to persuade me, my friend.

***

In the natural ebb and flow of things, any team will often draft two guys of the same position, without any particular strategy to do so, simply based on who they think is the BPA at each of their Picks, throughout the course of the Draft. That's obvious...right?

And while Synergy and Collaboration are good Arguments in support of this notion of Deliberate Double Dipping, they are perfectly counterbalanced ~ some would say: overwhelmed ~ by the obvious perils of infusing a disproportionately large influx of Inexperience at one position...don't you think?

I, myself, have often been criticized for precisely that thing ~ too much Youth and Inexperience ~ in my Mocks, as I like to festoon my Mock Rosters with Rookies.

But I do so because I prefer a talented Rookie to a talentless Veteran, not because of some notion that Double Dipping on Rookies is, in and of itself, an especially smart move.

__________________

rookBoston

Chandler Jones and Jake Bequette... two of the top four picks at the same position. Fits.

__________________
"We want to build a big, strong, tough, smart, fast, disciplined football team that will consistently compete for a championship."
-- Scott Pioli, from the Patriots scouting manual

fester

Let's make a few assumptions:

1) The Patriots will often determine that they don't like a particular unit/position coach grouping on their current roster and would like to fix that problem in the draft

2) Within each position group, there are unique twists/sub-positions such as Will versus Sam, Move versus Inline, Flanker versus Slot.

3) The draft is uncertain, the #1 pick has a probability of failure, and the #256 pick has a probability of failure. These probabilities are very different, but they are non-zero.

4) The Patriots seem to adapt a combination draft grading strategy of BPA at a position of need and value grouping/clustering.

5) The success/failure of each rookie is mostly independent of each other (minimal co-variance)

So with these assumptions, going into a draft with the determination that the plan is to hopefully fix one area of the team if there is anything vaguely resembling a BPA at a position of need/value group fit, double-dipping makes sense as it providers some protection against failure of a single rookie or at least identifies the failure point as systemic (position coach, general scheme or talent evaluation process), plus it allows the Patriots to address the different components of a position group.

We may be making a mountain out of a mole-hill here, as one could argue that the Patriots were intent on drafting a TE in 2010 with Gronk and could not believe their luck that Hernandez who they rated highly, was still available at a dirt cheap pick so they lucked into an accidental double-draft. one could argue that the Patriots were not looking to doubledraft OTs or RBs last year, or 4-3DE/3-4 OLB projects this year or OTs in 2002 etc. But there seems to be a pattern where the Patriots double-draft position groups between rounds 1 through 4 (I figure anything after 4 is almost purely a BPA/single role flyer that a different strategy is in play there), and at least one of the double drafted players get significant playing time very early on
because they either beat out veterans, or there really were not any entrenched vet starters.

One or two double drafts could be coincidence, but I think we are at a pattern point by now.

__________________
Come on over to the Newshoggers for blogging on economics, football, policy analysis,and beer:


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ay-yo

Great post fester. I'd also look at the state of our roster at the times of the double dip.

Ben Watson, starting TE for multiple seasons, signs w/ another team in March 2010. We don't sign a starting TE before the draft. Gronk and Hernandez are drafted in April 2010.

We had no LT on the roster in April 2011. Previous starter Matt Light was thinking about retirement. We took Solder and Cannon.

Woodhead was the only RB on the roster in April 2011. Previous starter BJGE was a FA. We draft Ridley and Vereen.

Previous starter (Carter) and #2 DE (Anderson) are both not on our roster. Carter looks to be a ways off from playing still. Patriots have only added Scott who has not done much in previous two seasons. We add Jones and Bequette.

Coincidence? There's too much evidence for me to believe that. Need is clearly part of the grade assigned to prospects.