- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 33,964
- Reaction score
- 14,420
To me, this draft has crystalized some things I think we think, to use MMQB/Peter King talk. Every now and then, a Pats' draft puts an exclamation point on the actual draft style/thinking. You can't read much into it, but here's what I think you can read into it.
1. Stockpiling Picks: General value principle, augmented by "target-richness" of environment.
2010 was a target-rich environment, as our friends in uniform may say. Regardless, the Pats worked the hell out of the phones, and even pushed some picks into '11.
With the depth of this draft, this confirms that the value approach is not predicated on the richness of any one environment. Situationally it may happen in any given draft that the guy we want is there and is the best value at exactly that spot, for many spots. However, the value approach will continue to come into play.
It is unlikely that there will ever be a draft in which the Pats don't drive us nuts in this way.
1a. Underlying principle: low probability of payoff = long-term wisdom in multiplying number of picks, recovering some position of picks by one-year offset premium.
In a word, we're not desperate. Some other teams are. They will gladly pay us two dollars on tuesday for a one-dollar cheeseburger today.
With even the most blue-chip prospects subject to wash-out - the state of affairs in the NFL draft - the underlying principle is that you have twice as many shots in the crap shoot with twice as many draft picks. You also pay less if you don't draft in the top 10.
2. The McCourty Pick: Special Teams don't just matter. They are 1/3 of the game, as BB continually says. We're so used to Billspeak that we gloss over references to "all three phases of the game," and the like. McCourty and to a lesser extent Mesko (and earlier, Gotskowski) picks underline this.
Now: the Bethel Johnson slow-burn washout tells us just how much stock we can put in this principle. We the fans are slightly off-base in thinking "if he can't produce you stash him on special teams until he can." Just a hair. The reality is, BB seems capable of drafting a professional special teamer, with the added bonus of positional depth. BUT a high-pick professional special teamer that stays that way had better be a monster talent or he's gone. He's expected to grow into an offensive or defensive contributor within his rookie deal. So if McCourty sees only spot action in the D don't be too surprised. Starting the "run on Punters" by punking the Ravens on the Mesko pick reinforces my impression of this thinking.
3. Department of Urban Development. This draft more than any before underscores the Florida Connection. To a fan, the question is why. I think it says a lot about the relationship, which is obvious. But without any back-end fleshing out of what's happening, the relationship is a necessary but not sufficient condition for this year's outcome.
I can nearly guarantee that it is virtually impossible that 3 Gators, out of all the programs in the country, were the best available for those specific draft slots. However, what I cannot do is tell you who's better (I know, I know, you can. But you're likely wrong.)
The outcome of this little statement of the obvious tells us something about how BB/the Pats view the draft: It's not that they're extremely good or extremely bad about player evaluation. They are just extremely good about the importance and validity of talent evaluation.
BB knows the odds too. He knows how many programs there are in the country. The Pats are certainly thorough in their scouting depatment. But Meyer represents depth of knowledge of one program. Bill weighs Urban's information on the "pipeline" players he has that year, because a head coach knows more about his guys than the scouts can find out in a few months.
This doesn't point to believing Florida's players are that good. It points to BB finding another way to up the odds of turning up good players - not necessarily superstars, good players. Yes, I know it didn't work with CJack. The theory is it will work more often than not.
The principle upheld is that the draft is a crapshoot, and that the Pats' philosophy is to beat the odds. Nature abhors a vacuum, and BB abhors a vacuum of information.
Addressing Need Via The Draft. The style of this draft was an excellent lesson in the Need/Value continuum. If it's extremely unlikely a guy will pan out at a position of relative need, and your roster is stocked with guys you think are extremely good, you look for value, without regard to position. Just because you have 52 "10s" and one "9" doesn't mean you abandon value to replace the 9 with a 10.
If you have a couple of 6s, then you get concerned - draft and free agency are the main way to address those concerns. We've seen in prior years that BB likes to fix areas of need with FA acquisitions. But like everything, those too are subject to uncertainty. Obviously, I'm thinking of OLB especially.
Sure, he tried the veteran FA route. We don't know the situational calculus that brought A.T. here - seemed a good fit, but did not pan out. But with that "find" now judged a miss, BB is back to taking more shots, this time through the draft. Moral: it's a mix. Value doesn't mean you never address a need. It means getting the most bang for the pick.
Perenniel > 1 year, or even 3. My main critique of draftniks is that year after year, they become enamored of a given year's crop (or believe that what they think they know about 1 or in extreme cases 2 years out defines draft strategy.)
As many here have put it, BB is "rebuilding" this team. You wouldn't know it by playoff appearances. We the fans get panicky about Life After Tom. It likely won't be pretty, especially compared to Life With Tom. A mini-concern is Life After Randy.
But once again, panic is not the way to keep a team at or close to the top in multi-year increments.
Your favorite binky receiver is not earth-shatteringly important. The young developmental QB is not screamingly important. We'd like the kid to be ready (O'Connell, at this writing,) if needed. We'd always like more possible future Randys. But the fact is, you can't draft Randy again. You can draft Dez Bryant, or you can draft Taylor Price in the third round, with the fifth pick you use. But you can't draft Randy. In effect, the principle is that Brady can make a serviceable receiver out of Reche Caldwell. We'll be okay. Better a new Randy (not to mention an extra Wes) than not, but the sky won't fall if any given need is not immediately addressed. That is the other side of "value": If you're good already, you can be calm in the draft. Calm is not complacent. It's calm. Calm people make better decisions than panicky b1tches. This is why pros handle the draft rather than fans.
I don't think anybody on the Pats' staff is unaware of Brady's significance. I also don't think anybody on the Pats' staff is likely - even in Brady's twilight - to start thinking "the future is now."
Now is now. The future is the future. Bearing this in mind seems an important building block to ensuring that there is a future.
Final coda: I know I write too long, and I know in stating what principles I think I'm observing, I'm stating the obvious and often restating others' observations. To anybody who I'm echoing here, consider it force multiplying rather than plagiarism.
To anybody who disagrees, fu(k you. But I mean that in the most fraternal "we're all patsfans here" way.
PFnV
1. Stockpiling Picks: General value principle, augmented by "target-richness" of environment.
2010 was a target-rich environment, as our friends in uniform may say. Regardless, the Pats worked the hell out of the phones, and even pushed some picks into '11.
With the depth of this draft, this confirms that the value approach is not predicated on the richness of any one environment. Situationally it may happen in any given draft that the guy we want is there and is the best value at exactly that spot, for many spots. However, the value approach will continue to come into play.
It is unlikely that there will ever be a draft in which the Pats don't drive us nuts in this way.
1a. Underlying principle: low probability of payoff = long-term wisdom in multiplying number of picks, recovering some position of picks by one-year offset premium.
In a word, we're not desperate. Some other teams are. They will gladly pay us two dollars on tuesday for a one-dollar cheeseburger today.
With even the most blue-chip prospects subject to wash-out - the state of affairs in the NFL draft - the underlying principle is that you have twice as many shots in the crap shoot with twice as many draft picks. You also pay less if you don't draft in the top 10.
2. The McCourty Pick: Special Teams don't just matter. They are 1/3 of the game, as BB continually says. We're so used to Billspeak that we gloss over references to "all three phases of the game," and the like. McCourty and to a lesser extent Mesko (and earlier, Gotskowski) picks underline this.
Now: the Bethel Johnson slow-burn washout tells us just how much stock we can put in this principle. We the fans are slightly off-base in thinking "if he can't produce you stash him on special teams until he can." Just a hair. The reality is, BB seems capable of drafting a professional special teamer, with the added bonus of positional depth. BUT a high-pick professional special teamer that stays that way had better be a monster talent or he's gone. He's expected to grow into an offensive or defensive contributor within his rookie deal. So if McCourty sees only spot action in the D don't be too surprised. Starting the "run on Punters" by punking the Ravens on the Mesko pick reinforces my impression of this thinking.
3. Department of Urban Development. This draft more than any before underscores the Florida Connection. To a fan, the question is why. I think it says a lot about the relationship, which is obvious. But without any back-end fleshing out of what's happening, the relationship is a necessary but not sufficient condition for this year's outcome.
I can nearly guarantee that it is virtually impossible that 3 Gators, out of all the programs in the country, were the best available for those specific draft slots. However, what I cannot do is tell you who's better (I know, I know, you can. But you're likely wrong.)
The outcome of this little statement of the obvious tells us something about how BB/the Pats view the draft: It's not that they're extremely good or extremely bad about player evaluation. They are just extremely good about the importance and validity of talent evaluation.
BB knows the odds too. He knows how many programs there are in the country. The Pats are certainly thorough in their scouting depatment. But Meyer represents depth of knowledge of one program. Bill weighs Urban's information on the "pipeline" players he has that year, because a head coach knows more about his guys than the scouts can find out in a few months.
This doesn't point to believing Florida's players are that good. It points to BB finding another way to up the odds of turning up good players - not necessarily superstars, good players. Yes, I know it didn't work with CJack. The theory is it will work more often than not.
The principle upheld is that the draft is a crapshoot, and that the Pats' philosophy is to beat the odds. Nature abhors a vacuum, and BB abhors a vacuum of information.
Addressing Need Via The Draft. The style of this draft was an excellent lesson in the Need/Value continuum. If it's extremely unlikely a guy will pan out at a position of relative need, and your roster is stocked with guys you think are extremely good, you look for value, without regard to position. Just because you have 52 "10s" and one "9" doesn't mean you abandon value to replace the 9 with a 10.
If you have a couple of 6s, then you get concerned - draft and free agency are the main way to address those concerns. We've seen in prior years that BB likes to fix areas of need with FA acquisitions. But like everything, those too are subject to uncertainty. Obviously, I'm thinking of OLB especially.
Sure, he tried the veteran FA route. We don't know the situational calculus that brought A.T. here - seemed a good fit, but did not pan out. But with that "find" now judged a miss, BB is back to taking more shots, this time through the draft. Moral: it's a mix. Value doesn't mean you never address a need. It means getting the most bang for the pick.
Perenniel > 1 year, or even 3. My main critique of draftniks is that year after year, they become enamored of a given year's crop (or believe that what they think they know about 1 or in extreme cases 2 years out defines draft strategy.)
As many here have put it, BB is "rebuilding" this team. You wouldn't know it by playoff appearances. We the fans get panicky about Life After Tom. It likely won't be pretty, especially compared to Life With Tom. A mini-concern is Life After Randy.
But once again, panic is not the way to keep a team at or close to the top in multi-year increments.
Your favorite binky receiver is not earth-shatteringly important. The young developmental QB is not screamingly important. We'd like the kid to be ready (O'Connell, at this writing,) if needed. We'd always like more possible future Randys. But the fact is, you can't draft Randy again. You can draft Dez Bryant, or you can draft Taylor Price in the third round, with the fifth pick you use. But you can't draft Randy. In effect, the principle is that Brady can make a serviceable receiver out of Reche Caldwell. We'll be okay. Better a new Randy (not to mention an extra Wes) than not, but the sky won't fall if any given need is not immediately addressed. That is the other side of "value": If you're good already, you can be calm in the draft. Calm is not complacent. It's calm. Calm people make better decisions than panicky b1tches. This is why pros handle the draft rather than fans.
I don't think anybody on the Pats' staff is unaware of Brady's significance. I also don't think anybody on the Pats' staff is likely - even in Brady's twilight - to start thinking "the future is now."
Now is now. The future is the future. Bearing this in mind seems an important building block to ensuring that there is a future.
Final coda: I know I write too long, and I know in stating what principles I think I'm observing, I'm stating the obvious and often restating others' observations. To anybody who I'm echoing here, consider it force multiplying rather than plagiarism.
To anybody who disagrees, fu(k you. But I mean that in the most fraternal "we're all patsfans here" way.
PFnV