Scouts Inc. casts critical eye on Pats' draft strategy

[Pat the Pats Fan]

nice find on this about the BB/Tree.......Don't think anyone saw this,before you:rocker:

thanks......

 

[Jackson 2]

Them that can do, do. Them that can't do write or teach.

Congratulations. You just catapulted yourself into the #1 DB (and I don't mean defensive back) position ever on this board - and that covers some territory.

 

[They_Hate_We]

Look...Matt Millen played on 4 Super Bowl teams. He then became one of those analyst "experts" that decides who is a difference maker and who isn't. Then he took a giant dump on the city of Detroit for years.

the point? I have no idea what makes BB pick who he picks. I do know that the Patriots constantly field one of the better teams in the league on a year to year basis.

Guess that makes me a kool-aid drinking homer. I'll accept that. At least I get to watch some good competitive football every year.

 

[RussFrancis]

This writer is just picking on the wrong draft. And who better to do that than someone with virtually no credibility to do so?

 

[Ghost of Ben Dreith]

Couple of comments.....

People defending the Pats trade down based on this year's draft alone need to widen their view a bit. The article was talking about the past few drafts....and imo...he had a point.


Understand this also.....the Pats are who they are with a big thank you to Mr. Tom Brady also and if you all remember.....even he questioned the lack of talent at WR the year before the unbeaten regular season and "forced" management to step up to the plate.

All the Patriot talent be damned....just as the Colts wouldn't be as good as they have been without Manning, the Pats would be nowhere near as good without Brady...the only reason I state this obvious point is that there are teams in the league with better overall talent than the Pats....but they don't have Tom Brady.....so I'm sorry.....I can't drink the koolaid over our previous drafting results for the most part.

With the draft bounty coming up next year.....I really hope they use them, for a change.

 

[SpiderFox53]

Couple of comments.....

People defending the Pats trade down based on this year's draft alone need to widen their view a bit. The article was talking about the past few drafts....and imo...he had a point.


Understand this also.....the Pats are who they are with a big thank you to Mr. Tom Brady also and if you all remember.....even he questioned the lack of talent at WR the year before the unbeaten regular season and "forced" management to step up to the plate.

All the Patriot talent be damned....just as the Colts wouldn't be as good as they have been without Manning, the Pats would be nowhere near as good without Brady...the only reason I state this obvious point is that there are teams in the league with better overall talent than the Pats....but they don't have Tom Brady.....so I'm sorry.....I can't drink the koolaid over our previous drafting results for the most part.

With the draft bounty coming up next year.....I really hope they use them, for a change.

Yes the Pats had a couple of bad drafts. But all things considered I believe they are still more succesful with thier draft stategy than the majority of the other teams in the league. And. While I agree that TB is the player that can make the Pats a GREAT team, they are a good team even without him. I submit into evidence 2008.

 

[eagle eye]

Pretty remarkable when you look at it this way.

Only 4 teams had 5 picks in the first 100 taken; Pats, Browns, Chiefs and Broncos. Anyone see a pattern there?

Reminds me of this article from a long time ago. Really, really funny.

Exposing Bill Belichick's evil plot to take down all of football - ESPN

 

[Marqui]

Whatever, it's a good strategy imo.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't really see what the fuss with the article is all about. Questioning the trade down strategy is a legitimate thing to do, no matter which side of the issue you eventually end up on.

I think people are confusing one aspect of Belichick's strategy, which is to look to drop if you've got a group of players that you like all the same and could still get one of them at a lower pick, and the other aspect of such strategy, which is to get players when you prefer a specific choice rather than one of a group. Belichick touched upon how he sees this 'value' in his interview on WEEI yesterday. Those of you who missed that might want to go to WEEI.com and take a listen.

 

[eom]

matt williamson is a tremendous dumba$$.

I could say I'm casting a critical eye, but I'd rather just be honest about it.

 

[PATSNUTme]

He does raise a point in that you do have to draft players that improve your team.

What he misses is that the Patriots did just that with one of their best drafts in recent years.

 

[ausbacker]

Couple of comments.....

People defending the Pats trade down based on this year's draft alone need to widen their view a bit. The article was talking about the past few drafts....and imo...he had a point.


Understand this also.....the Pats are who they are with a big thank you to Mr. Tom Brady also and if you all remember.....even he questioned the lack of talent at WR the year before the unbeaten regular season and "forced" management to step up to the plate.

All the Patriot talent be damned....just as the Colts wouldn't be as good as they have been without Manning, the Pats would be nowhere near as good without Brady...the only reason I state this obvious point is that there are teams in the league with better overall talent than the Pats....but they don't have Tom Brady.....so I'm sorry.....I can't drink the koolaid over our previous drafting results for the most part.

With the draft bounty coming up next year.....I really hope they use them, for a change.

Why? That Patriots have gone 16-0, 11-5 and 10-6 in the past 3 seasons whilst drafting with the same approach and the same free agent veteran approach.

The 2009 and 2010 Drafts are the best the Patriots have done in a while on face value and I look forward to the next 3-4 years to see the players evolve.

 

[Tunescribe]

Them that can do, do. Them that can't do write or teach.

I think Aristotle, Shakespeare and Hemingway would take issue with this.

 

[eom]

what could aristotle do?

 

[moosekill]

Re: Scouts Inc. casts critical eye on Pats

Precisely. The Detroit Lions say, "hello" with all of their superior draft picks thru the years.

And for all you Dez Bryant fans, anyone remember what position the Lions drafted over and over again? How did that work out for them?

 

[Tunescribe]

what could aristotle do?

Teach. Point being, where would we be without teachers and writers?

 

[BSR]

I don't really see what the fuss with the article is all about. Questioning the trade down strategy is a legitimate thing to do, no matter which side of the issue you eventually end up on.

I think people are confusing one aspect of Belichick's strategy, which is to look to drop if you've got a group of players that you like all the same and could still get one of them at a lower pick, and the other aspect of such strategy, which is to get players when you prefer a specific choice rather than one of a group. Belichick touched upon how he sees this 'value' in his interview on WEEI yesterday. Those of you who missed that might want to go to WEEI.com and take a listen.

No. This article's criticism is flawed. It tries to make the argument that BB hasn't drafted many playmakers in the last four years and blames it on the trade down strategy. Yet, that really doesn't make sense unless he is trying to make the claim that you can't possibly select playmakers after a certain point. That of course is false because playmakers can be found in every round of a draft although they become harder and harder to find as the draft goes on.

So at what point have you traded down so far that you have significantly impaired your ability to pick a playmaker? If the argument is that only first round draft picks are likely playmakers then BB is doing right about average or better. First round picks tend to have a 50% success rate. Even according to this article BB has found 2 playmakers out of the first round of the last four years for a 50% success rate. So the argument isn't valid that he traded down too much out of the first round as his success rate is at least average over the past four years.

So what if we expand the rounds where the likelyhood of selecting playmakers is the first two rounds? His argument makes even less sense as BB has had 11 picks as compared to the typical 8 a team is awarded. That is 3 more shots at playmakers compared to the average team.

Expanding it to the third round is even worse, as BB has enjoyed 4 more picks then the typical team in this range.

So no, questioning the trade down strategy isn't really a legitamate thing to do. In fact it is really quite the opposite. This strategy has resulted in the team having more then the typical number of picks in the top end of the draft where there is a greater chance of selecting a playmaker. What I think IS a valid criticism is who BB selects with those picks. Now that would be a VALID criticism.

 

[Joker]

Teach. Point being, where would we be without teachers and writers?

all alone at the bottom of the sea with 5 million lawyers

 

[Deus Irae]

No. This article's criticism is flawed. It tries to make the argument that BB hasn't drafted many playmakers in the last four years and blames it on the trade down strategy. Yet, that really doesn't make sense unless he is trying to make the claim that you can't possibly select playmakers after a certain point. That of course is false because playmakers can be found in every round of a draft although they become harder and harder to find as the draft goes on.

So at what point have you traded down so far that you have significantly impaired your ability to pick a playmaker? If the argument is that only first round draft picks are likely playmakers then BB is doing right about average or better. First round picks tend to have a 50% success rate. Even according to this article BB has found 2 playmakers out of the first round of the last four years for a 50% success rate. So the argument isn't valid that he traded down too much out of the first round as his success rate is at least average over the past four years.

So what if we expand the rounds where the likelyhood of selecting playmakers is the first two rounds? His argument makes even less sense as BB has had 11 picks as compared to the typical 8 a team is awarded. That is 3 more shots at playmakers compared to the average team.

Expanding it to the third round is even worse, as BB has enjoyed 4 more picks then the typical team in this range.

So no, questioning the trade down strategy isn't really a legitamate thing to do. In fact it is really quite the opposite. This strategy has resulted in the team having more then the typical number of picks in the top end of the draft where there is a greater chance of selecting a playmaker. What I think IS a valid criticism is who BB selects with those picks. Now that would be a VALID criticism.

Belichick's draft history results with the Patriots would seem to go against you. Taking Brady (6th round, obvious 'luck' pick as opposed to the comprehensive strategies we're discussing) out of the equation, who are the best 5 draft picks of the BB era?

Seymour
Wilfork
Warren
Mankins
Light


The trade down strategy really wasn't being implemented there. Then, adding Meriweather and Mayo to the mix, you get a trade down for Mayo, but the pick was still in the top ten of the entire draft.

 

[mcmurtry86]

Belichick's draft history results with the Patriots would seem to go against you. Taking Brady (6th round, obvious 'luck' pick as opposed to the comprehensive strategies we're discussing) out of the equation, who are the best 5 draft picks of the BB era?

Seymour
Wilfork
Warren
Mankins
Light


The trade down strategy really wasn't being implemented there. Then, adding Meriweather and Mayo to the mix, you get a trade down for Mayo, but the pick was still in the top ten of the entire draft.

And he got that top 10 pick by trading out of the 2007 first round