New England Draft Strategy

[jsull87]

Sorry if this has been in Another thread.

I was just looking over what has happened in the last draft and i am still just amazed that some people don't agree with this strategy.

We would have picked McCourty at 22... instead we traded down to 2 spots to 24 and received a 4th (Aaron Hernandez).

We would have selected him at 24... instead we traded down to 27 picking up a 3rd (Taylor price).

So basically we received a 3rd and a 4th rounder for a guy we were going to pick anyway. You can say what you like about the actual selections themselves (everyone has their own personal preferences) but you can't knock the fact that time and time again we trade down... acquiring more value while still selecting our guy.

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

You are starting something that has been debated many, many times over. BB does tend to trade down if he is reasonably sure he can get his man lower. But he does not always hit on his first choice. Someone will point out that BB passed on (gasp) Clay Matthews -- a stud pass rusher.

 

[Lamanai]

While it is probably so, we cannot be absolutely certain McCourty was their guy all along. Hypothetically, the guy we really wanted could have been grabbed in those intervening selections. No team would ever admit such a thing. Or, in any given year, by trading back you risk losing out on your guy if someone snags him before you get on the clock.

Despite that, I personally favor the trade-back-for-more-picks strategy. I'd take two decent 2nds over a mid-1st most days...JMO

 

[ctpatsfan77]

While it is probably so, we cannot be absolutely certain McCourty was their guy all along. Hypothetically, the guy we really wanted could have been grabbed in those intervening selections. No team would ever admit such a thing. Or, in any given year, by trading back you risk losing out on your guy if someone snags him before you get on the clock.

Despite that, I personally favor the trade-back-for-more-picks strategy. I'd take two decent 2nds over a mid-1st most days...JMO

To modify the OP's hypothesis slightly, they get a guy they definitely wanted at that point in the draft. After all, if they viewed, say, Dez Bryant and Devin McCourty equally (just to use an example), as long as they get one of them, it's worth it to them to trade down.

 

[patchick]

While it is probably so, we cannot be absolutely certain McCourty was their guy all along.

Absolutely sure, no. But surer than with any draft pick in the past, yes -- thanks to the video showing Belichick declining further trade offers, saying we've done enough now, let's just get our guy.

 

[jsull87]

Absolutely sure, no. But surer than with any draft pick in the past, yes -- thanks to the video showing Belichick declining further trade offers, saying we've done enough now, let's just get our guy.

That is what i based the "we would have picked him at 22" about. Because of belichick's comment about taking their guy now.

 

[jsull87]

You are starting something that has been debated many, many times over. BB does tend to trade down if he is reasonably sure he can get his man lower. But he does not always hit on his first choice. Someone will point out that BB passed on (gasp) Clay Matthews -- a stud pass rusher.

I know people will mention the hits and misses... but the point was. Every draft i sit through when we are trading down there generally people who get annoyed with the strategy.

Lets say we wanted Bryant... we still traded down to a spot...24 while creating value (Hernandez) and picking the guy we want.

My post was more in awe of getting the guy you want at the position you want to take him. Instead of just staying put and taking him because that is your draft position.

 

[patchick]

That is what i based the "we would have picked him at 22" about. Because of belichick's comment about taking their guy now.

Yep, I was agreeing with you!

The strategy was the perfect response to an extraordinarily deep draft. As awesome as the Patriots' rookie class has looked, they're far from alone. A lot of guys seem to be as advertised this year. The Pats just have more of them.

You know, one of the few draft classes that's looking really disappointing is the Jets. With an incredible wealth of talent available this year, they came away with just Kyle Wilson, Vlad Ducasse, Joe McKnight and John Conner. Bleah.

 

[jsull87]

Yep, I was agreeing with you!

The strategy was the perfect response to an extraordinarily deep draft. As awesome as the Patriots' rookie class has looked, they're far from alone. A lot of guys seem to be as advertised this year. The Pats just have more of them.

You know, one of the few draft classes that's looking really disappointing is the Jets. With an incredible wealth of talent available this year, they came away with just Kyle Wilson, Vlad Ducasse, Joe McKnight and John Conner. Bleah.

Which is always interesting to see in the great debate between the trade down value and numbers VS the trade up get your guy but if you hit a la Revis your a genius but if you miss a la Gholston you look like an idiot and your team's cap is hindered as a result (specially when you refuse to admit your mistake).

People may say in 2009 pats missed on butler brace e.t.c but those misses are mitigated by the hits of Chung, Vollmer e.t.c because we had the number of picks to absorb any misses.

It's like this year for example. As we have traded picks into the future because we had enough ammunition to do so. as a result this draft it's like we not only have all our own Pats picks... but we essentially have the draft of a struggling 4-12 team because of the Oakland, Carolina and Vikings picks.

 

[DaBruinz]

While it is probably so, we cannot be absolutely certain McCourty was their guy all along.

Actually, if you watched the Draft Room Video, McCourtey was the guy they wanted all along. Before they made the pick, they had someone on the phone wanting the 27th pick and BB can be heard saying, "Let's get OUR guy."

 

[ctpatsfan77]

It's like this year for example. As we have traded picks into the future because we had enough ammunition to do so. as a result this draft it's like we not only have all our own Pats picks... but we essentially have the draft of a struggling 4-12 team because of the Oakland, Carolina and Vikings picks.

It seems almost obvious when you put it that way, but that's a great analogy. :rocker:

 

[patchick]

this draft it's like we not only have all our own Pats picks... but we essentially have the draft of a struggling 4-12 team because of the Oakland, Carolina and Vikings picks.

It will be interesting to see how they use the ammo this year vs. last. I've said this elsewhere (and will doubtless say it a lot more by April! ) but the draft and the roster both look dramatically different for 2011. The Pats should be loaded with young depth at pretty much every position except the interior OL. Role players are all present and accounted for, so going all out for a couple of difference-makers in round 1 could make sense.

 

[Wilfork#75]

It will be interesting to see how they use the ammo this year vs. last. I've said this elsewhere (and will doubtless say it a lot more by April! ) but the draft and the roster both look dramatically different for 2011. The Pats should be loaded with young depth at pretty much every position except the interior OL. Role players are all present and accounted for, so going all out for a couple of difference-makers in round 1 could make sense.

I completely agree with patchick. There are only so many roster sports, even if they are expanded with an 18 game schedule, and there is already a young core in place. What would be the benefit of adding another 10 or 12 draft picks to the current roster? Sure you add more competition and improve some of the lower roster spots, but I believe fewer, higher caliber players at the top of the draft would have more impact. I think with the way the roster is set out that this is the year we could see the Pats move up to get more high end talent.

I also don’t believe the trade up vs. trade down theories are all that contradictory. I believe that depending on your roster that each of these are better than just standing pat and taking the best guy available. If you choose to trade down you only do so if you don’t see any value on the board or you believe “your guy” will still be available at the later pick. If BB didn’t think McCourty would be available at 27 I don’t believe there is any way he would have moved down. Despite what some fans may think BB doesn’t trade down for the sake of trading down, and just because he will have a high pick in 2011 means he will move down. I think both trading up and trading down are both more aggressive draft strategies that both result in you getting “your guy”. If you just stand pat at your position you are just taking your chances that someone falls to you, or you reach for someone that doesn’t offer much value. Either way I’m glad BB is doing the drafting for my team because he is obviously the best at it.

 

[Marqui]

People may say in 2009 pats missed on butler brace

Pats did not miss on Brace...

 

[Off The Grid]

It will be interesting to see how they use the ammo this year vs. last. I've said this elsewhere (and will doubtless say it a lot more by April! ) but the draft and the roster both look dramatically different for 2011. The Pats should be loaded with young depth at pretty much every position except the interior OL. Role players are all present and accounted for, so going all out for a couple of difference-makers in round 1 could make sense.

I completely agree with patchick.

Ah, but the ever-fastidious Sister PatChick posed a theoretical, as she is wont to do: "Going all out for a couple of difference-makers in Round 1 could make sense."

The good lady's acumen is, quite arguably, on par with no less than that of Coach Bill, himself.

But so, indeed, is her circumspection.

There are only so many roster sports, even if they are expanded with an 18 game schedule, and there is already a young core in place. What would be the benefit of adding another 10 or 12 draft picks to the current roster? Sure you add more competition and improve some of the lower roster spots, but I believe fewer, higher caliber players at the top of the draft would have more impact. I think with the way the roster is set out that this is the year we could see the Pats move up to get more high end talent.

We have here an interesting philosophical divergence, my friend.

Only 4 impact players on the 2001 team ~ Willie McGinest, Damien Woody, Richard Seymour, and Emperor Tyraneus ~ were 1st Rounders. And not a one of them were generally considered Super Stars.

My Argument is that it was only with the eruption of our Dynasty...that many of our players became perceived as Super Stars.

My Argument, indeed, is that the league is festooned with hidden gems: Players with the requisite combination of Talent and Heart to become Stars...most of whom ultimately fail to do so, because there are so few Coaching staffs who are adept in unlocking and unleashing their skills.

I believe that the notion of "Talent" is, generally, spectacularly misjudged by the vast majority of media, who ~ unable to explain how a bad team suddenly became great in one year, as in our case ~ write it off to an inexplicable spike in "Talent", while ignoring how god-awfully ridiculous the assertion is...and missing what I consider to be an unfathomably under-appreciated concept: How dramatic the impact on a team's performance of one great Coach can be.

But I don't presume to know the genesis of your thoughts on this, Brother Wilfork, my esteemed collaborator.

My point ~ at last!! ~ is this: I believe that for three reasons, Coach Bill is actually better off continuing his Trade Down approach:

1 ~ Salary Cap Strategy gives an HUGE advantage to an Army consisting of a large number of small but powerfull weapons.

Our extraordinary Depth of Talent gives us an immense ~ albeit: rarely mentioned or understood ~ advantage, over the long haul: The number of utterly vital contributions from guys WAY down the Depth Chart, over the years, has been ENORMOUS. And even with the Greatest QuarterBack in the Galaxy going down, two years ago, we would've won our Divsion ~ and quite possibly gone all the way against a week field ~ if the current Tie Breakers system wasn't such an ATROCITY.

2 ~ It has become shockingly obvious, the last 2 years, that Coach Bill ~ left to his own devices ~ is an AMAZING Prospector.

This thus lends an enormous additional value to those mid and late round Picks that ~ for most teams ~ are long shots and lottery tickets.

3 ~ I believe that Super Stars are not only not needed to build an elite team...

I believe they are harmfull, because they attract a Gravitational Pull that even Coach Bill and General Brady have proven to have difficulty resisting. And that directly distracts a team from the Ball Control + Tenacious D focus that is absolutely essential to winning Super Bowls. You'll remember: Our other 2 1st Rounders, in 2001, were Drew Bledsoe and Terry Glenn.

And as soon as we dropped them both, the team took off like a ROCKET.

In my opinion, that wasn't even remotely a coincidence.

 

[lostjumper]

Another example of this was the Pats trading down from the 7th pick to the 10th pick, but their man was always Mayo. Can't remember what they picked up for the trouble, but it was a good move.

 

[MaineMan]

Another example of this was the Pats trading down from the 7th pick to the 10th pick, but their man was always Mayo. Can't remember what they picked up for the trouble, but it was a good move.

Mr. Crable.

 

[MaineMan]

Seems to me that BB simply rates the players using his own version of the oft-cited NFP scale and specifically vis-a-vis the Pats - as opposed to some "intrinsic talent". So, he might come up with a few guys at various positions that he rates in the 7.0-7.5 range (for the Pats specifically) and a cubic buttload more in the 6.7-7.0 range, etc.

Then, he formulates his best guess as to how the other teams in the market might value these guys in terms of how early in the queue they're likely to get picked.

So, maybe he rates Bryant and McCourty equally, but guesses that the market will have McCourty rated much lower - even lower than the #22 pick. He also notes that there are a couple guys he rates in the high-6s/low 7s that he sees the market likely to undervalue. He can either take Bryant with the #22 or trade down for more opportunities to pick up a high-6/low-7 guy later. As long as he feels he can stay ahead of the other specific players who might have McCourty rated higher than most, he's good. So, he lets Bryant go, figuring that he can still get McCourty plus some extra value

OTOH, if there's a guy - perhaps a 3-4DE named Richard Seymour - who he has rated as an 8.0 (or nearly so), maybe he hangs on to the Raiders' pick at #15 (say) until the last possible minute, just before Seymour falls in range of a team that also likely has him rated high and has a need. Then, he executes a trade to move up to #13 to snag him.


Stating the obvious.

Obviously.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Sorry if this has been in Another thread.

I was just looking over what has happened in the last draft and i am still just amazed that some people don't agree with this strategy.

We would have picked McCourty at 22... instead we traded down to 2 spots to 24 and received a 4th (Aaron Hernandez).

We would have selected him at 24... instead we traded down to 27 picking up a 3rd (Taylor price).

So basically we received a 3rd and a 4th rounder for a guy we were going to pick anyway. You can say what you like about the actual selections themselves (everyone has their own personal preferences) but you can't knock the fact that time and time again we trade down... acquiring more value while still selecting our guy.

Actually I think BB was looking at 3 CB's and all were on the board when the Pats first came up to draft. So he moved down and again all three were still there, so he moved down again. I think the third time we came up, there were only two left and clearly McCourty was the one he wanted all along.

Interestingly enough, a few years ago he wanted a DE in the first round and there were four or five guys that fit the bill. He figured two or three would still be there when he picked. However there was a run on them and he got so juiced by the run, that he traded up one spot with Chicago so no one else could swoop in and snatch Warren from us.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Seems to me that BB simply rates the players using his own version of the oft-cited NFP scale and specifically vis-a-vis the Pats - as opposed to some "intrinsic talent". So, he might come up with a few guys at various positions that he rates in the 7.0-7.5 range (for the Pats specifically) and a cubic buttload more in the 6.7-7.0 range, etc.

Then, he formulates his best guess as to how the other teams in the market might value these guys in terms of how early in the queue they're likely to get picked.

So, maybe he rates Bryant and McCourty equally, but guesses that the market will have McCourty rated much lower - even lower than the #22 pick. He also notes that there are a couple guys he rates in the high-6s/low 7s that he sees the market likely to undervalue. He can either take Bryant with the #22 or trade down for more opportunities to pick up a high-6/low-7 guy later. As long as he feels he can stay ahead of the other specific players who might have McCourty rated higher than most, he's good. So, he lets Bryant go, figuring that he can still get McCourty plus some extra value

OTOH, if there's a guy - perhaps a 3-4DE named Richard Seymour - who he has rated as an 8.0 (or nearly so), maybe he hangs on to the Raiders' pick at #15 (say) until the last possible minute, just before Seymour falls in range of a team that also likely has him rated high and has a need. Then, he executes a trade to move up to #13 to snag him.


Stating the obvious.

Obviously.

There is no doubt in my mind that BB rates prospects differently than most NFL teams.

He rates them based on how they fit in his offense/defense and better grades are given if they can contribute in other areas. (For example two CB's with the same grade, but one can contribute on ST and one can't)

What BB does in the first round that is so different from the draftniks and other personnel men is he places a premium on guys that are easiest to project in his system. In other words, he places less importance on ceilings and floors than he does on how the existing player will performance in his system given the skillset the player shows on tape.

Vollmer is the perfect example. In college he excelled in a zone blocking scheme like ours. So while the draftniks rate Vollmer as a 5th or 6th rounder, BB rates him much higher. Why, because there is less projection needed to evaluate Vollmer in our system.