The Belichick Draft Philosophy

[MaineMan]

My hats of to you! Excellent summary of BB draft process.

Agree! Kudos!

 

[Off The Grid]

* I think the biggest roadblock to developing homegrown OLB's is BB's inability to trust this position to inexperienced players.

* That is why Cunningham represents a huge shift in drafting philosophy for BB and why this year, we may finally see that elusive stud pass rusher drafted early.

Oh, man, that post was exquisite.

 

[Off The Grid]

*I don't know........I think its as simple as using your day 1 and day 2 picks on OL and DL until you simply can't upgrade the position...

AMEN, Brother!! :rocker:

I honestly think it is JUST that simple.

There are other ways to build Championships teams, for sure...

But that way IS the time-honored MOST effective way, going ALL the way back.

 

[Snake Eyes]

AMEN, Brother!! :rocker:

I honestly think it is JUST that simple.

There are other ways to build Championships teams, for sure...

But that way IS the time-honored MOST effective way, going ALL the way back.

The Steelers have made no secret of their regret of not taking Dan Marino as opposed to Gabe Rivera, even if Rivera turned out to be a stud it's very unlikely that he would have had the kind of impact that someone like Marino had.

While I am all about the lines I think taking the players who represent the greatest impact is the best way to build a team. Upgrading our backup nose tackle likely won't provide the same return on investment that a stud linebacker will have.

It's all about impact.

 

[patchick]

The Steelers have made no secret of their regret of not taking Dan Marino as opposed to Gabe Rivera, even if Rivera turned out to be a stud it's very unlikely that he would have had the kind of impact that someone like Marino had.

IMO quarterbacks are a totally different sphere. If you don't have a starting QB, all bets are off. Happily, though, the Patriots haven't been in that situation for many years.

BTW, thanks to everybody for a very interesting thread. Lots of food for thought.

 

[Snake Eyes]

IMO quarterbacks are a totally different sphere. If you don't have a starting QB, all bets are off. Happily, though, the Patriots haven't been in that situation for many years.

BTW, thanks to everybody for a very interesting thread. Lots of food for thought.

The impact analysis still holds true though, the QB just happens to be the position that carries the most impact. I rather doubt a slight increase on a line position will have more weight than going from Deltha O'Neil to Darelle Revis.

 

[patchick]

The impact analysis still holds true though, the QB just happens to be the position that carries the most impact. I rather doubt a slight increase on a line position will have more weight than going from Deltha O'Neil to Darelle Revis.

I agree, but I don't think that's wildly incompatible with a lines-first philosophy. It's just a matter of saying that until you have a starter you feel confident in at QB and each line position, those will be the highest impact positions to draft. (Not saying that's my philosophy, BTW; it depends on the talent in the draft. E.g. last year a starter was needed at DE, but the stud CB option represented a greater expected impact than the meh DE option.)

 

[Snake Eyes]

I agree, but I don't think that's wildly incompatible with a lines-first philosophy. It's just a matter of saying that until you have a starter you feel confident in at QB and each line position, those will be the highest impact positions to draft. (Not saying that's my philosophy, BTW; it depends on the talent in the draft. E.g. last year a starter was needed at DE, but the stud CB option represented a greater expected impact than the meh DE option.)

I understand what you're saying, I think it might be better to think of it as a "lines emphasis" philosophy, which I totally agree with, as opposed to strictly "lines first" philosophy.

The lines are the first point of contact with the enemy, which is going to cause a bigger ripple than the positions further back, which should make one weigh them more relative to the other positions, however that doesn't impede a particular player behind the line to have a greater potential impact then the guy on the line.

I do think there is a bit of a difference in weighing the O-line v. the D-line, as the D-line can directly impact the game to a higher relative extent, they do things directly where as the O-line only facilitates the one moving the ball, which causes some of the value to shift from the O-line to those in the backfield.

BTW, what exactly is your personnel philosophy?

 

[patchick]

BTW, what exactly is your personnel philosophy?

Oh. Err...

I guess I'd say that in the top half of the draft I look for "impact" (expected incremental improvement to the team over a multiyear period), via a filter of global rarity and tactical draft positioning/availability.

That's straightforward, right? :bricks:

Positions like DL and OT tend to rate high on my boards because they offer a combo of on-field importance + global rarity, plus the team's excellent hit rate drafting them high improves the expected impact.

 

[Ron Sellers]

This may be overly simplistic, but BPA + Need = Value.

That would apply to any team or coach, not just the Pats and Belichick.



If you want to make it more complex then you can factor in number of quality players at that position as well. An example would be last year with McCourty. If the Pats missed out on him at the point they drafted him, there was a dropoff after that at the position.

That could conceivably come into play this year with the 1b and 2a picks, for example. At 1b they could be looking at a DE or an OLB, but there are three at DE they grade close together but only one OLB left that they graded highly, and then a big cliff to the next highest rated OLB. It would make sense to take the OLB at 1b in this scenario, and then the best of those three DE at 2a - even if that DE is rated higher on their big board than that OLB.

 

[Off The Grid]

I don't know........I think its as simple as using your day 1 and day 2 picks on OL and DL until you simply can't upgrade the position...

AMEN, Brother!! :rocker:

I honestly think it is JUST that simple.

There are other ways to build Championships teams, for sure...

But that way IS the time-honored MOST effective way, going ALL the way back.

The Steelers have made no secret of their regret of not taking Dan Marino as opposed to Gabe Rivera, even if Rivera turned out to be a stud it's very unlikely that he would have had the kind of impact that someone like Marino had.

What impact was that?

Marino was jolly good fun, but he didn't win any rings, now, did he?

Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, and COUNTLESS other mediocre QB's, on the other hand, HAVE won Championships.

Shall I remind you why?

Or would you like to pan up and read the original quote?

It All Starts In The Trenches, baby.

 

[patchick]

What impact was that?

Marino was jolly good fun, but he didn't win any rings, now, did he?

Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, and COUNTLESS other mediocre QB's, on the other hand, HAVE won Championships.

Shall I remind you why?

Or would you like to pan up and read the original quote?

It All Starts In The Trenches, baby.

I gather from this analysis that you'd happily trade Brady to Oakland to get Seymour back?

 

[Off The Grid]

What impact was that?

Marino was jolly good fun, but he didn't win any rings, now, did he?

Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, and COUNTLESS other mediocre QB's, on the other hand, HAVE won Championships.

Shall I remind you why?

Or would you like to pan up and read the original quote?

It All Starts In The Trenches, baby.

I gather from this analysis that you'd happily trade Brady to Oakland to get Seymour back?

What're you high?

 

[Snake Eyes]

What impact was that?

Marino was jolly good fun, but he didn't win any rings, now, did he?

Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, and COUNTLESS other mediocre QB's, on the other hand, HAVE won Championships.

Shall I remind you why?

Or would you like to pan up and read the original quote?

It All Starts In The Trenches, baby.

Would the Dolphins chances have been better if they passed on Marino and just threw another body at the OL or DL? I've noticed that a great many teams that have won have had great QBs at the helm, the Trent Dilfers of the world are the exception, not the rule.

Anyway, it's a pretty simple concept, if you get more on the field impact from a non-Lineman then it makes sense to go with them rather than the lineman. It's kind of like picking a stock that gives a 25% return over one that only gives a 10% return.

We need help on the OL and DL, so it make sense investing there, the AZ Cardinals really need a QB, and they'd get more from a capable QB then to just to just get a lineman.

 

[patchick]

What're you high?

Hey, you're the one arguing that you can win with any old schmo at QB, 'cause the lines are what matters!

 

[Off The Grid]

What impact was that?

Marino was jolly good fun, but he didn't win any rings, now, did he?

Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, and COUNTLESS other mediocre QB's, on the other hand, HAVE won Championships.

Shall I remind you why?

Or would you like to pan up and read the original quote?

It All Starts In The Trenches, baby.

I gather from this analysis that you'd happily trade Brady to Oakland to get Seymour back?

What're you high??

Hey, you're the one arguing that you can win with any old schmo at QB, 'cause the lines are what matters!

You've been spending too much time talking to Snake Eyes, Fair One.

I did, indeed, remind that fellow that you CAN win with any old schmo at QB.

But in NO way did I recommend it.

As 1800 posts or so have made clear: Grizzlies are a PRIORITY with me.

...But not to the EXCLUSION of Blocking Backs.

I recommend drafting exemplary QB's...but LATE in the draft.

" Why??? For the love of God, WHY???"

Because...I...CAN.

~ Tom Brady ~ 6th Round
~ Joe Montana ~ 3rd Round
~ Johny Unitas ~ 9th Round
~ Bart Starr ~ 17th Round

May I join you?

 

[Snake Eyes]

You've been spending too much time talking to Snake Eyes, Fair One.

I did, indeed, remind that fellow that you CAN win with any old schmo at QB.

But in NO way did I recommend it.

As 1800 posts or so have made clear: Grizzlies are a PRIORITY with me.

...But not to the EXCLUSION of Blocking Backs.

I recommend drafting exemplary QB's...but LATE in the draft.

" Why??? For the love of God, WHY???"

Because...I...CAN.

~ Tom Brady ~ 6th Round
~ Joe Montana ~ 3rd Round
~ Johny Unitas ~ 9th Round
~ Bart Starr ~ 17th Round

May I join you?

Ok, so why not trade Brady for Seymour like Patchick mentioned? If it's all about the lines then we'd be WAY better off with Seymour, right? We have Hoyer and we could draft McElroy or just grab the guy who works behind the counter at 7-11 and throw him in at QB and we should be just fine as long as we're building those lines, right?

 

[IllegalContact]

Would the Dolphins chances have been better if they passed on Marino and just threw another body at the OL or DL? I've noticed that a great many teams that have won have had great QBs at the helm, the Trent Dilfers of the world are the exception, not the rule.

Anyway, it's a pretty simple concept, if you get more on the field impact from a non-Lineman then it makes sense to go with them rather than the lineman. It's kind of like picking a stock that gives a 25% return over one that only gives a 10% return.

We need help on the OL and DL, so it make sense investing there, the AZ Cardinals really need a QB, and they'd get more from a capable QB then to just to just get a lineman.

Marino was a very unique situation........you can always find that sort of aberration in the general rule of thumb......you can have all the top QB's that you want, but if you don't have the line play, you're not going to win it all.....

the problem with the dolphins is that while they drafted marino, they could not draft defensive players to save their lives. and even on OL, they got lucky one year by drafting webb and sims.......

can't get anywhere without line play........you can make it look fun, though

 

[IllegalContact]

Would the Dolphins chances have been better if they passed on Marino and just threw another body at the OL or DL? I've noticed that a great many teams that have won have had great QBs at the helm, the Trent Dilfers of the world are the exception, not the rule.

Anyway, it's a pretty simple concept, if you get more on the field impact from a non-Lineman then it makes sense to go with them rather than the lineman. It's kind of like picking a stock that gives a 25% return over one that only gives a 10% return.

We need help on the OL and DL, so it make sense investing there, the AZ Cardinals really need a QB, and they'd get more from a capable QB then to just to just get a lineman.

you do realize that the dolphins drafted marino a year after they had gone to the superbowl, so he didn't change their chances too much

 

[IllegalContact]

here's a philosophy for this year....a 7 point plan....

1 - castonzo, solder, or carimi - new LT for the long haul (1a)
2 - wilkerson - he will be the best 3-4 DL in this draft (1b)
3 - martez wilson - the most versatile LB in the draft....has a pass rushing past an knows how to cover (2a)
4 - brooks reed - with wilson and cunningham, the pats will be set at OLB for while (2b)
5 - pinkston, watkins, or moffitt.....to replace neal (may need to move 3a up to do this)
6 - austin pettis (may need to move 3b up to do this)
7 - roy helu jr. - the perfect complement to both woodhead and BJGE (can be had with comp pick)

trade what they must to make this happen......none of the other picks are going to make the team anyway