Why the draft doesn't matter.

[RayClay]

Yeah, provocative title, but think about it. If having the best picks, or the best class mattered by itself, Pitt, Indy and the Pats should have been in the dumps a number of years, while Detroit and others prospered with their vast talent advantage.

It's a major way to acquire talent, but only one way. It doesn't fit well some years, is major others. Developing players is as important if not more important.

Did we stay in contention the latter half of this decade because we had a 7th overall pick once? We didn't even use it (10 for Mayo).

The only prime pick that made a difference in our entire championship and post championship contention every year was the #6 for Seymour.

I believe it's something to think about. We still have a very green team from the last two years and development might mean more than future acquisition right now for our defense.

By the way, I sure didn't feel this way on draft day to be quite honest. I'd love to see a facsimile of Seymour sometime soon, but I think it's good perspective.

More is lost by not developing talent than not drafting it, and I'll stand on that statement.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Saying the draft doesn't matter is stupid. Teams that are bad at drafting continually find themselves drafting in the top 10.

 

[randomk1]

Really? Look at GB's roster and see how many drafted guys they have in the lineup and some are big stars obviously.

Pittsburgh is known for building through the draft.

The Lions suck because they think you build teams by drafting WR's.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I have no idea how you get from A to B. The reason why the Steelers, Colts and Pats are good every year is BECAUSE they draft well.

Teams like Detroit and Oakland consistently fail because, even with premium picks, they still draft poorly. The one real point that you could maybe make from your observation is that a team's drafting skill matters a whole lot more than its drafting position, but has anyone ever argued that that isn't the case?

 

[jah]

Really? Look at GB's roster and see how many drafted guys they have in the lineup and some are big stars obviously.

Pittsburgh is known for building through the draft.

The Lions suck because they think you build teams by drafting WR's.

I haven't noticed that about the Lions. I HAVE noticed that the Bills think a team is built by drafting offensive skill positions regardless of need (except for this year). That Spiller pick never made sense to me.

 

[A_Ghost_In_The_Machine]

I haven't noticed that about the Lions. I HAVE noticed that the Bills think a team is built by drafting offensive skill positions regardless of need (except for this year). That Spiller pick never made sense to me.

Check out their drafts in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (aka the Millen years). 3 top ten picks, 3 WRs, none of which has really made any impact (an argument could be made for Roy Williams but regardless he hasn't lived up to his draft position). They then took a year out by drafting a LB but came right back and drafted WR Calvin Johnson in 2007 (which actually worked out for them)

 

[Fencer]

First Pats championship team:

Brady (& Bledsoe off the bench)
Light & Woody
Troy Brown
A few plays from Redmond & Faulk
Willie, Ted J, Bruschi
Law & Lawyer
Even Antawn Harris (made two good plays in the post-season run)

Yeah, there were tons of FAs in there. But with all due respect to Adam V., Patten, and others, a whole lot of the plays were made by draftees.

Other Pats championship teams:

It gets easier to just list the FAs & vet acquisitions that mattered -- Rodney, Vrabel, Adam V., Dillon, Ted Washington, Neal, and a few others. Most of the key players were drafted.

 

[RayClay]

Saying the draft doesn't matter is stupid. Teams that are bad at drafting continually find themselves drafting in the top 10.

Teams that have picks in the top ten usually end up picking in the top ten.

Sounds like you think the Patriots always have great drafts. You wouldn't know it by this board.

Obviously have good draft pickers is important, but is it as important has having good coaching, stability and player development? I don't think so.

If you have none of those things and also don't know how to build a cohesive team (which has nothing to do with drafting) you can have a great draft every year and not succeed.

Of course it's stupid to say bad drafting is better than good drafting, but that's not what I said. It's one factor.

 

[RayClay]

First Pats championship team:

Brady (& Bledsoe off the bench)
Light & Woody
Troy Brown
A few plays from Redmond & Faulk
Willie, Ted J, Bruschi
Law & Lawyer
Even Antawn Harris (made two good plays in the post-season run)

Yeah, there were tons of FAs in there. But with all due respect to Adam V., Patten, and others, a whole lot of the plays were made by draftees.

Other Pats championship teams:

It gets easier to just list the FAs & vet acquisitions that mattered -- Rodney, Vrabel, Adam V., Dillon, Ted Washington, Neal, and a few others. Most of the key players were drafted.

I'm obviously not saying there is a substitute for drafting players, there isn't.

To say that drafting, in the absence of knowing where players fit, when to draft (trade, back out) is to ignore the fact that the best teams prosper when they have a lot of high picks and when they don't. That wouldn't be true if the draft itself was a huge factor. It's a tool.

Your example shows that. All the drafted players had been around for years, yet the team was sloping downhill.

 

[RayClay]

I have no idea how you get from A to B. The reason why the Steelers, Colts and Pats are good every year is BECAUSE they draft well.

Teams like Detroit and Oakland consistently fail because, even with premium picks, they still draft poorly. The one real point that you could maybe make from your observation is that a team's drafting skill matters a whole lot more than its drafting position, but has anyone ever argued that that isn't the case?

It's because they do everything well. Posters here have noted a number of pre 2009 drafts where we had huge nees and seemingly mediocre drafts.

They don't miss on high #1s (though they have on low #1s). Maybe that's because they trade out if there's not sure thing talent there.

 

[RayClay]

The title is provocative, but it's all right to actually read the post before responding...

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The title is provocative, but it's all right to actually read the post before responding...

Read? Boooooooooring

Seriously, I think there's a lot to be said for coaching. However I would add that work ethic is often an overlooked part of a prospect's evaluation, while I think it plays a big role in BB's evaluation. If he doesn't think a prospect will accept the coaching, he will not draft him. So in that regard, I do think that gets factored into how good a prospect will be, just many teams overlook it.

 

[RayClay]

Read? Boooooooooring

Seriously, I think there's a lot to be said for coaching. However I would add that work ethic is often an overlooked part of a prospect's evaluation, while I think it plays a big role in BB's evaluation. If he doesn't think a prospect will accept the coaching, he will not draft him. So in that regard, I do think that gets factored into how good a prospect will be, just many teams overlook it.

Also, it depends on what sort of team they have. I always thought they tried to work rookies in on vet teams, but it seems just the opposite, like it's a bother trying to train rookies when you're trying to stretch vet lineups (like their classic cornerback combos).

It seems like they want to go young and conduct a school like the last two years. also, ever notice how they draft two players at the same position, or close positions from the same school?

Seems like they're settling in with the young defense, while cutting the vets for a mini youth movement in the offensive backfield. Biggest downfall of bad teams, IMO, is rookie of the year candidates who have bad habits and regress after 2-3.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Bill himself has said it's just like 1/3 or so of the process. He has the draft, trades, the FA signing period, the camp cuts. The draft is a great way to stock your team with premier players for a cheaper price than the FA process ... that's what it is. Beyond round 2 you can get many of those players later in their careers. Being a great coach also helps attract the near the end of the line veterans. The draft is the most sexy to the casual fan IMO.

 

[RayClay]

Bill himself has said it's just like 1/3 or so of the process. He has the draft, trades, the FA signing period, the camp cuts. The draft is a great way to stock your team with premier players for a cheaper price than the FA process ... that's what it is. Beyond round 2 you can get many of those players later in their careers. Being a great coach also helps attract the near the end of the line veterans. The draft is the most sexy to the casual fan IMO.

Also different strategies for different years. since Box said it too so it's not just my whining, this uncertain year may have caused them not to take on projects on an already young defense. De/OLB conversions and getting 4-3 linemen to play 3-4 end, taking on doubles, are both intensive coaching and patience operations.

Perhaps they'll go with, or acquire a vet or two this year and address the RB position, where guys are mostly ready to go.

 

[Synovia]

Saying the draft doesn't matter is stupid. Teams that are bad at drafting continually find themselves drafting in the top 10.

This. The draft is extremely important.

What doesn't matter is what a bunch of TV personalities think of your draft a couple days after its done.