Patriots Worst Draft in NFL?

[NEPats1]

Peter King chimes in:

But with their treasure trove of draft choices -- three in the top 33 when no other team had more than one, and five in the top 75 -- they had to upgrade a deficient pass-rush, and didn't do it. (Great stat from John Clayton of ESPN: When New England sent five rushers or more last season, opposing quarterbacks had a rating of 103.2. That was third-worst in the league. I'm amazed any team was worse than that, really. That's just awful. And New England allowed a 47-percent third-down conversion rate, which is not a winning defensive number. Not close.) The Patriots got cute. They set themselves up for the future, when they'll control the 2012 draft again with two first-round picks and two second-rounders. This is a draft New England needed to add pass-rush pieces, not just one. And they got none.

NFL draft takes backseat to Osama bin Laden's death - Peter King - SI.com

 

[Synovia]

BTW - Belichick's drafting record, through the 2008 draft, was abysmal. He would hit on first round draft picks at an average rate, and get almost nothing out of the rest of the draft. Obviously, 2009 and 2010 have changed that trend, but it remains to be seen if that's a real improvement or just random variance.

In 2008, you guys got Mayo and nothing else (Wheatley and Wilhite were the best of the rest, which should say something)

2007 got you Merriweather (who is mediocre) and nothing else.

2006 got you Gostkowski, and nothing else.

2005 was probably his best draft before 2010 - it got you Mankins, mediocre contributors in Sanders, Hobbs and Kaczur, and the Cassel lottery ticket

2004 was Wilfork and Ben Watson's minimal contributions, and nothing else

2003 was a good draft for you - Warren, Samuel in the 4th, and Koppen

2002 - Branch, Jarvis Green, and David Givens

2001 - Seymour, Matt Light, and nothing else.

Not exactly the track record of a draft-genius. He's no Matt Millen, but Belichick definitely isn't the guy you would take to make your selections if you could tap anyone in the league to do it.

I love how several drafts that the Patriots got multiple probowlers out of, are bad drafts. We're talking 8 drafts here, and 13 probowlers.

You've also got a whole lot of "And nothing else" that should be "And several role players who were good enough to have roster spots for 3 or 4 years".

None of them were great players, but Maroney, O'Callaghan, Thomas, and LeKevin Smith were all USEFUL pieces, and thats just one draft

 

[RayClay]

Belichick doesn't exactly have a great record in the draft - although his past two drafts have been much better than his prior several years. If you were talking about Ozzie Newsome, you might have a point.

The Ravens won 4 Super bowls with his picks? I didn't know that.

The Ravens have been relatively successful, but how are you measuring his success? There's no trophy for most impressive picks, pro bowl players or whatever.

Continually being in contention and winning are the only measures of success I know. Sometimes that comes from putting together players that are more successful as a team than their individual rankings. of course, someone drafted most of those players...

The Ravens have been relatively succesful during his tenure, above average.

Worst Pats record since BBs second year has been 9-7, that's outstanding.

 

[Synovia]

On what possible theory? If you're going by the draft value chart, remember that picks from the next year's draft have a value one round below the actual round. They traded a late first round value for a late first round pick.

No, they don't. Thats the COST of moving forward a year. Thats the "exchange price".

Its like going to coinstar and getting charged 11% on your bag of change because you're not willing to count it yourself. Your money isn't worth any less, they're just charging you to give it to you in a form thats more useful. That is value gained by the Patriots and value lost by the Saints.

If the Saints win the superbowl next year, they gave up value equal to 850 points, or the 20th overall pick. If they finish the same as last year, its 920 (or the 17th pick). If they finish, say 10-6, and miss the playoffs because Tampa improves a little, or the NYG improve a little, we're looking at about the 12th overall.

 

[Doggin94it]

The Ravens won 4 Super bowls with his picks? I didn't know that.

The Ravens have been relatively successful, but how are you measuring his success? There's no trophy for most impressive picks, pro bowl players or whatever.

Congratulations on the most inane response in this thread.

Lets be clear, the Pats won their superbowls in large part because they lucked into selecting a top-5 all time QB in the sixth round.

Beyond that, no, there's no trophy for "most impressive picks" but, oh, I don't know, I guess maybe I'm crazy, but I'd put track record in the draft ahead of "most superbowls won" in evaluating the narrow question "who has a better track record in the draft." Not you, I guess. Oh well.

Continually being in contention and winning are the only measures of success I know. Sometimes that comes from putting together players that are more successful as a team than their individual rankings. of course, someone drafted most of those players...

Again, please. That comes from having Brady directing your offense and one of the best coaches in NFL history directing the team. Just imagine how many you could have won with better players . . .

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

No, they don't. Thats the COST of moving forward a year. Thats the "exchange price".

Its like going to coinstar and getting charged 11% on your bag of change because you're not willing to count it yourself. Your money isn't worth any less, they're just charging you to give it to you in a form thats more useful. That is value gained by the Patriots and value lost by the Saints.

If the Saints win the superbowl next year, they gave up value equal to 850 points, or the 20th overall pick. If they finish the same as last year, its 920 (or the 17th pick). If they finish, say 10-6, and miss the playoffs because Tampa improves a little, or the NYG improve a little, we're looking at about the 12th overall.

This is correct. Difference between cost and value. And I happen to think the Saints are headed down, not up. This trade reminds me of when the 49ers traded up to get Mike Iatupi; they thought they were an 11-5 team.

 

[Synovia]

Lets be clear, the Pats won their superbowls in large part because they lucked into selecting a top-5 all time QB in the sixth round.. .

Hrm, thats funny, because the Patriots offense wasn't even that good in 2 of the 3 years they won the superbowl. T

 

[JackBauer]

Peter King chimes in:

I immediately feel ten times better about our draft upon reading that.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Hrm, thats funny, because the Patriots offense wasn't even that good in 2 of the 3 years they won the superbowl. T

In actually, while talent-wise they were a bit on the short side, statistically the 2001 offense was well above average..

Points-6th 23.2
3rd down conv-8th, 41%
11th TD passes
5th Qb %
7th rushing TDs
12th rushing 1st downs

That team was the truest definition of maximizing the talent it had and executing.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Peter King chimes in:

Did you really just cite Peter King's analysis? That's just funny.

 

[Doggin94it]

No, they don't. Thats the COST of moving forward a year. Thats the "exchange price".

Its like going to coinstar and getting charged 11% on your bag of change because you're not willing to count it yourself. Your money isn't worth any less, they're just charging you to give it to you in a form thats more useful. That is value gained by the Patriots and value lost by the Saints.

If the Saints win the superbowl next year, they gave up value equal to 850 points, or the 20th overall pick. If they finish the same as last year, its 920 (or the 17th pick). If they finish, say 10-6, and miss the playoffs because Tampa improves a little, or the NYG improve a little, we're looking at about the 12th overall.

No, that's the time value of money. $100 today is actually worth more than $100 tomorrow. In the same vein, a first round pick next year is actually worth less than a first round pick this year.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

BTW - Belichick's drafting record, through the 2008 draft, was abysmal. He would hit on first round draft picks at an average rate, and get almost nothing out of the rest of the draft. Obviously, 2009 and 2010 have changed that trend, but it remains to be seen if that's a real improvement or just random variance.

In 2008, you guys got Mayo and nothing else (Wheatley and Wilhite were the best of the rest, which should say something)

2007 got you Merriweather (who is mediocre) and nothing else.

2006 got you Gostkowski, and nothing else.

2005 was probably his best draft before 2010 - it got you Mankins, mediocre contributors in Sanders, Hobbs and Kaczur, and the Cassel lottery ticket

2004 was Wilfork and Ben Watson's minimal contributions, and nothing else

2003 was a good draft for you - Warren, Samuel in the 4th, and Koppen

2002 - Branch, Jarvis Green, and David Givens

2001 - Seymour, Matt Light, and nothing else.

Not exactly the track record of a draft-genius. He's no Matt Millen, but Belichick definitely isn't the guy you would take to make your selections if you could tap anyone in the league to do it.

You should hope there never is an IQ minimum requirement for participation.

"Seymour, Light, and nothing else......except 3 Lombardi's/4 Super Bowls/ 5 AFCCG's and 8 division championchips.

2007? Ever heard of Welker and Moss? Not worth trading a second/fourth?

How exactly does a team go 14-2 with over half the snaps taken by rookies/ second year players?

Isn't amazing that the trend changed 2009/10 when like picks were piled up to like replace the majority of the roster?

Only an imbecile would make a few replacements 2001-2008 when only a few replacements were required and then make many replacements 2009/10 when they were needed.

 

[Metaphors]

They traded a late first round value for a late first round pick.

The Saints traded their 2012 first round pick AND pick #56 for pick #28. Meaning the Pats traded down (not out) 28 spots in return for the Saints 1st rounder in 2012.

The Pats made the eventual trade comparison even easier by drafting a RB at #56. Now you can look at the production difference between Ingram and Vereen (adjusting for the Pats RBBC approach) and evaluate if that difference is worth who the Pats get with that 1st round pick in 2012. Quick look ahead...the 2012 draft is loaded at WR just as Branch's contract is up and Belichick will have enough information on how the other WRs are progressing.

 

[Synovia]

No, that's the time value of money. $100 today is actually worth more than $100 tomorrow. In the same vein, a first round pick next year is actually worth less than a first round pick this year.

Draft picks aren't money.


Money is worth less in the future because it can BUY YOU LESS. Inflation happens. $3.85 can buy you a gallon of gas right now. Next year? It won't be able to.


A first round pick next year doesn't get you less than a first round pick this year. There is no natural inflation with draft picks. The 6th overall pick gets you the 6th best player in the draft, no matter what year it is.

 

[Doggin94it]

Hrm, thats funny, because the Patriots offense wasn't even that good in 2 of the 3 years they won the superbowl. T

They don't win those superbowls with Bledsoe at QB

 

[Synovia]

They don't win those superbowls with Bledsoe at QB

How do you know?


They wouldn't have won in 2001 without Bledsoe.

 

[Doggin94it]

You should hope there never is an IQ minimum requirement for participation.

I know - I'd hate to be deprived of the fun of seeing your responses.

"Seymour, Light, and nothing else......except 3 Lombardi's/4 Super Bowls/ 5 AFCCG's and 8 division championchips.

Championchips . . . now by Lays . . .

Seriously - did you just cite team success as proof that the players selected in the rest of the Pats 2001 draft were good picks?

2007? Ever heard of Welker and Moss? Not worth trading a second/fourth?

Very much worth it. Also irrelevant to a discussion of whether the Pats selections in those drafts were particularly good.

How exactly does a team go 14-2 with over half the snaps taken by rookies/ second year players?

Step 1: Have an all time great at QB
Step 2: Have an all time great HC
Step 3: Have your all time great QB have a season that, even for his great career, is an outlier, particularly in INT/pass ratio
Step 4: Have your young D maximize turnovers (history shows that turnovers, particularly fumble recoveries (the Pats recovered 14 fumbles on D) are not repeatable skills)

Isn't amazing that the trend changed 2009/10 when like picks were piled up to like replace the majority of the roster?

Not really, no.

Only an imbecile would make a few replacements 2001-2008 when only a few replacements were required and then make many replacements 2009/10 when they were needed.

Frankly, this is a terrible argument. The poor picks the patriots made in the 2d round and later from 2001-2008 weren't good players who were blocked by vets and showed skills elsewhere. They just weren't very good.

 

[Doggin94it]

Draft picks aren't money.


Money is worth less in the future because it can BUY YOU LESS. Inflation happens. $3.85 can buy you a gallon of gas right now. Next year? It won't be able to.


A first round pick next year doesn't get you less than a first round pick this year. There is no natural inflation with draft picks. The 6th overall pick gets you the 6th best player in the draft, no matter what year it is.

This is wrong, for two reasons.

First, you do lose something when you push a pick by a year: experience. Mark Ingram, next season, will have a year of NFL experience under his belt (less important for RBs than other positions, btw). The player NE (or, lets be honest, some other team) takes with the Saints first round pick next year will be a rookie, next season. You sacrifice a year of player development.

Seriously - think about it. When will Solder be more valuable to you guys: this year, or next year? Assuming there's no cap, would you trade Solder, next year, for a rookie with Solder's exact characteristics? Why not?

Second, you are talking like drafts have stable talent levels from year to year. They don't. This year was a very deep class, particularly at the top of the draft (many players carrying a true first round grade). So was last year. Next year may be very different; some years, the talent available after pick 15 is the equivalent of a second rounder.

Want an obvious example? You can make your same point about the NBA Draft - "A first overall pick next year doesn't get you less than a first overall pick this year. There is no natural inflation with draft picks. The 1st overall pick gets you the best player in the draft, no matter what year it is."

Makes sense, right?

Sure . . . until you realize that some years the best player in the draft is an Olajuwon, a Ewing, a Bird, a Lebron, or a Howard.

And in other years, you're the proud owner of Tyrus Thomas, Kenyon Martin, or Joe Smith

 

[Doggin94it]

How do you know?


They wouldn't have won in 2001 without Bledsoe.

Please. Bledsoe won what, one game for them in the playoffs? Two?

They were 0-2 and losing to the Jets, about to fall to 0-3, without Mo Lewis changing history.

 

[Doggin94it]

The Saints traded their 2012 first round pick AND pick #56 for pick #28. Meaning the Pats traded down (not out) 28 spots in return for the Saints 1st rounder in 2012.

You've missed my point. In 2011, the 2012 first rounder has the value of a second round pick - which is why the Saints were willing to package it with a 2011 2d rounder to get the Pats 1st round pick. They paid late first round value for a late first round pick.

I mean come on, guys, do you really think all the other GMs in the league are stupid, that Belichick is the only one who knows how to value assets?