Patriots Worst Draft in NFL?

[sevengables_2207]

FWIW, Tucker's view of Castonzo is seemingly in opposition to Baldinger at NFL Network, who flat out disliked Castonzo's game.

I don't remember who he had rated above him, but I would be willing to bet that he had Solder higher than Castonzo. Also, as others have pointed out on other threads, Parcells had Solder at or near the top of his list of OTs.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Again, I hate that the value didn't match their needs, but the value approach usually works.

Except that if you think about the way BB drafts, this basically says that the Pats felt Solder provided more value to the team, over the length of his contract, than any DE or OLB they could have taken at 17, and remember that takes into account the relative need (or lack thereof) at that positions.

 

[The Scrizz]

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.

Are you a Jets fan, because you sure smell like one. Let me know when your 1st round DE starts to make a contribution in 3 years.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

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.

Unless you're Al Davis, when it gets you the fastest player in the draft. :singing:

 

[Doggin94it]

Are you a Jets fan, because you sure smell like one.

My god! Your skills are clearly being wasted here on the internets, when the FBI could so badly use your help.

(I've only referred to the Jets as "we" about 12 times).

Let me know when your 1st round DE starts to make a contribution in 3 years.

Damn. That hurts, man. That cuts deep.

 

[Synovia]

FWIW, Tucker's view of Castonzo is seemingly in opposition to Baldinger at NFL Network, who flat out disliked Castonzo's game.

I don't remember who he had rated above him, but I would be willing to bet that he had Solder higher than Castonzo. Also, as others have pointed out on other threads, Parcells had Solder at or near the top of his list of OTs.

There's a video of Castonzo against Quinn on youtube. Its pretty much a laugh reel... I think there are about 3 plays where he doesn't get beat.

 

[VJCPatriot]

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.

Let's break it down mathematically instead of making blind assertions.
Here's the trade value chart used by all NFL teams:
Draft Countdown - Trade Value Chart

The Patriots traded pick #28 to the Saints (660).
The Saints gave the Pats the #56 pick this year (340) plus their 1st rounder in 2012. For the sake of simplicity assume the Saints draft at the same spot in the 1st again 24 (740). Future picks roughly take a discounted value of 50%, making the Saints 2012 pick worth roughly (370).

Add it up, the Pats traded 660 pts of value for 710 points of value. The Patriots gain at least 50 points of value. Not to mention they get to select TWO players instead of ONE as a result of trading down. When the pick comes to fruition, it will be a 1st round pick regardless of how they acquired it. The Trade Down from #28 is a fundamentally sound move from a pick value investment standpoint. Just DO THE MATH.

My god! Your skills are clearly being wasted here on the internets, when the FBI could so badly use your help.

(I've only referred to the Jets as "we" about 12 times).

He's just looking for attention. I suggest we ignore the Jets troll. None of his claims are based on any facts as debunked above.

 

[Doggin94it]

Unless you're Al Davis, when it gets you the fastest player in the draft. :singing:

Al Davis. Bringing Pats and Jets fans together. God bless that man.

 

[Synovia]

Unless you're Al Davis, when it gets you the fastest player in the draft. :singing:

If you're Al Davis, they're the same thing.

 

[livinginthe past]

Maybe the Jesters fan should wait until his team of choice actually wins something relevant before acting like some sort of expert on draft policy/execution.

Just a thought.

 

[Synovia]

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.

No, you absolutely do not. You push a year of player development back one year. You gain an extra year at the end. The guy you draft next year doesn't retire at the same time as the guy you draft this year.


So yes, Ingram will have one year of experience under his belt. He'll also have one less year left in his career, and one less year where hes inexpensive.

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?

It depends on the state of the team. If you're a team that won 5 games last year, and you need drastic improvement to keep your job, you take the guy this year. If you already HAVE a starting LT with one year left on his contract, and you're as entrenched as BB, you could wait.

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.

This is just silly. Pretty much everyone says next year's draft is better than this one.

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?

The NBA draft isn't relevant because the NBA plays FIVE players. Its a completely different dynamic. Depth really isn't important in the NBA.

In the NFL you need about 40 competitive players at roughly 30 positions to be a good team.

 

[Doggin94it]

Let's break it down mathmatecially instead of making blind assertions.
Here's the trade value chart used by all NFL teams:
Draft Countdown - Trade Value Chart

The Patriots traded pick #28 to the Saints (660).
The Saints gave the Pats the #56 pick this year (340) plus their 1st rounder in 2012. For the sake of simplicity assume the Saints draft at the same spot in the 1st again 24 (740). Future picks roughly take a discounted value of 50%, making the Saints 2012 pick worth roughly (370).

Add it up, the Pats traded 660 pts of value for 710 points of value. The Patriots gain at least 50 points of value. Not to mention they get to select TWO players instead of ONE as a result of trading down. When the pick comes to fruition, it will be a 1st round pick regardless of how they acquired it. The Trade Down from #28 is a fundamentally sound move from a pick value investment standpoint. Just DO THE MATH.

You're doing the wrong math. First of all, the draft value chart you're using is a generic one; they actually change year to year, based on how teams value the players available (a second rounder in 2010 was way more valuable than a second rounder in, say, 2007, which was considered an historically shallow year, IIRC). This year has been considered a relatively deep draft through the mid-second, so odds are the Saints valued 28 a bit more than 66 points of value.

That aside, you're discounting to the wrong value. You don't just chop by 50%. You take the value of the pick as though it were a pick one round down (in other words, it gets valued at an equivalent 2d round pick - or 56 again, for another 340 points of value). So the Pats turned roughly 660 points of value into roughly 680 points of value (which, btw, is the value of the 27th pick). It's not a fleecing in either direction, which is exactly my point. The Saints gave up late first round value for a late first round pick. The Pats got late first round value for a late first round pick.

Again, come on guys. All of the GMs in the league know these charts. It's not like the Saints GM has no idea of how to value picks, and let himself be robbed.

It was a good trade for the Saints, considering their needs. For the Pats, it's somewhere between good to great, depending on where the Saints end up next season (if Brees gets injured . . .) and what the draft class looks like (a shallow draft after a Saints superbowl win will make you guys very unhappy).

 

[Synovia]

That aside, you're discounting to the wrong value. You don't just chop by 50%. You take the value of the pick as though it were a pick one round down (in other words, it gets valued at an equivalent 2d round pick - or 56 again, for another 340 points of value). So the Pats turned roughly 660 points of value into roughly 680 points of value (which, btw, is the value of the 27th pick). It's not a fleecing in either direction, which is exactly my point. The Saints gave up late first round value for a late first round pick. The Pats got late first round value for a late first round pick.

Again, you're completely MISSING THE POINT. The point is that the whole "you add a round to go back a year" is a change in cost thats not equal to the change in value. Cost and value are not the same thing.Belichick is EXPLOITING A MARKET WEAKNESS.

This is like the Red Sox drafting undervalued college players a couple years ago (like Youkilis, Pedroia, Bard, Lowrie, Lester, etc) while everyone else was drafting highschool players. Its a market inneficiency.

Again, come on guys. All of the GMs in the league know these charts. It's not like the Saints GM has no idea of how to value picks, and let himself be robbed.

It was a good trade for the Saints, considering their needs. For the Pats, it's somewhere between good to great, depending on where the Saints end up next season (if Brees gets injured . . .) and what the draft class looks like (a shallow draft after a Saints superbowl win will make you guys very unhappy).

Yes, all the GMs know the charts, and almost none of the trades that happen match up. The charts are useless.


Why? Becuase a good 2/3 of the GM's in the NFL undervalue the future because they're most likely going to lose their jobs before it gets here.

Do you really think that a single late first round pick helps a team as much as a (higher) first and a second? Do you think Mark Ingram is going to help the Saints more than Vareen and a first round pick help the Patriots?

 

[Doggin94it]

No, you absolutely do not. You push a year of player development back one year. You gain an extra year at the end. The guy you draft next year doesn't retire at the same time as the guy you draft this year.

Sure - meaning that you don't get the benefits of that player's development until a year later. Meaning that your other players have aged another year (which is a particular consideration if your starting QB is, say, 34 years old ), the contract picture changes, etc.

So yes, Ingram will have one year of experience under his belt. He'll also have one less year left in his career, and one less year where hes inexpensive.

Again - on that theory, if there's no cap hit, you should be willing to trade Solder Yr 2 for Solder Yr 1, every year.

It depends on the state of the team. If you're a team that won 5 games last year, and you need drastic improvement to keep your job, you take the guy this year. If you already HAVE a starting LT with one year left on his contract, and you're as entrenched as BB, you could wait.

If you're a team that won 5 games, you should take the future pick, because you need a hell of a lot more than one player, and you're more likely to be a serious contender 3-5 years out than 1-2. If you're a team that is contending this season and next, you probably want to take the player now - because you're less likely to be contending in year 5-6.

This is just silly. Pretty much everyone says next year's draft is better than this one.

Really? Quote me one analyst, please, because I've heard the opposite.

The NBA draft isn't relevant because the NBA plays FIVE players. Its a completely different dynamic. Depth really isn't important in the NBA.

In the NFL you need about 40 competitive players at roughly 30 positions to be a good team.

Again, you've completely missed the point. Doesn't matter how many players you need - player quality is not the same year to year.

Lets try it again: some years the consensus best player in the draft is Peyton Manning. In other years, it's Jamarcus Russell. Quality is not consistent across drafts

 

[Doggin94it]

Again, you're completely MISSING THE POINT. The point is that the whole "you add a round to go back a year" is a change in cost thats not equal to the change in value. Cost and value are not the same thing.Belichick is EXPLOITING A MARKET WEAKNESS.

It's not a market weakness. It's a pricing mechanism. The change in cost is there to capture the change in value. The reason GMs are willing to pay the added cost is because they perceive the benefit of a pick *this year* being worth the detriment of a missing pick *next year*. The reason GMs demand the added cost is because they perceive the detriment of giving up a pick *this year* to be equivalent to the value of an extra pick *next year*.

This is like the Red Sox drafting undervalued college players a couple years ago (like Youkilis, Pedroia, Bard, Lowrie, Lester, etc) while everyone else was drafting highschool players. Its a market inneficiency.

No, it's not like that at all. That was a function of poor valuation of the talents particular players brought to the table. That has nothing to do with an efficient market reaching an equilibrium on the value difference between a current pick and a future pick.

Yes, all the GMs know the charts, and almost none of the trades that happen match up. The charts are useless.

Why? Becuase a good 2/3 of the GM's in the NFL undervalue the future because they're most likely going to lose their jobs before it gets here.

No. Because the charts vary from year to year, so people who try to correlate trades to the "standard chart" end up very confused.

Do you really think that a single late first round pick helps a team as much as a (higher) first and a second? Do you think Mark Ingram is going to help the Saints more than Vareen and a first round pick help the Patriots?

Actually, yes. I doubt Vareen brings much to the Pats you weren't already getting from Woodhead. The Saints, in contrast, badly need a workhorse back to balance their offense.

 

[Synovia]

Sure - meaning that you don't get the benefits of that player's development until a year later. Meaning that your other players have aged another year (which is a particular consideration if your starting QB is, say, 34 years old ), the contract picture changes, etc.

Again - on that theory, if there's no cap hit, you should be willing to trade Solder Yr 2 for Solder Yr 1, every year.

If you take a long term view of the franchise, and you intend to compete every year, like Bill Bellichick does, having a player from 2011-2015 has absolutely the same value as having the player from 2012-2016.

When other teams feel otherwise, there is the opportunity to gain advantage.

So, if you feel 2011-2015 and 2012-2016 are similarly valuable, the question is, whats more valuable?

2011-2015

OR

2012-2016 and Pat Chung?

If you're a team that is contending this season and next, you probably want to take the player now - because you're less likely to be contending in year 5-6.

Unless you believe, as Bill Bellichick has stated he does, that there is no "window". That the goal is to build a team that is good enough to win every single year, and then let things fall as the do. Teams have windows because they do exactly what you're suggesting: they trade the future for now.

Lets try it again: some years the consensus best player in the draft is Peyton Manning. In other years, it's Jamarcus Russell. Quality is not consistent across drafts

Of course its not, which is why its so friggen silly to say that a 2nd rounder this year and a first rounder next year are worth the same.

Whats normally true though, is that a 2nd rounder this year, and a first rounder next year is going to get you a whole lot more than the 28th pick this year.

 

[Synovia]

It's not a market weakness. It's a pricing mechanism. The change in cost is there to capture the change in value. The reason GMs are willing to pay the added cost is because they perceive the benefit of a pick *this year* being worth the detriment of a missing pick *next year*. The reason GMs demand the added cost is because they perceive the detriment of giving up a pick *this year* to be equivalent to the value of an extra pick *next year*.

Exactly. They PERCEIVE. Bill Belichick thinks other GMs incorrectly undervalue future picks. I think hes correct. The Patriots record over the last 10 years suggests that hes right.


Again, I must state, cost does not always equal value. Bill Belichick has been vocal in stating that it doesn't here. In the case of a franchise with poor attendance, or in the case of a GM who can't just stay as long as they want, this year is significantly more valuable than the next. In the case of the Patriots, and their long term business needs, this year and next year are almost indistinguishable.

They see this as picking up an asset (a 2nd rounder) for exchanging things of like value.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

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

I definitely don't agree with this. First point, in terms of one year of development, you are making the assumption that it is more important to have an impact player now than it is in later years. You could also argue that Mark Ingram's rookie contract will run out in 2015, while the player the Patriots pick next year will run out in 2016. It really doesn't matter; you are getting rights to a player, whether it's this year, next year, or wherever. The fact that you brought up Larry Bird is interesting; the Celtics drafted him a year before he turned pro. Patience paid off there. Did it matter ultimately that they got him a year later than they wanted?

Second point: Mark Ingram, by almost all accounts, was a fringe player between first and second round talent. If that isn't the case, I highly doubt he would have been available at 28. The last time we heard about a an NBA-type of franchise player who would without a doubt change the franchise single-handedly, it was another running back drafted by the Saints. Yes, they won a SB, but do a re-draft, and the Saints do not even draft Bush in the first round if they knew what they know now.

 

[DaBruinz]

the worst DRAFT was actually the year Brady was Drafted....



Take Brady out and that draft is AWFUL.


only 1 hit and it was TFB


I liked this 2011 Draft just like I enjoyed 2010 I judged it b4 the successes

That draft wasn't that awful. They got a starting OT in Greg Robinson-Randall. They also got J.R. Redmond and Patrick Pass. Both Redmond and Pass were around for 3+ years. And Klemm could have been a starter if he stayed healthy for any length of time.. Which he couldn't.

But remember that draft was done with Bobby Grier's draft information and before Pioli or Dmitroff were on board.

 

[stinkypete]

...lot's of picks that could have been had with much later picks. It's interesting to hear Tucker say as much, given he seems like a rational thinker.

I love it when people say stuff like this. No one knows when another team would have taken a player. Buffalo could have been prepared to take Dowling. Detroit may have been ready to take Vereen. Miami was ready to take Mallett. Nobody knows. Nobody ever will know.

When Christian Ponder hypothetically becomes a star, people will rave about Minnesota's genius. When Von Miller hypothetically busts, Denver fans will call for John Fox's head. You don't know. I don't know.