Armchair Quarterback,
I appreciate the time you obviously spent reviewing the stats, but I'm a little puzzled by what you think they say. Don't your numbers show that the overwhelming majority of the players drafted past the top 100 picks fail to contribute? So how does that lead to the conclusion that we should be able to expect more than we've gotten from any given late pick like Ohrnberger?
It shows that there are at least 5 players that are starters/projected starters/in direct competition for a starting job going onto 2011 taken in the fourth round and lower. You claimed that there were zero, that's a serious miscalculation on your part. It also drastically alters your "tale of draft perspective".
I obviously haven't been getting my point across well, so I'm going to be a glutton for punishment and try one more approach....
The "hit rate" on late draft picks is really low. Even if the Pats draft better than average they will always have some misses along the way. In other words:
Having failed draft picks is a virtual statistical certainty. If you look for them -- at any team -- you're sure to find them. Therefore, the ability to find a failed draft pick means absolutely nothing.
Ok great, nothing groundbreaking here. Does that mean we can't discuss the quality of these picks or express an opinion on them on a football messageboard?
That's the problem with the reaction to Ohrnberger (or fill in the draft disappointment of your choice.) It's the outrage, the personal ire at Belichick over the fact that he was so incompetent as to make a failed pick, and the use of that failed pick as justification for beating up on the team's whole approach to the draft. You have to take a broader view. Are there disturbing trends in the team's draft history? How does it compare to other teams?
Outrage? Personal Ire? Belichick incompetent? Failed draft approach? You are taking an extreme amount of liberties with my words if you are trying to associate those thoughts with mine. I didn't like the Ohrnberger pick, simple as that. Not liking the Ohrnberger pick means I think Belichick is incompetent? Come on, that's quite a leap.
That's why the topic of this thread was "perspective." Even looking higher up in the draft, you have to evaluate with the understanding that perfection isn't achievable. No fan expects perfection on the field -- a 100% passing percentage, say, or 16 straight shutouts. Yet a surprising number seem to take anything less than perfection in the draft as something to get furious about.
While you're preaching your brand of perspective, you could probably use a little of it for yourself. Not being wild about a pick does not mean I think BB is incompetent, does not mean I expect perfection.
Consider Brace and Butler, 2 2nd-round disappointments. You can't go missing on 2nd-rounders, right? Right...not routinely. But in the post Pioli era, the Patriots have made 7 2nd-round picks (not counting Dowling, who is TBD). Early results show those picks netting out to 2 Pro Bowl-caliber players (Gronkowski, Vollmer), 3 more players expected to start this year (Chung, Cunningham, Spikes) and 2 players who are still with the team but have been clear disappointments. How does that compare with the yield you'd expect from 7 2nd rounders? I think answers to that question will vary, but I'd rather debate that than listen to fuming over how BB sucks because Brace is a stiff.
I'm confused, did you just call Brace and Butler disappointments. Weren't they in the same draft class as Ohrnberger? Where's the magical line in the sand to cross where you can criticize these two players and yet take me to task for doing the same with Ohrnberger.
(btw, sorry about the 25 vs 24. i made the mistake of using
the patriots draft history list at nfl.com which for some reason has stryker sulak as a pats pick!)