What I don't get about the Wheatley pick

[RussFrancis]

The arm chair draft generals are funny. Getting so caught up in "value". Its understandable that some would be perplexed with the Wheatley pick or the Slater and O'Connell picks because you were likely, like myself and many others, unfamiliar with these kids and just how good they are. And of course there are far more factors that go into talent evaluation than any of us consider. But you look at the GMs that supposedly get the most "value" out of the draft. Polian, AJ Smith, Jerry Jones. All worked the board. All stole "value" away from other teams. They do it every year. AJ Smith robbed us our '08 3rd for his '09 2nd? Really? We'll need to remind people of that next year, when theyve once again lost a big playoff game to our team, and at next year's draft, we're sitting on their 2nd round pick and grabbing a future TE or offensive lineman "too early" once again. And what is Jerry Jones' drafting for value doing for that team? Its certainly not resulting in playoff wins. They havent tasted a post season win in 12 years. And Polian has been putting together championship teams for years and years. But in all his years, theyve only won a single title.

Maximizing value is certainly a good way to assemble a quality team. But you win championships with specific players that embody exactly what it takes to win big football games. Who really cares if you take him in the 2nd vs. the 3rd round? or the 5th vs. the 7th? VALUE does not win titles. Players do.

 

[spacecrime]

Is why there? - did the Pats think someone else really like the guy in the next 6 picks, even next full round?

This is a dumb question if you think about it.

The only possible answer is that the Pats thought he would NOT be around.

Otherwise you are suggesting that BB turns to SP and says, "Hey I don't think that anyone else wants this guy. We could easily get him with our next pick, but let's draft him anyway and lose whatever guy we have rated higher."

Think, man, think.

Can you say to yourself, "BB and SP saw something in this guy, perhaps something they saw in the many man-days of research they put into analyzing this kid, that I did not see in the ESPN Draft Guide."

If not, you will be forever puzzled by this choice.

 

[spacecrime]

2. For the next pick, the Pats DID risk still getting their guy -- they called Crable, said they expected to take him, and then left him on the board until their next third-rounder when they made the SD trade.

They also risked losing Crable by taking Mayo and leaving Crable on the board. And they risked losing Crable by taking Wheatley and leaving Crable on the board.

They risked losing him every pick they did not trade up to get him.

They risked Mayo by trading down to ten. They risked Mayo by not trading up to get him.

They were calculated risks designed to maximize value, getting the best players they can while spending as little as possible for them so they can sign FAs with the money saved, and/or drafting additional players.

Half the people on this board are complaining that the Pats reach for players and the other half say the Pats must not have liked that player because they waited to draft him.

Teams that work the draft board are trying to maximize value. The Pats and Ravens and others do better IMO that those who sit and wait and just take was is available when it is their turn to pick.

 

[DW Toys]

They also risked losing Crable by taking Mayo and leaving Crable on the board. And they risked losing Crable by taking Wheatley and leaving Crable on the board.

They risked losing him every pick they did not trade up to get him.

They risked Mayo by trading down to ten. They risked Mayo by not trading up to get him.

They were calculated risks designed to maximize value, getting the best players they can while spending as little as possible for them so they can sign FAs with the money saved, and/or drafting additional players.

Half the people on this board are complaining that the Pats reach for players and the other half say the Pats must not have liked that player because they waited to draft him.

Teams that work the draft board are trying to maximize value. The Pats and Ravens and others do better IMO that those who sit and wait and just take was is available when it is their turn to pick.

Cousins,
I see it this way. BB and Pioli do not scout these players, the paid scouts do. They recommend certain players and put the values on them. Yes BB and Pioli have the final say BUT.....a bad scout can make a bad choice and make the F.O. look tainted.

It's like these "Presidential" candidates that say they can do this or that. We all know they can do crap. It's Congress and the Senate that actually do these things. We don't believe the "new jobs" or "change" (change could be going to meet major world dignitaries in your Jockey shorts) etc. promises garbage. Well the F.O. here is the "President" and it's the array of scouts that are the Congress and actually push for their own agenda that will get approved if they can b.s. to get their own way. The scouts and congress all influence the decision in both cases.

BB doesn't have but a few occasions before a draft like visits etc, where he will work out or chat with a kid. We also know the teams also do that for smoke screens too. So BB relies on scouts. Last year in 07 the scouts did a terrible job. We'll see about this year.

It also has to do with marketing. BB or Pioli must market the picks or pick when they move up or down the draft to get a "buyer". They buy and sell. If a scout says that Matt Slater is a "By-God" fifth round draft choice, then the F.O. drafts that way, BUT....if they get duped into thinking "so in so" is a true fifth rounder because "X" team is "hot" on him if you don't take him, and then chuckle as the Pats draft that kid. The other team wins by default because they suckered us into drafting him. It's poker.

There is enough information out there today for the fans to get a reasonable temperature on a player. We do not have the whole story though, it's true. But some of the moves are still puzzling. Look at the success rate in the NFL for draft choices. What are they, less than 20% per year, per draft class? It's all scouts. Someone told BB that Slater is worth a trade-up to a higher fifth round position. BB approved the move because he trusts (and pays) that scout who put Slater on the draft board to begin with.

What I am saying is that the fans (or talking heads) could generate probably within a few percentage points, within the success rate of the majority on the NFL teams. I really believe that. There are other factors such as CAP and present roster status and quality that are caveats to my theory.

So by saying a fan is out of touch today or does not really know what a team should do or what the value of a player is, may not be a fair statement.
DW Toys

 

[spacecrime]

Cousins,
I see it this way. BB and Pioli do not scout these players, the paid scouts do. They recommend certain players and put the values on them. Yes BB and Pioli have the final say BUT.....a bad scout can make a bad choice and make the F.O. look tainted.

It's like these "Presidential" candidates that say they can do this or that. We all know they can do crap. It's Congress and the Senate that actually do these things. We don't believe the "new jobs" or "change" (change could be going to meet major world dignitaries in your Jockey shorts) etc. promises garbage. Well the F.O. here is the "President" and it's the array of scouts that are the Congress and actually push for their own agenda that will get approved if they can b.s. to get their own way. The scouts and congress all influence the decision in both cases.

BB doesn't have but a few occasions before a draft like visits etc, where he will work out or chat with a kid. We also know the teams also do that for smoke screens too. So BB relies on scouts. Last year in 07 the scouts did a terrible job. We'll see about this year.

It also has to do with marketing. BB or Pioli must market the picks or pick when they move up or down the draft to get a "buyer". They buy and sell. If a scout says that Matt Slater is a "By-God" fifth round draft choice, then the F.O. drafts that way, BUT....if they get duped into thinking "so in so" is a true fifth rounder because "X" team is "hot" on him if you don't take him, and then chuckle as the Pats draft that kid. The other team wins by default because they suckered us into drafting him. It's poker.

There is enough information out there today for the fans to get a reasonable temperature on a player. We do not have the whole story though, it's true. But some of the moves are still puzzling. Look at the success rate in the NFL for draft choices. What are they, less than 20% per year, per draft class? It's all scouts. Someone told BB that Slater is worth a trade-up to a higher fifth round position. BB approved the move because he trusts (and pays) that scout who put Slater on the draft board to begin with.

What I am saying is that the fans (or talking heads) could generate probably within a few percentage points, within the success rate of the majority on the NFL teams. I really believe that. There are other factors such as CAP and present roster status and quality that are caveats to my theory.

So by saying a fan is out of touch today or does not really know what a team should do or what the value of a player is, may not be a fair statement.
DW Toys

Yeah, I read that BB spends his entire off-season surfing the web and doesm't look at any film of any player or talk to anyone or work anyone out.

He just asks the scouts to put the draft choices in numerical order and just picks off the top player off the list.

Get real.

We all have our favorites based on the SI draft magazine and watching ESPN and NFLN. To say that this provides one millionth of the knowledge that the Pats FO has is ludicrous. Not to mention that we don't know what the plan is. Fans say, "We have to replace so-and-so who left." Teams don't do that. They draft players to fit a plan/scheme they have for the future.

It is like when we get upset because a "player was out of position." Like we know where he is supposed to be. Remember when the entire board went ape**** because Randall Gay got beat by Plaxico. Had a feeding frenzy of *****ing for four days, and then in an interview Rodney says he was out of position on that play and the TD was his fault.

 

[Pedrorocks458]

Well they probably wanted Lee from Auburn so once he was off the board with GB, why would you wait?
Your trying to get the best guys you can at the time on your football team not get them where everyone else thinks they should be go.

I would be extremely surprised if Lee was even on their draft board.

 

[Metaphors]

I would be extremely surprised if Lee was even on their draft board.

Agreed. I had Lee as a Pats target for the draft contest but soon after started second-guessing myself. Lee is talented and was productive at Auburn, but he really is better suited for a zone/cover 2 scheme. I think that the Pats were looking for a different type of CB and hopefully they hit gold with Wheatley and Wilhite.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

This is a dumb question if you think about it.

The only possible answer is that the Pats thought he would NOT be around.

Actually, I would suggest a slightly different but more encompassing answer: they didn't want to risk that he might not be there. Given that three of the six intervening picks were CBs, they might well have been correct.

 

[Patslifer]

Cousins,
I see it this way. BB and Pioli do not scout these players, the paid scouts do. They recommend certain players and put the values on them. Yes BB and Pioli have the final say BUT.....a bad scout can make a bad choice and make the F.O. look tainted.

It's like these "Presidential" candidates that say they can do this or that. We all know they can do crap. It's Congress and the Senate that actually do these things. We don't believe the "new jobs" or "change" (change could be going to meet major world dignitaries in your Jockey shorts) etc. promises garbage. Well the F.O. here is the "President" and it's the array of scouts that are the Congress and actually push for their own agenda that will get approved if they can b.s. to get their own way. The scouts and congress all influence the decision in both cases.

BB doesn't have but a few occasions before a draft like visits etc, where he will work out or chat with a kid. We also know the teams also do that for smoke screens too. So BB relies on scouts. Last year in 07 the scouts did a terrible job. We'll see about this year.

It also has to do with marketing. BB or Pioli must market the picks or pick when they move up or down the draft to get a "buyer". They buy and sell. If a scout says that Matt Slater is a "By-God" fifth round draft choice, then the F.O. drafts that way, BUT....if they get duped into thinking "so in so" is a true fifth rounder because "X" team is "hot" on him if you don't take him, and then chuckle as the Pats draft that kid. The other team wins by default because they suckered us into drafting him. It's poker.

There is enough information out there today for the fans to get a reasonable temperature on a player. We do not have the whole story though, it's true. But some of the moves are still puzzling. Look at the success rate in the NFL for draft choices. What are they, less than 20% per year, per draft class? It's all scouts. Someone told BB that Slater is worth a trade-up to a higher fifth round position. BB approved the move because he trusts (and pays) that scout who put Slater on the draft board to begin with.

What I am saying is that the fans (or talking heads) could generate probably within a few percentage points, within the success rate of the majority on the NFL teams. I really believe that. There are other factors such as CAP and present roster status and quality that are caveats to my theory.

So by saying a fan is out of touch today or does not really know what a team should do or what the value of a player is, may not be a fair statement.
DW Toys

Total insanity....:bricks:

 

[captain stone]

Total insanity....:bricks:

Maybe...maybe not. Brock Williams, Kenyatta Jones, Jabari Holloway, Bethel Johnson, Dan Klecko, Marquise Hill (RIP), Guss Scott, Dexter Reid, Cedric Cobbs, PK Sam, Ryan Claridge, Garrett Mills, Kareem Brown and Clint Oldenburg, plus all the 6th and 7th-round duds, are living testimony that this FO is not infallible.

If anyone before the draft suggested that NE select a QB at #94, Jonathan Wilhite with its 4th-rounder, trade its 7th-rounder to move UP to take Matt Slater in the 5th round, and Bo Ruud with its 6th-rounder, would have been laughed off the thread, and justifiably so. So why should the ridicule be any less severe, when the FO does what no sane poster would have suggested?

We have not won the last 3 SBs partly because of poor decisions on draft weekend. The idea of giving this FO, or any FO, or any organization in a decision-making position, a free pass without accountability, because of past - but not most recent - success is naive at best, suicidal at worst.

As for lil' Terry Wheatley, I would have taken Oklahoma's Reggie Smith at #62. Of all the available CBs remaining, Smith is the best combination of size, durability, fluid hips and production.

At #78, I would have chosen Cliff Avril over Shawn Crable.

At #94, I would have chosen Tyvon Branch, or Mike McGlynn.

There are other rounds, and players not named Wilhite, Slater and Ruud to select. But it's late, and I'm tired. Good night now.

 

[BradyManny]

Maybe...maybe not. Brock Williams, Kenyatta Jones, Jabari Holloway, Bethel Johnson, Dan Klecko, Marquise Hill (RIP), Guss Scott, Dexter Reid, Cedric Cobbs, PK Sam, Ryan Claridge, Garrett Mills, Kareem Brown and Clint Oldenburg, plus all the 6th and 7th-round duds, are living testimony that this FO is not infallible.

If anyone before the draft suggested that NE select a QB at #94, Jonathan Wilhite with its 4th-rounder, trade its 7th-rounder to move UP to take Matt Slater in the 5th round, and Bo Ruud with its 6th-rounder, would have been laughed off the thread, and justifiably so. So why should the ridicule be any less severe, when the FO does what no sane poster would have suggested?

We have not won the last 3 SBs partly because of poor decisions on draft weekend. The idea of giving this FO, or any FO, or any organization in a decision-making position, a free pass without accountability, because of past - but not most recent - success is naive at best, suicidal at worst.

As for lil' Terry Wheatley, I would have taken Oklahoma's Reggie Smith at #62. Of all the available CBs remaining, Smith is the best combination of size, durability, fluid hips and production.

At #78, I would have chosen Cliff Avril over Shawn Crable.

At #94, I would have chosen Tyvon Branch, or Mike McGlynn.

There are other rounds, and players not named Wilhite, Slater and Ruud to select. But it's late, and I'm tired. Good night now.

Reggie Smith has been labeled a Safety by a lot of projections, a lot of scouting reports have him moving to that position in order to succeed in the NFL.

As for all the "duds", the bottom line is that not every draft pick is going to turn out to be a good pick, regardless of who is picking. 250+ players enter the NFL every year, and the reality is, only a handful will be great players, and only a handful more will be good players. A lot will be duds, and a lot will just turn into serviceable players. The Patriots have a higher success rate than most when it comes to avoiding the duds and finding players who can contribute.

 

[patchick]

If anyone before the draft suggested that NE select a QB at #94, Jonathan Wilhite with its 4th-rounder, trade its 7th-rounder to move UP to take Matt Slater in the 5th round, and Bo Ruud with its 6th-rounder, would have been laughed off the thread, and justifiably so. So why should the ridicule be any less severe, when the FO does what no sane poster would have suggested?

There's certainly some truth to this. Wilhite was a huge surprise, Ruud has an uphill battle to make the team, and Slater was a virtual unknown to the fan world -- though to be fair, we did talk a lot about KR as a need to draft toward, and a standout KR/gunner like Slater has an excellent chance to contribute to the team early.

But the one pick that seems to attract the most anger is one I can't see any problem with at all. At the bottom of the 3rd you've already addressed your top 3 needs (ILB, CB & OLB). That's an ideal spot for a luxury pick of a pure BPA with tremendous upside. A big, smart, athletic, strong-armed QB fills the bill. Why the heck not? Do we expect them to draft for need at EVERY pick?

 

[Seneschal2]

Brock Williams...Guss Scott...are living testimony that this FO is not infallible.

Infallible? If you had an opportunity to see these two players in college, and were aware of the intangibles they brought to their positions, you'd realize they both fit as Pats prospects. In addition, the rookie learning curve can be difficult enough for some players, but when you include the fact they both were IR'd with torn ACLs before the regular season began, I think Belichick & Co. deserve the benefit of the doubt on these two 3rd round picks. It's entirely possible had they not suffered their injuries as rookies, they may have developed as planned. Clearly, they are not classic draft busts as some of the listed others are.

As for lil' Terry Wheatley, I would have taken Oklahoma's Reggie Smith at #62. Of all the available CBs remaining, Smith is the best combination of size, durability, fluid hips and production.

Do your scouts and coaches have the same opinion?

 

[DW Toys]

Infallible? If you had an opportunity to see these two players in college, and were aware of the intangibles they brought to their positions, you'd realize they both fit as Pats prospects. In addition, the rookie learning curve can be difficult enough for some players, but when you include the fact they both were IR'd with torn ACLs before the regular season began, I think Belichick & Co. deserve the benefit of the doubt on these two 3rd round picks. It's entirely possible had they not suffered their injuries as rookies, they may have developed as planned. Clearly, they are not classic draft busts as some of the listed others are.

Do your scouts and coaches have the same opinion?

My coaches and scouts tell me Wheatly is 5' 9". Been there, done that. Anybody want to watch the last SB TD once more? Lil' Terry might have been the best CB on the board, but IMO they did not address the need of a CB in this draft. They got a clone and a decent one (or two) but they still need a CB.
Perhaps the 5' 11" Richardson is that guy. When Hobbs leaves for FA, Lil' Terry then takes his place.

Why do we need a capable CB to cover the now 6' 4" receivers (see Moss, Plex, Fitzy etc.)? Well, 5' 9" CB's are a dime a dozen. We have three or four. If we had a coverage safety it would take pressure off the little guys because they'd have help. We needed a safety and that was not addressed either. That safety would allow a 5' 9" CB to be alright in our system if said safety can cover. It's not Sanders and Rodney is one year older. It might be Merriweather. But a guy like Josh Barrett would have been my coaches and scouts pick over Wilhite at the least.
DW Toys

 

[Return of the Nizz]

My coaches and scouts tell me Wheatly is 5' 9". Been there, done that. Anybody want to watch the last SB TD once more? Lil' Terry might have been the best CB on the board, but IMO they did not address the need of a CB in this draft. They got a clone and a decent one (or two) but they still need a CB.
Perhaps the 5' 11" Richardson is that guy. When Hobbs leaves for FA, Lil' Terry then takes his place.

Why do we need a capable CB to cover the now 6' 4" receivers (see Moss, Plex, Fitzy etc.)? Well, 5' 9" CB's are a dime a dozen. We have three or four. If we had a coverage safety it would take pressure off the little guys because they'd have help. We needed a safety and that was not addressed either. That safety would allow a 5' 9" CB to be alright in our system if said safety can cover. It's not Sanders and Rodney is one year older. It might be Merriweather. But a guy like Josh Barrett would have been my coaches and scouts pick over Wilhite at the least.
DW Toys

what did height have to do with last TD in the SB? Manute Bol wouldn't have been able to make a difference from where Hobbs was on that play. Height and coverage ability are not synonymous.

 

[DW Toys]

what did height have to do with last TD in the SB? Manute Bol wouldn't have been able to make a difference from where Hobbs was on that play. Height and coverage ability are not synonymous.

So what you are saying is Hobbs should have had inside safety help and played outside technique? Where is "Patjew" when I need him. And that safety should have been?.....anybody, anybody.....Bueller? Let's see..... right safety on that play....
Manute Bol would have made a cool CB. I'd pay to see him do that.
DW Toys

 

[mgteich]

Apparently, there are four organizations that are the best at evaluating and choosing college players to fit into their team: the patriots, the colts, the chargers, and the team run by DW Toys.

DW not only drafts better, but he also knows more about defensive backs than Belichick. After all, he is often criticizing Belichick's choices for starter (Sanders) and his draft choices. He also criticizing the type of player and defense that should be used by Belichick.

And as we used to say about NEM, exactly why is that DW isn't working for an NFL team?----------------------------------------------

NOT!!

---------------------------------------------

So what you are saying is Hobbs should have had inside safety help and played outside technique? Where is "Patjew" when I need him. And that safety should have been?.....anybody, anybody.....Bueller? Let's see..... right safety on that play....
Manute Bol would have made a cool CB. I'd pay to see him do that.
DW Toys

 

[Pedrorocks458]

But a guy like Josh Barrett would have been my coaches and scouts pick over Wilhite at the least.
DW Toys

Yeah, and he would have been a three-round reach.

 

[captain stone]

Yeah, and he would have been a three-round reach.

Then use our end of the 6th round pick on Barrett, instead of lil' Bo peep Ruud, a non-priority UDFA talent. Or at least, if a LB was wanted at that spot, take Erin Henderson and use the 7th-round pick on...nevermind.

As for the Wilhite pick, the FO should've drafted OG Roy Schuening instead. He would've filled a position of need, and was one of the BPA regardless of positiion.

And finally, instead of throwing away their only 7th-round pick to trade up to draft another UDFA talent in Matt Slater, the FO should've drafted NT Ahtyba Rubin, who could've been a legitimate backup to Vince Wilfork, and kept the 7th-rounder.

1/10 - Mayo
2/62 - Reggie Smith or, begrudgingly, Wheatley
3/78 - Cliff Avril or, very begrudgingly, Crable
3/94 - Tyvon Branch
4/129 - Roy Schuening
5/160 - Ahtyba Rubin
6/197 - Josh Barrett, or C Steve Justice
7/238 - Erin Henderson, or Bentley College's first-ever NFL draft pick, OL Mackenzy Bernadeau

If someone had suggested this list before the draft started, would you not have been happy with it?
If someone had suggested the actual list before the draft, would you really have been happy with it?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

3/78 - Cliff Avril or, very begrudgingly, Crable
3/94 - Tyvon Branch

Keep this in mind, though--for whatever reasons, we know that, when value is taken into account, Crable was the #1 player on their board when they were picking at 69; had the Chargers not come calling, the Pats would have taken Crable there.

Similarly, we know that at 94 O'Connell was the #1 player on their board. In other words, they didn't think there was another player who would provide equal or greater value at any other position, including LB, CB, and OL. So, it sort of begs the question--why do you think they're wrong in those assessments?