Easley signed

Deus Irae said:

Ehh....

There were many here talking critically about the Patriots moves as the years went on, and those who did were getting savaged by the White Knights of the Kraftdom. Hell, I was on the other side of a lot of those arguments until the results from the 2008 off season started to come in. Pointing out the problems of the team doesn't come with any requisite "Here's what I would have done!".

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm afraid it does. Try routing for some other team's front office, instead. In 2006 -2008 BB's aim was to patch a SB club, not to rebuild. He wanted players who could play and contribute immediately. that colors the perspective somewhat. Everyone savages the 2007 draft forgetting that a good portion of it went for Welker, Moss and the Raven's LB.

AzPatsFan said:

You can't show me anyone better, though. No, I won't accept your Monday Morning QBing, either.

Click to expand...

You sure you want to do this?

KontradictioN said:

You sure you want to do this?

Click to expand...

Please, God, no. Let's not get into this.

I personally think the following should be not too controversial to most (dangerous words, I know):

1. The draft is essentially a crapshoot, as Ravens' Assistant GM Eric DeCosta has openly admitted. With that said, there are clearly some teams that do a consistently worse job than others, despite (as a result) repeatedly drafting from a favorable position.

2. Over the 15 year tenure of BB, the Pats have generally been one of the better drafting teams in the NFL, especially factoring in that they have been drafting from the back of the pack. Some of this may result from system-specific scouting and using their own independent evaluations instead of those of the national services. Having a smaller draft room and a more restricted draft board may also have facilitated draft-day maneuvering.

3. Even the best drafting teams have frequent misses, and go through "down years".

4. With that said, the Pats had a prolonged stretch from 2006-2009 where they drafted very poorly (especially on defense) in comparison with their track record before and after, and missed numerous opportunities. Given the aging of the defense that was apparent from after 2004, this probably slowed re-loading the defense, and may have cost the team some title opportunities. The Moss and Welker trades and the Vollmer and Edelman picks resulted in a somewhat better record on offense during that period.

5. No one is probably more aware of this than BB.

6. No one outside of the Pats' FO knows all the factors influencing those choices, and certainly no one on this board has the knowledge or skills to be anything other than an armchair critic.

7. Since 2010, and particularly since 2012, the Pats seem to be making up for lost time, with a number of very successful picks.

I still maintain that 2006-2009 was a primarily 'patching' draft effort. BB was trying to prolong a SB winning club.

BB traded picks for immediate help. Think of Colvin, Welker, Moss as merely the most successful of such efforts.

BB drafted with an eye to filling holes, even at the expense of not taking longer range players.

BB drafted players who could contribute immediately, and possibly bypassing players who needed a few years of development.

Different circumstances and objectives alter the strategy. Good GM's, like good Generals, understand that and modify their strategy and tactics as necessary.
General Grant could afford to take outsized casualties, to wear down and wear out General Lee's lesser resources. He admitted as much when he said 'We will continue this line [of effort] if it takes all summer.'

How do you account for this? After all he came within 30 seconds of winning another Super Bowl and an undefeated and untied season.

AzPatsFan said:

I still maintain that 2006-2009 was a primarily 'patching' draft effort. BB was trying to prolong a SB winning club.

BB traded picks for immediate help. Think of Colvin, Welker, Moss as merely the most successful of such efforts.

BB drafted with an eye to filling holes, even at the expense of not taking longer range players.

BB drafted players who could contribute immediately, and possibly bypassing players who needed a few years of development.

Different circumstances and objectives alter the strategy. Good GM's, like good Generals, understand that and modify their strategy and tactics as necessary.
General Grant could afford to take outsized casualties, to wear down and wear out General Lee's lesser resources. He admitted as much when he said 'We will continue this line [of effort] if it takes all summer.'

How do you account for this? After all he came within 30 seconds of winning another Super Bowl and an undefeated and untied season.

Click to expand...

A "patching effort" does not see the team trying to overhaul an aging defense and then proceeding to go 2 for 20. Hell, a "patching effort" doesn't even see the team use 20 picks on that side of the ball over that period. Moss and Welker are irrelevant to the defensive draft picks as well.

AzPatsFan said:

I disagree.

It simply takes time to acquire the requisite number of good players when you start a total rebuilding. The Pats had to do that starting in the 2008-9 off season, as the SB players grew old, slow and retired.

Sure there have been disappointment along the way. That happens to all teams. How many '5 year rebuilding plans', ever complete successfully, never mind completing in 4 years or so? There are only two players left from those SB clubs, Tom Brady and Vince Wilfork, so the team has replaced some 51 players.

Job well done, is what I would say. It was done without the usual 5-11 losing seasons too; and even included a SB appearance, albeit with an incomplete club particularly on Defense.

Hats off to the Patriots Front Office and Bill Belichick, architect and GM.

Click to expand...

Disagree all you want. You'll be wrong. The data is the data.

AzPatsFan said:

Yes, I'm afraid it does. Try routing for some other team's front office, instead. In 2006 -2008 BB's aim was to patch a SB club, not to rebuild. He wanted players who could play and contribute immediately. that colors the perspective somewhat. Everyone savages the 2007 draft forgetting that a good portion of it went for Welker, Moss and the Raven's LB.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, and you can take your nonsensical position to another team too. Feel free.

AzPatsFan said:

I still maintain that 2006-2009 was a primarily 'patching' draft effort. BB was trying to prolong a SB winning club.

BB traded picks for immediate help. Think of Colvin, Welker, Moss as merely the most successful of such efforts.

BB drafted with an eye to filling holes, even at the expense of not taking longer range players.

BB drafted players who could contribute immediately, and possibly bypassing players who needed a few years of development.

Different circumstances and objectives alter the strategy. Good GM's, like good Generals, understand that and modify their strategy and tactics as necessary.

Click to expand...

Roosevelt Colvin signed with the Pats as a FA in 2003 - neither a trade, nor applicable to the 2006-2009 period being discussed.

I don't think anyone is criticizing the team for the Moss or Welker trades, or for signing Adalius Thomas as a UFA - a move that didn't work out well in the long run, but which was widely applauded at the time. I also think that BB gets a pass on the Maroney and Chad Jackson picks, which were also widely applauded at the time. Not everything works out. Finally, I think there is general agreement that the 2007 draft stunk.

But even given all of that, there were still many missed opportunities on defense. I'm not sure where the "BB drafted players who could contribute immediately" argument comes in. Terrance Wheatley and Ron Brace were reaches, Brandon Meriweather had character issues, and the Pats passed up a ton of guys who were good candidates. It's hard to justify the Kevin O'Connell and Brandon Tate picks under the "contribute immediately" argument, as one was a developmental QB and the other injured. And that's not including moves such as trading a 2010 3rd and 5th for Derrick Burgess in 2009 - a terrible, terrible trade.

33% of 1st round Draft picks go bust
50% of 2nd round Draft picks go bust.

And it gets much worse from there.

Since the Patriots draft so late in the first round, their picks probably should have an average bust rate of 45%

I think people don't appreciate how much of a crap shoot the Draft is.

That said, I am positive that some of those busts would be drafted high today -if their NFL future was still an unknown.. because these players still have all the measurables that the NFL uses to guess whether they can make the transition or not.

But there's probably no doubt those drafts are sprinkles with avoidable mistakes as well.

mayoclinic said:

...And that's not including moves such as trading a 2010 3rd and 5th for Derrick Burgess in 2009 - a terrible, terrible trade.

Click to expand...

You're taking me down a dark, dark path with this one.

Deus Irae said:

You're taking me down a dark, dark path with this one.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid there's no other destination with that particular move. My apologies.

mayoclinic said:

I'm afraid there's no other destination with that particular move. My apologies.

Click to expand...

I remember all the flack I got when I talked about how bad the Seymour/2010 3rd/2010 5th for Solder/Burgess was, and I want to go back and make everyone eat their posts about that one. It's one of the few incidents (though it's a 2-in-1) from here that actually bothered me, because the homers were so remarkably vile about it.

Danger Zone said:

I think people don't appreciate how much of a crap shoot the Draft is.

That said, I am positive that some of those busts would be drafted high today -if their NFL future was still an unknown.. because these players still have all the measurables that the NFL uses to guess whether they can make the transition or not.

But there's probably no doubt those drafts are sprinkles with avoidable mistakes as well.

Click to expand...

I'm 100% on both sides on this. I believe strongly that fans have unrealistic draft expectations. E.g. we seem to consider a guy like Logan Ryan as the expected value of a late 3rd rounder, when history shows that most late 3rds are washouts. I also think that fans are led astray by the availability heuristic: we remember all teams' draft successes but only our own teams' misses, so we don't realize how dominant misses are across the league.

But I also believe in, to use your phrase, "avoidable mistakes." There's no doubt that the Patriots have made them, and I think it's interesting to sort out what kind of mistakes those are. The key category that leaps out at me is players like Ron Brace and Shawn Crable: relatively high picks who lacked the key measurables that best predict success at their respective positions.

Deus Irae said:

Disagree all you want. You'll be wrong. The data is the data.

Click to expand...

Did they turn in a losing season? No. Not wrong.

Did they replace 51 of 53 players? Yes. Not wrong.

Your opinion unlike the facts, doesn't count.

Where am I wrong?

Derrick Burgess...wow, I had forgotten about that one. Yeesh.

I heard that Easley signed! Hope he's having fun at the Rookie Symposium this week!

AzPatsFan said:

Did they turn in a losing season? No. Not wrong.

Did they replace 51 of 53 players? Yes. Not wrong.

Your opinion unlike the facts, doesn't count.

Where am I wrong?

Click to expand...

Pretty much your entire post. It was ridiculous in how little was applicable, and in how wrong that applicable parts were. Frankly, I was initially thinking that someone must have borrowed your computer at home, or something. It's one of the silliest non-defense defenses that I've read on this site, and there have been hundreds of doozies around here.

Deus Irae said:

Disagree all you want. You'll be wrong. The data is the data.

Click to expand...

The data are the data.

patriot lifer said:

The data are the data.

Click to expand...

Data is both a singular and a plural. I used it as a mass noun. That would make it singular.

Deus Irae said:

Data is both a singular and a plural.

Click to expand...

learn something new everyday