Edelman #4, Vollmer #9 in Mel Kiper's 2009 Re-Draft

Nehalem said:

Taking a player, that takes 5 years to develop as a competent receiver, at #4 seems a bit high to me.

And if that is really the 4th best player in the draft... it really sucked.

Click to expand...

Agreed,
Teams expect a player taken in first 16 picks to contribute IMMEDIATELY.

Also, a guy who takes 4-5 years to develop; means someone TAUGHT HIM! At any one time, at least 28 of the 32 team's coaching/mngmt-teams don't have either the patience or the skills, or both.

So calling him 4th best player by accomplishment is fine, but don't say retroactively you would have picked him there (which by title is supposedly the point of the article). That is silly. If anybody knew what he would become they could have easily picked him up at his RFA/initial FA timeframe by overbidding pats by $250-500k and skipped all the hard development process reqmts. Nobody else was interested then either.

Galeb said:

If Kyper wasn't such a dink, a thread like this would have meaning.

Click to expand...

I LOL'ed at this one

Now seems like a good time to also bring up that it isn't about Clay Matthews vs. Rob Gronkowski anymore. One of the 3rds in that deal went to Jacksonville for extra picks, with one of them becoming Edelman. And it's the off-season and we won a Super Bowl so I'm not going to start getting pissy about this, but some of the comments undermining our #1 receiver in this thread are incredibly disrespectful towards a guy who is one of our heart and soul players.

Isolating individual picks is a terrible way to evaluate anything. If I showed you only Brandon Weedon's TDs, and only Brady's INTs, you'd conclude Weedon was better. It's ridiculously stupid, yet that's exactly how many continue to evaluate BB's drafts. There's a bigger picture at play here, and it doesn't show up in sample sizes of 1 or 2 or even 7 picks a year, but rather over decades, the accumulation of picks, the extra chances.

Barnwell wrote a great piece on it here:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/bill-belichick-nfl-draft-new-england-patriots/

Even if you don't think BB is a good drafter, you should appreciate the methodology. Over his time, he has accumulated extra draft capital that basically amounts to the 1st, 2nd, and 19th pick in the draft using a more in-tune drafting model. Or basically the average equivalent of the 99th pick in each draft, a late 3rd in every draft extra by staying patient. That adds up over time, so even if you're not the best, you give yourself more quality chances.

convertedpatsfan said:

isn't about Clay Matthews vs. Rob Gronkowski anymore. One of the 3rds in that deal went to Jacksonville for extra picks, with one of them becoming Edelman. .

Click to expand...

Never knew that. Great call-out @convertedpatsfan.

"But remember that time we took X when Y was still on the board..."

Here is my fondest wish: That someone creates a tamper-proof "track your predictions" tool/community for draftniks. You can make draft-day trades only up to the value of the pick in the trade value chart. Then you can spit out reports on how you did over any number of draft years.... but none of this "selective memory" stuff.

Some guys might even get an NFL scouting staff job out of it. Most will suddenly see that they're worse than the Jaguars at this, never mind Belichick.

PatsFanInVa said:

"But remember that time we took X when Y was still on the board..."

Here is my fondest wish: That someone creates a tamper-proof "track your predictions" tool/community for draftniks. You can make draft-day trades only up to the value of the pick in the trade value chart. Then you can spit out reports on how you did over any number of draft years.... but none of this "selective memory" stuff.

Some guys might even get an NFL scouting staff job out of it. Most will suddenly see that they're worse than the Jaguars at this, never mind Belichick.

Click to expand...

The hard part isn't just selecting players that become good. But become good in your system. There are number of players in the league who sucked on their first team, then they moved to another team with another system, and then became really good. Meaning, you can't even make it as easy as "look at how good they played", but would it fit in the system? Would it fit with what the other players on the team do?

Marinlik said:

The hard part isn't just selecting players that become good. But become good in your system. There are number of players in the league who sucked on their first team, then they moved to another team with another system, and then became really good. Meaning, you can't even make it as easy as "look at how good they played", but would it fit in the system? Would it fit with what the other players on the team do?

Click to expand...

No argument here, but the algorithm would be ridiculous that way

robertweathers said:

Never knew that. Great call-out @convertedpatsfan.

Click to expand...

I just figured that out today so not really That was the trade mostly responsible for Gronk. That pick was traded for the 7th for Jules, and the 2nd in 2010 that was used to trade up for Gronk.

But again, it's part of that overall philosophy. Getting that extra third allowed us to trade it into the future while also taking a player we wanted (Tate) who ended up being a bust, sure, but it also generated 2 extra picks for us which we took advantage of.

Marinlik said:

Disagree on the RT part. Teams put great pass rushers on the offenses right side too.

Click to expand...

How many RT go top ten every year, hell, every five?

Gumby said:

Agreed,
Teams expect a player taken in first 16 picks to contribute IMMEDIATELY.

Also, a guy who takes 4-5 years to develop; means someone TAUGHT HIM! At any one time, at least 28 of the 32 team's coaching/mngmt-teams don't have either the patience or the skills, or both.

So calling him 4th best player by accomplishment is fine, but don't say retroactively you would have picked him there (which by title is supposedly the point of the article). That is silly. If anybody knew what he would become they could have easily picked him up at his RFA/initial FA timeframe by overbidding pats by $250-500k and skipped all the hard development process reqmts. Nobody else was interested then either.

Click to expand...

7th Rd pick, not much difference, but a distinct one at that.

Gumby said:

Agreed,
Teams expect a player taken in first 16 picks to contribute IMMEDIATELY.

Also, a guy who takes 4-5 years to develop; means someone TAUGHT HIM! At any one time, at least 28 of the 32 team's coaching/mngmt-teams don't have either the patience or the skills, or both.

So calling him 4th best player by accomplishment is fine,

Click to expand...

Thats an excellent point and there is a difference between a players true value and his value as a draftee. Edelman has not provided much more than a 5th round impact for the Pats before his rookie contract was up. He was productive in 2012 but then injuries hit him.

Of course he did take a home town discount (which is huge) and he does know our system and so his true value is in some sense greater than just his rookie production. Still, most players won't take a discount and so a draft class is really measured by what they provide before they become FAs

You need to hit if you have a top 10-15 pick [unless it's a real lousy year] after that, it's a crapshoot. Who knows who's a good fit or who's getting injured?

Nehalem said:

Taking a player, that takes 5 years to develop as a competent receiver, at #4 seems a bit high to me.

And if that is really the 4th best player in the draft... it really sucked.

Click to expand...

He was always good and recently became great. Stop it. Not everyone develops overnight and he was switching positions.

I know Stafford was #1 but whom did Kiper have 2 and 3? I know the 2009 draft was bad but there were still a number of good players

Gumby said:

Agreed,
Teams expect a player taken in first 16 picks to contribute IMMEDIATELY.

Also, a guy who takes 4-5 years to develop; means someone TAUGHT HIM! At any one time, at least 28 of the 32 team's coaching/mngmt-teams don't have either the patience or the skills, or both.

So calling him 4th best player by accomplishment is fine, but don't say retroactively you would have picked him there (which by title is supposedly the point of the article). That is silly. If anybody knew what he would become they could have easily picked him up at his RFA/initial FA timeframe by overbidding pats by $250-500k and skipped all the hard development process reqmts. Nobody else was interested then either.

Click to expand...

In the second game of the 2009 season against the Jets, when Edelman was a rookie, he was starting that game because Welker was out. He had 8 receptions for 98 yards. The game against the Texans that same year when Welker tore his ACL and Edelman had to replace him? 10 reception for 103 yards. The playoff debacle against the Ravens one game later? Scored 2 touchdowns. Fact it, he's always been good. We just had Welker most of the time so it's no surprise that his play blew up when Welker left.

patsinthesnow said:

Amazing how that draft has rebounded:

Edelman: Best PR NFL history

Click to expand...

You are on drugs if you think he is better than Devin Hester.

I suspect that almost no team would have taken Edelman at #4, given the time he has taken to develop. The development time was easily foreseeable, given that he was changing positions.

Vollmer was an absolute steal. He might have started at LT for lots of teams. Only the Dallas media (and Belichick) had Vollmer as a top tackle.

robertweathers said:

Just so surreal. A VP of Personnel going after a draftnik. Talk about rabbit ears...

Click to expand...

To be fair, up until the advent of the internet, when anyone with a modem and a keyboard could become an amateur GM, Kiper was really the only game in town (Joel Buschbaum being the other) for normal people to have access to scouting reports on literally hundreds of college prospects. When he got his start in the late 1970s, he was literally it. Given the way scouting and personnel management works, he probably did know more about these prospects than most if not all GMs. That doesn't mean he had a crystal ball, of course.

If anything, Kiper deserves most of the credit for making the draft the public spectacle it is today, far exceeding the draft in any other sport. He inspired legions of other independent scouts and evaluators, including - I suspect - most of the amateurs on this board. If anything, his seeming irrelevance today is largely a product of his own incomparable relevance from 1980 to 1995.

CISGS said:

You are on drugs if you think he is better than Devin Hester.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but Edelman is one of the top five.

BTW, being a top punt returner does't make a player worth a top 5 pick, even in a terrible draft.

Curiously, this thread shows how much respect Kiper has for Edelman. Also, I suspect, it shows how much respect Kiper has for patriot drafting.