Best and Worst draft picks of the Bill Belichick era

Wilfolk at 8 is borderline criminal.

TBR said:

Deceiving stats

Click to expand...

I know the league no longer places a high value on running backs or the running game in general, but that doesn't mean their contributions should be dismissed. Ridley was a solid contributor over the years and produced a lot for us.

The fumbles were an issue, although a bit overblown. But he was productive and steady too. In 2013, he was one of the top backs in terms of positive runs, meaning he kept the offense on schedule for 1st downs. By some advanced measures, he was second to only DeMarco Murray in 2013 for winning runs or productive runs or whatever you want to call them. It's one of the reasons the Eagles shipped out McCoy and brought in Murray, to have more consistency in their offense. Explosive plays are nice, but if you're consistently losing yards, the offensive drive consistency struggles.

And despite being the 7th back taken in 2011, he has been the 2nd-most productive behind only Murray. He has more production than Mark Ingram, the Heisman winner and 1st back taken. Ingram's arrow is pointing up after finally putting together a consistent season, while Ridley is down from the benching and then the injury, but if I were a team looking for a RB, I'd rather take a 1 or 2 year deal with Ridley than the 4 year, $16M Ingram just got.

I know his time here didn't end well, but we got a ton of value out of Ridley, about 3 times more than historical averages suggest for his draft slot. So lay off the kid. He was a solid contributor in his time here.

convertedpatsfan said:

I know the league no longer places a high value on running backs or the running game in general, but that doesn't mean their contributions should be dismissed. Ridley was a solid contributor over the years and produced a lot for us.

The fumbles were an issue, although a bit overblown. But he was productive and steady too. In 2013, he was one of the top backs in terms of positive runs, meaning he kept the offense on schedule for 1st downs. By some advanced measures, he was second to only DeMarco Murray in 2013 for winning runs or productive runs or whatever you want to call them. It's one of the reasons the Eagles shipped out McCoy and brought in Murray, to have more consistency in their offense. Explosive plays are nice, but if you're consistently losing yards, the offensive drive consistency struggles.

And despite being the 7th back taken in 2011, he has been the 2nd-most productive behind only Murray. He has more production than Mark Ingram, the Heisman winner and 1st back taken. Ingram's arrow is pointing up after finally putting together a consistent season, while Ridley is down from the benching and then the injury, but if I were a team looking for a RB, I'd rather take a 1 or 2 year deal with Ridley than the 4 year, $16M Ingram just got.

I know his time here didn't end well, but we got a ton of value out of Ridley, about 3 times more than historical averages suggest for his draft slot. So lay off the kid. He was a solid contributor in his time here.

Click to expand...

I never said he wasn't a solid contributor. Vereen was more valuable.

TBR said:

I never said he wasn't a solid contributor. Vereen was more valuable.

Click to expand...

I understand if you feel that way, but I didn't think your comment about Ridley's stats being deceiving was justified.

As a full-time starter, Ridley finished 7th in the league in rushing yards, and was on pace for another top 10 finish until being benched for the fumbles. He was a top-10 caliber back for 2 seasons while contributing significantly as a rookie which let the team move on from Lawfirm.

I don't know whether I'd say Ridley contributed more or less than Vereen, but his numbers speak for themselves and they weren't deceiving at all.

convertedpatsfan said:

I understand if you feel that way, but I didn't think your comment about Ridley's stats being deceiving was justified.

As a full-time starter, Ridley finished 7th in the league in rushing yards, and was on pace for another top 10 finish until being benched for the fumbles. He was a top-10 caliber back for 2 seasons while contributing significantly as a rookie which let the team move on from Lawfirm.

I don't know whether I'd say Ridley contributed more or less than Vereen, but his numbers speak for themselves and they weren't deceiving at all.

Click to expand...

I meant the stats were deceiving in the context where it's a comparison between Ridley and Vereen. Because they're asked to do totally different things, despite both being labeled RBs. Alone, Ridley's stats are solid and he had that 1 very impressive season, along with a couple other decent ones. I was surprised he didn't generate more interest as a FA. He'd do well in Dallas.

jmt57 said:

Christopher Price's follow-up appeared Wednesday:

It Is What It Is >> Worst Draft Picks of Bill Belichick Era

Personally I rank Kevin O'Connell much worse than the #12 slot Chris gives him on his list, but that's just my opinion.

Here are Price's rankings:

• • • 12. Kevin O'Connell (3.94 in 2008)
    • 11. Laurence Maroney (1.26 in 2006)
    • 10. Ron Brace (2.40 in 2009)
    • 9. Taylor Price (3.90 in 2010)
    • 8. David Thomas (3.86 in 2006)
    • 7. Jermaine Cunningham (2.53 in 2010)
    • 6a. Terrence Wheatley (2.62 in 2008)
    • 6b. Jonathan Wilhite (4.129 in 2008)
    • 5. Bethel Johnson (2.45 in 2003)
    • 4. Ras-I Dowling (2.33 in 2011)
    • 3. Shawn Crable (3.78 in 2008)
    • 2. Brandon Meriweather (1.24 in 2007)
    • 1. Chad Jackson (2.36 in 2006)

Click to expand...

Wilhite was a 4th rounder, he made the team and started some games. Wheatley was a #2 and hardly played a down. He had a known wrist injury that scared some other teams away, but not the Patriots, unfortunately. They shouldn't be ranked together. David Thomas had a few good years after the Patriots let him go--I think they quit on him too early. I wouldn't put him on this list. How about Garrett Mills, who got picked a round later and never saw the field? Picking a TE in the 4th after you just picked one in the 3rd was a bad decision, IMO.

Chad Jackson deserves his ranking b/c BB traded up to get him. GB traded back and picked Greg Jennings, IIRC. For the rest of these picks, you really need to look up the 20 or so players picked after these guys were taken. In some cases, there just wasn't anyone any better. Hard to analyze these picks without the proper context.

Criteria: Draft status and contribution to the NEP franchise.

Best: Brady.
Worst: Tie: Ras-I, Chad Jackson, Klemm

strngplyr said:

What a weird list.

Light is far too low, Samuel < McCourty, Givens was nice but incredibly overrated on this list. Wilfork is a borderline HOF NT, Stork has played in like 14 games total...

I don't mind the players but the order is god awful for many of them.

Click to expand...

Agreed.
This is not to diminish Givens. Guy was a solid and likeable player who was productive and his contribution was certainly important. However, even using a formula that weights a player's draft spot versus the amount of their contribution, ranking him top 3 just doesn't compute.

robertweathers said:

Criteria: Draft status and contribution to the NEP franchise.

Best: Brady.
Worst: Tie: Ras-I, Chad Jackson, Klemm

Click to expand...

Dowling; taken 33rd, Career stats: 3 years active, 12 games, 2 starts, 1 pass defensed, 8 tackles
Klemm; taken 46th, Career stats: 5 years active, 42 games, 18 starts
Jackson: taken 36th, Career: 3 years active, 18 games, 1 start, 14 rec, 3 TD, 4 PR avg 16.3, 14 KR avg 19.1
No doubt these 3 did not produce anywhere near their draft spots. But I don't think it is tied.

As obviously disappointing as Chad Jackson factually was, he had a few good ST returns and a few TDs. For Klemm he was closer to mid second round and he ended up with 18 starts (good starts, um??). But
Dowling's career stat line is almost empty -- 1 pass defensed and 8 tackles. Then factoring in he was picked one spot away from the first round and I think Dowling is the winner of the biggest bust pick of BB. ((side note: injury may have been the only thing keeping him from being a success. If true it is sad for players who maybe really wanted to play football if not for the health. But you have to take at face value draft spot versus what the player was able to produce).

TheBostonStraggler said:

Dowling; taken 33rd, Career stats: 3 years active, 12 games, 2 starts, 1 pass defensed, 8 tackles
Klemm; taken 46th, Career stats: 5 years active, 42 games, 18 starts
Jackson: taken 36th, Career: 3 years active, 18 games, 1 start, 14 rec, 3 TD, 4 PR avg 16.3, 14 KR avg 19.1
No doubt these 3 did not produce anywhere near their draft spots. But I don't think it is tied.

As obviously disappointing as Chad Jackson factually was, he had a few good ST returns and a few TDs. For Klemm he was closer to mid second round and he ended up with 18 starts (good starts, um??). But
Dowling's career stat line is almost empty -- 1 pass defensed and 8 tackles. Then factoring in he was picked one spot away from the first round and I think Dowling is the winner of the biggest bust pick of BB. ((side note: injury may have been the only thing keeping him from being a success. If true it is sad for players who maybe really wanted to play football if not for the health. But you have to take at face value draft spot versus what the player was able to produce).

Click to expand...

Yea you are right. Good job digging into it. Dowling was such an awful miss.

Ras I Dowling was the worst miss I can remember. But, I too am curious what a healthy version could have done. Who knows. Doesn't matter for this poll. Question is, was he ever truly healthy from the get go? Or just covering them up to get drafted and waiting for any plausible twist or hit to blame it on. Injuries just seemed too "nagging" and never would heal. This is pure conjecture BTW.