How does Belichick and his staff rate at drafting wide receivers?

BB has chosen zero first rounder WRs. 65 first round WRs have been chosen since BB took over. NE is the only team to have never chosen a first rounder in that time.

Bobsyouruncle said:

BB has invested zero first rounder WRS. 65 first rounD WRs have been chosen since BB took over. NE is the only team to have never chosen one.

Click to expand...

More important. They didn't need to, in order to finish in the Top 5 Offense every year. More instructive is the 2 #1 and a #2 that BB invested in TEs though.

AzPatsFan said:

More important. They didn't need to, in order to finish in the Top 5 Offense every year. More instructive is the 2 #1 and a #2 that BB invested in TEs though.

Click to expand...

And a number three and two number 4s. Bill likes his TEs.

Patriots have taken four 2nd rounders in BB era. 69 have been taken by the entire NFL over that period. Going by Profootballreferences career average metric, which is pretty good for rating the players that have been roughly good it looks like a pretty poor list.

Outside of maybe the top 10 (Branch is 8th best on the list) it's average guys. Outside of the top 20 it's below average. To get a feel for the quality consider Gaffney is the 9th best WR picked up in the second round since 2000 and Reche Caldwell is in the top 50%.

By far the outlier is GB who have managed to get 3 of the top 14 since that time. Outside of GB nobody seems to be getting any more out of 2nd round receivers than NE. Link if you want to see. Press career av to line up by best player to worst.

http://www.pro-football-reference.c...lege_id=all&conference=any&show=all&order_by=

captain stone said:

Bill has drafted only 3 good WRs in SIXTEEN years mainly for 2 reasons:

All of the other WRs were over-valued crap; and he bypassed WRs who could've helped in order to take over-valued crap at other positions…and ZERO of those bypassed WRs were first-rounders, BTW.

Click to expand...

How many WRs have the Pats actually drafted over 16 years?
2000 - 0
2001 - 0
2002 - 2 - 2nd Round Branch, 7th Round Givens
2003 - 1 - 2nd round Bethel Johnson
2004 - 1 - 5th round P.K. Sam
2005 -
2006 - 1 - 2nd round Chad Jackson - Was rated a STEAL at the time.
2007 -
2008 - 1 - 5th round Matthew Slater - Was drafted as a Special Teamer
2009 - 2 - 3rd Round Brandon Tate (coming off ACL injury) - 7th round Julian Edelman
2010 - 1 - 3rd round Taylor Price
2011 - 0
2012 - 1 - 7th round Jeremy Ebert
2013 - 2 - 2nd round Aaron Dobson , 4th round Josh Boyce
2014 - 1 - 7th round Jeremy Gallon
2015 - 0

So, across 16 years we have a total of 13 WR chosen if you truly want to count Slater as a WR. Personally, I don't count him as one.

Zero of those WR were taken in the 1st round. 4 were taken in the 2nd, 2 in the 3rd round, and then the remaining 6 were in the 4th round or later.

They've had success with Branch, Givens, and Edelman. They've had complete failure with Sam, Jackson, Price, Ebert, and Gallon. And the jury is still out on Dobson and Boyce, though it's not looking good for Boyce. Bethel Johnson was a below average receiver, but a good return man for a few years..

So, the Pats are 3 for 10, not including Slater (not really a WR), Dobson, and Boyce. It goes up to 40% if you acknowledge Bethel Johnson as having had some value for the reason he was drafted (Return man). How does that far compared to other teams..

Well, someone mentioned Green Bay, so let's look at what they've done.
2000-2015 - Green Bay drafted 22 WR during that time. Drafthistory.com lists 24, but they have Will Blackmon (CB) listed as a WR and David Martin (TE) listed as WR. Successes include Ferguson, Cobb, Nelson, Javon Walker, Greg Jennings. The jury is still out on Davante Adams, Ty Montgomery, Jeff Janis, Charles Johnson, Jared Abbrederis,.

The other names drafted include:
Kevin Dorsey, Brett Swain, James Jones, David Clowney, Cory Rodgers, Terrence Murphy, Craig Bragg, DeAndrew Rubin, Carl Ford, Anthony Lucas, Joey Jamison, Charles Lee.

5 out of 17.. 6 of 17 if you give them James Jones.

Draft capital spent:
1st Round Picks - 1 , 2nd round Picks - 6, 3rd round pick - 2, 4th round picks - 2, 5th round picks, 3, 6th round pick, 1, 7th round pick - 7

5/17 = 29% success 6/17 = 35%

It's all in the perception.. The Packers have spent higher draft capital to achieve their perceived success..

AzPatsFan said:

More important. They didn't need to, in order to finish in the Top 5 Offense every year. More instructive is the 2 #1 and a #2 that BB invested in TEs though.

Click to expand...

There's no question our offense is one of the most elite in the League. I'd go as far as to say that the offensive output of the Patriots (from 2005 to 2014) is almost historic, and that's mostly due to Tom Brady. But I'm not just going to assume Brady will always be this good. And if that's the case, can we keep our offensive production going?

These folks at ESPN ask the same question



If Brady is facing a decline in the next 4 or 5 years, one would hope by then, we will have already learned how to draft and build quality receivers....But you would think by now we would have already figured that out

DaBruinz said:

How many WRs have the Pats actually drafted over 16 years?
2000 - 0
2001 - 0
2002 - 2 - 2nd Round Branch, 7th Round Givens
2003 - 1 - 2nd round Bethel Johnson
2004 - 1 - 5th round P.K. Sam
2005 -
2006 - 1 - 2nd round Chad Jackson - Was rated a STEAL at the time.
2007 -
2008 - 1 - 5th round Matthew Slater - Was drafted as a Special Teamer
2009 - 2 - 3rd Round Brandon Tate (coming off ACL injury) - 7th round Julian Edelman
2010 - 1 - 3rd round Taylor Price
2011 - 0
2012 - 1 - 7th round Jeremy Ebert
2013 - 2 - 2nd round Aaron Dobson , 4th round Josh Boyce
2014 - 1 - 7th round Jeremy Gallon
2015 - 0

So, across 16 years we have a total of 13 WR chosen if you truly want to count Slater as a WR. Personally, I don't count him as one.

Zero of those WR were taken in the 1st round. 4 were taken in the 2nd, 2 in the 3rd round, and then the remaining 6 were in the 4th round or later.

They've had success with Branch, Givens, and Edelman. They've had complete failure with Sam, Jackson, Price, Ebert, and Gallon. And the jury is still out on Dobson and Boyce, though it's not looking good for Boyce. Bethel Johnson was a below average receiver, but a good return man for a few years..

So, the Pats are 3 for 10, not including Slater (not really a WR), Dobson, and Boyce. It goes up to 40% if you acknowledge Bethel Johnson as having had some value for the reason he was drafted (Return man). How does that far compared to other teams..

Well, someone mentioned Green Bay, so let's look at what they've done.
2000-2015 - Green Bay drafted 22 WR during that time. Drafthistory.com lists 24, but they have Will Blackmon (CB) listed as a WR and David Martin (TE) listed as WR. Successes include Ferguson, Cobb, Nelson, Javon Walker, Greg Jennings. The jury is still out on Davante Adams, Ty Montgomery, Jeff Janis, Charles Johnson, Jared Abbrederis,.

The other names drafted include:
Kevin Dorsey, Brett Swain, James Jones, David Clowney, Cory Rodgers, Terrence Murphy, Craig Bragg, DeAndrew Rubin, Carl Ford, Anthony Lucas, Joey Jamison, Charles Lee.

5 out of 17.. 6 of 17 if you give them James Jones.

Draft capital spent:
1st Round Picks - 1 , 2nd round Picks - 6, 3rd round pick - 2, 4th round picks - 2, 5th round picks, 3, 6th round pick, 1, 7th round pick - 7

5/17 = 29% success 6/17 = 35%

It's all in the perception.. The Packers have spent higher draft capital to achieve their perceived success..

Click to expand...

Well I don't see why you'd compare GB with a completely different Regime 2000-2004. Ted Thompson's regime has been immensely better at scouting receivers than BB's has. He's 4/4 on his receivers in the top 3 rounds, (Terrence Murphy's career ended with a back injury 3 games in, and James Jones is definitely a hit). There is absolutely no comparison there.

McClusky said:

Well I don't see why you'd compare GB with a completely different Regime 2000-2004. Ted Thompson's regime has been immensely better at scouting receivers than BB's has. He's 4/4 on his receivers in the top 3 rounds, (Terrence Murphy's career ended with a back injury 3 games in, and James Jones is definitely a hit). There is absolutely no comparison there.

Click to expand...

I compared every team not just GB. And I don't see how you're getting 4-4, they've taken more than that in the first 3 rounds, even during the Thompson era.

Bobsyouruncle said:

I compared every team not just GB. And I don't see how you're getting 4-4, they've taken more than that in the first 3 rounds, even during the Thompson era.

Click to expand...

Ted Thompson started in 2005 they've drafted in the top 3 rounds:

Terrence Murphy (2nd) He suffered an injury 3 games into his career that forced him to retire, I don't really count him since there isn't a sample to really draw from.
Greg Jennings (2nd)
James Jones (3rd)
Jordy Nelson (2nd)
Randall Cobb (2nd)
Davante Adams (2nd) incomplete, but trending in the right direction.

They've targeted receivers and selected them well. I'll call it 4/4 It's not just a perception thing in this particular case.

In general I don't have a problem with people criticizing BB's drafting of receivers. It's been a trouble spot for us at times that has relied heavily on free agents more so than other positions. In the last 10 years we've drafted 1 receiver who has had a strong impact, and that is the one guy who we actually didn't have tape on as a receiver. We also kind of lucked out in discovering that he was a good receiver considering we buried him on the depth chart for 4 years, and let him hit FA unless he accepted a vet minimum offer.

Has he invested a lot of capital in the receiving corps, no. However, at times his thin receiver corps have cost him some game, and he had the same opportunity to evaluate dozens of successful receivers like everyone else and chose not to select them. Lets call it like it is on this one.

McClusky said:

Ted Thompson started in 2005 they've drafted in the top 3 rounds:

Terrence Murphy (2nd) He suffered an injury 3 games into his career that forced him to retire, I don't really count him since there isn't a sample to really draw from.
Greg Jennings (2nd)
James Jones (3rd)
Jordy Nelson (2nd)
Randall Cobb (2nd)
Davante Adams (2nd) incomplete, but trending in the right direction.

They've targeted receivers and selected them well. I'll call it 4/4 It's not just a perception thing in this particular case.

In general I don't have a problem with people criticizing BB's drafting of receivers. It's been a trouble spot for us at times that has relied heavily on free agents more so than other positions. In the last 10 years we've drafted 1 receiver who has had a strong impact, and that is the one guy who we actually didn't have tape on as a receiver. We also kind of lucked out in discovering that he was a good receiver considering we buried him on the depth chart for 4 years, and let him hit FA unless he accepted a vet minimum offer.

Has he invested a lot of capital in the receiving corps, no. However, at times his thin receiver corps have cost him some game, and he had the same opportunity to evaluate dozens of successful receivers like everyone else and chose not to select them. Lets call it like it is on this one.

Click to expand...

I'm calling it like it is. I used all 2nd round picks from all teams. If I remove Jackson from the list for injury and rate Dobson as more successful than Adams BBs numbers look better, there's a reason I didn't do that.

The reason I didn't rate all BBs picks (even guys that got injured, or haven't had much production) vs some of the other team's picks, only if that other team had the right GM, and only if they didn't get injured, and only if they were successful is it's a ridiculously cherry picked comparison.

Bobsyouruncle said:

By far the outlier is GB who have managed to get 3 of the top 14 since that time. Outside of GB nobody seems to be getting any more out of 2nd round receivers than NE. Link if you want to see.

Click to expand...

This is great stuff. Thanks.

Bobsyouruncle said:

I'm calling it like it is. I used all 2nd round picks from all teams. If I remove Jackson from the list for injury and rate Dobson as more successful than Adams BBs numbers look better, there's a reason I didn't do that.

The reason I didn't rate all BBs picks (even guys that got injured, or haven't had much production) vs some of the other team's picks, only if that other team had the right GM, and only if they didn't get injured, and only if they were successful. It's a ridiculously cherry picked comparison.

Click to expand...

It also should be noted that no other team comes close to that success rate on WRs. Of course you are going to look bad when comparing yourself to an outlier. Not that you can't learn from the uber-successful, but how NE compares to the league at large is much more meaningful.

Bobsyouruncle said:

BB has chosen zero first rounder WRs. 65 first round WRs have been chosen since BB took over. NE is the only team to have never chosen a first rounder in that time.

Click to expand...

And I have no problem with that, at all. I wouldn't have drafted any WR in the first round either,
including Dez Bryant. What I would've done however, among other things, is choose Golden Tate
ahead of Germie Cunnyham 26 picks later.

Bobsyouruncle said:

I'm calling it like it is. I used all 2nd round picks from all teams. If I remove Jackson from the list for injury and rate Dobson as more successful than Adams BBs numbers look better, there's a reason I didn't do that.

The reason I didn't rate all BBs picks (even guys that got injured, or haven't had much production) vs some of the other team's picks, only if that other team had the right GM, and only if they didn't get injured, and only if they were successful is it's a ridiculously cherry picked comparison.

Click to expand...

I wasn't even responding to you, I was talking to the guy who said that the difference between the Packers drafting of receivers and the Patriots drafting of receivers is a matter of perception, which is laughably false.

Oswlek said:

This is great stuff. Thanks.



It also should be noted that no other team comes close to that success rate on WRs. Of course you are going to look bad when comparing yourself to an outlier. Not that you can't learn from the uber-successful, but how NE compares to the league at large is much more meaningful.

Click to expand...

Here is the thing the goal of the draft is to utilize your picks to bring in young cheap talent to your roster that diversifies the skill sets on your team, the Patriots while their investment at WR has been low, have really largely failed to do that over the last 10 years. I mean Edelman is pretty much the only guy who we can say that about. The thread title is "How does BB and his staff rate at drafting wide receivers" if over a long stretch of time they're not successful at bringing in talent at that position despite having ~80 or so opportunities to identify and pick a guy who can be successful, then they're not drafting wide receivers well.

I understand the approximate value argument, but at the same time with the way the Patriots offense outperforms the league average, the approximate value of Patriots drafted receivers should also outperform the league average. It's the same reason why Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Brandon Lloyd, Brandon Lafell, Deion Branch, and most other major contributors had a higher AV per season in NE than in other places. In this case comparing to the average does not make sense.

McClusky said:

I wasn't even responding to you, I was talking to the guy who said that the difference between the Packers drafting of receivers and the Patriots drafting of receivers is a matter of perception, which is laughably false.




Here is the thing the goal of the draft is to utilize your picks to bring in young cheap talent to your roster that diversifies the skill sets on your team, the Patriots while their investment at WR has been low, have really largely failed to do that over the last 10 years. I mean Edelman is pretty much the only guy who we can say that about. The thread title is "How does BB and his staff rate at drafting wide receivers" if over a long stretch of time they're not successful at bringing in talent at that position despite having ~80 or so opportunities to identify and pick a guy who can be successful, then they're not drafting wide receivers well.

I understand the approximate value argument, but at the same time with the way the Patriots offense outperforms the league average, the approximate value of Patriots drafted receivers should also outperform the league average. It's the same reason why Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Brandon Lloyd, Brandon Lafell, Deion Branch, and most other major contributors had a higher AV per season in NE than in other places. In this case comparing to the average does not make sense.

Click to expand...

Okay, I apologize for being impolite.

I don't see the draft the same as you because above average offense could just as likely lead to below average WRs drafted. You could say the Patriots should have above average QB drafts since they have an above average passing game. But the last 15 drafts have yielded probably the worst QB draft in the NFL because none of those players could displace the starter. The same principle applies to all positions. Had they not traded for Moss they likely would have got more production from their drafted players, and had a worse team.

I think it's a fair assessment to compare Patriot WR picks vs the NFL as a whole in similar picks. In that comparison they come out around 1 of 4 in 2nd rounders. From what I see that's not the worst, closer to average. There's other ways to analyze the question, like how they use their draft stock overall but those will likely have the Patriots coming out higher since they continually have productive WRs.

One method that I think isn't very useful for analysis though is looking at who they drafted and saying player X was still available. That is true for every team. As is saying they had so many opportunities and hit less than some percent. Comparisons must compare. If all an analysis can conclude is the Patriots are terrible and so are 90% or 100% of teams it doesn't tell us much. If everyone's terrible nobody is. Or for that matter if ones method for grading terribleness includes half the teams in the NFL than it means the grading method is flawed, nothing more.

Does anyone remember who the Patriots originally wanted to draft in the second round in 2002? Deion Branch, the player taken and one of the big bright spots in Belichick's parade of misses in this round, was taken when I think Pittsburgh took Antwan Randle El or Dallas took Antonio Bryant. We were targeting another player. I can't recall who.

I haven't read anyone mentioning that Branch was not the original intended selection. I loved him as a player and never thought we should have let him go to Seattle. It's great when the plan doesn't go as expected, and we're better off for it.

Also, in the same draft we gave up an awful lot to move up to get Daniel Graham ahead of Seattle. At the time Mike Holmgren was the Seahawk coach and he and his staff had coached Graham in some all-star game after the season and were very impressed by him.

The Patriots got intel on the situation and were bound and determined to get him ahead of them. It turns out this might be a sore subject for Belichick. A few spots later the Ravens would take Ed Reed, who has been given more praise by Bill than any other player I can recall extolling in recent memory.

When Belichick comes clean after his long and illustrious career, this "mistake" may have changed the way he drafted. No more receivers in the first round. For that, it may have been a useful lesson.

Here's an outsider's perspective (mine):

I think WRs drafted into the Pats' system have an extra layer of difficulty involved in acclimating to the pros -- namely, an extremely complex and precise offense. There are enough accomplished (veteran!) players who've remarked on the difficulty of picking up the Pats' offense (e.g. Wayne) or simply never adapted (e.g. CJohnson) that I've got to believe that the scheme might overwhelm draftees who lack a terrific football IQ. It just seems like it would be pretty overwhelming for an incoming draft pick, who would not only have to be sufficiently talented from a physical standpoint, but also extremely sharp from a football perspective, and focused enough to process it all...which basically means your draft picks may have to be smarter, harder working, and more mature than your typical 21 year old entering the NFL. You basically have a different (and arguably harder to find) target profile for WRs than most teams.

So IMHO it's a bit unfair to grade the Pats on the same scale as other teams in this regard. It makes much more sense to take into account their efforts to get veteran WRs via FA (where, frankly, it's easier to target the football IQ/acumen required, due to FA player's experience, an extended track record to observe, etc)

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure the FO in N.E. would like to have a few of those draft picks back! - but I'm guessing that there are players who flame out in N.E. that might have found more success in other, simpler systems.


Just my $.02

I'm going to attack this question from the same direction as bobsyouruncle, which I think is the right one, using ProFootballReference's calculated stats to get a good gauge about the quality of drafted players, regardless of if they're on their drafting team or not.

Coupled with Player Value is Draft Capital as calculated by the Jimmy Johnson-derived Draft Pick Value chart found here: http://www.fftoday.com/nfl/nfl_draftpick_value.htm

So the team that is best at drafting WR will select players with the highest CarAV while using the least amount of Draft Pick Value to do so.

I did the Pats and 7 other teams, which are usually held up as much better at WR-drafting than the Patriots. Also I did the Lions for comparison, since BB's WR drafting is often described as horrendous:


As you can see, the Patriots aren't the team that has spent the least draft capital on WRs (Colts), nor are they the team that has picked the WRs with the least value (Ravens). Also with the exception of the Lions these are all highly competitive teams over the period covered, and the Pats fall right in the middle. They actually seem to be pretty decent when it comes to getting WR production through the draft under BB (and this doesn't include the trades for Welker and Moss).

Also the team people should be pointing out as the best at drafting WRs is Indy, which got tremendous bang for their buck. They also picked the fewest number of WRs; over half of them had solid careers.

Here's the raw stats:


Yes, the Colts have drafted 8 receivers in 15 years. And all but 1 did something in the NFL.


More of a "see what sticks" approach. A lot stuck.


A lot of hits and a lot of trash.




Some good, some bad.


Nothing to be proud of.


This is what "horrendous" looks like.

lillloyd said:

I think WRs drafted into the Pats' system have an extra layer of difficulty involved in acclimating to the pros -- namely, an extremely complex and precise offense. There are enough accomplished (veteran!) players who've remarked on the difficulty of picking up the Pats' offense (e.g. Wayne) or simply never adapted (e.g. CJohnson) that I've got to believe that the scheme might overwhelm draftees who lack a terrific football IQ. It just seems like it would be pretty overwhelming for an incoming draft pick, who would not only have to be sufficiently talented from a physical standpoint, but also extremely sharp from a football perspective, and focused enough to process it all...which basically means your draft picks may have to be smarter, harder working, and more mature than your typical 21 year old entering the NFL. You basically have a different (and arguably harder to find) target profile for WRs than most teams.

So IMHO it's a bit unfair to grade the Pats on the same scale as other teams in this regard. It makes much more sense to take into account their efforts to get veteran WRs via FA (where, frankly, it's easier to target the football IQ/acumen required, due to FA player's experience, an extended track record to observe, etc)

Click to expand...

I was just about to write something along these lines, but you not only beat me to it - you explained it better than I would have.

Perhaps with the complexity of reading the defense and adjusting your route accordingly, it simply makes more sense to attempt to find a veteran receiver. Some work out (Moss, Welker, LaFell) and some don't (CJ, Galloway, Holt). In some cases (Welker and Moss) the limited resource of a draft pick was indeed used, and used quite effectively on a wide receiver. I don't believe that can be completely unconditionally dismissed in this discussion.



P.S. - good luck this year, except of course in week one.

McClusky said:

Ted Thompson started in 2005 they've drafted in the top 3 rounds:

Terrence Murphy (2nd) He suffered an injury 3 games into his career that forced him to retire, I don't really count him since there isn't a sample to really draw from.
Greg Jennings (2nd)
James Jones (3rd)
Jordy Nelson (2nd)
Randall Cobb (2nd)
Davante Adams (2nd) incomplete, but trending in the right direction.

They've targeted receivers and selected them well. I'll call it 4/4 It's not just a perception thing in this particular case.

In general I don't have a problem with people criticizing BB's drafting of receivers. It's been a trouble spot for us at times that has relied heavily on free agents more so than other positions. In the last 10 years we've drafted 1 receiver who has had a strong impact, and that is the one guy who we actually didn't have tape on as a receiver. We also kind of lucked out in discovering that he was a good receiver considering we buried him on the depth chart for 4 years, and let him hit FA unless he accepted a vet minimum offer.

Has he invested a lot of capital in the receiving corps, no. However, at times his thin receiver corps have cost him some game, and he had the same opportunity to evaluate dozens of successful receivers like everyone else and chose not to select them. Lets call it like it is on this one.

Click to expand...

In fairness you have to consider what BB did with those unused Draft picks elsewhere.. For every failure I can show a success like Seymour Vollmer or Collins.