2011 Draft Fail Thread!

[patsfaninpa]

I'm trying to remember the last time a C was drafted that high. I'm having trouble coming up with anything.

I went back to the combined NFL/AFL drafts started in 1967. Here are the highest ones I found.

2nd Bob Johnson - Tennessee - Bengals 68
9th Bob Hyland - BC - Green Bay 67
12th Paul Seiler - N DAME - NY Jets 67
12th Pete Brock - Colorado - Pats 76
16th S. Everitt - Michigan - Cleveland 93 by Belichick
17th D. Woody - BC - - Pats 99

 

[Metaphors]

One more. Yes, it's Bleacher Report (the site that, per one of our British colleagues, proves that not everyone is entitled to their own opinion), but still:



:bricks: :bricks:

36. New England Patriots (from Carolina) - Stefen Wisniewski, C, Penn St. - Wisniewski can play guard or center, and with six picks in the first three rounds, New England has plenty of flexibility to play with and it is never afraid to draft a player higher than projected.

Makes perfect sense with just a couple of modifications...

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Been a while, but here's some tasty logic FAIL:

16. NE (from Oak)- Mark Ingram- RB- Alabama
The Patriots are currently getting results from overachievers like Ben-Jarvus Green-Ellis and Danny Woodhead at running back, but a consistent top RB is imperative. Ingram has the combination of size, speed, and durability to give New England an every down back.

OK, let's see if I got this straight: two UDFAs form the core of the NFL's most effective rushing offense . . . so the Patriots need to spend a first on an every-down back?

:idontgetit: :bricks:

 

[ctpatsfan77]

One more for now, again from Football's Future, from a guy who calls himself SadLionFan00:

15. New England Patriots - Brandon Harris CB Miami
31. New England Patriots - Mikel LeShoure RB Illinois

Matt Millen, is that you?

 

[WaterfallJumper]

One more for now, again from Football's Future, from a guy who calls himself SadLionFan00:



Matt Millen, is that you?

Haha. Nice reply.

While I would hate to pick 31st, I couldn't be too terribly upset at the players chosen. Harris could be another McCourtey--I think very highly of him. I'm a bit opposed to the idea of drafting a running back, unless it's mid - late rounds, but LeShoure is big, powerful, quick, and explosive. He would be a great addition to our RBBC, and I wouldn't complain if he were the pick (well, not too much).

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Haha. Nice reply.

While I would hate to pick 31st, I couldn't be too terribly upset at the players chosen. Harris could be another McCourtey--I think very highly of him. I'm a bit opposed to the idea of drafting a running back, unless it's mid - late rounds, but LeShoure is big, powerful, quick, and explosive. He would be a great addition to our RBBC, and I wouldn't complain if he were the pick (well, not too much).

Harris seems like an excellent fit for our secondary. Fast and quick in coverage and excellent in run support. Plus he is a special teams demon.

Can LeShoure pick up the blitz and can he catch, those are questions I need answered before committing to him.

 

[Sciz]

-New England trades 2011 1st Round Pick (17), 1st Round Pick (32), 2012 2nd Round Pick to Cincinnati for 2011 1st Round Pick (4)

4. New England (Cin) -DE. D. Bowers

I like Daquan Bowers, but not THAT much!

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I like Daquan Bowers, but not THAT much!

Can we get a link to the badness?

 

[Sciz]

NFL Forum :: - PhiCelek87's Mock Offseason (FA/Trades) and Draft (3 Rounds)

Apparently the only people that like it are Eagles fans. Probably because one made it :lol2:

 

[ctpatsfan77]

More fun from DraftTek. Not too bad except for #33:

17. OT Anthony Castonzo [not terrible, though not necessarily good value]
28. DE Cameron Heyward
33. ILB Greg Jones :bricks:

 

[MaineMan]

More fun from DraftTek. Not too bad except for #33:

17. OT Anthony Castonzo [not terrible, though not necessarily good value]
28. DE Cameron Heyward
33. ILB Greg Jones :bricks:

Joe Mays is their "Patriots Analyst" and makes the Pats picks for the Drafttek mocks. No idea what his background is, but, based on his explanatory write ups, I get the impression that he doesn't follow the Pats very closely. Even some of the more off the wall ideas suggested in this forum make more sense.

 

[WelshPat]

Been a while, but here's some tasty logic FAIL:



OK, let's see if I got this straight: two UDFAs form the core of the NFL's most effective rushing offense . . . so the Patriots need to spend a first on an every-down back?

:idontgetit: :bricks:

And when the season was on the line, and the Jets dared you to run the ball, you couldn't do it.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

And when the season was on the line, and the Jets dared you to run the ball, you couldn't do it.

With the awful game plan/calling, it's not clear that they "couldn't" so much as "didn't" or "wouldn't." After all, BJGE averaged about 5 yards a carry, but they only gave him the ball 9 times.

More importantly, my point is given how successful non-first round picks RBs have been in recent years, would you argue that ANY team NEEDS to spend a first on a RB?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Joe Mays is their "Patriots Analyst" and makes the Pats picks for the Drafttek mocks. No idea what his background is, but, based on his explanatory write ups, I get the impression that he doesn't follow the Pats very closely. Even some of the more off the wall ideas suggested in this forum make more sense.

To be clear, MaineMan, Mays does not "make" the picks. A computer does, (hence the "Tek") based on analyses of team needs and players available; those writers are tasked with justifying the picks in retrospect.

The best thing about the site is that they let you simulate all sorts of scenarios. For example, you can say "If the Pats decide they need a center more than anything else, AND they traded #28 for #34 and #66 AND they traded #33 for #30 and their sixth-rounder . . . ", and see what happens.

The worst thing about it is that it's prone to GIGO if the team needs are entered badly.

 

[MaineMan]

To be clear, MaineMan, Mays does not "make" the picks. A computer does, (hence the "Tek") based on analyses of team needs and players available; those writers are tasked with justifying the picks in retrospect.

The best thing about the site is that they let you simulate all sorts of scenarios. For example, you can say "If the Pats decide they need a center more than anything else, AND they traded #28 for #34 and #66 AND they traded #33 for #30 and their sixth-rounder . . . ", and see what happens.

The worst thing about it is that it's prone to GIGO if the team needs are entered badly.

So, basically, Mays is the guy who writes up the justifications when the software coughs up a hairball from garbage inputs?

 

[MaineMan]

And when the season was on the line, and the Jets dared you to run the ball, you couldn't do it.

Well, the Pats could run the ball, but there was a cost involved.

Just to be clear, I think BGE is a fine, straight-ahead, one-cut runner with very good vision for the developing hole and the decisiveness to hit it with good timing. He runs squared up, with very good pad-level and better than average low-gear power, and he plays with exceptional ball-security. In short, a near perfect between the tackles guy.

However, he doesn't have the speed to get around the end more than once in awhile. He doesn't really have a second cut to escape the LB level or the extra gear to do much when he does escape. Most important, he doesn't get very deep into the LB level without a dedicated blocker - a TE (Crumpler, mostly) or a FB (Morris).

And that's the cost. In order for BGE to run effectively with any consistency, the Pats have to take one of their more effective pass-catchers off the field. Because the Jets, with their strong D-line, knew that the Pats couldn't run effectively with any consistency out of, say, a 4-WR/1-RB set, they could afford to keep 7-8 guys in coverage (5-6 of them between the numbers in the short/intermediate areas where virtually all of our pass-catchers do their best work). When the Pats took a pass-catcher off the field for the extra blocker, the Jets simply cheated up with a safety and/or LB and could afford to do so since there was at least one less target to cover.

In short, without a between the tackles RB who is a legit threat to break off several good runs on his own even without extra blocking help, and without any pass-catchers who can work the sidelines and deep zones effectively with any consistency, the Pats offense can be thoroughly stymied by a well-executed defense that has decent coverage LBs.

 

[WelshPat]

With the awful game plan/calling, it's not clear that they "couldn't" so much as "didn't" or "wouldn't." After all, BJGE averaged about 5 yards a carry, but they only gave him the ball 9 times.

More importantly, my point is given how successful non-first round picks RBs have been in recent years, would you argue that ANY team NEEDS to spend a first on a RB?

The average is nice, but what I mean is that the Jets were happy when we ran the ball. BJGE had a nice season but he just isn't a big play threat at all.

If anyone here hates Ingram thats fine, but your exact point here could work to our advantage, teams don't want to draft runners in the first round, a few years ago Ingram would be a top 15 pick, now you could get him at 28. Now your getting value.

 

[MaineMan]

The average is nice, but what I mean is that the Jets were happy when we ran the ball. BJGE had a nice season but he just isn't a big play threat at all.

If anyone here hates Ingram thats fine, but your exact point here could work to our advantage, teams don't want to draft runners in the first round, a few years ago Ingram would be a top 15 pick, now you could get him at 28. Now your getting value.

Excellent point, at least hypothetically. In actual practice, I'm thinking probably Ingram and at least one other RB (Leshoure?) are gone by #28 - one of them almost certainly to Miami, unless they take a QB. However, if we've locked up our 3-4 DE with the #17 (or whatever slightly lower 1st-rounder we trade it for), AND Ingram is still available at #28, he's a distinct possibility.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Excellent point, at least hypothetically. In actual practice, I'm thinking probably Ingram and at least one other RB (Leshoure?) are gone by #28 - one of them almost certainly to Miami, unless they take a QB. However, if we've locked up our 3-4 DE with the #17 (or whatever slightly lower 1st-rounder we trade it for), AND Ingram is still available at #28, he's a distinct possibility.

In any case, I wasn't so much arguing against the need for another RB, merely with the author's logic that (A) it's imperative to get one of the consensus top backs, and (B) that the Patriots NEED to spend a high pick to do so. RB is probably the one position with the least difference in quality between a first-round pick and a seventh-round pick.

 

[MaineMan]

In any case, I wasn't so much arguing against the need for another RB, merely with the author's logic that (A) it's imperative to get one of the consensus top backs, and (B) that the Patriots NEED to spend a high pick to do so. RB is probably the one position with the least difference in quality between a first-round pick and a seventh-round pick.

Agree with you about it not being "imperative" per se, for THIS draft. However, I've been working on a tracking sheet, quantifying the cumulative contributions of RBs drafted (and undrafted) starting in 1998 and then comparing them to their draft pick number. The statistical evidence is pretty clear that the odds of acquiring an RB who can consistently (over 3+ seasons) make good yardage on his own without extra blocking help are much, much higher for backs taken in the first 64 picks or so than for backs taken later. It's obviously possible to get reasonably productive guys later, but almost all of them will be lacking something that would allow them to consistently create positive yards on their own.