A Tale of Two Drafts: 2007 & 2008

[patchick]

(Advance warning: bear with me on a convoluted concept and a rough attempt to sort out splintered, fractional trades...)

Heading into the 2007 draft, many of us felt it was unusually weak for Patriots-type players. The Patriots apparently felt so too, aggressively trading out of the draft. How much different is one draft from another, really? Let's take a look at the picks they did and didn't use in 2007, and compare.

2007 Picks available heading into the free agency period, by round:
1, 1
2
3
4, 4
5
6, 6, 6
7, 7

Wow. Of those, they actually drafted:
1, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7 -- 8 players (after trades).
Of those 8, only 1 (Brandon Meriweather) remains on the roster a year later.

They traded away:
1, 2, 3, 4, 7 -- 5 picks. (The difference between the picks used vs. traded in 2007 is 5, 6, 6, 6, 7 vs. 2 & 3...but wait, the trades also netted them an extra #2 for 2009! So it's even in terms of draft "capital" spent both ways.)
Of the resulting players, the following remain on the roster:
Jerod Mayo
Shawn Crable
Wes Welker
Matthew Slater
Randy Moss

Given how poorly the picks they did exercise in 2007 turned out, is there any chance that using the other half would have yielded the same bonanza they got through trades?

In retrospect, 2007 looks like brilliant management of a truly crappy draft.

 

[BPF]

(Advance warning: bear with me on a convoluted concept and a rough attempt to sort out splintered, fractional trades...)

Heading into the 2007 draft, many of us felt it was unusually weak for Patriots-type players. The Patriots apparently felt so too, aggressively trading out of the draft. How much different is one draft from another, really? Let's take a look at the picks they did and didn't use in 2007, and compare.

2007 Picks available heading into the free agency period, by round:
1, 1
2
3
4, 4
5
6, 6, 6
7, 7

Wow. Of those, they actually drafted:
1, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7 -- 8 players (after trades).
Of those 8, only 1 (Brandon Meriweather) remains on the roster a year later.

They traded away:
1, 2, 3, 4, 7 -- 5 picks. (The difference between the picks used vs. traded in 2007 is 5, 6, 6, 6, 7 vs. 2 & 3...but wait, the trades also netted them an extra #2 for 2009! So it's even in terms of draft "capital" spent both ways.)
Of the resulting players, the following remain on the roster:
Jerod Mayo
Shawn Crable
Wes Welker
Matthew Slater
Randy Moss

Given how poorly the picks they did exercise in 2007 turned out, is there any chance that using the other half would have yielded the same bonanza they got through trades?

In retrospect, 2007 looks like brilliant management of a truly crappy draft.

2007 was considered a very weak draft class overall and viewed that way by many around the league. It's obvious the Pats felt that way because they continually traded out of that draft. Conversly, 2008 was considered a strong overall class and we see the results so far.

 

[Wildo7]

That's a very good point and if you look at it in terms of draft quality vs. the return on talent, the Pats had a very strong draft. If Merriweather turns out how we want him to then you are looking at adding 3 pro-bowl caliber players to a team that went to the AFCCG the year before.

 

[loosebearing]

Not to mention but half of the 8 picks (5, 6, 6, 7) they did make in 2007 were compensatory picks which you are not allowed to trade. Betcha that torked BB and Pioli

As someone mentioned in another thread, they don't rebuild - they reload. The roster is composed of FA, the draft, trades, and UDFA. They use the draft as a spark for building the roster. Not the number one source.

 

[Jimke]

(Advance warning: bear with me on a convoluted concept and a rough attempt to sort out splintered, fractional trades...)

Heading into the 2007 draft, many of us felt it was unusually weak for Patriots-type players. The Patriots apparently felt so too, aggressively trading out of the draft. How much different is one draft from another, really? Let's take a look at the picks they did and didn't use in 2007, and compare.

2007 Picks available heading into the free agency period, by round:
1, 1
2
3
4, 4
5
6, 6, 6
7, 7

Wow. Of those, they actually drafted:
1, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7 -- 8 players (after trades).
Of those 8, only 1 (Brandon Meriweather) remains on the roster a year later.

They traded away:
1, 2, 3, 4, 7 -- 5 picks. (The difference between the picks used vs. traded in 2007 is 5, 6, 6, 6, 7 vs. 2 & 3...but wait, the trades also netted them an extra #2 for 2009! So it's even in terms of draft "capital" spent both ways.)
Of the resulting players, the following remain on the roster:
Jerod Mayo
Shawn Crable
Wes Welker
Matthew Slater
Randy Moss

Given how poorly the picks they did exercise in 2007 turned out, is there any chance that using the other half would have yielded the same bonanza they got through trades?

In retrospect, 2007 looks like brilliant management of a truly crappy draft.

One out of eight draft choices making a team is not a good draft.

In retrospect, they should have packaged their picks like the Jets

to get a better player in round one.

 

[signbabybrady]

One out of eight draft choices making a team is not a good draft.

In retrospect, they should have packaged their picks like the Jets

to get a better player in round one.

Do you not think we made a good rd one pick last year?

 

[patchick]

One out of eight draft choices making a team is not a good draft.

In retrospect, they should have packaged their picks like the Jets

to get a better player in round one.

In retrospect, they should have packaged their picks to move up in a weak draft rather than trading them for Jerod Mayo, Wes Welker, Shawn Crable and Randy Moss?

 

[BelichickFan]

In retrospect, they should have packaged their picks like the Jets

to get a better player in round one.

Didn't you read the original post ??? Fine. Package the two #1s - who are you going to get that would be better than Mayo and Meriweather combined ? Maybe Patrick Willis but that's picking the one perfect guy. It's very difficult to argue with what they did looking at the names now.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

One out of eight draft choices making a team is not a good draft.

In retrospect, they should have packaged their picks like the Jets

to get a better player in round one.

I could give you 36 million reasons NOT to trade up and overpay for an unproven rookie. Revis may be good but not at that cap busting contract that voids after 4 years.......

 

[BelichickFan]

In retrospect, they should have packaged their picks to move up in a weak draft rather than trading them for Jerod Mayo, Wes Welker, Shawn Crable and Randy Moss?

I'm guessing he didn't read your original post - either that or he's been drinking heavily.

Great work on the OP by the way.

 

[unoriginal]

Naturally its unfair to criticize based on hearsay and conjecture, but one thing the Pats may not have done well is that they failed to burn more of those 2nd-day picks to ensure they got Stewart Bradley in the 3rd round.

Rumors before and after the draft were that we were very high on him, and had him targeted for our late 3rd pick, the 91st. Which we traded after the Eagles got him at 87.

I know we eventually wheeled and dealed that 3rd and some other low picks for Oscar Lua, Matt Slater, a 2009 2nd rounder and half-off a pair of shoes at Foot Locker, but Bradley looks like he could have been a good WILB for us. He's starting at Mike for Philly I believe.

That was the one spot we could have crammed a good rookie onto our opening day defense that year and had him stick. Instead we ended up letting Kareem Brown and Justin Rodgers waltz off the bottom of our roster cause we were stacked at those positions.

We had the picks available to move up 5 slots in the 3rd. So are Matt Slater + 2009 2nd pick > 255 lb 3-4 ILB Stewart Bradley? Rhetorical question, but food for thought.

 

[BelichickFan]

We had the picks available to move up 5 slots in the 3rd. So are Matt Slater + 2009 2nd pick > 255 lb 3-4 ILB Stewart Bradley? Rhetorical question, but food for thought.

Tough call. Should be a fairly low #2 but I don't think it's clear which side I'd prefer on that. As our young LB are more OLB than ILB (other than Mayo and depending on Guyton's future) I might do it. Slater intrigues me, though, and an extra #2 will be nice next year.

 

[Deus Irae]

Naturally its unfair to criticize based on hearsay and conjecture, but one thing the Pats may not have done well is that they failed to burn more of those 2nd-day picks to ensure they got Stewart Bradley in the 3rd round.

Rumors before and after the draft were that we were very high on him, and had him targeted for our late 3rd pick, the 91st. Which we traded after the Eagles got him at 87.

I know we eventually wheeled and dealed that 3rd and some other low picks for Oscar Lua, Matt Slater, a 2009 2nd rounder and half-off a pair of shoes at Foot Locker, but Bradley looks like he could have been a good WILB for us. He's starting at Mike for Philly I believe.

That was the one spot we could have crammed a good rookie onto our opening day defense that year and had him stick. Instead we ended up letting Kareem Brown and Justin Rodgers waltz off the bottom of our roster cause we were stacked at those positions.

We had the picks available to move up 5 slots in the 3rd. So are Matt Slater + 2009 2nd pick > 255 lb 3-4 ILB Stewart Bradley? Rhetorical question, but food for thought.

This is a ridiculous argument. Do you have any idea how much half-off is worth at a Foot Locker?

 

[patchick]

Naturally its unfair to criticize based on hearsay and conjecture, but one thing the Pats may not have done well is that they failed to burn more of those 2nd-day picks to ensure they got Stewart Bradley in the 3rd round.

no...don't...it still hurts too much....

 

[unoriginal]

Tough call. Should be a fairly low #2 but I don't think it's clear which side I'd prefer on that. As our young LB are more OLB than ILB (other than Mayo and depending on Guyton's future) I might do it. Slater intrigues me, though, and an extra #2 will be nice next year.

There's definitely a silver lining to it, but I'm more of the opinion 1st-day ILBs BB/Pioli like are rarer than unicorns, and ST/S players like Je'Rod Cherry/Willie Andrews/Matt Slater/Raymond Ventrone are a dime a dozen. Who knows how/if that 2nd rounder will help the team, but turning a 2007 3rd in a 2009 2nd isn't exactly minting money, you know? That's barely preserving value.

Then again, we don't know exactly how well Stewart Bradley would have done in our defense.

But I think if the Pats could do it again they'd probably burn that 4th rounder to jump up in the 3rd and get Bradley. I think they sat back too much in a weak draft with a stacked vet roster. Consequently, a lot of the developmental people they ended up selecting were shedded.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Naturally its unfair to criticize based on hearsay and conjecture, but one thing the Pats may not have done well is that they failed to burn more of those 2nd-day picks to ensure they got Stewart Bradley in the 3rd round.

Rumors before and after the draft were that we were very high on him, and had him targeted for our late 3rd pick, the 91st. Which we traded after the Eagles got him at 87.

I know we eventually wheeled and dealed that 3rd and some other low picks for Oscar Lua, Matt Slater, a 2009 2nd rounder and half-off a pair of shoes at Foot Locker, but Bradley looks like he could have been a good WILB for us. He's starting at Mike for Philly I believe.

That was the one spot we could have crammed a good rookie onto our opening day defense that year and had him stick. Instead we ended up letting Kareem Brown and Justin Rodgers waltz off the bottom of our roster cause we were stacked at those positions.

We had the picks available to move up 5 slots in the 3rd. So are Matt Slater + 2009 2nd pick > 255 lb 3-4 ILB Stewart Bradley? Rhetorical question, but food for thought.

Two/three things here:
(1) We simply don't know whether missing out on Bradley was the result of not offering enough in a trade, or simply not being able to find a trading partner. For all we know, the Pats tried to go higher, but were simply rebuffed .

(2) Kareem Brown was let go in midseason to active Troy Brown (while I love Troy, in retrospect, I don't think that was a good decision). Rogers was caught between #%#@% Chad Brown and the #%#@#%#@!%@#% decision not to place David Thomas on PUP for the first six weeks (which "took away" a ST spot that Rogers could have had).
(2a) I still hold out hope that Rogers will end up back in New England in 2010; to this day, no one has given me a good explanation for why he agreed to a three-year deal instead of a four-year (and Belioli doing it for shiggles is not a good explanation).

 

[Jimke]

In retrospect, they should have packaged their picks to move up in a weak draft rather than trading them for Jerod Mayo, Wes Welker, Shawn Crable and Randy Moss?

After the Pats chose Meriweather, they obviously thought the draft was a dud. Why not trade off

all of the other picks? Four picks were compensatory picks but there were three other picks that

could have been traded.

 

[BPF]

One out of eight draft choices making a team is not a good draft.

In retrospect, they should have packaged their picks like the Jets

to get a better player in round one.

The Jets drafted the following in 2007:

Round Pick Player name Position College
1 14 Darrelle Revis Cornerback Pittsburgh
2 47 David Harris Inside linebacker Michigan
6 177 Jacob Bender Offensive tackle Nicholls State
7 235 Chansi Stuckey Wide receiver Clemson

Revis and Harris are good players, Bender was just released and they are toying with converting Stuckey to DB.

The Pats drafted Meriweather @ 24, traded for Moss and Welker. No other draft pick is currently with the team . Call me a homer but I'd take the Pats acquisitions in 2007 over the Jets.

 

[BPF]

Two/three things here:
(1) We simply don't know whether missing out on Bradley was the result of not offering enough in a trade, or simply not being able to find a trading partner. For all we know, the Pats tried to go higher, but were simply rebuffed .

(2) Kareem Brown was let go in midseason to active Troy Brown (while I love Troy, in retrospect, I don't think that was a good decision). Rogers was caught between #%#@% Chad Brown and the #%#@#%#@!%@#% decision not to place David Thomas on PUP for the first six weeks (which "took away" a ST spot that Rogers could have had).
(2a) I still hold out hope that Rogers will end up back in New England in 2010; to this day, no one has given me a good explanation for why he agreed to a three-year deal instead of a four-year (and Belioli doing it for shiggles is not a good explanation).

If you want Kareem Brown back he is currently available since the Jets released him.

 

[BelichickFan]

but turning a 2007 3rd in a 2009 2nd isn't exactly minting money, you know? That's barely preserving value.

You're right - OTOH, when we use that pick Bradley's rookie contract will be half over. In these days of short contracts after Round 1, there is some value to spreading out their usage to keep this baby going. That 2009 2nd round pick will have 2 years left on his rookie contract when Bradley hits FA.