Assessing BB's drafting

[BradyFTW!]

The 2006 and 2007 drafts were the worst in Bills history. There is only one player still on the team out of 21 that were drafted. Being a mediocre player and lasting with the team in a minimal role deosn't make you a good draft pick, if you are trying to be a SB contender.

Bill Walsh used to say if 50% of your draft picks don't make significant contributions to your team for at least 5 years you don't know how to draft.

But the Bill Walsh draft to talk about, remember and study is 1986. By trading down twice and making six trades, Walsh had 13 picks and came up with eight players of real consequence. Here they are: Larry Roberts, Steve Wallace, Tom Rathman, Tim McKyer, John Taylor, Charles Haley, Kevin ***an and Don Griffin.

If the Pats don't know how to draft, then by any objective standard nobody does.

 

[Deus Irae]

The 2006 and 2007 drafts were the worst in Bills (Bill's?) history. There is only one player still on the team out of 21 that were drafted. Being a mediocre player and lasting with the team in a minimal role deosn't make you a good draft pick, if you are trying to be a SB contender.

Bill Walsh used to say if 50% of your draft picks don't make significant contributions to your team for at least 5 years you don't know how to draft.

But the Bill Walsh draft to talk about, remember and study is 1986. By trading down twice and making six trades, Walsh had 13 picks and came up with eight players of real consequence. Here they are: Larry Roberts, Steve Wallace, Tom Rathman, Tim McKyer, John Taylor, Charles Haley, Kevin ***an and Don Griffin.

And here we see the importance of the apostrophe.

 

[patchick]

But the Bill Walsh draft to talk about, remember and study is 1986. By trading down twice and making six trades, Walsh had 13 picks and came up with eight players of real consequence. Here they are: Larry Roberts, Steve Wallace, Tom Rathman, Tim McKyer, John Taylor, Charles Haley, Kevin ***an and Don Griffin.

Yep, that's considered probably the greatest drafting job in NFL history. Of course, we should remember it was a 12-round draft in a 28-team league. (And his 5-year rule was in a different contract era, too.)

It would be a flat-out miracle to collect 8 rookies of real consequence in a 7-round, 32-team draft! Even 5 or 6 would be an AMAZING draft today. It will be interesting to keep track of this group over the years:

Devin McCourty
Rob Gronkowski
Jermaine Cunningham
Brandon Spikes
Taylor Price
Aaron Hernandez
Zoltan Mesko
Brandon Deaderick
Dane Fletcher
Kyle Love

 

[Salva135]

Here's my simple take of Belichick's drafting.

The NFL draft is a huge crapshoot for every team. Some years you get lucky with a bunch, other years you can completely strike out.

What sets Belichick apart is not his skill at drafting, or in free agency - but his skill in knowing who to let go.

It's an important skill. Teams like the Jets hold onto a player like Gholsten out of ego and pride of having drafted him so high.

Belichick doesn't let where he drafted a guy enter the picture. He'll keep an undrafted free agent and cut a 1st round former Pro Bowler if he thinks it's in the best interest of the team.

Belichick wouldn't think twice about letting what people say about his drafting skills alter his roster decisions. Not every coach or GM can say the same thing - and they hurt their team in the process.

To be fair, Gholston went 6th overall and had over $20M in guaranteed money. The Patriots haven't drafted in the top 10 since they took Seymour 6th overall in 2001. Prior to the new CBA the money being given to top-10 guys was so ridiculous you couldn't blame even the Jets for trying to give him the most time possible to make it work. The Patriots have routinely drafted late in the 1st round during BB's tenure and outside of those crazy contract spots, it was MUCH easier to let them go if they weren't performing.

 

[BradyFTW!]

To be fair, Gholston went 6th overall and had over $20M in guaranteed money. The Patriots haven't drafted in the top 10 since they took Seymour 6th overall in 2001. Prior to the new CBA the money being given to top-10 guys was so ridiculous you couldn't blame even the Jets for trying to give him the most time possible to make it work. The Patriots have routinely drafted late in the 1st round during BB's tenure and outside of those crazy contract spots, it was MUCH easier to let them go if they weren't performing.

Mayo was a top-10 pick.

 

[Salva135]

Mayo was a top-10 pick.

You're right, not sure how I missed that, though he was 10th overall. My point remains that they never doled out any HUGE rookie contracts in recent years, so there haven't been any real "tough" decisions financially that BB has had to make if a player isn't performing up to expectations. And Mayo turned out to be a stud, so that's moot anyway.

 

[patchick]

Bill Walsh used to say if 50% of your draft picks don't make significant contributions to your team for at least 5 years you don't know how to draft.

But the Bill Walsh draft to talk about, remember and study is 1986. By trading down twice and making six trades, Walsh had 13 picks and came up with eight players of real consequence.

Oh man, I have an awesome reality check for all of us as we get frustrated with failed draft picks. Just for kicks, I went back and looked at the 49ers' draft classes before and after that legendary 1986 class.

It turns out that in 1985 and 1987, the Walsh 49ers ONLY hit on their first-round picks! Every pick I could find past the first was a dud. So even Bill Walsh couldn't come close to meeting Bill Walsh's draft standards.

 

[Ring 6]

2006 and 2007 were the worst draft for any nfl team. Disregarding trades, the Pats have 1 player left from those drafts. That is terrible drafting.

What do the other 31 teams have left.

 

[Joker]

this draft pick crap is so bogus...look...you look at wins/losses in a set time period...make it the past five years...or the past ten years...NOW rank the Patriots....draft picks are only ONE part of an entire organizational philosophy.

Krist I can't even believe I got sukked into this....:bricks:

 

[patchick]

What do the other 31 teams have left.

Interesting question. I just spot-checked 10 other teams, and the normal range seems to be 2-5.

Given that the Pats made fewer high draft picks in 2006 & 2007 than any of the other teams I looked at (and given that 4 of the players they traded those picks for, Welker, Mayo, Slater and Brace, are still with the team), the yield looks reasonably normal.

 

[Metaphors]

Interesting question. I just spot-checked 10 other teams, and the normal range seems to be 2-5.

Given that the Pats made fewer high draft picks in 2006 & 2007 than any of the other teams I looked at (and given that 4 of the players they traded those picks for, Welker, Mayo, Slater and Brace, are still with the team), the yield looks reasonably normal.

So who drafted the best during this period? Arguably the team that picked first in the 2011 draft and has a great shot to pick high again in 2012. The draft is fun and one of my favorite parts of following the NFL, but it is just one part of the team building process.

People like to evaluate drafts like a batting average. That makes the faulty assumption that all picks and draft classes are equal. A better comparison is poker. You bet big when the situation is right (need and opportunity align) and use your money elsewhere when you don't like the cards. And you can still win the table after losing a few hands as long as you keep a healthy set of chips (draft picks and cap space) to go big when the cards fall right.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You're right, not sure how I missed that, though he was 10th overall. My point remains that they never doled out any HUGE rookie contracts in recent years, so there haven't been any real "tough" decisions financially that BB has had to make if a player isn't performing up to expectations. And Mayo turned out to be a stud, so that's moot anyway.

Definitely, that's a good point. Also worth noting that the Pats originally had the #7 pick in that draft, and traded down to 10. In any case, top-5 picks have, for a while now, seemed like kind of a "kick them while they're down" scenario for already crappy teams, since it all but forces them to tie up a ton of money in unproven players who may just end up sucking and being a dead weight on the cap. Glad that this latest CBA has changed that.

 

[patchick]

People like to evaluate drafts like a batting average. That makes the faulty assumption that all picks and draft classes are equal. A better comparison is poker. You bet big when the situation is right (need and opportunity align) and use your money elsewhere when you don't like the cards. And you can still win the table after losing a few hands as long as you keep a healthy set of chips (draft picks and cap space) to go big when the cards fall right.

And the Pats doubled down in the uber-rich class of 2010, but pretty much folded after round 3 this year.

 

[Metaphors]

And the Pats doubled down in the uber-rich class of 2010, but pretty much folded after round 3 this year.

And decided to stay home in 2007, instead investing in a distressed property (Moss) and a growth stock (Welker). Sometimes the only winning move is not to play. *** pop culture reference alert!! ***

 

[Deus Irae]

And decided to stay home in 2007, instead investing in a distressed property (Moss) and a growth stock (Welker). Sometimes the only winning move is not to play. *** pop culture reference alert!! ***

Greetings Professor Faulken

 

[RayClay]

I think people have the whole idea wrong on drafting. You're not picking stocks, you're picking humans and trying to develop them.

You can have a tremendous combination of speed athleticism and character and still miss at the very top, which is where you'd need to make that pick. Otherwise, you're picking players with flaws and choosing how they might or might not fit into your current, or future team.

It's obvious to me that the Pats do not draft the same when they have a veteran team as they do when they need wholesale change, is that not obvious?

If you have two or three starting slots, why draft the best 7-9 players available, so you can stock other teams, or have backups not quite good enough to beat your vets? No, you swing for the fences, knowing one athlete without a track record in round 3, well coached, is like a first rounder, and if only one or two that year makes the team, that's all you had room for anyway.

Is there any doubt, with wide open opportunities, BB can pick a ton of 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders who play like 1sts, partly because they coach the hell out of them?

There's a lot more art than science to this and after all.....(read my sig).

 

[RayClay]

Oh man, I have an awesome reality check for all of us as we get frustrated with failed draft picks. Just for kicks, I went back and looked at the 49ers' draft classes before and after that legendary 1986 class.

It turns out that in 1985 and 1987, the Walsh 49ers ONLY hit on their first-round picks! Every pick I could find past the first was a dud. So even Bill Walsh couldn't come close to meeting Bill Walsh's draft standards.

Thank you, i suspected as much. As great as Bill Walsh was, that was obviously some puffery for the media. No one hits on 50% of their picks every year, if only because they might not be able to beat out players on a great team.

Grocery list depends on what's for dinner and how many are eating.

 

[buffalo34]

2006 and 2007 were the worst draft for any nfl team. Disregarding trades, the Pats have 1 player left from those drafts. That is terrible drafting.

I can do you one better...the Bills don't have anybody remaining from the 07 draft IIRC...and one player I believe from 2006 Kyle Williams...we just lost Donte Whitner, our laughable #8 pick from 06 to the 49ers...we picked Donte when everybody and their grandmothers thought we would take Ngata...

Anyhow, I believe the 2010 draft for New England was a breath of fresh air for them...McCourty, Hernandez, Spikes, Gronk...

 

[DarrylS]

Just a little reminder...

2007 16-0
2008 11-5
2009 10-6
2010 14-2

We have won the division 3 out of 4 years, and finished 2nd once...

Yea I know we have not won a superbowl in this span, but despite some draft issues.. this team consistently wins..

Do we measure success by whether or not we win a superbowl, or by putting a highly competitive team on the field year after year????..

These are the topics that make great fodder for the sports talk shows or the mediots on TV.. but in reality, they had some misses.. but now seem to have righted the ship and have had a couple of very successful drafts.

 

[CapeCodGuy99]

Interesting question. I just spot-checked 10 other teams, and the normal range seems to be 2-5.

Given that the Pats made fewer high draft picks in 2006 & 2007 than any of the other teams I looked at (and given that 4 of the players they traded those picks for, Welker, Mayo, Slater and Brace, are still with the team), the yield looks reasonably normal.

Trading and drafting are two completely different scenarios.