Assessing BB's drafting

[convertedpatsfan]

Man, I needed some sleep. I missed the most obvious benchmark, which was NFL average. Revised chart below:

Bear in mind this data is not perfect. For one thing, it only includes players who played at least one game. So draft picks who were cut and never played a game aren't included.

So we were behind the NFL average in starters and contributors (measured by guys who played in at least 8 games per season on average). I don't think the starter number is as significant, as better teams have fewer holes to fill. But the contributors number is more significant in my mind, as draft picks should contribute one way or another (contributors also includes starters).

Having said that much, it wasn't a total travesty like some chicken littles make it out to be. It was definitely the worst drafting period of BB's career, but in context with other top teams, it's not really that far off. And the 3 drafts since that time look much better so it's not even a trend so much as an old issue that has been resolved.

I'm sure BB could kill the next 8 drafts and win 4 more SBs but some would still complain about the 2006 to 2008 drafts. That's just the nature of being spoiled. But as others have pointed out, the 39 wins during that period speak volumes as well. Some may say that the poor drafting really affects the years after, but that would just mean a 10-6 season and a 14-2 season, with the Pats being Super Bowl faves to start this season, so it clearly hasn't led us to Bills/Dolphins status.

 

[patchick]

Trading and drafting are two completely different scenarios.

Deciding when and how trade draft picks is a huge part of your overall draft strategy and success/failure. It's the classic Jimmy Johnson philosophy that draft picks are just capital you can spend in various ways: picking players, trading for other picks, or trading for veteran players.

Just look at what happened to the Redskins when they decided to trade away pick after pick for veterans...or what happened to the Patriots when they decided to trade away #28 overall in 2007 and came away with "just" a future pick and a veteran (Jerod Mayo and Randy Moss.)

 

[CapeCodGuy99]

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.

From 1981 to 1989 Walsh drafted 92 players. 49 of those players made valuable contributions to the team for at least 5 years. Walsh was as good as everyone says he was.

 

[Ring 6]

From 1981 to 1989 Walsh drafted 92 players. 49 of those players made valuable contributions to the team for at least 5 years. Walsh was as good as everyone says he was.

Can you back up that stat? It sounds inaccurate.

 

[patchick]

Can you back up that stat? It sounds inaccurate.

Yep, I looked it up, it's totally inaccurate.

From 1981 to 1989 Walsh drafted 92 players. 49 of those players made valuable contributions to the team for at least 5 years.

By my quick count, only 30 of those players -- 33% -- remained with SF for 5 years, and that includes total benchwarmers. The percentage who "made valuable contributions for 5 years" is significantly lower.

And that's the best case scenario, the legendary Bill Walsh 49ers. The "50% rule" is total bunk.

 

[CapeCodGuy99]

Yep, I looked it up, it's totally inaccurate.



By my quick count, only 30 of those players -- 33% -- remained with SF for 5 years, and that includes total benchwarmers. The percentage who "made valuable contributions for 5 years" is significantly lower.

And that's the best case scenario, the legendary Bill Walsh 49ers. The "50% rule" is total bunk.

Damn ,now I have to throw away my book, Bill Walsh "The strategy of Drafting"
Imagine Bill lying so much in his own book.

 

[patchick]

Damn ,now I have to throw away my book, Bill Walsh "The strategy of Drafting"
Imagine Bill lying so much in his own book.

LOL! Those numbers came from Walsh's own book? Love it! Ah, it was so much easier to play fast and loose with your facts before the internet.

Just to be clear, I'm a huge Walsh fan. The way he played the draft really did change the whole league, and his teams were a joy to watch.

 

[SONS_OF_BELICHICK]

hey ....those stats got you to buy the book.....even though its a crock....

way to go BW...

I still like ..BB drafting...trader bill = more draft choices = better odds to find a good player....


:rocker:

 

[CapeCodGuy99]

LOL! Those numbers came from Walsh's own book? Love it! Ah, it was so much easier to play fast and loose with your facts before the internet.

Just to be clear, I'm a huge Walsh fan. The way he played the draft really did change the whole league, and his teams were a joy to watch.

That's the last book I ever buy, as a matter of fact Ico is tearing it to shreads right now.

 

[Ivan]

Makes a roster, games played, starts, that sort of thing.

Much as i love the draft and as important as i believe using it well is there is no way to really gauge it against the rest of the league because of the ways they use it and the difficulty for young players making this roster and sticking because the talent level is always so high and they are always upgrading in every way they can. I think Belichik sees the draft as one tool in building a team and not the only tool in doing so, and as much as he wants his picks to stick he will cut them loose if he can get better players through other routes. Hard for guys like Weston, Richard, and Deadrick to stick when they bring in Haynesworth, Carter, and Ellis. I would also give Belichik a great deal of credit for keeping the better player over keeping his picks, as players like Guyton and Green-Ellis are on the roster because Belichik was open to seeing their value instead of writing them off as UDFA's.

Ultimately the only real measure is the strength and depth of the roster each season and their success each season, and by that measuring stick they are doing a great job.

it is much easier to get high draft grades when you pick high every year every round and your current roster is riddled with openings.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

I haven't read every page in this thread but I partially blame Josh McDaniels for those pathetic drafts from 2006 to 2008. After 2008 McDaniels showed just how inept he is as a talent evaluator by completely destroying Denver's roster, making horrible draft picks and also trades, and I'm convinced he screwed things up for the Pats at least for the offensive draft picks. I remember reading how McDaniels personally worked out many players and was heavily involved in the war room for drafts. Now, I'm not sure how much influence he had on defensive bust picks. However, I do remember that before he became the QB coach, there was an article about how he put together an excel spreadsheet of defensive backs in the NFL and who the Patriots should get, and apparently Belichick was impressed with his work ethic and contribution from this. So, I wouldn't be surprised if our defensive busts were even a bit influenced by McDaniels. Since McDaniels left, the 2009-now drafts have been significantly better, due to the combination of McDaniels leaving but also Caserio and Reese joining.

 

[RayClay]

From 1981 to 1989 Walsh drafted 92 players. 49 of those players made valuable contributions to the team for at least 5 years. Walsh was as good as everyone says he was.

Did i say he wasn't great? The number of drafted players who make contributions has more to do with the number of spots one wants to use on developing players than any other factor, I bet.

If the 49ers won championships with veterans, like the old Redskins, would it matter?

Belichick followed one of the worst drafters in the history of the league (seems like) and won a championship with a 6th round pick, one high pick and a bunch of affordable free agents.

 

[RayClay]

36/87 played 5 years with Niners, according to pro football reference, valuable or not.

Quite impressive, nevertheless.

 

[CapeCodGuy99]

36/87 played 5 years with Niners, according to pro football reference, valuable or not.

Quite impressive, nevertheless.

Like I said earlier, the dog has already eaten Walsh's book.

 

[unoriginal]

36/87 played 5 years with Niners, according to pro football reference, valuable or not.

Quite impressive, nevertheless.

Let's keep in mind that Bill Walsh drafted in a time period when there was very limited free agency, i.e. the only ways to build teams was through trades and the draft.

You would expect that more middling draft picks would stick and make "contributions" if the draft was far and away the best way of restocking your roster. How much "better" would our recent drafts have looked if, instead of signing twenty veteran defensive linemen, BB had had to pencil in Darryl Richard, Kade Weston et al. into reserve spots?

 

[patchick]

Let's keep in mind that Bill Walsh drafted in a time period when there was very limited free agency, i.e. the only ways to build teams was through trades and the draft.

You would expect that more middling draft picks would stick and make "contributions" if the draft was far and away the best way of restocking your roster. How much "better" would our recent drafts have looked if, instead of signing twenty veteran defensive linemen, BB had had to pencil in Darryl Richard, Kade Weston et al. into reserve spots?

That's a really interesting point. Another factor that has a huge influence on "yield" is how willing a team is to evaluate players solely on merit, discounting their reputations and draft status. Belichick is never afraid to keep a UDFA or low-profile FA over a draft pick -- like Barrett over Meriweather and Tarpinian over M. Carter this year.

I think the overall message from the Walsh example, though, is that the ultimate master drafter who crafted the 49ers dynasty hit on about a third of his draft picks. That's the gold standard.

Edit: And these players represent one third of the Patriots draft picks from 2005-2010:

McCourty
Gronkowski
Cunningham
Spikes
Price
Hernandez
Mesko
Chung
Vollmer
Pryor
Edelman
Mayo
Slater
Gostkowski
Mankins
Hobbs
Kaczur
Sanders
Cassel

Notice that this list doesn't even include multi-year starter Meriweather, ST ace Slater, etc. etc.

 

[captain stone]

Based on today's events, you were wise not to include Butler
(or Tate, or eventually Brace) on your list.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Let's keep in mind that Bill Walsh drafted in a time period when there was very limited free agency, i.e. the only ways to build teams was through trades and the draft.

You would expect that more middling draft picks would stick and make "contributions" if the draft was far and away the best way of restocking your roster. How much "better" would our recent drafts have looked if, instead of signing twenty veteran defensive linemen, BB had had to pencil in Darryl Richard, Kade Weston et al. into reserve spots?

Absolutely true, it was a different time. Also, as far as the class of '07, that was a stacked team so rookies had a hard time making it that year.

All that said, the number of misses in rounds 1-3 is definitely a problem. You expect a high percentage of those picks to become starters. Only Meriweather and Watson among 1st rounders have been disappointing but still they started for several years each. Round 2's have really hurt, with Butler, Wheatley, and Bethel Johnson never becoming starters. There's been more 3rd round busts than success stories. Below round 3 I don't think you can criticize, it's a crap shoot.

Luckily we've had a ton of picks over the years, and have also hit more than our fair share in rounds 4-7. That's saved us.