Belichick uses short draft board (note: "25 players" debunked)

[StraightCashHomey81]

re: Belichick uses short draft board (note: "25 players" debunked)

I don't think this topic should be listed as "debunked". If you read both Patriot Reign and Education of a Coach, you would know Belichick prefers to have a short list of 25-30 guys, spread out throughout rounds in the draft, of guys he would like to draft. I think what the Patriots are refuting on twitter is the idea that they only had 25 players graded as "draftable".

 

[BelichickFan]

re: Belichick uses short draft board (note: "25 players" debunked)

That's absolutely disgraceful. Inexcusably, incompetantly disgraceful. Reeks of laziness & arrogance.

No wonder Bill's drafts have almost completely sucked in 2004, 2006, 2007 & 2008, and might explain Brace, Tate, OBurger & Bustey.

Even if it were true, your opinion is still way off IMO. A short list doesn't mean the team only looked at the short list, it would mean it did a lot of work to eliminate the others.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Re: Belichick uses short draft board

Considering that Hill had Jarvis Green, Mike Wright, Ty Warren, and Richard Seymour in front of him and the O-line crediting him with being able to mimic guys like Freeney, yes, I consider an End of second round pick a good pick. Do you honestly think these guys turned his locker into a basically a shrine that is still there just because of what he did off the field?

How was Watson an "underachieving college player" who was drafted "solely on his physical measurables"? Do you have PROOF of that? Or are you just talking out your rear end? My guess is the LATTER since you have ZERO proof of what Belichick was thinking when they drafted Watson. Or are you basing it on Watson's senior year when he had 21 catches while missing parts of several games due to an ankle injury that he re-injured several times during his senior season?

No disrespect meant to Marquise Hill, but you can't be serious. Stuck behind Mike Wright huh. The same Mike Wright who was an undrafted FA in '05 while Hill was a 2nd rounder in '04. He was a good mimic in practice! That's your qualification of a succesful 2nd rounder. I guess you're easily impressed. And yes I do think that whatever shrine is there for him it is because of what he did off the field and because of the person he was. He did next nothing on the field. Those 2 tackles must have been something else.

My proof of Watson's underachieving college career was his college career, furthur evidenced by his professional career.

 

[RodThePat]

re: Belichick uses short draft board (note: "25 players" debunked)

That's absolutely disgraceful. Inexcusably, incompetantly disgraceful. Reeks of laziness & arrogance.

No wonder Bill's drafts have almost completely sucked in 2004, 2006, 2007 & 2008, and might explain Brace, Tate, OBurger & Bustey.

Great timing, douchebag.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

re: Belichick uses short draft board (note: "25 players" debunked)

I don't think this topic should be listed as "debunked". If you read both Patriot Reign and Education of a Coach, you would know Belichick prefers to have a short list of 25-30 guys, spread out throughout rounds in the draft, of guys he would like to draft. I think what the Patriots are refuting on twitter is the idea that they only had 25 players graded as "draftable".

I would expect that they have a list of players they like throughout the draft, there's a world of difference between that and only having 25 draftable players. No wonder they are apparently refuting it.

 

[patchick]

Re: Belichick uses short draft board (debunked)

I don't think this topic should be listed as "debunked". If you read both Patriot Reign and Education of a Coach, you would know Belichick prefers to have a short list of 25-30 guys, spread out throughout rounds in the draft, of guys he would like to draft. I think what the Patriots are refuting on twitter is the idea that they only had 25 players graded as "draftable".

Absolutely right, and corrected.

I'm a little surprised at the comments that this approach would force you to reach, let alone that it's "lazy"! The whole idea is forcing discipline on your draft. And as for "lazy," the lazy approach is to take whatever player the Kipers of the world say is the next value, not to rigorously winnow down your own list without regard to popular opinion.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Re: Belichick uses short draft board (debunked)

Absolutely right, and corrected.

I'm a little surprised at the comments that this approach would force you to reach, let alone that it's "lazy"! The whole idea is forcing discipline on your draft. And as for "lazy," the lazy approach is to take whatever player the Kipers of the world say is the next value, not to rigorously winnow down your own list without regard to popular opinion.

You really can't see how (if it was true) having only 25 draftable players in a 7 round draft participated in by 31 other teams would force reaches?

 

[StraightCashHomey81]

Re: Belichick uses short draft board (debunked)

I'm a little surprised at the comments that this approach would force you to reach, let alone that it's "lazy"! The whole idea is forcing discipline on your draft. And as for "lazy," the lazy approach is to take whatever player the Kipers of the world say is the next value, not to rigorously winnow down your own list without regard to popular opinion.

Exactly. Discipline is the key word. Trusting YOUR scouts that know YOUR system.

 

[patchick]

Re: Belichick uses short draft board (debunked)

You really can't see how (if it was true) having only 25 draftable players in a 7 round draft participated in by 31 other teams would force reaches?

Not when you're willing to trade down multiple times, as the Pats clearly are.

 

[BPF]

Re: Belichick uses short draft board (debunked)

It's trusting every step of the process.

 

[Coach42]

Re: Belichick uses short draft board (debunked)

I'm assuming it was the 2007 draft that had only 25 players on it.

In addition, wouldn't having a short board actually be more work? Think about it, you would have to evaluate players and then come up with strong enough convictions and consensus, among a lot of people, about a limited few players to make your short board. The debates and details that would be needed for scouts to make their case for a player would be very time consuming. It would also force scouts and the management to be more accountable for the players they decided to put on the board.

I think its actually way lazier to just throw up some 300 players on a board and shuffle them around.

 

[spacecrime]

A short draft board IMO will most likely result in reaching for and/or over-drafting players.

Í don't know what over-drafting means but 'reaching' is a meaningless term. It simply means that you didn't value a player as much as the guy who drafted him. If you figure a player should go in the fourth round, and he gets picked in the second round, then you say the team 'reached' for him, assuming that your evaluation of the player and what he can do for the team is more accurate than the teams evaluation.

If you figure he was a second round talent and he went in the fourth round, then you would say the team got extra value, as though somehow your evaluation was the only one that counted.

The only time reaching makes a modicum of sense is when a team drafts by position rather than the highest rated player on their board. If they are determined to get a CB in round one and they have 7 players rated higher than the best availalbe CB, then you could say they reached. But it is because they are not following THEIR OWN board, not because you and me and Mel Kiper think he should have gone later.

 

[Coach42]

Í don't know what over-drafting means but 'reaching' is a meaningless term. It simply means that you didn't value a player as much as the guy who drafted him. If you figure a player should go in the fourth round, and he gets picked in the second round, then you say the team 'reached' for him, assuming that your evaluation of the player and what he can do for the team is more accurate than the teams evaluation.

If you figure he was a second round talent and he went in the fourth round, then you would say the team got extra value, as though somehow your evaluation was the only one that counted.

The only time reaching makes a modicum of sense is when a team drafts by position rather than the highest rated player on their board. If they are determined to get a CB in round one and they have 7 players rated higher than the best availalbe CB, then you could say they reached. But it is because they are not following THEIR OWN board, not because you and me and Mel Kiper think he should have gone later.

Couldn't agree more.