Direct contrast to Forbes' draft ratings

[Leave No Doubt]

Is this one by Fox Sports, who gives the Pats an A+

Patriots drafts: A different perspective - Reiss' Pieces - Boston.com

NEW ENGLAND: Yes, 2007 was a lean year, but the 2003-2005 drafts produced 12 players who became starters, including 230th pick Matt Cassel, who ably replaced Tom Brady last season. Three of the team's best offensive linemen were selected during this run while the 2006 draft produced kicker Stephen Gostkowski when Adam Vinatieri left town via free agency. The last two drafts have produced two defensive stars in Brandon Merriweather and Jerod Mayo. The Patriots also drafted cornerback Asante Samuel with the 120th overall pick in 2003 and today he's the game's second-highest-paid corner in the league, but with the Eagles.
Picks: 51
First-round picks: 7
Starters: 17
Pro Bowlers: 5
Grade: A+

FOX Sports on MSN - NFL - Draft review: How every team ranks from 2003-'08

I don't remember what criteria Forbes based their assessment on.

 

[ALP]

Is this one by Fox Sports, who gives the Pats an A+

Patriots drafts: A different perspective - Reiss' Pieces - Boston.com

FOX Sports on MSN - NFL - Draft review: How every team ranks from 2003-'08

I don't remember what criteria Forbes based their assessment on.

a large part for forbes was how many rookies actually made the team

which as pats fans we know is a bs method, since the pats have a team like no toher in the NFL

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Is this one by Fox Sports, who gives the Pats an A+

Patriots drafts: A different perspective - Reiss' Pieces - Boston.com

FOX Sports on MSN - NFL - Draft review: How every team ranks from 2003-'08

I don't remember what criteria Forbes based their assessment on.

The criterion, singular, was the percentage of players from the last three drafts (2006-2008?) who were on a team's roster (which, of course, took absolutely no notice of things such as the Pats having eight late picks on a team that was already stacked).

 

[ctpatsfan77]

FYI—the Pats are the only team to get an A+. Six other teams get an A or A- (IND).

At the opposite end, Lions and Jaguars get Ds (no one got an F), while C-s went to the Saints, Raiders, Titans, LOLphins, and JEST.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Yeh, it's nice to be loved, but John Czarnecki giving you some love is like being groped by a bum on main street...

 

[klinefan]

Pats drafted more bums than a hobo convention. A "C" I could "see", but A+? Are you kidding? Guss Scott? Chad Jackson? Mincey? You could name 10 of them.

 

[Jackson 2]

Pats drafted more bums than a hobo convention. A "C" I could "see", but A+? Are you kidding? Guss Scott? Chad Jackson? Mincey? You could name 10 of them.

Go ahead and name them.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Using the simple raw statistics he lists at the end of each team discussion, the A+ grade is certainly arguable as the Patriots had 5 pro bowlers (3 teams with 6; vast majority had 1 or 2) and 17 starters (the most of any team).

Still, the analysis was a little simplistic but so much better than Forbes which was so fraudulent that it's a good reason to never trust anything Forbes prints.

 

[Pujo]

Pats drafted more bums than a hobo convention. A "C" I could "see", but A+? Are you kidding? Guss Scott? Chad Jackson? Mincey? You could name 10 of them.

Once you've named 10, please name the busts from the 31 other teams. Then we'll know where the hobos have been going.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Pats drafted more bums than a hobo convention. A "C" I could "see", but A+? Are you kidding? Guss Scott? Chad Jackson? Mincey? You could name 10 of them.

You're actually holding it against the Pats that a LB that they drafted in the 6th round hasn't turned into an NFL player? Do you have any idea what the success rate for 6th round picks is?

Do you think that it's even possible to have a 100% success rate on draft picks? Check out the breakdowns sometime: the first 2 rounds are traditionally the only ones where you can be even reasonably confident that you're getting a player who will be a solid NFL player. By most objective standards, the Pats have been the best-drafting team of the past decade.

Of course, it doesn't hurt to have Ernie Adams running the board in the war room, either.

http://www.patriots.com/history/index.cfm?ac=drafttrade

2008: DROY, jury's still out on the rest
2007: one first-day pick, one starter. Plus, if you're inclined to count it, trades for Welker and Moss.
2006: Probably the most divisive draft we're going to find. Jackson washed out because he blew his ACL out, Maroney's had injury trouble but been very productive when healthy, and we got an all-pro kicker in the 4th round. Le Kevin Smith also is shaping up as pretty good depth, and there are some people that seem to like David Thomas (I'm not one of them). Not the Pats' best draft, but by no means a bad one.
2005: 7 picks, only 3 of them on the first day, and 5 of them started for an 11-5 2008 team. Absolutely phenomenal draft.
2004: 4 first day picks: one all-pro, one starter, a tragic death and a washout. Once again, a very good draft by any reasonable measure.
2003: 6 picks in the first 5 rounds: a borderline-allpro starter, an all-pro, a starter, another onetime starter whose career was derailed by injuries, a washout, and a JAG. Exceptionally good draft.
2002: 6 picks total, only 2 first-day, yields 3 starters, a starter-caliber backup, and 2 washouts. Exceptional draft.
2001: 3 first-day picks, two consistent all-pros and anchors of their respective lines.

I want to know how that consistent track record of remarkable success can be considered a "C" by anyone with more than four functioning brain cells.

 

[klinefan]

Guss Scott, Bethel Johnson and Chad Jackson alone mean they get a "C" at best, sorry.

Mankins was a good pick. Warren was good. No decent DBs except for Meriweather. No decent LBs except for Mayo. Mediocre RB.

I don't know, my standards are high. Mincey's year I think they had 2 picks make the team.

 

[Jackson 2]

Guss Scott, Bethel Johnson and Chad Jackson alone mean they get a "C" at best, sorry.

Mankins was a good pick. Warren was good. No decent DBs except for Meriweather. No decent LBs except for Mayo. Mediocre RB.

I don't know, my standards are high. Mincey's year I think they had 2 picks make the team.

Not wishing to offend you, but your standards in this arena are asinine.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I don't remember what criteria Forbes based their assessment on.

The Forbes article wasn't all bad - but it did fail on two important counts

1.) It failed to acknowledge that rookies on a bad team are going to have a better chance of making the team, and starting than on a well established Championship caliber team, and;

2.) It failed to give the Patriots credit for turning draft picks into veteran players.

For example, in 2007 the Patriots "drafted" Wes Welker in Round 2 and Randy Moss in Round 4.

Did the article give Belichick credit for such a wise use of draft picks? Nope.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

So Forbes failed to take into account drafting as a developmental part of team management,which is pretty narrow thinking. This draft grade is almost too simplistic but at least it cites valid stats to back up the grade.

We ended up with 17 starters and 5 pro bowlers out of just 7 first rounders.
I'd call that at least an A

 

[JoeSixPat]

So Forbes failed to take into account drafting as a developmental part of team management,which is pretty narrow thinking. This draft grade is almost too simplistic but at least it cites valid stats to back up the grade.

We ended up with 17 starters and 5 pro bowlers out of just 7 first rounders.
I'd call that at least an A

Yes - and they oversimplified in other ways too.

Let's say we let an Arena Football team into the NFL. They'd go into the draft and there's a good shot every one of their drafted players winds up starting.

Let's say in the same draft the Patriots were coming off a championship season. They drafted just as many players but only 1 became a starter but all were contributors.

So who had the better draft?

According to Forbes it would be a slam dunk for the Arena Football team - because Forbes gives them better marks for having such a bad team in the first place.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

Yes - and they oversimplified in other ways too.

Let's say we let an Arena Football team into the NFL. They'd go into the draft and there's a good shot every one of their drafted players winds up starting.

Let's say in the same draft the Patriots were coming off a championship season. They drafted just as many players but only 1 became a starter but all were contributors.

So who had the better draft?

According to Forbes it would be a slam dunk for the Arena Football team - because Forbes gives them better marks for having such a bad team in the first place.

So we'll nevah be Numero Uno in a Forbes analysis,unless we field a bad team. Lovin' that "worst draft" label

 

[Pujo]

Guss Scott, Bethel Johnson and Chad Jackson alone mean they get a "C" at best, sorry.

Mankins was a good pick. Warren was good. No decent DBs except for Meriweather. No decent LBs except for Mayo. Mediocre RB.

I don't know, my standards are high. Mincey's year I think they had 2 picks make the team.

How can any three picks, none of which were in the first round, get them all the way down to a C? I don't usually get wound up about arguing on a messageboard, but are you f'ing stupid? Why would 3 of their draft picks be responsible for half of their grade?

 

[TruthSeeker]

The Forbes article wasn't all bad - but it did fail on two important counts

1.) It failed to acknowledge that rookies on a bad team are going to have a better chance of making the team, and starting than on a well established Championship caliber team, and;

2.) It failed to give the Patriots credit for turning draft picks into veteran players.

For example, in 2007 the Patriots "drafted" Wes Welker in Round 2 and Randy Moss in Round 4.

Did the article give Belichick credit for such a wise use of draft picks? Nope.

No, the article was much worse than that.

- It didn't account for players still in the NFL that were not on the team that drafted them.
- It only went back 3 years when draft experts say that you have to go back at least 3 years to determine success. It would have been much better to takes the previous 4-6 years rather than the previous 1-3 years
- It made no distinction between a guy hanging on to the 53rd roster spot and a pro bowl player. The value of each player is critical to evaluating the draft.
- It did not take into account draft position i.e. how many players were drafted in what round. As was pointed out by others, the Patriots drafts were skewed towards the later rounds both because of compensatory picks as well as because of trades involving their earlier round draft picks.

I expect I could come up with other flaws as well, but you get the idea. I'd be ashamed to put my name to such a flawed piece of "analysis" - and then to have a reputable magazine publish this trash as if it has true value is ridiculous. This can easily be seen by this more recent article (perhaps inspired by the Forbes article) which, using better (but certainly not perfect) methodology, reaches the exact opposite conclusion! Instead of the Patriots being the worst drafting team in the NFL, they are the best drafting team in the NFL. Whether the Patriots are the best or not is open for debate, but the fact that they are in the discussion of the best drafters in the NFL (and, secondarily, best use of draft picks when trades are considered) is clear.

 

[eom]

Yeh, it's nice to be loved, but John Czarnecki giving you some love is like being groped by a bum on main street...

lol...poty.

and to think I was going to click that link...

 

[BradyFTW!]

Guss Scott, Bethel Johnson and Chad Jackson alone mean they get a "C" at best, sorry.

Mankins was a good pick. Warren was good. No decent DBs except for Meriweather. No decent LBs except for Mayo. Mediocre RB.

I don't know, my standards are high. Mincey's year I think they had 2 picks make the team.

Can you find a single team in the entire NFL that has had every pick become a valuable contributor on the team? Because if not, then your opinion is indefensible, irrational, and ignorant. Has nothing to do with standards; just reality.