Draft Strategy

[mgteich]

1) I think that patriots have gotten fine value in Seymour, Mayo, Warren, Wilfork, and Mankins in the first round. You might notice that all these players were linemen except Mayo. I would be fine with find another ILB, OG, or DL. And I do see value in the first round.

2) Drafting in the 2nd - 4th rounds gives up on all the blue chippers in hope that you can be lucky in the 2nd.

3) You can judge whether the trade down strategy worked last year. We ended up with Chung, Brace, Butler and Vollmer instead of Matthews, Laurinitis, Butkler and Vollmer. You choose!

4) That being said, the trading down and trading forward strategy gives us lots of picks and lots of bodies with which to acheive success.

5) You want to have 5-6 picks in the 2nd-4th We have a first, 3 seconds and a 4th. If we trade down from our first, we would likely get a second, third and a fifth, giveing you your 6 picks and replacing our fifth.

I think the best value in most drafts (depends on the available talent every year) is between the 2nd and 4th Rds. For me an ideal strategy would be this:

Trade out of the first round, stockpiling picks.
Trade 4th-7th round picks to move up into the 2nd or 3rd Rds or trade these picks for future picks in higher rounds (i.e. a 2010 4th for 2011 3rd).
Ideally, you would end up with 5-6 picks in 2-4, and then use later round (and untradeable) compensatory picks to fill out a training camp roster.

The Pats did employ part of this strategy, when from previous trades and draft day trades they at point had four 2nd round picks and 4 3rd round picks. They then traded 2 of the 3rd round picks for future picks (two Rd this year). Employing my strategy, they would have dealt some of their lower round picks for future picks or an extra 3rd or 4th round pick in that draft. However they wouldn't have ended up with two of their better players from this years draft, Pryor (6th rd.) and Edelman (7th rd.)

 

[upstater1]

1)
3) You can judge whether the trade down strategy worked last year. We ended up with Chung, Brace, Butler and Vollmer instead of Matthews, Laurinitis, Butkler and Vollmer. You choose!

I don't see it the same way. First off, you got more than that by trading out of Matthews slot. You landed Tate, Edelman and a 2nd this year by trading down.

But it's not clear who the Patriots would have selected had they been limited in the second round. They may have thought that DT was a must because of Wilfork.

So, while your second list looks much finer to me (I'd rather have the LBs and Butler, Vollmer) the question could just as easily be framed like so:

Who would you rather have?:

Matthews, Laurinaitis, Brace and Vollmer

Or

Chung, Butler, Brace, Vollmer, Brandon Tate, Julian Edelman and, say, Eric Norwood?

The answer will not be forthcoming for a couple years.

 

[mgteich]

I'm fine with everything but including Edelman who we could have chosen with another 6th or 7th. If he is included, then the second list works, but we could have had him in any case instead of Richard who was picked two positions later.

Not including Edelman, I would take the first list.

HOWEVER, I am not opposed to trading down. After all, we could simply have picked Laurinitis instead of Chung and picked a safety in the 4th. I like to be on both sides of discussions. At the time, I supported moving down from 26 as soon as I knew we drafted Butler.

I don't see it the same way. First off, you got more than that by trading out of Matthews slot. You landed Tate, Edelman and a 2nd this year by trading down.

But it's not clear who the Patriots would have selected had they been limited in the second round. They may have thought that DT was a must because of Wilfork.

So, while your second list looks much finer to me (I'd rather have the LBs and Butler, Vollmer) the question could just as easily be framed like so:

Who would you rather have?:

Matthews, Laurinaitis, Brace and Vollmer

Or

Chung, Butler, Brace, Vollmer, Brandon Tate, Julian Edelman and, say, Eric Norwood?

The answer will not be forthcoming for a couple years.

 

[upstater1]

I'm fine with everything but including Edelman who we could have chosen with another 6th or 7th. If he is included, then the second list works, but we could have had him in any case instead of Richard who was picked two positions later.

Not including Edelman, I would take the first list.

HOWEVER, I am not opposed to trading down. After all, we could simply have picked Laurinitis instead of Chung and picked a safety in the 4th. I like to be on both sides of discussions. At the time, I supported moving down from 26 as soon as I knew we drafted Butler.

I agree with everything you say. The only reason I included Edelman is because that 7th was literally a part of the trade down from the Matthews pick, and so was the 3rd rounder we converted to a second rounder for this year's draft.

Otherwise, there are any number of variables involved.

I relly get the sense that Belichick thought highly of Butler, but with Springs, Bodden, Hobbs, Wheatley and Wilhite, the Patriots were not looking at drafting another CB.

When Butler dropped to 40, Belichick couldn't help himself because he thought he had outstanding value. And that's why Hobbs got traded.

So, it really is hard to say what might have happened if they had stayed in the 1st round or drafted differently. When you look at the roster, you have to wonder if Butler was a target.

Chung simply MUST work out for the Patriots in the next couple of years.

 

[jsull87]

1) I think that patriots have gotten fine value in Seymour, Mayo, Warren, Wilfork, and Mankins in the first round. You might notice that all these players were linemen except Mayo. I would be fine with find another ILB, OG, or DL. And I do see value in the first round.

2) Drafting in the 2nd - 4th rounds gives up on all the blue chippers in hope that you can be lucky in the 2nd.

3) You can judge whether the trade down strategy worked last year. We ended up with Chung, Brace, Butler and Vollmer instead of Matthews, Laurinitis, Butkler and Vollmer. You choose!

4) That being said, the trading down and trading forward strategy gives us lots of picks and lots of bodies with which to acheive success.

5) You want to have 5-6 picks in the 2nd-4th We have a first, 3 seconds and a 4th. If we trade down from our first, we would likely get a second, third and a fifth, giveing you your 6 picks and replacing our fifth.

I think point 3 isn't exactly true the choice was chung butler brace vollmer and the extra picks we traded up to get or. Mathews chung butler vollmer because we still wouldn't have picked lauranitis... and mathews is obviously debatable as if we thought he was blue chip i think we would have snatched him up. I am starting to come round to the idea of a couple of impact players. But when looking at either strategy you can't not include those later round picks and next years picks we got from those trade downs that have put us in such a strong possition draft wise 2010 and 2011.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

Belichick is an economics major and time and time again he uses economics concepts in the football world to maximize Pats draft returns. That is what (some) people just don't get.

Bill has job security - so he doesn't have to go 'all in' and sacrifice the future for instant success. feks. he will trade a 3rd rounder for next years 2nd rounder. He does a round trade up just about every draft. And it is only the first year that you do it you are weaker - but if you keep doing it every year then in the long term you are stronger (getting 2nd round talent every year for a third round pick the year before). And each year Bill will find a sucker to make the deal as the other coach/ GM have to try to win it all NOW -. before they are fired.

It is also true for us in the 'real' world. Often times just by delaying 'instant gratification' you can come out ahead. Feks. Sure you can buy the new TV in time for the super bowl. Or you can wait a few weeks until Presidents weekend and then buy the same (or similar) TV on sale. You delayed the purchase and got a benefit. Just like Bill delays the draft pick and 'invests' it to another team and gets interest on it the next year when he cashes it in for one round higher. That is a pretty good rate of return in my book.

Another smart economics concept - diversify your portfolio. No one can be 100% sure of what investment will payoff and which will go bust. So you diversify (divide) your money into different invenstments. ie. don't have your eggs all in one basket. Last years draft. Bill trades twice in the first round (down and then out) to get multiple 2nd round picks. That is diversifying your portfolio. Sure the first round pick may give you a 70% chance of payoff (say being the winning horse in a horse race). And a 2nd round pick may only have a 50% chance of payoff (=50% chance of bust). But you are better off betting on TWO horses each with a 50% chance of success rather than betting on only ONE horse with a 70% chance of sucess. And it is not only due to the (drafted) player player himself. The 1st rounder (70%) could be a great guy and good talent but just be unlucky and get a severve injury. Some players bodies just can't handle the NFL punishment (Colts Bob Sanders among others).

So the chances of success on an investment (draft pick) is better with the trade down strategy. Not to mention that the price of the first round 'horse' is the same as BOTH of the 2nd round horses.

Now before some one replies here to write that - with that strategy one should keep trading down infinitum times and trade away your 1st round pick to (ultimately after many trade downs) say - 10-12 7th round horses. That wouldn't work too often as those horses don't payoff so often. Say only 5% of the time. You would have to do that strategy for many many years before that strategy would hit a 'winner' and you would be out of a job long before that. But in the first few rounds - the chance of sucesss (vs. bust) does not drop off as considerably as in the later rounds. So trading down from the first round (diversifying your portfolio) is a sound economic strategy. Plus the cost of the first round picks (you pay a premium). Not so true in subsequent rounds. Same as trading this years pick for a one higher round pick the year afterwards -smart investment strategy.

Bill uses a VALUE investment strategy - and I would be willing to bet $5 that he will trade down from the first round pick # 22 rather than moving up.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Bill uses a VALUE investment strategy - and I would be willing to bet $5 that he will trade down from the first round pick # 22 rather than moving up.

I don't disagree with the premise of your post, but for this draft class I'd be cautious betting against a modest trade up. This is looking to be a very deep class at the top, with the prospect of a Wilfork-like slide for some deserving prospect. BB has extra picks in round seven to use for a one or two place jump if the right prospect slid. We know he's shopping for a new RDE - even if he brings Green back. He moved up for both Seymour and Warren so there is precedent, plus both of those moves came after disappointing seasons.

 

[mayoclinic]

Bill uses a VALUE investment strategy - and I would be willing to bet $5 that he will trade down from the first round pick # 22 rather than moving up.

What do you think the odds are that he will just stay at 22?

We stayed at 21 in 2004 and took Wilfork. We stayed at 21 in 2006 and took Maroney. We stayed at 24 in 2007 and took Meriweather.

I think there will be solid value at 22. I've suggested that BB may trade up with the 2nd round picks to get a second marquis player (whether to the low 1st round or the high 2nd). I think that's more likely than trading up (or back) from 22.

The only real possibility I see of trading up from 22 is if the Pats decide to go after Rolando McClain. Otherwise, I think there will be good value where they pick.

 

[Nonentity]

What do you think the odds are that he will just stay at 22?

We stayed at 21 in 2004 and took Wilfork. We stayed at 21 in 2006 and took Maroney. We stayed at 24 in 2007 and took Meriweather.

I think there will be solid value at 22. I've suggested that BB may trade up with the 2nd round picks to get a second marquis player (whether to the low 1st round or the high 2nd). I think that's more likely than trading up (or back) from 22.

The only real possibility I see of trading up from 22 is if the Pats decide to go after Rolando McClain. Otherwise, I think there will be good value where they pick.

I think we may move up a few spots, maybe up to 19/20 if there's a falling blue-chipper who we want to grab. As soon as anyone starts falling then interested parties in the latter third of the round may all be interested in trading up.

Nevertheless, we're clearly drafting for need this year. We need to make up for both deficiencies and retirements. Vrabel needs to be replaced, Thomas needs to be replaced, Neal needs to be replaced, Bruschi needs to be replaced and Stallworth/Gaffney need to be replaced. We have the picks to replace four of them in the top rounds.

Let's put it bluntly: busting kills us. This year it especially will. If we bust then I think we're going to have serious talent issues for a while. However, if we hit on at least 3 of the picks then we should be set for the next few years at these positions.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

What do you think the odds are that he will just stay at 22?

We stayed at 21 in 2004 and took Wilfork. We stayed at 21 in 2006 and took Maroney. We stayed at 24 in 2007 and took Meriweather.

I think there will be solid value at 22. I've suggested that BB may trade up with the 2nd round picks to get a second marquis player (whether to the low 1st round or the high 2nd). I think that's more likely than trading up (or back) from 22.

The only real possibility I see of trading up from 22 is if the Pats decide to go after Rolando McClain. Otherwise, I think there will be good value where they pick.

Firstly let me say Mayo - I have enjoyed reading your (many) posts and you know 50X more about the draft PLAYERS than I ever would. You and BOR and Dry Heat and others are so much more informed. I don't get access here in Denmark to college games and such.

So I can only say (as an Economics minor at Uni) that I pretend only to attempt to understand Belichicks value draft strategy -as it relates to the position of the draft - not on the actual players themselves. Or to attempt to TRY to understand as he is not exactly freely giving out advice. But it does help to get in his mindset with some of the principles that I try to remember from classes in Macro economic theory, Micro econ; competition in free and closed markets, pricing theory, etc. Honestly that was along time ago but I guess it is better than nothing or just complaining about WHY didnt he pick Matthews at #26 last draft.

Per your question about what do I feel the likelyhood of the Pats staying at pick #22 this year -as opposed to my rant a few posts ago about trading down theory (diversification financial theory):

BB / Pioli have (as you pointed out) shown the willingness to stay at their first round slot. Especially when letting the talent fall (slide) to them feks. Wilwork who was considered a top 10 -15 talent. As also as you and others have stated, the deep draft this year could also give a greater chance of that happening. With a few caveats:

1) How much of that depth in this years draft is blue chip talent? I believe it is a deep draft for starter material well into the 3rd round (is that called 'red' chip??). But I havent read how many are game changing franchaise blue chippers (as I understand the definition - I would appreciate someone explaining to me the different 'color' chips) Probably will have to wait till after the combine to acurately see how many true blue chippers there are. Anyone without an Econ degree can understand that the more blue chippers - the greater the chance that one will slide to us at #22.

2) Cost of 1st rounder contracts has increased much more than other rounds contracts. I can't give you a precise figure but my guess is about 15-20 % EACH YEAR -especially over the last 4-6 years or so. It seems to be on an upward curve (increasing each year). Has the value (talent level) of those players increased by the same comenserate amount ?? No of course not - the first round players are not 10-15% better each year. So that means that the VALUE of first round players is not as good as it was a few years ago -when Seymore, Wilfork and Warren were picked. So that gives more value to 2nd rounders whos contracts have NOT increased at that upward rate. Which tells me (if sticking to a pure value strategy), less chance of moving up or standing still at #22 as in previous years. Especially if more blue chip talent is true (let the draft fall to you).

Other points to consider (I am sure someone on Bills staff has looked into it) -propensity to injury for certain body 'types' (height / weight / body mass / bone density , etc. Ever wonder why Bill seems to have a minimum body type for certain positions. feks LB needs to be 6'4" and min 240 pounds or something like that. I wonder if it is also related to likelyhood of increased injury risk for less than his ideal goal? I would bet that first and second rounders are much closer to the ideal body types (physical specimans) than the low round'ers. And not only giving better performance - but also lessening the injury risk.

Well I am cutting this short as my wife is TELLING me it is time for dinner...Cheers from Denmark.

 

[mgteich]

As always, Belichick will decide based on value, availability of players on his board, and draft projections.

Last year, many media folks who understood the patriots well had us drafting Butler at 23 and certainly at 26 after we traded down. Belichick stood his gorund, took the risk and got Butler at 41, after picking up a couple of picks on the way down.

May here wanted Oher instead. Belichick instead used a late second for Vollmer.

Wouldn't we agree that the patriots got better value at 23 and 58 than anyone could have forecast?

And just BTW, he felt a need to develop a S and a NT. Chung and Brace may or may not be valuable in the future.
=======================

This approach does indeed work. HOWEVER, if Belichick sees a blue-chip player he really wants in the first, he will move up as he has in the past.

 

[PowerRunRevival]

I have never taken issue with the idea to trade down to get more picks. This year is an especially good year to do so, with the depth in the first two rounds. I feel that in this years draft there are elite players at every position but after those players are gone (which they should be at 22) there is a lot of good talent at every position with not much seperating the 2nd best from the 5th best player at a given position.

Normally I have a problem with Belichick's value over need decisions. However, this year there isn't one position besides qb that I feel completely comfortable with. So any quality player that is picked by Bill in this years draft will be wlecomed.

 

[Coach42]

I'm really surprised how much Jet envy is air lately. If we had switch seeding with the Jets there is a very really chance we would be playing next weekend. The Bengals (not the Jets) were the real playoff fraud this year, that team was awful and the Chargers couldn't have played any worse. I would argue that we are in a much better position than the Jets for next season going forward. The Jets have been aggressive in the draft and free agency the problem is they are about to get old fast and have no depth to replace their aging veterans. Without the extra picks how are they going to replace a rapidly aging O line? How about the D line (also old)? Their receivers stink and their running backs are going to look very human when Woody and Faneca break down.

I think we can all agree on a few things. Firstly, trading up is always more sexy to the fans. It seems proactive, the team gets a guy with a name people recognize, Mel Kiper foams at the mouth, the magazines give out A's and everything is great. A perfect example of that would be '06 when we took Maroney and traded up for Jackson. Trading down is no fun. No big name, no low number next to the players name, post draft magazines give low grades and no excitement. However, if you look around the NFL and at the best players in the game, you find you are really almost as likely to pull a great player out of the second and third rounds as you are the first and you can do that at a 1/10th of the price. In addition, additional picks should, emphasis on should, give you a better chance of finding these players. I really like what the new front office did last year and I'm excited to see what they can do this year.

 

[TriplecHamp]

I'm really surprised how much Jet envy is air lately. If we had switch seeding with the Jets there is a very really chance we would be playing next weekend. The Bengals (not the Jets) were the real playoff fraud this year, that team was awful and the Chargers couldn't have played any worse. I would argue that we are in a much better position than the Jets for next season going forward. The Jets have been aggressive in the draft and free agency the problem is they are about to get old fast and have no depth to replace their aging veterans. Without the extra picks how are they going to replace a rapidly aging O line? How about the D line (also old)? Their receivers stink and their running backs are going to look very human when Woody and Faneca break down.

I think we can all agree on a few things. Firstly, trading up is always more sexy to the fans. It seems proactive, the team gets a guy with a name people recognize, Mel Kiper foams at the mouth, the magazines give out A's and everything is great. A perfect example of that would be '06 when we took Maroney and traded up for Jackson. Trading down is no fun. No big name, no low number next to the players name, post draft magazines give low grades and no excitement. However, if you look around the NFL and at the best players in the game, you find you are really almost as likely to pull a great player out of the second and third rounds as you are the first and you can do that at a 1/10th of the price. In addition, additional picks should, emphasis on should, give you a better chance of finding these players. I really like what the new front office did last year and I'm excited to see what they can do this year.

Great post, and I agree with you on the "sexiness" of trading up vs trading down. It all depends on the draft but this draft reminds me of the 2004 draft where 14 pro bowlers came out of the first round with 11 of them coming in the top half. 10 pro bowlers came in the rest of the draft alone, I think that a team could hit in the first, second and third rounds of this draft but like I said, it could be top loaded but last year a few big names fell to the second round and the same will apply here IMO.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

I'm really surprised how much Jet envy is air lately. If we had switch seeding with the Jets there is a very really chance we would be playing next weekend. The Bengals (not the Jets) were the real playoff fraud this year, that team was awful and the Chargers couldn't have played any worse. I would argue that we are in a much better position than the Jets for next season going forward. The Jets have been aggressive in the draft and free agency the problem is they are about to get old fast and have no depth to replace their aging veterans. Without the extra picks how are they going to replace a rapidly aging O line? How about the D line (also old)? Their receivers stink and their running backs are going to look very human when Woody and Faneca break down.

I think we can all agree on a few things. Firstly, trading up is always more sexy to the fans. It seems proactive, the team gets a guy with a name people recognize, Mel Kiper foams at the mouth, the magazines give out A's and everything is great. A perfect example of that would be '06 when we took Maroney and traded up for Jackson. Trading down is no fun. No big name, no low number next to the players name, post draft magazines give low grades and no excitement. However, if you look around the NFL and at the best players in the game, you find you are really almost as likely to pull a great player out of the second and third rounds as you are the first and you can do that at a 1/10th of the price. In addition, additional picks should, emphasis on should, give you a better chance of finding these players. I really like what the new front office did last year and I'm excited to see what they can do this year.

Ditto to what TripleChamp said - good thoughts and I agree completely. And this 'sexiness' and instant grading and such is exactly why Belickick can 'fleece' another HC every year with a trade of this years pick for a round up pick next year. Because A) the other HC / GM might not be around next year so B) other teams HC & GM NEEDS to draft that can't miss sure fire kid named Joe CombineStud-FranchaiseSavior. Get the fan base all fired up. Sell more PSL's and season tickets.

Meanwhile here in PatsLand - boring old Bill just keeps plugging along , trading into next year; trading down when the value isn't at the slot we are picking. Who wants to buy a Pats jersey with the name: Future draft pick 2011 (one round higher) ?

And yet I am as guilty as anyone about getting excited about the draft. Looking at all the mocks and lathering at the mouth about how that sexy RB stud will look in a Pats uni at pick #22. But Bill will just trade down anyway into the 2nd round (picking up our missing 3rd round pick plus change) and then end up taking a plain wrapper blocking TE instead. No fun in that at all. But great value at half the price.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

If this team were only 1 or 2 guys away from being a SB contender then trading up is fine.

But since the team has more than their share of holes to fill like OL,WR,RB,DL,CB,LB no way should the team move anywhere in the draft,take them all and use them.

FA could help but there will be slim pickens out there this year.

 

[mgteich]

The trading up strategy has worked for the jets for the pst three drafts. Is this becasue the jets have so much better talent and depth than the patriots and have had since BEFORE the 2007 draft???????

The reality is that both strategies can and do work.

If this team were only 1 or 2 guys away from being a SB contender then trading up is fine.

But since the team has more than their share of holes to fill like OL,WR,RB,DL,CB,LB no way should the team move anywhere in the draft,take them all and use them.

FA could help but there will be slim pickens out there this year.

 

[Nonentity]

The trading up strategy has worked for the jets for the pst three drafts. Is this becasue the jets have so much better talent and depth than the patriots and have had since BEFORE the 2007 draft???????

The reality is that both strategies can and do work.

Not quite. The Jets strategy plays off beautifully if your team remains healthy all year. You then have top-quality talent at most positions. If your team suffers a couple of key injuries, however, you start a downward spiral and finish 5-11.

Thus the trade-off is depth, i.e. not having any. In contrast, the Patriots are renowned for their depth.

I expanded more on this here.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, since the 2005 Super Bowl, the patriots have certainly been renowned for their depth at linebacker and wide receiver.

Not quite. The Jets strategy plays off beautifully if your team remains healthy all year. You then have top-quality talent at most positions. If your team suffers a couple of key injuries, however, you start a downward spiral and finish 5-11.

Thus the trade-off is depth, i.e. not having any. In contrast, the Patriots are renowned for their depth.

I expanded more on this here.

 

[captain stone]

Yes, since the 2005 Super Bowl, the patriots have certainly been renowned for their depth at linebacker and wide receiver.

Excellent comeback.

The Jesters traded up in 2007 for both Revis & David Harris, and surrendered many picks - and potential depth - in the process. Meanwhile, the Patriots - with 9 picks - drafted Stomper Meriweather & ... garbage. The winner, in this particular case, is: Quality over Quantity.