How does Belichick and his staff rate at drafting wide receivers?

[McClusky]

Okay, I apologize for being impolite.

I don't see the draft the same as you because above average offense could just as likely lead to below average WRs drafted. You could say the Patriots should have above average QB drafts since they have an above average passing game. But the last 15 drafts have yielded probably the worst QB draft in the NFL because none of those players could displace the starter. The same principle applies to all positions. Had they not traded for Moss they likely would have got more production from their drafted players, and had a worse team.

I think it's a fair assessment to compare Patriot WR picks vs the NFL as a whole in similar picks. In that comparison they come out around 1 of 4 in 2nd rounders. From what I see that's not the worst, closer to average. There's other ways to analyze the question, like how they use their draft stock overall but those will likely have the Patriots coming out higher since they continually have productive WRs.

One method that I think isn't very useful for analysis though is looking at who they drafted and saying player X was still available. That is true for every team. As is saying they had so many opportunities and hit less than some percent. Comparisons must compare. If all an analysis can conclude is the Patriots are terrible and so are 90% or 100% of teams it doesn't tell us much. If everyone's terrible nobody is. Or for that matter if ones method for grading terribleness includes half the teams in the NFL than it means the grading method is flawed, nothing more.

I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with you. If you're going to utilize AV the way you are, you basically have to concede the fact that Tom Brady makes no tangible difference from an average QB since those 2 numbers are highly correlated. The Patriots are a strong outlier in offensive AV, everybody from Brady, to the offensive lineman, to veteran receivers and TE's tend to outperform their counterparts. The drafted receivers tend to be the most likely to perform closer to the average.

What you're saying is that a Patriots drafted receiver should perform similarly to that of an average offense and passing game. That is pretty much absurd, it's why the guy who did the breakdown by multiple teams saw that teams with stronger historical passing games tended to have stronger AV at the drafted receiver spot, and teams like the Lions who had Harrington, Orlovsky, and others for long stretches did not perform to the same level.

If you look at the context of the seasons surrounding our high round receiver drafts it's not like a majority of them were blocked by veteran receivers either. In fact many of the receivers we brought in through trade or free agency were in in response to our drafted receivers not performing to the level that they should in our offense.

A lot of time the simplest answer is the best answer. Take a step back and realize that Edelman is essentially the only receiver worth a damn that we've brought in during the last 10 years. Receiver has at times been a problem spot for us. It's a combination of both not picking the right guys, and not valuing the position.

 

[McClusky]

In fairness you have to consider what BB did with those unused Draft picks elsewhere.. For every failure I can show a success like Seymour Vollmer or Collins.

I don't disagree. I think BB is one of the best drafters inside the hashes, and below average outside the hashes. It has to do with his philosophy and what he looks for in a player. He like to have smart, team-oriented communicative guys who "Do their job". This works great in the cluster in the middle where everyone has an assignment and everyone needs to work together for a play to be executed as called. On the outside a lot of times it just takes an uber-athletic player with football instincts and a big ego. You're not rewarded as proportionately for having a smart player on the outside. Which is why BB tends to avoid it somewhat and go for safer picks that he can have more confidence that will excel the way he wants them to. The question was just posed in a way that solely assessed his ability to bring in talented receivers, which I think can be fairly judged as being poor.

 

[Oswlek]

Here is the thing the goal of the draft is to utilize your picks to bring in young cheap talent to your roster that diversifies the skill sets on your team, the Patriots while their investment at WR has been low, have really largely failed to do that over the last 10 years. I mean Edelman is pretty much the only guy who we can say that about. The thread title is "How does BB and his staff rate at drafting wide receivers" if over a long stretch of time they're not successful at bringing in talent at that position despite having ~80 or so opportunities to identify and pick a guy who can be successful, then they're not drafting wide receivers well.

I understand the approximate value argument, but at the same time with the way the Patriots offense outperforms the league average, the approximate value of Patriots drafted receivers should also outperform the league average. It's the same reason why Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Brandon Lloyd, Brandon Lafell, Deion Branch, and most other major contributors had a higher AV per season in NE than in other places. In this case comparing to the average does not make sense.

Unoriginal's post largely rebuts this, but I felt it deserved a response because you tend to give things a good deal of thought. Your reasoning is sound on the face of it, but has a few critical flaws that appear upon closer inspection.

First off, your initial paragraph, while correct, makes the mistake of never relating NE's performance to the control of the league as a whole. Green Bay can hit on every receiver selected from now through 2034, but if the median success rate is 30% (just to make a number up) then that same rate would make NE average by definition. This entire conversation is framed in relative performance; no listing of pure data, no matter how disparaging, can adequately answer that question.

You then discuss NE's influence over AV, which appears to offset the earlier issue, but you make an error there as well. Your comment strongly implies that every receiver who comes to NE will see his AV increase when that just isn't the case. In fact, the Patriots' history is very dichotomous with receivers either performing quite well or falling off the map entirely. If it were just rookies, then you could chalk it up to poor selection (particularly since none of them have gone on to great success elsewhere) but the failure list includes several accomplished vets as well. It appears to be less "Brady makes everyone better" and more "The Patriots are able to make elevated use of a particular skill set, but absent that they can't do much."

This is an important factor since it denies NE those 300-500 yard lingerers that can influence cumulative value stats. It is possible, of course, that AV is still inflated despite this, but you would have to prove this in order to state it so definitively. If I had to guess, I would say it is, but only trivially and not the factor you are making it out to be.

Good discussion!

 

[McClusky]

Unoriginal's post largely rebuts this, but I felt it deserved a response because you tend to give things a good deal of thought. Your reasoning is sound on the face of it, but has a few critical flaws that appear upon closer inspection.

First off, your initial paragraph, while correct, makes the mistake of never relating NE's performance to the control of the league as a whole. Green Bay can hit on every receiver selected from now through 2034, but if the median success rate is 30% (just to make a number up) then that same rate would make NE average by definition. This entire conversation is framed in relative performance; no listing of pure data, no matter how disparaging, can adequately answer that question.

You then discuss NE's influence over AV, which appears to offset the earlier issue, but you make an error there as well. Your comment strongly implies that every receiver who comes to NE will see his AV increase when that just isn't the case. In fact, the Patriots' history is very dichotomous with receivers either performing quite well or falling off the map entirely. If it were just rookies, then you could chalk it up to poor selection (particularly since none of them have gone on to great success elsewhere) but the failure list includes several accomplished vets as well. It appears to be less "Brady makes everyone better" and more "The Patriots are able to make elevated use of a particular skill set, but absent that they can't do much."

This is an important factor since it denies NE those 300-500 yard lingerers that can influence cumulative value stats. It is possible, of course, that AV is still inflated despite this, but you would have to prove this in order to state it so definitively. If I had to guess, I would say it is, but only trivially and not the factor you are making it out to be.

Good discussion!

Actually Unoriginal's post doesn't really rebut this. The 3 teams he used for proof of strong QB performance all had 10000 yard receivers (Driver, Ward, Harrison) that were drafted in the late 90's which were excluded from the sample due to the cutoff date, but played close to all the snaps in the 2000's for one receiver spot on their respective teams. New England really doesn't have a comparable player. Also all 3 of those teams have deeper pipelines of drafted receivers that in all likelihood will continue to outperform their NE counterparts (Edelman and Dobson).

New England shouldn't have a comparable AV from drafted receivers to an average team. Directionaly they are a strong outlier because of Tom Brady and their performance. That is the part where the relative performance component breaks down. Quite literally they have a factor >1.00 multiplying the impact in AV of people catching passes in NE. Unless people want to make the argument that it has been the skill position talent more so than Brady and the offensive line that is the differentiating factor in the New England offense than they shouldn't be compared to a relative average value. It's a pretty simple understanding of how this statistic is being generated and what its flaws are.

If it were just rookies, then you could chalk it up to poor selection (particularly since none of them have gone on to great success elsewhere) but the failure list includes several accomplished vets as well. It appears to be less "Brady makes everyone better" and more "The Patriots are able to make elevated use of a particular skill set, but absent that they can't do much."

To be fair the majority of receivers that have come here in their prime have stuck and outperformed their career AV's. I mean this is true of Moss, Welker, Lafell, Lloyd, Patten, Caldwell, Branch strongly outperformed his prime at the tail ends of his career in NE, I mean who're we really comparing who didn't make it in NE? Ocho and Galloway who were in their mid-30's when they were here. I guess Amendola, Stallworth, and Caldwell all performed right at their career averages and may have underperformed given the bump that was expected. It is far more pronounced in our draft picks than our veterans. I don't think you can simply write it off to randomness or the challenge of the system.

There is also the qualitative measurement of all of this. A median success rate is fine, but there is no differentiation between a player. Edelman, Branch, and Givens were all adequate players, but none of them were ever top 20 receivers.

I mean come on guys we've been stuck in playoff games throwing 9 routes to Matthew Slater instead of throwing them to Price and Tate, we've had Reche Caldwell as a #1 before because Bethel Johnson and Chad Jackson didn't perform, we've picked up a scrambled brained Austin Collie and played him with 2 other slot receivers because Dobson couldn't deliver. I understand the impetus to defend BB, but in this case I think you're using a stat poorly because you're looking for something explains away an issue that has a far more obvious answer. I mean it's been a over a decade, over 1/5th of the SB era and we've brought in 1 guy that has strongly contributed at receiver, and that guy was about as far of a projection as it could have been. I don't think BB and his staff are even average at drafting receivers, and virtually everyone outside of this site would agree.

 

[AzPatsFan]

The Proof of the Pudding is 4 Lombardis and 6 appearances in the last decade and a half. BB would much rather draft and have a Probowl RT, or a Probowl DT, or a Probowl LB then a premier WR, andhistory shows it works.

Of the last four or five Superbowl winners EXACTLY NONE, ZERO, 0, NADA had a superstar WR. TEs yes, but BB invests high picks in drafting in TEs too. So its not all Brady and Belechick.

 

[Oswlek]

New England shouldn't have a comparable AV from drafted receivers to an average team.

You have to prove this is the case, which you haven't done so.

Actually Unoriginal's post doesn't really rebut this.

Until you demonstrate your argument about AVs, it does.

I mean this is true of Moss, Welker, Lafell, Lloyd, Patten, Caldwell, Branch strongly outperformed his prime at the tail ends of his career in NE, I mean who're we really comparing who didn't make it in NE? Ocho and Galloway who were in their mid-30's when they were here.

You are massively overstating your case here. Welker had a serious jump, but he demonstrated in Denver that he likely would have had a similar leap with other, more functional quarterbacks. Lloyd did not outperform his prime and neither did Moss over the course of his entire time here. Even his amazing 2007 season was close to his peak years in Minnesota. Caldwell's total stats increased, but that was entirely due to increased attempts, not improvement in rate stats.

I mean come on guys we've been stuck in playoff games throwing 9 routes to Matthew Slater instead of throwing them to Price and Tate, we've had Reche Caldwell as a #1 before because Bethel Johnson and Chad Jackson didn't perform

This misses the point of my comment entirely. Never once did I dispute the issues that exist in the recent selection of WRs, I simply pointed out that your post doesn't make the necessary relative connection to properly answer the question.

You may have an argument, but as of now it is insufficient. You don't think AV stats are complete, fine, just demonstrate your case and the degree to which it is off. Then we can have a real discussion around this. Until then, all we can say it is disappointingly average.

 

[DaBruinz]

Well I don't see why you'd compare GB with a completely different Regime 2000-2004. Ted Thompson's regime has been immensely better at scouting receivers than BB's has. He's 4/4 on his receivers in the top 3 rounds, (Terrence Murphy's career ended with a back injury 3 games in, and James Jones is definitely a hit). There is absolutely no comparison there.

I included Murphy just like I included Tate. Tate was recovering from an ACL and then tore his ACL in the AFC Championship game his rookie year after coming off the PUP.

Sorry that I compared the same time frames.. Claiming there is no comparison is ridiculous.

Lets just look at 2005 and on for the Packers.

2005 - 2 - 2nd round Terrence Murphy, 6th round Craig Bragg
2006 - 2 - 2nd round Greg Jennings, 4th round Cory Rodgers
2007 - 2 - 3rd round James Jones, 5th round David Clowney
2008 - 1 - 2nd round Jordy Nelson
2009 - 0
2010 - 0
2011 - 1 - 2nd round Randall Cobb,
2012 - 0
2013 - 2 - 7th round Kevin Dorsey, 7th round Charles Johnson
2014 - 3 - 2nd round Devante Adams, 5th round Jared Abbrederis, 7th rnd Jeff Janis
2015 - 1- 3rd round Ty Montgomery

14 picks in 11 years. 4 hits. 4 jury is out. 6 didn't amount to anything for whatever reason.
4/14 = 28.5%

Again, it's all about perception..

 

[McClusky]

You have to prove this is the case, which you haven't done so.

I have explained my position. To my knowledge I can't go to Pro-Football Reference and extract cumulative AV's by team by season, but if I can please let me know. It's not really something that needs to be proven anyways if you understand how the statistic is generated.

The Patriots have had an offense that historically outperforms the average, would you agree? Ok

So the Patriots will have their total AV be equivalent to Patriots Offensive Output/NFL Average which means that they will have had more AV to spread out among players by the very nature of being Patriots.

AV assigns proportional value from based off of offensive output. It holds an equivalent value on a QB vs. a receiver regardless of who is passing and throwing the ball. Would you agree that Tom Brady inherently adds more value to the offense than an average QB? The stat doesn't really account for that beyond merely looking at basic volume of the statistics. So in the case of the Patriots the stat is assigning value based off of the perceived value of an average QB throwing to an average receiver, which in NE case is not true.

Both of these inherently boost the AV of the players who play for the Patriots, so it really doesn't make sense to compare a receiver in NE's offense to an NFL average offense because of the dynamic of the QB.

You are massively overstating your case here. Welker had a serious jump, but he demonstrated in Denver that he likely would have had a similar leap with other, more functional quarterbacks. Lloyd did not outperform his prime and neither did Moss over the course of his entire time here. Even his amazing 2007 season was close to his peak years in Minnesota. Caldwell's total stats increased, but that was entirely due to increased attempts, not improvement in rate stats.

This is actually a good chance for me to show the above point, What do you think Randy Moss's AV per game was in NE vs. the rest of his career? In NE he had .88 AV points per game, everywhere else he was at .46 AV points per game. Why was he so high in NE? Because of how much the offense outpaced the NFL while he was there. He wasn't necessarily a better player that year, but playing in NE made him seem more valuable by the way the stat is calculated. That is exactly the point I'm trying to make. You're trying to grade NE's drafted receivers on a curve that includes the entire sample of the NFL. I'm arguing that they shouldn't be held to that curve because the supporting value of the Patriots offense should be higher therefore they should have similarly correlated high AV's like the rest of the players on offense.

This misses the point of my comment entirely. Never once did I dispute the issues that exist in the recent selection of WRs, I simply pointed out that your post doesn't make the necessary relative connection to properly answer the question.

You may have an argument, but as of now it is insufficient. You don't think AV stats are complete, fine, just demonstrate your case and the degree to which it is off. Then we can have a real discussion around this. Until then, all we can say it is disappointingly average.

The relative connection has been made, fundamentally if you think that the component support for the Patriots offense outside of the Wide receivers has been average in the BB tenure then this analysis works. I disagree with that argument, and I think most people who are aware of the context around the Patriots offense in the BB era would agree.

 

[Oswlek]

In NE he had .88 AV points per game, everywhere else he was at .46 AV points per game.

A more meaningful comparison would be how Moss did in NE vs how he did in Minny, but this is definitely moving in the right direction.

Would you agree that Tom Brady inherently adds more value to the offense than an average QB?

Yes. Most of the time. But therein lies the rub. You still have to account for the proportion that simply don't get it.

The relative connection has been made

I'll agree a connection has been made, but it is far from relative. You have neither demonstrated how it relates overall nor have you accounted for those who don't work in NE's system. Like I said before, you may have a point but it needs a lot more fleshing out.

 

[McClusky]

A more meaningful comparison would be how Moss did in NE vs how he did in Minny, but this is definitely moving in the right direction.

You actually quite literally just made my point. You're saying I should be comparing Moss to his years in an above average offense, when the sample gets diluted with Oakland, Tennessee, and San Francisco he looks worse. Which... Is exactly the point I've been making. The entire Patriots sample for the most part is an above average offense which means that our receivers should be held to the same standard as other above average offenses which over the same time period there consistently have been very few.

 

[Oswlek]

You actually quite literally just made my point. You're saying I should be comparing Moss to his years in an above average offense, when the sample gets diluted with Oakland, Tennessee, and San Francisco he looks worse. Which... Is exactly the point I've been making.

Fair enough, but it isn't the bullseye you think it is because you still need to demonstrate the relative inflation as well as accounting for receivers who didn't make it.

 

[McClusky]

Fair enough, but it isn't the bullseye you think it is because you still need to demonstrate the relative inflation as well as accounting for receivers who didn't make it.

Here is as far as I'm going to go because it's not really worth all that much more effort, and I'm not sure I can even get the data I need to prove it the way I would like to. Since 2007 here are some of the receivers that have played for us AV/G and their AV/G for the residual part of their careers.

The first number will be AV for us and the the next will be all others

Moss .88 .46
Lafell .688 .350
Amendola .286 .309
Lloyd .625 .304
Branch .517 .353
Welker .915 .277
Gaffney .302 .339
Stallworth .588 .357
Chad Johnson .200 .688
Tate .444 .078
Aiken .143 .045
Galloway .333 .502
Collie .142 .429
Thompkins .333 .083

Those numbers strongly suggest that AV numbers as a WR in NE should be higher than the average. Which one would think would be an experience that carries over to our draft picks, but it hasn't which is why I'm skeptical to say that they're even average at selecting wide receivers. We could go over the nuances of each individual player, but we're not really adding much value at that point.

A quick calc of all of those together suggests that since 2007 (except Branch) while in NE those receivers outproduce their career average of AV/G by 51.7%. Which is why I'm arguing against comparing NE rookie receivers to an average.

 

[Oswlek]

Those numbers strongly suggest that AV numbers as a WR in NE should be higher than the average.

Agreed.

We could go over the nuances of each individual player, but we're not really adding much value at that point.

But I disagree with this one. For instance, Brandon Lloyd's 2010-2011 AV is almost certainly higher than what it was here in 2012, and neither was elevated by playing for a great offense or quarterback. He just clearly fits McDaniels' system better than he did any before. The same is true of Deion, but even he had virtually identical per game numbers the year in Seattle as he did in NE, and that was for the 22nd passing offense according to DVOA. It was only after falling out of favor due to injuries and scheme changes that his production tailed off. I get your point about Moss, but he wasn't just playing for below average passing offenses when not in Minny/NE, it was a wasteland. That balances out in a league-wide average, but it can have a large effect on a single player when the disparity is that large.

I'm with you that the numbers are compelling, I'm not with you that they can be taken at face value.

All that said, I don't disagree that rookies have been disappointing, nor would I be surprised if NE wasn't actually below average according to the true numbers (whatever they are). I just prefer to see statements like the one you made before to be substantiated before accepting them as fact.

 

[Concussion Protocol]

I included Murphy just like I included Tate. Tate was recovering from an ACL and then tore his ACL in the AFC Championship game his rookie year after coming off the PUP.

I believe you're thinking of Chad Jackson. Tate never played in an AFCCG here and while he was shut down shortly after coming off PUP, I don't think it was a major injury.

 

[McClusky]

But I disagree with this one. For instance, Brandon Lloyd's 2010-2011 AV is almost certainly higher than what it was here in 2012, and neither was elevated by playing for a great offense or quarterback. He just clearly fits McDaniels' system better than he did any before. The same is true of Deion, but even he had virtually identical per game numbers the year in Seattle as he did in NE, and that was for the 22nd passing offense according to DVOA. It was only after falling out of favor due to injuries and scheme changes that his production tailed off. I get your point about Moss, but he wasn't just playing for below average passing offenses when not in Minny/NE, it was a wasteland. That balances out in a league-wide average, but it can have a large effect on a single player when the disparity is that large.

I'm with you that the numbers are compelling, I'm not with you that they can be taken at face value.

All that said, I don't disagree that rookies have been disappointing, nor would I be surprised if NE wasn't actually below average according to the true numbers (whatever they are). I just prefer to see statements like the one you made before to be substantiated before accepting them as fact.

Here you're almost there let me fill you in on the rest:

Lloyd's AV in 2010 vs. 2012 12 vs. 10

What were Lloyd's stats in those years?
2010: 77 catches on 153 targets 1448 yards 11 TD's
2012: 74 catches on 131 targets 911 yards 4 TD's

Is it fair to say that Lloyd's 2010 in Denver was better than his 2012 year in NE by more than 20%? I'd argue yes, but the proportional allocation doesn't distribute AV the same because the Patriots had an elite offense in 2012 whereas the Broncos we average. That is the issue I've been arguing all along. Solid seasons in NE are magnified on the basis of them happening in NE.

 

[37Harrison]

I know, but what you are missing is that that cannot be looked at in isolation. It is too narrow focused and, as such, is a meaningless comparison.

FWIW, by the time he came to NE, Dillon wasn't remotely the headcase Dez is. Not even close.

Not to pound a dead horse but after Dillon left the Pats and football he was arrested twice for DUI and domestic violence. He and Dez in my mind are very comparable only Dillon has a longer rap sheet so far.

 

[Oswlek]

Not to pound a dead horse but after Dillon left the Pats and football he was arrested twice for DUI and domestic violence. He and Dez in my mind are very comparable only Dillon has a longer rap sheet so far.

I hear you, but Dez is such a nutcase that the team had to hire a full time chaperone and there have been a few reports of Dallas burying stories about him.

The larger point, though, is that the all the other factors diverge so much as to make the locker room comparison functionally irrelevant.

 

[1960Pats]

What would you give them for a grade over the past 15 years?

On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being best, I give them a 10. The record speaks for itself.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

They've had trouble with all the first round WRs BB drafted.

They will draft another WR again in the first round next year.

 

[1960Pats]

the Dracula thread of Patsfans.com resurrects itself once again...

I'm lucky. I've only seen it for a few years now.