Bobsyouruncle
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2012
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 6,904
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.BB has invested zero first rounder WRS. 65 first rounD WRs have been chosen since BB took over. NE is the only team to have never chosen one.
More important. They didn't need to, in order to finish in the Top 5 Offense every year. More instructive is the 2 #1 and a #2 that BB invested in TEs though.
Bill has drafted only 3 good WRs in SIXTEEN years mainly for 2 reasons:
All of the other WRs were over-valued crap; and he bypassed WRs who could've helped in order to take over-valued crap at other positions…and ZERO of those bypassed WRs were first-rounders, BTW.
More important. They didn't need to, in order to finish in the Top 5 Offense every year. More instructive is the 2 #1 and a #2 that BB invested in TEs though.
How many WRs have the Pats actually drafted over 16 years?
2000 - 0
2001 - 0
2002 - 2 - 2nd Round Branch, 7th Round Givens
2003 - 1 - 2nd round Bethel Johnson
2004 - 1 - 5th round P.K. Sam
2005 -
2006 - 1 - 2nd round Chad Jackson - Was rated a STEAL at the time.
2007 -
2008 - 1 - 5th round Matthew Slater - Was drafted as a Special Teamer
2009 - 2 - 3rd Round Brandon Tate (coming off ACL injury) - 7th round Julian Edelman
2010 - 1 - 3rd round Taylor Price
2011 - 0
2012 - 1 - 7th round Jeremy Ebert
2013 - 2 - 2nd round Aaron Dobson , 4th round Josh Boyce
2014 - 1 - 7th round Jeremy Gallon
2015 - 0
So, across 16 years we have a total of 13 WR chosen if you truly want to count Slater as a WR. Personally, I don't count him as one.
Zero of those WR were taken in the 1st round. 4 were taken in the 2nd, 2 in the 3rd round, and then the remaining 6 were in the 4th round or later.
They've had success with Branch, Givens, and Edelman. They've had complete failure with Sam, Jackson, Price, Ebert, and Gallon. And the jury is still out on Dobson and Boyce, though it's not looking good for Boyce. Bethel Johnson was a below average receiver, but a good return man for a few years..
So, the Pats are 3 for 10, not including Slater (not really a WR), Dobson, and Boyce. It goes up to 40% if you acknowledge Bethel Johnson as having had some value for the reason he was drafted (Return man). How does that far compared to other teams..
Well, someone mentioned Green Bay, so let's look at what they've done.
2000-2015 - Green Bay drafted 22 WR during that time. Drafthistory.com lists 24, but they have Will Blackmon (CB) listed as a WR and David Martin (TE) listed as WR. Successes include Ferguson, Cobb, Nelson, Javon Walker, Greg Jennings. The jury is still out on Davante Adams, Ty Montgomery, Jeff Janis, Charles Johnson, Jared Abbrederis,.
The other names drafted include:
Kevin Dorsey, Brett Swain, James Jones, David Clowney, Cory Rodgers, Terrence Murphy, Craig Bragg, DeAndrew Rubin, Carl Ford, Anthony Lucas, Joey Jamison, Charles Lee.
5 out of 17.. 6 of 17 if you give them James Jones.
Draft capital spent:
1st Round Picks - 1 , 2nd round Picks - 6, 3rd round pick - 2, 4th round picks - 2, 5th round picks, 3, 6th round pick, 1, 7th round pick - 7
5/17 = 29% success 6/17 = 35%
It's all in the perception.. The Packers have spent higher draft capital to achieve their perceived success..
I compared every team not just GB. And I don't see how you're getting 4-4, they've taken more than that in the first 3 rounds, even during the Thompson era.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 compared every team not just GB. And I don't see how you're getting 4-4, they've taken more than that in the first 3 rounds, even during the Thompson era.
I'm calling it like it is. I used all 2nd round picks from all teams. If I remove Jackson from the list for injury and rate Dobson as more successful than Adams BBs numbers look better, there's a reason I didn't do that.Ted Thompson started in 2005 they've drafted in the top 3 rounds:
Terrence Murphy (2nd) He suffered an injury 3 games into his career that forced him to retire, I don't really count him since there isn't a sample to really draw from.
Greg Jennings (2nd)
James Jones (3rd)
Jordy Nelson (2nd)
Randall Cobb (2nd)
Davante Adams (2nd) incomplete, but trending in the right direction.
They've targeted receivers and selected them well. I'll call it 4/4 It's not just a perception thing in this particular case.
In general I don't have a problem with people criticizing BB's drafting of receivers. It's been a trouble spot for us at times that has relied heavily on free agents more so than other positions. In the last 10 years we've drafted 1 receiver who has had a strong impact, and that is the one guy who we actually didn't have tape on as a receiver. We also kind of lucked out in discovering that he was a good receiver considering we buried him on the depth chart for 4 years, and let him hit FA unless he accepted a vet minimum offer.
Has he invested a lot of capital in the receiving corps, no. However, at times his thin receiver corps have cost him some game, and he had the same opportunity to evaluate dozens of successful receivers like everyone else and chose not to select them. Lets call it like it is on this one.
By far the outlier is GB who have managed to get 3 of the top 14 since that time. Outside of GB nobody seems to be getting any more out of 2nd round receivers than NE. Link if you want to see.
I'm calling it like it is. I used all 2nd round picks from all teams. If I remove Jackson from the list for injury and rate Dobson as more successful than Adams BBs numbers look better, there's a reason I didn't do that.
The reason I didn't rate all BBs picks (even guys that got injured, or haven't had much production) vs some of the other team's picks, only if that other team had the right GM, and only if they didn't get injured, and only if they were successful. It's a ridiculously cherry picked comparison.
BB has chosen zero first rounder WRs. 65 first round WRs have been chosen since BB took over. NE is the only team to have never chosen a first rounder in that time.
I'm calling it like it is. I used all 2nd round picks from all teams. If I remove Jackson from the list for injury and rate Dobson as more successful than Adams BBs numbers look better, there's a reason I didn't do that.
The reason I didn't rate all BBs picks (even guys that got injured, or haven't had much production) vs some of the other team's picks, only if that other team had the right GM, and only if they didn't get injured, and only if they were successful is it's a ridiculously cherry picked comparison.
This is great stuff. Thanks.
It also should be noted that no other team comes close to that success rate on WRs. Of course you are going to look bad when comparing yourself to an outlier. Not that you can't learn from the uber-successful, but how NE compares to the league at large is much more meaningful.
Okay, I apologize for being impolite.I wasn't even responding to you, I was talking to the guy who said that the difference between the Packers drafting of receivers and the Patriots drafting of receivers is a matter of perception, which is laughably false.
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.
WR Draft Pick Efficiency 2000-2014
Team Total CarAV Draft Capital Draft Capital used per CarAV
Colts 227 1572.2 6.93
Steelers 307 3602 11.99
Packers 272 3687.6 13.56
Patriots 134 2035.7 15.19
Seahawks 166 2717.8 16.37
Saints 193 3305.4 17.13
Ravens 113 3043.8 26.94
Lions 154 9134.1 59.31
Colts
Players Draft Value CarAV
Moncrief 90 140 4
Hilton 92 132 29
Brazil 206 10 3
Collie 127 45 18
Garcon 205 10.4 40
Gonzalez 32 590 16
Hall 169 24.8 0
Wayne 30 620 117
Steelers
Player Draft Value CarAV
Bryant 118 58 5
Wheaton 79 195 7
Brown 186 18 1
Clemons 231 2.3 0
Sanders 82 180 29
Brown 195 14.4 45
Wallace 84 170 44
Sweed 53 370 1
Baker 227 2.7 0
Holmes 25 720 47
Reid 95 120 12
Gibson 131 41 0
Randel 62 284 41
Mays 202 11.6 1
Taylor 218 5.2 0
Burress 8 1,400 69
Farmer 103 88 5
Packers
Player Draft Value CarAV
Adams 53 370 5
Abbrederis 176 22 0
Janis 236 1.8 0
Johnson 216 6 4
Dorsey 224 3 0
Cobb 64 270 36
Nelson 36 540 56
Swain 217 5.6 1
Jones 78 200 39
Clowney 157 29.6 3
Jennings 52 380 64
Rodgers 104 86 0
Murphy 58 320 0
Bragg 195 14.4 0
Rubin 253 0.6 0
Ford 256 0.4 0
Walker 20 850 39
Ferguson 41 490 18
Lucas 114 66 0
Jamison 151 31 0
Lee 242 1.2 7
Patriots
Player Draft Value CarAV
Gallon 244 1.0 0
Dobson 59 310 5
Boyce 102 92 1
Ebert 235 1.9 0
Price 90 140 1
Tate 83 175 13
Edelman 232 2.2 30
Slater 153 31.2 0
Jackson 36 540 2
Sam 164 26.8 0
Johnson 45 450 8
Branch 65 265 52
Givens 253 0.6 22
Seahawks
Player Draft Value CarAV
Richardson 45 450 3
Norwood 123 49 1
Harper 123 49 0
Durham 107 80 5
Tate 60 300 31
Butler 91 136 4
Taylor 197 13.6 1
Kent 210 8.4 0
Obomanu 249 0.8 10
Hackett 157 29.6 14
Wallace 224 3 0
Robinson 9 1350 35
Bannister 140 36 1
Jackson 80 190 57
Williams 175 22.4 4
Saints
Cooks 20 850 5
Stills 144 34 14
Toon 122 50 3
Arrington 237 1.7 1
Meachem 27 680 26
Hass 171 24 0
Colston 252 .6 69
Lyman 118 58 0
Henderson 50 400 36
Kelly 203 11.2 0
Gardner 231 2.3 0
Stallworth 13 1150 39
Ojo 153 31.2 0
Gideon 200 12.4 0
Ravens
Player Draft Value CarAV
Campanaro 218 5.2 1
Mellette 238 1.6 0
Streeter 198 13.2 0
Smith 58 320 29
Doss 123 49 4
Reed 156 30 2
Figurs 74 220 2
Williams 111 72 9
Clayton 22 780 27
Darling 82 180 4
Moore 199 12.8 2
Abney 244 1 0
Johnson 123 49 1
Hunter 206 10 0
Taylor 10 1300 32
Lions
Player Draft Value CarAV
Jones 189 16.8 0
Fuller 171 24 2
Broyles 54 360 3
Young 44 460 8
Toone 255 0.5 0
Williams 82 180 0
Moore 136 38 1
Johnson 2 2600 71
Williams 10 1300 12
Williams 7 1500 42
Rogers 2 2600 4
Kircus 175 22.4 3
Anglin 260 0.2 0
Anderson 148 32.2 8
I think WRs drafted into the Pats' system have an extra layer of difficulty involved in acclimating to the pros -- namely, an extremely complex and precise offense. There are enough accomplished (veteran!) players who've remarked on the difficulty of picking up the Pats' offense (e.g. Wayne) or simply never adapted (e.g. CJohnson) that I've got to believe that the scheme might overwhelm draftees who lack a terrific football IQ. It just seems like it would be pretty overwhelming for an incoming draft pick, who would not only have to be sufficiently talented from a physical standpoint, but also extremely sharp from a football perspective, and focused enough to process it all...which basically means your draft picks may have to be smarter, harder working, and more mature than your typical 21 year old entering the NFL. You basically have a different (and arguably harder to find) target profile for WRs than most teams.
So IMHO it's a bit unfair to grade the Pats on the same scale as other teams in this regard. It makes much more sense to take into account their efforts to get veteran WRs via FA (where, frankly, it's easier to target the football IQ/acumen required, due to FA player's experience, an extended track record to observe, etc)
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.Ted Thompson started in 2005 they've drafted in the top 3 rounds:
Terrence Murphy (2nd) He suffered an injury 3 games into his career that forced him to retire, I don't really count him since there isn't a sample to really draw from.
Greg Jennings (2nd)
James Jones (3rd)
Jordy Nelson (2nd)
Randall Cobb (2nd)
Davante Adams (2nd) incomplete, but trending in the right direction.
They've targeted receivers and selected them well. I'll call it 4/4 It's not just a perception thing in this particular case.
In general I don't have a problem with people criticizing BB's drafting of receivers. It's been a trouble spot for us at times that has relied heavily on free agents more so than other positions. In the last 10 years we've drafted 1 receiver who has had a strong impact, and that is the one guy who we actually didn't have tape on as a receiver. We also kind of lucked out in discovering that he was a good receiver considering we buried him on the depth chart for 4 years, and let him hit FA unless he accepted a vet minimum offer.
Has he invested a lot of capital in the receiving corps, no. However, at times his thin receiver corps have cost him some game, and he had the same opportunity to evaluate dozens of successful receivers like everyone else and chose not to select them. Lets call it like it is on this one.