Interesting analysis of Pats drafting

[AzPatsFan]

Pretty much -- they're talking specifically about concentrating draft firepower in the section of the draft with the best cost/benefit ratio, which has been the late 1st-2nd. Not so much about player selection as a broader view of rate of returns.

Over on the draft board, I recently started a thread about the 2nd round, because of a LOT of comments suggesting that the Pats have an atrocious record with 2nd-round picks:
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/13/918758-patriots-record-2nd-round.html

What I came away with was that they actually have a very good hit rate on 2nd rounders. The trick is that they've made such a huge number of picks in that round that failures naturally mount up, and that's what fans remember.

This article seems to support that conclusion, and further suggests that the much-maligned 2nd round has actually been a key engine of the team's success. (Alas, I don't expect it to stop the cries of, "b-b-but, Chad Jackson! Darius Butler! See how terrible BB is with 2nd rounders? )

What's particularly interesting is the article's take on this year's draft -- that the trades up in the 1st indicate BB is adjusting to the changed "yield curve" of the new CBA, which has made higher picks better investments than in the past.[/QUOTE]


Circumstances change. When BB decided that the old SuperBowl club had to be stripped and rebuilt from top to bottom, to replace aging and slowing players, he took one course of action.

He did the exact opposite course, while trading for multiple lower round picks, in the 2009 draft. He felt he needed large numbers of picks to commence the rebuild, while looking for a large number of good players.

Now that the club has been essentially rebuilt from top to bottom, he changed again. Belichick sought to add just a few very good players, to his Team's virtually complete collection of good players.

There may be some contribution to the variance, by the talent levels of some draft years, but I think Team circumstance is what colors Belichick's actions the most. :snob:

 

[patchick]

It demonstrates that just using the "starter" basis for rating the picks isn't sufficient to determining the best strategy. For the Patriots, the first round is not just better for hits, it's significantly better for the subset of hit quality.

In other words, you have another dynamic layer when you are looking at the option of a trade down. Do you take the lesser hit rate, plus the lesser "quality hit" rate, or do you keep the pick? Looking at this from the Patriots drafting history, and using your numbers (I'll use the lower numbers of 50/25 because they're easier math ), here's the 1:1 rate comparison:

1st round hit rate = 100%
1st round quality hit rate = 50%

Results: Every 2 picks, you get 2 hits and one quality hit

2nd round hit rate = 50%
2nd round quality hit rate = 25%

Results: Every 2 picks, you get 1 hit and .25 quality hit

That's a 4:1 quality hit rate ratio.

Deus! You just added 25 + 25 and got 25! Try the math again.

(And while you're at it, try subbing in the value 1 1st = 2 2nds + 1 3rd + 1 7th, which is the only real-life example we have of the yield of trading away a 1st.)

 

[Deus Irae]

...What I came away with was that they actually have a very good hit rate on 2nd rounders. The trick is that they've made such a huge number of picks in that round that failures naturally mount up, and that's what fans remember...

Through 2010, the BB drafting has a less than 50% hit rate in the second round:

Hits - Gronk, Spikes, Chung, Vollmer, Wilson, Branch, Light
Misses - Klemm, Johnson, Hill, Jackson, Wheatley, Butler, Brace*, Cunningham*

*denotes player who can still flip groups


If we go by Casserly's study, that's just under average.

 

[livinginthe past]

Cultivating locker-room chemistry is a very under-rated talent - especially by the draftniks who can't see past statistical blurb for a particular athlete.

A small excerpt from Patriot Reign:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is how a segment of the Patriots program works. It is driven by a concept that is rare not only in sports bars but in American society. The idea, in a country full of social and entertainment options, is that the obligations of the job-and devotion to and mastery of the job-are an employee's top priority. The Patriots are attempting to stack their roster with productive players who either think that way now or are on the cusp on a conversion. They don't want to be paternalistic figures asking their players, "Did you put in extra film time?" They want the kind of players who want to do it without being asked.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hear guys like Gronk talk about how much he loves the game - how much he loves playing.

I was impressed with what i've heard and read about Dennard so far - I don't think application is going to be a proble with this kid - I do however think alot of his fall from grace was probably to do with a fall in the perception of his on-field skills more than the off-field stuff.

Detriot have been foolish - instead of adding a few questionable ingredients to a very consistent locker-room - they've front loaded with with combustible, unstable types who will likely dominate.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus! You just added 25 + 25 and got 25! Try the math again.

I didn't do that. I added 12.5 + 12.5 and got 25.

Were you trying to say that 1/4 of the overall round 2 picks are quality picks, and not 1/4 of the round 2 hits? If so, that's the place where the numbers diverged. I'd call that estimate, if that's where you were going, a generous one. It would take the number from the .25 quality hit to a .5 quality hit, but we'd really be stretching the term "quality" at that point, IMO.

(And while you're at it, try subbing in the value 1 1st = 2 2nds + 1 3rd + 1 7th, which is the only real-life example we have of the yield of trading away a 1st.)

I can't do that that with an agreed upon percentage set, as you didn't supply me with your numbers for rounds 3 and 7. Just looking at the naked numbers, though, it would seem to be a win for the trade down if you're looking for just a "hit", but it would be less advantageous (if advantageous at all) in the "quality hit" area.

 

[patchick]

I didn't do that. I added 12.5 + 12.5 and got 25.

For round 1, you claimed a 50% "quality hit" rate, doubled it, and got 1.0. For round 2, you claimed a 25% "quality hit" rate, doubled it, and got .25.

(Out of 14 2nd-round picks in the evaluatable BB years, 2001-2010, I count Gronkowski, Vollmer, Light and Branch as quality hits -- that's 29%.)

 

[DaBruinz]

I just question whether or not if .500 is successful. Seems average.

If Tom Brady completes only half his passes, hes Mark Sanchez or Matt Cassel. A WR on the Pats isnt going to be around very long dropping 50% of his passes when Welker is catching 70%. FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2011 WIDE RECEIVERS

Well, when you are comparing apples (draft rate success) to Oranges (passing rate success) the draft rate success does seem average.

But when you look at the success rate of draft picks from Round two for the LEAGUE and compare the Pats success rate of Round two picks, what does it look like?

 

[IllegalContact]

there's also another way to compare and it is to look at the make up of the teams rosters, particularly the starters

the steelers:
2 players who began their careers with other teams (james farrior and ryan clark)
2 players who were steeler UDFA's when they were rookies (james harrison and ramon foster)
18 players were drafted by the steelers

the patriots:
8 players who began their careers with other teams (arrington, ninkovich,ellis,carter,welker,waters,connolly,ihedigbo)
1 player who was a pats UDFA (love)
13 players drafted by the pats (including deion branch who was traded for after he was with another team.....important to note given the WR's the pats had drafted after his departure)

 

[Deus Irae]

For round 1, you claimed a 50% "quality hit" rate, doubled it, and got 1.0. For round 2, you claimed a 25% "quality hit" rate, doubled it, and got .25.

(Out of 14 2nd-round picks in the evaluatable BB years, 2001-2010, I count Gronkowski, Vollmer, Light and Branch as quality hits -- that's 29%.)

No.... My math:

100% hit rate * .50 quality hit rate = .50 quality hits
50% hit rate * .25 quality hit rate = .125 quality hits

But, using your numbers and arguments assuming that .25 overall quality hit in round 2, it would translate up to a straight 2:1 edge for round 1, although I think we can agree that round one has produced better than that in comparison to round 2.

Also,

15 2nd round picks
Gronk/Light/Branch
= 20%

I can't credit Vollmer for one season, just as I can't credit McCourty for one season, and I was using what I thought were your numbers to get the numbers I got. If you were counting a player like Vollmer as a quality hit, the first round QH numbers would have to jump to 70% or more:

Seymour
Wilfork
Mankins
McCourty
Meriweather
Mayo
Warren

Even Graham would be arguable, since he was once the best blocking TE in the league. Meriweather would become a real oddity, as a player who was both a quality hit under this evaluation and a non-success as a player who didn't finish out his initial contract.

Just my $.02 regarding quality hits.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, when you are comparing apples (draft rate success) to Oranges (passing rate success) the draft rate success does seem average.

But when you look at the success rate of draft picks from Round two for the LEAGUE and compare the Pats success rate of Round two picks, what does it look like?

Slightly below average, according to that study.

 

[fester]

My 2 cents, the end of the first is not really a sweet spot:Only 2 of 6 players got a 2nd contract with New England. The success of McCourty (27), Jones (21) and Hightower (25) could shift this range dramatically either way.

Still, you have to wonder just how sweet picks 21-32 really are. It changes every year depending on the players available but its a trend I have noticed.

Compare this to players selected in the top 20, where all picks earned a 2nd contract with us:

Just a methodological question -- is a 2nd contract with the drafting team the end all and be-all of evaluation? As Meriweather, Graham and Watson all got significantly better than Vet Min contracts albeit from other teams -- it is proof that at least some team viewed these players as better than competent NFL players as a competent player is a sub-million dollar a year cap hit player on the veteran free agent market.

 

[patfanken]

Through 2010, the BB drafting has a less than 50% hit rate in the second round:

Hits - Gronk, Spikes, Chung, Vollmer, Wilson, Branch, Light
Misses - Klemm, Johnson, Hill, Jackson, Wheatley, Butler, Brace*, Cunningham*

*denotes player who can still flip groups


If we go by Casserly's study, that's just under average.

I thought you did some "reaching" to make your numbers fit your point

BTW- is this a matter of questioning BB's ability to pick talent, or can injuries be a factor.

1. Klemm - Not only did you have to go back to 2000 to make your numbers work, I think you went so far back that you forgot that for Klemm talent wasn't an issue, it was more about his injuries early in his career He was hurt all but one of his 5 seasons with the Pats

2.Hill - his sudden death might have been a factor in his lack of success, as well as the fact that he was the LAST pick in 2nd round. When he was selected we all knew he was a developmental player, and we have no idea what kind of player he might have been in 2007. The very fact he gave up his life to save another's makes him a hit in my books

3. Cunningham- was a starter his first year and exceeded expectations as a rookie. I think the lockout and injuries sabotaged his 2nd year and at worst he deserves an incomplete rather than the miss column

4. Brace - You are correct he could switch columns - after a horrid rookie year, he showed flashes in both his 2nd and 3rd seasons, even though both were injury shortened

5. Wheatley- wasn't he another guy who was progressing right on track before injuries cut him down....repeatedly

6. Butler -was a guy who had an excellent rookie year. I don't think anyone was disappointed in that pick after the 2009 season. IMO ultimately he just couldn't handle big physical receivers and wasn't mentally tough enough. But that didn't show up in his rookie year.

7. Johnson and Jackson just point out how hard it is to project WR talent to this particular offense. If proven WR's have problems with it like Gallaway, Porter and Ocho, imagine the culture shock for rookies like Johnson, Jackson, Tate, and Price.

If BB made a mistake with these guys it might just be drafting them as high as the 2nd or 3rd rounds. With WR's, to quote Forrest Gump, they are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get.

Even if you are a "hard" grader, I think BB is a lot closer to the 50% mark than you would like us to believe because I don't think you can project injuries when you draft....and injuries happen.

 

[Deus Irae]

I thought you did some "reaching" to make your numbers fit your point

BTW- is this a matter of questioning BB's ability to pick talent, or can injuries be a factor.

Actually, for me it's just a general discussion, but we're using the Patriots as the specific team since this is Patsfans. I think the 'trade down' can be argued both ways, as we can see by comparing the Giants and Patriots.

1. Klemm - Not only did you have to go back to 2000 to make your numbers work, I think you went so far back that you forgot that for Klemm talent wasn't an issue, it was more about his injuries early in his career He was hurt all but one of his 5 seasons with the Pats

umm.... I didn't "have to" go back to make numbers work. I had to go back because that's when BB's drafting began. And Klemm's a miss.

2.Hill - his sudden death might have been a factor in his lack of success, as well as the fact that he was the LAST pick in 2nd round. When he was selected we all knew he was a developmental player, and we have no idea what kind of player he might have been in 2007. The very fact he gave up his life to save another's makes him a hit in my books

He never sniffed being a hit. Using Casserly's study, he's clearly a miss.

3. Cunningham- was a starter his first year and exceeded expectations as a rookie. I think the lockout and injuries sabotaged his 2nd year and at worst he deserves an incomplete rather than the miss column

You overrate his rookie season, minimize his sophomore disaster, and "reach" like crazy to pretend he's an incomplete. He's a huge whiff to this point, which makes him a clear misss.

4. Brace - You are correct he could switch columns - after a horrid rookie year, he showed flashes in both his 2nd and 3rd seasons, even though both were injury shortened

He's currently a miss.

5. Wheatley- wasn't he another guy who was progressing right on track before injuries cut him down....repeatedly

He played in 12 games, and started 1, in his entire NFL career. He's a miss, by a mile.

6. Butler -was a guy who had an excellent rookie year. I don't think anyone was disappointed in that pick after the 2009 season. IMO ultimately he just couldn't handle big physical receivers and wasn't mentally tough enough. But that didn't show up in his rookie year.

He was out after 2 seasons. He's a miss.

7. Johnson and Jackson just point out how hard it is to project WR talent to this particular offense. If proven WR's have problems with it like Gallaway, Porter and Ocho, imagine the culture shock for rookies like Johnson, Jackson, Tate, and Price.

If BB made a mistake with these guys it might just be drafting them as high as the 2nd or 3rd rounds. With WR's, to quote Forrest Gump, they are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get.

Your excuse making is ridiculous here, Ken, given that you were chastising me for supposed reaches. The mistake, in context of this discussion, was drafting them, not drafting them high. This is a "pure" discussion for me, breaking down a specific strategy for picks in rounds 1 and 2, so playing the "he'd have been a great 5th round pick" game is meaningless.

Even if you are a "hard" grader, I think BB is a lot closer to the 50% mark than you would like us to believe because I don't think you can project injuries when you draft....and injuries happen.

I didn't grade hard at all. I gave very fair grades. You're trying to excuse picks like Klemm and Wheatley, for crying out loud. Come on, man. If you're going to gripe, make the gripe legitimate.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Giants are a good team to match up with, because they stay put and have had success on the field. Here are the first two rounds for the Giants during the same time:

First round

2012 32 32 David Wilson RB Virginia Tech
2011 19 19 Prince Amukamara DB Nebraska
2010 15 15 Jason Pierre-Paul DE South Florida
2009 29 29 Hakeem Nicks WR North Carolina
2008 31 31 Kenny Phillips DB Miami (FL)
2007 20 20 Aaron Ross DB Texas
2006 32 32 Mathias Kiwanuka DE Boston College
2004 4 4 Philip Rivers QB North Carolina State
2003 25 25 William Joseph DT Miami (FL)
2002 14 14 Jeremy Shockey TE Miami (FL)
2001 22 22 Will Allen DB Syracuse
2000 11 11 Ron Dayne RB Wisconsin

Second round

2012 31 63 Rueben Randle WR Louisiana State
2011 20 52 Marvin Austin DT North Carolina
2010 14 46 Linval Joseph DT East Carolina
2009 13 45 Clint Sintim LB Virginia
2009 28 60 William Beatty T Connecticut
2008 32 63 Terrell Thomas DB USC
2007 19 51 Steve Smith WR USC
2006 12 44 Sinorice Moss WR Miami (FL)
2005 11 43 Corey Webster DB Louisiana State
2004 2 34 Chris Snee G Boston College
2003 24 56 Osi Umenyiora DE Troy
2002 14 46 Tim Carter WR Auburn
2000 11 42 Cornelius Griffin DT Alabama

 

[Urgent]

Baltimore assistant GM Eric DeCosta agrees with you:

Quote:
“The draft is all about luck,” DeCosta said. “The more picks you have, the better chance you have to get lucky more often.”

The article is a good read on the Ravens' drafting philsoophy, and is worth checking out.

Not so at all.

Simply:
Would you rather have one First-Round pick or three Seventh-Round picks?

Everyone would rather have one First.
What? But one is fewer than three, right?

The probability of success changes significantly round to round.
The success rate of First round picks is far higher than Seventh round picks.
Belichick has a famously high success rate in the First. Under any analysis, his success rate in the Second is far lower.

To maximize the expected value of his picks, you would compare the success rate of First and Seconds, and then compare the market value of First and Seconds.

If, for example:
- Success rate of Firsts = 90%
- Success rate of Seconds = 50%
- One First = Two Seconds
Then:
Expected value of First = 90% or Two Seconds (50% plus 50%) = 100%
You would rather have two Seconds: 100% total net expected value is better than 90% total net expected value.

You would need finer tuning than this. But at it's heart, that's the simple calculus.

 

[Zeus]

1. Did Casserly perfrom the study himself or just read (or misread) it? Pretty ironic to be evaluating Belichick's draft performance based on fairly vague comments by a guy BB thinks is a dunce.

2. Casserly's study evaluated players as hits or misses after four years, which makes it too early too tell on some players cited.

3. I'd give the Pats a pass on Marquise Hill given that he was just two months shy of his 25th birthday when he died and NE clearly had not given up on him.

4. The big point in the article cited by the OP was that the rookie salary scale increased the relative value of picks earlier in the first round. Time will tell whether the Patriots apparent shift in draft strategy was specific to the circumstances in 2012 or the beginning of a broader philosophical change in the years to come.

5. Money matters a lot. This hasn't really been discussed in the thread so far. While the hit rate is higher for earlier picks, so is the cost of making a mistake, disproportionately so under the old rules. Busting on a high first round pick (Exhibit I: drafting Vernon Gholston; Exhibit II: trading a #1 and #2 to get Boy Mark Sanchez when you could have stood pat and drafted Josh Freeman) has a huge cost, not only in terms of the financial commitment it took to sign those "players," but also the knock-on effect on the rest of the roster where you have relatively fewer salary cap dollars to expend. It's far less painful to miss on a #2 (or even two of them). By the way, the is why the cap is decidedly not crap.

6. BB makes plenty of mistakes but he has a sound, well-reasoned philosphy which he applies with great discipline. Whatever he does -whether you like it or not, whether it turns out well or not - you can be sure that he had a sound rationale for doing it. When you consider all aspects of talent procurement and the resulting performmance on the field, the record speaks for itself.

 

[Deus Irae]

1. Did Casserly perfrom the study himself or just read (or misread) it? Pretty ironic to be evaluating Belichick's draft performance based on fairly vague comments by a guy BB thinks is a dunce.

There's nothing ironic about it at all. All we're using the percentages from a study.

2. Casserly's study evaluated players as hits or misses after four years, which makes it too early too tell on some players cited.

It was noted that those players who were called misses with less than 4 years in (i.e. Brace) could still change categories. It's silly to pretend that Brace hasn't been a miss to this point, though.

3. I'd give the Pats a pass on Marquise Hill given that he was just two months shy of his 25th birthday when he died and NE clearly had not given up on him.

3 years, 13 games played, 0 starts. That's what we've got to go on. He's a miss.

4. The big point in the article cited by the OP was that the rookie salary scale increased the relative value of picks earlier in the first round. Time will tell whether the Patriots apparent shift in draft strategy was specific to the circumstances in 2012 or the beginning of a broader philosophical change in the years to come.

True, but that became a jump off point to a broader discussion.

5. Money matters a lot. This hasn't really been discussed in the thread so far. While the hit rate is higher for earlier picks, so is the cost of making a mistake, disproportionately so under the old rules. Busting on a high first round pick (Exhibit I: drafting Vernon Gholston; Exhibit II: trading a #1 and #2 to get Boy Mark Sanchez when you could have stood pat and drafted Josh Freeman) has a huge cost, not only in terms of the financial commitment it took to sign those "players," but also the knock-on effect on the rest of the roster where you have relatively fewer salary cap dollars to expend. It's far less painful to miss on a #2 (or even two of them). By the way, the is why the cap is decidedly not crap.

Money matters, but we'd have to analyze that slot by slot, and not just round by round. You're welcome to have at that, obviously, but I don't see it as being particularly significant outside the top few picks, particularly when (as noted by looking at the Patriots and Giants) both approaches can be successful even for teams with a lot of success who are spending a lot of time drafting at the bottom of the rounds. If the money were really that big a factor, teams wouldn't have been looking to lock up players for as long as possible. They'd have been angling for short contracts that could be addressed earlier into a player's career. It's one heck of a stretch for the Patriots (and/or their fans) to be moaning about the money when they were the team most strident in forcing 6 year deals down the throats of their draftees when such deals were still possible.

Also, the cap was crap for a pretty good period of time. The fact that the current cap has become restrictive and made things a bit more like they were when the cap was first introduced doesn't retroactively make the cap of the past 5+ years more meaningful.

6. BB makes plenty of mistakes but he has a sound, well-reasoned philosphy which he applies with great discipline. Whatever he does -whether you like it or not, whether it turns out well or not - you can be sure that he had a sound rationale for doing it. When you consider all aspects of talent procurement and the resulting performmance on the field, the record speaks for itself.

The Patriots use a wide variety of ways to get players. Also, a player like a Brady/Manning/Rodgers/Lewis can cover up for some bad drafting, so "the record" doesn't speak for the drafting. It speaks for the overall program, which is not the same thing.

I don't really get the logic behind the apologists running to argue against the study or cry about someone like Hill/Brace being categorized as a miss. Generally speaking, we're looking at methods of drafting and trying to figure out when/if either is superior and when/if one might wish to change strategies. We're not bashing on BB's drafting here, or anything of the sort.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Pretty much -- they're talking specifically about concentrating draft firepower in the section of the draft with the best cost/benefit ratio, which has been the late 1st-2nd. Not so much about player selection as a broader view of rate of returns.

Over on the draft board, I recently started a thread about the 2nd round, because of a LOT of comments suggesting that the Pats have an atrocious record with 2nd-round picks:
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/13/918758-patriots-record-2nd-round.html

What I came away with was that they actually have a very good hit rate on 2nd rounders. The trick is that they've made such a huge number of picks in that round that failures naturally mount up, and that's what fans remember.

This article seems to support that conclusion, and further suggests that the much-maligned 2nd round has actually been a key engine of the team's success. (Alas, I don't expect it to stop the cries of, "b-b-but, Chad Jackson! Darius Butler! See how terrible BB is with 2nd rounders? )

What's particularly interesting is the article's take on this year's draft -- that the trades up in the 1st indicate BB is adjusting to the changed "yield curve" of the new CBA, which has made higher picks better investments than in the past.

First of all, posts like these are why I love Patsfans. This type of analysis is 10x better than any other source of Patriots news out there.

I agree that the volume of Belichick's picks is a factor. In fact at the risk of oversimplifying, Volume is much of what Belichick's strategy is all about. He does his best to get as many of "his guys" as possible in any draft and is strategic about it. Most often for Belichick that allows an ability to move back and stockpile picks.

Some pan out, some don't. You do your best to pick them but ultimately it's up to them to perform.

However this years firat round moves I think are simply a matter of having guys he wanted and having the ammunition he needed to move up and get them. At that point in the first round the contract value hasn't changed that much... It's the top of the draft where those inflated salaries are really such a huge risk, and a potential contract albatross. Late first round busts don't hurt you half as bad.

 

[Triumph]

Thats exactly the point.
Comparing the % draft success to completion percentage for a QB is no more valid than batting average in baseball or car accident percentage.
In your reply, you proved my point in addition to your humorous jabs.

The point is that .500 drafting isnt that good when you had the opportunity to draft .750 which is good. Thats been the argument all along. The OPs and Dues's analysis proves my point.

Vollmer missed 12 games last year and inst at OTAs. Are we going to call him a hit based on 1 season? Are we calling Spikes a hit based on the end of last season?

Trading back for an additional 2nd round pick has not worked out in terms of winning a World Championship.

 

[Deus Irae]

The point is that .500 drafting isnt that good when you had the opportunity to draft .750 which is good. Thats been the argument all along. The OPs and Dues's analysis proves my point.

Vollmer missed 12 games last year and inst at OTAs. Are we going to call him a hit based on 1 season? Are we calling Spikes a hit based on the end of last season?

Trading back for an additional 2nd round pick has not worked out in terms of winning a World Championship.

You're oversimplifying what I wrote. It's not nearly as cut and dry as you seem to be making it out to be.