Is the assertion that Belichick's drafts have been poor accurate?

[PatsFans.com Article]

Is the assertion that Belichick's drafts have been poor accurate?
By: John Morgan

The masses are chanting that the Patriots are horrible at drafting, and Bill Belichick should be banned from the war room. Here's a rebuttal for all the negative nancies who have been so quick to declare that the sky is falling....

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS STORY​

 

[Ice Cold Bruschi]

Since when is Patrick Chung "above average" at his position?

 

[DarrylS]

A reasonable article in a sea of hysteria..

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Is the assertion that Belichick's drafts have been poor accurate?
By: John Morgan

The masses are chanting that the Patriots are horrible at drafting, and Bill Belichick should be banned from the war room. Here's a rebuttal for all the negative nancies who have been so quick to declare that the sky is falling....

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS STORY​

Stop ruining our bashfest with your facts.

Don't you understand, we just lost a freaken game against one of the 2-3 top teams in the AFC, but also one of the best franchises of this past decade, and the history of the sport.

We clearly suck........

 

[Rob0729]

Since when is Patrick Chung "above average" at his position?

Have you seen the safety position around the league? Why do you think it is the era of the TEs? The safety position may be at an all time low. Chung is clearly above average. It is kind of faint praise, but he is better than a lot of Pats fan give him credit for.

 

[RIpats88]

I think it would be interesting to look at other teams drafting....and I would think that they have been just as much hit-or-miss as the Patriots

the draft is really a crapshoot because you never really know what you're getting good or bad...you can only evaluate players and hope they can perform on the NFL field...if you did, surely Gronk/hernandez wouldve been first rounders and not dropped so far

 

[Deus Irae]

terrible article deliberately calculated to come up with a predetermined answer by slanting the facts...

The author even had to put in a disclaimer because it would have undermined his argument. That's pathetic.

The total number of failures and the percentage of failed picks is irrelevant.

 

[Deus Irae]

Since when is Patrick Chung "above average" at his position?

Chung is above average against the run, and well below average against the pass. Given the slant of the article, is it really a surprise where he slots Chung? The guy is putting special teams players in the starters category, for crying out loud. He knew his article was crap and just went whole hog with it.

 

[Ron Sellers]

terrible article deliberately calculated to come up with a predetermined answer by slanting the facts...

The author even had to put in a disclaimer because it would have undermined his argument. That's pathetic.

He points out every team starts out with seven picks, so if you trade down and have more picks then you will have more failed picks and a higher percentage of failed picks.

Team A trades up end up with three draft picks; one becomes an elite player, one an average starter and one an average backup.

Team B trades down and ends up with ten draft picks; one becomes an elite player, one an average starter, one an average backup and the seven others get labeled as busts.

Net result is identical but Team A gets complimented for being draft experts while Team B gets blasted for their terrible drafting.



So who exactly is it now that has a predetermined opinion and analysis? You may want to take a look in the mirror.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Chung is above average against the run, and well below average against the pass. Given the slant of the article, is it really a surprise where he slots Chung? The guy is putting special teams players in the starters category, for crying out loud. He knew his article was crap and just went whole hog with it.

Direct quote from the article: "other starters, role players and backups still on team"


All you saw was the second word and spun it to fit your intended view.

Your opinion is far more slanted and full of crap than the article is.

 

[Ring 6]

terrible article deliberately calculated to come up with a predetermined answer by slanting the facts...

The author even had to put in a disclaimer because it would have undermined his argument. That's pathetic.

He expained the parameters of his analysis and slanted no facts.
The only way anyone could have an obkection to this article is if they don't want to read it with an open mind.
In fact he gives the Steelers 5 for 5 hits in round 1 including Holmes who had 1 season producing at 1st round level and shot his way out of town on character, and Hood who has 17 starts in 3 years, yet counts Maroney, who contributed similar to what Holmes did and Meriwhether who started for 4 years as misses.

 

[Deus Irae]

Direct quote from the article: "other starters, role players and backups still on team"


All you saw was the second word and spun it to fit your intended view.

Your opinion is far more slanted and full of crap than the article is.

Ummm.... I read the article. As I said, he slanted it to come up with a predetermined outcome. All your silliness in response to my pointing that out isn't going to change what he did.

 

[Sciz]

terrible article deliberately calculated to come up with a predetermined answer by slanting the facts...

The author even had to put in a disclaimer because it would have undermined his argument. That's pathetic.

What was wrong with that quote? Percentage and total number of busts aren't nearly as relevant to building a good team as number of good picks.

 

[Deus Irae]

He points out every team starts out with seven picks, so if you trade down and have more picks then you will have more failed picks and a higher percentage of failed picks.

Team A trades up end up with three draft picks; one becomes an elite player, one an average starter and one an average backup.

Team B trades down and ends up with ten draft picks; one becomes an elite player, one an average starter, one an average backup and the seven others get labeled as busts.

Net result is identical but Team A gets complimented for being draft experts while Team B gets blasted for their terrible drafting.



So who exactly is it now that has a predetermined opinion and analysis? You may want to take a look in the mirror.

He took the approach that was most likely to guarantee a favorable showing by the Patriots, and he called the potential negative results/aspects of taking that approach irrelevant. If you can't figure out the problem with him doing that, that's on you.

 

[Ring 6]

He took the approach that was most likely to guarantee a favorable showing by the Patriots, and he called the potential negative results/aspects of taking that approach irrelevant. If you can't figure out the problem with him doing that, that's on you.

No he took an approach that said every team gets 7 picks per year, and what they end up with is what matters. Making the assumption that if I trade my 7 picks down to get 14 and end up with more cumulative talent out of those 14 than you I did better regardless of the percentage hit is by no means attempting to influence a result, it is simply a fair set of parameters.
You will note the picks traded for Moss and Welker, among others did not result in him adding in Moss and Welker to the analysis, and that he counted Holmes as a success while Maroney and Meriwhether were in the did something but are gone category.
Whether his approach was perfect or not is debatable but you have to be bias to a result to attack his methods.

 

[Ron Sellers]

He took the approach that was most likely to guarantee a favorable showing by the Patriots, and he called the potential negative results/aspects of taking that approach irrelevant. If you can't figure out the problem with him doing that, that's on you.

No, I can't figure out how the results of the two teams in the example I just gave you are different; the reason for that is because they're the same.

I guess the 'if you can't figure it out I can't help you' response is as close as anyone here on this forum will ever see to you admitting you're wrong.

 

[Lurks_All_Day]

Stop ruining our bashfest with your facts.

Don't you understand, we just lost a freaken game against one of the 2-3 top teams in the AFC, but also one of the best franchises of this past decade, and the history of the sport.

We clearly suck........

Life is hard when anything less than perfection is absolute zero. I was gonna go jump off a tall building after the game last Sunday, but then I remembered the Pats' perfect seas...

 

[Deus Irae]

No, I can't figure out how the results of the two teams in the example I just gave you are different; the reason for that is because they're the same.

I guess the 'if you can't figure it out I can't help you' response is as close as anyone here on this forum will ever see to you admitting you're wrong.

There's more than one way to grade a draft. The writer deliberately chose to use a way which would favor a volume drafter over those who might do a better job with what they have.

It's pretty simple, really, which is why I thought you could figure it out. I'll try to remember that you struggle at that level in the future.

 

[Ring 6]

There's more than one way to grade a draft. The writer deliberately chose to use a way which would favor a volume drafter over those who do a better job with what they have.

It's pretty simple, really, which is why I thought you could figure it out. I'll try to remember that you struggle at that level in the future.

That is completely wrong and you know it.
The only way it favors a 'volume drafter' is if being a volume drafter is a guaranteed advantage, and that would be an advantage the 'volume drafter' gave himself.
To add up the end result of your draft when everyone starts with the same thing is the only fair way.
You would seem to think that if I trade by 2nd for your 2nd, 3rd and 7th if we get equal players in the second and I get one good and 1 bad in the 3rd and 7th you did better because you had 100% good picks and I had 66%. THAT is manipulating the parameters to reach a result you want. The writer actually did the opposite.

 

[TheSolderKing]

Since when is Patrick Chung "above average" at his position?

Chung is good.