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

[IllegalContact]

Lots of words with nothing said.....barwin was my binky that year.........really the only guy I wanted the pats to draft......bottom line

Enough of your nonsense

More fan hyperbole....

1) Oh, you liked Barwin beforehand? You say this as if you have advanced knowledge. You don't. The ones that do? The real GMs? Even they still hit landmines. They all do. Find me one that doesn't. One. It is unavoidable. You have a 50/50 chance of being right over a 1st rd pick. It goes down by 10% each round. It's a coin flip, at best, in rd 1. You flip a coin again, and again...you'll hit tails almost as often as you'll hit heads. Oh, so you liked Barwin? Well, then you need to own up to who else you liked...and misjudged. Cause you don't have a crystal ball. You don't have inside knowledge. All you have is a cherry-picking of that one coinflip that landed on heads, and some 20/20 hindsight to bolster it. That's what you are doing in this thread. That's not real. That's fan hyperbole.

2) Oh they would've picked Gronk anyways, you say? Quite Simple, you say? Nonsense. How in that even logictically plausible? Cause draft picks don't just fall out of the sky. Their allotted 2nd was all the way back at #53. Not at #42. That an 11 spot gap in the 2nd. You think a team will trade that far down for peanuts? LOL. The Patriots -- because they needed only 2 spots (not 11!) -- used pick # 190 to trade up for Gronk. That's a whole 6th for just 2 spots. Now make it 11. Hmmm. Bit trickier, huh? You don't just have trade-able draft picks on tap. But, they were already it prime position at #44 for Gronk; as a direct result of the Clay-trade. You know, in addition to having #53. Cause you simply wouldn't be in position at that slotting if #53 was all you had. Not even close. Too much of a gap, without excess ammo to bridge it. That's why you diversify. Cause you would've put all your 2nd rd eggs in one basket -- at #53 -- if you never passed on Clay. At #53, Gronk would've have been too far out of reach. You would've ended up with Cunningham. Ugh. But...when you have multiple picks spread out in a round...fewer and fewer players are out of reach. You don't just have to confine yourself to late 2nds (like Cunningham). You can have mid 2nds too (like Gronk).

 

[Shockt327]

Lots of words with nothing said.....barwin was my binky that year.........really the only guy I wanted the pats to draft......bottom line

Enough of your nonsense

Who is more nonsensical, here?

Me; the guy that knows every team will select busts, and it's simply an unavoidable part of the draft....?

Or you; who is arguing what exactly? If there was an ounce of maturity on your part, then you'd fully acknowledge that you've had tons of "binkies" through the years. They don't all pan out. Not even close. Especially if you go rate every player in the draft. Weed out the busts. Tag the late bloomers. You'll be so wrong. They all are. It's unavoidable.

It takes maturity and a lack of ego to be the type of real-life, NFL, decision maker who acknowledges this. Or you can cry about your lost "binky."

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

Wrong......I was beating the barwin drum since before that draft, so hindsight had nothing to do with it.

Also, I meant barwin with the current set of picks and no Matthews......I think barwin is better anyway.

my point about gronk was that since the pats moved up to get him, that they were prepared to do so even if they never make the deal that netted the 2nd rounder they used in the deal to get him. Quite simple, really.

Barwin instead of butler or brace, and reed instead of dowling.......problem solved

It's not that simple with Gronk. You're saying they moved up to get him so they would have moved up anyway. You can't say they were prepared to do so because Baltimore didn't have the 43rd pick going into the draft. They obtained it when Denver moved up for Tebow. The Pats made that move because Baltimore was looking at TEs and they wanted to make sure they got him.

Again, us jumping a team that didn't originally have the pick in front of us doesn't prove that the Pats were prepared to move up for Gronkowski from their original pick later in round 2.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

Here's my issues with how fans tend to see the draft process:

1. For many of those that don't like how we trade down and accumulate picks instead of adding elite talent, they will cherry pick their "updated" draft. If we only had one pick in the 2009 2nd round and Butler, Brace and Vollmer are on the board, obviously the Pats would take Vollmer. Clearly. ;-) We also would have found a way to move up for Gronkowski last year. It has to be understood that it's very possible some of the great players on our team wouldn't be here if not for those extra picks. We can't just assume the ones that worked out would be here and the busts would have never been picked.

2. The very common "we could have still gotten him later" argument. The reach. In the 2010 draft, many mock drafts and many here had the Pats taking Tyson Alualu with one of their 2nd rounders. Had the Pats taken him at our original #22 spot, the pick would have been blasted by many here as a reach, since we could have still gotten him later. As it turned out, pick #22 was 12 picks too late. There's countless examples like this in every draft, yet some stay convinced that certain players were taken too high.

3. Finally, I second what the original poster said in the article. Fans will only look at the successes of other team's drafts and ignore the failures, and do the opposite for the Pats. Limas Sweed was a complete bust of a 2nd round pick for the Steelers but who cares? They have Mike Wallace now. Justin Harrell did nothing for Green Bay. Who cares? They have BJ Raji now. As for the Pats, of course we should have landed Mayo, Vollmer, Gronkowski, Hernandez, etc. It's Butler, Brace, Cunningham and the others that define our drafts.

 

[Joker]

stop making sense or you'll have to change your CRAZY handle to SANEST

 

[IllegalContact]

Who is more nonsensical, here?

Me; the guy that knows every team will select busts, and it's simply an unavoidable part of the draft....?

Or you; who is arguing what exactly? If there was an ounce of maturity on your part, then you'd fully acknowledge that you've had tons of "binkies" through the years. They don't all pan out. Not even close. Especially if you go rate every player in the draft. Weed out the busts. Tag the late bloomers. You'll be so wrong. They all are. It's unavoidable.

It takes maturity and a lack of ego to be the type of real-life, NFL, decision maker who acknowledges this. Or you can cry about your lost "binky."

well, I was right, anyway....... both in term of his ability and his need for him

back to the original point.....BB has SUCKED at drafting defense.

 

[IllegalContact]

wrong....

Here's my issues with how fans tend to see the draft process:

1. For many of those that don't like how we trade down and accumulate picks instead of adding elite talent, they will cherry pick their "updated" draft. If we only had one pick in the 2009 2nd round and Butler, Brace and Vollmer are on the board, obviously the Pats would take Vollmer. Clearly. ;-) We also would have found a way to move up for Gronkowski last year. It has to be understood that it's very possible some of the great players on our team wouldn't be here if not for those extra picks. We can't just assume the ones that worked out would be here and the busts would have never been picked.

2. The very common "we could have still gotten him later" argument. The reach. In the 2010 draft, many mock drafts and many here had the Pats taking Tyson Alualu with one of their 2nd rounders. Had the Pats taken him at our original #22 spot, the pick would have been blasted by many here as a reach, since we could have still gotten him later. As it turned out, pick #22 was 12 picks too late. There's countless examples like this in every draft, yet some stay convinced that certain players were taken too high.

3. Finally, I second what the original poster said in the article. Fans will only look at the successes of other team's drafts and ignore the failures, and do the opposite for the Pats. Limas Sweed was a complete bust of a 2nd round pick for the Steelers but who cares? They have Mike Wallace now. Justin Harrell did nothing for Green Bay. Who cares? They have BJ Raji now. As for the Pats, of course we should have landed Mayo, Vollmer, Gronkowski, Hernandez, etc. It's Butler, Brace, Cunningham and the others that define our drafts.

wrong.......its about the failure to address defensive problem for the last 5 years. people knew for years that LB both outside and in has been a need for the pats and yet all the homer-yahoos out there keep using the excuse that the guy 'doesn't fit the scheme' or that 'in BB I trust'....crap like that.....meanwhile, there are plenty of 3-4 teams out there who got LB draft picks both early middle and late, and the pats have to wind up chasing down guys like carter and anderson to mask the fact that they failed to find the proper personnel in the 3-4 even though they were available.....forget matthews......barwin, reed, antwan barnes .... there are plenty of guys out there that were both high value and absolutely destroy the ability of the current LB group.......this point cannot be masked. how many DB first and 2nd rounders have there been in the last 5 years and how many of them are doing something for the pats now?

the fact that only 12 of 32 defensive players are draft picks backs up the fact that the pats have been poor at drafting defense

 

[Real World]

well, I was right, anyway....... both in term of his ability and his need for him

back to the original point.....BB has SUCKED at drafting defense.

You can say that again. People should ask themselves where this team would be without Brady at QB. We'd be the Colts circa 2011.

 

[Ron Sellers]

wrong....

the fact that only 12 of 32 defensive players are draft picks backs up the fact that the pats have been poor at drafting defense

And yet once again I will ask you: exactly what is the expected number of players that meet X level of play after Y number of years? Where do you get that number from? What do you basing those numbers on? Who are you comparing them to - because from day one that you came here, you're not comparing them to anything; you simply declare that they are bad!

12/32 hits in baseball - pretty good!
12/32 pickups in a bar - awesome!
12/32 completions by a QB - horrible!

12/32 players on a roster that were draft picks
means ?????

 

[Joker]

You can say that again. People should ask themselves where this team would be without Brady at QB. We'd be the Colts circa 2011.

yeah!@!! remember 2008???

oh........wait.......

 

[Ron Sellers]

You can say that again. People should ask themselves where this team would be without Brady at QB. We'd be the Colts circa 2011.

If you're saying was he not on the team at all, then obviously the strategy for acquiring talent would differ significantly.


If you're saying what would happen with an unexpected injury, then I'd like to call your attention to 2008. Now I'm not suggesting they would win 11 games - but let me ask you this: if you removed the most important player from any of the 30 other teams, would you not expect their number of wins to significantly decrease also?

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

wrong....





wrong.......its about the failure to address defensive problem for the last 5 years. people knew for years that LB both outside and in has been a need for the pats and yet all the homer-yahoos out there keep using the excuse that the guy 'doesn't fit the scheme' or that 'in BB I trust'....crap like that.....meanwhile, there are plenty of 3-4 teams out there who got LB draft picks both early middle and late, and the pats have to wind up chasing down guys like carter and anderson to mask the fact that they failed to find the proper personnel in the 3-4 even though they were available.....forget matthews......barwin, reed, antwan barnes .... there are plenty of guys out there that were both high value and absolutely destroy the ability of the current LB group.......this point cannot be masked. how many DB first and 2nd rounders have there been in the last 5 years and how many of them are doing something for the pats now?

the fact that only 12 of 32 defensive players are draft picks backs up the fact that the pats have been poor at drafting defense

I'm not going to pretend that the Pats have been lights out in the draft. We clearly need to start landing more talent on the defensive side of the ball. However, I don't think BB has avoided going after LB help. For one reason or another, he's felt other positions or a trade was the best way to go. I still say going BPA is the way to go. I can remember when many thought it would be foolish for the Lions to draft Calvin Johnson when they had already wasted so many 1st rounders on WRs.

As for the players we could have landed and passed on, we can all certainly name a bunch of guys that would help this team right now. At the same time, I don't care to count the number of players I would have been stoked to see the Pats draft that have gone on to do absolutly nothing in the NFL.

This is something that can be turned around very quickly. For all the DBs that have been a swing and miss, we can right that ship in one or two drafts. Look at the Houston Texans as an example. They used a 1st round pick for a DL 4 years in a row. Mario Williams was the only one of that group to pan out. In 2 of the last 3 drafts though, they've picked up Barwin, Brooks Reed and JJ Watt in the first 2 rounds.

We had drafted 8 TEs in Belichick's first 7 drafts here and went into the 2010 season with none of them on the roster. Then in the span of 3 rounds, we picked up 2 of the best TEs in the NFL. Again, things can improve in a hurry and we all hope they do. I do think things need to get better but I also understand how much worse it could be.

 

[EJ Blitz]

...just look at all the high-mid round draft picks that have been cut over the past 5 years. Whoever says Belichick's drafts haven't been poor is on the wrong side of a debate.

 

[Sciz]

...just look at all the high-mid round draft picks that have been cut over the past 5 years. Whoever says Belichick's drafts haven't been poor is on the wrong side of a debate.

This line of thought shall from now on be known as the vacuum fallacy.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

...just look at all the high-mid round draft picks that have been cut over the past 5 years. Whoever says Belichick's drafts haven't been poor is on the wrong side of a debate.

Right, lets ignore all the picks that are contributing right now and lets not compare his drafts to any others in the league, lets just compare it to a 100%success rate.

 

[IllegalContact]

yeah!@!! remember 2008???

oh........wait.......

LOL......delusional

 

[IllegalContact]

they've done well in certain areas, and poorly in others....

done well with OL, TE
done poorly with WR, DB
mediocre with LB

the DB's are the worst ..... to use all those draft picks only to keep having to bring guys in off the street.......somebody does not know what they are looking at.....WR's are the same thing

LB's have been inconsistent, but I think they have good players that just aren't projecting well to any scheme they put in. they all pretty much seem to be inside guys.

also, it is relative to other players available when someone is drafted whether it is the same position or different ones.

to me it boils down to the idea of why are they always trading down if these guys they draft can't make a difference.

I'm not going to pretend that the Pats have been lights out in the draft. We clearly need to start landing more talent on the defensive side of the ball. However, I don't think BB has avoided going after LB help. For one reason or another, he's felt other positions or a trade was the best way to go. I still say going BPA is the way to go. I can remember when many thought it would be foolish for the Lions to draft Calvin Johnson when they had already wasted so many 1st rounders on WRs.

As for the players we could have landed and passed on, we can all certainly name a bunch of guys that would help this team right now. At the same time, I don't care to count the number of players I would have been stoked to see the Pats draft that have gone on to do absolutly nothing in the NFL.

This is something that can be turned around very quickly. For all the DBs that have been a swing and miss, we can right that ship in one or two drafts. Look at the Houston Texans as an example. They used a 1st round pick for a DL 4 years in a row. Mario Williams was the only one of that group to pan out. In 2 of the last 3 drafts though, they've picked up Barwin, Brooks Reed and JJ Watt in the first 2 rounds.

We had drafted 8 TEs in Belichick's first 7 drafts here and went into the 2010 season with none of them on the roster. Then in the span of 3 rounds, we picked up 2 of the best TEs in the NFL. Again, things can improve in a hurry and we all hope they do. I do think things need to get better but I also understand how much worse it could be.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

they've done well in certain areas, and poorly in others....

done well with OL, TE
done poorly with WR, DB
mediocre with LB

the DB's are the worst ..... to use all those draft picks only to keep having to bring guys in off the street.......somebody does not know what they are looking at.....WR's are the same thing

LB's have been inconsistent, but I think they have good players that just aren't projecting well to any scheme they put in. they all pretty much seem to be inside guys.

also, it is relative to other players available when someone is drafted whether it is the same position or different ones.

to me it boils down to the idea of why are they always trading down if these guys they draft can't make a difference.

Because the trading down has allowed them to land players that have turned out great for us they probably wouldn't have been able to get otherwise. Using the Rob Gronkowski pick for example, you've said we would have moved up for him anyway with our original pick. Well, what if it cost us the 4th rounder that netted Aaron Hernandez?

Back in 2009, it wouldn't have been a reach had the Pats taken Darius Butler with their 1st round pick. Butler was going to bust no matter where we took him so isn't better that we picked up extra picks in the process, whether they panned out or not?

By no means am I saying we MUST trade down at every chance possible but busts do happen whether we have our 7 original picks or extra ones. That's why it's nice at times to have extra ones.

 

[Joker]

IntenseCoronary says Pats lose like Indy this season if Brady goes down...I counter with, "that has happened and the Pats went 11-5" by posting "oh....wait".....Intensive Care comes back with "you're delusional!!!!"....I need someone to explain WHY I'm delusional...did the Patriots NOT post an 11-5 record when Brady went down in the first game of the 2008 season?

 

[Shockt327]

to me it boils down to the idea of why are they always trading down if these guys they draft can't make a difference.

So many people say this without realizing how wrong they are.

Notice how we have two 1s this year? That happened because we traded up. A 2nd in 2011 for a 1 in 2012. That is trading up.

We have done this frequently. Frequently. We walk into the draft every year with multiple 1s or 2s. Every year. Draft picks don't just fall out of the sky. We make this happen cause when we trade down that 1; we pickup multiple 2s or 3s. People just assume that we spend it outright. We don't. We'll spend some on players....but then trade up what is left over. So a 2011 2nd will become a 2012 1st. That's right. An extra 1st. Practically every year. Which will be traded down again, to net us multiple 2s or 3s which we'll partially spend....thus diversifying and spreading risk. The mature approach.

It's a continuous cycle that allows us to essentially pick up both extra players (in the high 2nd rd no less!) and pick up another pick which will be traded up a year out and can be used to repeat the cycle.

It's an investment. A 1st rd pick that gets put on the market, and pays off a free 2nd round dividends....every year. Dividends that will get half spent and half re-invested to put us right back where we started.

We can do this because we flat out take advantage of immature, impatient GMs and Coaches who want to spend it all on one player in one year. A guy that has a 50-50 chance. One guy. Instead of one extra guy 30 slots lower every season.

Why are these GMs getting taken by BB? Arrogance. They think they know the draft. They have their "Binky." "Their guy." They think the law of averages doesn't apply to them. It's immaturity. Impatience. Ignorance.