Mankins best up-and-comer OL

[arrellbee]

All true enough bee, but as long as he made the roster, he was a draft success.

I hear you and that is certainly one valuation that can be applied and I respect that.

I guess for me, though, I look for a success to be someone who actually ended up getting a fair number of reps on the field before being let go - and Belichick wouldn't put a player out there for any significant number of reps without the player being considered fairly decent by him. For me, then, Klecko would be very marginal so far - as would Hill, Wright, and probably even Banta-Cain and if they end up getting cut before making getting much further playing time, I guess I don't consider them all that much of a success. Just my way of looking at it, I guess.

Another way to look at it, I suppose, is that a player would only be counted a 'success' if the player did not get cut or dropped by the Pats before the rookie contract is up.

As Richter pointed out, injury washouts shouldn't be counted as busts. But on the other hand, I guess you can't count them as successful drafting either.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

Sullivan was drafted two years later. The more apt comparison would be, say, Seymour over David Terrell, who was generally considered the pick the Patriots should've made... at the time.

Yes -true. Thanks for correcting my mistake. I had a brain fart. I was trying to come up with another defensive lineman and I was too lazy to look up the 2001 draft. I was trying to name a 1st round DL bust in 2001 and to compare it to Seymore to show that one of the intangibles that you lose in making a bad 1st round pick is the loss of production at that position - not only the monetary $$ loss. The extra number of sacks, forced fumbles, tipped passes, etc that Seymore has generated vs. if the Pats chose a bust DL instead. I think Peter King should not have graded the Pats a C- for my before mentioned reasons ($$ and lost production) for hitting on your two most important picks (round 1: Seymore and 2: Matt Light). Also Kenyatta Jones made the team providing depth for -I think it was 2 years. So I give our 2001 draft at least a C+; maybe B- if Seymore reaches Canton and Light plays another 2-4 years, irregardless that all of our later rounds were crap. For me- hitting on your first day picks is the the 'meat and potatoes' of your teams future and any thing on your second day is the gravy. And they (BB / SP) have found several STARTERS from 2nd day picks. Awesome.

Another point to ponder - in the subject of Value Vs. Need : Should this carry the same weight throughout the draft? My hypothesis is that in the first two rounds - one should primarily draft for need as there are much better odds getting a good player at any position of need as you are selecting the top 64 players in the country. And conversely, in the later rounds - especially say rounds 5-7 then select for value as the talent level has dropped quite a bit so there is a much higher chance to get a non-player (mr. irrelivant - if you will). So then just take the best player available instead of looking at the position (value). Just my way of thinking but I have never seen this discussed before. Whatdaya think?

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

That is pretty much how the Pats do it, they pretend that they draft the BPA(Best Player Available) from the start each year, but somehow they always draft players of NEED. Then, on the second day, Belichick has a list of guys he likes that he thinks are the BPA for the Pats, and they simply try to come away with players from their list.

After each draft, Belichick always mentions that they had listed some guys that they felt would help the team, and that they got some of the guys on their list. That suggests that they are looking at NEED, which they usually deny. Also, on the second day, they draft players who were very productive in college. That suggests they are trying to get the BPA.

The Pats never admit to drafting for need, yet every year they somehow walk away from the draft with players that happen to fit the biggest holes on the team.

Second day picks are usually players with tons of production in college, i.e. a high 'floor' value, but maybe not as much superior talent, i.e. a lower 'ceiling' value. Belichick wants second day guys that can already play and compete to the best of their abilities. They may have less room to improve, but they are ready to contribute, and Belichick can already see their ability. This is a safe way to try to get productive players later in the draft.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

5 Rings - what you say makes perfect sense and matches what I have seen (but never read anywhere). Glad to hear I am not the only one who thought BB 'value' mantra is actually a smokescreen at times. So much the better as drafting is also about subterfuge /deception.

 

[primetime]

Yes -true. Thanks for correcting my mistake. I had a brain fart. I was trying to come up with another defensive lineman and I was too lazy to look up the 2001 draft. I was trying to name a 1st round DL bust in 2001 and to compare it to Seymore to show that one of the intangibles that you lose in making a bad 1st round pick is the loss of production at that position - not only the monetary $$ loss.

The Browns selected Gerard Warren before Seymour. I bet they wish they had that pick back.