OT: Bruce Allen going at Peter King RE: Patriots Draft

[Snapper]

My baseline has nothing to do with it, particularly since I didn't have one, but thanks for jumping in anyway.

OK, let's take a different tack. You're mighty smug with what you think people are arguing here, especially when you say,

Maybe when people start actually thinking about what they respond to rather than waiting to attack every media person who isn't blowing 100% sunshine up the Patriots' skirts we can have a more rational discussion.

Nobody on here is saying this. This isn't about criticizing King for not praising the Pats. It's simply about King praising the Eagles for doing the same thing for which he criticized the Pats. Everybody keeps telling you this, but you seem more caught up on the fact they didn't draft Oher.

When somebody suggests maybe the Pats didn't like Oher, and maybe liked Vollmer better, you're back with "Oher was rated one of the top four tackles in the draft." That plus this part:

The reality is that the Patriots could probably have gotten all 3 defensive players they picked in round 2 AND Michael Oher if they'd made trades differently, and still pushed a pick or two into next season.

You don't know how the Patriots rated Oher. If they liked Vollmer as much as Oher, isn't it better that they traded back, got the guy they wanted (for much less money than the Ravens will pay Oher), and extra picks as well?

 

[maverick4]

Allen's argument was fatally flawed the moment he failed to take the difference in rounds and the actual NFL player involved into account.

Are you trolling, or for real?

Nobody knows which drafted players will pan out, and that includes you or Peter King. So, your second point makes no sense, unless you're saying that you know more than Belichick and he should have taken the guy you liked, which is even more silly.

Your first point is also irrelevant because it's not like King said the Pats did almost as well as the Eagles. King gave them almost opposite reviews even though they did very similar things.

 

[Ian]

King's right on this and Allen is wrong. I say this not because Allen doesn't have a point (he does), and not because King is 100% correct (he's not), but because of the location of the picks make King's point for him despite his writing missteps. King's comments on the Patriots were a bit silly, because it's about a feeling as opposed to anything concrete, but that's what happens when you're dealing with a columnist and not a strict reporter. However, the Patriots accomplished their biggest moves because of maneuvers with a first round pick, while the Eagles did it with a third round pick. The Patriots could have had Oher and still gotten their 3 defensive choices and pushed a pick or two into the next year, but they got cute with their maneuvering.

King's not 100% correct, as I stated, but his general argument is valid. The successful 'rebuttal' by the Patriots will happen only if the lower round players pan out as a group.

I think you explained the situation perfectly. Both have good points, and in the end I don't think Bruce was looking to win the argument over the overall value each team obtained in the moves that were made by both clubs. I think his issue (and mine) were with the "writing missteps". It's fine to break down both situations and explain why you feel the way you do about each scenario, but to explain them both so differently, expecially the way that he did, is the problem that most of us have with it.

 

[Deus Irae]

OK, let's take a different tack. You're mighty smug with what you think people are arguing here, especially when you say,



Nobody on here is saying this. This isn't about criticizing King for not praising the Pats. It's simply about King praising the Eagles for doing the same thing for which he criticized the Pats. Everybody keeps telling you this, but you seem more caught up on the fact they didn't draft Oher.

When somebody suggests maybe the Pats didn't like Oher, and maybe liked Vollmer better, you're back with "Oher was rated one of the top four tackles in the draft." That plus this part:



You don't know how the Patriots rated Oher. If they liked Vollmer as much as Oher, isn't it better that they traded back, got the guy they wanted (for much less money than the Ravens will pay Oher), and extra picks as well?

Ummm..... again.... it doesn't matter how the Patriots rated Oher.

It's a draft analysis by non-Patriots. Where the Patriots had Oher rated, therefore, takes only as much weight as that analyst gives it. Given King's explanation:

It surprised me they twice traded down out of the first round for three additional picks instead of taking a tackle of the future like Michael Oher or some higher-rated player at 23 or 26.

It's clear that what the Patriots graded Oher as didn't apply to King's grading. If you stop expecting draft grades to be anything but the fluff pieces that they are, you won't have to worry about why Michael Oher being skipped over impacts the Patriots' draft grades in some evaluators minds.

 

[Sicilian]

Yes, because I read the threads here where people go out of their way to do precisely that, regardless of the author.

Fair enough.

Allen's argument was fatally flawed the moment he failed to take the difference in rounds and the actual NFL player involved into account. It was made further incorrect by failing to concede that the major defensive players picked up by the Patriots with the drop down could probably have been gotten anyway, with the use of other picks. That's the benefit of having 11 picks in the draft to start out with.

You may like what the Patriots did. King wasn't as impressed. Allen wasn't all wrong, but he definitely wasn't all right, either. And again, if this stuff doesn't matter, why is it a point of discussion?

But again, in my opinion, King's evaluation was extremely odd. He praised the Eagles for trading down, still getting the guy they want, and adding additional picks. All those things are really what the Patriots did as well. King even says the argument isn't about the players themselves, but about the draft approach. In my view, the two teams did the same thing.

You say round makes a difference, and that's fine. But what the Eagles got for their trade down in the third round (extra picks in 3-7 next year), compares pretty equally to what the Patriots ended up with for their first/second round trade downs (picks in the 2nd round next year).

I guess I'm just failing to see a way to say either team approached the draft better WITHOUT taking into account the caliber of player they got, which I maintain is impossible at this point.

 

[Deus Irae]

Are you trolling, or for real?

Nobody knows which drafted players will pan out, and that includes you or Peter King. So, your second point makes no sense, unless you're saying that you know more than Belichick and he should have taken the guy you liked, which is even more silly.

Your first point is also irrelevant because it's not like King said the Pats did almost as well as the Eagles, he gave them almost opposite reviews even though they did very similar things.

I'm not sure it's even possible to miss the point more than you did here, so I'll just leave it at

Wow. Just wow.

 

[maverick4]

Deus, why is it a surprise for King that they traded out of the first round? How does King rule out that the Pats didn't like any of the 1st round players and thus wanted to get more picks?

In that NFL.com war room video, Belichick is even recorded telling his staff there are a ton of guys they like in the second and third rounds. Why would King knock the Patriots for doing exactly what they should be doing if they liked the 2nd/3rd rounds more than the 1st?

 

[Sicilian]

Douche, why is it a surprise for King that they traded out of the first round? How does King rule out that the Pats didn't like any of the 1st round players and thus wanted to get more picks?

In that NFL.com war room video, Belichick is even recorded telling his staff there are a ton of guys they like in the second and third rounds. Why would King knock the Patriots for doing exactly what they should be doing if they liked the 2nd/3rd rounds more than the 1st?

I think you're taking it a step too far. It's not that King dislikes the Patriots draft, or that he likes the Eagles draft, it's that he argues BOTH with the same reasons leading to different opinion outcomes.

 

[Deus Irae]

But again, in my opinion, King's evaluation was extremely odd. He praised the Eagles for trading down, still getting the guy they want, and adding additional picks. All those things are really what the Patriots did as well. King even says the argument isn't about the players themselves, but about the draft approach. In my view, the two teams did the same thing.

In King's view, they didn't. He explained his position. I not only see his point, I agree that, to date, his point is completely valid (It's his phrasing that was silly). Heck, I was saying the same thing, myself, in the Chat room on day 1 of the draft, although I left the out of the second day "making up for"/explaining/justifying the first day, and I feel that it did that for the most part. You don't see it that way. It is what it is.

You say round makes a difference, and that's fine. But what the Eagles got for their trade down in the third round (extra picks in 3-7 next year), compares pretty equally to what the Patriots ended up with for their first/second round trade downs (picks in the 2nd round next year).

For a trade down in the first round, did the Patriots get a first round pick next year?

I guess I'm just failing to see a way to say either team approached the draft better WITHOUT taking into account the caliber of player they got, which I maintain is impossible at this point.

You can already judge that the Eagles got 1/2 of a Super Bowl starting cornerback for a drop of 6 spots in the third round of the draft. Nothing New England did comes close to that.

The real rebuttal, as I mentioned, can only come in the future, if the low round picks by the Patriots this season pan out.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus, why is it a surprise for King that they traded out of the first round? How does King rule out that the Pats didn't like any of the 1st round players and thus wanted to get more picks?

In that NFL.com war room video, Belichick is even recorded telling his staff there are a ton of guys they like in the second and third rounds. Why would King knock the Patriots for doing exactly what they should be doing if they liked the 2nd/3rd rounds more than the 1st?

I think you're taking it a step too far. It's not that King dislikes the Patriots draft, or that he likes the Eagles draft, it's that he argues BOTH with the same reasons leading to different opinion outcomes.

See what I mean about taking the opportunity to attack? King's evaluating the draft, and he was in the midwest while it was going on, but Maverick's attacking him for, basically, not knowing what was going on in the Patriots war room in New England or using such knowledge to his (Maverick's) satisfactionn.

The gratuitous personal shot at me was just the gravy for him.

 

[maverick4]

It's not that King dislikes the Patriots draft, or that he likes the Eagles draft, it's that he argues BOTH with the same reasons leading to different opinion outcomes.

Huh? The last portion of your sentence contradicts the earlier part. King used the same reasons leading to different opinion outcomes... MEANING, he is bashing the Pats draft, and praising the Eagles draft.

 

[Pats67]

In King's view, they didn't. He explained his position. I not only see his point, I agree that, to date, his point is completely valid (It's his phrasing that was silly). Heck, I was saying the same thing, myself, in the Chat room on day 1 of the draft. You don't see it that way. It is what it is.

There you go. That's why it's important.

 

[Snapper]

Ummm..... again.... it doesn't matter how the Patriots rated Oher.

It's a draft analysis by non-Patriots. Where the Patriots had Oher rated, therefore, takes only as much weight as that analyst gives it. Given King's explanation:

It's clear that what the Patriots graded Oher as didn't apply to King's grading. If you stop expecting draft grades to be anything but the fluff pieces that they are, you won't have to worry about why Michael Oher being skipped over impacts the Patriots' draft grades in some evaluators minds.

And again, I don't give a damn how King or any other writer graded the Pats draft. Bruce didn't either. He wrote about an inconsistency in King's standards in grading, not about the grading themselves.

In layman's terms:
Pats trade down, get extra picks - bad.
Eagles trade down, get extra picks - good.

And in regards to the first round vs. third round part, Pats67 addressed that when he noted the picks picked up were valuable relative to where they were situated. Pats trade a first rounder, and pick up two seconds, a third and a seventh. Philly trades a third rounder, and picks up two thirds, two fifths, a sixth and a seventh. They're very similar deals, relative to where the initial picks resided.

That Philly packaged one of the fifths with another fifth to get Hobbs is immaterial. That they traded for Peters is immaterial. That they drafted Maclin and McCoy is immaterial.

King's initial criticism of the way the Pats traded back is what's at issue. They really did the same damn thing as the Eagles, and he called it "mystifying" and "drunk with power."

 

[Deus Irae]

There you go. That's why it's important.

Not at all. My opinion of BB's draft is irrelevant to King's opinion of BB's draft. Furthermore, I just did an edit of that post and clarified my position.

So, have a nice day.

 

[Deus Irae]

And again, I don't give a damn how King or any other writer graded the Pats draft. Bruce didn't either. He wrote about an inconsistency in King's standards in grading, not about the grading themselves.

In layman's terms:
Pats trade down, get extra picks - bad.
Eagles trade down, get extra picks - good.

And in regards to the first round vs. third round part, Pats67 addressed that when he noted the picks picked up were valuable relative to where they were situated. Pats trade a first rounder, and pick up two seconds, a third and a seventh. Philly trades a third rounder, and picks up two thirds, two fifths, a sixth and a seventh. They're very similar deals, relative to where the initial picks resided.

That Philly packaged one of the fifths with another fifth to get Hobbs is immaterial. That they traded for Peters is immaterial. That they drafted Maclin and McCoy is immaterial.

King's initial criticism of the way the Pats traded back is what's at issue. They really did the same damn thing as the Eagles, and he called it "mystifying" and "drunk with power."

And, once again, the argument becomes a circle. Post #10 of this thread:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/236942-ot-bruce-allen-going-peter-king-re-patriots-draft.html#post1375687

 

[maverick4]

For a trade down in the first round, did the Patriots get a first round pick next year?

The Patriots didn't get a first round pick next year because they didn't trade it straight up for a future pick. They got a boat load of picks for that 1st rounder.

You can already judge that the Eagles got 1/2 of a Super Bowl starting cornerback for a drop of 6 spots in the third round of the draft. Nothing New England did comes close to that.

Except that Allen isn't arguing with King about this. King keeps arguing about who did better, but that's not the point, King doesn't get it, and you don't get it either. Allen is asking why King is trashing the Pats for trading down, being 'drunk on power', when the Eagles did the same thing and were praised.

The real rebuttal, as I mentioned, can only come in the future, if the low round picks by the Patriots this season pan out.

This is irrelevant. You're talking as if you already know which team drafted better, and that the Pats need a strong lower half of draft to have a better draft. This is not what Allen is arguing, and it is also silly for you to assume the Pats can only have a 'rebuttal' if their lower picks pan out.

 

[maverick4]

In layman's terms:
Pats trade down, get extra picks - bad.
Eagles trade down, get extra picks - good.

Even when you break it down into the simplest terms, King and Deus still don't get it. They'll argue about who did better because they don't even understand the logical inconsistency.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Patriots didn't get a first round pick next year because they didn't trade it straight up for a future pick. They got a boat load of picks for that 1st rounder.

The Eagles didn't trade straight up for a future pick either. They got a boat load of picks for that 3rd rounder, including a 3rd rounder next year. So, again, did the Patriots get a 1st rounder for moving off of their 1st rounder?

Except that Allen isn't arguing with King about this. King keeps arguing about who did better, but that's not the point, King doesn't get it, and you don't get it either. Allen is asking why King is trashing the Pats for trading down, being 'drunk on power', when the Eagles did the same thing and were praised.

Except that King acknowledged that Allen was making at least a partially valid point:

Though in principle you might be right, Bruce, it wasn’t the same thing. The Patriots didn’t have the same result in trading down as the Eagles did,

You're bashing King, yet he conceded at least part of the very thing you're whining about while maintaining his original position based upon other aspects of his grading. King clearly 'gets it', he just doesn't agree with it.

This is irrelevant. You're talking as if you already know which team drafted better, and that the Pats need a strong lower half of draft to have a better draft. This is not what Allen is arguing, and it is also silly for you to assume the Pats can only have a 'rebuttal' if their lower picks pan out.

Which team drafted better in terms of how the picks actually pan out is irrelevant to King's point. His point is about which team he felt worked the draft better and how. The picks working out or not working out only become relevant if you care to rebut him.

 

[Pats67]

Not at all. My opinion of BB's draft is irrelevant to King's opinion of BB's draft. Furthermore, I just did an edit of that post and clarified my position.

So, have a nice day.

It's not irrelevant to your defense of his draft evaluation, which I'd like to mention is never what I intended to debate.

This question was why trading a first round pick makes you drunk with power when trading a third round pick is considered textbook draft work.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's not irrelevant to your defense of his draft evaluation, which I'd like to mention is never what I intended to debate.

This question was why trading a first round pick makes you drunk with power when trading a third round pick is considered textbook draft work.

Well, given that your question is not actually THIS question, but is just your slant on it, I guess we can just move on, right?