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

[BradyFTW!]

Most of the media are obsessive about pick #'s. I believe that if we chose Butler at #23, King would probably think he was a better player than he currently does; but because he "slid all the way to 41, he must not be all that great". Analysts get so hyped up about the sexy, big-name, 1st round picks, that they can't possibly understand packaging them for 2nds and 3rds, where this draft was seemingly deepest (picks 20-50 seem pretty relative in talent).

While I believe that the Eagles did a great job, I tend to believe that the Patriots used a very similar strategy with "less sexy" results. The Eagles took all relatively well-known players whether they were hyped up skill players WR Maclin, HB McCoy, a big-name TE from a national championship team (Ingram), Ellis Hobbs or a supposedly stud LT in Jason Peters. I'm sure KING had heard all about everyone of these players from every media outlet, scout and fan.

The fact that King grades the Patriots draft like this after years of being taught otherwise, all while league officials are giving the Patriots draft a "shrug", means we still have some free-thinking talent evaluators who aren't afraid to follow their own analysis and not the usually flawed consensus.

Not that it matters, but I had Butler as my #1 CB (I believe Jenkins is FS), Chung as a top 2 SS, and Brace as my #2 NT. While these players may or not be worth 1st round picks to other teams, they all seem to translate very valuably for us.

We draft for us, not to please the casual football fan who wants immediate results, or big-mouth commentators who just want every team to draft all the players they are familiar with.

A lot of these same people were pissed when the Pats drafted Seymour over David Terrell; it'd be an understatement to say that these opinions don't really matter.

The way I see it: the Eagles grabbed a sexy WR and two established NFL players (Peters, Hobbs). That's exactly what they needed, so it was a good draft for them in that sense. Like Allen, though, I just think that it's hypocritical to rave about the Eagles' draft while panning the Patriots for doing essentially the same thing.

Really the only case that you can make is what Deus did: the Eagles got "bonafide players" (aka recognized names). That's at best a lazy, disingenuous half-analysis, since the draft DOES produce a ton of bonafide players that we won't know are bonafide for at least a few more months (and maybe a few more years).

 

[mayoclinic]

Not that it matters, but I had Butler as my #1 CB (I believe Jenkins is FS), Chung as a top 2 SS, and Brace as my #2 NT. While these players may or not be worth 1st round picks to other teams, they all seem to translate very valuably for us.

I wanted a safety, and we got a good one. I wanted Delmas over Chung and I was hoping he would go a bit later, but when Detroit took Delmas at 33 the writing was on the wall that Chung wouldn't last and BB moved accordingly. I think Chung will be great for us.

Butler was generally considered late 1st round value by most, and was rumored to be a "lock" for Miami at 25 without any murmur of reaching. I didn't see us taking a CB 1st day because of the crowd at the position, but Butler was superb value at 41 (with extra 2010 picks as well to show for the trade down) and with the Hobbs trade the move made perfect sense.

I wanted us to upgrade the OL and DL. BB did that. He took different players than the ones I had targeted. Unlike King, I assume that is because he knows better than I do who will fit his needs. If he thinks Vollmer is worth taking over Beatty at 58, then I'm all for it, even though Beatty was one of my guys. The Vollmer "reach" smells suspiciously like our "reach: for Logan Mankins at #32 in 2005, which worked out OK last time I checked. And if he passed on Gilbert even though Gilbert was one of my guys in favor of someone who I thought was a big slow 2 down DT, then I assume it's because he knows what he's doing.

 

[ClevTrev]

The issue here is the conflicting evaluations of two teams doing similar things. To say one did better than the other by any degree is premature in that the results can't be known for another three years. I have nothing against Peter King. I will point out inconsistencies in his analysis. HIs evaluation of the Eagles and Patriots 2009 draft success is clearly faulty.

Here's the text of a mail I wrote King regarding this issue:

My guess is that somehow you're conflicted with the Patriots. Calling their draft "uninspired" while praising similar tactics by another team, one could surmise that the sting of reporting inaccurate information about the Patriots' plans to move up in the first round might be one cause. If you really analyze the Patriots' draft, trading down, picking a few players they scouted heavily, adding more players to their overall depth, and ensuring 6 quality 2010 picks before the end of the fourth round isn't too shabby. Add to the fact that they continue to sock away value players while managing the cap extremely well, one might conclude by your reaction that you have some bitterness. Suggest you take a closer look, as the Eagles had a strong draft, but not that much stronger than the Patriots. Watch Chung, in time he'll be well known around the league and prove to be a character guy to boot. Could spygate and the continued difficulty the media have in getting information out of the team be the other influencing factors to your views?