Patriots, Colts differ from rest at draft time

[Mike the Brit]

This suggests a chicken-and-egg question with Gosselin's premise. Are the Colts and Patriots the best because they draft this way, or do they draft this way because they're the best? I.e., it's easy to go BPA when you have to upgrade every single position.

I think that it's not just greater talent and having fewer holes to fill. The Colts (God rot them!) had to replace a lot of players in the last two years -- and they did it remarkably seamlessly.

Think of it almost as an issue in evolutionary biology. An organism has a problem to solve and there are different strategies for solving it, each requiring different resources. When resources are abundant, you'd expect it to evolve towards the most efficient solution. But when there is competition, resources become scarce and the costs of the previously most efficient solution become greater. Now if there is a somewhat less a priori efficient solution that uses different resources that are not in short supply, the organism that takes that approach may find an evolutionary "niche".

I'm not saying that the 3-4 defense (or the "Tampa Two") are a priori less efficient. My point is that, even if they were, the teams who adopted those strategies when others didn't would benefit from more abundant resources.

Of course, with time, the success of the unorthodox approach would produce emulation (arguably, that's what is happening right now in the NFL). Ain't competition wonderful?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Perfectly fine article, but statements like this always bug the crap out of me:

"Coach Bill Belichick, whose roots are on special teams, drafted UCLA safety Matt Slater in the fifth round. That was a reach on my board. I had him in the sixth."

Come on, does anybody really think taking a player at 153 who's "projected" to go at 173 is a REACH?

I usually agree with your posts but I differ here. If we look at the energy that teams put into assessing the draft board, then picking a player a round early, even late in the day on Sunday, is no small deal. Also, the author is only making the point that the pick was earlier than most boards had it.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

it's rare to read a piece on the pats and colts wherein I feel I've learned something new or gotten a new perspective on either team (or, in this case, both teams). This was such an article. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[patchick]

Think of it almost as an issue in evolutionary biology. An organism has a problem to solve and there are different strategies for solving it, each requiring different resources. When resources are abundant, you'd expect it to evolve towards the most efficient solution. But when there is competition, resources become scarce and the costs of the previously most efficient solution become greater. Now if there is a somewhat less a priori efficient solution that uses different resources that are not in short supply, the organism that takes that approach may find an evolutionary "niche".

I'm not saying that the 3-4 defense (or the "Tampa Two") are a priori less efficient. My point is that, even if they were, the teams who adopted those strategies when others didn't would benefit from more abundant resources.

Of course, with time, the success of the unorthodox approach would produce emulation (arguably, that's what is happening right now in the NFL). Ain't competition wonderful?

Wow Mike, awesome post.

 

[PatsFan37]

I do wonder about one thing...


A 237 lb. DE? I can't see that player holding up.

Robert Mathis is 6-2, 245. Marcus Howard is 6-0, 237. Mathis is not only a starting DE, he's pretty good and he holds up well. Howard, 2" shorter, has Bruschi's size, if he put on, say, 5 lbs. It's a few pounds one way or the other and Howard is no less likely to handle the punishment than Mathis. Mathis battles guys every day who outweigh him by 70 lbs.

These guys do the same job as our OLB's, who are typically taller and heavier, except that in Dungy's scheme, they have to rely entirely on speed in the pass rush and on multiple players swarming to the ball carrier.

There's always been that question whether Dungy's strategy is more effective for early season wins, and Belichick's is more effective in the playoffs, depending on whether you think the faster players wear down over the course of the season.

It seems that Belichick has emphasized a two-pronged strategy. Heavy and strong up front, light and quick in the defensive backfield to have that combination of power and speed. If you wonder how Dungy's front 7 players hold up, you also have to look at how our DBs routinely get injured, especially since BB teaches the DBs to aggressively attack the runner. Drafting guys like Wheatley and Wilhite isn't likely to change that trend.

It's a function of needing to stop the run and stop the pass without substitution.

 

[patchick]

I usually agree with your posts but I differ here. If we look at the energy that teams put into assessing the draft board, then picking a player a round early, even late in the day on Sunday, is no small deal. Also, the author is only making the point that the pick was earlier than most boards had it.

OK, a lot of smart people are disagreeing with me, which raises the likelihood that I'm...umm...wrong. But let me give it one more shot, because I do think I have a thought here, even if I'm not expressing it well.

At the top of the draft, you have guys with extraordinary strengths. A Chris Long could help out just about any team in the league, running any system: exceptional athlete, NFL frame, well trained, experienced, hard-working, A+ intangibles. Taking a guy with a lot more question marks early in the draft when these rare specimens and relatively sure things are available is a "reach."

But the deeper you get into the draft, the smaller the differences between players get. You expect the difference between player #1 and #50 to be huge, between #51 and #100 significant...and between #201 and #251 to be a roll of the dice.

By the time you get to the 5th/6th, you're picking your poison. Every guy has red flags: slow, undersized, small conference, injury history, character risk, major position change required, etc. etc. Since the talent level differences are so small in the late rounds, the team fit weighs proportionally much heavier in the decision. For all teams, not just the Pats and Colts. So I really think it's silly to consider a 6th-round generic ranking to be significantly different from a 5th or 7th.

Any better? Or should I just throw in the towel?

 

[workhorse]

It's a great article. Rather than nitpick the particulars, why not try to get the point he is making.

Two great teams with few holes seek to find players that fit their schemes.

I do wonder about one thing...


A 237 lb. DE? I can't see that player holding up.

Robert Mathis is 6-2, 245. Marcus Howard is 6-0, 237. Mathis is not only a starting DE, he's pretty good and he holds up well. Howard, 2" shorter, has Bruschi's size, if he put on, say, 5 lbs. It's a few pounds one way or the other and Howard is no less likely to handle the punishment than Mathis. Mathis battles guys every day who outweigh him by 70 lbs.

These guys do the same job as our OLB's, who are typically taller and heavier, except that in Dungy's scheme, they have to rely entirely on speed in the pass rush and on multiple players swarming to the ball carrier.

There's always been that question whether Dungy's strategy is more effective for early season wins, and Belichick's is more effective in the playoffs, depending on whether you think the faster players wear down over the course of the season.

It seems that Belichick has emphasized a two-pronged strategy. Heavy and strong up front, light and quick in the defensive backfield to have that combination of power and speed. If you wonder how Dungy's front 7 players hold up, you also have to look at how our DBs routinely get injured, especially since BB teaches the DBs to aggressively attack the runner. Drafting guys like Wheatley and Wilhite isn't likely to change that trend.

It's a function of needing to stop the run and stop the pass without substitution.

This article is the only place I've seen Howard listed as 6' even. I've seen 6'1", but mostly 6'2". His weight has been listed all over the place from 225 to 245. I guess my point is he is just about the same size as Mathis and as PF37 pointed out, Mathis has done pretty well until he took that shot to his knee last year. I have a feeling they will use Howard just as the did Mathis when he was younger, as a situational pass rusher and to give Mathis or Freeney a quick breather.

As mentioned earlier a big plus for the Colts when drafting is that they draft a different type defensive of player than most teams, so the pool that they are selecting from is larger since they are competing with many teams for the players that they covet. Another reason is that Polian is very good at drafting a year or two ahead. I'm not sure how well you guys do with that, I haven't paid that close of attention to the down the line type drafting for the Pats. But that is one area that Polian excels. That and the late round and undrafted talent. I'm frequently amazed at the Dominic Rhodes, Antoine Bethea, and Ed Johnson finds.

 

[PatsFan37]

TAnother reason is that Polian is very good at drafting a year or two ahead. I'm not sure how well you guys do with that, I haven't paid that close of attention to the down the line type drafting for the Pats. But that is one area that Polian excels. That and the late round and undrafted talent. I'm frequently amazed at the Dominic Rhodes, Antoine Bethea, and Ed Johnson finds.

The Pats are pretty good at that. They don't have too many rookie wonders, but they excel at solid starters among their second year+ players. Samuel, 4th round. Hobbs, 3rd round. Their first rounders, Warren and Wilfork, were so-so in their first year and are now absolute standouts. Polian, whom I'm respect and dislike with roughly equal intensity, is good at those UDFA's, but so are the Pats.

The article is correct, both teams are exceptional at drafting into their particular system. One area where the Pats are clearly superior is in drafting for character. The Colts have their share of thugs (and I don't mean media thugs, I mean guys you don't want to meet in an alley). Maybe this also fits with Polian.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

OK, a lot of smart people are disagreeing with me, which raises the likelihood that I'm...umm...wrong. But let me give it one more shot, because I do think I have a thought here, even if I'm not expressing it well.

At the top of the draft, you have guys with extraordinary strengths. A Chris Long could help out just about any team in the league, running any system: exceptional athlete, NFL frame, well trained, experienced, hard-working, A+ intangibles. Taking a guy with a lot more question marks early in the draft when these rare specimens and relatively sure things are available is a "reach."

But the deeper you get into the draft, the smaller the differences between players get. You expect the difference between player #1 and #50 to be huge, between #51 and #100 significant...and between #201 and #251 to be a roll of the dice.

By the time you get to the 5th/6th, you're picking your poison. Every guy has red flags: slow, undersized, small conference, injury history, character risk, major position change required, etc. etc. Since the talent level differences are so small in the late rounds, the team fit weighs proportionally much heavier in the decision. For all teams, not just the Pats and Colts. So I really think it's silly to consider a 6th-round generic ranking to be significantly different from a 5th or 7th.

Any better? Or should I just throw in the towel?

hmmm...you set up a conundrum worthy of the best debaters.

The only way to refute your argument would be to analyze the late round drafting behavior of a bunch of teams over several years and determine whether the Pats and Colts consistently "reach" based on "fit" while others follow a more predictable course and draft in a way that matches pre-draft progrnostications.

Unfortunately, I have a day job and can't devote the time to said analysis. So, I have to admit that yeah, you might be right since I can't statistically prove otherwise...all the while muttering under my breath, "But I just KNOW Patchick is wrong."