Perspective Thread: Belichick briefly explains what he saw in Richards and Grissom

[Bobs My Uncle]

Keep in mind that none of us in here, nor any of the analysts out there, have the foggiest idea what needs this team truly has. Unless you are under the employ of BB then all you can do is guess what player position is in need of being filled come draft day.

Next, unless you are a scout under BB's employ, you haven't a clue how any of this years draftable players fit into the Pats gameplan. So, anything you opine about is nothing more than a guess. Which is fine, for casual discussion on the subject.

Also, keep in mind that, when all is said and done, draft slot position means nothing; its only significant to the draftniks out there. BB could give two sheeets about what draftniks think about how he builds his team. Once players step out onto the field to make this team, their draft pedigree will mean nothing to BB. As for "steals" and "reaches" in the draft ..... once the regular season starts the Pats will not be awarded added points for having the most "steals" on their roster nor will they have points detracted because they have more "reaches" than their opponents. So, why does it matter?

 

[RobertWeathers]

To be fair, in that case, I'm not sure that the Patriots knew what Edelman would actually be best at. WR was a guess, but he really didn't have a position coming out of college. If the NFL allowed teams to declare players as ATH or ST, that's what they would have done.

With Jules I agree that was the case. I'd also submit that it was also a part of the team's overall evaluation of him as being able to function as an NFL caliber WR.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Definitely Harmon made a clutch play we don't best Baltimore without that play.

Ok, suppose we drafted a different player than Harmon, maybe that guy makes 3 crucial plays that we don't know about because we didn't draft them, does that still make Harmon a good pick?

Also, did Harmon make any bad plays that put us in that crucial situation?

It's very tough to see the thing that didn't happen.

 

[patsfan13]

Ok, suppose we drafted a different player than Harmon, maybe that guy makes 3 crucial plays that we don't know about because we didn't draft them, does that still make Harmon a good pick?

Also, did Harmon make any bad plays that put us in that crucial situation?

It's very tough to see the thing that didn't happen.

And yet here you are speculating that you know we could have drafted someone who would have helped the team more than Harmon.

Can you help us understand why Malcolm Butler was an UDFA? who could everybody miss on him?

 

[Ivan]

Actually, he has. Look at his secondary in the last 3 SB WINS, Harrison, Revis and Browner were all Free Agents. Most of the offensive linemen were Free Agents. Smith, Dillon and Blount were not Belichick draft choices. Vrabel, Ninkovich, I can go on and on. Sure there has been some GREAT picks in Brady and Gronk, but the results are VERY mixed. Lots of bombs. If you look at the players that missed big time, and the guys BB passed up that were picked shortly after, it's a main reason we lost Super Bowls. And yesterday repeated history.

I will NEVER discredit BB as a COACH. He's the GOAT, but as a drafter, he's truly a river boat gambler who has missed more than he's hit the last 10 years.

Thank God they are big spenders in free agency, otherwise they would suck..........

 

[Ivan]

I'm starting to think that today is my favorite day of the year, watching the yearly meltdowns is so much fun.

 

[Ivan]

Ok, suppose we drafted a different player than Harmon, maybe that guy makes 3 crucial plays that we don't know about because we didn't draft them, does that still make Harmon a good pick?

Also, did Harmon make any bad plays that put us in that crucial situation?

It's very tough to see the thing that didn't happen.

It's very easy to see what did happen......


Lombardi #4.

 

[IllegalContact]

I just think the Richards pick was horrible value.......could have solved the OG question (AJ Cann) and still gotten this guy later

 

[Ivan]

Yes, because BB has done so well in the draft the last 10 years. Outside of 1st round picks with various degrees of success, name one Patriot's draft choice that has come in rounds 2 and later that has had good to great careers outside of Gronk, Ridley, Vereen, Gostkowski and the murderer. 5 decent to good picks in 10 years.

Matt Light

Sebastien Vollmer

Dan Koppen

Assante Samuel

Julian Edelman

Jamie Collins

To name a few



There are some here who do an excellent job looking at the draft, Manx, Mayo. Grid and others, but then there are literally dozens a dozens of complete ******s who suffer from the delusion that they know more than Belichick, and they are coincidentally the same people who trash them anytime anything goes wrong and quit on them at the first sign off adversity, as they did last season, only to rise up once again on Saturday of the draft to announce their omnipotence.

 

[Snake Eyes]

It's very easy to see what did happen......


Lombardi #4.

That doesn't answer the question of whether another player would have been a better choice. It very possible for a team to win in spite of a selection rather than because of it.

 

[Ring 6]

Sorry but that dog doesn't hunt, one doesn't need to work in a field to understand basic concepts about how something works. Also, it's not uncommon at all that an "expert" can get lost in details and also overlook some pretty obvious things.

Finally, many institutions tend to select people that share their general outlook resulting in institutional group-think, so you shouldn't be surprised if people who think outside the box aren't brought into established organizations.

This is disingenuous.
That is like arguing that anyone who has a bank account and CNBC could make better investment decisions than a professional who is educated, trained and spends their life making those decisions.
You are arguing that some guy on a computer who spends some spare time reading draft reports from guys who cannot obtain the better paying job of working for an NFL team, and watches a little college football can be likely to make a better decision that a team that spent millions in research thousands of hours in film study, actually met and interviewed the player, and on top of all of that have far, far better football knowledge and evaluation skill.
You are saying the guy who's hobby is following football is on an equal footing with someone with more experience, training, knowing and data. That is ludicrous.

The reality is that a pick at the end of the second round is more likely to be a disappointment than a rousing success, while there are 100 players still on the board who will have better careers than the average guy drafted from 62-66. To pretend it is an exact science where you can sit there and know, with less knowledge and data who a better pick would be is just a silly argument. I could have my dog pee on a list of draft eligible players and pick whoever he hit, and sometimes it would be better than the guy who was picked. Lets not pretend everything you are saying would have much chance of turning out better, or is anything more than dumb luck

 

[Snake Eyes]

And yet here you are speculating that you know we could have drafted someone who would have helped the team more than Harmon.

Can you help us understand why Malcolm Butler was an UDFA? who could everybody miss on him?

Why wouldn't I speculate about that? Should the Patriots themselves be speculating about it? I'm thinking that constantly evaluating your evaluation process is a good idea, it's actually essential if you want to get better.

 

[Snake Eyes]

This is disingenuous.
That is like arguing that anyone who has a bank account and CNBC could make better investment decisions than a professional who is educated, trained and spends their life making those decisions.
You are arguing that some guy on a computer who spends some spare time reading draft reports from guys who cannot obtain the better paying job of working for an NFL team, and watches a little college football can be likely to make a better decision that a team that spent millions in research thousands of hours in film study, actually met and interviewed the player, and on top of all of that have far, far better football knowledge and evaluation skill.
You are saying the guy who's hobby is following football is on an equal footing with someone with more experience, training, knowing and data. That is ludicrous.

The reality is that a pick at the end of the second round is more likely to be a disappointment than a rousing success, while there are 100 players still on the board who will have better careers than the average guy drafted from 62-66. To pretend it is an exact science where you can sit there and know, with less knowledge and data who a better pick would be is just a silly argument. I could have my dog pee on a list of draft eligible players and pick whoever he hit, and sometimes it would be better than the guy who was picked. Lets not pretend everything you are saying would have much chance of turning out better, or is anything more than dumb luck

I've already said why your argument is flawed, just because one knows a process very well doesn't mean that process is the best one available. As for "dumb luck", better lucky than good. The only true way to compare is to see how the guy sitting behind the computer's picks have done as opposed to the other evaluator's picks, that's the best that can be done.

I wanted Keenan Allen rather than Dobson, do you really think we are better off for having taken Dobson?

Your entire argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority, try looking that up with "logical fallacies", I'd rather evaluate a decision based on the results.

 

[Ring 6]

I've already said why your argument is flawed, just because one knows a process very well doesn't mean that process is the best one available. As for "dumb luck", better lucky than good. The only true way to compare is to see how the guy sitting behind the computer's picks have done as opposed to the other evaluator's picks, that's the best that can be done.

No you haven't. You stated a factor that could detract from the quality of the decision of the person with more knowledge and data. There are 1000s of facotrs that detract from yours.
I don't have to compare, I know that someone with more skill and data will consistently make a better decision that someone with less skill and data. It is moronic to suggest otherwise.

 

[Snake Eyes]

No you haven't. You stated a factor that could detract from the quality of the decision of the person with more knowledge and data. There are 1000s of facotrs that detract from yours.
I don't have to compare, I know that someone with more skill and data will consistently make a better decision that someone with less skill and data. It is moronic to suggest otherwise.

Yet again, an appeal to authority, *yawn*.

 

[Ring 6]

Yet again, an appeal to authority, *yawn*.

No, appeal to intelligence and data.
Are you saying you have football intelligence and data that are in the same stratosphere as Bill Belichick?

 

[Ivan]

That doesn't answer the question of whether another player would have been a better choice. It very possible for a team to win in spite of a selection rather than because of it.

If you choose it then it would be, Belichick is lazy, sloppy, and doesn't do his homework. I'll bet he hasn't even finished Kipers Draft Guide so how can we expect him to know a good prospect when n he sees one?

 

[nabwong]

It sounds to me like Grissom has been earmarked as a potential replacement for Ninkovich, who himself was a replacement for Vrabel. Same size, athleticism, versatility, hopefully intelligence and motor. And not to mention, catch touchdowns on goal line situations

 

[Snake Eyes]

No, appeal to intelligence and data.
Are you saying you have football intelligence and data that are in the same stratosphere as Bill Belichick?

I never said it was but that doesn't mean a particular decision of mine can't be better than his, and that's exactly what we're talking about.

 

[patsfan13]

Yet again, an appeal to authority, *yawn*.

Actually it is an appeal to empirical data, the Patriots have been BY FAR the most successful franchise operating in the salary cap era.

Reality, not conjecture.