Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by pats1, Feb 11, 2010.
Official Patriots Football Weekly Blog Blog Archive From the Hart: Slim pickings
This isn't a huge surprise to me... I've long noticed and pointed out that unlike some teams, who have GMs who seem unable to acknowledge their draft mistakes, part of what makes Belichick a success is his willingness to keep ONLY the players who deserve a spot on the roster, regardless of where they were drafted, and regardless of how it makes him look.
If that means cutting a QB prospect drafted in the 3rd round and keeping an undrafted rookie free agent, so be it - Belichick will cut the 3rd round draft pick and happilly accept the "embarrassment" of being ranked 32 on this list, as long as the result is having the strongest roster possible.
Other GMs wouldn't be so quick to admit their mistake. Salary cap issues notwithstanding, they'd prefer to keep a bust like Vernon Gholston on the roster in the hope that he might salvage their reputation and investment, while passing on a player that has done more to earn a spot on the 53 man roster.
In such a ranking the Jets will have a better "ranking" - but who is the wiser GM?
And of course if one is looking at the top rounds of the draft, Belichick certainly isn't the worst... and I'm not going to blame him for taking some chances in the later round crap shoot. He's found plenty of draftable guys even as undrafted free agents. Since this is looking only at the draft, those guys wouldn't count (indeed, they're the players who made the team at the expense of cutting lose higher drafted guys who weren't good enough for the team.)
The Pats can take those risks in later rounds precisely because they have been as good as they have been and have fewer needs.
Given the apparent success of the 2009 draft, I wonder what that says, if anything, about the loss of Pioli.
That being said, there are a myriad of holes in this type of analysis.
Boy, are you drinking the kool-aid!
I can see your argument up to a point, like say if the Pats ranked 18th. But 32nd!? 32nd says you haven't been drafting well, no matter how you look at it.
Too bad we can't be at the top of this valuable list.
Record: 25-55 (.455)
Playoff appearances: 0
Head Coaches: 3
Indeed, such as, how good is your team? Do you have space for rookies?
Have you traded picks forward into the future? Have you traded picks for veterans?
Exactly. I'm sure no one would argue that a 2nd for Welker and a 4th for Moss weren't brilliant moves, but under this sort of analysis these moves might as well have never occurred.
I beleve this is the correct answer.
People here can put the spin they want on this, but it ABSOLUTELY is an indication that the Patriots haven't drafted well in the last few years.
San Francisco led the way with 14 starters
In other words, people can put the spin they want on this, and here's the spin I want on this.
Considering we had one guy from 2007 make the roster, I don't think his argument is that bad.
Why do you think that EVERY single player from this year's draft made the team and only 1 player made the team in 2007.
In 2007, the team was absolutely loaded.
Put it this way: when they do this study again next year and they take into account 2009, the Patriots
Butler, Brace, Chung, Vollmer, McKenzie, Tate, Ohrnberger, Bussey, Pryor, Ingram, Richard, Edelman, they're going to count at least 10 guys to the total, and suddenly New England is going to skyrocket from 32nd to the top part of the league.
My answer: the team was more depleted and there was less competition.
If you are looking for a silver lining to this just stop right now. Draft picks are used to help build your team for the future. If we are last on the list, this is an indication that the Pats success is not a product of the draft but FA or UFA acquisitions. I hope we draft better in the upcoming years.
The years being used seem arbitrary, almost to the point of looking for stats to make the Pats look bad (and increase readership as a result.) For example, why end in 2008 rather than 2009? Why not look at how many players on the roster were originally drafted by those teams, rather than start in 2004? If the purpose is to evaluate how each team evaluates college talent, how about including undrafted free agents that never signed a contract with another team?
The biggest factor working against the Pats is that starting point. 2004 was the second of two consecutive NFL championships, and the third in four years. The reality is that any team on that kind of a roll is going to have far fewer openings than any other team in the league at that point in time.
Another factor not being taken into account is where the Pats have drafted each year. If you are going to compare the Pats and Lions drafts over the last five years, shouldn't there be some sort of weighting for what spot each team was drafting from?
Lastly, there's no accounting for trading of draft picks. I'm not just talking about Moss and Welker either. For example the Jets traded up and had in my opinion a very good draft last year. But using Pro Football Weekly's metrics, it would have been sub-standard since they retained only three players.
If this study is trying to imply that the Pats are the absolutely worst drafting team in the NFL since 2004, I just don't buy it. If that was the case, then there would be no way that they would still be winning the division with double-digit winning seasons at this point.
But if your team is loaded and there is no spot for you draft picks why would you keep them around? If you already have a person on the roster that is better than the draft pick you're not going to keep the draft pick just to say that we kept more draft picks than everybody else while going 10-6 (instead of 16-0 ).
I'm certainly one of those who thinks that the Pats' drafts have had some real bad years, but I'm not sure this sort of analysis proves that. Look at those numbers...if we had one more drafted player on the roster from those years, we would be league average. If we had two more, we'd be in the next tier.
Look at it this way...if the Pats had kept any two of Ellis Hobbs, Kevin O'Connell, Chad Jackson, or David Thomas on the roster, they'd be above league-average. Just two of those guys, all of whom were either released, or traded for peanuts. They might not be contributing to the team, but they'd be ON THE ROSTER (cf V. Gholston). And we wouldn't be having *this* discussion.
The real crime in all of that is the failure that was Chad Jackson. Having just one more playmaker on this team would have made a huge difference this year. Compare the difference Between Chad Jackson and a guy like DeSean Jackson, or Percy Harvin...
We heard the same exact stuff in 2001.
I believe an even more interesting piece of information would be the answer to this question: How many Patriots' draft choices from 2004-08 are still on NFL rosters and how does that number compare with other teams? Anyone have that data or know how it can be obtained?
when your a great team that picks at the bottem of the draft ever year. and half of the time trade out of the first round not a lot of rookies will make the team. this year most of the core vets the pats won with all dose years are gone. so we seen someting like 10 or 11 rookies make the team.
it is what it is. we can't get mad and say the pats have not drafted will. when every year thay put out a team that has a shot at the super bowl. you can't win the SB if you don't make the playoffs and the pats have made it 7 out of the last 10 years. and have had 9 winning seasons in a row. i think the 49ers who are at the top of this list would be happy for just one winning season.
Separate names with a comma.