Pro Football Weekly: Pats 32nd in league in 2004-08 draft picks still on roster

[PatsFanSince74]

Official Patriots Football Weekly Blog Blog Archive From the Hart: Slim pickings

Wow, talk about "there are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics."

While I'll be the first to admit that you don't want to be "dead last" on any list, no matter how bogus, there are three things for which we need to adjust this particular statistic (some of this has been pointed out above):

1) It needs to be weighted for where a team picked, year by year. The simplest way to do that would be to calculate the average Draft Pick that a team had for each year. For example, throughout a theoretical six rounds with no trades and no compensatory picks, the Average Pick of the SB winner would be 144, whereas the Average Pick of the first team to pick would be 113.

2) It needs to be weighted for the "Starting Point," which, in my judgment, would be the squad that played the 2003 and 2004 seasons for each team. How many of them were still playing for the team in the 2005 season? The 2003 and 2004 Patriots teams, for example, were two of the greatest teams of all times.

3) It needs to be weighted for whether draftees are still playing elsewhere in the NFL.

Finally, the analysis needs to be presented on a "year by year" basis so trends can be examined and the factors I mention above can be adjusted for.

I'm not trying to say that being "32" on this list is good or even respectable, I'm just saying that there's a lot more to this calculation than some intern adding up a few numbers while tweeting to his friends. I'd do the work myself, but my day job calls. Perhaps someone with access to a database and for whom NFL stats are his/her day job could do it?

 

[bucky]

Let's face it. The Patriots are not the worst team at drafting. That would be a ludicrous statement. And this statistic leaves a lot to the interpreter as many have people have pointed out the major flaws.

On the other hand, you cannot defend the poor drafting of 2006-2008 stretch with major whiffs like Chad Jackson, Kareem Brown, Kevin O'Connell. Those 3 drafts, the Patriots have gotten NOTHING after the 1st round - 23 players drafted, 5 are still on the team - 2 are exclusively special teams players (Ghost and Slater) and 2 more barely step on the field (Wheatley and Crable). That's not good by any standard, no matter how you spin it.

 

[DaBruinz]

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?

Here is what I was able to put togehter for the 2004 to 2008 time frame.

49ers: 45 picks with 28 still in the league.
Pats: 41 picks with 24 still in the league.
Steelers: 40 picks with 24 still in the league.
Ravens: 42 picks with 29 still in the league
Lions: 36 picks with 19 still in the league.


The reality seems to be that you can't just look at the picks remaining on the roster or even the picks remaining in the league. If you are going to compare drafting, you need to compare the rounds of the players who are no longer in the league.

 

[Sicilian]

The current Patriots have 0 top 5 draft picks on their roster. They must be TERRIBLE at drafting in the top 5.

That stat is about as meaningful as the original article's drivel.

Statistic minus context = worthless.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Here is what I was able to put togehter for the 2004 to 2008 time frame.

49ers: 45 picks with 28 still in the league.
Pats: 41 picks with 24 still in the league.
Steelers: 40 picks with 24 still in the league.
Ravens: 42 picks with 29 still in the league
Lions: 36 picks with 19 still in the league.


The reality seems to be that you can't just look at the picks remaining on the roster or even the picks remaining in the league. If you are going to compare drafting, you need to compare the rounds of the players who are no longer in the league.

Nice work, DaBruinz. I think you are on the right path but I think a more telling analysis may be......

Pats % of players for each round still with the team vs league average.

Pats % of players from each round still in the league vs league average.

IMO, a draft pick spent (see Moss, Welker) should count.

My gut tells me that they Pats would come out respectable.

If memory serves, I think Reiss and other posters did similar analysis.

 

[DaBruinz]

Let's face it. The Patriots are not the worst team at drafting. That would be a ludicrous statement. And this statistic leaves a lot to the interpreter as many have people have pointed out the major flaws.

On the other hand, you cannot defend the poor drafting of 2006-2008 stretch with major whiffs like Chad Jackson, Kareem Brown, Kevin O'Connell. Those 3 drafts, the Patriots have gotten NOTHING after the 1st round - 23 players drafted, 5 are still on the team - 2 are exclusively special teams players (Ghost and Slater) and 2 more barely step on the field (Wheatley and Crable). That's not good by any standard, no matter how you spin it.

From the 2006 through 2008 draft, the Pats had 26 picks, not 23. Of the 26 picks, 8 are still on the team. Yes, 2 of them are "exclusively special teamers", but special teams is 1/3 of the game. Just like offense is a 1/3 and defense the other 1/3.

How is Kareem Brown a "major whiff"? He was a friggin 4th round pick? You do also realize that he made the team but was cut to make room on the roster because of injuries that needed to be replaced, right?

Also, lets not forget that LeKevin Smith and David Thomas were traded prior to the start of the season. Also, can you really hold the Pats accountable for Willie Andrews going loopy prior to the 2008 season?

Are the Pats to blame from losing Mills and Rogers? 2 guys that they tried to stash on their practice squad? Maybe..

Does it look good? No. But you also have to consider that the Patriots did not care for the 2007 draft as a whole (which is why they traded 3 picks for Moss and Welker and traded a 4th into 2008). And 7 of the picks occurred in the 5th through 7th rounds. People need to stop acting like they were 1st and 2nd round picks.. And the excuse that there were other players who could have been drafted doesn't fly for 2 reasons. The first is that the Pats roster was already stacked, having 65 players signed prior to the draft an adding Moss during the draft for a 66th. And the second, which relates to the first, is that there is no way of knowing that those other players would have been able to make the team anyways.. So you'd still be *****ing about it.

The reality is that the draft is a crap shoot and that after the 4th round, there is only like a 10% chance of a player from that round making it. The only BIG miss, so far, has been Chad Jackson. And I'm not so sure that the Patriots didn't give up on him too early. Especially after the ACL tear he suffered playing on special teams in the 2006 AFCCG. Could Wheatley and Crable end up being misses? Yep. A lot depends on how they progress into this season.

 

[RayClay]

I didn't ask the question with the intention of assessing your level of interest in it. Plus, when the Patriots cut draft choices and those players are signed by other teams and end up on those teams' rosters, it certainly isn't because it was NE's goal to "stock other teams." Faulty logic, in my opinion, but that's just me.

I doubt it is Detroit's goal to astound us with their ineptitude. What counts is how well every position on your team was or wasn't addressed through the draft and otherwise.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

You also have to account for the fact that at the start of the period in question, we had less room for draft choices to make the squad.
Additionally, we have had a ton of late round picks that would skew the numbers.

 

[bucky]

From the 2006 through 2008 draft, the Pats had 26 picks, not 23. Of the 26 picks, 8 are still on the team. Yes, 2 of them are "exclusively special teamers", but special teams is 1/3 of the game. Just like offense is a 1/3 and defense the other 1/3.

How is Kareem Brown a "major whiff"? He was a friggin 4th round pick? You do also realize that he made the team but was cut to make room on the roster because of injuries that needed to be replaced, right?

Also, lets not forget that LeKevin Smith and David Thomas were traded prior to the start of the season. Also, can you really hold the Pats accountable for Willie Andrews going loopy prior to the 2008 season?

Are the Pats to blame from losing Mills and Rogers? 2 guys that they tried to stash on their practice squad? Maybe..

Does it look good? No. But you also have to consider that the Patriots did not care for the 2007 draft as a whole (which is why they traded 3 picks for Moss and Welker and traded a 4th into 2008). And 7 of the picks occurred in the 5th through 7th rounds. People need to stop acting like they were 1st and 2nd round picks.. And the excuse that there were other players who could have been drafted doesn't fly for 2 reasons. The first is that the Pats roster was already stacked, having 65 players signed prior to the draft an adding Moss during the draft for a 66th. And the second, which relates to the first, is that there is no way of knowing that those other players would have been able to make the team anyways.. So you'd still be *****ing about it.

The reality is that the draft is a crap shoot and that after the 4th round, there is only like a 10% chance of a player from that round making it. The only BIG miss, so far, has been Chad Jackson. And I'm not so sure that the Patriots didn't give up on him too early. Especially after the ACL tear he suffered playing on special teams in the 2006 AFCCG. Could Wheatley and Crable end up being misses? Yep. A lot depends on how they progress into this season.

Maybe I was not totally clear in my post, but I was referring to the fact that they've had very poor performance AFTER the 1st round. That's the 23 picks I'm talking about.

Now to answer some of your questions -

I label Kareem Brown a whiff because (a) he was a 4th round pick, not a 6th or 7th, and (b) he did not even last 1 season. Of course you know that BB talks about the big improvement in players from year 1 to year 2 and I can't recall another 4th round player ever being waived in his first year. True, they had a deep and talented roster, but there were other players on that team that could have been cut of Brown had been worth keeping.

David Thomas didn't pan out at all. Yes, he was traded. But for practically nothing, when the team really needed a 3rd TE. I actually thought it was a mistake to trade him, but the fact remains that he's a 3rd round pick who barely contributed for 3 years and didn't make it to the end of his rookie contracts.

I realize that the majority of drafter players in later rounds will not make it in the NFL. Still, you would hope that you can find 1 starter among over a dozen picks (a guy like Koppen, TBC, or Givens. But real problem for this team has been in rounds 2-4 over those 3 years:

Chad Jackson
David Thomas
Garrett Mills
Gostkowski
Kareem Brown
Wheatley
Crable
O'Connell
Willhite

That's 9 players selected in the so-called "value" rounds. One was a kicker. 4 of the 8 position players never saw the field (that includes Crable, who I'm pretty sure is a bust, but will be willing to take that back if he does anything next year).

The remaining 4 players: Thomas (already discussed), Jackson (you might be right about him, but still a bust), Wheatley (not very effective for a 2nd rounder), and Willhite (probably the best of the 9 picks). Not 1 of those guys was ever a true starter. Willhite probably came the closest, but he was never an unquestioned starter on the team.

If you compare that to the players selected in the previous 3 years, 2003-2005:

Eugene Wilson
Bethel
Klecko
Samuel
Marquis Hill
Gus Scott
Dexter Reid
Cedric Cobbs
Hobbs
Kaczur
Sanders

That's 11 picks - all position players. 5 became at-least 3 year starters (Samuel, Hobbs, Kaczur, Sanders, Wilson). Bethel was a pretty good contributor for a couple of years and is still considered a bust in these circles. And the other 5 (Scott, Reid, Cobbs, Hill, Klecko) can be considered busts for the purposes of this discussion. So that's a significantly better hit rate.

Thus, my point that 2006-2008 were bad drafting years. 2009 looks like it was a LOT better. Let's hope and pray for another good one in 2010.

 

[Ring 6]

The other thing that is totally absent in this type of analysis is what is your draft strategy.
Some teams in say, the middle rounds are looking for steals, others are conservative, say trying to find guys who can make a roster even if only on special teams.
I don't think you can look at BBs drafts and conclude a consistent strategy. IMO, it changes every year based on the roster in place. We have seen him overdraft a position, looking to hit one of 3 at the same position. We have seen him use most late round picks at positions where it is more likely a late rounder could stick (we draft a lot of OL, TE, DL guys in the late rounds). If oyu draft 10 OL in the 5th-7th rounds and have had 2 of them on your roster each year is that a bad use of 'long shot' picks?
There is just too much to consider to rank drafts that way, and ultimately, it all boils down to winning. I dont think anyone cares if a daft sucks if the result is they all get cut and 7 good FAs get signed in their place and you win the SB right?

 

[Rob0729]

The number is bit misleading. The Pats being an elite team for most of those year, were unable to retain many of the lower round picks, In 2007, most of their draft picks were sixth or seventh rounders. So the reality is only 2-3 players from that draft had a legitimate chance of sticking around for more than a year or two from that draft.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

The other thing that is totally absent in this type of analysis is what is your draft strategy.
Some teams in say, the middle rounds are looking for steals, others are conservative, say trying to find guys who can make a roster even if only on special teams.
I don't think you can look at BBs drafts and conclude a consistent strategy. IMO, it changes every year based on the roster in place. We have seen him overdraft a position, looking to hit one of 3 at the same position. We have seen him use most late round picks at positions where it is more likely a late rounder could stick (we draft a lot of OL, TE, DL guys in the late rounds). If oyu draft 10 OL in the 5th-7th rounds and have had 2 of them on your roster each year is that a bad use of 'long shot' picks?
There is just too much to consider to rank drafts that way, and ultimately, it all boils down to winning. I dont think anyone cares if a daft sucks if the result is they all get cut and 7 good FAs get signed in their place and you win the SB right?

The days of getting players like Vrabel or Phifer off of the scrap heap are over. The dynamics of free agency are different and the Pats don't appear to be big players. If they want to continue to be a top tier team they need to have succesful drafts. Having so few contributors from 06-08 hurt the team this year.

 

[Ring 6]

The days of getting players like Vrabel or Phifer off of the scrap heap are over. The dynamics of free agency are different and the Pats don't appear to be big players. If they want to continue to be a top tier team they need to have succesful drafts. Having so few contributors from 06-08 hurt the team this year.

What is different? Vrabel was a reserve in Pitt that BB saw as a talented player without an opportunity. Those still exist. Wes Welker is a good example. Phifer was an aging player who wasn't in much demand and he came here and extended his career a few years as a big contributor and even longer as a part time one. Those players exist too. Seau sort of was one.

 

[Brono]

Has someone done a study on 2004-08 draft picks still in the NFL, on any roster?

 

[Metaphors]

The number is bit misleading. The Pats being an elite team for most of those year, were unable to retain many of the lower round picks, In 2007, most of their draft picks were sixth or seventh rounders. So the reality is only 2-3 players from that draft had a legitimate chance of sticking around for more than a year or two from that draft.

If you look at just top 100 picks (which should be expected to stick):

- 15 picks
- 7 starters
- 2 non-starters/depth
- 2 traded
- 1 dead (can't blame the Pats for that)
- 3 washed out (CJack being the poster child in this space)

While you can certainly find solid players outside the top 100 (and the Pats have), it really isn't overly positive if your roster is in a state where a bunch of those players are making your team. Ideally those players come into a competitive situation with experienced players already in place, and only exceptional players are able to fight their way onto the team.

The 3 areas of team building (draft, FA, trades) are all important with different degrees of cost, benefit and risk. Success is determined by how teams blend these methods. Evaluating one method without considering the others may be a fun exercise but it really doesn't tell you much.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The days of getting players like Vrabel or Phifer off of the scrap heap are over.

Neither Vrabes or Phifer was a pure cap-casualty. Pitt didn't think Vrabes projected as a pure OLB and the Jets thought Phifer was a 33-year old washed up LB.

The dynamics of free agency are different and the Pats don't appear to be big players. If they want to continue to be a top tier team they need to have succesful drafts. Having so few contributors from 06-08 hurt the team this year.

You are spot on. But I'd argue that they didn't have the luxury of picking high enough to replace the talent that left.

I think things will more interesting this year with team being able to jettison big contracts and not get slammed as it relates to cap hits.

 

[DW Toys]

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 ).

Simple. Are the Saints the SB Champs without F.A. and Trades?
No!
DW Toys

 

[pats1]

The days of getting players like Vrabel or Phifer off of the scrap heap are over. The dynamics of free agency are different and the Pats don't appear to be big players. If they want to continue to be a top tier team they need to have succesful drafts. Having so few contributors from 06-08 hurt the team this year.

Bingo. The salary cap environment of 2000 or 2001 is drastically different than it is now. That was TEN years ago. Things change. What exactly? Well, that was only Year 8 of the salary cap; some teams obviously didn't manage it very well. Now we're in Year 18. Most league executives have only worked under a salary cap. And that salary cap has grown so much (doubled since 2001, now it's nonexistent) that it is no longer a problem for most teams. There are simply no more teams in cap hell that the Patriots can take advantage of with more financially prudent moves. (see: Lavin, James. Management Secrets of the New England Patriots) Those days are over.

The term "cap hell" no longer exists in NFL vocabulary. Teams can overpay for players and not suffer. Teams can lock up more players before they reach free agency (Eagles and Colts are known for that). The chances for an adept economist like Belichick to exploit free agency and the trade market like he did a decade ago are fewer and far between. The good teams of today build through the draft and are willing to identify and keep their core performers with fair contracts.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The methodology used for this survey is so simplistic that it doesn't lead to meaningful results. Is it so meaningless that the 32nd team could actually have been in the top 5 in drafting? I'd argue that it is that meaningless - not that I'm claiming the Patriots were in the top 5. Just that the criteria used and the lack of taking into account highly significant factors makes this story even less worthy of attention than the stories about team spending in any given year - and those stories are totally worthless.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Bingo. The salary cap environment of 2000 or 2001 is drastically different than it is now. That was TEN years ago. Things change. What exactly? Well, that was only Year 8 of the salary cap; some teams obviously didn't manage it very well. Now we're in Year 18. Most league executives have only worked under a salary cap. And that salary cap has grown so much (doubled since 2001, now it's nonexistent) that it is no longer a problem for most teams. There are simply no more teams in cap hell that the Patriots can take advantage of with more financially prudent moves. (see: Lavin, James. Management Secrets of the New England Patriots) Those days are over.

The term "cap hell" no longer exists in NFL vocabulary. Teams can overpay for players and not suffer. Teams can lock up more players before they reach free agency (Eagles and Colts are known for that). The chances for an adept economist like Belichick to exploit free agency and the trade market like he did a decade ago are fewer and far between. The good teams of today build through the draft and are willing to identify and keep their core performers with fair contracts.

You are correct as long as the cap goes up. Which it has. Cap goes down, you will see the same FA environment as it was in 2001. Dumb teams paying dumb contracts and cutting players b/c they didn't plan accordingly and drafting cheaper, younger talent.