Reiss:Angelo's view on misguided Pats plan

[ivanvamp]

When CHFF first came out, it was an excellent site. Now, even most of its supporters will tell you that it's decline is obvious. Hell, I went from checking it every day to barely looking at it.

You said, "It's pointing out that someone's trying to frame the discussion in the most pro-Patriots manner possible, which is exactly what the author was doing." I asked if that was true of the CHFF article as well, and you came up with what you said above. You didn't answer the question. Was CHFF's article just an attempt at a pro-Patriots piece, making the data set fit a preconceived conclusion, or not?

 

[Deus Irae]

You said, "It's pointing out that someone's trying to frame the discussion in the most pro-Patriots manner possible, which is exactly what the author was doing." I asked if that was true of the CHFF article as well, and you came up with what you said above. You didn't answer the question. Was CHFF's article just an attempt at a pro-Patriots piece, making the data set fit a preconceived conclusion, or not?

I don't recall. Feel free to go browse my post history for any response I might have made to the article.

However, let's not go tossing out the red herrings. The issue I was posting about was the useless article you linked to and I responded to, not to a CHFF article (and, yes, CHFF often posts Patriots articles in a very pro-Patriots manner that goes above and beyond an unbiased take).

"Who's the best drafter?" is going to vary depending upon your time frame. You're smart enough to know that.

 

[ivanvamp]

I don't recall. Feel free to go browse my post history for any response I might have made to the article.

However, let's not go tossing out the red herrings. The issue I was posting about was the useless article you linked to and I responded to, not to a CHFF article.

The point I was making was that it came to the exact same conclusion as a CHFF article. If one was due to a pro-Patriots bias that set up the data to look a certain way, it must also be true for the CHFF article. Yet you don't seem to want to go there with that. Interesting.

So here's the methodology. You take the years BB has been drafting (all of them; you can't cherry-pick the ones you don't want to use) and use several different factors:

(1) The place the Patriots draft
(2) The number of years those draft picks have been NFL starters
(3) The number of "star" years those draft picks have produced
(4) The "AV" - a really useful metric regarding a player's value devised by profootball-reference.com

Putting all that together, the Patriots emerge as the #1 drafting team in the NFL since BB took over the team. Period. It's just a fact. Now if you have a better methodology than that, that's cool. Do the research and give a conclusion based on something other than your own personal opinion, which amounts to diddly squat. At least those two articles are attempts at truly quantifying BB's draft success for real, not just what people "feel" like is the case.

 

[TriplecHamp]

He needs at least another quality TE outside of Rob. At his age Brady needs quite a lot.

lol does he really? He took a team with very little to the AFCCG. Granted the AFC was weak but lets not act like Brady needs all that Peyton has to get to/win the SB. Honestly believe we were a healthier defense and a healthy Rob G away from playing Seattle on Sunday.

 

[Ivan]

Hmmmm… That's very interesting. When all of them are healthy, Gronk is the best player of the group. But Andre Johnson is still great, and Foster is outstanding. Though BB doesn't value RBs that much. Maybe he's just worried that Gronk just won't be healthy enough to be worth the money he'll be getting soon.

Of course, this entire rumor could be total BS. But if it isn't, I'd have to think about how much I like it or not.

Makes no sense to me, they are going to give up Gronk and his team friendly deal for a RB and WR with big contracts. And as much as i like Johnson he is at the end of his career. Johnson for Mallett i would do.

 

[50-yard-line]

Pats "draft" this year, including UDFA's and waiver acquisitions:

Dobson: tons of upside, solid rookie year.
Thompkins: solid receiver, solid rookie year.
Boyce: tons of upside, average rookie year.
Collins: Hells yes - could be great.
Ryan: Solid corner, good upside, very good rookie year.
Harmon: Solid rookie season...who knows?
Vellano: solid interior DL depth.
Jones: MORE solid interior DL depth.
Siliga: possibly very good interior DL.
Buchanon: Intriguing.

That's off the top of my head. I think many teams would swap drafts with us from last year.

As for the Schefter rumor: No, just no. Arian Foster looked cooked and Johnson is on the wrong side of 30 (I'd love him, but not for Gronkowski). When he's on the field, Gronk changes the game dramatically and always. Other than Calvin Johnson and Peterson, I can't think of anyone not a QB I'd rather have out there.

 

[Joker]

Makes no sense to me, they are going to give up Gronk and his team friendly deal for a RB and WR with big contracts. And as much as i like Johnson he is at the end of his career. Johnson for Mallett i would do.

yeah..but I had them on MY fantasy team and I WON MY LEAGUE!! There were twenty other serious, really ,really serious fantasy players in this league man, so I KNOW what I'm talking about, you understand?? and I say get Johnson and Foster now!~!! Really, I'm so sick of the Patriots playing this low ball crap and blaming the cap...Brady is getting old...he NEEDS all pro weapons at every position or the Pats will be bad...get it??? do YOU want the Pats to be bad??? If only they had done what I wanted them to do, the Pats would have won five more Super Bowls!!! For real!!!

 

[patriotsdynasty12189]

I feel like most common fans dont realize how crippling giving those 2 contracts to Gronk and Ahern are especially with what has conspired since then... They werent bad deals at the time, I was actually worried about losing one or both of them when they ran out of their rookie deals so when they got reuped I was psyched....no body could predict what would happen...hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20

 

[Deus Irae]

The point I was making was that it came to the exact same conclusion as a CHFF article. If one was due to a pro-Patriots bias that set up the data to look a certain way, it must also be true for the CHFF article. Yet you don't seem to want to go there with that. Interesting.

It's not really interesting at all. You're trying to create a straw man by tossing out red herrings, and I'm not biting. It's really nothing more than that.

Have the Patriots drafted better than the Seahawks since Carroll came to power in Seattle? Have they drafted better than SF since Harbaugh went there? Just removing the SB era, and going from, say, 2005 or 2006, have the Patriots drafted better than any number of other teams?

Those questions are perfectly legitimate, and are completely ignored by the writer, because he wrote with a biased intent instead of actually looking for a legit story.

When you slant the data, you get slanted results. Peyton Manning is clearly better than Tom Brady, because he has more MVPs and gaudier compilation stats. Tom Brady is clearly better than Peyton Manning because he has more Super Bowls. Congrats. You cited an article that slanted the data based upon 2001-2004/2005 and lousy metrics, and grabbing Tom Brady in the 6th round. BB thinks so much of the Pro Bowl side of this that he cut Brandon Meriweather after a Pro Bowl season. It's a useless article because it's so woefully incomplete, but that's ok because it's pro-Patriots.

 

[ivanvamp]

It's not really interesting at all. You're trying to create a straw man by tossing out red herrings, and I'm not biting. It's really nothing more than that.

Have the Patriots drafted better than the Seahawks since Carroll came to power in Seattle? Have they drafted better than SF since Harbaugh went there? Just removing the SB era, and going from, say, 2005 or 2006, have the Patriots drafted better than any number of other teams?

Those questions are perfectly legitimate, and are completely ignored by the writer, because he wrote with a biased intent instead of actually looking for a legit story.

When you slant the data, you get slanted results. Peyton Manning is clearly better than Tom Brady, because he has more MVPs and gaudier compilation stats. Tom Brady is clearly better than Peyton Manning because he has more Super Bowls. Congrats. You cited an article that slanted the data based upon 2001-2004/2005, and grabbing Tom Brady in the 6th round. It's a useless article because it's so woefully incomplete, but that's ok because it's pro-Patriots.

In other words…..you've got nothing but your own opinions, and you're willing to cherry-pick the data to support those opinions.

Glad we got that straight.

Again, if you disagree, I present to you the challenge: How would you determine, objectively, how BB has done in the draft since he took over? What would YOUR methodology be? It's easy to offer cheap shots from the peanut gallery; it's a lot harder to do the actual work of putting the time and research in. Clearly you like doing the former and have not shown any inclination to do the latter.

Which is fine. Just as long as we all know where you're coming from.

 

[Deus Irae]

In other words…..you've got nothing but your own opinions, and you're willing to cherry-pick the data to support those opinions.

Glad we got that straight.

Again, if you disagree, I present to you the challenge: How would you determine, objectively, how BB has done in the draft since he took over? What would YOUR methodology be? It's easy to offer cheap shots from the peanut gallery; it's a lot harder to do the actual work of putting the time and research in. Clearly you like doing the former and have not shown any inclination to do the latter.

Which is fine. Just as long as we all know where you're coming from.

No....

In other words, I think BB has generally been a quality GM, and in the top 5 or so overall. I think that, while he had a terrible stretch with actual draft picks from 2006-2009, and while he's made some boneheaded calls when he tried to outthink the room, he's been about as good as anyone.

That doesn't magically make the article any good. It's still useless. It's basically another "I'll say that they're not cheap becaus they spend to the cap while not looking at actual cash outlays" sort of article (and, no, I'm not saying that they are cheap).

As for research, since when did accessing PFR and perusing the Pro Bowl numbers for players become some unachievable task?

 

[ivanvamp]

No....

In other words, I think BB has generally been a quality GM, and in the top 5 or so overall. I think that, while he had a terrible stretch with actual draft picks from 2006-2009, and while he's made some boneheaded calls when he tried to outthink the room, he's been about as good as anyone.

That doesn't magically make the article any good. It's still useless.

As for research, since when did accessing PFR and perusing the Pro Bowl numbers for players become some unachievable task?

So…..what will your methodology be and how will you objectively determine just how good BB has been compared to other teams? You're still just throwing out your personal opinions instead of offering something of substance. Criticize those two articles all you like (and by all means, do), but at least attempts were made to do research and offer objective measurements instead of just saying, "I think XYZ".

This recent exchange is not your best work, Deus. You're better than this.

 

[Deus Irae]

So…..what will your methodology be and how will you objectively determine just how good BB has been compared to other teams? You're still just throwing out your personal opinions instead of offering something of substance. Criticize those two articles all you like (and by all means, do), but at least attempts were made to do research and offer objective measurements instead of just saying, "I think XYZ".

This recent exchange is not your best work, Deus. You're better than this.

My exchange has been fine. Your decision to ignore the obvious is where the issue lies. You over-rely on statistical data frequently, even when the data sucks, and you're doing it here. For crying out loud, just removing Brady from the PFR's formula for AV takes the Patriots from #2 to #12 on just that one list, yet it's a tent pole argument for the article.

All you had to do was actually pay attention to the last half of the last sentence of one paragraph, and compare it to what was actually done, and you would have been able to see the Jupiter-sized hole in the author's argument:

Using pro-football-reference.com’s expansive database, I’ve taken time the past few months to put every draft pick from 2000-2012 into a spread sheet, along with numerous categories to analyze. The Patriots haven’t been the best in every possible way, but they are an elite NFL team when it comes to drafting, when the entire package is analyzed.

Instead, you took the blind adherent approach, got it wrong and have continued to double down.

 

[ivanvamp]

My exchange has been fine. Your decision to ignore the obvious is where the issue lies. You over-rely on statistical data frequently, even when the data sucks, and you're doing it here. For crying out loud, just removing Brady from the PFR's formula for AV takes the Patriots from #2 to #12 on just that one list, yet it's a tent pole argument for the article.

All you had to do was actually pay attention to the last half of the last sentence of one paragraph, and compare it to what was actually done, and you would have been able to see the Jupiter-sized hole in the author's argument:



Instead, you took the blind adherent approach, got it wrong and have continued to double down.

I've never said they were the best in every possible way. Just the best overall.

I'm willing to amend that to, "Belichick has been elite when it comes to drafting."

Either way, all the hand-wringing over BB when it comes to drafting is ludicrous. He makes plenty of mistakes. No doubt. Everyone does. Nobody can always get it right. Clearly he's great at drafting. Not just good, but great.

Still doesn't change the fact that you've offered nothing but your own opinions, and you have no objective measurement of drafting success. Just you throwing out wise cracks from the cheap seats.

 

[Deus Irae]

I've never said they were the best in every possible way. Just the best overall.

I'm willing to amend that to, "Belichick has been elite when it comes to drafting."

Either way, all the hand-wringing over BB when it comes to drafting is ludicrous. He makes plenty of mistakes. No doubt. Everyone does. Nobody can always get it right. Clearly he's great at drafting. Not just good, but great.

As I noted, I consider him to be about as good as anyone, and my issue was with the article and the way you were using it. It's good to see you're coming around.

Still doesn't change the fact that you've offered nothing but your own opinions, and you have no objective measurement of drafting success. Just you throwing out wise cracks from the cheap seats.

I offered multiple examples, and pointed to some problem areas. You chose to ignore that, because you were too busy digging in on a losing point instead of just acknowledging the obvious and going to a "yeah, but" position where we both agree (BB has been quite good overall, but has made some major screwups).

For goodness sakes, just looking back to players in the recent AFCCG, another blatantly obvious example of a problem with the article and its data usage is that, given how restricted the QB position, is in terms of numbers, for Pro Bowl and All Pro, keeping Manning off the list while including Brady leads to a huge Patriots advantage right off the bat.The article is useless because it slanted the data, ignored significant problems, and failed to make adjustments for obvious issues. That is independent of how good/bad BB has been as a GM.

 

[ivanvamp]

As I noted, I consider him to be about as good as anyone, and my issue was with the article and the way you were using it. It's good to see you're coming around.



I offered multiple examples, and pointed to some problem areas. You chose to ignore that, because you were too busy digging in on a losing point instead of just acknowledging the obvious and going to a "yeah, but" position where we both agree (BB has been quite good overall, but has made some major screwups).

For goodness sakes, just looking back to players in the recent AFCCG, another blatantly obvious example of a problem with the article and its data usage is that, given how restricted the QB position, is in terms of numbers, for Pro Bowl and All Pro, keeping Manning off the list while including Brady leads to a huge Patriots advantage right off the bat.The article is useless because it slanted the data, ignored significant problems, and failed to make adjustments for obvious issues. That is independent of how good/bad BB has been as a GM.

So no objective methodology, just your own opinion.

Thanks for confirming that, Deus.

 

[manxman2601]

You guys are killing my Top Ten Pats Homo status. Just killin' it!

I'm sure you used to be #1 or top 5. you souring on the Pats?

 

[manxman2601]

and now for this year's interest:

IF (note that's a big If), that's true, bank on Austin Sefarian-Jenkins or Troy Niklas being drafted.

 

[captain stone]

...A fair part of the reason Wallace wasn't getting those catches was because of two other things:

The play calling minimized Wallace's impact.
The QB didn't ever really figure out how to get on the same page with Wallace.

And one other thing: their OL was a mess, from Jake Long's departure to the Incognito-Martin love affair.

 

[captain stone]

IF (note that's a big If), that's true, bank on Austin Sefarian-Jenkins or Troy Niklas being drafted.

The very first thing that came to mind after reading Schefter's tweet: Bill's doubling-down
on TEs this year.