Reiss: Peter King 2001 draft grades

[JR4]

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

How do you give a team a C- when they get the best DL guy in the NFL today
, a probowler, and a very good left Tackle whom go on to win 3 superbowls?

Ok rest of draft not so good but that alone should rate a B, Mr. King.

 

[Remix 6]

because rest of guys besides first 2 picks arent with us and werent really great or anything..draft doesnt consist of 2 players to make you a succesfull draft

 

[BelichickFan]

It wasn't a strong draft overall but when you get a HoF DL and a solid starting LT in one draft, that's no worse than a B to me.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Football Outsider's has a thread on this, and most people, even non-Pats fans, are saying that Seymour essentially made the whole draft, with Matt Light being some icing on the cake.

Some punk from New Orleans cracked his usual 'Worshipping in Belichick's Cult' crap which he uses in every thread about the Pats.

 

[shakadave]

To all the Peter King bashers, I say this is a great article for generating discussion. We all know it takes a few years to grade a draft, but how often do other sports writers write this type of article? And think of all the work needed to write this much about EACH team in the league! Thank you, Peter King.

Now I'd really like to read a similar article for the 2002 and 2003 drafts. Does anybody have one?

 

[Mike the Brit]

I'm not normally a Peter King fan, but this was one of his better articles. He laid out his criteria and stuck to them. The Bengals really did have a fantastic draft.

 

[14thDragon]

because rest of guys besides first 2 picks arent with us and werent really great or anything..draft doesnt consist of 2 players to make you a succesfull draft

Making a great pick at 6 and then making one more good move really is C- quality drafting. Not even decent back-ups came out of this motley crew. It is one of the worst drafts of BB/SP era, but everyone gets a clunker.

I think King was mistaken by calling this a draft in BB/SP prime, they were still getting the hang of things. Despite the As always given out for the 2000 draft and stealing Tom Brady, the rest of the draft was a bit of a bust, only Pass is still with the team. The draft strategy was a work in progress.

I would say the Drafting didn't start to really get good until 2002 and has been getting progressively better.

 

[PonyExpress]

How about this way of ranking a draft 5 years later: Rank every player from the 2001 draft from best to worst, as though redoing the draft by quality 5 years later. Then assign each player a point value according to their new "draft" position from the Draft Value Chart. Then add up the cumulative "new" points of the players each team drafted, and compare it with the cumulative "old" draft points each team had with their original picks. If the "new" points are more than the "old" ones, it was a productive draft. If less, it was not... Going by this theory, Seymour would probably be #2 behind Tomlinson, and Light, a proven Left Tackle, would be at least in the 20s. Those moves up the board would more than compensate for every other player in a draft being a bust, by a wide margin.

 

[14thDragon]

Now I'd really like to read a similar article for the 2002 and 2003 drafts. Does anybody have one?

Well, according to King, he prefers to do his anaylis 5 years later after all the uncertainty has been taken out of the equation. So next year we can find out what he thought.

Maybe we can find his anylisis of the 2000 draft. He take right after it was Redmond was going to be an every down back by week 4 and rushing for 1200 yards. So there is a good reason by waiting for 5 years.

 

[shakadave]

How about this way of ranking a draft 5 years later: Rank every player from the 2001 draft from best to worst, as though redoing the draft by quality 5 years later. Then assign each player a point value according to their new "draft" position from the Draft Value Chart. Then add up the cumulative "new" points of the players each team drafted, and compare it with the cumulative "old" draft points each team had with their original picks. If the "new" points are more than the "old" ones, it was a good draft. If less, it was not. Just a thought.

This makes good mathematical sense. It would be tough to rank all the players (e.g. deciding who's Player#88 vs. who's Player#89) but you could even group them into value groups of 5-10 players. Also, you'd need a way to assign points to the best players, probably different from just saying Player1=200 points, Player2=199, Player3=198, etc., since the best players are more than incrementally better than the rest. Instead, you'd want something sort of like the "books" for trading draft picks.

 

[patriotsrule]

Making a great pick at 6 and then making one more good move really is C- quality drafting. Not even decent back-ups came out of this motley crew. It is one of the worst drafts of BB/SP era, but everyone gets a clunker.

I think King was mistaken by calling this a draft in BB/SP prime, they were still getting the hang of things. Despite the As always given out for the 2000 draft and stealing Tom Brady, the rest of the draft was a bit of a bust, only Pass is still with the team. The draft strategy was a work in progress.

I would say the Drafting didn't start to really get good until 2002 and has been getting progressively better.

Well said. I agre with the C- grade for this draft. It's true they got one great player and one good player but I think even BB would tell you it takes much more than that to make a successful draft. Just look at last year. Mankins, Hobbs, Kaczur, Sanders and Cassel could all wind up being contributors for this team. To me, that's a much more successful overall draft than just getting two starters, even if one of them is great. A would probably say C just because of Seymour but can't argue with a C-.

 

[PonyExpress]

This makes good mathematical sense. It would be tough to rank all the players (e.g. deciding who's Player#88 vs. who's Player#89) but you could even group them into value groups of 5-10 players. Also, you'd need a way to assign points to the best players, probably different from just saying Player1=200 points, Player2=199, Player3=198, etc., since the best players are more than incrementally better than the rest. Instead, you'd want something sort of like the "books" for trading draft picks.

Shakadave,
If you look at the Trade Value Chart for the draft, it does the point assignment for us. Here is a link:http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/6330687

 

[Mike the Brit]

How about this way of ranking a draft 5 years later: Rank every player from the 2001 draft from best to worst, as though redoing the draft by quality 5 years later. Then assign each player a point value according to their new "draft" position from the Draft Value Chart. Then add up the cumulative "new" points of the players each team drafted, and compare it with the cumulative "old" draft points each team had with their original picks. If the "new" points are more than the "old" ones, it was a productive draft. If less, it was not... Going by this theory, Seymour would probably be #2 behind Tomlinson, and Light, a proven Left Tackle, would be at least in the 20s. Those moves up the board would more than compensate for every other player in a draft being a bust, by a wide margin.

That's an excellent idea, although IMHO the draft value chart is too steeply curved at the top. And you wouldn't get any credit for a guy who played well for four years and then went out of the league with a career-ending injury. But nothing's perfect.

Why don't you e-mail King with the suggestion?

 

[drpatriot]

Though I agree that this draft was in the C range somewhere, I don't understand how he can justify putting Jacksonville (DL Marcus Stroud, OT Mike Williams, that's it) four places in front of New England (DL Richard Seymour, OT Matt Light, that's it). Though Stroud is good, Seymour is debatably the best DL in the NFL. Though I don't know Maurice Williams' play style, in 2004 (when both started) Football Outsiders ranks running plays behind Light as #8 in the league whereas running plays behind Williams were #22 in the league. The Patriots wer also ranked above the Jaguars in pass protection that year, though specific stats aren't shown. And these stats don't take the Pats' three Super Bowls into account, either.

A fewer other points:
-If the Seahawks (G Hutchinson, CB Lucas, that's it) are ranked in front of the Patriots, they should probably be ranked in front of the Jaguars as well.
-The Eagles, who have no remaining contributors and only one standout player (Derrick Burgess) are ranked far too highly; I would put them at least below Tennessee, who had a similar situation with better players drafted, at #23, and probably closer to the Giants at #26.

 

[arrellbee]

To all the Peter King bashers, I say this is a great article for generating discussion. We all know it takes a few years to grade a draft, but how often do other sports writers write this type of article? And think of all the work needed to write this much about EACH team in the league! Thank you, Peter King.

Now I'd really like to read a similar article for the 2002 and 2003 drafts. Does anybody have one?

I think PonyExpress and Mike the Brit have good points about some weighting. But it's almost the inverse of the trade value chart. And I think you have to figure out some weighting where you add some points AND subtract some points. Especially in the 1st, but overall in other rounds also, if you are picking high in a round you should lose significantly more points and gain fewer points than teams drafting in the low part of the rounds.

For example, you should get at least a solid starter with a 1st round pick and that shouldn't get you any points. If you get a pro bowler and/or a All Pro, you get a FEW extra points. If you don't even get a starter, you should LOSE a LOT of points.

With a second round pick, you get a few points if you get a solid starter. You probably neither get points or lose points if your 2nd rounder gets a lot reps as a 2nd man on the depth chart. You get MORE points to your credit if you get a ProBowler/All Pro with your second round pick than you would if it were a 1st round pick. If you don't get a player who at least gets a lot of reps, you lose a fair number of points but nowhere near what you would if it were a 1st round pick.

And so on. Where you score BIG points is if you get a 5th, 6th, or 7th rounder who starts and even bigger points if they are a probowler caliber. Every heard of guys by the name of Tom Brady, Patrick Pass, and David Givens ??

Under this kind of a weighting system and with 65% of the clubs gettting busts from their 1st round picks each year, you would be hard put to figure that the Patriots aren't one of the top 5 drafting teams. How can that be any lower than an A- or a B+ ??

Successful drafts (B- to A) probably get you a couple starters and a solid backup with lots of reps as a rough qualitative feel. Here are names for for 2001 to 2004:
2004 - Wilfork, Watson
2003 - Warren, Wilson, Samuel, Koppen, Banta-Cain
2002 - Graham, Branch, Green, Givens
2001 - Seymour, Light
So 2001 and 2004 look a little light (excuse any puns) but when you get solid starters and a probowler in your 1st round picks and solid starters in your 2nd round picks, I'm not sure how you could be rated less than a B-.
2003 looks like a banner year both in terms of number of solid players and in any weighting system - at least an A.
2002 Looks like a very good year also. Branch, Green and Givens as 2nd, 4th, and 7th round picks probably add up pretty well in a weighted assessment and Graham doesn't lose you any points - probably at least an A-.

Just some thoughts for fun.

 

[onegameatatime]

A agree that one very solid lineman and one great DE deserves better.

How about 2000? No first, a few busts, and then Brady in the 6th and Pass in the 7th. Talk about making it up at the end. We did also get JR Redmond, so we had 2 of the 4 people most responsible for the drive to win in 2001 (others being Troy and Adam). Would this get a C-?

2003 looks like the best year for depth.

 

[Urgent]

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

How do you give a team a C- when they get the best DL guy in the NFL today
, a probowler, and a very good left Tackle whom go on to win 3 superbowls?

Ok rest of draft not so good but that alone should rate a B, Mr. King.

Simple.

You rate the draft solely based on number of players remaining on a roster after five years, whether yours or someone else's, with extra credit for Day Two picks.

So, the Pats are rated #20 because only two players remain from that draft. They happen to be good players, but that's not what he rated.

The Eagles, at #17, are rated better than the Patriots because they selected:
Freddie Mitchell - out
Quinton Caver - out
Derrick Burgess - injured with Eagles, but played for Raiders last season
Correll Buckalter - injured but on the roster
AJ Feeley - back-up QB

Denver is at #13, based on:
Willie Middlebrooks - out
Paul Toviessi - out
Reggie Haywood - left Denver, still playing
Ben Hamilton - starter at guard
Nick Harris - punter with Detroit

So the Eagles and Denver, with those drafts, rated better -- under his system.

You might question the relative value of:
Richard Seymour & Matt Light
Correll Buckalter & AJ Feeley
Ben Hamilton

What it does point out, however, is the huge risks any Day Two candidates present. The Pats picks after Round Two:
Brock Williams, Kenyatta Jones, Jabari Holloway, Hakim Akbar, Arther Love, Leonard Myers, Owen Pochman, T.J. Turner
Nothing. Those are players Belichick and Pioli studied, watched, tested, interviewed, selected, and coached.

 

[ayjackson]

the grading seems a bit inconsistent...Denver got a slightly better grade than us with only Reggie Hayward and OG Hamilton....very similar players, DL and OL, but ours are clearly better and both still with the team.

 

[ayjackson]

the grading seems a bit inconsistent...Denver got a slightly better grade than us with only Reggie Hayward and OG Hamilton....very similar players, DL and OL, but ours are clearly better and both still with the team.

oh....in other words, what Urgent said.

 

[DaBruinz]

If King can give the Chargers a B for Tomlinson and Brees and a C to the Jags for Stroud and Williams, then the Pats should get a B- at the very worst for Seymour and Light. Also, it should be noted that Jabari Holloway, Hakim Akbar, Brock Williams and Owen Pochman all went to other teams after the Patriots and I believe that Akbar and Williams are still in the league.

Seattle had a damn good draft and King plunked them as hard as he did the Patriots.

King is all over the map on his rankings.