Risk, ceilings, floors & draft strategy

[patchick]

I think after rd3 of your chart, it is up to team preference/style.

Yeah, even I don't believe my chart. Just attempting to visualize the discussion.

 

[bucky]

Nice thesis. :rocker: I view your thinking here to be more "tactical," seeking immediate results, as opposed to a "strategic" approach which makes some allowance for tactical needs, but applies a longer term thought process to the draft.

Tactics are just the path you choose to achieve your strategic objective.

Perhaps there's some sort of lack of standardization by what we are all talking about when we say "floor" and "ceiling". I don't know that my definition would necessarily be correct, but when I say "floor", I mean - if this person doesn't get any better, where would he fit on my team? If the answer is - he wouldn't get on the 45 man roster, that's a low floor. Then there's the ceiling - what is the best this person can possibly be?

Between the "floor" and "ceiling", I think there are 2 very important items to consider:

1) How much does this player have to improve to become a contributor? I.E. how low is the floor?
2) How close is the person to his ceiling and what is the probability that a person is going to come close to the ceiling?

In my personal opinion, all the "ceiling"-related stuff is very hard to figure out. You can't just say a guy has a high ceiling because he's a great athlete. You have to factor in other attributes - size, character, work ethic, instincts, desire, competitiveness, etc. You look at a guy like Bruschi - I would say he surpassed any ceiling he could have had as a collegiate because of his dedication, instincts, and love of the game. You look at a guy like Watson - he has every physical and intangible characteristic you could possibly ask for, and yet he's still not able to fulfill his potential. I don't really know why, but presumably he just doesn't have the great instincts for the game.

It's easier to judge a guy's floor and say - "why isn't this guy good enough to make my team right now?" Is it technique? Effort on the field? If you can identify some things that can be worked on and improved over time, you have a pretty good idea of where the player will be over the course of a year or 2. That's not really identifying someone's ceiling, it's just figuring how far you can realistically raise the floor with some coaching.

So that's why I say - go with the highest floor guys. Everyone has potential to improve to improve, and some guys can improve even beyond their perceived ceiling.

I would also disagree that Wilfork was a low floor/high ceiling player. I think BB knew Wilfork was just a few techniques away from being a starting-caliber NT for them.

In terms of lower round guys, I would say that they all have low floors - that's why they're still around in the later rounds. I couldn't tell you why BB chose to draft Ruud instead of Guyton, but I think that even if Ruud had a higher floor, it was still very low. Obviously they misjudged Guyton in some area.

 

[bucky]

Yeah, even I don't believe my chart. Just attempting to visualize the discussion.

Interesting. If I were to chart my "board", the floor line would start at the top and slope downwards. At some point (depending on the depth of the draft) the slope would get steeper - representing the drop-off in quality of prospects.

The ceiling line would basically fluctuate randomly for the first few rounds. Then, at a certain point, the floor gets so low that it's less significant that the ceiling, so the ceiling would jump up a little at that point and then begin a steady slope downward.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Tactics are just the path you choose to achieve your strategic objective.

Yep, but it takes multiple paths, each one ending in a tactical or operational objective before a new path is established towards your strategic goal...and that's not counting changes in strategy brought about by Bill Polian and his friends on the Competition Committee.

Perhaps there's some sort of lack of standardization by what we are all talking about when we say "floor" and "ceiling". I don't know that my definition would necessarily be correct, but when I say "floor", I mean - if this person doesn't get any better, where would he fit on my team? If the answer is - he wouldn't get on the 45 man roster, that's a low floor. Then there's the ceiling - what is the best this person can possibly be?

BB has the standardization, we two get to discuss this with more ambiguity because we don't have the measurement tools the team does. That said, we can agree that there is a minimum floor to have value to the team, yet is it reasonable to have a 7th round floor that isn't enough to make the 53 man roster + 8? I can see setting the standard for round one as the 45 game day active list, but in what capacity? Meriweather was on Special Teams. Maroney, was platooning at the easiest position for a rookie to crack the roster, Wilfork was platooning with Traylor, Mankins was a draftnik consensus "reach" who started all 16 games. Out of those it looks like the minimum standard is Special Teams; adjusted for team needs and other factors that may apply, I'd say that's the lowest floor that meets your 45 man criteria.

Between the "floor" and "ceiling", I think there are 2 very important items to consider:

1) How much does this player have to improve to become a contributor? I.E. how low is the floor?
2) How close is the person to his ceiling and what is the probability that a person is going to come close to the ceiling?

In my personal opinion, all the "ceiling"-related stuff is very hard to figure out. You can't just say a guy has a high ceiling because he's a great athlete. You have to factor in other attributes - size, character, work ethic, instincts, desire, competitiveness, etc. You look at a guy like Bruschi - I would say he surpassed any ceiling he could have had as a collegiate because of his dedication, instincts, and love of the game. You look at a guy like Watson - he has every physical and intangible characteristic you could possibly ask for, and yet he's still not able to fulfill his potential. I don't really know why, but presumably he just doesn't have the great instincts for the game.

By definition every ceiling is going to be vague, it's a projection. Tell me BB knew Tommy Brady had a ceiling of NLF MVP? Super Bowl MVP x 2? He doesn't even hint that he might have thought that was possible. Tommy was just a solid kid from a good program who had enough going for him to be brought to camp with a late round pick - one of my 53 + 8 floors. Ceiling is a projection when you factor a whole bunch of variables and say, this kid has the room to grow. Indy did that with Peyton Manning too, the difference between his ceiling and Brady's, it was harder to see Brady's.

It's easier to judge a guy's floor and say - "why isn't this guy good enough to make my team right now?" Is it technique? Effort on the field? If you can identify some things that can be worked on and improved over time, you have a pretty good idea of where the player will be over the course of a year or 2. That's not really identifying someone's ceiling, it's just figuring how far you can realistically raise the floor with some coaching.

So that's why I say - go with the highest floor guys. Everyone has potential to improve to improve, and some guys can improve even beyond their perceived ceiling.

Sure it's easier, but NFL personnel people get it wrong all the time, which goes back to those standards. Yet, when you try to quantify everything, you get buried in the details and miss the big picture. Mike Reiss writes good news items and tries to give good details. If he was writing a story on Brady's knee injury, which is the more important detail for a fan, the number of ligaments damaged or the fact the damage will keep him from playing and Matt Cassel is now the #1 QB? Detail obsessive or big picture, we may want to know he's ruptured his ACLPCLMCLEIEIO, but it's not really important, Matt Cassel as #1 QB is important. So assessing a "floor" is good, once you can project him to have enough of a floor crack the 45 is it enough? Do you have to know if he will start, or can you say the tools are there and potential is good? Mankins was good enough to crack the 45, he probably graded out better than Hochstein - good start - now, does he have room to get better and maybe be All-Pro? I'm sure the Pats weren't projecting that, but they probably felt he was going to improve from a 6.9 to a 7.7 with potential to go as high as an 8.4-8.8. Good enough for round one then - he's an upgrade.

I would also disagree that Wilfork was a low floor/high ceiling player. I think BB knew Wilfork was just a few techniques away from being a starting-caliber NT for them.

Recheck my post, the word I used was "solid," not "low." Vince was drafted on potential as much as floor, as it was, he needed a season and a half with the equivalent of a season's worth of starts before the transformation from potential to reality began to manifest to the untrained Box_O_Rocks trying to breakdown TV recordings on his DVR. His floor wasn't rookie starter, it was platoon with a veteran, which made the 45, probably a late 20's - mid 30's score, but not one of the 22.

In terms of lower round guys, I would say that they all have low floors - that's why they're still around in the later rounds. I couldn't tell you why BB chose to draft Ruud instead of Guyton, but I think that even if Ruud had a higher floor, it was still very low. Obviously they misjudged Guyton in some area.

"Lower" floors than kids projected for round one, probably, but as I said above, a floor below the 53 + 8 line isn't worth much, so why use a draft pick on one? By college standards that puts that kid at a pretty high floor to start.

 

[bucky]

Box,

I'm not sure I follow all your logic here.

I think we're both in agreement that at some point, the floor is so low that it becomes less relevant in the overall evaluation of the prospect.

In my thinking, I'm not getting to the point of setting thresholds for a "round 1 floor" vs. "round 4 floor". I would rather evaluate a player vs the rest of my roster. What this means, obviously, is that positional need becomes a factor in the evaluation. If I'm deciding between a S who would be an immediate ST player and a starter next year, or an OT who is going to be a swing tackle for 3 years because I have 2 better tackles signed for that long - does it even matter how they grade out compared to each other? Note that I'm not looking for just immediate gratification here. I'm looking at 1 or 2 years down the road. But I don't think it's realistic to look any farther than that and say "oh for 2 years this guy will sit on the bench, then he'll become a rotation player, in 4 years he'll be a starter, and in 7 years he'll be a Pro Bowler". That's a near-impossible projection, IMO.

So, again to restate - floor means "how close is this player to contributing to my team and what type of contribution can he make." That's it.

There's no question that any evaluation can be potentially wrong. But I believe the hardest projection to make is how far a prospect will be able to travel from his floor to his ceiling.

Let's take an example:

Player A and Player B play the same position. Player A has a higher floor. Player B has a higher ceiling. By definition then, Player A will be able to contribute more to your team in the short term than Player B.

Let's also assume that like most players coming into the NFL these 2 players are going to improve over time. So now you have a situation where Player A is better than Player B and is going to improve. So how much will player B have to imporve to surpass player A, and how long is this going to take? If Player B's difference between floor and ceiling is that much higher, the chances that he's actually going to reach that ceiling are probably lower. You also have to factor in opportunity to earn playing time into the equation. If Player A is good enough to contribute in a rotation from Day 1, he may actually improve faster that Player B, who would be sitting on the Inactive roster and learning during practice. All of this doesn't even take into account the fact that if Player A is better than Player B today, there may be some reason for this that your scouting process did not account for that is preventing Player B from imporving and will continue to do so in the future.

All of these things put together, IMO, comprise the risk associated with drafing a higer ceiling player over one with a higher floor.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Box,

I'm not sure I follow all your logic here.

I think we're both in agreement that at some point, the floor is so low that it becomes less relevant in the overall evaluation of the prospect.

In my thinking, I'm not getting to the point of setting thresholds for a "round 1 floor" vs. "round 4 floor". I would rather evaluate a player vs the rest of my roster. What this means, obviously, is that positional need becomes a factor in the evaluation. If I'm deciding between a S who would be an immediate ST player and a starter next year, or an OT who is going to be a swing tackle for 3 years because I have 2 better tackles signed for that long - does it even matter how they grade out compared to each other? Note that I'm not looking for just immediate gratification here. I'm looking at 1 or 2 years down the road. But I don't think it's realistic to look any farther than that and say "oh for 2 years this guy will sit on the bench, then he'll become a rotation player, in 4 years he'll be a starter, and in 7 years he'll be a Pro Bowler". That's a near-impossible projection, IMO.

So, again to restate - floor means "how close is this player to contributing to my team and what type of contribution can he make." That's it.

There's no question that any evaluation can be potentially wrong. But I believe the hardest projection to make is how far a prospect will be able to travel from his floor to his ceiling.

Let's take an example:

Player A and Player B play the same position. Player A has a higher floor. Player B has a higher ceiling. By definition then, Player A will be able to contribute more to your team in the short term than Player B.

Let's also assume that like most players coming into the NFL these 2 players are going to improve over time. So now you have a situation where Player A is better than Player B and is going to improve. So how much will player B have to imporve to surpass player A, and how long is this going to take? If Player B's difference between floor and ceiling is that much higher, the chances that he's actually going to reach that ceiling are probably lower. You also have to factor in opportunity to earn playing time into the equation. If Player A is good enough to contribute in a rotation from Day 1, he may actually improve faster that Player B, who would be sitting on the Inactive roster and learning during practice. All of this doesn't even take into account the fact that if Player A is better than Player B today, there may be some reason for this that your scouting process did not account for that is preventing Player B from imporving and will continue to do so in the future.

All of these things put together, IMO, comprise the risk associated with drafing a higer ceiling player over one with a higher floor.

Seems like you're overthinking it. You have the grades on the prospects, you have the grades on your current players - to be valid, there needs to be some projection for the prospect's development.

Let's take popular whipping boy Matt Light and the two OTs expected to be available around #23:
- Eben Britton (NFL Draft Scout grade 6.96)
- William Beatty (NFLDS grade 6.58)

So what score must Light have to make one of these kids viable upgrades? For argument's sake, if Light - an 8 year starter with two Pro Bowls - had a grade of 7.5, would either of these kids have the potential to unseat him? There's your challenge, can either of these two rise far enough above their floor (grade) to make it worth drafting them to replace Light?

 

[DocE]

First off, this is a great thread- I geeked out and read every post.

In my own personal view, the player a position plays has a huge impact on my opinion of the floors/ceilings discussion especially in regards to the area of the draft where you take that player.

To purposely avoid the LB discussion, I will talk Left Tackles. I would rather risk drafting a Left Tackle early who might be a complete bust but has flashed the potential (through game tape, measurables, etc) to be excellent than I would taking a lower ceiling Left Tackle that is much more ready to play. The high ceiling guy has the opportunity to be an elite player at a premium position, while the low ceiling guy will give you adequate play at a position that is very tough to fill. At a premium position, you are always looking to upgrade from someone who plays the position adequately.

If you get to the 4th round and have a need on your team for a BACKUP Tackle, then the lower ceiling guy makes more sense. You know he can play in the league, you just don't think he can be a starter. That guy has a lot more value to you at that point than a guy who might not be able to play at all, but if the light goes on (low wonderlic, weight issues, etc) could not only play in the league, but be a starter.

 

[mayoclinic]

First off, this is a great thread- I geeked out and read every post.

In my own personal view, the player a position plays has a huge impact on my opinion of the floors/ceilings discussion especially in regards to the area of the draft where you take that player.

To purposely avoid the LB discussion, I will talk Left Tackles. I would rather risk drafting a Left Tackle early who might be a complete bust but has flashed the potential (through game tape, measurables, etc) to be excellent than I would taking a lower ceiling Left Tackle that is much more ready to play. The high ceiling guy has the opportunity to be an elite player at a premium position, while the low ceiling guy will give you adequate play at a position that is very tough to fill. At a premium position, you are always looking to upgrade from someone who plays the position adequately.

If you get to the 4th round and have a need on your team for a BACKUP Tackle, then the lower ceiling guy makes more sense. You know he can play in the league, you just don't think he can be a starter. That guy has a lot more value to you at that point than a guy who might not be able to play at all, but if the light goes on (low wonderlic, weight issues, etc) could not only play in the league, but be a starter.

That's essentially the argument I have been following in advocating using one of our top 2 picks (23 or 34) on William Beatty, who is a high ceiling/low floor LT, and is also the logic behind why I prefer Beatty to Eben Britton - higher ceiling, even though lower floor. BB seems to have followed your logic as well when he picked Nick Kaczur at the end of the 3rd round in 2005, who is a classic high floor/low ceiling guy.

 

[maverick4]

Box,

I'm not sure I follow all your logic here.

...I would rather evaluate a player vs the rest of my roster.

I believe that is exactly how BB does it, and has said so in previous press conferences. He looks at everything in context in relation to how it helps his football team, and how a player fits related to his current roster.

You wrote a lot of text, but it's probably not worth your time to write more explaining to Box, it's over his head.

 

[dryheat44]

---- I can't say that Sintim is an improvement on projected starters Adalius Thomas and Pierre Woods, at best he's the equivalent of Woods. Which is why I no longer consider him a good first round value for NE, he doesn't upgrade anything.

Well, even if you're right...and I don't think you are in that a) Woods is equal to Sintim, or that b) Sintim has reached his ceiling....but starting with the premise that you're correct on both accounts, it still makes sense if you think that starting OLB is an important position. Woods is playing on a RFA tender and could move on in 2010 (unlikely if uncapped year, but still possible). Likewise Thomas's play could dip as his salary spikes, and make him a cap casualty. If you would evaluate Sintim as a player that could contribute at OLB and STs this year, then he'd be fine as a first round selection. Note that I have him ranked as an early second rounder myself.

 

[patchick]

I would rather evaluate a player vs the rest of my roster.

Agreed, and I like this direction the thread has taken. But...

Let's take an example:

Player A and Player B play the same position. Player A has a higher floor. Player B has a higher ceiling. By definition then, Player A will be able to contribute more to your team in the short term than Player B.

It seems to me that you've just redefined "floor" as level of immediate readiness rather than what's the likely worst-case scenario for how this player turns out, which is how I usually think of the term "floor."

In many cases, the two definitions are equivalent. For instance, Bethel Johnson's immediate readiness was as a kick returner, and his likely worst case scenario (LWCS) was nothing but a kick returner.

But sometimes they diverge. For an extreme example, Pacman Jones was ready to contribute immediately, and in fact started most of his rookie year. Yet plenty of teams scratched him from their boards because his all-too-likely LWCS was a total flameout. On a less dramatic level, you have CBs whose LWCS is a move to free safety, regardless of their readiness.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

Not sure if it is worth clarifying that are most posters talking about strategy for the Pats or for strategy of being an armchair HC / GM.

Because obviously the pressure on most HC's is for quick results/ turnaround, which for me would suggest the 'highest floor' strategy. However with a few rings on the finger, BB has the time and coaching staff to coach up players which would suggest the 'highest ceiling' strategy.

Very simplistic and many more variables to consider (which round is the pick in?), holes on team, etc.

Furthermore, it was posted earlier about when close to championship caliber team, - just need one more piece to go 'over the top' - isn't that what the high price FA's are supposed to be for?

 

[jeffbiologist]

Floors and cielings are only determined by coachability not athleticm on this team. If everyone was equally coachable BB could win super bowls with any of us buying the groceries. In the past we have been safe in the first round, and in most of the draft--saving the "risk" on big time FA LBs(Thomas,Colvin)and malcontents(Moss, Dillon). With our multitude of picks I can see a shotgun approach over our typical sniper shots(trades)....It would be perfect to be able to get 4 good players in positions of need with the first 4 picks and trade our 3rd into 2010, but I can also see us using one of these 2s to make a Welker, Starks, Dillon-type trade draft day. This would lessen the "risk" even further. With so many 08 rookies making the team we are now getting young fast, too fast. I dont see more than 5 draft picks with a shot at making the team.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Note that I have him ranked as an early second rounder myself.

Same here.

 

[AzPatsFan]

This is a nice discussion but all our opinions don't matter compared to a guy like Belichick.

Belichick had a presser and talked about how devastating it is to a team to miss on a First Round draft choice. He said he will experiment and gamble with other picks, but wants to get sure First Round Value and sure First Round Contribution.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

This is a nice discussion but all our opinions don't matter compared to a guy like Belichick.

Belichick had a presser and talked about how devastating it is to a team to miss on a First Round draft choice. He said he will experiment and gamble with other picks, but wants to get sure First Round Value and sure First Round Contribution.

Your opinion doesn't matter.

 

[Seneschal2]

Let's return to the days of evaluating prospects based on how they fit within the Pats roster. Potential impact player, solid starter by year two, role player but probably not starter material, are all phrases Belichick has mentioned when describing his ranking system. I really can't imagine him uttering the words floor and ceiling while studying game film.

 

[bucky]

Seems like you're overthinking it. You have the grades on the prospects, you have the grades on your current players - to be valid, there needs to be some projection for the prospect's development.

Let's take popular whipping boy Matt Light and the two OTs expected to be available around #23:
- Eben Britton (NFL Draft Scout grade 6.96)
- William Beatty (NFLDS grade 6.58)

So what score must Light have to make one of these kids viable upgrades? For argument's sake, if Light - an 8 year starter with two Pro Bowls - had a grade of 7.5, would either of these kids have the potential to unseat him? There's your challenge, can either of these two rise far enough above their floor (grade) to make it worth drafting them to replace Light?

Well I'm thinking things through as I go through the process here. I'm not pretending to have this down cold. So even if I'm over thinking, it's all part of the process. Having said that, I think your example below is overly simplistic. Even if I said that Beatty had the potential of a 8.0 grade, that doesn't really tell the whole story. And I'll address that below.

It seems to me that you've just redefined "floor" as level of immediate readiness rather than what's the likely worst-case scenario for how this player turns out, which is how I usually think of the term "floor."

In many cases, the two definitions are equivalent. For instance, Bethel Johnson's immediate readiness was as a kick returner, and his likely worst case scenario (LWCS) was nothing but a kick returner.

But sometimes they diverge. For an extreme example, Pacman Jones was ready to contribute immediately, and in fact started most of his rookie year. Yet plenty of teams scratched him from their boards because his all-too-likely LWCS was a total flameout. On a less dramatic level, you have CBs whose LWCS is a move to free safety, regardless of their readiness.

This is a very valid point. There are some players who have "red flags" that could make them actually get worse as time progresses - weight concerns, character issues, stuff like that. That obviously has to be taken into account. I'm not sure whether it plays into the floor-ceiling calculation, or just a separate "risk" item that must be taken into account. To me, I would define "floor" as where the player is right now - compared to the rest of my roster. So maybe there are actually 3 things I need to consider:

1) The floor - what will the player's role/contribution be right now?
2) The realistic projection - what will the player's role/contribution be after 1-2 years in the system?
3) The ceiling - what's the top end potential?


I would then argue that item 1 is easiest to evaluate. Still very far from fool-proof or risk-free, but easier than the other projections.

The "realistic" or "short term" projection to me actually becomes the most important. The reason for that is because I'm trying to project how much a player will improve within a realistic time frame provided that he's in my team's strength program, learning the techniques, etc. This is where you also have to consider the likelihood of the player going downhill due to off-field issues. So in the LT example, maybe I decide that Beatty will be a 7.0 in 2 years and that's not good enough for me to start at LT. And that's exactly when Light's contract is up. So my projection is that I'll need an LT in 2 years and Beatty won't be it. At this point, it's almost irrelevant whether Betty's ceiling is 7.4 or 8.5.

The final item - the ceiling - only seems easy. There have been plenty of OLBs in the NFL with LT's athleticism. And yet none of them have ever been as good. So there are so many factors that go into factoring a player's potential, it almost becomes a useless item if you look at it in a vacuum.

Again, I use Watson as an example. The guy has every possible characteristic you could ask for - physical, athletic, and intangible. Yet something is preventing him from becoming one of the best TEs in the NFL. The good thing about Watson was that he had a very solid floor. So even though he's not reaching his ceiling and his "short-term" progress wasn't that huge over his floor, it was still good enough to be a starting TE. So to me, ceiling is the least important of the 3 categories. Yes, it still means something, but only after I've evaluated the floor and the short-term projection.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Well I'm thinking things through as I go through the process here. I'm not pretending to have this down cold. So even if I'm over thinking, it's all part of the process. Having said that, I think your example below is overly simplistic. Even if I said that Beatty had the potential of a 8.0 grade, that doesn't really tell the whole story. And I'll address that below.



This is a very valid point. There are some players who have "red flags" that could make them actually get worse as time progresses - weight concerns, character issues, stuff like that. That obviously has to be taken into account. I'm not sure whether it plays into the floor-ceiling calculation, or just a separate "risk" item that must be taken into account. To me, I would define "floor" as where the player is right now - compared to the rest of my roster. So maybe there are actually 3 things I need to consider:

1) The floor - what will the player's role/contribution be right now?
2) The realistic projection - what will the player's role/contribution be after 1-2 years in the system?
3) The ceiling - what's the top end potential?


I would then argue that item 1 is easiest to evaluate. Still very far from fool-proof or risk-free, but easier than the other projections.

The "realistic" or "short term" projection to me actually becomes the most important. The reason for that is because I'm trying to project how much a player will improve within a realistic time frame provided that he's in my team's strength program, learning the techniques, etc. This is where you also have to consider the likelihood of the player going downhill due to off-field issues. So in the LT example, maybe I decide that Beatty will be a 7.0 in 2 years and that's not good enough for me to start at LT. And that's exactly when Light's contract is up. So my projection is that I'll need an LT in 2 years and Beatty won't be it. At this point, it's almost irrelevant whether Betty's ceiling is 7.4 or 8.5.

The final item - the ceiling - only seems easy. There have been plenty of OLBs in the NFL with LT's athleticism. And yet none of them have ever been as good. So there are so many factors that go into factoring a player's potential, it almost becomes a useless item if you look at it in a vacuum.

Again, I use Watson as an example. The guy has every possible characteristic you could ask for - physical, athletic, and intangible. Yet something is preventing him from becoming one of the best TEs in the NFL. The good thing about Watson was that he had a very solid floor. So even though he's not reaching his ceiling and his "short-term" progress wasn't that huge over his floor, it was still good enough to be a starting TE. So to me, ceiling is the least important of the 3 categories. Yes, it still means something, but only after I've evaluated the floor and the short-term projection.

Good discussion, I like your answer.

The nice thing about the O-line, Dante can plug rookies in and get good results - as four of the current starters indicate. So I agree drafting Beatty within the context of our hypotheticals isn't a good value (it isn't in the "real" world either, but I'd have to arm wrestle mayoclinic to make my point). Let's take this back to OLB which, so far, has demonstrated a different progression timeline in NE.

TBC and Woods needed 3 and 2 seasons respectively to earn the #3 OLB slot on the roster. Both were servicable. BB now has third rounder Crable on the roster, he's more experienced coming out of Michigan than Woods, but he's not as athletic - both men also had some maturity questions to be pondered when they were signed/drafted. We can project the more experienced Crable to take at least the same progression timeline as his more athletic friend, game reps by the end of the 2009 season, if not sooner due to injury. That puts him on track for #3 OLB in 2010 when TBC is a UFA and Woods is either an RFA or a UFA. The question here relates to strengths, Dean Pees says Woods is a strong edge rusher, NCAA statistics says Crable is an excellent run stuffer. Woods hasn't demonstrated that edge rush's effectiveness in a game yet, and for various reasons, he didn't do it in college - at this point it's a projection. Crable struggled setting the edge in preseason, technique and strength issues. Prior to the draft next April, NE's #2, 3, & 4 OLBs - as we fans project them - have only TBC's 5 sacks in 2006 to project any edge rush to bookend Adalius (and he's on a one year contract) and Woods (whom some claim can't set the edge) is the best run defender of the three. Additionally, coverage is a big questionmark for all three.

Three part question:
-- Does NE draft an OLB prospect in this draft?
-- Which prospect has the floor you're looking for (and what is that floor)?
-- What is his "realistic" projection?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Let's return to the days of evaluating prospects based on how they fit within the Pats roster. Potential impact player, solid starter by year two, role player but probably not starter material, are all phrases Belichick has mentioned when describing his ranking system. I really can't imagine him uttering the words floor and ceiling while studying game film.

No, but he does ask what does this kid do well that will benefit the team...there's room to consider how he might develop in there.