Scouts Inc. casts critical eye on Pats' draft strategy

[eom]

Teach. Point being, where would we be without teachers and writers?

the point being that those that can't do, teach, and apparently that's all aristotle could do, so what's to take issue with?
seems to be more reinforcing than contradicting, to me.

I don't remember anybody saying we should purge all the teachers.

anyway, it was a stupid article written by a nitwit.

 

[unoriginal]

Belichick's draft history results with the Patriots would seem to go against you. Taking Brady (6th round, obvious 'luck' pick as opposed to the comprehensive strategies we're discussing) out of the equation, who are the best 5 draft picks of the BB era?

Seymour
Wilfork
Warren
Mankins
Light


The trade down strategy really wasn't being implemented there. Then, adding Meriweather and Mayo to the mix, you get a trade down for Mayo, but the pick was still in the top ten of the entire draft.

They actually did trade down for Light. They entered the draft sitting at 39.

 

[Deus Irae]

They actually did trade down for Light. They entered the draft sitting at 39.

Understood, but I was referring to the group as a whole as opposed to them individually. Also, as I noted, Mayo was a drop, but still a top 10 pick. I thought that needed to be singled out specifically for that.

Statistically, you're more likely to hit on a monster talent when you're drafting higher. Statistically, your 1st round picks will become starters more often than your second round picks, etc...

Trading down is a move to increase picks, but it does so at the cost of decreasing the likelihood of getting a monster talent.

I was looking for these statistics, and I couldn't pull up the site I normally start with, so I did a google search. This guy's just a bleacherreport writer, but he claims to have the stats:

The top 10 players have a 56 percent chance of making the Pro Bowl and average 2.05 Pro Bowls per player.

Players selected between 11-20 have a 39 percent chance of making the Pro Bowl and average 1.28 Pro Bowls per player.

Players selected between 21-30 have a 26 percent chance of making the Pro Bowl, and average .81 Pro Bowls per player.

2010 NFL Draft: Does Trading for Draft Picks Make Sense? Ask Jerome Bettis | Bleacher Report




* Hey, on a tangent, as opposed to being directly in response to your post.... I found something that might interest you. It's from 2007, but it breaks down first round draft success by position (on the field, not draft position). Enjoy and, if you've seen it before, my apologies for wasting your time.

Kluck: Wrapping up the draft - ESPN Page 2

 

[BSR]

Belichick's draft history results with the Patriots would seem to go against you. Taking Brady (6th round, obvious 'luck' pick as opposed to the comprehensive strategies we're discussing) out of the equation, who are the best 5 draft picks of the BB era?

Seymour
Wilfork
Warren
Mankins
Light


The trade down strategy really wasn't being implemented there. Then, adding Meriweather and Mayo to the mix, you get a trade down for Mayo, but the pick was still in the top ten of the entire draft.

So your list is:

Seymour
Wilfork - Baltimore pick traded for from previous year
Warren
Mankins
Light - Traded down
Meriweather
Mayo - traded down and San Fran pick traded for from previous year

So of your seven picks, almost half are related to trading down or trading out of a particular draft. I'm really not sure what your point is or how this is supposed to go against my points. It would seem that the trading down strategy does bear some results.

Again, I think it is fair criticism that BB hasn't done a good job with the many early round picks (1-3) he has had over the years. But I see no reasonable argument as to why the trading down/out to acquire mulitple picks in this round is a questionable one.

 

[eom]

Understood, but I was referring to the group as a whole as opposed to them individually. Also, as I noted, Mayo was a drop, but still a top 10 pick. I thought that needed to be singled out specifically for that.

Statistically, you're more likely to hit on a monster talent when you're drafting higher. Statistically, your 1st round picks will become starters more often than your second round picks, etc...

Trading down is a move to increase picks, but it does so at the cost of decreasing the likelihood of getting a monster talent.

I was looking for these statistics, and I couldn't pull up the site I normally start with, so I did a google search. This guy's just a bleacherreport writer, but he claims to have the stats:

The top 10 players have a 56 percent chance of making the Pro Bowl and average 2.05 Pro Bowls per player.

Players selected between 11-20 have a 39 percent chance of making the Pro Bowl and average 1.28 Pro Bowls per player.

Players selected between 21-30 have a 26 percent chance of making the Pro Bowl, and average .81 Pro Bowls per player.

I've probably been too negative lately, and I don't mean to turn on a regular, but this is entirely nonsensical.

"Trading down is a move to increase picks, but it does so at the cost of decreasing the likelihood of getting a monster talent."

this would be true if you traded down and got NOTHING FRICKIN' BACK for the traded pick, and in that case I agree 100% with your logic.
but, if I trade down from #22 to #27 and in so doing add two more players to my haul, I'm pretty sure that my chances of netting a talented player GO UP!!

I think somebody already mentioned that mayo, used as an example of success in the article, and falling into your highest grouping of talent, was acquired by trading out of the first in '07, and this is all beside the point that it's very possible that the pats would have taken mccourty at 22, and I defy anyone to explain to me how mccourty at 22 is more of a playmaker than the mccourty value meal at 27 with the fries and the drink thrown in.

 

[Deus Irae]

So your list is:

Seymour
Wilfork - Baltimore pick traded for from previous year
Warren
Mankins
Light - Traded down
Meriweather
Mayo - traded down and San Fran pick traded for from previous year

So of your seven picks, almost half are related to trading down or trading out of a particular draft. I'm really not sure what your point is or how this is supposed to go against my points. It would seem that the trading down strategy does bear some results.

Again, I think it is fair criticism that BB hasn't done a good job with the many early round picks (1-3) he has had over the years. But I see no reasonable argument as to why the trading down/out to acquire mulitple picks in this round is a questionable one.

1.) Mayo was a trade down that was specifically targeted to one player still taken in the top 10, and certainly doesn't fall into what Belichick's "value" strategy as he was describing it on Monday, although the basic concept is the same. Are you seriously trying to compare that to trading down to get any one of a group of players once you're outside the top 10? Come on, now.

2.) Wilfork wasn't a trade down.

That leaves you 1 out of 7 (counting Meriweather) that really fits the bill, and that 1 is the only one that was a move in the second round. That's nowhere near 50%. Even counting Mayo, it's still 5-2 in favor of NOT dropping down when talking about that group of picks.

 

[Deus Irae]

I've probably been too negative lately, and I don't mean to turn on a regular, but this is entirely nonsensical.

"Trading down is a move to increase picks, but it does so at the cost of decreasing the likelihood of getting a monster talent."

this would be true if you traded down and got NOTHING FRICKIN' BACK for the traded pick, and in that case I agree 100% with your logic.
but, if I trade down from #22 to #27 and in so doing add two more players to my haul, I'm pretty sure that my chances of netting a talented player GO UP!!

You'd be incorrect. Or, more accurately, the likelihood will depend on just what picks you gain in the trade, but your success rate is likely to have gone down overall, and almost certainly to have gone down with regards to the 2 picks in the same round. As a general rule (see the stats, common sense), the lower the pick, the less likely it is to be a great player.

I think somebody already mentioned that mayo, used as an example of success in the article, and falling into your highest grouping of talent, was acquired by trading out of the first in '07, and this is all beside the point that it's very possible that the pats would have taken mccourty at 22, and I defy anyone to explain to me how mccourty at 22 is more of a playmaker than the mccourty value meal at 27 with the fries and the drink thrown in.

Mayo was a specific player targeted by the team. Due to the way the 2008 draft was laid out, the Patriots were able to trade down a couple of picks and still pick up THAT SPECIFIC PLAYER. McCourty was not of the same variety, as Belichick himself noted in his interview. McCourty was one of a group of players the team had graded in the same area. The strategy/reasoning behind the two moves is not the same.

 

[Greg]

Understood, but I was referring to the group as a whole as opposed to them individually. Also, as I noted, Mayo was a drop, but still a top 10 pick. I thought that needed to be singled out specifically for that.

Statistically, you're more likely to hit on a monster talent when you're drafting higher. Statistically, your 1st round picks will become starters more often than your second round picks, etc...

Trading down is a move to increase picks, but it does so at the cost of decreasing the likelihood of getting a monster talent.

I was looking for these statistics, and I couldn't pull up the site I normally start with, so I did a google search. This guy's just a bleacherreport writer, but he claims to have the stats:



2010 NFL Draft: Does Trading for Draft Picks Make Sense? Ask Jerome Bettis | Bleacher Report




* Hey, on a tangent, as opposed to being directly in response to your post.... I found something that might interest you. It's from 2007, but it breaks down first round draft success by position (on the field, not draft position). Enjoy and, if you've seen it before, my apologies for wasting your time.

Kluck: Wrapping up the draft - ESPN Page 2

I agree with you. I think the trade down strategy works really well for the Patriots. But, I also wish the Pats would trade up on occasion in the 1st rd to get a Pro Bowl Level talent.

I think the article brought up a very valid point. No one is infallible including Bill Bellicheck. This team has lost a lot of players over the last few years that were big factors in our superbowl run. We could use our next generation of upper tier talent to continue the patriots run into the future. So trading down isnt bad but IMO. But, Using some of those pics to trade up to get a top tier guy would be nice too. We still would have had a TON of picks had we traded up.

 

[eom]

Mayo was a specific player targeted by the team. Due to the way the 2008 draft was laid out, the Patriots were able to trade down a couple of picks and still pick up THAT SPECIFIC PLAYER. McCourty was not of the same variety, as Belichick himself noted in his interview. McCourty was one of a group of players the team had graded in the same area. The strategy/reasoning behind the two moves is not the same.

maybe there is a communication breakdown at work here.

I reiterated that mayo is an example of trading out of the 2007 first round (if not entirely out), while you just pointed out to me that he's not a good example despite trading down a couple spots.
I don't give a frick about them trading down a couple spots.

the article is just some knucklehead b1tching about belichick's draft day strategy of trading picks, and he's posting it up on the net to generate page views rather than to provide informed content.

belichick traded out of his #28 (26% success) 2007 first rounder and got #110 and a 2008 top 10 (56%).
#110 was then traded for moss and 2008 turned into mayo ---- I'd call that a success.

if you feel drafting a player at #28 would've given him a better chance at success you're certainly entitled to your misguided opinions.

 

[Deus Irae]

maybe there is a communication breakdown at work here.

I reiterated that mayo is an example of trading out of the 2007 first round (if not entirely out), while you just pointed out to me that he's not a good example despite trading down a couple spots.
I don't give a frick about them trading down a couple spots.

the article is just some knucklehead b1tching about belichick's draft day strategy of trading picks, and he's posting it up on the net to generate page views rather than to provide informed content.

belichick traded out of his #28 (26% success) 2007 first rounder and got #110 and a 2008 top 10 (56%).
#110 was then traded for moss and 2008 turned into mayo ---- I'd call that a success.

if you feel drafting a player at #28 would've given him a better chance at success you're certainly entitled to your misguided opinions.

In the case of Mayo, you're using an argument that has nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with the trade down strategy. He moved the Mayo pick 2007 pick completely out of the draft, not down.

Go listen to Belichick's Monday interview on WEEI. Hopefully that'll help avoid the miscommunication.

 

[eom]

In the case of Mayo, you're using an argument that has nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with the trade down strategy. He moved the Mayo pick 2007 pick completely out of the draft, not down.

Go listen to Belichick's Monday interview on WEEI. Hopefully that'll help you figure out the point being made.

already did.

I believe #110 is a lower pick than #28, but maybe I have it figured wrong.

 

[TriplecHamp]

He does raise a point in that you do have to draft players that improve your team.

What he misses is that the Patriots did just that with one of their best drafts in recent years.

and what draft is that?

 

[Deus Irae]

already did.

I believe #110 is a lower pick than #28, but maybe I have it figured wrong.

So you missed the whole point of the explanation. That's too bad.


Oh, well, perhaps will be better able to discuss it another time.

 

[unoriginal]

Understood, but I was referring to the group as a whole as opposed to them individually. Also, as I noted, Mayo was a drop, but still a top 10 pick. I thought that needed to be singled out specifically for that.

Well, if you're applying a player like Light to the group — one the Pats traded down from 39 to 48 to get, but who obviously was the primary guy on the radar, as the Pats needed an LT so bad and leapfrogged from the intermediate 50 pick to 48 to grab him — then why would you be frustrated with the Pats stockpiling of round 2 players the last few years?

Statistically, you're more likely to hit on a monster talent when you're drafting higher. Statistically, your 1st round picks will become starters more often than your second round picks, etc...

Trading down is a move to increase picks, but it does so at the cost of decreasing the likelihood of getting a monster talent.

As the analysis in the ESPN article below summarizes, bad teams draft badly. That more than anything brings down the averages, and/or adds the blind luck factor to stats. A bad team that drafts badly, or a mediocre team that drafts bleh, they are the ones who would find it most advantageous — based only on the qualities examined by these studies, finding really good players — to pick high up, because they just aren't going to find value lower down since they don't have the scouting, coaching and personnel systems to define moneyball-esque qualities or positions other teams are undervaluing.

The Pats, however, are a great team under Belichick. It is well within their ability to find value lower down the board because they (a) know how to look for value, e.g. 3-cone time vs. 40 yard dash (b) have a stable system they can more easily value prospects in and (c) know how to group both players by value and teams by need and by and large correctly find the spot just before the value is going to get run on.

When you have that kind of expertise, trading down maximizes your chances of finding more "good" in a draft then sticking with the herd, and I think the last two years, when the Pats have dropped out of contention relatively early and have had time to scout and order the draft board, they've gone with this strategy because it gives them the most potential return for the effort.

Hey, on a tangent, as opposed to being directly in response to your post.... I found something that might interest you. It's from 2007, but it breaks down first round draft success by position (on the field, not draft position). Enjoy and, if you've seen it before, my apologies for wasting your time.

Kluck: Wrapping up the draft - ESPN Page 2

Thanks for the link. I did a statistics breakdown similar to that on this board, concentrating solely on QBs.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...g-qb-1st-round-bad-idea-page2.html#post690595

Kluck had a 53% bust rate on 1st round QBs, I had 40% Quality, so apparently we were reading roughly the same thing. While I came down in that thread against the "draft 3 low-round QBs every year, see who's good" method of development, that's because the OP was making a general point about the league as a whole, which is also what the links you provided are doing.

For the Pats, it makes more sense to give their scouting department as many choices as possible to flex their muscles in the draft; thus, trading down and picking lower-round players that — especially at QB — the Pats have demonstrated they can find and develop.

 

[Pats726]

Re: Scouts Inc. casts critical eye on Pats

He calls Belichick the best head coach and talent evaluator in the NFL, yet questions his draft strategies.

This was very similar to Adam Jones over teh weekend...on the one hand calling BB one of teh greatest...and then saying that anyone who doesn't understand that is an idiot...and then HE lowers himself TO that idiot stage by criticizing him on this draft...and ALL I thought was..that he was the idiot...and a turn of the dial...GONE!! bye bye..

 

[Bostonian1962]

As you know, I"m very positive on the Pats draft, and the Pats in general. This guy does make a great point. Many here posted before the draft, that BB better actually draft some players and quit trading down for future picks. I suspect some of these same people will bash this writer, even though he's saying the same thing.

Every time a team trades down, and then trades down some more, the talking heads keep saying how skillful they are. Fact is, BB probably trades down more than any other "GM", and when you trade down, you are picking from a lesser talent pool of players.

Somebody said, what impact player did they not get in trading down from 22 to 27? Well, Dez Bryant for one. They traded down later, and in the spot they gave up went RB Ben Tate, who many here loved.

I'm expecting this draft will turn out very succesfully. However, if (for example) Bryant and Tate turn into pro bowl players, will that mean maybe this guy has a point? I think this guy already has a point.

I will say that BB seemed to trade down more skillfully this year than in the recent past. However, when you trade a draft pick for a later draft pick, then what's left in talent is what you get to choose from. When the Patriots trade a 3rd round pick for a pick next year, it means they did not draft a player for the team this year, and there was plenty of talent that excited us left on the board at that point.

The last few years The Pats have traded down more than any team, and the drafts have rated out amongst the poorest. I suspect this years haul will be different, but it's hard to bash this guys point overall, if we take off our Patriots colored glasses.

 

[BSR]

1.) Mayo was a trade down that was specifically targeted to one player still taken in the top 10, and certainly doesn't fall into what Belichick's "value" strategy as he was describing it on Monday, although the basic concept is the same. Are you seriously trying to compare that to trading down to get any one of a group of players once you're outside the top 10? Come on, now.

2.) Wilfork wasn't a trade down.

That leaves you 1 out of 7 (counting Meriweather) that really fits the bill, and that 1 is the only one that was a move in the second round. That's nowhere near 50%. Even counting Mayo, it's still 5-2 in favor of NOT dropping down when talking about that group of picks.

I should remind you that you are defending the assertions made in the article. The article makes no mention of Belichick's "value" strategy he descirbed on Monday and therefore makes no such distinction. So it isn't I that is comparing those to types of trades down, it is the article. Furthermore, the article isn't only attacking trades downard. It specifically states:

"As usual, all the trading down and wheeling and dealing set the Patriots up very well for the future. But my worry here, and with this philosophy overall, is how many true difference-makers has Bill Belichick brought to New England lately via the draft?"

He is specifically addressing all the "wheeling and dealing" which includes trading up and trading into next year. That of course makes the trades of picks into future years for players like Wilfork and Mayo entirely relevant. In fact trying to single out the "trade down" strategy from the overall philosophy is almost nonsensical. It's the trading down that gives him the multitude of picks that allows him to trade some into future years. For instance, the Patriots traded a first round pick in 2003 (19th overall) to Baltimore for a 2003 second round pick (41st overall) and their 2004 first round pick (21st overall). That pick of course turned out to be Vince Wilfork. I won't even get into the fact that the Warren pick resulted from the trading of Drew Bledsoe and could even fall under the category of "wheeling and dealing".

So yes, I continue to question the premise of the article that BB's tendency to trade down is the problem.

 

[BSR]

The last few years The Pats have traded down more than any team, and the drafts have rated out amongst the poorest. I suspect this years haul will be different, but it's hard to bash this guys point overall, if we take off our Patriots colored glasses.

No, its very easy to bash this guy's point because the point make no sense. Its fair if someone wants to criticize the Patriots draft history, particularly between 2006 and 2008, but one should correctly identify what to criticize. The Patriots draft movement philosophy has yielded them more quality selections in the draft, not less. Without it, we wouldn't have players like Wilfork and Mayo on the team. What this article should be saying is that the Patriots haven't drafted well in those years. For instance, if Bryant and Tate turn out to be pro-bowlers that the Pats missed on even though they had a chance to draft them, it isn't because of draft down strategy, its because they mis evalated the draft grades for those players.

 

[Pats726]

As you know, I"m very positive on the Pats draft, and the Pats in general. This guy does make a great point. Many here posted before the draft, that BB better actually draft some players and quit trading down for future picks. I suspect some of these same people will bash this writer, even though he's saying the same thing.

Every time a team trades down, and then trades down some more, the talking heads keep saying how skillful they are. Fact is, BB probably trades down more than any other "GM", and when you trade down, you are picking from a lesser talent pool of players.

Somebody said, what impact player did they not get in trading down from 22 to 27? Well, Dez Bryant for one. They traded down later, and in the spot they gave up went RB Ben Tate, who many here loved.

I'm expecting this draft will turn out very succesfully. However, if (for example) Bryant and Tate turn into pro bowl players, will that mean maybe this guy has a point? I think this guy already has a point.

Many look at the draft quite one dimensionally...that is how you and many others seem to see things....Whether Bryant is an impact player in Dallas or Tate in Houston DOES NOT translate into either being an impact player in New Engalnd..THAT FACT is being TOTALLY overlooked. What I ahve heard about Bryant is that he had called baby sitters to make SURE he would get to games...NOT practices..games. IF that is anything CLOSE to reality..he is NOT the type of player that will be successful in NE. Tate was rated a LOT lower...3-4th round by many..so it was a reach for Houston who desperately wanted a running back. What is important is who the BAA was on the PATRIOTS draft board.. McCourty WAS high on the Pats boardand they moved down and STILL drafted him..receiving a 3rd round pick as well. THE point is these big mouths are loud and vocal and NOT CLOSE to understanding the many subtleties in the draft.

 

[eom]

As you know, I"m very positive on the Pats draft, and the Pats in general. This guy does make a great point. Many here posted before the draft, that BB better actually draft some players and quit trading down for future picks. I suspect some of these same people will bash this writer, even though he's saying the same thing.

Every time a team trades down, and then trades down some more, the talking heads keep saying how skillful they are. Fact is, BB probably trades down more than any other "GM", and when you trade down, you are picking from a lesser talent pool of players.

Somebody said, what impact player did they not get in trading down from 22 to 27? Well, Dez Bryant for one. They traded down later, and in the spot they gave up went RB Ben Tate, who many here loved.

I'm expecting this draft will turn out very succesfully. However, if (for example) Bryant and Tate turn into pro bowl players, will that mean maybe this guy has a point? I think this guy already has a point.

I will say that BB seemed to trade down more skillfully this year than in the recent past. However, when you trade a draft pick for a later draft pick, then what's left in talent is what you get to choose from. When the Patriots trade a 3rd round pick for a pick next year, it means they did not draft a player for the team this year, and there was plenty of talent that excited us left on the board at that point.

The last few years The Pats have traded down more than any team, and the drafts have rated out amongst the poorest. I suspect this years haul will be different, but it's hard to bash this guys point overall, if we take off our Patriots colored glasses.

ahahahahahahahahaha......!!!
dude, you are as ridiculous as this thread.

how did they get that 3rd rounder they traded into next year, and how many players have they drafted in the first 3 rounds the last 2 drafts?

you claim the pats missed out on dez by trading down, but by trading down it's pretty obvious to most people that they had no interest in dez.
in fact, in retrospect, belichick was probably just talking him up before the draft to bait the hook.
charles rogers and vernon gholston were drafted pretty early --- are you pissed we 'missed out' on them, too?

hey --- you remember when established vets got sent home for showing up late in a blizzard.....?