Tavon Wilson signs 4 year deal: $4.2 mil, $1.5 mil signing bonus

[Ring 6]

Has nothing to do with a Jets metric. Just because Im a Jets fan doesnt mean I can be relatively objective about the team I cheer for (all you have to do is read my Jets related articles to I think see that). The Jets second round blows and they have a difficult time when they end up in the top 10 of the draft. The purpose of what I wrote was not to somehow call the Jets awesome but to revalue the trade charts and put together a better system of drafting based on positional draft trends (i.e. drafting a DT in the top 10 is a losing proposition and why drafting a WR in round 3 makes more sense than wasting a pick in round 1 and 2).

Using team success as a way to evaluate the draft process is just a mistake. The fact is the Patriots have the greatest coach of the last 20 or so years and one of the greatest QBs of all time on the team. It makes up for alot of deficiencies. If I was a NE fan I would think I would have won even more if we drafted a bit better the last few years just like how I would think the Jets would have been better than 8-8 had they done better since 2007.

The Patriots also have had, overall the best team of the decade, with the most overall talent. Their draft choices do not have the same opportunity to make the team, get playing time, etc as players drafted by poor teams. To say my 4th round pick on my terrible team played more than your 4th round pick on your good, deep, talented team means my pick is better, is a bigger mistake than using the success of the team.
Since the success of the team is the purpose of the draft, you are blindly focussing on a small subset of the criteria that should be used.

 

[jason423]

Your system gave Donovan McNab and Shane Lechler a higher grade than Tom Brady, and a number of good, not great players a WAY higher grade than Brady.
I stopped there because your data is clearly heavily flawed.

Those numbers will eventually balance out. McNabb has a full year on Brady in terms of draft plus Brady had two full seasons where he did not play football (2000 and 2008) while McNabb pretty much played from day 1 until now. The Pro Bowls also were not updated for 2011 (I found that out after I compiled the numbers) which would have pushed Brady higher as well. As long as careers are still ongoing the numbers are going to fluctuate which is why comparing draft class to draft class cant be done. When the players all retire you can do that. My guess is Brady will rank second to Peyton.

 

[Ring 6]

Those numbers will eventually balance out. McNabb has a full year on Brady in terms of draft plus Brady had two full seasons where he did not play football (2000 and 2008) while McNabb pretty much played from day 1 until now. The Pro Bowls also were not updated for 2011 (I found that out after I compiled the numbers) which would have pushed Brady higher as well. As long as careers are still ongoing the numbers are going to fluctuate which is why comparing draft class to draft class cant be done. When the players all retire you can do that. My guess is Brady will rank second to Peyton.

Further illustrating the flaws.

 

[Ring 6]

Those numbers will eventually balance out. McNabb has a full year on Brady in terms of draft plus Brady had two full seasons where he did not play football (2000 and 2008) while McNabb pretty much played from day 1 until now. The Pro Bowls also were not updated for 2011 (I found that out after I compiled the numbers) which would have pushed Brady higher as well. As long as careers are still ongoing the numbers are going to fluctuate which is why comparing draft class to draft class cant be done. When the players all retire you can do that. My guess is Brady will rank second to Peyton.

Then how do DeMarcus Ware and Darelle Revis rank significantly higher than Brady when they have been in the league a much shorter time? You seem to have decided that your data is good without recognizing its flaws.
And Lechler?

 

[jason423]

No offense, Jason but stick to capology. Attempting to design a metric for improved drafting is a waste of brain cells. The draft is as much art as science. Too many factors play into success beyond individual talent. And each draft is different based on positional depth making positional targeting by round a fools approach. And any metric that begins with the premise that Zak DeOssie is a top ten...or one of the two Manning brothers isn't...is so oddly skewed to be meaningless.

Its going to be flawed for special team guys and primarily thats what DeOssie grades higher on since he gets named to Pro Bowls. When you actually go through years and years of numbers there are certain trends that show up both positionally and in terms of teams. You would never use something like this to make a draft pick, but it can be used as another factor in deciding between two or three choices. If I am tossed up between a WR in round 1 or a LB and I know that of the WR's selected in the round that historically 70% of them turn out to be below average players and only 10% turn into Pro Bowl quality players while only 30% of LBs are below average and 19% turn into Pro Bowlers (those are not the actual numbers just examples) it makes sense to favor the LB if I am relatively risk averse.

 

[Ring 6]

Its going to be flawed for special team guys and primarily thats what DeOssie grades higher on since he gets named to Pro Bowls. When you actually go through years and years of numbers there are certain trends that show up both positionally and in terms of teams. You would never use something like this to make a draft pick, but it can be used as another factor in deciding between two or three choices. If I am tossed up between a WR in round 1 or a LB and I know that of the WR's selected in the round that historically 70% of them turn out to be below average players and only 10% turn into Pro Bowl quality players while only 30% of LBs are below average and 19% turn into Pro Bowlers (those are not the actual numbers just examples) it makes sense to favor the LB if I am relatively risk averse.

You are suggesting that teams evaluate players then make a decision based on how the players at that position that other teams selected in the last 10 years in that round worked out. So Matt Millen is the reason that a WR in 2012 isn't worth a first round pick?

 

[jason423]

Then how do DeMarcus Ware and Darelle Revis rank significantly higher than Brady when they have been in the league a much shorter time? You seem to have decided that your data is good without recognizing its flaws.
And Lechler?

In terms of overall points? Brady ranks higher than Revis. Within his draft class he didnt but in terms of points Brady is higher. Why is Ware higher? Because hes had ridiculous early career success. Hes never missed a game in 7 years. hes already a 6 time Pro Bowler. The scoring is not meant to compare player to player across drafts while active. That cant be done because the points fluctuate. Peyton, McNabb, and Brady all came from the same timeframe which is why those numbers are close to being comparable. But to compare Brady (whose numbers will rise based on the fact that the majority of his draft class is probably done in the NFL) and Ware (whose numbers will not grow as fast if he stops being named to Pro Bowls since his class has years to increase their level of Pro Bowl participation) is not what its meant for.

Really what the whole thing was originally meant for was to identify a more updated version of the trade value chart which is based on something along these lines in where you compare the worth of player 1, 2, 3 etc... with that of number 151, 220, and 255 to determine just how much should be given up to move up in a draft.

 

[jason423]

You are suggesting that teams evaluate players then make a decision based on how the players at that position that other teams selected in the last 10 years in that round worked out. So Matt Millen is the reason that a WR in 2012 isn't worth a first round pick?

Right because Matt Millen was the only guy in the world that thought it was a no brainer to draft Michael Williams and Charles Rogers. Here is the list of the WRs taken over that time period in the top 10:

Ike Hilliard, David Boston, Torry Holt, Travis Taylor, Plaxico Burress, Peter Warrick, Koren Robinson, David Terrell, Andre Johnson, Charles Rogers, Reggie Williams, Roy Williams, Larry Fitzgerald, Mike Williams, Troy Williamson, Braylon Edwards, Calvin Johnson, and Ted Ginn.

Holt, JohnsonX2, and Fitzgerald are the only players who warranted a top 10 pick. Burress and Holt are the only 2 to win a Super Bowl. Positionally its a very risky selection with very little reward to show for it. The most risky of any pick in the top 10

 

[Ring 6]

In terms of overall points? Brady ranks higher than Revis. Within his draft class he didnt but in terms of points Brady is higher. Why is Ware higher? Because hes had ridiculous early career success. Hes never missed a game in 7 years. hes already a 6 time Pro Bowler. The scoring is not meant to compare player to player across drafts while active. That cant be done because the points fluctuate. Peyton, McNabb, and Brady all came from the same timeframe which is why those numbers are close to being comparable. But to compare Brady (whose numbers will rise based on the fact that the majority of his draft class is probably done in the NFL) and Ware (whose numbers will not grow as fast if he stops being named to Pro Bowls since his class has years to increase their level of Pro Bowl participation) is not what its meant for.

Really what the whole thing was originally meant for was to identify a more updated version of the trade value chart which is based on something along these lines in where you compare the worth of player 1, 2, 3 etc... with that of number 151, 220, and 255 to determine just how much should be given up to move up in a draft.

But you are claiming that Bradys ranking will rise the longer he is in the league, while other players in the league a shorter time have a higher ranking.

Your system says that the Raiders drafted a better player when they picked Shane Lechler than the Patriots did when they drafted Tom Brady. That is in the SAME DRAFT.
Your system also calls Brandon Meriwhether a great pick, btw.

While I recognize you were trying to make a draft trade chart, that is not what you used it for here. You claimed it to be proof the Patriots draft poorly.

 

[Ring 6]

Right because Matt Millen was the only guy in the world that thought it was a no brainer to draft Michael Williams and Charles Rogers. Here is the list of the WRs taken over that time period in the top 10:

Ike Hilliard, David Boston, Torry Holt, Travis Taylor, Plaxico Burress, Peter Warrick, Koren Robinson, David Terrell, Andre Johnson, Charles Rogers, Reggie Williams, Roy Williams, Larry Fitzgerald, Mike Williams, Troy Williamson, Braylon Edwards, Calvin Johnson, and Ted Ginn.

Holt, JohnsonX2, and Fitzgerald are the only players who warranted a top 10 pick. Burress and Holt are the only 2 to win a Super Bowl. Positionally its a very risky selection with very little reward to show for it. The most risky of any pick in the top 10

Sarcastic Millen comment aside (and btw Mike Williams was not a no brainer at all, and Rogers had known drug issues) you seem to really be missing the point here.
How a guy on my board in 2012 has nothing to do with where past GMs drafted past players.

 

[BradyMossWelker]

The 'poor drafting' has had the Patriots in 5 of the last 12 SBs, 6 of the last 12 AFCCGs, and 10 of the last 12 division championships. Your argument is silly.

That's the worst argument someone can make.
Just because we are a winning team, it doesn't mean we are any good at drafting. Brady has carried a bad defense for years with our offense. Well, a lot of pieces in the offense were free agent signings. And we have spent a lot of picks on defense, some were good picks, no one can argue, but the majority were scrubs. I love BB as HC, and and he is a good GM, but evaluating young players he is average.

Of course someone will try to argue and name some home run picks BB has made, but every team makes great picks.

 

[Ring 6]

That's the worst argument someone can make.
Just because we are a winning team, it doesn't mean we are any good at drafting. Brady has carried a bad defense for years with our offense. Well, a lot of pieces in the offense were free agent signings. And we have spent a lot of picks on defense, some were good picks, no one can argue, but the majority were scrubs. I love BB as HC, and and he is a good GM, but evaluating young players he is average.

Of course someone will try to argue and name some home run picks BB has made, but every team makes great picks.

The purpose of the draft is the success of the team.


By the way that terrible defense that Brady has been carrying for years has ranked 3rd in the NFL in points allowed over the last 5 seasons. You may want to reconsider your version of the facts.

As far as the number of poor picks, you simply cannot make judgment without context. As the best team in the NFL over a decade long period, it is almost by definition harder to make a good pick, ie, it is harder for a player to get on the field and contribute on a good team. When you add to that the fact that the Patriots make more picks than anyone, clearly the strategy is going to be different than a mediocre team that keeps its 7 annual picks, and the results and yardstick for success would be very different.

Finally, the context of comparing the success rate to other teams must be comsidered, because as this board shows, any pick that doesn't turn into a home run is sometimes percieved as a bad pick in a spot where an idiot could have drafter a HOFer.

 

[Ring 6]

The purpose of the draft is the success of the team.


By the way that terrible defense that Brady has been carrying for years has ranked 3rd in the NFL in points allowed over the last 5 seasons. You may want to reconsider your version of the facts.

As far as the number of poor picks, you simply cannot make judgment without context. As the best team in the NFL over a decade long period, it is almost by definition harder to make a good pick, ie, it is harder for a player to get on the field and contribute on a good team. When you add to that the fact that the Patriots make more picks than anyone, clearly the strategy is going to be different than a mediocre team that keeps its 7 annual picks, and the results and yardstick for success would be very different.

Finally, the context of comparing the success rate to other teams must be comsidered, because as this board shows, any pick that doesn't turn into a home run is sometimes percieved as a bad pick in a spot where an idiot could have drafter a HOFer.

By the way, if you don't like the timeframe of 5 years for your claim that Brady has been carrying a bad defense for many years, if we use since 2001 when Brady first played, they still rank 3rd, and if we start with after his injury, the Seymour trade, and the rebuilding of the defense, they rank 6th. Hardly awful and in need of carrying.

 

[BradyMossWelker]

The purpose of the draft is the success of the team.


By the way that terrible defense that Brady has been carrying for years has ranked 3rd in the NFL in points allowed over the last 5 seasons. You may want to reconsider your version of the facts.

As far as the number of poor picks, you simply cannot make judgment without context. As the best team in the NFL over a decade long period, it is almost by definition harder to make a good pick, ie, it is harder for a player to get on the field and contribute on a good team. When you add to that the fact that the Patriots make more picks than anyone, clearly the strategy is going to be different than a mediocre team that keeps its 7 annual picks, and the results and yardstick for success would be very different.

Finally, the context of comparing the success rate to other teams must be comsidered, because as this board shows, any pick that doesn't turn into a home run is sometimes percieved as a bad pick in a spot where an idiot could have drafter a HOFer.

The defense is definitely not as bad as the media portrays it to be, but it is still a bad defense. When guys like Julian Edelman, Tracy White, Sergio Brown are allowed to even be on the field, you have to wonder what BB has done with his abundancy of picks.

 

[BradyMossWelker]

By the way, if you don't like the timeframe of 5 years for your claim that Brady has been carrying a bad defense for many years, if we use since 2001 when Brady first played, they still rank 3rd, and if we start with after his injury, the Seymour trade, and the rebuilding of the defense, they rank 6th. Hardly awful and in need of carrying.

Take Brady away from the equation, we are a 8-8 team or worse. Not sure how can anyone argue with that.

 

[Ring 6]

The defense is definitely not as bad as the media portrays it to be, but it is still a bad defense. When guys like Julian Edelman, Tracy White, Sergio Brown are allowed to even be on the field, you have to wonder what BB has done with his abundancy of picks.

Players of that quality are on the field for all teams. Sergoi Brown made the team as a special teams player and potential, developing safety. He got on the field due to injuires, and cuts of players who showed up and disappointed in camp. I would guess he played a total of less than 100 snaps on defense, after being somewhere in the vicinity of 6th on the S depth chart at the start of camp. What type of play do you think other teams get from the guy who is currently 6th on the S depth chart?
Tracy White is a special teams player. He got on the field during the season due to injuries, for a handful of snaps. He played in the first half of the SB to play a specific role in a game plan that wanted to take advantage of his skillset as an undersized, mobile LB who could run with a receiving TE.
Edelman played defense because of the rash of injuries in the secondary. Since he played there in preseason and camp as a backup plan for injuries, he played SOMETIMES ahead of the street FAs we needed to bring in to fill the spots of injured players. Again, he played a total of about 100 snaps. He played at a similar level to the 12th DB on other teams depth charts as well.

 

[Ring 6]

Take Brady away from the equation, we are a 8-8 team or worse. Not sure how can anyone argue with that.

We were 11-5 without Brady in 2008. Not sure how anyone can argue with that.
Otherwise, you are simply making up something and pretending its a fact. What we are without Brady depends first on the quality of his replacement, and secondly on how drastically we change the approach and gameplanning.

We aren't allowing hundreds of passing yards in garbage time prevent defense without Brady either, so don't think the defense doesn't also look worse because of how good the offense is.

 

[jason423]

But you are claiming that Bradys ranking will rise the longer he is in the league, while other players in the league a shorter time have a higher ranking.

Your system says that the Raiders drafted a better player when they picked Shane Lechler than the Patriots did when they drafted Tom Brady. That is in the SAME DRAFT.
Your system also calls Brandon Meriwhether a great pick, btw.

While I recognize you were trying to make a draft trade chart, that is not what you used it for here. You claimed it to be proof the Patriots draft poorly.

The best way I can explain it is this in regards to rankings. Again using Brady as an example:

The average for his draft class is 63.8 games played, 2.4 average seasons as a starter, and 0.27 Pro Bowls. Most of those players are no longer active in the NFL so the averages are not going to change very much. Provided Brady keeps playing well, which he should, his numbers will rise while everything else stays relatively flat so his scores will improve since they are based on the average for the draft. In Wares case the numbers are 48.7, 1.8, and 0.17. Many of those players are still active and those numbers are going to rise, particularly the pro bowl numbers. When it gets to around Brady's which seems to be around the norm for those late 90s drafts, he would need to play in at least 3 more pro bowls just to maintain his current score. Maybe he will do that but thats why I would say his score is going to likely decrease over time since its going to be tough to continue on his level with the beating his body takes.

The only way you can rank something on this scale is to take objective measures. Everyone knows Brady is a better player than a punter. Punters never get injured. They always start. They have gotten 190 games out of him and 7 pro bowls. The special teamers are kind of outliers in the whole thing.

I never wrote or meant to write if I did that it was proof they did bad. Its just a different way to look at the drafts. The players they have drafted, particularly in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, have not played as much or been successful as other players selected in the same round. Light was a huge hit and Gronkowski would also appear to be. They have had opportunities to play elsewhere and either were never picked up or failed to perform well. They just werent good players. Overall the scores were average for New England and they hit on the most important position on the field in getting a great QB, the greatest value pick of all time in the draft. They are also great at buying low and selling high in regards to free agency.

 

[Ring 6]

Take Brady away from the equation, we are a 8-8 team or worse. Not sure how can anyone argue with that.

We had a slightly above average defense. (15th of 32)
We have above average special teams, I think that is obvious.
We have excellent coaching. I think that is obvious.
Your argumnet then is that with an average QB (only assumption you can make in the 'what would we be without Brady' argument) we would be below average or much worse on offense. I totally disagree. The other 10 players on our offense not named Brady are certainly at least above average.

 

[RayClay]

That's the worst argument someone can make.
Just because we are a winning team, it doesn't mean we are any good at drafting.

lol.

So if winning isn't the object of the draft, what is?

Please give us the proper argument.