Traded up twice, should have kept going

[Joker]

 

[Deus Irae]

...My point is that plenty of outstanding players are found outside the first two rounds. Many are found outside the draft. There is no reason to believe than any one of the players the Pats drafted from trading down can't end up having a better career than a lot of the names that people wish the Pats traded up for or took if they stayed put. Some of the best players in this league were never even drafted.

The odds favor the higher picks.

 

[Rob0729]

The odds favor the higher picks.

Doe it? Or does it favor 3-5 picks vs. 1 pick? I actually don't know the answer to that. With so many first round disappointments and busts, I wouldn't be surprised if the odds favors more lower picks.

Besides, the Pats were agressive and traded up twice. Trading down int eh second could have even out the odds that they got more players.

 

[Deus Irae]

Doe it? Or does it favor 3-5 picks vs. 1 pick? I actually don't know the answer to that. With so many first round disappointments and busts, I wouldn't be surprised if the odds favors more lower picks.

Besides, the Pats were agressive and traded up twice. Trading down int eh second could have even out the odds that they got more players.

On a per pick basis, the odds will always favor the higher pick, because there are more good players left in the pool. Obviously, at some point, the percentages will flip in favor of multiple picks, but the exact numbers are going to be fuzzy. It gets into defining success and the like. Casserly put out that his thoughts on this some time back:

On the drop-off in success rates from rounds 1-2 to the rest of the draft...
Casserly: "If you define success rate as a 'starter after four years' to give the player time to develop ... in the first round we found it was 75 percent success -- this was all positions -- second round is 50, third round was 30, fourth round was 25, fifth round was 20 and the sixth and seventh were ... we'll call it 10 percent ... I think the key to success to those rounds: having good evaluators ... Take the best player on the board. You're guessing in the first round in the first place, you're definitely guessing in the sixth and seventh. Even though you've done all this work, you still realize there's an element of chance involved..."

Casserly, Billick Talk NFL Draft

His numbers are simplistic, obviously, because variables (high percentage of QBs drafted, etc....) would have to be taken into account, but even his raw numbers are pretty convincing in terms of wanting the higher picks, and they are at a pretty low threshold with some bizarre outcomes (starter after 4 years on a bad team.., Maroney=Seymour, etc...).

Just as an example of what I mean with the percentage drafted variable, there have been 36-37 QBs drafted in round one (I counted, but forgot the number and I'm not going to re-count ), and 15 drafted in round 2 since 2001. With a position as "bustable" as QB, that's going to really slant the numbers in favor of round 2 a bit, yet round Casserly still has round 1 with a much higher hit rate.

The bottom line is that we don't know the exact advantage one gets from drafting in the higher rounds (though teams likely have set up some program to try to figure it out), but we know it's significant. Using Casserly's numbers, you'll have a 3:2 edge in hits when you pick in the first round versus the second, so you'd have to adjust your drafting accordingly.

 

[supafly]

I'm okay with what happened as far as trading up/down.

Had they continued to trade up, they would've left themselves without any other picks beyond about the top 50, so I don't think anyone thought that would happen. No way that BB packs up and goes home after 1/2 way through round two.

We have to consider the fact that they traded up TWICE in the first round, most everyone here felt as though they'd have traded down at least once if not both times in the first round. No one should be complaining about that aspect, as we seemed to have gotten what we wanted as fans.

There's also the fact to consider that Belichick traded up 2x in round one for a position that he never took in the first round before too, so that should make people happy.

Of course we're going to question the Wilson pick, and that's probably to be expected. Besides that, I am honestly fine with the way the draft went.

There's still time to grab a guy or two (besides G.Warren) on the D-line, and almost 900 players will be let go in the last week or so of TC, so they'll probably grab someone else's trash with a player there too.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

I'm okay with what happened as far as trading up/down.

Had they continued to trade up, they would've left themselves without any other picks beyond about the top 50, so I don't think anyone thought that would happen. No way that BB packs up and goes home after 1/2 way through round two.

We have to consider the fact that they traded up TWICE in the first round, most everyone here felt as though they'd have traded down at least once if not both times in the first round. No one should be complaining about that aspect, as we seemed to have gotten what we wanted as fans.

There's also the fact to consider that Belichick traded up 2x in round one for a position that he never took in the first round before too, so that should make people happy.

Of course we're going to question the Wilson pick, and that's probably to be expected. Besides that, I am honestly fine with the way the draft went.

There's still time to grab a guy or two (besides G.Warren) on the D-line, and almost 900 players will be let go in the last week or so of TC, so they'll probably grab someone else's trash with a player there too.

The Pats have drafted an ILB in the first before. There is a good chance that ownership pressured BB to use all his picks this year, which may explain trading up twice in the first.

 

[JoeShmoe]

I'd trade Wilson, Bequette, Dennard, and the entire New Zealand All Black Team for another impact player on defense.

The New Zealand rugby team would beat the living crap out of 99% of NFL players. Definition of physical toughness

 

[Rob0729]

On a per pick basis, the odds will always favor the higher pick, because there are more good players left in the pool. Obviously, at some point, the percentages will flip in favor of multiple picks, but the exact numbers are going to be fuzzy. It gets into defining success and the like. Casserly put out that his thoughts on this some time back:



Casserly, Billick Talk NFL Draft

His numbers are simplistic, obviously, because variables (high percentage of QBs drafted, etc....) would have to be taken into account, but even his raw numbers are pretty convincing in terms of wanting the higher picks, and they are at a pretty low threshold with some bizarre outcomes (starter after 4 years on a bad team.., Maroney=Seymour, etc...).

Just as an example of what I mean with the percentage drafted variable, there have been 36-37 QBs drafted in round one (I counted, but forgot the number and I'm not going to re-count ), and 15 drafted in round 2 since 2001. With a position as "bustable" as QB, that's going to really slant the numbers in favor of round 2 a bit, yet round Casserly still has round 1 with a much higher hit rate.

The bottom line is that we don't know the exact advantage one gets from drafting in the higher rounds (though teams likely have set up some program to try to figure it out), but we know it's significant. Using Casserly's numbers, you'll have a 3:2 edge in hits when you pick in the first round versus the second, so you'd have to adjust your drafting accordingly.

This really doesn't answer my question though. Of course if you draft higher, you have better odds of getting a successful pick. But we are not comparing picks on an one to one basis. I am not asking which has a better shot to be a good draft pick, a second rounder vs. a third rounder. I am asking whether the odds are better with a second round pick or a third, sixth, and two sevenths.

Of course the success rate for higher picks are higher or teams wouldn't get multiple picks when they trade down. The question is do the multiple picks increase your success rate or not whether giving a better odds of getting an impact player or more value in multiple starters.

 

[patchick]

Rather trade back from the second round, it might have made more sense to trade up again into the back end of the first. 48 (420 pts.) plus 62 (284) equals 26 (700 pts.). That maybe gets you Mercilus (though Houston might not have traded), Perry, Jenkins, or even Upshaw, if they wanted him.

Am I missing something? They drafted 2 OLBs in the first round. And your complaint about the draft is that they should have packaged all of their remaining picks to take a third first-round OLB, then gone home?

Given that Jones and Hightower (and Scott) were already on board, I'd certainly think that the combination of Wilson, Bequette, Ebner, Dennard and Ebert will be more beneficial to the roster than a Perry or Upshaw.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I'd trade Wilson, Bequette, Dennard, and the entire New Zealand All Black Team for another impact player on defense.

Yeah

Makes perfect sense there, genius

Let's trade the picks that got us help in the secondary to get another "impact" player from the group you mentioned........from the group of players that do exactly the same thing that the two impact players we drafted already do!!!

who knew patsfans.com became the home of real men of genius.

Please, Ian make it stop.

 

[patsfaninpa]

The Pats have drafted an ILB in the first before. There is a good chance that ownership pressured BB to use all his picks this year, which may explain trading up twice in the first.

You really think Bob Kraft pressured Belichick to use all of his picks? Please. I would call Hightower a lb. Not necessarily an ILB. He can play all over and we will see that as the season unfolds.

 

[Gronkandez]

I agree with, or can at least respect, the idea of the OP. The Patriots success rate in the first round has been very good while the 3rd round has been...well...pretty awful recently. The late rounds have been ok. Yes, Edleman was good "value" but he's not what I would call an impact player.

I question the player picked and trade value in the 2nd more than the draft strategy. I personally don't feel that confident about a player drafted in the 2nd round that most scouts say is a 6th round talent. I hope I'm wrong. Also, I understand the importance of depth but they got poor value on their trade down.

It comes down to personal preference. I can understand the people who see the Brady window closing and want to get that one extra difference maker.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

The Pats have drafted an ILB in the first before. There is a good chance that ownership pressured BB to use all his picks this year, which may explain trading up twice in the first.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened

Ian

Mo is right

Make it stop.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened

Ian

Mo is right

Make it stop.

There is a quote from early in the offseason where Bob said something like "I look forward to using all of our draft picks this year. I doubt the Krafts would "make" BB do anything, but after hearing that quote, I wouldn't be surpised if they made a strong suggestion. I also wouldn't be surprised if they thought they could get some value for Mallet or Hoyer as the season progresses.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

You really think Bob Kraft pressured Belichick to use all of his picks? Please. I would call Hightower a lb. Not necessarily an ILB. He can play all over and we will see that as the season unfolds.

I think Hightower is versatile, but i expect his best role would be ILB, with the ability to play on the LOS in the nickle. Do you really think he has the speed to play OLB?

 

[MrNathanDrake]

Wouldve been interesting if we traded both 2nd rounders for #27 and take Harrison Smith.

 

[State]

Dennard will be the best CB on the team this coming year. This was a huge steal of the draft!

Yes, he was truly a huge steal, as Pats fans who don't know about soon will.

I am not sure he'll be better than Dowling, though. But if Dowling gets injured, he'll be the best CB on the team.

I've already got the starters in mid October picked out, the Duct Tape Boys, Dowling and Dennard.

 

[Spiral]

Yeah

Makes perfect sense there, genius

Let's trade the picks that got us help in the secondary to get another "impact" player from the group you mentioned........from the group of players that do exactly the same thing that the two impact players we drafted already do!!!

who knew patsfans.com became the home of real men of genius.

Please, Ian make it stop.

I'm not a genius, but I suspect that anyone who thinks we don't need any more impact players on this defense because we just drafted Jones and Hightower isn't mensa material either.

As most people observed during last year, the problem with the Patriots defense is a lack of top-end talent. The middle and bottom of the roster are pretty solid. And as others have noted, there are hundreds of free agents out there. The Patriots have been very good at the first round, even at the back end of the first round. They should target the high-end players, and then take advantage of the expanded pre-season roster to stock up on NFL and undrafted FA types. They should be filling the middle and bottom of the roster with these guys, and not high-round draft picks.

 

[Deus Irae]

This really doesn't answer my question though. Of course if you draft higher, you have better odds of getting a successful pick. But we are not comparing picks on an one to one basis. I am not asking which has a better shot to be a good draft pick, a second rounder vs. a third rounder. I am asking whether the odds are better with a second round pick or a third, sixth, and two sevenths.

Of course the success rate for higher picks are higher or teams wouldn't get multiple picks when they trade down. The question is do the multiple picks increase your success rate or not whether giving a better odds of getting an impact player or more value in multiple starters.

I understand what you're asking. I gave you Casserly's basic take on it, with percentages, which would allow you to figure out the points where multiple picks are better than higher picks for his 'starter' rubric), such as 3:2 in rounds 2:1. I also tried to explain why that's not all that accurate and that we don't really have a firm number.

Using the Patriots only, there's never going to be a better pick than round 1 (100% success rate so far), so there's never a reason to trade down if you want to avoid a miss.

 

[patchick]

Using the Patriots only, there's never going to be a better pick than round 1 (100% success rate so far), so there's never a reason to trade down if you want to avoid a miss.

Unless you want the chance at TWO hits.

It's a great debate, but always colored by the individual draft class and the status of the team's roster. The Pats concentrated firepower earlier on, but I guess by #62 they felt that the players they felt confident in were gone, which made quantity of picks the more attractive gamble.