Dryheat, I like 95% of what you say 100% of the time
What you said above is exactly NOT how I feel about first rounders for the Pats system. What you said is how I feel the best way for a Pats 2nd rounder as a first rounder you have for one extra year (5 year contract).
Yes, that is true. But assuming Belichick doesn't whiff on a first round pick, the player is going to be at least a minor star for this team...a part of the nucleus. And unless he's truly an invaluable player, such as Seymour or Warren (and hopefully Wilfork), his second contract is going to come from another team. I think Belichick wants contributions in all five years of that player's fairly significant contract. Graham left after his first deal expired. Watson's as good as gone after this year. Unless Mankins wants a deal well below market, he'll be gone as well. Maroney will also be replaced with someone younger and cheaper when his time comes. There's no advantage in getting an extra year of a guy if he's not contributing. And the only one you can make the argument didn't contribute as a rookie was Meriweather, which I think was a special case, since safety was the only available spot on that team, and Rodney's future was uncertain come draft time. Again, don't confuse "contribute" with "start". If a guy like Barwin can get 15 snaps a game as a 3rd down rusher, that's a significant contribution. If Butler outplays the other CBs to win the nickel job, or if Shawn Nelson plays himself into the #2 TE, those are significant contributions.
So I would much rather at #23 take a guy (ex. Barwin) with the much greater upside than the safer pick (Simitin) who might contribute alittle more in first year but have lower ceiling. The tweener will get their year to aclimate to NFL and Pats complex scheme regardless.
There is also a chance Barwin, to use your example, fails to make the transition, and is gone two years from now. I mean, at #23, take the one you like better, for whatever reason. I like Sintim better...and I don't know why it's assumed Sintim's ceiling is lower. If we were drafting decathletes, I'd get it. But we're drafting football players. I think they both have the potential to be Pro Bowl players. But purely as a theoretical exercise, if the floors are equal, then take the higher ceiling. If the floors are unequal, but the ceilings are as well, and you're confident you as a coach can find that ceiling by season three, then it's a judgment call.
Or to put it another way, which is closer to the way you phrased the example, if I have the choice of five years of Sintim vs. four years of Barwin, I'd take Sintim unless I was damn sure that Barwin was going to be better by more than 20%.
P.S. A side note : thanks all (BOR, PNMe, DryH, ...others) for a great thread. I have learned alot of interesting info on the potential draftees. I don't get to see any college football in Denmark. One observation about maybe why all of (even the Pats fanatical draft followers) predictions are way off : As BB values greatly football IQ and the aforementioned 'situational' football, we no longer get to see Wonderlic scores while we only do see combine results. We don't get to hear the results of BB giving a chalkboard or game tape pop-quizes to the potential draftees. And we don't get any access to the interviews with draftees former coaches about their football acumen (smarts). So a very important source of info - greatly valued by BB / Pats scouts is unknown to you heavythinking (drinking?) Pats 'draftniks'. So don't feel too bad about your misses. Keep up the good work and insiteful (but not inspiteful) analysis. Very educational!
You flatter me. I'm not sure it's deserved.
