From BB's mouth re: the draft

[BTTA]

One of my clients has a relatinship with the Patriots that includes an annual leadership workshop at Gillette. I got to go last year and hear Jonathan Kraft talk about the video controversy (which was enlightening).

I couldn't make it this year but got a blow-by-blow description. One of the speakers was our favorite coach talking about how the Pats identify value in players. What stood out for me was that they have a threshold for measurables for each position (speed, strength, etc.) based on workouts, and then once a player meets the criteria, they stop paying attention to those measurables and only look at other factors (intelligence, work ethic, college system, etc.).

In other words, if one of the thresholds for a CB is 4.45 40, then they don't differentiate between 4.38 and 4.44. Those guys have both made the cut, and only other factors matter at that point in determining value.

A player is either "in the club" or not. It's binary.

 

[billdog3484]

i think that makes a lot of sense when you think about it. so many teams get enamored with one or two measurables and tend to overlook more important factors like on field play, intelligence, character, etc. so instead of reaching up to get a guy that runs 4.2 or 4.3, they look at the on field play more....good post

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Which makes the interviews at the All-Star games, Combine, and Pro Days, plus the Private Workouts and Visits to Gillette a more reliable measure of interest. You aren't bringing in a player for a medical evaluation or extended interviews with multiple coaches if you didn't already have talent and measurable threshholds met.

For example Robert Ayers:
-- Area Scout's prior seasons and in season reports. ?
-- Observe him in the Senior Bowl week pressure cooker and interview him. ?
-- Observe and maybe re-interview him at the Combine. ?
-- Observe his Pro Day. ?
-- Conduct a Private Workout. ? (No reports found.)
Now you have some idea how fast he picks up new drills and concepts and takes them to the field, you haven't been turned off by a really bad interview, and you know he can physically do the kind of things you'll need for the job.
-- Which leads to a Gillette visit where the Head Coach, personnel guys, and various coordinators and position coaches now get into his football IQ and try to get past the surface of his personality and intelligence. Now you have his final grade. ?
-- Next comes ranking the board and then the draft.

 

[Patriot Missile]

Which makes the interviews at the All-Star games, Combine, and Pro Days, plus the Private Workouts and Visits to Gillette a more reliable measure of interest. You aren't bringing in a player for a medical evaluation or extended interviews with multiple coaches if you didn't already have talent and measurable threshholds met.

For example Robert Ayers:
-- Area Scout's prior seasons and in season reports. ?
-- Observe him in the Senior Bowl week pressure cooker and interview him. ?
-- Observe and maybe re-interview him at the Combine. ?
-- Observe his Pro Day. ?
-- Conduct a Private Workout. ? (No reports found.)
Now you have some idea how fast he picks up new drills and concepts and takes them to the field, you haven't been turned off by a really bad interview, and you know he can physically do the kind of things you'll need for the job.
-- Which leads to a Gillette visit where the Head Coach, personnel guys, and various coordinators and position coaches now get into his football IQ and try to get past the surface of his personality and intelligence. Now you have his final grade. ?
-- Next comes ranking the board and then the draft.

They have drafted players in the past without an interview or private workout?

Makes me wonder how they rank players on their board when they don't bring him in for a private workout. I assume some players they can get a feel of what they can do just by observing film,talking to coaches, combine, pro day etc. I'm sure some of these players have been scouted all season long.

 

[WhiZa]

Makes me wonder how they rank players on their board when they don't bring him in for a private workout.

I bet they rank him very high and probably don't expect him to last which is the reason they don't waste their time bringing him in. It would be similar to if the Pats brought in Curry. Yea it's great, but they'll never see him again.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

They have drafted players in the past without an interview or private workout?

Makes me wonder how they rank players on their board when they don't bring him in for a private workout. I assume some players they can get a feel of what they can do just by observing film,talking to coaches, combine, pro day etc. I'm sure some of these players have been scouted all season long.

The only first round pick I can think of who didn't get that level of attention beforehand was Wilfork. Wilfork came out as a junior, so I'm sure they went and got the tape on him and did the minimum work-up off tape and scouting reports for Top of the Draft projections, but that may explain why they didn't go up to get him when he started sliding - because they hadn't done more than the minimum they played it safe. If he slides fine, you pretty much have to make a decision at #21 anyway, but spending an extra pick to move up for a kid you didn't have the full work-up on is throwing too much at a gamble. This is why I'm not buying the speculation of a move up for Curry or Raji or T. Jackson, NE has placed themselves in a position to move if Jenkins or Davis slide, but they've not put more than the minimum in on the other two. Seems like the Pats project DBs to be a low priority for teams on Day One.

 

[mayoclinic]

The only first round pick I can think of who didn't get that level of attention beforehand was Wilfork. Wilfork came out as a junior, so I'm sure they went and got the tape on him and did the minimum work-up off tape and scouting reports for Top of the Draft projections, but that may explain why they didn't go up to get him when he started sliding - because they hadn't done more than the minimum they played it safe. If he slides fine, you pretty much have to make a decision at #21 anyway, but spending an extra pick to move up for a kid you didn't have the full work-up on is throwing too much at a gamble. This is why I'm not buying the speculation of a move up for Curry or Raji or T. Jackson, NE has placed themselves in a position to move if Jenkins or Davis slide, but they've not put more than the minimum in on the other two. Seems like the Pats project DBs to be a low priority for teams on Day One.

As I recall, they drafted Mankins without ever having him in for a visit. I'm not sure about an interview, though. Presumably they got a lot of info on him from Pat Hill.

I think that Aaron Curry and BJ Raji are such known quantities right now that a decision could be made on them without a visit. If Aaron Curry falls to around #10, I just can't BB saying "d*mn, why didn't I bring the kid in for a visit? I guess I'll have to pass". The tape is there, the kid has been dissected every which way as a possible top 5 pick, and you know exactly what you are getting. In fact, I could argue that if BB wanted to make a move for a Raji or a Curry that he would be more likely to not bring them in for a visit so as to not show his hand, given that everyone in the western world follows his every move around draft time.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

I find this very intriguing. It a lot of sense.

 

[bucky]

One of my clients has a relatinship with the Patriots that includes an annual leadership workshop at Gillette. I got to go last year and hear Jonathan Kraft talk about the video controversy (which was enlightening).

I couldn't make it this year but got a blow-by-blow description. One of the speakers was our favorite coach talking about how the Pats identify value in players. What stood out for me was that they have a threshold for measurables for each position (speed, strength, etc.) based on workouts, and then once a player meets the criteria, they stop paying attention to those measurables and only look at other factors (intelligence, work ethic, college system, etc.).

In other words, if one of the thresholds for a CB is 4.45 40, then they don't differentiate between 4.38 and 4.44. Those guys have both made the cut, and only other factors matter at that point in determining value.

A player is either "in the club" or not. It's binary.

That may all be true, but how then do you explain the drafting of Bethel Johnson with a high second round pick? It certainly wasn't because of his college production.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

As I recall, they drafted Mankins without ever having him in for a visit. I'm not sure about an interview, though. Presumably they got a lot of info on him from Pat Hill.

I think that Aaron Curry and BJ Raji are such known quantities right now that a decision could be made on them without a visit. If Aaron Curry falls to around #10, I just can't BB saying "d*mn, why didn't I bring the kid in for a visit? I guess I'll have to pass". The tape is there, the kid has been dissected every which way as a possible top 5 pick, and you know exactly what you are getting. In fact, I could argue that if BB wanted to make a move for a Raji or a Curry that he would be more likely to not bring them in for a visit so as to not show his hand, given that everyone in the western world follows his every move around draft time.

I know Dante worked him out in Fresno. I thought he had visited, but when it comes to O-linemen not projected to Round One (and NE may not have gotten wind of Mankins stock with SF until it was too late to arrange a visit) I'm of the mind that Dante's private workouts are the equivalent of a visit to Gillette. T.J. Lang, and the two FL OTs had a PW with Dante. Dante worked out Jamon Meredith at his Pro Day and observed Eric Wood at his.

 

[DocE]

Box- I read a note on KFFL that said the Patriots had dinner with Ayers the night before they worked him out.

I remember hearing BB on WEEI a month or so ago and a question was brought up about how they analyze players for the draft. BB made a point to say that sometimes you like a player, but then find out that he'd be the slowest WR on your team and how that gives you pause.

I am torn on the draft philosophy of having minimum requirements for a postion as often times some of the elite players at a position fall short in the measurables category. Zach Thomas was too short, Terrell Suggs was too slow, Dwight Freeney too small, etc,etc. On the other hand, successful players who don't meet a minimun requirement are few and far between so it is an effective way to focus your draft pool without eliminating a ton of excellent players.

I've noticed the Patriots have worked out or interviewed just about every non combine CB who blazed the 40 at their pro day. McCain, Lambert, Toler, etc,etc.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Box- I read a note on KFFL that said the Patriots had dinner with Ayers the night before they worked him out.

I remember hearing BB on WEEI a month or so ago and a question was brought up about how they analyze players for the draft. BB made a point to say that sometimes you like a player, but then find out that he'd be the slowest WR on your team and how that gives you pause.

I am torn on the draft philosophy of having minimum requirements for a postion as often times some of the elite players at a position fall short in the measurables category. Zach Thomas was too short, Terrell Suggs was too slow, Dwight Freeney too small, etc,etc. On the other hand, successful players who don't meet a minimun requirement are few and far between so it is an effective way to focus your draft pool without eliminating a ton of excellent players.

I've noticed the Patriots have worked out or interviewed just about every non combine CB who blazed the 40 at their pro day. McCain, Lambert, Toler, etc,etc.

BB was asked about Maurice Jones-Drew a couple years back after MJD had exploded on the NFL consciousness; BB spoke about how the kid's production had been very positive, but... MJD fell outside the prototypical physical measurements for a RB. BB basically took the position that drafting a player who fell outside the protoype for the role you envisioned was too great a gamble, at least where MJD was drafted in the second round. He clearly is willing to make an exception if he thinks the kid will produce, and he'll take a chance on UDFAs and late round kids (UDFA Patrick Cobb & 7th rd Tully Banta-Cain). I believe BB will make an exception for the right place in the draft, if that is in the 1st Rd it needs to be an exceptional kid.

Zach Thomas was a 5th round pick = low risk for high return. The phish got their money's worth.

Suggs was 10th overall, but he was the Arizona record holder for TFL and the NCAA record holder for sacks, if he was drafted as a DE his long speed didn't mean beans. How he was used once B-more had him in camp and could try him with different roles was a case of not pigeonholing a kid for the role you drafted him to play. Clearly an exception and you had enough production to believe he was an exception worth making.

Freeney is a bit short, but he had the short area speed and the production (at one point 17 straight games with a sack), Indy drafted him #11 overall because he fit what they wanted to do, would NE draft him at #11 to be an OLB? :confused2:

All three came out of BCS conferences (or would be) so they had good competition to showcase their skill - I don't think these "exceptions" disprove the rule, they do highlight how letting the measurables dictate your decision is a big mistake. Which still doesn't negate the fact that you do have to have a standard to be your yardstick.

 

[BTTA]

That may all be true, but how then do you explain the drafting of Bethel Johnson with a high second round pick? It certainly wasn't because of his college production.

The last thing I'd expect of myself, or attempt to do, is explain any particular action they've taken.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

BB was asked about Maurice Jones-Drew a couple years back after MJD had exploded on the NFL consciousness; BB spoke about how the kid's production had been very positive, but... MJD fell outside the prototypical physical measurements for a RB. BB basically took the position that drafting a player who fell outside the protoype for the role you envisioned was too great a gamble, at least where MJD was drafted in the second round. He clearly is willing to make an exception if he thinks the kid will produce, and he'll take a chance on UDFAs and late round kids (UDFA Patrick Cobb & 7th rd Tully Banta-Cain). I believe BB will make an exception for the right place in the draft, if that is in the 1st Rd it needs to be an exceptional kid.

Zach Thomas was a 5th round pick = low risk for high return. The phish got their money's worth.

Suggs was 10th overall, but he was the Arizona record holder for TFL and the NCAA record holder for sacks, if he was drafted as a DE his long speed didn't mean beans. How he was used once B-more had him in camp and could try him with different roles was a case of not pigeonholing a kid for the role you drafted him to play. Clearly an exception and you had enough production to believe he was an exception worth making.

Freeney is a bit short, but he had the short area speed and the production (at one point 17 straight games with a sack), Indy drafted him #11 overall because he fit what they wanted to do, would NE draft him at #11 to be an OLB? :confused2:

All three came out of BCS conferences (or would be) so they had good competition to showcase their skill - I don't think these "exceptions" disprove the rule, they do highlight how letting the measurables dictate your decision is a big mistake. Which still doesn't negate the fact that you do have to have a standard to be your yardstick.

Jones Drew was my binky back then, he reminded me of Robert Newhouse. I'm glad to see that I was right about him (of course I still wanted Terrel instead of Seymour so I really can't claim anything after that).

I'm sure that Mayo has been asked about Ayers, Anyone coming out of the SEC, you have to think that Saban has been called. Ayers is on my list of guys that I would mind seeing get drafted by the Pats. I still don't know if they project him to be an OLB or DE.

 

[DocE]

BB was asked about Maurice Jones-Drew a couple years back after MJD had exploded on the NFL consciousness; BB spoke about how the kid's production had been very positive, but... MJD fell outside the prototypical physical measurements for a RB. BB basically took the position that drafting a player who fell outside the protoype for the role you envisioned was too great a gamble, at least where MJD was drafted in the second round. He clearly is willing to make an exception if he thinks the kid will produce, and he'll take a chance on UDFAs and late round kids (UDFA Patrick Cobb & 7th rd Tully Banta-Cain). I believe BB will make an exception for the right place in the draft, if that is in the 1st Rd it needs to be an exceptional kid.

Zach Thomas was a 5th round pick = low risk for high return. The phish got their money's worth.

Suggs was 10th overall, but he was the Arizona record holder for TFL and the NCAA record holder for sacks, if he was drafted as a DE his long speed didn't mean beans. How he was used once B-more had him in camp and could try him with different roles was a case of not pigeonholing a kid for the role you drafted him to play. Clearly an exception and you had enough production to believe he was an exception worth making.

Freeney is a bit short, but he had the short area speed and the production (at one point 17 straight games with a sack), Indy drafted him #11 overall because he fit what they wanted to do, would NE draft him at #11 to be an OLB? :confused2:

All three came out of BCS conferences (or would be) so they had good competition to showcase their skill - I don't think these "exceptions" disprove the rule, they do highlight how letting the measurables dictate your decision is a big mistake. Which still doesn't negate the fact that you do have to have a standard to be your yardstick.

Freeney wasn't just short, he was undersized. The point I was making was that these types of players would be "off the board" of a team that had a minimum standard for measurables. There are great players in the NFL that don't fit the mold and you miss out on those guys when you set minimum standards. There is an upside and a downside to every decision made with regards to the draft, and I do think the upsided of having minimum requirements outweighs the downside. The biggest upside to me is limiting the number of players you need to do further evaluation on, allowing you to have a better grasp of the players that do remain on your board.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Freeney wasn't just short, he was undersized. The point I was making was that these types of players would be "off the board" of a team that had a minimum standard for measurables. There are great players in the NFL that don't fit the mold and you miss out on those guys when you set minimum standards. There is an upside and a downside to every decision made with regards to the draft, and I do think the upsided of having minimum requirements outweighs the downside. The biggest upside to me is limiting the number of players you need to do further evaluation on, allowing you to have a better grasp of the players that do remain on your board.

Your best tool is still your eyes, the stop watch and measuring tape just give you a framework to build your assessment around.