My concern is the staff has been either UNWILLING or UNSUCCESSFUL at developement at certain positions.
RB-Decade of zero developement accentuated by premium draft choice bust
WR-Post Branch and Givens era (AKA..no SB era), limited attempts met with failure
DB-Post Assante era...the Jackson Pollack era...throw alot of paint at the canvas and see a splattered mess. Hobbs stuck to the canvas, but not to WRs. Wilhite has similar traits. Point being the startings corners in the playoff game were FAs.
LBs. BB started to toss back end picks at the position, few lasted through camp. First rounders are not considered developement projects.
Safety. Successful
DL. Beyond the 3 1sts, Pats have been successful filling out roster
OL. Same as DL, many hits with a nice bullpen
QB. Can't complain, but a couple years of only 2 QBs on roster means their misses have left them thin.
So from what I can tell, you combine this with the other post saying you can't take credit for later rounds because of luck-- and here, you can't count early-round successes because they're not development projects -- and we conclude the Pats are unable or unwilling to develop talent.
So when other teams hit in the later rounds, it is because they know how to develop talent. When the Pats hit in the later rounds, it is because they got lucky.
Good to know the rules of engagement
I'm only a fan of the Pats' drafts when I compare them to the league at large; no doubt, one can always improve. I do doubt, however, that the
real brain trust is toiling in obscurity on a bulletin board while a bunch of morons in Foxborough bumbles around in highly sought-after, highly paid team scouting staff, coaching, and personnel jobs.
One of my favorite Draftnik chestnuts for the last few years has been how every damn "I know better" draftnik alive would bleat like sheep "We need a tall corner."
It should be noted that said bleating draftniks always complained about others here "drinking too much kool-aid" blah blah blah. But it's been like a niche in an ecological system: Some goober has always had to occupy the "we need a tall corner" niche. Same with "we need a tall receiver" for a few years... but that's another story.
Oh how terrible every corner ever drafted was, if he was under 6'!!!
And I am sure they were bleating this repeatedly as the Jets drafted Darryl Revis... I am sure we had Revis-backers here, and I am sure there were draftniks pro and con, some shouting down Revis-backers because he's 5'11. And I am sure some similar savants existed in Jetsland.
Similarly the Pats have hit with 1st rounders. I am sure there were those complaining when we picked up Wilfork, Warren, or Seymour, that it was not important, or we would never really get over the loss of Mt. Ted Washington, or whatever, and besides THIS guy wasn't the way to do it.
I know we have 5 more months to argue about this sort of thing, but christ on a crutch. You have a team that's done comparatively well, in an exercise that any NFL personnel man will tell you is half luck and half skill. It is NOT the premiere franchise in the NFL in said endeavor.
And now we have psuedoscientific "analysis" telling us that we refuse to develop players, with the caveat that any player the Pats could be said to develop were actually luck choices.
Come on people. This is way too transparent a methodology, designed from the get-go to get a rock-solid footing on "No no I really
do know better!" territory.
My money is still on "not quite time for that, Junior."
For any of you who were actually following this stuff "a few years ago," think about what you may have been bleating back then. "Oh why can't we at least take a look at Tim Couch or Akili Smith???" Of course, Ricky Williams was in that draft too. But back then all the smart money said with all those can't-miss, blue-chip QBs, we finally had the "next wave" to help us get over the Marino/Montana/Kosar/whoever else draft. You know, that big ol QB draft everybody always said we'd never repeat.
Welp, I think it was Culpeper, Couch, Cade McNown (!!!), Akili Smith, and maybe McNabb in that draft. Not a Marino or a Montana in the bunch. McNabb was the only lasting success there, with an arguable case for a half-career to be made for Culpepper, as long as Moss was around (local standards would call them both busts.)
Long story short: it's half-skill and half-luck, and that even pertains to #1 picks. The new wrinkle -- the Pats refuse to develop young talent except that young talent that they
do develop, because all of those are luck picks -- reeks of circular logic.
We continue to
want Maroney to prove himself a bust, but just when we think we've got him categorized, he starts shining. We want to declare a DROY from a year ago a "bust".
Hysteria, gentlemen, not science, not logic, hysteria.
But we're fans, and that's short for "fanatics." We're
supposed to come up with our dumb amateur beliefs... and if our team really
does suck, we actually don't sound like idiots when we express them.
It's definitely an honorable endeavor to wish we were better at something we're good at, and wish we were the best at the league at every aspect of the game. I just have very little faith in the annual influx of newbies who know so much about the downside of Pats drafts of the past.
Everybody remembers that he was SO hopeful the Pats got Revis (for example.) Nobody remembers hoping and praying we picked up Roy Williams - not that he's the worst player that ever came along, but he's not a guy with the ex-post-facto "it" factor you need to make these dumb arguments.
PFnV
