Is the assertion that Belichick's drafts have been poor accurate?

[IllegalContact]

You didn't have to try....but you succeeded

I'm not trying to prove anyone's point. The facts are the facts. It would seem that two things can be true at the same time:

(1) Belichick has been pretty successful *overall* in drafting talent for the Patriots.

(2) Belichick has not been nearly as successful drafting *defensive* talent for the Patriots.

Clearly he has hit some huge home runs: Brady, Wilfork, Mayo, Mankins, Light, Seymour (obviously not with the team any longer, but that was still a great pick), Gronkowski, etc. He has also had some really bad misses: Chad Jackson, Bethel Johnson, etc.).

However he's done it, the Patriots have consistently been one of the best teams in football, year-in and year-out. That cannot be denied by any rational person (not even a Jets' fan).

 

[ivanvamp]

You didn't have to try....but you succeeded

Well, maybe, maybe not. If you go back a few pages, I made the point that you guys are arguing past one another because you cannot agree on the criteria. What makes a good draft? Suppose you're, say, the Dolphins. You have a good defense and really good skill players, but you have a crappy QB. You decide to trade away your entire draft in order to get the #1 pick this year and you draft Andrew Luck. Say he becomes an all-time great QB. Is that a good draft? Well, if you define it by "impact", then yeah, they nailed it. If you define it by sheer numbers that make your team, then no, it's a bad draft (how can just *one* guy making the team be good, if your criteria is volume?).

So the facts are the facts. But what you're not taking into account with those numbers is the quality of those players. In other words, you're looking at certain facts, but not all the facts. On defense, the Pats currently have the following guys that they have drafted that are pro-bowl players:

Wilfork
Mayo
McCourty

How many defenses start three pro-bowl players? Some, for sure. But not a lot. So if you grade them on *impact*, you have to give them a pretty good grade in terms of drafting defense.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Re-read my post that you responded to. I never mentioned 2001. You basically answered questions I did not ask, and ignored everything I did state and ask. Some people would define that as trollish.





How do you know that those numbers suck? Based on what? What's the league average, the top score, the bottom score, the top ten percent number, the top 25% number over the time frame (five years?) that you want to use to fit your agenda? And if you do take the time to figure it out - which I highly doubt that you will - be sure to hold all 31 other teams to the identical standard that you apply to the Pats (e.g., injured players count as busts) for everyone.


Go ahead and call me a kool-aid homer, but until I see some stats like those I mentioned, then how in the world are you, I or anyone else supposed to know how good or how bad those numbers are? What is the correct number of starters and correct number of drafted players a team is supposed to have on its roster after x number of years? Where did you come up with that number? And why are we not counting guys that were signed as UDFA out of college hours after the draft was completed - even though they were obviously scouted, worked out, analyzed and targeted in the same identical manner that players chosen in the draft were?

It doesn't work out well for the haters when they have to look at the whole picture, the only hope they have is to exclude everything the Patriots do right in the draft process and focus solely on what they have done wrong. CHFF did the analysis for the entire league over the entire decade and came away with the Patriots at the top of the league, and that didn't even include UDFA's and I doubt there is any team that has had more success hitting on those players, and as pointed out in a recent post those are players scouted and graded by the Patriots but are deemed available after the draft and pursued then.

Every team is going to have hits and misses in every aspect of personel, be it the draft, free agency, re-signing their own free agents, or UDFA's, and because so many fans now think they can be a GM they dismiss the achievements so they can play GM and tell the world what they would have done different. In the end however what matters is production and the Patriots are as good as it gets in that department, and that simply defies all the claims that they suck at personel and specifically at the draft.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Well, maybe, maybe not. If you go back a few pages, I made the point that you guys are arguing past one another because you cannot agree on the criteria. What makes a good draft? Suppose you're, say, the Dolphins. You have a good defense and really good skill players, but you have a crappy QB. You decide to trade away your entire draft in order to get the #1 pick this year and you draft Andrew Luck. Say he becomes an all-time great QB. Is that a good draft? Well, if you define it by "impact", then yeah, they nailed it. If you define it by sheer numbers that make your team, then no, it's a bad draft (how can just *one* guy making the team be good, if your criteria is volume?).

So the facts are the facts. But what you're not taking into account with those numbers is the quality of those players. In other words, you're looking at certain facts, but not all the facts. On defense, the Pats currently have the following guys that they have drafted that are pro-bowl players:

Wilfork
Mayo
McCourty

How many defenses start three pro-bowl players? Some, for sure. But not a lot. So if you grade them on *impact*, you have to give them a pretty good grade in terms of drafting defense.

The haters and trolls like the jet fan can't use real criteria because they have to crop their arguments to fit their agenda, that's why the jet fan said to use the CHFF criteria but crop it to their few worst years so it would fit their argument.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

So to recap...
NE trades #23(1) in 2009 for Butler, Tate, Eddleman, and Gronkowski (+190 in '10)

So r u saying trading the 23rd pick in the draft for what ends up being a home run on pick at 42 a year later (when BB took a chance on an ijuried player) and a special teamer in Edelman plus two busts is a good trade????


Com'on Man!

Butler was a complete bust, Tate at least could return kicks (and shouldn't have been cut this year) (another questionable roster move).

The fact reamins the Pats could have had Clay Matthews, and Gronkowski (as they traded up for him anyways), plus any number of other guys.

James Kirk put BB CB drafting stategey best...

"Yes, BB (Khan) your still picking CB every year in the draft, you managed to pick every bust CB out there, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing your target"

The Pats are going to have to draft ANOTHER CB next year, and hope that he isn't a bust (Yes, I'm already placing Made of Glass on IR for next year too). Meanwhile the lack of an elite player in the front seven is STILL the biggest need since McGinest left for Cleveland and Seymour was shipped out for Solder.

 

[ivanvamp]

The Pats are going to have to draft ANOTHER CB next year, and hope that he isn't a bust (Yes, I'm already placing Made of Glass on IR for next year too). Meanwhile the lack of an elite player in the front seven is STILL the biggest need since McGinest left for Cleveland and Seymour was shipped out for Solder.

I know the Pats aren't known for drafting for "need", but for the 2012 draft, boy, I really think they need to go almost all defense. They are loaded on the offensive line. They have a bunch of good young RB. Brady has his long-term backup in Mallet. Stacked at TE. Their receiving corps could always use improvement, but they'll figure that out.

They currently have 6 picks in the 2012 draft:

1st Round
1st Round (New Orleans)
2nd Round (Oakland)
2nd Round
3rd Round
4th Round

Oh, I'm sure they'll trade away one of the 1st rounders and add, say, a 3rd in 2012 and a 1st in 2013, as BB typically does. But that's still 6 picks in the first 4 rounds. Please improve the defense, Bill!!

 

[BaltimorePatsFan]

Still better than some guys like Jerry Angelo, but one of the worst when it comes to drafting skill position players. Also reaches way too much for players that he likes, like Mankins, Wheatley, McCourty, Ohrnberger and etc. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Huckleberry1]

So r u saying trading the 23rd pick in the draft for what ends up being a home run on pick at 42 a year later (when BB took a chance on an ijuried player) and a special teamer in Edelman plus two busts is a good trade????


Com'on Man!

Butler was a complete bust, Tate at least could return kicks (and shouldn't have been cut this year) (another questionable roster move).

The fact reamins the Pats could have had Clay Matthews, and Gronkowski (as they traded up for him anyways), plus any number of other guys.

James Kirk put BB CB drafting stategey best...

"Yes, BB (Khan) your still picking CB every year in the draft, you managed to pick every bust CB out there, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing your target"

The Pats are going to have to draft ANOTHER CB next year, and hope that he isn't a bust (Yes, I'm already placing Made of Glass on IR for next year too). Meanwhile the lack of an elite player in the front seven is STILL the biggest need since McGinest left for Cleveland and Seymour was shipped out for Solder.

The "Could have had......." argument is the weakest draft argument out there and ignores the entire draft process. Teams go into drafts with boards stacked and a general idea of how they want to approach the entire draft as the positions pool in different ways in every draft and the needs are addressed in relation to that dynamic, so if a team knows the draft is thin at OL and a great prospect is there in the first and there is a crop of good DB's available in the second then they will try to take that route to address their needs rather than take the DB and have to wait for the fourth for their next real shot at OL.

Mathews was widely considered a first round pick prior to the draft and a big binky in NE, so it's not surprising people are unhappy he turned out so well, but Butler was also rated as a first rounder and Belichik was far from alone in thinking he was good value where he was taken, sucks he didn't pan out but that's the way it goes with the Draft. I would have loved Mathews had they taken him and I have wanted an impact pass rusher in every draft for years but I can still understand that Belichik has scouted these guys endlessly and right or wrong has good reasons for the decisions he makes come draft day.


The "Could have had......" argument can be used for literally every team, every pick, every draft to make every GM look bad and isn't a valid way to criticize a front office. Looking at every draft in context after a few years to evaluate production is the only way you can evaluate how teams are doing drafting and the bottom line always shows on the field as teams that draft poorly don't win.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Still better than some guys like Jerry Angelo, but one of the worst when it comes to drafting skill position players. Also reaches way too much for players that he likes, like Mankins, Wheatley, McCourty, Ohrnberger and etc. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

I don't know how Mankins made that list, they got a future HOF OL picking last in the first and they were well aware that other teams were going to take him soon if they didn't jump[ at it.

Other than Ohrnberger the players you listed were all pegged to go roughly where they went, and citing Mankins as a reach when he is one of their best picks ever is out there.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I know the Pats aren't known for drafting for "need", but for the 2012 draft, boy, I really think they need to go almost all defense. They are loaded on the offensive line. They have a bunch of good young RB. Brady has his long-term backup in Mallet. Stacked at TE. Their receiving corps could always use improvement, but they'll figure that out.

They currently have 6 picks in the 2012 draft:

1st Round
1st Round (New Orleans)
2nd Round (Oakland)
2nd Round
3rd Round
4th Round

Oh, I'm sure they'll trade away one of the 1st rounders and add, say, a 3rd in 2012 and a 1st in 2013, as BB typically does. But that's still 6 picks in the first 4 rounds. Please improve the defense, Bill!!

I see it the same way. Hopefully they really like this draft and use them all, and I would love to see them package 2 to move up early and get and impact defender. This is going to be a really big offseason for them because they really need to turn their defense into a top five unit over the next 2 years. If they can do that they can win a couple more SB's and finish off Brady's career as GOAT.

 

[ivanvamp]

I see it the same way. Hopefully they really like this draft and use them all, and I would love to see them package 2 to move up early and get and impact defender. This is going to be a really big offseason for them because they really need to turn their defense into a top five unit over the next 2 years. If they can do that they can win a couple more SB's and finish off Brady's career as GOAT.

I feel like they could just randomly pick a defensive player from Alabama or LSU and it would work out ok. Those college teams are LOADED with excellent defensive talent. I'd love to see NE get two of these guys:

LB Upshaw, Ala
LB Hightower, Ala
CB Claiborne, LSU (not gonna happen...he's going to go too high for sure)
LB Brown, UNC
DT Geathers, Georgia
DE Crick, Nebraska

 

[BaltimorePatsFan]

I don't know how Mankins made that list, they got a future HOF OL picking last in the first and they were well aware that other teams were going to take him soon if they didn't jump[ at it.

Other than Ohrnberger the players you listed were all pegged to go roughly where they went, and citing Mankins as a reach when he is one of their best picks ever is out there.

Mankins: projected 3rd round pick SI.com - 2005 NFL Draft - Logan Mankins

Wheatley: projected 4th round pick
NFLDraft101: Terrence Wheatley (Colorado) NFL Draft Scouting Report

Again, some worked out, like Mankins, and others didn't, like Wheatley.

 

[JackBauer]

Still better than some guys like Jerry Angelo, but one of the worst when it comes to drafting skill position players. Also reaches way too much for players that he likes, like Mankins, Wheatley, McCourty, Ohrnberger and etc. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

Assuming McCourty returns to form, that's a two excellent players, one bust, and one TBD.

And the problem is what, exactly?

 

[BaltimorePatsFan]

Assuming McCourty returns to form, that's a two excellent players, one bust, and one TBD.

And the problem is what, exactly?

The problem is that he reaches too much for players that he could very well draft in later rounds. Wheatley, BB could have picked up in round 4, instead of Wilhite who was another reach, and used that second round pick to draft Terrell Thomas, who has been MUCH better.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

The "Could have had......." argument is the weakest draft argument out there and ignores the entire draft process. Teams go into drafts with boards stacked and a general idea of how they want to approach the entire draft as the positions pool in different ways in every draft and the needs are addressed in relation to that dynamic, so if a team knows the draft is thin at OL and a great prospect is there in the first and there is a crop of good DB's available in the second then they will try to take that route to address their needs rather than take the DB and have to wait for the fourth for their next real shot at OL.

Mathews was widely considered a first round pick prior to the draft and a big binky in NE, so it's not surprising people are unhappy he turned out so well, but Butler was also rated as a first rounder and Belichik was far from alone in thinking he was good value where he was taken, sucks he didn't pan out but that's the way it goes with the Draft. I would have loved Mathews had they taken him and I have wanted an impact pass rusher in every draft for years but I can still understand that Belichik has scouted these guys endlessly and right or wrong has good reasons for the decisions he makes come draft day.

In the last five drafts, BB has drafted 8 defensive backs, in doing so, he utilized two first round picks, the 33rd and 34th picks, plus two more second round picks and a fourth round pick, all on DBs....bottom line last Sunday, ONE OF THEM WAS ON THE FIELD!!!!

If you want to say that you are happy with using all those high picks and get only two starters out of it, and no back-ups???



The "Could have had......" argument can be used for literally every team, every pick, every draft to make every GM look bad and isn't a valid way to criticize a front office. Looking at every draft in context after a few years to evaluate production is the only way you can evaluate how teams are doing drafting and the bottom line always shows on the field as teams that draft poorly don't win.

Well BB wouldn't have HAD to draft a CB if he didn't miss with WHilite and Wheately, then of course, he wouldn't have HAD to draft another one, when Butler too turned out to be a BUST. And now they guy who has been on IR since high school, incredible, couldn't stay healthy enough to a) get through training camp b) play in one complete game. ON DRAFT DAY, I predicted that Ras I would be the second coming of Crable. And I didn't even have to use a crystal ball to figure that out.

It is something like 8 picks in the last five years used in the secondary, and last Sunday, ONE OF THEM WAS ON THE FIELD. That's 2 #1s, the first and second picks in the second round, two more second rounders, and a thrid and forth for kicks.

 

[JackBauer]

The problem is that he reaches too much for players that he could very well draft in later rounds. Wheatley, BB could have picked up in round 4, instead of Wilhite who was another reach, and used that second round pick to draft Terrell Thomas, who has been MUCH better.

You have no way of knowing that, except in hindsight. Again, I don't see the reaches nor results being particularly egregious.

Of course there are individual picks that look bad in retrospect.

 

[Huckleberry1]

The problem is that he reaches too much for players that he could very well draft in later rounds. Wheatley, BB could have picked up in round 4, instead of Wilhite who was another reach, and used that second round pick to draft Terrell Thomas, who has been MUCH better.

So when they rate a player properly, like Mankins, it is a "reach" because a "draft expert at CBS' says so?

You can find sites that will say whatever you want them to and none have any of the depth of analysis that goes into stacking a board that teams use, and it also ignores the fact that teams stack boards according to their team's situation in personel and not generically for the whole league. What matters is the Patriots grading and ranking players correctly, not what Mel Kiper and Todd McShay think.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Mankins: projected 3rd round pick SI.com - 2005 NFL Draft - Logan Mankins

Wheatley: projected 4th round pick
NFLDraft101: Terrence Wheatley (Colorado) NFL Draft Scouting Report

Again, some worked out, like Mankins, and others didn't, like Wheatley.

The 49ers were going to take Mankins at #33 and the patriots were smart enough to take a HOF quality OL before that could happen, so much for "reaches."

Combine notes: Ex-Miner Jackson models game after Patriots' Mankins - Sacramento Sports - Kings, 49ers, Raiders, High School Sports | Sacramento Bee

 

[Shockt327]

Wrong......I was beating the barwin drum since before that draft, so hindsight had nothing to do with it.

Also, I meant barwin with the current set of picks and no Matthews......I think barwin is better anyway.

my point about gronk was that since the pats moved up to get him, that they were prepared to do so even if they never make the deal that netted the 2nd rounder they used in the deal to get him. Quite simple, really.

Barwin instead of butler or brace, and reed instead of dowling.......problem solved

More fan hyperbole....

1) Oh, you liked Barwin beforehand? You say this as if you have advanced knowledge. You don't. The ones that do? The real GMs? Even they still hit landmines. They all do. Find me one that doesn't. One. It is unavoidable. You have a 50/50 chance of being right over a 1st rd pick. It goes down by 10% each round. It's a coin flip, at best, in rd 1. You flip a coin again, and again...you'll hit tails almost as often as you'll hit heads. Oh, so you liked Barwin? Well, then you need to own up to who else you liked...and misjudged. Cause you don't have a crystal ball. You don't have inside knowledge. All you have is a cherry-picking of that one coinflip that landed on heads, and some 20/20 hindsight to bolster it. That's what you are doing in this thread. That's not real. That's fan hyperbole.

2) Oh they would've picked Gronk anyways, you say? Quite Simple, you say? Nonsense. How in that even logictically plausible? Cause draft picks don't just fall out of the sky. Their allotted 2nd was all the way back at #53. Not at #42. That an 11 spot gap in the 2nd. You think a team will trade that far down for peanuts? LOL. The Patriots -- because they needed only 2 spots (not 11!) -- used pick # 190 to trade up for Gronk. That's a whole 6th for just 2 spots. Now make it 11. Hmmm. Bit trickier, huh? You don't just have trade-able draft picks on tap. But, they were already it prime position at #44 for Gronk; as a direct result of the Clay-trade. You know, in addition to having #53. Cause you simply wouldn't be in position at that slotting if #53 was all you had. Not even close. Too much of a gap, without excess ammo to bridge it. That's why you diversify. Cause you would've put all your 2nd rd eggs in one basket -- at #53 -- if you never passed on Clay. At #53, Gronk would've have been too far out of reach. You would've ended up with Cunningham. Ugh. But...when you have multiple picks spread out in a round...fewer and fewer players are out of reach. You don't just have to confine yourself to late 2nds (like Cunningham). You can have mid 2nds too (like Gronk).

 

[IllegalContact]

Mankins: projected 3rd round pick SI.com - 2005 NFL Draft - Logan Mankins

Wheatley: projected 4th round pick
NFLDraft101: Terrence Wheatley (Colorado) NFL Draft Scouting Report

Again, some worked out, like Mankins, and others didn't, like Wheatley.

Nfl draft countdown had the pats picking mankins in round 1..... Mocks are random