Content Post Bill Belichick's draft strategy.

[Rob0729]

I will spell this out.

No super bowl championships in 11 seasons. How did the constant trading down help the Pats there? When Brady retires, everyone can say "hey, the Pats have 12 picks in the next draft!" Cinci fleeced BB out of 2 - 5th round picks for Stinko among the other draft fiasco's. Value my axx.

There comes a time, LIKE THIS DRAFT, when you can take advantage of having a HOF QB basically in his prime if you draft talent. Not reclamation projects and misfits.

But, if youre happy with AFCE championships by all means yours is the way to go.

Huh? Was February 2005 11 years ago? Did I go to bed last night and wake up in 2016?

The Pats went to the Super Bowl last year. They went in the 2007 season. They have three

Based on your standards, only the Giants, Steelers, Colts, and Packers have a good draft strategy.

There are about 28 other teams in the league who would have been happy with settling to get to the Championship Game last year. The Pats had the lead in the Super Bowl with under 2 minutes left in the game just a few months ago. If Gronk and Mankins were healthy, the Pats might have won. And you want the Pats to blow up their strategy because they are massive underachievers.

Again, look into that comedy thing. Your posts are pure comedy gold.

 

[signbabybrady]

I will spell this out.

No super bowl championships in 11 seasons. How did the constant trading down help the Pats there? When Brady retires, everyone can say "hey, the Pats have 12 picks in the next draft!" Cinci fleeced BB out of 2 - 5th round picks for Stinko among the other draft fiasco's. Value my axx.

There comes a time, LIKE THIS DRAFT, when you can take advantage of having a HOF QB basically in his prime if you draft talent. Not reclamation projects and misfits.

But, if youre happy with AFCE championships by all means yours is the way to go.

This post is full of fail. Who are you referring to not winning a superbowl in 11 years? Who is happy with just AFC East titles? At the very least give em credit for AFC conference titles.


I like to compare BBs strategy to poker and I compare his two late first rounders to top pair its a good hand wins often and if you like you can go all in with it and you have a good chance to win.
But in poker the better strategy is to wait on the nuts and go all in while patiently doing the best with what is dealt.
Remember a few years ago when that pick wound up being top ten boom he got dealt pocket aces that year. But here is the real key once the chips are gone game over so BB has to be careful pushing all in or else he is back at the ATM trading Drew, Tebucky, Cassel, or the next guy to reup his chip stack.
And like in poker any of these hands can win or lose on 4th and 5th street which for this analogy I guess is the players career which is what truly equals a winning hand.
And now to my favorite part of this analogy you guys who complain had we just done this instead of that we would have had player x instead of y, well i equate that to the guy who folded a straight draw that would of wound up connecting, sure you missed out but chasing every draw is a sure way to use up all your chips.

 

[patman52]

Exactly ! And that friggen #2 pick always winds up being Darius Butler, or Ron Brace, or Terrance Wheatley or Bethel Johnson, as we pass up stud players every year. Quantity doesn't ALWAYS beat quality.

I know I know, if you don't like it go follow another team, or the Pats have gone 27-5 the last 2 years or gone to 5 SB's in 10 years, blah blah blah. But Belichick's drafting has been questionable at best the last 7 years. Only Mayo, Mankins, Solder, Mccourty, Vollmer, Gronkowski & Hernandez have been good to great players picked in the last 7 drafts. All the rest have been busts.

No one should tell a poster to follow another team because of a difference of opinion on draft strategy. However you have to understand that BBs philosophy is not to win next year but to be competitive every year. Why do you think he picked up Mallet and totally wasted a choice. Because in three years when Tom hangs it up, We may already have a replacement.

A GM has a responsibility to win and keep fans/customers happy but also to the guy who pays him, to keep a team on the field that warrants a waiting list for tickets.

Gostkowski, Connolly, Wendell, Spikes, Love, Chung, etc all beg to differ that they are busts, You seem to believe that unless a player gets pro-bowl consideration they are busts.

That said, BB seems to be horrible at picking OLBs and WR.

 

[cstjohn17]

Exactly ! And that friggen #2 pick always winds up being Darius Butler, or Ron Brace, or Terrance Wheatley or Bethel Johnson, as we pass up stud players every year. Quantity doesn't ALWAYS beat quality.

At best draft picks are 50/50, compare any team against the Patriots, the Pats are better than most, by a lot.

For every Wheatley there is a Chung, Spikes, Vollmer, Gronk.

 

[cstjohn17]

I posted this in the draft area but it is relevant here as well.

I actually like the trade down approach unless they make a move into the top 15. Basically from 15-50 there is not much difference.

Please insert your preferred rating system, I like NFP.
National Football Post College Big Board | National Football Post

Pick #15 is rated as a 7.0
Pick #52 is rates as a 6.8

Each team is going to have players slightly higher or lower but if your remove the names and become cold and uncaring like BB you see players that are basically the same. The sweet spot is around 30-50.

With at best a 50/50 chance of making any impact the Patriots minimize risk by moving back without much of a dropoff. There have been a lot of misses (same as every team) but the 2nd round has worked out well (Chung, Gronk, Spikes, Vollmer).


NFP Prospect Grading System | National Football Post

7.0 Becomes a starter during his rookie year… Becomes a solid NFL player who has no real weakness… Can’t be exploited or consistently taken out of games.

Dirty Starter Caliber / Specialty Player

6.9 Contributes first year and starts second year… Must be able to get on the field and make a contribution as a rookie… Expected to start his second year in the league.

6.8 Contributes first year, but may take time to become a starter… Has the ability to become a starter and will be expected to assume a starting role.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Exactly ! And that friggen #2 pick always winds up being Darius Butler, or Ron Brace, or Terrance Wheatley or Bethel Johnson, as we pass up stud players every year. Quantity doesn't ALWAYS beat quality.

I know I know, if you don't like it go follow another team, or the Pats have gone 27-5 the last 2 years or gone to 5 SB's in 10 years, blah blah blah. But Belichick's drafting has been questionable at best the last 7 years. Only Mayo, Mankins, Solder, Mccourty, Vollmer, Gronkowski & Hernandez have been good to great players picked in the last 7 drafts. All the rest have been busts.

That's really two distinct issues that should be separated.

The first is what the OP was referring to: a draft strategy. In the scenario presented the Patriots get an extra second round pick each and every year.

What you responded to is actually a completely different topic of discussion: how well do the Patriots draft? However, listing all those 'busts' doesn't really tell us anything. Unless you apply the same standard of grading draft picks with each of the 31 other teams and then compare, then it is not possible to know if the Pats are doing very well, very poorly, above average of below average in terms of drafting prowess. In addition it is still far too early to make a determination on how well any team did in the most recent draft(s).

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Based on your standards, only the Giants, Steelers, Colts, and Packers have a good draft strategy.

So good, in fact, that it got the GM canned!

 

[sieglo]

Just accept it - we only have one pick in the first round. The other is just a "get a free 2nd rd pick" card for years and years and years.

Too bad BB sucks at drafting second rounders (but is great drafting first rounders).

 

[Leemo]

It all depends who is there when we pick. All this speculation means nothing. If players BB and the scouts rank high enough fall into lap we will use our picks, both of them. If not we will trade down to a suitable position

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

There are so many falsehoods here it's ridiculous.

1) We do have two #1s until Bill decides not to use one.

2) Trading a #1 for a #2 and future #1 is a great deal. So good I don't think we'll get that deal in this draft. If you do it three times you've traded a #1 for three #2s, a good deal even if you never use the #1.

3) Belichick doesn't suck with #2s, he's a touch over 50-50 which isn't bad.

Good - Light, Branch, Wilson, Chung, Vollmer, Gronk, Spikes - 7
Bad - Klemm, Bethel Johnson, Hill, Jackson, Wheatley, Brace, Butler - 8
TBD - Dowling, Vereen, Cunningham

And even Bethel had some moments + Hill's story wasn't over although he hadn't shown a big impact.

 

[Ron Sellers]

I will spell this out.

No super bowl championships in 11 seasons. How did the constant trading down help the Pats there? When Brady retires, everyone can say "hey, the Pats have 12 picks in the next draft!" Cinci fleeced BB out of 2 - 5th round picks for Stinko among the other draft fiasco's. Value my axx.

There comes a time, LIKE THIS DRAFT, when you can take advantage of having a HOF QB basically in his prime if you draft talent. Not reclamation projects and misfits.

But, if youre happy with AFCE championships by all means yours is the way to go.

I see this argument used quite often, but to me there is a flaw in the 'need to trade up to take advantage of the HoF QB' logic.

First of all there is no guarantee that the earlier draft pick will be a stud, and will have an immediate positive impact. What happens if you move up and that early pick turns out to be the next Vernon Gholston, Dewayne Robertson or Ki-Jana Carter? Doesn't that do more to harm that 'closing window of opportunity' than drafting two or three players slightly later would?

Second, football is the ultimate team game. It requires solid contributions from dozens of players to win a championship; no other sport relies on so many players to win. An NBA championship, for example, can be won by putting together a team consisting of one star, an above average player, and a few role players; that combination will land you in last place in the NFL. Having a great quarterback and adding one impact player does not guarantee a championship.

The 'reclamations and misfits' have nothing whatsoever to do with the draft; additional players need to be signed regardless. Ironically trading up would actually mean you need to fill up the remainder of your roster with more of those that fit that description, since the team would have a smaller total number of draft picks.

The decision to not put all their eggs in one basket and go for it all in one year can be very frustrating in real time for fans, but it has actually served the franchise very well. The Pats have been able to accomplish something that is not supposed to happen in the salary cap, free agency era: they have remained highly competitive while nearly completely rebuilding the team. No, they have not won a championship in seven years. But besides the rebuilding, let's not forget two years were essentially lost with Brady's injury, they made it to an AFCCG that they could have won if not for a bad call, and not one but two Super Bowls that could easily have gone the other way as well.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Too bad BB sucks at drafting second rounders (but is great drafting first rounders).

Tell Gronk he sucks and get back to us with his response.

 

[patfanken]

A couple of key points to consider in this discussion.

1. Semantics - We have GOT to start to differentiate between "busts", "disappointments", "reasonable values" and 'hits" They all aren't the same thing. For example I don't think that you can label any player a "bust" past the 4th round, just because expectations of a 5th round player making a significant long term contribution are so very low to begin with

"Bust" - is a draft pick that didn't contribute- - Chad Jackson was a bust - Darius Butler was a bust. These are the guys in the first 3 rounds that did virtually NOTHING and are gone within 3 years

"Disappointments - These are guys who gave some service to the team, yet never produced to the level we expected of them or their draft position -

Bethel Johnson belongs to this group, because while he never panned out as the WR we hoped for, he was better than average KO returner for a couple of years, and he made a few memorable and important catches. Moroney would also fit in this category.

"Reasonable Value" - These are the relatively high draft picks who, while they never became "core starters" or reach our ultimate expectations, still played significant roles for a reasonable length of time. - These are guys like Moroney (IMO) Kazcur, Hobbs, Sanders, Merriweather etc These are the guys who are somewhere above "disappointments" yet below "hits"

"Hits" - Now "hits" can come from ANY round - Any player who comes from the bottom 3 rounds and plays a significant contribution is a hit. Guys like Edelman, Slater, Deadrick, Pryor, etc are examples of low round "hits" Now when you talk about being a "hit" in the upper 3 rounds, IMO it means being starter or situational player who gets at least 50% of the snaps and does it on a long term 3+ years

"JAG's" - This is another term that is mostly used as a negative. But is shouldn't be since at least 60% of the league is made up of "JAG's" No team wins without them. The key to BB's success is that he's constantly working to make sure that HIS "JAGS" are better than his opponents' JAGS (or at least better coached and prepared)

Also a lot depends on when the pick was taken....even within in the round. For example Ben Watson was the last pick in the first round, and there are many here who call him a "bust" because he never met our lofty expectations of what a "first rounder" should be. And even though Watson was the LAST man picked in the first round, I'd be willing to bet that he out-produced a majority of those who were picked ahead of him. I have always felt that if Watson had been picked just one pick lower, there would have been a lot of fans much happier with his performance.

A great majority of our given picks this past decade have come late in every round. Its only common sense that the best groceries are gone when you are constantly picking last in every "aisle" Keeping ahead of the game, like the Pats have is even more impressive.

2. Injuries is another factor that has to play a part. You can't judge a pick based on injuries because for great part its just a matter of luck. And don't tell me about "injury histories". There are just too many guys who have come into the league WITHOUT "injury histories" who have spent more time on the IR than on the playing field, and visa versa.

I think guys like Ron Brace should be put into the Disappointment category with an "Injury asterisk" The same could be said of Wheatly (though he'd be a bust with an injury asterisk)

3. The draft annuity - Someone the other day said it better than I, but even though many of of us get frustrated when BB doesn't use all his picks, he has consistently added picks every year that have ultimately been to our advantage. As this poster so aptly pointed out, BB has used that extra pick to essentially get us an extra second round pick every year for the last several. Don't you think that having 2 second round picks, while everyone else gets just one, puts us at a distinct competitive advantage?

4. The ease of FA and the fact it only take 4 years for players to reach full UFA, has a mitigating effect on the importance of the draft. You now have a secondary source of continual new talent. The good news is that you can take out a lot of the risk in your selection. The bad news is, the new player will often cost more than a new draft pick.

BOTTOM LINE - does BB make picks that don't reach our expectations? Sure he does. Lots of them. However I find it curious that we focus on these like we are the only team in the league that is F##king this up. We aren't.

 

[Shockt327]

Exactly ! And that friggen #2 pick always winds up being Darius Butler, or Ron Brace, or Terrance Wheatley or Bethel Johnson, as we pass up stud players every year. Quantity doesn't ALWAYS beat quality.

Awful post....cause we nabbed Gronk by trading down.

It's diversifying in order to spread the risk; so even when we do draft a Butler or Tate...we'll still get a Gronkowski out of it. Instead of using one 1st; we'll keep moving down and picking up players for years and years...all with the same draft pick too. Oh, and yes. There is absolutely no way I'd rather use that 1st -- like your advocating -- on what would have been Clay Matthews or Michael Oher, rather than trading it away to end up with Gronk (and Eddleman).

Just to set the record on that trade...

#23(1) in 2009:
traded to Balt(Michael Oher) for:
- #26(1)
- #162(5)

#26(1) and #162(5) in 2009:
traded to GB(Clay Matthews) for:
- #41(2) used to acquire D. Butler.
- #83(3) used to acquire B. Tate
- #73(3)

#73(3) in 2009:
traded to JAX (Derek Cox) for:
-2010 #44(2)
-232(7) used to acquire Julian Eddleman

#44(2) in 2010:
traded - along with 190(6) - to Oak(Lamarr Houston, and Travis Goethel) for:
- #42 used to acquire Rob Gronkowski

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

I know I know, if you don't like it go follow another team, or the Pats have gone 27-5 the last 2 years or gone to 5 SB's in 10 years, blah blah blah. But Belichick's drafting has been questionable at best the last 7 years. Only Mayo, Mankins, Solder, Mccourty, Vollmer, Gronkowski & Hernandez have been good to great players picked in the last 7 drafts. All the rest have been busts.

Gee, 7 franchise position-players in 7 years? Sounds well above the NFL draft average to me. Well above. And this is supposed to be indicative of BB at his worst? LOL.

 

[Deus Irae]

I know that it's the one of the two NFL slow seasons, but rehashing this argument seems more fruitless than almost any other topic. Both sides are right, and both sides are wrong, because both sides position their argument as absolute. It's not the strategy that's key, but making the proper selections with whatever the picks end up being. The Patriots trade picks almost as a reflex. The Giants stay put.

 

[borg]

I too don't believe the Pats will be able to work the #1 for the #2/#1 annuity this year. It is looking like both St Louis and Cleveland have the extra picks and the will to start their own annuity program and since both teams are in front of the Pats, they may be the players in this draft. Maybe BB can work a high #2 with a '13 #2 included. I personally like BB to trade with crappy teams using our back end #1 for next years #1....with the hope that this turns into a top ten pick. You know he will trade back at some point to get more late rounders...which the Pats don't have enough of

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

I too don't believe the Pats will be able to work the #1 for the #2/#1 annuity this year. It is looking like both St Louis and Cleveland have the extra picks and the will to start their own annuity program and since both teams are in front of the Pats, they may be the players in this draft. Maybe BB can work a high #2 with a '13 #2 included. I personally like BB to trade with crappy teams using our back end #1 for next years #1....with the hope that this turns into a top ten pick. You know he will trade back at some point to get more late rounders...which the Pats don't have enough of

Not to mention this draft isn't very strong at the bottom end of round one.

Personally I would take a #3 this year and #1 next year for #27. I would even consider a #4 like we took in 2006. My latest mock for the Patriots makes me want to throw up with what we might end up taking with our #1s. I'd prefer, say, Bruce Irvin and a #1 next year than Shea McClellin.

 

[BB4PRez]

Did you read what he wrote?
They are using them. In his simplistic example that they do the same thing every year, you trade one first round pick for a 2nd and another 1st, then trade that for a 2nd and another first, then keep doing it.
Instead of getting one player with the first, you ultimately end up with another second every single year.
Look at it this way:
If we could trade the 31st pick to Tennessee for their 2nd in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020........
do you make that trade?

This really is the game except its Tennessee's, second this year, the raiders the 2nd year after that, the saints 2nd the year after that...

I honestly do not see how a poster who wants to be a fan of the team for many years does not see how BB strategy of trading the late first for a second this year and a first next is not smart. Could they make better picks? Absolutely, but the stategy is sound. BB can do it becuase he has more job security than any coach in the league. Other teams are always looking for that one pick who can put the team over the top.

 

[TruthSeeker]

If you look at the starting lineup for the Pats in the last SB, 6 of the 11 offensive starters were free agent pickups or trades, 5 of the 11 defensive starters, same thing. So 50% of your starting 22 were NOT Patriot's draft choices. That to me is pretty pitiful drafting, I don't expect the draft process to change until Belichick leaves. All the mediots and Koolaid drinkers will marvel at Bellichick's draft pick mastery as he continues to draft schlubs in the second round instead of using the two first round picks we seem to have every year and never use. Reminds me of the Emporer's new clothes.

 

[nabwong]

Kraft and BB expects the best but prepares for the worst.

Some people spend their whole paycheck and are ok as long as you don't get fired from your job or get sick/injured.

Some save everything they get.

We're somewhere in the middle. Saving 20%-30%. Enough for rainy day (like getting a 1st round pick taken in 2007) and also enjoy life (like trading up to get Gronk).