DRAFT DAY DISCUSSION Yes, even Mike Reiss can't defend or explain BB's draft reaches

[DaBruinz]

I have no idea where you are getting your stats, but I'd recheck if I were you.

After reading your post I went to check at NFL.com and in 2001 the Pats were ranked 24th in total defense and in 2003 they ranked 26th.

Ken, it might help to post the link from where you are getting your information.

New England Patriots Team Encyclopedia - Pro-Football-Reference.com

The Pats were ranked 1st is scoring and 7th in yards allowed in 2003.

The Pats were ranked 6th in scoring and 24th in yards allowed in 2001

The Pats were ranked 17th in scoring and 26th in yards allowed in 2005.

Now, Going to NFL.com, I can see where you made a mistake and it's a fault with the NFL site. The original sort is from MOST yards allowed to least yards allowed. So it shows them at 26th. HOWEVER, when you do a proper sort (least yards allowed to most yards allowed) you'll find that the Pats are 7th.

 

[Synovia]

50/50 is very good in the NFL draft. :rocker:

50/50 is a fantastic draft.

 

[Kontradiction]

Yes it IS an assumption. You are ASSUMING that Thomas or Branch would have even been able to comprehend the Patriots defense.

And you're doing... what, exactly... by assuming that they wouldn't? Either way, my two examples have been productive professionals with one being injury plagued the last couple of years. Prior to that, he was looking fine as a pro.

Only to people like yourself

There you go. Start making it personal.

who claim that guys like Meriweather (3 year starter)

I actually didn't make mention of Meriweather until my last post. Even then, I can pull you posts from prior to 2011 talking about how bad of an idea it was to let him go.

and Chung (2.5 year starter) are busts.

Chung is a bust. In year three, he was benched because he was god awful in coverage. Now he's no longer on the team. So, let's rewind that...

1. Benched for being a liability in coverage.

2. No longer with the team.

Is that a bust? I'd say so.

Also, it had everything to do with YOUR contention that Branch or Thomas would have magically been successful here in the Pats system. Clearly, both Thomas and Branch showed something that the Patriots DIDN'T like to have them graded not as highly as Wheatley.

I don't claim to know what they would have been in the Pats system. That's a manifestation on your part. My contention is that they've been more successful pros, with one being one of the better young safeties in the league. They were available, but instead the team whiffed on the likes of Wheatley (who already had an injury history) and Wilhite. I'm sorry that it hurts your feelings so much to hear that the team's DB drafts from 2008 to 2011 can be ranked as a small disaster, but that is the case.

It doesn't matter who you like or who you don't like. As far as for the purposes of comparison, yeah, that didn't work out to well for you. Especially since you failed miserably at the comparison.

Huh?? Let's do the timeline for a second, Biff...

1. I asked patsfaninpittsburgh/cleveland to compare Harmon's measurables to a guy like Bacarri's.

2. He responded with some weak personal insult.

And now I fail miserably at the comparison, when I'm the one that asked specifically how the two stack up to each other? In what world does this make sense?

It doesn't mater what "everyone who covers the draft" said about him. "Everyone" covering the draft said Ryan Leaf was a can't miss prospect. Everyone said that JaMarcus Russell was the next big thing. Everyone went "GAGA" over Tony Mandarich. Seriously. Do you even bother to think about this?

Again, I'm not seeing how any of these names are relevent. I could just as easily turn around and show you how accurately these people usually predict a crap shoot of a draft round by round and be just as correct about it.

Again, value is based on the TEAM doing the evaluation. Not the pundits who aren't good enough to actually do it full time for the 32 teams in the league.

It's even worse, then. The team probably should have realized that there was a good chance that Harmon would end up in the later rounds. Again, I can go safety by safety drafted after Harmon. Each either went right where they were projected to go or not too long after. And, again, if they missed out on Harmon, so what? He's not exactly a "can't miss" prospect.

 

[Kontradiction]

So, by this reasoning, Mike Wallace was a bust for the Steelers..

Failure at reasoning too. Mike Wallace turned in very productive seasons for the Steelers and was let go due to high price. Chung, by comparison was only a somewhat serviceable starter who was benched halfway through his last season and let go because he wasn't a fit and was a liability in coverage.

BTW, Chung and Meriweather contributed more than "very poorly" to the defense. This is the kind of ridiculousness that makes your argument so poor.

Again, where do you see Meriweather mentioned in that post? I was highly against letting him go. Chung, on the other hand, was a massive liability in coverage and I'd rather have McCourty there any day.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

Wheatley and Wilhite are no longer on the squad. Neither are Chung and Butler. Those four are whiffs because they either were not able to contribute in the Patriots secondary or they contributed very poorly. And Butler does not have his "**** together". He was lucky enough to find a role on a squad with a pretty bad secondary and made a couple of big plays last season. McCourty is a starting safety so that's one.



By definition, those picks are whiffs. If you take someone that has an injury history in college as a flyer with a high round draft pick, and that guy keeps getting hurt as a pro, you've whiffed.



No, it isn't. Those drafts that I listed, years later, are pretty widely regarded as bad drafts at DB for the team.



That's not true. There are plenty of pundits that have scouted or covered the draft professionally in the past. Most of those guys had Harmon going later than he actually went too.



Again, my problem isn't with Harmon in particular. It's where he went. He would have been a better value later on in the draft and, based on where the other safeties went after him vs. where they were projected, I have no reason to believe that he wouldn't have been available.



I remember very few people actually saying this. The majority said that he was somewhat of a project and may only *INITIALLY* contribute on special teams, but most that I read thought he would be a starting CB in his time with the Pats.



One of the reaches that worked out...



Initially maybe. Smith's value dropped before the draft. Some scouts still had them as a first round pick, but even they were admitting it was because some lost soul of a team could possibly trade up.



Not far off.



This one shocked me too.



I disagree with them on plenty of occasions. I do not on this one.



You should also keep in mind that, while these people miss a lot more often, they're usually as accurate as one can possibly get on a crap shoot of a concept such as the draft. They're usually able to predict the first few rounds pretty well. Listing a guy like Meriweather as a point of reference would only strength my position that Belichick's past DB selections lend themselves to scrutiny, especially after a reach in the third round.



That's fine. Like I said, he has the range, the skill, and he's smart. I would have loved to have him in the 6th or 7th while we built up the DL with a polished pass rusher such as Okafor. But to get him in the third is a widely regarded reach. Again, I didn't see any trend in the way the other safeties went after him that suggests that another team would have reached for him. His other UDFA projected comrade went in the 6th.



It had to. That was a can't-miss draft. 2009 otherwise looked like a team on the downslope of a dynasty. The 2010 draft was EXTREMELY refreshing.



Aye. I noted as much in my OP.



I think Harmon's selection could be an indictment on Wilson. Not that it will be. Time will tell. Also, it's too early for any of us to judge last year's selections, which is why I left them out of the OP. I only mentioned a possible indictment on Wilson as to why he was benched last season (blowing an assignment on the same play in quick succession, a mental error... the kind Belichick doesn't tolerate).



DB-wise, it's at 50% right now. McCourty is a good one. Dowling is a trending bust. IMO, we should wait another year for 2012's returns. The success rate at DB can either go way up then, or stay at 50%.



You don't have to. I will, though. And I've detailed why I can do so. Welcome back to PatsFans, by the way. Glad to see my argumentative nature brought you out of hibernation here.



...so did the Pats. :bricks:

This the the perfect example of when a site successfully transitions from being the best football blog on the internet to a clown car.

<honk>, <honk>

Despite his really creepy fixation on male hip fluidity, it's also an excellent example of why ex-football players do a generally poor job of analysis.

Reality

A) As Urban Meyer proved, Belichick will gravitate toward drafting players from programs where the coach has a freindship/collaboration.

B) Greg Schiano, while at Rutgers was a very close friend/collaborator. Schiano has stated on numerous occasions that his program was modeled after the Patriots

c) The Patriots have already drafted Rutgers players.

d) Safety was identified as an area of need.

e) A great indicator of success is success in a similar program. Success can translate easier than from a completely different program.

So we have a coach with a history of selecting players from collaborative programs and he selects a position of need from a collaborative program that's modeled after his program AND...........SOME ARE STUNNED.

This player is taken in the third round BUT he was projected to go in the sixth round; yet some people are stunned despite the fact that.......the Patriots didn't have a fifth or sixth round pick.

Last year, Wilson was similar.

Belichick was looking for maximum flexibility.

Pundits don't look for flexibility, they look for players that "jump out on tape".

Their workload makes that obvious. It's understandable.

Yet some are stunned that the Patriots drafted a player with the exact qualities they wanted and that would no doubt escape the notice of pundits because the pundits don't look for those qualities.

The strategic concepts that drive an organization to look for a type of player is different than the tactical considerations of the actual selection of that player.

You know you are getting it from the clown car when player evaluations happen without any clue about what type of player is actually wanted.

Can you imagine if Belichick listened to this in 2010 when drafting TE's?

 

[Kontradiction]

I'm gonna ask a question, and I don't want you to be offended, because I don't mean it to be offensive. Do you know how to read?

You obviously meant that offensively. But that's okay, I'm not going to go there with you. I think I'll just stick to the subject.

Chung isn't on the team. But he was a good starter for one year, a decent one for one year, and was an excellent special teamer for a couple years. Thats significantly above average for a 2nd rounder, not a whiff.

1. Chung was drafted with being a starting caliber safety in mind for many years.

2. Chung had a few good games in 2010 before falling off.

3. Chung was a huge reason for the problems we had at safety in 2011.

4. Chung was let go after his contract was up.

5. This team typically re-signs younger players that they feel are valuable contributers. They did not feel that way about Chung.

Chung is, by definition, a whiff.

Wilhite was a late round pick. He started games. That is a success.

He sucked. He wasn't even serviceable at any point in time. But I don't hold that against Belichick as much as Wheatley because, as you say, he WAS a late round pick.

For some reason you seem to live in this fantasy world where every one of the 220-something players picked will start for a couple years in the NFL.

No, I'm not. But I expect early round players to be taken with the intention of hopefully being a starter. When you have first and second round DB's that are picked, you are doing so in hopes of rebuilding the secondary. When they fail at the pro level, for whatever reason, you've missed. And you've also failed to improve said secondary. Again, there is a reason why Belichick turned to a troubled vet last year to improve secondary play. And it's not the awesome draft picks that he churned up in the first couple of rounds for two years.

If a guy after the 5th round even makes the roster, hes a good pick. If a guy after the 4th round plays meaningful minutes, hes a good pick. If a guy outside the 1st round ever starts, hes a good pick.

How are you determining this measurement? If Chung was a good pick, he would have been re-signed for the relatively small amount of money that it took to bring him back. Instead he was benched and then let go. Further, he was one of the top picks in the second round, which is usually given around the same grade as a first rounder. In all, I'd say that the team pretty much disagrees with your measurement there...

 

[Metaphors]

It had to. That was a can't-miss draft. 2009 otherwise looked like a team on the downslope of a dynasty. The 2010 draft was EXTREMELY refreshing.

Rolando McClain, Brandon Graham, Bryan Bulaga, Tim Tebow, Jerry Hughes, Sergio Kindle, Javier Arenas, Jimmy Clausen and Vladimir Ducasse all say "Hi". In fact, if the Pats had taken any 2 out of Hughes, Kindle or Ducasse instead of the reach for McCourty and the injury risk in Gronkowski, many would have been thrilled. I'll bet their draft grade would have been higher. In fact, Kiper gave the Ravens an A for their draft class and a B- for the Pats.

For giggles, I give you this gem from the Jets board.

Here is the nightmarish draft (for Jets fans) that the Pats could have had if Belichick chose common sense(filling huge needs of OLB & RB before 2 TEs) and balls over pompous dooshiness (not staying put and trading down constantly just to trade down):

1st round - Dez Bryant WR

2nd round - Sergio Kindle OLB / Sean Lee ILB / Charles Brown OT

3rd round - Everson Griffen DE

4th round - Akwasi Owusu-Ansah CB/S

5th round - Jonathan Dwyer - RB

6th round - Dorin ****erson- TE (basically equal to Aaron Hernandez)

7th round - Syd Quan Thompson CB / LeGarrette Blount RB / Donovan Warren CB

he did end up getting a cornerback not as good as Kyle Wilson, two more in his long string of questionable Tight Ends (Brokebackonski and Pothead) and a punter.

The pats punter is their only draft pick that would not be sitting on the bench for the Jets.

Looking back on that can't miss draft, I wouldn't have done very well if I was in charge:

DE Jared Odrick
OLB Jerry Hughes
LB Koa Misi
TE Dennis Pitta
CB Kevin Thomas
RB James Starks
WR Emmanuel Sanders
WR Seyi Ajirotutu
TE Nate Byham
P Matt Dodge
OG Joe Hawley
QB Tim Hiller

 

[Kontradiction]

Gentleman, at this time I am done with my work day. I look forward to seeing the many replies tomorrow when I come in. I will have my coffee and address every single one of you then. It's been fun.

 

[Sfpat]

I'm gonna ask a question, and I don't want you to be offended, because I don't mean it to be offensive. Do you know how to read?

Chung isn't on the team. But he was a good starter for one year, a decent one for one year, and was an excellent special teamer for a couple years. Thats significantly above average for a 2nd rounder, not a whiff.

Wilhite was a late round pick. He started games. That is a success.


For some reason you seem to live in this fantasy world where every one of the 220-something players picked will start for a couple years in the NFL. If a guy after the 5th round even makes the roster, hes a good pick. If a guy after the 4th round plays meaningful minutes, hes a good pick. If a guy outside the1st round ever starts, hes a good pick.

You've totally missed the point. The standard for most here on Patsfan regarding Patriot draft picks is Pro bowl after rookie traing camp or bust. Nothing in between and absolutely no time allowed to develop. Standard applies to all draft picks no matter where they were picked or who happens to be ahead of them on the roster (think Mallet, who's a bust because he can't beat out some scrub named Brady).

And no one is ever supposed to get injured. It's football after all, not chess.

And only Patriot draft picks bust. No other team ever has a draft pick bust (well except for the Jets).

 

[BradyFTW!]

Chung was never a good safety. The fact that he started ahead of even worse safeties doesn't change that.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I'm gonna ask a question, and I don't want you to be offended, because I don't mean it to be offensive. Do you know how to read?

Chung isn't on the team. But he was a good starter for one year, a decent one for one year, and was an excellent special teamer for a couple years. Thats significantly above average for a 2nd rounder, not a whiff.

Wilhite was a late round pick. He started games. That is a success.


For some reason you seem to live in this fantasy world where every one of the 220-something players picked will start for a couple years in the NFL. If a guy after the 5th round even makes the roster, hes a good pick. If a guy after the 4th round plays meaningful minutes, hes a good pick. If a guy outside the 1st round ever starts, hes a good pick.

If you're going to evaluate a pick, you have to look at what the team was attempting to accomplish with that pick. The string of 1st-and-2nd round secondary players were intended to produce viable NFL starters who could fix the Patriots' secondary. To that extent, most of them were failures, and the fact that Chung, Butler and Wheatley started a few games along the line doesn't change that.

I'm not part of the crowd that thinks the Patriots suck at drafting because they miss sometimes--in fact, I acknowledge that they're one of the best drafting teams in the league--but claiming that a guy like Chung, who was picked early in the second round, was a good pick... that just defies logic and common sense. The Patriots missed on that pick by any sensible definition.

What this board really does need to get over is the idea that missing on second round picks is worthy of condemnation. It happens more often than not, so if Belichick's hitting on them 50% of the time, he's doing a great job.

 

[AQPE]

Looking at Harmons numbers, this is what we get:

Height:6'0 2/8"
Weight: 196
40 - 4.51
20 - 2.67
10 - 1.60
Bench - 15
Vertical- 36"
BroadJump - 10' 5"
20 Yard Shuttle - 4.40
3-Cone - 7.02

Intangibles: Team Leader. Excellent communicator in the secondary. Excels on Special Teams. Extremely intelligent, both football and otherwise.

Some of those numbers are excellent (Broadjump, Vertical), others are about average. Only the Short Shuttle seems kinda slow.

Thanks for posting this. I'm not a draftnik at all but am fascinated by these discussions. I think most of you have done a real good job making your cases on both sides.

Here's my question: if Harmon turns out to be James Sanders 2.0 would you think they got good value? I liked Sanders here, in spite of his evident limitations. He was a good "glue guy" that helped calm things down for guys with more talent but a lot less consistency. I may be out to lunch but I think of Harmon as being in that mold.

 

[Joker]

Thanks for posting this. I'm not a draftnik at all but am fascinated by these discussions. I think most of you have done a real good job making your cases on both sides.

Here's my question: if Harmon turns out to be James Sanders 2.0 would you think they got good value? I liked Sanders here, in spite of his evident limitations. He was a good "glue guy" that helped calm things down for guys with more talent but a lot less consistency. I may be out to lunch but I think of Harmon as being in that mold.

stop putting yourself down,AQ...your post was the best one in this thread and raises a very valid point..and as far as picking the draft goes, next draft take a little time and throw darts at the board if you want...it will be just as viable as
any other junior GM here

 

[belichick010405]

Thanks for posting this. I'm not a draftnik at all but am fascinated by these discussions. I think most of you have done a real good job making your cases on both sides.

Here's my question: if Harmon turns out to be James Sanders 2.0 would you think they got good value? I liked Sanders here, in spite of his evident limitations. He was a good "glue guy" that helped calm things down for guys with more talent but a lot less consistency. I may be out to lunch but I think of Harmon as being in that mold.

AQPE - You know what, that is a very valid point that you just made and I am glad that someone has brought up Mr. James Sanders. That could be a pretty good baseline for both Tavon Wilson and Mr. Duron Harmon. Well done....:rocker:

 

[Brady2Moss]

The Pats were one of the league leaders in turnover ratio last year. The key to this team taking the next step is improving that stat against playoff-contending teams. They improved when it came to opposing 3rd down conversions which I feel was a significant weakness in 2011.

When the Pats do that - watch out because that is going to put everyone on notice. As for the additional pieces - that is why Jamie Collins was drafted and Armond Armstead was signed along with Adrian Wilson, Jason Vega and anyone that I have not listed here. There is a reason to be optimistic for this defense to carry over what it did once Talib was on this squad.

I think think that is the problem too dependent on turnovers. It is very hard to get improve the stat against the best teams in the league. The only way to win in the playoffs is to get off the field on 3rd down. Something that we did do towards the end of the year, just need to build on that.

The last team that won based off turnovers was the 09 Saints I believe. A much better way to improve the defense is 3rd down conversions need to be limited. One of the huge problems during SB 46 was horrendous field position because if the D ever got off the field it was after the Giants had reached midfield, resulting in us starting within our own 10 yard line tons of times.

Given the receivers they drafted I think they are trying to become an offense that can gain more yards in chunks than years past, couple that with a defense that gets off the field you have a team without many attackable flaws.

 

[Synovia]

I'm not part of the crowd that thinks the Patriots suck at drafting because they miss sometimes--in fact, I acknowledge that they're one of the best drafting teams in the league--but claiming that a guy like Chung, who was picked early in the second round, was a good pick... that just defies logic and common sense. The Patriots missed on that pick by any sensible definition.

If thats your definition, every pick fails, because every pick eventually needs to be replaced. Thats just ridiculous.


The average 2nd round pick produces significantly less than Chung did for the Patriots. That means Chung was a better than average pick.

 

[Kontradiction]

If thats your definition, every pick fails, because every pick eventually needs to be replaced. Thats just ridiculous.

You're blantently misrepresenting what I've said.

The average 2nd round pick produces significantly less than Chung did for the Patriots. That means Chung was a better than average pick.

What did Chung produce for the Patriots, though? Playing time for a guy that might as well been a first rounder because the team, literally, had nothing else there? You're stretching at best here and I believe you know it.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Thanks for posting this. I'm not a draftnik at all but am fascinated by these discussions. I think most of you have done a real good job making your cases on both sides.

Here's my question: if Harmon turns out to be James Sanders 2.0 would you think they got good value? I liked Sanders here, in spite of his evident limitations. He was a good "glue guy" that helped calm things down for guys with more talent but a lot less consistency. I may be out to lunch but I think of Harmon as being in that mold.

Wonderful post.

There are positions on a football team that entail needs more elusive than mere athletic ability. James Sanders had these elusive qualities, but he did not have enough of the modicum of athletic ability and size required to accomapny htem.

If asked to name them I would say QB, Safety and MLB are the positions that are played as much "between the ears" as any others. These positions need brains, and leadership traits, and perhaps football "diagnosis instincts", none of which are measured with a stopwatch.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

If thats your definition, every pick fails, because every pick eventually needs to be replaced. Thats just ridiculous.


The average 2nd round pick produces significantly less than Chung did for the Patriots. That means Chung was a better than average pick.

Chung? Better than average? He wasn't. There is a top 1/3 of the 2nd round of his draft class clearly better than him and there are a few at the bottom who washed out. That would put him at the middle of the pack. Average - at best - and that's being generous. He was a liability the last two years.

 

[BTTA]

Gentleman, at this time I am done with my work day. I look forward to seeing the many replies tomorrow when I come in. I will have my coffee and address every single one of you then. It's been fun.

You get paid to write long comments on this (and perhaps other) sports message boards?!