Unaddressed Needs

[Ring 6]

Moore, Fells and Silvestro come to mind.

Fells was cut, Moore was cut many times. Silvestro is useless.

 

[Brady6]

There are a couple of hundred defensive linemen listed, including those that are available (many of which are injured). I am not the evaluator of marginal talent. Belichick has a staff for that. As of now, what Belichick has asserted in that he'd rather play with 3 rookies that ALL 32 teams passed on and with his failed draft pick from last year, who couldn't make it onto the field.

This is a matter of a clear choice made by Belichick. Even now, we have plenty of room to add two defensive linemen, if he cannot part with any of his FOUR developmental projects. There are few out there who believe that none of the 200 signed by others or still available wouldn't add value to the prospects of the 2013 patriots. This leap takes much more koolaid that we are willing to drink.

Even if this works out, it doesn't mean that it was worth not having insurance in case of injury to the starters. We have lost many post season games because of lack of depth at RB, TE and in the secondary. And he are tempting fate again, with only 8 DL's, and only raw rookies as backups.

Belichick is a high roller. We'll see what happens next week. 8 DL's (one of which is our top backup LB) is simply insufficient.

So what you’re saying is the positions are unaddressed with the current personnel but you don’t know who that is available could address the positions in question.

I’m not sure who the failed draft pick is I can only assume you mean Bequette based on his rookie performance, but I don’t know that he is a failed draft pick, look at a player like Paul Kruger, he 1 sack in his first 2 season (0 as rookie) in the NFL after being selected 57th in the 2009 draft, last season he was a driving factor behind the Raven SB victory, I would be cautious to conclude what a player is or isn’t when he hasn’t taken more than 25 NFL snaps.

As far as players being passed on by other teams that doesn’t really mean much at all, teams always make mistakes, some of the best player are passed over –

Brady QB – round 6
Ridley RB – round 3
Amendola WR – undrafted
Thompkins WR – undrafted
Gronkowski TE – round 2
Sudfeld TE – undrafted
Solder LT – round 1
Mankins LG – round 1
Wendell OC – undrafted
Connolly RG – undrafted
Vollmer RT – round 2

Ninkovich LE – undrafted
Kelly DT – undrafted
Wilfork NT – round 1
Jones RE – round 1
Hightower LB – round 1
Mayo LB – round 1
Spikes LB – round 2
Talib CB – round 1
Dennard CB – round 7
McCourty FS – round 1
Gregory SS – undrafted

So of our 22 starters:

8 – Undrafted free agents
8 – 1st round draft picks
3 – 2nd round draft picks
1 – 3rd round draft picks
1 – 6th round draft picks
1 – 7th round draft picks

So the way I see it our undrafted free agents work out as often as our 1st rounder’s have.

 

[mgteich]

This is simply poor analysis.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Games-started-by-draft-round.html

To demonstrate, simply make a list of every rookie that the patriots have signed in the past say 5 years, including every UDFA's signed. Tell me how many starts these players have had as a percentage, and how many are with the team in their fourth year. You will find that a very low percentage of UDFA's signed are with the team in their fourth year, and a large percentage of 1st rounders are.

In addition, you might try rookie players on the starting 53 and see how many of these start (as a percentage) and how many are with the team in their fourth season. The result will no be as extreme as the first analysis, but the result will be similar.

I will guarantee that our 1st rounders have a much higher chance of producing and staying with the team than late round picks and UDFA's.
=======

Let's take this to the extreme. Surely if we do equally well with UDFA's as first rounders, we should trade all our picks for something better, perhaps all-pro players.

So the way I see it our undrafted free agents work out as often as our 1st rounder’s have.

 

[Ring 6]

So what you’re saying is the positions are unaddressed with the current personnel but you don’t know who that is available could address the positions in question.

I’m not sure who the failed draft pick is I can only assume you mean Bequette based on his rookie performance, but I don’t know that he is a failed draft pick, look at a player like Paul Kruger, he 1 sack in his first 2 season (0 as rookie) in the NFL after being selected 57th in the 2009 draft, last season he was a driving factor behind the Raven SB victory, I would be cautious to conclude what a player is or isn’t when he hasn’t taken more than 25 NFL snaps.

As far as players being passed on by other teams that doesn’t really mean much at all, teams always make mistakes, some of the best player are passed over –

Brady QB – round 6
Ridley RB – round 3
Amendola WR – undrafted
Thompkins WR – undrafted
Gronkowski TE – round 2
Sudfeld TE – undrafted
Solder LT – round 1
Mankins LG – round 1
Wendell OC – undrafted
Connolly RG – undrafted
Vollmer RT – round 2

Ninkovich LE – undrafted
Kelly DT – undrafted
Wilfork NT – round 1
Jones RE – round 1
Hightower LB – round 1
Mayo LB – round 1
Spikes LB – round 2
Talib CB – round 1
Dennard CB – round 7
McCourty FS – round 1
Gregory SS – undrafted

So of our 22 starters:

8 – Undrafted free agents
8 – 1st round draft picks
3 – 2nd round draft picks
1 – 3rd round draft picks
1 – 6th round draft picks
1 – 7th round draft picks

So the way I see it our undrafted free agents work out as often as our 1st rounder’s have.

Wow. Not your best work.

 

[Brady6]

This is simply poor analysis.
To demonstrate, simply make a list of every rookie that the patriots have signed in the past say 5 years, including every UDFA's signed. Tell me how many starts these players have had as a percentage, and how many are with the team in their fourth year. You will find that a very low percentage of UDFA's signed are with the team in their fourth year, and a large percentage of 1st rounders are.

Huh? Why would I do that I just pointed out 8 undrafted FA set to start on Sunday, and last season we started Welker (UDFA), Love (UDFA), Deaderick (7th Rounder), Woodhead (UDFA), Arrington (UDFA), Lloyd (6th Rounder) and Hernandez (4th Rounder) so it is a pretty common theme, if you disagree you can show me why I am wrong because with all due respect MG I am not seeing anything that implies what you’re saying.

In addition, you might try rookie players on the starting 53 and see how many of these start (as a percentage) and how many are with the team in their fourth season. The result will no be as extreme as the first analysis, but the result will be similar.

Once again I am very confused; the team currently has 21 players on it that have played between 0 and 16 games in the NFL:

1 Allen, Ryan
2 Barker, Chris
3 Beauharnais, Steve
4 Boyce, Josh
5 Buchanan, Michael
6 Collins, Jamie
7 Dobson, Aaron
8 Francis, A.J.
9 Harmon, Duron
10 Ryan, Logan
11 Sudfeld, Zach
12 Thompkins, Kenbrell
13 Vellano, Joe
14 14Bequette, Jake
15 Bolden, Brandon
16 Dennard, Alfonzo
17 Ebner, Nate
18 Hightower, Dont'a
19 Jones, Chandler
20 Wilson, Tavon
21 Develin, James

I will guarantee that our 1st rounders have a much higher chance of producing and staying with the team than late round picks and UDFA's.
=======

I have to disagree – Brady, Welker, and Wilfork have been the most productive players over the last decade only 1 of them Wilfork was a 1st rounder.

Let's take this to the extreme. Surely if we do equally well with UDFA's as first rounders, we should trade all our picks for something better, perhaps all-pro players.

That just sounds like silly irrational child’s play. You pick the best players for the team, without nepotism.

 

[Brady6]

Wow. Not your best work.

OK I will bite, why is that?

 

[Brady6]

This is simply poor analysis.

Games started by draft round | National Football Post

I would add simply that this link is indicative of the NFL as whole, my discussion is centered on the Patriots and where Belichick has been finding success over his tenure as GM. There is a spreadsheet to support just about any opinion if you base it on 32 teams over 5 seasons.

Honestly what makes no sense to me is the way you contradict yourself by at one moment advocating for Sterling Moore and Daniel Fells to be signed, both of whom were UDFA themselves coming out of college, but yet you want to upgrade the UDFA currently on the roster.

 

[jmt57]

If I may interject, I believe that the issue others are having with the analysis (8 1st round starters, 8 UDFA starters) is the difference in the number of first rounders that have been on the roster at some point this year versus the number of undrafted free agents that have been on the roster at some point this year.

If memory serves me eight out of nine one-time first round draft picks that were with the team this summer made the final roster. Meanwhile there were probably about forty-fifty UDFA on the club at some point this year, and if you expand that back longer (e.g., ten years since Vince Wilfork was drafted) then the percentage of UDFA that become starters is much smaller than the percentage of first round draft picks that are starters. Also, one minor note: Rob Ninkovich was drafted by the Saints.


Short version: there are many more UDFA than 1st round draft picks, so it's a stacked deck when you compare the raw totals of each of those groups that become starters.

 

[Ring 6]

OK I will bite, why is that?

You have drafted/undrafted wrong on some players. You are calling unrestricted vet FAs UDFAs, and concluding the Pats do as well with UDFAs as #1 picks.
Find me UDFAs that equal
Seymour
Warren
Wilfork
Mayo
Jones
McCourty
Watson
Graham
Mankins
Solder
Hightower

Just a poor analysis

 

[VrabelJr]

Beauharnais is a STer and also will be the starting MLB next year when Spikes departs.

 

[Oswlek]

OK I will bite, why is that?

Because the sheer number of UDFAs makes it virtually impossible to not have a large number of them on the roster.

However, I could see a case being made that once NE has narrowed the list down to the guys they want on the team, their track record with UDFA production - even as rookies - is pretty good, particularly at DT. Even more so if you broaden that list to include late round picks as well.

Just like OL, the Pats should pretty much get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to DT decisions. If they think Vellano and Francis can contribute, they've done enough for us to take some on faith.

 

[Fencer]

This is simply poor analysis.

Games started by draft round | National Football Post

To demonstrate, simply make a list of every rookie that the patriots have signed in the past say 5 years, including every UDFA's signed. Tell me how many starts these players have had as a percentage, and how many are with the team in their fourth year. You will find that a very low percentage of UDFA's signed are with the team in their fourth year, and a large percentage of 1st rounders are.

In addition, you might try rookie players on the starting 53 and see how many of these start (as a percentage) and how many are with the team in their fourth season. The result will no be as extreme as the first analysis, but the result will be similar.

I will guarantee that our 1st rounders have a much higher chance of producing and staying with the team than late round picks and UDFA's.
=======

Let's take this to the extreme. Surely if we do equally well with UDFA's as first rounders, we should trade all our picks for something better, perhaps all-pro players.

He phrased his point incorrectly, for reasons that you point out.

However, you didn't refute his substantive point, which is that a starter is as likely to have been a UDFA as a first-round pick.

One possible avenue of refutation is along the lines of "Even if that's true, so what? The first-round starters have a lot of Pro Bowl appearances among them, while the UDFAs don't." But I'll leave it to you to make that case -- and to talk around 6th-round comp pick Brady -- if you choose.

Other attempts at refutation might look at other years or other teams. UDFA perennial Pro Bowlers such as Welker are surely rarer than perennial Pro Bowler first-round picks.

 

[Brady6]

If I may interject, I believe that the issue others are having with the analysis (8 1st round starters, 8 UDFA starters) is the difference in the number of first rounders that have been on the roster at some point this year versus the number of undrafted free agents that have been on the roster at some point this year.

If memory serves me eight out of nine one-time first round draft picks that were with the team this summer made the final roster. Meanwhile there were probably about forty-fifty UDFA on the club at some point this year, and if you expand that back longer (e.g., ten years since Vince Wilfork was drafted) then the percentage of UDFA that become starters is much smaller than the percentage of first round draft picks that are starters. Also, one minor note: Rob Ninkovich was drafted by the Saints.


Short version: there are many more UDFA than 1st round draft picks, so it's a stacked deck when you compare the raw totals of each of those groups that become starters.

Very true, and for the record I am not trying to make the case that I am right and MG and Andy are wrong, honestly hold all 3 of you in the highest regard and consider you guys to be far more knowledgeable of football than I am, I also am not attempting to make a case that players who come into the league as undrafted free agents are better than early draft picks, that would be just plain stupid on my part, what I am trying to say is the end of the roster players that are the ones in question aren’t any different than the end of the roster players we had last season, they just lack the experience and I would prefer to give them the opportunity to prove they’re issues that need to be addressed rather than just jumping to that conclusion based on where they were selected in the draft.

Short version is that I think the difference is simply a fundamental one, some would prefer to take a chance on a player at the end of their career who may have something left, others may prefer to take a chance on an undrafted free agent who could have been passed over during the draft, I fall into the latter category simply because I feel youth in this day and age is hungrier than veterans, 5-10 years ago there were players that wanted to win a SB before they retired so Belichick could exploit that desire and cypher everything left in their tanks out, recently that hasn’t been successful either because the wrong players are chosen or the overall culture of veterans is different, either way I just lean towards the younger unknown verses the veteran has been who may have something left in his tank. In fairness it is likely not a question of one type of player or another, it is probably more of a case by case, player by player decision.

 

[Brady6]

Because the sheer number of UDFAs makes it virtually impossible to not have a large number of them on the roster.

However, I could see a case being made that once NE has narrowed the list down to the guys they want on the team, their track record with UDFA production - even as rookies - is pretty good, particularly at DT. Even more so if you broaden that list to include late round picks as well.

Just like OL, the Pats should pretty much get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to DT decisions. If they think Vellano and Francis can contribute, they've done enough for us to take some on faith.

I think somehow I have implied that I believe we’re better off with UDFA than high draft picks, that is not my position however so I admittedly must have done a poor job attempting to convey my position. Basically what I am trying to convey is this, the title of this thread is unaddressed needs, and my suggestion is that they have been addressed, just with players to this point in their careers are unknowns.

Now you look at the player and it really comes down this question, worst case scenario how big of a drop off would the player(s) below be, and if you answer that with not much, than the question turns to well why not take a minimal risk for a potential gain.

Ron Brace| Joe Vellano
Brandon Deaderick | A.J. Francis
Jermaine Cunningham | Jake Bequette
Trevor Scott | Michael Buchanan
Mike Rivera | Steve Beauharnais

 

[Brady6]

You have drafted/undrafted wrong on some players. You are calling unrestricted vet FAs UDFAs, and concluding the Pats do as well with UDFAs as #1 picks.
Find me UDFAs that equal
Seymour
Warren
Wilfork
Mayo
Jones
McCourty
Watson
Graham
Mankins
Solder
Hightower

Just a poor analysis

It may not have been the best way to convey what I was attempting to convey, so I can understand your response, I was not speaking toward the top half of the roster so apparently I should of taken a different route.

 

[ausbacker]

There are a couple of hundred defensive linemen listed, including those that are available (many of which are injured). I am not the evaluator of marginal talent. Belichick has a staff for that. As of now, what Belichick has asserted in that he'd rather play with 3 rookies that ALL 32 teams passed on and with his failed draft pick from last year, who couldn't make it onto the field.

This is a matter of a clear choice made by Belichick. Even now, we have plenty of room to add two defensive linemen, if he cannot part with any of his FOUR developmental projects. There are few out there who believe that none of the 200 signed by others or still available wouldn't add value to the prospects of the 2013 patriots. This leap takes much more koolaid that we are willing to drink.

Even if this works out, it doesn't mean that it was worth not having insurance in case of injury to the starters. We have lost many post season games because of lack of depth at RB, TE and in the secondary. And he are tempting fate again, with only 8 DL's, and only raw rookies as backups.

Belichick is a high roller. We'll see what happens next week. 8 DL's (one of which is our top backup LB) is simply insufficient.

One has to wonder how much listening to his staff BB has been doing in regard to the draft. He's one of the better drafters in the NFL but his obvious misses are beginning to pile up.

 

[mgteich]

You don't count misses, unless they are top 15 picks; your really shouldn't. We do very, very well with 1st round draft choices. We do very well in late rounds and with UDFA's. I think that we need to do better in the 2nd - 4th rounds, but even there all the news isn't all that bad.

If Belichick's wild picks include Vollmer, Cannon, Dennard, Bequette, T Wilson and Harmon, I can live with that. The draft is a crapshoot.

One has to wonder how much listening to his staff BB has been doing in regard to the draft. He's one of the better drafters in the NFL but his obvious misses are beginning to pile up.

 

[Brady6]

One has to wonder how much listening to his staff BB has been doing in regard to the draft. He's one of the better drafters in the NFL but his obvious misses are beginning to pile up.

Belichick seems to struggle particularly when drafting WR’s and DB’s and in my opinion it’s because he likes to draft quantity over quality to some degree, and that is not to diminish what he does because in basically every other position that approach works great, an example would be in 2011 most would of stayed put and drafted Mark Ingram, but Belichick dropped back and decided he could then double up and take Vereen and Ridley for basically the same amount of spent value, that worked great and it is an example that his approach works great with every other position except for WR and DB.

The reason I think that is the case is I think DB and WR are based so much on the players size, and athletic metrics, so the Julio Jones or Patrick Peterson type players who come out with those metrics go high, and the player who go in the 2nd or 3rd rounds where Belichick likes to select them, those are players who may offer similar metrics and size but they have something that is sticking out like a sore thumb, an injury riddled college career, or a lack of productivity, something prevented them from going in the top 25 and in all likelihood that will end up being the same something that prevents them from being successful in the NFL.

 

[ausbacker]

You don't count misses, unless they are top 15 picks; your really shouldn't. We do very, very well with 1st round draft choices. We do very well in late rounds and with UDFA's. I think that we need to do better in the 2nd - 4th rounds, but even there all the news isn't all that bad.

If Belichick's wild picks include Vollmer, Cannon, Dennard, Bequette, T Wilson and Harmon, I can live with that. The draft is a crapshoot.

I tend to look at picks in the first 3 rounds mgteich. There's a helluva lot of talent available in the first 100 or so picks. Everything past that (for me) is simply, a bonus.

Reaches etc don't bother me. I tend to give players their rookie contracts to show their worth. From there, it's open season on appraisals.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, this is a reasonable comparison. And, yes, I understand that other posters don't like the comparison of this year to last. After all, what matters is not who was here last year, but our alternatives this year. They are right. But I think that the discussion is still useful.

Before I respond, I would point out that Tracey White and Koutovides were replaced by Fletcher and Collins. These two additions, plus the addition of Kelly (replacing Love) put us in position to take the chances that you wish to take on the five roster spots you mention. I will add a sixth, since it is the 9th DL that we almost always keep.

These are indeed the heart of the discussion. We all applaud the finding of Thompkins and Sudfeld. They are the equivalent of developing high draft choices, no guarantees but fine promise. Also, we all agree that Barker probably belongs on the Practice Squad, if a replacement can be found.
================================
POSITION ONE: LB/Steer
I like Rivera over the two choices this year, Chris White and Beauharnais. Actually, I like Koutouvides better also. However, I am fine with Belichick choosing the best special teamer for this one roster spot (we have an extra player for this week). As we have discussed, I am fine with Chris White, but think that Beauharnais is perfectly placed on the Practice Squad, and no big loss if he doesn't make it.

POSITION TWO and THREE: DT's
We also have Forston on the Practice squad. Belichick has two NT's in for tryouts, both with a couple of years of experience. We will see who he brings in next week. I prefer an addition, even if we keep all three DT's on the 53. Both Vellano and Francis seem like reasonable prospects. And this situation is not awful. We can always activate Forston, and the possibility of Armstead for the end of the season.

POSITION FOUR and FIVE and SIX - DE's
I'm not buying what Belichick is selling. I would much prefer having Scott and Cunningham, or Cunningham and ONE of the kids. After all, most of us had 0-2 of these players making the team and 0-2 making the Practice Squad.

I would also note that we had Francis as the 3rd DE last year. One of the DE "positions" is now populated by a LB/STer.

We are where we are. Ideally, we would have been where we were last year, two JAG's and a developmental player, but that's not to be. I would have liked to see us sign Abraham. Instead, we are in a very weak position at backup DE. Two developmental DE's is just not enough backups. These players do a lot. Cunningham and Scott started games last year.

We may be stuck if there is no one left out there to add.

Ron Brace| Joe Vellano
Brandon Deaderick | A.J. Francis
Jermaine Cunningham | Jake Bequette
Trevor Scott | Michael Buchanan
Mike Rivera | Steve Beauharnais