Jordan Richards

[Jackson 2]

So Richards has been a major disappointment to some as a safety. To others, he has been a contributing player on special teams. He's on the roster and obviously contributing when he hasn't been inactive, so WTF is the big deal?

 

[Deus Irae]

If you could get the same thing or better via trade or FA. The supply versus demand curve for NFL safeties is so steep that this is next to impossible. Good safeties have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the draft.

Any NFL safeties on the market the past few years you think would be a better value than McCourty, Chung, and Harmon?

It depends on what you mean by value, which is one of the problems when we analyze the players down the line. I would start by saying that, IMO, Chung didn't really come from the draft. The Chung from the draft was a bust. The Chung that's worked out for the Patriots was a free agent signing. And, really, I'm not sure it's even appropriate to call Chung a safety at this point, which is why I've started calling it the Chung position.

Everyone in the NFL is absolutely scrambling for safety play, and the Pats have one of the best units, and have invested reasonable cap space and draft capital to attain it.

And let people here think they are doing terrible. Not compared to anybody else in the league they're not.

Seattle
Arizona
K.C.
Denver
Baltimore
Giants (maybe)

Again, it depends on how you're looking to define value, but that's a few teams doing pretty well at the safety positions. I'm not down on Harmon, though I think he's just middling, and Chung's been much better the second time around, but it's McCourty that stirs the drink, and he's a former 1st round pick at CB, not S.

Questions/complaints about BB's drafting at safety seem pretty valid to me, just as with his drafting at CB and his high round drafting at WR. He's not going to get them all right but, when you go outside the box, you either hit with your move or you take the heat. If people are going to (rightly) rave about Gronk, it's got to be acceptable to (rightly) rant about Wilson.

 

[zydecochris]

Oh, I think craziness is exactly what I would expect from an economics major. BB is great at what he does despite the academic indicretions of his youth. My life has described a similar arc. I began as a science/math guy, but once I switched over to the humanities, I began the steady climb to the present godlike status which I, and all who know me, so enjoy.

An inspired post, thanks for the smile.

 

[unoriginal]

but, when you go outside the box, you either hit with your move or you take the heat..

This is what all these threads about drafting the last umpteen years boil down to for me.

People really want the Pats to stay inside the box.

 

[BTTA]

So Richards has been a major disappointment to some as a safety. To others, he has been a contributing player on special teams. He's on the roster and obviously contributing when he hasn't been inactive, so WTF is the big deal?

It says more about the posters than it does about Richards.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is what all these threads about drafting the last umpteen years boil down to for me.

People really want the Pats to stay inside the box.

I think it's fair to say that they'd feel better about the misses if they weren't such gambles in their minds, no question. Personally, I get what BB is doing. He chokes up and goes for contact in his first at bat, and he swings for the fences in his second. That looks great when you choose Rob Gronkowski instead of Sergio Kindle. It's butt ugly when you choose Tavon Wilson when you could have used Lavonte David, or Ras-I Dowling over any number of other players.

I just think people are being reasonable when they criticize someone for a failure while swinging for the fences when a single, or double would have done the job, as long as they are willing to both acknowledge the successes and accept that there's always a failure rate to be dealt with.

As a bit of a side note, that I bring up as more of a data point than anything else:

BB's largely been given a pass on Easley, which would seem to run counter to the "outside the box" notion, but I think people look at ACLs as relatively easy recoveries now, even if they take time, and that may have lessened the risk in their minds.

 

[Deus Irae]

So Richards has been a major disappointment to some as a safety. To others, he has been a contributing player on special teams. He's on the roster and obviously contributing when he hasn't been inactive, so WTF is the big deal?

Is it your position that BB used a second round pick in the hopes of finding a fringe-level defender who could play special teams?

 

[ausbacker]

It says more about the posters than it does about Richards.

That people would hold diverse views on what many consider a polarising player? FTR, in my mind, I've flipped Richards' draft position with Shaq Mason's (4-131) and it looks a whole lot more pleasant. Mason in the 2nd, Richards in the fourth and off I've gone.

 

[BTTA]

That people would hold diverse views on what many consider a polarising player? FTR, in my mind, I've flipped Richards' draft position with Shaq Mason's (4-131) and it looks a whole lot more pleasant. Mason in the 2nd, Richards in the fourth and off I've gone.

No, not just the diverse views. The extreme views, and the obsession with this single individual.

We've all seen the stats here a dozen times: second round picks have a 25% success rate to become regular players. Many posters here are expressing frustration that he hasn't earned more playing time in a competition with the other three safeties on the roster. The odds on a second round pick rising to that level of competence are much less than the 25%. IF he had achieved that, he'd be a remarkable success. So the impatience and irritation expressed at him isn't warranted, and as I said, is more a reflection on the poster than the player.

 

[unoriginal]

I think it's fair to say that they'd feel better about the misses if they weren't such gambles in their minds. Personally, I get what BB is doing. He chokes up and goes for contact in his first at bat, and he swings for the fences in his second. That looks great when you choose Rob Gronkowski instead of Sergio Kindle. It's butt ugly when you choose Tavon Wilson when you could have used Lavonte David, or Ras-I Dowling over any number of other players. I just think people are being reasonable when they criticize someone for a failure while swinging for the fences when a single, or double would have done the job, as long as they are willing to both acknowledge the successes and accept that there's always a failure rate to be dealt with.

A viewpoint that balances criticism on one side and acknowledgment on the other isn't reasonable, it's pessimistic.

Now, it's fine to be pessimistic if the overall results are poor. But they aren't.

This team is loaded with young talent and has nearly two decades of unrivaled success in a league whose buzzword is "parity." This is despite being so impoverished in draft capital they aren't even part of the same scatterplot as the rest of this league.

Nothing about the Pats draft results looks great. Nothing about the Pats draft results looks butt ugly. Those aren't reasonable perspectives. The Pats draft results look better than most, despite starting with the least.

Acknowledging the drafting of Rob Gronkowski while castigating the drafting of Ras-I Dowling is a single statement meaning "the way the Pats draft players is wrong."

***

On your list of teams, I count two teams (Denver, Arizona) that are getting similar safety play to the Pats with less resources. A couple aren't as good, a couple invested more. Reasonable people can disagree. What holds true is that the vast preponderance of NFL teams are in a worse condition than the Pats.

I cannot understand any of your points about Chung. He was drafted by the Pats. He played out his rookie contract with the Pats. He earned a second contract in this league. He has played all but one season on the Pats. He has been a big part of a very successful defense the last three years. In a league where half of 2nd round draft picks don't make it past year 4 in any capacity, how could Chung possibly be considered a draft bust?

 

[Deus Irae]

A viewpoint that balances criticism on one side and acknowledgment on the other isn't reasonable, it's pessimistic.

That makes no sense, at all.

 

[ausbacker]

No, not just the diverse views. The extreme views, and the obsession with this single individual.

We've all seen the stats here a dozen times: second round picks have a 25% success rate to become regular players. Many posters here are expressing frustration that he hasn't earned more playing time in a competition with the other three safeties on the roster. The odds on a second round pick rising to that level of competence are much less than the 25%. IF he had achieved that, he'd be a remarkable success. So the impatience and irritation expressed at him isn't warranted, and as I said, is more a reflection on the poster than the player.

I don't fault those who aren't happy with the pick. From my observation, defensively, Richards hasn't shown anything to beget his draft position or that he belongs on a NFL roster outside of Special Teams. That said, there's more that goes into the football process than just gameday and BB is a better judge of all. As for posters, perhaps you're right, it's more the strength of their arguments I'm interested in.

 

[Deus Irae]

This team is loaded with young talent and has nearly two decades of unrivaled success in a league whose buzzword is "parity." This is despite being so impoverished in draft capital they aren't even part of the same scatterplot as the rest of this league.

That's a misleading post, because it ignores the players on the roster outside of the rolling number of draftees. Brady, alone, has been warping the board for 15 years.

Nothing about the Pats draft results looks great. Nothing about the Pats draft results looks butt ugly. Those aren't reasonable perspectives.

Sure they are.

The Pats draft results look better than most, despite starting with the least.

I don't think we on this board have done a comparative breakdown of drafting in a long time, but it would seem as if the Patriots would at least be at the higher end, even among those teams with stable front offices. That doesn't put them beyond criticism, though.

Acknowledging the drafting of Rob Gronkowski while castigating the drafting of Ras-I Dowling is a single statement meaning "the way the Pats draft players is wrong."

No, it's not. It's not even close to that.

 

[RayClay]

He preferred Richards to Collins. Oops. Richards had trouble finding the field, while Collins had 125 tackles 25 assists 5 ints and a TD. We don't need to project anymore.

I'm not agreeing with him, just the only defense I've seen.

 

[mgteich]

If you could get the same thing or better via trade or FA. The supply versus demand curve for NFL safeties is so steep that this is next to impossible. Good safeties have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the draft.

Any NFL safeties on the market the past few years you think would be a better value than McCourty, Chung, and Harmon?

Everyone in the NFL is absolutely scrambling for safety play, and the Pats have one of the best units, and have invested reasonable cap space and draft capital to attain it.

And yet people here think they are doing terrible. Not compared to anybody else in the league they're not.

I haven't a clue why folks have to continue to support the idea that Richards was really worth a 2nd round pick. Most had him as being a 6th or 7th round talent. It seems that they were closer to the mark than Belichick, although, of course, Richards could be a future contributor. No one claims that Belichick is perfect at drafting safeties. Of course, one of the best safety groups in the NFL consists of players drafted by belichick.

 

[Bill Lee]

That people would hold diverse views on what many consider a polarising player? FTR, in my mind, I've flipped Richards' draft position with Shaq Mason's (4-131) and it looks a whole lot more pleasant. Mason in the 2nd, Richards in the fourth and off I've gone.

Why make so much out of the optics? This player gets selected one player later and he becomes a 3rd round pick and so the optics improve but he's still the same player.

 

[ausbacker]

Why make so much out of the optics? This player gets selected one player later and he becomes a 3rd round pick and so the optics improve but he's still the same player.

It makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

 

[maineman209]

Why make so much out of the optics? This player gets selected one player later and he becomes a 3rd round pick and so the optics improve but he's still the same player.

Grissom is a 3rd-round bust (taken at #97).
Flowers is a 4th-round stroke of genius (taken at #101 in the same draft).

 

[mgteich]

Grissom is a 3rd-round bust (taken at #97).
Flowers is a 4th-round stroke of genius (taken at #101 in the same draft).

IMHO, Grissom has contributed lots more than Richards. He played a bit as a backup inside when there was an injury. He has also been a solid special teamer.

That being said, Richards has this camp and pre-season to show that he is worth a roster spot.

BTW, we make a lot of the ST contributions of Richards. I think that this is less important than folks would have it. Richards is the backup SS and #4 safety. Since he was active in those roles, he played special teams. And he played OK enough not to be benched.

Would anyone have Richards make the team instead of Ebner or King? These are the players who play special teams well enough to make the team based on special teams play.

 

[RayClay]

That's a misleading post, because it ignores the players on the roster outside of the rolling number of draftees. Brady, alone, has been warping the board for 15 years.

That doesn't even make sense.