NE met with Waddle - WADDLE IS HERE TO STAY

[Ring 6]

As I recall, both were RT's. We've always had solid LT's.

If necessary cannon can move. But the point is we have done well with mediocre pieces on the ol, inclining guts like mike Compton, Adrian klemm, Russ hochstein, nick kaczur etc etc

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah. Look at the slope in the first 60 picks for the NFL versus other sports. There's probably a certain point where theres a drop off (players drafted after round 4 don't make it as often) but it's not early.

How is this even a comparison.
MLB players atartvin the minors
NBA teams have 12 roster spots not 53.
NHL has both minors and smaller rosters.


But your argument wasn’t the first 2 rounds it was the entire draft.

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah. Look at the slope in the first 60 picks for the NFL versus other sports. There's probably a certain point where theres a drop off (players drafted after round 4 don't make it as often) but it's not early.

And where is this chart from?
Who is determining “relative value”.
You might as well have drawn it with a crayon.

 

[jimnance]

If necessary cannon can move. But the point is we have done well with mediocre pieces on the ol, inclining guts like mike Compton, Adrian klemm, Russ hochstein, nick kaczur etc etc

Cannon is our best ol, but he struggled when he was tried at lt and og.
Once he became the permanent rt, he developed into probowl caliber.
Maybe he could do a decent job at lt now- but you might end up weakening 2 positions by doing that- nobody else is going to play rt as well as cannon.
Plus the combo of cannon/ Mason in the run game is as good as there is in the league.

 

[patfanken]

It really doesn't mean sh*t to me whether Solder was good, bad or indifferent compared to other LTs around the league as determined by whatever "objective" standard anyone wants to impose.

The only thing that matters is that Solder was more than good enough for the Pats (combining run-blocking and pass-blocking) the vast majority of the time he was on the team.

The argument here is which of Waddle (with NFL experience, but virtually no LT experience) or a rookie (with no NFL experience at all, and who's probably out of reach for the Pats, anyway) is the option least likely to be a disaster.

I for one am having a bit of problem with all the angst we are seeing at the OT position. Certainly, it would have been ideal to have Solder back, but not at $15MM or the highest OL contract in the leag ue. Especially when all three of your interior starters are closing in on their contract years too.

So when you think about it, the Pats OL situation is not even close to peril by any level of sober assessment. Would the OL be better WITH Solder. Sure it would be, however the cost of keeping him would have made other areas weaker. In the salary cap era you often have pick your poision.

So the Draft doesn't look like its going to provide an instant solution. What's left in FA isn't going to do the trick either. However I would propose the following which, while not ideal, could provide a very workable solution.

1. Move Cannon to LT - I'm begining to agree with Lombardi who has stated recently that the skills difference that existed between LT's and RT's has blurred as offenses have evolved. Secondly I would suggest that while Solder was an elite run blocker, he was "merely" good as a pass blocker. I contend that would Cannon might prove to be a better pass blocker than Nate. So in the overall scheme of things are we really downgrading the position if Cannon moves over there?

2. Both Waddle AND Flemming proved "adequate" when they replaced the injured Cannon, perhaps even more than adequate. I would contend that either one (Waddle would be my personal preference) would prove to be an adequate solution this season.

3. I would like to think that the 3 interior guys would continue to grow as they enter their 3rd year working together. IF they are getting better than the interior should be a real strength of the OL. Remember the real danger of any pass rush is up the middle. All season long our interior did a good job at protecting Brady, and it could get better this year.

4. Then you have the "what if" factor. You never know who will emerge from total obscurity to become a key factor. Over the years there have been dozens of obscure offensive linemen who have become critical factors on the OL starting with Greg Robinson Randell to went from starting RT in the 2001 Superbowl to out of the league a couple years later; all the way to David Andrews who went from a camp fodder rookie UDFA to starting C on 2 Superbowl teams.

In other words who knows if one of the no names that are left on the roster or who will be added later might just be the answer to all our prayers? It has happened so many times before

5. Think about it. Last season at this time, Dion Lews was being thought of as a possible roster cut, and within a year he became an indispensable loss. You just never know how things will develop over the course of an entire year.

Of course, this is just my opinion, but I think it is a very defensible position, even though it might turn out to be something completely different when reality shows itself over the course of the coming season

 

[Ring 6]

Cannon is our best ol, but he struggled when he was tried at lt and og.
Once he became the permanent rt, he developed into probowl caliber.
Maybe he could do a decent job at lt now- but you might end up weakening 2 positions by doing that- nobody else is going to play rt as well as cannon.
Plus the combo of cannon/ Mason in the run game is as good as there is in the league.

When he played LT he had a leg injury.
These days LT and RT are pretty interchangeable. With brady they essentially are because he sees/feels the pressure from the backside as well as the front.
It’s no longer the case that the best pass rusher is always over the LT.

 

[jimnance]

When he played LT he had a leg injury.
These days LT and RT are pretty interchangeable. With brady they essentially are because he sees/feels the pressure from the backside as well as the front.
It’s no longer the case that the best pass rusher is always over the LT.

Andy, I'm not worried about Cannon at lt- my hunch is he'd play well.
It's more about losing him from rt- yes, we have " adequate" replacements BUT with cannon/mason such a devastating force in the run game,do we really wanna break that up? Right now, there's only one weak spot on the ol- lt and the biggest strength of the ol is the right side.
That being said, I have big faith in Dante and BB to coach em up.
I'm not all that worried about lt. They'll find a solution.

 

[primetime]

What does the Y axis represent? Graph says, "relative value" but the Y axis shows values from 0-20. What's the measurement basis?

The making and comparison of draft curves

A little more complicated than "drawing in crayon" but the code is open source. Basically it's a factor of the value of pick X relative to the value of players picked 55-60. So in the NBA the 1st pick has been worth about 20x (in win shares for NBA) that of the 55th-60th, whereas in the NFL it's only about 2.5x (using the Pro Football Reference approximate value measure). This was found with a regression hit with a loess smoother because there's obviously a significant residual.

The gentle downward slope suggests that a higher pick has traditionally been worth more than a lower pick in terms of career outcomes but that slope isn't that great. At a certain point the curve's slope takes you into "crappy player" territory.

For the NFL draft alone:

 

[Deus Irae]

whereas in the NFL it's only about 2.5x

That should have been a red flag.

 

[primetime]

That should have been a red flag.

It's not too surprising given the number of positions and the relative valuation of some positions. The curve is almost certainly very different for quarterbacks (where finding a good one after the 1st round is very difficult) than it is for guards, though even the All Pros in the latter position are still mostly 1st rounders, albeit at the back of the first round.

The 538 curve which is more zoomed shows a steeper drop to the 30th pick or so and then a gentler slope the rest of the way. Which would follow with your take - it suggests moving up in the first round generally does more for you than dropping back in later rounds hurts you. But the slope of the line suggests having more darts to throw is also helpful, so there's a trade-off. It's not like the NBA where moving back is basically worthless.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's not too surprising given the number of positions and the relative valuation of some positions. The curve is almost certainly very different for quarterbacks (where finding a good one after the 1st round is very difficult) than it is for guards, though even the All Pros in the latter position are still mostly 1st rounders, albeit at the back of the first round.

The 538 curve which is more zoomed shows a steeper drop to the 30th pick or so and then a gentler slope the rest of the way. Which would follow with your take - it suggests moving up in the first round generally does more for you than dropping back in later rounds hurts you. But the slope of the line suggests having more darts to throw is also helpful, so there's a trade-off. It's not like the NBA where moving back is basically worthless.

It's a crap chart. Like I said, getting just 2.5 should have been a red flag. The author of the piece basically concedes that at the beginning, but then rambles on anyway, ignoring that reality and using his chosen approach as if it's valid. That's become fairly standard with 538, and we saw how well that worked when applied to the politics of the last presidential election.

 

[Sicilian]

I don't think there should be any question that you have a better chance at a higher impact player the better your draft position is. It's not 100%, but assuming you're not just flipping coins in your evaluations, you have to believe that smart football people make better selections when they have more people to pull from.

I think the case for trading down has always been about mitigating the odds. Despite having a better chance at better players, nothing is a guarantee, and there are enough intangibles that make it hard to judge which great players will translate to the NFL game (and millionaire lifestyle). For that reason, there is value at taking two lower-odds kicks at the can versus one higher-odds kick.

I think the Patriots tend to look at it as, "If there's a player we believe in at our spot, we take him. If not, we trade down and get more tries."

 

[cstjohn17]

Should the fact that the Patriots haven's signed Waddle or Fleming make us feel better about Garcia? as mediocre as these guys are I would feel better if one was signed, it would add to the competition with any draft picks that are brought in.

 

[Sicilian]

Should the fact that the Patriots haven's signed Waddle or Fleming make us feel better about Garcia? as mediocre as these guys are I would feel better if one was signed, it would add to the competition with any draft picks that are brought in.

I'd love to say yes, but honestly, I think it's just because the market is SO dry for OT right now, that Waddle and Fleming have more leverage than they normally would. They're the best there is out there at the moment, there's no reason for them to take whatever the Pats offer. They may end up coming back, but they can wait because the opportunities aren't going to dry up on them.

 

[Sicilian]

Should the fact that the Patriots haven's signed Waddle or Fleming make us feel better about Garcia? as mediocre as these guys are I would feel better if one was signed, it would add to the competition with any draft picks that are brought in.

I'd love to say yes, but honestly, I think it's just because the market is SO dry for OT right now, that Waddle and Fleming have more leverage than they normally would. They're the best there is out there at the moment, there's no reason for them to take whatever the Pats offer. They may end up coming back, but they can wait because the opportunities aren't going to dry up on them.

 

[patfanken]

The making and comparison of draft curves

A little more complicated than "drawing in crayon" but the code is open source. Basically it's a factor of the value of pick X relative to the value of players picked 55-60. So in the NBA the 1st pick has been worth about 20x (in win shares for NBA) that of the 55th-60th, whereas in the NFL it's only about 2.5x (using the Pro Football Reference approximate value measure). This was found with a regression hit with a loess smoother because there's obviously a significant residual.

The gentle downward slope suggests that a higher pick has traditionally been worth more than a lower pick in terms of career outcomes but that slope isn't that great. At a certain point the curve's slope takes you into "crappy player" territory.

For the NFL draft alone:

This should make it clear is that the draft is ALL about how a player comes into the league. How well his career goes long term is how much he gets BETTER from that point. It seems like the obvious conclusion, but the distinction is so often missed because of our mania with instant gratification.

So why have the Pats been able to maintain their dominance despite having to pick so low EVERY draft? It's simple. There is no other team sport where coaching affects the outcome of games and 2nd place is not even close.

So maybe we have missed the REAL genius of Bellichick. Maybe its not in his game plans, or his coaching of players. Maybe the genius of his success is that he has consistently, over decades, has been his ability to coach/teach COACHES.

I mean think about it. He's got a bunch of no name assistants, most of whom played small college ball. Almost all of them never played in the NFL. A lot of them are coaching areas where they didn't play, and yet somehow they are able to create enough respect from the players that the player believe that these guys have the ability to MAKE THEM BETTER.

There is a reason why the Pats always have the smallest staff of assistants in the league. Now I don't know specifically why that is, but somehow its part of the genius. Players who leave here might complain about the hard work. They might complain to Giardi that "its no fun" . But the fact remains that to a man all have noted they they are better football players because of their experience with the Patriots. And THAT is a testament to the COACHING they here, and NOT just from BB. It's all of them.

It has never been simply about the talent. Most NFL teams have about the same amount of "talent". I would suggest there are several who have better "talent" than the Pats. Jacksonville, Houston, Eagles, come off the top of my head. And yet the Pats will more often than not beat these "better" teams. How? Because they are coached better, mostly by guys who were taught and trained by BB. End of rant.

 

[maineman209]

The making and comparison of draft curves

A little more complicated than "drawing in crayon" but the code is open source. Basically it's a factor of the value of pick X relative to the value of players picked 55-60. So in the NBA the 1st pick has been worth about 20x (in win shares for NBA) that of the 55th-60th, whereas in the NFL it's only about 2.5x (using the Pro Football Reference approximate value measure). This was found with a regression hit with a loess smoother because there's obviously a significant residual.

The gentle downward slope suggests that a higher pick has traditionally been worth more than a lower pick in terms of career outcomes but that slope isn't that great. At a certain point the curve's slope takes you into "crappy player" territory.

For the NFL draft alone:

It's always interesting to me that the "Jimmie Johnson Chart" is always included in discussions of the "average value" of the players who are picked at various spots. Johnson's chart never had anything whatsoever to do with the expected value of the players selected with those picks.

Johnson's chart was always exclusively about documenting and quantifying the comparative value that teams historically gave to those places in line - based entirely on how much teams had (in the past) traded to move up and how much teams had accepted to move down.

 

[CISGS]

Hopefully he drinks his milk this offseason.

 

[Love The Drake]

Hopefully he drinks his milk this offseason.

Got to be under 5 mill

 

[Froob]

Flip Cannon to LT and start Waddle under our current depth..?