Duke Dawson to IR: still plans for him to return.

[SammyBlueCat]

This article is slightly off topic however there are principles regarding roster building:
Report: Russell Wilson was at center of the Seahawks’ demise

 

[Oswlek]

But even as your list shows, the early evaluations from the last two drafts haven't been good.

I vehemently disagree with this. 2017 only has 1 starter because they only picked four players, and all signs point to Rivers at least being a solid role player. Add in the trades that brought in a year of Cooks, Wynn and Allen and you end up with a satisfactory amount of inflow. If Wynn pans out, it may even be excellent.

As for 2016, the perception does not match reality. Jones was a miss and injuries derailed promising careers for VV/MM, but pretty much every other player was a hit of some sort. In the 6th round alone, NE snagged Grugier-Hill, Roberts and Karras. That's incredible. I'll grant that this group is missing the top end stud that Mitchell appeared to be developing into, but there is nothing about the 2016 draft that even hints at a talent evaluation issue.

 

[AlexB]

I vehemently disagree with this. 2017 only has 1 starter because they only picked four players, and all signs point to Rivers at least being a solid role player. Add in the trades that brought in a year of Cooks, Wynn and Allen and you end up with a satisfactory amount of inflow. If Wynn pans out, it may even be excellent.

As for 2016, the perception does not match reality. Jones was a miss and injuries derailed promising careers for VV/MM, but pretty much every other player was a hit of some sort. In the 6th round alone, NE snagged Grugier-Hill, Roberts and Karras. That's incredible. I'll grant that this group is missing the top end stud that Mitchell appeared to be developing into, but there is nothing about the 2016 draft that even hints at a talent evaluation issue.

I think injuries are already built in to the 2 starters per draft standard for a GM to be "doing their job". The 2016 draft resulted in 1 starter and 2 role players (Karras, Roberts). Pats didn't get anything out of Grugier-Hill despite him being a good find in the 6th.

Btw, when I said the early evaluations, I meant the evaluation of the results of the draft class, not Pats talent evaluation skills. The last two drafts (2016-2017) seem to have resulted in 2-3 total starters depending on if you include Wynn or not. Luck and injuries played a role as well as some talent evaluation misses. Either way, it'll be hard to sustain success without hitting on more picks.

 

[Jimke]

Next year, we will get an idea how good BB and Caserio are at drafting.
The excuse of having no early picks will not exist. The Patriots will have
12 picks and 6 in the first three rounds. Will they have a draft that resembles New Orleans super 2017 draft or will they trade away most of the picks and end up
with only a couple useful players?

 

[Jackson 2]

So, a guy who has the misfortune of getting injured in pre-season will never be any good, sucked from the start and never should have been drafted by Bill the Idiot in the first place. But, the II (Internet Idiots) are right and BB was wrong.

 

[DaBruinz]

Next year, we will get an idea how good BB and Caserio are at drafting.
The excuse of having no early picks will not exist. The Patriots will have
12 picks and 6 in the first three rounds. Will they have a draft that resembles New Orleans super 2017 draft or will they trade away most of the picks and end up
with only a couple useful players?

A lot will depend on the quality of the players available. Let's not forget that some drafts have turned out more busts for the entire league than others have.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Next year, we will get an idea how good BB and Caserio are at drafting.
The excuse of having no early picks will not exist. The Patriots will have
12 picks and 6 in the first three rounds. Will they have a draft that resembles New Orleans super 2017 draft or will they trade away most of the picks and end up
with only a couple useful players?

So the last 10 years wasn't a good enough track record for you?

 

[Joker]

in the words of Rocky Roccoco, "Maybe yes and maybe no."

The "severity bar" on a hammy injury is probably a bit lower for a rookie who's missed most of Camp. It comes down to having him take up a roster spot for a few weeks while healing on the bench, or giving that roster spot to a healthy player who might be useful while Dawson heals on IR.



Well, AFAIK, it was only reported with any certainty by the media, relying on "informed sources."



He wouldn't be able to practice, anyway. Even on IR, he can still attend all meetings, rehab at the Pats facility, etc. Not really much different than being inactive. Agree with the second part 100%, though.



Yup.

OK wiseguy...YOU asked for it...out of the fog...into the smog..

 

[maineman209]

OK wiseguy...YOU asked for it...out of the fog...into the smog..

You are, indeed, relentless and ruthless, Sir.

 

[DarrylS]

While some Pats Fans lament our lack of success in the draft, while ignoring the big picture the Pats have won a lot of games and championships. With the arguments presented here one might think that with all their high draft picks Cleveland would be some sort of dynasty by now..
2018 picks 1 & 4
2017 picks 1, 25 & 29
2016 pick pick 25
2015 picks 12 & 19
2014 picks 8 & 22

 

[maineman209]

I vehemently disagree with this. 2017 only has 1 starter because they only picked four players, and all signs point to Rivers at least being a solid role player. Add in the trades that brought in a year of Cooks, Wynn and Allen and you end up with a satisfactory amount of inflow. If Wynn pans out, it may even be excellent.

As for 2016, the perception does not match reality. Jones was a miss and injuries derailed promising careers for VV/MM, but pretty much every other player was a hit of some sort. In the 6th round alone, NE snagged Grugier-Hill, Roberts and Karras. That's incredible. I'll grant that this group is missing the top end stud that Mitchell appeared to be developing into, but there is nothing about the 2016 draft that even hints at a talent evaluation issue.

FWIW, last week during cutdowns, there were a lot of mediots remarking about how many 2016 draft picks have already been cut or traded, especially 2nd-rounders.

The quality of draft classes is much more variable than most folks fully understand, both overall and by position.

 

[Oswlek]

I think injuries are already built in to the 2 starters per draft standard for a GM to be "doing their job".

I'm not sure when I said otherwise.

The 2016 draft resulted in 1 starter and 2 role players (Karras, Roberts). Pats didn't get anything out of Grugier-Hill despite him being a good find in the 6th.

Dorsett is another role player, so it makes it 1 starter and 3 role players, which is pretty close to the target of 2 and 2.

More importantly, discounting G-H is only apt if we are viewing 2016 through a very limited scope. But that isn't what you are doing, you are taking 2016 and projecting forward, see here:

Either way, it'll be hard to sustain success without hitting on more picks.

This makes G-H relevant again, because there is nothing about 2016 that suggests NE will struggle to hit on more picks. To the contrary, not getting anything out of G-H was because they did too good a job of hitting on late round draft picks and UDFAs, forcing them to have to subject multiple NFL caliber players to waivers. Said another way, had NE opted to keep G-H over Jon Jones, would the draft have been better? Would the team be better? Would the outlook for future drafts be better?

You really need to be more precise about what you are saying. If you are merely using 2016 as an example of a draft that didn't land 2/2 for whatever reason, you'll get no argument from me. But you seem to extrapolating further, which isn't as justified.

 

[captain stone]

OK wiseguy...YOU asked for it...out of the fog...into the smog..

Beats the heck out of:

"The Further Misadventures of Stokoe Gotohell, the Brown Eye."

 

[AlexB]

I'm not sure when I said otherwise.

Can't blame injuries to MM and VV as the reason for not getting 2+ starters from the 2016 draft. That standard includes the fact that some players will get injured.

Dorsett is another role player, so it makes it 1 starter and 3 role players, which is pretty close to the target of 2 and 2

Another role player doesn't make up for a starter. Either way, the 2/2 standard is more for a GM to be "doing their job", not necessarily a good draft. For example, the 2015 draft produced 4 starters, and you could argue all 4 starters from that draft/UDFA are better than Thuney.

This makes G-H relevant again, because there is nothing about 2016 that suggests NE will struggle to hit on more picks. To the contrary, not getting anything out of G-H was because they did too good a job of hitting on late round draft picks and UDFAs, forcing them to have to subject multiple NFL caliber players to waivers. Said another way, had NE opted to keep G-H over Jon Jones, would the draft have been better? Would the team be better? Would the outlook for future drafts be better?

G-H should have been kept over Richards, but even if he'd been kept it wouldn't substantially changed my view of the 2016 draft (including UDFA). I am more concerned about number and quality of starters. I think the team is fine in terms of role players. BB is very good at finding them via trades, free agency, other teams' PS, late in draft, etc.

You really need to be more precise about what you are saying. If you are merely using 2016 as an example of a draft that didn't land 2/2 for whatever reason, you'll get no argument from me. But you seem to extrapolating further, which isn't as justified.

My point is that the last few drafts have been underwhelming by observing:

• 2016 and 2017* did not meet the 2/2 standard
• Even when the standard was met (as in 2014-2015) the quality of starters has not been as good (for example, number of pro bowl/ All Pro players)

This doesn't matter too much for the Pats today since they still have guys like Gronk, McCourty, Hightower - true difference makers on the field. Chandler Jones and Collins were also drafted and then traded away for draft capital. I don't see the same quality of players from 2014-2017 compared to 2010-2013.

Getting back to topic, I hope that Dawson recovers quickly and helps make the 2018 draft class more similar to 2010/ 2012 rather than 2016/ 2017.

*I get that Wynn could be re-classified to a 2017 pick. But then, should Thuney count as a 2012 pick since Pats got him through the CJ trade? That would mean no starters from 2016. I prefer to just count players as part of the class they were drafted in.

 

[Oswlek]

Can't blame injuries to MM and VV as the reason for not getting 2+ starters from the 2016 draft. That standard includes the fact that some players will get injured.

It isn't about "blaming", it's about acknowledging facts. You are struggling to grasp subtlety in this conversation.

Either way, the 2/2 standard is more for a GM to be "doing their job", not necessarily a good draft.

Does this mean 2/2 is the minimal standard? That 2/2 isn't itself a good draft? If not, what is the distinction you are going for here?

2016 and 2017* did not meet the 2/2 standard

Are you suggesting that a draft with only four selections is still expected to generate 2 starters and 2 role players?

I get that Wynn could be re-classified to a 2017 pick. But then, should Thuney count as a 2012 pick since Pats got him through the CJ trade?

Acknowledging that rolling a draft pick into the next year might diminish the expected return isn't remotely the same thing as this bizarre hypothetical. Especially if we ignore the free 1,100 yard receiving year NE got in the bargain, which you seem to be doing.

There is no doubt that it's been a few years since NE drafted an elite talent, and that is disappointing. If that is really all you've been saying, then we agree on the crux of your argument. Our disagreement lies in the elaborations you try to make on the periphery.

 

[mgteich]

This is terrible news, another wasted year for an early round draft pick.

CHOICE ONE
Evaluate after the draft based on our own knowledge of how the player will fit in to our schemes.

CHOICE ONE
Evaluate draft choices before they play.

CHOICE TWO
Evaluate draft choices after 2-3 years of play. Even then, this could be misleading as players drafted might do well for others after we cut them.
==============
Personally, I have a low expectation from draft choices, especially in their rookie years. We are well prepared for our 2018 draft choices to be 2019 contributors. We'll see, but I expect the free agent additions, those coming back from injuries and 2nd year players to be major contributors.

 

[mgteich]

2 starters per draft is a high bar for teams who have their first pick after pick 25.

I think injuries are already built in to the 2 starters per draft standard for a GM to be "doing their job". The 2016 draft resulted in 1 starter and 2 role players (Karras, Roberts). Pats didn't get anything out of Grugier-Hill despite him being a good find in the 6th.

Btw, when I said the early evaluations, I meant the evaluation of the results of the draft class, not Pats talent evaluation skills. The last two drafts (2016-2017) seem to have resulted in 2-3 total starters depending on if you include Wynn or not. Luck and injuries played a role as well as some talent evaluation misses. Either way, it'll be hard to sustain success without hitting on more picks.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I probably agree with you here but can you elaborate?

With someone of Brady’s quality, he can afford to take more risks and go after a player with a higher ceiling but also a higher chance of busting. If he didn’t have Brady I think he’d be more likely to go after players with a lower ceiling but also a higher floor.

 

[Oswlek]

2 starters per draft is a high bar for teams who have their first pick after pick 25.

I think it is fair to expect an average of 2/2 regardless of draft position. To get that kind of return, you have to hit on some late round guys either way.

The mistake Alex is making is to ignore nuance. For instance, in 2016 there was only one player that is a categorical bust. And even he was selected at the end of the second round. The rest were all guys who showed reasonable promise and/or have exceeded expected production for their position. Despite not quite hitting the 2/2 target, there is nothing about 2016 that should give fans pause about NE's prospects in future drafts.

To make it seem so, Alex introduces 2017's failure to hit 2/2, completely ignoring that NE only selected four players, the first coming in the 3rd round. Not noting the obvious context here is bordering on misrepresentation.

If all anyone wants to say is that the lack of home runs in the past few years could create issues a few years down the road, that is perfectly reasonable. The problem is that people can't seem to help themselves from taking it a bridge too far.

 

[captain stone]

...Personally, I have a low expectation from draft choices, especially in their rookie years...

Then you haven't been disappointed.