How the Patriots got where they are: College draft edition

[BaconGrundleCandy]

But other teams draft bad players too!! Obviously every team is going to miss on picks. I don’t know why it always has to turn into a league wide comparison instead of looking at things in black and white. The last 4 drafts have yielded almost no quality starters. Plain and simple.

All the “hindsight is 20/20” stuff is obvious. Yes of course you don’t know who is going to be a bust and who will be a stud but that being said a RB in the first round is always going to be stupid as far as I’m concerned. There were also a lot of people who didn’t like the Harry pick at the time of the draft with the other guys who were still on the board. The same way that a lot of people didn’t like us taking another corner in the second round or understand why we took another running back in the third. It’s all well and good to complain about people using hindsight to evaluate the draft but at the same time a lot of people haven’t agreed with some of our high picks right off the bat.

Never, ever.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Tight end is a tough position because it's extremely bare in the college ranks as well. Only a handful of schools even use tight ends anymore and many of them aren't very good, so teams just gamble on system guys from Iowa, Alabama, and Miami.

That position isn't easy. Mostly all projection as you're going off very little production in most cases.
Kittle had 48 recs in college. 42 in his last 2 year's. Kelce had one year of production.

If you can find one like a Ertz, Goedert that actually produced. Focus of the offense. I think its a huge "yes" if they show out during testing drills as well.

 

[Deus Irae]

but that being said a RB in the first round is always going to be stupid as far as I’m concerned.

That's a position you should re-visit. And, if you still come down on the same side, you should re-visit it again. And, you should repeat that process until you stop coming down on that side of the issue. The issue isn't drafting RBs in the first round. The issue is bad teams without QBs drafting RBs in the first round, if it turns out that they missed on a big time QB. Beyond that, taking the RB is fine, as long as he's a worthy talent.

 

[primetime]

That position isn't easy. Mostly all projection as you're going off very little production in most cases.
Kittle had 48 recs in college. 42 in his last 2 year's. Kelce had one year of production.

If you can find one like a Ertz, Goedert that actually produced. Focus of the offense. I think its a huge "yes" if they show out during testing drills as well.

Yeah. I mean people complain they didn't take a tight end last year, but look at the ones they could've taken. Knox was okay, but dropped a lot of passes. Otherwise it's a big load of nothing. Even Hockensen and Fant looked lost. Maybe a few end up decent after they acclimate to the league, because it's a learning curve, but you can't just pick any old guy at a position because you need one. Certainly none other than maybe Knox they could have taken would have been a meaningful improvement over the crap they had out there, and with Knox it isn't that big a jump.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

That's a position you should re-visit. And, if you still come down on the same side, you should re-visit it again. And, you should repeat that process until you stop coming down on that side of the issue. The issue isn't drafting RBs in the first round. The issue is bad teams without QBs drafting RBs in the first round, if it turns out that they missed on a big time QB. Beyond that, taking the RB is fine, as long as he's a worthy talent.

This doesn't make sense. Its never a good idea to go RB Rd1.

We drafted Sony when we had the GOAT playing at an extremely high level & he looked pretty good at best. And again that was playing beside Brady and arguably the best OL we've ever had. He wasn't close to special.

Our OL/QB were special though so he was good enough behind them.

NFL teams haven't drafted the position high recently bc they know how easy it is the get production from the position. Its the easiest position to plug/play. And there are simply more guys/athletes in that range compared to OL/DL etc. There's no shortage of them so why pay more when you can get similar/better production with a cheaper pick?

Never a good idea to pick RBs Rd1.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Yeah. I mean people complain they didn't take a tight end last year, but look at the ones they could've taken. Knox was okay, but dropped a lot of passes. Otherwise it's a big load of nothing. Even Hockensen and Fant looked lost. Maybe a few end up decent after they acclimate to the league, because it's a learning curve, but you can't just pick any old guy at a position because you need one. Certainly none other than maybe Knox they could have taken would have been a meaningful improvement over the crap they had out there, and with Knox it isn't that big a jump.

For the most part I agree. I think Smith, Knox & Moreau could've helped a lot more than what we had though.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This doesn't make sense. Its never a good idea to go RB Rd1.

We drafted Sony when we had the GOAT playing at an extremely high level & he looked pretty good at best. And again that was playing beside Brady and arguably the best OL we've ever had. He wasn't close to special.

Our OL/QB were special though so he was good enough behind them.

NFL teams haven't drafted the position high recently bc they know how easy it is the get production from the position. Its the easiest position to plug/play. And there are simply more guys/athletes in that range compared to OL/DL etc. There's no shortage of them so why pay more when you can get similar/better production with a cheaper pick?

Never a good idea to pick RBs Rd1.

Barkley or Gurley is available at #32 and you’re saying to pass?

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

This doesn't make sense. Its never a good idea to go RB Rd1.

We drafted Sony when we had the GOAT playing at an extremely high level & he looked pretty good at best. And again that was playing beside Brady and arguably the best OL we've ever had. He wasn't close to special.

Our OL/QB were special though so he was good enough behind them.

NFL teams haven't drafted the position high recently bc they know how easy it is the get production from the position. Its the easiest position to plug/play. And there are simply more guys/athletes in that range compared to OL/DL etc. There's no shortage of them so why pay more when you can get similar/better production with a cheaper pick?

Never a good idea to pick RBs Rd1.

Expanding on this a bit. Gordon didn't transform LAC in any way. Neither did Ryan Matthews.

Ingram wasn't the RB that really took NO to the next level. Kamara was drafted Rd3.

If you can't find talent at that position outside of Rd1 you shouldn't be scouting prospects.

Since 2010 RBs taken Rd1.
Spiller, Matthews, Best, Ingram, Richardson, Martin, Wilson, Gurley, Gordon, Zeke, LF7, Caff, Barkley, Penny, Sony, Jacobs.

 

[Deus Irae]

This doesn't make sense. Its never a good idea to go RB Rd1..

That's obviously not true. It's going to remain obviously not true, no matter how often you repeat it. Frankly, it's a ludicrous take.

 

[Gronkowski123]

Tons of busts lol. Bill outsmarts himself...trading back and collecting useless picks

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Barkley or Gurley is available at #32 and you’re saying to pass?

That's as foolish as Deus saying you should go after Brady and Manning when drafting QB.

You've been slurping the 49ers for a while now but are still banging the RB Rd1 drum?

This is old news Ice its 2020. Get ahead of the times/curve. Its a plug/play position that has been proven you don't need to draft that position high.

Again what good has Barkley done for the NYG? Gurley has been a difference maker for how many years? Both are getting paid like top 5 RBs bc of draft position.

 

[Deus Irae]

If you can't find talent at that position outside of Rd1 you shouldn't be scouting prospects.

That's a meaningless assertion to make. You can make that same argument about every single position.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's as foolish as Deus saying you should go after Brady and Manning when drafting QB.

You've been slurping the 49ers for a while now but are still banging the RB Rd1 drum?

This is old news Ice its 2020. Get ahead of the times/curve. Its a plug/play position that has been proven you don't need to draft that position high.

Again what good has Barkley done for the NYG? Gurley has been a difference maker for how many years? Both are getting paid like top 5 RBs bc of draft position.

You're talking out of your ass again.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

That's obviously not true. It's going to remain obviously not true, no matter how often you repeat it. Frankly, it's a ludicrous take.

You have nothing so I expected this from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Part of what you said in your post.
"The issue is bad teams without QBs drafting RBs in the first round"

Sony wasn't close to a game changer or even special and he was sent into a great situation here.

Melvin Gordon/Ryan Matthews/Mark Ingram all drafted Rd1 to teams with good-great QB's.
LAC were a better team with AE as opposed to Gordon. Kamara was the RB that really helped NO's offense take off.

We've seen NFL teams pass on RBs all together in the 1st Rd multiple years bc teams know you can get production later in the draft.

Sorry boomer come correct with actual substance.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

That's obviously not true. It's going to remain obviously not true, no matter how often you repeat it. Frankly, it's a ludicrous take.

That's a meaningless assertion to make. You can make that same argument about every single position.

You're talking out of your ass again.

Again nothing of substance at all. Imagine arguing RB's matter in 2020. NFL teams and this draft expert are telling you you're wrong. Its ok to be wrong Deus.

 

[Deus Irae]

Since Bacon cited to Kamara, let's take a closer look at his draft year (2017)

RBs drafted in 2017:

Fournette
McCaffrey
Cook
Mixon
Kamara
Hunt
(D'Onta) Foreman
Conner


That's a hell of a RB draft. But it's an outlier. Any simple scanning of the drafts in recent years shows that. It also shows that quality RBs aren't just falling off of trees. Start by comparing 2017 to 2018 and 2016, and you see the picture setting up quickly.

DraftHistory.com

 

[1960Pats]

Queue the people coming in and saying it’s because they draft near, or at, the bottom every year. Those same people will then turn around and say that a team with zero shot shouldn’t tank for a higher pick.

Tanking doesn't work. It sets a bad tone for the team.

Having a poor record that gets a team better picks is okay but it doesn't guarantee success. It also only gives that team a one pick advantage.

Let me explain that last sentence.

Team A has the 32nd pick and team B has the 24th. After you get by B's pick at 24, team A now has a better pick (by 24 picks) in each and every round. Team B's advantage is just that one pick, which may or may not end up being a good pick.

 

[Deus Irae]

You have nothing so I expected this from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

I have history, as I just posted.

Part of what you said in your post.
"The issue is bad teams without QBs drafting RBs in the first round"

Sony wasn't close to a game changer or even special and he was sent into a great situation here.

Melvin Gordon/Ryan Matthews/Mark Ingram all drafted Rd1 to teams with good-great QB's.
LAC were a better team with AE as opposed to Gordon. Kamara was the RB that really helped NO's offense take off.

We've seen NFL teams pass on RBs all together in the 1st Rd multiple years bc teams know you can get production later in the draft.

Sorry boomer come correct with actual substance.

I didn't want the Michel pick, and the rest of your post is just inane. The only position with significant individual correlation to SBs is quarterback, and even that is just correlation, and not based upon draft round. So arguing that Mark Ingram didn't result in a SB is needless folly.

 

[Deus Irae]

Tanking doesn't work. It sets a bad tone for the team.

Having a poor record that gets a team better picks is okay but it doesn't guarantee success. It also only gives that team a one pick advantage.

Let me explain that last sentence.

Team A has the 32nd pick and team B has the 24th. After you get by B's pick at 24, team A now has a better pick (by 24 picks) in each and every round. Team B's advantage is just that one pick, which may or may not end up being a good pick.

Tanking works fine, if you make the right picks.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

I have history, as I just posted.



I didn't want the Michel pick, and the rest of your post is just inane. The only position with significant individual correlation to SBs is quarterback. So arguing that Mark Ingram didn't result in a SB is needless folly.

What you said ...
"The issue is bad teams without QBs drafting RBs in the first round"

I gave you multiple examples of good teams/QBs drafting RB's Rd1 and none made a difference if we're being honest.

It's never a smart move drafting RB's Rd1. History shows you can find them later in the draft and UDFA.

Running game matters but running backs don't.