Pats sloughing picks??

jeffbiologist · Apr 28, 2008

This may not be a popular post, but this comes from a guy who finishes his beer even before leaving the bar with the prettiest girl...a scientist who assumes nothing,lol.
Last year it got me thinking that the Pats just didnt like the talent in the draft, and we did well be trading picks for players. We all know how BB likes older players, and he has to have some idea how many jobs are open before he goes into the draft. I was thinking that last year you couldnt argue with our team on paper, it would have been difficult to improve it....but that our picks from 4-7 did nothing for THIS team. Why dont we get value for these guys?
Lets look at the roster before this years draft:
QBs-I think we can honestly say that there are 2 openings, but why not trade a 3rd rd pick for a veteran like Todd Collins rather than take another rookie on a team not known for developing QBs?(Bishop,Davey,Kingsbury,Cassel).
RBs-Eckel can be upgraded
TEs-Spahn can be upgraded
OL-we could use 1 inside and 1 outside for competition if nothing else
WR-with all our 3wr sets having only 4 wr that arent STers...could add one
DL-Wright and Smiths could all be upgraded
ILB-We dont know about Seau still
OLB-Colvin is gone, Woods isnt the future
S-Rodney has 1-2 years left, Andrews has legal problems
CB-Bunch of jags, throw em all against the wall and see who sticks?
Now to me, going into the draft there are at least 13 roster spots that can be improved. We have 8 draft picks going in. Safe to say we can create competition in at least 6-7 positions right? There are 13 guys that if they get hurt I am not comfortable with our depth....
Now some statistics. 7/8(88%) of our #1 picks have started game 1 in the BB era. Only 5/63(8%) of guys drafted in rounds 2-7 have done the same. To me those statistics are a little disturbing. There certainly isnt THAT much difference between players taken in rd 1 to rd 2 in TALENT. But its the OPPORTUNITY that this team gives first round picks that sets a standard hiearchy(sp?). I suggest this means that its coaching NOT drafting that makes this team.
The FO now scares away traders. Using the accepted value chart we lost out in value in every trade yesterday. One at a time:
1-we wanted Mayo. We knew we could trade back for him. We knew Ellis was the 2nd best DL in the draft, we had to know there was more than one team willing to trade up for him. Maybe Cincy is braindead, but why not get them into a bidding war for Ellis? We talked to NO prior to the draft about this scenario....they then offer KC 2 1sts and a 2nd for #5....and all we got from them was essentially a 4th(3rd minus 5th)?? Better than nothing I guess...we got our guy and paid him less.....but not good value.
2-the trade with SD is my bone of contention for the whole thread...Its widely accepted that a 4th in 08 is worth a 3rd in 09 and a 2nd in 10,etc..at the SAME position in the draft. SD gets 69 for a 09 2nd on a REAL good team(likely about #59). Doing the math-69-32(1yr)should be 37...not 59. The only way we break even on this trade is that SD does as badly as SF did in last year! We get a 5th? He isnt going to make the team! Put in perspective, the difference between 59 and 37 is 200pts....which is a mid 3rd rd pick we essentially just GAVE AWAY. If we traded the #94 for this, sure, even trade. Now there is some info out about us calling Crable twice,etc...that just tells me they are overdrafting guys.
More statistics. In the 7 years of the BB era the average number of rookies to make the team is 3. Of these, you have 1 starter(1st rd pick), one backup(ST), and the 3rd guy is a backup who becomes a starter every other year--usually by injury or attrition. Knowing these stats, looking back to when BB got here and we werent that good.....these stats remain steady, there is no significant drop due to team's success. Based on these statistics we replace less than 2/22 (9%)starters every year. If we were solely relying on the draft every player would have to play 11 years for this to work. Divide 11 by the average career length of say 4 years. This tells me that FAs are about TWICE as important as the draft. I did the math, so did BB.
Looking back on the 3rd round, seeing how well Baltimore did, makes me think. We had more and better picks on the 2nd day than ANYONE. To give away our first pick, reach on the 2nd, reach again on the 3rd...and then play good ole boys again in the later rounds is no way to run a business. Like last year when they hooked up Hairston, the RB from a FO guys college. Guys like Slater and Ruud are LEGACIES everyone had going as FAs. I suggest they INTENTIONALLY sloughed the later picks again because they dont want to deal with rookies.
Now looking at their draft again isnt there a demarcation line there after the 3rd? Now maybe we are tired of stocking other teams with our leftovers, but werent there players left on the board in the 3rd rd that could make this team? Is there any question that the 1,2,3 guys make the team, the rest are PS guys?Think about this for a minute, how screwed would this team be without BB/SP/TB??
Our depth is questionable.
Our age is a serious problem.
Our types of players are only good on a BB 3-4 team.
Our teams age continues to get older every year because we dont inject it with enough talented youth. Statistics bear it out. Most of the time this wouldnt bother us, winning cures this pretty quick. With the draft picks we have there should be more of an emphasis on building through the draft... but there isnt. The draft is a tool to build our team, and every year we dont win the super bowl, and even the years we do we have to look to improve in every area. We are leaving bullets in the gun and not maximizing our potential. Sorry for the length. Go ahead, rip away,lol.

A.C Vegas · Apr 28, 2008

The fact is The coaching staff set up ther bored of the players they like and they are not going to do dramtic reaches because of what the fans think

patsgo · Apr 28, 2008

jeffbiologist said:
This may not be a popular post, but this comes from a guy who finishes his beer even before leaving the bar with the prettiest girl...a scientist who assumes nothing,lol.
Last year it got me thinking that the Pats just didnt like the talent in the draft, and we did well be trading picks for players. We all know how BB likes older players, and he has to have some idea how many jobs are open before he goes into the draft. I was thinking that last year you couldnt argue with our team on paper, it would have been difficult to improve it....but that our picks from 4-7 did nothing for THIS team. Why dont we get value for these guys?
Lets look at the roster before this years draft:
QBs-I think we can honestly say that there are 2 openings, but why not trade a 3rd rd pick for a veteran like Todd Collins rather than take another rookie on a team not known for developing QBs?(Bishop,Davey,Kingsbury,Cassel).
RBs-Eckel can be upgraded
TEs-Spahn can be upgraded
OL-we could use 1 inside and 1 outside for competition if nothing else
WR-with all our 3wr sets having only 4 wr that arent STers...could add one
DL-Wright and Smiths could all be upgraded
ILB-We dont know about Seau still
OLB-Colvin is gone, Woods isnt the future
S-Rodney has 1-2 years left, Andrews has legal problems
CB-Bunch of jags, throw em all against the wall and see who sticks?
Now to me, going into the draft there are at least 13 roster spots that can be improved. We have 8 draft picks going in. Safe to say we can create competition in at least 6-7 positions right? There are 13 guys that if they get hurt I am not comfortable with our depth....
Now some statistics. 7/8(88%) of our #1 picks have started game 1 in the BB era. Only 5/63(8%) of guys drafted in rounds 2-7 have done the same. To me those statistics are a little disturbing. There certainly isnt THAT much difference between players taken in rd 1 to rd 2 in TALENT. But its the OPPORTUNITY that this team gives first round picks that sets a standard hiearchy(sp?). I suggest this means that its coaching NOT drafting that makes this team.
The FO now scares away traders. Using the accepted value chart we lost out in value in every trade yesterday. One at a time:
1-we wanted Mayo. We knew we could trade back for him. We knew Ellis was the 2nd best DL in the draft, we had to know there was more than one team willing to trade up for him. Maybe Cincy is braindead, but why not get them into a bidding war for Ellis? We talked to NO prior to the draft about this scenario....they then offer KC 2 1sts and a 2nd for #5....and all we got from them was essentially a 4th(3rd minus 5th)?? Better than nothing I guess...we got our guy and paid him less.....but not good value.
2-the trade with SD is my bone of contention for the whole thread...Its widely accepted that a 4th in 08 is worth a 3rd in 09 and a 2nd in 10,etc..at the SAME position in the draft. SD gets 69 for a 09 2nd on a REAL good team(likely about #59). Doing the math-69-32(1yr)should be 37...not 59. The only way we break even on this trade is that SD does as badly as SF did in last year! We get a 5th? He isnt going to make the team! Put in perspective, the difference between 59 and 37 is 200pts....which is a mid 3rd rd pick we essentially just GAVE AWAY. If we traded the #94 for this, sure, even trade. Now there is some info out about us calling Crable twice,etc...that just tells me they are overdrafting guys.
More statistics. In the 7 years of the BB era the average number of rookies to make the team is 3. Of these, you have 1 starter(1st rd pick), one backup(ST), and the 3rd guy is a backup who becomes a starter every other year--usually by injury or attrition. Knowing these stats, looking back to when BB got here and we werent that good.....these stats remain steady, there is no significant drop due to team's success. Based on these statistics we replace less than 2/22 (9%)starters every year. If we were solely relying on the draft every player would have to play 11 years for this to work. Divide 11 by the average career length of say 4 years. This tells me that FAs are about TWICE as important as the draft. I did the math, so did BB.
Looking back on the 3rd round, seeing how well Baltimore did, makes me think. We had more and better picks on the 2nd day than ANYONE. To give away our first pick, reach on the 2nd, reach again on the 3rd...and then play good ole boys again in the later rounds is no way to run a business. Like last year when they hooked up Hairston, the RB from a FO guys college. Guys like Slater and Ruud are LEGACIES everyone had going as FAs. I suggest they INTENTIONALLY sloughed the later picks again because they dont want to deal with rookies.
Now looking at their draft again isnt there a demarcation line there after the 3rd? Now maybe we are tired of stocking other teams with our leftovers, but werent there players left on the board in the 3rd rd that could make this team? Is there any question that the 1,2,3 guys make the team, the rest are PS guys?Think about this for a minute, how screwed would this team be without BB/SP/TB??
Our depth is questionable.
Our age is a serious problem.
Our types of players are only good on a BB 3-4 team.
Our teams age continues to get older every year because we dont inject it with enough talented youth. Statistics bear it out. Most of the time this wouldnt bother us, winning cures this pretty quick. With the draft picks we have there should be more of an emphasis on building through the draft... but there isnt. The draft is a tool to build our team, and every year we dont win the super bowl, and even the years we do we have to look to improve in every area. We are leaving bullets in the gun and not maximizing our potential. Sorry for the length. Go ahead, rip away,lol.

go study some biology and leave us alone

Zeke_Mowatt · Apr 28, 2008

Seriously, you, who are probably very intelligent, should work on a bit of wisdom to appreciate that the FO knows a LOT more about this than you do and has a spectacular track record of production out of mid-late round picks. I expect the Oh-No whining from some of the idiots, but I would hope for more out of someone with a respectable mind. Imagine if, in the course of you working on something in your work, the secretary, janitor, and all the other non-scientific minded people in your office/lab/whatever were invited to spend a casual volume of their "down time" looking around the internet to get a better (albeit tertiary) understanding of rudimentary biology, and to glance quickly at what few papers on semi-comparable subjects were published online. Imagine that they then critiqued your paper based on the fact that they had found student papers, doctoral theses, that were along similar lines but didn't really hit the heart of what you were doing on a professional level et al and found your work to be "not in accordance" with what they thought you should be dealing with. Would you give them credibility, or even listen, or would you wonder at their audacity? OK, it's probably not the most elegant analogy but regardless, with that said:

patchick · Apr 28, 2008

OK, I'm going to take this post at face value. You are saying, as I understand it, that you believe that the Patriots intentionally draft lousy players 2nd day in order to not have to cope with an overabundance of rookies.

Putting aside the fundamental brain-exploding implausibility of this theory, here are some concrete reasons why I can't agree:

- They sign UDFAs after the draft
- Many current roster players were Pats late-round picks and UDFAs
- And forgive me if I shout, but...

If they wanted FEWER rookies, they would sign FEWER rookies, not WORSE rookies!!!!

JeffBiologist, I'd like to seriously suggest that before starting any future threads you step away and re-read again before posting.

DaBruinz · Apr 28, 2008

jeffbiologist said:
This may not be a popular post, but this comes from a guy who finishes his beer even before leaving the bar with the prettiest girl...a scientist who assumes nothing,lol.
Last year it got me thinking that the Pats just didnt like the talent in the draft, and we did well be trading picks for players. We all know how BB likes older players, and he has to have some idea how many jobs are open before he goes into the draft. I was thinking that last year you couldnt argue with our team on paper, it would have been difficult to improve it....but that our picks from 4-7 did nothing for THIS team. Why dont we get value for these guys?
Lets look at the roster before this years draft:
QBs-I think we can honestly say that there are 2 openings, but why not trade a 3rd rd pick for a veteran like Todd Collins rather than take another rookie on a team not known for developing QBs?(Bishop,Davey,Kingsbury,Cassel).
RBs-Eckel can be upgraded
TEs-Spahn can be upgraded
OL-we could use 1 inside and 1 outside for competition if nothing else
WR-with all our 3wr sets having only 4 wr that arent STers...could add one
DL-Wright and Smiths could all be upgraded
ILB-We dont know about Seau still
OLB-Colvin is gone, Woods isnt the future
S-Rodney has 1-2 years left, Andrews has legal problems
CB-Bunch of jags, throw em all against the wall and see who sticks?
Now to me, going into the draft there are at least 13 roster spots that can be improved. We have 8 draft picks going in. Safe to say we can create competition in at least 6-7 positions right? There are 13 guys that if they get hurt I am not comfortable with our depth....
Now some statistics. 7/8(88%) of our #1 picks have started game 1 in the BB era. Only 5/63(8%) of guys drafted in rounds 2-7 have done the same. To me those statistics are a little disturbing. There certainly isnt THAT much difference between players taken in rd 1 to rd 2 in TALENT. But its the OPPORTUNITY that this team gives first round picks that sets a standard hiearchy(sp?). I suggest this means that its coaching NOT drafting that makes this team.
The FO now scares away traders. Using the accepted value chart we lost out in value in every trade yesterday. One at a time:
1-we wanted Mayo. We knew we could trade back for him. We knew Ellis was the 2nd best DL in the draft, we had to know there was more than one team willing to trade up for him. Maybe Cincy is braindead, but why not get them into a bidding war for Ellis? We talked to NO prior to the draft about this scenario....they then offer KC 2 1sts and a 2nd for #5....and all we got from them was essentially a 4th(3rd minus 5th)?? Better than nothing I guess...we got our guy and paid him less.....but not good value.
2-the trade with SD is my bone of contention for the whole thread...Its widely accepted that a 4th in 08 is worth a 3rd in 09 and a 2nd in 10,etc..at the SAME position in the draft. SD gets 69 for a 09 2nd on a REAL good team(likely about #59). Doing the math-69-32(1yr)should be 37...not 59. The only way we break even on this trade is that SD does as badly as SF did in last year! We get a 5th? He isnt going to make the team! Put in perspective, the difference between 59 and 37 is 200pts....which is a mid 3rd rd pick we essentially just GAVE AWAY. If we traded the #94 for this, sure, even trade. Now there is some info out about us calling Crable twice,etc...that just tells me they are overdrafting guys.
More statistics. In the 7 years of the BB era the average number of rookies to make the team is 3. Of these, you have 1 starter(1st rd pick), one backup(ST), and the 3rd guy is a backup who becomes a starter every other year--usually by injury or attrition. Knowing these stats, looking back to when BB got here and we werent that good.....these stats remain steady, there is no significant drop due to team's success. Based on these statistics we replace less than 2/22 (9%)starters every year. If we were solely relying on the draft every player would have to play 11 years for this to work. Divide 11 by the average career length of say 4 years. This tells me that FAs are about TWICE as important as the draft. I did the math, so did BB.
Looking back on the 3rd round, seeing how well Baltimore did, makes me think. We had more and better picks on the 2nd day than ANYONE. To give away our first pick, reach on the 2nd, reach again on the 3rd...and then play good ole boys again in the later rounds is no way to run a business. Like last year when they hooked up Hairston, the RB from a FO guys college. Guys like Slater and Ruud are LEGACIES everyone had going as FAs. I suggest they INTENTIONALLY sloughed the later picks again because they dont want to deal with rookies.
Now looking at their draft again isnt there a demarcation line there after the 3rd? Now maybe we are tired of stocking other teams with our leftovers, but werent there players left on the board in the 3rd rd that could make this team? Is there any question that the 1,2,3 guys make the team, the rest are PS guys?Think about this for a minute, how screwed would this team be without BB/SP/TB??
Our depth is questionable.
Our age is a serious problem.
Our types of players are only good on a BB 3-4 team.
Our teams age continues to get older every year because we dont inject it with enough talented youth. Statistics bear it out. Most of the time this wouldnt bother us, winning cures this pretty quick. With the draft picks we have there should be more of an emphasis on building through the draft... but there isnt. The draft is a tool to build our team, and every year we dont win the super bowl, and even the years we do we have to look to improve in every area. We are leaving bullets in the gun and not maximizing our potential. Sorry for the length. Go ahead, rip away,lol.

You lose credibility when you make a post like this and can't even spell players names correctly.

The TE on the Patriots is SPACH not SPAHN. SPANN is a CB.

Many of your assumptions have very little thought in them Not to mention are impractical for a salary cap league. For example, you mention the Pats having "4 WR who aren't specifically special teams players". The Pats run many of their WR sets with Kevin Faulk and Ben Watson out in formation. Also, Kelley Washington isn't ONLY a special teams player. While the Pats have only used him for that, I would be willing to bet that Washington gets more reps in the passing game this year.

ILB - The Pats added Victor Hobson and Jerod Mayo. So what if we don't know about Seau. Considering that both Hobson and Mayo have played in 3-4 sets (Hobson in one very similar to the Pats) my bet is that Hobson opens the year starting next to Bruschi or even Seau.

FB - Yes, Eckel could be upgraded. But who would you have taken over who was drafted?

People on here love to B!tch and moan about who the Pats draft, yet hardly anyone offers up someone who could work in the Pats system as a suitable replacement.

This idiocy on your part that the team ONLY gets older and the Pats don't "inject youth" into it is so much BS. Listen, Chicken Little. Just because you don't understand that the Patriots keep a good balance of youth and veterans doesn't mean the rest of us don't understand it.

As for this idea that the "Patriots leave bullets in the gun and aren't maximizing their potential, PROVE IT. Show me players who actually would have MADE last year's team and would have produced in the Pats system.

SamBamsFan · Apr 28, 2008

Not for nothing. I thought we won 18 games last year.

jct · Apr 28, 2008

Reply to Poster

In years past, I had a similar kneejerk reaction to you.
I hated MANY of the front office moves.
But hey, since 2001 we have had 12.5 wins a year.
We set records Galore.
And if not for our defense last year we would have been perfect.
This offseason we took a big step back loosing Asante (but he wasn't worth his market price too me)
Outside of that we lost a few minor pieces...

Entering this draft we needed speed, talent, smarts and potential on Defense.
Well some pundits may say we reached (somewhat) for Mayo, I say the guy sounds like a replacement for Bruschi...brains,leadership,speed,production
Some pundits may devalue Wheatley, well there was a run on CBs by the end of round 1, the guy did have 5 INTS the last 2 years, athletic and fast
Personally I like the trade with SD, in effect based on the front office board,
(which is nationally recognized as top 5 or better at drafting) we moved up about 20 spots which IF we win the SB this year and trade away a few players for conditional picks in 2009 will be very significant IMO
I love the Crable pick immeadeate production with potential to develope into the McGinest Elephant type
O Connel provides competion and we DO develope backup QBs AKA Brady
Top STer helps
We always draft the lower rounds pretty good.

So my analysys chill out We are now arguably the best team ever.
Almost every time people second guess BB+SP they end with egg on their face.
Drink some coolade...its good for you!!:eat1::eat2::eat3:

Who knows before the season starts we may well have Colvin, Law and a couple other surprises.

Snake · Apr 28, 2008

jeffbiologist said:
This may not be a popular post, but this comes from a guy who finishes his beer even before leaving the bar with the prettiest girl...a scientist who assumes nothing,lol.
Last year it got me thinking that the Pats just didnt like the talent in the draft, and we did well be trading picks for players. We all know how BB likes older players, and he has to have some idea how many jobs are open before he goes into the draft. I was thinking that last year you couldnt argue with our team on paper, it would have been difficult to improve it....but that our picks from 4-7 did nothing for THIS team. Why dont we get value for these guys?
Lets look at the roster <SNIP>

DUDE!!!!! I think you have some good things to say, but you really need to divide your post into readable paragraphs. I got a headache trying to get through this. Thanks for understanding.

mgteich · Apr 28, 2008

I agree with all your comments. except for the Eckel comment. First, we may not keep 5 RB's. We usually don't. I think that we should. Who would I have drafted. Well, we might have drafted Hester at #69.

DaBruinz said:
You lose credibility when you make a post like this and can't even spell players names correctly.

The TE on the Patriots is SPACH not SPAHN. SPANN is a CB.

Many of your assumptions have very little thought in them Not to mention are impractical for a salary cap league. For example, you mention the Pats having "4 WR who aren't specifically special teams players". The Pats run many of their WR sets with Kevin Faulk and Ben Watson out in formation. Also, Kelley Washington isn't ONLY a special teams player. While the Pats have only used him for that, I would be willing to bet that Washington gets more reps in the passing game this year.

ILB - The Pats added Victor Hobson and Jerod Mayo. So what if we don't know about Seau. Considering that both Hobson and Mayo have played in 3-4 sets (Hobson in one very similar to the Pats) my bet is that Hobson opens the year starting next to Bruschi or even Seau.

FB - Yes, Eckel could be upgraded. But who would you have taken over who was drafted?

People on here love to B!tch and moan about who the Pats draft, yet hardly anyone offers up someone who could work in the Pats system as a suitable replacement.

This idiocy on your part that the team ONLY gets older and the Pats don't "inject youth" into it is so much BS. Listen, Chicken Little. Just because you don't understand that the Patriots keep a good balance of youth and veterans doesn't mean the rest of us don't understand it.

As for this idea that the "Patriots leave bullets in the gun and aren't maximizing their potential, PROVE IT. Show me players who actually would have MADE last year's team and would have produced in the Pats system.

jeffbiologist · Apr 28, 2008

Thanks for the personal attacks guys, but how about the THEORY? Like I said, as a scientist we propose theories all the time, there is nothing wrong with questioning the man....its done all the time every day on this board. Seperate out what I say and why I say it from who I am please, no one likes personal attacks.
That said, looking at the team unemotionally and wanting to improve it, what exactly was wrong in my research? If you can accept the research what is it exactly that I am theorizing incorrectly? I may have generalized once or twice, but as I read it my statistics arent being questioned but my theory. I even question it, as I stated this wasnt going to be a gatorade type of thread. But isnt it ok to question it? Dont others when you say player 1 is better than player 2? I have nothing to gain one way on another.
KW is a ST guy, he hasnt caught a ball in like 3 years. I will go on the record here and now to say that Manningham has a better season than Slater, KW and Aiken COMBINED. If he doesnt I will gladly leave the forum forever. We have Moss,Welker,Gaffney,and CJ what happens if 2 of those guys get hurt? Big Vince is our only true NT, Red Bryant(best NT available in every draft report)went in the 4th rd. If Vince gets hurt who backs him up? We play against SD in the championship game next year and Hester scores the winning touchdown.....that is what I am talking about.
Its a bigger theory. Yes, some of it is out of frustration but we are all questioning some of these moves not just me. I just took a step back to look at the whole picture and tried to put it together differently. I praise BB as a coach, but in this era of the salary cap where rookies are so much cheaper than vets....you have to do your best with the rookies that you can. Thats what I meant. FAs are in fact about twice as popular as rookies....say the statistics. He has demonstrated that what he is doing works for sure, but arent they more $$?
If you want to dismiss me dismiss my research. Show me facts that say they will give a 6th rounder a chance to make the team or a 3rd rounder to start. I am not saying it doesnt happen, I cited you the statistics. Dont be mad at me, be mad at the statistics. I am not whining, I am just trying to look at things differently. Now I KNOW I am not 100% right, but I also know I am not 100% wrong....and wanted to have a civil arguement. That is what this site is for right?? Sorry if I offended you guys, dont take this personal.....

Zeke_Mowatt · Apr 28, 2008

Here is the problem with your "Theory"...you just proposed Intelligent Design after watching Darwin discuss evolution. You of all people should understand that "research" is often skewed by the mis perceptions and predispositions of the researcher. You think we have needs, but you don't acknowledge that the FO has a much better ability to define and fill our needs. And while the backseaters can all talk about "drinking the kool aid" whenever we suggest that those who get paid millions and have proven their success might know more than us, the reality is, that is the mantra of the disenfranchised wanna be armchair GM. Your "theory" is also wrong, because you use creative methods to define your criteria - when others point out how many low draft picks are on the team, you try to redefine how you factor "low draft picks" who made the team. When others point out how many are still playing for us, and playing well, you change it to "started all 16 games" (which, imo, is the single most ******ed criteria for any successful pro football player, especially on a team like ours that rotates players constantly and for whom the term starter is almost meaningless). The reality, as many have already stated, is that on a team this good, it is hard to upgrade many positions, and when we do what most other teams do, which is to move guys to practice squad etc who need to learn and improve, they get snatched up. Want to really prove your theory? Post every draft for the past 8 years or so, for every team, and do a comprehensive analysis of which 2nd and lower picks are playing, with regularity, for the team that drafted them (not starting all 16 games as that is by no means a solid way to define the productivity of a later round draft pick, sorry). When you do that, you might have a theory, until then you just a serious Box of Whine.

jeffbiologist said:
Thanks for the personal attacks guys, but how about the THEORY? Like I said, as a scientist we propose theories all the time, there is nothing wrong with questioning the man....its done all the time every day on this board. Seperate out what I say and why I say it from who I am please, no one likes personal attacks.
That said, looking at the team unemotionally and wanting to improve it, what exactly was wrong in my research? If you can accept the research what is it exactly that I am theorizing incorrectly? I may have generalized once or twice, but as I read it my statistics arent being questioned but my theory. I even question it, as I stated this wasnt going to be a gatorade type of thread. But isnt it ok to question it? Dont others when you say player 1 is better than player 2? I have nothing to gain one way on another.
KW is a ST guy, he hasnt caught a ball in like 3 years. I will go on the record here and now to say that Manningham has a better season than Slater, KW and Aiken COMBINED. If he doesnt I will gladly leave the forum forever. We have Moss,Welker,Gaffney,and CJ what happens if 2 of those guys get hurt? Big Vince is our only true NT, Red Bryant(best NT available in every draft report)went in the 4th rd. If Vince gets hurt who backs him up? We play against SD in the championship game next year and Hester scores the winning touchdown.....that is what I am talking about.
Its a bigger theory. Yes, some of it is out of frustration but we are all questioning some of these moves not just me. I just took a step back to look at the whole picture and tried to put it together differently. I praise BB as a coach, but in this era of the salary cap where rookies are so much cheaper than vets....you have to do your best with the rookies that you can. Thats what I meant. FAs are in fact about twice as popular as rookies....say the statistics. He has demonstrated that what he is doing works for sure, but arent they more $$?
If you want to dismiss me dismiss my research. Show me facts that say they will give a 6th rounder a chance to make the team or a 3rd rounder to start. I am not saying it doesnt happen, I cited you the statistics. Dont be mad at me, be mad at the statistics. I am not whining, I am just trying to look at things differently. Now I KNOW I am not 100% right, but I also know I am not 100% wrong....and wanted to have a civil arguement. That is what this site is for right?? Sorry if I offended you guys, dont take this personal.....

jct · Apr 28, 2008

Hey Jeff, try not to take it so personal.
A football forum attracks more Neanderthals than Philosophers.
Some of these goons even pride themselves on thier ability to slap down other fans...
But maybe they do have some points.
Maybe like me (in the past) they made some poor evaluations, only to later discover that hey maybe BB+SP know some things they didn't.
Personally I'm THRILLED with this draft.
I just hope that the rest of the offseason continues to build nice results for us.

If nothing else we will have good camp competion and be stronger at

LB,STers,QB,and quite possibly at DB and P
But even if the fruit of this draft comes in a year with the developement at LB and DB this may well go down as our best draft EVER.

DaBruinz · Apr 28, 2008

jeffbiologist said:
Thanks for the personal attacks guys, but how about the THEORY? Like I said, as a scientist we propose theories all the time, there is nothing wrong with questioning the man....its done all the time every day on this board. Seperate out what I say and why I say it from who I am please, no one likes personal attacks.

What "THEORY?" As a "scientist" (sorry that I am laughing at that suppostion on your part) you need to have a basis for your theory and should be able to back it up by reality. You've don't NOTHING of the sort. But, god forbid you realize that when its said to you.

Also, you might want to learn what the definition of a personal attack TRULY is. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to PM you and truly show you what is merited as a personal attack.

jeffbiologist said:
That said, looking at the team unemotionally and wanting to improve it, what exactly was wrong in my research? If you can accept the research what is it exactly that I am theorizing incorrectly? I may have generalized once or twice, but as I read it my statistics arent being questioned but my theory. I even question it, as I stated this wasnt going to be a gatorade type of thread. But isnt it ok to question it? Dont others when you say player 1 is better than player 2? I have nothing to gain one way on another.

What is wrong with your research? Gee, I don't know? Maybe that its entirely flawed? As was SHOWN to you. As I said, you lose credibility when you can't even spell people's names correctly. And its not like you don't have the roster available to you.

jeffbiologist said:
KW is a ST guy, he hasnt caught a ball in like 3 years.

Again, you show you haven't done your research.

http://www.nfl.com/players/kelleywashington/careerstats?id=WAS400893

Washing caught 9 balls in 5 games in 2006 and 10 balls in 7 games in 2005. He missed the rest of the time in both years due to injury.

jeffbiologist said:
I will go on the record here and now to say that Manningham has a better season than Slater, KW and Aiken COMBINED. If he doesnt I will gladly leave the forum forever.

Better by what comparison? Special teams tackles? Receptions? TDs? Manningham is going to a team where he'll start off as the 4th receiver, probably. He may or may not make an impact this year.

Slater is NOT a WR by trade. He's a special teamer that was MISLABELED by ESPN.

Aiken IS a special teamer. But he's also someone who has been a receiver, though with little production

Kelley Washington, as I showed, was a receiver for the Bengals. The problem there was he couldn't stay healthy.

jeffbiologist said:
We have Moss,Welker,Gaffney,and CJ what happens if 2 of those guys get hurt?{/quote]

That's a big IF and, as I pointed out, the salary cap inhibits you from carrying great depth.

jeffbiologist said:

Big Vince is our only true NT, Red Bryant(best NT available in every draft report)went in the 4th rd. If Vince gets hurt who backs him up?

Click to expand...

The same people who have been backing him up for the Pats 3 years. Mike Wright and LeKevin Smith. If need be, they move Seymour there with Green on the outside. Or they move to a Nickel package of some sort. They've done many things.

Clearly the Pats didn't feel that Bryant brought as much value to the team as someone like O'Connell or Wilhite.

jeffbiologist said:

We play against SD in the championship game next year and Hester scores the winning touchdown.....that is what I am talking about.

Click to expand...

Jacob Hester? The guy that the Chargers took to be the FB to replace Lorenzo Neal? If you are worried about HIM in your hypothetical then you clearly have an issue. The Pats are going to plan on stopping Gates and Tomlinson and forcing the Chargers to pass.

And its a HUGE HYPOTHETICAL on your part. Hell, I can't even venture to get what the odds are of that situation even coming up.

jeffbiologist said:

Its a bigger theory. Yes, some of it is out of frustration but we are all questioning some of these moves not just me.

Click to expand...

Actually, its not theory at all. Its you whining because you aren't nearly as smart or educated in football as you would like to believe yourself to be. NONE of us are.

jeffbiologist said:

I just took a step back to look at the whole picture and tried to put it together differently. I praise BB as a coach, but in this era of the salary cap where rookies are so much cheaper than vets....

Click to expand...

What you did what float a hypothetical in attemp to make it a theory.

jeffbiologist said:

you have to do your best with the rookies that you can. Thats what I meant. FAs are in fact about twice as popular as rookies....say the statistics. He has demonstrated that what he is doing works for sure, but arent they more $$?
If you want to dismiss me dismiss my research. Show me facts that say they will give a 6th rounder a chance to make the team or a 3rd rounder to start. I am not saying it doesnt happen, I cited you the statistics. Dont be mad at me, be mad at the statistics. I am not whining, I am just trying to look at things differently. Now I KNOW I am not 100% right, but I also know I am not 100% wrong....and wanted to have a civil arguement. That is what this site is for right?? Sorry if I offended you guys, dont take this personal.....

Click to expand...

I have shown you plenty of FACTS. I've show where you ARE whining and where you totally ignored reality.

Actually, you ARE 100% wrong with your "THEORY". Because in your theory, you stated that the Pats are basically throwing away picks for players you feel are garbage. The fact of the matter is that you can not evaluate a draft for 3 years. You are attempting to do so before these guys have even donned a jersey or been given a play-book.

jct · Apr 28, 2008

DaBruinz said:
The fact of the matter is that you can not evaluate a draft for 3 years. You are attempting to do so before these guys have even donned a jersey or been given a play-book.

I have to agree with this 100%

patchick · Apr 28, 2008

Jeff, I'm calmer now, honest.

There's no denying that last year's drafted rookies were a weak group. Low marks to BB/SP on that one (though high marks for some excellent trades out). But I can't follow the leap of logic that looks at a team packed with past day-2 picks and UDFAs and concludes from one weak class that they're INTENTIONALLY blowing off the whole day-2 draft. You're giving them too much credit, assuming there's some master plan behind failure!

As for this year's gaggle of no-namers whom we've yet to set eyes on...

No late pick has been trashed more thoroughly than Matt Cassel in the 7th round. Many people this board angrily proclaimed him a waste of a pick, and a prominent draft site blasted Scott Pioli personally, claiming the pick was nothing more than a display of his "personal arrogance," trying to look smarter than everybody else.

In other words, nobody could have looked more like a "sloughed off" pick than Matt Cassel...until we all saw him in training camp and instantly knew Rohan Davey was toast.

Let's wait and see.

jeffbiologist · Apr 28, 2008

DaBruinz said:
What "THEORY?" As a "scientist" (sorry that I am laughing at that suppostion on your part) you need to have a basis for your theory and should be able to back it up by reality. You've don't NOTHING of the sort. But, god forbid you realize that when its said to you.

Also, you might want to learn what the definition of a personal attack TRULY is. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to PM you and truly show you what is merited as a personal attack.

What is wrong with your research? Gee, I don't know? Maybe that its entirely flawed? As was SHOWN to you. As I said, you lose credibility when you can't even spell people's names correctly. And its not like you don't have the roster available to you.

Again, you show you haven't done your research.

http://www.nfl.com/players/kelleywashington/careerstats?id=WAS400893

Washing caught 9 balls in 5 games in 2006 and 10 balls in 7 games in 2005. He missed the rest of the time in both years due to injury.

Better by what comparison? Special teams tackles? Receptions? TDs? Manningham is going to a team where he'll start off as the 4th receiver, probably. He may or may not make an impact this year.

Slater is NOT a WR by trade. He's a special teamer that was MISLABELED by ESPN.

Aiken IS a special teamer. But he's also someone who has been a receiver, though with little production

Kelley Washington, as I showed, was a receiver for the Bengals. The problem there was he couldn't stay healthy.

jeffbiologist said:

We have Moss,Welker,Gaffney,and CJ what happens if 2 of those guys get hurt?{/quote]

That's a big IF and, as I pointed out, the salary cap inhibits you from carrying great depth.

The same people who have been backing him up for the Pats 3 years. Mike Wright and LeKevin Smith. If need be, they move Seymour there with Green on the outside. Or they move to a Nickel package of some sort. They've done many things.

Clearly the Pats didn't feel that Bryant brought as much value to the team as someone like O'Connell or Wilhite.

Jacob Hester? The guy that the Chargers took to be the FB to replace Lorenzo Neal? If you are worried about HIM in your hypothetical then you clearly have an issue. The Pats are going to plan on stopping Gates and Tomlinson and forcing the Chargers to pass.

And its a HUGE HYPOTHETICAL on your part. Hell, I can't even venture to get what the odds are of that situation even coming up.

Actually, its not theory at all. Its you whining because you aren't nearly as smart or educated in football as you would like to believe yourself to be. NONE of us are.

What you did what float a hypothetical in attemp to make it a theory.

I have shown you plenty of FACTS. I've show where you ARE whining and where you totally ignored reality.

Actually, you ARE 100% wrong with your "THEORY". Because in your theory, you stated that the Pats are basically throwing away picks for players you feel are garbage. The fact of the matter is that you can not evaluate a draft for 3 years. You are attempting to do so before these guys have even donned a jersey or been given a play-book.

Click to expand...

Now I wont take that troll along the lines of asking for a personal attack,lol, nice try. You say that my research was flawed and that it was "SHOWN" to me....??? Still waiting....Am I making up the statistics? Leave GOD and my spelling out of this please(sarcasm). As far as KW goes, 19 balls in 3 years? I was addressing the fact that last year we had one more WR, and that KW/Aiken/Slater might be battling it out for 1 ST spot. Its not unheard of to have 2 pansy WRs hurt in the same game, never mind the same season. Maybe we bring back Bam again?? Maybe there was a WR in the 3rd rd that would be better??
I wont argue ODonnell/Cassel, but my arguement of the trade in principal to SD wont net us much if anything.....and continues to show a sense of apathy instead of a point of concern. Trading picks away for future picks does not make us better now, we didnt win the SB(and even if we did), we need to get better/younger NOW. To have young backups ready to take over starting positions when the older guys do migrate on will save us $$ in FA and it will keep us from having to knee jerk a 1st round pick.
Yes, what I am trying to say is hypothetical, but thats not to say it cant or wont happen. I am not saying I am more or less intelligent than anyone, I am questioning why these things happen and developed a theory from this series of events. But whats this:
"What you did what float a hypothetical in attemp to make it a theory"???
You say I am whining at least twice. You say I am 100% wrong, yet you dont back it up. OK, you backed up KW, but thats it. To say I am wrong......is not either proving it or saying what is right,ok. I said I am not 100% right, but I am not 100% wrong either. Time will tell, no one knows right now but it makes for an interesting and timely arguement doesnt it? If it makes you feel any better my "binky" Wesley Woodyard went undrafted.....so gloat in my misery if thats what gets you off. Thanks for the time.

jeffbiologist · Apr 28, 2008

patchick said:
Jeff, I'm calmer now, honest. There's no denying that last year's drafted rookies were a weak group. Low marks to BB/SP on that one (though high marks for some excellent trades out). But I can't follow the leap of logic that looks at a team packed with past day-2 picks and UDFAs and concludes from one weak class that they're INTENTIONALLY blowing off the whole day-2 draft. You're giving them too much credit, assuming there's some master plan behind failure!

As for this year's gaggle of no-namers whom we've yet to set eyes on...

No late pick has been trashed more thoroughly than Matt Cassel in the 7th round. Many people this board angrily proclaimed him a waste of a pick, and a prominent draft site blasted Scott Pioli personally, claiming the pick was nothing more than a display of his "personal arrogance," trying to look smarter than everybody else.

In other words, nobody could have looked more like a "sloughed off" pick than Matt Cassel...until we all saw him in training camp and instantly knew Rohan Davey was toast.

Let's wait and see.

As you likely know this is my first year with this medium, I am usually beset with newspapers and magazines instead of a laptop...this is much easier to clean up!! I wont apologize for not being here before, and yes last years draft sucked... Now I had heard that it wasnt a "good" one going in, and what the pats did by trading picks for players was a very good,very sly idea. But it was my contention at the time then that there is little or no effort(or LESS)to improve the team with the lower part of the draft.
This is the draft area, we should talk of nothing else....I am a big fan of the underdog, and I find it significant that we can get guys like Wright and Gay as undrafted FAs but given the best selection of 2nd day picks we come out with the guys we did. WAY too early to tell I admit, but was any of their 4th-6th rd picks ranked ANYWHERE near where we took them? Why did we insist on a 5th rounder from SD? Why are we even trading with SD?? They should be the new enemy the way we are to the Phins and Jest. Why the big deal about the story of Bowman?? Like I said before, the Slater and Ruud picks look to me like LEGACY picks, picked instead of a player with a more realistic(or more deserving) chance of MAKING THE TEAM. Hey, we got DRAGO though....so part of my argument is lost,lol.
I did not make these statistics up, and I am not fluid enough with the other teams to compare us to them...but thats how a draft should be measured. You cant measure it by player productivity because BB is such a good COACH that I could make the team if he wanted me to. He puts players in position to do well. And its a little chicken/egg arguement, I just dont like it when I hear that we do "SO GREAT" drafting when all I see is first rounders. I swear that most anyone here on this site could draft any guy in the first round and BB can make him look like an all star! Even me,lol.

patchick · Apr 28, 2008

jeffbiologist said:
I just dont like it when I hear that we do "SO GREAT" drafting when all I see is first rounders.

Jeff, the reason people are jumping on you is that last year is the ONLY year you can say that about...and the Pats hated last year's entire draft class so much that they traded away their 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th round picks! You're looking at the one complete anomaly and declaring it a trend. Take a step back, look at the team, look at previous draft years, and you'll see they do in fact keep plenty of players from rounds 3 & below.

Let's just go back one year. Current roster players drafted 3-UDFA in 2006:

David Thomas
Stephen Gostkowski
Ryan O'Callaghan
LeKevin Smith
Willie Andrews
Pierre Woods

(plus BB famously tried like heck to keep Garrett Mills!)

Canada's #1 Pats Fan · Apr 28, 2008

yo - yo - ma!!

Pats sloughing picks??

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

In the Starting Line-Up

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Moderatrix

Pats, B's, Sox

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsFans.com Veteran

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Pats, B's, Sox

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Moderatrix

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Moderatrix

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Similar threads