A Guy from Taunton Named DeCosta with the Winning Approach to the Draft

[KCSVEN]

You are putting way too much faith in consensus. The patriots didn’t trade down to take a guy rated 20 spots lower, they traded down and got the guy THEY had rates higher.
There is no evidence the consensus is a better gauge than a teams board and no executive is going to say, let’s draft this guy because Mel kiler and his buddies like him better then we do.

The consensus is also more likely to be wrong than right. It’s a security blanket and has not proven at all to be better.
He did not say they are all ranking them the same he said they are all looking for he same type of player. Thats different.

I'm not putting faith in consensus, its just what has worked historically. So no, it is not more likely to be wrong than right, it has more likely been right than wrong, that's just the facts of historical analysis. It HAS been proven, on a % success basis, to be better. That's the whole point.

We don't know Polk was rated higher by them. If they did not trade down would they have taken Polk? If he was it proves my point. They should have gone with history and the analytics as that trumps personal evaluation a high % of the time.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

It seemed like Wolf thought that he could outsmart the NFL and get 2 good WRs in Polk and Baker instead of McConkey.
That one blew up on the launch pad, but there is still a chance that at least one 2024 WR might stick.

Even if Polk sticks as WR3 or 4, it is still a disaster decision. Don't forget that Wolf could of had DeJean or Fiske also. This is not hindsight, lots of posters wanted DeJean at the moment.

The absolute failure to draft NE WRs has been discussed ad nauseum on this board.

Williams is the type of WR I always wanted, more shifty than fast but still 4.4 speed. If Williams busts I will go crazy.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not putting faith in consensus, its just what has worked historically. So no, it is not more likely to be wrong than right, it has more likely been right than wrong, that's just the facts of historical analysis. It HAS been proven, on a % success basis, to be better. That's the whole point.

We don't know Polk was rated higher by them. If they did not trade down would they have taken Polk? If he was it proves my point. They should have gone with history and the analytics as that trumps personal evaluation a high % of the time.

It has not been proven that consensus of draft hobbyists is better than what the actual drafters choose.
You can’t prove something that is subjective.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not putting faith in consensus, its just what has worked historically. So no, it is not more likely to be wrong than right, it has more likely been right than wrong, that's just the facts of historical analysis. It HAS been proven, on a % success basis, to be better. That's the whole point.

We don't know Polk was rated higher by them. If they did not trade down would they have taken Polk? If he was it proves my point. They should have gone with history and the analytics as that trumps personal evaluation a high % of the time.

They said they got the guy they wanted.
How does “history and analytics” trump personal evaluation? That’s ridiculous

 

[Triumph]

Even if Polk sticks as WR3 or 4, it is still a disaster decision. Don't forget that Wolf could of had DeJean or Fiske also. This is not hindsight, lots of posters wanted DeJean at the moment.

Its still too early to axe Polk or Baker after last seasons problems.

Brissett burned through approximately 33% of the schedule and then a rookie in Maye took over. OL issues, Stevenson coughing the ball up. The 31st ranked NFL offense designation was well deserved.

Williams is the type of WR I always wanted, more shifty than fast but still 4.4 speed. If Williams busts I will go crazy.

I'm not biting until I see it for real.

 

[varjao]

He described somewhat of the Belichick method, we know how that turned out.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Its still too early to axe Polk or Baker after last seasons problems.

Brissett burned through approximately 33% of the schedule and then a rookie in Maye took over. OL issues, Stevenson coughing the ball up. The 31st ranked NFL offense designation was well deserved.

Who wants to axe Polk or Baker? Why are you talking about that?

I'm not biting until I see it for real.

I already bit down hard. Williams will work out well.

 

[Ring 6]

He described somewhat of the Belichick method, we know how that turned out.

Yes, better than any method ever has.

 

[mayoclinic]

3 patriots trade-backs in recent drafts:

1. 2023. Traded #14 to Pittsburgh for #17 and 120. CB Christian Gonzalez was on the board at #14, considered a top-10 player, and NE risked losing him by trading back. The Pats got lucky and still got Gonzalez at 17 because Washington reached for CB Emmanuel Forbes (since cut) at #16. But they got nothing from the extra pick: they packaged 120 and 184 to the Jets for q12, then reached for K Chad Ryland, then compounded the sin by cutting Ryland after 1 season in favor of journeyman K Joey Slye. Dumb.

Verdict: Might as well have stayed put at 14 and taken Gonzalez. When you have a highly graded player, don't mess around.

2. 2024. Traded #34 and 137 to San Diego for #37 and 110. The Pats took WRs Ja'Lynn Polk at 37 and Javon Baker at 110, and so far have nothing to show for either.

Verdict: Dumb. With a run on WRs and Ladd McConkey the last available one in the second tier, plus a 1st round talent still available in DB Cooper De Jean, should have stayed at 34 and taken either. The move up from 137 to 110 wasn't worth the risk; the Pats didn't get an extra pick. Then the Pats made a bigger mistake of passing on De Jean again at 37. Unbelievable.

3. 2025. Traded #77 to for #85 and 146, then traded 85 to KC for 95 and a 2026 4th round pick (from Chicago). Took C Jared Wilson at 95 and EDGE Bradyn Swinson at 146.

Verdict: Still early, but looks smart right now. Acquiring extra and future picks in a deep draft seems like a winning strategy. Pats got 2 day-2 talents in Wilson and Swinson, either of whom would have been considered a fine pick at 77. 2-for-1 is generally good value. Some luck was involved, and either pick could bust, but both were good values, and in a very deep draft other values were available.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

An extra R3 or R4 pick in the following year is almost always a winner.

 

[XLIX]

The first round is where you have to make hay but the Patriots were a failure at that towards the end of Belichick's tenure. Only 1 of the final 7 first round draft picks made it to have their 5th year option exercised (now that we know Strange's option was not exercised). Everyone else was either traded or released by then.

If we assume Gonzalez has his 5th round option exercised (or otherwise signs an extension) then that makes 2 of 8, which is still pretty darn bad.

 

[PancakeBlockPaul]

I wonder if dude’s getting his info from the cheese or Dakota from Braintree….I jest…he must be doing something right though…

 

[KCSVEN]

It has not been proven that consensus of draft hobbyists is better than what the actual drafters choose.
You can’t prove something that is subjective.

It's not subjective, you can take picks that were made 20+ picks earlier than consensus and compare to picks made 20+ after consensus. You can analyze it for any number, 10, 20, 30 from consensus and come with a non-subjective result.
Then analyze the results based on a set criterion like pro bowls, # of starts, making 2nd contract with team etc.

Going past the 2nd round would be too much work for picks that rarely meet the criteria but for 1st and 2nd round, admittedly a small sample size, the small sample has been pretty compelling that the consensus is better than the 1 team here and there that thinks someone is better than consensus, which generally is pretty close to most other teams consensus also.

Even Decosta admitted the rise of amateur ranking may contribute to the fact teams are drafting similar players.

We know teams monitor mock drafts, teams actually study which mock drafters are the most successful to give them insight to other team's rankings.

 

[pazrul72]

It seemed like Wolf thought that he could outsmart the NFL and get 2 good WRs in Polk and Baker instead of McConkey.

That one blew up on the launch pad, but there is still a chance that at least one 2024 WR might stick.

The absolute failure to draft NE WRs has been discussed ad nauseum on this board.

IIRC, in hindsight more quality WRs were taken in round # 1. I always use Pittsburgh as the gold standard drafting WRs. AB was a 5th round pick. We understand why today.

I don’t mind wolf’s approach there, I agree generally after the top 10 or so, the caliber player is so hit or miss, and not that different from each other, two swings of the bat are better then one. You just picked one example where it didn’t work out that way from recent memory. As an example of what I’m talking about if the Pats had traded the first round pick they drafted N’Keal Harry with they probably pick up an extra second and a third. Now you draft AJ Brown and Deebo. Same scenario TOTALLY different outcome. In a redraft AJ is going top 10 so how did the consensus and big boards miss so badly? It’s the point that guy is making great players can fall and be found in later rounds so you increase your odds (doesn’t guarantee anything just makes it more likely) of getting a player you need by trading down. It feels like you are pointing to the guy who had a 17 in blackjack, hit, and got a 4 then saying see we should do that! The strategy isn’t good regardless of the lucky results.

 

[Triumph]

Who wants to axe Polk or Baker? Why are you talking about that?

You're telling me that keeping Polk is a disaster decision.

I already bit down hard. Williams will work out well.

It looks like Wolf was very much involved with this pick. They keep taking WRs from the NW.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Who wants to axe Polk or Baker? Why are you talking about that?

I already bit down hard. Williams will work out well.

I don’t want to “ axe” Polk or Baker, I just think both will find it very hard to make the roster if they don’t find a way to contribute on special teams. I think Polk is more likely to do so, and if the reports are true that Baker still didn’t know Van Pelt’s playbook 3/4 of the way through last season then I don’t see any way he knows MacDaniels playbook by the preseason, unless Babble creates a special edition just for him. If he doesn’t know the playbook by August he’s a goner.

 

[Huckleberry1]

It's not subjective, you can take picks that were made 20+ picks earlier than consensus and compare to picks made 20+ after consensus. You can analyze it for any number, 10, 20, 30 from consensus and come with a non-subjective result.
Then analyze the results based on a set criterion like pro bowls, # of starts, making 2nd contract with team etc.

Going past the 2nd round would be too much work for picks that rarely meet the criteria but for 1st and 2nd round, admittedly a small sample size, the small sample has been pretty compelling that the consensus is better than the 1 team here and there that thinks someone is better than consensus, which generally is pretty close to most other teams consensus also.

Even Decosta admitted the rise of amateur ranking may contribute to the fact teams are drafting similar players.

We know teams monitor mock drafts, teams actually study which mock drafters are the most successful to give them insight to other team's rankings.

Also some of those doing the mock drafts now actually spend their life analyzing tape of the prospects, much as real scouts and front offices would do. The guys I listen to the most, Sikkema and Wasserman watch 2-3 seasons of college tape and compare their previous season with their current one, and they are getting more and more refined in their positional breakdowns, team and system fits etc….

Some of the mocks are ********, they don’t do the work and they just throw around cliches like” not enough sand in the pants…” but other sites put in the work and give really good analysis of the prospects.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

Who wants to axe Polk or Baker? Why are you talking about that?

I already bit down hard. Williams will work out well.

I do. Polk cannot get open. Simple as that. I don't see how that is going to change.

As far as Williams, we will see. I am optimistic; it seems as if the Patriots idiotic WR streak may be over. Note: I saw the video of Williams beating Travis Hunter for a TD, but if you watch more of their competition, you will note the Hunter had him covered like a blanket on most route so let's temper our wild enthusiasm a bit until we at least see him in Training Camp. If I recover enough, I hope to attend a few sessions.

 

[Ring 6]

It's not subjective, you can take picks that were made 20+ picks earlier than consensus and compare to picks made 20+ after consensus. You can analyze it for any number, 10, 20, 30 from consensus and come with a non-subjective result.
Then analyze the results based on a set criterion like pro bowls, # of starts, making 2nd contract with team etc.

Going past the 2nd round would be too much work for picks that rarely meet the criteria but for 1st and 2nd round, admittedly a small sample size, the small sample has been pretty compelling that the consensus is better than the 1 team here and there that thinks someone is better than consensus, which generally is pretty close to most other teams consensus also.

Even Decosta admitted the rise of amateur ranking may contribute to the fact teams are drafting similar players.

We know teams monitor mock drafts, teams actually study which mock drafters are the most successful to give them insight to other team's rankings.

Who was a better pick is subjective. Judging an entire draft that way is impossible. Of course you can take individual picks and day a guy was better but that doesn’t prove anything.
You just listed subjective criterion.

If you don’t go last the second round you are eliminating the majority of the picks and wiping out the exact dynamic DeCosta is referring to. Of course trading down isn’t good if you ignore the picks gained.

The consensus isn’t making any picks for you to compare to.
Mock drafts are not correct, they are guesses and are not built with inside knowledge of teams rankings. Otherwise Sanders wouldn’t have fallen for example.

 

[silentone]

It's based on starting players on the depth chart, removing special teams as you can get them UDFA. I also add the nickel back and the next highest contributor to the "starters".

In other words, the guys that make the real difference in wins and losses.

Yeah, most draft picks after the 2nd round that make it are contributors to the team but they could easily be replaced by veteran free agents. Of course, the picks come with a lower cost so you are better off hitting on a pick or 2 but teams that fail completely at that like the Commanders and Vikings have proven you can just replace those guys with free agency.

I find those guys pretty over-rated in terms of team success but, yeah, they have some value.

Again, I only analyzed first round trades and agree later int he draft would have more value, but the value is so minimal I don't see why anyone would make that a core principle.

I'm not arguing to always trade up, though historically in round 1, outside of getting a future 1 or 2, that is percentage wise the better play. Which also means it sometimes doesn't work.

Some teams can trade down, get more picks, and be successful, other teams can do the opposite and be equally successful.

KCSVEN -

You write -

"Again, I only analyzed first round trades...
"I'm not arguing to always trade up, though historically in round 1, outside of getting a future 1 or 2, that is percentage wise the better play."

How many years did you analyze/research of first round trades and how many trades in total?
How did you evaluate who won the trade?
What was the percentage of winners vs losers?

Could you please share your analysis?

It's my belief that many "trade ups" in the first round or into the first round involve the team trading up paying a premium to the trade value charts. If this is true and if your analysis is true, that would imply that the trade value charts are wrong (if trading up requires paying up and if your analysis that trading up works historically then the value charts can't be correct, right?)

I am surprised by your research showing that trading up in round one is "percentage wise the better play" and would like to learn more about this. I guess on my end, I can start looking into whether teams "pay up" in these first round trades as that is an assumption I"ve made and could be in fact wrong.