Belichick + Patriots leagues best at drafting All-Pro Talent

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

2006-2009 has Yielded Gostkowski, Meriweather, Mayo and Vollmer. BB jettisoned Meriweather when he was coming off of a Pro Bowl appearance, so we can assume that BB didn't consider him Pro Bowl caliber.

Looking at it that way, and combining it with the rest of the drafted players for 2006-2009, we get a much different picture than the one you're trying to paint with your sarcasm. You've got a kicker, a top 10 pick that worked out as he should, and a RT. The rest of the 38 picks used during that time has yielded the following on the roster:

Chung
Pryor
Slater
Edelman
Brace

which means that the 2006-2009 period yielded a crappy ROI in terms of current roster players. So, as is so often the case when it comes to these discussions, the key is how you frame your argument.

So, as is so often the case when.......the Douche posts....idiocy flows.

This isn't that hard

All the draft does is provide bodies for the 80 man tryout to get to a 53 man roster. The extra picks over the years doesn't mean the Patriots get extra players on the roster. They get increased competition and the luxury of jettisoning players in a timelier fashion because of lower cost and increased competition.

By the Douche's "logic", The Texans are "busts" at drafting RB's because second rounder Ben Tate is on the bench. "Undrafted" Arian Foster means they can't draft.

Since 2007, the five drafts means 10 players per normal drafting in the 1st/2nd round.

In that period, the players acquired

Meriweather/Welker
Mayo
Chung/Vollmer/Brace
McCourty/Spikes/Gronk/Hernandez
Solder/Dowling/Vereen

Using the Douche "logic", the team that gets 8 players with 10 slots is much better than the team that would get 10 players from 16 slots.

Pathetic.....as always.

 

[Huckleberry1]

NE had not won a post season game since 07 until last season.

When the NFL starts awarding trophies for regular season wins get back to me.

The NFL awarded the Patriots the Lamar Hunt Trophy for winning the AFC Championship. Get back to us when you can name the franchise that has done better since 2000. Oh, that's right, none have........................

 

[Huckleberry1]

NE had not won a post season game since 07 until last season.

When the NFL starts awarding trophies for regular season wins get back to me.

So if Welker catches that ball then Belichick drafts great, you're a frigging genius.

 

[Steve102]

IMO, as fans, we are not bound by the same type of analysis that the folks down on Route 1 are. The talking heads of the various networks and radio shows, given their qualifications (tongue in cheek, boys), should be held to higher standard when breaking down drafts and the historical significance of said draft class. If as fans, we want to rip BB for poor drafting of players like Wheatley, Wilhite, Butler, Crable, Price, Chad Jackson, and Cunningham, while the team gives up on guys like Meriweather and Tate, we should be able to. Rhetorically, do we expect the first three rounds to be full of All-Pro players? Perhaps our expectations are too high. There's a reason that guys are labeled "once in a generation" or "top of the draft class" for a reason.

My personal feeling is that BB and the organization has drafted poorly at both CB and WR, a position populated by Diva types that really don't fit the "patriot way". Other areas, they have filled the draft card with players that have contributed, and some, like Gronkernandez, have excelled. It's all about coach-ability, and as much homework as they do, it's still hit or miss. So much of "it" is between the ears and in the heart, and all the wonderlick tests and combine results in the world don't measure either.

 

[Rob0729]

Some things:

1.) Yes, the Pats did go through a few years of poor drafts. Name a team that doesn't.
2.) Don't forget three of the Pats' 2007 draft picks received two All Pro players via trade (Welker, Moss). They are not draft picks, but that is good use of the draft picks.
3.) Too many of the negative people on this board have unrealistic expectations. Fact of the matter is only one team wins the Super Bowl every year. If you judge a successful team based on that one category, every year there is only one successful team and 31 failures.

The Pats have been to 5 Super Bowls and 6 AFC Championships in the Belichick/Brady era. That is better than Montana did in his first 10 years. It is better than any other QB/Coach combo other than Bradshaw/Noll and they benefitted from no salary cap and free agency and a smaller league.
4.) Acquiring more picks like the Pats do is a double edge sword sometimes. Yes, you get more quality players, but you get more busts or disappointments too. The good thing about having more picks is that you can afford to swing and miss more.

 

[Deus Irae]

BAM!

This post totally nails Deus's argument.

I had to take that person off ignore momentarily to read what you quoted, because he's someone who makes some of the worst arguments on the board, regardless of the homer/C.L. side of the equation. Having done that, I can simply say that his post did not do what you claim it did. It didn't come close. It was just another of his lousy posts.

It's like in baseball. You got a good hitter who can, often enough, go 3 for 4 with a home run in a single game. It's great. But a player can't do that every game. Batting .750 with 162 home runs is just not going to happen. That's what Deus expects in the draft. He expects to hit on 1s and 2s every year. It just isn't realistic, and he doesn't acknowledge it. Why?

Your analogy fails, because it wouldn't be based upon a single game. It would be based upon seasons. If you wanted to analogize it to a single season, it would be based upon long stretches of games. It's not about a lifetime .300 hitter going 1-for-4 in one game. It's about a lifetime .300 hitter who spent 3 consecutive years at .200 and followed that up with another year at .225 or .250. You may find that meaningless, but most fans, coaches, managers and GMs certainly wouldn't.

Well, for starters, there aren't any clear cut statistical metrics to evaluate a draft. There is no batting average. Hell, the OP just posted a chart that is just about as close as you'll get. The Pats are in great shape. Yet -- to bring it back to that baseball analogy -- people like Deus look at that 3 for 4 w/ 1 home run game and expect it every time. Then, when that same great player has an inevitable slump for a few games (like 2006-2008); people like Deus start to whine. They rationalize it by attempting to make the claim that they know what constitutes a poor game (or draft). Maybe so. But context is everything.

Context is everything, yet you completely fail to grasp context. That's quite amusing, so thanks for the chuckles.

You simply cannot look at 2006-2008 without looking at what came before...and especially after.

Of course you can, and it's ridiculous to claim otherwise.

Cause 2008 was a while ago; and we're still harping on this?

Wait.... 2008 is too far back, but the whole "going back 10 years" is ok with you? Check yourself, because your ridiculousness is showing.

It wasn't as good as 2001-2004, agreed. But those drafts were huge. It's simply not realistic to expect that every year. On that same level, you really cannot look at 2006-2008 and only compare it to the Patriots other drafts. It's like arguing that our ball player should only be graded on his slump. Rather, you need a league-wide comparison. With that being said, how the Patriots drafted in 2006-2008 (their biggest slump) was still on par with, if not outright above, the rest of the NFL. So yeah. When Belichick is at his worst; he's still on par with the league average.

Let's be clear about what you're saying here.

2000 - Brady, Pass
2001 - Seymour, Light
2002 - Graham, Branch, Green, Givens
2003 - Warren, Wilson, Samuel, Koppen, TBC
2004 - Wilfork, Watson
2005 - Mankins, Hobbs, Kazcur, Sanders, Cassel

So that's 3 years out of 6 with big numbers of real "hits", and 3 years with smaller numbers of hits. If I were arguing about this as a year-by-year thing focused solely on hits, I'd be pointing to those 3 years as examples of large numbers of picks being missed on. That's not what I'm doing, however, as I've praised BB's drafts from 2000-2005 (I'm also on record as being thrilled with 2007 when discussing the whole draft as opposed to just the picks taken, calling the Patriots 2007 'draft' the best in the NFL). I've noticed the same thing that people around the country who aren't willfully blind have noticed, which is that the Patriots drafting, in terms of actual selections, went through a down period from 2006-2008, and that 2009 has turned out to be much less than was hoped. It's not my problem that a bunch of homers on a website can't admit the obvious. Look to yourself.

 

[Ring 6]

Some things:

1.) Yes, the Pats did go through a few years of poor drafts. Name a team that doesn't.
2.) Don't forget three of the Pats' 2007 draft picks received two All Pro players via trade (Welker, Moss). They are not draft picks, but that is good use of the draft picks.
3.) Too many of the negative people on this board have unrealistic expectations. Fact of the matter is only one team wins the Super Bowl every year. If you judge a successful team based on that one category, every year there is only one successful team and 31 failures.

The Pats have been to 5 Super Bowls and 6 AFC Championships in the Belichick/Brady era. That is better than Montana did in his first 10 years. It is better than any other QB/Coach combo other than Bradshaw/Noll and they benefitted from no salary cap and free agency and a smaller league.
4.) Acquiring more picks like the Pats do is a double edge sword sometimes. Yes, you get more quality players, but you get more busts or disappointments too. The good thing about having more picks is that you can afford to swing and miss more.

Has he really drafted poorly at CB?
Dowling TBD
McCourty was a rookie probowl starter
Butler played decently as a rookie, poorly in year 2 and was gone in year 3
Wheatley had injiry problems, no telling how the pick would have turned out if he stayed healthy
Hobbs started for years
Wilhite was a decent contributor for a 4th round pick.
We may have 2 top caliber corners on the roster who will start for years to come from the last 2 drafts.
I know everyone wants to act as if Butler was the biggest disaster that ever happened, but when you look at the facts, its quite different than pepole want to make it out to be.

 

[Ring 6]

IMO, as fans, we are not bound by the same type of analysis that the folks down on Route 1 are. The talking heads of the various networks and radio shows, given their qualifications (tongue in cheek, boys), should be held to higher standard when breaking down drafts and the historical significance of said draft class. If as fans, we want to rip BB for poor drafting of players like Wheatley, Wilhite, Butler, Crable, Price, Chad Jackson, and Cunningham, while the team gives up on guys like Meriweather and Tate, we should be able to. Rhetorically, do we expect the first three rounds to be full of All-Pro players? Perhaps our expectations are too high. There's a reason that guys are labeled "once in a generation" or "top of the draft class" for a reason.

My personal feeling is that BB and the organization has drafted poorly at both CB and WR, a position populated by Diva types that really don't fit the "patriot way". Other areas, they have filled the draft card with players that have contributed, and some, like Gronkernandez, have excelled. It's all about coach-ability, and as much homework as they do, it's still hit or miss. So much of "it" is between the ears and in the heart, and all the wonderlick tests and combine results in the world don't measure either.

My last post was intended to quote this one, not Rob's

 

[Huckleberry1]

I had to take that person off ignore momentarily to read what you quoted, because he's someone who makes some of the worst arguments on the board, regardless of the homer/C.L. side of the equation. Having done that, I can simply say that his post did not do what you claim it did. It didn't come close. It was just another of his lousy posts.



.

Feel free to show any of those arguments you want, you never have and you didn't put me on ignore until I showed that you were making yet another strawman argument by claiming that many here were saying the Patriots had a good defense when in truth virtually no-one was saying that. Truth is God of Wrath that you can't handle people who make good arguments be cause they blow up your BS. Keep me on ignore and I'll keep making fun of you for being stupid and arrogant.

 

[Steve102]

Has he really drafted poorly at CB?
Dowling TBD
McCourty was a rookie probowl starter
Butler played decently as a rookie, poorly in year 2 and was gone in year 3
Wheatley had injiry problems, no telling how the pick would have turned out if he stayed healthy
Hobbs started for years
Wilhite was a decent contributor for a 4th round pick.
We may have 2 top caliber corners on the roster who will start for years to come from the last 2 drafts.
I know everyone wants to act as if Butler was the biggest disaster that ever happened, but when you look at the facts, its quite different than pepole want to make it out to be.

Dowling is TBD, I agree. I hope he pans out. McCourty was a shadow of his rookie year last season, but did play better at S, and I'd also say he's TBD. IMO, Butler, Wilhite, and Wheatley were all misses. Perhaps I have the bar set to high, but that's how I feel. I was never a fan of Hobbs, who was a downgrade from Samuel, who was a downgrade from Law. Hobbs did play ok until he got toasted by Plexiglass in the SB.

 

[Ring 6]

Dowling is TBD, I agree. I hope he pans out. McCourty was a shadow of his rookie year last season, but did play better at S, and I'd also say he's TBD. IMO, Butler, Wilhite, and Wheatley were all misses. Perhaps I have the bar set to high, but that's how I feel. I was never a fan of Hobbs, who was a downgrade from Samuel, who was a downgrade from Law. Hobbs did play ok until he got toasted by Plexiglass in the SB.

I agree Butler and Wilhite were misses, but its naive to assume there will be no misses. Hobbs was good return on a 3rd round pick (he also didnt replace Samuel, he played alongside him). Getting a starting corner and star kick returner is frankly a home run in the 3rd. I also left Samuel off the list, which was a total grand slam with a 4. Wilhite gave us more than you normally get from a 4 as well.
If you want to take every pick and expect a 10 year star career, then BB is a total failure right along with everyone who has ever made a draft pick.
If you look at the part of the draft each player was selected and what actually happens with players drafted in that part of the draft, BB has actually done pretty well at corner, and if McCourty eliminates the dropoff from 10 to 11 (which truly was only his trailing technique on deep balls and double moves) and Dowling develops like it looked like he would, then the drafting corners grade will end up excellent.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

The other point in these draft discussions is UDFA's always get left out.

When you have players like Love, Fletcher, Law Firm not included in the discussion, it makes no sense.

Ditto Arrington and Woodhead.

The draft only gets you into the 80 man camp tournament.

Since Adrain Foster wasn't drafted, I guess the Texans are hopeless in "drafting" BR's.

 

[Steve102]

I agree Butler and Wilhite were misses, but its naive to assume there will be no misses. Hobbs was good return on a 3rd round pick (he also didnt replace Samuel, he played alongside him). Getting a starting corner and star kick returner is frankly a home run in the 3rd. I also left Samuel off the list, which was a total grand slam with a 4. Wilhite gave us more than you normally get from a 4 as well.
If you want to take every pick and expect a 10 year star career, then BB is a total failure right along with everyone who has ever made a draft pick.
If you look at the part of the draft each player was selected and what actually happens with players drafted in that part of the draft, BB has actually done pretty well at corner, and if McCourty eliminates the dropoff from 10 to 11 (which truly was only his trailing technique on deep balls and double moves) and Dowling develops like it looked like he would, then the drafting corners grade will end up excellent.

I know I am picking nits...and I know it's naive to assume there won't be many misses. Maybe its the fact that CB is a prominent position makes the misses glaring.

I agree that Samuel was a HR. Perhaps that's the problem. We went from Law to Samuel and really didn't see a drop off, although Law is likely a HoF'er,and Samuel likely is not. Again, that's picking nits. To replace a HoF'er with a Pro-bowler is pretty damn good drafting.

I haven't done any analysis or even looked to see the draft history, but I would wager the drafting at D-line is a higher success ratio. IMO, the DB position is a glory spot, and we, as fans, focus on those misses more.

 

[Ring 6]

I know I am picking nits...and I know it's naive to assume there won't be many misses. Maybe its the fact that CB is a prominent position makes the misses glaring.

I agree that Samuel was a HR. Perhaps that's the problem. We went from Law to Samuel and really didn't see a drop off, although Law is likely a HoF'er,and Samuel likely is not. Again, that's picking nits. To replace a HoF'er with a Pro-bowler is pretty damn good drafting.

I haven't done any analysis or even looked to see the draft history, but I would wager the drafting at D-line is a higher success ratio. IMO, the DB position is a glory spot, and we, as fans, focus on those misses more.

With respect to the DL, perhaps the success rate is higher, but how much of that is from using 3 of the highest 1s we have had in 10 years on those players?
You could also argue Brace=Butler, Hill=Wheatley, Brown=Wilhite and show just as many misses. Thats just off the top of my head and memory, it could be worse in fact.

 

[Ring 6]

The other point in these draft discussions is UDFA's always get left out.

When you have players like Love, Fletcher, Law Firm not included in the discussion, it makes no sense.

Ditto Arrington and Woodhead.

The draft only gets you into the 80 man camp tournament.

Since Adrain Foster wasn't drafted, I guess the Texans are hopeless in "drafting" BR's.

It really depends on how you define the discussion.
Are you talking about using picks in the process of building a team, or are you trying to judge the ability to make a single pick out of the blue?

In other words, there can be a big difference between making the best decisions to build your franchise, and the success rate of each particular pick.

I don't think I've seen anyone define this when discussing this topic, just blathering about good or bad without establishing criteria.

 

[Steve102]

With respect to the DL, perhaps the success rate is higher, but how much of that is from using 3 of the highest 1s we have had in 10 years on those players?
You could also argue Brace=Butler, Hill=Wheatley, Brown=Wilhite and show just as many misses. Thats just off the top of my head and memory, it could be worse in fact.

I think you are on the money. Brace has been a favorite to bash on my part, as I had high hopes for him lining up along side Wilfork and really being dominant.

 

[Shockt327]

Your analogy fails, because it wouldn't be based upon a single game. It would be based upon seasons. If you wanted to analogize it to a single season, it would be based upon long stretches of games. It's not about a lifetime .300 hitter going 1-for-4 in one game. It's about a lifetime .300 hitter who spent 3 consecutive years at .200 and followed that up with another year at .225 or .250. You may find that meaningless, but most fans, coaches, managers and GMs certainly wouldn't.

Well, it "fails" because you are veering away from my intended point (that's it's just a slump, that we've pulled out of)....

Instead, you are arguing over what is comparable to a season. Fair enough. On that same note, I would say that there are 500+ at bats in a season. A much higher sample size. Thus, much lower variance. There are only supposed to be 7 draft picks, per team, per season. A much higher level of variance due to a small sample size. So, yes; comparing it to a slump over a few games is more accurate than comparing it to an entire season. With such a limited number of picks, there are going to be great fluctuations. I'm arguing that this is what 2006-2008 was all about. Why? Because it's a limited time frame. The results before hand were great. The results after -- especially 2010 -- were great. So the overall average is still pretty high. I don't see a problem.

Wait.... 2008 is too far back, but the whole "going back 10 years" is ok with you? Check yourself, because your ridiculousness is showing.

A deeply ironic post....

See, we're having an argument about your constant attempts to cherry pick a few years of (relatively) poor drafts. As a result, you cannot see the forest for the trees. You are too far too hung up on a few years. And to what purpose? It's tenuous logic. It's your inability to see the big picture...

And what did you do just now? You quoted one sentence of an entire paragraph, out of context, that you could pounce on. Once again, you are ignoring the the overall point that's being made (the big picture) so you can try to isolate a fragment of it, and attack.

If you acknowledged my whole post, you'd note that I was pointing out how we've had drafts since 2006-2008 that were back on par with 01-04. So, 2006-08 is simply too far back to whine about as though we're still in the middle of that slump. We really aren't. We've gotten back on track. Oh, and our total "average" is still high...as the OPs article argues by citing Pro Bowlers.

It's one thing to disagree. Whatever. But it's as if you refuse to even acknowledge what argument I'm trying to make, because you are too busy cherry picking.

Let's be clear about what you're saying here.

2000 - Brady, Pass
2001 - Seymour, Light
2002 - Graham, Branch, Green, Givens
2003 - Warren, Wilson, Samuel, Koppen, TBC
2004 - Wilfork, Watson
2005 - Mankins, Hobbs, Kazcur, Sanders, Cassel


So that's 3 years out of 6 with big numbers of real "hits", and 3 years with smaller numbers of hits. If I were arguing about this as a year-by-year thing focused solely on hits, I'd be pointing to those 3 years as examples of large numbers of picks being missed on.

I don't even know how to respond to this, because I feel as though you are backing up my point...

Those six drafts, overall, are about as well as a GM can realistically do over such a period of time. It's an A for a grade. But, you're making it sound as if it's just marginally good. Or mixed. I'd really love to know how many GMs over the past decade had 6 drafts in a row where they got that many legitimate key contributors (many of whom went to the pro-bowl).

Really, it's as if we're talking about an elite slugger; and your citing how many times he merely hit singles instead of home runs. Like, wtf? Totally unrealistic standards, even when we're focusing on the player at his very best. I'd really love for you to cite a handful of GMs who had drafts - in a row - over the same stretch of time that were flat out better. Cause, I don't see it.

Tat's not what I'm doing, however, as I've praised BB's drafts from 2000-2005 (I'm also on record as being thrilled with 2007 when discussing the whole draft as opposed to just the picks taken, calling the Patriots 2007 'draft' the best in the NFL). I've noticed the same thing that people around the country who aren't willfully blind have noticed, which is that the Patriots drafting, in terms of actual selections, went through a down period from 2006-2008, and that 2009 has turned out to be much less than was hoped. It's not my problem that a bunch of homers on a website can't admit the obvious. Look to yourself.

Look to myself? In what sense? Cause right now you are acting as if I'm trying to flat out deny that the 06-08 drafts were below our average. But wait, I already did acknowledge that those drafts were lesser. I referred to it as being a slump. A low point. So, uh, your point is moot.

You? You keep harping on the same point, over and over. And to what purpose? Again, it's like we have an elite slugger who is putting up numbers that are better than his peers....but you're still harping on about that slump from 3 months ago. Our guy has gotten back on track. The total stats are, still, easily elite (as the OP's article states). So, what? Why are you still harping on about 2006-08? We all agree it was a slump. So? Slumps happen, even to elite guys. Why can't you admit that?

 

[Huckleberry1]

It really depends on how you define the discussion.
Are you talking about using picks in the process of building a team, or are you trying to judge the ability to make a single pick out of the blue?

In other words, there can be a big difference between making the best decisions to build your franchise, and the success rate of each particular pick.

I don't think I've seen anyone define this when discussing this topic, just blathering about good or bad without establishing criteria.

I define it by use of picks, if they trade one for a player and miss it's a bad use and if they get a good return it's a hit. I think Belichick and probably every other GM sees the draft as aa process and not just individual picks, and they have many other considerations than just the immediate obvious need. UDFA's may not be picks but they are clearly an extension of the scouting process and I don't if any team in football is getting more out of that aspect of the draft process.

The Patriots have had their clear misses and they have had some really bad drafts, but so has every other team, and ultimately the job their front office is doing has to be judged by overall results and their context in the league during that time, and by that criteria no team is better, and what makes it all the more impressive is that Belichick, at least in my opinion, has rebuilt an entire team around Brady from the Dynasty they had and now is poised for a great run of success in the coming 4-5 years. It's damn near impossible to rebuild an entire team without ever dropping out ofd contention and yet they have done just that. The Patriots are getting better, not worse, and they will be a final 4 team again next season, and you simply cannot maintain that level of success year after year after year if you are not using the draft really well.

 

[Ring 6]

I think you are on the money. Brace has been a favorite to bash on my part, as I had high hopes for him lining up along side Wilfork and really being dominant.

Brace is an enigma to me. When he has been on the field he has played well, but he doesn't get on the field as much as his play indicates he should. I think there is more to the story than ability.

 

[carolinatony]

The team with the Best record in the NFL the last 10 yrs is......

the NE Patriots.