Belichick + Patriots leagues best at drafting All-Pro Talent

[Ring 6]

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.

Here is an example of what I meant.
I trade #28 for #34 plus a 4th. Then trade the 4th for a 3rd next year and a 6th.. Then I trade the 6th for 2 7ths.
Instead of #28, I get
34
2 7th
a 3rd next year

If I draft the same player at 34 I would have drafted at 28 and he turns out great, and the other 3 are total busts.
One outlook is I did great with my 28, and the extra picks failing were extra picks added on top of what I got, so the result is good draft (that part of it)
Another school of thought is I suck at drafting because I made 1 good pick out of 4.
If I am building a team, (and based solely on this) I want this guy at the helm. If you give me a pick to make in some random round maybe I don't want this guy to make it.
Same guy, same draft, 2 different ways to judge.

 

[Triumph]

Has he really drafted poorly at CB?

Really? This is just unbelievable even for you.

Dowling TBD

Maybe, might, could be, should be decent.

McCourty was a rookie probowl starter

And, one of the worst CBs in the NFL in 2011. Scrubs off the street took his job while he moved to S. He has a big ? on his chest for 2012.

Butler played decently as a rookie, poorly in year 2 and was gone in year 3

In other words, he sucked and was a wasted draft pick.

Wheatley had injiry problems, no telling how the pick would have turned out if he stayed healthy

Probably a HOFer.

Hobbs started for years

Because there wasnt anybody else. Just because a player starts, that does not make him good. NE has started a cast of misfits and bums at CB over the years: Starks, Wilhite, Butler, Wheatley, Springs, Youre President of the Maroney fan club and he only started around 35% of his games. He was good, right?

Wilhite was a decent contributor for a 4th round pick.

Another Bust who would not turn back and track the ball like Butler.

We may have 2 top caliber corners on the roster who will start for years to come from the last 2 drafts.

And, we might not.

The Pats would be wise to draft another CB should one or both of these 2 Pro Bowlers not work out.

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.

Yes, LOL

The facts.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Really? This is just unbelievable even for you.


Maybe, might, could be, should be decent.



And, one of the worst CBs in the NFL in 2011. Scrubs off the street took his job while he moved to S. He has a big ? on his chest for 2012.



In other words, he sucked and was a wasted draft pick.



Probably a HOFer.


Because there wasnt anybody else. Just because a player starts, that does not make him good. NE has started a cast of misfits and bums at CB over the years: Starks, Wilhite, Butler, Wheatley, Springs, Youre President of the Maroney fan club and he only started around 35% of his games. He was good, right?



Another Bust who would not turn back and track the ball like Butler.



And, we might not.

The Pats would be wise to draft another CB should one or both of these 2 Pro Bowlers not work out.



Yes, LOL

The facts.

"A FOURTH ROUND BUST"?

The stupid stick was on a rampage, I see.

Another complete "Triumph" of stupidity.

If the Belichick drafts were as pathetic as your posts, the team would have gone 0-96 over the past six years.

 

[Wretch]

Really? This is just unbelievable even for you.


Maybe, might, could be, should be decent.



And, one of the worst CBs in the NFL in 2011. Scrubs off the street took his job while he moved to S. He has a big ? on his chest for 2012.



In other words, he sucked and was a wasted draft pick.



Probably a HOFer.


Because there wasnt anybody else. Just because a player starts, that does not make him good. NE has started a cast of misfits and bums at CB over the years: Starks, Wilhite, Butler, Wheatley, Springs, Youre President of the Maroney fan club and he only started around 35% of his games. He was good, right?



Another Bust who would not turn back and track the ball like Butler.



And, we might not.

The Pats would be wise to draft another CB should one or both of these 2 Pro Bowlers not work out.



Yes, LOL

The facts.

McCourty was moved to safety because the Pats had less depth at safety than corner. He appeared to be pedestrian at CB last year, but we don't know if the pass completions were due to poor safety play or poor CB technique play, I would wager a combination of both. Nice revisionist history there.

Hobbs was a serviceable corner and a good returner, a win for a 3rd round pick. Just because you have an agenda don't distort the fact that Hobbs made significant contributions to very good teams. He was a multi-year start, a tough football player, who maximized his potential and even got the Pats a pick in return when he was traded.

A 4th round bust? You blew some credibility there. Wilhite was a serviceable slot corner, a JAG, but that is a win with a 4th round pick. He like Hobbs was a solid contributor on very good teams.

Butler and Wheatley were disappointments. Butler had the measurable and film to be a 2nd round pick, much like Chad Jackson, but couldn't put it together on the field. Wheatley was a reach and a head scratcher.

So 1 real mistake, Wheatley, one understandable mistake in Butler 2 solid contributors, and 1 pro bowler, looks like pretty solid drafting, not great but solid.

Not every player drafted becomes an all pro or HOFer.

Here are my expectations of players by draft position:
Early 1st:
Worst Case: 10 year starter
Best Case: Multiple (more than 3) pro bowls
Mid-Late First:
Worst Case: Multi-year starter
Best Case: 2-3 pro-bowl appearances
2nd-3rd:
Worst Case: Situational starter
Best Case: Multi-year starter
4th-5th:
Worst Case: Camp fodder
Best Case: Situational Starter or STer.
Post 5th-UDFA:
Worst Case: Camp fodder
Best: Career STer

If the Team gets those things from a player that is a solid-good pick. If the team gets less it's a miss, and if they get more than it's a good to great pick.

What are your expectations?

Also if a player's career is shortened due to injury I don't count that against a team unless there is an obvious injury history, like Wheatley.

 

[Triumph]

"A FOURTH ROUND BUST"?

The stupid stick was on a rampage, I see.

Another complete "Triumph" of stupidity.

If the Belichick drafts were as pathetic as your posts, the team would have gone 0-96 over the past six years.

Rain Man is back.

Hey, taking Adrian Foster as a walk on does not make Houston great at drafting BR's. What mouth breathers like you fail to realize is that It cost Houston nothing to take him. No draft picks.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Here is an example of what I meant.
I trade #28 for #34 plus a 4th. Then trade the 4th for a 3rd next year and a 6th.. Then I trade the 6th for 2 7ths.
Instead of #28, I get
34
2 7th
a 3rd next year

If I draft the same player at 34 I would have drafted at 28 and he turns out great, and the other 3 are total busts.
One outlook is I did great with my 28, and the extra picks failing were extra picks added on top of what I got, so the result is good draft (that part of it)
Another school of thought is I suck at drafting because I made 1 good pick out of 4.
If I am building a team, (and based solely on this) I want this guy at the helm. If you give me a pick to make in some random round maybe I don't want this guy to make it.
Same guy, same draft, 2 different ways to judge.

What I was referring to was judging the use of picks by existing GM's and franchises, and that can be done by reviewing the draft records and use of picks by them. CHFF pretty much did this and d etermined Belichick had the best record in the NFL and they weren't including UDFA's or traded picks, nor did they weight draft order, all of which would upgrade the evaluation of the Patriots.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Rain Man is back.

Hey, taking Adrian Foster as a walk on does not make Houston great at drafting BR's. What mouth breathers like you fail to realize is that It cost Houston nothing to take him. No draft picks.

I'm sure he just walked into their facility uninvited and they had never heard of him. UDFA's are brought in as a result of scouting during the draft process, and teams smart enough to get the best ones are doing good work, they aren't just lucky they happened to swing by. The Texans personel department did a good job getting Foster in and they deserve credit for it.


You really don't know anything do you?

 

[Huckleberry1]

Here is an example of what I meant.
I trade #28 for #34 plus a 4th. Then trade the 4th for a 3rd next year and a 6th.. Then I trade the 6th for 2 7ths.
Instead of #28, I get
34
2 7th
a 3rd next year

If I draft the same player at 34 I would have drafted at 28 and he turns out great, and the other 3 are total busts.
One outlook is I did great with my 28, and the extra picks failing were extra picks added on top of what I got, so the result is good draft (that part of it)
Another school of thought is I suck at drafting because I made 1 good pick out of 4.
If I am building a team, (and based solely on this) I want this guy at the helm. If you give me a pick to make in some random round maybe I don't want this guy to make it.
Same guy, same draft, 2 different ways to judge.

I love the draft and have been following it closely for years and the thing I have really learned is just how little I really know regardless of how much time I invest in it, and I think the problem that has developed over the years is that with all of the information out there now people have convinced themselves that they know as much as the GM's and scouts for the teams, when in truth we know very little. The reports we get are brief generic synopses that provide very little real information about the players, and the boards are general and refer to the whole league based upon obvious needs instead of team specific boards that take schemes and contracts going forward into account. We can't evaluate a GM based upon the scenario you provided because we don't know which player they targeted and whether or not they got them,e.g.. being Ras I-Dowling, who by the reports we got was going to be their pick at #28 anyways, so anything they got in addition was just gravy and good use of the picks in that scenario. All we can really do is look at the deals several years later and see how they turned out because we never see their actual boards, although it would be fascinating to know what they really looked like, at least for those of us who love the draft.

If we based our evaluations on binkies and how many were picked by our team, which is the apparent criteria of the people trashing Belichick then every team in the league would suck at drafting while the real experts were actually at home in mommies basement gnashing their teeth and pounding their little fisties and footsies on the floor at the obvious mistakes their teams were making. However if we base our evaluations on how the league does over an extended period of time then we get aq much more realistic sense of who is doing well and who isn't, and CHFF did that and the findings are there for everyone to look at or challenge. Not surprisingly no-one has actually challenged the findings they just act as if the study was never done and scream about Clay Mathews Clay Mathews Clay Mathews.

 

[Steve102]

I love the draft and have been following it closely for years and the thing I have really learned is just how little I really know regardless of how much time I invest in it, and I think the problem that has developed over the years is that with all of the information out there now people have convinced themselves that they know as much as the GM's and scouts for the teams, when in truth we know very little. The reports we get are brief generic synopses that provide very little real information about the players, and the boards are general and refer to the whole league based upon obvious needs instead of team specific boards that take schemes and contracts going forward into account. We can't evaluate a GM based upon the scenario you provided because we don't know which player they targeted and whether or not they got them,e.g.. being Ras I-Dowling, who by the reports we got was going to be their pick at #28 anyways, so anything they got in addition was just gravy and good use of the picks in that scenario. All we can really do is look at the deals several years later and see how they turned out because we never see their actual boards, although it would be fascinating to know what they really looked like, at least for those of us who love the draft.

If we based our evaluations on binkies and how many were picked by our team, which is the apparent criteria of the people trashing Belichick then every team in the league would suck at drafting while the real experts were actually at home in mommies basement gnashing their teeth and pounding their little fisties and footsies on the floor at the obvious mistakes their teams were making. However if we base our evaluations on how the league does over an extended period of time then we get aq much more realistic sense of who is doing well and who isn't, and CHFF did that and the findings are there for everyone to look at or challenge. Not surprisingly no-one has actually challenged the findings they just act as if the study was never done and scream about Clay Mathews Clay Mathews Clay Mathews.

yeah. We shoulda had Clay Mathews! *grumble grumble* :woohoo:

 

[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.

By the way GOD OF WRATH (Jesus that's a pretentious username Deus), you can hate my arguments all you want and it is fine by me but at least i don't make arguments against fictional opponents, as you so often do, and i don't hide from people who make strong arguments, as you so often do. I will give you credit though, as had fans been actually arguing that the Patriots had a good defense last season then your counter argument would have been very effective, but since you made it up and people weren't actually making that argument you just looked like a pompous idiot looking for a fight in an empty room. Maybe next you can take on all the Patriot fans who hate Tom Brady........................................

 

[livinginthe past]

By the way GOD OF WRATH (Jesus that's a pretentious username Deus), you can hate my arguments all you want and it is fine by me but at least i don't make arguments against fictional opponents, as you so often do, and i don't hide from people who make strong arguments, as you so often do. I will give you credit though, as had fans been actually arguing that the Patriots had a good defense last season then your counter argument would have been very effective, but since you made it up and people weren't actually making that argument you just looked like a pompous idiot looking for a fight in an empty room. Maybe next you can take on all the Patriot fans who hate Tom Brady........................................

He certainly is the master of the strawman argument.

As I pointed out early in this thread - its pointless to attempt rational discourse with an indivdual who thinks he can define 'bad' without actually bothering to tell you where 'average' or even 'good' might reside.

 

[Huckleberry1]

He certainly is the master of the strawman argument.

As I pointed out early in this thread - its pointless to attempt rational discourse with an indivdual who thinks he can define 'bad' without actually bothering to tell you where 'average' or even 'good' might reside.

I think GOD OF WRATH suffers from the delusion that he gets to frame every argument he is in.

 

[Ring 6]

Really? This is just unbelievable even for you.

I'm sorry that you can't handle an honest, fair, balanced and unbiased assessment. But hey, it gives you something to cry about.

Maybe, might, could be, should be decent.

Nice to see you have already written him off.

And, one of the worst CBs in the NFL in 2011.

That is even stupid by your standards.

Scrubs off the street took his job while he moved to S. He has a big ? on his chest for 2012.

You really should watch the games. No one took his job. He started at LCB all season long. He moved inside to S at times in sub packages at the end of the season.
How do you not realize that you look like an idiot when you have to lie to support your crying that even you know isn't legitmate?

So tell me. Is drafting a player at 32 and having him be 2nd team all pro as a rookie, and your #1 corner on a 13-3 team that went to the SB your idea of a bad draft pick?

In other words, he sucked and was a wasted draft pick.

Every team makes them.

Probably a HOFer.

Why do you insist on acting like a dooochebag?

Because there wasnt anybody else. Just because a player starts, that does not make him good.

Ellis Hobbs stated 49 games in 4 in 4 season for a team that was 49-15 with 2 trips to the AFCG and 1 SB.
The defense he was on allowed the 4th fewest points in the NFL.
Now that includes his rookie year when he started only the second half of the season. That was the year the ppg was 27.5 in the first half and 14.5 in the second half of the season.
So then in the 3 remaining seasons that he started the defense ranked second in the NFL in points alllowed.
You have decided that this defense stunk and 'had no one else' while it was the 2nd best defense in the NFL. You are crying so much you can't see through the tears.

NE has started a cast of misfits and bums at CB over the years: Starks, Wilhite, Butler, Wheatley, Springs,

I guess we should be one of those teams that has 4 corners on the roster and all are allpros. You are an idiot.

Youre President of the Maroney fan club and he only started around 35% of his games. He was good, right?

Oh now we are back to this one? You are something.

Another Bust who would not turn back and track the ball like Butler.

A 4th round draft pick who sticks for 3 years, plays in 39 games and starts 13 on a team that was 35-13 in those 3 years being called a bust proves, once again, you are an idiot.

And, we might not.

The Pats would be wise to draft another CB should one or both of these 2 Pro Bowlers not work out.

Since corners get injured and #3 corner is more important than many starters, of course they should.

Yes, LOL

The facts.

Yup. Facts. Being drafted #41 and not working out is not an epi failure. It happens. Often. In fact Butler is far and away the most productive player drafted in that slot in the last 4 drafts.
You just have no clue about this stuff and want to cry.

 

[Ring 6]

I love the draft and have been following it closely for years and the thing I have really learned is just how little I really know regardless of how much time I invest in it, and I think the problem that has developed over the years is that with all of the information out there now people have convinced themselves that they know as much as the GM's and scouts for the teams, when in truth we know very little. The reports we get are brief generic synopses that provide very little real information about the players, and the boards are general and refer to the whole league based upon obvious needs instead of team specific boards that take schemes and contracts going forward into account. We can't evaluate a GM based upon the scenario you provided because we don't know which player they targeted and whether or not they got them,e.g.. being Ras I-Dowling, who by the reports we got was going to be their pick at #28 anyways, so anything they got in addition was just gravy and good use of the picks in that scenario. All we can really do is look at the deals several years later and see how they turned out because we never see their actual boards, although it would be fascinating to know what they really looked like, at least for those of us who love the draft.

If we based our evaluations on binkies and how many were picked by our team, which is the apparent criteria of the people trashing Belichick then every team in the league would suck at drafting while the real experts were actually at home in mommies basement gnashing their teeth and pounding their little fisties and footsies on the floor at the obvious mistakes their teams were making. However if we base our evaluations on how the league does over an extended period of time then we get aq much more realistic sense of who is doing well and who isn't, and CHFF did that and the findings are there for everyone to look at or challenge. Not surprisingly no-one has actually challenged the findings they just act as if the study was never done and scream about Clay Mathews Clay Mathews Clay Mathews.

The truth is that we have a miniscule amount of the information teams use to make decisions. They have STUDIED FILM of the players entire college career. They have watched his workouts at the combine and on campus workout. They have interviewed many of them. They have spoken to their coaches. They have studied physical and medical exams. They have Wonderlic scores, and knowledge about their life off the field. They in fact have dozens of employees who make a living by gathering this informaiton.
Its the equivalent of interviewing a job prospect and assuming you can then make a better assessment of them than the person who has been their direct supervisor for 10 years.
Once you get past the fact that we have such a comparative dearth of informaiton, we must come to grips with the fact that there is no one on this board that could come close to understanding how to properly analyze that information as well as the NFL decision makers.
Somehow, when over half the draft picks made by those better qualified and better informed people turn out badly, Mr Message Board naturally decides that this is proof that he was right.
Its kind of like picking a number from 1 to 10, getting it right 10% of the time and bragging about your incredible number picking skills.

 

[DW Toys]

He is making fun of posters that claim BB is bad at drafting.

15 sounds like a lot of all-pros. I can't think of who they all might be.

Meanwhile, the Brown's TWO all-pros in ten years is impressively bad. Especially with all of those top ten picks. You'd think random chance could do better.

Sorry...he is pretty mediocre.
Read the other day he has the most high round Draft flops of any NFL Team. Tend to go with that story. I have eyes. I can see. He has had one good year in the last seven.
Nothing to see here. Move on. Nice try though.
DW Toys

 

[TyronePoole]

I remember when Polian was the greatest drafter of all time then...derp

It really is staggering how little actual or even intuitive knowledge many people have when it comes to statistics and significance and what a run of only a handful of good players out of 38 picks means (especially when many of the 38 were very late round picks, we lost a first and traded a few away for Moss and Welker). Apparently we have posters in the know that are certain Bellichick regressed to the mean between 2006 and 2009. And this analysis of course is always done in absolute, not relative terms making it all that much more meaningful.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Sorry...he is pretty mediocre.
Read the other day he has the most high round Draft flops of any NFL Team. Tend to go with that story. I have eyes. I can see. He has had one good year in the last seven.
Nothing to see here. Move on. Nice try though.
DW Toys

"Read the other day....."

Yeah, right.

It's about that time when the other village idiot shows up.

Eyes don't do much good for the completely clueless.

 

[Huckleberry1]

The truth is that we have a miniscule amount of the information teams use to make decisions. They have STUDIED FILM of the players entire college career. They have watched his workouts at the combine and on campus workout. They have interviewed many of them. They have spoken to their coaches. They have studied physical and medical exams. They have Wonderlic scores, and knowledge about their life off the field. They in fact have dozens of employees who make a living by gathering this informaiton.
Its the equivalent of interviewing a job prospect and assuming you can then make a better assessment of them than the person who has been their direct supervisor for 10 years.
Once you get past the fact that we have such a comparative dearth of informaiton, we must come to grips with the fact that there is no one on this board that could come close to understanding how to properly analyze that information as well as the NFL decision makers.
Somehow, when over half the draft picks made by those better qualified and better informed people turn out badly, Mr Message Board naturally decides that this is proof that he was right.
Its kind of like picking a number from 1 to 10, getting it right 10% of the time and bragging about your incredible number picking skills.

Yep...................except for THE GOD OF WRATH who proclaimed himself and the rest of the armchair GM's right the other day, and i would always defer to his opinion of himself because it certainly doesn't get any higher than that.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

The truth is that we have a miniscule amount of the information teams use to make decisions. They have STUDIED FILM of the players entire college career. They have watched his workouts at the combine and on campus workout. They have interviewed many of them. They have spoken to their coaches. They have studied physical and medical exams. They have Wonderlic scores, and knowledge about their life off the field. They in fact have dozens of employees who make a living by gathering this informaiton.
Its the equivalent of interviewing a job prospect and assuming you can then make a better assessment of them than the person who has been their direct supervisor for 10 years.
Once you get past the fact that we have such a comparative dearth of informaiton, we must come to grips with the fact that there is no one on this board that could come close to understanding how to properly analyze that information as well as the NFL decision makers.
Somehow, when over half the draft picks made by those better qualified and better informed people turn out badly, Mr Message Board naturally decides that this is proof that he was right.
Its kind of like picking a number from 1 to 10, getting it right 10% of the time and bragging about your incredible number picking skills.

So let's shut down the messageboard then seeing that nobody here is qualified to say anything good or bad about anything the Patriots if those are the guidelines.

 

[Huckleberry1]

So let's shut down the messageboard then seeing that nobody here is qualified to say anything good or bad about anything the Patriots if those are the guidelines.

There's a big difference between commentary and criticism and actually thinking that we know more than the front office and coaches, especially when the team has been on a long run of historic success. This is akin to 49 fans shrieking about how bad a coach Bill Walsh was and how they had been shorted their deserved success. Unfortunately on this site there are those who have no relationship with reality and insit black is white and day is night when the facvts of the matter demonstrate just the opposite.

I can understand people not liking certain choices and decisions and making realistic arguments about good and bad choices and good and bad drafts on the whole, however insisting the Patriots can't draft because they didn't take some binkies and insisting they are right and the front office wrong when the facts show otherwise is stupid and should be called just that, and what Andy said is absolutely on the money as we don't have anywhere near the information that front offices do on these on these prospects and pretending otherwise is folly. We can look at the synopses and takes on these players and form opinions on who we want every draft, but thinking that we have anywhere near the amount of information that the teams do is simply crazy talk. People have every right to weigh in and hope they take their favorite prospects but mistaking that for expertise is foolish.

I love the draft, i'll be following it all weekend and hoping they take the players I like and address the needs i feel should be addressed, but I'm not going to call it a bad draft if they don't and I'm not going to pretend I know more than them about these players at any time, because I obviously don't.