Blog: Bill Belichick Pre-Draft Press Conference Transcript

[Christopher_Price]

Hey everyone ... I know you've probably had a chance to either listen to or read some of what Bill Belichick talked about this morning in his annual pre-draft press conference. But because many people have e-mailed me with requests--especially when it comes to providing the context of a particular answer--here's the link to today's full transcript of his chat with the media.

http://www.patsfans.com/price/blog/?q=node/284

Thanks,
Chris

 

[desi-patsfan]

thanx alot chris.

 

[maverick4]

re

Two interesting excerpts:

Q: Can you talk a little bit about the process of the departure of Adam Vinatieri and how it took place? Was it financial? Can you give a little insight on that?
BB: Not really. There is going to be transition on every team. Every team in the league has that. We’ve had players come. We've had players go. That's the way it is. In terms of individual negotiations and all of that, no. I think it's a lot longer story. Is it worth telling? It doesn’t make any difference. He’s not here. We’re going to do what we do every year, every spring, is build our team, try to make it as competitive as we can heading into training camp and into the regular season in the fall. The goes for every position, every player across the board.

Q: Have your free agent losses this offseason changed your thought process at all in terms of drafting where you might have drafted something else?
BB: No, I don't think so. I don't think you can do it that way. I really don't. You can't create players. You have to draft the board based on what your options are and as soon as you start taking players truly based on need, if they can't fill that need, then you have to come back the next year or the next pick and you’re drafting again for the same spot and you haven't filled anything other than putting a name on a piece of cardboard and putting it up on the depth chart. You really don't have anything if the player can’t fulfill that expectation or that role that you think you drafted him for. I think you're a lot better off drafting players that can perform on your team in a role that you need or in a role that gives some value to the team. Sometimes players aren't there at the position you want them, but you can't manufacture them. You just have to take the player that helps your team the most at that point, even if it’s at a position that may not be necessarily the top need. Again, to go back to when I was with the Giants. We drafted Lawrence Taylor and we had Lawrence Taylor and Brad VanPelt and we took Carl Banks and nobody liked that pick. That was a pretty stupid pick, why would you take Banks when you have VanPelt and Taylor? It turned out to be probably one of our best picks at the Giants. I think you have to take guys that you think are good football players. Putting the team together that's certainly a process you have to go through. But to try to manufacture somebody, ‘We need this position,’ and then take a guy and he doesn’t end up being able to do the job, then you still need that position.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

Alright, so he specifically sees Greenway as an ILB if he were to be picked by the Patriots. Am I wrong in assuming that means he'd also see Carpenter as an ILB in our system? I think I'm gonna flip-flop back on to the Lawson bandwagon.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Alright, so he specifically sees Greenway as an ILB if he were to be picked by the Patriots. Am I wrong in assuming that means he'd also see Carpenter as an ILB in our system? I think I'm gonna flip-flop back on to the Lawson bandwagon.

Why would you flip back based on that ? I have no problem drafting a guy to play inside and putting Vrabel back outside. Although he did well inside, I still think his talent is best used outside.

 

[Miguel]

Thank you, Chris.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

Why would you flip back based on that ? I have no problem drafting a guy to play inside and putting Vrabel back outside. Although he did well inside, I still think his talent is best used outside.

Because the way BB/SP have shocked me repeatedly in the past, I don't get very attached to any of my choices anymore, hence, I flip-flop easily. Honestly, I want a beast outside and really would like Vrabel to stay where he is... however, there is some nice depth in the late DE candidates that could fill that role as well (Gocong, Lacasse, Mincy, etc.)

 

[patsfan13]

The message here is look for a college DE who is a pass rusher who can project into a OLB, a la Willie Mac.

Here is a list of guys Phil Savage says the Browns have looked at: Tamba Hali (Penn State), Darryl Tapp (Virginia Tech), Parys Haralson (Tennessee), Manny Lawson (NC State), Kamerion Wimbley (Florida State), Rob Ninkovich (Purdue) and Mike Kudla (Ohio State).


I would add Mathias Kiwanuka (BC) to this list. Now as to whether we take 1 of these guys? Couple of things here. I think OLB's are tougher to get than ILB's for this system. How are these guys graded as a group, are they all close? How many are left at #21? how many will be left at #53?

What are the other areas of need? How are they graded? and how many will be left at 21? how many at 53?

From what I've seen of BB (with the help of 20/20 hindsight) We will go with a mix of value and need. How the draft unfolds is critical. Say we have 6 OLB candidates who grade out almost the same available when we get to 21, then we have 2 RB who grade out the same as the 6 OLB's then these is a drop off to the 3rd RB on the board. In this case BB takes the RB, if he feels 1 of the 'hihg value' OLBs drop to our next pick, but neither of the 'high value' RB will be available with our next pick.

Say we take a RB at #1 and a run starts on the OLB's we have targeted, that is when a trade can take place to package say our 2nd and another pick to move up to get one of the targeted OLBs.

THe only thing I know is that draft day will provide the unexpected. I'm looking for an OLB in the first 2 rounds. Hopefully there isn't a run on the guys we like.

 

[Christopher_Price]

The message here is look for a college DE who is a pass rusher who can project into a OLB, a la Willie Mac.

Here is a list of guys Phil Savage says the Browns have looked at: Tamba Hali (Penn State), Darryl Tapp (Virginia Tech), Parys Haralson (Tennessee), Manny Lawson (NC State), Kamerion Wimbley (Florida State), Rob Ninkovich (Purdue) and Mike Kudla (Ohio State).


I would add Mathias Kiwanuka (BC) to this list. Now as to whether we take 1 of these guys? Couple of things here. I think OLB's are tougher to get than ILB's for this system. How are these guys graded as a group, are they all close? How many are left at #21? how many will be left at #53?

What are the other areas of need? How are they graded? and how many will be left at 21? how many at 53?

From what I've seen of BB (with the help of 20/20 hindsight) We will go with a mix of value and need. How the draft unfolds is critical. Say we have 6 OLB candidates who grade out almost the same available when we get to 21, then we have 2 RB who grade out the same as the 6 OLB's then these is a drop off to the 3rd RB on the board. In this case BB takes the RB, if he feels 1 of the 'hihg value' OLBs drop to our next pick, but neither of the 'high value' RB will be available with our next pick.

Say we take a RB at #1 and a run starts on the OLB's we have targeted, that is when a trade can take place to package say our 2nd and another pick to move up to get one of the targeted OLBs.

THe only thing I know is that draft day will provide the unexpected. I'm looking for an OLB in the first 2 rounds. Hopefully there isn't a run on the guys we like.

Patsfan13, I know for a fact that they've already spent plenty of time with Tapp, talking to him about making the move from DE to OLB. Wouldn't be a shocker at all if they called his name at No. 21.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

I know for a fact that they've already spent plenty of time with Tapp, talking to him about making the move from DE to OLB. Wouldn't be a shocker at all if they called his name at No. 21.

It may not be a shocker to you - but it would be to me. #21 is too high for him IMO.

 

[jczxohn1]

The main message I saw was get the best player available.

 

[shirtsleeve]

I heard one message loud and clear which also reflects what jczx says. BB thinks that where we draft in rd 1 has too many ??? in it do to lack of exposure. He's gonna try to trade down and out of round 1:singing:

Then he says he wants to utilize his flexibility to trade up and down to get the BPA. This is gonna be 2003 all over again. Get your value groups in order, its gonna be a crazy weekend!

 

[Ring 6]

I heard one message loud and clear which also reflects what jczx says. BB thinks that where we draft in rd 1 has too many ??? in it do to lack of exposure. He's gonna try to trade down and out of round 1:singing:

Then he says he wants to utilize his flexibility to trade up and down to get the BPA. This is gonna be 2003 all over again. Get your value groups in order, its gonna be a crazy weekend!

Or trade up.

The way I see it BB slots guys in groups of 3-5 draft slots.
He slots all 200-whatever picks.
Wherever he sees value unfolding he moves too.
I would be willing to bet that between our first and 2nd he has 32 guys targetted that he wouldnt necessarily want with our first, and thinks will be gone by our 2nd.
As say pick #42 approaches and he sees guys on the board he would have taken if he had the 35th pick he moves up.
I dont think moving down has to do with 'his guy' not being there but a group of his guys bieng there, so you can move down and get one plus pick up another pick.

IMO, BB has 200 players on his draft board that he would take depending on where he took them. I think he groups them as well. I.e. these 3 LBs are worth taking from 48-53. If all are left when your pick comes up, trade down. If one is left at 43 trade up.
Its all about value.
Where I think we miss the boat is that I dont really think BB zeroes in on players, but on GROUPS of players at a position. I am quite sure that if he felt need was corner in round 3 last year, he had another guy he felt the same way about as Hobbs, and would have happliy taken the other guy instead, (The Eugene Wilson story is a great example of that)

Finally, my opinion has always been that BBs success in the draft doesnt have to do with which one of the players was there, but that by him coaching them they turned out to be the best of the group.
Im sure that there were other guys in the "Wilson group" that havent been as good as him. Im also quite sure that if we had taken one of the other guys they would have worked out just about as well as Wilson did.
Ive always believed 10% of draft success is who you draft (as long as you dont miss by a mile in evaluation) and 90% is what you do with them after you draft them.

Does ANYONE think Tom Brady would have 3 rings, or developed as quickly if a different team drafted him? I sure dont. Yes, he'd be a good QB, but 90% of what Brady is he became after his name was called, noit before. Of course a lot of what he became had to do with him, but if you can't coach them up, you are just writing a name on a card as BB would say.

 

[patsfan13]

Correct Andy, damn you said in this post what I was trying to say in post 8 but you said it better.

 

[shirtsleeve]

Or trade up.

The way I see it BB slots guys in groups of 3-5 draft slots.
He slots all 200-whatever picks.
Wherever he sees value unfolding he moves too.
I would be willing to bet that between our first and 2nd he has 32 guys targetted that he wouldnt necessarily want with our first, and thinks will be gone by our 2nd.
As say pick #42 approaches and he sees guys on the board he would have taken if he had the 35th pick he moves up.
I dont think moving down has to do with 'his guy' not being there but a group of his guys bieng there, so you can move down and get one plus pick up another pick.

IMO, BB has 200 players on his draft board that he would take depending on where he took them. I think he groups them as well. I.e. these 3 LBs are worth taking from 48-53. If all are left when your pick comes up, trade down. If one is left at 43 trade up.
Its all about value.
Where I think we miss the boat is that I dont really think BB zeroes in on players, but on GROUPS of players at a position. I am quite sure that if he felt need was corner in round 3 last year, he had another guy he felt the same way about as Hobbs, and would have happliy taken the other guy instead, (The Eugene Wilson story is a great example of that)

Finally, my opinion has always been that BBs success in the draft doesnt have to do with which one of the players was there, but that by him coaching them they turned out to be the best of the group.
Im sure that there were other guys in the "Wilson group" that havent been as good as him. Im also quite sure that if we had taken one of the other guys they would have worked out just about as well as Wilson did.
Ive always believed 10% of draft success is who you draft (as long as you dont miss by a mile in evaluation) and 90% is what you do with them after you draft them.

Does ANYONE think Tom Brady would have 3 rings, or developed as quickly if a different team drafted him? I sure dont. Yes, he'd be a good QB, but 90% of what Brady is he became after his name was called, noit before. Of course a lot of what he became had to do with him, but if you can't coach them up, you are just writing a name on a card as BB would say.

Hi Andy.
I've been an ardent student of the value grouping philosophy. The thoughts you have outlined are close but not exactly how I see the way BB does things. He lists several players in a value group to him and the team. When the draft happens, he waits and watches. If all the players of the group are around, he trades down. When the next to last one is taken he trades up and takes the last. He doesn't target players as a rule, with certain recent exceptions. He does maintain certain flexibility in the group to emphasise particular positions he may want to develop.

He mentioned that many high profile rd.1 projections do not have enough exposure for him to place exact evaluations on them. Therefore, imo, he does not feel comfortable in the bottom half of the first round. He also mentioned any big trade up in rd one would be too expensive. To me that screams " I wanna trade out of rd 1, if possible" without coming out and saying it. He then mentioned all the flexibility on his mid round picks. That is value grouping at its essence.

I also think you are right on with the coaching philosophy. That point is also essential for value grouping to work.

So I project Belioli trades down to the top of the 2nd, pick up another 3rd, and value group their @$$es off. Similar to what they did in 2003. Should be a great weekend, though the name seekers will be plenty disappointed.