Comp picks announced: We got 4

[Deus Irae]

I guess having an extra pick or 2 or 4 each season might not matter much. If that is the case, then we aren't doing a good job at drafting. I do believe that Bill pays attention to comp picks and e have more picks as a result.

Discussion of the Patriots drafting is difficult to do with accurate analysis, because of the Brady/BB combination.

 

[mgteich]

I.Take the ****ing pick at #23, there’s gonna be GREAT talent at 23.

Shouting doesn't increase the value of the player available at 23 compared to the players available at 33 or 43. Often, there isn't much difference. I agree that it is POSSIBLE that there might be a run on OT's and we will need to use the 23 or trade up to get an OT. And, of course, we need to recognize that the players available may have more value for others, while at the same time being no better than those available 20 spots later on the patriot board.

We've had this discussion forever. Was it WR Terrell that folks wanted instead of Seymour?

 

[Sicilian]

Yes


And when's the last time that having extra picks resulted in the Patriots gambling on a high risk/high reward player, and hitting on a superstar?

Difficult to say, considering we don't know which players they would have taken had they had fewer picks to work with. But I would count Gronk with his injury situation as a high risk, high reward player. Again, no idea whether they would have taken him anyway, but that was the point of my post: Their plan is formulated based on the assets available. Change those assets, and the plan also changes.

 

[Deus Irae]

Difficult to say, considering we don't know which players they would have taken had they had fewer picks to work with. But I would count Gronk with his injury situation as a high risk, high reward player. Again, no idea whether they would have taken him anyway, but that was the point of my post: Their plan is formulated based on the assets available. Change those assets, and the plan also changes.

So, even if we say that Gronk falls under your theory, we're talking about it not having panned out in about a decade, as Gronk was a 2010 draftee. And I don't think you can find one from the BB era prior to that. That means we're talking about one such hit in about 20 drafts, and it's essentially a non-thing.

 

[Sicilian]

So, even if we say that Gronk falls under your theory, we're talking about it not having panned out in about a decade, as Gronk was a 2010 draftee. And I don't think you can find one from the BB era prior to that. That means we're talking about one such hit in about 20 drafts, and it's essentially a non-thing.

Perhaps not. But my point is still that it is the collection of available resources that determines a plan, and just saying, "We haven't drafted anyone noteworthy with those specific picks" isn't good enough for me not to be happy we got them. I was more responding to the downplaying of the asset in prime's post, not that it suddenly meant they were guaranteed a good player (at that pick or otherwise).

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Discussion of the Patriots drafting is difficult to do with accurate analysis, because of the Brady/BB combination.

There’s no comparative standard.

Following Belichick’s drafting and personnel moves has been like watching a baseball player for the last twenty years without really keeping track of his batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, etc. There are a lot of hits and a lot of misses. Some spectacular moments and some huge failures. Plenty of “remember this?” anecdotes.

Is he hitting at the same value as an average player? If he really is “the best” then who is second best? Is it possible he really isn’t that great and there’s extreme bias, due to the Brady factor? These are all just inconclusive ideas. But it’s homerism at its finest to say you can answer these questions without a comparative analysis.

Same is true with his coaching schemes...I am a lot more apt to agree that the Patriots have an advantage on game day, but the level of “Belichick-centric” thinking is over the top. There are certainly some games where he is out coached. There are certainly many other coaches who value chameleon personnel and adapt game plans to attack their opponents, and many who are X and O gurus.

Sure, Belichick is unique in history because his fingerprints are all over everything, and that’s an amazing accomplishment. But I’m skeptical that he’s the only competent mind in the NFL, an argument that sounds like a straw man, but many analysis essentially use a variation of that concept.

 

[amfootball]

Bill's ability to coach at a level never been seen covers many of his GM moves but also helps him to see a fit with players that appear average and being able to leverage their skill set for the benefit of the team. That is his true genius IMO.

 

[Deus Irae]

Perhaps not. But my point is still that it is the collection of available resources that determines a plan, and just saying, "We haven't drafted anyone noteworthy with those specific picks" isn't good enough for me not to be happy we got them. I was more responding to the downplaying of the asset in prime's post, not that it suddenly meant they were guaranteed a good player (at that pick or otherwise).

But people are right. The asset is meaningless if it isn't converted. Your position that it's still good, because other picks become superstar picks because of it, doesn't have data to support it.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to have the picks. According to a report we talked about here last year (I think it was last year, and not the year before), the Patriots are about average when it comes to hitting on picks, but they have more picks, which nets out as the Patriots ending up with more draft hits than the average NFL team.

I'm just saying that having the extra picks hasn't translated into superstars and monster drafts.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sure, Belichick is unique in history because his fingerprints are all over everything, and that’s an amazing accomplishment. But I’m skeptical that he’s the only competent mind in the NFL, an argument that sounds like a straw man, but many analysis essentially use a variation of that concept.

Belichick is unique in history because Tom Brady has been his QB. That's not to diminish BB, but we've seen this play out across NFL history. Whether it's Starr/Lombardi, Brady/BB, Montana/Walsh, Graham/Brown, or some other QB/coach combo, it's the duo that set those teams apart, not the individual.

Bledsoe/BB would have led to BB being in the unemployment line.

 

[Sicilian]

I'm just saying that having the extra picks hasn't translated into superstars and monster drafts.

And I think this is where I didn't do a good enough job articulating my stance. I never meant to imply that it made some huge difference and resulted in a lot of scenarios I mentioned. I think your point about not having data is actually a really good one, because my position all along has been that the competence/quality of team building (of which the draft is one part) is really, really hard to quantify. In part because of what you mentioned earlier (Brady and BB's coaching ability skewing things in the positive direction), but also because having success in one area can sometimes make it harder for another area to shine.

For example, let's say for the sake of argument that the Patriots never missed on a free agent signing (obviously they do... MAN, do they...), but for a hypothetical. The continued influx of quality veterans would make it far more difficult for the average rookie to come in and contribute. Would that make the Patriots bad at drafting? Hard to say, because those players would rarely ever do anything here either way.

It all comes down to the final product, and every piece that can be used to augment that final product (whether it culminates directly in a player on the roster or not), has value to that process.

 

[amfootball]

Bledsoe/BB would have led to BB being in the unemployment line.

Probably right after the 2001 season if no Mo Lewis. He would have been a DC again with Parcells in Dallas most likely.

 

[Hyped]

Major Fail.

Forgot they got rid of 2 of those picks (#163 and #195).

Still 12 picks!

 

[primetime]

True, but using them well doesn't always equate to "That particular resource was used to pick a good player". As someone else pointed out, if having extra picks makes it safer to gamble on a few high risk, high reward players, and you end up with a superstar out of it, does it matter if the comp pick itself produced a bust? None of the team building resources, be they picks, cap room, or intangibles can be really valued in a vacuum (though I understand it makes for a pretty boring conversation if we don't try).

The problem is that playing the comp pick game isn't free of consequences. You only get comp picks because you lose players and don't sign offsetting free agents during the relevant period. If the consequence of being overly fixated on comp picks is losing players you'd otherwise re-sign, or losing out on players you'd otherwise pick up, and the reward are draft picks you're not seeing any real return from... well, suddenly you're beating yourself in the game of four-dimensional chess you're playing.

I think of last year, where the only guy the Patriots signed in free agency who counted was Brandon Bolden. Were there offensive players they didn't pursue who could have helped because they would have messed up the comp pick formula?

That's all unknowable but I worry the team might be playing itself with its fixation on this stuff.

 

[Deus Irae]

Probably right after the 2001 season if no Mo Lewis. He would have been a DC again with Parcells in Dallas most likely.

Could be. And this stuff is why I tend to laugh at people who act as if BB is coaching at a level that's 6 steps higher than everyone else. It's not that BB can't coach. It's not that I think BB's not better than most (I've said repeatedly that he's among the best ever). It's because having the legitimate franchise-level QB makes coaches better.


Andy Reid just became one hell of a coach, and not just a good playcaller who can't coach in big games. And he did it because he got the QB portion of his pairing.

Tony Dungy became a Hall of Fame coach because Peyton Manning got him there.

etc...

 

[Sicilian]

The problem is that playing the comp pick game isn't free of consequences. You only get comp picks because you lose players and don't sign offsetting free agents during the relevant period. If the consequence of being overly fixated on comp picks is losing players you'd otherwise re-sign, or losing out on players you'd otherwise pick up, and the reward are draft picks you're not seeing any real return from... well, suddenly you're beating yourself in the game of four-dimensional chess you're playing.

I think of last year, where the only guy the Patriots signed in free agency who counted was Brandon Bolden. Were there offensive players they didn't pursue who could have helped because they would have messed up the comp pick formula?

That's all unknowable but I worry the team might be playing itself with its fixation on this stuff.

Oh for sure, if they're specifically not signing guys they could sign (and want to sign) in order to get comp picks, then that's a net loss. I don't think they're doing that though, for that very reason: It's obviously not a smart move to make that trade directly.

I don't think they're intentionally stock piling comp picks. I just think they end up with more of them as a byproduct of their free agent strategy, which tends to lean away from buying high on players.