Draft Strategy - Why It Doesn't Matter If Your Pick Is Considered 'A Reach'

[ctpatsfan77]

The Patriots do a fine job under Belichick in building their team. It like night and day versus Bobby Grier.

I believe that the Pats would liked to have a legitimate reserve NT. Red Bryant from A&M was the best pure NT, in the draft, and was projected to third and or early fourth round. Many liked Avril, a possible late second, or third round pick, but the Pats prefered the bigger Crable.

If the Pats used #69 for Crable, as they told him on the phone they were preparing to do, would they then have used the #78 for either player before taking O'Connel later?

If the Chargers had not called for #69 might the Pats have used a pick for Bryant? Or Avril? I suggest they would might well done so.

Crable is more like a Vrabel or McGinnest, a strongside OLB, whereas Avril more resembles a Phifer, or Colvin LB, weakside cover and pass rush OLB.

Who do you think they would have drafted if they had not moved #69 for a SD second round pick next draft?

It is a might have been situation, but who do you think they might have taken?

It's an interesting question--although it's worth noting that regardless of what they might have thought of Avril and/or Bryant, they felt that SD's second in 2009 was worth risking not getting Crable, let alone either of them. . . .

 

[Metaphors]

That's a bit of a straw man. My question was simply how high the Pats were willing to go on O'Connell--if, for the sake of argument, San Diego hadn't come calling at 69, would the Pats have taken O'Connell at 78?

Good question. If I had to guess (complete guess since there is no evidence either way), I would say the Pats allocated #94 as the pick to get O'Connell. If they took Crable at #69, I would guess that they would have taken another player at #78 or traded out if they didn't see value there. Interesting to speculate.

As for Slater, remember that they moved up to get him, but only after Zackary Bowman was off the board, so I have trouble seeing how Slater was a "must-have guy."

More a "specific target" rather than a "must-have". Obviously getting Bowman was worth the slight risk of Slater not lasting until their 6th pick (even using the 7th to move up).

As a side note, I really liked Bowman pre-injury so I hope we don't regret just missing out on him.

I guess it's more of a question of viewpoint. I think one could make the argument that the Pats aren't seeing O'Connell at 94 as only "paying a premium", so much as paying a premium and nevertheless getting a steal.

Much better way of phrasing it than my post.

 

[Metaphors]

It's an interesting question--although it's worth noting that regardless of what they might have thought of Avril and/or Bryant, they felt that SD's second in 2009 was worth risking not getting Crable, let alone either of them. . . .

Didn't it feel like the Pats got exactly who they wanted from this draft? Apart from Bowman as you mentioned earlier.

 

[patchick]

I think one could make the argument that the Pats aren't seeing O'Connell at 94 as only "paying a premium", so much as paying a premium and nevertheless getting a steal.

Nicely put. While most draft "experts" projected O'Connell around the 5th, he was often referred to as a player on the rise in the final weeks -- which usually just means that that the guy is an off-the-beaten-track prospect whom the draftniks hadn't caught onto early, even though the scouts long since had.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

More a "specific target" rather than a "must-have". Obviously getting Bowman was worth the slight risk of Slater not lasting until their 6th pick (even using the 7th to move up).

As a side note, I really liked Bowman pre-injury so I hope we don't regret just missing out on him.

Except that moving up to nab Bowman (17 spots) would probably have required coughing up their 6 (though they might have gotten a 7 back from JAX as "change"), rather than the 7 they paid to move up seven spots for Slater.

 

[Metaphors]

Except that moving up to nab Bowman (17 spots) would probably have required coughing up their 6 (though they might have gotten a 7 back from JAX as "change"), rather than the 7 they paid to move up seven spots for Slater.

You are probably right. If they ended up getting Bowman, they probably would have had to hope Slater lasted until the 7th round. Possible but not guaranteed. So their pursuit of Bowman likely meant that they were fully prepared to lose Slater and they also likely had a Plan B for a return guy in the 7th or UFA.

 

[Relentless649]

U take the best player available at the position you need it

 

[ctpatsfan77]

U take the best player available at the position you need it

Relentless--

If it were merely that simple--or if that were at all obvious that Belioli subscribed to that philosophy--this thread would be a literal waste of time.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

U take the best player available at the position you need it

I do not believe in this philosophy. And I can't see BB drafting this way either.

I think BB evalauates prospects physically, emotionally, intangibly, etc. just like everybody else does. But then he projects those prospects (the ones that pass the evaluation) into HIS system. The prospects that grade out the highest is how he builds his draft board. That's why the draftniks have such a hard time predicting Pats picks.

PS: Has anybody noticedthat the Giants have been drafting most of the players thatwe really really like, Snee, Webster, Ross, DeOssie, Goff, etc. Very frustrating.

 

[maverick4]

PS: Has anybody noticedthat the Giants have been drafting most of the players thatwe really really like, Snee, Webster, Ross, DeOssie, Goff, etc. Very frustrating.

Giants will be good for awhile. They should trade Shockey for picks.