Duke traded to Broncos

[farn]

Sadly, all that winning has made fans think the team should be immune to criticism.

Maybe you’re right.

Are you also open to the possibility that criticism about some draft picks when the franchise has been rolling at an unprecedented rate is a tad ridiculous. Expecting perfection at the draft is borderline insane. Immune to criticism ? No. *****ing about a few picks while the team continues rolling toward some SBs ? c’m’on.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Sadly, all that winning has made fans think the team should be immune to criticism.

It's less that he should be immune from criticism and more "we have one of the youngest, deepest, most talented secondaries in the league, so complaining about how Belichick put together the secondary specifically is a weird thing to harp on".

Sure, there are scenarios where the outcome could have been better, but for what we've invested into the secondary vs. what we have to show for it I think the Pats are looking pretty damn good overall.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's less that he should be immune from criticism and more "we have one of the youngest, deepest, most talented secondaries in the league, so complaining about how Belichick put together the secondary specifically is a weird thing to harp on".

It's two separate discussions that some people are trying to conflate. The Patriots aren't drafting brilliantly/terribly/ok because they traded for Gilmore and Jason McCourty. They are drafting brilliantly/terribly/ok because because they are drafting brilliantly/terribly/ok.

 

[Ring 6]

Sadly, all that winning has made fans think the team should be immune to criticism.

Really? So in your mind winning doesn’t overcome criticism?


No, it has fans thinking criticism is fine, ridiculous woe is me sarcastic uninformed negative comments are not.

 

[203Pat]

On the other hand there are fans on this board who think BB should nail every draft pick and refuse to acknowledge the draft is one big guess with a ~20% success rate in the 2nd round. They also refuse to acknowledge the other 31 teams miss on high picks as well.

I think overall Bill is a good drafter. The thing that annoys me is when someone cant admit a guy was a bad pick. It's not the end of the world obviously but the "oh we win Super Bowls" so it doesn't matter argument is embarrassing.

 

[Zuma]

The Patriots are good enough at drafting.

 

[Ring 6]

I think overall Bill is a good drafter. The thing that annoys me is when someone cant admit a guy was a bad pick. It's not the end of the world obviously but the "oh we win Super Bowls" so it doesn't matter argument is embarrassing.

every team every drafter everyone who makes draft picks makes bad ones.
No one is denying that
Rather people are saying why are we nitpicking decisions that were part of a decade long process of building a roster that wins more than any other?
Isn’t there a hell of a lot more success to spend your time talking about that finding a decision out of thousands to cry about?

 

[203Pat]

every team every drafter everyone who makes draft picks makes bad ones.
No one is denying that
Rather people are saying why are we nitpicking decisions that were part of a decade long process of building a roster that wins more than any other?
Isn’t there a hell of a lot more success to spend your time talking about that finding a decision out of thousands to cry about?

Once again, stay with me here, I am not faulting Bill for drafting a bust. I am faulting the people who foolishly try and claim that a bust is not a bust.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think overall Bill is a good drafter. The thing that annoys me is when someone cant admit a guy was a bad pick. It's not the end of the world obviously but the "oh we win Super Bowls" so it doesn't matter argument is embarrassing.

Sure, but "Duke Dawson was a bad pick" and "Belichick is subpar at evaluating and drafting secondary players" are two related but wildly different claims. If someone's unwilling to acknowledge that the first is true, then I agree that's their problem. But I think most of us, at least, are acknowledging the first is true while pushing back against people making the second claim. And if someone does make that second claim, a valid counter is to point out how many young, talented secondary players are currently on the roster and played valuable roles in holding the Rams to 3 points in the Super Bowl.

 

[captain stone]

If this helps you guys feel any better, I like to look at who the Pats could’ve drafted after their pick. Aside from Fred Warner, there’s nobody that jumps off of the chart so far in rounds 2-3. So no matter who they picked, it would’ve probably ended up the same result.

Credit to @captain stone as he didn’t like Dawson since the day he was drafted.

Thanks, and I wasn't alone...and to answer your question, I would've Not traded up at all; I simply would've drafted the best player available at 63, Safety & Heir Apparent Justin Reid...then 3/5-Tech (and local dude & legacy) Maurice Hurst at 117...as some of us stated that very weekend.

 

[LJRomanoff]

Sure, but "Duke Dawson was a bad pick" and "Belichick is bad at evaluating and drafting secondary players" are two related but wildly different claims.

"Duke Dawson was a bad pick" and "Duke Dawson didn't contribute to the team" are also different claims.

 

[BradyFTW!]

"Duke Dawson was a bad pick" and "Duke Dawson didn't contribute to the team" are also different claims.

If your second rounder doesn't contribute to the team then that makes him a bad pick in my book. I think it's fair to say that a second round pick who fails to make your roster in his second season and returns only a 6th rounder in compensation, then he gave you significantly less than you gave up to get him in the first place.

That said, down the line he could vindicate Belichick's initial evaluation of him if he turns out to be a decent player elsewhere, but even then purely from an investment vs. return (both on-field performance and trade return) perspective the pick did not work out for us.

 

[Wheelman]

Okey donkey then....

That locks in JJ. Good.

If you watched some of our DB's trying to cover gunners in the pre season you'd have known JJ was a lock already. Yes, they sucked. JJ and Crossen needs to be healthy all 16 games for good punt returns.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I think overall Bill is a good drafter. The thing that annoys me is when someone cant admit a guy was a bad pick. It's not the end of the world obviously but the "oh we win Super Bowls" so it doesn't matter argument is embarrassing.

I think a big reason why he is a good drafter is his system of drafting and developing players that are system fits and putting them in a position of success is tried, true and tested as opposed to picking the most talented player and rolling the dice.

 

[RobertWeathers]

If you watched some of our DB's trying to cover gunners in the pre season you'd have known JJ was a lock already. Yes, they sucked. JJ and Crossen needs to be healthy all 16 games for good punt returns.

I meant "locked in" as in he won't be traded.

 

[catent]

The issue with the "bad draft pick" take is that it implies that drafting is a perfectly objective process, and that if one had simply done better research/gathered better evidence the situation could've been avoided, which obviously isn't entirely true.

Duke Dawson did not succeed here, and in that sense I agree with 203Pat, he was a poor use of a draft pick. Was he a bad pick at the time, though? No, as no one could've known with certainty he wouldn't be successful here. Is BB a poor drafter overall? The evidence indicates 'no'. Is the process for evaluating draft picks thorough and successful? The evidence indicates 'yes',

There are so many variables beyond the player/pick themselves, such as setting, roster construction, coaching, etc. Tweak one variable here or there and things could've gone differently.

Clearly BB/Caserio have their process/criteria for evaluating players and at a higher-than-league-average rate their draft picks end up being successful. Some flop, but it's not due to a lack of a competent evaluation process.

 

[Uptown]

And Caserio..Ernie..and most importantly a GOAT

 

[203Pat]

"Duke Dawson was a bad pick" and "Duke Dawson didn't contribute to the team" are also different claims.

Different but both true.

 

[LJRomanoff]

If your second rounder doesn't contribute to the team then that makes him a bad pick in my book.

This may be arguing semantics but I don't agree. A pick is good or bad based on the information available at the time of the draft. If you draft the best player in college and he has a car accident a week later and never plays, that's not a bad pick: you made the most reasonable choice with the information available.

 

[BradyFTW!]

And Caserio..Ernie..and most importantly a GOAT

I think that's a fair assessment, as usual, by Barnwell. I think every team in theory likes the whole "get a bunch of players and let the cream rise" philosophy, but a lot of teams don't actually practice that philosophy. The Pats pretty much do, and if that means a second rounder gets beat out by an UDFA then I don't think they really care about vindicating their selection by keeping the higher pick around like some teams clearly do. They're just trying to build the best team by keeping the best player regardless of where he's drafted, which as an added benefit has to be very appealing to UDFA guys who are choosing between the Pats and other teams too