Hannable: Pats poor drafting at S is costing $20m+ in cap space

[BradyFTW!]

I agree Cousin. It's almost as if DW Toys in really Hannable..................

Another pure fact about BB Trades and FA signings. These were impact players for us who came in or spent time with the Pats within the last ten years:

Vrabel,Revis,Lewis,Ninkovich,Chung,Branch,Develin,Bodden,Waters,Carter,Anderson,Sheard,
Thomas, Guy, Hogan (you can fight me here but he had a nice SuperBowl for us...see Shane Vereen in Drafted section), Dorsett (hopefully he can flourish), Trent Brown, Van Noy, Gilmore, Jason McCourty, Josh Gordon (we hope) Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Dillon, Amendola, Talib, Browner, Blount. LaFell was o.k.

Impact players to the most within the lats ten years.

Think about Impact players we have Drafted in the last ten years:
Gronk, Solder (kind of), Edelman, MCourty (if we must but I don't call him elite), James White, Gostkowski, Hightower, Collins (he was pretty good for awhile), Vereen (see Hogan) Mason, you can say Butler and Flowers and even Chandler but they flew the coup. You might be premature to add Sony Michele. I know....they even called Merriweather a pro bowl guy one year.

OK .....where is the best success? Subpar would be a fair statement.

I see there were as many failures in the Draft as the misses in FA

DW Toys

If Dorsett, Hogan and Browner are being counted as impact players signed as FAs, then the draft list is going to have to be much longer, since the Pats have drafted a lot of guys more impactful than them who aren't on your list. The Marcus Cannons, David Andrews, Joe Thuneys, JC Jacksons, Elandon Roberts, and definitely Sony Michels of the world. (if Dorsett is an impact player for the Pats, then Michel absolutely is).

Also, Dillon retired after the 2006 season, so he doesn't meet the "in the last 10 years" requirement. Anyone who last played for the Pats pre-2009 doesn't doesn't meet that requirement, so he falls short by a solid few years.

 

[luuked]

But even Tavon Wilson, for all the **** he gets here, has been a three-year starter since leaving New England, and a capable one at that. He just took a little longer to develop and the Pats didn't want to pay him with the talent they already had on the roster. Which is fine, if that's the cost of building one of the best secondaries in the league that has been key to the recent SB wins then you happily pay it.

How people think of Tavon Wilson is for me a kind of litmus test about how much they actually inform themselves vs. just kneejerk around.

He came into the secondary in the most probably worst possible point in time when he got drafted in 2012. The 2011/2012 backfield (until they traded for Talib) was so depleted of talent that nobody could have succeeded there. He is now a 7 year veteran and has made more than 10m in that time. He is pretty much the definition of an average NFL player.

Hell, I think part of the reason why Chung's second go around here has been so successful is not only because the coaching staff had a better idea how to use him but also because of the players surrounding him being better which meant he didn't have to do things that he was below average in.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Even this analysis implicitly acknowledges that the 2017 draft isn't looking very good. I assume you'll be counting Wynn as a 2018 pick, although if you choose to count him as 2017 then either way the jury's still out. Re: Rivers, if your career is TBD two years in then the chance of it amounting to anything is extremely small. So the overwhelmingly likely outcome is that the 2017 draft produced one rotational player and one one-year starter (Cooks).

Which is fine, you can have bad drafts as long as you don't have a streak of them. If the 2018 and 2019 drafts go well, the 2017 draft won't matter much. Especially since the 2017 first round pick directly led to the additional 2018 first rounder.

If we look at 2017 in a vacuum and judge it on 2 years worth of results, they made 5 "choices". They chose to use one on Cooks which gave them a 1000yd receiver @ $8m which they flipped for a LT or Thuney replacement. Wise missed some games with injury but yes- he is a rotational player who plays 50% of the snaps that starts now. Rivers is TBD. They missed on the other 2. So in essence in 5 picks, they landed 2 starters which is in alignment with the Ron Wolf principal.

So considering they only "used" 5 picks they received solid returns on 2 who started. I think thats pretty good.

 

[luuked]

If Dorsett, Hogan and Browner are being counted as impact players signed as FAs, then the draft list is going to have to be much longer, since the Pats have drafted a lot of guys more impactful than them who aren't on your list. The Marcus Cannons, David Andrews, Joe Thuneys, JC Jacksons, Elandon Roberts, and definitely Sony Michels of the world. (if Dorsett is an impact player for the Pats, then Michel absolutely is).

Gotta love how he has Vereen for some inexplicable reason among the impact players but is not entirely sure about Flowers.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I'm kinda done clicking chit on EEI as well. Too many hot takes. Too much political crap with Tomase and Riemer. I still harbor a bit of a grudge for Tomase and his bogus story.

A bit of a grudge? In a perfect world, he should have been banned from writing about the Patriots again, ever.

 

[BradyFTW!]

A bit of a grudge? In a perfect world, he should have been banned from writing about the Patriots again, ever.

In a perfect world he would never have existed in the first place. **** Tomase, to this day I boycott anyone who employs his worthless ass.

 

[BradyFTW!]

If we look at 2017 in a vacuum and judge it on 2 years worth of results, they made 5 "choices". They chose to use one on Cooks which gave them a 1000yd receiver @ $8m which they flipped for a LT or Thuney replacement. Wise missed some games with injury but yes- he is a rotational player who plays 50% of the snaps that starts now. Rivers is TBD. They missed on the other 2. So in essence in 5 picks, they landed 2 starters which is in alignment with the Ron Wolf principal.

So considering they only "used" 5 picks they received solid returns on 2 who started. I think thats pretty good.

You're double-dipping to reach the "two starters" conclusion by counting the one year of Cooks as one starter and assuming the pick we got upon trading Cooks will be the second starter (but still counted for the 2017 draft, despite being drafted in 2018).

Like, if the Pats spend their first rounder in 2019 to draft a guy who starts 16 games, then trade him in the offseason for someone else who starts 16 games in 2020, and then trade that guy for someone who starts 16 games in 2021, you can't reasonably say the 2019 pick yielded 3 starters. Rather, it yielded 3 years of starter-level production. The same as if you draft a starter and simply keep him through 2021.

Similarly, the pick that was traded for Cooks has to date yielded one year of starter-level production. Depending on Wynn turns out, that number could increase, but even if Wynn starts for the remainder of his rookie contract there's no circumstance where that pick becomes "2 starters"

 

[Steve102]

A bit of a grudge? In a perfect world, he should have been banned from writing about the Patriots again, ever.

I tabled it a little bit, you're right. I will listen to him if I want to listen to EEI in the car, and he's on. I can't get 98.5 up here in NH, so my options are limited. My tolerance is low for his politics and BS in general. I listen to sports radio so I don't have to listen to political BS. In general, there's a lot of "oh, STFU Tomase!" being screamed at the radio if he's on. Eventually, I will flip to something else. I am not an avid, loyal listener. I will listen if I am plowing, or traveling someplace. If I am just back and forth to work or the gym, not so much. But when it comes to clicking on his crap on WEEI's website, I really do think about whether or not I want to give them the click. The radio... I am less apt to be choosy, due to lack of options.

 

[ralmat55]

Not only is Hannable’s take bad; he stole the idea from Bedard who wrote a similar column last week in “BSJ”. Bedard’s take was wrong and so is Hannable’s.

I’m not the biggest fan of Belichick’s draft strategy feeling his pursuit of value often gets in the way of just drafting the best football players. But, with that said, they’ve drafted 31st or 32nd in every draft except 2017. The 2016 draft was stolen from them because of Deflategate, and the 2017 draft was traded away for veterans to help them win now.

They won’t say it, but there as been a win now component to the Pat’s recent strategy. It’s been successful too. Despite this, they’ve drafted the Flowers, Masons, Thuneys of the world and signed the Andrews and JC Jackson’s of the world as well.

The easiest thing in the world to be is a critic because there is always fault to find even with a football team that’s won 3 of the last 5 Super Bowls.

 

[RobertWeathers]

You're double-dipping to reach the "two starters" conclusion by counting the one year of Cooks as one starter and assuming the pick we got upon trading Cooks will be the second starter (but still counted for the 2017 draft, despite being drafted in 2018).

Like, if the Pats spend their first rounder in 2019 to draft a guy who starts 16 games, then trade him in the offseason for someone else who starts 16 games in 2020, and then trade that guy for someone who starts 16 games in 2021, you can't reasonably say the 2019 pick yielded 3 starters. Rather, it yielded 3 years of starter-level production. The same as if you draft a starter and simply keep him through 2021.

Similarly, the pick that was traded for Cooks has to date yielded one year of starter-level production. Depending on Wynn turns out, that number could increase, but even if Wynn starts for the remainder of his rookie contract there's no circumstance where that pick becomes "2 starters"

Let me narrow the scope of my assertion.

Cooks and Wise started in 2017 and I'm not even including Adam Butler in the discussion even though its warranted.

I also didn't include JJ in 2016.

While the overall ROI from the 2017 draft went down in 2018, it could just as easily go up in 2019.

 

[JMC00]

The think the point, which is valid, is that the Patriots have sucked at drafting the last few years and this has led them to paying money for special teamers and for backups, when those players should be on rookie deals.

That wasn't the point when he specifically mentioned Safety because that's the one area where the #1-3 Safety was drafted by the Pats. It's as he was admonsishing them because they paid McCourty, Chung and Harmon instead of letting them go and just easily drafting a couple of guys that would slide in on cheap rookie contracts and the play at the poistion wouldnt drop.

 

[Jimke]

Don’t agree that high proportion of veteran contracts implies poor drafting. Could be that proven veteran at a good price is less risky than a rookie on a learning curve.

Think about it this way: who would have the advantage in a head to head competition for a roster slot in training camp, a rookie with lots to learn or a veteran pro of equal ability who has several years of learning behind him?[/QU

The problem is that a good veteran pro will not play for a rookie's salary.
Our roster is clogged with veterans making 2-5 mil. and is in salary cap
difficulty. The Patriots need a couple years where 8-10 rookies make the team.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Let me narrow the scope of my assertion.

Cooks and Wise started in 2017.

While the overall ROI from the 2017 draft went down in 2018, it could just as easily go up in 2019.

Wise's snap count ranks him pretty solidly as a 2017 rotational guy. The Pats switching up where their lineman line up complicates things a bit, but his snap count was slightly behind Guy's, slightly ahead of Brown's, and meaningfully ahead of Butler's. Basically, I'd categorize the 2017 line as being Flowers as the anchor surrounded by a rotation of guys manning the other positions. I think it's reasonable based on his 2017 role to call him a borderline starter for that season, if you're going to call 4 guys starters on that line I guess it would be Flowers, followed by Guy, Wise and Brown. But based on how his role and snap count decreased significantly in year 2, I think it's inaccurate to credit him as a starter to the Pats drafting record based on what we've seen so far.

I do agree with your second point, though, as I'm still pretty high on Wise and think/hope he'll rebound in 2019. I'm not sure that he'll ever be a clear-cut starter, but I also don't particularly care about the Ron Wolf principle in the first place so that distinction doesn't matter much to me. If he can be can play half of defensive snaps and be a notable performer in that time then I think the Pats will have made a great pick for where he was selected.

Basically, I think 2017 is a great example of the need to separate out "subpar draft return" from "bad at drafting". 2017 doesn't indicate that the Pats are bad at drafting. Antonio Garcia having blood clots in his lungs and Derek Rivers tearing his ACL before he ever played a game doesn't reflect poorly on the Pats' scouting or draft philosophy, It's just **** luck. It does however, lead directly to a poor overall return from that draft. If we're separating out all these different elements, I'd say the Pats' draft philosophy is the best in the league, while their talent evaluation is good, and the results are overall are good, and this compensates for them drafting at the end of every round to the point that their total returns are generally solid-to-excellent. But given the small sample size of draft picks, there are inevitably going to be some years where even a good philosophy and good talent evaluation will yield unfavorable results.

 

[slam]

The 2017 offseason was below average not because the guys they drafted were slightly below par for their draft position. It was because the veterans they spent draft capital on that offseason didn’t stick. Ealy, O’Shaughnessy, Marsh didn’t contribute, though O’Shaughnessy seems fine with Jacksonville. Cooks performed fine for one season then was converted back to nearly the same amount of draft capital, so no complaints there.

The premise of the article is silly. We keep and pay the safeties because the league wide consensus undervalues that position group. $10 million per year gets you a top ten safety or a top twenty defensive end. If McCourty cost $17 mil and Chandler Jones cost $10 mil, I’d expect Bill would have kept Jones and bargain hunted for safeties.

If the league undervalues a type of player, Bill will try to corner the market on them. See: fullback, special teams mavens, slot receivers, run stuffing lbs.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Wise's snap count ranks him pretty solidly as a 2017 rotational guy. The Pats switching up where their lineman line up complicates things a bit, but his snap count was slightly behind Guy's, slightly ahead of Brown's, and meaningfully ahead of Butler's. Basically, I'd categorize the 2017 line as being Flowers as the anchor surrounded by a rotation of guys manning the other positions. I think it's reasonable based on his 2017 role to call him a borderline starter for that season, if you're going to call 4 guys starters on that line I guess it would be Flowers, followed by Guy, Wise and Brown. But based on how his role and snap count decreased significantly in year 2, I think it's inaccurate to credit him as a starter to the Pats drafting record based on what we've seen so far.

I do agree with your second point, though, as I'm still pretty high on Wise and think/hope he'll rebound in 2019. I'm not sure that he'll ever be a clear-cut starter, but I also don't particularly care about the Ron Wolf principle in the first place so that distinction doesn't matter much to me. If he can be can play half of defensive snaps and be a notable performer in that time then I think the Pats will have made a great pick for where he was selected.

Basically, I think 2017 is a great example of the need to separate out "subpar draft return" from "bad at drafting". 2017 doesn't indicate that the Pats are bad at drafting. Antonio Garcia having blood clots in his lungs and Derek Rivers tearing his ACL before he ever played a game doesn't reflect poorly on the Pats' scouting or draft philosophy, It's just **** luck. It does however, lead directly to a poor overall return from that draft. If we're separating out all these different elements, I'd say the Pats' draft philosophy is the best in the league, while their talent evaluation is good, and the results are overall are good, and this compensates for them drafting at the end of every round to the point that their total returns are generally solid-to-excellent. But given the small sample size of draft picks, there are inevitably going to be some years where even a good philosophy and good talent evaluation will yield unfavorable results.

Great post.

I think we'll respectfully disagree that they received a bad return from the 2017 draft.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The 2017 draft was traded away for veterans to help them win now.

Belichick has said on multiple occasions, his goal for the draft is "improve the team."

Re: the Cooks trade. . . . Here are the players taken within eight picks of #32:

• CB Gareon Conley, Tre'Davious White, Kevin King
• DE Takkarist McKinley, Taco Charlton
• DT Malik McDowell
• OG Forrest Lamp
• OL Ryan Ramczyk, Cam Robinson
• LB TJ Watt, Reuben Foster
• S Jabrill Peppers, Budda Baker, Marcus Maye
• TE David Njoku
• WR Zay Jones, Curtis Samuel

With a couple of exceptions, I can kinda understand why Belichick decided to trade for Cooks rather than draft a player.

 

[Joker]

heh..we need 16-20 ROOKIES the next two years to make a Super Bowl run? What fkkin' planet did I wake up on this afternoon?

 

[everlong]

heh..we need 16-20 ROOKIES the next two years to make a Super Bowl run? What fkkin' planet did I wake up on this afternoon?

 

[libra957]

Its good to draft poorly if the result is a yearly superbowl appearance.

 

[patfanken]

But, the biggest issue is five of their first six selections that year aren’t (Cyrus Jones, Jacoby Brissett, Vincent Valentine, Malcolm Mitchell and Kamu Grugier-Hill).

I find it interesting that he starts his condemnation with the 2016 draft.

The object of the draft is to find players that are good enough to play in the NFL.

He lists these 5 guys as failures of that draft because they are no longer with the team. CJones didn't work out for us, but he's still good enough to be in the league. Brissett was a great pick since he brought us value in a trade, despite the fact he was unlikely never going to play for us. Vincent Valentine gave us couple of decent years as a rotational DT. Mitchell was a fine pick....just not a healthy one. And KGH is a starter for the Eagles

So picking at the back of every round the Pats found 5 players who have proven that they were talented enough to play in the NFL, plus the 3 that are still on the team. By and large I'd say that was a great job by the personnel department that year.

....and Hannable just continues to sound like Felger "hot take" wannabe