How well do you think the Pats draft?

[slam]

I did some spreadsheet tinkering with the data of the 17 drafts in the Belichick New England era. I used Pro Football Reference’s Career AV and Draft AV measures as a rough measure of a player’s quality. Career AV measures the amount of productivity a player accumulates in his career. Draft AV measures only the productivity that the player earns only for the team that drafted him, so Darius Butler looks OK using Career AV but not Draft AV. I’m sure you can nitpick the AV stat, but it’s roughly a fair indication that a given player is playing and contributing.

This measure leaves out undrafted FAs like Malcolm Butler and Randall Gay and gives very little value for Special Team aces like Matthew Slater. Punters and Kickers get proper value, however. Trading picks for players will not show up here, so in 2007 the Pats won’t receive any credit for trading for Moss and Welker, and the reverse is true for years when they trade players for picks.

Anyway, I simply summed up the AV values for each draft year for each team and ranked the Pats vs. the sums of each of the other teams for that year. (Microsoft Excel’s pivot table function is pretty great.) I assigned an A if they ranked in the top 6, B for 7-12, C for 13-18, D for 19-24, and F for 25-32.

Given this methodology, how do you predict the Pats fare in this analysis? Do you think they're Very Good? Very Bad? Middling? Hot and cold? or Evenly distributed? I'll give the results later today.

 

[BobDigital]

You need to consider where they draft. This is a hard question to answer simply though I put As and Bs overall I think that doesn't tell the whole story.

Their ability to properly identify talent that will transition to the NFL well is barely above average IMO. If we were to grade them just on that they are not that good. However they do everything else exceptionally well imo.

They value draft picks more correctly than anyone else. They understand there are tiers of talent and often 32 and 48 are not that different so you should generally traded down for value.

They correctly assess upper picks (particularly if no top QBs are there) are massively over valued in general while lower picks are massively under valued in general.

They also are great at getting extra comp picks and focus on doing it every year and plan for it.

They are unafraid to take risk and it has on the whole served them well.

So all that being said they are very good at the draft but not cause of their scouting but because they do everything else so correctly.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I think Belchick would be the first to admit, there's a ton of luck in the draft. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it basically goes like this: most guys are going to disappoint, especially once you get past the first round. That's why giving yourself more chances is a great idea. The Patriots do have superior scouting and are overall better at drafting than other teams, but even still their miss rate is very high. A combination of excellent scouting, excellent coaching (overlooked aspect), a system that often finds outliers, and a healthy dose of skepticism in their own evaluations, hence the willingness to trade down for more picks, all give them an edge.

You are talking about college players whose bodies and minds aren't even fully developed, and now they are walking into a grown man's world, both socially and professionally, with more money than they've ever seen. Many of these guys get more money than CEOs despite absolutely no experience. Even the game itself is vastly different than in college. It's no surprise that this is a total crapshoot.

 

[nabwong]

I think Bs and Cs. They've had some hits (Hightower, McCourty, Gronk) higher but also misses (Ras-I, Easley, Chung version I). Overall, I'd say a B+. Brady covers up a lot of our mistakes. If we didn't have Brady, I think we'd still be a playoff team but it would not be nearly as certain as now that we'd go to the playoffs every year.

The thing I'm impressed most by their scouting process is that they continually scout the players that they don't draft who go to other teams and then get cut for some reason and then they have a second chance with a reasonable contract.

One other thought. We always see people get upset that we don't draft a Dez Bryant or Clay Matthews. But I think this is less about talent and more about whether Belichick has a vision of how they can fit in the team's philosophy.

 

[BradyFTW!]

It's all a matter of context. The most correct answer I can think of is "mostly Bs, Cs and Ds, with a few As and Fs", but that statement is only meaningful with the understanding that this puts them in a pretty elite class in the NFL. I think the Pats are one of the best drafting teams in the business, so being reluctant to say "mostly As and Bs" doesn't mean that I think they're falling short. It means that I think nobody in the league is hitting mostly As and Bs.

Nobody is consistently hitting As and Bs across the board, IMO, because that would suggest they're getting 3-4 starters in the early rounds every year, and then supplementing that with a bunch of strong rotational players in the middle rounds. There isn't a team in the league that does that. No team is consistently drafting multiple standout players every year, and avoiding washouts entirely.

 

[patfanken]

I think it is safe that while they aren't the diffinitive best at it, no one is necessarily better at it over the long haul, and most do worse. That being said, we all know that they have been far from perfect with some of their choices.

2 quick thoughts. No examination of the Pats drafting success can be analyzed without concidering how low they have been drafting in each round for the last 18 years. NO other team has come close to facing that obsticle. And its not just in the first round where it hurts, but in EVERY round baring some trade. Think about it. They have only had 3 picks in the last 20 years higher than 20 in the first round. No other team is close

The second point is that you have to take into consideration just how well the Pats have done in coaching up the talent they do take after they join the team. The fact is that the Pats have a fairly unique system an they draft specificly for that system helps them improve their talent once it gets here most of the time.

The 3rd thing the Pats do better than most teams is recognize when they f#ck up. No one seems to dump draft picks faster than BB once he realizes that they either aren't as good as he hoped, or not suited for this particular team. On the same level, not will stay with a guy longer if he believes he's still improving (ie Edelman, Cannon, etc)

 

[Oswlek]

A question about methodology.... do you account for how active NE is on draft day?

For instance, if two fictional teams have nearly identical total value in similar ranges and acquired similar amounts of AV, would they grade out the same even if maneuvers gave the Team B a few more opportunities? Or is Team B being penalized for having a lower hit rate?

 

[Nunchucks]

Patriots are in the top 3rd of the league in drafting talent, whatever that means. Overall, I think we see too many Jordan Richards, Tavon Wilsons, and Darius Butlers. However, that is offset by success with UDRFAs, coaching,

Also, every team has their share of meh draft years. We are just extra sensitive to the Patriots.

 

[ivanvamp]

The Patriots are one of the best drafting teams in the NFL, especially when you consider that they are ALWAYS drafting at the end of the draft round, because they ALWAYS finish near the top of the NFL the previous season. Over a 16 year period, yeah, that matters a LOT.

 

[slam]

There is definitely a correct answer among the options given in the poll.

In addition to drafting near the end every year, the Pats have been docked picks three times in this sample. The two BS-gates and the 1st round pick forfeited for acquiring Belichick in the first place.

And since the analysis is a simple summation, it doesn't care if, for example, the Patriots trade for two additional picks and one is a bust and one is a good player. The bust doesn't count against the team as negative AV is rare, but the good player gets full credit for contributing, which might favor the Pats' apparent quality vs. quantity strategy.

 

[everlong]

I agree with Ken's comments. I think additionally you have to factor in:

The risk mitigation aspect where they aren't overpaying and are getting compensation picks in their place. They're batting average might be the same but they're getting a lot more at bats to do damage.

Trades out of the draft. From the insane like Moss for a 4th , Welker for a 2nd and 7th down to the ugly like a 3rd and 4th for Burgess and a 3rd for Dwyane Starks. Ted Washington for a 4th even though it was for one year is so forgotten. You could make the case his play that year was at least on par with any season VW had. Absolute monster. Anyway back on topic draft capital and how you use it has to factor in.

 

[Kontradiction]

Paging captain stone...

 

[AzPatsFan]

Measuring the Draft this way is entirely falacious, Drafts exist to stock teams, Why? So the team can win!

The measure of Drafts is whether the team is a continual winner. No One wins more; therefor no one drafts as well as the Patriots under this regime.

QED!

 

[slam]

A question about methodology.... do you account for how active NE is on draft day?

For instance, if two fictional teams have nearly identical total value in similar ranges and acquired similar amounts of AV, would they grade out the same even if maneuvers gave the Team B a few more opportunities? Or is Team B being penalized for having a lower hit rate?

I just simply added up the totals. If Team A has only 5 picks and Team B has 9 picks and they both cumulatively earn 200 AV, this method calls it a tie. This is counting hits, not coming up with a batting average.

 

[maineman209]

Regardless whether you're using "AV" or not, it depends on how you define "drafting."

If you isolate and narrowly define drafting as solely the act of directly picking untested college prospects, and then you rate the "success" of those picks (a subjective exercise, regardless of "measure"), and then compare the Pats' ratio to that of other teams (IOW, the way that most fans with an axe to grind do), BB probably comes out looking "average to mediocre" ("Cs and D's").

OTOH, if you're willing to ...
... view drafting untested college prospects as merely one aspect of player-personnel acquisition and management
... include the picks that BB has traded for NFL-experienced players
... include the CFAs that he's picked up on "Day-4" (which are never counted)
... acknowledge that BB typically has far less draft capital to work with than other teams (and quantify that comparison in a rational way)
... acknowledge that BB rarely enters the draft desperately needing an "instant starter/potential Pro Bowler" at any position (and, therefore, can afford to take more "reaches" and "flyers" than most other teams)

... then I think it's pretty obvious that BB generally gets at least what the team "needs" from draft weekends, and sometimes a lot more. The majority of his picks, at least from rounds 1-5, end up being useful in one way or another for at least a couple of seasons, and his CFA signings usually more than compensate for the flyers he takes.

 

[Sfpat]

Patriots are in the top 3rd of the league in drafting talent, whatever that means. Overall, I think we see too many Jordan Richards, Tavon Wilsons, and Darius Butlers. However, that is offset by success with UDRFAs, coaching,

Also, every team has their share of meh draft years. We are just extra sensitive to the Patriots.

The Richards, Wilsons, Butlers, et al may not have much success with the Pats (primarily because the bar is set so high in NE) but many of them go on be long term, average starters elsewhere in the NFL. Examples, Ted Larson was still starting last year, Ohrenberg played and started for a long time (Cardinals, Chargers), Wilson will probably be a starter for a long time. Seems BB can identify NFL caliber talent, some of whom happen to get beaten out by better talent.

 

[jmt57]

I have always preferred the cumulative approach outlined above rather than the typical percentage method of evaluating drafts.

If Team A trades one pick that ends up being four selections, with two of them 'hits' they are usually graded at only a 50% success rate. Meanwhile if Team B trades two picks for one and that results in a single player of similar caliber to Team A's 'hits', they receive a draft grade of 100%.

That methodology makes no sense, since Team A fared twice as well as Team B - yet Team B's draft grade is twice as high.


With that in mind I would guess that the Patriots rank pretty high among the 32 NFL teams. Franchises that are usually more reluctant to trade draft picks like the Steelers, Packers and Ravens may rank a bit higher, since the score of the players received in trade (such as Moss and Welker) are not factored in. Overall I would expect New England's cumulative score to be in the top six ("A"), bolstered in part by Tom Brady's career AV.

 

[willard]

When you take it as a package, hard not to argue the best in the league.

First we are clearly the dominant franchise of the last 16 years and it is no where near close. That is not possible for that length of time without good drafting. Much more often than not outside FA are not difference makers.

Second what makes our drafting so successful is the portfolio approach that is applied. Yes drafting supplies us draftees, but it also gives us information on which UFA we want in. We use the drafting information to inform us on value of moving within the draft. We are aggressive in trading in the draft. We have been so good at enhancing our drat capital that the league has to resort to WWF tactics to take draft picks from us for competitive balance. Draft scouting helps us identify players on other teams to trade for and we have been aggressive in doing that. All these pieces are part of the whole of the scouting/drafting process. The Patriots have effectively employed the portfolio to outperform all the other teams in the NFL

 

[farn]

While I regret the lack of a Ray Lewis killed a guy option, I emphatically voted AB. When you consider how many contributors they choose, how many of their picks are still with the team and how many of those are helping the team win the SB - it's a no brainer.

To suggest otherwise is like saying Ted Williams was a poor hitter as he got out 65 times out of a hundred. To assess NE's talent in drafting, you must allow for the difficulty in the task. It is nearly impossible to pick all the right players. People who follow drafts sing the praises of Luck. Here is a guy everyone sees as a no-brainer #1 and that he is living up to the billing. And, while he is a fine player, his alarming number of key INTs as well as his lack of success in the biggest games makes one wonder if he is overrated.

BB is an all timer in (1) coaching (2) trades (3) player development (4) coach development (5) drafting. The difficulty of "winning the draft" must be accounted for. He's an A. An A who's missed on more than one occasion. Like Williams.

 

[willard]

Just thought of something, Where we may end up with very few picks and we have tons of cap space, does it make "economic" sense to pay higher dollar to UFA to make signing here more desirable or are those numbers collectively locked in by the league wink/wink? I know baring preseason injuries there are not a lot of roster spots open, but more competition in camp is the best way to find the players and why the Patriots have done well with UFA.