Is the assertion that Belichick's drafts have been poor accurate?

[Gainzo]

For those of you thinking that BB can't draft I suggest you take a look at the roster.

Offense:

Brady
Light
Vollmer
Solder
Koppen
Hernandez
Gronk
Branch
Mankins
Welker (traded draft picks for him)
Edelman

Defense:

Wilfork
McCourty
Spikes
Mayo
Chung

Special Teams:

Gostowski
Mesko
Slater (could put him on any unit)

I'm not even going to mention UDFA's that contribute.

 

[BlueThunder]

You forgot Ridley,Cannon and Dowling

Expect BIG things from those 3 ... too early to label them busts...and that doesn't even include Vereen who can't break the lineup due to injuries and 4 other good RB's ahead of him.....

Ok...I'm a homer

 

[Shockt327]

How is your pointing to one draft any better than those who go about ignoring drafts? Since 2005, the Patriots have had 2 drafts that brought in enough drafted players to be worth a damn, and that's 2009 and 2010. 2009 has pretty clearly lost a bit of its early luster, for that matter, so it's largely one draft that's there for the team to hang its hat on.

1st off -- my last post is aimed at the nit-wit who doesn't recognize just how utterly ridiculous is to draft 3 Pro Bowlers in one draft like NE did just two years ago (Yeah, and I'm even ignoring Spikes and Mesko too).

2nd -- I brought it up in the first place, as a counter point to so many in this thread who claim that BB "can no longer draft well." He can, you just saw it in 2010. Big time. It was his best draft ever, in fact.

3rd -- I totally disagree with what you've posted above. From 2006-2010: we've drafted 5 Pro Bowlers (I'm ignoring Merriweather but counting Gronk+Aaron, cause they are going). If you can seriously average 1 Pro Bowler per draft, that's really, really, solid. If you can also pair it up with one, lesser, but still a serviceable non-JAG starter: like a Chung or a Vollmer or a Spikes. And then round it out with some quality Special Teamers: like Mesko, or Slater, or Eddleman? Then yeah, you've done a good job. Great? No. Not like NE from 2000-2005. But still pretty good. Way above the point where people can actually claim you suck at drafting. Way, way above.

 

[Gainzo]

You forgot Ridley,Cannon and Dowling

Expect BIG things from those 3 ... too early to label them busts...and that doesn't even include Vereen who can't break the lineup due to injuries and 4 other good RB's ahead of him.....

Ok...I'm a homer

I didn't forget them I just chose not to include them

I swear some people think that the draft is the most important thing ever when building a football team. I like that the Pats stockpile picks, draft a bunch of guys, then cut the guys that don't perform.

A lot of NFL teams are afraid to cut draft picks. Not the Pats.

 

[Deus Irae]

1st off -- my last post is aimed at the nit-wit who doesn't recognize just how utterly ridiculous is to draft 3 Pro Bowlers in one draft like NE did just two years ago (Yeah, and I'm even ignoring Spikes and Mesko too).

Your point is nearly as weak as his, though.

2nd -- I brought it up in the first place, as a counter point to to so many in this thread who claim BB "can not longer draft well." He can you just saw it in 2010. Big time. It was his best draft ever, in fact.

To repeat, BB has one clearly good draft since 2005. And BB's best draft ever was the one that brought Brady to the team. All other drafts pale in comparison.

3rd -- I totally disagree with what you've posted above. From 2006-2010: we've drafted 5 Pro Bowlers (I'm ignoring Merriweather but counting Gronk+Aaron, cause they are going). If you can seriously average 1 Pro Bowler per draft, that's really, really, solid. If you can also pair it up with one, lesser, but still a serviceable non-JAG starter: like a Chung or a Vollmer or a Spikes. And then round it out with some quality Special Teamers: like Mesko, or Slater, or Eddleman, or even Ingram? Then yeah, you've done a good job. Great? No. Not like NE from 2000-2005. But still pretty good. Way above the point where people can actually claim you suck at drafting. Way, way above.

This argument here is ridiculous, and you know it. While you're calling someone else a nitwit, you're bringing this to the table?

Come on, man.

 

[Shockt327]

Your point is nearly as weak as his, though

My point is weak? That averaging 1 Pro Bowler per year, along with a quality starter is -- *gasp!* -- actually solid drafting?

How dare I make a relevant point. You know, the kind where you actually cite facts instead of simply making blanket statement like you did.....

To repeat, BB has one clearly good draft since 2005. And BB's best draft ever was the one that brought Brady to the team. All other drafts pale in comparison.

^^

....there.

This argument here is ridiculous, and you know it. While you're calling someone else a nitwit, you're bringing this to the table?

^^

and there.

Come on, man.

Come on, indeed.

The word on you really is true. If you face an argument that you cannot handle -- you just try to dismiss it without making any real rebuttal.

 

[BlueThunder]

uh oh...another cat fight


Grabs Popcorn...

 

[JMarr]

Are you seriously this dense?

Only one monster draft since 1995? Only one? You act like a "monster draft" is something to expect every year. They aren't. At all. Certainly not from the same franchise.

Please tell me you aren't this clueless.

Since 1995 to today -- from any franchise in the entire NFL -- please find me two drafts where a team nabbed 1 future HOF candidate, 2 Pro Bowlers, a Quality Starter like Spikes and a franchise SPteamer....all in one draft. That's 5 players in one draft. You what? I'll even make it easier. Scratch Mesko. I'll make it 4. That's the bench mark. 3 Pro Bowlers + 1 Quality Starter.

Go find it. Now.



Or else own up to how utterly ridiculous your attempt at making a point was.

I should have been more clear that it was your notion that you have to go back to '95 to find another draft as good as 2010, not mine. Clearly BB netted some good/great defensive players in his first few drafts as Patriots' HC. Since grabbing Wilfork (in an otherwise awful 2004 draft), eh, not so much. Don't believe me? Look it up. Now

 

[Deus Irae]

My point is weak? That averaging 1 Pro Bowler per year, along with a quality starter is -- *gasp!* -- actually solid drafting?

How dare I make a relevant point. You know, the kind where you actually cite facts instead of simply making blanket statement like you did.....


^^

....there.


^^

and there.



Come on, indeed.

The word on you really is true. If you face an argument that you cannot handle -- you just try to dismiss it without making any real rebuttal.

I dismissed your argument because it was patently absurd. When you have 5 kids and one of them wins 5 Nobel Prizes, you can either be ridiculous (your approach) and claim that your family averages one Nobel Prize per child, or you can be honest and accurate, and note that you've got one family member with 5 Nobel Prizes. Here, we're talking about players drafted (thus excluding great draft bounty in Welker/Moss):

2006 produced one player of lasting value. That's a kicker.
2007 produced no player of lasting value
2008 produced one player of lasting value, and that was a top 10 pick (Mayo).
2009 has, to date, produced zero players of clear lasting quality, 1 high pick who had one excellent year (Vollmer), 1 high pick (Chung) who's of questionable, but at least decent quality), 1 high pick who's been a disappointment but is still around (Brace), and 2 low round picks who've been successful picks given their slotting (Pryor, Edelman) but aren't anything to write home about.

So, from 2006-2009, using 39 picks, the team basically has one top quality pick, one possibly top quality pick, 1 average/above average player and 2 situational guys. And a kicker.

Playing games with the 2010 draft to try putting lipstick on that pig does you no credit.

 

[AQPE]

Interesting thread, lots of good points made on both sides.

One point that hasn't come up in this discussion is how fundamental coaching is to the development of a drafted player. It's not just about the "system" per se, though that is obviously a make-or-break element in many of the decisions made when they are selecting Player A instead of Player B. What has been most disappointing to me has been the inability of the coaching, especially on the defensive side of the ball, to develop players. I'm probably not being totally fair here, but that's my perception. I feel like since they drafted and developed Wilson and Samuel, the Pats have only succeeded in bringing in and developing Hobbs, Arrington, and Chung (I am not sure when Sanders was drafted, he may be another to list here).

I strongly suspect that this reflects losses incurred on the defensive coaching staff, including two coordinators hired away as head coaches, and one coordinator that didn't get the job done. No matter how good BB is, he needs to rely on the staff for the nitty-gritty, and his staff has let him down. Not to look past the season when we have an 11-3 team that may wind up the #1 seed in the AFC, but I sincerely hope this gets addressed in the off-season. With the number of coaching changes that seem to be in the cards for this off-season, perhaps there are coaches out there that can fit the bill (didn't realize the pun involved here until I typed it!).

 

[Shockt327]

When you have 5 kids and one of them wins 5 Nobel Prizes, you can either be ridiculous (your approach) and claim that your family averages one Nobel Prize per child, or you can be honest and accurate, and note that you've got one family member with 5 Nobel Prizes. Here, we're talking about players drafted (thus excluding great draft bounty in Welker/Moss):

That's not how averages work and you know it. You aren't even speaking of averages at all. That's like claiming the 2000 draft "averaged" 7 Pro Bowlers just because Brady himself will be making it 7x come Feb. That's not even close to being relevant to what I'm arguing here.

This coming from the guy who speaks of "weak arguments" too...

2006 produced one player of lasting value. That's a kicker.
2007 produced no player of lasting value
2008 produced one player of lasting value, and that was a top 10 pick (Mayo).
2009 has, to date, produced zero players of clear lasting quality, 1 high pick who had one excellent year (Vollmer), 1 high pick (Chung) who's of questionable, but at least decent quality), 1 high pick who's been a disappointment but is still around (Brace), and 2 low round picks who've been successful picks given their slotting (Pryor, Edelman) but aren't anything to write home about.

So, from 2006-2009, using 39 picks, the team basically has one top quality pick, one possibly top quality pick, 1 average/above average player and 2 situational guys. And a kicker.

This is so ridiculous. You have no response, so what do you do? You re set the parameters to lop off 2010. How about you ignore 06 or 07 instead? Oh wait....I know why.

This is like arguing that a .300 hitter in baseball is somehow not *really* a .300 hitter anymore because he went through a good month long slump, where his averaged obviously dipped -- but then he quickly compensated by by going on a tear. But...oh wait. Somehow the hitting streak was just a fluke, but that slump is more "real."

Nonsense.

Playing games with the 2010 draft to try putting lipstick on that pig does you no credit.

Uh, you're the one who is intentionally playing games with the parameters; starting at 2006 (why?) and ending them at 2009 to make NE look as bad as possible.

From 2000 to 2005 things where great

Two bad years

From then on, it's been good again.

 

[Uncle Rico]

 

[Metaphors]

Teams have several assets they can use in team building. Since 2005:

1) Draft - 23 players on active roster or reserve
2) UDFA - 10
3) Trade - 4
4) FA - 19

Add to that 5 players acquired before 2005 (all drafted). So this means that the draft is the most used aspect of team building...over 40% of roster acquisition. Over 7 drafts, that is a little over 3 players per draft. For a team that gets double figure wins every year, I'm not sure you can expect much more.

The real issue is that people want to evaluate draft picks like a batting average. That is a flawed approach because it presumes that all teams have the same number of "at bats". A better analogy is boxing. Doesn't matter how many swings that miss...just the quality of the times you connect.

The other aspect is that there is a wide spectrum between "genius" and "abject failure" when it comes to drafting and the Pats (like most teams) fall squarely in the middle. So how do you evaluate the Pats' drafting?

1) Quality - The only position the Pats can be questioned is at rush end (and there are enough threads discussing that). You can't penalize the Pats for not drafting a starting QB, LT or NT since 2005 since those positioned have been ably filled.

2) Depth - This is where the Pats get massive props. Since 2003, the team has been regularly decimated by injuries but has always dealt with them expertly. Notice the Jets (Mangold), Colts (Manning) and Steelers (Polamalu) fall apart when even a single key player is lost. Now even the Packers will be tested with OT injuries not dissimilar to situations the Pats have repeatedly handled with minimal disruption...though they almost never get credit for it. Few people that criticize this Pats defense mention how many key players have been lost (Pryor, Wright, Dowling, Bodden, Barrett, Spikes, Chung and now Carter). Take comparable players off any other defense and you would end up with the Colts.

3) Planning - That means getting key players at the right time and complementing the acquisitions through FA and trades. Again, only rush end is in question. Other positions have drafted at just the right time and have effectively filled potential needs before they became pressing needs.

4) Results - Not much discussion needed here. 7 years. 6 division titles. Double figure wins every year. 2 conference championships. 1 Super Bowl. 5-5 playoff record and lack of a championship isn't optimal but it takes a serious Debbie Downer to complain too much.

So the relative failure to address rush end (through the draft or otherwise) is a legit criticism. For other positions I'm thinking the Pats have juggled salary cap, youth/experience and system demands quite well.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's not how averages work and you know it. You aren't even speaking of averages at all. That's like claiming the 2000 draft "averaged" 7 Pro Bowlers just because Brady himself will be making it 7x come Feb. That's not even close to being relevant to what I'm arguing here.

This coming from the guy who speaks of "weak arguments" too...

Actually, it's precisely how averages work, as opposed to medians, for example. Get back to me when you realize this, and we'll continue if you'd like. Until then, this conversation is worthless, as you're being either ignorant or irrational.

 

[patfanken]

I have to laugh at those who with perfect 20-20 hindsight on Connor Barwin. Suddenly Barwin was a missed opportunity, when if you are really honest his career path mirrors the Cunningham pick. He was a guy who was reasonablly solid..."for a rookies" his first year, just like Cunningham, and then lost most of his 2nd with and injury and them broke out his 3rd year. So Barwin is now a great pick, while Cunningham has been already dismissed as an abject bust....along with Dowling.

Immediate gratification. If they don't have Gronk-like impact from the start, there are people here who will sit in omnipotent judgement and 20-20 hindsight and demand the rest of us cow tow to their position. Remember the final judgement is how many games you win. Like i pointed out previously the bulk of this team is made up of players we have deveolped here. Its not like we rely on FA to build this team.

I WISH every pick the Pats choose would become a a perennial all pro. I wish they would all at least become starters...or even contributors. But clearly they don't. I thnk they do well enough to win more games than anyone else in the league. Its one thing to be disappointed with the eventual failures but it another to dwell on them to an unhealthy level

 

[ivanvamp]

I think in order to have a productive conversation, you guys need to agree on the criteria for what makes a draft a good draft. I mean, if BB only has one pick, say the #2 pick in the draft, and ends up grabbing an all-time great pass rusher, is it a good draft? So many ways to look at it:

(1) # of picks on the roster. In this case, it would just be one. That number makes it a bad draft.

(2) % of picks on the roster. In this case, it would be 100%. That number makes it a great draft.

(3) "Impact" players (as opposed to just roster-filler). In this case, it would be an all-time great player. That makes it a great draft.

There are more ways to look at it than this too. One other thing to keep in mind is the fact that NE is always really good, so they tend to pick late in each round. Moreover, because they're really good, it's harder for draft picks to make the team. Oh, but then again, the coaching is so good, they can grab UDFAs and turn them into real players, but because they're not actual draft picks, they don't "count".

The conversation is nothing but shouting past each other because you guys can't even agree on what makes a guy a good drafter. And perhaps that's the answer to the question: maybe there is no "one way" to determine this, which is why there are as many opinions on this as there are people offering them.

Personally, I don't care how well BB drafts. I do care that the Pats are good every year, and there is no franchise in the sport that wins as much as New England does year in and year out. It doesn't matter to me if those winning rosters are made up largely of drafted players, trades, or free agents. Ok, maybe I like drafting guys more because they feel "home grown", but really, I don't care that much.

Whatever BB is doing, he's doing it well....pretty much better than anyone else over the last 10+ years. Hard to complain about that. Most fans would trade places with us in a heartbeat.

 

[Shockt327]

Actually, it's precisely how averages work, as opposed to medians, for example. Get back to me when you realize this, and we'll continue if you'd like. Until then, this conversation is worthless, as you're being either ignorant or irrational.

Wow. Why don't you just type "I'm taking my ball and I'm going home" cause that is exactly what you are doing.

1) Your analogy sucked. The Patriots are indeed averaging at least Pro Bowler per year -- both long term and since '06. Again, you're analogy was akin to me claiming that they "averaged" 7 Pro Bowls in 2000 just cause of one player, Brady. An obvious misrepresentation of my argument; and a flat out poor analogy. You cannot handle this, so now you claim that I don't understand averages and you're leaving the playground until I put a band-aid on your boo-boo and tell you how sorry I am. Get bent.

2) You're using the above as an excuse to not answer the rest of the argument that I made. Hmmm. How convenient.

3) As for the BS on your side of the argument; I'd love to know just why it is that 2006 is suddenly the starting point for any conversation about Pats *recent* drafting. Then you whine about "playing games" because of my audacity to actually include 2010 in a convo where you set the parameters as post-05. I guess 2010 needs to be dismissed in such a convo. Sort of like how drafting Mayo needs to be dismissed, or downplayed, when talking about 2008. Or Chung and Vollmer for 09. Or Ghostkowski for 06 either. Or anyone who plays Special Teams as well. Yeah. That'll do it.

4) The crux of your argument hinges on 2006 (and ignoring Moss and Welker for 07). Yet, thanks to War Room we now know that it was actually McDaniels who was the impetus behind Maroney and Jackson. Furthermore? The Patriots scouts apparently hated those two picks. Well, our scouts are still there. McD? Gone. So how about we take that into consideration too?

 

[Deus Irae]

Wow. Why don't you just type "I'm taking my ball and I'm going home" cause that is exactly what you are doing.

No, what I'm doing is noting that you're trying to shade your argument by taking one great draft and "averaging" it in to make the rest seem better.

It's pretty simple, really.


0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+100 averages out to a 10. That doesn't mean that having 0 nine times in a row didn't happen.

 

[sg14]

Have not read much of this thread, but was thinking that we should bring back Parcells for the draft.

BB after some self scouting turns to the master to lay a solid foundation for the future of the franchise.

Kraft makes a big announcement about buying groceries,,,

 

[Shockt327]

No, what I'm doing is noting that you're trying to shade your argument by taking one great draft and "averaging" it in to make the rest seem better.

It's pretty simple, really.


0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+100 averages out to a 10. That doesn't mean that having 0 nine times in a row didn't happen.

I love how two bad drafts (06, 07 - ignoring the obvious trades) are, in your mind, somehow akin to "nine times in a row."

Hey, nice job ignoring all my previous points in my last post...again.