NE met with Waddle - WADDLE IS HERE TO STAY

[Hyped]

I am intrigued by Croston myself as the Pats brass rarely wastes their time or a roster spot for anyone who won't be active on game day. The fact that they kept him on the 53 man roster means other GM's and Personnel people like Croston as well and would have snatched him up if we cut him to get him on the PS. Also, he beat out a 6th round pick from UCLA.

That being said...I want Waddle back. Yes, Brady has a quick release and amazing footwork....but I love it when his jersey is clean and he has time to scan the field...and even direct receivers's routes....that is what it was like in mid-2007....

 

[Ring 6]

Correct, my position is that Solder was at best a league average left tackle. I can think of twenty better starting left tackles.

I find that laughable but you are entitled to your opinion however contrarian it may be.

 

[captain stone]

I don't think this is correct. He's had no "live fire" experience at LT with the Pats (a tiny bit in Camp and pre-season). In his 2.5 seasons in Detroit, he was exclusively a starter at RT (when he wasn't injured).

Correct. Waddle did have extensive LT experience at Texas Tech (started there his last 3 seasons), but that was 5 years, a dozen pounds (if not more) and multiple injuries ago.
He (and Fleming) is strictly a RT-Only now, but there's value there if Cannon must switch to LT.

 

[Ring 6]

I am intrigued by Croston myself as the Pats brass rarely wastes their time or a roster spot for anyone who won't be active on game day. The fact that they kept him on the 53 man roster means other GM's and Personnel people like Croston as well and would have snatched him up if we cut him to get him on the PS. Also, he beat out a 6th round pick from UCLA.

That being said...I want Waddle back. Yes, Brady has a quick release and amazing footwork....but I love it when his jersey is clean and he has time to scan the field...and even direct receivers's routes....that is what it was like in mid-2007....

Let’s not forget we gave won SBs with the likes of Greg Robinson Randall, tom ashworth and Brandon Gorin as starting tackles.

The point being whoever steps into this spot will probably be more frightening than the result turns out to be.

 

[DW Toys]

Here's what I believe:

The draft is NOT a very good predictor of NFL success. It's not an objective measure of "talent". It represents the consensus on a very rough measure of potential, that, more often than not, becomes a popularity contest.

That said, in the context of all of the 31 other teams, a prospect drafted in the 1st round is certain to "make the team", and is almost certain to be installed as a starter in his rookie season, almost regardless of the flaws in his game - due to the ego of ownership and the job security fears of FO and coaching employees. He's also almost certain to receive the majority of the coaches attention - often at the expense of the development of later-round draftees and UDFAs - for pretty much the same reasons.

While many such high draftees do work out to be decent to high-end contributors (sooner or later), nearly as many don't. And many of those who do become multi-year "starters" end up being no better than, and often worse than, player drafted in the 3rd, 6th, or signed as as UDFA.

WRT the Pats, specifically, in spite of the fact that they rarely draft high in the first round (or any round, unless they've traded into that position), have had a somewhat greater success rate than most teams, mainly because they do all their own scouting (and even they still get it wrong - just not as often). IOW, if the Pats were to trade up in the first to take an LT, the odds are significantly high that the prospect will be successful - because it's the Pats.

However, the notion that it's somehow inherently worth it for the Pats to trade up for an LT prospect "because the odds of him making the team and becoming a starter" are in some not-quite-objective measure are "greater" --- nope.

The Pats will evaluate all the prospects as objectively as they can (while completely ignoring the media hype that gets fan engines revving), and then take the prospect who they think has the best potential to succeed at doing what they need him to do. And they'll take him when they need to based on how popular he is among the other 31 teams - no sooner, no later. If there's a lot of competition from other teams, they'll take him earlier. If there's not so much, they'll take him later.

Maine, You hit the nail on the heads.
The actual success rate of a NFL Draftee in a fair amount of evaluation of three years to be either a Pro Bowl starter, full time starter, solid back up or out of the League, Traded, Cut or retired from the game via injury or self inflicted negligence/apathy or wild over predictions (these are just kids and who can read their minds and ambitions) is approx 17% year to year.

A great Draft like the Saints last year, will bring 4 or 5 but after three years that goes down.

That means if you draft 21 players in three years, about 4 of them stick. Ironically, that number is lower on the best Teams as less holes to fill as Maineman points out , while poor Teams will still try to ram a square peg into a round hole and not admit that Draft miss. (we own a few like Shelton and Dorsett we obtained in trades).

That is also brought to light by the fact that upon average 30% of every NFL Team is made up of UDFA or off the street pick ups and trades from other rosters who let said player walk. This would not include FA who have left in this era for the best dollar value, and have been "bought" by rival Teams.

Of the Pats present starting roster, only 12 of 22 were Drafted here or 54%.
You have 12 Drafted, 1 UDFA, 4 TRADES and 5 Money Free Agents.

On our present roster , 22 are UDFA or street pick ups.

DW Toys

 

[captain stone]

I am intrigued by Croston myself as the Pats brass rarely wastes their time or a roster spot for anyone who won't be active on game day. The fact that they kept him on the 53 man roster means other GM's and Personnel people like Croston as well and would have snatched him up if we cut him to get him on the PS. Also, he beat out a 6th round pick from UCLA...

Croston made the Opening Night 53 only because he was slightly less suck-ass than McDermott, but they both have the same problem: they are just too damn weak, and in Croston's case not athletic enough in other areas to make up the difference. The stiff should've been on the PS for the entirety of the 2017 season.

 

[captain stone]

Let’s not forget we gave won SBs with the likes of Greg Robinson Randall, Tom Ashworth and Brandon Gorin as starting tackles...

Yes...as starting Right Tackles.

 

[n1997y]

Why a bunch of undrafted and late round picks? Why not a first round pick like Solder?

You have more chances to find a capable tackle I like strength in numbers.

And here is the counterpoint to the fallacious argument that the higher the pick the better the chances of success.

As MaineMan correctly points out, high draft picks are winners of a popularity contest that has only a little to do with talent. It's much more about hype, big school exposure, and groupthink. Talent is certainly a part of it, but success is also determined by factors other than talent, factors that are not a big part of the high draft pick equation. Those are factors like work ethic and character, which show very differently in training camp than on the draft boards.

So there are always some very talented players who for various reasons did not get the draft board hype and are available in later rounds. Even if it's true that a high round pick has a better chance to make the team, a group of lower picks may be more likely to produce a starter. Think about it this way: for sake of discussion say that a second round pick has twice the chance of making the team as a UDFA, but you have one second round selection and four UDFA rookies. It's more likely you'll find a player who makes the roster out of the group of UDFAs.

The reason I disagree that a high round pick has a better chance of making the team is a little different though. There is not a huge difference in talent across the rookie pool (with the exception of a very few freaks). The bigger difference is what they do with their talent. BB and staff know that, and have the ego security to let go of their binkies when the players walk through the door, so they coach and evaluate all players equally. The player who has the best chance of making the team is the player who will best contribute to a winning team, based on what they do once under contract, regardless of draft position.

 

[Hyped]

Croston made the Opening Night 53 only because he was slightly less suck-ass than McDermott, but they both have the same problem: they are just too damn weak, and in Croston's case not athletic enough in other areas to make up the difference. The stiff should've been on the PS for the entirety of the 2017 season.

The above is exactly what I thought about a certain QB after visiting training camp in 2000......

 

[Deus Irae]

As MaineMan correctly points out, high draft picks are winners of a popularity contest that has only a little to do with talent. It's much more about hype, big school exposure, and groupthink.

Utter nonsense

Traded up twice, should have kept going

 

[Ring 6]

And here is the counterpoint to the fallacious argument that the higher the pick the better the chances of success.

As MaineMan correctly points out, high draft picks are winners of a popularity contest that has only a little to do with talent. It's much more about hype, big school exposure, and groupthink. Talent is certainly a part of it, but success is also determined by factors other than talent, factors that are not a big part of the high draft pick equation. Those are factors like work ethic and character, which show very differently in training camp than on the draft boards.

So there are always some very talented players who for various reasons did not get the draft board hype and are available in later rounds. Even if it's true that a high round pick has a better chance to make the team, a group of lower picks may be more likely to produce a starter. Think about it this way: for sake of discussion say that a second round pick has twice the chance of making the team as a UDFA, but you have one second round selection and four UDFA rookies. It's more likely you'll find a player who makes the roster out of the group of UDFAs.

The reason I disagree that a high round pick has a better chance of making the team is a little different though. There is not a huge difference in talent across the rookie pool (with the exception of a very few freaks). The bigger difference is what they do with their talent. BB and staff know that, and have the ego security to let go of their binkies when the players walk through the door, so they coach and evaluate all players equally. The player who has the best chance of making the team is the player who will best contribute to a winning team, regardless of draft position.

Huh?
If your argument was EVERY high pick isn’t better than EVERY low pick you would be correct. But there is easily available proof that higher picks have higher success rates.
Look at all starting players in the league, all pro bowlers or however you want to slice them.
There will be more first rounders than 5th rounders.

 

[n1997y]

I think Waddle and Flemming's situation mirrors the Slater one....and the Hightower one. The Pats have given them their ballpark market values according to BB, and they encouraged them to go see what's out there. I think they do that with all their FA's they want back. Sometimes it works, as with Slater, and sometimes not, as with Solder.

If Dallas didn't blow either away, I think at least one will be back and my guess is it will be Waddle on a 2 year deal

Ken, I think you nailed it with this, about the FO MO. Not sure I can agree about the one we land being Waddle, just don't know enough to begin to guess if he'll get an offer the Pats would be willing to match. I'd like to see both of them back, Scar has had enough time with them for us to know what we've got with them, but it depends on factors outside our control. If it's just one I think I'd prefer Waddle, but resigning either one is better than losing them both.

 

[Lee144]

Huh?
If your argument was EVERY high pick isn’t better than EVERY low pick you would be correct. But there is easily available proof that higher picks have higher success rates.
Look at all starting players in the league, all pro bowlers or however you want to slice them.
There will be more first rounders than 5th rounders.

Rob Ninkovich spoke about this a few months ago specifically talking about a talented ST player that was an UFA. During training camp the rookie was upset that the team (Saints) weren’t allowing him many reps to compete and earn a spot over a high pick. Ninkovich pulled the kid aside and explained that the team had invested xx million in that draft pick and were determined to capitalize on that investment. In essence, not every NFL team is a Disney movie about a bartender making it to the league, it comes down to money. My thought on Bill, he likes the title and challenge of finding the Stephen Neal’s of the world and probably (my wag) would prefer to have a fistful of 3-4 round picks over a 1st.

 

[primetime]

I find that laughable but you are entitled to your opinion however contrarian it may be.

Bakhtiari
T Smith
Whitworth
T Williams
Matthews
Peters
Staley
Lewan
Decker
Stanley
Reiff
Penn
Glenn
Okung
Villanueva
Armstead
Brown
Beachum
Leno
Robinson

 

[primetime]

And here is the counterpoint to the fallacious argument that the higher the pick the better the chances of success.

As MaineMan correctly points out, high draft picks are winners of a popularity contest that has only a little to do with talent. It's much more about hype, big school exposure, and groupthink. Talent is certainly a part of it, but success is also determined by factors other than talent, factors that are not a big part of the high draft pick equation. Those are factors like work ethic and character, which show very differently in training camp than on the draft boards.

So there are always some very talented players who for various reasons did not get the draft board hype and are available in later rounds. Even if it's true that a high round pick has a better chance to make the team, a group of lower picks may be more likely to produce a starter. Think about it this way: for sake of discussion say that a second round pick has twice the chance of making the team as a UDFA, but you have one second round selection and four UDFA rookies. It's more likely you'll find a player who makes the roster out of the group of UDFAs.

The reason I disagree that a high round pick has a better chance of making the team is a little different though. There is not a huge difference in talent across the rookie pool (with the exception of a very few freaks). The bigger difference is what they do with their talent. BB and staff know that, and have the ego security to let go of their binkies when the players walk through the door, so they coach and evaluate all players equally. The player who has the best chance of making the team is the player who will best contribute to a winning team, based on what they do once under contract, regardless of draft position.

Yeah. Look at the slope in the first 60 picks for the NFL versus other sports. There's probably a certain point where theres a drop off (players drafted after round 4 don't make it as often) but it's not early.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

Correct, my position is that Solder was at best a league average left tackle. I can think of twenty better starting left tackles.

EDIT: I see you already listed them. Your evals . . . we'll just have to disagree.

 

[Ring 6]

Bakhtiari
T Smith
Whitworth
T Williams
Matthews
Peters
Staley
Lewan
Decker
Stanley
Reiff
Penn
Glenn
Okung
Villanueva
Armstead
Brown
Beachum
Leno
Robinson

Your joking right?

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Yeah. Look at the slope in the first 60 picks for the NFL versus other sports. There's probably a certain point where theres a drop off (players drafted after round 4 don't make it as often) but it's not early.

What does the Y axis represent? Graph says, "relative value" but the Y axis shows values from 0-20. What's the measurement basis?

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Bakhtiari
T Smith
Whitworth
T Williams
Matthews
Peters
Staley
Lewan
Decker
Stanley
Reiff
Penn
Glenn
Okung
Villanueva
Armstead
Brown
Beachum
Leno
Robinson

I have had Solder right about 12-15 range in my mind during his Patriot career, and seeing your list reinforces that belief. I think he's an above average player, never been great, but I'd take him over at least 5 guys on your list.

 

[mgteich]

As I recall, both were RT's. We've always had solid LT's.

Let’s not forget we gave won SBs with the likes of Greg Robinson Randall, tom ashworth and Brandon Gorin as starting tackles.

The point being whoever steps into this spot will probably be more frightening than the result turns out to be.