PATRIOTS NEWS Pats get Carolina's 2nd round pick in 2011

[Titanium Coate Hanger]

Re: With the Bengal's win today....

In that case shouldn't you be giving credit for drafting Wilhite, rather than label it as a bad pick?

I think if you are going to use the '4th in a good draft vs 2nd in a bad draft' theory, then you also need to credit them for 2007 rather than label it as a poor draft. The Patriots recognized it as a weak draft class yet came away with Moss and Welker.

- What is the correct 'good pick' to 'bad pick' ratio? Without knowing what the 31 other NFL teams did with their entire drafts the numbers are meaningless. Without a baseline to compare it to, how are we supposed to determine if those percentages are good, bad or average?

- Same goes for the labeling of a good pick or a bad pick. What is the criteria?

- As mentioned above, not taking trades into consideration. If a team trades a draft pick for a player, then why is that not figured into the equation? It's still the net effect of that draft pick, and it's still a judgement of the team's ability to evaluate players.

- Hypothetical: Team A trades up and ends up with only three draft picks; two turn out to be good, one does not. Team B trades down and end up with 12 draft picks; two turn out to be good and the rest do not.

Result is people laud Team A for drafting so well and pan Team B for drafting so poorly. Yet the net result was identical: they both ended up with two good players after starting with the same resources. Poor analysis by those judging those drafts.

- Along with consideration of how good a draft class was, how about consideration for drafting position, and how much room was available on a team? Being given a starting point in the mid twenties or later year after year and comparing that to teams that start around number ten or so more often than not makes for an unfair comparison.

- If the Patriots draft so poorly and are such awful evaluators of talent, then how do they keep winning 10+ games? Seems to me that if they were as bad as some make them out to be they would surely have fallen to 6-10 or worse at least one time.

Obviously I feel different about Wilhite as some people, then remove him and you still have this.

2.31 DB Terrence Wheatley Colorado
3.15 LB Shawn Crable Michigan from NO
3.31 QB Kevin O'Connell San Diego State
4.28 DL Kareem Brown Miami
1.21 RB Laurence Maroney Minnesota
2.04 WR Chad Jackson Florida from GB; trade 2006 2.20, 3.11
3.22 TE David Thomas Texas
4.09 TE Garrett Mills Tulsa from DET
2.31 DL Marquise Hill Louisiana State
3.32 DB Guss Scott Florida
4.17 DB Dexter Reid North Carolina from NO; trade S Tebucky Jones (2003) plus rec'd draft pick 2003 3.14
4.32 RB Cedric Cobbs Arkansas

I didn't factor in trades, my choices personally, for the same reason I didn't factor in the loss of a 1st round pick for the SpyGate incident. I don't know who they would have taken with that pick if they had it. I also didn't count the cost of the 3rd used to move up in the 2nd to take Chad Jackson, clearly a bust for the team. ( I could argue the guys the Packers took, Jason Spitz and Greg Jennings, essentially "trading" for Chad Jackson, could have helped this team. This team could have used a little help at Center this year? And maybe a deep threat? But I didn't factor that in either. ) I also didn't factor in trading Moss for a 3rd when he was gotten for a 4th. I didn't factor in the last two drafts, which I acknowledged had strong returns, because it takes a few years to evaluate how a class did without kneejerking it. I didn't factor in pluses or minuses here, just what the Pats did with the picks they had. I also ignored what they did in rounds 5-7 plus the comp picks, not to wash out the value of gems in those rounds, but because the gems would be outweighed by the guys who didn't make it. I'm not discounting how the Patriots made steak out of ham with some UFAs and 7th rounders, I'm simply saying whether the Patriots made the best use out of each individual pick, that was expected to produce a starter or frequent contributor, given the time and place to help them win.

I won't speak for how anyone else could or should define a "bad draft" but here is how I define one for myself - If the team picks a player that didn't work out for them but could have, at that same position, in the current season used an upgrade or the pick used for that upgrade that did worked out could have been used elsewhere, then I consider that a bad use of a draft pick.

For example, IMHO, because McCourty worked out doesn't mean it washes out the impact of taking Wheatley, Scott and Reid when those picks could have either worked out for the Patriots or used at other positions. Folks are also negating the value of time and training. Wheatley didn't just burn a pick, he burned money, training time an investment in research/preparation for that draft and each matchup he was involved in. His spot on the roster incurred an opportunity cost where the Pats could have used the resources at minimum and the slot somewhere else, even if you took the value of the pick out of it.

IMHO, ideally, a 1st rounder should net you a legitimate starter/game changer in the NFL. A 2nd should net you a serviceable starter and hopefully a little bit of an above average player. A 3rd should net you a good solid medium use reserve/rotational player. A 4th should net you an adequate injury fill in/specialist/someone who excels at a single particular thing consistently ( hitting, speed, punting, long snapping, etc) but needs some coaching up or recovery time from an injury or had a bad senior college season. IMHO 5-7s and UDFAs should net you special teamers, camp bodies, gambles, long term projects, injury prones, prospects who fit a bit out of your system, guys who do a lot mediocre to average but nothing well, character risks, inconsistent specialists and Practice Squad fodder. Everyone is free to see it different, that's how I see it.

As for where you pick in your round, you have AN ENTIRE YEAR to prepare to make one pick in each round typically. You have the full resources of an entire front office, investing THOUSANDS OF MAN HOURS into the process including the things the NFL runs on it's own like the combine and rookie symposium, etc. And each draft has impact players to be found in every round, given a couple of years to see how the draft pans out. Bust and bad picks happen as a law of averages, but it doesn't make it ok in my book and it doesn't mean those bad picks didn't hurt your current seasons chance to win a ring.

If 10 plus win seasons count at greatness, people will be talking about the Eagles of the last 15 years, during the Reid era, forty years from now. Will they? People remember rings. SF only had a dynasty because of rings. Dallas only had a dynasty because of rings.

I love the Patriots but sorry I'm going to take off my homer glasses and not try to rationalize why Wheatley and the like were "not so bad" for this team. Winning teams don't make excuses for why they can't get it done in the draft room or the field. There is always room to improve.


*** Edit to add
Marquise Hill died tragically and he was noted as helping to save the life of the woman with him in that lake. I don't want to disparage the dead or minimize his life in terms of value outside of football. His Patriots career ended before he passed away tragically. He did not meet expectations as an NFL player for his draft position, but he did get a ring before he passed away and that's something for him personally.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Re: With the Bengal's win today....

IMHO, ideally, a 1st rounder should net you a legitimate starter/game changer in the NFL. A 2nd should net you a serviceable starter and hopefully a little bit of an above average player. A 3rd should net you a good solid medium use reserve/rotational player. A 4th should net you an adequate injury fill in/specialist/someone who excels at a single particular thing consistently ( hitting, speed, punting, long snapping, etc) but needs some coaching up or recovery time from an injury or had a bad senior college season. IMHO 5-7s and UDFAs should net you special teamers, camp bodies, gambles, long term projects, injury prones, prospects who fit a bit out of your system, guys who do a lot mediocre to average but nothing well, character risks, inconsistent specialists and Practice Squad fodder. Everyone is free to see it different, that's how I see it.

As for where you pick in your round, you have AN ENTIRE YEAR to prepare to make one pick in each round typically. You have the full resources of an entire front office, investing THOUSANDS OF MAN HOURS into the process including the things the NFL runs on it's own like the combine and rookie symposium, etc. And each draft has impact players to be found in every round, given a couple of years to see how the draft pans out. Bust and bad picks happen as a law of averages, but it doesn't make it ok in my book and it doesn't mean those bad picks didn't hurt your current seasons chance to win a ring.

If 10 plus win seasons count at greatness, people will be talking about the Eagles of the last 15 years, during the Reid era, forty years from now. Will they? People remember rings. SF only had a dynasty because of rings. Dallas only had a dynasty because of rings.

I love the Patriots but sorry I'm going to take off my homer glasses and not try to rationalize why Wheatley and the like were "not so bad" for this team. Winning teams don't make excuses for why they can't get it done in the draft room or the field. There is always room to improve.

I think expecting 100% success on every pick is a bit unrealistic, and quite frankly, stupid. We can always improve, always get better, but to consider every single miss a failure is ridiculous.

To examine one individual pick in a vacuum without any consideration of norms and averages and expectations is just as ridiculous as concluding Brady or Manning or Montana are absolutely awful after watching one INT.

I also find your view of the process a ridiculous oversimplification. I could go on and on about how awful your reasoning is, but suffice to say, I doubt you or I or anyone could get near 100% projecting the 4-year futures of a room full of college kids, regardless of resources dedicated to the project. If I'm wrong and you can, you should be doing more for the world than just posting here on Patsfans.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Re: With the Bengal's win today....

I didn't factor in trades, my choices personally. I didn't factor in pluses or minuses here, just what the Pats did with the picks they had.

I do understand that many if not most people don't factor in trades. My personal opinion is that if people are going to be pro or anti trading up or trading down, I don't see how you cannot also factor in trades.

Let's say there is a two-team league with a 4-round draft. Team A trades its 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th for Team B's 1st. Team A ends up with a good player with its one draft choice. Team B ends up with two good players with its seven picks. Team A gets credited with 100% draft success when you only look at the draft picks they had. Team B gets labeled as having an awful draft, with only a 14% success rate. Yet the two teams started out with the identical number of picks, and ended up with an identical number of productive players.

I'm simply saying whether the Patriots made the best use out of each individual pick, that was expected to produce a starter or frequent contributor, given the time and place to help them win.

I won't speak for how anyone else could or should define a "bad draft" but here is how I define one for myself - If the team picks a player that didn't work out for them but could have, at that same position, in the current season used an upgrade or the pick used for that upgrade that did worked out could have been used elsewhere, then I consider that a bad use of a draft pick.

Again, who hits on every pick? Nobody. And if you're going to go back and say the team should have drafted someone else with a certain pick, I can guarantee you that you are going to find failures with all 32 teams in every draft. Again, without knowing what the best, average and worst is for all teams then we have no base for a comparison. For all we know those percentages may be above average compared to the rest of the league.

It's like if I said 'look at this guy, he failed to succeed 70% of the time', you might assume he was bad and needs to be replaced. But a baseball player that does that hits .300 and is considered to be very good. Likewise I might say 'look at this guy, he succeeded almost 90% of the time; he's great'; but in reality a hockey goalie with a save percentage of less than .900 is not doing a good job. Without knowing what the norm is for success in drafting I don't know how one can judge whether these drafts were successful or not.

For example, IMHO, because McCourty worked out doesn't mean it washes out the impact of taking Wheatley, Scott and Reid when those picks could have either worked out for the Patriots or used at other positions. Folks are also negating the value of time and training. Wheatley didn't just burn a pick, he burned money, training time an investment in research/preparation for that draft and each matchup he was involved in. His spot on the roster incurred an opportunity cost where the Pats could have used the resources at minimum and the slot somewhere else, even if you took the value of the pick out of it.

I agree with all of those other costs. But once again, who hits on 100% of their draft picks?

Bust and bad picks happen as a law of averages, but it doesn't make it ok in my book and it doesn't mean those bad picks didn't hurt your current seasons chance to win a ring.

Of course it's going to hurt your chances. But it does seem from where I am sitting as though any bad pick is unacceptable to you. If it's a given fact that a certain percentage of picks will indeed be busts, what's so horrible with increasing your odds on the total number of productive players by moving around so the team has additional draft picks. Going 4 for 12 is better than going 3 for 6 because 4 is more than 3; you're focusing instead on 33% versus 50%.

If 10 plus win seasons count at greatness, people will be talking about the Eagles of the last 15 years, during the Reid era, forty years from now. Will they? People remember rings. SF only had a dynasty because of rings. Dallas only had a dynasty because of rings.

Point I was making is if the drafts were as truly horrible as some make them out to be, then it would stand to reason that the team's record would have been much worse than it has been.

There are 32 teams in the league. That gives everyone about a 3% chance of winning a ring and a 97% chance of not winning the championship. If the only thing that matters is that ring, then you should mentally prepare yourself to expect failure, because a fan who follows a team on average see three championships during an 80-year lifetime.

I love the Patriots but sorry I'm going to take off my homer glasses and not try to rationalize why Wheatley and the like were "not so bad" for this team. Winning teams don't make excuses for why they can't get it done in the draft room or the field. There is always room to improve.

I think the point you are overlooking is that nobody hits on 100% of their draft picks, and that seems to be the standard to which you are holding the team accountable to. Is there room to improve? Of course! Same can be said for all 32 teams. It just seems as if you're holding the team to some unattainable standard.