The 1st pick in the draft is ONE pick better than the SB winner.

[vicspats]

this is the other half of the info …
NYG. 12. 2
NOR. 12. 1
TB. 12. 2
SD. 11. 0
ATL. 11. 0
Phil. 11. 1
Tenn. 10. 0
KC. 9. 2
Den. 8. 1
Minn. 8. 0
Sea. 8. 1
Dal. 7. 0
Pitt. 6. 2
GB. 6. 1
Balt. 6. 2
IND. 5. 1
NEP. 4. 6

I found interesting anyways …

 

[vicspats]

There's a giant difference between a bad team that is building up and showing improvement and a team that spent 5 years trending down and is further away than they've ever been

I do agree the past few drafts have not been good

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Yes, a top 5 pick is important. Folks seem to think that we have advantages throughout the draft, We do not.

After the first pick, the worst team picks one AFTER the Super Bowl winner throughout the draft (ignoring trades and comp picks). Let's say we are the 1st pick and PHI is pick 32.
============
1. NE gets the first pick.
2. PHI gets 32, NE get 33.
3. PHI gets 65, NE gets 66
4. PHI gets 97, NE gets 98 (actually lower because of comp picks.
4. PHI gets last in the 4th, patriots get first in the 5th (the next pick)
and so on.
===============
BOTTOM LINE
After the results of the first pick, we have slightly less draft resources than the SB winner.

We are kidding ourselves if we think that we make a meaningful step toward the SB by drafting a WR or OT at 4 or 5. There is only one FAST step toward being a good team: getting a top QB. To me, FAST to me means 2-3 years. .

Big brain stuff

 

[BennyBledsoe]

Even with Tom, you still had to have SOME talent on offense. Especially the line. We saw what Tom did in his last year here in NE vs his first year in TB. The problem wasn't with Tom getting older.

 

[XLIX]

So I spent my afternoon looking at the past drafts from 2000 on until last year. Checked only for top 15 picks in the draft… seems like people here see them as probably most important cornerstone of building a team. So I did team , how many picks in the top 15 over the last 24 years… and how many super bowls won.
NYJ 20 0
Jac. 18 0
Det 17 0
Clev 16 0
Ariz 15 0
Oak 14 0
Lac. 14 2
Car 13 0
Hou 13 0
SF 13 0
Wash. 13 0
Buf 12 0
Cin 12 0
Chic. 12 0
Mia 12 0

This uses circular logic. Obviously the team with 20 top-15 picks didn't win any Super Bowls because if they had won a Super Bowl, they would not have had 20 top-15 picks.

Here are some better examples:

Kansas City had 1 top-15 pick in the past 10 years. That pick is the cornerstone of their entire franchise.
Denver had 4 top-15 picks in the 10 years prior to SB50. One of those picks would be the MVP of that game and team's best defensive player.
Seattle had 4 top-15 picks in the 10 years prior to SB48, 2 of whom were key contributors to that championship

So smart teams who draft well have certainly taken full advantage of those situations where they had high draft picks... and then, by drafting well, those teams naturally drift to a place where they no longer have top 15 picks.

 

[vicspats]

This uses circular logic. Obviously the team with 20 top-15 picks didn't win any Super Bowls because if they had won a Super Bowl, they would not have had 20 top-15 picks.

Here are some better examples:

Kansas City had 1 top-15 pick in the past 10 years. That pick is the cornerstone of their entire franchise.
Denver had 4 top-15 picks in the 10 years prior to SB50. One of those picks would be the MVP of that game and team's best defensive player.
Seattle had 4 top-15 picks in the 10 years prior to SB48, 2 of whom were key contributors to that championship

So smart teams who draft well have certainly taken full advantage of those situations where they had high draft picks... and then, by drafting well, those teams naturally drift to a place where they no longer have top 15

I think it proves the point that picking top 15 means a lot less than we think it does. Hence the second page … teams that picked less in the top 15 had better results. Otherwise those corner stone athletes would have changed their team’s trajectory.

 

[XLIX]

I think it proves the point that picking top 15 means a lot less than we think it does. Hence the second page … teams that picked less in the top 15 had better results. Otherwise those corner stone athletes would have changed their team’s trajectory.

Like I said before: It's circular logic. By the very nature of how draft picks are assigned, the teams with the best results over a 20 year period are going to be the teams with the fewest top-15 draft picks. And the teams with the fewest top-15 draft picks in any given 20 year period are going to be the teams with the best results.

 

[mister clyde]

And the OP's premise is a weird one man...

Yeah...the #32 pick is as good as the #33 pick..I get that, but we are comparing #1 vs. #32 and then #33 vs. #64...and so on.....the advantage is HUGE.

No, see, I don't think you are really seeing OP's point. If you TOTALLY DISREGARD the very first pick in the draft then you can make silly and confusing arguments about how picking first and picking last is really the same. Now, I am not OP, but maybe I can explain it better for you. Let's do another example, but this time we will not disregard the first overall pick. Instead we will disregard every pick before round six that the team drafting first has. Now, if we look at this selective and stupidly exclusionary list of picks, we can see that the Super Bowl winning team picks 32nd, 64th, and so on. That is obviously better than not having a pick until round 6, right? So what I think OP was really saying was that by ignoring any information that does not fit your narrative and doubling down on misinformation, you can twist reality enough that some of the more simple minded among us will go along with you.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

They need a stable of good players. What pick was Jalen hurts? You gotta pick the right guy

 

[sb1]

Brady didn’t need weapons. It’s always all the QB so let’s give Brady 100% credit for the dynasty and nobody else. The rest of his team doesn’t matter. Or so I hear.

 

[Patriot Missile]

How did this get up to 8 pages? Isn’t it obvious 1 is better than 32 and 33 is better than 64? It’s also obvious that your team sucks if your drafting 1, needs a lot of help and that 32 means you just won the Superbowl.

We’ve been on both ends of the spectrum. They’ve landed the 32 pick 6 times. They picked Bledsoe from the 1 in 93. McGinnest at the 4 spot, Seymoure at the 6. Yes, their are usually better players at the top of the draft. And yes, sometimes you get lucky with later picks like Brady, Light, McCourty etc.

 

[sb1]

Petey Carrol

Is he coming back in week 5 too? Wow! So much to look forward to..

 

[vicspats]

Like I said before: It's circular logic. By the very nature of how draft picks are assigned, the teams with the best results over a 20 year period are going to be the teams with the fewest top-15 draft picks. And the teams with the fewest top-15 draft picks in any given 20 year period are going to be the teams with the best results.

I understand lol… and it’s not circular. It proves that most top 15 picks don’t become cornerstone players to their organization. Just because they are sexy college players it doesn’t mean they end up being good professionals … otherwise said team with so many high draft picks , wouldn’t have to draft so high every year ..

 

[Triumph]

Is he coming back in week 5 too? Wow! So much to look forward to..

Focus and breathe slowly.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

How did this get up to 8 pages? Isn’t it obvious 1 is better than 32 and 33 is better than 64? It’s also obvious that your team sucks if your drafting 1, needs a lot of help and that 32 means you just won the Superbowl.

We’ve been on both ends of the spectrum. They’ve landed the 32 pick 6 times. They picked Bledsoe from the 1 in 93. McGinnest at the 4 spot, Seymoure at the 6. Yes, their are usually better players at the top of the draft. And yes, sometimes you get lucky with later picks like Brady, Light, McCourty etc.

It's simple so not sure why some of you are having a hard time understanding, he's saying the only difference between number 1 and number 32 is basically one pick. Sure, that pick is super important because you can get a cornerstone QB or you can turn it into multiple very good players but if you don't and mess up the pick then you basically screwed yourself.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Pumped, jacked… I have no idea what this ^ means.

Pete Carroll used to say this.

 

[sb1]

Focus and breathe slowly.

I’m too excited for week 5 when Zappe takes over the NFL. Can ya blame me?

 

[lancerman]

I understand lol… and it’s not circular. It proves that most top 15 picks don’t become cornerstone players to their organization. Just because they are sexy college players it doesn’t mean they end up being good professionals … otherwise said team with so many high draft picks , wouldn’t have to draft so high every year ..

The top 15 routinely has the highest hit rate. They are lottery tickets where some have more likelyhood of yielding a prize than others.

2000 draft: 10 Pro Bowlers in the top 15, the only HOF'er in the draft class. Tom Brady will end up being another HOF outside the top 15. Outside the top 15 there were 18 Pro Bowlers. So you have a 66% hit rate in the first 15 picks and a 7% hit rate outside of it.

2001 draft: 9 Pro Bowlers in the top 15. Including 2 HOF'ers. 25 outside of it. Again huge disparity.

2002 draft. This was a weak one for the top 15. 6 Pro Bowlers. Outside of it, 13. So in the top 15 you had a 40% hit rate. Outside of it you had a 5%.

2004 draft. This was an all time famous draft. 10 Pro Bowlers in the top 15. So again 66% hit rate. At least 2 HOF'ers. 21 outside of it. So an 8% hit rate.

2005 again had 10 in the top 15.

2007 had 8 in the top 15 including three HOF'ers.

2011 had 11 so you are talking a 73% hit rate there.

2013 was an outlier draft. That's one where only 4 guys in the top 15 became pro bowlers.

2014 had 11 again.

As far as the number 1 pick, since 2000, only 4 number 1 overalls didn't become Pro Bowlers. Courtney Brown, David Carr, Jamarcus Russell, Sam Bradford, and Baker Mayfield. Mayfield was the only non probowler #1 overall since 2011.

It's just ridiculous to say those aren't high commodity picks. At any given time, almost 2/3rds of the leagues QB's are generally top 15 picks.

 

[upstater1]

There are 32 sets of collective eyes of the beholders to perceive trash vs treasure, so it's all relative.

Yes, but when you don't have clear cut top players, there are no bidding wars.

 

[Tunescribe]

Yes, a top 5 pick is important. Folks seem to think that we have advantages throughout the draft, We do not.

After the first pick, the worst team picks one AFTER the Super Bowl winner throughout the draft (ignoring trades and comp picks). Let's say we are the 1st pick and PHI is pick 32.
============
1. NE gets the first pick.
2. PHI gets 32, NE get 33.
3. PHI gets 65, NE gets 66
4. PHI gets 97, NE gets 98 (actually lower because of comp picks.
4. PHI gets last in the 4th, patriots get first in the 5th (the next pick)
and so on.
===============
BOTTOM LINE
After the results of the first pick, we have slightly less draft resources than the SB winner.

We are kidding ourselves if we think that we make a meaningful step toward the SB by drafting a WR or OT at 4 or 5. There is only one FAST step toward being a good team: getting a top QB. To me, FAST to me means 2-3 years. .

No, Philadelphia would pick 31 distant slots AFTER the Patriots in each round.

1. NE gets the first pick (a "guaranteed lock surefire franchise savior"), Philly gets 32.
2. NE gets 33, Philly twiddles its thumbs all the way 'til No. 65.
3. NE gets 66, Philly watches tons of talent vanish before picking 97.

Etc., etc.

See how this REALLY works?

==================================

BOTTOM LINE

IF the Patriots are unlucky/lucky enough to pick near the top, trading down for multiple early picks makes sense for a roster with so many obvious holes.