The latest buzz...

[mgteich]

I agree. Both the draft and free agency are crapshoots, and valuable sources of players and backups.

I must admit, I had to look up Jones.

I think you might have mentioned that stat but it isn't meaningful in a vacuum. To take any guidance from it, we have to also know the percentage of veteran acquisitions that end up "becoming a tip tier starter for many years."

For instance, the 2009 season was pretty typical for the Patriots with 11 vet acquisitions: 2 via trade, 3 via decent FA contracts, and 6 via minimum or near-minimum deals:

Greg Lewis
Fred Taylor
Chris Baker
Alex Smith
Tully Banta-Cain
Steve Williams
Vinnie Ciurciu
Paris Lenon
Leigh Bodden
Herana-Daze Jones
Nathan Hodel

Of the 11, only 2 (18%) remain with the team two years later; none of the other 9 made any notable impact at all. IOW it's not at all clear that signing veterans is any more of a sure thing than drafting college kids.

 

[Fencer]

An interesting read from Rick Gosselin, which may have an affect on the Pats throughout rounds one and two. He talks about his top rated OTs, Ingram, and the QB picture.

Feedback appreciated...

Gosselin

I gather he and Jones don't see eye-to-eye.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

Five potential first-round trades | National Football Post

Excerpt...



---

Making patfanken ecstatic.

how high would 17 and 28 get us ? dareus or peterson would be awesome. then a pass rusher at 33 or a little higher. add an ol, wr and rb and call it a draft.

 

[mcsully]

I remember a quip I read somewhere about those top picks in the draft. Apparently GM A was calling GM B to see if he might be willing to move up a couple of spots within the top 5 or so. GM B's response? "What else will you give me?"

I believe you are referencing the converstaion Tanny/Jets had with charlie casserly/Houston. Houston thought the Jets wanted Reggie Bush, they were wrong..

 

[MaineMan]

I think you might have mentioned that stat but it isn't meaningful in a vacuum. To take any guidance from it, we have to also know the percentage of veteran acquisitions that end up "becoming a tip tier starter for many years."

For instance, the 2009 season was pretty typical for the Patriots with 11 vet acquisitions: 2 via trade, 3 via decent FA contracts, and 6 via minimum or near-minimum deals:

Greg Lewis
Fred Taylor
Chris Baker
Alex Smith
Tully Banta-Cain
Steve Williams
Vinnie Ciurciu
Paris Lenon
Leigh Bodden
Herana-Daze Jones
Nathan Hodel

Of the 11, only 2 (18%) remain with the team two years later; none of the other 9 made any notable impact at all. IOW it's not at all clear that signing veterans is any more of a sure thing than drafting college kids.

Yeah, well, IMHO, at least three off that list were perennial special-teamers/professional camp bodies - Williams, Ciurciu and Jones - camp roster filler who probably shouldn't have been seriously expected to make the team. And that kind of "veteran acquisition" seems typical for every camp.

Hodel (long-snapper) was signed pre-draft to replace Lonie Paxton (stolen by McDaniels) and eventually beaten out by draftee Jake Ingram.

So, there's four out of that particular eleven who didn't have much of a prayer to begin with. Again, that seems pretty typical for camp roster moves to me. But, I suppose that including them in calculating a "signed veteran success rate percentage" makes as much sense as including every 7th-rounder/UDFA in a "draftee success rate percentage" so it probably all evens out in the end.

 

[patchick]

But, I suppose that including them in calculating a "signed veteran success rate percentage" makes as much sense as including every 7th-rounder/UDFA in a "draftee success rate percentage" so it probably all evens out in the end.

Yep, that's how I was looking at it. If you include 7th round comp picks in your draft-success calculation, you have to include veteran camp fodder types in your FA calculation.

Alternately you could zero in on the "high investment" types on each side, maybe something like 1st & 2nd round rookies vs. vets either traded for with a 3rd-round pick or higher (going a round deeper there since the contract length acquired is generally shorter) or signed as FAs with a signing bonus of $1 million+. Re-signing your own vets obviously doesn't count, that's a very different risk calculation.

So which Pats would be high-investment veterans? Adalius Thomas, Rosie Colvin, Wes Welker, Chris Baker, Fred Taylor, Monte Beisel, Sammy Morris, Alge Crumpler, Duane Starks, Corey Dillon, Kyle Brady and Derrick Burgess come to mind. That doesn't look like a great premium over the success of 1st & 2nd-round rookies. (Interestingly, many of the most valuable vet pickups like Vrabel, Moss and Bodden do NOT qualify as high-investment. They're the equivalent of late-round draft gems)

 

[Metaphors]

Nice call sir. I agree.
Everybody take this with you when you look at Draft Choices from top to bottom:

17% chance of success to make a squad, become a top tier starter for many years and achieve a high level status within the NFL.

Couple of points about this stat you keep parroting:

1) Your criteria is subjective and confusing. You really only need "a top tier starter for many years" since to do that you need to "make a squad" and "achieve a high level status". So what does "top tier" and "many years" mean?

Since you get to decide who makes the top tier, you could say that means you are in the top 17% of players at your position. Wouldn't it just make sense that 17% of draft picks meet this criteria? If I change my expectations of "top tier" to mean the top 25% of players, I would imagine 25% of draft picks would magically make the grade.

Kurt Warner and Terrell Davis were certainly top tier players. Each effectively only had around 4 years at that level. Would that be considered "many years"?

2) You are so concerned with draft busts that you miss the amazing benefits of rookies. They are relatively cheap...extremely cheap when compared to free agents. You get them in learning mode where you can more easily assimilate them into your scheme, philosophy and locker room. You hold their rights as they head into their 2nd contract where their physical development and experience level reach optimum convergence.

Team building involves the draft, trades and free agency (UDFAs, UFAs and RFAs). They are all important, but the draft gives well-managed organizations the best opportunity to build and maintain a high-quality product year after year.

Statistics say we will get one blue chip starter and the other two will blend in in three years from the Draft. Do we wait for the three year time lag or do we Draft some and Trade for some current NFL players and a sprinkling of top FAs?

Your perspective is at a singular point in time. Look at it over a continuum and you have a couple of players "graduating" from their 3 year time lag every year. Also, not all draft classes are equal. 2007 was horrific so it made perfect sense to trade those assets. 2010 was historically deep so using a dozen picks was a good course of action.

This draft is top-heavy but fairly shallow. In this case you would expect an effort to collect higher picks and trade away lower ones...which is precisely what we've seen from the Pats so far.

The Pats aren't buying into the false choice of draft vs. trade/FA. It is a blending of both where circumstances (which change every year) determine where the focus should go.