Why The Draft "Mistakes"?

[TKO]

I have to agree to a certain extent with Belichick in a recent interview...the difference in a player becoming a good player or a bust is improvement. That's why a low draft pick or UFA can become a starter or a star, while a high draft pick never becomes anything more than average or a complete bust.

He claims improvement is the reason for failures, that being said, I think he's made mistakes wasting high picks by drafting down for lesser quality players to start the process with.

IMO of course.

 

[JDM]

Why look at the failures when you can look at the successes?

Gronk, Ridley, Vereen, Mankins, Solder, Volmer, Mayo, Spikes, McCourty, hightower, wilfork, Dennard, chandler jones, Edelman, Dobson, Thompkins and more are all starters who were drafted by BB or signed as UDFAs. When you look into the depth on this team, many others have also spent their careers in New England. This is a 12 win team, and has been built almost entirely through the draft while picking late in every draft.

 

[Drawmeomg]

A lot of the time what you're doing when you assign a grade to a player is evaluating risk. There are only a handful of truly freakish athletes in any one draft; plenty of 6th and 7th round picks have athleticism very close to mid-to-late first round talents. They just have some other issues that make it less likely that their athleticism will pay off on the field.

When you draft a player in the first round, you want there to be no red flags. You want a guy who WILL be a starting caliber player.

When you draft players in the 2nd and later, you're looking at what might go wrong with that pick. Injury history? Off-field questions? Hasn't delivered on the field yet?

So when you go after a Dont'a Hightower in the first, you're saying, "This guy will be a starter for us." When you draft a Rob Gronkowski in the second, you're saying, "There's some chance this guy's injuries will prevent him from becoming a star, but there's a good chance he'll be really good." When you draft an Alfonzo Dennard in the 7th, you're saying, "Legal and off-field troubles have a strong chance of derailing this player's career, but if he can put that in the past and stay out of trouble he could turn into a really good player."

FWIW: Their last four drafts (I'm not grading this year's class as they don't have even one year of production for the evaluation) have been stellar.

 

[JDM]

 

[bunchofpixels]

I read somewhere that the Patriots are one of the only teams that doesnt use one of those commercial scouting services so that could explain why you think some of the players that they take are lesser quality. The Patriots do not believe the players they are taking are of lesser quality nor do they believe they are reaches: they just have a different set of grades for players. They also seem to value versatility more than most teams. When they hit on one of these reaches they seem like geniuses but when they miss they look like fools.

 

[Drawmeomg]

If you go look at the Cowboys' big board that came out, you'll see some really odd grades there as well. I'll bet nearly every team has some players much higher or lower than the bulk of teams, though I'll also bet that many front offices can't afford to look stupid on draft day because they haven't got the job security BB has.

 

[JDM]

I just think the emphasis on the misses when every team has them is silly. If you compare the players Belichick has drafted and had contribute to the same for other teams in most given stretches, the "Belichick can't draft" idea looks an awfully lot like a myth.

 

[Drawmeomg]

I just think the emphasis on the misses when every team has them is silly. If you compare the players Belichick has drafted and had contribute to the same for other teams in most given stretches, the "Belichick can't draft" idea looks an awfully lot like a myth.

Part of it is that his draft strategy includes hoarding a lot of picks and then just making more picks than everyone. Fans want to see every pick a success, and Belichick's strategy from the outset guarantees that won't happen.

 

[JDM]

Any strategy all but guarantees some failure. The draft is a crapshoot.

Bill's just slightly sacrifices average success per pick for better cumulative success throughout the draft/future drafts.

 

[Southieinnc]

You guys make me proud to be a Patriot fan. You reach objective agreements/disagreements that are thought out.

 

[TKO]

Being happy with the successes of the Patriots draft and disregarding the blatant failures is like saying you're happy the Pats made it to two Super Bowls against the Giants...TWO SUPER BOWLS THEY LOST!

The glass half full isn't a winning philosophy IMO.

 

[JDM]

Looking at individual picks is a foolish way to approach an analysis. Show me a team that has more contribution from players they have drafted/signed as UDFAs than belichick has and we'll talk.

Also consider that New England rarely makes too many big FA moves and has averaged almost 12 wins a year, and been a legitimate Super Bowl contender for most of them, since BB has been the coach. If he doesn't pick up big money free agents and can't draft, where does that success come from?

 

[Drawmeomg]

Being happy with the successes of the Patriots draft and disregarding the blatant failures is like saying you're happy the Pats made it to two Super Bowls against the Giants...TWO SUPER BOWLS THEY LOST!

The glass half full isn't a winning philosophy IMO.

That's crap. It's not that we're pointing to one or two good picks and ignoring a ton of bad ones, it's that we're pointing to a draft strategy that yields a lot more good picks than most other draft strategies do. It's a strategy that involves just throwing a lot of darts at the board, and yes, that means a lot of misses. But because they threw more darts at the board, it also means more hits.

You're focusing on the percentage of good picks, but you're missing the NUMBER of good picks, which is much higher than most teams can claim.

 

[TKO]

Looking at individual picks is a foolish way to approach an analysis. Show me a team that has more contribution from players they have drafted/signed as UDFAs than belichick has and we'll talk.

Also consider that New England rarely makes too many big FA moves and has averaged almost 12 wins a year, and been a legitimate Super Bowl contender for most of them, since BB has been the coach. If he doesn't pick up big money free agents and can't draft, where does that success come from?

Twelve wins ain't happening without Brady...his talent has been wasted because of the mistakes Belchick made to fill the holes in his defense and at the WR position...do you seriously need a roll call of the high picks that failed? Maybe he's finally filled a few spots this year after years of failures...maybe...but the failures are obvious and some are bordering on ridiculous. Obvious unless you're a homer...case closed.

 

[TKO]

That's crap. It's not that we're pointing to one or two good picks and ignoring a ton of bad ones, it's that we're pointing to a draft strategy that yields a lot more good picks than most other draft strategies do. It's a strategy that involves just throwing a lot of darts at the board, and yes, that means a lot of misses. But because they threw more darts at the board, it also means more hits.

You're focusing on the percentage of good picks, but you're missing the NUMBER of good picks, which is much higher than most teams can claim.

You're out of your mind if you think Belichick throws darts at the draft board. He evaluated the players and assigned them a spot on the board....and made faulty evaluations plenty of times. Just admit it wasn't all "chance" and you'll sleep better. When the entire draft world goes "huh?" at his foolish reaches...it ain't because Belichick has outsmarted them all.

 

[TKO]

Why look at the failures when you can look at the successes?

Gronk, Ridley, Vereen, Mankins, Solder, Volmer, Mayo, Spikes, McCourty, hightower, wilfork, Dennard, chandler jones, Edelman, Dobson, Thompkins and more are all starters who were drafted by BB or signed as UDFAs. When you look into the depth on this team, many others have also spent their careers in New England. This is a 12 win team, and has been built almost entirely through the draft while picking late in every draft.

If you want to include players such as Jones and Hightower as proof of Belechick's draft prowess, make sure you include the fact that when he traded up for them he basically admitted his strategy of drafting down was a FAILURE!

 

[TKO]

You guys make me proud to be a Patriot fan. You reach objective agreements/disagreements that are thought out.

Southie...you should recognize homers when you see them after being on ESPN's boards.

 

[Drawmeomg]

You're out of your mind if you think Belichick throws darts at the draft board. He evaluated the players and assigned them a spot on the board....and made faulty evaluations plenty of times. Just admit it wasn't all "chance" and you'll sleep better. When the entire draft world goes "huh?" at his foolish reaches...it ain't because Belichick has outsmarted them all.

The thing you got out of my post is that he picks at random? That's not what the analogy was about at all. He trades for more chances, and makes more picks. He reaches sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't pay off (Cunningham), sometimes it does (Vollmer).

The point is that the Patriots have picked up a ridiculously good four draft classes in a row (again, not evaluating this year's class one way or the other til we have more data). Of course everyone wants their accuracy to be higher, but their plan works.

 

[briz almighty]

trade up. draft studs!

 

[Yankee Traveler]

If you want to include players such as Jones and Hightower as proof of Belechick's draft prowess, make sure you include the fact that when he traded up for them he basically admitted his strategy of drafting down was a FAILURE!

That's pure conjecture...He saw the value and traded up to take it. That isn't admitting trading down doesn't work.

He traded down again this year.