Does Belichick Get a Pass on Poor Drafts?

[JerseySuave4]

arent the teams that everyone says had a strong draft usually the teams that are at the bottom of the league (top of the draft) with a lot of needs. I'd rather have a draft like the Patriots and be at the top of the league each year then have a great draft but constantly be at the bottom of the league drafting high.

They draft based on needs. The dont go for the sexy picks or the big names. When they draft a guy like Steven Goskowski people say really? a kicker? but look at the impact he's had. They draft a lot of guys that no one knows about and dont hear about because they have to sit behind vets for a few years. Need and value. Thats why they trade so many picks, because they want to be smart about who they are paying a lot of money to. Rather than give an unproven rookie a big contract, they keep trading for futures and picks late in the draft where they can get guys they want for much less money so they have that money for the Vets like Wilfork and Brady.

The team is a veteran team, the vets are the better players. So rookies arent coming in and playing right away.

I think the Patriots have obviously showed they know what theyre doing even if some know it all sportswriter thinks otherwise.

[Palo20]

The Pats have made some questionable picks the last few years but I think it's these last 2 drafts that will determine their future success. 2009 brought in Chung, Brace, Butler, and Vollmer in the 2nd round. They also got late gem Edelman and Brandon Tate has some potential at WR if he's healthy.

As for the 2nd rounders, Butler should be a starter for years and Vollmer is one of the best young tackles in the league (pretty much dominated in the 2nd half last year). Brace could be a bust, Chung still has time to develop.

This year's class also has great potential, but I think they could have had better impact. First 2 rounds of McCourty, Gronkowski, Cunningham, and Spikes, along with Taylor Price at WR in the 3rd could be a solid class.

The 2007 class really needs to include Moss and Welker and combined with Meriweather, I'll take that any day.

With that said, I think the Steelers and Colts deserve a ton of credit for their recent drafts finding players that fit what they do an continuing to reload through the draft.

You have to build your team through the draft in the NFL. Free agency helps a bit, but it's generally been too risky.

[wwharton]

I think Cebby's broken it down pretty well, but it's silly to even evaluate the Pats drafts in a traditional way. When looking at any team's draft, you have to consider their needs, goal for the next year and talent in the draft. The Pats have been one of the favorites to win the SB each of the years he's talking about in this article. Of course they're trying to win now, and vets are better for that than rookies. You can't say "you have to start building for the future at some point" because they aren't at that point. And honestly, the way they trade away draft picks for higher ones in the future IS building for the future. The extra picks brought in Moss and Welker and could be used to retool again when necessary. And lets say they keep some of these picks and when they have an apparent hole in the lineup, after going 11-5 they still get to pick in the top 10 bc of getting picks from teams like the Raiders.

The Pats are in a perfect position. If they need a player to complete the championship puzzle, they have high draft picks to get him. If it looks like it's time to start rebuilding, they'll have high draft picks to do it.

My guess is this article comes at the heels of what looks like some serious steps backward by the Pats D. But like Cebby said, we don't know what the last two drafts have really brung... and lets see what Brady looks like after a full year of recovery before panicing too much.

[lonewolf371]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

The actual number of drafted players is irrelevant. After the first three rounds, you really just hope you can get lucky with someone. Nobody expects to get 7 starters in a draft. The 2008 and 2009 drafts shouldn't even be mentioned. You're talking about rookies and second year players. Furthermore, I assume you're using PFR's "starting" numbers which is kind of misleading. Jonathan Wilhite has 0 "starting" seasons but started 8 games last year. Between him and Mayo that's two starters in their first two seasons. Maroney has 0 starting seasons but is the team's leading rusher over the past four years.

That Pats have had a lot of picks in the first few rounds, especially recently. The Colts lost one in the top 3 a few years back because of the McFarland trade and blew it on Ugoh, who's lost his job, so it's not like the Colts haven't had trouble keeping top picks, either.

Er, after the first three rounds most teams are still trying to fill out their rosters with quality players. For instance with the Colts they found Charlie Johnson, Antoine Bethea, Clint Session, Pierre Garcon, and Pat McAfee after round 3. I believe all of those guys were starting during the Super Bowl run, which essentially makes the Colts' success rate in the later rounds better than their early rounds over this period. With the Steelers I'll grant you don't have the same success rate.

I picked PFR because it was easy to find everything. If you want to look up and post total games started from these classes then go ahead, but my guess is seasons like the one you just stated are normalized because they happen among all three teams. For instance, Austin Collie is possibly a better player than Pierre Garcon at the moment, but he doesn't have a starting season because he's subbed in as a slot guy most of the time.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

Why? On offense (which is what the article is talking about) it's true. They have 2 1,250+ yard receivers. I don't know where you expect them to work in a third.

Welker plays best in the slot, so most of the time they'd like to have three wide receivers on the field. Santonio Holmes would be perfect for the other split end/flanker position.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

1. The Colts and Steelers are, along with the Patriots, the exception not the rule. The Colts have been the best drafting team for more than a decade, but that doesn't mean that the Patriots being the second or third best drafting team have "poor" drafts. 2. Drafting low does count. In 2006 and 2007 the Patriots had four picks in the first three rounds. If you expected them to get starters with their 10 6th and 7th round picks then that's on you. It's way too early to evaluate their picks in 2008 and 2009.

You could say the Colts have been a great drafting team, although I'll have to disagree with regards to their top picks. They've found a lot of starters, but not a lot of stars since 2003.

All right drafting low can count a little bit. Maybe it's too early for 2008 and 2009, but the Colts have gotten Austin Collie, Pat McAfee, and Pierre Garcon out of those classes and they've been key contributors lately. The Steelers got Mendenhall and Mike Wallace, who have also both been good. I was mostly trying to give an overall picture of the period.

The Pats have gotten Mayo, who's pretty good. But again, that's less than these other two reference teams.

I'll also turn it around the other way and say when the Pats were drafting WELL, they were winning Super Bowls. Of course I'm talking about the period from 2000-2005 when they nailed Tom Brady, Richard Seymour, Matt Light, Deion Branch, Daniel Graham, Jarvis Green, Ty Warren, Eugene Wilson, Asante Samuel, Dan Koppen, Vince Wilfork, Ben Watson, Logan Mankins, and Nick Kaczur. That's 23 starters and 7 Pro Bowlers in 6 drafts, 4 of them All-Pro and probably at least 2 Hall of Fame players (Brady and Seymour). You really are what you draft. You think this more recent period has that kind of quality? I don't.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by lonewolf371

That Pats have had a lot of picks in the first few rounds, especially recently. The Colts lost one in the top 3 a few years back because of the McFarland trade and blew it on Ugoh, who's lost his job, so it's not like the Colts haven't had trouble keeping top picks, either.

And the Patriots have done better with round 1-3 draft picks over the 2006-2008 period.

Meriweather and Welker were better than anything the Colts got.

Quote:

Er, after the first three rounds most teams are still trying to fill out their rosters with quality players.

"Trying" is the operative word. The last four rounds are a crapshoot.

Quote:

Welker plays best in the slot, so most of the time they'd like to have three wide receivers on the field. Santonio Holmes would be perfect for the other split end/flanker position.

A TO with no attitude problems would also be perfect for the Pats.

It's absurd to try and paint any WR position as some sort of weakness for the Pats. Even if they had a great third WR he wouldn't have anywhere near the stats to be considered a "success."

Quote:

They've found a lot of starters, but not a lot of stars since 2003.

Yet again, the Colts much like the Patriots aren't drafting for stars. They had Peyton Manning, Harrison, Wayne, Edge, Clark, Saturday, Freeney, etc.

They don't need stars when they already have stars.

Quote:

Maybe it's too early for 2008 and 2009, but the Colts have gotten Austin Collie, Pat McAfee, and Pierre Garcon out of those classes and they've been key contributors lately.

Collie and Garcon are wide receivers playing with Peyton Manning. The Colts could have drafted any 2 receivers and they would have put up 500 yards.

I still don't understand why you keep comparing the Patriots to the Colts and Steelers.

Are you Ricky Bobby on some "if you're not first you're last" tip? I've conceded that the Colts are the best drafters in the NFL. New England is probably third. That's still far from "poor."

[lonewolf371]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

Collie and Garcon are wide receivers playing with Peyton Manning. The Colts could have drafted any 2 receivers and they would have put up 500 yards. I still don't understand why you keep comparing the Patriots to the Colts and Steelers. Are you Ricky Bobby on some "if you're not first you're last" tip? I've conceded that the Colts are the best drafters in the NFL. New England is probably third. That's still far from "poor."

I'm not trying to argue that the Colts have had good drafts; I'm trying to argue that the Patriots have had poor ones. I compared them to those teams because those were the ones you mentioned originally. Just my opinion that the Pats have drafted poorly; that combined with Brady's injury and the possibility that he may never recover is why they are less of a Super Bowl contender now than years past.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by lonewolf371

I'm not trying to argue that the Colts have had good drafts; I'm trying to argue that the Patriots have had poor ones. I compared them to those teams because those were the ones you mentioned originally. Just my opinion that the Pats have drafted poorly; that combined with Brady's injury and the possibility that he may never recover is why they are less of a Super Bowl contender now than years past.

If the Patriots have drafted poorly, which teams have drafted well?

Under Belichick the Patriots drafted 5 All Pro players and 9 Pro Bowlers. That doesn't include Moss and Welker.

The only franchise close to that is San Diego and even with them Brees and Turner didn't reach their peeks until they left San Diego.

If Belichick drafts poorly then the rest of the league drafts abysmally.

[Antec]

Quote: Originally Posted by lonewolf371

that combined with Brady's injury and the possibility that he may never recover

Um... what?

Brady was 7th or better in every major passing stat last season except for QB rating where he ranked 9th. And that was in his first year back when he had a slow start. That was the second best year of his career statistically.

He'll most likely be even better this year, but even if he repeats his performance he's still one of the top QB's.