Re: 2006-2012: Over that span, no team drafted more combined Pro Bowl and All-Pro players than the Patriots
posted at 5/10/2013 7:04 AM EDT
In response to pezz4pats' comment:
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
I'm not sure the numbers in that article are correct. I did a quick skim through a list of pro bowlers and it seemed to me that the Pats had more during that 2006-2012 period than reported.
Stats are nice, but only if they're accurate.
I think it is referring to players drafted since 2006. So it is correct.
Yeah, but if Wikipedia is correct, the Pats' pro bowl players by draft over this period are:
2010: McCourty, Gronk, Hernandez
2008: Mayo, Slater
That's seven, but the article says five.
I don't think these statistics are very reliable, so they prove nothing, one way or the other.
I would love to see some accurate, well designed statistical analysis of draft success over the past decade or so, but in the absence of that, I'd say that Rosenthal's judgment that BB is near the top, but not necessarily better than guys like Ozzie Newsome, is pretty fair.
Let's face it, we've got one or two posters on here who are prone to hyperbolic statements about Belichick's unmatched greatness as a GM. I think a more balanced assessment puts Belichick near the top, but not head and shoulders above a handful of other good GMs. Belichick does a good job of managing the cap, preserving his flexibility, and finding complementary players. At the same time, he's had enough busts in the mid rounds to prevent me from saying it's clear that he's the absolute best of all time. The number of busts in the mid rounds also calls into question to some degree the success of his strategy of frequently trading down to maximize picks.
The "value" strategy (trading down in the draft to get more picks, avoiding expensive players in free agency or, prior to the rookie cap, at the top of the draft) does increase your flexibiilty to continually change your team, which I believe is actually a huge reason for Belichick's success. His skill is in finding complementary combinations of players, and that requires the ability to move guys in and out without being constrained too much by the cap or by limited numbers of picks. The Pats also have tended to have low draft picks anyway because of their high finishing position every season, so trying to move up in the draft and get the best players would be very difficult for them, making a value strategy far more attractive to the Pats than the opposite strategy. At the same time, the value strategy does limit the ability to add All-Pro quality players to your team, since most of those guys are high draft picks or expensive free agents. You can overcome that disadvantage by picking exceptionally well in the mid and lower rounds . . . but that's where it's hard to say Belichick has had that much more success than anyone else. Sure, he's had some big wins (mostly by picking players who were falling in the draft because of injury or off-field problems or were overlooked for other reasons) but he's also had a lot of misses. Overall, I think Belichick has done well (which is why I put him near the top) but when I look at all the picks that didn't pan out, I just can't say I'm convinced he's clearly the best ever or even the best right now.