If you can rank 5th in the last 10 years and 9th of 32 in the last 5 years, I'd say that's pretty dran good, especially picking in the bottom 5-7 of the 1st rd almost every year.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Whos-been-doing-the-best-job-of-drafting.html

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to garytx's comment:

Sanchez is the anomolly in all this.  We're talking about a high profile position where chucks of money are thrown at you.  All teams in the NFL go with that type of a draft pick regardless.  Sanchez isn't the only QB to be thrown out there, to stink up the place and not be replaced.  A poor example here IMHO.

My belief is BB has done a good job.  If you're not getting those impact players at the top of the draft you're going to be lacking in areas.  That's the reason for getting players with some kind of upside.  Doesn't work a lot when you're low in the pecking order.  Why folks here can't see that I don't know. 

Maybe they don't see that because they see tems like the Steelers and Giants winning 25% of the last 8 SBs each with lesser QBs. They must have done something right that BB didn't to achieve greater results and they weren't drafting in the top 10.

Try not rationalizing failure. You'll feel better about yourself.

Let me assure you I don't feel bad about myself at all.  It's you that wrings his hands in matter.  The truth is the Steelers and Giants have had better drafting spots than the Pats.  There are times when these guys don't get into the playoffs and the get into the top 20 picks.  The Pats are continuously at the tail end of the thing.  It could be as many as 15 spots and that's a lot.  The only way they have been able to move up in the draft is by sacrificing that first round draft pick one year to position themselves at a later time.  My only frustration in that was they didn't seem to be able to move up like they did last year.  I wanted JJ Watt pretty bad but I bet the list was long on that one. 

The draft catches up with teams like San Diego, Colts, New Orleans, Pittsburgh and in a way New England.  If it weren't for Tom Brady we would be in with those other teams.  Brees keeps the Saints afloat and of course the Luck pick will keep Indy going but these guys aren't the power houses they once were.  I think you'll see Baltimore fad in the next couple of years.  SF will be the power house for a while because of all those high draft picks they had in the first decade.  It is about where you draft.  The further down the list you go the odds aren't with you.  Teams get lucky every now and then like Brady with the Pats and Cruz with the Giants. 

BB is the greatest coach and GM ever. There are some who just don't like him and will be critical of everything that goes wrong. The type that will say brady stinks because he throws one incompletion. Once Belichick leaves they will learn.

BB is the greatest coach and GM ever. There are some who just don't like him and will be critical of everything that goes wrong. The type that will say brady stinks because he throws one incompletion. Once Belichick leaves they will learn.

In response to garytx's comment:

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to garytx's comment:

Sanchez is the anomolly in all this.  We're talking about a high profile position where chucks of money are thrown at you.  All teams in the NFL go with that type of a draft pick regardless.  Sanchez isn't the only QB to be thrown out there, to stink up the place and not be replaced.  A poor example here IMHO.

My belief is BB has done a good job.  If you're not getting those impact players at the top of the draft you're going to be lacking in areas.  That's the reason for getting players with some kind of upside.  Doesn't work a lot when you're low in the pecking order.  Why folks here can't see that I don't know. 

Maybe they don't see that because they see tems like the Steelers and Giants winning 25% of the last 8 SBs each with lesser QBs. They must have done something right that BB didn't to achieve greater results and they weren't drafting in the top 10.

Try not rationalizing failure. You'll feel better about yourself.

Let me assure you I don't feel bad about myself at all.  It's you that wrings his hands in matter.  The truth is the Steelers and Giants have had better drafting spots than the Pats.  There are times when these guys don't get into the playoffs and the get into the top 20 picks.  The Pats are continuously at the tail end of the thing.  It could be as many as 15 spots and that's a lot.  The only way they have been able to move up in the draft is by sacrificing that first round draft pick one year to position themselves at a later time.  My only frustration in that was they didn't seem to be able to move up like they did last year.  I wanted JJ Watt pretty bad but I bet the list was long on that one. 

The draft catches up with teams like San Diego, Colts, New Orleans, Pittsburgh and in a way New England.  If it weren't for Tom Brady we would be in with those other teams.  Brees keeps the Saints afloat and of course the Luck pick will keep Indy going but these guys aren't the power houses they once were.  I think you'll see Baltimore fad in the next couple of years.  SF will be the power house for a while because of all those high draft picks they had in the first decade.  It is about where you draft.  The further down the list you go the odds aren't with you.  Teams get lucky every now and then like Brady with the Pats and Cruz with the Giants. 

I can agree that picking higher would give you a better chance at acquiring a better player, but when you look at the number of picks we had in the first and second rounds the amunition was there to move up. Instead we moved back and back and back...pushed the present into the future to come away with guys like Cunningham, Butler, Dowling, Brace, Chung. And as the years unfold, more guys will be exposed as busts, or average at best players - we are watching it right now. We just gave 40 million to Jerod Mayo...Mayo plays most games like he was a third round pick...at his best he plays like a guy that was selected in the late first, but never like a top ten pick. Why the hell did we spend a second round pick on Tavon Wilson? That is a second round selection that did virtually nothing for you at a position of need last year. Dowling was essentially a first round pick - the guy got hurt at his own pro day...his pro day! And we pick him that high? He hasn't gone 35 minutes without getting hurt.

Now all these things happen to most teams and that's fine, it's the draft...it happens. I think Belichick is the best coach in the NFL - as a GM I'd rank him as average, to slightly above average. I can't call him the best GM ever when he squandered oppurtunities and resources the way he has the last three years. Three years ago we were all saying that all the picks he had acquired was shrewd and was going to set us up for years to come...our defense was so bad this season that we had to send a fourth round selection to Tampa for their injury prone known thug...where he would go on to act nice and get hurt. Chandler Jones looks legit, it's just that there were players like him available in previous years and we decided to trade back for value and positional flexibility. All those flexible value guys are on their way out of the league and we are left back at the drawing board. No wonder why our cap situation is so good, none of our drafted defensive players improved to the point where we would have to pay them. 

There has been discussion after discussion about BB's drafting prowess.  Based on the overall success of the past decade plus, it's hard to argue with the results.  This team now measures success in terms of superbowl wins, and some of you clearly forget the days when there was little hope to field a winner.  Listen to yourselves some of you and get some perspective in your life. 

Re: Belichick and the drafts, every draft every year isn't gonna be lights out.  The Pats have had good and bad drafts.  Their draft strategy over the years was based on trading back due to salary slotting to manage their cap, and it seems they'll adjust and we'll likely see them keep more of their high picks like last year when they drafted both Jones and Hightower.  You can find successes and failures in that strategy, but like the draft itself, you need to take the long view to call something a success or failure.  

If we take this analysis at face vaue, the Patriots draft in the top 3rd of the league according to National Football Post.  But poor teams get better players and even average players can often start for poor teams, so pushing the NFP methodology aside a bit, I prefer to use on field success as my measure of success.  Drafting is but one part of building a team.  How does NFP the analysis account for this?  It doesn't and can't.  So Arizona drafted better.  But they made one superbowl and lost. 

Listen to yourselves some of you.  You expect BB to be #1 at everything, and anything else is failure by your ridculously high standards that were -- get this -- set by BB himself.  That BB can't replicate the success of the early 2000's is not a surprise.  Spoiled, spoiled, spolied.  Some of you think superbowls grow on trees and you forget that the Pats were a play or two away from two more superbowl wins.  They got there, and they are competitive year in and year out.  Most any franchise in the NFL would gladly take the success NE has had.  

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to Muzwell's comment:

In response to garytx's comment:

....

My belief is BB has done a good job.  If you're not getting those impact players at the top of the draft you're going to be lacking in areas.  That's the reason for getting players with some kind of upside.  Doesn't work a lot when you're low in the pecking order.  Why folks here can't see that I don't know. 

BB's first round picks: Seymour, Graham, Warren, Wilfork, Watson, Mankins, Maroney, Meriweather, Mayo, McCourty, Solder, Jones and Hightower. All but Warren and Maroney still in the league.  Not bad.

You think "still in the league" for a 1st round pick is good drafting? Five of those 13 were/are good.

By my count, 10 were/are "good." Guess it's in the eye of the beholder.  By the way, about 40 percent of the Pats roster was drafted by the Pats. So being generous, I'll say the draft is about half of the team building equation.  Frankly, after the first round it might as well be a lottery.  

In response to RockScully's comment:

If you can rank 5th in the last 10 years and 9th of 32 in the last 5 years, I'd say that's pretty dran good, especially picking in the bottom 5-7 of the 1st rd almost every year.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Whos-been-doing-the-best-job-of-drafting.html

I think being in 6 of the last 12 Super Bowls is the only stat you need, whatever their doing it's working?

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

Try not rationalizing failure. You'll feel better about yourself.

So, if Samuels makes that interception in 2007 and Welker catches that pass in 2011 then Belichick would be a great GM. I see your logic!

BB is the greatest coach and GM ever. There are some who just don't like him and will be critical of everything that goes wrong. The type that will say brady stinks because he throws one incompletion. Once Belichick leaves they will learn.

Really folks, is there anybody out there in the real world that is still clinging to the fable that BB is a great team builder?

I don't see it. All I see is a bunch of homers clinging by their fingernails to a debunked notion.

As I have said for years, he inherited a core of outstanding players, added a couple of his own and got lucky finding a HOF QB in the 6th round. As time passed and that core he inherited got old the team morphed into just another 21 guys and a great QB.

Great coach, but great GM? Hell no. Ridiculous.

In response to jimmytantric's comment:

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

Really folks, is there anybody out there in the real world that is still clinging to the fable that BB is a great team builder?

I don't see it. All I see is a bunch of homers clinging by their fingernails to a debunked notion.

As I have said for years, he inherited a core of outstanding players, added a couple of his own and got lucky finding a HOF QB in the 6th round. As time passed and that core he inherited got old the team morphed into just another 21 guys and a great QB.

Great coach, but great GM? Hell no. Ridiculous.

Name me one GM from ANY team that has put his team in the SB 6 out of 12 years and has 3 rings? Give me a break-try picking football players that are 20-22 years old and nail it every time-it's a crapshoot-get real-really?

name me another gm with tom brady-who he got lucky with-and who plays in the perrenially weakest division in football for a decade?

of course when that gm learned from bill parcells and george young ur off to a good start

and its 5 not 6

In response to digger0862's comment:

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

Yeah junior. He's a great drafter. That why we have been winning all these SBs the last 8 years. LMAO@U Learn the game junior.

The Patriots finished top 4 this year and top 2 last year. That's above average bordering on great.

Well sure, any mediocre team with a HOF QB borders on great. It's the mediocre team part that's the problem.

Really folks, is there anybody out there in the real world that is still clinging to the fable that BB is a great team builder?

I don't see it. All I see is a bunch of homers clinging by their fingernails to a debunked notion.

As I have said for years, he inherited a core of outstanding players, added a couple of his own and got lucky finding a HOF QB in the 6th round. As time passed and that core he inherited got old the team morphed into just another 21 guys and a great QB.

Great coach, but great GM? Hell no. Ridiculous.