The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    To ALL:

    ~Been meaning to write this for some time now...But first thing's first.  I, like many of You, Have wondered off and on WHY so many of the Past 5 or so (rough-estimate) Patriot Draft Classes have yielded such little talent.  Although, a select small handful just might argue differently... 

    Yet, Take into consideration not only, Such little talent verses other NFL Franchises, Such little "Impact NFL Players", but also weigh this against the fact that New England often accumulates-either due to trade and free agent compensatory selections-This Team very often accumulates MORE draft picks than other clubs, upwards of 8, 9, even 10 selections in a mere 7 Round NFL Draft, AND Finally-Also weigh this against the fact that within a very short span of time-This Team yields so few Draftees whom have remained not just on Our Roster, but yields so few On-Field Starters...  

    Small digression first: I'm NOT here to dispel any notion regarding New England's acquisitions of UnDrafted Free Agents who slip through the 7-Round Draft process.  I actually believe, Our Front Office does this quite adequately.  But, I AM here to attempt to shed some light on How This Team can possibly target and select more talented NFL Players WITHIN The 7-Round Draft itself.  

    One final digression:  It used to be held as some form of dogmatic scripture, a mantra That, "Bill Belichick can judge and evaluate talent."  I'm NOT here to dispel this notion either...  But it seems to me that the correlating terms have to be looked at as independent nowadays. 

    Our Coach Belichick, certainly can 'judge' talent...For once he sees said Draftee and even Free Agent acquisition alike-On the field of play, On his team of players, ON His team, Belichick certainly CAN and DOES not only know If said player is worthy of belonging on His Team, but CAN and DOES know If said player is worthy of being in The League itself.  By and large, this appears to hold true for not just of Draftees, Free Agent Veterans, but is also largely applicable in terms of Trade Acquisitions and Trade Leavings.  The ramifications of Team Salary Cap ARE withstanding in certain instances...  BUT, My Simple Overall Point remains for the far greater part-Bill Belichick Does NOT Let Talented Players Leave His Team, And subsequently-IF Bill Belichick Deems A Player Lacking "NFL Material", Said Player Rarely Finds Good or even Lengthy Success On A Different Club and Thus, Bill Belichick has ZERO problem kicking said player to the proverbial curb...  What Player might be proffered me here?  New Orleans Tight End, David Thomas?  Please... 

    The Greater Point is within the second term from above, and is this:  HOW Can Bill Belichick and New England's Front Office BETTER 'Evaluate' Talent BEFORE This Team spends money on a free agent that doesn't work out, wastes a draft pick trade for a free agent that falls short, OR As is the part I'm concerned with here, HOW Can Bill Belichick and New England's Front Office BETTER 'Evaluate' Talent in the NFL Draft...  (everyone on board?)

    ~Some might have Us believe that New England's Last Handful of sub-par Draft Classes are the result of Numerous Moves of Trading Higher Selection Spots-Into Lower Selection Spots and even into Lower Rounds, thus and therefore Passing on Draftees who just might yield a greater chance to be Greater Impact NFL Players...  AND They contend that the reciprocal holds true:  Some might have Us believe that This Team's recent Draft Failures are the result of NOT Making Greater Moves within The Draft to bundle and bunch some later round picks together in order to Trade Lower Selection Spots-Into Higher Selection Spots and even into Higher Rounds, and thus ideally bettering one's chances of acquiring a Draftee with a greater skill set or lol, as is our case lately-merely acquiring a Draftee with NFL skill...

    These People who believe this theory ARE, for the greater part...Wrong.  The First notion that is...  For, I'm NOT saying New England's Front Office shouldn't bundle some of their rather large number of available draft selections together in order to move up several selection spots or so-When New England's FO sees a player of very good skill set and/or a player who might be a great piece for this team, etc..  Indeed, I believe They should do this.  As was evidenced in Last Year's Draft (2009) with Bill Belichick CORRECTLY 'Evaluating' a very talented, Percy Harvin, Our FO should have secured such a good player in Harvin by moving up a mere few or even a handful of selection spots (N.E. had 11 Total Picks) to guarentee Harvin before Minnesotta selected the WR, 1 single spot @ #22 in Rd 1, before it was New England's turn to pick. 

    NOT ONLY does this exemplify such excessive stringency in regards to NOT Moving Up to Garner a Good Player, BUT This move exemplifies such excessive stringency in regards towards Wanting and Selecting ONLY That Player...but more on this later...

    Again, It's the first notion I'd like to dispel:  That New England's sub-par Draft Classes/Draftees are the result of Trading Down, again, and again, and again...  As far as I can recall, The ONLY times New England's FO has Traded Down, Total 3 Times.  Last year in 2009, As I noted prior (which I'll note again).  Also though, Belichick traded down again in 2008 in order to acquire Tennessee's Inside Linebacker, Jerod Mayo.  And it made sense to...  Mayo Was the draftee which New England targeted as the player they wanted.  N.E. Had a very high 1st Rd selection @ #7 overall.  Belichick CORRECTLY therefore, realized that this was far too high a spot to choose Jerod Mayo in terms of the player and I'm sure-the money, AND He Could Still secure the guy he wanted by Trading Down several spots (AND never leaving the same rd).  A very similiar situation applies to New England's FO trading down for Michigan's Defensive End-Outside Linebacker, Shawn Crable.  In Round 3 of the same year (or prior, I forget-2008/2007?), Belichick targeted Crable as the player he coveted most with his next selection, Yet another NFL club offered him a deal of pick(s), Which Bill Belichick CORRECTLY realized was simply too good to pass on... 

    In the end, NOT only are the Crable/Mayo Instances of Trading Down, Awash-Since N.E. ONLY did this 3X, BUT 2X N.E. NEVER left the same rd, AND they got Multiple Extra Picks, AND Far More Important than Everything-Patriots Selected The Player which They Had Targeted ALL Along...

    ~"So", Laz-you now say, "I've read 37 paragraph's of You dissecting WHAT New England's Front Office Does NOT Do, To yield such sub-par draft classes as of late...Are you gonna EVER get to the point of enlightening on WHAT N.E. CAN Do?"

    ~Without further ado, HERE'S the crux:  DRAFTING MORE FOR VALUE.

    That's it...and that's all.  In an NFL Draft, There are 2, sometimes 3 Terms in regards to, WHAT Round a Draftee is PROJECTED to be drafted in Verses WHAT Round a Draftee is ACTUALLY in fact drafted in.  When a draftee who is PROJECTED to be selected in the third round, Gets actually selected by a team in Round 2, THEN this is called a "Reach".  When a draftee who is PROJECTED to be selected in the third round, Slips to a later round and is actually selected by a team in Round 4, THEN this is called a "Value".   Less often, and some sites don't even bother calling, When a Draftee is Actually selected in the Projected spot-area (dubbed "Even").  

    ~Ready for this bombshell statement?  Higher Rated Draftees are usually Better Players...  Wow, huh?  When I look back to the past 10 Draft Classes I have on my Favorite's Menu, I find MORE-Not simply "Impact" Players, but "NFL-Remaining-Roster" Players in Rounds 1 and 2 (for instance), Than I find in Rounds 6 and 7.  This is simply Crazy, right?  

    ~Ready for the bigger bombshell?  The New England Patriot's Front Office Drafts, Our Coach-Bill Belichick Drafts, to an unbelievably excessive degree, Players who are "Reaches".  The Indianapolis Colt's Front Office Drafts on the other hand, to an excessive degree, Players who are "Values". 

    And say what you will...  Sebastian Vollmer, Tom Brady...BOTH Nobodies-who were selected in Higher Rounds than they were projected to be picked in.  But, sorry people, Such Players are the exception NOT the norm.  

    ~Unconvinced?  Check THIS out (6 Previous Draft Classes): 2009-Vollmer, Tate, Ohrnberger, Bussey/2008-Wheatley, O'Connel, Wilhite, Slater/2007-C. Oldenburg, J. Rogers, M. Richardson, J. Hairston, C. Hilliard/2006-G. Mills, D. Thomas/2005-E. Hobbs, R. Claridge/2004-G. Scott.  What do ALL of these guys have in common?  New England Selected these guys in Rounds 2-6 (only 3 or 4 actually in rd 6)...guys in rounds who SHOULD be making up a decent core of this current N.E. roster.  AND, New England Selected each one of these guys as "Reaches" who were selected by our club, At the very least-2 Total Rounds EARLIER than they were projected to be actually picked in.  In otherwords, You end up selecting Terrence Wheatley in Round 2?  You're NOT only passing on higher rated players who have slipped from Round 1, BUT You're getting 5th Round Quality in the 2nd Round, and even IF you LOVE the player-You're pulling the trigger on a guy you very well COULD target later on and STILL get, and all the while thus forsaking a much higher rated guy you could ALSO get.

    ~And understand what you will...  BUT, All I know is that New England's Front Office has been doing this More and More in Recent Drafts, and Our Drafts have become worse and worse.  And Indianapolis's Front Office has been doing this More and More in Recent Drafts, and Their Drafts have become better and better.  Indy trades less, cares less about drafting positional need and more towards best player available, and Indy even seems to care less about drafting a specifically tageted individual player and more towards the BEST player...

    ~And in the end, call it what you will...  Call it, "Drafting for D#mmies."  Because noone has done it better lately than Indy.  Call it-The Skill-set of the actual player on the field having AT LEAST-EQUAL footing as the system.  Call it-Allowing the thousands of NFL-College Scouts OTHER than Your Team's 3 or 4 NFL-College Scouts SEEING and "JUDGING" true quality talent, BETTER than your limited time and personell can.  Call it-Bill Belichick's far, FAR too stringent formula of wanting a seemingly very select number of draftees that He Wants Alone, and IF They're Selected 3 Rounds early-SO be it...and IF They're Gone-NOONE else can or will do...  BUT in the end something's gotta change, Because the further and further we get behind, the harder it will become to catch up...
         
       
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Coolguy55220. Show Coolguy55220's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    Hmm... Interesting in-depth post.
    The "reaches" and "value" thing does not really apply since those are based on so called "experts" rankings / mock - drafts. The pats FO has their own evaluating system... And something in that system of theirs is not right. Maybe its the fact that they look for a certain character and mental toughness in their players, as well as intelligence because of their system being very complicated. 
    But the overall point is true, the pats need better drafting in this draft to stay as a top 5 franchise in the NFL for the next 10 years, otherwise, our ride will run out of gas...
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    "Hmm... Interesting in-depth post.
    The "reaches" and "value" thing does not really apply since those are based on so called "experts" rankings / mock - drafts. The pats FO has their own evaluating system... And something in that system of theirs is not right."

    coolguy and ALL:

    ~Was actually hoping someone would bring up How each and every NFL Franchise has their very own, what's called a "Draft Board."  Yet, By and large, My argument would be How SI, ESPN, NFL.com, and these larger sites that focus on Each NFL Draft-for the better part-Rank and Evaluate specific draftees without a trully great degree of seperation.  I'm sure many, many scouts are used in order to judge precisely WHERE (round) a given player will and should be targeted in...  Consider thisWhat I mean to say, for instance-IS that a consensus Projected Second Round Draftee on 1 of these sites is very rarely 2, and as is the case with Our Team 2 OR MORE-Entire Rounds off target (and as is the case also with our team, Almost Always-2 or more rounds earlier off target).

    100's of scouts verses a few on a team, many draft-sites congregating potential draftees in similiar rounds, these draft scouts/sites expressing very similiar greater pros and cons and overall rankings of players...  AND Yet, New England's Draft Board far, FAR More Often Than Not-Is Selecting Lower Rated Players in Higher Rounds?  Look, I'm very well aware that what goes in terms of a player's abilities, For 1 Club, May NOT work in another club/system, YET my argument holds from above-In terms of our stringency on selecting very specific individual players, as well as skill set of said players being at least EQUAL to the team's system, AND that perhaps these massive numbers of multiple Scouts/Sites largely agreeing on player,round, etc., etc., Just perhaps may mean something... 

    It just may mean something when Indy for instance, Drafts usually better than most franchises in recent years-And they largely select Valued Best Player Available, and Indy ends up with a greater number of skilled players.  And likewise so, It just may mean something when N.E. Drafts lately Worse than other clubs-And more and more in recent draft years, N.E. is selecting ONLY "their guys", caring less about "Reaching" for a guy multiple rds ahead of time, and caring less about whichever BPA just might still be on the draft boards...
     
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jkoliver. Show jkoliver's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    I'm sorry, that is way to much to write
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    Laz

    Insightful post!

    Your approach seems to stress having uniform, more verifiable data from a variety of sources to determine value (versus an egocentric system). Though I think you are correct; I do not think the present adminstration will give up their system.

    What is it that you think they do well that they could benefit from doing more of?

    NYC Pats Fan

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    "Laz
    Insightful post!
    Your approach seems to stress having uniform, more verifiable data from a variety of sources to determine value (versus an egocentric system). Though I think you are correct; I do not think the present adminstration will give up their system.
    What is it that you think they do well that they could benefit from doing more of
    ?"
    NYC Pats Fan

    ~Thanx a ton NYC...and IF I were to hope for what New England's FO regime could possibly do more of, or better, It's EXACTLY what you infer...  Namely, be less secularized and stringent.  Whether it be tending to hire from within almost solely OR fixating on 1 single player or personell or system at the exclusion of another.  Our Coach/Front Office has to understand that They are ONLY human.  Look back to even the Coaching Staff during BB's earliest tenure here, during the SB years...We didn't simply have LB coaches, We had ILB coaches, OLB coaches, and on and on.  I undertsand NOT wanting conflicting instructions, but man...Isn't our Offensive Coach ALSO our QB AND O-Line Coach right now...sheez?  AND almost solely hires from within...IF one doesn't want to account for the lesser chance of one then "Standing up to Belichick's Ideas" Factor, At least take into consideration the "Brain Drain" Factor of being totally exclusory...  In ALL, DO what They used to be BEST at:  Count on others, Flexibility of Players, Personell, Ideas and Systems.  Take what's offered and EXPLOIT (player, gameplan, etc) It To The FULLEST...  

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tcal2. Show Tcal2's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    Laz, you have way to much font manipulation going on.  Reading your post is kinda like playing XBox on acid. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    It's easy to sit here and say the Pats should have taken Percy Harvin or any other player for that matter who obviously had a good rookie year.  Anyone can pretend that they were SO sure these players were going to work out prior to the draft but they would be deluding themselves and others...  it's easy to be an expert in hindsight.

    Players don't work out for a myriad of reasons; many have nothing to do with talent.  Chad Jackson is a good example, he was the best receiver prospect in that draft class, had the best possible 40 times, vertical leap and set the combine record for catches in the catching drill.  At the end of the day he was mentally lazy or just too plain stupid to learn the playbook.  I don't recall ANYONE that was here post draft saying that Jackson was a "reach" or wasn't going to be a pro bowler one day.  Please don't anyone respond by saying you did know because you'd be lying... 

    Also if a player doesn't fit into the system of the team he is drafted by than a solid player can look horrible before finally being cut and picked up by a team that finds a way to make him successful.  These players are human and subject to human foibles, mental issues, drugs or injury can take a great prospect and make them a bust. 

    At the end of the day the draft is a crapshoot, needless to say the personnel departments of pro football teams do a lot more in terms of due diligence than the so called "experts" here and on draft boards across the nation, and even they end up drafting a bust now and again... 

    Make the Pat's draft process more efficient you say..?  Try drafting inanimate objects instead of people, otherwise just roll the dice like everyone else.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Cyberknot. Show Cyberknot's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

     Your comments on how often BB has actually traded down, and the players he has picked when doing so were interesting, and certainly not the general perception.

     As to the rest of the post however, where a player is ranked has zero affect on his actual value and impact once he reaches the nfl. Therefore the only thing that matters is evaluation. The fact that general consensus is right more often than wrong is not relevant. You could have an entire draft or even a career of drafts where you only drafted "value" or "even" players, and have every one of them wash out, just as there are players drafted in every round that play above their general ranking.
     My feeling is that BB is an exceptional at evaluating nfl players, but much less so at evaluating how well a college player will adapt to the nfl.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccusson1122. Show ccusson1122's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    I do agree

    quit taking all these long shots and take some shots trading up .. Last year we kept trading down giving our first round pick for someone elses then giving it up again. This years draft is vital in NE moving forward wether it be landing some nasty talent on all 4 of our first 4 picks or trading up or trading a second for a veteran wideout I.e. boldin.

    Trade up and get playmakers- CJ spiller would be huge - and release or trade our old,injury prone back field we need explosive playmakers

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from mar10fern. Show mar10fern's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    I can remember hearing alot of this BS when Parcells was here as well.  Kraft and the media had us all convinced that he couldn't "pick the groceries"!

    As it turns out he has proven to be quite an astute evaluator of NFL talent.  If I were a betting man, I would bet on the Pat's evaluation system being better than average over the long haul.

    Nice post anyway Laz!

    One last thought:  Years ago when Mike Shanahan was asked if he thought that Terrel Davis was the best 7th round (mabe 6th) pick in the history of the draft, He replied with "it must have been the worst of all time".

    If they knew anything at all about what they were doing in their evaluation of this player they would not have given every team in the league 6 or 7 shots at drafting him!

    Jimmy Johnson SETTLED for Emmit Smith because the LB that he so coveted was no longer available.  How did that one work out for the 'boys?  My point being that of course you need to have a solid evaluation process to succeed in the NFL draft... But don't ever downplay the impact of good old fashion LUCK!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    Laz - I'll take this from the colts perspective and without a great deal of knowledge about the draft.  Some will think I am taking shots at the pats, so before that happens, let me state again something I have said frequently before:

    I think the Pats have been the most effective franchise of the decade regarding personnel.  

    But that is changing.  There are some issues recently.    

    I don't know if the pats are particularly good drafters, but, if not, they haven't had to be.  Unlike other successful teams who build almost exclusively through the draft (colts, steelers) the pats really do mine the veteran FA market.  They excelled in this area and combined with few very good to excellent picks (Seymour, Wilfork, to name a few) but maybe just ok total drafts, put together spectacular teams.  

    Earlier in the decade they brought in effective vets - RB's, LB's, DB's, for example.  Recently, however, with the exception of Moss and Welker (who were otherworldly pick ups - kudos) their pick ups haven't panned out nor have much of their draft.  And if their drafts are particularly great with the exception of a couple of nice picks (Mayo, Merriweather), then the team is not going to have the same success. 

    The offense is fine, but there is no longer a leadership element or core to the defense. 

    I have been surprised by some of the decisions to let players go.  Obviously, you can't pay everybody, but the Pats seem to pay nobody.  Some of the guys they've had deserve to be paid, and they should have paid them.  Sure some guys will get let go in the process, but when the team finds a player that is important in their scheme, they've got to keep that player around. 

    For example, the Colts do not covet linebackers and that position has been a turnstyle letting go of a few probowlers over the years - Peterson, Washington, June.  But they kept guys like Freeney and Sanders (who was great once) and Saturday.  And they develop players. 

    Developing players cannot be understated.  If a guy gets drafted by the colts, he knows he will have a chance with them.  If a players is taken by the pats, he'd better expect to perform quickly or the team might find a vet FA to take his place. 

    Anyway - The pats personnel decisions over the decade cannot not be argued too much - look at their success. 

    My comments were nitpicky at best, but there does appear to be some personnel concerns for the team currently.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    Laz, it's impossible for anyone with ADHD to read your posts.  How about looking out for us lesser folks like myself :^)
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    I have to disagree with the premise that all of the recent Pats drafts have been as bad as people say. People have a tendency to ignore the fact that the NFL works with a salary cap that has major implications on who and where you can draft. You also have to consider who the new guy is going to replace. I know this is just my opinion but for a three year stretch, no rookie, unless they were a once in a decade find, was going to make the starting lineup and I don't think many of them would have made the team. So the question then becomes how much do you want to pay for someone that isn't playing? Do you want to pay them first round money? Second round money? If you did that, it would possibly cause dissention in the ranks because here you have a couple of guys that aren't playing a major role on the team getting paid more than guys that are playing almost every down. Until someone says or writes something that takes into account the talent level of the Pats, the cap implications, and the team chemistry implications of changing players then I don't think anyone can give a credible critique of the Pats recent drafts.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    This post is longer than a credit card company's policy brochure.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from philbert. Show philbert's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    Laz,
    You gave us much to think about. It seems their strategy to pick to best the BPA available for their system at the right pick level,  and trade down if they don't see suitable value at that pick if they can.  But it is interesting that one the biggest trade up moves they made, the Chad Jackson pick, backfired. We all thought the pick was the steal of the draft. Many thought Maroney was great value also BTW.
    And for some of those successful reaches, such as Mankins and Vollmer, there was at least another team interested in them. Not sure on Mankins, but thought Dallas was interested in Vollmer. And in Mankins case, I remember some discussion that they wanted to trade down into the second round before their own pick but could not. But that same discussion also indicated that Mankins would not have been there at 64.
    So it boils down to bad execution in recent drafts, in some cases failure to trade down and being forced into taking the reach and not getting value, and sometimes just picking wrongly. Whether reaches such as Wheately would have been there in the 3rd or 4th round I don't know. He has been disappointing in any event. Again, I don't fault the strategy, just the execution at times. But Maybe you are right in that its better to pick the BPA for there system even if that is not a position of need at the time, if that can't trade up or down to get the BPA for their system that they do need. But, by all accounts, 2009 was a good draft class, and there's reason for optimism for the class of 2010.

    Got to give credit to Indy. They have done a great job building around Manning. But they play in a dome and in a southern conference. That means 8 games in the dome, three more in the AFC south home teams, plus whatever games they get in the south the west, other domes or in the fall in outdoors statiums. So that leaves one or two sames in the cold and snow a year.  So they don't have be able to win in the cold and snow to be successful. NE has to win in a dome and in the cold and the snow to be successful. That is a factor that has only occasionally been mentioned when comparing the organizations.






     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    Laz,

    You may be right, I just don't know.  Here are a few of my thoughts on this topic.

    You could write a book on evaluating draft evaluations and I would buy it.  What we have here is a look at the Colts and the Pats draft, how they're different and then come to the conclusion that what the Colts do is correct.  If somebody had the time than I would be interested to see what other teams do.  The truth is there is only one team who could claim to have more success over the last ten years and that is the Colts.  So any organization looking at how to sustain success would likely look at the Colts and the Pats methods as being correct.  How do the Lions and the Rams draft?  They may do the same as the Colts, just not pick the right guys.  Maybe we should just do the opposite of the Rams, but what is that?  I think as a sample, a Colts/Pats comparison is too small of a group to determine anything conclusive.

    Here in 2010 we can look at the Colts and say "they are doing everything right", but that has not been the case most of the last 10 years and neither has changed their philosophy.  The results have changed, but I can't necessarily tie that to a superior philosophy.  In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2007 you could argue the Pats had the better philosophy because they had more success and they always "plugged guys in" when somebody left.

    The Pats relative lack of success this year can probably be tied to a lot of things but for the most part it seems that they fell into the same "trap" that other dynasties fell into.  Core players get old, young guys can't beat the vets out for starting positions, late draft picks as a result of success, it takes a toll.  I would consider the Colts to have began their dynastic run around 2006 and other than Harrison they haven't had to deal with players getting old, or having to sign veterans that all deserve pay raises.  Over the next few years they will have to handle contracts with Manning, Wayne, Clark, Freeney, Saturday, Mathis, etc.  They probably won't be able to keep all those "core guys" that have been with the team since before 05, and others are getting too old to sign to long contracts.  How will they fair when those guys are gone?  Who knows, but that's when we'll see if their draft theory is genius or it was just looked genius next to a core of great veterans.  I think those vets are what made the Pats draft classes look brilliant for years.  It's possible that getting a group of great veteran leaders and players may be just pure dumb luck which is why dynasties never last more than 10 years.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    To ALL:

    MANY are still unconvinced in regards to Drafting more towards consensus "Value" Players and less towards position, team fit, team need, And Above ALL else-Less Drafting towards Multiple Round "Reaches"...right?  I'll take a few (in no order)...

    ~rtuinila...I'm specifically focusing NOT on 1st Round Talent and the Cap considerations, BUT HOW New England might yield a better player, or even a roster player, Within Rounds 2-6 (so far, far less overall money ramifications)...

    ~philbert...Again, NOT just the fact that I'm focusing on these mid-rds, BUT IF You'd like to offer the fact that Logan Mankins was indeed a 1st rd selection whom was an overall "Reach" since he was projected to be drafted in the 3rd rd, I'd ask you to check up on ALL New England's other first rounders...  Note therefore, HOW the vast majority of N.E.'s other 1st rders are NOT MULTIPLE Round "Reaches".  They ARE guys who are by and large Projected As First-at-the-latest, First-Second Rounders...  Which further illustrates my point on "Value"...Patriot's 1st rd selections are for the greater part, PROJECTED and PICKED in the 1st...And N.E. usually "nails" them.  I know there are some first round busts, BUT IMO you're greatly increasing your chances of a bust, IF You were to draft a 4th rder in that 1st rd...  In all, The Vollmer's and The Mankin's remain the minority, the flukes.

    ~wozzy...RE: Drafting "Inanimate Objects."  WHEN the first cyborg draftee comes around, I say we hands down, select 'em.  Also wozzy-You are TOTALLY dead-on about Chad Jackson being at least an "Even" Pick in the beginning of Round 2...  AND, IF there is in fact a turning point to Belichick drafting "His Guy" over an above drafting a consensus "BPA", Than IMHO-It was that 2006 year...but BB was wrong to change strategies (more on this later)...

    ~Finally dogg and shenanigan...I REFUSE to believe it's merely aged vets which have yielded such sub-par drafts for N.E., OR simple complacency of Superbowl Seasons, And I ABSOLUETLY REFUSE to accept dogg's notion that Indy simply "develops and molds their players better than N.E." OVER "Indy having (drafting) a better mold to begin with."  And I'll show you momentarilly...
     
     
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from arodrambone. Show arodrambone's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    I'm glad we have 3 second rounders. Most teams only have 1.

    We are the envy of this draft.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    To ALL:

    ~Check out the players in the last 6 Draft Classes for New England...  First I'll offer the "Reaches", and second-I'll list the players who were "Values" and to make things interesting (i.e. harder for me)-The "Evens" as well (next to the "Values" I'll give the actual round they were selected in and then the projected round). 

    Also DON'T gimme garbage on the first example with some of MY "Values" selected in Higher Rounds than The Naysayer's "Reaches", because more often than not, It's the other way around in subsequent examples.  Final note-IF I leave out a draftee in any year, It's because he was NOT a Value And NOT a 2-round reach or more.  But Anyway, Here we go...

    2009~
    2 or more Round Reaches: Vollmer, Tate, Ohrnberger, Bussey. 
    ~You HAVE to choose: DO You want those guys or...
    Values or Even: Butler-(actual rd)2/(projected rd)1-2, Chung-2/2, Brace-2/2, Pryor-6/5.

    NOTE: alright Vollmer's a freak, but is the excepion...I'd still take the "Values".
     
    2008~
    2 or more Round Reaches: Wheatley, O'Connel, Wilhite, Slater
    ~You HAVE to choose: DO You want those guys or...
    Values or Even: Crable-3/3

    NOTE: I know, You want neither.  Still, I just might consider Crable over those 4

    2007~
    Reaches: Oldenburg, Rogers, Richardson, Hairston, Hilliard
    NO Values

    NOTE: Year not applicable

    2006~
    2 or more Round Reaches: G. Mills, D. Thomas
    You HAVE to choose: DO you want those guys or...
    Values or Even: Lk Smith-6/5, C. Jackson-2/1-2, R. O'Callaghan-5/4, D. Stevenson-6/5, J. Mincey-6/5

    NOTE:  WOW, garbage again.  But guess what?  Smith-Broncos, Jackson-Broncos, O'Callaghan-Chiefs, Stevenson-Texans, Mincey-Jaguars.  All the Values on NFL clubs, and other than Jackson...ALL 5th rders and most are 6th rders.  Still...garbage.

    2005~
    2 or more Round Reaches: Hobbs, Claridge
    You HAVE to choose: DO You want those guys or...
    Values or Even: N. Kaczur, J. Sanders

    NOTE: Imho, a no-brainer.  Someone not in the league and a nickel corner who gave me heart-palpatations, OR a starting O-Lineman for years and even though a guy I've never been high on, But he's the guy who BB looked towards to shore up the Safety spot and Secondary down the stretch this season.

    2004~
    2 or more round reaches: G. Scott
    You HAVE to choose: Do You want that guy or 1 of the following...
    Values or Even: D. Reid-4/5, M. Hill-2/3, P.K. Sam-5/5, C. Cobbs-4/3

    NOTE: Sam held on for years, Hill showed promise (rip), Reid was equal to Scott, and Cobbs SHOULD have made this team if not for RB roster limitations at the time for N.E. (went to Miami where he burnt us several times).  


    ~LOOK ALL...In the end, these are not very good Draft-Classes for our team.  And IF You ALL don't believe this "Value" system of selecting in those mid-rounds-consensus, higher rated players, Than At Least Understand that New England is drafting many multiple round reaches (2nd-6th) more and more and our drafts are increasingly sub-par.  BUT IF You ALL trully don't buy into this "Value" theory then well...Let's just take a gander at what The Indianapolis Colts have done in recent drafts...

    -Below are Indy's 2nd-6th round "Values" and "Evens"-

    2009:  WR Austin Collie-4/4, Terrance Taylor-4/4-5, Fili Moala-2/2, Jerraud Powers-3/3-4...
    Guess What?  ZERO- 2 or more round "Reaches" and ONLY Taylor (who's on Detroit) isn't on Indy's roster.
    2008:  OC Mike Pollak-2/1-2, Philip Wheeler-3/3, Marcus Howard-5/3, Steve Justice-6/3, Mike Hart-6/5, Pierre Garcon-6/6
    Guess What? ZERO- 2 or more round reaches (and less picks than N.E. as usual, but overwhelming number of "values", "evens", and/or "NON-reaches," and ONLY Justice (who's on Carolina)/Howard (who's on Tennessee) aren't on Indy's Roster.
    2007:  OT Tony Ugoh-2/2, CB Daymeion Hughes-3/3
    Guess What?  BOTH on Roster AND Indy had some Several Multiple Round "Reaches"...check 'em out: Pitcock-not on team, Condren-not on team, Hall-not on team, Coe-not on team, Session-on roster.   Sensing a pattern?  Not simply the players who aren't currently on their roster, but the multiple draft reaches coupled against arguably Indy's Worst Draft Class lately?
    2006:  OT Michael Toudoze-5/5, S Antoine Bethea-6/5, CB Tim Jennings-2/2-3
    Guess What?  ZERO- 2 or more round reaches (and less picks than N.E. as usual).  3 MORE Mid-Round Players still on Indy's roster.

    FINALNo Patterns at all?  Indianapolis: Less Picks, Less Trades, Higher Rated Consensus "Value" Selections, Less 2-or greater-Round "Reaches", Indy's Worst Draft was the one with by far the most "Reaches", Indy's selecting "Values" more and more in recent draft classes and have become better and better/While N.E. has been "Reaching" more and more and have had worse and worse Draft YearsAND in the end- Indy Retains way MORE mid-rd Roster Players than N.E. has draftees who remain on their roster.  
              
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jader. Show jader's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    Laz may have some valid points but he can't write, can't puntuate or make his point understood.

    What you fail to see, is that the 'glory' years for this team which ended in '04 was stocked with quality players from a different regime and philosophy, namely Bobby Grier, selecting excellent players and trying to sign them long term. these players, for a large part, had an impact on the 3 SB championships and included: Law, McGinnest, T Johnson, Bruschi, Faulk, also Bledsoe and Curtis Martin who weren't parts of SB but top talent nonetheless.

    Two major changes in the FO since: Don't keep good [players cause they cost $ and let BB pick.

    The results are beginning to show as we are slipping out of the NFL elite and have added crap in the way of new talent in 5 years. Except for Mayo, maybe Merriweather who have we added? The answer is zero.

    Wilhite, Weatley, Maroney, on and on it goes. No new talent, '09 semms to have only Vollmer and Edelman. The rest - busts.


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    jader actually has an excellent point-the point would be even better if it mattered, wasn't incidental, and had anything at all to do with my original contentions. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jader. Show jader's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    It does matter, isn't incidental and is worthy of thought. Grier was a football player, knew talent and drafted talent. He didn't 'target' players but chose the best available, hence Law, McGinnest, Johnson, Faulk, Bruschi, Bledsoe, C Martin and how about Terry Glenn, another Grier selection that caused the 'groceries' comment from Tuna.

    BB never played the game. He has overstepped his bounds by making draft decision, almost all poor, grade D-.

    My point is that we need to play on the same draft table w Colts and whoever, get BB away from drafting and get back to adding quality to the roster. We've done very lettle of that in the past 5 years and if not corrected, we'll be another cellar dweller like the Rams
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    It does matter, isn't incidental and is worthy of thought. Grier was a football player, knew talent and drafted talent. He didn't 'target' players but chose the best available, hence Law, McGinnest, Johnson, Faulk, Bruschi, Bledsoe, C Martin and how about Terry Glenn, another Grier selection that caused the 'groceries' comment from Tuna.

    All those players with the exception of Bruschi were high picks, back before we were the team of the decade we got higher draft picks because we stunk leading up to these drafts... in a way you sort of proved Laz's point for him..? 

    Here are the draftees from the 1994 draft class and round they were taken:
    1-Willie Mac
    2-Kevin Lee
    3-Ervin Collier
    3-Joe Burch
    4-John Burke
    5-Pat ONeil
    6-Steve Hawkins
    6-Max Lane
    7-Jay Walker
    7-Marty Moore

    Moore and Lane stayed on the practice squad or flirted with special teams for a few years and than all but Willie were gone from the NFL; not exactly a blockbuster draft class. 

    Read my post at the top of this thread.  The draft isn't exact and nobody pulls aces from the deck on every pick.  It's part science and part luck... nobody has a perfect formula, not Belichick, not Parcells, Grier or Pioli.

    Moreover we didn't lose this season or the past few seasons because we didnt have talent, we had as much or more talent this season than any team in the league. We lost because Bill has had his coordinators taken from him year after year and is in a state of constant rehire and training.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from philbert. Show philbert's posts

    Re: The Myth About Trading Down and A Tale Of Value

    Laz,
    You make a good point about the Colts drafting less players and taking value when they did. The players they drafted had a better chance of making the roster. I would contend that reaches such as David Thomas, Garret Mills, and Guss Scott were not busts as Thomas and Mills are still in the league, and Scott lasted at least 4 seasons in the league. However, they were not on a NE roster very long so it did not help our team as much as we would hope the players we could obtain with the pick should have, which tends to support your premise of less picks but value for the pick is the better way to go.
    Also, eleven of the twelve 2009 picks are still with the club. If these picks were solid, how many of the 2010 class can be expected to make the team, again supporting your premise of less picks but value for pick for future drafts.  Fortunately, they they have the one, and three twos, but then they only have their 4, 6 and two 7's in the second day, plus any comps. So, in the end, they may only have as few as five members of the 2010 class on the roster.

    I used Vollmer and Mankins as cases in point in which you can buck the herd successfully and Jackson as a case in point in which a great value pick backfired.
    But the trend of reaching you detailed in middle round picks for 2007 and 2008 is clear, and of concern. And unless Wheately and Willhite get much better, 2008 is going to join 2007 and 2006 as bad draft classes. Again, such a failure would also support your premise.    I am not saying he should follow the herd, but it may be time to BB adjust how he assigns value to players. Because, in the end, if the pick cant make the roster, its a waste, whether its a reach or a value pick.

     

Share