What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    You would think this was a stupid question but when you read threads about whether the Pats can draft well in round three(!) or whether they can draft a D lineman or DB (as opposed to other positions) or whether they just simply dont draft well (of course no COMPLETE comparison is given against either the league or any specific team - except when it was brought up that a study was done and had the Pats at either #5 or #6 in drafting in the league long term)... well, then this question seems to be worth asking.

    Regardless of trolls and fantasy football fans (of which there are many here) it is clear the Pats draft well though not spectacularly. They have their share of hits and misses LIKE EVERYONE else. BUt in the end they do a good job. And most importantly they do a GREAT job in putting together 53 man rosters.

    And for those of you who think it is ALL TB, football, like it or not, is hugely a team sport. History is filled with excellent QBs who won nothing because of the teams they were on. From Marino (who got to ONE SB and lost) to Archie Manning (a truly GREAT QB - who should be in the HOF - who played for a horrible team year in and year out) to so many others...

    TB is truly exceptional. You could make a case for him as #1 all time... impossible to say who is but there are only a few you can make the case for. But like EVERYONE ELSE who ever won a championship in the NFL and especially anyone who won multiple championships, they all had good teams and would never have been there had it not been for the team.

    Poeple here talk about a bad secondary or bad pass rush or, as in 2006, bad WRs, etc. If it were only about the QB then none of that would ever matter. But it does. 

    BOTTOM LINE: Pats have had an truly amazing run over the last 12 years or so and it looks like this run is not yet over. BB and TB have been at the heart of it. But it has taken a solid team to accomplish what they have done. Good drafting, even better 53 man roster, good coaching (though BB has had some bad games and some were BIG games) and great play at QB (though TB has had some bad games and some were big games).

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?


    It's not about the individual parts, it's about the synergy. Complementary football. However, BB has failed w/ drafting dbs.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    Failed or not done as well as we would have liked? He drafted McCourty and Dennard. That is two key starters out of 4 (or 5). We also do not know YET the final say on T Wilson. He played well for a rookie. While he has not been comforting in preseason that is all it is. He will either prove himself or not during REAL games. SO far he has played well for a rookie in a complex D.

    We also do not know about the new rookie DBs. PLUS we have harped on pass rush for a few years now. No DB looks good if there is no rush. ANd when there is everyone looks better.

    So fail? No. I am sorry. You overstate. 

    Most importantly you are right regarding TEAM talent and TEAM synergy. About complementary football. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    There are 22 Starters and a dozen or so sub package guys                and then 3 ST'and

    There are the 53 plus 8 for 61 total on the team

    There are 224 Draft picks each yr

    We get 7 picks a yr

    That is equal to 53/7 or 7.57 yrs of draft picks (or 8.7yrs w/PS)

    The average time in the league is 4.5yrs

    The elite talent is gone by pick 12?

    We pick in the 20's

    WE ahve one of the youngest teams in the NFL

    There are other great teams out there
    No team has All Stars at every position

    There is a Salary Cap. If you had All Stars at every position You couldn't get under the Salary Cap

    The odds are against every team, but we have been in the hunt since 2001

    BB has the Golden Rule "It doesnt matter how you get here, its what you do when you are here" - So its the 53 man roster

     


    Pat's Fan lost in Jet Land

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    There are 22 Starters and a dozen or so sub package guys                and then 3 ST'and

    There are the 53 plus 8 for 61 total on the team

    There are 224 Draft picks each yr

    We get 7 picks a yr

    That is equal to 53/7 or 7.57 yrs of draft picks (or 8.7yrs w/PS)

    The average time in the league is 4.5yrs

    The elite talent is gone by pick 12?

    We pick in the 20's

    WE ahve one of the youngest teams in the NFL

    There are other great teams out there
    No team has All Stars at every position

    There is a Salary Cap. If you had All Stars at every position You couldn't get under the Salary Cap

    The odds are against every team, but we have been in the hunt since 2001

    BB has the Golden Rule "It doesnt matter how you get here, its what you do when you are here" - So its the 53 man roster

     


    Pat's Fan lost in Jet Land



    Pretty much sums it up in my opinion.  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from mia76. Show mia76's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    I think one of the most important parts of the Pat's success over the BB/TB era is not the 22 starters but the quality of the other 31 players. It is an exceptional year for any football team when injuries do not strike good starters and without the quality back-ups to plug in most teams nose dive. We have seen that with the Bills, Jets and Dolphins up close. The Pats coaches do an incredible job of adjusting game plans to play to back-ups strengths and to hide their difficiencies. The Cassel year was a truly amazing coaching job as an example.

    The other thing that gets overlooked in analysis of roster is the schemes being played. We complain about DBs or pass rush on defense, but the Pat's have in recent years played very conservatively on defense. It seems that they take the approach that most offenses will make enough mistakes to stall out if forced to use three downs to get a first down four times in a row. That works against most teams in the regular season, not quite so well in the playoffs. We all saw a big improvement last year when Talib arrived, but I think it had more to do with playing more aggressive schemes - more man, more blitz, than with the actual skills Talib brought with him. 

    The defensive schemes played and the coaching on that side of the ball is an area where I think we could see improvement. I know BB is a 'defensive genius' but I haven't been very impressed the last few years and it is not just the roster talent.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    Of course the end result--the roster--is what matters. And the quality of the roster is really measured both by the quality of the individual players and by how well those individual players fit together and complement each other in executing the schemes utilized. 

    That said, if you don't draft well, it's pretty hard to build a quality roster.  You really only have two ways of building a roster:  through the draft and through (rookie and veteran) free agency.  The draft gives you the best chance of getting young, quality talent at reasonable cost, so drafting well is critical to building the best possible roster. 

     

    BB is very good at team building.  He's especially good at getting players who complement each other well.  It's harder to judge his success in the draft, only because any fair analysis requires a reliable and objective way of measuring player quality (I'm still not sure what that is), looking at how every other team drafted during the same time period, and taking into account the picks each team starts with based on finishing position.  That's a lot of research, which I doubt any of us has done or cares to do. 

     

    My own opinion (and it's really just an opinion from a cursory review of the past dozen or so drafts) is that BB   is a solid drafter, who prefers to spread his picks and seek overlooked value in the mid and lower rounds than concentrate his picks and go for sure bets in the top round.  This strategy makes a lot of sense for a team that consistently earns low draft picks because of high finishing positions each season.  BB executes it well, finding much solid talent in mid and lower rounds.  However, he isn't perfect and he has his fair share of failures.  He also  maybe  ends up with a bit less true top talent than ideal for a championship team.  The positive, however, is that he rarely has cap issues and always seems to have the flexibility to bring in complementary free agents to get the right mix of players.  He's rarely stuck with expensive, underperforming players that limit his ability to make moves to improve the team. 

     

    So overall, I guess I believe BB is a good drafter--probably one of the better drafters in the league, but I also see enough failures in his past to refrain from making hyperbolic claims about him being the best ever or even the best right now. 

     

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to mia76's comment:

    I think one of the most important parts of the Pat's success over the BB/TB era is not the 22 starters but the quality of the other 31 players. It is an exceptional year for any football team when injuries do not strike good starters and without the quality back-ups to plug in most teams nose dive. We have seen that with the Bills, Jets and Dolphins up close. The Pats coaches do an incredible job of adjusting game plans to play to back-ups strengths and to hide their difficiencies. The Cassel year was a truly amazing coaching job as an example.

    The other thing that gets overlooked in analysis of roster is the schemes being played. We complain about DBs or pass rush on defense, but the Pat's have in recent years played very conservatively on defense. It seems that they take the approach that most offenses will make enough mistakes to stall out if forced to use three downs to get a first down four times in a row. That works against most teams in the regular season, not quite so well in the playoffs. We all saw a big improvement last year when Talib arrived, but I think it had more to do with playing more aggressive schemes - more man, more blitz, than with the actual skills Talib brought with him. 

    The defensive schemes played and the coaching on that side of the ball is an area where I think we could see improvement. I know BB is a 'defensive genius' but I haven't been very impressed the last few years and it is not just the roster talent.



    is it the scheme or personnel.  Doesn't matter how good the scheme is if the players aren't good enough to do it.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    The two biggest x-factors a lot of people don't recognize is Brady and BB. You have one of the best QB's of all time and one of the best coaches of all time. When you have that combo it hides a lot of mistakes made in the draft and in FA. A lot of people talk about the 53 man squad but if you take away either of those two and suddenly things fail apart rapidly. I know the counter argument will be 08' but in reality you look at that weakness of the schedule that year it was a good chance the Pats could have gone 16-0 again with Brady at the helm. Look at it objectively, they went from a SB team to not making the playoffs in a weak year to being a SB contender again the very next year. When you remove those two factors the inability to draft top end talent with all those picks and the wasted FA salary becomes apparent. For example looking at the D specifically. Between 01-06' we had a top 10 D and sometimes a top 5 D. Everyone can agree bad drafting started around 07' and carried on from there while 06' started the weaker FA pickups. From that time to now we saw the older gaurd retire, get traded, or leave via FA. Since then this D has been less then stellar falling even further behind the league in pass rushing and pass protection. This is in despite of a focus to rebuild the D and the large number of resources placed in the secondary in particular.

    Has this team suceeded with poor drafts and FA pick ups, yep, but most of the credit should go to Brady and BB (coach) for keeping the team going. Of course the other side of the coin is how many SBs could we have won with proper FA picks and better early round selections. Here's a little list by the way:

    1st rounders drafted since 07' no longer on the team or on roster bubble:

    • Meriweather

    2nd rounders drafted since 07' no longer on the team or on roster bubble:

    • Wheatley
    • Chung
    • Butler
    • Brace
    • Ras-I (33rd pick)
    • Cunningham (Bubble)
    • Wilson (Bubble)

    3rd rounders drafted since 07' no longer on the team or on roster bubble:

    • Crable
    • O'Connell
    • Tate
    • Price
    • McKenzie
    • Bequette (Bubble)

    that's 14 players in 6 drafts (not including 13') not a great record considering that they keep on trading back into the 2nd and 3rd. From 07'-12' they have hit on less than 50% of the picks they make in days 1 and 2 and most have been on the D side. Is the draft a shot of the dice, yep, by why would you play a game with loaded dice and be surprised to lose? Reaching for players like Wilson and taking on health risks like Ras are shooting yourself in the foot. I can atleast understand the Butlers because the kid had talent and not a lot of red flags but McKenzie, Crable, Ras all having injury histories, O'Connell, Price, Wilson being drafted out of left field? All I have to say is enjoy it while you can because if you think this is ok then you are in for a rude surprise when BB or Brady retires and if this is carried forward.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

     the whole has to be greater thatn the sum of its parts

    Agree with schemes and depth being crucial

    Not only on D but O as well


    Pat's Fan lost in Jet Land

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    The two biggest x-factors a lot of people don't recognize is Brady and BB. You have one of the best QB's of all time and one of the best coaches of all time. When you have that combo it hides a lot of mistakes made in the draft and in FA. A lot of people talk about the 53 man squad but if you take away either of those two and suddenly things fail apart rapidly. I know the counter argument will be 08' but in reality you look at that weakness of the schedule that year it was a good chance the Pats could have gone 16-0 again with Brady at the helm. Look at it objectively, they went from a SB team to not making the playoffs in a weak year to being a SB contender again the very next year. When you remove those two factors the inability to draft top end talent with all those picks and the wasted FA salary becomes apparent. For example looking at the D specifically. Between 01-06' we had a top 10 D and sometimes a top 5 D. Everyone can agree bad drafting started around 07' and carried on from there while 06' started the weaker FA pickups. From that time to now we saw the older gaurd retire, get traded, or leave via FA. Since then this D has been less then stellar falling even further behind the league in pass rushing and pass protection. This is in despite of a focus to rebuild the D and the large number of resources placed in the secondary in particular.

    Has this team suceeded with poor drafts and FA pick ups, yep, but most of the credit should go to Brady and BB (coach) for keeping the team going. Of course the other side of the coin is how many SBs could we have won with proper FA picks and better early round selections. Here's a little list by the way:

    1st rounders drafted since 07' no longer on the team or on roster bubble:

    • Meriweather

    2nd rounders drafted since 07' no longer on the team or on roster bubble:

    • Wheatley
    • Chung
    • Butler
    • Brace
    • Ras-I (33rd pick)
    • Cunningham (Bubble)
    • Wilson (Bubble)

    3rd rounders drafted since 07' no longer on the team or on roster bubble:

    • Crable
    • O'Connell
    • Tate
    • Price
    • McKenzie
    • Bequette (Bubble)

    that's 14 players in 6 drafts (not including 13') not a great record considering that they keep on trading back into the 2nd and 3rd. From 07'-12' they have hit on less than 50% of the picks they make in days 1 and 2 and most have been on the D side. Is the draft a shot of the dice, yep, by why would you play a game with loaded dice and be surprised to lose? Reaching for players like Wilson and taking on health risks like Ras are shooting yourself in the foot. I can atleast understand the Butlers because the kid had talent and not a lot of red flags but McKenzie, Crable, Ras all having injury histories, O'Connell, Price, Wilson being drafted out of left field? All I have to say is enjoy it while you can because if you think this is ok then you are in for a rude surprise when BB or Brady retires and if this is carried forward.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus



    One thing you have to look at though, is what's the overall success rate in the second or third round?  I did a quick analysis a few months ago (of the bottom 25 picks of the second round, I believe) and was surprised to see how many of the players picked in that part of the second round over the past few years are already out of the league.  If 60% of players picked in some portion of the draft don't last more than three years and only 50% of BB's picks picked in that same part of the draft don't last more than three years, then BB would be doing good despite a 50% bust rate. 

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    The draft is 90% responsible for the level of quality of your roster. So, the thread title doesn't make much sense.

     

    80% of NFL starting rosters are pretty much the same quality from team to team. The 20% are the difference makers. The best teams have more of those game changers and the poor teams don't. Simple as that. The 53 man roster can contain some quality to offset injury, but most of the NFL is filler and you aren't going to fill a gap left by an all-pro with filler.

    ____________________________________________________________

    When asked after the war why he had seized the machine gun and taken on an entire company of German infantry, Audie Murphy replied simply, "They were killing my friends."

    http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/audie-murphy-2-1.jpg

     

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    The draft is 90% responsible for the level of quality of your roster. So, the thread title doesn't make much sense.

     

    80% of NFL starting rosters are pretty much the same quality from team to team. The 20% are the difference makers. The best teams have more of those game changers and the poor teams don't. Simple as that. The 53 man roster can contain some quality to offset injury, but most of the NFL is filler and you aren't going to fill a gap left by an all-pro with filler.

    ____________________________________________________________

    When asked after the war why he had seized the machine gun and taken on an entire company of German infantry, Audie Murphy replied simply, "They were killing my friends."

    http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/audie-murphy-2-1.jpg

      



    It is?  May I ask your source on that one, Babe?  And are you referring to the draft in general or only the players that the team in question has drafted?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?


    You know BB gets much criticism for his 2nd & 3rd round failures and rightly so in some cases. The thing he gets zero credit for is his understanding that football in most years is a game of attrition. He is one of the best at making sure that he has quality replacements at most positions. I would say not every year but consistanly since he has been here that the Pat's are always one of the deeper teams 1 thru 53.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The draft is 90% responsible for the level of quality of your roster. So, the thread title doesn't make much sense.

     

    80% of NFL starting rosters are pretty much the same quality from team to team. The 20% are the difference makers. The best teams have more of those game changers and the poor teams don't. Simple as that. The 53 man roster can contain some quality to offset injury, but most of the NFL is filler and you aren't going to fill a gap left by an all-pro with filler.

    ____________________________________________________________

    When asked after the war why he had seized the machine gun and taken on an entire company of German infantry, Audie Murphy replied simply, "They were killing my friends."

    http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/audie-murphy-2-1.jpg

      

     



    It is?  May I ask your source on that one, Babe?  And are you referring to the draft in general or only the players that the team in question has drafted?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm talking about the players a specific team team drafts. I think 90% of a team's impact roster quality comes from their drafting.

    The source would be looking at a typical NFL roster. The great majority of quality guys were drafted by the team.

    Can you find many rosters where say the top dozen players were not mostly acquired by the team in the draft?

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:


    He is one of the best at making sure that he has quality replacements at most positions.



    He doesn't even have high quality starters for most positions on defense. The good thing about that is there isn't much dropoff when he brings in the replacement stiff for the starter injured stiff though.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     


    He is one of the best at making sure that he has quality replacements at most positions.

     



    He doesn't even have high quality starters for most positions on defense. The good thing about that is there isn't much dropoff when he brings in the replacement stiff for the starter injured stiff though.

     

     




    Kelly, wilfork, Jones, Nink, Spikes, Mayo, Hightower, McCourty, A. Wilson, Dennard, talib

    which of the majority of these aren't high quality?

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    Depth of talent matters, how you got there is irrelevant.  

    When BB has a position to fill, he usually drafts someone, sometimes two players, brings in a vet to compete and/or teach the rookies... then for good measure he brings some low risk players to camp to create even more competition.  

    If the 3rd round pick doesn't work out but the undrafted free agent does, who cares?  It's a machine gun mentality when it comes to the roster building, there is no limit to the number of players you can bring to camp.  Like someone said earlier, the average NFL career is three years, these guys aren't playing hop scotch.

    The moaners looking at each pick saying "well what if we drafted so and so instead," even though they're usually doing it three or four years after the draft, ignoring the big picture (winning!) are wasting their time.  Why didn't you tell us on draft day or prior to the draft who we should draft, keeping in mind you can't simply pick all the top players on Kiper's big board because in the real world most teams only have one #1 pick... well except for the Pats who usually have two.

    All the "experts" and know it alls here without the benefit of hindsight would be the worst GM's in the business because they're narrow minded and have tunnel vision.  Football is a team sport, Marino and Shula, Fran Tarkenton, Archie Manning, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly, Steve Grogan... there have been many great QB's who didn't win a ring.  There have also been many great QB prospects who went to terrible teams and never had a shot.  

    Coaching is tops in football, a good coach will find good talent.  Good talent won't make a bad coach look good.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?


    Obviously both of these things are related, and both equally important. But at the end of the day, we need to field a good (TEAM) that can win.

    Name me one person in the NFL that has done a better job that BB in the last dozen years.

    Sure he misses on a bunch of picks...(just like every other team). But the real difference is that even with those misses, BB still fields a contender almost every year. And to me, that is someone doing a great job!!

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    Well....what came first....the chicken.....or the egg??

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     


    He is one of the best at making sure that he has quality replacements at most positions.

     



    He doesn't even have high quality starters for most positions on defense. The good thing about that is there isn't much dropoff when he brings in the replacement stiff for the starter injured stiff though.

     

     

     




     

    Kelly, wilfork, Jones, Nink, Spikes, Mayo, Hightower, McCourty, A. Wilson, Dennard, talib

    which of the majority of these aren't high quality?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    How many all-pro years out of that group?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     


    He is one of the best at making sure that he has quality replacements at most positions.

     



    He doesn't even have high quality starters for most positions on defense. The good thing about that is there isn't much dropoff when he brings in the replacement stiff for the starter injured stiff though.

     

     

     

     




     

     

    Kelly, wilfork, Jones, Nink, Spikes, Mayo, Hightower, McCourty, A. Wilson, Dennard, talib

    which of the majority of these aren't high quality?

     




    How many all-pro years out of that group?

     

     




     

    So only all pros are quality players and you can only win with all pros? In my opinion I think having multiple all pros is overrated

    As an example TB most likely deserved 2 or 3 more All Pro years he didn't get does that make him less of a player?

    My only point is that the Pat's have quality players. i know you think otherwise but the 11 starters i listed on D minimum of 9 are quality NFL starters.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE] 

    The draft is 90% responsible for the level of quality of your roster. So, the thread title doesn't make much sense. 

    80% of NFL starting rosters are pretty much the same quality from team to team. The 20% are the difference makers. The best teams have more of those game changers and the poor teams don't. Simple as that. The 53 man roster can contain some quality to offset injury, but most of the NFL is filler and you aren't going to fill a gap left by an all-pro with filler.

    ____________________________________________________________

    When asked after the war why he had seized the machine gun and taken on an entire company of German infantry, Audie Murphy replied simply, "They were killing my friends."

    http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/audie-murphy-2-1.jpg



    It is?  May I ask your source on that one, Babe?  And are you referring to the draft in general or only the players that the team in question has drafted?

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm talking about the players a specific team team drafts. I think 90% of a team's impact roster quality comes from their drafting.

    The source would be looking at a typical NFL roster. The great majority of quality guys were drafted by the team.

    Can you find many rosters where say the top dozen players were not mostly acquired by the team in the draft? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok, so that's your opinion - got it.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     


    He is one of the best at making sure that he has quality replacements at most positions.

     



    He doesn't even have high quality starters for most positions on defense. The good thing about that is there isn't much dropoff when he brings in the replacement stiff for the starter injured stiff though.

     

     

     




     

    Kelly, wilfork, Jones, Nink, Spikes, Mayo, Hightower, McCourty, A. Wilson, Dennard, talib

    which of the majority of these aren't high quality?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Two of those starters are this years band-aids,

    Three of those starters have been with the system for a year or less,  Where are the defenders from 2006 thru 2009?  Even 2010-11 has poor yield on D.

    One is a converted CB with mixed results.

    Only Mayo and Fork have been constants for 3 or more years,

    That's 2  in the past 3-9 years, of the hundred or so, defenders drafted or picked up in  FA during that time.

    Constant rebuilding and turn over has hurt this team.

    The ideal is to build and develop through the draft.  This duct tape and super glue approach is not working.  You must replace that broken part with a brand new and much stronger part.  Bargain basement parts are not likely to yield the desired results as eventually you are back to square 1 and needing to replace the junk you just purchased.

    This failure has led to bottom 5 defenses in the past few years.

    Teams with such an imbalance (top offense & bottom defense) can win in the RS against teams with worse problems, similar problems and occasionally against better balanced teams  but having one CARRY the other is not a recipe for success.  Do you really think BB  wants a number 1 offense and a bottom ranked D? 

    HELL, no he doesn't and neither should we.

    That becomes evident in the play-offs where they are matched against better or equal talent.  These types of teams can concentrate on taking out strengths (offense) and what you are left with is a glaring weakness (defense) that no one is worried about..  Also teams exploit that D and in turn hurt the O with low possession games, making them one dimensional.

    That is why O & D, balance is paramount.

    It's much more difficult to take out a balanced team.

    That's why teams with a 31st ranked defenses NEVER win Super Bowls.

    This is why you have to do a better job with hitting on those picks...

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     


    One thing you have to look at though, is what's the overall success rate in the second or third round?  I did a quick analysis a few months ago (of the bottom 25 picks of the second round, I believe) and was surprised to see how many of the players picked in that part of the second round over the past few years are already out of the league.  If 60% of players picked in some portion of the draft don't last more than three years and only 50% of BB's picks picked in that same part of the draft don't last more than three years, then BB would be doing good despite a 50% bust rate. 

     

     



    That 50% includes the 1st (Which BB is very good at). If you take out the first his 2nd and 3rd round numbers aren't all that great. Essentially you are left with Ridley, Vereen, Spikes, Vollmer, and Gronk as guys who are at least productive and Mallett who we hope wouldn't have to show he is. Past that everyone else is on the cut or bubble list

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share