Article: The way the Patriots draft

[superpunk]

No, there is no subjectivity to it IMO.

There is to the portion I was referencing, ie impact players.

They were a much better team 3 years ago then we were. They are drafting players to compete ona superbowl quality team in 2004. We were drafting players we thougth might be able to help us get to the playoffs. Huge difference there. Three years ago, they were where we are now, so to speak. We are worried about being able to draft guys that can start or even make our team. They were even better then that three years ago.

This is also very true. But most of those players that are no longer on their team -- it's not like they're out there starting for bad teams. They're out there on the fringes of bad teams, slightly higher than out of the league. So the comparison is still valid. We've got guys out there that we drafted on team's rosters, too - but I'm not using them in the comparison either.

 

[lurkercowboy]

Everyone looks like geniuses when they are winning Superbowls ..... its been 2 years since the Pats won .....

Lets see if they continue to be the media darlings if they do not make it back real soon.

Good point.

 

[adamknite]

What about Richard Seymour, Ty Warren, Vince Wilfork, Asante Samuel, Matt Light, Dan Koppen, Eugene Wilson, Jarvis Green, Logan Mankins, Deion Branch, David Givens, Daniel Graham, Ben Watson, Tully Banta-Cain, etc. Man, that's a whole lot of luck right there.

those are good drafts, I never said they were luck. I said the contributing factor to all those SuperBowls is Tom Brady, if it wasn't for him they wouldn't have won. They are good at drafting but so are a other teams, the difference is other teams don't have a hall of fame QB. Tom Brady was luck, would they be a good team with those players yes, but if it wasn't for Tom Brady there would be no superbowls. They look like geniuses because they win superbowls so naturally people think they are just awesome with the draft but it really falls down to one peg and that's Brady, without him they're nothing.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

There is to the portion I was referencing, ie impact players.



This is also very true. But most of those players that are no longer on their team -- it's not like they're out there starting for bad teams. They're out there on the fringes of bad teams, slightly higher than out of the league. So the comparison is still valid. We've got guys out there that we drafted on team's rosters, too - but I'm not using them in the comparison either.

All well and good but teams that compete for championships year in and year out are not made up of all impact players. In truth, it is extremely important to draft players that are solid starters as opposed to impact players. The Pats draft both very well as evidence of the players they have drafted in the last three years.

As far as your statement about players being marginal and playing on other teams, well, that's typically what you can expect from guys who are being drafted on the second day of the draft. The fact that they are in the league says that they are still drafting well even if they are not drafting well enough to start for NE.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

those are good drafts, I never said they were luck. I said the contributing factor to all those SuperBowls is Tom Brady, if it wasn't for him they wouldn't have won. They are good at drafting but so are a other teams, the difference is other teams don't have a hall of fame QB. Tom Brady was luck, would they be a good team with those players yes, but if it wasn't for Tom Brady there would be no superbowls. They look like geniuses because they win superbowls so naturally people think they are just awesome with the draft but it really falls down to one peg and that's Brady, without him they're nothing.

Really? Dan Marino was a great QB but one HOF qb did not win a single championship for Miami or allow them to draft any better. Brady is not a reason for people to look at NE and say they draft better because of him. Brady is an example of why people look at NE and say, those guys draft better then anybody going right now.

 

[superpunk]

All well and good but teams that compete for championships year in and year out are not made up of all impact players. In truth, it is extremely important to draft players that are solid starters as opposed to impact players. The Pats draft both very well as evidence of the players they have drafted in the last three years.

As far as your statement about players being marginal and playing on other teams, well, that's typically what you can expect from guys who are being drafted on the second day of the draft. The fact that they are in the league says that they are still drafting well even if they are not drafting well enough to start for NE.

The analysis is incomplete, but IMO, still a good one. I think being on the team you were drafted by is a decent barometer of how you're drafting as a team. Team's rarely lose players they're really fond of. Looking at whether or not a player is still in the league is less so - IMO. For example, Stephen Peterman is still in the NFL. Would you agree with me using him to justify our history in drafting players, just because he is still in theleague?

I doubt it.

The analysis is somewhat incomplete, and to be REAL good would have to have alot of other factors in it - but just looking straight up, over the past 4 years, I think you can definitely say we're drafting as well or better than New England. That isn't negated just because they win more than we do.

 

[adamknite]

Really? Dan Marino was a great QB but one HOF qb did not win a single championship for Miami or allow them to draft any better. Brady is not a reason for people to look at NE and say they draft better because of him. Brady is an example of why people look at NE and say, those guys draft better then anybody going right now.

That's because Miami didn't draft exceedingly well or put good pieces around Marino. I never freaking said "New England doesn't draft well" in any of my posts. I said (or atleast tried to) that they had good solid drafts but the reason those drafts look so great is because Tom Brady is winning them games. Look at our team before Romo stepped in, and before we fell apart the last few games. It was the exact same team except for one player! That's what I'm talking about Brady makes plays when it matters how many times have you seen the Patriots look terrible all day yet still manage to keep the game close and Brady puts them in position to win at the end? A lot! If you have a great QB and a solid team around him you'll win in the NFL, and that's what the Patriots do. Now if I said "The patriots suck at drafting and the only reason they win is because Brady carries them" then I can see where you're coming from, but I just said "The Patriots are good at drafting, but so are other teams, the only reason they look so great is because they win a lot of games they probably should lose because Brady gets them in position to win."

 

[Pats Fan]

First off, this article was written for Boston and New England sport fans. Not for anyone else. Written by the Boston Herald.

The basic premise of the article is that we don't have a clue who BB and company will draft. We have the good, bad, and the ugly just like every other team. Overall though they have done a good job.

Do teams get lucky?? Sure, as one person wrote, how about Tom Brady. Was that luck. Darn right. To say otherwise is foolish.

How many teams draft a first round QB and find out they have a bust. Success in college does not equate to success in the NFL. They are just kids in college. As they mature, some get bigger, faster, and most importantly smarter. Are there exceptions, sure, some guys come out of the block "cooking" Like Reggie Bush. Love that kid.

So you don't have to evaluate the article. It's kind of like people discussing an article written for Boys fans.

The draft is a gamble. But I think knowing what to do with your "cards" is VERY important. And some teams are just flat out dumb. So smarts and luck play a HUGE role.

Nuff said.

 

[Pats Fan]

And Adamknight, you are right on the money.

Without Brady, we are not the team we are. Right on the money. No question, no doubt.

I really do not think people realize what this kid (hey I am an old fart), has done. He has always had just OK, or below OK receivers. But he has something few QB's have. I call it the "I will not lose" complex. When he goes, our team will not be the same.

Finding a top notch QB is the key to success.

Just my opinion, but I'm sticking to it.

Aikman was the same kind of guy. I like Rivers and Young right now. New guys on the block that have that mindset. I was really high on Palmer too until Pittsburgh did their number on him. Hope he makes it back.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The analysis is incomplete, but IMO, still a good one. I think being on the team you were drafted by is a decent barometer of how you're drafting as a team. Team's rarely lose players they're really fond of. Looking at whether or not a player is still in the league is less so - IMO. For example, Stephen Peterman is still in the NFL. Would you agree with me using him to justify our history in drafting players, just because he is still in theleague?

I doubt it.

The analysis is somewhat incomplete, and to be REAL good would have to have alot of other factors in it - but just looking straight up, over the past 4 years, I think you can definitely say we're drafting as well or better than New England. That isn't negated just because they win more than we do.

Yes I would. I would absolutly look at who's still in the league playing for other teams when evaluating how well a team drafts. Drafting a player based on talent and developing them are two different things. This discussion is about drafting, is it not? If you draft a player and he's not good enough to make it on a championship quality team but still manages to make it in the NFL, that says that you evaluated and drafted well IMO. Our own RT is an example of a player that was a good draft pick and became available to us because the team that drafted him was not able to keep him even though they wanted to. Jimmy Smith is another example of that. We didn't want to cut him. We had to. Ron Stone a few years ago. Craig Morton was another example of that. Todd Christianson another example. Lots of guys down through the years.

As for the statement that we are drafting as well or better, well, you can't say that. The only way you can say this is if we are lucky enough to win a championship and draft for an extended period of time towards the bottom of the draft, continue to win and be succesful while still bringing in exceptional talent that works for our system. Right now, your comparing apples to apples when the criteria is clearly apples to oranges IMO.