NickEsasky said:
2 tackles this year for Tavon Wilson. He was a WTF pick from the get go and has done nothing to change the draft day perception.
BB & The Draft: The Interminable Debate
- Thread starter genoasalami
- Start date
2 tackles this year for Tavon Wilson. He was a WTF pick from the get go and has done nothing to change the draft day perception.
Damn you Belichick for missing on a second round pick! Why did you only get 2 above average starters, a special teams guy, and whatever Hightower turns into out of that 2012 draft! Curse you for only getting one Hall of Fame talent in the 2nd round in the last five years!
Yeah you're right, we should never criticize St. Bill on a discussion board. What was I thinking? IN BILL WE TRUST!!Stitch01 said:
NickEsasky said:
Your point that Gregory is playing because the Pats picked Wilson doesn't make a lot of sense. If they hadn't taken Wilson, they might not have taken another safety at all and Gregory would still be playing. I don't see how the two are connected. And complaining about a failed second round pick is stupid, regardless of who the coach is. Expectations of 2nd rounders are generally unrealistic. Getting a core special teams/depth player is not a bad 2nd round pick.
That's fine and I fully admit my posts about Gregory are reactionary, but the dude sucked on Sunday so I won't apologize for it.Stitch01 said:
Belichick has been masterful with his DB drafting in the 2nd round, so no need to question him there.
Carmine Hose said:
I hate comments like this.
Yes you are allowed to question Belichick. Yes there are many times when he deserves criticism. Constantly fellating Bill Belichick is stupid.
Stating that he has done a bad job of drafting DBs in the second round of the draft without some data to show what a good or even average success rate of drafting DBs in the second round of the draft is just as stupid. It's just a stupid, pointless thing to get upset about. I think it's fine to say that you wish they got better performance out of DBs drafted in the 2nd round. Everyone wishes that.
But I have no absolutely no idea how they compare to the rest of the league at picking 2nd round players. So I am going to assume that they are no worse or no better at it, but that the 2nd round of the draft is basically a lottery. Expectations for draft picks around here are way above reality.
I realize this wasn't directed at me, but if the 2nd round is such a crapshoot, doesn't it stand to reason that Bill's strategy of trading out of it into the second round increases the risk that whoever he drafts will not pan out? Granted he's getting more assets when he does trade back, but the further back he goes the more likely the pick is not going to succeed.( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
For each pick he gets back, clearly, but he's getting multiple picks back when he does it as you acknowledged.
Pats have also drafted in the first round 13 times in the 13 years since 2001 (Pats lost the 2000 pick to get BB), so its not like they dont value first round picks. They value them very highly.
Pats have also drafted in the first round 13 times in the 13 years since 2001 (Pats lost the 2000 pick to get BB), so its not like they dont value first round picks. They value them very highly.
This is true - trading back absolutely increases the chances you will draft a bust. But the goal of the draft isn't to avoid busts, it's to maximize hits. If we take the Patriots' draft-day trade with the Vikings this year as an example, they gave up a 1st for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th. If we figure odds as something like (these are rough, but reasonably close to historical norms) - 80% success for the 1st-rounder, 50% for the 2nd, 35% for the 3rd, 15% for the 4th, 5% for the 7th - you will have a mathematical expectation of 0.8 of a useful player with the Vikings' end of that trade, and 1.05 of a useful player with the Pats' end of the deal. You come out ahead on the Pats' end from an expected value standpoint, but it's also clear that your chances of whiffing on that top pick are considerably higher. In the long run, a team that trades back will come out ahead, but in any given year the strategy can backfire.NickEsasky said:
The reason I hate the "Pats can't draft DB in the second round" is it reduces what is already a small sample size exercise (analyzing draft outcomes) into ridiculously small meaningless samples. Belichick has drafted 6 DBs in the second round in his entire tenure. He's drafted plenty of good DBs - Samuel, McCourty, Dennard, early returns on Ryan and Harmon are pretty good, a couple more starters in Hobbs, Sanders, Meriweather, Chung, Eugene Wilson - but something about the draft range 33-64 throws off his DB-evaluating ability?
Its also complicated because (to state the obvious) value isnt necessarily linear. Youd probably rather have 1 Clay Matthews than somewhere around 3 Shane Vereens even though Vereen is a second round hit.
My tentative conclusion given the Pats behavior and their hit rate on first round picks is that they are pretty risk averse with their first round picks and want to make sure they find contributing starters rather than gamble on "boom or bust" types. If there is someone available at reasonable cost that they feel sure about, they make a pick. If they cant find someone they feel pretty certain about and have to take riskier players, they'd rather trade down and get multiple at bats. Not rocket science, of course.
Given trades and team needs and sample size issues, I think the only way to look at drafting prowess is holistically and even then Im not sure there's a big enough sample size to reliabily deduce signal from noise.
My tentative conclusion given the Pats behavior and their hit rate on first round picks is that they are pretty risk averse with their first round picks and want to make sure they find contributing starters rather than gamble on "boom or bust" types. If there is someone available at reasonable cost that they feel sure about, they make a pick. If they cant find someone they feel pretty certain about and have to take riskier players, they'd rather trade down and get multiple at bats. Not rocket science, of course.
Given trades and team needs and sample size issues, I think the only way to look at drafting prowess is holistically and even then Im not sure there's a big enough sample size to reliabily deduce signal from noise.
NickEsasky said:
Stich and SN brought up good points, but I would think you also have to consider the Pats relative draft position in the first round each year. If they view all of the first round talent off the board by the time they are picking then they are essentially looking at spending a first rounder on a player that they view as second round risk.
Yeah, a more thorough analysis would include chances of finding a star, too, instead of just chances of finding a contributor, but I doubt it would change things much. Stars are found in later rounds, too, and I'm guessing (100% guessing) the proportions line roughly up with my numbers above. The Pats are, of course, rarely picking when the "obvious transcendent talents" are on the board, which would muddy the waters further.Stitch01 said:
As [obscene ASCII art] pointed out, part of that is a function of where the Pats are picking, but I think they take more risks than you (and probably the conventional wisdom) believes. Chandler Jones was a raw athlete who wasn't a very productive college player. Solder was a guy with elite size and athleticism who was considered one of the riskier LT options in his draft. Ben Watson was a physical freak who's never really translated it into production (and didn't really in the pros). There are more examples of safe first-round picks, of course, and some that are tweeners.Stitch01 said:
Belichick talks a little in War Room about how the second round of the draft is where the real swings-and-misses are, as the guys there have similar ceilings to the first-rounders, but have red flags that mean they might not reach that ceiling. We've definitely seen those picks play out good (Gronkowski, Vollmer) and bad (Dowling, Chad Jackson).
Agreed 100%.Stitch01 said:
Super Nomario said:
I think this is a great way of looking at it. Think about playing the lottery. Would you rather have one ticket with an 80% chance of winning, or four separate tickets, with a 50% chance for one to win, a 35% chance for the second to win, a 15% chance for the third to win, and a 5% chance for the fourth to win? Well, you just showed the math that the likelihood of "winning" actually goes up when you take the four tickets over the one.
And you always have the bonus of potentially getting a second "winning" ticket thrown in as well, something you have NO chance of if you just have one ticket.
I ran some numbers a while back, looking at the draft during BB's tenure, up through the 2012 draft, I think. Over that time, the Patriots had the third worst average draft number (134.11), used the 2nd most picks (117), and drafted the most combined pro-bowl and all-pro seasons over that time span (56….SF and Bal were second with 44). Obviously Brady factors in huge there, but even without his 2 all-pro and 8 pro-bowl seasons in there, the Patriots *STILL* have drafted the most combined pro-bowl and all-pro seasons of any team in the league.
Again, that was through the 2012 draft, so we'll see how it goes from here, but long story short, the Patriots' strategy of trading down for more picks seems to be paying off, as they're turning one of the worst average draft positions into more picks and producing far more elite seasons than any team in football.
The continuing excellence of this organization is proof that, over the long haul, they're doing it right.
Damn you Belichick for missing on a second round pick! Why did you only get 2 above average starters, a special teams guy, and whatever Hightower turns into out of that 2012 draft! Curse you for only getting one Hall of Fame talent in the 2nd round in the last five years!
Think your point is stronger if you leave Hightower out of the discussion. "Whatever Hightower turns into" isn't likely to be that impressive for such a high pick.
Think your point is stronger if you leave Hightower out of the discussion. "Whatever Hightower turns into" isn't likely to be that impressive for such a high pick.
In the state lottery there is no 53-man cap on how many tickets you can hold. They've lost some guys by using the shadow roster - Salas, Sudfeld. (Could count Koppen and Ihedigbo if you think the roster crunch was in part created by new guys)
It hasn't burned them yet, but there's a point of dim inishing returns from too many picks.
It hasn't burned them yet, but there's a point of dim inishing returns from too many picks.
I think its better to look at drafts as a whole (and across drafts) rather than get hung up looking if they got value pick by pick given that they trade picks around, might pick one guy because they picked a different guy earlier, etc.twibnotes said:
Hightower isn't what we hoped he'd be right now, but he's not AJ Jenkins. I think most likely he looks better next season as a Spikes replacement asked to play more to his strengths.
Stitch01 said:
Could Hightower increase his speed (or, rather, would his speed increase be significant) if he dropped down to about 255 instead of 270? You can still be a punishing hitter at 255 (look at Spikes, for example), but he may be just a bit faster, which would help him so much.
twibnotes said:
But you can't just judge it against some platonic first round pick, you have to judge it against the other players they could have gotten. Sometimes you can draft Ed Reed or Ray Lewis late in the first and sometimes you can't. Hightower's not great but it's not like Whitney Mercilus and Derek Wolfe and Nick Perry are that much better: his talent seems pretty comparable to guys who were drafted near him. [Harrison Smith does seem pretty good but I haven't studied him enough to really say and safety play can be so hard to judge.]
An interesting snippet here. Are 2nd round picks the most valuable?
http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2009/11/more-on-quarterbacks.html
http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2009/11/more-on-quarterbacks.html
Could Hightower increase his speed (or, rather, would his speed increase be significant) if he dropped down to about 255 instead of 270? You can still be a punishing hitter at 255 (look at Spikes, for example), but he may be just a bit faster, which would help him so much.
Sure he could, provided he doesn't mind sitting out four games if he gets caught.
Sure he could, provided he doesn't mind sitting out four games if he gets caught.
1. That Berri/Rob Simmons paper he cites is one of the most debunked pieces of research out there. In short, they totally ignores selection biases.amlothi said:
2. Thaler and Massey's study on the other hand is great, since neither Thaler nor Massey is a hack. It is however pretty outdated and based on the last CBA's cap figures for first round picks. My understanding is that this effect is largely gone now.