Evaluating the Front Office

[SMU_Sox]

Thinking about @Super Nomario 's book and the front office. Overall I'd give them a solid B+ (A-?) for the off-season. They've done numerous things well but have some areas for improvement. I'll also cover the draft in here.

Things the front office has done well:
1) Winning free-agency. They didn't overspend to bring in mediocre players even with the money they had. They brought in sensible free-agents to help fill the roster on moderate deals. They are keeping their powder dry.
2) Re-signing their good players. They kept all their potential big ticket free agents minus Brown who was not a culture fit. They also brought back some of their quality contributors as well like Jennings. They just extended Barmore for what will hopefully be viewed as a team friendly deal (I think it is//will be).
3) Picking the right QB and having a vision for Drake Maye. Look at the two receivers they got, Polk, and Baker. Both guys have huge catch radii. Both guys can stack corners and win vertically. Both guys will help with run blocking and the run game. These receivers are perfect fits for Maye (they could stand to add some speed though next year) even if Polk might have been a slight overdraft. They also tried to draft OL who can step in soon and help give Maye the protection he needs.

Things they could work on:
1) They didn't get the most out of the draft as they probably/maybe-possibly could have. Keep in mind this is a limited sample size. However: There is evidence they maybe focused in on players vs tiers of 3-4 guys. There is evidence they focused in on positions even if the value didn't meet the draft slot, like with Caedan Wallace and OT. There is evidence of some reaches and alarmingly over-optimistic evals, like, again, with Caedan Wallace. Reaching 100+ draft slots on the consensus board is a big risk. Considering Wallace a left tackle tells me they are over-relying on his workout and/or what PSU coaches are telling them and it could be bad process. If they took that from the tape they are... on an island by themselves. Polk is a great fit but he would probably have been there 3-6 slots down and maybe more. Why not pick up a draft pick that would help you trade up from 68 to grab a better OT prospect? Overall Drake was a huge value at 3 but the rest of their picks average out to a significant loss of potential value because most were reaches. They were scheme fits and the picks made sense but going against consensus as many times as they did and as much as they did is swimming upstream to say the least.
2) Left Tackle is a potential disaster spot, and right tackle play could decline. I think the team is overconfident that Chuks, Wallace, or Anderson can handle LT and that it won't be a 3-alarm fire. If they have to give help to LT, and they likely will, that leaves Onwenu without as much help. The lack of support could expose some of Onwenu's weaknesses as an RT. Left tackle is hard to solve but there are still veteran FAs out there who could help stop-gap it.

What do you all think?

Overall they picked the right scheme fits in the draft and I applaud their vision. They might not have maximized the draft but they got the right QB and immediately drafted players who will help bring out the best of him. If Maye turns into what I think he can be they will have nailed the most important part. Next year they will likely be in a place to solve LT in the first round and hopefully add a faster WR and a dynamic TE sometime days 2-3.

 

[MikeM]

Classifying the team as "'winning" free agency simply for not overspending, even on various 1 year contract players that could have helped, seems like a stretch. As does putting the team's final player acquisition list on the done well side of that tally. Especially with that QB pick essentially being made for them.

Just curious. Do you give this FO the same grade on that if/when they run Maye out there as the unquestioned day 1 starter?

 

[Salem's Lot]

If Maye turns into a top 10 QB, this front office will be regarded as very good to great. If he sucks, then they’ll all get fired. It’s really as simple as that.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

Fisher and Rosengarten went just ahead of Wallace in the draft and both were as low on the consensus board. That shows as evidence that the league was higher on the RTs who played opposite the top LTs than consensus. There is likely zero chance they were on an island in respect to what he has the ability to do. You even put possible LT, RT or G in your own eval. Saying they’re over relying on a workout or info from his coaches is an odd statement.

I agree that LT is still a question mark and the fact they’re looking at multiple options at that spot shows me that they’re in the same boat. Hoping that one of them pans out doesn’t scream confidence to me. After having Brown and no real depth I see the options as an improvement though. As far as RT, I mean sure Onwenu could decline with less help but they didn’t pay him like they’re concerned about that. My bigger concern is Andrews at center. He was not good last year. Even then, they have J. Andrew’s and Turner as possible options.

Something else this FO should get credit for is the assembling of an experienced coaching staff under Mayo. The offensive side is now a bunch of guys who’ve had success in today’s NFL. There is a clear vision on offense here for the first time in a long time.

With Polk, you have no real way of knowing if he actually would have been available later or if they had options to move down further. It’s conjecture. I’m happy they focused on getting the players they wanted. How does anyone maximize value from what amounts to be an intensely researched crapshoot?

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Something else this FO should get credit for is the assembling of an experienced coaching staff under Mayo. The offensive side is now a bunch of guys who’ve had success in today’s NFL. There is a clear vision on offense here for the first time in a long time.

Not just guys who have had success in the NFL, but an OC who is known for his work with QBs and a staff who have worked with him or in similar systems.

 

[NomarsFool]

I would disagree on FA. They could have taken some swings on higher cost but short term contracts to fill a hole or two - the biggest being LT. Overpaying 3-4 guys on long term deals - yes, that would have been stupid. Signing one player on a prove myself contract for one year at a higher value - I think that would have helped.

As for Drake Maye, I just don’t give them a lot of credit for taking the obvious choice or the fact that he was there at three. The reported offers for three, I think everyone agrees weren’t good, so they didn’t stupidly trade the pick- but no real award for that, either.

I’d say a solid “B”

 

[SMU_Sox]

If Maye turns into a top 10 QB, this front office will be regarded as very good to great. If he sucks, then they’ll all get fired. It’s really as simple as that.

If you draft a QB high and that QB fails to develop you are most likely getting the axe no matter who the owner is and what the situation is.

 

[lexrageorge]

It's obviously not possible for us to know how these moves will all play out 3-4 years from now, which is the correct time horizon to judge draft picks. All we can evaluate is the process, and to do that we have imperfect information before us (none of us were in the planning meetings in Foxboro). Agree with SMU_sox that the process seems sound. If I was to pick nits, I thought they could have brought in some defensive depth in free agency, especially in the front 7.

I don't take away credit for making the so-called "obvious" draft pick. The team needs good players; if the obvious picks turn into good players, I'm OK with it. There were some trade proposals out there, some of which were probably fair value. But I can understand why the team did not want to move out of the Top 10 in this draft, as they really need players.

Agree that the success (or failure) of Maye will be how this draft offseason will be remembered.

 

[tims4wins]

Agree that the success (or failure) of Maye will be how this draft offseason will be remembered.

Not just offseason, but era, for Mayo and Wolf. As @SMU_Sox says, they'll both be out of a job in 3-4 years if Maye fails.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Classifying the team as "'winning" free agency simply for not overspending, even on various 1 year contract players that could have helped, seems like a stretch. As does putting the team's final player acquisition list on the done well side of that tally. Especially with that QB pick essentially being made for them.

Just curious. Do you give this FO the same grade on that if/when they run Maye out there as the unquestioned day 1 starter?

That is how I view FA with a rebuilding team - middle class contract shopping only and keep the powder dry for when you have a QB. I would have liked to have seen a veteran LT signing and I think that is coming sometime during camp if no one shows anything. It's possible we get to camp and Anderson gives you below average play, good enough to not be a disaster. I am skeptical about their LT situation - granted it's hard to solve without a first round pick.

Maybe they sign Charles Leno or Donovan Smith in camp? That's my guess.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Fisher and Rosengarten went just ahead of Wallace in the draft and both were as low on the consensus board. That shows as evidence that the league was higher on the RTs who played opposite the top LTs than consensus. There is likely zero chance they were on an island in respect to what he has the ability to do. You even put possible LT, RT or G in your own eval. Saying they’re over relying on a workout or info from his coaches is an odd statement.

Fisher was 87th on the CBB.
Rosengarten was 75th on the CBB.
Caedan Wallace was 186th on the CBB.

The league is higher on OL in general almost every year. Not to toot my own horn here but the biggest differences I have with the CBB are I value OL higher than consensus and better than the CBB. I might do a lot of shit wrong in draft projection but I tend to get OL close to right. I had 2nd-3rd round grades on Fisher and Rosengarten myself.

Here is my eval:

Here is my board:


When in my eval did I say he could play LT? Did I miss something here? Also it isn't an odd statement, it's literally what happened! The Pats noted he could play LT and were confident about that from talking with PSU and working him out.

Lastly the underlined could mean various things. What do you mean? Rosengarten and Fisher are more athletic and better in pass pro. That's why they could potentially be LTs.

I agree that LT is still a question mark and the fact they’re looking at multiple options at that spot shows me that they’re in the same boat. Hoping that one of them pans out doesn’t scream confidence to me.

It isn't just pan out... it's they aren't going to be an abject disaster. Because if Wolf thought it was going to be the latter he would have signed a vet stopgap option. Seem fair? If not then I think they failed at having a satisfying starter.

After having Brown and no real depth I see the options as an improvement though.

Yes but I would rather have Brown, an actual legit LT and no real depth vs quality shitty depth. Backup LTs are like backup QBs - it's rare to have an actual decent backup. I don't think the backup situation is that much better anyway, Chuks is either your starter or your backup and he was really a swing tackle starting at RT. So how is the depth better?

As far as RT, I mean sure Onwenu could decline with less help but they didn’t pay him like they’re concerned about that.

They paid him like a quality starting guard//above average/average right tackle. Ideally he isn't playing RT. Ideally he is playing RG because he is a close to pro-bowl caliber RG. But since we don't have any OTs he is now playing RT. The team waited forever before kicking him out there in large part because RG is his home. Maybe Wallace can play RT in time and they draft the LT in round 1 next year.

My bigger concern is Andrews at center. He was not good last year. Even then, they have J. Andrew’s and Turner as possible options.

A UDFA in a bad year for UDFAs and a second year depth guy who was a reach last year and not a fit for wide zone because he has shitty lateral agility. I am skeptical here that OC won't be a disaster if Andrews is out. I wish they had a versatile IOL veteran depth guy. Leverett maybe? He got some cross-training at OC so he might be the first in line. I think he would be able to give you ok enough pass pro there.

Something else this FO should get credit for is the assembling of an experienced coaching staff under Mayo. The offensive side is now a bunch of guys who’ve had success in today’s NFL. There is a clear vision on offense here for the first time in a long time.

Completely agree. Great call.

With Polk, you have no real way of knowing if he actually would have been available later or if they had options to move down further. It’s conjecture. I’m happy they focused on getting the players they wanted. How does anyone maximize value from what amounts to be an intensely researched crapshoot?

I hate this game because you should be able to imagine that a guy who NFL forecasters projected in the 70s and was 62nd on the CBB was going to be there in the 40s. After Polk went there wasn't another receiver taken until pick 52, AD Mitchell who fell for character reasons, and then pick 65, Malachi Corley. WR had dropped off. Do you really think Polk wasn't going to be there when more regarded WRs didn't go off the board until later? I don't. I don't think Polk would be available at pick 65 necessarily but at 45-50, yes. Dropping back another 5-10 spots could have netted them a 4th round pick which they then could have used to trade up from 68 and not draft Caedan Wallace. Or let them take a tight end! Or take yet another bite at the draft apple. You have to be comfortable with tiers of WRs and not just focus in on an individual player.

And to answer your question there are books written on how you maximize value in the draft. The easiest way to do so is to trade back and not be locked into a player but a cluster of players. Which is what I advocated. You need to be able to play the board - there is risk there but there is a lot of potential value to be gained. You can read about how reaches are bad from Arif himself. Arif's article has multiple other studies in it as well from PFF and OTC. Really good stuff in there. Saying something like "I am happy they focused on getting the players they wanted" is meaningless without context. Did they focus on the right players? Did the reach? Could they or should they have traded back? It's an extreme but it proves a point - if they took a bunch of projected 7th rounders in rounds 2-3-4 would you say the same thing? You wouldn't right? Wallace was the biggest reach of day 2. Robinson and Dial were reaches as well even for day 3 guys. Day 3 guys are not likely to produce much of anything but you're still hurting your already slim chances by reaching.

 

[radsoxfan]

Not just offseason, but era, for Mayo and Wolf. As @SMU_Sox says, they'll both be out of a job in 3-4 years if Maye fails.

The one caveat I'd add is that if during that expected development time you stumble into your long term QB anyway, that's fine too. Milton (unlikely) or 4-7th round QB X over the next few years could also be a hit.

Basically, the Purdy/Lance situation in SF. Not particularly likely but taking some late QB fliers can end up saving the FO here if Maye flops.

 

[tims4wins]

The one caveat I'd add is that if during that expected development time you stumble into your long term QB anyway, that's fine too. Milton (unlikely) or 4-7th round QB X over the next few years could also be a hit.

Basically, the Purdy/Lance situation in SF. Not particularly likely but taking some late QB fliers can end up saving the FO here if Maye flops.

Or RG3/Cousins.

 

[twibnotes]

If Maye turns into a top 10 QB, this front office will be regarded as very good to great. If he sucks, then they’ll all get fired. It’s really as simple as that.

Yup - this thread is 2-3 years early

 

[Cellar-Door]

So one thing I've been wondering about in general, and I think it may apply to Wallace in particular......

I think the big board might be useless outside the top 75 or so in general, and particularly for difficult evaluations like OL. So many people getting roped into the big board only really do a top 75 or top 100, but also, I wonder about a lot of people who seem to not really eval OL. Also some places compile their big boards by raw grade without position value (which is dumb).

I was looking at some people who are considered good OL evaluators.....
Brandon Thorn does not do a big board. But he had Wallace as the 11th best OT (BR plugged that into their big board as 154th overall, but.... that's pretty dumb since they don't use positional value in their board, so they end up with things like 10 RBs going before the 10th OT.... which means you should not be including that in the consensus but rather throwing it directly in the trash).
Lance Zeirlien had Wallace as his 10th best OT prospect, and hypothetically 96th best prospect.

Both had him higher in the OT rankings than where he went among OTs in the draft.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

Fisher was 87th on the CBB.
Rosengarten was 75th on the CBB.
Caedan Wallace was 186th on the CBB.

The league is higher on OL in general almost every year. Not to toot my own horn here but the biggest differences I have with the CBB are I value OL higher than consensus and better than the CBB. I might do a lot of shit wrong in draft projection but I tend to get OL close to right. I had 2nd-3rd round grades on Fisher and Rosengarten myself.

Here is my eval:
View attachment 82107
Here is my board:
View attachment 82108

When in my eval did I say he could play LT? Did I miss something here? Also it isn't an odd statement, it's literally what happened! The Pats noted he could play LT and were confident about that from talking with PSU and working him out.

I must have mixed up Coleman and Wallace. Apologies I was on my phone and working from memory. Had to switch to my computer for the response. In looking at your board Wallace was in the same tier as Kiran, Kingsley and Coleman. I really wanted Sua but I can see why they went with Wallace as on paper he's viewed as less of a project. I think over -relying is an odd sentiment when it comes to having more info than the rest of us. They saw him work out on the left side. The talked to his position coaches about his ability to play there. Not sure how you can be overly reliant on pertinent info.

Lastly the underlined could mean various things. What do you mean? Rosengarten and Fisher are more athletic and better in pass pro. That's why they could potentially be LTs.

The underlined was saying that theres no way that no one else in the entire league considered playing him on the left. I mean maybe but I don't see how that can be said with any certainty.

It isn't just pan out... it's they aren't going to be an abject disaster. Because if Wolf thought it was going to be the latter he would have signed a vet stopgap option. Seem fair? If not then I think they failed at having a satisfying starter.

Totally fair. I will say though, the options out there were extremely limited. I don't fault them for not paying below average known quantities. They could still bring in someone too if things look suspect in camp.

Yes but I would rather have Brown, an actual legit LT and no real depth vs quality shitty depth. Backup LTs are like backup QBs - it's rare to have an actual decent backup. I don't think the backup situation is that much better anyway, Chuks is either your starter or your backup and he was really a swing tackle starting at RT. So how is the depth better?

I soured a lot on Trent Brown. I want a guy who shows up every week. Is he a legit LT? Sure, but like 60% of the time. A healthy Anderson, Chuks and Wallace has potential. What did we have last year? Wheatley, McDermott and Lowe? I see this year as better but I understand where it can be perceived as still poor.

They paid him like a quality starting guard//above average/average right tackle. Ideally he isn't playing RT. Ideally he is playing RG because he is a close to pro-bowl caliber RG. But since we don't have any OTs he is now playing RT. The team waited forever before kicking him out there in large part because RG is his home. Maybe Wallace can play RT in time and they draft the LT in round 1 next year.

Definitely a possibility, although Onwenu grades out as better at tackle than at guard. His versatility is what makes him a great signing. I see no issue with him finally having a singular position though and he should do well.

A UDFA in a bad year for UDFAs and a second year depth guy who was a reach last year and not a fit for wide zone because he has shitty lateral agility. I am skeptical here that OC won't be a disaster if Andrews is out. I wish they had a versatile IOL veteran depth guy. Leverett maybe? He got some cross-training at OC so he might be the first in line. I think he would be able to give you ok enough pass pro there.

I mean ok, if you want to be pessimistic about it. Kidding aside, I agree that if Andrews isn't playing well or out we could be in trouble. I think Turner is intriguing for a UDFA and J Andrews is at the very least someone who has played the position before. Again, still time to evaluate what they really have here before the season starts.

I hate this game because you should be able to imagine that a guy who NFL forecasters projected in the 70s and was 62nd on the CBB was going to be there in the 40s. After Polk went there wasn't another receiver taken until pick 52, AD Mitchell who fell for character reasons, and then pick 65, Malachi Corley. WR had dropped off. Do you really think Polk wasn't going to be there when more regarded WRs didn't go off the board until later? I don't. I don't think Polk would be available at pick 65 necessarily but at 45-50, yes. Dropping back another 5-10 spots could have netted them a 4th round pick which they then could have used to trade up from 68 and not draft Caedan Wallace. Or let them take a tight end! Or take yet another bite at the draft apple. You have to be comfortable with tiers of WRs and not just focus in on an individual player.

I can see where after Coleman and Legette they had Polk as the next receiver on their board. Mitchell was never coming here. Corley was viewed as kind of a project, almost a RB miscast as a receiver. So yeah, they likely saw that they were at the end of the run on WRs and picked the guy they had the the top of the next tier. As to the bolded, I have no idea. But neither do you. We have no idea if there were offers to move back in that 45-50 range.

And to answer your question there are books written on how you maximize value in the draft. The easiest way to do so is to trade back and not be locked into a player but a cluster of players. Which is what I advocated. You need to be able to play the board - there is risk there but there is a lot of potential value to be gained. You can read about how reaches are bad from Arif himself. Arif's article has multiple other studies in it as well from PFF and OTC. Really good stuff in there. Saying something like "I am happy they focused on getting the players they wanted" is meaningless without context. Did they focus on the right players? Did the reach? Could they or should they have traded back? It's an extreme but it proves a point - if they took a bunch of projected 7th rounders in rounds 2-3-4 would you say the same thing? You wouldn't right? Wallace was the biggest reach of day 2. Robinson and Dial were reaches as well even for day 3 guys. Day 3 guys are not likely to produce much of anything but you're still hurting your already slim chances by reaching.

To the bolded again. We have no idea right now. What you call huge reaches and what they had on their draft board can and likely does differ. If they picked a bunch of projected 7th rounders in rounds 2-4 the entire NFL community would be roasting them and rightly so.

How can you possibly maximize value on something that is so unsure? I appreciate the resources you linked but I don't see how picking exactly to consensus and/or trading back and amassing picks is the right answer. It comes across as trying to play the draft safe and I don't think that's how you win in the NFL. Sometimes you have to swing big or you have to be confident in your evaluations. I saw this draft as the latter.

 

[radsoxfan]

Or RG3/Cousins.

Definitely, it's about having a legit QB in 3 years or so, not necessarily Maye panning out.

Obviously Maye is the leader in the clubhouse for that spot (if we have anyone at all), but a lot can change in 3 years.

If we have a good team aside from QB and can sign a FA (like a Cousins situation for Atl before their bizarre Penix pick) that could also work.

 

[SMU_Sox]

So one thing I've been wondering about in general, and I think it may apply to Wallace in particular......

I think the big board might be useless outside the top 75 or so in general, and particularly for difficult evaluations like OL. So many people getting roped into the big board only really do a top 75 or top 100, but also, I wonder about a lot of people who seem to not really eval OL. Also some places compile their big boards by raw grade without position value (which is dumb).

I was looking at some people who are considered good OL evaluators.....
Brandon Thorn does not do a big board. But he had Wallace as the 11th best OT (BR plugged that into their big board as 154th overall, but.... that's pretty dumb since they don't use positional value in their board, so they end up with things like 10 RBs going before the 10th OT.... which means you should not be including that in the consensus but rather throwing it directly in the trash).
Lance Zeirlien had Wallace as his 10th best OT prospect, and hypothetically 96th best prospect.

Both had him higher in the OT rankings than where he went among OTs in the draft.

The board is useful outside the top 75. The different articles Arif links as well as his own analysis shows that. It’s actually really useful in round 6-7 based on second contracts analysis via over the cap.

 

[Justthetippett]

If you draft a QB high and that QB fails to develop you are most likely getting the axe no matter who the owner is and what the situation is.

I understand this but I think the really good front offices can withstand failures because their hit rate overall remains high and they produce good teams. SF being the latest example.

 

[SMU_Sox]

@Justthetippett thats really arguing the exception. Aside from SF and… sort of Philly that hasn’t happened.

It’s so hard to find a QB out of round 1 that you can’t rely on that as an option. SF had some luck with Purdy.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Also, their grades are tied to rounds and projections. Thorn saw Wallace as “upside of a spot starter on his rookie deal” 6.7 - 4th round. Thorn wondered if he would have to kick inside to OG. I had the same equivalent grade on him on my scale. I saw him the same way Thorn did. Lance Z was probably one of the highest on him.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Yup - this thread is 2-3 years early

You can still evaluate what they have done outside of QB so far. They handed out deals or extensions to almost all their big FAs or soon to be FAs. We went through a period of time where Bill didn’t do that. There is room for nuance in the discussion. By all means if Maye fails they are all likely out but the front office seems to be building the infrastructure for him to succeed. You can have a take on how they are doing so far. They just had their first offseason FA period and draft. There is a lot to digest.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Also, their grades are tied to rounds and projections. Thorn saw Wallace as “upside of a spot starter on his rookie deal” 6.7 - 4th round. Thorn wondered if he would have to kick inside to OG. I had the same equivalent grade on him on my scale. I saw him the same way Thorn did. Lance Z was probably one of the highest on him.

Yeah so I think (and based on his pretty positive view of the pick I would guess Thorn would agree) that round is completely useless compared to to relative rank/score. Round is by its nature based on a guess as to what players will go when. If you tie yourself to it in the face of the league clearly valuing position differently all you do is ensure that you don't draft certain positions and are first to draft positions the league on the whole is lower on

 

[twibnotes]

You can still evaluate what they have done outside of QB so far. They handed out deals or extensions to almost all their big FAs or soon to be FAs. We went through a period of time where Bill didn’t do that. There is room for nuance in the discussion. By all means if Maye fails they are all likely out but the front office seems to be building the infrastructure for him to succeed. You can have a take on how they are doing so far. They just had their first offseason FA period and draft. There is a lot to digest.

Oh I agree with all that - what I should have said is, “it’s a fun discussion and we should have it…but Maye being good or bad is what will make the draft…and we won’t know that for 2-3 years.”

even Maye’s biggest fans acknowledge the question marks

 

[NextBigThing8184]

I’d give them an incomplete thus far. They’re betting big on Maye (understandably) and for the D to remain top 10ish (or better) without Bill and Steve.

Keeping Jennings, Onwenu, Dugger and extending Barmore were good moves.

Not a fan of their complete lack of upgrades anywhere in veteran free agency/trades. Everything they did was lateral or a downgrade. Lots of short term deals so it’s hard to see any of these guys as guys who will be integral parts of the “Maye era”. In isolation, I don’t like Osborn or Gibson as players beyond being spare parts or JAG types given the former’s high drop rate and the latter’s mediocre upside and fumbling issues. Okorafor was dumped by Pittsburgh because of attitude problems - teams don’t just get rid of passable starting tackles if he’s actually even that so I don’t have much faith he can solve the gaping void at LT, plus he had a lot of penalties relative to his playing time and no experience playing LT in the pros.

Phillips and Guy weren’t worth their paychecks and seem like they’re washed up, but Hawkins/Watts aren’t really guys I’d bet on to be any better and both could fail to make the roster.

center and CB are perilously thin and no meaningful draft capital or veteran acquisition made. Wolf seems to be hoping that Jonathan Jones and David Andrews can remain healthy and not suffer more age decline. I would have preferred to see some additional depth added there (especially at CB which IMO could be a sneakily bad position group next year)

If the philosophy is to keep the powder dry and use it now that they have their QB for the next 3 years (regardless of whether or not he’s any good), then their off-season makes sense but ultimately leaves them a bottom 5-7 roster in the NFL absent a huge rookie season from multiple guys.

If their philosophy isn’t “keep the powder dry” but actually “let’s dumpster dive and hope we can build an entire roster through the draft” then I think they’re going to fail. There’s very little in the way of promising young talent on D - guys who could break out next year. Gonzalez looks like he could/should be a quality starter but the rest of the D is either established starters, journeymen/JAG depth (McMillan, Ekuale etc) or practice squad caliber guys (Roberts, Pharms, M.Wilson, Bledsoe, Austin).

Lastly, I’m not sold on AVP as OC. There’s no actual evidence he’s a QB whisperer beyond having worked with already established quality guys, he has very limited playcalling experience and his scheme is old fashioned. He seems like a generic and low ceiling type hire, the type of coordinator which most teams have and cycle through endlessly.

 

[Justthetippett]

@Justthetippett thats really arguing the exception. Aside from SF and… sort of Philly that hasn’t happened.

It’s so hard to find a QB out of round 1 that you can’t rely on that as an option. SF had some luck with Purdy.

True but in this case we want to be the exception. I'm not arguing it to prove any kind of rule. Purdy certainly was a bit lucky, but he probably never succeeds at all without the other moves (Aiyuk, CMC, etc.).

Overall I have not been blown away by anything they have done, but I also have not been shocked/disappointed. WR and OT were clear needs during FA but the available market was not that exciting (and probably never will be because teams don't often let those guys go unless it's by expensive trade). They have played their hand straight. They need to develop the young vets and hope their draft evaluations pan out, then dive more into FA and trades if those guys get a bit of traction. Mayo also was not their hire, but he's a huge unknown as an HC. The odds that that marriage works seamlessly are low in any case, although so far they are all pulling in more or less the same direction.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

There’s very little in the way of promising young talent on D - guys who could break out next year. Gonzalez looks like he could/should be a quality starter but the rest of the D is either established starters, journeymen/JAG depth (McMillan, Ekuale etc) or practice squad caliber guys (Roberts, Pharms, M.Wilson, Bledsoe, Austin).

I expect break outs from Keion White, Mapu, and a healthy Marcus Jones beyond Gonzalez. One of Wilson or Austin could surprise. Takitaki could also be a guy that steps up.

Okorafor wasn’t terrible in Pitt. He didn’t fit their scheme annymore and made some comments he shouldn’t have. He was/is playable at RT. On the left? We shall see.

As far as AVP. It’s not just him. McAdoo and Peters offer some experience at their positions as well. All three represent an upgrade from last year.

 

[chilidawg]

If you draft a QB high and that QB fails to develop you are most likely getting the axe no matter who the owner is and what the situation is.

Unless you're the Niners. The whole Lance debacle went about as badly as you could imagine, but they just kept rolling along.

 

[Shaky Walton]

The thing about taking Maye as an "obvious" pick is that they could have traded out for the biggest bag they could get. I give them credit for trusting their judgment on Maye and not making what many would have viewed as a safer, more value driven move.

As to free agency, they still have so much room under the Cap. I would have liked to see them use some of it on a CB like Gilmore or a WR. Or even another RB, as they lack depth at that position.

 

[Cellar-Door]

The thing about taking Maye as an "obvious" pick is that they could have traded out for the biggest bag they could get. I give them credit for trusting their judgment on Maye and not making what many would have viewed as a safer, more value driven move.

As to free agency, they still have so much room under the Cap. I would have liked to see them use some of it on a CB like Gilmore or a WR. Or even another RB, as they lack depth at that position.

they still might, but I would say.... I'd rather play young guys and roll the cap over than make any significant outlay for older players in a year they likely have no expectations of competing in.

 

[Shaky Walton]

they still might, but I would say.... I'd rather play young guys and roll the cap over than make any significant outlay for older players in a year they likely have no expectations of competing in.

I agree that they should not break the bank for anyone at this point. But adding a few vets who can still play at mid range numbers could help them bridge to the future. Veteran leadership could help the transition.

 

[Auger34]

Also, their grades are tied to rounds and projections. Thorn saw Wallace as “upside of a spot starter on his rookie deal” 6.7 - 4th round. Thorn wondered if he would have to kick inside to OG. I had the same equivalent grade on him on my scale. I saw him the same way Thorn did. Lance Z was probably one of the highest on him.

Is Lance Z considered a good OL evaluator? I know Thorn is…haven’t really heard that about Zeierlein before

 

[j-man]

if mayo wins 7 games this year u have your long team coach

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

I agree that they should not break the bank for anyone at this point. But adding a few vets who can still play at mid range numbers could help them bridge to the future. Veteran leadership could help the transition.

I'm all for playing the young guys, and I frankly don't need the Patriots to win a bunch of games next year - I'll take one more draft near the top of each round - BUT: I love the idea of Steph Gilmore coming in, camping out in the film room with Christian Gonzalez and Marcus Jones and Alex Austin and whomever else, and generally preparing and playing opposite C-Gonz for the next 12 months. Given that Gilmore is still a more than serviceable CB, the whole portfolio of what he brings is well worth whatever the F.O. pays him.

 

[rodderick]

I'm all for playing the young guys, and I frankly don't need the Patriots to win a bunch of games next year - I'll take one more draft near the top of each round - BUT: I love the idea of Steph Gilmore coming in, camping out in the film room with Christian Gonzalez and Marcus Jones and Alex Austin and whomever else, and generally preparing and playing opposite C-Gonz for the next 12 months. Given that Gilmore is still a more than serviceable CB, the whole portfolio of what he brings is well worth whatever the F.O. pays him.

Wholeheartedly agree. I also think most of their developmental players are on offense which is why they should aim to make the defense as stout as possible. Give Maye and the receivers some room to make mistakes and not play pressed all the time. I don't want him to be rookie Trevor Lawrence and be down 10-0 in the first quarter after punting once.

 

[BigJimEd]

The pre-draft offseason was pretty mediocre imo.
On the plus side, they re-signed and extended some key players. Big props there. On the downside, most felt the three biggest weaknesses were QB, OT and WR. They signed some depth pieces. Brissett as a bridge, Osborne and Okorafor. However that still left with the three biggest needs going into the draft with many felt they needed to go with those positions in the first three. Not a good place to be in. Felt like they could have done more here but at the same time don't want to seem overly negative. Not many top LT on the market in FA/Trade and they were in on Ridley. Not sure I'd give him the contract he got

Which leads me to the draft. I'll start by saying I find it difficult to grade a draft immediately. Going into the draft, I assumed the Pats front office probably felt better about some of those existing holes than many fans/media members. However they spent their first 5 picks and 6 of 8 overall on QB, WR and OL. Did they pass on better talent/potential to fill holes? Did they miss an opportunity to be pro-active and fill future holes?
Obviously Maye is the key to the draft. Lot rides on him. We'll see if he works out but I was in favor of them grabbing him. I also like the chances of at least one of Polk/Baker becoming at least a solid #2. We shall see though.


Still some offseason left. Time to grab a couple key vets.

 

[Was (Not Wasdin)]

I liked the draft, didn’t love it. I think picking Maye was the right move-even if the Minnesota offer was 11, 23, and next year’s #1 (i.e. without the picks coming back or the pick swaps, which have been reported), I’m not sure that was enough. You weren’t getting plug and play guys at #1 WR or LT with those picks in this draft, and next year’s #1 from them could be anywhere from top 8 to middle of the first round.

I dont think the Pats were expecting to get their No. 1 WR and 10 year LT out of this draft. I think the guys they drafted are floor raisers, who can be starters or solid backups on the next good Pats team (Let’s say 10-7 with a real chance in a wild card game). To me, assuming all goes well that team is 3 full seasons away (2026), and there are not too many guys on the roster at the end of 2023 who would be part of that team, either due to talent level or age. They need talent all over the roster, and my biggest gripe is that in drafting for need they passed on guys like Cooper De Jean in the 2nd and Junior Colson in the 3rd-guys who could be difference makers on that next playoff team. I’m not sure passing on guys like that for OL depth and another #2 receiver is a good move long term. It will make 2024 suck a little less, but doesn’t do much to really lock down a position group for the next few years.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Is Lance Z considered a good OL evaluator? I know Thorn is…haven’t really heard that about Zeierlein before

His dad was an offensive lineman coach and works with guys privately. Lance also knows a lot about OL play.

 

[SMU_Sox]

@Was (Not Wasdin) that is my thinking as well. The horizontal board probably would have told them to take a different player at a different position there. Drafting for need gets you into trouble but not having an LT and decent WRs also gets you into hot water. I think the WR situation is going to be a whole lot better than it was last year because Baker should be able to give you decent X or flanker reps as a rookie.

 

[BigJimEd]

More confirmation that they tried to trade up to 32. Targets were Legette or Coleman.

Quotes from article by media member Cameron Wolfe not Elliot Wolf.

“They had Xavier Legette and Keon Coleman graded pretty similarly on their board,” Wolfe added. “I don’t know exactly which one they would have taken at 32, but those were their top two receivers on the board at that time.”

Buffalo ended up trading the pick, but not to the Patriots. The Bills picked the Panthers as a trade partner instead, receiving No. 33 overall as well as a fifth and a sixth-rounder from Carolina.

This did not go over well with the Patriots, according to Wolfe.

“I talked to someone with the Patriots who felt a little jaded,” Wolfe said. “Because they thought that they had a sort of, on paper, close to agreement with the Bills, and they believe that agreement was kind of shopped to the Panthers.”

Good Point @NortheasternPJ. Editing post to try to avoid any confusion.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

More confirmation that they tried to trade up to 32. Targets were Legette or Coleman.

Important to note the Wolfe is not Elliot here, it’s Cameron Wolfe a reporter/insider. I had to go back and read it again.

 

[SMU_Sox]

I must have mixed up Coleman and Wallace. Apologies I was on my phone and working from memory. Had to switch to my computer for the response. In looking at your board Wallace was in the same tier as Kiran, Kingsley and Coleman. I really wanted Sua but I can see why they went with Wallace as on paper he's viewed as less of a project. I think over -relying is an odd sentiment when it comes to having more info than the rest of us. They saw him work out on the left side. The talked to his position coaches about his ability to play there. Not sure how you can be overly reliant on pertinent info.

My board doesn't matter at all. I am just a brick in the wall. My opinion means absolute garbage. We have an analysis based on the CBB on this. I might see if I can get Arif Hasan to come in here... maybe I can make a charitable donation or something. @Dogman I will send you a PM here as I think we have an opportunity to have a guest poster on a topic that he can explain better than I can.

The underlined was saying that theres no way that no one else in the entire league considered playing him on the left. I mean maybe but I don't see how that can be said with any certainty.

We sort of do though. I think it is behind a paywall but most scouts saw him as RT only or a guy you ideally might want to kick inside to guard (via Bob McGinn IIRC). I don't know it for sure but league reaction to the pick was met with skepticism.

I soured a lot on Trent Brown. I want a guy who shows up every week. Is he a legit LT? Sure, but like 60% of the time. A healthy Anderson, Chuks and Wallace has potential. What did we have last year? Wheatley, McDermott and Lowe? I see this year as better but I understand where it can be perceived as still poor.

Anderson if he is completely recovered from his malaria and other ailments I have some faith in to not be a disaster. Chuks? No. Wallace? No but I look forward to being wrong here. Look, I want Wallace to be a pro bowl LT but I think it is not likely he can even be an average one. It's not like I am in the minority there.

I can see where after Coleman and Legette they had Polk as the next receiver on their board. Mitchell was never coming here. Corley was viewed as kind of a project, almost a RB miscast as a receiver. So yeah, they likely saw that they were at the end of the run on WRs and picked the guy they had the the top of the next tier. As to the bolded, I have no idea. But neither do you. We have no idea if there were offers to move back in that 45-50 range.

We don't. I don't. It could be a case where they didn't have any good offers so they went with best WR. That being said though there were more highly ranked players at other positions at 37 but when you absolutely need a position... you are more likely to make reaches (large or small).

To the bolded again. We have no idea right now. What you call huge reaches and what they had on their draft board can and likely does differ. If they picked a bunch of projected 7th rounders in rounds 2-4 the entire NFL community would be roasting them and rightly so.

They were roasted for Wallace and Robinson by most. They absolutely got killed for those two picks. And the point here is that it doesn't matter if their board was different from CBB. I am sure it was! But if you go that far off consensus you are swimming against the current. It isn't what I call a reach either. It is what the entire draft community would call a reach as well as NFL sources who gave comment to reporters on Wallace.

How can you possibly maximize value on something that is so unsure? I appreciate the resources you linked but I don't see how picking exactly to consensus and/or trading back and amassing picks is the right answer. It comes across as trying to play the draft safe and I don't think that's how you win in the NFL. Sometimes you have to swing big or you have to be confident in your evaluations. I saw this draft as the latter.

Minus swinging big for a QB you are going against the last decade of research in how to win the draft. You can win in unsure situations by amassing more picks, trading back, and not straying too far from the CBB. I will try and get Arif Hasan to guest post here on this topic because while I am oversimplifying it I think you are making the possible seem impossible here. They might not have had the opportunities to trade back - there is a lot unknown to us outsiders but we do know what works and doesn't work generally in the draft and we do have framework to live in.

 

[Dogman]

@SMU_Sox Happy to help put something together.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

My board doesn't matter at all. I am just a brick in the wall. My opinion means absolute garbage. We have an analysis based on the CBB on this. I might see if I can get Arif Hasan to come in here... maybe I can make a charitable donation or something. @Dogman I will send you a PM here as I think we have an opportunity to have a guest poster on a topic that he can explain better than I can.

Just want to start by saying thank you for your thoughtful responses. I appreciate a good back and forth. I also appreciate you trying to get Arif to talk about the process. I was just trying to point out that even you had him in the same relative area as the other guys and you have a good grasp on the draft. Your opinion carries some weight here. You're a smart guy.

We sort of do though. I think it is behind a paywall but most scouts saw him as RT only or a guy you ideally might want to kick inside to guard (via Bob McGinn IIRC). I don't know it for sure but league reaction to the pick was met with skepticism.

Skepticism until more info was widely known. The kids been practicing on the left side his whole college career. It's not going to be completely foreign for him unlike a lot of the other RT only guys. The more I read about the info they had pre-draft the more I understand their vision.

Anderson if he is completely recovered from his malaria and other ailments I have some faith in to not be a disaster. Chuks? No. Wallace? No but I look forward to being wrong here. Look, I want Wallace to be a pro bowl LT but I think it is not likely he can even be an average one. It's not like I am in the minority there.

I admitted I can see how the subtraction of Brown and the additions of unknowns can be viewed as poor. And thats the crux of this. All 3 of those guys are virtual question marks. Could be bad, could be good. Anderson, like you said has some upside if healthy. Chuks isn't bad, he's cromulent. Wallace is going to be a big hit or a huge miss.

We don't. I don't. It could be a case where they didn't have any good offers so they went with best WR. That being said though there were more highly ranked players at other positions at 37 but when you absolutely need a position... you are more likely to make reaches (large or small).

With knowing that they likely wanted Legette and just missed out thanks to Buffalo the Polk move could be viewed as a knee jerk reaction. There were definitely some good defensive guys available and they could have gone tackle there too. Makes me think they just really liked Polk.

They were roasted for Wallace and Robinson by most. They absolutely got killed for those two picks. And the point here is that it doesn't matter if their board was different from CBB. I am sure it was! But if you go that far off consensus you are swimming against the current. It isn't what I call a reach either. It is what the entire draft community would call a reach as well as NFL sources who gave comment to reporters on Wallace.

Absolutely killed? Where? Did anyone give the pick an F grade? A D even? I'm having a hard time finding anything to back this up.

Minus swinging big for a QB you are going against the last decade of research in how to win the draft. You can win in unsure situations by amassing more picks, trading back, and not straying too far from the CBB. I will try and get Arif Hasan to guest post here on this topic because while I am oversimplifying it I think you are making the possible seem impossible here. They might not have had the opportunities to trade back - there is a lot unknown to us outsiders but we do know what works and doesn't work generally in the draft and we do have framework to live in.

Going back a decade I think is too far. Even going pre 2020 might be too far. The draft the last few years has been pretty different in that I feel like we've seen more picks going against consensus overall. The Lions draft last year still sticks out to me and they did pretty well. I think theres some credence to "playing the draft" and the ideology isn't lost on me. I think it's changed and amassing picks or going BPA while fun is more of a safe way to do things and being safe can lead to mediocrity. Obviously more chances can lead to more hits but if you're focusing on value it can lead to some questionable decisions. Bill would have 100% traded back this year to get more capital. Would that have been the right decision? Straying from consensus is kind of the Patriot way though, isn't it?

 

[SMU_Sox]

@Eck'sSneakyCheese Ah, just real quick, I mean they got roasted for the Wallace pick. Not their whole draft. Overall I think they did fine. B- because you have to weigh the QB more than the rest. Wallace though they got a lot of blowback.

Perry gave it a C+ for example. Pats Pulpit guys: C+/B-
PFF called it a massive reach.

Here is an article that has every major outlet's grade:

"It’s an interesting pick that’s currently being met with mass criticism."

USA Today: C
The Athletic: B+
Bleacher Report: B
CBS Sports: C-
Sports Illustrated: D+
SB Nation: F
Sporting News: D
Pro Football Network: C-

So really of the major outlets you have 2 B's, 3 C's, 2 D's, and 1 F.

 

[SMU_Sox]

@Eck'sSneakyCheese So, the thing with Bill and straying from consensus was he got away with it in large part because he made the most draft picks from like 2000-2017 or something like that. They just picked so much more than other folks that he won because of volume. He was not better picking players vs anyone else. If anything he was slightly above average but the last time I looked at this was 2018 or 2019 and a lot has changed since then (as things do with small sample sizes).

Bill had a ton of reach misses but his fair share of reach hits. I think there is reason and logic to @Super Nomario book plug going against the grain in how you build your team and what systems you use. I am going to hold off answering some of your other points/questions (both) on the CBB and analysis from it because I want to see if we can get the man himself to talk about it.

 

[SMU_Sox]

I should note there has been recent work done evaluating trading up for QBs and premium positions especially before a drop-off. If you need a QB everything changes. Also, if you need a premium position like an LT it's ok in certain situations to trade up for one. I will have to find the links but can't do that for a little bit. So while the general rule of trading back for more value is evergreen there are times when trading up is a risk worth taking or just staying and picking.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

@Eck'sSneakyCheese Ah, just real quick, I mean they got roasted for the Wallace pick. Not their whole draft. Overall I think they did fine. B- because you have to weigh the QB more than the rest. Wallace though they got a lot of blowback.

Perry gave it a C+ for example. Pats Pulpit guys: C+/B-
PFF called it a massive reach.

Here is an article that has every major outlet's grade:

"It’s an interesting pick that’s currently being met with mass criticism."

USA Today: C
The Athletic: B+
Bleacher Report: B
CBS Sports: C-
Sports Illustrated: D+
SB Nation: F
Sporting News: D
Pro Football Network: C-

So really of the major outlets you have 2 B's, 3 C's, 2 D's, and 1 F.

Wow... It's really all over the place. Thank you for putting this together, my Google-fu was failing me. Mass criticism just sounds wrong to me. Mass questioning maybe? 5 out of 8 have it as passing and the one F was a guy who had a one liner as his reasoning. It is definitely a polarizing pick.

 

[SMU_Sox]

If you think about how these guys grade where a B is average usually or even higher getting Cs and Ds for a pick is bad. I think mass criticism is fair but YMMV. It was not a popular pick for sure. Mass questioning is fair too. Mass controversy? I dunno. Something like that.

 

[tims4wins]

If you think about how these guys grade where a B is average usually or even higher getting Cs and Ds for a pick is bad. I think mass criticism is fair but YMMV. It was not a popular pick for sure. Mass questioning is fair too. Mass controversy? I dunno. Something like that.

Now do it for Vollmer. Or Gronk. Or Matt Light. Etc. I get that it's not BB drafting but no one knows anything. With all due respect.