2007 NFL.com Draft do over

BS. It worked great that year and has worked well others, but that doesn't mean that it's a philosophy that should be applied each and every draft. There are more than 3 or 4 players in every draft that can help this team. Just because the guys they did pick turned out very well, doesn't mean that other players wouldn't have turned out well also.

If it was such a great approach to the draft, every GM would be doing it by now. As it is, only Tanny utilizes this approach most every year. There's a time for aggressiveness, and there's a time to not be so aggressive.

 

You misconstrue the strategy. It's not that there aren't more than 3 or 4 guys in each draft that can help this team. It's that the FO identifies players that they are particularly confident in, and go for those guys.

Other teams may not have guys they feel so strongly about, or may not be willing to gamble, as they think the draft is risky, which it certainly can be.

They don't like to pick a guy where he might pan out if things work out; instead, they prefer to pick the guy in whom they have a great deal of confidence that he would pan out, and they are willing to give up picks to do it.

As long as their success rate is good, I have no problem with it. They view these guys as lesser or worthy "risks," and they've done damn well so far.

 

Think about this one Joe...

On ESPN this morning they were gradeing the last 5 years of drafts for the AFC east. The Pats had 51 picks to the Jets 27. Yet, the two teams were equal in 2010 starters and probowl appearences from those picks. This does not take into effect the Jets acquireing several Vets for the moved draft picks.

When you landing quality more often than not with you picks, having lesser numbers is not a huge problem. Trading up for the guys they have rated much higher is not killing us. We are not the Redskins. Sure we did not build things the Patriot way, but who knows how successful it would be if they had not landed Brady by a stroke of pure luck. Can you say that Team would have gone 14-2 with Matt Cassel or Brian Hoyer at the helm last year?

 

it's not only the W's, it's that many of those picks probably wouldn't have worked with a QB not named Brady or Manning.

On the other hand, trading up would be terrible if your scout department can't tell a player from a bust... draft philosophies depend on the team personnel.

 

Harpua, the only reason (imo) that the Pats and Jets were equal is because Belicheat has done a horrible job in picking players up until the last year or two. He has blown too many of his picks, and perhaps traded down too often.

We'll have to agree to disagree that having lesser numbers is not a huge problem. That means constantly having to bring in older, more expensive vet FAs for , which can cause cap issues, or filling those with UDFAs. Also, no one hits on draft picks all the time. Even the best GMs in the game miss. The way Tanny drafts, any misses are killers. He is due to start missing on some players. It's simply the law of averages, unless you think that Rex and the Jets' Scouting Dept are light years better than anyone else in the NFL at assessing talent. I think they're good, but not that good.

We all know how many picks NE has this year, and how many they have before the Jets. That alone could force Tanny into being too aggressive and trading up for a player that might have been there anyway. Unless Belicheat blows the picks again this year, I think the gap widens between the Pats and the Jets, no matter who the Jets draft or how good he is. Having 4-5 picks in the first 96 picks is a whole lot better than only having 2 or maybe even 1 if Tanny trades up. Think of how good they were last year anyway. Add in a JJ Watt or Cameron Jordan, Ingram, Reed. an OT and/or a WR, and they're odds on favorites to beat the Packers for the Lombardi Trophy barring an injury to Brady.

No, they wouldn't have been anywhere near that good without Brady. Still, they are laying an incredible foundation for the future. I think they have one of, if not THE youngest team in the NFL. If they hit on most of their picks this year, all they have to do is find Brady's eventual replacement in a year or so, and they just keep on dominating the conference.

BTW, your avatar intrigues me. I've been meaning to ask if it has any special significance or is just a funny/cool picture you found.

 

^ Tampa is the youngest team.

You're diatribes are nothing but annoying speculation because you don't agree with a working philosophy even though it works because of a fantastic scouting staff.

 

how people bicker over draft philosophies is funny.


drafting comes down to scouting and balls. you decide who can help and you either have the gall (educated or not) to move down up or sit where you are.

i think ppl are only up in arms about our approach to making sure we get players we target cause of the lack of immediate impact from last years draft.

id rather my organization do what it has to in order to acquire talent instead of trying to look like a genius each year by trading down and having over half your picks off the team or out of the league within the next cple years.

if the pats are smart theyll sit on these two 1st rounders cause theyre primed to re-tool their front 7 in a big way this year.

 

Yes, no one hits on every pick. Tanny thus far has hit on a good number of them, and if you look at his drafting record does a hell of alot better when moving up to get the guy they traget as opposed to moving down or staying pat and waiting to see who falls.

Most of the picks we move have been 3rd or later, where the chance of drafting a complete miss rises. We have traded "what ifs" for proven guys. In doing so we have completely eliminated the gap you refered to with the pats to the point where we took 2 out of 3 against them this season.

The pats high number of picks has put them in good shape to reload, but when Brady hangs them up, unless they have a bonafied replacement, thier team as awhole is not in as good of shape as ours. They may be after this draft if they do well again, but they are not creating a widening gap. They were 14-2 largely on the arm of Brady and he's not gettign any younger. Their Oline is not great and thier defense is young, but making straides. If all thier pick hit in a big way, then they'll be a force, but despite what all the predraft talk is, chances about 1/2 of the first rounders are goign to end up as little more than average NFLers like always. So they can add a few and see what sticks.

As for the expensive vets you mention, who exactly where they last year? Both LT and Taylor came in at decent pricing if not cheap. Scott and Leonhard where both hunge talent additions and gave us help in transitioning to the Rex defense the year before. Edwards has yet to become expensive and was a needed young vet receiver to pair with Sanchez. Holmes will be expensive if retained, but no way we make the playoffs without him last season, so thats worth a 5th to me. Do you really feel that any of these vets cost us too much for what they have provided? Only the one year Farve experiment and the Barlow trade look to be complete losers.

I understand in the draft forum we all want lots of picks, but Tanny has built this team into a contender. The roster turnover from 2005 is now nearing100% and I am damn happy with the results. A young QB to build around, and Offensive line full of studs, A top 5 defense, and a bright future. We gone from cap hell to here under tannys watch.

... As for the avatar, its just a funny pic of a silly looking cow. I belive it was from a story about an eastern european festival. It crakced me up so I took it.

 

here are two expensive vets:

Darrelle Revis

Bryan Thomas

One is warranted. One was overfuckingpaid. Both were Jets draft picks.