Re: Brandon Spikes - Typical Draft Pick
posted at 1/28/2014 2:52 PM EST
In response to TrueChamp's comment:
In response to PatsEng's comment:
In response to mbeaulieu07's comment:
Well for the expectations on this board that BB should be hitting on All-Pro players with every pick, yes, the pick wasn't up to snuff.
But if you're living in reality, he was a good player for them on the field and worth the Rd 2 selection. He was a quality, starting caliber NFL inside backer that was a top level player vs. the run and brought a physical edge/toughness to the position.
But hey, keep living in f/riggin fantasy land.
Generally I agree MB, but the point that leads to failure as a pick for me is he didn't last past his rook contract. A personality conflict should have been known prior to drafting the kid (really has he changed since his scouting report?). If you aren't signing your high draft picks past their rook contracts and on average it takes 1-2 years for them to develop into reliable starters. In Spikes case I'd say it took 1.5 years. So I would say 2.5yrs of starting service and being benched for a AFCCG isn't enough return for a 2nd round pick. What good is a pick if you have to replace them every 4 years and it takes 1-2 years to develop? That means you have to spend picks at the same position every 2 years and since they all won't work out it's not worth the investment. Spikes wasn't a bust by anymeans but I do think he was a bad pick because in the end the 2.5yrs of starting service didn't justify the 2nd round pick.
Why sign him past his rookie contract for 3 times the amount of money and you already drafted a capable replacement. We can't start labeling guys as failures because we dont sign them to new big money deals. BB only locks up core players, a philosophy that has never failed him until one of them went on a murdering spree. Brady, Seymour, Light, Wilfork, Mayo, Mankins, Gronk, and Volmer(unless you think Volmer was mistake because you knew he would get his leg rolled up on and broken).
Because that's not sustainable. You have 25 possible starting positions to fill, not including backups. If it takes on average 2-3 years to develop (counting rounds 1-7) and the rook contract last 4 years you would need to draft a new player at that positoin every 2 years. That means at best you replace 14 of the possible 25 starters IF you hit on every pick you make. Of course you will never hit on every pick and at most you typically hit on 1-2 starters and a small number of complimentary pieces between the rest and UDFA. So then you have to suppliment it with FA's who will either be less talented then the guys you are replacing (because they will cost less) or they will cost just as much as the guys you are replacing. Of course as we've seen not all FA's are created equal and most don't seem to fit the system. So in the end you might end up spending more on FA's to replace someone you know who has fit the system.
Replacing draft picks with other draft picks instead of resigning them to save money will not work in the end because the numbers are too large to replace so you must be able to retain at least half the picks you hit on to keep the system going or you end up spending on FA's or you tend to get less quality players to just fill out rosters. Not to mention you will never hit on every draft pick so what if Collins falls into the sophmore slump or takes a Butler type of turn. Now you are stuck with no one to turn to. How many resources and money was spent replacing Branch, Law, Samuel, Milloy, Seymour? More then what it would have to retained them