Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Anarchy99. Show Anarchy99's posts

    Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    Here were the number of players that have been selected to the Pro Bowl from each draft from the past 10 seasons.  I listed the number of Pro Bowlers by the round they were drafted, so 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.

    2009: 4, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

    2008: 4, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

    2007: 7, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0

    2006: 11, 4, 0, 6, 0, 1, 1

    2005: 8, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1

    2004: 14, 2, 4, 1, 1, 0

    2003: 12, 5, 2, 2, 3, 3, 0

    2002: 10, 4, 2, 0, 1, 0, 0

    2001: 15, 11, 3, 1, 1, 0, 1

    2000: 13, 5, 1, 0, 3, 4, 1

    Total:  98, 39, 14, 14, 10, 11, 4

    Clearly there were far more early round guys that turned out to be impact players . . . and that's been the buzzword for what the Patriots needed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    Because certainly a draft pick isn't good for the team unless they make the pro bowl. DUH!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    In Response to Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...:
    Here were the number of players that have been selected to the Pro Bowl from each draft from the past 10 seasons....
    Posted by Anarchy99


    Thanks for the post, that's good data.  I guess you get what you pay for.  First rounders get paid the big (guaranteed) bucks, so they damn well better perform.
     
    Not entirely clear how it relates to the Pats though?  They've made their share of first round picks with some hits and some misses, and when they traded out it was only down a few spots.  I'm not sure there's much qualitative difference between pick 28 for example, and pick 35. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from apdynasty23. Show apdynasty23's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    I don't think that data means anything. It tells you that the higher you draft a player, the better he's supposed to be. So when that pans out, what's so shocking about it? You expected that player to be a Pro Bowler and that's what he became. The Patriots philosophy is to get as many versatile, above-average players at every possible position. Some of you may say "Yeah, well no sh!t" but teams like the Redskins and Cowboys sometimes just stock their rosters with the best possible player at every position. When a player goes down, they have absolute crap playing behind them, which results in a considerable drop-off in performance and, you guessed it, winning. Not to mention, they straddle themselves with huge contracts (that many Pro Bowlers = that many players that think they deserve the world) so even if a player doesn't pan out, they're stuck with him or cutting their losses by releasing him (and still losing money and not allowing another quality player to fill that roster spot)
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from hagen910. Show hagen910's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    In Response to Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...:
    Here were the number of players that have been selected to the Pro Bowl from each draft from the past 10 seasons.  I listed the number of Pro Bowlers by the round they were drafted, so 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. 2009: 4, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 2008: 4, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 2007: 7, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0 2006: 11, 4, 0, 6, 0, 1, 1 2005: 8, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1 2004: 14, 2, 4, 1, 1, 0 2003: 12, 5, 2, 2, 3, 3, 0 2002: 10, 4, 2, 0, 1, 0, 0 2001: 15, 11, 3, 1, 1, 0, 1 2000: 13, 5, 1, 0, 3, 4, 1 Total:  98, 39, 14, 14, 10, 11, 4 Clearly there were far more early round guys that turned out to be impact players . . . and that's been the buzzword for what the Patriots needed.
    Posted by Anarchy99


    thats nice, but we moved down 5 spots in the first round and moved down I think 7 spots in the second rd, not big jumps.  Your telling me the quality drops off that quickly.  please, heard this arguement on espn its a joke.  moving down a full round and you have a case.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    In Response to Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...:
    Here were the number of players that have been selected to the Pro Bowl from each draft from the past 10 seasons.  I listed the number of Pro Bowlers by the round they were drafted, so 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. 2009: 4, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 2008: 4, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 2007: 7, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0 2006: 11, 4, 0, 6, 0, 1, 1 2005: 8, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1 2004: 14, 2, 4, 1, 1, 0 2003: 12, 5, 2, 2, 3, 3, 0 2002: 10, 4, 2, 0, 1, 0, 0 2001: 15, 11, 3, 1, 1, 0, 1 2000: 13, 5, 1, 0, 3, 4, 1 Total:  98, 39, 14, 14, 10, 11, 4 Clearly there were far more early round guys that turned out to be impact players . . . and that's been the buzzword for what the Patriots needed.
    Posted by Anarchy99

    I'm not sure I'm following you're numbers here.  Are you saying that of all the 1st round picks in 2000 there have been 13 guys that have gone to the Pro Bowl?  If that's the case, were there really 5 rookies in the pro bowl this year?  Or, is this saying the 2000 Pro bowl had 13 1st rounders, and 5 2nd rounders etc.  If so where are all the other players?  Any idea on undrafted free agents?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Anarchy99. Show Anarchy99's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    In Response to Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...:
    In Response to Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But... : I'm not sure I'm following you're numbers here.  Are you saying that of all the 1st round picks in 2000 there have been 13 guys that have gone to the Pro Bowl?  If that's the case, were there really 5 rookies in the pro bowl this year?  Or, is this saying the 2000 Pro bowl had 13 1st rounders, and 5 2nd rounders etc.  If so where are all the other players?  Any idea on undrafted free agents?
    Posted by shenanigan


    Yes, there were 5 Pro Bowl rookies this year . . .

    LB Brian Orakpo WAS
    LB Brian Cushing HOU
    WR Percy Harvin MIN
    LB Clay Matthews GB
    DB Jairus Byrd BUF

    So in the draft from 2000, all the numbers listed were for the total number of players that had at least one Pro Bowl selection.

    For those complaining the Pro Bowl selections don't mean anything, how many truly great players have not made a single Pro Bowl?

    Maybe people will find this one more useful.  In the past 10 years, 86 of the 190 guys (45%) that made the Pro Bowl that were drafted in that time were Top 25 overall picks.  124 of 190 went in the Top 50 (65%). 

    While NE has done a good job about getting extra picks and trying to find value guys that may have been rated higher than where they ultimately picked someone, perhaps on occasion they should have been looking to take some of their extra picks and packaging them to move up in the draft instead of down.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    What matters though in the end Anarchy99, Is that yet again you've tried to disparage New England's offseason moves by offering in ZERO specific terms whatsoever PRECISELY how here, that The Patriots have had far worse or even LESS Pro-Bowl Draft Selection players than the rest of the league from the years 2000-2009....Excellent job trully. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Anarchy99. Show Anarchy99's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    Here were the % of picks by teams in the past 10 years that went on to become Pro Bowl players.  There is no "good way" to compare drafts, as some players went on to be Pro Bowl players after moving on to other teams.  I listed the team, the # of Pro Bowlers, the # of overall picks, and the %.

    NYJ106714.9
    SDC107713
    BAL98111.1
    IND98211
    ARI87311
    NEP98910.1
    DAL88010
    NOS77010
    PHI8829.76
    NYG7749.46
    HOU6669.09
    GBP8908.89
    CAR7808.75
    DEN7808.75
    BUF7848.33
    MIN6728.33
    SEA7848.33
    WAS5637.94
    PIT6787.69
    CHI6876.9
    SFO6886.82
    TEN6966.25
    CIN5836.02
    CLE4805
    ATL4814.94
    JAX4884.55
    MIA3744.05
    KCC3803.75
    OAK2772.6
    DET2782.56
    TBB1811.23
    STL1861.16

    Clearly the Pats have not had as much success draft wise late in the 00s as they did earlier in the decade.  But overall they were still better than most teams using Pro Bowl selections as a criteria.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    I don't know if this means anything.  The Jets lead the way and are lucky to make the playoffs.  San Diego has never been to the SB. 

    It's like a fellow poster here has said.  Sometimes this can be a bad thing if you have too many all pros.  They eat up a lot of salary which weakens the supporting cast. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    Team
    NEP
    P-Bl'ers
    9
    No of Picks
    89
    Percentage
    10.1

    PRECISELY...I too, wouldn't rate the Patriots success as anything special as being tied for 2nd (1 of 5 teams) in the league of 32 teams in most number of pro-bowlers since 2000, Or being 6th overall in simple percentage of total draft picks outta 32 teams who have went on to become pro-bowlers.  What IS that...barely in the top 15% or so for both?  Lmao...nothin' ta write home about I say.   
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    In Response to Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...:
    2009: 4, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 2008: 4, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 2007: 7, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0 2006: 11, 4, 0, 6, 0, 1, 1 2005: 8, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1 2004: 14, 2, 4, 1, 1, 0 2003: 12, 5, 2, 2, 3, 3, 0 2002: 10, 4, 2, 0, 1, 0, 0 2001: 15, 11, 3, 1, 1, 0, 1 2000: 13, 5, 1, 0, 3, 4, 1 Total:  98, 39, 14, 14, 10, 11, 4
    Posted by Anarchy99


    I don't have anything to add to this.

    I just think all those numbers look cool, all together like that.Cool

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    In Response to Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...:
    NYJ 10 67 14.9 SDC 10 77 13 BAL 9 81 11.1 IND 9 82 11 ARI 8 73 11 NEP 9 89 10.1 DAL 8 80 10 NOS 7 70 10 PHI 8 82 9.76 NYG 7 74 9.46 HOU 6 66 9.09 GBP 8 90 8.89 CAR 7 80 8.75 DEN 7 80 8.75 BUF 7 84 8.33 MIN 6 72 8.33 SEA 7 84 8.33 WAS 5 63 7.94 PIT 6 78 7.69 CHI 6 87 6.9 SFO 6 88 6.82 TEN 6 96 6.25 CIN 5 83 6.02 CLE 4 80 5 ATL 4 81 4.94 JAX 4 88 4.55 MIA 3 74 4.05 KCC 3 80 3.75 OAK 2 77 2.6 DET 2 78 2.56 TBB 1 81 1.23 STL 1 86 1.16 Posted by Anarchy99



    I like this one, too, although the letters interspersed throughout it kind of lessen the dramtic impact of the numbers, I think. I'm developing an entirely new respect for the decimal point.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    In Response to Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...:
    In Response to Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But... : I don't have anything to add to this. I just think all those numbers look cool, all together like that.
    Posted by p-mike


    Prairie, look I know I steer for the 3 hour long ridiculous tales in order to pound down the absurdity aspect into dust, But there is NO doubting your 1-liners at times man to get your pointed sarcasm across...
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    I do what I can.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    Is there a correlation between having pro bowl players and earning regular season victories?  The Pats are 107-37 over the last nine regular seasons, including some end-of-season throwaway games with Flutie pooch punts and stuff, and the Pats got really snubbed at the Pro Bowl one year. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from jonbam. Show jonbam's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    WOW!!!  These stats are awesome.  It looks like the NYJ and SDC have won the award for selecting the most Pro Bowl players for the last 10 years.  Now let's find out which team has had the most Super Bowl players for the last ten years.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    Yes ur more likely to get pro bowlers in the first round...thats obvious. but just because they dont make the pro bowl doesnt mean you dont get quality players

    You dont need 8-12 pro bowlers on your team.  remember in the early dynasty years ppl talked about how the patriots had few pro bowl players but a lot of super bowl players?  i dont see gronkowski or hernandez and pro bowl TEs...however i dont rly care...you can still have a huge impact on a team without being a probowler.

    tedy bruschi didnt make his first pro bowl until 2004.  if he had played from 1996-2003...we'd still consider him a huge contributor even tho he didnt make a pro bowl

    you dont need to be a pro bowler to be an impact player
    if i could go back in time and choose between T.O. and Kevin Faulk...id choose kevin faulk (0 probowls but makes clutch plays) over T.O. (6 Pro Bowls but constant headache and tends to make crucial drops)
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    In Response to Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...:
    I do what I can.
    Posted by p-mike


    If it really doesn't matter or has very little bearing, I always do MORE than I can.  Everywhere and every time else, I try to do a little less.  
        
    Like IF I'm hard at work trying to get to the bottom of some sticky hospital expense account who's insurance numbers aren't matching the spreadsheet data, because the number-match has stumped the rest of my co-workers, and the policy start date is falling behind... And then my boss comes up to me and says,    
         "Hey Laz, Any chance you have time to take a look at that sticky hospital expense account who's insurance numbers aren't matching the spreadsheet, because the number-match has really stumped the rest of the guys, and the policy start date is fallin' kinda behind."  
         I say back, "Maybe I'll take a gander at it Steve, but I'm booked pretty solid with just a ton of other stuff...so there's probably no way I can get to it in the next several days, but you KNOW I'll do all I can to try."  
     
    Then after he nods his head and walks away sulking and concerned, I do what I know I must do-Save us ALL the headache & trouble, by stuffin that st^pid hospital policy as far down someone else's trash basket as I can...then I play Tetris for the next 6 hours (sorta weird though that I figured out earlier that the code letters didn't match because of a meaningless letter glitch, huh?).        
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from user_483130. Show user_483130's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    Laz -funny stuff.

    I am wondering if we work at the same company...I have the same research methods as you and also have a boss named Steve
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jiminycricket. Show jiminycricket's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    I understand it all. So listen up.

    Trading down has worked in the past. As has trading away present draft picks for higher round picks the next year. That is how we got Wilfork, I believe - in a trade with Baltimore we gave them a 2nd for their future 1st, which became #21 and we took Wilfork.

    That being said. Understand this. Every time you trade back, you are basically saying to the other NFL teams "go ahead, you pick. we'll pick later." (and possibly make more total choices, but further back in the draft order).  The other NFL teams are making their selections, and as a generalization -- THE HIGHER you pick, THE BETTER the player you will get. Yes, of course there are busts and disappointments at the top of every draft (Robert Gallery, Branden Albert, JaMarcus Russell, Laurence Maronie, etc.) as there are plenty of players drafted in later rounds who don't EVER make a contribution to their team. BLAH BLAH BLAH.

    Wouldn't it have been nice to TRADE UP for a change, be aggressive, get the guy you want and forego a few mid round picks. We probably could have gotten Brandon Graham (who went 13th to the Eagles) AND Devin McCourty. The cost would have hypothetically been Jermaine Cunningham and Hernandez, the Florida TE. Who knows, but I think Belichick should have been more decisive!!

    I don't want two linebackers (or extra OL guys for the practice squad)-- I want one awesome Linebacker who can destroy the Colts and put their QB on the ground when the money is on the table!!  My main bone to pick with this draft is that Brandon Graham from Michigan is EXACTLY what we needed for the defense, and we watched Philly make a smart move and get him, while we traded back for a hopefully solid CB in McCourty, but we ended up with a guy I'd never heard of in the 2nd Round in Cunningham to play OLB, when we probably could have sacrificed some later picks who will turn into possibly nothing? to get Graham.

    Now of course we need many players out of this draft, and not everybody has to be a hall of famer...AND I think we got some guys that will become nice players.  And a successful draft pick is NOT measured by pro bowl appearances.  BUT for once it would be nice to get THE TOP GUY in Belichick's mind.  
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from mjxg. Show mjxg's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    Less concerned with which round they go in. More concerned with over the years, how freaking few there are overall for each of the more recent draft years.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    In Response to Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...:
    Laz -funny stuff. I am wondering if we work at the same company...I have the same research methods as you and also have a boss named Steve
    Posted by OldDomPats


    OldDom, Let's you and I never communicate ever again...(j/k).  Seriously though, In my defense, I didn't stuff it down any of my co-worker's garbage can...dude, that ain't cool.  I stuffed it down my boss's lackey underling next-down-the-command-chain, co-department boss's garbage can, because HE heads to the cafeteria or game-room all afternoon after the head guy leaves (when I dutifully sit right at my desk & play Tetris).  Overall, certain things just ain't right. 

    Honestly, Who in their right freakin' mind EVER wants to be cordially asked what they might possibly have to do?  My Answer?  No single red-blooded American for one, that's who...  In the end, it's BOTH their faults- If not alone for asking me what kindly what I just might perhaps maybe, HAVE to do...then at the bare minimum, it's both their faults because according to their job title it falls ultimattely on their heads, And trully-that's what matters most in the end.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Anarchy99. Show Anarchy99's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    Since seemingly all people care about is SB wins, let's only consider things from 2005 on, since NE has won 0 Super Bowls in that time.

    With a lot of folks not interested in or outright unwilling to have a serious discussion, I won't take the time to fully explain the following.  But here are the Career Approximate Values for all the players that teams have drafted from 2005 on.  The values were obtained from pro-football-reference and accounts for on-field performance and assigns value scores for what each player actually produced on the field.  The scores for each player on each team were added up and are listed below.  This does not account for 1) players that ended up on different teams (so the score would go to the team that drafted that player), 2) trades of draft picks for players (so the Pats would basically get nothing in this list for trading draft picks for Welker or Moss), and 3) has no data from players drafted before 2005.  If people are interested in what that all means, they can go research it themselves.

    GB367
    PHI356
    TEN351
    SF327
    DAL316
    ATL315
    IND301
    HOU300
    CAR297
    DEN297
    BAL292
    NYJ292
    JAX287
    SD284
    CHI281
    NO277
    NE265
    NYG263
    PIT246
    TB245
    MIN243
    STL236
    CLE236
    MIA234
    BUF232
    SEA230
    KC225
    ARI221
    OAK217
    CIN212
    WAS190
    DET161

    What this means is that the Packers, Eagles, and Titans have gotten more from their draft picks in the past 5 seasons than most of the NFL.  Note that the Pats were pretty much smack dab in the middle . . . and about as far from #1 as they were from #32.

    The point being that the more we get away from the SB winning era Pats the more the new crop of players will have to produce.  As of now, that new breed of players has been producing middle of the road results.  Certainly that can change.

    Now, there has been a lot of people attributing meaning and concluding things about what I posted that I didn't say.  I never said the sky was falling, the Pats drafted poor players, their strategy is wrong, or that any player they have picked is destined to fail or won't be productive.  The bottom line for anyone they drafted this year (as with all teams) is that we won't have any idea at this point if their draft was any better or worse than anyone else's until they actually play for awhile and can tell how they did.

    Given the patching of the torch and a heavy migration away from the Seymours, Laws, Bruschis, etc. from before, there is a high percentage of newer, younger players.  Hopefully the guys from this and year and recent drafts can continue along the lines of the old timers, and certainly that is where the future of the team lies.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Trading Down Can Get You Decent Players But...

    "Since seemingly all people care about is SB wins, let's only consider things from 2005 on, since NE has won 0 Super Bowls in that time."

    ~Gotta say I agree yet again, considering 3 playoff years, 2 AFC championship games & 1 Superbowl appearance IS pretty darn pathetic in 4 lengthy seasons...buncha scrubs. 

    "With a lot of folks not interested in or outright unwilling to have a serious discussion, I won't take the time to fully explain the following.  But here are the Career Approximate Values for all the players that teams have drafted from 2005 on. This does not account for 1) players that ended up on different teams (so the score would go to the team that drafted that player),"
    ~I know Asante Samuel's 1 pro-bowl appearance while on Philly, just utterly biase's this towards New England's favor...
    "and 2) trades of draft picks for players (so the Pats would basically get nothing in this list for trading draft picks for Welker or Moss),"
    ~
    So wait a minute, You mean to TELL me-THAT New England does NOT get some extra points on "The Super List" because they DIDN'T actually Draft Welker or Moss? 
    "and 3) has no data from players drafted before 2005." 
    ~It's better to ommit things that are biased in favor of something, But NOT in favor in what your personal argument says...I tend to like this as a Rule of Life. 

    "
    If people are interested in what that all means, they can go research it themselves
    ..."

    "What this means is that....".

    ~C'mmmon man, I thought you weren't gonna TELL US!  It's not so much that I like suprises and mysteries, It's far more that I like watching the waiting suspense when ya know someone's gonna get murdered and THEY know it, but its just a long as heck waiting game that wears down their soul to bits... 

    "Given the patching of the torch....".

    ~Right about here, I had a few seconds of doubt whether or not I was gonna bother responding at all, But I figured, "Laz pal, ya made it THIS far, So no more sledging your bets because all your chins are in the p0t and the tie is cast so call the slop it's & hope ya have no obvious tales that your fluffing here so just bowl the die already, will ya?" 
     

Share