To be fair though for this case, and unlike if a QB is a success or not, we have a pretty convenient and sound way of looking at it through expected AV by draft slot and actual AV produced. If we get into stuff like Sony had a good 3 games in the playoffs so that is a success we're introducing subjectivity to something that probably should be a little more buttoned up and defined. It doesn't even have to be Sony... my desire to keep it formula driven is to keep it as sterile as possible and that applies to everyone!
Misc. Pats Offseason News
- Thread starter tims4wins
- Start date
- Status
To me, it boils down to, knowing what we know now, would the Patriots still take him. I think the answer 100 times out of a 100 is yes. You take the guarenteed SB win every time!
All due respect but that's insane. They take Lamar or Chubb if they know what they know now.
I agree with SMU and think that successes should only be defined purely by a drafted player's contributions to the Patriots. BB doesn't get credit for what a player ends up doing for other NFL teams since he was getting paid to improve the Patriots. I've edited my original post to make Berrios a failure.
Also, I look forward to a formulaic approach to this because some of the nitpicking as to who was a failure or a neutral is a bit much. It feels like we might be missing the forest through the trees, namely that Belichick wasn't a very good drafter for the Patriots since 2018 when he deviated significantly from consensus. This certainly gives me pause with the 2024 draft with guys like Wallace, Robinson and Dial. Drafting and developing is hard enough. No need to take additional unnecessary risk on top of it all.
Last edited:
If we’re talking reaches Polk was 62nd on the CBB which has a Jimmy Johnson value of 284 vs we picked him at pick 37 a value of 530. That is a 53.8% value. For me anything under ~66.7% is a reach so I would add him too.
Sony was basically a replacement level RB and also a success as a draft pick.
It's both. He wasn't very good overall but he performed in important moments.
But, yeah, if the Pats could do it all over again, kind of feel like they would go with Lamar.
It's both. He wasn't very good overall but he performed in important moments.
But, yeah, if the Pats could do it all over again, kind of feel like they would go with Lamar.
Big thing about Michel is that he never fumbled. In 2018, he had 288 total touches during the season + playoffs and he only fumbled once when he got pretzeled by the Bears. He never possessed the breakaway speed that I thought he had while at Georgia but he was reliable and had big moments and tons of key runs.
Interesting to see you walk back your original opinion based on SMUs. Told ya SMU, your evaluations carry some weight here. To not give credit to Bill for evaluating talent because the player performed elsewhere seems nitpicky but it’s your list. His offensive evaluations are pretty abysmal, I’ll give you that but his ability to find talent on the defensive side was pretty damn good.
I apologize if you found my disagreements a bit much. I would suggest if you don’t want your evaluations picked at don’t post them but that probably sounds harsh.
I think you’ll find that Bill was about middle of the pack as far as drafting goes even against consensus. He might have actually hit more on reaches than other GMs just due to the fact he reached so often but I’m not using any kind of formula there.
That graph is… hideous. Thank you for posting the link to the list that was really helpful. I’m eager to see what you come up with.
Nah they'd take Chubb.Sony was basically a replacement level RB and also a success as a draft pick.
It's both. He wasn't very good overall but he performed in important moments.
But, yeah, if the Pats could do it all over again, kind of feel like they would go with Lamar.
He was EXACTLY what they needed at that point in time and it paid off perfectly with a Super Bowl win.
Ravens moving Malik Cunningham to WR
I remember folks clamoring for him to get a start at QB and being shocked he was let go. Looks like he just can't play QB.
I remember folks clamoring for him to get a start at QB and being shocked he was let go. Looks like he just can't play QB.
And possibly not win a SB? Not a chance.
Plus how do you know run heavy Lamar succeeds on the Pats. He could have busted out under Josh’s system. And definitely would have under Patricia lol
It's not really a debate. What is more important to an NFL team in the short and intermediate term, a franchise QB and two time MVP or a great running back?
Sony is a replacement level RB. They could have found a guy to run in 1 yard TDs. It could have even been Lamar.
Michel played 28% of the team's snaps in 2018, he played less than Malcolm Brown, another guy widely considered to be a bad first round pick who was also on that team. Was the Malcolm Brown pick worth it as well? Do you risk not winning that Super Bowl without Malcolm Brown?
Every time they needed to score in the 2018 playoffs they went primarily through the air. They mostly threw to open up a big lead on the Chargers, they pretty much exclusively threw when Mahomes woke up and they needed three straight TD drives versus the Chiefs, they threw to score on the Rams. The fact that Michel finished those drives with short runs doesn't really make him integral to that title, not to mention whenever they had a do or die drive that postseason, Rex Burkhead was on the field most of the time. Michel's career proves he was an OL dependent back, I don't know why 2018 would have gone any differently with someone else in that mold carrying the ball.
2018 would have gone very differently because the playcalls likely would have been at least slightly different if they had some other lesser RB in that spot (or differently in a different way with a better RB). Butterfly effect and whatnot
Assuming everything plays out exactly the same with some random guy instead of Michel is foolish. Perhaps with a different RB, the Pats steamroll the Rams in the Super Bowl 55-10. Perhaps a different RB fumbles or misses a hole or block that Michel didnt and the Pats get bounced in the playoffs. Perhaps Burkhead gets more playing time, gets hurt and isn’t around for the key playoff drives he was important on.
It’s unknowable but the idea that everything plays out exactly the same with a different idea is absolutely nuts.
The 2018 Pats won a Super Bowl and and Michel played a key role in that season and playoff stretch. That’s all we know for sure. Whether or not getting a key contributor on a Super Bowl winner for one season and being otherwise pretty useless is enough value to keep the pick from being a bust is open to debate. The idea that everything plays out the same with someone else instead of Michel is not - it’s ridiculous. As is the idea that Lamar Jackson’s career plays out the same if he were picked by the Pats instead.
To use a less contentious example, I don’t view Bethel Johnson as a bust because he was the one who had the go ahead (and ultimately home field clinching) kick return TD. That one play saves him from being a bust. Getting HFA was a huge factor in beating the Colts that year in the playoffs. Could they have won without HFA? Sure, it’s possible. Would some other kick returner been able to take that kick for a TD? Maybe. Just like the 2018 Pats might have won without Michel.
The point of drafting is to set your team up to win Super Bowls. Any player drafted who demonstrably plays a key role in that quest justifies the pick IMO. We know the 2018 won a Super Bowl. We don’t know how many Lamar Jackson would have won (if any). I don’t understand the mindset of anyone who would trade a known Lombardi for the unknown promise of maybe a Lombardi.
That is some crazy logic. So, anyone who ever played on a Super Bowl team, or who made a single good play on a Super Bowl team, is thus a good choice? I mean, that does really mitigate some of BB's egregious draft picks ... Jordan Richards says thanks.
I think both sides are valid here even though I am personally believe: 1) I wish they would have drafted Lamar there because I think they win the SB without Sony, 2) Sony Michel played a role winning the Super Bowl and we should not dismiss that as completely replacement level, and 3) The OL was so good it probably doesn't matter that much who was running, 4) the issue here, aside from perhaps some folks maybe not quite understanding how the logic works for people they disagree with, is risk aversion. There are some folks here who, no matter how you feel about Michel's importance or performance level, correctly believe that 1) he played a considerable role/snaps on a team that won a ring and 2) even if you rerun the sim with prime AP there technically is no guarantee it breaks the same way. You might be 99% certain another back replicates the SB title but it is unknown. I get drawing the line at being risk averse when a SB ring in a hypo is on the line. Many folks don't see Michel as being that good that year as well as think it is so likely you would replicate that title had you replaced his carries with someone else that there is no real risk in losing that hypo SB. There is a risk to going to far to risk aversion as it crosses into post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, but if you go too far the other way you are cavalier to risk.
How would you rate/consider Sony's 2018 performance?
The above average to average: Of 30 RBs with 150 attempts Michel was graded out as 13th best by PFF. He was 17th for yards/attempt of those players and 19th for breakaway %.
The below average: Of 30 RBs with 150 attempts Michel was 22nd in yard after contact average, 21st in PFF's elusiveness rating. Next Gen Stats has him -60 rushing yards over expected which is 9th worst. On a per attempt basis he was -0.3 yards per attempt over expectation which was below average. He was below average for their efficiency stat. He was also below average for % of runs that were above expectation, 35%. His offensive line was graded out as the 4th best run blocking unit in the NFL.
So to me I think Sony was probably somewhere from above average to below average. I originally thought he was average to above average but it looks more likely he was a tick below average. He wasn't truly replacement level but he wasn't that much better.
So I think it is fair to say it is likely they could have found a RB or 2 to replace his production and if everything else more or less stayed the same they still would have won the SB. I personally feel that way.
How would you rate/consider Sony's 2018 performance?
The above average to average: Of 30 RBs with 150 attempts Michel was graded out as 13th best by PFF. He was 17th for yards/attempt of those players and 19th for breakaway %.
The below average: Of 30 RBs with 150 attempts Michel was 22nd in yard after contact average, 21st in PFF's elusiveness rating. Next Gen Stats has him -60 rushing yards over expected which is 9th worst. On a per attempt basis he was -0.3 yards per attempt over expectation which was below average. He was below average for their efficiency stat. He was also below average for % of runs that were above expectation, 35%. His offensive line was graded out as the 4th best run blocking unit in the NFL.
So to me I think Sony was probably somewhere from above average to below average. I originally thought he was average to above average but it looks more likely he was a tick below average. He wasn't truly replacement level but he wasn't that much better.
So I think it is fair to say it is likely they could have found a RB or 2 to replace his production and if everything else more or less stayed the same they still would have won the SB. I personally feel that way.
Malcom Brown is widely considered to be a bad first round pick?
I'd say the Malcom Brown was absolutely worth the last pick of the first round.
I was directing my comments about nitpicking evaluations to the board generally. I don't really care if people want to pick at my evaluations, but I don't think the nitpicking changes the most important point -- Bill's picks in his last 6 drafts sucked when he deviated significantly from consensus. I don't think they were "about middle of the pack" or that he "might have actually hit more on reaches" than other GM's. They flat out sucked. BB had 3 hits in 30 such chances between 2018-2023. Maybe SMU's more nuanced AV-based approach will make BB's track record look less bad, but I think we can all agree that his draft work in his final years contributed heavily to his beleaguered departure.
Nothing wrong with the Malcom Brown pick at all. He was a starter in the NFL for many years and multiple teams.
Really? A UDFA doesn't have what it takes to be an NFL QB? Hard to believe.
Right, I made the point that it's highly unlikely that an UDFA QB would make it in the NFL. You cherry-picked the few exceptions. Yawn.
No, you made such mention of "highly unlikely." But I've alway spent too many keystrokes on this
Ferm: It's
E5 Yaz: Jeff Smegma of Walla Walla, Washington, Andrea Johnson of Des Moines, Iowa, and Alan Cranwitz of Bethesda, Maryland won it!
The 3 out of 30 is based heavily on your opinions and you’ve already condemned the 22 and 23 drafts though. It’s leaning towards the negative which I understand why but there’s another side to it. I agree that 22 is looking dire but 23 still has massive potential. The door isn’t close to closed on last year. Taking just the 2018-2021 drafts I see it as 6 for 17 on reaches because some of those guys performed elsewhere. I understand that you don’t feel like Bill should get credit, but again I don’t agree. In that same timeframe (2018-2021) he was 8 for 17 picking with consensus. In 21 he actually drafted mostly to consensus and had 2 successes by your chart. 14 for 34 overall doesn’t seem like he flat out sucked. 2019? For sure. 0-3 in the first three rounds after a SB win really hurt the team and was likely a direct contribution to Bradys final straw. 2022 doesn’t look good either, I can agree with you on that. If neither Strange nor Thornton step up then things will start to look damning. The 2023 guys will then have to underperform or flame out for anyone to say Bill was a terrible talent evaluator as he aged. If you want to make the case that he was on offense, mainly skill players then there’s plenty to back that up. On the defensive side he was really good. As an aside, does he get credit for UDFAs in this study or do they not factor here? Are we scrutinizing his ability to draft to consensus or his ability to evaluate talent? I can tell you that one matters way more than the other.
(Mods, feel free to break these conversations out in regards to SMU and ponch’s charts and info. It’s an intriguing discussion but it’s kind of taking over the off-season news and might be better served in its own thread. I’m sure there are a few people anxiously hoping to read about the 2024 season only to be met with a few of us debating Bills ability to draft and why the CBB is or isn’t a useful tool.)
I was beating that drum pretty heavily. I still say he should have been given a shot. It’s not like anyone on the roster could throw anyway.
The coaches that watched Mac, Zappe, and Malik Cunningham every day in practice decided it made no sense to give Cunningham any throwing attempts in a real game. In many such cases, the reasons behind those decisions go way beyond "the coaches are dumb and stubborn" or "hubris and arrogance". Some players just aren't cut out for the NFL.
In the playoffs, he had two 1 yard TDs, a 2 (only TD of the game) a 4, a 5, a 10 and a 14.
and PFR has him at 36% of the snaps, not 28%. (Maybe this is because PFR doesn’t count the games Michel didn’t play in?)
He had 24 rushes for 129 yards (5.4) in the divisional round. He had 29-113 (3.9) in the AFCCG. And he had 18-94 (5.2) in the Super Bowl. That’s 71 rushes for 336 yards (4.7 avg) with six touchdowns. He was terrific.
You missed the “key contributor” part of my post. Jordan Richards was never a key contributor in the way that Michel or Bethel Johnson (using my two examples) was.
I also didn’t say “good” choice, I said it justifies the pick (as in not being a bust).
As it is, I prefer to see my teams win Super Bowls and anyone who is an important part of that is not a bust in my book. That doesn’t seem like crazy logic to me but YMMV.
Cunningham was barely getting any reps at QB in camp until towards the end. I think in minicamp and early training camp he was almost exclusively working as a WR. I don’t think the Pats had much, if any, intention of ever having him play QB other than perhaps some wildcat or gadget stuff. IIRC it wasn’t until mid august (roughly) that he started getting meaningful snaps as a QB in camp.
He had one good drive, and on that drive one good throw (which Nixon dropped) and a couple scrambles against Houston’s 4th stringers and some people latched onto that. Look at the QB’s who have showed out in preseason over the years. A whole lot of them are names you either never knew, or totally forgot about.
He will almost certainly be on the waiver wire again in a few months. He looked awful as a WR in New England. Perhaps the new kickoff rules might give him a shot on special teams but he’s not long for the NFL
He had one good drive, and on that drive one good throw (which Nixon dropped) and a couple scrambles against Houston’s 4th stringers and some people latched onto that. Look at the QB’s who have showed out in preseason over the years. A whole lot of them are names you either never knew, or totally forgot about.
He will almost certainly be on the waiver wire again in a few months. He looked awful as a WR in New England. Perhaps the new kickoff rules might give him a shot on special teams but he’s not long for the NFL
What should the hit rate be on the picks where these "reaches" happened?
It looks to me outside of the top two guys in 2022(where Cole Strange is already a failure?), those reaches are all from the back half of the third round and later. You just don't get a lot of successes that late.
Before even quibbling over having most of the guys in last years draft already being called failures, which seems pretty crazy to me, maybe the hit rate should be more than 10% on those later picks but probably not significantly so.
You're just going to naturally find more reaches in later rounds since most of the top prospects are easily identifiable.
Just looking at the breakdown, in the first two rounds, 2 of his 13 picks are reaches for 15%
In rounds 3-7 it's 28 out of 43 for 65%
I don't think his late round reaches really caused his downfall, more so it was his consensus misses in the early rounds that did.
I'd refer you to post 589 in this thread, which lays out a quantitative rationale based on the Jimmy Johnson draft chart and rookie contract 4 year AV. That will provide a lot more precision and will weight earlier round picks (and misses) much more heavily than late round picks.
I still think BB's round 1-5 reach track record in the 2018-2023 drafts is pretty damning. BB went 2 for 16 in successes with reach picks in rounds 1-5, and my gut sense is that a 12.5% hit rate in those rounds with reaches is unambiguously terrible. Maybe Strange and Thornton redeem themselves, and the ratio looks better or maybe not. The bigger point here is that BB didn't need to make things so difficult on himself because he seemed to have much more success drafting when he didn't deviate significantly from consensus.
Finally, calling guys in last year's draft failures is evened out somewhat by calling guys in last year's draft successes. Maybe Gonzalez, White and Baringer don't sustain their first year promise (like Mac Jones, for example). I wish I had a crystal ball to make definitive judgments, but lacking that, I made a judgment call based on the limited information I had in hand.
Moon? That was from a time when a black guy didn't have the "essentials" to be a QB. He went to Canada for 6 years. He was 28 when he got his chance in the NFL.
Well, again, I think lumping in rounds 1-5 doesn't make much sense.
I don't know exactly what you're expecting from rounds 3-5. The hit rate for those rounds is very low, whether it's a reach or consensus. Wildly different hit rate than rounds 1-2.
I still disagree with your bigger point here that BB made things so difficult on himself by deviating significantly from consensus. All of his deviations, outside of 2022, are draft picks outside of the top 75. I believe if you looked through most GMs draft records, you would find a significant amount of deviations from consensus in those spots. Once you get past the top wave of guys, I'd think everyones draft boards deviate significantly.
Finally, calling guys in last years draft failures, or successes, seems pretty crazy me. It's really rare to know much about a player after year one. I'm old enough to remember when a guy on the radio from 2-6 called Donta Hightower Belichicks biggest draft bust after year one.
From my point of view, these exercises done in a vacuum are informative, but making a conclusion based on doing this for one single team vs. doing it across the entirety of the league is a mistake. When you get to the later rounds, how many GMs follow the "big board"? Besides maybe the top 2 rounds, how close does any team follow the "consensus" (which is kind of a funny term to use...consensus of whom?) and what is their hit rate. You can argue about one draft against another and sure, BB might have had some stinkers...but the fact is the Patriots win a bunch of Super Bowls and I get to die one day knowing I was alive for the golden period of Patriots football and BB is one major reason why.
That's an incredibly self-serving way to cut the data. BB appears to have whiffed on the 2 reaches he used in the first two rounds (Strange and Thornton), but it's too early to say so definitively, so we're going to give him a pass. And then he gets a pass on the 11-12 whiffs out of 14 reach picks in rounds 3-5 because drafting is hard, other GM's reach too, yada, yada, yada.
You're also making your armchair pronouncements without any substantiation. I'd love to see some evidence that "most GMs" deviated as much as BB did in rounds 3-5 from 2018-2023 and that those same GMs did as poorly drafting reach picks in those rounds.
What's the basis for saying that the hit rate for rounds 3-5 is very low? And how low is very low? Is it very low across the NFL? Is it very low with the better teams in the NFL (which is ideally what you'd want to compare BB's track record against)? How many GM's had a less than 15% hit rate in rounds 3-5 on reach picks? And, even setting aside 2023, BB had a 22% hit rate on reach picks in rounds 3-5. How did that compare to the Steelers, Ravens, Chiefs, Eagles, Cowboys, 49ers, Rams, Lions, etc.? It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that better drafting teams might use picks in rounds 3-5 to scoop up guys who fell relative to consensus as opposed to making reach picks.
Finally, one of the benefits of gathering data and doing some analysis is that it evolves over time. So, while is may seem crazy to you to take a point of view on the 2023 draft, one can always go back and change one's evaluations as time passes.
This is a message board after all, and you're certainly entitled to your own opinions, but without your backing up your assertions with any evidence, I'm not sure there's much point to going back and forth on this. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.
Last edited:
https://www.samford.edu/sports-analytics/fans/2024/Does-Your-NFL-Team-Draft-to-Win-New-Research-Reveals-Rounds-3-4-and-5-are-the-Key-to-Future-On-Field-Performance
https://overthecap.com/looking-at-past-results-of-the-consensus-draft-board
https://www.hogshaven.com/2024/5/5/24145284/drafting-against-consensus-part-1
Heres some good substantiative reading ponch.
I think you'll find your conversations are easier if you stop asking for hard data without providing any of your own. Banging the desk for graphs while in the same reply acknowledging you're making assumptions is tough to read.
Bolded #1: I didn't say this, so I don't need to find evidence for it. I said most GMs would have a significant amount of deviations from consensus in those spots. Didn't say "most GMs" deviated as much as BB did.
Bolded #2: My basis for saying that the hit rate for rounds 3-5 is very low, is that the hit rate for rounds 3-5 is very low. How low is very low depends on each persons subjective idea as to who is a hit or not. Yes, it is very low across the league. Feel free to pull up the drafts of any past year and peruse through the middle rounds of the drafts and see what % of guys you'd call a success. It's going to be very low leaguewide. If I had to guess what you'd find based on how you see the Patriots picks as success/failure, I'd guess you'll be around 15%.
Bolded #3: Finally, of course you can change your opinion on the 2023 draft class going forward. It just seems crazy to call anyone a success/failure already.
As to the evidence, I think I've provided as much as you have. I don't think saying, well these guys are within 32 picks on a consensus draft board means they are not a reach and if they are more than 32 picks, that's a reach. I mean, if the Patriots this year chose the #34 player Darius Robinson at pick #3 that wouldn't be a reach, but if they waited til the 7th round to choose #264 Marcellas Dial that would still be considered a reach? Which pick do you think we'd be complaining about, the reach or the consensus? And the answer to whether a guy was a success or failure is just your own opinion of that player. That's not really evidence. What you have here is a theory, one which I disagree with.
It doesn't need to be this hard. Belichick isn't sitting at home because he took too many guys in the middle and late rounds that the consensus boards think should've gone lower. He's sitting home because his consensus picks in N'Keal Harry and Mac Jones didn't work out.
- Status