The new look OL

CaptainLaddie · Apr 22, 2015

That's fair. Maybe my perception has been clouded by guys like LGBT and Blount having so much success in Belichick's system.

God, I still can't believe BB used a first on Maroney. And can't believe I bought a jersey of his after that rookie season.

bakahump · Apr 22, 2015

Part of the 1st 1/4 season suckage??

While Solder has played down the possibility, maybe he wasn't 100% back by the time real games started. I guess its a stretch as you would think he would be willing in retrospect to admit it......but the timing is peculiar. He sucked SO BAD the first few games and then "Recovered his pro-bowl caliber play". I remember discussions here that we thought maybe the Mankins trade messed with his head or he no longer trusted the guy to his right. Or..maybe he was just still recovering....

Shelterdog · Apr 22, 2015

Super Nomario said:
That's part of it, but it doesn't explain why they thought Devey could play, or why they plugged Cannon in at G after not playing him there all preseason. Also, Stork's emergence doesn't fully explain why the line improved - he started in the KC debacle, and then missed several games (BUF and NYJ weeks 6 and 7, most of the BAL playoff game and all of IND) and the line was fine. There were multiple things going on - including improvement in the receiving corps, as it took LaFell a few weeks to get going and Gronk took a while to be Gronk.

I think it s as simple as that they saw a precipitous and unexpected drop in Mankin's play. I've got no explanation as to why the thought Devey and Cannon could do the job.

ALiveH · Apr 22, 2015

OL seems like a pretty low-risk draft choice if you know what you're doing (which the Belichick regime clearly does). It seems like the 1-3rd round picks invested in the position have consistently become perennial starters, if not occasionally pro bowl caliber (and have even had some good hits in the later rounds). So, if the talent is available (which it will be judging by the mocks I've seen), and it's a relative position of need, then spending a 1st or 2nd on the position seems like it'd be a good use of resources that should install a plus starter for the next decade.

bakahump · Apr 22, 2015

You could look at it the other way......"we hit on these guys alot.... often times with lower picks....so why "waste" a high draft pick on one when we could use that resource at a position we struggle with."

Though I agree that you probably have a better representation of their mindset.

The Mort Report · Apr 22, 2015

Super Nomario said:
Well, yeah, an extra second is an eternity, but there's nothing the Patriots could possibly do that would give Brady another second. Maybe another couple tenths of a second. Another split second for a WR to get open on third down might be nice now and again, but for the most part we want Brady getting the ball out quick anyway.

As for the idea of "every pick" on the lines (and others have said this as well) - do you mean this literally? How many OL and DL does it make sense to carry on the 53-man roster? Keep in mind that backup OL / DL rarely play on special teams.

True, but I feel like most of Brady's picks/bad throws are due to someone getting through the line up the middle and forcing Brady to throw. Adding to the line also helps the running game obviously. I just see it as adding a high end O-line player or two can help in both aspects of the offense. The reverse goes for the D-line. And yeah of course I don't want just line players out of the draft, but I think it should be their areas of focus

SoxVindaloo · Apr 22, 2015

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Is "because Stork was hurt" too simple of an explanation? That's an honest question, evaluating line play is over my head and I don't watch tape. It seems like they could slot everyone back into a more effective role once they had him back at C, but I'm certainly not the most able to evaluate these things.

Sounds right to me. Barring the pre-season injury it seems Stork was tagged as the Day 1 starter at C. Maybe they overdid it a bit on the musical chairs in his absence. Would be really interesting if the top interior OL like Cann are sitting there around #45. We certainly have the ammo to go get them.

Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt · Apr 22, 2015

I don't understand and maybe I'm just being dense - I don't think anyone is seriously advocating the selection of guard at #32 overall, damn the torpedoes and defense be damned, screw drafting Marcus Peters for whoever. I, in fact, would be thrilled to land a shutdown CB first and go after an interior lineman later on. I think the argument that we are far from "set" at guard despite a really great offense and that Super Bowl win can happily coexist with "there are other pressing needs." If you're simply pointing out that there are alternative, equally important needs to drafting a guard with our first pick I don't think anyone would disagree. I know I wouldn't.

Next stop: Gaza.

Edit: Just being stupid and unclear.

ALiveH · Apr 23, 2015

You need to factor in probabilities. If the choice is "shut-down corner" or "perennial good starter at OL", then obviously you go shut-down corner every time. But, what do you think the probability that a defensive back picked #32 turns into a "shutdown corner" versus the probability that a OL (or DL) picked at #32 turns into a decade-long above-average starter / pro bowler? Look at the Pats' track record in the 1st & 2nd round for a sense of that. Picking up guys in the trenches is inherently less risky & it's clear that OL & DL are positions of need. Has to factor into their thinking.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/draft.htm

Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt · Apr 23, 2015

Super Nomario said:
You also have to consider the team needs: in Ryan, Arrington, Dennard, Butler, Fletcher, and McClain the Patriots have pretty good CB depth; what they lack is a bigger guy who can defend top receivers. There's no point in spending a third or fourth on a CB that isn't going to be better than Ryan or Fletcher.

That is good CB depth, yes, except you need two good starters for it to qualify as good depth. But we digress...

Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt · Apr 23, 2015

I do agree with the last part of what you wrote, but I'm saying I'm not entirely convinced they do have a bunch of #2's or even one of them. They might, I assume BB sees something in Butler maybe, and Arrington can play if he's in his role in the slot, but I wonder if this team needs more than just one good CB for us to be in any way excited by the "depth." I guess if Dennard comes back and plays entirely differently from how he played in 2014, which is an apparently self-imposed small sample size, that's another potential #2.

I agree overall - I think it's sort of tough to see it any other way - that using the #32 overall to get a potential #1 CB is a better allocation of resources than spending it on a guard. But I continue to believe that we shouldn't sleep on shoring up the interior of the line. That's a pretty high priority, too, probably 1A, and the focus of the team's prospect visits tells me BB thinks so, as well.

Kenny F'ing Powers · Apr 23, 2015

Super Nomario said:
That's basically my point: they have six #2 or #3 CBs but don't have a #1. And it's hard to see how they get a #1 without using their first-round pick there. I don't have a lot of interest in using a third-round pick on another #2 or #3 CB, so if they don't use their first on a corner they might as well just strengthen other areas and roll with what they have.

Is there such thing as a #1 rookie CB?

ALiveH · Apr 23, 2015

Just google "nfl draft bust probability by position".

There's been a ton of studies done on this. OL & DL are the safest early round picks to make. Something about trench guys make them consistently undervalued and/or easier to accurately evaluate. I'm surprised it's even controversial on this forum. And, the Patriots experience under the Belichick regime shows he's not an outlier at all in this regard.

Here are the OL & DL picks in the 1st or 2nd round under Belichick: Richard Seymour, Matt Light, Ty Warren, Vince Wilfork, Marquise Hill, Logan Mankins, Ron Brace, Sebastian Vollmer, Nate Solder, Chandler Jones, Dominique Easley. That is a damn impressive hit rate of pro bowlers & above average starters & longevity.

Now look at the DBs taken in the 1st two rounds: Eugene Wilson, Brandon Merriweather, Terrence Wheatley, Patrick Chung, Darius Butler (no, not that Butler), Devin McCourty, Ras-I Dowling, Tavon Wilson. Not quite so impressive. Not a single shutdown corner.

So, I agree, if a shutdown corner is available at #32 - obviously, take him. But, what is the probability that will really happen?

CaptainLaddie · Apr 24, 2015

For kicks, four rookie CBs drafted since 2000 have made the Pro Bowl in their rookie season: McCourty, Browner, Hester and Peterson. Hester made it was a returner, mind you. And I'm fairly certain Peterson made it as a CB/KR/PR as well, though at least he started 16 games at CB and had 2 picks.

Browner had 6 picks, 2 TDs, and 23 PDs; McCourty had 7 picks, 0 TDs, and 17 PDs.

But Browner wasn't really a rookie -- he was 27 and had played in the CFL for a few years.

So the only guy, as a pure CB, who was picked (at 27, mind you) in the first round and made a Pro Bowl that year was McCourty.

There's a few other guys who had nice rookie years -- Janoris Jankins had 4 picks, 3 TD and 14 PDs; Terrence Newman had 4 picks and 20 PDs; Dunta Robinson had 6 picks and 19 PDs. But basically... yeah. You aren't finding a #1 CB in the draft who can be a #1 in their first year.

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) · Apr 24, 2015

CaptainLaddie said:
For kicks, four rookie CBs drafted since 2000 have made the Pro Bowl in their rookie season: McCourty, Browner, Hester and Peterson. Hester made it was a returner, mind you. And I'm fairly certain Peterson made it as a CB/KR/PR as well, though at least he started 16 games at CB and had 2 picks.

Browner had 6 picks, 2 TDs, and 23 PDs; McCourty had 7 picks, 0 TDs, and 17 PDs.

But Browner wasn't really a rookie -- he was 27 and had played in the CFL for a few years.

So the only guy, as a pure CB, who was picked (at 27, mind you) in the first round and made a Pro Bowl that year was McCourty.

There's a few other guys who had nice rookie years -- Janoris Jankins had 4 picks, 3 TD and 14 PDs; Terrence Newman had 4 picks and 20 PDs; Dunta Robinson had 6 picks and 19 PDs. But basically... yeah. You aren't finding a #1 CB in the draft who can be a #1 in their first year.

This has my mind in a pretzel.... No one drafts Pro Bowl corners late in the 1st round and the Pats are perceived as "bad" at drafting corners, but the only team to have a rookie Pro Bowl corner drafted late in the draft is the Patriots, but that corner is no longer a corner. I know this is all just a coincidence, but it feels like Bill fucking with everyone again.

Kenny F'ing Powers · Apr 24, 2015

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
This has my mind in a pretzel.... No one drafts Pro Bowl corners late in the draft and the Pats are perceived as "bad" at drafting corners, but the only team to have a rookie Pro Bowl corner drafted late in the draft is the Patriots, but that corner is no longer a corner. I know this is all just a coincidence, but it feels like Bill fucking with everyone again.

McCourty was a first round pick.

wutang112878 · Apr 24, 2015

Super Nomario said:
This is the closest I've found, which suggests that OL / DL are safer (by median) but the average is pretty much in line, which means it's basically a risk / reward tradeoff. And in the 17-32 range, DB is the third-least-risky position group, only a little riskier than OL / DL. If you have a better study I'd be interested to read it.

This is much more rudimentary but I think I can shed a little light on this. A while back I pulled all the draft data by player for 2000 to 2013 from Football Reference. Below is a table by round and position (some of the grouping positions arent normalized like OL is vague) and % of Games Played = Games Played / Possible Games. The data below is from 2000 to 2013:

[tablegrid= V2 ]Category Pos 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (blank) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D-Line DE 64 48 40 44 41 45 65 69% 52% 49% 48% 39% 22% 26% D-Line DT 45 27 39 36 30 39 55 65% 63% 42% 37% 37% 26% 18% D-Line NT 2 1 1 85% 32% 46% D-Line Total 111 75 79 80 72 84 121 68% 55% 46% 42% 38% 24% 22% LB LB 39 65 69 68 63 60 69 70% 51% 43% 46% 31% 33% 26% CB DB 70 96 98 94 105 92 108 67% 57% 42% 39% 33% 30% 23% Safety FS 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 89% 88% 39% 48% 19% 37% 25% Safety SS 2 1 2 4 3 5 4 93% 100% 41% 54% 63% 31% 79% Safety Total 5 4 5 6 6 8 5 91% 90% 40% 52% 38% 33% 64% O-Line C 6 8 5 12 10 14 19 84% 72% 59% 36% 47% 23% 19% O-Line G 8 20 18 24 25 21 38 72% 54% 52% 36% 32% 28% 21% O-Line OL 21 14 15 17 15 21 21 78% 76% 57% 46% 42% 22% 22% O-Line T 36 27 30 32 30 35 40 65% 61% 50% 33% 22% 19% 20% O-Line Total 71 69 68 85 80 91 118 69% 61% 52% 35% 31% 22% 20% QB QB 37 16 18 18 26 31 31 57% 34% 20% 24% 6% 12% 9% RB RB 39 35 31 45 31 47 55 61% 53% 38% 36% 36% 26% 18% WR WR 55 60 68 60 57 66 88 58% 53% 44% 34% 21% 18% 17% TE TE 17 22 31 30 35 32 46 76% 58% 54% 45% 35% 29% 25% FB FB 4 11 9 5 10 57% 43% 30% 46% 33% ST K 1 1 1 4 6 11 9 98% 100% 88% 43% 39% 59% 35% ST LS 1 30% ST P 3 5 8 8 4 56% 60% 74% 41% 69% R ST Total 1 1 4 9 14 20 13 98% 100% 67% 53% 60% 50% 44% [/tablegrid]

Edit: Changed format and added some positions

wutang112878 · Apr 24, 2015

Now here is the same view but for just the most recent 5 years (2009 to 2013), now the %s are much higher because this avoids the retirement / average career issue:

[tablegrid= V2 ] Qty Drafted % of Games Played Category Pos 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (blank) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D-Line DE 28 16 19 18 18 14 30 85% 73% 66% 45% 47% 41% 42% D-Line DT 18 14 14 11 5 6 22 91% 67% 66% 59% 64% 43% 34% D-Line NT 1 46% D-Line Total 46 30 33 29 23 20 53 88% 70% 66% 51% 50% 41% 38% LB 12 26 16 26 19 23 24 75% 65% 70% 57% 34% 37% 50% CB 19 27 38 25 42 30 43 86% 76% 62% 61% 49% 45% 39% Safety FS 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 89% 88% 39% 48% 19% 37% 25% Safety SS 2 1 2 4 3 5 4 93% 100% 41% 54% 63% 31% 79% Safety Total 5 4 5 6 6 8 5 91% 90% 40% 52% 38% 33% 64% O-Line C 3 1 1 2 1 2 4 85% 76% 59% 43% 53% 59% 11% O-Line G 1 2 5 4 5 3 4 94% 100% 67% 32% 27% 52% 20% O-Line OL 21 14 15 17 15 21 21 78% 76% 57% 46% 42% 22% 22% O-Line T 8 7 4 4 9 3 6 79% 75% 57% 39% 16% 25% 23% O-Line Total 33 24 25 27 30 29 35 80% 78% 60% 41% 28% 31% 20% QB 14 6 5 7 7 9 10 73% 46% 50% 9% 7% 7% 1% RB RB 10 15 8 16 15 24 21 73% 63% 69% 55% 56% 44% 31% WR WR 18 17 28 25 17 23 26 81% 74% 62% 59% 46% 36% 27% TE TE 3 8 11 15 11 13 18 89% 75% 66% 56% 47% 65% 38% O FB FB 2 1 1 1 91% 6% 0% 100% ST K 1 3 4 3 94% 54% 85% 86% ST LS 1 30% ST P 1 5 2 1 100% 97% 35% 24% ST Total 1 1 8 7 4 100% 94% 82% 55% 71% [/tablegrid]

In the 5 year view DB doesnt look as risky as the 14 year view and part of this is certainly aided by the fact that teams are probably in a sub defense for nearly half the snaps a year.

Edit: Changed format and added some positions

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) · Apr 24, 2015

Kenny F'ing Powers said:
McCourty was a first round pick.

opps I meant, late in the first round, not late in the draft....see I had a Tebow Pretzel for a mind there.

The new look OL

Who starts at C and the 2 G spots: Pick 3

Chris Barker

Marcus Cannon

Braxston Cave

Dan Connolly

Jordan Devey

Cameron Fleming

Jon Halapio

Josh Kline

Bryan Stork

Ryan Wendell

dj paul pfieffer

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

posts way less than 18% useful shit

Member

Member

dj paul pfieffer

Member

T&A

posts way less than 18% useful shit

Member

Member

T&A

Member