Draft failures have put NE in the position they are in now of getting their asses handed to them by the Ravens on their homefield in the playoffs.

The Packers ability to draft has set them up as possibly the best setup team moving forward from here.

To just dismiss them as "oh they haven't won shit" is naive at best.

If you had asked me in 2004, I would have said yes.

Now, I'd say the Patriots have the best draft strategy (the pick trading, which drives many Pats fans nuts), but haven't been the best talent evaluators the last few years, which would seem to put them a rung below the Polians and Newsomes.

That said, I'm not sure how many, if any, are ahead of them OTHER than Polian and Newsome.

So how bad are the Patriots at the draft anyway. Seems to me that three Super Bowl victories (and four appearances), the second most regular season wins in the NFL over the last decade, the near-perfect season, and an NFL record nine straight years with either the best, or tied for the best, record in their division suggests they don't completely suck at it, no?

I know it's popular to pick Polian and Newsome as the best. See my prior post. But those guys don't have as many SB appearances or victories BETWEEN THEM as the Patriots do alone, over the timeframe from when BB took over the Pats, right?

Green Bay has to be up there close, they completely turned their team around using 95% draft.

And I basically agree with what you said if you cut at 2005 it's arguable the Patriots are the best draft team, since then it's all changed. Anymore it looks like the Pats are more interested in trading picks than making good selections.

It comes back to this, it doesn't matter if you have 500 picks, or 22 2nd rounders if you don't make good selections or half the picks don't make your team because they aren't good enough to beat out the guys you have.

dumbasses like Mecca want to paint the Pats as some sort of "drafting failures" over the past 5 years or so but don't want to count Randy Moss and Wes Welker as draft picks...even though they spent picks to acquire them...

so why aren't we counting Moss and Welker...they spent a 2nd, 4th and 7th for those guys and in all honesty they are probably worth 4 or 5 1st round picks in true value...

that's not winning THAT draft? That was an EPIC win.

Hunh. Silly me. I thought it was more because of this:

Super Bowl appearances / victories since 2000:

Colts, Chargers, Packers, Ravens, Steelers (together as a group): 5/3

Patriots: 4/3

Since 05/06 they have not drafted well at all, it's why the team is getting old and less talented, namely on defense. Sure they have a hit here and there like Mayo.

Even in the perfect season attempt that team was full of FA and trade contributors that were brought in to mask the draft failures, namely at WR at that time. That's not to say I disliked the moves but that's what it was, and when you rely upon older players your team falls off a cliff faster especially when there aren't young players waiting to take over.

Basically the almost perfect season and then the subsequent year which I thought would kind of be the Pats last ride for a shot at a SB ended when Brady's knee went and now the Patriots while still competing are in a bit of a rebuilding position.

Sometimes I Just don't understand them, they got owned in the front 7 and respond by drafting a CB...they need an end badly, Spikes solid pick but without a starting caliber end and some better rush OLB's the defense is going to continue to struggle regardless of how many CB's they draft.

Also this obsession NE has with TE's boggles my mind, meanwhile Laurence Maroney is still the starting RB.

The Patriots philosophy regarding trading picks has been completely consistent. Remember, we traded the #1 pick in 2003 to the Ravens and got their 2nd that year (Eugene Wilson) and their #1 in 2004 (Vince Wilfork). Those kinds of maneuvers aren't new.

We whiffed in '06 and '08. The '07 class was weak (per BB) and we traded for MOss and Welker, which is a clear win. The '09 class is looking very solid, and nobody knows about '10, but having had four picks in the first two rounds, and being set up with 4 more in the first two rounds next year, I'd say we're well positioned.

But yes, having alot of picks only matters if you use them well.

Moss and Welker get acquired because of draft failures, if they had hit on a WR pick instead of using a high 2 on Chad Jackson they aren't making trades for 30+ year old WR's.

Age is why the team is starting to fall, teams age when they don't properly draft young players that can be, this concept is pretty easy to understand.

and now the Jets have all of the hype...

and I'm going to win an assload of money when the Pats win the division yet again...

That will be the easy money futures pick of the year...

The Jets might be favored to win that division...and when that happens...I'm dropping $1,000 on WHATEVER odds they give the Patriots...

I'd think the Ravens should have more hype than the Jets, their offseason is better.

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

Welker was like 25 or 26 when they acquired him...

Moss went from the premiere NFL receiver to Oakland where they pawned him off for a 4th round pick...

The Patriots spent a 2nd, a 4th and a 7th for two all-pro receivers who turned that offense into a freaking juggernaut.

and you're trying to act like the 2007 draft was a failure?

THEY GOT MOSS AND WELKER OUT OF THAT DRAFT...THOSE TWO ALONE MAKE THAT DRAFT AN A+++++++++++++++++

they are in different ****ing divisions, dumb ****

they traded for a 30 year old Randy Moss in 2007, and a 26 year old Wes Welker...but solid point about trading for 30+ year old receivers to mask past failures LMAO

'09 is looking perfectly good so far. '07 was a weak class, and we traded picks to get Welker and Moss, which is a clear win.

'05 was fine. Logan Mankins (1) is a pro bowl guard. Ellis Hobbs (3) was a starting corner who was not quite average and ultimately traded to the Eagles for 2 fifth round picks. Nick Kaczur (3) has been our starting right tackle for several years, though he is average at the position, not elite. Matt Cassel (7) was our starting QB when Brady went down, and was ultimately packaged to the Chiefs along with aging veteran Mike Vrabel for a high 2nd round pick. You can't call a draft like that a failure.''

'06 and '08 were mediocre, no argument there. I wonder if EVERY draft the Colts and Ravens have had over the last 10 years have been solid, or if they had some misses. Our misses were emphasized because they were back to back, ignoring a weak draft class that we traded out of to get veteran talent, meaning three straight years of no young talent in the pipeline.


You seem to know alot about the Patriots, but don't understand them well.

CB isn't a screaming need, but with Marshall and whathisface joining our division, and with the league still remarkably pass-happy, you really need 3 quality starting corners. We have 1-1/2 (Bodden and Butler). A third makes sense if he grades out that high both because three are good, and in case of injury.

We addressed our crying needs -- TE, LB, WR, in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. What's the issue?

RB is an issue. Our stable of RBs, if they all stay healthy, are decent but unexceptional, and remarkably old. Maybe the draft didn't quite fall the right way for them to take a RB. You can't reach desperately just because you'd like a guy at a certain position. Also, we had more than just RB to fill, in terms of need.

Two of the first four picks were front 7. Then you add 2nd and 3rd year, top 3 round picks like McKenzie and Tate who are also LBs with talent, if they can stay on teh damn field, and you have no lack of young talent. We also signed Warren, who is a solid veteran even if he has never performed up to his draft position.