Do you follow conventional wisdom in the draft?

[HitStickTaylor21]

The draft is a role of the dice, but over the years we've seen some conventional wisdom brought to the table that some trust, and when all else fails can point to and say, "Hey that worked in the past, maybe it will work again."

Some examples are:

-Miami (FL) always has a talent worthy of a first round pick

-Penn St always puts out good LBs

-The SEC has more speed than any other conference

-Don't reach for interior offensive linemen, Guards and Centers shouldn't go until the second round

-Heisman trophy QBs never work in the NFL

-Use late round picks on defensive linemen who can do backflips (j/k)

Do you subscribe to any of these notions? Are there any personal tidbits that you follow?

One thing I picked up on was that some of the best DTs in the league come from the Big 12.

Names like:

Tommie Harris-Oklahoma

Kevin Williams-Oklahoma St.

Pat Williams-Texas A&M

Cory Redding-Texas

Shaun Rodgers-Texas

Jamal Williams-Oklahoma St.

Casey Hampton-Texas

Marcus Tubbs-Texas

Adam Carriker-Nebraska (not saying he's great, but just a rookie last year, could become really good)

Obviously, that's debatable since there are so many good DTs in the league, but I thought that was an interesting point to make since we're looking in that area for this draft.

So what are your thoughts? Do you trust old adages like these? I'm interested to know since everyone has their own different way of choosing players.

[wildbill1952]

I follow this wisdom: No first round OL has been a bust in the past 5 years. All OL drafted in the first round in the last 5 years are still playing somewhere and only two have lost their starting jobs. The Pats have drafted 8 OL in the first 3 rounds since 2000 and the SKins have drafted 1. The Skins first two picks in the year before their best offenses ever (82 and 83) were OL.

You build a team by getting your OL in order first, then add anyone else you want to, but always, always, always, get your OL house in order first. That is, if winning is important. If you just want big cheers at the draft party, draft another WR or Safety.

When drafting OL is an afterthought, winning usually is, too.

[Laxpunk2006]

I follow this wisdom: No first round OL has been a bust in the past 5 years. All OL drafted in the first round in the last 5 years are still playing somewhere and only two have lost their starting jobs. The Pats have drafted 8 OL in the first 3 rounds since 2000 and the SKins have drafted 1. The Skins first two picks in the year before their best offenses ever (82 and 83) were OL.

You build a team by getting your OL in order first, then add anyone else you want to, but always, always, always, get your OL house in order first. That is, if winning is important. If you just want big cheers at the draft party, draft another WR or Safety.

When drafting OL is an afterthought, winning usually is, too.

I'm not so sure I agree on your OL comment. Robert Gallery may still have a job but I think he is at the very least on the verge of bust status. He was a #2 overall pick to be a LT and has since been moved to LG. Still has a job but definitely not what they were looking for out of that pick. Especially with Larry Fitzgerald on the board.

[chaz13]

I believe the best way to draft is BPA. When you draft for need you end up reaching for players. That is the way Gibbs liked to draft. He would try to fill all of the holes on the team before the draft. That is the best way to draft IMO. Build your team before the draft as if there is no draft, then you can take the best player each round. There are some exceptions like taking a QB in the 1st when you already have a pro bowl talent (not saying "we" do). Even if we already have a good group at the position where the best player is, competition is always a good thing. And we could always trade excess talent. If you go into a draft saying we must get a CB in the first to fill a starting role and 4 are gone already, when you only expected 1 or 2 to be, it would not be prudent to take the 5th best corner over say the 2nd best WR b/c of need. I think our starters are pretty well set so we should be able to take the BPA. Some needs are bigger than others and that should be considered if you have two players rated equally. I don't think next year will be a SB year so I want to see us accumulate the most talent we can since we actually have the picks to make a difference. Lets hope we get some comp picks. Trading down and/or getting picks for next year would also be nice.

[Voice_of_Reason]

I'm not so sure I agree on your OL comment. Robert Gallery may still have a job but I think he is at the very least on the verge of bust status. He was a #2 overall pick to be a LT and has since been moved to LG. Still has a job but definitely not what they were looking for out of that pick. Especially with Larry Fitzgerald on the board.

Yeah, and the folks rooting for the NYJs are about to run D'Brickashaw Ferguson out on a rail, I think. #4 overall 2006. (of course, 1-3 where Mario Williams, Vince Young and Reggie Bush)

[mistertim]

The Pats have drafted 8 OL in the first 3 rounds since 2000 and the SKins have drafted 1.

Good God. This AGAIN? The 2007 Patriots OL roster:

Wesley Britt, T : Round 5, pick 167

Russ Hochstein, C/G : Round 5, pick 151

Nick Kaczur, T : Round 3, pick 100

Dan Koppen, C : Round 5, pick 164

Matt Light, T : Round 2, pick 48

Logan Mankins, G : Round 1, pick 32

Gene Mruczkowski, G/C : Undrafted

Stephen Neal, G : Undrafted

Ryan O'Callaghan, T : Round 5, pick 136

And their O line was considered one of the better ones in the NFL. So please, you're being completely disingenuous. Two Undrafted guys, four 5th rounders, one 3rd rounder, one 2nd rounder and one 1st rounder. Wow sure sounds like all those upper round draft picks worked wonders for them.

And on top of all of this...you're blatantly lying. The Patriots have taken 4 O linemen in the 1st 3 rounds since 2000.

EDIT: I meant 2007 roster, not 2006.

[corrupt3d]

Good God. This AGAIN? The 2006 Patriots OL roster:

Wesley Britt, T : Round 5, pick 167

Russ Hochstein, C/G : Round 5, pick 151

Nick Kaczur, T : Round 3, pick 100

Dan Koppen, C : Round 5, pick 164

Matt Light, T : Round 2, pick 48

Logan Mankins, G : Round 1, pick 32

Gene Mruczkowski, G/C : Undrafted

Stephen Neal, G : Undrafted

Ryan O'Callaghan, T : Round 5, pick 136

And their O line was considered one of the better ones in the NFL. So please, you're being completely disingenuous. Two Undrafted guys, four 5th rounders, one 3rd rounder, one 2nd rounder and one 1st rounder. Wow sure sounds like all those upper round draft picks worked wonders for them.

And on top of all of this...you're blatantly lying. The Patriots have taken 4 O linemen in the 1st 3 rounds since 2000.

May I be the first one to say: PWNT.

Also, the Patriots have a decent QB. This Tom Brady fella might be really good, think we can grab him for a fifth rounder?

[twobags95]

I do belive that it helps to compare lower round talant with similar intangables against the level of talent they faced in college.

[gkekoa]

I follow a couple of trains of thought.

1) You want your first rounder to be starting on your team for the next ten years.

2) Games are won in the trenches and we need to build a line in the draft. The offensive line can make the QB and moreso the RB look very good.

3) RBs are a product of offensive lines. AP is a great talent but when he was hurt Chester Taylor ran for 180 and 3 TDs. Not much drop off there, even with a huge drop in talent. Aside from that, RBs take more damage than any other position and could lead to a short career.

4) Skill positions are glamourous and much more risky. There are obvious exceptions to this, such as Peyton Manning, Calvin Johnson, and Adrian Peterson.

5) You have to draft guys that fit your scheme.

6) I'll gladly trade you a hamburger today for a Whopper tomorrow. If you can trade down and get a higher quality pick the next year, you do it.

[turbodiesel26]

I agree with the school of thought that says you should build your lines through the draft, but I also think that you should always think about the best player available, regardless of position.

-A first rounder should be the guy who is at the top of your draft board, not the best guy at a position that you are weak at. Too often, injuries happen and careers end. Or, you just increase the competition at a position and make everyone better.

-Second through Fourth should be viewed as guys who will make your team and be fighting for a starting spot within 2 years.

-Below that, you look for steals.

[Manasseh]

Some examples are:

-Miami (FL) always has a talent worthy of a first round pick

-Penn St always puts out good LBs

-The SEC has more speed than any other conference

-Don't reach for interior offensive linemen, Guards and Centers shouldn't go until the second round

-Heisman trophy QBs never work in the NFL

-Use late round picks on defensive linemen who can do backflips (j/k)

Nice list. And interesting tidbit on the DT list from the Big 12. I had never thought of that before. Here are a couple more "trends" I've always considered:

1. Don't draft a WR from Florida (why I never liked the Jacobs pick, even in the 2nd round)*

2. Don't draft a RB from Penn St. (LJ has been the obvious exception, but even he has only been a solid starter for 1 full season)

* The Florida WR rule is subject to change, I suppose, since Spurrier isn't there. I wouldn't draft a WR from South Carolina now either.

[Nighthawk]

I would also add that Michigan is known for their OL.

[gkekoa]

Ohio State is known for producing CBs and Iowa does a good job with pass rushing DEs.

[CG]

I really don't put much stock into this. Past draft classes performance in particular areas has nothing to do with this year's. There will be deviations from any 'trend' and picking purely on the basis that "this worked before" is unwise. In fact, if you're speaking strictly in terms of probability, which is basically what you're proponing, then you would have a BETTER chance of landing someone who will succeed this year in a previously "high-bust" position.

For example, people say that the skins have bad luck drafting WRs in the first. Assuming that there is even a miniscule probability that first round WRs do pan out, the more WRs you pick, assuming they're all of equal credentials, the higher the chance is that you'll get a quality wide-out.

For the record, I'm not advocating picking a WR in the first, but only citing this as an example in examining the probability of a given position succeeding or not succeeding.

Surely there are things like how well your scouts size up DTs vs. WRs or something like that, but your analysis throws all of that out the window. The only thing that should matter is the player and what he can do. The school that they came from may have something to do with it, but I (obviously) really dislike hinging draft picks on what works or hasn't worked in the past.

[artmonkforHOF]

The only one I would apply to this years draft is Penn State as Linebacker Univeristy.

Last year the Bills selected Paul Posluszny in the second round and this kid is a beast. He got hurt and missed a bunch of games but when he was in there man was he good.

All of those other conventional wisdoms- and even this one- need to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Veretax]

The draft is a role of the dice, but over the years we've seen some conventional wisdom brought to the table that some trust, and when all else fails can point to and say, "Hey that worked in the past, maybe it will work again."

Some examples are:

-Miami (FL) always has a talent worthy of a first round pick

There have been a few Miami players who've busted, but since Butch Davis Left... their "level" is down a bit so I don't trust that rule anymore.

-Penn St always puts out good LBs

-The SEC has more speed than any other conference

Both are flawed there are good Linebackers in many conferences and the SEC is not the only conference with speed.

-Don't reach for interior offensive linemen, Guards and Centers shouldn't go until the second round

-Heisman trophy QBs never work in the NFL

-Use late round picks on defensive linemen who can do backflips (j/k)

None of those are true either a large number of guards have been taken in the first round in the last two or three years, certainly more then I'd have expected. teams sometimes draft for needs.

No you go with what your gut tells you, just make sure it's not gas your feeling before making the selection.

[CRobi21]

May I be the first one to say: PWNT.

Also, the Patriots have a decent QB. This Tom Brady fella might be really good, think we can grab him for a fifth rounder?

**** Tom Brady.

[kvarlo12000]

I believe the best way to draft is BPA. When you draft for need you end up reaching for players. That is the way Gibbs liked to draft. He would try to fill all of the holes on the team before the draft. That is the best way to draft IMO. Build your team before the draft as if there is no draft, then you can take the best player each round. There are some exceptions like taking a QB in the 1st when you already have a pro bowl talent (not saying "we" do). Even if we already have a good group at the position where the best player is, competition is always a good thing. And we could always trade excess talent. If you go into a draft saying we must get a CB in the first to fill a starting role and 4 are gone already, when you only expected 1 or 2 to be, it would not be prudent to take the 5th best corner over say the 2nd best WR b/c of need. I think our starters are pretty well set so we should be able to take the BPA. Some needs are bigger than others and that should be considered if you have two players rated equally. I don't think next year will be a SB year so I want to see us accumulate the most talent we can since we actually have the picks to make a difference. Lets hope we get some comp picks. Trading down and/or getting picks for next year would also be nice.

couldn't have said it better. You draft BPA and we get a safty many said we didn't need a safty but you never know what will happen do you.