2015 Draft historically bad?

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
Before you read this I need to make a couple four of things clear:
Yes I know this is Walter football but this has nothing to do with their prowess or lack of prowess in commenting on the draft.

It's a given that I didn't like the Rams draft but this isn't about that.

My take on this is that, like many of us and many of the pundits thought, there was a supreme lack of talent (apparently) in this draft and so I'm wondering if we even had a chance to have a good draft.

Just because there were only 15-20 fits for their team doesn't mean that many other players weren't a "fit" for other teams. I wonder though, if eanyone else has ever heard about a team only having 15-20 players on their board they felt were really draftable players. I'd wager not.

Maybe we did as well as we could with what was available. Not counting the Gurley pick of course.

Yes, I know that hiistorically has two Ls but I didn't notice that until after I posted it and you can't change that. :(

http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftrumormill.php
Patriots "Winged it" in the Draft
Updated May 8, 2015
By Charlie Campbell - @draftcampbell

Some of the picks that received the largest amount of questions and were said to be huge reaches in the 2015 NFL Draft came from the New England Patriots. Sources told us that after the Malcom Brown pick, the Patriots ran out of draftable players before their second selection. That is why New England started to take players that weren't necessarily in the round that most teams graded them.

Sources say that the Patriots only had 15-20 players they viewed as good fits for their team. Obviously, the defending champions have a veteran roster without a lot of needs, and as a result, they only had a small amount of players whom they felt could truly fill a role on game day. Sources said that after the Patriots selected Brown, the remaining players in their draft pool were all gone by the time the team was set to pick at the end of the second round. As a result, league contacts said that caused head coach Bill Belichick to "wing it" from then on, and he took players that he liked the most.

That helps to explain New England's second-round pick of Stanford safety Jordan Richards who had graded out as a day-three pick elsewhere. In the third round, the Patriots took another day-three talent in Oklahoma outside linebacker Geneo Grissom. Sources say that fourth-round picks of defensive end Trey Flowers and guard Tre Jackson were better, but the rest of New England's picks could be hard-pressed to make the roster. The Patriots also selected a long-snapper in the fifth round.

Teams from around the league approach the draft in a different manner. New England had a pool of 15-20 players that quickly evaporated, and as a result, it shouldn't be a surprise if Patriots don't get a whole lot from their 2015 draft class.
 

Stel

Starter
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
744
Lacking in top talent, yes. Historically bad, probably not. Historically average, probably.

Seems to me there was a lack of top talent which moved all the normal mid round talent up at least half a round.

If you put another 15 to 20 top 40 type talents into this draft class, it would have been a fairly normal draft class.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
49,225
Name
Burger man
That is why New England started to take players that weren't necessarily in the round that most teams graded them

Hmm. Didn't the same get said about Havenstein and Brown? Perhaps most of our draft?

I'm not saying its a poor class, but the concensus is certainly more muddy than that of recent years.
 

rhinobean

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
2,152
Name
Bob
When it comes to line men, I defer to the pros who do it for a living. And I don't mean writers, I mean coaches and GM's! Just want these new guys to be the answer!!!!!!!
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
CGI_Ram seeing the similarity:
Hmm. Didn't the same get said about Havenstein and Brown? Perhaps most of our draft?
Probably the main reason I posted it. It made me think of my own assessment of our draft and how I thought every pick after the first round was a reach.

A good example of why you shouldn't make comments about a draft until you've really had a chance to assess all the facts. I'm not changing my mind about not liking our draft but I am questioning my use of the term reach.

Next year, NO VACATION DURING THE DRAFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

Unless my wife overrules me.
 
Last edited:

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Stel confusing me:
Historically average, probably.

If you put another 15 to 20 top 40 type talents into this draft class, it would have been a fairly normal draft class.
Aren't those two statements mutually exclusive? :LOL:
Of course it's after 8 PM so...I might not be in the best condition to judge. :LOL:
 

Ballhawk

Please don't confuse my experience for pessimism!
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
2,284
Name
NPW
You might want to wait until these players play at least one game before you call them all trash.
Just saying!
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
Ballhawk viewing my stance this way:
You might want to wait until these players play at least one game before you call them all trash.
Just saying!
That does not characterize either my stance or my view Ballhawk. Do you think UDFAs are trash? 7th Rounders? When I call a second rounder a 4th round talent I'm not saying they're trash either.
 

Stel

Starter
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
744
Aren't those two statements mutually exclusive? :LOL:
Of course it's after 8 PM so...I might not be in the best condition to judge. :LOL:

I don't think so.

If you infuse the first 35 or so picks in this draft with another 15 or 20 comparable players, every pick after the first 50-55 would be pushed back a half a round or so. Far fewer would be considered "reaches." For example, Havenstein at #57 have a lot saying "reach." I don't think many would say that if he were taken at #72 - #77. Jamon Brown at #72 a reach, but at #87 to #92 probably not.

To me, the talent in this draft seemed like about half the players you would normally see in the #10 to #50 range were missing, pushing everyone else up a half a round or so.
 

Dieter the Brock

Fourth responder
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
8,196
I call Bullshite on this article
"league contacts" - my ass

If Belichick is "winging it" this goes against everything we have learned about the guy
It would also mean his scouts didn't do their job and all of them should be fired

What a bunch of bullshite - to think that the defending Super Bowl winning coach obsessed with winning at all costs - to the point that he cheats over and over again - and you're gonna tell me that this guy was "winging it"???
Are you serious???

That is a crock of shite - they had a plan and executed it. Belicheck has always perceivably reached for players, i mean his drafts are always about depth and getting in fresh young bodies in - and get those big fat contracts out.
 

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
23,002
Name
Dennis
Walter lost all creditably (not that they had much) with their analyses on Rob Havenstein. They trashed the Rams for the pick based on how bad he did at the Senior Bowl (practice) especially in pass protection where in essence Havenstein had a great senior bowl and in fact raised his draft stock as some scouts felt he played much better in pads then he locked at the combine.
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
Stel on the wrong track:
I don't think so.

If you infuse the first 35 or so picks in this draft with another 15 or 20 comparable players, every pick after the first 50-55 would be pushed back a half a round or so. Far fewer would be considered "reaches." For example, Havenstein at #57 have a lot saying "reach." I don't think many would say that if he were taken at #72 - #77. Jamon Brown at #72 a reach, but at #87 to #92 probably not.

To me, the talent in this draft seemed like about half the players you would normally see in the #10 to #50 range were missing, pushing everyone else up a half a round or so.
You misunderstood my comment. You can't say it's historically average and then say if you added another 15-20 players it would be average. You have to pick one or the other don't you? :)

As for the talent level in this draft, I understand that you think it's almost average. You could be right about that and you wouldn't be alone. Many of the "experts" think we had a great draft. One thing I've noticed though, is that most of the people who now say that these picks that every team got in the meaningful rounds (2-3) were good players weren't singing that tune before the draft.

I'm with that group. I've only been paying attention to the draft since 2004 and seriously until 2009. So I'm no expert on past drafts but as I remember them, this draft had the fewest players everyone liked. I had a hard time finding an OT other than Collins that I liked and I didn't like him nearly as much as the OTs I could choose from in past drafts. The pattern repeated itself for me at many of the other positions.

I haven't heard anything to convince me differently yet. But this isn't an area where I'm as confident with my opinions as I am on other areas. So....
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,936
The article just isn't believable. The Patriots would indeed have had everybody identified as to how they fit on the team - no winging it.

And let's be honest - if the Patriots really believed there were only 15-20 players that would make their team - they would have traded the rest of the draft - either to move up and get another player they wanted before they were all gone, or for future picks - since we know they love stockpiling future draft picks.
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
Dieter the Brock not a believer:
If Belichick is "winging it" this goes against everything we have learned about the guy
It would also mean his scouts didn't do their job and all of them should be fired

What a bunch of bullshite - to think that the defending Super Bowl winning coach obsessed with winning at all costs - to the point that he cheats over and over again - and you're gonna tell me that this guy was "winging it"???
Are you serious???

That is a crock of shite - they had a plan and executed it. Belicheck has always perceivably reached for players, i mean his drafts are always about depth and getting in fresh young bodies in - and get those big fat contracts out.
If you don't think that any of the pool of draftees can help/make your team then what are you doing in the draft after that? You can't rely on grades because you've already graded all of them as not capable of making your team. So then might you not rely upon your years of experience and gut feelings to guide your choice? If you do, that would often mean you pick a guy higher than what everyone else thinks is appropriate because they're looking at the grades they gave them and calling your picks reaches.

So I see that as being a reasonable possibility. Of course that doesn't mean they were right about the paucity of talent.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,940
No, it's not historically bad. Not a good class either but not historically bad. It's not even the worst class of the past 5 years...2013 was worse.
 

Memento

Your (Somewhat) Friendly Neighborhood Authoress.
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
18,361
Name
Jemma
No, it's not historically bad. Not a good class either but not historically bad. It's not even the worst class of the past 5 years...2013 was worse.

And 2009 was easily worse than 2013, if you're willing to go back six years.

Historically bad? Not even close.
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #20
jrry32 with his memories:
No, it's not historically bad. Not a good class either but not historically bad. It's not even the worst class of the past 5 years...2013 was worse.
Bad as in hindsight/actual results bad or the lack of options you thought would be good before the draft bad? Two starkly different things in my mind. I had no problem picking players I wanted us to draft in every prior draft. Small sample of course.