Bill Belichick: Interesting comment

[Like A Mofo]

Reading this makes me realize more and more that these tools like Mort just do not get it when it comes to the draft...

 

Q: Have your free agent losses this offseason changed your thought process at all in terms of drafting where you might have drafted something else?

 

BB: No, I don't think so. I don't think you can do it that way. I really don't. You can't create players. You have to draft the board based on what your options are and as soon as you start taking players truly based on need, if they can't fill that need, then you have to come back the next year or the next pick and you're drafting again for the same spot and you haven't filled anything other than putting a name on a piece of cardboard and putting it up on the depth chart.

 

You really don't have anything if the player can't fulfill that expectation or that role that you think you drafted him for. I think you're a lot better off drafting players that can perform on your team in a role that you need or in a role that gives some value to the team. Sometimes players aren't there at the position you want them, but you can't manufacture them. You just have to take the player that helps your team the most at that point, even if it's at a position that may not be necessarily the top need.

 

Again, to go back to when I was with the Giants. We drafted Lawrence Taylor and we had Lawrence Taylor and Brad VanPelt and we took Carl Banks and nobody liked that pick. That was a pretty stupid pick, why would you take Banks when you have VanPelt and Taylor? It turned out to be probably one of our best picks at the Giants.

 

I think you have to take guys that you think are good football players. Putting the team together that's certainly a process you have to go through. But to try to manufacture somebody, 'We need this position,' and then take a guy and he doesn't end up being able to do the job, then you still need that position.

 

Bill Belichek

[/dev/null]

But...But...But...

Mort didn't like our draft! :lol:

 

btw, this little bit made no sense:

We drafted Lawrence Taylor and we had Lawrence Taylor and Brad VanPelt and we took Carl Banks and nobody liked that pick.

684360[/snapback]

 

maybe that's why LT was so good, there were really 2 of him

[stinky finger]

What? So the guy wins 3 SB's in an era when you're not supposed to and you're going to take HIS word as gospel?!?!?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where's that damn "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon?

[OnTheRocks]

sounds like he is contradicting himself.

in one sentence he says, don't draft for need:

 

You have to draft the board based on what your options are and as soon as you start taking players truly based on need, if they can't fill that need, then you have to come back the next year or the next pick and you're drafting again for the same spot

 

in the next sentence he is saying you have to draft for need:

 

 

You just have to take the player that helps your team the most

 

i don't know... maybe i am just not getting what he is saying.

[Beerball]

sounds like he is contradicting himself.

in one sentence he says, don't draft for need:

in the next sentence he is saying you have to draft for need:

i don't know... maybe i am just not getting what he is saying.

684388[/snapback]

I thought the same thing when I read through it.

[Matt in KC]

I'm not sure Belichick is just commenting on whether you should take the a need player (a position weak on your team) versus the best player available (ignoring your strength at each position). I think he is primarily talking about whether you draft someone who is ready to play, or will need to grow into their position (i.e. you cannot select a player that plays one position in college to play another in the pro's).

 

I think his main message is to draft players to play where you know they could help your team (they have the skill, they have performed in that role in college).

 

Bellicheck's preference:

 

1) Draft a player that could fulfill a role that is a need on your team immediately.

2) Draft a player that could fulfill a role that is NOT a need on your team immediately.

3) Decide to grow (manufacture) a player by training them to fulfill a role. Since he says role and not position, I think this also means how the position is played (e.g. a pass-catching TE being used primarily as a blocking TE).

[Buffalo_Stampede]

sounds like he is contradicting himself.

in one sentence he says, don't draft for need:

in the next sentence he is saying you have to draft for need:

i don't know... maybe i am just not getting what he is saying.

684388[/snapback]

 

Thats not even close to saying draft for need. He drafts players that will help the team, not fill a need.

 

Theres a big difference. Depth helps the team. Special teams players help the team.

 

He doesnt go into the draft saying we lost Willie McGinest, now we have to draft an OLB to fill that spot.

[stuckincincy]

Thats not even close to saying draft for need.  He drafts players that will help the team, not fill a need.

 

Theres a big difference.  Depth helps the team.  Special teams players help the team.

 

He doesnt go into the draft saying we lost Willie McGinest, now we have to draft an OLB to fill that spot.

684477[/snapback]

 

Grey areas. I tend toward needs (e.g., Bflo was in need of a safety), but I doubt any club puts blinders on. Injury and contract status of current players also get consideration. As does rule changes and/or interpretion by the field officials.

[OnTheRocks]

Thats not even close to saying draft for need.  He drafts players that will help the team, not fill a need.

 

Theres a big difference.  Depth helps the team.  Special teams players help the team.

 

He doesnt go into the draft saying we lost Willie McGinest, now we have to draft an OLB to fill that spot.

684477[/snapback]

 

 

i suppose my point is that filling a "need".........helps the team.

[stuckincincy]

i suppose my point is that filling a "need".........helps the team.

684488[/snapback]

 

One would think so...

[Dan Gross]

i suppose my point is that filling a "need".........helps the team.

684488[/snapback]

 

It helps to define "need" in a sense here, as there's "we need a DT" and there's " we need a DT that can play X technique." You can panic and pick a player based on the first that really doesn't fit the second. You also talk as if a team only ever has one "need," and that, I think is what BB is kinda contradicting. He's saying that you shouldn't panic and pick the next best player (regardless of how they'd fit at your scheme) at your "biggest need area" if the one you wanted is gone. Don't vapor lock on a position and forget the role in filling it. For example, LT might be considered a big need position for the Bills. D'Brick was probably high on the Bills' charts. But because he was gone, you don't grab Justice just because OT was your big need position and he's the next best OT. If he's the next highest player on your board and his techniques/style/skill fit what you're looking for, then yeah. But then you might have him ranked above D'Brick anyway. If he's not the role-player you are looking for, you look at other roles and how other players suit them....

 

Still struggling with a way to explain it. I do think I grok what he's saying, just having trouble explaining it in another way....

[obie_wan]

It helps to define "need" in a sense here, as there's "we need a DT" and there's " we need a DT that can play X technique."  You can panic and pick a player based on the first that really doesn't fit the second.  You also talk as if a team only ever has one "need," and that, I think is what BB is kinda contradicting.  He's saying that you shouldn't panic and pick the next best player (regardless of how they'd fit at your scheme) at your "biggest need area" if the one you wanted is gone.  Don't vapor lock on a position and forget the role in filling it.  For example, LT might be considered a big need position for the Bills.  D'Brick was probably high on the Bills' charts.  But because he was gone, you don't grab Justice just because OT was your big need position and he's the next best OT.  If he's the next highest player on your board and his techniques/style/skill fit what you're looking for, then yeah.  But then you might have him ranked above D'Brick anyway.  If he's not the role-player you are looking for, you look at other roles and how other players suit them....

 

Still struggling with a way to explain it.  I do think I grok what he's saying, just having trouble explaining it in another way....

684512[/snapback]

 

 

I think the Justice example is exactly what he is saying. If you need a LT, don't reach for the next available even though he plays RT and try to make him into a LT because that is your need.

[colin]

he's saying you take the player that gives you team the most.

 

position will have a part in it, but you don't just draft the best guy at a given position that you have a need at in the draft.

 

his point is if you team needs a tackle and because of this you decide you are gonna draft a tackle no matter what (GIT ER DONE MARV) if you take you tackle over a player who would provide more value to the team but at a different position you don't gain because if that tackle doesn't workout, YOU STILL NEED A TACKLE so reaching or compramising or being overly focussed on one position is bad.

[Ozymandius]

Belichick didn't really say anything profound, I think. He just said that during a draft, a team should achieve a balance between where a player is rated on the board and how he fills a need. The Giants may have already had LT and Van Pelt, but you play with three linebackers on the field, not two, so Banks filled a semi-need as well and is worth taking over another player that is significantly lower rated but fills a more obvious need. That's all he's saying, and I think we all knew that already.

[Arkady Renko]

If it was just about picking the best player on your board then you will run into a situation where you are drafting a WR in the top ten every year.

[Alaska Darin]

If it was just about picking the best player on your board then you will run into a situation where you are drafting a WR in the top ten every year.

684566[/snapback]

Doubtful.

 

Belichick simply means that you pick the sure thing - the guy you know is going to be an NFL player. Picking a specific position means you grab an Eric Flowers instead of Keith Bullock or a Traveras Tillman instead of Laverneus Coles. Those were HUGE reaches.

[Arkady Renko]

Doubtful.

 

Belichick simply means that you pick the sure thing - the guy you know is going to be an NFL player.  Picking a specific position means you grab an Eric Flowers instead of Keith Bullock or a Traveras Tillman instead of Laverneus Coles.  Those were  HUGE reaches.

684771[/snapback]

 

I think I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to Belichick's strategy, just the idea that you blindly pick the best player on your board. I don't think this is what NE is actually doing no matter what BB says.