Time to trade Brady?

[BballTim]

  You asked why they should do any scouting if drafting is a crapshoot. I merely pointed out that it is, and they do.

I don't understand. you criticized a position I didn't take. I never said BB drafted perfectly.

you do realize that there is ground between "crapshoot" and "drafting perfectly" do you not?

  Yes, I realize that. The same way I realize that asking you if you think that BB drafts perfectly is different than claiming that you said BB drafts perfectly.

then what's the relevance of drafting perfectly?

  The whole "crapshoot" thing...

your position was that of course picking Locker and/or Mallett was a crapshoot even if your scouting tells you that you have a franchise QB on your hands...If your scouting doesn't take you out of the realm of  "crapshoot" then why have it?

how about this...how about you place "crapshoot" on your spectrum of degree of risk? how about that?

  I'd say close to 50/50 is a crapshoot, and it's nonsensical to think that drafting a franchise qb in the middle of the first round will work out any better than that.

Where you draft is irrelevant. If you think someone is a good evaluator of talent then it's about the evaluation not the draft position.

If Belichick said to me in a private conversation that he thought Mallett or Locker was a franchise QB and was going to draft him at #16, then I would say the pick moves out of the "crapshoot" category for me....

You're kidding right? There's dozens of draft busts a year that coaches just like Belichick evaluate as "franchise" players. Prior to Mayo and Merriweather, Bill's picks were criticized often (who was that wide-out from Florida?). Thus, as stated and proven by hard facts, it's a crapshoot.

well if your crapshoot is 50/50 like Bball's then I'll take those odds....

Plus, do the odds go up after you get the player in working with the team and still think he's a franchise player? How about training camp? How about preseason?

Is there any point at which your "likelihood" gets you to the point where you would think about trading Brady for the massive package of talent he would net?

  Again, even if the odds are as high as 50/50 (which they aren't) trading a franchise qb for a 50/50 chance you'd end up with a good qb isn't a great move.

[rondohondo]

Hasn't Belichick been pretty good with first round picks? does anybody have a list?

 Here is a look at how the pats have drafted since bill has been here.

By most accounts, Bill Belichick’s Patriots had another banner draft weekend. They moved up, down and all over, eventually ending up with 12 new players to scrutinize over the coming days and months. There’s no question Belichick is skilled at maneuvering his chess pieces throughout the draft process, but is he really a genius when it comes to selecting future stars?

Beginning with 2001, I’m going to review Belichick’s drafts to determine if he is deserving of his lofty reputation. Genius, or merely average? Let’s take a look.

2001 Draft – 10 total picks. Hits: 2 – Richard Seymour, Matt Light. Misses: 8 – Brock Williams, Kenyatta Jones, Jabarri Holloway, Hakim Akbar, Arther Love, Leonard Myers, Owen Pochman, TJ Turner

2002 Draft – 6 total picks. Hits: 3 – Daniel Graham, Deion Branch, Jarvis Green. Misses: 2 – Rohan Davey, Antoine Womack. On the fence: David Givens (career cut short by knee injury)

2003 Draft – 10 total picks. Hits: 5 – Ty Warren, Eugene Wilson, Asante Samuel, Dan Koppen, Tully Banta-Cain. Misses: 4 – Bethel Johnson, Cliff Kingsbury, Spencer Nead, Ethan Kelley. On the fence: Dan Klecko

2004 Draft – 8 total picks. Hits: 2 - Vince Wilfork, Ben Watson. Misses: 6 – Marquise Hill, Guss Scott, Dexter Reid, Cedric Cobbs, P.K. Sam, Christian Morton.

2005 Draft – 7 total picks. Hits: 4 – Logan Mankins, Ellis Hobbs, Nick Kaczur, James Sanders. Misses: 2 – Ryan Claridge, Andy Stokes. On the fence: Matt Cassel (one-year wonder or legit starter?)

2006 Draft – 10 total picks. Hits: 3 – Laurence Maroney, Dave Thomas, Steven Gostowski. Misses: 5 – Chad Jackson, Garrett Mills, Jeremy Mincey, Dan Stevenson, Willie Andrews. On the fence: 2 – Ryan O’ Callaghan, LeKevin Smith

2007 Draft – 9 total picks. Hits: 1 – Brandon Meriweather. Misses: 8 – Kareem Brown, Clint Oldenburg, Mike Richardson, Justise Hairston, Corey Hilliard, Oscar Lua, Mike Elgin, Justin Rogers

2008 Draft – 7 total picks. Hits: 1 – Jerod Mayo. Misses: 4 – Shawn Crable, Kevin O’Connell, Bo Ruud, Terrence Wheatley. On the fence: 2 – Jonathan Wilhite, Matt Slater

I left out 2009 since it’s too soon to evaluate. That’s eight drafts and 67 total picks. Belichick has hit on 21, done okay on 7 and missed on 39. That equates to roughly a 41% success rate, which isn’t too shabby. It’s not worthy of genius status, but anywhere close to 50% is more than acceptable.

Belichick is keenly aware how tough it is to discover future studs, which is one of the reasons why he accumulates extra picks each year. The more darts you have, the more chances you have to nail the bullseye.

Bill Belichick is a master motivator and head coach. Draft genius? Not really, but he’s better than most.

http://www.sportsuntapped.com/is-bill-belichick-really-a-draft-genius-18193/

His best picks are usually later on in the draft and he uses his early picks to move up or down in the draft or trade for active players ( traded a 4th rd pick for Moss, 1st rd pick for Welker )

[winsomme]

  You asked why they should do any scouting if drafting is a crapshoot. I merely pointed out that it is, and they do.

I don't understand. you criticized a position I didn't take. I never said BB drafted perfectly.

you do realize that there is ground between "crapshoot" and "drafting perfectly" do you not?

  Yes, I realize that. The same way I realize that asking you if you think that BB drafts perfectly is different than claiming that you said BB drafts perfectly.

then what's the relevance of drafting perfectly?

  The whole "crapshoot" thing...

your position was that of course picking Locker and/or Mallett was a crapshoot even if your scouting tells you that you have a franchise QB on your hands...If your scouting doesn't take you out of the realm of  "crapshoot" then why have it?

how about this...how about you place "crapshoot" on your spectrum of degree of risk? how about that?

  I'd say close to 50/50 is a crapshoot, and it's nonsensical to think that drafting a franchise qb in the middle of the first round will work out any better than that.

Where you draft is irrelevant. If you think someone is a good evaluator of talent then it's about the evaluation not the draft position.

If Belichick said to me in a private conversation that he thought Mallett or Locker was a franchise QB and was going to draft him at #16, then I would say the pick moves out of the "crapshoot" category for me....

  That's because you have way too much faith in BB's drafting ability. How many of his draft picks have been perennial pro bowlers?

Well I think he's done pretty well with first rounders...

[winsomme]

  You asked why they should do any scouting if drafting is a crapshoot. I merely pointed out that it is, and they do.

I don't understand. you criticized a position I didn't take. I never said BB drafted perfectly.

you do realize that there is ground between "crapshoot" and "drafting perfectly" do you not?

  Yes, I realize that. The same way I realize that asking you if you think that BB drafts perfectly is different than claiming that you said BB drafts perfectly.

then what's the relevance of drafting perfectly?

  The whole "crapshoot" thing...

your position was that of course picking Locker and/or Mallett was a crapshoot even if your scouting tells you that you have a franchise QB on your hands...If your scouting doesn't take you out of the realm of  "crapshoot" then why have it?

how about this...how about you place "crapshoot" on your spectrum of degree of risk? how about that?

  I'd say close to 50/50 is a crapshoot, and it's nonsensical to think that drafting a franchise qb in the middle of the first round will work out any better than that.

Where you draft is irrelevant. If you think someone is a good evaluator of talent then it's about the evaluation not the draft position.

If Belichick said to me in a private conversation that he thought Mallett or Locker was a franchise QB and was going to draft him at #16, then I would say the pick moves out of the "crapshoot" category for me....

You're kidding right? There's dozens of draft busts a year that coaches just like Belichick evaluate as "franchise" players. Prior to Mayo and Merriweather, Bill's picks were criticized often (who was that wide-out from Florida?). Thus, as stated and proven by hard facts, it's a crapshoot.

well if your crapshoot is 50/50 like Bball's then I'll take those odds....

Plus, do the odds go up after you get the player in working with the team and still think he's a franchise player? How about training camp? How about preseason?

Is there any point at which your "likelihood" gets you to the point where you would think about trading Brady for the massive package of talent he would net?

  Again, even if the odds are as high as 50/50 (which they aren't) trading a franchise qb for a 50/50 chance you'd end up with a good qb isn't a great move.

that's not what you'd be doing...the 50/50 was the number you put on a pick by Belichick thinking he could get a franchise QB with the #16 pick in this draft...

under that scenario the stuff you got by trading Brady would be on top of that....a la the Houston scenario discussed...

[winsomme]

2001   6   Richard Seymour   DT   Georgia   
2002   21   Daniel Graham   TE   Colorado   [29]
2003   13   Ty Warren   DT   Texas A&M   [30]
2004   21   Vince Wilfork   DT   Miami (FL)   [31]
                32   Benjamin Watson   TE   Georgia   
2005   32   Logan Mankins   OG   Fresno State   
2006   21   Laurence Maroney   RB   Minnesota   
2007   24   Brandon Meriweather   S   Miami (FL)   [32]
2008   10   Jerod Mayo   LB   Tennessee   [33]
2009   No first-round draft pick   [34]
2010   27   Devin McCourty   CB   Rutgers   [35]

[BballTim]

  You asked why they should do any scouting if drafting is a crapshoot. I merely pointed out that it is, and they do.

I don't understand. you criticized a position I didn't take. I never said BB drafted perfectly.

you do realize that there is ground between "crapshoot" and "drafting perfectly" do you not?

  Yes, I realize that. The same way I realize that asking you if you think that BB drafts perfectly is different than claiming that you said BB drafts perfectly.

then what's the relevance of drafting perfectly?

  The whole "crapshoot" thing...

your position was that of course picking Locker and/or Mallett was a crapshoot even if your scouting tells you that you have a franchise QB on your hands...If your scouting doesn't take you out of the realm of  "crapshoot" then why have it?

how about this...how about you place "crapshoot" on your spectrum of degree of risk? how about that?

  I'd say close to 50/50 is a crapshoot, and it's nonsensical to think that drafting a franchise qb in the middle of the first round will work out any better than that.

Where you draft is irrelevant. If you think someone is a good evaluator of talent then it's about the evaluation not the draft position.

If Belichick said to me in a private conversation that he thought Mallett or Locker was a franchise QB and was going to draft him at #16, then I would say the pick moves out of the "crapshoot" category for me....

You're kidding right? There's dozens of draft busts a year that coaches just like Belichick evaluate as "franchise" players. Prior to Mayo and Merriweather, Bill's picks were criticized often (who was that wide-out from Florida?). Thus, as stated and proven by hard facts, it's a crapshoot.

well if your crapshoot is 50/50 like Bball's then I'll take those odds....

Plus, do the odds go up after you get the player in working with the team and still think he's a franchise player? How about training camp? How about preseason?

Is there any point at which your "likelihood" gets you to the point where you would think about trading Brady for the massive package of talent he would net?

  Again, even if the odds are as high as 50/50 (which they aren't) trading a franchise qb for a 50/50 chance you'd end up with a good qb isn't a great move.

that's not what you'd be doing...the 50/50 was the number you put on a pick by Belichick thinking he could get a franchise QB with the #16 pick in this draft...

under that scenario the stuff you got by trading Brady would be on top of that....a la the Houston scenario discussed...

  No, what I was doing was putting  a rough upper limit on what I'd consider a crapshoot. If you flip a coin looking for heads it's a crapshoot. If you roll a dice looking for a two it's also a crapshoot. Obviously it's not a 50/50 chance a team with Brady will completely fall apart and only win a few games. Obviously it's not a 50/50 chance that a quarterback you draft will be a franchise qb.

[winsomme]

  You asked why they should do any scouting if drafting is a crapshoot. I merely pointed out that it is, and they do.

I don't understand. you criticized a position I didn't take. I never said BB drafted perfectly.

you do realize that there is ground between "crapshoot" and "drafting perfectly" do you not?

  Yes, I realize that. The same way I realize that asking you if you think that BB drafts perfectly is different than claiming that you said BB drafts perfectly.

then what's the relevance of drafting perfectly?

  The whole "crapshoot" thing...

your position was that of course picking Locker and/or Mallett was a crapshoot even if your scouting tells you that you have a franchise QB on your hands...If your scouting doesn't take you out of the realm of  "crapshoot" then why have it?

how about this...how about you place "crapshoot" on your spectrum of degree of risk? how about that?

  I'd say close to 50/50 is a crapshoot, and it's nonsensical to think that drafting a franchise qb in the middle of the first round will work out any better than that.

Where you draft is irrelevant. If you think someone is a good evaluator of talent then it's about the evaluation not the draft position.

If Belichick said to me in a private conversation that he thought Mallett or Locker was a franchise QB and was going to draft him at #16, then I would say the pick moves out of the "crapshoot" category for me....

You're kidding right? There's dozens of draft busts a year that coaches just like Belichick evaluate as "franchise" players. Prior to Mayo and Merriweather, Bill's picks were criticized often (who was that wide-out from Florida?). Thus, as stated and proven by hard facts, it's a crapshoot.

well if your crapshoot is 50/50 like Bball's then I'll take those odds....

Plus, do the odds go up after you get the player in working with the team and still think he's a franchise player? How about training camp? How about preseason?

Is there any point at which your "likelihood" gets you to the point where you would think about trading Brady for the massive package of talent he would net?

  Again, even if the odds are as high as 50/50 (which they aren't) trading a franchise qb for a 50/50 chance you'd end up with a good qb isn't a great move.

that's not what you'd be doing...the 50/50 was the number you put on a pick by Belichick thinking he could get a franchise QB with the #16 pick in this draft...

under that scenario the stuff you got by trading Brady would be on top of that....a la the Houston scenario discussed...

  No, what I was doing was putting  a rough upper limit on what I'd consider a crapshoot. If you flip a coin looking for heads it's a crapshoot. If you roll a dice looking for a two it's also a crapshoot. Obviously it's not a 50/50 chance a team with Brady will completely fall apart and only win a few games. Obviously it's not a 50/50 chance that a quarterback you draft will be a franchise qb.

All I know is it is difficult to discuss whether or not something is a crapshoot when I don't know what constitutes a crapshoot for you.

and "anything 50/50 and below" is really still too broad a range.

anyway, I think Belichick has acquitted himself well with his first round picks. So as I've said, if he thought he could get a franchise QB in this draft with Locker or Mallett I would take it out of the "crapshoot" category...

[Eja117]

Best season of his career? I totally disagree.

And if Sanchez does win the Super Bowl then I'd have to say Sanchez passes Brady as the better quarterback. 

That's just plain silly.  That would also rank Snachez of Brees, Manning and any other QB who doesn't win the Super Bowl.  Only one team wins every year. 

Right. The QB that went on the road and outplayed every other QB on their turf and then won the Super Bowl would have to be considered the best QB in football. Exactly. Kinda like when Brady did it and Montana did it people started to consider them the best QBs in football.

  Without reading all the posts, your logic seems to assume that Sanchez and Brady play all of the positions on offense, defense and special teams. Otherwise, no, you can't just say that the team that wins the super bowl has the best qb.

Exactly...the Ravens won in 2000 with Trent Dilfer at quarterback...nuff said.  There's no way you can say Sanchez automatically becomes the best QB in the league just because you win the super bowl.  It's called a TEAM effort.

Give me Trent Dilfer's career over Dan Marino's all day long and twice on any given Sunday.


Who do you think is happier with the career of their QB? Miami fans, or Baltimore fans?

  I doubt any fans in Baltimore thought that Trent Dilfer was the reason they won the Super Bowl. He only had one other season in his career where he won a playoff game and he never started another playoff game after that year. And, more importantly, nobody would ever come to the ridiculous conclusion that the Dolphins would have been more successful or even close to as successful with Dilfer instead of Marino.

  Who's career do you think Philly fans liked more Charles Barkley or Franklin Edwards? Because one of them was on a title team and one of them wasn't.

No, but Dilfer wasn't the reason they lost.  Dan Marino might have been a reason the Dolphins lost.  Tom Brady was a huge huge reason the Pats lost the other night.  Sanchez was a big reason the Jets won the other night.   I don't see why people can't admit that.

If Sanchez was on the Pats would they have won the game the other night?  Absolutely not.

I think he was better prepared and kept his cool better and had the much harder task to accomplish, which he did, so I'm leaning toward yes.
Is this assuming Brady is going against Belichick with two weeks to prepare? Brady never did that. Sanchez just did. In Foxboro.

[Eja117]

No, but Dilfer wasn't the reason they lost.  Dan Marino might have been a reason the Dolphins lost.  Tom Brady was a huge huge reason the Pats lost the other night.  Sanchez was a big reason the Jets won the other night.   I don't see why people can't admit that.

  So "wasn't the reason they lost" = "best quarterback in the league"? And Brady was sacked 5 times while Sanchez wasn't sacked at all. Do you think if the teams switched quarterbacks and Sanchez, not Brady, was the one under pressure that he'd have won the game for the Pats?

  There should be a 72 hour cooling off period before people start threads like this.

I never said "wasn't the reason" = "best qb". 

There were quite a few times Brady had allllllllllllll day to throw.  His receivers didn't get open. That's when you have to run for 7-12 yards. He used to do that. He doesn't now.

[Eja117]

Also, This wasnt a Brady issue IMO.  This is a schematic issue against the Jets defense. 

Brady used play action incredibly ineffectively last night.  Going into last nights game the Jets have owned the pats on play action. 

When brady uses play action against the rest of the NFL
Comp pct 71.8 
Yds/att 11.1 
TD-Int 15-3
Passer rtg 130.2


Play action against the Jets
Comp pct 33.3
Yds/Att 2.9
TD-INT 0-1
Passer Rtg 14.6

EJA you are ignoring the facts.  Does this look like something brady is doing wrong?  They are the same plays, they work incredibly well against 31 teams in the league and not well against another.  Are you suggesting its the person running the plays?  Are you suggesting that there were receivers running free all over the place Sunday and brady didnt get the ball to them? 

This was more a schematic issue than a brady issue.  The intercetion was Brady's fault 100 percent.  but other than that, im going to give the jets credit

I definitely give the Jets credit, especially for pressuring Brady and covering receivers. I don't give them credit for the obvious mistakes he made. The non-scrambles. The throwing to receivers not looking or in the ground. 
Yeah. Guys dropped balls. If you were thrown at while double covered you might drop it too.  When he identified Gronk as open Gronk didn't drop balls. Brady made a good decision then.
I don't give credit to the Jets for Brady showing no sense of urgency in the 4th quarter.

The best play on offense the whole night was Crumpler running down Pace.

[Eja117]

So the idea of trading Brady isn't all that outrageous. Especially if you could put yourself in line to somehow get the Stanford QB down the line...

  So the plan is to trade Brady and end up with one of the worst records in the league?

well I was thinking more of trading him somewhere and getting a pick that could potentially be a #1 pick in return...

The Bruins seem to have done it.

  The NHL has a lottery. You'd really have to trade him to a team that's so bad that even with Brady they'd be one of the worst teams in the league. Teams that are that bad don't trade draft picks for 33 year old quarterbacks.

Arizona Cardinals seemed to do okay adding an older QB.

Kurt Warner. Highly highly highly underrated QB. So far a much better career than Manning. 

I know I know. Look at those awesome regular season stats. Don't pay any attention to all the playoff failure even though Peyton was surrounded by excellent excellent talent on the field and the coaching offices his entire career.

[Eja117]

Why trade him when we can just cut him?

Some day it will have to be done. How'd that work for the Packers cutting a legend? We shouldn't try to hold on until we become this year's Vikings.

[Eja117]

So the idea of trading Brady isn't all that outrageous. Especially if you could put yourself in line to somehow get the Stanford QB down the line...

  So the plan is to trade Brady and end up with one of the worst records in the league?

well I was thinking more of trading him somewhere and getting a pick that could potentially be a #1 pick in return...

The Bruins seem to have done it.

  The NHL has a lottery. You'd really have to trade him to a team that's so bad that even with Brady they'd be one of the worst teams in the league. Teams that are that bad don't trade draft picks for 33 year old quarterbacks.

Arizona Cardinals seemed to do okay adding an older QB.

  So the Cardinals, before trading for an old draft pick, were so bad that they could have added Brady and been one of the worst teams in the league with him playing for them?

well I'm saying a couple of things...You can have a Hall of Fame QB and still be bad...and you can also have a past their prime QB and still go to the Super Bowl.

The idea that no bad team would be interested in trading for a 33 year old QB (who might be the best of all time) considering how volatile the NFL doesn't seem certain to me...

Also the idea that adding Brady to any team would definitely mean the team goes to the playoffs does not seem a lock....but that's more about a Raiders type scenario where the organization is completely discombobulated.

  I didn't say no bad team would be interested in Brady. I said no team so bad they'd be a bottom 5 team with Brady would trade for him. And you don't have to make the playoffs to screw up your plan, you just have to finish out of the bottom 2-3.

fine. it's still not that outrageous to think that you could get a franchise QB even with the plan "not working"...plus, you can always trade up....we are known for stockpiling picks.

  If it's as easy to get a franchise qb as you think then they should keep Brady and just pick one with their own 1st rounder. You're basically giving away Brady for no reason.

that being the case, they could use the Brady pick to get a dominant lineman. Those are important too.

  More important than contending for a title obviously.

 

Who's to say you won't contend for a title? How many years has Sanchez been in the league?

  Who's to say you will? You're trading a strong chance at contending for a lowish chance that you will in a few years. It's like saying that the Celts should trade all of their starter for draft picks because those picks might all turn out to be superstars.

I think you are neglecting the main point which is that Brady would have an incredibly high trade value.

Would you have to have a plan on how you would move forward at the QB position, yes...but using your likelihoods, you are bound to get a ton for him in trade. not just one pick that may pan out to be franchise QB.

heck, let's say BB looks at the QBs out there this year (Locker, Mallet, etc) and likes what he sees....thinks he has a franchise QB at #16. wouldn't it make any sense to filch some team of picks and young talent that is salivating at the thought of getting Brady into their season ticket sales pitch while Brady's trade value is at its highest?

I mean he went 11-5 with an unknown Matt Cassell. How unlikely is it really that he could take a young QB that he sees something in scouting him and make him able to run the dink and dunk offense that they run?

and again, I'm not saying I would do it, but it's not as outrageous as you seem to believe.

Thank you for being the one single poster that got it.

[BballTim]

All I know is it is difficult to discuss whether or not something is a crapshoot when I don't know what constitutes a crapshoot for you.

and "anything 50/50 and below" is really still too broad a range.

anyway, I think Belichick has acquitted himself well with his first round picks. So as I've said, if he thought he could get a franchise QB in this draft with Locker or Mallett I would take it out of the "crapshoot" category...

  Haha. Not only did you bring up the word crapshoot in the discussion, but you gave it a reasonable definition when you did. Discussions like this are littered with words like possible or probably or likely that don't have set definitions. There's no way either of us have any idea how likely it is that BB could recognize a franchise qb in the first round. I wouldn't trade an MVP caliber for that random chance but clearly you would.

[Eja117]

every team could conceivably contend. That's life in the NFL. The question is whether the team trading for Brady is as good at evaluating their ability to win as Belichick's.

Obviously he wouldn't trade Brady to a team that he expected to be turned into a contender in the year that he would be getting picks back.

  Sure, just like he didn't expect Oakland to be any good this year.

Belichick in any deal would be banking on either a team with a weak front office or coaching situation and/or a team gambling on Brady's impact to the point where they are giving up too much talent and picks in return.

  Key word: gambling.

I wouldn't call that a crapshoot...I would call that kind of move a risky but examined....

  Yes, as I've stated, you're trading away an MVP caliber quarterback for a risky move.

you seem to be equating risk with "crapshoot". every move has some degree of risk...are they all crapshoots?

  Well, you have to consider likelihood. Could a team fall completely apart with Brady at the helm? Yes. Is it a probable event? No. So crapshoot. Can a quarterback that you draft become a franchise qb? Yes. Is it likely? No. So, again, crapshoot. Which of those events do you think are more likely than not to occur? Is it more likely than not that one or the other will occur in a given year? You claim that I equate  risk with crapshoot. You don't seem to differentiate between possible and likely.

as for Mallett or Locker, if it would be a crapshoot then why scout...why do any scouting?

  Haha. Do you think that every draft pick BB makes works out perfectly? If not, why do any scouting?

again, you make your own arguments better than you make others for them...

when did I say all BBs draft picks work out perfectly?

maybe if you actually stick to what my arguments actually are and stop moving the goal posts around we could actually progress here.

I'm tired of having to point out how you arguing about positions I haven't taken.

  You asked why they should do any scouting if drafting is a crapshoot. I merely pointed out that it is, and they do.

If Belichick has a better draft record than anyone else then it's not a crapshoot.