Originally Posted by FlyingElvis
A thoroughly subjective topic. But I'll play along - Mayo, Mankins, Gostkowski and Hobbs (great return man & decent CB)
How many other teams can you say have drafted xxxx number of great players over the last 4 years? Since when is 4 years enough to guage a player's "greatness"?
Also, NE has a track record of slowly working guys into the rotation. So it can be argued that a team like the Patriots, who have excellent depth historically, require longer periods of time before we can truly assess how good a player is b/c they may not play as much as they would with another team.
And again, why are we dismissing the 2000-2004 drafts? Why don't those count?
I'm a post-structuralist, so if you really want to get on the topic I'd say that everything is subjective and we'll all just operating within a completely arbitrary discourse.
However. There are barometers you can look at to judge the value of a player (ie: Peyton Manning is great, Rex Grossman is not).
I'm throwing out the kicker. He drafted a good kicker. Cool. They also let Robbie Gould go, who is arguably a better kicker, so that would be a wash to me anyway.
Logan Mankins is a great guard, but as a 1st round pick he damn well better be. If you get drafted in the first round as a guard and aren't one of the best players at your position you're a bust. A good pick, but a great one? Meh.
Ellis Hobbs is a good player, I don't think you can call him a great player. At least not yet anyway. He's developing into a good starter, but isn't close to one of the best at his positions from what I've seen.
Mayo is probably his best pick in the last 3-4 years. Granted it was an inside linebacker with a top 10 pick, so similar to the guard it's a pick he should have hit on. That said, he did, and should be given credit for it. Probably the closest to being an elite player the Pats have drafted in quite a while, assuming he continues to develop.
I also don't think that anyone is trying to discredit Pioli's record as a drafter, or is trying to ignore his previous accomplishments (although there's no doubt that most of the players drafted on the three Superbowl teams were from drafts when Pioli had less power than he did in the latter part of his years in New England, so I don't think it's entirely arbitrary to examine his more recent work as a better reflection as to what type of GM he would be.
Again, I don't think anyone is trying to say his record is bad as a GM. I think the general argument is that it has flaws, particularly within the last few years, and to say "Scott Pioli won 3 Superbowls" is a rather limited and short-sighted argument to make about his potential merits as a full-time GM in Kansas City.