The verdict is in: Bill Belichick will trade into the top 10 for the first time ever and select a quarterback in the NFL Draft. But how seriously can we take these expert prognosticators?
Armed with the No. 15 overall pick and a glaring hole at QB, the Patriots appear primed to trade up for one of this year’s prized pass-throwers. This week, Mel Kiper and Todd McShay — the Ruth and Gehrig of NFL mock drafters — have the Patriots trading up to No. 7 overall and taking Mac Jones. Kiper in particular has been stressing the urgency for Belichick to target Tom Brady’s heir apparent. Last week, Kiper predicted the Patriots will take over Dallas’ pick at No. 10 and grab Justin Fields.
NFL Media’s Peter Schrager projected the Patriots would move up to No. 4 for Fields (wow!), before tapping them to move to No. 12 for … DeVonta Smith? What happened there? Meanwhile, ESPN’s Louis Riddick, who correctly predicted the Patriots would be aggressive in free agency, thinks New England could position itself to switch with Carolina at No. 8 if Trey Lance is still available. Patriots Super Bowl champion Rob Ninkovich also thinks the Patriots should trade up and “go get a quarterback.”
Surely, Ninkovich must be plugged into Belichick’s mindset, right?
“This is like any other event that has a long and established build up,” said Christian Fauria, former Patriots tight end and co-host of WEEI’s OMF. “People fill in the gaps. They overanalyze. I get caught up in it, and then I smack myself in the face and say, ‘Wait a second, wait a second. There’s so much smoke all over my backside right now, and so many people are blowing it there. I just need to sit there and go back and remember what I know.’”
It’s always hard to decipher fact from fiction leading up to the NFL Draft, especially when it comes to the Patriots. As we know, Belichick enjoys subterfuge. Perhaps most famously, he canceled the team’s pre-draft visit with Nate Solder in 2011, before selecting him at No. 17 overall. This year’s lack of in-person events — the NFL Combine was canceled — makes it even more challenging to get a read on things, says ESPN’s Mike Reiss, who’s covered the team since 1997.
“It’s most valuable to find out who the Patriots are bringing into their facility before the draft,” Reiss said. “If they’re bringing (a player) in, it tells you they haven’t ruled the player out — almost certainly. Or they’re still seeking more information on the player before they finalize their grade.”
With fewer concrete tidbits to consider, there’s less information out there. Speculation is filling the void.
“Not having the events has dulled some of the coverage,” said the Globe’s Ben Volin. “You don’t have the rumors flying around at the Combine or the 30 pre-draft visits, so you don’t get a read on, ‘Oh my God the Patriots are bringing Trey Lance into Foxboro today.’ You don’t have that kind of buzz.’”
We do have pro day visits, though those aren’t always accurate gauges on Belichick’s interest in a player. He typically travels to one area: SEC Country. At 69 years old, Belichick's time is valuable.
Last week, he credited his scouting department for “carrying the ball” on draft preparation.
But the mock drafts must go on, despite the information vacuum. The question is, who’s worth listening to? When Ninkovich talks about the Patriots trading up for a quarterback, he prefaces his words with the all-important phrase, “I think.” But Ninkovich did play under Belichick for seven seasons. Does that mean his take is coming from an informed place?
Ditto for Mike Lombardi, who’s one of the few national voices saying Belichick will not trade up for a quarterback.
“Lombardi was an assistant to Bill Belichick in 2014 and 2015,” Reiss said. “So there’s part of me that when he says something, I’m going to put more emphasis on that than somebody who doesn’t have that background. But that doesn’t mean those other people don’t know what they’re talking about.”
To Fauria, the biggest factor in an analyst’s credibility is whether they actually watch college football.
“It is so much worse now, because every ‘Tom, Dick and Harry’ has a Twitter page and a YouTube page,” he said. “I watched all these games. I know there’s no way these people are devoting this much time to it. It’s all just name recognition.”
There’s also the hot take question. With some pundits, it’s hard to know where the analysis ends and provocation begins.
“Chris Sims will sit there and say Mac Jones is the best quarterback in the draft when every single other person says Trevor Lawrence,” Fauria said. “Is Chris Sims just trying to be a contrarian, or does he really believe it?”
It’s hard to know what to believe.
——————————————————————
Is it still worth it to send reporters to road games? We’ve covered the lack of media access in the era of COVID-19 before in this space. Reporters remain barred from locker rooms and press availabilities take place over Zoom. Due to those restrictions, many media outlets have decided the value of sending people on the road doesn’t justify the cost.
Yet, Boston Globe sports editor Matt Pepin says he still thinks the practice is worthwhile. The Globe has sent at least one reporter to most away Red Sox, Patriots, Bruins and Celtics game this year.
“The TV cameras just do not capture everything in a game,” Pepin said. “One of the things I preach is taking advantage of travel, and making sure your stories reflect that. I’d love to be able to walk right back into the Red Sox clubhouse or Bruins locker room, but until that happens, I feel like still being there and watching everything that surrounds the game is still critically important for a sports beat reporter.”
In particular, Pepin points to Gary Washburn’s stint in the NBA Bubble as an example of where in-person reporting made the difference. He was the first person to report on the Celtics’ locker room fight following their Game 2 loss in the Eastern Conference Finals.
Even the little details matter, such as Patriots reporter Jim McBride noting how far Belichick threw his challenge flag in a game story. “A little detail like that enhances a story by a smidge,” Pepin said. “But still, it’s our story, and if anybody wants to use that detail, they’re probably going to have to cite the Globe.”
MLB benefits from WFH life: MLB should be thankful for WFH. This week, MLB announced sizable increases on its streaming service, in a nice rebuttal to the boycott crowd. One possible explanation for the uptick is the prevalence of remote work. People are probably way more likely to stream a game in the background at home, opposed to firing it up at the office, for their boss and co-workers to see.
Unlike other sports, baseball is perfect to watch in passing. Checking in on the Red Sox is more enjoyable than refreshing your gmail, right?
Saying nothing is better than being empty: If professional sports franchises — and all brands for that matter — don’t have anything thoughtful to say on matters of social justice, they shouldn’t say anything at all. Following the Derek Chauvin verdict, the Raiders posted the message “I Can Breathe” on their Twitter account, which is absolutely repugnant. Mark Davis said he sees no reason to apologize.
“I think justice was served,” Davis said. “It’s rare I make statements about anything and if I thought it offended the [Floyd] family, I would feel very badly and apologize. Other than that, I’m not apologizing. I honesty believe after listening to Philonise, this is a day that we can all breathe.”
With a net worth of $500 million and 2003 Nokia flip phone, it’s fair to assume Davis is detached from reality. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the NHL put out a short statement that asked fans to join them in “supporting systemic change.” Undoubtedly, the message was vetted to ensure it would play to all demographics.
And that’s why it shouldn’t have been posted in the first place.
