rookBoston

I'm not jealous of Harris or Thurman. Hell, the Raiders traded Harris away to the Vikings... The only LBs I can think of that I envy are Merriman and Vilma, but both went too high for us to have a real shot.

I really believe that the Pats have been looking for LBs that fit their needs. Claridge is the closest they've come, from a size, dedication and personality perspective-- but his talent is not that of an early-career starter.

Our deepest and youngest position is DL: Warren, Wilfork, Seymour, Green, Klecko, Hill, Wright-- all young, all capable and all under contract. If we need to add something at the position, we can afford to bring a FA off the street for depth.

I certainly dont believe that BB is limiting himself to DL and TE in the first round.

Day One needs on my list: LB, WR, DB, OL

Remember, Jarvis was a 4th rounder, and he needed 2 years before becoming really productive. That's all we really need on the DL, IMO. Another Ethan Kelly (hopefully with better results) is all I'm looking for at NT. No need to spend an early pick for a player who's going to ride the pine.

Yeah, I am assuming that. Neal, Ashworth and Koppen, in fact. If we lose two of the three of them, we should probably spend a Day One pick at OL.

I'm confident that Seymour, Warren, Green, Wright and Klecko can all play NT for us if it came to that. That's what made Traylor and Kelly so expendable.

__________________
"We want to build a big, strong, tough, smart, fast, disciplined football team that will consistently compete for a championship."
-- Scott Pioli, from the Patriots scouting manual

scott99

The Pats may not have drafted a LB high in the past, but this doesn't mean they won't, or shouldn't. Bruschi will be 33 next year, McGinest will be 35, Vrabel will be 31 (Colvin will be 29, and hopefully he will be McGinest-esque, and gets better with age). Though all three will probably continue to play at a high level, when do you start thinking about the future. Linebacker is our oldest position, we are pretty young everywhere else. Considering scouts are saying this is a very deep draft for linebackers (even with the loss of Poslunsky from the draft). There might be several linebackers that could become studs on the Pats learning from 3 excellent veterans. I would be very happy with even one of the LB prospects joining the Pats. One stud LB draft pick, Claridge coming back to learn, and TBC (He's only 26) possibly getting some playing time would make a nice transition to the future for the Pats.

mgteich

I agree that bb could surprise us, and that he isn't bound by any rules.

That doesn't mean that bb doesn't have tendencies. For example, he seems to believe that an OL isn't worth a Day One pick unless he can play LT.

It is my personal belief that bb will not draft a LB on Day One. Also, I personally would not draft a college LB on Day One. I believe there has been, and will continue to be Day One value (and Round One value at DE and DT). Of course, bb might draft a tweener on Day One or even Round One. I still think Vilma would have played SS for us.

I also see Day One as the place to find defensive backs and a wide receiver.

mgteich

rook,

As almost always, we agree on our needs. My disagreements with you are

1) I believe that if we draft a future starter at OLB on Day One, that player would be likely to have been a college DE.

2) I have doubt that we could upgrade on Klecko and/or Wright. Even if believe (drinking the koolaid) that Hill is a future star, or at least a major contributer, we still have a spot for a DL to replace Klecko and/or Wright. With all our depth, we have serious issues if one of our starting defensive linemen injured. IMHO, we need five quality players to be in the rotation, and another to have a few reps, and be able to contribute more if there is an injury. Wright is OK at the end of the bench, but he isn't part of the rotation. Hopefully Hill and/or Klecko's replacement will be a contributer.

patchick

Ok, just to clarify...your claim is specifically that the Pats won't use a high draft pick on a college LB to play LB? But a DE targeted to move to OLB (or Vilma targeted for SS) is fair game? That changes the picture. I've been arguing that they would have gladly grabbed a Merriman or Ware to play LB last year, and I thought you were arguing otherwise.

IMO, 2006 shapes up to be a perfect year for a conversion project to ease into the OLB rotation and learn from the likes of Willie. And men that big and that fast just aren't to be found on day 2.

DaBruinz

I am not sure the Pats will draft a DB on day 1, though if it is the best value available by their draft chart, then they will.

However, looking at the team, they have the following:

Strong Safety:
Harrison (may/may not be ready for TC)
Sanders
Artrell Hawkins ( I believe they will bring him back. He's earned it)

Free Safety:
Wilson
G. Scott (ERFA if tendered)

On the bubble:
Michael Stone - Been great on Special teams. Has been pretty sound when on the field.

Cornerback:
Randall Gay (ERFA if tendered, which I believe he will be)
Ellis Hobbs
Asante Samuel
Duane Starks (if his contract is restructured with years added on)

On his way out:
Ty Poole

On the bubble:
Chad Scott - we hardly knew yeah, but you played pretty well
Hank Poteat - is a steady reserve DB.

That is 13 different DBs, of which i see 9 of them coming back. So, where would this other DB fit in?

DaBruinz

MG - You know what I find funny. I have been saying that I would love for them to take Tamba Hali, a college DE, because I believe the Pats could easily make him into a 3-4 OLB like Willie is. To me, that is STILL taking a LB. I see you as playing symantics with the whole "pats won't take a LB unless its a college DE". Just a reminder. When they drafted McGinest, they had him as a DE, not a LB. It was only after BB got here that he moved McGinest to standing up (thus saving his back and a multitude of injuries).

I won't be surprised to see the Pats take a Day 1 LB beside them taking a DE/OLB in the 1st round. Why? Because of the fresh blood needed.

Of the LBs under contract, only Colvin, Beisel, TBC and Claridge are under 30. The rest, Bruschi, Vrabel, McGinest, Brown, and Izzo are all over 30. Davis, Alexander, and Chatham are UFAs. And there are plenty of questions as to whether Brown will be back.

Its going to be very interesting as to what the Pats will do.

shirtsleeve

Hate to jump in late on a thread like this, but jump I will. We do need help at LB and DB. But BB will only take guys built like college DE's to convert to LB. How'd he put it ? He wants em 6'6", able to run real fast, and can cover recievers, or something like that. Which means project. Which means probably won't commit to a 1st for a LB. He has similar desires for SS. Looking for a college LB to fill that one. Again no 1st rounders there either. My guess is he will try again to fill these needs via free agency and will go best available on day 1.

mgteich

I would suggest that you save this post. It is an excellent demonstration that we have no critical need at defensive back. I too would re-sign Hawkins.

S: Wilson, Hawkins, Sanders,Scott/Stone
C: Hobbs,Samuel,Starks,Gay,Poteat/Scott

The question is whether this nine so solid that a Day One draftee wouldn't make the team? There are many possiblities.

1) We could keep 10 defensive backs (didn't we start with 10 this year?)
2) We could have a camp injury.
3) We night not be able to come to an acceptable deal with Starks.
4) We could choose to cut both Guss Scott and Stone.
5) We could choose to cut both Poteat and Chad Scott.

I think that there may be many draftees or free agents who could imporve this team. And that, after all, is the measure of any transaction.

I do believe that bb will have a team ready for training camp, even before the draft. I would not be surprised to see us bring in two or three defensive backs.
----------------------------------------------

rookBoston

I dont think BB prefers DEs to play LB so much as he likes big, strong, physical players who can engage a offensive lineman and win.

If we draft a player to play LB Day One, I think we both agree that the player will probably be no lighter than 240#, and preferably in the 255# range-- McGinest sized. Claridge is a great case in point: 6-2 254#. That is certainly a criteria for BB in a LB. Generally, that means the player was a DE in college, but that doesnt preclude (IMO) the possibility of a big strong LB.

Recent years, we've had a lot of LBs coming out of college in the 220-235# range-- too light for BB as a LB. The best of last year's crop: Thurman 237#, Tatupu 226#, Morrison 238#. This year, Ernie Sims (220#) for example... the only shot he has to make the Pats roster, as you say, is as a SS. He's the same size as Rodney.

But this year's draft class is different. Look how many top LB prospects are 240# or more: Greenway is 244#, Carpenter is 255#, Havner is 245#, Hawk is 240#, Schlegel is 245#, Parham is 253#. Generally LBs that big are really slow and clunky... but not this year.

Plus, add in the standard crop of DE tweeners: Dumervil is 256#, Lawson is 245#.

Fertile ground this year, and an unquestionable need. Whether a DE tweener or an big college LB.

I agree with all this, but there's no need to use a day one pick for it. Bringing someone onto the roster in free agency-- standard two-year contract-- to provide rotational depth makes more sense to me. Our future is already fairly well established on the DL. Even if we take 4 players on Day One, we'd be better off taking the players at need positions where the need is for youth, or for special level of talent that you cant find in the FA market without breaking the bank.

__________________
"We want to build a big, strong, tough, smart, fast, disciplined football team that will consistently compete for a championship."
-- Scott Pioli, from the Patriots scouting manual