DaBruinz

Now, before anyone goes ape, please read and think about this.

I don't think that this is a transistion year in the "TRADITIONAL" sense where the Pats would go 8-8. But, I've been wondering if this might not be a transition year for the Pats. Where they release some of the older vets and bring in younger players and let them build within the system, while still putting a competative team on the field that could still contend for the SB. The Pats would also lock up their CORE young veterans players (Seymour, Branch, Graham, Koppen), long term, to assure the continued success.

Lets look at the real holes:
Receiver - Branch, Johnson, Childress, Musinski
Tight End - Watson, Graham

The Pats have, previously gone with a bunch of no names at this position and won a SB doing it. All they need is 1 decent WR who can catch the ball opposite Branch and they would have as productive a WR combo as they did in 2001. Their TEs would be significantly better and Watson could tear up the league as a Tony Gonzalez type TE.

I could easily see the Pats drafting 1-2 WRs in the middle to late rounds and letting them learn on the job. Look for them to have decent to good hands and decent to good route running ability. The Pats could also pick up a veteran like a Javon Walker via trade or a Quincy Morgan or Peerless Price. Someone who has something to prove.

Linebacker:
Colvin, Vrabel, Bruschi, Beisel, Claridge, Izzo, Davis, Alexander, Banta-Cain

The Pats getting a Manny Lawson or possibly a Mark Anderson could turn the OLB position around easily. Claridge stepping up and doing what Brown couldn't last year will be growing pains, but should be more productive. They could always have TBC at the OLB position with Colvin and Vrabel back at the ILB position and still be productive. A full off-season under Peppers, Pees, and Woicik will hopefully help Beisel.

Kicker:
The Pats have done well finding kickers in the draft and afterwards. Look at Robbie Gould. Was very good in camp and got himself the starting job with the Bears after their kicker went down for the season. AV could be back or someone else.


Cornerback:
Samuel, Gay, Poole, Hobbs

Pats could use another person here. Could be someone like Andre Dyson (unless his release was rescinded) or it could be a draft pick like Richard Marshall. This could all be thrown awry by the possibility of the Pats signing Tank Williams and the Pats moving Wilson to CB.

PatsWickedPissah

A transitional year approach would fit within the BB scheme. He's said he'd do so in past quotes. Whether this is the case in 2006 remains to be seen. He DID say that he was surprised to win it all with the 2001 team. Note that it took to 2003 to build another true Champion.

IcyPatriot

I agree with you, yes it is...not could be. I felt last year was the last hurrah for that team and as we all now, injuries took their toll.

Let's face it, anone who has been on this team since 2001 has effectively played an extra season with all the playoff games. But we have and had a great team, no hunger was lost with 1-2 or even 3 rings and so we made the playoffs again...4th best record to boot.

I think part of that is the dedication from the Krafts also...to give the fans more entertainment and pride than maybe was ordinarily possible in the pre-Kraft days.

Even if we were to have a 50/50 season this year(I hope not)...let's face it, it will be a great 8-8 with great hope for the future as opposed to false promises.

PATSNUTme

I was thinking the same thing. But, I don't think that BB is looking at anything other than a championship run, this year.

I also think that when they start moving on FA, the moves will surprise and please us.

oldrover

Well, surprise us, anyway.

IcyPatriot

The only player signed that i was disappointed we didn't get was the LB Leber...not that he was special...just looked like a good backup that will probably be a draftee...so no biggy.

patsox23

I think "transitional year" is a stretch. Not wearing blinders, just think this team is likely to be BETTER next year than this past year. I do like how you define transitional year, but I just don't think it will be any loss of championship-level play. We still have a ton of good players.

pats1

Right on. I think BB, SP, EA, et. al have enough experience and knowledge to make every year a transition year. They set out to have a championship-caliber team every year. Last year, they had one, but the injuries just absolutely tore at the team. This year, on paper, the team wouldn't have to overachieve too much to be championship caliber - and that's now, before any real moves. I also don't think Kraft is the type of owner that "makes runs at titles." and then, if fails, scraps things and rebuilds.

AndyJohnson

I dont think its that clear. Without so many injuries, this may have been the best PAt team yet in 2006.
Eliminate the OL issues, and the Dillon injuries, and it would be easily the best offense.
The defense by the end of the year was playing close to its top level, even with the medical ward in the secondary.

A HUGE question to be answered is: If we continue the way we have, are injuries a fact of life?
Chad Scott, Rodney, Starks, Poole and Law the year before were all secondary injuries that in hindsight could be a natural result of older players at a young mans position.

Look at the team as it is today:

Basically every position of question is due to age. But everywhere else there is no question.

OL- Young and imporving
DL- Same
QB- Same

At DB is where we are today the result of age?
At WR Patten, Brown, Dwight have been relied upon and age crept in. Everyone we have left is young, including Givens if he returns.
LB has been a huge strength, but is it now susceptible to the last 2 years at DB?

If you look at 2005, it almost seems like the injuries due to age overcame the strengths of youth.
Brady, the OL, DL, and what is here in the secondary (that got markedly better as the year wore on) is a huge area of strength.

If the old guys stayed healthy, where would 2005 have taken us? Really just about every loss could be attributed to DB problems or OL issues due to injuries (granted thats not age, but if injuries are your problem--get younger).

Could it be that with the nucleus we have BBs mindset right now is to add players less likely to be injured in 2005 (age and history is all youve got) at the expense of more 'talent'?

Look at some of our own that we are not moving quickly on. Willie, AV, Chatham, Fauria, and even Neal, because he is older than it seems, and has had some injury problems, Ashworth who may have chronic back problems, are guys that have a higher chance of getting injured than the mid-level FA who is 5-7 years younger.


I would NOT be shocked that BB is sitting in foxboro thinking that the nucleus is good enough to win, if all of the additins are ADEQUATE but on the field, because when we have lost, its often been because of subpar fillins for injured guys. If we are dispatching guys who have been injured or are greater injury risks, for the sake of being 'average' in the supporting cast, rather than better but riskier due to injury, that isnt so bad IMO.

If this were true, you could look for BB to be signing a lot of guys in their mid-20s who are capable, if not spectacular, and may come later in FA when prices calm down.

I've often felt there were 125 or more WRs in thye NFL that were capable of being solid starters putting up solid numbers if they got the opportunity. (Any starting WR of modest talent will get catches) and the gap between good starter and bench warmer who could do the job is closer at that spot than any other. (It seems to happen a lot that a former backup gets on the field and does well at WR. Here everyone except Branch that has done well fit that bill) That is an example where if the OL is solid, the TEs good, and you have a Brady, you can be fine with lesser known guys who never got a chance before. Would that apply to the secondary as well??????? Maybe not, because WRs seem to be a function of the system where DBs can kill you with their mistakes.

What if this off-season is a move to bring in 'capable' players to play alongside an otherwise fantastic lineup? In 2001 it stood right out that we won, because the worst guy we put on the field was capable. In 2005 it stood at that we lost because he was incapable. The overall talent of the top 18 or so starters wasnt even close in 2001 to 2005, but the worst guy was a lot better because of the weak injury fill ins (or guys playing hurt) in 2005.

Perhaps the transition is:
-Bring positions that were dreadful due to injury up to adequate
-Draft young players behind them to take over soon as stars at those postions?

The only think that doesnt fit this is not sigining Givens, but we have no clue what is going on behind the scenes.
An aside on that: IT was mentioned in an article "Givens has never played 16 games in a year" which I think was kinda unfair.
However, if you add to it the dynamic that Givens has been very streaky, sometimes making 4 catches on 1 drive then 1 or 2 the rest of the game, is there an issue here about playing through injuries? I know I jammed that in to fit the argument, but its not entirely unlikely that it could be an issue in BBs decision, or at least consistency being part of it. That last part is a stretch no doubt, but its my idea, so everything has to fit into it, lol.

R_T26

I dont see why it would be. They still have a solid team, they have plenty of cap space, and plenty of Draft Picks. Why waste this year when they dont have too