Originally Posted by Marqui

I highly doubt Cunningham was brought in to be a McGinest replacement. He's much more comparable to Vrable in terms of measurables and skillset.

Originally Posted by The_Riddler

Back to the original post. Well said, count me as one of the guys on the value of landing a Dez Bryant at 24 crowd. Talk about value ! It's Randy Moss of 98 all over again. He will be a bona-fide star in this league, there is no doubt in my mind, Miles Austin has said as much himself as have so many others who have seen what he brings to the table, he has all the goods as they say and he's ready now.

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

The signing of Warren goes under the radar because, well, because Gerard Warren sucks. I sincerely hope that he doesn't have to see any playing time this year and is just camp fodder. I do love the signings of Crumpler and Holt, though. And I feel as if we had a solid draft once again this year.

Originally Posted by patfanken

6. OK now we come to the crux of the matter. Where are we going to get our pass rush???????? ....

In the years the Pats were great, not just good, did they ever have anyone who could have been considered a "dominant type" pass rusher. How often, at a time when they perennially were in the top 10 sack team, did they have a guy with double digit sacks. Willie McGinest never did it on a BB team. Mike Vrabel did it ONCE. Yet from 2001-2007 the Pats were one of the top teams in the league in team sacks.

Originally Posted by eagle eye

He did say DBs as opposed to CBs, and the safeties came a lot back then, Milloy in particular and the corners did come too.

Originally Posted by CoachK

Why is it that the majority of post from Kontradiction are about someone on who "sucks" ?????

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

Should I put up my last 20 or so posts in response to this? You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, CoachK.

As for Warren being a DE, we'll see I guess. At 6'4" 325 lbs., he seems more suited for DT in the 4-3. Compare is height and weight to our resident DE mainstay Ty Warren: 6'5" 300 lbs. and Big Vince Wilfork (who I see Gerard Warren lining up next to as a DT in the 4-3): 6'2" 325 lbs. Heh, I'm not so sure that NFL.com isn't lying about Vince's weight just a little bit, though.

Originally Posted by Fencer

Ted Johnson was a good player, not a great one.


Expecting a 2nd-round pick to eventually get to Ted Johnson level is even more plausible.

Originally Posted by patfanken

1. I think you can't underestimate the importance of the Pats looking to get tougher and more physical the last 2 off seasons. At some point during the past few years, the Pats seemed to lose its identity as a tough and gritty team. Its like we woke up one morning, and suddenly we became the Colts, all slick and finesse - and we were OK with that.
Thats exactly what we became, and I was never OK with that, because I knew where that transformation would lead - to failure.

I think it became very apparent to Bill with the loss to the Ravens. It looked remarkably similar to what we did to the Colts back in 2003. Maybe Bill already knew, but the Ravens game was a revelation to me. I knew then that it was time for the Pats to get back to its "workman-like" roots. It also made the strategy of the last 2 drafts make more sense. When you think on it, a lot of those picks, while they lack "star power", are gritty, nose in the dirt kind of players, with a heavy emphasis on OL and DL projects.
Agreed. With the loss of Charlie Weis & the emergence of the Randy Ratio, we forgot how to play post-Thanksgiving, outdoors-in-the-Northeast winning football.

2. I think the signings of Holt, Crumpler, and Warren, have largely gone under the radar, even in NE. BB has ALWAYS seemed to be a guy who has believed you need A LOT of good players on your team in order to make a run at the superbowl, not necessarily a lot of "stars" I think THAT has been one of the purposes of accumulating all those draft picks (24) in the last 2 years, and taking a lot of shots with so many low to mid level vet FA's. The Pats needed to get deeper as well as younger.
Agreed. I'd rather keep as backups proven vets instead of young, untalented crap.

3. I know there are some people who wanted Dez Bryant, but even if he turns out to be as good as some think, the Pats have had 9 consecutive winning seasons seasons (8 wining 10+ games), going with dirt dog WR types (and 3 years of Randy Moss). Skilled WRs are the most easily replaceable position.

Torry Holt (for right now) is more of the kind of guy that the Pats offense needs opposite Randy Moss. A guy who will be were Brady expects him to be, at the right time. A consummate route runner, who is versatile enough to be able to run the full tree. It was noted that he's been the exemplar Brady has used for years as how to run routes in the NFL. Yes he's on the wrong side of 30, but he STILL managed to catch 50 balls and 800 yds in a run first offense, catching passes from David Garard.

I would think that everybody would be thrilled if he managed the same production in OUR offense, catching balls from Tom Brady. And I for one wouldn't be shocked if he did slight better than that. Also for all you hoping that Deon Branch will suddenly become available. Let me drop this small item on you. In the past 3 years Torry Holt has missed ONE game. In the past 3 years Deion Branch has missed 15.
Agreed. I didn't want Dez Bryant in the 1st round, either. I also wanted Bill to (re-)sign Dante Stallworth & take a chance on Matt Coke Zero Jones.

4. Warren and Lewis are even MORE intriguing to me...But while Warren has never been the "great" player that Richard Seymour turned out to be, he HAS BEEN a very "good" player...A versitile guy who can set the edge, be physical, and be counted on be on the field ALL season. The guy has missed only 8 games in a nine year career. And as a bonus, he's a guy who will likely get you some pressure up the middle and 3-4 sacks
Gerard Warren may now be too old, fat & unathletic to be an effective 3-4 DE for us; his best position for us might be as backup NT & 4-3 run-stopping DT.

The Lewis pick up is more problematical in my view. He just seems to be a guy who has been good enough to start on a mediocre NFL teams for several of his years. And if all he's here to be is "proven" DL depth, then it doesn't look like a bad pick up; just not an impactful one.
DLewis looks too short to be an every-down 3-4 DE here; he seems more like a run-stopping 3-4 DE & pass-rushing 4-3 DT.

5. I think the real impact of these 2 pick ups is that it will make this team a better run stopping team. It will make it a more physical team, AND it will increase the effectiveness of Mike Wright, who tends to get beat up as the season goes on.
Wright was a very effective inside rusher, but had only one sack after the bye last season. I'm thinking that BB might be looking to use him more as a situational inside rusher this season, and get more consistent production out of him.
Agreed.

6. OK now we come to the crux of the matter. Where are we going to get our pass rush? That's what EVERYONE wants to know. Seem like a reasonable question, and we are all looking for THE guy in the draft of FA who can do this for us, right? I've been no different. I wouldn't have minded if the Pats had picked up a couple of MORE OL/DE rush prospects after the 3rd round, and they were there to be had (Griffin, Lane, Sapp etc). But then I got to thinking:

In the years the Pats were great, not just good, did they ever have anyone who could have been considered a "dominant type" pass rusher. How often, at a time when they perennially were a top 10 sack team, did they have a guy with double digit sacks? Willie McGinest never did it on a BB team. Mike Vrabel did it ONCE. Yet from 2001-2007 the Pats were one of the top teams in the league in team sacks.

So you have to ask yourself do we really NEED a "dominant sack guy" or do we just need to produce more sacks from the guys we already have, like we used to. Now when you think on THAT line, the McCourty pick starts to make MORE sense.

As the secondary declined over the last 3 years, so did the number of sacks, and its NOT a coincidence. The Pats used to get a lot of sacks FROM their DBs, plus more that other guys got BECAUSE of a DB blitz or good coverage. However when the coverage started to lag, BB couldn't afford to send DB's as much, OR have the complex schemes that worked so well in the "great" years.

Now the secondary is coming together. With McCourty, Boddin, Butler, Merriweather, Chung, Sanders, we are starting to acquire the talent, experience, and depth necessary to allow the DC to be more creative on passing downs and create more pressure, like we did back in the early days of this era.

Yes it WOULD be nice to have some guy who is likely to beat a guy one on one, but even the "dominant" rushers only win about 10% of those battles. I contend that with the defensive backfield on the up swing, both in talent AND depth, we will see a marked improvement in our pass rush, even with the guys we have.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism re: an improved pass rush. While we might not have had a "dominant" pass-rush guy, what we did have on the edges - and our current group doesn't have - is Talent, at the top & at the bottom. This collection of never-weres & never-will-bes has Very Little Talent, anywhere. He who was at the bottom during the Good Old Days - TBC - is now at the top. 'Nuff sed.

7. And just how important ARE sacks in the great scheme of things? The Jets, who had the top D in the league, had exactly ONE more sack than the Pats. The world champion Saints and all the talk about their DC, had FOUR more. Also the Jets paid a ton more money to Bart Scott than we paid for TBC, and got 2 FEWER sacks.

If you check the top 5 teams in the league for Sacks, you'd find them in this order: Minnesota, Steelers, Dolphins, Eagles, and 49ers. The thing that immediately comes to mind when you look at that list, is that only TWO of those teams made the playoffs.
Pits-Dirt & San Fran were very close to making the POs, and the Doofins were AFCE champs in '08. Not exactly chopped liver there.

8. Obviously, putting "pressure" on the QB is what teams REALLY are looking for and what TRULY makes a pass rush effective. Is there a site that ranks the teams by QB pressures, hits, tips, etc? I'm sure there are and one of you has a link. It would be interesting to see if the number of sacks correlates with the other aspects of getting a good pass rush. Another stat I'd love to see is how often in a series where the QB is sacked does the offense have to punt.
So would I. I think that would be a very revealing statistic.

9. I also think that Crumpler is going to be a bigger factor this year than many people think. If it is true what they said about a slimmer faster Algie, then he could be more than just a blocking TE. At one time Crumpler was one of the top RECEIVING TE's in the league. While I don't expect THAT kind of a year, I do expect to see a resurrection of the TE being a significant part of the pass offense.
Crumpler Must be in better condition, incl. a significant loss of weight, in order to be anything more than just a somewhat better version of Kyle Brady.

10. And if you forgot, 2 TE's/2 WRs is my favorite offensive formation, since by alignment it causes a lot of problems for your defense, but that is the subject of another rant...

Originally Posted by mgteich

So, your only objection to Warren at DE is that he needs to lose a few pounds? He has the size and frame to play DE.