SamBamsFan

From McShay in todays' espn .com report (link to follow, you must have espn insider to use link)

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft...odd&id=2431123

New England Patriots
Best pick: Wide receiver Chad Jackson, Florida. RB Laurence Maroney (Minnesota, first round) warrants some consideration, but Jackson gets the slight edge because he was such a tremendous value in the second round. The Patriots need help at wide receiver after losing David Givens (Titans), Andre Davis (Bills) and Tim Dwight (Jets) in free agency.
Worst pick: Tight end/Fullback Garret Mills, Tulsa. This is a tough call because Mills was a good value in the fourth round and fits the Patriots' mold as a versatile H-back who can catch and block. However, after selecting a similar player a round earlier in David Thomas (Texas), the Patriots could have used this pick to address need areas such as linebacker and cornerback.
Work to do: The Patriots' 2006 draft was loaded with value and their first two selections (Maroney and Jackson) also helped fill voids. Unfortunately, the team failed to find help at linebacker and cornerback, considered two of New England's three most pressing positions of need. Signing Eric Warfield prior to the draft helped, but Ty Law could also be in the mix at cornerback. The Patriots will continue to shuffle their linebackers to find the right combination. They are also hoping for more production from youngster Tully Banta-Cain at outside linebacker.

the taildragger

and so the media's cornerback fetish continues...

if we're "weak" in the secondary then so are 31 other teams.

Jacky Roberts

I'll never understand why ESPN feels they know the Patriots' (or any team's) needs more than the Patriots do.

__________________
"Spirituality, Faith, and Democracy are the cornerstones of our country. We are all Patriots, and tonight the Patriots are World Champions."
-Robert Kraft, 2/3/2002




To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Patters

I think most of us feel we know their needs more than they do every now and then.

gomezcat

The media seems to forget that we won't know how good this draft has been, until we have (AT THE VERY LEAST) seen these guys on an NFL field. Grading at this point is pointless.

__________________
The blog of our recent trip to The States (September and October 2012):


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

the taildragger

yeah, but most of us can do a little better than a 10 second soundbyte on the Pats, ala McShay/Kiper et al.

"weak secondary, thin at LB, etc. etc. etc."

try stacked secondary and arguably the finest LB core in the league.

PatsDeb

Last year at this time Logan Mankins was a total reach by the Pats in the first round. By the end of the year he was considered a "stud" and one of the best picks in last year's draft (as was Ellis Hobbs, who everyone said was too small last year at this time). Hopefully we will continue to prove what idiots these guys are.

emoney_33

this again? Well I guess if these guys had any real clue they'd be employed by an NFL team...

zippo59

If Mills was our worst pick then we had one hell of a draft.

__________________
"What Tom Brady just did gives me goose bumps."-John Madden after final drive in SB 36


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Unofficial Kevin Faulk supporter.

PatsFanInVa

I beg to disagree. I think ESPN's made some pretty simple and pretty accurate analyses of team "needs." They probably match what BB sees as areas of high concern - even areas of "need". But you don't notice BB dwelling on the word "need."

The Patriots philosophy is value, value, value.

So when I see ESPN saying they have a "value laden" draft, and then they yammer later about how they didn't fill a need, I have to scratch my head.

When the Pats get in trouble in a "need area" they compensate - it's not optimal, but they prefer this approach to "drafting to need," or bending over for some FA's agent.

Somebody please put this on a goddam billboard outside ESPN Headquarters (not to mention on these boards):

THE PATS DO NOT RESPOND TO NEED. THEY RESPOND TO VALUE.

This is not to say that all else being equal the Pats would not (possibly) prefer a great linebacker to a great runningback. But they saw the real world c. 2006, and responded to it: What would be the best runningback in many other years' drafts had slid to #21. The competition for their attention was supposed to be a second tier linebacker or corner? No, no, no, no no.

And at 35, they get this draft's best receiver? Are you kidding me?

Why?

THE PATS DO NOT RESPOND TO NEED. THEY RESPOND TO VALUE.

You don't think they could have done the safe thing, and have all the media outlets drooling over how cleverly and successfully they filled a "need" by picking whatever linebacker was left by 21? Of course they could. Most teams picking before them did just that, at one or another position, starting with the rocket scientists from Houston (I know some here like the Williams pick, but if I'm Houston I don't pass on a once-a-decade running back because I already have a "pretty good" one. But then again, they didn't "need" the running back. They "needed" the best lineman of the year, not the best running back of the decade.)

Everybody get it yet? Is there anything unclear about this?

THE PATRIOTS DID NOT ADDRESS THEIR NEEDS IN THE DRAFT. THIS IS A GOOD THING.

"Need" is not what you want your executive management to project, ever -not in negotiations, not in evaluations, never.

Think about people you would characterize as savvy about good value.

Okay, now think about people you would characterize as needy.

Which ones get taken advantage of?

The point is, when you emphasize your weakness, you make bad decisions, based on a "scarcity" mentality: You need the new car, especially THIS one, and the dealership won't have another one in your color for two months, so you better just trust the guy on the numbers...Plus he says the deal is off if you walk off the lot... Or, you need the stud defensive back (or kicker or whatever,) so you cough up some disproportionate amount of money... Or, you need a linebacker, so you pass up a far better player based on position...

When people do things out of need, their judgment gets screwy. The alternative is to make decisions based on your strengths, and based on confidence in your capability to make optimal use of what you do have, to mitigate the impact of your unmet "need."

You just assume you can find a way past it, when it is in conflict with your value choices. Then you take care of business on the value end, and get on with planning and working, to either fill or mitigate the impact of that "need." But you don't let your world revolve around the "need" right when you most need to evaluate for value.

OF COURSE THE PATRIOTS LEFT UNMET NEEDS. Pick one, ladies and gentlemen, need or value. The Pats picked value. That's why they have all that pretty jewelry.

Now, we'll see what the cat drags in from FA, and what training camp looks like. I don't think we see Law again, but possibly. I do think we get a lot of deals done while we have the cap money. I think the Pats will do that before overspending on people. If there are reasonable deals to be made, the Pats will make them - if not, they'll just have to see what they can do with that loveable ragtag group of plucky also-rans they fielded last year in the secondary, plus that nice Warfield fellow [sic.]

PFnV