patsox23

THE PATRIOTS ARE BETTER AT:

QB - Brady not playing with a hernia, Cassel with a full year under his belt

RB - Corey healthy, Faulk healthy, Maroney added.

OL - Light healthy, Koppen (eventually) healthy, Mankins and Kaczur have been through a full year now.

TE - Graham healthy (and OL healthy so he doesn't have to babysit), Watson took a big leap last year, Dave Thomas better/younger/faster than Fauria.

DL - A full year of Seymour, better back-up possibilities for Wilfork

DB - Starks and Poole GONE, Hobbs a full-time starter (with a year under his belt), Geno and Asante played better 2nd half of last year, Scott healthy, James Sanders reported to have taken a leap, Tebucky Jones better than the scrubs we threw against the wall last year.

THE PATRIOTS ARE WORSE AT:

K - AV gone, replaced with rookie. 'nuff said.

WR - Givens gone, Caldwell injury-prone, Chad Jackson dynamic but unproven, That said, by mid-season if Caldwell doesn't get hurt and Jackson is as good as people think, the WR's could be very solid.

THE PATRIOTS ARE ABOUT EVEN AT:

LB (lose Willie, gain a full year of Tedy, Beisel would have to be better and, from all accounts, was like "night and day" by the end of 2006) - could end up improving, but hard to count on Claridge (essentially a rookie), Gardner's a JAG scrub, all others (Roach, Mincey, Woods) are unknown development types, Banta-Cain hasn't shown much (especially in 2005, when IMO he regressed).

smg93

Interesting but i'd put LB at the "worse" category. It's going to take some time before we can replace someone of Willie's caliber.

patsox23

Actually, my best-guess is they'll be better there. I agree that Willie is a loss, but we didn't have Bruschi for almost HALF of last year and Beisel was clueless for double-digit games. According to Dean Pees (DC/LB coach), Beisel at the beginning of 2005 compared to Beisel by the end of the year was "like night and day." This position is, IMO, at WORSE "about the same."

spacecrime

Willie's getting a little old. Even if we had kept him, he probably wouldn't have been the same player.

He put in a LOT of good years with the Pats. Can't keep it up forever.

I hope he does well with the Browns, but I think Romeo wanted him mostly to show the young guys how it is done and to be a locker room leader. You can't put too high a value on chamistry, and I think the Browns are in need of it. Willie will be more of a cator in Cleveland than he would be here.

flutie2phelan

Nice concept.

PLUS ... kicking teams improved by both longer K/Os and younger, faster coverage.

MINUS ... that one cannot count all the returning injured as net pickups.
Although this definitely IS the year that the Pats suffer only league-average injuries,
still we'll open the season without a few folks you're counting on ... and play the February game without additional others.

__________________

PatsFanInVa

I agree that Willie's close to the end of the line, but that's part of the answer to "hmmmmmm to pay or not to pay," not to, "are we better at LB?"

As of right now, today, we have to expect the Pats woulda been better with than without, for this upcoming season. LB definitely goes in the "worse" category for this year, but dumping Willie now might make sense, because we would have been on the hook for a lot of cash, for a declining return.

I'm the odd man out on this, but I think we actually hold even or possibly get better at kicker. We're all worried about how Ghost does under pressure... but Adam had an off year last year, and might be looking at his best stuff in the rear view mirror at this point (even though a kicker can theoretically go just about forever, they seem to hit a wall in their mid-30s like any other athlete.) Ghost hits them from the 40s and the 50s... the only question is, does he do it under pressure?

I think we're also weak at WR, something you did not mention (unless I missed it.) Big upside, mind you, possibly a very pleasant future. But as someone else recently said, wouldn't you rather grind it out on the ground anyway? This year, we have lots of firepower in the running game, including the exciting new kid.

Also bear in mind that when we say "a healthy [your name here,]" we are also missing the injury we don't know is coming this season. For whatever reason, the Pats just never stay healthy. I see no reason to believe this year will be any different.

Eh well, we will see... 35 days to camp, right?

PFnV

patsox23

"As of right now, today, we have to expect the Pats woulda been better with than without, for this upcoming season. LB definitely goes in the "worse" category for this year, but dumping Willie now might make sense, because we would have been on the hook for a lot of cash, for a declining return."


I really don't understand why Willie's departure is counted and Bruschi's presence (and Beisel's apparent improvement) is not. No one is arguing that we're not weaker IN THE SENSE THAT WILLIE'S NOT HERE, but that's not the whole picture and I'm judging the LB corps as "the whole picture." Add it all up and I think it's "about the same," but close to "better."

"I think we're also weak at WR, something you did not mention (unless I missed it.)"

FTR, WR has to be - and is - put in the "worse" category, for the time being. Re-read the original post, you'll see it.

"Also bear in mind that when we say "a healthy [your name here,]" we are also missing the injury we don't know is coming this season."

Very good and fair point. We can't just assume NO INJURIES, but this list is based on the assumption that we will have a normal amount of injuries, banking on the fact that the odds are very long that we'll have ANOTHER season of catastrophic injury.

"For whatever reason, the Pats just never stay healthy. I see no reason to believe this year will be any different."

How 'bout this for a reason: it can't possibly continue to be as bad as it's been. Just odds-wise, it's ridiculous - we've had NFL RECORD numbers of injuries the last two years. Regressing to the mean, you'd think at some point we'll have just a normal amount.

Thanks for the input.

Pats726

http://www.patsfans.com/12th/2003/st...?story_id=5903

Very similar...I LIKE!! The team is on good footing now..better in time..

spacecrime

About the only way someone could say that we are worse off starting this year at LB than last year would be if they think that we would be better off if we kept WMG but lost Bruschi. I suppose a case could be made. Personally, I wouldn't buy it, though. I think we are better of this Sept (with Bruschi, w/o WMG) than last Sept (with Bruschi, w/o WMG).

AndyJohnson

I understand the 4 1/2 sack game can cloud this type of thinking, but Willie already had declined throughout 2005. Im not saying he wasnt good, or doing the 'once they are gone they sucked' routine. But while Willie has played great, it was clear he wasn't the player in 2005 he was in 04, 03, etc.
Still one of the best at the position, he was clearly to me, a step slower getting to the QB (everyone had to recognize the numerous times Willie coming off the edge, arms up, and didnt get there in time) he also saw more time on the sidelines each season.
Replacing Willie of 2003 is a much larger task that replacing Willie of 2005.

On top of that, in a team defense concept, when you have Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, Colvin, Bruschi and Vrabel as the rest of the front 7, losing a McGinest is much more easily absorbed than if we had a mediocre front 7 and he was the best player on it.

IMO, we are at starting positions, better than we started 2005, worse than we ended it but I think the depth is going to be better (we got zero from reserve LBs last year) and overall the unit is equal. Additionally, with a full year of Bruschi, we ARE BETTER in the top 3 LB positions, which is all we use at least 50% of the snaps.