Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

I think Jackson was supposed to be Brady's new toy, and they'll take another shot in rounds 2-3 on Tom's behalf, and pick up a decent option in FA. After that, though, it's all about keeping the D machine running into the future.

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

So it comes down to a philosophy of what it takes to win a game. For five years at least, the Pats have answered that question with an emphasis on defense, mistake-free football, and enough offense to gut out the tough wins. Remember, the offense did fine all the way through the playoffs. This might be a hint.

We want and need one or two more guys on that receiver corps, probably the "horizontal" model, because usually we can substitute reliability for quick-strike potential -- and because the "quick-strike", while seductive (and while it forces safeties to play in coverage, rather than add to run support,) are usually the pricey, speedy guys. Again, we don't know what Stallworth costs this year vs. Bennett. I bet it's more, even though he's more of an injury liability.

Originally Posted by mgteich

I think that we do make moves in the first week, usually the re-signing of some of our own "minor" free agents. I see us re-signing Seau, Evans, Mickens, Izzo, Gardner and perhaps Brown. There is an outside chance of signing one of our top three free agents, but that seems unlikely.

Originally Posted by cstjohn17

I agree we should see some moves along these lines. Personally I see all those guys as JAGs and most are more valueable to the Pats than any other team. If thet really like any of these guys I am not sure why the Pats wouldn't try to sign them before free agency starts just to me safe.

Re-looking at the list... you hit a nerve. If Izzo, Seau and Gardner come back I may vomit, so much for adding speed and youth the the LBs.

Originally Posted by mgteich

We always have a few veteran JAGs on the squad. They are extremely cost effective. You get a player who provides solid depth, sometimes for $435K a year of cap money, a bit more than an UDFA. In any case, please consider that Izzo and Gardner should be considered special teamers, rather than linebackers. We still would need two veteran linebackers, even after signing all three. I suspect that Mays wouldn't make the roster.

ILB: free agent, Bruschi, Seau
OLB Colvin, Vrabel, free agent
ST: Izzo, Gardner, Woods/Mays/draftee

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

I was surprised to read that Donnie Edwards' compensation last year was on the "top 10 at LB..." Obviously, that includes prorated bonus, but I wonder what he is going to want in Free Agency... I am hoping it is a number that recognizes teams are looking at him as an old warrior with something left, not a superstar FA prospect.

Also wonder what Drew Bennett is going to go for... I see a lot of love for Donte Stallworth here, but I worry about durability with him. I'm just not a fan of hiring the "magic bullet" deep threat... I'd prefer a consistent contributer with evidence of some upside (my take on Bennett.)

Of course, it's possible that Stallworth goes early, and Bennett becomes the "big fish" (i.e., expensive hire) in the receiver pond, who knows...

I think we have to look at Chad as having the whole spectrum of possibilities, from always-injured-washout, to future-star-who-took-a-while-to-develop. I also think we're getting the absolute max out of Caldwell and Gaffney. It remains to be seen whether they maintain the level we were seeing at the end of last season and in the post-season. But that level's not likely to soar into the stratosphere either.

Here's where you have to place a value on each "tier" and type of receiver. There's nobody available from the "proven elite" tier, and the Pats would be unlikely to make a grab even if one were available. Stallworth and Bennett are two different types of guys from the "good" category. Stallworth is more a stretch-the-field guy, and Bennett has been a possession guy. So you add another horizontal option with Bennett, and a vertical threat with Stallworth, to oversimplify. What do "good, not great" receivers cost this year? We're about to find out.

So it comes down to a philosophy of what it takes to win a game. For five years at least, the Pats have answered that question with an emphasis on defense, mistake-free football, and enough offense to gut out the tough wins. Remember, the offense did fine all the way through the playoffs. This might be a hint.

We want and need one or two more guys on that receiver corps, probably the "horizontal" model, because usually we can substitute reliability for quick-strike potential -- and because the "quick-strike", while seductive (and while it forces safeties to play in coverage, rather than add to run support,) are usually the pricey, speedy guys. Again, we don't know what Stallworth costs this year vs. Bennett. I bet it's more, even though he's more of an injury liability.

I also expect a first-day (but not first-round) receiver move on the Pats' part. We're an injury or two away from the Bam Childresses of the world starting, and while I love the kid, this situation does not inspire confidence.

I know the conventional wisdom is we grab Stallworth, but I wonder whether that's not a Bennett-acquisition smokescreen. Who knows...

The one thing we can say with certainty, is we've won 3 super bowls with totals of 28 or fewer passing touchdowns in each outing. That's the range we're looking for, gentlemen, and Brady threw for 24 last year.

The goal for the Pats the last few years has not been to throw quick strikes a few times a game for big gainers... it's to not be in a position where we need sustained aerial bombardment to beat a team. I think Jackson was supposed to be Brady's new toy, and they'll take another shot in rounds 2-3 on Tom's behalf, and pick up a decent option in FA. After that, though, it's all about keeping the D machine running into the future.

Oh, and keeping an eye on the O-Line numbers. Yikes, we get these guys cheap! We need to keep working that carousel, or otherwise think about what keeps them happy.

PFnV