mgteich

We have four Day One picks. Almost all of us have us drafting an OLB and a S with two of the picks. Most of us have a backup OL or two in the top 100 (this need could be met in the 3rd and 4th rounds).

This is pretty substantial agreement. However, we also have great room to disagree.
================================================

For example, we could reasonably meet the above needs with an OLB at 34 and a safety at 57, leaving us MANY, MANY options for the 23rd and the 47th pick.

If you knew that we had met our OLB, S, OG, and OT needs as noted above, how would you use 23 and 47?

BelichickFan

It's along the lines of what I have said, if we think we can get an OLB we like at 2a and a Safety we like at 2b, and I think both are true, that leaves #23 to take a guy we love as BPA and not worry about need.

It could be a potential WR like Heyward-Bey, one of the CB or even Harvin who could be an explosive replacement for Faulk.

ayjackson

I think we may take an OLB and a S on day one because there seems to be some excellent Patriot prospects available at those positions. I do not agree that we necessarily need them.

BB might be quite happy with Thomas, Woods, Crable, Redd and perhaps Colvin (hasn't signed anywhere yet?) at OLB.

He seems to be happy with Merriweather and Sanders at safety, with Springs, Vetrone and a second day pick in the mix.

It's talent, not need driving the interest in players such as Barwin, Delmas, Smith and English.

TriplecHamp

If we were to only address two position on the 25th I thing they would be LB in general outside or inside and safety. Lucky for us OLB is possibly the deepest position in this draft so we should have a good selection to choose from. Safety is also another fairly deep position so we should get one of our top choices. If we were to only get an OLB and a safety (without trading up) I would choose Larry English and William Moore.

maverick4

If we had some picks to play with, I'd use #23 on a D-lineman to develop slowly and replace Seymour/Warren in the future, or to back up Wilfork. I would trade #47 to a bad team for a 2010 pick.

mayoclinic

We clearly need at least one OLB and one S prospect. You are absolutely right, we could potentially fill them quite well later on - for example, we could probably get Cody Brown and Chip Vaughn with our #58 and 89 picks (possibly requiring a slight trade up from #89) and they might be extremely solid players for us, quite possibly becoming examples of more Pats values. They're very nice prospects, and in another year we might be grateful to have them available in the draft (such as last year, when we picked at #63, 69 and 78).

The problem is that we have such an abundance of early picks in an year where there is so much depth, particularly at those two positions. It's hard to focus on the value of Vaughn in the 3rd round when Delmas, Sean Smith, Will Moore and Chung may be available in the 2nd. It's hard to focus on the value of Cody Brown (or possibly Lawrence Sidbury) in the late 2nd/early 3rd when Barwin, English, Maybin, Everette Brown, Ayers, Michael Johnson, Matthews, Cushing and Sintim are all within reach if we decided we really wanted one of them.

Similarly, there are some great OT and OG options that are likely to be available in the late 2nd and 3rd rounds: Jamon Meredith, Troy Kropog, Gerald Cadogan, TJ Lang, Andy Levitre, Trevor Canfield, etc. So if we miss out on Beatty, Britton, Max, Unger or Wood all is not lost.

So we're not under any pressure to fill any of those needs with our top 3 picks. The question is how much value the FO puts on some of the top prospects at those positions, and how highly they prize some of the prospects at positions of lesser immediate need. There's no doubt that Hakeem Nicks, Darius Butler and Knowshon Moreno would be terrific Pats picks; the only question is whether they stand out enough to justify taking them as early as is required when their positions are not immediate needs and other equally talented players are available at positions that have greater need.

I'm sure the FO will figure it all out. And we'll probably be surprised at some of their moves. And we'll probably all come to appreciate them down the road, for the most part.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"OVER Loading at ANY position can create a Fatal Advantage. THAT is what interests ME. Attacking With Concentrated Force. THAT is what WINS. In the words ~ more or less ~ of General Patton: 'I'm fighting a WAR, here. Let the B*****ES worry about their FLANKS.' " - Off the Grid

"The key to any successful organization is to anticipate things, not react to them." - Michael Lombardi

bucky

If I were to bet, I'd say that a DB - either S or CB/S hybrid - will be one of the top 2 picks. And I'm not 100% convinced that an OLB will come early, but I do think a LB of some type will come on day 1.

Other than that, I don't think there are any immediate needs, but many needs for 2010. So I could easily see any of the below items addressed purely based on BPA. The only positions I can't see being addressed in the first 100 are QB and RB.

OL is an obvious one, but I'd prefer not to spend 23 or 34 on an OL who's going to sit around for a year.

DL is an interesting one. There are 6 pretty good ones already on the roster. But only 2 of them are signed through next year, and I wouldn't be surprised of 2 or 3 of FAs are gone.

TE is in the same category. Watson is looking at UFA. I wouldn't be surprised if a 2nd-3rd round TE is brought in to push Thomas - whom I really like as a player, he just hasn't produced.

WR isn't an area of need either. But Percy Harvin is one of my favorites right now at 23 - a Reggie Bush type who can take over for Faulk next year and be a very explosive option on those bubble screens - hopefully making Welker take less of a beating.

CB is still a near-term need with last year's rooks still question marks, Springs being old and Hobbs being a possible UFA. I'm positive 2 rookie DBs (if not 3) will make the roster this year, and I wouldn't be shocked if both are brought in on day 1.

WhiZa

they will probably trade for picks into next year. Honestly there are too many picks to store on the top 80 going into TC. The roster is currently at 65, add in 11 picks, plus 5 to 10 UDFA. That's 81-86 players. Going through the draft they will probably try to trade into next year, and if they can't, then some players will be cut, IR'd or just not signed as a UDFA.

Does anyone remember the roster size going into the draft last year?

__________________

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

mgteich

There is plenty of room on this team for rookies at least at the following 16 positions to upgrade the current most likely roster players. I don't know how many we will draft, but the positions are certainly open to competition and upgrade.

QB Gutierrez
RB/FB Green-Ellis
WR/ST Slater
WR/ST Aiken
WR/ST Ventrone
TE Thomas
OG Hochstein
OG Yates
OT LeVoir
OT O'Callaghan/Britt
DL Smith
OLB Redd
ILB Ruud/Alexander
SS Williams
FS/CB Spann
P Hanson

Feep50

I'm sticking with my theory of a trade up or down and a trade into the 2010 draft ending up with 4 picks day 1, not 6.

DE/OLB type Jackson?
OL probably a tackle, I prefer a Max Unger type
Safety, Strong safety ala Rodney, no secret my binky is Chung in this slot
OLB/ILB prospect everyone loves Barwin in this slot

I'm sticking with this story till BB blows it to h*ll on draft weekend!