broadwayjoe

I came across this article and wanted to know what do some of you think about it and is the data accurate on who will be free agents.

http://www.footballsfuture.com/2006/teams/patriots.html

Box_O_Rocks

I was unimpressed with his analysis, but I'm spoiled by the folks on this board.

I don't see this draft as being critical for 2006, WR stands out as the primary weak spot and that can be patched up by Free Agent signings. This draft is to patch the 2007 holes: From Miguel's roster page...

Projected Starting Offense Based on Signed/Tendered Players

WR Deion Branch 5-9, 191, 25 years, signed through 2006
C Dan Koppen 6-3, 297, 27 years, signed through 2006
RG Russ Hochstein 6-4, 305, 28 years, signed through 2006
TE Daniel Graham 6-3, 248, 27 years, signed through 2006
FB Patrick Pass 5-10,217, 28 years, signed through 2006

Projected Starting Defense

RDE Richard Seymour 6-6, 299, 26 years, signed through 2006
LB Willie McGinest 6-5, 270, 34 years, signed through 2006
CB Asante Samuel 5-11,185, 25 years, signed through 2006

Offensive Reserves:

G Nick Steitz 6-3, 315, 25 years, signed through 2006
RB Earl Charles 6-1, 215, 23 years, signed through 2006
QB Todd Mortensen 6-4, 225, 26 years, signed through 2006
WR Rich Musinski 5-11,199, 25 years, signed through 2006
WR John Stone 5-11,180, 26 years, signed through 2006

Defensive Reserves:

DT Dan Klecko 5-11,283, 25 years, signed through 2006
DT Mike Wright 6-4, 295, 23 years, signed through 2006
LB Tully Banta-Cain 6-2, 254, 25 years, signed through 2006
LB Monty Beisel 6-3, 238, 27 years, signed through 2006
LB Chad Brown 6-2, 245, 34 years, signed through 2006
LB Larry Izzo 5-10,228, 31 years, signed through 2006
CB Tyrone Poole 5-8, 188, 33 years, signed through 2006
CB Duane Starks 5-10,174, 30 years, signed through 2006

Looks to me like: CB, DL, C, and TE are the critical need areas for the 2007 season.

My first inclination is to look for a DL in the first round, he doesn't need to be Seymour's replacement, Hill and Green do okay at DE, and Wilfork can join Green inside in the 4-3 pass rush role. Wright should be interesting to watch in Training Camp after he goes through an off-season training program; he was good at all three DL slots and on STs.

I think NE has the 'luxury', this season, of using that first round pick on a developmental athlete, one who might grow into the 3-4 OLB role.

__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

p8ryts

Vince Wilfork needs somebody to take a turn on the nose. This Hali Ngoti guy from Oregon could be the one.

ctpatsfan77

The analysis isn't that good; for example, he has Vrabel as a FA, when Vrabel's locked up through 2009.

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

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

big mike

???
DL? Let's see, Wilfork, Warren, Seymor, Green, and Hill, 4 of whom are very young, and Seymour still has many years left. How exactly is DL a "need"? Throw in Anthony Wright and Dan Klecko, and DL should be solid for years to come. A DL to OLB convert would be a nice choice, but not someone to play DL.

TE? Daniel Graham and Ben Watson are going to be here for many years, and get better every year. Fauria seems likely to re-sign. How exactly is TE a need?

C? Dan Koppen is solid, and some of the OGs are decent backups. Maybe if there's a steal on day 2, but I think a general OG who can play C when needed would be a better option on day 2.

CB? Possibly. Samuel, Gay, and Hobbs are all young, and getting better every year. Could use more depth, but it depends on Starks and Poole. A possible need.

IMO, the team has no "needs" as far as finding a starter for next year. THe biggest needs though likely are developing LBs to eventually replace the current starters (Colvin and McGinest at OLB, Vrabel and Bruschi at ILB) since they're all getting older. That's likely the biggest need, and I'd like to see two of the day 1 picks spent there. Other potential need could be a young RB since Faulk and Dillon are both getting up there, but not a critical need for next year (if there's a good bargain, take him, otherwise, it can wait). WR is a possibility, depending on who returns.

Other than getting some good young LBs, for the most part I think it will be just looking for good players at almost any position (except P and K), since the team is pretty solid. After LB though, WR and RB seem like the biggest possibile needs, and possibly OL.

I agree. I'd say that they could trade the pick for a first rounder next year and hopefully a 2nd rounder this year, except that this year looks stacked with good LBs, so it would be nice to get one of them (unless a guy like Lendell White drops).

p8ryts

As I mentioned, Vince Wilfork needs to be able to get off the field on some series. Mike Wright, not Anthony, didn't take regular turns. Dan Klecko, as much as I like him, cannot do the job and in fact was inactive most of the year. McGinest, Vrabel, Colvin, take a lot of snaps effectively as DE's on passing downs. Nobody else plugs the middle except Wilfork. Whatever you think of him its one of the teams most important positions and it needs quality backup.

Box_O_Rocks

You seem to be thinking 2006, I'm thinking 2007.

The plurality of pundits on this board consider Klecko a waste of space - while I disagree, he isn't going to compete at Seymour or Warren's level anytime soon. Hill looked like he might be a decent run stuffer in the Ty Warren category when I watched him on tape this year, but he isn't even the pass rusher that Warren is, let alone Seymour. Further, Hill is locked in at LDE, Klecko is much more versatile on the D-line.

In 2007 we have Warren, Wilfork, Green, Hill, and Wright (ERFA) already penciled in, that acknowledges the possibility Seymour will accept a higher offer elsewhere. Acquiring a DT in the 1st or 2nd round seems like good insurance.

Unrestricted Free Agency; a player, such as Graham, who has been in the league at least four years is eligible to sign with any other team who makes him an offer. Since there are a number of clubs who consistently bid higher for a player's services then the Patriots, counting on a player remaining with the club is a bad risk from a management stand point.

Fauria is looking at his 12th season, re-signing him for vet minimum to play third string sounds good to us, but he gets to make his own mind up. Drafting a TE out of a draft class considered extremely strong for TEs answers a need before it becomes critical.

Koppen and Hochstein are both Free Agents in 2007, who do you see making the 2006 roster who can be a C in 2007? I expect Dante is cross-training several players, but until I see who he has on the roster, I can't guess who might fill that role. Drafting a C on the first day isn't high on my list, but looking for a C/G combination who can develop on the Practice Squad is part of my consideration.

Samuel, Starks, and Poole are not signed beyond 2006. That leaves Gay, Hobbs, and mystery-man. CB is always a need for this defensive scheme, looking for the next Ty Law is an ongoing effort. Looking for young players who fit the scheme and can develop quickly (like Gay and Hobbs) is a must each draft, and critical when your two year outlook is an empty secondary.

Technically, the starting LB slots for 2006 are filled and the reserve LBs are decent. Age is a factor, but developing college LBs and DEs into NEP 3-4 LBs is time consuming so looking for good young prospects is always a need - there was more hair pulling last year when BB ignored draftnik favorites like Crowder and Thurman to take Mankins.

If things work out in Feb 2007, NE won't be picking 21st. So that draft position will hopefully be a rare opportunity to select another Wilfork-quality player who drops to us. Stating that LB is the primary need doesn't mean the LBs available at 21 are those best selected then. As a GM-wannabe, I'm more inclined to look at DTs or a Willie McGinest-like DE and shop for LBs in free agency.

Unlike many, I don't see our current RBs as being a problem. We have a RB allocated to NFLE, and assuming Evans is resigned that gives us 5 to work with. Drafting one of the studs everybody is drooling over only makes sense if you see the next Curtis Martin out there - I can't say I do.

WR is a shortfall on the 2006 roster, there are Branch and Johnson, ERFA's Sam and Childress, plus Musinski sent to NFLE. Signing a vet minimum FA gets the team that much further ahead then placing the burden on a rookie WR. We can expect Dwight and Davis to be interested in coming back. I'd re-sign Troy Brown in a heartbeat for vet minimum, he still makes things happen and is getting better at CB with more experience. Look at Childress and Anderson who came to camp as UDFAs, finding more like that shouldn't be too hard.

We differ on our needs assessment by looking at this for different years.

I don't know what trade your agreeing to, I suggested the projected 2006 roster may give BB the luxury of using his first round selection on a college DE to understudy Willie, Rosie, and Vrabes given the kind of athletic and football talent they display is more often found in the first round. That doesn't mean that is what I would do, but it is a consideration I'm pondering.

__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Box_O_Rocks

I liked what I saw of Mike Wright when he filled in at NT, he is still learning BB's two-gap scheme, so I expect him to be even better after more strength training in the off-season program. I agree, looking for a heavier DT to use there makes sense, but if one isn't available, Wright should tide the team over.

It ocurred to me that Klecko does well as a temporary sub at NT because he always beats the C off the ball. This allows him to get leverage on the C. Where he might have struggled at ILB could have been the Gs having time to get their own hands up and not just the difficulty in reading the plays from a new position.....

__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PatsChick87

Wow! 2 awsome posts Box!

__________________
Enjoying this Championship era!!

gomezcat

OK, time for a dumb question. When it says that people are signed through 2006, does that mean that they are FAs this coming offseason or the one after?

Longer term needs would be RB, LB, possibly SS, possibly WR (depending on free agency), and another mean b*stard for the O line. The injury list was so bad this year that I tended to forget that we are actually pretty well-stocked at most positions. I'm not sold on the O line as a run blocking unit, but I suspect that they will have a hard offseason ahead of them and they are so young that they have real potential to improve. Mankins has that mean streak in him and Kaczur seems to be getting better in protection. I remember the first play when he faced Joey Porter and someone else, overloading his side. The poor b*st**d was so confused that he didn't really block either of them!
I can't give you specific names but the draft will be stocked by student athletes, known for their work ethic and responsibility. It's been a feature of the recent drafts after all. I'm glad that BB and Scott think about the longer term when drafting. Far too many teams take an athlete based on short term desperation and end up setting the person up to fail.
I don't think they know what position they will draft in what order as they will wait to see what is available. If LB and RB are as deep as is rumoured, then one would expect that they would draft these two positions.

BTW, it's good to have you back on the board, Mike.

__________________
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.