mgteich

So, in order to not be laughed at, the patriots should play it safe?

mgteich

The issue is an OLB and DE/passrusher not at ILB.
=====================================
Belichick was OK going into the season with Mayo and Guyton as our starters. There are folks that still think ILB is great need. However, I can understand where belihcik was coming form on this. He had Bruschi or a low level free agent as a backup. He also had Alexander. He figured we had a developmental need at ILB which he addressed with McKenzie at the end of the third. I would addressed this need at 34, but I well understand the logic of Belichick's treatment of the ILB position. We had two starters that Belichick was comfortable with. He even brought in free agents as competition for ILB roster spots.
===============================================
OLB and DE is another issue entirely. Belichick counted on Banta-Cain, Thomas, Woods, Crable, and a free agent or two as our OLB's. Belichick used the free agent and trade market to get us Burgess and Ninkovich. He then traded Seymour.

It is almost as if Belichick created a need, created the weakness in our defense.

We seem to think "how could Belichick have misjudged by so much"?

How could Belichick have decided that a backup safety was a higher priority than a linebacker?

The answer is simple: we will never know what Belichick was thinking. In fairness, we should understand and admit that Banta-Cain did great and Woods did OK. They did all that could have been expected of them. The DL did reasonably well without Seymour. The defense did indeed progress all year and really didn't allow alot of points. We are indeed a top 10 defense. My gut feel is that Belichick is victim of his own ego. He thought that he could get an OLB like Taylor to join the pats. Burgess was a poor substitute, but there is no particular reason to believe that someone else qwould ahve worked out better.
======================

sg14

I think it is more along the line of assignment of value by the Pats, they seem to have distinct rankings and will not bend those rules. Last year I think is a good example, in that they thought there was value to be had in the second round.

They also probably try to plan down the road more than other teams, in that they believe after x years of coaching they can create player "1st rounder" out of a "2nd rounder". BB is most likely the most secure coach in the NFL and can think longer term.

New coach has a bad team, needs more fans, lets make a splash, get that QB in the first rd, (altho the Jets sure seem to be going in the right direction)

BB has done pretty good so far,,,,

We don't know really, last year they could have tried to move up and how would we know,,,

mgteich

The 2009 decisions by the jets to meet their needs on offense by going after snachez and green are NOT a new strategy to make a splash for a new coach. As I pointed out, they did soemthing very similar two years ago when the need was for defense. Revis and Harris were highly valued by the patriots and by the jets. The jets made the moves.
================================================== ========
BTW, in my orginal post I was not pushing either strategy. I was just pointing out there were two very different strategies and that the jets seemed to have done OK with theirs over the past three years, even with the 2008 failure with Gholston.

Metaphors

I don't think that either way is necessarily better. The only issue I have with the Jets is that their team-building seems disjointed. Their QB will be maturing as their aging lines need to be rebuilt. Young QB but questions all over their skill positions (Pay T.Jones his 2010 roster bonus? Is Greene ready for more? Bring L.Washington back after injury? Re-sign Edwards?). Revis is a stud but the rest of the secondary is less than spectacular...making it easy to avoid Revis and still be able to pass successfully. Their big money contracts will be up around the time that Revis and the youngsters will need new mega-contracts.

So while the Jets have some key parts in place (Revis, Harris, Mangold, Keller), there are still a lot of holes. A lot of their problems become moot if Sanchez develops into a Pro Bowl caliber QB quickly. Otherwise, their draft philosophy really isn't going to make much of a difference.

Box_O_Rocks

Mangold and Ferguson both have one year remaining on their contracts, I don't know what the RFA rules will be in 2011 (assuming there's even a season) but NY has their work cut out for them to keep that O-line maintained. Assuming they don't go on another Free Agent spending spree.

__________________
"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.

Wretch

The Jets strategy has netted them some good player, like Revis and Harris, but also a colossal bust, to this point, in Gholston.

To me the issue isn't the number of marquis players you can draft on day one, but the amount of depth you can build throughout the 53 man roster. This is obviously an opinion but I think the Pats use the draft to build complete roster depth not just depth at specific positions. If you look at the Jets in recent years they have faded late in the season, and I think part of this can be attributed to a lack of depth because they haven't had the picks to annually replenish their roster and have had to use FA with known ceilings versus late round draftees that may be late round gems. I don't know the Jets roster as well as I do the Pats but how many contributors like Edleman are on the Jets roster?

The Pats engage in a balancing act weighing the number of picks against the quality of those picks and so far BB and the Pats have done very well using their pick to build a very deep team and as currency for players or to move around in the draft in order to target specific players.

mayoclinic

I don't think there's any one "correct" strategy. Different strategies work well at different times, depending on team needs (depth vs. specific areas of need), but mostly depend on how the players end up - either strategy works well when the players selected do well, and works poorly when the players do poorly.

It's hard to argue against the Jets giving up a late 2nd round pick and change to move up from 25 to 14 for Darrelle Revis, since Revis has become one of the best shut down CBs in the league. (Of course, that trade worked out well for Carolina too, as they got a pro bowl MLB in Jon Beason at 25). Moving up didn't work out so well for Jacksonville when they targetted Derrick Harvey in 2008. Baltimore gave up absurdly little (a 6th round pick) to move up 1 slot and get Haloti Ngata in 2006; they gave up a 10 to move up and get Kyle Boller in 2003. But if Boller had turned out to be a franchise QB, no one would have questioned what the Ravens gave up to get him. If Harvey had turned out to be a pro bowl DE and Joe Flacco were a bust, everyone would question the Ravens' decision to move back in 2008.

It's always hard to differentiate how a player is viewed prospectively vs. retrospectively. Sebastian Vollmer was a "reach" when the Pats took him last April. Now he's a "steal". Same thing with Logan Mankins in 2005. Vernon Gholston really wasn't considered a "reach" when the Jets took him in 2007. Now he's a "bust".

In general, I think that if you believe a player is a legitimate blue chip prospect and you have the chance to get him at a reasonable price, you do it. The higher the cost (trade up and salary), the more certain you have to be. A lot of people wanted BB to trade up for Chris Long or Vernon Gholston in 2007, but BB "played it safe", traded back, and got a better player at a greater area of need for less money in Jerod Mayo.

I think that if BB had considered anyone on the board at 23 to be a "blue chip" prospect, he wouldn't have traded down. Percy Harvin might have been such a guy, but he went #22 to Minny. Obviously, BB didn't think that Michael Oher or Clay Matthews were blue chip prospects for the Pats, no matter how well they've done for the Ravens and Packers. So trading back and accumulating red chip prospects at lower cost while stockpiling picks wasn't a bad alternative.

I see the same thing happening this year. If a blue chip prospect is available (possibly even with a small trade up), then I could see BB going after that guy. Guys who I could see fitting this category include ILB Rolando McClain (with a trade up), CB Joe Haden (with a trade up), DE/OLB Carlos Dunlap, DT Terrance Cody, RB CJ Spiller, and OT Brian Bulago. Other people on this board might include others in the blue chip category (for example, TE Jermaine Gresham, OG Mike Iupati, or DE/OLB Greg Hardy, Jason Pierre-Paul or Brandon Graham). Regardless, BB will have his draft board. If no one was sufficient "value" is on his board when the Pats pick, then I suspect he will emulate 2009 and "play it safe" by trading back to accumulate red chip prospects and future picks.

__________________

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

Jimke

Would you be shocked if Belichick did not draft an outside linebacker
this year until the 4th or later rounds? I wouldn't. Linebacker seems
to be his blind spot.

FreeTedWilliams

I don't think that McClain will make it past Denver. ALthough it would be interesting if Jacksonville wins the coin flip (for the 2nd rd pick, we actually want them to lose that coin flip) and they move into the #10 slot. Would BB trade Jax back a 2nd rd pick (I say the Pats pick and not Jax original pick) along with the Pats 1st rounder to jump up and grab McCalin? Probably a trade that I would make.

But I don't think you can enter the draft with a set strategy, because sometimes players you think are going to be there, are gone, and then someone calls and offers you X for Y, etc.

The Pats already have an extra #1 next year, so I don't see them trading out of the first round this year into next year and have three #1s (unless they are sold that there will be a rookie salary cap), and how many 2nd round picks do you want? So I go with the trade up idea, once again the Pats are a "now" team, they have a franchise QB, they have a soild O-line, they (depending on who re-signs) have a solid D-line, they need another ILB and 2 OLB, o use the picks on them.

Remember that the Pats lost way more free agents than they signed last year, and although none of them are garner high comp picks, all of them will count, so in addtion to the picks they already have (There own 1,2,4,6,7, plus 2 2nd round picks, and a 7th from Philly) they will get 4 "comp" picks, most likely 1 at the end of the 6th rd, and 3 at the end of the 7th round. These picks can not be traded, so expect the Pats to have the ammo to take some "flyers" with these picks.

__________________
The Jets look like a Super Bowl contender right now about as much as Rosie O’Donnell looks like a threat for the Miss America crown. -NY Post 12/19/2011


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