A fresh pass at needs analysis

[billdog3484]

I think Neal will stay. He is very good at his position, and at 33, I dont believe the market for him is going to be that great. I think he signs a 2-3 year extension at a fair price and is our OG while we look for a replacement

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

why has acquiring a long snapper been so high on people's lists?

January 2002, February 2002, February 2004, February 2005.

 

[patchick]

why has acquiring a long snapper been so high on people's lists? there is no question that having a good long snapper is great, but to consider that over some other needs is strange. you need an adequate long snapper, i know this, but there are so many out there that are better than adequate. i cant imagine paxton going anywhere anyways, but even if he does, that role can be filled in a minute at a cheap price. having a great long snapper is a luxury, NOT a necessity

The importance of the position hasn't changed. It's simply that the position is flat empty -- the starter and backup are both UFAs. That makes it a gaping need, one which the team 100% must fill for 2009. IOW, ranking it high doesn't say anything about needing a "great" long snapper, just a long snapper!

On a similar note, when people say "If Mike Wright is healthy, is backup NT really a big need?" or "Isn't Heath Evans already our fullback?" they're looking at the 2008 roster, not 2009. You have to erase UFAs from your mental roster until/unless they resign.

 

[WhiZa]

Interesting way of doing it with the point system, thats a good way of doing it. I think your results look good to me, though I would point out (as BOR pointed out to me) that Meriweather has been playing the SS role a lot. Which would mean FS would be the need, but I imagine they'd be OK taking another guy like Meriweather who is good in coverage and in run support and can play either FS or SS.

I agree. Meriweather took over for Harrison and played SS, and will probably do so in the future. That would make FS a need, but I think it makes most sense to resign Sanders. If they don't I can definitely see them taking a safety in round one.

 

[patchick]

I agree. Meriweather took over for Harrison and played SS, and will probably do so in the future.

I guess I'm still in denial about this. I know he has been playing SS, but I still picture the 5'-11" 198 guy at FS long term.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I guess I'm still in denial about this. I know he has been playing SS, but I still picture the 5'-11" 198 guy at FS long term.

It's been more of what I'd call a "rover" role that just happens to be used in place of SS. He's closer to the line, and lines up to blitz as needed, but he seems to be playing where he can read keys and routes and react to them. Perhaps it was a function of a transitioning secondary, but Brandon seems to have the 'playmaker' DNA and is being given more latitude to 'float' back there.

I'd love to see NE grab Hodges of TCU in the 7th, that will give you that big SS, but one who can be another playmaker in the box so Meriweather can takeover for Sanders in deep center.

 

[DaBruinz]

The importance of the position hasn't changed. It's simply that the position is flat empty -- the starter and backup are both UFAs. That makes it a gaping need, one which the team 100% must fill for 2009. IOW, ranking it high doesn't say anything about needing a "great" long snapper, just a long snapper!

On a similar note, when people say "If Mike Wright is healthy, is backup NT really a big need?" or "Isn't Heath Evans already our fullback?" they're looking at the 2008 roster, not 2009. You have to erase UFAs from your mental roster until/unless they resign.

I have a thread over on the main board about the Pats Free Agents...

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...203077-pats-offseason-review-free-agents.html

A lot of people on this board just ASSUME that guys like Wright, Hochstein and Paxton will be back. I don't assume either way. I just look at the possibilities and then get called pessimistic .

Anyways, Its unfortunate that we still have 8 long, grueling weeks before free agency.

 

[cstjohn17]

Following DaBruinz' lead, I've attempted to tackle the question of "what holes do the Patriots most need to fill?" What's the state of the roster?

* Some of those positions had a second similar position that also scored in double digits: OT, TE, NT, and S. So those four position areas look to me like the primary, concentrated need areas.

* OG and DE are notable for having multiple gaps to plan for in 2010.

* CB & RB are notable for having multiple filled but "upgradable" slots for 2009.

Or not.

An interesting approach, I would like to see the full score for each position. On the surface I disagree with the rankings and am not sure what 'PositionQualityValuePoints' means? Is it a multiplier? Like QB is important so you times the score by 7?

I agree about SS being the most bare position but why is a backup NT so important? Couldn't Seymour, Warren or Smith play NT in a pinch? and who is the second ILB? Guyton?

I think the ratings should reflect emptiness as well as quality. At RB, OLB, ILB, CB the Pats have 1-2 good players and then a whole ton of JAGs these positions may be full from a body count but are hardly where we would want them to be.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I agree about SS being the most bare position but why is a backup NT so important? Couldn't Seymour, Warren or Smith play NT in a pinch?

In a pinch. On a consistent basis, no; you lose their play at DE where they've excelled. Mike Wright wasn't a Wilfork-style NT, but he is able to play NT well using a different technique that still clogs up the middle - the advantage of having a Mike Wright is Seymour continues to dominate at DE and Warren continues to stuff runs on his side. Instead of lowering performance at 2 positions, you only lower it at one (while still backing up all three). Smith hasn't panned out at NT, but has developed nicely as a reserve DE and on STs.

 

[WhiZa]

I have a thread over on the main board about the Pats Free Agents...

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...203077-pats-offseason-review-free-agents.html

A lot of people on this board just ASSUME that guys like Wright, Hochstein and Paxton will be back. I don't assume either way. I just look at the possibilities and then get called pessimistic .

Anyways, Its unfortunate that we still have 8 long, grueling weeks before free agency.

Amazing Laurinaitis would/could of went in the top 15 picks last year, and now he may not even make it in the first round. Goes to show how many star players are in the draft this year compared to last year when it was more about quantity at each position over quality.

 

[cstjohn17]

In a pinch. On a consistent basis, no; you lose their play at DE where they've excelled. Mike Wright wasn't a Wilfork-style NT, but he is able to play NT well using a different technique that still clogs up the middle - the advantage of having a Mike Wright is Seymour continues to dominate at DE and Warren continues to stuff runs on his side. Instead of lowering performance at 2 positions, you only lower it at one (while still backing up all three). Smith hasn't panned out at NT, but has developed nicely as a reserve DE and on STs.

Was Wright really that good as a backup NT? I thought the only time he showed any potential at all is when he was lined up as a end and allowed to rush the passer. Smith played well at end which would allow Warren to slide to NT. Losing a probowl player from any of the units hurts the overall depth, if Wilfork went down of course the entire D line would take a hit.

I agree it is an important position but don't think it is the #2 need for the team.

Wright is a good player because he can play end, play of special teams and play NT in a pinch. Buts lets not classify him as Casey Hampton, he was ok at NT, average at best. Most of the time when Wilfork went out it was a passing situation or they went to 4 man line.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Was Wright really that good as a backup NT? I thought the only time he showed any potential at all is when he was lined up as a end and allowed to rush the passer. Smith played well at end which would allow Warren to slide to NT. Losing a probowl player from any of the units hurts the overall depth, if Wilfork went down of course the entire D line would take a hit.

I agree it is an important position but don't think it is the #2 need for the team.

Wright is a good player because he can play end, play of special teams and play NT in a pinch. Buts lets not classify him as Casey Hampton, he was ok at NT, average at best. Most of the time when Wilfork went out it was a passing situation or they went to 4 man line.

Who said Casey Hampton? Let's limit the hyperbole to the posse chasing Dabruinz please.

Wright plays NT well, better than he does DE, he's not an All-Pro, but he can and does clog up the middle and on passing downs can collapse the pocket. Warren or Seymour may be able to play NT at a little higher level, but not enough to warrant lowering the play at two positions. NT is the key to a strong 3-4. It's unrealistic to expect to have another All-Pro at a reserve slot, but having someone who can play effectively when Vince needs a rest or is injured is critical. I assess Wright's ability as much by my own evaluation as BB's reliance on Wright to backstop Vince. Finding another player who has the strength and can learn and execute the technique needed to control the blockers inside rates quite high for me and is why I've advocated re-signing Wright to a Jarvis Green-style contract - I just fear that Wright will be able to get a better offer from a 4-3 team.

 

[cstjohn17]

Following DaBruinz' lead, I've attempted to tackle the question of "what holes do the Patriots most need to fill?" What's the state of the roster?

To clarify: this is NOT the same as assessing draft and FA "priorities", which are shaped strongly by market forces. (E.g. the Pats have a gaping hole at fullback, but fullback won't be a high "priority" because the position is severely devalued in the marketplace.)

My goal was to come up with a transparent way of weighting position importance, current need and projected need. I whipped up a 20-point scale, comprised of 3 scores. It may look arcane but it's actually pretty simple and quick to tally:

2009GapPoints (0-9)
How far is the current Patriots roster from filling this position at a high level? E.g. Kicker scores a 0 because a Pro-Bowler is under contract; FB scores a 9 because the position is empty.

2010GapPoints (0-4)
Same as above but looking ahead to 2010.

PositionQualityValuePoints (0-7)
How much does the quality of the player at this position affect the team's chances of winning? (Note that you must assign the full 0-7 range; a 0 doesn't mean the position is worthless, just that it doesn't earn any position value points.)

I took a stab at scoring 38 individual positions, including starters, specialists, and primary subs. Here's the needs ranking I ended up with:

1. Strong Safety
2. Backup Nose Tackle
3. Punter
4. Fullback
5. Tight End A
6. Long Snapper
7. Swing Tackle
8. Rush OLB
9. 3rd ILB

Notes:

* Some of those positions had a second similar position that also scored in double digits: OT, TE, NT, and S. So those four position areas look to me like the primary, concentrated need areas.

* OG and DE are notable for having multiple gaps to plan for in 2010.

* CB & RB are notable for having multiple filled but "upgradable" slots for 2009.

Or not.

An interesting approach, I would like to see the full score for each position. On the surface I disagree with the rankings and am not sure what 'PositionQualityValuePoints' means? Is it a multiplier? Like QB is important so you times the score by 7?

I agree about SS being the most bare position but why is a backup NT so important? Couldn't Seymour, Warren or Smith play NT in a pinch? and who is the second ILB? Guyton?

I think the ratings should reflect emptiness as well as quality. At RB, OLB, ILB, CB the Pats have 1-2 good players and then a whole ton of JAGs these positions may be full from a body count but are hardly where we would want them to be.

I didn't want to just throw stones... I put this spreadsheet together quickly, it is designed to highlight gaps in the roster. It doesn't account for future years but maybe next time I am bored I will add the 2010 analysis.

Using the color by numbers I see SS, FB, Punter, CB, ILB, and O Line as areas to address.

 

[jczxohn1]

In general, I like your emphasis.

1. Strong safety being #1 need, IMO, is because Rodney isn't expected back, more than because we don't have one. We're probably not going to find another Rodney. We can have leadership, however, another yr under Merriweather's belt will help. Tank Williams could be brought back for another shot at that 8th-man-in-the-box role. Sanders and Sanders are better contributors than what we have at CB. Which brings me to what I would throw down for #1 need. CORNERBACK! "Multiple filled but upgradable slots" is gilding the lily a bit, IMO, and comparing the CB's to our stable of RB's is an insult. Maybe Wheatley and Wlhite could show some promise, but along with Hobbs, we appear to have 3 nickle backs. Any objective appaisal, IMO, would conclude we have no genuine #1 or#2.

2. Agree. And we'd better find a good one. Vince will set the market.

3. meh- I like Hanson. Just keep him away from the woodchipper.

4. If we need a FB, we got Hochstein.

5. FA. TE is BB's blind spot in the draft.

6. Sign Paxton. If it ain't broke.....

7.Tell me a team that couldn't use a good tackle.

8 & 9. As the Mexican said in "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" "We don' need no stinkin' linebackers...""
we need to get the one's we got healthy, coached up, and on the field. Of course, if Laurinitas or Mualaga fall to us, never mind the above.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Of course, if Laurinitas or Mualaga fall to us, never mind the above.

Ugh, I don't see either as a fit for NE...check out patsox23's Maualuga thread.

 

[patchick]

3. meh- I like Hanson. Just keep him away from the woodchipper.

4. If we need a FB, we got Hochstein.

...

6. Sign Paxton. If it ain't broke.....

I don't disagree with any of this (well, except Hochstein at FB!) but you're looking at the 2008 roster, not the 2009. Those players aren't under contract, so the positions are clear needs until/unless they resign.

 

[cstjohn17]

I don't disagree with any of this (well, except Hochstein at FB!) but you're looking at the 2008 roster, not the 2009. Those players aren't under contract, so the positions are clear needs until/unless they resign.

Now I start to see the value of your 'PositionQualityValuePoints' axis. Using pure numbers FB, Punter are holes on the roster but in reality these are very cheap positions to fill either via free agency or the draft.

The entire secondary has serious issues at the front end and at depth positions. Digging a little deeper I expect we will see a backup added to both lines and then the rest of the offseason spent upgrading the secondary.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Now I start to see the value of your 'PositionQualityValuePoints' axis. Using pure numbers FB, Punter are holes on the roster but in reality these are very cheap positions to fill either via free agency or the draft.

The entire secondary has serious issues at the front end and at depth positions. Digging a little deeper I expect we will see a backup added to both lines and then the rest of the offseason spent upgrading the secondary.

The 2006 draft class says :attention: Boy were we fooled by that scoundrel head coach that year!

 

[cstjohn17]

The 2006 draft class says :attention: Boy were we fooled by that scoundrel head coach that year!

Not to mention that phony GM!

 

[mgteich]

I like your spreadsheet a lot. I have already completed three revisions. As you indicate, the primary issue is that 2010 needs are not addressed. See below for comments. BTW, how do you attach a file to a post?

I think it a bit more useful for me to consider the roster in terms of 53 roster positions. BTW, I include 2 ST positions. I have Spann as #1 and Redd as #2. Initially, I consider any roster spot with a player with a rating of 4 or below as a need, although we may already have a developmental prospect on the roster. I give open spots a rating of 3.00, "Unproven".

15 needs seems like a tall order, but it really isn't. Re-signings (or easy to find free agents) will meet many of the needs before we end the first couple of weeks of free agency. BTW, many of the 38 rated 5.00 or higher are hardly locks. For example, Spann, LeVoir, Yates, L Smith, O'Callaghan are certainly subject to being upgraded. This gives us a total 20 needs and potential upgrades, therefore 33 relatively safe players. Of course, almost any player not named Brady, Wilfork, Moss, Welker, Warren or Seymour could be upgrade if the proper situaion was there.

49 Current Roster Positions
(3) Players Outside Looking In (Craig, Robertson, Wendell)
2 Presume signing of RFA Woods and ERFA Ventrone (as you did)
5 Projected roster spots with no incumbant (FB, LS, SS, CB, WR)
---
53

2009 NEEDS (15)

DEPTH 1 NEEDS (4)
FB Open
LS Open
SS Ventrone
P Malone

DEPTH 2 NEEDS (9)
QB Gutierrez
WR Slater
WR Open
SS Open
C/OG Connolly
NT Adams
CB Richardson
LB Ruud
ST Redd

DEPTH 3/4 NEEDS (2)
QB O'Connell (developmental, adequate #3 QB, no "need")
TE DeVree
CB open
RB Green-Ellis (developmental, adequate #4 RB, no "need")

I didn't want to just throw stones... I put this spreadsheet together quickly, it is designed to highlight gaps in the roster. It doesn't account for future years but maybe next time I am bored I will add the 2010 analysis.

Using the color by numbers I see SS, FB, Punter, CB, ILB, and O Line as areas to address.