Reevaluating the New England Patriots for 2009

[Sicilian]

I agree with you, that it probably WILL come together. We all have faith in BB but it wouldn't be the first time that one of his plans hasen't worked. Like the WRs in 06 or the DBs in 08, the secondary might not come together in 09. Like I said, I trying to play devil's advocate here and point out there are still some serious concerns.

Where I have faith is when looking at the overhaul we made to the WRs from 06 to 07. BB recognized a deficiency, and he went out and overloaded the position by adding Moss, Welker, Stallworth, and Washington (though he ended up playing all ST).

In 08, the secondary was VERY limited. So BB adds Springs, Bodden, Butler, Chung, Mcgowan. Sure, we lost Hobbs and O'Neal, but I feel like the overhaul was done to change the guard (that and O'Neal is no loss).

Not every move BB makes works out, but I have faith in his ability to correct a deficiency when he dedicates multiple resources to that fix.

 

[mgteich]

The patriots did NOT need to lose Hobbs. We could have had him for one more year. I don't think that he would have been too expensive.

I find it extremely encouraging that Belichick had such faith in the five corners that he has that he was willing to dump Hobbs for almost nothing. The compensation was about equal to the 2011 third we would have gotten had we waited (perhaps a touch less). Belichick found more value in a raw non-combine guard than in our last year's #1 corner. That is extremely encouraging!

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The patriots did NOT need to lose Hobbs. We could have had him for one more year. I don't think that he would have been too expensive.

I find it extremely encouraging that Belichick had such faith in the five corners that he has that he was willing to dump Hobbs for almost nothing. The compensation was about equal to the 2011 third we would have gotten had we waited (perhaps a touch less). Belichick found more value in a raw non-combine guard than in our last year's #1 corner. That is extremely encouraging!

He turned the two 2009 5ths into a 2009 mid 4th (and a 6th) which is worth more than Hobbs would have netted (end of the 3rd discounted for a draft 2 years removed) IF he signed a $9M+ Asante deal in 2010 and then played up to it. However, if Hobbs turns out to be that player...or one or god forbid both of Springs or Bodden turns out to be the next Dwayne Starks or Deltha O'Neill...and Wheatley and Butler turn out to be the next Ellis Hobbs or Asante Samuel, we will be eviscerating one and losing the other right after he finally peaks in 2012.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Starters: Richardson & Wilhite
Nickelback: Love

At least one of us needs to be a pie-eyed realist.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Well, you may need to tweak this a bit. Tate probably will be on IR for the whole season and, as reported today, McKenzie is out for the year.

 

[supafly]

The patriots did NOT need to lose Hobbs. We could have had him for one more year. I don't think that he would have been too expensive.

I find it extremely encouraging that Belichick had such faith in the five corners that he has that he was willing to dump Hobbs for almost nothing. The compensation was about equal to the 2011 third we would have gotten had we waited (perhaps a touch less). Belichick found more value in a raw non-combine guard than in our last year's #1 corner. That is extremely encouraging!

I thought Hobbs was here for basically 2 more yrs, based on his RFA status in an uncapped 2010? (pointed out by you)

So, basically, I'm still a little confused as to why we let him go for 2 5th's, when we couldn't played him this season and probably next--barring someone parting w/ a 1st and a 3rd. Having him for 2 more yrs with a rookie contract, as the only experienced CB in our system makes more sense to me.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Well, you may need to tweak this a bit. Tate probably will be on IR for the whole season and, as reported today, McKenzie is out for the year.

I am already aware that Tate is injured but it is unknown how long he will be out. Ouch, Mckenzie is out for the year? Talk about a bummer.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Although it look great on paper, the jury is still out on whether Springs has anything left in the tank and whether Bodden can even play in this system. I hope the Pats use their strength's by jamming opposing receivers rather than giving the dreaded 10 yard cushion.

 

[supafly]

Although it look great on paper, the jury is still out on whether Springs has anything left in the tank and whether Bodden can even play in this system. I hope the Pats use their strength's by jamming opposing receivers rather than giving the dreaded 10 yard cushion.

I agree. I went from being really happy on day 1, when we had 6 quality CB's--to somewhat apprehensive now that there isn't any experience in our system. I know we should always trust BB, but I'll admit I wasn't too happy to hear about the release of Hobbs, especially for basically nothing. It seems to be assumed that we only had 1 yr left with him, but with the probability of the uncapped yr coming up, we would've had him for 2 more yrs. More importantly, it would've been under a rookie contract. At the very worst, he could've played nickel, and been there to start in case of injury.

This one has been hard for me to understand. I just feel that we went from dramatically improving the position, to 'hoping' to improve the position--in less than 24 hrs. (day one to day two) Even if BB wasn't happy enough with Hobbs performance, he was still worth it for the price, not only for experience in the D backfield, but special teams as well.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I agree. I went from being really happy on day 1, when we had 6 quality CB's--to somewhat apprehensive now that there isn't any experience in our system. I know we should always trust BB, but I'll admit I wasn't too happy to hear about the release of Hobbs, especially for basically nothing. It seems to be assumed that we only had 1 yr left with him, but with the probability of the uncapped yr coming up, we would've had him for 2 more yrs. More importantly, it would've been under a rookie contract. At the very worst, he could've played nickel, and been there to start in case of injury.

This one has been hard for me to understand. I just feel that we went from dramatically improving the position, to 'hoping' to improve the position--in less than 24 hrs. (day one to day two) Even if BB wasn't happy enough with Hobbs performance, he was still worth it for the price, not only for experience in the D backfield, but special teams as well.

Hobbs has become vastly overrated if you are basing your apprehension on his departure. The secondary was a mess last year, BB went out and got guys to fix it.

Wheatley and Wilhite both have experience in the Pats system. And Springs and Bodden are seasoned CBs who have proven they can play at the NFL level. Butler is a promising young rookie corner. Chung at safety looks like he could develop into a better player than Sanders.

The secondary will be markedly improved in 2009. I really don't get what all the fretting is about Hobbs. He was nothing special when he was in a Patriots uniform anyways.

 

[supafly]

Hobbs has become vastly overrated if you are basing your apprehension on his departure. The secondary was a mess last year, BB went out and got guys to fix it.

Wheatley and Wilhite both have experience in the Pats system. And Springs and Bodden are seasoned CBs who have proven they can play at the NFL level. Butler is a promising young rookie corner. Chung at safety looks like he could develop into a better player than Sanders.

The secondary will be markedly improved in 2009. I really don't get what all the fretting is about Hobbs. He was nothing special when he was in a Patriots uniform anyways.

I can see and understand your point VJC, but I still think he was dependable and experienced.

This discussion could go both ways, as some here valued Hobbs more than others. He was one of those players like Maroney, Watson, etc that some feel one way, others feel another way. That's fine, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But to say that we're 'better' without his services could be a stretch. It may have made more sense to keep him one more yr, at least making sure the younger guys develop.

Yes, maybe he wasn't spectacular in a Pats uni, but he was certainly serviceable as a #2 or #3 (nickel). He also gave his all, and was a beast on special teams. He could at least have been used as a nickel, and quality depth for when the inevitable injury happens. Once an injury or 2 occurs back there, we could very well be going through a learning curve/experimental year--which IMO, was unneeded right now. I still feel we went from having adequate depth at the position to possibly being thin, when an injury or 2 happens.

I still worry about Bodden, and think some may be jumping the gun as far as him working out here. I agree he has potential, but it's still a question in alot of eyes. Springs may or may not have something left in the tank, or he could get injured. That would leave the rookie Butler, and the W/W brothers, who have still yet to prove anything. We could go from being quite improved on day one after drafting Butler, to seriously screwed in a heartbeat.

I am not saying I am right, or you are wrong--not by any stretch. I am just giving another angle of the situation, (could be realistic, could be pessimistic) but I still question the trade of Hobbs for a 2 5ths. He would've been worth at least a 4th in a comp. pick--and we could've used his services and rookie contract for another 2 yrs, or at the very least, until the young guys are proven. Just knowing that BB didn't even want to do it at first, makes me feel somewhat apprehensive. The argument is at least questionable, no matter what side anyone takes, but I respect your opinion--and everyone else's for that matter.

 

[KDPPatsfan85]

New England has a football team? Since 2000 I've had it confused with a Juggernaut! I may never recover from the lost Perfect Season.....

you arent the only one!!

 

[VJCPatriot]

I am just giving another angle of the situation, (could be realistic, could be pessimistic) but I still question the trade of Hobbs for a 2 5ths. He would've been worth at least a 4th in a comp. pick--and we could've used his services and rookie contract for another 2 yrs, or at the very least, until the young guys are proven. Just knowing that BB didn't even want to do it at first, makes me feel somewhat apprehensive. The argument is at least questionable, no matter what side anyone takes, but I respect your opinion--and everyone else's for that matter.

A comp pick would have come next year, devaluing it by one round to a fifth. BB took those two fifths and turned them into a 4th (Ohrnberger OG) and a 6th (Ingram LS) so I really don't see your point about getting enough value. Ingram might turn into an immediate replacement for Paxton and if Ohrnberger sticks he provides good insurance for Neal. With Hobbs looking to be no more than a nickel if he had stayed, I think adding young blood to the team was the right decision.

 

[supafly]

A comp pick would have come next year, devaluing it by one round to a fifth. BB took those two fifths and turned them into a 4th (Ohrnberger OG) and a 6th (Ingram LS) so I really don't see your point about getting enough value. Ingram might turn into an immediate replacement for Paxton and if Ohrnberger sticks he provides good insurance for Neal. With Hobbs looking to be no more than a nickel if he had stayed, I think adding young blood to the team was the right decision.

Yes, surely I understand that it would've come after we lost him in free agency, all I was saying is that at the very least we could've received a 4th rd comp. pick--even if he walked away in free agency. Which leads to my whole questioning that most think we 'got something for him before he left next yr.' But in all actuality, we would've kept him for 2 more yrs, or would have received an unlikely 1st and 3rd for his 2010 RFA status, assuming an uncapped yr. So the whole "we got something instead of nothing" really doesn't apply at all here.

Like I said, we all have our own opinions about this trade, and I understand and respect your points. I personally valued Hobbs a little more, and am simply pointing out that we could've realistically kept him for 2 more yrs at a decent price.

If there were a poll before the draft asking about Hobbs' trade value, not too many people would've guessed at 2 5th rd picks, or a 4th and a 6th--however you wanna view it. Trading away a seasoned veteran CB who helped hold Burress to 2 catches in the SB, and was a good playmaker, for a somewhat unknown 4th rd OLineman, and a freaking long snapper IS questionable in some people's minds. That is a fact. I am not arguing about Hobbs' abilities, because that is debatable, and everyone will have their own opinion. I understand that it isn't yours, but I am not the only one who questioned this trade, or else there wouldn't have been tons of threads, and lots of discussions regarding it.

If someone gets hurt CB wise, which always happens--then you may question it yourself a little more, because we'll be relatively thin, young, and awfully in-experienced at quite an important position. Going into the offseason, the big debate was whether or not Hobbs was a decent #2 CB. I am not sure how he fell all the way down in the depth charts, and I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. I am only stating that it is quite questionable.

 

[mgteich]

Belichick decided to bring in Springs and Bodden to be our 2009 starters. He believes in his draftees from last year: Wilhite and Wheatley. He drafted yet a third candidate for starter of the future. That filled the roster at five. We usually carry four corners and five safeties. We now have five corners without Hobbs, not even counting Richardson.

Belichick could have carried SIX corners and included Hobbs as insurance against injury. He chose not to.

I don't think he received much value for Hobbs. But then, would the team really be a better team with Hobbs on the team for the year instead of Bodden? Because, in the end, Bodden was hired for the year, and Hobbs was discarded. Belichick made a decision that Bodden would be a better player for 2009 than Hobbs.

Yes, surely I understand that it would've come after we lost him in free agency, all I was saying is that at the very least we could've received a 4th rd comp. pick--even if he walked away in free agency. Which leads to my whole questioning that most think we 'got something for him before he left next yr.' But in all actuality, we would've kept him for 2 more yrs, or would have received an unlikely 1st and 3rd for his 2010 RFA status, assuming an uncapped yr. So the whole "we got something instead of nothing" really doesn't apply at all here.

Like I said, we all have our own opinions about this trade, and I understand and respect your points. I personally valued Hobbs a little more, and am simply pointing out that we could've realistically kept him for 2 more yrs at a decent price.

If there were a poll before the draft asking about Hobbs' trade value, not too many people would've guessed at 2 5th rd picks, or a 4th and a 6th--however you wanna view it. Trading away a seasoned veteran CB who helped hold Burress to 2 catches in the SB, and was a good playmaker, for a somewhat unknown 4th rd OLineman, and a freaking long snapper IS questionable in some people's minds. That is a fact. I am not arguing about Hobbs' abilities, because that is debatable, and everyone will have their own opinion. I understand that it isn't yours, but I am not the only one who questioned this trade, or else there wouldn't have been tons of threads, and lots of discussions regarding it.

If someone gets hurt CB wise, which always happens--then you may question it yourself a little more, because we'll be relatively thin, young, and awfully in-experienced at quite an important position. Going into the offseason, the big debate was whether or not Hobbs was a decent #2 CB. I am not sure how he fell all the way down in the depth charts, and I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. I am only stating that it is quite questionable.

 

[supafly]

Belichick decided to bring in Springs and Bodden to be our 2009 starters. He believes in his draftees from last year: Wilhite and Wheatley. He drafted yet a third candidate for starter of the future. That filled the roster at five. We usually carry four corners and five safeties. We now have five corners without Hobbs, not even counting Richardson.

Belichick could have carried SIX corners and included Hobbs as insurance against injury. He chose not to.

I don't think he received much value for Hobbs. But then, would the team really be a better team with Hobbs on the team for the year instead of Bodden? Because, in the end, Bodden was hired for the year, and Hobbs was discarded. Belichick made a decision that Bodden would be a better player for 2009 than Hobbs.

That's a fair assumption. We agree on the value in the Hobbs trade, let's just hope that Bodden lives up to all of these heightened expectations, and isn't the second or third coming of Bryant and Starks. The expectations there were pretty high too, as I believe we traded a 3rd for Starks, and Bryant was supposed to patch the hole left by Asante (somewhat)

 

[mgteich]

What you are really saying is that you hope that Bodden doesn't get injured as Starks and Bryant did. I do believe that both Bodden and Springs are better players than the last few sets of free agent corners. But the key is health.

That's a fair assumption. We agree on the value in the Hobbs trade, let's just hope that Bodden lives up to all of these heightened expectations, and isn't the second or third coming of Bryant and Starks. The expectations there were pretty high too, as I believe we traded a 3rd for Starks, and Bryant was supposed to patch the hole left by Asante (somewhat)

 

[supafly]

What you are really saying is that you hope that Bodden doesn't get injured as Starks and Bryant did. I do believe that both Bodden and Springs are better players than the last few sets of free agent corners. But the key is health.

Duane Starks was a horrible pick up from the start, he is a legend around here. Last yr, many compared Deltha O'Neal to the 'second coming of Duane Starks.'

I remember him getting burned silly from day one, and I remember a certain pre-season play that sealed Bryant's fate too, when he got steamrolled I believe.

I'm not sure blaming injuries on Starks and Bryant is relevant here, is it?

 

[Deus Irae]

What you are really saying is that you hope that Bodden doesn't get injured as Starks and Bryant did. I do believe that both Bodden and Springs are better players than the last few sets of free agent corners. But the key is health.

This team has so many "ifs" that I'm starting to wonder if they should get roster spots.

"If" Springs can stay healthy
"If" Bodden's crap year in Detroit was the exception
"If" Wheatley can stay healthy
"If" they can find a pass rush
"If" they can find an outside linebacker
"If" Bruschi/Guyton can improve over last year
"If" Thomas can stay healthy
"If" Brady can come all the way back
"If" Morris, Maroney and Taylor can stay healthy
"If" Neal can stay healthy
"If" Galloway still got gas in the tank
"If" Chung can be ready to step in for either starting safety as needed
"If" Moss is still Moss


Of course, if we had all the answers, we wouldn't need message boards and they wouldn't need to play the games.

 

[RayClay]

I think that in our base 34, last year we had 3 DL and mostly Vrabel rush the QB. This year it will be 3 DL and someone else. I think someone else, given all of the players we have to chose from will do better than Vrable did last year, as Vrable was very ineffective.
In the sub packages, last year was 2 DL and 2 OLBs playing DE, usually Thomas and Vrabel. This year it will be the same DL rotation Thomas and someone else. I think, again, someone else will be an imporvement over Vrable.
Vrable has been one of my favorite Patriots for a long time. However, there is no mistaking that he had a poor year last year, and whoever on the roster earns that role will very likely be better than he was in 2008. The same goes for Rodney Harrison.

I agree Vrabel was ineffective. We used to have the possibility of a rush from two OLB (from among McGinest, Vrabel and Colvin) and a strong inside rush from Bruschi. Obviously, we still can rush from any LB spot in theory. AD may take up the slack from one of those and I'm not sure of that (he is at a disadvantage due to no other credible LB rusher).

Seymour took up some slack last year, but the rush is suppode to come primarily from the linebackers in this defense.

I'll except Mayo, since he's new and looks good, but how haven't we just gotten less talented and less athletic , from our former lineup, every year?

I'll change my opinion, when I see personnel in their prime, near what we had 5-8 years ago.