Chung Brace and Vollmer

[Patriot_in_NY]

SeeBass ---> Big Value

Chung ---> way to early to tell IMO.

Brace ---> Not giving up yet, but clearly would have liked to seen more from him.

Tate ---> Loved the pick up at the time...... high risk, high reward. Am worried at this point. As has been stated; both knee in 2 years. He could be done.

Edelman, Butler, Pryor et all........ Very solid picks that will continue to develop and IMO will be great players for us in the future.

I also am very hopeful on McKenzie as well.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

SeeBass ---> Big Value

Chung ---> way to early to tell IMO.

Brace ---> Not giving up yet, but clearly would have liked to seen more from him.

Tate ---> Loved the pick up at the time...... high risk, high reward. Am worried at this point. As has been stated; both knee in 2 years. He could be done.

Edelman, Butler, Pryor et all........ Very solid picks that will continue to develop and IMO will be great players for us in the future.

I also am very hopeful on McKenzie as well.

Bussey, Ingram, Lockett and Hoyer (UDFA) and you have 12 rookies on the roster. Does any other playoff or playoff caliber team have that many?

 

[mgteich]

In 2009, Belichick chose to meet the passrushing and OLB need through free agency rather than the draft. I don't quarrel with that approach. All needs don't have to be met through the draft. Belichick may choose this approach again. And again, I won't argue with the approach. Should I be diappointed if we draft a 3-4 DE, an OG or two and a RB with our early picks?

The issue is NOT that Belichick failed to use the draft to meet our perceived need at passrusher and OLB. The issue is that he didn't meet the need at all. Banta-Cain, Burgess and Ninkovich were simply not enough resources to devote to this need, or so we seem to think.

The Pats needed impact players on defense this season if they wanted any chance of winning a super bowl in 2009. They currently have zero out of the 2009 draft. If the Pats do lose in the post season, it will be because of this reason. There were a ton of difference makers on defense that they could've had but passed up on them because they're so hung up on their "system".

However, it's funny how their biggest reach of the draft (Vollmer) will probably turn out to be their best pick.
__________________

I agree with you on this all the way.
There were a bunch of players out there we all hoped we would have taken at LB last year that would have made a difference. Everyone had there favorite picks and BB passed on them all.

We can't do that this year on defense again.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Draft better?

Erm, every single draftee bar Richard made the roster. As did two UDFA's. And we're currently 10-5, have the fourth ranked scoring D, looking eagerly towards the Playoffs.

You should stop playing Madden so much.

If you want to play the stat game, let's play.

This is who the Pats played in terms of total offense, not including points scored.

Buffalo x 2 - 30th ranked offense
N.Y. Jets x 2 - 21st ranked offense (rookie QB)
Atlanta - 17th ranked offense
Baltimore - 14th ranked offense
Denver - 19th ranked offense
Tennessee - 13th ranked offense
Tampa Bay - 26th ranked offense (rookie QB)
Indianapolis - 7th ranked offense
Miami x 2 - 15th ranked offense
New Orleans - 1st ranked offense
Carolina - 18th ranked offense
Jacksonville - 16th ranked offense
Houston - 5th ranked offense

- The average ranking of offense they played each week was a 15th ranked offense
- 3 times the Pats played against a rookie QB
- 4 times they played against 2nd year QB's.
- 5 times they played offenses that were ranked 20th and above
- 7 times they played offense that were in the middle of the pack (11-19).
- Will end up playing 3 teams that ended up in the top 10 in total offense. Were lit up twice against those two top 10 offenses.

What's my point? Stats are skewed. Of course the Pats are going to look better than they really are on defense because of the average opponent they played each week (15). If they played offenses in the top 10 each week, they'd probably be one of the worst defenses in the NFL.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

What's my point? Stats are skewed. Of course the Pats are going to look better than they really are on defense because of the average opponent they played each week (15). If they played offenses in the top 10 each week, they'd probably be one of the worst defenses in the NFL.

Ummm . . . the way the schedule is set up, that's not supposed to happen to anyone. . . .

 

[JoeShmoe]

I (like many here) though Butler would be starting now but he isnt so still work to do there

Vollmer is a stud

Chung - has played well when he's seen the field and will expect him to improve

Brace - think this was a bust where we picked him. He looks a 4th/5th at best right now. With such bad technqiue i wonder why he went so high

 

[jsull87]

What's my point? Stats are skewed. Of course the Pats are going to look better than they really are on defense because of the average opponent they played each week (15). If they played offenses in the top 10 each week, they'd probably be one of the worst defenses in the NFL.

You could say that about any defense in the nfl. Silly point. You can have different preferences for the draft. but having 12 rookies on a playoff roster with most contributing is hardly a poor draft.

 

[BelizePats]

I'm really pleased with this draft class. My only complaint (in hindsight) is Brace over Ray M out of USC. I wish we had drafted Ray.
And I doubt that BB would have taken Brace so high if he know that Pryor would develop the way he did. How could he know that?
Every single teams fan base is saying I wish we had taken x over y because many think that hindsight is "actual reality", when in fact it is not!

 

[Ochmed Jones]

The Pats needed impact players on defense this season if they wanted any chance of winning a super bowl in 2009. They currently have zero out of the 2009 draft. If the Pats do lose in the post season, it will be because of this reason. There were a ton of difference makers on defense that they could've had but passed up on them because they're so hung up on their "system". QUOTE]

But that is it. The 2009 draft had zero playmakers in it that fit our scheme. BB drafts players early that fit his scheme. He does not draft players that he has to do a major "projection".

The the first round BB is only going to take a 3 down player that fits very nicely in our scheme.

The second round is for "Medium to high risk/high reward" guys.

The third round is where he drafts "projection" guys that seem to fit our scheme.

So far these are the players that I have identified as having first or early second round grades (in no particular order) and are three down players that fit our "scheme" with as little projection as possible include (all dependent on how they run):

NT Mt. Cody Alabama
ILB McClain Alabama (Undeclared Junior)
OLB Dunlap Florida (Undeclared Junior)
OLB Sapp Clemson
OG Johnson Alabama
CB Haden Florida
FS Berry Tennessee (Declared Junior)
QB Colt McCoy Texas
CB Robinson Florida State
FS Jones LSU (Undeclared Junior)
RB Spiller Clemson
DE Wooten Northwestern

More to follow.

 

[JMarr]

Correct. It's a shame the kid has suffered back to back knee injuries. He had such a promising future. Coming back from this 2nd injury would show a true test of character and resiliency. Hopefully the injury isn't that severe and the rehab goes well.

I was high on Maualuga going into the draft and wanted to take him with that Chung pick. I felt we could've waited another 6 to 8 picks to grab Chung. Ideally, I would've gone Maualuga at 34, Chung at 40, Butler at 41. Hopefully Ron Brace proves me wrong, but I didn't like the pick then and still don't like it now. I thought Maualuga would be a great fit inside with Mayo. That would relegate Guyton to a rotational LB which I think he is more fit to be at this point.

BB took Brace as insurance and leverage in contract negotiations with Vince Wilfork, pure and simple. Another example of the Pats' skill at cap management (or cheapness if you prefer). It's too early to call it a bad move.

I too wanted an "immediate" impact defensive player (Mauluaga seemed perfect--moving Mayo to WILB), but BB's defense is different from Cincinnati's or Green Bay's--he just doesn't throw rookie LBs out there and let them fly around the field and improvise. Ironic because Lawrence Taylor becaume the greatest LB of all time doing just that.

 

[fester]

- The average ranking of offense they played each week was a 15th ranked offense
- 3 times the Pats played against a rookie QB
- 4 times they played against 2nd year QB's.
- 5 times they played offenses that were ranked 20th and above
- 7 times they played offense that were in the middle of the pack (11-19).
- Will end up playing 3 teams that ended up in the top 10 in total offense. Were lit up twice against those two top 10 offenses.

What's my point? Stats are skewed. Of course the Pats are going to look better than they really are on defense because of the average opponent they played each week (15). If they played offenses in the top 10 each week, they'd probably be one of the worst defenses in the NFL.

So the Patriots played against League Average offenses or slightly better, and produced significantly better than league average results using your metrics. Using Football Outsiders, the Pats at the end of Week 17 were league average in defense (rank # 16), and I trust Football Outsiders and their methods more than I trust you.

The Pats had an adequate defense to match with an excellent offense (excluding the New Orleans game), and that statistical analysis matches with the eyeball analysis.