BradyManny
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2006
- Messages
- 11,103
- Reaction score
- 1,520
Most of the guys you listed were not first round picks. Many weren't even drafted in the second or third round. Only a few of them were first round value after the fact even if they weren't taken in the first round.
The Pats can get a WR in the later rounds. The Pats don't need to spend a first on a WR. WR depth was the problem this year and you don't get WR depth in the first or second round. With Welker a question mark, a starter may be needed, but Edelman with a year under his belt and an offseason working with Brady might make him 90-95% of Welker in year two.
I still think the Pats' top priority is the front seven of the defense. They need a DE, two OLBs, and an ILB. The Pats need to stop relying on the offense to win games.
I agree - we don't need the first two rounds to address wide receiver, but if the right guy comes across (Gilyard, Tate) in an area we deem good value, I'd be all for it. Our #3 WR - or lack thereof - ultimately is what did us in this year. Don't get me wrong, the defense needs huge improvements, and our offense - as a whole - put up great #'s. But if our 2007 offense played with this 2009 defense, I think there's a decent chance we're playing this Sunday. If the difference between scoring 38 points a game and in the mid 20's is finding a couple more adequate wide receivers, then I say do that at all costs - whether its draft, free agency, or whatever it is.
Again, I agree with the notion that we can find that in rounds 3-5, or even beyond. But I consider WR3 as big a need as any position on this squad.
And don't forget: Edelman, as good as he looked, is a bit of an unknown, as is Tate. Moss' contract is up at the end of 2010, and Welker's future is cloudy. This team needs to invest in wide receiver long-term, not just short-term.
Last edited: