Sigh. Let's take them one at a time...
"I'm one of the ones who feels there is a big hole at receiver."
You mean losing a receiver averaging over 100 catches/year as a Pat leaves a big hole at the position? Of course there is a hole. She is "one of the ones" with "the ones" including everyone. The questions are a) how much of that hole can BTate fill and b) when will Welker be back at near 100%.
"...I'm not sure if the locker room is strong enough right now to absorb a player like [WR Dez Bryant]..."
The locker room has been/is/will continue to be strong enough to provide the structure and environment for dedicated players to succeed. It never was/isn't/will never be enough to "absorb" anyone that wants to be a problem child. The first sentence also applies to a handful of the top teams in the NFL. The second sentence applies to every team in the NFL.
"...I've never been a Kaczur fan."
Tough to argue with that. He is a solid but unspectacular player that gets exposed in disastrous ways just about 1-2 times a game. Not too many people are going to be "fanatical" about that. The real question is how much has Light drifted into the same territory.
"Plus, the Pats haven't had great success with receivers they've picked in the 2nd round."
Except when they have. This statement has a sample size of 3. Branch was a great pick. CJack was a disaster. Bethel was somewhere in the middle (excellent on ST which was a key draft need, not so hot developing into a deep WR threat). So would I expect more production from those players? Absolutely. Would I shy away from drafting a WR in the 2nd round as a result? Please.
"Players who can get to the QB is def. a major problem for NE..."
Again...who is disagreeing with this assessment?
"The Pats need playmakers...they've hit on nearly all of their 1st-round picks (Maroney & Watson the exceptions)."
"Playmakers" is a completely loaded word. It has come to mean everything from "high-priced" to "freakish athlete" to "stat hound". The Pats need none of these things in isolation. The Pats need more players that make big plays in big situations. They could make big bucks (or not). They could be workout warriors (or not). They could be record-breakers (or not). The Pats could have a handful of "playmakers" on the roster right now that haven't had the experience or opportunity to come up big yet. Or not.
"...I think even I've lost faith [Maroney] will develop into a top back."
Crapping in Maroney's Cheerios is a pretty safe move nowadays for the MSM.
"...[Brady] has taken some big hits (and lots of them) over the years."
Correct. That has more to do with Brady's (and the offense in general) present and less with his future replacement. O'Connell was drafted when Brady was 30 and coming off one of the all-time great QB seasons. Do you really think Belichick was thinking of developing O'Connell as a Brady replacement for at least 5-6 years? Drafting and developing QB talent has proven to be a great use of draft resources. Doesn't mean Brady will be on the street anytime soon.
"...I think the bloom is off the rose with Moss here..."
I really want the anti-Moss crowd to stand up and be accountable this year. Assuming he and Brady are healthy, Moss should be a huge factor in the Pats success. So if Moss-ageddon doesn't happen, these statements should be revisited.
As for the Moss statement about not getting paid by the Pats next year, he is almost certainly right. The Pats are pretty consistent about letting players go when the production doesn't match the compensation. I don't expect any player (including Moss) to like it much, but it is good business.
"...as this team stands right now - notice, I said right now - I do think we're looking at an 8-8 season or so. There are a lot of holes..."
Seriously. The Pats pretty much have 4 gimme games (besides the "any give Sunday" factor)...2xBuffalo, Cleveland, Detroit. That gives the Pats 12 games (7 of them at home) and only needing 6 wins to reach double digits. Let me repeat...12 games, 7 at home, need to win 6. So while 8-8 or worse is certainly a possibility, it strains credibility to say that the Pats are "looking at an 8-8 season".
As for the "right now" part. Of course the Pats have roster space they need to fill. This is the deepest draft in a generation and the Pats have a boatload of picks, a handful of them early. A good number of these players will need roles and responsibilities from day one. They won't just be camp fodder or fighting for a special teams spot. So some of those "holes" are actually reserved seats for some talented players (dare I say "playmakers") added a month from now.
"Truly all of the above [OLB, ILB, DE, TE, WR, OL] are needs."
OLB, DE, TE and WR are definitely needs (how many top 50 picks do the Pats have?). At ILB, the Pats have a relatively high draft pick they haven't even unwrapped yet. Even punting Kaczur, the Pats are relatively deep at all positions but center... and last time I looked you only started one of those. The Pats still have 2 picks from last year who haven't had an opportunity yet. These positions are only needs this year if the Pats are going to flush players, and even then a good number would have to go.
"The 2006, 07 & 08 drafts were quite poor."
2006 wasn't good. 2008 can't be fully evaluated yet (the Mayo homerun and O'Connell whiff aside). 2007 is the single most misunderstood draft situation in history. Here are some facts:
- The Pats had one pick in the top 120. Just one. And Meriweather is a fine player with the potential to develop into an elite player (he just turned 26).
- The 2007 draft class was horrific, particularly outside of the 1st round. Go check it out. While you can cherry-pick a player here and there, it was terrible as a whole.
- The Pats turned a 2nd, 4th and 7th into Moss and Welker. Also turned a 1st and 3rd into future picks (one of which was Mayo).
If that is "quite poor", then take me to the poorhouse. If the point is that their picks outside the top 120 in a biblically bad draft (half of which were untradeable comp picks) didn't make the cut for a roster that came a hair from history...I don't know what to say.
"ILB is a need because Guyton isn't strong against the run."
Know what other teams had ILB's that weren't strong against the run? They should be familiar because they played in a pretty big game in February. So go ahead and lust for McClain in the draft or look for the next Ted Johnson or wonder how many NT's can fit in a 4-3 alignment. Just don't be surprised when the Pats are sitting at home watching the playoffs after crushing losses against Manning and Rivers and Roethlisberger and Favre and Rodgers and ... This is a passing league and almost all the Pats big losses under Belichick have been the result of the inability to get the opposing QB off the field at crunch time.
Go ahead and mention the Ravens game. Try explaining how a slower, stouter ILB would have stopped that 80 yard run or prevented the Ravens from having a handful of drives start inside the Pats 25.
SMY, like many Pats fans, seems honest in her assessments without having an agenda, which in the case of Breer is his NY-love & aspirations for going Broadway, thus his constant & annoying name-dropping; and in the cases of Bogus, TonAss, Cafardo, Ryan, Spazz & the CHB, is their pathological hatred of Bill.
I actually agree with you on SMY, but this chat was full of "conventional wisdom" and very little depth or insight. While it is sure to get high ratings from the reactionary "I can run the Pats better" crowd, it is pretty old and stale. There are plenty of legitimate questions around the team-building and on-field play of the Pats. And almost all of it doesn't involve Maroney's breakfast.
.
