1st Round DL - Need or Want ?

[Lamanai]

I was just looking over our current stable of DL and projecting the potential for next season. I figure we'll ultimately keep 6-7 big uglies on the DL. In no particular order, we have:

Wilfork - 'nuf said
G. Warren - will be a UFA, but seems like a happy camper and could be re-upped.
T. Warren - very underrated, should be back at 100% by camp.
Wright - has been one of our best DL, but best in situational work
Pryor - BB likes having him in sub packages.
Brace - still improving? Maybe not a stud, but may have a role
Deaderick - solid/adequate starter so far, but it is early
Love - mostly NT work, adequate in very limited work but could be upgaded
Weston/Richard/Washington - flotsam

All in all, not a spectacular group, by deep and flexible. Oddly enough Deaderick might be the most important guy in the group. Not that he is our best DL, but his potential emergence makes our DE's look a little deeper, a little stronger. Maybe we don't "need" a DE now.

I have been of the mindset that the Pats really need a stud DE, but now i'm having second thoughts. Sure, it would be nice, but is it really *needed* or is it something of a luxury? Since our DE are used primarily to tie up OL, wouldn't a high-to-mid 1st rounder be rich, especially if the current crop of DL is performing at an adequate (or better) level? If anything, why not just a developmental space eater in the 3rd round? I know a lot of us are licking our chops thinking about adding a Dareus or Fairely, but would the incremental value of adding one of them really help this team the most, vs. say, a stud at another position of need?

If you want to advocate for the stud DL, I can certainly see the arguments. But if BB doesn't come away with a DL in round 1, I think the sun will still come up over Foxborough in 2011.

 

[Water Boy]

Do you know for sure that Ty Warren will be 100% next year? I thought I heard there is a potential for some chronic issues with the hip.

I'm happy this year with our DL. I'm not at all in the camp that we NEED to draft a DL in round 1, especially if we get Warren back healthy.

 

[Lamanai]

Do you know for sure that Ty Warren will be 100% next year? I thought I heard there is a potential for some chronic issues with the hip.

I'm happy this year with our DL. I'm not at all in the camp that we NEED to draft a DL in round 1, especially if we get Warren back healthy.

One can never be 100% certain, but I based this on three things:

1. In mid-October, Warren was off crutches and already doing some light rehab. Said he was doing well.

2. My own extensive research (OK, I googled the inury) indicated that his injury isn't even always treated with surgery. Rest and stretching might have accomplished as much. I didn't see anywhere that this was a career ending type injury. The longest estimate of recovery/rehab time was six months.

3. Despite what pre-draft profiles said, Ty Warren has always been a hard worker and good soldier for the Pats. I would expect that to continue and he will work very hard at rehabbing.

You are correct, there are chronic issues with this injury. But I think the chronic issues were what promted him to ultimately go the surgery route. I got the impression he's had this nagging problem going on for three years and wanted to take care of it now.

 

[Taxed in Maine]

I was just looking over our current stable of DL and projecting the potential for next season. I figure we'll ultimately keep 6-7 big uglies on the DL. In no particular order, we have:

Wilfork - 'nuf said
G. Warren - will be a UFA, but seems like a happy camper and could be re-upped.
T. Warren - very underrated, should be back at 100% by camp.
Wright - has been one of our best DL, but best in situational work
Pryor - BB likes having him in sub packages.
Brace - still improving? Maybe not a stud, but may have a role
Deaderick - solid/adequate starter so far, but it is early
Love - mostly NT work, adequate in very limited work but could be upgaded
Weston/Richard/Washington - flotsam

All in all, not a spectacular group, by deep and flexible. Oddly enough Deaderick might be the most important guy in the group. Not that he is our best DL, but his potential emergence makes our DE's look a little deeper, a little stronger. Maybe we don't "need" a DE now.

I have been of the mindset that the Pats really need a stud DE, but now i'm having second thoughts. Sure, it would be nice, but is it really *needed* or is it something of a luxury? Since our DE are used primarily to tie up OL, wouldn't a high-to-mid 1st rounder be rich, especially if the current crop of DL is performing at an adequate (or better) level? If anything, why not just a developmental space eater in the 3rd round? I know a lot of us are licking our chops thinking about adding a Dareus or Fairely, but would the incremental value of adding one of them really help this team the most, vs. say, a stud at another position of need?

If you want to advocate for the stud DL, I can certainly see the arguments. But if BB doesn't come away with a DL in round 1, I think the sun will still come up over Foxborough in 2011.

The entire defense starts with the DL.
I think there is a reason why BB drafted Seymour, Warren and Wilfork in the 1st round. No, another 1st rounder wouldn't be 'rich', it would improve the entire defense.

Currently the incremental value of drafting a stud DE is a far larger increment than any other position. BUT, is that stud that fits the system going to be available when they pick??

 

[jsull87]

I was just looking over our current stable of DL and projecting the potential for next season. I figure we'll ultimately keep 6-7 big uglies on the DL. In no particular order, we have:

Wilfork - 'nuf said
G. Warren - will be a UFA, but seems like a happy camper and could be re-upped.
T. Warren - very underrated, should be back at 100% by camp.
Wright - has been one of our best DL, but best in situational work
Pryor - BB likes having him in sub packages.
Brace - still improving? Maybe not a stud, but may have a role
Deaderick - solid/adequate starter so far, but it is early
Love - mostly NT work, adequate in very limited work but could be upgaded
Weston/Richard/Washington - flotsam

All in all, not a spectacular group, by deep and flexible. Oddly enough Deaderick might be the most important guy in the group. Not that he is our best DL, but his potential emergence makes our DE's look a little deeper, a little stronger. Maybe we don't "need" a DE now.

I have been of the mindset that the Pats really need a stud DE, but now i'm having second thoughts. Sure, it would be nice, but is it really *needed* or is it something of a luxury? Since our DE are used primarily to tie up OL, wouldn't a high-to-mid 1st rounder be rich, especially if the current crop of DL is performing at an adequate (or better) level? If anything, why not just a developmental space eater in the 3rd round? I know a lot of us are licking our chops thinking about adding a Dareus or Fairely, but would the incremental value of adding one of them really help this team the most, vs. say, a stud at another position of need?

If you want to advocate for the stud DL, I can certainly see the arguments. But if BB doesn't come away with a DL in round 1, I think the sun will still come up over Foxborough in 2011.

See i have been saying this on a couple of posts and what i am starting to realise is that if (and this is a big if) mankins stays, bodden, warren and mcgowan come back. Where are the needs on this pats team?

We have 6 picks in the top 3 rounds (again) and i cant see anywhere where we can go... that is a glaring weakness we need a guy there real bad. yeah it's be nice to have fairly on dl but i think our DL has been playing well... and thats without a great starter in warren coming back.

only other need on D (i don't count cb because Bodden will be back next year) would be the often hyped on this board Pass rush. Now i can agree here yes if we had ware/harrison/woodley our D would be alot better. But in saying that Ninko, Cunningham and co have been doing a great job after a shaky start. So OLB would be the only position on that side of the ball i can see as a bit of a need.

i think every position on the O is solid not great (except for QB).

It just leaves us in a position of being able to
A.) trade down for value while still getting people who help
B.) pick the best player available regardless of possition

 

[Lamanai]

The entire defense starts with the DL.
I think there is a reason why BB drafted Seymour, Warren and Wilfork in the 1st round. No, another 1st rounder wouldn't be 'rich', it would improve the entire defense.

Currently the incremental value of drafting a stud DE is a far larger increment than any other position. BUT, is that stud that fits the system going to be available when they pick??

Not to denegrate DL play, but I don't think this is universally true. The incremental value to the team is highly dependent upon the composition of the roster. If you are adequate/strong at a position, your upgrade is not as meaningful. For instance, most would argue that QB is the most important postion. Would adding a Franchise QB to the Colts really be necessary when they deperately need something else, like OL or defense? I don't think you can look at it in a vaccuum.

 

[Lamanai]

See i have been saying this on a couple of posts and what i am starting to realise is that if (and this is a big if) mankins stays, bodden, warren and mcgowan come back. Where are the needs on this pats team?

We have 6 picks in the top 3 rounds (again) and i cant see anywhere where we can go... that is a glaring weakness we need a guy there real bad. yeah it's be nice to have fairly on dl but i think our DL has been playing well... and thats without a great starter in warren coming back.

only other need on D (i don't count cb because Bodden will be back next year) would be the often hyped on this board Pass rush. Now i can agree here yes if we had ware/harrison/woodley our D would be alot better. But in saying that Ninko, Cunningham and co have been doing a great job after a shaky start. So OLB would be the only position on that side of the ball i can see as a bit of a need.

i think every position on the O is solid not great (except for QB).

It just leaves us in a position of being able to
A.) trade down for value while still getting people who help
B.) pick the best player available regardless of possition

I agree with much of this, but reserve the right to change my mind ifthe Pats drop two straight games. Then the team will need a complete overhaul!!!

Seriously, I think if you don't believe they will have any glaring needs (I am sure they will have *some* needs), then you change strategy and draft for 2-3 years down the road to replace aging veterans. Maybe players that have decent upside, but need a year or two of seasoning behind a solid veteran.

 

[D-Money]

This team needs to get more athletic on the DL front.Its a must.They still dont have any type of pass rush.I hope we take a DL with the first pick.

 

[Peachhead]

Absolute need! If for nothing else: This will almost surely be the highest pick we'll have for a long time, and top DLs always go early. Plus, there's more than 1 or 2 blue-chippers at the position this year. That is very rare.

Put it this way: We can get a blue-chip DL or a pretty good player at another position. The disparity in talent level makes it a no brainer, even if we we're stacked at DL. Which we certainly are not.

G. Warren is old as dirt and a stopgap,

T. Warren is getting older, and breaking down, and coming off surgery,

Wilfork is the man,

Brace may be turning into solid depth after all,

Deaderick is a very nice surprise for a 7th rounder but not someone other teams are game planning around

We can get someone opponents have to gameplan for. I hope we don't blow it.

 

[Taxed in Maine]

See i have been saying this on a couple of posts and what i am starting to realise is that if (and this is a big if) mankins stays, bodden, warren and mcgowan come back. Where are the needs on this pats team?

We have 6 picks in the top 3 rounds (again) and i cant see anywhere where we can go... that is a glaring weakness we need a guy there real bad. yeah it's be nice to have fairly on dl but i think our DL has been playing well... and thats without a great starter in warren coming back.

only other need on D (i don't count cb because Bodden will be back next year) would be the often hyped on this board Pass rush. Now i can agree here yes if we had ware/harrison/woodley our D would be alot better. But in saying that Ninko, Cunningham and co have been doing a great job after a shaky start. So OLB would be the only position on that side of the ball i can see as a bit of a need.

i think every position on the O is solid not great (except for QB).

It just leaves us in a position of being able to
A.) trade down for value while still getting people who help
B.) pick the best player available regardless of possition

Can't see anywhere they can go?
DL
G Warren is a free agent.
K Love is definitely upgradeable

LB
ILB is set.
Another OLB could be brought in

S
Right now the roster is flooded with SS types. Another ballhawk FS would be a nice addition.

CB
Wilhite hasn't played all that well. Butler and Wheatley hardly ever see the field. Another CB is a solid possibility also.

OL
Light is a FA. Even if he is resigned his replacement should be brought in.
Many think Koppen's is replacement need to be drafted also.
If Mankins stays OG will be fine even if Neal retires. But if he doesn't?

TE
All set.

WR
Another deep threat is a possibility. IMO not the need that many seem to think it is.

RB
Taylor, Morris and Faulk are all getting old and are all FA. I would draft two.

QB
All set, but they always seem to draft one late as camp fodder/development.


Let's see, as I see it there are needs or room for improvement at:
DE, OLB, FS, CB, OT,OC,RB-2, and a late rd QB

Thats nine. They have 8 picks in the first 5 rounds. Looks just about right to me.

 

[Lamanai]

Can't see anywhere they can go?
DL
G Warren is a free agent.
K Love is definitely upgradeable

LB
ILB is set.
Another OLB could be brought in

S
Right now the roster is flooded with SS types. Another ballhawk FS would be a nice addition.

CB
Wilhite hasn't played all that well. Butler and Wheatley hardly ever see the field. Another CB is a solid possibility also.

OL
Light is a FA. Even if he is resigned his replacement should be brought in.
Many think Koppen's is replacement need to be drafted also.
If Mankins stays OG will be fine even if Neal retires. But if he doesn't?

TE
All set.

WR
Another deep threat is a possibility. IMO not the need that many seem to think it is.

RB
Taylor, Morris and Faulk are all getting old and are all FA. I would draft two.

QB
All set, but they always seem to draft one late as camp fodder/development.


Let's see, as I see it there are needs or room for improvement at:
DE, OLB, FS, CB, OT,OC,RB-2, and a late rd QB

Thats nine. They have 8 picks in the first 5 rounds. Looks just about right to me.

And this does not consider potential FA additions, only subtractions...

 

[Taxed in Maine]

Not to denegrate DL play, but I don't think this is universally true. The incremental value to the team is highly dependent upon the composition of the roster. If you are adequate/strong at a position, your upgrade is not as meaningful. For instance, most would argue that QB is the most important postion. Would adding a Franchise QB to the Colts really be necessary when they deperately need something else, like OL or defense? I don't think you can look at it in a vaccuum.

I understand the incremental value and the law of diminishing returns just fine. There is a huge difference between an adequate DLine and a strong one. Look at all the dominant defenses that the NFL has seen, they have all had dominant DLines.

Another stud 5-tech DE on this defense would improve the entire defense. He would command double teams and make the LBs job easier. When the LB play / pass rush improves it makes the DBs job easier.....

Again, it all starts up front regardless of which side of the ball you are on.

 

[patchick]

There's a third category besides need or want -- opportunity. The combination of draft ammo and (assuming underclassmen declare) strong talent at DE shapes up to make this a rare opportunity to get a stud DE.

So even if upgrading the DL is merely a want, they may need to take advantage of this perfect chance.

 

[MustaphaM0nd]

There's a third category besides need or want -- opportunity. The combination of draft ammo and (assuming underclassmen declare) strong talent at DE shapes up to make this a rare opportunity to get a stud DE.

So even if upgrading the DL is merely a want, they may need to take advantage of this perfect chance.

We have a winner. The number of guys who fit a 3-4 end profile in this draft is exciting. This is an opportunity to pick the best player available.

 

[Metaphors]

Maximize this formula and you have your pick:

NEED x VALUE x SCHEME FIT
OPPORTUNITY COST x SUPPLY

NEED = Roster spot available (higher snaps = higher need)
VALUE = Subjective, based on where teams/scouts believe player should go
SCHEME FIT = Is player uniquely qualified to succeed at what you will ask him to do...including football smarts
OPPORTUNITY COST = What else could you do with the pick (trade, sign RFA, etc.) relative to drafting the player
SUPPLY = How many comparable players are available

Each variable has a different scale and each team's scale will be different. For example, Belichick seems to be acutely aware of OPPORTUNITY COST (which is why he trades all the time) and SCHEME FIT seems to be more important than the other factors. Belichick also has a different VALUE system from other teams and scouting services, which is why the Pats picks generally get average grades in post-draft analysis.

What seems clear is that while NEED is a factor, it is not an overriding one.

 

[patsfaninpa]

Maximize this formula and you have your pick:

NEED x VALUE x SCHEME FIT
OPPORTUNITY COST x SUPPLY

NEED = Roster spot available (higher snaps = higher need)
VALUE = Subjective, based on where teams/scouts believe player should go
SCHEME FIT = Is player uniquely qualified to succeed at what you will ask him to do...including football smarts
OPPORTUNITY COST = What else could you do with the pick (trade, sign RFA, etc.) relative to drafting the player
SUPPLY = How many comparable players are available

Each variable has a different scale and each team's scale will be different. For example, Belichick seems to be acutely aware of OPPORTUNITY COST (which is why he trades all the time) and SCHEME FIT seems to be more important than the other factors. Belichick also has a different VALUE system from other teams and scouting services, which is why the Pats picks generally get average grades in post-draft analysis.

What seems clear is that while NEED is a factor, it is not an overriding one.

It's hard to put a value on a defensive lineman's performance. But, you NEED more than just 3 starters. You need a rotation of players. Especially, if you don't have a dominant starter at one of the positions. I feel the de is a need. And, it usually takes them at least a year to develop. It's more of a hole you would be filling for 2012. For example, I would like to bring G.Warren back to rotate along with starters. But, he is probably on his last legs I'd like to find a suitable replacement and possible upgrade over B.Deaderick. BB drafted Marquise Hill as a de in Round 2 after already having R.Seymour and T.Warren as starters and very young players in 2004. I'd be willing to bet we draft a 3-4 de type with one of our first 3 picks.

 

[patchick]

Maximize this formula and you have your pick:

NEED x VALUE x SCHEME FIT
OPPORTUNITY COST x SUPPLY

Ooh, a formulas! Love it. But I think you're missing a piece -- you're only looking inside a current draft for supply, and not across drafts and across the league at how hard a type of player is to find.

Take 2008, when there were a lot of highly regarded left tackle prospects. Teams gobbled them up early despite the supply, because broadly speaking, those bodies are scarce.

 

[Metaphors]

Ooh, a formulas! Love it. But I think you're missing a piece -- you're only looking inside a current draft for supply, and not across drafts and across the league at how hard a type of player is to find.

Take 2008, when there were a lot of highly regarded left tackle prospects. Teams gobbled them up early despite the supply, because broadly speaking, those bodies are scarce.

You are talking about considerations that are more art than science. The big picture of player availability (draft and FA) across future years is hard to quantify. Players sign with other teams, juniors return to school, major injuries happen, etc. So while I agree this deserves consideration, it is more truthiness than truth. And Belichick seems to have a relatively good gut feel for cross-year player acquisition planning.

Also, my references to "value" and "supply" were more about when to draft a player and not if you should draft a player. Belichick loved Mankins, but he had to determine if his value meant he should be drafted in the 1st or later rounds...also factoring in the supply of comparable guards that he and other teams were looking at. Belichick obviously thought that another team had Mankins as an early 2nd value and/or the guard pool was shallow at that point in the draft, so grabbing Mankins (based on need and fit) in the 1st (based on value and supply) was the call instead of trading the pick (based on opportunity cost).

 

[patchick]

Also, my references to "value" and "supply" were more about when to draft a player and not if you should draft a player.

Those positional tactics totally fascinate me. You not only have to factor supply and value to you, but also predict who else in the league will be after such a player and where THEY would value them. Spikes is a good example of a player who the Patriots could wait a while on because he wasn't a good fit with most defenses. And on the flip side, the trade up to nab Gronkowski was essential to get ahead of Baltimore.

(It was interesting to read that Rob assumed he'd be a Raven at #25 if they hadn't traded down. Interesting too that Baltimore ultimately ended up trading 1 TE for 2 -- they took ****son & Pitta with the picks they got for #25. So far Gronk has outgained the pair of them, even while blocking most of the time. )

 

[mgteich]

Top 2-gap prospects at DE, OLB and OLB are hard to find, especially those Belichick thinks are better values than what we have. Yes, Belichick has used the first to take these players when they were available. I expect no different if the OPPORTUNITY is there (as patchick said. If not, we'll find potential upgrades where we can. Last year, we brought in Warren, Lewis, Cunningham and Deaderick.