Draft Mock Fails - Patriot Picks

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Ahh, of course, now that I read that I feel kinda stupid for not figuring that one out on my own!

I totally agree with you on that with regard to QB, and I can't tell you how much I love Julio Jones too. He really reminds me of Michael Irvin with his size, tenacity, etc. He should be given consideration with that 17th pick, need or not.

 

[patchick]

There are lots of mocks out there (huddle has links to over 60).

I fail any mock that

1) has no DE or OLB (FOR THE PATRIOTS) in the first 2 rounds,
2) has no OL(FOR THE PATRIOTS) in the first 2 rounds,
3) has a WR (FOR THE PATRIOTS) not named Jones in the first 2 rounds, or
4) has a QB (FOR THE PATRIOTS) in the first 2 round.

OK, let me test your resolve. Here's a scenario that seems realistic at this point but breaks a couple of your rules. Is it an automatic fail?

1a. Anthony Costanzo, OT
1b. Muhammad Wilkerson
2a. Danny Watkins, OG
2b. Leonard Hankerson, WR
3a. Jeremy Beal, OLB
3b. Ras-I Dowling, FS
4. Brooks Reed, OLB

 

[dryheat44]

OK, let me test your resolve. Here's a scenario that seems realistic at this point but breaks a couple of your rules. Is it an automatic fail?

1a. Anthony Costanzo, OT
1b. Muhammad Wilkerson
2a. Danny Watkins, OG
2b. Leonard Hankerson, WR
3a. Jeremy Beal, OLB
3b. Ras-I Dowling, FS
4. Brooks Reed, OLB

Seems to me that you've only run afoul of the WR rule...which is probably the flimsiest.

 

[patchick]

Seems to me that you've only run afoul of the WR rule...which is probably the flimsiest.

Ah...I just realized that rule #1 is ambiguous. I interpreted it as required a DE and OLB in the first 2 rounds, but it could mean or, I guess.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, I would fail a draft that drafts a wide receiver in the second and is forced to make up for the error by finding and OLB and S later (and give up on a center).

As was said, the WR requirement is the weakest rule since we need a WR. However, we need an OLB, FS and even OC more.

Finally, yes, my personal requirement is that we add one front seven player in the first two rounds. I could certainly see us passing the DL or OLB, just not on both.
=================
Obviously, you choices are a fine set of players. I think that Beal might not be there at 74. I might choose him at 60 or I might choose a center like Moffitt.

OK, let me test your resolve. Here's a scenario that seems realistic at this point but breaks a couple of your rules. Is it an automatic fail?

1a. Anthony Costanzo, OT
1b. Muhammad Wilkerson
2a. Danny Watkins, OG
2b. Leonard Hankerson, WR
3a. Jeremy Beal, OLB
3b. Ras-I Dowling, FS
4. Brooks Reed, OLB

 

[patchick]

Yes, I would fail a draft that drafts a wide receiver in the second and is forced to make up for the error by finding and OLB and S later (and give up on a center).

Wow...so 2 OL in the first 3 picks isn't enough? After putting that kind of weight on the line early on, I figured I'd wait for a late-round center. I'm not convinced there will be a big difference between a 4th and 6th round C prospect in this draft.

As for OLB and S, who would you have taken at #60 who would have been better than Beal, Dowling & Reed? I see a big gap in the OLB talent in round 2.

 

[mgteich]

1a. Anthony Costanzo, OT
1b. Muhammad Wilkerson
2a. Danny Watkins, OG
2b. John Moffit OG/C
3a. Jeremy Beal, OLB
3b. Ras-I Dowling, FS
4. Brooks Reed, OLB

Why is three so many? We need to rebuild the OL.

LT Vollmer, Ojinnaka
LG Connolly,Watkins
C Koppen, ????
RG Neal
RT Kaczur, Costonzo

I have BOTH the injured players coming back. Perhaps someone like Moffitt is no better than Wendell.

BOTTOM LINE
I probably would have take Beal at 60 and traded 74 into 2012.

Wow...so 2 OL in the first 3 picks isn't enough? After putting that kind of weight on the line early on, I figured I'd wait for a late-round center. I'm not convinced there will be a big difference between a 4th and 6th round C prospect in this draft.

As for OLB and S, who would you have taken at #60 who would have been better than Beal, Dowling & Reed? I see a big gap in the OLB talent in round 2.

 

[Sciz]

A lot of people see Reed as a borderline 1st round pick, and Beal isn't going to solve any problems. OLB is a bigger need than backup OL.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm still trying to figure out why drafting a WR besides Jones in the first two rounds would automatically be a draft fail. It seems to me that someone like Young, for example, would be a perfectly valid selection.

 

[MaineMan]

I'm still trying to figure out why drafting a WR besides Jones in the first two rounds would automatically be a draft fail. It seems to me that someone like Young, for example, would be a perfectly valid selection.

I'm beginning to feel that - outside of Green, Jones and "Braylon" Hankerson - there's going to be a lot of disagreement about the value of the WRs in this draft. Bunting has suggested that Titus Young may end up being overdrafted in the mid-late first.

 

[mgteich]

Agreed.

In the end, folks seem to be nitpicking with regard to my saying "no WR" in the first 2 rounds unless Jones drops. All it means is that I think we have much greater needs that taking a shot at wide receiver, especially with Mankins and Light unsigned. Hankerson is the only generally accepted possibility.

In the end, Belichick may end up considering a WR if we have already drafted a front seven player, a guard and a tackle. I strongly doubt it. Personally, I think that choosing yet another young wide receiver is a waste of a roster spot, although as I said, I can understand Jones. We have two devloping youngsters in Tate and Price.

I am NOT saying that we cannot improve the team by adding a wide receiver. HOWEVER, I would add a receiver or two or three in free agency. We brought in Holt and Patten last year.

I'm beginning to feel that - outside of Green, Jones and "Braylon" Hankerson - there's going to be a lot of disagreement about the value of the WRs in this draft. Bunting has suggested that Titus Young may end up being overdrafted in the mid-late first.

 

[Deus Irae]

Agreed.

In the end, folks seem to be nitpicking with regard to my saying "no WR" in the first 2 rounds unless Jones drops. All it means is that I think we have much greater needs that taking a shot at wide receiver, especially with Mankins and Light unsigned. Hankerson is the only generally accepted possibility.

In the end, Belichick may end up considering a WR if we have already drafted a front seven player, a guard and a tackle. I strongly doubt it. Personally, I think that choosing yet another young wide receiver is a waste of a roster spot, although as I said, I can understand Jones. We have two devloping youngsters in Tate and Price.

I am NOT saying that we cannot improve the team by adding a wide receiver. HOWEVER, I would add a receiver or two or three in free agency. We brought in Holt and Patten last year.

Neither Holt nor Patten made the team last year.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Agreed.

In the end, folks seem to be nitpicking with regard to my saying "no WR" in the first 2 rounds unless Jones drops. All it means is that I think we have much greater needs that taking a shot at wide receiver, especially with Mankins and Light unsigned. Hankerson is the only generally accepted possibility.

In the end, Belichick may end up considering a WR if we have already drafted a front seven player, a guard and a tackle. I strongly doubt it. Personally, I think that choosing yet another young wide receiver is a waste of a roster spot, although as I said, I can understand Jones. We have two devloping youngsters in Tate and Price.

I am NOT saying that we cannot improve the team by adding a wide receiver. HOWEVER, I would add a receiver or two or three in free agency. We brought in Holt and Patten last year.

The WR concern follows the development curve for Tate and Price, both of whom have the size and speed to play outside the numbers and run intermediate and deep routes. Tate is now entering his sophomore season for all practical purposes and Price is essentially a rookie. Both need extra time with Tommy, the question then becomes how much time will be available around rehab and with Tommy's partnership with Welker?

While were at it I would add Edelman as a potential outside the numbers intermediate route runner (similar to Branch) with whom Tommy could use more repetitions. We must also consider how Hernandez fits into that equation with his hybrid skill set.

As of the end of 2010, Tommy is tight with Welker and Branch, his earlier rapport with Hernandez seems to have slipped, whether as a function of defenses adjusting or an issue between the two I couldn't say. Tommy and Tate are not yet on the same page, and it's reasonable to project that shortfall to Price too.

NE currently has in development four youngsters who have the potential to run the intermediate and deep passing routes. They have a lot to learn and there is a significant burden on Tommy to bring them along. I have no objection to drafting another WR, certainly Julio Jones deserves consideration in round one (I suspect A.J. Green will be gone before #17), but the rest of the field are less certain and better values later. Myself, I'd love to see a big possession receiver like Austin Pettis who will fight for the ball in the middle of the field, more of a chain mover than a game breaker. I still miss David Givens and hope to see young Price fill that void for me.

 

[mgteich]

I agree with your analysis.

I'm always fine with a late round flyer, trying to find a Givens. However, I think that we need veterans rather than another youngster. Aren't Tate, Price and Edelman enough for our youth corps without adding yet another developmental player?

The WR concern follows the development curve for Tate and Price, both of whom have the size and speed to play outside the numbers and run intermediate and deep routes. Tate is now entering his sophomore season for all practical purposes and Price is essentially a rookie. Both need extra time with Tommy, the question then becomes how much time will be available around rehab and with Tommy's partnership with Welker?

While were at it I would add Edelman as a potential outside the numbers intermediate route runner (similar to Branch) with whom Tommy could use more repetitions. We must also consider how Hernandez fits into that equation with his hybrid skill set.

As of the end of 2010, Tommy is tight with Welker and Branch, his earlier rapport with Hernandez seems to have slipped, whether as a function of defenses adjusting or an issue between the two I couldn't say. Tommy and Tate are not yet on the same page, and it's reasonable to project that shortfall to Price too.

NE currently has in development four youngsters who have the potential to run the intermediate and deep passing routes. They have a lot to learn and there is a significant burden on Tommy to bring them along. I have no objection to drafting another WR, certainly Julio Jones deserves consideration in round one (I suspect A.J. Green will be gone before #17), but the rest of the field are less certain and better values later. Myself, I'd love to see a big possession receiver like Austin Pettis who will fight for the ball in the middle of the field, more of a chain mover than a game breaker. I still miss David Givens and hope to see young Price fill that void for me.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree with your analysis.

I'm always fine with a late round flyer, trying to find a Givens. However, I think that we need veterans rather than another youngster. Aren't Tate, Price and Edelman enough for our youth corps without adding yet another developmental player?

Holt and Patten both failed to make it out of training camp last year. Galloway crashed and burned the year before. The last successful UFA receiver that the team brought in was Gaffney in 2006 or Stallworth in 2007, depending upon how you rate Stallworth's lone season given that he was overtaken by Gaffney and not brought back.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I agree with your analysis.

I'm always fine with a late round flyer, trying to find a Givens. However, I think that we need veterans rather than another youngster. Aren't Tate, Price and Edelman enough for our youth corps without adding yet another developmental player?

Branch and Welker are veterans.

Last season NE kept two veterans and three youngsters at WR (not counting Slater), they traded away the one veteran and then traded for another to replace him. While it may be BB brings in another veteran for competition, maybe even two, I'd argue he's working on the youth movement and any move for a veteran is a minor diversion.

 

[mgteich]

Are you saying that we need to trade for a receiver, because we won't be successful in getting a receiver in free agency because they might get injured as Holt did? I don't care whether we sign a free agent or trade a 4th for him. That kind of detail makes little difference to me. But we have used free agency and trades lots over the past few years for Gaffney, Stalllworth, Moss, Welker, and Branch. The more salient question might be when we last brought in a top receiver through the draft.

Holt and Patten both failed to make it out of training camp last year. Galloway crashed and burned the year before. The last successful UFA receiver that the team brought in was Gaffney in 2006 or Stallworth in 2007, depending upon how you rate Stallworth's lone season given that he was overtaken by Gaffney and not brought back.

 

[mgteich]

Last year, Belichick did indeed let go of Moss and replaced his production with Branch.

Belichick also tried to add a veteran in Holt (and with Patten).I agree that adding a veteran receiver would likely be a minor addition. After all, we have Welker, Branch, Hernandez and Gronkowski as receivers.

HOWEVER, a veteran who can reliably stretch the field could have a critical role to play, as Stallworth and Gaffney did, as Crumpler did. Also, there is the obvious need for insurance. Consider our situation of branch is injured. The cost of such insurance is not all that high.

Branch and Welker are veterans.

Last season NE kept two veterans and three youngsters at WR (not counting Slater), they traded away the one veteran and then traded for another to replace him. While it may be BB brings in another veteran for competition, maybe even two, I'd argue he's working on the youth movement and any move for a veteran is a minor diversion.

 

[Deus Irae]

Are you saying that we need to trade for a receiver, because we won't be successful in getting a receiver in free agency because they might get injured as Holt did? I don't care whether we sign a free agent or trade a 4th for him. That kind of detail makes little difference to me. But we have used free agency and trades lots over the past few years for Gaffney, Stalllworth, Moss, Welker, and Branch. The more salient question might be when we last brought in a top receiver through the draft.

No, I'm noting that the free agency route hasn't been successful of late. The team either needs to spend money in free agency to bring in a receiver who's more likely to succeed, to trade for a quality receiver, or to draft someone who's got the skill set to get open more than 10 yards downfield, against good corners, with some consistency. They didn't have that receiver last year, once they traded Moss away*.





*I acknowledge that it's possible that Tate or Price could become something along those lines this year. I just don't feel the team should be gambling yet another season of Brady's career away needlessly.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Last year, Belichick did indeed let go of Moss and replaced his production with Branch.

Belichick also tried to add a veteran in Holt (and with Patten).I agree that adding a veteran receiver would likely be a minor addition. After all, we have Welker, Branch, Hernandez and Gronkowski as receivers.

HOWEVER, a veteran who can reliably stretch the field could have a critical role to play, as Stallworth and Gaffney did, as Crumpler did. Also, there is the obvious need for insurance. Consider our situation of branch is injured. The cost of such insurance is not all that high.

Stallworth was let go because his speed exceeded his production. Gaffer was replaced by Edelman, who lost playing time to Tate & Hernandez, and Price hasn't even been factored in yet. The momentum has all been with the youngsters as Stallworth stalled, Gaffney found greener pastures, and Moss started to slip. Patience is a Belichick virtue when it comes to developing youth.