Filling holes

[DaBruinz]

Nope, I'm tossing out the idea that they're weighing need exactly as they've always done, but that the lack of free agency to fill holes with plausible bodies makes the results more pronounced this year.

I find that even more plausible.

 

[pats_premi]

To fill pass rush holes, I would like to see the Patriots acquire Mark Anderson (Texans)/Cris Gocong (browns). I think they were both D-line in college and have transitioned to linebackers in the nfl, but their production has not peaked yet but I think they are on the verge. Their current teams may be lossing patience and ready to move onto the rookies, and this may be a chance for the Pats to acquire talent at low cost.

 

[Sfpat]

The Texans are trying to install a 34 defense (and trying to emulate the Pats). They will keep anyone who may be able to play in the 34 (i.e. Pats system) such as Anderson and Barwin. I believe they based their draft on who this board said would be good fits in the 34 while BB made his own decisions.

 

[stinkypete]

To fill pass rush holes, I would like to see the Patriots acquire Mark Anderson (Texans)/Cris Gocong (browns). I think they were both D-line in college and have transitioned to linebackers in the nfl, but their production has not peaked yet but I think they are on the verge. Their current teams may be lossing patience and ready to move onto the rookies, and this may be a chance for the Pats to acquire talent at low cost.

Gocong emerged as an ILB for the Browns and filled more of a run-stuffing role.

That leaves Roth, Lawson and Kiwanuka as the best looking fits at OLB.

Roth is the most likely fit, IMO. He has had success playing under both Saben and Mangini, so he can come in and contribute early despite limited practice reps, as is likely the case. He won't cost anything in draft compensation and won't carry too heavy a price tag.

Lawson has the highest upside as a 3 down player. He lacks the pass rushing numbers, despite super high ratings from PFF (for what they're worth). Lawson was strong in run support and in coverage as well. Free agency rules come into play here. If the eventual labor agreement keeps the 2010 offseason rules (which I expect at least in the short term, given how close we're cutting it to camp time), then he is off limits. I would expect Lawson to be the most coveted OLB on the market if he hits the market.

Kiwanuka is the big time wild card, given his injury history. He's the only pure pass rusher of the bunch, but least experienced in the system.

My gut feeling is that Roth comes here on a 2 year deal. Not a world beater, but an OLB group of Roth, Ninkovich, Cunningham, Moore and TBC wouldn't be tragic.

 

[Metaphors]

You know, Nut recently posted how he was fed up with the word "value" because everybody uses it to mean something different to justify their own positions. I'm going to attempt to follow his example and expunge the word from my own draft vocabulary. (It had nothing to do with the point of this thread anyway.)

The problem is that for "value" to make sense, you need a value system. There are 32 of those in the NFL. The scouting services have their own value systems, which consolidate as group-think starts to set in (ever notice how players rise/fall for no apparent reason?).

Rating a pick or trade based on your personal value system is fun but otherwise not overly meaningful. Value isn't inherently a 4-letter word...but throwing around your own value system as factual or somehow better than anyone else's (or even the team's) is a bit much at times.

So let's rephrase...

"There have been a lot of complaints here that BB got cute playing the draft board as if the guy with the most trade-chart points at the end of the decade wins, and lost focus on current team needs. What if this was, in fact, a highly needs-focused draft -- with the needs being defined by holes in the roster rather than by teamwide statistical deficiencies?"

Agree and I'll go one further. Belichick didn't just have specific positions targeted, but he had specific players. Solder, Vereen, Ridley and Smith were going to be drafted by the Pats...the only question was with which picks. Mallett and Cannon fell into the Pats laps and the last couple picks were probably at the top of O'Brien's wish list. The only question is around Dowling since it looked like Belichick was willing to trade into 2012 and miss out on him entirely.

So it looks to me like Belichick wanted to:
1) Get Solder, Vereen, Ridley and Smith
2) Acquire as many top 64 picks in 2012 as possible
3) Catch any big sliders (even if they don't contribute in 2011)
4) Fill out special teams with whatever is left

You can hate the plan (not sure that I'm thrilled with it) but dude sure gets what he wants.

 

[patchick]

The problem is that for "value" to make sense, you need a value system. There are 32 of those in the NFL. The scouting services have their own value systems, which consolidate as group-think starts to set in (ever notice how players rise/fall for no apparent reason?).

Rating a pick or trade based on your personal value system is fun but otherwise not overly meaningful. Value isn't inherently a 4-letter word...but throwing around your own value system as factual or somehow better than anyone else's (or even the team's) is a bit much at times.

I think even that understates the problem with the word. You're talking about multiple systems but a single definition of the word. The real waste of time comes when posters aren't even talking about the same basic concept.

Sometimes the word "value" is used to refer a player's fundamental worth to a team in terms of upgrading their roster; other times it's a strategic question of whether a player should be taken in round X or whether the team should use that ammo elsewhere because the player will likely be available in round X+2; still other times its about the process of ranking/slotting a draft board; etc. etc. etc.

This all leads to endless, pointless arguments where the participants don't even realize that they're comparing apples and alligators. So I'm trying to go cold turkey on the word. (It's surprisingly challenging!)

 

[Metaphors]

Sometimes the word "value" is used to refer a player's fundamental worth to a team in terms of upgrading their roster; other times it's a strategic question of whether a player should be taken in round X or whether the team should use that ammo elsewhere because the player will likely be available in round X+2; still other times its about the process of ranking/slotting a draft board; etc. etc. etc.

All depends on who is talking. Beat writers have organizational bias. If they are generally supportive, they see value in just about every pick. If they are ball busters, there is always better value elsewhere.

Scouts have institutional bias. Their job is to e-value-ate players and assign them a grade. If a player is drafted different than the grade, it is either great or poor value.

Ex-players have positional bias. Their experiences cloud their judgement and it makes their value assessments pretty wild at times.

Ex-coaches have process bias. Teams that draft like they used to must be getting great value.

Fans have a temporal bias. If a team won a certain way, that must be the way to do it. They need to find the next <insert name here> to duplicate that success. If a draft pick is familiar (position, skills, round in draft) then the value will be familiar. Drafting a DL in the 1st will always be a good move. WR in the 2nd? Not so much.

Try juggling all of that when everyone on the planet puts their unfiltered thoughts on Twitter.

This all leads to endless, pointless arguments where the participants don't even realize that they're comparing apples and alligators. So I'm trying to go cold turkey on the word. (It's surprisingly challenging!)

You wouldn't get very far in life not saying "value".

 

[patsfan-1982]

It's the section where he adresses the current outside linebackers already on the roster:

2011 NFL Draft: Notes From Bill Belichick's Day Three Press Conference - Pats Pulpit

nice read i hope its not one of does Derrick Burgess things were he said he's one of the best LB's he's ever had and then cut him lol

 

[captain stone]

Contemplating the focus on offense, I had a little moment of something that feels like clarity.

We know that Belichick always fills gaping roster holes in the draft. Usually he uses free agency to do that in order to approach the draft without absolute needs tying his hands, so that he can take advantage of opportunities as they come. But in the rare case that a job was just sitting open -- Mankins, Gostkowski -- he aggressively fills it.

For all that we wanted to see upgrades at DL & OLB, those positions are at least filled. What's more, the talent there is young enough that they should be able to at least modestly upgrade themselves. But with Neal retiring and Light, Faulk, Taylor and Morris all unsigned and aging, OL and RB had multiple, genuine gaping holes. And now the team has two new o-linemen and 2 new RBs.

There's been a lot of grousing on the board that BB got cute playing with value and ignored need. What if it's the reverse?

I don't think that you would have found many people on this particular forum
who would've argued before the draft against drafting OLmen with at least
2 of our top-150 picks.

I also don't think, however, that you would've found many people who would've argued
in favor of drafting RBs with 2 of our top-75 picks, esp. when not 1 defensive front-7
player had yet to be taken.

But what really blows my mind is that the Pats, of all teams, should have understood
that servicable, reliable RBs can be found in the 3rd-day rounds of a draft - or later.
Besides our own Law & Order, last year's leading rusher Arian Foster was undrafted
in 1999; Priest Holmes also went from UDFA to Rushing Champ, in 2001.

Taking the success & youth of both Sherriff Woody & the Law Firm into consideration,
I contended before the draft (and still do) that all our Offensive Backfield needed was:
the re-signing of Kevin Faulk - provided, of course, that he was healthy & wanted to play
another season splitting the touches with Woody & acting as backup Returner;
the acquisition via either free agency or draft of a FB/RB such as Jason Snelling or
LeRon McClain, esp. if Bill is serious about returning Power Running to the Pat's offense;
and the acquisition of a workhorse-type back to split the tougher carries with BJGE.

There is no doubt that Fragile Fred & Sometimes Sammy need to go; in fact,
they both should've been replaced before last year. As an example of poss. replacements,
I had hoped that Bill would've used one of his 6th/7th-rounders in 2007 on Snelling,
and one of his 6th/7th-rounders in 2009 on Rashad Jennings of Jacksonville.
But I'm not ready to send Faulk to the scrap heap; he was very effective in 2009.
His leadership in the locker room cannot be understated, either.
If he does decide to retire, however, there will be plenty of his type of RB available
once Free Agency begins. Hell, there'll be plenty of the Taylor/Morris types available, too.

I also respectfully disagree with your contention that at least the OLB & DE positions are filled.

TBC is overpaid, underproductive, over 30, and is therefore a possible cap casualty;
Eric Moore was unemployed on Thanksgiving;
and Marques Murrell couldn't make the team out of TC
(or any other team throughout the reg season).
This leaves us Ninko, Cunningham & now a late-round project who needs to add
strength (17 reps) while increasing his explosiveness (1.71 10-yd split).
I don't consider the OLB position filled at all, by a longshot.

And as far as DE is concerned, excluding the iffy injury status of Ty Warren & Mike Wright,
Bill does have quantity there, but I wouldn't give you a conditional 7th-rounder for the rest of them.
The athleticism of the unit is severely lacking, and I see nobody there capable of improving
the pass rush, even if they're used in 4-man fronts.

Sorry for the buzz kill, but that's just as I see it right now.

 

[Shelterdog]

I don't think that you would have found many people on this particular forum
who would've argued before the draft against drafting OLmen with at least
2 of our top-150 picks.

I also don't think, however, that you would've found many people who would've argued
in favor of drafting RBs with 2 of our top-75 picks, esp. when not 1 defensive front-7
player had yet to be taken.

The fallacy in your argument is that the NFL draft is a farmer's marker--which may not have what you want at any price--and not Macy's or something where you can get what you want. You can't just say "I'd like a third round LB" and automatically get a LB or a DE of a certain caliber. (I'd also add that no obvious 3-4 OLBs or DEs were drafted after the Mallett pick (75) until KJ wright was drafted 103; the Chargers/Steelers/Jets/Packers didn't see value at that point in the draft either.)

The two running backs isn't that surprising. BJGE isn't even under contract and is probably a free agent in 2012; Woodhead is the only other back under contract.

 

[patchick]

I don't think that you would have found many people on this particular forum
who would've argued before the draft against drafting OLmen with at least
2 of our top-150 picks.

I also don't think, however, that you would've found many people who would've argued
in favor of drafting RBs with 2 of our top-75 picks

Well, here's a nice, long pre-draft thread on the wisdom of drafting multiple RBs:
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...33-running-back-we-have-three-open-spots.html

I also respectfully disagree with your contention that at least the OLB & DE positions are filled.

Compare to RB & OL and I think the contrast is crystal clear.

At RB, there simply weren't any bodies. Faulk, Morris, and Taylor were unsigned, so at least 2 jobs were flat-out EMPTY. On the OL, 3 starters from last year are unsigned and another veteran with starting experience missed the season with serious back surgery.

Meanwhile over at OLB, the team returns everyone. Pencil in Cunningham & Ninkovich as returning starters, and TBC & Moore as experienced situational backups. You might not care for the players, but surely returning the entire 2010 roster makes a position far more "filled" than having a slew of unsigned players and empty holes? Same story on DL, where you've only lost G. Warren and are replacing him with T. Warren & Stroud.

Would it be lovely to have even better OLBs and DEs? Sure. Are the positions sitting empty? No, they're just plain not. :confused2:

 

[convertedpatsfan]

But what really blows my mind is that the Pats, of all teams, should have understood
that servicable, reliable RBs can be found in the 3rd-day rounds of a draft - or later.
Besides our own Law & Order, last year's leading rusher Arian Foster was undrafted
in 1999; Priest Holmes also went from UDFA to Rushing Champ, in 2001.

Between 2000 and 2010, 82 different running backs have rushed for at least 1,000 yards in a season. 62 of them were taken in the first 3 rounds (75.6%), and more than half that total were 1st rounders (34 1sts vs. 16 2nds and 12 3rds).

Interestingly enough, 11 of the remaining 20 backs were drafted in rounds 4-7, while 9 were UDFAs. On the surface, it seems to suggest there's not a huge difference between the backs taken on day 3 and those not drafted at all. But that number has more to do with recent history, as 5 of the 9 UDFAs had their 1,000-yard seasons within the past 3 seasons (Ryan Grant 2008, Fred Jackson 2009, Arian Foster/LeGarrette Blount/Lawfirm 2010).

So while there are late-round bargains to be found, they aren't the norm, and the team took it's lack of RBs seriously in the draft. BB mentioned the great depth numerous times, which makes me think he had much higher grades on some of these guys compared to where they were drafted.

 

[West Philly Patriot]

Well, here's a nice, long pre-draft thread on the wisdom of drafting multiple RBs:
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...33-running-back-we-have-three-open-spots.html



Compare to RB & OL and I think the contrast is crystal clear.

At RB, there simply weren't any bodies. Faulk, Morris, and Taylor were unsigned, so at least 2 jobs were flat-out EMPTY. On the OL, 3 starters from last year are unsigned and another veteran with starting experience missed the season with serious back surgery.

Meanwhile over at OLB, the team returns everyone. Pencil in Cunningham & Ninkovich as returning starters, and TBC & Moore as experienced situational backups. You might not care for the players, but surely returning the entire 2010 roster makes a position far more "filled" than having a slew of unsigned players and empty holes? Same story on DL, where you've only lost G. Warren and are replacing him with T. Warren & Stroud.

Would it be lovely to have even better OLBs and DEs? Sure. Are the positions sitting empty? No, they're just plain not. :confused2:

Between 2000 and 2010, 82 different running backs have rushed for at least 1,000 yards in a season. 62 of them were taken in the first 3 rounds (75.6%), and more than half that total were 1st rounders (34 1sts vs. 16 2nds and 12 3rds).

Interestingly enough, 11 of the remaining 20 backs were drafted in rounds 4-7, while 9 were UDFAs. On the surface, it seems to suggest there's not a huge difference between the backs taken on day 3 and those not drafted at all. But that number has more to do with recent history, as 5 of the 9 UDFAs had their 1,000-yard seasons within the past 3 seasons (Ryan Grant 2008, Fred Jackson 2009, Arian Foster/LeGarrette Blount/Lawfirm 2010).

So while there are late-round bargains to be found, they aren't the norm, and the team took it's lack of RBs seriously in the draft. BB mentioned the great depth numerous times, which makes me think he had much higher grades on some of these guys compared to where they were drafted.

I'm happy about BB's addressing of the running game. This tells me he isn't attempting throwing more aging vets at an issue that plagued us in the last playoff game. Everyone here advocated for picking up a RB so this is something we should all be in agreement on. What people seem to differ on is the round said RB's were selected.

As far as OLB/DE goes, I wanted us to take a DE because I felt we don't have a standout guy there, but the position is far from naked. We have a deep committee with a nice mixture of vets and pups. I would've loved heyward but BB saw it differently. A healthy Ty Warren> Cam Heyward. Lets see what Stroud gives us as well, he could truly be an ex-factor there. I just hope we aren't depending to much on Mike Wright, because that injury he sustained seemed beyond just football.

I have similar feelings about OLB as well. Positions are filled, the cupboard isn't bare. There was a poster who linked a site where BB was quoted saying he wants to see eric moore with a full offseason. I agree with this, I know he's 30 but his play was above average for the reps he did get. If he becomes a starter and plays 2 years that should give us time to draft and groom a successor within that span. I am hoping with the addition of dowling and leigh bodden's health that our pass rush will not look as inadequate. If moore is who BB might think he is, that wouldn't hurt either.

 

[captain stone]

Well, here's a nice, long pre-draft thread on the wisdom of drafting multiple RBs:
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...33-running-back-we-have-three-open-spots.html



Compare to RB & OL and I think the contrast is crystal clear.

At RB, there simply weren't any bodies. Faulk, Morris, and Taylor were unsigned, so at least 2 jobs were flat-out EMPTY. On the OL, 3 starters from last year are unsigned and another veteran with starting experience missed the season with serious back surgery.

I expressed the same opinion before the draft, in post 24 of that thread,
that I have expressed now, after the draft, in this thread:
Taking 2 RBs inside the top-75 is a luxury that our defense cannot afford.
But if Bill insisted on taking 2 RBs, then Leshore at 56 & Vereen at 73 (instead of Ridley)
would at least have optimized value; Ridley at 73 was minimizing value.
He could have very likely been avail. at 159, where TE Lee Smith was drafted.
If Vereen were somehow unavail. at 73, then Jordan Todman at 159 would've been a not-too-shabby Plan B.
And if Ridley were somehow unavail. at 159, then so what? Plenty of his kind of fish in the sea,
both in the draft & in the pros.

 

[Sciz]

I expressed the same opinion before the draft, in post 24 of that thread,
that I have expressed now, after the draft, in this thread:
Taking 2 RBs inside the top-75 is a luxury that our defense cannot afford.
But if Bill insisted on taking 2 RBs, then Leshore at 56 & Vereen at 73 (instead of Ridley)
would at least have optimized value; Ridley at 73 was minimizing value.
He could have very likely been avail. at 159, where TE Lee Smith was drafted.
If Vereen were somehow unavail. at 73, then Jordan Todman at 159 would've been a not-too-shabby Plan B.
And if Ridley were somehow unavail. at 159, then so what? Plenty of his kind of fish in the sea,
both in the draft & in the pros.

"I am a better talent evaluator at RB than Bill and company blah blah blah"

 

[NEGoldenAge]

I expressed the same opinion before the draft, in post 24 of that thread,
that I have expressed now, after the draft, in this thread:
Taking 2 RBs inside the top-75 is a luxury that our defense cannot afford.
But if Bill insisted on taking 2 RBs, then Leshore at 56 & Vereen at 73 (instead of Ridley)
would at least have optimized value; Ridley at 73 was minimizing value.
He could have very likely been avail. at 159, where TE Lee Smith was drafted.
If Vereen were somehow unavail. at 73, then Jordan Todman at 159 would've been a not-too-shabby Plan B.
And if Ridley were somehow unavail. at 159, then so what? Plenty of his kind of fish in the sea,
both in the draft & in the pros.

What if Ridley and Vereen were the top two RBs on the Patriots board? Either way, BB obviously didn't like the talent after Ridley was taken, bailed completely out of the 4th round and wanted to trade out of 74 so badly, he even advertised through Lombardi he was taking Mallet. Even if you were a great talent evaluator, unless you watch a LOT of tape (not just a few minutes of youtube), it's more than silly to hold onto your opinions on these players so tightly. So unless you have access to coaches tape, you just really, really wanna be right. Barring injury, history will show both of these guys as great picks.

 

[patchick]

But if Bill insisted on taking 2 RBs, then Leshore at 56 & Vereen at 73 (instead of Ridley)
would at least have optimized value; Ridley at 73 was minimizing value.

OK, read what you just said. You're asking them to draft a player (Leshoure) they considered a weak prospect over one they considered a strong prospect (Vereen) in order to get better "value" on draft rankings compiled by media observers!

(does it count as breaking my vow not to say "value" if I'm quoting somebody else? )

It's totally reasonable to think Leshoure was a better prospect than Vereen, plenty of people did. As it happens, I wasn't one of them and Ivan Fears wasn't one of them. But let's argue based on that, rather than positing an abstract "value" system that automatically slots your player higher. (BTW, 3 other RBs were taken before #73 so it doesn't seem plausible to wait there for Vereen.)

On Ridley, honestly I'd guess that taking him that high came down to something like "we've already traded away the next 2 picks and nobody's willing to give us a 2012 pick for trading down from here, so let's just take a player we like and get out."

 

[Metaphors]

On Ridley, honestly I'd guess that taking him that high came down to something like "we've already traded away the next 2 picks and nobody's willing to give us a 2012 pick for trading down from here, so let's just take a player we like and get out."

I think the Ridley pick says a lot about the Pats draft strategy. Consider:

- They knew that Ridley would be available later.
- If other positions were still in play, it is doubtful that Ridley would be the top player on their draft board.
- The Pats traded their next 2 picks (after Mallett) way before they were on the clock.
- After Ridley, the remaining picks were high risk/high reward sliders (possibly not in play for 2011) and special teamers.

This says to me that Ridley was the last major piece of business for this draft. Lee Smith was likely also a target but I doubt they would have been too upset if they missed out on him. If Ridley specifically was a target, that probably means that Vereen (complementary skills) was as well.

Considering the Pats "shut down" at pick #73, they probably had no intention of drafting DL, LB, WR (barring an incredible slider) or even interior OL for that matter (Cannon couldn't have been a target since he shouldn't have lasted until the 5th round).

This just reinforces my belief that Belichick entered this draft with a precise plan:

1) Get Solder, Vereen, Ridley and Smith
They didn't seem to want to move off of #17 even with guys falling to them at various positions. The rest were considered reaches because the Pats wanted to be sure they got them. All 4 guys together are a theme and losing any one of them might affect 2011 team building more than their talent level would indicate.

2) Get 1st and 2nd round picks in 2012
The Pats were perfectly willing to trade down...just not for anything below a 2012 2nd. That gives an indication of their evaluation of the 2012 draft class and their planned approach to the 2012 roster.

3) Take any multi-round sliders
As long as they satisfied the top 2 goals, grab guys high on their draft board that dropped significantly. It is reasonable to assume that both Mallett and Cannon were at or near the top of their position lists. It also says a lot about their feelings toward those positions (QB and OG) on the roster today that the Pats were willing to let them slide that long.

4) Get a guy who can cover in the middle of the field
I don't have another way to explain the Dowling pick. Pick #33 was too high for a corner that likely won't see much action outside. Put Dowling as a combo DB that roams the middle of the field (think Ed Reed) and this makes much more sense. I put this firmly at priority 4 since it sure looked like priority 2 (trade into 2012) was a strong consideration...even if Dowling was lost in the process.

5) Toss whatever is left to O'Brien
There were any number of DL, LB, WR and interior OL candidates available after the Cannon pick. They would be lost cost flyers, but Belichick just wasn't interested. The last 2 picks were guys who look like special teamers and will be thrilled to focus on excelling in that role.

Rather than look at this draft from the perspective of getting highly ranked players at each draft position, I'm looking at this draft from the perspective of Belichick coldly executing a plan drawn up well in advance of the beginning of round 1. You can hate on the plan (I'm not entirely sold on it myself) but I'm betting dude got exactly what he was looking for.

 

[DaBruinz]

I also respectfully disagree with your contention that at least the OLB & DE positions are filled.

TBC is overpaid, underproductive, over 30, and is therefore a possible cap casualty;
Eric Moore was unemployed on Thanksgiving;
and Marques Murrell couldn't make the team out of TC
(or any other team throughout the reg season).
This leaves us Ninko, Cunningham & now a late-round project who needs to add
strength (17 reps) while increasing his explosiveness (1.71 10-yd split).
I don't consider the OLB position filled at all, by a longshot.

And as far as DE is concerned, excluding the iffy injury status of Ty Warren & Mike Wright,
Bill does have quantity there, but I wouldn't give you a conditional 7th-rounder for the rest of them.
The athleticism of the unit is severely lacking, and I see nobody there capable of improving
the pass rush, even if they're used in 4-man fronts.

Sorry for the buzz kill, but that's just as I see it right now.

Ty Warren's injury status isn't IFFY unless you've completely ignored the stories on his rehab. Yes, Mike Wright is iffy. As for what you see, that doesn't matter. What matters is what BB sees. And they actually have quite a few players. Brandon Deaderick (who actually put up better stats than his teammate who was taken in the 1st round this year), Kade Weston, Ron Brance. Marcus Stroud, Darryl Richard, Landon Cohen and Marlon Favorite. Watching the games last year, Brace clearly showed a big jump in his ability prior to his injury. In fact, he was the 2nd best DL last year behind Wilfork.

Deaderick could break out this year if he keeps his nose clean. If not, then he'll be gone.


Now, going back to Eric Moore. Just because he was "unemployed at Thanksgiving" doesn't mean a damn thing. He came in and played extremely well for the Pats with limited time. Is he a long term answer? No. And no one is saying that. But, short-term, I think he can be more than capable with a full training camp under his belt.

I think that most people feel that BB will add one OLB in free agency. Who that will be is another story with a lot depending on what happens as a result of the lock-out or the rules the league imposes as a result of no CBA. I am not on the Roth bandwagon. I think the guy is a tool and not too bright. There's a reason that Miami let him go mid-season in 2009 and the Pats didn't put a waiver claim in on him.

 

[DaBruinz]

I expressed the same opinion before the draft, in post 24 of that thread,
that I have expressed now, after the draft, in this thread:
Taking 2 RBs inside the top-75 is a luxury that our defense cannot afford.
But if Bill insisted on taking 2 RBs, then Leshore at 56 & Vereen at 73 (instead of Ridley)
would at least have optimized value; Ridley at 73 was minimizing value.
He could have very likely been avail. at 159, where TE Lee Smith was drafted.
If Vereen were somehow unavail. at 73, then Jordan Todman at 159 would've been a not-too-shabby Plan B.
And if Ridley were somehow unavail. at 159, then so what? Plenty of his kind of fish in the sea,
both in the draft & in the pros.

Sorry, but your statements regarding value would be correct if and ONLY if you had the same ability to determine VALUE as the Patriots do. It's been proven time and again that the way you determine value is flawed because you don't have access to certain information. Such as the interviews with the coaches. And it's that information that you aren't privy to that determines the value to the team and to Belichick.

So, for you to say that Ridley was minimizing value is pure garbage because you have absolutely no ability to determine that. Just like you have no ability to determine that Jordan Todman would have been a "not to shabby Plan B". Clearly the Pats disagreed with you. And their success rate is much better than yours.

Ivan Fears in the Pats RB coach. He worked out Todman, Ridley and Vereen as well as several others, including LeShoure. One of the things that I found interesting is that the Pats had Vereen rated higher than BOTH LeShoure and Ingram. Meaning that they felt Vereen was the better value for their team.

You love to talk about value and such, but you do so in the vacuum of over-all talent. You have not once shown you consider things from a personnel aspect or from a team aspect. You seem to be under the misguided perception that having the best talent puts you in the best position to win even though it's been shown time and again in the past 10 years that the exact opposite is true. The organization with the best TEAM has been the one to win. Not with the most talent.