DL Randy Starks

[Sciz]

Turns out Red Bryant was playing on a torn plantar fascia for part of this past season. That would explain why he wasn't playing well to end the season (and he wasn't, despite the "phenomenal season" claim of a certain other poster).

 

[supafly]

I wouldn't mind having Starks as part of the DL. My concern is that he'll demand too much money, and we'll likely have to fill those competition spots via the draft and the usual suspects of cheaper priced vets etc.

A high pick in the draft may be the way to go.

 

[Kontradiction]

I wouldn't mind having Starks as part of the DL. My concern is that he'll demand too much money, and we'll likely have to fill those competition spots via the draft and the usual suspects of cheaper priced vets etc.

A high pick in the draft may be the way to go.

How high though? I'm assuming we're going to be targeting a safety and a skill position player with the first two picks.

 

[Get it shawtaay]

Seriously? Bryant had a phenomenal season this year and was one of the main reasons Seattles defense was so good. The Patriots lost against the Seahawks because it was like running into a brick wall wherever Bryant was lined up and their DL in general minus Irvin.

I believe the guy you're thinking of is Brandon Mebane.

 

[mgteich]

I would expect that we would be targeting DT, WR, and S in the first 3 rounds. The need and the availability seems to be a match for the pats. Of course, when we actually pick, the situation may be different.

How high though? I'm assuming we're going to be targeting a safety and a skill position player with the first two picks.

 

[Kontradiction]

I would expect that we would be targeting DT, WR, and S in the first 3 rounds. The need and the availability seems to be a match for the pats. Of course, when we actually pick, the situation may be different.

I wouldn't put it any higher than a third round priority. IMO, the priorities should be: S (round 1/2 depending on a trade), WR (round 2), DT/DE (round 3).

 

[Ring 6]

I wouldn't put it any higher than a third round priority. IMO, the priorities should be: S (round 1/2 depending on a trade), WR (round 2), DT/DE (round 3).

Depends how you look at prioriities.
If you can only get one or the other, S is a bigger priority.
If you can get capable players at both spots, including a stud at one, we would be better with the stud being the DT.

 

[supafly]

How high though? I'm assuming we're going to be targeting a safety and a skill position player with the first two picks.

What we as fans see as the bigger priorities don't always mesh with what Belichick sees as the best way of approaching the draft or the team building process in general.

Much like you, I'd love to have a S and WR in the first 2 picks, but in all actuality either one of those picks may be addressed in the free agency period and/or in the mid rounds (assuming that we have a pick somewhere in the mid rounds, which is probably likely). It's also possible that we see one of those two picks the way that you propose with DT taking the place of the other choice.

I actually think it may be possible that a higher round (1-3) safety may not even be chosen in April due to possibly filling the need in free agency and Belichick just having taken Tavon Wilson in the 2nd round last year. It's certainly a possibility and would coincide with some of the "sure things" that we've all thought before that Bill Belichick hasn't agreed with, most notably in 2011 when everyone was positive that we were choosing at least one/two front seven players, and yet he went offense heavy instead.

One could make a reasonable argument that it could be somewhat of a wasted pick if we addess it in free agency with a nice combo of McCourty, FA, and Tavon Wilson continuing to get more experience and developmental reps as a high pick last year. That also leaves Gregory as a backup/role guy too, and at a somewhat higher rate to boot. If the position is addressed in FA, then I'd have a hard time seeing where the new rookie would see the field all that often, and possibly even next year too, even considering the fact that Gregory will probably be gone for 2014.

 

[SeymourTrophies]

There's what, two DT's in the league who are known for their pass rushing abilities? That's not really something you hold against guys who play that position, and you certainly don't rest the laurels of your defense on whether or not your DT's get pressure, particularly as the league trends toward packing light and flying around the field.

If Armond Armstead is halfway decent, he is the guy that they hoped they had in Jonathan Fanene, then it's time to focus on the edges because even if Chandler Jones turns into a year two stud, there needs to be another guy on the edge for this defense to trend upward.

 

[tonyto3690]

Turns out Red Bryant was playing on a torn plantar fascia for part of this past season. That would explain why he wasn't playing well to end the season (and he wasn't, despite the "phenomenal season" claim of a certain other poster).

He had a good season. Phenomenal might be an overreaction, but to suggest he was horrible is absurd. Just because a DT doesn't get ten sacks, doesn't mean they are a poor player or had a bad year, which is what I got the poster was implying.

By that standard Vince was horrible for us this year as well.

 

[tonyto3690]

But we need a pass rush MUCH more than a run stopping DT.

Budget isnt a reason to spend a bunch of moeny on a guy who doesnt fill an important need.

Those guys are still too expensive. We don't have 50 million in cap to blow. We have roughly 20 million and a bunch of free agents that need to be resigned or replaced.

Right now:
We have 1 real wide receiver on the roster and he might be cut.
We have 2 real cornerbacks on the roster and one is playing safety, the other has played like 4 games in 3 years.
Safety is a pretty sizable issue that needs to be addressed
Depth on the OL is a pretty big concern.

Starks would offer a budget friendly way of upgrading a position we need to upgrade without taking up half the money we need to allocate to the other positions.

 

[Get it shawtaay]

He had a good season. Phenomenal might be an overreaction, but to suggest he was horrible is absurd. Just because a DT doesn't get ten sacks, doesn't mean they are a poor player or had a bad year, which is what I got the poster was implying.

By that standard Vince was horrible for us this year as well.

Oh please. Wilfork is the best run stopping defense tackle in the game. Bryant wasn't even the same planet as him this season. Maybe it was injury, and maybe his level of play will spike next season. But right now, he's Kenyon Coleman on a 5/35 contract.

 

[supafly]

Starks would offer a budget friendly way of upgrading a position we need to upgrade without taking up half the money we need to allocate to the other positions.

Would he though? If that is the case then he may be a possibility, but CBS Sports currently has him ranked ahead of guys like Talib and William Moore as the 21st highest ranked free agent available.

I'm not so sure that he will be as budget friendly as you are assuming.

 

[Ring 6]

Those guys are still too expensive. We don't have 50 million in cap to blow. We have roughly 20 million and a bunch of free agents that need to be resigned or replaced. ['quote]
We dont need 50 million of cap space, but we certainly have a weak pass rush that needs improvement.

Right now:
We have 1 real wide receiver on the roster and he might be cut.
We have 2 real cornerbacks on the roster and one is playing safety, the other has played like 4 games in 3 years.
Safety is a pretty sizable issue that needs to be addressed
Depth on the OL is a pretty big concern.

And we have a poor pass rush.
The pass rush issue is at least as big as the coverage issue, and we need starters and key contributors not depth.

You can't base need on the number of players at a position without considering quality.
We have one effective pass rusher at DE, and the other starter is below average with nothing behind them to challenge them.
We have ZERO effective pass rushers at the DT spot.
Arguably, we have one of the worst pass rushing DL in the NFL, and its not even arguable we are among the worst if not the worst pass rushing team from the DT position in the entire league.

Starks would offer a budget friendly way of upgrading a position we need to upgrade without taking up half the money we need to allocate to the other positions.

How is he budget friendly? We have plenty of run stopping DTs who can't rush the passer, how is wasting money on another one going to make the team better?

 

[Ring 6]

There's what, two DT's in the league who are known for their pass rushing abilities? That's not really something you hold against guys who play that position, and you certainly don't rest the laurels of your defense on whether or not your DT's get pressure, particularly as the league trends toward packing light and flying around the field.

Every top defense gets pressure up the middle. Most shaky defenses have outside speed guys who put up sack numbers and do little else.

If Armond Armstead is halfway decent, he is the guy that they hoped they had in Jonathan Fanene, then it's time to focus on the edges because even if Chandler Jones turns into a year two stud, there needs to be another guy on the edge for this defense to trend upward.

If Armstead can be an effective inside rusher, thats a huge step, but can we count on him to play almost all the snaps? As is we have no one who is anything near an inside pass rush threat in the base, and we have to use Cunningham there in sub. We really need Armstead to be the best of expectations, PLUS a guy who can rush inside in sub.
I do agree LDE needs an upgrade too, and perhaps we can get that in one player, a LDE in base, and DT in sub.

 

[Kontradiction]

Depends how you look at prioriities.
If you can only get one or the other, S is a bigger priority.
If you can get capable players at both spots, including a stud at one, we would be better with the stud being the DT.

I'm not going to fully disagree with this. I agree that our pass rush should be addressed, either by a LB or a down lineman (DT/DE). It was borderline pathetic during stretches of the year last season. But I like to think I know a pretty good deal about the draft from all of the college football I watch. And, from what I've seen and read, there are two legitimate stud safety types in the draft this year in Vaccarro and Elam. After those two, it's a deep draft, but it's also much more of a crapshoot for that position. If either one, preferably Elam, is available when the Pats pick, I'd prefer to go safety first. I like what we have in Jones and, should he be able to stay healthy, he should be a good pass rusher going forward. Strictly talking 4-3, it's the DT position that needs to have a better pass rusher added (we may have that in Armstead, he looked good in college) and Ninkovich can stand to be upgraded. I don't think that Bequette is going to be the guy that upgrades Nink and Trevor Scott is a one trick pony and is a liability against the run.

All that said, I'd still put the top two priorities at S and WR, but you and I aren't far off from an agreement for once. In other news, it's snowing in Hell.

 

[Kontradiction]

What we as fans see as the bigger priorities don't always mesh with what Belichick sees as the best way of approaching the draft or the team building process in general.

Much like you, I'd love to have a S and WR in the first 2 picks, but in all actuality either one of those picks may be addressed in the free agency period and/or in the mid rounds (assuming that we have a pick somewhere in the mid rounds, which is probably likely). It's also possible that we see one of those two picks the way that you propose with DT taking the place of the other choice.

I actually think it may be possible that a higher round (1-3) safety may not even be chosen in April due to possibly filling the need in free agency and Belichick just having taken Tavon Wilson in the 2nd round last year. It's certainly a possibility and would coincide with some of the "sure things" that we've all thought before that Bill Belichick hasn't agreed with, most notably in 2011 when everyone was positive that we were choosing at least one/two front seven players, and yet he went offense heavy instead.

One could make a reasonable argument that it could be somewhat of a wasted pick if we addess it in free agency with a nice combo of McCourty, FA, and Tavon Wilson continuing to get more experience and developmental reps as a high pick last year. That also leaves Gregory as a backup/role guy too, and at a somewhat higher rate to boot. If the position is addressed in FA, then I'd have a hard time seeing where the new rookie would see the field all that often, and possibly even next year too, even considering the fact that Gregory will probably be gone for 2014.

I'm going by the information we have in front of us right now. Once FA rolls around, reserve the right to change my mind.

 

[supafly]

I'm going by the information we have in front of us right now. Once FA rolls around, reserve the right to change my mind.

I'm certainly not meaning to question your superior knowledge of football related issues by any means. To be honest I actually agree with you and would like to see Elam taken also. I'm just pointing out that the position itself could be addressed via other routes, and then pushed back another year as far as draft picks go.

One of the variables would probably be how much Belichick thinks that Wilson has progressed in his first season here, and how confident they may be in feeling that he could potentially be a starter if/when needed. If they feel good about it then we may have seen our "high" draft picked just used last April, which may make another one a luxury that we can't afford due to other needs.

I know one thing, the whole "big picture" aspect seems a bit murkier and complicated to me this partciular off-season, although I could be wrong. There just seems to be a lot of different options and variables as far as trying to determine who will stay/who will leave and how to replace those needs, most of all in what specific fashion.

 

[Kontradiction]

I'm certainly not meaning to question your superior knowledge of football related issues by any means. To be honest I actually agree with you and would like to see Elam taken also. I'm just pointing out that the position itself could be addressed via other routes, and then pushed back another year as far as draft picks go.

One of the variables would probably be how much Belichick thinks that Wilson has progressed in his first season here, and how confident they may be in feeling that he could potentially be a starter if/when needed. If they feel good about it then we may have seen our "high" draft picked just used last April, which may make another one a luxury that we can't afford due to other needs.

I know one thing, the whole "big picture" aspect seems a bit murkier and complicated to me this partciular off-season, although I could be wrong. There just seems to be a lot of different options and variables as far as trying to determine who will stay/who will leave and how to replace those needs, most of all in what specific fashion.

No worries. Big picture-wise, I'm beginning to wonder if the coaching staff envision Wilson for the nickel CB role this year, should Arrington not come back...

 

[tonyto3690]

Those guys are still too expensive. We don't have 50 million in cap to blow. We have roughly 20 million and a bunch of free agents that need to be resigned or replaced. ['quote]
We dont need 50 million of cap space, but we certainly have a weak pass rush that needs improvement.


And we have a poor pass rush.
The pass rush issue is at least as big as the coverage issue, and we need starters and key contributors not depth.

You can't base need on the number of players at a position without considering quality.
We have one effective pass rusher at DE, and the other starter is below average with nothing behind them to challenge them.
We have ZERO effective pass rushers at the DT spot.
Arguably, we have one of the worst pass rushing DL in the NFL, and its not even arguable we are among the worst if not the worst pass rushing team from the DT position in the entire league.




How is he budget friendly? We have plenty of run stopping DTs who can't rush the passer, how is wasting money on another one going to make the team better?

It doesn't matter how good your front 4 is if you have Marquice Cole as your starting corner.

McCourty thankfully gives us some flexibility, but we need to sign AT LEAST an outside corner + a slut corner (McCourty to S) or AT LEAST a starting safety and slot corner (McCourty to CB). That's two starters we need to get in the secondary.

Then on offense we were complaining all season about how we didn't have any outside threat, and you want to role into the season with Lloyd as our #1 and Slater as our #2 with who knows what garbage as our #3? You're asking for a 2006 let-down season all over again by doing that.


Sorry, while I really want an upgrade at DE and DT, Ninkovich is passable as as the fourth best starter on the DL and Starks would be an instant upgrade over Love. The more I'm looking at our cap and our needs, the more I'm thinking we don't even have enough money for Starks, let alone someone even more expensive.

You seem stuck on a DT who can rush the passer above everything else. Suh is the best at the game at that and the Lions defense suffered because he couldn't stop the run which is what Belichick hangs his hat on. Starks his entire career has been asked to two gap and draw double teams. He is a far better pass rusher than you're giving credit for, and it's akin to you saying Seymour was a garbage DT/DE because he didn't have a ton of sacks. Just completely stupid logic.

Would he though? If that is the case then he may be a possibility, but CBS Sports currently has him ranked ahead of guys like Talib and William Moore as the 21st highest ranked free agent available.

I'm not so sure that he will be as budget friendly as you are assuming.

That would be surprising. From what I've seen and read, he doesn't get nearly enough love. Not that the media and fan posters are indicative of how front office talent evaluators feel, but it just seems he's flying under the radar and can be had for a very reasonable price