Carriker and a Safety

[mgteich]

I would be happy with Carriker and a safety in Round 3 and 4, presuming that we have signed Samuel long-term.

 

[sebman2112]

I would be happy with Carriker and a safety in Round 3 and 4, presuming that we have signed Samuel long-term.

I would rather this happen:
Trade 24 and 28 to GB for 16 and 47 (I was talking about this on ESPN two weeks ago)

With 16th overall take either: 1-Willis, 2-Carriker, 3-Nelson, 4-Lynch, 5-Moss, Revis, or Meachem.

With 47th overall take either: Harris, Meriweather, Woodley, Bush, Leonard, Spencer, gonzo, McCauley, Weddle, an O-Linemen (basically whomever is there, and is the best value.) This would be much better than reaching for any of these players in the first, or taking an O-Linemen at 28, in my opinion.

With 92 take Either Wendling, Josh Wilson, Desmond Bishop, Earl Everett, Craig Davis, Lorenzo Booker, or an O-Linemen. (basically whemever is there, and is the best value.)

With 124th overall take Zak DeOssie, Gattis, Booker (if he falls), or BPA.

In the fifth (comp expected) take DeOssie if he falls (doubt it), Dwayne Wright, or BPA.

In the sixth take either Daren Stone, JD Nelson, DeAndre Jackson (if he falls), David Ball, or Abbate (if he last) with one of the picks, and then draft BPA with the remaining picks.

NE is going to have ten draft picks so they should be able to draft a lot of talent. They could probably even give up a sixth, or even both sixth to move into the 12-14 range, and still have 8 draft picks.

 

[BelichickFan]

I wouldn't be happy with it. Just like I wouldn't be happy if those who want to trade our #1s for Willis get their way.

I like Carriker. I like depth. I like DL. But we have some aging groups on defense, I don't want to spend two #1s on a guy who will be behind (and rotate in, I know) Warren and Seymour for at least two more years.

After 2007 we dont have a single Safety on the roster I like back for sure. And I dont want to pin my hopes on a low #3 pick.

After 2007 we only have Hobbs at CB. And even if Samuel signs, we only have two.

Give me, say, Aaron Ross and Brandon Merriweather any day - you can still draft a Safety (or one of the LB) in the third round.

 

[sebman2112]

I wouldn't be happy with it. Just like I wouldn't be happy if those who want to trade our #1s for Willis get their way.

I like Carriker. I like depth. I like DL. But we have some aging groups on defense, I don't want to spend two #1s on a guy who will be behind (and rotate in, I know) Warren and Seymour for at least two more years.

After 2007 we dont have a single Safety on the roster I like back for sure. And I dont want to pin my hopes on a low #3 pick.

After 2007 we only have Hobbs at CB. And even if Samuel signs, we only have two.

Give me, say, Aaron Ross and Brandon Merriweather any day - you can still draft a Safety (or one of the LB) in the third round.

What do you think about the 2 for 2 deal I have in mind? I think that might be the best option right now.

 

[BelichickFan]

What do you think about the 2 for 2 deal I have in mind? I think that might be the best option right now.

It's viable although the guys you list as options after the trade up don't excite me. Lynch, Moss, Meachem . . . shrug.

It depends who's there. Willis maybe. Carriker maybe (not trading 2-1 for him but if I get a #2 back). But not for some of those guys.

 

[Fencer]

What's the point of drafting Carriker? To let Warren walk?

I don't get it.

I don't mind rotating expensive LBs, but this seems like an even bigger investment.

Unless you think that the Seymour or Warren should rotate inside for Wilfork's breathers. Then having a fourth super-expensive DL would make sense. (And yes, a high 1st is a super-expensive asset.)

 

[Jimke]

One sad fact of life in the NFL is that most of your good players are

going to walk away. You can only franchise one player per year and

the cost is quite high. This is why you have to hold on to as many of

your high draft choices as possible. I would rather aquire as many

good players as possible instead of one or two early draft picks.

 

[BelichickFan]

One sad fact of life in the NFL is that most of your good players are going to walk away

Two #1s at a position where the players can't walk away for 2+ years is overkill especially with our LB and Safety situations.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

What's the point of drafting Carriker? To let Warren walk?

I don't get it.

I don't mind rotating expensive LBs, but this seems like an even bigger investment.

Unless you think that the Seymour or Warren should rotate inside for Wilfork's breathers. Then having a fourth super-expensive DL would make sense. (And yes, a high 1st is a super-expensive asset.)

Assume BB drafts BPA (Best Patriots' Player Available) in round one, we each have our chosen player, but mine is Carriker since I believe he is capable of making the transition to OLB (failing that he's not a wasted pick since he can play DE). You have a guy bigger than Willie McGinest who has better change of direction measurables than Posluszney or Willis coming in with at least a 5 year contract to learn behind Vrabel, Colvin, and Thomas. With first round talent you could see him taking some reps as a rookie and being part of a regular rotation by 2008.

But assume the worst and he can only play DE. Wright is a RFA after this season, pretty decent chance the Pats can get a second round pick for him and he can land himself a fat contract. Win-Win for the team and player. Assume Carriker isn't a Seymour but more of a Warren. Ty took two years to blossom, he's a UFA after 2008; Carriker gives the team a ready-made option at DE, taking him now addresses long term issues as well as upgrading depth in a very critical unit. That's good value in round one.

 

[sebman2112]

Assume BB drafts BPA (Best Patriots' Player Available) in round one, we each have our chosen player, but mine is Carriker since I believe he is capable of making the transition to OLB (failing that he's not a wasted pick since he can play DE). You have a guy bigger than Willie McGinest who has better change of direction measurables than Posluszney or Willis coming in with at least a 5 year contract to learn behind Vrabel, Colvin, and Thomas. With first round talent you could see him taking some reps as a rookie and being part of a regular rotation by 2008.

But assume the worst and he can only play DE. Wright is a RFA after this season, pretty decent chance the Pats can get a second round pick for him and he can land himself a fat contract. Win-Win for the team and player. Assume Carriker isn't a Seymour but more of a Warren. Ty took two years to blossom, he's a UFA after 2008; Carriker gives the team a ready-made option at DE, taking him now addresses long term issues as well as upgrading depth in a very critical unit. That's good value in round one.

This is partly (I'm not sold on the LB stuff) why I would take him in the first, but I would take Willis first. If you think Carriker can motor downfield like Willis you're nuts, and he can't play ILB. Willis specializes at ILB. I'm a big time Nebraska fan, have been since childhood, but even I don't think Carriker can cover the field from sideline-to-sideline like Willis.

 

[captain stone]

Assume BB drafts BPA (Best Patriots' Player Available) in round one, we each have our chosen player, but mine is Carriker since I believe he is capable of making the transition to OLB (failing that he's not a wasted pick since he can play DE). You have a guy bigger than Willie McGinest who has better change of direction measurables than Posluszney or Willis coming in with at least a 5 year contract to learn behind Vrabel, Colvin, and Thomas. With first round talent you could see him taking some reps as a rookie and being part of a regular rotation by 2008.

But assume the worst and he can only play DE. Wright is a RFA after this season, pretty decent chance the Pats can get a second round pick for him and he can land himself a fat contract. Win-Win for the team and player. Assume Carriker isn't a Seymour but more of a Warren. Ty took two years to blossom, he's a UFA after 2008; Carriker gives the team a ready-made option at DE, taking him now addresses long term issues as well as upgrading depth in a very critical unit. That's good value in round one.

Box and MGT:

I greatly respect your opinions, but the only way I draft Carriker is if he falls to me at 24. I would then draft the best available DB at 28. Sebman's trade proposal is intriguing, but I would be tempted to use #16 on Willis or Revis, not Carriker, unless the pats' scouting and coaching staffs are convinced that he could make the transition to OLB.

One of the main reasons, for me, to draft ILB and DB on Saturday is that those players could probably start and contribute Right Now; and the time to win more SBs is Right Now. Short-sighted? Perhaps, but after the way the last 2 seasons ended, that's how I feel, right now.

 

[PATSNUTme]

There are only two players that I would want to trade up for with our 2 1st rounders. Landry and Willis and only if we get a mid 2nd rounder with them. I can't see doing that for any DE/OLB.

Here is why I'm so high on Willis.

1. He played at a high level against the best competion,SEC, without having a supporting cast around him. Most of the other players being considered had great teams and so they could look good becasue they had much help.

2. Willis is a postion of need for us and next years crop may not have a player close to him that can play the Patriots stye.

3. From PFW " extemely hard worker. Very, very competitive. Warrior-like and will play through injuries- played with a big cast on his hand while battling through foot and knee injuries and was still very productive. Has overcome a lot of adveristy and lives for the game."

Now, we would have to check those injuries and make sure that they are not a factor any more.

Next year is a year that we can look for a DE/OLB if needed.

 

[patchick]

I greatly respect your opinions, but the only way I draft Carriker is if he falls to me at 24.

That's about where I am too. I don't for a moment question that Carriker would be a terrific addition. But trading 2 #1s in a draft where you have no #2...yikes. For me, that would require both a very, very special player AND a key team need. (Hey Box, weren't you arguing recently that you wouldn't trade both #1's even for Lawrence Taylor in his prime?)

 

[captain stone]

There are only two players that I would want to trade up for with our 2 1st rounders. Landry and Willis and only if we get a mid 2nd rounder with them. I can't see doing that for any DE/OLB.

Here is why I'm so high on Willis.

1. He played at a high level against the best competion,SEC, without having a supporting cast around him. Most of the other players being considered had great teams and so they could look good becasue they had much help.

2. Willis is a postion of need for us and next years crop may not have a player close to him that can play the Patriots stye.

3. From PFW " extemely hard worker. Very, very competitive. Warrior-like and will play through injuries- played with a big cast on his hand while battling through foot and knee injuries and was still very productive. Has overcome a lot of adveristy and lives for the game."

Now, we would have to check those injuries and make sure that they are not a factor any more.

Next year is a year that we can look for a DE/OLB if needed.

I'm smelling what PNM is cooking.

 

[sebman2112]

What's funny is you'll get someone argueing against using both first rounders to draft Landry (I wouldn't do this, either), but then some of the same people will advocate using both first to take a player who is not the top rated at his position, and isn't as big of a need.

 

[BelichickFan]

Here is why I'm so high on Willis.

I don't think your boy is worth trading up with two #1s either. Let the draft come to us - if there happens to be a faller around 19,20,21 then a small trade up could be considered. Belioli has done a good job drafting guys who surprise us but earn their draft position in the first round, I'm in no panic to get a name guy.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I don't think your boy is worth trading up with two #1s either. Let the draft come to us - if there happens to be a faller around 19,20,21 then a small trade up could be considered. Belioli has done a good job drafting guys who surprise us but earn their draft position in the first round, I'm in no panic to get a name guy.

Is there another ILB that is a "Patriot type player" who is close to a sure thing that Willis seems to be? If there is, then I would wait for him too.

But, I haven't seen any. Maybe the draft will fall that way for us. By draft day BB/SP will have a very good idea which team will take what player. Keep our fingers crossed and trust them to pull the trigger when needed.

I can't see much sweat coming from my forehead on draft day.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

This is partly (I'm not sold on the LB stuff) why I would take him in the first, but I would take Willis first. If you think Carriker can motor downfield like Willis you're nuts, and he can't play ILB. Willis specializes at ILB. I'm a big time Nebraska fan, have been since childhood, but even I don't think Carriker can cover the field from sideline-to-sideline like Willis.

Yes Willis can run sideline to sideline, but at what playing weight? I got to watch him in the examples Mayock was using in Path To The Draft and I see a traditional Cover-2 MLB who will do better behind the big bodies. From what I can see, he's not the best choice for a 3-4 ILB in this draft - Bradley is the better 3-4 ILB prospect and he's also capable of playing on the edge.

I'm not looking for Carriker to cover the entire field, I'm looking for a big strong player to consistently set the edge against double-teams from FBs, TEs, OTs, and pulling OGs. He needs to have enough athleticism to rush the passer and drop into a shallow zone against the RB. I see Carriker taking Willie's old spot alongside Ty. Woods looked good last year, I think Carriker can beat him out of the job. Heck, I think Jay Moore could come in and challenge Woods, and he's not as athletic as Carriker.

That's about where I am too. I don't for a moment question that Carriker would be a terrific addition. But trading 2 #1s in a draft where you have no #2...yikes. For me, that would require both a very, very special player AND a key team need. (Hey Box, weren't you arguing recently that you wouldn't trade both #1's even for Lawrence Taylor in his prime?)

Aagghh! I'm burned! Before I begin the Kerry Harry ritual, I would plead that I'm contemplating that move in a draft class that stinks on ice. There are second rounders I like and would be glad to have, but looking at the first day prospects, Carriker, Revis, Hall, Leonard, Weddle, and Bradley seem to be the cream of the crop. Landing Carriker to learn for a year behind Vrabes and Thomas seems the best possible outcome, Bradley would be my focus if Carriker came off the board. The others are nice to haves.

 

[PATSNUTme]

[quote=Box_O_Rocks;379356]Yes Willis can run sideline to sideline, but at what playing weight? I got to watch him in the examples Mayock was using in Path To The Draft and I see a traditional Cover-2 MLB who will do better behind the big bodies. From what I can see, he's not the best choice for a 3-4 ILB in this draft - Bradley is the better 3-4 ILB prospect and he's also capable of playing on the edge.



[/quote]

Again from PFW:6-1 240 4.45 e

"Good Size. Plays with a good pad level and drives through tacklers. Shows the strength to play off blocks and will hit with force." "can play both 3-4 or 4-3"

I do believe that Bradley could be a good second option. But, he's not as much as a sure thing as Willis.

Your serve!

 

[sebman2112]

Yes Willis can run sideline to sideline, but at what playing weight? I got to watch him in the examples Mayock was using in Path To The Draft and I see a traditional Cover-2 MLB who will do better behind the big bodies. From what I can see, he's not the best choice for a 3-4 ILB in this draft - Bradley is the better 3-4 ILB prospect and he's also capable of playing on the edge.

I'm not looking for Carriker to cover the entire field, I'm looking for a big strong player to consistently set the edge against double-teams from FBs, TEs, OTs, and pulling OGs. He needs to have enough athleticism to rush the passer and drop into a shallow zone against the RB. I see Carriker taking Willie's old spot alongside Ty. Woods looked good last year, I think Carriker can beat him out of the job. Heck, I think Jay Moore could come in and challenge Woods, and he's not as athletic as Carriker.

Aagghh! I'm burned! Before I begin the Kerry Harry ritual, I would plead that I'm contemplating that move in a draft class that stinks on ice. There are second rounders I like and would be glad to have, but looking at the first day prospects, Carriker, Revis, Hall, Leonard, Weddle, and Bradley seem to be the cream of the crop. Landing Carriker to learn for a year behind Vrabes and Thomas seems the best possible outcome, Bradley would be my focus if Carriker came off the board. The others are nice to haves.

You're going by what you watched on "Path To The Draft", when it comes to Willis? This little youtube video will show you more than that, which is not a lot. I watch "Path To The Draft" too, but I think I remember Mayock saying Willis could play LB in a 3-4 scheme? I don't understand your point about playing weight. Willis dropped pounds for the combine, but he plays at 244-248lbs, and has the frame to play at around 260-270lbs.