A question worth asking....

[arrellbee]

..... Regardless of how the Samuel question turns out, on the KFFL board a guy asked a great question, and since we don't have much to do right now; it would be a perfect time to ask this speculative question. One that will have a real effect on the team and will test our metal as future NFL GM's

Even at the Pats offer price, you can assume that if Samuel signs with the Pats, it will be a large investment in one player. High enough, I speculate that it would preclude the Pats from re-signing BOTH Warren and Wilfolk. It might even high enough to effect whether we can bring back Stallworth past this season. So here is the question

You have three key player, each playing a key position on your defense. You only have money to re-sign TWO of them. Samuel, Warren, Wilfolk. You are the GM. Who stays, and who goes?????

I won't contaminate the start of this, with my own opinion, because at this moment I don't have one. Convince me which 2 are the right ones to keep.

Real football consideration. Who knew. Thanks for a really good question.

My crack at it is simple.

If you have less than a top level DL, then to make up for that you have to have at least 4 DBs that have to compensate for the weakness of the DL (not to mention 3 or 4 LBs as well). Considering that CB is a fairly expensive position comparatively, you probably don't even have enough money no matter what to pay premium to 4 DBs. Also, obviously, one top CB doesn't do you much good since the other team can go against the weaker DB positions all day long. Interestingly enough, seems to me we have had a lot of examples where teams tried to upgrade their defense by adding a top CB - and it didn't work worth a darn.

Perhaps something folks don't step back to think about also. A DL has to be be pretty well balanced in strength. If you have a marginal player at one of the positions, that leaves much more opportunity to single team that player and double team the stronger DLs which takes away so much of the power of the DL. So it's even far more of an impact than thinking you are just weakening one position on the DL - you have probably seriously impacted the effectiveness of the whole line.

Another part of the equation - an important part of a really effective CB is run support. But in no way is the CB a controlling part of the run defense. So in addition to the equation of DL versus DBs in pass defense, the DL has a critical contribution to make as far as defending the running game. So a DL has more of an impact on the full game than a CB.

I don't see how a CB could ever get one of PFK's two slots if there are two top DL to chose and, as the proposition is posed by PFK, you only get to pick two.

 

[Joker]

well, if I were GM...the FIRST thing I'm doing is firing Patsfanken...he makes me too paranoid

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Obviously you re-sign the CB and the DE, the two most expensive non-QB positions.

I look at BB's team building choices in rounds 1 & 2:
2000 #46 OT
2001 #6 DL
2001 #48 OT
2002 #21 TE
2002 #65 WR
2003 #13 DL
2003 #36 CB/FS
2003 #45 WR/KR
2004 #21 DL
2004 #32 TE
2004 #63 DL
2005 #32 OT
2006 #21 RB
2006 #36 WR

14 1st & 2nd round picks:
4 DL - 29%
3 OT - 21%
3 WR - 21%
2 TE - 14%
1 DB - 7%
1 RB - 7%

DB isn't even close to DL: Warren and Wilfork get re-signed.

 

[patfanken]

Obviously you re-sign the CB and the DE, the two most expensive non-QB positions.

I look at BB's team building choices in rounds 1 & 2:
2000 #46 OT
2001 #6 DL
2001 #48 OT
2002 #21 TE
2002 #65 WR
2003 #13 DL
2003 #36 CB/FS
2003 #45 WR/KR
2004 #21 DL
2004 #32 TE
2004 #63 DL
2005 #32 OT
2006 #21 RB
2006 #36 WR

14 1st & 2nd round picks:
4 DL - 29%
3 OT - 21%
3 WR - 21%
2 TE - 14%
1 DB - 7%
1 RB - 7%

DB isn't even close to DL: Warren and Wilfork get re-signed.

Now THAT is very interesting BOR. If we can infer anything from that, it is that BB thinks he can coach up lower round DBs 3rd and 4th rounders, INTO premium players. Kind of makes you think differently about this year's draft, with many of us hoping that BB draft 2 DBs with the early picks. Good find, Rocks

 

[Pat_Nasty]

Now THAT is very interesting BOR. If we can infer anything from that, it is that BB thinks he can coach up lower round DBs 3rd and 4th rounders, INTO premium players. Kind of makes you think differently about this year's draft, with many of us hoping that BB draft 2 DBs with the early picks. Good find, Rocks

Unfortunately, we can't infer anything from that, because when BB was making those draft picks, he wasn't deciding solely -- or even primarily -- based on position. BB ranks draft prospects as individual players. One can't assume that if Wilfork hadn't fallen to us, we would have selected the next available DT.

 

[upstater1]

#1 Warren: he's the best player of the 3. You keep your best players regardless of position, and you fill in elsewhere.

Samuel or Wilfork are in the same boat, after that. Both are good players but I don't believe they are as irreplaceable as Warren. We've seen other DTs do OK at Wilfork's position, although Wilfork has been excellent, especially his pursuit.

 

[patsox23]

FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST - and I've only read the first page of this thread - why is it that people have such a hard time staying on point? The question of this thread is the hypothetical - WHICH of the three WOULD you sign if you could only sign two of them? Jesus. Apologies, patfanken, for the short-sighted insanity that sometimes grips this board.

My answer:

WILFORK

WARREN












SAMUEL IS WAY DOWN HERE.

 

[patsox23]

Dump Samuel for a 1st.

I don't get why Wilfork is so popular. I always thought he was more of a 4-3 DL rather than a NT. I've never seen him do that much and the pats do give up yards up the middle don't they?

You should try watching the games sometime. Honestly, this is the kind of post that would get you banned for myopia if there were some kind of kangaroo court here at patsfans.

Wilfork is the IDEAL NT for the 3-4 system and over the last two years has EXCELLED in that role. What world are you living in?

 

[patsox23]

Sorry for the negativity. I'm not even in a bad mood this morning. These posts are so over-the-line ridiculous and off-point that it drives me a little nuts. Let's make this the first off-season in a few where the nut-jobs don't take over and yank down the level of discourse - myself and my frustrations included.

GREAT post, ken.

 

[Fixit]

FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST - and I've only read the first page of this thread - why is it that people have such a hard time staying on point? The question of this thread is the hypothetical - WHICH of the three WOULD you sign if you could only sign two of them? Jesus. Apologies, patfanken, for the short-sighted insanity that sometimes grips this board.

My answer:

WILFORK

WARREN

SAMUEL IS WAY DOWN HERE.

BUT WE CAN KEEP ALL THREE!!!

 

[solman]

They will have plenty of cap space next year. All three will be retained. Warren is not even up for a contract next year.

All three can be retained.

But its worth noting that we no longer have large an enormous amount of cap space next year.

Currently we have $13.5M in space with 39 players under contract. If we pick up a net of 8 players from the 2007 and 2008 draft and 2007 injuries, we'll probably have about $9M in space and 47 players ready to play. If we franchise Asante again next year for $9.5M, thats 5 vacancies and -$0.5M in cap space.

This isn't a serious problem since we can pick up more than $8M in space by restructuring Brady (more with a long term restructuring) and nearly $11M in space by cutting Stallworth and Washington (who will only remain on the team if they can justify or renegotiate their enormous 2008 paydays). We'll probably also be rolling over several million from 2007.

But its no longer the case that the Patriots are flush with long term cap space. When the 2010 FA season rolls around, they may find themselves compeled to spend a year rebuilding. If I was runing the Patriot's front office, I'd be tempted to go all out for super bowls in 2007-2009, and then voluntarily accept the consequences in 2010. (But the Patriots have given absolutely no indication that they are thinking this way, and they won't have to decide before the 2008 FA season at the earliest.)

 

[patsox23]

THIS.

IS.

A.

HYPOTHETICAL.

QUESTION.

And the question is NOT "can we keep all three?!"




For the love of God, people.

 

[BradyManny]

I won't contaminate the start of this, with my own opinion, because at this moment I don't have one. Convince me which 2 are the right ones to keep.

Great post.

I haven't read the replies yet, b/c I have a strong opinion about this. Wilfork and Warren are a much higher priority. Our defense is predicated on taking away the run first and foremost, and that starts with the DLine.

 

[patsox23]

Great post.

I haven't read the replies yet.

Lucky.







10 characters

 

[BradyManny]

Lucky.







10 characters

Hmm, this thread did get a little off topic didn't it?

 

[Fixit]

Hmm, this thread did get a little off topic didn't it?

We didn't have enough money to retain all three players and the original topic.

Being a GM is tough.

 

[Iverson]

Warren and Wilfork. I would consider them better players and they would be much harder to replace IMO.

 

[makoute]

Now THAT is very interesting BOR. If we can infer anything from that, it is that BB thinks he can coach up lower round DBs 3rd and 4th rounders, INTO premium players. Kind of makes you think differently about this year's draft, with many of us hoping that BB draft 2 DBs with the early picks. Good find, Rocks

Could it also be that there weren't any DB's they thought were worth drafting in the positions they were drafting. And also DB wasn't a position of need.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

Oh boy, I read all the posts.....and I will answer the question, who and why.

IMO, the strength of the Pats defensive is a strong front 7. Wilfork is critical because he commands so many double teams, freeing the inside backers to stuff the run. Actually, in the Pats system, the three DL usually develop mis matched with the OL, allowing Vrabel (now AD) or Colvin free on the edge, creating pressure on the QB. Hurried throws often result in pics. Remember Law in SB 36. It was Vrabel's rush that forced Warner to release early, right into Ty's waiting arms.

Bye Assante

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Unfortunately, we can't infer anything from that, because when BB was making those draft picks, he wasn't deciding solely -- or even primarily -- based on position. BB ranks draft prospects as individual players. One can't assume that if Wilfork hadn't fallen to us, we would have selected the next available DT.

Agreed, BB drafts individuals for their individual talents, so it's fair to say he may not have chosen the next highest ranked DL off his board if that individual did not provide value in the first round. Let's look at it another way then:

BB has seven drafts under his belt as New England's HC, the top group for his 1st & 2nd round picks is also the top group when you look at whom he drafts each year. In 86% of BB's drafts for the NEP, he has taken a DL and a TE, If you count Wilson as a Safety for draft purposes then in 71% of his drafts he has taken a S and a RB, if you count Wilson as a CB, then you drop S back into the pack of 57% positions.
-------------------------
DL 6 of 7
TE 6 of 7
-------------------------
S 5 of 7 (counting Wilson)
RB/FB 5 of 7
-------------------------
LB 4 of 7
CB 4 of 7
OT 4 of 7
OC/OG 4 of 7 (counting Mankins)
WR 4 of 7
QB 4 of 7
-------------------------
K 2 of 7
-------------------------
P 0 of 7
LS 0 of 7
-------------------------
Without focusing on the individual, you wind up noting that when given a choice, BB takes people who can help him dominate the line of scrimmage (LOS). DL, TE, and you can say RB/FB too. You create a mismatch with a DL by forcing teams to allocate two or more blockers, TE's & RB/FB are LB mismatch to control the next level, and force multipliers at the point of attack, either directly with a lead block, or indirectly, allowing the OL to shift power to the point without leaving an unblocked player outside.

You can go a step further and check his Practice Squads for the 7 years, every one has a DL at the end of the season. In the one year he didn't draft a DL, he brought in Mike Wright and Santonio Thomas as Free Agents who stayed on the roster as part of the 53 or Practice Squad. BB likes his DL.

For the purpose of Ken's hypothetical exercise, you have two players who create mismatches at the LOS, and a CB. If BB wants to keep a steady pool of mismatch players, then the two choices of Ken's exercise is most likely to be his DL, Warren and Wilfork.

Could it also be that there weren't any DB's they thought were worth drafting in the positions they were drafting. And also DB wasn't a position of need.

If you combine CB and S, then BB took DBs in 6 of 7 drafts. What again stands out for such a frequent effort to build his secondary, he only once drafted a 1st or 2nd round DB.

BB obviously tries to build his secondary through the draft with fair consistency, but in 14 rounds (1 & 2), BB has gone to the DB well 7% of the time, and the DL well 29%. Both position groups (DL & DB) get his most frequent attention, but he buys DL high four times as often as DB.

I'm sure a case can be made for any number of DBs in the first and second rounds, and BB obviously considers the secondary important, but in general he rates DL above DB in terms of overall value given the draft choices he has made.