Defensive Front Seven - A Strength?

[RayClay]

1) You ask if no one corner or DT is worthy of 32, why wouldn't we pick DE/OLB? Obviously, they might pick one if they are forced to pick at 32. There are two other options. One is to draft an OL. I'd rather have Fisher than any DE/OLB who is likely to be available at 32. Alternatively, Belichick could do what he has done in this situation, he could trade down.

2) You misunderstand my reference to Vellano. The reference was to 2014. Belichick had only two quality DE's: Ninkovich and Jones. He had a couple of very marginal DE/OLB backups in Buchanan and Moore. And he had Vellano, a player who is of Practice Squad quality, but who might be called on (In 2014) as a 3-4 DE. That is what Belichick had available. That is the situation that was acceptable to Belichick. It was not until Jones was injured that he signed a backup.

Now, move to 2015. Belichick has everything he had to start 2014 PLUS he has Sheard. IMHO, there is no reason to believe that Belichick considers DE a draft need in 2015. Did Belichick consider DE a draft need in 2014? Who Belichick draft in the top 100 to meet that need?

I'm not saying that there is no possibility of Belichick drafting a DE/OLB early. I'm just saying that such a choice is unlikely, given that we have three serious needs where there are lots of players projected to be available at 32 and at 64.

As has been discussed on the draft board, most of us want to see CB, DT and OG addressed in the first 101 picks. Few disagree, perhaps because we have 5 such picks and we could draft these three as well as drafting at another position or two.

You continue to posit that BB drafts by immediate need. I disagree with that. I also disagree that a 32nd pick is likely to have an immediate impact.

I could definitely see him picking a player who could be a situational rusher, while learning.

We don't pick 10-15, we pick 32. To say we will only pick certain positions, for a player who is a borderline 2nd rounder, ignores the fact that a good many picked in that area will never be an impact NFL player.

 

[supafly]

I think Patriot fans overrate Siliga and Branch and Chris Jones is really a passing down tackle. Hopefully Easeley steps up because they really need him to live up to his pick. Buchanon and Moore have shown nothing yet and I have to seriously question the stability of anyone who actually utters Jake Bequettes name other than in a joke.

Siliga has been in a walking boot for the last 8 weeks and remains so to this day, which occurred due to major surgery. That ankle/lower leg injury has been quite troublesome. Let's hope he makes a full (and permanent) recovery, because he's been a nice pickup thus far.

Easley is a complete unknown in my opinion, although I think it's certainly safe to assume that he'll have a bigger role if he can remain healthy. Jones could be replaced at any point in tim, and is nothing more than a JAG, although I believe he'll be a rotational part of our DL moving forward. Branch provided good value last year, so I think we're all glad that he stayed.

I would've liked to see another free agent vet brought in, but the potential is there for a top 3 round selection next month.

 

[mgteich]

You continue to posit that BB drafts by immediate need. I disagree with that. I also disagree that a 32nd pick is likely to have an immediate impact.

I could definitely see him picking a player who could be a situational rusher, while learning.

We don't pick 10-15, we pick 32. To say we will only pick certain positions, for a player who is a borderline 2nd rounder, ignores the fact that a good many picked in that area will never be an impact NFL player.

1) You continue posting that Belichick ignores need. I strongly disagree with that position. As of March 31, we have three major needs for 2015 (and going forward). I do NOT think that Belichick will ignore these needs as he make the 1st, 2nd or 5th pick in the top 101. Perhaps these needs, or the additional needs at LB and RB will be met before the draft, or not.

2) I agree that the #32 pick is unlikely to have a major immediate impact. I would note, that this player COULD have an immediate impact if he were an OG or an LT who can start at LG (Fisher sort of stands out as a possibility). However, I do believe that such a player should have some impact as a role player.

3) You seem to believe that EDGE rushers will be of much higher VALUE at 32 than the corners, offensive linemen and DT's. Surely, if Belichick isn't considering need, VALUE is even more important. Many, many, many projections have very high value players available at these positions. Why do YOU believe that an EDGE rusher will be of higher value at 32 than corners, guards, and defensive tackles?

4) Yes, the draft is a crap shoot, at 16, at 32, at 48, or at 96. That does NOT mean that Belichick should not even try to find future starters as he makes his SIX picks in the first four rounds. After all, it was Round 4 where Belichick sought and found our starting center in 2014 (and in the 5th in an earlier time).

5) Finally, Belichick does not allow immediate need to drive each of his draft choices. Future needs and value are much more important. HOWEVER, in some drafts, Belichick focuses on meeting NEEDS at a particular positions, sometimes going into the draft with a weakness and drafting 2 TE's, 2 DB's, 2 RB's or two front seven defensive players. To suggest that Belichick ignores need is simply inaccurate.

The OPEN question is the seriousness of our present and future needs. I would put EDGE rusher as the number 9 need, but that's just my personal view. I think that most others put no higher than 4th.

THE TOP FIVE NEEDS FOR 2015 and 2016

CB - We have Arrington and Ryan signed for 2016 (and I guess Butler would be here as an ERFA). How can this not be a serious need for the future?

LG - We have Kline as a starter, and Devey as his backup. This is listed second only because the need can, if necessary, be met later in the draft. A pick in the first two rounds is not critical.

DT - OK, we like Branch and Siliga. However, Wilfork is gone, and we need additional help inside.

LB - Where is our crystal ball? How much can we count on the new medical staff. Hightower and Mayo are not ready. We don't know when they will be in game shape. And we don't know when they will be anywhere near 100%. How bad is this need? McClain visited yesterday.

RB - Who is "starting" opposite Blount? Who is our running back of the future? We are OK at 3rd down RB with Cadet, McClain and even Bolden. Are we really counting on one of Gray, Gaffney and Lewis to be a major contributor in 2015 and 2016?
================
ADDITIONAL NEEDS

OT - We seem OK, if Cannon or Fleming can play LT. After all, Solder is not signed for 2016. An LT who can play LG is an obvious compromise that would meet this potential need.

WR - Belichick seems to think that we need more competition. We have Amendola on a very cheap contract. Perhaps a competitor for #3 is in order.

a second OG - We are replacing Connolly with one draft choice. We need another player. We certainly don't want BOTH Kline and Devey on the 53 man roster.

DE - Yes, and then there is DE. We have Jones, Ninkovich and Sheard for 2015 and 2016. We have prospects in Moore and Buchanan. We also have Easley, who had played De in certain circumstances.
We have what we had last year, PLUS Sheard. Hopefully, Moore or Buchanan can contribute. IMHO, looking for Ninkovich's replacement is low on the priority list. I have the DE need as Need #9.

THAT BEING SAID
If Belichick can find very high value at DE at 32 or 64, he certainly might draft a DE. I just don't see this happening. IMHO, if a player isn't available at good value in one of the top positions of 2015 or 2016 need, then I see Belichick trading up, down or into 2016, rather than drafting a DE with our #32 or #64 pick.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

I do not see a high pick on a DT.
I think we are going with Siliga,Branch,Easley,Jones and whoever

I think Mr. Whoever needs to be scads better than Vellano by mid-year. The injury concerns with Easley and Siliga are too great to trust to a late round pick, at least to my reckoning - BB may disagree (and often does). That's either a 1st to 3rd (or TB's 4th)-round draft pick or a FA. If things break right, I can see the 32nd taking a big guy.

Again over the second half of the season, the Patriots were the 2nd best run D in the NFL, pretty much by any measure. Amazingly they did this playing out of nickel 75-80% of the time. You could argue that it was all due to Wilfork, but my eyes said that Siliga and Branch played just as well.

Wilfork didn't make many more plays than Siliga and Branch, but he was dominated on far fewer than those two. Siliga and Branch were not as consistent, notably against the zone blocking teams. I think extrapolating their positive performance to future games is a risky proposition, especially with the way that foot injuries can cripple otherwise outstanding large athletes. I don't see that there are other alternatives at present. Jones is rotationally acceptable in the Base D against some teams, but that is not his strength, and Easley has not shown anything yet as a DT against the run; so another big body is needed. Ideally, this is an early draft pick upon whom the foundation for the future can be built, but at some point on Day 2 of the draft, a FA acquisition to serve this year will become preferable.

It was fine without Mayo. Since we play nickel 75% of the time, I don't know that the 3rd LB makes an enormous difference, and HT and Collins did well when he was out.

As we all should now know, BB doesn't draft based on what the roster for the first game of the coming season is. Every year he drafts a spot people didn't expect, and then it becomes clear later, based upon contract situations, etc, why he did it.

To me, I would have spent the money on Wilfork if there is an expectation of having 3 solid LBs. The 3-3 nickel didn't work well last year, but with Collins improvement against the run, I would have liked to have seen Wilfork with 2 of Chandler/Nick/Sheard/Easley and Collins-Mayo-Hi

 

[RayClay]

3) You seem to believe that EDGE rushers will be of much higher VALUE at 32 than the corners, offensive linemen and DT's. Surely, if Belichick isn't considering need, VALUE is even more important. Many, many, many projections have very high value players available at these positions. Why do YOU believe that an EDGE rusher will be of higher value at 32 than corners, guards, and defensive tackles?

The post was based on Reiss's interview with Mike Tomlinson. Tomlinson said he thought this draft was exceptional for edge rushers.

That's what my post was based on.

Of course people would rather draft for a need and if there's a top player available there from CB or DT. If however, there's an outstanding rusher and not an outstanding CB or DT, I could see a rusher.
On the other hand, losts of good guards are available in lower rounds. It simply is not as coveted a position as CB or DT with first round picks.

There's also money concerns. If they can get two very good guards, it might be better than one top guard who will command a high salary.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

A few thoughts on this.

Hi Ross, I think sometimes stats can be a little misleading, if you look at our schedule last year our last 8 games were against:

-Broncos(we blew them out so they didn't try to run the ball )
They tried to run, but there were enough 0 to 1-yard runs to put them in Payton situations on which he could not deliver against the Pats' pass defense.
-Indy(we blew them out so they didn't try to run the ball)
And they can't.
-Lions(we blew them out so they didn't try to run the ball)
And they didn't have Bush that week.
-Packers( Lacey ran the ball well in the first half, second half we did well against him)
Considering that we were in nickel all day with bigger things to worry about (Rogers massive bicep), not so bad.
-Chargers(they don't have a running game)
-Dolphins(we blew them out)
And their running game was suffering due to injuries at this point.
-Jets( Ivory ran 11 times for 53 yards..a 4.8 yard average and then got injured)
It would have looked a lot worse, if he hadn't, as that game was too close for comfort, and Ivory could have made the difference.
-Bills(held them under 100 yards, a good job of stopping the run)
Meh. Week 16 with not much at stake in a losing effort, I can't give much credit.
As for the post-season:
-Baltimore 136 yards @ 4.9 ypc, but they were 1 for 9 on 3rd down (and 3 for 3 on 4th). Seems like a well controlled attack, but one which suggests that a loss like Wilfork will be felt significantly, if not critically.
-Indy (a blowout)
- Seattle (4.3 ypc against Lynch - barely enough; does Mayo make the difference?)

If there is a good defensive tackle in the draft, I would not hesitate at all to select him With us losing Wilfork, I think it's a major need along with CB and Guard.

Agreed on the DT, but I do not expect a DT to be available, and I do expect a starting-caliber guard to be there at 32, so I would look there for the pick, almost regardless of Connolly's contract. I think BB sees enough young talent at CB, so I don't anticipate high-round talent there. Dennard will have an off-season of rehab which will add to the talent pool, even if we aren't as good as last year.

With the addition of Mayo to free-up Hightower and Collins to be the 4th or 5th rusher and the arrival of Easley, with another year of ACL healing, a year of coaching, and a full NFL off-season conditioning program, the front seven has the potential counterbalance the loss of Revis. (It would be fun to see Patricia dialing-up a bevvy of Zone blitzes against the passing teams.) The question to me is who will be the 3rd space eater that pushes the pocket. I'd really like a guy like Tommy Kelly right about now.

 

[Ring 6]

I think Mr. Whoever needs to be scads better than Vellano by mid-year. The injury concerns with Easley and Siliga are too great to trust to a late round pick, at least to my reckoning - BB may disagree (and often does). That's either a 1st to 3rd (or TB's 4th)-round draft pick or a FA. If things break right, I can see the 32nd taking a big guy.

You can look at any position and say there are injury risks so we have to draft there in the first round. We did that last year at DT. Siliga has nothing that is a recurring type of injury. He broke his hand, that makes him no more risky than any other player.

Wilfork didn't make many more plays than Siliga and Branch, but he was dominated on far fewer than those two. Siliga and Branch were not as consistent, notably against the zone blocking teams. I think extrapolating their positive performance to future games is a risky proposition, especially with the way that foot injuries can cripple otherwise outstanding large athletes. I don't see that there are other alternatives at present. Jones is rotationally acceptable in the Base D against some teams, but that is not his strength, and Easley has not shown anything yet as a DT against the run; so another big body is needed. Ideally, this is an early draft pick upon whom the foundation for the future can be built, but at some point on Day 2 of the draft, a FA acquisition to serve this year will become preferable.

Branch has played many years in the NFL, so you don't have to 'extrapolate' his 2014 snaps.
Siliga has played very well ever since he arrived here. I am not worried at all. What games are you talking about that these players struggled against zone blocking schemes?
Its easy to look at one position group and make a case to draft a stud that will be there long term, but that would result in concluding we are going to draft 14 different guys in round 1.

To me, I would have spent the money on Wilfork if there is an expectation of having 3 solid LBs. The 3-3 nickel didn't work well last year, but with Collins improvement against the run, I would have liked to have seen Wilfork with 2 of Chandler/Nick/Sheard/Easley and Collins-Mayo-Hi

That alignment would get destroyed by the run. You cannot have VW over the center, 5 260lbers and a nickel. The key to our early down nickel run D is the 2 big guys in the middle. Last year we rotated 3 of them.

 

[mgteich]

That alignment would get destroyed by the run. You cannot have VW over the center, 5 260lbers and a nickel. The key to our early down nickel run D is the 2 big guys in the middle. Last year we rotated 3 of them.

Yes, the rotation of 3 fatties worked very well. Chris Jones and Easley had different roles as DT's

Belichick brought back two of the fatties: Siliga and Branch.

SOME would conclude that this gives us a serious need to replace Wilfork. IMHO, the only question is how high in the draft we pick a DT.
========
I understand that the defense will be different, but it seems that the three fattie rotation in the nickel was a good scheme.
==============
As an aside, don't also rotate three 300+ guys in the base as DTs? So, a 3rd to join Siliga and Branch seems to be a good idea.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, the rotation of 3 fatties worked very well. Chris Jones and Easley had different roles as DT's

Belichick brought back two of the fatties: Siliga and Branch.

SOME would conclude that this gives us a serious need to replace Wilfork. IMHO, the only question is how high in the draft we pick a DT.
========
I understand that the defense will be different, but it seems that the three fattie rotation in the nickel was a good scheme.
==============
As an aside, don't also rotate three 300+ guys in the base as DTs? So, a 3rd to join Siliga and Branch seems to be a good idea.

The rotation is not really necessary though. When all were healthy Siliga and VW played and Branch spelled them. They played about 70-75% of the snaps, but some of those were in passing situations as well.
You can kind of look at it like Branch replaces VW on early downs, and Easley (and/or jones) replaces him on passing downs. Thereby Branch ends up more like 50-60% of the snaps, Siliga around 75% and Easley and Jones are playing more on passing downs.
If we end up with
Siliga 75% of snaps
Branch 55% of snaps
Easley 50% of snaps
Jones 20% of snaps**
I don't see where the issue is.

**It would seem that we plan to use Chandler Jones or Sheard inside on 3rd and long, so that could take half of these away too.

 

[Ivan]

It's Tomlin, Mike Tomlin. And while there is a very good group of pass rushers at the to of the draft most of not all of them will be gone at 32. And looking at need and the first round pick I think the first place to look is the starter holes at DT, CB, and OG, and I believe that those are the positions they are most likely to draft, although I could see them drafting a DE if they think that signing Chandler Jones is unlikely. Right now I have Cameron Erving OL, Ed Goldman DT, Byron Jones CB, and Kevin Johnson CB as a short list at 32, but could see Odighizuma DE or Todd Gurley RB as well. Should be interesting.

 

[RayClay]

It's Tomlin, Mike Tomlin. And while there is a very good group of pass rushers at the to of the draft most of not all of them will be gone at 32. And looking at need and the first round pick I think the first place to look is the starter holes at DT, CB, and OG, and I believe that those are the positions they are most likely to draft, although I could see them drafting a DE if they think that signing Chandler Jones is unlikely. Right now I have Cameron Erving OL, Ed Goldman DT, Byron Jones CB, and Kevin Johnson CB as a short list at 32, but could see Odighizuma DE or Todd Gurley RB as well. Should be interesting.

Right, I was going by tomlin. Possibility one could drop, from a quick look at a compilation draft.

guess i thought he was a charger running back.

 

[varjao]

I agree with Ray Clays point of view on this discussion. I don't know, after the Siliga/Vellano/Jones experiment it's proven that BB can find serviceable players buried in depth charts around the league and udfa as well. Having Wilfork around helps of course. I'm not saying he is devaluing the position to the point he is not spending a 1st round pick in a run stopper like he does at RB, but I think he can get good value on day 3.

Also, just like Reiss did, when listing our non-JAG players at DE, Buchannon's name keeps coming, I might be missing something but when did he show he is NFL material? So far it's only high hopes.

Definitely Sheard solves part of the problem, but the game today is all about pressuring the QB and taking him out of his zone, with this secondary if w don't do that it will be a slow torture session every sunday.

Unfortunately doesn't matter what we do at CB the drop off will be huge and dramatic, we had Revis and maybe the best complement for him in Browner last year, it is what it is. Anything they get to minimize the problem for 2015 will be useful, I believe it's gonna be Dennard and a TBD between Butler and Ryan.

 

[mgteich]

The rotation is not really necessary though. When all were healthy Siliga and VW played and Branch spelled them. They played about 70-75% of the snaps, but some of those were in passing situations as well.
You can kind of look at it like Branch replaces VW on early downs, and Easley (and/or jones) replaces him on passing downs. Thereby Branch ends up more like 50-60% of the snaps, Siliga around 75% and Easley and Jones are playing more on passing downs.
If we end up with
Siliga 75% of snaps
Branch 55% of snaps
Easley 50% of snaps
Jones 20% of snaps**
I don't see where the issue is.

**It would seem that we plan to use Chandler Jones or Sheard inside on 3rd and long, so that could take half of these away too.

I understand.

The 3-man rotation of big guys inside was Wilfork-Branch-Siliga and is now Easley-Branch-Siliga. II understand that you don't have a problem with Easley being one of our 3 big run-stuffers.

Many disagree, as we were considering signing a free agent NT (and Wilfork). Some think that we need a DT in the draft. If your analysis is coronet, then Wilfork wasn't worth $2M, never mind $5M.

 

[RayClay]

I agree with Ray Clays point of view on this discussion. I don't know, after the Siliga/Vellano/Jones experiment it's proven that BB can find serviceable players buried in depth charts around the league and udfa as well. Having Wilfork around helps of course. I'm not saying he is devaluing the position to the point he is not spending a 1st round pick in a run stopper like he does at RB, but I think he can get good value on day 3.

Also, just like Reiss did, when listing our non-JAG players at DE, Buchannon's name keeps coming, I might be missing something but when did he show he is NFL material? So far it's only high hopes.

Definitely Sheard solves part of the problem, but the game today is all about pressuring the QB and taking him out of his zone, with this secondary if w don't do that it will be a slow torture session every sunday.

Unfortunately doesn't matter what we do at CB the drop off will be huge and dramatic, we had Revis and maybe the best complement for him in Browner last year, it is what it is. Anything they get to minimize the problem for 2015 will be useful, I believe it's gonna be Dennard and a TBD between Butler and Ryan.

Kind of my point, I'd love to get a dominating DT with thr first, but i don't believe, epecially with a pick that low, that you draft a position, you draft a player.If you're loaded at the position, fine but I don't see a single DE/OLB besides nink and chandler who's proven a thing and that includes Sheard.
Nincovich is hardly a pure pass rusher, but he has a lot more sacks.

we're projecting that that whole group will perform much better than they ever have. Otherwise, there's no discussion, we're two deep at the position.

 

[Ring 6]

I understand.

The 3-man rotation of big guys inside was Wilfork-Branch-Siliga and is now Easley-Branch-Siliga. II understand that you don't have a problem with Easley being one of our 3 big run-stuffers.

Come on. You know that isn't what I said, I was very clear.

Many disagree, as we were considering signing a free agent NT (and Wilfork). Some think that we need a DT in the draft. If your analysis is coronet, then Wilfork wasn't worth $2M, never mind $5M.

Wait people disagree with something I didn't say, don't believe and you made up? OMG what a shock.
Why would Wilfork not be worth 2 mill? He would be a good addition, but there is a plan without him. How is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[mgteich]

He would be a good addition, but there is a plan without him. How is that so hard for you to understand?

No one said that there was no plan at DT without Wilfork.

What is being said is that losing Wilfork is a serious loss, and that it worthwhile to try to secure a run-stuffing DT.

 

[mgteich]

Kind of my point, I'd love to get a dominating DT with thr first, but i don't believe, epecially with a pick that low, that you draft a position, you draft a player.If you're loaded at the position, fine but I don't see a single DE/OLB besides nink and chandler who's proven a thing and that includes Sheard.
Nincovich is hardly a pure pass rusher, but he has a lot more sacks.

we're projecting that that whole group will perform much better than they ever have. Otherwise, there's no discussion, we're two deep at the position.

OK, I agree that no DT may worthy of a first round pick (especially given the likelihood of a worthy candidate at CB or OG.

DEFENSIVE END
Your position is that we are two deep at DE with Ninkovich and Jones. Belichick THOUGHT that he signed a 3rd DE when he paid $6M for Sheard's services for 2015. Schecter and other media type considers Sheard on the very best free agency signings. And make no mistake, few are even discussing Sheard at anything but DE.

So, for me, I can't understand why folks think that we are 2-deep at DE. COULD we use a 1st round draft choice in a position where we have THREE starters, and youngsters? I suppose so. But I don't believe that this will happen.

What you seem to be saying is that Ninikovich and Jones are so bad that Belichick needed to spend $6M for an upgrade and still needs to spend a first grounder to upgrade this very weak position on our defense.

Obviously, the difference between us is whether we think that Belichick thinks that he still needs to spend major resources at DE.

 

[Ring 6]

No one said that there was no plan at DT without Wilfork.

What is being said is that losing Wilfork is a serious loss, and that it worthwhile to try to secure a run-stuffing DT.

And I showed you what I feel that plan is.
Please respond to what I actually said and explain what the problem is with Siliga playing 75% of the snaps, Branch playing on running downs, and Easley playing on passing downs, and hopefully earning some time on running downs.
It seems you want to use a first round pick to replace last years first round pick.

 

[JoeSixPat]

FRONT SEVEN
DE - Sheard, Ninkovich, Jones, Moore, Buchanan
DT - Branch, Siliga, Easley, Jones, draftee (or free agent)
LB - Mayo, Hightower, Collins, open
LB/ST - White

This looks pretty good to me, with the addition of a DT.
======================
I would also note that we are set at safety, nickel and dime back.
======================
The obvious elephant in the room is the situation at corner.

Having a quality front seven is one way you attempt to counter a weaker secondary

The intesting thing about watching BB is that he'll do something like have a stud secondary one season, watch as everyone copycats him, overpaying the limited players in a free agent or draft feeding frenzy, and then he'll go in a different defensive direction, using the less coveted but quality players still available to him

We've seen this before in the opposite when other teams tried to copy his 3-4

 

[RayClay]

OK, I agree that no DT may worthy of a first round pick (especially given the likelihood of a worthy candidate at CB or OG.

DEFENSIVE END
Your position is that we are two deep at DE with Ninkovich and Jones. Belichick THOUGHT that he signed a 3rd DE when he paid $6M for Sheard's services for 2015. Schecter and other media type considers Sheard on the very best free agency signings. And make no mistake, few are even discussing Sheard at anything but DE.

So, for me, I can't understand why folks think that we are 2-deep at DE. COULD we use a 1st round draft choice in a position where we have THREE starters, and youngsters? I suppose so. But I don't believe that this will happen.

What you seem to be saying is that Ninikovich and Jones are so bad that Belichick needed to spend $6M for an upgrade and still needs to spend a first grounder to upgrade this very weak position on our defense.

Obviously, the difference between us is whether we think that Belichick thinks that he still needs to spend major resources at DE.

My position is simple. when they draft at 32, they'll be lucky to come out with an impact player of any kind. If they go into it to convince themselves that the next best CB or DT is an impact player, because they need one, they will be falling into the trap many losing teams do, often ending up drafting the same position next year.

We have no proven pass rushers besides chandler and Nink period. we have traded for or picked up pass rushers with much better records than Sheard who have failed.

Hope is a wonderful thing, but not in a draft, if it makes you turn down an impact player because you hope you have the position covered in the future and you hope the next best guy at the position you want is really better than others at that position in later rounds.