Ring 6
PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2021 Weekly Picks Winner
2022 Weekly Picks Winner
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 63,761
- Reaction score
- 14,113
I think there is no question we could have gotten better football players by staying in round 1 and 3, maybe moving up, packaging day 2 picks, and essentially turning our 10 picks into the 5 highest they would convert to.
Why didnt we?
Here is a theory.
I think it is very reasonable to say that aside from possibly ILB, and maybe corner,(on top of the obivous S choice) the needs we were filling were for guys who would be special teamers, reserves and developmental guys. Whoever we were drafting unless they were a S or ILB, would have had a tremendously difficult time getting on the field. We are deep at YOUNG at most positions. At most spots on the roster we either have young starters, or guys drafted in the last 2 years who are developing nicely.
In the 4th we took a DT. Now we could have taken a better DT in the 1st, 2nd (trading down) or 3rd. But that player would get the playing time consistent with a guy taken on the 4th or later anyway. The OL we took are developmental guys, but what would we have done with Staley? He would sit, and for how long? We spent the last 2 drafts getting 3 quality OL who are developing well. Is there value in a round 1 pick that only represents a small upgrade from Kaczur and OCallahan? Even if Staley were 'round 1 value' does 'round 1 value' still equal round 1 value when it sends round 2 value to the bench?
Additionally, many of the players chosen who will make the team will be doing it on special teams. Often you find as good, sometimes better, sts ability in round 2. Richardson may have flaws as a corner, but be a better special teamer than a day 1 corner who is a better corner. (see willie andrews as an example)
I do not think BB saw no players he wanted, but rather saw no VALUE in that the value added to the ROSTER SPOT didn't warrant the pick.
What you end up with is a bevy of role players who could develop and are doing it at about the league minimum cap hits.
This creates more free agent flexibility down the road, but also allows us to afford a marquee draft class in 08, or whenever the trade to the future train stops.
At some point, age will creep in to the roster as a whole, and openings will occur. We had tremendous positive gains in free agency this year. Last year we had net losses. What will 08 or 09 bring?
Look at it this way:
If the extra #1 that should project to the middle of the round, and the extra #3 that should project to the top, could be used in any year you choose, would you have rather had them in 2006 when we had a net loss in FA, or in 2007 when we had a net gain? From a value of the roster spot perspective, there were more players equalling an upgrade that held day 1 value in 2006 than in 2007. Trading into 08 says that even if the identical guy is on the board at 28 in 08, he may hold much more value to us than he did at 28 this year because there is a place for him to get on the field as quickly as a #1 should.
This all seems to make sense to me outside of the LB position. LB is an enigma. It is a very important position, but we never draft them. I think its a case of us asking LBs to do different things than most teams. (Even many other 34 teams play 1 gap) I also think that what we need them to do is entirely different than any college program. I think that a guy in college who is protypical for our LB position either isnt playing LB, or in addition to the skills we want, has the skills others want to, and is drafted way too high for value.
It cannot just be that BB doesnt care about depth at LB. He overloads on depth at almost every other position. I think in the end, BB looks at what is available, and although he needs more LBs, sees no one that can play in this system nearly as well as the next choice at another position.
When we get into the later rounds, we are picking guys who must change positions, or who were not that great in their college system, but project to this one.
I'm not concerned about LB. Our system, all things equal, plays 4 LBs in the base D, but only puts 4 on the field together for less than half the snaps. (Possibly more if you count LBs playing DE on 3rd down)
Really we have 3 1/2 LB positions. Now when our LB talent is loaded, BB figures out a way to get them all on the field more often, but the implication is we are weak if injuries happen. If one LB wnet down, we would need someone to step in and play maybe 30 snaps a game. The 4 we have are versatile enough that any one of the 4 going down would be handled the same way, with the same replacements.
Yes, I would love to have 3 solid veteran former starters, and 2 #1 draft picks behind our 4 starting LBs so no matter what happened we would never have a problem. I'd like to have Manning backing up Brady too.
BB had the chance to take Harris for ILB depth. He could have taken him at 28. He could have traded down. He could have traded up from 91. Instead he CHOSE NOT TO HAVE DAVID HARRIS ON THE TEAM.
Many fans felt that drafting Harris would have 'solved' the LB depth problem. If that is the case, then BB choosing not to says that he feels he has better options. We shall see.
Why didnt we?
Here is a theory.
I think it is very reasonable to say that aside from possibly ILB, and maybe corner,(on top of the obivous S choice) the needs we were filling were for guys who would be special teamers, reserves and developmental guys. Whoever we were drafting unless they were a S or ILB, would have had a tremendously difficult time getting on the field. We are deep at YOUNG at most positions. At most spots on the roster we either have young starters, or guys drafted in the last 2 years who are developing nicely.
In the 4th we took a DT. Now we could have taken a better DT in the 1st, 2nd (trading down) or 3rd. But that player would get the playing time consistent with a guy taken on the 4th or later anyway. The OL we took are developmental guys, but what would we have done with Staley? He would sit, and for how long? We spent the last 2 drafts getting 3 quality OL who are developing well. Is there value in a round 1 pick that only represents a small upgrade from Kaczur and OCallahan? Even if Staley were 'round 1 value' does 'round 1 value' still equal round 1 value when it sends round 2 value to the bench?
Additionally, many of the players chosen who will make the team will be doing it on special teams. Often you find as good, sometimes better, sts ability in round 2. Richardson may have flaws as a corner, but be a better special teamer than a day 1 corner who is a better corner. (see willie andrews as an example)
I do not think BB saw no players he wanted, but rather saw no VALUE in that the value added to the ROSTER SPOT didn't warrant the pick.
What you end up with is a bevy of role players who could develop and are doing it at about the league minimum cap hits.
This creates more free agent flexibility down the road, but also allows us to afford a marquee draft class in 08, or whenever the trade to the future train stops.
At some point, age will creep in to the roster as a whole, and openings will occur. We had tremendous positive gains in free agency this year. Last year we had net losses. What will 08 or 09 bring?
Look at it this way:
If the extra #1 that should project to the middle of the round, and the extra #3 that should project to the top, could be used in any year you choose, would you have rather had them in 2006 when we had a net loss in FA, or in 2007 when we had a net gain? From a value of the roster spot perspective, there were more players equalling an upgrade that held day 1 value in 2006 than in 2007. Trading into 08 says that even if the identical guy is on the board at 28 in 08, he may hold much more value to us than he did at 28 this year because there is a place for him to get on the field as quickly as a #1 should.
This all seems to make sense to me outside of the LB position. LB is an enigma. It is a very important position, but we never draft them. I think its a case of us asking LBs to do different things than most teams. (Even many other 34 teams play 1 gap) I also think that what we need them to do is entirely different than any college program. I think that a guy in college who is protypical for our LB position either isnt playing LB, or in addition to the skills we want, has the skills others want to, and is drafted way too high for value.
It cannot just be that BB doesnt care about depth at LB. He overloads on depth at almost every other position. I think in the end, BB looks at what is available, and although he needs more LBs, sees no one that can play in this system nearly as well as the next choice at another position.
When we get into the later rounds, we are picking guys who must change positions, or who were not that great in their college system, but project to this one.
I'm not concerned about LB. Our system, all things equal, plays 4 LBs in the base D, but only puts 4 on the field together for less than half the snaps. (Possibly more if you count LBs playing DE on 3rd down)
Really we have 3 1/2 LB positions. Now when our LB talent is loaded, BB figures out a way to get them all on the field more often, but the implication is we are weak if injuries happen. If one LB wnet down, we would need someone to step in and play maybe 30 snaps a game. The 4 we have are versatile enough that any one of the 4 going down would be handled the same way, with the same replacements.
Yes, I would love to have 3 solid veteran former starters, and 2 #1 draft picks behind our 4 starting LBs so no matter what happened we would never have a problem. I'd like to have Manning backing up Brady too.
BB had the chance to take Harris for ILB depth. He could have taken him at 28. He could have traded down. He could have traded up from 91. Instead he CHOSE NOT TO HAVE DAVID HARRIS ON THE TEAM.
Many fans felt that drafting Harris would have 'solved' the LB depth problem. If that is the case, then BB choosing not to says that he feels he has better options. We shall see.
