Who Will Be Our Weakest Game 1 Starters?

The world hasn't changed much. I think that this still will be our #2 CB and our #2 S.

Whoever occupies Alfonzo Dennard's spot until further notice.

#2 CB, #2 S, nickel LB, #3 DT, #3-N DE.

Basically, our defense sucks once you get past (most of) the starters.

VrabelJr said:

#2 CB, #2 S, nickel LB, #3 DT, #3-N DE.

Basically, our defense sucks once you get past (most of) the starters.

Click to expand...

As do most NFL teams...

IMO this defense, although it looks somewhat weak, is stronger and deeper than it has been in quite a while...

As things stand right now, RG.

Cannon is back and will be HUGE in the running game. I would say that the number 2 CB spot is the weakest STARTER on the team.

Whoever is starting at TE until Gronk can get back. I don't even think its questionable when our choices Ballard on one leg, a hobbled Fells or a rookie undrafted FA in Sudfield.

The safety lining up next to McCourty by a mile. If Cannon and/or Connolly don't come back for week 1, RG is up there.

Until Harmon locates his big boy pants, whomever is playing next to McCourty.

I'm not worried about CB2 as much as some.

the starting 3rd string QB

IllegalContact said:

the starting 3rd string QB

Click to expand...

So funny. Every single thread this happens and I just can't get over how funny this original joke still is. Priceless. Absolutely priceless. Tebow haters are just the funniest funniest people.

manxman2601 said:

So funny. Every single thread this happens and I just can't get over how funny this original joke still is. Priceless. Absolutely priceless. Tebow haters are just the funniest funniest people.

Click to expand...

I'm not a hater.....I just see a guy who just can't fill a need

VrabelJr said:

#2 CB, #2 S, nickel LB, #3 DT, #3-N DE.

Basically, our defense sucks once you get past (most of) the starters.

Click to expand...

The success of this franchise has created some amazingly twisted and entitled belief systems. We've come to expect that all 22 starting positions will be staffed by top NFL players. When, in fact, that's never been done in league history.

For the record, the #3 DT and #3-N DE don't start. The #2 CB is Dennard so we may be starting our #3 CB, so that doesn't count here either. The nickel LB is going to be pretty darn good (there are three options for the coaches to select from, depending on the opponent and the situation).

The #2 S is in fact probably a legitimate weak spot, as is the starting TE until Gronk comes back. And no matter how good KT has shown as a rookie, he's still probably one of our two starting WR's and is a rookie, so that's a weakness.

betterthanthealternative said:

The success of this franchise has created some amazingly twisted and entitled belief systems. We've come to expect that all 22 starting positions will be staffed by top NFL players. When, in fact, that's never been done in league history.

For the record, the #3 DT and #3-N DE don't start. The #2 CB is Dennard so we may be starting our #3 CB, so that doesn't count here either. The nickel LB is going to be pretty darn good (there are three options for the coaches to select from, depending on the opponent and the situation).

The #2 S is in fact probably a legitimate weak spot, as is the starting TE until Gronk comes back. And no matter how good KT has shown as a rookie, he's still probably one of our two starting WR's and is a rookie, so that's a weakness.

Click to expand...

While I agree with your first point, I think your definition of starter is too narrow. I forget the actual number, but I recall that last year the Pats spent more time in nickel and sub packages than they did in their "base" 3-4. That means that your 5th DB, at least one sub d-lineman, and probably a coverage LB should be considered "starters" in the sense that they're just as important.

I think if Dennard comes back the corners are solid. The safety next to McCourty is the big hole, with coverage linebacker still a question mark at best. As for a sub rusher, I don't see any of the current reserves stepping up and excelling in that role right now. I think our best bet is for Fletcher, Collins, or Adrian Wilson to emerge as a reliable coverage LB, allowing us to use Hightower in more sub rush opportunities.

Sicilian said:

While I agree with your first point, I think your definition of starter is too narrow. I forget the actual number, but I recall that last year the Pats spent more time in nickel and sub packages than they did in their "base" 3-4. That means that your 5th DB, at least one sub d-lineman, and probably a coverage LB should be considered "starters" in the sense that they're just as important.

I think if Dennard comes back the corners are solid. The safety next to McCourty is the big hole, with coverage linebacker still a question mark at best. As for a sub rusher, I don't see any of the current reserves stepping up and excelling in that role right now. I think our best bet is for Fletcher, Collins, or Adrian Wilson to emerge as a reliable coverage LB, allowing us to use Hightower in more sub rush opportunities.

Click to expand...

I think Cunningham and/or Benard could be competent sub rushers. The latter I'm a little wary of based on preseason performance but it seems from my view anyway that they've been playing him out of position so...not sure how to interpret that, exactly.

Our 5th skill position player is our weakest starter. We know Amendola, Thompkins, Ridley and a TE will start. Whoever that 5th guy is (Dobson, another TE, Vereen?) will be the weak link.

Next weakest starter is the safety next to McCourty. Third weakest link is our coverage LB next to Mayo.

The starting safety opposite McCourty. You have a guy that can't cover worth a damn, a second year pro that keeps making pee-wee mental errors, and a guy that can't tackle to save his life. Matt Elam would have been a solid option in the draft and there were a few options available in FA, but I guess the team wanted to go a different route.

The S paired with McCourty will probably be the weakest of the 'known' starters. We don't know for certain what we'll get out of the rookie WRs or Sudfield, so I'd put them in a separate, "INC", category.

Yes, the defense is stronger than it has been. Is there really better depth?

DE The depth is weak (an injured Cunningham is the strongest).
DT The depth is composed of UDFA's and we are looking to other teams.
LB We hope Collins and Fletcher will help (THIS is an depth improvement over 2012).
CB Everyone is back. Are we really counting on Ryan and Dowling as additional depth?
S The Wilson's haven't looked good. Harmon has looked no better. It is Gregory again.
(with no real depth)
ST We're likely giving up 2 LB/ST spots to improved position depth at LB. We should not
underestimate the effect of the loss of White.

DarrylS said:

As do most NFL teams...

IMO this defense, although it looks somewhat weak, is stronger and deeper than it has been in quite a while...

Click to expand...

mgteich said:

Yes, the defense is stronger than it has been. Is there really better depth?

DE The depth is weak (an injured Cunningham is the strongest).
DT The depth is composed of UDFA's and we are looking to other teams.
LB We hope Collins and Fletcher will help (THIS is an depth improvement over 2012).
CB Everyone is back. Are we really counting on Ryan and Dowling as additional depth?
S The Wilson's haven't looked good. Harmon has looked no better. It is Gregory again.
(with no real depth)
ST We're likely giving up 2 LB/ST spots to improved position depth at LB. We should not
underestimate the effect of the loss of White.

Click to expand...

This is a pretty good breakdown, and a great example why the depth is weak almost all over the place except for the LB corps (where Fletcher should supply a boost, particularly in coverage and Collins should at the very least be an upgrade over Hightower in coverage as well).