The Patriots will pick a RB in the first 2 rounds

manxman2601 said:

Todd Gurley is a rare prospect. Providing he checks out medically, he's well worth the use of a first round pick. Like Marshawn Lynch, Gurley is the type of RB that transforms an offense.

Click to expand...

I agree. He's an awesome back, but we have seen similar prospects of that skill level fall based on knee injuries. I worry about taking high profile backs as they have been such high bust prospects, due to lack of production or injury. That's why I consider him a second round at best prospect. First round picks need to be home runs, without significant risk. That's a chip that has to cash in for you.

ZoisKing said:

I agree. He's an awesome back, but we have seen similar prospects of that skill level fall based on knee injuries. I worry about taking high profile backs as they have been such high bust prospects, due to lack of production or injury. That's why I consider him a second round at best prospect. First round picks need to be home runs, without significant risk. That's a chip that has to cash in for you.

Click to expand...

Which is why I wrote "providing he checks out medically".

manxman2601 said:

Which is why I wrote "providing he checks out medically".

Click to expand...

And I hope he does. Even then I'd still prefer defensive line.

…and LG too.

Most fan bases clamor for sexy picks like running back and wide receiver in the top tier of the draft and I think its testament to how many on this board understand how Belichick team builds, that so many Pats fans are preying for a guard and maybe DL with our top tier draft capital.

1st Guard or DT
2nd DT or Guard (trading up with our 3rd and 4th as high as we need to to get the best available talent in the second round) and still having the comp 3rd from Talib signing with the Donkeys and TB's 4th from Mankins in our arsenal
3rd from Talib trade RB
4th from TB Double dip at guard

manxman2601 said:

Todd Gurley is a rare prospect. Providing he checks out medically, he's well worth the use of a first round pick. Like Marshawn Lynch, Gurley is the type of RB that transforms an offense.

Click to expand...

I think there is a very good chance that this assessment ends up being accurate. No prospect is ever 100% guaranteed, but Gurley certainly has the potential to be a "transformative" player, and deserves serious consideration.

I have been as strong a proponent as anyone on this board about building around the lines, and about de-valuing the offensive "skill" positions. The offensive positions that I place the highest premium on are QB, OL (especially LT and OC) and TE. I've also said many times that I don't generally believe in taking a RB in the 1st round, and that good backs can be found later on - especially in a draft as deep at the RB position as this one.

But I also believe that it's bad practice to draft for need, and to attempt to only fill certain positions. As Seattle GM John Schneider put it:

"We never go into this thing saying we have to have this or we have to have that," Schneider said about the draft process. "That's when you get in trouble in terms of overpaying. We have to learn from previous lessons."

Click to expand...

http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/12036/john-schneider-likes-the-2015-draft-class

I certainly want the Pats to invest in OL and DL in this draft. But I think it would be erroneous to assume that we have to go OL or DL at any particular spot. With a likely 5 picks in the top 100, the Pats will have plenty of chances to add some talent on the lines. All things equal, I would tend to pick an OL or DL over other prospects that I have rated similarly, and my mocks tend to reflect that philosophy. But it's quite possible that someone like Gurley could end up being the best value at a given spot, and if that's the case, I wouldn't rule it out based on a preconceived notion that the Pats should focus on the lines. In general, I'd hate to turn down a clear 1st round talent at #32 in favor of a 2nd round talent who happens to fill a perceived "need".

mayoclinic said:

I think there is a very good chance that this assessment ends up being accurate. No prospect is ever 100% guaranteed, but Gurley certainly has the potential to be a "transformative" player, and deserves serious consideration.

I have been as strong a proponent as anyone on this board about building around the lines, and about de-valuing the offensive "skill" positions. The offensive positions that I place the highest premium on are QB, OL (especially LT and OC) and TE. I've also said many times that I don't generally believe in taking a RB in the 1st round, and that good backs can be found later on - especially in a draft as deep at the RB position as this one.

But I also believe that it's bad practice to draft for need, and to attempt to only fill certain positions. As Seattle GM John Scheider put it:



http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/12036/john-schneider-likes-the-2015-draft-class

I certainly want the Pats to invest in OL and DL in this draft. But I think it would be erroneous to assume that we have to go OL or DL at any particular spot. With a likely 5 picks in the top 100, the Pats will have plenty of chances to add some talent on the lines. All things equal, I would tend to pick an OL or DL over other prospects that I have rated similarly, and my mocks tend to reflect that philosophy. But it's quite possible that someone like Gurley could end up being the best value at a given spot, and if that's the case, I wouldn't rule it out based on a preconceived notion that the Pats should focus on the lines. In general, I'd hate to turn down a clear 1st round talent at #32 in favor of a 2nd round talent who happens to fill a perceived "need".

Click to expand...

I agree with most of this. However, we are in championship form right now, and I think you have to do everything possible to maintain that. Reinforcing the lines is a necessity. Neither are strong points at the moment, and if they are, then everything changes. We become a lot better.

We've been doing okay recently with second round picks anyway as we've made some pro bowl caliber picks in that round recently. Guys like Gronkowski, Collins, Vereen, etc. are team builders. That second round talent might just turn into a great defensive lineman, while the talented Gurley could experience some of the same issues other RBs have had in the past. Per the draft board now, Gurley looks like the more talented player, but will he still be a year from now? No way of knowing for sure.

AN

mayoclinic said:

I think there is a very good chance that this assessment ends up being accurate. No prospect is ever 100% guaranteed, but Gurley certainly has the potential to be a "transformative" player, and deserves serious consideration.

I have been as strong a proponent as anyone on this board about building around the lines, and about de-valuing the offensive "skill" positions. The offensive positions that I place the highest premium on are QB, OL (especially LT and OC) and TE. I've also said many times that I don't generally believe in taking a RB in the 1st round, and that good backs can be found later on - especially in a draft as deep at the RB position as this one.

But I also believe that it's bad practice to draft for need, and to attempt to only fill certain positions. As Seattle GM John Scheider put it:



http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/12036/john-schneider-likes-the-2015-draft-class

I certainly want the Pats to invest in OL and DL in this draft. But I think it would be erroneous to assume that we have to go OL or DL at any particular spot. With a likely 5 picks in the top 100, the Pats will have plenty of chances to add some talent on the lines. All things equal, I would tend to pick an OL or DL over other prospects that I have rated similarly, and my mocks tend to reflect that philosophy. But it's quite possible that someone like Gurley could end up being the best value at a given spot, and if that's the case, I wouldn't rule it out based on a preconceived notion that the Pats should focus on the lines. In general, I'd hate to turn down a clear 1st round talent at #32 in favor of a 2nd round talent who happens to fill a perceived "need".

Click to expand...

Good to see ya back Mayo. I'd also add that if we do draft Gurley. It's important to get a powerful guard to help our run blocking. Gurley at 32 and G at 64.

BobDigital said:

You can say he will not do it. You can list reasons why he won't if you want. You can say you don't like it (I am not a fan of it). You CAN NOT say it is "not how he drafts" cause it is. I showed in the OP that it is how he drafts in certain situations.

On 3 occasions he used either a 1st or 2nd rounder to trade for or draft a RB. Those are facts on the record and that part of your post is simply not true.

Now another part of your post could be true. Maybe he sees Blount/Grey/Ridley(if he signs) as good enough. Vereen does not really enter into this as he is here to catch not run.

Also you could argue this team does not/will not fit the past trends I laid out where he has used top draft capital on RBs. That is fair to argue and you might have a point.

BB has also showed he is not afraid to draft a player with a top pick after getting burned by a player in the same position using a top pick. I don't think that will stop him. Maybe you could show me a post showing how it might. I am not at all convinced of that though.

Click to expand...

Why Bob you seem a little exercised that someone would disagree with you. yes never say never, you got me there. But all Three times BB used a 1st or 2nd rnd pick it was to replace a back who left.

Dillon replace A Smith

Maroney replaced C Dillon

Vareen replaced K Faulk

This year there is no one to replace, Blount is under contract along with Grey.
Ridley can be re-signed for peanuts because what team is going to pay a RB coming off knee surgery big money. And White would be used to replace Vereen if he can't be signed. So theres no need for BB to use a 1 or 2 to replace any of the running backs. And if he did i wouldn't mind it at all. i'd like to see a dynamic running back in the back field instead of a variety of Rbs each one of them better at one thing than the other, but none complete. and if i'm wrong i will gladly and openly say i was. Last spring i posted to Brady 6 that the pats wouldn't take an undersized D-Tackle and when they did i went out of my way to come on here and say that obviously i was wrong, he was right.

reflexblue said:

Why Bob you seem a little exercised that someone would disagree with you. yes never say never, you got me there. But all Three times BB used a 1st or 2nd rnd pick it was to replace a back who left.

Dillon replace A Smith

Maroney replaced C Dillon

Vareen replaced K Faulk

This year there is no one to replace, Blount is under contract along with Grey.
Ridley can be re-signed for peanuts because what team is going to pay a RB coming off knee surgery big money. And White would be used to replace Vereen if he can't be signed. So theres no need for BB to use a 1 or 2 to replace any of the running backs. And if he did i would like it, i'd like to see a dynamic running back in the back field instead of a variety of Rbs each one of them bett at one thing than the other but none complete. and if i'm wrong i will gladly and openly say i was wrong. Last spring i posted to Brady 6 that the pats wouldn't take an undersized D-Tackle and when they did i went out of my way to come on here and say that obviously i was wrong, he was right.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry about that. Yesterday was not the best day ever and I could have responded a little differently to your post.

Your point of replacing a RB is very interesting. You could argue it could apply to Blount (who we are keeping) or Ridley/Vereen if one or both go. I guess that entirely depends on if BB sees Blount as a starter in need of replacing or a backup compliment. I agree White could and might be Vereen's replacement if he walks but that is neither here or there for the purpose of a 1st/2nd down back.

Well I am wrong about this I plan to bump the thread and say so. Why make bold predictions if you can not pound your chest after or have it thrown in your face right? : P

I'd pick Yeldon in the 2nd round if he's there.

But we have to solidify our OL and DL in this draft IMO.

mayoclinic said:

I have been as strong a proponent as anyone on this board about building around the lines, and about de-valuing the offensive "skill" positions. The offensive positions that I place the highest premium on are QB, OL (especially LT and OC) and TE. I've also said many times that I don't generally believe in taking a RB in the 1st round, and that good backs can be found later on - especially in a draft as deep at the RB position as this one.

Click to expand...

Would you consider trading up to 25 or so for, say, Maxx Williams?

A lot depends on how our FO evaluates certain players.

If they think Maxx Williams is a special talent (in answer to ctpatsfan77) then trading up could work well - we'd definitely benefit from an upgrade at TE2 to finally replace HWSNBN.

If they see a Logan Mankins-equivalent at 32, pick them.

If they see a future starter at DT who could potentially replace Vince long-term, pick them.

If the draft doesn't fall that way, but there's a great RB available at 32, sure, pick them. But we have a lot of expectations for a top-drafted RB - they need to be able to play all 3 downs, good in pass protection (rare coming out of college) and to be able to run the ball at the NFL level (way harder than in college).


As long as we don't draft a WR I'll be happy...

ZoisKing said:

I agree with most of this. However, we are in championship form right now, and I think you have to do everything possible to maintain that. Reinforcing the lines is a necessity. Neither are strong points at the moment, and if they are, then everything changes. We become a lot better.

We've been doing okay recently with second round picks anyway as we've made some pro bowl caliber picks in that round recently. Guys like Gronkowski, Collins, Vereen, etc. are team builders. That second round talent might just turn into a great defensive lineman, while the talented Gurley could experience some of the same issues other RBs have had in the past. Per the draft board now, Gurley looks like the more talented player, but will he still be a year from now? No way of knowing for sure.

Click to expand...

Well we know that the draft is mostly a crapshoot but you have to project prospects somehow so there is never any "knowing for sure" possible.

That being said, Gurley could be as much of a transformative player for the offense as Gronk is. He seems to excel at receiving and rushing with only his blocking being a bit of a question mark.

Imagine how nice it would be if opponents wouldn't be able to guess our plays and adjust their D based on which of our RBs is in play. I think a great flexback would turn our offense in a totally unpredictable matchup nightmare. It might also take some pressure off Brady, which given age might be a good idea.

I can see that being worth the late first round pick. That all being said, I am also more than fine with upgrading the trenches early.

In the end it will be a question of value.

BelizePats said:

Most fan bases clamor for sexy picks like running back and wide receiver in the top tier of the draft and I think its testament to how many on this board understand how Belichick team builds, that so many Pats fans are preying for a guard and maybe DL with our top tier draft capital.

1st Guard or DT
2nd DT or Guard (trading up with our 3rd and 4th as high as we need to to get the best available talent in the second round) and still having the comp 3rd from Talib signing with the Donkeys and TB's 4th from Mankins in our arsenal
3rd from Talib trade RB
4th from TB Double dip at guard

Click to expand...

Agree a lot of people like shiny objects like fancy wide outs etc. but if you have a great o-line besides protecting the qb, you can make average wrs and rbs really good.

luuked said:

Well we know that the draft is mostly a crapshoot but you have to project prospects somehow so there is never any "knowing for sure" possible.

That being said, Gurley could be as much of a transformative player for the offense as Gronk is. He seems to excel at receiving and rushing with only his blocking being a bit of a question mark.

Imagine how nice it would be if opponents wouldn't be able to guess our plays and adjust their D based on which of our RBs is in play. I think a great flexback would turn our offense in a totally unpredictable matchup nightmare. It might also take some pressure off Brady, which given age might be a good idea.

I can see that being worth the late first round pick. That all being said, I am also more than fine with upgrading the trenches early.

In the end it will be a question of value.

Click to expand...

I don't want to come off as being adverse to Gurley. He's a top talent in this draft. Top three in my opinion. If he falls to us, and we take him, then I will be happy about it because we just gained an outstanding player. However, I see a real need on the lines, and would love to see us add at least one player on each who shows real promise at contributing immediately. Heck, Easley may be that player, so the need may not be paramount. Easley has to prove that he can stay healthy though, and that's a significant question.

Offensive line has to be addressed, and I can only really see us getting value through the draft, as our free agent dollars are going to be very limited. Brady is our most important asset, and he has to be given the freedom to make the best of decisions. I'm eager to see how we improve the O line. Very eager. Hopefully Cannon will get it figured out and make this an internal upgrade.

Since this thread is mostly about mocking Gurley to the Pats around pick 32...

Why are people so sure about Gurley? I don't mean just the ACL injury. I looked up 2012, 2013, and 2014 Georgia Bulldogs seasons and each year his backup posted similar YPC and touchdows per carry. Are we sure this isn't a OL/system thing? It seems every year "RB who isn't Todd Gurley" performs on par with Todd Gurley in the Bulldogs offense, and Keith Marshall and Nick Chubb weren't getting garbage-time carries either.

unoriginal said:

Since this thread is mostly about mocking Gurley to the Pats around pick 32...

Why are people so sure about Gurley? I don't mean just the ACL injury. I looked up 2012, 2013, and 2014 Georgia Bulldogs seasons and each year his backup posted similar YPC and touchdows per carry. Are we sure this isn't a OL/system thing? It seems every year "RB who isn't Todd Gurley" performs on par with Todd Gurley in the Bulldogs offense, and Keith Marshall and Nick Chubb weren't getting garbage-time carries either.

Click to expand...

Watch the tape and you'll see why. Outstanding burst and balance and hole recognition along with great size and speed.

unoriginal said:

Since this thread is mostly about mocking Gurley to the Pats around pick 32...

Why are people so sure about Gurley? I don't mean just the ACL injury. I looked up 2012, 2013, and 2014 Georgia Bulldogs seasons and each year his backup posted similar YPC and touchdows per carry. Are we sure this isn't a OL/system thing? It seems every year "RB who isn't Todd Gurley" performs on par with Todd Gurley in the Bulldogs offense, and Keith Marshall and Nick Chubb weren't getting garbage-time carries either.

Click to expand...

Part of that is getting the best RBs you can get. Chubb is a bad dude too. He was the top ranked high school RB in his state. They get the linemen who can block for their RBs. Georgia football is about rushing the ball. As are a lot of college programs.

unoriginal said:

Since this thread is mostly about mocking Gurley to the Pats around pick 32...

Why are people so sure about Gurley? I don't mean just the ACL injury. I looked up 2012, 2013, and 2014 Georgia Bulldogs seasons and each year his backup posted similar YPC and touchdows per carry. Are we sure this isn't a OL/system thing? It seems every year "RB who isn't Todd Gurley" performs on par with Todd Gurley in the Bulldogs offense, and Keith Marshall and Nick Chubb weren't getting garbage-time carries either.

Click to expand...

The best answer I can give to that is from Mike Loyko on twitter:

Finishing up some RB film. Here's a crazy stat. Almost 62% of Todd Gurley's yardage came after contact. He's so much better than Gordon.

Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/nepd_loyko/status/560216297376841728

If 62% of Gurley's yardage came after contact, I doubt he was just a product of the system.

Here's a nice breakdown by Matt Waldman:

http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2015/02/05/todd-gurley/

There's never 100% certainty with any prospect, and Gurley could easily end up being another Beanie Wells - a big, powerful back with great speed who dominates at the college level, but not in the pros. But I think there's a good chance that Manx hit the nail on the head with his eval - Gurley has a chance to have a Gronk kind of impact as the kind of player that you have to scheme against on every play, and still can't entirely stop. A better version of LeVeon Bell. If so, add him into the mix along with Gronk and the receivers - and Gurley is a decent receiving back, though his blocking has to improve - and you would add a significant dimension to the offense, as Luuked notes above (post 54).