is the cb position a lot better than we think
 

a lot of ppl (and mocks for that reason) feel we should draft a cb in the first rd
or that we should at least address it in fa, or early in the draft

but lets take a look at the position as of now:
assante samuel
randall gay
ellis hobbs
chad scott
hank poteat

okay, so its not great, but its def not the worst position for the pats (that reward has to go to the wr's), but even that aside, the pats are obviously trying for a youth movement, at cb its not really needed
look at the top three guys: samuel, gay, hobbs
while samuel is only signed through this yr, thats still three guys that could be around for quite some time, and should only get better
i love hobbs, i think this guy could be a stud
and we are kinda forgetting how good a job gay did down the stretch in 04
samuel dissapointed most of last yr, but started to come on at the end of the yr

wr is obviously a more pressing need, but i think so is lb (we need to add youth, and a fourth lb for that matter at the position)

some could even argue that te, rb, and safety are more pressing needs
te-we need a number three, plus graham is a fa after the yr
rb-we need a young guy to replace dillon either soon, or right away(if he keeps gettin banged up)
s-rodney might not be back to full strength, geno was a huge dissapointment last yr, never making plays, guss scott cant ever stay on the field, james sanders couldnt stay on the field last yr

so, maybe cb isnt so bad

I worry more about safety than corner right now. Wilson had a definite dow year without Rodney last year and I don't think the Pats can afford to get off to a slow start this year if Rodney is out for a chunk of time. Hawkins did a decent job but can we count on him to continue?

I think that calling Asante out for having to play in a new formation and virtually non-stop prevent-defense, isolated from the rest of the team's challenges (injuries, coaching changes, schedule) might be a little unfair. His turnaround seemed to come right about when Hawkins, Bruschi and Vrabel began closing down the middle of the field. Same could be said for Wilson.

I do think CB is importnat. No, not as imprtant as the depletedWR corps, but I really believe another vet is needed...and do not be surprsied if another rookie CB is brought in as well. I just think a vet would help a great deal..someone with the leadership capabilities to help with the young players.
An established CB...No it's not in bad shape Samuel and Gay and Hobbs are fine..but it seems one can never have enough. Get a wily vet to help teach these guys some tricks..bring a bit of savvy play. Rodney always helps..but I agree, safety may also be a concern. TE and RB will take care of themselves..
a young RB and a young TE...but beyond WR. CB and LB to me is where moves need to be made. I am not in a rush..but I know that will be addressed.

As of now, I see a greater need on Day one of the drafts at OLB, TE, OT and DL (are you really happy with counting on three of Hill, Klecko, Wright, Thomas).

Our defensive backfield is as good as what it was throughout the last half of the year and into the playoffs, where the defense was fine.

C. Scott, Samuel, Hobbs, Poteat, Gay
Wilson,Hawkins,Sanders,G. Scott

Add a Ster (Stone anyone) and we are fine, if this were the first day of the season. But even then, I would prefer another veteran corner.

Personally, I think we overrate Samuel and Gay.

Another issue is injuries.

The bottom line is that we will add more defensive backs.

BTW, I see no reason to believe that Wilson, Hawkins and Sanders won;y be fine at corner. We have Guss Scott as insurance, plus Harrison on PUP. I don't see a great need at safety.

I agree entirely.

I'd also say that S is not the big concern that people keep making it out to be - everyone seems to ignore the fact that in addition to Rodney, James Sanders and Gus Scott were also injured last year, and both are pretty good safeties. Any time a team's top three players at one position get injured within two games of each other, there's going to be some struggling at that position. You can't plan for the possibility of having your starter, your main backup, and your backup's backup all injured. Or should we draft a QB in round 1 also, in case both Brady and Cassel get injured?

For sure CB is looking solid at the top and reasonably deep. The top four guys can legitimitely compete to be starters and Poteat is a decent 5th guy. We still don't have a #1, maybe one of the young guys will develop. What we desperately need is one of them to become an INT machine, like Law, even if they give up plays along the way. Hobbs seemed to have a way of getting the ball in his hands and Samuel has the ballhawking ability if he could just catch. I do agree that CB isn't a high priority on Day One and will likely only be addressed if there's a great value sitting there.

OLB and OT sure - but TE and DL? Graham and Watson are very solid at TE. Sure, we should have a 3rd stringer also - but it's definitely not a position in such need that it requires a day 1 pick.

And DL? Let's see, starters are Seymour, Wilfork, and Warren, with Jarvis Green, and Marquise Hill as backups at DE, and Wright and Klecko (and Thomas) as backup DTs. Why do people seem to think that we need first or second round players as backups? We can get decent backups on day 2 - there's no need for finding a new starter anywhere on the DL.

WR and LB are clearly the biggest needs, with OT also being a big one. The RB position is all set for this year, but Dillon and Faulk are getting on in years - combine that with the fact that there are going to be some good RBs available around picks 21 and 53, and that could also get a look.

I agree with that entirely.

Belichick often drafts a year ahead. With strong TE in Round Two I think there's a good chance we'll take one as the #3 guy and Graham's replacement in 2006 unless they think they can re-sign him.

DL, we likely need a better backup NT unless they think Mike Wright can come on. And a DE wouldn't hurt unless they think Marquis Hill can develop . . . we're only one injury away from him being the top backup.

The argument sounds right and on the surface I'd agree that CB is solid and safety is weaker, but that doesn't explain why the FO targeted Deshea Townsend as one of their biggest attempts at a FA acquisition (Givens being the biggest attempt.)

Clearly, the FO sees CB as a weakness. I'll take their word for it.