I was just looking over our current stable of DL and projecting the potential for next season. I figure we'll ultimately keep 6-7 big uglies on the DL. In no particular order, we have: Wilfork - 'nuf said G. Warren - will be a UFA, but seems like a happy camper and could be re-upped. T. Warren - very underrated, should be back at 100% by camp. Wright - has been one of our best DL, but best in situational work Pryor - BB likes having him in sub packages. Brace - still improving? Maybe not a stud, but may have a role Deaderick - solid/adequate starter so far, but it is early Love - mostly NT work, adequate in very limited work but could be upgaded Weston/Richard/Washington - flotsam All in all, not a spectacular group, by deep and flexible. Oddly enough Deaderick might be the most important guy in the group. Not that he is our best DL, but his potential emergence makes our DE's look a little deeper, a little stronger. Maybe we don't "need" a DE now. I have been of the mindset that the Pats really need a stud DE, but now i'm having second thoughts. Sure, it would be nice, but is it really *needed* or is it something of a luxury? Since our DE are used primarily to tie up OL, wouldn't a high-to-mid 1st rounder be rich, especially if the current crop of DL is performing at an adequate (or better) level? If anything, why not just a developmental space eater in the 3rd round? I know a lot of us are licking our chops thinking about adding a Dareus or Fairely, but would the incremental value of adding one of them really help this team the most, vs. say, a stud at another position of need? If you want to advocate for the stud DL, I can certainly see the arguments. But if BB doesn't come away with a DL in round 1, I think the sun will still come up over Foxborough in 2011.