1. Crable IS a pass rushing OLB. Because Pierre Woods hasn't done much, you think all Michigan players suck? Keep in mind Woods was an UDFA, so I'm not sure why you're comparing him with a player drafted in the 3rd round. I hope this is not the logic you bring to your biology practice.
2. You're assuming that all those guys you mentioned are more valuable to the Pats than Eckel. Eckel is a core special teamer and can run the ball in a pinch. What more do you want from a 5th RB? Kelly Washington is a former No. 1 pick with more talent than all the recievers you mentioned, yet he only plays special teams. Do you really think those guys you mentioned would see the field on this team? Really??
3. LMAO at the notion that Pats players don't earn their roster spots. Believe me, if they think O'Connell sucks, he's gone.
4. I can't even begin to imagine what you're basing your statement about next year's draft on. Wouldn't that depend on how the players play in their senior seasons? Wouldn't it depend on which underclassmen declare?? Do you enjoy making blanket statements with no factual support?
On each of your points, this time I will be more clear:
1-Woods and Crable played the same position for the same team. They were both "specimens", but they both were tagged with "lack of work ethic and desire" tags. I didnt say it, but some "expert" said it. Seeing how little Woods has improved on the field....and how little ANY MICHIGAN player besides TB has helped this team......well, I developed my hypothesis.
2-Kelly Washington was a 3rd rd BUST for Cincy, never made it above 5th best WR on THEIR team. He is lucky to have a job, and he may not if Aiken outplays him this summer. Shoot, those two might both be battling 5th-6th rounder Slater for 1 spot.....though I see Slater as a PS guy. Eckel, PLEASE. Next year we will likely have to replace 2 RBs(Morris,maybe Faulk), why not get one of those 2 STEALS in the 3rd rd and have him play STs for a year?? It will be one less pick we will need next year....when the draft for RBs wont be as good.
3-My take on the Pats(and likely most teams)is that they pretty much give 1st rounders starters jobs from the beginning(though they may not play right away-its assumed). If you look at the last 3 years drafts in particular it "seems" like we go into the draft with a set number of roster spots for rookies. There is usually a line in the draft class where you can draw the line and say "everyone below here is going to have a hard time making the team".
I have done a "study" on BBs drafting, and its "expertise". I think we do well identifying the guys we want as starters on this team and putting us in a position to draft them. FA and trades seem to be our specialty. Our typical draft over 7 years nets us 3 players a year who make the team. The first rounder starts, and every other year 1 other guy earns a starting spot. Its not impossible to earn a spot, it just happens once every other year.....You can come up with a reason why this happens(BB likes old guys) but I suggest that its not an efficient use of all of our chits in the draft....
We didnt get appreciative value for either of our draft day trades this year.
We didnt sign a veteran QB who would make ODonnell obsolete. Rookies are not good backup QBs.
Positions of percieved strength werent addressed at all--meaning we did NOT take any BPAs. It also means to me that we are a bit complacent along the OL and DL. New guys and competition are always good, and the older guys help transition new guys. We will likely need both next year so why not get ONE guy to push Wright or Britt?? To me its looks like they are tired of stocking other teams with our leftovers so they just stopped trying to train rookies.....
4-Blanket statements or not, how many times are there "above average" numbers of quality players turned out? RBs? WRs? OLs? If its DEEP one year it usually means it wont be so deep the next...because of all the juniors coming out this year.....We wont have a chance at guys like Charles/Smith/Manningham/Collins and the rest every year in the 3rd round...never mind having 3(!!) chances. Compare our drafts to that of Baltimore/Atlanta/KC who also had 3 3rd rounders. Now I dont pretend to think that we are like KC needing "6 starters", but its like this team isnt concerned about developing depth or risking veteran uprising. I look at a team like the Giants who DID it last year and looks to be doing it again this year.
Guys like Hairston and Slater have been taken above guys who were both available and with a better chance to help this team.
Continuing our practice of stocking next year's shelves has cost us...as one poster said(dont know if it was on this site) we were 1 play short of WINNING SUPER BOWLS TWICE.....and if we had that one extra player, who made that one extra play, maybe we would have won them instead of making up reasons why we didnt.
