We are not close to matching the defense of the 2004 team. We are much closer to matching the 2007 team.
This is where we disagree, which is fine. There are 5 players on defense (Wilfork, Warren, Mayo, Bodden, Meriweather) that compare favorably to 2004, 2 more that could with a good sophomore jump (Butler, Chung) and 1 unknown that could surprise (McKenzie). That isn't counting sub players (Wright, Guyton) that have done well, some solid vets and young depth. It isn't 2004 yet but a key acquisition here and there (Jason Taylor?) and a solid draft and the Pats could be mighty close.
The 2007 offense isn't happening again with this group of players. Brady, Moss, Light, Koppen and Neal have turned a corner in the last couple of years where they probably aren't physically able to duplicate those results and the coaching staff likely doesn't want to expose them to that kind of offense. So while I agree that this offense is closer to the 2007 squad, it is moving in the opposite direction.
I do agree that it would be good to have a better running offense, especially on short yardage. But I think that this was less about our running backs, and more about scheme and the lack of production from the TE and flanker position. Curiously if we have a flanker (instead of Aiken) and a much better starting TE,
we will likely have the need for FEWER passes. The offense would be better, but the number of passes would be fewer.
100% agree and bet that Belichick does as well.
Besides, the league has changed. It is not clear that trying to match the team structure of 2001-2004 would bring the success it brought then.
You're right. A better way of putting it would be to have the defense muck in to the overall team success at the same level that the 2004 squad did. Same for special teams. The offense has been shouldering too much of a burden for too long. Used to be that moving the ball out near midfield, punting and pinning the opponents near their goal line was a clear victory for the Pats. It needs to be that way again.
You speak about limited resources and then say we need a top DE or OLB instead. No one is suggesting an "either or" but you. We need a WR, a TE, and two DE or OLB's. These might come from the draft of from trades or from our four top 53 draft picks.
Never my intention to suggest an either/or. In fact, every one of my draft projects for the Pats have involved at least one WR. It is just that they are never on the 1st two days.
Branch
Olsen or a draftee
Odrick or Carrington or Williams
Hughes
Tate
This looks good but it is fairly unrealistic. Olsen (or someone like Pitta) would cost a 2nd. Don't see Branch coming for a 4th or later. Odrick and Hughes won't be around at #44 so it would require a trade-up to get both. Tate might be the same. So while this looks good, it isn't likely to happen without using a 1st rounder from 2011 (way outside the scope of this thread).
Could a WR be picked by the Pats before Saturday? Sure, particularly if someone falls or the Pats trade down and end up with more picks. Would that WR end up ahead of BTate/Edelman on the depth chart? Possibly but that would require using #22 or #44 (there is a serious drop after that level). Why draft a WR in the 2nd round of a deep draft, yet have the WR start out #4 on the depth chart (#5 when Welker returns)? That wouldn't get the Pats offense much closer to 2007 but it would be a missed opportunity to significantly improve the athleticism of the defense.
There are choices to be made with those pre-Saturday picks. Once Saturday rolls around, use those picks for as many WRs (draft or trade) as you want. That should ensure Aiken stays on ST and Brady has enough target until and after Welker comes back. But fail to fill those multiple key holes on defense and TE with those top 50 picks and Brady won't be able to pass this team to a title.
they have a strong secondary.
