Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by cstjohn17, Apr 3, 2010.
OLB/DE maybe two
Plus WR or TE or RB or BPA...
Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I don't think ILB is a big need though with McKenzie coming back so I'd rather take another pass rushing OLB.
I think you want to draft players you want rather than positions you want.
I'd be happy with 2, but I've learned to expect the unexpected come draft day. The brains that run this team are much smarter and deeper than mine, so whatever they decide to do is fine with me.
Though I'm hoping for 2 personally.
DE and OLB. Use other 2 on offense. Considering we used 3 of our 4, 2nd round picks on defense last year, we've got to strenghthen the offense also.
The 4th pick last year was OL. We could stand to use an infusion of playmakers on offense, whatever tickles BB's fancy. WR and TE maybe.
the problem with drafting an ILB high is McKenzie.
if the pats liked him enough to draft him in the third, they must think he can do something. If they draft a ILB high, then McKenzie won't get any snaps and won't be able to develop.
That said, I think that all these threads about drafting by position aer based on the faulty assumption that we should list our weaknesses and then draft by position to fill that weakness. That results in stretches and inefficient drafting over the long haul.
Certainly the draft board will be swayed by how strong a position is. In particular, it is simple to pass over a position in which you are well stocked, but first consideration in drafting has to be the relative value of a player.
I'd prefer a crafty vet at ILB if possible, but who knows?
Pats have managed to turn around the linebackers with no experienced players in crucial positions.
I don't want to argue about technicalities, our leader has about a year and a half experience and we have a backup and a re-sign who've played the most.
I'd like to move Mayo to his more natural Weak side and take some of the pressure of being a leader off him and let him play. We can get by with a smart, less athletic strong side ILB for a while until someone else is ready.
Just give Tom Brady some help. That's all Im asking. And I dont mean another backup guard. Give the man a #2 already. Please. Can we? If 3 out of 4 go to D again like last year, that one lonely skill player NEEDS to be a difference maker.
I wouldn't have a problem with 3 in the front 7 as long as the board has set up that way. If there is a run on offensive talent and that drops some defenders to our picks and the Pats are high on them, take them.
As others have said, we do need to add some young talent to this offense but I don't want a WR or TE drafted just because of the position they play. I want the Pats to get who they truly want and get value for their picks.
As long as we get a stud WR or TE in the 2nd, then I have no problem with devoting the first 3 to address the front 7. However, I'd feel even more comfortable if we got TWO pass rushers instead of one (cause one just won't cut it).
No complaints from my end
Not only would I not have a problem with it, I'm expecting it. Backers and a four technique, please. From there, add a guard/center or a tackle. They could go the skill positions route, but in my mind it's a waste to give O'Brien specialists. He's too GD stupid to creatively utilize the tallent coming out at those positions. For all the talk about Harvin last year, he would have been mismanaged in that offense. I'm willing to bet O'Brien didn't even get the "Percy Position". So, uh yeah, get defense and linemen. McDaniels was an indigo child, O'Brien has an extra chromosome. Put your tallent where it would be properly utilized.
So your point is that Obrien and Brady are too stupid to use skill position players, so we shouldn't draft any????
In a hyperbolic, dumbed down way, yeah kind of. A few things:
1) I never once mentioned Brady.
2) O'Brien is very clearly incapable of creativity, which is necessary to properly utilize most of the early round tallent this year.
3) It's not about passing stats, it's about offensive efficiency.
4) They need to idiot proof the offense until either O'Brien is demoted or magically grows a triple digit IQ. This is accomplished through the line.
5) Give your best tallent to your best coach. On O this happens to be Dante. Allow him to draw up blocking schemes (I think he already does) with elite tallent that will enable the O to develop a dominant ground game. Work off of this line by mixing in simple plays drawn to take advantage of obvious situations that your oline will force the defense into.
6) O'Brien ain't outcoaching anyone. Take the onus off of him by reducing the spread heavy concept and create an offense that revolves around the line.
You kidding me? As far as Obriens playcalling, ill accept that it wasnt nearly as good as McDaniels. But cmon the weapons we had were definitely used, Welker led the league in receptions and Moss was solid. Our 7th rounder Edelman even had a few good games and looks to be a future stud slot WR in the offense. Were missing a #2 receiver opposite Moss. The offense really shined when we had a dependable #2 whether that was Stallworth or Gaffney. Hopefully one of our 2nd rounders will take care of this need and then use a 4th on a RB and we should be ok on offense
1) They need a split end. I don't know what a #2 receiver is.
2) When two players, irrespective of their immense tallent, run your entire offense, your coaching sucks.
3) Welker single handedly ran that offense last year with option routes. This tells me all I need to know. He and Brady put themselves in the right positions.O'Brien did not place them there.
Yeah, exactly. Let's just go ahead and crucify the guy because he had a bad FIRST AND ONLY YEAR EVER calling plays. God, that guy sucks and will never get it. Friggin' chicken littles just kill ya.
Basically they need an upgrade over Sam Aiken. A guy like Golden Tate would fit the bill as a guy who can play both in the slot and on the outside.
With point 2, this is why they need more than 2 dependable guys to run the offense. Brady was at his best when he has 3 good receivers to work with. He had it with Branch, Givens, and Brown and with Moss, Welker, and the Stallworth/Gaffney combo. Another dependable target will spread the opposing D out and could allow for a productive run game.
Buddy, spare us this kindof joke like commentary. This is insulting to other football fans that actually have a clue, yet refuse to throw a person into the garbage because he failed to win a Superbowl his first year running the offense. Inject a little perspective into your rants next time.
jays52 is certainly not a Chicken Little, and he knows his football. You may not agree with him, but your vitriol is aimed at the wrong person.
I won't throw any one guy under the bus, but their second half offense was pretty bad.
agreed. I think we all should just see what happens in the draft and see if theres improvement in the offense next season.
Oh, my vitriol? That what it was? I thought it was just one Pats fan telling another to NOT throw a guy under the bus after ONE friggin' year of service. Are we really gonna cry all year when our team falls short, and just aim our vitriol at him all year again?
This team was missing pieces last year. Our D was young and inexperienced, and completely lacking playmakers. And our O never had NUMBER TWO receiver all year worth squat. Sure, our O coordinator sucked at times, as Welker was single-handedly running our O would clearly demonstrate. But we're not going to draft playmakers for Brady or our offense because our coordinator is garbage, so lets not even bother? Right. Vitriol. Ya nailed that one.
Why can't that be Brandon Tate?
Your called someone a Chicken Little when he's not. You then followed it up with
I have no problem with calling others out. In your case here, you simply targeted someone erroneously, that's all.
I think people get a little carried away with this '#2 receiver' thing.
compare our receiving corps with moss and welker in '09 to what we had in '06.
I'm not saying I would be against some pro-bowl wr added to the team, but realistically, you've got to accept that you won't have the best talent at every position.
it would be great if they could add another stud there, but even stud wr's rarely look like pro-bowlers in their rookie years.
the talent we currently have at that spot really shouldn't be any kind of excuse for not advancing, and it wasn't the problem against the ravens, saints, et al.
Brandon Tate, no reason it cant be but the two knee injuries scare me alot. And if Tate comes back strong next year. at best we now have two more WRs to add to the receiving corps.
It was clearly a problem, and it clearly cost them late in games, as teams were able to adjust to Moss and Welker.
haha...well, the ravens weren't adjusting to welker in the playoffs, and I'll point back to my earlier comment about 2006 and the fact that you don't get pro-bowlers at every position.
that ravens game was lost on three plays ---- they gave up an 80 yard rice td, which is not because of their #2 receiver.
they let suggs get to brady, which is not because of a #2 receiver.
and they missed a kick, which is not because of a #2 receiver.
also, if you want to add in the fact that the ravens ran over the pats and actualy won a game running the ball 50x, which also is not because of the #2 receiver.
again, a pro-bowl #2 would've been great, but I wouldn't say it's on top of the list of issues ---- at least for next year, anyway.
edit: and are you also saying it was clearly the problem vs the saints?
It was clearly a problem. We couldnt move the chains especially in the 2nd half in alot of those games. Im not saying we need a probowl WR opposite Moss but we do need a guy who can consistently get open and make those catches, something that a guy like Gaffney and Givens were good at.
WR isnt the most glaring weakness on the team right now (pass rush) but it is a weakness and needs to be addressed now especially since Moss is in the last year of his deal.
Separate names with a comma.