Badger and supafly talk pass rushers.

[Off The Grid]

# of Posts by Badger in this Thread ~ 15
# of "OLB"s Badger has had the guts to recommend ~ 0

 

[Badger]

# of Posts by Badger in this Thread ~ 15
# of "OLB"s Badger has had the guts to recommend ~ 0

Who am I Mel Kiper? I am just making a point that we need to address the pash rush before we address the OL or RB or WR or any other position. You guys can throw names out until you are blue in the face and it is all just an excercise in futility. How many people actually discussed drafting Devin McCourty 1st next year. Throwing out draft names is folly. I am just stating that we need to be concerned about improving our pass rush with an impact pass rusher in the 1st round. Whoever that may be is up to much greater football minds at One Patriot Place. Not me or you. Attempting to belittle me by saying that I am not "playing the game" by throwing out names does nothing to dicredit the fact that this team has to get better defensively to take the next step and what we need is one major impact rusher to help all of the other parts that are already in place. That impact player will not come from the 2nd or 3rd rounds.

 

[dryheat44]

Yeah "Always starts in the trenches" has won us all of ZERO playoff games the past 3 years. Name me one offensive lineman for the Packers? Didn't think so. They are all about skill position players at the QB and WR spot and one heckuva pass rushing get after it defense. Don't tell me otherwise because I live in Packer country and know what they are built on. They don't even try to run the ball.

Ummm...Where to begin? Mark Tauscher? Chad Clifton? Scott Wells? Jason Spitz? Darryl Colledge? TJ Lang? Bryan Bulaga? Josh Sitton (whom some Patriot said was the toughest lineman he played against last year?

Just because YOU don't know their names doesn't mean they're no good. The Packers probably have the most talented and deep offensive line in football.

Wait...you're in Packer country and don't know who they are? They don't even try to run the ball? Come on man. Grant went IR in week 1, and no matter who much they sucked at it, they committed to running the ball every game.

You seem bright enough to make your point without resorting to this. But on to your point, to make sure I'm capturing it correctly...

The Patriots deem Von Miller to be the best pass rushing LB out there. He might go as high as #2 to Denver. They should package both number 1s, both number 2s, and next year's number 1 to trade up to #2 to get him.

The Broncos irrationally want Miller as bad as we do, so they refuse. The Patriots deem Ryan Kerrigan to be the 2nd best pass rushing LB out there. Intelligence says he might go as high as #12. The Patriots should package a first and two second rounders to get him. Again they are rebuffed.

The Patriots have Brooks Reed as their 3rd best pass rushing LB. They think it's a huge gap from #2 though, and have a early-third round grade on him. Yet intelligence says that he might go as high as #22, so they should use #17 on him, even though they have a first round grade on an offensive tackle and a running back.

Short of the team charter crashing into Mt. Rainier on the way to Seattle, I can't think of a quicker way to take a team from perennial contender to playoff wannabe.

 

[jukes]

Cunningham showed signs last year as a roookie he could contribute to the pass rush, but when i look at this draft all of these guys besides von miller is a "project"i dont really see the point in every single year everyteam must "draft a pass rusher" u have teams like jacksonville drafting defensive ends every year and missing everytime.

 

[Badger]

Ummm...Where to begin? Mark Tauscher? Chad Clifton? Scott Wells? Jason Spitz? Darryl Colledge? TJ Lang? Bryan Bulaga? Josh Sitton (whom some Patriot said was the toughest lineman he played against last year?

Just because YOU don't know their names doesn't mean they're no good. The Packers probably have the most talented and deep offensive line in football.

Wait...you're in Packer country and don't know who they are? They don't even try to run the ball? Come on man. Grant went IR in week 1, and no matter who much they sucked at it, they committed to running the ball every game.

You seem bright enough to make your point without resorting to this. But on to your point, to make sure I'm capturing it correctly...

The Patriots deem Von Miller to be the best pass rushing LB out there. He might go as high as #2 to Denver. They should package both number 1s, both number 2s, and next year's number 1 to trade up to #2 to get him.

The Broncos irrationally want Miller as bad as we do, so they refuse. The Patriots deem Ryan Kerrigan to be the 2nd best pass rushing LB out there. Intelligence says he might go as high as #12. The Patriots should package a first and two second rounders to get him. Again they are rebuffed.

The Patriots have Brooks Reed as their 3rd best pass rushing LB. They think it's a huge gap from #2 though, and have a early-third round grade on him. Yet intelligence says that he might go as high as #22, so they should use #17 on him, even though they have a first round grade on an offensive tackle and a running back.

Short of the team charter crashing into Mt. Rainier on the way to Seattle, I can't think of a quicker way to take a team from perennial contender to playoff wannabe.

Nice post and I agree with much of it. By the way, I do know the Packers OL and I was just asking if the other poster did (also for accuracy sake, Taucher played very little this season and was on IR long before their playoff run started. ) I would say that if they have Kerrigan targeted as the guy who could be a gamechanger for us, then package both #1's and move up. Keep the 2nd rounders. If they can't make that move, then they can't but they have to make an effort to reasonably go get an impact player this year and not just slide back and settle for other positions and take a pass rusher late.

 

[Don Kipines]

Yeah "Always starts in the trenches" has won us all of ZERO playoff games the past 3 years. Name me one offensive lineman for the Packers? Didn't think so. They are all about skill position players at the QB and WR spot and one heckuva pass rushing get after it defense. Don't tell me otherwise because I live in Packer country and know what they are built on. They don't even try to run the ball.

So you think we should trade up for a sure-thing pass rusher? You mean like Gaines Adams? Or Jarvis Moss? Or Derrick Morgan or Jamaal Anderson? How about Erasmus James, Kamerion Wimbley, Derrick Harvey, Michael Haynes or Jerome McDougle?

How about an athletic freak who who blew up the combine -- like Vernon Gholston?

Nobody's arguing that the Pats need a pass-rusher. But the draft is a crap shoot and there are no sure things. The absolute worst thing you can do is reach for a need. Belichick says it all the time -- if you reach for a guy, not only is it a wasted resource that year, but you end up having to spend
another pick on the position next year or the year after.

Pass-rushers are always overvalued in the draft, so you end up having to overspend your ammo just to get one. Let's say you want to get Von Miller. It'll probably cost you at minimum both firsts and a third. So you do the trade and remember, even Von Miller has a 50% chance of being Vernon Gholston. Now what? The team still needs four offensive linemen, still needs a running back, still needs a RDE, still needs a wideout, a corner and a safety. Would you rather have one 50% chance at Demarcus Ware, or a 45% chance at Sebastian Vollmer plus a 42% chance at Ty Warren and a 30% chance at Jonathan Stewart? Because that's about the math on what you're giving up to get your pass-rusher.

You take the guy if he's there, or if it's not too expensive to move up (like maybe moving up a few slots to grab someone like Watt or Jordan, if they slip), but burning multiple first-rounders on one unproven guy is nuts and also totally against the Pats' way of doing things.

By the way, the Packers drafted Bryan Bulaga and BJ Raji in the last two drafts -- but of course you'd know that because you live out there.

 

[Badger]

So you think we should trade up for a sure-thing pass rusher? You mean like Gaines Adams? Or Jarvis Moss? Or Derrick Morgan or Jamaal Anderson? How about Erasmus James, Kamerion Wimbley, Derrick Harvey, Michael Haynes or Jerome McDougle?

How about an athletic freak who who blew up the combine -- like Vernon Gholston?

Nobody's arguing that the Pats need a pass-rusher. But the draft is a crap shoot and there are no sure things. The absolute worst thing you can do is reach for a need. Belichick says it all the time -- if you reach for a guy, not only is it a wasted resource that year, but you end up having to spend another pick on the position next year or the year after.

Pass-fishers are always overvalued in the draft, so you end up having to overspend your ammo just to get one. Let's say you want to get Von Miller. It'll probably cost you at minimum both firsts and a third. So you do the trade and remember, even Von Miller has a 50% chance of being Vernon Gholston. Now what? The team still needs four offensive linemen, still needs a running back, still needs a RDE, still needs a wideout, a corner and a safety. Would you rather have one 50% chance at Demarcus Ware, or a 45% chance at Sebastian Vollmer plus a 42% chance at Ty Warren and a 30% chance at Jonathan Stewart? Because that's about the math on what you're giving up to get your pass-rusher.

You take the guy if he's there, or if it's not too expensive to move up (like maybe moving up a few slots to grab someone like Watt or Jordan, if they slip), but burning multiple first-rounders on one unproven guy is nuts and also totally against the Pats' way of doing things.

By the way, the Packers drafted Bryan Bulaga and BJ Raji in the last two drafts -- but of course you'd know that because you live out there.

They were able to do that because they have Clay Matthews. For the final time, my point has been twisted and turned and misconcieved so many different ways. My point is simply this. Get a pass rusher early in the draft. Get one before we get another OL or a 3rd running back behind BJGE and Woodhead or another WR. We are so close to winning another championship but we have no game changers on defense. We need to find one and soon or we will all be talking about how we wasted the 2nd half of the career of one of the greatest players ever to play the game. My final point. Thanks for the spirited debate!!!

 

[jukes]

Devin mccourty and wilfork are game changers, there isnt really a "game changer" after von miller is off the board that we cant find in the second round, so yes i could see us drafting a linemen with our first pick and easily dropping off into the second round and finding an akeem ayers or some other quality player. I think cunningham can be a productive player for us if we just give him time, i look at the indy game where he forced the int as a building block.

 

[Don Kipines]

They were able to do that because they have Clay Matthews. For the final time, my point has been twisted and turned and misconcieved so many different ways. My point is simply this. Get a pass rusher early in the draft. Get one before we get another OL or a 3rd running back behind BJGE and Woodhead or another WR. We are so close to winning another championship but we have no game changers on defense. We need to find one and soon or we will all be talking about how we wasted the 2nd half of the career of one of the greatest players ever to play the game. My final point. Thanks for the spirited debate!!!

And they drafted Clay Matthews 26th in the draft, after spending the 9th pick on Raji, and anyway Matthews wasn't a pass-rusher in college any more than a guy like Akeem Ayers was, in fact less -- he had 5 career sacks in college. The Packers got very lucky with Matthews. Would you advocate us taking in the first round a rotational outside linebacker with 5 career sacks? My guess is you'd be flipping out if we picked the college version of Matthews this year.

As for twisting your words, weren't you talking about trading both first-rounders to get a pass-rusher? And you're still saying we should take a pass-rusher before we take an OL or a running back, right? I think everyone else's point, still, is that if the options when we pick are a second-third-round pass-rusher like Brooks Reed or Justin Houston versus a first-round tackle like Castonzo or a first-round WR like Julio Jones, you take the better player every time. Obviously the Pats need defensive playmakers. You think people are against drafting defensive playmakers? But you can't take them if they're not there.

 

[Brady2Welker]

I like the way you are talking. That is why we need a stud DE or OLB. Somebody to generate double teams or constantly be in the backfield if they are going to doubleteam Wilfork. My point about Matthews is he helps makes the others great. He can get to the QB without having to scheme to get there. If they are going to double him, they are going to pay for it elsewhere. If we had someone like that, it would make Wilfork, Mayo, Spikes, Cunningham etc. better and more effective. McGinest and Seymour were those guys. Usually con't get guys like that outside top half of 1st round.

You might like the way I'm talking but you're missing my point. We can't sell the farm for a OLB in a draft where we have multiple needs to address our top picks, especially because we have more than one need. Trading up for a player of unknown proficiency isn't the best idea, or forcing the issue at 17 with a player that should be valued in the 2nd round. If there's no OLB available at 17 and we take a DE and a LT that might just be what we have to do.

 

[cstjohn17]

Quinn is the best pass rusher in the draft, with Bowers dropping Quinn is rising into the top 5-10.

He may not be the "complete" OLB as far as dropping into coverage but as a pass rusher he looks elite. I doubt if such a player exists but he could play all three downs and be a game changer on 3rd downs.

Reminds me of a less polished Suggs, but bigger and faster.

NFL Draft Scout----Powered By: The Sports Xchange

Of all the players in the draft he is the one I would make a big move up to grab.

 

[Off The Grid]

Yeah "Always starts in the trenches" has won us all of ZERO playoff games the past 3 years.

Evidently, you don't get Patriot games out in Quad Cities.

...Because it is precisely because we didn't take care of the trenches that we've won ZERO playoff games the last 3 years, bub.

You sort of made my point for me, now, didn't you?

Who am I Mel Kiper? I am just making a point that we need to address the pash rush before we address the OL or RB or WR or any other position.

No, what you are doing is called a TANTRUM.

You're lashing out at all of us, without having the integrity to stake a position, even after being directly challenged to do so.

Just because YOU don't know their names doesn't mean they're no good.

The Packers probably have the most talented and deep offensive line in football.

Wait...you're in Packer country and don't know who they are?

It's pretty WHACKED ~ to be VERY kind ~ to try to say that the O Line + the D Line didn't have EVERYTHING to do with the Packers winning the Super Bowl.

You might like the way I'm talking but you're missing my point.

His specialty.

Badger, there isn't a single poster on this board who doesn't crave a better pass rush.

But you can't just equate that to "OLB at #17."

The way this draft is shaping up, taking an outside rusher at #17 is likely to mean reaching for an inferior player. Everybody's focusing on DE with a side glance to OT because that's where the mid-first talent is concentrated.

In fact, looking back over this thread, I notice that you haven't named a single player you're pulling for at #17.

What OLB candidates do you expect to be available there who are dramatically better than the likely options at #28 or #33?

(Let's assume Miller, Bowers, Quinn & Kerrigan are all gone, as in most recent mocks.)

^ THAT seems like a pretty clear and reasonable challenge to your point, one from which you continue to FLEE!!

 

[supafly]

Keep telling yourselves that we can just ignore it. You guys will be the 1st ones screaming when the Jets carve up our punchless defense in the playoffs again next year. Then as the draft comes around again in 2012, you guys will again be advocating for OLinemen and wide recievers and backs. You guys are really fooling yourselves if you think this team can get to another Super Bowl without an impact player on defense. Just doesn't happen that way folks. Nobody in the league is afraid of our defense. Nobody. Even the Colts were able to make it to 2 Super Bowls recently with a subpar defense. However, what did they have? 2 stud pass rushers who get after the QB everytime they need a big defensive play. Once again, this team needs a pass rusher NEXT YEAR. To think we are going to find a stud in the 2nd round to be a force NEXT YEAR is niave. Nothing in the draft is a guarantee but we have to be willing to roll the dice a little bit this year and take a gamble and not just trade back and take the "best value" and guys like Mark Ingram. Regardless of whether we traded up or back to get Mayo, the point is that he was a high 1st round pick and is our best defensive player hands down.

Calm down there Badger. We are ALL understanding your point, and really, that is fine if that's your stance. Not many of us are going to agree with it however, and if you listen to the reasoning it makes perfect sense.

As many good posters stated, it just doesn't make sense to reach. Have some patience man, the defense will be better. Just think of the potential of some added youth and competition via the draft, quite possibly a very good 3 down DE. I truly believe that BB recognizes our needs and weaknesses, and will address those issues, just not in the way that you would. Just remember all of the injuries that hurt down the stretch (Warren, Bodden, Wright, Pryor, etc) those are some quality players that will be making an impact. And don't forget about the added year of experience from all of the 1st and 2nd year players, that will also help tremendously.

As I pointed out, 11 out of our last 12 early picks (except Gronk) have been on defense. We haven't addressed offense early too much since 2006, and have some other issues to take care of. Eventually it will be looked at, and that's just one of the reasons why some advocate an OL or other BPA. Wouldn't you rather have most of the needs addressed AND potential for ANOTHER great draft next year (2012)? At the end of the day, who really cares exactly what order it happens, as long as our needs are addressed? There are several decent DE's after the 20th or so pick. We are in great position to draft a couple/few terrific impact players on the defensive side of the ball. Don't even sweat it, we are seriously lucky and blessed to be in the position of competing every single year, and BB's tendency to move down and move into next yr is a major product of that. Just look at some of the examples people have given of huge misses with early passrushers.

Oh, and P.S.--don't throw in the towel on Cunningham, or any other impact pass rusher in round 2 or below making the immediate impact that you are looking for. It really does happen all the time. I'd be extremely happy with the next Woodley (2nd) or Vrabel (3rd). As you know, there are lots of players who end up flying under the radar and even go virtually un noticed at all.

As Seymour said when Brady went down in 2008 : "There is more than one way to skin a cat"

--------

And btw--I visited Alpine Valley last year over the 4th of July. Many great people, who are extremely friendly and a beautiful place to live.

 

[patchick]

I know Badger doesn't want to "play Mel Kiper," but I'm going to take a stab at doing it for him to get a little more clarity. Let's say we follow the plan of packaging both first-round picks to move up for the best available pass rusher. That should bring us to around pick #6. Who are we looking at?

Probably not Von Miller or Marcell Dareus. They're the most wart-free front 7 prospects this year, so they go top 5. Gabbert seems like a top-5 lock too, with all the rumors of Arizona being smitten. Peterson's likely to be gone, but not certain. Let's say picks 4 & 5 come from the group of Peterson, Green, Jones, Newton, Fairley, Bowers and Quinn. That means you have to be prepared to spend both #1 picks for the last man standing of Fairley, Bowers & Quinn, whoever he might be.

Fairley's a huge, huge talent as an athletic, penetrating DT. He only started for one season, and the word "immature" is a constant companion for his name. That word has become the standard euphemism for "hoo-boy, this kid is a mess/time bomb."

Bowers is explosive and powerful, in a classic 4-3 DE mode. He'd presumably play a hybrid Willie-type role with the Patriots. He's still rehabbing a knee injury, and at this point runs the 40 more like a DT than an OLB.

Quinn is a massive question mark. He has natural pass-rushing instincts, a tremendous first step and great body lean; he hasn't played football in a year; he had all season to prepare for the Combine and showed up looking like he'd never heard the word "linebacker" in his life.


So the question is, would pot luck among those three guys improve your team more than any pair of players at #17 and #28?

 

[mcsully]

I'm going to have to agree with Badger here.. We need a player who can come in from day one and wreck havoc on an opposing offense. If this player is a DE or OLB, it needs to be addressed.

We can't say "lets pick the highest rated player on our board" because this doesn't work. A prime example how this didn't work is the Detroit Lions. For 3 years they draft WR with their 1st pick.. Matt M did this because he said they were his highest rated players and he had to stay true to his board. You have to blend player value with need, something the Packers have been doing the past few years.

Look at the Jets. In the past 4 drafts, they have target players at specific positions and made a concentrated effort to fill in specific needs. Sometimes its worked out, sometimes it hasn't.. But if you look at the overall outcome, you'd have to say things have worked out for them


BB and Co, do a great job of getting value out of their 1st pick and I know we'll pick a player who will contribute right away but our goal is the SB (esp now that Tom only has about 4 good years left). How much closer does a guard, WR or safety (who ever you like thats not a pass rusher) bring us to a SB? That's the million dollar question!

We all know we've read reports how the Patriots build their draft board, by vertical and horizontal rankings. From my take, they break down players, give them a grade (like all teams) but BB goes a step further and gives a ratings to the positions. He's done a fantastic job this past 2 years of retooling the team and keeping us competitive. We've turned the roster over and brought in a lot of young talent, which should enable us to be competitive for the next couple of years. But now is the time to fill in those holes and acquire a talent who can make a clutch play on defense.

People say we are getting old in the tooth with the offensive line.. You're right.. We could use some young bodies there.. But if you thinking about it, up until a few years ago, we didn't use high draft picks on OL. During our SB years, we had JAG guards and solid tackles. What makes our OL so good, is Tom's ability to get rid of the ball quickly. I'm a firm believer BB and Dante can take players later in the draft and mold them into a unit.
So we wait until the 3rd and 4th round to pick our next tackle and guard combination, I'm comfortable with that. I'm not comfortable waiting for a pass rusher who needs time to develop.


I'm not saying we need to trade our 2 #'1 and 2 #2's to move up. We need to see how the draft falls. But we need to actively speak with other teams about moving up into the top 10 and see what they want. If you are worried about a top 10 pick's salary.. Money isn't the issue, once the CBA is signed, their will be a rookie cap. Union and Owners didn't fight about that point at all..

If someone wants to know "mcsully who is the player who want", I would tell you Robert Quinn. To me, he's fluid, loves the game, and comes from a program run by a former NFL coach.

I'll finish up by saying, we need to address our pass rush, everyone agrees on that. What we're disagreeing on is how we addresses this.. When I look at Mock drafts and see Watts, Jordan or this and that, I think this.. "would we be better served with Heyward and Quinn and no other picks in the draft until the 3rd round or a combination of Watts, Reed, a future draft pick, Ingram"... I'll take Heyward and Quinn all day.. and use the 3rd and 4th rounders to get future picks or draft OL

 

[dryheat44]

I'm going to have to agree with Badger here.. We need a player who can come in from day one and wreck havoc on an opposing offense. If this player is a DE or OLB, it needs to be addressed.

We can't say "lets pick the highest rated player on our board" because this doesn't work. A prime example how this didn't work is the Detroit Lions. For 3 years they draft WR with their 1st pick.. Matt M did this because he said they were his highest rated players and he had to stay true to his board. You have to blend player value with need, something the Packers have been doing the past few years.

I think that might have more to do with Matt Millen's evaluation/roster-building skills than anything else.

 

[mcsully]

I think that might have more to do with Matt Millen's evaluation/roster-building skills than anything else.

You are absolutely right, its part of the roster building.. And part of what I said is we need to fill in the holes.. And I am a proponent of filling in these needs with moving up in the draft and getting two players instead of 4.

Of course you want to bring in Fitzy... So we're definitely on two ends of the spectrum.. I see greater need in the defense and you want resources allocated towards a WR..

 

[DaBruinz]

Talent collection doesn't win championships. TEAMS win Championships. You need to realize that Badger. So does Brady2Welker. NO TEAM has top 5 talent at every position. This isn't MADDEN.

Teams are built from the lines out. The Pats have had an issue at RDE since they traded Seymour. Not having someone there that can draw a double means that the O-line gets a favorable match-up.

The Pats need to add someone who can do that, but throwing away picks just to get top "talent" isn't the way to do it. If it was, then teams like the Bengals and Raiders would have a 5-6 SBs.

As it stands right now, there are probably 4 excellent to "ELITE" 3-4 DEs. Unfortunately, because of a lack of top end talent at other positions, those guys are going to go quickly, possibly even by #10. And trading both 1st round picks to move up to 10 or higher, just isn't the way to do it. First, it essentially says that player is worth 2 starters.. And Second, because you've said that player is worth 2 starters, he's going to want to be paid like it.

So, if the Pats stay at 17, then an OT might just be the best VALUE available. And that is how Belichick views things.. What is the best VALUE for the team.

 

[DaBruinz]

I'm going to have to agree with Badger here.. We need a player who can come in from day one and wreck havoc on an opposing offense. If this player is a DE or OLB, it needs to be addressed.

We can't say "lets pick the highest rated player on our board" because this doesn't work. A prime example how this didn't work is the Detroit Lions. For 3 years they draft WR with their 1st pick.. Matt M did this because he said they were his highest rated players and he had to stay true to his board. You have to blend player value with need, something the Packers have been doing the past few years.

You can agree with Badger all you want. That doesn't make you or him right.

BB's board is based on VALUE. That Value takes NEED into consideration already. So saying that you have to blend value with need says you don't understand how BB sets up his board.

The Pats have always considered NEED as part of the value equation. But they also consider Tangibles and intangibles, such as how they feel the player would excel in their coaching style.

 

[Don Kipines]

You can agree with Badger all you want. That doesn't make you or him right.

BB's board is based on VALUE. That Value takes NEED into consideration already. So saying that you have to blend value with need says you don't understand how BB sets up his board.

The Pats have always considered NEED as part of the value equation. But they also consider Tangibles and intangibles, such as how they feel the player would excel in their coaching style.

I'm not sure the Detroit example is a good one. It might prove the opposite of what you mean. The first two picks were Roy Williams and Mike Williams. They had a clear need the first time they made the pick and it turned out to be a good pick for them -- Roy Williams played very well for Detroit and later turned into three picks in the Dallas trade, including a first that turned into Brandon Pettigrew.

The second time they picked, they were thinking Mike Williams would turn into a complement to a downfield guy like Roy Williams. Definitely a questionable pick, but the problem was that Mike Williams didn't pan out -- not that they shouldn't have picked a receiver.

The third time is where we get to the main issue here. Now they've picked two receivers in a row, but they're staring at a board where the clear best player is Calvin Johnson. Using Badger logic, you definitely pass on him there and address other needs (Detroit desperately needed defensive players). Badger would surely have taken Gaines Adams or Jamaal Anderson. But Detroit did the right thing and took Johnson, who was a great pick and will be a core player for them for a decade.