Ben Grubbs

[sebman2112]

Just dominating whomever was lined up against him for the last two years. I think he's a couple notches above Blalock (whom I have questions about agility and ability to hit a moving target). Sears is tougher, because he is a projection.

I don't claim to have watched an extraordinary amount of NCAA football over the last decade, but the last guy I've seen dominate like Grubbs at the NCAA level was Orlando Pace. I don't think I've ever seen a guard bury guys with such regularity.

If Grubbs played tackle (and some scouts think he can), he'd be a top 10 pick.

Grubbs is not as good against 3-4 defenses, though...

 

[mcbee]

Why would you draft a guard in round 1 when you have glaring needs in the defense?

I know "value". How do you define the value to a team of a guard who would at best be replacing a player almost as good and a defensive back who could take over Samuel's 8M salary cap hit next year for 1/5 the price?

How about guard 1st round, TEs for the next two picks, then two QBs, and maybe a PK in there too? Using the "value" system, if those are the best guys (how do you compare "value" across positions anyway) then that's who they should draft, right?

 

[everlong]

Why would you draft a guard in round 1 when you have glaring needs in the defense?

I think most of us would rather see defensive players drafted or a trade down but as it's been pointed out in other posts if all the good defensive prospects are gone and we cannot find a trade down partner then this wouldn't be the worst option.

 

[sebman2112]

The problem with trading down into the second is the change in the new CBA. Now you can sign second rounders, and below to a maximum 4 year contract. While you can sign draftee's in the first round to 5, and 6 year contracts (first 16 to 6 year deals and second 16 to 5 year deals).

 

[dryheat44]

Why would you draft a guard in round 1 when you have glaring needs in the defense?

I know "value". How do you define the value to a team of a guard who would at best be replacing a player almost as good and a defensive back who could take over Samuel's 8M salary cap hit next year for 1/5 the price?

How about guard 1st round, TEs for the next two picks, then two QBs, and maybe a PK in there too? Using the "value" system, if those are the best guys (how do you compare "value" across positions anyway) then that's who they should draft, right?

Well, if the alternative is to reach for guys who don't carry first round grades, or to draft guys that don't fit into the Patriots' system (all projected first round CBs except Revis, for example) or have character flags just because in college they played a position of perceived need, than yes, I will take whom I consider to be the best lineman in the draft, Joe Thomas included, and know that I upgraded my OL.

You're oversimplifying value, or at least what you think I think it means. To me, value not only derived by the players ability and his potential draft slot, but the ability of the other available players at that position, both on the roster and in the draft. Would I spend a first round pick on a quarterback who's not going to play? No. Would I spend a first round pick on a safety when there are seven others available on the first day who grade out nearly as high? No. Would I take an inside linebacker a little bit higher than I've rated him because he's miles ahead of the next best guy? Absolutely.

 

[dryheat44]

Grubbs is not as good against 3-4 defenses, though...

Who knows? To my knowledge there are a total of Zero teams in the SEC who play a 3-4. I would guess he'd be very good at playing against a 3-4 defense, due to his quick feet and athletic ability.

 

[sebman2112]

Who knows? To my knowledge there are a total of Zero teams in the SEC who play a 3-4. I would guess he'd be very good at playing against a 3-4 defense, due to his quick feet and athletic ability.

"Lacks a massive build and will give up some ground to bigger, stronger bull rushers. Also will have some trouble getting a surge vs. two-gap run plugging types. Shows room to improve in terms of his footwork, hand-placement and angles."

 

[TheBaronPatriot]

I don't like Grubbs in the first round mainly because I have not read anywhere anything about his technique. Mankins was regarded as the best technician in the draft and had a mean streak about him.

He had some injury history and his bench rep figures were not overly impressive.
But I think the Pats look for technicians in their O-linemen.

 

[mcbee]

Well, if the alternative is to reach for guys who don't carry first round grades, or to draft guys that don't fit into the Patriots' system (all projected first round CBs except Revis, for example) or have character flags just because in college they played a position of perceived need, than yes, I will take whom I consider to be the best lineman in the draft, Joe Thomas included, and know that I upgraded my OL.

You're oversimplifying value, or at least what you think I think it means. To me, value not only derived by the players ability and his potential draft slot, but the ability of the other available players at that position, both on the roster and in the draft. Would I spend a first round pick on a quarterback who's not going to play? No. Would I spend a first round pick on a safety when there are seven others available on the first day who grade out nearly as high? No. Would I take an inside linebacker a little bit higher than I've rated him because he's miles ahead of the next best guy? Absolutely.

Maybe, but I can't see how there wouldn't be a safety, CB, or LB available who would be better than a "guard" and a good value at the position picked. Used to be guards were a dime a dozen, don't know why it changed so much.

What's weird is the pats filled their big WR needs through FA, IMO. Don't see them drafting one high.

 

[PonyExpress]

Just dominating whomever was lined up against him for the last two years. I think he's a couple notches above Blalock (whom I have questions about agility and ability to hit a moving target). Sears is tougher, because he is a projection.

I don't claim to have watched an extraordinary amount of NCAA football over the last decade, but the last guy I've seen dominate like Grubbs at the NCAA level was Orlando Pace. I don't think I've ever seen a guard bury guys with such regularity.

If Grubbs played tackle (and some scouts think he can), he'd be a top 10 pick.

Mankins is the best OG in the league according to SI. If drafted Grubbs would play RG. Of all starting positions on the roster, one could argue that RG is less crucial to winning and losing a game than QB, LT, LG, C, TE, DE, NT, ILB, 3-4 OLB, and CB. Therefore, upgrading a weak link at RG may contribute less "value" to your roster than upgrading a weak link at those other positions. Looking short and longterm, if you already are solid at RG for the next 2 years, but are weak right now at ILB, and may degrade seriously next year at CB, then upgrading slightly at RG while ignoring serious current and long-term deficiencies at higher priority positions offers the opposite of "value". It seems wasteful.

 

[SamBamsFan]

Mankins is the best OG in the league according to SI. If drafted Grubbs would play RG. Of all starting positions on the roster, one could argue that RG is less crucial to winning and losing a game than QB, LT, LG, C, TE, DE, NT, ILB, 3-4 OLB, and CB. Therefore, upgrading a weak link at RG may contribute less "value" to your roster than upgrading a weak link at those other positions. Looking short and longterm, if you already are solid at RG for the next 2 years, but are weak right now at ILB, and may degrade seriously next year at CB, then upgrading slightly at RG while ignoring serious current and long-term deficiencies at higher priority positions offers the opposite of "value". It seems wasteful.

That is the opposite of value in my opinion. When you get an opportunity to take the top player at any position, who is rated higher than those players at other positions, and you do not seize it, you are weakening your team. If you think so highly of Neal, trade him for a second, or third pick which you use as you wish.

 

[SamBamsFan]

"Lacks a massive build and will give up some ground to bigger, stronger bull rushers. Also will have some trouble getting a surge vs. two-gap run plugging types. Shows room to improve in terms of his footwork, hand-placement and angles."

When we quote someone on this board we source them. I sent you a PM yesterday about this.

 

[dryheat44]

Of all starting positions on the roster, one could argue that RG is less crucial to winning and losing a game than QB, LT, LG, C, TE, DE, NT, ILB, 3-4 OLB, and CB. Therefore, upgrading a weak link at RG may contribute less "value" to your roster than upgrading a weak link at those other positions. Looking short and longterm, if you already are solid at RG for the next 2 years, but are weak right now at ILB, and may degrade seriously next year at CB, then upgrading slightly at RG while ignoring serious current and long-term deficiencies at higher priority positions offers the opposite of "value". It seems wasteful.

Well Mankins was the best Guard in the league according to one man, Dr. Z. It doesn't necessarily make it so, although I do trust Dr. Z's opinion on linemen over any other writer. But that's irrelevant, because, as you say, Grubbs would almost certainly start out at RG (although I wouldn't rule out RT).

I agree with 100% of what you say above, but that's not the issue. In an ideal world, we would get an ILB ready to immediately contribute and a starting-level cornerback in the first round. No question.

My starting point in this discussion though, is that if there are no guys at those positions there to be drafted at #24 who fit the Patriots needs, then they should take the guy who can upgrade their offensive line.

I would rather draft Grubbs at 24 if it comes down to him, a CB who doesn't fit, like Houston or Ross, or a CB or ILB who does fit our system but isn't a first round value, like David Irons or Stewart Bradley.

As it is, we'll probably reach at #28 for a guy who is a second round value, like Josh Wilson or David Harris.

 

[sebman2112]

When we quote someone on this board we source them. I sent you a PM yesterday about this.

Right after I posted that I remembered, but I had to leave. I'm turning it into a hyperlink, that will take you to the source, and it is only about 10% of the report. Oh, and last time I did quote the source, but thank you Mr. Policeman

 

[PonyExpress]

Well Mankins was the best Guard in the league according to one man, Dr. Z. It doesn't necessarily make it so, although I do trust Dr. Z's opinion on linemen over any other writer. But that's irrelevant, because, as you say, Grubbs would almost certainly start out at RG (although I wouldn't rule out RT).

I agree with 100% of what you say above, but that's not the issue. In an ideal world, we would get an ILB ready to immediately contribute and a starting-level cornerback in the first round. No question.

My starting point in this discussion though, is that if there are no guys at those positions there to be drafted at #24 who fit the Patriots needs, then they should take the guy who can upgrade their offensive line.

I would rather draft Grubbs at 24 if it comes down to him, a CB who doesn't fit, like Houston or Ross, or a CB or ILB who does fit our system but isn't a first round value, like David Irons or Stewart Bradley.

As it is, we'll probably reach at #28 for a guy who is a second round value, like Josh Wilson or David Harris.

I'm referencing your Horizontal Board (great stuff). In value picks 13-24, we have Revis, Meachem and Spencer. In value picks 25-40, we have Gonzalez, Grubbs, Ugoh, Wilson and Harris. Gun to my head I would pray for Revis/Spencer at #24, and settle for Harris at #28, instead of Revis/Spencer and Grubbs. IOW, in the short term (Years 1 & 2) I would rather go to war with Mankins/Neal/Harris than Mankins/Grubbs/Seau-Bruschi-Alexander-Desmond Bishop-Deossie-. But long term (Years 3 & beyond) a lineup of Mankins/Grubbs/LB "X" may be better than Mankins/Neal/Harris, because Neal will be 33+. With Brady in his prime and the Pats on the verge of NFL immortality, a player who better helps the overall roster in years 1 & 2 has more value to me. So I would rank Harris ahead of Grubbs on my Value Board.

 

[dryheat44]

I'm referencing your Horizontal Board (great stuff). In value picks 13-24, we have Revis, Meachem and Spencer. In value picks 25-40, we have Gonzalez, Grubbs, Ugoh, Wilson and Harris. Gun to my head I would pray for Revis/Spencer at #24, and settle for Harris at #28, instead of Revis/Spencer and Grubbs. IOW, in the short term (Years 1 & 2) I would rather go to war with Mankins/Neal/Harris than Mankins/Grubbs/Seau-Bruschi-Alexander-Desmond Bishop-Deossie-. But long term (Years 3 & beyond) a lineup of Mankins/Grubbs/LB "X" may be better than Mankins/Neal/Harris, because Neal will be 33+. With Brady in his prime and the Pats on the verge of NFL immortality, a player who better helps the overall roster in years 1 & 2 has more value to me. So I would rank Harris ahead of Grubbs on my Value Board.

We're in agreement again. I'd love a 1-2 combination of Revis/Harris or Spencer/Wilson but if Revis and Spencer and Meacham are gone, I'll take Grubbs/Harris or Wilson