Discussion in 'Patriots Draft Talk' started by patchick, Feb 22, 2009.
The News Record - Barwin wows scouts at combine
I'll see you and raise you one:
2009 NFL Combine: Stock Watch
"Barwin helped himself as much as anyone here at the Combine. He recorded workout numbers very similar to some of the premiere pass rushers in the 3-4. Though heâ€™s still very raw, coaches will adore his work ethic and give him an opportunity. Possessing long arms, a quick first step, and great explosiveness, Barwin is going to be a difficult match-up for offenses at the next level. After this week, I feel the odds of him going as high as number 9 to Green Bay are more likely than him dropping to round two where some had projected him. Remember that Ted Thompson, General Manager of the Packers, isnâ€™t afraid to go outside of public opinion to grab the guy who he feels is the best player available."
I'm thinking we're going to need some Hoodi mind tricks here ("You will not draft Connor Barwin . . . you will not draft Connor Barwin . . .")
This maybe the impossible question, but where do our linebackers rate within this years group of LB's??
Melaulga, Cushing, Mathews, Simtim, Barwin,,etc.
They are all better than Crable, Guyton??
Any of them have more tackles for loss than Crable did??
What is the difference between Mathews and Guyton? Is it worth a second round pick??
Mayo was a much better prospect than any LB from this year's class not named Curry. Crable and Guyton were not as good prospects coming out as any of the 5 players you mentioned. I'm not sure I understand your question about Matthews and Guyton. Matthews is rated a much better prospect coming out but it is unclear how well he fits our system, and Guyton has proven himself to be at the very least a valuable rotational player.
Let me try.
We have Crable. We have Guyton. We've seen them for part of a year. Guyton even passed Bruschi on the depth chart. If anyone doesn't believe this, check the reps for the last half of the year, game by game. These players will get better, as will Mayo.
Given that we hopefully drafted our future 2010 and 2011 starters last year, we have our starters for 2010 and 2011 in Thomas, Crable, Mayo and Guyton. And we have adequate additional 2009 players in Woods, TBC and Bruschi.
Given what we now know about Crable and Guyton, how much better are the draftees? Of course, there are some who always want new youngsters. And even if the draftees project a bit better, what should the team be willing to pay for the potential upgrade at OLB and at ILB?
Should we willing to spend two of our top four picks? Or is one sufficient?
A good analysis. Where I'd add to it is noting Guyton seems to be a better fit at WILB. If he bulks up enough and improves his strength/technique, he's a potential 2-4 position LB, but for now he's limited. Mayo is the incumbent WILB, and with Guyton and the elder Bruschi, SILB is an area for improvement. Thomas might move back inside, but for now he's penciled in outside as a starter. This draft has a number of guys with physical and athletic traits that compare well to the SILB requirements, mental/instinct requirements, maybe not so much. I have one Day One candidate whom I project to be an upgrade at SILB. There are some Day Two kids who might be worth a test drive too.
OLB, I have two prospects I consider to have higher ceilings than TBC, and for the moment, Woods. Both have better college track records as pass rushers compared to Crable, Redd, and Craig, and are competitive with Crable and Craig against the run. Redd's size seems to give him an edge against the run. Given turnover and injury, at least one of these lads would be nice to work into the mix. One brings added value on Special Teams and as a reserve TE. Using your analysis as a benchmark, I'd say getting at least one of them would make the OLB position even more competitive - healthy competition.
Does anyone else feel like this whole Connor Barwin thing has gotten slightly out of control? I mean, I loved him as late 40 early 50 selection but the guy has only played 1 year of defense against basically mid-major competition. We know very little about his ability to defend in space, set the edge or deal with double teams. We do know he looks the part and is athletic enough, but really it seems as if there are way more questions than answers when it comes to Barwin. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy as a prospect, but 1st round? Really?
Whom do you rate a better prospect?
Very nice. I think that Guyton was a terrific find in FA last year, but I see him more as a strong rotational guy playing SILB on passing downs and backing up Mayo at WILB. He has great value as part of a long-term core 3 man rotation at ILB, but I still think we need an eventual starter to replace Bruschi. Sintim would be nice, or possibly English. Moving Adalius Thomas inside would work as well. The 4th ILB would probably be mainly a ST gay - Alexander, or someone like Farewell if he works out, or a developmental guy like Lee Robinson.
Outside I think that Crable, Woods and Redd have great value as 3-5 OLBs, but with the possible exception of Crable I don't see any of them as a long-term quality (impact level) starter. Crable has the potential, but the jury is st ill out. I think they would be quality 3-4-5 OLBs, with Banta-Cain as a possible stopgap.
So I respectfully disagree with mgteich, and would like to see us add 2 quality LBs in the draft and/or FA - either 2 OLBs if we move AD inside, or an OLB and an ILB. Barwin and Sintim/English would be fine, or (dare I say it) Peppers with Barwin as a long-term OLB opposite him with AD moving inside. Those are my favorite current prospects. Everett Brown, Aaron Maybin, Clay Matthews and Robert Ayers are still worth a look, but with our hoard of draft picks I can really see us getting 2 of those guys.
It depends on how you look at it. If you consider Barwin to be a developmental OLB conversion project, then yes. But if you believe his combine numbers and view him as the closest thing athletically to DeMarcus Ware to come out in the past 4 years, with great intangibles (motor, versatility, intelligence, good character, etc.), then no. After all, Ware was basically a kid who played against low-level competition who blew away the combine. There's always more questions than answers, and as Patchick has documented teams are something like 0 for 12 looking for the next Ware, but he has the best shot of anyone in quite a while. His TE and basketball background should make playing in space relatively easy for him compared to most DEs. Setting the edge isi another issue. But I think it's a chance well worth taking.
Separate names with a comma.