Discussion in 'Patriots Draft Talk' started by BelichickFan, Apr 27, 2007.
Alan Branch at #33 ???
Okeye at 21.. I've seen mocks having him going at #6.. Is he being overhyped because of his age?? Just maybe..
Now I agree 100% with the Brian Leonard observation @ 81. People here feel the pats can grab him with their 2nd first round pick. That is just crazy!
Using his top 100, I propose a trade with the Falcons. We trade #28, 180, &202 for #44 & 75.
Using that trade I would take:
24 David Harris
44 Marcus McCauley
75 doug Free
91 Michael Bush
How would that make your day?
The Falcons would likely do it to get one of the top WR assuming they don't trade up for CJ. Getting Levi Brown and Meachem/Bowe would be quite a haul for them. Not so much for the Pats in my opinion:
Harris is fine though I think you can do better at #24, potentially getting Harris as well later on.
McCauley is interesting but there are serious questions about his production and commitment last year. Not someone I would want to count on potentially starting in 2008.
I see Free at the 4th or 5th OT on the depth chart. You obviously see him as better than that so we can agree to disagree.
Bush is a player I would love to see with one of the comp picks (gotta take someone) and plan to IR this year. SERIOUS health issues that have led to questions about weight and conditioning. No thanks at #91.
That being said, assuming your valuation of the players is better than mine, that draft would serve just fine. Would like to get a safety at some point, but you might have someone in mind later.
Instead of jumping back and picking up an extra 3rd, I would love to see a jump up from #24 and make a run at Revis if he makes it into the 16-19 range. GB likely wants Lynch but can probably get him at #24. Pats jump to #16 and get Revis and GB still gets Lynch. To do that the Pats swap #28 with #47 (maybe have to add a 6th as well). #47 is a little late for the 2nd round LB sweet spot, but Pats have other picks to move back up in the #40 range.
If you think Harris is gone and Pats won't be able to trade back up to get him, how about:
Getting Revis just makes the whole 1st day seem sweeter and calms some of the anxiety about Samuel/Gay/Wilson in 2008.
Harris should be gone before 40 and the other group does nothing to give us immediate help at ILB whcih is where we need the help.
Here is a set of picks that will not be well received but:
a) Represent safe picks of guys who will play in the League;
b) Are "fast", "smart", "football players", and also great "athletes";
c) Have open positions which will not end up stocking another team.
#24: SILB: David Harris - First future starter (TJ replacement)
#28: WILB Posluzny/Beason - Second future starter (Seau replacement)
#91: Punter: Danny Sepulveda - Third future starter (Josh is Over the Hill)
#4(positioned): O/ILB: Zak DeOssie - Fourth (Eventual) Starter (TBC/Mays replacement)
Siler is a MLB.
DeOssie has the skill set (very raw) of a 3-4 ILB.
Shaw has some experience with the 3-4 and has played inside before.
If your point was that they can't play inside, I would disagree with that. If your point was that they would all be projects that would need a year or two of coaching up before getting significant minutes in the regular LB rotation, I would definitely agree with that.
I guess I'm less afraid of entering 2008 having to fill LB deficiencies (Bruschi retiring, needed depth) than entering 2008 with no secondary (Samuel/Gay/Wilson gone, Harrison retired). I can find a vet in 2008 to split time with Siler/DeOssie/Shaw...I doubt I can find anyone in 2008 to save a secondary of Hobbs, McCauley and Sanders.
Gosselin sees Alan Branch fading/sliding to #33.
Would you make a wager that BB WOULD NOT DRAFT Alan Branch if he fell to #24? Another Wilfork situation?
I actually like the players and if they all pan out the Pats would have 6 strong and versatile LBs. However, as an opposing offense I can get half of them off of the field at any point by running 3-4 wide formations.
Like the thinking but does it leave us at a disadvantage against strong passing teams (Indy, Cincy especially)? Maybe not if you can apply pressure from anywhere/everywhere and have the LBs participate in a variety of coverage schemes. It is interesting to think about...
He has Revis all the way up at #8 ahead of Hall, god I hope others aren't that smart. I'm still holding out hope Revis falls to 16 and we can trade the two #'1s for GB's 1 and 2.
That was the first thing that leaped out at me. His CB rankings in general are mighty interesting. Chris Houston down at 35 doesn't surprise me, but Josh Wilson at 68 does.
What I've been saying all along, Branch is overrated.
I would definitely choke on my cigar if that happened. What did you like about this draft? I'm seriously curious.
Separate names with a comma.