Hate to bring up that linebacker thing.

[RayClay]

We did have backup ILBs. Their names are spelled VRABLE and GARDNER. One is on IR; the other is now playing ILB as the depth promotee. What's the problem ?? Until the League lets teams carry 66 players, no team will have three players for each position.

I don't see why adjustments are not OK. The most experienced OLB goes to the strong side to handle the blocking from the TE. Besides putting TBC behind All-Pro Seymour makes his job easier, theoretically.

You could also look at as a case where TBC's speed allows him more coverage responsibilities. The slower OLB goes to the smaller area of pass coverage.

Vrable was playing OLB. If we need him for ILB, we're still short a man and potentially weaken 2 positions.

We were actually lucky we found a retired all pro when Gardner got hurt in training camp.

 

[cstjohn17]

The Pats aren't likely to change their approach and it's almost impossible to claim that there is a better approach. So, this is NOT intended to be mean or confrontational in the slightest, but if you don't agree with that, maybe you better shop for another team that does it like you think they should and sit back and count the superbowls.

I don't consider it mean or confrontational, the whole point is to discuss things from all angles. The more opinions the better. I hope you are right about TBC emerging and agree the Patriots system is the best. It may be the best but is not infailable.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

I entirely agree.

This is why I'm interested in hearing just how the Pats could have handled the LB situation better.

It's easy to we should have addressed it better this offseason, but it's harder to point to who would have been better worth spending money on than Seau.

 

[cstjohn17]

I entirely agree.

This is why I'm interested in hearing just how the Pats could have handled the LB situation better.

It's easy to we should have addressed it better this offseason, but it's harder to point to who would have been better worth spending money on than Seau.

Just to keep beating a dead horse. I didn't see the draft as the answer, very little chance someone could come in from college and start at ILB for the Patriots. Any LB draft pick would be used for developmental purposes and for special teams.

My thought process was that either Izzo and / or Davis would be expendable, specifically Davis because his only real value was on ST especially with the 8-12 safeties brought into camp. I though Beisel could match Davis's ability on Special Teams and Alexander may be ready to step into Izzo's role.

I liked players including Sam Cowart, Rocky Calmus. Taylor, Leber, Rainer, Newman, Ben Leiber, (some real stiffs here I know but I thought they could be ok in rotation with Beisel) <--- Insert laugh track here!

As training camp started and it became obvious that Beisel had actually regressed from year 1, the Pats made a briliant move to bring in Seau. It was desperate but it worked. I would have seriously considered using the supplemental draft to acquire Ahmad Brooks. He was a very rare college LB with size and system experience and was rated as a round 1 prospect.


LBs

OLB - Colvin, TBC, Ryan Claridge
ILB - Bruschi, Ahmad Brooks, Alexander
ILB - Seau (falls from the sky knocks out Beisel), Ben Leber
OLB - Vrabel, Mincey (replaced by Woods)

 

[arrellbee]

I don't consider it mean or confrontational, the whole point is to discuss things from all angles. The more opinions the better.

YES. Always interesting.

I hope you are right about TBC emerging and agree the Patriots system is the best.

I keep pinching myself to remind me to REALLY appreciate having a team like the Pats to make being a fan so wonderful.

It may be the best but is not infailable.

Oh, completely agreed.

It's just so difficult to judge what changes or specific actions would improve the overall effectiveness (wins and SBs) of the team. The success of any such operation as the Patriots is a result of the sum total of the strategies of how they make tradeoffs and decisions PLUS what individual decisions they make on every resigning, FA signing, and draft pick. Any departure from the present approach and execution obviously changes the overall paradigm which can only be judged as 'better' if the results (wins and SBs) turn out to be better - and that takes years and even then, 'chance' and breaks may give you a wrong judgment as to whether it is really 'better'. It's going to be tough to ever have demonstated success better than the Patriots have had in this salary cap and intense draft era.

So I find it very difficult to believe that many of these spur of the moment reactions (in many cases you could say 'chicken little' or knee jerk type judgments) will truly make the Patriots 'better'. Folks tend to disregard the parameters of the Patriots success paradigm, some of which certainly are:
- The absolute constraint of a salary cap
- The case that it has been proven over and over and over that paying big bucks for a small number of 'stars' just isn't the formula for success - and certainly not just one additional big bucks player. Yet teams keep doing this, why I can't imagine (eg Washington)
- Even teams that are based on a formula of a well-put together sets of highly paid players seem to have a weakness when it comes to playoffs (eg Colts)
- The practical aspect of having enough quality depth to be able to still win if key players go on IR - also to have enough depth to rotate players during a game (something very overlooked by the media and many fans). This is a huge tradeoff in how salary cap is allocated. Looking at salary cap structures of a lot of teams, there are an elite few who put more money into their middle class (Patriots, Steelers, Eagles, and maybe Broncos although I'm not sure my memory serves me there). The famous saying is - 'you can't have your cake and eat it too'. It's astonishing to see how many folks just don't get this and whose reaction is to throw a big chunk of money to some player for the current perceived 'hole'.
- And a BIG one. The Patriots success is without argument based on an overall system and scheme approach. Fans are many times enamored with the over-hyped flashy players or, especially, very one-dimensional players who indeed cost big bucks (my favorite here is Dwight Freeney). But even with the prohibitive big bucks with respect to the Patriots approach of cap dollar allocation, many or probably almost ALL of these players would disrupt the Patriots system and wreck the overall effectiveness. What the media NEVER comments on and most fans aren't into evaluating in detail is that these flashy players look good on some plays but bomb on their responsibilities on others and allow the other team to drive to scores or cause their own team's drives to be stopped (Michael Vick comes to mind and any number of the flashy LBs and some of the flashy WRs).
- The injury bug is salary cap blind. It can bite a hugely expensive player just as easily as a modest cap player. So every high priced player is a big risk gamble in that you have put more of your resources in one place rather than spreading them out.
- First round draft picks - with careful observation, the Patriots seem to put a high weight on 'sure things' in their first round draft picks. Their 100% record of solid contributors from 1st round picks is so outstanding compared to the higer risk choices of highly hyped college stars that turn out to be busts for so many other teams.

Those are just a FEW of the many many aspects that make up the overall approach of the Patriots, but they are some of the most ignored by fans who clamor for 'fixes' to areas of the team or a 'better' way to fill a roster.

Your later post, which I won't quote here but hope folks were interested to read, was certainly good to provide some names that the Patriots may have considered. I want to poke a little and think about some of those. I think we can be assured that they were on Pioli's 'board'. Wouldn't it be great if we had some look into the internal valuations that the Patriots reportedly make on all players in the league. (small note: you can add to your roster names those of Gardner and possibly Jones who might have been a nickel type variation on the 4th LB.) Thanks for material to consider and ponder.

 

[RayClay]

I entirely agree.

This is why I'm interested in hearing just how the Pats could have handled the LB situation better.

It's easy to we should have addressed it better this offseason, but it's harder to point to who would have been better worth spending money on than Seau.

Of course they couldn't have straightened it all out this off season.

They haven't drafted any 1st day linebackers,(or undersized DEs), since 2000.

When you have aging linebackers, and you don't prepare replacements, you rely on good fortune, I guess. Besides Vrabel and Colvin, no adequate replacements were acquired.

I don't know what the Pats could have done this year or last. If I didn't consider them extremely competent, I would say they screwed up.

Not my job. I would have drafted some linebackers. I like Pierre Woods and hoping 7th round picks and UDFAs can do the job is all I can do.

By the way, I have plenty of post on this subject before Junior went down and I don't know how they plan to replace LBs in the future either.

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

Ray Clay may view TBC as a JAG -- I seem to remember in the past Ray saying he doesn't have a lot of confidence either or something to that effect-- but I watched TBC from college to the pros.

I say he takes the next step as a full time starter. My prediction is that TBC will be re-signed next year and will be the first drafted LB starter in the BB system.

The reason why I say he takes the next step is because I've him watched for awhile now (even back in college as a DE) and he is someone who has put in the necessary and required years to learn the system, has unquestionably contributed as a 3rd down sack guy {3.5 sacks -- same amount as Vrabel}). People on this board complain about his run support or pass defense -- but IMHO for the last three years he's been doing nothing but improving in those areas.

To put it this way, BB has gotten rid of a lot of LB prospects -- Mincey, Claridge, etc. TBC was drafted around the same spot as those guys and his effort and production ensured him playing through his rookie contract -- quite a feat for a 7th round draft pick. Not many do that.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

Of course they couldn't have straightened it all out this off season.

They haven't drafted any 1st day linebackers,(or undersized DEs), since 2000.

When you have aging linebackers, and you don't prepare replacements, you rely on good fortune, I guess. Besides Vrabel and Colvin, no adequate replacements were acquired.

I don't know what the Pats could have done this year or last. If I didn't consider them extremely competent, I would say they screwed up.

Not my job. I would have drafted some linebackers. I like Pierre Woods and hoping 7th round picks and UDFAs can do the job is all I can do.

By the way, I have plenty of post on this subject before Junior went down and I don't know how they plan to replace LBs in the future either.

Thing is, in the earlier rounds since 2000, we were either taking guys like Seymour, Warren + Wilfork (builiding our kick-ash dline,) guys like Mankins, Watson + Graham, Kaczur, Hobbs, Asante, James Sanders, Wilson, and Branch... and yes, some guys who didn't work out, Bethel J., Klecko (whom we tried at ILB), Marquise Hill, Gus Scott...

But still, the point is, a lot of the guys we were picking instead of LBs in rounds 2, 3 and 4 are guys who are now starters at positions where we'd be even worse off now then we are at LB if we hadn't picked up those guys.

I think BB/Pioli is well aware that LB has been neglected a bit, and I think they'd have loved to have a few more guys to groom, but when it comes down to it, there's only so much you can do, we had a lot of building to do, even after our miracle SB run in 2001.

 

[arrellbee]

Of course they couldn't have straightened it all out this off season.

They haven't drafted any 1st day linebackers,(or undersized DEs), since 2000.

When you have aging linebackers, and you don't prepare replacements, you rely on good fortune, I guess. Besides Vrabel and Colvin, no adequate replacements were acquired.

I don't know what the Pats could have done this year or last. If I didn't consider them extremely competent, I would say they screwed up.

Not my job. I would have drafted some linebackers. I like Pierre Woods and hoping 7th round picks and UDFAs can do the job is all I can do.

By the way, I have plenty of post on this subject before Junior went down and I don't know how they plan to replace LBs in the future either.

Well, I think you are being much much too simplistic without looking at the actual picture.

1st round picks:
2001 Richard Seymour
2002 Dan Graham
2003 Ty Warren
2004 Vince Wilfork
2004 Ben Watson
2005 Logan Mankins
2006 Laurence Maroney
So who would you have drafted a LB in place of ? All of these are KEY components of the current team.

2nd round picks:
2001 Matt Light
2002 Deion Branch
2003 Eugene Wilson
2003 Bethel Johnson
2004 Marquise Hill
2006 Chad Jackson
Jackson is unknown but Belichick thinks he's the real deal.
This is a pretty high % solid drafts for a second round.
You could look in total hindsight and allocate LB picks for Johnson and Hill. And Hill might still be OK.
BUT ..... these are two positions with current need for starter or depth - WR and DL. So it was not a better choice, I think, to draft a LB than one of those two need positions. And who is to say that there was a solid starter type LB available in place of those picks ?? You have to apply an unrealistic amount of hindsight to say that they should have gone LB.

3rd round picks:
2001 Brock Williams
2004 Guss Scott
2005 Ellis Hobbs
2005 Nick Kaczur
2006 Dave Thomas
So there are only two slots that you could apply hindsight to and maybe pick a LB. Scott and Williams were both DBs. And we are certainly scraping the bottom of the barrel at the moment with injuries at DB. So the position draft was not at all a poor choice versus LB. And it gets even more iffy to find a LB, much less a Patriots type DE/LB in the 3rd round.

So, bottom line is, I think you are too simplistic and unrealistic to even begin to think that the Patriots did not make solid choices with their first day picks and that they made a 'mistake' or used poor judgment in not allocating a pick or picks to LB.

And you haven't even begun to address whether Belichick and Pioli might feel that LB is a position either more readily filled by FAs than other positions of high or higher need or that there are DEs for conversion to LB that fall to later rounds because they are not big 4-3 DEs.

Draft picks on the first day are the gold of team success. It is my impression that the Patriots have not only done well but have done superbly in filling team needs with their choices of position and evaluation of players. JMHO.

/cheers

 

[AzPatsFan]

Well, I think you are being much much too simplistic without looking at the actual picture.

1st round picks:
2001 Richard Seymour
2002 Dan Graham
2003 Ty Warren
2004 Vince Wilfork
2004 Ben Watson
2005 Logan Mankins
2006 Laurence Maroney
So who would you have drafted a LB in place of ? All of these are KEY components of the current team.

2nd round picks:
2001 Matt Light
2002 Deion Branch
2003 Eugene Wilson
2003 Bethel Johnson
2004 Marquise Hill
2006 Chad Jackson
Jackson is unknown but Belichick thinks he's the real deal.
This is a pretty high % solid drafts for a second round.
You could look in total hindsight and allocate LB picks for Johnson and Hill. And Hill might still be OK.
BUT ..... these are two positions with current need for starter or depth - WR and DL. So it was not a better choice, I think, to draft a LB than one of those two need positions. And who is to say that there was a solid starter type LB available in place of those picks ?? You have to apply an unrealistic amount of hindsight to say that they should have gone LB.

3rd round picks:
2001 Brock Williams
2004 Guss Scott
2005 Ellis Hobbs
2005 Nick Kaczur
2006 Dave Thomas
So there are only two slots that you could apply hindsight to and maybe pick a LB. Scott and Williams were both DBs. And we are certainly scraping the bottom of the barrel at the moment with injuries at DB. So the position draft was not at all a poor choice versus LB. And it gets even more iffy to find a LB, much less a Patriots type DE/LB in the 3rd round.

So, bottom line is, I think you are too simplistic and unrealistic to even begin to think that the Patriots did not make solid choices with their first day picks and that they made a 'mistake' or used poor judgment in not allocating a pick or picks to LB.

And you haven't even begun to address whether Belichick and Pioli might feel that LB is a position either more readily filled by FAs than other positions of high or higher need or that there are DEs for conversion to LB that fall to later rounds because they are not big 4-3 DEs.

Draft picks on the first day are the gold of team success. It is my impression that the Patriots have not only done well but have done superbly in filling team needs with their choices of position and evaluation of players. JMHO.

/cheers

arellbee,

This was a very nice and through review.

Having lived through the drafts, there is only two places (really one), where, at the time, I thought the Pats were going to pick an LB that was as highly or more highly rated, than the guy they chose.

That was Ben Watson over Karlos Dansby. Dansby had the size that the Pats like and the speed as welll. But Watson is on the verge of a pro bowl status and Dansby might get that attention too, someday. So BB/SP were correct. This past draft there was an expectation that we might draft the Carolina DE to LB conversion project, instead we opted for LM at RB instead. Its easy to see why his talent is much better than ??? who was picked by San Francsio the next pick. Conversions are not a sure thing.

The BB/SP philosophy is to not gamble on 1st rounders and I can't argue with success.

 

[mgcolby]

arellbee,

This was a very nice and through review.

Having lived through the drafts, there is only two places (really one), where, at the time, I thought the Pats were going to pick an LB that was as highly or more highly rated, than the guy they chose.

That was Ben Watson over Karlos Dansby. Dansby had the size that the Pats like and the speed as welll. But Watson is on the verge of a pro bowl status and Dansby might get that attention too, someday. So BB/SP were correct. This past draft there was an expectation that we might draft the Carolina DE to LB conversion project, instead we opted for LM at RB instead. Its easy to see why his talent is much better than ??? who was picked by San Francsio the next pick. Conversions are not a sure thing.

The BB/SP philosophy is to not gamble on 1st rounders and I can't argue with success.

Manny Lawson (the guy I was hoping they would pick)! Lawson is having a very solid rookie season in SF. In hindsight we would be struggling in our running game without Maroney so again I must defer to the wisdom of Bioli!

 

[RayClay]

Well, I think you are being much much too simplistic without looking at the actual picture.

1st round picks:
2001 Richard Seymour
2002 Dan Graham
2003 Ty Warren
2004 Vince Wilfork
2004 Ben Watson
2005 Logan Mankins
2006 Laurence Maroney
So who would you have drafted a LB in place of ? All of these are KEY components of the current team.

2nd round picks:
2001 Matt Light
2002 Deion Branch
2003 Eugene Wilson
2003 Bethel Johnson
2004 Marquise Hill
2006 Chad Jackson
Jackson is unknown but Belichick thinks he's the real deal.
This is a pretty high % solid drafts for a second round.
You could look in total hindsight and allocate LB picks for Johnson and Hill. And Hill might still be OK.
BUT ..... these are two positions with current need for starter or depth - WR and DL. So it was not a better choice, I think, to draft a LB than one of those two need positions. And who is to say that there was a solid starter type LB available in place of those picks ?? You have to apply an unrealistic amount of hindsight to say that they should have gone LB.

3rd round picks:
2001 Brock Williams
2004 Guss Scott
2005 Ellis Hobbs
2005 Nick Kaczur
2006 Dave Thomas
So there are only two slots that you could apply hindsight to and maybe pick a LB. Scott and Williams were both DBs. And we are certainly scraping the bottom of the barrel at the moment with injuries at DB. So the position draft was not at all a poor choice versus LB. And it gets even more iffy to find a LB, much less a Patriots type DE/LB in the 3rd round.

So, bottom line is, I think you are too simplistic and unrealistic to even begin to think that the Patriots did not make solid choices with their first day picks and that they made a 'mistake' or used poor judgment in not allocating a pick or picks to LB.

And you haven't even begun to address whether Belichick and Pioli might feel that LB is a position either more readily filled by FAs than other positions of high or higher need or that there are DEs for conversion to LB that fall to later rounds because they are not big 4-3 DEs.

Draft picks on the first day are the gold of team success. It is my impression that the Patriots have not only done well but have done superbly in filling team needs with their choices of position and evaluation of players. JMHO.

/cheers

Why does listing our draft picks make me simplistic?

I said 1st day to be brief, but we actually haven't drafted a successful starter at LB in the first 4 rounds., (Hope TBC changes the trend, but he's an emergency replacement until proven otherwise).

Since all successful starters in the BB era have been 4th round or higher picks, (4th round, Colvin up to 4th overall McGinest), we have refused to draft one LB drafted as high as any of our regulars.

If we could steal a Vrable every year or two that would be great. Can't count on LBs taking that ring discount either.

 

[RayClay]

Ray Clay may view TBC as a JAG -- I seem to remember in the past Ray saying he doesn't have a lot of confidence either or something to that effect-- but I watched TBC from college to the pros.

I say he takes the next step as a full time starter. My prediction is that TBC will be re-signed next year and will be the first drafted LB starter in the BB system.

The reason why I say he takes the next step is because I've him watched for awhile now (even back in college as a DE) and he is someone who has put in the necessary and required years to learn the system, has unquestionably contributed as a 3rd down sack guy {3.5 sacks -- same amount as Vrabel}). People on this board complain about his run support or pass defense -- but IMHO for the last three years he's been doing nothing but improving in those areas.

Actually, I don't know. I hope you're right. Actually that's the only choice there is.

To put it this way, BB has gotten rid of a lot of LB prospects -- Mincey, Claridge, etc. TBC was drafted around the same spot as those guys and his effort and production ensured him playing through his rookie contract -- quite a feat for a 7th round draft pick. Not many do that.

Pretty much making my point, there.

 

[mgcolby]

Why does listing our draft picks make me simplistic?

I said 1st day to be brief, but we actually haven't drafted a successful starter at LB in the first 4 rounds., (Hope TBC changes the trend, but he's an emergency replacement until proven otherwise).

Since all successful starters in the BB era have been 4th round or higher picks, (4th round, Colvin up to 4th overall McGinest), we have refused to draft one LB drafted as high as any of our regulars.

If we could steal a Vrable every year or two that would be great. Can't count on LBs taking that ring discount either.

Givens, Koppen and Mr Brady were all taken below the 4th round. But I get your point.

 

[RayClay]

Givens, Koppen and Mr Brady were all taken below the 4th round. But I get your point.

I think Piolichick are the best personnel team period. But I have always wondered where the young linebackers would come from, (besides Colvin, Vrable and don't look now, but they're both over 30 next September.

I'm very sincere about this as i have wondered since the days of Chatham and Maugaula Tuitele., (Try to Google that name and you know I'm sincere).

I have faith in the F.O., but faith is all it is. I'd love to see the plan and iguess we all will one day.

 

[RayClay]

I don't doubt they will hit on some low or no picks, but I haven't seen a position that can be filled with absolutely no 1-4 picks.

Even in our OL school period we spent 2 high second rounders on LTs.

 

[RayClay]

Manny Lawson (the guy I was hoping they would pick)! Lawson is having a very solid rookie season in SF. In hindsight we would be struggling in our running game without Maroney so again I must defer to the wisdom of Bioli!

I was a big Lawson fan, but I think we killed in that draft. I'm not a draftnick, but could we have taken a shot at a flawed pass rusher when we spent 4ths on a kicker and a guy, (Mills), that doesn't really have a position.

He might be great. He certainly is a waste this year.

 

[mgcolby]

I was a big Lawson fan, but I think we killed in that draft. I'm not a draftnick, but could we have taken a shot at a flawed pass rusher when we spent 4ths on a kicker and a guy, (Mills), that doesn't really have a position.

He might be great. He certainly is a waste this year.

I liked Hodge as well and he went in the 3rd round and I am not sure I would give up Thomas. I think this maybe the year that they grab first day LB and a 1st round DB. Only time will tell.

 

[patsox23]

You guys are quite sure that Seau isn't much of a loss? I follow this team from a distance, but I don't really remember the 4-3 being used much at all last year, even at the nadir of the Brown-Biesel fiasco.

The Vrabel-Bruschi tandem was excellent last year, not just in comparison to the shenanigans that went on before. However, at about this time last year the Pats had two people passable as veteran linebackers to back up, Brown and Biesel, and still folks nearly shat themselves out of fear when Vrabel stepped on Bruschi's foot on that punt against the Jets. Now the Pats have Don Davis. To paraphrase Yoda, if you're not scared now, you will be.

Davis, you shouldn't need to be told, is not a prototypical Will linebacker in this defense. These inside linebackers are supposed to, at the very least, be able to slow-dance with a guard in the vicinity of the line of scrimmage. Vrabel will usually manage this. I don't break-down tape like Box or pats1, but when I noticed Seau he would as often as not stand the guard up and either slide off into the tackle or make the back cut away. You remember the Atlanta pre-season game, with Gardner and Davis, yes? Gardner showed up at the party and danced with the guards. Davis got thrown out the front door, followed by his hat. Guards would envelop him, or he'd take the scenic route around them one way while Norwood was leaving a rooster-tail of dust up the other side.

Davis got one play today when Bruschi got his bell rung and it was more of the same: the Bears right guard wandered five yards out (Seau would have hit him at 2 yards) and threw Davis backwards another couple cause Davis was doing one of those ole! maneuvers, then Davis dashed around but by then it was too late, Thomas Jones was already cutting into space on the outside and the best Davis could do was throw himself at T Jones' feet. Jones got 17 yards on that play and it was Chicago's longest run of the night. On a 3rd and 4 I might add.

TBC is, or will be, a good outside linebacker, but he is not Vrabel good. I believe the reason he was not used till now as an every-down linebacker is because he has trouble setting the corner in run support. Vrabel was very good at this - obviously, because he has the run skills to play inside. Whether the D can maintain their excellent run average with TBC in for Vrabel and Vrabel in for Seau should be looked into going forward. When Seau was in today the run D was nasty - Jones was going sideways and the Bears had to go to Benson to get beyond two yards a carry in the first half, and Benson had to run like someone asking for a concussion. When Seau was out, Chicago started riding Jones.

Yahoo! Sports, which I realize is not exactly Stats Inc., tells me the Bears two backs ran for about 145 yards on the day, to the tune of 4.4 a pop. I may be wearing beer goggles, but it doesn't seem that jives with the way the Pats run D started out. There are of course other factors to be considered - Pats orienting more towards defending the pass with a lead, the D getting tired after some Methuselan Chicago drives - but in previous games the run D hasn't worn out quite like that, nor has the Pats playing with a lead taken the foot off the defensive throttle, or more correctly, the brake, quite so much. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the run differential pre-Seau and post-Seau to be between 1.5-2 yards an attempt. I also will allow scheming and rust for Vrabel and TBC to be considered, but as Belichick is fond of saying, the backups attend the same practices, and get paid as well.

Blah, blah, blah, this is going on far too long. Suffice to say I think Seau is a big loss for this D. He wasn't exactly chopped liver in passing situations either. He was very good knifing through that A-gap and smacking the opposing QB in the facemask. People better hope that nobody else gets hurt or we'll quickly find out if Corey Mays is a player.

GREAT post, good points, post more often, please. Seau is indeed a BIG loss - not chicken little-ing about it or anything, but downplaying this injury is pretty short-sighted.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Why does listing our draft picks make me simplistic?

I said 1st day to be brief, but we actually haven't drafted a successful starter at LB in the first 4 rounds., (Hope TBC changes the trend, but he's an emergency replacement until proven otherwise).

Since all successful starters in the BB era have been 4th round or higher picks, (4th round, Colvin up to 4th overall McGinest), we have refused to draft one LB drafted as high as any of our regulars.

If we could steal a Vrable every year or two that would be great. Can't count on LBs taking that ring discount either.

You forgot a couple of picks who succeeded. 7th Rounder David Givens, UDFA Randy Gay; 6th rounder Tom Brady; 5th rounder Ryan O Callaghan; and 7th rounder TBC. Matt Chatham who started for 10 games or so in our 2004 SB club was an UDFA.

As for LB, I Think Adalius Thomas is a 5th rounder, among others drafted by other clubs.