Hate to bring up that linebacker thing.

[Box_O_Rocks]

Box
I won't quote your whole post. Hopefully folks will have read it.

We are not in disagreement about anything you said. I also believe firmly that Belichick (with Pioli) has put together a solid enough and deep enough team that they can keep going at an effective level. As we have analyzed and observed many many times, this is a cornerstone to how they put together a roster and a significant reason for the team's success.

However, I just can't go along with how you overly underplay it:
"It hurts the depth chart, it doesn't create a serious downgrade in the team defense. "

I guess it's a matter of semantics - probably hinges on the work serious and also in my opinion it HAS to 'hurt' more than the depth chart. I think that Colvin, Bruschi, Vrabel and Banta-Cain without Colvin and Vrabel playing in their accustomed positions is simply not as strong as Colvin, Bruschi, Seau, and Vrabel - do you really think it is ?? ?? I agree that losing a solid contributor like Seau doesn't mean that they can't still be effective - even effective enough to win a SB. But I still maintain that this is more of a game of inches and a key play here and there than folks want to acknowledge. So to me, losing Seau and especially the ability to rest the starting LBs a little bit with Banta-Cain spelling them AND bringing his fresh legs and energy to a few plays has to have an impact and could be the edge that knocks them out of the playoffs. If it were to be that kind of tiny edge, I would call that serious. I surely hope it isn't.

We can't know the final result in advance. Serious is when you have to change your game - in this case, when BB is forced to play the 4-3 due to injuries and not due to scheme. Those reserves moving up the depth chart are also getting more reps and more time with the coaches, who knows what they might be able to offer by the final kneel down in Jacksonville? I read many here railing against past drafts and planning for the 2007 draft, I just have more faith in this staff and this team. They are going to the playoffs, that is a successful season, now it remains to be seen if they can turn it into a great season.

 

[arrellbee]

We can't know the final result in advance.

Oh, completely agreed

Serious is when you have to change your game - in this case, when BB is forced to play the 4-3 due to injuries and not due to scheme.

As I said, here is where we disagree - and it really IS a matter of semantics. I was going to repeat some of my comments from other posts, but that seems uneeded. Within the semantics and your points - I agree that it isn't 'serious'. On the other hand, if it decreases the odds (agreed - unknown yet) of winning the SB again, sorry - to me that is serious. Maybe I like SB wins too much ? But you can count on the fact that not winning another one isn't going to detract from my 'serious' appreciation, enjoyment, and pleasure from watching this marvelous team in operation and action.

Those reserves moving up the depth chart are also getting more reps and more time with the coaches, who knows what they might be able to offer by the final kneel down in Jacksonville?

Completely agreed. It will be very interesting to see who steps up. I certainly am not pessimistic. I am looking forward to finding out. One of Belichick's obvious strengths is apparently his judgment as to when it is time 'to move on'. Unlikely that the Patriots will ever decline due to hanging on to players for sentiment or because of uncertainty about developing the next set of players. I also believe that Belichick will draft, sign, and develop new players to perform at a SB caliber. Ours is just to sit back and see which ones develop and which ones don't. Always a very interesting part of being a fan.

I read many here railing against past drafts and planning for the 2007 draft, I just have more faith in this staff and this team.

I could just wish that those folks would accept the frequent invitations to not just simplisticly cherry pick with hindsight things that the Patriots should 'obviously' have done better or differently, but would instead come to grips with the reality that there are inescapable tradeoffs and tell us what choices they would have made - and choices it has to be within the limitations of salary cap and fixed draft and fixed roster size. I would appreciate and find interesting commentary about possible tradeoffs. But many (not all certainly) of these folks won't step up and say who they wouldn't have drafted in order to draft another position. Or who they would let go from the present team to create cap space to sign some of the big ticket free agents. (Does that sound like a familiar rant from many of my posts ?? Hmmm, maybe)

They are going to the playoffs, that is a successful season, now it remains to be seen if they can turn it into a great season.

Oh such an absolutely important and meaningful perspective to keep firmly in mind. Wonderful to have the opportunity to be a fan of such a team.

cheers. As always, appreciate and enjoy the discussion.

 

[RayClay]

Just how many damn draft picks do you think they had? BB rebuilt the entire roster and you could resonably argue that only now are we anywhere near having the luxury to address areas that had competent players playing there already.

Where would Brady be if he hadn't drafted Light, Mankins, Kaczur, and Koppen. On IR, or battered and out of the League? Or punch drunk, gun shy and hearing footsteps?

Who would be running the ball if he didn't trade a pick for Dillon and draft LM. Who would be catching it, if he hadn't drafted Watson and Grahmbo and Branch?

Who would be stopping the run and pressing the opposition passer, if he didn't draft SeyMonsta, Warren or Wilfork?

So knock off the baloney....

"he shoulda.." you sound like a damn Democrat saying "he shouda..." surrendered... and don't blame us Demos when NY city vaporizes into radioactive gas either. He shouda... never... We should

Do you have a point, or do you just like saying baloney?

Obviously, they could pick more from 5-7 since the Pats have extra picks most years.

But for those that couldn't spare a pick or two in rounds 1-4 for 6 years...

J.R. Redmond
Adrian Klemm
Brock Williams
Kenyatta Jones
Jabari Holloway
Rohan Davey
Bethel Johnson
Marquise Hill
Guss Scott
Dexter Reid
Cedric Cobbs
Dan Klecko
Garret Mills
Stephen Gostkowski

 

[RayClay]

"he shoulda.." you sound like a damn Democrat saying "he shouda..." surrendered... and don't blame us Demos when NY city vaporizes into radioactive gas either. He shouda... never... We should

Though it's been 6 years I've wondered about linebacker replacements, that's where the analogy ends.

I have complete confidence in the competence and intelligence of the Patriots front office.

Just wondering what their plan is.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Do you have a point, or do you just like saying baloney?

Obviously, they could pick more from 5-7 since the Pats have extra picks most years.

But for those that couldn't spare a pick or two in rounds 1-4 for 6 years...

J.R. Redmond
Adrian Klemm
Brock Williams
Kenyatta Jones
Jabari Holloway
Rohan Davey
Bethel Johnson
Marquise Hill
Guss Scott
Dexter Reid
Cedric Cobbs
Dan Klecko
Garret Mills
Stephen Gostkowski

Presuming your list indicates "busts", I have highlighted players whom I believe do not qualify as busts, but players who are ether still on the roster - which means BB has a use for them - or spent quality time here, which I define as having a specific role. I'd say the next step for you would be to show players who were available after these players were picked, who are playing today with some degree of success at LB, preferably players who would fit what we understand to be the qualifications of 3-4 LBs for the Pats.

 

[RayClay]

Presuming your list indicates "busts", I have highlighted players whom I believe do not qualify as busts, but players who are ether still on the roster - which means BB has a use for them - or spent quality time here, which I define as having a specific role. I'd say the next step for you would be to show players who were available after these players were picked, who are playing today with some degree of success at LB, preferably players who would fit what we understand to be the qualifications of 3-4 LBs for the Pats.

I was having to defend using one or two picks on linebackers in six years.

Of course no one was willing to defend risking no developing linebackers because every single pick had to be used somewhere else.

It's silly to say no picks for linebackers can be spared so I made a silly list.

Pick only one or two from the entire list. I am not saying we should have picked 14 linebackers.

And, to be fair, some of those listed could still have been selected in rounds 5-7.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I was having to defend using one or two picks on linebackers in six years.

Of course no one was willing to defend risking no developing linebackers because every single pick had to be used somewhere else.

It's silly to say no picks for linebackers can be spared so I made a silly list.

Pick only one or two from the entire list. I am not saying we should have picked 14 linebackers.

And, to be fair, some of those listed could still have been selected in rounds 5-7.

Well enough then Ray! You've got to stop retaliating, it's always the second shot that draws the flag.

 

[RayClay]

Well enough then Ray! You've got to stop retaliating, it's always the second shot that draws the flag.

Funny thing is, I'm far from critical of the front office and expect them to provide the LBs in some fashion.

The greatest argument against my points is BB himself. If he needs to change or adapt he will.

 

[RayClay]

Have to pot in and tell you how much I enjoyed this well thought out and articulated thread. Good football talk at its finest. If I may here are a few comments.

1. I think its important to repeat this comment. The Pats LB situation is different from most teams. It is not something that an inexperienced professional can easily adapt to. Look at the Chad Brown example. Here was a very good LB with a lot of Pro experience, including the Pittsburg 3-4, who was, for the most part, lost during his time here. So was Beisel, whose regression still baffles me. Ergo, drafting even a talented LB out of college and expecting them to do great things in this system is a bit unrealistic.

The other reason, which was stated in this thread, which makes finding good LBs for the Pats, is that projecting how a college LB will do in the Pats defensive system is VERY DIFFICULT, and problematic. That iswhy we can expect the Pats to continue to take shots at low round college LBs/DEs who they can hope to develop into suitable players, all the while understanding that they will have many more misses than hits. AT THE SAME TIME going to FA for more experienced and more easily evaluated player, who STILL may or may not fit the system.

The best example of that "mystery" is WHY Junior adapted to well to this system so quickly, while a guy like Chad Brown, had so many problems. Both were good, smart, and experienced. One guy adapted, one didn't. Understand that this has nothing to do with the physical ability of the player, but with the mental adaption to the system. I have no answers to this 'mystery', BTW. Its just an explaination for why the Pats operate the way they do in finding ways to fill their LB roster spots.

BOTTOM LINE here is what I expect the Pats to do this off season. They will probably draft a DE/LB type or 2 in the second day, and go after a couple of mid level to upper level FA LBs. My personal fantasy would be to see Lance Briggs in a Pats uniform next season, but for the many reasons we all know to well, this is what it is.....a fantasy.

2. I remember TBC from that draft. IIRC, most draft sites were projecting him to be a 2nd to 3rd round pick, so his percipitous drop to the end of the 7th round was a mild surprise. IIRC it was due to an off season surgery or injury, because I'm pretty sure he was on the PUP for a great deal of his rookie season.

As for his progress he is pretty much on course for the "typical" conversion of a college DE into a finished product to play in the Pats LB system. IMHO this is a 4 year transition at minimum. I'm also pretty sure that the Pats wouldn't have let Willie go, if they didn't think that TBC wasn't progressing at a pace that would make them comfortable. So far, I don't think he has disappointed. Remember that the way the Pats play defense, it is really difficult for ANY ONE MEMBER to stand out over the course of a season. Guys like Alexander/Woods are still far from finished products and shouldn't be expected to be ready to play for a few more years

3. Finally, its worth repeating, the Pats 3-4 defense, is DIFFERENT than most of the other 3-4's (ie Pittsburgh) that are being used in the league.

Great post as usual Ken. One problem. Are you saying the Pats under BB have taken low round DE/LBs and turned them in to starters?

That's a myth. If TBC is successful, he'll be the first.

I've got a chart in the archives at KFFL, but I can remember enough to refute that.

Every starter is either:

A high, (4th overall to third round), draft pick made by Parcells.

A young F.A. from elsewhere, Vrabel=3rd, Colvin=4th.

Or a valuable older veteran, Seau=HOF Phifer=high 2nd Cox=3 time pro bowler.

Maugaula Tuitele and Chatham were two free agents retained and only Chatham sniffed the starting lineup.

All of our starters were DE/OLB conversions except TJ.

None of our starters were low round draft picks or free agents.

*Bryan Cox was drafted in the 5th but was 3 time Pro Bowl when acquired.