I think you are not being realistic in your complaints on the draft. Just because they didn't have any "day one" starts from rookies (not a given on a mature team) those 8 guys DID get a lot of play over the season including multiple starts by Volmer, Edelman, and Pryor.
I'd be more patient with Chung, since it is clear (at least to me) that playing safety in this defense is not one year learn. Besides he added value in that he was an excellent special teamer all year.
If you think Volmer was just a necessary replacement for a struggling Kascar, then you must have missed his effort vs Freeney when the Pats played the Colts. This kid is the real deal, and you know it.
Tate and McKenzie were injured for the better part of the year. I think most fans were excited about their POTENTIAL, though we will have to wait for the actual results. Injuries can't be anticipated when you are drafting. They were universally considered good picks, especially in the 3rd round.
Before last years's draft, I would have told you that the Pats should trade half of their picks into the future because there was no room on this roster for 8 rookies. Well there was. This past draft and the next 2 coming up are going to lay the foundation of the Pats going into Brady's retirement, in about 6 years
This has turned more into a good football discussion rather than rancorous rants. Like in most conflicts there are usually more areas where people agree than disagree. The problem is that some tend to focus on those smaller areas of disagreement and shut out any possibility that there is alternative opinion, that might be different, yet still be based on reasonable assumptions. In fact they deny the possibility that there can even be 2 differing opinions that are based on reasonable assumptions.
Clearly you and I don't fall into that category....I hope
.
I'd love to go deeper into your lengthy reply, but work calls and I must answer. Perhaps later.