Last Year's Draft moves

[smg93]

were exactly right on. I remember that quite a few of us were looking for the Pats to draft a number of LB's to shore up that position. Instead, they traded a few picks to gain more this year because of a perceived lack of LB strength in last year's draft. Now, they are in a great position because this draft looks to be much stronger than last year's especially in the 3rd and 4th rounds. I wonder if this is the year BB and Pioli decide to use most or all of their picks instead of trading them for better spots next year. Thoughts?

 

[dalero]

I'd bet my house that a few of this years picks will be parlayed into future picks. It's part of their system.

 

[mgteich]

Unless we sign a linebacker before the draft, it is likely that you will lose your house.

I'd bet my house that a few of this years picks will be parlayed into future picks. It's part of their system.

 

[Amnorix]

I wouldn't bet my house, but I agree with dr. The Pats under Belioli clearly love to have additional picks going into the draft. The easiest/best way to do this is to trade picks from this year into next year.

That said, IF they view this year as a "strong" draft year, then I'd imagine they'll use up all their picks this year, spending some to move up, no doubt.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Trading picks from this year to next is the easiest way for the rational and unemotional strategist who is safe in his job to increase value in the long run.

Now who does that sound like a description of?

 

[PromisedLand]

Unless we sign a linebacker before the draft, it is likely that you will lose your house.

BB is quoted in "Management Secrets of the New England Patriots" as saying that he prefers to use draft picks on positions where less training in his system and on-field decision making are needed, such as defensive line. He tends not to use draft picks, conversely, on positions where a lot of on-field decisions and adjustments are required. This of course applies particularly to high draft picks.

I think we have seen this play out exactly as he describes where so many first round picks have been used on defensive linemen: Seymour, Warren and Wilfork. We have not seen BB use a first round pick on a linebacker and I expect that trend to continue. He may be more likely to pick up an undersized college defensive end with good athletic ability and convert him to a linebacker.

 

[shakadave]

I wonder if this is the year BB and Pioli decide to use most or all of their picks instead of trading them for better spots next year. Thoughts?

No, we won't pick 10 players in 6 rounds. Somehow we'll pick "only" 8 or so. There's not enough roster space to draft 10 new players.

I also see the logic in what PromisedLand is saying, but if we don't take a LB in the first round this time, we never will!

 

[BelichickFan]

We have not seen BB use a first round pick on a linebacker and I expect that trend to continue. He may be more likely to pick up an undersized college defensive end with good athletic ability and convert him to a linebacker.

The only fly in the ointment here is that finally there are some Belichick type LB who should be available and reasonably close to BPA when we'll be drafting. If Belichick really loves a Carpenter, Greenway, Lawson, whichever, and the one he wants is there then he will likely take him IMO. He has specifically said before that they will take a LB high but that in looking back at their drafts never had a chance to get the kind of LB they value appropriately for the kind of defense we play. This year might be different.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'd bet my house that a few of this years picks will be parlayed into future picks. It's part of their system.

History can tell us BB has done so in the past - and it can tell us that BB finds value with defensive players. But history has also shown that BB will often do the unexpected... like using multiple 1st round choices on Offensive players when everyone assumed he'd go with Defense.

Also consider that this is somewhat of an unusual year compared to the last few.

In the past few years we've not come in to the draft with any real holes in the starting lineup, looking only to bolster our depth and find future starters.

This year we have a number of real opportunities for rookies to step in to starting roles - and some very real needs.

Best player available will still be the prevailing philosophy but there will be heavier consideration of immediate need than there has been in previous years.

My recommendation to all and prediction - "Expect the Unexpected" and don't put too much stock in history, as every year is different.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

The only fly in the ointment here is that finally there are some Belichick type LB who should be available and reasonably close to BPA when we'll be drafting. If Belichick really loves a Carpenter, Greenway, Lawson, whichever, and the one he wants is there then he will likely take him IMO. He has specifically said before that they will take a LB high but that in looking back at their drafts never had a chance to get the kind of LB they value appropriately for the kind of defense we play. This year might be different.

Good analysis, consistent with BB's philosophy. We DO know that being human, sometimes they do a poor job of evaluating draftable talent. In 2000, Brady was the only keeper - in effect we spent our entire draft on him. 2001 was marginally better.

 

[RayClay]

The only fly in the ointment here is that finally there are some Belichick type LB who should be available and reasonably close to BPA when we'll be drafting. If Belichick really loves a Carpenter, Greenway, Lawson, whichever, and the one he wants is there then he will likely take him IMO. He has specifically said before that they will take a LB high but that in looking back at their drafts never had a chance to get the kind of LB they value appropriately for the kind of defense we play. This year might be different.

I agree. They had a plan to train OLinemen.

But when the pond wasn't getting stocked, they went out and got 2.

How many aging free agents will they need to replace McGinest, Bruschi and create some depth?

They certainly don't like paying top dollar in free agency.

Fortunately, BB is flexible. He doesn't stick to a philosophy when the situation changes.

Pragmatism dictates stocking the pond now.

Maybe they wait til rounds 2-4 or longer. I think they go for a top talent that

"gets it", because they really need some talent at OLB/DE and ILB.

 

[dalero]

Unless we sign a linebacker before the draft, it is likely that you will lose your house.

Oh well, won't be the first time I've had to sleep in the doghouse.

 

[mgteich]

Unless and until we sign a starting linebacker, this draft is like the Ty Warren draft. We need a linebacker, or a DE who we will convert in to one.

mark

 

[PromisedLand]

Good analysis, consistent with BB's philosophy. We DO know that being human, sometimes they do a poor job of evaluating draftable talent. In 2000, Brady was the only keeper - in effect we spent our entire draft on him. 2001 was marginally better.

I assume the last line was sarcasm!

In 2000 the management team had just a few weeks to prepare for the draft. It has been reported that BB had to use Bobby Grier's scouting reports.

 

[Brarrell]

I assume the last line was sarcasm!

In 2000 the management team had just a few weeks to prepare for the draft. It has been reported that BB had to use Bobby Grier's scouting reports.

Even so they picked the best QB in football I can live with that.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I so hate speculation on draft picks. You end up all psyched about Polamalu or somebody and pissed off when they go elsewhere... but...

If we really believe that BB just plain won't draft a linebacker, where does corner fit in, in the coached-skills continuum? My impression - and I'm always happy to learn I'm wrong - is that the Pats' system isn't that different or more difficult for a corner to learn than anybody else's. Or maybe Ellis Hobbs just makes it look that way.

For raw speed, there's Tye Hill. For hands, height, and good (just not Hill) speed, there's Cromartie. Both will be around at 21, I'm betting. (Hill is probably a reach at 21.)

Having said that, I do realize the most likely pick is whoever nobody's mentioned, preferably with experience in wrestling, rodeo, or some Afghan game where the end zones are two mountains, the field is the valley, and you ride horses and use a goat for the ball. I personally think we need one of those guys.

PFnV

 

[patsfan13]

I think we draft 2 LB's this draft. 1 will be a DE who will be converted to OLB, to replace 55. I think it unlikly that a rookie LB will be a big part of this year's D (unless the LB corp is decimated by injuries.

Help at LB wil hopefully come from Beisel or Claridge. Otherwise we will be VERY thin at LB.

IMO we will trade some of this years picks to load up for next year, adding value (5th this year for a 4th next eg)

I think we will see a DL, backup NT is needed (unless S Thomas is back to pre injury potential) and possibly a DE (depending on whether they think Hill will emerge).

A TE, RB and at least 1 WR will be drafted. An OL also for development.

Probably a S or CB.

It will be interesting to see how BB/SP view the need value decisions this year.

 

[shakadave]

.
In the past few years we've not come in to the draft with any real holes in the starting lineup, looking only to bolster our depth and find future starters.

With the exception of 2004, when we had just lost Ted Washington and were essentially without a nose tackle (remember talk of using Warren or Seymour) and Wilfork dropped into our lap!

Good thread here! I agree with like everybody!

 

[Ring 6]

Unless we sign a linebacker before the draft, it is likely that you will lose your house.

Do you think we need 10 LBs?

 

[Ring 6]

With the exception of 2004, when we had just lost Ted Washington and were essentially without a nose tackle (remember talk of using Warren or Seymour) and Wilfork dropped into our lap!

Good thread here! I agree with like everybody!

Actually our NT would have been Ty Warren who played there (and played well) for half of the 2003 season.
Wilfork falling to us simply allowed us to move Warren to the position he could have more impact at.
If Wilfork hadnt been there, Warren would have played NT, backup by Warren, and we would have found another DE to go along with Green opposite Seymour.

NT wasnt a glaring need, but it was an opportunity to get more out of Warren.

I'd imagine the same could be said this year for ILB. Not a glaring need but a great oportunity to move vrabel back outside.