NOT worried about LB or WR

[Ring 6]

I'm comparing players acquired. Bruschi and Colvin are still here too. I'm just noting that none of these were UDFA's and some had extensive experience.

The player we hope for the future might be great but they are lower picks or non picks or older veterans like Phifer, although I doubt Chad Brown plays as long as Roman.

It's hard to stick to the point of an argument over many pages, but I'm just disagreeing with Andy Johnson that our old or current backers, when acquired were equally unlikely to succeed.

We had better raw talent based on measurables, draft position, success elsewhere.

Which one when acquired were likely to succeed?
Vrabel had never played significantly. Phifer was signed to be a 3rd down cover guy, and thats it. (BB even compared him to a safety in that pc) Bryan Cox was applying for Medicare. I'm just not seeing what players you think were brought in to be studs? BB has thrown together LB depth beyond the 2-3 best starters ever since he has been here.

 

[pats1]

Ummm ... who's this " we" pats1?

Me and...and, well, AJ.

 

[Ring 6]

Me and...and, well, AJ.

Im not on any Beisel bandwagon. But here is my take and how it fits into this thread.
Beisel has strengths and weakenesses. Too mnay weaknesses to be a full time every down player.
BB COACHES PLAYERS. What is delievered to him is NOT what the end result is, providing the player is coachable.
BB SCHEMES defense.
When adequate players are coached up to techniques and the mental part of the game and put into schemes that fit their strengths and weakensses, they get the job done at least reasonably effectively.

When you run a system that asks the following of its LBs:

Inside- One guy plays every down. Must play the run, the pass, be able to blitz, be smart, tough, and a gamer. (I think this description is in the football dictionary with a picture of Tedy Bruschi next to it)
One guy will play at most 50% of the snaps. Or it could be a combination of guys playing at most 50% of the snaps (ie TJ and Phifer) We DO NOT use 4 LBs on every down. We use them at the very most 50% of the time. In a 34 2 gap defense, quite frankly the skill of this player is probably about the 15th most important man on the defense.

Outside- We need tough big OLBs who can play the run. They will take on TEs and FBs and pulling Gs at the point of attack, and the the design of the defense is that any run that crosses the G is supposed to be funnelled to the sideline, so the OLB must make these plays.
The OLBs should have pass rush skills, because they are the 4th rusher in the base D. Whether this is 50/50 or 90/10 split between which one rushers depends on the players there, but ideally it would be 50/50 because that is harder to defend.
Coverage skills are less important, but still necessary.
We want our OLBs to become DEs on 3rd down.

When you fit these requirements into BBs coaching, schemes and strategy, you end up with effective play from RomanPhifer out of position at ILB, we end up with a coverted DE in Willie McGinest who couldnt play 43 OLB in any defense being a force. We end with a great run D even with Ted Johnson playing inside and getting manhandled.

When you have 3 excellent LBs, then fill in with Chad Brown, TBC, Monty Beisel, Barry Gardner, and whoever else shows up among the youngsters, your linebacker position is in excellent shape. Add Jr Seau, and you have more options.

 

[RayClay]

Which one when acquired were likely to succeed?
Vrabel had never played significantly. Phifer was signed to be a 3rd down cover guy, and thats it. (BB even compared him to a safety in that pc) Bryan Cox was applying for Medicare. I'm just not seeing what players you think were brought in to be studs? BB has thrown together LB depth beyond the 2-3 best starters ever since he has been here.

I'll repost my list if you want. To summarize, BB inherited a LB that was the 4th overall pick and just reaching his prime despite injuries.

Do we have a player like that? It would cost a lot to acquire one, wouldn't it?

Ted Johnson was injured a lot. Nevertheless with Bruschi out do you see a run stuffer like Johnson? Why dis him when BB would crawl through broken glass to find a role player that could tackle today?

Roman Phifer looked like he was at the end of his career. Of course BB knew because he had coached him that he wasn't.

We've seen Beisel and Brown for a year. I'd say Phifer looked much better after a year tan those two. And when we needed him at ILB he made the switch beautifully. Chad? A little help?

After a year, Vrabel looked like a steal. Monty, Chad.

Of course he was only a 3rd round pick. Presently in LBs under 35 we have one (1) higher in Gardner.

We inherited a former 3rd that led the country in sacks. He made the DE-OLB-ILB transition, but he's getting old now.

Bruschi's replacement? Hello. Just an echo here.

Colvin, only a 4th round pick. But do you see any young players on the roster coming off 2 10.5 sack seasons? I didn't think so.

Monty Beisel was also a 4th. He doesn't measure up to Colvin does he?

We had more talent to choose from back then and the players were picked more carefully.

After one year, the unknowns looked like players unlike Brown and Beisel.

I'm not putting down Belichick. He's strongly upgraded OL, RB and the short passing game, (maybe). He's invested heavily at DL in the draft.

But, for whatever reason, He's invested virtually nothing at the LB position either in the draft or F.A.

The ones he has chosen to spend on have been outstanding. (Colvin, Vrabel).

I'm sure the day for young upgrades will come. To pretend it's the same talent pool we used to have is fantasy land.

P.S. I always root for low and FA players to make it. Pierre Woods looked good to me.

It just shouldn't be the major pool for young talent, (low and UDFA).

 

[Dagg]

I still dont see why people keep throwing in where someone was drafted it has no relevance on anything for comparison purposes (see Tom Brady).

Only game play is relevant

 

[RayClay]

I still dont see why people keep throwing in where someone was drafted it has no relevance on anything for comparison purposes (see Tom Brady).

Only game play is relevant

I agree.

However, when your comparing prospects for players yet to prove themselves to former players before they proved themselves it is indicative of talent.

That's what the original argument was.

 

[RayClay]

BTW, BB has molded a pretty good secondary without real high picks and only one major free agent acquisition, so I'm not saying it can't be done.

I just feel theres a major young acquisition at ILB yet to come. Probably not this year.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Cripes.

You all seem to think that its a terrible deficiency that BB was unable to draft a good LB high. He has wasted his draft picks on the likes of Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, Watson, Mankins and Maroney. What utter bums! BB should have known better. (I wanted Bobby Carpenter and Ware but the Tuna took them before ewe had a chance.)

Well I got news for you, there was a whole other team to re-build in the meantime, and he and Pioli have just about finished that job. The offense has only a single player past his prime, starter or reserve, or more thirty years old, (Troy). The Defense has no one over thirty on the DL and the secondary is full of up and coming youngsters but with a few cagey vets in RESERVE positions,except possibly for Rodney.

Meanwhile BB has gleefully and sinfully neglected the LBs, according to many here. BB "ONLY" has three very good LBs on his roster, in Vrabel, Bruschi, and Colvin. And that "good" contingent is much younger than most he has had there, at 33, 30, and 29.

Some teams don't have any!

The infusion of youth that has transformed all the other groups of players is happening before your eyes, at LB and you appear to be oblivious to it.

I will happily UPGRADE the LB by dumping 33 year old Larry Izzo and his 228 #, for 29 year old 245# Gardner or Beisel. TBC is probably a better ST at 26, than Don Davis at 33 is. But he is not the locker room leader than Davis is, yet. He appears to be establishing himself this season though. He is an UPGRADE & BETTER and younger than Matt Chatham, former OLB reserve though, right now!

Meanwhile BB patiently experiments, fits pieces to the puzzle, tries youngsters, and patches with wizened old vets, when necessary. Just like he has always done.

I've asked before Just where, other than a WR, does BB use his upcoming 2007 "double draft"? Hmmm?

 

[arrellbee]

I do not know how else the interest in Seau can be thought of. I would like to hear how AJ and all those who praised him in this thread spin this to support their argument.

Well, I guess it's not very easy to figure out how Belichick feels about whether a particular position is "adequate" in terms of starters and/or depth. Sometimes I'm pretty sure that he views a position as being 'adequate' when some fans see the sky falling. I probably won't give all the good examples, but winning a superbowl with Antoine Smith as primary RB and another superbowl with CBs Gay and Samuel seem like decent examples.

Of the two positions that seem most in question, WR and LB:

While there is certainly legitimate concern about the 4th slot and the depth, we DO have what I think everybody considers 3 really top LBs. That's not too bad a nucleus ! Consider 2001:
Tedy Bruschi,
Ted Johnson,
Willie McGinest,
Roman Phifer,
Kole Ayi,
Matt Chatham,
Bryan Cox,
Rod Holmberg,
Larry Izzo,
Marty Moore,
Ula Tuitele,
T J Turner,
Rob Holmberg
Arguably, this year's LB group isn't any weaker than this one. In fact, you might argue that we have Bruschi, Colvin, and Vrabel as a really strong core compared to 2001 where you had a younger Bruschi and then Johnson and Phifer who were more one-dimensional. We might not be too bad off in comparison.

Also, looking at 2001, your top receiver was Troy Brown !! He had a solid year at 101 catches for 1199 yards. But the 2nd thru 4th receptions were Patten, Faulk, and Edwards !! If we presume Belichick feels strongly that Branch will play, don't we think Branch might be a stronger #1 than Troy was (taking absolutely nothing away from Troy). Then basically all that is needed is for Caldwell and/or Jackson to fill Patten's shoes. Considering folks' assessment of Patten, that shouldn't be too much of a stretch. And the TE (Wiggins) with the most receiving production was 7th on the reception list !! Considering that we appear to have a pretty potent TE group, that has to add significant strengh to the passing game as opposed to having a Wiggins and a Rutledge. Aren't we likely to have a stronger passing game capability than in 2001 even as the roster stands now ??

I haven't the faintest idea whether Belichick thinks the LB and WR positions are currently 'adequate' to win another superbowl. But I sure wouldn't discount the possibility that he may consider them 'adequate'.

Which is a long winded preamble to a thought about your question, Miguel. I would have to wonder if the signing of any additional players at this point isn't just as likely to be the well-proven process of Belichick and Pioli to continue at all times to search for additional possibilities that might strengthen the team ?? I'm not sure there is a position on the team, except maybe TE and RB (and I wouldn't be too sure about those), where they wouldn't consider signing another player to see if he might beat out an existing player to upgrade their depth. Just a thought.

 

[RayClay]

Cripes.

You all seem to think that its a terrible deficiency that BB was unable to draft a good LB high. He has wasted his draft picks on the likes of Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, Watson, Mankins and Maroney. What utter bums! BB should have known better. (I wanted Bobby Carpenter and Ware but the Tuna took them before ewe had a chance.)

Well I got news for you, there was a whole other team to re-build in the meantime, and he and Pioli have just about finished that job. The offense has only a single player past his prime, starter or reserve, or more thirty years old, (Troy). The Defense has no one over thirty on the DL and the secondary is full of up and coming youngsters but with a few cagey vets in RESERVE positions,except possibly for Rodney.

Meanwhile BB has gleefully and sinfully neglected the LBs, according to many here. BB "ONLY" has three very good LBs on his roster, in Vrabel, Bruschi, and Colvin. And that "good" contingent is much younger than most he has had there, at 33, 30, and 29.

Some teams don't have any!

The infusion of youth that has transformed all the other groups of players is happening before your eyes, at LB and you appear to be oblivious to it.

I will happily UPGRADE the LB by dumping 33 year old Larry Izzo and his 228 #, for 29 year old 245# Gardner or Beisel. TBC is probably a better ST at 26, than Don Davis at 33 is. But he is not the locker room leader than Davis is, yet. He appears to be establishing himself this season though. He is an UPGRADE & BETTER and younger than Matt Chatham, former OLB reserve though, right now!

Meanwhile BB patiently experiments, fits pieces to the puzzle, tries youngsters, and patches with wizened old vets, when necessary. Just like he has always done.

I've asked before Just where, other than a WR, does BB use his upcoming 2007 "double draft"? Hmmm?

Is that a trick question?

 

[mgteich]

I want us to have a much better team than 2001. With 2001's team, we probably wouldn't be favored to make the playoffs. Recall how magic a season that was. We may have had the best TEAM that year, but we certainly did not have the highest talent level.

Well, I guess it's not very easy to figure out how Belichick feels about whether a particular position is "adequate" in terms of starters and/or depth. Sometimes I'm pretty sure that he views a position as being 'adequate' when some fans see the sky falling. I probably won't give all the good examples, but winning a superbowl with Antoine Smith as primary RB and another superbowl with CBs Gay and Samuel seem like decent examples.

Of the two positions that seem most in question, WR and LB:

While there is certainly legitimate concern about the 4th slot and the depth, we DO have what I think everybody considers 3 really top LBs. That's not too bad a nucleus ! Consider 2001:
Tedy Bruschi,
Ted Johnson,
Willie McGinest,
Roman Phifer,
Kole Ayi,
Matt Chatham,
Bryan Cox,
Rod Holmberg,
Larry Izzo,
Marty Moore,
Ula Tuitele,
T J Turner,
Rob Holmberg
Arguably, this year's LB group isn't any weaker than this one. In fact, you might argue that we have Bruschi, Colvin, and Vrabel as a really strong core compared to 2001 where you had a younger Bruschi and then Johnson and Phifer who were more one-dimensional. We might not be too bad off in comparison.

Also, looking at 2001, your top receiver was Troy Brown !! He had a solid year at 101 catches for 1199 yards. But the 2nd thru 4th receptions were Patten, Faulk, and Edwards !! If we presume Belichick feels strongly that Branch will play, don't we think Branch might be a stronger #1 than Troy was (taking absolutely nothing away from Troy). Then basically all that is needed is for Caldwell and/or Jackson to fill Patten's shoes. Considering folks' assessment of Patten, that shouldn't be too much of a stretch. And the TE (Wiggins) with the most receiving production was 7th on the reception list !! Considering that we appear to have a pretty potent TE group, that has to add significant strengh to the passing game as opposed to having a Wiggins and a Rutledge. Aren't we likely to have a stronger passing game capability than in 2001 even as the roster stands now ??

I haven't the faintest idea whether Belichick thinks the LB and WR positions are currently 'adequate' to win another superbowl. But I sure wouldn't discount the possibility that he may consider them 'adequate'.

Which is a long winded preamble to a thought about your question, Miguel. I would have to wonder if the signing of any additional players at this point isn't just as likely to be the well-proven process of Belichick and Pioli to continue at all times to search for additional possibilities that might strengthen the team ?? I'm not sure there is a position on the team, except maybe TE and RB (and I wouldn't be too sure about those), where they wouldn't consider signing another player to see if he might beat out an existing player to upgrade their depth. Just a thought.

 

[arrellbee]

I want us to have a much better team than 2001. With 2001's team, we probably wouldn't be favored to make the playoffs. Recall how magic a season that was. We may have had the best TEAM that year, but we certainly did not have the highest talent level.

Absolutely agreed. If you 'replayed' the 2001 season a number of times, the Pats might win - what - once out of ten times ? But on the other hand, it does provide an insight that we may worry a little too much about having top players at every position and even in depth to have a legitimate shot when we have Belichick to establish competitive schemes and to coach players to be solidly productive.

To me it's clear that this team is stronger than 2001.

I'm not sure but what you wouldn't say that this team is at least as strong or even a little stronger than the 2003 team. Now that might cause a little heartburn for some folks, but take a look.
Brady might be a slight bit more polished and maybe even a little stronger.
Running game should be significantly stronger than Smith and Mike Cloud !!
TEs should be significantly stronger than young Graham, Fauria, and Baxter.
I think our OL is better than Light, Hochstein, Koppen, Andruzzi, and Ashworth.
I think our DL is stronger (and with more young energy) than Seymour, Washington, and Hamilton
For LBs, the tradeoff is Phifer/Johnson versus - you pick.
...Folks may forget that we only had 8 LB for the playoffs. That's slim.
...Depth was 1-year Banta-Cain and Chatham - hmmmmm.
CB - You had Law and Poole. How strong was Poole ? And the next year, Samel and Gay were strong enough.

How about that ?

2004 ?
QB - push
RB - I like Dillon/Maroney to be as good as and probably better (much stronger ??)
TE - stronger
WR - Can Caldwell & Jackson equal Patten & Givens ? Can't say no for sure yet
OL - has to be better
DL - better - Wilfork much more experienced and Warren has another year experience
S - If Harrison is close to par, should be at least a push
CB - It was Samuel and Gay in 2004. They are still here with another year's experience plus more depth and possibilities
LB - It still comes down to Pfifer/Johnson versus - you pick. I just think that, even before Junior enters the mix, that they have the option of moving Vrabel inside and have a decent chance to have a productive OLB - Banta-Cain, Mincey, Chad Brown,

Gosh. I am ecstatic that I am a Pats fan.

 

[mgteich]

As you say, 2004 is more important comparison (actually the last half of 2005 is even better. I think we could be better; we've improved in many areas. The question marks as you indicated: LB, WR and the secondary. I would add placekicker.

Of course, we can't say no for sure, but we all focus on wide receiver soon, I think.

bb and pioli are in the middle of improving our linebackers. A backup from Dallas, and some health from Bruschi and Chad Brown would put us in very reasonable shape indeed. BTW, I like Seau outside, splitting time with Chad Brown.

Absolutely agreed. If you 'replayed' the 2001 season a number of times, the Pats might win - what - once out of ten times ? But on the other hand, it does provide an insight that we may worry a little too much about having top players at every position and even in depth to have a legitimate shot when we have Belichick to establish competitive schemes and to coach players to be solidly productive.

To me it's clear that this team is stronger than 2001.

I'm not sure but what you wouldn't say that this team is at least as strong or even a little stronger than the 2003 team. Now that might cause a little heartburn for some folks, but take a look.
Brady might be a slight bit more polished and maybe even a little stronger.
Running game should be significantly stronger than Smith and Mike Cloud !!
TEs should be significantly stronger than young Graham, Fauria, and Baxter.
I think our OL is better than Light, Hochstein, Koppen, Andruzzi, and Ashworth.
I think our DL is stronger (and with more young energy) than Seymour, Washington, and Hamilton
For LBs, the tradeoff is Phifer/Johnson versus - you pick.
...Folks may forget that we only had 8 LB for the playoffs. That's slim.
...Depth was 1-year Banta-Cain and Chatham - hmmmmm.
CB - You had Law and Poole. How strong was Poole ? And the next year, Samel and Gay were strong enough.

How about that ?

2004 ?
QB - push
RB - I like Dillon/Maroney to be as good as and probably better (much stronger ??)
TE - stronger
WR - Can Caldwell & Jackson equal Patten & Givens ? Can't say no for sure yet
OL - has to be better
DL - better - Wilfork much more experienced and Warren has another year experience
S - If Harrison is close to par, should be at least a push
CB - It was Samuel and Gay in 2004. They are still here with another year's experience plus more depth and possibilities
LB - It still comes down to Pfifer/Johnson versus - you pick. I just think that, even before Junior enters the mix, that they have the option of moving Vrabel inside and have a decent chance to have a productive OLB - Banta-Cain, Mincey, Chad Brown,

Gosh. I am ecstatic that I am a Pats fan.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Absolutely agreed. If you 'replayed' the 2001 season a number of times, the Pats might win - what - once out of ten times ? But on the other hand, it does provide an insight that we may worry a little too much about having top players at every position and even in depth to have a legitimate shot when we have Belichick to establish competitive schemes and to coach players to be solidly productive.

To me it's clear that this team is stronger than 2001.

I'm not sure but what you wouldn't say that this team is at least as strong or even a little stronger than the 2003 team. Now that might cause a little heartburn for some folks, but take a look.
Brady might be a slight bit more polished and maybe even a little stronger.
Running game should be significantly stronger than Smith and Mike Cloud !!
TEs should be significantly stronger than young Graham, Fauria, and Baxter.
I think our OL is better than Light, Hochstein, Koppen, Andruzzi, and Ashworth.
I think our DL is stronger (and with more young energy) than Seymour, Washington, and Hamilton
For LBs, the tradeoff is Phifer/Johnson versus - you pick.
...Folks may forget that we only had 8 LB for the playoffs. That's slim.
...Depth was 1-year Banta-Cain and Chatham - hmmmmm.
CB - You had Law and Poole. How strong was Poole ? And the next year, Samel and Gay were strong enough.

How about that ?

2004 ?
QB - push
RB - I like Dillon/Maroney to be as good as and probably better (much stronger ??)
TE - stronger
WR - Can Caldwell & Jackson equal Patten & Givens ? Can't say no for sure yet
OL - has to be better
DL - better - Wilfork much more experienced and Warren has another year experience
S - If Harrison is close to par, should be at least a push
CB - It was Samuel and Gay in 2004. They are still here with another year's experience plus more depth and possibilities
LB - It still comes down to Pfifer/Johnson versus - you pick. I just think that, even before Junior enters the mix, that they have the option of moving Vrabel inside and have a decent chance to have a productive OLB - Banta-Cain, Mincey, Chad Brown,

Gosh. I am ecstatic that I am a Pats fan.

Arelbee and mgteich,

It is so good to be able to agree wholeheartedly with y'all. I have been saying for the longest time that the glass was more than 90% full. That's not to say there were no issues, but no way as dire as a lot of other Teams problem situations.

We have three so-called "problems".

First, a depth issue at ILB; second, a holdout/reporting issue at WR. Lastly, we have to replace a fading kicker lost in FA, with either a former NFL probowl kicker, or a 4th round draft pick with a stronger leg.

These are not earth-shattering or irresolvable problems. Signing a vet, perhaps making a trade for a journey man, or simply selecting a kicker ends the issues.

When I pointed out other contenders much worse problems posters accused me of being fixated on them, and avoiding the Patriots problems.

This edition of the Patriots is a strong Super Bowl contender. Period.

 

[RayClay]

Absolutely agreed. If you 'replayed' the 2001 season a number of times, the Pats might win - what - once out of ten times ? But on the other hand, it does provide an insight that we may worry a little too much about having top players at every position and even in depth to have a legitimate shot when we have Belichick to establish competitive schemes and to coach players to be solidly productive.

To me it's clear that this team is stronger than 2001.

I'm not sure but what you wouldn't say that this team is at least as strong or even a little stronger than the 2003 team. Now that might cause a little heartburn for some folks, but take a look.
Brady might be a slight bit more polished and maybe even a little stronger.
Running game should be significantly stronger than Smith and Mike Cloud !!
TEs should be significantly stronger than young Graham, Fauria, and Baxter.
I think our OL is better than Light, Hochstein, Koppen, Andruzzi, and Ashworth.
I think our DL is stronger (and with more young energy) than Seymour, Washington, and Hamilton
For LBs, the tradeoff is Phifer/Johnson versus - you pick.
...Folks may forget that we only had 8 LB for the playoffs. That's slim.
...Depth was 1-year Banta-Cain and Chatham - hmmmmm.
CB - You had Law and Poole. How strong was Poole ? And the next year, Samel and Gay were strong enough.

How about that ?

2004 ?
QB - push
RB - I like Dillon/Maroney to be as good as and probably better (much stronger ??)
TE - stronger
WR - Can Caldwell & Jackson equal Patten & Givens ? Can't say no for sure yet
OL - has to be better
DL - better - Wilfork much more experienced and Warren has another year experience
S - If Harrison is close to par, should be at least a push
CB - It was Samuel and Gay in 2004. They are still here with another year's experience plus more depth and possibilities
LB - It still comes down to Pfifer/Johnson versus - you pick. I just think that, even before Junior enters the mix, that they have the option of moving Vrabel inside and have a decent chance to have a productive OLB - Banta-Cain, Mincey, Chad Brown,

Gosh. I am ecstatic that I am a Pats fan.

I agree with your assesment almost 100%. We are stronger at at least 3 positions than we have ever been.

We do have a lot of OLB candidates.

We were thin at ILB both depth and starters especially with Bruschi out.

That's why we just picked up a 37 year old linebacker.

 

[mgteich]

Given the injury histories of almost all the LB's, keeping 8 linebackers and 3 ST/ILB seems prudent. And, we've certainly done worse as our #11 LB than Woods.

OLB: Colvin, Seau, Brown, TBC, Mincey
ILB: Vrabel, Bruschi, free agent or trade
ST/ILB: three of Izzo, Davis, Gardner, Beisel
(keep all four if we have no additions)

gone or Practice Squad
Woods,Roach,Alexander,Mays,Klecko

 

[pats1]

Given the injury histories of almost all the LB's, keeping 8 linebackers and 3 ST/ILB seems prudent. And, we've certainly done worse as our #11 LB than Woods.

OLB: Colvin, Seau, Brown, TBC, Mincey
ILB: Vrabel, Bruschi, free agent or trade
ST/ILB: three of Izzo, Davis, Gardner, Beisel
(keep all four if we have no additions)

gone or Practice Squad
Woods,Roach,Alexander,Mays,Klecko

Again, it looks like Seau will be playing inside.

I'd put it this way:

OLB: Vrabel, Colvin, Brown, TBC, (Seau), Mincey
ILB: Bruschi, Seau, Beisel, (Vrabel), (Brown), Gardner
ST/ILB: Izzo, Davis, possibly Alexander

An addition at ILB (Shanle?) would just slide Gardner or Beisel down to the ST category, then Alexander out.

 

[arrellbee]

By the way, thanks to AJ for starting an interesting thread with quite a detailed set of comments.

 

[PromisedLand]

Nice post aj.
But why you dissin Ted "Helmet Cracker" Johnson? lol

Apparently, probably due to one too many concussions during his playing career, Johnson can no longer distinguish between helmets and his wife.

 

[Ring 6]

I'll repost my list if you want. To summarize, BB inherited a LB that was the 4th overall pick and just reaching his prime despite injuries.

Do we have a player like that? It would cost a lot to acquire one, wouldn't it?

Ted Johnson was injured a lot. Nevertheless with Bruschi out do you see a run stuffer like Johnson? Why dis him when BB would crawl through broken glass to find a role player that could tackle today?

Roman Phifer looked like he was at the end of his career. Of course BB knew because he had coached him that he wasn't.

We've seen Beisel and Brown for a year. I'd say Phifer looked much better after a year tan those two. And when we needed him at ILB he made the switch beautifully. Chad? A little help?

After a year, Vrabel looked like a steal. Monty, Chad.

Of course he was only a 3rd round pick. Presently in LBs under 35 we have one (1) higher in Gardner.

We inherited a former 3rd that led the country in sacks. He made the DE-OLB-ILB transition, but he's getting old now.

Bruschi's replacement? Hello. Just an echo here.

Colvin, only a 4th round pick. But do you see any young players on the roster coming off 2 10.5 sack seasons? I didn't think so.

Monty Beisel was also a 4th. He doesn't measure up to Colvin does he?

We had more talent to choose from back then and the players were picked more carefully.

After one year, the unknowns looked like players unlike Brown and Beisel.

I'm not putting down Belichick. He's strongly upgraded OL, RB and the short passing game, (maybe). He's invested heavily at DL in the draft.

But, for whatever reason, He's invested virtually nothing at the LB position either in the draft or F.A.

The ones he has chosen to spend on have been outstanding. (Colvin, Vrabel).

I'm sure the day for young upgrades will come. To pretend it's the same talent pool we used to have is fantasy land.

P.S. I always root for low and FA players to make it. Pierre Woods looked good to me.

It just shouldn't be the major pool for young talent, (low and UDFA).

When your approach is to overrate the players who came in the past, and discount anyone who is here now, of course you have won your circular argument.
To argue what they were WHEN THEY WERE ACQUIRED by arging what they did after they were acquired, your points become irrelevant.

I severely doubt Bill Belichcik would crawl through broken glass to get a guy who at the start of 2002 he told him he was deactivated for the first game, and sent him home to decide if he still wanted to be on the team, then in 2003 told him to go seek his own trade.
Ted Johnson was a great run stopping MLB in the mid-90s. Since the turn of the milenium he was a horrible football player. I have said if all along, and its based on watching him play the position.