Pass rushing OLBs addressed

[mgteich]

I'm fine with not drafting linebackers early because these players need NFL training as long as we bring in free agents to meet our needs as Belichick has done in the past. The patriots have not wanted to spend a high pick on a developmental linebacker. That is the Belichick's choice. He has to live with not drafting Laurinitis, not us. It is Belichick who needs to answer for the decreased performance from the linebackers from 2001-2004 to 2005-2007, not us.

HOWEVER, in the past, Belichick had brought in veterans because the need was there, and players are indeed available every year elsewhere than can help. Some of the players brought in by Belichick include:

here when Belichick came: Bruschi, McGinist, Johnson, Katzenmoyer and Slade
2001 Phifer, Vrable and Cox (Phifer was our #1 tackler over his three years)
2003 Colvin

three Super Bowl in four years and then

2005 Beisel, Chad Brown
2006 Seau
2007 Thomas
2008 Hobson
2009 Banta-Cain

Where are the replacements for McGinist, Johnson, Phifer and the developmental players to replace the reduced reps of Vrabel and Bruschi? In 2001-2004, Belichick gave us our best linebacker corps ever. Only one of five remain, and he is in his last year. We have replaced the five with Thomas and Mayo. Are we really to expect that Crable, Guyton and McKenzie are the replacements for the other three with competition from Redd, Craig and Appleby? After all, Woods and Banta-Cain will likely be gone after the season.

While it true that taking a flier on a 2nd round is risky, so is taking a flyer on an UDFA. Are you really thinking that the expected outcomes should be the same? Should we really expect that the patriots coaches would produce the same result whether they are given Laurinitis or Appleby to work with?

Just BTW, Belichick CHANGED his strategy in 2008. The situation was so severe, and the competition for 3-4 linebackers so extensive, that Belichick started using top 100 picks for linebackers: Mayo, Crable and McKenzie.

I have to believe that Belichick thinks a lot of Banta-Cain to make him the only addition so far.

I'm certainly not sold on Redd, Woods or Guyton, and I have no opinion of Craig at all. I'm very concerned with all our LBs, with the exception of only Mayo and Thomas.

But if you're going to take a flier and invest in a player who have potential but really isn't what you're looking for, its far better to get them as un-drafted free agents than spending by a 2nd rounder on them. Smart is spending the 2nd on a guy that you're actually confident will contribute to the team.

Belichick has proven to be incredibly picky about his linebackers. He passed on David Harris, who I thought was the bomb and has played well, and Jon Beason, who's already gone to the pro-bowl. He passed on Demeco Ryan, another young pro-bowler, and Mattias Kiwanuka, even tho they both have the size he seems to want.

I actually believe that some of the LBs he passed on this year will be outstanding pros. I dont know why Patrick Chung is was rated so high-- higher than someone like Laurinaitis. But if BB has decided to be patient and only draft LBs early that fit the mold of Willie McGinest, Lawrence Taylor and Jerod Mayo, then maybe that explains why so many drafts pass and he's slow to pull the trigger at LB early. He seems content to fill the position with JAGs until he finds his guy.

 

[mayoclinic]

I'm fine with not drafting linebackers early because these players need NFL training as long as we bring in free agents to meet our needs as Belichick has done in the past. The patriots have not wanted to spend a high pick on a developmental linebacker. That is the Belichick's choice. He has to live with not drafting Laurinitis, not us. It is Belichick who needs to answer for the decreased performance from the linebackers from 2001-2004 to 2005-2007, not us.

HOWEVER, in the past, Belichick had brought in veterans because the need was there, and players are indeed available every year elsewhere than can help. Some of the players brought in by Belichick include:

here when Belichick came: Bruschi, McGinist, Johnson, Katzenmoyer and Slade
2001 Phifer, Vrable and Cox (Phifer was our #1 tackler over his three years)
2003 Colvin

three Super Bowl in four years and then

2005 Beisel, Chad Brown
2006 Seau
2007 Thomas
2008 Hobson
2009 Banta-Cain

Where are the replacements for McGinist, Johnson, Phifer and the developmental players to replace the reduced reps of Vrabel and Bruschi? In 2001-2004, Belichick gave us our best linebacker corps ever. Only one of five remain, and he is in his last year. We have replaced the five with Thomas and Mayo. Are we really to expect that Crable, Guyton and McKenzie are the replacements for the other three with competition from Redd, Craig and Appleby? After all, Woods and Banta-Cain will likely be gone after the season.

While it true that taking a flier on a 2nd round is risky, so is taking a flyer on an UDFA. Are you really thinking that the expected outcomes should be the same? Should we really expect that the patriots coaches would produce the same result whether they are given Laurinitis or Appleby to work with?

Just BTW, Belichick CHANGED his strategy in 2008. The situation was so severe, and the competition for 3-4 linebackers so extensive, that Belichick started using top 100 picks for linebackers: Mayo, Crable and McKenzie.

I have to believe that Belichick thinks a lot of Banta-Cain to make him the only addition so far.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? "He [Belichick] has to live with not drafting Laurinaitis, not us." "He" has won 5 SBs including 3 in 4 years as our HC and is one of the greatest HCs and defensive minds. How would not picking a 2nd round LB prospect with limited athleticism and a poor fit for the 3-4 be something that causes him angst? "It is Belichick who has to answer for the decreased performance of the linebackers from 2001-2004 to 2005-2007, not us." Of course it is. It is Belichick who has to answer to everything about this team, and Belichick who is responsible for it being the most outstanding franchise in modern sports. If twits like you and me were actually answerable for the team instead of being armchair critics, we would be in pathetic shape.

Again, I don't agree with a lot of BB's moves regarding the LB corps either. But I think it's ridiculous to be throwing around "he's the one responsible" kind of crap.

 

[mgteich]

But, Belichick is indeed responsible for the status of the team, especially the condition of the linebackers. It is precisely BECAUSE Belichick's philosophy of how to fill these positions is such a mystery that this is the case.

Yes, in 2001-2004 we were being hailed as the best franchise in sports. Choking in two playoffs because we couldn't stop a drive in the last two minutes in two consecutive seasons and couldn't overcome injuries in two others has taken the shine off somewhat. Of course, the media wants us back. The patriots sell advertising copy.

Yes, Belichick's performance in 2001-2004 is among the best ever by an NFL coach. That was FIVE years ago.

There have been three issues since the last Super Bowl
1) injuries (all teams get them, but even the flu has been critical for the patriots)
2) the corners (we may finally equal what we had in 2004 with Samuel, Hobbs and Gay; and perhaps hope to equal what we had with Law and Poole). In any case, we understand what Belichick is doing. He has used every resource in trying to develop a fine secondary, and filling spots when we had holes. Belichick had done extremely well in covering this weakness over the years he's been here.
3) We gone from five great linebackers in the first Super Bowl to two. We've gone from having the most feared linebackers in the NFL to having the position be our primary weakness. And we don't understand. We see linebacker after linebacker become drafted or even undrafted and become all-pros or at least solid starters. And in place of stars like Vrabel, Ted Johnson and Phifer, we have Woods, Crable and Guyton.

Should we cheer and suggest IBWT? After all, everything must be right. The decisions made at linebacker MUST be correct because we won the Super Bowl five years ago??????????

Of course, Laurinitis is just an example. He may be a horrible player and a horrible fit, and the same might be said for EVERY LB in the draft except Mckenzie and EVERY free agent out there this year except Banta-Cain. Personally, I just don't believe that there was no way to improve our effectiveness at linebacker beyond signing Woods for one year, counting on Redd and Guyton, and bringing in Banta-Cain.

Perhaps, after the season, you will be able to show that there was no linebacker that Belichick was capable of developing, either in the draft or in free agency. I don't think that this is the case. If it is true, or even close to true, we need a new linebacker coach.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? "He [Belichick] has to live with not drafting Laurinaitis, not us." "He" has won 5 SBs including 3 in 4 years as our HC and is one of the greatest HCs and defensive minds. How would not picking a 2nd round LB prospect with limited athleticism and a poor fit for the 3-4 be something that causes him angst? "It is Belichick who has to answer for the decreased performance of the linebackers from 2001-2004 to 2005-2007, not us." Of course it is. It is Belichick who has to answer to everything about this team, and Belichick who is responsible for it being the most outstanding franchise in modern sports. If twits like you and me were actually answerable for the team instead of being armchair critics, we would be in pathetic shape.

Again, I don't agree with a lot of BB's moves regarding the LB corps either. But I think it's ridiculous to be throwing around "he's the one responsible" kind of crap.

 

[mayoclinic]

But, Belichick is indeed responsible for the status of the team, especially the condition of the linebackers. It is precisely BECAUSE Belichick's philosophy of how to fill these positions is such a mystery that this is the case.

Yes, in 2001-2004 we were being hailed as the best franchise in sports. Choking in two playoffs because we couldn't stop a drive in the last two minutes in two consecutive seasons and couldn't overcome injuries in two others has taken the shine off somewhat. Of course, the media wants us back. The patriots sell advertising copy.

Yes, Belichick's performance in 2001-2004 is among the best ever by an NFL coach. That was FIVE years ago.

There have been three issues since the last Super Bowl
1) injuries (all teams get them, but even the flu has been critical for the patriots)
2) the corners (we may finally equal what we had in 2004 with Samuel, Hobbs and Gay; and perhaps hope to equal what we had with Law and Poole). In any case, we understand what Belichick is doing. He has used every resource in trying to develop a fine secondary, and filling spots when we had holes. Belichick had done extremely well in covering this weakness over the years he's been here.
3) We gone from five great linebackers in the first Super Bowl to two. We've gone from having the most feared linebackers in the NFL to having the position be our primary weakness. And we don't understand. We see linebacker after linebacker become drafted or even undrafted and become all-pros or at least solid starters. And in place of stars like Vrabel, Ted Johnson and Phifer, we have Woods, Crable and Guyton.

Should we cheer and suggest IBWT? After all, everything must be right. The decisions made at linebacker MUST be correct because we won the Super Bowl five years ago??????????

Of course, Laurinitis is just an example. He may be a horrible player and a horrible fit, and the same might be said for EVERY LB in the draft except Mckenzie and EVERY free agent out there this year except Banta-Cain. Personally, I just don't believe that there was no way to improve our effectiveness at linebacker beyond signing Woods for one year, counting on Redd and Guyton, and bringing in Banta-Cain.

Perhaps, after the season, you will be able to show that there was no linebacker that Belichick was capable of developing, either in the draft or in free agency. I don't think that this is the case. If it is true, or even close to true, we need a new linebacker coach.

I'm not sure I understand your point. We won 3 out of 4 SBs from 2001-2004, so BB was a great coach. We're 0-4 since then with one SB loss and one AFCCG loss, and the best record in the NFL in those 4 years despite some major injuries and bad luck, so he is now a loser?

I believe BB has made mistakes. I'm not as Asante Samuel fan, but the failure to resign him clearly hurt us in the secondary. I think that BB moved too slowly to replace key veterans who were aging, slowing, and injury prone, specifically Bruschi, Vrabel and Harrison. I would have loved to see us address LB more in the draft. I'm not suggesting that BB should be beyond criticism, but we are all incredibly spoiled to have this team. Try a few years of Herm Edwards or Brad Childress as the team coach and see how we would all feel.

I wanted at least one day 1 LB this year, possibly 2. BB didn't see it that way. I've wanted an LB in almost every draft since 2002. Not all of the ones I've wanted have panned out. I'm not saying that our LB corps is in great shape (though half of it is) or that the decisions have been correct, but if BB thinks it's stronger than you or I do than I'm going to wait until at least the end of training camp before saying "I told you so".

 

[mgteich]

As someone else posted, Belichick apparently has a blind spot with regard to linebackers. If these linebackers produce as well as the 2001 linebackers, You can certainly say that Belichick told me so. At least 5 linebackers get significant reps in every game (not counting the special teamers). If all we have five who produce resembling the best linebacker group, by all means you can point out that Belichick told us so.

THE POINT
Until that happens, Belichick has taken the best linebacker group in football (which he half-created in 2001) and made it our weakness and the reason we don't win Super Bowls.

SINCE 2002
I too was so glad that Belichick trade up from 32 in the 2002 draft to 21 to draft Napolean Harris, giving up our 3rd and 7th. Or did we trade up for Lito Shepherd or for Ed Reed? And Belichick drafted Daniel Graham.

I'm not sure I understand your point. We won 3 out of 4 SBs from 2001-2004, so BB was a great coach. We're 0-4 since then with one SB loss and one AFCCG loss, and the best record in the NFL in those 4 years despite some major injuries and bad luck, so he is now a loser?

I believe BB has made mistakes. I'm not as Asante Samuel fan, but the failure to resign him clearly hurt us in the secondary. I think that BB moved too slowly to replace key veterans who were aging, slowing, and injury prone, specifically Bruschi, Vrabel and Harrison. I would have loved to see us address LB more in the draft. I'm not suggesting that BB should be beyond criticism, but we are all incredibly spoiled to have this team. Try a few years of Herm Edwards or Brad Childress as the team coach and see how we would all feel.

I wanted at least one day 1 LB this year, possibly 2. BB didn't see it that way. I've wanted an LB in almost every draft since 2002. Not all of the ones I've wanted have panned out. I'm not saying that our LB corps is in great shape (though half of it is) or that the decisions have been correct, but if BB thinks it's stronger than you or I do than I'm going to wait until at least the end of training camp before saying "I told you so".

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

THE POINT
Until that happens, Belichick has taken the best linebacker group in football (which he half-created in 2001) and made it our weakness and the reason we don't win Super Bowls.

I thought the secondary was the reason we didn't win? Or was it the receivers? Or the O-line? And didn't Richard Seymour die and they propped his body up because Jarvis Green was having an off decade or something? It's too bad our team got that Cleveland cast-off as a Head Coach, that guy couldn't build a competitive team if he tried. We'd better trade Tom Brady for Julius Peppers because we need someone with a name to bring this team credibility. I knew I should have hitched my wagon to Oakland when I was a kid.

 

[mgteich]

We had five top linebackers in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. We won three of four Superbowls with Brady and the linebackers as our strengths The developmental need should have been evident as none of these linebackers were youngsters. In 2005, the linebacker situation crashed the team when Phifer was cut, Bruschi had his stroke and Johnson retired. Since then, the situation has gotten much better, but nowhere where we were. Every team has its weaknesses. However, it is seems unusual to go from the best to the worst at a position (other than QB) in such a short period of time, especially since we added Colvin and Thomas in the that time period.

I agree that we have the best coach in the history of the game, one who can coach well, even when all his top personnel leave. I also agree that we have the best team in the NFL, although Steeler fans have reason to disagree. Personally, I think that we will be signing 2-4 more linebackers before camp.

Obviously, we need topics to discuss, and have discussed the linebacker situation every year for many years. At this point, in this season, this position is unfinished business, because Belichick has chosen to delay resolution until now.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US
I expect Belichick to still solve this signficant weakness of the team. I think this is a crucial piece of unfinished business. Belichick seems to agree, having tried to get Taylor, and negotiating for Burgess; and who knows what other players are being considered.

On the other hand, others (and you?) seem to think that Belichick is just fine with what we have, and that we uniformed poster morons should know better than to question Belichick, since he is the best.

I thought the secondary was the reason we didn't win? Or was it the receivers? Or the O-line? And didn't Richard Seymour die and they propped his body up because Jarvis Green was having an off decade or something? It's too bad our team got that Cleveland cast-off as a Head Coach, that guy couldn't build a competitive team if he tried. We'd better trade Tom Brady for Julius Peppers because we need someone with a name to bring this team credibility. I knew I should have hitched my wagon to Oakland when I was a kid.

 

[mayoclinic]

We had five top linebackers in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. We won three of four Superbowls with Brady and the linebackers as our strengths The developmental need should have been evident as none of these linebackers were youngsters. In 2005, the linebacker situation crashed the team when Phifer was cut, Bruschi had his stroke and Johnson retired. Since then, the situation has gotten much better, but nowhere where we were. Every team has its weaknesses. However, it is seems unusual to go from the best to the worst at a position (other than QB) in such a short period of time, especially since we added Colvin and Thomas in the that time period.

I agree that we have the best coach in the history of the game, one who can coach well, even when all his top personnel leave. I also agree that we have the best team in the NFL, although Steeler fans have reason to disagree. Personally, I think that we will be signing 2-4 more linebackers before camp.

Obviously, we need topics to discuss, and have discussed the linebacker situation every year for many years. At this point, in this season, this position is unfinished business, because Belichick has chosen to delay resolution until now.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US
I expect Belichick to still solve this signficant weakness of the team. I think this is a crucial piece of unfinished business. Belichick seems to agree, having tried to get Taylor, and negotiating for Burgess; and who knows what other players are being considered.

On the other hand, others (and you?) seem to think that Belichick is just fine with what we have, and that we uniformed poster morons should know better than to question Belichick, since he is the best.

I haven't heard anyone suggest that the LB corps is complete or without question as currently constituted. The "difference" is whether you panic about it and rant about how BB has "dismantled" the LB corps or whether you take a "wait and see" approach assuming that BB is smart enough to judge whether or not he needs to add pieces.

My personal view is that I'd like to see some additions, but IF BB decides not to make any moves I will defer to his judgment. That's a far cry from declaring the LB position solved.

 

[mgteich]

Since the draft is over, and we all don't haven't a clue, perhaps we should simply not post until we play our first game.

Alternatively, we can do as we always have a post our opinions, especially those with regard to percevied major weaknesses on the squad. Of course, our opinions will not change events.

And I'm fine if your position is that you can see how we are all set at linebacker, unless Belichick adds a player or two, in which case those players were critically needed. You are entitled to that opinion. Of course, I think positions such as those show the cojones of a mouse.

And I never said that Belichick dismantled our linebacker corps. After all, he helped create it in 2001 by bringing in Phifer, Vrabel and Cox. Belichick just never reloaded. When he finally did through the draft in 2008, Vrabel and Bruschi were both on their last legs. If every player works out, we'll be fine in 2009. If ALL of Crable, Woods and Redd are our Phifer, Vrabel and Cox, we'll be fine for 2009.

I haven't heard anyone suggest that the LB corps is complete or without question as currently constituted. The "difference" is whether you panic about it and rant about how BB has "dismantled" the LB corps or whether you take a "wait and see" approach assuming that BB is smart enough to judge whether or not he needs to add pieces.

My personal view is that I'd like to see some additions, but IF BB decides not to make any moves I will defer to his judgment. That's a far cry from declaring the LB position solved.

 

[cstjohn17]

I don't know all the teams that run a 3-4 but the ones I can think of in the AFC (Steelers, Chargers, Jets) all have better LBs than the Patriots.

The cap is not exactly flush but even though they are border line stiffs and may not make the final roster I would be comfortable with a trade for Burgess(4th rounder) and sign Napolean Harris (vet minimum).

Either way I see the team looking like:
Offense - Superior
Special Teams - Good
Defense - Good

Good enough to win it all provided they play well at the end.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Since the draft is over, and we all don't haven't a clue, perhaps we should simply not post until we play our first game.

Alternatively, we can do as we always have a post our opinions, especially those with regard to percevied major weaknesses on the squad. Of course, our opinions will not change events.

And I'm fine if your position is that you can see how we are all set at linebacker, unless Belichick adds a player or two, in which case those players were critically needed. You are entitled to that opinion. Of course, I think positions such as those show the cojones of a mouse.

And I never said that Belichick dismantled our linebacker corps. After all, he helped create it in 2001 by bringing in Phifer, Vrabel and Cox. Belichick just never reloaded. When he finally did through the draft in 2008, Vrabel and Bruschi were both on their last legs. If every player works out, we'll be fine in 2009. If ALL of Crable, Woods and Redd are our Phifer, Vrabel and Cox, we'll be fine for 2009.

Rome was NOT built in a day.

Belichick had other higher periorities to rebuild and repair. Plus Bill eahs only so many draf tpicsk to us eot improve the entiere roster. Virtually every other position has been addressed and rebuilt.

And yes the LB has been getting addressed for almost three years now. He has added Thomas, Woods, Mayo and high draft pick Crabel, and found Guyton. Plsu he has added some othert developmental players. This year he added McKenzie. So yes indeed now that other repairs are complete so he is adressing the LBs. Frankly, a lot has been accomplished too. I wouldsay adding 6-8 players to a a 9 man roster is quite substantial.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I'm fine with not drafting linebackers early because these players need NFL training as long as we bring in free agents to meet our needs as Belichick has done in the past. The patriots have not wanted to spend a high pick on a developmental linebacker. That is the Belichick's choice. He has to live with not drafting Laurinitis, not us. It is Belichick who needs to answer for the decreased performance from the linebackers from 2001-2004 to 2005-2007, not us.

HOWEVER, in the past, Belichick had brought in veterans because the need was there, and players are indeed available every year elsewhere than can help. Some of the players brought in by Belichick include:

here when Belichick came: Bruschi, McGinist, Johnson, Katzenmoyer and Slade
2001 Phifer, Vrable and Cox (Phifer was our #1 tackler over his three years)
2003 Colvin

three Super Bowl in four years and then

2005 Beisel, Chad Brown
2006 Seau
2007 Thomas
2008 Hobson
2009 Banta-Cain

Where are the replacements for McGinist, Johnson, Phifer and the developmental players to replace the reduced reps of Vrabel and Bruschi? In 2001-2004, Belichick gave us our best linebacker corps ever. Only one of five remain, and he is in his last year. We have replaced the five with Thomas and Mayo. Are we really to expect that Crable, Guyton and McKenzie are the replacements for the other three with competition from Redd, Craig and Appleby? After all, Woods and Banta-Cain will likely be gone after the season.

While it true that taking a flier on a 2nd round is risky, so is taking a flyer on an UDFA. Are you really thinking that the expected outcomes should be the same? Should we really expect that the patriots coaches would produce the same result whether they are given Laurinitis or Appleby to work with?

Just BTW, Belichick CHANGED his strategy in 2008. The situation was so severe, and the competition for 3-4 linebackers so extensive, that Belichick started using top 100 picks for linebackers: Mayo, Crable and McKenzie.

I have to believe that Belichick thinks a lot of Banta-Cain to make him the only addition so far.

It is completely different to draft iniside LBs versus Outside LBs. Inside LB play pretty much the same as they do in college. You can measure them and decide how advanced they are. When you draft them they can start much earlier in their careers. You forget that the Commish took away one of their first round picks last season. Some said Groves would have been drafted to accompany Crabel as rebuilding pass rushing OLBs. We will never know.

Why would BB want to add much beyond having an adequate backup for AD Thomas. Don' t you think that TBC makes a pretty good backup to AD Thomas?

 

[mgteich]

When were a Super Bowl team, we had the best linebacking corps in the NFL, five top linebackers, not counting Cox and Colvin. Since then, we have done as you said. In 2006, we added Thomas to replace McGinist and signed UDFA Woods, who has done little so far.

Belichick started the new rebuilding effort in 2008. It's really about time!

We are going into this year with two top linebackers. Do you disagree? We had been building linebackers for years when Belichick came. So waht. He promptly signed three agents.

In any case, I don't think Belichick is done. I don't think he is satisfied with what we have. Do you disagree?

Rome was NOT built in a day.

Belichick had other higher periorities to rebuild and repair. Plus Bill eahs only so many draf tpicsk to us eot improve the entiere roster. Virtually every other position has been addressed and rebuilt.

And yes the LB has been getting addressed for almost three years now. He has added Thomas, Woods, Mayo and high draft pick Crabel, and found Guyton. Plsu he has added some othert developmental players. This year he added McKenzie. So yes indeed now that other repairs are complete so he is adressing the LBs. Frankly, a lot has been accomplished too. I wouldsay adding 6-8 players to a a 9 man roster is quite substantial.

 

[mgteich]

So according to you, I guess we needed a backup safety, more backup offensive linemen, and yet another to compete for the 2010 starting jobs at corner. We needed all of this much more than linebackers. Ok. I see your position. I just disagree. I think that Belichick believes that he can secure linebackers in the next two months, using whatever resources he needs to in order to have something better than the worse set of linebackers in the playoffs.

Rome was NOT built in a day.

Belichick had other higher periorities to rebuild and repair. Plus Bill eahs only so many draf tpicsk to us eot improve the entiere roster. Virtually every other position has been addressed and rebuilt.

And yes the LB has been getting addressed for almost three years now. He has added Thomas, Woods, Mayo and high draft pick Crabel, and found Guyton. Plsu he has added some othert developmental players. This year he added McKenzie. So yes indeed now that other repairs are complete so he is adressing the LBs. Frankly, a lot has been accomplished too. I wouldsay adding 6-8 players to a a 9 man roster is quite substantial.

 

[Jimke]

So according to you, I guess we needed a backup safety, more backup offensive linemen, and yet another to compete for the 2010 starting jobs at corner. We needed all of this much more than linebackers. Ok. I see your position. I just disagree. I think that Belichick believes that he can secure linebackers in the next two months, using whatever resources he needs to in order to have something better than the worse set of linebackers in the playoffs.

To me, much of what Belichick did in the 2009 draft was plan for
the possible departures of Mankins, Neal, Kaczur, Wilfork, Seymour,
and the 22 others whose contracts are up after 2009.

I was surprised that BB did not select a linebacker until the 97th
pick. I considered linebacker the Patriots #1 need since Vrabel was
traded and Tedy Bruschi turns 36 next month. Maybe Appleby, Woods,
Crable, and Redd will be good players but I don't know how management
can be so sure based upon limited playing time by these players.

 

[CanadianPat'sFan]

To me, much of what Belichick did in the 2009 draft was plan for
the possible departures of Mankins, Neal, Kaczur, Wilfork, Seymour,
and the 22 others whose contracts are up after 2009.

I was surprised that BB did not select a linebacker until the 97th
pick. I considered linebacker the Patriots #1 need since Vrabel was
traded and Tedy Bruschi turns 36 next month. Maybe Appleby, Woods,
Crable, and Redd will be good players but I don't know how management
can be so sure based upon limited playing time by these players.

This is exactly my take on the whole situation and I think you nailed it head on. BB did draft alot of guys who are not going to be used in 2009 but could develop into starters after a year with the team and learning from the starter. If the Pats make a run this year which many think they will, all the FA for 2010 are going to want to be paid big money and we are going to let a few go.

The whole LB situation Leeds me to believe that Seau is coming back No seriously I am not comfortable with the situation there especially with Vrable gone. I really want to see how the OLB's have developed but inside I really think we need to add someone as our #97 pick went down. Appleby has experience playing inside in a 3-4 but if we get out of him in 2009 what we got out of Guyton in 2008 I would be thrilled. I said before that I think BB should have pushed harder to sign Foote but I think he was saving his money in hopes he would get JT who signed after Foote did.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I fail to see "why we have the worst LBs in the Playoffs" when we have two pro-bowlers on a four man starting crew.

Many of you forget that Woods is a good edge setter against the strongside run. He proved that in the last season in the three games he started, despite that his DE, Ty Warren was hurting, and produced less help. No one ran wild to the strongside while he was playing. That is the prime requirement to play strongside OLB. He is a starter and proven to be one. All want double digit sacks from that position, and we have seldonm had it. In the last decade, Vrabel had one season of double digit sacks, and Willlie had one too. Most years that position produces 5-6 sacks.

Pierre Woods going into the junior year was being projected as a First Round draft pick if he came out after his junior year. He has that much athletic ability. Then he got into Lloyd's doghouse. Supposedly, he wasn't playing hard. BB rescued him as an UDFA despite the badmouthing, and he led the ST in tackles for three years. Hardly a lazy player's output. Woods has gone through the training for OLBs. H eIS the starte ronthe strongside for two reason. One he earned it. and giot thr incumbaent moved, ansd thenoff the team. Two, there is no other OLB who has any of the ability he has, setting the edge against the run.

Could he be a fair pass rusher? We don't know except, that the Coaches say he is a good pass rusher. Just as they said he was a good edge-setting SOLB and ready to take that position, when they promoted him to starter. They were right then, why not now?

 

[Ochmed Jones]

I fail to see "why we have the worst LBs in the Playoffs" when we have two pro-bowlers on a four man starting crew.

Many of you forget that Woods is a good edge setter against the strongside run. He proved that in the last season in the three games he started, despite that his DE, Ty Warren was hurting, and produced less help. No one ran wild to the strongside while he was playing. That is the prime requirement to play strongside OLB. He is a starter and proven to be one. All want double digit sacks from that position, and we have seldonm had it. In the last decade, Vrabel had one season of double digit sacks, and Willlie had one too. Most years that position produces 5-6 sacks.

Pierre Woods going into the junior year was being projected as a First Round draft pick if he came out after his junior year. He has that much athletic ability. Then he got into Lloyd's doghouse. Supposedly, he wasn't playing hard. BB rescued him as an UDFA despite the badmouthing, and he led the ST in tackles for three years. Hardly a lazy player's output. Woods has gone through the training for OLBs. H eIS the starte ronthe strongside for two reason. One he earned it. and giot thr incumbaent moved, ansd thenoff the team. Two, there is no other OLB who has any of the ability he has, setting the edge against the run.

Could he be a fair pass rusher? We don't know except, that the Coaches say he is a good pass rusher. Just as they said he was a good edge-setting SOLB and ready to take that position, when they promoted him to starter. They were right then, why not now?

I thought Woods got benched when he got beat out for his starting spot and he blamed it on politics instead of production.
However he was a ST Captain at Michigan despite not being part of the base defense.
I tend to think that BB considers Woods a ST demon, backup base defender type and that is about it.

 

[mgteich]

If Woods had first round talent, we would have expected him to be starter quality for us in his second season. There was no evidence of this TOP talent is his first three seasons, although he was good enough to re-sign for 2009 for backup money.

I like Woods. His is a fine special teamer. He is also a quality backup that may need to start this year, IF Crable isn't ready, AND he is better than Tully in preseason, AND Belichick doesn't bring in anyone else to fill the starting position.

 

[AzPatsFan]

If Woods had first round talent, we would have expected him to be starter quality for us in his second season. There was no evidence of this TOP talent is his first three seasons, although he was good enough to re-sign for 2009 for backup money.

I like Woods. His is a fine special teamer. He is also a quality backup that may need to start this year, IF Crable isn't ready, AND he is better than Tully in preseason, AND Belichick doesn't bring in anyone else to fill the starting position.

I usually respect your opinions but in this you are simply wrong. TBC's main deficiency is in setting the edge against the run. He is in no way, shape, or fashion, a candidate to play the SOLB. He never did, when he was here before. And the same applies to AD Thomas. he has never lined up at SOLB either. Everyone said that Crabel needed a year in the weight room to beef up when he was drafted. I have no idea if he did. But at his college weight, he did not have the heft to be an edge setter at SOLB. Maybe he is heftier now.

Now you may say that Woods inherited the job by default, and doesn't deserve it. My answer is this: No one twisted Belichick's arm, to force him to trade incumbent SOLB Mike Vrable. Explain that. Unless he thought that the replacement that he promoted, and started every game (3), before he too went on IR, was in any way a disappointment. On the contrary, he spoke glowingly of Woods game, while he was playing, as did the other Coaches. In itself, that is nothing as BB never publicly castigates his players. But his actions are incontrovertible proof. A part time, obvious passing down specialist, can play the position for him in those circumstances, but I don't think there is anyone on the roster that merits putting there, full time.

If you want to wonder a bout a player position, i would question Guyton, as a full time ILB. But he has Tedy with which to to share the position. Bill's action in spending a high draft pick on Ty McKenzie also raises questions. Bu toverall, even that position is not a bad position to be in.

You keep making the assumption that first rounders can play Patriots OLB in their rookie or Soph seasons, like draftees at other positions do. I don't think that is the case, for either the Patriots or the Steelers even though the Steelers OLBs play a position more closely aligned with collegiate OLBs.

And I don't think you can treat Patriots OLB like other NFL positions that the play in college is similar to what will be expected of them in the NFL. Think of how many years of NFL experience, every one of the Patriots OLBs had. Some like Willie, or Tedy were four years experience before playing the position. Others like Vrable, Colvin and Thomas had at least a half dozen years of NFL experience before playing the position with distinction.

As some one else tried to compare Patriots ILB to Patriots OLB, and unlike OLB, there are collegians who have the experience playing both OLB and MLB in college. Success in both can predict that a high draft pick can play in ILB his rookie year. For example, Both Mayo and Guyton were combination OLBs/MLBs in college.