Pats want to build fortress around Brady

[Ring 6]

I totally disagree with the assessment of our offensive line as being weak. Two starters (Light and Koppen) missed a significant number of games forcing (mostly) Kaczur and Hochstein into full time duty. This is the same line from 2004 (minus Adruzzi) that helped a healthy Corey Dillon get 1,600 yards. This year we had two rookies play almost the entire season and Dillon was banged up. The lack of running game and the frequent blitzing may have had something to do with Brady getting knocked down this season.

I'm troubled that Felger's mole said that Kaczur may not be as committed as they'd like. He was still able to start the majority of games at left tackle as a rookie, so I'm a little skeptical that they are ready to throw in the towel on him. With Light and Koppen coming back and having spent a 1st and a 3rd round pick on OL last season, I would be shocked if BB/Pioli spent another high round draft pick (rd 1 or 2) on OL this season. I think they can spend a pick or two in later rounds to help fill in the depth that they may loose to free agency, but I think anything beyond that would be a waste.

As I see it,the priority needs to be addressed in the draft are ILB/OLB, CB, S, WR, and RB.

What are you doing about RG?RT?

 

[shakadave]

If you consider our draft needs, consider this: With BBs history of 2nd, 3rd, 4th round picks, which positions on the field would NEED a 1 or 2 used instead of a 3 or 4?

This is a really good question. Really good way to put it. (said this thread's cheerleader)

I think a 1 or 2 (as opposed to a 3 or 4) gets you different things at different positions. At any position, it gives a better chance to be a starter. But at RB there's a high rate of busts, so let's not use a 1-2 there. At O-line it gives you a special player with a good chance of starting for years. At WR it gives you a raised chance of having the athleticism/skills to stand out above what a hard-working 3-4 might ever do. Still no guarantee, of course. At DB you tend to get elite physical skills in the 1st round, and really not as many busts as at many other positions. At any position, 1-2 would be likely to start sooner than the 3-4, but especially at WR I would think. Among the positions discussed by Andy above -- WR, OL, DB -- I've just talked myself into going...

1: OL (Gosh, an elite O-line would do wonders for us!)
2: WR (We really might need a new #2 receiver soon.)
3: DB (With a healthy Gay, Samuel, C. Scott, Starks, we can be OK at CB.)
4: RB
5: Some tall LB to make a safety project out of.
6: LB

 

[pats1]

What are you doing about RG?RT?

I, personally, think BB drafted Kaczur to start and round out the offensive line for the next 4-5 years. If Light starts at LT, Kaczur will start at RT. Mankins has settled in at LG and I see no reason to move him. Koppen will stay at C. RG is up for grabs.

 

[Ring 6]

I, personally, think BB drafted Kaczur to start and round out the offensive line for the next 4-5 years. If Light starts at LT, Kaczur will start at RT. Mankins has settled in at LG and I see no reason to move him. Koppen will stay at C. RG is up for grabs.

Isnt that a concern? 2 OL coming off year ending injuries, a 3rd moving to a new position, a 4th who just learned a new position, and an 'up for grabs'?

 

[shakadave]

Isn't it funny how for years, we thought we were OK at OL (with a little Dante magic). Then last year BB picks one 1st and 3rd, surprising us. Now we want even more of them!

 

[Ring 6]

Isn't it funny how for years, we thought we were OK at OL (with a little Dante magic). Then last year BB picks one 1st and 3rd, surprising us. Now we want even more of them!

Thats not really how it evolved for me. Here is my take on the OL in the BB years.
2000. Basically we threw whoever we could find out there. Andruzzi, Sale Isaia, were brought from the street to the starting lineup.
2001. Added youth in Randall and Light added to Klemm. Still stuck with Grant 'Look out Drew' Williams, but while it struggled in pass protection the OL was physical, tough and ahead of plan. We are building it, but have other needs too.
2002. Kenyatta added, poor year for OL. Hard to knock a young OL with such a slow plodding #1 back, but pass protection broke down at the worst time. 4 future good Ts turned into one. With the youth involved, and the age on D, back burner this unit in the draft and let it grow.
2003. Decent year, good in pass pro, but stuck with weak RBs. Who is to blame for the running game. My eyes said Smith was the problem that had to be solved first.
2004. I felt we went into the season with poor depth. No vet backups at all. The Metaphors stepped up, and Dillon was the answer.
2005. We added to it. Starting to look talented. A bunch of injuries. Pass protection looked like 2002. Mostly good, but many breakdowns at key times.

Today. The nucleus of a STUD OL. I think the #1 NEED this team has the need to complete that job. Much like the DL rebuild from 02-04, why stop? I see 2 very good pieces, 1 solid, and one potentially very good. I think this unit is one stud, then one upgrade away from being dominant. Of all the improvements that can be made to this team, a super stud OL will get the most milage, IMO.

 

[FloridaPatsFan]

I have followed this thread from post 1 to the last. Once again, I have to compliment all of you for excellent commentary. Some of this stuff is almost worthy of a scout to read. So with that said, I would like to weigh in with a couple of thoughts about our O-Line:

ROOKIE tackles in the NFL traditionally get schooled almost weekly. Even top drafted Tackles are abused by average Defensive lineman. Kazcur and Mankins, with credit to Dante Scarnecchia, held thier own extremely well for rookies holding down the ends for us. I can remember several times this season, reading about our opponents complimenting our rooks for the job they did. Koppen and Light are already VERY respected offensive lineman in this league. They may never make a pro-bowl, but that does not mean much in this league. Its the way players and coaches talk about who is doing a great job and these guys consistently get respect around the league.

All said, we are very close to being a top-10 offensive line in the NFL. We need some luck in staying healthy, but if you want to say that Brady takes a lot of hits, and I know he takes too many, he is also the kind of QB who waits that 1 millisecond more for his target to get open. I love that about him. He does not **** out because of a full blitz.

IMO BB/SP are looking at improving several positions, but our Offensive line is probably only 1 player away from being dominating.

 

[bradtor007]

I have never been impressed with Light. I think he is average at best. He is weak in the legs and has a hard time with strong arming his opponent. He continually gets beat and beat bad.

If not for his QB being what he is and the talent and understanding of getting the ball out quickly, Light would be gone or demote by now. We need a change on the OL...BADLY!

I agree that Light is average at best in pass protection. Without help from a tight end, he gets beaten consistently on the outside by speed rushers. He just isn't quick enough or strong enough to repel the attack.

There's no reason to expect he'll be any better after a severe injury. The Pats have more than one need, obviously, but I think they must look at how they can improve at left tackle, through the draft or via free agency.

 

[sieglo]

Light is decent in pass protection for the most part, but he is not a great run blocker. In 2004, the Pats had their greatest success running Dillon towards Graham when he was lined up on the far side of Light.

 

[jczxohn1]

Thats not really how it evolved for me. Here is my take on the OL in the BB years.
2000. Basically we threw whoever we could find out there. Andruzzi, Sale Isaia, were brought from the street to the starting lineup.
2001. Added youth in Randall and Light added to Klemm. Still stuck with Grant 'Look out Drew' Williams, but while it struggled in pass protection the OL was physical, tough and ahead of plan. We are building it, but have other needs too.
2002. Kenyatta added, poor year for OL. Hard to knock a young OL with such a slow plodding #1 back, but pass protection broke down at the worst time. 4 future good Ts turned into one. With the youth involved, and the age on D, back burner this unit in the draft and let it grow.
2003. Decent year, good in pass pro, but stuck with weak RBs. Who is to blame for the running game. My eyes said Smith was the problem that had to be solved first.
2004. I felt we went into the season with poor depth. No vet backups at all. The Metaphors stepped up, and Dillon was the answer.
2005. We added to it. Starting to look talented. A bunch of injuries. Pass protection looked like 2002. Mostly good, but many breakdowns at key times.

Today. The nucleus of a STUD OL. I think the #1 NEED this team has the need to complete that job. Much like the DL rebuild from 02-04, why stop? I see 2 very good pieces, 1 solid, and one potentially very good. I think this unit is one stud, then one upgrade away from being dominant. Of all the improvements that can be made to this team, a super stud OL will get the most milage, IMO.

Excellent. Once again, an above average O-line improves all positions. We have an O-line that at it's best, can play in the top 10-15 in the league. Adding that one missing stud would put us in the top 5. Then, the running backs run better, the WR's have time to get open, the TE's get into the passing game more, Tommy has time to throw, we have fewer 3 and outs, we win the time of possession more often, the D stays off the field longer. No other signing would have as much impact. This year's offense can be characterized as "under-utilzed talent". It was all on the O-line, IMO.

 

[patsfan13]

What are you doing about RG?RT?

I'd like to see Neal resigned to play RG, with Kaczur moved to RT.

Starters:
Light
Mankins
Koppen
Neal
Kaczur

Backups:
Ashworth
Gorin
Hockstein

I backup TBD, this would involve resigning both Neal & Ashworth.
Not sure we can sign both.

 

[Patriot Missile]

Our line will be fine if not one of the best in 06. But if the Patriots decide they need another lineman or two whether it be in ther first round then that's fine. I think having depth is important as we found out this season. Had Light and Koppen among others not been injured,well we know that story,we'd probably be playing this Sunday. Again depth is good.

Personally I'd rather draft a corner in round 1 but if they feel O-line is the way to go,so be it. I feel rather comfortable with 2 pair in Light, Mankins, Koppen and Kaczur. One more stud to make a full house wouldn't hurt a bit.

 

[flutie2phelan]

.... I feel rather comfortable with 2 pair in Light, Mankins, Koppen and Kaczur. One more stud to make a full house wouldn't hurt a bit.

STUD poker it is, then!
What's all this Texas Hold 'Em nonsense?

 

[RayClay]

While no one who knows anything about football would disagree with anything you wrote there:

It is a pipe dream. We simply aren't getting a guy like that in the draft. Not drafting where we are.

The LT who fit that description now or have in their careers - Jones, Pace, Ogden, Roaf, Chris Samuels, Willie Anderson - those guys were all top 10 picks. The only guy who fits that description in this year's draft D'Brickashaw Ferguson is going in the top 5.

A great guard can have a similar effect. I

I know people downgrade the position these days, but there was a guy named Hannah who made the whole line awesome.

And every running back effective.

 

[Ring 6]

A great guard can have a similar effect. I

I know people downgrade the position these days, but there was a guy named Hannah who made the whole line awesome.

And every running back effective.

A team is about how the parts fit together.
Certainly a top QB usually makes your team a winner. We have that.

Consider all of the other positions on the field, under this critieria:

Do teams that are great in this win more often, all other things equal?

RB- There are many top RBs on losing teams.
WR- Name the last All-World WR to get a ring. Rice was a stud WR that was on a team that always won. Who else?
DL- Good DLs seem to be winning teams moreso than other spots. Teams that stop the run win.
LB- Many teams with 'decent' LBs win. Their impact depends a lot on the rest of the D
DB- We have seen first hand a rag tag secondary can win. The very top corners in the NFL right now don't have more rings than their counterparts at other positions.

OL- It seems more common than any other facet of the game that a team with an excellent OL almost always is in the playoffs and challenging for titles.
Off the top, the best OLs in the NFL would generally be considered Denver, Pitt, Indy, Seattle, all perennial playoff teams. Other teams such as Buffalo, Miami, Houston, have underachieved primarily because of the OL.

A great OL does not make a Champion, but a Champion caliber team otherwise, dominates when they build a great OL.

In the end, if you look at what unit had the most to do with our disappointing season, understanding that the 4-4 start had as much to do with being knocked out of the playoffs (not having homefield) as the game in Denver, I'd say:

1) Secondary
2) OL
3) RB

The secondary was able to improve enough that we actually could have won despite the hole they had a lot to do with us getting in.
I'm OK with RB, especially if the OL improves.

I dont dispute that no changes would equal an improved OL, but not an outstanding one.
I've said for years that what made this team special was its ability to play better in big games, and particularly on clutch plays. IMO, we did not do that as well this year, and the culprit I see (aside from the turnover committers in Denver) was the uneven performance of the OL, especially when our backs were against the wall.

 

[Mainefan]

According to this AP article, http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=At4GWLzi8ANLThJ5qxbYqcNDubYF?slug=ap-sup

the Seahawks probably won't be able to hang on to both Shaun Alexander and their 3-time pro bowler left guard Steve Hutchinson....

Some pertinent quotes from the article:

"He is as hard of a working lineman as I've been around," coach Mike Holmgren said. "Offensive linemen are usually that way, but he kind of goes over the edge in his work ethic. He is tremendously strong, very bright and he really wants it every play, every down. His ability to focus in is really very amazing."

Hutchinson has plenty on his plate this week, aside from trying to ignore thoughts about his future. The 6-foot-5, 313-pounder went to Michigan, where he also formed a great tandem with Jeff Backus, who now plays for the Lions."

Sounds to me like he'd make a terrific keystone in this fortress we've been talking about--if we can afford him.

 

[shakadave]

Do teams that are great in this win more often, all other things equal?

RB- There are many top RBs on losing teams.
WR- Name the last All-World WR to get a ring. Rice was a stud WR that was on a team that always won. Who else?
DL- Good DLs seem to be winning teams moreso than other spots. Teams that stop the run win.
LB- Many teams with 'decent' LBs win. Their impact depends a lot on the rest of the D
DB- We have seen first hand a rag tag secondary can win. The very top corners in the NFL right now don't have more rings than their counterparts at other positions.

OL- It seems more common than any other facet of the game that a team with an excellent OL almost always is in the playoffs and challenging for titles.
Off the top, the best OLs in the NFL would generally be considered Denver, Pitt, Indy, Seattle, all perennial playoff teams. Other teams such as Buffalo, Miami, Houston, have underachieved primarily because of the OL.

A great OL does not make a Champion, but a Champion caliber team otherwise, dominates when they build a great OL.

Stop it, I can't handle it --- ANOTHER OUTSTANDING POST ON THIS THREAD!!!

P.S. Is the O-line of KC a counterexample to the above? Or San Diego?

 

[Ring 6]

I dont know if KC is the counterexample, because they have been competitve and good on offense. I guess it creates the corrollary: If yuo flat out suck on D it doesnt matter.

SD actually is a good supporting example. They became competitve and good as soon as they put together a good OL. Although I dont think its the caliber of the others I mentioned.