Pats will not draft LB in 1st rd

[DaBruinz]

As I have said several times, I won't say the Patriots WON'T draft a LB #1 but I won't believe they will until I see it.

Belichick is not predictable, obviously. But this is MORE than a trend. It's clearly a philosophy.

Regarding the so-called other things Belichick surprised us with :

Second TE - now that's NOT a surprise. Come on.
Interior OL ? Yeah, that was a surprise but it was 32nd in a weak draft. And still a lineman.
RB ? Again a surprise but we have one starting RB, 4 starting LB. If we legitimitely considered LB high we would have four times the likelihood of drafting one vs. a RB simply because we need more of them.

Say what you want, 18% of our starting lineup is LB and we haven't drafted one on day one. That's a damn philosophy people.

Its not a philosophy. To say so actually BUCKS what BB has said. Which is that they haven't been able to find players who fill their LB needs. Though Vilma DOES and BB ended up with Wilfork and Watson as consolation prizes. There are very FEW LBs BB feels can come right in and play. However, this is one of the deepest LB drafts in the past several years and I honestly believe we WILL see a Day 1 LB and probably a round 1 LB.

Out of curiosity, how many drafts since BB got here have the Pats NEEDED LB help? How many drafts have had the depth of Patriot-Type players that BB looks for at the LB position?

I thought the Pats needed LB help in 2003, but they signed Colvin and drafted TBC. In 2005, I thought they might need it and they drafted Ryan Claridge. It turned out the REALLY needed it, but they didn't know about Ted Johnson's condition until AFTER the draft. Which I fault the team doctors for missing at the end of season physical. In 2006, I thought they needed it and they drafted Jeremy Mincey. Mincey would probably have made the team except that he took a lackadaisical approach to camp and figured he'd have a full year to learn the system before having to produce.

In 2003, the LBs available included Nick Barnett, Boss Bailey, E.J. Henderson, Pisa Tinoisamoa, Kawika Mitchell, Eddie Moore, Terry Pierce, Chaun Thompson, Victor Hobson, Antwan Peek, Lance Briggs, Gerald Hayes, Sam Williams, Willie Grant, Angelo Crowell, Bradie James, Matt Wilhelm.

I think Colvin far surpasses any of those players. Except maybe Briggs. But Briggs is a 4-3 OLB who doesn't want to play in the 3-4.

In 2005, the pickings were pretty slim. You had Barrett Ruud, Odell Thurman, and Channing Crowder as big names. Yes, there was Lofa Tatupu, but many had him placed as a 3rd to 4th rounder and the Seahawks took him in the 2nd. You also had David Pollack, DeMarcus Ware, and Kevin Burnett as OLB. This was one of the weakest LB drafts ever.

2006 was stronger than 2005, but only at OLB. You had D'qwell Jackson at ILB during the draft and Abdul Hodge during the supplemental draft. You also had Bobby Carpenter, AJ Hawk, Chad Greenway, Ernie Sims, Demeco Ryans, and Rocky McIntosh.

How many of them would have fit into the Pats system? The Pats thought some of them would, but didn't see the value when they were picking. Or the players were already off the board when the Pats picked.

Anyyhow, think about it some. This draft is the strongest since 2003 at the LB position. The Pats KNOW that Bruschi has 1 year left, maybe 2. Vrabel doesn't have many years either. And they know they need to fill the pipeline some.

 

[DaBruinz]

As a theoretical argument that's all well and good.

For this draft, though, it doesn't do much because unless Willis unexpectedly slides I don't think many people think the best VALUE at #24 will be a LB. If we take a LB at 24 (or 28) outside of Willis it would be a value reach IMO.

OK. You are entitled to YOUR opinion. However, does your opinion take into consideration all the factors that I have mentioned in my other post? Do you have some inside information on how the Pats draft board is set up?

 

[BelichickFan]

Does that include The Poz?

IMO yes. Others, I'm sure, will disagree. I like a lot of things about him and wouldn't have a problem if they drafted him. But his size is questionable as is his size potential so I don't think of him as a great value for the Patriots.

 

[BelichickFan]

Anyyhow, think about it some. This draft is the strongest since 2003 at the LB position.

Well you might be right about that, it depends how the Patriots feel about the negatives of the various ILB prospects. Are they willing to overlook the size of Beason and Timmons, the non bulkly lower section of Posluzny and the questionable coverage skills of Siler and Harris.

I don't know. But I do know that it's not a coincidence that while 18% of their starters are LB and they've had 32 (if I counted right) picks in the first 4 rounds under Belichick and zero of them have been LB when, based on their number of starters, 6 of those picks should have been LB.

 

[hobbsownscoles]

Well you might be right about that, it depends how the Patriots feel about the negatives of the various ILB prospects. Are they willing to overlook the size of Beason and Timmons, the non bulkly lower section of Posluzny and the questionable coverage skills of Siler and Harris.

QUOTE]

Yeah but every LB has negatives coming in the league,

 

[BelichickFan]

Yeah but every LB has negatives coming in the league

Again, I am not saying we won't draft one in the first round. It's not inconceivable that we could draft two.

But when LB make up 18% of your starting lineup and you've had 32 picks in the first four rounds and don't take one LB . . . it makes you say . . . hmmmm.

 

[DaBruinz]

Again, I am not saying we won't draft one in the first round. It's not inconceivable that we could draft two.

But when LB make up 18% of your starting lineup and you've had 32 picks in the first four rounds and don't take one LB . . . it makes you say . . . hmmmm.

Based on BB's philosophy, no, actually, it doesn't. Especially when you take into consideration the strength of previous drafts and when the Patriots had the need (which IS part of the value equation) and the talent that has or hasn't been available.

 

[BelichickFan]

Based on BB's philosophy, no, actually, it doesn't. Especially when you take into consideration the strength of previous drafts and when the Patriots had the need (which IS part of the value equation) and the talent that has or hasn't been available.

I guess part of it is whether it's the chicken or the egg. Did they sign Colvin because he was too good to pass up and then have no need at LB or did they sign Colvin because they want veteran LB not rookies. I can see your side; but an equally strong argument is they sign the vet FA at LB because they want vets there.

I thought we were taking Manny Lawson last year but we didn't. Maybe it's because they don't want Vrabel to move inside. But we had a need an OLB last year and passed on a guy who I think could have been a long term solution. Now we sign Thomas. Again, is it just opportunity knocking - or is it because Belichick would prefer to pay a vet LB over drafting a rookie.

I don't know . . . but the numbers still make me a doubter that we draft a LB #1.

 

[DaBruinz]

I guess part of it is whether it's the chicken or the egg. Did they sign Colvin because he was too good to pass up and then have no need at LB or did they sign Colvin because they want veteran LB not rookies. I can see your side; but an equally strong argument is they sign the vet FA at LB because they want vets there.

I thought we were taking Manny Lawson last year but we didn't. Maybe it's because they don't want Vrabel to move inside. But we had a need an OLB last year and passed on a guy who I think could have been a long term solution. Now we sign Thomas. Again, is it just opportunity knocking - or is it because Belichick would prefer to pay a vet LB over drafting a rookie.

I don't know . . . but the numbers still make me a doubter that we draft a LB #1.

Again, it goes to VALUE. If the Pats felt that Lawson didn't offer the VALUE that Maroney did, the point is moot. Had Maroney been off the table, then the Pats may have taken Lawson.

Now, about Colvin. I believe that Colvin was signed prior to the draft in 2003. I believe that the Pats looked at Colvin and saw someone who could come right in and fit into the system instead of needing at least half a season to be productive.

Also, as BB has said, they expect a LOT from their LBs and just because the guy is coming out of college doesn't mean they are going to cut him any slack. Either the player has what the Pats need or he doesn't. If not, then the Pats aren't going to take him early. I think that the Pats would definitely have taken Vilma in 2004 if the Jets hadn't. Then, Wilfork could have potentially fallen to 32 or the Pats could have traded up for him. We'll never know. But I won't be surprised if the Pats take a LB in round 1. I won't be surprised if they don't.

It all depends on how BB sees the draft class and whether he feels that one of them can be ready for the ILB position in a year. My guess is that Bradley or DeOssie could be. In fact, I think DeOssie has a leg up on most people since he's been around the team before. Of course, that could also work against him since BB knows what he is getting.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

It all depends on how BB sees the draft class and whether he feels that one of them can be ready for the ILB position in a year. My guess is that Bradley or DeOssie could be. In fact, I think DeOssie has a leg up on most people since he's been around the team before. Of course, that could also work against him since BB knows what he is getting.

If the criteria were an ILB who could take reps this season, then DeOssie doesn't match the need coming from a small school program. I'd consider him further along than many due to size, but despite his background and smarts, he just isn't ready mentally for the violence at this level. Harris, Bradley, Waters, Robison, and Bishop would be the most ready for ILB, maybe the McLee, Harrington or Washington kids as UDFA. The issue with all these kids is field vision, how well do they read keys? Harris and Bradley were exceptional in the vanilla Senior Bowl, does their game tape from the season support their All-Star performance?

Bradley was signing autographs at the Nebraska Spring scrimmage last night, he looks like Vrabes baby brother.

 

[shakadave]

Exhibit A: 2006 Draft
Common Thought: No way the Pats draft a RB in the 1st round.

Did many people really say No way? We had Corey Dillon aging and past his prime. "No way" was "No way" my thinking then!

Reality: Pats drafted Laurence Maroney

Exhibit B: 2005 Draft
Common Thought: BB has never drafted an interior lineman in the 1st round because they are a dime a dozen later on.
Reality: Pats "reached" and got Logan Mankins who is on the verge of being an ALL-PRO LG. So many Patriots have been called near-All-Pros on this forum. Most never even make it to the Pro Bowl. Koppen we hear about, Watson, Neal, Mankins, Hobbs, etc.

Exhibit C: 2004 Draft:
Common Thought: BB won't draft another TE in the 1st round.

Wait a minute. We had one very good TE for the future (Graham) and we like to run some 2-TE sets. Why not get a second one? Sure, hindsight is 20-20, but we need to be more careful with our "Common Thoughts".

Reality: BB drafted Ben Watson.

Every year its another MYTH about what BB will and won't draft in the 1st round. Every year, he breaks another myth. I'm with you here. My point is that these myths are unfounded. Maybe that's your point too.

If the Pats feel that Willis, Harris, Siler, or Beason is the Best VALUE available when their pick comes up, that is who they are going to take. That is how the Patriots DRAFT. By best VALUE.

This, I would offer, IS a myth! Best value my foot. Last year we took Maroney because we were getting desperate for depth and top-end talent at RB. (We still ended up with not enough!) Why was that not a need pick? When we took Wilfork, sure that may have been some of the best value on the board, but that was also a top need at the time!

BB has stated it on numerous occasions. OH, and before you start quoting me draft rankings from other sites, the Pats don't use them. The Pats rank the players by their OWN standards. The Pats are known to have one of the biggest, if not THE BIGGEST, scouting group in the league.

. .. ... ....

 

[shakadave]

i know beason seems like a good option, but i think if the pats decide LB is a major future need, they will trade our first this year to get a chance to take a LB next yr in a exceptional lb class.

I also think it's a MYTH that we get a better LB in an exceptional LB class! Assuming we're picking somewhere around 28th again, by the time it's our pick, the LB talent available is only slightly above average, PRECISELY BECAUSE IT'S AN EXCEPTIONAL LB CLASS! More of the teams ahead of us take a LB than usual, so that by late in Round 1 there is roughly the same talent available at all positions. (Any year would be this way.) For this reason, I think an exceptional LB class actually gives us a better chance for a good safety or running back.

 

[SamBamsFan]

If the criteria were an ILB who could take reps this season, then DeOssie doesn't match the need coming from a small school program. I'd consider him further along than many due to size, but despite his background and smarts, he just isn't ready mentally for the violence at this level. Harris, Bradley, Waters, Robison, and Bishop would be the most ready for ILB, maybe the McLee, Harrington or Washington kids as UDFA. The issue with all these kids is field vision, how well do they read keys? Harris and Bradley were exceptional in the vanilla Senior Bowl, does their game tape from the season support their All-Star performance?

Bradley was signing autographs at the Nebraska Spring scrimmage last night, he looks like Vrabes baby brother.

So he went out and finally got a decent hair cut?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

So he went out and finally got a decent hair cut?

It didn't look like he left his finger in the light socket, which may not rate decent, but wasn't as scary.