Position observations

[patchick]

With all the debate on whether the LB corps should be better or worse than 2005, maybe the key question is which 2005 we're talking about -- the unit that began the season or the unit that ended the season.

Looking at presumed primary contributors:

2005A: Willie, Colvin, Vrabel, Beisel, Brown
2005B: Willie, Colvin, Vrabel, Beisel, Bruschi
2006: Colvin, Vrabel, Beisel, Bruschi, Claridge

I think it's reasonable to project the 2006 lineup as clearly better than 2005A but not quite up to the level of 2005B. (Assuming that Beisel 2006 is better than Beisel 2005A, which is pretty likely.)

 

[kptmorgan04]

Mostly what we lose is depth, if Vrabel or Colvin gets hurt we have more of a problem now. But, yeah, the re-emergence of Colvin really gave us 3 starting OLB. If we can find someone to play a stout run defense with Bruschi on 1st and 2nd down, we have enough athletes to make something work in passing situations - when we'd usually have 3 DL, 3 LB and 5 DB anyway.

This is exactly what I was thinking at both LB and WR. As it is now at WR I think we are all hopefully assuming that Watson is going to transform into a big time pass catching target and pick up the slack for having a "1b receiver (who is in a contract dispute), a career underachiever, the ultimate 3rd WR in Troy, and a rookie. I have as much optimism as the next for Jackson, but until he gets on the field and starts catching balls and taking the abuse NFL hits I cant say that WR is improved.
As for LB, I like our starters as much as any other year (I am in the biesel will be improved camp), but we are one or two injuries away from disaster IMO. But the Pats are due to one day have a relatively injury free season, so maybe this will be it!

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

Nothing. I've said a few times that any dropoff we get from going from Givens to the winner of Caldwell/Jackson should be offset by the gain we get from going from Davis to the guy who ends up #3. Caldwell/Jackson should be as productive as Givens/Davis - actually moreso. The only negative to that thinking is we may not use our #3 WR as much this year if the TE stay healthy.

Actually Davis beat his man deep to haul in a 60-yard TD catch against New Orleans in a 24-17 win. Other than that he did nothing.

Everything else, I agree 100%. It wasn't like Givens raised the bar to a high level. Replacing his production shouldn't be hard to do. I don't see using the TEs at the expense of the #3 WR being a negative.

Utlimately, it comes down to injuries. If the Pats can generally stay healthy, they'll win it all.

 

[BelichickFan]

Actually Davis beat his man deep to haul in a 60-yard TD catch against New Orleans in a 24-17 win. Other than that he did nothing.

Right, nothing was an overstatement

He did have a nice 30+ yard catch in the Denver playoff game and was a solid gunner on ST late in the season. But nothing he did is not easily replaceable.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Speaking for myself only, I am still recovering a little from the Davis letdown because we gave up a significant draft pick for the guy, and didn't at least get him back in camp this year. I know we didn't see a lot from him last year, but his circumstances didn't permit it. I don't think he ran down the field and came up empty any more than Dave Patten used to all those years. Over the years, Brady has thrown many a long, pretty ball which hung nicely in the air, with nobody able to get there and catch it. I was hoping for Davis to at least give it another shot.

Just like Tommy Knight and Duane Starks, we give up draft picks for instant busts. I thought Davis might look better with a full training camp...

 

[BelichickFan]

Speaking for myself only, I am still recovering a little from the Davis letdown because we gave up a significant draft pick for the guy, and didn't at least get him back in camp this year.

I guess any draft pick can be considered significant, but a late #5 isn't exactly a high price. In retrospect I wish we hadn't done it but his contributions were OK for what we gave up. Now, a #3 for Starks, that's a different matter entirely.