Prediction: Unexpected first pick

[AzPatsFan]

You can win with a heady QB who knows enough to throw them where they ain't. But franchise QBs have more. they have a cannon AND knowing to throw it where they ain't. Brady and Cassel had all the athletic credentials. Brady actually lacked one, he is not a scrambler but does have superior pocket mobility.

I like Hoyer. I think he could be a Brian Sipe type winner. But I don't think he has the accuracy, height or arm of Brady or Cassel, and certainly not Franchise type athletic abilities.

All of you act like it is not possible for Brady to go down, a mere two years after it actually happened. Plus he is getting older. Just how many draft picks can you use to get the one or two players needed to improve the club? Surely there is enough to add a QB, too.

I would be comfortable with no high draft picks with the returning IR players. To be exact former pro-bowlers Bodden, Gostkowski, and Ty Warren. Along with capable starters and reserves Neal, Kaczur, Faulk, Brace, McGowan, Wilhite, and one or two FAs, a lot fewer than BB usually brings in.

Add UFA Richard Seymour, paid for with Moss set-aside money, and this Defense would be the near equivalent of the mythical '85 Bears.

The reason the Pats have 37 turnovers is simple; talented, youthful, SPEED.

Speed Kills!

 

[ctpatsfan77]

All of you act like it is not possible for Brady to go down, a mere two years after it actually happened. Plus he is getting older. Just how many draft picks can you use to get the one or two players needed to improve the club? Surely there is enough to add a QB, too.

Again, it's a question of relative value, not absolute value.

 

[SanAngeloState]

It's Jake Locker, he of the 5-16 for 51 yards in his bowl game.

Yep, that's a first round steal all right.

I hate the logic of it. Kind of a "just draft this guy, sit him on the bench (for 4 years!) and presto! Instant QB!". It doesn't work that way. Lots of QBs sit for a while and then bust. There's no guarantee a QB who "sits" automatically becomes good. If he is good, then by the time he plays, he's at the end of his rookie contract and you pay him FA money for him to stay. So what have you gained? Spent millions on a guy who's done nothing and now he's a FA. Brilliant.

 

[DaBruinz]

I predict that BB will pick an unexpected position with his first pick.

He will draft a QB if one such as Dane Locker slips, as seems probable.
Consider the following:

1) The rosters are expanding making more room. This is not set in stone, but it is likely
2) The rookie wage scale will make keeping a third QB on the squad less costly. Keeping a 3rd qb has never been an issue, cost wise, because the 3rd qb is almost never a 1st round pick you are paying top dollar for.
3) Brady is 33 and when he is 37, the new QB will be ready. You think that having a 1st round pick sit on the bench for 4 years is a cost effective move?
4) Belichick plans for both now and the future. This is true..
5) Belichick prefers QBs who have weathered adversity, and kept their POISE.
Examples:
Brady has to fight off Golden Boy Henson; Hoyer had to play on undermanned Michigan State against Ohio State and Michigan. Cassel had to sit behind two Heismann Trophy winners, Palmer and Leinart.
All were better for the adversity.
What about the other QBs they've drafted. Rohan Davey? Zac Robinson? Kevin O'Connell? I don't believe they fit into the who "adversity" thing you mentioned. Also, I don't believe that Cassel faced adversity by sitting behind Leinhart. He did what he could to help make his team better..


6) Locker has all the athletic credentials, size, height, arm strength and RB speed; but a poor team led to a poor season at Washington State.
7) Hoyer looks like a find; whether he can become a franchise QB is debatable. Many people said the exact same thing about some kid named Tom Brady back in 2001...
8) Belichick never depends on a single player at a position, he frequently obtains a few candidates. Belichick isn't "depending" on a single player at a position. At QB, they have Hoyer and Crompton behind Brady. And Crompton has stuck around despite not being the "prototypical type of QB" that BB seems to look for.

Sorry, but that is absurd.. You don't waste a 1st round pick on a QB to sit on the bench for 4 years.

If you look at every single 1st pick that BB has added since he and Pioli were doing their own draft lists, the Pats have added a player who was supposed to (and did) have an impact in their 1st year.

Light, Seymour, Graham, Warren, Wilfork, Mankins, Maroney, Meriweather, Mayo, Butler, McCourty.

While some of your points are valid, the leap you make with it is laughable.

 

[bucky]

Add UFA Richard Seymour, paid for with Moss set-aside money, and this Defense would be the near equivalent of the mythical '85 Bears.

Not sure which is more likely to happen in 2011 - Jake Locker to Pats at 17, Seymour coming back, the Sun burning out, or Jake Locker changing his name to "Dane" with the hope of not being associated with that idiot who didn't declare for the draft in 2010 and threw away millions of dollars.

 

[DaBruinz]

i would like to add a couple of comments and counters to posters comments.

I too would like to get "someone who would play". The only position that any super rookie is likely to play is at OLB. Everywhere else the draftees will sit and learn, just like a QB. This Team is that deep. Wrong. The only position that a "super rookie" is NOT likely to play is QB and LCB. All the others are up for grabs...

With a rookie cap the price to carry a developing QB is a lot less than formerly, and the roster room will be there too, when the CBA expands the rosters, and puts in place a rookie scale. It is just that developing a QB properly rather than tossing him in, Sink or Swim, is 3+ years. Considering that you have absolutely no idea what the rookie cap will be, there is no way you can support this statement. In terms of VALUE, you can't take someone in the 1st round and have him sit on the bench for 4 -5 years doing nothing.

I think the example of both Brady and Cassel is an example of Belichick taking the appropriate time lest you ruin a guy prematurely. Brady would have won the job in his third year, if Bledsoe hadn't gone down in his mid second year, and after two training camps of learning, and one year as the designated backup, just like Hoyer is doing. That is a possibility, but there is no way you can say it was a foregone conclusion.

With all the draft picks that the Patriots have they have more than an ample number of high picks to draft a OLB, DE, and RB and a developmental OL. Let us know when you stopped and actually looked at the roster because, right now, the O-line has HUGE question marks going into the off-season. Both Light and Mankins are UFA. Neal and Kaczur are coming off of major injuries, both are on the + side of 30 and both have had major injury issues in the past. Connolly and Wendell have been adequate, but it's been night and day since Mankins got back..

RB is NOT an issue except for depth. There is no need to spend a "high pick" on a RB. Not with Green-Ellis and Woodhead there.

It seems to me Belichick prefers RBBC including an ex-starter veteran.

When do you expect the Team to be drafting this low in the First Round, again? When wil they have the low draft pick and be able to pick a talent like former consensus #1 pick Dane Locker. Sorry, but Locker wasn't ever the CONSENSUS #1 pick. And, considering that there are plenty of teams out there that NEED a QB, it's not likely for Locker to be there at 17, regardless of what you have said.

Buffalo, Seattle, Miami, Dallas, Arizona, Minnesota, Washington, San Fran and possibly Carolina will be looking at 1st round QBs... Whether or not Luck goes #1, I think there are plenty of teams who will be looking at Locker that I am fairly confident in saying that he'll be off the board before the 10th pick.

You make a lot of assumptions and seem to skip over other pertinent information. You seem to think that the Pats are "set at all positions" when that is the farthest thing from the truth. You're argument is actually boarding on the insanity of a Jets fan...

 

[DaBruinz]

Is now the time to flip Hoyer for a draft pick and start developing the next back-up?

There`s a lot of need out there for QB`s.

No.. after the 2011 season is the time to think about flipping Hoyer..

But not without the next understudy in the pipeline..

 

[DaBruinz]

Poise, control of the offense, anticipation, accuracy, toughness, ... it's a lot like watching a southpaw mini-me version of Brady reading defenses and picking them apart. He may not have the physical tools to be a franchise QB, but who knows, it's not like the kid is a stranger to winning.

While those intangibles are good, Moore is missing the one thing that Brady, Cassel and Hoyer have. Height. Brady is 6'4 and 3/8, Cassel is 6'4 and 3/8 and Hoyer is 6'2. Moore is 5'11 and 6/8.. If you can't see over the linemen, it's kinda hard to read the defenses...

 

[UofApatsfan]

Add UFA Richard Seymour, paid for with Moss set-aside money, and this Defense would be the near equivalent of the mythical '85 Bears.

It would be a massive understatement to say Seymour's breakup with New England was frosty. Last summer when he was a free agent, he said there were 31 teams he would be willing to sign with. You can guess what the 1 team left out was. This is the most ridiculous part of the thread.

 

[UofApatsfan]

If they had no major needs 2-3 years from now and there was a great QB prospect they could get in the 1st round, then it starts to make sense. Ideally you do it like Green Bay did, Rogers was on the bench for 3 seasons learning everything before Favre "retired". A 1st round QB sitting any longer than 3 seasons is when it becomes stupid.

 

[patchick]

So you're looking for a starting QB for 4-5 years from now? Hmm...here's a list of all of the QBs the BB Patriots have drafted in rounds 6 & 7:

Tom Brady
Kliff Kingsbury
Matt Cassel

Heck, that's not half bad!

So how about you just draft one or two toward the end of the draft for the next 4 years until you find the next guy? Throw a bunch at the wall and see what sticks, rather than gambling a draft pick that's worth many dozens of those late picks on a single player? Hey, I think I'll call my awesome idea "quality depth management!"

 

[DaBruinz]

You can win with a heady QB who knows enough to throw them where they ain't. But franchise QBs have more. they have a cannon AND knowing to throw it where they ain't. Brady and Cassel had all the athletic credentials. Brady actually lacked one, he is not a scrambler but does have superior pocket mobility.

I like Hoyer. I think he could be a Brian Sipe type winner. But I don't think he has the accuracy, height or arm of Brady or Cassel, and certainly not Franchise type athletic abilities.

All of you act like it is not possible for Brady to go down, a mere two years after it actually happened. Plus he is getting older. Just how many draft picks can you use to get the one or two players needed to improve the club? Surely there is enough to add a QB, too.

No. You act like drafting a QB in the first round and having him sit for 5 years actually makes sense when it doesn't.

Stop being stupid. No one said or even implied that it's not possible for Brady to go down. That is you stating things that just aren't being said.

What is plainly clear to me is that you think your idea of sitting a 1st round pick on the bench for 4 years has merit. It doesn't. It's complete idiocy. And it's something that Belichick wouldn't do. At all. Period.

I would be comfortable with no high draft picks with the returning IR players. To be exact former pro-bowlers Bodden, Gostkowski, and Ty Warren. Along with capable starters and reserves Neal, Kaczur, Faulk, Brace, McGowan, Wilhite, and one or two FAs, a lot fewer than BB usually brings in.

This has nothing to do with the absurdity you've posted. Nothing. It's you trying to convince people that you are being sane in your thinking when, in reality, you aren't thinking at all..

Add UFA Richard Seymour, paid for with Moss set-aside money, and this Defense would be the near equivalent of the mythical '85 Bears.

The reason the Pats have 37 turnovers is simple; talented, youthful, SPEED.

Speed Kills!

While speed kills, it has nothing to do with the Pats adding a QB in the 1st round.. Not to mention that there are different types of speed.. There is game speed. Timed speed. Read/React speed. Again, nothing that supports your idea of drafting a 1st round QB and having him sit for 4-5 years.

 

[DaBruinz]

If they had no major needs 2-3 years from now and there was a great QB prospect they could get in the 1st round, then it starts to make sense. Ideally you do it like Green Bay did, Rogers was on the bench for 3 seasons learning everything before Favre "retired". A 1st round QB sitting any longer than 3 seasons is when it becomes stupid.

I think that most people feel that the Packers waited at least 1 year too long to go to Aaron Rodgers full time.. That last year there, the Packers made the play-offs despite Favre and they couldn't over-come his interception prone-ness.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I predict that BB will pick an unexpected position with his first pick.

He will draft a QB if one such as Dane Locker slips, as seems probable.

Who in the world is Dane Locker? QB's not a need. BB has proven he can find diamonds in the rough at the position. Brady with a 6th and Cassel with a 7th. There's really no need to spend a high pick on a QB when Brady is here for the forseeable future. I'm not drafting a 1st round QB to have them sit for the next 5 years.

Is now the time to flip Hoyer for a draft pick and start developing the next back-up?

There`s a lot of need out there for QB`s.

You're joking right? Hoyer isn't worth anything right now. Unlike Cassel he's not a hot commodity who proved himself for a whole season.
Stick with the guy you know until you get someone who looks more promising.
There's no guarantee that the Pats would get a better guy in the draft.
We spent a 3rd rounder on Kevin O'Connell and although he had physical tools he ended up being cut in a year.

 

[rookBoston]

If you look at every single 1st pick that BB has added since he and Pioli were doing their own draft lists, the Pats have added a player who was supposed to (and did) have an impact in their 1st year.

Light, Seymour, Graham, Warren, Wilfork, Mankins, Maroney, Meriweather, Mayo, Butler, McCourty.

Butler was a 2nd round pick that year, not a 1st. The first player selected by the Pats that year was Chung, at the top of the 2nd. We didn't draft a player in the first round that year.

That said, I 100% agree with you. Contrary to popular philosphy, BB drafts for NEED!! lol to all the draft gurus who talk about BPA.

 

[bucky]

If you look at every single 1st pick that BB has added since he and Pioli were doing their own draft lists, the Pats have added a player who was supposed to (and did) have an impact in their 1st year.

Light, Seymour, Graham, Warren, Wilfork, Mankins, Maroney, Meriweather, Mayo, Butler, McCourty.

Fact check - for a poster who often comes down hard on other posters who don't have their facts straight.

Light was not the first guy picked in 2000. He was picked the same year as Seymour. BB's first pick in 2000 was Adrian Klemm. Klemm played sparingly as a rookie.

Butler was not the first pick in 2009, as pointed out by rookBoston. Chung was the first pick. He played almost exclusively on special teams.

Meriweather had a marginal impact as a rookie, nor was he intended to. Merriweather, Maroney, Chung, and McCourty were not intended to be significant contributors as rookies when they were drafted. Although I would say that all were looked at as starters in year 2.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I think that most people feel that the Packers waited at least 1 year too long to go to Aaron Rodgers full time.. That last year there, the Packers made the play-offs despite Favre and they couldn't over-come his interception prone-ness.

When Rodgers came in against the Cowboys when Favre was injured he looked very competant right from the start, he almost dug the team out of the hole Favre dug them into.

Also, one of the reasons the Packers drafted Rodgers and then had him sit on the bench was that they didnt know when Favre would retire, he could have called it quits any time at that point, they needed someone ready to go in case he decided to make good on his retirement talk.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

So you're looking for a starting QB for 4-5 years from now? Hmm...here's a list of all of the QBs the BB Patriots have drafted in rounds 6 & 7:

Tom Brady
Kliff Kingsbury
Matt Cassel

*cough*

Zac Robinson

*cough*

 

[ctpatsfan77]

What is plainly clear to me is that you think your idea of sitting a 1st round pick on the bench for 4 years has merit. It doesn't. It's complete idiocy. And it's something that Belichick wouldn't do. At all. Period.

Purely hypothetical question: if BB knew that Brady would retire in year X, do you think he'd consider spending a first on a QB the year before?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

You're joking right? Hoyer isn't worth anything right now. Unlike Cassel he's not a hot commodity who proved himself for a whole season.

Stick with the guy you know until you get someone who looks more promising.
There's no guarantee that the Pats would get a better guy in the draft.
We spent a 3rd rounder on Kevin O'Connell and although he had physical tools he ended up being cut in a year.

(A) Matt Schaub, and, apparently, Matt Flynn say hi. [Funny how that works. . . .]
(B) I suspect that whatever went wrong with O'Connell had something to do with McDaniels leaving. I still wonder why Belichick didn't send O'Connell with him as a 'parting gift', or, for that matter, include him in the trade for Derrick Burgess. (Crazy Al also wanted Vollmer, though, which was a non-starter.)