Retirement leads to thin at ILB?

[mgteich]

You are in trouble then. Burgess is indeed training at OLB. I don't have any problem at all with our OLB's and our DL.

I also agree with your assessment that our primary backup at ILB is Thomas.

Trust me, I'm obviously right if Mark is taking the opposite side.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

You are in trouble then. Burgess is indeed training at OLB. I don't have any problem at all with our OLB's and our DL.

I also agree with your assessment that our primary backup at ILB is Thomas.

Oh no, this most certainly isn't a good thing when we agree!

 

[captain stone]

If there is no injury, your have no backup inside and no rotation except for the availability of Alexander. Perhaps it is overthinking to believe that Alexander has not all of a sudden become a quality backup linebacker. He never was before, and according to your post his time IR has helped so much that we can now depend on him.

We haven't seen a lot from Lenon. Bruschi is gone. So, what is the conclusion? The conclusion is that Guyton and Alexander are all of a sudden solid starter and solid backup???? IMHO, this is simply a wish given the circumstances.

"It is what it is". If we fail this year because of linebacker play, we will all say that we were unlucky and that the relative weakness of the inside linebacker position players was unforeseen. It is NOT unforeseen.

I agree, again.

The quality of our backup ILBs depends on the quality of play that Paris Lenon will give us.

Guyton is a nice story, but depending on him to provide starting-for-a-legit-SB-contender quality of play at either 3-4 WILB or 4-3 OLB is risky, at best.

And the FO should've done a better job to ensure that Effin Alexander & Cousin Vinnie could never have been considered serious contenders for a roster spot. Signing Andra Davis during the off-season, and drafting Brandon Siler instead of Oscar Effin Lua in '07 might've done just that.

 

[stcjones]

Seau < Tedy < what Bill Belichick wants at the position for this year

Arguably you can say Junior could give about equal to Tedy, but I can't say he gives anything more at all at this point.

This just means more base 4-3, IMO, unless a waiver wire cap casualty at ILB occurs somewhere. I find that doubtful, though, given the increased use of the 3-4 around the league and the rather stringent physical requirements BB likes to have in his linebackers.

I think you are right here sadly.....Junior may not have much left in the tank....just like Tedy said...."body doesn't heal that quickly".......

 

[stcjones]

The Patriots have the bodies to man the linebacking spots. The

question is whether they have the quality of linebacker required

to run the 3-4 defense. During their run of three Superbowl wins,

the Patriots had Mike Vrabel, Ted Johnson, Tedy Bruschi, Willie

McGinest, Roman Phifer, and later on Rosevelt Colvin. Does anyone

on this forum think that the current crop of linebackers can match

up to the forementioned group in a 3-4 defense?

perhaps not....time will tell

 

[mayoclinic]

I agree.

Sintim/Barwin would've been a better choice at 41 instead of Brace; Sintim for his ability both Inside & Outside, Barwin for his versatility as Rusher, TE & STs. And I would NOT have traded a 4th & 6th just to move up from 47 to 40.

We took Brace at 40, not 41 (we took Butler at 41). And the move up from 47 would have been key to getting any of Everett Brown (43 to Carolina), Sintim (45 to the Giants) or Barwin (46 to Houston). I think Brace has the potential to end up being the most valuable pick out of this draft for us if he either ends up replacing Wilfork (I hope not) or being used in a variety of 4-3 and 3-4 schemes as both a DT and DE the way Baltimore uses Haloti Ngata (I hope so).

I wanted Barwin as much as anyone, and will always believe he would have been a huge success for us. I would have been fine with Sintim, who has looked excellent for the Giants so far this preseason, and who has nice inside/outside versatility somewhat reminiscent of Adalius Thomas. But we couldn't take everyone, and we seem to have done pretty well with our 4 picks.

 

[captain stone]

Butler @ 34;

Barwin or Sintim @ 41;

Chung (or Will Moore, if unavail.) @ 47, no trade with Uncle Al for #40;

Will Beatty @ 58.

That's what I would've done.

 

[JSn]

Butler @ 34;

Barwin or Sintim @ 41;

Chung (or Will Moore, if unavail.) @ 47, no trade with Uncle Al for #40;

Will Beatty @ 58.

That's what I would've done.

Luckily, it wasn't you that popped out of Mrs. Belichick's womb.

 

[DW Toys]

Butler @ 34;

Barwin or Sintim @ 41;

Chung (or Will Moore, if unavail.) @ 47, no trade with Uncle Al for #40;

Will Beatty @ 58.

That's what I would've done.

Not a Barwin guy but not bad.
DW Toys

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Luckily, it wasn't you that popped out of Mrs. Belichick's womb.

Must not bite on straight line...

 

[BradyFTW!]

Butler @ 34;

Barwin or Sintim @ 41;

Chung (or Will Moore, if unavail.) @ 47, no trade with Uncle Al for #40;

Will Beatty @ 58.

That's what I would've done.

So basically you'd rather have Barwin/Simtim and Beatty than Brace and Vollmer. Fair enough, will be interesting to see how their respective career arcs turn out.

 

[captain stone]

I would have drafted either Barwin or Sintim instead of Brace for 2 reasons:

At the time of the draft, there was no talk here about playing a base 4-3. Therefore, I didn't see the need to use the #40 overall pick on a perceived backup NT. Not that Brace was over-drafted; he was a consensus mid 2nd-rounder. And we def. needed a quality backup, because Mike Wright should be nobody's idea of a NT. But at #40 overall? I might've used #94 last year on Red Bryant instead.

The other reason is that at the time, we needed - and IMHO, still do - young talent at OLB, esp. at 3-4 OLB. Nothing that has happened this pre-season - incl. the panic trade for a poss. washed-up Derrick Burgess - has caused me to change that opinion. Woods & Crable inspire Zero confidence, and TBC & Ninkovich are merely stop-gap 3rd-stringers.

As for SeaBass: if there had been a poll, taken the day before the draft, which asked those of us in the Draft Forum whom would they choose btwn. Beatty & Vollmer, I wouldn't have been surprised if the choice of Beatty had been near-unanimous.

Naturally, I hope that Bill's right & I'm wrong; but as you said, it will be interesting indeed to see how things turn out.

 

[mgteich]

The two choices are somewhat unrelated.

VOLLMER vs. Beatty
I think that it is really good that a patsfans poster poll wasn't use to choose betwen thse two.

BRACE vs Sintim, Brawin or Brown
This may have had much more to do with insurance against the loss of Wilfork than any perceived need or lack of it at ILB.
==========================

TWO COMMENTS
1) We needed to trade up and make sure we had pick #40 to make sure we got Butler as well as Brace. Many wanted Butler at 34.
2) It was the 34 pick that might have been used for a LB, perhaps even with a slight trade down.

I would have drafted either Barwin or Sintim instead of Brace for 2 reasons:

At the time of the draft, there was no talk here about playing a base 4-3. Therefore, I didn't see the need to use the #40 overall pick on a perceived backup NT. Not that Brace was over-drafted; he was a consensus mid 2nd-rounder. And we def. needed a quality backup, because Mike Wright should be nobody's idea of a NT. But at #40 overall? I might've used #94 last year on Red Bryant instead.

The other reason is that at the time, we needed - and IMHO, still do - young talent at OLB, esp. at 3-4 OLB. Nothing that has happened this pre-season - incl. the panic trade for a poss. washed-up Derrick Burgess - has caused me to change that opinion. Woods & Crable inspire Zero confidence, and TBC & Ninkovich are merely stop-gap 3rd-stringers.

As for SeaBass: if there had been a poll, taken the day before the draft, which asked those of us in the Draft Forum whom would they choose btwn. Beatty & Vollmer, I wouldn't have been surprised if the choice of Beatty had been near-unanimous.

Naturally, I hope that Bill's right & I'm wrong; but as you said, it will be interesting indeed to see how things turn out.

 

[captain stone]

VOLLMER vs. Beatty
I think that it is really good that a patsfans poster poll wasn't use to choose betwen thse two.
That remains to be seen.

BRACE vs Sintim, Brawin or Brown
This may have had much more to do with insurance against the loss of Wilfork than any perceived need or lack of it at ILB.
Agreed.

==========================

TWO COMMENTS
1) We needed to trade up and make sure we had pick #40 to make sure we got Butler as well as Brace. Many wanted Butler at 34.
I def. wanted Butler at 34, and was afraid that we had lost our chance at him when Chung was chosen.

2) It was the 34 pick that might have been used for a LB, perhaps even with a slight trade down.

Do you mean a LB such as Laurinaitis or Maualuga?

 

[mgteich]

Yes.

Laurinitis was my choice.

Do you mean a LB such as Laurinaitis or Maualuga?

 

[AzPatsFan]

I think this LB corps has more talented depth at real linebacking, then any previous Belichick LB corps. Some of it is yet to fully establish themselves.

Even as I admit that the starting front line players were better proven in other years.

Want Proof? Consider that Paris Lenon may not make this squad but he is miles ahead of Larry Izzo if he had to actually play linebacker.

 

[AzPatsFan]

The Patriots have the bodies to man the linebacking spots. The

question is whether they have the quality of linebacker required

to run the 3-4 defense. During their run of three Superbowl wins,

the Patriots had Mike Vrabel, sometimes Ted Johnson, occasionally Tedy Bruschi, most of the time Willie

McGinest, Roman Phifer, and later on virtually little of Rosevelt Colvin. Does anyone

on this forum think that the current crop of linebackers can match

up to the forementioned group in a 3-4 defense?



There I fixed it for you...

 

[BradyFTW!]

Here's our LB groups by year, rather than just throwing together every good LB we had over a 4 year span:

2001: Bruschi, Chatham, Cox, Johnson, Phifer, Vrabel
2003: TBC, Bruschi, Chatham, Don Davis, Ted Johnson, McGinest, Phifer, Vrabel
2004: TBC, Bruschi, Chatham, Colvin, Davis, Johnson, McGinest, Phifer, Vrabel

I'd rate the current LB corps above 2001, and below 2003/04. but not by much. IMO the 2009 LB corps has the potential to be that good (maybe even better) if Mayo and Guyton both make a significant second-year leap.

 

[mayoclinic]

The two choices are somewhat unrelated.

VOLLMER vs. Beatty
I think that it is really good that a patsfans poster poll wasn't use to choose betwen thse two.

BRACE vs Sintim, Brawin or Brown
This may have had much more to do with insurance against the loss of Wilfork than any perceived need or lack of it at ILB.
==========================

TWO COMMENTS
1) We needed to trade up and make sure we had pick #40 to make sure we got Butler as well as Brace. Many wanted Butler at 34.
2) It was the 34 pick that might have been used for a LB, perhaps even with a slight trade down.

First, Barwin and Beatty were my top 2 prospects for 23 and 34 going into the draft, and I would have been thrilled to get them there, not to mention 40-41 and 58. From what I've been able to tell following Houston and the Giants, there's no reason so far to suspect that either one won't turn out to be a very good player in the long run.

As far as the Beatty/Vollmer comparison goes, there's no doubt Beatty was rated more highly as a prospect (late 1st-early 2nd round vs. 3rd-4th round for Vollmer). But Vollmer has so far shown promise of becoming much more than he was rumored to be, with a rare combination of size, athleticism, toughness (which Beatty may lack) and nice feet. He reminds me a bit of Michael Roos from Tennessee. Beatty may have rare footwork and be better against speed rushers, but Vollmer looks like he will be a more complete tackle with better positional versatility, and able to make a significant contribution sooner. So I'm very happy with this pick, even though I think Beatty would have been a worthy addition at #58.

I think Chung, Brace and Butler are all solid picks. I will always believe Barwin would have been a terrific 3-4 OLB for the Pats' in a year or so, and may have contributed sooner. But I can't argue against the choices made by the team. My real peeve is that the idiot commisioner took away our 1st round pick in 2008 which we could have used to draft Kenny Phillips. Then we could have taken Butler at 34, Brace at 40, and Barwin at 41. I think Chung will be excellent for us, but Phillips and Meriweather were terrific at the U together and Phillips probably has more range than Chung. Plus he would really have helped our porous secondary last year. Oh well, can't have everything.