Rob Rang's 2-round mock for Patriots

[fair catch fryar]

Please merge or delete if this is already a thread, but I didn't see it anywhere.
I do have to say I like how the picks would obviously fill some needs, but not sure if BB would make these picks this way even if he hung on the his original picks. I like Odrick and Tate, can't really make a call on Tebow because I'm too novice and I don't know much about Gronkowski. Thoughts?

Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

 

[Marqui]

Still don't get why the Patriots need to bend over backwards to make Tebow feel comfortable.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Ugghh... he has us taking Tebow. :bricks: Shoot me now!

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

Ugghh... he has us taking Tebow. :bricks: Shoot me now!

Dude... It's weird but I kinda want Tebow. I have a good feeling about the guy. I think If the Pats draft him he'll be less likely to be a bust than if drafted by some other team like the Bills or Jags.

 

[patchick]

When people project Tebow to the Pats because they think a long-term project at QB makes sense for the team, I'm ok with that. He wouldn't be my choice, but I can understand the thinking. (Though I'd understand it a whole lot more if they'd consider Colt McCoy, too!) But this kind of thing, not so much:

"Part of it is the versatility that Tebow could bring to any club, perhaps not only to play quarterback but also some H-back roles, potentially groomed at the tight end position, which is an area of concern in New England. I think that type of versatility would intrigue them."

IMO, you don't bring in a QB who needs massive (re)education to become an NFL quarterback, AND teach him to be an NFL tight end. It's one or the other; if you really have hopes for him as a starting QB, you don't ****** his development by turning him into a TE. And if Rang means one or the other but not both, that's not really "versatility," is it?

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'm not a Tebow hater either... I can't speak to whether his mechanics can't work in the NFL - but his college career compares favorably to other SEC QBs (better than Eli and Peyton Manning among others.)

Tim Tebow more accurate in college than Peyton or Eli Manning - Kerry J. Byrne - SI.com

That being said my feeling is that BB would love to have teams beyond 22 thinking that he's prepared to pull the trigger at 22... I think Bill would love to have a nice trade offer to move back a few spots and pick up an additional pick in this draft or in future drafts.

The best way to do that is to have the many teams out there who are willing to spend a 2nd round draft choice on Tebow believe that he's going at 22.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

This is a very interesting mock. I would substitute Gerhart for Tebow. Interesting that he has not addressed the OLB position.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

When people project Tebow to the Pats because they think a long-term project at QB makes sense for the team, I'm ok with that. He wouldn't be my choice, but I can understand the thinking. (Though I'd understand it a whole lot more if they'd consider Colt McCoy, too!) But this kind of thing, not so much:

"Part of it is the versatility that Tebow could bring to any club, perhaps not only to play quarterback but also some H-back roles, potentially groomed at the tight end position, which is an area of concern in New England. I think that type of versatility would intrigue them."

IMO, you don't bring in a QB who needs massive (re)education to become an NFL quarterback, AND teach him to be an NFL tight end. It's one or the other; if you really have hopes for him as a starting QB, you don't ****** his development by turning him into a TE. And if Rang means one or the other but not both, that's not really "versatility," is it?

Bingo. Patchick has Bingo.

That's like all the people who thought last year that Edleman would be our secret backup QB. He never took a snap at the positon all season. He was too busy learning how to be a slot receiver...

That's about as nutty a rationale for his fit here as the people who think he would make the perfect wildcat QB on a roster with a HOF QB who is clearly the best offensive player on the roster on the field at any given time... The wildcat is scheme born of frustration amongst teams who believe they don't necessarily even have a franchise QB on their roster.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Hate it! Hate it! Hate it!

All those pass rushing OLB prospects flying off the board while we take Tibow and Gron, who hasn't had a injury free season in 2 years and no one knows about his back.

Did I say I hate it? And that's probably what BB
will do just because I picked Tom Brady in 200 ahead of him.

 

[captain stone]

Please merge or delete if this is already a thread, but I didn't see it anywhere.
I do have to say I like how the picks would obviously fill some needs, but not sure if BB would make these picks this way even if he hung on the his original picks. I like Odrick and Tate, can't really make a call on Tebow because I'm too novice and I don't know much about Gronkowski. Thoughts?

Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

Here's my thought: merge this into the Mock Draft Fail thread.

Tebow + Gronk = Fail x 2.

 

[mcsully]

Here's my things about Tebow and it came to light when i was at the Pats Predraft Party.. All panel members agreed it would take a min of 3 or 4 years before Tebow could be put into a position to start..

If that is the case, why invest time in him? let another team do it and if he turns into something, I'm sure there will be an opprotunity to go after him by either trading for him and/or signing him to an offer sheet because he's tagged

Let someone else put in the time.. As Bruschi said tonight "We need two contributors this year".. And we can't vest time and energy into Tebow.. IMHO

 

[Marqui]

If that is the case, why invest time in him? let another team do it

No, we need to draft him now because of his "winning attitude" and "intangibles".

 

[Nonentity]

This is a very interesting mock. I would substitute Gerhart for Tebow. Interesting that he has not addressed the OLB position.

You call it interesting. I call it unacceptable.

This is like drafts that have Seattle not taking a tackle. Bonkers.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

You call it interesting. I call it unacceptable.

This is like drafts that have Seattle not taking a tackle. Bonkers.

You can not force a draft based on need.

Year's ago the Pats desperately needed a RB. The talking heads at ESPN all speculated that the Pats were going to take RB Zellers, instead they took Ty Law. In round three they took Curtis Martin. Bottom line: Overdrafting based on need (ie: Mat Millen drafting 101) is a poor strategy. Stay true to your board and look for opportunities to maximize value. Nobody currently does it better than BB.

 

[chevss454]

You can not force a draft based on need.

Year's ago the Pats desperately needed a RB. The talking heads at ESPN all speculated that the Pats were going to take RB Zellers, instead they took Ty Law. In round three they took Curtis Martin. Bottom line: Overdrafting based on need (ie: Mat Millen drafting 101) is a poor strategy. Stay true to your board and look for opportunities to maximize value. Nobody currently does it better than BB.

Best post I've read in a while. Last year was BB's first without and Pioli and was arguably one of the best drafts of BB's tenure. I am looking forward to this year's draft in a big way.

 

[PatriotDynasty_12]

Patriots need to improve their team instantly....Drafting Tebow doesn't help us at all in the near future and sets us back a couple years. The time to win is NOW...we have friggin' TFB!

 

[mgteich]

Need affect value on the patriot board. And of course the patriots have drafted for need in the first round! We can certainly say theat we stayed on our board, but that is simply because we added extra points for need and deducted points for positions of no need.

Sometimes we fans couldn't see the need, but that is another story entirely. Some thought that we needed a WR when we drafted Seymour.

Needs picks include Warren, Wilfork, Mayo, Mankins, and Maroney. And while we could see the need for tight end, Belichick did when he drafted Graham and Watson.

In the end, if the patriots cannot find value when they pick, Belichick finds a way to trade down.

 

[Nonentity]

You can not force a draft based on need.

Year's ago the Pats desperately needed a RB. The talking heads at ESPN all speculated that the Pats were going to take RB Zellers, instead they took Ty Law. In round three they took Curtis Martin. Bottom line: Overdrafting based on need (ie: Mat Millen drafting 101) is a poor strategy. Stay true to your board and look for opportunities to maximize value. Nobody currently does it better than BB.

As posts that state the obvious, this is fantastic. I completely agree with your point: stick to your board. Do not draft a player that you don't like, based on need.

But let's say we rate Jimmy Clausen as the best QB in this draft, and that he's a special talent. If he drops to 22, should we draft him? I say no.

Yes, your board should be ranked on value, but it's not overall value - it's value to your team. And "value to your team" includes need.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

As posts that state the obvious, this is fantastic. I completely agree with your point: stick to your board. Do not draft a player that you don't like, based on need.

But let's say we rate Jimmy Clausen as the best QB in this draft, and that he's a special talent. If he drops to 22, should we draft him? I say no.

Yes, your board should be ranked on value, but it's not overall value - it's value to your team. And "value to your team" includes need.

To borrow from the economists, it's not value, it's essentially a form of net utility: how much "benefit" do you expect to get from that pick, for the money you pay that player, AND—for players in the early rounds, who are essentially guaranteed to make the 53—versus the player you have to let go to make room for them?

 

[Nonentity]

To borrow from the economists, it's not value, it's essentially a form of net utility: how much "benefit" do you expect to get from that pick, for the money you pay that player, AND—for players in the early rounds, who are essentially guaranteed to make the 53—versus the player you have to let go to make room for them?

I like your idea of 'net utility', let's pursue it further for picks in the first two rounds. I would rephrase it:

how much "benefit" do you expect to get from that pick, for the money you pay that player, AND versus the current player in their position in the starting line-up?


You can justify two things from there:
1) Don't draft Clausen
2) Mankins was a good pick (replaced Joe Andruzzi who had signed with the Browns)