Safeties

[Keyser Söze]

I said that Chung was developing well for a 4th rounder. I didn't think I even need the smiley face for folks to understand the point that Chung is NOT developing well for the 34th player in the draft.

How obvious does one need to get?

Chung was not a great value at 34, but he is a fine addition to the team. Since we had starters in place for 2009, 2010 and 2011, there certainly was no need to overpay for a developmental safety who MIGHT be an upgrade in his second year.

Delmas was picked at 33. He was considered by some to be a stid and a potential 2009 starter. Chung was picked one pick later with a much, much lower value.
======================

The BOTTOM LINE is that we had a great draft, one of our best ever. However, I still maintain that we could have done better at 34 and 40 than Chung and Brace. And this is NOT hindsight on my part or others. We were surprised with both picks at the time.

Personally, I would have drafted Butler at 34, an interior lineman at 41 (Levitre or Unger) and a Moore (my safety at 47, although waiting for a safety might have been right. Plus I would still have another couple of picks available at 124 and 199. That is where I would have look for backup NT's.

He's a potential starter in his 2nd season, that's developing like a 4th rounder? oh please.

 

[Brettlax3434]

Coach Bill Belichick said that SS Patrick Chung has "grown by leaps and bounds" from his rookie season until now.

Chung is battling James Sanders and Brandon McGowan for a starting spot alongside Brandon Meriweather. The former second-round pick has the most upside of the trio and has been getting a lot of first-team reps in practice. It's still early, but we like Chung to come away with the job, and if he does, he's a sleeper IDP candidate.
Source: Providence Journal + rotoworld.com

 

[sbpatfan]

He's a potential starter in his 2nd season, that's developing like a 4th rounder? oh please.

He's on a roll, just let him go. Someone needs to make him a GM.

 

[JackBauer]

I said that Chung was developing well for a 4th rounder. I didn't think I even need the smiley face for folks to understand the point that Chung is NOT developing well for the 34th player in the draft.

Who the hell cares? He's projected to start this season, which is all the matters. I don't think that means he's developing poorly; some players simply take longer than others, especially when there's talent ahead of them at the position.

By your logic, I'm sure you were extolling the progress of Vince Wilfork and Brandon Meriweather, our vaunted seventh round picks

 

[Spiral]

Highly unlikely they'll part with Sanders until they're sure Chung can ball, if ever.

I can think of better ways to spend $3M this year than for a borderline starter or backup safety with no real upside. Would you trade Sanders and the rights to Burgess for Aaron Schobel? Add Sanders' $3M to whatever Burgess was making and give Schobel's agent a call.

 

[JackBauer]

I can think of better ways to spend $3M this year than for a borderline starter or backup safety with no real upside. Would you trade Sanders and the rights to Burgess for Aaron Schobel? Add Sanders' $3M to whatever Burgess was making and give Schobel's agent a call.

Who are we trading with for Schobel, I wonder?

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I can think of better ways to spend $3M this year than for a borderline starter or backup safety with no real upside. Would you trade Sanders and the rights to Burgess for Aaron Schobel? Add Sanders' $3M to whatever Burgess was making and give Schobel's agent a call.

So much for discussing Chung.

Is no thread safe from the "pass rush" delusional types?

 

[italia44]

Look.....Last season,the thing that held up the progress of Chung and the safety play,in general,
were the inside linebackers.

With Mayo injured and playing out of position with Guyton,we needed someone to cover the tight ends.......Remember?......this was the reason for McGowan's pick-up and early success.

Believe me,if you're running a 3-4,the way the patriots,do...you don't want your SS covering Te's and Rb's,all the time.

Once Mayo regained his mobility,McGowan became more of a one-trick pony and you saw more of James Sanders.

Notice all those inept,blind-side blitzes by Wilhite,
last year?....pathetic.This year,Chung will take over this role(and quite,well....imho).

With Mayo and Spikes,we'll be back to ILB's covering TE's and RB's and the right side or strong safety,roaming and blitzing......The way it's supposed to be.

 

[Spiral]

Who are we trading with for Schobel, I wonder?

I'm not proposing a trade. The salaries of Sanders and Burgess would come pretty close to what Schobel may end up getting, from whoever signs him.

 

[JackBauer]

I'm not proposing a trade. The salaries of Sanders and Burgess would come pretty close to what Schobel may end up getting, from whoever signs him.

Meh. I don't think Sanders' salary is going to make or break a Schobel acquisition. Burgess, though, would certainly lose value.

Myself, I'd rather keep a veteran presence like Sanders around in a secondary full of young'ns, but that's just one man's opinion.

 

[jmt57]

Believe me,if you're running a 3-4,the way the patriots,do...you don't want your SS covering Te's and Rb's,all the time.

Unfortunately, at least as of the first practice versus the Saints it sounds like it is more of the same as of this moment:

Tom Brady, Receiving Corps Hitting Stride Despite Rotating Offensive Line by Jeff Howe for NESN:

On offense, the Saints really picked on the safeties over the middle of the field, and they utilized their tight ends in a big way. That should be an area where the Patriots will study before Wednesday and Thursday's meetings

.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

I said that Chung was developing well for a 4th rounder. I didn't think I even need the smiley face for folks to understand the point that Chung is NOT developing well for the 34th player in the draft.

How obvious does one need to get?

This is a weird argument you're making, and a pretty poor joke.

Meriweather, Ty Warren, Wilfork, lots of other Pats players didn't do much their first years and were much higher picks. Did you flip out as much over their apparent ineptitude as rookies?

 

[mgteich]

If Chung had performed as well as Wilfork, Warren, and Meriweather did as a rookie, I would be celebrating. The fact that you even mention Wilfork shows your ignorance. Wilfork had a fine first year, sharing a starting role. He was starting by the end of his rookie year.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with Chung as a 2nd year player. I just think that we paid too much and possibly could have developed equal talent with a lower draft choice. There were other safeties in the same draft that many here thought could develop over 2-3 years. Some of us thought that we needed an OG or a LB with the 34th pick instead of a developmental safety.

Consider whether you would rather have Chung now or an OG or LB that has had a year to develop and was rated as one of the 30-40 top players in the draft. We had TWO opportunities to make that happen. We drafted Chung at 34 and Brace at 40. Looking ahead (then) and looking back (now), I think that we needed a developmental OG or LB. I also believe that the value was there at 34 and 40. [Levitre and Barwin anyone]

This is a weird argument you're making, and a pretty poor joke.

Meriweather, Ty Warren, Wilfork, lots of other Pats players didn't do much their first years and were much higher picks. Did you flip out as much over their apparent ineptitude as rookies?

 

[WaterfallJumper]

If Chung had performed as well as Wilfork, Warren, and Meriweather did as a rookie, I would be celebrating. The fact that you even mention Wilfork shows your ignorance. Wilfork had a fine first year, sharing a starting role. He was starting by the end of his rookie year.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with Chung as a 2nd year player. I just think that we paid too much and possibly could have developed equal talent with a lower draft choice. There were other safeties in the same draft that many here thought could develop over 2-3 years. Some of us thought that we needed an OG or a LB with the 34th pick instead of a developmental safety.

Consider whether you would rather have Chung now or an OG or LB that has had a year to develop and was rated as one of the 30-40 top players in the draft. We had TWO opportunities to make that happen. We drafted Chung at 34 and Brace at 40. Looking ahead (then) and looking back (now), I think that we needed a developmental OG or LB. I also believe that the value was there at 34 and 40. [Levitre and Barwin anyone]

So, despite Chung playing better across the board (he posted more tackles, more sacks, and more interceptions than Meriweather in their respective rookie campaigns), you think Chung is a "developmental" safety at best, but claim you would "celebrate" if he were comperable to Meriweather? Sometimes, you're a little ridiculous.

 

[JackBauer]

If Chung had performed as well as Wilfork, Warren, and Meriweather did as a rookie, I would be celebrating. The fact that you even mention Wilfork shows your ignorance. Wilfork had a fine first year, sharing a starting role. He was starting by the end of his rookie year.

Actually, as you're questioning other poster's ignorance, you should note that Wilfork struggled his first year. It was only after they moved him further away from the line of scrimmage that he begin to shine. It was to be expected, though, given the transition he was making from Miami's 4-3 defense.

Fact is, Wilfork and Meriweather struggled more than Chung because they were on the field more often. Since we had the luxury of safety depth, that meant Chung was largely used on special teams and sub-packages. Thus, I don't know how you can say he performed worse than the aforementioned (who were also drafted higher).

BTW, there is nothing wrong with Chung as a 2nd year player. I just think that we paid too much and possibly could have developed equal talent with a lower draft choice. There were other safeties in the same draft that many here thought could develop over 2-3 years. Some of us thought that we needed an OG or a LB with the 34th pick instead of a developmental safety.

Far too early to make this kind of assessment, not to mention the rehashed "draft for need vs. draft BPA" argument. If Chung develops into a Pro Bowl caliber safety, arguing about whether or not we "paid too much" will seem particularly inane.

And with respect to this "many here thought" crap, put your money where your mouth is. Name the developmental safeties you're referencing so we can use them for a basis for comparison down the road.

 

[jsull87]

If Chung had performed as well as Wilfork, Warren, and Meriweather did as a rookie, I would be celebrating. The fact that you even mention Wilfork shows your ignorance. Wilfork had a fine first year, sharing a starting role. He was starting by the end of his rookie year.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with Chung as a 2nd year player. I just think that we paid too much and possibly could have developed equal talent with a lower draft choice. There were other safeties in the same draft that many here thought could develop over 2-3 years. Some of us thought that we needed an OG or a LB with the 34th pick instead of a developmental safety.

Consider whether you would rather have Chung now or an OG or LB that has had a year to develop and was rated as one of the 30-40 top players in the draft. We had TWO opportunities to make that happen. We drafted Chung at 34 and Brace at 40. Looking ahead (then) and looking back (now), I think that we needed a developmental OG or LB. I also believe that the value was there at 34 and 40. [Levitre and Barwin anyone]

Massive hindsight being used by you. At the time we made those picks Wilfork's situation was up in the air (hence the brace pick) and we only had one saftey on the roster (merriweather) so they were glaring holes in our D.

You only say this now because Mankins is a hold out so now OG is a Hole. It's like brady going down injured again and you saying we should have drafted a QB in the 2nd

 

[mgteich]

THIS IS NOT HINDSIGHT
Going into our drafting in the second round of 2009, many of us wanted to draft a linebacker and a guard in the 2nd or at least by the end of the third. There were not may posters who thought a NT was a need in the first three rounds.

BRACE
I do understand why we drafted Brace. The question is not whether we needed Wilfork insurance but whether Brace provided the best value. In the past, we just signed a street free agent or an old vet as a backup, or used on of our DT's. We also drafted late rounders as developmental DL's. That is what several posters suggested. Certainly Green and Wright have taken their reps at NT. And how good WAS Brace as Wilfork insurance? When Wilfork was injured, did we use our much heralded #40 pick. No! We signed a street free agent for a couple of weeks until Wilfork was healthy. Brace did look OK as a backup late in the year, but it is not clear he did any better than Wright would ahved done. Of course, Wright was busy taking reps at DE.

BTW, at the time, many posted that Brace was a top prospect and was NOT drafted as Wilfork insurance.

Perhaps some here think that it is hindsight to have thought that we needed a couple of linebackers at the time of the 2009 draft, with Bruschi on his last legs, and Vrabel gone. Belichick did draft McKenzie. Perhaps you think that we didn't have a weakness at LB last year?

CHUNG
I understand that many folks here consider Sanders useless. The fact is that as of the 2009 draft, we had two starting safeties, one of who had been re-signed one month before to a 3 year $3M a year contract, not exactly backup money. Many here were convinced that Delmas was a future probowl safety. They wanted him badly. I didn't see it. They were right. I was wrong, but Delmas wasn't available at 34.

I didn't see anyone suggesting that Chung was a future all-pro safety. I liked both Chung and Moore as mid second rounders because of their special teams ability. William Moore was drafted at 55. I also like Rashad Johnson who was drafted at 95. Finally, half of those posting wanted Chip Vaughan who we saw as a fine 3rd safety for 2009, and potentially more in the future. He was drafted at 116.

Belichick has never had any problem bring in vets and kids to be backup safeties. Within a couple of weeks of the draft, McGowan was on board, even after we drafted Chung.

Chung may start this year, or not. He may be a future probowler. I am fine with Chung on the team.

OFFENSIVE GUARD
No, you have this all wrong. It was very clear to all that Neal was injury prone and not likely to start a full season in 2009 or 2010. It was quite clear that Mankins would be free agent or at worst an unhappy RFA in 2010, depending on whether the CBA was extended. There was no confidence in our backups. It was quite clear before the 2009 draft that we needed to draft a dvelopmental OG. Some even wanted that guard to also be competition for Koppen at center, or his replacement. We wanted Eric Wood badly. He didn't last until 34. Unger and Levitre were available at 40. Loadholt was available as a RT if we would consider moving Kaczur to guard.

Massive hindsight being used by you. At the time we made those picks Wilfork's situation was up in the air (hence the brace pick) and we only had one saftey on the roster (merriweather) so they were glaring holes in our D.

You only say this now because Mankins is a hold out so now OG is a Hole. It's like brady going down injured again and you saying we should have drafted a QB in the 2nd

 

[mgteich]

Your points are well-taken. Perhaps if Chung played more, he would have more the judge on. In any case, I agree that Chung might indeed be future starter (perhaps this year) and perhaps a future probowler. Obviously, it is too early to know. I don't know why there is such angst about my assessment that Chung is coming along slowly. As you said, Belichick has had the luxury to bring him along slowly. After all, we have Meriweather, Sanders and McGowan.

OTHER SAFETIES
The first caveat is to understand that we are talking about "value". All these other safeties would have cost much less than the 34th pick in the draft. Also comparing careers isn't all that reasonable since we will never know how they would ahve done under Belichick. BTW, if you want to compare Chung who was comparable in cost, yopu might try comparing him with Delmas who was drafted the pick before him.

The three that we were discussing at the time we drafted were
55 William Moore
95 Rashad Johnson
116 Chip Vaughan
I think that most mocks by poster here had us drafting Vaughan in the 4th.

Actually, as you're questioning other poster's ignorance, you should note that Wilfork struggled his first year. It was only after they moved him further away from the line of scrimmage that he begin to shine. It was to be expected, though, given the transition he was making from Miami's 4-3 defense.

Fact is, Wilfork and Meriweather struggled more than Chung because they were on the field more often. Since we had the luxury of safety depth, that meant Chung was largely used on special teams and sub-packages. Thus, I don't know how you can say he performed worse than the aforementioned (who were also drafted higher).



Far too early to make this kind of assessment, not to mention the rehashed "draft for need vs. draft BPA" argument. If Chung develops into a Pro Bowl caliber safety, arguing about whether or not we "paid too much" will seem particularly inane.

And with respect to this "many here thought" crap, put your money where your mouth is. Name the developmental safeties you're referencing so we can use them for a basis for comparison down the road.

 

[sbpatfan]

Chung will turn out better than Delmas, just watch. It's not hard for Delmas to look good when he's starting in an 0-16 secondary.

 

[jmt57]

More pre-camp rankings from WEEI's Christopher Price:

It Is What It Is Rating the Roster, Training Camp Edition (Part 5)


38. Safety Brandon McGowan: McGowan had a thunderous start in 2009, working as the designated tight-end stopper through the early stages of the season. The 5-foot-11, 210-pounder was particularly effective in making all-world Tony Gonzalez disappear in an early-season matchup between the Patriots and Falcons. He also had impressive outings against the Jets and Broncos. (He also had an uncanny knack for finding the football.) The strong start allowed him to take away the starting job from veteran James Sanders, but McGowan struggled with the pass as the season continued, and eventually, the Patriots turned back to Sanders. He’ll likely be battling Pat Chung for the job opposite Brandon Merwieather this summer — the worst possible scenario for McGowan is that he’s a situational defensive back.

36. Safety James Sanders: Sanders was the starter last season, but was eventually displaced by McGowan. Despite losing his starting job, the 5-foot-10, 210-pound Fresno Stater remained professional throughout the process, and when the Patriots altered their defensive approach toward the end of the season, Sanders started to see more and more time again. Not the most talented safety on the roster, Sanders remains a stabilizing veteran in a group of safeties that still goes for the big hit and swings and misses too often. Sanders will likely remain a presence at safety throughout the 2010 season, and depending on injuries, could see an increase in playing time at a moments notice.