Some insight into Pats' Linebacker needs

[RayClay]

No they are valid points and questions that, yes, should be addressed. It's just that, since earliest days, I've never been a fan of "the sky is falling".

(I'm not saying you argue this - I'm not - but some on this board surely seem into it.)

Depth, of course, is a most valuable asset, and we need that. It's important at every position, not just linebacker.

But the point of my earlier posts was that BB, at least in my estimation, seems to be trying to mold that corps into one where he can it do as successfully as he's done with defensive backs, where in the past we've had such a catastrophic number of injuries that would have put lesser teams down for the count, but have enabled us to compete at the very highest levels of professional football, almost as if noting had happened. That, by any estimation, has been most remarkable.

We don't, at present, have a bad linebacking corps. As I've said, I agree with MG's post. It's also why I've stated in other posts why I think they'll sign another vet.

Just like you can never be too rich, or too thin, or have enough golf balls, on this team you can never have enough good linebackers.

I agree and I'm not foolish enough to think BB and Pioli don't know what they're doing. I just wish I could see the logic.

I really expect them to spend a 3rd or so on a stout LB, maybe in their stocked draft next year.

Unless they get lucky a la Vrable.

Problem I have with the DB analogy is they overstock with vets at safety and CB, but always have devastating injuries.

I sure would have preferred Tebucky over Baker in a pinch last year. Just because he wasn't as good as he thought he was, he's still an NFL starter for years who's familiar with our system.

 

[DaBruinz]

Nice to see folks writing Alexander off after one game, not to mention many of the same people writing Mays off as a bust. For grins and giggles, here is a nice article on Mays that I dug up while reviewing his background, after reading up on Lua following the draft, you start to see the kind of kid BB/SP bring in to battle for those reserve slots, and hopefully develop as their future ILBs: http://media.www.ndsmcobserver.com/...der/Corey.Mays.Finally.His.Turn-1110282.shtml

Box -
Corey Mays reminds me of Dexter Reid. Lousy regular player. OK special teamer, but a penalty waiting to happen. Mays had to have been the most penalized special teams player we had last year. And he only played in half the games.

 

[psychoPat]

....
But the point of my earlier posts was that BB, at least in my estimation, seems to be trying to mold that corps into one where he can it do as successfully as he's done with defensive backs, where in the past we've had such a catastrophic number of injuries that would have put lesser teams down for the count, but have enabled us to compete at the very highest levels of professional football, almost as if noting had happened. That, by any estimation, has been most remarkable.
....
Just like you can never be too rich, or too thin, or have enough golf balls, on this team you can never have enough good linebackers.

Yes, this is a linebackers thread.
But for the past two seasons i, too, have thought that this performance
with patchwork secondaries
... indeed has been the "most remarkable" aspect of the Patriots' consistent top-level performance.

 

[RayClay]

Yes, this is a linebackers thread.
But for the past two seasons i, too, have thought that this performance
with patchwork secondaries
... indeed has been the "most remarkable" aspect of the Patriots' consistent top-level performance.

I agree, yet we trade up for a high 2 and get a steal at 4 that's looking like a first round pick now. Plus Gay logs significant, important snaps early.

Plus Hobbs makes another day one pick. I think they're very confident molding fairly marginal vets and less than 1st round youngsters, (except Merriweather).

Plus, the drafted2 day one, (maybe a 3rd and 4th) safeties who never made it.

Also, they run DBs in and out of camp like auditions for a road show company.

It's really not analogous to the LB situation IMO.

If they tried as many options for backup at LB as they do at DB, I'd be happy.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

I agree and I'm not foolish enough to think BB and Pioli don't know what they're doing. I just wish I could see the logic.

I really expect them to spend a 3rd or so on a stout LB, maybe in their stocked draft next year.

Unless they get lucky a la Vrable.

Problem I have with the DB analogy is they overstock with vets at safety and CB, but always have devastating injuries.

I sure would have preferred Tebucky over Baker in a pinch last year. Just because he wasn't as good as he thought he was, he's still an NFL starter for years who's familiar with our system.

Believe me, we're not that far apart, Ray.

 

[mgteich]

I'm not locked in on Chad Brown, although I am fine with him competing with Woods for the few reps as the #4 OLB, or to get more reps in case of injury. A couple of games may be all we need from him. I think we agree that we are likely to pick a veteran ILB (presumably Seau) and a veteran OLB before the season starts. Chad Brown is just one of the possibilities that has been mentioned. I expect an old grizzled veteran. After all, we are looking for someone who could step in a take a lot of reps for a few games in an emergency. If Colvin and Thomas (and.or Vrabel) are 100% healthy, I don't expect much work for backup OLB's.

I agree. You've made a good argument with that.

I'd be very surprised, however, if the team did make a move to sign Chad Brown. Quite apart from his disastrous stint here earlier, he's shown abundant signs of being the quintessential "aging linebacker", capable of giving you the occasional serviceable, or even good, game. But it's painfully obvious his best years are well behind him.

I do think, however, they will sign another vet linebacker, perhaps before training camp, but much more likely during. And it could be someone good, as BB has already uttered the option of moving some of next year's draft picks. (This is in addition to the talent the team now possesses.) Just look over existing NFL rosters, and measure what's needed against what you have, then let your imagination run wild a little bit.

It is, after all, going to be a long off season.

 

[RayClay]

Believe me, we're not that far apart, Ray.

We're not. You realize I'm not looking for a top pick LB and I know most of our LBs are tweener converts.

I think we're all a little baffled about the linebacker restock situation. I agree with everyone else, they prefer vets.

I just don't see how you can rely on that as your only plan. Unlike the draft, the vet you want might not be available when you want him.

I think BB does this just to give me something to complain about during the off season.

 

[RayClay]

I'm not locked in on Chad Brown, although I am fine with him competing with Woods for the few reps as the #4 OLB, or to get more reps in case of injury. A couple of games may be all we need from him. I think we agree that we are likely to pick a veteran ILB (presumably Seau) and a veteran OLB before the season starts. Chad Brown is just one of the possibilities that has been mentioned. I expect an old grizzled veteran. After all, we are looking for someone who could step in a take a lot of reps for a few games in an emergency. If Colvin and Thomas (and.or Vrabel) are 100% healthy, I don't expect much work for backup OLB's.

We can carry another special teamer too, with Davis gone.

Izzo will be gone soon too IMO, so this might provide the opportunity to "learn" an UDFA or two into being a decent back up.

Whatever works.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

We're not. You realize I'm not looking for a top pick LB and I know most of our LBs are tweener converts.

I think we're all a little baffled about the linebacker restock situation. I agree with everyone else, they prefer vets.

I just don't see how you can rely on that as your only plan. Unlike the draft, the vet you want might not be available when you want him.

I think BB does this just to give me something to complain about during the off season.

I had to laugh at that one! That's the rejoinder that no one has an answer to!

 

[mgteich]

I think that you've been saying Izzo is gone for three years now. He will be here until he can no longer function. Davis and Izzo would have the two ST specialist positions this year if they were healthy. I expect Izzo to be here yet again.

THE NINE
OLB: Colvin, Thomas, veteran fa, Woods
ILB: Bruschi, Vrabel, Seau, Alexander
ST: Izzo

Note that Alexander and Woods will be ST regulars, and hopefully ST stars, as they were last year.

There COULD be an additional ST spot for Mays or Lua. I would prefer that the additional spot go instead to Andrews.

We can carry another special teamer too, with Davis gone.

Izzo will be gone soon too IMO, so this might provide the opportunity to "learn" an UDFA or two into being a decent back up.

Whatever works.

 

[cstjohn17]

I think that you've been saying Izzo is gone for three years now. He will be here until he can no longer function. Davis and Izzo would have the two ST specialist positions this year if they were healthy. I expect Izzo to be here yet again.

THE NINE
OLB: Colvin, Thomas, veteran fa, Woods
ILB: Bruschi, Vrabel, Seau, Alexander
ST: Izzo

Note that Alexander and Woods will be ST regulars, and hopefully ST stars, as they were last year.

There COULD be an additional ST spot for Mays or Lua. I would prefer that the additional spot go instead to Andrews.

I don't see another vet brought in at OLB, maybe if there is an injury during the season they call Chad Brown. Vrable can shift over if needed. I also think they will carry 10 LBs.

ROLB COLVIN, Woods
SILB SEAU, Lua , IZZO
WILB BRUSCHI, VRABEL, Alexander
LOLB THOMAS, Rogers

Lua/Rogers/Bissinger/Mays
- fight for the last spots
- depending on how it breaks down, 1 or 2 should make the practice squad (unless we carry 4 punters)

 

[Ring 6]

I wonder, does Groh have an idea why Parcells could draft Bruschi, McGinest and Ted Johnson day 1 as well as all those Giants top LBs, and be very successful?

BB would rather eat a bug than draft an LB or tweener on day 1.

Some may think I'm being critical, but I am really trying to figure out what the plan for the future is.

I would say apparently, according to Groh, Parcells needs were similar.

His linebacker, (tweener) draft picks seemed very successful for years in BB's offense.

What am I missing?

I think you are looking at it backwards.
I dont think BB drafts based on how important the position is, but he drafts based on who the players playing that position that are available are.
Not drafting a LB is much more an indication to me of not seeing value in the players at that position that were available, than an indication that he wouldn't draft a LB.

If this year the LBs on the board are not value when he is picking, that doesnt mean next year he reaches in the same scenario because he didn't draft one last year.
Instead, he goes out and gets a Colvin, Thomas, Vrabel, etc.

I think that a better description of LBs in our system is that they are good enough to play in other systems, but on top of that we need them to take on blockers. (Rather than different skills, its MORE skills)
So, it is entirely feasible to me that LB is a position where guys who are good enough to play in our system go very early, and consistently the ones BB values at 24, 32, 64, 78, etc are long gone by then.

LB and especially the DE/OLB tweener type of guy is a position LOADED with top 15 draft busts. That could be evidence that the type of player BB sees as value at a certain slot is rated much higher by other teams.

We have been more active in FA, both at the top end, and the jag level, at LB in BBs tenure than any other spot. Thomas and Colvin were the 2 biggest money FA acquisitions of his time here. If you considered them to be 1st round draft picks (which is equivalent in what he spent as FA vs cap room available) would you feel the same way?

If you can't find them in the draft, then you sign them as FAs. With the exception of Bruschi, all of our LBs have been found through that route. BB spent heavily there. That would be a better indication of the value he puts in the LB than not drafting one just ot draft one.

 

[RayClay]

I think that you've been saying Izzo is gone for three years now. He will be here until he can no longer function. Davis and Izzo would have the two ST specialist positions this year if they were healthy. I expect Izzo to be here yet again.

THE NINE
OLB: Colvin, Thomas, veteran fa, Woods
ILB: Bruschi, Vrabel, Seau, Alexander
ST: Izzo

Note that Alexander and Woods will be ST regulars, and hopefully ST stars, as they were last year.

There COULD be an additional ST spot for Mays or Lua. I would prefer that the additional spot go instead to Andrews.

Not me, I'm not an Izzo basher. I'm just going by the average lifespan of a ST only player. At 33 he's lasted longer than most.

 

[RayClay]

I think you are looking at it backwards.
I dont think BB drafts based on how important the position is, but he drafts based on who the players playing that position that are available are.
Not drafting a LB is much more an indication to me of not seeing value in the players at that position that were available, than an indication that he wouldn't draft a LB.

If this year the LBs on the board are not value when he is picking, that doesnt mean next year he reaches in the same scenario because he didn't draft one last year.
Instead, he goes out and gets a Colvin, Thomas, Vrabel, etc.

I think that a better description of LBs in our system is that they are good enough to play in other systems, but on top of that we need them to take on blockers. (Rather than different skills, its MORE skills)
So, it is entirely feasible to me that LB is a position where guys who are good enough to play in our system go very early, and consistently the ones BB values at 24, 32, 64, 78, etc are long gone by then.

LB and especially the DE/OLB tweener type of guy is a position LOADED with top 15 draft busts. That could be evidence that the type of player BB sees as value at a certain slot is rated much higher by other teams.

We have been more active in FA, both at the top end, and the jag level, at LB in BBs tenure than any other spot. Thomas and Colvin were the 2 biggest money FA acquisitions of his time here. If you considered them to be 1st round draft picks (which is equivalent in what he spent as FA vs cap room available) would you feel the same way?

If you can't find them in the draft, then you sign them as FAs. With the exception of Bruschi, all of our LBs have been found through that route. BB spent heavily there. That would be a better indication of the value he puts in the LB than not drafting one just ot draft one.

I'd have to disagree. That's 8 drafts with 4 rounds plus multiple picks. All things being equal, he managed to find players at every other position, multiple times.

If by "value" you mean he doesn't want to spend a high or mid pick on a tweener and doesn't feel most college linebackers fit our system, then we agree.

I do feel he might change his pattern next year, partly out of need, but i'm assuming there are some prospects he likes based on the trade ups into 2008.

If you can't find them in the draft, then you sign them as FAs. With the exception of Bruschi, all of our LBs have been found through that route.

If we don't draft them, that is the only other way that I'm aware of.

I don't want to get to silly here, but all the linebackers we have were drafted by someone, so they were available to be drafted by us. (3,4,5th).

We have been more active in FA, both at the top end, and the jag level, at LB in BBs tenure than any other spot. Thomas and Colvin were the 2 biggest money FA acquisitions of his time here. If you considered them to be 1st round draft picks (which is equivalent in what he spent as FA vs cap room available) would you feel the same way?

You lost me. They have greater value than picks because they're proven.

Thomas was a 6th and Colvin was a 4th. Where does a first rounder come into the equation? Mcginest was the only one.

Are you saying the Bears, Ravens and Steelers can identify linebackers in the draft that we can't? Better scouting?

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

I wonder, does Groh have an idea why Parcells could draft Bruschi, McGinest and Ted Johnson day 1 as well as all those Giants top LBs, and be very successful?

BB would rather eat a bug than draft an LB or tweener on day 1.

Some may think I'm being critical, but I am really trying to figure out what the plan for the future is.

I would say apparently, according to Groh, Parcells needs were similar.

His linebacker, (tweener) draft picks seemed very successful for years in BB's offense.

What am I missing?

There were rumors that the team would have drafted Bobby Carpenter if he was there instead of Maroney. Last April, as posted on the draft board, the Pats were ready to take Nebraska's Stewart Bradley with the 91st pick before Philly took him at 87.

It's all about luck and timing.

BTW, Albert Breer is a great writer. He deserves a bigger gig. He and Mike Reiss are the two best football writers in the region.

Breer's "Tale of the Tape" is the best Pats post game anaysis in the MSM.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Are you saying the Bears, Ravens and Steelers can identify linebackers in the draft that we can't? Better scouting?

You're obviously spending too much time on the NEM forum studying how to be offensive and ignorant. By your "day 1" standards, Chicago and Baltimore pulled rabbits out of their hats taking second day picks Colvin and Thomas, and Pittsburgh barely gets a pass taking Vrabel as late as #91.

I wonder, does Groh have an idea why Parcells could draft Bruschi, McGinest and Ted Johnson day 1 as well as all those Giants top LBs, and be very successful?

BB would rather eat a bug than draft an LB or tweener on day 1.

Some may think I'm being critical, but I am really trying to figure out what the plan for the future is.

I would say apparently, according to Groh, Parcells needs were similar.

His linebacker, (tweener) draft picks seemed very successful for years in BB's offense.

What am I missing?

While you're carping about Parcells linebacker drafts, go back to the Herald's blog and read some of Breer's speculation as well as Groh's own problems finding ILBs:

One explanation that wasn’t offered by Groh, but has to have an impact, is the proliferation of spread offenses at the college level. Because teams have to be ready to handle four or five wideouts at once on early downs, using quicker linebackers that can cover has become a must in conferences like the SEC. As such, those players will be lighter than the type that Belichick favors.
-----
Again, this isn’t all encompassing. But it certainly has drained the pool a bit of the bigger types of linebackers to play inside.
-----
[Groh] “But there are some very good NFL linebackers that just wouldn’t have the same production in our system on the inside. The system is just different. There are some great high school linebackers that we’ve looked at that where we know, right away, they just wouldn’t be as productive in our scheme.”

If major football conferences such as the SEC are moving to spread offenses and the defenses to counter them, then it's just possible Parcells had a deeper pool to choose from in the 90's, with fewer NFL competitors looking for the same guys. BB himself has talked about teams looking for the same players with the proliferation of the 3-4.

While you are making a big deal about Parcell's linebacker drafts in Dallas (how 'bout them Cowboys under Parcells?), here's the depth chart from NFL.com
Left Inside Linebacker
B. James, #56 Fourth round 2003 - big "day 1" pick there.

Right Inside Linebacker
A. Ayodele, #50
B. Carpenter, #54 First round 2006 - there's still hope for him.

Right Outside Linebacker
D. Ware, #94 First round 2005 - One starter, too bad he wasn't there at #32
K. Burnett, #57 Second round 2005 - I'm sure he'd start if he wasn't behind Ware...

That's three "day 1" linebackers with one starter and two reserves drafting in the low 20's. Dallas went 10-6, 6-10, 9-7, 9-7 and earned two wildcard berths (in the all powerful NFC) during that time. Maybe he'd have gotten further drafting DL and TE in the first round.

 

[DaBruinz]

I'd have to disagree. That's 8 drafts with 4 rounds plus multiple picks. All things being equal, he managed to find players at every other position, multiple times.

If by "value" you mean he doesn't want to spend a high or mid pick on a tweener and doesn't feel most college linebackers fit our system, then we agree.

I do feel he might change his pattern next year, partly out of need, but i'm assuming there are some prospects he likes based on the trade ups into 2008.

During those 8 drafts, how many of them had LB as a NEED?
During those 8 drafts, how many of them had good LB depth?
During those 8 drafts, how many of them had good LB depth and LB was a PRIORITY for the Patriots?

Reviewing the past drafts, there haven't been many quality linebackers coming out of college. Many have been RAW and needed the time to get better. There havent' been that many quality "TWEENERS" coming out of college either. Again, many of them are raw and need the time to get better. At some point, you have to bite the bullet and get some quality because, as others have pointed out, more teams are using the 3-4 and that means that there are less players available to chose from. If you don't draft some of that raw talent, then you are relying on people to be able to adjust to the system after the fact.

The problem that I have with BB not picking LB talent early is that, at some point, not developing our own talent WILL put the Pats in a bind, much as it did in 2005 and to a lesser extent in 2006. In 2005, the unexpected loss of Bruschi and Johnson as well as the Phifer's trouble's recovering from his injury, left the Pats without any real sort of ILBs for half the season. The problem with relying on vets to fill the spaces is that you have to find vets who have the talent to be able to adjust to the Pats system. So far, only Seau and Colvin have shown the ability to do so since 2002. Chad Brown was a bust inside and yes, I can admit I was wrong about Beisel and he was a bust also. The Pats have tried out NUMEROUS others including Holdman and Foreman, but without success. Adalius Thomas should be successful because he's already shown the level of versatility that is needed.

By developing your own 3-4 LBs (both ILB and OLB), you have players who you know will fit YOUR system and who can accel and have the versatility you need. .

If we don't draft them, that is the only other way that I'm aware of.

I don't want to get to silly here, but all the linebackers we have were drafted by someone, so they were available to be drafted by us. (3,4,5th).

You lost me. They have greater value than picks because they're proven.

Thomas was a 6th and Colvin was a 4th. Where does a first rounder come into the equation? Mcginest was the only one.

Of the vet LBs on the Pats, Thomas was the ONLY one who could have been drafted by this regime. Thomas was a 6th round pick. He was drafted in 2000. He was the 20th pick in the 6th round. I am sure that in retrospect, the Pats would have loved to take Thomas with the 32nd pick of the 5th round. However, you have to remember that BB was going by BOOBY Grier's draft list and not his own.

Are you saying the Bears, Ravens and Steelers can identify linebackers in the draft that we can't? Better scouting?

Well, don't rule out need. The Patriots VALUE formula is based on 3 things. A player's tangibles, a player's intagibles and team need. That value formula gets applied to UFAs, RFA, draft picks and players currently on the roster. BB has also addressed this issue by acknowledging that there are a LOT of requirements for a LB. And has said that many college LBs don't meet a LOT of the requirements. But he's also said that if they have the talent, they could be developed. So, if the players available don't rate highly enough, the Patriots aren't going to draft them. This is where I think they may be tripping up. They may not be rating the TANGLIBLES for LBs as well as the Steelers, Bears, and Ravens. Or they may be too strict on the intangibles.

One of the things that Mike Vrabel and Tedy Bruschi should be prime examples if is that versatility can be taught. Both were down-linemen in college. And now both are playing entirely different positions. As long as the player has the WILL to learn the new position and the other tangibles (such as tackling ability) then the Patriots should rule that player out. And, while it may take 2 years to fully comprehend the new position, proper incentives will help that player WANT to stay with the Pats.

 

[Ring 6]

I'd have to disagree. That's 8 drafts with 4 rounds plus multiple picks. All things being equal, he managed to find players at every other position, multiple times.


>>>>I dont know what your point is here. If there was not a LB that he had rated highly on his board, then there wasn't. It seems you are saying that there were and he just chose not to draft them. That doesnt make sense.

If by "value" you mean he doesn't want to spend a high or mid pick on a tweener and doesn't feel most college linebackers fit our system, then we agree.

>>>>>that is definitely a possiblity. If the expectation of a 3rd round pick, lets say is to be able to contribute on s/ts as a rookie, as a backup in year 2, and challenge to start in year 3, and in round 3 there is no one rated that way, why take a LB just to take a LB??????????

I do feel he might change his pattern next year, partly out of need, but i'm assuming there are some prospects he likes based on the trade ups into 2008.

>>>>>>>>>>I dont think he will draft a guy without an acceptable grade due to need at a position ever.

If we don't draft them, that is the only other way that I'm aware of.

I don't want to get to silly here, but all the linebackers we have were drafted by someone, so they were available to be drafted by us. (3,4,5th).

>>>>>>>>>>There is a difference between having value in your first 3 years in the league (or projecting to) and having value as a veteran free agent. You seem to be focussed on the guys who were drafted that turned out to have value later in free agency. But there are a whole lot more that do not. Its not a matter of finding a few guys who were available when we picked ans saying we should have picked them, but more how rare it is.

You lost me. They have greater value than picks because they're proven.

>>>>>>>>>>>>Picks have greater value than free agents if they contributed because they are cheap. But if you cant draft them, you must sign free agents.

Thomas was a 6th and Colvin was a 4th. Where does a first rounder come into the equation? Mcginest was the only one.

>>>>>>>>>Maybe it does not. Look at it this way. (Very hypothetical) If I have little confidence in drafting a LB becuase what they will do in my defense is an entirely different position than what they did in college (this happened all the time with WRs in running offense, or with FBs who carry the ball a lot in college and never would in the pros) then why would I use a first round pick on that gamble rather than use later picks and udfas, and then sign veterans in free agency. I dont know why we have to force finding them in the draft if other means work better.


Are you saying the Bears, Ravens and Steelers can identify linebackers in the draft that we can't? Better scouting?

>>>>>>>>>>>No. I'm saying they spend high picks on the position, we don't. Some of theirs work out, and some do not. If there were 100 LBs drafted this year, and ultimately 3 years from now 4 of them could play for us, why use draft picks on them, and have a 97% chance of wasting the pick. When you can wait 3 years, and have more certainty?

Could the entire answer here simply be that of all positions, the hardest to predict, based on their body of work in college, workouts, combines, etc, is LB? I know that college QBs are asked to do a lot of what we would ask them to. OL and DL are as well. (Remember before Seymour, Wilfork, and Warren BB teams NEVER had highly drafted DLineman. These 3 happened to be great fits in a one gap system AND great fits in a 2gap system) WR, RB, TE, corners, safeties, all have to do many of the things in college that they do in the NFL on any team.
How many college LBs can you look at on film and see what they will do if asked to take on Gs and play 2gap run D? 95% of of college LBs are playing a system that asks them to avoid blockers.
It almost makes sense to let another team figure out if they can hold up to being blocked by 320 lbs Gs when there is no history of them doing it before.

By the way, McGinest was drafted as a DE by Parcells who was playing a 4-3 defense.

 

[RayClay]

>>>>>>>>>>>No. I'm saying they spend high picks on the position, we don't. Some of theirs work out, and some do not. If there were 100 LBs drafted this year, and ultimately 3 years from now 4 of them could play for us, why use draft picks on them, and have a 97% chance of wasting the pick. When you can wait 3 years, and have more certainty?

Could the entire answer here simply be that of all positions, the hardest to predict, based on their body of work in college, workouts, combines, etc, is LB? I know that college QBs are asked to do a lot of what we would ask them to. OL and DL are as well. (Remember before Seymour, Wilfork, and Warren BB teams NEVER had highly drafted DLineman. These 3 happened to be great fits in a one gap system AND great fits in a 2gap system) WR, RB, TE, corners, safeties, all have to do many of the things in college that they do in the NFL on any team.
How many college LBs can you look at on film and see what they will do if asked to take on Gs and play 2gap run D? 95% of of college LBs are playing a system that asks them to avoid blockers.
It almost makes sense to let another team figure out if they can hold up to being blocked by 320 lbs Gs when there is no history of them doing it before.

By the way, McGinest was drafted as a DE by Parcells who was playing a 4-3 defense.

I think we ended up agreeing somehow. It seems they need rugged players who shift from college DEs to pro linebackers.

They would rather let these players transition elsewhere so they are sure they can make the transition, sometimes from DE, to OLB to ILB, (like Bruschi).

There's not much doubt that is there preference.

My contention is they might have waited too long and might need to take a chance in the draft sometime. Can they fill both ILB spots with free agents young enough so the whole linebacking corps doesn't grow old together?

In other words, we all agree what plan A is.

Is plan B totally dependent on UDFA and day 2 picks? I wonder.

 

[mgteich]

OK, let's say that Bruschi and Seau retire together. We will then have three starters for 2008: Thomas and Colvin outside and Vrabel inside.

We have been developing several kids. Outside, we all hope that Woods would be able to move up to be the backup #3 OLB. IMHO, he is a better prospect than Banta-Cain at this point in his career. So, we could be fine outside with the addition of the usual jag veteran or rookie prospect.

So, where are we inside? Indeed we would be looking to fill two spots. Could any of the players that bb has been developing work out? Do we dare hope?

Mays? Alexander? Lua?

I think that Alexander could indeed be ready to have significant amount of reps.
=============================

So, we would be where we are EVERY year. We would be hoping that one or two of the youngsters work out. And, we would be looking at the draft. And then we would be looking at free agency for veterans.
===============================

This strategy has failed ONCE in the bb era. It took a stroke, a retirement and two (or was it three) free agents not to work out. Not to mention Colvin's injury.
================================

And yes, 2008 could be the year we overpay (value-wise)and take a chance on a Day One linebacker, or we could trade for one.
================================

My bottom line is that we will be in fine shape to fill any need at linebacker in 2008, even if Bruschi retires. We have four solid young prospects. We will have five Day One draft picks. And there is always free agency and trade possibilities.