rookBoston said:
'heat, I disagree with the idea of flooding the roster with rookies we cant possible carry into the season. Far better to trade that value up for even better prospects or trade that value into 2007. You've counted to 60 players, but we can only carry 53!
It pains me to see Dexter Reid released and playing incredible ST for the Colts, simply because we didn't have roster space for him. So, yes, it is possible to have too much tier-2 talent.
Oh, I understand your point. But:
1. This draft is supposedly deeper than either last year's or next year's. It might be worth making picks this year instead of next. As of now, we have somewhere between 9 and 11 picks next year as well, we don't really need more. As far as trading up this year, I'm all for it. I'm sure it will happen. For example, I see Gocong, LaCasse, and McClover as equals, and was willing to wait to grab the last one available. Belichick probably has a different opinion, so could move up to get one. But I see nothing inherently wrong with picking 11, 13, or even 50 guys in the draft. We get first crack at evaluating them. If they're not good enough, so what? I guess I don't see draftees as "Patriots employees" and get emotionally attached to them. I think of them as temps. The best of them will improve the squad, the rest will serve their temporary duty, then leave to seek another job.
2. We can carry 53, true that. But I've never seen a football team make it through a training camp without guys getting hurt.
3. Dexter Reid is on the Colts because he
wasn't good enough to be here. End of Story. Is he a capable kick cover guy? Sure, but he was like fourth best on our team. If he was an essential contributor, he would have made the team last year. Or the year before, or whenever he was cut. I love it when other teams poach guys that aren't good enough to make our team. I'll give each team 53 of them. We can keep the best 53 plus practice squad, IR, etc. Why do we want to keep a guy here who isn't among the best 65 or so? The more guys in camp, the better the competition, and the stronger team you'll have. If some guys have trade value, you trade them, like we did to that linebacker we sent to Chicago some years back (Dorsey, was it?), or when we picked up Dane Looker from St. Louis.
Put it this way. If you owned a company (let's say Dell) and had three spots open, would you rather interview three prospective employees, five prospective employees, or twelve prospective employees, if the time wasn't a factor? You'd be most assured of getting the right candidate if you interview twelve. You might find out that the fourth and fifth best guy you interviewed is actually an improvement over two current employees, with higher potential. Would you care then, if the interviewees who didn't make the cut took jobs at Gateway and Compaq?