We should have drafted Defense: RESPONSE

[Bostonian1962]

This goes out to my friends who rippped the Patriots in the draft because "they should have drafted for the defense". I'm glad you are not making the decisions.

You all saw the mock drafts I saw. There was alot of talk about all the time the Pats spent at Ohio State. Most had the Pats taking Carpenter. A few thought they coveted the Ohio State Safety, Whitner. Many had them taking Iowa's LB Greeway. I saw some saying Tye Hill. I saw one say Ernie Sims. I saw a couple peg Whimbley as the guy. I even saw Jason Allen and Cromarte mentioned as possible Pats picks.

NEWS FLASH: All of the above were gone when the Patriots picked first. Yes, Lawson was there, but he'll have to covert to OLB, and one of my draft pubs said about him "he's a non-factor against the run".

The Patriots were smart not to pick for need. They got, by some accounts, THE best running back (excluding Bush of course), THE best WR, and the best kicker. (Heck, Kiper had O'Callahan as the 4th best OT in the entire draft and look where the Pats got him.)

I don't buy those (like Ron Borges) who says they shouldn't have drafted a TE. They said that after the Watson pick and now we all love him. Face it, Graham and Watson were injured last year. Watson missed his whole rookie season. We lost Fauria to free agency. We needed another tight end. Why not get a good one? Thomas is a top rated TE with glue for hands, and reminds many of Novacek. If he's their top rated player, you don't go off your board for need, unless the grade is close. You'll get burned if you do.

I don't subscribe to the notion that the Patriots should grab the 17th rated OLB instead of the 3rd rated TE, because it's a perceived need.

That's how teams have always ended up having bad drafts. Give me an offensive player who's going to help the team over a defensive one that can't.

They drafted higher character, intellegent, leaders, who produced on the field. I would take their drafts of the last few years over any other team in the NFL, so clearly their way works.

P.S. - I'd love the next person that says "they should have drafted for defense" to list the player they would have had instead, and we can monitor how the two do. I say all of the above with alot of respect for the opposing position.

 

[spacecrime]

We're doomed. Better luck in 2007. If we don't sign Ty Law to fix our defense, we'll have the first pick in the draft next year.

Doomed, I tell ya!

 

[Bostonian1962]

We're doomed. Better luck in 2007. If we don't sign Ty Law to fix our defense, we'll have the first pick in the draft next year.

Doomed, I tell ya!

Defense. We should have drafted defense. Defense wins championships.

 

[MDPATSFAN]

A devastating running game will help the Defense. Less time on the field, less field goals, less 99 yard interceptions returned for TD's, more time sippin gatorade and reviewing charts on the sidelines.

Every first down they grind out by running results in over 2 minutes being burned off the clock. I can't take the ulcer inducing 3 and outs with only 20 seconds burned off the clock anymore.

Thank God they finally drafted a stud RB!!!!

 

[shakadave]

Defense. We should have drafted defense. Defense wins championships.

I would add that we had a championship-quality defense last year! By January I wouldn't have traded our D for anyone else's.

This draft was just what we needed.

 

[Pats726]

I agree...with the draft going D..there was little value left...so going offense was not all that bad..IN FACT, giving Brady many weapons and options keeps the team on the field longer...gives the D some time to rest and thus less wear and tear..less time on the field.

 

[Pats726]

I agree...with the draft going D..there was little value left...so going offense was not all that bad..IN FACT, giving Brady many weapons and options keeps the team on the field longer...gives the D some time to rest and thus less wear and tear..less time on the field.

 

[Ring 6]

I would add that we had a championship-quality defense last year! By January I wouldn't have traded our D for anyone else's.

This draft was just what we needed.

And there is exactly one guy missing from it.

 

[patsfan13]

And there is exactly one guy missing from it.

And a couple of missing guys being added.

 

[Patters]

Seems to me, BB outsmarted everyone. While other teams were focused on the defensive depth of this draft, BB looked elsewhere and was able to pick up the kind of talent normally available only to lesser teams. And, let's face it, while we need natural talent on our offense, we have BB on our defense, and his schemes can magnify the strengths of even an average talent.

 

[smg93]

Seems to me, BB outsmarted everyone. While other teams were focused on the defensive depth of this draft, BB looked elsewhere and was able to pick up the kind of talent normally available only to lesser teams. And, let's face it, while we need natural talent on our offense, we have BB on our defense, and his schemes can magnify the strengths of even an average talent.

That in the world of finance is called being a contrarian. Many people have become extremely successful investing with that strategy. I like it a lot.

 

[patchick]

They got, by some accounts, THE best running back (excluding Bush of course)

I basically agree with the post, but it cracks me up every time I read how Maroney was the single best back in the draft...except for the guy who was better than him!

Still though, it's quite a thing to contemplate. Drafting #21 and coming away with the very top receiver, kicker and fullback, the second-best running back and a weapon at TE -- that's a lot of firepower. While I was firmly in the Lawson camp, this looks like a strong draft with the potential of laying a whole new foundation for the offense.

 

[scout]

The Patriots are a superbowl contender. They just added two impact players to that team, possibly starters. What linebacker, who was still left on the board was going to come in and make an impact THIS year? Not going to happen. We have one slot at lb to fill this year. I'm not worried. The next linebackers might come by way of free agency. I'm guessing BB and SP have an eye on expiring contracts of players they like. I don't think our defensive backs are that bad either. If we do add Law, its as good as anyone's. Look at our offense, what is the average age of this offense inserting our new rb?

 

[big mike]

The Patriots were smart not to pick for need. They got, by some accounts, THE best running back (excluding Bush of course), THE best WR, and the best kicker. (Heck, Kiper had O'Callahan as the 4th best OT in the entire draft and look where the Pats got him.)

How can you say the Patriots didn't pick for need? WR and K were huge needs entering the draft. Getting younger at RB was also a goal. Sure, many of us saw LB as the biggest need - but, perhaps BB knows something about the LBs the Pats already have that we don't. Perhaps he's confident in TBC's ability at OLB. Maybe Alexander or Claridge have made a lot of progress that he's seen, that we haven't been able to. We're at best guessing as to what BB sees as the team's needs, since we don't get to see how young players are progressing in the offseason and on the practice field. But WR, K, and getting younger at RB were clearly needs, so I don't see how you can say "The Patriots were smart not to pick for need".

I don't buy those (like Ron Borges) who says they shouldn't have drafted a TE. They said that after the Watson pick and now we all love him. Face it, Graham and Watson were injured last year. Watson missed his whole rookie season. We lost Fauria to free agency. We needed another tight end. Why not get a good one? Thomas is a top rated TE with glue for hands, and reminds many of Novacek. If he's their top rated player, you don't go off your board for need, unless the grade is close. You'll get burned if you do.

Replacing Fauria was a need, and BB knows how hard it is to find good TEs - so when there's one he likes at a draft spot that seems reasonable, he's going to take him. I think that was a good pick.

My only disappointment is that they didn't take Ryan LaCasse or one of the other OLB tweeners that were available on day 2, particularly late day 2 (could have had LaCasse in round 6).

I don't subscribe to the notion that the Patriots should grab the 17th rated OLB instead of the 3rd rated TE, because it's a perceived need.

I don't think I've seen anyone make such a claim. TE is a perceived need. Do you think the Patriots should draft the 4th rated QB instead of the 6th rated OLB?

Give me an offensive player who's going to help the team over a defensive one that can't.

You're sorely mistaken if you think that's the philosophy BB was applying with these picks. He got great value picks at positions of need. There may have been a slightly higher position of need for some of them, but the players he picked were likely ones that he particularly liked. Remember, he spends a LOT more time watching film, interviewing and evaluating players than we do.

P.S. - I'd love the next person that says "they should have drafted for defense" to list the player they would have had instead, and we can monitor how the two do. I say all of the above with alot of respect for the opposing position.

I would have preferred Ryan LaCasse over Le Kevin Smith. Le Kevin Smith looks to be a good find at DT, but LaCasse has stellar size/speed combination for a 3-4 OLB, and it's shocking he lasted until the 7th round.

I would have preferred Mark Anderson or a few other LBs that were on the board instead of Garrett Mills (FB/TE). Mills may end up being a good FB (more likely than TE), but Anderson and a few other guys could be pretty good LBs IMO, that were on the board then. Other than those, I'm very happy with the draft.

It's interesting to note that Carolina's draft came out MUCH more like what many of us were expecting for the Patriots, and like many mocks. DeAngelo Williams and Richard Marshall in rounds 1 and 2, Stanley McClover (DE OLB tweener) on day 2, etc.. But, I'm very happy with the Pats draft.

 

[Bostonian1962]

I basically agree with the post, but it cracks me up every time I read how Maroney was the single best back in the draft...except for the guy who was better than him!

Still though, it's quite a thing to contemplate. Drafting #21 and coming away with the very top receiver, kicker and fullback, the second-best running back and a weapon at TE -- that's a lot of firepower. While I was firmly in the Lawson camp, this looks like a strong draft with the potential of laying a whole new foundation for the offense.

I said "arguably" the best. I realize some liked
DeAngelo. Now, if you check my posts, you will see one from several days agowhere I said I didn't like DeAngelo Williams based on what I've seen. Stone hands. So, I'm not doing this after the fact. I've been telling everybody I preferred this guy. It's all good. Thanks for the post.

 

[ilduce06410]

building around assets?

I said "arguably" the best. I realize some liked
DeAngelo. Now, if you check my posts, you will see one from several days agowhere I said I didn't like DeAngelo Williams based on what I've seen. Stone hands. So, I'm not doing this after the fact. I've been telling everybody I preferred this guy. It's all good. Thanks for the post.

patriots have 2 principal assets: 1. brady and 2. seymour.
you build around your assets, no?
Mankins/Kaczur with a year's experience, the return of Koppen, depth at RT/RG, another TE/H-B (he will play this year), a big fast productive WR, and a RB who actually scares defenses. this may keep brady off his back (60 times last year) and give us a QB who can still walk by the time he's 30.
the whole seymour thing gets done next year. after BB/SP take another stud TE.