What's better, what's worse?

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I don't believe any position will be worse this year than last. The most vulnerable is WR, if Holt doesn't work out and Welker doesn't make it back.

Staying roughly the same will be OL, WR; RB, OLB, DL

Getter a bit better will be QB, WR with Welker, S, ILB, CB

Potentially much better is TE.

This assumes no major injuries. Most vulnerable to injury are WR (Moss or Holt), DL, and OLB.

I'm high on the TE situation, even though unproven.

I expect Brady to be better this year than last as he recovers fully.

I think Holt will do very well, and the news on Crumpler (kick boxing?!) is encouraging.

The DBackfield should come of age this year.

If Spikes is as advertised, and can make the transition, and Mayo recovers fully, wow at ILB.

I am not as sold on Cunningham, but would love to be surprised.

Your thoughts? (I'm not awake or smart enough to make this into a poll),

DL, OLB, ILB, TE get big boost. CB, OL moderate boost (Sea Bass starts).

WR seems like a downgrade without Welker however you slice it. I would take healthy Welker over Holt currently. However if it nudges Brady back into his traditional 'throw to the open guy', than all is good.

 

[Sicilian]

DL, OLB, ILB, TE get big boost. CB, OL moderate boost (Sea Bass starts).

WR seems like a downgrade without Welker however you slice it. I would take healthy Welker over Holt currently. However if it nudges Brady back into his traditional 'throw to the open guy', than all is good.

I don't see OLB as a big boost. Status quo with some potential, but we're still talking TBC and ??? right now.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Our Runningame is going to slightly worse unless Maroney can perform.

Fred Taylor and Sammy Morris are a waste on the roster, I would cut them both. They're wheels have been run in the ground, a 34 and 33 year old backs will do pretty close to nothing. (Faulk is an exception, since he plays a slot WR esque role as a RB).

I'd rather have:

1. Maroney
2. Faulk
3. BJGE
4. Paschall

than:

1. Maroney
2. Faulk
3. Taylor
4. Morris
5. BJGE

 

[signbabybrady]

Our Runningame is going to slightly worse unless Maroney can perform.

Fred Taylor and Sammy Morris are a waste on the roster, I would cut them both. They're wheels have been run in the ground, a 34 and 33 year old backs will do pretty close to nothing. (Faulk is an exception, since he plays a slot WR esque role as a RB).

I'd rather have:

1. Maroney
2. Faulk
3. BJGE
4. Paschall

than:

1. Maroney
2. Faulk
3. Taylor
4. Morris
5. BJGE

So basically you want practice squad players backing up a guy (Maroney) who has proven nothing except that he is consistantly inconsistant and a 3rd down passing specialist.

I am not thrilled with the idea of going into the season with the guys we have at RB which is why I wanted Matthews in RD 1 but short of that I was pretty sure we would go with what we had last year which for the Patriots needs is serviceable but I think we all want more than serviceable.

I hope Paschell can suprise and unseat one of the Vets but I wouldn't hold my breath and at this point I think we know what BJGE offers which is a good back up but nothing special (and if it weren't for the age and health of the guys infront of him I doubt he would have made the team).

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

Our Runningame is going to slightly worse unless Maroney can perform.

Fred Taylor and Sammy Morris are a waste on the roster, I would cut them both. They're wheels have been run in the ground, a 34 and 33 year old backs will do pretty close to nothing. (Faulk is an exception, since he plays a slot WR esque role as a RB).

I'd rather have:

1. Maroney
2. Faulk
3. BJGE
4. Paschall

than:

1. Maroney
2. Faulk
3. Taylor
4. Morris
5. BJGE

That does not sound like a "marching in place", much less a winning strategy. Even last year's group is a year older -- so barring a miracle...

 

[signbabybrady]

One aspect of the game that I believe no one has noted as being better is STs.

I think we can be much better here. Last year our coverage units were pretty good but our return units were pretty bad IMO. I think between Price, Tate, and Mcourty we will find a couple of good returners and should improve that area of STs.

I don't see any reason our coverage units should be worse and could be better based on added experience for some guys.

I think really the only STs question would be at punter but the Pats have always gotten by with average punters and see no reason why a kid drafted for the position can't be better than average.


This is a great thread and certainly injuries and the unknown (older players dropping off talentwise that we were counting on) could change things but on paper it looks as though we have improved a few key areas while trying to make sure that no areas get worse. Certainly we didn't improve every problem area from last year but we went a long way in trying to and on paper we may not have hurt any other areas in trying to accomplish this.

 

[StraightCashHomey81]

One other wildcard for OLB is Guyton. If Spikes does win a starting job inside, Guyton could prove a better option outside than Ninkovich/Woods depending on the situation.

I've heard this idea here, ESPNBoston, and on talk radio recently and it is time to debug it. Guyton cannot play 3-4 OLB for us. He is too small at 6'1-6'2and only 240ish lbs. They tried him there in an emergency situation late in the 2008 season against Seattle, and was blown off the ball and sealed inside with ease by the RT over and over again. He would be an ideal WOLB in a 4-3 though.

 

[JackBauer]

I still expect a RB to be signed and one of Morris or Taylor (or both) to be cut.

 

[patsinthesnow]

To signBabybrady and the other poster, I wanted a RB in the second round (Toby Gerhart was my avatar for awhile). We pretty much will have to make do at the position with what we have.

It is definitely not a "marching in place" group of backs, but what can we do now? Taylor and Morris will be close to ineffective and I'd prefer BJGE or Paschall over them.

 

[patsinthesnow]

I still expect a RB to be signed and one of Morris or Taylor (or both) to be cut.

This is a problem though. Who is out there that is even close to decent?

 

[signbabybrady]

To signBabybrady and the other poster, I wanted a RB in the second round (Toby Gerhart was my avatar for awhile). We pretty much will have to make do at the position with what we have.

It is definitely not a "marching in place" group of backs, but what can we do now? Taylor and Morris will be close to ineffective and I'd prefer BJGE or Paschall over them.

I don't agree that Taylor and Morris will be ineffective and I certainly don't pefer BJGE over either of them and doubt that Paschell will prove better though I will give him a punchers chance.

I do agree that we should have tried to improve the position through the draft though problem was there wasn't much talent there. I heard rumors we were intreseted in Matthews but in no way were going to trade up for him and I also heard we were interested in Hardesty but these guys were gone where would have taken them so we could not upgrade. I don't care that we didn't grab one later because I think anyone we grabbed would have had as good a shot of beating out these guys as Paschell does.

So we both wanted to improve the position but we differ on where the position was skill wise prior to wanting improvement. I think the group is more than serviceable but I wanted to be better than serviceable. You don't seem to think it is serviceable and feel we really needed to improve the position for this year and not just for the future.

 

[JackBauer]

This is a problem though. Who is out there that is even close to decent?

I expect many additional cuts between now and July.

 

[bucky]

This is a good thread. But I think since it's May, it makes more sense to compare this team to the one we had last May, as opposed to the one we had in December. The reason for this - last year we were all pretty jacked about Galloway, Lewis, Baker, Brace, etc. before many of them sucked. Now we're just as jacked about Crumpler, Holt, Spikes, etc. I'm not saying they're going to such, but their chances are just as good as last year's guys.

So with that in mind:

QB - better, hopefully much better with Brady 1 year removed from the injury.

RB - same. Same cast of characters.

WR - same. This is a tough one, but Welker's injury and Moss' so-so 2nd half negates the emergence of Edelman and presence of Price.

TE - worse. There's plenty of potential, but last year we were all harping on Baker and Alex Smith. What a deep position this was, many thought.

OL - better, due to presence of Vollmer and some decent prospects.

DL - worse. No Seymour, and plenty of so-so Seymour replacement. Taking Seymour out of the equation, I expect the DL to be better.

ILB - better. No question, last year this was a major concern after McKenzie got hurt.

OLB - same. Last year, AD was supposed to be back from injury and Woods was a promising up and comer. And everyone here was fine with AD/Woods as the starters and TBC as the pass rusher. This year, TBC is the returning best OLB, Woods/Ninkovich are the up and comers. And Cunningham might be this year's TBC.

CB - better. More talent. More guys with experience in our system, and at least one proven returning starter.

S - better. Merriweather is obviously improving. Chung heading into 2nd year. And McGowan was a nice surprise.

ST - better. McCourty and Arrington are both better than anyone we had last year. Mesko should be a major upgrade.

 

[Ring 6]

Throwing Spikes in maybe, but Cunningham is a 4-3 college DE right now. Sure, he's the got the build and skillset to play 3-4 OLB, but to expect that transition to happen from day one is unreasonable. BB will do what he always does, bring him along slowly. Use him where his current skill set helps the team and let him learn the rest over time.

One other wildcard for OLB is Guyton. If Spikes does win a starting job inside, Guyton could prove a better option outside than Ninkovich/Woods depending on the situation.

I really disagree with this idea that starting a rookie is a risky as walking through a bear cage in a bacon suit.
What is there to lose? If he is better than the other guys he plays.
We have had rookies start. Seymour, Wilfork, Warren after a while, Mankins, Koppen a 5th rounder, Branch, Graham, Butler, Hobbs, Maroney. Thats just off the top of my head.
The real reason the list isn't longer is that we were loaded with talent for the last 10 years, as evidenced by winning more games than anyone else in the NFL, and it was harder for a rookie to start because the guy in front of him was good.


Yes, rookies are a step behind.
No, BB is no more anti-rookie than any other coach.
Yes, we have quite a few rookies who look as if they will be the best player at their postion, and that means, they will play.

 

[spacecrime]

I've heard this idea here, ESPNBoston, and on talk radio recently and it is time to debug it. Guyton cannot play 3-4 OLB for us. He is too small at 6'1-6'2and only 240ish lbs.

Guyton is both taller and heavier than you claim.

www.patriots.com/players

In fact, Guyton is taller than both Banta-Cain and Ninkovich, and is almost exactly the same height and weight as Colvin.

But all that aside, saying a player CANNOT play a position because he is smaller than the ideal player at the position ignores reality. Welker cannot play WR, Sproles cannot be an NFL RB, Brees cannot be an NFL QB

 

[signbabybrady]

I really disagree with this idea that starting a rookie is a risky as walking through a bear cage in a bacon suit.
What is there to lose? If he is better than the other guys he plays.
We have had rookies start. Seymour, Wilfork, Warren after a while, Mankins, Koppen a 5th rounder, Branch, Graham, Butler, Hobbs, Maroney. Thats just off the top of my head.
The real reason the list isn't longer is that we were loaded with talent for the last 10 years, as evidenced by winning more games than anyone else in the NFL, and it was harder for a rookie to start because the guy in front of him was good.


Yes, rookies are a step behind.
No, BB is no more anti-rookie than any other coach.
Yes, we have quite a few rookies who look as if they will be the best player at their postion, and that means, they will play.

I agree with everything you said except the last statement I am not sure any of the rookies would be considered the best player at their position other than maybe Gronkowski or Spikes (but only if you split the ILB into the Strong and Weak).


I do think a bunch of them are good enough compared to others at their position to potentially garner a significant role but I don't think at this point in time you can say they are the best at position X

 

[spacecrime]

TE - worse. There's plenty of potential, but last year we were all harping on Baker and Alex Smith. What a deep position this was, many thought.

Come on, now. This is silly. Do you honestly feel we would be better off if we kept Baker and Smith, and hadn't drafted Gronk and Hernandez? You really wish we had those two back instead of the new guys?

DL - worse. No Seymour, and plenty of so-so Seymour replacement. Taking Seymour out of the equation, I expect the DL to be better.

Why is Seymour in the equation? He wasn't here last year, so how can we be worse off if he still isn't here? We did sign a couple Vet DL and drafted a couple rookie DL and Mryor and Brace are going into their sophomore years with a year under their belts. Would you rather cut all those guys and get Green back?

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I don't see OLB as a big boost. Status quo with some potential, but we're still talking TBC and ??? right now.

Really what you are saying is that you don't believe Cunningham is up to the task...and that is where we differ.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with everything you said except the last statement I am not sure any of the rookies would be considered the best player at their position other than maybe Gronkowski or Spikes (but only if you split the ILB into the Strong and Weak).


I do think a bunch of them are good enough compared to others at their position to potentially garner a significant role but I don't think at this point in time you can say they are the best at position X

I think MCcourty is one of our 2 best corners, Spikes is one of our 2 best ILBs, Cunningham is one of our 2 best OLBs, Gronko our best TE, Hernandez our best HBack.
Doesn't mean they will be PLAYING THE BEST at the start of the season but I don't see better football players at those positions.

 

[bucky]

Guyton is both taller and heavier than you claim.

www.patriots.com/players

In fact, Guyton is taller than both Banta-Cain and Ninkovich, and is almost exactly the same height and weight as Colvin.

But all that aside, saying a player CANNOT play a position because he is smaller than the ideal player at the position ignores reality. Welker cannot play WR, Sproles cannot be an NFL RB, Brees cannot be an NFL QB

The Patriots tried Guyton at OLB in Seattle in 2008. He was horrible at setting the edge and he was moved back inside in favor of the freshly signed Colvin. I'm not saying he can't do it, but I don't think it's in his repertoire right now. They would have to devote the entire training camp to teaching Guyton the position and then making the decision whether to keep him there.