Who Was the Top 2006 Defensive pats rookie?

[Bobs My Uncle]

If the Pats don'r resign their WRs, I'm in favor of never drafting a WR again. From all the 1st and 2nd draft picks that are lusted after then discarded after a year or two, I think free agent WRs are an incredible bargain.

OK, I see now. You have an inherant problem with using a high draft pick on a WR moreso than anything else. Why didn't you just say so from the start?

If we could pick up linebackers or DBs as solid as Caldwell and Gaffney, we'd be talking about our SB victory over the Bears right now.

Or, if we had a real WR corps that wasn't so inept we'd be working on #5 as we speak.

The Pats management seems to agree with me as they have focused a ton of their effort and money signing every and any WR that can walk and chew gum at the same time this offseason.

Meanwhile they have signed how many DB's?

 

[captain stone]

Hey cap. Doncha think that if BB and company felt as though the secondary was in disarray that they'd have directed more $$$$ and time towards improving it with immediate help rather than rely on the possibility that some rookie draftee will solves all of their ailments? I mean look at how active this team has been trying to remedy the inept secondary of ours

Meanwhile, they are adding every Tom, ****, Bob and Ray they can get their hands on at WR. You think they might believe that the real problem on this team last year was WR and not the secondary?

It's not the first time that I've disagreed with the FO; it probably won't be the last time, either.

 

[cstjohn17]

First off, your projected secondary consists of eight players. That will last approximately six weeks. Secondly, three players - Harrison, Scott, and Hawkins - are nearing the ends of their careers.

I think the Colts/Ravens playoff game demonstrated the importance of having an impact safeties in the secondary: the Ravens played them deep, coming downhill for picks, and they frustrated Manning all game long, instead of for just a half.

I think there is an opportunity for one rookie corner and safety to make this roster immediately. I'm not saying they WILL be drafted first day, it all depends on who's available and when, but if I was playing percentages for those three first day picks, I'd be looking for the Pats to address the secondary twice.

Who Was the Top 2006 Defensive pats rookie? That depends, does the player have to be a rookie? If the criteria is which of the 2006 rookies should be listed as the Defensive Rookie of the Year then the answer is no one. Andrews did well on special team but not as part of the defense.

If the question is which young player showed the most in 2006, it was James Sanders. He is not Ronnie Lott but got better as the year went along and is now an adequate backup to Harrison.

It is popular to trash our secondary but in 2006 they gave up 10 passing touchdowns and were a big part of a defense that allowed 14.8 PPG. Those are fracking amazing stats. 10 passing TDs is just unreal.

The Indy game was a once in a lifetime event, and I wish I could erase it from my memory forever. We were playing with our 5th string Safety, no team in the league has even a marginal 5th Safety. We were also going against a top 10 QB of all time with 2 Probowl receivers and a Probowl TE. If other teams try to duplicate Indy's gameplan it will fail badly because only a QB as good as Manning can make those kind of plays. Also our corners played great the entire season.

It looks like there is an opportunity for a Safety and a Corner to be drafted but the best case is these players are the 3rd or 4th options at the position with an increased role in 2008. The NFL is not a development league, you can't keep 7 Safeties and groom them forever.

Imagine the team if on Day 1 they draft a Safety, a CB and an ILB. This roster will be stacked.

ILB - Siler, Beason, Posuluzky (whatever), Harris, Willis, Bradley, maybe DeOssie but I don't see him as a Day 1 pick
S- Nelson, Griffin, Merriweather, Sabby
CB - Houston, Ross, Hall, Revis, Wade, Davis, Coe, Bain, Wilson

 

[RayClay]

OK, I see now. You have an inherant problem with using a high draft pick on a WR moreso than anything else. Why didn't you just say so from the start?

Am I saying there are more 1st round flops at WR than at any other position? I don't know ask Detroit.

Am I saying top receivers have less impact on winning than top defensive players? I don't know, ask Arizona.

Am I saying WR success is unpredictable? We picked Glenn at #7

If we had drafted a Lineman like Parcells wanted, would we have missed out?

1st Eddie Kennison
Marvin Harrison
Eric Moulds
2nd Amani Toomer
Muhsin Muhammad
Bobby Engram
3rd Terrel Owens
5th Joe Horn
All the receivers were still available, but we just had to have that top WR pick. Maybe Parcells was right.


Or, if we had a real WR corps that wasn't so inept we'd be working on #5 as we speak.

Since Gaffney is the top reception leader among WRs in the playoffs, I really think it's unfair to call him inept. I'm sure he would have had a great season if he hadt the benefit of the season and camp.

The Pats management seems to agree with me as they have focused a ton of their effort and money signing every and any WR that can walk and chew gum at the same time this offseason.

Meanwhile they have signed how many DB's?

If signing players to potentially large contracts is the criterion then the management has hated you for 7 years. I think the Pats go DB in the draft and they should go high LB IMO, but it seems they are hesitant to do that.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

If signing players to potentially large contracts is the criterion then the management has hated you for 7 years. I think the Pats go DB in the draft and they should go high LB IMO, but it seems they are hesitant to do that.

Let's be fair here.

This is the only season in which the FO has had the option to be active spenders in the offseason. That they have chosen to spend those $$$$ on a slew of WR's instead of a single DB should be a very good indicator which position they feel was in most need of repair, no?

As for the draft I see the Pats using a high pick on any number of players ....... WR, RB, TE, LB, OL, DB. About the only positions I don't see a liklihood of being used for a high draft pick is QB, P, FB and PK.

 

[unoriginal]

Let's be fair here.

This is the only season in which the FO has had the option to be active spenders in the offseason. That they have chosen to spend those $$$$ on a slew of WR's instead of a single DB should be a very good indicator which position they feel was in most need of repair, no?

No. It simply means the FO felt that the best value in FA was in signing WRs, not DBs. It certainly demonstrates that WR was an area of need, but it does not show that it was in most need of repair.

To support my point I will direct your attention to New Orleans, which apart from Mike McKenzie did not have any good players in the secondary, and clearly suffered for it in the playoffs. So far they have signed Kaesviharn, a safety that couldn't crack the starting lineup for the Bengals. Does this mean that the Saints felt their secondary didn't need to be addressed in FA? No. What it does point to is that the Saints feel their secondary is best built through the draft.

It is common knowledge on this board that successful first-year WRs are exceptional. Even substantial second-year production is a minor miracle. It is also true that, on a league-wide basis, and certainly on this team, rookie DBs have been able to earn playing time... Wilson, Hobbs, Samuel. I think FA so far is more about the value of rookie DBs vs. WR than it is about BB tacitly endorsing the play of Chad Scott for another year.

As for the draft I see the Pats using a high pick on any number of players ....... WR, RB, TE, LB, OL, DB. About the only positions I don't see a liklihood of being used for a high draft pick is QB, P, FB and PK.

I think you can refine your list down to RB, DB, LB. Those spots seem to be in most need of depth, consequently they have a higher likelihood of being addressed early in the draft.

 

[RayClay]

I think the Patriots don't want to break in more than one new receiver at a time. They have Jackson.

I think they go high with DB, mostly because they have an aversion to drafting LBs high.

Unless they draft a top LT, what are they going to do with another OL?

2 first round picks at RB?

Let's spend another #1 at tight end. That was a great idea before.

 

[patchick]

The Pats management seems to agree with me as they have focused a ton of their effort and money signing every and any WR that can walk and chew gum at the same time this offseason.

Meanwhile they have signed how many DB's?

Ooh, I know the answer! One. And they committed as much of this year's cap to that one as to all of the WRs put together.

Asante Samuel is a UFA. You can't just count him as "a guy already on the team," he is not under contract and by all accounts the Patriots are preparing a significant long-term deal for him. Assuming Samuel's deal goes through, in this offseason the Patriots will have signed major deals for the #1 LB in free agency and the #1 CB in free agency, plus relatively modest commitments to Welker, Stallworth and Washington. How is that a statement that WR was their primary focus?

The way the Pats roster spots at WR is structured they might very well have only have 1 bonafide starting caliber WR (Welker) this time next season.
...
I'm not exactly sure why you are so down on the defensive players we have starting on this team?

I don't think that adds up...if your evaluation of the WRs is based on 2008, then your evaluation of the DBs has to be based on 2008 too. Even assuming Samuel signs, your entire 2008 backfield roster is Samuel, Hobbs, and Sanders. Surely that's at least as big a gaping hole as a WR corps of Welker, Jackson and expensive options on Stallworth and Washington?