Why didnt' that Pats take a WR at 56 & Vereen at 60?

Discussion in 'Patriots Draft Talk' started by brady199, May 1, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. brady199

    brady199 Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    If the reports are true the Pats wanted to take Greg Little (who I think will be a stud) or Torrey Smith with the 60th pick. With Clevland and Baltimore both picking in front of them it didn't make any sense to go RB first. Both Teams needed a WR, I've seen many Mocks with the Browns picking AJ Green or Julio Jones with the 6th pick, I've also seen a few mock drafts with Baltimore taking Torrey Smith in the first round.

    I would of been much more excited with Greg Little @ 56 instead of trading down and picking up Ridley, or Mallett
    Last edited: May 1, 2011
  2. patchick

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    #50 Jersey

    Where'd pick #57 go in your analysis? The Lions took an RB immediately after the Pats, so there's no certainty at all that Vereen would have been around at #60.
    Last edited: May 1, 2011
  3. TheSolderKing

    TheSolderKing In the Starting Line-Up

    we don't need another WR in this heavy TE based Offense. We have gadded RB's to supplement our blitzkrieg style strikes.

    Tate Branch Price suffice the need at WR

    if you deny it then I am sorry for you.:cool:
    Last edited: May 1, 2011
  4. Keyser Söze

    Keyser Söze In the Starting Line-Up

    #87 Jersey

    Tate Branch Price

  5. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    #12 Jersey

    I would have loved to take a shot at Little.

    However it's a lot easier looking back.

    Although Baltimore and Cleveland took WR, the Lions also took a RB. There are two reasons to take the RB :

    1 - Although Baltimore and Cleveland were possibilities to take a WR, we had to go 2-2 (in a bad way) for both Smith and Little to be gone. It only took one team to take Vereen, it took two to take the two WR.

    2 - We needed the RB more. Little would be an intriguing developmental player but we had no depth at all at RB. I don't know why they didn't like Leshoure but they didn't so it seems Vereen was their clear choice at RB at that point. With zero depth at RB that was a reasonable way to go.
  6. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    #91 Jersey

    Why ask Why? It is what it is
  7. convertedpatsfan

    convertedpatsfan PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    #12 Jersey

    Is Little really an upgrade over Tate?

    I mean they're both UNC receivers who didn't play much receiver. Tate was an STer while Little was a high school LB who played RB and WR. Both were pretty raw in terms of route running. They both ran about the same at the combine (4.52 vs. 4.53). Little's bigger, but also has attitude concerns/diva behaviour.

    Tate is developing slowly, working his way back from that knee injury, but the routes are getting better. Little could be a great WR one day, but he isn't one right now. I just don't see how he's an upgrade to what we have. If anything, he's a bigger, slower version of Taylor Price, but with attitude issues.
  8. PatDaPatriot

    PatDaPatriot On the Game Day Roster

    James Walker from ESPN mentioned during espn.com's "draft live" coverage that the Browns were after Vereen. I imagine that they felt that Vereen would have gone to Cleveland at 59...

    I guess if they really wanted Smith/Little and Vereen they could've traded up from 60. However, they clearly didn't see the value in doing so...
    Last edited: May 1, 2011
  9. brady199

    brady199 Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Almost everyone had Leshoure rated higher then Vereen. So I think the lions would of went with Leshoure. Also Vereen is a slower, but stonger version of Jahvid Best, just like the pats took Ridley to compliment Vereen, I think the lions wanted a back to compliment Best. As far as someone else saying the Browns wanted Vereen, I've never heard that, but with Hillis and Hardesty coming back, I don't see RB being a need they would address in round 2.
  10. brady199

    brady199 Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Is Nicks better then Tate? They are both UNC WR's? Little's ceiling IMO is much Higher then Tates. Little has been compared to Andre Johnson, I think he's a beast. When I think of Tate I just think he's JAG.
  11. Metaphors

    Metaphors In the Starting Line-Up

    Whoever compared Little to Andre Johnson, stop listening to them. Little's upside is a bigger Anquan Boldin...which is plenty good enough. However, he has had some trouble separating so his floor is pretty low as well.

    Tate has had about one season and Brady typically needs to find a comfort level with a receiver before feeding them the ball consistently. Hopefully Tate can get there this year. There is almost no chance that a guy drafted this year (outside of Green/Jones) would get the reps needed to make much of a difference until Branch and/or Welker are moved out.
  12. Sciz

    Sciz PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Because that would not give the Patriots the best chance to win. That's the answer to every one of these threads.
  13. jmt57

    jmt57 Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    As it is there is already no room for another WR barring an injury or trade. Price spent the year as a non-injury inactive on the game day 45-man roster; obviously that is not the team's plan for him in 2011.

    I'm all for constant improvement and upgrading at every position, but as it is the Pats already have three WR's in that developmental stage: Tate, Edelman and Price. I have often seen it written that most receivers don't fulfill their potential until their third year. Should the team throw in the towel and get rid of one or more of those receivers already?

    If the Pats were to have drafted another WR, then which receivers already on the roster should the team consider to no longer be in their plans? And would a WR at #56 with potentially very little off-season contact due to the lockout seriously be considered to contribute more this year than whomever it is that he replaces?
  14. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    "If the reports are true", is the operative phrase... it is all speculation.
  15. I was intrigued by little as well. There's a lot of wrs though.

    One guy I think they should develop is terrance tolliver from LSU.
  16. convertedpatsfan

    convertedpatsfan PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    #12 Jersey

    I think you should read more than half the sentence. They're both UNC guys who didn't play full-time at WR, and it showed with their lack of polish on routes. Nicks was the guy who actually played WR full-time, and was clearly ahead of both of them.

    The Andre Johnson comparisons are unfair to Andre, who can actually run routes and catch the ball and produced big-time in college and didn't run his mouth. Apart from size, they're nothing alike.
  17. brady199

    brady199 Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Good point, I never considered that. But I guess I just really wanted Little :(
  18. Box_O_Rocks

    Box_O_Rocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    I perhaps don't follow the draft as closely as some, but I don't ever recall any mention - beyond fan message boards - linking Little with New England. As for Torrey Smith, his route running and his body catching seemed to lower his value for NE's offense.
  19. brady199

    brady199 Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    I've seen Michael Smith report it a few times on ESPN during the draft.
  20. Banjo

    Banjo Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    In New England the TEs are more important than the WRs. and hell, there's always free agency. hopefully the stars will align and Larry Fitzgerald signs with the Patriots for 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page