2 DL's in the first 33

[mgteich]

How would you all feel if we draft Watt or Jordan AND Heyward, and traded down from 33. We would still have 4-5 more top 100 picks to choose a develoipmental OLB and two starting quality offensive lineman.

Personally, I think that our DL would be absoluitely awesome. Somehow we would find room for both of them in our 7 DL positions.

Our LB's would also be much better because of the better line upfront.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

I think the two players that fit the Patriots D Line the best and allow us versatility are Wilkerson from Temple and Taylor from Baylor.

Both will probably need a red shirt year before they can contribute, but both provide great depth at positions that need depth. DE and NT.

Depending on how quickly Taylor can be made to play low, will allow us to move Wilfork to DE in certain situations.

Add them to a Sheard (at #33) who has that first step suddenness that we desperately need from our pass rush as well as some ability to play the run and we can improve our pass rush significantly while not sacrificing much against the run.

 

[Off The Grid]

I've been BELLOWING for us to haul in 2 D Line Grizzlies for a year, now, so, yeah: I'd be OK with it!!

***

In OTG's 2011 Mock Draft Version #113, I've got JJ "Dynomite" Watts + Kenrick "No you may NOT" Ellis as my choices...but my unpopular admiration for Cameron Heyward is well documented. I would be THRILLED.

 

[MaineMan]

I could see it. Some combo of Watt, Jordan, Wilkerson, Heyward with #17 and #28. Leshoure at #33 (WOT??!!). Acho at #60. Orlando Franklin at #74. A "Dante Special" OG or OC plus a CB, maybe a WR or FB (Anthony Sherman) after that.

 

[Fencer]

I'd be OK with it if I thought some combination of the new guys, Wilfork, and Warren could stay on the field on passing downs. Otherwise it would seem a bit overdone.

Here's what gives me pause: Seymour/Wilfork/Warren was an awesome collection of talent that didn't accomplish as much as one might have thought. Wilfork/Warren/new guy/new guy/Brace would be a similarly huge investment. I'd like them to be useful for three downs.

 

[supafly]

I'd like that scenario too, not sure how BB would feel though--may be a bit redundant + missing out on opportunity at another position. It's going to be tough enough already squeezing the 'supposed' new guy into the 7 DL's.

I remember when everyone told me that I was nuts last yr for saying that we'd keep 7 DL, over the usual past of 6. Now we're trying to squeeze about 10+ guys into a 7 man position.

I'm all up for the idea and many others will be on board too, but I think that speaks volumes about the overall feeling on the forum, and the reality of what happens is very different. I think a more reasonable approach would be to take a DL early, then maybe another in the mid-round range. This way if it doesn't work out, there isn't as much lost, or so much immediate pressure on both player and coach/front office.

1. Early draft pick
2. Ty Warren
3. Wilfork
4. Wright
5. Pryor
6. Brace
7. Deadrick
8. Gerard Warren
9. Love
10. Stroud
11. I know I'm forgetting someone, just don't feel like looking it up--(Moore)
12. I know I'm forgetting someone else too (Cohen)

It already appears that it's going to be a pretty tough competition, (which is absolutely great). All of our opinions on who's a lock will differ however, which tells me that it's going to be a wide open competition to get it down to 7 already. Someone (or better yet, a bunch of someones) is/are going to be cut and left out. It appears to me that there's already a plethora of bodies at the position, and I am thinking that the likelihood of taking 2 more at the position early is not likely.

 

[MaineMan]

I'd be OK with it if I thought some combination of the new guys, Wilfork, and Warren could stay on the field on passing downs. Otherwise it would seem a bit overdone.

Here's what gives me pause: Seymour/Wilfork/Warren was an awesome collection of talent that didn't accomplish as much as one might have thought. Wilfork/Warren/new guy/new guy/Brace would be a similarly huge investment. I'd like them to be useful for three downs.

Mostly agree. I'd think TWarren-Wilfork-Stroud might need to be the "starting" 30-front early in the season with the two rookies working in here-and-there, alternately. That should still be miles ahead of Brace-GWarren-Wilfork as a 30-front. And both rookies could get snaps in a 40-front "rush" subpackage (especially maybe Watt) occasionally. Brace and/or Love might then be Wilfork's "relief man" or his undertackle/subrusher in certain other 40-fronts.

As to the Warren-Wilfork-Seymour line, IDK. They held their ground very well at the PoA and kept blockers off the LBs (which is what the BB 30-front is supposed to do). They also made a lot of tackles - the three of them averaged more per year than all EIGHT of our D-linemen produced in 2010. And they averaged about 10 sacks per year (2010's top three had 3.5 sacks), though that's not really their primary job in a "non-attacking" scheme.

 

[Fencer]

As to the Warren-Wilfork-Seymour line, IDK. They held their ground very well at the PoA and kept blockers off the LBs (which is what the BB 30-front is supposed to do). They also made a lot of tackles - the three of them averaged more per year than all EIGHT of our D-linemen produced in 2010. And they averaged about 10 sacks per year (2010's top three had 3.5 sacks), though that's not really their primary job in a "non-attacking" scheme.

I just don't recall the defense as being all that great while they were racking up all those accomplishments.

 

[supafly]

I just don't recall the defense as being all that great while they were racking up all those accomplishments.

You make a compelling point, fencer. I believe they held their own for sure though.

Either they were above average, and now we just suck on defense--OR--they were pretty damn good, and now we're about average. One of the 2 has to apply.

I guess each poster will have their own take on it.

 

[Seneschal2]

Personally, I think that our DL would be absolutely awesome. Somehow we would find room for both of them in our 7 DL positions.

Yes and yes. I thought that was the gameplan all along.

The quality depth of the DE position, the need to improve the pass rush, and the Pats slotting, are all reasons NE may double up at the position. Previously, I'd suggested they may grab one early and one later on -- but the suggestion of nabbing two early also works for me.

One of Belichick's priorities has to be to address the pass rush. I think what we're going to see this season is BB relying on a collective effort to improve that area of concern. The DEs/DTs/OLBs can all create pressure w/ someone breaking free. Doesn't really matter who disrupts the timing of the offense -- does it?

I seriously doubt he'll draft an OLB and rely on that one rookie, at that one position, to correct an inadequate area of the D. BB can arrive at the plotted result by seriously upgrading the DL, while also adding one OLB to the current mix. Ultimately, adding three rookies to the D is a conscious effort by BB -- can't ask for more.

 

[MaineMan]

I'd like that scenario too, not sure how BB would feel though--may be a bit redundant + missing out on opportunity at another position. It's going to be tough enough already squeezing the 'supposed' new guy into the 7 DL's.

I remember when everyone told me that I was nuts last yr for saying that we'd keep 7 DL, over the usual past of 6. Now we're trying to squeeze about 10+ guys into a 7 man position.

I'm all up for the idea and many others will be on board too, but I think that speaks volumes about the overall feeling on the forum, and the reality of what happens is very different. I think a more reasonable approach would be to take a DL early, then maybe another in the mid-round range. This way if it doesn't work out, there isn't as much lost, or so much immediate pressure on both player and coach/front office.

.....

It already appears that it's going to be a pretty tough competition, (which is absolutely great). All of our opinions on who's a lock will differ however, which tells me that it's going to be a wide open competition to get it down to 7 already. Someone (or better yet, a bunch of someones) is/are going to be cut and left out. It appears to me that there's already a plethora of bodies at the position, and I am thinking that the likelihood of taking 2 more at the position early is not likely.

Yeah, well, I'm not sure I entered this thread thinking it was a reasonable proposition. So, y'know, who are YOU to come in here and harsh on our gleeful greed?

Seriously, to "annotate" your list:

1. Early draft pick - developing 30-front RDE starter
2. Ty Warren - starting 30-front LDE (if healthy)
3. Wilfork - starting NT
4. Wright - interior sub-rusher
5. Pryor - interior sub-rusher, duplicates Wright
6. Brace - Wilfork "relief man"/undertackle in some 40-fronts
7. Deaderick (7th) - Jarvis Green type sub-rusher/DE reserve
8. Gerard Warren - probably replaced by Stroud already
9. Love (UDFA) - Wilfork "relief man"/undertackle in some 40-fronts
10. Stroud - starting 30-front RDE (early season)

11. I know I'm forgetting someone, just don't feel like looking it up--(Moore) - possible reserve OLB/edge-rusher
12. I know I'm forgetting someone else too (Cohen) - late-season emergency injury replacement only

13. Darryl Richard (6024/303) - 2009 7th; 2009 P/S; 2010 IR - might already have been passed over
14. Kade Weston (6050/315) - 2010 7th on IR - listed as a "DT/NT", but also the right size for 30-front DE

So, Moore (IMO) counts against the OLB numbers, not the D-line numbers. Richard, G. Warren and Cohen are probably as good as gone. That gets us down to 10. I think we still carry 7 this season, at least for awhile. We started carrying seven (IMO) because we were playing a lot of 40-fronts. And (again, IMO) we were playing a lot of 40-fronts because we didn't have that solid 30-front anymore.

Even so, there are obvious redundancies.

Sub-rusher: I think we keep Wright (assuming he's healthy) and whichever one of Pryor/Deaderick seems best fit to succeed him in a couple years (there's always been a 2-4 year lag before our "cheapo" sub-rushers have become productive).

Reserve NT/DE/40-front undertackle: Comes down to whichever among Brace, Love, Weston and possibly a later-round new guy (realistically) seems the most productive AND versatile. Weston and/or a new late-round guy could end up on the P/S, but one of Brace or Love probably has to go away (actually, Love may have P/S eligibility left since he was only active for 9 games?).

So, let's see if this works:

30-front: T. Warren/Wilfork/Stroud -+- #17 pick
Sub-rushers: Wright + (one of) Pryor/Deaderick
Reserve NT/DE/undertackle: (one of) Brace/Love/Weston/late-round rookie

Anyway, there's certainly room on the 80-man camp roster (assuming there IS a camp) for 10-12 D-linemen from which to shake out the best seven.

 

[MaineMan]

I just don't recall the defense as being all that great while they were racking up all those accomplishments.

The Warren/Wilfork/Seymour line was together from 2004 through 2008:

The defense ranked (in points allowed/yds allowed:
2004 - 2nd/9th
2005 - 17th/26th (whoops!)
2006 - 2nd/6th
2007 - 4th/4th
2008 - 8th/10th

With Green "replacing" Seymour:
2009 - 5th/11th

With Seymour and Ty Warren both gone:
2010 - 8th/25th

 

[Water Boy]

How would you all feel if we draft Watt or Jordan AND Heyward, and traded down from 33. .

Oh what the hell - Why don't we draft Watt AND Jordan AND Heyward. Then our line would be super duper duper awesome. ; )

 

[supafly]

Yeah, well, I'm not sure I entered this thread thinking it was a reasonable proposition. So, y'know, who are YOU to come in here and harsh on our gleeful greed?

Seriously, to "annotate" your list:

1. Early draft pick - developing 30-front RDE starter
2. Ty Warren - starting 30-front LDE (if healthy)
3. Wilfork - starting NT
4. Wright - interior sub-rusher
5. Pryor - interior sub-rusher, duplicates Wright
6. Brace - Wilfork "relief man"/undertackle in some 40-fronts
7. Deaderick (7th) - Jarvis Green type sub-rusher/DE reserve
8. Gerard Warren - probably replaced by Stroud already
9. Love (UDFA) - Wilfork "relief man"/undertackle in some 40-fronts
10. Stroud - starting 30-front RDE (early season)

11. I know I'm forgetting someone, just don't feel like looking it up--(Moore) - possible reserve OLB/edge-rusher
12. I know I'm forgetting someone else too (Cohen) - late-season emergency injury replacement only

13. Darryl Richard (6024/303) - 2009 7th; 2009 P/S; 2010 IR - might already have been passed over
14. Kade Weston (6050/315) - 2010 7th on IR - listed as a "DT/NT", but also the right size for 30-front DE

So, Moore (IMO) counts against the OLB numbers, not the D-line numbers. Richard, G. Warren and Cohen are probably as good as gone. That gets us down to 10. I think we still carry 7 this season, at least for awhile. We started carrying seven (IMO) because we were playing a lot of 40-fronts. And (again, IMO) we were playing a lot of 40-fronts because we didn't have that solid 30-front anymore.

Even so, there are obvious redundancies.

Sub-rusher: I think we keep Wright (assuming he's healthy) and whichever one of Pryor/Deaderick seems best fit to succeed him in a couple years (there's always been a 2-4 year lag before our "cheapo" sub-rushers have become productive).

Reserve NT/DE/40-front undertackle: Comes down to whichever among Brace, Love, Weston and possibly a later-round new guy (realistically) seems the most productive AND versatile. Weston and/or a new late-round guy could end up on the P/S, but one of Brace or Love probably has to go away (actually, Love may have P/S eligibility left since he was only active for 9 games?).

So, let's see if this works:

30-front: T. Warren/Wilfork/Stroud -+- #17 pick
Sub-rushers: Wright + (one of) Pryor/Deaderick
Reserve NT/DE/undertackle: (one of) Brace/Love/Weston/late-round rookie

Anyway, there's certainly room on the 80-man camp roster (assuming there IS a camp) for 10-12 D-linemen from which to shake out the best seven.

Nice breakdown MM. Should be fun to see how it shakes out. I'm guessing one early, and another mid-round--just a hunch though.

I don't know if Love still has PS eligibility, but that'd be nice if true.

I'm going to say at the end of camp that it looks like:

Ty Warren
Wilfork
Stroud
(early pick)
Wright
Pryor
and either a mid-lt round pick, OR Brace--since he may be able to buy himself one more year with some versatility (although the versatility is debatable)

 

[mgteich]

1) I don't consider Stroud a lock for a reostter spot. He could be this year's Lewis. I like the signing, but he is camp competition.
2) We need to develop help for 2012, especially with no camp.
3) Absent major injuries, the top 4 DL's get almost all the reps. Even last year, only the top 4 were in for more then 25% of the defensive reps. In 2009, the top four had almost all the reps. I could easily see the top five getting almost all the reps in 2011, even with the hoped for reduction in reps for Wilfork.
4) I also count Moore as one of our 5 OLB's. We keep 9 LB's: 5 OLB's, 3 ILB's and a special teamer.

==========================
FIRST FIVE
3-4 Front Warren, Wilfork, #17
sub Wright
reserve Brace (we've seen enough to keep him for another year)
He might even start early in the season instead of #17

For me, even this five, we need to focus on a future replacement for Warren and/or Wright. There is clearly room for TWO top draftees, especially if there is no camp and we are really looking for 2012 production.

THE NEXT TWO (OR EVEN 3)
Deaderick, Stroud, Pryor, Richard, Weston, Cohen

We could even keep 8 DL's, dependent on Warren's and Wright's health
=====================================
BOTTOM LINE
There is plently of room for two top DL additions. But the qualitry is currently OK, so picks later than 33 are likely not be any upgrade at all.
=====================================

.So, let's see if this works:

30-front: T. Warren/Wilfork/Stroud -+- #17 pick
Sub-rushers: Wright + (one of) Pryor/Deaderick
Reserve NT/DE/undertackle: (one of) Brace/Love/Weston/late-round rookie

Anyway, there's certainly room on the 80-man camp roster (assuming there IS a camp) for 10-12 D-linemen from which to shake out the best seven.

 

[the wrothbroughterer]

How would you all feel if we draft Watt or Jordan AND Heyward, and traded down from 33. We would still have 4-5 more top 100 picks to choose a develoipmental OLB and two starting quality offensive lineman.

Personally, I think that our DL would be absoluitely awesome. Somehow we would find room for both of them in our 7 DL positions.

Our LB's would also be much better because of the better line upfront.

If they grabbed Watt and Heyward with 2 of their first 3 picks I would be ecstatic. I think Heyward is going to be there a little later in the 2nd, but that's splitting hairs.

I think Heyward is flying way under the radar and will be a huge steal in the mid to late 2nd round. I'm not expecting Ty Warren to be with the team following the 2011 season and Heyward is the protoypical 34DE. Tall, big body, long arms, and he's got plenty of ability to take on double teams and apply pressure off the edge.

There's no point in re-hashing JJ Watt's potential. He's going to be a force, especially in our system. Watt and Heyward give us that dominant defensive line that is a precursor to an effective pass rush and pass coverage.

 

[tricktak]

No way they take two d-linemen that early. They'll take one if not any. They are pretty high on Deaderick, Brace, Wright and Love plus they are getting Warren back so I don't see them taking two D-Linemen in the first 3-4 rounds. I could see them rolling the dice (based on potential) on someone like Kenrick Ellis at the end of the second or beginning of the third, Ellis has much more upside and potential than Deaderick or Brace, so they'll only take a linemen if he's a significant upgrade from what they already have.

 

[cstjohn17]

How would you all feel if we draft Watt or Jordan AND Heyward, and traded down from 33. We would still have 4-5 more top 100 picks to choose a develoipmental OLB and two starting quality offensive lineman.

Personally, I think that our DL would be absoluitely awesome. Somehow we would find room for both of them in our 7 DL positions.

Our LB's would also be much better because of the better line upfront.

This sounds good but who plays LT and LG in this scenario?

 

[andrewgarrr]

This sounds good but who plays LT and LG in this scenario?

Presumably, Light and Mankins.

 

[Sciz]

Just one (preferably Watt). There are enough bodies. What the Pats need is a stud, and you don't get one of them from 28 on.