Filling holes

[patfanken]

This is a good thread. As someone who was so disgusted I turned off the draft after the Mallet pick and called it the "beginning of the end"; let me offer some opinions that a few months an a lot of listening can bring.

1. Solder. IMHO, he wasn't a guy the Pats took because he was the best of what what left. He was THE guy the Pats wanted. Many have opined that the Pats could have gotten a quality OT later in the draft and should have picked someone else or traded down. Yes they could have done that IF they wanted a guy who's upside is to be as good as Matt Light. I think that THEY think that SOLDER is not just another Matt Light, but someone who will become much BETTER than Light before his career is over.

Now Matt Light is one of my favorite players and is a GOOD LT. He's an elite run blocker and a good pass rush defender. But he has his limitations. He is what he is. I think the Pats saw a rare opportunity to grab a guy who could be special, not just good. Someone who was there only because of the run on the QBs and the glaring need of EVERY team to upgrade the DL/or OLB/

The Pats are NOT going to be drafting in the teens any time soon, so this was THEIR opportunity to get an elite prospect at a key position...... and they took it. Any of the DE/OLBs at this spot presented a much greater risk and a longer start up time.

2. The Trade at 28 - This made so much sense, I'm sure we all expected it. If the DE/OLB choices were weak at 17, they weren't much better at 28. I'm sure they looked at Ingram at 28 and felt that they could do better later on. I'm also sure they knew that Ingram was NO's choice before they made the trade.

Wilkerson might have been the pick here, but frankly I don't see how he would have been any better next season than Stroud, TWarren, Wright, and Brace, just for starters. He is a raw talent who played a low level of division one. He may turn out to be a fine player, but would he have made this a better defensive line THIS year? I don't think so.

3. Dowling - This one really pissed me off. Not because of who they picked, but that they didn't trade it and still got their man. I'm now fairly convinced that he WOULDN'T have been there in the 40's like people have suggested. The demand for bigger DBs to combat the bigger WRs is just too great to think that Dowling would have been there 10+ spots later.

I loved the concept of the pick. If you recall, my "surprise" pick was Jimmy Smith, because he was a big CB who give BB great flexibility in the 2ndary. Well Smith was a talented ****, who played undisciplined football for a bad team. Dowling was a talented big CB who played in the Pats system in college and was hurt. The more you think about it, the more you have to like the pick.

4. Vereen- I think a lot of people look at Vereen and think "Oh, Kevin Faulk's replacement". I think they like him a lot more than that. I think people should think more like the Steelers RB, Mendonhall. Quick strong, and a threat to break the long one every time he touches the ball. If we had stopped there I would have been fine.

5. Ridley- I'm beginning to think that Stephan Ridley is an acquired taste. The more you read about him the more you have to like him. Like in this thread, some added that while his 40 time was a half second slower than Ingram's. his cone time was a third of a second FASTER. I take quickness and acceleration every time over straight line speed. Ridley is the guy who is going to send BJGE to the bench.

6. Mallet- He was the "value" pick at a spot in the draft where we couldn't get much done. Again as one person added, no OLB prospect was taken for almost another 30 picks. There just wasn't anyone better. He's Brady insurance. He's Hoyer competition. He's trade bait. He's going to be great discussion fodder for the next 4 years

7. I think we got 2 future "starters" with the next 2 picks.
I think if we look at the combination of both need and Value, Cannon was probably the most popular pick in the draft among fans. So I won't go into depth with him, except to say that there are so many forms of chemo these days, that I wouldn't be shocked to see him on the field this year.

8. Smith - Again, the instant reaction to this pick was horror. Once you understood that the Pats got the best blocking TE in the draft, it meant perfect sense.

While Gronk and Hernandez are the sizzle at the TE position, having a great blocking TE like Crumpler is the glue for our offense, because ihaving that position covered ALLOWS the sizzle. Now that he has seen it for a year, BB will always want a similar collection of skills for the TE position. The Blocker. The Catcher, and the guy who can do both. Well he has the Catcher and the guy who can do both locked up long term, now he has to make sure he has his "Blocker" of the future in the fold. It make have been a year too early, but I'm guessing Smith's THAT good at what he does, and the risk would be NOT to get him. Besides injuries happen, especially to old guys.

All you roster geeks better get used to the idea that the Pats will be carrying 4 TEs and 3 QBs this year, and speculate accordingly

9. Carter - Has all the measureables we look for in the position (4.6-7 40, 6'4+, 250+) who is to say he won't be an answer to the OLB question down the road. At that point in the draft, why not

10. I forget the kid who we drafted here's name. But somebody has to get cut, and while I would have rather spent the pick on Romeus or Herzlig, who knows what he'll turn out to be. I would have pretty much said the same thing back when the Pats drafted KLove or JEdelman\\

BOTTOM LINE - The Pats might not have added the most talent they could have accumulated with the Picks they had this draft, but I think they have accomplished the 2 goals they have set up for themselves. They improved the team (filled holes) and set themselves up well for next year.

 

[Metaphors]

1. Solder. IMHO, he wasn't a guy the Pats took because he was the best of what what left. He was THE guy the Pats wanted.

Agree. Unless someone totally unexpected dropped to #17, this pick was locked in.

2. The Trade at 28 - I'm sure they looked at Ingram at 28 and felt that they could do better later on.

Not better in general (Ingram should be a stud) but better for the Pats offense. More on this later. Having an extra 1st (take the higher, trade the lower, rinse and repeat) is clearly a goal for the Pats.

3. Dowling - that they didn't trade it and still got their man.

It looked like they did their best to trade this pick, but couldn't get their price. If someone offered a 2012 2nd rounder, I think the Pats would have jumped even if that meant losing Dowling (I agree he wouldn't have lasted too much longer). Unlike Solder, I believe the Pats had a plan B if they didn't get Ras-I.

The more you think about it, the more you have to like the pick.

Depends on how he is used. If he is taking standard CB snaps, I'm not thrilled. If he is used as a combo DB to prevent QBs (particularly mediocre ones) from making easy throws to the middle of the field, then I will rename my dog "Ras-I".

4. Vereen- I think a lot of people look at Vereen and think "Oh, Kevin Faulk's replacement".

I'm thinking Faulk, just not Kevin. More like Marshall (less speed and hopefully much less 'tude). Vereen was the top receiving back in the draft. I think Belichick was getting sick of BJGE=Run and Woodhead=Pass. Vereen brings flexibility to change at the line depending on the defense.

5. Ridley- Ridley is the guy who is going to send BJGE to the bench.

Vereen and Ridley are a combo platter. Vereen allows the Pats to have fewer 3rd and short situations. Ridley allows the Pats not to think of 3rd (or 4th) and 2 as a passing down.

6. Mallet- He was the "value" pick at a spot in the draft where we couldn't get much done.

Yep. Too low to turn into a 2012 2nd...and they clearly didn't want anything lower. If Mallett really was the top QB on their board, even if you weren't planning on taking a QB you almost have to take him. All the future stuff (3 QBs on roster, future starter or trade, etc) will sort itself out over time. If Mallett keeps his nose clear (literally), he will dazzle in preseason games. Dude can make throws most others only dream of. Tighten up his backswing, quicken his release, clean up his footwork...and his ceiling is unlimited.

7. I think if we look at the combination of both need and Value, Cannon was probably the most popular pick in the draft among fans.

Like QB/Mallett, I don't believe the Pats were anticipating getting Cannon or any other interior lineman for that matter. Assuming the cancer situation has a happy ending, I do think the Pats would like to see Cannon drop some weight to enhance his nimble feet while still maintaining his strength at the POA.

8. Smith - Once you understood that the Pats got the best blocking TE in the draft, it meant perfect sense.

Solder, Ridley, Cannon and Smith. If the offense needed an attitude boost, this should do it. Regarding 4 TEs on the roster, I'm not a big fan. Smith and Crumpler would be almost completely redundant and a backup lineman could be used as another big in short yardage. Sorry Alge. It's been fun.

The thing that would be interesting to know is where these guys ranked on the Pats draft board. It isn't a stretch to think that Solder, Vereen, Mallett and Cannon were #1 for the Pats at their positions. Add in Ridley (#1 short yardage back?) and Smith (#1 inline blocker) and the Pats were likely picking from the top instead of trading back until the acceptable alternatives ran out.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

- The Pats traded their next 2 picks (after Mallett) way before they were on the clock.

As a minor point, the Patriots made that trade after drafting Ridley, not before.

 

[Metaphors]

As a minor point, the Patriots made that trade after drafting Ridley, not before.

My phrasing was confusing. I meant before they were on the clock for those traded picks...not before they were on the clock for Ridley. My point being that they hung the "Mission Accomplished" banner and started looking for 2nd round picks in 2012. When is the last time you saw a team trade picks in a draft before they were on the clock?

 

[patfanken]

My phrasing was confusing. I meant before they were on the clock for those traded picks...not before they were on the clock for Ridley. My point being that they hung the "Mission Accomplished" banner and started looking for 2nd round picks in 2012. When is the last time you saw a team trade picks in a draft before they were on the clock?

Interesting you use the phrase, "mission accomplished"....and THEN we draft 2 guys who are likely to be critical starters within 2 years (Cannon and Smith). If you can get 2 starters out of ANY draft, you are doing OK, much less 2 starters who were picked after the 4th round.

The Pats pick up 6 guys who are very likely to at least have roles in the regular offensive and defensive teams (Solder, Dowling, Vereen, Ridley, Cannon and Smith) this first season. That's a pretty good haul for ANY team, let alone one coming off a 14-2 season.

 

[captain stone]

OK, read what you just said. You're asking them to draft a player (Leshoure) they considered a weak prospect over one they considered a strong prospect (Vereen) in order to get better "value" on draft rankings compiled by media observers!

(does it count as breaking my vow not to say "value" if I'm quoting somebody else? )

It's totally reasonable to think Leshoure was a better prospect than Vereen, plenty of people did. As it happens, I wasn't one of them and Ivan Fears wasn't one of them. But let's argue based on that, rather than positing an abstract "value" system that automatically slots your player higher. (BTW, 3 other RBs were taken before #73 so it doesn't seem plausible to wait there for Vereen.)

On Ridley, honestly I'd guess that taking him that high came down to something like "we've already traded away the next 2 picks and nobody's willing to give us a 2012 pick for trading down from here, so let's just take a player we like and get out."

3 questions:

Did you consider pre-draft, or consider now post-draft, Leshore a better prospect than Ridley?

If the answer is yes, then is Leshore only a half-round better than Ridley?

If the answer is that he is at least a round better than Ridley,
then why not take Leshore at 56, then bluff your way to Vereen at 73?

Part of the draft process is like playing poker:
you have to know when to hold (waiting for a prospect to fall to you),
and when to fold (trading up/pouncing on a prospect before the other guy does).
Drafting Ridley at 73 is akin to going All In when dealt a pair of pocket deuces.
And drafting 2 RBs within the top 75 is simply improper asset management,
esp. when we are stuck with CRAP at DE & OLB.

 

[Sciz]

If the answer is that he is at least a round better than Ridley,
then why not take Leshore at 56, then bluff your way to Vereen at 73?

You seem to have a problem with this concept. Vereen was a better prospect than Leshoure. If the Pats had wanted Leshoure, they would have taken him. They did not want Leshoure; they wanted Vereen. Therefore, they took Vereen rather than Leshoure.

And drafting 2 RBs within the top 75 is simply improper asset management,
esp. when we are stuck with CRAP at DE & OLB.

Name who you wanted at DE or OLB. I'm pretty sure I've shot down everybody you've already mentioned before. The instant impact DE and OLB went at 7 and 11. Quinn was flagged for medical concerns. Nobody else was worth where they went. Belichick said it himself.

 

[loosebearing]

Solder, Ridley, Cannon and Smith. If the offense needed an attitude boost, this should do it. Regarding 4 TEs on the roster, I'm not a big fan. Smith and Crumpler would be almost completely redundant and a backup lineman could be used as another big in short yardage. Sorry Alge. It's been fun.

Smith will be given every chance to make roster at Long Snapper. Plus Crumpler and/or Smith could be possibly used as backups for the OL. (in a pinch) I think Alge being around another year is really valuable for Gronk/Hernandez/Smith

 

[patchick]

Did you consider pre-draft, or consider now post-draft, Leshore a better prospect than Ridley?

If the answer is yes, then is Leshore only a half-round better than Ridley?

If the answer is that he is at least a round better than Ridley,
then why not take Leshore at 56, then bluff your way to Vereen at 73?

Part of the draft process is like playing poker

Huh? You spend a high draft pick on the player you think is a stiff, then count on your all-powerful "poker face" to cloud other GMs' minds so that the guy who you think really has all the potential is magically available in the next round? Should they have also taken an OT prospect they hated at #17, thus "bluffing" Solder down to #33?

They just didn't want Leshoure. They said so, ahead of time. They wanted Vereen. That's why they drafted Vereen instead of Leshoure.

 

[Metaphors]

Did you consider pre-draft, or consider now post-draft, Leshore a better prospect than Ridley?

Depends. For who and doing what? Leshoure is a better standard formation runner than Ridley. Neither is particularly useful in the passing game. With BJGE on the roster, adding another guy that effectively indicates a running play when he is on the field doesn't seem particularly useful for the Pats. For the Lions, with what they have on their roster, the answer is much different.

If the answer is yes, then is Leshore only a half-round better than Ridley?

For a generic team in a generic context, no. For the Pats, they didn't want Leshoure as a lead runner. Same for Ridley. The Pats did want a bigger back for short yardage, goal line and 4th quarter clock killing snaps...but that is only once Vereen (a lead back equally skilled in running, receiving and protection) has been acquired.

So for short yardage and goal line, I would take Ridley over Leshoure. For game ending drives, it would be Leshoure by a mile...but that wasn't an option since Leshoure went at #57.

If the answer is that he is at least a round better than Ridley, then why not take Leshore at 56, then bluff your way to Vereen at 73?

Because Vereen wasn't a top option at RB for the Pats, he was THE top option...and there may not have been a plan B in this RB class. So while the Pats may have liked Leshoure better than Ridley, they didn't want to risk losing Vereen. And that risk was real with Dallas taking Demarco Murray at #71 (a comparable guy to Vereen) and SD picking #61 and looking for a similar type of RB (they took Todman later).

The key is that the Pats wanted Vereen to be a multi-dimensional threat for the Pats base offensive sets. Woodhead as the passing down option. BJGE as a steady, reliable depth back...and maybe more until Vereen gets up to speed. That group lacks a big back presence which is why Ridley (arguably the top short yardage back in the draft) makes sense for the Pats at #73. Remove all the context and Ridley is a 1-2 round reach.

Part of the draft process is like playing poker:
you have to know when to hold (waiting for a prospect to fall to you),
and when to fold (trading up/pouncing on a prospect before the other guy does).
Drafting Ridley at 73 is akin to going All In when dealt a pair of pocket deuces.
And drafting 2 RBs within the top 75 is simply improper asset management,
esp. when we are stuck with CRAP at DE & OLB.

The Poker analogy works when dealing with a weak hand. The Pats had a need for a back that is a threat in the running and passing game. They also needed someone to reliably get 2 yards regardless of the defense. Vereen and Ridley were quite possibly their #1 options for these areas respectively. Solder may have been their #1 OT. Mallett may have been their #1 QB. Smith may have been their #1 blocking TE. Why get cute and gamble when you can get exactly what you are looking for?

So it is legitimate to question their evaluation of these players. But given that their draft board was what it was, the picks don't seem very controversial. The Pats got a handful of guys ideally suited for the roles they will be asked to fill. Add in Dowling and Cannon plus the 2012 picks and that is a fine day at the office.

This just wasn't the year to go after the defensive front 7. Every candidate had flaws that needed to be addressed and the labor situation just wasn't going to be conducive to teaching. I am surprised they didn't get a flyer late, but FA pickups may make that decision clearer in the future. But instead of focusing on what they didn't get, what they were able to accomplish in this draft is pretty impressive.

 

[DaBruinz]

3 questions:

Did you consider pre-draft, or consider now post-draft, Leshore a better prospect than Ridley?

If the answer is yes, then is Leshore only a half-round better than Ridley?

If the answer is that he is at least a round better than Ridley,
then why not take Leshore at 56, then bluff your way to Vereen at 73?

Part of the draft process is like playing poker:
you have to know when to hold (waiting for a prospect to fall to you),
and when to fold (trading up/pouncing on a prospect before the other guy does).
Drafting Ridley at 73 is akin to going All In when dealt a pair of pocket deuces.
And drafting 2 RBs within the top 75 is simply improper asset management,
esp. when we are stuck with CRAP at DE & OLB.

What YOU and I think about the players doesn't matter. What the nickel & dime draft sites think about players doesn't matter.. When are you going to finally realize that??

The Pats said that they didn't feel that LeShoure was better. They didn't feel that Ingram was better.. That is why they took Vereen and not LeShoure.

Your comparison of the draft to being akin to the decision making in poker leaves a lot to be desired..

To claim that it was improper asset management is just your ego talking. And, last I looked, you still weren't even affiliated with any sort of team (NFL, UFL, AFL) so for you to be making such bold claims is you talking out your rear end.

 

[Shelterdog]

The Pats said that they didn't feel that LeShoure was better. They didn't feel that Ingram was better.. That is why they took Vereen and not LeShoure.

The Pats might be right and they might be wrong about Vereen v LeShoure but somebody in the organization probably watched all-22 of every play each of those two ever played in college. Even the most diehard of the rest of us only watched a few games from each player and maybe some youtube clipes and ESPN highlights.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

And drafting 2 RBs within the top 75 is simply improper asset management,
esp. when we are stuck with CRAP at DE & OLB.

Bear in mind 13 front-7 players were taken by the time we took Vereen. Is the 3rd RB off the board more valuable than the 14th front-7 guy? Probably, especially when you can argue he was the #1 back on the board for our offense.

As for Ridley, you can't say 2 RBs in the top 75 is improper without first evaluating the quality and depth of each position and how the rest of the draft has gone so far, not to mention looking at your own roster. Ridley at that point filled a hole in the roster. Is the 14th or 15th front-7 guy an upgrade over Ninko or Tully or Brace or Deaderick? Probably not.

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

This is a good thread. As someone who was so disgusted I turned off the draft after the Mallet pick and called it the "beginning of the end"; let me offer some opinions that a few months an a lot of listening can bring.

1. Solder. IMHO, he wasn't a guy the Pats took because he was the best of what what left. He was THE guy the Pats wanted. Many have opined that the Pats could have gotten a quality OT later in the draft and should have picked someone else or traded down. Yes they could have done that IF they wanted a guy who's upside is to be as good as Matt Light. I think that THEY think that SOLDER is not just another Matt Light, but someone who will become much BETTER than Light before his career is over.

Now Matt Light is one of my favorite players and is a GOOD LT. He's an elite run blocker and a good pass rush defender. But he has his limitations. He is what he is. I think the Pats saw a rare opportunity to grab a guy who could be special, not just good. Someone who was there only because of the run on the QBs and the glaring need of EVERY team to upgrade the DL/or OLB/

The Pats are NOT going to be drafting in the teens any time soon, so this was THEIR opportunity to get an elite prospect at a key position...... and they took it. Any of the DE/OLBs at this spot presented a much greater risk and a longer start up time.

2. The Trade at 28 - This made so much sense, I'm sure we all expected it. If the DE/OLB choices were weak at 17, they weren't much better at 28. I'm sure they looked at Ingram at 28 and felt that they could do better later on. I'm also sure they knew that Ingram was NO's choice before they made the trade.

Wilkerson might have been the pick here, but frankly I don't see how he would have been any better next season than Stroud, TWarren, Wright, and Brace, just for starters. He is a raw talent who played a low level of division one. He may turn out to be a fine player, but would he have made this a better defensive line THIS year? I don't think so.

3. Dowling - This one really pissed me off. Not because of who they picked, but that they didn't trade it and still got their man. I'm now fairly convinced that he WOULDN'T have been there in the 40's like people have suggested. The demand for bigger DBs to combat the bigger WRs is just too great to think that Dowling would have been there 10+ spots later.

I loved the concept of the pick. If you recall, my "surprise" pick was Jimmy Smith, because he was a big CB who give BB great flexibility in the 2ndary. Well Smith was a talented ****, who played undisciplined football for a bad team. Dowling was a talented big CB who played in the Pats system in college and was hurt. The more you think about it, the more you have to like the pick.

4. Vereen- I think a lot of people look at Vereen and think "Oh, Kevin Faulk's replacement". I think they like him a lot more than that. I think people should think more like the Steelers RB, Mendonhall. Quick strong, and a threat to break the long one every time he touches the ball. If we had stopped there I would have been fine.

5. Ridley- I'm beginning to think that Stephan Ridley is an acquired taste. The more you read about him the more you have to like him. Like in this thread, some added that while his 40 time was a half second slower than Ingram's. his cone time was a third of a second FASTER. I take quickness and acceleration every time over straight line speed. Ridley is the guy who is going to send BJGE to the bench.

6. Mallet- He was the "value" pick at a spot in the draft where we couldn't get much done. Again as one person added, no OLB prospect was taken for almost another 30 picks. There just wasn't anyone better. He's Brady insurance. He's Hoyer competition. He's trade bait. He's going to be great discussion fodder for the next 4 years

7. I think we got 2 future "starters" with the next 2 picks.
I think if we look at the combination of both need and Value, Cannon was probably the most popular pick in the draft among fans. So I won't go into depth with him, except to say that there are so many forms of chemo these days, that I wouldn't be shocked to see him on the field this year.

8. Smith - Again, the instant reaction to this pick was horror. Once you understood that the Pats got the best blocking TE in the draft, it meant perfect sense.

While Gronk and Hernandez are the sizzle at the TE position, having a great blocking TE like Crumpler is the glue for our offense, because ihaving that position covered ALLOWS the sizzle. Now that he has seen it for a year, BB will always want a similar collection of skills for the TE position. The Blocker. The Catcher, and the guy who can do both. Well he has the Catcher and the guy who can do both locked up long term, now he has to make sure he has his "Blocker" of the future in the fold. It make have been a year too early, but I'm guessing Smith's THAT good at what he does, and the risk would be NOT to get him. Besides injuries happen, especially to old guys.

All you roster geeks better get used to the idea that the Pats will be carrying 4 TEs and 3 QBs this year, and speculate accordingly

9. Carter - Has all the measureables we look for in the position (4.6-7 40, 6'4+, 250+) who is to say he won't be an answer to the OLB question down the road. At that point in the draft, why not

10. I forget the kid who we drafted here's name. But somebody has to get cut, and while I would have rather spent the pick on Romeus or Herzlig, who knows what he'll turn out to be. I would have pretty much said the same thing back when the Pats drafted KLove or JEdelman\\

BOTTOM LINE - The Pats might not have added the most talent they could have accumulated with the Picks they had this draft, but I think they have accomplished the 2 goals they have set up for themselves. They improved the team (filled holes) and set themselves up well for next year.

Great summary of why BB is not only great coach but a great GM. He loves his own grocery shopping. He doesn't always please. He is mindful of the future. He is a risk taker, but he carefully manages his risk through a portfolio approach to picks (safety in numbers). And while he doesn't want to sacrifice the present, he knows he has to always plan for the future.

Additionally, he is willing to go against the grain of the draft. When other NFL teams are concentrating on picking OTs/QBs in the first round, he waits and lets Wilfork fall to him a few years ago. And in this draft, while people were gunning for DE/LBs in the top of the first, he sat at 17 and picked the top OT of his class. Make no mistake, picking against the grain of the draft's perceived areas of strength is a real strategy -- and really allows the Pats to get superb players who represent terrific value for where the Pats picked them.

 

[captain stone]

Depends. For who and doing what? Leshoure is a better standard formation runner than Ridley. Neither is particularly useful in the passing game. With BJGE on the roster, adding another guy that effectively indicates a running play when he is on the field doesn't seem particularly useful for the Pats. For the Lions, with what they have on their roster, the answer is much different.



For a generic team in a generic context, no. For the Pats, they didn't want Leshoure as a lead runner. Same for Ridley. The Pats did want a bigger back for short yardage, goal line and 4th quarter clock killing snaps...but that is only once Vereen (a lead back equally skilled in running, receiving and protection) has been acquired.

So for short yardage and goal line, I would take Ridley over Leshoure. For game ending drives, it would be Leshoure by a mile...but that wasn't an option since Leshoure went at #57.



Because Vereen wasn't a top option at RB for the Pats, he was THE top option...and there may not have been a plan B in this RB class. So while the Pats may have liked Leshoure better than Ridley, they didn't want to risk losing Vereen. And that risk was real with Dallas taking Demarco Murray at #71 (a comparable guy to Vereen) and SD picking #61 and looking for a similar type of RB (they took Todman later).

The key is that the Pats wanted Vereen to be a multi-dimensional threat for the Pats base offensive sets. Woodhead as the passing down option. BJGE as a steady, reliable depth back...and maybe more until Vereen gets up to speed. That group lacks a big back presence which is why Ridley (arguably the top short yardage back in the draft) makes sense for the Pats at #73. Remove all the context and Ridley is a 1-2 round reach.



The Poker analogy works when dealing with a weak hand. The Pats had a need for a back that is a threat in the running and passing game. They also needed someone to reliably get 2 yards regardless of the defense. Vereen and Ridley were quite possibly their #1 options for these areas respectively. Solder may have been their #1 OT. Mallett may have been their #1 QB. Smith may have been their #1 blocking TE. Why get cute and gamble when you can get exactly what you are looking for?

So it is legitimate to question their evaluation of these players. But given that their draft board was what it was, the picks don't seem very controversial. The Pats got a handful of guys ideally suited for the roles they will be asked to fill. Add in Dowling and Cannon plus the 2012 picks and that is a fine day at the office.

This just wasn't the year to go after the defensive front 7. Every candidate had flaws that needed to be addressed and the labor situation just wasn't going to be conducive to teaching. I am surprised they didn't get a flyer late, but FA pickups may make that decision clearer in the future. But instead of focusing on what they didn't get, what they were able to accomplish in this draft is pretty impressive.

Sorry for taking awhile to respond, but I wanted to acknowledge that this was a very well-written & thoughtful response; and though I generally agree with the benefits of having on the team the players whom Bill drafted, I still cannot understand why he refuses to stockpile & develop top-100 talent at the position, 3-4 OLB for the NEP, that prob. needs the MOST training & development.

I wouldn't have used 17 or 28 on any of the avail. OLB converts, either (although Ryan Kerrigan would've been very, very tempting had he lasted until 17), but as they say at the lottery: You can't win if you don't play, and Bill simply hasn't spent enough equity at what is without a doubt the weakest position on the team.

 

[supafly]

Sorry for taking awhile to respond, but I wanted to acknowledge that this was a very well-written & thoughtful response; and though I generally agree with the benefits of having on the team the players whom Bill drafted, I still cannot understand why he refuses to stockpile & develop top-100 talent at the position, 3-4 OLB for the NEP, that prob. needs the MOST training & development.

I wouldn't have used 17 or 28 on any of the avail. OLB converts, either (although Ryan Kerrigan would've been very, very tempting had he lasted until 17), but as they say at the lottery: You can't win if you don't play, and Bill simply hasn't spent enough equity at what is without a doubt the weakest position on the team.

I feel your frustration Captain. I think we all do to a certain degree, but I'm not sure that the answer is to just continue to waste picks by throwing bodies in there. You claim that BB doesn't like to gamble, and that you need to 'play the lottery to win' etc. I see 4 high draft picks at the LB position in the past few yrs, when you include Crable who didn't work out. Even though he didn't work out, you can't fault him for trying, as at least he chose someone high at the position.

When you think about it, the LB core really isn't as bad as some here make it out to be. We have a very high LB pick at #10 overall in Jerod Mayo, someone who led the whole league in tackles. That's impressive, and not only is he a staple of the defense now, he is also proof that Belichick WILL pick a 'high' LB when he feels the right one is there. Along side Mayo, we have the vet in Guyton in sub packages, and the run-stopping youngster in Spikes--another 'high' pick LB'er, this time from the 2nd round. Then you look at the OLB's with ANOTHER 'high' round pick with Cunningham, someone who Belichick obviously wants to develop and give more live game reps to. He is also someone who impressed us at times, especially for being a rookie. That only leaves 1 LB'er, and Ninkovich did a good enough job at the role. He has at least earned the right to play and show us more, in my opinion. And as I said, we don't even know if Belichick was planning on adding another LB via free agency. All in all, it doesn't seem like that much of a problem to me personally.

So for all the people who are upset that Belichick 'won't' pick a LB in the higher rounds, we have had 4 in very recent drafts.

---Mayo (1st round)

---Spikes (2nd round)

---Cunningham (2nd round)

---Crable (3rd round)

With all due respect to you, that sure seems like he's 'playing the lottery' (as you put it) to me. Continuing to waste high, important draft picks at the position seems kind of stupid to me, especially when 2 of them were rookies last yr and need more time to develop into the system.

We had other areas that needed addressing, and there really was no big reason to waste another pick. Not to sound like a smart-*****, but that was basically the back and forth we had before the draft when you claimed that you might 'jump' if a front 7 wasn't taken highly--if you remember I said I'd be there to catch you or talk you back in from the ledge.

I have a feeling that you'll get your 1st/2nd rd front 7 pick again real soon, but it just honestly did not seem like it really was a huge position of need this year. I think the 'shock factor' in some was b/c there seemed to be a plethora of front 7 players, and many just assumed that we'd take one.

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

Sorry for taking awhile to respond, but I wanted to acknowledge that this was a very well-written & thoughtful response; and though I generally agree with the benefits of having on the team the players whom Bill drafted, I still cannot understand why he refuses to stockpile & develop top-100 talent at the position, 3-4 OLB for the NEP, that prob. needs the MOST training & development.

I wouldn't have used 17 or 28 on any of the avail. OLB converts, either (although Ryan Kerrigan would've been very, very tempting had he lasted until 17), but as they say at the lottery: You can't win if you don't play, and Bill simply hasn't spent enough equity at what is without a doubt the weakest position on the team.

Your frustration at the seeming lack of priority (my words) on BB's part in investing (or stockpiling) young pass rush capable LB prospects/candidates is understandable. You wisely acknowledge that even you would not have picked a OLB/DE at 17 or 28. Indeed, in a draft touted for being strong on defense, there was an early run on the top candidates. In such cases, BB is comfortable going against the grain (strength) of the draft -- i.e. he is willing to pick the best OT at 17 rather than taking the # 8 or # 9 DE/LB. Indeed, that is the only way, the Pats get a top DE like Wilfork at the bottom of round 1 (where the Pats usually pick) a few years ago when teams ahead of them were picking OT/QBs by the bushel.

BB has a luxury of doing this because he doesn't exactly draft for need. He is willing to take a longer term perspective.

You do however have a point on BB's use of lottery picks in latter rounds. Last year, I recall BB going after OLmen Welch and Larsen when he could have taken flyers on a few LBs. This year again, after picking Carter in the sixth, he could have picked another like Romeus or potential high ceiling commodity. Frankly, I don't think we'll ever be told BB's reasoning. But take heart, there is still rookie free agency when BB might pick your favorite binkie or a veteran LB free agent.

 

[captain stone]

So for all the people who are upset that Belichick 'won't' pick a LB in the higher rounds, we have had 4 in very recent drafts.

---Mayo (1st round)

---Spikes (2nd round)

---Cunningham (2nd round)

---Crable (3rd round)

Mayo & Spikes should be VG ILBs for at least the next half-decade, esp. if Spikes stays off the juice.

Cunningham was over-drafted by at least a full round. I would not have even considered him last year until the end of the 3rd round; and with Cory Wooton, Everson Griffin & Ricky Sapp still available then, I doubt that any other team would have considered him any earlier, either. He also didn't impress me much, at all, whenever he did appear on the field.

And choosing Chicken Legs ahead of the more highly-regarded Cliff Avril from DE-to-OLB factory Perdue was simply terrible scouting.

So it appears that the 2 whole times (in 11 years) that Bill has played the lottery for OLB with top-100 picks, he failed to scratch all the boxes he was entitled to scatch, thus giving him no real chance of winning. Bill therefore needs to buy a couple more tickets next year, AND pay better attention to detail with those picks.

 

[captain stone]

But take heart, there is still rookie free agency when BB might pick your favorite binkie or a veteran LB free agent.

I hope that Bill reconsiders his irrational antipathy towards Tom Condon, and signs Mark Herzlich.

Besides Matt Roth, and maybe Travis LaBoy & Mark Anderson, there just isn't anybody available for us in the vet UFA market at OLB. Where have you gone, Afailus Thomas?

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

PatChick is right in saying that OLB was more "filled" than RB since all the 2010 guys are scheduled to return, with Moore likely being re-signed as well, and basically all the RB's being free agents.

However, the problem with this is that it is much easier to find a RB or two to add to BJGE and Woodhead. There are always plenty of sleeper free agent RB's who want to leave their current team for more money or a bigger role. You can almost always find a mid to late round RB that can come in and have an instant impact. The pool of players is so large to choose from, and it seems every year that some guy is available that is somewhat attractive (like Leon Washington last year).

OLB has been much more difficult for Bill to fill and with his specifications the pool is much slimmer. There have been failed trades and signings like Burgess and Adalius. He has never really drafted and developed an OLB. The closest you can come to finding one is Banta Cain. Crable busted out. Cunningham is the highest OLB he's ever taken. Hopefully he works out.

How long have we been saying that they need to plan for life after Willie Mac and Vrabel? How long have we been saying that this pass rush is not the force it has been? Guys like Seymour, McGinest, Vrabel, etc don't just walk through the door. Seymour and McGinest were high first round picks.

To replenish the defense with that type of elite talent, you have to pay a price, whether it's Julius Peppers in free agency, giving Seymour a long term deal instead of trading him, or moving up into the top 10 in the draft to grab a guy like Orakpo.

The Pats have not done that and it's evident. The third down defense was absolutely abysmal last year and the pass rush was a key reason. We beat this dead horse every off-season. When you're running out Ninkovich and Banta-Cain as your pass rushers and you're not a pressure/overload defense that creatively blitzes a lot, you're going to be in trouble.

Hopefully Bill has something up sleeve in terms of free agency or a trade. I wouldn't mind going after Ray Edwards or maybe Matt Roth.

I'm just tired of the same thing in the draft every year. We all talk about how we need a replacement at RDE and OLB, but we never get it. We hear how it's not worth the risk or how they don't fit the system. It's BS.

Guys like Gerard Warren and Marcus Stroud are not starters. They're more like complementary/situational guys who can give you some snaps here and there but shouldn't be starting for you. We lack elite playmaking in our front 7. Those great Belichick defenses were built on great front 7 talent.

Belichick definitely filled some holes on the OL and added some young legs at RB which we needed, but the defense was really the concern all season long even if the offense is the one that crapped the bed in the playoffs.

To go into the draft almost every year with the ammo Bill has, only to seem him trade down and out or use valuable picks on two RB's and a QB that won't even see the field for another three years is just extremely disappointing.

I'd much rather have seen Bill pick up a DE and an OLB in addition to Dowling, and pick up some RB's later on. Take Cameron Jordan or trade up for Quinn. Take a shot on Bowers. You can get a RB like Kendall Hunter, who had similar value to Vereen, in the 4th or 5th round. You can get Taiwan Jones, Allen Bradford, Da'Rel Scott, Jordan Todman, etc later in the draft. To spend three picks in a row on two RB's and a backup QB is just baffling considering the state of the defense.

The reason the Pats went 14-2 is because Brady had an unbelievable season. The offense had a record-setting year in terms of not turning the ball over. All year long we were asking ourselves could the Pats win IN SPITE of a bottom of the league, Belichick-coached defense. I know the team was fairly young, but still, did you ever think we'd be uttering those words? There's only so much BB's "genius" can do. You need talent to win it all.