Should Pats draft a WR?

[JackBauer]

Maybe you should read the thread.

 

[ATippett56]

The O-line is old, trying to replace them quickly will leave TFB in a wheelchair. I'm also not a big fan of Koppen, I'd like to grab Silatolu and groom him to play on the interior and eventually take over at Center.

Nick McDonald may the x-factor in the New England Patriots organization's decision to draft an interior offensive lineman.

 

[rookBoston]

BB has filled his roster with declining vets in the past, let that happen for a year or two, then replace with a commitment in the draft.

Examples from the past:
Bring Crumpler in. Displace him by drafting Gonk and Hernandez
Bring Fred Jackson, Sammie Morris. Displace them with Vereen and Ridley

This year:
Displace Warren, Ellis, Haynesworth, Carter with kids like Perry, Thompson, Worthy, Brockers

Next year:
Displace Koppen, Gallery, Waters with kids
Displace Ocho, Branch, Gonzo, Stallworth with kids

 

[Ununcle]

Our Achilles heel was an utter lack of a competent WR capable of threatening middle-deep.

That may have been the heel but it wasn't the biggest flaw in our game. IMO we should address the major chink in our Armour first, not the weakest link in our chain.

 

[JackBauer]

That may have been the heel but it wasn't the biggest flaw in our game. IMO we should address the major chink in our Armour first, not the weakest link in our chain.

They can easily do both simultaneously, should they so choose.

 

[Ununcle]

They can easily do both simultaneously, should they so choose.

Hey,, as long is they go defense in the 1st 2 rounds I'm all for a developmentle reciever.

 

[Ununcle]

They can easily do both simultaneously, should they so choose.

Just out of curiosity, were you the guy that applauded the Glenn pick and also chastised the front office for taking Seymour over Warrick? Because I've been looking for you. It's been a decade and I won't give up. Was it you!!!!!!:bricks:

 

[Joker]

OK...I read the whole thread...it was merged with another earlier thread on a tangential topic...now that I'm finished, I STILL ask the same thing...didn't we just sign a WR that can threaten the middle/deep...who is familiar with McD's system?...why use a high draft pick on a WR when the first priority is defense...specifically an edge rusher and D lineman...and O line depth needs to be addressed at the same time....so you want to use a pick to take a Chad Jackson type???...not getting it...

 

[supafly]

OK...I read the whole thread...it was merged with another earlier thread on a tangential topic...now that I'm finished, I STILL ask the same thing...didn't we just sign a WR that can threaten the middle/deep...who is familiar with McD's system?...why use a high draft pick on a WR when the first priority is defense...specifically an edge rusher and D lineman...and O line depth needs to be addressed at the same time....so you want to use a pick to take a Chad Jackson type???...not getting it...

There's no doubt that the main priority obviously needs to be defense, and at least a few picks in the first 3 rounds. I don't think anyone's going to dispute that.

There are a couple/few thoughts to the 'draft a WR' crowd this year:

1. We can probably do both. We can address the defense with a few high picks, and also put the team in position to take BPA if they choose to spend that on a WR. After all, there are 6 'high' picks in the first 3 rounds. I don't think anyone's expecting them to spend them all on defense, just a good chunk of early picks in the top 75 or so.

2. Many would argue that it may actually be necessary to draft a WR when we don't have an immediate need. It may very well be a good idea to redshirt the rookie WR, due to the complexity of the offensive scheme here. With a year to learn under some good, experienced WR's + lessened pressure to not 'have' to perform, drafting/redshirting a WR may be the way to go.

3. The age of the WR's is a potential problem. They are likely going to have to draft a WR at the very least, next year. The problem with this thinking is that next year the talent may not be as good, and we are then limiting ourselves to being 'forced' to address a serious need.

4. It all comes down to using the draft to get some immediate contributors for this upcoming year, while also gaining some future picks and future players for the next few years at the same time. In other words, Mallett, Vereen, Ridley, etc were not really drafted last yr with an immediate needs type thinking, while Dowling + Solder were drafted with more of an immediate contribution thought. I think Belichick goes for a nice combo of not only utilizing the draft for THIS year (2012), but he also tries to stay one step ahead by addressing future needs, and building high picks for future drafts too.

These are just a handful of possibilities that may/may not go into the decision to draft a potential 'future' WR in the upcoming draft. With all due respect Joker, I think that you may be looking at it a bit short-sighted, with only the upcoming season's needs (and I am not meaning that to sound insulting on any level). I think Belichick may look at things a lot differently than we, as fans tend to do. He often stays a step or two ahead in terms of planning for the future. All that said, I think it will come down to ONE thing, and one thing only....I think he will take the player that he sees as the best value left on the board, while trading for more picks/better position for next yr at the same time. If that player happens to be a decent WR, then it could become a possibility.

 

[Joker]

My short response would be "Bill will probably take two WR's in the first four picks for all I know". I consistently have no idea what direction BB will take on draft day.

After all, there are 6 'high' picks in the first 3 rounds.
There are?..I could have sworn there were five, with the third rounder being # 93. Also,I wonder how many Patriots fans think Bill will trade out of one of the first or second round spots for future picks in next years draft. It's possible we may have LESS high picks this draft than we thought going in.

If Bill DOES spend a pick early on a WR,I'd expect it to be on a player like Marvin Jones out of Cal.

I use this site as a source of draft info and discussion about the Patriots in 2012...
2012 Patriots Draft Picks | NEPatriotsDraft.com - 2012 NFL Draft

My viewpoint is BB will take a corner, safety,linebacker, O lineman, D lineman before he spends a pick on a WR...the list of high Patriot WR washouts the last five years is pretty stark...Jackson,Tate and Price were all 2nd or 3rd rounders that ended up a waste...going back further you find Bethel Johnson.BB's luck in later rounds from the 5th to the 7th prove out to be much better.With only six picks in this year's draft,using one on a developmental WR seems unlikely at best to me.

I really don't put much stock in anything posted online at Bleacherreport.com BTW, which is where I think this pro "draft a WR high" opinion is originating from.

 

[JackBauer]

OK...I read the whole thread...it was merged with another earlier thread on a tangential topic...now that I'm finished, I STILL ask the same thing...didn't we just sign a WR that can threaten the middle/deep...who is familiar with McD's system?...why use a high draft pick on a WR when the first priority is defense...specifically an edge rusher and D lineman...and O line depth needs to be addressed at the same time....so you want to use a pick to take a Chad Jackson type???...not getting it...

1.) Yes, we did
2.) We can address the defense AND draft a WR. These are not mutually exclusive propositions
3.) If Lloyd goes down for any extended period of time, we're likely in a worse spot than we were last year
4.) Our WRs are, on balance, pretty old. In light of the fact that there's a significant learning curve for many rookie wideouts adjusting to the NFL, the smart play would be to take one now given the need will likely be even more acute next season
5.) Not sure why you'd refer to it as a "Chad Jackson type" rather than a "Greg Jennings type" or a "Mike Wallace type."

 

[goheels22002]

Re: Center Dan Koppen re-signed for 2 years

1.) You have no idea whether or not a "rookie wide receiver would rot on the bench in 2012". Obviously, whether a rookie got time or not would depend upon the skill and development of the rookie.

2.) I'll ask again...How does the fact that Tate and Price were cut change what JackBauer posted, in any way?

3.) Just to play your game (and not necessarily agreeing with the premise):

A rookie DL, OLB or DB would rot on the bench in 2012, especially considering all the free agent defenders signed in March 2012.

Beyond the obvious that defense is where the Pats need to go with their picks, I happen to agree that a rookie WR doesn't make sense with the group under contract. The Pats have plenty of WRs and Brady/McDaniels are going with some that includes Branch, Ocho and Lloyd with Welker, Gronk and Hernandez. They have two guys signed now to be the 6th receiver including two guys Brady trusts. Where is the opportunity?

Releasing Tate and Price sent a signal that the Pats want experience in Brady's golden years, not developmental projects.

Your question #3 is more interesting than this thread, actually. Let's say the Pats draft one of each with their #1s and a #2. Would they rot? No.

Would they play a major role? Probably not, but they would get opportunities. These draftees would be early-round talent coming onto a Super Bowl defense with some holes that likely will also be have veteran competition. My guess is that they'd get 25% to 30% of the snaps and have to earn their PT, which could be significant by the end of the season depending on injuries and ability to contribute.

The way that Nate Solder was used in his rookie year was instructive to me. He joined a solid veteran line with need for youth and as he gained some NFL experience he became increasingly valuable and necessary as guys went down. A rookie DL, LB and DB would find much the same situation in 2012.

 

[Banjo]

Re: Center Dan Koppen re-signed for 2 years

absolutely. eventually, the Pats will hit on a great WR draft pick... eventually.

 

[Wilfork#75]

Re: Center Dan Koppen re-signed for 2 years

Beyond the obvious that defense is where the Pats need to go with their picks, I happen to agree that a rookie WR doesn't make sense with the group under contract. The Pats have plenty of WRs and Brady/McDaniels are going with some that includes Branch, Ocho and Lloyd with Welker, Gronk and Hernandez. They have two guys signed now to be the 6th receiver including two guys Brady trusts. Where is the opportunity?

Releasing Tate and Price sent a signal that the Pats want experience in Brady's golden years, not developmental projects.

Your question #3 is more interesting than this thread, actually. Let's say the Pats draft one of each with their #1s and a #2. Would they rot? No.

Would they play a major role? Probably not, but they would get opportunities. These draftees would be early-round talent coming onto a Super Bowl defense with some holes that likely will also be have veteran competition. My guess is that they'd get 25% to 30% of the snaps and have to earn their PT, which could be significant by the end of the season depending on injuries and ability to contribute.

The way that Nate Solder was used in his rookie year was instructive to me. He joined a solid veteran line with need for youth and as he gained some NFL experience he became increasingly valuable and necessary as guys went down. A rookie DL, LB and DB would find much the same situation in 2012.

This is true for now, but what about 2013? I think its pretty likely that Branch, Ocho, Stallworth and Gonzalez will all be gone after 2012, if they even make it through the season. What do you do then? We won't have the luxury of bringing back a guy like Branch who has chemistry with Brady. Or a JAG WR like Stallworth who has experience in the system. WR will be a need next season and its going be be a tough one to fill if we wait for it. Its not really an economically viable need to fill through FA. We will likely never sign a big name FA WR to a big contract and even the mid level guys are being way overpaid. Are you going to expect a rookie WR to come in and contribute right away? So your options are to sign a bunch of JAGs and go back to the position we have been in over the past few seasons. Or draft and develop a guy now, give him time to learn the system and give him a chance to succeed.

I think we were incredibly lucky with the Lloyd situation. We are not going to be able to find a quality guy with experience in the system for cheap again. The only reason Lloyd is playing in New England is because nobody else wanted him. He may have said this is where he wants to be, but if someone was actually was willing to pay what he is worth, I'm sure he would be there instead. I don't think we will have that kind of opportunity again to get a talented WR, so we need to develop one.

The 5th WR on the roster probably won't contribute a lot in 2012, so why give that spot to a vet rather than a rookie learning the system. I would much rather have a 2nd round pick like Juron Criner or Marvin Jones sitting on the bench learning the system than Dante Stallworth. The draft isn't just about next season, its about the long term health and development of the team.

 

[neuronet]

Negative. Still need a WR.

The only way you could be more wrong is if you replaced 'WR' with 'QB'.

 

[Ring 6]

We absolutely need to draft a WR with hopes he can mmediately contribute.
The reason Gronk and Hern got 2000yds is as due to lack of WR as is it to TE talent. Our offense wasn't as multi-dimensional as it could be.....
None of the WRs we added are young or long term solutions.
I believe our draft strategy would and should be based on BPA though.

Welker, Gronk, Hernandez caught 291 passes for 3800 yards and 33 TDs, more than some TEAMS have. I don't understand the logic that this is somehow bad.

 

[Deus Irae]

The only way you could be more wrong is if you replaced 'WR' with 'QB'.

You haven't watched a Patriots game since 2009, then?

 

[BritPat]

Should the Pats draft a WR? Absolutely.

 

[MSU]

If drafting a WR increases the chances of Ocho not being on the team next year.. then yes, definitely.

 

[JackBauer]

The only way you could be more wrong is if you replaced 'WR' with 'QB'.

Thank you for such an articulate and well-reasoned response. That's .5 seconds of my life I'll never get back.