Ranking draftee positions by possible immediate help

[Fencer]

To get a jump on discussion after guys are picked -- both of picks and alternatives -- perhaps it would be helpful to review the position groups in terms of where it is plausible a draftee MIGHT have significant first year impact.

In roughly increasing order of chance of contributing quickly, here are my views:

Even in a bad injury scenario:

• QB -- No meaningful chance.
• K/P/LS -- Ditto, unless the injuries happen before Opening Day.

Absent a bad injury scenario:

• Interior OL -- Little chance. At least 4 guys ahead of the rookie, 1 of them likely on PUP.
• OT -- Reserve only, if that. Our starters won't be beaten out. 1 or more reserves will be hard to beat out too.
• ILB -- Reserve only, and situational play only even if somebody is hurt. Rookie won't leapfrog Mayo, Spikes, or Fletcher on the depth chart.
• WR -- Not likely. Few WRs make first-year impact, and we're likely to start the season deep at the position.
• TE (Hernandez) -- Not likely (Fells).
• TE (Gronk) -- Reserve only.
• RB -- Outside shot at joining the committee, but most rookie RBs are questionable blockers, and we have other talented young RBs.
• CB -- Decent shot at regular sub package role plus reserve for a bunch of positions. I.e., top 3 is a reach but not inconceivable; 4th CB is quite conceivable.
• Base OLB -- Decent shot at a starting role. Rookie LBs can be effective out of the gate.
• DT/NT/3-4 DE -- Decent shot at a starting role.
• S -- ditto.
• Sub package rusher -- Excellent shot at a consistent role.
• Returner -- KR is wide open. PR is more murky, as Edelman is good.

 

[jmt57]

My first thought was that on a level playing field (i.e., discounting a potential future injury) it would come down to safety, outside linebacker and defensive end; the debate would just be which of those three you rank first, second and third.

Does the strength of each position, or the strength at each position in terms of players projected to be late first to second round picks deserve consideration? For example do I drop my ranking for immediate impact at safety because I consider this draft to be relatively weak at that position, even though I consider that to be the Pats' weakest position (and therefore the position a rookie can most likely step in and improve)?

It's interesting that you list 'sub package pass rusher' separately, because perhaps that could be the top ranking as opposed to the three that immediately came to my mind that I listed.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

A couple of comments (in red).

To get a jump on discussion after guys are picked -- both of picks and alternatives -- perhaps it would be helpful to review the position groups in terms of where it is plausible a draftee MIGHT have significant first year impact.

In roughly increasing order of chance of contributing quickly, here are my views:

Even in a bad injury scenario:

• QB -- No meaningful chance unless patfanken or OTG get their way .
• K/P/LS -- Ditto, unless the injuries happen before Opening Day.

Absent a bad injury scenario:

• Interior OL -- Little chance. At least 4 guys ahead of the rookie, 1 of them likely on PUP.
• OT -- Reserve only, if that, unless the Pats see Marcus Cannon as a G, not a T. Our starters won't be beaten out. 1 or more reserves will be hard to beat out too.
• ILB -- Reserve only, and situational play only even if somebody is hurt. Rookie won't leapfrog Mayo, Spikes, or Fletcher on the depth chart.
• WR -- Not likely. Few WRs make first-year impact, and we're likely to start the season deep at the position.
• TE (Hernandez) -- Not likely (Fells).
• TE (Gronk) -- Reserve only.
• RB -- Outside shot at joining the committee, but most rookie RBs are questionable blockers, and we have other talented young RBs.
• CB -- Decent shot at regular sub package role plus reserve for a bunch of positions. I.e., top 3 is a reach but not inconceivable; 4th CB is quite conceivable.
• Base OLB -- Decent shot at a starting role. Rookie LBs can be effective out of the gate.
• DT/NT/3-4 DE -- Decent shot at a starting role.
• S -- ditto.
• Sub package rusher -- Excellent shot at a consistent role.
• Returner -- KR is wide open. PR is more murky, as Edelman is good.

 

[Fencer]

My first thought was that on a level playing field (i.e., discounting a potential future injury) it would come down to safety, outside linebacker and defensive end; the debate would just be which of those three you rank first, second and third.

Does the strength of each position, or the strength at each position in terms of players projected to be late first to second round picks deserve consideration? For example do I drop my ranking for immediate impact at safety because I consider this draft to be relatively weak at that position, even though I consider that to be the Pats' weakest position (and therefore the position a rookie can most likely step in and improve)?

It's interesting that you list 'sub package pass rusher' separately, because perhaps that could be the top ranking as opposed to the three that immediately came to my mind that I listed.

It would seem we're very much in agreement.

On defense, there's a clear path for immediate impact at most positions. The guys I have down as "C'mon, it's very unlikely that a ROOKIE leapfrogs him on the depth chart" are basically:

• 2 DL (Wilfork & Fanene)
• Andre' Carter if/when he comes back
• Ninkovich
• 2 or more ILBs
• Chung
• 3 CBs, one of whom could conceivably move to safety

Sure, a bunch of other guys may on Opening Day be right where they are on the depth chart now, probably including most:

• One or both of Love/Deaderick
• One of the other veteran safeties
• Moore
• Pryor

But they and everybody else are at least somewhat vulnerable.

By way of contrast, I think the starting positions and a bunch of the key backup roles are already either set on offense, or else so loaded with reasonably accomplished veterans that a rookie is unlikely to elbow in right away.

 

[supafly]

Nice job, Fencer. I would certainly agree with your and jmt57's choices of positions.

The one thing that I wonder about at each separate position on defense are the odds of the rookie coming in and contributing right away. In other words, you have base OLB listed as "rookies LB's can be effective out of the gate." While I certainly do agree with you, I simply wonder what the odds are that we can choose the right guy who (hopefully) can be effective right from day one.

It seems that past history usually delegates most expected high impact rookies to spot role and situational duty, with the exception of maybe a handful/several guys that I can think of--all potential all pro players. Obviously that may also have had something to do with our current depth and needs at the time too.

I am hoping that we can get one or two immediate impact starters, and also a couple of other situational guys who can potentially make a mark by about mid-season or so.

 

[Fencer]

It would be interesting to check what fraction of the Patriots' successful picks already made significant contributions as rookies.

Off the top of my head:

QB -- none

WR -- Branch, not Givens

OL -- A lot (and almost all) did, where in "a lot" I'm including every RT who started for at least one season (commonly already his rookie year).

TE -- Gronk & Hernandez, clearly. I think also Grahambo, but that Watson was injured his first year.

RB -- Oh, let's not open that can of worms.

K/P/LS -- Right out of the gate in each case (could hardly be any other way)

DB -- They generally were at least in the rotation their first year.

LB -- Mayo's the only draftee LB who's made it.

DL -- The ones who eventually made it were usually in the rotation as rookies, getting at least spot starts.

Right now, the only picks I recall who did well later after being glued to the bench as rookies (4th down perhaps excepted) are Brady, Cassell, and Givens.

I'm surely forgetting a couple, but the scales are more lopsided than I expected when I started that list.