TE for a 1st rd pick supporters

[Deus Irae]

I'm confused by the O.P. Is the goal of the Patriots supposed to be avoiding getting a second top shelf TE now?

 

[Raymond]

Back to the question at hand... in 2011 the Pats two tight ends accounted for 169 receptions and 24 TD's.... in 2012 it was 114 and 16 TD's..

Last year it was 52 and 6.....

Amazing. It goes to show how Brady somehow made the chicken salad from **** as they finished 7th in total offense and 3rd in points.

 

[TonyTucker]

I don't care if it's the first round or talking Tony Gonzalez out of retirement, they need help at that position when Gronk goes down. Or did you enjoy the Matt Mulligan and Hooman combo?

TE, DT, DE, C/G, I'd be fine with any of those as their first pick.

 

[gobesmug]

Ahern and Gronk both had TE next to their name, but they played two completely different positions. They provided unique mismatches to the defense, that when paired together was a very potent offense.

Ahern played the H-Back role, better than any other player during his few years. He lined up every where, and was a major threat in the open field. The only players that could maybe replicate that to a lesser extent, would be Eric Ebron and Colt Lyeria. Eric Ebron won't last to 29, and Lyeria has a a lot of legal issues, that might take him off the pats board completely.

Gronk plays the traditional TE role, better than any other TE in history. When healthy. Having another TE to back up Gronk would nice, but how much draft capital should the pats invest in a back up role?

This is why BB, went against his normal stance on extending rookies after only 2 seasons. Ahern and Gronk were the best at their position, and the odds of finding another pair like them is near to impossible.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Drafting too much for "need" or want instead of a heavy dose of BPA is a tried and true way of wasting draft picks.

It is always a balance but basically I agree that if there is a real disparity between players you take the better player unless they play a position that is too stocked for them to get on the field any time soon, however according to The War Room that is already factored in by Belichick when they evaluate players as he has the scouts evaluate them in relation to those playing their position who are already on the team. If the ratings are essentially the same then need trumps.

This is always the most interesting thing to me going into every draft, as we as fans always tend to look at need first and expect them to follow suit, however we don't have access to their actual rankings, and imo they look very different than the generic draft boards we see on the internet. As an example right now Jace Amaro is the most popular pick for the Patriots by most draft sites, and that makes sense as he is a highly rated player at a position of great need, however we still have almost 3 months until the draft and the scrutiny between now and then will be intense and draft boards for individual teams are going to change both in terms of player ratings and team needs, which are going to be affected significantly by free agency. And needs ultimately do drive their choices in the draft.

Instead of just assigning a player at a position of need to the patriots at 29 I think it is more interesting to look at all of the prospects and take those off the board who are not realistic picks, such as any of the first round QB's and then ranking them according to who i would take if they were there, and that changes the whole equation as you have no choice but to put need in the backseat to some degree as anyone who is serious about it isn't going to take Jace Amaro over Greg Robinson or Anthony Barr. Now it is unlikely that either will be there when they pick but in all likelihood there are going to be some prospects who are currently top 15 in most mocks who will be around when they are at the podium in May. So to me what becomes interesting is how to stack the board when you look at the whole pool of prospects and only eliminate those who they absolutely won't take, such as Manziel.


I still think need is a major factor when they make their picks but they will go for a higher rated player if they can use them and they are on the board.

The other factors that come into play are how deep that draft is at different positions, as well as how deep the next draft will be at different positions. They will bypass a position in the first if they see it as deep in the mid rounds and put more emphasis on a position early if they don't think they can get it later. None of these factors are set in stone from what i can tell but all come inot play in various ways.

 

[patsfan-1982]

hernandez was a 250lbs Julian Edelman, the first round TE's in the Draft are all in the Gronk mold only not as good meaning they will be running pretty much the same routes so team just have to defend the same area of the field they don't have to worry about a 250lbs TE running a screen or a outside post route,


the pats don't need a first round TE cause they will not have the same impact that Hennandez had anyways they just need a backup pass catching TE. with Gronk missing 9 games all other TE's on the roster had a total of 14 rec it wont be that hard to upgrade that, sign a vet or use a mid round pick on one

 

[JoeSixPat]

For all of you who are hopeing to rebuild the Gronk Hernandez duo again, please present other instances of teams who have TWO no 1 TE's on the roster

Would a statement from other GMs and Coaches about how IMPOSSIBLE it is to defend the Patriots with two TEs of Gronk and Hernandez's abilities suffice?

Unfortunately we never truly got to experience having them both fully healthy or experienced in the playoffs, but it's now clear what Belichick has been vying for for all these years, including when he had Watson and Graham (though they lacked the skills of Gronk and Hernandez)


Now, I know some football fans think they know more about football than Belichick, but personally, if Belichick thinks it's worthwhile to take a TE in the first round, I'm going to lean in favor of his judgement over the strong disagreement of random anonymous fans.

 

[scout]

As an exercise, list the top defenses each year in the AFC and where they ended up.

It amuses me to think of the superior defenses of recent SB winners IND, NO and GB.

You can be amused all you want, you named just 3 teams out of a vast population of champions. Quite honestly, the only reason Indy won that title is because the defense started playing. One of the most prolific offenses was shut down this year by a really good defense. Begin by naming the greatest teams to win a championship and they had great defenses. The Celtics were dominant in the 60's (did you know Wilt scored 100 points in a game) because of defense. The Patriots were champions due to their defenses. After the last Patriot's championship I have been more thankful for a 3rd down stop from the defense than Brady continuing a drive. Because, I knew Brady eventually would find a way to score. Our defense stopping the other team, not so much.

 

[Ring 6]

Up until this past year, the Pats did, and it led to one of the most effective offenses in modern NFL history. Who cares if other teams don't do it? The Pats have never been followers anyway.

Besides, with Gronk's propensity for getting injured, two #1-caliber TEs might be a necessity to ensure that they can consistently have even one good TE on the field.

To answer your question, though, the Chargers have Ladarius Green and Antonio Gates. The Eagles have Zach Ertz (not there yet, but an intriguing player) and Brent Celek. The Bengals have Jermaine Gresham and Tyler Eifert. The Saints have (had) Jimmy Graham and Ben Watson.

And the Pats can blow every one of those combinations out of the water with Gronk and one of the top 3 TE prospects in this draft.

I think this is exaggerated.
In 2010 they were rookies and combined to catch less than 100 passes.
In 2011, they were the key to the offense.
In 2012, they were barely on the field together.

There really was only 1 season where '2 top TEs' were the reason for the Patriots most effective offense.

 

[Deus Irae]

You can be amused all you want, you named just 3 teams out of a vast population of champions. Quite honestly, the only reason Indy won that title is because the defense started playing. One of the most prolific offenses was shut down this year by a really good defense. Begin by naming the greatest teams to win a championship and they had great defenses. The Celtics were dominant in the 60's (did you know Wilt scored 100 points in a game) because of defense. The Patriots were champions due to their defenses. After the last Patriot's championship I have been more thankful for a 3rd down stop from the defense than Brady continuing a drive. Because, I knew Brady eventually would find a way to score. Our defense stopping the other team, not so much.

Of the past 13 AFC representatives to the SB, 11 of them have been teams with Peyton Manning, Tom Brady or Ben Roethlisberger as their starting QB. A 12th was an 11-5 Oakland Raiders team with the NFL's #2 scoring offense led by two time first team All-Pro QB Rich Gannon. Since Trent Dilfer, Joe Flacco is the only mediocre QB to get to the SB in the AFC.

But let's keep pretending that it's all about the defense.

 

[scout]

Of the past 13 AFC representatives to the SB, 11 of them have been teams with Peyton Manning, Tom Brady or Ben Roethlisberger as their starting QB. A 12th was an 11-5 Oakland Raiders team with the NFL's #2 scoring offense led by two time first team All-Pro QB Rich Gannon. Since Trent Dilfer, Joe Flacco is the only mediocre QB to get to the SB in the AFC.

But let's keep pretending that it's all about the defense.

It is gratifying to defend my position with you as you are always open-minded. The past NFL champions: Seattle (defense), Baltimore (defense), New York Giants (defense). Brady lost the last two due to a superior defense. Brady won when the Patriots had solid defenses (Carolina almost came back when Harrison went out).Rothlisberger won over Seattle because they only scored 10 points (defense). Yes, get Brady another offensive weapon because offense will bring us another championship, right.

 

[Deus Irae]

It is gratifying to defend my position with you as you are always open-minded. The past NFL champions: Seattle (defense), Baltimore (defense), New York Giants (defense). Brady lost the last two due to a superior defense. Brady won when the Patriots had solid defenses (Carolina almost came back when Harrison went out).Rothlisberger won over Seattle because they only scored 10 points (defense). Yes, get Brady another offensive weapon because offense will bring us another championship, right.

You can't use Baltimore (12th) and claim defense won, when both teams in the Baltimore SB put up 30+ points, If you're going to use the 2011 Giants (25th in scoring) and 2007 Giants (17th in scoring) as examples of defenses winning, too.

You've got to have some sort of consistency as to how you define "defense" in the phrase.


If you take a look at pro-football-reference.com's Super Bowl winners

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/super-bowl/

you'll find that sometimes winning teams have excellent defenses and weaker offenses and sometimes winning teams have excellent offenses and weaker defenses, but usually winning teams are good on both sides of the ball. Here's where the last 13 SB winners were ranked, on offense/defense, the years they won the SBs.

SEA (8/1)
BAL (10/12)
NYG (9/25)
GB (10/2)
NO (1/20)
PIT (20/1)
NYG (14/17)
IND (2/23)
PIT (9/3)
NE (4/2)
NE (12/1)
TB (18/1)
NE (6/6)

 

[TriplecHamp]

It is gratifying to defend my position with you as you are always open-minded. The past NFL champions: Seattle (defense), Baltimore (defense), New York Giants (defense). Brady lost the last two due to a superior defense. Brady won when the Patriots had solid defenses (Carolina almost came back when Harrison went out).Rothlisberger won over Seattle because they only scored 10 points (defense). Yes, get Brady another offensive weapon because offense will bring us another championship, right.

So regardless of who's on the board, you would go defense based on principle alone? Sounds like a great way to bust.

 

[patsfan-1982]

I think the pats do need offense but not weapons OL. the pats have been to two AFCCG's in a row and the SB before that and in all 3 games they did not score 20 after scoring over 40 in there first playoff game so its not like Brady had no one at all to throw to,


I know that all of the teams that did beat the pats were not the 85 bears, 2011 giants 27th ranked defense 2012 ravens 17th ranked defense 2013 Denver 19th ranked defense but they were all able to get to Brady with a 4 man front and if a team can do that to you it dose not matter who you have at TE or WR, my point is am not against the pats Drafting or signing play makers on offense but until the OL gets better they will just have a great reg season offense that has a hard time scoring 20 in the postseason

 

[mgteich]

Would you do us all a favor and post some of the ratings of OL's where the patriots rank in the bottom half?

I think the pats do need offense but not weapons OL. the pats have been to two AFCCG's in a row and the SB before that and in all 3 games they did not score 20 after scoring over 40 in there first playoff game so its not like Brady had no one at all to throw to,


I know that all of the teams that did beat the pats were not the 85 bears, 2011 giants 27th ranked defense 2012 ravens 17th ranked defense 2013 Denver 19th ranked defense but they were all able to get to Brady with a 4 man front and if a team can do that to you it dose not matter who you have at TE or WR, my point is am not against the pats Drafting or signing play makers on offense but until the OL gets better they will just have a great reg season offense that has a hard time scoring 20 in the postseason

 

[patsfan-1982]

Would you do us all a favor and post some of the ratings of OL's where the patriots rank in the bottom half?

Brady was sacked 40 times and hit 81 times this year that's not the worst in the NFL but Brady not being able to step up in the packet has been a problem for the pats in the playoffs since 2007. Drafting a RG or center in the first two picks would be a big step forward in helping that

 

[chasa]

fun fact, since 2007 the team with the number 1 all time offense(at the time of the game) is 0-3 in superbowls.

MORE OFFENSE, WE NEED MOREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


:bricks:

 

[Archeryaddict12]

fun fact, since 2007 the team with the number 1 all time offense(at the time of the game) is 0-3 in superbowls.



MORE OFFENSE, WE NEED MOREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE





:bricks:

We know Tom can work his magic with not top of the line weapons. But he needs a clean pocket and a defense that doesn't give up a back breaking score after he drives the field and or scores within the last 5 minutes.

 

[Deus Irae]

fun fact, since 2007 the team with the number 1 all time offense(at the time of the game) is 0-3 in superbowls.

MORE OFFENSE, WE NEED MOREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


:bricks:

Fun fact: In the last 13 Super Bowls, the winner has been a top 10 scoring team more often than a top 10 defensive scoring team.

More offense would be just fine.

 

[Deus Irae]

fun fact, since 2007 the team with the number 1 all time offense(at the time of the game) is 0-3 in superbowls.

MORE OFFENSE, WE NEED MOREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


:bricks:

Another fun fact:

In the last 13 Super Bowls, no winner has been ranked lower than 20th in offensive scoring, but two winners have been ranked lower than 20th in defensive scoring.