Pats wanted Stewart Bradley? [merged]

[Box_O_Rocks]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

It's all relative compared not only with his peers in the current draft class, but with the college careers of currently successful NFL starters. How much of his production came against bottom feeders? How much came against non-BCs schools? Your method of evaluating production and mine obviously differ. If the Pats really wanted Bradley they had every means available to obtain him. Instead they were willing to sit on their thumbs and whistle dixie hoping he or someone else might tumble.

Like they sat on their thumbs and whistled the Miami fight song while waiting for Meriweather? Yes, the Pats had an opportunity to go get him, now tell me how you know for sure and certain they didn't make the attempt.

Define production. Demeco Ryans won DROY for Houston, are you going to tell me he would have done the same playing for NE? You mentioned Vilma in your first post: http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/blog/2007/04/drivers_license.html

Now, I'm not so sure what the Jets have in mind. Certainly if Harris plays, he'll be able to take on the straight-ahead responsibilities that seemed to slow Vilma last season.

Donnie Edwards was panned by our San Diego visitors for making all his tackles five yards down the field, yet folks here cream themselves over him. Vilma makes a lot of tackles too, but this NY Sports blogger doesn't seem to think Vilma's downhill game is that impressive. You pan Bradley's production, but I think it's telling the kid who led Nebraska in tackles from SLB also led the Senior Bowl's North Squad in tackles playing both SLB and WLB. Oh, that guy Bradley finished second to in tackles his sophomore season, your fave Barret Ruud.

From NFLDraftScout's overview:

The coaching staff cited Bradley's performance as the main reason the team was able to rebound in 2006 to battle for the Big 12 title.

Sounds like a complete dud who only excells against lower level competition.

 

[bucky]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Again, there are 2 parties who would be involved in any potential trade. The Pats and anyone else. The breaker is whether or not there was a person willing to trade with the Pats. As was pointed out, Baltimore had just traded up to get Yanda.

In reality, I think that the Pats were rebuffed in their trade attempts to move up

Again, I'm not so sure the Pats were rebuffed, given that JAx accepted picks 101, 166 and 203 from Baltimore. You have to believe they would have preferred 91, 180, and 202. I have to believe that if the Pats "groaned" after that pick, it wasn't because they wanted Stewart so much, but because they realized they could have grabbed him with the pick before.

The only scenarios I can think of are (a) The Pats felt 2 6ths were too much to give up to move up 5 spots and decided to play chicken (hard for me to believe if they really wanted Stewart), or (b) they didn't explore trading up with Jax for whatever reason and when they saw the deal between Jax and Balt, followed by the selection of Stewart 1 pick later. It's also hard for me to believe that the Pats wouldn't explore a move like that if they wanted Stewart, but even great people make mistakes sometimes. Of course there is also the possibility that they didn't think Stewart was worth moving up for, but then why the "groaning"?

 

[PonyExpress]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Like they sat on their thumbs and whistled the Miami fight song while waiting for Meriweather? Yes, the Pats had an opportunity to go get him, now tell me how you know for sure and certain they didn't make the attempt.

Define production. Demeco Ryans won DROY for Houston, are you going to tell me he would have done the same playing for NE? You mentioned Vilma in your first post: http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/blog/2007/04/drivers_license.htmlDonnie Edwards was panned by our San Diego visitors for making all his tackles five yards down the field, yet folks here cream themselves over him. Vilma makes a lot of tackles too, but this NY Sports blogger doesn't seem to think Vilma's downhill game is that impressive. You pan Bradley's production, but I think it's telling the kid who led Nebraska in tackles from SLB also led the Senior Bowl's North Squad in tackles playing both SLB and WLB. Oh, that guy Bradley finished second to in tackles his sophomore season, your fave Barret Ruud.

From NFLDraftScout's overview:
Sounds like a complete dud who only excells against lower level competition.

In discussing prospects who can become quality multi-year starting LBers in the NFL, there are many factors to evaluate. One method may be to establish a profile. IOW, to identify NFL players who have succeeded as quality multi-year NFL starters, and then work backwards, analyzing their predraft workouts, college production, college injury history, etc. Then match current prospects to that profile. IMO, Bradley more than meets the grade athletically. However, his college production and other factors do not. This does not mean that Bradley cannot succeed. Only that there is more risk associated with him than admitted by his supporters. Because of that risk, I would not have wanted my team to draft him before the 2nd day. I mentioned Vrabel and Bruschi, the Pats starting 3-4 ILBs last season, to illustrate the level of college production that two prominent NFL ILBs have. I mentioned Ryans and Vilma, recent 4-3 LB DROYs, to illustrate that impact NFL LBers, regardless of system, are usually college superstars. If you are suggesting that the Pats felt as highly about Bradley as you seem to, draft day evidence suggests otherwise. If you are offended that I judged Bradley a Day 2 prospect, and are trying to convince me of the error of my ways, only Bradley's NFL performance can accomplish that. P.S. I never said Ruud was a favorite of mine. He was not.

 

[sebman2112]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Like they sat on their thumbs and whistled the Miami fight song while waiting for Meriweather? Yes, the Pats had an opportunity to go get him, now tell me how you know for sure and certain they didn't make the attempt.

Define production. Demeco Ryans won DROY for Houston, are you going to tell me he would have done the same playing for NE? You mentioned Vilma in your first post: http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/blog/2007/04/drivers_license.htmlDonnie Edwards was panned by our San Diego visitors for making all his tackles five yards down the field, yet folks here cream themselves over him. Vilma makes a lot of tackles too, but this NY Sports blogger doesn't seem to think Vilma's downhill game is that impressive. You pan Bradley's production, but I think it's telling the kid who led Nebraska in tackles from SLB also led the Senior Bowl's North Squad in tackles playing both SLB and WLB. Oh, that guy Bradley finished second to in tackles his sophomore season, your fave Barret Ruud.

From NFLDraftScout's overview:
Sounds like a complete dud who only excells against lower level competition.

Personally, I've never thought Donnie Edwards would be all that great in NE's defense.

 

[dryheat44]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Personally, I've never thought Donnie Edwards would be all that great in NE's defense.

Donnie Edwards personifies the difference between the 3-4s run by Wade Phillips and Bill Belichick. Unless there was a sell-out blitz called, Edwards' first read was the tight end. Always. His first steps at the snap were backwards, like a cornerback's. That's why I found it humerous when Chargers fans complained that he made tackles 4-5 yards downfield. That was his JOB. Much like we wouldn't kill Rodney for making tackles 5 yards past the LOS.

He probably wouldn't be a starter in the Belichick version, but even at his age he's a top 3 cover linebacker in the NFL, and I would have loved to add him at a reasonable number to play such a role.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

If your first read in a 3-4 defense is the TE, then there is no excuse for making tackles on running plays 4-5 yards off the ball, those tackles should be made 2-3 yards off the ball at worst.
It is very hard for me to imagine a defense where a LB reads the TE and not the OT as well, if the TE is lined up on the line. If the TE is lined up in the slot or in motion, then the reads would be entirely different.
A TE lined up on the line by an OT is an easy read. If Edwards is going backwards on a running play from that formation ,then the Chargers fans are correct to be upset.

One point on Bradley. I've watched him play and I've seen Rogers play a couple of times. In my mind, I'm shocked if either Bradley (had we drafted him) or Rogers lasts longer than Mincey did last year. In my opinion, neither is athletic enough for the demands of the OLB position in BB's 3-4 defense, unless BB pares down the position much like he did for TBC.
In the end, I'm not disappointed that Stewart went to the Eagles.

 

[sebman2112]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

If your first read in a 3-4 defense is the TE, then there is no excuse for making tackles on running plays 4-5 yards off the ball, those tackles should be made 2-3 yards off the ball at worst.
It is very hard for me to imagine a defense where a LB reads the TE and not the OT as well, if the TE is lined up on the line. If the TE is lined up in the slot or in motion, then the reads would be entirely different.
A TE lined up on the line by an OT is an easy read. If Edwards is going backwards on a running play from that formation ,then the Chargers fans are correct to be upset.

One point on Bradley. I've watched him play and I've seen Rogers play a couple of times. In my mind, I'm shocked if either Bradley (had we drafted him) or Rogers lasts longer than Mincey did last year. In my opinion, neither is athletic enough for the demands of the OLB position in BB's 3-4 defense, unless BB pares down the position much like he did for TBC.
In the end, I'm not disappointed that Stewart went to the Eagles.

In your mind Bradley and Rogers aren't athletic enough to play OLB in BB's 3-4? I've watched Stewart his entire career at Nebraska (I'm a fan), and you almost made me spit my water out laughing.

 

[patpatriot]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

In my opinion, neither is athletic enough for the demands of the OLB position in BB's 3-4 defense, unless BB pares down the position much like he did for TBC. QUOTE]

Ochmed...2 things:

1: Could you describe how BB pared down the position for TBC; what it meant to the players around him and what weaknesses it produced in the defense as a whole.

2. How the heck are we going to find LB who can excel at this defense like Vrabel did? He was a too small DE for the Steelers who I believe never tried him at LB or if he did, he failed there at the position. Then, he comes here and excells at it...what gives? And he was what a 3rd round pick?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

In discussing prospects who can become quality multi-year starting LBers in the NFL, there are many factors to evaluate. One method may be to establish a profile. IOW, to identify NFL players who have succeeded as quality multi-year NFL starters, and then work backwards, analyzing their predraft workouts, college production, college injury history, etc. Then match current prospects to that profile. IMO, Bradley more than meets the grade athletically. However, his college production and other factors do not. This does not mean that Bradley cannot succeed. Only that there is more risk associated with him than admitted by his supporters. Because of that risk, I would not have wanted my team to draft him before the 2nd day. I mentioned Vrabel and Bruschi, the Pats starting 3-4 ILBs last season, to illustrate the level of college production that two prominent NFL ILBs have. I mentioned Ryans and Vilma, recent 4-3 LB DROYs, to illustrate that impact NFL LBers, regardless of system, are usually college superstars. If you are suggesting that the Pats felt as highly about Bradley as you seem to, draft day evidence suggests otherwise. If you are offended that I judged Bradley a Day 2 prospect, and are trying to convince me of the error of my ways, only Bradley's NFL performance can accomplish that. P.S. I never said Ruud was a favorite of mine. He was not.

I shall concede that you and I disagree on the player's talent/fit/production. I believe you focus too much on numbers, and not enough on scheme and position. You critique Bradley for playing behind a good D-line, yet Vilma, for one, might have played behind some talented lads himself. Bruschi and Vrabel played DE in college, on average, would you expect a DE to have more sacks then a SLB? I would expect different sack numbers, but that's just me I guess.

 

[PonyExpress]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

I shall concede that you and I disagree on the player's talent/fit/production. I believe you focus too much on numbers, and not enough on scheme and position. You critique Bradley for playing behind a good D-line, yet Vilma, for one, might have played behind some talented lads himself. Bruschi and Vrabel played DE in college, on average, would you expect a DE to have more sacks then a SLB? I would expect different sack numbers, but that's just me I guess.

Your blind love for Bradley is more powerful than my need to disagree. I hope you two are happy together. May you have beautiful and successful offspring.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Your blind love for Bradley is more powerful than my need to disagree. I hope you two are happy together. May you have beautiful and successful offspring.

No doubt we would have, unfortunately, someone has come between us.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Your blind love for Bradley is more powerful than my need to disagree. I hope you two are happy together. May you have beautiful and successful offspring.

Is it as blind as your love for Pierre Woods?

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Like I said earlier, I think I was just definint "value" differently. Others consider value to be how much a player can help the Patriots now and in the future. I considered value simply the raw grade a player would get for his talent. Based on my definition I maintain that a "value" argument is a bad one - based on the other definition I can see it. I still say we'll draft someone with the pick next year with a higher raw grade than Bradley but can see someone saying it's a lesser value if it's at a lesser need position.

BBFan -
One of the things that I admittedly tripped up on is that you have to define value based on how the Patriots define value. You can't define it based on the raw grades we see posted online because the Patriots don't use those sites. The Patriots have their own grading system.

Value is defined as the Players tangibles + the player's intangibles + the need of the position for the team. That is how Belichick has defined it previously.

The problem with claiming that the Pats will draft someone next year with a higher RAW GRADE is that you have no way to actually prove or disprove that they did. The other problem is that if Bradley were here, and made the team, he'd have a year in the system over this raw prospect and I highly doubt the prospect would have a higher grade.

 

[PonyExpress]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Is it as blind as your love for Pierre Woods?

"Blind" is a first day draft pick. "Wise" is an undrafted free agent.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Again, I'm not so sure the Pats were rebuffed, given that JAx accepted picks 101, 166 and 203 from Baltimore. You have to believe they would have preferred 91, 180, and 202. I have to believe that if the Pats "groaned" after that pick, it wasn't because they wanted Stewart so much, but because they realized they could have grabbed him with the pick before.

You are making an assumption that the Patriots would have offered 3 picks to Jacksonville. Maybe the Pats didn't believe that Bradley was worth 3 picks. And, yes, maybe they were rebuffed because you don't know when the trade by Baltimore with Jax was actually made. I'm not talking about announced. I am talking about made.

Also, the Pats may not have wanted to trade with Jacksonville. There may be some animosity about the comments that Del Rio made. Or, there could be animosity towards the Patriots on the part of the Jaguars. Again, its why I said they could have been rebuffed.

The only scenarios I can think of are (a) The Pats felt 2 6ths were too much to give up to move up 5 spots and decided to play chicken (hard for me to believe if they really wanted Stewart), or (b) they didn't explore trading up with Jax for whatever reason and when they saw the deal between Jax and Balt, followed by the selection of Stewart 1 pick later. It's also hard for me to believe that the Pats wouldn't explore a move like that if they wanted Stewart, but even great people make mistakes sometimes. Of course there is also the possibility that they didn't think Stewart was worth moving up for, but then why the "groaning"?

I believe they were rebuffed and truly wanted Bradley to fall to them and that they groaned because they felt the price was too steep. Not having a 5th round pick hurt them because they probably felt that a 4th was way too much.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

One of the things that I admittedly tripped up on is that you have to define value based on how the Patriots define value. You can't define it based on the raw grades we see posted online because the Patriots don't use those sites. The Patriots have their own grading system.

And I think that the Patriots grade for the player they get next year will be higher than their grade for Bradley. I just think that as they do need some youth at LB they were going to go ahead and take the player they like now instead of waiting.

The problem with claiming that the Pats will draft someone next year with a higher RAW GRADE is that you have no way to actually prove or disprove that they did.

No doubt about that. I have no clue. However - as they clearly didn't like this draft and as the pick next year will clearly be half a round (or more) higher, it's a reasonable inference.

The other problem is that if Bradley were here, and made the team, he'd have a year in the system over this raw prospect and I highly doubt the prospect would have a higher grade.

Well I think the prospect next year will have a higher grade (can't prove it) but I agree that they liked the chance to get Bradley now vs. waiting a year.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

"Blind" is a first day draft pick. "Wise" is an undrafted free agent.

If you say so. But I think you've blinded yourself and that you are being rather bias in your evaluation of Bradley in comparison to Woods.

You are really the only person I have heard say that Bradley wasn't worth a 3rd round pick. You are also the only person who is really taking him to task. Yet, you are right to the defense of Woods, having your excuses on why he will be good all lined up and ready to go. But you are criticizing Box for the same thing. And this garbage about a 1st day pick vs. a UDFA. The UDFA is a helluva lot LESS likely to make the team than the 3rd round pick.

Bradley would have been an excellent pick at 91. And, as I said before, unless you have some inside information that the Pats DIDN'T try to trade up, its only your own pure speculation that they didn't. I am of the belief that they did because they believe that Bradley would fit into their system.

I think that its also supported that the Patriots wanted Bradley at 91 because they didn't trade out of 91 until there less than 3 minutes left on the clock. You're suggestion that they felt that the Oakland #3 pick and the 7th pick were better value than Bradley just doesn't hold water when you take into consideration the time lapse.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

One point on Bradley. I've watched him play and I've seen Rogers play a couple of times. In my mind, I'm shocked if either Bradley (had we drafted him) or Rogers lasts longer than Mincey did last year. In my opinion, neither is athletic enough for the demands of the OLB position in BB's 3-4 defense, unless BB pares down the position much like he did for TBC.
In the end, I'm not disappointed that Stewart went to the Eagles.

WOW. Gotta say that you are WAY off on this.

Rogers is being reported as moving to ILB and most people felt that Bradley could do BOTH ala Mike Vrabel.

Not sure where you get that they aren't athletic enough when they are just as athletic as Vrabel and Bruschi were in their primes.

 

[PonyExpress]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

If you say so. But I think you've blinded yourself and that you are being rather bias in your evaluation of Bradley in comparison to Woods.

You are really the only person I have heard say that Bradley wasn't worth a 3rd round pick. You are also the only person who is really taking him to task. Yet, you are right to the defense of Woods, having your excuses on why he will be good all lined up and ready to go. But you are criticizing Box for the same thing. And this garbage about a 1st day pick vs. a UDFA. The UDFA is a helluva lot LESS likely to make the team than the 3rd round pick.

Bradley would have been an excellent pick at 91. And, as I said before, unless you have some inside information that the Pats DIDN'T try to trade up, its only your own pure speculation that they didn't. I am of the belief that they did because they believe that Bradley would fit into their system.

I think that its also supported that the Patriots wanted Bradley at 91 because they didn't trade out of 91 until there less than 3 minutes left on the clock. You're suggestion that they felt that the Oakland #3 pick and the 7th pick were better value than Bradley just doesn't hold water when you take into consideration the time lapse.

Draft picks are like money. When you invest money you seek to minimize risk. The more money you spend the less risk you want. IMO there are risks I associate with Bradley that would make me reluctant to spend 1st day money on him. That does not mean he won't be a good NFL player. He may become that. Some risks pan out. When you sign an UDFA/draft a 2nd day prospect, the minimal cost mitigates against the risk. The risk with Woods was attitude related. After a year of solid citizenship, that risk has diminished to the point where I am optimistic about his future. I suppose what you find fault with is the fact I associate Bradley with "risk" to the degree I do. I have nothing against him, nor am I trying to be a contrarian, I'm just giving my honest opinion. Sorry if I have rubbed people the wrong way. The fact that Bradley lasted to the end of the 3rd rd suggests that many NFL teams agreed with my opinion. That doesn't mean that we are right, it just demonstrates that my opinion is not as outlandish as you seem to suggest. As far as the Patriots and Bradley... going strictly by the value chart, which I understand is not always an accurate measure, it only would have taken a 6th rdr to move up to 86. This tells me that, if the Pats really were interested in Bradley, they must not have considered him all that and a bag of donuts.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Bradley and Rogers not up to the challenge.

Time will tell if Rogers makes anything other than the Pats PS. And I'll keep an eye on Bradley. I know a lot of you guys like Bradley and maybe a couple of you have watched him for years as a Cornhusker, but if you objectively try to project him into the Pats defense, he begins to look a lot like TBC and we know that the TBC types don't work.

To answer an earlier question, look at the Pats secondary when TBC was in the game. They are double rotating on his side. This is done because BB has pared down a lot of the coverage responsibilities for TBC. Of course opposing teams just ran at TBC and it basically negated all the clever scheming.