High on the youth here as well. Wilson, Hobbs particularly seem to have shown they
can break out, and can legitimately be said not to have quite yet. I agree that Wilfork and Warren looked pretty bad without Seymour around, but I think the dislocation there was due to trying to do all the same things without the anchor, as much as their level of play. I think they're approaching the level of their full capabilities - good, but not great. Prove me wrong, I'll be happy. Still, we get better on D line, with Seymour in for (we hope) sixteen games, and the rest of the line getting better rather than worse. I also feel the backups (Green, Hill,) both have great potential. Green's shown ability, and Hill is just waiting for a shot. I like where we are on D-Line.
At linebacker I think we like to hope rather than project, whereas the actual Pats' personnel department like to plan. It might be they're going in saying "Well, it looks like ILB is an issue unless we plug in Vrabes, and that makes OLB an issue if we do." We here like to think their offseason choices mean that either TBC or Beisel has shown progress toward the caliber of play the Pats need. I don't think so. I think we're hoping that's what we'll see, and that barring another acquisition, this may be a weaker spot for the Pats than in the past.
Part of drafting for value (not need,) and making runs at FAs based on value (not need,) is that you end up compensating for what's not there with what is there. I do like to think there's more than meets the eye in Beisel's, TBC's, or even Alexander's case - I just have insufficient evidence for it. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
On offense, the O-Line is going to improve, but no breakouts (possible exception: O'Callaghan. He's just too damn big to disregard. Put him in a gym a few hours a day and see what happens.) But the "replacements" of last year were getting it close to right by year's end. Brady certainly didn't have time to do Sudoku in his five-step drop or anything, but he had time to throw for four thousand yards. Mankins and Kaczur will just get better - another part of the youth movement - and having a healthy line from TC onward (Lord willin' an' the crick don't rise,) will build cohesiveness at those positions. But breakout years? Again, no reason to think it.
Whoever keeps insisting the speedy and petulant track star Bethel Johnson is ready to break out, is made of stronger stuff than I. I do think this is his make or break year, so I'd love for him to buckle down, go nuts getting his patterns tighter, and make an asset of himself, rather than just an ass. But he's functionally illiterate when it comes to reading the playbook or the writing on the wall, so I just cannot share the enthusiasm.
I like Gator-Aid (Jackson) to catch 30 balls this year, and I like Papier Reche to catch in the 50 range. Solid contributions, nothing spectacular. One or the other might catch upwards of 50, maybe even grazing the 70-80 category (Caldwell more likely,) if Branch draws doubles and triples all year. More likely the ball will be spread around more, with dribs and drabs from everybody and his uncle. Branch's production - anywhere from last year's production to slightly less. He's a known quantity now. Watson stays in the second tier of tight ends - we just don't let them run up Antonio Gates numbers here.
The trouble with projecting a breakout, is you need a guy to perform as a star in a system that minimizes them. Even Seymour draws "Richard who?" responses from the fantasy types and "overrated" comments from 90% of fandom - while coaches and other players in the NFL say "best lineman in the game, bar none."
But I can tell you which
team is going to break out this year
PFnV
