5 possible first round selections

[patsfaninpa]

Eddie Goldman, if he drops. I doubt that will happen, and I wouldn't count on it, but there's a chance.

Goldman and a trade-up for Fisher. 2 and 3 to move up.

 

[patchick]

Goldman and a trade-up for Fisher. 2 and 3 to move up.

If I read that correctly, you're proposing spending 4 day 1-2 picks to land Goldman and Fisher? IMO those players just aren't special enough to be worth that kind of bounty.

 

[patsfaninpa]

If I read that correctly, you're proposing spending 4 day 1-2 picks to land Goldman and Fisher? IMO those players just aren't special enough to be worth that kind of bounty.

Sorry for confusion. Take Goldman at 32. Use 96th to move up in the second for Fisher.

 

[mayoclinic]

If I read that correctly, you're proposing spending 4 day 1-2 picks to land Goldman and Fisher? IMO those players just aren't special enough to be worth that kind of bounty.

I don't mind taking Goldman at 32 if he's on the board (unlikely). He's probably my 2nd choice after Gurley. And I like Fisher as a trade-back option if no one else is available. But I'm still focused on Hardison and Marpet, personally, and I'm not sure they will last to our (presumed) 3rd round comp and TB's early 4th.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

If revis walks, i would expect them to take a cornerback. Maybe that kid from connecticut?

 

[patchick]

Sorry for confusion. Take Goldman at 32. Use 96th to move up in the second for Fisher.

Ah, gotcha, that's definitely an easier sell. I don't love Goldman (and I certainly wouldn't trade up for him), but I could see that approach if he's available.

 

[patfanken]

There are three types of defensive tackle that I would draft in the first round:

1. An athletic 5-tech that can rush the passer (Fletcher Cox)

2. A 3-tech that projects to be a consistent disrupt or in the backfield ;Aaron Donald)

3. A NT type that is athletic and strong enough to defeat double teams (Vince Wilfork).

My issue with the DTs available in this draft is that I don't really think any of them fit the bill. Eddie Goldman and Malcom Brown are good when taking on single-blockers but I see both getting put on skates by double teams although Brown is a little better in that regard.

Jordan Phillips could potentially be that Wilfork/Poe/Lotulelei type but I think he's very raw. I don't see him making a serious contribution for at least a year.

I think Carl Davis is the closest to being first round worthy because he has the quickness and strength to be potentially dominant as he showed at the Senior Bowl and he fits the 3-tech/5-tech qualifiers above. Unfortunately, Davis' tape was not as good as his performance in the Senior Bowl and there are questions about laziness.

The upshot is, I have doubts about all the DTs, much more so than I do OTs like Clemmings or Fisher or an Odighizuwa or Gurley. That's why I have 2nd round grades on all of them.

I would say this though. Firstly, I've tended to be less enamoured by defensive tackles than most in this forum and I'm quite happy to recognise that this might be a blind spot of mine. And secondly, whilst there are prospects I like more, it's not that I dislike these guys. I had a second round grade on Easley last year but was ultimately fine with the pick and I would be with any of Davis, Phillips, Goldman or Brown. It's just that I don't think they'll have been optimal picks.

I think you are right about the pendulum swinging back to the running game. It's why I'm both concerned and excited by Hardison. Initially, I don't think he has the ability to play the run effectively. But if he can be taught to do so then he already has the size to be an effective run stopper whilst having the speed and quickness to be a constant disruptor in the backfield. For me, that's the holy grail - a DT big enough and strong enough to take on blockers in the run game and quick enough to get into the backfield consistently.

Thanks for being so detailed and honest with your response. I feel a lot more knowledgeable now about the position (at least from your point of view. Sol let me continue with my interrogation

1. I think we'd all agree that it would be ideal if we could draft an offensive lineman that would be an upgrade on either Wendell or Connolly. My question, would be, is the value you would get in a player drafted at 32 be THAT much better than the guy you could pick up in rounds 2-4. Or was the fact we found an effective starting rookie C in the 4th round just good luck. Or to put it another way, are we better off using that first pick on a position that is harder to find, than spending it on a position where we are more likely to find quality in a later round

2. Do you think we can find some road grader type wide body to be our younger version of Alan Branch in the later rounds, and if so do you have a few names to watch

3. Would you be OK with a trade down to midway into the 2nd round and selecting Hardison or would you think that's a reach

 

[BobDigital]

Even though I made this thread I still stand by another post as my official position on who they should draft in the first round which is a very short list and would probably require a trade down when they are not there. Personally I would draft none of the following guys I named here at 32.

 

[manxman2601]

Even though I made this thread I still stand by another post as my official position on who they should draft in the first round which is a very short list and would probably require a trade down when they are not there. Personally I would draft none of the following guys I named here at 32.

I'd definitely take Fisher at 32. I'm also very tempted by Byron Jones.

 

[manxman2601]

Thanks for being so detailed and honest with your response. I feel a lot more knowledgeable now about the position (at least from your point of view. Sol let me continue with my interrogation

1. I think we'd all agree that it would be ideal if we could draft an offensive lineman that would be an upgrade on either Wendell or Connolly. My question, would be, is the value you would get in a player drafted at 32 be THAT much better than the guy you could pick up in rounds 2-4. Or was the fact we found an effective starting rookie C in the 4th round just good luck. Or to put it another way, are we better off using that first pick on a position that is harder to find, than spending it on a position where we are more likely to find quality in a later round

2. Do you think we can find some road grader type wide body to be our younger version of Alan Branch in the later rounds, and if so do you have a few names to watch

3. Would you be OK with a trade down to midway into the 2nd round and selecting Hardison or would you think that's a reach

1. Normally I'd agree with you on the OL but my thinking at this time is that there is still uncertainty regarding Nate Solder and the OL prospects I like at 32 have LT upside, something you won't find later in the draft. The other consideration is that BB's recent first picks have all been excellent prospects size-wise or athletically outstanding (or both): Solder, McCourty, Chandler, Collins and even Hightower. I see TJ Clemmings and Jake Fisher fitting that mould, almost more than any other prospect in the same range.

2. I'm becoming more aware of decent bigger body DTs in available in the later rounds (in part because of Patriot activity).

Deon Simon, Northwestern St.) is 6-4, 321lb. Had a very good combine and met with the Patriots there.

L.T. (Leterrius) Walton (Central Michigan) is 6-4, 319lbs. I've only seen positive comments about him as someone who will develop into an NFL starter. He's my favourite late-round DT currently.

Angelo Blackson (Auburn), 6-4, 318. Was one of the Auburn DTs worked out by BB. Ran sub 5.00

Josh Watson (Clemson), 6-4, 290. Also ran sub 5.00. BB went to the Clemson pro day also.

Joey Mbu (Houston), 6-2, 313lbs. Did poorly at the combine but has had very good character reviews. 35" arms

David Parry (Stanford), 6-1, 308. Good run stuffing NT.

And then there's a long-shot but also my favourite DT in the draft after Hardison and that's East Carolina's Terry Williams.

He wasn't invited to the combine and has some drug related issues in the past, he measured under 6' with short arms and seems to be a little bit off the NFL radar. So there's plenty of reasons not to draft him. But...

He's 344 lbs and on his bio is reported to have a run a 7.28 3cone which would be incredible for that size. And his tape is fantastic - very quick mover, beats double teams and holds up against double teams too. He's the most Wilfork-ian prospect in the draft. He must have major issues because this is first round tape:




3. there's no bigger fan of Hardison than I but I think he's too much of a risk to take with the first pick. I'd take him at 64, I had him going there in a mock about 3-4 months ago, and I'd be willing to trade up ahead of Seattle at 63 to get him but I'd rather we used our first pick on a prospect that doesn't carry the low floor risks that Hardison does.

 

[mayoclinic]

3. there's no bigger fan of Hardison than I but I think he's too much of a risk to take with the first pick. I'd take him at 64, I had him going there in a mock about 3-4 months ago, and I'd be willing to trade up ahead of Seattle at 63 to get him but I'd rather we used our first pick on a prospect that doesn't carry the low floor risks that Hardison does.

This is pretty much where I am. I've been ignoring draft rankings and assuming Hardison will end up as a day 2 prospect. I think he has 1st round talent, but I agree I'd like to use #32 on someone a little more established.

 

[patfanken]

1. Normally I'd agree with you on the OL but my thinking at this time is that there is still uncertainty regarding Nate Solder and the OL prospects I like at 32 have LT upside, something you won't find later in the draft. The other consideration is that BB's recent first picks have all been excellent prospects size-wise or athletically outstanding (or both): Solder, McCourty, Chandler, Collins and even Hightower. I see TJ Clemmings and Jake Fisher fitting that mould, almost more than any other prospect in the same range.

I don't see your concern about Solder. Googs certainly isn't. Plus I think NOW is the time to extend him. The few inconsistencies we see from him could allow you to sign him long term in the $7-8MM/range. However if he plays out his contract this season, and takes the next step and refines his game, it will cost you $10+MM/yr. He's not elite.....yet. But has all the tools to become that kind of player.

2. I'm becoming more aware of decent bigger body DTs in available in the later rounds (in part because of Patriot activity).

Deon Simon, Northwestern St.) is 6-4, 321lb. Had a very good combine and met with the Patriots there.

L.T. (Leterrius) Walton (Central Michigan) is 6-4, 319lbs. I've only seen positive comments about him as someone who will develop into an NFL starter. He's my favourite late-round DT currently.

Angelo Blackson (Auburn), 6-4, 318. Was one of the Auburn DTs worked out by BB. Ran sub 5.00

Josh Watson (Clemson), 6-4, 290. Also ran sub 5.00. BB went to the Clemson pro day also.

Joey Mbu (Houston), 6-2, 313lbs. Did poorly at the combine but has had very good character reviews. 35" arms

David Parry (Stanford), 6-1, 308. Good run stuffing NT.

And then there's a long-shot but also my favourite DT in the draft after Hardison and that's East Carolina's Terry Williams.

He wasn't invited to the combine and has some drug related issues in the past, he measured under 6' with short arms and seems to be a little bit off the NFL radar. So there's plenty of reasons not to draft him. But...

He's 344 lbs and on his bio is reported to have a run a 7.28 3cone which would be incredible for that size. And his tape is fantastic - very quick mover, beats double teams and holds up against double teams too. He's the most Wilfork-ian prospect in the draft. He must have major issues because this is first round tape:

That's great info Manx, thanks. Personally I'm partial to the long guys who can stuff the run, push the pocket and get their hands up into the passing lanes. So without knowing much about any of the guys you mentioned, Walton, Watson, and Blackson will become people I will look at closely.

That being said, Terry Williams looked excellent on tape. Very quick feet, good change of direction, and powerful at the point of attack. I'd have to know more about the VT OL of course, but his performance WAS impressive.

I really liked that he stayed low off the snap and had a tendency to make first contact with the front of his helmet. And while I might have ended my football playing career as an undersized OLB playing SS, I was a 205 lb NT for a season in college, who had to use his head in a similar manner.

3. there's no bigger fan of Hardison than I but I think he's too much of a risk to take with the first pick. I'd take him at 64, I had him going there in a mock about 3-4 months ago, and I'd be willing to trade up ahead of Seattle at 63 to get him but I'd rather we used our first pick on a prospect that doesn't carry the low floor risks that Hardison does.

This doesn't make sense. You love the player, You'd grab in a a second at 64, but wouldn't take him at say 40 or 45? That doesn't compute.

BTW- where do you see the risk factors in his game. If its his motor or attitude problem, then I'd likely agree with you. Historically the Pats don't take risks with their first picks, but have no fear with their second

 

[manxman2601]

I don't see your concern about Solder. Googs certainly isn't. Plus I think NOW is the time to extend him. The few inconsistencies we see from him could allow you to sign him long term in the $7-8MM/range. However if he plays out his contract this season, and takes the next step and refines his game, it will cost you $10+MM/yr. He's not elite.....yet. But has all the tools to become that kind of player.

That's great info Manx, thanks. Personally I'm partial to the long guys who can stuff the run, push the pocket and get their hands up into the passing lanes. So without knowing much about any of the guys you mentioned, Walton, Watson, and Blackson will become people I will look at closely.

That being said, Terry Williams looked excellent on tape. Very quick feet, good change of direction, and powerful at the point of attack. I'd have to know more about the VT OL of course, but his performance WAS impressive.

I really liked that he stayed low off the snap and had a tendency to make first contact with the front of his helmet. And while I might have ended my football playing career as an undersized OLB playing SS, I was a 205 lb NT for a season in college, who had to use his head in a similar manner.

This doesn't make sense. You love the player, You'd grab in a a second at 64, but wouldn't take him at say 40 or 45. That doesn't compute.

BTW- where do you see the risk factors in his game. If its his motor or attitude problem, then I'd likely agree with you. Historically the Pats don't take risks with their first picks, but have no fear with their second

1. My concern with Solder is that, having the same agent as Welker and Vereen, that there might be a disconnect between what we'll pay and what he'll want. And I'm not saying we won't re-sign him, I'm just saying it would be prudent to have a ready made replacement in house just in case.

2. I like lengthy DTs too. 6-4 to 6-6 and 315lbs plus. They are there at the top of the draft and in depth too.

3. I just shared the one Terry Williams game. There are others equally as good. If you want to see them, I'll be happy to provide the links. Trust me, I didn't just cherry pick the best game. For whatever reason, he's more underrated than Hardison.

4. I would take Hardison in the forties, but I would do it with a trade up from 64, not a trade back from 32. With that first pick I want someone with a higher floor than Hardison. You want a guaranteed starter with your first pick and whilst Hardison comfortably has that upside, his floor is a fair bit lower than that. There is a risk to picking Hardison.

5. Listing Hardison's risk factors:

• Technique. Doesn't have great hands at the moment and extends/loses balance. You saw him on the ground a lot at the Senior Bowl.
• Once he's blocked, he lacks the hands and moves to get off the block. It's why I see him as an initial liability in the run game.
• Played on the edge a lot at ASU, didn't play inside that much.
• Only one year of production, in fact only about half a season. Did have 10 sacks in that time though.

His issues come down to lack of experience and technique. It's all coachable, but this defense is hard enough to learn as is, without having to learn technique too. Hardison went from a JUCO guy who won based purely on his athleticism to having a bad first year at ASU whilst trying to learn the position and then on to a breakout second year. The trajectory is fine, but there's still a fair way to go and that's all projection.

And after seeing him run forty yards downfield to tackle a WR in his bowl game, I have no concerns about his motor. He plays 100% of snaps full on.

 

[mayoclinic]

I don't see your concern about Solder. Googs certainly isn't. Plus I think NOW is the time to extend him. The few inconsistencies we see from him could allow you to sign him long term in the $7-8MM/range. However if he plays out his contract this season, and takes the next step and refines his game, it will cost you $10+MM/yr. He's not elite.....yet. But has all the tools to become that kind of player.

I think it's pretty much a gimme that the Pats would sign Solder to a long term extension in the $7-8MM/year range, without hesitation. Unfortunately, I think the chance of David Dunn settling in that range is slim to none.

This doesn't make sense. You love the player, You'd grab in a a second at 64, but wouldn't take him at say 40 or 45? That doesn't compute.

BTW- where do you see the risk factors in his game. If its his motor or attitude problem, then I'd likely agree with you. Historically the Pats don't take risks with their first picks, but have no fear with their second

I'm not Manx so I can't speak for him. But my personal take, FWIW:

- I love Hardison, and I'd gladly take him at 64. I'd also trade up from 64 to get him in the mid 2nd if necessary.

- I wouldn't rule out trading back from 32 to the mid-2nd for Hardison. But I would probably prefer to get him as our 2nd player off the board, and get someone a little bit readier to step right in with our 1st pick.

I don't think Hardison's that risky a pick, but I think that he will take a year to develop. He needs to develop his inside pass rush repertoire more, but most importantly he needs to develop his combat tactics and "paw power" to handle playing on the interior more.

I've likened Hardison to a DL version of Jamie Collins. He's a line player, but he has terrific versatility and athleticism. Like Collins, he's still a work in progress that will need a bit of time. Robert Kraft indicated after the 2013 draft that they would likely have taken Collins at 29; but I think they were much happier to get him at 52.

 

[patfanken]

1. My concern with Solder is that, having the same agent as Welker and Vereen, that there might be a disconnect between what we'll pay and what he'll want. And I'm not saying we won't re-sign him, I'm just saying it would be prudent to have a ready made replacement in house just in case.

I'm surprised Vereen and Solder kept the same agent given how badly he botched the Welker negotiation. But it is what it is, and I'm sure there some bad feelings on both sides. Whether it affect the Solder negotiation is problematic. We don't know how hands on or off Solder might be in his own discussions. But you are right, it could be a factor.

2. I like lengthy DTs too. 6-4 to 6-6 and 315lbs plus. They are there at the top of the draft and in depth too.

I really would have liked to have seen a Tommy Kelly/Vince DT combo, or a Kelly/Easely pairing. That tall guy in the middle can be a pain in the ass to QB's as they try to create throwing lanes

3. I just shared the one Terry Williams game. There are others equally as good. If you want to see them, I'll be happy to provide the links. Trust me, I didn't just cherry pick the best game. For whatever reason, he's more underrated than Hardison.

No questioning Williams play, but when you scout, its good to know who the guy you're scouting is playing against. If that C has a draftable grade, I'd be even more impressed. Still, I'd really have to overcome my own bias against short guys before I'd look at this guy before the 6th round.

4. I would take Hardison in the forties, but I would do it with a trade up from 64, not a trade back from 32. With that first pick I want someone with a higher floor than Hardison. You want a guaranteed starter with your first pick and whilst Hardison comfortably has that upside, his floor is a fair bit lower than that. There is a risk to picking Hardison.

No doubt, there is a risk to taking ANYONE. Interesting, I guess a lot would depend on who is available when it comes up as to whether you would trade down from 32 or up from 64, if the Pats had Hardison rated highly.

Normally it would be ideal and trade down and pick up an extra pick, however I'm more interested in quality than numbers this year, since the roster seems fairly set (with all the usual assumptions being made) So if we address the offensive and defensive lines in the first 2 round, even if we had to move up, I'd be good with it. As it is, its likely that at least 2 of our draft picks this season aren't going to make the team.

5. Listing Hardison's risk factors:

• Technique. Doesn't have great hands at the moment and extends/loses balance. You saw him on the ground a lot at the Senior Bowl.
• Once he's blocked, he lacks the hands and moves to get off the block. It's why I see him as an initial liability in the run game.
• Played on the edge a lot at ASU, didn't play inside that much.
• Only one year of production, in fact only about half a season. Did have 10 sacks in that time though.

His issues come down to lack of experience and technique. It's all coachable, but this defense is hard enough to learn as is, without having to learn technique too. Hardison went from a JUCO guy who won based purely on his athleticism to having a bad first year at ASU whilst trying to learn the position and then on to a breakout second year. The trajectory is fine, but there's still a fair way to go and that's all projection.

And after seeing him run forty yards downfield to tackle a WR in his bowl game, I have no concerns about his motor. He plays 100% of snaps full on.

Well based on your assessment the only risks you take are his technique issues. But if he has the motor and the willingness to learn, the only risk you take is time. Well we already know that virtually every good DLman the Pats have drafted high has taken some time to develop. I'm sure BB would be patient and smart enough to put him into enough positions to do what he does well, so he'd justified his high selection, while he learns his craft. Vince Wilfolk wasn't Vince Wilfolk right out of the box. IIRC weren't there some complaints about him his first year when he was a part time player?

 

[manxman2601]

Now that I've imagined it, I now really want this to be the case in a couple of years:


Hardison - Terry Williams - Easley

Hightower - Mayo - Collins - Chandler Jones

Or shift Jones up to RDE for a 4-3. I know sub is the new base and everything, but that's a nice 3-4/4-3 look. I acknowledge the 3-4 lacks a little something in length.

 

[I.M. Fletcher]

I have been thinking about those combos as well, with Siliga sliding in for bigger fronts, and Heeney in passing downs.

We could walk away from this draft with a remarkable amount of positional flexibility, and I think we will.

 

[manxman2601]

@patfanken Normally it would be ideal and trade down and pick up an extra pick, however I'm more interested in quality than numbers this year, since the roster seems fairly set (with all the usual assumptions being made) So if we address the offensive and defensive lines in the first 2 round, even if we had to move up, I'd be good with it. As it is, its likely that at least 2 of our draft picks this season aren't going to make the team.

I'd add the Shane Vereen type RB into that equation but OL-RB-DL (edge or DT) is where Id go in the first two rounds. Assuming we resign Revis, those are the only three holes that concern me significantly and I think need to be addressed in FA or Draft. Which is why I agree that being aggressive to secure quality over quantity is a good strategy.

 

[manxman2601]

I have been thinking about those combos as well, with Siliga sliding in for bigger fronts, and Heeney in passing downs.

We could walk away from this draft with a remarkable amount of positional flexibility, and I think we will.

Forgot about Heeney. Good call.

 

[I.M. Fletcher]

Forgot about Heeney. Good call.

our biggest issues this year were defending TE's and running backs, which I think will be his calling card in the NFL. I think Belichick would love a player that he could move all over the chess board.

Alas, i am preaching to the choir on this one.