Another, way too logical, way of looking at the draft

[dryheat44]

I think we all know that BB doesn't draft like this, but it's early, and I can't do much at work until it starts getting later on the west coast. This is a draft focused on replacing player with player, looking a year in the future.

1. I'm assuming the worst...that all our free agents go elsewhere, and that we don't sign anyone more than a one-year stopgap, vet minimum type.

2. I'm giving us two 6th round comp picks for losing Andruzzi and Patten.

3. I'm trading down in the first round. I'm trading #21 and #105 to Indianapolis for #30 and #62. I think we'll do something similar to this.

4. Our draft picks now:
1st round (30)
2nd round (52)
2nd round (62)
3rd round (75)
3rd round (86)
4th round (117)
5th round (131)
6th round (182)
6th round comp
6th round comp
7th round (213)
Obviously the 4th round and lower exact position will change with the addition of comp picks to the mix.

5. Players who are now the starters or key backups that may need replacing between now and after the 2006 season:
Koppen (injury, last year on contract)
Hochstein (not starter material)
Graham (last year on contract)
Dillon (age)
Branch (last year on contract)
B. Johnson (sucks)
McGinest (age, contract issues)
Seymour (Last year on contract)
Samuel (Last year on contract)
Hobbs/Gay (May not be starter material)
Pass (Last year on contract)
Faulk (age)
Kicker (none on roster)

6. I think that, unless we use a first on Sinorice Moss, there is likely no Branch replacement in the draft this year.

7. I think that there is no kicker in the draft worth drafting. Position will be filled through FA.

8. I'm choosing to draft only one cornerback, and hope that Hobbs is a legit starter.

9. After careful consideration in regards to the Pats system and draft value, I tried to put a draft together to cover as many of those bases as I could. Keeping in mind that if I took, say, a CB high, then I would need to pick up every other position of need that much lower. This is what I came up with:

#30 Broderick Bunkley DT Florida St. Has the game to replace Seymour if necessary.
#52 Mike Hass WR Oregon St. Didn't want to take him this high, but he's definitly moving up the charts. He could replace Givens.
#62 DeMario Minter CB Georgia Very fluid and athletic cover guy. Could be our #1 corner by December. Can replace Samuel, or join him as a starter.
#75 DonTrelle Moore RB New Mexico Would have liked Addai, but wanted to address the other positions in the second round. I think Moore is seriously undervalued. I can see him replacing Dillon in '07.
#86 Tim Dobbins ILB Iowa St. Good at reading the play and anticipating. Captain of a good Cyclone defense. Can compete with Claridge for time and hopefully one or both will be eventual ILB starters.
#117 Tim Day TE Oregon At worst, he'd be a very good third TE. Has potential to replace Graham as #2 if he leaves.
#131 Donovan Raiola C Wisconsin Should still be on the board. I don't see Koppen sticking around when his contract's up. Raiola's downside is that he backs up the three interior positions. His upside is that he becomes the next Koppen, late draft pick stepping into a starting position.
#182 James Wyche DE Syracuse I don't think that we'd be able to draft Wimbley or Lawson unless we give up Bunkley. And the talent drop off could be less here. Taking Tapp earlier is a possibility also. Wyche has the pass-rushing ability to play OLB, and is a better tackler than a lot of the guys projected to go higher. Anchored a very strong Syracuse D last year. Earmarked to replace McGinest.
Comp. Adam Stenavich T Michigan Should slip a bit behind all those good tackles in the draft, but would make a very good guard to compete with Hochstein/Mruczkowski/Mathis.
Comp. Miles Austin WR Monmouth Supposedly dominated the competition last season. May or may not be able to step right in at WR, but can contribute immediately as KR.
#213 Garrett Mills RB Tulsa He's a Patrick Pass clone, that can play FB, HB, and even TE. Has good hands out of the backfield. I don't see a good replacement for Faulk in the last couple of rounds, but we can only carry so many RBs. Hopefully Earl Charles shows something.

There it is. Thoughts? Remember, that if you suggest taking a LB or CB in round one, which is fine, how are you going to address the potential DE hole later? You can pick up a K or backup QB at the expense of another position. Fun, thought provoking exercise.

 

[jczxohn1]

Interesting concept and timely, too. If there is no CBA and 2007 is an uncapped year, msot players who's contract runs out in '06 will likely wait for free agency. They'd be fools not too. We can either play along or lay low and wait for the resumption of the cap in '08. If we play along, the only ones I'd try to keep would be Seymour and Branch, in that order. Given your scenario, my only quibble would be your 4th pick. I'd rather see us take a higher ranked OL and pick up a RB from the cuts that will be happening this yr.
Every one takes for granted that Light will be back as our starting LT. I'm not so sure. We hear a heck of a lot more about Rodney's rehab and IMO, the silence about Light is deafening. A young stud at LT, Light at RT ( driving off his left leg instead of his right) and Kaczur at RG or backing up the tackles would be dominating.

 

[DaBruinz]

A good concept, but you need to tweak it with the following in mind.
All the players with less than 6 years of accrued experience at the end of the 2006/2007 season will be exclusive rights free agents. Not even restricted free agents. Just like it used to be prior to the current CBA. So players like Branch, Koppen, Graham, Samuel, etc, will have 2 choices. Either sit out or sign whatever contract is put in front of them. It would behoove the Patriots to put good contracts in front of those players, but not ones that make them over-paid.

If you took that into consideration, then I think it would change your draft quite a bit.

 

[dryheat44]

A good concept, but you need to tweak it with the following in mind.
All the players with less than 6 years of accrued experience at the end of the 2006/2007 season will be exclusive rights free agents. Not even restricted free agents. Just like it used to be prior to the current CBA. So players like Branch, Koppen, Graham, Samuel, etc, will have 2 choices. Either sit out or sign whatever contract is put in front of them. It would behoove the Patriots to put good contracts in front of those players, but not ones that make them over-paid.

If you took that into consideration, then I think it would change your draft quite a bit.

Excellent point. I was operating under the old rules.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

#30 Broderick Bunkley DT Florida St. Has the game to replace Seymour if necessary.
#52 Mike Hass WR Oregon St. Didn't want to take him this high, but he's definitly moving up the charts. He could replace Givens.
#62 DeMario Minter CB Georgia Very fluid and athletic cover guy. Could be our #1 corner by December. Can replace Samuel, or join him as a starter.
#75 DonTrelle Moore RB New Mexico Would have liked Addai, but wanted to address the other positions in the second round. I think Moore is seriously undervalued. I can see him replacing Dillon in '07.
#86 Tim Dobbins ILB Iowa St. Good at reading the play and anticipating. Captain of a good Cyclone defense. Can compete with Claridge for time and hopefully one or both will be eventual ILB starters.
#117 Tim Day TE Oregon At worst, he'd be a very good third TE. Has potential to replace Graham as #2 if he leaves.
#131 Donovan Raiola C Wisconsin Should still be on the board. I don't see Koppen sticking around when his contract's up. Raiola's downside is that he backs up the three interior positions. His upside is that he becomes the next Koppen, late draft pick stepping into a starting position.
#182 James Wyche DE Syracuse I don't think that we'd be able to draft Wimbley or Lawson unless we give up Bunkley. And the talent drop off could be less here. Taking Tapp earlier is a possibility also. Wyche has the pass-rushing ability to play OLB, and is a better tackler than a lot of the guys projected to go higher. Anchored a very strong Syracuse D last year. Earmarked to replace McGinest.
Comp. Adam Stenavich T Michigan Should slip a bit behind all those good tackles in the draft, but would make a very good guard to compete with Hochstein/Mruczkowski/Mathis.
Comp. Miles Austin WR Monmouth Supposedly dominated the competition last season. May or may not be able to step right in at WR, but can contribute immediately as KR.
#213 Garrett Mills RB Tulsa He's a Patrick Pass clone, that can play FB, HB, and even TE. Has good hands out of the backfield. I don't see a good replacement for Faulk in the last couple of rounds, but we can only carry so many RBs. Hopefully Earl Charles shows something.

There it is. Thoughts? Remember, that if you suggest taking a LB or CB in round one, which is fine, how are you going to address the potential DE hole later? You can pick up a K or backup QB at the expense of another position. Fun, thought provoking exercise.

I'm not a big fan of forecasting trades in a mock, it always works out for your team which makes for wishful thinking. But since your just having fun I'll limit ripping you to good natured abuse.

Broderick Bunkley: There are two 3-4 DE candidates who I like better and they can be had later in the draft. Johnny Jolly 6'3" 313 Texas A&M and Barry Cofield 6'4" 304 Northwestern. Both played in the Shrine Game, and unlike Mr. Bunkley in the Senior Bowl, they didn't disappear during the game. I also like Montavius Stanley as my Luis Castillo-like sleeper. That gives you a lot more leeway at 21, or 30 in your case.

Hass in the second is right on.

Minter: Don't know much about him - he jumped 10'11" in the broad jump and he was on the Senior Bowl roster and never made it into my notes for his performance in the game or in practice. Pittman (Northwestern State) played better in my eyes in the Senior Bowl and is considered a second day pick.

Moore: Okay, but I'd prefer a second day back with all the DE/OLB, TE, OL options still kicking around the 3rd round. I'm not yet ready to replace Cory and I'd like to see if Heath Evans is coming back.

Dobbins is okay, but I like some of the shorter DEs for conversion projects too.

Day is okay here, but I'd still hope for a shot at one of the first day kids before taking him as a default player.

Raiola came off my board after seeing how he moved in the Combine drills, Montgomery of VA Tech took his place.

Wyche did well enough in the Shrine Game and Combine drills to be considered a lot earlier.

Stenavich is okay.

Austin is okay, but one of the D-2 Nebraska kids at the Combine would be just as good if not better.

Mills, good thinking.

" I don't see a good replacement for Faulk in the last couple of rounds, but we can only carry so many RBs." PJ Daniels GA Tech or PJ Pope Bowling Green

 

[Water Boy]

3. I'm trading down in the first round. I'm trading #21 and #105 to Indianapolis for #30 and #62. I think we'll do something similar to this.

I would love this type of trade scenario, however, I get the feeling that there will be more teams wanting to trade down from the middle of the first to the late first/early second, than there will be teams that want to trade up. I don't think there are any teams that have multiple second round picks coming into the draft that would help facilitate this type of trade.

 

[rookBoston]

Nice job, 'heat. Well considered.

The solution to the DL problem, with Seymour gone, is not nearly as problematic as you may think. Warren-Wilfork-Green is an admirable starting 3, and Hill is good for DE depth. We've played without Seymour before. If we can afford to spend a 1st rounder at the position, that's fine, but a player like DT Barry Cofield (Northwestern) in the 4th round will fit the need just fine. In the end no matter how hard you try, you will not be able to replace Seymour at #30. Don't break the bank trying.

So at #30, my preference would still be Carpenter (to replace McGinest) or Marshall (to fill at CB). And maybe Mangold deserves some love, as a guy who should be able to step right into any interior OL position as a rookie.

I like Minter, I like Hass (although maybe not that early), I like Day and I like Mills (very much). The rest... dont know them well enough to get too excited.

 

[stinkypete]

I would not be happy with a Warren-Wilfork-Green defensive line. Remember how we played in October? The mess that was our defense fixed itself up as soon as Seymour returned. Without him, they weren't able to get it done.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I would not be happy with a Warren-Wilfork-Green defensive line. Remember how we played in October? The mess that was our defense fixed itself up as soon as Seymour returned. Without him, they weren't able to get it done.

Sure I do, and Seymour's return didn't initially fix the problems - plural. The most serious problem was Wilfork was trying to do too much and not playing his assignment - BB didn't get that fixed until the November run. Then there were three LBs in learning mode; Colvin subbing for Vrabel on the left edge, and the ILB team of Beisel and Brown. Finally, Green was playing with a bum shoulder and still holding his own. With another year of schooling Mike Wright will be improved as a reserve DL, I feel Hill will take a giant step forward if he ever gets into the rotation consistently to apply what he has learned and make it instinctive instead of mechanical - Warren and Wilfork took two years and they had significantly more playing time. The dump Klecko fan club should be salivating at the chance to bring in another DE or NT. Sey is the best, but NE can learn to live without him if they have to.

 

[rookBoston]

Yeah, I'm with Box. We can't design our defense around our one true HOF talent on D.

Sink or swim based on one key guy is not the way the Pats are designed. The whole Belichick philosophy is based on depth, consistency and reliable play at every position, simultaneously. The goal is to be consistently competitive, every week, every season, regardless of who's on the field.

Seymour is a fantastic luxury that we have, but the defense is designed to function with or without him. Remember, he missed a number of big playoff games over the past few years, and the team still won-- based as much on the ability of Green to pitch in, as on the ability of the linebackers and secondary to limit any exposure that a slightly-less-explosive pass rush might cause.

I have no doubt that BB would let Seymour walk if he felt that he would get two or three quality players on the roster in return. But, if somehow he can afford the luxury that Seymour brings to the roster, and still fill his depth chart top to bottom... well, clearly that's even better.

Right now, the DL is not the weak link on the defense, even if we imagine it with Seymour gone.