Butler is trying to convince Bodden to stay

[VrabelMayeWin]

Actually, Tate will be, for all intents and purposes, a rookie on the field.

Tate will be quite a bit beyond a rookie having already learned the offense and played in practice and in a couple of games.

Faulk is currently a free agent.

I'm discounting that as I will be shocked if he doesn't return.

In other words.... LOLB, ROLB and ILB, which is what I said. Listing Guyton and McKenzie on both OLB and ILB isn't exactly helpful to your response.

No. We have two starters for sure in Mayo and TBC. I think we have a starter out of Guyton and McKenzie (Guyton far more likely). That leaves one starter we need, not three. And one backup.

No, growth is to be hoped for. Struggling is to be planned for.

All teams have 2nd year players they are counting on to be better than as rookies. I don't count that as a hole that needs to be replaced.

In other words, punter needs to be dealt with, as I noted.

You also referenced the number of draft picks in the first two rounds with respect to needs and a Punter is out of that conversation as you don't need a pick in the top two rounds to fill it.

 

[muzz]

If Bodden goes, that leaves us with Butler and Whilhite as our starting cornerbacks? Ouch...

Ooooooooo boy

I don't want to even see Wilhiite on the field.
Maybe BB can package him, a draft pick, and Buckwheat to the Raiders for Michael Bush.....
Hopefully neither will be wasting a roster spot this coming year as well.

 

[Deus Irae]

Tate will be quite a bit beyond a rookie having already learned the offense and played in practice and in a couple of games.

Knowing the playbook is not knowing the game. Wide receiver is generally a position that takes the experience to develop. The Colstons of the world are the exceptions, not the rules.

I'm discounting that as I will be shocked if he doesn't return.

I'm not discounting it, as he's not currently on the team. However, as I noted, I pointed to it as a questionable issue, not a definitive one. It's really not worth delving further into. If Faulk returns and the team keeps Morris and Taylor, there's no issue at RB. Some people will rail about the specific personnel, but the running game was generally sufficient last season when used properly, IMO.

No. We have two starters for sure in Mayo and TBC. I think we have a starter out of Guyton and McKenzie (Guyton far more likely). That leaves one starter we need, not three. And one backup.

If TBC and Guyton are both starters again, this team is in trouble at linebacker, again. The team might be able to get away with one of them as a starter, but not with both.

All teams have 2nd year players they are counting on to be better than as rookies. I don't count that as a hole that needs to be replaced.

When they haven't shown that they can play the position, you'd damned sure better consider it an issue to be addressed. The team currently doesn't have an established CB2 and may not have Bodden to serve as the CB1. Now, your method of addressing it may be to wait until OTAs to see how they've progressed and to then decide on a course of action, but we saw that ditching Hobbs last year before knowing what you had was not a particularly smart way to go.

You also referenced the number of draft picks in the first two rounds with respect to needs and a Punter is out of that conversation as you don't need a pick in the top two rounds to fill it.

And, yet, somehow the Patriots still don't have a punter, and the position continues to be an issue. Saying "they've got low picks" isn't the same as having a reliable punter on the roster. I referenced a list of all the questionable spots and noted that 4 draft positions don't cover it, and so people would not be content with using "3 second round picks" as a rejoinder. That's all my post was. You've gone on to try making it something else.

 

[JackBauer]

I think a Guyton/McKenzie (assuming McKenzie can ball, of course) platoon at ILB would be fine.

1.) Bruschi has said that he believes Guyton is a starter in this league.

2.) I think his struggles against the run are somewhat overblown. Mayo didn't look any more impressive (and in some cases, worse) in that aspect of the game, though I suspect that was related to his injury as obviously he has a much higher ceiling than GG does.

JMO.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Knowing the playbook is not knowing the game. Wide receiver is generally a position that takes the experience to develop. The Colstons of the world are the exceptions, not the rules.

Tate was far enough to get on the field in a game last year. I have no idea if he'll be ready to play a lot this year but it's crazy to think that he's not way more ready than a rookie who won't even be drafted for 7 more weeks.

If TBC and Guyton are both starters again, this team is in trouble at linebacker, again. The team might be able to get away with one of them as a starter, but not with both.

TBC is, they didn't pay him that money to be a backup. We have two for sure starters and a very likely third through some combination of Guyton/McKenzie.

And, yet, somehow the Patriots still don't have a punter, and the position continues to be an issue.

Would it be an issue had they re-signed Hansen ? Punters are a dime a dozen, they can sign 3 that are at least as good as Hansen. It's not an issue and the fact that you put Punter on your list shows how overblown it was.

 

[Deus Irae]

Tate was far enough to get on the field in a game last year. I have no idea if he'll be ready to play a lot this year but it's crazy to think that he's not way more ready than a rookie who won't even be drafted for 7 more weeks.

If you have no idea if he'll be ready to play a lot this year you have no point bringing him into the conversation as a definite solution. As I noted, you're playing a semantics game about a post that had nothing to do with where you've taken it. You're now taking obvious issues and claiming they are solved when you yourself concede that, at the very least, they may not be. Again, you're better than this.

By the way, Chad Jackson saw the field as a rookie, and had 13 receptions.

TBC is, they didn't pay him that money to be a backup. We have two for sure starters and a very likely third through some combination of Guyton/McKenzie.

As I opined earlier, if both TBC and Guyton are starting the linebackers are in trouble again. They paid Jarvis Green a fair chunk of change to be a pass rushing backup and a starter once Seymour left. That didn't work either. Bodies don't necessarily equal solutions.

Would it be an issue had they re-signed Hansen ? Punters are a dime a dozen, they can sign 3 that are at least as good as Hansen. It's not an issue and the fact that you put Punter on your list shows how overblown it was.

They don't have a punter. Unless you're going to claim that New England has decided to go into next year without a punter, it's an issue until they've actually got one. Saying otherwise is simply nonsensical. If a position has nobody to play it, and you intend to actually use the position, it needs to be filled. This is about as basic as it gets.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

If you have no idea if he'll be ready to play a lot this year you have no point bringing him into the conversation as a definite solution.

I'm bringing him into the conversation as a definite roster spot owner when there's only 5-6. Once Welker returns, which I am fully confident will happen this season, we have Moss, Welker, Edelman, Tate, XXX and Aiken (I put him as the 6th as we often have 5 WR and he's not a real WR). XXX may be a FA, a draftee or Patten but the roster is just about full at the position. If we drafted, say, Mardy Gilyard, he would have less chance than Tate to make an impact. I replied to your comment about needs vs. # good draft choices and I think it's moot. We have what is above; if we sign a veteran FA like Bryant that's fine but doesn't cost one of our top 4 picks. If we use a top 4 pick on a WR I expect he'll be behind Tate.

They don't have a punter. Unless you're going to claim that New England has decided to go into next year without a punter, it's an issue until they've actually got one. Saying otherwise is simply nonsensical. If a position has nobody to play it, and you intend to actually use the position, it needs to be filled. This is about as basic as it gets.

You still don't have a clue about the point I was trying to make. The Patriots not having a Punter is like me needing a draft magazine - I'll find one, get one and it will have no impact. It's not like me needing a new car where it would cost me significant resources to acquire.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm bringing him into the conversation as a definite roster spot owner when there's only 5-6. Once Welker returns, which I am fully confident will happen this season, we have Moss, Welker, Edelman, Tate, XXX and Aiken (I put him as the 6th as we often have 5 WR and he's not a real WR). XXX may be a FA, a draftee or Patten but the roster is just about full at the position. If we drafted, say, Mardy Gilyard, he would have less chance than Tate to make an impact. I replied to your comment about needs vs. # good draft choices and I think it's moot. We have what is above; if we sign a veteran FA like Bryant that's fine but doesn't cost one of our top 4 picks. If we use a top 4 pick on a WR I expect he'll be behind Tate.

The specific number of roster spots you're pointing to is irrelevant, given that the roster is not limited to 53 during the OTAs, and training camp, portion of the year. The number of NFL caliber and game ready wide receivers is, however, relevant. Also, Tate could be a bust, Welker will likely start on PUP which will open up another spot, and you have absolutely no idea where a top 4 receiver would end up on the depth chart.

As I noted, you took a post far away from what was intended. The fact that even your complaints were often begrudging agreements, just makes the direction this has taken even more of a waste of time.

You still don't have a clue about the point I was trying to make. The Patriots not having a Punter is like me needing a draft magazine - I'll find one, get one and it will have no impact. It's not like me needing a new car where it would cost me significant resources to acquire.

The Patriots do not currently have a punter. The clear, obvious, and incontrovertible result of this is that they currently have an issue at punter, and will continue to have an issue at punter until a satisfactory punter can be found to fill the role of......... punter. You can attempt to minimize it all you want, but it still exists. Noting that your "point" is incorrect is not the same as not having a clue about it, no matter how you frame your claim.

And not having a punter is not like you not having a draft magazine. You don't need a draft magazine. The Patriots need a punter.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

And not having a punter is not like you not having a draft magazine. You don't need a draft magazine. The Patriots need a punter.

Actually I did need one - and I got one - and it cost be pretty much nothing. Which is the same as a Punter will cost the Patriots. I didn't budget to buy the magazine, nor will Belichick budget to get his punter. See those 6th and 7th round picks ? One will likely be a Punter.

 

[Deus Irae]

Actually I did need one - and I got one - and it cost be pretty much nothing. Which is the same as a Punter will cost the Patriots. I didn't budget to buy the magazine, nor will Belichick budget to get his punter. See those 6th and 7th round picks ? One will likely be a Punter.

1.) Your definition of 'need' is off.

2.) How many NFL level punters are currently on the team and filling the role of punter?

 

[emoney_33]

I'm FINE with TBC, Mayo and Guyton starting. Then again did Phifer or Johnson start?

IMO, our true "needs" are

DE
OLB
WR
TE

Then we get to lesser needs like CB and various positional depth and the ever so impossible to find punter which is apparently a concern that warrants a lot of discussion.

 

[bakes781]

Actually I did need one - and I got one - and it cost be pretty much nothing. Which is the same as a Punter will cost the Patriots. I didn't budget to buy the magazine, nor will Belichick budget to get his punter. See those 6th and 7th round picks ? One will likely be a Punter.

I need one too. lol Where'd you get your's? I tried searching B&N's website with no luck.

 

[patsinthesnow]

I'm FINE with TBC, Mayo and Guyton starting. Then again did Phifer or Johnson start?

IMO, our true "needs" are

DE
OLB
WR
TE

Then we get to lesser needs like CB and various positional depth and the ever so impossible to find punter which is apparently a concern that warrants a lot of discussion.

Those are the 4 needs, but I don't want those to be our top 4 picks. I don't want a TE in the first 2 rounds, a FA and a round 4 guy will do.

#22 DE
#44 OLB/WR (depends who's there)
#47 OLB/WR (depends who's there)
#53 RB

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I've made an executive decision that I'm not opening anymore Bodden threads until he is actually signed somehwere. Lord give me strength

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

I need one too. lol Where'd you get your's? I tried searching B&N's website with no luck.

Looks like I successfully changed subjects . . . I can't really help as I live in CA but I found the Lindy's guide in my local supermarket so they should be all over any day now. I like the Lindy's one (in addition to Pro Football Weekly) because it's written by the NFL Draft Scout guys so I know it's as reliable as I can expect from a magazine.

 

[bakes781]

Looks like I successfully changed subjects . . . I can't really help as I live in CA but I found the Lindy's guide in my local supermarket so they should be all over any day now. I like the Lindy's one (in addition to Pro Football Weekly) because it's written by the NFL Draft Scout guys so I know it's as reliable as I can expect from a magazine.

I read Street & Smith was coming out with their 1st ever draft guide in 2 weeks.

 

[captain stone]

Good, proven CBs are usually ridiculously overpaid for what they add to BB's defense. Add that to the fact that you can't have high-priced players at each position even if they are worth it, and CB is one of the positions that has been sacrificed ($ wise) to field a complete team.

If you're unwilling to pay the price to retain your (veteran) #1 CB, then you really should do a better job drafting CBs. At least Butler is a good start, but there is nothing but junk behind him.
We need another starting-caliber CB. And as one starter is a 2nd-year pro, then it is not unreasonable that his partner should be a savvy vet who can be signed for prob. over 1/3 less than for what Samuel signed.


Although I will be shocked if Bodden signs elsewhere for $5M Or less per year.

I will be highly pissed-off if Bodden signs elsewhere for $5M or less. Bill has aleady raised the bar with the Wilfork and esp. the TBC signings. And look at the money he over-spent last year on Springs, Sanders & Kaczur. There is no vet now avail. who is even remotely close to Bodden, nor is it likely that one will be available in the near future, either via the FA, trade or draft routes.

Don't let Bodden get away, Bill. We need him more than he needs us.

 

[emoney_33]

They've done a BAD job drafting CBs? Since when...

I disagree with your statement that Springs and Wilhite are junk. Wheatley is a complete enigma but I wouldn't classify him as "junk". There is a long way to go with FA, trades and the draft before we are set at any position.

 

[BradyFTW!]

They've done a BAD job drafting CBs? Since when...

I disagree with your statement that Springs and Wilhite are junk. Wheatley is a complete enigma but I wouldn't classify him as "junk". There is a long way to go with FA, trades and the draft before we are set at any position.

People have both short and selective memories. The Pats whiffed on Wheatley, and Wilhite has only marginally outplayed his draft position, so therefore the Pats can't draft CBs. Samuel, Hobbs, Butler, and Gay be damned.

 

[carolinatony]

We still don't have true #1 RB imo.
Running by numbers sounds nice but lets get ONE RB who may take it to the house once in awhile please.