DE in the first, and then 5 picks 35-75

[mgteich]

1) Let's get the DE deed done at 17 or a little lower or a little higher.
The alternative would be a LT (I think this option quite possible if we can't get Watt or Jordan)

2) Trade 28 and 92 to Denver (for 36 & 67) or to ARIZ (for 38 & 69).
One should want to move up for a QB.

3) Trade 33 to San Diego for 50 and a 2012 pick (they should be fine with this; alternatively they can give us 82 which we can trade to someone else for a 2012 pick).

4) There will be lots of opportunity to trade down from 28 and 33, and get value. The difficult pick is #17 if we want other than an OT.
===================================================================
COMING INTO FRIDAY's FUN
---------------------------
DE
38
50
60
69
74
82 (to be traded forward)

See below for 35-75 Board (35 players; I have left out pure corners and QB's)
WE GET FIVE
====================
DE/OLB Reed, Sheard, Houston, B Carter, Ballard, Acho, Bailey
DT Austin, Casey, Jenkins, Ellis, Paea, Nevis
DB Moore, Williams, Dowling

OG/C Ijalana, Watkins, Wiesnewski, Boling, Hudson, Rackley
RB LeShoure, Murray, Murray, Thomas, Hunter
OT Carpenter, Franklin
WR Smith, Cobb, Baldwin, Young, Henkerson, Little, Jerrigan
=====================================================
SATURDAY

We would still have our 4th, 5th and 6th to use for trades or for back of roster competition.
=========================================================

 

[rookBoston]

I think this is the way BB would think about the draft too. Only thing, I wouldn't be so eager to trade out of #33. Take the player there.

 

[Metaphors]

Here is how I see need and opportunity matching up:

DE: Jordan or Watt at #17. Trade up to get one of them if needed. Developmental 3-4 DE types abound in the later rounds.

OT: Carimi seems like a very good fit (need to use #28 and might need to trade up a little). T.Smith at #17 if Jordan/Watt go earlier than expected. Don't much like the options at OT later in the draft. Rather trade #28 for a 2012 1st, sign Light on a short deal and get OT in the draft next year (deeper and more talented OT prospects).

OLB: A.Smith at #17 if Jordan/Watt/T.Smith get away. Sheard at the top of day 2 seems like a solid option. Wildcard is if Quinn slides into trading range (doubtful). Otherwise I have no idea since the options are endless with beauty in the eye of the beholder.

OG: Boling is ideal. Must get. #60 seems a little early for him but is justified.

C: A good number of solid but unspectacular options. Address in day 3 since this position will likely slip.

RB: No rush since this position always slips. 6-7 RBs will go in the top 75 and then there will be a 1-2 round lull where none get picked. Get a value guy at #74 (R.Williams?) or just wait and get a steal on day 3.

DB: CB is deep and there are lots of nickel/slot options available on day 3. Safety is shallow to non-existent. Keep an eye on Deunta Williams since he is a 1st round talent falling off the radar for a variety of reasons. If he falls enough (#92), definitely worth the risk.

WR, TE, FB, QB, NT, ILB...Only if the value is too much to pass up.

So I agree with the premise of the OP. Get Watt or Jordan first and then try to consolidate picks in the 35-75 range. #75 seems to be the talent cliff for this draft class so any trades should try to stay inside this range.

 

[mgteich]

I am not sure that safeties are nonexistent in the 35-75 range. Obviously, the best safety in the draft is Peterson, a top 5 pick.

Moore is generally listed as the only safety worthy of a pick in the top 75. I would certainly add Aaron Williams and Dowling, although they are both often listed as corners.

 

[mgteich]

I've fine with picking at 33. However, in my scenario, I will have a pick at 38 at the point that we draft at 33, making it reasonable to trade out of 33.

In your scenario, I think that we would delay the choice of trading into 2012. As the end of Thursday, we would have

33, 38, 60, 69 & 74 with a DE already drafted

pretty awesome!

I think this is the way BB would think about the draft too. Only thing, I wouldn't be so eager to trade out of #33. Take the player there.

 

[patfanken]

I've fine with picking at 33. However, in my scenario, I will have a pick at 38 at the point that we draft at 33, making it reasonable to trade out of 33.

In your scenario, I think that we would delay the choice of trading into 2012. As the end of Thursday, we would have

33, 38, 60, 69 & 74 with a DE already drafted

pretty awesome!

.

I'd be fine with this scenario, EXCEPT for you inclusion of an OT earlyI'd say there is pretty much a consensus (at least for this board) that if the Pats wound up with either Quinn, Watt, Jordan, or Smith with the first pick, even if it included moving up a bit; everyone would be THRILLED.

I DO NOT want to see an OLman picked in the teens. I don't see the value, especially given the much better class NEXT year has to offer. If the above defensive players are all gone before we make our first pick, I'd MUCH rather trade down than pick an OLman,

 

[Off The Grid]

It's pretty exciting to see this recent surge of enthusiasm for Trading Down!!

Since Pioli moved on, Coach Bill and his crew have shown themselves to be so adept at separating the Wheat from the Chaff, the last 2 years, that it seems to me to bring us a particularly acute advantage to do so.

 

[mgteich]

THE OT OPTION

You say that we should wait until next year. I don't expect to have a pick befoer 25 next year, do you?

The open questions are whether we need a LT starter and whether Dante and Belichick think that any of the OT's available at 17 are likely to be that starter, ven after a year of internship.

Most here think that Light or Vollmer will be our LT for 2011 and 2012. If all esle fails, Kaczur played OK LT for us for half a year.

MY BOTTOM LINE
If Watt, Quinn and Jordan aren't there, and one of the OT's is rated a quality starting LT by belichick, I don't think that Belichick will hesitate to draft the OT (presumably Smith or Castonzo). I agree with everyone that 17 is unreasonable for a RT.

.

I'd be fine with this scenario, EXCEPT for you inclusion of an OT earlyI'd say there is pretty much a consensus (at least for this board) that if the Pats wound up with either Quinn, Watt, Jordan, or Smith with the first pick, even if it included moving up a bit; everyone would be THRILLED.

I DO NOT want to see an OLman picked in the teens. I don't see the value, especially given the much better class NEXT year has to offer. If the above defensive players are all gone before we make our first pick, I'd MUCH rather trade down than pick an OLman,

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

.

I'd be fine with this scenario, EXCEPT for you inclusion of an OT earlyI'd say there is pretty much a consensus (at least for this board) that if the Pats wound up with either Quinn, Watt, Jordan, or Smith with the first pick, even if it included moving up a bit; everyone would be THRILLED.

I DO NOT want to see an OLman picked in the teens. I don't see the value, especially given the much better class NEXT year has to offer. If the above defensive players are all gone before we make our first pick, I'd MUCH rather trade down than pick an OLman,

Pretty much, except I'm a contrarian with that list of bums you used. Watt is the only one I have any degree of confidence in for NE ... and I expect him to be gone. :snob:

 

[DW Toys]

THE OT OPTION

You say that we should wait until next year. I don't expect to have a pick befoer 25 next year, do you?

The open questions are whether we need a LT starter and whether Dante and Belichick think that any of the OT's available at 17 are likely to be that starter, ven after a year of internship.

Most here think that Light or Vollmer will be our LT for 2011 and 2012. If all esle fails, Kaczur played OK LT for us for half a year.

MY BOTTOM LINE
If Watt, Quinn and Jordan aren't there, and one of the OT's is rated a quality starting LT by belichick, I don't think that Belichick will hesitate to draft the OT (presumably Smith or Castonzo). I agree with everyone that 17 is unreasonable for a RT.

Question on the OT. I disagree with that need at the top of the Draft because as Casserley so eloquently put it, the quality of these tackles does not rival the last few years. The firsts are vthird rounders in other years. None are top ten worthy and some are a reach high as RT only. If we get back Light, it might be a waste of a high pick as the Drafter bible says; Thou shalt not Draft a RT high. We can wait and get a Carpenter or someone later at a better value. I think #28 is unreasonable for an OT in this weak Draft. Get your OLBs and DE's while there is a good supply. Get your first round pick for 2012 by Drafting Romeus and letting him PUP and red shirt in perhaps the fourth or fifth round.

Why Trade into 2012 when you can address 2012 now with some first round value? Maybe you consider Bruce Carter that way although too light for our scheme. How about Bowers if his knee is an issue?
DW Toys

 

[Ochmed Jones]

1) Let's get the DE deed done at 17 or a little lower or a little higher.
The alternative would be a LT (I think this option quite possible if we can't get Watt or Jordan)

2) Trade 28 and 92 to Denver (for 36 & 67) or to ARIZ (for 38 & 69).
One should want to move up for a QB.

3) Trade 33 to San Diego for 50 and a 2012 pick (they should be fine with this; alternatively they can give us 82 which we can trade to someone else for a 2012 pick).

4) There will be lots of opportunity to trade down from 28 and 33, and get value. The difficult pick is #17 if we want other than an OT.
===================================================================
COMING INTO FRIDAY's FUN
---------------------------
DE
38
50
60
69
74
82 (to be traded forward)

See below for 35-75 Board (35 players; I have left out pure corners and QB's)
WE GET FIVE
====================
DE/OLB Reed, Sheard, Houston, B Carter, Ballard, Acho, Bailey
DT Austin, Casey, Jenkins, Ellis, Paea, Nevis
DB Moore, Williams, Dowling

OG/C Ijalana, Watkins, Wiesnewski, Boling, Hudson, Rackley
RB LeShoure, Murray, Murray, Thomas, Hunter
OT Carpenter, Franklin
WR Smith, Cobb, Baldwin, Young, Henkerson, Little, Jerrigan
=====================================================
SATURDAY

We would still have our 4th, 5th and 6th to use for trades or for back of roster competition.
=========================================================

I agree with you 100% about coming out of the first round with a DE. And I continue to noodle around the idea of an OT as well.

Scenario A.

If OT Costanza gets past Detroit, I think BB should take him at #17.

Trading up for Costanza however is not good value and should not be attempted.

If we take Costanza at #17, then we trade up to the early 20's and take DE Wilkerson.

And we take Sheard at #33 and OG Boling at #60.

Scenario B.

If Detroit takes Costanza, I think we trade back to the early 20's and take DE Wilkerson.

If we take Wilkerson in the early 20's then we sit back and take Taylor at #28 and Sheard at #33 followed by Boling at#60.

Under either scenario we get a DE that fits perfectly in our system in the early 20's; a first step sudden pass rusher who can play the run fairly well at #33; the best zone blocking pulling OG in this draft at #60 and good value in the best OT or NT in this draft.

In round three we trade one pick for a 2012 second rounder and draft QB Dalton with the other.

In round 4 - Demarco Murray RB Oklahoma

In round 5 - Will Hill Safety Florida

In round 6 - Fusco Center Slippery Rock

 

[mgteich]

Please post where Caserly said that this year's crop of OT are 3rd round quality in other years. You won't because he didn't say that.

What he said is that this group of five is much weaker than normal, and that some are RT's. Castanzo is a LT and SMith is a LT to almost all the media present.

Clearly the LT's do not match most years where LT's are often in the top 5. This year, none belong in the top ten.

Question on the OT. I disagree with that need at the top of the Draft because as Casserley so eloquently put it, the quality of these tackles does not rival the last few years. The firsts are vthird rounders in other years. None are top ten worthy and some are a reach high as RT only. If we get back Light, it might be a waste of a high pick as the Drafter bible says; Thou shalt not Draft a RT high. We can wait and get a Carpenter or someone later at a better value. I think #28 is unreasonable for an OT in this weak Draft. Get your OLBs and DE's while there is a good supply. Get your first round pick for 2012 by Drafting Romeus and letting him PUP and red shirt in perhaps the fourth or fifth round.

Why Trade into 2012 when you can address 2012 now with some first round value? Maybe you consider Bruce Carter that way although too light for our scheme. How about Bowers if his knee is an issue?
DW Toys

 

[WhiZa]

1) Let's get the DE deed done at 17 or a little lower or a little higher.
The alternative would be a LT (I think this option quite possible if we can't get Watt or Jordan)

I don't see Watt or Jordan as a fit as DE for the Pats and here's why. BB has never draft anyone in the first 3 rounds under 300 lbs at DL. If you look at the current roster at DL only Mike Wright is slightly under 300, and he was really a developmental guy that panned out. Watt (290) and Jordan (287) would have some catching up todo and if we draft someone at 17 they better be contributing right away. That said, I'm thinking OT is a better option.

Draft Day Weight and Height:
Richard Seymour - 6-6 300
Ty Warren - 6-5 307
Marquise Hill - 6-7 305
Ron Brace - 6-3 330
Vince Wilfork - 6-1 325

Current Team Weight and Height:
Gerard Warren - 6-4 330
Marcus Stroud - 6-6 310
Myron Pryor - 6-1 310
Kyle Love - 6-1 310
Mike Wright - 6-4 295
Brandon Deadrick - 6-4 305
Vince Wilfork - 6-2 325
Ron Brace - 6-3 330
Ty Warren - 6-5 300

 

[supafly]

I am not sure that safeties are nonexistent in the 35-75 range. Obviously, the best safety in the draft is Peterson, a top 5 pick.

Moore is generally listed as the only safety worthy of a pick in the top 75. I would certainly add Aaron Williams and Dowling, although they are both often listed as corners.

Surely you are not advocating moving Peterson to safety, are you? He is being compared to some of the best CB's out there (albeit prematurely for NFL).

 

[MaineMan]

I don't see Watt or Jordan as a fit as DE for the Pats and here's why. BB has never draft anyone in the first 3 rounds under 300 lbs at DL. If you look at the current roster at DL only Mike Wright is slightly under 300, and he was really a developmental guy that panned out. Watt (290) and Jordan (287) would have some catching up todo and if we draft someone at 17 they better be contributing right away. That said, I'm thinking OT is a better option.

Draft Day Weight and Height:
Richard Seymour - 6-6 300
Ty Warren - 6-5 307
Marquise Hill - 6-7 305
Ron Brace - 6-3 330
Vince Wilfork - 6-1 325

Current Team Weight and Height:
Gerard Warren - 6-4 330
Marcus Stroud - 6-6 310
Myron Pryor - 6-1 310
Kyle Love - 6-1 310
Mike Wright - 6-4 295
Brandon Deadrick - 6-4 305
Vince Wilfork - 6-2 325
Ron Brace - 6-3 330
Ty Warren - 6-5 300

You could make basically the same argument sorting by HEIGHT and round drafted (or picked up off the scrap heap, or whatever), especially if you take into account presumed role and/or circumstances.

Early draftees:
1st -Richard Seymour - 6-6 300: starting 34DE/sub-package DT
1st - Ty Warren - 6-5 307: starting 34DE
2nd - Marquise Hill - 6-7 305: 34DE reserve/utility DL (didn't think he was THAT tall, BTW)
-
1st - Vince Wilfork - 6-1 325: clearly drafted as starting NT
2nd - Ron Brace - 6-3 330: clearly drafted as NT-reserve/DL utility


Current Team Weight and Height:
1st - Ty Warren - 6-5 300: starting 34DE (if healthy)
-
6th - *Myron Pryor - 6-1 310: interior sub-rusher/40-front DT
7th - #Brandon Deaderick - 6-4 305: sub-rusher/sub-package DE
7th - KADE WESTON (IR "redshirt")- 6-5 315: possible 34DE developmental prospect
UDFA - *Kyle Love - 6-1 310: utility DL/40-front sub-packages
UDFA - #Mike Wright - 6-4 295: sub-rusher/utility DL

[NOTE: *Pryor and *Love may have been low-investment "temps" to fill the 40-front sub-packages we needed in the "special circumstance" absence of the personnel for a "complete" 30-front. --- #Deaderick may merely be the eventual successor to #Wright (we've always had a low-investment guy like this) rather than a true 34DE developmental prospect.]

SFA - Gerard Warren - 6-4 330: picked up off scrap heap along with Damione Lewis, probably as Ron Brace "health" insurance (Brace apparently had health/conditoning issues spring/summer 2010 and was NFI-reserve for the first 2 wks of TC)
SFA - Marcus Stroud - 6-6 310: probably replacing G. Warren/picked up as Ty Warren "health" insurance/reserve 34DE (could easily indicate a "length" preference, all other things being equal).

Vince Wilfork - 6-2 325: played DE a lot in 2010's "special circumstance" because G. Warren wasn't cutting it there.
Ron Brace - 6-3 330: played DE a lot in 2010's "special circumstance", possibly because there wasn't anyone much taller (and healthy) who was any better at it.

In this context, it appears that BB doesn't draft guys under 6'5" for 34DE early. We can rehash the debate over whether "length" is important for 34DE or even a detriment to leverage. But it HAS seemed at least as important to BB as weight, the "critical factor" perhaps being that a guy can increase his weight, if he has the frame, but he can't increase his length. Pats' OT developmental prospect Steve Manieri (6'6") apparently bulked up from around 275 toward the end of his senior season to around 305 by draft time, so it's not like GOOD weight gain can't possibly be accomplished by these athletes.

So, I'm not necessarily a huge Watt or Jordan fan, but I don't think that currently missing 10-12 lbs from the 300 mark disqualifies them per se (and Heyward is a mere half-dozen short).

All things being roughly equal, for potential 1st-round guys ...
Watt - 6-5/290 (nearly 6-6)
Heyward - 6-5/294

... may have an edge over:
Taylor - 6-3/334 (another NT type, IMHO)
Jordan - 6-4/287
Fairley - 6-4/291
Wilkerson - 6-4/315

In the mid-rounds, Ellis - 6-5/346 over Jenkins - 6-4/310

For late-round/UDFA: David Carter - 6-5/297, (or even) Brandon Bair - 6-6/276, over Lawrence Guy - 6-4/305, though at this low level, history suggests that measureables may not be as critical.

The bottom line is, though, that neither length (if it's close) nor weight (if it's close will trump ability to do the job.

 

[WhiZa]

The bottom line is, though, that neither length (if it's close) nor weight (if it's close will trump ability to do the job.

That was a great counter point. I probably should have removed the NT from the list (Wilfork, Brace, Love) since we're talking DE. BB has mentioned size as a factor in drafting a position. Assuming he wasn't bluffing then at 17 you think he would only take a player who could fit the mold and contribute right away. He has taken guys in later rounds that don't fit the mold probably based on other factors hoping he could coach them up. Sometimes that works (Wright, Jarvis Green) and sometimes it doesn't (Klecko, Kareem Brown). I just dont see him drafting a guy who doesn't fit the size requirements that early in the draft.

 

[MaineMan]

That was a great counter point. I probably should have removed the NT from the list (Wilfork, Brace, Love) since we're talking DE. BB has mentioned size as a factor in drafting a position. Assuming he wasn't bluffing then at 17 you think he would only take a player who could fit the mold and contribute right away. He has taken guys in later rounds that don't fit the mold probably based on other factors hoping he could coach them up. Sometimes that works (Wright, Jarvis Green) and sometimes it doesn't (Klecko, Kareem Brown). I just dont see him drafting a guy who doesn't fit the size requirements that early in the draft.

I think you nailed it with the "contribute right away" part. For a later round pick, that might merely require being a competent fill-in/situational sub-package guy and good special-teamer. If he doesn't develop into anything MORE than that, or even if he fails to achieve that minimal standard, you haven't invested or lost much so your "measurables" standards might be more flexible. I mean, in the 7th, he might take a guy (like Bair) whose weight is pretty far off, but who has the height, motor, speed, agility and work ethic. With Bair specifically, the development process might have him losing 5-10 lbs to become exclusively a 3rd-down edge-rusher rather than a 30-front DE, though that might go the other way, too.

However, with top picks, the guy has to show nearly certain potential to become a 3-down player right away (or almost right away), and the required measurables - especially those that can't be improved - might be far less flexible.

 

[mgteich]

A lot has been written about Peterson. If I were drafting him in the top 5, it would be as a safety. For amny, he projects as a reasonable starter at corner, and as an all-pro safety.

In these circumstances, some would play him at corner. I disagree.

However, I am not ADVOCATING anything. Whooever drafted will decided how he fits into their system.

Surely you are not advocating moving Peterson to safety, are you? He is being compared to some of the best CB's out there (albeit prematurely for NFL).

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I think you nailed it with the "contribute right away" part. For a later round pick, that might merely require being a competent fill-in/situational sub-package guy and good special-teamer. If he doesn't develop into anything MORE than that, or even if he fails to achieve that minimal standard, you haven't invested or lost much so your "measurables" standards might be more flexible. I mean, in the 7th, he might take a guy (like Bair) whose weight is pretty far off, but who has the height, motor, speed, agility and work ethic. With Bair specifically, the development process might have him losing 5-10 lbs to become exclusively a 3rd-down edge-rusher rather than a 30-front DE, though that might go the other way, too.

However, with top picks, the guy has to show nearly certain potential to become a 3-down player right away (or almost right away), and the required measurables - especially those that can't be improved - might be far less flexible.

Actually, "contribute right away" does not imply starting (or shouldn't). NE with Seymour, Warren, and Wilfork platooned them with veteran DL their rookie seasons. You have to be more liberal in platooning the big guys anyway, but it's especially critical for managing rookie endurance in a 16+ game season. All three assumed a starter's role in their second season, after a full strength & conditioning program. Whomever BB selects with #17 is likely to split time on the DL, it's just routine player development.

 

[sg14]

I would prioritize speed.

If we could get Bowers or a similar player that would be my perfect fit,,

The defense as a whole got faster last year, add some speed to the DL and the sacks will come.

Not a fan of Watt from the highlight reels, seems totally committed to a one gap stle. I like Wilkerson,, but given the choice I would take Bowers over Wilkerson. W may be the best long term pick for the Pats, but we need to defend the pass better now.

Prioitizing our weakest link.

That was a great counter point. I probably should have removed the NT from the list (Wilfork, Brace, Love) since we're talking DE. BB has mentioned size as a factor in drafting a position. Assuming he wasn't bluffing then at 17 you think he would only take a player who could fit the mold and contribute right away. He has taken guys in later rounds that don't fit the mold probably based on other factors hoping he could coach them up. Sometimes that works (Wright, Jarvis Green) and sometimes it doesn't (Klecko, Kareem Brown). I just dont see him drafting a guy who doesn't fit the size requirements that early in the draft.