The great "Scheme vs. Player" debate again.
I think it's more BB's general defensive philosophy more than any strict "scheme" that guides his evaluations. And I think that "philosophy" is simply that, when spending a 1st/2nd round pick on a front seven player, BB prefers accomplished solid "defenders" who he might develop into "attackers" than attackers who may, or may not ever become solid defenders. And I do believe that this philosophy differs significantly from that of most teams.
What I mean by "defender" is a guy who has demonstrated fairly consistent gap/assignment-discipline, strength and/or technique to shed well, wrap-up tackling ability, football smarts/instincts to read and react appropriately and to work well in tandem with his teammates - IOW a guy who seems, from the get-go, capable of being in the right place most of the time to prevent a big play. This is distinct from "attackers" who've demonstrated gap-shooting pass-rush ability in college and little else. While it's true, that BB has passed on some guys like this who HAVE developed into fairly solid defenders, he seems to prefer to err on the other side. And, IMHO, he was right about Clay Matthews.
In that regard, I don't think Cunningham has yet "failed" outright, unless all one was looking for from him was pass-rush. He seemed (IMHO) well on his way to becoming a pretty solid "defender" as a rookie, even though his "pressure game" was lacking. However, the actual "scheme" this season has been much more attack-based than previous years and Cunningham (between a missed 2nd-year offseason and chronic injuries) simply couldn't develop into a role within it. If the Pats return to playing a larger percentage of 2-gap, "defender-based" 30-fronts in 2012 (closer to 2010 percentages than this season, anyway), AND Cunningham is healthy, I believe we'll see a resumption of progress on his part.
Anyway, because most teams are looking for proven "attackers" who may be able to develop as defenders, that means that, for the majority of the free-market, "attackers" have higher value and, thus, move up in the rankings at the expense of solid defenders who may be relatively weak attackers. The scouting reports of the highly-paid draftniks almost always focus on the attack skills of top DLine and OLB prospects while barely mentioning their "defender" chops. Of course, front seven players who end up going in the top 10 or so may well be both great attackers AND great defenders, but the Pats rarely have a pick in that range (when they did, they took Seymour, Warren and Wilfork). In the range that BB usually has to work with, a guy may be just one or the other and BB greatly tends to select for "the other". It doesn't always work well, but what does?
Now, BB has picked up guys for the team who were primarily attackers, but they have been veteran FA or later-round picks, but they've generally been role-players.
So, you may disagree with BB's approach, but I believe that's where his picks (and his passing on certain highly-touted others) actually come from.
