I'm confused about Bradley. You take him at No. 90 in the aggressive conservative mock but at 24 in the conservative mock. Given team needs, I would take Landry SS in your aggressive mock instead of Carriker.
First, I consider this a weak draft, players suitable for the 3-4 front seven are usually in short supply, and the fact this team is reloading in Free Agency gives me more leeway in the draft. Second, Safety and Offensive Linemen are deep in this draft, Landry is now the unquestioned #1, but I'd be just as happy with a Piscatelli or Wendling or Payne or Dahl (I can actually get two of those four if the draft fell the way that list was ranked, so why go high for Landry?). CB is weak and Samuel is franchised, otherwise I might consider Hall, but I'm content to pick through the mid-late rounds. WR doesn't move me early, TE sucks, the only day one RB I like is Leonard, and I see him as more of a Faulk-like complementary player.
In this draft there are four Safeties who were clumped together at the top before Landry's Combine locked him in at #1, Nelson, Griffin, and Meriweather are still clumped together in the lower first & early second rounds if someone wanted a FS. Carriker's closest competition is getting a mid-second round grade from most draftniks and missed most of his senior year to injury. I like what I read about him, but if I have the chance, I'll take the guy who played his senior year and dominated at the Senior Bowl. There is one other player who projects to a possible 3-4 DE in the second, but needs to gain about 20 lbs, he's coming off an injury in a bowl game, kind of a risky pick in the second.
The Pats have adequate Safeties and Defensive Ends on the roster, neither position is a "need." Both can be improved, I will accept that going from a Wilson to a Landry appears to be the larger "improvement," but Carriker is unique in this draft, and from quotes attributed to BB, in any draft if he is the type of DL who can be a Warren or Seymour. Sey started right away, Warren platooned his first year and blossomed in his third before breaking out last year, he's got two years left.
If I'm going to be aggressive in this draft it's because I have a chance to get a potential Richard Seymour. I don't need Ed Reed, I can get by with a Rodney, and there are potential Rodney's who will be signed as UDFA's when you look at size, speed, and talent. Either draft takes two of them in Piscatelli and Dahl.
If I can't trade out of 24, then I'm in a 'use it or lose it' situation. I could take a number of players I like between 24 and 90 as ranked on that list, but none I feel has as much potential to help in the short term at the team's greatest weakness, linebacker depth. Bradley rates above Harris based on measurables and watching the two of them Senior Bowl week. Bottom line, Bradley has the size, talent, and measurables to play inside or outside in NE's 3-4, Harris is an ILB and on the small side. So I "reached" for the player who could do the most as I see it. I trade up one for Bradley in the aggressive scenerio because I could afford to and still get him using that ranking chart, hence the difference. The basic premise of the aggressive approach is I can trade and get the exact player I want.
