Front Seven Going Into The Draft

[Wilfork#75]

The more I think about the defense strategy and how the game is evolving, I don't think the Pats are going to pick high on the defensive line. Unless of course there's a player available to take that just grades out higher than everyone else on their value board. There's always room for that guy.

In another thread in the main forum I calculated out defensive snaps from Reiss' data based on personnel groupings, and it came out as 2.3 DL, 3.9 LB, and 4.7 DB (and .1 rounding error). For at least the third year in a row the Pats spent most of their time in sub-packages and not their base 3-4 defense. And even when in three man lines, how many of those were penetration lines, with rush specialists like Pryor or Wright on the nose? Likely a sizable number.

I'd like to split the Patriots drafts into two groups, 2000-04 and 2006-10, with 2005 as the separator because no DL were drafted as it was a stacked position, plus it was the year the passing game began to be opened up as a "point of emphasis." (Though that draft class did produce UDFA Mike Wright).

2000-04
5 DL selected low: Jeff Marriott (161), David Nugent (201), Jarvis Green (126), Ethan Kelley (243), Dan Klecko (117)
4 DL selected high: Richard Seymour (6), Ty Warren (13), Vince Wilfork (21), Marquise Hill (63)

2006-10
6 DL selected low: Le Kevin Smith (206), Kareem Brown (127), Myron Pryor (207), Darryl Richard (234), Brandon Deaderick (247), Kade Weston (248)
1 DL selected high: Ron Brace (40)

The above of course does not include UDFAs like Mike Wright (2005) and Kyle Love (2010).

So I think what we're looking at is a de-emphasis of the DL position (and a corresponding emphasis on secondary players). Apart from Mayo, the front 7 players are shuttled on and off to fit the situation. The secondary players are not only the most numerous part of our primary defense, they are also the only static part of the defense from package to package, so they give you the most value. The front seven has two freaks in Vince Wilfork and Jerod Mayo who hardly/never come off the field, but everyone else is a specialist.

The Pats going into next year have a bunch of high picks penciled into that secondary, along with a few skilled veterans (Sanders, Bodden) that are in no danger of being cut. You have a good young ILB rotation taking shape. DL, as discussed, isn't a draft priority any more, and they've got a bevy of people there returning from injury anyway.

So I think next year the position that would give the Pats the most value to upgrade is OLB. TBC, our vet OLB, played 67% of the defensive snaps. Ninkovich and Cunningham each played close to 50% of the snaps. Every DL except Wilfork played fewer snaps than those three. One of Moore, TBC or Ninkovich could probably be upgraded in the long-term by another Cunningham-type player with the ability to rush from a three-point and stand up as an OLB. I think Ninkovich will probably stay as he is a standout special teamer and the youngest of the three. Moore doesn't seem to be a stand-up linebacker and TBC might be slowing down.

I have no idea if there's any good OLB candidates in this upcoming draft, but it's probably the position on defense the war room will be most interested in going into the draft.

I agree with this. The Pats defence is continually evolving and I believe the emphasis for the DL will be on depth and versatility rather than just having 3 studs. As unoriginal pointed out The Pats spend the majority of their snaps in sub packages and continually rotate personnel and give the offence as many different looks as they can. I believe this decreases the value of a stud DE as they wont be on the field for a large amount of snaps. I do believe that a backup NT is a need for this defence in order to give Wilfork a rest and give the DL an extra dimension, especailly if they do give Wilfork some snaps at DE.

Part of the reason I wouldnt draft a DE in the first round is becuase with so many teams moving to the 3-4 in recent years, the value for 5-techs has gone up. You can see from Tyson Jackson going #3 to KC that they have become overvalued and teams are reaching for them. Because of this I dont think that there will be a DE that offers good value for the Pats in the first round. Dont get me wrong though, if BB see's the next Richard Seymour who offers value in the first round, I would absolutely support him taking them, but I just dont see that guy. There are a lot of talented DE in the draft but I just dont see any of them as the 'right fit' for the Pats. Because of this I would spend a high pick on a guy that im not sure about, especailly with the evolution of the defence. I would prefer to do what the Pats have done in recent years and draft the prototype DL in the later rounds like Deaderick and Weston, and coach them up. The current DL is very solid so there is no need to rush the development of the DL.

 

[borg]

I agree with this. The Pats defence is continually evolving and I believe the emphasis for the DL will be on depth and versatility rather than just having 3 studs. As unoriginal pointed out The Pats spend the majority of their snaps in sub packages and continually rotate personnel and give the offence as many different looks as they can. I believe this decreases the value of a stud DE as they wont be on the field for a large amount of snaps. I do believe that a backup NT is a need for this defence in order to give Wilfork a rest and give the DL an extra dimension, especailly if they do give Wilfork some snaps at DE.

Part of the reason I wouldnt draft a DE in the first round is becuase with so many teams moving to the 3-4 in recent years, the value for 5-techs has gone up. You can see from Tyson Jackson going #3 to KC that they have become overvalued and teams are reaching for them. Because of this I dont think that there will be a DE that offers good value for the Pats in the first round. Dont get me wrong though, if BB see's the next Richard Seymour who offers value in the first round, I would absolutely support him taking them, but I just dont see that guy. There are a lot of talented DE in the draft but I just dont see any of them as the 'right fit' for the Pats. Because of this I would spend a high pick on a guy that im not sure about, especailly with the evolution of the defence. I would prefer to do what the Pats have done in recent years and draft the prototype DL in the later rounds like Deaderick and Weston, and coach them up. The current DL is very solid so there is no need to rush the development of the DL.

Assuming T Warren and Wright return to health, the 2011 starting DL of T Warren, Wilfork and Wright had the ball run down their throats vs Baltimore in the playoffs last year. And like that playoff game, this year Wilfork has been moved around to cover the weaknesses of others. Wright should be a pass rushing sub only.
In the BB era, the Pats have had 3 #1 picks in the top 20...Seymour, Mayo and Warren. The money #17 gets paid dictates that he will be asked to step up early and be a foundation type starter.
You know BB will not draft on offensive skill player here. OGs/Cs don't go this early. Drafting an OT a #17 makes economic sense, but with Mankins likely gone, no way BB completely dismantles Brady's blindside and drops Light.
On D, S is set. Expensive assets are in place at CB, unless you see a #17 at nickel or dime back. ILB is set. OLB requires to much developement to pay such a high cost.
So we are back to the D line, a position that BB values, a position where BB has spent premium picks, a position where there is a hole...and going into the playoffs, a giant hole. And finally, a position that is the strength of this years draft.
Looking at the 3 remaining teams left in the AFC playoffs, they are all run first teams that will challenge New Englands 1st line of defense. And a couple of these teams are traditional playoff opponents...past and most likely future.
I am more convinced than ever that BB gets a stud D lineman, and I can even see him surprise the world by jumping up to grab a foundation piece.

 

[Wilfork#75]

Assuming T Warren and Wright return to health, the 2011 starting DL of T Warren, Wilfork and Wright had the ball run down their throats vs Baltimore in the playoffs last year. And like that playoff game, this year Wilfork has been moved around to cover the weaknesses of others. Wright should be a pass rushing sub only.
In the BB era, the Pats have had 3 #1 picks in the top 20...Seymour, Mayo and Warren. The money #17 gets paid dictates that he will be asked to step up early and be a foundation type starter.
You know BB will not draft on offensive skill player here. OGs/Cs don't go this early. Drafting an OT a #17 makes economic sense, but with Mankins likely gone, no way BB completely dismantles Brady's blindside and drops Light.
On D, S is set. Expensive assets are in place at CB, unless you see a #17 at nickel or dime back. ILB is set. OLB requires to much developement to pay such a high cost.
So we are back to the D line, a position that BB values, a position where BB has spent premium picks, a position where there is a hole...and going into the playoffs, a giant hole. And finally, a position that is the strength of this years draft.
Looking at the 3 remaining teams left in the AFC playoffs, they are all run first teams that will challenge New Englands 1st line of defense. And a couple of these teams are traditional playoff opponents...past and most likely future.
I am more convinced than ever that BB gets a stud D lineman, and I can even see him surprise the world by jumping up to grab a foundation piece.

I completely agree with you that Wright shouldn't be any more than a sub rusher, but if all of the DL are healthy that is all he would be. And last years Pats team didnt have G. Warren or Deaderick, and Brace hadn't started to improve yet when the played the Ravens. This season, apart from the Browns game the run defence hasnt been a problem. Most people that want to draft a DE in the first round want a "playmaker" and a pass rusher. I dont see any DE in this draft that fits the Pats criteria and is able to play the run and pass at a high enough level to justify spending a high pick on. And if it wasn't for injuries the DL wouldn't have any issues now. It doesnt matter how high you draft them, if you have as many injuries along the DL as the Pats have had recently you are going to struggle. I think if everyone comes back healthy next season and they can draft a true backup NT then the DL will be in great shape next year.

Base DE- T. Warren, G. Warren, B. Deaderick, R. Brace
Sub DL- M. Pryor, M. Wright, K. Weston
NT- V. Wilfork, Draft (P. Taylor/K. Ellis)

 

[borg]

I completely agree with you that Wright shouldn't be any more than a sub rusher, but if all of the DL are healthy that is all he would be. And last years Pats team didnt have G. Warren or Deaderick, and Brace hadn't started to improve yet when the played the Ravens. This season, apart from the Browns game the run defence hasnt been a problem. Most people that want to draft a DE in the first round want a "playmaker" and a pass rusher. I dont see any DE in this draft that fits the Pats criteria and is able to play the run and pass at a high enough level to justify spending a high pick on. And if it wasn't for injuries the DL wouldn't have any issues now. It doesnt matter how high you draft them, if you have as many injuries along the DL as the Pats have had recently you are going to struggle. I think if everyone comes back healthy next season and they can draft a true backup NT then the DL will be in great shape next year. Base DE- T. Warren, G. Warren, B. Deaderick, R. Brace
Sub DL- M. Pryor, M. Wright, K. Weston
NT- V. Wilfork, Draft (P. Taylor/K. Ellis)

Warren is an aging fill in who Reiss described as "struggling" in the back half of the season. He is not the future. And with the injury clouds over most every DT/DE except Wilfork, the time is now. Wilfork played 70% of snaps, Warren 46%, 3rd was Wright at 29%, Brace 26%, Pryor 22%.
During the '03 and '04 seasons, the Patriots had a wall on D line and their veteran LB corp excelled behind them. The result was a top 5 D leading the league in points against one year. I believe this group of LBs is ready to be more aggressive, but they need 3 stout linemen that requires 5 Olinemen to handle....not the rotational fillers BB has thrown together. If they can't get a guy at #17 in a strong DL draft, will they be more successful finding this player in the 30's in future drafts?
As to your point about more reliance on sub packages...then why is Wilfork playing so many snaps...because great players stay on the field. And this dam good player has to compensate for the sub guys that lack certain skills. No way Belichick believes this can go on. He won't continue to overwork his 330+ big money guy in the future, because the odds say that he will break down. In '09, Wilfork was on a pace playing 63% of snaps vs 70% this year. And they will lean on him this playoffs vs these run first teams.
Last point, when BB feels there is a weak grouping on the roster, he throws the kitchen sink at it in the offseason. The D line rollercoaster will be fresh on his mind as will be the health concerns of multiple players that fill out this line. I am more convinced than ever that he addresses the position using #17

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Assuming T Warren and Wright return to health, the 2011 starting DL of T Warren, Wilfork and Wright had the ball run down their throats vs Baltimore in the playoffs last year. And like that playoff game, this year Wilfork has been moved around to cover the weaknesses of others. Wright should be a pass rushing sub only.
In the BB era, the Pats have had 3 #1 picks in the top 20...Seymour, Mayo and Warren. The money #17 gets paid dictates that he will be asked to step up early and be a foundation type starter.
You know BB will not draft on offensive skill player here. OGs/Cs don't go this early. Drafting an OT a #17 makes economic sense, but with Mankins likely gone, no way BB completely dismantles Brady's blindside and drops Light.
On D, S is set. Expensive assets are in place at CB, unless you see a #17 at nickel or dime back. ILB is set. OLB requires to much developement to pay such a high cost.
So we are back to the D line, a position that BB values, a position where BB has spent premium picks, a position where there is a hole...and going into the playoffs, a giant hole. And finally, a position that is the strength of this years draft.
Looking at the 3 remaining teams left in the AFC playoffs, they are all run first teams that will challenge New Englands 1st line of defense. And a couple of these teams are traditional playoff opponents...past and most likely future.
I am more convinced than ever that BB gets a stud D lineman, and I can even see him surprise the world by jumping up to grab a foundation piece.

The "starting" DL for the Baltimore playoff game was Warren, Wilfork, and Green. Oddly enough, Wilfork was planted on his backside on the Ray Rice 83 yd TD run. It happens.

Unoriginal's analysis is an interesting read, it leads to the question - how can a prospect be used to improve the defense?
Brace - was seen as a run stuffing NT, he's developing as a run stuffing DE in the base, and he's shown flashes of being a good bull rushing pocket collapser.
Love - he's looking like the NT we all thought Brace would be. He's also getting some good push on the pocket.
Deadrick - he's been a decent reserve DE, I haven't seen him flash starter or key role potential yet.
Cohen - he's played okay as a sub-package DL on passing downs, and he's shown some run stopping talent.

I'm looking for another 3-4 two-gap DE for the base package, one who has enough explosion to play the pass in a sub-package. Priority one is to stop the run, making teams one-dimensional seems to be a Belichick goal, for the times when he doesn't care about the run a Cohen in the late rounds works fine, but to shut down running teams takes a special player in NE's scheme and that is what I'm looking for in this draft - another Ty Warren, Vince Wilfork, Richard Seymour mountain of mayhem.

 

[borg]

The "starting" DL for the Baltimore playoff game was Warren, Wilfork, and Green. Oddly enough, Wilfork was planted on his backside on the Ray Rice 83 yd TD run. It happens.

Unoriginal's analysis is an interesting read, it leads to the question - how can a prospect be used to improve the defense?
Brace - was seen as a run stuffing NT, he's developing as a run stuffing DE in the base, and he's shown flashes of being a good bull rushing pocket collapser.
Love - he's looking like the NT we all thought Brace would be. He's also getting some good push on the pocket.
Deadrick - he's been a decent reserve DE, I haven't seen him flash starter or key role potential yet.
Cohen - he's played okay as a sub-package DL on passing downs, and he's shown some run stopping talent.

I'm looking for another 3-4 two-gap DE for the base package, one who has enough explosion to play the pass in a sub-package. Priority one is to stop the run, making teams one-dimensional seems to be a Belichick goal, for the times when he doesn't care about the run a Cohen in the late rounds works fine, but to shut down running teams takes a special player in NE's scheme and that is what I'm looking for in this draft - another Ty Warren, Vince Wilfork, Richard Seymour mountain of mayhem.

You're preaching to the choir....la la la

 

[Wilfork#75]

The "starting" DL for the Baltimore playoff game was Warren, Wilfork, and Green. Oddly enough, Wilfork was planted on his backside on the Ray Rice 83 yd TD run. It happens.

Unoriginal's analysis is an interesting read, it leads to the question - how can a prospect be used to improve the defense?
Brace - was seen as a run stuffing NT, he's developing as a run stuffing DE in the base, and he's shown flashes of being a good bull rushing pocket collapser.
Love - he's looking like the NT we all thought Brace would be. He's also getting some good push on the pocket.
Deadrick - he's been a decent reserve DE, I haven't seen him flash starter or key role potential yet.
Cohen - he's played okay as a sub-package DL on passing downs, and he's shown some run stopping talent.

I'm looking for another 3-4 two-gap DE for the base package, one who has enough explosion to play the pass in a sub-package. Priority one is to stop the run, making teams one-dimensional seems to be a Belichick goal, for the times when he doesn't care about the run a Cohen in the late rounds works fine, but to shut down running teams takes a special player in NE's scheme and that is what I'm looking for in this draft - another Ty Warren, Vince Wilfork, Richard Seymour mountain of mayhem.

While there is no doubt another Warren or Seymour would be great for this team, I just dont see that player in this draft. The Patriots have such a complex system that most college DL simply dont fit. The best fit scheme wise is probably Cameron Hayward, but I wouldn't touch him anywhere in the first round because he hasn't shown any consistency. Then you have guys like JJ Watt who I dont see as a great fit, and who will probably be overdrafted well ahead of 17 anyway. The only guy I would be comfotable taking in the top 20 picks is Nick Fairley and he will be well gone. So who is the guy to take? Do you reach for Cam Jordan? While the idea of a great DE seems intriguing, in practice I just dont see the next Richard Seymour or Ty Warren in this draft.

My top rated DE behind Fairley is Muhammed Wilkerson from Temple and I have him as a mid second round prospect. He seems by far the best fit at DE and solid value in the early/mid second round. However, like most 5-techs his stock will probably rise to a point where he doesnt offer much value. So while in theory a stud DE may be a great idea, im struggling to find that guy, and im not willing to reach or compromise the requirements of the system to get them.

 

[MaineMan]

The more I think about the defense strategy and how the game is evolving, I don't think the Pats are going to pick high on the defensive line. Unless of course there's a player available to take that just grades out higher than everyone else on their value board. There's always room for that guy.

In another thread in the main forum I calculated out defensive snaps from Reiss' data based on personnel groupings, and it came out as 2.3 DL, 3.9 LB, and 4.7 DB (and .1 rounding error). For at least the third year in a row the Pats spent most of their time in sub-packages and not their base 3-4 defense. And even when in three man lines, how many of those were penetration lines, with rush specialists like Pryor or Wright on the nose? Likely a sizable number.

I'd like to split the Patriots drafts into two groups, 2000-04 and 2006-10, with 2005 as the separator because no DL were drafted as it was a stacked position, plus it was the year the passing game began to be opened up as a "point of emphasis." (Though that draft class did produce UDFA Mike Wright).

2000-04
5 DL selected low: Jeff Marriott (161), David Nugent (201), Jarvis Green (126), Ethan Kelley (243), Dan Klecko (117)
4 DL selected high: Richard Seymour (6), Ty Warren (13), Vince Wilfork (21), Marquise Hill (63)

2006-10
6 DL selected low: Le Kevin Smith (206), Kareem Brown (127), Myron Pryor (207), Darryl Richard (234), Brandon Deaderick (247), Kade Weston (248)
1 DL selected high: Ron Brace (40)

The above of course does not include UDFAs like Mike Wright (2005) and Kyle Love (2010).

So I think what we're looking at is a de-emphasis of the DL position (and a corresponding emphasis on secondary players). Apart from Mayo, the front 7 players are shuttled on and off to fit the situation. The secondary players are not only the most numerous part of our primary defense, they are also the only static part of the defense from package to package, so they give you the most value. The front seven has two freaks in Vince Wilfork and Jerod Mayo who hardly/never come off the field, but everyone else is a specialist.

The Pats going into next year have a bunch of high picks penciled into that secondary, along with a few skilled veterans (Sanders, Bodden) that are in no danger of being cut. You have a good young ILB rotation taking shape. DL, as discussed, isn't a draft priority any more, and they've got a bevy of people there returning from injury anyway.

So I think next year the position that would give the Pats the most value to upgrade is OLB. TBC, our vet OLB, played 67% of the defensive snaps. Ninkovich and Cunningham each played close to 50% of the snaps. Every DL except Wilfork played fewer snaps than those three. One of Moore, TBC or Ninkovich could probably be upgraded in the long-term by another Cunningham-type player with the ability to rush from a three-point and stand up as an OLB. I think Ninkovich will probably stay as he is a standout special teamer and the youngest of the three. Moore doesn't seem to be a stand-up linebacker and TBC might be slowing down.

I have no idea if there's any good OLB candidates in this upcoming draft, but it's probably the position on defense the war room will be most interested in going into the draft.

I really like your reasoning and evidence. However, I question the assumption that the recent prevalence of 4-3 sub-packages over the "classic" base BB3-4 isn't simply a matter of BB "making lemonade".

In 2006, a "classic" line of Warren-Wilfork-Seymour performed very well using Green as an effective sub-rusher and with OLBs Vrabel, Colvin and TBC getting good pressure from the edges. The front seven delivered 40 sacks and run defense was 5th in the league.

In 2007, Seymour was injured, but Green filled in fairly well (6.5 sacks) with Warren-Wilfork as a solid base. The front seven delivered 43 sacks (mostly due to Vrabel's "eruption" for 12.5 with Colvin and Thomas helping out) and was still 10th in run defense. At that point, there wasn't any apparent need to draft another classic 3-4 DE and, in any case, the 2008 draft didn't offer any in the early rounds (at least, none who've worked out anywhere).

In 2008, although Seymour came back strong, Colvin was hurt early, Thomas was hurt late (while having a good year), Warren missed six games late, and Green's play began to deteriorate. Front seven sacks dropped under 27 and run defense was ranked 15th. And 2009 was going to be Seymour's contract year. Unfortunately, no viable Seymour replacements were available in the 2009 draft - there really wasn't anyone decent who had both the length and the heft.

So, in 2009, with Seymour gone, BB punted. He cobbled together a collection of D-line guys who could "simulate" his 3-4, bolstered the interior/reserves with draft picks and played a lot of 40-front sub-packages. In effect, he temporarily shifted to a versatile base 4-3 while front-seven renovations were in full swing. The front seven generated 29 sacks and run defense was ranked 13th.

In the 2010 draft, there STILL were no viable Seymour types (other than maybe Odrick) available among the top guys, so BB basically repeated the 2009 process. And things have gotten better with the front seven generating 35 sacks and a 10th-ranked run defense.

However, the 2011 draft offers several potential candidates for a DE with both the length and heft to fit BB's 3-4 - several who are seniors (IOW, guys who were going to be available no matter what). I think this may have been the reason that BB chose to go with the 2011 first rounder for Seymour over alternative 2010 picks - a much better selection of candidates. If we manage to get one of these guys (e.g., Heyward, Crick), we'll potentially have restored the classic 3-4, AND have strong 4-3 sub-packages.

So, among our defensive picks (with O-line issues yet to be resolved), I see 3-4 DE as being the top priority, DB (either CB or FS) as second priority, with a well-rounded OLB type (IOW, NOT primarily a pass-rusher) being taken later.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

While there is no doubt another Warren or Seymour would be great for this team, I just dont see that player in this draft. The Patriots have such a complex system that most college DL simply dont fit. The best fit scheme wise is probably Cameron Hayward, but I wouldn't touch him anywhere in the first round because he hasn't shown any consistency. Then you have guys like JJ Watt who I dont see as a great fit, and who will probably be overdrafted well ahead of 17 anyway. The only guy I would be comfotable taking in the top 20 picks is Nick Fairley and he will be well gone. So who is the guy to take? Do you reach for Cam Jordan? While the idea of a great DE seems intriguing, in practice I just dont see the next Richard Seymour or Ty Warren in this draft.

My top rated DE behind Fairley is Muhammed Wilkerson from Temple and I have him as a mid second round prospect. He seems by far the best fit at DE and solid value in the early/mid second round. However, like most 5-techs his stock will probably rise to a point where he doesnt offer much value. So while in theory a stud DE may be a great idea, im struggling to find that guy, and im not willing to reach or compromise the requirements of the system to get them.

This doesn't make sense to me. I put him behind only Fairley in terms of his disruptive ability from the position, and I think he's potentially better against the run. He absolutely has starting-level potential in our defense (will be as good against the run as T. Warren, and has the pass-rush of Wright), and I think he would win the job early on in his career. How is that not worth a mid-late first in our system?

I highly, highly doubt he leapfrogs all the other tackles and ends you listed, which puts his draft ceiling somewhere in the late first. I fail to see how a talent that you yourself rate as a mid-second (which I feel is underrating him), isn't worth a late first instead. At some point, ranking by rounds becomes an artificial construct. We have the luxury of double-dipping in the first three rounds. If we "overpay" by half a round for a position that's become a hot commodity on the market in order to shore up our defense for the next half a decade plus, then what's the problem?

Yes, value is important. The right player/system fit is even more important, though, in my opinion.

 

[mgteich]

Which do you think is the weaker grouping?
BTW, I agree that we should use our first pick for a DE (although I could see Ingram).

POTENTIAL WEAK GROUPING #1 - DEFENSIVE LINE
Warren, Wilfork, Warren/Wright, Brace
Deaderick, Pryor, Love/Cohen

POTENTIAL WEAK GROUPING #2 - OFFENSIVE LINE
Kaczur, Connolly, Koppen, Wendell, Vollmer
Ohrnberger, Ojinnaka

.Last point, when BB feels there is a weak grouping on the roster, he throws the kitchen sink at it in the offseason. The D line rollercoaster will be fresh on his mind as will be the health concerns of multiple players that fill out this line. I am more convinced than ever that he addresses the position using #17

 

[MaineMan]

Which do you think is the weaker grouping?
BTW, I agree that we should use our first pick for a DE (although I could see Ingram).

POTENTIAL WEAK GROUPING #1 - DEFENSIVE LINE
Warren, Wilfork, Warren/Wright, Brace
Deaderick, Pryor, Love/Cohen

POTENTIAL WEAK GROUPING #2 - OFFENSIVE LINE
Kaczur, Connolly, Koppen, Wendell, Vollmer
Ohrnberger, Ojinnaka

The O-line is the weaker grouping, pretty obviously. However, this is the "opportunity draft" wrt 3-4 DE that BB (IMHO) has been waiting 2-3 years for and the first pick goes there regardless. With it, he "completes" a unit.

Beyond which pre-draft scenario transpires wrt resolving O-line contract issues, it also sort of becomes a "what are the remaining opportunities?" scenario after that first pick. I have a feeling that BB/Dante aren't going to be looking for OTs who are under 6'6" anymore, so who's likely to be left at #32 or later?

BTW - I recently saw a mock draft - forget which one - that had the Pats taking Jason Pinkston as an OT late in the second round (specifically to replace Light). Pinkston is 6'4" on his tippy-toes and 305 soaking wet. Seems to me he'd have to be a hella skilled athlete to be an NFL tackle at that size and, if he's enough of an athlete to make up for his lack of size, why the heck would he still be available late in the second round? OTOH, as a guard . . . .

 

[MaineMan]

While there is no doubt another Warren or Seymour would be great for this team, I just dont see that player in this draft. The Patriots have such a complex system that most college DL simply dont fit. The best fit scheme wise is probably Cameron Hayward, but I wouldn't touch him anywhere in the first round because he hasn't shown any consistency. Then you have guys like JJ Watt who I dont see as a great fit, and who will probably be overdrafted well ahead of 17 anyway. The only guy I would be comfotable taking in the top 20 picks is Nick Fairley and he will be well gone. So who is the guy to take? Do you reach for Cam Jordan? While the idea of a great DE seems intriguing, in practice I just dont see the next Richard Seymour or Ty Warren in this draft.

My top rated DE behind Fairley is Muhammed Wilkerson from Temple and I have him as a mid second round prospect. He seems by far the best fit at DE and solid value in the early/mid second round. However, like most 5-techs his stock will probably rise to a point where he doesnt offer much value. So while in theory a stud DE may be a great idea, im struggling to find that guy, and im not willing to reach or compromise the requirements of the system to get them.

The question becomes, when DO you see such a guy being available? 2012? 2013? It's already been 3 drafts without a guy (other than Odrick) who really even comes close. How much longer do we wait? This draft offers at least several legit candidates.

Personally, I'll take Heyward's "apparent" inconsistency (which is overblown, I think), size and skillset over most of the rest of these guys. Crick might be a second possibility. Watt definitely has the size, but he's really raw. Most of the rest of the likely 1st/2nd round possibilities are just, size-wise, too much like guys we already have on the roster who are doing okay.

 

[JackBauer]

I agree with unoriginal that another Cunningham-type OLB would be ideal to supplant TBC, who is pedestrian at best and isn't a great pass rusher, despite his billing as a pass-rush specialist.

 

[MaineMan]

I agree with unoriginal that another Cunningham-type OLB would be ideal to supplant TBC, who is pedestrian at best and isn't a great pass rusher, despite his billing as a pass-rush specialist.

I'm on board with this. And I think there will be some very decent prospects available after round one.

 

[borg]

Which do you think is the weaker grouping?
BTW, I agree that we should use our first pick for a DE (although I could see Ingram).

POTENTIAL WEAK GROUPING #1 - DEFENSIVE LINE
Warren, Wilfork, Warren/Wright, Brace
Deaderick, Pryor, Love/Cohen

POTENTIAL WEAK GROUPING #2 - OFFENSIVE LINE
Kaczur, Connolly, Koppen, Wendell, Vollmer
Ohrnberger, Ojinnaka

Well played. Since your list assumes Mankins and Light will be gone...my list will assume T Warren and Wright won't be good to go next year.
Seriously....but not really that serious...Regardless of who is back next year, BB pays up for DTs/DEs traditionally and works the later picks for his Oline.
And I will lick Fat Rex's feet if both Light and Mankins aren't on the '11 team. No way BB cleans out the entire blindside protection. At least one will be back and it will be Light. But they can afford both if they drop both Neal and Kazcur.

 

[bucky]

I personally did not enjoy watching Kyle Arrington rush the passer against the Colts. And counting on Moore to be a long term solution might be fool's gold. So an OLB is unquestionably a "need". If not a starter, then at least for depth/development, or perhaps as a 3rd down rusher.

At DE, I agree that it's not necessarily "need". But it's a great opportunity to upgrade a guy like Pryor, G. Warren, Deaderick, etc. A top notch pass rusher at this position would do wonders for this defense on 3rd downs.

I agree about OL and RB as well. But the bottom line is that not all of these positions need to be filled through the draft. We should have enough cap room to get some impact UFAs.

 

[Fencer]

The more I think about the defense strategy and how the game is evolving, I don't think the Pats are going to pick high on the defensive line. Unless of course there's a player available to take that just grades out higher than everyone else on their value board. There's always room for that guy.

In another thread in the main forum I calculated out defensive snaps from Reiss' data based on personnel groupings, and it came out as 2.3 DL, 3.9 LB, and 4.7 DB (and .1 rounding error). For at least the third year in a row the Pats spent most of their time in sub-packages and not their base 3-4 defense. And even when in three man lines, how many of those were penetration lines, with rush specialists like Pryor or Wright on the nose? Likely a sizable number.

I'd like to split the Patriots drafts into two groups, 2000-04 and 2006-10, with 2005 as the separator because no DL were drafted as it was a stacked position, plus it was the year the passing game began to be opened up as a "point of emphasis." (Though that draft class did produce UDFA Mike Wright).

2000-04
5 DL selected low: Jeff Marriott (161), David Nugent (201), Jarvis Green (126), Ethan Kelley (243), Dan Klecko (117)
4 DL selected high: Richard Seymour (6), Ty Warren (13), Vince Wilfork (21), Marquise Hill (63)

2006-10
6 DL selected low: Le Kevin Smith (206), Kareem Brown (127), Myron Pryor (207), Darryl Richard (234), Brandon Deaderick (247), Kade Weston (248)
1 DL selected high: Ron Brace (40)

The above of course does not include UDFAs like Mike Wright (2005) and Kyle Love (2010).

So I think what we're looking at is a de-emphasis of the DL position (and a corresponding emphasis on secondary players). Apart from Mayo, the front 7 players are shuttled on and off to fit the situation. The secondary players are not only the most numerous part of our primary defense, they are also the only static part of the defense from package to package, so they give you the most value. The front seven has two freaks in Vince Wilfork and Jerod Mayo who hardly/never come off the field, but everyone else is a specialist.

The Pats going into next year have a bunch of high picks penciled into that secondary, along with a few skilled veterans (Sanders, Bodden) that are in no danger of being cut. You have a good young ILB rotation taking shape. DL, as discussed, isn't a draft priority any more, and they've got a bevy of people there returning from injury anyway.

So I think next year the position that would give the Pats the most value to upgrade is OLB. TBC, our vet OLB, played 67% of the defensive snaps. Ninkovich and Cunningham each played close to 50% of the snaps. Every DL except Wilfork played fewer snaps than those three. One of Moore, TBC or Ninkovich could probably be upgraded in the long-term by another Cunningham-type player with the ability to rush from a three-point and stand up as an OLB. I think Ninkovich will probably stay as he is a standout special teamer and the youngest of the three. Moore doesn't seem to be a stand-up linebacker and TBC might be slowing down.

I have no idea if there's any good OLB candidates in this upcoming draft, but it's probably the position on defense the war room will be most interested in going into the draft.

Well argued. The number of OLB on the field might average OVER 2 per play, if you count the downs on which they play DE. (Your top three add up to 1.6 or so.) Not going to get that from the "classical" DEs, which probably has a lot to do with why Seymour and Warren aren't both still being invested in ... BUT ... well, I'll save the "but" for later.

 

[Fencer]

One thing that ups the value of a position is whether it has a chance of forcing or eliminating a double-team. A DL beast can do that.

Of course, if you don't force a double team, those OL may not have a lot else to do anyway. That somewhat diminishes the DL's value ...

 

[SanAngeloState]

A guy like Ziemba of Auburn would be a good OT for us...should be available in the 3rd. Centers for some reason don't get drafted high unless they are really stellar. Auburn's pugh and TCU's kilpatrick would fit the bill and both are projected late round picks.

Pinkston would have to be a great athlete to play OT but if he's that great why is he available in the 2nd? That makes no sense to me. 2nd round isn't exactly low...you're talking one of the top 30th to 60th of the best college players in the country. That's an elite group.

Elite 3-4 DEs go pretty high. I still they they take Heyward in the 1st. Then another guy with some size and ability later on...Wright is probably gone for his career and Warren is coming back from a surgery and 30 years old or so.

 

[sg14]

For those that say that there are alot of DE's to choose from this year;

Which one is the best run defender, who would play on early downs and could play virtually the whole game against the Ravens,

And which one is the best for defending pass plays??

And could they both be picked up within the first 2 rounds??,
the first 100 picks??