LB at #21? History trends otherwise...

[PatsFanInVa]

By the way, along the "nothing's certain" lines....

The Pats' first rounder last year wasn't on anybody's mock draft board. Immediately after the pick I went scrambling around trying to find out what the hell a Logan Mankins was... right now I have Lawson or Hill dancing through my head, or some meteoric (but of course, unfounded) "dropper" who was at number 10 as of April 1... but it's just as likely that I'll have no idea who this guy is.

Kiper: A lot of fans around the league don't know that a double-major in alligator wrestling and Taoist philosophy can have an application in the NFL....

Prepare to research after the draft, not just before.

PFnV

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

See my "BB will never draft a guard in the first three rounds" thread from last April for details.

Let's not start that again, I'm still in the "he drafted a LT" crowd, and as long as Mankins winds up playing the occasional play at LT, I'm content to think he was intended to be part of the OT depth chart.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Let's not start that again, I'm still in the "he drafted a LT" crowd, and as long as Mankins winds up playing the occasional play at LT, I'm content to think he was intended to be part of the OT depth chart.

That's a real stretch considering that we lost our LT week 3 and Mankins stayed at G then he continued to stay at G when we lost our backup LT in the playoffs. Sorry, bud, we drafted a Guard in round 1

 

[spacecrime]

I'd say the rule of thumb with us in the draft is - there are no rules.
We got a surprise last year.

No kidding. WHo would have guessed BB/SP would take an OG in round 1?

 

[spacecrime]

Let's not start that again, I'm still in the "he drafted a LT" crowd, and as long as Mankins winds up playing the occasional play at LT, I'm content to think he was intended to be part of the OT depth chart.

You can be in that crowd, but it is the denial crowd. When Light got hurt, Mankins didn't fill in, Kaczur did. Mankins is locked in at OG. We have to face the fact that BB drafted an OG in Round One, and this year he coukld draft a safety or a LB for all we know.

 

[patchick]

After losing Eaton, BB drafted Seymour. After losing Armstrong, BB drafted Light. After losing Andruzzi, BB drafted Mankins. After losing Washington, BB drafted Wilfork. To me, losing McGinest, and drafting Carpenter would follow the pattern very well.

I tend to agree -- loading up on LBs this year seems perfectly in keeping with the team's draft history. Look for the intersection of a weak area on the roster and a strong area in the draft class and the Patriots pretty reliably target it, whatever it may be. Last year, OG was the only position where a rookie could reasonably expect to start, and Pats-style LT/OG tweeners were one of the few bright points in a fairly week draft. Voila, 2 on the first day. Also consider past sets of 2 like Wilson/Samuel, Branch/Givens...I'd bank on at least 2 LBs, 1 of whom is taken in the first 2 rounds.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

After losing Eaton, BB drafted Seymour. After losing Armstrong, BB drafted Light. After losing Andruzzi, BB drafted Mankins. After losing Washington, BB drafted Wilfork. To me, losing McGinest, and drafting Carpenter would follow the pattern very well.

Yep, anyone who thinks we don't draft for need is badly mistaken. That combined with a strong year for LB who would fit in for us expected to go around where we pick make this very predictable IMO. Belichick's history of not drafting LB high, be damned

 

[Flying Fungi]

Yep, anyone who thinks we don't draft for need is badly mistaken. That combined with a strong year for LB who would fit in for us expected to go around where we pick make this very predictable IMO. Belichick's history of not drafting LB high, be damned

Maybe so, but are you really that confident in your diagnosis of 'need' being identical to Belichick's?

I'm a smart som***** myself, and I wouldn't go on record claiming to know what the guy is thinking or planning.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Maybe so, but are you really that confident in your diagnosis of 'need' being identical to Belichick's?

I'm a smart som***** myself, and I wouldn't go on record claiming to know what the guy is thinking or planning.

In this case, yes.

The only way he's not looking at LB as our top need (barring a FA signing between now and then) is if we :

- Put Vrabel outside and Beisel as a starter at ILB
- Put Vrabel inside and have TBC as a starter at OLB.

I doubt he likes those options. Then combine it with other positions and our need there and I'm taking the chance that 2+2 for me = 2+2 for Belichick.

So, yes, I am very confident. But, no, I'm not 100% sure.

The one exception is if Chad Jackson gets within trade up range.

 

[bucky]

You can be in that crowd, but it is the denial crowd. When Light got hurt, Mankins didn't fill in, Kaczur did. Mankins is locked in at OG. We have to face the fact that BB drafted an OG in Round One, and this year he coukld draft a safety or a LB for all we know.

I would say that BB drafted an OL with verstaility, not just an OG. Obviously, the guy played LT in college and the Pats knew he could make the switch to OG. That said, there's no doubt he could play LT if needed.

 

[bucky]

Pioli drafted John Abraham in his last year with the Jets - a DE who he projected would move to OLB. Even though BB wasn't part of that FO, I would still argue that the precedent of drafting a LB with a 1st round pick is there.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Pats drafting is a case by case basis. In this year's draft two things show up real clear. First there are a lot of DE types that would be ideal as OLBs in the Pats system. (Lawson, Winberely, etc.). Second there are a lot of college OLB types that would be better suited to a move to the 5 technique in the Pats system. (Hawk, Greenway, Carpenter, etc.) As someone earleir posted, BB associates risk with a position move, therefore it would make sense that he goes with a guy that he can project, based on college performance in that position, into the same position for the pros.
And while that arguement has tremendous merit, this is first draft since BB has been HC at New England that has this calibre of talent at those hard to find key positions. Couple that with some of the losses at those positions, the lack of avialable FAs to play those positions and the current personnel; and it's very hard not to imagine BB looking very hard at LB.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

this is first draft since BB has been HC at New England that has this calibre of talent at those hard to find key positions.

You just said something simple, yet original enough to convince me even more that we'll take a LB in round 1.

Not only is this a strong draft for LB but Belichick, himself, has said the reason he's not taken many LB high is because there haven't been many that fit the kind of LB we look for. So not only is it a great fit this year but it's a position that Belichick has probably wanted to draft at but hasn't been able to. So not only does need meet ability and fit but at a position where ability and fit haven't been there for several years.

 

[shakadave]

We have too many draft picks.

The only catch is as FTW mentioned if we get a 'Wilfork' type surprise dumped in our laps or someone wants #21 real bad and makes an offer we can't refuse - I'm hoping for the offer we can't refuse.

I don't see us taking an offer for our #21 pick. We already have too many draft picks! No way 10-11 draftees make the team. So I think we're twice as likely to trade up as to trade down. I'm also in favor of doing those sorts of trades where we give a 6, a 5, and a 4 for a high 3/low 2.

 

[cubedoggy]

I agree FF, LB at #1 is historically not likely, which means it fits the Biolichick profile, an offspeed pitch so they can watch Kiper's hair twitch in shock. Value is a little skewed this year with the CBA limiting 2nd round and on to 4 years, an extra year for a transitioning DE may be a better value despite the higher outlay of cash. We'll just have to wait for my final board before I make up my mind.

I absolutely understand where FF is coming from, and have myself stated that history would indicate a first round LB pick would be an anomaly.

That said, I also understand the positions you and Rook take. LB is a need; of that there is little doubt, and it would appear that players that "fit" may be available. Hence, I would not be surprised if the pats go LB w/ their first pick...whatever that pick turns out to be.

I do think, however, that those who point to the Mankins pick as evidence that LB is more likely in past years make a specious argument.

 

[DaBruinz]

Figured this was worth its own thread.

Most folks seem convinced that the Patriots will go LB at the 21 spot. I am not convinced. Consider:

-Who was the last rookie LB that Belichick started in the defensive rotation?

-What is the general definition of 'value' in a first round pick (getting first round money)?


Last year we were down Phifer and Bruschi at the time of the draft, and Willie was still long in the tooth. Wasn't that just as obvious a time to draft LB? And yet we added FAs instead. Look at the drafted LBs since Piolichick has been running the show--Claridge, Banta-Cain...anyone I'm missing...? FA LBs--Cox, Vrabel, Phifer, Brown, Beisel, Davis, Izzo, Colvin, Brigance, Kurpeikis...

That's 10 FA LBs v. 2 drafted LBs--and looking at that list, see any Day 1 LBs or current starters?

Claridge-5th
Banta-Cain-7th
Tuitele-UDFA
Alexander-UDFA
Chatham-UDFA

caveat--these players were parsed from regular season rosters, so I may have missed some UDFAs and maybe even a washout LB draft pick.

Fungi -
There are a few holes in your analysis of last year.
1) In 2005, it was a very weak draft class for LB. One of the weakest in history.
2) I don't think there was a single, legitimate, 3-4 ILB prospect. Most of them were 4-3 MLBs.
3) What you have missed is that OL and DL were bigger issues in previous drafts. Even last year. And I don't believe that BB considers the ILB position a part of the D-line. OLB, yes. ILB, No. Last year's OLB corps was very solid with McGinest, Vrabel, Colvin and TBC. At draft time, the Pats were still under the impression that Johnson would be in TC. Even if BB was planing on moving Vrabel inside prior to the draft, I still believe that Claridge was a more than adequate pick who got hurt during TC.
4) As for Drafted LBs, yes, you missed Casey Tisdale and TJ Turner who were drafted in 2000 and 2001 respectively.

 

[DaBruinz]

I posted this in another thread, but I will post it here as well.

BB's rule of thumb. The game is won in the trenches. Look at who the Pats have drafted with their 1st picks in the 6 drafts since BB got here.

2000 - 2nd round pick - Adrien Klemm - OT
2001 - 1st round pick - Richard Seymour - DT
2001 - 2nd round pick - Matt Light - OT
2002 - 1st round pick - Daniel Graham- TE
2003 - 1st round Pick - Ty Warren - DE/DT
2004 - 1st round pick - Vince Wilfork - DT , Ben Watson - TE
2005 - 1st round pick - Logan Mankins - OT/OG

What's the trend? They are ALL players who play on the Offensive or defensive line.

Now, Box put up a great picture of the responsibilities in the 3-4 defense. And, in it showed the ILBs being redundant over the gaps that the NT and DEs shared. Its my belief that the ILBs, in BB's philosophy are NOT considered part of the D-line or they are considered 2nd tier. Whereas, its my belief that OLB IS considered to be part of the D-line.

Now, FF mentioned the fact that the Pats have brought in guys like Colvin and Vrabel. Well, FWIW, BB wanted Vrabel when BB was with the Jets. The problem was that Parcells had already chose Farrior for the Jets. And the Jets needed offense so they took Ward instead.

Now, lets go back to 2003. It was another very weak LB draft. Colvin was a free agent. What was the better value? Getting Colvin of course. It also helped that the Pats needed defensive line help as well.

This is why I believe that OLB has the highest value offering for the Patriots. The free agent class, this year, for 3-4 OLBs was almost non-existant outside of Willie McGinest, who got a great deal from Cleveland. The class for 3-4 ILB is almost as week.

But there is a lot of strength in the draft for the 3-4 OLB. 3-4 ILB continues to be a weakness, though Chris Cogong or Travis Havner for the ILB position would be nice.

 

[DaBruinz]

We're down Phifer, TJ, Chad Brown Chatham and McGinest, without any real replacement. LB has been the roster strength of this team for years, but that core group has been cut dramatically over the last few years to the point where now, with McGinest in Cleveland, LB may be our greatest roster weakness... arguably more urgent WR.

After losing Eaton, BB drafted Seymour. After losing Armstrong, BB drafted Light. After losing Andruzzi, BB drafted Mankins. After losing Washington, BB drafted Wilfork. To me, losing McGinest, and drafting Carpenter would follow the pattern very well.

The first four picks will be LB, DB, OL and WR... although the actual order probably depends on the individuals available and the overall "shape" of the draft board.

Gotta disagree with you Rook. You are counting a couple of spots twice and you are ignoring Claridge and Beisel. Mainly the spots of Phifer and TJ. The Pats filled Phifer's spot with Beisel and TJ's spot with Chad Brown. They can now put Claridge into that spot tentatively. Matt Chatham is a spot that I agree is still open, but Klecko could take that spot or someone else. Chatham was not great on special teams last year. That is why he is gone. I think that Izzo and or Davis could also be gone depending on what the Pats do in the draft and how the rookies do in TC.

 

[DaBruinz]

By the way, along the "nothing's certain" lines....

The Pats' first rounder last year wasn't on anybody's mock draft board. Immediately after the pick I went scrambling around trying to find out what the hell a Logan Mankins was... right now I have Lawson or Hill dancing through my head, or some meteoric (but of course, unfounded) "dropper" who was at number 10 as of April 1... but it's just as likely that I'll have no idea who this guy is.

Kiper: A lot of fans around the league don't know that a double-major in alligator wrestling and Taoist philosophy can have an application in the NFL....

Prepare to research after the draft, not just before.

PFnV

PFnV - To say that Mankins wasn't on anyone's draft board is a huge exaggeration. There were many 2 or 3 people on the ESPN.COM Pats board who had Mankins pegged for the Pats, including one person who had Mankins going to the Pats in the 1st round. And no. I wasn't that person. Also, Mankins was mentioned as a potential 2nd rounder on many draft boards for the Pats.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

PFnV - To say that Mankins wasn't on anyone's draft board is a huge exaggeration. There were many 2 or 3 people on the ESPN.COM Pats board who had Mankins pegged for the Pats, including one person who had Mankins going to the Pats in the 1st round. And no. I wasn't that person. Also, Mankins was mentioned as a potential 2nd rounder on many draft boards for the Pats.

Mankins had really appealed to me before the draft, he just sounded like the kind of guy the Patriots would like. Of course, I was thinking 2nd round not 1st round.