LB Situation - A Little Repetition Won't Hurt

[mgteich]

We've discussed this issue at length many times during this off-season and we will continue to do so. The issue is that important. Of course, it is nowhere near as critical as some would make it, but that is another story/thread.

Let us consider that we have SEVEN linebacker positions for those who are actually expected to have reps at linebacker and contribute. That leaves out the STers who need to beat out other special teamers to make the team. Players like Izzo have ST positions, not LB positions. And yes, a developmental LB could make the team, as a developmental incactive player, even if nothing was expected in the first year. A DE convert MIGHT fit into this category.
=============================================
AS IT IS
Thomas, Bruschi, Vrabel, Colvin
Alexander, Woods, Mays

DECISION: How good are the backups? How much upside do they have? How many will make the team? How critical is the situation?

I know some think that the starting four are a bunch of over the hill players. Obviously, they know very little about analyzing football teams or players.

MY CONCLUSIONS:

1) At most, one of the backups should be expected to contribute at LB in 2007.
2) At least one top LB must be brought in this year OR NEXT (a fa) to replace Bruschi, since it is expected that he will retire after the 2007 season. If he stays, his role will be much diminished in 2008.
=========================================
THIS DRAFT IS THE WHOLE ANSWER, OR IS IT?

We have been in this situation for several years.

The solutions for starting positions have been to bring in Colvin, Vrabel and Thomas. Is it so terrible if bb continues this trend and brings in a free agent to replace Bruschi or to share reps with him? I know this is heresy for those who believe that the answer to EVERY SINGLE need must be the draft.

For backups, we have brought in Cox, Phifer and Brown. Two out three isn't bad. I don't count Beisel because he was signed as a Ster, when we need a position linebacker. Gardner was also brought in as a STER and could be brought back again. We also had an OK backup in Banta-Cain.

If Hartwell and Seau are brought in (or two other vets), we would have solved the "problem" by signing Thomas, Seau and Hartwell (or Thomas plus two). And we will decide on whether there is one of our current three backups who might contribute. Perhaps, one will make the team as a STer, and one LB will be drafted to be the #7 LB, a role that Woods had in 2006.
======================
MY EXPECTATION
I expect that we will sign two LB's and draft two. The draftees may or not be expected to contribute this year; one might not even make the team.
=====================
BOTTOM LINE

STARTERS (4) Thomas, Bruschi, Vrabel, Colvin
BACKUPS (3) fa, fa, draftee/Woods/Alexander
SPECIAL TEAMERS (1-3): Izzo, draftee/Woods/Alexander

If Hartwell and Seau were signed, my evaluation is that we have addressed the LB in a way much better than could be expected, even without any draftees.

And yes, I would much better have Hartwell and picks rather than Willis. I might even use one of the picks to draft Harris or Bradley.

 

[AzPatsFan]

The only on of the "reserves" who might have an upside in say year 2009 is Pierre Woods. And that is a stretch assertion to make.

Mays and Alexander (and Izzo) are not now and never will be adequate starting LBs. Scrubs they are, and scrubs they will always be.

Why do I say this? TBC demonstrated flashes of competitiveness in even his injury marred rookie year. Others may recall the same from Tedy in the mid nineties. Ditto for Mr Irrelevant, Marty Moore. Izzo has more then amply shown he is never to be on a regular Defense.

Mays, and Alexander who has several years to demonstrate any modicum of possibilities. Instead Eric has shown nothing. Mays has had less opportunity, but there is no "spark" there either. Therefor I'm sure they never will.

Willis is a good MLB who can play an adequate to good WILB position in the 3-4. Many of his talents are wasted there, though.

His praise comes from 4-3 scouts viewing him as a 4-3 MLB, as much as from the smaller group of 3-4 talent scouts. In a sense he is over-rated for a 3-4 ILB; with his value to all, he will probably go before the Pats could draft him.

 

[14thDragon]

Let us consider that we have SEVEN linebacker positions for those who are actually expected to have reps at linebacker and contribute. That leaves out the STers who need to beat out other special teamers to make the team.
=============================================
AS IT IS
Thomas, Bruschi, Vrabel, Colvin
Alexander, Woods, Mays

DECISION: How good are the backups? How much upside do they have? How many will make the team? How critical is the situation?

I know some think that the starting four are a bunch of over the hill players. Obviously, they know very little about analyzing football teams or players.

We will discount the last statement, as it is not really conducive to open debate

MY CONCLUSIONS:

1) At most, one of the backups should be expected to contribute at LB in 2007.
2) At least one top LB must be brought in this year OR NEXT (a fa) to replace Bruschi, since it is expected that he will retire after the 2007 season. If he stays, his role will be much diminished in 2008.

I would agree with conclusion 2, though would expand it to either a draft pick or a fa.

Conclusion one, completely disagree with; I would say at least 2 of the back-ups should be expected to significantly contribute and all back-ups be ready to contribute. The likelihood of injury is fairly high and none of our current LBs can do everything the position requires at the level it will be required. A rotation will be critical to maintaining effectiveness throughout the season. Current back-ups are insufficient to this task.

=========================================
THIS DRAFT IS THE WHOLE ANSWER, OR IS IT?

The solutions for starting positions have been to bring in Colvin, Vrabel and Thomas. Is it so terrible if bb continues this trend and brings in a free agent to replace Bruschi or to share reps with him?

If Hartwell and Seau are brought in (or two other vets), we would have solved the "problem" by signing Thomas, Seau and Hartwell (or Thomas plus two).

If a problem can be addressed in free agency or trade, so be it. But currently the fa market is a thin, and carries a prohibitive price tag. The ability of the Patriots to find help in fa at the right price is dictated by the market, which shows few replacement prospects for Bruschi. Hartwell and Seau have serious injury concerns and have not shown in the past few seasons to be able to survive 16 games. Neither would be a sure contributor this year or a possible replacement next year.

Using first day draft picks to shore up spots where veterans are declining is a tested and true route. It has worked on the o-line, d-line, running back and defensive back. That it would now be an avenue to upgrade an aging line backing core is not unreasonable.

======================
MY EXPECTATION
I expect that we will sign two LB's and draft two. The draftees may or not be expected to contribute this year; one might not even make the team.
=====================

My expectation is drafting of 1 first day LB and 1-2 second day LB, with the possibility of on more fa. The first day draftee would be expected to contribute in rotation and ascend to a starting role next season. The second day guys would be competing for ST and back-up roles. Hopefully from Woods/Alexander/Mays/draftees one would eventually rise in consideration for possibly starting next season or the season after. The fa would be an insurance policy only.

BOTTOM LINE

STARTERS (4) Thomas, Bruschi, Vrabel, Colvin
BACKUPS (3) fa, fa, draftee/Woods/Alexander
SPECIAL TEAMERS (1-3): Izzo, draftee/Woods/Alexander

STARTERS (4) Thomas, Bruschi, Vrabel, Colvin (opening day)
BACKUPS (4) draftee, draftee, Alexander/fa, Woods/draftee
SPECIAL TEAMERS (4): Izzo, Woods/draftee, Alexander, Mays/draftee

If Hartwell and Seau were signed, my evaluation is that we have addressed the LB in a way much better than could be expected, even without any draftees.

And yes, I would much better have Hartwell and picks rather than Willis. I might even use one of the picks to draft Harris or Bradley.

Hartwell, Seau or both would only be a one year band-aid that would not address the problem long term and would still leave the team horribly exposed to injury. Both have missed significant playing time in the past 2 seasons due to injury.

Linebacker is currently the spot with most need for upgrade in the depth as well as needs for full time starters in the very near future. The addition of players for this position through the draft is at a critical point. As such, trading up to get a top-end talent such as Willis (in the 13-17 range) is a value move. Staying put and drafting a LB in either the 24 or 28 slot is also a value move. Both options would yield superior long term results then bringing in any currently available free agents.

 

[spacecrime]

Conclusion one, completely disagree with; I would say at least 2 of the back-ups should be expected to significantly contribute

You are more optimistic than I am. At least two? Yikes! Three, then? Surely not four. We only have four backups total, don't we? Mays, Woods, Alexander, and Izzo

Which three backups do you expect to make significant contributions?

I would not expect to get significant contributions from more than one of those four.

 

[mgteich]

Since the day bb took over the team, a large number of posters have made the following assessments:

1) That the starting linebackers were getting old and would soon need to be replaced.

2) That seasoned veterans, who might be one year fixes, were not part of the solution

3) That the market for free agents was such that it would be too costly to count on that method for re-stocking and meetin linebacker needs.

4) That we MUST draft 2-3 linebackers, including a Round 1 or Round 2 stud who would be expected to start in Year One or Year Two.

and for some,
5) That there was a particular linebacker that the CONSENSUS KNEW would be THE solution to perceived LB and defensive problems for the forseeable future. I recall when Napolean Harris was that player ( I was part of that group). Last year it was Lawson. This year, it is Willis.

To state the obvious: the patriots have had excellent production from their linebackers for 2001-2006. Somehow, the patriots got lucky.
=====================================
OPTIONS FOR POSTERS

1) Continue to ignore any and all evidence, and expect the patriots to fill needs as the poster would.

2) Not to ignore facts, but to continue to beleive that their plan would work oh so much better than that chosen by the patriots.

3) Continue to try to twist what bb chooses into believing that the reality fits our way of thinking.

4) Try to assess how bb will solve the perceived needs.

5) Try to assess the options, knowing that we will only rarely be right, right to be determined by results on the field in patriot games, and in bb's actual choices in methods to fill the needs and in the draft.

I CHOOSE CHOICE FOUR AND FIVE
I have long ago stopped believing that the patriots MUST choose a player at this position or that. I have long ago stopped thinking that I knew better than bb how to secure the services of linebackers who would contribute in our system. I have also stopped believing the value of a player on the draft board for a 43 linebacker has any relationship at all to bb's assessment of the player as a 34 linebacker.

I hope that I do NOT do this because the methods of the patriots are unknowable. I hope that I will get better and better at understanding how the patriots fill needs, and understand that the patriots do a pretty good job.
=============================================

THE SKY IS NOT FALLING
IMHO, the linebacking corps in the playoffs was an excellent one. Also, I believe their performance was fine. My personal belief is if they needed a bit more health (or a home game against SD) and we would have won the SB. And yes, I do understand that the injuries to older players like Seau is predictable. For that reason, I would prefer more veterans as backups. And yes, I believe that Manning and the colts had an excellent half that exploited our defense, given how long our defense was on the field.

======================================================
AND FINALLY. THE OFFENSE HAD ISSUES IN THE SECOND HALF ALSO

There was about 3:30 left in the game and Brady had 3rd and 11 in a tie game. The game could have been put totally out of reach with a first down or perhaps two. Brady had ZERO healthy running backs available. If he did, there would have been :30 on the clock instead of 3:30 and we could have set up for a winning field goal.

IMHO, in past years, Brady would have passed twice. Surely, surely, Mr. Clutch had some ONE receiver he could count on for one catch in two tries. I don't recall who was available, but I do believe that Troy was. Tom and Josh had so little trust in their receivers that a run was called to set up a field goal. The defense had to rip out their IV's and stop massaging their cramps and come on the field yet again. They had already been on the field probably more than any other unit in this year's playoff. They were sick, there were weak. In addition, they were playing the best offense in football, with a QB having a great half. But even this depleted defense was apparently a better option than the offense!!

I also believe that if the offense had been on the field more in the game (needed running game and trusted receivers), the defense could have held at the end, if that was even needed.

There is ABSLUTELY NO QUESTION in my mind that if we had two healthy running backs and one receiver anywhere near the quality of Branch available in the second half, or even in the last drive, we would have won the SB. In fact, I personally believe that two trusted receivers available in the last 3:30 (or even one) would have been sufficient. (And, no I wouldn't have signed Branch for what he wanted)

So, I am not surprised that Dillon is gone. I am not surprised that we have added a running back and three receivers. I am not surprised that we may still be looking for a receiver, a running back and an OT, as POTENTIAL draft picks. And having replaced Banta-Cain with Thomas, I am not surprised that linebacker has had more discussion on boards and in the media than anywhere else.

Yes, the unspoken, and undoubtedly real, need is in the defensive backfield where we have Hobbs and Sanders signed for 2008, and no one else. So, I am also not surprised at mocks that have us choosing two db's in the first two (or three picks).

Sure, for many, anyone who doesn't have a linebacker picked in the first or second round is undoubtedly considered nuts on these boards. However, they may also have the correct assessment of needs, and the correct assessment of the value of draftees. Or not. And of course, the same ridicule can be cast on anyone who suggests that might/should draft a RB or a WR on Day One. Again their analysis might just be better than the others posting. Or not.

And, in the end, it might be hard to tell, although we will have SOME clue by who is passed by, as Lawson was last year.
===========================================

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

1) That the starting linebackers were getting old and would soon need to be replaced.

2) That seasoned veterans, who might be one year fixes, were not part of the solution

3) That the market for free agents was such that it would be too costly to count on that method for re-stocking and meetin linebacker needs.

4) That we MUST draft 2-3 linebackers, including a Round 1 or Round 2 stud who would be expected to start in Year One or Year Two.

and for some,
5) That there was a particular linebacker that the CONSENSUS KNEW would be THE solution to perceived LB and defensive problems for the forseeable future. I recall when Napolean Harris was that player ( I was part of that group). Last year it was Lawson. This year, it is Willis.

To state the obvious: the patriots have had excellent production from their linebackers for 2001-2006. Somehow, the patriots got lucky.
=====================================
OPTIONS FOR POSTERS

1) Continue to ignore any and all evidence, and expect the patriots to fill needs as the poster would.

2) Not to ignore facts, but to continue to beleive that their plan would work oh so much better than that chosen by the patriots.

3) Continue to try to twist what bb chooses into believing that the reality fits our way of thinking.

4) Try to assess how bb will solve the perceived needs.

5) Try to assess the options, knowing that we will only rarely be right, right to be determined by results on the field in patriot games, and in bb's actual choices in methods to fill the needs and in the draft.

1. Who cares? We all argue and ignore each other's football wisdom as it suits us, most days we're just having fun. Individuals who get too riled up usually settle down in time.

2. See #1.

3. See #1.

4. See #1.

5. See #1.

How do you define "significant contributions" as they pertain to the current reserve LBs? I'd have said Special Teams was a significant contribution...

At present BB has four avenues to use to address LB depth: Trade, Free Agency, Draft, or additional repetitions for the current reserves. There might even be a fifth avenue - convert someone currently at another position (he said snickering at the coffee spewing forth as people read this).

Some have pointed out that Lance Briggs is a potential trade option. It's not out of reason to ponder the possibility. Others have listed the Free Agents available and pondered their potential in this system. Again, a not unreasonable approach. Draftniks ponder the current crop and try to devine their value to the Patriots. No harm in that. You seem to be looking to worry the sore tooth by projecting the improvement of one of those lads currently on the roster. Not an invalid approach, just one that offers no comfort before Mrs. B and 726 resuming training camp reports.

As long as you want to stir the pot, which non-linebacker on the roster will BB convert? I think the first team All-American and former high school linebacker is staring us in the face.

 

[patchick]

Not being privy to the real behind-the-scenes story, we're all left trying to divine a strategy from results. Scott Pioli addressed this in the case of the Patriots' seeming change in strategy with the FA market. And I know I was certain that the FO would never, ever draft an interior lineman in the 1st round....

But even if we trust the available "evidence" on drafting LBs, it's equivocal. Focusing solely on the position we'd conclude that the team just doesn't draft to fill it. Focusing on broader player acquisition patterns, we might come away with a different idea. We might look at how positions like NT and RB were filled by a succession of short-term vets, with championship results...and then long-term answers were found at the top of the draft. We might even suggest that the same team that drafted Dillon's replacement a year early could draft Bruschi's replacement a year early. And if we did, we'd hope not to be accused of "ignoring facts" or "twisting reality," but simply looking at the same tea leaves and reading a different fortune.

Right now, the Patriots have a moderate short-term need and major long-term need at ILB. So fans are talking about ILBs in the draft. Makes sense to me.

 

[Fencer]

A few years ago, the Pats had a pretty good top-five LB set of McGinest, Vrabel, Bruschi, Johnson, and Phifer. 3 of the 5 were aging, however, so they brought in Colvin.

Now they have a pretty good top-four of Colvin, Thomas, Bruschi, and Vrabel. 1 or 2 are aging, however.

Whatever else happens, there's definitely room for FAs.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Looking back at previous rosters, BBb usually carries 9 LBs,every year.

Six LBs who are slated to play regular snaps; one is is a ST only specialist; and the other two who are both ST and either developmental players or a unique specialist like Don Davis.

Izzo was the ST only specialist.

Bruschi, Vrabel, Colvin, and Seau w (Gardner/Besiel/TBC) as the fifth & sixth "regular" reserve.

Eric, Mays and Woods were ST developmental players

Don Davis was a ST and unique specialist status as the "Pass coverage LB" specialist. TBC had a status as a unique "Pass Rush LB" specialist too.

We really needed Don Davis is the second half of the AFCCG. Too bad he was on IR and unavailable.

Now Davis is retired; Beisel was cut. Gardner hasn't (yet) been re-signed. Seau hasn't (yet) been re-signed. TBC signed elsewhere. AD was signed.

So we have four regular defense players of six.
We have the ST specialist re-signed, Izzo.

So five of nine positions are assured,heading into the draft and mini-camps.

We have three ST/developmental players re-signed/tendered in Mays, Alexander and Woods together with a vacancy. None of the three is assured of a position. One or several could be replaced, and none of the three appears ready to assume one of the 5th-6th regular reserve positions.

So there appears to be one to four positions open to change from FA, Draft or trades.

 

[mgteich]

I agree, except that we could carry only eight, with one of the ST positions going to the safeties who also are competing for Special team positions.

For me, the primary issue is how we will fill the two "regular" linebacker positions. And yes, I understand that we could sign a developmental player.

Looking back at previous rosters, BBb usually carries 9 LBs,every year.

Six LBs who are slated to play regular snaps; one is is a ST only specialist; and the other two who are both ST and either developmental players or a unique specialist like Don Davis.

Izzo was the ST only specialist.

Bruschi, Vrabel, Colvin, and Seau w (Gardner/Besiel/TBC) as the fifth & sixth "regular" reserve.

Eric, Mays and Woods were ST developmental players

Don Davis was a ST and unique specialist status as the "Pass coverage LB" specialist. TBC had a status as a unique "Pass Rush LB" specialist too.

We really needed Don Davis is the second half of the AFCCG. Too bad he was on IR and unavailable.

Now Davis is retired; Beisel was cut. Gardner hasn't (yet) been re-signed. Seau hasn't (yet) been re-signed. TBC signed elsewhere. AD was signed.

So we have four regular defense players of six.
We have the ST specialist re-signed, Izzo.

So five of nine positions are assured,heading into the draft and mini-camps.

We have three ST/developmental players re-signed/tendered in Mays, Alexander and Woods together with a vacancy. None of the three is assured of a position. One or several could be replaced, and none of the three appears ready to assume one of the 5th-6th regular reserve positions.

So there appears to be one to four positions open to change from FA, Draft or trades.

 

[AzPatsFan]

The major point I was making is that there are up to four vacancies at LB.

Meanwhile people want to draft a CB or Safety to improve a four or five deep position, when they have 8 or 9 players at each position already. And more than the usually kept four/five also have proven starting abilities at each of CB and S.

Bill has always tried both to build a complete team with no glaring holes anywhere; and to build depth within the context of addressing more strategic positions first, QB, DL, OL, DB, RB and meanwhile patching elsewhere.

The need to patch at LB is now over and finished, IMHO,since all the other strategic positions are fully manned. So he can finally address LB in the draft. I take it highly significant that he has not signed ANY projected "regular reserve LBs" up to now. After the draft when he knows what he has achieved there, he then will. I think from a previous analysis that there are up to four openings at LB that he can fill or keep the unproven incumbent.

 

[DW Toys]

We've discussed this issue at length many times during this off-season and we will continue to do so. The issue is that important. Of course, it is nowhere near as critical as some would make it, but that is another story/thread.

Let us consider that we have SEVEN linebacker positions for those who are actually expected to have reps at linebacker and contribute. That leaves out the STers who need to beat out other special teamers to make the team. Players like Izzo have ST positions, not LB positions. And yes, a developmental LB could make the team, as a developmental incactive player, even if nothing was expected in the first year. A DE convert MIGHT fit into this category.
=============================================
AS IT IS
Thomas, Bruschi, Vrabel, Colvin
Alexander, Woods, Mays

DECISION: How good are the backups? How much upside do they have? How many will make the team? How critical is the situation?

I know some think that the starting four are a bunch of over the hill players. Obviously, they know very little about analyzing football teams or players.

MY CONCLUSIONS:

1) At most, one of the backups should be expected to contribute at LB in 2007.
2) At least one top LB must be brought in this year OR NEXT (a fa) to replace Bruschi, since it is expected that he will retire after the 2007 season. If he stays, his role will be much diminished in 2008.
=========================================
THIS DRAFT IS THE WHOLE ANSWER, OR IS IT?

We have been in this situation for several years.

The solutions for starting positions have been to bring in Colvin, Vrabel and Thomas. Is it so terrible if bb continues this trend and brings in a free agent to replace Bruschi or to share reps with him? I know this is heresy for those who believe that the answer to EVERY SINGLE need must be the draft.

For backups, we have brought in Cox, Phifer and Brown. Two out three isn't bad. I don't count Beisel because he was signed as a Ster, when we need a position linebacker. Gardner was also brought in as a STER and could be brought back again. We also had an OK backup in Banta-Cain.

If Hartwell and Seau are brought in (or two other vets), we would have solved the "problem" by signing Thomas, Seau and Hartwell (or Thomas plus two). And we will decide on whether there is one of our current three backups who might contribute. Perhaps, one will make the team as a STer, and one LB will be drafted to be the #7 LB, a role that Woods had in 2006.
======================
MY EXPECTATION
I expect that we will sign two LB's and draft two. The draftees may or not be expected to contribute this year; one might not even make the team.
=====================
BOTTOM LINE

STARTERS (4) Thomas, Bruschi, Vrabel, Colvin
BACKUPS (3) fa, fa, draftee/Woods/Alexander
SPECIAL TEAMERS (1-3): Izzo, draftee/Woods/Alexander

If Hartwell and Seau were signed, my evaluation is that we have addressed the LB in a way much better than could be expected, even without any draftees.

And yes, I would much better have Hartwell and picks rather than Willis. I might even use one of the picks to draft Harris or Bradley.

Excellent Job Cousin,
I am with you. Hartwell can start today. No LB draftee in the BB tenure in NE will start. Get a Willis or a Harris or a Bradley and have them learn. I think 28 year old Hartwell is a steal and was coming back strong in his last few games with the Falcons. Your right. At this second, Hartwell is better than any of them.
DW Toys

 

[satz]

I think BB prefers Old Foxes in his LB core then young studs . He must believe that Youth and Speed can be beat with Cunning and Knowledge when it comes to LB.

A LB operation in our system is to read and react , experience is very critical that system as first reads which are correct is very critical the pursuit speed.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

The Pats defense is extremely disciplined and requires a lot of instincts and reading beofre reacting. Having a guy making the wrong read at LB (See Monty Beisel for example) is probably the worst case scenario for this defense.

In order for a young player to step in and get some significant playing time as a first or second year player, that player needs to be extremely intelligent, discplined and physically tough.

The presnap calls the ILB's make are among the most difficult in the NFL, in my opinion. I'm not saying a young person couldn't learn them, but I am saying that there will be 2 or 3 times per game where that young person hiccups and it will cost us.

At the end of the day I think the reason we have not taken a LB early in previous drafts comes down to availability. The right person for the right seat on the Pats LB bus, as determined by BB, has not been there.

Maybe this year is different. Posluzny and Harris are both exceptionally intelligent and physical. We'll see in about 4 weeks.