My Approach to this Draft

[mayoclinic]

I don't know if this is worth a separate thread, but I feel like my overall approach to this draft is finally crystallizing. Paradoxically, it's becoming harder for me to mock players, because my approach is based on building out around a couple of guys who should be day 2 prospects.

Last year my approach was pretty simple, with a focus on the defense and adding OL depth. Stork and Fleming weren't my picks (Brandon Thomas and John Urschel were), but they fit the OL part just fine. On defense, my strongest goal was adding a disrupting interior lineman, and Aaron Donald (very unlikely) and Dominique Easley became my top 2 targets. I pretty much viewed any draft that landed either of them as a success, and I was thrilled when the Pats actually took Easley at 29.

This year my priority has been on adding to both lines, which ideally 2 prospects on each side of the LOS. At this point I feel like I've finally settled on the 2 guys that I want the most: DL Marcus Hardison and OL Ali Marpet:

- At 6'3" 307# Hardison has lined up a DE for Arizona St., and has surprising edge speed for such a big guy, but also has the size and strength to play inside. Like Easley, he can line up anywhere from the 9 tech to the 0/1 tech. I think the combination of Hardison and Easley would give the Pats tremendous flexibility and versatility - they would be the DL equivalent of Hightower and Collins.

- Dane Brugler calls Ali Marpet a "bargain basement Zach Martin", and I think he's not that far off of the real thing. He reminds me of both Joel Bitonio and Marcus Cooper in some regards. He is athletic, tough, and has a bit of a chip on his shoulder. I think he will be a year 1 starter and long term LG with versatility at all 5 positions, and I like him as much as Cam Erving.

I think both guys are top 50 talents, or better. But right now neither will probably go that high. Hardison is still flying under the radar, and is probably a 3rd-4th round pick right now. Marpet's stock has been climbing, but as a Division III prospect there may be a ceiling on how high he can go. I'm guessing high 3rd is probably his ceiling (roughly where Jared Veldheer and Terron Amstead went).

So my personal approach would be to target both of these guys on day 2 of the draft. I think both should be attainable. I'd happily use our 2nd and 3rd round picks on them, and trade up at least once if necessary (e.g., a 2nd on one guy and a trade up from 96 to the early-mid 3rd for the other). With a likely 3rd round supplemental pick and an extra early 4th, the Pats should have plenty of ammo to move around. That would leave us our 1st, a supplemental 3rd, a 4th and some late round picks to add the best values.

The rest of my draft would be very flexible. There are a lot of guys I'd be happy with, on all 3 days. Todd Gurley, Bud Dupree, Eddie Goldman, TJ Clemmings, Shaq Thompson, Owamagbe Odighizuwa, Bernardrick McKinney, Danielle Hunter, Jake Fisher, Cedric Ogbuehi, Tevin Coleman, David Johnson, Mario Edwards, Henry Anderson, Byron Jones, Eric Rowe, Max Valles, Ellis McCarthy, DeAndre Smelter, Tre McBride, Kenny Bell, Nick Marshall, Josh Shaw, Darren Waller, just to name a few. I like some more than others. But as long as the Pats added those 2 guys, I'd feel pretty comfortable that they would have upgraded the lines in a big way. The rest would be gravy.

 

[patsfaninpa]

Very plausible. Can't see us using back to back picks. 96 and 97. Why not use our 4th to move up in 3rd? Matt Miller mocked us Jake Fisher in first. Hardison and a move-up for Marpet. That would be an incredible pass-blocking OL. That can get out and block on those screens we like to run. Get me a wr and situational pass-rusher at 97 and 102. I'll do the hokey-pokey.

 

[BobDigital]

I think this is worth a new thread. This draft is interesting in that I feel their is more freedom with the top picks than their mid round picks much like you do. Hardison I think stays right where you say he does. Marpet though is going to rise into maybe even mid second is possible. The upside is too much and someone is going to reach for him. I am all for trading up in the 3rd and taking him and that should not be all that hard. To trade up in the 2nd though if that is what it take would be a very tough call.

I hope that I am wrong about that and we can snag him at 96 cause I would want to keep both our 4ths in this kind of draft. I think him and Bryon Jones are going to rise up a lot higher than we would expect. Not automatically cause they are worth it but because there are GMs that value the combine a lot more than they probably should.

Also I am curious. You list other DTs and OLs in your list of players you would want. If we were to somehow land Goldman would you still be for drafting Hardison too or you look to other spots?

 

[mayoclinic]

Also I am curious. You list other DTs and OLs in your list of players you would want. If we were to somehow land Goldman would you still be for drafting Hardison too or you look to other spots?

Yes. I think Goldman is a very different player from Hardison, and more suited to the middle. I think Hardison is versatile that he can be a valuable chess piece on the DL regardless.

If I was 100% sure that I could get Hardison and Marpet, then I might be more inclined to use the 1st round pick on a "luxury" player - a RB like Gurley, or a chess piece like Shaq Thompson. But there is no crystal ball, and if Goldman were available he would get strong consideration. I think that one could do much worse than have a young front line with Goldman, Hardison and Easley to go along with versatile EDGE players and LBs like Jones, Hightower and Collins.

 

[mayoclinic]

I think this is worth a new thread. This draft is interesting in that I feel their is more freedom with the top picks than their mid round picks much like you do. Hardison I think stays right where you say he does. Marpet though is going to rise into maybe even mid second is possible. The upside is too much and someone is going to reach for him. I am all for trading up in the 3rd and taking him and that should not be all that hard. To trade up in the 2nd though if that is what it take would be a very tough call.

I hope that I am wrong about that and we can snag him at 96 cause I would want to keep both our 4ths in this kind of draft. I think him and Bryon Jones are going to rise up a lot higher than we would expect. Not automatically cause they are worth it but because there are GMs that value the combine a lot more than they probably should.

I think that you can't focus on too many players. Hardison and Marpet are my 2, and I think that the Pats should have the capital to get both on day 2 without breaking the bank. I don't know exactly how high they will end up, but it shouldn't be catastrophic. Marpet could go as high as you say, though I'd be a bit surprised - no Division III player has even been drafted since 1991.

As for the rest, I'd "go with the flow". Some guys will go too high, others will slip through the cracks. It's very hard to predict which, but I'd trust my board and not reach to fill positions based on perceived "need".

Again, this is a very different approach to this draft than I've had in the past, which is why I thought it worth discussing on its own. It's based on (1) 2 guys who I think will go day 2 who I really, really like, and (2) a lot of guys on day 1 and 3 who I like a lot, but not many for whom I would go "all in".

 

[I.M. Fletcher]

Has there ever been so much agreement on binkies before? Between Hardison, Smelter, Marpet, Erving, it seems like we are close to group think on the guys we all want.

There are some individual guys outside of that, but if we walk away with even 2 of those guys, most everyone would be really happy it seems.

 

[Wilfork#75]

I think I've learnt to take the opposite approach to you Mayo, in focusing more on positions and groups of players at a particular slot instead of targeting certain players. I still have my binkies, but by focusing on groups instead of particular players it will be a lot less disappointing when they inevitably don't take my guys. With the number of players available and picks in the draft I think I would only be setting myself up for failure if I focused too much on specific people. And maybe this is because I have spent a lot less time on this draft than in the past so I don't feel as strongly about certain players.

I also think being more patient and reactionary to the draft allows you to be more flexible and take advantage of different opportunities. If you are so focused on Marpet as a OG, what would you do if someone like Scherff fell to 32? (much stranger things have happened). Would you take advantage of the superior talent falling or would you stick with your guy?

I am in no way saying your approach is wrong, this is just how I now look at it after so many years of disappointment missing out on my guys (I still cant believe Alshon Jeffery fell to the 2nd round!)

 

[manxman2601]

Are you planning on starting Marpet from day one because that would be my concern. He looked good at the Senior Bowl, but he wasn't flawless. I think Marpet can easily project to be a starter at LG, I have no worries on that score but my concern is whether he can be from day one or even year one. I'd have no qualms drafting him in round three but I do think there needs to be a plan for having another starter in place at LG just in case Marpet needs development time.

 

[mosi's man]

I very much like this approach Mayo. A question: what do you all think about Erik Armstead at 32? Do you expect him to be available? I like his length, flexibility and upside. It seems that batting down passes has become increasingly important in todays NFL with so many qbs getting rid of the football so quickly. An inside presence who can alter passing lanes might be a great addition to the Pats front. It would allow for additional "beef" as you project later on.

 

[mayoclinic]

I think I've learnt to take the opposite approach to you Mayo, in focusing more on positions and groups of players at a particular slot instead of targeting certain players. I still have my binkies, but by focusing on groups instead of particular players it will be a lot less disappointing when they inevitably don't take my guys. With the number of players available and picks in the draft I think I would only be setting myself up for failure if I focused too much on specific people. And maybe this is because I have spent a lot less time on this draft than in the past so I don't feel as strongly about certain players.

I also think being more patient and reactionary to the draft allows you to be more flexible and take advantage of different opportunities. If you are so focused on Marpet as a OG, what would you do if someone like Scherff fell to 32? (much stranger things have happened). Would you take advantage of the superior talent falling or would you stick with your guy?

I am in no way saying your approach is wrong, this is just how I now look at it after so many years of disappointment missing out on my guys (I still cant believe Alshon Jeffery fell to the 2nd round!)

That's exactly my dilemma. I'm not a fan of focusing on particular players. I think your approach makes sense. But right now, Hardison and Marpet are the 2 guys who I really like. So if Scherff or Erving are on the board at 32 do you go with the sure thing, or do you take the BPA elsewhere and roll the dice that you can get your man later on? I'd be thrilled if the Pats drafted Scherff or Erving, but what I really want them to do is draft Marpet and use the #32 pick on a different area. That pick could still be a lineman - a tackle like TJ Clemmings for example - but not one who projects to LG. But there's clearly a risk involved.

I don't know the answer, and have no idea what the Pats would actually do. But one case that's kind of instructive is Jamie Collins in 2013. The Pats were picking at 29, and they traded back to 52 with Minnesota in a 4-for-1 deal before taking Collins with the 1st pick. Robert Kraft later suggested that they would have taken Collins at 29, or even higher:

"I think we got the equivalent of first-round draft choices in the second and third round, the way I look at it. … like I said, we picked five players in the first 102, which is more than any other team picked. The real strength of the draft … if we had drafted in the top 20-25, we would have taken the same players that we took later.

ttp://sportsglory.com/nfl/robert-kraft-patriots-got-first-round-draft-choices-in-the-second-and-third-round/4104#ixzz3SkuFAcu5

So there certainly seems to be some precedent from targeting a guy in the 2nd round that you think is a 1st round talent but believe will be available. In that case, things worked out very well.

I think your approach is generally safer and more sound. It's usually the approach I've taken. But not for this draft.

 

[mayoclinic]

I very much like this approach Mayo. A question: what do you all think about Erik Armstead at 32? Do you expect him to be available? I like his length, flexibility and upside. It seems that batting down passes has become increasingly important in todays NFL with so many qbs getting rid of the football so quickly. An inside presence who can alter passing lanes might be a great addition to the Pats front. It would allow for additional "beef" as you project later on.

I'm not on the Armstead bandwagon, personally. He intrigued me and I had even mocked him in my early mocks (6 months ago), but he seems more powerful than explosive. I much prefer Hardison, and there are other guys I would probably prefer to Armstead. I actually liked Armond's game better coming out of USC. JMHO.

 

[mayoclinic]

Are you planning on starting Marpet from day one because that would be my concern. He looked good at the Senior Bowl, but he wasn't flawless. I think Marpet can easily project to be a starter at LG, I have no worries on that score but my concern is whether he can be from day one or even year one. I'd have no qualms drafting him in round three but I do think there needs to be a plan for having another starter in place at LG just in case Marpet needs development time.

I need to think about that one. I personally think Marpet can be a day 1 starter, but I'm sure the Pats would want to have a contingency plan. Given how much shuffling of the OL there was this year, I suspect they could handle it. But let me think about that one some more.

 

[cstjohn17]

My Draft Timeline

• For months I will obsess about the draft and free agency, reading thousands of articles .....
• Gradually I get overwhelmed and lose track of the actual time \ dates the draft occurs...
• At the last moment I will panic, get grumpy block out some time to watch just in time to get pulled away by family obligations basically missing the entire draft....

Then I start over by pouring over the draft evaluations and looking to 2016....

Seriously I appreciate the depth and passion that is consistently displayed in this forum. Keep up the good work boys & girl!

 

[IllegalContact]

I am in agreement about the what (line guys on the first 2 picks). I disagree about the priority of the defensive lineman. With Easley, Hardison would be a liability against the run. I don't see Hardison going until much later anyway. I would be in favor of Eddie Goldman, Jordan Philips, or Carl Davis early provided they check out personally. Later, I would be in favor of Terry Williams or Leon Orr.

I just think we need a plan to replace Wilfork's size

 

[mayoclinic]

I am in agreement about the what (line guys on the first 2 picks). I disagree about the priority of the defensive lineman. With Easley, Hardison would be a liability against the run. I don't see Hardison going until much later anyway. I would be in favor of Eddie Goldman, Jordan Philips, or Carl Davis early provided they check out personally. Later, I would be in favor of Terry Williams or Leon Orr.

I just think we need a plan to replace Wilfork's size

Glad to hear a dissenting view. That's what keeps things fresh.

A couple of thoughts:

1. The Pats played almost 75% of the time in sub. Having 2 disruptive guys inside who can generate pressure would be highly valuable in those situations. Hardison is much bigger than Easley at 6' 3 1/7" 301-311#, and while he will never be confused with Vince Wilfork, he can play from the 9 tech to the 0/1. Some teams are having success with a smaller NT who has more disruptive ability. Baltimore had good results with Timmy Jernigan, who is smaller than Hardison, and they had a terrific run D; obviously their line also benefitted from the presence of Haloti Ngata, but Ngata (like Wilfork) is past his prime. Brandon Williams also helped. Seattle had 311# Brandon Mebane, and when he got hurt used 311# Kevin Williams, who has been mainly a 3 tech. Again, they had a very good run defense. I think there are different ways to approach it.

2. I think the combination of Hardison and Easley would allow for tremendous disruption and versatility, with both playing inside and outside at times. I think the disruption and penetration would compensate for the lack of girth inside. It would not, however, be a traditional 2-gapping approach.

3. I agree that you need a bigger guy to plug the middle at times. As far as "replacing Wilfork's size", we already have Sealver Siliga, and I would try and keep Alan Branch. I would also advocate adding someone bigger on day 3, such as Terry Williams, Leon Orr, or Ellis McCarthy (my personal choice of the 3). I'm not sure you need to spend a day 1-2 pick on that guy. Of the guys you mentioned, I'm not a fan of Carl Davis (inconsistent), and Jordan Phillips is a work in progress. Eddie Goldman is definitely on my short list for round 1, as discussed above.

I would personally target Hardison, and plan on adding a bigger DT as well. I'd keep an open mind about Goldman in the 1st if he is on the board, otherwise, I'd plan on adding one of the guys mentioned above on day 3.

Again, disagreement is welcome.

 

[IllegalContact]

As for the OL, I just got a chance to take a look at Marpet.....level of competition is a concern and while he may have tools, I would not expect him to be a contributor next year. Basically a physical guy with nasty habits he won't get away with at the pro level....those will need to be coached out and likely would not be ready for year 1.

I like Cameron Erving......by a pretty wide margin...he can make wendell expendable as he can provide depth at C

I would not be opposed to taking Marpet later in the draft.

 

[mayoclinic]

As for the OL, I just got a chance to take a look at Marpet.....level of competition is a concern and while he may have tools, I would not expect him to be a contributor next year. Basically a physical guy with nasty habits he won't get away with at the pro level....those will need to be coached out and likely would not be ready for year 1.

I like Cameron Erving......by a pretty wide margin...he can make wendell expendable as he can provide depth at C

I would not be opposed to taking Marpet later in the draft.

Again, we disagree, which is fine. I've been all over Cam Erving for 2 years now, and there's nothing that changes my opinion of him. I'd be fine if he ends up being the pick. But I think that Marpet is better and further along than you think, and I think he'll be as good as Erving - a Joel Bitonio to Erving's Zack Martin. I agree he will take some coaching to succeed at the next level (as will most prospects), but I think that's something the Pats can easily provide. The nastiness, physicality, athleticism and work ethic are all there. JMHO, and I could easily be wrong.

 

[IllegalContact]

Glad to hear a dissenting view. That's what keeps things fresh.

A couple of thoughts:

1. The Pats played almost 75% of the time in sub. Having 2 disruptive guys inside who can generate pressure would be highly valuable in those situations. Hardison is much bigger than Easley at 6' 3 1/7" 301-311#, and while he will never be confused with Vince Wilfork, he can play from the 9 tech to the 0/1. Some teams are having success with a smaller NT who has more disruptive ability. Baltimore had good results with Timmy Jernigan, who is smaller than Hardison, and they had a terrific run D; obviously their line also benefitted from the presence of Haloti Ngata, but Ngata (like Wilfork) is past his prime. Brandon Williams also helped. Seattle had 311# Brandon Mebane, and when he got hurt used 311# Kevin Williams, who has been mainly a 3 tech. Again, they had a very good run defense. I think there are different ways to approach it.

2. I think the combination of Hardison and Easley would allow for tremendous disruption and versatility, with both playing inside and outside at times. I think the disruption and penetration would compensate for the lack of girth inside. It would not, however, be a traditional 2-gapping approach.

3. I think adding someone bigger on day 3 like Terry Williams, Leon Orr, or Ellis McCarthy (my personal choice of the 3) to plug the middle when you need it makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure you need to spend a day 1-2 pick on that guy. Of the guys you mentioned, I'm not a fan of Carl Davis (inconsistent), and Jordan Phillips is a work in progress. Eddie Goldman is definitely on my short list for round 1, as discussed above.

I would personally target Hardison, and plan on adding a bigger DT as well. I'd keep an open mind about Goldman in the 1st if he is on the board, otherwise, I'd plan on adding one of the guys mentioned above on day 3.

Again, disagreement is welcome.

the pats won't be playing sub 75% of the time if they can't stop the run.

the thing with guys like Wilfork and Ngata and their talk about being past their prime is their big contracts...you can't teach that size...remove either one and the run defense takes a big hit........need to minimize that.

Hardison is a documented liability versus the run.....he's a solid player...maybe in rounds 3 or 4

I have no issue with using the entire draft on OL/DL......there's little point to drafting a WR until late since either they don't work out or it takes a few years. I could see an LB and RB, but the first the pats need to do is get the 2 big DB's signed.....will make the draft have a much smaller focus.

 

[IllegalContact]

Again, we disagree, which is fine. I've been all over Cam Erving for 2 years now, and there's nothing that changes my opinion of him. I'd be fine if he ends up being the pick. But I think that Marpet is better and further along than you think, and I think he'll be as good as Erving - a Joel Bitonio to Erving's Zack Martin. I agree he will take some coaching to succeed at the next level (as will most prospects), but I think that's something the Pats can easily provide. The nastiness, physicality, athleticism and work ethic are all there. JMHO, and I could easily be wrong.

sure the pats can provide the coaching, but he won't be ready for the NFL in year 1......all his tape is against division 3 and not readily applicable to a level of competition he hasn't played against. They just don't happen that fast

 

[mayoclinic]

sure the pats can provide the coaching, but he won't be ready for the NFL in year 1......all his tape is against division 3 and not readily applicable to a level of competition he hasn't played against. They just don't happen that fast

Maybe, but I don't think it will take as long as you think. Jahri Evans from Division II Bloomsburg (4th round, 2006) started all 16 games as a rookie. Jared Veldheer from Division II Hillsdale (3rd round, 2010) played in all 16 games as a rookie and started 11. Terron Amstead from Division II Arkansas-Pine Bluff (3rd round, 2013) became a full time starter in his 2nd year. I don't think the level of competition is that critical. Marpet showed at the Senior Bowl that he can adapt, and I think he will develop faster than you expect. Again, I could easily be wrong. But there are no guarantees. Jonathan Cooper was considered one of the safest and most NFL-ready prospects in the draft in 2013, and the Cardinals have gotten nothing from he for 2 years due to injury and slow recovery/development.