big mike said:
You seem to be thinking 2006, I'm thinking 2007.
big mike said:
DL? Let's see, Wilfork, Warren, Seymor, Green, and Hill, 4 of whom are very young, and Seymour still has many years left. How exactly is DL a "need"? Throw in Anthony Wright and Dan Klecko, and DL should be solid for years to come. A DL to OLB convert would be a nice choice, but not someone to play DL.
The plurality of pundits on this board consider Klecko a waste of space - while I disagree, he isn't going to compete at Seymour or Warren's level anytime soon. Hill looked like he might be a decent run stuffer in the Ty Warren category when I watched him on tape this year, but he isn't even the pass rusher that Warren is, let alone Seymour. Further, Hill is locked in at LDE, Klecko is much more versatile on the D-line.
In 2007 we have Warren, Wilfork, Green, Hill, and Wright (ERFA) already penciled in, that acknowledges the possibility Seymour will accept a higher offer elsewhere. Acquiring a DT in the 1st or 2nd round seems like good insurance.
big mike said:
TE? Daniel Graham and Ben Watson are going to be here for many years, and get better every year. Fauria seems likely to re-sign. How exactly is TE a need?
Unrestricted Free Agency; a player, such as Graham, who has been in the league at least four years is eligible to sign with any other team who makes him an offer. Since there are a number of clubs who consistently bid higher for a player's services then the Patriots, counting on a player remaining with the club is a bad risk from a management stand point.
Fauria is looking at his 12th season, re-signing him for vet minimum to play third string sounds good to us, but he gets to make his own mind up. Drafting a TE out of a draft class considered extremely strong for TEs answers a need before it becomes critical.
big mike said:
C? Dan Koppen is solid, and some of the OGs are decent backups. Maybe if there's a steal on day 2, but I think a general OG who can play C when needed would be a better option on day 2.
Koppen and Hochstein are both Free Agents in 2007, who do you see making the 2006 roster who can be a C in 2007? I expect Dante is cross-training several players, but until I see who he has on the roster, I can't guess who might fill that role. Drafting a C on the first day isn't high on my list, but looking for a C/G combination who can develop on the Practice Squad is part of my consideration.
big mike said:
CB? Possibly. Samuel, Gay, and Hobbs are all young, and getting better every year. Could use more depth, but it depends on Starks and Poole. A possible need.
Samuel, Starks, and Poole are not signed beyond 2006. That leaves Gay, Hobbs, and mystery-man. CB is always a need for this defensive scheme, looking for the next Ty Law is an ongoing effort. Looking for young players who fit the scheme and can develop quickly (like Gay and Hobbs) is a must each draft, and critical when your two year outlook is an empty secondary.
big mike said:
IMO, the team has no "needs" as far as finding a starter for next year. THe biggest needs though likely are developing LBs to eventually replace the current starters (Colvin and McGinest at OLB, Vrabel and Bruschi at ILB) since they're all getting older. That's likely the biggest need, and I'd like to see two of the day 1 picks spent there.
Technically, the starting LB slots for 2006 are filled and the reserve LBs are decent. Age is a factor, but developing college LBs and DEs into NEP 3-4 LBs is time consuming so looking for good young prospects is always a need - there was more hair pulling last year when BB ignored draftnik favorites like Crowder and Thurman to take Mankins.
If things work out in Feb 2007, NE won't be picking 21st. So that draft position will hopefully be a rare opportunity to select another Wilfork-quality player who drops to us. Stating that LB is the primary need doesn't mean the LBs available at 21 are those best selected then. As a GM-wannabe, I'm more inclined to look at DTs or a Willie McGinest-like DE and shop for LBs in free agency.
big mike said:
Other potential need could be a young RB since Faulk and Dillon are both getting up there, but not a critical need for next year (if there's a good bargain, take him, otherwise, it can wait). WR is a possibility, depending on who returns.
Unlike many, I don't see our current RBs as being a problem. We have a RB allocated to NFLE, and assuming Evans is resigned that gives us 5 to work with. Drafting one of the studs everybody is drooling over only makes sense if you see the next Curtis Martin out there - I can't say I do.
WR is a shortfall on the 2006 roster, there are Branch and Johnson, ERFA's Sam and Childress, plus Musinski sent to NFLE. Signing a vet minimum FA gets the team that much further ahead then placing the burden on a rookie WR. We can expect Dwight and Davis to be interested in coming back. I'd re-sign Troy Brown in a heartbeat for vet minimum, he still makes things happen and is getting better at CB with more experience. Look at Childress and Anderson who came to camp as UDFAs, finding more like that shouldn't be too hard.
big mike said:
Other than getting some good young LBs, for the most part I think it will be just looking for good players at almost any position (except P and K), since the team is pretty solid. After LB though, WR and RB seem like the biggest possibile needs, and possibly OL.
We differ on our needs assessment by looking at this for different years.
big mike said:
I agree. I'd say that they could trade the pick for a first rounder next year and hopefully a 2nd rounder this year, except that this year looks stacked with good LBs, so it would be nice to get one of them (unless a guy like Lendell White drops).
I don't know what trade your agreeing to, I suggested the projected 2006 roster may give BB the luxury of using his first round selection on a college DE to understudy Willie, Rosie, and Vrabes given the kind of athletic and football talent they display is more often found in the first round. That doesn't mean that is what I would do, but it is a consideration I'm pondering.