No OLB/DE in the first round.

[Interception]

This is just my opinion, and you'll bash me for it, but it makes logical sense.

We can only hope any DE/OLB we draft at #17 will be as good as Seymour was, right?
... but if we're just going to use that #17 pick for another DE, when we already had a great one, why not just lock up the one we already had instead of trading him away?

Belichick: "We didn't go into the draft looking at one player. There are a lot players in that draft that are good players. There are a lot of players in the first round that are good players. There are players after we picked that are good players."

Belichick doesn't look at the teams need as much as he looks at the players. Whichever player is the best one, he'll pick him. This year, there are good DE's and OLB's, but at #17 (or even #10-#32, depending on if we trade), there's bound to be better talent than Watt/whichever else DE/OLB you're interested in.

It doesn't make sense trading a great DE away and taking another DE with the pick, who might not even be as good as the DE you traded. They could've just found a way to lock up Seymour if DE would turn into such a gaping hole without him.

We need a G, but not as badly as some of you make it sound. We had the BEST offensive line this past season. We need to fill in the free agents with decent mid-round picks, not replace the whole line like some of you make it seem.

A CB, WR, or S would help this team a lot.
I think there's a lot more talented WR's available at #17 than DEs, OLBs, CBs, or Safety players.
So I'm expecting a WR early.

Even if you think we desperately NEED a G or DE in the FIRST round,
you have to agree that the way everyone is judging BB's method is flawed.
They're looking at needs, instead of "who does BB think is the best overall player?"
And are any of the possible DEs at #17 really better athletes than any other players available within the #10-#32 overall pick range?

You'll see a DE picked, maybe even more than one... just not in the first round.

 

[Sciz]

We can only hope any DE/OLB we draft at #17 will be as good as Seymour was, right?
... but if we're just going to use that #17 pick for another DE, when we already had a great one, why not just lock up the one we already had instead of trading him away?

Because they already had Wilfork, Mankins, and Brady to worry about, and would rather get a future first than wait a year and get a 3rd round comp pick?

Assuming Seymour plays out his 2-year contract with the Raiders, they will have given him $46.1M over 4 years, including $42.4M over years 2-4. That's more than the Patriots (or any team with a sane owner) would be willing to give him, so he more than likely would have been gone in 2010 free agency, since Wilfork got the tag.

And if that isn't enough, remember that JJ Watt is 22, while Seymour was traded a month before his 30th birthday. Other than QBs, 30 year old NFL players aren't worth first round picks. Seymour was no exception.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Well, there is the question of whether the player you get picking at #17 is going to have the same impact as a player you might get picking at #6? Or for that matter Mayo at #10 or Warren at #13? While NE may be shopping for someone who can perform at a high level long term in Seymour's old position, the reality is there may not be a Seymour equivalent in this class, let alone a hope that he'll be available at eleven slots later in the draft.

Unfortunately, responding to our new Manx poster's challenge of considering alternative positions to DE or OLB, pickings looked very slim at #17. Maybe the one top CB slides, maybe one of the top WRs slide, maybe one of the top OT prospects fits what BB and Scar are trying to build and maintain? It seems worst case scenario is the one RB with a consistent first round projection becomes the only option - things could be worse I guess (has Goodell decided to fine NE for all wearing the same color helmet yet?).

 

[andrewgarrr]

Even if the Patriots were picking in the top two, there is no one close to Seymour.

 

[jukes]

I think heyward is pretty damn close

 

[jeffbiologist]

The obvious thing is that this will be the highest we plan to draft for a while so like the Mayo pick it has to be a good player. I would be happy with any position that a 3 down plug and play player can be found outside of G/C. The number one thing about a first round pick is to make sure you dont miss. That said, DE is both a position of depth in this draft AND a position of need so it would surprise us all if we didnt grab 1 before #34.

 

[manxman2601]

A CB, WR, or S would help this team a lot.
I think there's a lot more talented WR's available at #17 than DEs, OLBs, CBs, or Safety players.
So I'm expecting a WR early.

Not without a trade up there aren't. If we are picking at #17, the only options are likely to be RB, G, OT, DE, OLB unless we give away lots of value or are extremely lucky that someone falls.

I think it's wrong to compare any pick to previous Belichick greats, all that can be achieved in this draft is to get the best players to advance the fortunes of this team in the short to medium term. and I'm pretty sure that's the way Belichick looks at it, not fretting about whether someone is as good as Seymour or Vrabel.

 

[WhiZa]

I think heyward is pretty damn close

considering Seymour was a DT coming out of college I think you might be comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

considering Seymour was a DT coming out of college I think you might be comparing apples to oranges.

Never mind any consistency questions.

 

[jukes]

theres always going to be scrutiny and heyward just looks like a patriot player to me

 

[VJCPatriot]

DE/DL is the deepest position in this year's draft. You can't just say, well there's no Seymour in this draft, we might as well give up and go home. LOL. I think the Pats are doing their homework. It might take a small trade up to get their guy. But I think they'll get it done. They have the ammo and I'm sure they also have their mocks to see what players they want may slip and where might be a good place to trade up.

The way I see it, trade up from 17 and trade down from 28. You assure yourself of getting your guy a bit earlier in the first, and the dropoff from 28 to 40-50 range isn't that big in this year's draft. Plus there's always pick 33 to factor in as well.

 

[manxman2601]

DE/DL is the deepest position in this year's draft. You can't just say, well there's no Seymour in this draft, we might as well give up and go home. LOL. I think the Pats are doing their homework. It might take a small trade up to get their guy. But I think they'll get it done. They have the ammo and I'm sure they also have their mocks to see what players they want may slip and where might be a good place to trade up.

The way I see it, trade up from 17 and trade down from 28. You assure yourself of getting your guy a bit earlier in the first, and the dropoff from 28 to 40-50 range isn't that big in this year's draft. Plus there's always pick 33 to factor in as well.

Or, trade up from #17, trade up from #28. If BB has Kerrigan, Wilkerson sitting atop his board, that' probably the way he'll have to go. Wikerson probably won't make it past New Orleans, Seattle, Baltimore so we'll probably have to give up #92 to get him. Kerrigan could go anywhere between #11 and #16 and would mean giving up 60 or 74. But that still leaves us with #33, 60/74 and whatever picks any trade downs would generate plus three late picks.

I'm at a loss to understand this obsession with trading down. Trading forward sure, but we don't need to accumulate picks within this draft because they'll be wasted. Getting lower round value is fine if they improve the team but I'm at a loss to find, for example, a safety better then Meriweather or Chung in the draft, a corner better than Bodden, a WR better (now or in the future) than Branch, Price or Tate etc. And if that's the case, why bother picking them?

I suppose it all comes down to what stage of the rebuilding process BB thinks we are. I look at the squad and think that most of the core are in place, nows the time to start adding the real quality.

 

[reflexblue]

I think heyward is pretty damn close

No one thought Seymour was Seymour until he played in the pros. I don't think anyone can say so and so is close to being Seymour until they play in the NFL. IMO Seymour (before he was injured) was the best D-lineman to ever play for the pats. While there are a few players out there in this draft that i think have the potential to play at Seymours level, Heyward is Not one of them. Darous and Fairly were the closest in college to what Seymour looked like in the pros.

 

[Off The Grid]

... but if we're just going to use that #17 pick for another DE, when we already had a great one, why not just lock up the one we already had instead of trading him away?

Ummm....Because we CAN'T??

Evidently you haven't heard: Richard Seymour is under contract to the Oakland Raiders.

Therefore: "locking him up" is not an option available to us. See how that works??

 

[Interception]

Ummm....Because we CAN'T??

Evidently you haven't heard: Richard Seymour is under contract to the Oakland Raiders.

Therefore: "locking him up" is not an option available to us. See how that works??

Key phrase: when we had

Those are past tense words. As in, "when we could've, why didn't we?"
As in, while he was in NE.
Had, not have.
See how that works?

 

[Off The Grid]

Key phrase: when we had

Those are past tense words. As in, "when we could've, why didn't we?"
As in, while he was in NE.
Had, not have.
See how that works?

So you're proposing...what?

That we go back in time?? Brilliant!! GREAT Draft Strategy!!

 

[Off The Grid]

Key phrase: when we had

Those are past tense words. As in, "when we could've, why didn't we?"
As in, while he was in NE.
Had, not have.
See how that works?

WRONG!!

HERE is your actual quote:

... but if we're just going to use that #17 pick for another DE, when we already had a great one, why not just lock up the one we already had instead of trading him away?

Clearly, you're struggling, somewhere below a 4th Grade level, with the fundamentals of verb tenses.

....which of course makes your fumbling attempt to lecture me on them doubly amusing.

Good luck with that.

 

[jukes]

No one thought Seymour was Seymour until he played in the pros. I don't think anyone can say so and so is close to being Seymour until they play in the NFL. IMO Seymour (before he was injured) was the best D-lineman to ever play for the pats. While there are a few players out there in this draft that i think have the potential to play at Seymours level, Heyward is Not one of them. Darous and Fairly were the closest in college to what Seymour looked like in the pros.

I'm not saying cam will be or better than seymour, but when i see cam play he reminds me a little bit of richard and can see him in a our uniform

 

[stinkypete]

Or, trade up from #17, trade up from #28. If BB has Kerrigan, Wilkerson sitting atop his board, that' probably the way he'll have to go. Wikerson probably won't make it past New Orleans, Seattle, Baltimore so we'll probably have to give up #92 to get him. Kerrigan could go anywhere between #11 and #16 and would mean giving up 60 or 74. But that still leaves us with #33, 60/74 and whatever picks any trade downs would generate plus three late picks.

I'm at a loss to understand this obsession with trading down. Trading forward sure, but we don't need to accumulate picks within this draft because they'll be wasted. Getting lower round value is fine if they improve the team but I'm at a loss to find, for example, a safety better then Meriweather or Chung in the draft, a corner better than Bodden, a WR better (now or in the future) than Branch, Price or Tate etc. And if that's the case, why bother picking them?

I suppose it all comes down to what stage of the rebuilding process BB thinks we are. I look at the squad and think that most of the core are in place, nows the time to start adding the real quality.

I'm surprised in the relative lack of talk about Kerrigan. He's got the size and quickness (I said quickness, not speed), motor and intangibles to fit with this defense. Plus, he's a monster on tape. The guy just creates sacks and forces fumbles.

Heyward or Ellis can be had in round 2 and, IMO, are not much of a dropoff from Watt or Wilkerson. I say move up for Kerrigan, trade down from 28, and get one of those DEs.

 

[stevedogc]

Richard Seymour will have nothing to do with whether or not the Pats pick a DE/OLB in the first. As already stated in this thread, Seymour was one of three Pats, including Wilfork and Brady, who were going to need new contracts and were looking to be paid at the top of their position. They also new that they had Logan Mankins looking for a new contract shortly thereafter. Im guessing the Pats put both Wilfork and Brady ahead of Seymour in terms of who they preferred to give top dollar too. Brady is the face of the franchise and Wilfork was younger and healthier the Seymour and some may say more valuable in that he plays the nose position. Seymour was knicked up alot over his last couple of years as a Patriot and was a real thorn in the Pats side in past contracts. Im guessing BB didnt see the value in giving a DE pushing 30 a long term deal worth top dollar. Especially if he could get a 1st round pick for him.

It all depends on where BB see's the best value. If Watt at #17 is that or Heyward or Wilkerson at #28 is that, then he will draft the player. Taking into account Seymour three years ago makes no sense becuase there were too many other factors in why Seymour was traded. Which will have nothing to do with a 1st round rookie coming into the league.