So what holes do we still need to fill (FA)

[notex]

My "needs" list for the team has shifted quite a bit....
These positions NEED to be addressed somehow in FA / Trades

Regardless, here are a few spots I think we NEED to fill before the draft as a rookie just won't do...and how many QUALITY players do we need before we feel comfortable??

1.) TE (x2)
2.) MLB
3.) WR (2)
4.) DL / OLB (passrushers - 2 ideally)
5.) Punter


That is 8 spots to fill as far as im concerned...even if we draft perfectly with our first 4 picks, we still have 4 major holes to fill...


Things to consider

1. Crable
2. Mckenzie
3. Tate

I would guess ONE of these 3 steps up and fills a hole...


Analysis: We need to sign 2 more free agents (not including bodden).. what do you think

 

[bakes781]

They've been pretty reluctant to draft LBs early so I'd say we go after a Kirk Morrison.

 

[BelichickFan]

2 TE although I think we can get decent ones without spending a lot of resources.

1 WR. With Moss, Welker, Edelman, Tate, Patten we'll only have room for 1 when Welker gets back. And that makes 6, I added Patten because of the uncertainty of Welker.

1 ILB maybe depending on how they feel about Guyton and McKenzie

1 DE of starting quality.

1 OLB of starting quality.

1 Punter but that's going to cost us a dime in the scheme of things.

 

[mgteich]

1) We may get lucky with someone at another position dropping in our laps in free agency or the draft.

2) We might get lucky with one of our seven 6th and 7th rounders.

3) HOWEVER, as of now, we have multiple needs at five positions and no need at the other positions, although upgrades are always great; for example at ILB or OG.

4) We may disagree on priority, but I am not sure that priority matters much. We need to fill all the needs, and value will determine when we fill them.
========================================

THE FIVE MULTIPLE NEEDS
-------------------------
1. DEFENSIVE END
replacing Burgess and Green

2. OUTSIDE LINEBACKER

3. WIDE RECEIVER
we need a #2 and a #4

4. TIGHT END
we need a #1 and a #2

5. RUNNING BACK
Faulk may be one of the two. We need another to replace one of Taylor, Morris or Green-Ellis.

 

[Sicilian]

I think the holes we NEED to fill in FA are:

DE - We need a decent starter, someone who can play if any rookie we draft is ready enough to take on the role right away.

TE - I think we only need one for now... I don't see us carrying more than two official TE's, instead using an extra OL for that role when needed. Sign one and draft one.

WR - Even if Tate pans out and Edelman improves, we still need depth. I'm not counting on Patten.

OLB - If for some reason BB is planning on keeping Thomas around, we don't need to sign another one (TBC and Thomas starters, Woods and Ninkovich as backups. Not perfect, but an upgrade would be more a luxury than a need, IMO).

 

[tanked_as_usual]

1) We may get lucky with someone at another position dropping in our laps in free agency or the draft.

2) We might get lucky with one of our seven 6th and 7th rounders.

3) HOWEVER, as of now, we have multiple needs at five positions and no need at the other positions, although upgrades are always great; for example at ILB or OG.

4) We may disagree on priority, but I am not sure that priority matters much. We need to fill all the needs, and value will determine when we fill them.
========================================

THE FIVE MULTIPLE NEEDS
-------------------------
1. DEFENSIVE END
replacing Burgess and Green

2. OUTSIDE LINEBACKER

3. WIDE RECEIVER
we need a #2 and a #4

4. TIGHT END
we need a #1 and a #2

5. RUNNING BACK
Faulk may be one of the two. We need another to replace one of Taylor, Morris or Green-Ellis.

OLB's......good ones.....the scheme simply cannot survive without them......if you've got good OLB's, you can get by with serviceable DE (3-4)....the pats have proven that in the past with guys like bobby hamilton and anthony pleasant taking tons of snaps........this defense rises and falls with the quality of the LB group

 

[bakes781]

I would include TE as well since there's very little depth in this year's draft class.

I think RB, WR and DE/OLB can be addressed in the draft.

 

[Ring 6]

My "needs" list for the team has shifted quite a bit....
These positions NEED to be addressed somehow in FA / Trades

Regardless, here are a few spots I think we NEED to fill before the draft as a rookie just won't do...and how many QUALITY players do we need before we feel comfortable??

1.) TE (x2)
2.) MLB
3.) WR (2)
4.) DL / OLB (passrushers - 2 ideally)
5.) Punter


That is 8 spots to fill as far as im concerned...even if we draft perfectly with our first 4 picks, we still have 4 major holes to fill...


Things to consider

1. Crable
2. Mckenzie
3. Tate

I would guess ONE of these 3 steps up and fills a hole...


Analysis: We need to sign 2 more free agents (not including bodden).. what do you think

Here is my inventory of needs, from the perspective of naming the former Patriot example of the quality of guy we need at least.

QB- Like to see us draft another Cassel to develop.
RB- Faulk. I'm fine with the rest we already have.
TE- Fauria and Baker (less the attitude) but a good spot where we can do better if there is room
WR- Gaffney and Givens(rookie version, not a #7 but a mid round value)
OL- OK with what we have but always need to draft 1 or 2
DL- Bobby Hamilton, Rck Lyle
OLB- Vrable (2001 version) Matt Chatham, a rookie who could turn into McGinest
ILB- Bryan Cox at the stage we got him, or Phifer (can be olb/ilb too)
CB- Terrell Buckley. Exactly what we need, a vet who is a stretch as a starter but a real good cover nickel
S- OK with what we have

Those are the needs.
The resources we have exceed the needs.
I want us to fill these basic needs, then look for any value we can find to upgrade any area.
If we hit on these needs we are immediately contending for a SB, and the upgrades position us better to win one.

 

[mgteich]

I'm not sure that the patrtios are "pretty reluctant" to draft linebackers early.

We used three top (rounds 1-3) picks in the last two years.
2008 Mayo, Crable
2009 McKenzie

They've been pretty reluctant to draft LBs early so I'd say we go after a Kirk Morrison.

 

[Ring 6]

1) We may get lucky with someone at another position dropping in our laps in free agency or the draft.

2) We might get lucky with one of our seven 6th and 7th rounders.

3) HOWEVER, as of now, we have multiple needs at five positions and no need at the other positions, although upgrades are always great; for example at ILB or OG.

4) We may disagree on priority, but I am not sure that priority matters much. We need to fill all the needs, and value will determine when we fill them.
========================================

THE FIVE MULTIPLE NEEDS
-------------------------
1. DEFENSIVE END
replacing Burgess and Green

2. OUTSIDE LINEBACKER

3. WIDE RECEIVER
we need a #2 and a #4

4. TIGHT END
we need a #1 and a #2

5. RUNNING BACK
Faulk may be one of the two. We need another to replace one of Taylor, Morris or Green-Ellis.

Shouldnt Burgess be listed under OLB, or are you using a 4-3 format?
Why do you need to replace Taylor, Morris or Green-Ellis as a NEED? I would call that a luxury, ie upgrade if it falls into our lap but we can win with what we have.

 

[bakes781]

I'm not sure that the patrtios are "pretty reluctant" to draft linebackers early.

We used three top (rounds 1-3) picks in the last two years.
2008 Mayo, Crable
2009 McKenzie

I'll give you Mayo, but I don't consider anybody selected outside the top 40 as "early".

They've had 2 years(06 &09) where the OLB class was considered extremely deep in talent and passed both years.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

I'm not sure that the patrtios are "pretty reluctant" to draft linebackers early.

We used three top (rounds 1-3) picks in the last two years.
2008 Mayo, Crable
2009 McKenzie

those are all of them since the beginning of the BB era.......given the scheme needs 4 LB's, you can easily say the pats are pretty reluctant at the drafting of LB's early

you can easily make the point in the 2009 draft with the impact LB's that were drafted in the first 2 rounds with none of them even considered by the pats. the pats could have had matthews, maualuga AND barwin and wound up with none of them........its almost like the had to step around these guys in order to avoid them.........maybe they had their reasons, but as of right now, they don't look like good ones

 

[Ring 6]

those are all of them since the beginning of the BB era.......given the scheme needs 4 LB's, you can easily say the pats are pretty reluctant at the drafting of LB's early

you can easily make the point in the 2009 draft with the impact LB's that were drafted in the first 2 rounds with none of them even considered by the pats. the pats could have had matthews, maualuga AND barwin and wound up with none of them........its almost like the had to step around these guys in order to avoid them.........maybe they had their reasons, but as of right now, they don't look like good ones

Or you could say they didnt need to because up until the draft strategy changed our LBs were widely considered amon the best group in the NFL.
You cant say that he disdained drafting them while he was better filling the need with vets, when he starts drafting them after the vet method dries up.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Or you could say they didnt need to because up until the draft strategy changed our LBs were widely considered amon the best group in the NFL.
You cant say that he disdained drafting them while he was better filling the need with vets, when he starts drafting them after the vet method dries up.

dude......they were getting old 5 years ago......and given the scheme, it takes time to develop......so here we are.....no vets and no guys who were developed