TE for a 1st rd pick supporters

[supafly]

Brady was sacked 40 times and hit 81 times this year that's not the worst in the NFL but Brady not being able to step up in the packet has been a problem for the pats in the playoffs since 2007. Drafting a RG or center in the first two picks would be a big step forward in helping that

I hear what you're saying. I'm just not convinced that we need to use our top 1-2 draft resources on the RG or C positions. I think a reasonable argument can be made that we can find that in round 3 or round 4 just the same.

Choosing a RG or C with the 1st or 2nd pick to me seems like a bit of a waste, especially considering the needs we currently have on the team.

I know that we did it in 2005 with Mankins, but that was also a team who had just won 3 SBs in 4 years. I'm not sure that's a good comparison as to where we're at right now on either side of the ball. When we chose Mankins in round #1, we were coming off of two consecutive 17-2 seasons....that's a sign of some pretty damn good teams right there.

We know Tom can work his magic with not top of the line weapons. But he needs a clean pocket and a defense that doesn't give up a back breaking score after he drives the field and or scores within the last 5 minutes.

We haven't had receiving options this bad in awhile, and that obviously includes the TE game as well. I suppose the bigger picture plan with Talib and Edelman (and possibly a guy such as Sanders in free agency) will help to determine what we do in the draft.

Thankfully, that's why we have the free agency period prior to the draft, so we can address everything in 2 parts. It's almost pointless to try and predict it at the moment, before we even know what players will be added and subtracted in the FA months of March/April.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

fun fact, since 2007 the team with the number 1 all time offense(at the time of the game) is 0-3 in superbowls.

MORE OFFENSE, WE NEED MOREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


:bricks:

Fun fact, your fun fact is wrong and actually makes very little sense.

First, what exactly are you trying to say with that "fact" out of curiosity? That #1 offenses can't win? Or are you saying defenses win more? Are you just repeating some moronic tidbit you heard on ESPN without even understanding what you're saying?

Second, 2009 actually happened and counts towards statistics, so let's not forget the New Orleans Saints and their #1 offense winning the Super Bowl. Pherein would never forgive us for that.

If you actually looked at the losses rather than mindlessly repeating some stuff you heard from your drunk uncle Bob, you'll notice that it's not as simple as just the best offense loses in Super Bowl games. Using points and points allowed rankings, we see:

2007
NY Giants (14th-ranked offense, 17th-ranked defense) defeat
NE Patriots (1st-ranked offense, 4th-ranked defense)

Offense loses! Defense wins! Wait a second...

We were ranked higher in both areas, as were a lot of teams that lost to the Giants that year.

2009
NO Saints (1st-ranked offense, 20th-ranked defense) defeat
Indianapolis Colts (7th-ranked offense, 8th-ranked defense)

The Colts were the more balanced team and it was a close game that could have went either way, but yes, a #1 offense can (and did) win a Super Bowl.

2013:
Seattle Seahawks (8th-ranked offense, 1st-ranked defense) defeat
Denver Broncos (1st-ranked offense, 22nd-ranked defense)

Seattle was the more balanced team and the better team.

So of the 3 "losses" you described, 1 was actually a win, 1 the lower-ranked offense AND defense won, and 1 was a beat-down by a more balanced team.

Defense is important to winning championships. But so is offense. This whole "defense wins championships" thing may have been true at one point, but in the modern era, you need more than just D.

Deus has put together a pretty interesting list of rankings of winners and I don't think you even looked at it. You're just so programmed to repeat whatever Dan Dierdorf has told you wins football games that you can't even see the facts in front of your face.

And if you still want to ignore facts, fine. But at least stop spreading false ones.

 

[chasa]

Fun fact, your fun fact is wrong and actually makes very little sense.

First, what exactly are you trying to say with that "fact" out of curiosity?

mostly that we need to fill in some missing holes in other places then Wide receiver.

 

[Rob0729]

If Jace Amaro is available when the Pats select or even a few spots earlier, I say it worth considering. The guy looks to potentially have huge potential as a receiver. He looks to be the TE to replace Hernandez because he is more of a pure receiver at this point who can line up in the slot and other spots on the field.

The fact that he isn't a TE who can line up at the end of the o-line and block might make his draft value drop since teams will want a TE who can do everything higher.

That said, I don't think the TE position is mandatory nor something they can reach for. Amaro and Ebron are the only two TEs worth taking in the first round. Ebron will be gone before the Pats draft. Amaro is worth taking if there isn't another player available at another position who is better and/or fills a more pressing need.

Personally, I would like the Pats to take a DT in the first, but that position is easier to fill in free agency since there are more quality DTs available.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Brady was sacked 40 times and hit 81 times this year that's not the worst in the NFL but Brady not being able to step up in the packet has been a problem for the pats in the playoffs since 2007. Drafting a RG or center in the first two picks would be a big step forward in helping that

Manning wasn't touched until the SB and everyone claimed his OL was one of the best in the NFL. I will agree that upgrading the interior OL would help but you don't overpay for free agents or take an OG/C who you have ranked lower than other players simply to fill a need. I would move Connolly to C and Cannon to RG and draft an interior OL as well as add one in free agency but I wouldn't reach for one or overpay in free agency.

 

[Huckleberry1]

If Jace Amaro is available when the Pats select or even a few spots earlier, I say it worth considering. The guy looks to potentially have huge potential as a receiver. He looks to be the TE to replace Hernandez because he is more of a pure receiver at this point who can line up in the slot and other spots on the field.

The fact that he isn't a TE who can line up at the end of the o-line and block might make his draft value drop since teams will want a TE who can do everything higher.

That said, I don't think the TE position is mandatory nor something they can reach for. Amaro and Ebron are the only two TEs worth taking in the first round. Ebron will be gone before the Pats draft. Amaro is worth taking if there isn't another player available at another position who is better and/or fills a more pressing need.

Personally, I would like the Pats to take a DT in the first, but that position is easier to fill in free agency since there are more quality DTs available.

All things being equal I agree because i don't think filling any other need would have more of an impact for them than a 2nd starting TE who could catch 60+ and help them significantly in the red zone. It would force defenses to focus on the middle of the field and help the young WR's, it would give them a 2nd top flight receiving TE in case Gronkowski went down again, and it would essentially fill the need for another WR as we are really talking about a hybrid TE/WR, which is the role The Prisoner played for them. I don't think any of these guys would be able to run the ball out of the backfield but that was more icing than anything else.


Ultimately i still think it would come down to who was left on the board when they make that pick, and there are going to be other prospects at other positions worth considering, but if the TE rates as highly then I would take them. However if a guy like Nix (e.g..)fell to them then I think that they would have to give him serious consideration.

 

[VrabelJr]

The only position I'm for taking in the first round is a DT, or if one of the "elite" Safeties or WRs happen to fall. This draft is deep at TE. I don't care if we don't take one until the 3rd round.

 

[Huckleberry1]

The only position I'm for taking in the first round is a DT, or if one of the "elite" Safeties or WRs happen to fall. This draft is deep at TE. I don't care if we don't take one until the 3rd round.

As much as i would love a TE or a DT in the first I will be happy with any position of need who can become an all pro at their position, reaching for a need is always a bad idea and leads to bad picks. if they can add a safety, LB, DT, TE, OG, C, CB, or WR who turns into one of the best at their position then that's all that matters. Take the player not the position.


That obviously doesn't mean you draft a QB in the first or a Tackle because they are set at both positions, and you don't take the Tackle unless they are going to pull a Mankins and start them at OG from Day 1.

 

[mgteich]

not the worst idea I've heard

and you don't take the Tackle unless they are going to pull a Mankins and start them at OG from Day 1.

 

[Huckleberry1]

not the worst idea I've heard

Like I said Mg, the only thing that matters to me is how good the player is going to become because hitting on first rounders is critical, and despite all the knocks on Patriot's drafts that has clearly been a strength for them. If they were to draft a guy like Yankey or an OT who could play guard at a really high level then that would allow them to move Connolly back to Center and give them a really good really deep OL. Ideally it would be better if they could turn Cannon into a top flight OG but they don't seem intent upon that and apparently see him as depth at OT rather than an interior lineman. However i would not want them to go after a player like Taylor Lewan in the first because he is more of a pass protecting OT than a dominant OG prospect, even if he were on the board i would pass.

There are a number of positions that i would be fine with in the first, i just want the player to be an impact player at the position. I think the idea of putting the position over the quality of player is always a bad idea. It's no coincidence that the Ravens and Patriots do so well in the first because while addressing needs they always seem to put the player first. they have both had misses, Boller and Maroney, but overall both Newsome and Belichick do well in the first round.