thoughts on Stanley

[ice]

Is he the sort of lineman you would look for using a zone blocking scheme? He's quick fast and athletic. BB could also use him as another tight end.

thoughts

 

[Handel]

It's Staley.

But it is very possible that he will be gone before #24. Giants are picking at #20....

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

I'd take Staley for sure at #24 but I think he's moved well out of that range, to somewhere in the 10-16 range.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

He's value at either first round selection. Best value remains to see who else is there, but he's a good choice.

 

[nickw308810]

When I watched one of the Senior Bowl practices he stood out more than any other player there. The first thing I noticed was that he was size, the guy was huge. Second he was dominant in his blocking, neutralizing the DL with no problems. I am still a fan of drafting 2 DBs, or 1 DB and 1 LB, but I definitely would not be dissapointed with Staley, the guy is a monster.

 

[Metaphors]

Re: thoughts on Staley

When you are considering value, do you also consider other factors as well, like:
1) Who is the incumbent at that position?
2) When can the incumbent be a free agent?
3) How much is the incumbent being paid?
4) How long has the incumbent been in the system?
etc.

If the Pats don't take Staley this year, what will the OT position look like in 2007? 2008? Pretty much the same as it looks now. Does Staley help this team improve to another level or even prevent it from otherwise regressing? If so, hard to argue with the pick.

If the Pats don't take Revis/Houston/Ross/Nelson/Griffen/etc., what will the DBs look like in 2007? 2008? Half of the 2007 Pats DBs are coming off injury. 2/3 of the Pats DBs may not be around in 2008.

Seems like the Pats make 1st round picks considering players they just lost (Mankins), anticipate losing the next year (Seymour,Warren,Wilfork,Maroney) or they just have an obvious need (Graham). Watson is a little harder to qualify (really wanted to use a 2 TE set? Fauria not cutting it? Assume Graham would leave as a FA?), but I think it would be a stretch to call him a "value" pick at #32. Granted he would likely have been gone before their next pick, but I find it hard to believe that if the Pats were drafting from scratch, they would have selected Watson at #32.

I think an ideal scenario would be for the Pats to take a CB at #24 (or trade up), trade out of #28 into the 2nd round and take a LB and take a S at #91 (or trade up). Obviously could go any number of ways, but that combination seems to get maximum value for the positions without reaching. Especially looking at the possible makeup of the team in 2008 with retirements/free agency.

 

[mcbee]

Staley is said to have great feet but not be a dominant drive blocker.

If Kaczur can't be a go and O'Callaghan can't go...OC had a concussion last year....if I recall correctly, maybe Staley would be a good pick. Kind of sad having to waste a pick on him, but maybe it's for the best. I'd prefer Revis but if they need a great LT then they do.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I could see Staley going to the Giants at #20 or even sooner. I would be surprised to see him fall to the Pats at #24 but stranger things have happened. Staley would be perfect for a zone blocking scheme, he is very athletic and shows good run blocking in space. Bottom line, Matt Light needs someone to compete with him, he gets man handled by speed rushers during the regular season. Also, Graham had to help out way too much on both sides because of the lack pass blocking consistancy on either side.