Which #1 rounder could start for us?

[PatsWorldChamps]

Which positions do you think would most easily produce a starter with our #1 pick?

I think a first round pick at either S or OL would probably start for us right now... That's why I think our first rounder will be either a S or OL (of course, it all depends who's on the board, etc)

I think a WR would have the next best chance (assuming givens leaves).

 

[dryheat44]

Which positions do you think would most easily produce a starter with our #1 pick?

I think a first round pick at either S or OL would probably start for us right now... That's why I think our first rounder will be either a S or OL (of course, it all depends who's on the board, etc)

I think a WR would have the next best chance (assuming givens leaves).

1. Offensive Tackle.
2. Safety.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I dunno heat, I'm thinking Cutler could push Brady down the depth chart.

PWC, I'm thinking if I need a starter I sign one in FA and draft to build depth/youth. At the moment we have players who can start at each of the OL slots and depth to 7 players. We have Geno, Guss, Sanders, Gay, and Ventrone on the roster for S, not counting Rodney. Re-signing Hawkins and Stone should be inexpensive. I'd rather look for a contributor in the first round and not worry about getting lucky in the lottery and finding a starter. The nice thing about a contributor, you can focus on value (like a developmental OLB or NT) and not a desperate need to plug a hole in the roster.

 

[broadwayjoe]

I dunno heat, I'm thinking Cutler could push Brady down the depth chart.

PWC, I'm thinking if I need a starter I sign one in FA and draft to build depth/youth. At the moment we have players who can start at each of the OL slots and depth to 7 players. We have Geno, Guss, Sanders, Gay, and Ventrone on the roster for S, not counting Rodney. Re-signing Hawkins and Stone should be inexpensive. I'd rather look for a contributor in the first round and not worry about getting lucky in the lottery and finding a starter. The nice thing about a contributor, you can focus on value (like a developmental OLB or NT) and not a desperate need to plug a hole in the roster.

Very good point Box I think it takes a special player to start in our system especially when it comes to rookies.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Well, Rodney will be back so I don't think it will be S. Guard would be a possibility- maybe the kid from Georgia.

Actually I would like to see them draft a big corner who may not start right away but can contibute and work his way into the starting lineup. We do have alot of smurfs at corner and the recievers are getting bigger.

 

[rookBoston]

I think a first round CB would be competitive and could win the starting job opposite Samuel as a rookie-- assuming Poole doesn't return. Richard Marshall would start.

Also, move Vrabel back outside and pair a rookie at ILB with Bruschi. Greenway would start.

Or play the rookie in the OLB rotation with Willie and Colvin. I think Manny Lawson would start the season on the bench, but I'll bet he gets more than a few starts before Week 16.

At S, Rodney is a big question mark. Starting Wilson and a rookie in the deep secondary is not impossible. Huff would look good.

At OG, if Neal signs elsewhere, a first round rookie is almost certain to start. But not OT. Light and Kaczur and Gorin all have good claims on a starting role.

Rookie first round WR would start in place of Givens, but I dont see one in this draft who could do it.

And a RB like Lendale White would probably spell Dillon this year as a backup, and get his real shot next year.

 

[DaBruinz]

I think a first round CB would be competitive and could win the starting job opposite Samuel as a rookie-- assuming Poole doesn't return. Richard Marshall would start.

Also, move Vrabel back outside and pair a rookie at ILB with Bruschi. Greenway would start.

Rook, what you are basically saying is that, in your eyes, Greenway would be a better player than either McGinest or Colvin. Sorry, but that is BS. People are forgetting that the Patriots put the best players on the field. And, unless a rookie can show me he's better than either Colvin or McGinest, they aren't starting.

Or play the rookie in the OLB rotation with Willie and Colvin. I think Manny Lawson would start the season on the bench, but I'll bet he gets more than a few starts before Week 16.

Playing a player in rotation is different than starting that player.

At S, Rodney is a big question mark. Starting Wilson and a rookie in the deep secondary is not impossible. Huff would look good.

At OG, if Neal signs elsewhere, a first round rookie is almost certain to start. But not OT. Light and Kaczur and Gorin all have good claims on a starting role.

Any Rookie OT the Pats take would start over that garbage bag named Gorin. Gorin is, absolutely, the weakest link on the Pats O-line.

[

Rookie first round WR would start in place of Givens, but I dont see one in this draft who could do it.

Assuming that another FA WR wasn't signed.

 

[BelichickFan]

Ignoring what will likely happen in FA :

OL
WR
S
CB

That's my order.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I think a first round CB would be competitive and could win the starting job opposite Samuel as a rookie-- assuming Poole doesn't return. Richard Marshall would start.

A junior coming out early might work into the line-up over the course of a season, starting the season would be throwing them to the wolves.

Also, move Vrabel back outside and pair a rookie at ILB with Bruschi. Greenway would start.

Greenway may be smart enough, but not strong enough and certainly not ready as a rookie to equal the production of Vrabel, Colvin, or McGinest.

Or play the rookie in the OLB rotation with Willie and Colvin. I think Manny Lawson would start the season on the bench, but I'll bet he gets more than a few starts before Week 16.

Lawson will need a year of Woicik's workouts to build strength and weight. He'll also need a lot of repetitions before he can go toe-to-toe with a T, let alone the TE's kicking his butt at the point of attack in Senior Bowl practices. He's at least ten pounds lighter than Colvin, who was drawing double teams on run plays.

At S, Rodney is a big question mark. Starting Wilson and a rookie in the deep secondary is not impossible. Huff would look good.

Geno wasn't ready to carry the leadership role this year. Safety isn't the best value for round 1, your one of the value guys, do you spend 1st round money at S or do you re-sign Hawkins?

At OG, if Neal signs elsewhere, a first round rookie is almost certain to start. But not OT. Light and Kaczur and Gorin all have good claims on a starting role.

LT - Light, LG-Mankins, C-Koppen, RG-Gorin or Hochstein, RT-Kaczur. G is not a first round value, OT is.

Rookie first round WR would start in place of Givens, but I dont see one in this draft who could do it.

We agree.

And a RB like Lendale White would probably spell Dillon this year as a backup, and get his real shot next year.

Dillon is a second round pick, there are a number of other examples, a first round RB isn't that great a value.

If you want Lawson or Marshall because they will help the team that's cool, but taking them with the expectation of starting them is reaching for a fly swatter when you need a shotgun. Starting rookies has normally been a desperation move - Geno to replace Harris, Gay to replace Poole, Kaczur to replace Light. Mankins beating Hochstein for the starting job was a bonus.

 

[BelichickFan]

Starting rookies has normally been a desperation move - Geno to replace Harris, Gay to replace Poole, Kaczur to replace Light. Mankins beating Hochstein for the starting job was a bonus.

Maybe "starting" but Seymour, Light, Warren, Wilfork, Graham, Branch, Mankins all played a lot their first year and none due to injuries (like with Kaczur and Gay). Make no mistake about it, Belichick looks to draft guys who can help him early in the draft. That's why I don't expect a LB unless Belichick simply loves him.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Maybe "starting" but Seymour, Light, Warren, Wilfork, Graham, Branch, Mankins all played a lot their first year and none due to injuries (like with Kaczur and Gay). Make no mistake about it, Belichick looks to draft guys who can help him early in the draft. That's why I don't expect a LB unless Belichick simply loves him.

Sure, he looks for players who can contribute right away, it's not like there is room for deadwood on the roster. That still is a world away from drafting for a rookie to be your 'starter', draft for a contributor who will develop into a starter.

 

[patchick]

A rookie kicker or punter would be expected to start for any club who drafted him. Does that make K and P good first-round value?

Each position has its own learning curve. If day-one starting were a central goal of your high-round draft strategy, you would be systematically drafting toward some positions (e.g. RB) and away from others (e.g. Patriots-style LB), skewing your team's long-term talent balance.

I'd be fine with LB prospects like Manny Lawson in the 1st and Tim Dobbins in the 3rd, even if both are inactive Week 1. A stable, secure management team has the luxury to draft for the long term.

(On the likelihood of drafting LBs day one: going into the 2005 draft, common wisdom had it that BB/SP didn't draft OL or LB in the opening rounds. They proceeded to take two OLs on the first day. So this year I'm hearing the same wisdom pared down: they just don't draft linebackers high. It seems to me that the lesson of last year could be the opposite -- if the Patriots have gone several years without adding top young talent at a position, that's the place to load up.)

 

[dryheat44]

(On the likelihood of drafting LBs day one: going into the 2005 draft, common wisdom had it that BB/SP didn't draft OL or LB in the opening rounds. They proceeded to take two OLs on the first day. So this year I'm hearing the same wisdom pared down: they just don't draft linebackers high. It seems to me that the lesson of last year could be the opposite -- if the Patriots have gone several years without adding top young talent at a position, that's the place to load up.)

Great point. There may be a reluctance to acquire too many number one (costly) picks at one position, so rotation may be the way to go. The other possibility to point out is maybe they don't get drafted high, because Belichick tends not to like the consensus top picks, but other guys who display certain qualities/attributes that he knows will slide. I'm working my first mock now, so we'll see what happens.