In response to PatsEng's comment:

In response to PatsLifer's comment:

You still want to draft Matthieu with Arrington just inked? As you said earlier, Matthieu given his size probably a slot corner, not a guy you would line up on the outside. I would rather give a 3rd for sanders, grab a bigger cb we can play outside at the end of round 2, and get our stud interior DT or de in round 1..

I would of rather not had Arrington at all but we still only have 3 CB's currently on the roster (I don't count Ras until he can actually stay on a field). So given what they paid Arrington you don't give a pure slot guy that much money so they must believe he can play outside (I can't truthfully) so if I'm going to go CB and most in that range are slot CB's (as the outside CB players will go early and there is much talent past them for outside guys) yep I'd rather bring in a Mathieu then say a Hawthrone or Ryan. Though Gratz and Poyer might not be bad options in the back of the 2nd as outside guys

I think Slay and Amerson will be gone mid 2nd

Milliner, Rhodes, Trufant, Banks would likely go before Slay or Amerson. You think 6 CBs will be gone by mid-2nd? It's hard to imagine given teams' tendencies to take the tackles and DEs early. It looks like many of them will be taken in the first and second.

If CBs get taken then that should leave Pats with good options on DT/NT at 29.

Also, draftscout rates Jamar Taylor higher than Amerson, Poyer and Slay. I've not seen the kid's videos, but I'd have to think he has similar potential to Slay and Amerson.

I have no love for Matheiu that early in the draft even though he has the talent. ..and if you are talking Da'rick at the end of 2 depends who else is still there. ...and I do not mean just other WR's but in general.

Did you know the Pats were actually ranked like 12th I think it was last season vs WR's on the outside? They are getting killed by TE's and Slots. They need a SS who can actually cover and not just lay wood. ...and do not get me started on the LB's. I do not love our LB's like most others. We get killed inside the numbers in the passing game. Ranked I think 30th.

You still want to draft Matthieu with Arrington just inked? As you said earlier, Matthieu given his size probably a slot corner, not a guy you would line up on the outside. I would rather give a 3rd for sanders, grab a bigger cb we can play outside at the end of round 2, and get our stud interior DT or de in round 1..

Did you know the Pats were actually ranked like 12th I think it was last season vs WR's on the outside? They are getting killed by TE's and Slots. They need a SS who can actually cover and not just lay wood. ...and do not get me started on the LB's. I do not love our LB's like most others. We get killed inside the numbers in the passing game. Ranked I think 30th.

In response to PatsLifer's comment:

You still want to draft Matthieu with Arrington just inked? As you said earlier, Matthieu given his size probably a slot corner, not a guy you would line up on the outside. I would rather give a 3rd for sanders, grab a bigger cb we can play outside at the end of round 2, and get our stud interior DT or de in round 1..

I agree.  We don't need, and shouldn't want, the Honey Badger.  Forget the off field issues, which he admits are still a problem in that he needs a support system, at 5-8 and change, he is just two small to stand up against most WRs.  He reminds me of Hobbs - a total liability in the red zone.  You could throw a fade to even a 6 foot receiver against Matthieu in the end zone all day long with great success.

That said, I wish well for the kid.  He wants to do good but he's just too small to be a top DB in the NFL.

In response to PatsLifer's comment:

You still want to draft Matthieu with Arrington just inked? As you said earlier, Matthieu given his size probably a slot corner, not a guy you would line up on the outside. I would rather give a 3rd for sanders, grab a bigger cb we can play outside at the end of round 2, and get our stud interior DT or de in round 1..

I agree.  We don't need, and shouldn't want, the Honey Badger.  Forget the off field issues, which he admits are still a problem in that he needs a support system, at 5-8 and change, he is just two small to stand up against most WRs.  He reminds me of Hobbs - a total liability in the red zone.  You could throw a fade to even a 6 foot receiver against Matthieu in the end zone all day long with great success.

That said, I wish well for the kid.  He wants to do good but he's just too small to be a top DB in the NFL.

In response to Godvernment's comment:

In response to Faucetman's comment:

In response to PatsLifer's comment:

You still want to draft Matthieu with Arrington just inked? As you said earlier, Matthieu given his size probably a slot corner, not a guy you would line up on the outside. I would rather give a 3rd for sanders, grab a bigger cb we can play outside at the end of round 2, and get our stud interior DT or de in round 1..

I agree.  We don't need, and shouldn't want, the Honey Badger.  Forget the off field issues, which he admits are still a problem in that he needs a support system, at 5-8 and change, he is just two small to stand up against most WRs.  He reminds me of Hobbs - a total liability in the red zone.  You could throw a fade to even a 6 foot receiver against Matthieu in the end zone all day long with great success.

That said, I wish well for the kid.  He wants to do good but he's just too small to be a top DB in the NFL.

hobbs and mattieu are two completely different types of players. tyrann is more physical and a better playmaker.

True.  He is tougher and more physically gifted than Hobbs but he is still size deficient.  Had he been in there instead of Hobbs in the '07 Super Bowl, he likely still gives up the GW TD pass to Plaxico Burress.

I agree with bredbrue, I too would like to see us get some taller corners, like Seattle has.  I doubt Rhodes will be there at 29 and although Trufant isn't as tall, he's tall enough for me and I like his range and attitude.

In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

Did you know the Pats were actually ranked like 12th I think it was last season vs WR's on the outside? They are getting killed by TE's and Slots. They need a SS who can actually cover and not just lay wood. ...and do not get me started on the LB's. I do not love our LB's like most others. We get killed inside the numbers in the passing game. Ranked I think 30th.

I don't even bother to look at the rankings on defending the inside game, but I always thought this. Also, my perception is that they give up a lot of these passes on third and long.

A few months ago I got into discussions with some guys here on drafting a "cover LB" (Ogletree, who might not be there at 29 and MB brought up Alonso). I also think more and more teams will emulate NWE's use of TEs and slot receivers. At some point more recently, I asked what it would take for the Pats to defend an O similar to the Pats'.

Unfortunately, I will get you started on the LBs. If that is a defensive scenario that needs fixing, I am a fan of the axiom that says stat fixing the front and move backwards (or however that actually goes). There's a lot of discussion on DTs. I don't think the DEs are bad and with recent signings, I expect it to improve. The speed of our LBs concern me. It's hard to talk about it because 1) so much has already been invested in it, 2) the team practically has three picks only and 3) SS is definitely a hole. 

While on this topic: Every now and then a game coverage would show a chart (a 3x3 matrix) of where the QB throws the ball and get completions. Is there a site that shows where the completions are that the Pats D gives up?

In response to seattlepat70's comment:

In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

Did you know the Pats were actually ranked like 12th I think it was last season vs WR's on the outside? They are getting killed by TE's and Slots. They need a SS who can actually cover and not just lay wood. ...and do not get me started on the LB's. I do not love our LB's like most others. We get killed inside the numbers in the passing game. Ranked I think 30th.

I don't even bother to look at the rankings on defending the inside game, but I always thought this. Also, my perception is that they give up a lot of these passes on third and long.

A few months ago I got into discussions with some guys here on drafting a "cover LB" (Ogletree, who might not be there at 29 and MB brought up Alonso). I also think more and more teams will emulate NWE's use of TEs and slot receivers. At some point more recently, I asked what it would take for the Pats to defend an O similar to the Pats'.

Unfortunately, I will get you started on the LBs. If that is a defensive scenario that needs fixing, I am a fan of the axiom that says stat fixing the front and move backwards (or however that actually goes). There's a lot of discussion on DTs. I don't think the DEs are bad and with recent signings, I expect it to improve. The speed of our LBs concern me. It's hard to talk about it because 1) so much has already been invested in it, 2) the team practically has three picks only and 3) SS is definitely a hole. 

While on this topic: Every now and then a game coverage would show a chart (a 3x3 matrix) of where the QB throws the ball and get completions. Is there a site that shows where the completions are that the Pats D gives up?

The signing of Adrian Wilson partially addresses this.  I can see him with his size playing nickel LB on obvious passing downs.  I agree with everything you said and I too was discussing Ogletree as a possibility if there at 29.  His off the field issues may cause him to slip.  I don't see him getting past BAL at 32 and he could possibly go ahead of Te' o.

I too am not as down on our DTs as many on here.  I think Love did a solid job in the run game and of course Vince is the best in the business.  I wonder if we have the cap and should make a run at Sedrick Ellis?  I think he'd be an upgrade over Love.  If we were to sign one of the aging DEs - Abraham or Freeney - we would be set at DL.

BB seems poised to give up our third for Sanders or perhaps use our 3rd on a WR.  He won't use 29 for WR, we know that based on his history.  So, if we resign Talib, sign Ellis and one of the aging stud DEs, we can really go in any direction in the draft but I like Ogletree at this point because he best addresses our need at coverage LB.

If Ogletree is gone, then Trufant would be my choice at 29 assuming, as we should, that Rhodes is gone.  The only caviat, is if Tavon Austin is there but I don't see him being there this late.

In response to Godvernment's comment:

In response to Faucetman's comment:

In response to PatsLifer's comment:

You still want to draft Matthieu with Arrington just inked? As you said earlier, Matthieu given his size probably a slot corner, not a guy you would line up on the outside. I would rather give a 3rd for sanders, grab a bigger cb we can play outside at the end of round 2, and get our stud interior DT or de in round 1..

I agree.  We don't need, and shouldn't want, the Honey Badger.  Forget the off field issues, which he admits are still a problem in that he needs a support system, at 5-8 and change, he is just two small to stand up against most WRs.  He reminds me of Hobbs - a total liability in the red zone.  You could throw a fade to even a 6 foot receiver against Matthieu in the end zone all day long with great success.

That said, I wish well for the kid.  He wants to do good but he's just too small to be a top DB in the NFL.

hobbs and mattieu are two completely different types of players. tyrann is more physical and a better playmaker.

True.  He is tougher and more physically gifted than Hobbs but he is still size deficient.  Had he been in there instead of Hobbs in the '07 Super Bowl, he likely still gives up the GW TD pass to Plaxico Burress.

I agree with bredbrue, I too would like to see us get some taller corners, like Seattle has.  I doubt Rhodes will be there at 29 and although Trufant isn't as tall, he's tall enough for me and I like his range and attitude.

I think our biggest need in the draft  could be OT.  If we lose Vollmer we have nobody to back up Solder at LT.  If Solder goes down we are screwed.  Could we be considering a guy like Armstead or Long as developmental types?  It could be a long shot for either of them to make it to 61 and 29 is too big of a reach.  Trading down is always possible.

I'm also a little worried about our depth at OG too with the loss of Thomas.  Connolly has a tendency to miss a few games a year and Mankins for the first time showed he's human.  Warford could be a nice addition at 61. 

If we wanted depth at center I love Schwenke and he has experience at both guard positions but has played more at LG which is what we need as we have nobody behind Mankins at LG.  Prior to his senior year at center, Schwenke played 23 games at LG.  I would love Warford or Schwenke at 61 if we are able to retain Vollmer.

I think our biggest need in the draft  could be OT.  If we lose Vollmer we have nobody to back up Solder at LT.  If Solder goes down we are screwed.  Could we be considering a guy like Armstead or Long as developmental types?  It could be a long shot for either of them to make it to 61 and 29 is too big of a reach.  Trading down is always possible.

I'm also a little worried about our depth at OG too with the loss of Thomas.  Connolly has a tendency to miss a few games a year and Mankins for the first time showed he's human.  Warford could be a nice addition at 61. 

If we wanted depth at center I love Schwenke and he has experience at both guard positions but has played more at LG which is what we need as we have nobody behind Mankins at LG.  Prior to his senior year at center, Schwenke played 23 games at LG.  I would love Warford or Schwenke at 61 if we are able to retain Vollmer.

I think our biggest need in the draft  could be OT.  If we lose Vollmer we have nobody to back up Solder at LT.  If Solder goes down we are screwed.  Could we be considering a guy like Armstead or Long as developmental types?  It could be a long shot for either of them to make it to 61 and 29 is too big of a reach.  Trading down is always possible.

I'm also a little worried about our depth at OG too with the loss of Thomas.  Connolly has a tendency to miss a few games a year and Mankins for the first time showed he's human.  Warford could be a nice addition at 61. 

If we wanted depth at center I love Schwenke and he has experience at both guard positions but has played more at LG which is what we need as we have nobody behind Mankins at LG.  Prior to his senior year at center, Schwenke played 23 games at LG.  I would love Warford or Schwenke at 61 if we are able to retain Vollmer.

In response to Faucetman's comment:

In response to Godvernment's comment:

In response to Faucetman's comment:

In response to PatsLifer's comment:

You still want to draft Matthieu with Arrington just inked? As you said earlier, Matthieu given his size probably a slot corner, not a guy you would line up on the outside. I would rather give a 3rd for sanders, grab a bigger cb we can play outside at the end of round 2, and get our stud interior DT or de in round 1..

I agree.  We don't need, and shouldn't want, the Honey Badger.  Forget the off field issues, which he admits are still a problem in that he needs a support system, at 5-8 and change, he is just two small to stand up against most WRs.  He reminds me of Hobbs - a total liability in the red zone.  You could throw a fade to even a 6 foot receiver against Matthieu in the end zone all day long with great success.

That said, I wish well for the kid.  He wants to do good but he's just too small to be a top DB in the NFL.

hobbs and mattieu are two completely different types of players. tyrann is more physical and a better playmaker.

True.  He is tougher and more physically gifted than Hobbs but he is still size deficient.  Had he been in there instead of Hobbs in the '07 Super Bowl, he likely still gives up the GW TD pass to Plaxico Burress.

I agree with bredbrue, I too would like to see us get some taller corners, like Seattle has.  I doubt Rhodes will be there at 29 and although Trufant isn't as tall, he's tall enough for me and I like his range and attitude.

pass rusher all day , then 2 big wrs is where im at at the moment. antd 2 cbs in fa, check that a #1 and a #2. apears we get arrington and hopefully a #1. one of hopkins - rogers should be a star if not both.

In response to Faucetman's comment:

I think our biggest need in the draft  could be OT.  If we lose Vollmer we have nobody to back up Solder at LT.  If Solder goes down we are screwed.  Could we be considering a guy like Armstead or Long as developmental types?  It could be a long shot for either of them to make it to 61 and 29 is too big of a reach.  Trading down is always possible.

I'm also a little worried about our depth at OG too with the loss of Thomas.  Connolly has a tendency to miss a few games a year and Mankins for the first time showed he's human.  Warford could be a nice addition at 61. 

If we wanted depth at center I love Schwenke and he has experience at both guard positions but has played more at LG which is what we need as we have nobody behind Mankins at LG.  Prior to his senior year at center, Schwenke played 23 games at LG.  I would love Warford or Schwenke at 61 if we are able to retain Vollmer.

Agree, OT certainly rise up the board a bit if they're unable to retain Vollmer... DJ Fluker may then become an option in Rd 1 or at least in the Top 40 or so... kid is nasty, competitive and has vines for arms... could also kick inside.

I'm with you on Schwenke... as well as Barrett Jones, Brian Winters, Long and David Quessenberry, as Day 2 kids (or a Jeff Baca on Day 3) that move well and could interest them on the interior.

In response to bredbru's comment:

In response to Faucetman's comment:

In response to Godvernment's comment:

In response to Faucetman's comment:

In response to PatsLifer's comment:

You still want to draft Matthieu with Arrington just inked? As you said earlier, Matthieu given his size probably a slot corner, not a guy you would line up on the outside. I would rather give a 3rd for sanders, grab a bigger cb we can play outside at the end of round 2, and get our stud interior DT or de in round 1..

I agree.  We don't need, and shouldn't want, the Honey Badger.  Forget the off field issues, which he admits are still a problem in that he needs a support system, at 5-8 and change, he is just two small to stand up against most WRs.  He reminds me of Hobbs - a total liability in the red zone.  You could throw a fade to even a 6 foot receiver against Matthieu in the end zone all day long with great success.

That said, I wish well for the kid.  He wants to do good but he's just too small to be a top DB in the NFL.

hobbs and mattieu are two completely different types of players. tyrann is more physical and a better playmaker.

True.  He is tougher and more physically gifted than Hobbs but he is still size deficient.  Had he been in there instead of Hobbs in the '07 Super Bowl, he likely still gives up the GW TD pass to Plaxico Burress.

I agree with bredbrue, I too would like to see us get some taller corners, like Seattle has.  I doubt Rhodes will be there at 29 and although Trufant isn't as tall, he's tall enough for me and I like his range and attitude.

pass rusher all day , then 2 big wrs is where im at at the moment. antd 2 cbs in fa, check that a #1 and a #2. apears we get arrington and hopefully a #1. one of hopkins - rogers should be a star if not both.

Looks like NE and Lloyd are working to restructure his deal and under the assumption that they land Emmanuel "Webster" Sanders, I don't see where they fit in another (2) WR's... so I think you might end up a little disappointed there.

As for CB, assuming they retain Talib, to go along with Aarington signing, I still see a need for another outside CB as frankly, I have no confidence in Ras-I's ability to stay on the field.  I could see them addressing the need with one of their first (2) picks and they should have plenty of solid prospects to choose from (Rhodes, Trufant, Ryan, Hayden, Banks, Taylor, Poyer & Slay, etc.)