Re: Wilfork and depth
posted at 10/3/2013 1:32 PM EDT
In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
Well you really are NOT preparing to replace VW when you are winning and picking near the bottom of drafts unless you get lucky and land a Geno Atkins by accident later in the draft.
VW was a top 10-15 talent that miraculously fell in the Pats lap at 21.
That being said I too thought the Pats might draft a DT closer to the 1st round at some point in the past few years.
As for this season however, I think you have to be "in the know" on "exactly" what was known by the team and when as to the health situations of both Love and Armstead.
If you are the Patriots and are expecting or led to believe that Armstead would be healthy and Love's condition could be successfully managed or treated then people might not be even starting this thread right now.
Since I do not know any of those details I have to give the Patriots organization the benefit of the doubt or else I would have to consider them a dumb organization and I simply do not. As it is Armstead may still be back and be good, we don't know. They also have a number of young kids on the team at DT so who knows how they are or will do going forward.
It is wait and see for me.
Speculation on my part, but some of us here thought that they needed...
1) A big body (300+) next to VW, who could put pressure on the QB from inside, when VW was doubled
2) Another NT-type guy to back VW when he's off the field. VW will be hard to replace completely, but someone who can do 80% of what he does is still better than completely missing his presence. We've seen that on some series of plays last year that VW was not on the field.
Kelly, I thought was a solution to #1. I guess he could be #2 every now and then, but definitely not full time. At Kelly's age, he definitely is not the future at NT.
Armestead IMO is depth behind Kelly, for when Kelly is off the field or when Kelly is giving VW a breather. At Kelly's age, he could be groomed to take over at that spot in the future.
The number of big bodies (315+) on the last draft, I thought, provided a rare opportunity to get a decent heavy (one with good college career) late in the first all the way to late in the second. I recognize none of the heavy kids is a sure thing, but if playing the odds, last year probably gave the Pats the best odds of getting someone for not too expensive of a price.
The alternative approach would be to target a "sure-fire" heavy in the draft, trade up to get him.
But if you think there is too much risk in drafting a heavy (with good history in college) between 25 and 64, shouldn't that risk assessment also apply to the "sure-fire" heavy you target between 5 to 15?