Re: gasoline to the
posted at 10/31/2013 1:21 PM EDT
In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
You complain about Brace. Fair enough. He is gone. However, possible reasons : 1) Wilfork was a hold out and forced the Patriots hand. 2)Brace is local and easy access to scout and see and know a heck of a lot about. 3) Played very well for BC for a number of years.
Ras-I. While he ultimately failed because his body would not let him play. I think it has taken on a life of its own. You carefully chose the word nagging and I would agree with that. However, typically people try to say Ras-I was "always" injured. People accept that as fact when it is not the case. If you look at his college career, with the exception of a serious injury his sr year, he missed only a couple games.
We will have to disagree on the looking at alternate players of the same position within the next 10-12 picks or so. That's what I believe if you really want to judge.
On top of that the year he was drafted the Pats got almost the same exact sack production out of a guy they resigned in FA that cost not much if I recall correctly. You seem to be playing both sides on the Brace/Mathews thing.
As far as DT this year, no idea. Have to assume they felt they had Wilfork, Kelly, Armstead(at the time), don't remember the timelines for the releases of Love, Deaderick, etc, Forston, and whatever UDFA types they picked up. And for those that might wish to say well then you have to know Wilfork and Kelly are old and will eventually get hurt so they should have drafted one in the first round. I would simply say, then you should be saying that about drafting a QB in the first round as well.
The fact that the NFL tries its best to make the league as much a parity league as possible further emphasizes the importance of finding those gritty grinders with mental toughness to fill your roles and not simply collect talent where you don't need it most. If parity is achieved, or close to it, then overall roster talent level should at least be close and the gritty grinding mentally tough and deep roster will make the potential difference.
The Brace pick I can understand as a just in case pick if Wilfork left, however MB among others all pointed out that Brace benefited greatly from having Raji next to him. It was commented on numerously that Brace just didn't look all that good when Raji was getting the majority of the attention and even singled up was inconsistent at best. He had no injury red flags or off field issues but his red flags came with his play next to Raji and when he came to the pro's his inability to play at a high level 1v1 really came out. Again I understand why they took him on a personal decision basis but overall that was an extremely bad DT class. Again pointing to BB would rather draft into a weakness of the draft than a strenght.
Ras - he didn't miss many games but he was limited in most. Ras had nagging hip and leg injures dating back to HS. It was a major red flag and why his stock dropped like a rock his senior year. All the warning signs were there saying his body just couldn't hold up to the physical stress of playing the game. So if he was rated as a 1st round player with big injury red flags why would you take him essentially where he was ranked? Now the top 3 CB's in the draft were much stronger than the 09 DT draft class but then beyond taht it was considered a weak CB draft class with no depth. Once those 3 came off the boards shouldn't your priority shift to a stronger area of the draft?
What I'm saying is you shouldn't lock into a single position and only judge those players of the same position in such a narrow field. I mean that one position wasn't the only place the Pats were weak when they drafted player X. You know it to be true because they drafted other positions after that one and we all saw where the holes were on the team. If you want to limit it I would say within the next 32 picks (by then you can claim they still could have taken player x with the next pick) and open it up to positions of need. Ie, they need a WR but took Collins first so why limit it to just looking at coverage LBs for the next 10 picks vs coverage LBs and possible WRs taken until their next pick? Just seems like it's an artifical limitation like saying the country doesn't have a drunk diving issues between 10am and 3pm on the 2nd Monday of every month.
How so, Matthews was dominant in 1v1 even with great players around him, Brace was good but not great and didn't do anything special to stand out. You watch their senior year and you can see Matthews was a player, Brace just looked like a JAG next to a great player
Love there is no way you can't tell me they didn't see diabeties coming, Deaderick was removed for locker room issues so I'm sure he was on a short leash, Kelly is a bandaid not a long term solution and his contract reflected that, Wilfork love the man but his contract is insane (base salary wise) next year and a FA the year after isn't they why they drafted Brace? DT would have been a good decision to draft but again BB doesn't draft in areas of strength in the draft for one odd reason or another.
I agree with your final point but would say you shouldn't be looking in the first 3 rounds for grinding players but talented players that will mesh with your team first and foremost. The grinders are usually the sub role guys who can come in and give a spark but the starters need talent upfront. Given the choice I'd rather have 1 extra talent upfront than 3 grinders on the backside. But, that is my opinion too