Well ESPN sucks but the Pats don't go out of their way to work with any of their prime people. I don't think BB has spoken to a big time talking head at ESPN on TV in years. He used to be interviewed by Berman regulary before Spygate. He also seems to have stopped talking to Peter King as well. Am I right here?
Under "Weakness", nfl.com/draft says he doesn't have the speed to consistently threaten outside cornerbacks. We're splittting hairs here but my point is that why this guy sounds like he'll be a solid receiver and character, he's not the deep threat that the team for some reason has mostly steered away from during the Brady years
Looking at the trade chart, it's going to be tough. 196+204= 22 pts. Last tradeable pick in R5= 23.4
Mitchell reminds me of Brandon Lloyd. Fast, but beats players with technique and body control on his routes.
Have you heard his name with the Patriots? I know they were here at his pro day.
So ultimately Chandler Jones for Thuney, Mitchell, and Cooper.... Well, we'll see how it turns out.
Aren't the skills Mitchell possesses what the Patriots need, however? Gronk is pretty much their #1 WR. Edelman and Amendola work the middle of the field. They need someone who can make plays outside the numbers. That doesn't necessarily mean 9 routes. That means catching that tough out route or comeback route. Mitchell looks like he fits that profile. They need somebody that can fight for balls outside and I think Mitchell is about as good as you can hope for at this stage in the draft. You're not getting a 6'3" WR at this stage unless he's got big time deficiencies.
It's interesting - they love 3 cone for some positions (like CB) but not necessarily for WR. Dobson's 3-cone was downright bad (11th percentile). 40 time seems like the key metric for mid-round WRs, almost all 4.5 guys or faster and many around 4.4.
Maybe they value it more in reactive positions because agility is more important when you don't know where you're going? Do they place an emphasis on the 3 cone for OL?
I disagree to an extent. I don't think they need a guy running outs and comebacks. They don't need another WR running routes 10-12 yards off the LOS. They already have Edelman, Amendola, Gronk, etc. doing that. They need a guy who can stretch the field, and take a corner with them, and maybe a safety over the top, to open the underneath stuff up for the other guys. This is especially true with other teams seemingly trying to take the Denver approach of focusing on getting pressure and forcing the ball out fast. When you have your entire offense running routes 10 yards in length, the defense doesn't need to respect the back half of the field, and I think it's honestly their only hole on offense, and has been for a while.
If the one they want is gone by 147, you have to look at that Valentine pick as being the outlier. They could have gone RB or taken Mitchell there and still taken Valentine later
The problem with the way Denver played the Patriots in the AFC title game is that there were too many routes in between the hash marks. You are right in that they need to stretch the field, but you are forgetting that it works two ways. They need to stretch the field horizontally too. Edelman, Hogan, and Amendola are best when working the short to intermediate middle and making plays after the catch. Gronkowski and Bennett can obviously be used all over but is most effective down the seam against an overmatched safety or LB. Mitchell has the speed to beat his man deep but also the route running ability to make other plays outside the hash and numbers. It's not just 10-12 yard routes either. You have the deep arrow, post corner, and back shoulder routes to the outside that make secondaries have to respect the outside thirds of the field. That opens up the seam for one of Gronk or Bennett to utilize and pulls a safety out of the box so guys like Edelman, Amendola, and Hogan have more room to work.
Yes. They had to trade picks to make room for UDFAs as they usually like to have at least 3-4 on the TC roster.
