The new look OL
- Thread starter Super Nomario
- Start date
Jeff Howe @jeffphowe 54s55 seconds ago
Dante Scarnecchia isn't a one-week rental. He is actually working for the Patriots through the end of the draft, per source.
Dante Scarnecchia isn't a one-week rental. He is actually working for the Patriots through the end of the draft, per source.
Interesting note from Reiss that Cameron Fleming has been working in part to improve his fit at guard. He only got one game there - the debacle against Kansas City, and it wasn't great, as Mark highlighted here and here, but he got hurt before he could get more chances. It'll be interesting to see how he looks at guard with a whole offseason to work on his fit inside. I'm thinking the Pats use a fairly high pick on a guard (like a third or fourth) and have him compete with Fleming, defined-floor guys Wendell and Kline (and Connolly if re-signed), and maybe a couple wild cards like Cannon, Devey, and Chris Barker. I have to figure they can get two guys out of that group.
I think they will actually go higher than that, maybe a 1st (if Cameron Erving is there) or 2nd, although I'm hopeful that they can find a guard they believe in closer to the rounds you're thinking about.
Why do you think they will go higher than that? Never say never with Belichick, but Mankins is the only interior OL they've drafted in the first three rounds in his entire tenure, and even Mankins was a college tackle.Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:
I guess I'm basing it on the emphasis they have put on the position just in terms of visits this off-season, in addition to the relative wasteland it is, roster-wise, right now. You're right, he hasn't done it other than Mankins, but I don't think it's a hard and fast rule. That said, I don't disagree that there's likely value to be had in the middle rounds that could net a potential starter at the position.
I think the interior OL is in better shape than it was last off-season: they (maybe) lost Connolly, but they added what looks like a long-term starter in Stork, another young guy who showed flashes in Fleming, and Wendell proved himself adequate at G. I don't think they'll have a stretch as bad as the first four weeks last year even if they don't add pieces, and there's some upside as well. If they draft a guy high, I think it'll be someone who can play tackle. The position is set for 2015, but Solder's a free agent after the year and Vollmer has just two years left and is in his 30's. Ideally you get a guy who can slot in at G in the short term and shift outside later if you need it.Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:
I'd do cartwheels if the spent every pick bolstering both lines. They won't do it, of course, but given reasonable health, if both lines are good, I like their chances.
What I don't understand is this pretty prevalent notion that they are going WR if they pick at 32. CB, I would understand; WR no, especially given the reported depth in this class.
What I don't understand is this pretty prevalent notion that they are going WR if they pick at 32. CB, I would understand; WR no, especially given the reported depth in this class.
They'll base #32 on what the best player available on their board at the time. They won't narrow their focus to go all in on one particular position even if it's a source of need(which we know OL/DL is). There are no interior OL players that will be available at #32 that deserve a 1st round grade. Schreff and Collins will be gone by then. Getting into Day 2 there will be guys like Tomlinson, Cann, Marpet, Tre Jackson, Josue Matias, Jarvis Harrison, and Jeremiah Poutasi that could all have a chance of being a plug and play guard.
I believe they will pick a defensive lineman at #32 given the good depth of 1st round grades at that spot, but that doesn't mean they won't pounce on another position depending on how the board shakes out.
Reiss thinks that they will target Jake Fisher from Oregon to be a guy that could swing inside this season but give them positional flexibility and leverage against Nate Solder.
I believe they will pick a defensive lineman at #32 given the good depth of 1st round grades at that spot, but that doesn't mean they won't pounce on another position depending on how the board shakes out.
Reiss thinks that they will target Jake Fisher from Oregon to be a guy that could swing inside this season but give them positional flexibility and leverage against Nate Solder.
What is the difference between a WR at 32 or 64? If I was going to take a receiver in the first round, I would trade up to the top ten to get a sure thing like a Beckham, Julio Jones etc. Too many Jonathan Baldwins and AJ Jenkins-like players drafted at the end of the first round. Plus the Pats excel at drafting defensive and offensive linemen in the first and second rounds. Besides Cunningham, Brace and Marquise Hill, they have nailed their first and second round defensive lineman picks in the BB era. Their worst offensive lineman pick in the first and second rounds was Adrian Klemm in 2000 and he hung around for awhile. They scout these positions well. The Light, Mankins, Vollmer, and Solder picks are works of genius.dcmissle said:
You're taking what's already a small sample size and reducing it even smaller. They've only drafted 8 DL in the first two rounds in BB's tenure, and the jury's still out on Easley. Three busts out of seven looks to me like a pretty average track record given the draft capital they've invested at DL, and any time we're talking about those small numbers one or two guys swings the track record significantly. OL you might have a better case, but it's still just an exercise in dicing small samples even smaller. And maybe it just means they only go OL when they're sure about a guy?ShaneTrot said:
I can only imagine any sound statistical analysis would show that you need much bigger samples to suggest that a GM is good at drafting in general, and definitely much bigger samples than you would ever get if you're going to start dicing that into specific positions in specific rounds like you're doing. And Belichick seems to get this, which is why he's typically trading back so he gets more swings rather than betting he's better at amateur player evaluation than anyone else.
You might have a point that WR in general is riskier than other positions in that late-first-round range; I don't know. It does look like there are a lot of busts in that range (Chad Jackson, Rashaun Woods, and R. Jay Soward, plus others, in addition to the guys you mention), but there's also Reggie Wayne, Roddy White, Jordy Nelson, and Chad Johnson / Ochocinco. In general I think WR is a little bit of a boom-bust position everywhere in the draft, but I don't have anything substantial backing up that claim.
I would be shocked, and the Pats IMO would be screwed, if the F.O. agrees with the notion that the guard spot along the OL is taken care of between Fleming and Wendell. I think there's an excellent chance that neither of those players start at guard for the majority of the 2015 season. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. They will look to draft a guard somewhere in the first three rounds, I'd guess. Of course Stork is an upgrade, but this team is in real trouble at the guard spots.Super Nomario said:
Guard is far from the strongest position on the team, but it was weak in 2014, too, and they won the Super Bowl. They won two playoff games with Josh Kline playing most of the team, and as bad as Devey was they still went 4-1 in the games he played extensively. I'd be surprised if they don't add to the group at all, but I don't see it as the crisis that you do.Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:
I could be wrong, but my sense of the fan-base and of folks who follow the team closely is that, other than corner, there is no bigger crisis area on the team.
Edit: comma issues
Edit: comma issues
Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:
They can easily bring back the same OL that they just used to win a superbowl. That's not a crisis for me. I think they do add some bodies (you could get better in 2015) and they need to make some moves if they want a strong line in 2016/17, but I'm in the Nomario camp that I'm not particularly worried. I wouldn't mind adding a Laken Tomlinson at LG and locking him in a starter for a decade (particularly with the influx of DL talent in division), but I think you can get by reasonably well with what you have.
For me DT is vying with CB for number one need area, at least until Easley shows us what he can do.
Linebacker is a big need right now too with the injury concerns of Hightower and Jerod Mayo.Shelterdog said:
Is this a joke? Are people really downplaying the importance of OL on this team?
Top two area of concern - easily. Probably #1. Not necessarily because of what we have...but because of what we are protecting.
I want talent. I want maulers. I want pedigree. I want the all B1G Ten team from tackle to tackle. I want Ferentz's and Belichick's lovechild. I want a line that puts Dallas's to shame. Because if TB12 doesn't feel comfortable, and can't step up with confidence, it's adios muchachos.
It's not sexy, but offensive line is the most important position on this team, going forward. In the trenches, young talent wins. And our most important asset is right behind that trench.
Top two area of concern - easily. Probably #1. Not necessarily because of what we have...but because of what we are protecting.
I want talent. I want maulers. I want pedigree. I want the all B1G Ten team from tackle to tackle. I want Ferentz's and Belichick's lovechild. I want a line that puts Dallas's to shame. Because if TB12 doesn't feel comfortable, and can't step up with confidence, it's adios muchachos.
It's not sexy, but offensive line is the most important position on this team, going forward. In the trenches, young talent wins. And our most important asset is right behind that trench.
It is important, but not necessarily at #32. That is what people are arguing for and against. Bryan Stork was picked up in the middle rounds and there will be more Storks available in the 2nd-4th rounds this year as well.Erik Hanson's Hook said:
Erik Hanson's Hook said:
No. We (1) d a line that ended up being pretty good last year (2) we have a lot of other needs(3) our primary need is on the interior and you can get good players a little later for the interior and (4) maintaining line continuity is incredibly important to line play so stacking the roster with high picks next year come with a cost of continuity.
You also don't want to start two rookies (particularly if they're sandwiching a second year guy in Stork)
It really comes down to Connolly in my opinion. If he comes back, the Pats could afford to allocate a later round pick for general OL depth & development.
If he's gone, OL becomes a pretty huge need IMO. He wasn't awesome, but he was a team captain & glue guy (could capably fill in at 3 positions) & played the whole super bowl at guard. I get it that Cannon or Devey can possibly step in at guard, but the rest of the depth is underwhelming & Connolly was very versatile. If he's gone, I'd be shocked if Belichick doesn't spend a 1st or 2nd on the OL.
If he's gone, OL becomes a pretty huge need IMO. He wasn't awesome, but he was a team captain & glue guy (could capably fill in at 3 positions) & played the whole super bowl at guard. I get it that Cannon or Devey can possibly step in at guard, but the rest of the depth is underwhelming & Connolly was very versatile. If he's gone, I'd be shocked if Belichick doesn't spend a 1st or 2nd on the OL.
ALiveH said:
I suspect they're doing it the other way around--they're deferring the Connolly decision until after the draft. If they like who they got in rounds 1-3 maybe they don't bring him back, if they are only able to get developmental guys then they do.
It's not just who the OL is protecting, it is who they are protecting him AGAINST. There's a measure of bullet-dodging that occurred last season, and it's likely to be even more pronounced against the nyj, Rex's version of an already stout DL and a Miami line infused with some guy named Suh.
I'm a little surprised folks are downplaying what I had sensed was a consensus that this is a massive need for this team. Guard arguably needs upgrading at both spots. And I don't think its a terribly controversial thing to say. I guess I'm mistaken.
I'm a little surprised folks are downplaying what I had sensed was a consensus that this is a massive need for this team. Guard arguably needs upgrading at both spots. And I don't think its a terribly controversial thing to say. I guess I'm mistaken.
I think everyone realizes that the quickest way to stick a fork in our team is interior pass pressure. I also think there is wide recognition that we're not fielding All Pros there.
But there are other needs too, and I think there is a bit of a tendency to overrate potential contributions from rookies. Finally, there is resignation. In two weeks, there will be one or more befuddling moves in the draft.
Remember last year. Lots of folks here, including some stalwart BB defenders, HATED the JG pick, especially on the heels of taking damaged goods with pick #1. "Wasting top picks in a GFIN year" was a common refrain.
Well we won the SB. Father knows best.
I am quite prepared for the possibility that they won't hit the O-line until round 4. Likely? No. Possible? You betcha'.
But there are other needs too, and I think there is a bit of a tendency to overrate potential contributions from rookies. Finally, there is resignation. In two weeks, there will be one or more befuddling moves in the draft.
Remember last year. Lots of folks here, including some stalwart BB defenders, HATED the JG pick, especially on the heels of taking damaged goods with pick #1. "Wasting top picks in a GFIN year" was a common refrain.
Well we won the SB. Father knows best.
I am quite prepared for the possibility that they won't hit the O-line until round 4. Likely? No. Possible? You betcha'.
Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:
Again if you want to you can bring back all 5 starters from a line that was pretty good over the last half of the year. That's not a massive need.
Shelterdog said:
The Pats offense scored 15 touchdowns in 3 playoff games, two of which were against pretty darn good defenses. While I agree with many here that relative to some other units, the OL could use some upgrading, to call it a massive need is going waaaaay overboard.
Let's try to cool our jets on the straw men here. Even among those of us who think it's a pretty big need area, no one is saying it's the only need or that CB isn't an arguably bigger one or that we "have" to take a Guard at #32. The fact that Dante is once again being brought to the several pro day visits that seem pretty focused on interior OL (and, yes, those visits are not exlusively focused on that position) suggests to me that BB and company think it's a fairly big need, as well. Of course, none of us knows anything for sure, which is why it'll be fun to find out (copyright, Boston Museum of Science) in a couple weeks.
Nate Solder had testicular cancer in April of 2014.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4780526/patriots-nate-solder-diagnosed-with-testicular-cancer-in-14-spreads-awareness
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4780526/patriots-nate-solder-diagnosed-with-testicular-cancer-in-14-spreads-awareness
This is not at all uncommon for Super Bowl winners, either: look at the Seattle's 2013 draft (first pick: Christine Michael) or Baltimore's 2012 (Osemele the only real contributor as a rookie) or the Giants' 2011 (top pick Amukamara barely played). This year's draft is frequently more about next year's team than this one. The Pats' fortunes this year are more likely to turn on whether recent draftees like Easley, Dobson, James White, and Logan Ryan can contribute rather than whether they can add a plug-and-play starter in the first two rounds.dcmissle said:
I think there's a pretty good chance that internally the Patriots think OT is more of a need than the interior, with Solder's contract situation and Vollmer's age combined with the premium value at the position. I don't know how to interpret draft visits, but it's worth noting that in the preseason Belichick traded his best guard for a 4th-round pick and a 3rd TE because he didn't want to pay him $6 MM. That says a lot to me about how they value the position.Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:
Well if you consider some of his piss-poor footwork from early in the season, I think you have the answer.Ed Hillel said:
Super Nomario said:
Mankis pass protection had deteriorated significantly the last few years, IMO BB felt Mankins performance wasn't worth $6MM, not that they don't value the position.
Agree with SN that we also tend to forget about guys drafted last year, and the year before, if they didn't make big contributions last season. The team doesn't forget.
The allure of an interior lineman at 32, though, is pretty obvious. You'lll get one of the best ones, and there is a decent chance he's plug and play. So that's an upgrade with your very first pick.
Not holding my breath.
The allure of an interior lineman at 32, though, is pretty obvious. You'lll get one of the best ones, and there is a decent chance he's plug and play. So that's an upgrade with your very first pick.
Not holding my breath.
Cap,we lost 2 of our three starters.CaptainLaddie said:
Currently We have Blount, who has been decent for the most part during his career (but is suspended for 1 game.....also is he in the program where another "drug issue" could be a multigame suspension?) but there is some uncertainty there , Gray, who has 3 good games, and after that.............some serious question marks. Not the least of which is a "3rd Down back" (Maybe Cadet is that guy....but he isnt a sure thing)
So yea.....RB is as serious a question mark as the LB or the WR corps. You could also argue that the OL has a recent history of decent to very good production (Playoffs), no significant personnel losses and young players who could continue to develop/improve. It could be said the Secondary has alot of depth and some potential even if no corners with reputations so is in ok shape (though I probably wouldnt argue that very hard). .
Personally I would agree that
OL
DL
Secondary
should be our primary focus in the draft
RB
LB
WR
TE
In the second tier.
Does that mean I think we should use a 1st, 2nd or even 3rd rounder on a RB this year? No i dont believe they should. However Vereen and Ridley where 2nd and 3rd rounders.....so lets not pretend that the Pats have "Never used high picks on easy to find positions like RB".
My reference to RB and DE was a really meant to highlight the chicken little aspect of just about every post previous to mine with multiple posters naming just about every unit on the team as a "weakness" in need of help.
Every team deals with these "Weaknesses". We are like every fan base. "WE NEED superior depth at every postion!!!" Relax....we are in not that bad a shape. At least no worse then every other team.
I agree with baka here. I don't think there is a way for this draft to be disappointing as long as they don't take a QB, Punter, Long Snapper, Kicker in the first 4 rounds. They are in a position to take the best player available every time they pick and any pick this year is likely to be 2015 depth and a piece for the future. Maybe they get a plug and play guard or DTackle, but other then that I don't think there is a single position on the team where a rookie from this draft would be the obvious starter. They are in as strong a position as a team can be going into the draft and are going to have maximum flexibility with their picks.
Super Nomario said:
Re-signing Solder--or drafting a replacement--is a high priority but I don't think I see a pick that makes sense as a future LT. Maybe Humphries, maybe Fisher, but both of those players have some question marks.
And Blount and Gray are both on the last year of their deals. I think they're fine at RB for 2015 but I could see them drafting a RB fairly high with an eye on 2016 and beyond.bakahump said:
Yeah, it doesn't seem like a strong class for OTs, at least not if you need the guy to play LT. I'm not terribly informed on the OL this year, but a guy like Ogbuehi or Marpet in the second or third - a college LT that might fit better elsewhere in the NFL - would seem to make sense to me. Then again, I've been advocating that draft pick (and/or a 6'5" 275+ 3-4 DE that can kick inside on passing downs) for several years running but Bill never answers my postcards.Shelterdog said:
Super Nomario said:
I don't quite get what BB does with the offensive line--he always seems to pay some (usually) bearded physical mediocrity 25% too much--but then again he has consistently good results and the problem is probably that we underrate Connolly/Kaczur/Cannon/Wendell because they weren't high picks and because we underestimate the importance of line continuity.
Looking forward to seeing where you've quoted me saying that the patriots have to take a guard with the #32 overall. If you feel like clogging up this thread and turning a quality site into something south of pats fans.com - after my post suggesting we basically take a breath - clog away. And if you want to line up on the side of people who think interior line isn't a big need and isn't something BB, et al, are very clearly focusing on during this run-up to the draft, go right ahead. I'll continue to assume that the fact that we won a Super Bowl doesn't mean the interior line is not an area in need of addressing.Shelterdog said:
Agree with those saying OT doesn't sound like a strong position in this years draft class. Guard, from what I've heard, is fairly strong, especially if you include those guys who played tackle in college but project inside in the nfl.
Edit: to tweak some things and no be quite so much of a spaz. But still remain a bit of a spaz.
I'll be honest, I just don't see RB as a pressing need. Whatsoever. BB has proven time and time again that RB is fungible to him -- just don't fumble the football, get 3.5 yards per carry, and he'll be happy with the position for the most part. Yes, they could use a pass-catching back, but they have Cadet. And they have White/Blount/Gray/Gaffney as well. Gaffney, especially, excites me. It wouldn't shock me to see them take a RB in the later rounds, but I'll be pissed if they spend one on the first two days on a RB.
But this is an OL thread.
But this is an OL thread.
I think the "consistently good results" are often due to Brady's ability to diagnose the D pre-snap and get the ball out quickly to his first read. There are not many QBs who would have taken just 21 sacks dropping back 600+ times behind that line last year. I do think you're right that fans in general aren't very good at evaluating OL play and tend to overrate or underrate players based on their draft status, which has led to fans perceiving OL picks as "safe" in large part because there aren't stats showing that some of these guys suck.Shelterdog said:
As for continuity, I don't know. They have seemed to value it at times but then last year they traded Mankins right before the season started so they could play Devey (a first-year guy) and Cannon (who had worked exclusively at tackle in the preseason) at G and shift Connolly (who was last a regular center in 2011) to C. It's a tough thing to chase continuity anyway because injuries screw things up; they played half the postseason last year shifting Wendell to C and inserting Kline at RG and it wasn't a disaster. At a 1000-foot level it seems like they're trying to keep as much continuity as they can while turning over some of the older / overpaid pieces, which explains why they kept Connolly last year at a high cap number after axing Mankins. I would still love to know why they did what they did for the first quarter of last season.
I don't agree with the bolded. He kept running BJGE out there, but immediately after Law Firm's first year as a starter, Belichick used a second and a third on Vereen and Ridley. And of course, Green-Ellis only got his opportunity because Maroney, a first-round pick, flamed out. Earlier, they traded a second-round pick for Dillon. At times, yes, the Patriots have been able to assemble a reasonable RB group on the cheap, but Belichick has not treated the position as fungible historically.CaptainLaddie said:
Just adding on, his second pick ever for the Pats was J.R. Redmond. And there is also Touchdown Tommy Vardell, if you want to go way back.
If anything, spending too many draft resources on RBs might be a legitimate critique of BB.
If anything, spending too many draft resources on RBs might be a legitimate critique of BB.
Super Nomario said:
Is "because Stork was hurt" too simple of an explanation? That's an honest question, evaluating line play is over my head and I don't watch tape. It seems like they could slot everyone back into a more effective role once they had him back at C, but I'm certainly not the most able to evaluate these things.
It seems like some people don't like high O-line draft picks because they aren't "sexy". Fact is if the line can give Brady just an extra second in the pocket, that is an eternity for a QB of Brady's caliber. I don't have numbers to back this claim up, but I would think an extra second for Brady is better than adding a WR. He can make anyone look good if given the time. I agree that if every pick ended up on the lines I would be completely happy. A top corner would be great, but those are the only 3 positions I feel like they should be drafting unless there is a huge steal somewhere
I'm in the camp of not needing a RB, with Gray and Blount you have guys that can pound the football, and I want to give White a chance to prove himself. RBs are becoming less and less valuable(they are still very valuable but I think most know what I'm saying), and you can pull guys off the scrap heap that can play. They are too volatile in my mind to waste high DPs on. Hell I'd say that RBs are by far the hardest draft picks to get right
I'm in the camp of not needing a RB, with Gray and Blount you have guys that can pound the football, and I want to give White a chance to prove himself. RBs are becoming less and less valuable(they are still very valuable but I think most know what I'm saying), and you can pull guys off the scrap heap that can play. They are too volatile in my mind to waste high DPs on. Hell I'd say that RBs are by far the hardest draft picks to get right