interesting point with regards to drafting needs

[Walter34 3]

This team has the # 26 rated overall defense in 2005, but has the # 7 rated overall offense. Yet they select offensive players with the first six picks, and with 7 of their ten pick total.

 

What type of loser franchise can so obviously ignore an area of extreme need just to bolster a team strength at the expense of team need.

 

The team

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- The New England Patriots.

[cmh6476 1,023]

yeah but they also lost some talent on offense, and they did address an area of need in the offseason by signing superstar corner Eric Warfield

[Arsenal 3]

Sitting in their position, there was not many defensive value plays. Some of the offensive players slipped a little bit and NE jumped at them. Its not like they didn't draft for need either - NE has lost quite a few players the past couple years.

[mikeso 0]

maybe they will do some trades laters....who knows...im sure they know what they are doing...i love their first two picks...

[Boston 0]

The Pats ranking last year is not totally realistic. They got crushed with injuries early (Harrison, Gay and everyone else in the secondary as well as Seymour and Bruschi not playing early). Once Bruschi and Seymour came back and Wilfork and Hobbs improved dramatically the Pats D was near the top of the league by year end especially in run defense. As for the offense they put up some stats but it wasn't that pretty due to injuries and underachieving. Their RB corps was destroyed by injuries (they were starting Heath Evans at one point) and wasn't overly deep. Their O line was also hit hard by injuries and their WR corps was pretty much Branch and Givens and nothing else as Davis and Dwight offered little help. At TE Graham also missed a decent amount of time and dressed but didn't play much in a few other contests. Since the Pats run many two Te sets depth was an issue there as well.

 

All that being said the Pats continue to draft for value and BB/Pioli saw value on the offensive side of the ball. They will now have an offense with only two players on the whole unit over the age of 30 in Dillon and Brown so continued success instead of being good every few years can be expected. On the defensive side of the ball Seymour, Wilfork, Warren, Green, Gay, Wilson, Hobbs, Samuel and Colvin are all under 30 and Vrabel's still in his prime. This team has been able to win three titles in five years while not going into cap hell (they currently are 17 mil under pre-draft...while still getting younger) which is a pretty amazing feat.

[Walter34 3]

maybe they will do some trades laters....who knows...im sure they know what they are doing...i love their first two picks...

 

I'm not critisizing them at all. The point was that it is similar to what Chi did drafting D.

[TD Ryan2 316]

drafting for "need" is a pretty big mistake.

drafting for value seems to be a winning strategy.

 

BUF, more than any other team, seemed to be drafting for "need" and as such, they really reached for a few players (Whitner, McCargo).

That's great that they got players in postitions that they "need" but it still doesn't mean they had a great draft.

[Walter34 3]

drafting for "need" is a pretty big mistake.

drafting for value seems to be a winning strategy.

 

BUF, more than any other team, seemed to be drafting for "need" and as such, they really reached for a few players (Whitner, McCargo).

That's great that they got players in postitions that they "need" but it still doesn't mean they had a great draft.

 

I think each team is different. Some scenarios call for BPA while others call for that one guy that can fill a hole and help you to the next level.

 

Despite the high rank on O, you could argue that NE needed the RB and WR more than anything else. They made up for the Givens exodus and have Dillon's replacement in camp.

 

The D could have used an LB or S, but that would be splitting hairs.