2018 NFL Draft Day Two Game Thread w spoilers

eustis22

New Member
Nov 14, 2016
998
Linebacker felt like the #1 problem coming in to the offseason and hasn't been touched.

why touch it when the plug-special-teamers-in approach worked so well
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Two firsts and two seconds and we get a guard, an injured running back, and a guy who if all breaks right will be a nickleback.

Nothing to address Brady replacement, really anything on defense, and no linebacker help. I'm not one to criticize Belichick drafts but I really, really dont understand this years efforts at all.
1-The guard protects our most important asset and smart draft guys LOVE it.

2-Sony Michel is not actually injured. In the last game his team played, in the national title game, he ran for 98 yards. In the game prior he run for 181. On 11 carries.

3-Nickelback isn't just a great fucking band, it's an important position. And, you know, is a position that contributed to allowing about 987 points in the Super Bowl.

4-Brady's replacement can still be picked in the remaining draft. Or next year.

5-I'm pretty sure at least 1 linebacker is still out there.

6--You are criticizing. Which is fine, but don't say you're not.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,948
Interesting. Steelers trade up to get Mason Rudolph. They also drafted his teammate, WR, James Washington, in the 2nd round. I'm a fan of Washington.
 

finnVT

superspreadsheeter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2002
2,153
So sitting here at 3.26, we have Atlanta, New Orleans, Pitt, Jacksonville, Minn, 49ers, Bills, Cardinals, Texans coming up, none of whom are likely looking QB. Denver at 3.35 the only real possibility remaining, barring other trade-ups. If the Pats really liked Lauletta or Falk, moving up from 4.5 to 3.34ish (only ~7 picks) would seem likely to be pretty cheap (a 6th?).

Not saying they should or shouldn't, but once it gets cheap enough, I take comfort in the fact that if it doesn't happen, it's likely because they didn't really like the player, not because they got scooped. And I can live with that.
 

Section15Box113

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2005
8,914
Inside Lou Gorman's Head
So sitting here at 3.26, we have Atlanta, New Orleans, Pitt, Jacksonville, Minn, 49ers, Bills, Cardinals, Texans coming up, none of whom are likely looking QB. Denver at 3.35 the only real possibility remaining, barring other trade-ups. If the Pats really liked Lauletta or Falk, moving up from 4.5 to 3.34ish (only ~7 picks) would seem likely to be pretty cheap (a 6th?).

Not saying they should or shouldn't, but once it gets cheap enough, I take comfort in the fact that if it doesn't happen, it's likely because they didn't really like the player, not because they got scooped. And I can live with that.
Both are past DEN at 3.35.

(Elway went with Yiadom from BC.)
 

Grimace-HS

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 8, 2012
844
It seems like that it will have to be with their next pick if they see either Lauletta or Falk as a potential successor. I am not sure either will be there into the 5th round. Barring a trade, both should still be there unless Indy wants more depth.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
9,580
NOVA
This draft proved to be even less exciting than last years and we didn't even have a pick til the 4th last year.

Two firsts and two seconds and we get a guard, an injured running back, and a guy who if all breaks right will be a nickleback.

Nothing to address Brady replacement, really anything on defense, and no linebacker help. I'm not one to criticize Belichick drafts but I really, really dont understand this years efforts at all.
Said by everyone here, ever.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Linebackers whose primary job is to be at the second level, fight through trash and make tackles. Usually dropping into coverage on pass plays, occasionally rushing the passer. I was thinking of Smith and Leonard, I see I missed Evans.

Collins was more of a pass rusher.
In college, but in the NFL Collins was the kind of off-ball guy you describe. Vander Esch, Edmunds also off-ball guys.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Maybe what you think of the LB situation isn't the same as what Bill thinks. In terms of what the team has. In terms of how the team plans on deploying the LB corps in 2018. He's not perfect, and I'd like to see a linebacker taken too, but BB isn't being intentionally reckless with the roster.

I'm just going to hope this says something positive about what the team believes they have in Harvey Langi and Van Noy, the health of Hightower and Rivers. It likely suggests their evaluation of the players - LB and otherwise - tells them there's a lot of fungible draft prospects, some of whom we'll select tomorrow.
I would never accuse Belichick of being "intentionally reckless"; it's more that he has old-school ideas of requisite LB size and it's difficult to find LB who are that big who can run with RBs and TEs or cover a lot of ground in underneath zones. Belichick understands this, which is why Richards played so much in the Super Bowl over another LB; unfortunately, they have not added anyone who will displace Richards from those situations. Maybe I'm missing something; maybe Belichick thinks the problem is the way he / Patricia coached the second-level defenders to handle stuff like RPOs and wheel routes and he has a new plan for 2018. But the D has quietly not been that good since 2009 or so and it was putrid at times last year, especially against smart OCs and mobile QBs.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I would never accuse Belichick of being "intentionally reckless"; it's more that he has old-school ideas of requisite LB size and it's difficult to find LB who are that big who can run with RBs and TEs or cover a lot of ground in underneath zones. Belichick understands this, which is why Richards played so much in the Super Bowl over another LB; unfortunately, they have not added anyone who will displace Richards from those situations. Maybe I'm missing something; maybe Belichick thinks the problem is the way he / Patricia coached the second-level defenders to handle stuff like RPOs and wheel routes and he has a new plan for 2018. But the D has quietly not been that good since 2009 or so and it was putrid at times last year, especially against smart OCs and mobile QBs.
I'm betting he has watched the rules evolution favor offense over X years and believes he can press his advantage in Brady farther than a similar resource usage on defense. No one is infallible but perhaps he believes that given his perennial draft disadvantage he can't have that LB/defensive player the league covets absent an unpalatable cost?

Edit: let's not forget the league has subtracted a draft pick or 3 that he has had to overcome. As this forum has noted it is a massive loss of resources felt for multiple years.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
It’s good to see Guregian and Volin ignore basic math and insist the sky is falling. (“How could you not address tackle and defense and successor QB and pass rush!”) Local media typically wrong.

That said, stripped draft picks are no excuse and, of course, injuries never are. That’s part of the creed. When you are HC and GM, you are accountable.

There seems to be some amnesia about the first four games in 2017. The defense was pitiful and helpless and gutted in historic fashion. It didn’t get materially better; the schedule got materially easier. As everyone says, it’s a copycat league, so buckle up.

I am not disappointed in the draft so far. In fact, I’m pleased by it. You can only do so much with what you have. The caught a bad break when Vrabel jumped them in round 1. I’m not going to second guess day 2 (e.g., Landry).

But again, they can fairly be held to account if the defense does not get better. Expecting all the injured souls to come back and be effective seems a tad optimistic. But FA is not over, I would not be shocked if they traded future draft assets for a proven player, and, of course, there is the possibility of in season deals next year if things still seem to suck.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
I'm betting he has watched the rules evolution favor offense over X years and believes he can press his advantage in Brady farther than a similar resource usage on defense. No one is infallible but perhaps he believes that given his perennial draft disadvantage he can't have that LB/defensive player the league covets absent an unpalatable cost?
I think that's a reasonable strategy up until the point you give up 40 points in the Super Bowl. Then you know you've gone too far.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I think that's a reasonable strategy up until the point you give up 40 points in the Super Bowl. Then you know you've gone too far.
Fair enough.

I do think he has to adapt to the way the superbowl was refereed as well. By calling zero OL penalties on either team the Brady advantage was minimized (any competant NFL QB with unlimited time can raise their game). So that should change the computations in some way - maybe swing things towards the defense?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Fair enough.

I do think he has to adapt to the way the superbowl was refereed as well. By calling zero OL penalties on either team the Brady advantage was minimized (any competant NFL QB with unlimited time can raise their game). So that should change the computations in some way - maybe swing things towards the defense?
I don't see the referreeing in the Super Bowl as a major factor to be honest. Foles had a ton of time because the NE pass rush is bad, the Eagles OL is good, because they insisted on playing old man Harrison almost every snap, and because the Eagles picked up every game / blitz they tried. And Philly had receivers running free all game; it's not like Foles needed a ton of time. The Patriots averaged drawing fewer than 1 offensive hold per game for the season, so getting zero called is hardly a) unusual or b) likely to affect things dramatically.
 

eustis22

New Member
Nov 14, 2016
998
let's not forget the league has subtracted a draft pick or 3 that he has had to overcome. As this forum has noted it is a massive loss of resources felt for multiple yea
However, this does not mitigate the fact that today, at this moment, the Pats must rely on Elandon Roberts and Jordan Richards. Who here would make the point that no one the Pats passed up (and I am not referring to trade-positions-that-might-have-been) would not be a significant upgrade to those to craters in the d?

Another year of 2nd string special teamers on your front 7. BB must be planning on winning games 50-45. Cause that worked so well in the SB.

Bitter, table for 1.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,658
where I was last at
I was underwhelmmed by BB's strategic decisions last night. As I posted on another board (mostly non-Pats fans). after the Dawson pick.

[quote author=bankshot1 link=topic=10.msg122740#msg122740 date=1524881349]
Trader Bill had some fun in the 2nd round.
If I got it right he traded down twice, then traded up, and ended up with a Fla. CB, and '18 4th rounder and and '19 2nd round pick.
I'm pretty sure the goal was to make it as confusing as possible to figure out the eventual yield on the Jimmy G trade.
heh
[/quote]

Unless he hopes to bring back James Harrison I just dont see the help up front they need.

And BB seemed to forget there is a difference between future value and present value.
 

Marbleheader

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2004
11,726
I didn't get trading up after the two trade downs. They gave up a lot of value moving up and if they had a guy they liked that wasn't going to be available at their next pick, why trade down? I'm sure we'll love the Bears 2nd rounder next year, but in the interim the defense could use help this year.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
However, this does not mitigate the fact that today, at this moment, the Pats must rely on Elandon Roberts and Jordan Richards. Who here would make the point that no one the Pats passed up (and I am not referring to trade-positions-that-might-have-been) would not be a significant upgrade to those to craters in the d?

Another year of 2nd string special teamers on your front 7. BB must be planning on winning games 50-45. Cause that worked so well in the SB.

Bitter, table for 1.
Roberts will probably be in the mix but Hightower will be back and I think they expect Langhi and M Flowers to compete for time.
I don't think Richards will be in the mix, at least I certainly hope not.
I assume they'll pick a guy shortly and then invite a couple of UDFAs as well.

WTF do you have to be bitter about?

As for M'header's note I think they had a list of secondary guys they wanted and if you look at the picks before them there was a run of 3 guys in a row. I think they dropped back figuring they'd get one of them but then when they saw the 3 go they figured they'd better move up to get their guy.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I don't see the referreeing in the Super Bowl as a major factor to be honest. Foles had a ton of time because the NE pass rush is bad, the Eagles OL is good, because they insisted on playing old man Harrison almost every snap, and because the Eagles picked up every game / blitz they tried. And Philly had receivers running free all game; it's not like Foles needed a ton of time. The Patriots averaged drawing fewer than 1 offensive hold per game for the season, so getting zero called is hardly a) unusual or b) likely to affect things dramatically.
The fact that they don't draw a lot of penalties doesn't mean there weren't egregious penalties they should have called - for example the Long penalty drawn against Atlanta was critical to them winning. Who knows how a single penalty could have swung the most recent superbowl.

I'm nust saying it is a factor, not a zero factor.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Not getting to watch the Groop get the Pats to Super Bowls the next 15 years. This has been another in Simple Answers to Simple Questions
Your saying this because they haven’t picked a LB in the first 3 rounds of the draft?

Seems like a dumb reaction to something you don’t know much about.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
The fact that they don't draw a lot of penalties doesn't mean there weren't egregious penalties they should have called - for example the Long penalty drawn against Atlanta was critical to them winning. Who knows how a single penalty could have swung the most recent superbowl.
Yeah, that's fine, it doesn't materially change that the defense was trash and was trash much of last year and doesn't look a whole lot better today. You're saying your absess isn't really leaking that much pus; I'm saying you need to go see a doctor.

Hightower, Rivers, and Langi are additions to LB from last year.
Hightower will help - if he can stay healthy. Rivers is more of an edge guy (and is starting from square one), and Langi is a UDFA who didn't really get on the field. If these are the answers, we are in trouble. The two 4.7 guys they drafted don't install a lot of confidence either. Belichick is doubling down on big, slow LB.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Alvin Kamara, Kareem Hunt, Corey Clement, et al vs our “thumpers” at LB. I don’t know what about this is difficult to understand, especially when the opposing QB has all day to throw.

Hightower, nice. But we’re at a point in his career, based on recent years, where you can count on him to miss a quarter of the season. Just book it.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
I don't think Richards will be in the mix, at least I certainly hope not.
As it stands now, I would expect Richards to play more of a role in 2018. They added zero safeties, and the two LB additions are not coverage types. Maybe they sign Kenny Vaccaro or Eric Reid next week and change the picture, but Richards' roster spot looks more secure than it did a couple days ago.

Alvin Kamara, Kareem Hunt, Corey Clement, et al vs our “thumpers” at LB. I don’t know what about this is difficult to understand, especially when the opposing QB has all day to throw.

Hightower, nice. But we’re at a point in his career, based on recent years, where you can count on him to miss a quarter of the season. Just book it.
And Hightower runs well for a 270-pound guy but he's not remotely capable of keeping up with guys like Kamara / Hunt / Clement. He does a lot of things well but that's just not his game.
 
Apr 7, 2006
2,505
I sure hope Richards makes the year three jump because he is truly TERRIBLE at football. I was susprised he made the 53 last year and he managed to look even worse with experience. Hopefully whatever BB sees in him will finally blossom this season, I can't believe his roster spot is secure even without shiny new players from the draft.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,392
NH
Damarius
I sure hope Richards makes the year three jump because he is truly TERRIBLE at football. I was susprised he made the 53 last year and he managed to look even worse with experience. Hopefully whatever BB sees in him will finally blossom this season, I can't believe his roster spot is secure even without shiny new players from the draft.
Damarius Travis takes his spot this season. Book it.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Yeah, that's fine, it doesn't materially change that the defense was trash and was trash much of last year and doesn't look a whole lot better today. You're saying your absess isn't really leaking that much pus; I'm saying you need to go see a doctor.
LMAO, I'm just don't know where to go with that. That was funny as hell. :D

I do agree in general, but let me end with this. I think BB has made a career of tilting odds in his favor. 1% or 2% here. 0.5% in a couple of places. Maybe a surprise play or defensive call to flip a single play by a larger percentage. To my way of thinking he had it in his head that the team could win (even with the abscess) given the advantage at QB. Even given all that you have stated, they were a single drive from winning, one could argue even a single play or two from it. I think that was likely right where BB thought it would be. As we've seen from most of the Patriots SB appearances, the margin between winning and losing is very small. And taking back X% of a QB advantage is enough to make a difference.

Had they won the SB, you would still be right in your point about the defense needing significant attention. But a knowledgeable person (more than I obviously) could take that game apart and probably find a number of places where the swing of a few percentage points likely flips the result. Any sane person would agree that there was so much room for difference making on the defensive side of the ball, from Butler on down. Going forward most would also agree there is more low hanging fruit on defensive improvement than other areas of the game. But it's always a balancing act: salaries, rules changes, strategy shifts, existing player evaluation, player attrition (injuries, retirements, free agent losses, etc.), protecting the future outlook of the team, coaching skill sets, all have to be factored into his team building calculations. It's obviously not cut and dried that doing X for the defense will bring another SB win next year. If nothing else, we don't know how he views the departure of Patricia and the ability of the coaching staff to reliably coach up a 2nd, or 3rd round selection. Maybe he feels like trades or experienced player training camp cap casualty pickups are the better way to go this time around. I'm just not willing to throw my hands up and say they didn't do enough for the defense because they didn't do a particular X or Y at a given time.

FWIW: Thank you for taking the time to respond/offer your opinion here and elsewhere - I respect your football knowledge a great deal.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
I do agree in general, but let me end with this. I think BB has made a career of tilting odds in his favor. 1% or 2% here. 0.5% in a couple of places. Maybe a surprise play or defensive call to flip a single play by a larger percentage. To my way of thinking he had it in his head that the team could win (even with the abscess) given the advantage at QB. Even given all that you have stated, they were a single drive from winning, one could argue even a single play or two from it. I think that was likely right where BB thought it would be. As we've seen from most of the Patriots SB appearances, the margin between winning and losing is very small. And taking back X% of a QB advantage is enough to make a difference.
I think we have a tendency to see where our team could have won if just the small percentage worked in our favor and we ignore the cases where we would have lost had a small percentage worked against us. But there are still Jaguars fans complaining that Myles Jack wasn't down. There are still Steelers fans complaining that Jesse James caught it (which likely would have given Pittsburgh HFA and then who knows how things play out?).

Had they won the SB, you would still be right in your point about the defense needing significant attention. But a knowledgeable person (more than I obviously) could take that game apart and probably find a number of places where the swing of a few percentage points likely flips the result. Any sane person would agree that there was so much room for difference making on the defensive side of the ball, from Butler on down. Going forward most would also agree there is more low hanging fruit on defensive improvement than other areas of the game. But it's always a balancing act: salaries, rules changes, strategy shifts, existing player evaluation, player attrition (injuries, retirements, free agent losses, etc.), protecting the future outlook of the team, coaching skill sets, all have to be factored into his team building calculations. It's obviously not cut and dried that doing X for the defense will bring another SB win next year. If nothing else, we don't know how he views the departure of Patricia and the ability of the coaching staff to reliably coach up a 2nd, or 3rd round selection. Maybe he feels like trades or experienced player training camp cap casualty pickups are the better way to go this time around. I'm just not willing to throw my hands up and say they didn't do enough for the defense because they didn't do a particular X or Y at a given time.
That's fair, and they do have time and resources (money, future picks, maybe even unloading "extra" talent if people stay healthy at certain spots) to do something more, even throughout the season. To me, today, the defense is not materially improved from 2017, but maybe I'm wrong and maybe they're not done.