This could be a very interesting few weeks for the Patriots:

* Colvin released.
* Stallworth released.
* Kelley Washington released.
* Eugene Wilson will not be re-signed.
* Asante Samuel is going elsewhere.
* FoxSports.com says the Pats and Moss "aren't close".
* Will Bruschi retire?
* Will Seau retire?
* Stephen Neal has a possible ACL injury.

Last one out turn out the lights!

Perhaps that $5.5M gain in cap room will help them get "close" with Moss' contract demands...

Is Colvin still a viable 3-4 OLB? If so then he's going to do very well as a free agent as there's only him and Pace on the market.

This makes me think that the Pats might make a play for Briggs, who'd be a great ILB in a 3-4 (he's one of the top Lbs in the game at taking on offensive linemen.) That would allow Thomas to move outside where he's most natural.

This is a kind of surprising move because they're already way short on linebackers.

What if they went back to being a primarily 4-3 team and started a DL of Warren, Wilfork, Seymour, Green?

I dunno, it looks like they're getting dismantled. They've basically got two linebackers that are trustworthy at this point, and they seem to like to have proven starters at that position.

Maybe they will buck the trend of experienced linebackers and try to draft one this year.

Huh. I don't remember Colvin ever being mixed up in the usual Pats dirty tricks/HGH accusations. Maybe Indy will take a look at him if he isn't washed up. :)

Pates winning ways soon to be over. New temas starting to take over. Raiders are one of them.

i'm excited about the new temas.

"This makes me think that the Pats might make a play for Briggs, who’d be a great ILB in a 3-4 (he’s one of the top Lbs in the game at taking on offensive linemen.)"

eh? I've never gotten that impression when watching Briggs. he seems like a great 'flow' linebacker that needs to be freed up to flow to the football. then again, taking on guards isn't necessary for being a 34 ILB - undersized donnie edwards flourished playing inside for the chargers, and wade phillips always made sure he was well-protected with stack alignments.

"This makes me think that the Pats might make a play for Briggs, who’d be a great ILB in a 3-4."

Conversely, this immediately makes me wonder if Chicago would go after Colvin in case they (inevitably) won't pay Briggs what he wants.

The window closes

Re 9:

Unless they play him as a DE, I don't think he would fit our scheme.

No possibility that they resign Colvin for less?

When did they cut Washington? I missed that one.

re 12: they could sign colvin for less, but would he resign with them for less when he knows he could get more elsewhere? he has rings from his patriots days and he might look around at this LB free agent class and think he can strike it rich again. I am not surprised by this as his cap number was excessive. I do think that the Pats will draft a LB because I believe they will end up trading that 7 pick for a later first or an early 2nd rounder and grab someone to develop.

if bruschi and seau return, will this just mean more highlights of "power" backs liek Willis McGahee juking and then stiffarming the two of them?

I keep on hearing about Briggs to 3-4 teams....and Briggs himself has said he is not a fan of the 3-4 after playing it in college..I can't find the original article, but link to a message board on my name.

Colvin got hurt in the Philly game. They won 5 regular season and 2 playoff games without him. Not the end of the world. As of now, they do need at least 2 younger linebackers, whether from the draft or free agency. My hope is that one of their first day draft picks goes into a big 2 down run stopper, in the Ted Johnson mold.

I finally watched the superbowl last night. Basically Bruschi & Seau were mauled by Jacobs whenever he got past the line. Bruschi in-particular had that "deer in the headlights" look. They need to be more physical, not experienced.

Personally I thougt Belichick got a bit too cute for his own good when he decided he didn't need any draft picks this year and traded loads of them away. Great move if you then win the Superbowl, highly questionable if you miss out on one by a tiny margin. I had David Harris pegged to go to the Pats at the end of round one last year, but no Belichick decided to trade the pick away. Or Joe Staley even, he would have been a big improvement on Kazcur (or whoever it was that ended up getting raped by Strahan in the Superbowl). Trading the picks away was a massive act of hubris and arrogance, why is no one calling Belichick out for it? Great move Bill, you have the seventh pick in the draft; wanna swap it for a championship?

yeah, the team went 16-0. Good job Belichick, you were a rookie away from winning it all (or a great Tyree catch, if only you drafted Eddie Stickyhands instead Belichick!)

don't feed the trolls

All this talk of the 'window closing' is laughable. They still have Brady, who got them to the AFC Championship with no WRs and an over the hill Corey Dillon. As long as Brady and Daniels are still doing their thing, and Belichick is running the D, they will contend. Now, if Dom Capers takes over, all best are off...

While trying to avoid the feeding, I want to try to respond to Jimmy rationally.

Last year, the Pats signed a bunch of free agents on what were essentially one-year, make-good contracts. It was apparent from the time they signed guys like Moss, Washington, and Stallworth that they wouldn't be able to keep them all next year (particularly with Adailus Thomas' deal kicking in). Last year, with all those free agents, rookies would have had a hard time contributing.

This year, as mentioned before, the Pats have a lot of roster holes due to the departure of said free agents. Therefore, those stockpiled draft picks become more valuable.

To suggest that David Harris would have made the difference in the Super Bowl is idle speculation. And to suggest that Joe Staley, while he has a lot of potential, would have done significantly better than Kaczur against Strahan et al is just wrong.

I suspect the Pats agree. In order to be the greatest team ever, they also have to be more physical than the physical teams, mostly NFC. I can see alot of AFC teams - particularly Mangini & Parcells- drafting for physical players on both sides of the ball to exploit their weakness. Welker will continue to get his short stuff, but the team is going to get pounded. 50-50 chance Brady plays less than 12 games.

#21

Thankyou for the rational response, it was meant as a rational argument. As far as I am aware Belichick is the only GM who when holding double first round picks will trade one of them away to try to increase the value he gets for the pick. No one ever points out that there is a down-side to the move, namely that you are declining an opportunity to improve your team.

My point is that David Harris is very good, probably better than Bruschi or Seau were at the end of last season. Similarly Staley is an excellent tackle, by the end of last year he was playing way better than Kazcur. For my money Staley is at this moment in time a better prospect than Long, Clady or any of the other linemen the Pats could pick up at number seven - he has rare athletiscism for a big man and has shown he has enough power to play in the pros. The Pats could have picked him up at a relatively low cap figure for the next four years and it could have been the nudge that helped them beat the Giants (it was after all a very close game).

Regardless of who comes and who goes, you can't make a living betting against the Pats. The duo of Poli and Belichick always seen
m to put together a great team.

Well, couple of things.

Staley wouldn't have affected the Super Bowl, because the bigger issue was the interior rush. Neal hurt his knee and went out, and Tuck just dominated the middle of the line.

Belichick didn't like last years draft class. Sure, the Giants got a lot out of it, but that was in the short term view of one year. Lets see how the Patriots do in the long run, with their #7 and 3rd round pick from Oakland.

The draft would be even more amazing if they hadn't lost their 1st round pick, as they would have had #7, #31, #63, #68, #95. Now there is a big gap, and THAT is due to Belichick's hubris... but nothing else.

Going 18-0 does not reflect any bad decisions. Falling apart in the Super Bowl can not be generalized to mean anything at all.

RE: #1

I understand you're a fan and mostly joking... but we knew Stallworth and Washington were not going to be given the bonuses half way through the season. You don't pay 8 million for your WR3 and you don't pay 4 million for a special teamer.

Once it became clear that the Patriots could clear 5+ million by getting rid of Colvin, I assumed he would be cut. I didn't want him to be, as I like the idea of having a lot of talented LB's, but Thomas was very good in the OLB role, so now they just need to fill ILB.

Asante was gone from the minute he showed up to camp. I think he is overrated, but then again, had he caught that interception to win the Super Bowl, I would have wanted him to get paid just for saving the season.

I think Bruschi and Seau come back for another year, and they draft a LB somehow. Gholston would be good, but he would push Thomas back inside... there don't seem to be any elite ILB's, so hopefully they scout somebody and draft him in the 3rd.

I'm looking forward to the draft, and really hoping we trade down or take Gholston. I like Leodis McLovin and Kenny Phillips, but neither with the #7.

On Colvin: He's good, but not AS good as he should be in the 3-4. The 3-4 is really designed to make the OLB's shine, and for all the fanfare when they got Colvin, he's been competent but not amazing the way he was expected to be. Part of that was the catastrophic hip injury he suffered, and maybe his foot injury is worse than reported (actually, NOTHING has been reported), but I suspect that the reason why he was cut was that his level of play wasn't worth a $7.7 M cap charge, or whatever it was. Possibly they tried to re-work a deal, and he refused, wanting to see what the open market would hold. I would expect the Pats would be very interested in re-signing him at a more cap-friendly deal, but whether they can out-bid competitors now is doubtful. I also agree with the sentiment that cutting Colvin probably is a tool to get closer to Moss's demands--from all the rumors I've heard, Moss isn't going to the highest bidder, but has an asking price, and he's giving the Pats the first opportunity to meet it, but if they don't, he's gone to whoever does.

Regarding Briggs: I am almost certain I remember an interview with him last year that specifically said that he does not want to play in a 3-4, and specifically not in the 3-4 that New England runs. If the price was right, maybe he'd change his mind, but I don't see how the Pats can make the price right with their limited amount of cap space and needs to re-tool at receiver this year.

Regarding the pick trading last year...I can't talk about Staley specifically, not having watched him, but the general reasons that B+P (Belichick and Pioli) gave last year, in addition to having lots of veteran FA's and no room for rookies, was that they thought this year's draft was going to be a deeper draft with better talent, and so they transferred picks to this year. Remember, if things had gone according to plan, the Pats would have had TWO first round picks this year and be in a better position to re-tool after all these 1-year FA's departed.

I have to agree Rosevelt Colvin after the hip injury never became the "guy" I think the Patriots thought he was going to be in that defense for the money. You have to think there's market out there for a guy that can get 7-8 sacks a year from the outside in a 3-4.

Also,

I can understand not drafting a RT last year, unless you were sure that a tackle on the board was God's gift to the game. The Pats have invested relatively heavily draftwise at RT recently--drafing Kaczur in the 2nd round a couple of years ago, and drafting and grooming O'Callaghan the year after that, and both are relatively competent players. Not elite, but competent. Remember, the Pats O-line was legendary all through the regular season and decent through the playoffs at it's good pass protection, and FO had it well ranked for run blocking as well. Kaczur/O'Callaghan were fine until they ran up against the "4 Aces". If a line performs well against practically every pass rush in the league excapt against the very best, does that mean you desparately need to upgrade it?

In other words, if you have two average-to-slightly-above-average players at a position, a player needs to be a clear and dramatic upgrade to justify spending a first round pick at that same position. Was anyone talking about Staley being a "can't miss" tackle in last year's draft?

Also, weren't there a couple of supposedly elite prospects at ILB (which the Pats definitely need) that were supposed to come out this year? I don't follow much college ball, but I remember reading that. Maybe they thought, rather than taking a player they weren't sure of last year, they would bank and get two firsts this year to be sure of getting one of those guys that they really liked... Of course, now they only have one pick, and apparently those guys aren't coming out...

Isn't part of the reason the Pats were always short on linebackers because Colvin was always hurt?

Sorry about so many posts, but I just noticed something that makes no sense.

In addition to cutting Rosie Colvin, the Pats also cut Oscar Lua.

Lua was an undrafted rookie free agent they signed this past year. He actually looked pretty decent in training camp, and actually beat out one of the Pats' late-round draft picks and was looking like he had a shot at actually making the roster in spite of the talent around him, as insurance behind Bruschi and Seau. Then he suffered an undisclosed injury and was placed on IR--the thinnking at the time was that this was a way of "banking him" to save his roster spot while keeping him under contract so that other teams couldn't grab him away.

But now they cut him. Now, I don't know how highly the coaches actually rank him, or what injury he actually may have had, but given that you're now facing a shortage at LB, and certainly aren't cramped for roster space, and aren't really paying him much (so there's no cap savings), why do you cut him? I'm not saying he's a future pro-bowler, but isn't it better to have a potential contributor at a position you're weak at under contract as opposed to not?

Why are the Patriots still playing the 3-4? At this point, don't they have more than three starting-caliber lineman and well under four starting-caliber linebackers? I know the 3-4's been their thing for a while now, and maybe they just don't want to change systems all of a sudden, but they might be better if they played more to their strengths (or more to the point, less to their weaknesses). Now, I don't know how Wilfork, Warren, Seymour, and Green would fit into a 4-3 line, so it's possible that it just wouldn't work. But what if the Pats switched to a 4-3, picked up Briggs in free agency, and suddenly they had Adalius Thomas, Briggs, and MLB-to-be-determined in addition to that D-line? I think it's pretty intriguing, in any case.

Anyway, I'm not a Patriots fan, so I probably don't know their players' strengths and weaknesses as well as their actual fans might. Any Patriots fans have an opinion on this?

In response to a bunch of posts:

Yes, there were two great ILB's that were underclassmen and chose to go back to school. The one I liked was Laurinaitis, who would have definitely been worth a #7 pick.

And Oscar Lua was a 7th round pick by the Patriots, he got hurt in preseason and was put on IR. I believe it was a knee injury. You could argue that it was a way of "stashing him" on their roster, or you could argue that he got hurt in preseason and instead of giving an injury settlement, they just left him on IR, and now they are freeing him to find a team that will pay him, because we won't.

I was hoping one of those later LB's would actually stick, but none of them seemed to. If they really had no intention to keep him, I think they did him a favor by cutting him before free agency.

And Colvin was not always hurt, he was hurt in two years... the middle two years (2005, 2006) he led the team in sacks. So 2 out of 4 is bad, but you can't predict things like his hip injury or his latest. They aren't due to him being injury prone, at least.

Was anyone talking about Staley being a “can’t miss” tackle in last year’s draft?

Only me and a couple of people I know. In fact drafting as the Bears in the unofficial FO fantasy draft I traded Briggs for the 18th pick so I could draft Staley. Amazing feet for a big tackle.

And the 4-3 question is interesting. I am not an expert either, but I would give two "For" and two "Against" arguments:

For-
1: They have had trouble finding excellent LB's like Belichick is used to in the past. They happen to have 4 very nice D-lineman in Wilfork, Seymour, Warren and Green.
2: The strength of the 3-4 is that it can shift into several different formations, confusing the QB's... but lately, they haven't had the talent at LB to make use of it. In 2003-2004, the defense was opaque and could shift at the drop of a hat into whatever it wanted, part of the reason Manning didn't play well. Lately, they haven't done that.

Against:
1- Even though they have 4 good D-lineman, they don't fit the 4-3 scheme. Just like having Vilma on the NYJ doesn't mean they have great 3-4 LB's. If they switched, they would have a very big DT (Wilfork) used to playing a two gap system now lined up in a one gap system, next to (most likely) Seymour as the other DT. Green and Warren would come off the edge. It could work, and they do shift into it during games, but I don't think it is their strengths. Plus, who would be the backups? Mike Wright? Or draft someone?
2: The coaching staff specializes in a 3-4. Belichick could be good in any defense, I am sure, but his "brilliance" in the past has been changing up the formations. Just because they haven't done it as much as 2003-2004 does not mean they don't, and switching to a 4-3 would negate some of his advantages.

One thing that has been tougher-- since more teams have adopted the 3-4, there is much more competition for the "3-4 players" who fit the two gap scheme and are a bit oversized. This is partially why the Patriots haven't landed a good LB-- any of the big ones get taken too high.

This isn't a perfect explanation, mostly just my opinion, but I hope it helped answer some of your questions.

Every year people ask "Why don't the Pats switch to the 4-3".

The answer is that they do...kind of. The Pats will flow pretty freely between a 3-4 and a 4-3. Sometimes they "switch" in mid-game by brining Green in to add to the mix, and sometimes by having Vrabel put his hand down and play like a DE. Sometimes they take Bruschi or Seau out and put in Green, and sometimes they take Wilfork and Bruschi or Seau out and put in Green and Mike Wright.

But I think the key difference is that, even when playing a 4-3, their D-linemen still play primarily a 2-gap technique (2-gap is primarily associated with the 3-4, but can be used with either alignment). I could be wrong on this--I'm not an X's and O's expert. But I think switching from a 2-gap to a 1-gap technique to adopt a more "traditional" 4-3 would be a dramatic shift that would require some familiarization with the players, and I'm not sure that some of their D-linemen (especially Wilfork and Warren) would be suitable for it. I could be wrong, though.

One thing is for certain...they do not have a prototypical 4-3 MLB on the roster, or at least not one that's any good.

I agree. It's odd that they cut Lula. Why not cut him earlier in the year if you're not convinced he can develop into a contributor? I think the Patriots' '07 draft was largely a flop (only 2 out of 9 players still on the roster). If long-term success in the NFL depends on a team's ability to develop late-round picks, the Patriots' aren't looking good. Although the team had a deep roster last year, you still need to have a strong group of young players ready to step in the event that a large number of starters depart.

I hate hearing about the Patriots not having a deep draft class.

They didn't like the class, so this is what they did.

Traded 1st and 3rd for this year. We now have the #7 and #100 pick.

Traded the 2nd and 4th and 7th for Welker and Moss. Moss we have to resign, but he did amazing last year. Welker is locked up for another 4 years.

So getting rid of a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th, we still drafted 9 players. We only expected Meriweather to do anything, and he is the only one who did anything.

I would love to have young talent on the team, but we didn't have the room for anybody-- we had a lot of older talent who might be at their peak in term of development, but are definitely better than anyone who was cut.

Bad math. The 4th selection in the 3rd round is 2X32+4, not 3X32+4... so #68.

This reminds me of two seasons ago when the Pats had a shortage of WRs, and then traded Branch away. Granted, two totally different situations, but I wouldn't be the least suprised to see a very...very bad LB unit, with a bunch of washed up and no-name players heading into the regular season.

I hope I'm wrong. But BB and Pioli have shown that they are willing to sacrifice one year to re-group the following year.

I wonder if anyone here has any insight on Lbs Pierre Woods and Eric Alexander and their potential to even be situational contributors. Alexander got a lot of flack for his performance against the Colts in the AFC Championship game, but I can count on one hand the number of LBs who can cover guys like Dallas Clark or Addai in the middle of the field. I'm not convinced that Alexander's shortcomings in that game provide any insight into whether he can be a successful contributor. I know very little about Woods' potential just that he muffed the fumble in the SB.

#41

I never saw enough of Woods to comment. With regard to your thoughts about Alexander; there are linebackers who struggle in space but those guys generally make up for it by being very physical run defenders. Alexander was getting abused in space and then pushed straight out of his rushing lane. I was suprised to see the Pats keep him to be honest.

unless Lua destroyed his knee, i don't get whyt hey would keep alexander over Lua. i would think there is still something unknown about Lua's ability and potential, plus he played at USC where they slip betweent he 3-4 and 4-3 depending on the opposing offense. on the other hand, i think we know Alexander isn't good. He just looks awful whenever he goes in.

#41
I have no idea how to scout players, but I've found it odd that Woods played D in the SB. As far as I know he played nothing but special teams during the regular season, except for maybe some garbage time. Then all the sudden he's playing D in the SB. Maybe someone who charts the games could fill me in on that one.

As far as Lua maybe the knee injury is very serious so they let him go now?

The moves at LB seem weird, but I'm not going to start doubting Pioli and BB now.

Yes, I like the Patriots Kool-Aid.

re 35:

You can play 2-gap defense from a 4-3. That's how the Bears played during Jauron's tenure.

RE: #45 & #35

I thought that most "Tampa" Cover-2 teams played with at least one DT playing 2 gaps. I forget the exact terminology but the two DTs are refered to as the Over-Tackle and the Under-Tackle. I believe the Over-Tackle is usually the one playing 2 gaps (think "Booger" McFarland, or Brad Culpepper before him) trying to free up the Under-Tackle to have one-on-one match-ups (think Warren Sapp in his prime).

Anyone think they have their eyes on Gholston?

Isn't saying that the Patriots are short at LB just a little understating it? Bruschi and Seau can't be trusted at all (and neither are actually on the team right now anyway, I believe), and with Colvin gone, that only leaves Thomas and Vrabel as the only viable starters on the team.

Reiss's analysis of the linebacking corps seems a bit... sparse. All it really says is "uh... maybe they'll use a third-year linebacker who's never started a game in his life as a starting outside linebacker." Really?! At 26, wouldn't Thomas be the youngest starting linebacker in Patriots recent history or something?

Or, my favorite: "maybe they'll emphasize the 4-3 more because they don't really even have three starting linebackers."

I'm not trying to rip the Patriots at all, I'm just really, really confused by this move. I thought Colvin was one of the Patriots best linebackers (prior to this year with Thomas) when he was healthy.

Sure, his cap number was excessive, but they really couldn't renegotiate with him? You'd have to imagine that replacing him's going to cost at least $2-3M, which means the 'true cap savings' is more like $2-3M. I really don't see that as worth it.

#46

You can (as #45 points out) play two gap from a 4-3. Chicago did it under Blache and I think Washington did it when Blache went there. Jacksonville seem to do the same thing. It doesn't lead to much pass rush, but teams do need to take to the air to score. The Bears used to keep both safeties back and make moving up the field very difficult, the fact that the large D-line can control the line of scrimmage allows the safeties to stay back and helps the linebackers get deep in their drops. The Skins have alternated between heavy blitzing and keeping the safeties back, blitzing is made easier because you can load up one side knowing that the line should keep most of the gaps filled.

If the Pats do move to a 4-3 they would need smaller quicker linebackers to make most effective use of the space the massive line would create (Thomas would stay). It might help to mitigate the loss of their corners as the safeties could stay deep to help them.

In answer to a couple of question raised above, the Pats play one-gap and two-gap 4-3 alignments.

Point of interest: When the Patriots play 3-4, Wilfork lines up as the Nose Tackle, when they play 4-3, Seymour frequently lines up as the NT while Wilfork plays the 3 technique.

Also I think people are a little harsh on Alexander. In his first career start, against one of the best offences in the NFL, on the road, in a Conference Championship game, when a significant number of his defensive teammates were ill or injured, he made ten solo tackles, had one sack, forced a fumble and defended a pass. That isn't too shabby.

#47

The Patriots may like Gholston, but taking him at #7 seems high for a player who may or may not be able to play standing up. That's why the Patriots (along with every other team in the top 10) will attempt try to trade down.

Pat,

Your observation is astute. As I see it, there are only three possible reasons why they released Colvin:

(1) He is hurt a lot more badly than we've heard, and would likely spend training camp and/or part of the season on the PUP or on IR...
(2) He flatly refused to renegotiate (or the Pats didn't offer him a generous enough restructuring for him to take it, relative to what he thinks he could get on the open market)
(3) Belichick and Pioli are dumb.

I tend to lean away from 3, and guess it may be a combination of (1) and (2). If it was just (2), you'd think they would have made at least an effort to trade him and get some value.

Either that, or they've decided they want to re-make the defense completely and decided that Colvin's skills don't fit in well with what they want to do...

The only other possiblity I can think of is that the need the cap space now to restructure someone else, but restructuring his contract for some obscure reason wouldn't be equivalent to cutting him and re-signing him. Are there such contract conditions?

Re: #42

I seem to recall that it took Bruschi 3 years to make the switch to an every-down NFL LB (I think he was a defensive end in college). I also remember that there was a lot of debate about whether he was sturdy enough to play middle linebacker. I wonder if the Pats' brain trust is hoping that Alexander makes a similar transition.

#50 I agree: Alexander did an ok job given it was his first start. Apparently, Belichick doesn't agree with us.

Lua had a knee injury that forced him to miss a lot of playing time college. And then he reinjured that knee and missed the entire season. Not exactly inspiring for somebody that young.

Colvin was also an injury risk, having missed two entire playoff runs since he was signed. I can see the Pats not thinking he's worth the money, though I would think they'd love to have him back at a lower price.

The people talking about "the window is closing" really need to get a grip. It is true, though, that the Pats will certainly have the worst regular season record ever for a team coming off a 16-0 regular season.

As for Brandon Jacobs: the guy weighs nearly 300 pounds. But I don't recall the Giants' rushing game amounting to all that much in the Super Bowl. Of all the Pats' weaknesses, curiously the LB corps was not what cost the Pats that game. I would blame the OL and the secondary before I would blame the LBs. Oh, and the coaching was unusually bad, esp. Josh McDaniels. But something everybody needs to keep in mind is that the Pats were just a sliver of good luck away from pulling that game out.

54,

The window isn't closed yet but I think it looks like the Pats will fall quite a bit. Pats bias aside, they have weak LBers and there secondary won't be very strong either. Losing Samuel, Colvin, and Wilson (assuming they all leave) is huge and at least one of Bruschi and Seau may not be back. Then you have another year of age for guys like Vrabel and Harrison, who has already declined significantly.

On offense, they will obviously still be at least pretty good. But they could lose Stallworth, Gaffney, and dare I say Moss. If two of those three leave I think thats pretty significant as well.

Add to the fact they were pretty healthy last year, with I believe only Sammy Morris and Colvin out for the year; plus the fact they weren't nearly the same team after week 10, and I think you are looking at a big decline unless everything falls right. If they were to lose a significant player to inury next year like Thomas or Vrabel their defense would be really weak. And on offense if they lost Welker or someone on the line they would face some real trouble too.

Add all this up and I think it would be naive to say the Pats aren't due for a big decline next year. By no means due I think they won't win that weak division next year, but it is feasible to think they won't be one of the top two or so in the AFC. I think thats what most people are trying to say. Not that they'll be 8-8 or something, just that they won't be the superteam they were last year. Hope that sounds reasonable to you.

The Patriots can comfortably win their division at 10-6 next year. Maybe even 9-7. It's not like they have a team like Jacksonville or one of the NFC East teams breathing down their necks.

The people talking about “the window is closing” really need to get a grip.

Well, it is - they don't have a replacement for Brady, and he's getting older. The best players on defense are aging to the point where they're not tremendously special anymore. It's a little early to guess what'll happen, of course, but without a lot of luck in the draft or a lot more free agency signings than I expect, I can't see how the Patriots defense will be anything but average or worse next year.

If they've got Brady, a competent offensive line, and Belichick as the coach, they'll be in the playoffs, but I can't see them anywhere near where they were last year. The offense likely won't be as good, and I'd love to hear arguments why the defense won't be worse.

#56: That seems a bit optimistic - yeah, I'll buy that Miami's a ways away from contention, and the Jets are likely, too, but would anyone really be amazed if Buffalo became a significantly above average team next year?

They were an average team last year, and with a bit of improvement at quarterback and offensive line, that could easily be a dangerous team.

re: 57
Tom Brady is 30. OK, the window will close on his career within 5 years. Maybe more. He just had an MVP year and set all sorts of NFL records.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

re: 55
It is a cheap rhetorical trick to refer to an opposing argument as "naive". In any case, this word is not what you want to use. At best you could accuse me of being overly optimistic, to which I repeat that this team just went 16-0 and could lose 4 games this coming season and still cruise easily to 12-4.

Yes, if every single WR leaves aside from Wes Welker, that would be bad. Yes, if the Pats don't bring back Colvin and Seau and Bruschi both retire and the Pats are stuck with a LB corps of Vrabel, Thomas, and Pierre Woods, that would be bad. Yes, if Assante Samuel and Randall Gay both walk and Ellis Hobbs doesn't recover from his injuries, that would be bad.

This is what's known as a "worst-case scenario". Personally, I think that the money saved by letting Stallworth and Colvin go will be used to bring back Randy Moss. If the Pats had doubts about their ability to bring him back, they would have franchised him. I suspect they'll be able to reload somewhat through the draft but we'll have to wait 6 months to see what kind of personnel they have. But, seriously, "the window is closing"?

This is the team that dominated DVOA all season long. It had a historically good offense and a pretty good defense. Yeah, it stands to reason that they won't approach 16-0 again, but they could sleepwalk to 12-4 with 6 games against the AFC East and 4 against the NFC West. And they play the AFC West, so that adds in the Chiefs and the Raiders.

59 Rick,

I think you're severely misconstruing what I'm saying. I didn't say you were naive, just that it would be naive to say the pats will stay near the same level of play.

You are really exagerating what I said for the personel moves, which is also a cheap trick. I think they'll keep Moss, but it possible they don't. I said two of the three receivers. As for the LBers I or DB's I didn't say all of that have to happen. Honestly, if just Samuel and Colvin leave both those units could be below average.

I don't see this as a worst case scenario, but more like a realistic one. Do you really think its unrealistic for them to lose Stallworth, Samuel, and Colvin, and have a few more injuries next year? Because I can think of a much worse case scenario than that.

Also I never said the window was closing, I'm not sure who you're quoting, I just don't think the Pats will be that good nect year unless they seriously retool or resign everybody. I don't think you can retool in the draft in one year unless you get really lucky.

This was a team that was historically dominant the first 10 weeks, but then just really good after that. Now they lose even more talent. Would you then agree they are not nearly the same team. I agree as has everyone I think that they will win the East next year no problem. I'm not sure why you are arguing tha but my arguement is just that they won't be the best team anymore next year.

Please don't take that post personally, it wasn't meant to single you out. I was mostly just adressing the general topic. I just replied to you because it seemed you didn't think the Pats will decline and I know you're a Pats fan.

An interesting point from the Patriots 2007 draft: The Colts now have more of New England's 2007 draftees under contract (3) than New England do (2).

If you don't believe me check Mike Reiss's blog (linked below).

RE: 61

I noticed that, and it made me laugh. It shows the difference between the teams though-- Indy pays the top guys top money, and is forced to hire cheap backups, such as the three they hired that were cut from the Pats. The Pats don't pay their top guys as much, but they pay their backups more than the minimum.

As to the rest of the BS about the window closing, Tom Brady is 30, Vrabel and Thomas will be as good or better next year, and Meriweather and Sanders are progressing nicely. I see a weakness at ILB and CB, but that is it.

The offensive line is signed through 2009, the defensive line is signed through 2009, Watson and Welker are still around, Morris and Maroney will be the RB's... the only question mark on offense is if they resign Moss. If they do, it doesn't matter that they lost Stallworth.

Really, I see them losing 2-4 games. The hardest opponents are the Colts, Chargers, Steelers, Seahawks and Broncos.

Even regressing, they should beat half of those teams, so leaving 1-2 "fluke losses" to a team like Arizona or Miami, they will still be 11-5 or better.

A couple of points:

Isn't FO projecting that the AFCE will play a very easy schedule next year? That will help.

A defense can decline all at once, see Miami this year. On the other hand, an average defense can lose some apparent "impact" players, and suddenly improve when young players deliver. See the Colts this year (remember when losing Jason David and Cato June and...their other starting CB whose name is escaping me at the moment...was being touted by pundits as reasons why the Colts defense would be worse this year than in last year's playoffs? We all know how that worked out).

I'm not saying that defensive decline isn't more likely than defensive improvement, but either is possible. The draft would work out in a funny way...

Reasons why they could improve:
* I expect Thomas to play better than he did this year (barring injury)... Likewise for Brandon Merriweather. Historically, it has taken LB's and safeties a year or two in the Pats system before they come up to speed.

* I think Vrabel is underrated and has something left in the tank, and should play at about the same level.

* I think James Sanders will continue his improvement next year as well.

* Brsuchi and likely Seau and Harrison are done. But at this point, losing Bruschi isn't much of a hit, just like Troy Brown not playing at all last year wasn't much of a hit--Bruschi just wasn't very good last year.

So the D-line looks as good as ever, the safeties should actually improve, and the OLB's should be competent. The Pats are a couple of corners and a MLB away from a complete defense...and if they pick up an impact player or two in the draft or FA they could have a good defense on their hand.

Reasons why they will probably decline:
* Even with the above scenario, they're awfully thin at OLB and safety and an injury would hurt badly.

* Needing starting CB's is kind of a big deal, unless you get lucky with rookies.

* Chad Brown and Monty Beisel proved in 2005 that trying to hold the ILB position together with spit and baling wire is a bad idea...

#59: It is a cheap rhetorical trick to refer to an opposing argument as “naive”.

I agree. It's very similar to saying that the people espousing an opposing point of view need to "get a grip."

The Pats are a couple of corners and a MLB away from a complete defense…

But that's the entire problem. Where are they going to get those players? Yeah, you can get lucky in the draft. OK. Sure. But get two starters in the draft? Two?

And that doesn't even consider replacing Bruschi. Yeah, he wasn't good, but I think you vastly underestimate how bad a linebacker can be. Who's going to start at that spot next year?

In free agency, they're losing the top corner, so anyone they get at corner is a drop. Who's available at linebacker who'd be a fit for them? No one, as far as I can see.

I mean, any team is 'just a couple of players' away from a complete defense. The question is how easy it will be for them to get them.

Really, right now the Patriots are looking at finding 3 new starters at the least. Maybe 4, if Harrison isn't kept. Honestly, that's really surprising.

3 starters, not 4. If Harrison isn't kept, they have Sanders and Meriweather already. Basically, the latter part of the year and in the playoffs, they were lining Harrison up near the LOS as a safety/LB hybrid sort, with Sanders and Meriweather on the field.

They need a CB, a ILB and an OLB/ILB, depending on if they move Thomas inside.

I like Don Banks mock draft-- he has them trade back with Dallas and use the #22 on a DE who will shift to OLB (Groves) and the #28 on a LB (Dan Connor) who would play ILB.

Then they can use two of their 2nd,3rd,3rd picks on CB and the other on TE, and call it a day!

I agree that the Pats will likely take a step back next year. But as a Pats fan, I have no problem with that if it means the team is better in the long-run. The worst thing Belichick & Pioli could do is to overvalue their own players, in this case by paying top-dollar for Samuel, overpaying to keep Gay, and then fooling themselves into thinking that Colvin is worth his current contract. That's the quickest way to mediocrity. The brilliance of B&P is that they don't fall in love with their players (eg Branch, Givens you can go on and on) and the results are unsurpassed.

#66: So by that, the Patriots 4 linebackers would be two rookies, Adalius Thomas, and Mike Vrabel?

That would have to be the youngest linebacking corps under Belichick, by a huge margin.

That's one of the things that surprises me about releasing Colvin, too. The Patriots have always seemed to value veteran linebackers more than other teams.

No, I see Seau and Bruschi both coming back. Even if just one comes back, it would help out.

Belichick values veterans, including Colvin, but he won't overpay for them.

And if they did draft two LB's in the first round, or even a 1st and 2nd, I would be ecstatic, youth be darned.

re: 64
No, that's not quite the same. Telling people to "get a grip" is a fairly straightforward thing to do. Telling people they are "naive" is a way of dismissing the intelligence of a person without actually addressing the substance of their remarks. It is particularly odious when used in a context where the word "naive" is plainly inappropriate.

A person may be "naive" for thinking his favorite politician or actor or musician isn't as bad as the rest of them. But saying he's "naive" for thinking his football team isn't going to backslide? It's an abuse of language. The word "naive" means that the person has a favorable impression of the character of somebody. It is inappropriate to use the word simply because a person disagrees in his judgment of an issue that has nothing to do with personal character.

re: 69
Don Banks currently projects the Pats trading their pick to the Cowboys for the Cowboys' two first round picks, and using them to draft two LBs. Generally the Pats draft based on quality as much as need, but I don't see how they can fail to draft at least one LB early this year.

And that doesn’t even consider replacing Bruschi. Yeah, he wasn’t good, but I think you vastly underestimate how bad a linebacker can be. Who’s going to start at that spot next year?

Pat, having suffered through the Monty Beisel experience, I think I understand how bad a LB can be...

I agree the Pats defense is more likely to get worse next year as opposed to get better. But it's possible that it could get better.

What's being overlooked is that the Patriots, while they have a few big holes, are practically all set a many other positions, and hence can focus a lot of resources at their holes. They are set at QB, RB, O-line, Kicker, and D-line, and are in pretty good shape at punter, TE, and special teamer.

They have a gaping hole at ILB (which is currently two positions, but could be only one if they start playing more 4-3 or nickel), and are a little thin at CB. They are set (starter-wise) at safety, although some more depth wouldn't hurt.

On the other side of the ball, the only position where they need to add pieces is really WR...and having Brady and a good O-line makes the necessary talent threshold at WR lower than it has to be.

So they desparately need a really good ILB, and could use some help at corner and WR, and some additional depth at safety and maybe TE.

Name practically any other team and I'll point out one position where they desparately need an upgrade, two positions where they could use some help, and one or two more position where they could use some more depth.

pats play the 3-4 becuase Wilfork is great in it, perhaps the best in the league at his positon and that would not be the case in the 4-3.

Rick,

naive (according to dictionary.com): having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous

I think it applies and I certainly addressed the substance of your remarks. What is the problem? I'm sorry that it bothers you so much, I didn't mean it to be particularly important.

To address the other point, I would be very surprised if the Cowboys traded up and really disappointed. If I were you though I would definitely not expect the Cowboys first to picks as I really doubt a trade of that sort goes down. They could take Gholston if he's there though.

Pat, having suffered through the Monty Beisel experience, I think I understand how bad a LB can be…

Hey, I'm an Eagles fan. I've suffered through unending amounts of LB suckage. It just doesn't compare.

Name practically any other team and I’ll point out one position where they desparately need an upgrade

This isn't 'desperately need an upgrade,' though. If my counting is right, they only have 4 linebackers on the roster as of tomorrow.

So, at ILB, for the Patriots, they desperately need an upgrade, help, and depth. How many LBs did they have on the roster last year? 7, I think? That means they need at least three.

I'm not trying to go all "Patriots are doooomed!" - not at all. I'm just really surprised that the Patriots are going into next season with the linebacker picture this unsettled. It's not normal for a team that good.

I mean, yeah, you can look at the Eagles and say "they need an upgrade at nickel DB, they could use help at safety." But right now the Patriots are backing up Adalius Thomas with Hole in Zone.

Don Banks currently projects the Pats trading their pick to the Cowboys for the Cowboys’ two first round picks, and using them to draft two LBs.

Who will then both be starting? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Are there linebackers out there in free agency that they'll pursue? Do people really think Pierre Woods/Eric Alexander can start for a year?

Again, I'm not trying to suggest they can't. I just don't really see any linebackers in free agency worth pursuing (though the 'old grizzly types' they go after I don't really follow much) and I don't think the low-1st round LBs can start this year, right away.

Connor, especially. He'll need a year. Physically, he's a bit better of a prospect than Poz was, but Poz was a lot smarter. The guy was never caught out of position, whereas Connor frequently was.

The Invaluable Mike Reiss reports Bruschi has signed a contract with the Patriots and will be back. He also reports there's no word from Seau yet and that Seau played the last 14 games with a torn rotator cuff (and had surgery for it shortly after SB42).

There are a couple of options. Adam Seward is a restricted free agent playing LB for Carolina... Clark Haggins is a free agent LB from Pittsburgh. I'm sure there are more "under the radar" types.

They resigned Bruschi last night, so they now have 5 LB's on their roster, with Seau another possibility. If they drafted a LB in the first round, I would want him to start immediately-- there were several last year who began the year starting (Timmons, Willis, Poz, Beason) and Willis and Beason played amazingly.

In other news, they also resigned Kelley Washington, so potentially filling the WR3 spot (provided they sign Moss) and definitely helping the special teams.

If they can resign Moss and maybe even Randall Gay, I won't be worried about the defense any more than last year. Samuel was a good corner, but he also guessed a lot and didn't always save the day (as evidenced by the TD reception given up and the missed interception in the super bowl).

And he is not worth the 6 years, 60 million he is looking for from Philly.

New news looks like:

Bruschi Signed. Seau needs some major surgery but says he wants to return, as well.

So if they can acquire one more impact LB either through FA or the draft, their LB corps is in decent shape. Vrabel, Thomas, Bruschi, and TBD guy starting, with possibly Seau, Woods, and Alexander to rotate in and for depth. Not too bad...not great, but that's what you get for essentially ignoring LB in the draft for nine years. Bruschi is definitely not that good any more, but as Pat pointed out, there's a big difference between "not that good" and flat out bad, so at least they have a veteran presence there still.

On the other hand, they could be in trouble at CB...word is that Gay probably won't be re-signed, and Samuel is practically a done deal for the Eagles. That leaves the Pats with Hobbs, a decent but not spectacular option for a #2 CB, and... um... anyone, anyone? The only young DB I've been excited about recently has been Willie Andrews, but he's technically more of a safety, and anyway was having legal troubles last time I checked...