PDA

View Full Version : Mike Patterson In The 2nd Round


philfree
04-01-2005, 06:39 PM
If we could work out a slight trade down scenario in the 1st round to gain a pick to trade for Surtain and then still be able to draft Rogers or another CB in the 1st round I'd pick Mike Patterson in the 2nd round.

Here's his profile from Scouts,inc.

Mike Patterson
DT | (5'11", 292, 5.1) | USC

Scouts Grade: 85

Flags: (B: BULK/SIZE) Lacks size/bulk for position(M: MENTAL) Does not retain and learn the system
View by: Round | Player | NCAA School | Position | NFL Team | Flag | All Ranked Players | NFL Draft History
You are signed into Insider and have access to the exclusive draft content below.


Strengths: Is short but well built. A thick, wide, quick and athletic NT that continues to get better with more experience. Has excellent anticipation skills and initial quickness. Explodes off the snap, plays with good leverage and wins most of his battles with his first two steps. He has very good penetrating skills and diagnosis skills. Shows good initial pop at the POA. Lacks great speed in pursuit, but has some short-area burst. Is a high-motor pass rusher that keeps coming after you. Will occasionally be able to stand OL up with his initial pop and then penetrate after initial contact. He has quick "swim" and "spin" moves. Has very good run/pass recognition skills. Shows the burst to get through the LOS and does a good job of finding the ball carrier quickly. Rarely takes himself out of a play. Has a great feel for the game and his assignment. Is relentless in pursuit. Shows adequate closing burst and is a powerful tackler when he lines up a hit. Also has some big-play flair in terms of forcing fumbles and recovering them.

Weaknesses: Was productive in college but might struggle to translate that production with below average physical tools at the next level. Is short and lacks good overall size. Is quick but lacks good top-end speed. Will have a lot more trouble making plays in pursuit in the NFL. He needs to be on the move to be effective. Is engulfed by taller and bigger OL. Is strictly a one-gap DT. Has shorter arms and will struggle at times to keep separation and to disengage once reached. Scored nine on Wonderlic Test.

Overall: Patterson played as a backup defensive tackle as a true freshman in 2001. He took over as a fulltime starter in 2002 and started every game from that point on  either at the DT or NT position. As a junior in 2003, Patterson had a breakout season with 55 tackles, including 13.5 for loss with seven sacks. He was similarly productive as a senior in 2004, finishing with 45 tackles, 16 TFL and six sacks. If Patterson were two inches taller and 10 pounds bigger he'd be a mid-first round prospect. Unfortunately, Patterson lacks ideal height and has just decent bulk and speed. He's never going to be able to contribute as a two-gap player in the NFL and he's always going to need to be in a scheme that allows him to stay on the move. Patterson is, however, a great fit as a DT or NT in a one-gap penetrating scheme such as the one the Chiefs use with a four-man front and shaded nose, the Colts use with a traditional four-man front, or the one the Ravens use with a three-man front. Patterson has the potential to develop into an impact starter on a line that uses a rotation in order to keep him fresh and active. When it is all said and done, Patterson grades out as a solid second round draft prospect.


* Player biographies are provided by Scouts Inc.



PhilFree :arrow:

unlurking
04-01-2005, 06:44 PM
"Flags: (B: BULK/SIZE) Lacks size/bulk for position(M: MENTAL) Does not retain and learn the system"

This kinda scares me though.

CosmicPal
04-01-2005, 06:48 PM
We've done nothing but draft DT. We're not good at drafting DT. And I'm sick and tired of drafting DT. We have to focus on other needs and do what we can with what we have in DT - i.e. Give Siavii some time to grow.

htismaqe
04-01-2005, 06:50 PM
No way should we draft another DT, especially one built like a dorm fridge...

Count Alex's Wins
04-01-2005, 06:50 PM
5'11? ROFL

unlurking
04-01-2005, 06:50 PM
We've done nothing but draft DT. We're not good at drafting DT. And I'm sick and tired of drafting DT. We have to focus on other needs and do what we can with what we have in DT - i.e. Give Siavii some time to grow.
If somebody could light a fire under Siavii's ass, I still think he can be a monster DT.

keg in kc
04-01-2005, 06:51 PM
If we draft another defensive tackle this year I'll...I'll...I don't know what I'll do, but it'll be something really f*cking bad. 6 in four years, 4 of those day 1 picks, is way, way, way, way, way more than enough to commit to one position. That kind of myopia is inane.

philfree
04-01-2005, 07:12 PM
The best DEs will be gone by the time our 2nd pick rolls around and this draft sucks for LBs so if we have our CBs then why not pick the best D player still availalbe? I guess we could continue our streak of lack of success in the 2nd round of the draft and reach for a need but to me drafting a player that many say is underrated because he's a little on the short side for his position and fits our style of play makes way more sense. They guys also played on a championship team so he knows what it's like to be a winner.


PhilFree :arrow:

htismaqe
04-01-2005, 07:36 PM
The best DEs will be gone by the time our 2nd pick rolls around and this draft sucks for LBs so if we have our CBs then why not pick the best D player still availalbe? I guess we could continue our streak of lack of success in the 2nd round of the draft and reach for a need but to me drafting a player that many say is underrated because he's a little on the short side for his position and fits our style of play makes way more sense. They guys also played on a championship team so he knows what it's like to be a winner.


PhilFree :arrow:

First of all, you're either assuming we didn't get Surtain or we somehow managed to trade and recoup a 2nd-rounder.

Second, if we have a 2nd and there are no LB's, CB's, and DE's available, we should take a WR. After WR, OL. NO DEFENSIVE TACKLES.

whoman69
04-01-2005, 07:44 PM
If we draft another DT, we deserve to lose for another 10 years.

philfree
04-01-2005, 07:48 PM
First of all, you're either assuming we didn't get Surtain or we somehow managed to trade and recoup a 2nd-rounder.

Second, if we have a 2nd and there are no LB's, CB's, and DE's available, we should take a WR. After WR, OL. NO DEFENSIVE TACKLES.

Duh....If we could work out a slight trade down scenario in the 1st round to gain a pick to trade for Surtain and then still be able to draft Rogers or another CB in the 1st round I'd pick Mike Patterson in the 2nd round. As stated in the topic header.

I think you should this and focus on the part about the Broncos. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2027049&num=0)


Here's a telling quote.

Compare the Denver situation to that of, say, the Super Bowl champion New England Patriots. The Pats are loaded with young, viable and vital defensive linemen because coach Bill Belichick has made the position, and depth at it, a priority. New England took defensive linemen in the first round of three of the last four drafts. They also invested a couple of second-round picks on the defensive line during that stretch.

I think I have a pretty strong case.

PhilFree:arrow:

SCTrojan
04-01-2005, 07:50 PM
I agree with those who say that a DT/NT is not what we need in the 2nd round should we keep that draft choice. But to say that Mike Patterson is not talented enough to merit being picked there is a completely different argument altogether. Patterson isn't some project like Siavii who didn't play more than two seasons and was inconsistent in college.

Patterson is a monster who anchored arguably one of the best defensive lines in college football the past three years. He completely dominated OU in the Orange Bowl, helping to hold Adrian Peterson to just about 3 yards a carry. He played last year at an All-American level and, in my mind, was more valuable than Sean Cody, who will probably be drafted in the first round.

Pete Carroll said the guy who cannot be replaced on the d-line is Mike Patterson. This guy had a 50-yard fumble return for a TD last year, outrunning receivers to the end zone.

Like I say, I agree that we should not draft Patterson with this pick because that is not where our needs lie. But to say that he isn't talented enough to merit being picked here is way off the mark, IMO.

HolmeZz
04-01-2005, 07:53 PM
If we use our 2nd rounder which we could've traded to get Surtain on a 5'11" Defensive Tackle, I'll go insane.

ChiefsCountry
04-01-2005, 08:02 PM
No DT's tackles this year, even though ours suck. Patterson would be good, but no DT's, we need a stud DE though.

htismaqe
04-01-2005, 08:31 PM
Duh.... As stated in the topic header.

I think you should this and focus on the part about the Broncos. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2027049&num=0)

Here's a telling quote.

I think I have a pretty strong case.

PhilFree:arrow:

I have no idea what you're trying to prove with the Bronco article...

As for the Patriots, they've taken 4 defensive ENDS and TWO defensive tackles (one in the 7th round) since 2001. In fact, since 2001, they haven't taken more than FOUR guys at any one position. They've taken QB, RB, WR, OT, C, TE, DT, DE, OLB, ILB, CB, FS, SS and K. That's 14 different positions. And of their 9 1st-day picks, they've taken 2 TE, 2 WR, 2 DE, a FS, a DT, and a DB.

The Chiefs have taken 5 defensive tackles and 3 ends since 2001. 3 of our 1st-day picks since 2001 were used on DT's.

I won't even go into how many of those Patriot draft picks are garnering significant playing time vs. how many are for the Chiefs...

philfree
04-01-2005, 08:34 PM
If we draft another DT, we deserve to lose for another 10 years.

Now that's some brilliant reasoning.

You guys haven't presented one compelling argument.

PhilFree:arrow:

philfree
04-01-2005, 08:45 PM
I have no idea what you're trying to prove with the Bronco article...

As for the Patriots, they've taken 4 defensive ENDS and TWO defensive tackles (one in the 7th round) since 2001. In fact, since 2001, they haven't taken more than FOUR guys at any one position. They've taken QB, RB, WR, OT, C, TE, DT, DE, OLB, ILB, CB, FS, SS and K. That's 14 different positions. And of their 9 1st-day picks, they've taken 2 TE, 2 WR, 2 DE, a FS, a DT, and a DB.

The Chiefs have taken 5 defensive tackles and 3 ends since 2001. 3 of our 1st-day picks since 2001 were used on DT's.

I won't even go into how many of those Patriot draft picks are garnering significant playing time vs. how many are for the Chiefs...

I'm saying if we truly want our D to get better we need to keep building the D line through the draft. The Donks ain't and it's gonna cost them. As far has a DE or a DT is concerend show me a DE who fits what we do and is a better player then Patterson and will be available when we pick in the 2nd round. I'm not proposing to fore go fixing the CBs just trying to make our D line an actual strength. As they say "Games are won and lost in the trenches."

PhilFree:arrow:

Logical
04-01-2005, 09:00 PM
The best DEs will be gone by the time our 2nd pick rolls around and this draft sucks for LBs so if we have our CBs then why not pick the best D player still availalbe? I guess we could continue our streak of lack of success in the 2nd round of the draft and reach for a need but to me drafting a player that many say is underrated because he's a little on the short side for his position and fits our style of play makes way more sense. They guys also played on a championship team so he knows what it's like to be a winner.


PhilFree :arrow:
I would draft two CBs, a WR, and OT before I would ever, ever, ever consider drafting another DT this year.

philfree
04-01-2005, 09:09 PM
I would draft two CBs, a WR, and OT before I would ever, ever, ever consider drafting another DT this year.

So you would draft two CBs after we picked up Surtain? I can understand a WR or an OT in the 2nd round but not Surtain and two more CBs.

PhilFree :arrow:

milkman
04-01-2005, 09:14 PM
I'm saying if we truly want our D to get better we need to keep building the D line through the draft. The Donks ain't and it's gonna cost them. As far has a DE or a DT is concerend show me a DE who fits what we do and is a better player then Patterson and will be available when we pick in the 2nd round. I'm not proposing to fore go fixing the CBs just trying to make our D line an actual strength. As they say "Games are won and lost in the trenches."

PhilFree:arrow:

The Pats could afford to draft the way they have because they have talent everywhere you look on their D.

We have enough positions of need on our D that there will be a player who isn't a reach at one of those positions when our pick comes up.

And I also believe, even though there are some (most?) that disagree that Sims will finally come into his own this year.
He was injured his first season, then played one season in Spinner's sorry-ass scheme, then had to learn a new scheme under Gun.

I also think that Siavii will grow this season as well.

With Dalton and Browning in the mix, I think we have plenty of options and depth.

I will say, however, Patterson would be an intriging pick, but only if the decision were made to move Browning to LDE and bench Hick's ass.

But we know that ain't gonna happen.

philfree
04-01-2005, 09:21 PM
The Pats could afford to draft the way they have because they have talent everywhere you look on their D.

We have enough positions of need on our D that there will be a player who isn't a reach at one of those positions when our pick comes up.

And I also believe, even though there are some (most?) that disagree that Sims will finally come into his own this year.
He was injured his first season, then played one season in Spinner's sorry-ass scheme, then had to learn a new scheme under Gun.

I also think that Siavii will grow this season as well.

With Dalton and Browning in the mix, I think we have plenty of options and depth.

I will say, however, Patterson would be an intriging pick, but only if the decision were made to move Browning to LDE and bench Hick's ass.
But we know that ain't gonna happen.

Someone has a clue :thumb: Except instead of just benching Hicks he and Browing could rotate at LDE and maybe that would help keep Hicks fresh so he could possibly play at a higher level. Browning could also spell Allen on occasion too and we still would have a decent player on the field.


PhilFree :arrow: