The 2019

Patriots Season. 


7 Things For Sunday: Part III.

Mock Draft Part II. 

Try II.


I know I'm being lazy by only doing a 2nd half Draft, but I don't care. All Mock Drafts before the season ends are insanely inaccurate exercises in futility. And I'm doing this to show more where the Pats stand than any kind of Draft preview. Except the first two picks there is virtually nothing that is in any way accurate to what will happen on Draft Day. I took the order from USA Today

The Pats loss last week was as bad as it gets, but they still have the toughest of chances to win it all. But there can be no mistakes. No complaints. And no BS. They win out or they won't whiff the Magnificent Seventh. The Offense is still a mess, and if they don't come together they are done.

They have to score more points. "I thought it was a touchdown," N'Keal Harry said about one of the punch in the nuts the refs gave the Pats Saturday Night. "I'm pretty sure everyone else saw it was a touchdown. It's something that is out of our control, out of my control." N'Keal has to be featured in the Offense much-much more. 

Jakobi has to catch the ball every time, or sit on the bench. "We were talking on the sideline and felt how the game was going," Meyers said. "We knew they came out and gave us their best shot in the first half and our defense was doing their thing like they always do. We just had to pick it up. We all dug deep went out there and played hard." Both are going to be erratic, but they have to consider themselves no longer rookies, and start playing like it. 

Relying on rookies is always folly. "We weren't executing to the best of our abilities," Jakobi Meyers said. "I felt like we had a good game plan but at the end of the day, players have to make plays, including myself." They are dumb, insecure, and make mistakes that make you balls ache (like when a couple of refs kicks you in the nuts). 

But since they didn't secure enough weapons for Brady last off season? they now have to use those two guys, period. And those two guys have to come through. That is how precarious the precipice they have put themselves on has become. At this point, two rookies will likely win or lose this season. 

The Pats could not afford to pass on a tight end in the 1st in last year's Draft, and yet they did. They are still paying for it. But this year they can. There is really a very interesting group of tight ends in the 2020 Draft. But they really are Day Two TEs. It is tough to take a guy at 29, when you can get pretty much the same level of talent at 61. 

Like me Walter has Okwuegbunam as his first TE as not a locked into the 1st. Then Jared Pinkney Vanderbilt and *Colby Parkinson Stanford as likely 2nd Rounders as well. So if BB can trade down into the 2nd and pick up another 2nd, if some one is looking for Jordan Love? Right now Seattle has 58 and 60. Atlanta has 59 (Pats pick) and 40. Miami has 36 and 61 (to go along with three 1st. Or much more likely a 3rd, it would be tough to see him say no. 

So where will the Pats go if not TE in the 1st...

17. Cleveland (OLT, DB, OL, LB)- *Isaiah Simmons- 6-4, 230, OLB/Safety, Clemson- Passing on Trey Adams will be tough, but word on the streets of Cleveland is that they want to throw some money at Trent Williams. The Browns need an LB and a FS. I think Simmons can play both. They can take him and see if he can play the Will, and bring their LB Corps together. I think he is an NFL OLB. If not, they can play him at Strong or Free Safety, where he has the talent to dominate as well. 

18. Las Vegas from Bears (WR, TE, CB, LB, OL)- Tee Higgins- 6-4, 215,  WR, Clemson- They still gotta help their QB. Seriously. He is not producing as expected this season. But is going to blow up the Combine, and could be a great one in the NFL.  

19. Tennessee (DL, DB, Edge, QB, OL, RB)- Raekwon Davis- 6-7, 312,  Alabama DT/5-T- Vrabel gets lucky as top DL talent drops down to him. He played with Richard Seymour, so he knows what a top DT, who can eat up multiple blockers, can do for a defense. Davis doesn't play as low as Seymour, but he can cause a lot of disruption to the blocking scheme. 

20. Jacksonville from L.A. Rams (DL, FS, CB, OT)- Trey Adams- OLT 6-7 315, Washington- They need a guy to put at their QB's back. Adams is a risk. He is an injury risk. I don't think I would take a chance on him in the 1st. But he has been terrific this season. He has regained his agility and looks as good as any OT moving backwards in this Draft.

21. Dallas (FS, TE, DT, WR, SS, DE)- *Grant Delpit, Box-Safety, LSU- He is just not having a great season. He is more strong Safety than FS, because he is not great in coverage. He is more of a Patrick Chung type Safety than a FS. He is great at finding the RB inside, and can cover the TE. He should also be able to line up at LB, and help with substitution packages.  

22. Miami Trade with Steelers (OL, CB, OL, Edge, OL)- Trevon Diggs- 6-2, 207, CB, Alabama- The Dolphins really suck. Plus, they're stupid. They should have played Rosen all season to see what he's got. Instead they played the over the hill gang at QB, and lost everything anyway. Gee, I wonder how Joe Borrow would have looked on this team if they had lost every game this year with Rosen at QB?

23. Miami trade with Houston (OL, OL, Edge, OL)- Calvin Throckmorton- 6-5, 309, OL, Oregon- This is probably too smart of a pick for Miami. Throckmorton can play four OL positions including OC. Miami has to completely rebuild their O-line, and having a guy who they can plug in at four different positions will help them pick up the best available OLs.

24. Minnesota (DT, CB, OT, DE, OG)- *Paulson Adebo- 6-1, 190, CB, Stanford- I saw this pick in another Draft and loved it. Adebo has said that he is definitely declaring for this Draft. two of their top three Corners are going to be free agents after the season. Spielman like the best athlete available theory. But the flaw in that theory is that DBs are usually the best athletes available. So he will over draft DB sometimes.  

25. Buffalo (WR, RB, TE, OG, Edge)- Jalen Reagor- 5-11, 195, WR, TCU- The question here is Reagor or Taylor. They have to get some guys to help their young QB. That is all that matters in this Draft. Allen is developing and needs some weapons to make his like easier. An OL wouldn't hurt either.

26. Kansas City (OL, CB, RB)- C.J. Henderson- 6-1, 202, CB, Florida, Jr.- I really want to go Swift here, but Henderson is just too good. He is right up there with Okudah and Fulton, who went top 12. He has been a shut down Corner for FLA the past two season. He is a but of a wimp against the run, but a lot of great Corners are. He has become the forgotten CB in this Draft. I will probably have him over Diggs in my next Draft.

27. Green Bay (DE, LB, OG)- *Curtis Weaver, Edge, Boise State- Packers need an edge guy to help hit the QB. 

28. Seattle (CB, OG, TE)- Prince Tega Wanogho- 6-7, 305, OL, Auburn- It just seems natural to give them a O-lineman to help their QB. They have three former college OLTs playing on their O-line. So why not one more.

29. Patriots (QB (Brady), TE, WR, OLG, FS, OLB, TE, WR, DL, OL, DL, TE, OLB)- Anfernee Jennings- 6-3, 259, Edge, Alabama

In two weeks the Pats went from 32nd to 29th. The good news is that they still have a chance. They can beat the Ravens in Baltimore on the second try. And despite the soul crushing loss that destroyed my absolute and utter confidence in the Patriots, they are still one game up on KC. 

But the offense has to come together as a unit. "I think like I said, everybody needs to be on the same page and finish. It is nothing dramatic, it is just everybody just doing our jobs and doing them a little bit better," James White said. "We came out in the 2nd [Half] and did things a little bit better. The defense had some turnovers and some good stops and I think we tried to ride that momentum. The special teams had a huge blocked punt and like I said everyone fought hard we did what we could do to get ourselves in a position to win." It is time for the Offense to step up and start doing things a little bit better. 

If the Offense can't play better and take advantage of opportunities than this pick could continue going in the wrong direction. "Obviously we could have played better, and it wasn't our best football, but everyone fought and competed," White said. "We did what we could to have opportunities to get back in the ball football game. We just didn't make enough plays." But there is good news. 

It the Pats win out, then the tie breaker they lost against the Chiefs becomes irrelevant. I truly don't believe they can win on the Road in KC and then in Baltimore as well. While it certainly felt like the Pats blew up their path to the Super Bowl last week, I am reluctantly saying there is still a path to the Magnificent Seventh. It is small, treacherous, and easily breakable with one loss. That's it. The Pats are at the Last Chance Saloon. 

I can see a path to beating KC or the Ravens in the Champ Game. "It's definitely frustrating," N'Keal Harry said, sounding like a Patriot. "But at the end of the day, I was always told to control what I can control, and I did that. I felt like my effort was good and that's all I can give." But in all honesty, I cannot see the Pats beating both teams on the Road in the Playoffs. 

But they will win at Home against KC in January. I also believe they will beat Baltimore the second time they play them, now that they have seen their college offense up close and personal. And have first hand knowledge of the oversized three-TE Option that no team is truly prepared for on first blush. 

BUT! The Offense has to put it together this week. Wynn practiced this week for what seems like the first time in his career. The O-line is completely together, and practiced together this week really for the first time this season. They have to play like a complete unit, or all is lost. The Offense starts on the O-line. 

The Defense cannot continue to be the only dominate squad. "It wasn't enough. Like I said, you can't blame the officiating. Because at the end of the day we still had a chance to win it," Duron Harmon said. "We played well, I wish we could have started a little better obviously. Giving up that many points in the 1st half is not ideal to what we want to do. We fought back. We played hard. 

"This is a team that's going to play 60 minutes, and for whatever reason the calls weren't going our way. The ball didn't bounce our way, but we're going to regroup. We're still in a good position. We got to continue to fight. We got to continue to grind out these next three games because they are very important to our season." Three wins brings them to 13 and 3, which likely puts they in 2nd place in the AFC because the Ravens aren't loosing two of their last three. 

It is do or die time. "We fought and we fought and we fought. We fought hard and I am proud of everybody. We just came out on the short end of the stick," Dorsett said, then continued. "They came out and played well and we had to play better. We started playing better in the 2nd half. We started to play harder, but it was late. It was too late, obviously. Like I said, we need to come out and play a better game next week." No room for bullshit left. 

As for the Draft, the Pats will have more concerns than tight end and could go defense. They are really playing a 3-4 Defense, but both of their terrific OLBs are not really Edge guys. Plus, both Jamie Collins and Van Noy are free agents after this season, as is Shilique Calhoun. 

The Pats could go defense here. It would not be surprising if they do. They have the connection at Alabama. It is time for BB to start exploiting that connection. As Brady continues to give up skills to age, the rest of the team has to get better visibly. The Defense has to maintain this years level as tops in the NFL, or at least top two or three when all is said and done. 

This year's defense is going to be devastated by free agency. They have a ton of guys on one year deals. Picking up a true edgerusher is something they will be looking at. Though I still think they will trade down, to partially get the 2nd they traded for Sanu. So they will have two 2nds and two 3rds in this years Draft. 

30. New Orleans (WR, LB, TE)- *Jacob Eason- 6-6, 228, QB Washington- I really want to go RB here. Swift, Taylor, or Etienne would really help their old QB. But, I mean, Dobbins or Chuba Hubbard should drop in the 2nd, if not one of the big three. I don't think Eason declares. But if he does this is his floor. 

31. Ravens (LB, SS, DT, DE, OG)- *Xavier McKinney- 6-1, 200, SS/LB, Alabama- I saw this in a mock as well and liked it. McKinney is another Strong Safety who can play some linebacker. He can help on two of their top needs as a rookie, while he is finding his position. He plays Strong Safety for Alabama, but almost always lines up on the 2nd level like an LB.

32. 49ers (Edge, WR, OG, DT, CB)- They will be looking for an Edge. Everybody knows my affinity for Jennings as a rusher. I think what he does at Alabama will translate to the NFL. He will hit the QB in the NFL. 

Be A Citizen! Not a Subject! 

Fascist is as Fascist does. Beware American. President Fredo is pulling the cowardly republican Senate closer and closer to the cliff.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances:


The 1st Amendment to the Constitution is the greatest paragraph ever written by mankind. It is the truest diagram of how to ensure a free Country of citizens survives. But is is also a list of what to attack when you want to be a fascist dictator. President Jerkballs is attacking every article in the 1st Amendment. Beware subjects, or you will be subjugated:



IN THE END, the story told by the two articles of impeachment approved on Friday morning by the House Judiciary Committee is short, simple and damning: President Donald Trump abused the power of his office by strong-arming Ukraine, a vulnerable ally, holding up hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid until it agreed to help him influence the 2020 election by digging up dirt on a political rival.

When caught in the act, he rejected the very idea that a president could be required by Congress to explain and justify his actions, showing “unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance” in the face of multiple subpoenas. He made it impossible for Congress to carry out fully its constitutionally mandated oversight role, and, in doing so, he violated the separation of powers, a safeguard of the American republic.

To quote from the articles, “President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law.”

The case now moves to the full House of Representatives, which on Wednesday will decide, for just the third time in the nation’s history, whether to impeach a president.

To resist the pull of partisanship, Republicans and Democrats alike ought to ask themselves the same question: Would they put up with a Democratic president using the power of the White House this way? Then they should consider the facts, the architecture and aspirations of the Constitution and the call of history. In that light, there can be only one responsible judgment: to cast a vote to impeach, to send a message not only to this president but to future ones.

By stonewalling as no previous president has, Donald Trump has left Congress with no choice but to press ahead to a Senate trial. The president insists he is innocent of any wrongdoing, yet he refuses to release any administration documents or allow any administration officials to testify — though, if his assertions are in fact true, those officials would presumably exonerate him. He refused to present any defense before the House whatsoever, asserting a form of monarchical immunity that Congress cannot let stand.

It’s regrettable that the House moved as fast as it did, without working further through the courts and through other means to hear from numerous crucial witnesses. But Democratic leaders have a point when they say they can’t afford to wait, given the looming electoral deadline and Mr. Trump’s pattern of soliciting foreign assistance for his campaigns. Even after his effort to extract help from Ukraine was revealed, the president publicly called on China to investigate his rival. Asked as recently as October what he hoped the Ukrainians would do in response to his infamous July 25 call with their president, Mr. Trump declared: “Well, I would think that, if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer.”

BARRING THE PERSUASIVE DEFENSE that Mr. Trump has so far declined even to attempt, that simple answer sounds like a textbook example of an impeachable offense, as the nation’s framers envisioned it.

A president “might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression,” James Madison said of the need for an impeachment clause. “He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

Madison and his fellow framers understood that elections — which, under normal circumstances, are the essence of democratic self-government — could not serve their purpose if a president was determined to cheat to win.

As the constitutional scholar Noah Feldman testified before the Judiciary Committee last week, “Without impeachment, the president would have been an elected monarch. With impeachment, the president was bound to the rule of law.”

At the same time, the framers were well aware of the dangers inherent in impeachment. That’s why they made it a two-step process: First is the House’s vote on impeachment, which is akin to an indictment and requires only a majority to pass. Second is a trial in the Senate, which decides the president’s ultimate fate, and thus has a much higher bar to clear — two-thirds of senators must vote to convict and remove the president from office.

So far, Republicans legislators have shown little sign of treating this constitutional process with the seriousness it demands.

By stonewalling as no previous president has, Donald Trump has left Congress with no choice but to press ahead to a Senate trial.
Instead, they have been working overtime to abet the president’s wrongdoing. They have spread toxic misinformation and conspiracy theories to try to justify his actions and raged about the unfairness of the inquiry, complaining that Democrats have been trying to impeach Mr. Trump since he took office.

No doubt some Democrats were too eager to resort to impeachment before it became unavoidable. Mr. Trump has been committing arguably impeachable offenses since the moment he entered the Oval Office, including his acceptance of foreign money at his many businesses; his violations of campaign-finance law in paying hush money to a woman who claimed to have had a sexual affair with him; and, of course, his obstructions of justice in the Russia investigation, which were documented extensively by the special counsel, Robert Mueller.

Democrats could have pursued impeachment in any or all of these cases, but for various reasons decided not to. That changed in September, when a whistle-blower’s complaint, initially suppressed by the Justice Department, revealed the outline of Mr. Trump’s Ukraine scheme. That made it impossible to ignore the president’s lawlessness because it sounded an alarm that he was seeking to subvert the next election, depriving the voters of their right to check his behavior.

The Republicans’ most common defenses of Mr. Trump’s behavior fall flat in the face of the evidence.

There is, above all, the summary of the July 25 phone call between Mr. Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president. Mr. Trump still insists that summary exonerates him. It doesn’t — which is why White House officials promptly locked it in a special computer system.

Then there is the sworn testimony of multiple government officials, including several appointed by Mr. Trump himself, all of whom confirmed the essential story line: For all the recent claims about his piety regarding Ukrainian corruption, Mr. Trump did not “give a shit about Ukraine.” He only wanted the “deliverable” — the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens, and also into a debunked theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.

The argument that Mr. Trump cared about anything other than hurting Joe Biden and helping himself is undercut by several facts. Even though calling on the Ukrainians to fight corruption was part of his prepared talking points, he never mentioned the subject in his calls with Mr. Zelensky; he also didn’t hold up the military aid in 2017 or 2018, even though everyone knew about Hunter Biden’s Ukraine connection at the time. (What changed this year? Joe Biden emerged as his leading Democratic opponent.) By the time Mr. Trump intervened to block the money for Ukraine, the Defense Department had already certified that Ukraine had made enough progress fighting corruption to qualify for this year’s funds.

Republicans and Democrats ought to ask themselves the same question: Would they put up with a Democratic president using the power of the White House this way?
Without any substantive defense of Mr. Trump’s behavior, several Republicans have taken to arguing that he committed no actual crime, and so can’t be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Putting aside a strong case that Mr. Trump has, in fact, broken at least one law, this isn’t how impeachment works. “High crimes” refers to severe violations of the public trust by a high-ranking official, not literal crimes. A president can commit a technical crime that doesn’t violate the public trust (say, jaywalking), and he can commit an impeachable offense that is found nowhere in the federal criminal code (like abuse of power).

Republicans’ sole remaining argument is: “So what? It wasn’t that big a deal.” Or, as acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney said in October, “Get over it.” This stance at least has the virtue of acknowledging the president’s vice, but that doesn’t make it O.K.

ASSUMING MR. TRUMP IS IMPEACHED, the case will go to the Senate, where he will have the chance — on far more friendly territory — to mount the defense he refused to make to the House. Rather than withholding key witnesses, he should be demanding sworn appearances by people like Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, and John Bolton, the former national security adviser.

As recently as a few weeks ago, some Republicans seemed to want to get to the bottom of things. Even Trump’s footman, Senator Lindsey Graham, said, “If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing.”

The time for such expressions of public spirit has, apparently, passed. “I’ve written the whole process off,” Mr. Graham said during the impeachment hearings. “I think this is a bunch of B.S.”

Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, says there will be “no difference between the president’s position and our position in how to handle this,” as he told Sean Hannity of Fox last Thursday. Before the House had cast a single vote on impeachment, Mr. McConnell said there was “no chance” the Senate would vote to convict.

For now, that leaves the defense of the Constitution, and the Republic, to the House of Representatives.

Read the books that support the Website that supplies the best Draft information from a Patriots perspective. As thousands of fans have already done and enjoyed.


Email me if you'd like a question:

  If you have any questions or comments feel free to email me: