ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Citing a source like that is akin to citing a comment in a thread here as a topic.
NEM used to write for the Bleacher Report fanboy media.
__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Sorry, that name can never be spoken here. My bad.
__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH
I think we may have to start a separate thread in discussion of NEM, an infamous former forum member.
Back to original post for a moment first though; this line from the article has me scratching my head:
Quote:
If the Patriots are going to trade for Peppers, they would rather not be required to sign a first round pick. The Panthers will have the final say on the matter, and if they would rather have a couple of second rounders, New England may have to trade out of pick No. 23 with another team.
The Patriots would rather not be 'required' to sign a first round pick? Sorry, but that's flat out not true. Sounds like the writer has taken the fact that the Pats will often trade down and twisted it in to 'the Pats don't like to draft in the first round.'
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The Pats like to trade down only when they see an opportunity to get the player they want later, because they have figured out that he will still be available later. Doing so allows them to sign the same player, costs them less money, and gets them an additional draft pick later as well. If the reverse is true - that it appears the player they are targeting is not going to last - then they are willing to trade up if it makes sense that he would be a good value at that point.
In general (though not always) the Pats do prefer to stay out of the top ten (not the entire first round) because there is too high of a risk (bust, injury, etc. creating salary cap issue) versus the reward of the possibilty of the player being very productive. It is a sound business philosophy, but it does not apply to their way of thinking for the entire first round.
Lastly, if the Patriots were indeed averse to drafting in the first round due to the size of that player's contract, then why would they be willing to trade for Peppers? Or is he saying the Pats would rather trade a first for Peppers, but not their second? And that if the Pats traded two second rounders, they would then also be wanting to get rid of their first round pick?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm just not following the logic of this writer.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think we may have to start a separate thread in discussion of NEM, an infamous former forum member.
Back to original post for a moment first though; this line from the article has me scratching my head:
The Patriots would rather not be 'required' to sign a first round pick? Sorry, but that's flat out not true. Sounds like the writer has taken the fact that the Pats will often trade down and twisted it in to 'the Pats don't like to draft in the first round.'
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The Pats like to trade down only when they see an opportunity to get the player they want later, because they have figured out that he will still be available later. Doing so allows them to sign the same player, costs them less money, and gets them an additional draft pick later as well. If the reverse is true - that it appears the player they are targeting is not going to last - then they are willing to trade up if it makes sense that he would be a good value at that point.
In general (though not always) the Pats do prefer to stay out of the top ten (not the entire first round) because there is too high of a risk (bust, injury, etc. creating salary cap issue) versus the reward of the possibilty of the player being very productive. It is a sound business philosophy, but it does not apply to their way of thinking for the entire first round.
Lastly, if the Patriots were indeed averse to drafting in the first round due to the size of that player's contract, then why would they be willing to trade for Peppers? Or is he saying the Pats would rather trade a first for Peppers, but not their second? And that if the Pats traded two second rounders, they would then also be wanting to get rid of their first round pick?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm just not following the logic of this writer.
I was thinking the exact same thing. That is some quality deductive reasoning right there.
I'd be surprised if we got Peppers. It seems unnecessary. We've got Woods, Banta-Cain, Crable, and a rookie to compete for one spot. That should produce a good player.
IMO, the Panthers don't want a trade--the most important phase of free agency is over--and the Pats don't want to spend the money.
Re: Sportsguysblog: Pats and Peppers
Linear Mode
