Trading to next year - New England Patriots Forums

***AndyJohnson*** · 04-29-2007, 11:02 AM

No question, the picks we got next year will have more value than what we traded this year, they are just a year removed.
The #1 will be a mid rounder rather than 28, the #3 will be in th e60s rather than 91.
But, we could have gotten players for now rather than waiting a year. Why would this make sense?

I can see a strong explanation.
I dont buy the we dont need anyone theory, but I do buy the idea that need will be more clearly defined in 08 than today, resulitng in better long term selections.

We are loaded with day 2 picks, and we have a great track record of day 2 picks making the roster and contributing something, with some ending up the quality of day 1 picks.

With 28 or 91, where could we have gone?
At what positions would a #1 (or #3) be bale to make the impact of a #1 or #3? In other words, if you drafted a DL at #1, and he is #1 quality, youwont get #1 quality from him, because he is behind Seymour, Warren, and would diminish Greens value.

On offense, the only possible spots to get #1 value from a #1 is OL. I think with a young OL that is locked up, it is questionable whether you would get true #1 value from a true #1.
Defensively, LB is an obvious choice. However, if BB passed on Harris, and many others, I think its almost locked up that BB will never see round 1 value in a LB in his system, unless it a freal like LT. Right or wrong, BB feels round 1 LBs are a terrible value to him (and round 3 seems likely too).
Corner? I think we are clear that Smauel is going nowhere. With Meriweather added, we now have:
Samuel, Hobbs, Harrison, Wilson, James, Sanders, Meriweather, Gay, Hawkins, maybe Mickens, at DB.
Is there need here? Maybe, but not certainly.
Will it be certain either way in a year? Absolutely. If you waffle on the value at corner at #29 this year. partially because you may never need #1 value on top of what you have, and can postpone that decision 12 months and have a mid 1 you get a better player next year, IF you need it, and if corner works out longterm with the current roster, you use that value elsewhere.

I see very few spots on this team TODAY where 1sr round (or even 2nd or 3rd) value would equate to first round value ON THIS ROSTER. I think which spots first round value is most needed will be much more clear in 12 months AFTER
1) The one year contracts at WR shake out
2) We have another year of development of the young OL (is it set, or would a 1 next year be smart)
3) The defensive backfield sorts out.
4) We have quite a few young LBs, and will add more no doubt later today. It seems this is the plan. If there is a cant miss LB (there wasnt in 07) out there in 08, we go get him with the extra picks we stockpiled.

There are openings on this roster for day 2 picks to be overachieving depth. The are definite spots for day 1 picks to be underachieving depth.

If you step back and look at the draft long term, look at a #1 (as well as the 3) as long time investments, banking that resource (and earning 'interest') while waiting to see what the best use of it will be when that answer is more clear is a luxury that any team would love to be able to afford. I think we can.

***DarrylS*** · 04-29-2007, 11:09 AM

I agree, how I frame this whole issue is that prior to the Draft, on paper, this team was probably #1, anyone added would be a back up or fit into some type of rotation. We added a few players, who might be difference makers in the offseason.. we do not really need any more right now, but may in next year. You do not need dessert if you are not hungry..

***AndyJohnson*** · 04-29-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GJAJ15

I agree, how I frame this whole issue is that prior to the Draft, on paper, this team was probably #1, anyone added would be a back up or fit into some type of rotation. We added a few players, who might be difference makers in the offseason.. we do not really need any more right now, but may in next year. You do not need dessert if you are not hungry..

Plus, it is very realistic that we may have needs next year that arent quite apparent right now.
At WR, we may lose guys because they do well. We know we can have Asante for 2007, but 2008 is less certain.
Where will Bruschi and Harrison be in 2008? and so forth

PF1996 · 04-29-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

No question, the picks we got next year will have more value than what we traded this year, they are just a year removed.
The #1 will be a mid rounder rather than 28, the #3 will be in th e60s rather than 91.
But, we could have gotten players for now rather than waiting a year. Why would this make sense?

I can see a strong explanation.
I dont buy the we dont need anyone theory, but I do buy the idea that need will be more clearly defined in 08 than today, resulitng in better long term selections.

We are loaded with day 2 picks, and we have a great track record of day 2 picks making the roster and contributing something, with some ending up the quality of day 1 picks.

With 28 or 91, where could we have gone?
At what positions would a #1 (or #3) be bale to make the impact of a #1 or #3? In other words, if you drafted a DL at #1, and he is #1 quality, youwont get #1 quality from him, because he is behind Seymour, Warren, and would diminish Greens value.

On offense, the only possible spots to get #1 value from a #1 is OL. I think with a young OL that is locked up, it is questionable whether you would get true #1 value from a true #1.
Defensively, LB is an obvious choice. However, if BB passed on Harris, and many others, I think its almost locked up that BB will never see round 1 value in a LB in his system, unless it a freal like LT. Right or wrong, BB feels round 1 LBs are a terrible value to him (and round 3 seems likely too).
Corner? I think we are clear that Smauel is going nowhere. With Meriweather added, we now have:
Samuel, Hobbs, Harrison, Wilson, James, Sanders, Meriweather, Gay, Hawkins, maybe Mickens, at DB.
Is there need here? Maybe, but not certainly.
Will it be certain either way in a year? Absolutely. If you waffle on the value at corner at #29 this year. partially because you may never need #1 value on top of what you have, and can postpone that decision 12 months and have a mid 1 you get a better player next year, IF you need it, and if corner works out longterm with the current roster, you use that value elsewhere.

I see very few spots on this team TODAY where 1sr round (or even 2nd or 3rd) value would equate to first round value ON THIS ROSTER. I think which spots first round value is most needed will be much more clear in 12 months AFTER
1) The one year contracts at WR shake out
2) We have another year of development of the young OL (is it set, or would a 1 next year be smart)
3) The defensive backfield sorts out.
4) We have quite a few young LBs, and will add more no doubt later today. It seems this is the plan. If there is a cant miss LB (there wasnt in 07) out there in 08, we go get him with the extra picks we stockpiled.

There are openings on this roster for day 2 picks to be overachieving depth. The are definite spots for day 1 picks to be underachieving depth.

If you step back and look at the draft long term, look at a #1 (as well as the 3) as long time investments, banking that resource (and earning 'interest') while waiting to see what the best use of it will be when that answer is more clear is a luxury that any team would love to be able to afford. I think we can.

Exactly my sentiments which is why I'm surprised so many are upset that more players weren't picked. I wanted the Pats to trade at least one of the first rounders before the draft began and I was exicted to find out that they traded two picks. Using all three first day picks would have reduced the number of spots available for our batch of later round picks (half of which are not tradeable).