What would have happened if we didn't trade around. 2008 onwards... - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

MP-Logick · 01-07-2012, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lovsn

But where does that logic stop? Is there much difference between the middle of the 3rd and end of the 3rd? Is there much difference between the end of the 3rd and middle of the 4th? If you're saying there isn't, they should always be trading down.

again, you can never say who the player is "they would have picked anyway" as we don't have that information. You don't know whether they lost a player through trading down or not. All we can say is "how talented was the guy who got drafted where they were originally slated to draft?"

If you don't have that information, there's no point in trying to argue about whether they should have traded down or not. That player who was picked at that position may have been more talented then the one the Patriots picked...but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have traded down and not picked him. Perhaps the value they received in trading down was greater then the difference between the two players...perhaps that player would never have worked out as a Patriot anyway, for whatever reason.

No one's saying you should infinitely trade down, but to say instead nobody should trade down because the average player picked higher is more likely to be a successful player, is nuts. If we had access to BB's draft board, we could evaluate the trades, but unfortunately we simply do not.

patsfan-1982 · 01-07-2012, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

The only problem is that I believe this assumes we would have taken the player the drafting team took in that slot. Truth is, had the Patriots kept those picks, they might have taken someone else who was still on the board. Another example is with Mayo. They traded down, and still took the guy they wanted. Had they stood pat, they arguably would have taken Mayo just the same.

What a crap draft that 2009 turned out to be.

i agree with this i dont think Clay Matthews, Dez Bryant and so on were ever going to be patriots the pats got who they wanted and got a few more picks

Sydney · 01-07-2012, 07:37 AM

I don't like this list at all. Are they just picking the players who were drafted at those spots by other teams or are they trying to do a real mock? If it's the former, it's even worse than I thought.

Quite simply we don't have any teams draft board. Had we not traded at all, I can guarantee ~95% of these picks are wrong. And who is to say that "our" players don't slip to us any way. I can think of a few players that were considered a reach at the time.

***DarrylS*** · 01-07-2012, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lovsn

Sure, the question is not "what would the roster look like had they not traded around?" as that's an unanswerable question

The question is "is it harder to find talented players, the more you trade around?"

If you trade up, you pick less players, but they should be, on average, better.

If you trade down, you pick more players, but they should be, on average, worse.

The argument I tend to hear is that the extra players you get from trading down does not compensate for the drop off in talent.

However, the list of players, who were drafted in our positions, but we could not have had as a result of trading, isn't all that impressive.

Nicks and Staley are pro-bowlers, and Oher, Cook, Murphy, Thomas and Ingram all have talent, but various flaws, but I think you have players of that calibre on the roster currently, directly as a result of trading around.

It's a fair way to evaluate, because you're not "cherry picking" the best player they could have picked (clay matthews) knowing how good they turned out to be.

What you do not recognize is that every team has hits and misses.. the draft at best is a high end guessing game, all the while the loss of certain players is lamented.. the Pasts are being rebuilt on the fly, and somehow despite all of the complaints, we have maintained a high level of play.

This will beg the issue but did some stuff with 2nd round pix of Steelers, Miami, Jets and Green Bay.. not means conclusive but a broader view of what we specifically did or did not do or would've/should've done..

Steelers..
2011.. Marcus Gilbert..OT currently starts for the Steelers
2010.. Jason Worilds.. playing ok, but seems to be a work in progress
2009.. no second round pick
2008.. Limus Sweed... has been waived
2007.. Lamar Woodley.. great pick
2006.. no second round pick

Miami's vaunted 2nd round picks..
2011...Daniel Thomas RB.. looks like a good pick
2010..Koa Missa. LB.. work in progress
2009..Pat White. QB... not in the game
2008..Phillip Merling.. not in the game
Chad Henne..
2007.. John Beck. QB...traded to the Redskins
Samson Satele.. C.. good pick
2006..no pick

The Jets absolutely wonderful 2nd round picks..
2011... no second round pick
2010.. Vladimir DuCasse
2009.. Shonn Greene
2008 .. no second round pick
2007.. David Harris
2006.. Kellen Clemens
2005... Mike Nugent
Justin Miller..

The Green Bay Packers recent 2ndround picks..
2011.. Randall Cobb
2010.. Mike Neal.. oft injuried
2009.. no second round pick
2008..Brian Brohm.. no longer in the NFL
Patrick lee.. marginal player
2007..Brandon Jackson.. marginal player now with the Browns.
2006...Darren Colledge..starting O lineman now with the Cardinals
Greg Jennings
2005..Nick Collins.. a pro bowler on IR
Terrence Murphy retired from the NFL..

Compare to Patriots since 2005..
2011.. Ras I Dowling and Shane Vereen
2010... Gronkowski, Cunningham and Spikes
2009.. Chung, Brace and Butler
2008.. wheatley
2007.. no second round pick.
2006.. Chad Jackson
2005.. no second round pick.

The other connected issue is the "economy" of draft picks, sometimes going for lower first round picks (up to the new CBA) would mean tying up valuable dollars in unproven athletes, and deny the basic premise of how this meritcracy works.. there is more to this picture than meets the eye.. the draft strategy may be different this year.

lovsn · 01-07-2012, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sydney

I don't like this list at all. Are they just picking the players who were drafted at those spots by other teams or are they trying to do a real mock? If it's the former, it's even worse than I thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

What you do not recognize is that every team has hits and misses..

Both of these comments miss the point of the exercise.

It's not a "revised draft" or "did they make the right call by trading down from pick x" for the Pats, because any attempt to do this is biased by the knowledge of how the players turned out, which you didn't know at the time.

The only fair way to do any sort of comparison is to specify a decision making rule which can be implemented without knowledge of how the players turned out.

The one I chose is "look at the talent of the players who were ultimately drafted in the Pats original draft slots" precisely because you know this "talent level" of players was available to the Pats, had they not traded around (i.e. it is a feasible comparison), but it doesn't depend on you knowing which players they were (i.e. it is fair, because you are not just selecting players you either do or don't like)

It precisely controls for the fact other teams make "hits and misses" because, again, the teams who we traded with thought they were selecting the most talented player, but this may not ultimately turn out to be the case.

Thus the question is not "would you prefer one roster to the other?", but the question is "does a strategy which involves lots of trading around make it harder to find talented players compared to a strategy where you just select the most talented player you think is available at every spot you are given?"

***AndyJohnson*** · 01-07-2012, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sydney

I don't like this list at all. Are they just picking the players who were drafted at those spots by other teams or are they trying to do a real mock? If it's the former, it's even worse than I thought.

Quite simply we don't have any teams draft board. Had we not traded at all, I can guarantee ~95% of these picks are wrong. And who is to say that "our" players don't slip to us any way. I can think of a few players that were considered a reach at the time.

Read his post. His is comparing what we got with the picks we traded for to the players taken with the picks we traded.
He is not asking if those players would fit better on our team, he is comparing talent of the players taken with our traded picks vs the player we took with the acquired picks.
Trying to plug in who you would have taken years later after seeing how the pick worked out introduced a bias into the analysis.

***DarrylS*** · 01-07-2012, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lovsn

Thus the question is not "would you prefer one roster to the other?", but the question is "does a strategy which involves lots of trading around make it harder to find talented players compared to a strategy where you just select the most talented player you think is available at every spot you are given?"

Sorry if I missed the point of your exercise

Your question does not make sense and at the very least it is loaded, damned if you do and damned if you don't..

The operative words are "most talented player you think is available", evokes quite a few variables beyond the control of the drafting organization.. if you read the "War Room" by Holley, it becomes a little clearer as to how these decisions are made.

How many early draft round busts (most talented player you thought was available) have washed out from the NFL???.. It happens often, my druthers are that prior to the new CBA trading from a 1st round pick to second round picks made a lot of sense as it fit into BB's economic theory and this meritocracy.

Now that the landscape has changed BB may change his philosophy, and be more eager to go for first round picks due to the variance of the new salary structure.

People continue to whine and bytch about BB's drafts, and somehow despite of his assumed incompetence we have just finished two very good seasons.. and still have 4 of the first 64 round picks in the NFL draft. This team has is being rebuilt before our eyes, time to give credit where credit is due.

JJDChE · 01-07-2012, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lovsn

Of course, you can't say for sure who we would have taken had we not traded

Which is why it was a waste of time to do this analysis. Draft post mortems are among the more pointless wastes of time.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie · 01-07-2012, 01:51 PM

You left Welker off the list we traded for him the same year we traded for Moss.

lovsn · 01-07-2012, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGodInAGreyHoodie

You left Welker off the list we traded for him the same year we traded for Moss.

As mentioned earlier, Moss is only included because he was part of the trade which resulted in Mayo in 2008, and I was looking at 2008 onwards

Welker was pre-2008, hence is not included