charlie2

I believe it's been discussed briefly already but I think it would be a fantastic move to make a play for Atlanta's 2 early second round picks. I feel that the most value in this draft is in the late first and early second round as there isn't much of a drop off in talent after picks 1-15 through the mid 2nd round. I would propose the Pats offer pick 24 and a 4th (maybe a 3rd- i dont have a value chart in front of me) to Atlanta for 39 and 44. Pats would be in the prime position of batting cleanup on players that drop out of the first around and have their choice of some prime early second round talent. ( Michael Griffin, Brian Leonard, Joe Staley, Ben Grubbs, Marcus McCauley, Anthony Spencer, Merriweather, David Harris, Sidney Rice, Arron Sears, Justin Blalock, Eric Weddle, Lamar Woodley, Aaron Rouse, amonst others.) Rather than reaching for some of these guys we would have the oppurtunity to come away with three solid contributers in the first two rounds. My ideal picks would be McCauley at 28, Spencer at 39, and either Leonard or Weddle at 44. This trade also allows Atlanta to package 8 and 24 to the Lions for 2 and perhaps a 3rd rounder to go up and get their guy in Calvin Johnson.

ironwasp

Makes quite a bit of sense for NE, but only works for Atlanta if getting New England's 24th pick would be enough to help them trade up high enough to secure Calvin Johnson (if that is their aim) But I don;t think it gets them that far and they'd probably need to give up Houston's second rounder in 2008.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

moosekill

The problem is, I believe the Patriots need quality, not quantity this year. Usually the teams that need lots of help are the teams trading down to get extra picks. I don't think the patriots really need lots of help, do you? If they don't then they should consider moving up not down to pick up the best players available.

ironwasp

I think you're right but I'm not sure that the difference in quality between 24 and 40,42 is going to be that great. The trade option gives an opportunity to get quality in quantity I think.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

charlie2

The point is that I dont think there is all that much of a difference in the quality of a player we are going to get at 24 vs. 39 and 44 and that the best value in this draft is the early- mid second round ( With Willis, Nelson, Hall and Revis off the board, by 24 we would already be choosing from the 2nd tier prospects that fit our schemes anyways) . In addition, I diagree...this team does need quantity ( ray mickens and troy brown at corner) and this approach would alllow them to grab three solid contributers.

moosekill

This team needs to draft players who are better than the players who are currently on our roster. There are very few players in this draft that will be able to make our team. The further down we move, the less likely it will be that a player is better than the incumbent. That is why, with this team, I hope we either

A. Trade up. We don't need more players, we need better players.
B. Trade for future drafts. We don't need players this year, but we will next year.

dryheat44

Troy Brown was like our #7 corner last year. We don't have the roster space to allow for seven cornerbacks on the roster. Ditto Mickens...We signed him in December, right? We can't go into opening day seven deep at all positions to allow for injuries.

__________________
When it's third and 10, you can have the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -- R.I.P. Max McGee

DW Toys

Cousin,
Lets face it. This years draft is terrible. I agree with you. Lets not go for SOG's. Lets focus on a player we need that could help us. I'd rather trade up to get a Willis or a Landry because they can play in 2007 and we aren't losing anything big by packaging some 2007 picks here. The second rounders this year are fourths in 2004,2005 and 2006.
Second choice would be trade out and take some pics for 2008 and hope the crop is better.
Finally, lets take one of these gamble first round choices and swap for a Briggs who is a known commodity, and who can play MLB very well thank you.
Look at the roster! We will wind up cutting half the draft class in 2007 if we go for all eight choice (including comps).

What do you out there say!!! I say half the draft class or better gets cut in 2007 if you look at the roster.

This is why Briggs or trading up makes sense. Cousins, check out the roster and tell me your cuts!

DW Toys

rookBoston

Very worthy idea... but the draft chart says that #24 and #90 wouldn't be enough to land #39 and #44. Even if you toss our 4th rounder into the mix, it still isn't enough. Atlanta would have to be desperate.

Still, this:

#28 - LB Jon Beason
#39 - RB Brian Leonard
#44 - S Eric Weddle

is very, very strong. Three starters. Not pro-bowlers, but when have the Pats had a lot of those? These guys are Belichick-type players, who will be tremendously productive.

__________________
"We want to build a big, strong, tough, smart, fast, disciplined football team that will consistently compete for a championship."
-- Scott Pioli, from the Patriots scouting manual

VJCPatriot

Would rather have Landry than those 3 players.
Or stay put and draft two possible starters. Possibilities include Nelson, Revis, Houston, Ross, etc.

__________________