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. 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!
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!
We've seen the trade up debate 1000x before. Those against trading up normally point out the multiple selections increase your odds of finding a good-great player and you also get cheap labor from your other lower picks.
However I wanted to pitch a new trade up scenario. Instead of giving 2 or 3 picks for 1, what if the trade up didn't change the quantity of picks the Pats had or even resulted in us having more total picks! It would be 2 picks for a higher pick and a lower pick(s).
To illustrate my point lets look at hypothetical situations for using our 2 1st round picks:
1.) Use them at 27 and 31
2.) 27+31 (value=1280) for 11 (value=1250) or 10 (value=1300)
3.) 27+31(value=1280) for
a.)22+54+86 (value=1300)
b.)19+51 (value=1265)
c.)16+80+112 (value=1260)
So does this change anybodies thoughts on a trade-up? It is the best of both worlds since you get a higher selection w/o sacrificing quantity.
Scenario 3a could play out like this:
22, 48, 54, 86, 95, 128 - players selected
63 - traded for 2013 2nd + 4th
additional 4th - traded for 2013 3rd
6 players selected and 2 additional picks next year
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
I'm in favor of them using 27 or 31 coupled with 93 to move and get either Brokers or Cox is they slide to the 17-21 range. Then use the other pick to trade down and get the pick used in the trade up back. I think the talent is the same from 22-50.
So turning 27+31+93 (680+600+128=1408) into 20+45+100 (850+450+100=1400) has more value to me.
__________________
"When Peyton Manning was a kid he used to go to bed at night and dream about throwing the winning touchdown for the Saints in the Superbowl. And on Sunday he did."
There's only two conclusions for Patriots fans on rookies. They are either a bust or being fitted for their bust in Canton.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
However I wanted to pitch a new trade up scenario. Instead of giving 2 or 3 picks for 1, what if the trade up didn't change the quantity of picks the Pats had or even resulted in us having more total picks! It would be 2 picks for a higher pick and a lower pick(s).
The Pats did this with the two fifths they got from Philly for Hobbs: they quickly traded them for a 4 and a 6.
__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
We've seen the trade up debate 1000x before. Those against trading up normally point out the multiple selections increase your odds of finding a good-great player and you also get cheap labor from your other lower picks.
However I wanted to pitch a new trade up scenario. Instead of giving 2 or 3 picks for 1, what if the trade up didn't change the quantity of picks the Pats had or even resulted in us having more total picks! It would be 2 picks for a higher pick and a lower pick(s).
To illustrate my point lets look at hypothetical situations for using our 2 1st round picks:
1.) Use them at 27 and 31
2.) 27+31 (value=1280) for 11 (value=1250) or 10 (value=1300)
3.) 27+31(value=1280) for
a.)22+54+86 (value=1300)
b.)19+51 (value=1265)
c.)16+80+112 (value=1260)
So does this change anybodies thoughts on a trade-up? It is the best of both worlds since you get a higher selection w/o sacrificing quantity.
Scenario 3a could play out like this:
22, 48, 54, 86, 95, 128 - players selected
63 - traded for 2013 2nd + 4th
additional 4th - traded for 2013 3rd
6 players selected and 2 additional picks next year
If ever there was a year to for quality over quantity, this is the year. We have signed 12 free agents thus far and the bottom third of our roster is fairly stacked with guys that can contribute on ST and in the base defense or offense.
Let's face it, day three picks have little chance to make the roster and less chance of getting onto the practice squad.
This is the year to go up and grab a quality player. And fortunately in the red chip range of this draft, there are some quality guys that can instantly improve our team.
RB Richardson - Best RB in the draft and clearly much better than Ridley, Vereen and Woodhead combined!
OG DeCastro - Mankins is coming off ACL surgery. Waters is contemplating retirement. Gallery is undisciplined and penalized a ton. DeCastro starts from Day 1 at ROG. And is a multiyear All Pro if healthy.
3-4 DE Cox or Brockers - While both will require a red shirt year. Come year two they start and both can play the run and pass equally well and are probably future pro bowlers if healthy.
CD Kirkpatrick - Extremely physical with receivers at the LOS, excellent in run support and can run and cover. If the character concerns shake out, instant upgrade over anything we have on the roster. Day 1 starter and eventual Pro bowler if healthy.
In my opinion, this is the year to go up and grab a quality player.
Presumably, the point of this deal for New England would be to trade up for a player like Fletcher Cox.
But what's the point for Cleveland? They trade up from the top of the 2nd to the bottom of the first, same with their 4th and 5th rounds. Is that worth trading down at 22?
__________________
"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
Presumably, the point of this deal for New England would be to trade up for a player like Fletcher Cox.
But what's the point for Cleveland? They trade up from the top of the 2nd to the bottom of the first, same with their 4th and 5th rounds. Is that worth trading down at 22?
There's no way there are that many picks involved in a trade. I really do like the idea of trading up to 22, though. I think there'll be a talent gap right before pick 27, so moving up from there can help the Pats grab one of the ~13-25 guys as opposed to one of the 25-45 guys.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake Nate Ebner
No big deal...only took me 3 defensive plays to be drafted before Tom Brady
OK, you want to move from 27 to 22. That would take our 3rd, plus we would get back a 5th or 6th (perhaps plus a 7th).
==================================
So the basic trade is 27 + 93 for 22 (plus a late choice)
I agree with your analysis of 27. However, I suspect that Belichick would rather move down or down and forward into 2013.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sciz
There's no way there are that many picks involved in a trade. I really do like the idea of trading up to 22, though. I think there'll be a talent gap right before pick 27, so moving up from there can help the Pats grab one of the ~13-25 guys as opposed to one of the 25-45 guys.
OK, you want to move from 27 to 22. That would take our 3rd, plus we would get back a 5th or 6th (perhaps plus a 7th).
==================================
So the basic trade is 27 + 93 for 22 (plus a late choice)
I agree with your analysis of 27. However, I suspect that Belichick would rather move down or down and forward into 2013.
Yeah, perfect. Belichick can get a much better player at 22 than he'd get at 27, plus pick up a late round pick in the process.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake Nate Ebner
No big deal...only took me 3 defensive plays to be drafted before Tom Brady
Apparently Dallas are interested in both Peter Konz and a 5-tech. If it's going to happen, that could be the one. 27+31 = 1280 / 14 + 81 = 1285. We jump just ahead of the Eagles and snag Brockers or Cox (whomever's fallen), the Cowboys trade down and get Konz and Reyes.
One cautionary note. There's a lot of speculation putting Fletcher Cox with the Rams - Jeff Fisher loves to build around his D/Line and I can see the Chiefs going for Brockers. Glenn Dorsey's on huge money and in the final year of his contract and one's got to think that Scott Pioli buys into the Patriots view of the ideal DE and has both Cox and Brockers very high on his board. And then there's the Panthers too. Cox and Brockers may not make it past 9 or 11.