Trading Up (DL Melvin Ingram or Michael Brockers) - Page 5 - New England Patriots Forums

manxman2601 · 04-12-2012, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rookBoston

I've always laughed off all the talk of the Pats trading up. The rumor has been around for a few weeks.

Just for fun, in a prior thread that posted the question "who would you target", Ingram was my pick for the guy most desirable in the top-10. The guy is so versatile... BB loves that more than anything. True football players. I've posted my opinion on Ingram before, wont do it again here. To me, the question isn't whether BB would want Ingram on the team, but at what cost.

The idea that BB would trade both first rounders for Ingram doesn't fit. BB works too hard to accumulate 1sts to throw them around. There was a lot of press coverage of an conversation between BB and Tim Dimitroff after Atlanta traded all those picks for Julio Jones. BB felt it was too much to give up for one guy. Belichick advised against Julio Jones trade - NFC South Blog - ESPN. So, no chance that he would do something like that himself.

But, I also have to concede that Ingram was not invited to Foxboro under the misconception that Ingram is going to somehow drop into the 20s. Impossible. And further, BB would not waste his time meeting a guy he has absolutely no shot at.

So, I'm starting to come around to the idea that maybe a trade-up is possible. It would have to be on terms that BB already feels comfortable with. What if there is a team looking to trade down, and has asked for trade value that BB already knows he is willing to give up.

What about this as a theory. The Pats were dangling Hoyer as an RFA for a 2nd, and KC was an interested party. That conversation could easily have drifted into discussion around whether the Pats would be interested in the #11 pick.

Suppose BBs friend Pioli was willing to give up #11 for a first, a second and some players? Let's call it #27, #63, Brian Hoyer and Ryan Wendell. Two backups for us that can be starters for the Chiefs. KC gets credible depth on the interior line that they need. They get QB depth that they need. The #27 could be Nick Perry and #63 could be Bobby Wagner. That's four good players that can contribute for the Chiefs on both sides of the ball.

The thing that makes it work, the deal is pretty damn affordable for the Pats. Hoyer is going to walk next year anyway, and we have Mallett on the roster already. Wendell has started for us before, and we have options along the interior line, including bringing Koppen back for his sunset years. And, best of all, it doesn't cost us both first rounders.

I could probably paint a similar scenario around the Dolphins at #8. Cleveland at #4 is not viable, but Cleveland might trade down from #22 for considerations which include Hoyer. (Maybe that's where the Brockers rumors are coming from)

Nice theory, but if the Pats are considering trading up, it's because BB sees better value in doing so than having the picks at 27+31. consider:

The players likely available at 27 + 31 are borderline 1st/2nd round picks. BB might feel that none project as quality starters and therefore doesn't feel that a first round pick is warranted for the available talent.

There's a real plateauing of talent between about 25 and 45. which might mean that BB thinks it will be harder to trade down. Add to that that there's likely no 'franchise' type player there like a QB or a Mark Ingram and he might well judge that teams are unlikely to give up a 2013 high round pick to trade up. I mean, who is there in that range that you'd be happy giving up a 2013 1st or 2nd for?

So, in this instance, BB thinks that there's no great value in staying put and that there's likely to be little value in trading back. In that case, the sensible option is to trade up and get someone who is worthy of a first round pick.

Wilfork#75 · 04-12-2012, 02:38 AM

Could the Pats have brought in Ingram because he is a real shot at being drafted by the Jets and they are just trying to get as much info on him as possible? I think draft evaluations are much more than just deciding which players you are going to draft that particular year, but it can be a great source of information on future free agents and potential opponents as well. We have seen over the past few years BB bring in guys he reportedly liked in the draft but never made it to the Pats, and now he has the opportunity to get them (Barbie Carpenter). Why not take a look at everyone even if it is highly unlikely you will draft them. Why were there more than 2 teams at Andrew Luck's pro day? Because teams look for every advantage you can get, and if you can find strengths and weaknesses in opponents games that you can exploit, its well worth the effort.

Hercules Rockefeller · 04-12-2012, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATippett56

Sorry but I personally feel that Ricky Stanzi is a better long term prospect than Brian Hoyer.

The Chiefs claimed Kyle Orton off waivers and started the absolutely brutal Tyler Palko in multiple games last year. They did everything they could to keep Stanzi off the field.

Snake Eyes · 04-12-2012, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

The Chiefs claimed Kyle Orton off waivers and started the absolutely brutal Tyler Palko in multiple games last year. They did everything they could to keep Stanzi off the field.

"Sorry but I personally feel that Ricky Stanzi is a better long term prospect than Brian Hoyer"

Stanzi might simply need more time on the grill, who knows? The point is that "long term" can't be ignored.

Hercules Rockefeller · 04-12-2012, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Eyes

"Sorry but I personally feel that Ricky Stanzi is a better long term prospect than Brian Hoyer"

Stanzi might simply need more time on the grill, who knows? The point is that "long term" can't be ignored.

I didn't miss the point of his one sentence post. As "long term" cannot be ignored, neither can the actions of the team that drafted him be ignored.

I know this is a pet project of many people on this board who last year were proclaiming him "the next Tom Brady," but living in Big Ten country I never, ever saw it. We'll have to agree to disagree for now until we have a few more years of data, but it would not surprise me in the least to see the Chiefs address their QB situation again this year, whether it be through the draft or trading for someone. Whether it's Hoyer is a different story---I'm not so sure that Hoyer commands 2nd round value, although I do think he's a better player than many give him credit for (not singling anyone out). He's also less than 2 years older than Stanzi, so it isn't like we're talking about an upside-free 35 year old here (although you wouldn't be able to tell by looking at that shiny dome of his!)

Snake Eyes · 04-12-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

I know this is a pet project of many people on this board who last year were proclaiming him "the next Tom Brady," but living in Big Ten country I never, ever saw it.

Ok, I didnt watch Stanzi play in any games, I only saw highlight footage of him, but just to be fair did you see Brady play in college and think he would turn into TFB? Did you think Aaron Rodgers, Brees, etc, would turn into the players they are today?

How many "can't miss" QB prospects have turned out to be crap?

Hercules Rockefeller · 04-12-2012, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Eyes

Ok, I didnt watch Stanzi play in any games, I only saw highlight footage of him, but just to be fair did you see Brady play in college and think he would turn into TFB? Did you think Aaron Rodgers, Brees, etc, would turn into the players they are today?

How many "can't miss" QB prospects have turned out to be crap?

I personally can count the number of quarterbacks I labeled as "can't miss" on one hand since I started seriously following the sport as a youth in the mid 90s. Since you're asking me to toot my own horn, my Packers buddies will confirm I thought Rodgers should have been the first overall pick. Brees was a huge stud in college, here in Big Ten land, but his top-end play with the Chargers was about what I expected--didn't expect him to be an MVP-caliber player. Brady was very good in college, but had to scratch and claw for everything because Drew Henson was seen by Lloyd Carr as a can't miss player. I was excited when the Pats drafted him---because I thought he'd make a fine backup to Drew Bledsoe.

I think Brady himself is the only one who thought he could turn into TFB.

All of that is irrelevant, though, because if you read my post I wasn't coming after you, and even went out of my way to mention so. I was merely stating that the people who were big on Stanzi last year (again, NOT MENTIONING ANYONE HERE IN THIS THREAD) confused me because he was really a mediocrity for most of his college career. Having only seen highlight tapes, though, it's odd that you're fighting the good fight on Stanzi, and kind of making my point for me on that one with regards to people actually comparing him to the next Tom Brady...that I didn't think anyone who had seen him play in real games would feel that way. I could be wrong on him, I know a lot of Chiefs fans are still high on him. I doubt that he will be a starter in the league though.

The original Stanzi mention was ATippett56 mentioning that the Chiefs wouldn't trade for Hoyer because, in his opinion (which is quite irrelevant to the Chiefs' thinking), Stanzi has a higher upside. I pointed out that the actions of the Chiefs last year did not really indicate someone they were dying to get on the field. That was all. Stanzi may well have a higher upside than Hoyer long term. I have never seen anything to indicate Stanzi is anything but a backup QB, and whereas Hoyer was entrusted with that job as a undrafted rookie on a team looking to win a title, Stanzi was kept on the bench all year long by a bad team.

A lot of really irrelevant things I am being forced to respond to, but that's part of the fun of the board I suppose. I wasn't trying to draw you into a duel or anything, SnakeEyes, you've always been alright by me, I like reading your thoughts.

rookBoston · 04-12-2012, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manxman2601

Nice theory, but if the Pats are considering trading up, it's because BB sees better value in doing so than having the picks at 27+31. consider:

The players likely available at 27 + 31 are borderline 1st/2nd round picks. BB might feel that none project as quality starters and therefore doesn't feel that a first round pick is warranted for the available talent.

There's a real plateauing of talent between about 25 and 45. which might mean that BB thinks it will be harder to trade down. Add to that that there's likely no 'franchise' type player there like a QB or a Mark Ingram and he might well judge that teams are unlikely to give up a 2013 high round pick to trade up. I mean, who is there in that range that you'd be happy giving up a 2013 1st or 2nd for?

So, in this instance, BB thinks that there's no great value in staying put and that there's likely to be little value in trading back. In that case, the sensible option is to trade up and get someone who is worthy of a first round pick.

I think exactly the opposite. There is a plateau from 25-40, but it isn't a bunch of scrubs . We're talking about starting quality talent. In past years a player like Brandon Thompson would have been a late first round pick. Alshon Jeffery, Bobby Wagner, Kevin Zeitler. They're all starters and all likely 2nd or 3rd rounders. This is a very strong draft class. Teams will want to trade down.

BB isn't looking to trade up because there's no value in staying put. He's looking to trade up because there's a reasonable market for teams willing to trade down.

Hercules Rockefeller · 04-13-2012, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rookBoston

I think exactly the opposite. There is a plateau from 25-40, but it isn't a bunch of scrubs . We're talking about starting quality talent. In past years a player like Brandon Thompson would have been a late first round pick. Alshon Jeffery, Bobby Wagner, Kevin Zeitler. They're all starters and all likely 2nd or 3rd rounders. This is a very strong draft class. Teams will want to trade down.

BB isn't looking to trade up because there's no value in staying put. He's looking to trade up because there's a reasonable market for teams willing to trade down.

Good post, I think you make a strong point.

SeymourTrophies · 04-13-2012, 07:35 AM

Sometimes you have to pick a G D player. Value starts to not mean jack when the players you get for 'value' flame out. The obsession with pick hoarding is driving me crazy and back again.

If what people have been saying about the Dowling pick is true, that he was trying to trade down and wasn't prepared to actually pick someone, I will drive to Radio City Music Hall as soon as BB trades down this draft and slap him with a fish. If you actually picked a player who made a difference, having 30 picks in the draft becomes less significant.