I think we may have to start a separate thread in discussion of NEM, an infamous former forum member.
Back to original post for a moment first though; this line from the article has me scratching my head:
The Patriots would rather not be 'required' to sign a first round pick? Sorry, but that's flat out not true. Sounds like the writer has taken the fact that the Pats will often trade down and twisted it in to 'the Pats don't like to draft in the first round.'
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The Pats like to trade down only when they see an opportunity to get the player they want later, because they have figured out that he will still be available later. Doing so allows them to sign the same player, costs them less money, and gets them an additional draft pick later as well. If the reverse is true - that it appears the player they are targeting is not going to last - then they are willing to trade up if it makes sense that he would be a good value at that point.
In general (though not always) the Pats do prefer to stay out of the top ten (not the entire first round) because there is too high of a risk (bust, injury, etc. creating salary cap issue) versus the reward of the possibilty of the player being very productive. It is a sound business philosophy, but it does not apply to their way of thinking for the entire first round.
Lastly, if the Patriots were indeed averse to drafting in the first round due to the size of that player's contract, then why would they be willing to trade for Peppers? Or is he saying the Pats would rather trade a first for Peppers, but not their second? And that if the Pats traded two second rounders, they would then also be wanting to get rid of their first round pick?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm just not following the logic of this writer.
