moving up for a "sure thing"

[justinb]

It seems pretty apparent that Eric Berry - S- from Texas is a "sure thing"..typically QB's are 50/50 ( at best..probably more like 35/65)...but shouldnt teams be willing to give up there current 1st round ( lets take the Pats for instance) at 22nd, a 2nd rounder somewhere along the board, and potentially 2011 NEP 1st pick...FOR A SURE PICK??

If the scouts, player personell, and coaches feel they are a "cant miss"...isnt it worth it?

its the 1 in the hand, 2 in the bush, thought...thats all

 

[SanAngeloState]

It seems pretty apparent that Eric Berry - S- from Texas is a "sure thing"..typically QB's are 50/50 ( at best..probably more like 35/65)...but shouldnt teams be willing to give up there current 1st round ( lets take the Pats for instance) at 22nd, a 2nd rounder somewhere along the board, and potentially 2011 NEP 1st pick...FOR A SURE PICK??

If the scouts, player personell, and coaches feel they are a "cant miss"...isnt it worth it?

its the 1 in the hand, 2 in the bush, thought...thats all

He's from Tennesee and some people don't think he's a sure thing, from what I've read.

No, it's not really worth it, given that no one is a sure pick and that a #1 this year, #1 next year and 2nd round this year is a huge price to pay for a rookie who would be making 8M per year and is totally unproven in the NFL. But that's my opinion.

 

[mayoclinic]

1. There are no "sure things". Berry certainly isn't one. You can make an argument that Earl Thomas may end up being just as good, going around 15 picks later.

2. The cost of missing in the top 5 is exorbitant. The cost of missing at 22 is manageable.

3. We have a soid safety rotation, and don't need another one.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

1. There are no "sure things". Berry certainly isn't one. You can make an argument that Earl Thomas may end up being just as good, going around 15 picks later.

2. The cost of missing in the top 5 is exorbitant. The cost of missing at 22 is manageable.

3. We have a soid safety rotation, and don't need another one.

FWIW, I think he's talking about teams in general; he was (I hope) just using the Pats as an example of what they might give up to do it.

In any case, I agree with you that there's no sure thing, and safety is about the last position the Pats should trade up for.

 

[Metaphors]

I remember I was travelling during the 2004 draft, listening to it on the radio. I was disappointed in 2003 that Wilfork went back to school. The Pats had a legit shot at getting him in 2003 and it was clear that DT play was the Pats undoing in 2002. Now the Pats would have no shot at him in 2004.

But as the day wore on, Wilfork didn't get picked. As he got to the 15-16 range, I actually started yelling at the radio for the Pats to trade up to get him. I seem to remember that there were teams immediately ahead of and behind the Pats that had needs at DT. I was worried I would end up in a ditch if Wilfork went at #19 or #20, particularly if someone traded ahead of the Pats to get him.

When the Pats finally got on the clock, I started breathing again. There was no doubt, absolutely zero, that Wilfork would be the pick. Wilfork was a sure thing at a position of need and the Pats didn't budge as he slipped into range.

While I don't have anything against trading up for an elite player, it doesn't seem like that is in Belichick's DNA. He did move up one spot to get Warren in 2003, so I suspect that type of cheap, defensive move would be the limit of what the Pats do in the 1st round.

 

[mayoclinic]

I remember I was travelling during the 2004 draft, listening to it on the radio. I was disappointed in 2003 that Wilfork went back to school. The Pats had a legit shot at getting him in 2003 and it was clear that DT play was the Pats undoing in 2002. Now the Pats would have no shot at him in 2004.

But as the day wore on, Wilfork didn't get picked. As he got to the 15-16 range, I actually started yelling at the radio for the Pats to trade up to get him. I seem to remember that there were teams immediately ahead of and behind the Pats that had needs at DT. I was worried I would end up in a ditch if Wilfork went at #19 or #20, particularly if someone traded ahead of the Pats to get him.

When the Pats finally got on the clock, I started breathing again. There was no doubt, absolutely zero, that Wilfork would be the pick. Wilfork was a sure thing at a position of need and the Pats didn't budge as he slipped into range.

While I don't have anything against trading up for an elite player, it doesn't seem like that is in Belichick's DNA. He did move up one spot to get Warren in 2003, so I suspect that type of cheap, defensive move would be the limit of what the Pats do in the 1st round.

I partly agree with you.

The Pats have shown that they are willing to move up for a specific player at times, particularly if they believe someone else is targeting that player. They traded up from 50 to 48 in 2001 to get Matt Light, obviously because they heard that the Jets must have been interested in him. They traded up from 32 to 21 in 2002 for Dan Graham. They traded up 3 times in 2003: (1) from 14 to 13 in 2003 for Ty Warren even though that was considered high for Warren; (2) from 41 to 36 for Eugene Wilson; and from 50 to 45 for Bethel Johnson. In all 3 cases I assume they heard that someone else was interested, and that the player wouldn't have lasted till their original pick. They traded up from 52 to 36 in 2006 for Chad Jackson. And they traded up from 47 to 40 for Ron Brace last year, again, presumably because they had intel that Brace wouldn't last to 47. I have to say, their track record on these trade ups has not been impressive overall, but obviously they are willing to do so if necessary.

But the Pats have also showed that they will often stand "pat". The Wilfork example is the best one. It would have been quite reasonable for the Pats to try and move up a few spots to assure that they would get Wilfork once he started to fall. Obviously, they gambled that he would last to 21, and they won that gamble. But in other cases things haven't worked out so well. The Pats were reportedly interested in Stewart Bradley in 2007, but didn't go after him. He went to Philadelphia 4 picks before the Pats 3rd round choice, and the Pats subsequently traded out of the round. There were rumors that the Pats were enamored with Percy Harvin last year and the Vikings were reportedly also intereted. The Pats apparently made no effort to move up a couple of spots to get him. (Eric Mangini would probably have traded back from 21 to 23 as he was in fire sale mode, and Alex Mack would almost certainly have been available at 23.)

I think that there's a good chance the Pat's sit tight at 22 and see who falls. This is a deep draft, and they have a lot of needs. There's no need to trade up for one specific guy unless they fall in love with someone who slips (Rolando McClain) or whom they believe another team will target.

But I also think Atlanta at #19/20 is a possible trade-up partner with our 2nd round picks. Atlanta has no 2nd round pick by virtue of the Tony Gonzalez trade. Their biggest need is CB, and Joe Haden is likely to be long gone, with no other CB currently projecting to be worth the 19/20 pick. I could see Tom Dmitroff trading back for 42 and 47, where he could fill 2 needs, instead of reaching for a CB in the 1st round. If there is more than one guy on the board who BB covets, the possibility of getting 2 such guys at 19/20 and 22 might be too good to pass up.

 

[mayoclinic]

I could see a couple of scenarios, with Atlanta on the clock at 19:

- Scenario 1: BB really loves a specific player on the board, and has heard that Houston or Cincinnati loves that guy. I could see a move up from 22 to 19.

- Scenario 2: BB wants a pass rusher, and he likes 2 guys equally (Carlos Dunlap and Jason Pierre-Paul, for example; substitute other names if you prefer). He hasn't heard anything specific to suggest that Atlanta, Houston or Cincinnati is in love with either, though all 3 teams could go DE. He stands pat at 22 and gambles that one or both will be available. I could especially see this if there are other guys available at other needs who BB likes.

- Scenario 3: Two or more guys at different positions that BB really likes are available. Then I could see BB trading 42 and 47 to move up to 19, to try and snag both of them.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I'd heard there were no trading partners for the move up to get Stewart, which sucks because he was the ideal replacement for TJ.

 

[mayoclinic]

I'd heard there were no trading partners for the move up to get Stewart, which sucks because he was the ideal replacement for TJ.

I find that hard to believe. No trading partners at the right price, however, I can believe.

Bummer. Bradley would have been great.

 

[bigcountry75]

Back to the OP if we were going to trade our 1st and 2nd this year plus our 1st in 2011 we better be getting SUH as he is as close to a safe money bet as there is this draft....

 

[Ochmed Jones]

I'd heard there were no trading partners for the move up to get Stewart, which sucks because he was the ideal replacement for TJ.

I thought it was no trading partners "at the price BB was willing to pay". Potentially HUGE difference.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

It seems pretty apparent that Eric Berry - S- from Texas is a "sure thing"..typically QB's are 50/50 ( at best..probably more like 35/65)...but shouldnt teams be willing to give up there current 1st round ( lets take the Pats for instance) at 22nd, a 2nd rounder somewhere along the board, and potentially 2011 NEP 1st pick...FOR A SURE PICK??

If the scouts, player personell, and coaches feel they are a "cant miss"...isnt it worth it?

its the 1 in the hand, 2 in the bush, thought...thats all

I think if there is a player you really like, you need to go up and get him. BB has done it before and could do it again in this draft. BB has to weigh the price vs. the reward.

 

[Warren94]

1. There are no "sure things". Berry certainly isn't one. You can make an argument that Earl Thomas may end up being just as good, going around 15 picks later.

2. The cost of missing in the top 5 is exorbitant. The cost of missing at 22 is manageable.

3. We have a soid safety rotation, and don't need another one.

we need to get Chung in there this upcoming year getting tired of watching Merriweather whiff on tackles.

 

[MaineMan]

BB could (maybe) have traded up from the #23 and taken Orakpo or Cushing or maybe Maclin or Malcolm Jenkins. It might actually have been Alex Mack going off the board to the Browns (rather than Harvin to the Vikes) that caused BB to bail. But any of those would have cost that #23 and at least one other pick, maybe as high as a second-rounder.

Instead, after you add up all the trades, for that one #23, the Pats got Darius Butler, Julian Edelman, Brandon Tate and the #44 pick in this year's draft.

So, as it turned out, there were only maybe five guys picked above the #23 spot who might have been of significant value to the Pats as of Draft Day. We're not even close to that stage WRT this draft. There's Senior Bowl practices, the Combine, Pro Days and player visits to get through before we can produce some sort of final guess as to an arbitrary intrinsic value of the individual players. And then there's Free Agency to get through before we can begin to calculate any sort of potential immediate value of these players to the various teams, including the Pats. Hypothetically, BB could pick up Kampmann and Dansby and maybe Jevon Kearse in free agency. How much would moving up to draft, say, McClain or Morgan, be to us then?

Maybe the way this all shakes out, al but two or three of the players who are most likely to be selected before the #22 spot aren't really going to be of use to us or would simply cost way too many draft picks. It might even turn out that the next player who we could really use isn't likely to go until, say, mid-2nd round, so we trade our #23 for the Skins' #37 and #101 and a 3rd rounder in 2011. BB gets the next guy we really wanted and two more picks (to deal).

Anyway, it's difficult for me to say that we should just trade up "on principle", especially while still missing so much information about this specific market.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I thought it was no trading partners "at the price BB was willing to pay". Potentially HUGE difference.

Which means "no trading partners." No trade, no partners - it is what it is.

 

[MaineMan]

I thought it was no trading partners "at the price BB was willing to pay". Potentially HUGE difference.

Well, it would have cost - at MINIMUM - our own 3rd (#91) and 4th (#127) to jump up to #82 or #83 in time to snag Bradley before Philly came around at #86.

As it turned out, we trade the #91 to Oakland in exchange for a 7th rounder (that became, tragically, Oscar Lua) and a 2008 3rd rounder (#69). That 2008 #69 pick was later traded to San Diego for their 2009 2nd rounder and the 2008 #160. That 2008 #160 was bundled with the Pats 2008 #238 to Tampa for their 2008 #153, which became Matthew Slater.

So, the (2007 #91) + (2008 #238) = Oscar Lua + Matthew Slater + 2009 San Diego 2nd Rounder (#47).

That #47 was then bundled with the Pats 2009 #124 and #199 for Oakland's #40, which became Ron Brace.

Bottom line is that original 2007 3rd-rounder (136 trade value points) plus a couple 2009 late rounders - a total draft-trade value of 196 points (roughly, #15 in the 3rd round) became Oscar Lua (career-ending back injury in 2007 Camp), Matthew Slater and Ron Brace. If Brace ultimately turns out okay, that's a decent deal, thoyugh, personally, I'd rather have had Bradley. And, now, a couple of Tylenol.

Edit:
BTW - that 2007 4th-rounder that we didn't bundle to move up for Bradley turned into DT Kareem Brown - last seen on his way out the door of the NY Jet's facility after failing in an attempt to convert to TE, IIRC

 

[WhiZa]

LaRon Landry was a better prospect and hasn't made a probowl yet. So I wouldn't say he's worth moving up in the top 10 like we would have to.

 

[mayoclinic]

Well, it would have cost - at MINIMUM - our own 3rd (#91) and 4th (#127) to jump up to #82 or #83 in time to snag Bradley before Philly came around at #86.

As it turned out, we trade the #91 to Oakland in exchange for a 7th rounder (that became, tragically, Oscar Lua) and a 2008 3rd rounder (#69). That 2008 #69 pick was later traded to San Diego for their 2009 2nd rounder and the 2008 #160. That 2008 #160 was bundled with the Pats 2008 #238 to Tampa for their 2008 #153, which became Matthew Slater.

So, the (2007 #91) + (2008 #238) = Oscar Lua + Matthew Slater + 2009 San Diego 2nd Rounder (#47).

That #47 was then bundled with the Pats 2009 #124 and #199 for Oakland's #40, which became Ron Brace.

Bottom line is that original 2007 3rd-rounder (136 trade value points) plus a couple 2009 late rounders - a total draft-trade value of 196 points (roughly, #15 in the 3rd round) became Oscar Lua (career-ending back injury in 2007 Camp), Matthew Slater and Ron Brace. If Brace ultimately turns out okay, that's a decent deal, thoyugh, personally, I'd rather have had Bradley. And, now, a couple of Tylenol.

Edit:
BTW - that 2007 4th-rounder that we didn't bundle to move up for Bradley turned into DT Kareem Brown - last seen on his way out the door of the NY Jet's facility after failing in an attempt to convert to TE, IIRC

So we basically got Ron Brace, Matt Slater, Oscar Lua and Kareem Brown for what could have been Steward Bradley in 2007 and our #124 and #199 in 2009?

That's a non-brainer. Bradley's a stud, and would have been a terrific SILB next to Mayo. Lua and Brown were cut, Slater's a replaceable STer, and Brace has done nothing so far. If Brace turns out to be great it will be different, but Bradley and Mayo could have given us a solid ILB base for a decade.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

I remember I was travelling during the 2004 draft, listening to it on the radio. I was disappointed in 2003 that Wilfork went back to school. The Pats had a legit shot at getting him in 2003 and it was clear that DT play was the Pats undoing in 2002. Now the Pats would have no shot at him in 2004.

But as the day wore on, Wilfork didn't get picked. As he got to the 15-16 range, I actually started yelling at the radio for the Pats to trade up to get him. I seem to remember that there were teams immediately ahead of and behind the Pats that had needs at DT. I was worried I would end up in a ditch if Wilfork went at #19 or #20, particularly if someone traded ahead of the Pats to get him.

When the Pats finally got on the clock, I started breathing again. There was no doubt, absolutely zero, that Wilfork would be the pick. Wilfork was a sure thing at a position of need and the Pats didn't budge as he slipped into range.

While I don't have anything against trading up for an elite player, it doesn't seem like that is in Belichick's DNA. He did move up one spot to get Warren in 2003, so I suspect that type of cheap, defensive move would be the limit of what the Pats do in the 1st round.

I agree completely - for whatever that is worth. In the first round (besides the 1 spot tradeup for Warren) I can't remember any other time Bill has traded up. But BB sure trades down alot frequently in the first. And I don't believe it is only just the value added of getting extra picks moving down OR the $$ salary savings. Which we all know Bill loves his value. I think also Bill just wants to not risk putting all his eggs in one basket.

The kid could have remarkable talent, be 95% sure to be competitive at the next level and have a winning attitude, great character and such. But there is no such thing as a sure thing as we are all human. Forget for a moment the injury risk which is a very real threat every time a player puts on pads - even in practice. But there is all the other life dangers that could mess up the franchaise savior. Drugs (see Len Bias), gambling, aids, a car crash and many other things could quickly derail a future stars career. Yes, that could also happen to any of us - but no one has invested multi-millions of dollars in me. Or the guy could get get intoxicated with the multi-millions of dollars in his bank account and become content and lazy. Thank god TB has his head on straight.

I would never want to invest too much draft picks, money and resources on any 1 player (age 18-24) coming out of school. Mayo at pick 10 was about as high a pick as I would go (and I would NOT of sacrificed alot- if at all- to trade UP for him - I was happy we traded down).

Diversify your portfolio to minimize your risk! No one knows where the next big Microsoft, Google or such will come along. But if you spread out your bets, you will have a better chance of winning in the long run. In blackjack it is also known as splitting your high pairs.

 

[mayoclinic]

I agree completely - for whatever that is worth. In the first round (besides the 1 spot tradeup for Warren) I can't remember any other time Bill has traded up. But BB sure trades down alot frequently in the first.

When was that?

BB traded up in the 1st twice, in 2002 (31 -> 21 for Dan Graham) and 2003 (14 -> 13 for Ty Warren). He traded back twice, in 2007 (7 -> 10 for Jerod Mayo) and 2009 (23 -> 26 -> 41). And he traded into the next year twice, in 2003 (19 -> 41 + a 2004 1st, which became Wilfork) and 2007 (28 -> a 2008 1st, which became Mayo, and a 4th which became Moss).

BB has traded up 5 times in the 2nd round: 50 -> 48 in 2001 for Matt Light, 41 -> 36 in 2003 for Eugene Wilson, 50 -> 45 in 2003 for Bethel Johnson, 52 -> 36 in 2006 for Chad Jackson, and 47 -> 40 in 2009 for Ron Brace. The only time BB has traded back or out of the 2nd round (other than trades for a player, such as Corey Dillon in 2004 and Wes Welker in 2007) was in 2005, when he traded #64 to Baltimore for a 2005 3rd (used on Ellis Hobbs) and a 2006 3rd (used to trade up for Chad Jackson).