Trade-Down Scenerios

[Charles Barwin]

The first half of the second round is going to be like an uninterupted extension of the first round. Trading back from 22 once or twice, and then using the acquired picks to trade up from 53 and 47, would be just fine with me, and very similar to last year's strategy.

Except that this year, more talent will be available, and 4 immediate impact players are more likely to be picked up in the first 2 rounds.

 

[upstater1]

Instead of trading down, why don't the pats PICK on of these GREAT players.

One good reason not to pick a player at 22 is that you value Jerry Hughes higher than, say, Ricky Sapp. And since everyone has Hughes going in round 2, why would you pick him at 22?

 

[upstater1]

About Adalius, I refuse to believe that some team does not want to rent a premium pass rusher (if used limitedly) for $5 million.

That is not a lot to ask, especially for one year, for a player with his capabilities.

he is worth a draft pick.

 

[Nonentity]

One good reason not to pick a player at 22 is that you value Jerry Hughes higher than, say, Ricky Sapp. And since everyone has Hughes going in round 2, why would you pick him at 22?

What if Jerry Hughes is the only OLB you rate, and that you don't want to draft any of the others? Better to take him at 22 than risk trading down and losing him to another team.

Mel Kiper can call your pick a reach as much as he likes. If Hughes produces, no-one will ever care.

 

[VJCPatriot]

One good reason not to pick a player at 22 is that you value Jerry Hughes higher than, say, Ricky Sapp. And since everyone has Hughes going in round 2, why would you pick him at 22?

Exactly, you should trade down and get an extra pick, and then select Hughes, if that's the guy you want.

 

[upstater1]

What if Jerry Hughes is the only OLB you rate, and that you don't want to draft any of the others? Better to take him at 22 than risk trading down and losing him to another team.

Mel Kiper can call your pick a reach as much as he likes. If Hughes produces, no-one will ever care.

I know that Belichick is not afraid to reach for players but he trades down a lot when he believes a player does not have a high grade on a majority of boards. Darius Butler was rated VERY high by the Patriots last year, sky high, and at a need position.

 

[Charles Barwin]

Tampa Bay, with 2 second rounders as well as a third, could be a possibility.

If they land a DT at 3, they might bite for 22 if Earl Thomas or Dez Bryant were available.

 

[AJD]

ill say this, after a quiet, coherent free agency where we kept pieces rather than acquired them we are going to be feeling good after this draft.

Deep class, 4 picks in the first two rounds, great chance to trade back and still get impact players, flexibility to move up if we want to.

We are set going into one of the most exciting drafts in years

and then just for good measure two firsts next year.

 

[Charles Barwin]

I agree, there is a whole lot to be excited about heading into the draft.

I only worry about Randy Moss getting injured. Our entire offense falls apart in that case. At least Hoyer looks decent and has good mobility as a QB. If Randy goes down, it's all over, unless we pick up a good WR early in the draft. Gerhart, Dwyer, or Blunt would be very useful as well.

I'd also be quite happy with Jason Worilds as the only OLB pick in the top 2 rounds, if it meant great value elsewhere and somebody like Hardy could be nabbed in the 3rd.

And last year's draft does need to be viewed as a success because of Volmer, even if Chung and Brace never emerge. They probably will emerge anyway.

What a great year to be a draftnik. Deepest 2nd round ever and 3 second round picks!

 

[sg14]

There is a 54 minute BB interview with a table full of reporters on Patriots.com (Titled, As consitent as ever, IFIRC)

And he discusses how with the new format there will most likely be alot more trading, with the multiple breaks.

And the Pats are sitting there with alot of cards to deal,,,

Official Website of the New England Patriots

 

[upstater1]

There is a 54 minute BB interview with a table full of reporters on Patriots.com (Titled, As consitent as ever, IFIRC)

And he discusses how with the new format there will most likely be alot more trading, with the multiple breaks.

And the Pats are sitting there with alot of cards to deal,,,

Official Website of the New England Patriots

I would not count on teams trading down for picks in 2011 so Belichick might not be right about this.

There might be fewer trades because of the extreme unwillingness to give up 2011 picks for 2010 picks. I am a fan of trading down, but I am not a fan of trading 2010s for higher round 2011s. No.

 

[mgteich]

The questions are
1) Are any of our must-have blue-chippers available at 22; and how far might they last
(last year we risked that Butler would there at 40)
2) How many of our first round board is left at 22.
3) How far down can we afford to go and get one of our first round targets.
=====================================================
1) My guess is that all of our top targets will be gone, and we will have decided not to trade up to get any of them. These include players like Hayden, McCain, Morgan, and Odrick.

I also expect Spliller and Bryant to be gone, although I doubt that they are targets.
===========================================================
2) I will list some players who I think MIGHT be on our board. It is a reasonably long list, but several will end up not being on Belichick's list and some will be gone. If say five are left at 22, I expect Belichick will make a decision and may move down a few spots. If only 2 or 3 are there, I suspect that we will listen to offers, but will make a pick.

I expect that we would want a 3rd. That would be possible if we traded down to say 29. We also could trade out of the first and get a high 3rd, say 36 and 68.

GRAHAM (OLB) a favorite of lots of folks (I personally can't see it)
GRESHEM (TE) I can't see Belichick passing on a top TE, but he likely will be gone.
HUGHES (OLB) perhaps high, perhaps not
KINDLE (OLB)
MATTHEWS (RB)
MCCURTY (CB) perhaps early, perhaps not
POUNCEY (OL) it's the first round or not at all
SAPP (OLB)
TATE (WR)
THOMAS (WR)
WILSON (CB)

And none of these are a WTF moment for me. If any are pciked, I would expect that Belichick has dealt with any character issues, including attitude and toughness. I would expect that any of these would be a fine addition, and if chosen, we would still ahve several picks to address other needs.

And no, I don't expect any of these players to be there at 44.
=============================
3) We'll see on draft day whether the deal is good enough to move down and how far.

 

[jefmblrd]

This is a great thread laying out lots of interesting scenarios. The more I think of it, the more I'm in favor of trading out of 22 and picking up an extra two and possibly a three. Having four seconds and a three in this draft should net some quality players at attractive dollars. I can also see BB trying to trade one of the picks for a higher pick next year. However you cut it, this is going to be one exciting draft. Can't wait!

 

[patsfan-1982]

for me the pats 3 biggest needs are DE. OLB. WR in that order


i don't think any of the OLB's or WR's have realy set them sefls apart from the others.

like Dez Bryant, is a top 25 pick but i don't think he will be much better then say Mardy Gilyard, who is a late 2th round pick. or OLB Sergio Kindle, who is a top 25 pick. but is he realy that much better then say Koa Misi, who will be there in the 2th.


the big drop off comes at DE after Jared Odrick, who IMO at worst is a warren, type good starter. and at best a seymour, type a all pro. after Odrick, Alex Carrington, and arthur jones, are the best 3-4 DE but i don't see any of them as a day one starter.


if Jared Odrick, is there at #22 i think the pats have to take him. as far as tradeing down goes. there is only one player i can see thems tradeing up to get and that is Mike Iupati, i could see KC giveing #36 and
#68 to get him. or the eagels giveing up #24 and #87 to jump up 2 spots to get in front of the packers and take him.

 

[Clonamery]

I would not count on teams trading down for picks in 2011 so Belichick might not be right about this.

There might be fewer trades because of the extreme unwillingness to give up 2011 picks for 2010 picks. I am a fan of trading down, but I am not a fan of trading 2010s for higher round 2011s. No.

Why? And why?

 

[patchick]

I would not count on teams trading down for picks in 2011 so Belichick might not be right about this.

There might be fewer trades because of the extreme unwillingness to give up 2011 picks for 2010 picks.

I'm not sure I folllow this. Given the labor uncertainty in 2011, shouldn't teams be MORE willing to trade away future picks?

 

[Clonamery]

I'm not sure I folllow this. Given the labor uncertainty in 2011, shouldn't teams be MORE willing to trade away future picks?

My thoughts too. Doesn't it make the idea of a rookie salary cap also a stronger case for trading into the first round of 2011? I know it's being called the deepest draft in some time but I think if the value presents itself they won't think twice about it. There are too many teams always willing to give up tomorrow for today.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

My thoughts too. Doesn't it make the idea of a rookie salary cap also a stronger case for trading into the first round of 2011? I know it's being called the deepest draft in some time but I think if the value presents itself they won't think twice about it. There are too many teams always willing to give up tomorrow for today.

Not to mention 2011 is really looking like a weak draft class.

 

[Charles Barwin]

Imagine if the Pats had gotten the Raiders 2010 first rounder instead of 2011. Trade down 5 times and end up with a late first, 2 2nds, 2 3rds, or something a bit less but still extremely valuable in this deep draft.

Come draft day, GMs lose their minds and covet certain prospects like crazy, especially when they are projected to go just a few spots higher than where the team is drafting.

I remember KC turning down a huge fortune in picks to trade down 5 picks or so, when N.O. wanted Glenn Dorsey.

 

[upstater1]

I'm not sure I folllow this. Given the labor uncertainty in 2011, shouldn't teams be MORE willing to trade away future picks?

Well it doesn't make sense because I screwed it up. The first sentence makes sense but the second should read "unwillingness to trade 2010 for 2011 picks."