I expect to see some Patriot "reaches" early in this draft

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

I can still remember the article by John Clayton after Day 1 of the 2008 draft. He had the Pats as one of his Day 1 losers, saying that Jerod Mayo will be a pro bowler for us but we could have traded down again and still landed him, therefore his contract wouldn't be as much. Seriously? We landed a pro bowler but it's bad because we could have saved a couple million dollars?

I try not to put so much stock into draft value, especially after some of the other players we've "reached" for have payed off so well. (Samuel, Branch, Mankins, Vollmer) Look at some of the past drafts. Look at the position rankings, then look at where they end up being taken. They fall all over the place ever year at almost every position.

Sure, we've seen some reaches for us that have missed. The most famous is probably Bethel Johnson when Anquan Bolden was still there. However, looking at the rankings, Bolden himself was a major reach by the Cardinals.

There's plenty of cases of this. In 2006, Brandon Marshall was taken before 9 higher ranked WRs, some of whom went undrafted altogether. Taking a glance at 2005, Frank Gore, Michael Roos, Lofa Tatupu and Leroy Hill were all taken with multiple higher ranked players available at their respective positions. In 2003, you've got Osi Umenyiora and Lance Briggs to go along with the already mentioned Bolden and Samuel.

My point is that you just don't know. It's easy to assume that someone we pick would still be there later. Look at the past though. All the players that I just mentioned "should have" been there later.

This draft is loaded and deep. Because of that, I think we'll see a good handful of players we fans grade as 2nd rounders going in round 1, possibly in the teens. The same goes for 3rd round grades going in the 2nd. With some teams having 50 players with 1st round grades, it's obviously not going to go down just as we expect.

Don't get me wrong, I have limits. I'm not saying it's ok if the Pats take Jordan Shipley at #22. However, I'm not going to call it a bad move if we take someone at that spot just because a lot of mock drafts had him high in the 2nd round. Sure, moving back and landing the guy anyway while picking up a 3rd rounder sounds great. But if we pick someone there and he pans out, just as Mayo has, it's all that matters. The 2nd round is no different.

 

[BritPat]

We had to take Mayo where we did though. The Lions had a massive hard-on for him and were going to take him at #15, whilst it was rumoured the Broncos had him as the #2 player on their board behind Clady.

John Clayton is a complete weapon.

 

[chevss454]

With such a deep draft, it's easy to see the logic (and economy) in trading 22 for extra picks later. I can see that happening. But if Derrick Morgan (or another player) is ranked high and within reach, I can see also see trading 22 and 53 to get him. This could go either way and still be a terrific draft for the Pats.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

With such a deep draft, it's easy to see the logic (and economy) in trading 22 for extra picks later. I can see that happening. But if Derrick Morgan (or another player) is ranked high and within reach, I can see also see trading 22 and 53 to get him. This could go either way and still be a terrific draft for the Pats.

I don't have a problem at all with trading down. A perfect world would be the Pats landing the guy they wanted all along plus add an extra pick. But I don't look at it as a must. If they love a guy at #22, take him. I don't care if "experts" think the guy would be there at the top of round 2.

I looked back at the 2001 draft. San Fran traded their 3rd rounder to Seattle to swap picks and jump Chicago to take Andre Carter. (went from #9 to #7) In hindsight, maybe we could have traded back from #6 and still gotten Richard Seymour and added that 3rd rounder. Knowing now that Seymour was one of the most important pieces of 3 Super Bowl Championship teams, then was traded for what could be a top 10 pick next year, who wants to make that trade back in 2001 and possibly not get him? Who is worried that maybe we didn't maximize the draft value?

The more I think about it, the more I feel that we stay put at #22 and pick someone. If they do move back, I think it would only be a few spots because more than one player they covet is still there. As I said before, with so much depth of high end talent, there will be many prospects with 1st round grades. But clearly all teams will have their board set differently. I won't be shocked to see a Carlos Dunlap go before Sergio Kindle, or Nate Allen go before Taylor Mays. With the Pats needing help at OLB, DE, TE and WR, and not being immune from upgrades on the OL or RB, I almost find it impossible that someone they love doesn't drop to 22. I just feel like someone will be there, much like Vince Wilfork in 2004.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I can still remember the article by John Clayton after Day 1 of the 2008 draft. He had the Pats as one of his Day 1 losers, saying that Jerod Mayo will be a pro bowler for us but we could have traded down again and still landed him, therefore his contract wouldn't be as much. Seriously? We landed a pro bowler but it's bad because we could have saved a couple million dollars?

Turns out Mr. Clayton is right about their 2008 draft. It was terrible! The Pats could've traded down a few more spots while grabbing another draft pick to take Mayo. Yes, there were reports that the Lions really wanted him but there were also rumors that the Pats wanted Gholston. So who knows what to believe?

But the move that bothers me the most out of the draft was taking Wheatley over Terrell Thomas. That was such as bone headed draft pick.

So to answer your question, teams reach all the time for players. In fact, we saw last year with Darius Heyward-Bay and Michael Mitchell.

 

[mgteich]

Right Mitchell was so much of a reach at 47 that the Bears had already called Mitchell and told him that they would draft him at 49. The Bears were so devastated at lsing their man that they traded out of the 49th pick.

Turns out Mr. Clayton is right about their 2008 draft. It was terrible! The Pats could've traded down a few more spots while grabbing another draft pick to take Mayo. Yes, there were reports that the Lions really wanted him but there were also rumors that the Pats wanted Gholston. So who knows what to believe?

But the move that bothers me the most out of the draft was taking Wheatley over Terrell Thomas. That was such as bone headed draft pick.

So to answer your question, teams reach all the time for players. In fact, we saw last year with Darius Heyward-Bay and Michael Mitchell.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

Right Mitchell was so much of a reach at 47 that the Bears had already called Mitchell and told him that they would draft him at 49. The Bears were so devastated at lsing their man that they traded out of the 49th pick.

Wow, I had never heard that.

I remember reading something similar after we drafted Bethel Johnson. So many people were disgusted with how high we took him, then I read that some of the Washington brass actually wanted to take him the pick before us but Spurrier talked them into Taylor Jacobs out of Florida.

Again, there's never a guarantee.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

Since the draft is deep and the Patriots have some many holes, I see little reason for the Patriots to reach. Of course they still could...

This year (as opposed to previous years) it makes a lot of sense for the Patriots to trade down; the draft is deep, and (here is the big difference) they showed last year that they know how to get talent late in the draft. As I have said many times before, the Patriots must be dying to pick up a third round pick and the easiest way to do it is with a trade down.

The problem of course is that everyone wants to trade down....

Thursday night could be a disappointing to us draftnics; the Patriots may not pick anyone! Ugh, but it means a richer haul of players in the end and possibly a very, very exciting second round! For all you old timers, remember that Giants under Parcells when to the Super Bowl because of the 4 picks they had in round 2 (and a first round reach of Dorsey).

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Right Mitchell was so much of a reach at 47 that the Bears had already called Mitchell and told him that they would draft him at 49. The Bears were so devastated at lsing their man that they traded out of the 49th pick.

I already know about that story, but just because another team wanted him, doesn't mean he wasn't a reach. Lots of teams draft poorly because they rely only on measurables. He had good measurables.

To be fair to the Raiders, Chung was a reach.

And anyone who takes Taylor Mays in the first round is reaching for a player sorely on his measurables and "potential".

 

[Marqui]

I hope the Pats "reach" for Greg Hardy.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I hope the Pats "reach" for Greg Hardy.

In the 7th.

 

[Marqui]

In the 7th.

 

[mgteich]

If you are being "fair", Chung and Brace were both reaches, before, during and in 100% hindsight.

I already know about that story, but just because another team wanted him, doesn't mean he wasn't a reach. Lots of teams draft poorly because they rely only on measurables. He had good measurables.

To be fair to the Raiders, Chung was a reach.

And anyone who takes Taylor Mays in the first round is reaching for a player sorely on his measurables and "potential".

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

If you are being "fair", Chung and Brace were both reaches, before, during and in 100% hindsight.

I'm only comparing safeties.

 

[patchick]

I think this is a draft where "reaches" are going to be mighty hard to define. After the top 16 or so, there seems to be little agreement among pundits on how the talent stacks up.

 

[MaineMan]

I think this is a draft where "reaches" are going to be mighty hard to define. After the top 16 or so, there seems to be little agreement among pundits on how the talent stacks up.

What I've been looking at seems to support this. The past couple of years, I've taken the "Top 100" prospect rankings (up to the top 350, where I can find them) from several different sites. Then I calculate (or, rather, I have Excel calculate) a median ranking for each player in order to generate a sort of consensus about who might be available when the Pats pick. I've also run the MIN and MAX rankings for each prospect to gauge the range of disagreement. So far, this year it appears that significantly more prospects are generating a significantly wider range of disagreement than in the past.

Yeah, it's pretty nerdy of me and it hasn't helped one whit in predicting what BB will do.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

I think this is a draft where "reaches" are going to be mighty hard to define. After the top 16 or so, there seems to be little agreement among pundits on how the talent stacks up.

I understand what you're saying. There definately is more fluctuation than normal. But I still think there are names that don't show up much anymore in updated 1st round mocks and other names that have snuck in and stayed there. In the 2nd round you can see the same thing. Especially in the 1st though, with so many prospects getting 1st round grades, I think a good handful of players are falling not because of any personal fault but rather that other players have jumped up.

For example, the Pats may be in love with Ricky Sapp and always have been, who knows? It seemed like he was a popular pick at 22 early on. A lot of updated mocks though now show him as a 2nd rounder. So if the Pats take him, especially with someone like Graham or Kindle still up there, it'll be easy for some to scream in frustration, wondering why we reached with great players still available. I'm not promoting Sapp as the guy we should pick, just throwing a name out there.

Again, I think certain players have been overlooked or forgotten only because we've started to focus more on other prospects. That's why I can see the Pats taking someone deserving of the spot they were taken, but they'll be looked at as a reach by many of us.

 

[patchick]

What I've been looking at seems to support this. The past couple of years, I've taken the "Top 100" prospect rankings (up to the top 350, where I can find them) from several different sites. Then I calculate (or, rather, I have Excel calculate) a median ranking for each player in order to generate a sort of consensus about who might be available when the Pats pick. I've also run the MIN and MAX rankings for each prospect to gauge the range of disagreement. So far, this year it appears that significantly more prospects are generating a significantly wider range of disagreement than in the past.

Ooh, niiiiice.

Yeah, it's pretty nerdy of me

You say that like it's a bad thing?

(BTW, how do you get Excel to collate the different rankings for a given player?)

 

[MaineMan]

Ooh, niiiiice.



You say that like it's a bad thing?

(BTW, how do you get Excel to collate the different rankings for a given player?)

Heh.

It's mostly a manual process. I copypasta each site's list into a separate spreadsheet (though Notepad, usually). Then I "normalize" the different column orders and copypasta the spreadsheets into separate sets of columns in one humoungous spreadsheet, sorting (alphabetizing) and inserting cells and jiggering as I go. Once I get everybody lined up (doesn't take as long as it sounds), it's a piece of cake to get the MED, MIN, MAX and Range (MAX minus MIN) columns set up and drag for the Auto-Fill.

I'm a gardener by trade these days and it rains a lot here this time of year.

Heh.