Depth of this year's draft: good and bad

[upstater1]

Looking at all the mock drafts, it seems to me that this is a really strong draft in the first round, throughout the first round actually.

Then it falls off a cliff in the second round.

Knowing that you have the #33 pick which, given a reach or two in the first round, will be a highly marketable/tradable pick between the first and second days, i have to think the Belichick will strongly think of moving up.

I know Belichick would never do this, but if he feels Mike Pouncey is a surefire 10 year guard, then I would trade up to get him.

Trade up you say? What about our late second, our late third, and next year's #1. Look at the draft value chart: those three picks equal about 700, or right where Pouncey projects.

I then take a 3-4/OLB at #16 AND a DE at #28 (or vice versa).

I get three first rounders this year.

Then, I trade down from my #33 pick. If I trade down to 52, I can pick up a 3rd rounder like the one I traded for Pouncey. I might go Marvin Austin, Robert Quinn, or an OL like Moffitt there.

So, I come out of the first two rounds with 3 #1s, 1 #2, and I still have 2 #3, 1 #4.

I'd be tempted to trade the rest of the picks into next year because I'll be missing a #1.

 

[Fencer]

Just going by early mock drafts, doesn't that seem to be the case every year?

Anyhow, supposing this year is truly different:

1. Sure, BB could use our three top picks, trade up a bit, trade out with what's left over, and otherwise pull in his horns until the late rounds. We have plenty of returning depth at just about every position except guard and RB, and it's not obvious draft is the way to go at RB. (The Pats' last successful uses of a highish draft pick on an RB were during the Clinton Administration).

Thus, doing a quality-not-quantity draft, for once, would not be ridiculous, if BB happens to agree that's how the value falls out.

2. I didn't pay much attention to your scenario of trading a #1 next year, because that's something that would make sense to BB (or me) in only the most extreme of scenarios. Almost every time a team trades a future 1st in a deal for a rookie, they shaft themselves.

3. It's widely agreed that #33 is a good slot from which to trade down. Therefore, it's also a good slot from which to trade up, because who ever gets it while trading down themselves should be optimistic about being able to trade it down further.

 

[upstater1]

Agreed on what you wrote, and of course I did say "if it were me" and "Belichick would never do this..."

The way I look at it, if Pouncey is there, I would trade next year's #1. It's just as big a risk to take a guard next year as this year.

The key though is that the Patriots would not be trading a #1 next year for a second rounder this year. They would be packaging picks for quality.

Usually, when teams trade first rounders, they are in the second round of that draft.

Essentially, all I'm saying is that the Patriots move up next year's first rounder to this year, but of course that would entail squandering the late round 2nd and 3rd rounders.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The way I look at it, if Pouncey is there, I would trade next year's #1. It's just as big a risk to take a guard next year as this year.

Not sure if Pouncey is the right guy here; among other things, wasn't his shotgun snapping rather atrocious?

 

[BelichickFan]

Not sure if Pouncey is the right guy here; among other things, wasn't his shotgun snapping rather atrocious?

I think he's looking at him as a Guard where he's supposed to be a lot better. Personally I have had it with out interior line and would be fine taking Pouncey for G and Wisniewski for Center. If we could re-sign Mankins we'd have an all new and improved interior line.

 

[Sfpat]

"Then, I trade down from my #33 pick. If I trade down to 52, I can pick up a 3rd rounder like the one I traded for Pouncey. I might go Marvin Austin, Robert Quinn, or an OL like Moffitt there."

I think Robert Quinn is projected to go top 10

 

[upstater1]

"Then, I trade down from my #33 pick. If I trade down to 52, I can pick up a 3rd rounder like the one I traded for Pouncey. I might go Marvin Austin, Robert Quinn, or an OL like Moffitt there."

I think Robert Quinn is projected to go top 10

To be honest, I have not been paying close attention beyond looking at a couple drafts like Walter and Countdown that have him in the middle of the second round.

 

[WelshPat]

I'm seeing a lot want us too draft a guard high in the draft. Not that i'm against the idea totally, but wasn't Kaczur practicing at guard last year before his injury?

 

[BelichickFan]

I'm seeing a lot want us too draft a guard high in the draft. Not that i'm against the idea totally, but wasn't Kaczur practicing at guard last year before his injury?

He was but that was likely due to Mankins' holdout. Maybe Kaczur can be a several year (he's not that young) improvement at Guard but more likely he's just a very versatile backup. However we do it, Kaczur, draft, whatever, we need to fix the G,C,G area especially if Mankins leaves.

 

[mgteich]

Aren't you really saying that you don't recognize the second rounders? If indeed this draft has a big dropoff early, then we (and everyone else) will be looking to trade up. My suspicion is that the drop won't occur until at least 40, giving us at least 3 red-chip picks.
==================
My paradigm is that we have

blue chippers (1 through 9-12 depending on the draft)

red chippers (9-12 through 25 to 75, or even later, depending on the draft)

nfl contributers (sometimes this group ends very early as in 2007; sometimes it goes all the way through the 7th round as in last year's draft)

the rest
==============

Obviously, a team can find that diamond in the ruff late, as we did last year with Hernandez.

I would note that scout had our 53 through 113 pick rated very close to each other.

Looking at all the mock drafts, it seems to me that this is a really strong draft in the first round, throughout the first round actually.

Then it falls off a cliff in the second round.

 

[MaineMan]

Aren't you really saying that you don't recognize the second rounders? If indeed this draft has a big dropoff early, then we (and everyone else) will be looking to trade up. My suspicion is that the drop won't occur until at least 40, giving us at least 3 red-chip picks.
==================
My paradigm is that we have

blue chippers (1 through 9-12 depending on the draft)

red chippers (9-12 through 25 to 75, or even later, depending on the draft)

nfl contributers (sometimes this group ends very early as in 2007; sometimes it goes all the way through the 7th round as in last year's draft)

the rest
==============

Obviously, a team can find that diamond in the ruff late, as we did last year with Hernandez.

I would note that scout had our 53 through 113 pick rated very close to each other.

Looking at all the mock drafts, it seems to me that this is a really strong draft in the first round, throughout the first round actually.

Then it falls off a cliff in the second round.

IDK. I f this draft class follows the pattern of previous draft classes, even generally weak ones, there will be a lot of positional variability. For instance, with "Position A" there may be several legit starter prospects after which the rest truly suck. For "Position B", maybe there are only 2-3 elite prospects, but a dozen or so below those guys who could be solid #2s.

Once you factor in the specific "demand profile" for the 32 teams collectively (with some teams drafting opportunistically - BPA - and others drafting out of sheer need), it becomes entirely possible for a team that's all set at "Position A" to still do very well for themselves at "Position B" even drafting in the 3rd/4th round or later. IOW, it seems extremely rare historically that everything "falls off a cliff" between the end of Rd-1 and the end of Rd-2.

 

[upstater1]

Aren't you really saying that you don't recognize the second rounders? If indeed this draft has a big dropoff early, then we (and everyone else) will be looking to trade up. My suspicion is that the drop won't occur until at least 40, giving us at least 3 red-chip picks.
==================
My paradigm is that we have

blue chippers (1 through 9-12 depending on the draft)

red chippers (9-12 through 25 to 75, or even later, depending on the draft)

nfl contributers (sometimes this group ends very early as in 2007; sometimes it goes all the way through the 7th round as in last year's draft)

the rest
==============

Obviously, a team can find that diamond in the ruff late, as we did last year with Hernandez.

I would note that scout had our 53 through 113 pick rated very close to each other.

Looking at all the mock drafts, it seems to me that this is a really strong draft in the first round, throughout the first round actually.

Then it falls off a cliff in the second round.

With 3 picks in the first 33, I think yes, we're going to get 3 impact players. But last year's second and third rounds both look better than this year's second round.

I don't think Aaron Hernandez would have gotten by this year's second round if he chose to stay in college.

 

[upstater1]

IDK. I f this draft class follows the pattern of previous draft classes, even generally weak ones, there will be a lot of positional variability. For instance, with "Position A" there may be several legit starter prospects after which the rest truly suck. For "Position B", maybe there are only 2-3 elite prospects, but a dozen or so below those guys who could be solid #2s.

Once you factor in the specific "demand profile" for the 32 teams collectively (with some teams drafting opportunistically - BPA - and others drafting out of sheer need), it becomes entirely possible for a team that's all set at "Position A" to still do very well for themselves at "Position B" even drafting in the 3rd/4th round or later. IOW, it seems extremely rare historically that everything "falls off a cliff" between the end of Rd-1 and the end of Rd-2.

According to Belichick, it happened two drafts ago. He was saying that the third rounders the Patriots were looking at would have been undrafted in other years--according to the grades they give.

 

[MaineMan]

According to Belichick, it happened two drafts ago. He was saying that the third rounders the Patriots were looking at would have been undrafted in other years--according to the grades they give.

I presume you're referring to 2008, but the bolded part is the key. There were a lot of guys drafted in the 3rd and later out of that class who have done well in other systems that wouldn't have fit here or wouldn't have been any upgrade to guys we already had on the roster at those positions. IOW, they weren't guys that BB "was looking at" for the Pats, for one reason or another, at the time. BB was in desperate need of young bodies at CB and drafted two, but, as it turned out, talent at the particular positions DID really fall off a cliff after Tracy Porter went to NO at #40 (with the exception perhaps of Terrell Thomas - who the Giants took with the pick after BB took Wheatley).

 

[upstater1]

I presume you're referring to 2008, but the bolded part is the key. There were a lot of guys drafted in the 3rd and later out of that class who have done well in other systems that wouldn't have fit here or wouldn't have been any upgrade to guys we already had on the roster at those positions. IOW, they weren't guys that BB "was looking at" for the Pats, for one reason or another, at the time. BB was in desperate need of young bodies at CB and drafted two, but, as it turned out, talent at the particular positions DID really fall off a cliff after Tracy Porter went to NO at #40 (with the exception perhaps of Terrell Thomas - who the Giants took with the pick after BB took Wheatley).

I was really just referring to the draft grades. Belichick was talking about the grades in general and the weakness of that draft. We took Matt Slater in the 5th. He would have been an undrafted signee any other year.

 

[MaineMan]

I was really just referring to the draft grades. Belichick was talking about the grades in general and the weakness of that draft. We took Matt Slater in the 5th. He would have been an undrafted signee any other year.

Yeah, I got that part. And I've certainly argued in the past that 2008 was, overall, a very weak class. But I'm also arguing that there was enough depth at a couple of positions that teams were able to get reasonable value even from 3rd, 4th, 5th rounders - IOW, guys that might still have been taken in those rounds in a class of average overall quality.

 

[mgteich]

FOUR GOOD MEN

I agree with all that you have said. Both Price and Hernandez would likely have been second rounders in this draft. Some had them as second round quality last year.

I agree that it is critical to get three impact players early, but red-chip value might be available a bit deeper than 33, perhaps to 40 or 41 where we were when we picked Butler and Brace.

If we are right, one strategy would be to trade 60 and 74 for a higher pick (say in the 28-42 range), trade the 92 into next year and take our flyers. We would have
17
28
33
38
a 2011 high 3rd
some flyers in the 4th round onwards

=======================================
With 3 picks in the first 33, I think yes, we're going to get 3 impact players. But last year's second and third rounds both look better than this year's second round.

I don't think Aaron Hernandez would have gotten by this year's second round if he chose to stay in college.[/QUOTE]

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

Looking at all the mock drafts, it seems to me that this is a really strong draft in the first round, throughout the first round actually.

Then it falls off a cliff in the second round.

Knowing that you have the #33 pick which, given a reach or two in the first round, will be a highly marketable/tradable pick between the first and second days, i have to think the Belichick will strongly think of moving up.

I know Belichick would never do this, but if he feels Mike Pouncey is a surefire 10 year guard, then I would trade up to get him.

Trade up you say? What about our late second, our late third, and next year's #1. Look at the draft value chart: those three picks equal about 700, or right where Pouncey projects.

I then take a 3-4/OLB at #16 AND a DE at #28 (or vice versa).

I get three first rounders this year.

Then, I trade down from my #33 pick. If I trade down to 52, I can pick up a 3rd rounder like the one I traded for Pouncey. I might go Marvin Austin, Robert Quinn, or an OL like Moffitt there.

So, I come out of the first two rounds with 3 #1s, 1 #2, and I still have 2 #3, 1 #4.

I'd be tempted to trade the rest of the picks into next year because I'll be missing a #1.

There is no such thing as a 10 year surefire guard. After 4 or 5 years, if the guard is a surefire star, he is going to look to sign a huge free agent contract -- which may mean that he departs for greener pastures unless BB and Kraft also agree. BB generally likes to get a slight market discount even from established stars.

We already have a probowl caliber surefire guard named Mankins -- who should be paid. He is worth 5 to 7 times Pouncey as a top 10 pick. And he is proven.

 

[upstater1]

There is no such thing as a 10 year surefire guard. After 4 or 5 years, if the guard is a surefire star, he is going to look to sign a huge free agent contract -- which may mean that he departs for greener pastures unless BB and Kraft also agree. BB generally likes to get a slight market discount even from established stars.

We already have a probowl caliber surefire guard named Mankins -- who should be paid. He is worth 5 to 7 times Pouncey as a top 10 pick. And he is proven.

He's a 10 year surefire guard if he has 10 years in the NFL as a stud. That's what I meant.

We also have two guard positions obviously.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Aren't you really saying that you don't recognize the second rounders? If indeed this draft has a big dropoff early, then we (and everyone else) will be looking to trade up. My suspicion is that the drop won't occur until at least 40, giving us at least 3 red-chip picks.
==================
My paradigm is that we have

blue chippers (1 through 9-12 depending on the draft)

red chippers (9-12 through 25 to 75, or even later, depending on the draft)

I don't really buy the blue chip/red chip analogy. We took McCourty at what #27 and he should have gone in the top 5 if the draft were done over again. There are as many busts in the top 10 as there are in the rest of the 1st round. In fact mistakes made with top 10 picks are far costlier. Therefore picks that fall in the #11-20 zone are actually the best value. Pats happen to have one of those picks this year thanks to the Raiders.

The key for the Pats is to identify THEIR guys and maximize the value where they select them. We didn't just get McCourty with our pick. We traded down and got McCourty and Hernandez.