Where is/isn't there good value in this draft?

[Fencer]

Consensus seems to be that there's poor value in the top couple of picks. There's good value in the high/mid-teens (e.g., The Next Emmitt Smith could go at 15 or below), and maybe a bit lower (I think the most common break points are early/mid 20s). There's poor value near the end of the first round.

What happens after that?

 

[jmt57]

Consensus seems to be that there's poor value in the top couple of picks. There's good value in the high/mid-teens (e.g., The Next Emmitt Smith could go at 15 or below), and maybe a bit lower (I think the most common break points are early/mid 20s). There's poor value near the end of the first round.

What happens after that?

It seems like a lot of people want the best available player of this draft class to be there at seventeen, yet at the same time want there to be zero questions or concerns about that very same player. That ain't happening; if there were no questions or concerns he'd be a top five pick.

Then because these folks then conclude #17 is such a bad place to be, they then assume that #10 or #22 must be much better.

 

[mgteich]

LIKING 17?
Yes, there are folks who seem to like being at 17. I guess the hope is that several GM's will make mistakes and a top 12 stud will fall to 17. Or, in the alternative, someone will let us move up a couple of spots to get a top 12 stud for little compensation. Now, to be fair, many mediot have said all we need to do is wait at 17 and we will be able to draft Watt or Jordan.

PERSPECTIVE
I would suggest dryheat44's mock as required reading as patchick's top 16 was a few weeks ago. Consider our position if we don't trade up, given this mock. The next seven picks after 16 are Liuget, Taylor, Ingram, Jimmy Smith, Castonzo, Solder and Harris. Do you think that there has been a bit a of dropoff from the last 7 picks to this? Ya think! Wilkerson and Heyward are there at 17; but they are also there at 28. #17 just doesn't seem very attractive.

WOULD I LIKE 10-13 MUCH BETTER?
----------------------------------
You bet I would! Yes, 7 players makes a HUGE difference here. The projections 10-16 are
WATT
JORDAN
BOWERS
the best rated tackle
JONES
KERRIGAN
A. SMITH
Would I feel better if we had 12 instead of 17 and 74. Of course I would! I would be pretty sure of getting Watt, Jordan or Jones.

WOULD I FEEL BETTER AT 22?
Would I feel better ir we had 22 and an extra mid-third (say 82) instead of 17. I probably would! Sure we might talk about all the trades up. But, in the end, as in 2010, we would expect Belichick to trade down a bit with at least one of 22, 28 and 33. We'd have 7 picks in the top 100 plus a 2012 pick as partial compensation for the trade down. And I would expect us to draft Wilkerson or Heyward at 22 or so.

BOTTOM LINE ABOUT 17
We have the anxiety of not having a clue with regard what we should expect out of this pick. In the end, we are likely to be out of the money at 17 in the race for studs in the 2011 draft.

It seems like a lot of people want the best available player of this draft class to be there at seventeen, yet at the same time want there to be zero questions or concerns about that very same player. That ain't happening; if there were no questions or concerns he'd be a top five pick.

Then because these folks then conclude #17 is such a bad place to be, they then assume that #10 or #22 must be much better.

 

[andrewgarrr]

It seems like a lot of people want the best available player of this draft class to be there at seventeen, yet at the same time want there to be zero questions or concerns about that very same player. That ain't happening; if there were no questions or concerns he'd be a top five pick.

Then because these folks then conclude #17 is such a bad place to be, they then assume that #10 or #22 must be much better.

I blame KC, DEN, and SD.

 

[jsull87]

I blame KC, DEN, and SD.

same... i feel robbed of my top 10 pick.

We'd be talking about do we take quinn, bowers, green, peterson instead of smith, kerrigan, watt and pouncey

 

[Fencer]

Interesting comments. Only loosely connected to my OP, however.

Is there decent value in the 2nd half of the 2nd round again? Should we trade down all the way to there? Is the value in some other band of picks? Is it nowhere at all?

 

[stinkypete]

I see very good value (relative to the overall talent of this year's class) in the 45-75 range. Really very little difference among those players. This is the spot to get your WR, your CB, your OL and your RB.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I see very good value (relative to the overall talent of this year's class) in the 45-75 range. Really very little difference among those players. This is the spot to get your WR, your CB, your OL and your RB.

I won't call it "very" good value, but I suspect this will be where NE grabs the core of this draft class, though we might want to loosen it up a tad, say 40-90. I suspect NE will also have a similar grouping late fourth through the sixth as they look to increase competition at the back end of the roster.

 

[townes]

I'm starting to think their best bet may be to try and get 6 picks between 20 and 60 by trading down into the early to mid 20's with the #17 and trading down with the #33 while trading up with 74 and 90. DL, CB, OL and LB are all going to be strong in that range and they could address most of their needs with really good prospects by doing this.

 

[mgteich]

I might even move to 35 on the front end. However, I'm not at all sure of the back end. I like to feel confident of 74, but even there I suspect that I would feel very comfortable if Belichick trade 92 plus 74 to move another pick into the 50's.

I won't call it "very" good value, but I suspect this will be where NE grabs the core of this draft class, though we might want to loosen it up a tad, say 40-90. I suspect NE will also have a similar grouping late fourth through the sixth as they look to increase competition at the back end of the roster.