Urgent
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,108
- Reaction score
- 1,941
there are 2 things that bother me:
(A) so the Pats only have 5 picks next year ('12). Coincidentally, they happen to have rounds 1 thru 5 covered. So its not like that traded away 1,2,3 and have 4,5,6,7,7, right? We all know that BB's board is so different than everyone elses that whoever he wants in 7, for example, would probably be available an hour later when they call the kid to invite him to camp as a UDFA. I see this argument for trading for the future as a non-starter.
(B) if this team drafts well this year and everyone else continues to matriculate, there won't be enough roster spots for 7 or 8 draft picks next year. And if there are weaknesses that evolve this season and need to be addressed next year, I think they go with vets who can bring some maturity to the fledgling '10 class. Remember the formula of winning the 3 SBs.
That's similar to my reaction to this.
I've heard Jon Kraft point out that the Pats only have five picks next year.
So, because they are down a 6th and 7th round pick, they are going to trade away a first? That's the rationale? That just doesn't make sense. If they decide to trade away a 2011 7th for a 6th and 7th next year, fine, that all adds up.
Also, if they happen to lose, say, Gerard Warren, they'd probably pick up a 6th or 7th next year. Losing Light could net them an extra third.
Further, when you pass up a player like OLB Justin Houston or OT Derek Sherrod or OG Danny Watkins or DE Muhammad Wilkerson, you set back the program a year. There's someone at #28 you could groom and have available in a year as a starter.
I, for one, will go to bed cranky if I wait up till 1am to hear the Patriots traded out of #28 for something next year.