2011 Draft Trade Analysis

[patsfaninpa]

You know, I can buy that. But it also tells me that I think he had problems finding trading partners this year. My guess is that with another slight trade back we could have gotten all these guys and still netted a 4th to close that monstrous hole we had from #74 to #138. Smith is going to try and emulate Bartrum and be a LS/TE I think. NOTE-not 1 of our picks was a 4-down player, not one was noted on playing ST. So much for 4 down ST "value" eh?

Darling and Ridley were both outstanding special teams players. I heard an interview with former Pat Vincent Brown - lb he coaches at Virginia. He said Darling was outstanding on special teams and Les Miles said the same thing about Ridley.

 

[bucky]

Try looking at it this way. Belichick specifically wanted Solder, Dowling, Vereen and Ridley. His goal in the draft was to get those guys and maximize the value of all his other picks (trading them, taking targeted sliders).

Are you saying that before Thursday, BB said to himself "I want to get out of this draft with Solder, Dowling, Vereen and Ridley"? I find that very hard to believe.

 

[Sciz]

Are you saying that before Thursday, BB said to himself "I want to get out of this draft with Solder, Dowling, Vereen and Ridley"? I find that very hard to believe.

They were on his very short list of guys he wanted

 

[bucky]

BB the tradesman was at it again but lets take a look at the trades and see which ones we agree on and which ones we dont.

#28(Ingram) for #56(Vereen) and New Orleans 2012 First--few could argue the value BB got here unless Ingram goes on to emulate Emmitt Smith. Vereen seems a decent enough RB but NO is looking good going into the season in a tough division. This pick will likely be #24 or below. Trade value chart #28(660)<#56(340)+2012 #24/2(future round half value--740/2=370). Results: :rocker:

I actually really dislike this trade and I'll tell you why:

Vereen probably would have been available at 60. So that means we essentially end up with Mallet, Cannon, and next year's 1. Mallet is a long term investment that probably (hopefully) will never play a meaningful down for the Pats. Cannon is a great pick, but may also be a year away from contributing and carries some risk. On the other hand, we could have had a potential starting DE in either Wilkerson or Heyward - both of whom ended up going to our main competitors in the AFC. The chances are not that high that the Saints' #1 will give us a chance at a player of this quality.

 

[bucky]

They were on his very short list of guys he wanted

If you're talking about short list of 30-40 guys, then I'll buy that. But I still don't buy that this was his ideal scenario.

 

[eom]

I actually really dislike this trade and I'll tell you why:

Vereen probably would have been available at 60. So that means we essentially end up with Mallet, Cannon, and next year's 1. Mallet is a long term investment that probably (hopefully) will never play a meaningful down for the Pats. Cannon is a great pick, but may also be a year away from contributing and carries some risk. On the other hand, we could have had a potential starting DE in either Wilkerson or Heyward - both of whom ended up going to our main competitors in the AFC. The chances are not that high that the Saints' #1 will give us a chance at a player of this quality.

Could I get the lotto numbers?

 

[Metaphors]

Are you saying that before Thursday, BB said to himself "I want to get out of this draft with Solder, Dowling, Vereen and Ridley"? I find that very hard to believe.

Not saying that there weren't other players in the mix, but I do believe that:
a) OT, DB (S/CB) and multiple RBs were the goal
b) Solder, Dowling and Vereen were their top rated players at those positions
c) Ridley (contingent upon getting Vereen) was the top "other" RB they wanted

Consider:

- They had chances to get highly rated players at other positions and consistently passed, either trading or going OT/DB/RB. There were a variety of different types of players so I doubt all of them were bad fits.

- Solder was the 2nd OT taken so I suppose they could have rated T.Smith higher, but Solder was clearly ahead of everyone else. They had to know Carimi and/or Sherrod would be there at #28 so Solder was a priority over the next guys available.

- Dowling was the first player taken that can be expected to play safety at least part-time (notice that Tippett announced Dowling as a DB, not a CB)

- The Pats had the opportunity to take Ingram at #28, RWilliams at #33 and Leshoure at #56 and passed on all of them. The Pats could have gotten any of these guys plus Dowling if they really wanted to. That leads me to think that Vereen was the top guy on their RB list or at least their target guy unless Ingram and/or RWilliams slipped to #56.

- Like Gronk and Hernandez last year, you don't take two players at the same position relative high unless they are complementary. Knowing they were going after Ridley later puts the Vereen pick in context since he won't have to handle the between the tackles, short yardage, goal line, grind out the clock snaps. Vereen/Ridley makes sense where they were taken if you consider them together...and are more questionable if considered separately. Makes me think they were targeted together.

- The fact that Belichick effectively closed up shop after the Ridley pick leads me to believe that he considered his work done. Seriously, he traded his 3rd and 4th round picks before he was even on the clock. Nobody does that if they have guys left on their board that they are targeting.

- Mallett and Cannon were likely not targets but were value sliders at positions that Belichick couldn't turn into 2012 picks. BTW, if you are looking to make your roster tougher, adding a "Mallett" and "Cannon" is a good start. Far better than Pinkston or Love.

Frankly, that makes much more sense than thinking Belichick just let the draft come to him and had all positions in play...and those 4 guys were the result. If that is what you think, I can understand why you would be disappointed.

 

[DaBruinz]

No, not exactly. It is a "unaddressed needs" thread. A OG and a LB could contribute to THIS 2011 team alot more than Mallett and that 2nd rounder. The contracts are cheaper. There are no guarantees either way, but just as I wouldnt have traded Seymour I'm of the opinion if you treat every year like its your last you do a better job. I think BB has fallen in love with the 2nd round and it finally COST us players instead of added them. JMHO.

In other words, it's your yearly "I'm gonna b!tch about BB and how stupid he is" thread that you post some time after the draft.

How did it "COST" the Pats players. You just sat there and knocked the Pats for their 3rd round picks and then complain that they don't use them?

 

[mgteich]

I am not at all sure that Vareen was rated higher by Belichick than Ingram. Belichick received Vareen plus a #1 to not choose Ingram.

There is a bit of difference between "targets" and ratings. I think that Belichick indeed did go into the draft targeting Solder, Dowling, Vareen, and Ridley. That doesn't mean that there weren't others that Belichick might have preferred be available when we picked. Of course, we don't know who ANY of these were.

Not saying that there weren't other players in the mix, but I do believe that:
a) OT, DB (S/CB) and multiple RBs were the goal
b) Solder, Dowling and Vereen were their top rated players at those positions
c) Ridley (contingent upon getting Vereen) was the top "other" RB they wanted

Consider:

- They had chances to get highly rated players at other positions and consistently passed, either trading or going OT/DB/RB. There were a variety of different types of players so I doubt all of them were bad fits.

- Solder was the 2nd OT taken so I suppose they could have rated T.Smith higher, but Solder was clearly ahead of everyone else. They had to know Carimi and/or Sherrod would be there at #28 so Solder was a priority over the next guys available.

- Dowling was the first player taken that can be expected to play safety at least part-time (notice that Tippett announced Dowling as a DB, not a CB)

- The Pats had the opportunity to take Ingram at #28, RWilliams at #33 and Leshoure at #56 and passed on all of them. The Pats could have gotten any of these guys plus Dowling if they really wanted to. That leads me to think that Vereen was the top guy on their RB list or at least their target guy unless Ingram and/or RWilliams slipped to #56.

- Like Gronk and Hernandez last year, you don't take two players at the same position relative high unless they are complementary. Knowing they were going after Ridley later puts the Vereen pick in context since he won't have to handle the between the tackles, short yardage, goal line, grind out the clock snaps. Vereen/Ridley makes sense where they were taken if you consider them together...and are more questionable if considered separately. Makes me think they were targeted together.

- The fact that Belichick effectively closed up shop after the Ridley pick leads me to believe that he considered his work done. Seriously, he traded his 3rd and 4th round picks before he was even on the clock. Nobody does that if they have guys left on their board that they are targeting.

- Mallett and Cannon were likely not targets but were value sliders at positions that Belichick couldn't turn into 2012 picks. BTW, if you are looking to make your roster tougher, adding a "Mallett" and "Cannon" is a good start. Far better than Pinkston or Love.

Frankly, that makes much more sense than thinking Belichick just let the draft come to him and had all positions in play...and those 4 guys were the result. If that is what you think, I can understand why you would be disappointed.

 

[DaBruinz]

BB the tradesman was at it again but lets take a look at the trades and see which ones we agree on and which ones we dont.

#28(Ingram) for #56(Vereen) and New Orleans 2012 First--few could argue the value BB got here unless Ingram goes on to emulate Emmitt Smith. Vereen seems a decent enough RB but NO is looking good going into the season in a tough division. This pick will likely be #24 or below. Trade value chart #28(660)<#56(340)+2012 #24/2(future round half value--740/2=370). Results: :rocker:

#60(B.Harris) for #73(effectively Mallett) and #138(Cannon). This trade looks to be for the future as neither is expected to contribute right away. I say effectively because I dont think Mallett is taken here unless they have 2 picks together in the 3rd. The question remains is there a player on the board at #60 that COULD have contributed to this team in 2011? I will specifically look at LBs Houston and Wilson's careers going forward. But I also look at #59(Little) and wonder what could have been. Trade value chart #60(300)<#73(225)+#138(37)=262. Results

Like many people, you are confused because you make too many erroneous assumptions and refuse to admit that they might be wrong.

One erroneous assumption by you is that you don't expect Cannon to contribute right away.

Another erroneous assumption is your belief that the Patriots had a 2nd round value on someone like Houston or Wilson. Clearly they didn't. Otherwise they'd have used #60 instead of trading down.



#92(Barksdale)+#125(Jones) for Raiders 2012 #2. I think BB had reservations at the steak house and had get out of there early. Clearly a bad trade, BB has "fallen in love" with the 2nd round picks if not the players in it and now we are paying a premium. How he could come to the microphone and say that a future 2nd will be better than any 2 players left on the board? Bad PR move. Clearly no one wanted to swap a 3rd for a future 2nd again given BBs enamoration. We had to sweeten the deal? And make it 20 picks before we were on the clock?? The Raiders should be better next year so suggesting #18 is about right. Players to watch that could have contributed this year: Boling, Ballard, Gates, and we could have picked up Cannon here. #92(132)+#125(47)<#50/2(200)

Again, how do you know that Boling, Ballard, or Gates would have been productive in the Pats system? Clearly the Pats didn't think so. Why do you?

I will make it a little simpler. Would you trade LB Houston/Wilson and G Boling/WR Gates for QB Mallett and next years #2 from Oakland? That is a good question. I know I'd like anther OLB and G on this team.

You "simplifying " it doesn't make your assumptions any more correct of valid. Cannon is an OT/OG, not just an OT.

What you'd LIKE doesn't make any bit of difference to BB and Co. We'd all like another guard (They already have 6) and another OLB (they have 6 including Carter). But that doesn't mean anything. There are constraints that we have no information about. Such as how they interviewed and how they did in the film review. How they did with the positional coaches. That's all valid and important information and we don't have it.

 

[patfanken]

I actually really liked the Lee Smith pick once I found out more about him. He was reported to be the best blocking TE in the draft. He was EXACTLY what the Pats are looking for. I believe that after last season the Pats have come to like the talent distribution the have at TE. One Elite blocking TE. One potentially Elite "move"TE/WB/HB/etc And potentially perhaps the best all round TE and red zone threat in the league. That is the right combination give there is only one ball to distribute

With Alge getting ready to hang them up, getting his replacement makes sense. Gerting him perhaps a year early is made more acceptable because Smith can contribute so well immediately in the special teams area as a cover guy and back up long snapper. That's a lot of potential playing time over the next few years for a guy we picked up so late in the draft

 

[manxman2601]

Not saying that there weren't other players in the mix, but I do believe that:
a) OT, DB (S/CB) and multiple RBs were the goal
b) Solder, Dowling and Vereen were their top rated players at those positions
c) Ridley (contingent upon getting Vereen) was the top "other" RB they wanted

Perhaps I can offer some information to help. On the night of the draft, I was following it both here and at Blinded By The Lombardis. I've referenced the guy before, but there is a commentator there who seems to have an in with the Patriots organisation. Last year he called the McCourty pick well before it happened and this year, just before the #33 pick said it would be Sheard or Dowling. Now bear with this because he also had some predictive insight on the running backs. Here's the tick-tock of what he was saying around the time of the Vereen pick.

Just before it came in, he reported this:

If they go RB, it might not be LeShoure...could be a bit of a surprise

And then just after the pick, he reported this:

they had 2 RBs rated pretty high that no one was predicting this high but I wasn't sure who they were going to grab or when; Vereen was one.

I doubt they'll target the other one now unless it's really late- kid from LSU Stevan Ridley

Just to add to his credentials, early on day one he was reporting that he was told the Patriots were looking at an OT and a CB which pretty much puts him 4-4 on the first four picks of the draft. Either he really does have some real insight or he must rake it in with the bookies on a regular basis.

Anyway, the point is, the Patriots were looking at a specific RB tandem from a very early point, presumably day one when they traded out of the Ingram pick, but certainly no later than the middle of the second round.

 

[Metaphors]

With Alge getting ready to hang them up, getting his replacement makes sense. Gerting him perhaps a year early is made more acceptable because Smith can contribute so well immediately in the special teams area as a cover guy and back up long snapper. That's a lot of potential playing time over the next few years for a guy we picked up so late in the draft

I only included Solder, Dowling, Vereen and Ridley in my "targets before the draft" speculation, but I could be easily convinced that Lee Smith should be there as well...with the only difference that the Pats allocated a 5th ahead of time to get him.

Just to add to his credentials, early on day one he was reporting that he was told the Patriots were looking at an OT and a CB which pretty much puts him 4-4 on the first four picks of the draft. Either he really does have some real insight or he must rake it in with the bookies on a regular basis.

Anyway, the point is, the Patriots were looking at a specific RB tandem from a very early point, presumably day one when they traded out of the Ingram pick, but certainly no later than the middle of the second round.

It makes sense looking at the draft in retrospect. I've yet to hear another perspective (Pats were scooped on players and had to settle; Pats just sat back and these were the players that fell to them) that seems logical. If these guys pan out, it would mean the Pats had an unprecedented grip on this draft class and got pretty much exactly what they wanted.

 

[patfanken]

It makes sense looking at the draft in retrospect. I've yet to hear another perspective (Pats were scooped on players and had to settle; Pats just sat back and these were the players that fell to them) that seems logical. If these guys pan out, it would mean the Pats had an unprecedented grip on this draft class and got pretty much exactly what they wanted.

That's is what we all hope, regardless of what we might have been feeling as the draft unfolded.

As for the Pats being scooped, I can't imagine a scenario where at least a couple of times in every team's war room where there aren't a few OH SH!T moments. I'm sure the Pats weren't immune. My only regret is that we will never know the who and why's.

If I ever won the lottery, I'd gladly give a million to Bob Kraft's favorite charity to have a seat in the "war room" the night before and the day of a draft....even though it would kill me not to be able to tell everyone what went on.

 

[jeffbiologist]

You "simplifying " it doesn't make your assumptions any more correct of valid. Cannon is an OT/OG, not just an OT.

What you'd LIKE doesn't make any bit of difference to BB and Co. We'd all like another guard (They already have 6) and another OLB (they have 6 including Carter). But that doesn't mean anything. There are constraints that we have no information about. Such as how they interviewed and how they did in the film review. How they did with the positional coaches. That's all valid and important information and we don't have it.

In the context of "trade analysis" its fair to have an opinion, you have yours I have mine and BB has his. My point you backed up..."we'd all like another guard", right? I will admit I dont change BB's underwear like you do but damn you gotta lighten up. If BB did go into the draft with set plans figuring that guards wouldnt be available it would be wrong right? It is OK to criticize BB isnt it? I didnt say anyone WOULDNT contribute this year(if it even materializes) I said they arent EXPECTED to, huge difference. If you EXPECT a 5th round OL recovering from CANCER to contribute on our team I'd say you were mistaken.

 

[Metaphors]

If you EXPECT a 5th round OL recovering from CANCER to contribute on our team I'd say you were mistaken.

Add in his weight (about 30-40 lbs higher than the prototype) and 2011 may be a redshirt year for him. He is nimble for his weight. I just think the Pats would like to eliminate "for his weight" from that sentence.

 

[Sciz]

Add in his weight (about 30-40 lbs higher than the prototype) and 2011 may be a redshirt year for him. He is nimble for his weight. I just think the Pats would like to eliminate "for his weight" from that sentence.

And I hate to say it, but chemo should help with that.