What would have happened if we didn't trade around. 2008 onwards...

[lovsn]

Listening to PFW from Wednesday, there was talk, again, about the merit in trading down, and the talent you miss out on by doing so.

As such, I went back to the previous 4 drafts, and looked at what would be the difference in talent on the roster had we simply, in every round, taken a player at our designated drafting position.

Of course, you can't say for sure who we would have taken had we not traded, so, for the benefit of simply comparing the talent levels, I take the player who was actually selected in our spot (by our trading partner) as the player we would have taken.

The question is, do you think, on average, the players we ended up with (as a result of extensive trading) are better or worse - from a pure talent perspective - than the ones who were taken in our designated spots?

Notes
1. I have omitted players who we actually selected in our designated spots, as we're only interested in the differences in rosters as a result of trading.
2. Had we not traded, we'd still have Matt Cassel and Richard Seymour, but would not have extra 2012 1st and 2nd round picks. Again, for simplicity, I assume this cancels out.
3. There are other small mistakes due to very low round trades (the likes of Ellis Hobbs and Greg Lewis for example), but I didn't want to keep track of all those players.
4. I include the 2007 trades which resulted in us ultimately getting Mayo in 2008.

Players we would not have (have had), if we didn't trade

2007	Moss
2008	Mayo
	Crable
	Slater
2009	Chung
	Brace
	Butler
	Tate
        Ohrnberger
        Ingram
	Edelman
2010	McCourty
	Gronkowski
	Spikes
	Price
	Hernandez
	Mesko
	Welch
2011	Solder
	Dowling
	Vereen
	Ridley
	Mallett
	Cannon
	Carter
	Williams

Vets
        Burgess
        Greg Lewis

Players we would have, if we didn't trade

2007	Joe Staley
2008	Carl Nicks
	Cory Boyd
2009	Michael Oher
	Jared Cook
	Louis Murphy
	Fenuki Tupou
	Stryker Sulak
2010	Demaryius Thomas
	Colt McCoy
	A J Edds
	Austen Lane
	Travis Goethel
	Erik Cook
2011	Mark Ingram
	Brandon Harris
	Joseph Barksdale
	Taiwan Jones
	Brian Rolle
	Cliff Matthews

Vets
        Laurence Maroney
        Le Kevin Smith
        Ellis Hobbs

 

[ctpatsfan77]

What would have happened if we didn't trade around. 2008 onwards...

Bill Belichick would have gone insane.

 

[patchick]

I like the idea, but I don't think your list looks right. E.g. you either have to drop Moss or add in the MANY other vets they've traded draft picks for, or picked up draft picks in return for. (And not just "very low round trades" as you suggest -- Welker? Burgess?)

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I like the idea, but I don't think your list looks right. E.g. you either have to drop Moss or add in the MANY other vets they've traded draft picks for, or picked up draft picks in return for. (And not just "very low round trades" as you suggest -- Welker? Burgess?)

The OP noted that picks the Pats' original picks, when used, are excluded.

 

[lovsn]

I like the idea, but I don't think your list looks right. E.g. you either have to drop Moss or add in the MANY other vets they've traded draft picks for, or picked up draft picks in return for. (And not just "very low round trades" as you suggest -- Welker? Burgess?)

The only reason I had Moss in there was because Mayo was the first draft pick of the era (2008 ->) I was looking at, and he is only here if we make the San Fran trade to give up Staley, and get both Mayo and Moss back.

I'll try and update with "vets" if I get time too.

edit: checking the Burgess thing, I include the picks they ultimately traded for Burgess on the "we would have had them" list, but don't include Burgess on the "we had them" list. As such, I'll put Burgess on the original list, but I don't think it really changes much.

edit2: the welker trade was all pre-2008, so is not included

 

[brdmaverick]

Well a trade that DEFINITELY back-fired without question was the Patriots trading up to select Chad Jackson when the Packers used our original spot to select Greg Jennings.

Not to be a negative Nancy. After all, the OP does make a point.

 

[Real World]

The only problem is that I believe this assumes we would have taken the player the drafting team took in that slot. Truth is, had the Patriots kept those picks, they might have taken someone else who was still on the board. Another example is with Mayo. They traded down, and still took the guy they wanted. Had they stood pat, they arguably would have taken Mayo just the same.

What a crap draft that 2009 turned out to be.

 

[lovsn]

The only problem is that I believe this assumes we would have taken the player the drafting team took in that slot. Truth is, had the Patriots kept those picks, they might have taken someone else who was still on the board.

Sure, the question is not "what would the roster look like had they not traded around?" as that's an unanswerable question

The question is "is it harder to find talented players, the more you trade around?"

If you trade up, you pick less players, but they should be, on average, better.

If you trade down, you pick more players, but they should be, on average, worse.

The argument I tend to hear is that the extra players you get from trading down does not compensate for the drop off in talent.

However, the list of players, who were drafted in our positions, but we could not have had as a result of trading, isn't all that impressive.

Nicks and Staley are pro-bowlers, and Oher, Cook, Murphy, Thomas and Ingram all have talent, but various flaws, but I think you have players of that calibre on the roster currently, directly as a result of trading around.

It's a fair way to evaluate, because you're not "cherry picking" the best player they could have picked (clay matthews) knowing how good they turned out to be.

 

[MP-Logick]

If you trade up, you pick less players, but they should be, on average, better.

If you trade down, you pick more players, but they should be, on average, worse.

The argument I tend to hear is that the extra players you get from trading down does not compensate for the drop off in talent.

Is there that much difference in talent between, for example, the late second round and the middle of the third round?

The Patriots just don't seem to draft the players everyone has mocked to them and thinks they should pick. With that, their system works perfectly: they are often trading down in the draft to accumulate more picks while picking the same player they would have picked anyway.

 

[lovsn]

Is there that much difference in talent between, for example, the late second round and the middle of the third round?

But where does that logic stop? Is there much difference between the middle of the 3rd and end of the 3rd? Is there much difference between the end of the 3rd and middle of the 4th? If you're saying there isn't, they should always be trading down.

The Patriots just don't seem to draft the players everyone has mocked to them and thinks they should pick. With that, their system works perfectly: they are often trading down in the draft to accumulate more picks while picking the same player they would have picked anyway.

again, you can never say who the player is "they would have picked anyway" as we don't have that information. You don't know whether they lost a player through trading down or not. All we can say is "how talented was the guy who got drafted where they were originally slated to draft?"

 

[MP-Logick]

But where does that logic stop? Is there much difference between the middle of the 3rd and end of the 3rd? Is there much difference between the end of the 3rd and middle of the 4th? If you're saying there isn't, they should always be trading down.

again, you can never say who the player is "they would have picked anyway" as we don't have that information. You don't know whether they lost a player through trading down or not. All we can say is "how talented was the guy who got drafted where they were originally slated to draft?"

If you don't have that information, there's no point in trying to argue about whether they should have traded down or not. That player who was picked at that position may have been more talented then the one the Patriots picked...but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have traded down and not picked him. Perhaps the value they received in trading down was greater then the difference between the two players...perhaps that player would never have worked out as a Patriot anyway, for whatever reason.

No one's saying you should infinitely trade down, but to say instead nobody should trade down because the average player picked higher is more likely to be a successful player, is nuts. If we had access to BB's draft board, we could evaluate the trades, but unfortunately we simply do not.

 

[patsfan-1982]

The only problem is that I believe this assumes we would have taken the player the drafting team took in that slot. Truth is, had the Patriots kept those picks, they might have taken someone else who was still on the board. Another example is with Mayo. They traded down, and still took the guy they wanted. Had they stood pat, they arguably would have taken Mayo just the same.

What a crap draft that 2009 turned out to be.

i agree with this i dont think Clay Matthews, Dez Bryant and so on were ever going to be patriots the pats got who they wanted and got a few more picks

 

[Sydney]

I don't like this list at all. Are they just picking the players who were drafted at those spots by other teams or are they trying to do a real mock? If it's the former, it's even worse than I thought.

Quite simply we don't have any teams draft board. Had we not traded at all, I can guarantee ~95% of these picks are wrong. And who is to say that "our" players don't slip to us any way. I can think of a few players that were considered a reach at the time.

 

[DarrylS]

Sure, the question is not "what would the roster look like had they not traded around?" as that's an unanswerable question

The question is "is it harder to find talented players, the more you trade around?"

If you trade up, you pick less players, but they should be, on average, better.

If you trade down, you pick more players, but they should be, on average, worse.

The argument I tend to hear is that the extra players you get from trading down does not compensate for the drop off in talent.

However, the list of players, who were drafted in our positions, but we could not have had as a result of trading, isn't all that impressive.

Nicks and Staley are pro-bowlers, and Oher, Cook, Murphy, Thomas and Ingram all have talent, but various flaws, but I think you have players of that calibre on the roster currently, directly as a result of trading around.

It's a fair way to evaluate, because you're not "cherry picking" the best player they could have picked (clay matthews) knowing how good they turned out to be.

What you do not recognize is that every team has hits and misses.. the draft at best is a high end guessing game, all the while the loss of certain players is lamented.. the Pasts are being rebuilt on the fly, and somehow despite all of the complaints, we have maintained a high level of play.

This will beg the issue but did some stuff with 2nd round pix of Steelers, Miami, Jets and Green Bay.. not means conclusive but a broader view of what we specifically did or did not do or would've/should've done..

Steelers..
2011.. Marcus Gilbert..OT currently starts for the Steelers
2010.. Jason Worilds.. playing ok, but seems to be a work in progress
2009.. no second round pick
2008.. Limus Sweed... has been waived
2007.. Lamar Woodley.. great pick
2006.. no second round pick

Miami's vaunted 2nd round picks..
2011...Daniel Thomas RB.. looks like a good pick
2010..Koa Missa. LB.. work in progress
2009..Pat White. QB... not in the game
2008..Phillip Merling.. not in the game
Chad Henne..
2007.. John Beck. QB...traded to the Redskins
Samson Satele.. C.. good pick
2006..no pick

The Jets absolutely wonderful 2nd round picks..
2011... no second round pick
2010.. Vladimir DuCasse
2009.. Shonn Greene
2008 .. no second round pick
2007.. David Harris
2006.. Kellen Clemens
2005... Mike Nugent
Justin Miller..


The Green Bay Packers recent 2ndround picks..
2011.. Randall Cobb
2010.. Mike Neal.. oft injuried
2009.. no second round pick
2008..Brian Brohm.. no longer in the NFL
Patrick lee.. marginal player
2007..Brandon Jackson.. marginal player now with the Browns.
2006...Darren Colledge..starting O lineman now with the Cardinals
Greg Jennings
2005..Nick Collins.. a pro bowler on IR
Terrence Murphy retired from the NFL..

Compare to Patriots since 2005..
2011.. Ras I Dowling and Shane Vereen
2010... Gronkowski, Cunningham and Spikes
2009.. Chung, Brace and Butler
2008.. wheatley
2007.. no second round pick.
2006.. Chad Jackson
2005.. no second round pick.

The other connected issue is the "economy" of draft picks, sometimes going for lower first round picks (up to the new CBA) would mean tying up valuable dollars in unproven athletes, and deny the basic premise of how this meritcracy works.. there is more to this picture than meets the eye.. the draft strategy may be different this year.

 

[lovsn]

I don't like this list at all. Are they just picking the players who were drafted at those spots by other teams or are they trying to do a real mock? If it's the former, it's even worse than I thought.

What you do not recognize is that every team has hits and misses..

Both of these comments miss the point of the exercise.

It's not a "revised draft" or "did they make the right call by trading down from pick x" for the Pats, because any attempt to do this is biased by the knowledge of how the players turned out, which you didn't know at the time.

The only fair way to do any sort of comparison is to specify a decision making rule which can be implemented without knowledge of how the players turned out.

The one I chose is "look at the talent of the players who were ultimately drafted in the Pats original draft slots" precisely because you know this "talent level" of players was available to the Pats, had they not traded around (i.e. it is a feasible comparison), but it doesn't depend on you knowing which players they were (i.e. it is fair, because you are not just selecting players you either do or don't like)

It precisely controls for the fact other teams make "hits and misses" because, again, the teams who we traded with thought they were selecting the most talented player, but this may not ultimately turn out to be the case.

Thus the question is not "would you prefer one roster to the other?", but the question is "does a strategy which involves lots of trading around make it harder to find talented players compared to a strategy where you just select the most talented player you think is available at every spot you are given?"

 

[Ring 6]

I don't like this list at all. Are they just picking the players who were drafted at those spots by other teams or are they trying to do a real mock? If it's the former, it's even worse than I thought.

Quite simply we don't have any teams draft board. Had we not traded at all, I can guarantee ~95% of these picks are wrong. And who is to say that "our" players don't slip to us any way. I can think of a few players that were considered a reach at the time.

Read his post. His is comparing what we got with the picks we traded for to the players taken with the picks we traded.
He is not asking if those players would fit better on our team, he is comparing talent of the players taken with our traded picks vs the player we took with the acquired picks.
Trying to plug in who you would have taken years later after seeing how the pick worked out introduced a bias into the analysis.

 

[DarrylS]

Thus the question is not "would you prefer one roster to the other?", but the question is "does a strategy which involves lots of trading around make it harder to find talented players compared to a strategy where you just select the most talented player you think is available at every spot you are given?"

Sorry if I missed the point of your exercise

Your question does not make sense and at the very least it is loaded, damned if you do and damned if you don't..

The operative words are "most talented player you think is available", evokes quite a few variables beyond the control of the drafting organization.. if you read the "War Room" by Holley, it becomes a little clearer as to how these decisions are made.

How many early draft round busts (most talented player you thought was available) have washed out from the NFL???.. It happens often, my druthers are that prior to the new CBA trading from a 1st round pick to second round picks made a lot of sense as it fit into BB's economic theory and this meritocracy.

Now that the landscape has changed BB may change his philosophy, and be more eager to go for first round picks due to the variance of the new salary structure.

People continue to whine and bytch about BB's drafts, and somehow despite of his assumed incompetence we have just finished two very good seasons.. and still have 4 of the first 64 round picks in the NFL draft. This team has is being rebuilt before our eyes, time to give credit where credit is due.

 

[JJDChE]

Of course, you can't say for sure who we would have taken had we not traded

Which is why it was a waste of time to do this analysis. Draft post mortems are among the more pointless wastes of time.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

You left Welker off the list we traded for him the same year we traded for Moss.

 

[lovsn]

You left Welker off the list we traded for him the same year we traded for Moss.

As mentioned earlier, Moss is only included because he was part of the trade which resulted in Mayo in 2008, and I was looking at 2008 onwards

Welker was pre-2008, hence is not included