Do our signings mean we give up 2 #1s for a higher #1 pick?

[PATRIOT64]

The fact that we addressed most of our concerns in certain postions EXCEPT ONE AREA which is the secondary leads me to believe BB and FO have something in fold like giving up #24-#27 for a higher pick like in the upper teens area,Possibly looking to grab Landry,Houston or Revis..Although it is possible that Houston or Revis will be there at 24 anyway but I think we may be trading upward to a team to grab Landry.

Since we are in decent shape in most areas,although we can certainly use another ILB if not before the draft in FA then as an decent early draft pick, we could still get a quality rookie in round 3 to fill the need.

Either way with the FA signings we did I think that screams a move up in round one on draft day and some team will take our 24-27 picks with a sneaky BB offer....not 100% sure but looks like it right now.

 

[mgteich]

While I agree that the signings allow us to be more flexible, I would note that we will spend more in 2006 cap money on the free agent defensive back signed than on the rest of the signings.

 

[danny88]

While I agree that the signings allow us to be more flexible, I would note that we will spend more in 2006 cap money on the free agent defensive back signed than on the rest of the signings.

I agree, there is no reason to trade up.

 

[Kontradiction]

Trading up would be the worst idea ever. We need to work on the defensive side of the ball and two first rounders will help us do that.

 

[DegeneratePatsFan]

I doubt it. The Pats are swinging for the fences this offseason, and I'm sure that they believe, based on past successes, that they can get two players in the lower end of the first round that can contribute in a hurry. They've suprised people in the past (Mankins comes to mind), but if I had to bet, I'm guessing they hold onto the picks they have and get a DB and a LB (Yes, a LB. I think they'll do it and grab a guy they can develop, especially after getting Thomas).

 

[mgteich]

Those two defensive players are: Samuel and Thomas. In addition, we will sign at least one more free agent linebacker. We can sign two or three (by trading down) blue chippers or one red chipper (one potential probowler). bb will choose the one player if it is possible to do so.

Trading up would be the worst idea ever. We need to work on the defensive side of the ball and two first rounders will help us do that.

 

[tombonneau]

Trading up would be the worst idea ever. We need to work on the defensive side of the ball and two first rounders will help us do that.

I don't know about that. According to the draft value chart, both #1s would be enough to get into top 8-10 range. This I agree would be a bad (but not the worst ever) idea.

I do however, think it might not be a bad idea to move up into mid- to late-teens for a guy BB targets with a trade that would move both #1s in exchange for the high teen pick plus a 2nd round pick.

EDIT:

According to value chart, Pats picks are roughly 1400 pts. So the deal that would make most sense would be sending both picks for #15 & #47 (1480); #16 & #48 (1420).

I think the salary cap cost of the 15 or 16 would prob. be similar to the two #1s.

 

[italian pat patriot]

i would keep picks 24 and 28

we need both of them and i hope both will be on defense

 

[Oswlek]

I will post here what I posted the last time moving up was discussed.

The quality of the teams making the picks. This is a doozy and needs to be recognized. In the BB/SP they have made the following post-20 first round draft selections with the corresponding top 10 from each draft. I marked any player that was even debatable (read: I don't agree that all of the red are better, just that it is debatable) with red font.

2006
Laurence Maroney (21)

1 Houston Mario Williams DE North Carolina State
2 New Orleans Reggie Bush RB Southern California
3 Tennessee Vince Young QB Texas
4 N.Y. Jets D'Brickashaw Ferguson T Virginia
5 Green Bay A.J. Hawk OLB Ohio State
6 San Francisco Vernon Davis TE Maryland
7 Oakland Michael Huff SS Texas
8 Buffalo Donte Whitner SS Ohio State
9 Detroit Ernie Sims OLB Florida State
10 Arizona Matt Leinart QB Southern California

2005
Logan Mankins (32)

1 San Francisco Alex Smith QB Utah
2 Miami Ronnie Brown RB Auburn
3 Cleveland Braylon Edwards WR Michigan
4 Chicago Cedric Benson RB Texas
5 Tampa Bay Carnell Williams RB Auburn
6 Tennessee Adam Jones CB West Virginia
7 Minnesota Troy Williamson WR South Carolina
8 Arizona Antrel Rolle CB Miami
9 Washington Carlos Rogers CB Auburn
10 Detroit Mike Williams WR Southern California

2004
Vince Wilfork (21)
Ben Watson (32)

1 San Diego Eli Manning QB Mississippi
2 Oakland Robert Gallery T Iowa
3 Arizona Larry Fitzgerald WR Pittsburgh
4 N.Y. Giants Philip Rivers QB North Carolina State
5 Washington Sean Taylor FS Miami
6 Cleveland Kellen Winslow TE Miami - Watson only
7 Detroit Roy Williams WR Texas
8 Atlanta DeAngelo Hall CB Virginia Tech
9 Jacksonville Reggie Williams WR Washington
10 Houston Dunta Robinson CB South Carolina

2002
Dan Graham (21)

1 Houston David Carr QB Fresno State
2 Carolina Julius Peppers DE North Carolina
3 Detroit Joey Harrington QB Oregon
4 Buffalo Mike Williams T Texas
5 San Diego Quentin Jammer CB Texas
6 Kansas City Ryan Sims DT North Carolina
7 Minnesota Bryant McKinnie T Miami
8 Dallas Roy Williams SS Oklahoma
9 Jacksonville John Henderson DT Tennessee
10 Cincinnati Levi Jones T Arizona State

NE has made 5 selections. All but one are bonafide starters at their position, and NE apparently has faith that the 5th will rpove to be a starter next year. In that same drafts, there were 17 players drafted in the top ten that a case could be made that they have proven to be better guys than who NE ended up with. Said another way, the 5 players taken after the top 20 had already passed are clearly better than 23 of 40 guys who were taken in the top 10.

With that track record, why would anyone be in favor of moving up?


Edited to say that Pacman has proven to be a very good player, but I considered him out of the running for red considering that it is likely that he is unemployed soon.

 

[Oswlek]

Some replies and answers from before:

You also forgot to put Winslow in red (better than Watson), and DeAngelo Hall and Dunta Robinson are both stud cornerbacks. Still, I'd rather have Wilfork and Watson than, say, Winslow, but again Wilfork was selected with an earlier pick than we had in a very, very deep draft. I'm not so certain this draft class is very deep, which makes a top 5 pick more valuable than two late-1sts.

I will give you Winslow as being better than Watson, but he is not better than Wilfork. I don't know enough about Robinson to make the best judgement, but Hall is an average CB at best. He has tremendous measuables, but I would take Hobbs over him every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Even if I add all three of these, the point still stands. In all likelihood, NE's picks at 24 and 28 will both better than 1/2 of the big names picked in the top 10.

I guess you'd move up because BB/SP can not only identify the best post 20 talent, but can also identify the best top ten talent. Said another way, if BB/SP were drafting in the top ten in those four years, they would have selected four of the seventeen players who did pan out. I guess we shouldn't assume that BB/SP will always select good talent at the end of the first round, but would be subject to drafting busts in the top ten.

Just playing devil's advocate.

The issue is more complicated than that. When you add money into the mix things change dramatically. The investment in a #8 would probably be twice that of 24 and 28 combined. So, the player would have to be much, much better than anyone taken to be worth the money. For instance, I am more than willing to say that Bush is better than Maroney. But would you rather have Bush at 5+mm cap per year or Maroney at 2mm?

IMHO, once we exclude QBs (no need) only a handful of the guys a clearly worht big money:

Larry FItzgerald, Julius Peppers, John Henderson, Levi Jones and Roy Williams (Det.)

So, only 5 guys were really worth the investment of a top 10 pick (excluding QBs) while every single player taken by NE exceeded their contract value and would have even if they were top picks themselves.

I am not against moving up a handful of spots, but I vehemently disagree with going any higher than the high teen area.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I don't know about that. According to the draft value chart, both #1s would be enough to get into top 8-10 range. This I agree would be a bad (but not the worst ever) idea.

I do however, think it might not be a bad idea to move up into mid- to late-teens for a guy BB targets with a trade that would move both #1s in exchange for the high teen pick plus a 2nd round pick.

EDIT:

According to value chart, Pats picks are roughly 1400 pts. So the deal that would make most sense would be sending both picks for #15 & #47 (1480); #16 & #48 (1420).

I think the salary cap cost of the 15 or 16 would prob. be similar to the two #1s.

Although the draft value chart is helpful, I think more and more teams are recognizing what the Patriots understand. That the cost of one high draft pick doesn't represent the same "value" as two lower picks in the 1st round.

While I'm not advocating for a move up - and in fact if I were GM would seriously entertain a trade down with one of the 1st rounders - I don't rule out a trade up beyond what the value chart says we should get.

Specifically I'm thinking that the Redskins at #6 desparately need extra picks having traded them away in the past. While #6 represents higher value than the Patriots two 1st round choices, I think someone like BB would make the point that its going to cost a lot more money to sign him too.

Given the fact that the Patriots have so many draft picks as of now, and that many of those players will not make the team given our current depth, I don't rule out a quality over quantity move by BB, and view the Skins as a potential willing partner.

And for those of you who think BB would never make such a move to #6, generally I'd say that BB would admit that a previous #6 draft choice was a bargain for the entire tenure of his rookie contract and actually worked out quite well for us. I mean, how many of you are lamenting that we have Richard Seymour?

So a move up to #6 could be a win win for both teams. The Patriots get extra "value" beyond the draft value chart, recognizing that signing a player taken at #6 will cost more than both existing 1st round draft choices, and the Redskins get the extra picks and players they need.

Beyond that I expect the Patriots to be very active trading picks this year into higher picks next year. We can't trade the compensation picks and there's no way we need 10 draftees - so a quality over quantity - whether its for 2007 or 2008 - is what is in the works IMO.

 

[shmessy]

The fact that we addressed most of our concerns in certain postions EXCEPT ONE AREA which is the secondary ......

I'm sorry, you lost me with that first sentence.

ILB is very important. And it has not been completely addressed.

 

[Mogamedogz]

The only player I think would be worth trading up for is LaRon Landry. And unless we were able to get down into the top 10 (unlikely); then we would have no shot at him. I honestly believe that Landry is the best defensive player in this draft, and the second best overall player in the draft after Calvin Johnson. Landry will be a STUD in the NFL.

That said; I love it that we have the two first rounders. It gives us so much flexibility. I would be more then happy with a guy like Mike Griffin and the exta selection.

 

[Jimke]

If you look over the Pats' #1 draft picks since BB and Pioli have been

running the draft, I think that you can conclude that they will select

two good football players with the #24 and #28 picks.

 

[Fencer]

I don't think it's totally fair to say "The Pats shouldn't trade up because they always do well with late first-round picks and other teams often blow top picks."

Rather, I think the better comparison is:

Would you rather have two of Wilfork, Graham, Maroney, and Mankins or one of Seymour and Warren?

 

[pats60]

Trading up would be the worst idea ever. We need to work on the defensive side of the ball and two first rounders will help us do that.

Thats right

 

[patsox23]

I doubt it. The Pats are swinging for the fences this offseason, and I'm sure that they believe, based on past successes, that they can get two players in the lower end of the first round that can contribute in a hurry. They've suprised people in the past (Mankins comes to mind), but if I had to bet, I'm guessing they hold onto the picks they have and get a DB and a LB (Yes, a LB. I think they'll do it and grab a guy they can develop, especially after getting Thomas).

I don't accept the premise that the Patriots are "swinging for the fences this offseason." They found value in a player like Adalius and they paid what it took to land him. Otherwise, they signed the typical "prove it" deals with iffy vets (Stallworth, Washington) or value-based contracts with solid JAGs (Morris, Kyle Brady).

 

[patsox23]

What I would love to do is trade both #1's long before the draft to get to #6 and then, on draft day, continually trade down and garner future picks while maintaining a sense of control as the players come off the board. Then, when it's time to pull the trigger on a guy like, say, Patrick Willis, do so and see where you are. The Redskins are desperate for picks. We're not. So we'd get more value, eventually, than they can given where they currently stand.

 

[JoePats]

There are not going to be a ton of spots for rookies on this team, so I could definately see the Pats trading up in the later rounds, or trading a 5 this year for a 4 next or whatever, but I'd be very surprised if they traded both 1s for a 1. I could see both ones to move up to 15 or 16 for a 1 and a 2 or something like that, however.

I just go back to Bob Kraft saying the value is late first round, and say they want Landry, he would have to be so so much better than say Reggie Nelson to justify giving up another good player.

 

[Fencer]

What I would love to do is trade both #1's long before the draft to get to #6 and then, on draft day, continually trade down and garner future picks while maintaining a sense of control as the players come off the board. Then, when it's time to pull the trigger on a guy like, say, Patrick Willis, do so and see where you are. The Redskins are desperate for picks. We're not. So we'd get more value, eventually, than they can given where they currently stand.

Why wouldn't the Redskins just make those smaller trades down themselves?