Justin Rogers: wanted. Stewart Bradley: not wanted?

[ctpatsfan77]

Q: Did the Patriots show interest in you leading up to this?

JR: Yes Sir. I got several phone calls from them saying that they were interested and they were going to try to pick me up, if not in the late rounds then as a free agent. Like I said, I'm just really glad they picked me up.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Think about it for a second: the only difference in contracts between, say, 93 and 193 is the size of the signing bonus--and that ain't much. So what was it about this year's class that meant there was basically nobody after Meriweather that the Pats felt was worth taking on Day 1?

Even more mystifying, of course, is the fact that--of the day 2 picks the Pats started with--they actually picked players with all of them. Some people here have claimed that they signed players they'd otherwise have picked as UDFAs--but then, if the player gets cut, the Pats get a cap hit on the signing bonus (granted, it ain't much, but it's still equivalent to carrying a player on the PS for the entire season).

So--any thoughts on what all of this means?

 

[BelichickFan]

I don't get your point the Bradley thing, he was gone before the #3 we traded - maybe we keep the pick and take him if he's there.

 

[patchick]

I don't get the Bradley thing, he was gone before the #3 we traded - maybe we keep the pick and take him if he's there.

Apparently so...
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=55478

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Apparently so...
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=55478

OK. Somewhat bad example. But my point remains: the Pats as much as said "there's no one we want in the second round." And if they really wanted Bradley, they could have jumped up 10-20 spots for him, but they didn't.

 

[DefenseRules]

Apparently so...
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=55478

It appears that they would have picked him if he was there. But Philly took him instead. What I find baffling is if they really wanted the kid why didn't they just trade up for him. They had the ammunition to do it.
I don't think that they wanted him THAT badly, IMHO.

 

[BelichickFan]

OK. Somewhat bad example. But my point remains: the Pats as much as said "there's no one we want in the second round." And if they really wanted Bradley, they could have jumped up 10-20 spots for him, but they didn't.

How were they going to jump up 10-20 spots in the 3rd with a bunch of 5ths and 6ths ? They could have traded both 4ths to do that but we got Brown and Moss with those, and I'm happy how those were used.

A #5 and a #6 maybe could have moved us up 4 spots to get ahead of Philly if we thought they were taking him.

 

[DefenseRules]

How were they going to jump up 10-20 spots in the 3rd with a bunch of 5ths and 6ths ? They could have traded both 4ths to do that but we got Brown and Moss with those, and I'm happy how those were used.

A #5 and a #6 maybe could have moved us up 4 spots to get ahead of Philly if we thought they were taking him.

That's true. But our 5th was a compensation pick that we could not trade and two of our sixth rounders were compensation picks too. Maybe they just didn't have enough to trade up because most of our day two picks were compensation picks, and by then it appears that the Moss trade was heating up too.

 

[BelichickFan]

That's true. But our 5th was a compensation pick that we could not trade and two of our sixth rounders were compensation picks too.

Right, that adds to the point that trading up without using our #4s wasn't viable. One #4 went for Moss, I doubt anyone would want that used differently. And Brown is the sole Day Two guy who I like quite a bit, I prefer him and the Raiders' #3 next year to Bradley.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

How were they going to jump up 10-20 spots in the 3rd with a bunch of 5ths and 6ths ? They could have traded both 4ths to do that but we got Brown and Moss with those, and I'm happy how those were used.

If they wanted Bradley that badly--and the evidence suggests they didn't--they would have made a trade up to get him (maybe not 10-20, maybe just 5 or so); it may well have involved a 2008 pick (they already had SF's first, so it wouldn't sting as much).

It amazes me, though, that at this point anyone is still willing to trade with the Pats at all.

 

[spacecrime]

OK. Somewhat bad example. But my point remains: the Pats as much as said "there's no one we want in the second round."

No, they didn't. Pioli specifically said there were players they liked. He said they got better value by trading.

If I go into my local BBQ joint, and BBQ chicken is the special of the day, real cheap, I'm likely to get it. It doesn't mean there are no ribs on the menu that I want, or that I don't like ribs. It means I got more value for the chicken. Next time I might go for the ribs. Unless pulled pork is on special.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

No, they didn't. Pioli specifically said there were players they liked. He said they got better value by trading.

If I go into my local BBQ joint, and BBQ chicken is the special of the day, real cheap, I'm likely to get it. It doesn't mean there are no ribs on the menu that I want, or that I don't like ribs. It means I got more value for the chicken. Next time I might go for the ribs. Unless pulled pork is on special.

This will teach me to think a little longer before I post.

In any case, what I was trying to say is that there was no one worth fighting for in the second round. If they really wanted, say, Eric Weddle (or David Harris or Brian Leonard or . . .), they could have made a trade to get that player. But they didn't see anybody there that was worth moving up for.

But, still--why go hog wild on day two players? Why not push one or two of those picks into the apparently Pats-friendlier 2008 draft?

 

[BelichickFan]

If they wanted Bradley that badly--and the evidence suggests they didn't--they would have made a trade up to get him (maybe not 10-20, maybe just 5 or so); it may well have involved a 2008 pick (they already had SF's first, so it wouldn't sting as much).

It may have just been a calculated gamble that he'd be there so why bid against yourself. If so they were wrong but you can't draft scared and trade up every time just in case someone takes your guy first. But I agree with your premise that if they wanted him THAT badly they could have traded up.

 

[DefenseRules]

This will teach me to think a little longer before I post.

In any case, what I was trying to say is that there was no one worth fighting for in the second round. If they really wanted, say, Eric Weddle (or David Harris or Brian Leonard or . . .), they could have made a trade to get that player. But they didn't see anybody there that was worth moving up for.

But, still--why go hog wild on day two players? Why not push one or two of those picks into the apparently Pats-friendlier 2008 draft?

They probably did try to trade some of those picks. But outside of the fourth round we only had 2 sixth round picks and a 7th round pick that we could trade. The other picks were compensation picks that we could not trade.
I doubt highly that they would have given up one of those fourth round picks to move up in the draft at that point. Unless the "VALUE" was there.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

It's always possible that we did in fact try to trade up for a player and couldn't find a buyer. Once Miami took Ginn at #9, the Browns called every team trying to move up for that pick to get Quinn. Dallas was the first taker.

I've learned a lot over the years with how the Patriots operate and how it doesn't get spread all over the news. A good philosophy to have is this: Just because they didn't doesn't mean they didn't try.

It might be reported here soon that we did try to get someone. A slightly related story is us moving up in the 2nd for Bethel Johnson back in 2003. That pick was ripped apart by a lot on the board with people screaming that we could have easily gotten him on Day 2. Then about a week later Len Pasquarelli wrote in one of his Tip Sheets that another team was disppointed because they were about to take him.

I remember reading back in 2002 that outside the Patriots war room someone could here they were obviously pissed off when the Chargers selected UNLV DE Anton Palepoi in the 2nd round. We "settled" for Deion Branch.

We shouldn't look at how things turned out and assume that's exactly how the team wanted it. We just don't know.

 

[VJCPatriot]

It may have just been a calculated gamble that he'd be there so why bid against yourself. If so they were wrong but you can't draft scared and trade up every time just in case someone takes your guy first. But I agree with your premise that if they wanted him THAT badly they could have traded up.

They have moved up for players they coveted before. For example Geno Wilson, Chad Jackson, etc. Those were small moves up to get in front of teams the Pats anticipated would take their coveted players. In the 2008 draft there were no such "coveted" guys between round 2 and 4 according to the Pats value chart or they wouldn't have traded down for future picks, they would have simply sat and taken their guy or traded up for their guy.

 

[mgteich]

As someone posted, maybe we couldn't find a buyer. It would have taken our remaining fourth. I don't think bb wanted Bradley enough to give up Brown and Oakland's 2008 third. I agree with the decision.

If we could have traded a couple of tradeable sixths to get the job done, we might have. I suspect that there were no partners. I don't think anyone valued those picks.

I agree that the picks at the end of the fifth and later were the equivalent of UDFA's last year and probably next. I have two of the late picks making the team, same as last year's UDFA class. The UDFA class is not making our squad, although they could compete for PS positions.

 

[sebman2112]

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Think about it for a second: the only difference in contracts between, say, 93 and 193 is the size of the signing bonus--and that ain't much. So what was it about this year's class that meant there was basically nobody after Meriweather that the Pats felt was worth taking on Day 1?

Even more mystifying, of course, is the fact that--of the day 2 picks the Pats started with--they actually picked players with all of them. Some people here have claimed that they signed players they'd otherwise have picked as UDFAs--but then, if the player gets cut, the Pats get a cap hit on the signing bonus (granted, it ain't much, but it's still equivalent to carrying a player on the PS for the entire season).

So--any thoughts on what all of this means?

Your point is not valid. NE had interest in Stewart bradley. They talked to Stewart at the Senior Bowl, put him through a private workout, and brought him in for a visit. Sources indicate NE was going to pick Stewart at 91st overall if he had fallen to them, but the Eagles grabbed him before that.

 

[RayClay]

No, they didn't. Pioli specifically said there were players they liked. He said they got better value by trading.

If I go into my local BBQ joint, and BBQ chicken is the special of the day, real cheap, I'm likely to get it. It doesn't mean there are no ribs on the menu that I want, or that I don't like ribs. It means I got more value for the chicken. Next time I might go for the ribs. Unless pulled pork is on special.

the Pats preferred to wait til other diners were done and take the scraps they didn't finish.

If the pats get two players that can actually play the position listed next to their name, I'll eat my shorts.

That means play for us, not the team with first crack at the waiver list.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

If they wanted Bradley that badly--and the evidence suggests they didn't--they would have made a trade up to get him (maybe not 10-20, maybe just 5 or so); it may well have involved a 2008 pick (they already had SF's first, so it wouldn't sting as much).

It amazes me, though, that at this point anyone is still willing to trade with the Pats at all.

Ahhh, a most insightful utterance...and one I concur with!

 

[mgteich]

I believe that both trades with the raiders were win-win situations.

Ahhh, a most insightful utterance...and one I concur with!