Pats wanted Stewart Bradley? [merged]

[BelichickFan]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

How would picking Bradley have kept NE from getting Kareem Brown or Randy Moss?

It wouldn't take a fourth rounder to go up a few spots in the late third round, two sixth rounders sounds more accurate.

Two 6ths isn't much - a team MIGHT take that to trade down a few spots but they easily could not.

 

[patchick]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

So NE's draft could have looked like:
Meriweather
The 49ers '08 first
Wes Welker
Stewart Bradley
Randy Moss

...and then the rest is gravy as far as I'm concerned. This is what I keep trying not to think about.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Keep in mind it only cost NE a sixth rounder to move up one spot when they picked Warren in the first round.

That's really not relevant, trades like that aren't done by the chart or historical precedent. To dump two 6ths on someone you need someone who wants them and what happened in 2003 has nothing to do with it.

Regardless, I bet we'll get a better prospect than Bradley with the Raiders' #3 next year so I'm not too concerned about it.

 

[sebman2112]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

That's really not relevant, trades like that aren't done by the chart or historical precedent. To dump two 6ths on someone you need someone who wants them and what happened in 2003 has nothing to do with it.

Regardless, I bet we'll get a better prospect than Bradley with the Raiders' #3 next year so I'm not too concerned about it.

Your trade idea doesn't make any sense to me. We're talking the Late third round, and it should not cost a fourth round pick to trade up 5 spots in the late third round. Two sixth round picks makes a lot more sense. Also, that 2003 trade is valid as it points to the fact you can move up one spot in the first round with a sixth, so why couldn't two sixth move you up five spots in the late third?

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Your trade idea doesn't make any sense to me. We're talking the Late third round, and it should not cost a fourth round pick to trade up 5 spots in the late third round. Two sixth round picks makes a lot more sense. Also, that 2003 trade is valid as it points to the fact you can move up one spot in the first round with a sixth, so why couldn't two sixth move you up five spots in the late third?

Maybe the teams there didn't want to make that trade. Maybe we offered it and were rejected. It takes two to make a deal - in 2003 we had a willing partner, in 2007 maybe we didn't regardless of whether you think we should have or not. It's like sex - if the other person says no you're out of luck regardless of what you think they should say.

 

[sebman2112]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Maybe the teams there didn't want to make that trade. Maybe we offered it and were rejected. It takes two to make a deal - in 2003 we had a willing partner, in 2007 maybe we didn't regardless of whether you think we should have or not. It's like sex - if the other person says no you're out of luck regardless of what you think they should say.

I get that, I'm just saying to me the trade offer I would make sounds more accurate whe compared to reality. Ayways, it doesn't matter now because Bradley's on the Eagles. Funny thing about it, a lot of the Eagles fans didn't like the pick, and some of them were calling him a career backup/special teamer. They couldn't understand Philly drafting him, especially since they drafted cocong last year.

Now if NE had drafted Bradley I would have been very happy.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

...and then the rest is gravy as far as I'm concerned. This is what I keep trying not to think about.

It's not much consolation, I guess, but, who knows--maybe Rogers will turn out to be just as good as, if not better than, Bradley.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Or. Maybe Bradley gets cut and the Pats sign him to their practice squad

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

I'm going to get some hate for this but from comparing Rogers and Bradley I would take Rogers and the Raiders (high) #3 next year over Bradley and a #6. There I said it.

 

[patchick]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

I'm going to get some hate for this but from comparing Rogers and Bradley I would take Rogers and the Raiders (high) #3 next year over Bradley and a #6. There I said it.

Hate, hate!

Rogers may well be close to Bradley as a pure talent, but as far as I know he's always played with his hand down. The intriguing thing about Bradley was that he actually played college LB at 6'4" 254. Not to obsess or anything, of course. I can stop any time I want to. Probably.

OK, time to refocus my eternal optimism on that other 6'4" 250 athletic specimen with college LB experience: Pierre Woods. (Public service announcement: be careful running any image searches on Pierre Woods. It seems there's this other guy Pierre who...well...nevermind.)

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Rogers may well be close to Bradley as a pure talent, but as far as I know he's always played with his hand down. The intriguing thing about Bradley was that he actually played college LB at 6'4" 254.

Well I really like that high #3 next year too - that's part of the package.

 

[sebman2112]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Hate, hate!

Rogers may well be close to Bradley as a pure talent, but as far as I know he's always played with his hand down. The intriguing thing about Bradley was that he actually played college LB at 6'4" 254. Not to obsess or anything, of course. I can stop any time I want to. Probably.

OK, time to refocus my eternal optimism on that other 6'4" 250 athletic specimen with college LB experience: Pierre Woods. (Public service announcement: be careful running any image searches on Pierre Woods. It seems there's this other guy Pierre who...well...nevermind.)

If you read up on Rogers it seems he actually likes playing standing up more than as a down linemen, so he's already more of a LB, than a true DE.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Funny how getting Kareem Brown and Oakland's 2008 3rd suddenly move from consolation prize to better value. The Pats guessed wrong about who might want Bradley, or they were unable to move up a few spots in the third, either way Philly has a good SLB...making me wonder what they expect to do with Chris Gocong?

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Funny how getting Kareem Brown and Oakland's 2008 3rd suddenly move from consolation prize to better value. The Pats guessed wrong about who might want Bradley, or they were unable to move up a few spots in the third

I imagine they would have traded a late pick or two to move up had they known and been able to. I doubt it was because they desperately wanted Bradley, though, it's fairly clear how they felt about this draft. More likely, IMO, they had latched onto Bradley as a decent value and good fit that made him a worthy late #3 pick . . . the fact that they would have chosen to spend the late #3 on Bradley had they been able to as opposed to what they did doesn't make Bradley the better value, just the way they would have spent the pick all things (namely, need) considered.

We know they didn't like this draft, that's clear. We know the Raiders' #3 next year will be WAY higher than the pick we're discussing. So with regard to value, yes, the way they used the pick was the clear value usage. In this case, however, especially after trading out once already, it appears they would have taken the good fit player - but what they did is still better value IMO. Sometimes you just feel like buying the standard definition TV now, especially if your TV is on the way out, instead of putting the money in the stock market and being able to afford an HDTV a year from now.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

"Desperately wanted?" Come now sir, BB waited for Meriweather, and accepted a trade forward deal for #28. There was no desperation for any player in this draft, unless we want to reread your posts squawking about the second and seventh for Welker?

BB tries to avoid 'desperation' moves in the draft, which is why Welker was a trade that broke your heart. Oakland's 2008 3rd is not a "better value" for 2007, it was the Best Available Value when #91 came up in this draft. Comparing it to Bradley is an exercise for future sports historians, for now it's an "it is what it is" thing that might pay off some day...it's more penny stock than blue chip if we want to stick to your analogy.

I imagine they would have traded a late pick or two to move up had they known and been able to. I doubt it was because they desperately wanted Bradley, though, it's fairly clear how they felt about this draft. More likely, IMO, they had latched onto Bradley as a decent value and good fit that made him a worthy late #3 pick . . . the fact that they would have chosen to spend the late #3 on Bradley had they been able to as opposed to what they did doesn't make Bradley the better value, just the way they would have spent the pick all things (namely, need) considered.

We know they didn't like this draft, that's clear. We know the Raiders' #3 next year will be WAY higher than the pick we're discussing. So with regard to value, yes, the way they used the pick was the clear value usage. In this case, however, especially after trading out once already, it appears they would have taken the good fit player - but what they did is still better value IMO. Sometimes you just feel like buying the standard definition TV now, especially if your TV is on the way out, instead of putting the money in the stock market and being able to afford an HDTV a year from now.

 

[RayClay]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Let's face it, there are day one linebackers available every year and every year the Pats avoid choosing one.

They've moved up for Dan Graham, Wilson, Light, (after moving down) and Bethel Johnson fer crissakes.

I enjoy Reiss and his access, but access comes with a price.

I wonder if that "groan" wasn't inserted after the fact on the suggestion of Piolichick to placate LB hungry fans?

The Pats have a plan. I'll be damned if I have a clue what it is.

 

[RayClay]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

If the Pats were hot for Deossie, they simply pull the trigger in that situation.

Look back to Deion Branch's pick. They went a full round or more higher than the pundits said. They've got pretty good ideas on who other teams will pick too.

If they are hot for someone, they go out and get them. This draft was a dog, they don't want a lot of high picks for few spots and I'm guessing this and last years FA LBs will fight it out with a few low priced FAs/cuts for backup LB/ST spots.

I'm not saying i like it or understand it, just going by their actions.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Oakland's 2008 3rd is not a "better value" for 2007

Wel, duh. The #28 trade wasn't good value for 2007 either. But I like them both for the long term in value.

 

[dryheat44]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Let me throw something out there that hasn't been addressed yet? Why would the Patriots assume the Eagles were going to draft Bradley, and make an effort to get ahead of them. Let's look at part of the third round:

81 N.Y. Giants Jay Alford (185 points on trade chart)
82 Kansas City Tank Tyler (180)
83 Carolina Charles Johnson (175)
84 St. Louis Johnathan Wade (170)
85 Seattle Brandon Mebane (165)
86 Baltimore Marshall Yanda (160)
87 Philadelphia Stewart Bradley (155)
88 New Orleans Andy Alleman (150)
89 Green Bay Aaron Rouse (145)
90 Philadelphia Tony Hunt (140)
91 Oakland Mario Henderson (136)

Whom does Belichick trade with? In hindsight, it's easy to say Baltimore or Philadelphia. But why not St. Louis? Why not the Giants? Why not the first pick of Round three? Why not take him at #28? Where is the line drawn saying I'll go this high to get him, but not one pick earlier? Sure, you may like a player and hope he falls to you, but trading up is a gamble, and you better well love the player. Maybe Belichick was looking to trade up two spots but not four, thinking that Bradley might slide and that it wouldn't cost as high a pick to get him. Point is that it's easy to bash management decisions with a posteriori knowledge.

 

[bucky]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Let me throw something out there that hasn't been addressed yet? Why would the Patriots assume the Eagles were going to draft Bradley, and make an effort to get ahead of them. Let's look at part of the third round:

81 N.Y. Giants Jay Alford (185 points on trade chart)
82 Kansas City Tank Tyler (180)
83 Carolina Charles Johnson (175)
84 St. Louis Johnathan Wade (170)
85 Seattle Brandon Mebane (165)
86 Baltimore Marshall Yanda (160)
87 Philadelphia Stewart Bradley (155)
88 New Orleans Andy Alleman (150)
89 Green Bay Aaron Rouse (145)
90 Philadelphia Tony Hunt (140)
91 Oakland Mario Henderson (136)

Whom does Belichick trade with? In hindsight, it's easy to say Baltimore or Philadelphia. But why not St. Louis? Why not the Giants? Why not the first pick of Round three? Why not take him at #28? Where is the line drawn saying I'll go this high to get him, but not one pick earlier? Sure, you may like a player and hope he falls to you, but trading up is a gamble, and you better well love the player. Maybe Belichick was looking to trade up two spots but not four, thinking that Bradley might slide and that it wouldn't cost as high a pick to get him. Point is that it's easy to bash management decisions with a posteriori knowledge.

Well he couldn't have traded with Baltimore, because Baltimore traded all the way up from 101 to 86. Surely, if BB wanted to, he could have moved up from 91 with his 2 6th rounders. Personally, I'm shocked and disappointed that he didn't.