Pats wanted Stewart Bradley? [merged]

[Box_O_Rocks]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

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

Yes, they provide the "potential" for long term value, if the players selected meet expectations for their place in the draft. People keep trying to compare draft picks to an investment portfolio, but the value of a draft pick is not dividends, it is the buy order during the draft, that player selected dictates value.

No player at #28 offered 5-year, multi-million dollar value to the current Patriots' roster, so the team rolled the dice and took an IOU for 2008. The odds are good that it will lead to an earlier pick in 2008, but SF could still surprise and achieve a 12-4 record reducing the potential of that IOU. The dice are still rolling and we won't know if this gamble paid off until after the player gets on the field.

You choose to believe Oakland's 2008 third round pick offers more value than Bradley at #91, BB apparently didn't think so. Whether he gambled and chose to not bundle picks to select him earlier, or was unable to find a trade partner, the two things we "know" are BB wanted Bradley at #91, and that your beloved 2008 pick was "second fiddle" in the mind of our football genius. I have to accept that for the #110 selection that I dislike, you might wish to stop counting non-existent future dividends and do the same.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

You choose to believe Oakland's 2008 third round pick offers more value than Bradley at #91, BB apparently didn't think so.

As I've said, I fully believe that Belichick thinks he got better value doing what he did. We know he thought it was a bad draft, that's clear. And we will almost certainly move up half a round next year. Half (+) a round higher in what's probably a stronger draft is better value.

Which leaves me to answer to the supposed groan when Bradley was picked. Again, as previously stated, I believe they decided to take the player to fill a need despite the loss in value. It is 100% believable that Belichick thinks that long term this deal gets us better value but was willing to take that hit on value to get a player who can help at a position of need.

So go ahead and continue to argue that Bradley would have been an excellent pick and that we should have traded up for him - but don't make it a value argument because that's a poor argument IMO. Use the need/good fit argument instead.

 

[patfanken]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

In my mind looking at the players we landed with the picks we used (leaving out Moss and Welker) I gave the Pats a D. Getting Bradley would have moved it up to a B.

Bradley is versatile enough to play ILB or OLB and was one of the best fits for their defense.The first day haul would have addressed their 2 biggest needs (ILB/OLB and S/CB).

Giving up a 6th rounder or 7th rounder seems like a no brainer especially with some of the immortal players we drafted in those rounds. They have no one to blame but themselves, the whole purpose of having 10+ picks is being able to move around to land the players you like, not to stockpile 6th rounders to take players who will get cut in training camp.

Of course they know what they are doing but the ILB unit lacked quality depth last year (and the year before) and in both cases the depth was exposed as the season progressed.

You make it seem as if all the Pats had to do was move up and grab him. We don't know that they didn't try and couldn't find anyone who would trade with them. We don't know if they knew that Philly really wanted him. Some times the guys are there when you pick, and sometimes they aren't. Monday morning QBing is easy for us.

 

[patsgo]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

drafting is a gamble sometimes your players fall to you sometimes they dont , if they traded up for everyone they liked they wouldnt have any picks left, they groaned because they thought he was good value at 91

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

So go ahead and continue to argue that Bradley would have been an excellent pick and that we should have traded up for him - but don't make it a value argument because that's a poor argument IMO. Use the need/good fit argument instead.

I don't know that I have made a trade up argument, I might have liked that move, but my own draft day assessment suggested just the same sit and wait policy that we project to have occurred.

As for player value vs. need/fit, BB drafted Hobbs and Kaczur and Gus Scott based on need/fit/value. All were drafted with the roster expectation that they would be quality back-ups who could eventually contest for starting roles. Scott's injuries set him back, both Hobbs and Kaczur have fought through injuries and surprise rookie starts to be solid if not excellent players for the team.

Bradley was not being drafted to start, for that matter neither was Meriweather. If both address(ed) a need, and were considered good fits, then they offer(ed) good value. A projected 2008 pick will be assessed for his own need/fit/value when the selection is executed. The 2008 pick in and of itself is null for need, fit, or value - just ask Mel Kiper.

 

[patchick]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

So go ahead and continue to argue that Bradley would have been an excellent pick and that we should have traded up for him - but don't make it a value argument because that's a poor argument IMO. Use the need/good fit argument instead.

How can you separate need and fit from value? If the Patriots had drafted Brady Quinn at #24 would that have been good "value" for them?

We'll never know the full story, but it appears there was only one player left on the board late in the 3rd round who the Pats felt was worth drafting at all, rather than pushing the pick into next year. By all available evidence, they would have rather had that player than the picks they traded for. Ergo, he was worth more to them. He was valued higher. So what happened? I think there are only three possibilities:

A. Maybe they miscalculated the demand for Bradley. It's all guesswork, after all.

B. Maybe they tried to trade up but failed.

C. Maybe they thought he was easily worth #91, but not worth #91 + a couple of late-round picks.


C is the only way you can argue that they passed on Bradley on a value basis. It's all conjecture, but it's hard for me to believe they valued their late-round picks dearly even as they eagerly shed almost every early pick they had.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

How can you separate need and fit from value? If the Patriots had drafted Brady Quinn at #24 would that have been good "value" for them?

Maybe we just define value differently. I consider value to be the rating of the player. Regardless of need or fit. I think I've been using that term incorrectly compared to the rest of you.

All I'm saying is that if the same person gives a numerical rating to players through the years that the player we get next year will very likely have a higher score than Bradley. For pure ability. To me that makes the player next year of higher value. And, yes, if Quinn were there at #24 he would be a great value - trade value but value nontheless.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Maybe we just define value differently. I consider value to be the rating of the player. Regardless of need or fit. I think I've been using that term incorrectly compared to the rest of you.

All I'm saying is that if the same person gives a numerical rating to players through the years that the player we get next year will very likely have a higher score than Bradley. For pure ability. To me that makes the player next year of higher value. And, yes, if Quinn were there at #24 he would be a great value - trade value but value nontheless.

Definitions are a lot of fun.

As I understand the Pats' process, they grade a player based on his value to the NEP and compare his grade to the grades of players currently on the roster. Bradley would have been compared to the entire LB corps, including the fearsome foursome whom we project to start. Bradley wouldn't have been compared to a 2008 draft pick, the pick itself has no football grade. He apparently measured up well enough when compared to Bru & Co., after all, Tedy (3rd), Vrabes (4th), and A.D. (6th) graded out about the same or lower for someone.

 

[dryheat44]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

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.

I'm pretty sure all teams had the same opinion of 6th rounders in this draft...they'd rather get rid of them than collect them.

Again, we're putting ourselves in Belichick's shoes armed with knowledge that he didn't have. If the Giants grabbed Bradley at #81, we would be having the same argument that BB obviously didn't value Bradley, because we certainly had the resources to move up 11 slots in the third round to get ahead of the Giants. Belichick, for the purposes of this discussion, was hoping he'd slide down to #91, but it didn't work out that way. He was probably hoping Gaines Adams, Darrelle Revis, or Adam Carriker would fall to #24, but it didn't happen. Yet we don't blast him for not trading up to get them, even though he certainly could have done so.

If Reiss doesn't report that groaning took place, this isn't even a discussion.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

If Reiss doesn't report that groaning took place, this isn't even a discussion.

Reiss! :enranged:

Why can't he be more like troll favorite ______________ ?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

I'm pretty sure all teams had the same opinion of 6th rounders in this draft...they'd rather get rid of them than collect them.

Again, we're putting ourselves in Belichick's shoes armed with knowledge that he didn't have. If the Giants grabbed Bradley at #81, we would be having the same argument that BB obviously didn't value Bradley, because we certainly had the resources to move up 11 slots in the third round to get ahead of the Giants. Belichick, for the purposes of this discussion, was hoping he'd slide down to #91, but it didn't work out that way. He was probably hoping Gaines Adams, Darrelle Revis, or Adam Carriker would fall to #24, but it didn't happen. Yet we don't blast him for not trading up to get them, even though he certainly could have done so.

If Reiss doesn't report that groaning took place, this isn't even a discussion.

But there is a significant difference between BB moving up to get Carriker et al. and moving up to get Bradley: there's no significant difference in $$ paid to move up from 91 to 86, while moving from 24 to 20 even would cost on the order of $1M.

In any case, though, it's a question of relative value, not absolute value. It's not that he didn't value Bradley, it's that he didn't value Bradley enough to go after him at all costs. [If, for example, BB viewed Bradley as an absolute must-have player, he could have taken Dallas' 2-and-2 offer and taken him in the second.]

 

[patchick]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

If, for example, BB viewed Bradley as an absolute must-have player, he could have taken Dallas' 2-and-2 offer and taken him in the second.

Hey, no fair introducing new, useful ideas to this discussion! It interrupts the rhythm of our did-not, did-too!

:bricks:

Yeah, it's a good reminder that BB/SP really did think this draft was crap. I wouldn't even be harping on Bradley if the Reiss tidbit hadn't brought up flashbacks of me sitting in front of the tv in the middle of the 3rd round shouting "trade up for Bradley! trade up for Bradley!" Hey, at least that means I can't be accused of criticizing a posteriori--I did want the trade ahead of time. You might, though accuse me of harboring an idee fixe.
linebackerlinebackerlinebacker

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

But there is a significant difference between BB moving up to get Carriker et al. and moving up to get Bradley: there's no significant difference in $$ paid to move up from 91 to 86, while moving from 24 to 20 even would cost on the order of $1M.

In any case, though, it's a question of relative value, not absolute value. It's not that he didn't value Bradley, it's that he didn't value Bradley enough to go after him at all costs. [If, for example, BB viewed Bradley as an absolute must-have player, he could have taken Dallas' 2-and-2 offer and taken him in the second.]

Um, "at all costs?" As far as I can tell, the closest to an "at all costs" move the Pats made in this draft involved increasing their bid for Randy Moss from a 6th to a 4th. I'm not even sure such an argument holds water in past year's trades, certainly franchise players Seymour, and arguably Warren, were inexpensive trade moves. When all the moves are taken in context, this off-season campaign has been the picture of frugality and thrift. Bradley slipped through the Pats' fingers, sucks to be a fan, but making the point that they weren't aggressive enough to land him through extreme trade moves doesn't match with reality.

 

[PonyExpress]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

My take on Bradley: high ceiling + very low floor= significant risk= not a 1st day prospect. His athleticism is impressive, but coupled with marginal college production and an injury history, his value was 2nd day. Nebraska has produced very productive Lbers, like B Ruud, in the recent past, so the D system is not prejudiced against Lber productivity. Bradley was playing behind a very talented D-line which should have provided opportunities for him to make game changing plays. Watching Nebraska he hardly stood out in the way great LBers normally do. Even though they were DEs, Bruschi set the all-time single season NCAA Div I sack record, Vrabel was 1st team All-American and set the OSU single season and all time sack record; IOW, they were college superstars. Vilma was the leader of what should have been a 2-time Champion D and highly productive, D. Ryans as a senior was a TFL machine on the nation's best D. Pro Football Weekly mentions that Bradley was "very productive", but this must have been an oversight. What is undeniable is his athleticism, which is freakish. However, if we were to profile athletes similar to Bradley with equally limited college production, and follow their NFL career trajectory, we would find the results very mixed. This leads me to conclude he was a high risk prospect and worth passing on in Day 1.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

Sorry Ray, but i remember most pundits saying that Branch was a good pick but that it was BETHEL that the Pats reached for. Branch was rated as a mid 2nd rounder. I never saw him rated as anything but.

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.

Ok, now, about this idea that if they like someone they go and get them. This is true. Within reason. The Pats have also stated that they won't OVER-PAY to acquire a player. Also, it has to be considered that the team we are attempting to trade with WANTS to trade with the Pats.

To me, its clear that the Pats attempted to trade up to get Bradley and couldn't swing a deal. Whether it was because they didn't think the asking price was appropriate or because the other teams didn't want to trade, we won't ever know. The idea that the Pats didn't try just doesn't float with me.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

As I've said, I fully believe that Belichick thinks he got better value doing what he did. We know he thought it was a bad draft, that's clear. And we will almost certainly move up half a round next year. Half (+) a round higher in what's probably a stronger draft is better value.

I disagree. I think that BB got the best value that he could get with the 91st pick. Honestly, I think that if Bradley had been on the board, the Pats would have drafted him.

Which leaves me to answer to the supposed groan when Bradley was picked. Again, as previously stated, I believe they decided to take the player to fill a need despite the loss in value. It is 100% believable that Belichick thinks that long term this deal gets us better value but was willing to take that hit on value to get a player who can help at a position of need.

So go ahead and continue to argue that Bradley would have been an excellent pick and that we should have traded up for him - but don't make it a value argument because that's a poor argument IMO. Use the need/good fit argument instead.

No, its not a poor argument. Its a valid argument. Unless you have valid proof that BB did NOT want to trade up for Bradley, you can't says its a poor argument.

Again, there are 2 parties who would be involved in any potential trade. The Pats and anyone else. The breaker is whether or not there was a person willing to trade with the Pats. As was pointed out, Baltimore had just traded up to get Yanda.

In reality, I think that the Pats were rebuffed in their trade attempts to move up and, when they were, they found Oakland to be a willing trade partner and BB felt he got the best value available for the 91st pick.

That doesn't rule out the idea that the Pats may have been trying to move up. And it doesn't rule out that they would have taken Bradley at 91 if he'd fallen to them. Lets remember, the Pats didn't actually make the trade until their time was almost up.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Like I said earlier, I think I was just definint "value" differently. Others consider value to be how much a player can help the Patriots now and in the future. I considered value simply the raw grade a player would get for his talent. Based on my definition I maintain that a "value" argument is a bad one - based on the other definition I can see it. I still say we'll draft someone with the pick next year with a higher raw grade than Bradley but can see someone saying it's a lesser value if it's at a lesser need position.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

My take on Bradley: high ceiling + very low floor= significant risk= not a 1st day prospect. His athleticism is impressive, but coupled with marginal college production and an injury history, his value was 2nd day. Nebraska has produced very productive Lbers, like B Ruud, in the recent past, so the D system is not prejudiced against Lber productivity. Bradley was playing behind a very talented D-line which should have provided opportunities for him to make game changing plays. Watching Nebraska he hardly stood out in the way great LBers normally do. Even though they were DEs, Bruschi set the all-time single season NCAA Div I sack record, Vrabel was 1st team All-American and set the OSU single season and all time sack record; IOW, they were college superstars. Vilma was the leader of what should have been a 2-time Champion D and highly productive, D. Ryans as a senior was a TFL machine on the nation's best D. Pro Football Weekly mentions that Bradley was "very productive", but this must have been an oversight. What is undeniable is his athleticism, which is freakish. However, if we were to profile athletes similar to Bradley with equally limited college production, and follow their NFL career trajectory, we would find the results very mixed. This leads me to conclude he was a high risk prospect and worth passing on in Day 1.

Let's see, the kid comes off an ACL injury to lead his team in tackles, force three fumbles, recover four, garner six TFL, one sack, and five QB Hurries. As a sophomore he finishes second on the team in tackles, has eleven TFL, five QBH, and two PBU. Before tearing his ACL in the fifth game of his junior year he has twenty six TT, three sacks, five TFL, seven QBH, and an interception return for a TD. Still, Reiss reporting the Pats' dismay when Philly drafted him in the third round just proves your point about his second day grade...:nono:

 

[PonyExpress]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Let's see, the kid comes off an ACL injury to lead his team in tackles, force three fumbles, recover four, garner six TFL, one sack, and five QB Hurries. As a sophomore he finishes second on the team in tackles, has eleven TFL, five QBH, and two PBU. Before tearing his ACL in the fifth game of his junior year he has twenty six TT, three sacks, five TFL, seven QBH, and an interception return for a TD. Still, Reiss reporting the Pats' dismay when Philly drafted him in the third round just proves your point about his second day grade...:nono:

It's all relative compared not only with his peers in the current draft class, but with the college careers of currently successful NFL starters. How much of his production came against bottom feeders? How much came against non-BCs schools? Your method of evaluating production and mine obviously differ. If the Pats really wanted Bradley they had every means available to obtain him. Instead they were willing to sit on their thumbs and whistle dixie hoping he or someone else might tumble. (BTW, you may want to recheck the stats you just cited for the sake of accuracy )

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Anybody else struggling with this Stewart Bradley tidbit?

Um, "at all costs?" As far as I can tell, the closest to an "at all costs" move the Pats made in this draft involved increasing their bid for Randy Moss from a 6th to a 4th. I'm not even sure such an argument holds water in past year's trades, certainly franchise players Seymour, and arguably Warren, were inexpensive trade moves. When all the moves are taken in context, this off-season campaign has been the picture of frugality and thrift. Bradley slipped through the Pats' fingers, sucks to be a fan, but making the point that they weren't aggressive enough to land him through extreme trade moves doesn't match with reality.

Box: I think we're actually on the same page. I'm not saying the Pats didn't want him, nor do I think they needed to resort to desperation moves. What I was trying to say is that, apparently, the price that they would have had to pay to move up--assuming they did want to move up, and weren't merely hoping he'd fall to 91--was higher than they were willing to pay. (Yes, it's also possible that no one wanted to trade down, but they had enough ammo to get the job done if they felt it was worth it/needed).

And, as an example of what I mean by "at all costs," I'm thinking of something like the JEST's move to get David Harris, or the Chargers moving up to get Weddle, or the Pats' move to get Chad Jackson; I'm not going to Ricky Williams-type draft moves.