ESPN - New Orleans possible trade partner with Pats

[Water Boy]

From ESPN Insider:

After talking to a person familiar with the New Orleans Saints' draft-planning, it is clear they are actively seeking a reasonable deal to move into the top five. The St. Louis Rams at No. 2 are the primary target as the Saints would like to get Dorsey, and the secondary options include trading up to No. 4 (Oakland), No. 5 (Kansas City) or No. 7 (New England) to get second-rated DT Sedrick Ellis.

 

[LloydBraun]

I see a trade down to gather more rounds 1-3 picks and to save money.

The target????? Quentin Groves

 

[primetime]

In other words, the Saints could trade with anyone as long as one of the top two DTs are available.

 

[VJCPatriot]

In other words, the Saints could trade with anyone as long as one of the top two DTs are available.

Exactly, they covet one of Ellis or Dorsey. To get in the 2-4 range they'd have to give up a 2nd round pick imo. To get to the #7 would only cost their 3rd round pick. So it all depends on how desperate they are and how the draft falls.

 

[fgssand]

I see a trade down to gather more rounds 1-3 picks and to save money.

The target????? Quentin Groves

I love Groves...however, we do not have a lot open spots on our roster to handle a lot of players.

That is what I see as the issue with moving down and accumulating picks.

That said though, a move down to gain two low #1's could bring 1 each of the 2 LB's & 2 CB's that we do indeed need.

 

[rookBoston]

I see a trade down to gather more rounds 1-3 picks and to save money.

The target????? Quentin Groves

I'm not interested in Groves that early. Derrick Harvey, perhaps.
My target would be a CB. Jenkins or Talib.

 

[mgteich]

McKelvin at #10 or Otah; but I want to move up not down.

 

[BelichickFan]

McKelvin at #10 or Otah; but I want to move up not down.

Otah ? Wow. No thanks. Gotta say it : puke (at #10).

 

[NePatriots]

At #10 I think we are looking at Albert/Rivers/McKelvin. Hopefully if we trade down in the 1st, we use the extra picks to fill that hole between 7 and 62. A pick in the 40's would be great.

 

[jeffbiologist]

At #10 I think we are looking at Albert/Rivers/McKelvin. Hopefully if we trade down in the 1st, we use the extra picks to fill that hole between 7 and 62. A pick in the 40's would be great.

Most people agree that there is a dropoff in value after the first 6 picks. If we could swap back with say NO or Car we could still get one of those 3 guys and close that gap between 7 and 62(swap for 10 and 40ish).

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I love Groves...however, we do not have a lot open spots on our roster to handle a lot of players.

That is what I see as the issue with moving down and accumulating picks.

That said though, a move down to gain two low #1's could bring 1 each of the 2 LB's & 2 CB's that we do indeed need.

The reported Player signing hasn't turned up on the Patriots.com roster yet, so the Pats are still 20 players short of the offseason limit of 80. I'd rather see the Pats spend picks picking up more competitive prospects. UDFAs are nice and the Pats have done well with them (and there are some solid kids projected as UDFAs), but it makes more sense to bring in the best available talent if you can accumulate the picks (and some of those picks will be pushed forward to 2009 anyway).