Why Pats Will Not Trade Down

[maverick4]

The Pats have a higher chance of trading up than they do trading down for more #'s of picks.

When teams are mediocre to poor in terms of talent, that is when you want to accumulate a bunch of draft picks to improve your team, in the hopes that you draft well. The Pats traded for future picks (at more value than pre-trade) and traded down in the past, because the roster had non-elite talent at multiple positions.

When a team is already Superbowl caliber-level, with great depth pretty much everywhere except at one or two spots, it's less about having picks just to have picks, but to find that top shelf talent that will complete your team.

If I were to bet on what Piolichick do, it will be to use their first 3 picks on positions that are either:
- A need like an offensive tackle, linebacker, or corner
- A need one year from now, like at defensive end, or linebacker.

I would not be surprised if they spend #7 on a player like Albert, and plug him in at RT or LT.

[edit] After thinking about it some more, another option is, since the roster is so deep already, to maybe trade for a 2009 high pick.

 

[Metaphors]

Or trade down and use the additional picks to move up some other picks. I continue to contend that the sweet spot in this draft is between 15 and 50. The Pats currently have no picks in this range. Trade down from #7 to improve overall draft positioning...not accumulate picks.

 

[patchick]

OK, I'll bite!

When a team is already Superbowl caliber-level, with great depth pretty much everywhere except at one or two spots, it's less about having picks just to have picks, but to find that top shelf talent that will complete your team.

If I were to bet on what Piolichick do, it will be to use their first 3 picks on positions that are either:
- A need like an offensive tackle, linebacker, or corner
- A need one year from now, like at defensive end, or linebacker.

Based on the analysis above, I conclude that the Patriots will...trade down.

A trade down from #7 will yield an exchange of 2nds or an extra 3rd, allowing the Patriots to maneuver for 2 elite, impact players in the top 45 picks.

 

[Pats726]

I think they MAY trade down...but if they have a chance at an elite pick that they REALLY LIKE..they will not...what WILL be interesting is if a player like Gholston is available...whether they will snatch him up OR not...

 

[BelichickFan]

Even top teams need an influx of young talent. From last year we have Meriweather. Also Welker counts as he's sort of young. And Richardson as a longshot.

Other than that nothing.

If we want this to continue for the next 7-8 years we need more young talent coming in - and soon.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The Pats have a higher chance of trading up than they do trading down for more #'s of picks.

When teams are mediocre to poor in terms of talent, that is when you want to accumulate a bunch of draft picks to improve your team, in the hopes that you draft well. The Pats traded for future picks (at more value than pre-trade) and traded down in the past, because the roster had non-elite talent at multiple positions.

When a team is already Superbowl caliber-level, with great depth pretty much everywhere except at one or two spots, it's less about having picks just to have picks, but to find that top shelf talent that will complete your team.

If I were to bet on what Piolichick do, it will be to use their first 3 picks on positions that are either:
- A need like an offensive tackle, linebacker, or corner
- A need one year from now, like at defensive end, or linebacker.

I would not be surprised if they spend #7 on a player like Albert, and plug him in at RT or LT.

[edit] After thinking about it some more, another option is, since the roster is so deep already, to maybe trade for a 2009 high pick.

I really have a strange feeling that Albert will be the pick at #7. I was thinking about it last night, though BOTH the offense AND the defense are at fault for the SB loss, we certainly have a super potent offense. If we had an offensive line that could have kept Brady upright in the SB, there is no doubt we would have scored 25+ points, and won the game. I would NOT be upset with Albert or Clady at #7, the offense might truly be unstoppable with either on the O-Line. If Gholsten is still there, that would be a different story, I'd be upset if they went O-line if he's still there.

 

[mcsully]

not to spoil the theory but the pats aren't built for 1 year or 1 player.. An injection of multiple quantity young players is going to cause them to drop back and acquire an additional pick.

 

[bakes781]

[edit] After thinking about it some more, another option is, since the roster is so deep already, to maybe trade for a 2009 high pick.

There's no guarantee that it will be a high pick though. The Pats got very lucky with the 49ers having a down year. I can't seem them rolling the dice again unless it's with the Raiders who are a lock to be picking in the top 5 again next year. lol

 

[DaBruinz]

The Pats have a higher chance of trading up than they do trading down for more #'s of picks.

When teams are mediocre to poor in terms of talent, that is when you want to accumulate a bunch of draft picks to improve your team, in the hopes that you draft well. The Pats traded for future picks (at more value than pre-trade) and traded down in the past, because the roster had non-elite talent at multiple positions.

When a team is already Superbowl caliber-level, with great depth pretty much everywhere except at one or two spots, it's less about having picks just to have picks, but to find that top shelf talent that will complete your team.

If I were to bet on what Piolichick do, it will be to use their first 3 picks on positions that are either:
- A need like an offensive tackle, linebacker, or corner
- A need one year from now, like at defensive end, or linebacker.

I would not be surprised if they spend #7 on a player like Albert, and plug him in at RT or LT.

[edit] After thinking about it some more, another option is, since the roster is so deep already, to maybe trade for a 2009 high pick.

There is a major flaw in your theory. That the only reason a team trades down is because they are bad. And last year is a perfect example. The Pats traded DOWN or with most of their day 1 picks last year.

The fact is that good teams trade for VALUE and if that value comes from having several players who you can develop while you still have excellent players in front of them, it allows you to not be held hostage to those excellent players when contract come around and it allows you to minimize the loss of one of those players to injury.

 

[maverick4]

There is a major flaw in your theory. That the only reason a team trades down is because they are bad. And last year is a perfect example. The Pats traded DOWN or with most of their day 1 picks last year.

Well that confirms what I said in my later edit, about how teams stacked in talent may trade for a 2009 pick, but not trade down for more picks.

 

[JoePats]

It depends on the player you're passing up. If some team is picking 15th has a top-ten grade on a player who falls to them, then they will not trade out, they'll stay and take the player.

But if they only have top-20 grades on 12 players, and they're all off the board, then they'll trade down.

Making a blanket statement creates problems in my opinion.

For example, in the Pats case this year, C Long, Gholston, Dorsey (and the off-the-board Jake Long) are the guys I would take at #7. Matt Ryan too but we have a QB. So if those 3 guys are on the board, sign me up (or trade up for C Long and you won't get a complaint from me). But if none of those three are available, I'd just as soon trade down.

But it depends on who is available.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Clearly they stand pat and take their Punter of the future at #7.

 

[jbb9s]

[edit] After thinking about it some more, another option is, since the roster is so deep already, to maybe trade for a 2009 high pick.

Hmmm.....lets get this straight.....and I do in advance realize I am pretty skeptical -

Branch holds out. Branch is traded to Seattle for a pick the following year. Patriots can't win the super bowl because their wide receivers suck to league worse proportions they lose to the Colts by literally one play.

The Branch pick is used but the NE pick is traded to the following year. The Patriots can't win the super bowl and lose to the other Manning brother by literally one play.

Now I would say that.....big gasp.....either year the Patriots used their #1 pick or at least traded for current year compensation, they probably have at least 1 more superbowl.

So for this reason alone, I do not want to see them defer this pick as you have suggested. Wouldn't want to see them lose the superbowl by 1 play again.

 

[JoeShmoe]

I really have a strange feeling that Albert will be the pick at #7. I was thinking about it last night, though BOTH the offense AND the defense are at fault for the SB loss, we certainly have a super potent offense. If we had an offensive line that could have kept Brady upright in the SB, there is no doubt we would have scored 25+ points, and won the game. I would NOT be upset with Albert or Clady at #7, the offense might truly be unstoppable with either on the O-Line. If Gholsten is still there, that would be a different story, I'd be upset if they went O-line if he's still there.

I agree. I think it has be an OL first pick whether we stay there or trade down to the 10-13 range

Tom Brady is THE most important part of this team, The NYG have showed the rest of the league how to beat the pats or pressure them - no-one is going to try and go man on man in the secondary like Jacksonville did. Next year each and every HC is going to send rush and blitz packages from everywhere. To that end you have to shore up the right side of that line meaning either Albert at Guard or Clady at Tackle and letting Kazcur play one or the other. It also improves the running game which I think we need to see more of this year to get some balance back in the offense

Unless Gholston is there at #7 which is unlikely I think we either reach a little for Albert at 7 or trade with a Carlioina or similar down to 10-13 and go for Clady or even Otah

We can then pick up a decent CB and LB's in the 2nd and 3rd

 

[DarrylS]

Here is what I do not get, the Pats are based on a classic meritocracy, you get what you deserve when you show it on the field.

So for example, both of our lines are signed long term(except for Wilfork), and all the salaries have home town discounts and are cap friendly. #7 pick comes up and we pick up Gholston, Clady or Albert.. it throws everything out of whack, as we will wind up paying this draftee the same amount as the highest paid member of either side of the ball.. it seems inconsistent with how this team works and why they work well together.

Does not make sense to me, what makes sense is trading this pick for a couple of #2's one this year and one next and picking up a more cap friendly player..

 

[JoeShmoe]

Here is what I do not get, the Pats are based on a classic meritocracy, you get what you deserve when you show it on the field.

So for example, both of our lines are signed long term(except for Wilfork), and all the salaries have home town discounts and are cap friendly. #7 pick comes up and we pick up Gholston, Clady or Albert.. it throws everything out of whack, as we will wind up paying this draftee the same amount as the highest paid member of either side of the ball.. it seems inconsistent with how this team works and why they work well together.

Does not make sense to me, what makes sense is trading this pick for a couple of #2's one this year and one next and picking up a more cap friendly player..

What are the quality of OL in this years draft? Who's likely to be around late first, early second that could do some sort ofi job on the right side? FWIW I can see us trading for a 2009 1st as well

 

[Pats726]

Here is what I do not get, the Pats are based on a classic meritocracy, you get what you deserve when you show it on the field.

So for example, both of our lines are signed long term(except for Wilfork), and all the salaries have home town discounts and are cap friendly. #7 pick comes up and we pick up Gholston, Clady or Albert.. it throws everything out of whack, as we will wind up paying this draftee the same amount as the highest paid member of either side of the ball.. it seems inconsistent with how this team works and why they work well together.

Does not make sense to me, what makes sense is trading this pick for a couple of #2's one this year and one next and picking up a more cap friendly player..

That might be a good reason for a trade...and if they DO pick at 7..it has to be a player who is totally worthy of getting that cash..but I agree THIS will need to be dealt with. Am thinking that more and more they will trade down...this dynamic has really not been discussed..

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

My draft "needs" for this draft are LB, CB, S, WR, and TE in that order. I would like to identify a replacement to develop behind Hochstein who is still a good reserve Center, but looked to be struggling at times as a Guard.

Trading back to accumulate additional picks would achieve my goals more surely than trading up or "settling" for an OL carrying draftnik/draft pundit first round grades.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

My draft "needs" for this draft are LB, CB, S, WR, and TE in that order. I would like to identify a replacement to develop behind Hochstein who is still a good reserve Center, but looked to be struggling at times as a Guard.

Trading back to accumulate additional picks would achieve my goals more surely than trading up or "settling" for an OL carrying draftnik/draft pundit first round grades.

But we don't draft for need, yours or ours. LB is simply not going to be a position Bill drafts for to fill fan need because his guys are conversion projects and you don't draft those at #7. The value corners are projected in the early second through early third rounds. The top corners all have holes that make taking them in the top ten not a good value. This is a fairly deep draft except at S, WR, TE where there is really little perceived talent.

At the very top of this draft there was no clear cut #1. In reality there are a handful of #5's and a handful of #10's in the top 10 before the players start all grading out to late 1st early 2nd. I think if you pick at 7 you perhaps reach a bit unless you can trade down. But given the circumstances you may not be able to trade down for even reasonable value unless a team behind you is hung up on a need they are fearful someone between you and them is also hung up on. So you better be prepared to select a player at #7 who will start in 2008 and to do that he has to have a position. Among the starting 22 there are only a handful of positions that do not have a virtual incumbant lock where a draftee does not project as an upgrade at starter. CB, FS, ILB, OG, OT. The Pat's are said to not have a top ten grade on any CB, there are no Safeties or ILB graded that highly on any boards, there are/were 3 OL - Long, Albert, Clady. Long is long gone to BB's mentor, Clady's stock is wobbly, Albert's has been steadily rising. Mayock and Lombardi, two guys who worked with Bill, have pegged Albert IF they cannot trade down to get the late 1st/early second round picks that would open up another whole value avenue. There are also DL who likely grade out in BB's top ten at their positions. But he has no spot for them on this team except as potential conversion to OLB projects in a 3-4 or as backups or rotational players. You can't draft those at #7 because of the contract impact. You imply that Bill would not have an OL graded in this top ten, only some draftnik/pundit would - but would you feel differently if you knew he in fact did? Or do you just want what you want...

BTW did you happen to read unoriginals sticky thread while you were on hiatus... As of today if we re-played the Giants again tomorrow with the same personnel knowing what was coming I'm not sure we could alter the outcome. I think the defense could still hold them to 17 and maybe even 14 by not giving up that first, long, FG drive, but the offense would still not be able to muster more than 14 because that OL got run over and they did not have an existing answer for the Giants front 4 alone.

Brady's been getting beat up for a long time now. He generally manages to overcome it. But there are limits to his endurance.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Here is what I do not get, the Pats are based on a classic meritocracy, you get what you deserve when you show it on the field.

So for example, both of our lines are signed long term(except for Wilfork), and all the salaries have home town discounts and are cap friendly. #7 pick comes up and we pick up Gholston, Clady or Albert.. it throws everything out of whack, as we will wind up paying this draftee the same amount as the highest paid member of either side of the ball.. it seems inconsistent with how this team works and why they work well together.

Does not make sense to me, what makes sense is trading this pick for a couple of #2's one this year and one next and picking up a more cap friendly player..

By that logic we would never draft a top tier college talent for fear of upsetting someone's apple cart. That makes no sense. Is there a problem with the way the league allows for rookie compensation? Unless you are a rookie, absolutely. But as Bill would say it is what it is, a league wide problem. It's better value and better locker room psychology to draft players who have yet to set foot on the NFL field as something less than multi-millionaires. But the need for talent and playmakers trumps that. Especially when IYO the last draft was so shallow you all but traded out of it. Just as it trumps the resentment when outsiders (FA) who have never taken a snap in this system get the big bucks while incumbant home growns do not. We've done that, and tried to more often than we've succeeded, too. Talent is usually the arbitor making those decisions - if existing talent isn't making the plays we have to go get playmakers and that can cost some money. And players learn to live with it as long as the new guy delivers sufficient bang for his bucks. That is why you could pay for a top tier OG or OT to man the right side. But a backup or rotational or developmental player? That WOULD create a problem.