What would have happened if we didn't trade around. 2008 onwards...
 

Listening to PFW from Wednesday, there was talk, again, about the merit in trading down, and the talent you miss out on by doing so.

As such, I went back to the previous 4 drafts, and looked at what would be the difference in talent on the roster had we simply, in every round, taken a player at our designated drafting position.

Of course, you can't say for sure who we would have taken had we not traded, so, for the benefit of simply comparing the talent levels, I take the player who was actually selected in our spot (by our trading partner) as the player we would have taken.

The question is, do you think, on average, the players we ended up with (as a result of extensive trading) are better or worse - from a pure talent perspective - than the ones who were taken in our designated spots?

Notes
1. I have omitted players who we actually selected in our designated spots, as we're only interested in the differences in rosters as a result of trading.
2. Had we not traded, we'd still have Matt Cassel and Richard Seymour, but would not have extra 2012 1st and 2nd round picks. Again, for simplicity, I assume this cancels out.
3. There are other small mistakes due to very low round trades (the likes of Ellis Hobbs and Greg Lewis for example), but I didn't want to keep track of all those players.
4. I include the 2007 trades which resulted in us ultimately getting Mayo in 2008.

Players we would not have (have had), if we didn't trade

Players we would have, if we didn't trade

Re: What would have happened if we didn't trade around. 2008 onwards...
 

Bill Belichick would have gone insane. :(

Re: What would have happened if we didn't trade around. 2008 onwards...
 

I like the idea, but I don't think your list looks right. E.g. you either have to drop Moss or add in the MANY other vets they've traded draft picks for, or picked up draft picks in return for. (And not just "very low round trades" as you suggest -- Welker? Burgess?)

Re: What would have happened if we didn't trade around. 2008 onwards...
 

The OP noted that picks the Pats' original picks, when used, are excluded.

Re: What would have happened if we didn't trade around. 2008 onwards...
 

The only reason I had Moss in there was because Mayo was the first draft pick of the era (2008 ->) I was looking at, and he is only here if we make the San Fran trade to give up Staley, and get both Mayo and Moss back.

I'll try and update with "vets" if I get time too.

edit: checking the Burgess thing, I include the picks they ultimately traded for Burgess on the "we would have had them" list, but don't include Burgess on the "we had them" list. As such, I'll put Burgess on the original list, but I don't think it really changes much.

edit2: the welker trade was all pre-2008, so is not included

Re: What would have happened if we didn't trade around. 2008 onwards...
 

Well a trade that DEFINITELY back-fired without question was the Patriots trading up to select Chad Jackson when the Packers used our original spot to select Greg Jennings.

Not to be a negative Nancy. After all, the OP does make a point.

Re: What would have happened if we didn't trade around. 2008 onwards...
 

The only problem is that I believe this assumes we would have taken the player the drafting team took in that slot. Truth is, had the Patriots kept those picks, they might have taken someone else who was still on the board. Another example is with Mayo. They traded down, and still took the guy they wanted. Had they stood pat, they arguably would have taken Mayo just the same.

What a crap draft that 2009 turned out to be.

Re: What would have happened if we didn't trade around. 2008 onwards...
 

Sure, the question is not "what would the roster look like had they not traded around?" as that's an unanswerable question

The question is "is it harder to find talented players, the more you trade around?"

If you trade up, you pick less players, but they should be, on average, better.

If you trade down, you pick more players, but they should be, on average, worse.

The argument I tend to hear is that the extra players you get from trading down does not compensate for the drop off in talent.

However, the list of players, who were drafted in our positions, but we could not have had as a result of trading, isn't all that impressive.

Nicks and Staley are pro-bowlers, and Oher, Cook, Murphy, Thomas and Ingram all have talent, but various flaws, but I think you have players of that calibre on the roster currently, directly as a result of trading around.

It's a fair way to evaluate, because you're not "cherry picking" the best player they could have picked (clay matthews) knowing how good they turned out to be.

Re: What would have happened if we didn't trade around. 2008 onwards...
 

Is there that much difference in talent between, for example, the late second round and the middle of the third round?

The Patriots just don't seem to draft the players everyone has mocked to them and thinks they should pick. With that, their system works perfectly: they are often trading down in the draft to accumulate more picks while picking the same player they would have picked anyway.

Re: What would have happened if we didn't trade around. 2008 onwards...
 

But where does that logic stop? Is there much difference between the middle of the 3rd and end of the 3rd? Is there much difference between the end of the 3rd and middle of the 4th? If you're saying there isn't, they should always be trading down.

again, you can never say who the player is "they would have picked anyway" as we don't have that information. You don't know whether they lost a player through trading down or not. All we can say is "how talented was the guy who got drafted where they were originally slated to draft?"