2011 trade down from #28... how does it look?
 

Does anyone feel any remorse over the trade down, last year, from #28? With the pick, the Saints drafted Mark Ingram. The trade netted us Vereen (2011) who will be competing for the starting job this year, and the #27 pick. 27 plus our third rounder (Cinci used it on DT Brandon Thompson) turned into Chandler Jones.

So, the full value of the series of trades is in, now:

Mark Ingram + Brandon Thompson... in exchange for... Shane Vereen + Chandler Jones

- Ingram may/may not be a better RB than Vereen. We'll know by the end of this season.
- Thompson was one that would be a solid fit as a 3-4 DE for the Pats-- competition for Ron Brace.
- Jones sounds like a rare prospect at DE/OLB.

With the full benefit of hindsight, which side of this trade would you take, today?

Re: 2011 trade down from #28... how does it look?
 

I loved watching Vereen at Cal, so I'm probably higher on him than most. He had hamstring issues last year, but I think he could come in and surprise a lot of people this season. In any case, none of these guys has really proven anything, but of the four players I think that Jones is by far the best prospect, so I'm a fan of it.

Re: 2011 trade down from #28... how does it look?
 

Like the trade in hindsight, but didn't like it at the time. I wanted them to draft Cameron Heyward like Pitt did, and trade #33 instead.

Vereen is almost a complete unknown, and I find it strange (despite hamstring issues) that he had so little playing time. Would Torry Smith have been a better pick there? I think so (with hindsight).

But getting Chandler Jones seems to make up for this. Looks like a tremendous prospect. Vereen panning out will be gravy.

Good trade, and bet New Orleans would take it back if they could.

Re: 2011 trade down from #28... how does it look?
 

Could they of used last years pick to draft a much needed defender, that maybe could of made a play in the SB when it counted?

We'll never know.

It is what it is.

Hope Vereen stays out of the Tub and the future looks bright for Jones.

Re: 2011 trade down from #28... how does it look?
 

I'm always a sucker for tracking trade paths! But I can't imagine the Patriots would have been interested in Ingram at #28 -- in fact, Ivan Fears even said as much. So I'm not sure that's the right way to do this particular comparison.

Personally, I liked the trade fine then and I still have no reason to complain.

Re: 2011 trade down from #28... how does it look?
 

Instead of Ingram, we could have drafted Muhammad Wilkerson at #28, or Cameron Hayward. Would either of them have been the difference maker in the Superbowl? Going into 2012, I would rather take the bet on Chandler Jones than either of them. My impression is that the ceiling on Jones is much higher.

Re: 2011 trade down from #28... how does it look?
 

I loved the Vereen pick - he was my favorite RB prospect for the Pats in the 2011 draft, and still I think he will be a stud for us; I wasn't high on Ingram as a fit for us at all - but Cam Jordan was my binky for 2011. I wasn't upset when we took Nate Solder at 17, because getting a potential franchise LT at that position had more value. But when Jordan slipped past 20 I was hoping that the Pats would trade UP from 28 to get both Jordan and Solder. I thought that Jordan was a versatile weapon who had the size and length (6'4" 287#) and athleticism to play 4-3 DE, 3-4 DE, move inside to 4-3 DT at times, and play the elephant. I would have given up a 3rd or 4th round pick to trade up from 28 to the 21-24 range to take Jordan. So I was a bit disappointed when he didn't do that, though I was happy with the Vereen pick, and even though that kind of trade up probably would have cost us a 3rd round pick.

In retrospect, by trading back we got Vereen, kept all of our 3rd round picks, and then traded up this year to get Chandler Jones, who like Cam Jordan in 2011 is a versatile weapon with the size and length (6' 5 1/2" 266#, but with the frame to add 15-20 lbs.) and athleticism to play 4-3 DE, occasionally 3-4 DE or move inside to DT on passing downs, and lay the elephant. Jordan probably had a higher floor than Jones, but Jones probably has a higher ceiling. So all things considered, I'm pretty happy with that trade.

Re: 2011 trade down from #28... how does it look?
 

I absolutely would, as disappointing as Vereen's injury plagued rookie year was there's still plenty of hope for him and I love Jones. More importantly I have no doubt Belichick would - whether we think Thompson would be a good 3-4 DE for us or not, Belichick couldn't have been too high on him taking Bequette two picks ahead of him. We didn't take any DL like Thompson yet we still passed on him late in the third.

Re: 2011 trade down from #28... how does it look?
 

As others have said, instead of using Ingram/Thompson in the comparison, it would be better to use BPA, or at least the player most likely to be picked by the Patriots. Maybe that extra pick puts us over the top in last year's Superbowl. At the time I was thinking Jabal Sheard at either 28 or 33. Plus it's not an apples-to-apples comparison because having a player for an extra is always more valuable.

Re: 2011 trade down from #28... how does it look?
 

Wilkerson's a player, or he was as a rookie. Time will tell for sure, but the Patriots certainly could have used Wilkerson last year.