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

[Deus Irae]

Deus there is no way you can be proven right or wrong as to if Wilkerson woudl have made a difference in that game (i think your just stiring a bit here).

I'm not stirring. I was just saying that it's possible that he might have, which is more than Vereen was able to do. We're obviously dealing with the unknown here.

But I do agree the comparison shouldn't be to Ingram it should be to Player X who we may have taken (maybe we would have taken Ras-I at 28?) versus Vereen and Jones (you can throw in the draft pick if you wish).

I didn't choose the player, though. Rook Boston mentioned two of them, and I just pointed to the first one as an example. The unknown possibility of help in the Super Bowl would be true with Heyward, too.

I do agree that it's generally only fair to talk about the trade in terms of direct returns, player for player, player for pick, etc..., and not for follow up players and picks or for guesses about who'd have been chosen.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Regardless of the players taken, that trade is a no brainer. I'd take it every time.

 

[Banjo]

It was good for us and good for the Saints. They would have surely lost that first rounder anyway because of bountygate.

In retrospect the Saints might have overpaid. It would cost less because of the trade frenzy this year

 

[BelichickFan]

The Patriots can/could always re-sign the draft pick they didn't make. That year gone is part of the opportunity cost that went into the deal. Had Vereen been worth anything, it wouldn't be an issue, but he gave the team essentially nothing. That means that not making the trade, and taking Wilkerson, would have given the no-trade side an extra year of football that can never be gotten back.

I guess "opportunity cost" is the new buzzword that all the cool kids use.

There was a non zero probability the player we would have drafted would have helped win the super bowl. There was also a non zero probability the player would have cost us the AFCCG, that was so close there's no way to know what would have happened if a different player missed significant minutes. I am confident in saying that the chance of a different player playing 30+ snaps would have had as much chance to cost us the AFCCG as it would have done to win the SB.

We also are playing with basically the worst case scenario and the trade still looks good to me. Why worst case ? Vereen was hurt and the Saints had a good year, only 5 picks from the last. As expected but when you trade for another team's #1 there's the chance the QB gets hurt and you suddenly have a top 15 pick. Didn't happen but the non zero probability of that chance has to be factored in.

 

[IllegalContact]

It's tough to say moving forward but, one thing we can say is that Wilkerson might have been the difference between a SB win and the loss this past season, while Vereen and the pick this year certainly weren't any help.

my thinking is that brooks reed would have made a bigger difference

the DL play was not why this team lost the SB

 

[mayoclinic]

I think one key in weighing that is that Wilkerson was a hot choice here because fans were looking for a 5-tech. Similarly, Kendall Reyes was the hot pick at 48 this year because fans were looking for a 5-tech. But since the Pats traded Seymour, they shown no inclination to restock with 5-techs. If they're not building around that style of defensive front, that affects Wilkerson's value.

I think that's a fair question. But at 6'4" 315# Wilkerson certainly had good size for a DT coming out of college, and he could have played inside as well. In that way I see him as being closer to Michael Brockers this year than to Kendall Reyes, though without quite the same upside as Brockers.

 

[Daigle]

I agree with Deuce on the alternative cost. Although one can always argue how much for example Wilkerson would have contributed the "cost" is always there.

I think you see the cost actually when teams trade. The value of picking a 2nd rounder in this draft equals the value of picking a 1st in the next one. Theres always a cost of not picking a player and trading the pick away. In this case I think BB made all the right moves or atleast very close too.

 

[BelichickFan]

I agree with Deuce on the alternative cost. Although one can always argue how much for example Wilkerson would have contributed the "cost" is always there.

It's evened out on the last year of the contract. We'll have Jones a year longer than we would have had Wilkerson (to pick a name).

Wilkerson could be re-signed you say ? Sure but if he's a good player he re-signs for a lot more money and costs a lot more on the cap than Jones does in his last. The value of a draft choice is (hopefully) top play at relatively low dollars. Once they re-sign for bigger dollars they aren't a bargain anymore. What's the "opportunity cost" of the extra cap space because Jones is in his last year of his rookie contract when Wilkerson is in the first year of his non rookie contract ?

 

[WhiZa]

Ingram wouldn't of been a good fit on the Pats with BJGE. Vareen and Ridley both bring the lightning to his thunder. At the time, I dont think the Pats thought he would leave in FA, but now with hindsight Ingram would have been a good fit this year.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

In my mind there's no second round draft in NFL. I am more happy in that way

I certainly wouldn't be happy with no Gronk, no Chung, no Vollmer, I have some hopes for Vereen and Ras-I, and I also can't complain one bit about the careers of Matt Light, Deion Branch, Kevin Faulk, Lawyer Milloy, and Ted Johnson, to name a few.

That's a pretty solid list of 10 players in 17 years all coming in the 2nd round.

You might find another team with a better top 10 list over that same time period (and granted, Vereen and Ras-I haven't done squat yet), but you would have to look very very hard even if you just try to match the 8 that have produced already.

 

[patchick]

Ingram wouldn't of been a good fit on the Pats with BJGE. Vareen and Ridley both bring the lightning to his thunder. At the time, I dont think the Pats thought he would leave in FA, but now with hindsight Ingram would have been a good fit this year.

Hmm, can't agree with you on this. I don't see 5'11" 225-lb. Ridley requiring 5'9" 215-lb. Ingram to be his complementary power back. From what I saw of Ridley, he's awfully hard to bring down inside.

 

[mayoclinic]

Hmm, can't agree with you on this. I don't see 5'11" 225-lb. Ridley requiring 5'9" 215-lb. Ingram to be his complementary power back. From what I saw of Ridley, he's awfully hard to bring down inside.

Ingram also just isn't that good a receiver and doesn't really fit as someone to integrate the running and passing games. Vereen - who is extremely strong and physical for his size and who's 32 reps on the bench press was something like a 10 year high for RBs - has much more versatility. Ridley is probably a better receiver than Ingram. Frankly, I didn't understand why the Saints took Ingram, as he doesn't seem to fit into their scheme the way guys like Pierre Thomas and Darren Sproles do.

Although it hasn't been officially announced by the team or reported in the local media, NEPatriotsDraft is reporting that the Pats have signed UDFA RB Brandon Bolden out of Mississippi. Bolden has nice size (5'11" 222#), athleticism (38" vertical, 6.96 3-cone) and receiving skills (76 receptions in college). He's more versatile and athletic than BJGE, and would be a nice back up to Ridley.

 

[patchick]

Although it hasn't been officially announced by the team or reported in the local media, NEPatriotsDraft is reporting that the Pats have signed UDFA RB Brandon Bolden out of Mississippi.

Huh, I thought he signed with Washington? I'd be glad to have him, though.

 

[mayoclinic]

Huh, I thought he signed with Washington? I'd be glad to have him, though.

A piece form the Bleacher Report claimed that Brandon Bolden signed with Washington a few days ago, and a bunch of people repeated it without verification. However, it appears that they confused this with the Redskins signing WR Kevin Bolden out of Southern Mississippi. Besides NEPatriotsDraft, the New York Times has reported that the Pats have signed Brandon Bolden:

Giants, Jets and a Few Final Words on the Draft - NYTimes.com

Right now there has been no official announcement of Bolden's status by the league, so I'm taking a "wait and see approach". BTW, Reamer picked this up way ahead of me - like you, it snuck under my radar.

 

[patchick]

A piece form the Bleacher Report claimed that Brandon Bolden signed with Washington a few days ago, and a bunch of people repeated it without verification. However, it appears that they confused this with the Redskins signing WR Kevin Bolden out of Southern Mississippi. Besides NEPatriotsDraft, the New York Times has reported that the Pats have signed Brandon Bolden

Thanks, that would be good news! Kind of a BJGE type, but a bit more of a threat in the passing game. Seems like a perfect understudy to keep around on the practice squad.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's evened out on the last year of the contract. We'll have Jones a year longer than we would have had Wilkerson (to pick a name).

Wilkerson could be re-signed you say ? Sure but if he's a good player he re-signs for a lot more money and costs a lot more on the cap than Jones does in his last. The value of a draft choice is (hopefully) top play at relatively low dollars. Once they re-sign for bigger dollars they aren't a bargain anymore. What's the "opportunity cost" of the extra cap space because Jones is in his last year of his rookie contract when Wilkerson is in the first year of his non rookie contract ?

I'm sorry, but your take here is simply incorrect. If both players are players, the money will kick in with both, and the money means nothing. The lost year of play, in a SB season, can never be gotten back.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

I guess "opportunity cost" is the new buzzword that all the cool kids use.

There was a non zero probability the player we would have drafted would have helped win the super bowl. There was also a non zero probability the player would have cost us the AFCCG, that was so close there's no way to know what would have happened if a different player missed significant minutes. I am confident in saying that the chance of a different player playing 30+ snaps would have had as much chance to cost us the AFCCG as it would have done to win the SB.

We also are playing with basically the worst case scenario and the trade still looks good to me. Why worst case ? Vereen was hurt and the Saints had a good year, only 5 picks from the last. As expected but when you trade for another team's #1 there's the chance the QB gets hurt and you suddenly have a top 15 pick. Didn't happen but the non zero probability of that chance has to be factored in.

I was thinking the same thing. An undrafted rookie kept the Ravens out of the big show. You can make the argument that if Dowling never got hurt and was covering Evans on that play, we're not even in the Super Bowl.

As you said, you have to aknowledge a rookie making a mistake that could lead to a loss (in games that were so close) just as much as making a play that leads to a win.

 

[patchick]

I'm sorry, but your take here is simply incorrect. If both players are players, the money will kick in with both, and the money means nothing. The lost year of play, in a SB season, can never be gotten back.

Deus, there's something messed up here. You're essentially saying that drafting a player this year gets you another year of value, long-term, versus drafting a player next year. It just doesn't add up.

 

[patchick]

There was a non zero probability the player we would have drafted would have helped win the super bowl. There was also a non zero probability the player would have cost us the AFCCG, that was so close there's no way to know what would have happened if a different player missed significant minutes. I am confident in saying that the chance of a different player playing 30+ snaps would have had as much chance to cost us the AFCCG as it would have done to win the SB.

Well said. And on top of that, there was a distinctly non-zero probability that if the Pats used both firsts last year they would have traded away later picks, so a "luxury" like 2 RBs wouldn't have happened and they wouldn't have had Steven Ridley last year. None of these decisions take place in a vacuum.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus, there's something messed up here. You're essentially saying that drafting a player this year gets you another year of value, long-term, versus drafting a player next year. It just doesn't add up.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the trade led to what was there last year: A useless player taken with the second round draft pick. Because Vereen was useless, a year of the pick (Wilkerson was cited as an example) was lost with nothing gained in return. Had Vereen been worth a damn, there wouldn't be an issue. Because Vereen was as worthless as (insert comparison here), the trade is already (in theory) a year behind the 8-ball, and that year can't be made up. We have no idea what that pick might have done had it been chosen, but we know what we got from Vereen, which was essentially nothing.