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

[BelichickFan]

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.

No, you are incorrect. Sorry.

If Wilkerson and Jones both sign 4 year deals then Wilkerson is a FA after 2014 and Jones is after 2015.

The 2015 season Jones is still playing for his cheap rookie contract. Wilkerson, assuming he is resigned, will be playing for a lot more. That difference in money also represents a lost "opportunity cost".

 

[mayoclinic]

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.

Who knows what we would have gotten from Wilkerson? Just because the Jets got a 16 game starter who produced 49 tackles, 3 sacks and a forced fumble doesn't mean the Pats would have. Wilkerson could have held out and/or gotten injured like Vereen did, and BB might have been slow to put him in the lineup. Meanwhile, Vereen could have done something entirely different as a rookie with another team.

It's just all useless speculation.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, you are incorrect. Sorry.

If Wilkerson and Jones both sign 4 year deals then Wilkerson is a FA after 2014 and Jones is after 2015.

The 2015 season Jones is still playing for his cheap rookie contract. Wilkerson, assuming he is resigned, will be playing for a lot more. That difference in money also represents a lost "opportunity cost".

1.) You ignore Vereen

2.) You claim money as an opportunity cost when it's not one of any consequence.

Again, you're wrong on this.

 

[Deus Irae]

Who knows what we would have gotten from Wilkerson? Just because the Jets got a 16 game starter who produced 49 tackles, 3 sacks and a forced fumble doesn't mean the Pats would have. Wilkerson could have held out and/or gotten injured like Vereen did, and BB might have been slow to put him in the lineup. Meanwhile, Vereen could have done something entirely different as a rookie with another team.

It's just all useless speculation.

1.) What Vereen could have done elsewhere is irrelevant.

2.) I made a simple, obvious claim. People have jumped on it needlessly. The trade did, in fact, mean that there was not a 1st round pick that might (or might not) have helped put the team over the top in the Super Bowl, and Vereen basically had a lost season, so the other end of the trade produced essentially nothing in year one.

 

[patchick]

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.

Ah, I see the confusion! You're counting the lack of a positive as a negative.

Let's say they just traded their 2011 first for a 2012 first. Then they'd simply be shifting their value in time, not "losing" any years. But they also picked up a 2nd round pick as a bonus. As it turned out, that pick had an injury-plagued rookie year and made no impact. So you're counting the bonus pick's worthless year as a a loss of one year. But that's house money you're playing with.

 

[BelichickFan]

2.) You claim money as an opportunity cost when it's not one of any consequence.

Right, because there's no salary cap and what we pay players is irrelevant in terms of acquiring new ones.

:bricks:

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

If we're going to make this argument, it's only fair to see if there's someone we could have drafted late in round 1 in 2007 that could have helped us win Super Bowl 42 as apposed to having Jerod Mayo.

 

[Deus Irae]

Ah, I see the confusion! You're counting the lack of a positive as a negative.

Let's say they just traded their 2011 first for a 2012 first. Then they'd simply be shifting their value in time, not "losing" any years. But they also picked up a 2nd round pick as a bonus. As it turned out, that pick had an injury-plagued rookie year and made no impact. So you're counting the bonus pick's worthless year as a a loss of one year. But that's house money you're playing with.

No, I'm counting the lack of a positive as a zeroed out season for Vereen. It's not negative. It's just zeroed.

I don't get your assertion of the whole "bonus pick" thing, though, since the pick was part of the trade, and not some sort of tip thrown on the top.

 

[Deus Irae]

Right, because there's no salary cap and what we pay players is irrelevant in terms of acquiring new ones.

:bricks:

No, because you're ignoring the cost of Vereen, and you're ignoring/minimizing the huge chasm in lost costs between a few bucks 4 years down the line and a player helping out in the Super Bowl.

 

[TyronePoole]

No, I'm counting the lack of a positive as a zeroed out season for Vereen. It's not negative. It's just zeroed.

I don't get your assertion of the whole "bonus pick" thing, though, since the pick was part of the trade, and not some sort of tip thrown on the top.

a first now for a first next year is equal value, I read somewhere that Belichick thinks the NFL groupthink is flawed in thinking that a pick now is worth a round up the following year. So in that sense a second round pick is kind of already the icing on the cake.

I do agree though that Brady makes the the sooner much more valuable than the later by increasing the probability of a superbowl birth in the immediate future.

 

[mayoclinic]

The trade did, in fact, mean that there was not a 1st round pick that might (or might not) have helped put the team over the top in the Super Bowl, and Vereen basically had a lost season, so the other end of the trade produced essentially nothing in year one.

This is correct. We gave up potentially drafting any player who was taken between 28 (Ingram) and 32 (Sherrod) in favor of drafting Vereen and picking up a 2012 1st round pick. The 2012 pick obviously contributed nothing for 2011. It turned out that Vereen's contribution for 2011 was minimal, though that wasn't anticipated. We don't know what any other play picked might have contributed. So it's true that our trade produced minimal productivity for 2011. It's not clear what we missed out on, and what difference it would have made.

Looking at the list of players taken between 28 and 55, the only 3 guys I see who had any production their rookie seasons that might have helped the Pats in 2011 are Wilkerson (30), Jabaal Sheard (37) and Brooks Reed (42). And again, we don't know what they would have produced if the Pats had drafted them, or what Vereen would have done elsewhere.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

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.

His follow on posts are even more stupid than the origional.

Too bad he doesn't associate "useless" where it belongs...with his posts.

It's standard old school for BB to not give rookies significant roles unless it's required. Solder's contributions were a direct product of Vollmer's injury.

With BJGE and Woodhead available, the requirement for significant playing time was never fundamental. Vereen and Ridley were drafted for 2012 and beyond in mind.

 

[WhiZa]

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.

Do you think Ridley was complementary to BGJE or the same type of back?

 

[Rob0729]

At this point why are we comparing the picks. Jones has yet to play a down yet. Talk to me in a few years.

BTW, as far as Wilkerson goes, we don't know if the Pats would have selected him if they kept the pick. Plus although he looks to be a good player, he did nothing to help the slide of the Jets' defense last year. It was almost the same exact defense as the year before, but not nearly as effective. He was one of the few changes to the starting line up. Based on that, I don't know if anyone can argue he was the difference in the Super Bowl loss. He also hit the rookie wall in December.

 

[JerseyDevil26]

I think it's way too early to make any kind of comparison on this yet. I'm thrilled with Chandler Jones as I watched him play when he was at Syracuse. I'd take Chandler Jones any day of the week over Cameron Heyward.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

At this point why are we comparing the picks. Jones has yet to play a down yet. Talk to me in a few years.

BTW, as far as Wilkerson goes, we don't know if the Pats would have selected him if they kept the pick. Plus although he looks to be a good player, he did nothing to help the slide of the Jets' defense last year. It was almost the same exact defense as the year before, but not nearly as effective. He was one of the few changes to the starting line up. Based on that, I don't know if anyone can argue he was the difference in the Super Bowl loss. He also hit the rookie wall in December.

Well we do know that both Wilkerson and Heyward went to teams that each took a significant step back in 2011.

The case can be made (nicely analyzed) based on this actual fact that we would never had made Super Bowl if either is on the roster.

It's kinda like Sasquatch thinking and truthers.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I remember debating with someone on this board about Mark Ingram after the draft last year. That person argued that Ingram was a top-10 pick available at 28, while I argued that he was a late first round pick available at 28 (he is what he is.) So far, I believe I was correct in my argument. Ingram may turn out to be a good NFL running back, but it's obvious that he isn't Adrian Peterson or Chris Johnson.