Clay Matthews: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

[WaterfallJumper]

Speaking out loud here people. I will say that the "value" is indeed terrific. However, if Matthews turns into a perrenial Pro-bowler, or Dez Bryant becomes the next coming of Randy Moss, will aquiring multiple picks still be worth it? Assuming of course that the Patriots selections don't amount to something worthwhile. The point is, I'd much prefer a stud player, to a couple of Benjamin Watson, Terrence Wheatley, Bethel Johnson types.

Well, duh. "If one works out and the other doesn't, I'd prefer the one that works out!" Kind of circular, don't you think? How about if McCourty becomes the next Revis, Price learns from Holt and surpasses him, and Hernandez turns out to Clark 2.0? Isn't that attractive?

The point is that we simply don't--and can't--know. So why not improve our chances of hitting on a pick by taking seven players instead of two? I'll take Butler, Tate, Edelman, Gronkowski, McCourty, Price, and Hernandez over Matthews and Bryant any day. It just makes good sense.

 

[everlong]

The point is, I'd much prefer a stud player, to a couple of Benjamin Watson, Terrence Wheatley, Bethel Johnson types.

Bad examples. Watson and Wheatley the Pats stood firm and Bethel was a trade up.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Well, duh. "If one works out and the other doesn't, I'd prefer the one that works out!" Kind of circular, don't you think? How about if McCourty becomes the next Revis, Price learns from Holt and surpasses him, and Hernandez turns out to Clark 2.0? Isn't that attractive?

The point is that we simply don't--and can't--know. So why not improve our chances of hitting on a pick by taking seven players instead of two? I'll take Butler, Tate, Edelman, Gronkowski, McCourty, Price, and Hernandez over Matthews and Bryant any day. It just makes good sense.

By the way--isn't it curious that all seven players from those two trades are WRs, TEs, or CBs?

 

[patchick]

Well, duh. "If one works out and the other doesn't, I'd prefer the one that works out!" Kind of circular, don't you think? How about if McCourty becomes the next Revis, Price learns from Holt and surpasses him, and Hernandez turns out to Clark 2.0? Isn't that attractive?

The point is that we simply don't--and can't--know. So why not improve our chances of hitting on a pick by taking seven players instead of two? I'll take Butler, Tate, Edelman, Gronkowski, McCourty, Price, and Hernandez over Matthews and Bryant any day. It just makes good sense.

That's it in a nutshell. One pick could be DeMarcus Ware, or it could be Vernon Gholston.

Besides which, the Dez Bryant example is a fake because the Pats could have had Bryant even after trading down. They simply didn't want him.

 

[SeauOUCH]

I don't know why people complain about BB always trading around, it makes the draft very exciting. The way I look at it the Pats were on the clock 3 times in the 1st round & what seemed like 10 times in the 2nd.

I don't think I could sit through a draft if I was a fan of a team that had a standard 1 pick per round ( or worse the Redskins which seem to have 2 picks per draft every year ) & always sat tight & never traded.

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

While we're at it, here's the haul from this years first-round pick (#22):

Devin McCourty, Taylor Price and Aaron Hernandez.

(FWIW, Gosselin's pre-draft rankings for those players were #24, #75, #53. Combined "point value" equivalent to #9 overall. More importantly, all nifty prospects.)

All the talk about value realized is great. Now here is wishing we actually secured a few difference makers. Matthews is a rookie pro bowl caliber playmaker.

 

[jsull87]

Speaking out loud here people. I will say that the "value" is indeed terrific. However, if Matthews turns into a perrenial Pro-bowler, or Dez Bryant becomes the next coming of Randy Moss, will aquiring multiple picks still be worth it? Assuming of course that the Patriots selections don't amount to something worthwhile. The point is, I'd much prefer a stud player, to a couple of Benjamin Watson, Terrence Wheatley, Bethel Johnson types.

I get what your saying but you are assuming they fail and the other pick is a perrenial pro bowler. Butler tate edleman and gronkowski. Now if butler edleman and gronk are starters i think that is a better discussion. 3 solid starters? or 1 pro bowler?

 

[jeffbiologist]

I get what you're saying, but if you go back and look at the draft history, you just don't add a whole lot more risk moving down a few spots, especially in the first two rounds.

A lot of the draft is luck -- injuries, unknown variables, etc. Especially when you consider that the other teams should reasonably be expected to evaluate players as efficiently as you do, there aren't that many ways to get a concrete advantage. The only thing you can really control is how many picks you get.

The Patriots' recent strategy of picking as many players as possible between the 20-90 area makes great logical sense. Their problem is that they have made some unusually bad picks. If they guess right even half the time, though, they will come out ahead. You're saying you'd rather not have Bethel Johnsons and Ben Watsons -- well, would you rather have Dez Bryant, or Deion Branch and Logan Mankins?

Just numerically speaking, you have a better chance with three highly-touted players than one. Plus the negative effect of investing a lot in one guy and having him flame out is mitigated when you spread that risk out over multiple players. Take the example from this thread. What if Clay Matthews tears his ACL tomorrow and is out two years? Now you have a hole at linebacker and you're paying a first-round salary for no production.

Or what if Dez Bryant is the next Rashaun Woods or Charles Rogers or Mike Williams? Would you rather have him, or McCourty, Hernandez and Price, none of whom will be making Bryant money?

The Pats could lose any of their players to injury (they did, last year, with Tate) and still get production from the other guys. Two of the players from that Matthews deal were starters in a playoff game. If they had pursued this strategy earlier and not sat out the 2006-2007 drafts so much, they'd be in much better shape right now.

Well, here is a thought that not many have....the LONG RUN. Now this is a business, and key "core" players--usually first round picks--get paid well and the rest of the team makes minimum salaries. This is how it has been run in every team, even this one before this "new idea". This keeps the majority of players hungry to make money, it motivates pure and simple. If you lose those first round picks and every pick is in that 20-90 range it does a couple things. First, it means most everyone will make the same amount of money....which isnt the best motivation. Then, if most guys are making "middle class" money more players will leave to FA after their first contract...because....you got it.....its cheaper to draft another guy than it is to pay anyone. Being known as a team that wont pay wont make you attractive to FAs, and team unity as we know it will change.
Mediocrity isnt good for anyone, superstars run the league. Blue chip players, even failures, are important for these reasons. What BB is doing is systematically stripping the franchise of blue chip talent that will come home to roost some day. TB is a special player, but if you are "forced" to find blue chip talent often you fail....and if you pass on enough pro bowlers, hall of famers for a whole bunch of JAGS...you will lose games, fans and money. Some can say if you have Matthews or you can have 3 other guys....the truth is you have Matthews and 2 other lower, hungrier more easily replaced players. You know, 6th round backup quarterbacks arent all busts either.
Now if you have a very old or very bad team what BB is doing is the fastest way to turn over the team. As Felger said today, "anyone can do this". But at some point you HAVE to target PLAYMAKERS. You have to spend that money. Every team has the same number of players and the same amount of money to spend. Do you want to have 1st round busts and 6th round Hall of famers or do you want everyone in the middle??

 

[patchick]

Everybody who's saying "but Clay Matthews is a proven Pro-Bowl-quality player!" -- we're talking about decisions made beforehand. Somehow in retrospect Matthews has been transformed in this board's memory to a can't-miss prospect who was an amazing value where the Pats picked. Remember, Matthews wasn't an impact player in college, he was mostly a special-teams demon and a workout warrior. He was a very high risk pick.

But my main purpose in this thread was just a reminder that there are two sides to every trade. Did Green Bay get a terrific player? It sure looks like it. Did the Pats reap a bonanza from that pick? It sure looks like it. So everybody won.

Let's say Gronkowski becomes an All-Pro and the other three all solid starters/contributors (perfectly possible, the 2 who have played so far look good). Would that suddenly make the Green Bay management a bunch of idiots for choosing Matthews? Nah.

 

[State]

The jury's still out on this.

But it's not on Jerry Rice: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...taylor-price-selection-page8.html#post1808281, which has a link to this: 49ers.com | Goal Posts Blog

This should be posted on the wall as a poster in the Patriots draft room every year.

Remember the **** Steinberg approach of trading down and accumulating picks? Was he around then? Sometimes just go with what available to you and stop being cute.

 

[patchick]

The jury's still out on this.

But it's not on Jerry Rice

Awesome! Using this same logic, I'm going to argue for moving all picks down to the 6th round. Because the jury's in on Tom Brady!

Come on, it's a piece of cake to find comparable examples where moving up as the 49ers did was a mistake. (Brady Quinn, anybody?) Besides, as a prospect Jerry Rice was the polar opposite of Clay Matthews. Rice was a spectacularly productive player with lousy measurables, Matthews was a workout warrior. (Mike Mamula had twice Matthews' sack total in college.) So what exactly is the lesson to draw? That you should draft good players, and avoid bad players? OK, I agree.

 

[jeffbiologist]

Awesome! Using this same logic, I'm going to argue for moving all picks down to the 6th round. Because the jury's in on Tom Brady!

Come on, it's a piece of cake to find comparable examples where moving up as the 49ers did was a mistake. (Brady Quinn, anybody?) Besides, as a prospect Jerry Rice was the polar opposite of Clay Matthews. Rice was a spectacularly productive player with lousy measurables, Matthews was a workout warrior. (Mike Mamula had twice Matthews' sack total in college.) So what exactly is the lesson to draw? That you should draft good players, and avoid bad players? OK, I agree.

I think its also important to mix up your draft strategy. If you need alot of players obviously trade for more picks. But if you dont, you dont have to trade em into the future....you can bundle em and trade up and get blue chippers. You can trade picks for established players. You can be unpredictable. History shows there are poor draft years and being flexible lets you avoid them. If you trade for more picks in a poor draft class that will kill your team quicker than a first round bust.

 

[thodoks]

Come on, it's a piece of cake to find comparable examples where moving up as the 49ers did was a mistake. (Brady Quinn, anybody?) Besides, as a prospect Jerry Rice was the polar opposite of Clay Matthews. Rice was a spectacularly productive player with lousy measurables, Matthews was a workout warrior.

JJ Stokes really wants to post in this thread.

 

[Sicilian]

The jury's still out on this.

But it's not on Jerry Rice: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...taylor-price-selection-page8.html#post1808281, which has a link to this: 49ers.com | Goal Posts Blog

This should be posted on the wall as a poster in the Patriots draft room every year.

Remember the **** Steinberg approach of trading down and accumulating picks? Was he around then? Sometimes just go with what available to you and stop being cute.

We stay put plenty often. Seymour, Maroney, Meriweather, Mankins, all drafted with our original pick.

We also trade up sometimes, grab guys like Warren, Gronkowski in the 2nd round this year, Wilfork (maybe? always get him mixed up)

And sometimes we trade down. Mayo, last year's pick, etc.

We seem to vary it, so your problem can't be with us not staying put, but with us not staying put EVERY YEAR, which is silly.

 

[patchick]

I think its also important to mix up your draft strategy. If you need alot of players obviously trade for more picks. But if you dont, you dont have to trade em into the future....you can bundle em and trade up and get blue chippers. You can trade picks for established players. You can be unpredictable. History shows there are poor draft years and being flexible lets you avoid them. If you trade for more picks in a poor draft class that will kill your team quicker than a first round bust.

I agree, you have to read the draft right. Looking over recent years, I'd say that in 2007, they did that perfectly. The draft was putrid, and they traded up, up and away. In 2008 everybody's cool with the very modest trade down for Mayo, right? After that, there's all sorts of trouble. Trading down wasn't the problem with Crable -- we know they would have taken him at the higher spot. Wheatley and O'Connell turned out to be huge disappointments. IMO 2008 was a much worse draft than 2007, which is unjustly maligned, but the issue wasn't trading, it was the players they selected.

2009 is a mixed bag. They came away with an amazing total draft class, but not drafting an OLB remains baffling. Yet if they had just taken Barwin instead of Brace, I don't think anybody would be talking about it being a "trade happy" problem at all.

Meanwhile this year everybody seems to be really happy with the draft class and glad they gobbled up picks in such a deep draft. We all like the trade up to grab blue-chipper Gronkowski, too. Again, the complaints are about players who were there when the Pats picked, but whom the Pats decided they didn't want.

If there's one place they've consistently failed in the past couple of years, it's in trades of draft picks for established players. They've done that plenty, with no rewards since Moss & Welker.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I think its also important to mix up your draft strategy. If you need alot of players obviously trade for more picks. But if you dont, you dont have to trade em into the future....you can bundle em and trade up and get blue chippers. You can trade picks for established players. You can be unpredictable. History shows there are poor draft years and being flexible lets you avoid them. If you trade for more picks in a poor draft class that will kill your team quicker than a first round bust.

But by all accounts, 2010 was a very DEEP draft. So the trade down strategy should pay off particularly well this year.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

that's great, but the pats aren't winning anything with the OLB's that they have......the pats have won an SB with wiggins and rutledge at TE, the pats have won an SB with retread WR's...the pats have even win an SB with milloy and jones at safety.....

but the pats have never won a thing without a pair of top-end OLB's

 

[State]

that's great, but the pats aren't winning anything with the OLB's that they have......the pats have won an SB with wiggins and rutledge at TE, the pats have won an SB with retread WR's...the pats have even win an SB with milloy and jones at safety.....

but the pats have never won a thing without a pair of top-end OLB's

Great insight, Tank.

Also, they have always been physical at the line of scrimmage. We've seen deterioration in that department with Koppen getting pushed around and the loss of Seymour is definitely not accounted for--unless Gerald Warren picks it up a notch or two.

 

[AzPatsFan]

All the talk about value realized is great. Now here is wishing we actually secured a few difference makers. Matthews is a rookie pro bowl caliber playmaker.

And a steroid user, and suspended. Mauluga is just emerging from a dry out clinic, after being busted for DUI, and is a near alcoholic. These guys stories never came out during the Draft.

 

[AzPatsFan]

And a steroid user, and suspended. Maluaga is just emerging from a dry out clinic, after being busted for DUI, and is a near alcoholic. These guys stories never came out during the Draft.

OOOps!!!

My apologies. I confused Brian Cushing with Clay Mathews. :bricks:

I wanted Lauranitis or Maulauga but look at Maluaga now...