Curran says Pats will target Barron if they trade up

[Ochmed Jones]

True. I was just watching an interview with a couple of other NFL GMs and they essentially were saying the same thing. They don't prepare based solely on the current pick that they are assigned; they also prepare for a scenario if they trade up or down to various spots as well.

If relatively unsuccessful teams (i.e., drafting in the top ten) approach the draft this way then it is fair to assume that relatively successful teams (i.e., playoff teams) go into the draft with just as open-minded, if not more so.

If a team picking 4th or 5th is open to moving up, down or staying put, already practically knowing exactly who will be available when they are on the clock, then of course it stands to reason that a team picking in the late 20's would be even more flexible with their approach.

I've always felt BB was a master of flexibility, but let's not forget one very important fact.

BB hits on just about all his first round draft picks, but his record in roound 2-4 is not something to brag about. (Look at his 3rd round record alone and it is awful)

Therefore the key to this draft in my mind, is BB sticking to his first round principles, three down player with as little projecting as humanly possible.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

I've always felt BB was a master of flexibility, but let's not forget one very important fact.

BB hits on just about all his first round draft picks, but his record in roound 2-4 is not something to brag about. (Look at his 3rd round record alone and it

aaron hernandez and gronk say hi.

 

[VJCPatriot]

And the drawback for the Pats is that they are losing Ryan Mallet. Already might lose Hoyer. Who else will we put in the pipeline? If the Pats draft Barron that will demonstrate how critical they believe the safety position to be and how bad they feel it was in 2011.

BTW- since everyone seems to be patting themselves on the back in this thread. I would point out that I have already given a reasonable scenario of how the Pats can comfortably move up into the early teens and STILL have 4 picks in the first 2 rounds. Simply trade Ryan Mallet for Cleveland's #37 pick and then use that pick in combination with either the 27 or 31 picks and we can get to #11 (with the 27th) or the 13th (with the 31st) From there the Pats would likely have their choice of Barron, Ingram, Brockers, Couples, Poe or several others. I'd say Cox but I'm afraid he'll be gone in the top 10, and if he slips out of the top 10 Philly would take him at #11 and NOT trade with us.

Benefit to the Pats -

1.They get a pick one tier up from the quality of players they will see at the end of first round.
2. They still will have 4 picks in the first 2 rounds
3.. They now are in position to carry 2 QBs on the roster (plus one on the PS) That opens up a valuable roster spot for another rookie
4. They turned the 74th pick in 2010 into the 37th pick in 2011

Benefit to the Browns

1. They DON'T have to use the #4 and vastly over draft a risky QB prospect who will need a couple of years to develop, even they are right on him. Instead they can use it to pick the top RB or WR in the draft
2. They get a better QB prospect than they could get in the 2nd round of this draft. Plus he already has a year in a good NFL program. So instead of using #37 on Weeder or Osweiler, they use it to get Ryan Mallet

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Already might lose Hoyer.

Will lose Hoyer, almost certainly. . . .

 

[jmt57]

I've always felt BB was a master of flexibility, but let's not forget one very important fact.

BB hits on just about all his first round draft picks, but his record in roound 2-4 is not something to brag about. (Look at his 3rd round record alone and it is awful)

Therefore the key to this draft in my mind, is BB sticking to his first round principles, three down player with as little projecting as humanly possible.

I wonder if some of that is due to thinking 'I have an extra pick; I'll go after a high-ceiling/low-floor (i.e., bust or boom) guy' in those rounds. Obviously you don't want to take that chance in the first round, but the place to do so would be in the 2nd or 3rd. If you set yourself up to have an 'extra' pick you are afforded the luxury of taking a gamble that you might not otherwise do if you had fewer picks to choose from.

Following through on that strategy will inevitably yield a lower percentage of 'good' picks, but it will also result in decent picks that others may have passed on (e.g., Gronk, Vollmer) for various reasons, as they were more conservative in their approach based on having fewer picks in their arsenal.

At the end of the day it's the total number of good picks that you had that is important, not the percentage.

 

[BradyManny]

Please make it stop. You've obviously never watched Barron. He's got sideline to sideline range - Barron covers more ground than Chung and would be a significant upgrade.

sorry to be a little terse but the misconceptions about Barron being an in the box safety only are just so misguided. If you watch him as much as I've done, you'll see that.

Well, you can add presumptious and hyperbolic to terse.

Please refer to the part of my post where I described Barron as an "in-the-box" safety. That's right. I didn't.

I actually agree with you about the general perception of Barron - I do think he has range, and he has good instincts so he's in the right places. But I would not describe him as rangey - at least not as mcuh as I am looking for for this team - and I would, like most, describe him more as a strong safety. If you disagree with that, I'm happy to debate the point as long as you aren't going to be pompous about it.

The bottom line is, the paradigm has changed in the NFL pertaining to safety: this team does not need an in the box safety; it's "strong safety" needs to have the athleticism of a free safety, and its "free safety" needs to have the athleticism of a CB. It's why we saw McCourty back there at the end of the year. Everything has shifted.

With passing offenses the way they are nowadays, you have to cover a hell of a lot more ground.

Do Pat Chung and Mark Barron cover enough? I don't know. But I don't think it's worth trading up for. I would consider Barron a strong addition to the team at 27 or 31 perhaps. But I'd rather address other needs, or pick up a big CB to convert to FS later (Trumaine Johnson).

 

[supafly]

Adam schefter in a round table discussion with reiss, bruschi and jones (posted on espn boston) stated that he asked someone in the patriots organization what they were going to do on draft day. They said they don'tknow

This I can certainly believe.

 

[supafly]

...even the Pats don't know what they are going to do until they see the board unfold.

I think we have the winning answer right here.

They may like a handful of guys who will be there at 27, but they will be preparing themselves for several different scenarios--just as they always do.

It'd be kind of hard to know what you wanted to do when 26 other picks are made before you. That's why most/if not all of these mocks are pointless exercises, besides maybe the first 5 choices.

The ones that really crack me up are the mocks who predict some kind of random crazy trade out of the blue (Dallas trades #14 and #109 to Detriot for #24, #57, a 2013 3rd rounder, and a 2016 7th rounder). I often wonder if these guys are actually serious, or if they are just amusing themselves.

 

[manxman2601]

Well, you can add presumptious and hyperbolic to terse.

Please refer to the part of my post where I described Barron as an "in-the-box" safety. That's right. I didn't.

I actually agree with you about the general perception of Barron - I do think he has range, and he has good instincts so he's in the right places. But I would not describe him as rangey - at least not as mcuh as I am looking for for this team - and I would, like most, describe him more as a strong safety. If you disagree with that, I'm happy to debate the point as long as you aren't going to be pompous about it.

The bottom line is, the paradigm has changed in the NFL pertaining to safety: this team does not need an in the box safety; it's "strong safety" needs to have the athleticism of a free safety, and its "free safety" needs to have the athleticism of a CB. It's why we saw McCourty back there at the end of the year. Everything has shifted.

With passing offenses the way they are nowadays, you have to cover a hell of a lot more ground.

Do Pat Chung and Mark Barron cover enough? I don't know. But I don't think it's worth trading up for. I would consider Barron a strong addition to the team at 27 or 31 perhaps. But I'd rather address other needs, or pick up a big CB to convert to FS later (Trumaine Johnson).

I apologise.

My view is that Barron has an outstanding ability to play "in the box" but his instincts in centrefield help to mask the limitations of weaker CB play. He bailed out Dre Kirkpatrick, who i like, a number of times. And having seen Mccourty's struggles last year, we need that help to make McCourty a better player too.

I can see why people don't want to trade up for him, my view is that by not doing so, we'd miss out on a prospect that will comfortably be one of the three best players on our defense and I don't think getting a couple of okay-ish players like those available at the bottom of the first is worth passing on a top notch player. We have enough okay-ish players, adding more won't make our defense any better. But each to their own.

 

[supafly]

I apologise.

My view is that Barron has an outstanding ability to play "in the box" but his instincts in centrefield help to mask the limitations of weaker CB play. He bailed out Dre Kirkpatrick, who i like, a number of times. And having seen Mccourty's struggles last year, we need that help to make McCourty a better player too.

I can see why people don't want to trade up for him, my view is that by not doing so, we'd miss out on a prospect that will comfortably be one of the three best players on our defense and I don't think getting a couple of okay-ish players like those available at the bottom of the first is worth passing on a top notch player. We have enough okay-ish players, adding more won't make our defense any better. But each to their own.

I think you have a solid point.

We'll know next weekend whether BB agrees with you or not, as it's all a guessing game.

The 'okay-ish' players may be better due to more needs + adding precious depth and competition to multiple positions rather than just one.

I think it's all about how much BB values the position, the potential prospects, and Mark Barron in particular.

 

[manxman2601]

I think you have a solid point.

We'll know next weekend whether BB agrees with you or not, as it's all a guessing game.

The 'okay-ish' players may be better due to more needs + adding precious depth and competition to multiple positions rather than just one.

I think it's all about how much BB values the position, the potential prospects, and Mark Barron in particular.

Yup.

My current money is on Courtney Upshaw in the first - not because he's an ideal fit or has the highest ceiling but because of his strength against the run (an absolute BB requirement I believe) and because he has a higher floor than the Chandler Jones' etc. I don't think BB will go 3-4 De early because I think he's fairly happy with what he has and because, unless you get someone who can pressure the QB, the position is devalued as we see the Patriots run sub packages as their base defense nowadays. So in the first round, I see only four real options - trade up for Barron or Brockers, Upshaw or Doug Martin who I think BB will really like as his ideal Pats RB. That's my prediction anyway.

 

[BradyManny]

I apologise.

My view is that Barron has an outstanding ability to play "in the box" but his instincts in centrefield help to mask the limitations of weaker CB play. He bailed out Dre Kirkpatrick, who i like, a number of times. And having seen Mccourty's struggles last year, we need that help to make McCourty a better player too.

I can see why people don't want to trade up for him, my view is that by not doing so, we'd miss out on a prospect that will comfortably be one of the three best players on our defense and I don't think getting a couple of okay-ish players like those available at the bottom of the first is worth passing on a top notch player. We have enough okay-ish players, adding more won't make our defense any better. But each to their own.

Fair enough - I probably overreacted to your post a bit as it is, and I apologize for that. I've taken the liberty of extrapolating someone's POV from a line or two in their post plenty of times, so I probably shouldn't get too upset if others do it. My bad.

Anyway - you make a solid argument. I like Barron - and I wish his stock hadn't risen the way it has in the past couple months. And I will definitely grant you that on tape he looks more athletic & versatile than given credit for. I just don't know if a Barron-Chung secondary is worth the trade-up - how much better will it be? I don't know, but I'm reticent to move up for it.

I see your point about getting two guys in the bottom of round 1 vs. one at the top. On the flip side, I think our best bet is trading down and out - as always. Belichick's MO is to get a 1st rounder for "free", and he's working to get into the top half of the 1st round when he does these (San Fran, Oakland trades). We may have to wait a year or two to draft a player of blue-chip caliber.

Obviously, I can see the argument that the Brady window - which keeps me up at night - should force Belichick's hand. But if we're going to trade up, I want it to be for a lineman.

 

[Rich<3TheWoodhead]

Can someone remind me the last draft where BB traded up in the draft. I know he likes to take a 1st round and turn it into another 1st next year but he does it every year when did he actually use it for moving up?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Can someone remind me the last draft where BB traded up in the draft. I know he likes to take a 1st round and turn it into another 1st next year but he does it every year when did he actually use it for moving up?

The last time the Pats used two firsts was 2004.

 

[Joey007]

I would like this if Barron falls to say, 18-20 somehow and we trade our 27th and 48th pick.

 

[captain stone]

Can someone remind me the last draft where BB traded up in the draft. I know he likes to take a 1st round and turn it into another 1st next year but he does it every year when did he actually use it for moving up?

2002 - gave up their 3rd-rounder to move up 10 spots for Grahambo;

2003 - gave up their 6th-rounder to move up 1 spot for Ty Warren.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

what's interesting is that Belichick brought much of his coaching staff to Alabama's Pro Day, including Matt Patricia who was the Safeties Coach (and pseudo D coordinator). I really do think the pats are interested in Barron. BB loves to draft cornerbacks and safeties, and it's a pass driven league.

What would it cost to move up into the top 15? Two first rounders and a late round pick next year?

 

[manxman2601]

what's interesting is that Belichick brought much of his coaching staff to Alabama's Pro Day, including Matt Patricia who was the Safeties Coach (and pseudo D coordinator). I really do think the pats are interested in Barron. BB loves to draft cornerbacks and safeties, and it's a pass driven league.

What would it cost to move up into the top 15? Two first rounders and a late round pick next year?

Didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

According to the trade value chart:

KC @11 - Our two firsts for their #11 and #146 (5th round).
SEA @12 - Our two firsts for their #12 and #106 (4th round)
ARI @13 - Our #27, 48, 126
DAL @14 - Our #27 and #48
or
Our two firsts for their #14 and their #81 (3rd round)

I like either Dallas option oersonally. Just depends on whether they're completely sold on Barron or would be happy to get the extra picks. We might have to go all the way up to KC to be sure if that's the way BB wants to go.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

According to the trade value chart:

KC @11 - Our two firsts for their #11 and #146 (5th round).
SEA @12 - Our two firsts for their #12 and #106 (4th round)
ARI @13 - Our #27, 48, 126
DAL @14 - Our #27 and #48
or
Our two firsts for their #14 and their #81 (3rd round)

I like either Dallas option oersonally. Just depends on whether they're completely sold on Barron or would be happy to get the extra picks. We might have to go all the way up to KC to be sure if that's the way BB wants to go.

i don't think dallas would want to trade down. dallas is one of the teams interested in barron. of course that could just false rumors, but if the pats want barron badly they would have to trade with either seattle, KC or arizona. i'm not sure barron is worth it, but the pats do have a mid-second rounder from oakland where they could get some good talent.

belichick has a history of taking players from programs he is familiar with. Saban in Alabama, Randy Edsall formerly of UConn and currently with UMD, Urban Meyer formerly of UF and currently with OSU and Greg Schiano formerly of Rutgers. I think if one of the Alabama kids is available at 27 he goes for it - mostly likely courtney upshaw or donta hightower.

 

[zgotts]

What about a move up for Kirkpatrick?

Barron is best known for his run-stopping abilities, but what we need is a safety who will help against the pass. Kirkpatrick played CB at Alabama, but a lot of people are projecting him to Free Safety (similar to what the Saints did with Malcolm Jenkins when he came out of Ohio State).

I like this better than the Barron move because a) he likely has more versatility than Barron, playing CB or FS, b) he's 6-2, so he can cover big TEs and WRs, c) the move would likely cost less than moving up to get Barron (Barron will probably go in the 11-14 range, Kirkpatrick probably in the 14-20 range).