Welcome to PatsFans.com

Did the Patriots pass on trading 2nd rounders for 2010 First Round Picks?

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by JoeSixPat, May 6, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    I was intrigued by this passage in Reiss's mail bag and wish he might have expanded on the logic and implictions of BB's presumed passing on turning 2009 second round draft picks into 2010 first rounders:

    Ask Reiss: Still a hole to fill - Boston.com


    I wish he had embellished and explored the thinking there a bit more. Of course as far as #34 was concerned it could well be that they knew Chung was a high value pick there and would be gone soon after. Perhaps they considered trading that for Seattle's 2010 #1 like Denver did but if they felt Chung was first round talent in the 2nd round THIS year, why defer? (1st round talent, now rather than later and lower price)

    Why they might opt to hold onto BOTH #40 and #41 instead of trading one to San Fran - which gave up its 1st rounder in 2010 for Carolina's 2nd rounder at #43 is intriguing for different reasons.

    One has to assume that #1 - BB really valued Brace and Butler HIGHER than giving up one of them for a 1st round pick (which at worst would be swapping a draft value pick of 490 for 590 (assuming San Fran won the Super Bowl!))

    What may be more intriguing here is that the fact that San Frans draft pick may very well wind up being on the high side - and perhaps BB didn't want to take that "risk" - as we've clearly seen that in this draft he didn't see value at 23 - let alone in the teens or top ten.

    So since its a reasonable assumption the Patriots had a chance to turn as many as 2 second round picks this year into 1st round picks next year, I just find a lot of food for thought in the reasons WHY Belichick would not take such an offer.

    In the end my guess is that he both liked the players and the value available at the picks he could have traded - likely looking them as players that would be as good as first round picks next year but at a lower price and available now rather then later - and perhaps he has an outright aversion to taking the risk that those 1st round picks would be HIGHER rather than lower, given the high cost of paying those players (even in an uncapped year).
    Last edited: May 6, 2009
  2. RayClay

    RayClay Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    17,518
    Likes Received:
    40
    Ratings:
    +49 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    They like the value of 2nd rounders in a deep draft. Unless they have a target (seems they didn't) Butler and Chung seem to be great values they might have spent a low #1 on.
  3. Dr Pain

    Dr Pain Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I get the feeling that the Patriots consider 2 round picks more valuable overall that 1st round picks. This is based on a formula of talent vs. cost.
  4. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,492
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +24 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey


    September cannot come fast enough ... :attention:
  5. jsull87

    jsull87 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    from a purely. we don't know what they needed this year point of view/madden point of view. it would have bees very interesting if all those trades played out for both the 2010 1sts and the 2010 2nds. imagine 3 1st next year and 3 2nds. the only difference is we woudn't have chung or brace. I wonder what people on this board would prefer if we layed it out like that... and what a draft 2010 would be hahaha specially if denver and san fran finnished round about sam possition as this year or worse imagine 2 top 15 picks and the patriots one at 32 lol
  6. CoachK

    CoachK Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    True nose tackles like Brace aren't usually available in the second round, and with 3-4 teams picking in 5 of the next 11 slots, he certainly wasn't going to last much longer. Butler seems to have been a late first rounder on many boards and was again to much of a value to pass up.

    I think given a different set of players available, most times BB takes the future first rounder.
  7. Armchair Quarterback

    Armchair Quarterback Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I doubt it, maybe in this draft but only because of the talent level. They lose a year on the rookie contract which is something I think they place a higher value on.
  8. alvinnf

    alvinnf Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'm pretty sure the money has a higher value......
  9. xmarkd400x

    xmarkd400x Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,746
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    I have a feeling that some of this has to do with the talent level of the current team. I think that if the Pats were in a situation more like the Chiefs, they would have taken higher draft picks. The fact of the matter is, if the Pats take a player high in the draft, he will probably be a backup.

    The long and the short: I think that the Pats typically like the 2nd round picks, and the current talent level of the team slants the team's bias even more so.
  10. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    29,360
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +59 / 1 / -0

    Based on this mixed bag of second round picks, I doubt it. The Pats have always said the sweet spot in the draft is in the late second half of the first round. That is where the talent to cost of signing ratio is at it's best. I don't think they were afraid to trade into the first round next year.
  11. PatsChowder

    PatsChowder Rookie

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This is it in a nutshell. Talent/Production vs. Cost of player. Why move up into the first round if you feel you can get relatively equal talent for far less money.
  12. Armchair Quarterback

    Armchair Quarterback Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Because the talent level is not equal. Maybe they felt like it was this year but that is not the norm.

    Pats 1st rounders from 2000-2008
    Seymour
    Graham
    Warren
    Wilfork
    Watson
    Mankins
    Maroney
    Meriweather
    Mayo

    Pats 2nd rounders from 2000-2008
    Klemm
    Light
    Branch
    B.Johnson
    Wilson
    Hill
    C.Jackson
    Wheatley
    Last edited: May 7, 2009
  13. Jimke

    Jimke Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    What the Pats would do in this instance is trade some of the 2010 picks

    into 2011.
  14. VJCPatriot

    VJCPatriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    12,304
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +23 / 1 / -0

    Branch was a successful pick even if he did backstab the Pats for the $$$. He did win a superbowl MVP award after all. Eugene Wilson was also a succesful pick for the Pats and was a contributor for a few years until he got hurt and became a shell of himself. Wheatly is still an unknown factor.
    Last edited: May 7, 2009
  15. Double G

    Double G Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    What difference would it make in the end with this team anyway; they'd just trade the picks away to keep stockpiling picks for future drafts so they can then trade those away too.

    The next time this team actually uses all of it's picks in a particular draft will be the first time......................
  16. Armchair Quarterback

    Armchair Quarterback Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Graham, Watson and Maroney have also had their moments. I was bolding players who are core members of the team now, maybe I should have specified that or not bolded them at all. The point is that only in a unique situation such as this years draft would they prefer 2nd rounders to first. The talent level is clearly much higher in the first as is the probability of them working out. That is where the true value is.
    Last edited: May 7, 2009
  17. JoeShmoe

    JoeShmoe Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Butler was a first round corner .. just fell to us because teams had other needs either all trying to get to 3-4 defenses or falling over themselves getting WR's

    Chung too may well end up being a pro bowl S - who knows? It was a team need and all the top S were taken at the top of the second

    Brace -great pick up in the second again

    I think if BB had seen a perfect NEP OLB at #23 or if Jenkins fell he may have taken him but he didn't (sorry Barwin fans)

    Next year tho I think we may well look OLB and/or LT
  18. Armchair Quarterback

    Armchair Quarterback Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    So basically in the Belichick's first nine drafts 8 of 9 (89%) first round draft picks are still on the team and all of them are starters/contributers. Only 2 of 8 (25%)second round draft picks are still with the team and only one is a starter/contributer. What Wheatley or this years four picks might do in the future is unknown.

    Belichick stated before the draft that there wasn't much difference (in this draft) between players ranked in the 20-40 range which is why the were comfortable moving down and had three picks in the first 41. That is not the case every year and I think is a silly basis for making a blanket statement that they prefer second rounders over firsts , or that their value is better.
  19. WhiZa

    WhiZa Rookie

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    5,040
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    I'm happy to say that was my question :)

    With all the FAs next year the Pats will need a first round pick who can start right away if it becomes a mass exodus. The thinking may have been that they wanted as many 2nd round picks this year who can spend one year in the system and start next year. It may have been more valuable to BB. Really it doesnt matter to me. Second round picks this year with one year under their belt, or first round pick neophyte next year.
  20. Jimke

    Jimke Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    I think there is a good possibility for a mass exodus. I believe that

    there will be a new CBA before 2010. Players will not want to play 6

    years before free agency. The Patriots protected themselves by finding

    possible replacements for Wilfork, Kaczur, and Mankins/Neal. Gostowski

    can be franchised very inexpensively.
  21. arrellbee

    arrellbee Rookie

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    I guess the first question is whether the Patriots would even want to trade a 2nd round pick and change for a 1st round pick.

    You would have to think the empirical evidence says that they don't see the value in that.
    -----------------------

    Evaluating what value you get for the cap dollar in the draft seems to fit the Patriots value method of filling in their whole 53 man roster. So that may provide some perspective on why they might not be all that interested in first round picks, especially any picks above the bottom of the 1st round.

    I doubt there would be too much disagreement among the veterans of the board that high round one picks, and of course epitomized by the 1st pick of the first round, have almost no chance of yielding value to the team anywhere near the money spent on their rookie contracts.

    It may well also be that even low 1st round picks above #25 might also not be that good of a value.

    In roughly 2006, a couple guys did a pretty sophisticated analysis of what contribution teams got from picks in the first few rounds versus the money teams had to spend for those picks. The basis for establishing the value was the history of players drafted in particular positions over a significant number of years. The factors used to determine the value were predominantly how many games the player started, followed by how many games the player played in, followed by Pro Bowl appearances.

    Using their value for the dollar metrics, one media pundit summarized this draft as:

    "Looking at this year’s scores, the four big winners were, in order, the Patriots, the Denver Broncos, the Lions and the Giants. "

    Link to whole article:
    NFL Draft Signals Giants-Patriots Super Rematch: Kevin Hassett - Bloomberg.com

    Going back to the 2006 statistical paper, the bottom line is that the best value for the dollar is right at the 35th pick at the top of the 2nd round. Of course, the Pats first pick was at 34.

    The top of the value for the dollar curve stretches from roughly 25th through 40th pick, peaking at the 35th pick. Of course the Pats next two picks were at 40 and 41.

    The Pats pick at 58 was down the curve as far as value for dollar goes. But since the curve drops off as you go back higher into the first round also since those picks cost so very much, the 58th pick has a roughly identical value for dollar with the 12th pick of the draft according to their statistical analysis.

    So all of these picks high on the value for dollar curve were what led to the analysis that the Patriots got the best value draft this year.

    The original paper published is very long and full of jargon until you get down to the summary section and their graphs. In case anybody is in the slightest interested, here's the link:
    http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~webfac...p06/Thaler.pdf
  22. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0


    Right.

    Apparently there's quite a few here who failed to see the point I was illustrating.

    I'd say that BB felt he was getting first round talent in the 2nd round this year. While he could have traded one (or more) of those 2nd round picks for a first rounder next year, it seems clear that that he felt that paying more next year made little sense when he could pay less for equal or even better talent this year, and get them on the field that much sooner.

    It just goes to show the complex chess game and the many moves ahead that BB often contemplates.
  23. bucky

    bucky Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The concept that the Patriots prefer 2nd round picks over 1st is just complete nonsense. Even if that was the case, they could always acquire the 1st round pick and then trade out of that pick and get a high 2nd plus something else.

    IMO, the reason the Pats didn't take any of the available trades was because they got a better offer from GB. All the trades Reiss mentions were a clear swap of this year's 2 for next year's 1. When the Pats traded out of 23, they essentially got a high 2nd rounder plus 2 3rd rounders which were converted into 2nd rounders for next year. I think BB had a pretty good idea that he would be able to swap those 3rd rounders when he was making the trade with GB. So a high 2nd rounder and 2 2nds next year is just much better than a 1st next year.

    Later on, he could have traded 34 or 41 for a first next year, but I think it's quite obvious based on the speed with which the selected Chung and the fact that they traded up to 40, that they liked the players that were there and didn't want to trade out.

    But all this notion of them liking 2nd rounders over 1st is completely illogical. Nobody was saying that after they drafted Mayo last year.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page