- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 31,027
- Reaction score
- 15,587
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
Gut feeling is they'll trade out again if a good opportunity arises so I'll say that I don't expect them to use both . . . but who the F knows.
I hope cleveland (or another bad team) trades their first round pick again like they did with the Cowboys. Dallas is going to have a nasty pick next draft.
No way, if you end up in the top ten you can always trade down. Even if you get a below market offer you can get out of the top ten with at least a little something extra.Given everything the Pats have said, I am firmly convinced that if their top two choices in April had been:
* SF's 1st in 2008 and 4th in 2007 or
* OAK's 1st in 2008 and 3rd in 2007,
the Pats would still have traded with SF, not OAK. The cost of a top-10 pick is far more than the Pats want to pay; the value starts to build around pick 13 or so.
No way, if you end up in the top ten you can always trade down. Even if you get a below market offer you can get out of the top ten with at least a little something extra.
I would put money that WORST CASE you could trade #6 straight up for #16. I simply don't believe you wouldn't find a taker to give you at least a little something despite what a Jest guy may have said.I don't think that's as true as it used to be, in part because of the huge salaries those top picks command right now. Heck, a JEST executive once quipped, when another team asked if he'd like to trade up in the draft, "What else are you going to give me?"
I think if the Pats felt there was a can't-miss player up there (a la AJ Hawk, according to dryheat), they might do it, but I really think they'd rather be picking at 15 or 16 than 5 or 6.
While given the choice, I don't think Belichick would opt to pick at, say, #6, if he found himself in that position, he'd make the pick. He'd get a safe player under contract for six years. He could've traded down back in 2001, when we had a bad team and the #6 pick. He could've used the extra picks, but he wanted Seymour. Despite the price tag Seymour commands, I think BB is happy with the outcome. This past year he may have sat tight and hoped to grab Gaines Adams or Laron Landry.
they should package both when the time comes to move up and grab mcfadden, unless maroney turns out to be a franchise rb
Obviously the actual answer now is . . . Who the F knows, it depends on how FA goes, the players who are there at the time and any trade offers they get.
Gut feeling is they'll trade out again if a good opportunity arises so I'll say that I don't expect them to use both . . . but who the F knows.
I think I have a better chance of pissing snow than that scenario unfolding, even if Maroney goes el busto.
they should package both when the time comes to move up and grab mcfadden, unless maroney turns out to be a franchise rb
But, assuming they find a partner, I expect them to push a pick into 2009, and pick up some more "interest" in the process.