Draft versus Trades debate

[Metaphors]

Too bad Bill doesn't read some of this stuff. He would be angered and amused at the same time.
You wonder what he is doing with LaRussa in MLB Spring Training when I feel this might be the most important off-season for him in years. Just sayin......

Yeah, what is he doing in Florida when there are college football players to scout? Really, you are playing the "Belichick is a slacker" card? I'm sure that your "Belichick is an idiot" card still has some time left on it.

The 13 Holes we have are we need

- two WR until Welker comes back,

- 2 TE's

- one 5 tech DE,

- two OLBs as I am sure that Thomas is gone

- A SILB

- a nickle CB when we move Butler to start (please not Wheatley or Wilhite)

- a between the tackles RB who BB will trust and who is not over 30 (no faith in Lawfirm)

- A OT because Light is gone AFTER 2010 and if we switch Volmer to left, we still need a RT

- A rotation 5 tech DE with Warren and Wright

- a Punter. 8 Draft picks does not work.

Thanks for the list. I formatted a little to help me read it easier. As I stated earlier, I absolutely agree on 6 holes (WR, 2 TE, DE, OLB, P). The rest are replacements for players you don't like:

1 WR = Tate
1 OLB = Crable
SILB = McKenzie
CB = Wheatley or Wilhite
OT = Kaczur or even Levoir
RB = Maroney
1 DE = Pryor (as a rotation DE, not a starter)

If you are suggesting that the Pats upgrade these players, don't have problem 1 with that. Don't agree with you, but that is OK. On the list above, only Maroney and Kaczur have reached the magical 3 year mark that you have used to defend your argument that draft picks really can't be counted on.

So the Pats could use their higher draft picks (1,2,2,2,4,6) to fill the 6 holes we agree on and use the remainder to bring in competition for the names I listed above. FA period is still ongoing and the Pats should (and likely will) bring in competition for the holes and potential upgrades...just don't expect them to spend a boatload of cash for that purpose.

So 8 draft picks (plus comp, plus UDFA) certainly can work just fine. If you are looking to flush a significant portion of the last couple of drafts, you may need to look at other teams' players.

 

[DW Toys]

Yeah, what is he doing in Florida when there are college football players to scout? Really, you are playing the "Belichick is a slacker" card? I'm sure that your "Belichick is an idiot" card still has some time left on it.



Thanks for the list. I formatted a little to help me read it easier. As I stated earlier, I absolutely agree on 6 holes (WR, 2 TE, DE, OLB, P). The rest are replacements for players you don't like:

1 WR = Tate
1 OLB = Crable
SILB = McKenzie
CB = Wheatley or Wilhite
OT = Kaczur or even Levoir
RB = Maroney
1 DE = Pryor (as a rotation DE, not a starter)

If you are suggesting that the Pats upgrade these players, don't have problem 1 with that. Don't agree with you, but that is OK. On the list above, only Maroney and Kaczur have reached the magical 3 year mark that you have used to defend your argument that draft picks really can't be counted on.

So the Pats could use their higher draft picks (1,2,2,2,4,6) to fill the 6 holes we agree on and use the remainder to bring in competition for the names I listed above. FA period is still ongoing and the Pats should (and likely will) bring in competition for the holes and potential upgrades...just don't expect them to spend a boatload of cash for that purpose.

So 8 draft picks (plus comp, plus UDFA) certainly can work just fine. If you are looking to flush a significant portion of the last couple of drafts, you may need to look at other teams' players.

O.K. I have heard your retort. Here is the problem. Only 18% in three years for a winning pick to evolve. You can't hit a homerun with every pick. 50% would be superb. UDFA probably have less then a 5% chance to stick. I challenged someone to pick a fleet of2010 Draft choices as to whomever you want that would trump my mix of FAs, Trades and selected few picks. It's just a theory that we need to add a mix of both to succeed in 2010.

Back to your hole fillers.
1 WR = Tate-PERHAPS.WE WILL KNOW BY THREE YEARS. I JUST DON'T SEE IT.
1 OLB = Crable-HE HAS SPENT ALMOST THREE YEARS ON IR. NOT BUYING.
SILB = McKenzie-SEE TATE BUT I DO LIKE THAT KID. I WILL GIVE YOU THAT ONE.
CB = Wheatley or Wilhite-NOT BUYING EITHER. WHEATLEY IS A 2nd ROUND BUST AND WILHITE MIGHT BE YOUR #4 CB
OT = Kaczur or even Levoir-LEVOIR MAYBE OVER KACZUR BECAUSE NICK IS BAD.
RB = Maroney-COME ON GUYS. I DEFINITELY AM NOT BUYING
1 DE = Pryor (as a rotation DE, not a starter)-HE IS AN INSIDE PLAYER. CAN'T SEE HIM AS A ROTATION DE UNLESS HE IS ALL YOU HAVE GOT.

DW Toys

 

[Metaphors]

I challenged someone to pick a fleet of2010 Draft choices as to whomever you want that would trump my mix of FAs, Trades and selected few picks. It's just a theory that we need to add a mix of both to succeed in 2010.

Your challenge isn't fair. Your side gets to use draft picks and traded players to improve the team. The other side just gets draft picks. To make it fair, assign a draft pick value to every player you traded (AD, Maroney and Brace) that the other side can use.

As for your theory, hard to disagree with using all available means for player acquisition. The point of dispute is whether or not to use top 50 picks in this draft class to acquire vets (and give them big bucks) from this shallow group of available players.

 

[DW Toys]

Your challenge isn't fair. Your side gets to use draft picks and traded players to improve the team. The other side just gets draft picks. To make it fair, assign a draft pick value to every player you traded (AD, Maroney and Brace) that the other side can use.

As for your theory, hard to disagree with using all available means for player acquisition. The point of dispute is whether or not to use top 50 picks in this draft class to acquire vets (and give them big bucks) from this shallow group of available players.

Fair enough. Go or it. See what you got. But remember. my challenge was made because some here are insisting that all the Pats woes are eliminated on Draft day. That's a fairy tail. I'd be happy with 4 or 5 top players from the Draft in a realistic success. Now what for the other 5 to 7 players we need?
DW Toys

 

[Metaphors]

Fair enough. Go or it. See what you got. But remember. my challenge was made because some here are insisting that all the Pats woes are eliminated on Draft day. That's a fairy tail. I'd be happy with 4 or 5 top players from the Draft in a realistic success. Now what for the other 5 to 7 players we need?
DW Toys

Assuming I could get two 3rd round picks for AD/Brace (it actually should be more based on the trades you made), here is what I could do compared to your haul:

Marshall -> Taylor Price (4th)
Carriker -> Odrick (1st)
Gocong -> Misi (2nd)
Cooley -> Pitta (2nd)
Cody -> Cam Thomas (3rd)
Hughes -> Hughes (2nd)
Gerhart -> Maroney
Wilhite -> Spievey (3rd)

Not sure I would have drafted Thomas and Price given a clean slate, but wanted to be able to do a straight comparison. Also tried to stay more realistic than "any 4 players from #22-#100" since that wouldn't prove anything.

Your team obviously has more weapons in the passing game but they come at a price ($$$$ and Marshall's chemistry baggage). My team is faster and more flexible against the pass without sacrificing much against the run. Also for much less money. You are counting on Gerhart to lug the rock (and he is anything but a sure thing) while I kept the existing RB crew. In your scenario, you didn't address one of your holes at CB where I got a talented guy to drive Wheatley and/or Wilhite off the roster.

Anyway, I'm not against making trades. I would hesitate going for Marshall but if you could actually pull off the Carriker trade (for Brace + a 4th), I would do it in a heartbeat. Getting Cooley for AD and a 3rd would also be easy. It is just that neither of these would ever happen unless the Rams and Skins lose their collective minds. Even given that, this draft still provides reasonable alternatives and actually provides a stronger pass defense (the #1 need for the Pats in my opinion) than anything FA/trades could bring.

 

[mcsully]

could get two 3rd round picks for AD/Brace [\quote]

We can all wish but it will never happen.. Esp when Boldin only got a 3rd and 4th..

I like everything else!

 

[Metaphors]

could get two 3rd round picks for AD/Brace [\quote]

We can all wish but it will never happen.. Esp when Boldin only got a 3rd and 4th..

Totally agree. But if you accept these trades:

- Carriker for Brace + 4th
- Cooley for AD + 3rd

then Brace/AD would have to be worth at least 3rd's by themselves. I was just trying to make this exercise work, not trying to suggest that Brace or AD would get much in a trade for draft picks.