dream scenario for next year

[Box_O_Rocks]

This is crazy talk, the reason there are never trades is because the GMs picking at the top are dolts. If they want to trade down they hold out for max value ( & never get it).

Yeh, I'm so crazy that in the past six drafts there's been one trade involving top five teams. You can speculate all you want about tempting some team to jump up for chump change, but the current trend says teams don't like spending that much on Jamarcus Russel pipe dreams. Further, what owner is going to sign off on that kind of financial commitment if there is a chance of no football in 2011? I may be crazy, and some of those owners are willing to take business gambles, but I don't see them taking your bet.

Look at Jax this year, they said they didn't get good enough offers to trade down yet Denver traded down twice from #11 to #24 picking up a 4th rounder & 2 3rds. Jax could of had their guy @24 for less money + picked up 3 other valuable picks, instead they did what most idiotic GMs do & held out for chart value.

Was this a top five pick? Then it's an apples & oranges diversion. However, as long as you're on this tangent, please link me to reports from all 31 other teams showing where they had Tyson Alualu stacked on their boards, I'd like proof that nobody else was considering him before #24 - Mel Kiper & Co. are not proof.

I guarantee you BB would never get stuck with a high pick if he didn't want it.

Look at the Mayo pick for example, he didn't want to pay #7 $ so traded back to #10 for very little. ( swapped a 5th for a 3rd )

Um, my math may be a bit rusty, but per the generic trade value chart floating around the intraweb, the difference between #7 and #10 is 200 points. Per 2008 NFL Draft Trades - NFL - ESPN

1, New England traded its first- (No.7) and fifth-round (No. 164) picks to New Orleans for the Saints' first- (No. 10) and third-round (No. 78) picks. New Orleans selected Sedrick Ellis, dt, Southern California and (No. 164). New England selected Jerod Mayo, lb, Tennessee and (No. 78).

NE gives #7 (1500) + #164 (25.8) = 1525.8
NO gives #10 (1300) + #78 (200) = 1500

So if I have this right, NE sweetened the pot by adding 1.72% of the suggested trade value in order to get NO to take the player they wanted and spend 70.77% more in guaranteed money (alone)?

Oh dear, NO really took NE to the woodshed on that deal.

Jerod Mayo
Sedrick Ellis

 

[SeauOUCH]

Yeh, I'm so crazy that in the past six drafts there's been one trade involving top five teams. You can speculate all you want about tempting some team to jump up for chump change, but the current trend says teams don't like spending that much on Jamarcus Russel pipe dreams. Further, what owner is going to sign off on that kind of financial commitment if there is a chance of no football in 2011? I may be crazy, and some of those owners are willing to take business gambles, but I don't see them taking your bet.

Cleveland was trying to trade up to pick #1 this year, the rams could of unloaded that pick if they wanted too, teams picking at the top are generally afraid to make moves because when your picking top 5 there is a good chance you are on the hot seat, standing pat is the safe move.

Was this a top five pick? Then it's an apples & oranges diversion. However, as long as you're on this tangent, please link me to reports from all 31 other teams showing where they had Tyson Alualu stacked on their boards, I'd like proof that nobody else was considering him before #24 - Mel Kiper & Co. are not proof.

No it wasn't top 5 I used this as an example of a team that publicly stated they wanted to trade down before the draft then couldn't because the offers didnt match the value chart. Yes there was a small chance that guy might of been off the board @24 thats the chance you take when you move down.

Um, my math may be a bit rusty, but per the generic trade value chart floating around the intraweb, the difference between #7 and #10 is 200 points. Per 2008 NFL Draft Trades - NFL - ESPN NE gives #7 (1500) + #164 (25.8) = 1525.8
NO gives #10 (1300) + #78 (200) = 1500

So if I have this right, NE sweetened the pot by adding 1.72% of the suggested trade value in order to get NO to take the player they wanted and spend 70.77% more in guaranteed money (alone)?

Oh dear, NO really took NE to the woodshed on that deal.

No it was a fair deal but a trade most other teams wouldn't make, GM's that generally pick high over value their top picks. They want to be "blown away" by an offer so they come out looking like the sure winner. If a GM REALLY wanted to get out of a high pick & traded the #3 overall for the 10th plus a 5th he would get crucified in the media, thats why it never happens.


Jerod Mayo
Sedrick Ellis

10 char

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

10 char

Lets assume for the moment you are correct in your theory, it must then follow NE could achieve a better return with lower picks. I'll happily take something in the 7-10 range with the greater flexibility those picks allow NE, #1 would truly suck.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

My dream scenario has the Pats getting, oh, the #3 pick and then just trading down three ro four times to #12 and picking up three or four seconds in the process.

 

[SeauOUCH]

Lets assume for the moment you are correct in your theory, it must then follow NE could achieve a better return with lower picks. I'll happily take something in the 7-10 range with the greater flexibility those picks allow NE, #1 would truly suck.

This theory only applies to trade downs. There is no glory in trading down.

A perfect example is the Sanchez trade, Mangenius is the goat for getting ripped off while Tanny is the hero for "aggressively trading up to go get a franchise QB"

Say for example we have the #1 pick next year, a GM would be hailed as a hero for trading the 6th overall + a lowly 2nd round pick for the #1 hyped player in the draft while at the same time "ripping off BB".

There is a 99% chance this won't matter & Oakland will be picking 9-12 or so but I'm still holding out hope for the #1.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I thought the Pats were going to trade up and draft Jake Locker in 2011. But if we luck out and we end up with the #1 pick, I suppose no trade up will be necessary...














...




.....





Totally KIDDING!

 

[patfanken]

My Realistic Draft Scerario for 2011:

Pats basicly pick in the same spot as this year, call it #27. This gives us #27 & #59 in the second round.

Oakland basically goes 8-8 and selects in the low teens, call it #14.......

Carolina is a bit better and picks at #18, that gives us their #50 in round two....

We own #'s 14, 27, 50 and 59! This might not be a dream scenario but it still qualifies as a wet dream for me. BB did a magnificent job working the board this year. Remains to be seen how these players look a year from now but I think McCourty, Gronkowski, Cunningham and Spikes looks like a very nice nucleus of young leaders on our team.

BB having a similar scenario to draft from next year is nothing short of phenomenal positioning for retooling a teams core leaders and play makers.

Well done! BB! "It is what it is, but it ain't what you think", indeed!

I liked your scenario, Feep. That seems to me a realistic assessment. It could be better if we are lucky, in fact I think that Carolina could have a worse record than Oakland getting us a pick in the low 40's So I'll make my dream scenario based on the Pats have #14-27- 42 -59

Here is what I hope for - We trade the 59 pick along with a 4th and 6th to move up into the top 10 and get the pass rushing DE/OLB that the team has targeted. Then we use the 27th pick to get one of the 4 top WRs (all of whom will be better than Dez Bryant). Finally with the 10th pick in the 2nd round we chose the best RB/OLman depending on who is at the top of our board.

This will be a top heavy draft, and for once, it will be critical that we get that special player, who can rush the passer, and a top WR. Its quality over quantity. With 24 (which is amazing when you think on it) picks in the last 2 years, we have done a fine job building the new corp of players that will take us into the first half of this decade. In 2011 we need to get the stars of that team.

So that is why I think the team will trade UP in 2011, not down. The object will be to use our draft capital to move to get specific guys at the top of the draft. Rounds 3-7 will be less relevant in a thin draft.

I don't know who these players will be. Right now I'll leave that to the true draft geeks. I just know that we need the impact rusher, the Randy replacement and either a high quality RB or OLman. If we leave the first 2 rounds with those 3 guys, then I will be thrilled.

Another reason to stress quality over quantity is the depth of the 2011 FA market. There will be 3 times the quality FAs available NEXT year as there was this year. Any holes that may exist on this team don't have to be filled in the draft, they can be filled by NFL proven players.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

You'd have to be insane to want one.

The last trade involving a top 5 pick was 2005 when #1 was traded for #4, plus a 2006 first and another pick. Eli Manning was that #1, last year his NYJ, #5 overall NYC rival, Mark Sanchez, signed a "5" year deal worth more than Eli's "6" year deal. That's serious inflation.

Let's consider the idea of a rookie cap, the NFLPA has not been open to negotiating one - why, you might ask? It's not in the union', and their buddy's the super agents, best interest to have a rookie salary cap.
-- Sam Bradford is going to make $60M guaranteed;
-- that means Peyton Manning and Tom Brady should make at minimum $60M guaranteed when they negotiate new deals;
-- if the top guy's salaries go up, then the salaries of the guys who protect them, make them look good, and defend against them should also go up.
-- It's to the NFLPA's benefit to prevent a rookie cap.

Let's look at another aspect of this, the owners want a rookie salary cap, why give up a bargaining tool before the entire CBA is worked out? It benefits the NFLPA to prevent a rookie cap until they work out a new CBA. I don't foresee a rookie cap, and I seriously hope Oakland does not gift NE a top 5 pick.

There will be trade value for a top 5 pick in 2011 because there will be a rookie cap whether there is a new CBA or not (because the owners will include it in all of their proposed CBA's and a lockout or decertification of the union to avoid one will occur before the draft and under those circumstances the rules become whatever the owners say they are...and there is nothing the NFLPA can do about it except fight them through the courts for the next five years or come to terms on a mutually agreeable CBA that will include one).

And high draft picks in a shallow draft will potentially have increased value as well because under the circumstances outlined above there will be less inclination to sign veterans to mega deals in an uncertain landscape (which will however also IMO again be capped because as with the rookie deals the rules of engagement will be ownership driven whether the NFLPA likes it or not because for them the alternative of a strike is not going to fly with their rank and file).

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

There will be trade value for a top 5 pick in 2011 because there will be a rookie cap whether there is a new CBA or not (because the owners will include it in all of their proposed CBA's and a lockout or decertification of the union to avoid one will occur before the draft and under those circumstances the rules become whatever the owners say they are...and there is nothing the NFLPA can do about it except fight them through the courts for the next five years or come to terms on a mutually agreeable CBA that will include one).

And high draft picks in a shallow draft will potentially have increased value as well because under the circumstances outlined above there will be less inclination to sign veterans to mega deals in an uncertain landscape (which will however also IMO again be capped because as with the rookie deals the rules of engagement will be ownership driven whether the NFLPA likes it or not because for them the alternative of a strike is not going to fly with their rank and file).

Update me on this Mo:

It was my understanding the current rookie wage scale (drafted) was the result of a separate agreement between the NFLPA and the NFL. As I understood, current agreements regarding the draft expire after the 2012 draft. The owners want to make rookie wages part of the CBA discussion for obvious reasons which is why it's been included in the on/off discussions.

 

[Feep50]

I liked your scenario, Feep. That seems to me a realistic assessment. It could be better if we are lucky, in fact I think that Carolina could have a worse record than Oakland getting us a pick in the low 40's So I'll make my dream scenario based on the Pats have #14-27- 42 -59

Here is what I hope for - We trade the 59 pick along with a 4th and 6th to move up into the top 10 and get the pass rushing DE/OLB that the team has targeted. Then we use the 27th pick to get one of the 4 top WRs (all of whom will be better than Dez Bryant). Finally with the 10th pick in the 2nd round we chose the best RB/OLman depending on who is at the top of our board.

This will be a top heavy draft, and for once, it will be critical that we get that special player, who can rush the passer, and a top WR. Its quality over quantity. With 24 (which is amazing when you think on it) picks in the last 2 years, we have done a fine job building the new corp of players that will take us into the first half of this decade. In 2011 we need to get the stars of that team.

So that is why I think the team will trade UP in 2011, not down. The object will be to use our draft capital to move to get specific guys at the top of the draft. Rounds 3-7 will be less relevant in a thin draft.

I don't know who these players will be. Right now I'll leave that to the true draft geeks. I just know that we need the impact rusher, the Randy replacement and either a high quality RB or OLman. If we leave the first 2 rounds with those 3 guys, then I will be thrilled.

Another reason to stress quality over quantity is the depth of the 2011 FA market. There will be 3 times the quality FAs available NEXT year as there was this year. Any holes that may exist on this team don't have to be filled in the draft, they can be filled by NFL proven players.

I like your scenario as well... I do agree that carolina might be pretty bad. They are in a rebuilding mold also.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Update me on this Mo:

It was my understanding the current rookie wage scale (drafted) was the result of a separate agreement between the NFLPA and the NFL. As I understood, current agreements regarding the draft expire after the 2012 draft. The owners want to make rookie wages part of the CBA discussion for obvious reasons which is why it's been included in the on/off discussions.

Absent a new CBA there is no 2012 draft. The rookie wage scale is part of the CBA, just like veteran minimums, etc. When the owners opted out 2 years early (in 2008) it voided the final two years of the current CBA. So it's up at the end of the 2010 season 3/11). The agreement does however provide for a 2011 college draft to be the last piece of collectively bargained business sanctioned by the expiring 2006 CBA. But that's the last thing it calls for. If there is not a new CBA in effect by then, the NFLPA will have no voice and the owners will be free to do as they choose when signing those draftees (who will either sign deals or not if there is a lockout but who will remain the property of the drafting teams either way).

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Absent a new CBA there is no 2012 draft. The rookie wage scale is part of the CBA, just like veteran minimums, etc. When the owners opted out 2 years early (in 2008) it voided the final two years of the current CBA. So it's up at the end of the 2010 season 3/11). The agreement does however provide for a 2011 college draft to be the last piece of collectively bargained business sanctioned by the expiring 2006 CBA. But that's the last thing it calls for. If there is not a new CBA in effect by then, the NFLPA will have no voice and the owners will be free to do as they choose when signing those draftees (who will either sign deals or not if there is a lockout but who will remain the property of the drafting teams either way).

I could have sworn there were items floating around the interweb stating the draft was assured through 2012 vice 2011?

EDIT: Google found this article - NFL Draft: What if there wasn't one?

 

[patsfan55]

I agree people are over rating the raiders if anything, they could be 8-8 or they could lose their 1st 4 games, Crable gets fired, the team packs it in & they go 3-13.

Robert Quinn would be a perfect OLB for us, 6'6 260 broke Julius Peppers team positional record running a 4.5 40 This guy is that rare physical freak that come along once every 10 years or so, if we is on the board when our pick is up we MUST take him.

Did this guy really run a 4.5 40!?!

 

[Marqui]

Did this guy really run a 4.5 40!?!

Yup, guy is a monster. I want him on the Pats SO bad.