Welcome to PatsFans.com

Evolution of another trade

Discussion in 'Patriots Draft Talk' started by jeffbiologist, May 11, 2011.

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

    jeffbiologist Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,433
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Too often when discussing draft trades we bring up say the Oher spot trade where we netted several players that helped our team. But when I look at Vereen and my posts from 2008....I cant help but think of what could have been:Jamaal Charles. At the time we had lost our 2nd #1, taken Mayo and Wheatley and were sitting on 3 3rds. We traded our first #3 to SD bypassing Charles, a position I thought obvious need. Yes we got BJGE that year(so we needed a RB!), and we traded that pick for a 5th round pick(Slater)and #47 that we added a 4th and a 6th to get Brace. Looked at another way:

    Brace, Green Ellis & Slater for Charles, 4th rd pick(Louis Murphy---there is our deep threat!)and a 6th(DE Strykar Sulak)

    If we had Charles we most likely dont take 2 RBs this year so it may also save a roster spot. Yes its 1000% hindsight, but an example why 2007-2009 draft classes werent as poor as they had to be.
  2. NFLroughdraft

    NFLroughdraft Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Wow. Nice work tracking that. I agree with you.
  3. Ochmed Jones

    Ochmed Jones Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    5,750
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +14 / 2 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    If we had Charles instead of Green Ellis, why wouldn't BB still draft two RB's in this draft?
  4. Oswlek

    Oswlek Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    4,171
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    Barring a player becoming a Seymour-esque HOF type player, hindsight will always help you find a better alternative.

    Find me a bunch of people saying NE blew it by not picking Charles back then and I'll tip my cap.
  5. reamer

    reamer Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    While I fully agree Charles is a better player than the guys we picked up, the problem is that we can all do this with every pick. Sure, sometimes our picks work out better; I wanted Mike Wallace, who went one pick after Tate. Looks like I probably got that one right. To be fair, I also got suckered by Gholston back in the day. :bricks:

    In the draft you've referenced, I really wanted us to take Cliff Avril. He was available, but we passed. So it goes.

    I suggest changing perspective: lead a forward-looking life, not one obsessed with the mistakes of the past. We can't redact history, but we can change our attitudes and actions in the future.

    /philosophical tirade
  6. jsull87

    jsull87 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,550
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    In reality you can't even include BJGE in that because he was an UDFA. I still think we would have taken 1 RB in this draft. In saying all this it's a massive roster ripple effect. We probably wouldn't have woodhead on the team now but would still have BJGE. It's a hard thing to track but its also quite easy to do alot of this after the draft e.g pick mike wallace, MJD, brandon marshal e.t.c
  7. patriot lifer

    patriot lifer Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,865
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    I just got the fact that your user name is jeffbiologist and the title of the thread includes the word "Evolution." The Universe just made a lot more sense. :eek:
  8. convertedpatsfan

    convertedpatsfan PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,307
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    Obviously Charles should have been drafted higher, just as Brady should have been. But I'm not a fan of looking at an individual pick within a vacuum without any context.

    Yes, we should have drafted him. You could even say we should have taken him with the #2 instead of Wheatley. But I'd counter by saying KC was fortunate he was still around. He was the 10th running back off the board, and I count at least 3 or 4 teams who did draft a RB higher than Charles who regret that. And before we give full credit to KC, one might argue he was even more worthy of one of their 2 1st-rounders that year, Glenn Dorsey and Branden Albert.

    Plus we had just broken a ton of scoring records the season before with a still-promising young RB in Maroney. The defense was old, and so it's understandable why the first 3 picks were on that side of the ball.

    I'm not trying to defend the poor drafts mind you. Just saying that it's not really fair to criticize one team for missing when everyone missed on the same kid multiple times.
  9. smg93

    smg93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,809
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Says 31 other NFL Teams:

    "Man in 2000 I had all these first, second, third, fourth, and fifth round picks I could have used on Brady..."

    Hindsight is 20:20
  10. JerseyDevil26

    JerseyDevil26 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yep, while I agree Charles would be a nice asset...you can't "what-if" every draft pick scenario. "What if" we took Michael Oher instead of trading down? What if we took Clay Matthews? Hindsight is always 20-20. We've done a pretty good job of drafting overall, and with the sheer number of picks we've had over the years you're bound to miss on some. Law of averages.
  11. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,099
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +235 / 18 / -38

    #50 Jersey

    For a guy who claims to be a scientist, you seem to do more guessing and ignoring of facts and being wist-full than you do dealing with reality.

    First off, if they take Charles, there is no guarantee that he becomes the player he has. Charles had ankle issues and ball security issues coming out of school. I can remember a certain 2nd round pick getting flamed continuously because of his fumbling issues until he wasn't used as a starting back anymore.

    What is to say that Murphy or Sulak would have been available after the Pats took Charles. You seem to forget that once you change one decision, all the decisions after that get changed also.

    You love to look at things in a vacuum and speculate on what could have been... But you rarely, if ever, look to the future..
    Last edited: May 13, 2011
  12. captain stone

    captain stone Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    8,614
    Likes Received:
    53
    Ratings:
    +120 / 26 / -18

    No Jersey Selected

    I was hoping for either Charles, CB Terrell Thomas or DE/OLB Cliff Avril at the end of the 2nd round,
    and Jeremy Zuttah was prob. the best OLman available. I had also hoped that WR Jordy Nelson
    would fall to us, but GB grabbed him before Bill had the chance to ignore him.
  13. jeffbiologist

    jeffbiologist Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,433
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Not sure of what you know of scientists but we do alot of guessing. We propose theories and run em by peers, sound familiar? Back on topic, Charles wasnt Charles his first 2 years either, he was behind Larry Johnson and Thomas Jones. I think its safe to say he could have made the team behind Maroney. Not sure what the fumbling came from, great observation:rolleyes:. Sure, nothing happens in a vaccuum but do you say the same thing when Patchick follows the string of picks/players from the Oher pick trade?? NOPE. You end with a dimwitted personal jab, and if I speculated about the future you'd question my crystal balls too no doubt. Please just stop.
  14. NEGoldenAge

    NEGoldenAge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    I suspect most scientists who actually develop and test hypothesis would not feel the need to include such a title in their handle. Lab technicians with a biology degree are another matter.
  15. MaineMan

    MaineMan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,895
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Ouch.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    (another few characters)
  16. NEGoldenAge

    NEGoldenAge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    A lab technician is a great gig, and a degree in biology is no easy thing to attain. I do not mean to downplay those things. I just don't like it when people paint an inaccurate, exagerated picture to make themselves look "better" than they are. It is a major flaw of mine :(

    But you are right, probably a bit too harsh. :(
  17. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,099
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +235 / 18 / -38

    #50 Jersey

    Scientis also know that there is such thing as Relativity.

    Charles had fumbling issues coming out of school. What didn't you understand about that? It's pretty well known that BB shies away from RBs who can't hold onto the ball. Not to mention that, at the time Charles was drafted, the Pats had what was thought to be a fairly strong stable at RB with Faulk, Maroney, Morris and Lamont Jordan.

    Why are you attempting to bring Patchick into the conversation? Is it because you know that many people have taken you to task for the same illogical jumps as I have? Other people have mentioned the same thing to Patchick as I mentioned to you. Also, Patchick is not a self-proclaimed scientist and doesn't pretend she is better than Belichick.

    I didn't end my post with a "dim-witted personal jab." I made a declarative statement based on the facts at hand (your posting history). If you decide to take that as a personal jab, that is your issue.
  18. jeffbiologist

    jeffbiologist Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,433
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I am a scientist, not self proclaimed. Relativity? Not sure where that applies. Faulk was well known for fumbling problems and he has worked out pretty well. I mention Patchick for her similar posts and because she is even handed, you arent. Many people havent taken me to task, your "illogical jumps" comment is off base. I dont pretend to be better than anyone, I think its fair and even handed to point out both the successes AND the failures.
  19. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,099
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +235 / 18 / -38

    #50 Jersey

    *sigh* Jeff, you have been taken to task more times than I can count. And my "illogical jumps" comment about you is dead on.

    Faulk was not a Belichick draft pick. Faulk was drafted by Bobby Grier. There you go again ignoring facts. Can you point to the last RB that BB drafted who had fumbling issues in college?

    You mentioned Patchick because you wanted to try and change the subject off yourself. You have regularly belittled Belichick's picks and felt you could do better. And you've implied such with numerous threads like this. As for being even-handed, I have had my share of questioning of Belichick. The difference between you and I is that I have done as much as possible to try and understand his reasoning. You, on the other hand, you don't bother to try and understand his reasoning.

    What failures were you pointing out? You used pure speculation ignoring that when you change one decision it then changes every other decision after that. You made a baseless claim (that Charles would do just as well in NE as he has in KC) without talking actual fact. You also ignored that the different environment probably would have change the results. It could have been better, but it could have been worse as well.

    You also ignored that the Pats had 4 RBs at the time that they felt would be more productive. So, where would Charles have fit in?

    One last thing, Jeff. You claim to be a scientist, yet you go out of your way to ignore facts and investigate much of your "theories" that you post. Scientists usually don't ignore facts the way you do.. And scientists usually investigate things so they can see if their theory is correct.
    Last edited: May 18, 2011
  20. Off The Grid

    Off The Grid Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,628
    Likes Received:
    76
    Ratings:
    +141 / 5 / -0

    #3 Jersey

    Actually, he is.

    The most shocking thing, for me, in the year I've been here, based on my initial expectations, is that I haven't had a BIG Throw Down with Brother Bruinz ~ at least not that I can remember: I am descended from Gold Fish.

    I was here about 5 minutes, last Spring, read a few of this guy's posts, and thought: "This guy is one OPINIONATED SOB. Being an opinionated SOB, myself, I reckon I'll have my first nasty argument with this guy by the end of my first DAY."

    Well, I was dead wrong.

    Unlike EVERY other opinionated SOB I've ever come across, over the years ~ with the exception of my own brilliant self, of course!! :D ~ Brother Bruinz is, considering the vociferocity of his prose, remarkably reasonable, thoughtfull, and ultimately defensible...and usually spot ON, in my opinion.

    Rarely do I see such consistently sound judgment in one so acerbic.

    All of which is to say: If you've run afoul of this vociferous but startlingly well prepared cat, you'd do well to analyze your own work, respectfully submitted.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>