Justin Rogers: wanted. Stewart Bradley: not wanted?

[Remix 6]

Your point is not valid. NE had interest in Stewart bradley. They talked to Stewart at the Senior Bowl, put him through a private workout, and brought him in for a visit. Sources indicate NE was going to pick Stewart at 91st overall if he had fallen to them, but the Eagles grabbed him before that.

sources indicated Harris would be taken at 28 if avaible..he was avaible..nothing happened

 

[sebman2112]

sources indicated Harris would be taken at 28 if avaible..he was avaible..nothing happened

I don't mean sources before the fact, but after the fact. Even some sources who were in NE's war room.

 

[mcbee]

If they wanted Bradley that badly--and the evidence suggests they didn't--they would have made a trade up to get him (maybe not 10-20, maybe just 5 or so); it may well have involved a 2008 pick (they already had SF's first, so it wouldn't sting as much).

It amazes me, though, that at this point anyone is still willing to trade with the Pats at all.

The 6th round pick would have moved them up 10 spots or so.

I don't think your line about anyone being willing to trade with the pats makes any sense. They are trading picks for picks, not players. The pats MAY make a great pick and get an all pro with their pick, but that still doesn't mean the picks for picks trade was a bad trade from the team that traded it. After all, the team that traded the pick, most likely WASN'T GOING TO PICK THE PLAYER NE DID, they have no way of knowing who the geniuses at NE were going to pick...if they did maybe they could pick him but they don't.

If SF didn't do their trade with NE and traded instead with the #29 pick and picked the same guy, Staley, would that have been brilliant? But doing it at #28 was stupid because they were trading against the mighty NE pats? Does that make sense? OR is it homerism?

 

[Fencer]

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFLDraft/Draft+Insider/2004/TradeValue.htm is a trade value chart on which late round picks are valued less than on Gil Brandt's. On that one, the Pats barely had the ammo to leap over the Eagles if everything worked out with precision.

So there's no assurance that they had any options beyond what they actually did.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

One #4 went for Moss, I doubt anyone would want that used differently. And Brown is the sole Day Two guy who I like quite a bit, I prefer him and the Raiders' #3 next year to Bradley.

I would have have used #110 differently, but then I'm not a Randy Moss fan. Still, it's nice to know you are happy with the linebacker depth chart.

 

[bucky]

That's true. But our 5th was a compensation pick that we could not trade and two of our sixth rounders were compensation picks too. Maybe they just didn't have enough to trade up because most of our day two picks were compensation picks, and by then it appears that the Moss trade was heating up too.

Why argue about this when you can just look at the draft board. The pick right before Philly's - #86 - was traded to Baltimore for 101, 166, and 203. Could the Pats have gotten the same pick by trading 91 and their 2 6th (180 and 202)? Almost certainly!

The possibilities are: Jacksonville wanted 101+166 more than 91+180 (highly unlikely), the Patriots didn't pursue the trade because they were mistakenly certain that Bradley was going to be there (also somewhat unlikely if they really thought he was good value), or they didn't pursue the trade because they didn't feel Bradley was worth moving up. Personally, I wish they had move up for him because I think the haul they got in the later rounds (Richardson, Hairston, and a bunch of PS OL) isn't very impressive and would have been there as UDFAs. But the only logical conclusion seems to be that they didn't want him that badly.

 

[DW Toys]

Why argue about this when you can just look at the draft board. The pick right before Philly's - #86 - was traded to Baltimore for 101, 166, and 203. Could the Pats have gotten the same pick by trading 91 and their 2 6th (180 and 202)? Almost certainly!

The possibilities are: Jacksonville wanted 101+166 more than 91+180 (highly unlikely), the Patriots didn't pursue the trade because they were mistakenly certain that Bradley was going to be there (also somewhat unlikely if they really thought he was good value), or they didn't pursue the trade because they didn't feel Bradley was worth moving up. Personally, I wish they had move up for him because I think the haul they got in the later rounds (Richardson, Hairston, and a bunch of PS OL) isn't very impressive and would have been there as UDFAs. But the only logical conclusion seems to be that they didn't want him that badly.

Cousin Bucky,
I agree with you. I was chastised with vigor on these threads when I said two months before the draft that is was not a good draft. Where are those guys now? There were a few good "pieces" left though like Bradley. I think a couple of 6th rounders I would have moved up for him. But why didn't they?.......I agree the sixth rounders down were essentially UDFA'S. But why draft them either?

The steal of the draft is going to be Buffalo taking SS Wendling in the sixth round. He was a third rounder (o.k. maybe fifth any other year) but he was a desperate need to back Rodney (please, I do not want to here James "O'lay" Sanders again) and I am sure on anyone's board of the B.S. BPA (Best Player Available) stuff higher rated than Justin Rogers, including the Pats, So what gives with Rogers? It's a mystery. They could have had Bradley for a sixth but I agree with you, took UDFA material instead.

I propose this to you. The Moss deal was certainly in play during this first day of the draft. CAP space was needed to be secured whether it was a forth or fifth rounder for Moss or whatever. Did the Pats consciously move out of all first day players to free up rookie CAP money to give to Moss? I cannot believe anyone from fifth choice down will give the Pats FO a hard time on signings. In fact they will be as willing to deal as a crack head selling grandma's valuables.

I think if Bradley fell to them fine, if not let's make some trades to get out of there. I kind of think they thought they might still have had a chance with Hartwell at that time.
DW Toys

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The steal of the draft is going to be Buffalo taking SS Wendling in the sixth round. He was a third rounder (o.k. maybe fifth any other year) but he was a desperate need to back Rodney (please, I do not want to here James "O'lay" Sanders again) and I am sure on anyone's board of the B.S. BPA (Best Player Available) stuff higher rated than Justin Rogers, including the Pats, So what gives with Rogers? It's a mystery. They could have had Bradley for a sixth but I agree with you, took UDFA material instead.

Again, though, you have to square that with the fact that the Pats passed on Wendling not once but twice in the previous 15 picks. Maybe it'll prove to be a Marques Colston-like mistake*, but there clearly was something that made them decide to pass (remember, not only did they pass Wendling up to pick Rogers, they also passed him up for Oldenburg, too).

*I'm not blaming the Pats for not drafting Colston; it's not like the other NFL teams didn't screw up also.

 

[R_T26]

There was an article in USA today talking to Randy Savage, and he said both the Patriots and Eagles were willing to trade their 1st so Cleveland could take Quinn. If that happened and the Eagles took Meriweather, who would the Pats have taken at 28.