Mock epic fail

[everlong]

2014 NFL Mock Draft: Blake Bortles the new No. 1 pick - SBNation.com

17. TRADE - New England Patriots (via Dallas Cowboys) - Jace Amaro, Tight End, Texas Tech

Bill Belichick has been known to trade down in the NFL Draft, but when he sees value he's never been afraid to pull the trigger. The Patriots should have enough ammunition to move up a few spots to get in front of the Jets and draft a tight end. Jace Amaro may be the best all-around tight end in this class. With the issues New England has had at the position in the last 12 months, Amaro would be a welcome addition to the offense.

29. TRADE Dallas Cowboys (via New England Patriots) - Ra'shede Hageman, Defensive lineman, Minnesota

Ra'shede Hageman is one of the toughest players to figure out in the 2014 NFL Draft. On one hand, he's physically imposing and has a combination of get off and strength that will appeal to most teams. He'll also turn heads at the 2014 NFL Scouting Combine. However, he plays without much technique and will have some people concerned over his history off the field. He's worth the risk at this pick, though. The Cowboys trade down and get an excellent value. Nice work, Mr. Jones.

62. New England Patriots - Jarvis Landry, Wide Receiver, LSU

Bill Belichick hasn't had much luck drafting wide receivers lately, but that doesn't mean he should stop trying. Jarvis Landry is the victim of a strong wide receiver class. Normally, he would be drafted higher than this.

Not only don't I think Amaro is worthy of a trade up to #17 I don't think I'd use a pick on him at #29 and then he has the Cowboys using that pick for the guy I would take. I think Landry at 62 is actually a good value but now you've used your top two picks on receivers, which is what Amaro would be, without addressing anything else. Also I don't know how the Patriots get to 17 from 29 without packaging 62. It's a 310 point different on the value chart and 62 is only worth 284 as it is.

I think there's going to be a lot of this style of thinking in mocks for the Patriots this year. I'd be much happier if they sign Maclin to a one year prove it deal, give Scott Chandler a deal to give the TE position more receiving power and then draft Hageman in the first and address OG/C, S or DE\OLB in the second.

 

[manxman2601]

I agree that the question of how we trade up and Hageman's drafting are dubious, but considering how goos our defense was pre-injury and how bad our offense was without Gronk, this would be a mock I could live with. I personally wouldn't trade up for Amaro but TE is the biggest need on the team. And Landry will be a better Kenbrell Thompkins.

 

[everlong]

Our defense was certainly much better before VW, Kelly and Mayo went down but who had we played to that point who could exploit the lack of a pass rush especially up the middle? Priority one to me is the lines.

Plus I'd rather add a couple of Vets vs more rookies. Hopefully at least Dobson takes a step forward and if he does having Maclin, Dobson, Gronk and Chandler would be better at least next year vs Amaro and Landry. With Brady's window so small I'd rather the Patriots are about the now and not the future.

 

[manxman2601]

Our defense was certainly much better before VW, Kelly and Mayo went down but who had we played to that point who could exploit the lack of a pass rush especially up the middle? Priority one to me is the lines.

Plus I'd rather add a couple of Vets vs more rookies. Hopefully at least Dobson takes a step forward and if he does having Maclin, Dobson, Gronk and Chandler would be better at least next year vs Amaro and Landry. With Brady's window so small I'd rather the Patriots are about the now and not the future.

It's not like the "now" is in all that much jeopardy. We've just got to the AFCCG and Tommy Kelly was providing plenty of interior pressure until he got injured.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

There's a thread for this.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...735-official-2014-mock-draft-fail-thread.html

 

[mayoclinic]

I agree that the question of how we trade up and Hageman's drafting are dubious, but considering how goos our defense was pre-injury and how bad our offense was without Gronk, this would be a mock I could live with. I personally wouldn't trade up for Amaro but TE is the biggest need on the team. And Landry will be a better Kenbrell Thompkins.

I'm more of the "epic fail" opinion. I don't consider Amaro worth a 1st, much less trading up for. But that's not the point.

The mock conveniently doesn't say what we give up to move form 29 to 17. The difference according to the trade value chart is 310 points (640 vs. 950), or a little more than the value of out #62 pick (284 points). Those charts aren't perfect, but it's the best we have to go on. So what are we trading away to move up to 17? A 2015 1st? That would be an epic fail. A 2014 3rd, plus maybe something else? That would be a good trade value, and Dallas did take #74 from San Francisco to trade back from 18 to 31 (300 point difference, #74 valued at 220 points) last year. But #93 is valued at only 128 points. Big difference. So what's the cost of moving up to get Amaro?

And, having given up our 3rd round pick or likely much more to move up to 17, what do we do? We take receivers (Amaro is really a TE who plays WR) with our first 2 picks. Epic fail. Landry is at best an upgrade over Thompkins, and even that is questionable. And we completely ignore OL, DL and other needs, which we won't we able to address until day 3 at least, and we may have to give up some of our 2015 real estate.

Epic fail, IMHO.

 

[manxman2601]

I'm more of the "epic fail" opinion. I don't consider Amaro worth a 1st, much less trading up for. But that's not the point.

The mock conveniently doesn't say what we give up to move form 29 to 17. The difference according to the trade value chart is 310 points (640 vs. 950), or a little more than the value of out #62 pick (284 points). Those charts aren't perfect, but it's the best we have to go on. So what are we trading away to move up to 17? A 2015 1st? That would be an epic fail. A 2014 3rd, plus maybe something else? That would be a good trade value, and Dallas did take #74 from San Francisco to trade back from 18 to 31 (300 point difference, #74 valued at 220 points) last year. But #93 is valued at only 128 points. Big difference. So what's the cost of moving up to get Amaro?

And, having given up our 3rd round pick or likely much more to move up to 17, what do we do? We take receivers (Amaro is really a TE who plays WR) with our first 2 picks. Epic fail. Landry is at best an upgrade over Thompkins, and even that is questionable. And we completely ignore OL, DL and other needs, which we won't we able to address until day 3 at least, and we may have to give up some of our 2015 real estate.

Epic fail, IMHO.

It has offensive players in it, of course you'd view it as an epic fail

I actually acknowledged the trade as a problem, I was just dealing with the players. Amaro is my third or fourth best TE (1. Ebron 2. ASJ 3. Amaro/Niklas?) so I certainly wouldn't trade up for him but the position is our no1 need. And in terms of pure receiving skills leaving aside athleticism and speed, in my opinion Landry is the best receiver in the draft. As for DL, I don't see it as a major priority although I'm happy to take the right player and there's a good chance OL gets taken from the third round onwards anyway.

In my book there is no way that getting plus weapons for Tom Brady could ever be described as "epic fail". For me, this mock, outside the trade, is acceptable.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

It's not like the "now" is in all that much jeopardy. We've just got to the AFCCG and Tommy Kelly was providing plenty of interior pressure until he got injured.

Many people are questioning the ability of Wilfork to come back after his injury, and rightly so considering the history of players recovering from Achilles' injuries, plus Wilfork's age and shape.

But for some reason I don't see the same concern about Tommy Kelly, who tore an ACL according to this thread. He's 33 years old and coming off a major injury. I'm just worried we're taking too much for granted here. I'm envisioning Andre Carter 2011 versus 2012/2013 post knee injury.

As much as we need another tight end, we really need another DT too (and DE, but that's a different story). I'm not comfortable putting all my eggs in the Kelly basket at this point. With the Pats salary cap situaiton, it's more cost effective to sign someone like Pettigrew or Chandler and draft the DT than the other way around, IMHO.

 

[manxman2601]

Many people are questioning the ability of Wilfork to come back after his injury, and rightly so considering the history of players recovering from Achilles' injuries, plus Wilfork's age and shape.

But for some reason I don't see the same concern about Tommy Kelly, who tore an ACL according to this thread. He's 33 years old and coming off a major injury. I'm just worried we're taking too much for granted here. I'm envisioning Andre Carter 2011 versus 2012/2013 post knee injury.

As much as we need another tight end, we really need another DT too (and DE, but that's a different story). I'm not comfortable putting all my eggs in the Kelly basket at this point. With the Pats salary cap situaiton, it's more cost effective to sign someone like Pettigrew or Chandler and draft the DT than the other way around, IMHO.

And would your view of this mock change if it went Amaro-Landry-Ellis-Easley and we signed Alex Mack and Jake Ballard in FA?

And we shouldn't be equating Chandler and Amaro! They're two completely different players.

 

[mayoclinic]

It has offensive players in it, of course you'd view it as an epic fail

Note at all. That's what day 3 is for.

Seriously, I want the Pats to address both offense and defense this offseason. WR is not my day 1-2 priority - though if Edelman walks I hope we find a reasonable cost veteran alternative in FA. Interior offensive line and TE should certainly be at least equal priorities with the defense if they aren't addressed in FA. I've chosen to address them mainly in FA (partly because we added so much youth on offense last year) and address defense in the draft, but it could obviously go other ways.

My personal views on the priorities for the offense:

- Upgrade at interior OL
- Upgrade at TE (both inline and move TE) behind Gronk
- Re-sign or replace Edelman
- Re-sign or replace Blount

All of those would be >> adding additional depth at WR, IMHO.

 

[manxman2601]

Note at all. That's what day 3 is for.

Seriously, I want the Pats to address both offense and defense this offseason. WR is not my day 1-2 priority - though if Edelman walks I hope we find a reasonable cost veteran alternative in FA. Interior offensive line and TE should certainly be at least equal priorities with the defense if they aren't addressed in FA. I've chosen to address them mainly in FA (partly because we added so much youth on offense last year) and address defense in the draft, but it could obviously go other ways.

My personal views on the priorities for the offense:

- Upgrade at interior OL
- Upgrade at TE (both inline and move TE) behind Gronk
- Re-sign or replace Edelman
- Re-sign or replace Blount

All of those would be >> adding additional depth at WR, IMHO.

Believe me, WR is not a high priority for me either - it's just that there are one or two that I think provide extra value and Jarvis Landry is one of them (think Marvin Jones). Brandin Cooks is another I'd take in the 2nd round.

 

[everlong]

And would your view of this mock change if it went Amaro-Landry-Ellis-Easley and we signed Alex Mack and Jake Ballard in FA?

And we shouldn't be equating Chandler and Amaro! They're two completely different players.

Jake Ballard? Haven't we already gone that route? I'm with you on Mack.

Yes Chandler can block in addition to catching.

 

[everlong]

Believe me, WR is not a high priority for me either - it's just that there are one or two that I think provide extra value and Jarvis Landry is one of them (think Marvin Jones). Brandin Cooks is another I'd take in the 2nd round.

As I said in my first post I like Landry but I just can't see drafting two receivers. I'm with Mayo that the lines are priority one. Denver kicked the crap out of our lines and as pointed out by others there's no way to tell if VW and Kelly return to form.

 

[manxman2601]

Jake Ballard? Haven't we already gone that route? I'm with you on Mack.

Yes Chandler can block in addition to catching.

Chandler is a big slow TE limited to the middle of the field. Amaro is a WR in a TE body. Huge difference. I don't have a problem with Chandler as a backup to Gronk or improvement on Mulligan but he won't be an impact playmaker.

 

[captain stone]

This team cannot afford to expend another precious 2nd-rounder on another WR
who would have to be coached up. And knowing Bill, I have no doubt that he would
bypass another Keenan Allen for another Aaron Dropson.

The best solution to the WR problem is shyte-canning Toughglass, re-signing Minitron,
and signing a young vet non-slot WR coming off his rookie contract...and praying that
Dropson & Joyce become actually competent.

Edit: I do believe that Manx meant signing Scott Chandler, not Jake Ballard.

 

[manxman2601]

As I said in my first post I like Landry but I just can't see drafting two receivers. I'm with Mayo that the lines are priority one. Denver kicked the crap out of our lines and as pointed out by others there's no way to tell if VW and Kelly return to form.

The thing about the lines are that they can be addressed anytime, especially if you are talking interior OL. As for the DL, I'm fine with a Nix or an Aaron Donald at 29 but what if they're not there? Are you going to reach just because you want to prioritise DL? The move TE is clearly a huge position of need, in my book the biggest, and so Amaro, whilst not my first choice, has to be considered an acceptable pick just because it fills a priority need. If the mock had been Louis Nix-Jarvis Landry, I'd have called that acceptable too because it too fills a need.

 

[manxman2601]

This team cannot afford to expend another precious 2nd-rounder on another WR
who would have to be coached up. And knowing Bill, I have no doubt that he would
bypass another Keenan Allen for another Aaron Dropson.

The best solution to the WR problem is shyte-canning Toughglass, re-signing Minitron,
and signing a young vet non-slot WR coming off his rookie contract...and praying that
Dropson & Joyce become actually competent.

Edit: I do believe that Manx meant signing Scott Chandler, not Jake Ballard.

No I meant Jake Ballard. if he's back to full fitness, there's little difference between he and Chandler.

 

[everlong]

Chandler is a big slow TE limited to the middle of the field. Amaro is a WR in a TE body. Huge difference. I don't have a problem with Chandler as a backup to Gronk or improvement on Mulligan but he won't be an impact playmaker.

He caught 50 something balls for 600 something yards from the trash Buffalo has at QB. He's not going to be Aaron Hernandez but neither is Amaro. I don't see him being able to get separation in the NFL and I don't see him being able to be as versatile as AH was. For a first rounder I'd want the total package.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

And would your view of this mock change if it went Amaro-Landry-Ellis-Easley and we signed Alex Mack and Jake Ballard in FA?

And we shouldn't be equating Chandler and Amaro! They're two completely different players.

To the 2nd point -- agree that they're different players. Wasn't trying to equate them, just thinking about how the offense could look and of course it would be different with either of them.

To the first question - for that draft to happen, sounds like the trade would have had to have been 29 and the 2015 first rounder for Amaro. I'd be happy with those players as the overall result (pending the Pats being happy on Easley's knee condition), but it still seems quite the expense to get Amaro. Hypothetically, let's turn that around -- eliminate the Amaro trade, and instead select Hageman-Landry-Ellis-Rogers. I think the latter is preferable, where we get to keep the 2015 first round pick.

 

[everlong]

The thing about the lines are that they can be addressed anytime, especially if you are talking interior OL. As for the DL, I'm fine with a Nix or an Aaron Donald at 29 but what if they're not there? Are you going to reach just because you want to prioritise DL? The move TE is clearly a huge position of need, in my book the biggest, and so Amaro, whilst not my first choice, has to be considered an acceptable pick just because it fills a priority need. If the mock had been Louis Nix-Jarvis Landry, I'd have called that acceptable too because it too fills a need.

I don't think Hageman is a reach at 29 so I don't feel that's applicable. I do however feel Amaro is a reach at 29 so I'll ask your question right back. are you going to reach just because you want a TE?

I'd be happy with Nix and Landry assuming when Landry was chosen there wasn't somebody at a higher position of need on the board. Again I'd rather they chose a veteran WR like Maclin. I agree with you that Landry is flying under the radar.