OT: Trade up! Trade up! Trade up!

[Froob]

They said in one of the books I read there was always two guys you could trade with on draft day Bill Belichick and Bill Parcells.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

I don't see nine rookies making the team. But I also don't see us hitting on every player, especially not in the mid rounds. Which is why I think the "we have more picks than we have roster space" argument is a bit flawed. Having several picks there increases our chances to get hits. Which is good because the hit rate in the mid rounds aren't that great.

Yea and "worst case" you hit on all 9 picks and get 9 nfl starters.. what a horrible problem to have! Haha

 

[Mike the Brit]

All I want is for the Patriots to hit on as many picks as they can.

I hope the Patriots take the players I want (of course, I don't know that I want them until Belichick picks them ...)

 

[Kontradiction]

I hope the Patriots take the players I want (of course, I don't know that I want them until Belichick picks them ...)

LOL, that's always the fun part of the draft around here. To watch people that either barely follow or don't follow college football at all take to the forum to either defend the picks with their lives or trash them based on a couple of internet scouting reports while simultaneously panning guys like Kiper. It's always great entertainment. Not saying that's the case with you, just commenting on the mindset.

 

[Fencer]

Going into the 2004 draft, I snarkily said that the one certainty was that BB would make a pick trade.

Oops!

 

[Mike the Brit]

LOL, that's always the fun part of the draft around here. To watch people that either barely follow or don't follow college football at all take to the forum to either defend the picks with their lives or trash them based on a couple of internet scouting reports while simultaneously panning guys like Kiper. It's always great entertainment. Not saying that's the case with you, just commenting on the mindset.

No, not guilty. I'm usually too busy reading up on who the heck our new players are (why do their college coaches always say that if their daughter brought a guy home, this is the kind of guy they hope he'd be?) I do have an occasional college "binkie" (T.Y. Hilton!) but BB hasn't taken my advice on that. I'm fine with that so far ...

 

[oldrover]

Whether up or down, if you're a GM talking trade across the table from BB on draft day, here's what you're seeing:

 

[hambone1818]

I think the idea, wrt Belichick and trading up, is that he positions the team to have an abundance of picks every draft and is well positioned to move an extra mid/late-round pick if a player he likes is available but he believes might be grabbed ahead of their next pick. This is very unlike the Loomis/Saints philosophy which is outright aggression on draft day, sacrificing their few mid/late-round picks for early-round trade ups. It's very, very rare for the Patriots to not have 5+ picks in the 4th and later, and often what you see is the Patriots trading out of some of those picks for more future ammo.

Belichick, through good fortune (hello, Tom Brady) and good roster management has the latitude to trade out of a draft frequently, something many/most GM's don't have the luxury of doing. But he's smart enough to take full advantage of it, and year after year we see an abundance of picks because of that strategy, which sometimes allows him to get aggressive with a target he wants.

 

[TBR]

I hope the Pats trade the 32nd pick for a currently bad or average team's 2016 1st rounder, who's desperate to get into this year's 1st round for a guy they like + want that 5th year option attached

Then trade up to the 2nd round and take 2-3 guys

 

[DarrylS]

It means plenty. And I've already given 2 examples of them trading up in the first round. The specific numbers aren't nearly as important as the fact that it's been done.

That was my point most trade ups occur outside of the first round.. 2 out of 17 trade ups in the first round, mean it happened 15 times in latter rounds.

 

[Deus Irae]

That was my point most trade ups occur outside of the first round.. 2 out of 17 trade ups in the first round, mean it happened 15 times in latter rounds.

So what exactly is your point? Loomis has only traded up in the first round 3 times, and he's been there since 2002. There is essentially no difference.

This isn't rocket science. Trade up. Trade down. Stay where you are. They all work. They all fail. What matters is what you do with the picks.

 

[pdangle]

Another draft strategy NE could employ tomorrow, and so far not discussed, is focusing picks on hi-risk, hi-reward players rather than more dependable but low ceiling guys. Coincidentally NE is in just such a position to do this this year - few spots available on a deep team and holding many picks. I wouldn't be surprised if they swing for the fences more than usual this year.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Here's how it all works: if a team doesn't want to stay with the pick they're currently sitting at they can either trade up or they can trade down.



John Madden inspired logic used above

Or, they could just not turn in their card.



Vikings '03 inspired logic used above.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

So what exactly is your point? Loomis has only traded up in the first round 3 times, and he's been there since 2002. There is essentially no difference.

This isn't rocket science. Trade up. Trade down. Stay where you are. They all work. They all fail. What matters is what you do with the picks.

The outcome matters a great deal, I agree. But I'm more interested in the actual process behind the decision-making. We're talking extremely small sample sizes here, so we can point to specific deals, but it's good to look at the overall picture to see if it's a run of luck or skill.

BB has drafted 133 players over 15 drafts for the Patriots (8.9 per year). Loomis has drafted 82 players over 13 drafts (6.3 per year). It works out to over 2.5 more picks per year for BB. And since 2008, it's even worse, with the Saints drafting just 5.4 picks per year. Even if Loomis is smarter than the average bear (and I don't think he is), he's given himself fewer chances to cash in on that knowledge.

To be clear, I'm not saying don't trade up ever. But for some GMs (and fans), it seems like it's the best way to work the draft. Yes, BB trades up too, but often with ammo he's received from trading down. He moved up for Jones using the Saints trade up. BB traded up slightly for Gronk using the high 2nd he got from Jacksonville for trading out of a 3rd the year before. The Chad Jackson fiasco was fueled by the 3rd rounder they got from the Ravens for a trade down the year before (trade last pick of 2nd to drop 20 spots and select Ellis Hobbs, a 6th rounder that somehow got packaged in a trade up to GB, only for that pick to be traded to the Raiders to move back for a 7th which would be Matt Cassel and a 2006 5th spent on Ryan O'Callaghan, and the 2006 3rd which was used to trade up for Jackson).

So there's much more balance to what BB is doing. As you mentioned, Loomis has only moved up 3 times in the 1st while BB has done it 4 times. But it's everything else that BB does to help fund those moves that matters. And your earlier reference on Howe's article really hit the nail on the head, equal trades up and down.

Every team starts with 7 draft picks each year. Historically, BB has found a way to generate 2 more picks per year, while Loomis has averaged giving up a pick per year. At some point, the law of averages is going to catch up regardless of the quality of picks made, and the process BB is employing will win out over time.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Another draft strategy NE could employ tomorrow, and so far not discussed, is focusing picks on hi-risk, hi-reward players rather than more dependable but low ceiling guys. Coincidentally NE is in just such a position to do this this year - few spots available on a deep team and holding many picks. I wouldn't be surprised if they swing for the fences more than usual this year.

.....which is what they basically did last year with the Easley pick. They knew he was 50/50 for 2014 but since they had VW, Seal, Jones, Vellano, etc so they were ok grabbing him at #29.

I'm not so sure they have that luxury this year. They have major needs at CB, G (2) and DT (I'm starting to wonder if they think they have a major need as they have 6 interior DTs signed?). They need to fill those slots with NFL ready talent. Because of their current lack of NFL-ready depth at those positions, not sure they can absorb another 50/50 player that they can for all intents and purposes potentially red shirt for 2015.

On the other hand, when blue chip talent falls to you you may not need it but you take it b/c it represents great value.

 

[Brit patriot]

So many different responses, and they are all reasonable.

The good thing is that we know that Bill will do what he thinks is best for the team. I am happy to sit back and enjoy the ride on here for the next three days, knowing we have the brightest man in the NFL in charge of our future.

Then again, if it is anything like last year, I will come on and see people at panic stations claiming that Bill has done everything wrong!

 

[The Boomer]

With the Saints picking at #31 just ahead of the Patriots, NE will pick whoever NO fumbles to them. If the Saints love 2 players at the end of Round 1, I could see them swapping their second (#44) and one of their thirds (#75 or #78) to the Pats for the right to double dip with pick #32:

http://www.neworleanssaints.com/new...L-Draft-/10474cb1-ece8-437b-8684-3c7c2c809faf

The Patriots likely could address all their immediate needs with those 2 picks in round 2, 3 in round 3 and the early 4th rounder. They probably will get more value with that horde of 6 picks between 44 and 101.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I feel like a marooned football fan crawling on my belly dying of thirst in the Saharadell desert while mirages of an oasis of fresh player picks dance tantalizingly on the horizon,

Back when this site was in its infancy, I traveled to North Carolina to watch the draft with Dolphin, Jet and Bills fans I met online at the Miami Herald board, NY Times board and the unofficial NEP.com. I brought down a crate of lobsters and a couple of bushels of shellfish and partied with a bunch of wackos whose primary love in life, besides their families, was NFL football. We busted chops all day and night, ate like kings, drank home made shine and raised our beers to the best damn league on the planet.

Now look at it. It's a mangled bastardization of corporate greed overkill being squeezed like a year old lemon of its last drop of juice...in FREAKIN' MAY!

Yeah, the "Gold Carpet" was pretty much the last straw for me.

I treat the Draft media hype like I do the SB hype (where I don't turn my TV on until five minutes before the scheduled KO time...even...or especially...when the Pats are playing).

Tonight, I'll watch until the Mariota/Winston saga has played out and then pay attention on and off or follow it on the internet. I can't imagine sitting through four hours of Chris Berman, Mel Kiper and company...I think that falls in the "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" category. Tonight's picks will all still be the same tomorrow morning and, unlike with a game, there's no "entertainment value" in watching them sloooowly unwind over an entire evening.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

...
This isn't rocket science. Trade up. Trade down. Stay where you are. They all work. They all fail. What matters is what you do with the picks.

Agreed.

I think of players in the Draft in five buckets:
1) Franchise Players/Future HOF'ers
2) Guys who are going to have productive careers as starters
3) Guys who are going to have productive careers down the depth chart
4) Snake-bit guys who are talented but never reach their potential because of injury
5) Busts.

The problem is, you can draft a guy in any one of those five buckets between #1 and, well, #199.

So, trading up, trading down or standing pat is a distant second to knowing what you're doing when you draft and then having a system in which your picks have a chance to thrive...and getting a little lucky once in a while.

 

[Deus Irae]

The outcome matters a great deal, I agree. But I'm more interested in the actual process behind the decision-making. We're talking extremely small sample sizes here, so we can point to specific deals, but it's good to look at the overall picture to see if it's a run of luck or skill.

BB has drafted 133 players over 15 drafts for the Patriots (8.9 per year). Loomis has drafted 82 players over 13 drafts (6.3 per year). It works out to over 2.5 more picks per year for BB. And since 2008, it's even worse, with the Saints drafting just 5.4 picks per year. Even if Loomis is smarter than the average bear (and I don't think he is), he's given himself fewer chances to cash in on that knowledge.

To be clear, I'm not saying don't trade up ever. But for some GMs (and fans), it seems like it's the best way to work the draft. Yes, BB trades up too, but often with ammo he's received from trading down. He moved up for Jones using the Saints trade up. BB traded up slightly for Gronk using the high 2nd he got from Jacksonville for trading out of a 3rd the year before. The Chad Jackson fiasco was fueled by the 3rd rounder they got from the Ravens for a trade down the year before (trade last pick of 2nd to drop 20 spots and select Ellis Hobbs, a 6th rounder that somehow got packaged in a trade up to GB, only for that pick to be traded to the Raiders to move back for a 7th which would be Matt Cassel and a 2006 5th spent on Ryan O'Callaghan, and the 2006 3rd which was used to trade up for Jackson).

So there's much more balance to what BB is doing. As you mentioned, Loomis has only moved up 3 times in the 1st while BB has done it 4 times. But it's everything else that BB does to help fund those moves that matters. And your earlier reference on Howe's article really hit the nail on the head, equal trades up and down.

Every team starts with 7 draft picks each year. Historically, BB has found a way to generate 2 more picks per year, while Loomis has averaged giving up a pick per year. At some point, the law of averages is going to catch up regardless of the quality of picks made, and the process BB is employing will win out over time.

Either you believe that the drafting is a 100% crap shoot and 100% statistically definable, or you concede that there is no iron clad law of averages with regards to draft outcome. That's a simple reality. Either some GMs/teams are better at picking player than others, or it's purely a numbers game that evens out over time. You, however, are trying to have it both ways.

And your attempt to differentiate the number of times one guy has moved up from the number of times the other has is just a weak, biased attempt to prop up the guy at the expense of the other.