Pats 2011 pick from Oakland

[jsull87]

Not quite understanding what you're saying? Are you saying that we should trade the 2011 pick to get a better pick in 2012? What kind of logic is that? Have you ever seen a team trade a top 10 pick to potentially get a higher top 10 pick the next year?, because it isnt guaranteed that that team would be in the bottom 10 the following year.

no maybe i didn't make myself clear. Someone earlier proposed say the raiders pick is #3. We can once again trade down to that 7,8,9,10 range and pick up another 1st the next year while still picking up a blue chip prospect. That was all i was saying, that the Seymour trade can be one of those things that has a lasting long term positive effect even tho it maybe had a short term negative one

 

[The Dynasty]

no maybe i didn't make myself clear. Someone earlier proposed say the raiders pick is #3. We can once again trade down to that 7,8,9,10 range and pick up another 1st the next year while still picking up a blue chip prospect. That was all i was saying, that the Seymour trade can be one of those things that has a lasting long term positive effect even tho it maybe had a short term negative one

That happening is very unlikely. Teams dont go into the draft with the number 3 pick looking to trade it to the 7-10 pick just so they can get another 1st next year. They go into the draft looking to get a player that will have a major impact on their team immediately and for years to come.

 

[NEPatriot]

I'm sure most of us would love to see you gone. But, we can't always get what we want... can we?

Not when you are a kool-aid fan .

 

[Kpatte08]

My thoughts are you need to re-sign Wilfork, Mankins, Bodden and Faulk. The 2010 draft fills a couple defencive holes like 22 OLB (Kindle), 44 ILB (Spikes) and a little help for the offence in 47 TE (Hernandez), 53 OL (Asomoah) and 117 RB Tate from Auburn.
In 2011 you keep that Oakland pick and pray for WR (Julio Jones)......

 

[SeymourTrophies]

Not that it's possible, but I'd seriously consider it for a boy named Suh...

Ha!

Ironically, Suh's play does remind me of a certain player we traded for a pick in 2011.

 

[nantucketguy]

I agree with most. We're keeping the Oak pick. If anything, we may trade our own 2011 pick, as it will probably be in the 20's or 30's again

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

As far as I'm concerned, the 2011 pick form Oakland has Patrick Peterson's name written on it. If you can get a better player than Peterson in 2010 for that pick, then great job, but I doubt it.

Yea good call. A pick that high should not be wasted on a QB or WR. Shutdown CB or highly-effective pass-rushing DE would be the right choice.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

Ha!

Ironically, Suh's play does remind me of a certain player we traded for a pick in 2011.

same jersey number also

 

[fester]

That happening is very unlikely. Teams dont go into the draft with the number 3 pick looking to trade it to the 7-10 pick just so they can get another 1st next year. They go into the draft looking to get a player that will have a major impact on their team immediately and for years to come.

Agree to a certain extent, but there are numerous examples of Top-3 picks getting traded to somewhere in the Top 10 and the team that originally owned the Top-3 pick being very happy with the trade (best example that I can think of is the NYG trade-up for Manning with San Diego, as that produced for SD Rivers, Merriman (as a 1st rounder in the next year) and Kaeding... 3 Pro-Bowl quality players))

Teams that typically pick in the Top-5 have a dearth of elite talent at all positions, so they normally would be reluctant to pass up their best chance of grabbing an elite talent in favor of more but lower probability chances of grabbing very good or elite talent lower in the draft. However the Pats, if they are drafting Top-5 with the Oakland pick in 2011 would not be the typical team that drafts Top-5, so their option space is much wider, in my opinion.

Let's extend the original scenario, the Pats have #3, and their top 2 players are gone (Peterson and Jones for example), then their value board has an elite WR, a 3-4 DE, a RB and a LT all ranked very closely to each other. Any of those four players would be a massive talent and value upgrade for the Pats at their respective positions. There is also a pair of elite QB, and an elite 4-3 DE on the board that just won't fit the Pats plans. Those three are very good prospects who the Pats rank as legit Top-10 talents and the Pats believe every other Top-15 drafting team also rank as legit Top-5 or Top 10 talents. The Pats are pretty damn sure that one of the QBs will go at #5 to the Panthers

So as the Pats go on the clock, they are roughly indifferent four elite players (flip a coin a couple of times and the Pats would be thrilled). The Lions call from #8, they want to move up to grab the 4-3 DE and they offer #8 and the 2012 1st rounder....Now the Pats would still be guaranteed to get one of their guys @ #8 at a lower salary and have another 1st rounder in 2012...

That is the type of scenario where I could easily see the Pats trading down from a Top-5 pick and rolling some of the value into the future year.

Now if the Pats' #1 player is available with the Oakland pick, or there is a clear and significant differentiation between the available prospects' grades, the trade-down option becomes way less likely. But if there is a good value cluster, I can easily see the trade-down.

 

[The Dynasty]

Agree to a certain extent, but there are numerous examples of Top-3 picks getting traded to somewhere in the Top 10 and the team that originally owned the Top-3 pick being very happy with the trade (best example that I can think of is the NYG trade-up for Manning with San Diego, as that produced for SD Rivers, Merriman (as a 1st rounder in the next year) and Kaeding... 3 Pro-Bowl quality players))

Teams that typically pick in the Top-5 have a dearth of elite talent at all positions, so they normally would be reluctant to pass up their best chance of grabbing an elite talent in favor of more but lower probability chances of grabbing very good or elite talent lower in the draft. However the Pats, if they are drafting Top-5 with the Oakland pick in 2011 would not be the typical team that drafts Top-5, so their option space is much wider, in my opinion.

Let's extend the original scenario, the Pats have #3, and their top 2 players are gone (Peterson and Jones for example), then their value board has an elite WR, a 3-4 DE, a RB and a LT all ranked very closely to each other. Any of those four players would be a massive talent and value upgrade for the Pats at their respective positions. There is also a pair of elite QB, and an elite 4-3 DE on the board that just won't fit the Pats plans. Those three are very good prospects who the Pats rank as legit Top-10 talents and the Pats believe every other Top-15 drafting team also rank as legit Top-5 or Top 10 talents. The Pats are pretty damn sure that one of the QBs will go at #5 to the Panthers

So as the Pats go on the clock, they are roughly indifferent four elite players (flip a coin a couple of times and the Pats would be thrilled). The Lions call from #8, they want to move up to grab the 4-3 DE and they offer #8 and the 2012 1st rounder....Now the Pats would still be guaranteed to get one of their guys @ #8 at a lower salary and have another 1st rounder in 2012...

That is the type of scenario where I could easily see the Pats trading down from a Top-5 pick and rolling some of the value into the future year.

Now if the Pats' #1 player is available with the Oakland pick, or there is a clear and significant differentiation between the available prospects' grades, the trade-down option becomes way less likely. But if there is a good value cluster, I can easily see the trade-down.

Under the scenario that you proposed yes then the Pats should consider trading down. What I am saying is teams cannot go into the draft assuming that they are going to trade down and get a 1st rounder for the next season. First off you dont know who is going to pick who until the card is actually turned in and second it is no guarantee that a team would give up a first rounder for the next season, especially if it is only a difference in moving up 3 or 4 picks. If the Pats traded the Oakland pick in 2011 and didnt get a first rounder in 2013, would it really be a fair trade? Bottom line is you cannot speculate as to what is going to happen in 2011, you cannot even predict what is going to happen in the 2010 draft. If the situation for trading down presents its self in 2011 I can assure you BB will highly consider it, but no one can go into a draft with the plan of trading down and getting a first rounder for the next year

 

[Feep50]

Trade it back to Oakland for that CB that they have,,,,, what's his name!

 

[DonBlackmon55]

Trade it back to Oakland for that CB that they have,,,,, what's his name!

Lester Hayes or Mike Haynes ?

 

[moosekill]

One thing some of you are forgetting is the new collective bargaining agreement. Undoubtedly there will be some new form of rookie salary cap. I can't imagine a new agreement not including that. If that does occur, the value of the high draft picks will skyrocket. Currently it is almost a negative to have a top five pick. That shouldn't be the case in 2011. My guess is those top picks will be worth at least 50% more than they are now, in terms of trades etc.