Peter King: The Pats might have a trade in place for one of their firsts

[Urgent]

there are 2 things that bother me:

(A) so the Pats only have 5 picks next year ('12). Coincidentally, they happen to have rounds 1 thru 5 covered. So its not like that traded away 1,2,3 and have 4,5,6,7,7, right? We all know that BB's board is so different than everyone elses that whoever he wants in 7, for example, would probably be available an hour later when they call the kid to invite him to camp as a UDFA. I see this argument for trading for the future as a non-starter.

(B) if this team drafts well this year and everyone else continues to matriculate, there won't be enough roster spots for 7 or 8 draft picks next year. And if there are weaknesses that evolve this season and need to be addressed next year, I think they go with vets who can bring some maturity to the fledgling '10 class. Remember the formula of winning the 3 SBs.

That's similar to my reaction to this.
I've heard Jon Kraft point out that the Pats only have five picks next year.

So, because they are down a 6th and 7th round pick, they are going to trade away a first? That's the rationale? That just doesn't make sense. If they decide to trade away a 2011 7th for a 6th and 7th next year, fine, that all adds up.

Also, if they happen to lose, say, Gerard Warren, they'd probably pick up a 6th or 7th next year. Losing Light could net them an extra third.

Further, when you pass up a player like OLB Justin Houston or OT Derek Sherrod or OG Danny Watkins or DE Muhammad Wilkerson, you set back the program a year. There's someone at #28 you could groom and have available in a year as a starter.

I, for one, will go to bed cranky if I wait up till 1am to hear the Patriots traded out of #28 for something next year.

 

[Deus Irae]

there are 2 things that bother me:

(A) so the Pats only have 5 picks next year ('12). Coincidentally, they happen to have rounds 1 thru 5 covered. So its not like that traded away 1,2,3 and have 4,5,6,7,7, right? We all know that BB's board is so different than everyone elses that whoever he wants in 7, for example, would probably be available an hour later when they call the kid to invite him to camp as a UDFA. I see this argument for trading for the future as a non-starter.

(B) if this team drafts well this year and everyone else continues to matriculate, there won't be enough roster spots for 7 or 8 draft picks next year. And if there are weaknesses that evolve this season and need to be addressed next year, I think they go with vets who can bring some maturity to the fledgling '10 class. Remember the formula of winning the 3 SBs.

I've posted it in other threads, but it works as a response to your post. The Patriots have 6 picks in the first 3 rounds. If they can come out of that with

DE
OLB
RB
WR
OL

by using whatever lower picks needed, I'm fine with them trading every other pick into next year, as long as they are going to be able to bring back Mankins and Light.

 

[JoeSixPat]

From His MMQB:

Read more: 2011 NFL Draft week begins with uncertainty at the top - Peter King - SI.com


I'll take the 7th pick in the second round and what might be a high 2012 first round pick for the 28th pick. ​

This topic was raised in the draft forum... this (a 2nd round 2011 plus a 1st round 2012) was my best case scenario, made possible by the uncertainty of when the next draft will be (though I think most are confident that worst case scenario won't happen)

Great news if that's the case - chances are good Belichick has some of "his guys" in mind that will still be there in the 2nd. And of course who knows how high the 2012 pick could be - and that in a year with a likely sane Rookie salary structure!

 

[BradyFTW!]

Wow, King's scenario sounds great to me, but I have to wonder if any team would be willing to give up their first next year just to move from the high/mid 2nd to the late first. That wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for the other team in the picture, unless they're deeply sold on one of the QBs at that spot.

 

[BradyBranch39]

#28 for TEN's 2nd this year and 1st next year... sign me up.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I, for one, will go to bed cranky if I wait up till 1am to hear the Patriots traded out of #28 for something next year.

Better take your meds then. Cos trading down is a VERY LIKELY scenario for the Pats! Especially if they can generate future value while only moving down a round in this year's draft.

 

[fester]

I told me Dad just yesterday that I foresee the Steelers trading up to New England's first spot so they can get Pouncey to match up with his brother, and they need serious OL help.

I don't think the Steelers need 1st round interior OL help. Now if the theory is that the Steelers trade up for a crack at one of the top-3 offensive tackles, I can buy that, but the interior line is at least passable.

 

[Belichick's Midget Army]

If you tell me a disfunctional team wants our 28th for their 2012 first rounder, like, the Panthers, the Jaguars, an NFC West team, I'm in. If we can have a shot at getting the #1, aka Andrew Luck, that'd be super. I'd trade everything for him.

 

[silenthuntr7]

This, no matter how you spin it, ranges from good value to (if it's tennessee, and they start a rookie QB) AMAZING value.

But in the end, it depends on the players they target. If they have a target that's value at #28, maybe this isn't a great idea. If their board'll hold up till #33, then this becomes a better idea.