Potential Pats trading partners (up or down)...

[Seneschal2]

Came across the following tidbit and thought having a floating thread on the topic may assist us in preparing for Belichick the maneuverer. :bricks:

Charley Walters: Look for Vikings to trade their first-round pick in April's NFL draft - TwinCities.com

The guess here is that the Vikings, who are without a third-round pick for the April 28-30 NFL draft and have several significant holes to fill, will trade down in the first round with their No. 12 overall pick for either a late second-round or an early third-round pick.

---

Any thoughts on this scenario? And please post any other linked possibilities you may find.

 

[MaineMan]

WRT the Vikes moving down, the Pats(17) and SD(18) both have two 2nds and two 3rds. The Eagles(23) have 9 picks overall, including two 4ths and two 5ths. JAX (16) has an extra 4th. [For the Eagles and JAX, I'm just saying that having the extra mid-round picks might make them more inclined to give up a 3rd.]

But that's just from an "ammo" perspective. It's hard to gauge the "desperation" factor without knowing who's still on the board at that point AND likely to be gone before a given team's current pick slot. And then there's the "ownership/FO stupidity" factor.

WRT the Pats trading down, it's a similar set of constraints. For instance, trading down out of #17 (IF that seems desirable when the time comes) might require a couple "incremental" trades like last season. E.g., first trading down to #20 with the Bucs (picking up the #115 and #132), and then trading down with the Ravens (#26) and picking up their #90 and #212.

OR, it might involve some sort of "double move" with, say,, the #17 and #33 for a lower 1st a lower 2nd, a couple extra 2010 picks and a 2012 pick.

The Huddle Report has a chart of the complete current draft order that's fairly easy to copy into a spreadsheet and then re-sort by team to get an easy reference to what teams have what trade ammo.

 

[Metaphors]

Don't have a link since this is just my gut feeling (so take it for what it is worth)...

FACT: The Texans have #11, #42 and #73
FACT: They are transitioning to the 3-4
OPINION: They have dire needs at NT, rush LB, CB and S
OPINION: The talent in this draft class falls off a cliff in the 70-80 range
SPECULATION: Amukamara will be gone by #11

If Amukamara is still on the board at #11, the Texans stick and take him. If he is gone, the Texans are faced with taking an OLB or trading down (no NT, CB, S value left at #11). Having 4 desperate needs on defense if they want to overtake the Colts and only 3 picks to do it in a top-heavy draft, I get the sense the Texans would consider a moderate trade-down to get another pick in the first 2 rounds.

Pats #17 + #60 = 1250 points
Texans #11 = 1250 points

If the top 10 shakes out with no QBs or OTs breaking up the defensive run, the Pats may be willing to part with #60 to ensure they get one of Cam Jordan, Aldon Smith, JJ Watt before the well runs dry at the top. If Quinn or Dareus slips out of the top 10, this trade can't be done fast enough.

 

[Seneschal2]

Two excellent posts! Keep 'em coming...

 

[ctpatsfan77]

There'll be more than a couple of teams looking to trade up, I think, if Buffalo doesn't take a QB at 3 (seeing as the Pats have 33 and BUF has 34).

 

[Ochmed Jones]

WRT the Vikes moving down, the Pats(17) and SD(18) both have two 2nds and two 3rds. The Eagles(23) have 9 picks overall, including two 4ths and two 5ths. JAX (16) has an extra 4th. [For the Eagles and JAX, I'm just saying that having the extra mid-round picks might make them more inclined to give up a 3rd.]

But that's just from an "ammo" perspective. It's hard to gauge the "desperation" factor without knowing who's still on the board at that point AND likely to be gone before a given team's current pick slot. And then there's the "ownership/FO stupidity" factor.

WRT the Pats trading down, it's a similar set of constraints. For instance, trading down out of #17 (IF that seems desirable when the time comes) might require a couple "incremental" trades like last season. E.g., first trading down to #20 with the Bucs (picking up the #115 and #132), and then trading down with the Ravens (#26) and picking up their #90 and #212.

OR, it might involve some sort of "double move" with, say,, the #17 and #33 for a lower 1st a lower 2nd, a couple extra 2010 picks and a 2012 pick.

The Huddle Report has a chart of the complete current draft order that's fairly easy to copy into a spreadsheet and then re-sort by team to get an easy reference to what teams have what trade ammo.

I have a gut feeling that San Diego is a team that thinks they are a player or two away on defense from being back to an elite team in the AFC. I think will move up to go get a player they think can help them the most. And that player is probably an elite pass rusher, or maybe someone on the D Line.

They have a lot to gain from hitting it big and could try to jump up to ensure that they do hit it big.

 

[mgteich]

The patriots have 17, 28, 33, 60, 74 and 92. We'd like 3-5 studs. The open question iw whether there are place where there are great dropoffs in talent.

The first dropoff is usually around 12. The second can be anywhere. Someone on this thread suggested 70-80 in this draft.

Several of us have suggest trading of us have suggested trading 74 and 92 for a pick around 55 to have a much better shot at a top player with 5 picks in the first two rounds.
======================================
The patriots have lots of ammo to trade up with to get a stud in the first if Belichick chooses. Here are some of the combinations.

#4 requires 17 + 28 + 74
#5 requires 17 + 28 + 92
#6 requires 17 + 28
#7 requires 17 + 33
#8 requires 17 + 60 + 74
#9 requires 28 + 33 + 92
#10 requires 17 + 74 + 92
#11 requires 28 + 33 or 17 + 60
#12 requires 28 + 74 + 92
#13 requires 17 + 74
#14 requires 17 + 92
============================

With regard to partners, Houston, Detroit and Minny all would be likely to be listening at 11, 12 and 13.

We've had a thread on who we would be willing to trade 17 and 74 for, presumably to be drafted at 12 or 13.

 

[mgteich]

1) 28 + 33 will also likely get us to 11. some might prefer us to have 11, 17 and 60 instead of 11, 28 and 33.

2) The question is indeed about the two cliffs (major drops in talent). One is usually around 10-15. The second is extremely variable. If the second is indeed between 70 and 80, the we might be willing to package 74 AND 92 to add to 17 instead of the more valuable 60. This should bring us to about 10 or 11.

This would give us 10/11, 28, 33 and 60.

Depending on player and trade partner. I think I like trading for for #12 best using 74, 92 and 28. We would then have 12, 17, 33 and 60.

.

OPINION: The talent in this draft class falls off a cliff in the 70-80 range

 

[Off The Grid]

I have to ask...

When I see this talk ~ it's prevalent ~ of packaging this and that to accumulate "Marquee" Picks...I can't help but think that the poster simply hasn't taken a long, carefull look at the tremendous Values out there Beyond the Pale.

I promise you: Coach Bill The Mad is VERY aware of them:

2009​

#83 ~ WR Brandon Tate
#97 ~ MF Tyrone McKenzie
#207 ~ DL Myron Pryor
#232 ~ WR Julian Edelman

2010​

#90 ~ WR Taylor Price
#112 ~ WE Aaron Hernandez
#150 ~ XP Zoltan Mesko
#205 ~ OC Ted Larson
#247 ~ DE Brandon Deaderick
#248 ~ DE Kade Weston

...And there were several other DAMNED good picks that simply haven't panned out.

***

THIS year, as ALL years, offers TREMENDOUS Opportunity to improve our Depth of Talent in the later rounds, and in Round 8.

I would think it would be obvious, considering how many individuals contributed to our success, this last year, that one of Coach Bill The Mad's great Advantages is PRECISELY his ability to forge a 53 Man Roster that is better, from Stem to Stern, than all others, where players WAY down the food chain contribute...and contribute significantly.

As such, it seems to me that it BEHOOVES us to SUPPORT his efforts to accumulate those Late Rounders.

 

[Deus Irae]

I have to ask...

When I see this talk ~ it's prevalent ~ of packaging this and that to accumulate "Marquee" Picks...I can't help but think that the poster simply hasn't taken a long, carefull look at the tremendous Values out there Beyond the Pale.

I promise you: Coach Bill The Mad is VERY aware of them:

2009​

#83 ~ WR Brandon Tate
#97 ~ MF Tyrone McKenzie
#207 ~ DL Myron Pryor
#232 ~ WR Julian Edelman

2010​

#90 ~ WR Taylor Price
#112 ~ WE Aaron Hernandez
#150 ~ XP Zoltan Mesko
#205 ~ OC Ted Larson
#247 ~ DE Brandon Deaderick
#248 ~ DE Kade Weston

...And there were several other DAMNED good picks that simply haven't panned out.

***

THIS year, as ALL years, offers TREMENDOUS Opportunity to improve our Depth of Talent in the later rounds, and in Round 8.

I would think it would be obvious, considering how many individuals contributed to our success, this last year, that one of Coach Bill The Mad's great Advantages is PRECISELY his ability to forge a 53 Man Roster that is better, from Stem to Stern, than all others, where players WAY down the food chain contribute...and contribute significantly.

As such, it seems to me that it BEHOOVES us to SUPPORT his efforts to accumulate those Late Rounders.

2.) Some drafts offer no top end talent. Some drafts suck at the bottom. Some drafts just suck. Go take a look at 2007, and I think you'll see what I'm getting at, here.

2.) Most of the "Depth of talent" players are just replacing other "Depth of talent" players, effectively giving little or no gain.

3.) I'm not sure how you're viewing a punter taken in the 5th round as a tremendous value. No punter has been taken in any round higher than the 5th since 2007. It's a position that's historically drafted low.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Don't have a link since this is just my gut feeling (so take it for what it is worth)...

FACT: The Texans have #11, #42 and #73
FACT: They are transitioning to the 3-4
OPINION: They have dire needs at NT, rush LB, CB and S
OPINION: The talent in this draft class falls off a cliff in the 70-80 range
SPECULATION: Amukamara will be gone by #11

If Amukamara is still on the board at #11, the Texans stick and take him. If he is gone, the Texans are faced with taking an OLB or trading down (no NT, CB, S value left at #11). Having 4 desperate needs on defense if they want to overtake the Colts and only 3 picks to do it in a top-heavy draft, I get the sense the Texans would consider a moderate trade-down to get another pick in the first 2 rounds.

Pats #17 + #60 = 1250 points
Texans #11 = 1250 points

If the top 10 shakes out with no QBs or OTs breaking up the defensive run, the Pats may be willing to part with #60 to ensure they get one of Cam Jordan, Aldon Smith, JJ Watt before the well runs dry at the top. If Quinn or Dareus slips out of the top 10, this trade can't be done fast enough.

I don't understand the adherence to this point system, by your own logic, if the Patriots wanted to move forward to the 11 spot than that would mean IT'S NOT EQUAL to the 17th + 60th spot.

As much as I like Dareus I'd much prefer Wilkerson at #17 & Brooks Reed at #60.

Anyway, in short, the value of a player on the draft board is relative to the impact they can have on the team (existing players) in comparison to the other players available, and that's going to be different with every team. If we wind up trading Mankins we're going to need to grab a Guard or two very quickly, so the values of a pick will dramatically shift and change as the draft goes on.

 

[Metaphors]

I don't understand the adherence to this point system, by your own logic, if the Patriots wanted to move forward to the 11 spot than that would mean IT'S NOT EQUAL to the 17th + 60th spot.

I didn't invent the draft value chart nor do I think it is foolproof. Just used it to show that #11 for #17/#60 is a reasonable trade.

As for the trade itself, I thought I explained the motivation. The Texans need 4 players and only have 3 picks before the talent cliff. If their guy (Amukamara) isn't there, they could trade down to #17 and get 4 guys before the well runs dry. The Pats are deep and want quality...the Texans are making a defensive transition and need quantity. Just because the Pats want to make a trade doesn't mean that it doesn't work for the other team.

As much as I like Dareus I'd much prefer Wilkerson at #17 & Brooks Reed at #60.

If you rate Wilkerson fairly close to Dareus, I would agree. For my money, Dareus is the top Pats-type 3-4 DE in this draft. The Pats can still get Reed (or even better) using #23, #33 and/or #74.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I didn't invent the draft value chart nor do I think it is foolproof. Just used it to show that #11 for #17/#60 is a reasonable trade.

As for the trade itself, I thought I explained the motivation. The Texans need 4 players and only have 3 picks before the talent cliff. If their guy (Amukamara) isn't there, they could trade down to #17 and get 4 guys before the well runs dry. The Pats are deep and want quality...the Texans are making a defensive transition and need quantity. Just because the Pats want to make a trade doesn't mean that it doesn't work for the other team.

If you rate Wilkerson fairly close to Dareus, I would agree. For my money, Dareus is the top Pats-type 3-4 DE in this draft. The Pats can still get Reed (or even better) using #23, #33 and/or #74.

It's reasonable or not DEPENDING on many factors. Long story short, it does not makes sense to apply absolute values to assets whose value is relative.

As far as Dareus vs. Wilkerson goes, I'm probably not the best judge but I do know that we need serious help at OLB, I think there would be a much greater posative impact with a upgrade at OLB and DE then to simply have a little more impact at DE, and for all we know Wilkerson might be a better fit.

 

[patchick]

The top of the 2nd round projects to feature multiple teams that need a QB but didn't see value at that position in round 1. How about a bidding war for Christian Ponder at #28?

 

[the wrothbroughterer]

This didn't deserve a thread but it's worth mentioning:

Missouri DE Aldon Smith and Georgia DE/OLB Justin Houston were winners from Saturday's weigh-ins. Smith checked in at 6-4¼ and 263 pounds, but it was his freakishly long arms (35⅝ inches) that really turned heads. Houston showed off long arms of his own (34½) while checking in at an athletic-looking 6-2⅞ and 270 pounds, and his surprisingly big frame should help ease concerns for teams wondering about his ability to hold up as a traditional 4-3 defensive end.

 

[jeffbiologist]

I think one consistent factor sticks out in the pats trading policy: 3rd rounders. They like trading DOWN and picking up these and for the last several years teams have gladly traded our 3rds for future 2nds. My guess is that accumulating 2nd round picks is the ideal sweet spot for BB. While literally anyone can swap a future 2nd for our 3rd I think we target teams with multiple 3rd to deal with. I see both San Diego and New Orleans as trading partners, San Diego even has 2 2nds, I could see us trading a 1st for 2 seconds(1 in 2012) and 2 3rds no problem. Without Josh in Denver that limits one partner. Lets not forget to take advantage of old Al again..

 

[SunnyDenmark]

my 2 cents.....
1) seems obvious but there are the usual BB trade partners (coaches with whom BB has good relations with): Crazy Al (Faiders), Sean Payton, JJ ('Boys), etc. However, I dont see Jerry trading away his high draft pick and we have Raiders first rounder. So I think best guess would be Detroit (#12) and Jim Schwartz as they have multiple needs and he has background with BB.

2) We know BB will trade at some point (up/ down /into next year)- but don't think it would be into top 10. As many of those teams need a QB and with a likely rookie wage scale, those issues would tend to disuade those teams from trading down.

3) No CBA means draft comes first before FA. Not to hijack this thread as that is another topic - but again IMO, think that would tend to make teams more likely to chose their first rounder at their assigned spot rather than trade down. As those teams won't be sure of what they will get in FA and not even sure if they can re-sign their own FA's. Hence, making them take the top end (first round) talent instead of trading down / or out.

4) Most of the previous posts do a good job of analyzing trading partners for a move up. But I strongly believe (due to factors listed above) - it will be same as last few drafts for NEP, BB will trade down from pick #17 and then in rounds 2 & 3 trade up at least one pick as well as trading down and trading #33 possibly into next year. Should be interesting to see what offers # 33 will fetch.

 

[Off The Grid]

I have a gut feeling that San Diego is a team that thinks they are a player or two away on defense from being back to an elite team in the AFC. I think will move up to go get a player they think can help them the most. And that player is probably an elite pass rusher, or maybe someone on the D Line.

They have a lot to gain from hitting it big and could try to jump up to ensure that they do hit it big.

Great points!!

Sand Diego is also on MY Short List of potential candidates, due to their surfeit of juicy Picks.

 

[Off The Grid]

I didn't invent the draft value chart nor do I think it is foolproof.

Just used it to show that #11 for #17/#60 is a reasonable trade.

As for the trade itself, I thought I explained the motivation. The Texans need 4 players and only have 3 picks before the talent cliff. If their guy (Amukamara) isn't there, they could trade down to #17 and get 4 guys before the well runs dry. The Pats are deep and want quality...the Texans are making a defensive transition and need quantity. Just because the Pats want to make a trade doesn't mean that it doesn't work for the other team.

If you rate Wilkerson fairly close to Dareus, I would agree. For my money, Dareus is the top Pats-type 3-4 DE in this draft. The Pats can still get Reed (or even better) using #23, #33 and/or #74.

It's reasonable or not DEPENDING on many factors.

No offense, but you're dead wrong. It's ADVISABLE or not, depending on many factors and points of view, but Brother Metaphor has clearly demonstrated that it is REASONABLE.

Long story short, it does not makes sense to apply absolute values to assets whose value is relative.

Again: No offense, but Brother Metaphor's comment that the Chart is "not foolproof" CLEARLY illustrates that he is NOT applying "absolute values" that for some reason you claim he is: You have just illustrated a perfect example of a Straw Man Argument: INVENTING the other guy's position, in order to knock it down.

For the record: I have NO interest in making the trade he proposes.

 

[Off The Grid]

I have to ask...

When I see this talk ~ it's prevalent ~ of packaging this and that to accumulate "Marquee" Picks...I can't help but think that the poster simply hasn't taken a long, carefull look at the tremendous Values out there Beyond the Pale.

I promise you: Coach Bill The Mad is VERY aware of them:

2009​

#83 ~ WR Brandon Tate
#97 ~ MF Tyrone McKenzie
#207 ~ DL Myron Pryor
#232 ~ WR Julian Edelman

2010​

#90 ~ WR Taylor Price
#112 ~ WE Aaron Hernandez
#150 ~ XP Zoltan Mesko
#205 ~ OC Ted Larson
#247 ~ DE Brandon Deaderick
#248 ~ DE Kade Weston

...And there were several other DAMNED good picks that simply haven't panned out.

***

THIS year, as ALL years, offers TREMENDOUS Opportunity to improve our Depth of Talent in the later rounds, and in Round 8.

I would think it would be obvious, considering how many individuals contributed to our success, this last year, that one of Coach Bill The Mad's great Advantages is PRECISELY his ability to forge a 53 Man Roster that is better, from Stem to Stern, than all others, where players WAY down the food chain contribute...and contribute significantly.

As such, it seems to me that it BEHOOVES us to SUPPORT his efforts to accumulate those Late Rounders.

2.) Some drafts offer no top end talent. Some drafts suck at the bottom. Some drafts just suck. Go take a look at 2007, and I think you'll see what I'm getting at, here.

2.) Most of the "Depth of talent" players are just replacing other "Depth of talent" players, effectively giving little or no gain.

3.) I'm not sure how you're viewing a punter taken in the 5th round as a tremendous value. No punter has been taken in any round higher than the 5th since 2007. It's a position that's historically drafted low.

1 ~ Go take a look at the 2007 Draft, yourself, as it's obvious that's it's you who needs the History lesson: Despite its infamous lack of quality, it still offered MANY Mid Round and Late Round Values, as virtually EVERY Draft does.

2 ~ Wrong. DEAD Wrong. As usual.

3 ~ It's quite obvious ~ to most ~ that Zoltan Mesko has immense potential to be a special player.

Editor's Note: I fear that the chances of my bothering to respond to your next post are somewhere between Slim and Grim.