Welcome to PatsFans.com

Potential Trade Scenario

Discussion in 'Patriots Draft Talk' started by Ochmed Jones, Jan 18, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ochmed Jones

    Ochmed Jones Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    5,750
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +14 / 2 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    I was looking at the draft and started thinking about a potential dance partner on a trade down.

    I see the draft as (or some variation involving these five players)

    1.) C Long to Miami
    2.) Dorsey to St. Louis
    3.) McFadden to Oakland
    4.) Ryan to Atlanta
    5.) J Long to KC

    then comes #6 the Jets. If they do not draft Brohm, that means when we come on the clock QB Brohm will be available.
    Behind us is Baltimore and they need a QB. Another team that needs a QB is Carolina at #13.

    So would anybody hee be willing to trade our #7 pick to Carolina for the #13 pick this year and a first round pick for 2009?
  2. PonyExpress

    PonyExpress Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    I would probably do it, but I doubt Carolina would pay so steep a price for a player like Brohm, who has some ????.
  3. Patsmaniac

    Patsmaniac Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    i would do it for there first and second this year. Good value in 2nd round, cap savings, and an extra pick to get some good young talent. Look on a draft value chart and the numbers are pretty much even in a trade scenario.
  4. cstjohn17

    cstjohn17 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    5,027
    Likes Received:
    20
    Ratings:
    +34 / 11 / -4

    #54 Jersey


    Sure I would do that trade for a 3rd this year and a 2nd in 2009 (to be honest I would do it for a lot less). The players ranked from 5 - 15 are all the same, might as well save the cap hit.

    Our best hope is that either McFadden falls or some of the QBs have great post seasons.
  5. rookBoston

    rookBoston Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    I would do your trade, sure, but I question your mock.

    I see something more like this:

    1) Dorsey - MIA
    2) JLong - STL
    3) McFadden - OAK
    4) Ryan - ATL

    And now my question is... would you trade our 2nd rounder (#63) with KC to jump the Jets and take Chris Long? HELL YEAH!
  6. patsfaninpa

    patsfaninpa Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,640
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +30 / 8 / -1

    I'd like to see that happen. There might be two other possibilities. Some people think S.Ellis is better than Dorsey. Oakland loses Sapp and I'm wondering if they might look for th dt and kep Vargas. Could push McFadden down to our spot. A la Peterson last year. I'm pretty sure someone would trade up for DMac. The other would be Oakland taking DMAC at three. Then, Atlanta or Jets taking R.Mendenhall. Neither are set at rb. I'm pretty sure KC will take J.Long if he's on the board when they pick.

    If we don't think any of the cb's are good enough to be picked at 7.
    Could we draft a T? Clady or Otah. Then, trade Kaczur for an ilb or an extra pick??
  7. PonyExpress

    PonyExpress Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    One possible scenario is McFadden dropping due to off-field issues, and Jerry Jones (Arkansas grad) trading up to #7 to get him, with the Pats picking up 2 late 1st rdrs.
  8. Ochmed Jones

    Ochmed Jones Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    5,750
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +14 / 2 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    Yo Rook, why do you think Miami would draft Dorsey? He is a pure 4-3 under tackle. Putting him at DE in a 3-4 defense is like putting a square peg in a round hole.
    If Dorsey is not in a 4-3 defense, that means he can't use his quickness to shoot gaps and chase down plays from the backside. At DE in a 3-4 he would have to stand up OT's all game long while covering the B & C gaps.
  9. rookBoston

    rookBoston Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    Well, Dorsey is a game changer and a legitimate #1 overall...a true impact player and a talent that only comes along every few years. A guy you can build a D around.

    I know people see him at NT in Parcell scheme... I dont know if that'll work or not. Regardless, you draft the talent when you have a shot at it, and the Fins need the talent on the DL. The Pats drafted Seymour and tried him at NT for a while, before moving him to DE, where he's more destructive. If I'm drafting for the Fins, take the legit defensive talent onto the roster, and figure out how to use him later.

    I'm getting pretty excited about my trade up ploy for Chris Long. I think the braintrust will feel like good value, considering what I see is a dropoff in talent from #5 to #6. And that's the only way I see an impact player coming to us at LB this draft.

    Interesting that the 2009 draft is looking good for ILB, with Maualuga and Laurinaitis as headliners.
  10. everlong

    everlong Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,875
    Likes Received:
    87
    Ratings:
    +150 / 1 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    I had thought of the same trade and I wouldn't count out Chicago at #14. The Pats and Bears front offices have pulled off several trades.

    Another possibility is if McFadden drops to us and if Jones is as in love with him as is rumored their two #1's come with in 80 points on the value chart.
  11. DonBlackmon55

    DonBlackmon55 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    So the braintrust will give up a #2 to move up 2 spots to get an OLB with marginal coverage skills and pay additional cap $$ for him to sit on the bench behind Vrabel and Colvin, that is if AD moves back inside.

    Wow, I'm glad you're not the Pats braintrust. In ALL likelihood Pats will be trading down, not up. If C. Long is there at #7, they may take him. However, I still see Pats value cap flexibility a lot more than drafting "POTENTIAL".

    C. Long is a good player, but he is also a lot of hype. I can't see him being a dominant OLB in our system. He is a 4-3 DE.

    History says BB prefers "trust" and "experience" in his LB corps. DL and Secondary he is open to bring young talent. That tells me that the LB corps is the heat and soul of his system. A weak cog there and it all falls apart, shall I even bring up the Monty Biesel Era and our results that year !

    #7 will get traded down and then they will pick a CB/S or what they feel is their "best value", case and point Logan Mankins.

    Heck, it would not even shock me if they traded #7 for multiple future 2's and 3's
  12. VJCPatriot

    VJCPatriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    12,347
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +46 / 1 / -4

    I agree that Parcells will want to draft a big DL with that #1 overall pick. It's either going to be Dorsey or Ellis, whoever he feels fits better.

    I don't think the Pats trade up for C. Long. He's a conversion process. His body type screams tweener, and reminds me too much of Dan Klecko. Granted, Long is probably a lot more athletic than Klecko ever was, but that still scares me.

    It's too bad that Malauga is not coming out. That's one less option at ILB.
    It's just hard for me to imagine the Pats drafting an ILB at #7 unless they believe that he will be an Urlacher-level gamechanging ILB.

    My guess is that they trade down to the 10-12 range and then take the best player available. It just seems a tad too risky to pay #7 money for a conversion project at OLB or for an ILB like Laurinitis (who disappeared against LSU).

    I wouldn't go that far. Trading entirely out of the 1st round is not a good idea, as the draft gets to be an even bigger crapshoot after that.
    Not to mention, unless you forgot the Pats forfeit pick #32. So no, they won't be trading entirely out of the 1st.
    Besides future 2nds and 3rds are equal to current 3rds and 4ths. What the hell would the Pats want with extra 3rd and 4th round picks?
    This is an elite team with very few holes, and very few rookies will even make the roster.
    The Pats are in the position where they need quality, not quantity.
    A moderate trade down to the mid 1st to save cap dollars, does seem sensible though.

    Last edited: Jan 22, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>