The Third Annual Seven Round Mock

[dryheat44]

Great effort! That's a lot of bodies for 2006. Did you think about trading some picks for 2007 picks?????

Thank you. I did try, but most likely trading partners, like us, had plenty of picks in this draft, so I can't imagine on day 2 another team wanting to pick up more picks this year. And as I mentioned before, I have no problem with inviting a lot of good players to camp. If another team wants to take guys who aren't good enough to make our team, fine. With the exception of Brady and Seymour, every player on the team can be improved.

There is also the possibility of trading players for picks after the draft, usually in the exhibition season.

 

[flutie2phelan]

In the abstract, i would rather trade down from 21 than take (and pay!) anyone likely to be available there.
But ...

Because our O-Line already is formidable, while TE is vulnerable ... i would rather have
the extra value i feel Pope has over Mangold - to us ... than an extra Day2 pick. So i wouldn't make that trade.
Pope is one guy who makes my mouth water.

But this is just another example of kvetching when one's golden goose misses a day of laying.


The salient feature here is what a fine piece of work has been spread out ...
to enhance and advance our own individual musings!

However removed from reality Faberge eggs and medieval carved wooden clocks and
the conceptual topology of Kalabi-Yau spaces might be ... ya gotta take off your hat to them.
In like fashion, i doff my cap in admiration for Uncle Heatster's labors here.

As rookBoston also respectfully acknowledges ... this is a non-trivial accomplishment.
It doesn't matter how close this mock draft conforms to the objective reality which will emerge Saturday and Sunday.
Dryheat has managed to hold in his head distinct mental impressions of twenty dozen or more collegians ...
somehow ranked those abstract constructs in terms of quite a few different criteria -
athleticism, speed, quickness, strength, size, intelligence, coachability, etc. ...
and melded that with an understanding of the multiple shortcomings of each of 32 teams.
After all that, he apoogizes for not having sufficiently studied the psychological quirks of
the assorted GMs, coaches, and owners who'll call the shots on draft day!

Any discord i become aware of between Dryheat's judgments and my own - less-studied - ideas ...
pales before his achievement in having come up with any plausible solution at all
to this multi-variate combinatorial problem.

Thanks, m'man!

 

[dryheat44]

In the abstract, i would rather trade down from 21 than take (and pay!) anyone likely to be available there.
But ...

Because our O-Line already is formidable, while TE is vulnerable ... i would rather have
the extra value i feel Pope has over Mangold - to us ... than an extra Day2 pick. So i wouldn't make that trade.
Pope is one guy who makes my mouth water.

But this is just another example of kvetching when one's golden goose misses a day of laying.


The salient feature here is what a fine piece of work has been spread out ...
to enhance and advance our own individual musings!

However removed from reality Faberge eggs and medieval carved wooden clocks and
the conceptual topology of Kalabi-Yau spaces might be ... ya gotta take off your hat to them.
In like fashion, i doff my cap in admiration for Uncle Heatster's labors here.

As rookBoston also respectfully acknowledges ... this is a non-trivial accomplishment.
It doesn't matter how close this mock draft conforms to the objective reality which will emerge Saturday and Sunday.
Dryheat has managed to hold in his head distinct mental impressions of twenty dozen or more collegians ...
somehow ranked those abstract constructs in terms of quite a few different criteria -
athleticism, speed, quickness, strength, size, intelligence, coachability, etc. ...
and melded that with an understanding of the multiple shortcomings of each of 32 teams.
After all that, he apoogizes for not having sufficiently studied the psychological quirks of
the assorted GMs, coaches, and owners who'll call the shots on draft day!

Any discord i become aware of between Dryheat's judgments and my own - less-studied - ideas ...
pales before his achievement in having come up with any plausible solution at all
to this multi-variate combinatorial problem.

Thanks, m'man!

Yaarrrgh...That's some high-falutin' language. We be but simple pirates here.

Thanks, I'm fairly certain.

 

[rookBoston]

'heat, I disagree with the idea of flooding the roster with rookies we cant possible carry into the season. Far better to trade that value up for even better prospects or trade that value into 2007. You've counted to 60 players, but we can only carry 53!

It pains me to see Dexter Reid released and playing incredible ST for the Colts, simply because we didn't have roster space for him. So, yes, it is possible to have too much tier-2 talent.

I'm not sure I agree about your assessments of Izzo, Claridge, and TBC. I think ONE of Izzo and TBC are a lock, but not necessarily both. Izzo seemed to slip a bit last year, and Iwuh could replace him.

You're going to replace a veteran pro-bowler with a mid-round draft pick and call that an upgrade? Let's not get too excited about the rookie.

We have a lot of cover guys on this team. Not counting G Scott, Tebucky, and Izzo, we have Mel Mitchell, Don Davis, TBC, Alexander, LaCasse, Iwuh, Pass, Addai, plus the usual starters that Belichick likes to use.

My point exactly. So instead of picking more cover guys, lets trade that pick up and upgrade from Baskett to Hass, or something like that...!

Schlegel might already be better at reading the play than Claridge, and is stronger.

God, no. What makes you think that's true? They are both unknown quantities. Difference is, we've already made an investment in Claridge-- we should give him a shot before looking for replacements.

 

[dryheat44]

'heat, I disagree with the idea of flooding the roster with rookies we cant possible carry into the season. Far better to trade that value up for even better prospects or trade that value into 2007. You've counted to 60 players, but we can only carry 53!

It pains me to see Dexter Reid released and playing incredible ST for the Colts, simply because we didn't have roster space for him. So, yes, it is possible to have too much tier-2 talent.

Oh, I understand your point. But:

1. This draft is supposedly deeper than either last year's or next year's. It might be worth making picks this year instead of next. As of now, we have somewhere between 9 and 11 picks next year as well, we don't really need more. As far as trading up this year, I'm all for it. I'm sure it will happen. For example, I see Gocong, LaCasse, and McClover as equals, and was willing to wait to grab the last one available. Belichick probably has a different opinion, so could move up to get one. But I see nothing inherently wrong with picking 11, 13, or even 50 guys in the draft. We get first crack at evaluating them. If they're not good enough, so what? I guess I don't see draftees as "Patriots employees" and get emotionally attached to them. I think of them as temps. The best of them will improve the squad, the rest will serve their temporary duty, then leave to seek another job.
2. We can carry 53, true that. But I've never seen a football team make it through a training camp without guys getting hurt.
3. Dexter Reid is on the Colts because he wasn't good enough to be here. End of Story. Is he a capable kick cover guy? Sure, but he was like fourth best on our team. If he was an essential contributor, he would have made the team last year. Or the year before, or whenever he was cut. I love it when other teams poach guys that aren't good enough to make our team. I'll give each team 53 of them. We can keep the best 53 plus practice squad, IR, etc. Why do we want to keep a guy here who isn't among the best 65 or so? The more guys in camp, the better the competition, and the stronger team you'll have. If some guys have trade value, you trade them, like we did to that linebacker we sent to Chicago some years back (Dorsey, was it?), or when we picked up Dane Looker from St. Louis.

Put it this way. If you owned a company (let's say Dell) and had three spots open, would you rather interview three prospective employees, five prospective employees, or twelve prospective employees, if the time wasn't a factor? You'd be most assured of getting the right candidate if you interview twelve. You might find out that the fourth and fifth best guy you interviewed is actually an improvement over two current employees, with higher potential. Would you care then, if the interviewees who didn't make the cut took jobs at Gateway and Compaq?

 

[dryheat44]

God, no. What makes you think that's true? They are both unknown quantities. Difference is, we've already made an investment in Claridge-- we should give him a shot before looking for replacements.

I'm looking to improve every spot on the roster. Samuel, Wilson, Koppen, Light, Watson, Warren, Wilfork, Bruschi, right down the line. Claridge? He's promising. We will give him a shot. If, to keep with the example, we bring in Schlegel, and there's only one spot, well, "have at it boys." The one who performs best in TC and exhibition gets the job. Second place is you're fired (or more likely Practice Squad). How is that denying Claridge his shot? I call it not putting all your dollar bills under the same mattress.

 

[dryheat44]

You're going to replace a veteran pro-bowler with a mid-round draft pick and call that an upgrade? Let's not get too excited about the rookie.

The secret to continual success is a constant refreshing of the roster. Most dynasties end because everybody gets old at once. Belichick understands this. Like he says, "Better a year too early than a year too late."

 

[flutie2phelan]

Yaarrrgh...That's some high-falutin' language. We be but simple pirates here.

"If it wasn't for Long John Silver
all of us pirates would've been murderers!"
- Gordon Lightfoot

 

[dryheat44]

"If it wasn't for Long John Silver
all of us pirates would've been murderers!"
- Gordon Lightfoot

But Why the Rum gone?

- Captain Jack Sparrow

 

[flutie2phelan]

.... I see nothing inherently wrong with picking 11, 13, or even 50 guys in the draft. We get first crack at evaluating them. If they're not good enough, so what? I guess I don't see draftees as "Patriots employees" and get emotionally attached to them. I think of them as temps. The best of them will improve the squad, the rest will serve their temporary duty, then leave to seek another job.
....
3. Dexter Reid is on the Colts because he wasn't good enough to be here. End of Story. Is he a capable kick cover guy? Sure, but he was like fourth best on our team. If he was an essential contributor, he would have made the team last year. Or the year before, or whenever he was cut. I love it when other teams poach guys that aren't good enough to make our team. I'll give each team 53 of them. We can keep the best 53 plus practice squad, IR, etc. Why do we want to keep a guy here who isn't among the best 65 or so? The more guys in camp, the better the competition, and the stronger team you'll have. ....

Put it this way. ... would you rather interview three prospective employees, five prospective employees, or twelve prospective employees, if the time wasn't a factor? You'd be most assured of getting the right candidate if you interview twelve. You might find out that the fourth and fifth best guy you interviewed is actually an improvement over two current employees, with higher potential. Would you care then, if the interviewees who didn't make the cut took jobs at Gateway and Compaq?

Rook perfectly expressed the mindset i, too, had on this ... even unto making Reid my poster boy.

You've changed my mind.


ps - i already agreed with the larger roster, using 60 as my target in last year's t/c mock rostering.

 

[rookBoston]

The secret to continual success is a constant refreshing of the roster. Most dynasties end because everybody gets old at once. Belichick understands this. Like he says, "Better a year too early than a year too late."

Get old? Claridge is a kid! Guss Scott is a kid! There is no way that we've seen enough to squeeze them aside for a new unmeasued quantity.

If you're going to view late round picks as that "disposable" then (draft him and discard him if he doesn't win in TC), you should have no objection spending them to trade up. If we draft Schlegel and Claridge wins out in TC, then we've blown that pick for no lasting benefit other than "good competition in pre-season". Whoever wins, we've wasted a draft pick.

Hell, we could pick up any number of UFA journeyman formerly drafted by someone else, without spending the pick. Far better to spend the pick on a player who we truly believe is going to make a difference-- someone who we think will be special for us.

For me, I'd pay a premium to get Carpenter and Marshall, instead of Anderson and Pittman. Now, I'd be very optimistic having Anderson and Pittman on the team, but Carpenter and Marshall are just that much more compelling. And if the difference is having Steve Fifita, Anthony Schlegel, Hank Baskett, Brian Iwuh and Ryan Lacasse competing in training camp for positions that will probably go to other (better or equal) players... well, that's an easy choice. Is Schlegel better than Claridge? Iwuh better than Sanders? Lacasse than TBC? Across the board, probably not; or if so, not by much.

 

[dryheat44]

I may have to redo the first few picks...(and the trades that ensue), but I probably won't have time. I would like everybody to re-read my #1 pick explanation.

I think the Jets make the move to #2 now, and it's going to cost them a lot more than if they did it yesterday.

 

[nickw308810]

Put it this way. If you owned a company (let's say Dell) and had three spots open, would you rather interview three prospective employees, five prospective employees, or twelve prospective employees, if the time wasn't a factor? You'd be most assured of getting the right candidate if you interview twelve. You might find out that the fourth and fifth best guy you interviewed is actually an improvement over two current employees, with higher potential. Would you care then, if the interviewees who didn't make the cut took jobs at Gateway and Compaq?

Excellent analogy, but to me the difference is that you would be interviewing a guy who you really believed could do the job, or a few guys that you hoped could do the job.