Trade Up Into the First

[mgteich]

The value of the 5th year is something that the patriots understand well. I think we will consider trading up in order to have two five year players.

Consider how great it is to look at 2009 next to Hobbs, Mankins, Kaycur, Wilfork and Watson.

 

[drpatriot]

What players would you suggest we pick? And what moves would be necessary to trade up into the 1st round? A second and a third/fourth? Doesn't seem worth it to me.

 

[patchick]

The value of the 5th year is something that the patriots understand well. I think we will consider trading up in order to have two five year players.

Consider how great it is to look at 2009 next to Hobbs, Mankins, Kaycur, Wilfork and Watson.

Interesting point...the conventional wisdom calls this a year where roughly #16-72 is a strong, even plateau. Which has led lots of people to suggest trading down to collect an extra player within that plateau. Assuming roughly equal quality, would you really rather have 2 players for 5 years than 3 players for 4 years?

I do agree, though, that contract length makes a compelling argument for, e.g., #32 being worth significantly more in trade than #33.

 

[mavfan2390]

What players would you suggest we pick? And what moves would be necessary to trade up into the 1st round? A second and a third/fourth? Doesn't seem worth it to me.

keep 21, draft deangelo williams, trade for one of the broncos picks, draft antonio cromartie i can dream man!

 

[patsfaninpa]

AJ Hawk might be someone to trade up for. He'd shore up one of
our lb positions. Can probably play inside or out. Good blitzer from
wherever he lines up. Hate to give up what it would take though.
Too many holes to fill.

 

[Feep_FLA]

I'd like to keep our 21 and trade some of this years picks on next years to get a low second round to go with our 53 or 52, whatever it is. Use the two 3rd round picks. that's 5 picks in the first 110 or so. Nice! Lotta teams got more than they can use. Us too. 10+ too many picks.... :rocker:

 

[IcyPatriot]

The value of the 5th year is something that the patriots understand well. I think we will consider trading up in order to have two five year players.

Consider how great it is to look at 2009 next to Hobbs, Mankins, Kaycur, Wilfork and Watson.

Would not surprise me at all...except Belichick loves those 2nd round picks. But i could see him doing it near the bottom of the 1st to steal a 2nd round pick away from someone who would beat him to it otherwise...one of the weaker teams who need all the help they can get.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Interesting point...the conventional wisdom calls this a year where roughly #16-72 is a strong, even plateau. Which has led lots of people to suggest trading down to collect an extra player within that plateau. Assuming roughly equal quality, would you really rather have 2 players for 5 years than 3 players for 4 years?

I do agree, though, that contract length makes a compelling argument for, e.g., #32 being worth significantly more in trade than #33.

I had considered mg's theory once they announced the signing restrictions for draftees and reached the same conclusion you discuss.

 

[big mike]

Interesting point...the conventional wisdom calls this a year where roughly #16-72 is a strong, even plateau. Which has led lots of people to suggest trading down to collect an extra player within that plateau. Assuming roughly equal quality, would you really rather have 2 players for 5 years than 3 players for 4 years?

I don't see why people are thinking the players between #16-72 are an even plateau. Consider the positions we'll most likely be looking at - LB (OLB probably, with DE/OLB tweeners getting a keen look), RB, and WR.

At RB, in the late first round will likely be Maroney, Williams, Lendell White, and Addai, with likely one of the four slipping into the second round - perhaps two, depending on team priorities. After those 4 - are you saying that the RBs going all the way back to pick #72 are of the same caliber as those 4? (who will be taken most likely between #16 and 36 or so)

Take OLB. Guys like Manny Lawson, Bobby Carpenter, Chad Greenway, and Ernie Sims will most likely all be late first round picks (#16-#32). Do you think there's no dropoff after them to the guys that will be picked in round 2?

How about WR? In the late first will likely be Chad Jackson and Santonio Holmes, who IMO are clearly considerably better than the second round WRs.

So, where is this view coming from that the players in the second round are as good as those in the late first?

I'd personally much rather have maybe Manny Lawson and DeAngelo Williams, than three or four 2nd rounders - as there seems to be a substantial dropoff.

 

[marty]

Interesting point...the conventional wisdom calls this a year where roughly #16-72 is a strong, even plateau. Which has led lots of people to suggest trading down to collect an extra player within that plateau. Assuming roughly equal quality, would you really rather have 2 players for 5 years than 3 players for 4 years?

I do agree, though, that contract length makes a compelling argument for, e.g., #32 being worth significantly more in trade than #33.

I was wondering the same and also what impact the new restrictions would have on the jr's?

 

[patchick]

I don't see why people are thinking the players between #16-72 are an even plateau. Consider the positions we'll most likely be looking at - LB (OLB probably, with DE/OLB tweeners getting a keen look), RB, and WR.

At RB, in the late first round will likely be Maroney, Williams, Lendell White, and Addai, with likely one of the four slipping into the second round - perhaps two, depending on team priorities. After those 4 - are you saying that the RBs going all the way back to pick #72 are of the same caliber as those 4? (who will be taken most likely between #16 and 36 or so)

Take OLB. Guys like Manny Lawson, Bobby Carpenter, Chad Greenway, and Ernie Sims will most likely all be late first round picks (#16-#32). Do you think there's no dropoff after them to the guys that will be picked in round 2?

How about WR? In the late first will likely be Chad Jackson and Santonio Holmes, who IMO are clearly considerably better than the second round WRs.

So, where is this view coming from that the players in the second round are as good as those in the late first?

I'd personally much rather have maybe Manny Lawson and DeAngelo Williams, than three or four 2nd rounders - as there seems to be a substantial dropoff.

Do I literally think that player #72 will be the equal of player #16? No, probably not. But I do think that the pool gets much, much tighter. The dropoff from, say, A.J. Hawk to Bobby Carpenter strikes me as a lot bigger than the gulf between Carpenter and a Darryl Tapp or Mark Anderson. (I'm leaving Manny Lawson out of the equation, because I count him as a top-15 player.)

So in answer to your question, given the choice between Carpenter or Tapp and Anderson, I'd take the two-pack. And given the choice between Carpenter and DeAngelo Williams vs. Tapp, Anderson, and Addai in the 2nd and Mike Hass in the 3rd, to me it's no contest.

 

[big mike]

Do I literally think that player #72 will be the equal of player #16? No, probably not. But I do think that the pool gets much, much tighter. The dropoff from, say, A.J. Hawk to Bobby Carpenter strikes me as a lot bigger than the gulf between Carpenter and a Darryl Tapp or Mark Anderson. (I'm leaving Manny Lawson out of the equation, because I count him as a top-15 player.)

That's generally the case. Usually in most drafts you have maybe the top 4-7 or 8 players who are head and shoulders above everyone else. Then there's a fairly level field that goes back maybe to 15, then another field you could say is level going back perhaps to the end of the first round, etc..

To a certain extent, I think it will depend on how teams ahead of us draft. If there's a run on OLBs (which seems fairly likely), then there may not be decent value at #21, or even in the rest of the first round. So, if that's a top priority, it may be worthwhile to just trade back to where the next DE/OLB tweener could be had at decent value (which could be late 1 or early 2). Unless the run on OLBs results in another position of need (WR perhaps) or near-future-need (RB) being ignored - say maybe DeAngelo Williams or whichever of the next top three RBs is available at #21. Could be worth taking him there, rather than trading back. (kind of like 2 years ago, when you could have made the same argument that there wasn't going to be good value around 20-25 or so - but then Wilfork slipped down to 21)

So in answer to your question, given the choice between Carpenter or Tapp and Anderson, I'd take the two-pack.

I guess we'll have to disagree, since I feel Carpenter would be a considerably better OLB than either of those guys - and it's better to have two solid starting OLBs (say COlvin and Carpenter) than one solid one (Colvin) and two "ok" guys, with one of them perhaps being better than expected. It of course all comes down to how BB feels about particular players - he's obviously a much better judge of potential talent than us. But, if his analysis is similar to that of most draft boards, I don't see Tapp AND Anderson being better value than Carpenter alone.