Welcome to PatsFans.com

Trading Up (DL Melvin Ingram or Michael Brockers)

Discussion in 'Patriots Draft Talk' started by MrNathanDrake, Apr 11, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MrNathanDrake

    MrNathanDrake On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,973
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +334 / 14 / -13

    #95 Jersey

    With the Patriots having pre-draft visits from Michael Brockers, and now Melvin Ingram, it looks more and more likely that they are considering trading up.



    -Ingram is currently projected in the 7-16 range. We would have to give up an arm and a leg to move up that high, but we definitely have the ammo if BB feels Ingram's "the guy" that will take the defense to another level like Aldon Smith did with the 49ers last year.
    -Brockers I have seen anywhere from 9-25 range, with some having him falling even more. Realistically I think he's gone by 22 at the latest. I doubt he lasts to 27, so we would have to trade up no matter what if we want to pick him.


    To put things in perspective, the Falcons had the #27 pick last year, and traded up to #6 for Julio Jones. What did it cost them besides #27?? They also had to give up last years 2nd and 4th rd picks, as well as this years 1st and 4th rounders.

    Jets traded up from #17 to #5 to get Mark Sanchez. They also had to give up their 2nd rounder that year, and 3 role players (Kenyon Coleman, back up QB Brett Ratliff and safety Abram Elam).

    Jets traded up from #25 to #14 to get Darelle Revis. Jets gave up #25 overall, 2nd rd pick, and 5th rd pick to obtain the #14 overall and 6th rd pick from the Panthers. Basically they just had to give up a 2nd rounder to move up 11 spots, and then swap a 5th for a 6th rounder. Not bad considering it landed them the best CB in football right now.


    The earliest we would probably move up is #11 where KC currently picks. Ingram might be gone by then already, and it's probably too early for Brockers. But if Ingram slips anywhere in the #11-#13 range, this is where BB will have to pull the trigger.

    #12 Seahawks is another option to trade with.
    #13 Cardinals are apparently looking to trade down
    #15 The Eagles are known to move around the draft a lot, and would probably be the highest spot where Brockers gets drafted. So, if BB wants to be safe and get Brockers, this would be where we trade for him.


    Dallas at 14, Jets at 16, Chargers at 18 are less likely to trade since they are all still playoff contenders every year and have less spots to fill than the teams mentioned above.

    Browns and Bengals both have multiple 1st rounders at picks 17, 21, 22, and might be willing to trade back to accumulate even more picks.




    Going on past trades, what would we have to give up for Ingram if he's still around at 11-13?

    #27 + #31 might do it, plus swapping our 4th for their 5th.
    #27 + Wes Welker + 3rd rounder might do it.

    Brockers, if he's still around in the 17-25 range would cost a lot less, but theres a chance he will be gone by then. We might only have to give up a 3rd rounder, or our late 2nd depending on how many spots we jump up in the draft.


    Wes Welker, believe it or not, could get dealt on draft day. I would never rule it out with BB at the helm (remember Seymour/Vrable surprises?). We have enough receivers with Gronkowski, Hernandez, Ocho Cinco, Deion Branch, Brandon Lloyd, Dante Stallworth, Julian Edelman, Anthony Gonzalez. I'm not saying Welker WILL be traded, but it's possible BB deals him while he's still worth something.




    It should also be mentioned that Asante Samuel is on the trading block and the Eagles are looking for a 4th rounder for him. Perhaps we could trade #27, 2nd rd pick, and 4th rd pick for #15, Asante Samuel, and a 5th rd pick. But he would have to restructure his contract so that would probably get in the way of any sort of trade involving him.




    Currently we have 5 picks in the top 100.

    We could move up about 10-15 spots in the 1st round and still walk away with 4 picks in the top 100.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2012
  2. Wilfork#75

    Wilfork#75 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,840
    Likes Received:
    50
    Ratings:
    +91 / 5 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Due diligence, that's all I think it is. I wouldn't read too much into any of these sorts of visits, its just making sure you have all the information just in case someone falls.
  3. MrNathanDrake

    MrNathanDrake On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,973
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +334 / 14 / -13

    #95 Jersey

    It's not due diligence incase they fall, because Ingram most definitely is NOT falling to us in the draft. The latest he would go is #16 to the Jets, but could go as high as #7.

    There is no way he's still there at 27 where we pick, so we would HAVE to trade up in any scenario to draft him. They wouldn't waste a visit on someone who is guaranteed to be gone by our pick if there was not legitimate interest. It shows BB is at least considering it.


    My thought is BB is impressed with his game tape and work outs, and wanted to get a feel for him as a person to see if he's worth trading up for if he's still there in the 11-15 range.



    IMO Ingram is well worth trading up for. He could be a top OLB in the league in a couple years and might be the best OLB prospect since DeMarcus Ware.

    When you consider most of our recent 2nd and 3rd rounders have been total BUSTS (Darius Butler, Ron Brace, Jermaine Cunningham, Terrence Wheatley, Shawn Crable, Taylor Price, Tyrone McKenzie, Brandon Tate, Kevin O'Connel, Chad Jackson)...

    I know Gronk, Chung, Vollmer, and Spikes were all 2nd rounders, but the amount of BUSTS we've had in the 2nd and 3rd outweighs our successful picks there.

    Wouldn't it be worth it to lose a 2nd rounder in order to move up for an impact player that could potentially be one of the best pass rushers in the league and instantly upgrade our defense. Personally I would give up #27, a 2nd, and a 3rd to move up to the 11-13 range to snag Ingram if he's still there.

    Belichick is using 3rd rounders on back up project QB's (Mallet and O'Connell) who never see the field... Why not use it to move up and pick someone who could give us a legitimate threat off the edge that we've been lacking forever now.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2012
  4. reamer

    reamer Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I think if Brockers makes it out of the top ten, he will quite possibly fall into the late teens/early twenties. The more I watch his film, the more convinced I am that he's Seymour 2.0. Now, he will need a year of seasoning before he plays at that level, but his work against the run is NFL-ready. He would transform our 34 looks almost immediately. Originally I was skeptical of his play for various reasons, but with time to review, I am convinced of the wisdom of trading up for Brockers.

    27 + 62 can get us as high as 15, if our old buddies in Philly want to trade. Using 31 instead, we can still get into the high teens. This leaves us with another first and another second to still target premium talent, while also securing the best two-gap end in the last three drafts. That's right. I'd take Brockers over Suh for our defense.

    Ideally, we could arrange a trade in such a way that we'd also receive a 5th in return. I could see the Titans having an interest in dropping down in the 1st if they could effectively swap a 5th for a 2nd. They need depth more than anything.

    Depending on how the board falls, I am all for dropping back from 27 or 31 for the 37th pick. The Browns have an over-abundance of draft picks this year, and may prefer to jump up to target "their guy," in which case we could stock up on a couple extra 4th and 5th rounders to target our guys.

    Now I really want to do a full mock with trades and a projected 53 . . . :singing:
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2012
  5. ATippett56

    ATippett56 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    31
    Ratings:
    +128 / 1 / -2

    If Jonathan Martin, offensive tackle from Stanford, falls to the #27 overall pick, I would not doubt that Bill Belichick gets a call from Andy Reid. Please consider the fact the Philadelphia Eagles own two second round draft selections, so trading up may be an option. The Philadelphia Eagles could be searching for a long term solution at left tackle due to the Achilles' tendon injury to Jason Peters.
  6. MrNathanDrake

    MrNathanDrake On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,973
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +334 / 14 / -13

    #95 Jersey

    Yeah, we shouldn't be trading down anymore.

    Belichick is only batting 29% in the 2nd round. It's embarrassing that we've had sooooooo many 2nd rd picks in recent years and only came out of it with a few good players.


    Anyways, this thread is about trading UP for Ingram or Brockers... not trading down. Please try to stay on topic.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2012
  7. ATippett56

    ATippett56 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    31
    Ratings:
    +128 / 1 / -2

    Unfortunately, Bill Belichick is not in the business of appeasing to posters on the PatsFans message board. I seriously doubt Bill Belichick will trade up in the first round of the 2012 NFL Draft unless he envisions value in Michael Brockers.
  8. MrNathanDrake

    MrNathanDrake On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,973
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +334 / 14 / -13

    #95 Jersey

    He's in the business of putting together the best team he can, and trading down into the 2nd round has NOT worked out.

    Passing on Clay Mathews to accumulate picks and take 2nd rounders like Ron Brace and Darius freaking Butler did NOT make us a better team.


    From 2006-2010 we have had 15 picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Out of those 15 picks only 4 have turned out good. 11 have been BUSTS on our team. I am not counting last year since it's too early to tell still.


    Like I said, he obviously wouldn't have had a projected Top 15 player like Melvin Ingram visiting Gilette if he wasn't considering trading up.

    Even Brockers would most likely require trading up about 5-10 spots to pick.



    BB wouldn't waste time and resources having these guys visit Gilette if he had no interest in trading up.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2012
  9. ATippett56

    ATippett56 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    31
    Ratings:
    +128 / 1 / -2

    I could possibly envision Michael Brockers falling into the 20s but not Melvin Ingram. It's a matter of draft capital to Bill Belichick, the price of moving up.

    I would not get your hopes up for Melvin Ingram, since the New England Patriots passed up potential 3-4 outside linebackers in the 2011 NFL Draft even with the #33 overall selection.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2012
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,563
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +438 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Unless you're a VERY tough grader . . . BULLSH!T.

    Good : Light, Branch, Eugene Wilson, Chung, Vollmer, Gronk, Spikes
    Bad : Klemm, Bethel Johnson, Hill, Jackson, Wheatley, Brace, Wheatley,
    TBD : Cunningham, Dowling, Vereen

    Good = 7 (only questionable one is Wilson)
    Bad = 7 (Hill almost shouldn't count but he wasn't looking too good)

    The only was you can get 29% is if you take out Wilson and Spikes and include all the TBDs as busts already which is ridiculous.

    On subject, Brockers seems like the type Bill would consider trading up for or Cox if he unexpectedly makes it to our range. Not sure I see us trading up for Ingram.
  11. patfanken

    patfanken On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,772
    Likes Received:
    350
    Ratings:
    +607 / 16 / -8

    #91 Jersey

    I hope you aren't an accountant, because your numbers don't add up. Because if they did you would have to name me the 11 busts that came out of the 2nd round.....and you CAN'T because they don't exist. A lot of those 2nd rounders were used in trades for players and future picks (ie Wes Welker, Rob Gronkowski) But that's alright. Bernie Madoff thought your "accounting" was just fine :rolleyes:

    I also find it interesting that you are willing to use our very limited resources to select 2 of the riskiest boom or bust choices on the board.

    Ingram is just 6'1 and has very short arms. He'd fit fine in the Steelers D, but ours? He also plays a position that requires a couple of years to mature. Do you want again to waste multiple assets to got after a guy who (even if he is a great player) won't be much more than a situational rusher for a couple of years.

    Brockers could just as easily be Jonathan Sullivan as Richard Seymour. He is without doubt a project and could just as easily slip out of the first round and probably should. He's going to need at least a couple of years to mature. My god DBs out bench him...and at best at the end of his development he's more likely to be Ty Warren than Richard Seymour....and THAT's if you're lucky.

    I'm all for trading up. I'm guessing only 4 draft picks make this team, so its fine with me. This is the year to do it. This is the year we should be trading up or out into 2013. HOWEVER if we are going to use those limited assets to move up, we should be doing it for players who are "sure things" at least as far as the draft goes. A player who is likely to have an immediate impact as a starter or in a rotation. NOT 2 players who are just as likely to be busts as hits....and even if they are hits, need time to develop. Remember you only can control these guys for 4 years. You don't want to be training guys who will play the best years of their career for ANOTHER team.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2012
  12. MrNathanDrake

    MrNathanDrake On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,973
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +334 / 14 / -13

    #95 Jersey

    Its possible but not probable. He won't be there at 27. So we would have to trade up at least a few spots to get him. I see him going from 20-22, but possibly much higher.

    We passed up on Brooks Reed, Jabaal Sheard, Justin Houstin, Sam Acho.

    ALL of them had very good rookie seasons as 34 OLB.

    We passed some of those guys for a Back up QB, 3rd down back, and an injury prone CB who sat out the whole season with an injury. It makes BB and the Front office look silly.

    I'm not getting my hopes up since I think Ingram will go in the Top 10, but obviously BB wouldn't be wasting his time meeting with Ingram if there wasn't some interest.
  13. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,563
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +438 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    No, Sheard played 4-3 DE.
  14. MrNathanDrake

    MrNathanDrake On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,973
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +334 / 14 / -13

    #95 Jersey

    Learn how to interpret, smart ass.

    15 picks in the 2nd and 3rd combined is obviously was what meant.


    Since 2006, here are our 2nd and 3rd draft picks.....



    2006
    2nd - Chad Jackson - BUST
    3rd - David Thomas - BUST

    2007
    Didn't draft anyone in the 2nd or 3rd

    2008
    2nd - Terrence Wheatley - BUST
    3rd - Shawn Crable - BUST
    3rd - Kevin O'Connell - BUST

    2009
    2nd - Patrick Chung - good
    2nd - Ron Brace - BUST
    2nd - Darius Butler - BUST
    2nd - Sebastion Vollmer - good
    3rd - Brandon Tate - BUST
    3rd - Tyrone McKenzie - BUST

    2010
    2nd - Rob Gronkowski - good
    2nd - Jermaine Cunningham - BUST
    2nd - Brandon Spikes - good
    3rd - Taylor Price - BUST

    Some might argue that David Thomas wasn't a bust, but he certainly was a bust on the Pats. We ended up trading him for a 7th round pick a couple years after he was drafted. And while Brandon Tate was somewhat decent, we eventually released him for nothing after only 2 seasons. He didn't even finish his rookie contract.


    Do the math genius... That's 15 picks, and only 4 that turned out well.
  15. Sciz

    Sciz PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,251
    Likes Received:
    100
    Ratings:
    +245 / 1 / -0

    And Reed and Acho played in completely different 3-4 schemes. The only one who played in a similar scheme was Houston, and the Pats had 3 guys with more sacks than he did last season.
  16. MrNathanDrake

    MrNathanDrake On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,973
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +334 / 14 / -13

    #95 Jersey

    Not many teams play identical schemes. Reed and Acho proved they can play 3-4 OLB. Enough said.

    Houston was a rookie. and 2 of those guys who had more sacks than Houston are NO LONGER ON THE TEAM.
  17. Snake Eyes

    Snake Eyes Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    5,195
    Likes Received:
    65
    Ratings:
    +113 / 12 / -9

    The jury is not out on those players.

    Mallett may turn into a stud or he may become trade bait, but I rather doubt anyone had expectations immediately after Mallett was drafted that he’d be doing anything other than holding a clipboard a year later so I don't why you're raising a fuss about that pick.

    Regarding Vareen, people seem to assume he’s only a 3rd down back because he can catch the ball very well, if he couldn’t catch people would say he’s only a 1st and 2nd down back. He’s an every down back.

    As far as Ras-I, he’s been injured but has also looked awesome when he did play, he might turn into a stud with the expectation that he’d redshirt a year.

    I rather doubt BB gives a rats ass how he looks, he’s going to make the decisions he thinks are best. This doesn’t mean I always agree with his decisions but fully support his reasons for making them, caring about what people think of him are not among them.

    The info BB gets might be used to qualify Ingram at a certain value, it may also be used if/when we ever go up against Ingram on another team. It can also be used in assessing their own evaluation process and skill.

    As far as sending information, does the fact that BB has Ingram to Foxboro change Ingram’s market value? Would Tebow have still gone in the 1st round if we hadn’t brought him by twice? Might hosting a high profile player like Ingram overshadow BB hosting a lesser known player, making it less likely that the Foxboro visit increases the value of that sleeper player?

    I really don’t think you can presume much from the fact that BB has someone over.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2012
  18. Off The Grid

    Off The Grid On the Roster

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,674
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +236 / 5 / -0

    #3 Jersey

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Sorry, my friend, but I've got to call FAIL!! on this one!! [​IMG]

    Next time, I suggest that you actually write what you supposedly meant ~ instead of editing it AFTER you've been busted on a false statement!! ~ rather than depending on others to put on their Schwami Hats and "learn how to interpret" your fact-retardant posts!! Just Sayin!! [​IMG]
  19. MrNathanDrake

    MrNathanDrake On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,973
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +334 / 14 / -13

    #95 Jersey

    What are you talking about? I didn't edit anything there.


    The fact is we've had 15 picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds combined, and only 4 have turned out to be good players.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2012
  20. Off The Grid

    Off The Grid On the Roster

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,674
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +236 / 5 / -0

    #3 Jersey

    Oh? [​IMG]

    .........
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>