Trading up for talent

[Metaphors]

Just like people who claimed that trading up (the false choice of quality vs. quantity) was the way to go based on the Jets in the AFCC game, claiming the reverse because of a horrific week #1 effort by the Jets seems equally rash.

Either methodology (or a combination of the two) works depending on who you select. If you draft relatively few players, you better hit on most of them...particularly at the leadership positions (QB, C, ILB, S). The Jets have had decidely mixed results. Though to be fair, if Sanchez could turn into a top 10 QB they would likely be in fine shape.

The Pats have had major misses as well (CJack, O'Connell) and a boatload of camp fodder, but their approach allows for this. They are as solid up the middle (Brady, Koppen, Wilfork, Mayo, Spikes, Meriweather, Chung) as anyone. If they can continue to transition these positions to the next gen seamlessly, they will continue to be a top team.

 

[VJCPatriot]

When you trade up, you have no chance of players falling to you. You also have less picks when you trade up, giving you less chances at getting hits. This does not mean that one should never trade up, just that when you do, it better be for someone pretty special. I think this idea is reflected with the Pats. They don't trade up often, but when they do, it's for players like Mayo.

Actually they traded down for Mayo too. They had the 7th overall pick (received from San Fran), and got a 3rd rounder for moving down to #10 where they selected Mayo.

PS Anybody watched that Jets game on MNF? Their offense was so pathetic it was painful to watch. They might have moved up to draft a bust in Sanchez. And it wouldn't be the first time they've done so. Also I LOL'ed at how Boldin was beating Kyle Wilson consistently like a rented mule. I guess that kinda kills the who got the better cb debate - mccourty or wilson. I'll stick with Mccourty TY. He held his own in stopping one half of the dynamic duo in his first ever NFL start. Not bad for a rookie.

 

[condon84]

Brandon Tate, Darius Butler, Rob Gronkowski, Julian Edelman > Clay Matthews

? Why can't we pick Butler and Edelman in the same draft if we had taken Matthews?

We pick Matthews at 26, still pick Butler at 40 and Edelman at 162.

Matthews, Butler, Edelman vs Tate, Butler, Gronk, Edelman

Besides, who's to say we don't use the pick we used on Cunningham to move up to get Gronk.

 

[patchick]

The Pats have had major misses as well (CJack, O'Connell) and a boatload of camp fodder, but their approach allows for this.

I think that's a key point. They won't hit them all, but they've been giving themselves plenty of chances lately. Even if Brace had been a bust (his turnaround so far has been remarkable), missing on 1 of 4 picks in that round is only to be expected.

It's true at the bottom of the draft, too. The Pats have drafted 9 players in rounds 6 & 7 the past 2 years. That's 9 chances to hit a Julian Edelman or Myron Pryor. The Jets have drafted 1! ONE pick in rounds 6 & 7 over 2 years.

 

[VJCPatriot]

? Why can't we pick Butler and Edelman in the same draft if we had taken Matthews?

We pick Matthews at 26, still pick Butler at 40 and Edelman at 162.

Matthews, Butler, Edelman vs Tate, Butler, Gronk, Edelman

Besides, who's to say we don't use the pick we used on Cunningham to move up to get Gronk.

Then we wouldn't have had Butler in the 2nd round because BB was set on taking Brace at that spot. After taking Brace and Butler still slid, BB saw an opportunity and traded up in the 2nd to get Butler as well. A lot of coulda/woulda scenarios exist of course. I'd like to have Clay Matthews, but those are the breaks. BB saw more value in trading down for more picks.

 

[fair catch fryar]

Ironically, they got Mayo by trading out of 2007, and then trading down in 2008.

I still can't help but chuckle everytime I think of the 2008 draft when everyone including myself was hoping BB would select Gholston. When the Jets swooped in and took him at #6 I was ripped. In hindsight, I like to think that BB duped Mangini into taking him and then the Pats got Mayo.

 

[Deus Irae]

New England trades up. New England trades down. New England stays pat. It's a case by case basis. The higher up you pick, the more likely you are to get an elite player. On the other hand, the more picks you have in the top rounds, the better the percentages for getting a starting caliber player.

 

[Deus Irae]

I still can't help but chuckle everytime I think of the 2008 draft when everyone including myself was hoping BB would select Gholston. When the Jets swooped in and took him at #6 I was ripped. In hindsight, I like to think that BB duped Mangini into taking him and then the Pats got Mayo.

There were a whole lot of us who didn't want Gholston.

 

[Metaphors]

? Why can't we pick Butler and Edelman in the same draft if we had taken Matthews?

Because "we" don't get a vote on who to draft. I wasn't in the room, but I feel pretty confident that Belichick didn't want Matthews...at least at the cost of a 1st round pick. I actually agree with that assessment because he is a high risk/high reward type of player. I'm not sure that Belichick feels comfortable with hyper-agressive, hair-on-fire types. Maybe he sees them as undisciplined. I think he would rather have 11 guys playing together rather than 4 guys trying to be a hero and the remaining 7 cleaning up the mess when they aren't.

 

[jmt57]

Since this was a constant theme of sport radio leading up to this week -- the Pats and their propensity for trading down instead of keeping picks or trading up -- I thought I'd revisit a 2009 Draft Day trade, courtesy the NY Times:



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/sports/football/26draft.html?_r=1&ref=football

More:

Given the results of week one, I would venture to guess the trade-up versus trade-down debate will not be brought up once this week on sports radio; nor will it be next week if (when) the Pats advance to 2-0. However, if (god forbid) the Jets should win next Sunday, I'm sure the subject will surface very quickly once again.

 

[patchick]

Because "we" don't get a vote on who to draft. I wasn't in the room, but I feel pretty confident that Belichick didn't want Matthews...at least at the cost of a 1st round pick. I actually agree with that assessment because he is a high risk/high reward type of player. I'm not sure that Belichick feels comfortable with hyper-agressive, hair-on-fire types. Maybe he sees them as undisciplined. I think he would rather have 11 guys playing together rather than 4 guys trying to be a hero and the remaining 7 cleaning up the mess when they aren't.

Matthews has been a revelation in the NFL, but it's worth remembering that he was no sure-fire stud heading into the draft. He was just a one-year starter in college, with all of 4 sacks to his credit. So the next time any of you are tempted to scoff at "measurables," remember this heartwarming tale of a workout warrior made good.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Trading up in round 1 is really where the most risk is, and I can't recall when we last did that. Once you're into the 2nd round & lower, going up a few spots isn't that expensive really, and BB's done it many times.

He's really on a hot streak right now by trading down or out, with 8 starters from rds 1 and 2 in the past 2 drafts, plus 2 1sts and 2 2nds next year. Unbeleivable.

 

[moosekill]

Matthews has been a revelation in the NFL, but it's worth remembering that he was no sure-fire stud heading into the draft. He was just a one-year starter in college, with all of 4 sacks to his credit. So the next time any of you are tempted to scoff at "measurables," remember this heartwarming tale of a workout warrior made good.

Plus I have seen a couple people comment that he counts to 10 with his hoof, i mean foot.

 

[moosekill]

What people have to remember, cracking the Patriots lineup was very difficult a few years back. They had a very very good team with very few holes. It really took a special rookie to be able to come in and take a veteran's spot. Those same veteran's finally hit the age wall a couple of years ago, which led to openings for the draft picks. BB has been planning for this changeover for a number of years and had been trading out of past drafts in anticipation of this occurring. Now we are starting to see the fruits of those drafts in the last two rookie classes. Adding to that are the very high draft picks next year.

It really is sort of exciting. 5 years of young players being able to develop together while having quite low cap hits. It is sort of the opposite of the Jets, who have been bringing in lots of high priced older free agents and very few draft picks. The problem with that strategy is the lack of depth the salary cap allows when you start down that road. Added to that, you can end up with older players who may be more prone to injury, although it is of course a crap shoot. My guess is next year you will see some of those high picks go to revitalize the offensive line, running back, and another defensive back, but we shall see.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Trading up in round 1 is really where the most risk is, and I can't recall when we last did that. Once you're into the 2nd round & lower, going up a few spots isn't that expensive really, and BB's done it many times.

He's really on a hot streak right now by trading down or out, with 8 starters from rds 1 and 2 in the past 2 drafts, plus 2 1sts and 2 2nds next year. Unbeleivable.

I think the last time he traded up in round one was for Ty Warren?

Trading up or down should be based on your roster.

In the years when we have had a stacked and deep roster, we should have traded multiple picks to move up for a high impact player to two, guys ranked very high on our board. Quality over quantity.

In years when we have had a thin roster, then we move down and aquire extra picks to bring in more talent. Quantity over quality.

In the 2010 draft, our roster was thin in a lot of areas while Dallas had a relatively deep roster, so the trade we made with Dallas shows how two teams can benefit from the two different situations of Quantity vs. Quality.

 

[patsfaninpa]

I took a look at our roster composition. As of today. It shakes down like this. Happy B-Day to a couple of rooks; Love and Fletcher.

28 players 25 and under
11 players 26-28
14 players 29+


Don't know how that shapes up with other good teams. Seems awfully young to me. And shows BB is very close to reshaping this roster to a young, championship building team. Practically all of the 30+ guys on offense except TBC. This looks like the year to trade up. Especially, if there is a rookie wage scale. Maybe we won't have to. But, would love to add a guy like C.Heyward 2-gap de or R.Quinn to round out the defense.

 

[Off The Grid]

I'm not sure that Belichick feels comfortable with hyper-agressive, hair-on-fire types. Maybe he sees them as undisciplined.

I think he would rather have 11 guys playing together rather than 4 guys trying to be a hero and the remaining 7 cleaning up the mess when they aren't.

That was EPIC!! :rocker:

 

[Uncle Rico]

What people have to remember, cracking the Patriots lineup was very difficult a few years back. They had a very very good team with very few holes. It really took a special rookie to be able to come in and take a veteran's spot. Those same veteran's finally hit the age wall a couple of years ago, which led to openings for the draft picks. BB has been planning for this changeover for a number of years and had been trading out of past drafts in anticipation of this occurring. Now we are starting to see the fruits of those drafts in the last two rookie classes. Adding to that are the very high draft picks next year.

Yup. This has been covered before but it's worth repeating: BB and the Pats have the luxury of long-term thinking with the draft. For several years they had low picks in poor draft classes for teams that had little room for new players. So they traded down and out, picked up some pretty good players like Moss and Welker (and had a miss or two) and stockpiled for two very strong drafts and counting to restock the team when it needed to be restocked. I don't think HG Wells in his time machine could have done better.