Trading UP - Not DOWN

[Metaphors]

Re: May be a moot point

There is a salary drop off from every spot to the one below it. #7 won't be that far behind #6 (or ahead of #8)

The point is that there is a significant drop in total contract value (salary, bonus, escalators) late in the top 10. I'm not sure it is between #6 and #7 but I'm pretty sure you will notice the difference between #7 and #10...more than the 3 draft slots would lead you to believe.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: May be a moot point

The point is that there is a significant drop in total contract value (salary, bonus, escalators) late in the top 10. I'm not sure it is between #6 and #7 but I'm pretty sure you will notice the difference between #7 and #10...more than the 3 draft slots would lead you to believe.

I don't notice anything because I don't know what you are talking about. Give me the numbers you are referring to, please, and where you got them, because I only know what I said: that #7 will make less than #6, but not a lot less, and that #7 will make more than #8, but not a lot more. Ditto for every draft spot.

 

[Metaphors]

Re: May be a moot point

I don't notice anything because I don't know what you are talking about. Give me the numbers you are referring to, please, and where you got them, because I only know what I said: that #7 will make less than #6, but not a lot less, and that #7 will make more than #8, but not a lot more. Ditto for every draft spot.

There is already a sticky thread with this info. You have to take the figures with a grain of salt since it is hard to tell how much of the total contract value is "real". That being said, it is pretty easy to see that the progression of contract values in the 1st round is not linear (I know you don't say that, but you hint at it). There is a tipping point around pick #10 which makes even a small trade down look appealing.

 

[b72s]

Thanx metaphor for explaining my point

The statistics and salary prove and the patriots current strength that their tendency would be to trade down given this drafts talent pool.

Does not mean that I do not like gholston but groves may be just as well. Look at SF pick of Patrick Willis a few years ago rookie of the year I think he was picked at 10. May not be a fit to our team but that allows us to choose those who fits the team vs. talent for the sake of talent.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Albert would start for us at RG.

I am not a fan of Alberts as a starting OG, maybe as an OT. He is not a road grader and on third and one, he is not going to move his man off the LOS. He will lean on him until the whistle, but that's all you get from him in the running game.

He is howevewr extremely athletic and would be very good as a pass protector, but only a marginal upgrade over Neal or Hochstien in that regrard, while being much less than either as a run blocker.

I'm staying away from Alberts. Think McGlynn or Schuening.

I would not mind taking Williams of Vandy and sliding Kazcur to OG.

 

[dryheat44]

I am not a fan of Alberts as a starting OG, maybe as an OT. He is not a road grader and on third and one, he is not going to move his man off the LOS. He will lean on him until the whistle, but that's all you get from him in the running game.

He is howevewr extremely athletic and would be very good as a pass protector, but only a marginal upgrade over Neal or Hochstien in that regrard, while being much less than either as a run blocker.

I'm staying away from Alberts. Think McGlynn or Schuening.

I would not mind taking Williams of Vandy and sliding Kazcur to OG.

I think it's time for O'Callaghan to get his 330 lb ass entrenched at RT. He's got the right temperament and is a better athlete than Kazcur. Now with two years apprenticeship, I wouldn't mind moving Kazcur to guard and seeing what O'C can do.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Aside from the landing, falling from 50,000 feet without a parachute is a pretty sweet ride.

Seriously, the cap hit at the top of the draft is scary. I'm worried about what #7 is going to cost. I'd feel much better at #10 or below. The cap numbers are dramatically different once you get to the 9/10 range.
[/LIST]

Do you hear anyone lamenting that we took Richard Seymour at #6 instead paying slightly less for someone at #8?

And would you say Richard Seymour wasn't worth his rookie contract - or did he outplay it?

Things have obviously gotten more expensive in the top ten - but the bottom line is that if a player is the real deal and happens to address a major area of need on your team, the added contract cost and 200 draft trade value points are going to look pretty minor in comparison.

 

[drew4008]

Things have obviously gotten more expensive in the top ten - but the bottom line is that if a player is the real deal and happens to address a major area of need on your team, the added contract cost and 200 draft trade value points are going to look pretty minor in comparison.

Bingo. Along the same lines, we're not in a good position right now at number 7, at least with the way I align the top prospects and the teams drafting ahead of us. I do believe it would be more efficient to trade up if we could get Chris Long.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: May be a moot point

There is already a sticky thread with this info. You have to take the figures with a grain of salt since it is hard to tell how much of the total contract value is "real".

Thanks for the info. No need for a grain of salt with rookie contracts. They don't build in phony years with them. You can get a good idea of how much a player is being paid by the Average Cap.

If you look at any one year, you can find an anomaly, but overall I think it is a reasonable projection. Unfortunately, the data isn't all there and many average cap values are missing.

But it seems to be a reasonable drop as you go along.

Final contract #'s will be determined by negotiation, so you can't set any figures in stone. But once the 6th and 8th picks are signed, you know hat you are getting, and good luck telling an agent that his client should make a LOT less than the guy picked right before him because he is in the drop-off point.

Personally, I think there is greater value in trading down, even if you are getting the worst of hte value chart. The problem is finding someone who wants to trade up unless a great QB is sitting on your spot.

Plus you have a lot less time to ****er now.

 

[Metaphors]

Do you hear anyone lamenting that we took Richard Seymour at #6 instead paying slightly less for someone at #8?

And would you say Richard Seymour wasn't worth his rookie contract - or did he outplay it?

Things have obviously gotten more expensive in the top ten - but the bottom line is that if a player is the real deal and happens to address a major area of need on your team, the added contract cost and 200 draft trade value points are going to look pretty minor in comparison.

No complaints about Seymour, Warren or Wilfork. There are only so many people on the planet with the size and skills to do what they are asked to do. If the Pats evaluate Dorsey or Ellis as the same type of player, the Pats should do whatever it takes to get them...regardless of contract cost or trade value as you suggest. I would say the same for a QB if Brady was closer to retirement.

Other than QB or DL, there would really need to be a game-changing talent to justify the contract at #7. Particularly in a draft that seems to be shaping up as deep but not top-heavy. I just don't see any player in this draft that is clearly worth the cap cost. Obviously it doesn't matter what I think and the Pats may see C.Long or Gholston or whoever as a transcendent talent worth the $6 to $8 mil per year. If they do, I really hope their evaluation is on target.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Other than QB or DL, there would really need to be a game-changing talent to justify the contract at #7. Particularly in a draft that seems to be shaping up as deep but not top-heavy. I just don't see any player in this draft that is clearly worth the cap cost.

The Patriots defense begins and ends with the LB. That's just as important to the Patriots Defense as QB is to offense.

I don't think anyone's breaking down Miami's door to trade for the #1 choice - but you really don't think there's any chance of any player being worth a $6-$7 million cap hit?

No one? No chance? Really?

I know rookies don't have any NFL experience - but to my recollection the've NEVER had any experience and relative to the day, we had to pay a pretty good chunk of change to Seymour taking him at #6.

That was a golden opportunity for a soon to be top tier team to grab a top tier talent.

You're really that bummed that we're "stuck" with what should be one of the better players in the draft - and potentially our young LB of the forseeable future?

The cap does go up every year - and just as with Seymour, what seems like a ton of money now might not seem so expensive 4 years from now, especially if we pick well.

Sure there's risk - but there's also a pretty big potential reward - just as there was with Seymour at #6.

 

[Metaphors]

The Patriots defense begins and ends with the LB. That's just as important to the Patriots Defense as QB is to offense.

The Patriot defense begins with the DL and ends with the LB. Remember 2002? It doesn't take much investigation to figure out that effectiveness of the DL keys the success of the rest of the defense. The Pats player acquisition and cap commitment reflects this as well. Not saying that the LB position isn't critically important (that would be stupid)...just that the DL makes or breaks the Pats defense.

I don't think anyone's breaking down Miami's door to trade for the #1 choice - but you really don't think there's any chance of any player being worth a $6-$7 million cap hit?

No one? No chance? Really?

Your statements are off on a couple of points:
1) "worth a $6-$7 million cap hit". You forgot to mention a) PER YEAR b) FOR 6 YEARS c) FOR THE PATRIOTS
2) "any chance of any player". Of course there is a chance. If I knew with certainty a player's future I'd be making boatloads of money right now.

There are plenty of players that would be worth tons of cash for the right team. McFadden in Chicago. Ryan in Atlanta. Dorsey/Ellis in Cincy. JLong in KC. I just don't see any player being that kind of difference maker in NE, especially when compared to the talent available later in the draft. Really.

I know rookies don't have any NFL experience - but to my recollection the've NEVER had any experience and relative to the day, we had to pay a pretty good chunk of change to Seymour taking him at #6.

That was a golden opportunity for a soon to be top tier team to grab a top tier talent.

Seymour was/is an exceptional talent at a premium position for the Patriots. Let me clarify what I mean...if you studied football players in the history of the league, you would likely come up with a small number that can do what Seymour is asked to do by the Pats. Ditto for Wilfork and Warren. That is why I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Pats grabbed Ellis at #7 (assuming they projected him similar to Seymour/Warren).

Are there any LB in the draft whose value to the Pats would be so much more than the LBs available much later than #7? More than Pace or Briggs? More than any LB that could be had by trading pick #7? Same questions for CBs.

Believe me...I hope that I'm wrong and the next LT or Primetime is available at #7.

You're really that bummed that we're "stuck" with what should be one of the better players in the draft - and potentially our young LB of the forseeable future?

Not at all! The #7 pick is a tremendous asset. I just don't want the Pats to buy their groceries at the Pump-n-Go just because they were already there getting gas. Move down the street a little and you can get the same stuff at much better prices.

The cap does go up every year - and just as with Seymour, what seems like a ton of money now might not seem so expensive 4 years from now, especially if we pick well.

Sure there's risk - but there's also a pretty big potential reward - just as there was with Seymour at #6.

Must. Re-sign. Wilfork.

The difference between pick #7 and pick #15 may be enough cap room to get big Vince locked up for a good, long while.

Again, I don't disagree with your premise that you gladly pay the money to get a top talent that can help take your team to another level. The money is just an investment. The difference is that I don't see the opportunity for a big enough return to justify the investment at pick #7. Again, I would love to be wrong.

 

[Miguel]

Obviously it doesn't matter what I think and the Pats may see C.Long or Gholston or whoever as a transcendent talent worth the $6 to $8 mil per year.

The only way a 2008 draft pick is going to be paid that type of average is if he is worth it (that is, reaches a good number of incentives/escalators).

Peterson's contract can reach a total of $40 million but in order to reach that he has to run over 2000 yards and score over 20 TDs each year. If he does that, his APY will be worth it.

 

[Miguel]

Must. Re-sign. Wilfork.

The difference between pick #7 and pick #15 may be enough cap room to get big Vince locked up for a good, long while.

FWIW - The Patriots will have enough cap room after signing their draft picks (even if they traded up to #1) to extend Wilfork.

 

[Miguel]

T1) "worth a $6-$7 million cap hit". You forgot to mention a) PER YEAR b) FOR 6 YEARS c) FOR THE PATRIOTS

That's simply wrong. Not one 2007 draft pick had a cap hit of over 3 million. It is safe to presume that Jamarcus Russell has the highest 2008 cap hit of any 2007 draft pick. His 2008 cap is $4.8 million. Adrian Peterson's 2008 cap hit is $2,425,000 and his cap hit will not go over $6 million until the 2011 season.

Was Adrian Peterson a bargain in 2007??
Will he be a bargain in 2008??
in 2009??
in 2010??
in 2011??

My answers are Yes, yes, yes, yes, and no. I can live with a player not being a bargain for one year after 4 years of being a bargain.

 

[Metaphors]

The only way a 2008 draft pick is going to be paid that type of average is if he is worth it (that is, reaches a good number of incentives/escalators).

Peterson's contract can reach a total of $40 million but in order to reach that he has to run over 2000 yards and score over 20 TDs each year. If he does that, his APY will be worth it.

So what is his contract worth if he reaches the incentives/escalators he is likely to reach? $39.5 mill? $20 mill? $1.95?

 

[Metaphors]

FWIW - The Patriots will have enough cap room after signing their draft picks (even if they traded up to #1) to extend Wilfork.

I get it. The first year or two of every contract is generally a low cap impact, at least relative to the total contract value.

The bills eventually come due. The bill for a #1 pick is significantly smaller than the bill for the #7 pick. The bill for a #7 pick is significantly smaller than the bill for the #15 pick.

Can the Pats absorb the cap hit this year to re-sign Wilfork regardless of what they do in the draft? Sure. Will the future cap hits for a Wilfork extension plus a top 10 pick this year cause issues with how the team wants to balance the cap over the whole team? Dunno. Would having a lower draft pick in the first round this year make the future cap situation better? Yep.

 

[Boston Tim]

The Patriot defense begins with the DL and ends with the LB. Remember 2002? It doesn't take much investigation to figure out that effectiveness of the DL keys the success of the rest of the defense. The Pats player acquisition and cap commitment reflects this as well. Not saying that the LB position isn't critically important (that would be stupid)...just that the DL makes or breaks the Pats defense.

In 2002, the primary defensive formation was the 4-3. So you're somewhat comparing apples and oranges.

On a separate note, it seemed to me this past year that our DL was not capable of generating a pass rush while using a "read-first two-gap" technique. On what percentage of snaps was the DL allowed to focus on rushing the QB? Do you really need to spend first rounders on defensive linemen if your expectation is that they will control the LOS and the running game, but have minimal impact on passing downs?

 

[Metaphors]

That's simply wrong. Not one 2007 draft pick had a cap hit of over 3 million. It is safe to presume that Jamarcus Russell has the highest 2008 cap hit of any 2007 draft pick. His 2008 cap is $4.8 million. Adrian Peterson's 2008 cap hit is $2,425,000 and his cap hit will not go over $6 million until the 2011 season.

Was Adrian Peterson a bargain in 2007??
Will he be a bargain in 2008??
in 2009??
in 2010??
in 2011??

My answers are Yes, yes, yes, yes, and no. I can live with a player not being a bargain for one year after 4 years of being a bargain.

I would say the same thing about Joe Thomas. If the Pats were selecting McFadden or J.Long (and RB or OT was a need position), then contract terms wouldn't be much of an issue.

The point isn't about whether the #7 pick (whoever he is) would be worth the cap hit for an NFL team. The issue is about cost and value for the Patriots. Will there be a player on the board at #7 that will be worth the contract for the Patriots? We won't know for 3 years or so, but I have my doubts.

Just because AP was a stud at #7 last year doesn't mean that anyone the Pats select at #7 will follow suit. Take the candidates this year (with my opinions):
J.Long - Great value at #7 but won't make it there
C.Long - Questions about transition to LB
Ryan - Young QB not a need
McFadden - Great value at #7 if given opportunity (trade RB, feature run more)
Dorsey - Questions about fit in 3-4 scheme for Pats, opportunity
Gholston - Questions about consistency, transition to OLB
Ellis - See Dorsey

The Pats obviously could evaluate these players differently or include different guys at the top of their board (Clady, DRC, McKelvin, Rivers, etc.). As the Pats declined my request to help with stacking their draft board, my opinions are pretty much guesswork. My best guess is that the Pats will look to trade down since there isn't a player worth the #7 contract FOR THEM.

You may have a different evaluation of the players involved, but your posts seem to be driving at a different point. The economics of drafting in the top 10 is generally considered to be an issue (many want to trade down, few want to trade up). Are you saying that this perception is incorrect? I don't study contracts in detail so maybe GMs are making a big deal when in reality top 10 picks are bargains for the money they get (Ryan Leaf excluded).

 

[Metaphors]

Do you really need to spend first rounders on defensive linemen if your expectation is that they will control the LOS and the running game, but have minimal impact on passing downs?

Considering that the Pats start a #6, #13 and #21 overall on the DL, I would have to say the answer is affirmative. Whether you or I believe that is appropriate, Belichick clearly does. Seymour and Warren have been extended so he also doesn't regret those decisions.