Trading Up

[bucky]

Yep. Nothing against Miller, it's just that my value equation is based on "expected impact," which factors in risk -- and rush LB has been a very, very risky position to draft high. The expected return from drafting Miller vs., say, Kerrigan + Wilkerson or Watt + Reed just isn't attractive.

I don't think 17+28 will get you 1 of the 2 combinations mentioned above. You will still have to trade up from either 17 or 28 to make it happen.

With OLBs, I'm aware of the risk factor. I just happen to believe that Miller has the skills and movement ability of a true LB to go along with his rush ability. Kerrigan and Reed are going to be nothing more than 3rd down rushers for the first 2 years of their careers, if not for their entire careers ( I happen to believe that Kerrigan cannot play OLB at all, but that's for a different day).

Finally, I'm not a big fan of this year's draft and I don't think that adding 8+ rookies is in the best interest of this team. I'd be very happy with 1 impact defensive player, 2 OL who can start in a year, a nickel CB, and a RB to add to the mix along with a FA.

Oh, and as I said, I know I'm in the minority and I don't expect to way anyone with my argument. Just providing the thought process behind it.

 

[patchick]

I don't think 17+28 will get you 1 of the 2 combinations mentioned above. You will still have to trade up from either 17 or 28 to make it happen.

Yeah, that may be true. Even if a small trade up is required, though, I think it's essential to come away from round 1 with a DE. The cupboard will be too bare by round 2.

Finally, I'm not a big fan of this year's draft and I don't think that adding 8+ rookies is in the best interest of this team. I'd be very happy with 1 impact defensive player, 2 OL who can start in a year, a nickel CB, and a RB to add to the mix along with a FA.

I'm happy with "concentrating" picks too, I'd just prefer more modest, tactical moves to cluster picks in the top 80 or so rather than turning 2 first rounders into 1.

 

[dryheat44]

Miami and New England both have completely different needs. Miami doesn't need d-linemen or outside linebackers, they're likely to take Mark Ingram or a receiver. Even if the chargers trade up in front of us, who cares. I highly doubt Jordan, Watt, Heyward and Wilkerson will all be gone by 17 or 28, So if one of them is taken by the Chargers, then oh well they'll take someone else, they're all solid players.

If Bill Parcells is still in charge of the Miami draft (and I don't know if he's already gone or is staying through the draft), I think it's fair to say that the Dolphins will take a lineman or linebacker at 15, or trade down to do it. Frankly, I'd be shocked if Ingram goes to Miami, even if 99% of mockers want to put him there.

As to the original question, no, I don't see the want to trade up for Jordan. IMO, the only guy who BB possibly trades up to #10 for would be Dareus if he somehow fell that far.

 

[mgteich]

A) Everyone wants a defensive impact player. You are NOT in the minorit in that assessment. However, there are not many here who would trade 17 plus 28 to get one of those available. For example, the only player I see in this draft who would add that kind of value to the patriots would be Peterson and he will NOT be available at 6.

B) Belichick doesn't trade up for an OLB. It just makes little sense to take such a risk. Almost all OLB's are projects in the patriot system, and are not worth as much to Belichick as to others. Last year, Belichick showed that he will bite the bullet and use a top pick for an OLB. 53 is very early for a patriot OLB. Almost all of us are rooting for 1st or 2nd round OLB, but we understand that a DE makes much more sense as the first defensive player.

C) Most of us agree on the need for two interior lineman for 2012. Some also see the need for an OT. Personally, I do believe that we do in fact need TWO defensive players. However, I don't expect to find a starter quality player after the top 40 picks. So, the FIRST requirement with the first 3 picks is defense. I do think that the other of our first three picks will be an OL. #74 seems to be a fine spot for a running back. #92 seems destined as a trade forward into 2012.

D) Most of us are not looking for a nickel back in this draft. We have Bodden, McCourty, Arrington, Butler and Wilhite. We certainly might draft a corner, but it would likely happen only if we thought that he could play safety.

E) Obviously, there can be a lot of trading up and down. but for me I expect 2 starting quuality front seven players and 2 starting quality OL's with our first four picks. If #74 and/or #92 need to be used to make this happen, then so be it.


BOTTOM LINE
I don't see anyone available at #6 being worth our #17 plus our #28.

==========================
OPTION 1
Miller at #6 (using 17 plus 28)

OPTION 2
17
28
patchick gave examples of Kerrigan plus Wilkerson or Watt + Reed which may be a tad optimistic, and may need to kick in 3rd to make it happen.

I don't think 17+28 will get you 1 of the 2 combinations mentioned above. You will still have to trade up from either 17 or 28 to make it happen.

With OLBs, I'm aware of the risk factor. I just happen to believe that Miller has the skills and movement ability of a true LB to go along with his rush ability. Kerrigan and Reed are going to be nothing more than 3rd down rushers for the first 2 years of their careers, if not for their entire careers ( I happen to believe that Kerrigan cannot play OLB at all, but that's for a different day).

Finally, I'm not a big fan of this year's draft and I don't think that adding 8+ rookies is in the best interest of this team. I'd be very happy with 1 impact defensive player, 2 OL who can start in a year, a nickel CB, and a RB to add to the mix along with a FA.

Oh, and as I said, I know I'm in the minority and I don't expect to way anyone with my argument. Just providing the thought process behind it.

 

[mgteich]

And it seems that we may not be able to wait until 28 to get our DE. I could see a trade up, using 17 (or 28 plus 33), or a small trade down.

If 17 is used for an OT (the oprion other than DE), then I would expect us to move up for 28 to get our man. After all, we should be able to get to 19 with 28 plus 74 or 33 plus 60, or all the way to 12 with 28 plus 33.

BOTTOM LINE
I expect us to be looking at DE's from 12 onward, even if we expect 17 to be used for the BTA.

Yeah, that may be true. Even if a small trade up is required, though, I think it's essential to come away from round 1 with a DE. The cupboard will be too bare by round 2.

 

[patchick]

If we trade up for Jordan or Watt I wont be happy.

If Quinn is sitting there at 10, i'd be trading up.

I'm your mirror image, then! The more I think about it...putting aside the unreachable (e.g. Dareus), Watt is the one player I'd make a modest move up from 17 for. He's admittedly not the full package yet, but his combo of frame, athleticism, drive and coachability are rare. He kept improving with every game he played, and that attitude makes him IMO a safer pick than his scant experience suggests.

Quinn strikes me as a talented guy but a worse fit for the Pats defense, and very risky indeed.

 

[bucky]

B) Belichick doesn't trade up for an OLB.

I tend to agree with you on this. I'm not trying to predict what BB will do. This is just what I'd like to see.

If I was trying to predict BB, I would say he goes for a guy like Jordan - high floor, proven track record over 3 years.

 

[Patriot Missile]

If we trade up for Jordan or Watt I wont be happy.

If Quinn is sitting there at 10, i'd be trading up.

I like Quinn quite a bit despite his ok combine. He had some great film to watch before his poor judgement to receive the gifts that ended his college career. I still think he has the size, ability and rush moves to be a Patriot for a long time. I would be ok with this trade.

We have the fortune of having plenty of picks throughout the first 3 rounds. Unlike you I do like Jordan alot and think his work ethic and football smarts will translate well to the nfl as long as he can put on some more weight and play with it. Watt seems to have the determination and explosiveness you want in a DE. I don't see what you don't like in those 2.

I'd also be ok waiting to see who falls at 17 as well. There are many players who could help this team right away without giving up any picks.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

If Bill Parcells is still in charge of the Miami draft (and I don't know if he's already gone or is staying through the draft), I think it's fair to say that the Dolphins will take a lineman or linebacker at 15, or trade down to do it. Frankly, I'd be shocked if Ingram goes to Miami, even if 99% of mockers want to put him there.

As to the original question, no, I don't see the want to trade up for Jordan. IMO, the only guy who BB possibly trades up to #10 for would be Dareus if he somehow fell that far.

It's Ireland's show now.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I'm your mirror image, then! The more I think about it...putting aside the unreachable (e.g. Dareus), Watt is the one player I'd make a modest move up from 17 for. He's admittedly not the full package yet, but his combo of frame, athleticism, drive and coachability are rare. He kept improving with every game he played, and that attitude makes him IMO a safer pick than his scant experience suggests.

Quinn strikes me as a talented guy but a worse fit for the Pats defense, and very risky indeed.

I'd not be adverse to a modest trade-up for Bowers. He doesn't have the resume we might like, or the team leader background, and the rumor mill is working overtime to lower his value, but the kid has played in a 3-4 and played it much the same as we'd expect to see him do it under the Flying Elvis. I think between Wilfork and Mayo and the coaching staff this kid would find the stability in NE to continue the personal growth which refocused him last season. The key word is "modest" however.