What if...

[dryheat44]

We use 3 picks to get him and he blows out his knee in trainging camp? Don't say it doesn't happen- does Hart Lee Dykes ring a bell? Our #1 Draft pick never played a down for the Patriots.
.

Ummm. Hart Lee Dykes played for four years with the Pats.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Ummm. Hart Lee Dykes played for four years with the Pats.

OK, you're right smart ass. It just seem like he never played. he "played" 26 games total.

How about Robert Edwards , first round draft pick. Only played one year and had that freak accident. That would fit my point, wouldn't it?

 

[dryheat44]

OK, you're right smart ass. It just seem like he never played. he "played" 26 games total.

How about Robert Edwards , first round draft pick. Only played one year and had that freak accident. That would fit my point, wouldn't it?

Absolutely. Andy Katzenmoyer would fit also, but not nearly as well.

 

[Flying Fungi]

Absolutely. Andy Katzenmoyer would fit also, but not nearly as well.

if you turn him sideways it is a much better fit

 

[letekro]

Belichick will only trade up if a player drops. If Huff falls to #15, a case can be made to package our #1 with a #3 (or #4 instead if they get lucky).

Why would you trade our top 3 picks for one player, and also suggest trading our 2007 pick for Stallworth? These are Mike Ditka-like moves.

No offense, but I'm glad you are only an armchair GM for the Patriots.

.

No offense, but you're an idiot.

1. 21, 52, 86 are NOT our first three picks
2. You seem to be implying that I meant our 2007 1st for Stallworth. I was thinking a 3rd or 4th.
3. Disagreement can be expressed in a respectful manner, which you declined to do.
4. Here is the argument for trading three picks for Michael Huff.
The corners likely to be available at 21 are good, solid prospects, but are any of them substantially better than Samuel, Gay, and Hobbs? Do any of them have the potential to be a dynamic player that can change a game, a la Ed Reed, Champ Bailey, etc? I think not. The receiver that I like in the second, Stovall, is likely not going to be around. With our early third, THAT WE STILL HAVE under this scenario, we could get a quality RB if Dillon has really lost it, or an LB. Additionally, we still would have two fourths including a high one, and a high fifth. Given Belioli's prowess at mining these lower rounds, I would be happy with 1 dynamic, impact player + 4-5 quality players, instead of 7 or 8 quality players under the majority (consensus?) scenario.

 

[maverick4]

re

No offense, but you're an idiot.
Given Belioli's prowess at mining these lower rounds, I would be happy with 1 dynamic, impact player + 4-5 quality players, instead of 7 or 8 quality players under the majority (consensus?) scenario.

Very classy, nice job. Too bad your suggestions run in the face of the last 6 years of moves by the Patriots. Some people pointed out that the draft is no sure thing (even for supposedly "can't miss" prospects), others tried to talk about the Patriots philosophy of value and depth, but I'm glad none of those points based on reason were able to sway your views.

 

[letekro]

Very classy, nice job. Too bad your suggestions run in the face of the last 6 years of moves by the Patriots. Some people pointed out that the draft is no sure thing (even for supposedly "can't miss" prospects), others tried to talk about the Patriots philosophy of value and depth, but I'm glad none of those points based on reason were able to sway your views.

I'm not arguing that Belioli "would" do any of this. I was just injecting a new idea into the long-stale debate of who we will take at 21. Also if I had told you last year that the Patriots would draft a Guard in the 1st you would've said "too bad your suggestion runs in the face of the last 5 years of moves..blah blah blah." Finally, my suggestion does not diminish the importance of value and depth. We get value in the first round with a tremendous player and build depth in the later rounds. It's funny, everyone complained about our inability to create turnovers last year, yet the idea of getting a player that can create some is summarily rejected.

A lot of people made good points, and I'm not sure I would even do this, but in truth we only NEED one starter - a WR, and Stallworth would take care of that. For those unhappy with our LB situation, keep in mind we have 3 out of four positions covered with absolute studs. I am content with the fourth position coming out of a battle b/w Beisel, a rookie, Banta-cain, and Claridge. We can afford to make a play for Huff, and if Belioli doesn't like anyone at 21, you can bet he will consider it.

 

[maverick4]

re

Also if I had told you last year that the Patriots would draft a Guard in the 1st you would've said "too bad your suggestion runs in the face of the last 5 years of moves..blah blah blah." Finally, my suggestion does not diminish the importance of value and depth.

A lot of people made good points, and I'm not sure I would even do this, but in truth we only NEED one starter - a WR, and Stallworth would take care of that. For those unhappy with our LB situation, keep in mind we have 3 out of four positions covered with absolute studs.

Not true on Mankins. I had no idea who he was when he was drafted, but I knew the Pats were looking to replace Andruzzi (and even Woody) somehow in the draft. BB even went so far as to pick Kaczur after already drafting Mankins. I will say the oddest 1st round pick was Ben Watson - that came out of nowhere for me. But back to packaging picks to take a "can't miss stud". I just think it's never a good idea to draft a player for need, and Belichick reiterated that in his last press conference.

I respect what you're saying about thinking up new scenarios. One scenario that I think is possible is that Graham (contract expiring soon) gets traded for picks or a player. Watson will move into the starting lineup, and BB will get value for Graham instead of just letting him walk.

As for the LB situation, Bruschi is starting to get long in the tooth, we lost big Willie, and we still haven't found adequate replacements for Ted Johnson or Phifer. I wouldn't be surprised if 2 of the first 4 picks were linebackers. As for cornerback play, I think our corners are fine; the Pats secondary depends on intelligent safety play, and we have Rodney back and Sanders under his wing. Safety play and D-line pressure are what usually generate picks, and we are set at safety. People seem to forget that the defense was dominant during the last half of the season.

 

[LloydBraun]

3 for 1

I do not like this trade. We can add somequality depth with these 3 picks.

Looking at the nfldraftcountdown.com Top 100 rankings, we could possibly choose from:

at 21-
Tye Hill

Kiwanuka ( I think he will be a great pro and would be an ideal replacement for Willie, with a little coaching and experience)

Mauroney

Lawson

Whitner

Any 1 of these guys would be a strong addition.

at or near 52-

Kelly Jennings- a strong cover corner that BB has allegedly met with

Cedric Griffin- Huff's DB sidekick in Texas, flexibility to play cb or S

Addai- a running mate and eventual replacement for Dillon

Stovall- a nice, big WR to go with Branch

Calhoun- another runner to go with Dillon. Barry Alvarez called him the best back he ever coached.

at 86-
Ray Edwards- a big DE option to go outside in the 3-4

Avant- WR, Michigan, another weapon for Brady

McCLover- another college DE suited for OLB

Plus, a few of the RB's could still be here.

I want the depth from these 3 picks. In 4 years, Whitner could be nearly as good as Huff at a fraction of the cost.

 

[letekro]

Not true on Mankins. I had no idea who he was when he was drafted, but I knew the Pats were looking to replace Andruzzi somehow in the draft. BB even went so far as to pick Kaczur after already drafting Mankins. I will say the oddest 1st round pick was Ben Watson - they came out of nowhere for me. But back to packaging picks to take a "can't miss stud". I just think it's never a good idea to draft a player for need, and Belichick reiterated that in his last press conference.

As for the LB situation, Bruschi is starting to get long in the tooth, we lost big Willie, and we still haven't found adequate replacements for Ted Johnson or Phifer. I wouldn't be surprised if 2 of the first 4 picks were linebackers. As for cornerback play, I think our corners are fine; the Pats secondary depends on intelligent safety play, and we have Rodney back and Sanders under his wing.

1. I call bull**** that you weren't surprised they took a guard in the 1st
2. Huff is not at a "need" position. We have a zillion DBs. Problem is, they're either coming off injury or mediocre.
3. "We have Rodney back and Sanders under his wing." His wing is fine, problem is, he has a bad wheel.

 

[letekro]

I do not like this trade. We can add somequality depth with these 3 picks.

Looking at the nfldraftcountdown.com Top 100 rankings, we could possibly choose from:

at 21-
Tye Hill

Kiwanuka ( I think he will be a great pro and would be an ideal replacement for Willie, with a little coaching and experience)

Mauroney

Lawson

Whitner

Any 1 of these guys would be a strong addition.

at or near 52-

Kelly Jennings- a strong cover corner that BB has allegedly met with

Cedric Griffin- Huff's DB sidekick in Texas, flexibility to play cb or S

Addai- a running mate and eventual replacement for Dillon

Stovall- a nice, big WR to go with Branch

Calhoun- another runner to go with Dillon. Barry Alvarez called him the best back he ever coached.

at 86-
Ray Edwards- a big DE option to go outside in the 3-4

Avant- WR, Michigan, another weapon for Brady

McCLover- another college DE suited for OLB

Plus, a few of the RB's could still be here.

I want the depth from these 3 picks. In 4 years, Whitner could be nearly as good as Huff at a fraction of the cost.

Duly noted. Part of my argument is based on most of the guys you mentioned being gone at 52, however.

 

[maverick4]

re

1. I call bull**** that you weren't surprised they took a guard in the 1st
2. Huff is not at a "need" position. We have a zillion DBs. Problem is, they're either coming off injury or mediocre.
3. "We have Rodney back and Sanders under his wing." His wing is fine, problem is, he has a bad wheel.

1. Whatever you say, buddy. It was clear that the Pats were going either corner or O-line last year. I'm not one of those people who says BB only drafts certain positions; I subscribe to the general value grouping and draft-to-build-depth philosophy. By the way, Mankins was a tackle in college, not a guard. However, if you have followed BB at all, you'd know that you places a premium on big, talented players on both sides of the line of scrimmage.

2/3. Our DB's are pretty good. Gay started and won a superbowl. Hobbs was making some nice picks after a few months. Samuel is a solid starter. If our DB's were so mediocre, then why was the Pats defense among the top 5 over the last half of the season? Also, Sanders looked fine to me when he played, he just got nicked up last year.

Bottom line: I have two big problems with your suggestion.
1. The LB position has much more depth in the draft and more need than our secondary.
2. Trading up for players is dangerous, unless they have fallen past their perceived value, or they are the last player in a similar skilled position grouping.

 

[letekro]

Bottom line: I have two big problems with your suggestion.
1. The LB position has much more depth in the draft and more need than our secondary.
2. Trading up for players is dangerous, unless they have fallen past their perceived value, or they are the last player in a similar skilled position grouping.

1. You just said it's wrong to draft based on Need! You're confusing me.
2. I kind of agree with you on this one. I don't think they will trade up, but I would be far from surprised if they did.

 

[maverick4]

re

1. You just said it's wrong to draft based on Need! You're confusing me.

I'll go as slow and clear as possible

Drafting for need, is moving up for Huff as THE answer to your safety or cornerback problems, or drafting a wide receiver 3 years in a row (like Detroit) to get that #1 receiver. It means counting on one guy to be the answer.

Drafting for depth and value is drafting guys who can be competitive in your system and will be able to compete for a spot or some kind of role on your roster. In this regard, at the present time, linebackers are more attractive in the draft than cornerbacks when it comes to the Patriots.