Welcome to PatsFans.com

"With SF's pick, it's like we didn't even lose our 1st!"

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by JJDChE, Nov 8, 2007.

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

    JJDChE Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,846
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Ummm, no.


    I've seen a few people say something along these lines, including dumbass Peter King. We're still losing a 1st rounder, people. I don't care if we get the #1 overall from SF, we could've had #1 AND #32.
  2. BoTown

    BoTown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,586
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I agree with you, but even still there's nothing wrong with putting a positive spin on the situation. The Patriots' original 1st rounder is gone and it's not coming back. Nothing you can do about it. But it is important to note that the Patriots could still make a splash in the 1st round thanks to the SF pick.
  3. bradmahn

    bradmahn Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,008
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Yup, and it sucks.
  4. ChoWZa

    ChoWZa Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I have hopes the patriots will challenge the Goodell decision in the offseason but don't want to create a distraction during the season.
  5. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    (Mods - might want to merge this with the other thread about the 2008 draft)

    I don't think anyone's actually suggesting we're making up a pick...

    I'd guess they are remarking about the fact that when the season started, most predicted SF to be a contender.

    Their pick was looking like it could well be in the 20s...let's say they did a little worse than expected and it was an 18th pick. That's a draft value of 900.

    Add that to the Patriots expected #32 and you've got a draft value of 1490.

    Right now a #5 pick from SF wouldn't surprise anyone.

    That's a value of 1700

    1700 is better than 1490.

    Would I rather have a #32 pick too - of course? Do you think some wouldn't?

    But thanks to San Fran we've got better value right now than everyone thought we would even with the Patriots hoped for #32.

    So I think you probably missed the point that some were making in that BB could trade down and STILL have two very good #1 picks next season, in a way saying FU to Goodell and the rest of the league.
  6. FSUPatsFan

    FSUPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'll just pretend we traded our 1st round pick last year for Randy Moss. Is there anyone that doesn't do this knowing what they know now? I would probably trade both picks for him, knowing what I know now.
  7. jbb9s

    jbb9s Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,159
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    On what basis?
  8. jbb9s

    jbb9s Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,159
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    The fact is, that since the Pats traded a first rounder in 07 for a first rounder in 08, it wasn't a fair trade to begin with. Deferred compensation needs to be devalued by one round. But since SF is doing so badly, trading a 20 something pick for a top 10 pick the following year is actually more along the lines of a favorable trade.

    Also, remember that the Pats traded their 2nd #1 because they had an extra for Deion Branch. Another case of deferred compensation - this time a player for a pick the next year. Waiving that piece of paper around during the AFCCG doesn't really help Alexander cover Clark any better does it?

    In theory once you get the ball rolling - always have 2 #1s and always trade the latter of them for a #1 the following year - you get two chances to get a great pick and then defer the other pick for two chances the following year. This brilliant scheme is hard to get going again without the lead domino (i.e. Drew Bledsoe, Deion Branch).
  9. pheenix11

    pheenix11 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Its Karma.

    The reason why the Niners suck and why our pick is getting more valuable every day is because the NFL screwed with the Pats.

    The universe is giving us back what was stolen from us. Be grateful and have a laugh at the expense of that prick Goodell.
  10. homergreg

    homergreg Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If it's Karma, what's in it for the Niners? Or are they just getting Karma back for their 1980's run?
  11. pheenix11

    pheenix11 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Its their own fault for getting swindled by the Pats which is just an indication of their overall ineptitude which is why they suck.
  12. xmarkd400x

    xmarkd400x Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,746
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0


    The Niners suck because they suck, not because god or some other powerful being decided the Patriots are virtuous.

    I mean please. God is clearly on Saint Dungy's side.
  13. pheenix11

    pheenix11 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    I didn't say anything about God, I mean he's supposed to be a Cowboys fan isn't he? How'd that work out for him?
  14. patsfan209

    patsfan209 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    No, I believe the 49ers mortgaged their future back in 1994 just to win their last Super Bowl championship. And for the last few years we are seeing the results.
  15. Pass_The_Rum

    Pass_The_Rum Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The Niners get the rest of the NFC West. The bar is set very low there. Just think about it - a few acquisitions in the off season and they have a decent shot at being a .500 team and winning the division.
  16. patsox23

    patsox23 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,384
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    Totally agree. It BLOWS to have lost that pick. We ALSO lost a pick when Rodney got caught for HGH - I think that's why we reversed field in the Asante negotiations. Otherwise, we can franchise him and trade him to the highest bidder. We likely would've gotten AT LEAST a #1 pick for him.

    Oh well.
  17. DisgruntledTunaFan

    DisgruntledTunaFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Wouldn't BB and Pioli TRADE DOWN to get multiple #1's?

    Seriously, when all is said and done, it's a wash.
  18. RayClay

    RayClay Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    17,518
    Likes Received:
    40
    Ratings:
    +49 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    With the 32nd pick in the draft, the New England Patriots, having already traded the #5 and others for as many draftees that can make our damn team anyway, pass on the selection for the right to say

    F....U!
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2007
  19. naclone

    naclone Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I look at it this way:

    we traded Deon Branch for Randy Moss and to move up 27 spots in the first round of the draft.

    that's an amazing deal no matter how you look at it.
  20. PatsFaninAZ

    PatsFaninAZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    Well, almost. That "trade" wasn't contemporaneous. To make this a true apples to applies comparison, you'd have to say that we also lost a year of not having either Branch or Moss. In other words, this "trade" took a year (two years to get to the pick) to complete. And in that year, we really could have used a wide receiver of Branch's caliber.

    In fact, you might make the argument that with Branch last year we win the superbowl. So it was a bit more expensive.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page