Have teams stopped trading with BB?

[jeffbiologist]

It's really quite simple. BB thought Dowling at 33 was worth more than swaping 2nd's and a 3rd next year. To use the assumption that Dowling would be there when the Pats picked again makes for a pretty silly argument, which should be obvious to any "scientist".

Well, I will be paying particular attention to Buffalo's CB Williams. The choice here is Dowling or Williams AND a 3rd round pick. That 3rd rd pick could be a future 2nd....Not a particularly silly arguement, obvious enough to even non-scientists....

 

[MaineMan]

FWIW

According to AdamJT's record, the #33 had been traded three times between 1995 and 2010:

- twice for a slightly later 2nd plus a 4th of the same draft (negligible "premium" v/v SCV)
- once for a mid-2nd plus a mid-3rd of the same draft (27% premium)

The #34 was auctioned off once, receiving a 23% same-year premium.

The #35 was also auctioned once, receiving a late 2nd and late 6th (same draft), PLUS a future 2nd.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Well, I will be paying particular attention to Buffalo's CB Williams. The choice here is Dowling or Williams AND a 3rd round pick. That 3rd rd pick could be a future 2nd....Not a particularly silly arguement, obvious enough to even non-scientists....

Perhaps you should reread my post. I criticized your use of a bad assumption. Adding a note about Williams, who will be playing in a vastly different system than the Pat's, after the fact, does not erase that assumption.

I do enjoy reading your consistent, creative spins on logic, especially considering your choice of a handle. Cave Johnson was an awesome character.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

Do you blame teams for not wanting to trade with him?

How would you like to be the Vikings right about now? The Randy Moss pick turned into Ryan Mallet; they look pretty bad after spending a 1 on Ponder. Ponder better be really good...he certainly has much better intangibles but how about the tangibles?

 

[townes]

FWIW

According to AdamJT's record, the #33 had been traded three times between 1995 and 2010:

- twice for a slightly later 2nd plus a 4th of the same draft (negligible "premium" v/v SCV)
- once for a mid-2nd plus a mid-3rd of the same draft (27% premium)

The #34 was auctioned off once, receiving a 23% same-year premium.

The #35 was also auctioned once, receiving a late 2nd and late 6th (same draft), PLUS a future 2nd.

I'm surprised by this, and i really thought the change in draft format that built in the overnight between first and second rounds would really up the value, and i guess since Belcihik held out and made the pick he feels the same, although how far you drop is a critical part of the equation. Bottom line, if Dowling approached McCourty's level of play the Patriots have the best young secondary in football and it was a great pick and the deal with carolina the previous year even better.

 

[MaineMan]

I'm surprised by this, and i really thought the change in draft format that built in the overnight between first and second rounds would really up the value, and i guess since Belcihik held out and made the pick he feels the same, although how far you drop is a critical part of the equation. Bottom line, if Dowling approached McCourty's level of play the Patriots have the best young secondary in football and it was a great pick and the deal with carolina the previous year even better.

Well, this was only the second year with the overnight break between the first two rounds, yes? Plus, with no pre-draft FA, this year was significantly different for a lot of teams. Perhaps those unique circumstances would seem to have elevated the #33's value, but it may simply have turned out to have the opposite effect.

In any case, when things get back to normal, CBA-wise, and if the overnight break continues, we may start to see some shifts in trade action on various picks over time. It will be good to have preserved the 1995-2010 history separately for future comparison.

Another surprising note. Since 1995, in addition to the five trades-down involving #33, 34 and 35, there have been (now) 10 trades-down involving the #28, 29 and 30 spots, but still none involving the #31 or #32.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

I think our trade with NO occured because of 2 idependant things:
1-Ingram was available, being the consensus #1 RB had higher value
2-NO is a good team, so their 2nd was low and their future 2nd should be lower.
That said, BB is now totally in LOVE with 2nd round picks. His insistence on a 2nd and future 2nd for #33 was not TEAM DEPENDANT and it should have been. A trade with SF dropping to #36 and a 2011 3rd would have been good value, holding out for a future 2nd cost us that extra 3rd, with 2 QBs going in those 4 picks we should have still been able to get Dowling AND a 3rd(what are the chances Buffalo would have picked Dowling??)...which we may or may not have been able to trade to another team for a future 2nd... Truth is there was not a single player with higher value at that point so no one wanted to overpay for the pick. But insistence on a 2nd cost us a pick, please tell me someone else can see this, ok.

Why did he trade away #60 if he is so in love with 2nd rounders?

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Green Bay has shown us over and over that if you do your homework and scout players that fit your system, you can fleece BB at will.

The real question is why does BB answer the phone when Green Bay calls?

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Green Bay has shown us over and over that if you do your homework and scout players that fit your system, you can fleece BB at will.

The real question is why does BB answer the phone when Green Bay calls?

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not.

I mean we're really only talking about two trades here, aren't we? I'm assuming you mean for Greg Jennings and Clay Matthews.

The Jennings deal had nothing to do with "fleecing" anyone. IF Green Bay knew what Jennings would be, do you think they would have traded down 16 spots and risked losing him, especially since one team did take a WR during that period? Do you think they would have drafted Daryn Colledge 5 picks before Jennings, especially with their division rival with a need at WR holding two picks between the Colledge and Jennings selections?

As for Clay Matthews, I consider that fair value. As patchick has pointed out in the past, we got our money's worth in Darius Butler, Brandon Tate, Julian Edelman, and 97% of Rob Gronkowski.

I can understand (though I'd disagree) if someone would think Clay Matthews is worth more. But to call it a fleecing is a bit over the top.

 

[WhiZa]

I like rookBoston's theory of a perpetual trading of the 2nd #1 pick, but are teams wising up to the Patriots Way? The refusal to pay the price for the #33 pick last week is an indication. BB wanted a 2011 #2 (mid round) and a 2012 2nd round pick, and no one would bite. All Access showed BB slamming the phone down on sevearl teams (Mike Reiss speculated the Niners were one of them).

It's actually the exact opposite. Teams need to do what's best for them and they know the Patriots are very fluid in the draft but not on the cheap. Every team covets players and they know the Pats will almost always take a good deal.

 

[Oswlek]

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not.

I mean we're really only talking about two trades here, aren't we? I'm assuming you mean for Greg Jennings and Clay Matthews.

The Jennings deal had nothing to do with "fleecing" anyone. IF Green Bay knew what Jennings would be, do you think they would have traded down 16 spots and risked losing him, especially since one team did take a WR during that period? Do you think they would have drafted Daryn Colledge 5 picks before Jennings, especially with their division rival with a need at WR holding two picks between the Colledge and Jennings selections?

As for Clay Matthews, I consider that fair value. As patchick has pointed out in the past, we got our money's worth in Darius Butler, Brandon Tate, Julian Edelman, and 97% of Rob Gronkowski.

I can understand (though I'd disagree) if someone would think Clay Matthews is worth more. But to call it a fleecing is a bit over the top.

I know this will sound blasphemous to the OLB crowd, but I'd have to give it serious consideration before swapping Gronk for Matthews straight up. I think Rob is a better TE than Clay an OLB and Rob's impact on NE's offense is comparable.

 

[MaineMan]

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not.

I mean we're really only talking about two trades here, aren't we? I'm assuming you mean for Greg Jennings and Clay Matthews.

The Jennings deal had nothing to do with "fleecing" anyone. IF Green Bay knew what Jennings would be, do you think they would have traded down 16 spots and risked losing him, especially since one team did take a WR during that period? Do you think they would have drafted Daryn Colledge 5 picks before Jennings, especially with their division rival with a need at WR holding two picks between the Colledge and Jennings selections?

As for Clay Matthews, I consider that fair value. As patchick has pointed out in the past, we got our money's worth in Darius Butler, Brandon Tate, Julian Edelman, and 97% of Rob Gronkowski.

I can understand (though I'd disagree) if someone would think Clay Matthews is worth more. But to call it a fleecing is a bit over the top.

According to NFLDraftScout (at the time):

CHAD JACKSON - Florida (Urban Meyer) - ranked #1/#2 WR prospect for 2006 (with Santonio Holmes), #17 overall
4.32/40 - 1.51/10 yd - 38.5" vert - 10'02" brd - 4.03 20s - 6.74 3cone

GREG JENNINGS - Western Michigan - #5 WR prospect, #56 overall
4.42/40 - 1.57/10 yd - 36.5" vert - 9'09" brd - 4.18 20s - 6.69 3cone

I can understand how Jackson probably seemed a better bet at the time and worth trading up for.

 

[dryheat44]

According to NFLDraftScout (at the time):

CHAD JACKSON - Florida (Urban Meyer) - ranked #1/#2 WR prospect for 2006 (with Santonio Holmes), #17 overall
4.32/40 - 1.51/10 yd - 38.5" vert - 10'02" brd - 4.03 20s - 6.74 3cone

GREG JENNINGS - Western Michigan - #5 WR prospect, #56 overall
4.42/40 - 1.57/10 yd - 36.5" vert - 9'09" brd - 4.18 20s - 6.69 3cone

I can understand how Jackson probably seemed a better bet at the time and worth trading up for.

I'll admit I was ecstatic at the time, I had him as the #1 WR. I still maintain that he was torpedoed by a poor work ethic and a bad attitude...he was productive enough on the field. I guess BB thought we could coach those things out of him, and took a chance on the talent.

 

[dryheat44]

I know this will sound blasphemous to the OLB crowd, but I'd have to give it serious consideration before swapping Gronk for Matthews straight up. I think Rob is a better TE than Clay an OLB and Rob's impact on NE's offense is comparable.

I wouldn't trade Gronk for Matthews today. Sometimes the grass isn't greener.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I know this will sound blasphemous to the OLB crowd, but I'd have to give it serious consideration before swapping Gronk for Matthews straight up. I think Rob is a better TE than Clay an OLB and Rob's impact on NE's offense is comparable.

You're probably going to get killed for that But I think you're right.

Matthews really struggles to stop the run. Pittsburgh specifically targeted him in the Super Bowl. He had a huge forced fumble (some would give credit to Jenkins for setting that up), but that doesn't change the rest of the season's struggles. Teams ran for 3.7 yards up the middle against the Packers defense, and 5.5 yards on runs to the left and right sides.

The 13.5 sacks last season is very impressive, but if you look at the game log and break it down a bit, you can see he cashed in early on and against bad OLs. 8.5 of those sacks came in the first 5 games, as teams eventually found a way to reduce his effectiveness. 5.5 sacks were collected in 4 games against teams that finished in the bottom 10 for giving up sacks vs. 3 sacks in 6 games against teams that finished in the top 10, and those numbers include 2 sacks in 2 games against the Lions, who somehow finished in the top 10 for sacks allowed despite a mediocre line.

Which is not to say Matthews is a JAG. He's a very good player. But he's not the GOAT that many make him out to be.

According to NFLDraftScout (at the time):

CHAD JACKSON - Florida (Urban Meyer) - ranked #1/#2 WR prospect for 2006 (with Santonio Holmes), #17 overall
4.32/40 - 1.51/10 yd - 38.5" vert - 10'02" brd - 4.03 20s - 6.74 3cone

GREG JENNINGS - Western Michigan - #5 WR prospect, #56 overall
4.42/40 - 1.57/10 yd - 36.5" vert - 9'09" brd - 4.18 20s - 6.69 3cone

I can understand how Jackson probably seemed a better bet at the time and worth trading up for.

Absolutely. Add in the fact that Jackson played in the SEC while Jennings played in the Mid-American Conference. Every draft has players who turn out way better than anyone could have imagined. And teams get really lucky sometimes. I remember the Ravens talking about how Ray Rice was so much better than they thought he'd be, and they liked him enough to draft him but still hadn't fully appreciated how good he'd become.

Kudos to GB, they got lucky here, just as we were lucky to get Tom Brady. But to act as if it was superior scouting is just foolish.

 

[MaineMan]

I'll admit I was ecstatic at the time, I had him as the #1 WR. I still maintain that he was torpedoed by a poor work ethic and a bad attitude...he was productive enough on the field. I guess BB thought we could coach those things out of him, and took a chance on the talent.

I always felt it was mostly bad study habits. It often seemed like he couldn't have found the right route with a GPS unit attached to his helmet. He also never even came close to contributing what I believe was expected of him as a returner - which, ironically, was a relative strong point in Jennings' game in college.

 

[MaineMan]

You're probably going to get killed for that But I think you're right.

Matthews really struggles to stop the run. Pittsburgh specifically targeted him in the Super Bowl. He had a huge forced fumble (some would give credit to Jenkins for setting that up), but that doesn't change the rest of the season's struggles. Teams ran for 3.7 yards up the middle against the Packers defense, and 5.5 yards on runs to the left and right sides.

The 13.5 sacks last season is very impressive, but if you look at the game log and break it down a bit, you can see he cashed in early on and against bad OLs. 8.5 of those sacks came in the first 5 games, as teams eventually found a way to reduce his effectiveness. 5.5 sacks were collected in 4 games against teams that finished in the bottom 10 for giving up sacks vs. 3 sacks in 6 games against teams that finished in the top 10, and those numbers include 2 sacks in 2 games against the Lions, who somehow finished in the top 10 for sacks allowed despite a mediocre line.

Which is not to say Matthews is a JAG. He's a very good player. But he's not the GOAT that many make him out to be.



Absolutely. Add in the fact that Jackson played in the SEC while Jennings played in the Mid-American Conference. Every draft has players who turn out way better than anyone could have imagined. And teams get really lucky sometimes. I remember the Ravens talking about how Ray Rice was so much better than they thought he'd be, and they liked him enough to draft him but still hadn't fully appreciated how good he'd become.

Kudos to GB, they got lucky here, just as we were lucky to get Tom Brady. But to act as if it was superior scouting is just foolish.

I'm not a fan of Matthews wrt the Pats, but, in fairness regarding his production dropoff as 2010 progressed - due to several injuries, GB was plugging in a succession of relative JAGs at the OLB spot opposite Matthews, including UDFA rookie Frank Zombo (8 starts) and Miami cast-off Erik Walden (2 starts), both of whom actually played fairly well, under the circumstances, but not well enough to keep teams from being able to pay extra attention to Matthews.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I'm not a fan of Matthews wrt the Pats, but, in fairness regarding his production dropoff as 2010 progressed - due to several injuries, GB was plugging in a succession of relative JAGs at the OLB spot opposite Matthews, including UDFA rookie Frank Zombo (8 starts) and Miami cast-off Erik Walden (2 starts), both of whom actually played fairly well, under the circumstances, but not well enough to keep teams from being able to pay extra attention to Matthews.

That's a good point. Though in 2009, Matthews also collected 5 of his 10 sacks in 3 games vs. bottom-10 teams in terms of sacks given up, with 3 more in 3 games against Baltimore/Chicago, which just missed the bottom 10.

Though a lot of that had to do with schedule. They only played 1 team that finished in the top 10 in sacks allowed, and he did collect 1 sack in that game (Cincinnati).

 

[MaineMan]

That's a good point. Though in 2009, Matthews also collected 5 of his 10 sacks in 3 games vs. bottom-10 teams in terms of sacks given up, with 3 more in 3 games against Baltimore/Chicago, which just missed the bottom 10.

Though a lot of that had to do with schedule. They only played 1 team that finished in the top 10 in sacks allowed, and he did collect 1 sack in that game (Cincinnati).

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but .....

I've run into this same argument when I've pointed out that Ninkovich's 2010 stats were nearly identical to Vrabel's 2001 stats - the objection being, to wit, "Ninkovich only got sacks against (weak) Miami." The fact is, of course, that Vrabel's 2001 sacks also all came against weak teams with losing records. Same thing with TBC/Buffalo.

The point being that most guys get the majority of their sacks vs teams that are not so good at preventing sacks and that includes McGinest and other previous Patriots "pass-rushing greats" (though McGinest DID step up his game against better competition in the post-season). Guys who consistently get sacks against teams that don't otherwise allow many sacks are very rare (Duh!). So, Matthews is not really an exception.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but .....

I've run into this same argument when I've pointed out that Ninkovich's 2010 stats were nearly identical to Vrabel's 2001 stats - the objection being, to wit, "Ninkovich only got sacks against (weak) Miami." The fact is, of course, that Vrabel's 2001 sacks also all came against weak teams with losing records. Same thing with TBC/Buffalo.

The point being that most guys get the majority of their sacks vs teams that are not so good at preventing sacks and that includes McGinest and other previous Patriots "pass-rushing greats" (though McGinest DID step up his game against better competition in the post-season). Guys who consistently get sacks against teams that don't otherwise allow many sacks are very rare (Duh!). So, Matthews is not really an exception.

I agree completely. Didn't mean to imply Matthews is an exception, just that people get carried away with the numbers sometimes without understanding what they really represent. I'm not a huge fan of sacks anyways, but it's hard to find pressure stats anywhere without paying. And I'm cheap

It's just weird that many of the people who ripped apart Tully's 10-sack season are the same people who love Clay Matthews for doing the same. Or how Jacoby Ford is seen as a versatile contributor while Brandon Tate is seen as a JAG who could be replaced by an UDFA for almost identical production.