Are a lack of later round draft picks handcuffing any potential trades?

[supafly]

Since we 'only' have picks in the first 4 rounds this year, has that situation hampered the possibility of any potential trades?

It may very well have had ZERO bearing whatsoever, just curious to hear any opinions. The forum is kind of dead right now, so I figured the question couldn't hurt.

One would think that there may have been a couple/few guys that may have drawn some attention.

The NYG 5th rounder given up for Cincinnati OLB Keith Rivers kind of got me thinking that it's been a strange year in the sense that we haven't any later round picks to even offer for guys of this caliber. (not saying Rivers is everything that we'd look for in an OLB, just that it may have made sense to take a flier)

I don't know whether Rivers could've possibly fit here or not, but with the OLB situation being in need of more depth and competition, it may have been looked at a bit more in other years.

 

[signbabybrady]

I think it clearly plays a role as there is less amunition but I would also like to think that given the caliber of the ammo that it could be worked around fairly easy by either offering a combo of picks that would equal say a fifth (example we have no fifth but if we swap a 3 for 4 and add some later round picks to even it out) or by giving up a similar pick in future years (problem there is I believe we already gave up a late round pick next year as well as part of the OCHO or Haynesworth deal).

 

[NEGoldenAge]

I think it clearly plays a role as there is less amunition but I would also like to think that given the caliber of the ammo that it could be worked around fairly easy by either offering a combo of picks that would equal say a fifth (example we have no fifth but if we swap a 3 for 4 and add some later round picks to even it out) or by giving up a similar pick in future years (problem there is I believe we already gave up a late round pick next year as well as part of the OCHO or Haynesworth deal).

What he said. Also, I think that is why BB has signed so many mid-level FAs.

 

[supafly]

I think it clearly plays a role as there is less amunition but I would also like to think that given the caliber of the ammo that it could be worked around fairly easy by either offering a combo of picks that would equal say a fifth (example we have no fifth but if we swap a 3 for 4 and add some later round picks to even it out) or by giving up a similar pick in future years (problem there is I believe we already gave up a late round pick next year as well as part of the OCHO or Haynesworth deal).

Right. Not sure why I didn't consider that myself.

I had not considered the fact about trading around with other teams' picks to get a deal done if needed.

I think I saw the news about Keith Rivers and it made me wonder about the potential he may have here for a 5th round pick. He's had his problems with staying healthy, but we certainly have taken our chances with guys like that in the past.

Usually I don't get into the whole "we could've had this player" exercise, but I think it may have been worth a 5th myself.

Maybe Belichick feels a lot better about our OLB prospects than many here do, that's honestly my guess.

The Ochocinco pick will cost us a 6th rounder next year (2013) IIRC.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Since we 'only' have picks in the first 4 rounds this year, has that situation hampered the possibility of any potential trades?

It may very well have had ZERO bearing whatsoever, just curious to hear any opinions. The forum is kind of dead right now, so I figured the question couldn't hurt.

One would think that there may have been a couple/few guys that may have drawn some attention.

The NYG 5th rounder given up for Cincinnati OLB Keith Rivers kind of got me thinking that it's been a strange year in the sense that we haven't any later round picks to even offer for guys of this caliber. (not saying Rivers is everything that we'd look for in an OLB, just that it may have made sense to take a flier)

I don't know whether Rivers could've possibly fit here or not, but with the OLB situation being in need of more depth and competition, it may have been looked at a bit more in other years.

I think it's a damn good question.

With so many Belichick "guys" being found among the ranks of the late draft and undrafted, it's tough not to feel like Belichick may feel like quantity counts in the draft even in years when he has limited roster spots available.

In other words in Belichick's mind quantity and quality (i.e. where they are drafted) are both valued.

That being said, as every year, Belichick has created a situation where, if there's a guy he wants, he has the firepower to get him - and he can always satisfy his "quantity" fix with a bumper crop of undrafted rookies.

So my guess would be "no" - but it's a very good question - and one that Belichick would never answer directly or probably honestly.

 

[captain stone]

Not having 5th-, 6th- & 7th-round picks this year will def. hurt us on draft weekend,
because Bill might now feel more compelled to trade down in order to recoup those 3rd-day picks;
it may have already hurt us this off-season in player acquisitions.

Fat Albert & OchoStinko: the gifts that keep on giving.

 

[supafly]

Not having 5th-, 6th- & 7th-round picks this year will def. hurt us on draft weekend,
because Bill might now feel more compelled to trade down in order to recoup those 3rd-day picks;
it may have already hurt us this off-season in player acquisitions.

Fat Albert & OchoStinko: the gifts that keep on giving.

The 'gifts that keep on giving' is right..

It didn't seem like it would have potentially hurt us this bad last yr when they both were taken, but it certainly did.

I even remember a lot of the mediots spinning it with a "Belichick traded for 2 quality players for a bag of peanuts" twist. Well, those bags of peanuts are likely going to cost us an opportunity somewhere. Like you said, BB will probably feel very compelled to trade down and at least pick up 1-2 of those picks in rounds 5,6, and 7.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Like you said, BB will probably feel very compelled to trade down and at least pick up 1-2 of those picks in rounds 5,6, and 7.

I hope you don't mean that his primary motive for trading will be to acquire a low pick.

 

[supafly]

I hope you don't mean that his primary motive for trading will be to acquire a low pick.

After the swap with Reid and Philly, one never knows

 

[supafly]

I hope you don't mean that his primary motive for trading will be to acquire a low pick.

I highly doubt that Bill will be okay with having all of the picks in the first half of the draft and none in the second half, so there may be some potential for a missed opportunity somewhere when he trades down and out at some point.

You can't say that the moves last year exactly put us in a 'good' position.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I highly doubt that Bill will be okay with having all of the picks in the first half of the draft and none in the second half, so there may be some potential for a missed opportunity somewhere when he trades down and out at some point.

You can't say that the moves last year exactly put us in a 'good' position.

BB doesn't make trades just because someone asks him to.

In 2009, the Pats received offers for their first-rounder that involved going into 2010. He turned those offers down.

In 2010, after the Pats traded down twice in the first round, they were getting calls to trade a third time (per the Twitter), but turned those down.

If the opportunity presents itself to pick up some late picks, WITHOUT sacrificing the players they want in the early rounds, he'll do it.

 

[Fencer]

I wouldn't worry about it. If we're hurt by not getting late picks that we want, we'll gain the offsetting advantage of being a better place for UDFAs to come, due to the lessened competition. The net harm should wind up being pretty low.

 

[Fencer]

Does anybody know whether the Pats have a particularly good track record of having UDFAs stick and prosper? I'd guess yes, but I don't know for sure.

 

[supafly]

Does anybody know whether the Pats have a particularly good track record of having UDFAs stick and prosper? I'd guess yes, but I don't know for sure.

I'd assume that they are one of the better teams in the NFL in that area, as I thought that about 1/3 of the 53 man roster were UDFA's, but I could be wrong.

The aspect of UDFA's is a good point.

 

[supafly]

BB doesn't make trades just because someone asks him to.

In 2009, the Pats received offers for their first-rounder that involved going into 2010. He turned those offers down.

In 2010, after the Pats traded down twice in the first round, they were getting calls to trade a third time (per the Twitter), but turned those down.

If the opportunity presents itself to pick up some late picks, WITHOUT sacrificing the players they want in the early rounds, he'll do it.

While there's certainly no debating your correctness of what you're stating, I would also bet just about anything that he picks up draft picks in the rounds of 5 thru 7 this year.

One can assume that "he won't see the players that he likes" there, and one can also assume that no matter what he will accumulate picks in the later rounds. I am sure that you are right in saying that he wouldn't pass on a player who he wanted, but he also values picks a lot too, which makes the prospect even harder to decide between at times.

I think a good combination of both, leaning more towards what you say would be appropraite. At the end of the day however, I will almost guarantee that we will not leave the draft in 2 weeks without any picks in the rounds of 5-7 at some point, and maybe even a pick or two for next year too.

I can't remember next yr's draft slate, and I'm too lazy to look right now, but I thought I remembered a hole in the mid to late rounders again, at least in one/two of the rounds; not as 'bad' as this year though. I think they had picks in the 5 of the 7 rds in 2013, although I'm not positive.

In 2002, he only took 6 players; which is the exact # that we have right now for this year. That was the lowest # since he's been here. Regardless, I am guessing that the 'value' of passing up certain players will be there for him to accumulate at least a pick, if not two in rds 5-7.

 

[borg]

He treated the 2011 draft with the future in mind....but failed adding quality depth at WR and secondary. Despite having 80+ players in camp, the roster was very top heavy last year after he blew up his secondary....unlike those championship teams where young guys from lower rounds in the draft.....Givens, Klecko, Koppen became integral factors. I'm still amazed how many guys are making huge coin now....compared to the '01-'04 era.
I vote that not having lower round picks is a problem that BB will fix by trading back with a first or two.
And....doesn't it seem time that BB trades away a premium vet for a future high pick....Bledsoe, Branch, Tebucky Jones, Cassell.....seems way over due.

 

[Deus Irae]

Since we 'only' have picks in the first 4 rounds this year, has that situation hampered the possibility of any potential trades?...

Probably not to any significant level

 

[captain stone]

Does anybody know whether the Pats have a particularly good track record of having UDFAs stick and prosper? I'd guess yes, but I don't know for sure.

It seems that at least 1 UDFA/season makes the opening-day 53.
I do agree with your point that UDFAs might have a better chance of winning
1 or more of those spots in 2012, than they had of winning one in previous years.
What Bill should do, then, is persue more Priority-caliber UDFAs in 2012 than he has in previous years.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I hope you don't mean that his primary motive for trading will be to acquire a low pick.

No, of course not, but I think you also have to appreciate that Belichick has what could be a long list of "his" types of guys in any draft, and knows that he might be able to acquire two instead of one if he plays his cards right.

i.e. never rule out that if Belichick doesn't see value with, say a third round pick because most of the guys he still wants will likely be there in the fourth, fifth or six rounds, then yes, he'll seek out a trade.

It all depends on how the players work out but in the short term drafting two is better than one if you think that in some ways it's always a crapshoot in the draft