Compensatory picks announced

mgteich said:

The value in a first is the 5th year option. That being said, a trade down is likely. However, it may be more likely that we trade back from our 2nd pick.

Click to expand...

You would think the team moving back into r1 would be for a qb since that position is the most expensive. The qbs I see us looking at are day 2 day 3 guys so a team falling in love with Lamar jackson would be nice. (If he’s still on the board at that point)

supafly said:

We’ve certainly seen Belichick go this route before. In your scenario, we would then have 3 second rounders and 2 third rounders.

Click to expand...

When looking at how many picks we can make and expect to actually make the 53, we have to consider the unusually large number of injured 1st year players who will repeating their "rookie" years:
Garcia
Rivers
Langhi
K Davis
The 1st 3 either made, or were expected to make the opening day roster. So add them to whatever this rookie class turns out to be and consider how much inexperienced youth can we realistically add in 1 year? 5 picks in the 1st 4 rounds (usually roster locks) plus we always find a UDFA or 2 that stick. Add in the 3-4 re-rookies and that is already an awful lot of 1st year pros.
So depending on what happens with our own FA's, we could be caught in a numbers game at the draft where we actually don't want to stockpile picks. If there is no great value at 31, and the roster is pretty stacked, we could move back and pick up a 2019 pick if there is a willing partner.

28222 said:

When looking at how many picks we can make and expect to actually make the 53, we have to consider the unusually large number of injured 1st year players who will repeating their "rookie" years:
Garcia
Rivers
Langhi
K Davis
The 1st 3 either made, or were expected to make the opening day roster. So add them to whatever this rookie class turns out to be and consider how much inexperienced youth can we realistically add in 1 year? 5 picks in the 1st 4 rounds (usually roster locks) plus we always find a UDFA or 2 that stick. Add in the 3-4 re-rookies and that is already an awful lot of 1st year pros.
So depending on what happens with our own FA's, we could be caught in a numbers game at the draft where we actually don't want to stockpile picks. If there is no great value at 31, and the roster is pretty stacked, we could move back and pick up a 2019 pick if there is a willing partner.

Click to expand...

Moving a pick into next year is an option too, although I don’t believe that we have the numbers problem this year that we’ve grown accustomed to in most recent years, and that’s partially due to some rather unproductive drafts, deflategate, and injuries. I also don’t believe that we can assume that guys like Garcia (down 45 lbs) or Langi (potentially career ending accident) can be counted on to make the 53 man roster.

There are reasons to believe that an additional pick at OL may occur since it will likely be Scar’s last year here, as well as having 3 OL hitting free agency and another (Mason) for 2019. There are only 2 real RBs under contract and one of them was a healthy scratch for the majority of the season and could be cut. The TE position is certainly an unknown, at least at the moment.

Improvements (Richards) and /eventual replacements for guys like McCourty and Chung are due, and our CB group isn’t exactly setting the world on fire. That’s not even getting into the front seven, which will almost certainly include at least 2 rookies, right there. I’m certainly not worried about having too many picks where rookies won’t make the team like in past years. I think we could easily see 5-6. Easy. Much likely more than that with the usual roster turnover seen every year + the addition of UDFAs.

Every year the team is so deep that draftees/UDFA's could't possibly make the team. And every year 7 or so draftees/UDFA's make the team.

28222 said:

When looking at how many picks we can make and expect to actually make the 53, we have to consider the unusually large number of injured 1st year players who will repeating their "rookie" years:
Garcia
Rivers
Langhi
K Davis
The 1st 3 either made, or were expected to make the opening day roster. So add them to whatever this rookie class turns out to be and consider how much inexperienced youth can we realistically add in 1 year? 5 picks in the 1st 4 rounds (usually roster locks) plus we always find a UDFA or 2 that stick. Add in the 3-4 re-rookies and that is already an awful lot of 1st year pros.
So depending on what happens with our own FA's, we could be caught in a numbers game at the draft where we actually don't want to stockpile picks. If there is no great value at 31, and the roster is pretty stacked, we could move back and pick up a 2019 pick if there is a willing partner.

Click to expand...

mgteich said:

Every year the team is so deep that draftees/UDFA's could't possibly make the team. And every year 7 or so draftees/UDFA's make the team.

Click to expand...

What’s your early roster lock number at, mg? I couldn’t imagine it to be much higher than around 35-40 right now, although I haven’t really spent much time looking into it. I suppose we’d need to wait until after the early couple of FA waves.

Perhaps the patriots will try to hit on a late round quarterback. Or, we could try to sign a QB for 5 years this year, and try again next year if it doesn't work. Obviously, this depends on value, especially of the OT's available.

Ras-IR Dowling said:

You would think the team moving back into r1 would be for a qb since that position is the most expensive. The qbs I see us looking at are day 2 day 3 guys so a team falling in love with Lamar jackson would be nice. (If he’s still on the board at that point)

Click to expand...

Joey007 said:

Actually impressed, and a bit surprised on how often we hit on 7th rounders in the 2000’s. Had forgotten about Givens and Cassell. Even Banta-Cain had some productivity for us.

In this decade however, take out a promising rookie season from Dennard, and there’s really not much to show for.

Click to expand...

Legit 7th round hits from BB (only hits if they made it in N.E.) out of 30 taken starting with the 2000 draft:

Patrick Pass
David Givens
TBC
Matt Cassel
Edelman

DraftHistory.com

They had a couple of other players flash briefly, but that's it. So, it's been a 17% hit rate. That's not nothing, but it's not a whole lot, either (and, as you noted, the hits are players from the early days, with Edelman being the last one, in 2009).*





*If the site made an error (or I made one in my counting/reading), my apologies.

supafly said:

Moving a pick into next year is an option too, although I don’t believe that we have the numbers problem this year that we’ve grown accustomed to in most recent years, and that’s partially due to some rather unproductive drafts, deflategate, and injuries. I also don’t believe that we can assume that guys like Garcia (down 45 lbs) or Langi (potentially career ending accident) can be counted on to make the 53 man roster.

There are reasons to believe that an additional pick at OL may occur since it will likely be Scar’s last year here, as well as having 3 OL hitting free agency and another (Mason) for 2019. There are only 2 real RBs under contract and one of them was a healthy scratch for the majority of the season and could be cut. The TE position is certainly an unknown, at least at the moment.

Improvements (Richards) and /eventual replacements for guys like McCourty and Chung are due, and our CB group isn’t exactly setting the world on fire. That’s not even getting into the front seven, which will almost certainly include at least 2 rookies, right there. I’m certainly not worried about having too many picks where rookies won’t make the team like in past years. I think we could easily see 5-6. Easy. Much likely more than that with the usual roster turnover seen every year + the addition of UDFAs.

Click to expand...

I realize I may be looking at Garcia and Langhi through rose colored glasses.

Agree 100% if we are quiet with our own free agents and those outside the organization. But that hasn't been BB's MO. Typically, we enter the draft with a full roster that could go week 1, allowing us to draft for down the line. Then let camp play itself out and if rookies outplay the vets, they play.

In other words, while I agree with all of the holes you identify, I just don't see us going into the draft with all of the holes unfilled. Few of those spots will go to rookies with significant snaps planned from the start. Some will be filled with our FA's, some with players outside the organization. We may even have a role or 2 filled internally from players we haven't had a peek behind the curtain... Croston on OL, and Travis/Jones at S to name a few possibilities.

Ultimately, what they do in the next month will narrow the focus of the draft needs both in quantity and quality.

28222 said:

In other words, while I agree with all of the holes you identify, I just don't see us going into the draft with all of the holes unfilled. Few of those spots will go to rookies with significant snaps planned from the start. Some will be filled with our FA's, some with players outside the organization. We may even have a role or 2 filled internally from players we haven't had a peek behind the curtain... Croston on OL, and Travis/Jones at S to name a few possibilities.

Ultimately, what they do in the next month will narrow the focus of the draft needs both in quantity and quality.

Click to expand...

Totally agree about some guys like Croston and one of the safeties. I think you’re spot on, there. Where we may disagree a bit is on the actual number of available spots where rookies can make the team this year, as I believe it to be higher than most recent years—whether that’s starters, rotational players, or future development. I’m just counting them on the 53 man roster.

I think some of my thinking may be coming from the poor drafting/injury situations/punishments that have been seen in recent drafts. I’m not saying anything too pessimistic, but I do believe that this draft is a bit different. Normally, I see things the same as you in regards to there not being many open spots and that the draft is a luxury of sorts, etc. I think they need to hit on some picks this year and have some luck with recent injured players taken with relatively higher round selections such as Cyrus, Rivers, Garcia, Mitchell, Valentine, etc. Add in Easley + the stolen 1st/4th, and I think that’s changed things up a bit.

mgteich said:

Then trade our 2nd pick, not our first.

Depending on who we trade with and the number of steps, 43 could likely be turned into a late 2nd, 3rd, and a 5th and 7th. The value is right.

The point we are making is that the 5th year option is very valuable, presuming that we can find a player worth the pick.

Click to expand...

That option is why you get more in return for the first round pick than for the second round pick.

I understand your point but based on how the draft is shaping up I fundamentally disagree about the fifth year option being more valuable than a combined second and third. And if you trade away a second round pick instead you wont get an additional pick in the somewhat top 100 range in return.

A QB at 31 would be an exception to that.

Joey007 said:

I’m not sure if I’m critiquing our teams ability to draft in the 7th. While I don’t think the stat 6/16 is accurate (we had a good 3 7ths other than Edelman in 09 that did nothing) but regardless, we are generally a very good late round drafting team compared to the rest..

I’m more along the lines of critiquing 7th round picks in general, and how very few become relevant impact players. I doubt the stat would be even 10% for most teams.

I still stick with the point that 7th rounders aren’t of high value. I’m fine with trading down, but don’t see the value of trading down essentially to acquire a bunch of 7ths.

Sort of a quality vs. quantity type of situation.

Click to expand...

You're correct, 6/16 wasn't accurate. I simply guessed because I didn't have time at that moment to look it up. Since 2000 (inclusively) the Pats have selected college prospects in the 7th round 30 times. So, including Edelman, that's 7/30, about 23%.

I agree that 7th rounders aren't of high value since they represent spots that are, essentially, near the end of the bread line. But that doesn't mean that they have zero value.

Anyway, I don't recall BB ever specifically trading down for 7th rounders. I'm pretty sure he's insisted that a 7th rounder be thrown in as part of a trade deal on several occasions, and I'm sure that he's accepted two-7ths in exchange for a late 6th from a team that wanted to move up. In terms of the chances of acquiring an "impact player", there's no significant difference between a late-6th and a 7th.

For instance, the Pats' 2018 6th rounder is #205. If the Fins were to offer him the #223 and #229 in the 7th for it, he might take it if there isn't a specific player he's interested in at #205 who isn't likely to still be available at #223. Even though the odds may be ridiculously long either way, getting two Lotto tickets for the price of one still doubles your chances.

As I alluded to previously, 7th-rounders wouldn't be used with the expectation of coming up with a "relevant impact player". In pure "draft a prospect" terms, they're used on UDFA-types, perhaps with the hope of coming up with a role player, special teamer, developmental candidate for the P-squad/scout team - all of which are still necessary for building a solid roster.

The odds of a 7th-rounder fulfilling that hope aren't really any greater than for a UDFA, but using the pick guarantees that BB gets a specific UDFA-type prospect who he's interested in and who he thinks other teams will be going after during the post-draft telephone scrum. As with any UDFA, if the guy turns out to be a "relevant impact player", that's kind of a bonus.

The thing to keep in mind is that draft picks are the fiat currency for NFL player acquisition via trade. Sure, you can trade a player for a player, but you can't trade cash (which would make the whole thing look way too much like slavery). So, when considering the value of 7th round picks, you need to consider that aspect, too. The Pats pick up useful role players fairly often in trade for 7th-round picks - Marquis Flowers and Justin Coleman are a couple examples off the top of my head (Bademosi was acquired with a 6th).

28222 said:

When looking at how many picks we can make and expect to actually make the 53, we have to consider the unusually large number of injured 1st year players who will repeating their "rookie" years:
Garcia
Rivers
Langhi
K Davis
The 1st 3 either made, or were expected to make the opening day roster. So add them to whatever this rookie class turns out to be and consider how much inexperienced youth can we realistically add in 1 year? 5 picks in the 1st 4 rounds (usually roster locks) plus we always find a UDFA or 2 that stick. Add in the 3-4 re-rookies and that is already an awful lot of 1st year pros.
So depending on what happens with our own FA's, we could be caught in a numbers game at the draft where we actually don't want to stockpile picks. If there is no great value at 31, and the roster is pretty stacked, we could move back and pick up a 2019 pick if there is a willing partner.

Click to expand...

Good point.

The Pats haven't needed to acquire a starting-caliber LT very often, but they're getting close (if not already there). If the 2019 OT class seems likely to be better than this one, this could be a year in which BB trades the #31 for a 2019 1st-rounder (and maybe some "change", like a 2018 4th). BB has usually made those deals with teams that are likely to finish 8-8 (or worse), which would then give the Pats at least a mid-1st in the 2019 draft, and a better opportunity to acquire an OT.

luuked said:

That option is why you get more in return for the first round pick than for the second round pick.

I understand your point but based on how the draft is shaping up I fundamentally disagree about the fifth year option being more valuable than a combined second and third. And if you trade away a second round pick instead you wont get an additional pick in the somewhat top 100 range in return.

A QB at 31 would be an exception to that.

Click to expand...

A starting-caliber LT might be another exception.

I do agree that two Lotto tickets or the price of one is usually a better deal. However, it would be possible to trade the #41/#43 for two picks in the top-100. They'd simply be late spots in the 2nd and 3rd. E.g., the #41 would be worth the #56 & #88 (from Carolina).

maineman209 said:

A starting-caliber LT might be another exception.

I do agree that two Lotto tickets or the price of one is usually a better deal. However, it would be possible to trade the #41/#43 for two picks in the top-100. They'd simply be late spots in the 2nd and 3rd. E.g., the #41 would be worth the #56 & #88 (from Carolina).

Click to expand...

Yes, a dropping LT might be another player to consider.

As we all know what makes 31 so interesting for other teams to trade into (even those with early second round picks) is the fifth year option so obviously moving that one gives you more flexibility and potential suitors. The later picks become much more specific and so it would be a bit more difficult to find partners that are a) interested in the pick you are offering and b) have a package of picks with a similar approx. value. e.g. Carolina might work in terms of picks but only if they feel forced to move up at that point of the draft otherwise why bother giving up 2 picks ?

I am talking mostly in general terms about all of this. Obviously the draft is another highly situational event where many things can happen to make it worth hanging on to the first round pick or vice versa. The more I think about it the more my point was about how strong I feel about the day 2 players than about draft strategy.

luuked said:

Yes, a dropping LT might be another player to consider.

As we all know what makes 31 so interesting for other teams to trade into (even those with early second round picks) is the fifth year option so obviously moving that one gives you more flexibility and potential suitors. The later picks become much more specific and so it would be a bit more difficult to find partners that are a) interested in the pick you are offering and b) have a package of picks with a similar approx. value. e.g. Carolina might work in terms of picks but only if they feel forced to move up at that point of the draft otherwise why bother giving up 2 picks ?

I am talking mostly in general terms about all of this. Obviously the draft is another highly situational event where many things can happen to make it worth hanging on to the first round pick or vice versa. The more I think about it the more my point was about how strong I feel about the day 2 players than about draft strategy.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's not nearly enough to simply do the math and figure out that the #41 (490) = #56 (340) + #88 (150), although that's way further than most folks will go. You also need to ask, "Why the eff would Carolina want to make that trade?"

To answer that question, you probably need a bit more than a superficial understanding of the state of the 2018 Panthers' roster (including what players they might be losing at the end of 2018), plus what player personnel changes the new OC (Norv Turner), and new DC (Eric Washington) may want to make, plus what types of players their new GM (Marty Hurney) tends to favor.

And then you need to know what specific players will be available at #41 (not possible before the end of Day-1), how the Panthers may perceive them, and how concerned Hurney might get that another team will snag those players before the #56 spot.

IOW, you may need to know nearly as much about the Panthers as you do about the Pats.

But you can just about bet the farm that BB, Caserio and the rest of the Pats personnel/scouting department will have far more than a cursory understanding of all this stuff by then.

maineman209 said:

And then you need to know what specific players will be available at #41 (not possible before the end of Day-1), how the Panthers may perceive them, and how concerned Hurney might get that another team will snag those players before the #56 spot.

IOW, you may need to know nearly as much about the Panthers as you do about the Pats.

But you can just about bet the farm that BB, Caserio and the rest of the Pats personnel/scouting department will have far more than a cursory understanding of all this stuff by then.

Click to expand...

Yep. Which is why I am in favor of just throwing #31 out there because getting a good package for that is less dependent on a draft falling a certain way. As you all have pointed out there are many scenarios where a fifth year option is appealing to a team which makes it a more attractive trade option.

maineman209 said:

Good point.

The Pats haven't needed to acquire a starting-caliber LT very often, but they're getting close (if not already there). If the 2019 OT class seems likely to be better than this one, this could be a year in which BB trades the #31 for a 2019 1st-rounder (and maybe some "change", like a 2018 4th). BB has usually made those deals with teams that are likely to finish 8-8 (or worse), which would then give the Pats at least a mid-1st in the 2019 draft, and a better opportunity to acquire an OT.

Click to expand...

I have some hope that we have an in house LT for 2019... be it Garcia or Croston. Going back to the 2017 draft, B.B. double dipped at T with Garcia and McDermott preparing for this offseason as he usually is roster building a year out. They go thru camp, realize they are getting nothing from Garcia this year (and possibly forever), risk cutting McDermott and protect Croston on the 53.
Maybe McDermott just didn’t show enough and I am connecting too many dots, but I don’t think they leave the T position as bare as it appears on the surface without some degree of comfort in the eventual outcome. So if Croston is ready as my connected dots hope he is, they might be able to get by with a vet 1 yr deal (age 30+ to limit the spend) plus Croston and Garcia.

2018 NFL Draft Trade Value Chart

If by arithmetic is correct, we might get an additional top 100 pick if we traded down from 41.

We could trade our 41 (490 points) with TENN for 57 (330 points), 89 (145 points). That's only 475. They might then throw 199 (a favorite pick for us and 11.4 points) and their 243 (1 point).

BOTTOM LINE
There are lots of possibilities with regard to potential teams to trade down for a 2nd and 3rd plus a 6th and or 7th. Obviously, we may or may not be able to find a trade partner at the time. However, as far as value as measured by the chart, we could give a "bargain" and still get two top 100 picks.

luuked said:

And if you trade away a second round pick instead you wont get an additional pick in the somewhat top 100 range in return.

Click to expand...

28222 said:

I have some hope that we have an in house LT for 2019... be it Garcia or Croston. Going back to the 2017 draft, B.B. double dipped at T with Garcia and McDermott preparing for this offseason as he usually is roster building a year out. They go thru camp, realize they are getting nothing from Garcia this year (and possibly forever), risk cutting McDermott and protect Croston on the 53.
Maybe McDermott just didn’t show enough and I am connecting too many dots, but I don’t think they leave the T position as bare as it appears on the surface without some degree of comfort in the eventual outcome. So if Croston is ready as my connected dots hope he is, they might be able to get by with a vet 1 yr deal (age 30+ to limit the spend) plus Croston and Garcia.

Click to expand...

Certainly reasonable conjectures.

My only question would be, what older veteran OT?

mgteich said:

We could trade our 41 (490 points) with TENN for 57 (330 points), 89 (145 points). That's only 475. They might then throw 199 (a favorite pick for us and 11.4 points) and their 243 (1 point).

Click to expand...

This is where it can get tricky, though.

CAR might be willing to trade their 2nd & and 3rd to move up to the #41 because they have an extra 3rd-rounder and they'd be trading the lesser of the two in a 2-for-1 deal.

However, TEN has no extra picks in any round, so they would be left with only their 4th & 5th after making that 4-for-1 deal.