Belichick: Teams Are Hard For Our 2nd Rounders

[Nonentity]

I don't see the use in trading our 2nd round picks into multiple later picks, in reality we don't really have the roster room. Better to take the best players we can and upgrade ourselves at particular positions.

I'm happy to trade 53 into two decent 3rd rounders if we've run out of players worth taking at that spot, but trading 53 for a 3rd/4th/5th would just depress me.

 

[Water Boy]

I don't see the fascination with making moves before your on the clock or before another team is on the clock or you have a specific player targeted. The draft is about team, building, acquiring players that fit your scheme. It's not about making moves simply for the sake of making moves. The only other scenario is if another team makes you an offer you can't pass up, but that will best be decided on draft day.

The fascination with making moves is to get maximum value out of the draft.

 

[mgteich]

The proposition is that there isn't much difference between the perceived value at 50 and 125. Let us say that we had one WR that we were trying fill. If we don't feel really strongly about the difference between those available at 53 and those in the 3rd, should we not trade down and pick 2 or 3 receivers to compete for the same roster spot.

I do NOT support this approach in the first round, where I see great value at 16-25. I would rather have two pisck there, than three or four later. To be clear, I would trade two seconds to move up and the other to move down.

I don't see the use in trading our 2nd round picks into multiple later picks, in reality we don't really have the roster room. Better to take the best players we can and upgrade ourselves at particular positions.

I'm happy to trade 53 into two decent 3rd rounders if we've run out of players worth taking at that spot, but trading 53 for a 3rd/4th/5th would just depress me.

 

[Kontradiction]

I really hope we don't trade any of our second rounders this year. We're going to need all of them. If we want to move back into the third round, I would hope that we'd trade a couple of our later round picks, either this year or from next year.

 

[BPF]

The fascination with making moves is to get maximum value out of the draft.

The Pats are in position to get max value, 4 picks in top 53 and 12 picks overall. No reason to get too cute here. As Gil Brandt says, the difference between pick/player 20 and 40 is very small. If there is a specific player they think can help them, and they have to move to get him great otherwise they are already in great position of picking solid players. Also, I'd be a bigger proponent of trading a 2nd Rd pick next year to move in position to pick a player in Rd 3 this yr if a specific player were available that would fit. In other years the roster was loaded and it was best to get max value in the future and create future flexibility. They did that in the past, now it's time to pick good players that can help immediately.

 

[WhiZa]

I really hope we don't trade any of our second rounders this year. We're going to need all of them. If we want to move back into the third round, I would hope that we'd trade a couple of our later round picks, either this year or from next year.

We have to be honest that we can't guarantee that a 2nd round pick will even contribute this year. Trading into the first round next year would be a great option where you can get a guy that can contribute day 1 in 2011 and probably produce more in the long term. We would just miss a year of ST teams play from the 2010 2nd round pick.

 

[TriplecHamp]

I think the key for me is to get two top players in the first two rounds.

THIS x15 .

 

[MaineMan]

1) In light of BB's stated goal of having the entire roster, down to the 53rd man, be stronger than every other team's, I perceive that there are a lot of roster spots that are currently weakly-staffed at a lot of different positions.

2) I perceive that this draft class in particular, compared to 2009 and what I've seen so far about 2011, offers a lot of prospects who could upgrade a lot of those weak positions all the way through the bottom of the roster.

3) Based on an average of the prospect rankings across several sites (which, admittedly, at best only vaguely reflect the reality of how the 32 teams actually have the prospects ranked), I perceive that there should be strong prospects to upgrade the Pats weakest positions available all the way through the 5th round (though not necessarily in rounds 6 and 7, which appear to be the usual crapshoot). I also perceive, based on those same rankings and on what I've seen of the prospects, that there are NOT a lot of them who are likely to be taken in the 1st and 2nd rounds who necessarily fit the Pats at their particular positions of greatest weakness. However, there appear to be a lot of very talented players there who might really help other teams.

Therefore, my first guess, given the situation as I perceive it, is that the Pats are likely to receive a significant number of trade offers for their current first three picks. Based on the "traditional" trade-value chart, mathematically those offers would necessarily include at least one second round pick either for 2010 or 2011, in addition to a 2010 3rd, 4th or 5th round pick. My second guess is that the Pats accept at least one of those offers and thereby expand the number of picks they have in the mid-rounds (without necessarily "losing" a 2010 second-rounder, but just taking a later one). The "interesting" part is trying to project what teams might make those offers, what those offers might be and what BB might do with them.

I certainly recognize that others on this board will disagree vigorously with my perceptions. And I accept that BB's perceptions, the only ones that really count, are very likely to differ greatly from ALL of ours. But that IS, of course, the "fascinating" part of following the Pats draft - trying to match BB's perceptions. I feel no shame in being "wrong" relative to what BB ends up doing because the differences always reveal just a little more about how BB perceives things and about how he thinks. This, for me, is one of the main points of the exercise.

 

[Wheelssps]

I also wouldn't be surprised to see players exchanged as a part of some trades. We've seen some players get traded for picks recently, but I think there are still quite a few teams out there looking to shed some salary that haven't done so yet because they think they can get better value on draft day. We might see some trades like Pats give up one of their 2nds for another team's 3rd plus a player. I think that we could see some of these trades going down as teams move up and down the boards and as teams look to move certain players they haven't parted ways with yet. BB might be presented with certain opportunities to get some pretty serviceable players this way it the Pats like the player and are willing to take on the contract.

 

[Bostonian1962]

No way they move a 2nd this year for a 3rd and 4th. I'd imagine any deal for a 2nd would have to include a 1 or 2 next year, with a 3rd this year.

I agree with this completely! The seconds the Pats have will be highly sought after IMHO. The draft is so deep, that many teams will have a bunch of 1st round grades on players still available in round 2.

The Pats better use this to their advantage. I think Pats Nations will freak, if it ends up being "we'll give you a 2nd for a 4th, 5th, and next years' 4th. That's getting old, and produces you 4th and 5th round talent less likely to make the team.

Having said all that, the Pats could go in thinking that there is no way 12 draft picks make the team, so perhaps this is the perfect year to trade up. Go for quality instead of quanity, being that there won't be seats at the table for everybody as is. I'd be down with that, assuming they run every pick through me first, and I give a thumbs up.

 

[Bostonian1962]

The fascination with making moves is to get maximum value out of the draft.

Agree with you Kurt. However, the trap teams can fall into is getting a boner for trading down, and acquiring future year picks. At the end of the day, the team drafts their players later, getting lesser ranked talent, and poor draft grades (if they don't hit on the later round picks).

I love BB, and am so happy he is here. I do sometimes think he gets taken in trades and should be more aggressive in what he gets in return/what he's willing to give up. For example, if some team badly wants one of our 2nd round picks, don't say give me a 4th, and 5th this year, plus a 3rd next year. Say give me a 3rd (or a later 2nd) and 4th this year, and a 2nd next year, or I walk away. You see all the time that certain teams get a king's randsom for certain picks, because in the end teams will over pay. That's just a random example of my point, and that's a discussion for another day, but we need to kick butt in this draft.

I've looked at my 7 Draft Guides, and watched film on the players, and listened to interviews on Sirius NFL Radio, and TIVO'd "The Path to the Draft" on the NFL Network. I've scanned the dozens of Draft web sites, and I am more certain than ever that this could be a draft for the Patriots that people talk about forever. It's a deep draft. We have a ton of picks (yes, I'm one of those that say "we"). I read what everybody else reads about the bad ranking the recent Patriots drafts have gotten. Well, this is the time to hit it out of the park!

 

[bigcountry75]

We have to be honest that we can't guarantee that a 2nd round pick will even contribute this year. Trading into the first round next year would be a great option where you can get a guy that can contribute day 1 in 2011 and probably produce more in the long term. We would just miss a year of ST teams play from the 2010 2nd round pick.

I am on board with this.....I think we can use our 1st round pick and 1 of our 2nd round picks to draft players with.....

Then we trade 1 of our 2nd's for a 1st next year and a 3rd or 4th this year....

They we trade our other 2nd for a later 2nd and more picks.....

We would still have our 1st, 2 2nd's, whatever 3rd's come with trades and so on.....It would still give us plenty of players to help with this team in 2010 but it would also give us another 1st to get 3 blue chippers in 2011....

 

[Seneschal2]

Two points to consider:

1) Value
2) Targeted players

If NE can still get their targeted player AND trade down for extra picks, they'll be getting more value for that pick.

Keep in mind that the Pats mock each round based on other teams needs, and as players come off the board, they'll have a better idea as to where each player may be selected. I doubt BB will risk losing out on a targeted player just so he can acquire more picks. Here's one scenario:

NE wants to select a CB with their middle second-rounder, and they have two CBs ranked similarly. Team A comes calling with a sweet deal for that slot, and the Pats are confident that at least one of those CBs will be available with their last second-rounder. Chances are they'll make the deal, knowing they got the most value for that pick (picks & the CB).

Numerous scenarios.

 

[RDS11]

I am on board with this.....I think we can use our 1st round pick and 1 of our 2nd round picks to draft players with.....

Then we trade 1 of our 2nd's for a 1st next year and a 3rd or 4th this year....

They we trade our other 2nd for a later 2nd and more picks.....

We would still have our 1st, 2 2nd's, whatever 3rd's come with trades and so on.....It would still give us plenty of players to help with this team in 2010 but it would also give us another 1st to get 3 blue chippers in 2011....

I'm not on board with this at all.

Certainly, it's a matter of value. If none of the players is worth the pick, then trade it. But there's one major thing with this year's draft : it's full of juniors. That means that some 2nd round picks this year are 1st rounders in any other year. It also means that next year draft will have 2nd round material picked in the 1st round. And then you have the economics : the 2nd rounder that is 1st round worthy this year will still cost like a 2nd rounder, while the 2nd rounder picked in the 1st round next year will be paid like a 1st rounder.

Since we will already be paying for 2 first round picks next year, adding a 3rd one might not be that smart, especially on a sub-par draft year.
On the other side, by 2011 maybe there will be a maximum on the salary of draftees, so the money paid to 3 first rounder won't be cap deadly.

 

[bigcountry75]

I'm not on board with this at all.

Certainly, it's a matter of value. If none of the players is worth the pick, then trade it. But there's one major thing with this year's draft : it's full of juniors. That means that some 2nd round picks this year are 1st rounders in any other year. It also means that next year draft will have 2nd round material picked in the 1st round. And then you have the economics : the 2nd rounder that is 1st round worthy this year will still cost like a 2nd rounder, while the 2nd rounder picked in the 1st round next year will be paid like a 1st rounder.

Since we will already be paying for 2 first round picks next year, adding a 3rd one might not be that smart, especially on a sub-par draft year.
On the other side, by 2011 maybe there will be a maximum on the salary of draftees, so the money paid to 3 first rounder won't be cap deadly.

This is what I was banking on...so 3 1st rounders I didn't see that it would totally kill us plus our 1st rounder would hopefully be the 32nd pick so the salary would be closer to a 2nd round pick....

 

[MaineMan]

I agree with this completely! The seconds the Pats have will be highly sought after IMHO. The draft is so deep, that many teams will have a bunch of 1st round grades on players still available in round 2.

The Pats better use this to their advantage. I think Pats Nations will freak, if it ends up being "we'll give you a 2nd for a 4th, 5th, and next years' 4th. That's getting old, and produces you 4th and 5th round talent less likely to make the team.

Having said all that, the Pats could go in thinking that there is no way 12 draft picks make the team, so perhaps this is the perfect year to trade up. Go for quality instead of quanity, being that there won't be seats at the table for everybody as is. I'd be down with that, assuming they run every pick through me first, and I give a thumbs up.

Anybody in the Pats organization who even suggested that trade should be fired on the spot. And sent to remedial math classes. The maximum value of a 5th rounder and two 4th rounders (not even discounting for the push into next year) would be 267. The lowest value of the Pats' three 2nd rounders, #53, is 370. That's why I noted earlier that any trade of any Pats 2010 2nd round pick would almost necessarily involve at least a lower 2010 2nd rounder (or higher 2011 pick) as part of the deal in return, in addition to any later round picks (e.g., the Cards #58 and #88 for our #44 or the Seahawks #60, #104 and #139 for our #47, etc).

As to 12 picks not making the team, not all of them anyway, that's certainly true. However, in last year's draft - not as deep as this one - of the Pats' 12 picks, 3 went to IR, one went to the practice squad and 8, plus UDFA Brian Hoyer, did make the team, 9 of 13, in all. And, I can think of at least 12 guys on the Pats 2009 53-man roster who could stand to be upgraded still. So, the more picks, the greater the chances that we'll see several of those twelve spots improved for 2010.

 

[Peachhead]

I also wouldn't be mad at a 1st next year and 3rd or 4th this year.

That would give us three 1sts next year. :woot:

But I wish we could do it _before_ the draft (I know, basically impossible). That way we could package our 1st this year and a first from next year to move far up this year and get a blue-chipper if they unexpectedly slip a few picks. :rocker:

 

[Nonentity]

If we trade one of our 2nds, there's only a few trades I'm happy with.

1) Trade 44 or 47 for a 2011 1st to a team likely to be picking in the top third of the draft (e.g. the Jags, Bills, Lions or Chiefs)

2) Trade 44 or 47 for a 2011 1st and a 2010 3rd to a team likely to be picking in the middle third of the draft (e.g. the 49ers, Broncos or Texans)

3) Trade 53 for a 2011 1st rounder.


I see no point in rolling 44/47 into the 24th-32nd pick next year. The two picks will probably be equivalent in terms of depth anyway. A 3rd rounder sweetens the deal with 'average' teams.

I'd love to trade 47 for the Jags' 2011 1st rounder.