Because Butler, as an RFA, is worth a 1st round pick.. Then you add the #32 pick. You get two 1st rounders.. It's not that hard to understand.. Maybe it is since it requires having the basic concept of Algebra.. BTW, Most everyone on this board understands that Butler is worth more than Brandon Cooks.. Significantly more.. So the idea that the Pats are giving up more to get Cooks is stupid.
Having Cooks isn't worth hurting Mitchell's development. Who cares what "you see Mitchell as". That doesn't mean a damn thing. The Patriots receivers are required to be able to play all 3. This is well known. Mitchell lined up outside and in the slot at different times last year.
Of course you don't see how it cuts into Mitchell's snaps. Because you don't get the idea that the Pats aren't going to take Edelman off the field in favor of Cooks.. So they would have to take Mitchell.
What I really "fail to see" is how merely exploring possible scenarios that haven't happened yet (and may never) is enough to make someone angry enough to call the effort "stupid."
Yeah, I'm aware that, with the 1st-round FA tender on Butler, the Pats COULD end up "trading" him for a first round pick, IF another team makes Butler a contract offer that the Pats refuse to match. That's a POTENTIAL 1st round pick at this point, but what are the odds, realistically?
According to Miguel, there are maybe three out of 32 teams (10%) that have the cap space + the draft ammo + the need for an elite corner who MIGHT realistically consider making such an offer. He assumes that teams a pick above a certain level (#20, I think) would think it too much to give up in the context of their other needs. Miguel seems to suggest that the likeliest possibility might be the Titans, since they have two first rounders and would be able to fork over their #18 pick. Then, the Titans would need to make an offer that would exceed Butler's perceived value to the Pats. And we don't really know what that is in terms of $$ - The same as Gilmore's deal? More? Less?
I'm not saying that this CAN'T happen, just that it seems fairly unlikely to me. But nothing is certain either way.
However, you appear to be treating it as a certainty and then equating moving 10 spots down in the draft to "losing" a 1st-round pick outright. Which then equals "the Pats are giving up two 1st-rounders to get Cooks."
Now, I can still recite the quadratic equation on demand, but the math you appear to be using here is way beyond any "algebra" I've ever known. And it doesn't appear to account for the factor that a player's value to the Pats has always been pretty fluid, depending on the situation.
Anyway, you take your result from that math and add it to your opinion that Butler is objectively and unequivocally of SIGNIFICANTLY more value to the Pats than Cooks (for this season and next) to conclude that the Pats ARE (in the proposed scenario) giving up this HUGE amount to get a relatively worthless Cooks.
And that my "idea" (simply exploring a "what if" scenario) is "stupid".
So, I'm also well aware that pretty much every game-day-active Pats receiver (not limited to WRs) who is eligible in a formation has lined up at X, Y and Z (and even in the backfield) at one point or another during a given season. This includes even Develin. And, yeah, knowing all the routes from every spot is required of all Pats receivers. All of that has been obvious to me for years. However, Pats WRs also generally have more or less "primary roles" in which they'll line up in one or two spots more often than another.
Reiss, in past years has occasionally done a breakout of snaps per spot for WRs over the entire season (there may be other sources, too). I don't have any 2016 data in front of me, but I still think it's a good bet that Mitchell lined up a bit more often at X or Z in 2016 than at Y, excluding trips sets. And, yeah, I do think that, IF Cooks comes to the Pats via this "imagined" trade, I think that there may well be a roughly equal possibility for Edelman to lose snaps to Cooks as anyone else.
Regardless, it seems to me that Cooks' presence on the roster = hurting Mitchell's development is merely another assumption. An equally valid assumption would be that, working alongside Cooks could AID Mitchell's development.
But, what do I know? I'm not nearly as certain about any of this as you seems to be.
