- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,956
- Reaction score
- 126
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.They can trade the pick.I didn't see a discussion on this but someone just told me that
Eisen on NFL Network said PATs can't trade the SF Pick.
Anyone else hear this? Does anyone know of a rule that would make this so?
I didn't see a discussion on this but someone just told me that
Eisen on NFL Network said PATs can't trade the SF Pick.
Anyone else hear this? Does anyone know of a rule that would make this so?
I didn't see a discussion on this but someone just told me that
Eisen on NFL Network said PATs can't trade the SF Pick.
Anyone else hear this? Does anyone know of a rule that would make this so?
I didn't see a discussion on this but someone just told me that
Eisen on NFL Network said PATs can't trade the SF Pick.
Anyone else hear this? Does anyone know of a rule that would make this so?
They can trade the pick.
If the pick was a compensatory pick they couldn't trade it.
I didn't see a discussion on this but someone just told me that
Eisen on NFL Network said PATs can't trade the SF Pick.
Anyone else hear this? Does anyone know of a rule that would make this so?
Didn't see it, so let me ask you: are you sure he said that they can't trade it, or is it possible he said they won't be able to trade it?
The latter is, in fact, a distinct possibility, though not a likely one.
Does it have to do with propagating a pick a number of times
Hawks pick for Deion -> That Pick for SF's 1st Pick ->> .....
Is there a limit to number times this can be done?
I've never heard of a rule like that, but it wouldn't be applicable in this situation anyway. The Pats sent the 28th pick in the draft (their pick) to the 9ers.
Eisen is a befuddled doofus
Ron Borges said:On a day when they could have had impact players David Terrell or Koren Robinson or the second-best tackle in the draft in Kenyatta Walker, they took Georgia defensive tackle Richard Seymour, who had 1 sacks last season in the pass-happy SEC and is too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end. This genius move was followed by trading out of a spot where they could have gotten the last decent receiver in Robert Ferguson and settled for tackle Matt Light, who will not help any time soon.
We can trade the pick.
In some years we may not be able to find a buyer. But this is not such a year. There are at least two franchise QBs available and rebuilding teams will pay for a QB. With the #2 pick I would trade in the top five for a team that wants a QB and pickup a pick, then trade down for someone who wants Mcfadden. And get another pick.
Then trade down to 12-15 and take a Lb or Cb or perhaps an O tackle.
Seriously, while it's possible we could do this, why would we? Do we want four first round picks on our team as currently constituted? Where are we going to put them? Those are some highly paid benchwarmers/situational players. We need some DB help, but it's a really weak DB draft year.
If we have the #2 pick, I'd be cool with drafting Jake Long, even trading up to #1 if necessary. I'd rather have one overpaid guy who improves the team than four overpaid guys who really don't. I'd be okay in trading back once, and taking the compensation in 2009 draft picks.
Any draft picks we get via trade should be pushed into future years.
Seriously, while it's possible we could do this, why would we? Do we want four first round picks on our team as currently constituted? Where are we going to put them? Those are some highly paid benchwarmers/situational players. We need some DB help, but it's a really weak DB draft year.
If we have the #2 pick, I'd be cool with drafting Jake Long, even trading up to #1 if necessary. I'd rather have one overpaid guy who improves the team than four overpaid guys who really don't........
QUOTE]
I agree with your assessment that DB help is needed as I do not feel comfortable with only having three truely competent corners on the team right now, and I would guess most people would like some type of linebacker youth infusion. However if the Patriots were to get the #2 and use it on Jake Long or Darren McFadden, that presents a problem. Yes both players are most likely an upgrade over the current holders of the position [Long moves Light to the right tackle position, upgrading LT and RT by at least a marginal amount, and McFadden v Maroney probably is an upgrade]; however the problem is that the advantage of good drafting is that you should be able to get above average talent for below market rates for four to six years.
See the deal that we effectively got for our D-line, or Samuels compared to their second contracts. That divergence between cash and cap outlays v. true market value has allowed the Pats to allocate their cap to address other needs. Picking at #2 removes this projected divergence unless you believe that anyone the Pats pick there will have multiple All-Pro years in their rookie contract AND be a Pro-Bowler in their rookie year.
So if the Pats were able to move back to #8 and pick up say #40 and at least one first day pick in 2009, the Pats most likely will still improve their overall talent level for the 2008 season while providing for cheap depth [#40 has similiar cap charges as a vested vetern brought in on a league min. deal in 2008; see the Chad Jackson contract on patscap.com for the details]. Note that I have the Patriots significantly underselling the #2 pick to avoid salary cap charges in future years --- the DVC has the @2 at 2600 points, and a trade of #8, #40 and 2009 1st Rounder is only about 2400 points.
In my mind if the Pats have a choice of picking Long @#2 and then nothing until #64 and 66/67 [Raiders], or picking the #2 OT at #8, and the #4 or #5 CB at #40 and then filling other needs in the 60s, I'll choise the second scenario, for although there is a drop-off between Long and the #2 OT, I think the team is improved more and at a lesser cost by getting the #2 OT to effectively replace Kaczur, and getting a legit potential starting CB who should be able to displace Gay as the nickelback allowing Gay to move to the #2 position if Samuels leaves.