Crazy First Overall Pick Notion

[I.M. Fletcher]

If Garrett was a qb, I think bb could easily get that plethora of picks, but since he is not, I think the package would be less than you think,

Garrett being the top pass rusher since v miller is as valuable as most QBs coming out. The free agent market is showing that as well, with top pass rushers making QB money.

Not saying you would definitely get an RG3 package, but it wouldn't be an insignificant amount they would get in return.

 

[Wilfork#75]

IF we were to somehow get the #1 pick for Jimmy G we would have to trade down for a couple of reasons. The first being as freaky athletic and talented as Myles Garrett is, he is not a sure thing and has some bust potential. Using all of that potential value on a single player would be a huge risk and would always be compared to the success of Jimmy G. I see BB trading down for additional picks and spreading out that risk so it isn't Jimmy G for a single player.

The other reason I think we would almost certainly trade down is because of the way the Pats view pass rushers. I remember watching Michael Lombardi after the Chandler Jones trade talk about why the Pats made the move and how they value pass rushers differently than the rest of the league. He said the Pats don't care about sack numbers because they ask so much more out of their edge guys. They value things that don't show up on the stat sheet which means they value players differently to the rest of the league. We also use a more rotational approach to keep guys fresh and give different looks which also devalues individual players. Because of this, although I think they may love Myles Garrett as a player, they wouldn't value him more than the value they could get trading out of the #1 pick.

I agree with @manxman2601 that BB would love Jamal Adams. He and Reuben Foster are the two guys at the very top of the draft I think would be best fits. We know how much Belichick loved Sean Taylor coming out of Miami and he is one of the players that Adams is most often compared to. A big, physical and athletic safety that can run, hit and cover would add a lot to any defense. I find it difficult to see a scenario where we could trade down and still get him because I think he will go very high, but I would have no problem drafting him. In the end I would be happy with one or more trades down that could net us a future 1st and a few extra picks this year. The multiple trades back @BobDigital posted would be perfect.

 

[skinnydog]

Depending on how Brady plays in 2017, if bb thinks he needs jimmy, then he will figure out how to keep jimmy.

The only way to keep Jimmy would be to cut Brady or sign Jimmy to a franchise tag at about 23 million (with a fully 23 million cap his) to be Brady's back up. I don't see it at all. And after this year, it is really Jimmy that gets to figure it out and not BB.

 

[kennyb]

1st overall for JG isn't as crazy as 6th overall for Mallett.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

IF we were to somehow get the #1 pick for Jimmy G we would have to trade down for a couple of reasons. The first being as freaky athletic and talented as Myles Garrett is, he is not a sure thing and has some bust potential. Using all of that potential value on a single player would be a huge risk and would always be compared to the success of Jimmy G. I see BB trading down for additional picks and spreading out that risk so it isn't Jimmy G for a single player.

The other reason I think we would almost certainly trade down is because of the way the Pats view pass rushers. I remember watching Michael Lombardi after the Chandler Jones trade talk about why the Pats made the move and how they value pass rushers differently than the rest of the league. He said the Pats don't care about sack numbers because they ask so much more out of their edge guys. They value things that don't show up on the stat sheet which means they value players differently to the rest of the league. We also use a more rotational approach to keep guys fresh and give different looks which also devalues individual players. Because of this, although I think they may love Myles Garrett as a player, they wouldn't value him more than the value they could get trading out of the #1 pick.

I agree with @manxman2601 that BB would love Jamal Adams. He and Reuben Foster are the two guys at the very top of the draft I think would be best fits. We know how much Belichick loved Sean Taylor coming out of Miami and he is one of the players that Adams is most often compared to. A big, physical and athletic safety that can run, hit and cover would add a lot to any defense. I find it difficult to see a scenario where we could trade down and still get him because I think he will go very high, but I would have no problem drafting him. In the end I would be happy with one or more trades down that could net us a future 1st and a few extra picks this year. The multiple trades back @BobDigital posted would be perfect.

I'm really not sure this board has a grasp of how great Garrett alreay is and will be.

I have a feeling most were not that high on Bosa as well?

Anyway Garrett is not a finesse player that cared about padding stats. The kid doesn't sell out for anything including stats.

I'll save the Eval to gush n slurp him but hes a perfect Patriot type.

And I would 100% rather take him than trading back.

Busts, duds are duds. We've seen more picks doesn't = success.

 

[I.M. Fletcher]

I'm really not sure this board has a grasp of how great Garrett alreay is and will be.

I have a feeling most were not that high on Bosa as well?

Anyway Garrett is not a finesse player that cared about padding stats. The kid doesn't sell out for anything including stats.

I'll save the Eval to gush n slurp him but hes a perfect Patriot type.

And I would 100% rather take him than trading back.

Busts, duds are duds. We've seen more picks doesn't = success.

I think you can make a case for the Pats taking him at one, but him being so good means the trade back becomes more a possibility. The better the player, the better the return. If they could turn him in to multiple 1sts and 2-3s, it's a pretty easy choice, imo.

Also, the pats have shown numerous times that more picks does equal success. It's kindve our thing.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

I think you can make a case for the Pats taking him at one, but him being so good means the trade back becomes more a possibility. The better the player, the better the return. If they could turn him in to multiple 1sts and 2-3s, it's a pretty easy choice, imo.

Also, the pats have shown numerous times that more picks
does equal success. It's kindve our thing.

I'm speaking to the point that if you have so many duds in a round, draft etc More picks won't help that.

Has nothing to do w/ the Pats or any team.

This team doesn't need 13 picks to fill it out.

Adding Garrett would the best thing for this team in terms of #1, trade back etc.

 

[I.M. Fletcher]

I'm speaking to the point that if you have so many duds in a round, draft etc More picks won't help that.

Has nothing to do w/ the Pats or any team.

This team doesn't need 13 picks to fill it out.

Adding Garrett would the best thing for this team in terms of #1, trade back etc.

I think this is the disconnect, because most are speaking specifically about the Pats, and whether it's in the Pats best long term interests.

Multiple high picks over a few years could really help the team protect against a roster that will age pretty quickly at multiple important positions. As good as Garrett is (and I have said every possible nice thing about him) I couldn't justify that pick of one transcendent talent over multiple significant pieces.

If they somehow got the 1st pick, I am sure I would love to have Garrett, but I would be very surprised.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

I think this is the disconnect, because most are speaking specifically about the Pats, and whether it's in the Pats best long term interests.

Multiple high picks over a few years could really help the team protect against a roster that will age pretty quickly at multiple important positions. As good as Garrett is (and I have said every possible nice thing about him) I couldn't justify that pick of one transcendent talent over multiple significant pieces.

If they somehow got the 1st pick, I am sure I would love to have Garrett, but I would be very surprised.

I am talking specifically about the Patriots.

More draft picks aren't helping if this isn't the great class its "supposed" to be. Fwiw I do think its a very good class.

More draft picks will help the Browns. Patriots are building, maintaining a championship team w/ very few spots up for grabs.

Garrett stays on the field with the ability to move around on different downs and plays arguably the most important positions save QB.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

If you're trading the MG pick for a guy like Adams he better be on par w/ a like Berry, Thomas who were all taking lower.

@Peter_Bukowski's Tweet:

 

[I.M. Fletcher]

I am talking specifically about the Patriots.

More draft picks aren't helping if this isn't the great class its "supposed" to be. Fwiw I do think its a very good class.

More draft picks will help the Browns. Patriots are building, maintaining a championship team w/ very few spots up for grabs.

Garrett stays on the field with the ability to move around on different downs and plays arguably the most important positions save QB.

Fair enough, we just see roster building differently.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Fair enough, we just see roster building differently.

Maybe, maybe not?

I think if you can add a kid like him you do and not over think it w/ trading back etc.

I get 0 bust potential with him and trading back could always land you Brace, Chung, Butler etc. Big Chung fan but it literally took him 5-6 years before becoming a player.

 

[manxman2601]

My hypothetical has nothing to do with how good Garrett is - he's got tremendous potential (although potential is all it is right now)- and everything to do with Jamal Adams' leadership potential, a trait I think BB would value a great deal.

 

[Gabriel_p94]

If somehow we did end up with the top pick in the draft. Do you guys actuappy think the trade back options would be that big? Im thinking since there is no top QB this year and how deep the draft is across the board, i just dont see any team giving up a kings ransome for the top pick. If there were a team to trade up for garrett I think it would be a team thats already in the top 5 and they wouldnt have to give up too much for the spot. If thats the case then taking Garrett would fill a need and we wouldnt necessarily be drafting just to fill that need because hes the best player available.(sorry if thats confusing.) So my thinking is if we were to be in the position to take garrett then i think we jump at the opportunity because we are never able to add that big of an impact player based on where we usually draft (unless a kings ransome is offered)

 

[luuked]

This team doesn't need 13 picks to fill it out.

Theu don't need 13 picks this year but I'd argue that the potential value of adding a couple of better picks over the next 2-3 years to plug holes as they appear and also have a lot of flexibility to move around in those upcoming drafts might be worth more than one blue chip player to this team right now.

If somehow we did end up with the top pick in the draft. Do you guys actuappy think the trade back options would be that big? Im thinking since there is no top QB this year and how deep the draft is across the board, i just dont see any team giving up a kings ransome for the top pick. If there were a team to trade up for garrett I think it would be a team thats already in the top 5 and they wouldnt have to give up too much for the spot. If thats the case then taking Garrett would fill a need and we wouldnt necessarily be drafting just to fill that need because hes the best player available.(sorry if thats confusing.) So my thinking is if we were to be in the position to take garrett then i think we jump at the opportunity because we are never able to add that big of an impact player based on where we usually draft (unless a kings ransome is offered)

Nobody expects a kings ransom ala RG3 trade. But all you have to do is find someone in the top 7 that really wants Garrett. And then take that gained first rounder and try to advertise it to teams that want one of the QBs and so on. Generating a nice group of picks would require a couple of trades and not one blockbuster trade down.

In any case it won't happen anyway.

 

[manxman2601]

I've just noticed some interesting language in a couple of Schefter's statements about the Pats not trading Garropolo.

You guys can keep it alive and keep talking about it and keep wondering, but I am just telling you Jimmy Garoppolo is going to be on the Patriots in 2017 no matter who calls them and what anybody offers,” Schefter said. “He’s going to be on their roster this summer.”

"I know situations do change over time and there will continue to be questions," said Schefter. "I'm just telling you, when the Patriots go to camp, Jimmy Garoppolo is going to be on the roster."

So if it's a question of the Pats not wanting to trade Garropolo period, why, in two seperate statements does he hedge by talking about training camp and this summer? It's not as though JG is likely to be a cut during camp so why not just say next season? Unless...

1. The Pats want to try to negotiate an extension between now and TC.
2. Or, They want to get another look at Brissett to make sure he's up to backing up Brady
3. And/or, BB doesn't see the roster value in adding picks in this draft - evidence does seem to back this up with him trading out of the first two rounds and the rumour he's said that he doesn't see the value of a player at 12 - and if he's going to trade JG, then he'd rather do it for picks in next years draft.
4. It might even be that he's come to some sort of arrangement with the Browns in getting them to wait until the summer. It will be interesting to see whether or not they draft a QB early in the draft. If they don't, maybe there is some sort of arrangement in place. This is complete speculation of course.