Dah Bears

[drpatriot]

Moves (the Chicago trade doesn't happen first):
- Pats #21 for Denver #37, #68, #161
- Chicago #26 for Pats #52, #86, #106, #136, #161, #191

Strategy/Rationale:
I am not in love with any player for a specific position, and would be happy to draft any similarly skilled player left in a position value grouping. In terms of decisions, I want to draft the position that has fewer players left in my own scouting groupings at the time.

Position Groupings for expected players left at our pick range:
WR - HOLMES, Nance, Stovall, Avant, Jennings
OL - MANGOLD, Lutui, Colledge, Winston
DE/OLB - KIWANUKA, Tapp, Edwards, Gacong
ILB - HODGE, Wilkerson, Parham, Hoyte
Players in BOLD are ones you should take if at all available, because they have dropped and are good value at the earliest pick.

Overall Picks Guess:
#26: Holmes
#37: Kiwanuka
#68: Lutui
#75: Wilkerson
#118: Hoyte
#205,206,209: The future David Givens, Adam Vinatieri, Tom Brady, or Rodney Harrison.

I like your approach, though it is vastly different to mine as your draft is top-loaded while mine is more spread out. I like the Holmes pick, but I personally feel that Santonio Holmes will go to the Giants at 25 if he is still available. However, it's plausible enough that they will go with someone else for this to remain realistic. I like the selections at each lower pick, especially because they are neither reaches nor expectant of massive drops.

Btw, I would laugh my *** off if we traded up to #14 and then down again. Even if we got all busts that year, I would still call it the greatest draft ever.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Well Mav, I started the exercise, and it's less fun than I would have thought, once you have the handy dandy chart. You just do the math and conclude boom, you get the raiders pick at 7 after sending a BUNCH of stuff to Chicago (I made Chi. give up 5 extra points and sent 'em 52, 86, 106, 118, and 191.) Whoopee. Now we have to assume someone in the top ten category is worth it to the Pats. History says not likely.

However, if someone up in that region wants 7 bad enough, maybe you can leverage that desire and get better than you gave with Chicago.... I guess my instinct here is to manipulate need (which everybody wants to do,) and try to get back a late 1st rounder, plus additional value in 2 and or 3.

All that gets far afield of the trade value chart, so you end up just drawing equivalences - unless you know where you put the breaks and who your guy is, the exercise is senseless. I would say, though, that maybe getting those two picks and getting Cleveland's spot with change back (like RAC doesn't want 2 firsts!) might scare the crap out of Shanahan, which would be my favorite outcome, regardless of draft value, especially if he's on TV and wearing white trousers.

Okay.. so yeah we can have Hawk if we want to sell the farm, and typically, the Pats hold onto the farm and still get good first rounders. Though I could see keeping and using 21 and 26, even if you don't pick til 75, then 136, after that.

keep the faith,

PFnV