Do we trade up for Chad Jackson???

[marty]

My guess is we go for the best available DE/LB, or back up for Koppen in the 1st rd.

 

[dryheat44]

My guess is we go for the best available DE/LB, or back up for Koppen in the 1st rd.

Echo that. I'm feeling Lawson, Wimberly, or Mangold. With an outside shot at Cromartie.

The more I think about it, the more Mangold makes sense. Koppen's coming off significant injury and his rookie contract. I don't think he'll be here in '07. Mangold should be able to immediately start at center, or guard, and be a factor on the offensive line for the next five years.

 

[shakadave]

So much talk of the early-2nd-Round depth this year. Will we just miss it with our #21 pick of the 2nd Round? My theory is that since we scout so uniquely, 21st in Round 2 will look plenty rich to our war room!

 

[JoeSixPat]

Interesting my view is completely the opposite. From all accounts this is a weak WR class & in a normal year Jackson & Holmes would be late 1st round prospects at best. However with the lack of depth at the top they will probably both be taken mid 1st. Broncos, Eagles, Dolphins, Vikings & Chargers could all be looking at a WR.

I'm sure I'm influenced by the fact that our roster has a #1 WR (who is nearing the end of his contract) and then a handful of #4&5 WRs

Since WR was clearly a top priority of BB last season when he made ever effort to get Derrick Mason, and our needs are even greater now

It's also clear that Free Agency is not going to address this important need for us (why have the best QB with no WRs to throw to?)

That leaves a trade or the draft.

Both have downsides - a trade involves taking someone else's disappointment while the draft has its own uncertainties.

Any WR drafted in later rounds won't be counted on to contribute for a year or more.

Only Jackson looks ready to contribute NOW - and we need a WR who can contribute NOW. It would not surprise me to see all of BB's interviews with defensive players and RBs serve as a ruse to cover his interest in Jackson.

 

[RayClay]

No .............

 

[ilduce06410]

looked like that last year.

I don't think this is how Belichick works (trading up to pick a specific guy). He probably has Chad Jackson grouped in with a few other receivers that he thinks are at about the same level. Once there are only one or two players left in that skill group, Belichick will trade up to take one of those guys remaining. Not before.

it also seems that he trades down when a group of the target position players he wants is still there.
IMO almost every one of the players on this thread is included in one or another of his 'groups.' without a doubt he's got all the skinny weis can give him on stovall, and on the other ND players in the draft. as i recall stovall had some weaknesses like speed? not goiing over the middle? weis knows if that's true.

 

[dryheat44]

Only Jackson looks ready to contribute NOW - and we need a WR who can contribute NOW. It would not surprise me to see all of BB's interviews with defensive players and RBs serve as a ruse to cover his interest in Jackson.

Oh, I think Hass is much, much more ready to contribute NOW.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Oh, I think Hass is much, much more ready to contribute NOW.

I'd be happy with Hass as well - but I'm just not sure he has the speed to be a #1 reciever... which is what I'm expecting from a WR if I'm going to use a #1 draft choice. I wouldn't use a #1 pick on Hass.

 

[dryheat44]

I'd be happy with Hass as well - but I'm just not sure he has the speed to be a #1 reciever... which is what I'm expecting from a WR if I'm going to use a #1 draft choice. I wouldn't use a #1 pick on Hass.

Me neither. So much the better. We can get a LB or CB or whatever in the first, and pick up a starting receiver in the 2nd or 3rd.

Nobody -- not Jackson, Holmes, Hagen, Stovall, Moss or whoever else isn't going to be a #1 receiver this year, which I thought was your original point....that we needed someone to contribute this year.

Getting a #1 receiver for this season and drafting a receiver in the first round are incompatible this season. Maybe in two seasons one of the other guys becomes a #1. But again, your point was spending a #1 pick on someone who can step in and be a starting WR immediately. Unless we reach for Hass, that's impossible. And as much as I like Hass, I don't know if he could be more than a 3/4 this year. But he has the best chance to be a #2 this year.

 

[nickw308810]

So, he played under Weis and had his best season IN OUR SYSTEM, but he wouldn't fit our system? He wouldn't fit our system, even though he's played and excelled in it?

Care to further clarify?

Stovall is a big guy who is not a good blocker and is afraid to go over the middle. He is a long strider and does not excel at the quick cuts that we use to get open. Sure, he did have a big year this year with 11 TDs, but 4 of those came against Brigham Young and 3 were against Navy. Stanford, Syracuse, Tennessee, and Michigan State weren't too impressive teams either. Neither was his 3 catches for 30 yards against USC. He did however have a big game against Ohio State, so I will give him credit for that. A lot of his production also was the result of double coverage on Ssmardzija. I think he could be productive for another team, just not for us. I am thinking another Donald Hayes.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Nobody -- not Jackson, Holmes, Hagen, Stovall, Moss or whoever else isn't going to be a #1 receiver this year, which I thought was your original point....that we needed someone to contribute this year.

Getting a #1 receiver for this season and drafting a receiver in the first round are incompatible this season. Maybe in two seasons one of the other guys becomes a #1. But again, your point was spending a #1 pick on someone who can step in and be a starting WR immediately. Unless we reach for Hass, that's impossible. And as much as I like Hass, I don't know if he could be more than a 3/4 this year. But he has the best chance to be a #2 this year.

I would use a 1st round pick on a WR who could contribute now, and could also become a #1 reciever. I'm not expecting any rookie to step in and be an automatic #1 WR - nor do we need him to.

Jackson is the only one I feel fits that criteria and warrants a 1st round pick and I think the consensus is that Jackson is better now, and has more raw skills, than Hass.

Jackson to me is a value pick at 15 - 20. Even taking Hass in the 2nd round strikes me as a reach.

 

[mgteich]

Please post from various sources that this is a great year for wide receiver depth. I also think that the truth is the opposite. This is a really ppor group of wide receivers. In the past couple of years, there were solid receivers available in the 5th, 6th, 7th and as UDFA's. My GUESS is that almost all the receivers int his draft would have been drafted one round lower in 2004 or even 2005. That doesn't mean that we won't draft one, but the pickings are slim.

Jackson may indeed be a great value at 13-15. The question is where he is on our board. I favor moving down in the first and up from the second to the first to choose a TE and a LB or even a DT/NT. Of course, if there is a value player moving down, we'll move up, as we have many times in the past.

 

[drew4008]

We gotta give it up with Mike Hass... he has almost zero upside and will never be more than a #3 WR. Why do you think he's still a 3rd-4th round prospect after the numbers he's put up? He won't be able to do it in the NFL.

 

[dryheat44]

We gotta give it up with Mike Hass... he has almost zero upside and will never be more than a #3 WR. Why do you think he's still a 3rd-4th round prospect after the numbers he's put up? He won't be able to do it in the NFL.

Because, unfortunately, in the WR position in the NFL, most teams look for a blazing 40 speed and darker pigmentation. However, smart teams put an emphasis on production. Hass has the best hands and runs the best routes of any prospect, even if his upside isn't as big as a Jackson. He also doesn't have Jackson's bust risk.

 

[mgteich]

Are we arguing whether Jackson or Hass is a better prospect? Or are we arguing whether Jackson at 15 (costing our 1st and top 3rd) is a better value chocie for the patriots than Hass with one our 3rd or 4th round choices)? Would anyone be upset with Hass as one of our 4th round choices? with one of our 3rds?

I think the issue is value. I'd be fine with picking up a #3 receiver in the 4th.

Because, unfortunately, in the WR position in the NFL, most teams look for a blazing 40 speed and darker pigmentation. However, smart teams put an emphasis on production. Hass has the best hands and runs the best routes of any prospect, even if his upside isn't as big as a Jackson. He also doesn't have Jackson's bust risk.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Please post from various sources that this is a great year for wide receiver depth. I also think that the truth is the opposite.

Did someone actually suggest this is a deep draft for WRs? That's hilarious!!

Of course, just because there's little depth doesn't mean that you can say Jackson isn't a value pick in the teens and won't be a good if not great WR. That logic just doesn't follow.

Its also illogical to say "why take Jackson in the first when you can take Hass in the third" - because you are comparing apples and oranges.

We have a high need at WR. My feeling about Jackson is that he could well be a #1 WR someday. Some team will take him around that time in the draft and I think they will be well rewarded in production. Why not us?

 

[mgteich]

Are you up to trading our 2nd to move up to get Jackson at say 14?

Did someone actually suggest this is a deep draft for WRs? That's hilarious!!

Of course, just because there's little depth doesn't mean that you can say Jackson isn't a value pick in the teens and won't be a good if not great WR. That logic just doesn't follow.

Its also illogical to say "why take Jackson in the first when you can take Hass in the third" - because you are comparing apples and oranges.

We have a high need at WR. My feeling about Jackson is that he could well be a #1 WR someday. Some team will take him around that time in the draft and I think they will be well rewarded in production. Why not us?

 

[RayClay]

I don't think this is how Belichick works (trading up to pick a specific guy). He probably has Chad Jackson grouped in with a few other receivers that he thinks are at about the same level. Once there are only one or two players left in that skill group, Belichick will trade up to take one of those guys remaining. Not before.

He did it for Graham and Warren but for a WR? Not in a million years., (there's you're quote if I'm wrong> )

 

[JoeSixPat]

Are you up to trading our 2nd to move up to get Jackson at say 14?

There are any number of equations, between this year's draft picks and next's, combining picks here and there to equal the so-called draft value charts to move up 7 spots or so.

If the point you are trying to make is that under no circumstances would we gain value ourselves for making a jump from 21 to 14, then I would have to disagree with you.

It all comes down to your assessment of the player sought, if indeed they are still available.

Moving up 7 spots to gain a productive #2 and a potential #1 WR is something I would certainly "value".

 

[maverick4]

re

He did it for Graham and Warren but for a WR? Not in a million years., (there's you're quote if I'm wrong> )

Yeah, you got my post wrong (or misinterpreted). Actually, BB DID follow value groupings for Ty Warren, and Eugene Wilson. If you look at how those drafts played out, the guys in their same value groupings were taken with the pick or two picks before. For example, Jimmy Kennedy went at #12, prompting BB to trade up to #13 and grab Warren. Charles Tillman went at #35, causing BB to trade up to #36 to grab Wilson. As for Graham, I'm not sure if it was the same case, but I wouldn't be surprised. I do know that Jeremy Stevens was taken at #28, after Graham at #21. Maybe BB thought Graham was at a different, higher skill level than Stevens. The basic philosophy is this: if you think there are 4 equally skilled players (for example) at position A, you don't trade up for any specific guy but actually wait, and then trade up later when there's only one player left in position A on the board. As for people getting a hard on for Chad Jackson, there are no guarantees that a player will be as good as you think he is. I think the only justification for trading up is to take the last guy left in a value grouping that you feel very confident about.

.