Do we trade up for Chad Jackson???

[Pats726]

What woulld it cost pick wise to move up and get Jackson??? Is that worth it?? I do NOT think it is, unless the team thinks Branch will be gone in 07. If they really feel that is possible, then, (for a Branch replacement) it may be worth it. If on the other hand, they are looking for (a Givens replacement), then certainly, the better strategy and value would be going for a WR like Hass in a later round. I do understand about 05's first day try to get Mason; thhat was with Branch and Givens. So, in fact, it may make sense to go for Jackson, but again, that is IF they really feel he has what it takes to be a #1 AND either feel Branch will be gone..OR wish to have another deep threat.

 

[JoeSixPat]

What woulld it cost pick wise to move up and get Jackson??? Is that worth it?? I do NOT think it is, unless the team thinks Branch will be gone in 07. If they really feel that is possible, then, (for a Branch replacement) it may be worth it. If on the other hand, they are looking for (a Givens replacement), then certainly, the better strategy and value would be going for a WR like Hass in a later round. I do understand about 05's first day try to get Mason; thhat was with Branch and Givens. So, in fact, it may make sense to go for Jackson, but again, that is IF they really feel he has what it takes to be a #1 AND either feel Branch will be gone..OR wish to have another deep threat.

You can't make an assessment on whether its worth it if you don't know what it will "cost" to move up.

The draft value chart gives a ballpark estimate. #21 is valued at 800 points. #14 - if that's where you think you need to move to grab your guy - is valued at 1100. http://www.theredzone.org/2005/draft/draftvaluechart.asp

That's a difference of 300 points... so moving from 21 to 14 is a heckuva lot different from moving 7 spots from 10 to 3 (900 pt. difference)

So how do you offer 300 points of value in trade? The Pats pick at #52 is valued at 380 points - so that's overpaying. But you could package one each our 3rd & 4th rounders - or this year's third and next year's 4th - to generally equate 300 points. That might be more palatable. There's any number of ways to come up with 300 points - its not the huge value jump that everyone seems to think it is if there's an impact player you want and need available.

You could even trade a player of deemed value if you really want to... perhaps one you might not be expecting to resign next year (all this talk about drafting a TE makes me think that people aren't expecting Daniel Graham to be back - I'd say he's worth 300 points and that might present a way to get value for him now rather than letting him walk at the end of the year)

As far as whether Branch will be re-signed - We hope he'll be back but neither we nor the team - nor even Branch know the answer to that. That's another reason why I feel there's additional value in taking Jackson this year - addressing a critical need and also providing some insurance in case Branch doesn't re-sign (and giving us 2 great targets for Brady if he does re-sign.)

Its clear that Free Agency is not/ was not BB's answer to a #2 WR. That leaves the draft and trades. And as far as the draft, all but the very best WRs can't be expected to immediately come in and contribute.

Jackson could come in and contribute as a #2 this year. Hass and most other 2nd - 4th round picks shouldn't be expected to do much this year... but this is the year when we need the production.

So that I believe is the case to be made that moving up 7 spots - 300 pts. - to grab a WR who can step in at #2 and be a future #1 (or 1a with Givens) for years to come - and for a #2/#1 WR I think we're getting excellent value for that move.

If not, I'm hoping there's a significant trade in the works - but that's always risky too. I think there's less risk with Jackson being a bust than there was with the prospect Starks bombing last year - and look what we gave up for him!

 

[nickw308810]

In 2002, to trade up for Daniel Graham, we received the 21st pick for picks 32,96,and 234. According to the trade value chart on NFLDraftScout.com pick 21 is worth 800, while pick 32 (590), 96 (116), and 234 (2) only equaled 708. That is a 92 point difference. Pick 102, (top of the 4th round) is worth 92 points, so in essence that is what we picked up.
What all that means is, it just depends on how much a team wants to add an extra pick or not. Teams may be willing to take less value, just for an extra pick. To move up in the 1st might not cost us our 2nd rounder, or even a 3rd and a 4th. Maybe it is just a 3 and a 6. If Belichick thinks Jackson can be a starting WR eventually for us, would you trade a 3 and a 6 for him? I would.

 

[dryheat44]

In 2002, to trade up for Daniel Graham, we received the 21st pick for picks 32,96,and 234. According to the trade value chart on NFLDraftScout.com pick 21 is worth 800, while pick 32 (590), 96 (116), and 234 (2) only equaled 708. That is a 92 point difference. Pick 102, (top of the 4th round) is worth 92 points, so in essence that is what we picked up.
What all that means is, it just depends on how much a team wants to add an extra pick or not. Teams may be willing to take less value, just for an extra pick. To move up in the 1st might not cost us our 2nd rounder, or even a 3rd and a 4th. Maybe it is just a 3 and a 6. If Belichick thinks Jackson can be a starting WR eventually for us, would you trade a 3 and a 6 for him? I would.

I find people who rely on the chart for anything but the roughest guideline as being silly. Typically, one team has the upper hand on another team, so they can squeeze a little, or even a lot, more out of them. Team B desperately wants a player, Team A has them over a barrell. I'm sure we gave more than the chart said we should when we moved up one spot to get Ty Warren.

Likewise, the chart gets skewed depending on the perceived strength of the draft class. In a weak class, you're not going to gain as much by trading down.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I find people who rely on the chart for anything but the roughest guideline as being silly. Typically, one team has the upper hand on another team, so they can squeeze a little, or even a lot, more out of them. Team B desperately wants a player, Team A has them over a barrell. I'm sure we gave more than the chart said we should when we moved up one spot to get Ty Warren.

Likewise, the chart gets skewed depending on the perceived strength of the draft class. In a weak class, you're not going to gain as much by trading down.

It is a rough estimate - but the point some seem to be making is that we'd be giving up way too much to move up from 21 to 14.

Finding a package that equates to 300 points of draft value more or less isn't the slam dunk "its not worth it!" that some seem to be suggesting.

In this case I think it all depends on whether you think that Chad Jackson is going to be a decent #2 WR in the NFL - and maybe even a #1 someday.

Even if he's only a #2 WR he's still a value pick for me because:

1.) We need a #2 WR and
2.) The price of a FA #2 WR is much more costly than the salary and cap hit of a #14 draft pick (if the Givens deal is any indication... not that there are any more #2 FA WRs to be had).