If McFadden is available at #7 would you trade Maroney for an additional 1st rd. pick

[VJCPatriot]

Re: If McFadden is available at #7 would you trade Maroney for an additional 1st rd.

Can we please wait for Maroney, Morris, and Faulk to complete their first full season together before we suggest changes?

Now if you want to upgrade our RB depth after the trio -- let's talk.

The Trio? LOL. More like, lucky to get on the field together. Both Maroney and Morris have had recent injury issues and Faulk is on the wrong side of 30. Even if McFadden doesn't drop to #7, I'm expecting the Patriots to draft a RB sometime in the second day. Depth IS an issue. I wouldn't mind them drafting a guy like Kevin Smith in the 3rd or 4th round. That guy can pound the rock.

 

[Char2na]

Re: If McFadden is available at #7 would you trade Maroney for an additional 1st rd.

The REAL question here is Tom Brady didn't post 5 touchdowns in the superbowl. He's obviously overrated and prone to choking. What happens if Matt Ryan (BC product, and BB likes smart players!) is there at #7? Then, we could trade Brady to the Ravens for the 8th pick too! :rocker:

I agree with you, Brady to Moss clearly didn't work. But I think instead of Matt Ryan we see about picking up Chad Pennington since he most likely wont make the jets this year. That way we maximize Randy's short pass potential.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Re: If McFadden is available at #7 would you trade Maroney for an additional 1st rd.

It really doesnt make sense.

As of now we have Maroney plus the #7.
If we made such a trade, we'd have McFadden plus what #20 or so?

We would be severely decereasing the value of our pick in order to bring in a player at a position we are already set. On top of this, we know what Maroney can do, and do not know what McFadden will do as a pro. Everyone seems to automatically think this is Adrian Peterson II, but he could also be KiJana Carter, Blair Thomas, Curtis Enis or Lawrence Phillips, etc, etc.
Personally, I have too many concerns about McFadden to bank so much on him when there is no need to. There are numerous observers who think he will struggle at the NFL level "goes down on first contact", "doesnt run with power" are the typical knocks.
If in order to take that risk you are asking me to:
1) Bail on Maroney, who we KNOW can do the job
2) Devalue my first round pick
3) Eat the remaining signing bonus on Maroneys contract
4) Pay #7 money to hand over our running game to a rookie
5) (3) and (4) hurt the cap significantly this year AND in the future, and its very likely we end up worse off on the field that just using the #7 on a corner (or trading down, getting the corner in mid round 1 and adding another day 1 pick.)

I actually think McFadden will be better than Maroney. Far better.

But as you point out there is a helluva lot of risk reward involved in this move - and I don't think the potential reward outweighs the risk.

Especially since the worst case scenario is that we keep Maroney - who while isn't a game changer in my view, gets the job done more than well enough to keep defenses honest guarding against the run and keeps some pressure off Brady - who we all know IS a game changer.

 

[Mr.Muhozi]

Re: If McFadden is available at #7 would you trade Maroney for an additional 1st rd.

To borrow from someone in the Welker-for-Johnson thread:

HELL TO THE F*****G NO.

Besides the fact it would hurt the Pats' salary cap position, think about how implausible this would be to pull off.

aww im touched people pay attention to my posts

but it's HELL TO THE MUTHAF*****G NO.

you gotta add the momma in it or it does not mean much or have the same effect :bricks:

 

[14thDragon]

Re: If McFadden is available at #7 would you trade Maroney for an additional 1st rd.

If you had asked me back in November, then I would have said yes, but I think Maroney got his Mojo going and looked good down the stretch. So at this point I want to keep the guy we got running and if someone wants a running back and wants McFadden, then trade down and let them have him. (If Gholston is off the board) Instead of giving away a solid contributor, I would prefer to trade away the potential. (I would certianly be happy with trade that does not equal the point chart.)