Two-round Trade-apalooza

[serifyn]

Theory

6.
contemplation or speculation.
7.
guess or conjecture.

A mock draft and specifically your prediction of how the draft will unfold can certainly be characterized as a 'Theory', i decided to point it out as you apparently took some kind of offense to me using it to begin my arguement in why your mock doesn't work for the patriots in 2011.

Aside from the Obvious problems with your Mock which have already been mentioned several times by other posters my biggest problem is the continued accumulation of draft picks in a draft where the patriots have complete control over their destiny via draft picks they already possess, in the first 4 rounds, the patriots already own 7 picks, to trade down further for even more draft picks would be pointless unless the intent is to trade the draft picks into the 2012 draft, a move which you yourself mentioned isn't a good idea with the remote possibility of no such draft existing.

Therefore, My best guess for the rest of your mock draft from where you have left off is to then continue to draft as many players as the patriots have picks so the patriots can have a 2 month evaluation bonanza before they are then forced to cut half of the players in order to bring back players from the previous year who have more experience with the system or would be a bigger detriment to cut financially, with the cut goes the draft value, you can only hide so many of your picks on the practice squad, if the rest of the league doesn't snatch them away first.

OR.

you can use your existing picks to move around in the draft as the patriots have in the past, but this time, they move up and take players who not only are rated highly by analysts but rated higher by the team as well (imagine that).

The Patriots have used your method before and it has worked out extremely well. but as i mentioned before a 14-2 team, or shall i say not to confuse you, THE 2010 PATRIOTS can only improve their current roster (of players who continue to be under contract with them going into the 2011 year) so much without effecting the progress of players who are still learning, few players make an impact immediately, particularly with limited playtime.

would you say it is time to cut the cord on Darius Butler? Ron Brace? Brandon Tate? these are exactly the kind of players who would be effected by this kind of draft this year.

The Problem with your mock isnt so much the method, it is the math, so maybe rather than saying you need to be...

"lectured on how the draft "really works" by folks who state things with the certainty of God on their side as if I'm a drooling three-year-old."

i could simply say that perhaps you should using a calculator as part of the draft process.

 

[MaineMan]

You really don't know when to quit, do ya?

Theory

6.
contemplation or speculation.
7.
guess or conjecture.

A mock draft and specifically your prediction of how the draft will unfold can certainly be characterized as a 'Theory', i decided to point it out as you apparently took some kind of offense to me using it to begin my arguement in why your mock doesn't work for the patriots in 2011.

Perhaps your mock (I assume you've put in the effort to actually work one of your own all the way out) is a "prediction of how the draft WILL unfold", but mine aren't. They're thoughts on how the draft MIGHT unfold, alternate scenarios - could happen THIS way, could happen THIS other way. IOW, contemplation, speculation, guess, conjecture - none of which exactly equals "prediction." BTW, what were the other five definitions of/synonyms for "theory" that you found? I'm always so lazy about looking stuff up, y'know?

Aside from the Obvious problems with your Mock which have already been mentioned several times by other posters my biggest problem is the continued accumulation of draft picks in a draft where the patriots have complete control over their destiny via draft picks they already possess, in the first 4 rounds, the patriots already own 7 picks, to trade down further for even more draft picks would be pointless unless the intent is to trade the draft picks into the 2012 draft, a move which you yourself mentioned isn't a good idea with the remote possibility of no such draft existing.

Therefore, My best guess for the rest of your mock draft from where you have left off is to then continue to draft as many players as the patriots have picks so the patriots can have a 2 month evaluation bonanza before they are then forced to cut half of the players in order to bring back players from the previous year who have more experience with the system or would be a bigger detriment to cut financially, with the cut goes the draft value, you can only hide so many of your picks on the practice squad, if the rest of the league doesn't snatch them away first.

IOW, pretty much the way most teams, including the Pats, do every year? How unrealistic of me.

OR.

you can use your existing picks to move around in the draft as the patriots have in the past, but this time, they move up and take players who not only are rated highly by analysts but rated higher by the team as well (imagine that).

And, you know this for certain how? You have an inside source? I mean, a source beyond what everyone here reads about the rumors and high ratings by analysts, many of whom have been not much better at speculating on the draft (and often even worse) than others who regularly post here?

The Patriots have used your method before and it has worked out extremely well. but as i mentioned before a 14-2 team, or shall i say not to confuse you, THE 2010 PATRIOTS can only improve their current roster (of players who continue to be under contract with them going into the 2011 year) so much without effecting the progress of players who are still learning, few players make an impact immediately, particularly with limited playtime.

Actually, this is confusing me even more.

would you say it is time to cut the cord on Darius Butler? Ron Brace? Brandon Tate? these are exactly the kind of players who would be effected by this kind of draft this year.

I don't know. Might be. Only the coaches will know for certain. Be kinda tragic, though, if we didn't have the players on the 80-man camp roster to replace them if it is time to cut them, wouldn't you say. I wonder how we'd get those players? Here's a wild thought - draft them?

The Problem with your mock isnt so much the method, it is the math, so maybe rather than saying you need to be...

i could simply say that perhaps you should using a calculator as part of the draft process.

Ahh, yes - the math. Always been a problem for me. For instance, in the opening session of the ML Programming class I took back in 1968, when the instructor wrote on the blackboard, "There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't," I was the last one to laugh. Of course, I'd heard it 1100100 times before.

I guess maybe explaining how all this really works as if I'm a three-year-old is shooting too high. Maybe gear it down a bit so that my feeble intellect is able to grasp it.

 

[DW Toys]

1. CAR - QB, Newton - Other needs: DT - Next picks: (no 2nd), #65
- Newton puts fannies in the seats, but maybe can also provide an imediate offensive spark.

2. DEN - OLB43, Miller - Other: DT, DE43, TE - Next: #36, #46, #67
- Can't pass on "impact" at a position of need, especialy with so much ammo for other needs later.

*TRADE* - SFO trades #7, #76, #115, and 2012 3rd to the Bills.
- CREDIT to KDPPatsfan 85 for this great idea. Bills missed Miller, so can trade down for more ammo to trade back in later.

3. SFO(h) - QB, Gabbert - Other: CB, OG/OC - Next: #45, #108
- Harbaugh lied about liking Smith. They jump ahead of Cinci here.

4. CIN - QB, Locker - Other: WR - Next: #35, #66
- They were desperate, but seem happy enough with Locker.

5. ARZ(h) - DE/OLB, Kerrigan - Other: QB, DT - Next #38, #69
- Covers two bases for their hybrid 34/43 scheme.

6. CLE - WR, Green - Other: DE43, CB - Next: #37, #70
- McCoy's 2010 leading receivers were Ben Watson and Peyton Hillis.

7. BUF(#)(from SFO) - OT, Castonzo - Other: OLB34 - Next: #34, #68, #76 (SFO)
- Sane choice, especially with Kerrigan gone.

*TRADE* - DET trades #13 and #75 to TEN

8. DET - OT, Tyron Smith - Other: CB, OC, 43LB - Next: #44, #107
- They go for the glam, trying to look smart. IOW, same old Lions.

9. DAL(#) - CB, Peterson - Other: OT, 34DE - Next: #40, #71
- Thanking SFO for their QB desperation.

*TRADE* - SDG trades #18, #61, #89 to WAS for #10 + #155

10. SDG(#) - 34DE, Watt - Other: WR, ILB - Next: #50, #82
- Somewhat unusual move for them, but they have the ammo to jump ahead of HOU & NE.

11. HOU(#) - CB, Amukamara - Other: NT, OT - Next: #42, #73

*TRADE* - JAX trades #16, #80 to MIN for #12

12. JAX - WR, Julio Jones - Other: QB?, CB, MLB? Next: #49, (no 3rd now)
- Jumping ahead of STL.

13. TEN (from DET) - QB, Kaepernick - Other: 43DE, 43LB - Next: #39, #75 (from DET), #77
- Desperation + no further likely trade partners = REACH

14. STL - DT, Fairley - Other: WR, OG, 43OLB, DB - Next: #47, #78
- Not buying the "bad attitude" rumor.

*TRADE* - TBY trades #20 + #51 to MIA for #15 + #79

15. TBY - 43DE, Jordan - Other: CB, RB - Next: (no 2nd), #79 (from MIA), #84
- Jumping ahead of Minny.

16. MIN - DT, Dareus - Other: QB?, 43DE, WR - Next: #43, #80 (from JAX)
- Refilling the Williams Wall and now have their 3rd back.

*TRADE* - Patriots trade #17 + #74 to IND for #22 + #53
- Possible risky move for the Pats to trade behind KC, but they have assurances (wink).

17. IND - OG/OC, Pouncey - Other: OT, DT, SS - Next: (no 2nd), #74, #87
- Jumping ahead of the Giants

18. WAS(#) (from SDG) - NT, Taylor - Other: 34DE, CB, 34LB, WR - Next: #41, #61(from SDG)
- REACH, but not as bad as it would have been at #10, plus they now have a 3rd.

19. NYG - OT, Carimi - Other: 43OLB - Next: #52, #83

20. MIA(#) - RB, Ingram - Other: QB? - Next: #51 (from TBY), (no 3rd)
- They get their RB plus a better chance at a QB.

21. KCY - WR, Hankerson - Other: NT, 34OLB, 34DE - Next: #55, #86
- Shock, but Cassel gets another target he won't have time to hit.

*TRADE* Patriots trade #22 to CHI for #29 + #93

22. CHI - OT, Solder - Other: DT, OC - Next: #62, (now no 3rd)
- Jumping ahead of PHL.

23. PHL - OT, Sherrod - Other: 43OLB, SS - Next: #54, #85, (two 4ths)

24. NOL - 43DE, Quinn - Other: DT? - Next: #56, #72, #88
- Middle of D-line is soft, but they try Quinn to fix their anemic pass-rush.

25. SEA - DT, Paea - Other: 43DE, RB, OG - Next: #57, (no 3rd)

26. BAL(#) - WR, Torrey Smith - Other: OC, CB, RB - Next: #58, #90
- Their only WR under the age of 30 that you've ever heard of.

27. ATL - TE, Rudolph - Other: WR - Next: #59, #91
- Hoping he's a fine Tony Gonzalez protegee.

## 28. Patriots - 34DE, Heyward
- This far, no further.

*TRADE* - Patriots trade #29 (from CHI) to BUF for #34 + #100

29. BUF - OLB34, Houston - Next: #68, #115

30. NYJ - 34OLB, Sheard - Other: NT, ILB - Next: (no 2nd), #94

31. PIT - NT, Ellis - Other: CB, 34DE, ILB - Next: #63, #95
- REACH, but their NTs are ancient and they get him before KC at #55.

32. GBY - 34DE, Wilkerson - Other: OT, OG, WR - Next: #64, #96

-------- ROUND TWO --------

*TRADE* - Patriots trade #33 to MIN for #43, #106, #172

33 MIN - QB, Ponder - Prev: DT, Dareus - Other: 43DE, WR - Next: #80(JAX), (no fourth)
## 34 Patriots - RB, Leshoure
35 CIN - RB, Williams - Prev: QB, Locker - Other: WR - Next: #66, #101
36 DEN - DT, Austin - Prev: OLB, Miller - Other: DE43, TE - Next: #46, #67
37 CLE - DE43, Aldon Smith --- CB, OG - Prev: WR, Green - Next: #70, #102
38 ARZ - QB, Dalton --- DT, OG - PrevE/OLB, Kerrigan - Next: #69, #103
39 TEN - 43LB, Martez Wilson --- DE43, - Prev: QB, Kaepernick - Next: #75(DET), #77
40 DAL - OT, Orland Franklin --- 34DE - Prev: CB, Peterson - Next: #71, #110
41 WAS - 34DE, Christian Ballard --- CB, 34LB, WR - Prev: NT, Taylor - Next: #61, #89
42 HOU - OT, James Brewer --- NT - Prev: CB, Amukamara - Next: #73, #105
## 43 Patriots - RT/OG, Carpenter
44 DET - CB, Jimmy Smith --- OC, 43LB - Prev: OT, Smith - Next: #107
45 SFO - CB, Brandon Harris --- OC/OG - Prev: QB, Gabbert - Next: #108
46 DEN - TE, Lance Hendricks --- DE43 - Prev: XXX - Next: #67, (no 4th or 5th)
47 STL - OG, Ijalana --- WR, 43OLB, DB - Prev: DT, Fairley - Next: #78, #112
48 OAK - OT, Marcus Cannon --- OC, TE, WR, DT, CB - NO PREV - Next: #81, #113
49 JAX - CB, Aaron Williams --- QB, MLB - Prev: WR, Jones - Next: (no 3rd), #114
50 SDG - WR, Jon Baldwin --- ILB - Prev: 34DE Watt - Next: #82, (no 4th)
51 MIA (TBY) - QB?, Mallett --- Prev: RB, Ingram - Next: (no 3rd), #111
52 NYG - OG/OC, Danny Watkins --- 43OLB - Prev: OT, Carimi - Next: #83, #115
## 53 Patriots (COLTS ) - CB/FS, Dowling
54 PHL - 43OLB, Bruce Carter --- SS - Prev: OT, Sherrod - Next: #85, #104, #120
55 KCY - 34OLB, Ayers --- NT, 34DE - Prev: WR, Hankerson - Next: #86, #118
56 NOL - DT, Liuget - Prev: DE, Quinn - Next: #72, #88, (no fourth)
57 SEA - RB, Vereen --- 43DE - Prev: DT, Paea - Next: (no 3rd), #99
58 BAL - 34DE, Jenkins --- OC, CB, RB - Prev: WR, Smith - Next: #90, #123
59 ATL - WR, Cobb - Prev: TE, Rudolph - Next: #91, #124
## 60 Patriots - OLB, Acho
61 WAS (SDG) - 34DE, Bailey --- CB, 34LB, WR - Prev:
62 CHI - DT, Jurrell Casey --- OC - Prev: OT, Solder - Next: (no 3rd), #127
63 PIT - OT, Marcus Gilbert -- CB, 34DE, ILB - Prev: NT, Ellis - Next: #95, #128
64 GBY - OG, Clint Boling --- WR, OT - Prev: 34DE, Wilkerson - Next: #96, #129

------- REMAINING PATS PICKS --------
92 - WR Austin Pettis
93 - plus #189 to DET for 2012 2nd
---
100 - OG/OC John Moffitt
106 - CB Cortez Allen
125 - FB Anthony Sherman
---
159 - RB Alex Green
172 - OC Brandon Fusco

Good job. Hard work. Not all my choices but I like your actual moves.
DW Toys

 

[MaineMan]

Good job. Hard work. Not all my choices but I like your actual moves.
DW Toys

Thanks. It was really more or less an exercise in trying to figure out what other teams MIGHT do, trade-wise, that might present previously unconsidered opportunities (or constraints) on us and how they might be worked around to our advantage. The real work was trying to get a handle on the needs of other teams (while plugging my ears against the assumptions of the "experts" who get it wrong about the Pats so often) and then their resources to trade up and their risks of trading down. E.g., Minny makes what looks like a smart move at first, but they can sorta end up getting screwed by other teams' moves.

So, it's really more about playing with all the moving parts on the table at once than about us taking specific players.

I mean, I confess that Heyward and Acho and (to a far lesser degree) Leshoure are binkies of mine, but other folks could plug their own binkies into a similar framework to see how this would work out for them.

 

[rookBoston]

I totally buy the multiple trade down scenario. This is a good draft to do it, because IMO the talent available at #17 is not significantly differentiated from what'll be available at #33. And I like your draft picks too... although I would personally choose Wilkerson ahead of Heyward. But, that's a minor point of difference.

My biggest criticism is the idea that Detroit would feel motivated enough to trade up for TSmith. I can see TB looking down, but not convinced DET would have reason. If they want OT, they should feel pretty secure sitting where they are at. Sure, they might (perhaps) miss out on Smith, but they're certain to have shot at their #2 OT, worst case, who's still going to be pretty good.

Now, I think if a team intended to pull the trigger to trade up into that spot, they would do it for Peterson not Smith. In fact, why wouldn't TB just stay put and take the best player in the draft, and then take their QB at 39?

As for the Pats... there are only two scenarios where I believe BB would consider trading up, and that's (1) if Peterson drops into the teens or (2) if Dareus drops into the teens. You have Dareus available at 16 and I cant imagine him lasting that long under any circumstances. For BB, he's a special case of size and mobility, fits the scheme at a position where we've been playing veteran JAGs. Plus, he's Saban-coached. Trading up is not commonly something BB does, but one or two spots for a player of that caliber is entirely in his playbook (e.g. Rob Gronkowski, Ty Warren, Eugene Wilson). And for their part, I think MIA would rather trade back to 17 than 20 it their target is Ingram. That would put the Pats in position for Dareus at 15.

 

[manxman2601]

Thanks. It was really more or less an exercise in trying to figure out what other teams MIGHT do, trade-wise, that might present previously unconsidered opportunities (or constraints) on us and how they might be worked around to our advantage. The real work was trying to get a handle on the needs of other teams (while plugging my ears against the assumptions of the "experts" who get it wrong about the Pats so often) and then their resources to trade up and their risks of trading down. E.g., Minny makes what looks like a smart move at first, but they can sorta end up getting screwed by other teams' moves.

So, it's really more about playing with all the moving parts on the table at once than about us taking specific players.

I mean, I confess that Heyward and Acho and (to a far lesser degree) Leshoure are binkies of mine, but other folks could plug their own binkies into a similar framework to see how this would work out for them.

This is the part of working a mock that I enjoy too. However, looking at your mock again through those eyes pointed me to, i'm sorry to say, a rather glaring miss - Or in other words, if you are expecting Da'Quan Bowers to fall to the third round, can we have him at #60 please .

 

[Off The Grid]

It was really more or less an exercise in trying to figure out what other teams MIGHT do, trade-wise, that might present previously unconsidered opportunities (or constraints) on us and how they might be worked around to our advantage. The real work was trying to get a handle on the needs of other teams (while plugging my ears against the assumptions of the "experts" who get it wrong about the Pats so often) and then their resources to trade up and their risks of trading down. E.g., Minny makes what looks like a smart move at first, but they can sorta end up getting screwed by other teams' moves.

So, it's really more about playing with all the moving parts on the table at once than about us taking specific players.

I mean, I confess that Heyward and Acho and (to a far lesser degree) Leshoure are binkies of mine, but other folks could plug their own binkies into a similar framework to see how this would work out for them.

Yes, it was certainly one of the most intelligent, complicated, and well crafted Mocks I've seen.

And I REALLY enjoyed the multiple Trade Downs, shades of 2010.

I find it amusing, considering my well documented respect for your work, hereabouts, that not ONE of your Picks is in my Mock!!

Not ONE!!

I mean there are folks around here who I consider flat out ******ED, who I at least share a pick or three with!!

But as The Wise Man says: "Mock Drafts are like Snow Flakes. Every last one is different."

I don't judge a Mock so much on its adherence to MY twisted view of the world, so much as on its execution.

And this one was craftily executed.

***

Of course, The Wise Man has another quote on the subject:

"Mock Drafts are like @$$ Holes: Everybody has one. And most are full of @#$%!!"

 

[serifyn]

Perhaps your mock (I assume you've put in the effort to actually work one of your own all the way out) is a "prediction of how the draft WILL unfold", but mine aren't. They're thoughts on how the draft MIGHT unfold, alternate scenarios - could happen THIS way, could happen THIS other way. IOW, contemplation, speculation, guess, conjecture - none of which exactly equals "prediction." BTW, what were the other five definitions of/synonyms for "theory" that you found? I'm always so lazy about looking stuff up, y'know?

Are you really trying to argue over my choice of the word will over might?

you really cant make a connection between the word 'prediction' and the words contemplation, speculation, guess or conjecture huh? no similarity between those words at all? OK. maybe you should stick to programming or.....gardening.

IOW, pretty much the way most teams, including the Pats, do every year? How unrealistic of me.

few teams continue to trade down as value shoppers year after year, most teams use all of their picks. the combination of using all of your picks in the same year and trading down for even more picks at the same time makes sense when your team is in a state of heavy rebuilding. the patriots ALTHOUGH SOME MAY DISAGREE will carry over most of the talent that allowed them to be 14-2 in 2010, because of this, and because most of the roster is still under contract, limited changes in personnel are required. but then again i am not Belichick and if he wants to cut everyone and draft 15 new players that is certainly his prerogative i guess.

And, you know this for certain how? You have an inside source? I mean, a source beyond what everyone here reads about the rumors and high ratings by analysts, many of whom have been not much better at speculating on the draft (and often even worse) than others who regularly post here?

Every Team has a 'Big Board' which ranks players based on their value the team has for them at the position they are drafted at/from, this isn't anything new, although perhaps the patriots have a 'Big Cube' or something significantly more advanced than a big board, i doubt it, at the end of the day, teams value some players more than others. it isn't exactly rocket surgery. i dont need an 'inside source' to know Belichick would love to draft Marcell Dareus for instance.

Actually, this is confusing me even more.

Why am i not surprised.

I don't know. Might be. Only the coaches will know for certain. Be kinda tragic, though, if we didn't have the players on the 80-man camp roster to replace them if it is time to cut them, wouldn't you say. I wonder how we'd get those players? Here's a wild thought - draft them?

Well this is a draft after all, and that is typically what you do. its not like my draft has us drafting 3 guys and a bag of balls. this team has so many people on the practice squad, IR and shadow roster that i will be surprised if they dont exceed 80 players by the time they are done with the draft either way.

Ahh, yes - the math. Always been a problem for me. For instance, in the opening session of the ML Programming class I took back in 1968, when the instructor wrote on the blackboard, "There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't," I was the last one to laugh. Of course, I'd heard it 1100100 times before.

I guess maybe explaining how all this really works as if I'm a three-year-old is shooting too high. Maybe gear it down a bit so that my feeble intellect is able to grasp it.

why else would i be making numerous posts repeating myself?

if Belichick has a bucket and that bucket can hold only 53 apples and he already has 45 apples that he really thinks would make a good humble pie, how many more apples does he need to pick? keep in mind he has some apples at home already sitting in the freezer, or ripening on the side, or maybe he has a couple apples who are Grounds-keeping at Michigan.

 

[MaineMan]

I totally buy the multiple trade down scenario. This is a good draft to do it, because IMO the talent available at #17 is not significantly differentiated from what'll be available at #33. And I like your draft picks too... although I would personally choose Wilkerson ahead of Heyward. But, that's a minor point of difference.

That was actually a fairly close call for me and I spent a little time (but not a lot) trying to figure out if there was a even a semi-reasonable scenario in which the Pats could get both - Heyward for RDE and Wilkerson as an eventual successor for Ty Warren. But then I thought, if there IS a 2012 draft, there would be some interesting 34DE candidates then, as well. And then there's the option of taking Jarvis Jenkins at #53 instead of Dowling

My biggest criticism is the idea that Detroit would feel motivated enough to trade up for TSmith. I can see TB looking down, but not convinced DET would have reason. If they want OT, they should feel pretty secure sitting where they are at. Sure, they might (perhaps) miss out on Smith, but they're certain to have shot at their #2 OT, worst case, who's still going to be pretty good. Now, I think if a team intended to pull the trigger to trade up into that spot, they would do it for Peterson not Smith.

You fall into the common trap of assuming that the Lions FO would act rationally from a football perspective. Not a safe assumption based on my 40 years of close observation that includes personal acquaintance with a couple of their former GMs and presidents who all were "of a type." I haven't met Lewand or Mayhew but, from what I've seen/read of them in interviews, they don't appear to be much different from their predecessors. And it's good to remember that they were also part of the Lions FO during the Millen years. Now, for the sake of friends and relatives who remain back in Detroit, I sincerely HOPE that these guys turn out to be different, but I'm very skeptical.

In fact, why wouldn't TB just stay put and take the best player in the draft, and then take their QB at 39?

This is based on my (very possibly erroneous) evaluation of the Titans major needs which is clouded by the fact that they have three important DEs (Babin, Ford and Ball) and their starting MLB (Tulloch) who are all unsigned, unrestricted FAs. Now, if they've worked something out in advance with all these guys so that they're confident they can all be re-signed after a new CBA is in place, their biggest need may be QB*. At the other extreme, if they're pretty sure they won't be re-signing these guys, then 43DE maybe becomes a MAJOR need (in which case one would think they'd almost certainly stay put). I say "maybe" because they also have William Hayes and Derrick Morgan (IR'd in 2010) behind them. So, if their FA situation falls somewhere in the middle (e.g., they can re-sign Ford and Ball, but not Babin) they may feel that 43DE isn't quite a major need.

MLB Tulloch (and LG Leroy Harris), if unsigned, would be a slightly different case since replacing either of them with the #8 would seem to constitute a huge reach, in which case trading down a few spots for an extra pick with a "worried" DET FO wouldn't seem to hurt them.

The same pretty much applies to QB. At that point, the way I have the draft unfolding ahead of them, they're looking at the #4 QB no matter what and would probably understand that taking him at #8 (or anywhere in the 1st) might also constitute a major reach. Between #8 and #13, only JAX might be interested in a QB, but they really don't seem all that desperate, so a trade down, again, doesn't appear to hurt TEN at all. And their selection, as I've explained in another post, doesn't have to be Kaepernick, but whoever that might be would have to be their preference over the rest. With several potentially "QB-needy" teams picking between them and #39, a play for the #4 QB at either #8 or #13 might be sorta forced on them.

All of this, of course, ASSUMES that they feel a strong need for a new QB. Rusty Smith didn't exactly look like Brady in limited action as a rookie, but then, neither did Brady. The Pats DID take a long look at Smith before the 2010 draft so, if that wasn't a complete mis-direct, it may be that Smith is much better than we think and that TEN, internally, doesn't feel the need for a QB out of this draft at all (at least not early). In which case they could trade down or even stay put and grab Peterson.

As for the Pats... there are only two scenarios where I believe BB would consider trading up, and that's (1) if Peterson drops into the teens or (2) if Dareus drops into the teens. You have Dareus available at 16 and I cant imagine him lasting that long under any circumstances. For BB, he's a special case of size and mobility, fits the scheme at a position where we've been playing veteran JAGs. Plus, he's Saban-coached.

I have serious doubts that BB would trade up for Peterson, but you could be close on Dareus. He appear to be destined to become a great player, thoughI'm clearly not as convinced as you are of his "scheme fit". But that kind of depends on how important things like an additional 2"-3" of height really are to BB for his DEs.

And, again, this mock isn't a "prediction" per se. It's playing with possibilities based on my evaluation of the needs of other teams (and their desperation to fill them) played off against their draft ammo to make those things happen. IOW, it's pretty much the opposite of a "BPA" mock in which (I think) the tendency is to look at prospect ranking first and then trying to shoehorn prospects into matches with a team that's drafting around their ranking level.

But, getting back to this specific scenario, as I discussed in another post, it's entirely possible that SDG would make their trade up to #10 for Dareus rather than for Watt.

Trading up is not commonly something BB does, but one or two spots for a player of that caliber is entirely in his playbook (e.g. Rob Gronkowski, Ty Warren, Eugene Wilson).

No dispute from me on that point.

And for their part, I think MIA would rather trade back to 17 than 20 it their target is Ingram. That would put the Pats in position for Dareus at 15.

While that certainly would be more convenient for the way you would like things to work out , the focus for me from Miami's perspective included the assumptions that (A) their biggest need really is RB after all, (B) Ingram is the RB they like best, (C) they really don't have much competition for him until maybe Seattle at #25, and (D) they really want their 2nd round pick back. Under those assumptions, it seems logical that they'd trade down as low as they can find a viable trade partner since, the lower they go in the first, the more value they'd be able to get in compensation. At that point, "pick ammo math" takes over along with the trading partner's needs. The Pats would certainly be a prime candidate from that perspective. SDG has already traded up. The Giants wouldn't appear to have a pressing need to trade up. KC (at #21) doesn't have a lot of picks. And the Colts really seem to need only to get ahead of the Giants (and WAS, now at #18, might not want to trade with the Colts below KC since the Chiefs might also want Taylor for their NT). So, I settled on Tampa as Miami's most likely trade partner, since they have the ammo and, very possibly, the "need".

 

[MaineMan]

Are you really trying to argue over my choice of the word will over might?

you really cant make a connection between the word 'prediction' and the words contemplation, speculation, guess or conjecture huh? no similarity between those words at all? OK. maybe you should stick to programming or.....gardening.

"Connection"? There's a relationship, sure, but you're trying to turn that etymological correlation into an equivalence. In any case, my original objection was your blanket implication that the mock was based on some wild-ass comprehensive "theory", which it most definitely is not.

few teams continue to trade down as value shoppers year after year, most teams use all of their picks. the combination of using all of your picks in the same year and trading down for even more picks at the same time makes sense when your team is in a state of heavy rebuilding.

Seems to me that, for pretty much every team, the bottom of the roster and the P/S are in nearly constant churn, or "rebuilding", if you prefer. The Pats aren't any different in that respect. Pretty much all of those guys are late-round picks or UDFAs and the Pats pick up at least a half-dozen of those every year in addition to their 4-6 later-round picks. With no UDFAs this time, those later round picks will be the only source of roster-end re-supply.

the patriots ALTHOUGH SOME MAY DISAGREE will carry over most of the talent that allowed them to be 14-2 in 2010, because of this, and because most of the roster is still under contract, limited changes in personnel are required.

At this point every off-season most of the previous year's roster is still under contract. And none of what you say has ever stopped BB (or any other team, AFAIK) from bringing in a bunch of late-round picks and UDFAs even in years following Superbowl wins. Again, I fail to see how this year is so radically "different."

but then again i am not Belichick and if he wants to cut everyone and draft 15 new players that is certainly his prerogative i guess.

That seems pretty extreme.

Every Team has a 'Big Board' which ranks players based on their value the team has for them at the position they are drafted at/from, this isn't anything new, although perhaps the patriots have a 'Big Cube' or something significantly more advanced than a big board, i doubt it, at the end of the day, teams value some players more than others. it isn't exactly rocket surgery.

Again, with your insistence on explaining things to me like I'm a three-year-old who's never encountered such high-falutin' concepts.

BTW, "rocket surgery"?

i dont need an 'inside source' to know Belichick would love to draft Marcell Dareus for instance.

And I don't need an "inside source" to tell me that BB would love to draft Cameron Heyward. So, you're saying that your lack of an inside source is better than my lack of an inside source?

Why am i not surprised.

I frankly don't even remember what that point was anymore.

Well this is a draft after all, and that is typically what you do. its not like my draft has us drafting 3 guys and a bag of balls. this team has so many people on the practice squad, IR and shadow roster that i will be surprised if they dont exceed 80 players by the time they are done with the draft either way.
....
if Belichick has a bucket and that bucket can hold only 53 apples and he already has 45 apples that he really thinks would make a good humble pie, how many more apples does he need to pick? keep in mind he has some apples at home already sitting in the freezer, or ripening on the side, or maybe he has a couple apples who are Grounds-keeping at Michigan.

Actually, that final "bucket" is 61, including the P/S. Taking away the 45 apples that BB thinks would make good humble pie leaves room for as many as 16 new apples. Considering that the training camp roster would be 80 "apples" (if there is a training camp), if BB thinks he has ONLY 45 apples that are good (I think there are actually a few more), that would leave room for 35 new apples. In a normal year with free agency, perhaps as many as half those new apples might come from that source. But, this year, until a new CBA is signed, the draft is our only source. And, really, if you're looking for the best apples to fill out the bottom of your roster and P/S, wouldn't you rather have more apples to pick through than fewer?

why else would i be making numerous posts repeating myself?

Perhaps it's because you feel that the only reason anyone could ever disagree with you on anything is if they're complete idiots who need to have things like the "Big Board" explained to them?

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Bet this took a loooooooooooong time. Lots of thought in this, really interesting read.

This is also deviates significantly from every other mock draft I've seen. Which I mean as a compliment, since every actual draft deviates significantly from the mocks

The one principle in this mock that I do disagree with (and could totally be wrong about) is the number of QBs taken in the 1st, especially considering 3 of the first 4 picks are QBs. That drives how the rest of it plays out, with people reaching for QBs, and some higher-quality defensive players falling. I'd love for it to shape up that way, but considering how many question marks surround the top QBs, it'd be shocking to see that many taken so early.

Then again, I've been wrong many, many, many, many, many times before. And I'd certainly love to see a lot of QBs taken at the top of the draft.

 

[MaineMan]

Bet this took a loooooooooooong time. Lots of thought in this, really interesting read.

This is also deviates significantly from every other mock draft I've seen. Which I mean as a compliment, since every actual draft deviates significantly from the mocks

The one principle in this mock that I do disagree with (and could totally be wrong about) is the number of QBs taken in the 1st, especially considering 3 of the first 4 picks are QBs. That drives how the rest of it plays out, with people reaching for QBs, and some higher-quality defensive players falling. I'd love for it to shape up that way, but considering how many question marks surround the top QBs, it'd be shocking to see that many taken so early.

Then again, I've been wrong many, many, many, many, many times before. And I'd certainly love to see a lot of QBs taken at the top of the draft.

Thanks. Yeah, I really don't see how any of the mocks posted on this board (at least the more thoroughly-considered ones) could really be any "wronger" than the "experts" usually are. So, y'know, kudos to everyone who makes the effort.

I agree that the number of QBs taken early in this "experiment" worked out to be relatively extreme. I also agree about the apparent "less than franchise" talent level of this QB class overall.

Carolina and Cinci are really the only (more or less) "givens" who might be desperate enough to take a QB regardless, especially if they have a shot at the first two. The Niners and Titans selecting QB are the result of emphasizing certain individual team needs variables over others.

For the Niners, if it turns out that Harbaugh feels he needs a replacement for Alex Smith after all, trading up to snatch the #2 ahead of Cinci seems reasonable since they certainly have the "pick ammo" to do so. After that, the dominoes sorta start to fall on their own.

WRT the Titans, that's admittedly a total shot in the dark, as I explained in detail in an earlier post.

In any case, it wasn't my intent to create a draft in which four QBs ended up being taken early. It was really a "what if" regarding the top 3-4 picks and then seeing how things might unfold after that. There are certainly other equally valid variations that meet the same "pick trade ammo" and "team needs" constraints than the one I wrote up.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

In any case, it wasn't my intent to create a draft in which four QBs ended up being taken early. It was really a "what if" regarding the top 3-4 picks and then seeing how things might unfold after that. There are certainly other equally valid variations that meet the same "pick trade ammo" and "team needs" constraints than the one I wrote up.

Wow! What a great effort on the mock. And I still think 4 QB's could go before the Pats pick in he first round.

Some of those trades are money.

I wonder if a new CBA gets done prior to the draft and teams are allowed to trade players as well as draft picks plus teams know what date after the draft, they can start signing FA's, we don;t have a slew of trades throughout the draft.

 

[MaineMan]

Wow! What a great effort on the mock. And I still think 4 QB's could go before the Pats pick in he first round.

Some of those trades are money.

I wonder if a new CBA gets done prior to the draft and teams are allowed to trade players as well as draft picks plus teams know what date after the draft, they can start signing FA's, we don;t have a slew of trades throughout the draft.

Yeah, if that happens, pretty much all mock to date are out the window and we're starting over from scratch.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Its probably already been said but, we have a young team as it is so Id lean more toward picks going into next year or moving up to assure better talent.

 

[MaineMan]

This is the part of working a mock that I enjoy too. However, looking at your mock again through those eyes pointed me to, i'm sorry to say, a rather glaring miss - Or in other words, if you are expecting Da'Quan Bowers to fall to the third round, can we have him at #60 please .

Actually, that wasn't an oversight so much as it was "sweeping it under the rug". [What's THAT? Oh, nothing. Just a little bit of "Bowers". No reason to take notice. Dum-de-dum.....]

With the injury concerns being unresolved and perhaps even a bit more aggravated at this point, I really couldn't figure out what teams would do with him. It could go anywhere from Gronkowski to Romeus. And, every time I got down to a team that would have even a relatively small need at a position for him, there always seemed to be a guy who might work nearly as well who had no injury questions. In the real world, yeah, I'd have to think that some team would take potential over risk, but, based on what's been reported so far, in the context of this mock's particular mechanism, it seems at least possible he falls to late-first, early second, or even mid-second.

In any case, though it wasn't my intent, it sorta presents those who'd say, "Bowers can't possibly fall out of the top of the first!" with a relatively plausible scenario in which he might.

 

[MaineMan]

Its probably already been said but, we have a young team as it is so Id lean more toward picks going into next year or moving up to assure better talent.

Well, as I wrote earlier, this mock was really more or less an exercise/experiment in trying to figure out what other teams MIGHT do, trade-wise, that might present previously unconsidered opportunities (or constraints) on us and how they might be worked around to our advantage. So, I plugged in a couple of specific variables to start the dominoes falling and then, more or less, let them fall where they would.

It wasn't intended as a final "prediction" or a "lean" toward what I want to happen.

WRT moving picks into 2012, with the risk of "no draft", however small it may really be (and none of us "knows" for certain), I chose to avoid forward trades as a rule for this exercise.

WRT this being a "young team", it's still possible for a 2011 5th rounder to be better than a "roster-end" guy from the 7th in the 2010 draft and even the coaches may not know for sure until they see them side-by-side on the 80-man training camp roster (which BB has never failed to fill out using numerous UDFAs in addition to numerous late round picks, AFAIK).

WRT "moving up to assure better talent", there's no debate that the OVERALL level of talent is better on average earlier in the first round. But it's still a metter of considerable debate as to whether the prospects who are being pushed up that way by market forces (or analyst hype), talented or not, are the most talented fits for BB's system. Hypothetical "intrinsic" talent available only in the top ten that doesn't fit the scheme isn't necessarily any "better" than slightly lesser talent available later that perfectly fits the scheme - it's merely more expensive.

 

[Off The Grid]

if Belichick has a bucket and that bucket can hold only 53 apples and he already has 45 apples that he really thinks would make a good humble pie, how many more apples does he need to pick?

That's just insane.

As I recently laid out, there are only about 30 guys who you can call Rock Solid:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/13/744723-defenestration-myth-no-room-rookies.html

The notion that this roster is almost out of chairs is pure Urban Legend.

 

[Off The Grid]

"Connection"? There's a relationship, sure, but you're trying to turn that etymological correlation into an equivalence. In any case, my original objection was your blanket implication that the mock was based on some wild-ass comprehensive "theory", which it most definitely is not.



Seems to me that, for pretty much every team, the bottom of the roster and the P/S are in nearly constant churn, or "rebuilding", if you prefer. The Pats aren't any different in that respect. Pretty much all of those guys are late-round picks or UDFAs and the Pats pick up at least a half-dozen of those every year in addition to their 4-6 later-round picks. With no UDFAs this time, those later round picks will be the only source of roster-end re-supply.



At this point every off-season most of the previous year's roster is still under contract. And none of what you say has ever stopped BB (or any other team, AFAIK) from bringing in a bunch of late-round picks and UDFAs even in years following Superbowl wins. Again, I fail to see how this year is so radically "different."



That seems pretty extreme.



Again, with your insistence on explaining things to me like I'm a three-year-old who's never encountered such high-falutin' concepts.

BTW, "rocket surgery"?



And I don't need an "inside source" to tell me that BB would love to draft Cameron Heyward. So, you're saying that your lack of an inside source is better than my lack of an inside source?



I frankly don't even remember what that point was anymore.



Actually, that final "bucket" is 61, including the P/S. Taking away the 45 apples that BB thinks would make good humble pie leaves room for as many as 16 new apples. Considering that the training camp roster would be 80 "apples" (if there is a training camp), if BB thinks he has ONLY 45 apples that are good (I think there are actually a few more), that would leave room for 35 new apples. In a normal year with free agency, perhaps as many as half those new apples might come from that source. But, this year, until a new CBA is signed, the draft is our only source. And, really, if you're looking for the best apples to fill out the bottom of your roster and P/S, wouldn't you rather have more apples to pick through than fewer?



Perhaps it's because you feel that the only reason anyone could ever disagree with you on anything is if they're complete idiots who need to have things like the "Big Board" explained to them?

Dude, you are KILLING me!!

~ The "Rocket Surgery" line takes the HOUSE down!! :rocker:

***

Brother Serifyn: No offense intended. I'm laughing WITH Brother Maine, not AT you.

But seriously, dude: This is starting to take on a seriously Georgia Tech ~ CumberLand vibe.