Which 3 rookies would you draft if you could rewind?

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

-When Oher fell to the Pats at 23, I was shocked the Pats traded out of the first round. Because I knew the Pats would continue to be a passing team first, Oher would've been the perfect option.

-I like Maualuga as a MLB, but not as an OLB in a 4-3. However, I think he would've been a perfect strong side 3-4 ILB ala Ted Johnson.

- I liked Butler before the draft and I'm glad the Pats got him. He's making some great strides and should be starting next to Bodden next season.

- I don't think anybody knew who Vollmer was, but I was just glad the Pats took an O-linemen.

- I hated the Brace selection at the time but tried to give it a chance. In addition, the emergence of Myron Prior and Mike Wright is making that selection look even worse.

- I like Chung, but I didn't like him at 34. I think the Pats freaked out because the Lions freaked out and took Delmas.

As of right now, my 3 guys would be:

1. Oher
2. Butler
3. Vollmer

Either way, the Pats gaining a extra second rounder next year gives the Pats many options. I'm pretty sure they will continue to rebuild the O-line and LB's with those selections. In the end, I'm happy either way.

 

[The_Riddler]

Maualuga over Chung.

In a heartbeat.

Maualuga is going to be great.........Cannot believe we passed on him not only once, but twice..........

 

[JFK]

Pick Maualuga and move Guyton to OLB?
CHung isn't doing anything because we didn't know what we had in McGowan. He makes Sanders expendable

 

[mayoclinic]

I must be missing something. Or do you mean "absurd" as a positive instead of its usual negative connation.

We traded our 23 for 26 and 162 which we passed on to the green bay for 41(Butler), 73 and 83 (Tate). 73 was traded for a 2010 2nd and a 7th (Edelman)

So, for the #23, we ended up with
Butler
Tate
Edelman
2010 2nd rounder

1) Would you have felt that we got less absurd compensation if we traded the 23 directly to Green Bay for the 41, 73 and 83? I suspect that GB was not willing at 23 and changed its mind by 26.

2) At the time, you would have been fine with the following, even though you would have chosen differently.

23 BUTLER

So, Belichick got Tate, Edelman and a 2010 2nd rounder IN ADDITON and you thought that belichick got "absurd value"????????????????
==================
We got absurd value for our #23 pick. Michael Oher looks good so far, but I don't think you can possibly argue that we didn't get tremendous value for our pick, trading back twice but still getting Darius Butler at #41 and essentially picking up two 2010 2nd round picks.

I was using "absurd" in the positive sense. It's hard to argue that we could have gotten more out of our #23 pick, no matter how good the players we passed on. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Chung seems like an unecessary pick now but looking at Sanders' contract I think he could be gone next year (most of the contract is in year 2 & 3 salary) and we'll have Meriweather, Chung, McGowan as a strong trio.

 

[WhiZa]

Chung seems like an unecessary pick now but looking at Sanders' contract I think he could be gone next year (most of the contract is in year 2 & 3 salary) and we'll have Meriweather, Chung, McGowan as a strong trio.

Only if he's traded. He'll cost 1mil more against the cap if he's cut. I think the Pats want him long term. McGowan was the odd man out until he started playing well. They may just keep all 4 for the next few years

 

[SeymourTrophies]

In a heartbeat.

Maualuga is going to be great.........Cannot believe we passed on him not only once, but twice..........

And do what with him, rake in the cash from shampoo commercials? He's not better than what we already had in a spring chicken MLB.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Chung seems like an unecessary pick now but looking at Sanders' contract I think he could be gone next year (most of the contract is in year 2 & 3 salary) and we'll have Meriweather, Chung, McGowan as a strong trio.

Only if he's traded. He'll cost 1mil more against the cap if he's cut. I think the Pats want him long term. McGowan was the odd man out until he started playing well. They may just keep all 4 for the next few years

Can you explain why ?

"April 5, 2009 update The Boston Globe's Mike Reiss blogged today that "Sanders's three-year contract includes base salaries of $620,000 (2009), $2.3 million (2010) and $2.8 million (2011). He receives a signing bonus of $1.8 million, and a roster bonus of $1.2 million that was paid in mid-March. The deal also includes workout bonuses from $80,000-$100,000, depending on the year."

Ignoring the small workout bonuses, and the roster bonus is done, there's $1.2M left of signing bonus acceleration (2/3 of $1.8M) and that is offset by a $2.3M salary removal. For a savings of $1.1M - of course the roster spot then has to be filled but if they choose to move on, this reads to me as if they can save money that way.

How many Safeties do we normally keep anyway ?

 

[maverick4]

The fact that Brace and Chung haven't played much, is more because of the talent in front of them. McGowan and Wright are playing extremely well right now.

Meriweather and Ty Warren didn't do much their first years either.

 

[mgteich]

We normally keep 5-6 safeties, with all the backups expected to be solid special teamers. The #5 and #6 are pure special teamers and don't need to be safeties. At the moment, we have Slater and Lockett.

Safety is the one position on the team where I see us set through 2011 without contract extensions. There is no reason to upset this unless someone is not performing. I think it reasonable to have Sanders on the team as a backup (capable of starting in either safety position) and as a solid special teamer. An experienced backup safety, who is capable of playing center field, is worth $2.3M a year.

And yes, all we need consider is future salary and workout bonus. The rest is gone. He is beign paid about $3.5M for this year.

Can you explain why ?

"April 5, 2009 update The Boston Globe's Mike Reiss blogged today that "Sanders's three-year contract includes base salaries of $620,000 (2009), $2.3 million (2010) and $2.8 million (2011). He receives a signing bonus of $1.8 million, and a roster bonus of $1.2 million that was paid in mid-March. The deal also includes workout bonuses from $80,000-$100,000, depending on the year."

Ignoring the small workout bonuses, and the roster bonus is done, there's $1.2M left of signing bonus acceleration (2/3 of $1.8M) and that is offset by a $2.3M salary removal. For a savings of $1.1M - of course the roster spot then has to be filled but if they choose to move on, this reads to me as if they can save money that way.

How many Safeties do we normally keep anyway ?

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

We normally keep 5-6 safeties, with all the backups expected to be solid special teamers. The #5 and #6 are pure special teamers and don't need to be safeties. At the moment, we have Slater and Lockett.

Safety is the one position on the team where I see us set through 2011 without contract extensions. There is no reason to upset this unless someone is not performing.

I basically agree with that and I'm not looking to cut Sanders. However it was good to see that he is cuttable if/when it makes sense and his new contract isn't keeping him here. I am hoping to see Chung move ahead of him by this time next year.

 

[mgteich]

I agree.

Actually, I would like to see an extension for McGowan. We would then have all four through 2011.

I basically agree with that and I'm not looking to cut Sanders. However it was good to see that he is cuttable if/when it makes sense and his new contract isn't keeping him here. I am hoping to see Chung move ahead of him by this time next year.

 

[mgteich]

I apologize for misunderstanding. As is usually the case, our analyses are reasonably close to each other.

BTW, would you prefer to have Laurinitis (or Sintim) and Will Moore instead of Chung and Brace? In any case, we have no reason not to believe that Chung and Brace will be future studs.

I was using "absurd" in the positive sense. It's hard to argue that we could have gotten more out of our #23 pick, no matter how good the players we passed on. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[sbpatfan]

This is like two years to early for this.

 

[Patriot Missile]

-When Oher fell to the Pats at 23, I was shocked the Pats traded out of the first round. Because I knew the Pats would continue to be a passing team first, Oher would've been the perfect option.

-I like Maualuga as a MLB, but not as an OLB in a 4-3. However, I think he would've been a perfect strong side 3-4 ILB ala Ted Johnson.

- I liked Butler before the draft and I'm glad the Pats got him. He's making some great strides and should be starting next to Bodden next season.

- I don't think anybody knew who Vollmer was, but I was just glad the Pats took an O-linemen.

- I hated the Brace selection at the time but tried to give it a chance. In addition, the emergence of Myron Prior and Mike Wright is making that selection look even worse.

- I like Chung, but I didn't like him at 34. I think the Pats freaked out because the Lions freaked out and took Delmas.

As of right now, my 3 guys would be:

1. Oher
2. Butler
3. Vollmer

Either way, the Pats gaining a extra second rounder next year gives the Pats many options. I'm pretty sure they will continue to rebuild the O-line and LB's with those selections. In the end, I'm happy either way.

I really was shocked as well that Oher fell to 23. I thought he was a slam dunk and didn't even include him to the mix until of possible Pats until he dropped past 18. I'll admit I wasn't too high on Butler and I'm still going to reserve judgment until he has played more. so far so good.

My 3 for now would be
1.Oher
2.Butler
3.Sintim

 

[mayoclinic]

I apologize for misunderstanding. As is usually the case, our analyses are reasonably close to each other.

BTW, would you prefer to have Laurinitis (or Sintim) and Will Moore instead of Chung and Brace? In any case, we have no reason not to believe that Chung and Brace will be future studs.

I'll take Chung and Brace at this point. Again, Laurinaitis is doing a fine job for the Rams, and will be an excellent player. I just think there's more value to a versatile interior lineman than to an LB like Laurinaitis right now. If Brace turns out to be a bust then I'll obviously change my mind, but, as you say, it's way too early to think that Brace and Chung won't develop.

Ditto on the extension for McGowan, BTW.

 

[WhiZa]

Can you explain why ?

Not really. I just piggy back off of Miguel's research

 

[Patjew]

what does it matter yall cant draft anyway.

Interesting. I thought all Jets fans were urban scumbags, not hicks.

 

[mayoclinic]

Interesting. I thought all Jets fans were urban scumbags, not hicks.

Not mutually exclusive.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

if we had 23,34,58 I would have taken:
23: DT ziggy hood
34: LB maualuga
58: vollmer

with the ones we actually had:
34: maualuga
40: clint sintim
41: butler
58: vollmer