Why don't you want a top five pick?

[JSn]

an interesting question....I see what your saying that cannot be possible, but it would be funny to watch a team slide from 3 to 10 and take the player they want.

And don't you think the player's agent is going to cause a stink about it?

Certainly the guy that gets picked "third" because you skipped is going to expect #3 money and only get offered #4 money...

Seems messy.

 

[signbabybrady]

I've got a question. You can also let time pass when your on the clock, right? So if we don't get a trade partner at 3 we could also just let time expire and pick later on, so the financial commitments are less??? If they could do that they wouldn't risk paying too much, but i guess this probably isn't possible... Still, no matter what, i love the position were in right now, with possibly alot of first day picks

The Vikings I don't think intentially did this but they did miss there pick I think in consecutive years and it did make things weird in contract discussions. I think the Vikings wound caving and giving the money as if they drafted at the original spot.
I think it was only one or two at the most spots

This would be a little different as he is intentionally dropping like 5 or 6 spots but I still think it would make for ugly negotiations plus a heart attack from many fans as they watch us wait to pick as guys go off the board...I know I would be screaming at the TV just pick someone already!!!!!!!

 

[fgssand]

Again my point was so much the economics I get that and I agree to some extent....My point is that we are the ones trading away what is going to be an expensive chip to someone and than we are also going to demand the value picks too.

Teams are going to come to us with their offers and sure we can perfer 10-20 all we want but if the best offer is #1 or #3 why wouldn't you want that.


And since everyone has discussed the economics I am going to paraphrase Mike Mayock here who said that if you bust on a top five player it can set your franchise back. That may be true but I think it is less true of an established team who is usually not there and also I think the Pats drafting track record dictates they dont make many mistakes in the first round and arguably their best pick came at 6 so I am fully confident they would not make a mistake. Impact players come in top ten quality starters who sometimes can be impact come after that.

What a terrible problem and franchise hindrance it could be for the NE Patriots to get a top five pick in this years draft....whatever would we do?? How would we handle it?? What if we screwed it up....

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Not even a shred of doubt in my mind -- TAKE THE PICK and celebrate.

1) Cap will work itself out just fine.......cap issues are nowhere what they used to be a few years ago, plus, the likely-hood of uncapped years becoming a reality is probable IMHO).

2) No chance BB & Co. would possibly screw up a top 5 pick - barring a freak event, you pick your stud, insert player and solidify that position for the next 6 years at least.

There isn't one argument that can be used for me to ever seriously think a team should shy away from a top 5 when given the opportunity, unless that team has no confidence, money, brains and balls.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Can someone explain to me the logic of not wanting to accept a top five pick for Cassel?

I have heard people say this in several discussions and I understand the economics behind a top five pick but I always go back to Seymour and think that is what your getting with a top five pick (I know he was 6).

Lets say there are 2 teams very interested in Cassel KC and Detroit and those two teams are the ones that will be investing the money in Cassel and they would perfer to give up the large money top five pick instead of their high 2nd rd pick and some extra picks. Are you really saying you dont take their top five pick?

I generally agree with you and doubt that a top 5 pick would be a "deal breaker" for Belichick.

That being said, there's risk reward with all draft picks - and at the Top 5 level the risk of expending large sums of salary is much higher than even a 6-10 pick. As you note Seymour was #6 and I think all would admit that he outplayed his rookie contract.

That's what you want - and that's what you can still get today (though to a lesser degree with the inflation since Seymour's rookie year) with a pick from 6-10.

For the Top 3 picks especially, it's less likely that a player is going to exceed his contract. At best they are WORTH their contract. Far too often they fail to be worth their salaries.

Understanding its not an exact science, if the 2008 draft were held again chances are Mayo would be much much higher than he was taken - and a guy like Gholston wouldn't even be in the first round. Taking a Gholston later in the first round is always a possibility but at least it won't hurt the team's financial situation as much.

 

[BradyFTW!]

i think there is a misunderstanding around here.

i dont think people don't want a top 5 pick, i think it's just theyd rather not pay so much money for a player who has proven absolutely nothing in the league.

of course you want a top 5 pick. i think that financially though, it is more economical to trade that top 5 pick for a later first round pick, maybe in the mid to late teens plus get a second rounder this or the next season in addition (or more or less depending on where in the round you move to). so, you get a very good player in the first, and an extra pick and you probably spend 1/5 of the money if not less.

Exactly. I don't think anyone here would be cursing our luck if the Pats ended up with one of the top OT prospects or Curry. I just don't like the idea of paying superstar money to somebody who's never played a down.

 

[JSn]

Exactly. I don't think anyone here would be cursing our luck if the Pats ended up with one of the top OT prospects or Curry. I just don't like the idea of paying superstar money to somebody who's never played a down.

That's thing. The idea that Bill couldn't draft an awesome player with only 2 guys off the boards, but routinely finds top talent in round six or whatever... I think it's just the idea of spending. Funny how so many of us have a similar view of this as the team seems to.

Makes you wonder if Cowboys and Raiders fans have 2 TV's to a room and three leased cars in the driveway...

 

[signbabybrady]

There isn't one argument that can be used for me to ever seriously think a team should shy away from a top 5 when given the opportunity, unless that team has no confidence, money, brains and balls.

I got a scenario for you when a team should......If you have the top 5 pick but you can trade it for a proven player (even if just 15 games for the best NFL team) at the most important position who would obviously be a better investment.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That's thing. The idea that Bill couldn't draft an awesome player with only 2 guys off the boards, but routinely finds top talent in round six or whatever... I think it's just the idea of spending. Funny how so many of us have a similar view of this as the team seems to.

Makes you wonder if Cowboys and Raiders fans have 2 TV's to a room and three leased cars in the driveway...

Redskins fans everywhere are buying 2003 model cars at their original price...

 

[j00fek]

you dont give 30mill to unproven players

look at the lions for reference

 

[fgssand]

I got a scenario for you when a team should......If you have the top 5 pick but you can trade it for a proven player (even if just 15 games for the best NFL team) at the most important position who would obviously be a better investment.

I agree, my post was based on the NEP's - many teams fall under that class of "team has no confidence, money, brains and balls"........

If I needed a QB..I would trade my top 5 in a NY (well maybe not NY Jet) minute for Matt Casell. Hear that Detroit, it all starts with a QB...you build from there.