Why Pats Will Not Trade Down

[JoeShmoe]

I agree

If we can trade out of 7 down to the 10-20 range and get one of those three OL plus an additional pick(s) thats what we'll do - else we'll take Albert. If Ryan, DMC, VG and CL go early I think trading out might be hard but someone might want to move up for Ellis

As it stands our D will be still be pretty good next year - moreso with Hobson and Bryant added and a fully fit Seymour and Harrison. However theres a hole on the right side of that OL and every team would look to exploit it. If Bill has asked Tom what do you think he said !

 

[DarrylS]

By that logic we would never draft a top tier college talent for fear of upsetting someone's apple cart. That makes no sense. Is there a problem with the way the league allows for rookie compensation? Unless you are a rookie, absolutely. But as Bill would say it is what it is, a league wide problem. It's better value and better locker room psychology to draft players who have yet to set foot on the NFL field as something less than multi-millionaires. But the need for talent and playmakers trumps that. Especially when IYO the last draft was so shallow you all but traded out of it. Just as it trumps the resentment when outsiders (FA) who have never taken a snap in this system get the big bucks while incumbant home growns do not. We've done that, and tried to more often than we've succeeded, too. Talent is usually the arbitor making those decisions - if existing talent isn't making the plays we have to go get playmakers and that can cost some money. And players learn to live with it as long as the new guy delivers sufficient bang for his bucks. That is why you could pay for a top tier OG or OT to man the right side. But a backup or rotational or developmental player? That WOULD create a problem.

That is not what I implied, however you spin it. My point is that I question whether they will keep the 7th pick, based on the current salary structure in the trenches.. we have a done a good job with late round picks and 2nd round picks, and these picks fit into the salary structure of the Pats. For example, the Pats have X amount of dollars allocated for a guard, they are at 7 and a highly rated guard is available or they have a choice to trade for a later #1 this year and a #2 next year. They would probably choose the latter as their salary structure would not fit a #7 pick in the draft...
I have contended all along that the Pats will not use the #7 pick, they will trade down for additional picks.. could be wrong, but this seems consistent with the philosophy of this team.

 

[Pats67]

Apology for the plug, but considering your topic here, I offer that our post at PD today is on trades of top ten picks over the last five years, for the purpose of determining IF the Pats will be able to trade out of 7 and if so, what they can expect to get in the way of a return.

Please feel free to add your input on the comments section if you'd like. Thanks.

 

[WhiZa]

If I were to bet on what Piolichick do, it will be to use their first 3 picks on positions that are either:
- A need like an offensive tackle, linebacker, or corner
- A need one year from now, like at defensive end, or linebacker.

I think your needs are a bit off. As far as starters and when their contracts expire:
2007 needs: LB (Seau,Covlin) / CB (Samuel) / TE (Brady)
2008 needs: S (Harrison,Sanders) / CB (Bryant) / WR (Gaffney) / P (Hanson)

It is crucial to me we draft a CB in day 1. We lost a starter this year, and another one next year. LB and S are also needy as we lost 2 LBs last year and lose 2 S next year though I expect Sanders to be resigned. The OL and DL are intact for at least 2 years so it is not a need to draft a DL/OL early.

2009 is a different story which I will worry about during next year's draft, but with the amount of FAs in 2009 I wouldn't be surprised if the Patriots attempt to gather as many 2008 picks as they can so they can groom them as replacements for the 2009 FAs.

 

[Dago]

last year pats traded their over 20 first round pick(28?) with a first round pick of these year...
now pats trade for a 15-20 and for a second round?
what is the final?a second round pick?
with the problem that the first pick could not have a immediate impact like merryweather last year?
well,pats could draft last year the number 28 with a lb or a cb and good night...
this year they have only a hole...

 

[jeffbiologist]

There's no guarantee that it will be a high pick though. The Pats got very lucky with the 49ers having a down year. I can't seem them rolling the dice again unless it's with the Raiders who are a lock to be picking in the top 5 again next year. lol

Look out of the Raiders this year. They play us and the whole AFC east which means 2-3 wins, they play kc twice, denver twice, so there is like 6 wins out of 10 games, 3/6 in the others and they are 9-7 looking for a wildcard. They have a great defense(best CBs in the league), new QB, and good RBs. It all depends on the line play and the development of Russell.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

But we don't draft for need, yours or ours. LB is simply not going to be a position Bill drafts for to fill fan need because his guys are conversion projects and you don't draft those at #7. The value corners are projected in the early second through early third rounds. The top corners all have holes that make taking them in the top ten not a good value. This is a fairly deep draft except at S, WR, TE where there is really little perceived talent.

At the very top of this draft there was no clear cut #1. In reality there are a handful of #5's and a handful of #10's in the top 10 before the players start all grading out to late 1st early 2nd. I think if you pick at 7 you perhaps reach a bit unless you can trade down. But given the circumstances you may not be able to trade down for even reasonable value unless a team behind you is hung up on a need they are fearful someone between you and them is also hung up on. So you better be prepared to select a player at #7 who will start in 2008 and to do that he has to have a position. Among the starting 22 there are only a handful of positions that do not have a virtual incumbant lock where a draftee does not project as an upgrade at starter. CB, FS, ILB, OG, OT. The Pat's are said to not have a top ten grade on any CB, there are no Safeties or ILB graded that highly on any boards, there are/were 3 OL - Long, Albert, Clady. Long is long gone to BB's mentor, Clady's stock is wobbly, Albert's has been steadily rising. Mayock and Lombardi, two guys who worked with Bill, have pegged Albert IF they cannot trade down to get the late 1st/early second round picks that would open up another whole value avenue. There are also DL who likely grade out in BB's top ten at their positions. But he has no spot for them on this team except as potential conversion to OLB projects in a 3-4 or as backups or rotational players. You can't draft those at #7 because of the contract impact. You imply that Bill would not have an OL graded in this top ten, only some draftnik/pundit would - but would you feel differently if you knew he in fact did? Or do you just want what you want...

BTW did you happen to read unoriginals sticky thread while you were on hiatus... As of today if we re-played the Giants again tomorrow with the same personnel knowing what was coming I'm not sure we could alter the outcome. I think the defense could still hold them to 17 and maybe even 14 by not giving up that first, long, FG drive, but the offense would still not be able to muster more than 14 because that OL got run over and they did not have an existing answer for the Giants front 4 alone.

Brady's been getting beat up for a long time now. He generally manages to overcome it. But there are limits to his endurance.

Howdy Mo,

The Pats don't draft for need so Logan Mankins, Nick Kaczur, and Stephen Gostkowski were just fortunate placements.

Didn't check out Unoriginal's thread, I know it's fashionable to point to that game and declaim the OL is dead, but I try and keep a little perspective on an 18-1 season that ended sadly. So where are those non-incumbent open competition line slots at OG & OT?

Who are your Top 10 ranked OL? Jake is no longer there and I'm not sold on Clady or Albert regardless of Mayock and Lombardi. I also think it's a bit of a stretch to assume a one year Special Teams player and a personnel man who worked with BB in Cleveland know his mind today.

The stated purpose for this thread was to prove the Pats would not be trading down from #7. It may turn out to be difficult for the Pats to trade back, but there "will" be an opportunity to trade and I can see them trading back if they feel that is the best opportunity to help the team - even if my favorite Chris Long fell to #7 - so I believe the OP is mistaken.

I have my needs assessment, I believe only one of us lays claim to inside knowledge of the Personnel Department's assessment, like yourself I'm here to discuss "my" view of the Pats and the draft prospects - I don't mind being wrong. Nobody is paying me and I don't think anyone here is going to die if I'm wrong.

I believe Chris Long is capable of coming in as a rookie and winning a starting job. I believe Gholston would need at least two years to develop, but he still might be worth #7. I'd prefer my first CB no earlier than 20, my binky is CB Chevis Jackson in the 3rd. I believe that signing 3 veteran CBs and one veteran S helps create competition for those CB & FS slots you note have no clear cut incumbent, mix in another 3-4 draftees/UDFAs with the pool on the roster and I'm not too worried. ILB - Hobson will help, if Woods is ready to step up he'll help; could BB draft a Mayo or Rivers? I'm sure you have him psychoanalyzed to a fare-thee-well so I'll just stubbornly insist there aren't a lot of nevers in Gillette's Draft Room.

 

[jeffbiologist]

While I agree that trading for future 1s may have cost us seeing that we lost 2 SBs by 1 play each. If we didnt do it, this week would be doom and gloom with us without a pick til #62.
With Taylor now on the table, I really like #7(if Ryan drops) for Taylor and Miami's 09 1st.....Hello Rey!

 

[Deus Irae]

BTW did you happen to read unoriginals sticky thread while you were on hiatus... As of today if we re-played the Giants again tomorrow with the same personnel knowing what was coming I'm not sure we could alter the outcome. I think the defense could still hold them to 17 and maybe even 14 by not giving up that first, long, FG drive, but the offense would still not be able to muster more than 14 because that OL got run over and they did not have an existing answer for the Giants front 4 alone.

Brady's been getting beat up for a long time now. He generally manages to overcome it. But there are limits to his endurance.

You had me right up until you went off the rails with the above part of the post.