Would signing Ty Law reduce the chances of us taking a CB at #7?

[JoeSixPat]

I have to think the answer is a big YES.

No question Law isn't in his prime anymore, but such a pre-draft signing I think would indicate that there's significantly less pressure on the team to use the #7 pick - and a good chunk of change that might have been spent on Samuel - on a CB.

Signing Ty Law I would think would send Mock Drafters scrambling to remove McKelvin as the most likely pick for the Pats.

I'm not saying we're done at CB with a Ty Law signing, and I still think you'd see the team drafting a CB - but not at #7.

But I've long felt, as I've heard other "experts" say that the CBs in the draft are not top 10 material - and haven't really felt BB would go in that direction at #7 regardless (trade back to the teens, then yes - but not at #7). So for me, if Law signs, I'm thinking there's no way we see a CB as the choice at #7.

What do others think?

 

[rsd]

I will go as far to say that even if they do not sign Law, they will not be drafting a CB at #7 (and I'm guessing most people here save the DRC fan club, would agree).

 

[BradyManny]

I don't think it has any affect, but I never thought we'd take a CB at 7 anyway. We still need long term help at CB, and will draft at least one CB, maybe two. But never did I think we'd spend #7 on CB and I'm more convinced of it now.

 

[PatsandTrojans55]

I have to think the answer is a big YES.

No question Law isn't in his prime anymore, but such a pre-draft signing I think would indicate that there's significantly less pressure on the team to use the #7 pick - and a good chunk of change that might have been spent on Samuel - on a CB.

Signing Ty Law I would think would send Mock Drafters scrambling to remove McKelvin as the most likely pick for the Pats.

I'm not saying we're done at CB with a Ty Law signing, and I still think you'd see the team drafting a CB - but not at #7.

But I've long felt, as I've heard other "experts" say that the CBs in the draft are not top 10 material - and haven't really felt BB would go in that direction at #7 regardless (trade back to the teens, then yes - but not at #7). So for me, if Law signs, I'm thinking there's no way we see a CB as the choice at #7.

What do others think?

It was never a consideration to begin with because of 2 things.
1. They don't feel it a real desperate need and like their depth,
2. They feel there's talent at corner to wait until round 3 if they want and still get a player that could compete for a starting job.

PT55

 

[JoePats]

Of course the answer is yes. It might go from 1% to .3%.

 

[The Hurricane]

I guess it depends on how pessimistic you are:

I think the chance before signing Ty Law(if we even do) was already 0%. So in that case the answer to your question is no. You can't have a chance lower than 0% so signing Ty Law would have no impact.

However, if you think that beforehand there was a chance we drafted a corner at #7 (even a small one) then yeah I'd say it lowers that chance.

 

[mike100915]

Let me set you guys straight. They were NEVER going to draft a corner at 7 anyways.

 

[patchick]

Let me set you guys straight. They were NEVER going to draft a corner at 7 anyways.

Thanks for "setting straight" the 6 posters before you, who all said the exact same thing!

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

I will flip if they draft a cb at #7 and more importantly if they don't seriously address LB and the pass rush.

 

[jeffbiologist]

Whats less than ZERO?

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'm sure everyone here knows that the vast majority of mock drafters have us taking a CB at #7.

I know everyone here - including myself - claims to know more than the majority of so-called experts who run mock drafts - but let's not go too far down the "there's 0% chance" bandwagon.

Obviously, the vast majority of mock drafts feel there's slightly more than 0%, prompting most of them to pick McKelvin coming our way.

And just as obviously, unless one of you is Bill Belichick, you don't have 100% certainty what's going to happen this weekend.

 

[Deus Irae]

Whats less than ZERO?

It's a movie from the '80s staring Andrew McCarthy, James Spader, Jami Gertz and Robert Downey, Jr. based upon a book by the same name. The movie focused on the mess that drugs can make of your life. The book didn't go down that road.

 

[patchick]

I'm sure everyone here knows that the vast majority of mock drafters have us taking a CB at #7.

I know everyone here - including myself - claims to know more than the majority of so-called experts who run mock drafts - but let's not go too far down the "there's 0% chance" bandwagon.

Obviously, the vast majority of mock drafts feel there's slightly more than 0%, prompting most of them to pick McKelvin coming our way.

And just as obviously, unless one of you is Bill Belichick, you don't have 100% certainty what's going to happen this weekend.

All perfectly true -- although I think that the vast majority of "expert" mocks are skewed by the fact that they refuse to project trades.

 

[jbb9s]

Whats less than ZERO?

Less than zero in this context would be if the Patriots traded the #7 pick and Ellis Hobbs for a pick and drafted another position - the net at CB would have decreased.

 

[tjones7]

Whats less than ZERO?

Average Colts fan's I.Q.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

I'm sure everyone here knows that the vast majority of mock drafters have us taking a CB at #7.

A lot of mock drafts were printed in magazines months ago.

 

[JoeSixPat]

A lot of mock drafts were printed in magazines months ago.

Thanks for the breaking news.

Let me clarify - most of the mock drafts in the last week, as well as the last month, have us drafting McKelvin at #7.

I'm sure everyone's familiar with the great website 199overall.com created by a Patsfan member

Get the latest trends here:

http://www.199overall.com/?q=/taxonomy/term/5