Ongoing NFL draft chat

[boom]

Few things:

1) I was Steve Smith in a Patriots uniform. DROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

2) People chastise Bill for his draft misses, yet what about the other 31 teams in the league? They have the same misses we do. I dont really get it. You win games on the field, not in the draft, and he seems to be doing just fine in that regard.

3) The Seymour trade. Everyone complains about it now, but seriously, did anyone REALLY think Oak would go 8-8 (or whatever)? Most people thought we'd have a top 6 pick, easy.

I dig the trade moves and picks so far.

[Rondo2287]

I expect Bill to trade the 33rd pick, hopefully for a first rounder next year giving us 3 first rounders. 

I don't really mind him not using both firsts.  I didnt think that he would first of all, and its what the pats do in the draft.  In his 11 years drafting he has taken 6 olb/de's why are people continually surprised when he doesnt take them?  I don't know why he doesnt take them but its clear that he does not like doing it.

[crownsy]

Few things:

1) I was Steve Smith in a Patriots uniform. DROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

2) People chastise Bill for his draft misses, yet what about the other 31 teams in the league? They have the same misses we do. I dont really get it. You win games on the field, not in the draft, and he seems to be doing just fine in that regard.

3) The Seymour trade. Everyone complains about it now, but seriously, did anyone REALLY think Oak would go 8-8 (or whatever)? Most people thought we'd have a top 6 pick, easy.

I dig the trade moves and picks so far.

see, that's not really what im criticizing. everyone misses draft picks, and you up that precentage of misses when you use value picks in the late 2nd and 3rd to try to find guys.

What i'm criticizing is this weak circular argument that appears whenever they don't take a shot at moving up/picking a guy in the first. it's always so great to trade these picks to "stockpile value" when that value (late first round picks like NO's and 2nd and 3rd rounders) but im told it can't be expected for those picks to yield good long term players consistently, as most of the people who have replied admit

I don't mind that he misses. I mind this blind fan argument that it's always such a cagey and clever move to trade for value when we have consistently seen them

1) miss, and miss badly

or

2) never use the stockpiled value to move up and get an impact guy

That's what grinds my gears, the blanket statement that it's always good to take a pass on a guy and get value next year. thats why they were completely unprepared when the guys on the defensive side of the ball from the 2001-2005 teams started to get long in the tooth and retire, because they had stockpiled value and used that value to have atrocious to very below average drafts from 2005-2008.

I just think, especially given reports today that they wanted the jordan kid at 28 and once he was gone they commited to trading, that doing something like:

1) take solder at 17

2) package the other 1st and the late 2nd or if you could get a team to do it, 1st + a 3rd and a later pick (you know some of that stockpiled value) to move up to 21-24 to get jordan as well

would have been a good use of our supposed value instead of stockpiling for yet another year when you have some really huge holes on the defensive side of the ball.  

[crownsy]

I expect Bill to trade the 33rd pick, hopefully for a first rounder next year giving us 3 first rounders. 

I don't really mind him not using both firsts.  I didnt think that he would first of all, and its what the pats do in the draft.  In his 11 years drafting he has taken 6 olb/de's why are people continually surprised when he doesnt take them?  I don't know why he doesnt take them but its clear that he does not like doing it.

T and R had a great bit on that today, they figured if this happens, by 2024 mabey they'll actually keep some of these 1st round picks, and with there 11 picks in the first round just go ahead and draft all of Florida/Alabama's seniors on defense 

[Chris]

Since I really don't think the Pats need to get a whole lot younger, I think this could be part of the thinking, and why I would not be the least bit surprised to see them trade #33 for another first rounder next year.

I agree they don't need to get a whole lot younger, and that future picks are basically "currency" for trades.

A couple things:

(1) I thought there was some possibility that there could be trades involving players starting today, given the recent court ruling.

Yeah, I just heard that, and it will be interesting.  If they really do start trading today (I am still not sure that will happen, since I think those things are tough to do so quickly, even if it is allowed), then I would not be surprised if they do make a trade or two for players today or tomorrow.

I really just don't think Belichick wants that many more rookies right now.  

[Donoghus]

Few things:

1) I was Steve Smith in a Patriots uniform. DROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

2) People chastise Bill for his draft misses, yet what about the other 31 teams in the league? They have the same misses we do. I dont really get it. You win games on the field, not in the draft, and he seems to be doing just fine in that regard.

3) The Seymour trade. Everyone complains about it now, but seriously, did anyone REALLY think Oak would go 8-8 (or whatever)? Most people thought we'd have a top 6 pick, easy.

I dig the trade moves and picks so far.

see, that's not really what im criticizing. everyone misses draft picks, and you up that precentage of misses when you use value picks in the late 2nd and 3rd to try to find guys.

What i'm criticizing is this weak circular argument that appears whenever they don't take a shot at moving up/picking a guy in the first. it's always so great to trade these picks to "stockpile value" when that value (late first round picks like NO's and 2nd and 3rd rounders) but im told it can't be expected for those picks to yield good long term players consistently, as most of the people who have replied admit

I don't mind that he misses. I mind this blind fan argument that it's always such a cagey and clever move to trade for value when we have consistently seen them

1) miss, and miss badly

or

2) never use the stockpiled value to move up and get an impact guy

That's what grinds my gears, the blanket statement that it's always good to take a pass on a guy and get value next year. thats why they were completely unprepared when the guys on the defensive side of the ball from the 2001-2005 teams started to get long in the tooth and retire, because they had stockpiled value and used that value to have atrocious to very below average drafts from 2005-2008.

I just think, especially given reports today that they wanted the jordan kid at 28 and once he was gone they commited to trading, that doing something like:

1) take solder at 17

2) package the other 1st and the late 2nd/ a 3rd and a 4th (you know some of that stockpiled value) to move up to 21-24 to get jordan as well

would have been a good use of our supposed value instead of stockpiling for yet another year when you have some really huge holes on the defensive side of the ball.  

Maybe they didn't like Jordan.

Personally, I like the flexibility they give themselves every year and while no team's draft track record is spotless, the Pats still have been one of the better teams in the draft during the Belichick era.  

The talent hasn't always panned out from the draft but show me a team that had a significantly better draft track record since 2000.  I'm willing to bet there is only a team or two besides the Pats that can be in the argument.  You can't hit homeruns all the time.

[boom]

Crownsy,

I get what you're saying..makes sense. In a sense I'm with ya, and agree that they should actually attempt to move up and get someone they WANT rather than sit back and let them pass and then get stuck with more "value" picks for players that they're not as high on.

However, they have forgotten a LOT more than I'll ever know, and that's why they're making millions and I'm sitting at home :p

[crownsy]

Few things:

1) I was Steve Smith in a Patriots uniform. DROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

2) People chastise Bill for his draft misses, yet what about the other 31 teams in the league? They have the same misses we do. I dont really get it. You win games on the field, not in the draft, and he seems to be doing just fine in that regard.

3) The Seymour trade. Everyone complains about it now, but seriously, did anyone REALLY think Oak would go 8-8 (or whatever)? Most people thought we'd have a top 6 pick, easy.

I dig the trade moves and picks so far.

see, that's not really what im criticizing. everyone misses draft picks, and you up that precentage of misses when you use value picks in the late 2nd and 3rd to try to find guys.

What i'm criticizing is this weak circular argument that appears whenever they don't take a shot at moving up/picking a guy in the first. it's always so great to trade these picks to "stockpile value" when that value (late first round picks like NO's and 2nd and 3rd rounders) but im told it can't be expected for those picks to yield good long term players consistently, as most of the people who have replied admit

I don't mind that he misses. I mind this blind fan argument that it's always such a cagey and clever move to trade for value when we have consistently seen them

1) miss, and miss badly

or

2) never use the stockpiled value to move up and get an impact guy

That's what grinds my gears, the blanket statement that it's always good to take a pass on a guy and get value next year. thats why they were completely unprepared when the guys on the defensive side of the ball from the 2001-2005 teams started to get long in the tooth and retire, because they had stockpiled value and used that value to have atrocious to very below average drafts from 2005-2008.

I just think, especially given reports today that they wanted the jordan kid at 28 and once he was gone they commited to trading, that doing something like:

1) take solder at 17

2) package the other 1st and the late 2nd/ a 3rd and a 4th (you know some of that stockpiled value) to move up to 21-24 to get jordan as well

would have been a good use of our supposed value instead of stockpiling for yet another year when you have some really huge holes on the defensive side of the ball.  

Maybe they didn't like Jordan.

Personally, I like the flexibility they give themselves every year and while no team's draft track record is spotless, the Pats still have been one of the better teams in the draft during the Belichick era.  

The talent hasn't always panned out from the draft but show me a team that had a significantly better draft track record since 2000.  I'm willing to bet there is only a team or two besides the Pats that can be in the argument.  You can't hit homeruns all the time.

Well yes Don, the reports could and likely are wrong But 98.5 and a couple other beat sources are saying they liked Jordan but liked solder's value at 17 better and that the plan was draft jordan if he fell or trade the pick if he didn't.

I guess i'm just saying i would have liked to see them use some of this value they have to move forward 5 spots and make both picks happen rather than hold firm and miss jordan.

and heck, as some are pointing out, had you done that and were still married to the value idea, you could have moved pick 33 for picks next year.

[Chris]

Maybe they didn't like Jordan.

Personally, I like the flexibility they give themselves every year and while no team's draft track record is spotless, the Pats still have been one of the better teams in the draft during the Belichick era.  

The talent hasn't always panned out from the draft but show me a team that had a significantly better draft track record since 2000.  I'm willing to bet there is only a team or two besides the Pats that can be in the argument.  You can't hit homeruns all the time.

This is what I keep coming back to.  It seems like everyone seems to think that Belichick is just obsessed with value...but I really think it has much more to do with him just not really liking these players very much.  

Now, we can certainly criticize Belichick for that, but I am not sure there is a ton of evidence to really kill him on (beyond Matthews, which was one time).  Generally, when he trades down, there aren't a ton of guys that go between that pick and their next pick that turn out to be good players who would have fit their system.

I agree that the Pats have found some duds over the years, but that is just more reason to choose to multiply your picks over using a mediocre pick.  

I think if Belichick really likes a guy, he either takes him, or even trades up for him.  I think the fact that he didn't trade down from 17 tells us, he really like Solder, and was not willing to risk it.  Generally, when he trades down, it tells us he just does not like the guys there much better than guys he can get later.  

  

[Donoghus]

Few things:

1) I was Steve Smith in a Patriots uniform. DROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

2) People chastise Bill for his draft misses, yet what about the other 31 teams in the league? They have the same misses we do. I dont really get it. You win games on the field, not in the draft, and he seems to be doing just fine in that regard.

3) The Seymour trade. Everyone complains about it now, but seriously, did anyone REALLY think Oak would go 8-8 (or whatever)? Most people thought we'd have a top 6 pick, easy.

I dig the trade moves and picks so far.

see, that's not really what im criticizing. everyone misses draft picks, and you up that precentage of misses when you use value picks in the late 2nd and 3rd to try to find guys.

What i'm criticizing is this weak circular argument that appears whenever they don't take a shot at moving up/picking a guy in the first. it's always so great to trade these picks to "stockpile value" when that value (late first round picks like NO's and 2nd and 3rd rounders) but im told it can't be expected for those picks to yield good long term players consistently, as most of the people who have replied admit

I don't mind that he misses. I mind this blind fan argument that it's always such a cagey and clever move to trade for value when we have consistently seen them

1) miss, and miss badly

or

2) never use the stockpiled value to move up and get an impact guy

That's what grinds my gears, the blanket statement that it's always good to take a pass on a guy and get value next year. thats why they were completely unprepared when the guys on the defensive side of the ball from the 2001-2005 teams started to get long in the tooth and retire, because they had stockpiled value and used that value to have atrocious to very below average drafts from 2005-2008.

I just think, especially given reports today that they wanted the jordan kid at 28 and once he was gone they commited to trading, that doing something like:

1) take solder at 17

2) package the other 1st and the late 2nd/ a 3rd and a 4th (you know some of that stockpiled value) to move up to 21-24 to get jordan as well

would have been a good use of our supposed value instead of stockpiling for yet another year when you have some really huge holes on the defensive side of the ball.  

Maybe they didn't like Jordan.

Personally, I like the flexibility they give themselves every year and while no team's draft track record is spotless, the Pats still have been one of the better teams in the draft during the Belichick era.  

The talent hasn't always panned out from the draft but show me a team that had a significantly better draft track record since 2000.  I'm willing to bet there is only a team or two besides the Pats that can be in the argument.  You can't hit homeruns all the time.

Well yes Don, the reports could and likely are wrong But 98.5 and a couple other beat sources are saying they liked Jordan but liked solder's value at 17 better and that the plan was draft jordan if he fell or trade the pick if he didn't.

I guess i'm just saying i would have liked to see them use some of this value they have to move forward 5 spots and make both picks happen rather than hold firm and miss jordan.

and heck, as some are pointing out, had you done that and were still married to the value idea, you could have moved pick 33 for picks next year.

Well, if they were really enamored with Jordan, they would've gone after him hard. Heck, they had 6 more chances to after they picked Solder and they didn't. So if the reports are stating that they would've picked him at 28 if he was available but not make the effort to actually move up and take him are a bit telling. It tells me they liked him but they weren't falling head over heels for him.

Belichick has moved up to grab guys he's really wanted in the past (Graham and Warren come to mind) so its not unprecedented.

[Donoghus]

Maybe they didn't like Jordan.

Personally, I like the flexibility they give themselves every year and while no team's draft track record is spotless, the Pats still have been one of the better teams in the draft during the Belichick era.  

The talent hasn't always panned out from the draft but show me a team that had a significantly better draft track record since 2000.  I'm willing to bet there is only a team or two besides the Pats that can be in the argument.  You can't hit homeruns all the time.

This is what I keep coming back to.  It seems like everyone seems to think that Belichick is just obsessed with value...but I really think it has much more to do with him just not really liking these players very much.  

Now, we can certainly criticize Belichick for that, but I am not sure there is a ton of evidence to really kill him on (beyond Matthews, which was one time).  Generally, when he trades down, there aren't a ton of guys that go between that pick and their next pick that turn out to be good players who would have fit their system.

I agree that the Pats have found some duds over the years, but that is just more reason to choose to multiply your picks over using a mediocre pick.  

I think if Belichick really likes a guy, he either takes him, or even trades up for him.  I think the fact that he didn't trade down from 17 tells us, he really like Solder, and was not willing to risk it.  Generally, when he trades down, it tells us he just does not like the guys there much better than guys he can get later.  

  

To me, the Chad Jackson move was probably the worst of the Belichick regime. 

[Cman]

To me, the Chad Jackson move was probably the worst of the Belichick regime. 

ditto.

[Tai]

Yea, Chad Jackson man...don't know what happened, but oh well.

[Vermont Green]

Drafting is a crap shoot so the more times you get to roll the dice, the more likely to get a winner.  That is true of the 1st round and every other round.  I really liked Ingram but I recognize that I don't know enough about the players to be able to know for sure that Ingram is any better than the next 3 ranked backs for example or if his knee will blow out.  We might pick a back at 56 who ends up just as good or even better than Ingram or pick 56 may crash and burn.

The point is that getting 2 picks for 1 doubles your chance of success in what is an iffy proposition to start.  A first and a second for a first; how can that not be good?  And part of the reason we can "afford" to trade a 1st this year is that we had 2 to start.  We are not moving in the wrong direction here plus don't forget about Ty Warren and Marcus Stroud being added.  We are going to be better next year.

[Cman]

Ted Larsen, drafted by the Pats last year but let go (who then went on to start for Tampa Bay), is apparently a good guy:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Bucs-rookie-lineman-turned-hero-after-saving-ove;_ylt=Avey0WfstA_I2L1t_uPfO7ZDubYF?urn=nfl-wp1372

(rescued two kayakers)