Trading up makes too much sense

[JerseyShore99]

Bear in mind that Matt Miller says DGB's red flags are the worst he's ever seen and that despite being the "next Randy Moss", Missouri felt the need to kick him off the roster. It'll come down to interviews and if BB does draft him then presumably he'll have shown the remorse necessary. But, the guy is an idiot and whilst I'll be excited by his talent if we do draft him, I really hope we don't. Women beaters that get away with it don't deserve good things.

Wasn't aware he was a woman beater, that changed my view on him, keep in mind however our SB hero Julian Edelman was accused of a crime against a female around '11

 

[patchick]

A few months back I posted something about how every single year, fans argue that THIS is the year that it makes sense to move up in the first round, because the roster is too stacked for rookies to crack it and the Pats would be better off concentrating their firepower on one special player who could put them over the top.

IMO there is room on the roster; there is always room. There are always surprise veteran cuts, just as there are always UDFAs who make good. And you don't draft just for this season, but to keep building your talent base for the seasons to come. If anything, I see this as the perfect year to return to the "annuity plan" of building value by trading into the future.

 

[mayoclinic]

A few months back I posted something about how every single year, fans argue that THIS is the year that it makes sense to move up in the first round, because the roster is too stacked for rookies to crack it and the Pats would be better off concentrating their firepower on one special player who could put them over the top.

IMO there is room on the roster; there is always room. There are always surprise veteran cuts, just as there are always UDFAs who make good. And you don't draft just for this season, but to keep building your talent base for the seasons to come. If anything, I see this as the perfect year to return to the "annuity plan" of building value by trading into the future.

I think that's exactly correct. It's one thing to make a small trade up for a specific target, the way the Pats did for Gronk in 2010 or Jones/Hightower in 2012. Such a move make complete sense if the Pats have a high enough grade on a prospect. It's another matter altogether to say that there is only so much room for rookies. Having more picks amortizes the risk, and competition always makes the final roster better.

I think that one form of the "annuity plan" is to take a prospect high in the draft who wouldn't otherwise be available except for injury. Dominique Easley was a top 10 talent IMO last year, and Todd Gurley would be a similar option this year if he is on the board at 32. You lose a year, but with good coaching and luck you can use some of that year to develop the player and have them hit the ground running year 2.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Wasn't aware he was a woman beater, that changed my view on him, keep in mind however our SB hero Julian Edelman was accused of a crime against a female around '11

Yes, and the DA went so far as to state that a review of the evidence—what little there was—didn't support the notion that any crime had been committed.

 

[The Gr8est]

Sad to see that you have such a low opinion of the DT class. Its supposed to be one of the deepest position areas in this draft. Some other comments

1, Armestead IS a very intriguing prospect, though one that is likely to a a couple of years to develop even if he's a hit.

2. Given how deep the roster is already, especially if we sign our own FA's, it makes a lot of sense to pursue a quality over quantity draft strategy

3, I don't think BB goes into a draft looking to move up. I think its a circumstance thing. A could of things have to happen for this to occur. First they see someone that they didn't think would be there come into a reasonable range. Then they have to find a partner willing to give up the slot for what they can offer. That's not easy and you have to get lucky for both to happen.

4. Even though pass rushers are a deep position this year, I don't see the Pats going after one early for 2 reasons. First, when Mayo comes back, it will allow both Collins and Hightower to be used as pass rushers more. Second, you have to wonder if anyone they draft will be better than Moore and Buchannon.

5. Even if Vince comes back, DT is the one area of the team that needs to be restocked. What he have now is serviceable, but we need an upgrade in high end talent, and that means our first pick IMO (unless of course, no one worthy of a first round pick is left on the board)

6. It really sucks to pick 32nd in every round. What would it approximately take for the Pats to move as high as 20.

7. For those of you who annually push for a WR to be taken early, I offer this fact. People who seem to dismiss Dobson so quickly might not be aware of this stat. Comparing Dobson's rookie year with Dez Bryant you can't help notice that Bryant only had about 3 0 yds more receiving yds, (510-540) while Dobson averaged 2 more ypc (14-12)

Clearly Dobson was never healthy last season. Before people start lobbying for more WR's, we should wait to see how the one we already have on the roster is doing.

Just another point to add to yours here. This is probably the healthiest we have been at the end of a season in recent memory. Are we looking at having to replace anyone because they have a long or difficult recuperation ahead of them?

We played 3 more games than most teams, won the Superbowl, and may have had less injiries than any other team.

What a great year to be a Pats fan. I'll take drafting #32 with all those other benefits.

 

[unoriginal]

A few months back I posted something about how every single year, fans argue that THIS is the year that it makes sense to move up in the first round, because the roster is too stacked for rookies to crack it and the Pats would be better off concentrating their firepower on one special player who could put them over the top.

IMO there is room on the roster; there is always room. There are always surprise veteran cuts, just as there are always UDFAs who make good. And you don't draft just for this season, but to keep building your talent base for the seasons to come. If anything, I see this as the perfect year to return to the "annuity plan" of building value by trading into the future.

Okay, but how about "use Day 3 picks as capital to get better Day 2 picks."

Like in 2007 when the Pats should have thrown in half their Day 3 picks to move up and get the LB they really wanted, Stewart Bradley, in the early 3rd.

 

[patchick]

Okay, but how about "use Day 3 picks as capital to get better Day 2 picks."

Like in 2007 when the Pats should have thrown in half their Day 3 picks to move up and get the LB they really wanted, Stewart Bradley, in the early 3rd.

Ah, Stewart Bradley! I was pretty fixated on him in the draft, and pissed at the reports that he was the ONLY player the Pats wanted yet they didn't trade up. He never had much of a career, though.

Anyway...I'm all in favor of modest, strategic trades up for a player you really like. The Patriots have done that many times. My objections are to going "all in" for one potential "difference maker," and to the notion that any NFL roster is so loaded with talent that there isn't room for rookies to compete.

 

[RayClay]

We simply don't have enough roster spots for multiple rookies.


Josh Boyce (4th rd pick) couldn't make the team this year.

Aaron Dobson (2nd rd pick) was a healthy scratch for 8 weeks this season. He was quickly IR'd even though his hamstring was not torn.

Alfonso Dennard mysteriously fell off the depth chart and then got IR'd.

James White (4th rd pick) couldn't get on the game-day roster despite high praise this past off season.



Is it really worth drafting numerous guys in the 4th to 7th rds when they might not make the team? Seems like a waste of draft picks. It would be better to trade those to move up and get 2-3 impact players rather than drafting a bunch of players and then cutting them.

If we do trade up, who would you want in the 20-25 range?

I think we have to go DT. Easley is a DE/DT hydrib, not a pure DT and not a strong run stuffer. Our defense was weak against the run and Wilfork is getting older and has maybe 1 year left (if he isn't cut or traded this offseason).

I generally oppose your thought process (4th through 7ths aren't worth much in tradeup and we have hit on Stork, Cannon, Hernandez and edelman in recent years) though i agree on two points.

Point one = we are loaded. Middle picks could have value, with lower picks picking up the slack. You just aren't moving much with 4-7 picks as bait. Point two = Big, talented DTs are born, not made. A line full of Easley's ain't stopping Marshawn Lynch. Branch was a nice pickup, but he's a marginal starter, though huge. Siliga's a nice rotation guy. However, as Russ Francis would say, you need the Big Kahuna.

Of course, it depends on the guy. Trading up for someone with plusses and minuses like others at the position is stupid. however, if there's a guy thatr's slips from the top to the middle, like Wilfork did, you have to go for it. they bumped up one spot for Warren, I believe, and that's always a good idea, but not what we're talking about here.

Since we drafted Wilfork, i believe we've added zero top big DTs while losing two, so if the right guy's really there where we can trade up, I would.

 

[RayClay]

Also, people who think Branch and Siliga will just become Wilforkian when he retires are delusional. Remember, he was in a line with Seymour and Warren and they let both go without replacing them because vince was good enough to hold the fort with whatever low round, no round stiffs they surrounded him with, as they finally rebuilt their LB corps.

He will leave a big hole, metaphorically as well as literally.

 

[mayoclinic]

Also, people who think Branch and Siliga will just become Wilforkian when he retires are delusional. Remember, he was in a line with Seymour and Warren and they let both go without replacing them because vince was good enough to hold the fort with whatever low round, no round stiffs they surrounded him with, as they finally rebuilt their LB corps.

He will leave a big hole, metaphorically as well as literally.

All of that is true. But (1) Wilfork isn't what he used to be; and (2) there aren't many VW's out there. Danny Shelton is getting hyped as a Wilfork/Ngata kind of talent. I don't see it. Not even close. And he'll be long gone. Jordan Phillips has unusual athleticism for a big guy and could have a Dontari Poe emergence, but his tape his mixed at best, he plays too high, and he has a history of back problems; Ellis McCarthy has uncanny movement skills for a 6'5" 330# guy, but his tape is more inconsistent than Phillips'; Terry Williams is an athletic bowling ball, but he has major character concerns and he measured in at 5'11". Finding the "Big Kahuna" isn't so simple.

I also think that you can stop the run just fine without a 330-350# DT in the middle. Look at Detroit, and Seattle. No classic NT among them.

I think that if you try to find the "next Vince Wilfork" that it's going to be more of a struggle than if you assume that mold is broken, and simply try to build a good DL that can stop the run as well as generate pressure.

 

[RayClay]

All of that is true. But (1) Wilfork isn't what he used to be; and (2) there aren't many VW's out there. Danny Shelton is getting hyped as a Wilfork/Ngata kind of talent. I don't see it. Not even close. And he'll be long gone. Jordan Phillips has unusual athleticism for a big guy and could have a Dontari Poe emergence, but his tape his mixed at best, he plays too high, and he has a history of back problems; Ellis McCarthy has uncanny movement skills for a 6'5" 330# guy, but his tape is more inconsistent than Phillips'; Terry Williams is an athletic bowling ball, but he has major character concerns and he measured in at 5'11". Finding the "Big Kahuna" isn't so simple.

I also think that you can stop the run just fine without a 330-350# DT in the middle. Look at Detroit, and Seattle. No classic NT among them.

I think that if you try to find the "next Vince Wilfork" that it's going to be more of a struggle than if you assume that mold is broken, and simply try to build a good DL that can stop the run as well as generate pressure.

Many misunderstandings there. Of course wilfork isn't what he used to be, but even fat, without a chance to work out completely due to his achilles, he's still much better than what will be left when he leaves.

The thread is about trading up. I'm generally opposed and have not done more than look at a couple lists but, if a VW, Suh, Seymour, Watt etc etc slips to the middle i think we should. don't want a wilfork clone. If i had my druthers, I'd make him stout, athletic and 6'9" lol.

If there are a lot of good, but flawed out there, maybe a baby trade, or stock up and see who competes.

My main point is, we have one superior talent at DT and he's 280. Unless they plan to change their whole defense to one gap pass rush, they need one more talented big guy IMO, cause i don't see us going through a season with a line of nink, chandler siliga and Easley.

I'm obviously condensing my thoughts, but I'd be fine with replacing Vince with Suh. fine with ham and eggers like Siliga and Branch at NT as long as we have at least one top DT that isn't about the same size as our linebackers.

 

[mayoclinic]

Many misunderstandings there. Of course wilfork isn't what he used to be, but even fat, without a chance to work out completely due to his achilles, he's still much better than what will be left when he leaves.

The thread is about trading up. I'm generally opposed and have not done more than look at a couple lists but, if a VW, Suh, Seymour, Watt etc etc slips to the middle i think we should. don't want a wilfork clone. If i had my druthers, I'd make him stout, athletic and 6'9" lol.

If there are a lot of good, but flawed out there, maybe a baby trade, or stock up and see who competes.

My main point is, we have one superior talent at DT and he's 280. Unless they plan to change their whole defense to one gap pass rush, they need one more talented big guy IMO, cause i don't see us going through a season with a line of nink, chandler siliga and Easley.

I'm obviously condensing my thoughts, but I'd be fine with replacing Vince with Suh. fine with ham and eggers like Siliga and Branch at NT as long as we have at least one top DT that isn't about the same size as our linebackers.

I don't think there's any question that Wilfork - even in his twilight - is better than Siliga and Branch. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2015 Wilfork is better than the 2014 Wilfork, as he will have had a year under his belt to recover from his achilles' tear. The issue is whether he will be worth an $8.9M cap hit, which is doubtful, and whether he will be willing to take less, which is also doubtful. Even if Wiflork stays for 2015, we need to plan for the post-Wilfork era.

I love Easley's versatility and explosiveness, but I for one certainly wouldn't suggest building a base DL with 288# guys in the middle. That's part of why I think it makes no sense to talk about someone like Michael Bennett, who IMO is just a lesser version of Easley.

The DTs that interest me are 310-330# guys with explosiveness, athleticism and movement skills, who are strong enough and big enough to plug the middle. Suh is one such player - and he's only 305#, though incredibly strong and stout - but I can't see that one happening. In terms of potential draft picks, I see 9 guys who interest me right now, discounting Danny Shelton, who I think is over-rated, and who will likely go too high for us anyway. In rough decreasing order of size:

1. Jordan Phillips, Oklahoma. 6'6" 334#. Likely 1st-2nd round. Extremely athletic and explosive for his size, but plays too high, and had inconsistent tape. Could pull a Dontari Poe kind of rise. Boom or bust prospect.
2. Ellis McCarthy, UCLA. 6'5" 324#. Highly rated high school recruit who showed flashes but never really put it together at UCLA. Played DE and DT. Had injuries last year, and finished the year strong. Probably 3rd-4th round, but could go higher or lower based on interviews and Combine/Pro Day.
3. Carl Davis, Iowa. 6' 4 5/8" 321#. 1st-2nd round. Had a breakout Senior Bowl, but very inconsistent tape and issues about his motivation and work ethic. I'm personally not a fan, but the talent is certainly there if he puts it together.
4. Malcolm Brown, Texas. 6'2" 320#. 1st-2nd round. Very strong and solid lineman with decent burst for his size, though not explosive.
5. Eddie Goldman, Florida St. 6' 3+", 315-320#. 1st-2nd round. Very athletic lineman who played DE in 2013 and played NT this year. Dominated some games, disappeared in others.
6. Marcus Hardison, Arizona St. 6' 3 1/8" 311#. Former QB, very athletic, had a breakout season, Played mostly DE for Arizona St., but can play anywhere from the 9 to the 1 tech.
7, Mario Edwards, Florida St. 6'3", played anywhere from 294# to 320# last season. Very athletic, played mostly DE for Florida St., but can play anywhere from the 9 to the 1 tech.
8. Xavier Cooper, Washington St. 6'4" 300#. Likely day 2. Played inside and out. Getting some hype in scouting circles, could break out at the combine. Matt Miller compares him to Sheldon Richardson in terms of his athleticism and skill set.
9. Arik Armstead, Oregon. 6'7" 290#. Day 1-2, with some suggesting he could go top 15. Can play inside and out. A bit slow out of his breaks, but very athletic with a lot of upside.

All are considerably bigger than Easley, but none is a Wilfork kind of wide body (Shelton is closest to that build, I just don't think he's anywhere near as good; Terry Williams is the other intriguing wide body, but height and character are major issues). All 7 of the guys above have good athleticism, movement skills and versatility.

Assuming that Leonard Williams and Danny Shelton are the top 2 DTs off the board, and assuming that Michael Bennett is too much like Easley, that makes 12 defensive tackles. I'm hoping a few of the guys listed above last to the 2nd-3rd round, and maybe one or two even slips further. It's a pretty strong and deep group overall compared with recent years:

2014: Aaron Donald (12), Dominique Easley (29), Ra'Shede Hageman (37), Stephon Tuitt (46), Timmy Jernigan (48), Ego Ferguson (51), Jay Bromley (74), Will Sutton (82), Louis Nix (83), Khyri Thornton (85), Justin Ellis (107)
2013: Sheldon Richardson (13), Star Lotulelei (14), Sharrif Floyd (23), Datone Jones (26), Sylvester Williams (28), Kawann Short (44), Jonathan Hankins (49), Bennie Logan (67), John Jenkins (82), Jordan Hill (87), Brandon Williams (94), Akeem Spence (100)
2012: Dontari Poe (11), Fletcher Cox (12), Michael Brockers (14), Derek Wolfe (36), Kendell Reyes (49), Jerel Worthy (51), Devon Still (53), Mike Martin (82), John Hughes (87), Akiem Hicks (89), Brandon Thompson (93), Alameda Ta'amu (109)
2011: Marcel Dareus (3), JJ Watt (11), Nick Fairley (13), Phillip Taylor (21), Cam Jordan (24), Muhammad Wilkerson (30), Cameron Heyward (31), Marvin Austin (52), Stephen Paea (53), Terrell McClain (65), Jurrell Casey (77)
2010: Ndamukong Suh (2), Gerald McCoy (3), Tyson Alualu (10), Dan Williams (26), Jared Odrick (28), Brian Price (35), Terrell Troup (41), Lamarr Houston (44), Linval Joseph (46), Terrance Cody (57), D'Anthony Smith (74), Earl Mitchell (81)

Add 1-2 of those 9 guys to Easley and I think you'd have a very versatile young DL core to build around for the long term.

 

[patchick]

The thread is about trading up. I'm generally opposed and have not done more than look at a couple lists but, if a VW, Suh, Seymour, Watt etc etc slips to the middle i think we should.

OK, I think there's a point that we'll all agree on: if one of the top 2 defenders in the draft is available at #20, you try to make a move.

There are absolutely times when it's desirable to trade up to secure a specific player. What confuses me is when people advocate trading up in principle, which is how this thread started off. It's like heading to the store with the goal of spending all your money on one item -- regardless of what items are for sale and how much they cost, and regardless of the interest rate you could earn by banking some of your cash for the future.

 

[mayoclinic]

OK, I think there's a point that we'll all agree on: if one of the top 2 defenders in the draft is available at #20, you try to make a move. .

Depending on (1) the cost to trade up, and (2) how highly you have other prospects rated.

Chandler Jones and Dont'a Hightower were the 13th and 14th defensive players taken in 2012. Jamie Collins was the 30th defensive player taken in 2013. Wilfork was the 9th defensive player taken in 2004. In all 3 cases, there were some far lesser players taken ahead of them. Even JJ Watt was only the 5th defensive player taken in 2011.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Ah, Stewart Bradley! I was pretty fixated on him in the draft, and pissed at the reports that he was the ONLY player the Pats wanted yet they didn't trade up. He never had much of a career, though.

Anyway...I'm all in favor of modest, strategic trades up for a player you really like. The Patriots have done that many times. My objections are to going "all in" for one potential "difference maker," and to the notion that any NFL roster is so loaded with talent that there isn't room for rookies to compete.

As I think we discussed back then, we don't know that they didn't try. We only know that either they didn't want to trade up for him or they weren't able to find a willing partner.

 

[patchick]

Depending on (1) the cost to trade up, and (2) how highly you have other prospects rated.

Chandler Jones and Dont'a Hightower were the 13th and 14th defensive players taken in 2012. Jamie Collins was the 30th defensive player taken in 2013. Wilfork was the 9th defensive player taken in 2004. In all 3 cases, there were some far lesser players taken ahead of them. Even JJ Watt was only the 5th defensive player taken in 2011.

LOL, guess we can't all agree after all! By "top" I meant "the players you actually think are most valuable -- obviously not the top taken since we're at pick 20.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Danny Shelton and Brandon Scherff are probably the only ones I would trade up for.

 

[JerseyShore99]

We'll have about 5 picks in the top 110 and another about 3-4 other picks I believe on Day 3, I'd like to maybe move up and around that top 100, maybe shop Denna

Danny Shelton and Brandon Scherff are probably the only ones I would trade up for.

Pretty much with you on that, hoping Shane Ray or Amari gets caught with pot or something so we can snatch them

 

[mayoclinic]

We'll have about 5 picks in the top 110 and another about 3-4 other picks I believe on Day 3, I'd like to maybe move up and around that top 100, maybe shop Denna

Pretty much with you on that, hoping Shane Ray or Amari gets caught with pot or something so we can snatch them

To each his own. I don't think Shane Ray fits at all. I would never trade up for a flanker in the 1st. I think Brandon Scherff is an excellent prospect, but trading up for a guard is rich for my blood. And I think Danny Shelton is way overrated, and I don't have him graded as a 1st round prospect. I readily admit that I could easily be completely off base on all of them.

 

[manxman2601]

To each his own. I don't think Shane Ray fits at all. I would never trade up for a flanker in the 1st. I think Brandon Scherff is an excellent prospect, but trading up for a guard is rich for my blood. And I think Danny Shelton is way overrated, and I don't have him graded as a 1st round prospect. I readily admit that I could easily be completely off base on all of them.

You would never trade up for a Von Miller type?