Something to consider when thinking about trading away draft picks . . . look at the Patriots

[Burgold]

Yeah, right now the Patriot model of being the seller rather than the buyer is probably correct for us. We are more than a receiver away. Breaking the bank for one guy won't work whether it's a Moss, a Jackson, or a Lynch. We've tried many times plugging in a receiver at high cost and it has netted us very little. Think about the big name receivers we've bought or traded for Laverneus Coles, Brandon Lloyd, Randle El, Santana Moss... they haven't gotten us where we want to be. We're not stable enough or deep enough to go for that gamble pick up. We'd actually be better off trimming the fat rather than adding to it.

[Oldfan]

... I also noticed that Belicheat didn't win any SB since the spygate.

You're right. He was a piss-poor 18-1 when he couldn't cheat.

[Oldskool]

2006 - New England Patriots

Rd Sel # Player Position School

1 21 Laurence Maroney RB Minnesota

2 36 Chad Jackson WR Florida

3 86 David Thomas TE Texas

4 106 Garrett Mills RB Tulsa

4 118 Stephen Gostkowski K Memphis

5 136 Ryan O'Callaghan T California

6 191 Jeremy Mincey LB Florida

6 205 Dan Stevenson G Notre Dame

6 206 Le Kevin Smith DT Nebraska

7 229 Willie Andrews CB Baylor

How many of these guys are even on the squad? ONE.

Having picks is not the end all, be all of a team.

[The Tris]

Which of the many plans we've seen in the Snyder era would you have stuck with?

Yeah, it's not just the abandonment of plans, but the implimentation of bad plans. Outside of Marty, neither Spurrier, Gibbs, or Zorn would have succeeded with more time. Patience was not the only problem there.

That being said, we need to give Shanny the patience not given to the others. And hopefully he will respond by not going through coordinators like Kleenex.

[mossomo]

That's what the Patriots do, and it's time to start flattering Bill Belichick & Co.

What annoys me about these "let's trade players for picks" posts, who do we have to replace the player we trade? Take Los for example. We don't have another shut down corner like him. We have a wide receiver like him, but no corner. Makes no sense to weaken/add a hole to our D just for a chance to roll the dice. Draft picks are not a sure shot. The only time you should talk about trading a player is when there is another player who can step in and play that position just as good.

[Homercles82]

2006 - New England Patriots

Rd Sel # Player Position School

1 21 Laurence Maroney RB Minnesota

2 36 Chad Jackson WR Florida

3 86 David Thomas TE Texas

4 106 Garrett Mills RB Tulsa

4 118 Stephen Gostkowski K Memphis

5 136 Ryan O'Callaghan T California

6 191 Jeremy Mincey LB Florida

6 205 Dan Stevenson G Notre Dame

6 206 Le Kevin Smith DT Nebraska

7 229 Willie Andrews CB Baylor

How many of these guys are even on the squad? ONE.

Having picks is not the end all, be all of a team.

We just went over this on page 1.

Drafting is not an exact science. There is no way to say ANYONE will be surefire starter and contributor after drafting them. It is better to have more darts to throw at a wall hoping you hit the bullseye than having less. You have more chances to win.

[Oldfan]

...Having picks is not the end all, be all of a team.

Nobody said it was.

Obviously, a plan to use the draft as the primary source of talent requires some proficiency in drafting. However, by arguing that the Pats haven't been great at drafting, you are, in effect, saying that the Pats plan is succeeding despite the fact that the execution hasn't been outstanding.

[Oldskool]

We just went over this on page 1.

Drafting is not an exact science. There is no way to say ANYONE will be surefire starter and contributor after drafting them. It is better to have more darts to throw at a wall hoping you hit the bullseye than having less. You have more chances to win.

As a counter balance to that thought, who was the last game changer that the Patriots drafted? Drafting is not an exact science and it not only takes picks, but a good scouting team and a vision of what you want your players to be.

[Devastate]

Except Smith definitely won't trade him to another AFC team, he already said that.

Oh I know I'm using it as an example. That because of their smart moves they can essentially do wahtever they want without sacraficing the future.

[Oldfan]

What annoys me about these "let's trade players for picks" posts, who do we have to replace the player we trade? Take Los for example. We don't have another shut down corner like him. We have a wide receiver like him, but no corner. Makes no sense to weaken/add a hole to our D just for a chance to roll the dice. Draft picks are not a sure shot. The only time you should talk about trading a player is when there is another player who can step in and play that position just as good.

If you are only concerned only about the upcoming season, you're right. However, if you are only concerned about the upcoming season every year, you almost guarantee a mediocre roster indefinitely.

[gortiz]

That's what the Patriots do, and it's time to start flattering Bill Belichick & Co.

you know what ... i do not want to cheapen how good they are, because as an org, brotha they are good.

that being said ...

THEY FELL ASS BACKWARDS INTO TOM BRADY ... and having an all world QB sure makes looking good easy.

with the most important position solidified for over the last decade they have been able have the flexibility to do a lot.

also, let's get this straight ... they have benefitted from PROBABLY THE NFL'S WORST CALL IN PLAYOFF HISTORY ... they lose that game, no telling how it effects who stays and leaves for the next year, their swagger/confidence, etc. etc.

I know that this is off topic with the OP trying to highlight their draft next year, which is freaking unfair ...to have that many picks. but, most teams don't have the luxery to have staple at QB, and being able to do that makes drafting easier.

the skins could learn a heck of alot from them though .. i agree on that.

so, again, they are a model franchise, but they have received breaks that not many other teams have received.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

People hate on Belicek, but he is the most brilliant mind in the NFL. He's just proving again what I've known for the past 7-8 years in that he is always one step ahead of everyone. Now even he admits its easy to look smart when you have arguably one of the best QBs in the game, but he still deserves the lion's share of credit for the Pat's success.

As for pointing out that stockpiling draft picks is best, I think most people on this forum know that already.

Belichik has not had a good draft in years though.

He has turned into some kind of weird commodities trader. The Pats - outside of the names you know - are shockingly thin in talent right now. Their defense is pretty terrible. They are excited about a 5'9 white running back they grabbed off the street. I mean...there are huge cracks showing up there.

[Snarky]

But that's the point isn't it, to stock pile draft picks knowing that some will bust? That way, if you hit on, say, half or a third, you still have a stable of young players that help you out. And don't forget that the Pats love to trade down on draft day and pick up more draft picks.

If they do that next year you might as well just give them them and the Eagles the floor. The whole back half of the draft will belong to them -- more or less.

[Oldfan]

THEY FELL ASS BACKWARDS INTO TOM BRADY ... and having an all world QB sure makes looking good easy.

I think if the Saints had taken Brady rather then Marc Bulger in the sixth round, and the Patriots had selected Bulger, instead. You'd be calling Bulger "all world" now.

[Snarky]

If Shanny and Allen continue to find diamonds in the rough like Ryan Torain, I'll be satisfied with that approach. For the first time in ages WE have a franchise quarterback and left tackle to build around on the offense. Let's see about players we acquire on the cheap like Chad Simpson and Javarris James.

I'd love to have a ton of picks on D though. Make the conversion to the 3-4 go a lot smoother, that's for sure...

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Nobody said it was.

Obviously, a plan to use the draft as the primary source of talent requires some proficiency in drafting. However, by arguing that the Pats haven't been great at drafting, you are, in effect, saying that the Pats plan is succeeding despite the fact that the execution hasn't been outstanding.

I don't think their plan is working at all. At the moment, they are a decidedly average football team that just gave away the one player on their roster that scares anyone.

Belichik and Brady might be able to drag this team to 10 wins, but I would not bet on it right now.

And they ain't going to use all those picks next year. Belichik will probably trade out of the first round completely and draft 15 second rounders.

Right now, the Patriots look like the Dolphins during the last five years of Marino's career. They could beat anyone or lose to anyone during the regular season, and were nothing more than a 9 to 10 win team that was doomed to get shut down in the playoffs.

Seriously, I don't know how they score on the Jets, Steelers or Ravens right now in a must-win game. Danny Woodhead is not going to get you tough yards in January on that Heinz Field cow pasture. There is no one to stretch the D.

[TheLongshot]

Yeah, it's not just the abandonment of plans, but the implimentation of bad plans. Outside of Marty, neither Spurrier, Gibbs, or Zorn would have succeeded with more time. Patience was not the only problem there.

Except many here wanted to stick with Gibbs' plan even after he left. (Those arguing for Williams to be HC.)

The problem isn't just changing coaches, but also bringing in coaches that were very philosophically different from the previous coach. Going from Marty's ball control offense to Spurrier's run-n-gun, to Gibbs' Coryell offense, to Zorn's WCO, it is hard to build any continuity. At least this time around we brought in another WCO guy. Then again, he decided the defense needed to go to a 3-4, which is going to be another massive change in personnel eventually.

[Conn]

I think if the Saints had taken Brady rather then Marc Bulger in the sixth round, and the Patriots had selected Bulger, instead. You'd be calling Bulger "all world" now.

We know you think that.

And to a degree, I even agree with you, about the Patriot's system.

But you know that you posting this has the potential to get this thread seriously off track.

[lowek723]

Quit listening to the radio...the pats picks over the years have done jack **** for them...

[elkabong82]

We just went over this on page 1.

Drafting is not an exact science. There is no way to say ANYONE will be surefire starter and contributor after drafting them. It is better to have more darts to throw at a wall hoping you hit the bullseye than having less. You have more chances to win.

That is true. However, at the same time you can't overvalue picks either. If the right trade opportunity comes along, you should take it instead of missing out because you didn't want to let go of some draft picks.

It's a fine balance, IMO, and a tough one at that. On one hand you can stockpile picks to increase your chances, but on the other hand if you miss on the majority of the players then you are essentially shooting yourself in the foot. I'd rather have a decent amount of picks and a staff with a good hit rate, than a bevy of picks and miss on the majority of them.

I don't think stockpiling picks, in general, is a bad idea. However, I also don't believe that a team is guaranteed success simply by doing it, meaning each team has to find its own way based on what they want to do, what they have, what they need, and what is available to them.

[Conn]

Belichik and Brady might be able to drag this team to 10 wins' date=' but I would not bet on it right now.

And they ain't going to use all those picks next year. [b']Belichik will probably trade out of the first round completely and draft 15 second rounders.[/b]

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. When in reality, already having that many picks, the best thing he could do is draft an IMPACT player with the Raiders first rounder (sure to be top-5 or top-10), and then trade back into the 1st round for another one.

Because continually trading down into the lesser-talented regions of the draft obviously hasn't worked for them. Might as well go for the more "can't-miss" talent.

[HoggLife]

It's an old adage that teaches us that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Well, I'm not sure if we care (or do the Patriots for that matter) how we look if we imitate the Patriots and how they seem to keep reloading year after year, but here's one eye-popping :yikes: thing to ponder and consider: with the Moss trade, the Patriots now have two first round picks, two second round picks, two third round picks, and two fourth rounders in the coming draft. They already are a Superbowl caliber team, and now have multiple picks to supply them with young, cheap talent to reload as they continue to age gracefully.

In the 2011 draft, we still have most of our picks, and we should hold on to all of them unless someone like a V-Jax can be had for a third rounder. The problem with trading away for vets like V-Jax is that ,while you get a polished pro right now, the vet you get has a shelf-life that will be due to expire sooner rather than later and will cost your team much more in terms of money than a third rounder that you can develop, have around here for a while, and pay a relative pittance to.

That's what the Patriots do, and it's time to start flattering Bill Belichick & Co.

And one of those 1st rounders is Oaklands which will be a top 10 and maybe even top 5 pick. Imagine if they add Ingram to that offense. Man that would be scary. Knowing the Patriots they will probably draft Locker and trade Brady away for two 1st rounders next season

[Skadden]

I still think the Patriots are a Super Bowl caliber team, and they proved they can do that without highlight type of talent in certain areas like WR (e.g., they had David Patten and some other so-so guy when they won their first). On the flip side to the postulate that you bring in young cheap talent is the corollary principle that you rid yourself of players headed on the decline and get what you can for them. One classic example of this is the Pats' trade of Richard Seymour for the Raiders first round pick in 2011 (which is why the Pats have two first rounders next year). Seymour definitely can still contribute but he's headed to the downside of his career. And they got what appears to be a high first round pick in the 2011 draft.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't think stockpiling picks, in general, is a bad idea. However, I also don't believe that a team is guaranteed success simply by doing it, meaning each team has to find its own way based on what they want to do, what they have, what they need, and what is available to them.

The Pats have gotten into the habit of acquiring picks simply for the purpose of acquiring them. They are like someone who dies with millions of frequent flyer miles.

I don't get how throwing one more draft pick onto their huge pile of draft picks does anything to really help them. They are basically punting away a season in Week 5 unless they know something about the Jets that I don't. The Jets have a better record than the Pats and are getting back a game-changing receiver. The Pats are giving one away.

I guess they are looking ahead to 2012 - when Brady might be crippled, I might add. But that would not fill me with joy as Pats' fan.

[The Tris]

Except many here wanted to stick with Gibbs' plan even after he left. (Those arguing for Williams to be HC.)

I'm curious how that plan works without Gibbs. I assume Cerrato has full control of personnel moves, we retain Saunders and Collins leads us to the SB?