The Tris Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I'm not trying to make an argument or sound smart, I just don't know how exactly the pats got all those picks aside from seymour, who isn't really a good comparison to Landry or Rak. He's talented, sure, but he was getting older and replacable in the system. Well, they traded Deion Branch two years removed from his SB MVP at 26 - many Pats fans thought he might have been a huge help in 2006 when Brady's best WR was what, Reche Caldwell? And Seymour was at 29 still very much in his prime when they traded him - again, many Pats fans have asked how much their defense suffered without him the past few years and if they missed a SB shot. Seymour is still one of the top 5-10 5-techs in the league, and was a 2010 pro bowler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindlywewander Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Well, they traded Deion Branch two years removed from his SB MVP at 26 - many Pats fans thought he might have been a huge help in 2006 when Brady's best WR was what, Reche Caldwell?And Seymour was at 29 still very much in his prime when they traded him - again, many Pats fans have asked how much their defense suffered without him the past few years and if they missed a SB shot. Seymour is still one of the top 5-10 5-techs in the league, and was a 2010 pro bowler. Is the branch trade just now giving them a pick? It was a while ago but I seem to remember injury/contract issues with branch? But again, I'm no pats expert so correct me if I'm wrong. And with seymour, I agree. He is still a good player, but wasn't he demanding a high salary or a year from one? He's performed well in Oakland but I'm not sure the pats would've shelled out top dollar for him like the raiders have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Is the branch trade just now giving them a pick? It was a while ago but I seem to remember injury/contract issues with branch? But again, I'm no pats expert so correct me if I'm wrong. And with seymour, I agree. He is still a good player, but wasn't he demanding a high salary or a year from one? He's performed well in Oakland but I'm not sure the pats would've shelled out top dollar for him like the raiders have. We would have, had he been drafted by us. Instead of us trading him for a pick, which would have brought the wrath of ES down on whoever did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindlywewander Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 We would have, had he been drafted by us. Instead of us trading him for a pick, which would have brought the wrath of ES down on whoever did it. With his production the past two seasons though, I'm not sure that'd be a bad thing. I guess I'm in the group that would prefer player loyalty. As long as a guy is producing, I'm for keeping him. People that suggest trading Cooley drive me crazy. But that's just me. I don't think a clear winner can be chosen in the seymour trade until we see the results of the garnered pick. And even then it becomes about that players performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zazzaro703 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 He might do 3 for 1 if its 2 picks this year and 1 next year. According to WalterFootball http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftorder2011.php New England has the 1st and 28th pick in the second round. If we could snag those, and a 2012 pick for our #10, then we would have the #1, #9 and #28 in the second round, and with as deep as this draft is, would should get some good talent. 3 second round picks gives me a bad taste in my mouth lol. Devin=Miss, Malcomb=Miss, Fred=Decent pick but don't use him right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 The easiest trade is the simpliest trade - our #10 (1300) for their #28 & #33 (1240). We would then have picks 28, 33 and 42. We could add three starters or two starters and a QB. I kinda agree. our #10 for their #17 & #60 or our #10 for their #28 & #33 These may not be considered maximum value for the #10 pick, but you have to balance that with how much desire / need our FO has to move back & aquire that extra pick. Having no 3rd or 4th rounders weakens our position to demand more than fair value, in my opinion, especially in dealings with teams who have strong FO's. Why overpay if you know someone is desperate to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgundyBlog Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I've heard at least two draftniks (in the last 48 hours) suggest that A.J. Green could fall to number 10, provided that Cincy takes a QB and Cleveland drafts defense. In that event, I think the Patriots - and possibly several other teams - would become very, very interested in our slot. Or, we could select him ourselves, which is a scenario that has scarcely been forecasted, but which could end up being rather serendipitous. If Green translates into Megatron Lite, it would be looked upon as a wise move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 If we did this, we could draft Pouncey, Hudson and Wisnewski. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I've heard at least two draftniks (in the last 48 hours) suggest that A.J. Green could fall to number 10, provided that Cincy takes a QB and Cleveland drafts defense. In that event, I think the Patriots - and possibly several other teams - would become very, very interested in our slot. Or, we could select him ourselves, which is a scenario that has scarcely been forecasted, but which could end up being rather serendipitous.If Green translates into Megatron Lite, it would be looked upon as a wise move. Ok, so here's my question: Your scenario unfolds, and it looks like Green could fall to us, a team desperately in need of WR help. What's to stop a team from trading 1 spot above us, to the Cowboys, to make sure that they get their man, rather than hoping that we're willing to take a deal and move out? Not that the Cowboys would necessarily be up for it if they have a guy they want sitting there at 9, but you teams all the time jump a team with a similar need rather than trade with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsenic Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 If the Pats are willing to sell the house for an OLB, I'm not so sure I'd pass up on said OLB. haha Regardless, HaiL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 With his production the past two seasons though, I'm not sure that'd be a bad thing. I guess I'm in the group that would prefer player loyalty. As long as a guy is producing, I'm for keeping him. People that suggest trading Cooley drive me crazy. But that's just me. I don't think a clear winner can be chosen in the seymour trade until we see the results of the garnered pick. And even then it becomes about that players performance. I'm not saying that's a bad thing (liking loyalty), but you can't have it both ways...you either want loyalty or you're ok with trading difference makers while they can still bring in high draft picks. ---------- Post added March-15th-2011 at 10:50 PM ---------- Ok, so here's my question: Your scenario unfolds, and it looks like Green could fall to us, a team desperately in need of WR help. What's to stop a team from trading 1 spot above us, to the Cowboys, to make sure that they get their man, rather than hoping that we're willing to take a deal and move out? Not that the Cowboys would necessarily be up for it if they have a guy they want sitting there at 9, but you teams all the time jump a team with a similar need rather than trade with them. See Bradford, Sam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky52Mc Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Don't trade with New England, we'll get raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tris Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Don't trade with New England, we'll get raped. Had more competent people utilized the picks in 2002, we would have been the rapers, the Pats the rapees. Even as it was with the OBC and Vinny running the show, we made out better with the 3 picks we received than NE did with their one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdlives Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 At the time the chart was developed rookie salaries really weren't nearly as out of whack as they've become. The chart became outdated because the top picks became shunned and teams were hesitant to trade up. This caused the value of the picks to decrease to lower than the chart, whereas now picks are more likely to be valued closer to it. If anything I think a rookie wage scale (there already is a rookie salary cap) will move us closer to the values dictated by the original chart than what we've been seeing more recently. I disagree. Since the advent of free agency, teams filled holes via free agency and then drafted. At the time of the development of the value chart, while draft pick salaries were lower, they were still comparable to free agent signings. An entirely new dynamic is about to start with this draft. If free agency occurs before the draft, FA players will outpace draft picks in terms cost. e.g. Nnamdi Asomugha will make 10X what Patrick Peterson is paid in his rookie scale, even if he's the #1 pick. The rookie wage scale puts the blockbuster deal back into the hands of the free agent. If free agency doesn't occur, the draft will be the only way for teams to fill holes. High draft picks, the ones that guarantee the best of the best, and guarantee a team pays a nominal salary for a premium player will become more valuable than the draft value chart suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orakpophobia Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 If we did this, we could draft Pouncey, Hudson and Wisnewski. That could help build a scary good OL. If the option to trade back is on the table, you do it and don't think twice about it. Who cares if it's with NE? That's a stupid reason not to acquire additional picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mzkp54 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Ok, so here's my question: Your scenario unfolds, and it looks like Green could fall to us, a team desperately in need of WR help. What's to stop a team from trading 1 spot above us, to the Cowboys, to make sure that they get their man, rather than hoping that we're willing to take a deal and move out? Not that the Cowboys would necessarily be up for it if they have a guy they want sitting there at 9, but you teams all the time jump a team with a similar need rather than trade with them. We've also come out and said that a pass rushing LB is one of, if not our top priority. The same logic applies with the Pat trade that they'd want to trade ahead of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.