PDA

View Full Version : Why it is pretty much impossible for New England to trade down


BucSappy
11-20-2007, 07:28 PM
This is going to be very long. There is already a thread on what New England should do since as of right now they have the #2 overall draft pick via the San Francisco 49ers.

You guys are in Imaginatoinland if you think someone is going to trade up for Darren McFadden this high in the draft. There have already been metioned reasons why trades in the top 5 (even top 10) are so rare. Keylime mentioned that runningbacks are a dime a dozen in the NFL. No one is going to trade up for Jake Long, Chris Long, etc. It just isn't worth it. Teams can stand pat and have a great draft. Only McFadden is truly elite so he is the only player a team would even consider trading up for.

So, lets look at the top 10 and discover how all of you geniuses out there that think New England being able to trade down is such a great possibility:

3. STL (Steven Jackson)
4. OAK (LaMont Jordan, but could use Darren McFadden)
5. NYJ (Thomas Jones, must address other needs and can't afford to trade up)
6. CIN (Rudi Johnson, must address other needs)
7. ATL (must address other needs)
8. NO (Reggie Bush)
9. BAL (Willis McGahee, must address other needs)
10. KC (Larry Johnson)
11. MIN (Adrien Peterson

And then the rest of the draft can't afford to trade up that high, and the Patriots don't want to be picking that low considering what they already have.

I will explore the only trade possibility, and that is with the Oakland Raiders, since RB is somewhat of a need, Al Davis loves elite athletes, and they are picking near the #2 spot. Here is the updated draft order, and Scott's trade value chart.

http://www.gbnreport.com/weeklydraftorder.htm
http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/features/valuechart.html

Oakland Raiders have these 2008 NFL Draft selections currently available to them, point values are in parentheses:
1. #4 (1800)
2. #35 (550)
3. *They traded their 3rd rounder to New England, not available.
4. #101 (96)
5. #132 (40)
6. #163 (26.2)
7. #194 (13.8)

New England has the 2nd overall pick as of right now, it is worth 2600 points total. All of Oakland's picks add up to a grand total of 2526. Now, we know Oakland will not pull a Mike Ditka and mortgage their draft just to have an elite runningback. It is just dumb when this team has a ton of needs.

Oakland would only offer New England #4 and #35 (2350 points) for New England's #2 overall (2600).

New England might accept it, but I tell you why this won't go down. Oakland doesn't have a 3rd rounder. They trade up for McFadden, and now they aren't picking again until pick #101. They pretty much are gambling their entire draft on Darren McFadden. It isn't smart. Oakland needs receivers. They need an OL.

But that is the only trade possibility, and I don't think it is a smart trade for Oakland.

toonsterwu
11-20-2007, 07:33 PM
You are limiting trades to draft picks within this drafting season. Let's say Oakland gets really hungry for McFadden if he's at 2. They could spin the 1st/2nd this year and offer a 2nd next year to balance things out (or a 3rd, depends on how the Pats count future value).

One trade aspect I would watch for is a team moving up for a LT. With Jeff Otah and Ryan Clady both moving up, there's a chance that some may view them as elite tackle prospects, and if they feel they are LT's, they may gamble for it since several other teams at the top could use LT's. Clady's slowly reminding me a bit of Walter Jones (was big on Clady before the year, but not Walter Jones level). I'm a bit wary of Otah due to the weight, but spin it back to the UVA game. He did a good job there, and that's as good as an end tandem as there is in the country (Chris Long and Jeff Fitzgerald). Jeff did well against UVA last year also.

That said, I do agree for the most part that trade possibilities in the top 5 is going to take some team really loving someone and that the market isn't great. I could see some movement in the 6-10 area.

IndyColtScout
11-20-2007, 07:35 PM
You are right and wrong.

There is one problem behind this theory, it doesn't take into account future considerations.

What if someone falls in love with Matt Ryan?

I don't want to look it up, but I know QB's are almost a lock in the last decade of the NFL draft.

I'm not saying anyone is better than anyone. I just think that it's possible for a team to fall in love with a QB through the combine & workouts.

Even the year Alex Smith & Aaron Rodgers were the top QB's (considered a sub par QB class at the top) a QB still went #1.

No one can predict what will happen in the future.

Yes, it will be difficult for NE to trade down. However, it's not impossible.

I actually have this feeling its bound to happen.

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 07:38 PM
You are limiting trades to draft picks within this drafting season. Let's say Oakland gets really hungry for McFadden if he's at 2. They could spin the 1st/2nd this year and offer a 2nd next year to balance things out (or a 3rd, depends on how the Pats count future value).

One trade aspect I would watch for is a team moving up for a LT. With Jeff Otah and Ryan Clady both moving up, there's a chance that some may view them as elite tackle prospects, and if they feel they are LT's, they may gamble for it since several other teams at the top could use LT's. Clady's slowly reminding me a bit of Walter Jones (was big on Clady before the year, but not Walter Jones level). I'm a bit wary of Otah due to the weight, but spin it back to the UVA game. He did a good job there, and that's as good as an end tandem as there is in the country (Chris Long and Jeff Fitzgerald). Jeff did well against UVA last year also.

That said, I do agree for the most part that trade possibilities in the top 5 is going to take some team really loving someone and that the market isn't
great. I could see some movement in the 6-10 area.

I did that on purpose. I can't evaluate every trade possibility. Secondly, I don't think trading future picks is a smart thing to do if your team has a lot of needs such as the Raiders.

As good as Clady is, I don't think he will ever be worthy of a top 3 pick, or even worthy of a blockbuster trade. Teams just don't deal up high in the draft unless it is for a quarterback, but you make a good argument.

Scotty D
11-20-2007, 07:40 PM
If some team offers up a future first NE will bite. Someone else mentioned in a thread that Atlanta could dangle Deangelo Hall to move up.

BrownsTown
11-20-2007, 07:42 PM
Who says it has to be McFadden? If Jake Long doesn't go #1, most of those teams on that list would need him. Especially KC, who needs Oline desperately and would have no shot at him at 10.

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 07:43 PM
You are right and wrong.

There is one problem behind this theory, it doesn't take into account future considerations.

What if someone falls in love with Matt Ryan?

Doesn't matter. Teams picking this high have other needs and it isn't smart to deal high draft picks when you need to fill out your depth chart with young talent.

Teams picking 3-6 have no need at all for a quarterback. No reason to trade up if you are Atlanta to #2 overall, when you pretty much have to give up your entire 2008 draft (or at least their first, second, and third rounders) and probably a high 2009 pick., and Ryan will probably fall to them anyways since like I said teams 3-6 don't need a QB.

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 07:44 PM
If some team offers up a future first NE will bite. Someone else mentioned in a thread that Atlanta could dangle Deangelo Hall to move up.

Atlanta has way too many needs on their team to trade away a 2009 1st rounder.

toonsterwu
11-20-2007, 07:45 PM
Well, there's a pro and con to the argument on trading future picks. Sure, it's a risk, but if you feel a guy is going to be a stud and help, then not making that move would be more problematic, as you never really know how the next draft class looks like. That said, there's always the risk of backfire, such as what has happened to the Niners. It also comes down to how big the need is.

I think people are low on Clady on msg boards due to his slow start this year. Coming into the year, he was considered a high pick if he came out, but he struggled early. That said, he's been real good for the last few picks. He has a superb combination of size and footwork. I like Jake Long, but as of now, I'm not sure that Jeff Otah and Ryan Clady aren't both on Long's level, if not higher.

Now, one aspect that would make a team more likely to target a young tackle is if they have a young QB (or if your OL sucked awfully this past year). That said, the opposing argument to a team moving up for a LT is that there's good tackle depth this year. I mean, why take a tackle in the top 10 when you could land a Chris Williams, Sam Baker, or Gosder Cherilus in the mid-first to early 2nd range.

At the end tis early, and only time will let us know if teams fall in love with certain players.

Average OT LB
11-20-2007, 07:46 PM
This is very stupid. I very much like how you have "must address other needs" for half the teams. Like that even matters... Yeah the lions really needed to take WRs in the first round like 10 years in a row.. Yeah each NFL team does exactly what makes sense, and thats definitely why we're able to predict what happens in the draft in terms of trades and who goes where..

Saying that NE may not trade down is a possibility, but saying they cant, is the dumbest thing i have ever heard in my entire life.

Mr. Bucsappy, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

IndyColtScout
11-20-2007, 07:46 PM
Doesn't matter. Teams picking this high have other needs and it isn't smart to deal high draft picks when you need to fill out your depth chart with young talent.

Teams picking 3-6 have no need at all for a quarterback. No reason to trade up if you are Atlanta to #2 overall, when you pretty much have to give up your entire 2008 draft (or at least their first, second, and third rounders) and probably a high 2009 pick., and Ryan will probably fall to them anyways since like I said teams 3-6 don't need a QB.

The draft order isn't even set yet. Some team could lose out, our another practically win out and make the playoffs. No order is set in stone yet.

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 07:47 PM
Who says it has to be McFadden? If Jake Long doesn't go #1, most of those teams on that list would need him. Especially KC, who needs Oline desperately and would have no shot at him at 10.

Explain to me how Kansas City is going to trade up all the way from 10th to 2nd. They have way too many needs to address to give up so many draft picks/future picks to move up that high. Add up the points and explain to me exactly how it will happen.

Why trade up that high when there are capable LT prospects in this draft such as Ryan Clady and Sam Baker?

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 07:49 PM
The draft order isn't even set yet. Some team could lose out, our another practically win out and make the playoffs. No order is set in stone yet.

I know. But we are talking hypothetically, for fun, but lets be realistic about it too.

BrownsTown
11-20-2007, 07:50 PM
Explain to me how Kansas City is going to trade up all the way from 10th to 2nd. They have way too many needs to address to give up so many draft picks/future picks to move up that high.

Why trade up that high when there are capable LT prospects in this draft such as Ryan Clady and Sam Baker?

You keep saying way too many needs, when we've seen many, many, MANY times in the past teams are willing to forsake other needs to fill one for good. Case in point, the Browns. They essentially thought they were giving up a top 5 pick for Quinn, one that they could have used on the unfilled NT spot, for a QB. Clady and Baker are good, but Long is in a different class as far as how polished he is. A franchise LT is more than important enough to trade up for.

IndyColtScout
11-20-2007, 07:51 PM
Explain to me how Kansas City is going to trade up all the way from 10th to 2nd. They have way too many needs to address to give up so many draft picks/future picks to move up that high. Add up the points and explain to me exactly how it will happen.

Why trade up that high when there are capable LT prospects in this draft such as Ryan Clady and Sam Baker?

I could give you one hypothetical example off the top of my head. Lets say MIN sucks ass for the rest of the year (not saying they will talking hypothetical here). MIN would finish somewhere around 4-10. Lets just pick a number and say six. So MIN offers the #6, #37, Chester Taylor, and a future conditional day one pick to NE in exchange for their higher pick which they would use to pick either Jake Long or Matt Ryan. NE would take that in a heart beat.

briz222x
11-20-2007, 07:53 PM
Atlanta needs a running back more than Oakland. Oakland has Michael Bush waiting in the wings remember? Who has Atlanta got? Warrick Dunn??? Norwood who isnt even an RB?

Atlanta could deffinitly trade up with NE, they have DeAngelo Hall that the Pats could be VERY interested in with Samuel about to be outie5000. Infact I bet the Pats would be the ones that sacrifice more than the Falcons to make the trade work.

Atlanta also could have their pick of any QB they want, Brohm, Ryan, or Woodson in addition to McFadden. Sure there will be some availible lower down at their pick but who knows one may go early before their pick or a team like Balt could trade up ahead of Atlanta and snag Brohm or something.

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 07:54 PM
I could give you one hypothetical example off the top of my head. Lets say MIN sucks ass for the rest of the year (not saying they will talking hypothetical here). MIN would finish somewhere around 4-10. Lets just pick a number and say six. So MIN offers the #6, #37, Chester Taylor, and a future conditional day one pick to NE in exchange for their higher pick which they would use to pick either Jake Long or Matt Ryan. NE would take that in a heart beat.

Why would they trade up for Matt Ryan when he will be there anyways if they are picking 4th?

If NE picks 2nd, NYJ/CIN/STL/OAK/ 3rd, then Ryan is going to be for them at 4 and it makes no sense to trade up.

Also, makes no sense to trade for Jake Long when they can find a very capable RT in round 2 such as Barry Richardson, Chris Williams, Jeff Otah, or Gosder Cherilius. And if they do in fact trade up for Long, then what are they going to do at QB?

toonsterwu
11-20-2007, 07:55 PM
I could give you one hypothetical example off the top of my head. Lets say MIN sucks ass for the rest of the year (not saying they will talking hypothetical here). MIN would finish somewhere around 4-10. Lets just pick a number and say six. So MIN offers the #6, #37, Chester Taylor, and a future conditional day one pick to NE in exchange for their higher pick which they would use to pick either Jake Long or Matt Ryan. NE would take that in a heart beat.

Really a side note, but yeah, I think the Pats would jump on that in an instant, getting a quality backup running back, moving down to take a DB, and a 2nd rounder to play with, along with a future pick. Definitely something I could see them doing. Probably would take a 3rd next year at least.

toonsterwu
11-20-2007, 07:57 PM
Why would they trade up for Matt Ryan when he will be there anyways if they are picking 4th?

If NE picks 2nd, NYJ/CIN/STL/OAK/ 3rd, then Ryan is going to be for them at 4 and it makes no sense to trade up.

Also, makes no sense to trade for Jake Long when they can find a very capable RT in round 2 such as Barry Richardson, Chris Williams, Jeff Otah, or Gosder Cherilius. And if they do in fact trade up for Long, then what are they going to do at QB?

Well, let's not forget that we are, at the end, dealing with people. Let's make up a hypothetical. Let's say that Minnesota picked 4th and Atlanta picked 5th. If both teams fell in love with a QB, both could get trigger happy trying to get their guy. It's not inconceivable. Granted, Atlanta probably has more flexibility.

On a side note, I think 2nd is quite high for Richardson right now. Only time will tell, though.

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 07:57 PM
Atlanta needs a running back more than Oakland. Oakland has Michael Bush waiting in the wings remember? Who has Atlanta got? Warrick Dunn??? Norwood who isnt even an RB?

Atlanta could deffinitly trade up with NE, they have DeAngelo Hall that the Pats could be VERY interested in with Samuel about to be outie5000. Infact I bet the Pats would be the ones that sacrifice more than the Falcons to make the trade work.

Atlanta also could have their pick of any QB they want, Brohm, Ryan, or Woodson in addition to McFadden. Sure there will be some availible lower down at their pick but who knows one may go early before their pick or a team like Balt could trade up ahead of Atlanta and snag Brohm or something.

Doesn't DeAngelo Hall have a big contract? They would be better off resigning Asante Samuel then taking on Hall's contract which I am assuming is already big, and if he is still on his rookie contract, then he is set to be a FA soon right? If I'm wrong then please correct me.

Atlanta has too many needs to trade up. They need to build their team through the draft.

bruschis4all
11-20-2007, 07:59 PM
This is going to be very long. There is already a thread on what New England should do since as of right now they have the #2 overall draft pick via the San Francisco 49ers.

You guys are in Imaginatoinland if you think someone is going to trade up for Darren McFadden this high in the draft. There have already been metioned reasons why trades in the top 5 (even top 10) are so rare. Keylime mentioned that runningbacks are a dime a dozen in the NFL. No one is going to trade up for Jake Long, Chris Long, etc. It just isn't worth it. Teams can stand pat and have a great draft. Only McFadden is truly elite so he is the only player a team would even consider trading up for.

So, lets look at the top 10 and discover how all of you geniuses out there that think New England being able to trade down is such a great possibility:

3. STL (Steven Jackson)
4. OAK (LaMont Jordan, but could use Darren McFadden)
5. NYJ (Thomas Jones, must address other needs and can't afford to trade up)
6. CIN (Rudi Johnson, must address other needs)
7. ATL (must address other needs)
8. NO (Reggie Bush)
9. BAL (Willis McGahee, must address other needs)
10. KC (Larry Johnson)
11. MIN (Adrien Peterson

And then the rest of the draft can't afford to trade up that high, and the Patriots don't want to be picking that low considering what they already have.

I will explore the only trade possibility, and that is with the Oakland Raiders, since RB is somewhat of a need, Al Davis loves elite athletes, and they are picking near the #2 spot. Here is the updated draft order, and Scott's trade value chart.

http://www.gbnreport.com/weeklydraftorder.htm
http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/features/valuechart.html

Oakland Raiders have these 2008 NFL Draft selections currently available to them, point values are in parentheses:
1. #4 (1800)
2. #35 (550)
3. *They traded their 3rd rounder to New England, not available.
4. #101 (96)
5. #132 (40)
6. #163 (26.2)
7. #194 (13.8)

New England has the 2nd overall pick as of right now, it is worth 2600 points total. All of Oakland's picks add up to a grand total of 2526. Now, we know Oakland will not pull a Mike Ditka and mortgage their draft just to have an elite runningback. It is just dumb when this team has a ton of needs.

Oakland would only offer New England #4 and #35 (2350 points) for New England's #2 overall (2600).

New England might accept it, but I tell you why this won't go down. Oakland doesn't have a 3rd rounder. They trade up for McFadden, and now they aren't picking again until pick #101. They pretty much are gambling their entire draft on Darren McFadden. It isn't smart. Oakland needs receivers. They need an OL.

But that is the only trade possibility, and I don't think it is a smart trade for Oakland.

Possible scenario. Best team in league history..maybe..Stuck with 2nd pick. In the baseball draft, teams talk to players about signability before they draft player. Let's assume Pats pick 4th. They call Jake Long and say. Hey buddy, we'd like to take you at 4. And play for the best team in the league. A great OL coach D.Scarnecchia. And, our qb ain't bad. He's from Michigan. We will draft you if you agree to our terms. Do you think some very good players might take less to go to Pats? Malcolm Jenkins,V.Gholston,C.Long or J.Long.
Your alternative is Cincy...Would make me think twice.

IndyColtScout
11-20-2007, 08:01 PM
Why would they trade up for Matt Ryan when he will be there anyways if they are picking 4th?

If NE picks 2nd, NYJ/CIN/STL/OAK/ 3rd, then Ryan is going to be for them at 4 and it makes no sense to trade up.

Also, makes no sense to trade for Jake Long when they can find a very capable RT in round 2 such as Barry Richardson, Chris Williams, Jeff Otah, or Gosder Cherilius. And if they do in fact trade up for Long, then what are they going to do at QB?

Well my answer is that's where the draft takes hold. Teams are bluffing like crazy. Someone else might be trying to move up to #3 to take Long/Long/Ryan/DMac. You don't know what other teams want or are going to do, so MIN moves up making the sure thing pick @ #2. I would think MIN takes Jake Long. Big Mac moves to RT, Cook could move inside to Guard. Long is an instant fixture at LT (as well as McKinnie at RT). If there is a guard spot up for grabs, Cook could move into that or just help provide depth. If MIN opts for Ryan its because they would be worried that the team picking at #3 has a deal in place with another team. So MIN moves up to #2 to make sure they get their QB of the future. I think either scenario is possible.

briz222x
11-20-2007, 08:01 PM
Doesn't DeAngelo Hall have a big contract? They would be better off resigning Asante Samuel then taking on Hall's contract which I am assuming is already big, and if he is still on his rookie contract, then he is set to be a FA soon right? If I'm wrong then please correct me.

Atlanta has too many needs to trade up. They need to build their team through the draft.

no Halls contract isnt that bad thats why hes actually upset and wants a raise. He will be in the 5th year of his 6-year contract next year and his cap values are around 2.5 mill. Asante is franchised and cost around 7.8 mill right now, and is looking for 10 mill a year and 30 million gauranteed for the first 3 years in his new contract.

The pats would obviously sign Hall to a contract but it wont be anything close to what Asante is gunna get next year. Hall might be 5-7 mill a year, your talking about 8-10 mill for Asante.

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 08:05 PM
Well, let's not forget that we are, at the end, dealing with people. Let's make up a hypothetical. Let's say that Minnesota picked 4th and Atlanta picked 5th. If both teams fell in love with a QB, both could get trigger happy trying to get their guy. It's not inconceivable. Granted, Atlanta probably has more flexibility.

On a side note, I think 2nd is quite high for Richardson right now. Only time will tell, though.

Great point and that is a very possible scenario. But teams getting trigger happy historically doesn't happen at the top of the draft.

Me personally, if I'm either team I would stand pat and see what happens. Teams falling "in love" with a QB isn't a smart move. How did it work out for teams like the Giants (Manning), Falcons (Vick), Saints (Williams), etc.? The other team on the end of that deal made out great value wise.

It is why Tampa didn't trade up for Calvin Johnson, and why the Jets didn't trade up for Reggie Bush. Both those teams stood pat on their picks, didn't trade up, and ended up having very good drafts rather than trading up for one elite prospect and leaving their depth chart with needs that could have been filled with talented draft picks.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
11-20-2007, 08:05 PM
First. The draft order is not set in stone yet.

Second. What teams 'should do' doesn't really always happen so you have to be willing to expect the unexpected.

Third. What's stopping NE from from trading for a future #1, plus picks this year? A talent like D-Mac can garner such interest, and so can other talent at #2. They don't have a direct need, so why not keep what they have going while building for the future and saving money?

I see where your trying to go with this (well, sort of), but i don't think you make a convincing case. At least not in my opinion.....it's far to early to say

benchod
11-20-2007, 08:09 PM
Everyone already mentioned that you didn't take future drafts into consideration, but the human factor is the biggest thing. What if someone falls in love with a certain player? What if New England is willing to take less to move down? There are far too many variables to consider and you underestimate the spontaneous and creative scenarios that can arise.

toonsterwu
11-20-2007, 08:10 PM
Great point and that is a very possible scenario. But teams getting trigger happy historically doesn't happen at the top of the draft.

Me personally, if I'm either team I would stand pat and see what happens. Teams falling "in love" with a QB isn't a smart move. How did it work out for teams like the Giants (Manning), Falcons (Vick), Saints (Williams), etc.? The other team on the end of that deal made out great value wise.

It is why Tampa didn't trade up for Calvin Johnson, and why the Jets didn't trade up for Reggie Bush. Both those teams stood pat on their picks, didn't trade up, and ended up having very good drafts rather than trading up for one elite prospect and leaving their depth chart with needs that could have been filled with talented draft picks.

The difference comes in position. Teams are more willing to gamble on QB's than they are on WR's (their ability to impact the game is limited) and RB's (their shelf-life is limited). It may not be a smart move, but due to the nature of the position, it is the one position where teams hit or miss a lot, but are willing to go back in the pool and gamble, as a good QB can make your team better than it should be.

ATLDirtyBirds
11-20-2007, 08:14 PM
Just to clarify, DeAngelo is set to be a FA this offseason, and wants Nate money.

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 08:14 PM
First. The draft order is not set in stone yet.

Second. What teams 'should do' doesn't really always happen so you have to be willing to expect the unexpected.

Third. What's stopping NE from from trading for a future #1, plus picks this year? A talent like D-Mac can garner such interest, and so can other talent at #2. They don't have a direct need, so why not keep what they have going while building for the future and saving money?

I see where your trying to go with this (well, sort of), but i don't think you make a convincing case. At least not in my opinion.....it's far to early to say

Most teams already are set at RB, like a set a dime a dozen in the NFL. Historyically, draft trades this high in teh draft are for the most important position in football: quarterback.

Also, this draft is shaping up to be pretty talented/deep at RB. You can find a very good player in round 2 or 3. Add in the fact most teams won't be drafting a RB because they have their guy, and you can find a very capable starting RB in round 3. Granted, you aren't going to find D-Mac with pick #88, but you can fill your roster with a lot of all around good talented and draft other positions in rounds 1 and 2 rather than having to trade those picks to get D-Mac.

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 08:15 PM
The difference comes in position. Teams are more willing to gamble on QB's than they are on WR's (their ability to impact the game is limited) and RB's (their shelf-life is limited). It may not be a smart move, but due to the nature of the position, it is the one position where teams hit or miss a lot, but are willing to go back in the pool and gamble, as a good QB can make your team better than it should be.

100% agree. It's why most top 10 trades involve QBs (Vick/Manning off the top of my head).

I was just pointing out the general theory on why top 5 trades are extremely likely not to happen.

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 08:16 PM
Just to clarify, DeAngelo is set to be a FA this offseason, and wants Nate money.

If thats the case, then I don't see New England trading for a pissed off player who wants a big contract, especially (point made earlier in the thread) if they have are more willing to pay Randy Moss.

Caddy
11-20-2007, 08:19 PM
I think most people will agree with you that it is difficult to form a trade when picking in the top 4-5. But to come outright and say that it is 'pretty much impossible' is slightly ignorant. There are many unforeseen occurrences which could lead to a trade being demanded before draft day.

Since this is a hypothetical discussion anyway, there can be just as many potential reasons for a trade as there is for no trade.

bruschis4all
11-20-2007, 08:20 PM
Here's my projection on draft order.
1. Miami - G.Dorsey
2. Oak. - D.McFadden
3. SF TO NE -
4. Atlanta
5. NYJ
6. ST. L

If Carolina,Minny or Baltimore want a qb, would they trade up to get Ryan or Brohm? Pats would probably take a 1 and 2 this year. Move from 3-10.
Save a lot of money. I think that's a fair trade for team moving up. Don't have to give up a future first.

Then when the Pats are on the click with their 2nd rounder they got in a trade. They can flip that for a late 1st rounder next year. I know it wouldn't happen because they despise each other. I'd make the Colts that offer. Polian would have to be leery of doing it. Because, he thinks Belichick has a voodoo doll of Manning and will tear his ACL:)

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 08:22 PM
Here's my projection on draft order.
1. Miami - G.Dorsey
2. Oak. - D.McFadden
3. SF TO NE -
4. Atlanta
5. NYJ
6. ST. L

If Carolina,Minny or Baltimore want a qb, would they trade up to get Ryan or Brohm? Pats would probably take a 1 and 2 this year. Move from 3-10.
Save a lot of money. I think that's a fair trade for team moving up. Don't have to give up a future first.

Then when the Pats are on the click with their 2nd rounder they got in a trade. They can flip that for a late 1st rounder next year. I know it wouldn't happen because they despise each other. I'd make the Colts that offer. Polian would have to be leery of doing it. Because, he thinks Belichick has a voodoo doll of Manning and will tear his ACL:)

A 1 and 2 this year isn't going to be enough to trade up from #9 to #3. Check out the trade value chart.

toonsterwu
11-20-2007, 08:26 PM
I think an interesting team to watch will be Baltimore. If they finish high enough in the draft, I can definitely see Ozzie going after the guy he wants. Sure, they have other needs, but if they finish quite high, then Billick likely is gone, and Ozzie may want to give a new HC his franchise QB to develop. Same dynamic goes for Carolina, as they could face a new HC if they finish poorly.

bruschis4all
11-20-2007, 08:27 PM
A 1 and 2 this year isn't going to be enough to trade up from #9 to #3. Check out the trade value chart.


In a normal year yes. But, if you're just looking to move down to save salary. Why wouldn't the Pats do it? They have big-ticket items they have to take care of. Moss,Samuel or replacement for him and Stallworth decision.
Tough to bring a high-priced rookie into that locker room making more than anyone except; Brady,Moss and Seymour.

briz222x
11-20-2007, 08:27 PM
Just to clarify, DeAngelo is set to be a FA this offseason, and wants Nate money.

Contract details

Signed by Falcons to a six-year contract. Terms of his deal were undisclosed, but he has base salaries of: $230,000 (2004); $305,000 (2005); $385,000 (2006); $460,000 (2007); $570,000 (2008); and $957,500 (2009). He also received a $12 million signing bonus, giving him cap figures of: $2.23 million (2004); $2.305 million (2005); $2.385 million (2006); $2.46 million (2007); $2.57 million (2008); and $2.9575 million (2009).

briz222x
11-20-2007, 08:43 PM
Atlanta could actually get back a pick from the -pats- if they do a trade. Hall was the 8th pick in 2004, and they got the #7 pick right now, according to the trade value chart:

Pats pick #2 = 2,600

Atla pick #7 = 1,500
Atla pick #8 = 1,400 (DeAngelo Hall)

total = 2,900

Pats would need to come up with 300.

Atlanta could get a 2nd or 3rd rounder from the pats in return (the pats have 2 3rd rounders).

Its a pretty good deal imo, the pats would need a CB is asante leaves. The Falcons need an RB and QB and could take what they want, and get a pick back for Hall who they will probably lose next year for nothing anyways.

toonsterwu
11-20-2007, 08:53 PM
From what I understand, very few teams would value a veteran based on their draft position.

Handel
11-20-2007, 08:55 PM
I think an interesting team to watch will be Baltimore. If they finish high enough in the draft, I can definitely see Ozzie going after the guy he wants. Sure, they have other needs, but if they finish quite high, then Billick likely is gone, and Ozzie may want to give a new HC his franchise QB to develop. Same dynamic goes for Carolina, as they could face a new HC if they finish poorly.


And Ozzie has some relationship history with Bill (were together at Cleveland) and trade history too (NE 1st pick in 2003 traded for Baltimore's first in 2004)

IndyColtScout
11-20-2007, 08:58 PM
And Ozzie has some relationship history with Bill (were together at Cleveland) and trade history too (NE 1st pick in 2003 traded for Baltimore's first in 2004)

Would BAL trade up for Matt Ryan. Essentially if you are Ozzie Smith, you have to come to the decision...is Ryan going to be an upgrade over Boller/McNair? McNair, Yes. Boller, I am going to say yes.

Problem is BAL won't be picking top 10 IMO. I think they are better than that, but I may be wrong. If BAL isn't top 10, no shot BAL can trade up.

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 08:58 PM
From what I understand, very few teams would value a veteran based on their draft position.

Your right doing so would be just illogical.

How many teams would value Alex Smith at 3000 points since he was selected #1 in 2005?

Scotty D
11-20-2007, 09:04 PM
I still like the theory proposed by a couple of posters in which they don't pick, and wait for the guy they want at a lower salary. Seems like something they would do.

bearsfan_51
11-20-2007, 09:05 PM
From what I understand, very few teams would value a veteran based on their draft position.

This is true but it does mean that players will get more chances. You could chalk that up to raw talent, but I don't think it's a coincidence that guys like Ryan Leaf, Cade McCown, Lawrence Phillips, Akili Smith, etc., were all given 2nd and sometimes even 3rd chances.

briz222x
11-20-2007, 09:05 PM
From what I understand, very few teams would value a veteran based on their draft position.

i know im just using it as a ballpark figure.

kennyb
11-20-2007, 09:21 PM
You're saying two things which contradict each other. You're saying the Pats can't trade down b/c no one will offer enough.

Well maybe "not enough" is enough for the pats. NO matter what the "chart" says.

Suppose Dallas offers their 2 #1, which will be about 20 and late 20s, say. Maybe that "won't be enough" but NE would jump at it.

There's no way NE says "we're DYING to trade this damn #2 pick as we don't want to get saddled with a huge contract but we CAN'T!!". Can't and won't are two different things. If they want to trade it badly enough, they'll take anything...a late 1st and a late 2nd.

The top pick salaries are so out of control that it's almost better to just trade down even if you don't get anything. Soon it will be so bad that you'll have to pay to trade down...ie the #2 pick and 2nd rounder for the #15 pick.

kennyb
11-20-2007, 09:22 PM
A 1 and 2 this year isn't going to be enough to trade up from #9 to #3. Check out the trade value chart.

If NE truly wants to trade the pick, then they'll take it. They don't have to listen to what the chart says.

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 09:28 PM
If NE truly wants to trade the pick, then they'll take it. They don't have to listen to what the chart says.

But they don't want to get ripped off either. I mean they want to get some kind of fair value for their pick.

I mean if there is such a good chance of someone trading up then why doesn't it happen more often in the top 5?

kennyb
11-20-2007, 09:35 PM
But they don't want to get ripped off either. I mean they want to get some kind of fair value for their pick.

I mean if there is such a good chance of someone trading up then why doesn't it happen more often in the top 5?

I don't know why there aren't more trades...either the teams there want the pick or there aren't teams willing to trade what they consider 'enough'. But there is no established 'fair value' for the pick. The value is whatever NE is willing to take.

I could see teams paying up if McFadden is there, but probably not enough to satisfy the chart. NE won't care though; they've said many times the 'value' is late first round to late 3rd round. That's where you get good players and don't have to pay them much.

If they are dying to get rid of it, they won't care if others think they got "ripped off" according to a chart. They'll just dump it.

bruschis4all
11-20-2007, 09:39 PM
But they don't want to get ripped off either. I mean they want to get some kind of fair value for their pick.

I mean if there is such a good chance of someone trading up then why doesn't it happen more often in the top 5?

There are three major reasons team don't trade out. Fan bases want teams to be bold on draft day make a major move. Trade up. Not down. They are coming off of a poor year and don't want to look as though they are pushing their rebuilding project back. Public Relations basically. Two, they see what teams have gotten for a top 5 pick in the past and go by that stupid chart. They don't to be perceived as not getting enough. Belichick doesn't think what anyone cares. So, I think he would be likely to break from that trend. 3. $$$$$$$$. With NE it factors in two ways. They are close to the cap. And, why bring in some rookie who might be a couple of years from contributing when you can spend that money on someone who can help you win a Super Bowl. As a Pats fan, should make for a fascinating draft day.

P-L
11-20-2007, 09:44 PM
My personal feeling is that the chances of New England trading down from #2 is far more likely then them selecting McFadden at #2.

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 09:46 PM
There are three major reasons team don't trade out. Fan bases want teams to be bold on draft day make a major move. Trade up. Not down. They are coming off of a poor year and don't want to look as though they are pushing their rebuilding project back. Public Relations basically.

HAHHAHA. Why would they trade up? NFL clubs don't treat the draft like a candy store. They take it very seriously. And by this logic, please explain why they traded out of 2 of their 4 first day picks last year?

Front offices could give a **** what the fan bases think. I mean if they did, wouldn't Vince Young be a Texan? Quinn a dolphin? List goes on and on. Wouldn't the Bucs have drafted hometown kid Mike Williams?


Two, they see what teams have gotten for a top 5 pick in the past and go by that stupid chart. They don't to be perceived as not getting enough. Belichick doesn't think what anyone cares.

Wow pretty interesting. Didn't know Bill Belicheck was the GM. Didn't know he was the head scout. And if the chart was so stupid, then every team wouldn't use it.

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 09:48 PM
My personal feeling is that the chances of New England trading down from #2 is far more likely then them selecting McFadden at #2.

I think it is far more likely that New England goes on a 5 game losing streak than trading down from #2. Teams just don't have the ammo to trade up that high for any player, especially teams with a ton of needs to address which can't be done with one elite prospect.

Borat
11-20-2007, 09:58 PM
A lot of these "needs" you keep mentioning will be filled through free agency (you know, those 8 weeks prior to the draft where players without contracts can be signed by teams looking to fill "needs")

kennyb
11-20-2007, 09:59 PM
HAHHAHA. Why would they trade up? NFL clubs don't treat the draft like a candy store. They take it very seriously. And by this logic, please explain why they traded out of 2 of their 4 first day picks last year?

Front offices could give a **** what the fan bases think. I mean if they did, wouldn't Vince Young be a Texan? Quinn a dolphin? List goes on and on. Wouldn't the Bucs have drafted hometown kid Mike Williams?



Wow pretty interesting. Didn't know Bill Belicheck was the GM. Didn't know he was the head scout. And if the chart was so stupid, then every team wouldn't use it.

BB is effectively the GM. Scott Pioli is but they think pretty much alike.

Where do you get "every team uses it"? It was MADE UP by Jerry Jones from what he saw as a rule of thumb. It's not the Bible as dictated by God himself. You said "it's impossible for them to trade", but what you meant is that "they won't trade". It wouldn't be impossible from what you say, just that they wouldn't perceive themselves as getting enough value to trade. Different things.

If I have an old Chevy that some book tells me is worth 10K and I think it's a POS and am dying to get rid of it and the best offer I get is 7K, what do I do? Keep it because some f*cking book tells me it's worth 10K and I won't settle for less? So it sits in my garage and rusts? Does this make sense to you? I DUMP IT.

Someone offers a late 1st and a 1st next year? SOLD! Simple as that. YOu think BB is going to be intimidated into not doing what he wants because of some chart? Are you kidding me?

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 10:00 PM
A lot of these "needs" you keep mentioning will be filled through free agency (you know, those 8 weeks prior to the draft where players without contracts can be signed by teams looking to fill "needs")

Lets halt all NFL Draft discussions until the FA period is just about over.

Borat
11-20-2007, 10:03 PM
Lets halt all NFL Draft discussions until the FA period is just about over.

huh? Talk about your alltime lamest posts. Come on BucSappy get it together dude. Hehe

BucSappy
11-20-2007, 10:10 PM
Someone offers a late 1st and a 1st next year? SOLD! Simple as that. YOu think BB is going to be intimidated into not doing what he wants because of some chart? Are you kidding me?

Are YOU kidding me? There is a .000000001% the Pats trade down the bottom of round 1 with a 2009 1st thrown in. That is the dumbest of dumb ideas.

Everyone wants NE to trade down because it seems like the smartest thing to do. and I totally agree with that. It is the smartest thing to do.

Much easier said than done though I wish people would face the music on that.

D-Unit
11-21-2007, 12:29 AM
I don't see why the Cowboys can't be a possibility.

Julius Jones is a FA and there's already talks about the team not wanting to bring him back.

DMAC happens to go to Jerry Jones Alma Mater.

Jerry Jones was in attendance for DMAC's 300 yard game and came away very hot and horny according to news reports.

Dallas has 2 first round picks.

Dallas also has Bobby Carpenter who doesn't fit in Wade Phillips' scheme very well and could be available. Carp would thrive in Belichick's scheme which is basically Parcells' scheme. Parcells hand picked Carp and made him a first round pick for a reason.

The NFL Draft Pick Value Chart is merely a guide. It's not the law or end all. Teams often use it to make sure they are getting more than fair value when they have bargaining power and vice versa. Just like the Cowboys did with the Browns. Browns overpaid according to the chart for Quinn, but Cowboys had all the bargaining power.

Dallas does not have a lot of desperate holes to fill. Mortgaging the draft for an elite player is not out of the question.

kennyb
11-21-2007, 07:54 AM
Are YOU kidding me? There is a .000000001% the Pats trade down the bottom of round 1 with a 2009 1st thrown in. That is the dumbest of dumb ideas.

Everyone wants NE to trade down because it seems like the smartest thing to do. and I totally agree with that. It is the smartest thing to do.

Much easier said than done though I wish people would face the music on that.

Why is it dumb? Because a chart says so? That's dumb. The chart isn't gospel - it's meaningless. "Everyone uses it". BS. I wish you could get it through your 2 cent head.

If the Pats are willing to trade they can take anything for it. They don't have to listen to you and your chart.

toonsterwu
11-21-2007, 09:24 AM
I don't see why the Cowboys can't be a possibility.

Julius Jones is a FA and there's already talks about the team not wanting to bring him back.

DMAC happens to go to Jerry Jones Alma Mater.

Jerry Jones was in attendance for DMAC's 300 yard game and came away very hot and horny according to news reports.

Dallas has 2 first round picks.

Dallas also has Bobby Carpenter who doesn't fit in Wade Phillips' scheme very well and could be available. Carp would thrive in Belichick's scheme which is basically Parcells' scheme. Parcells hand picked Carp and made him a first round pick for a reason.

The NFL Draft Pick Value Chart is merely a guide. It's not the law or end all. Teams often use it to make sure they are getting more than fair value when they have bargaining power and vice versa. Just like the Cowboys did with the Browns. Browns overpaid according to the chart for Quinn, but Cowboys had all the bargaining power.

Dallas does not have a lot of desperate holes to fill. Mortgaging the draft for an elite player is not out of the question.

While it is just a guide, most teams don't stray too far from it. Currently, it looks as if the Cowboys would have to pony up a bit more than 2 1sts, Bobby Carpenter, and more due to the fact that both firsts look to be in the 20's right now. For me, rough valuation of the difference between the 2nd overall vs. 2 1sts in the 20's and Carpenter would be at the very least a low 1st differential, if not closer to mid first. Would you be willing to pony up the difference? I could see Jerry Jones doing it. Not sure if it's the best course of action, though, when other areas of the team could use some upgrading.

kennyb
11-21-2007, 09:57 AM
While it is just a guide, most teams don't stray too far from it. Currently, it looks as if the Cowboys would have to pony up a bit more than 2 1sts, Bobby Carpenter, and more due to the fact that both firsts look to be in the 20's right now. For me, rough valuation of the difference between the 2nd overall vs. 2 1sts in the 20's and Carpenter would be at the very least a low 1st differential, if not closer to mid first. Would you be willing to pony up the difference? I could see Jerry Jones doing it. Not sure if it's the best course of action, though, when other areas of the team could use some upgrading.

I think NE would jump at Dallas' two firsts, regardless of what the 'guide' says.

If a player is truly great teams would be willing to pay more than teh 'guide' and if there aren't...then the pats would be willing to take less. The top of the first round...throw 'the guide' out. It's whatever teams want to do.

He said it's "impossible for them to trade down". Not that they wouldn't get any bids but that they would be so inadequate that they (the pats) wouuld be stuck with the pick.

It doesn't make sense though. IF you really don't want something (the #2 pick), then you'll be willing to take very little in return for someone taking it off your hands.

Iamcanadian
11-21-2007, 10:19 AM
You keep saying way too many needs, when we've seen many, many, MANY times in the past teams are willing to forsake other needs to fill one for good. Case in point, the Browns. They essentially thought they were giving up a top 5 pick for Quinn, one that they could have used on the unfilled NT spot, for a QB. Clady and Baker are good, but Long is in a different class as far as how polished he is. A franchise LT is more than important enough to trade up for.

Historically in trading up, weak teams will only trade up for a QB as they simply have way too many holes to fill. Cleveland made that trade because it involved a QB. Teams have to be desperate at QB to be enticed to give up picks. Stronger teams generally are the teams prepared to give up picks to fill that one spot that may put them over the top.
I don't see NE trading down if they consider one of the players available capable of filling a position occupied by a player showing age. the dumped McGinest when they thought he was over the hill and they are probably prepared to dump one of Harrison, Bruschi and Vrabel for a top pick. I also cannot see too many teams willing to help out NE if the player NE wants is lower in the draft. NE would have to discount the value of the pick and I cannot see BB doing it. BB may reach for the player he wants but that is all you are going to see.

toonsterwu
11-21-2007, 10:24 AM
I think NE would jump at Dallas' two firsts, regardless of what the 'guide' says.

If a player is truly great teams would be willing to pay more than teh 'guide' and if there aren't...then the pats would be willing to take less. The top of the first round...throw 'the guide' out. It's whatever teams want to do.

He said it's "impossible for them to trade down". Not that they wouldn't get any bids but that they would be so inadequate that they (the pats) wouuld be stuck with the pick.

It doesn't make sense though. IF you really don't want something (the #2 pick), then you'll be willing to take very little in return for someone taking it off your hands.

For the most part, I don't disagree ... if you are talking about a small jump. But dropping that far, down to the 20's, and I think most teams don't want to look that bad. As overhyped as the pick value chart is, most teams do follow some variant of the chart in making their decisions. Some follow it more strict than others (Redskins have been quite flexible with it at times, for example). That said, I don't think many GM's want to get labeled as making a bad deal. That's often times worse than missing on a high pick, as crazy as it may sound.

That said, sure, I think someone out there may be willing to take a leap of faith and take 2 late firsts for a top pick. Just not sure there's that many people like that.

kennyb
11-21-2007, 10:37 AM
For the most part, I don't disagree ... if you are talking about a small jump. But dropping that far, down to the 20's, and I think most teams don't want to look that bad. As overhyped as the pick value chart is, most teams do follow some variant of the chart in making their decisions. Some follow it more strict than others (Redskins have been quite flexible with it at times, for example). That said, I don't think many GM's want to get labeled as making a bad deal. That's often times worse than missing on a high pick, as crazy as it may sound.

That said, sure, I think someone out there may be willing to take a leap of faith and take 2 late firsts for a top pick. Just not sure there's that many people like that.

I think they're gonig to be desperate to get rid of the pick. The whole idea of the draft is that bad teams pick first...but the higher contracts that they have to pay negate the advantage.

The cap hit for this pick would be 8M per year or something like that? That's just crazy and it would disrupt team chemistry. I think they'll be desperate to get out of it and if Dallas throws 2 #1s their way, they'll jump. If another team throws a late teens #1 and a 09 #1, they'd probably do that too. They've said many times that the 'value' as in "what you get minus what you pay" is HIGHEST in the late first through 3rd round. The 'value' as they define it is probably negative with the #2 pick unless you're getting John Elway or Eric Dickerson or Richard Seymour.

gdamac
11-21-2007, 01:08 PM
It's not impossibble because teams aren't chained t that value chart, the Pats could except a rade package of players and picks that satisfied them even if it didn't add up exactly. Dallas has two fist rounders, Oakland and Atlanta have CB they coud possibly package with picks. It's not impossible.

villagewarrior
11-21-2007, 03:03 PM
I think that we're forgetting that New England is an extremely unconventional team when it comes to the draft. They are willing to wait for it to pay off. How many times have we seen them parlay one first round pick into an additional one the next year? And continue to do that every year until they get the player and value that they want? I wouldn't be surprised to see them trade the 2 for a later first round this year, an extra pick or two this year, and a 1st next year, just because they don't mind waiting.

619
11-21-2007, 03:05 PM
I think that we're forgetting that New England is an extremely unconventional team when it comes to the draft. They are willing to wait for it to pay off. How many times have we seen them parlay one first round pick into an additional one the next year? And continue to do that every year until they get the player and value that they want? I wouldn't be surprised to see them trade the 2 for a later first round this year, an extra pick or two this year, and a 1st next year, just because they don't mind waiting.

when u have such a talented and deep team like that u can afford to wait while other teams arent as fortunate

bruschis4all
11-21-2007, 04:45 PM
HAHHAHA. Why would they trade up? NFL clubs don't treat the draft like a candy store. They take it very seriously. And by this logic, please explain why they traded out of 2 of their 4 first day picks last year?

Front offices could give a **** what the fan bases think. I mean if they did, wouldn't Vince Young be a Texan? Quinn a dolphin? List goes on and on. Wouldn't the Bucs have drafted hometown kid Mike Williams?



Wow pretty interesting. Didn't know Bill Belicheck was the GM. Didn't know he was the head scout. And if the chart was so stupid, then every team wouldn't use it.

Teams do trade up. Atlanta traded up to get Vick. NYG traded up to get Eli Manning. Cleveland gave up a 2 to draft K.Winslow. In 03 the JETS traded up for D.Robertson and NO for J.Sullivan. Need any more? Where did I say anything about drafting a hometown kid? Oh yeah. You're right. NFL doesn't care about it's image or what fans think

Babylon
11-21-2007, 05:47 PM
I don't see why the Cowboys can't be a possibility.

Julius Jones is a FA and there's already talks about the team not wanting to bring him back.

DMAC happens to go to Jerry Jones Alma Mater.

Jerry Jones was in attendance for DMAC's 300 yard game and came away very hot and horny according to news reports.

Dallas has 2 first round picks.

Dallas also has Bobby Carpenter who doesn't fit in Wade Phillips' scheme very well and could be available. Carp would thrive in Belichick's scheme which is basically Parcells' scheme. Parcells hand picked Carp and made him a first round pick for a reason.

The NFL Draft Pick Value Chart is merely a guide. It's not the law or end all. Teams often use it to make sure they are getting more than fair value when they have bargaining power and vice versa. Just like the Cowboys did with the Browns. Browns overpaid according to the chart for Quinn, but Cowboys had all the bargaining power.

Dallas does not have a lot of desperate holes to fill. Mortgaging the draft for an elite player is not out of the question.

I cant disagree with anything you said.

Iamcanadian
11-21-2007, 10:01 PM
No it's not impossible just highly unlikely. Why would the Pats want to strengthen the Cowboys. people seem to forget that finding an impact player is much easier in the top 5 that later in the draft and NE is always looking for impact players espectially with 3 impact players growing old on their defense. I think the $$$'s are way overstated if they can secure a 21 year old superstar given their ability to rank players.
I'd say a trade down is highly unlikely. They struck it rich with the 49ers pick and they aren't about to give it away. Top teams are always looking to trade up for an elite player so why would they now turn around and trade down.

kennyb
11-21-2007, 10:51 PM
No it's not impossible just highly unlikely. Why would the Pats want to strengthen the Cowboys. people seem to forget that finding an impact player is much easier in the top 5 that later in the draft and NE is always looking for impact players espectially with 3 impact players growing old on their defense. I think the $$$'s are way overstated if they can secure a 21 year old superstar given their ability to rank players.
I'd say a trade down is highly unlikely. They struck it rich with the 49ers pick and they aren't about to give it away. Top teams are always looking to trade up for an elite player so why would they now turn around and trade down.

Why would they 'help' another team like the Cowboys? Because they feel like they would be helping themselves more.

They'd trade down largely for the money, which isn't overstated at all. A #2 pick would be the second highest paid player on the team, and given BB's history, he doesn't like paying unproven guys like that.

Top teams are not "always looking to trade up", that's just a stupid statement. Some teams are, most aren't. Some are looking to trade down.

D-Unit
11-22-2007, 12:54 AM
No it's not impossible just highly unlikely. Why would the Pats want to strengthen the Cowboys. people seem to forget that finding an impact player is much easier in the top 5 that later in the draft and NE is always looking for impact players espectially with 3 impact players growing old on their defense. I think the $$$'s are way overstated if they can secure a 21 year old superstar given their ability to rank players.
I'd say a trade down is highly unlikely. They struck it rich with the 49ers pick and they aren't about to give it away. Top teams are always looking to trade up for an elite player so why would they now turn around and trade down.
First off, the Cowboys are in the NFC and the Patriots won't face them often if at all.

NE has all the bargaining power.

Jerry Jones is the type to overpay. I can see him giving up 3 #1 picks.

NE will do anything if it improves their own situation. Keeping the pick may not be their very best way of improving the team.

NE is smart enough to know that having a high pick means more than being able to pick high. They understand that the higher the pick, the more options they have of doing something with it.

LonghornsLegend
11-22-2007, 02:45 AM
Id be highly upset if we gave up 3 first rounders, and Carpenter to draft a rb, I dont care who it is or where he went...We are playing great football right now using 2 backs who were drafted late, id prefer that method and draft a safety who can cover or an impact defensive lineman, thats alot of picks 2 give up for a position im not too fond of, yes McFadden and Barber would be pretty sick to watch, but im not sold on giving up so much for a position that we dont even utilize that much, our offense has been pass first, and pass alot...we mix in some runs but you can watch us play and tell we are pass oriented, so I could see us doing a trade like that for a wr prospect we fall in love with when TO starts to age, but not for a rb

D-Unit
11-22-2007, 05:15 AM
Id be highly upset if we gave up 3 first rounders, and Carpenter to draft a rb, I dont care who it is or where he went...We are playing great football right now using 2 backs who were drafted late, id prefer that method and draft a safety who can cover or an impact defensive lineman, thats alot of picks 2 give up for a position im not too fond of, yes McFadden and Barber would be pretty sick to watch, but im not sold on giving up so much for a position that we dont even utilize that much, our offense has been pass first, and pass alot...we mix in some runs but you can watch us play and tell we are pass oriented, so I could see us doing a trade like that for a wr prospect we fall in love with when TO starts to age, but not for a rb
Just to let you know, I never suggested that Carp be involved along WITH 3 firsts. Nor would I be in favor of trading 3 picks alone for DMAC. However, I can see Jerry trading 3 firsts for Darren.

keylime_5
11-22-2007, 09:21 AM
Well in so many words it is not that hard to see why it will be hard for the Pats to trade down considering tradedowns in the top 5 only ever happen if a stud QB is involved (which it isn't this year), and that no one else wants McFadden in the top 10 that bad. But good job anyways.

bruschis4all
11-22-2007, 09:23 AM
Well in so many words it is not that hard to see why it will be hard for the Pats to trade down considering tradedowns in the top 5 only ever happen if a stud QB is involved (which it isn't this year), and that no one else wants McFadden in the top 10 that bad. But good job anyways.


Dwayne Robertson and Kellen Winslow say hello.

BeerBaron
11-22-2007, 08:18 PM
You know, ive always thought that this draft value chart was assanine anyway.

You just cant put strict number values on something like that. I like to point to the most recent draft as an example. We all know the bucs badly wanted calvin johnson but the lions werent willing to trade down without getting all of tampas other day 1 picks in the process. But if you think about it, what would it have hurt to accept less from tampa?

The lions didnt need calvin johnson by any stretch of the imagination and with the browns pretty much assuredly not taking gaines adams, the lions could have traded down with the bucs, got a guy they coveted in adams, and still came out even with just an extra 2nd round pick.

and thats not even mentioning the fact that they would have saved boatloads of money just trading down those 2 spots.

It just seems ludacris to me to follow such strict rules over something like that...

Matthew Jones
11-23-2007, 09:01 PM
I don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but as a Patriots fan the main reason I couldn't see them trading down for any picks this year (up if anything in rounds other than the first and second) is because there are just so many good Patriots players on roster already that having all those picks is a waste because there aren't that many open roster spots.

Babylon
11-23-2007, 09:07 PM
I don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but as a Patriots fan the main reason I couldn't see them trading down for any picks this year (up if anything in rounds other than the first and second) is because there are just so many good Patriots players on roster already that having all those picks is a waste because there aren't that many open roster spots.

I think you'e being a little optimistic there as far as the roster goes. There may be needs at corner, safety and MLB. I also wonder about the longterm health of Richard Seymour, a guy who has trouble staying healthy. On the offensive side of the ball they could use some help on the O-line in my opinion.

lod01
11-23-2007, 09:23 PM
Hello...McFadden isn't the target.

Minnesota is going to have to make a move to leapfrog past Baltimore and ATL. All 3 need a QB and no one will want to be the team stuck with Woodson. Every one of them has been down that road and seen what happens.

Crazy_Chris
12-11-2007, 07:06 PM
I think after seeing the Cap situation for the patriots in 2008 this is worthy to be bumped for further discussion.

According to the article by Peter King the Patriots are going to have 41 players under contract with only $10.93 Million in cap space. Both Randy Moss and Asante Samuel are going to be free agents and i would assume they sign one of the 2(either one will command a pretty penny).

So it is looking more and more likely they Patriots will want to move down from #2 if thats where end up. So they don't have to shell out $60 Million+(around $30 million garunteed) to a unproven rookie. I can see them selling realitivly cheap to a team but the question is who really wants to move up to #2?

The one player that would probably be worth it is Darren McFadden but the way the top ten is shaping out It really doesn't seem like there are a lot of teams who would really want to move up for him.

bruschis4all
12-11-2007, 09:20 PM
I think after seeing the Cap situation for the patriots in 2008 this is worthy to be bumped for further discussion.

According to the article by Peter King the Patriots are going to have 41 players under contract with only $10.93 Million in cap space. Both Randy Moss and Asante Samuel are going to be free agents and i would assume they sign one of the 2(either one will command a pretty penny).

So it is looking more and more likely they Patriots will want to move down from #2 if thats where end up. So they don't have to shell out $60 Million+(around $30 million garunteed) to a unproven rookie. I can see them selling realitivly cheap to a team but the question is who really wants to move up to #2?

The one player that would probably be worth it is Darren McFadden but the way the top ten is shaping out It really doesn't seem like there are a lot of teams who would really want to move up for him.

This will become an interesting topic as we get closer to the draft. Probably, won't know until after the first week or two of free-agency. Even though the Pats only have 10m in space. They do have some options. They can release D.Stallworth. Would save about 5.5m. They can release Colvin. Would probably save another 5.5. That would give them enough room to keep Moss and Samuel. Plus, maybe keep a couple of vets like Gaffney and ***. I think Samuel will leave. But, he would be sorely missed. Would make getting the top cb in the draft a must. Would think Malcolm Jenkins has to be their pick then.