Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Concerned About This Trade Down

Expand Messages
  • George Richman
    I don t believe that the Patriots have a dire need at 5 or 6 positions. I believe it s more like 2 or 3. For that reason, I m not happy about trading down from
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 25, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't believe that the Patriots have a dire need at 5 or 6 positions. I believe it's more like 2 or 3. For that reason, I'm not happy about trading down from the 29th best player on the board, to the 52nd best. 

      Granted, getting 4 picks for 1 is, on its surface, a coup. But it seems to me that it puts the team in the position of throwing a bunch of crap at the wall, and seeing if something will stick. And that, I think many of you will agree, is not an unfamiliar position during the Belichick draft era. 

      Of course, it's possible that he could now trade up higher into the 2nd round for a high quality CB or WR (which I see as the greatest needs). There are certainly still 3 or 4 good talents at each of those positions, according to the "experts". I'd be pleased to see that. But I think that's very unlikely, since we can count on one hand the number of times that BB has done that, and not use the thumb! 

      We'll see how it works out; but, at this point, I'm not pleased with the trade. I hope I'll be proven wrong. 

      --
      -- George. 
    • frankdanabrewster
      Yes, a bit of a surprise, George. There did seem to be some quality there. Heck, the Vikings too Patterson with that pick. Sometimes quality beats quantity.
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 26, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, a bit of a surprise, George. There did seem to be some quality there. Heck, the Vikings too Patterson with that pick. Sometimes quality beats quantity.

        fdb

        --- In patriotzip@yahoogroups.com, George Richman <patswingr@...> wrote:
        >
        > I don't believe that the Patriots have a dire need at 5 or 6 positions. I
        > believe it's more like 2 or 3. For that reason, I'm not happy about trading
        > down from the 29th best player on the board, to the 52nd best.
        >
        > Granted, getting 4 picks for 1 is, on its surface, a coup. But it seems to
        > me that it puts the team in the position of throwing a bunch of crap at the
        > wall, and seeing if something will stick. And that, I think many of you
        > will agree, is not an unfamiliar position during the Belichick draft era.
        >
        > Of course, it's possible that he could now trade up higher into the 2nd
        > round for a high quality CB or WR (which I see as the greatest needs).
        > There are certainly still 3 or 4 good talents at each of those positions,
        > according to the "experts". I'd be pleased to see that. But I think that's
        > very unlikely, since we can count on one hand the number of times that BB
        > has done that, and not use the thumb!
        >
        > We'll see how it works out; but, at this point, I'm not pleased with the
        > trade. I hope I'll be proven wrong.
        >
        > --
        > -- George.
        >
      • Ed Bryant
        Ready at a moment s notice to defer to Cecil, the 2012 Bama Mock Champion-Elect, I am nevertheless OK with the trade.  As George noted, the Patriots don t
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 26, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Ready at a moment's notice to defer to Cecil, the 2012 Bama Mock Champion-Elect, I am nevertheless OK with the trade.  As George noted, the Patriots don't need so many picks in order to fill a roster, but those picks will be most useful if NE P wants to move up on short notice to target a player, as was the case when the Patriots traded down, twice, to 120, then leaped up to 117 for Asante Samuel! 

          Not getting Cordarelle Patterson is much like not getting Dez Bryant, another pick NE traded in the past.  Patterson is this year's poor man's Dez Bryant, less potential by a hair or two, less track record by several furlongs, and immature, as Dez was.  (Also, the Star-Tribune can now headline: "Vikes Draft Floyd, Patterson," so that has some value to guys our age! )

          I'd love to have Randy Moss 2007, and I'll take Stallworth 2013 (DS averaged over 60 yards a catch last year!) but I think we'd be better off with Keenan Allen than a diva receiver, and K A is still available, at the moment.  Mike Reiss's current Round 2 Mock has Justin Hunter at 41, and if it's a corner you crave, Jamar Taylor at 36.   The Patriots sit now with 52 and 59, and we will have a chance at 54 as soon as Andy Reid gets 54 from the Dolphins for Branden Albert.   I'm going to guess that the Patriots will trade 52 for 54 and another pick, and then trade 54 when trading up.  (Reiss has Keenan Allen falling all the way to Baltimore at 62, where the new Antuan Boldin would be the new Antuan Boldin!  I think Allen goes well before 62.  Reiss has NE P taking Markus Wheaton at 59, but perhaps Belichick and Josh will be content to use Stallworth and Slater to go deep.  Brady can't make that deep throw any way, and the Patriots need someone to make the Antuan Bolden catches.  The Patriots also need to replace their toe-tapper, although Lloyd hasn't found work elsewhere, and might come back for less money.  I'm sure the Patriots would rather have Lloyd than Stallworth if one of them was actually going to have to play, but with Hernandez, Gronk, Amendola, Edelman, and Michael Jenkins, the Patriots have enough targets that a rookie receiver and Deion Branch might be all they need to flesh out the August roster.  I expect Ridley to catch more balls this year, but maybe they'll opt to throw to Washington or Vereen in the Kevin Faulk role. 

          Regarding George's two positions of need, corner and WR, very few of either have been taken so far; most are still available. 

          As one who believes the Gil Brandt Trade Value Chart was already out of date before the new CBA made it even more so, I looked at last year's trades of second round picks for a sense of what it costs to move up.  Last year, the Seahawks and Jets trade that got the Jets Stephen Hill got the Seahawks a 2, a 5, and a 7 (and the 2 got them Bobby Wagner)! 
          The Rams traded the Cowboys' second pick to Chicago and got in return a 2 and a 5. 
          The Eagles traded the Cardinals' second pick to the Packers for a 2 and a 4. 
          Houston traded a 2 and a 7 for Tampa's 3 and New England's 4.  The Patriots traded our 2 for a 3 and a 5. 
          Cleveland traded its 2 for a 3 and a 4.

          The 2013 Patriots woke up yesterday short on  sweeteners; we had the 1, the 2, the 3, and 2 7's.  Now, we have 52 and 59 as well as 83, 91, 102, 229, 235 and the two second round picks at 52 and 59.   I'm guessing we will trade up to 36 or 43, and to 47 or 51.  (That's Schwartz, Schiano, Jones, and Shanahan, if you wondered who's returning the call so promptly!)

          Anybody trading Mallett?  What are you guessing we'd get for him?????




          From: frankdanabrewster <frank.dana@...>
          To: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 5:08 AM
          Subject: [patriotzip] Re: Concerned About This Trade Down

           
          Yes, a bit of a surprise, George. There did seem to be some quality there. Heck, the Vikings too Patterson with that pick. Sometimes quality beats quantity.

          fdb

          --- In patriotzip@yahoogroups.com, George Richman <patswingr@...> wrote:
          >
          > I don't believe that the Patriots have a dire need at 5 or 6 positions. I
          > believe it's more like 2 or 3. For that reason, I'm not happy about trading
          > down from the 29th best player on the board, to the 52nd best.
          >
          > Granted, getting 4 picks for 1 is, on its surface, a coup. But it seems to
          > me that it puts the team in the position of throwing a bunch of crap at the
          > wall, and seeing if something will stick. And that, I think many of you
          > will agree, is not an unfamiliar position during the Belichick draft era.
          >
          > Of course, it's possible that he could now trade up higher into the 2nd
          > round for a high quality CB or WR (which I see as the greatest needs).
          > There are certainly still 3 or 4 good talents at each of those positions,
          > according to the "experts". I'd be pleased to see that. But I think that's
          > very unlikely, since we can count on one hand the number of times that BB
          > has done that, and not use the thumb!
          >
          > We'll see how it works out; but, at this point, I'm not pleased with the
          > trade. I hope I'll be proven wrong.
          >
          > --
          > -- George.
          >



        • George Richman
          Exactly, Frank. IMO, that is the case when a team like ours needs only a couple of very good players to put it over the top; vs. a team that is rebuilding .
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 26, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Exactly, Frank. IMO, that is the case when a team like ours needs only a couple of very good players to put it over the top; vs. a team that is "rebuilding". The Patriots are not rebuilding. They are, or should be, looking for 1 or 2 high quality players at their weakest positions. 

            As I said, I hope I'll be proven wrong. But, at this point, I don't like this move to go for quantity over quality. 

            On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, frankdanabrewster <frank.dana@...> wrote:
             

            Yes, a bit of a surprise, George. There did seem to be some quality there. Heck, the Vikings too Patterson with that pick. Sometimes quality beats quantity.

            fdb

            --- In patriotzip@yahoogroups.com, George Richman <patswingr@...> wrote:
            >
            > I don't believe that the Patriots have a dire need at 5 or 6 positions. I
            > believe it's more like 2 or 3. For that reason, I'm not happy about trading
            > down from the 29th best player on the board, to the 52nd best.
            >
            > Granted, getting 4 picks for 1 is, on its surface, a coup. But it seems to
            > me that it puts the team in the position of throwing a bunch of crap at the
            > wall, and seeing if something will stick. And that, I think many of you
            > will agree, is not an unfamiliar position during the Belichick draft era.
            >
            > Of course, it's possible that he could now trade up higher into the 2nd
            > round for a high quality CB or WR (which I see as the greatest needs).
            > There are certainly still 3 or 4 good talents at each of those positions,
            > according to the "experts". I'd be pleased to see that. But I think that's
            > very unlikely, since we can count on one hand the number of times that BB
            > has done that, and not use the thumb!
            >
            > We'll see how it works out; but, at this point, I'm not pleased with the
            > trade. I hope I'll be proven wrong.
            >
            > --
            > -- George.
            >




            --
            -- George
          • frankdanabrewster
            Well, I have since heard from a couple sources that they didn t like Patterson. Didn t think he could handle the complex offense. Let s just see how they do
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 26, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Well, I have since heard from a couple sources that they didn't like Patterson. Didn't think he could handle the complex offense. Let's just see how they do tonight. It's a deep draft, without a lot of star power. Justin Hunter and Robert Woods are still available, as is CB, Jamar Taylor.

              We shall see...

              fdb

              --- In patriotzip@yahoogroups.com, George Richman <patswingr@...> wrote:
              >
              > Exactly, Frank. IMO, that is the case when a team like ours needs only a
              > couple of very good players to put it over the top; vs. a team that is
              > "rebuilding". The Patriots are not rebuilding. They are, or should be,
              > looking for 1 or 2 high quality players at their weakest positions.
              >
              > As I said, I hope I'll be proven wrong. But, at this point, I don't like
              > this move to go for quantity over quality.
              >
              > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, frankdanabrewster
              > <frank.dana@...>wrote:
              >
              > > **
              > >
              > >
              > > Yes, a bit of a surprise, George. There did seem to be some quality there.
              > > Heck, the Vikings too Patterson with that pick. Sometimes quality beats
              > > quantity.
              > >
              > > fdb
              > >
              > > --- In patriotzip@yahoogroups.com, George Richman <patswingr@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > I don't believe that the Patriots have a dire need at 5 or 6 positions. I
              > > > believe it's more like 2 or 3. For that reason, I'm not happy about
              > > trading
              > > > down from the 29th best player on the board, to the 52nd best.
              > > >
              > > > Granted, getting 4 picks for 1 is, on its surface, a coup. But it seems
              > > to
              > > > me that it puts the team in the position of throwing a bunch of crap at
              > > the
              > > > wall, and seeing if something will stick. And that, I think many of you
              > > > will agree, is not an unfamiliar position during the Belichick draft era.
              > > >
              > > > Of course, it's possible that he could now trade up higher into the 2nd
              > > > round for a high quality CB or WR (which I see as the greatest needs).
              > > > There are certainly still 3 or 4 good talents at each of those positions,
              > > > according to the "experts". I'd be pleased to see that. But I think
              > > that's
              > > > very unlikely, since we can count on one hand the number of times that BB
              > > > has done that, and not use the thumb!
              > > >
              > > > We'll see how it works out; but, at this point, I'm not pleased with the
              > > > trade. I hope I'll be proven wrong.
              > > >
              > > > --
              > > > -- George.
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > --
              > -- George
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.