Vikings give 4 picks for Patterson

[oldunclemark]

    You've got to love guy to give up that much..

 

He better be better than he's shown

[GoColts8818]

NEVER EVER trade with New England on draft day.  You never win...

 

How long is it going to take for NFL teams to figure this out...

[CR91]

vikings are having some draft. two stud defensive players in rhodes and floyd who im surprised fell that far then get patterson. they could compete in that division.

[21isSuperman]

Why couldn't Minny have called us with that trade offer?

[Hans Moleman]

Every time New England does this people go gaga, and nobody takes into account that New England is starving themselves of top end talent the more they do it. They've lost out on playmakers for the sake of depth before.

 

From where I'm sitting, the trade was fair value. The Patriots just gave up 23 spots of draft position since Minnesota doesn't pick until the last third of every round. Getting a low 2nd, low 3rd, and low 4th (along with the 7th) is fair for giving up a low first rounder. There was no swapping of firsts involved, so the trade's not nearly as lopsided as it sounds.

[chad72]

Every time New England does this people go gaga, and nobody takes into account that New England is starving themselves of top end talent the more they do it. They've lost out on playmakers for the sake of depth before.

 

From where I'm sitting, the trade was fair value. The Patriots just gave up 23 spots of draft position since Minnesota doesn't pick until the last third of every round. Getting a low 2nd, low 3rd, and low 4th (along with the 7th) is fair for giving up a low first rounder. There was no swapping of firsts involved, so the trade's not nearly as lopsided as it sounds.

 

Someone that makes sense. The Pats should have learnt by now that quantity is not a substitute for quality with all the picks they have played with the last few years.

 

San Fran did the smart thing, packaged 2 for 1 and moved up. I expect them to do the same in rounds 2 and 3 too, can't find roster spots for the 10+ picks on a loaded roster, can they? Not fair to players drafted either, IMO.

[RGIII]

NEVER EVER trade with New England on draft day.  You never win...

 

How long is it going to take for NFL teams to figure this out...

 

The Patriots never win, either.

[MAC]

When it got to that part of the draft I said to my wife "it would be nice if the Jets or Browns or somebody knocked the Broncos over with an offer in an effort to jump ahead of Jacksonville and take Geno Smith. But it probably won't happen - watch New England do it instead". Close enough.

 

Oy Veh. I've seen this movie before, and I hated it every time. WHY do teams like the Vikings think that they are in "win now" mode. Apparently desperate for a weapon for their QB, ignoring the fact that it's the QB that's the problem. How does this happen over and over? You would think by this point that a GM would be thinking "if NE is offering it, by definition it's a lousy deal. Maybe we out to stop and think."

 

So tomorrow of course which ever team misses out on a QB will send next years first to NE for Mallet, who will then lead his new team to the number one overall draft pick (while the replacement QB NE gets in the third round with the pick they just stole from the Vikings turns into an all pro.)

[Andy]

The Pats rip off another team.

 

Man, they're good. 

[MAC]

Every time New England does this people go gaga, and nobody takes into account that New England is starving themselves of top end talent the more they do it. They've lost out on playmakers for the sake of depth before.

 

From where I'm sitting, the trade was fair value. The Patriots just gave up 23 spots of draft position since Minnesota doesn't pick until the last third of every round. Getting a low 2nd, low 3rd, and low 4th (along with the 7th) is fair for giving up a low first rounder. There was no swapping of firsts involved, so the trade's not nearly as lopsided as it sounds.

I understand, and I hope that you are right, but my irritation comes from the general statements by the prognosticators that the first round is weak, but there is a lot of depth in the second, third and fourth. In the annual lottery, the Pats now have three chances to get an impact player for the Vikings one. The Vikes were apparently desperately in love with a WR that was right in NEs lap. The fact that the Pats passed on him despite a crying need (while realistically in FAR more of a "win now" situation than the Vikes) is striking.

[BOTT]

Every time New England does this people go gaga, and nobody takes into account that New England is starving themselves of top end talent the more they do it. They've lost out on playmakers for the sake of depth before.

From where I'm sitting, the trade was fair value. The Patriots just gave up 23 spots of draft position since Minnesota doesn't pick until the last third of every round. Getting a low 2nd, low 3rd, and low 4th (along with the 7th) is fair for giving up a low first rounder. There was no swapping of firsts involved, so the trade's not nearly as lopsided as it sounds.

There is no stopping the patriot myth

[NewColtsFan]

In another thread, some poster said the Patriots didn't get enough based on the draft pick points chart...

 

Just wanted it on record that they got plenty....

 

They gave up 640 points....

 

And got back 649......

 

So,  they did fine....

[NewColtsFan]

Every time New England does this people go gaga, and nobody takes into account that New England is starving themselves of top end talent the more they do it. They've lost out on playmakers for the sake of depth before.

 

From where I'm sitting, the trade was fair value. The Patriots just gave up 23 spots of draft position since Minnesota doesn't pick until the last third of every round. Getting a low 2nd, low 3rd, and low 4th (along with the 7th) is fair for giving up a low first rounder. There was no swapping of firsts involved, so the trade's not nearly as lopsided as it sounds.

 

Except they didn't get back a low 3rd and a low 4th....

 

They got back 83, a mid-3rd....   and 102, a high-4th....

 

They traded one pick worth 640 points, and got back 4 picks worth 649 points....

 

The Pats did just fine.....    part of me wishes the Colts had done something like this,  and I like that we got Werner.

 

I just don't like having only two picks in the next 4 rounds....

[amfootball]

Every time New England does this people go gaga, and nobody takes into account that New England is starving themselves of top end talent the more they do it. They've lost out on playmakers for the sake of depth before.

 

From where I'm sitting, the trade was fair value. The Patriots just gave up 23 spots of draft position since Minnesota doesn't pick until the last third of every round. Getting a low 2nd, low 3rd, and low 4th (along with the 7th) is fair for giving up a low first rounder. There was no swapping of firsts involved, so the trade's not nearly as lopsided as it sounds.

Really? Starved for top talent? Have you seen Gronk, Hernandez, Ridley, Mankins, Hightower, Jones, Mayo?  Perhaps you forget also that Gronk was a second round pick and Hernandez was a fourth round pick. And Endelman and Dennard were seventh round picks.

 

Top talent is not just found in round one and when a team like the Vikings is offering not one, not two, not three, but FOUR picks for the 29th overall pick you take that every day of the week and twice on Sunday or this case Thursday.

 

What is interesting about this trade is the Vikings took a WR wich is a top need for the Pats. Not too many went in round one so there will be plenty when they use their FOUR picks today in rounds 2 and 3.

 

Pats philiosphy is simple. Build a solid team 1-53. Have some top talent but make sure you have plenty of depth as injuries are a certainty. Going from 5 picks to 8 helps their overall game plan of how they build the team.

[Hans Moleman]

Really? Starved for top talent? Have you seen Gronk, Hernandez, Ridley, Mankins, Hightower, Jones, Mayo?  Perhaps you forget also that Gronk was a second round pick and Hernandez was a fourth round pick. And Endelman and Dennard were seventh round picks.

 

Top talent is not just found in round one and when a team like the Vikings is offering not one, not two, not three, but FOUR picks for the 29th overall pick you take that every day of the week and twice on Sunday or this case Thursday.

 

What is interesting about this trade is the Vikings took a WR wich is a top need for the Pats. Not too many went in round one so there will be plenty when they use their FOUR picks today in rounds 2 and 3.

 

Pats philiosphy is simple. Build a solid team 1-53. Have some top talent but make sure you have plenty of depth as injuries are a certainty. Going from 5 picks to 8 helps their overall game plan of how they build the team.

 

Yes, trading down year after year is starving your team of top talent. That doesn't mean they don't find playmakers in other areas of the draft, but 1st round picks are coveted for a reason- that's where you should be drafting playmakers on affordable first contracts. If the Pats were a thin team, like the Colts squads under the Polian era, I could see the concern for mainly depth. But it reeks of arrogance to think you can continually land 2nd, 3rd rounders, or 4th rounders that can outperform the guys you pass up in round 1, and it hasn't always worked in New England's favor. Yet people freak out every time they do this like that's the case. The continually trading down philosophy is why Clay Matthews isn't in a New England jerse now, and Patrick Chung is and Darius Butler was.

 

I called the trade a fair one, and it is. Minnesota didn't get robbed, nor did the Patriots.

[amfootball]

Yes, trading down year after year is starving your team of top talent. That doesn't mean they don't find playmakers in other areas of the draft, but 1st round picks are coveted for a reason- that's where you should be drafting playmakers on affordable first contracts. If the Pats were a thin team, like the Colts squads under the Polian era, I could see the concern for mainly depth. But it reeks of arrogance to think you can continually land 2nd, 3rd rounders, or 4th rounders that can outperform the guys you pass up in round 1, and it hasn't always worked in New England's favor. Yet people freak out every time they do this like that's the case. The continually trading down philosophy is why Clay Matthews isn't in a New England jerse now, and Patrick Chung is and Darius Butler was.

 

I called the trade a fair one, and it is. Minnesota didn't get robbed, nor did the Patriots.

You seem to insinuate the Pats don't pick in the first round. That is also a fallacy. They picked up two stud defensive players last year. Mayo was in the top 10. Maroney was also a first round pick. I could go on but you get the point.

 

The goal in football is to build a great team players 1-53 and the draft is only one third the equation. You have FA and trades. The Pats picked up a first round talent last year for a fourth round pick in Talib. They did the same thing in 2007 when the got Moss for a fourth round pick. They also added a top safety this year in Adrian Wison through FA not to mention Danny Amendola.

 

The draft is highly risky in terms of first round talent panning out. It is almost always a 50/50 proposition and previous to the rookie salary cap, it was a huge risk to tie up millions in the likes of a Mark Sanchez.

 

But your point really falls apart when you actually look at the Patriots team. They have a ton talent across the board from first round picks to seventh round picks and undrafted FAs. What matters is what your team does with the picks they have.  The Pats were one half away from the SB last year and they also fielded one of the youngest teams especially defensively. They certainly do not need to pick a lot of players in the first round and have to pay them the way the Vikes just did.

 

You can say the trade was fair but we really won't know until we see the ONE pick the Vikes got pan out verses the FOUR they gave the Pats. I would bet the Pats will have have more impact players from their four than the Vikes one. But we will see.

[Yehoodi]

Yes, trading down year after year is starving your team of top talent. That doesn't mean they don't find playmakers in other areas of the draft, but 1st round picks are coveted for a reason- that's where you should be drafting playmakers on affordable first contracts. If the Pats were a thin team, like the Colts squads under the Polian era, I could see the concern for mainly depth. But it reeks of arrogance to think you can continually land 2nd, 3rd rounders, or 4th rounders that can outperform the guys you pass up in round 1, and it hasn't always worked in New England's favor. Yet people freak out every time they do this like that's the case. The continually trading down philosophy is why Clay Matthews isn't in a New England jerse now, and Patrick Chung is and Darius Butler was.

 

I called the trade a fair one, and it is. Minnesota didn't get robbed, nor did the Patriots.

 

Hans, we must remember that the draft is not a single year thing, but is a continium from year to year, and the drafts melt together into a constant stream of talent coming into your team . . . so if you have a lot of picks, you can afford to trade up, as we did for Hightower last year so the Ravens would not take time . . . if what you see on the board is nothing that you want at the time of your pick you can trade down and get some picks for this year, next year or the following year . . . the Pats thinking is that if there is nothing that we need at this time, why just pick for the sake of making a pick, they would rather trade down and delay that draft value later on when the friuts of that pick will be in a spot when we can fill a need . . .

 

I think some people just want to pick high for the sake of picking high . . . we have picked in the first round many times and have even trade up, with the most recent with Hightower last year, we actaully had two first picks last years . . .we had an extra one that we kept pushing forward year to year in trades and then we finally used it . . .

 

Yes we may be missing a start player here and there, but like with a team with Peyton Manning, when you have Tom Brady, he can help out when you pass on a star player or so . . .and also so when you have a few more role players in thats missing star player's place .  . . .

 

So as AM said, we like having a strong roster 1-53 as opposed to a slightly stronger 1-22 . . .'

Also, too what can get lost in the shuffle of star gazing is what becomes of trade down for value as opposed to what we could of gotten . . .

 

And the Clay Matthews is a great example of this . . . first off he was not necessarily viewed to be as great as he ended up but he did have the potential . . . but getting back to the bottom end result of the Clay Matthews versus what we ended getting for value . . . here is what we ended up with after the Matthews daft pick trade and subseqent trades from the picks we got . . . (I am skipping the details of each trade)

 

We did not pick Clay Matthews . . . but got the following for value from that trades and trades that follow:

 

Darius Bulter

Brandon Tate

Julian Edelman

Rob Gronkowski .

 

So true we did not get a star playing LB, but in exchange for not getting him, we got a stud TE (who on his own balances out Matthews IMO), a solid backup WR and punt returned (who is still on the team), a back up/starter DB who played here for a few years, and our starting KO returner for a few years . . .  So some may focus on that one day in the 2009 draft, but like I said it is continium and altho you may not get the value right away, down the road when all is said and done you have to look at the entire package . . . As much as I like Matthews, I prefer a stud TE and 3 role players for my team . . . but that is just me . . .

[oldunclemark]

draft points?

[Hans Moleman]

I do see the counterpoints amfootball and yehoodi, and I do see where both of you are coming from. I just didn't want to keep quoting and building a wall of text.

 

New England definitely does know how to build a team. Though my own personal drafting style would be the 49ers and Falcons model where you build depth, then trade up to grab exceptional talent when you've got a championship caliber roster and need a piece to put you over the top, that doesn't mean New England's model is worse- just different. They may not have won a title lately, but they are contenders every year.

 

The annoying phenomenon that drove my posts wasn't the Patriots draft model, it's the fanboy-ish response whenever they trade down. What's annoying is that every time New England does this, people go bonkers without realizing that these trades generally don't work out to be so lopsided one way or the other. There is an opportunity cost that New England gives up when they move down that much. 

 

The draft value chart accounts for that cost better than the general media reaction, which is why the trade is so much closer according to that (649 to 640, a slight edge for NE) than one would guess looking at media and forum responses. 

 

That said, I really don't have much faith in Minnesota to develop Patterson, so chances are this is one that will look lopsided once the actual players are taken into account lol. I'm assuming New England wouldn't have botched the pick had they stayed put.

[amfootball]

I do see the counterpoints amfootball and yehoodi, and I do see where both of you are coming from. I just didn't want to keep quoting and building a wall of text.

 

New England definitely does know how to build a team. Though my own personal drafting style would be the 49ers and Falcons model where you build depth, then trade up to grab exceptional talent when you've got a championship caliber roster and need a piece to put you over the top, that doesn't mean New England's model is worse- just different. They may not have won a title lately, but they are contenders every year.

 

The annoying phenomenon that drove my posts wasn't the Patriots draft model, it's the fanboy-ish response whenever they trade down. What's annoying is that every time New England does this, people go bonkers without realizing that these trades generally don't work out to be so lopsided one way or the other. There is an opportunity cost that New England gives up when they move down that much. 

 

The draft value chart accounts for that cost better than the general media reaction, which is why the trade is so much closer according to that (649 to 640, a slight edge for NE) than one would guess looking at media and forum responses. 

 

That said, I really don't have much faith in Minnesota to develop Patterson, so chances are this is one that will look lopsided once the actual players are taken into account lol. I'm assuming New England wouldn't have botched the pick had they stayed put.

I get where you are coming from. I think a big deal was made of this because the Pats got four draft picks for this year's draft. I am not sure if that has ever happened.

 

You are right in terms of the draft value. I think it ends up being fairly equal. Personally, I like the idea of getting more players than just one top guy who may or may not turn out. And to get a 2,3,4, 7 is like hitting the lottery. It is not like Minnesota handed over a 2 and a couple of 6s and 7s.

 

I realize the Vikes want to get some talent around Ponder but there are a lot of WRs in the draft and not many were taken in round 1. Seems like an awful lot to give up for a team that really needs more than just a few players. That being said they had three first round selections so that will probably help them the most.

[Hans Moleman]

I get where you are coming from. I think a big deal was made of this because the Pats got four draft picks for this year's draft. I am not sure if that has ever happened.

 

You are right in terms of the draft value. I think it ends up being fairly equal. Personally, I like the idea of getting more players than just one top guy who may or may not turn out. And to get a 2,3,4, 7 is like hitting the lottery. It is not like Minnesota handed over a 2 and a couple of 6s and 7s.

 

I realize the Vikes want to get some talent around Ponder but there are a lot of WRs in the draft and not many were taken in round 1. Seems like an awful lot to give up for a team that really needs more than just a few players. That being said they had three first round selections so that will probably help them the most.

 

Yeah, from the Vikings perspective, I wouldn't have made that move for Patterson. They were in a position for the best of both worlds with a couple first rounders and plenty of extra picks for depth. I think they'd have been better off keeping their 2nd and moving back into the 2nd again with their 3rd and 4th rounders if that's what they were after.

[Superman]

The Vikings wound up with three first rounders. I get why some might think that they didn't get fair value, but they definitely improved their team, and that's what the draft is for. They had the flexibility to make a bold move like that, giving up some later round picks at the same time. I like their aggressiveness and I think it will pay off for them.

 

A couple years ago, I thought the Falcons gave up too much for Julio Jones.

[dw49]

Why couldn't Minny have called us with that trade offer?

 

 

Unless the Vikes are run by a bunch of * they must have done so. With Houston sitting at 27 , they would have had to think a good chance that Patterson goes there. So one might think the logical chain of events would be that teams below the Pats at 29 were offered that deal and refused it. 

 

Just for the record , the 24th pick is valued at 740 points , so you would be getting around 100 points in returned value.

[dw49]

In another thread, some poster said the Patriots didn't get enough based on the draft pick points chart...

 

Just wanted it on record that they got plenty....

 

They gave up 640 points....

 

And got back 649......

 

So,  they did fine....

 

 

 

I talked about the point values in another post and I don't think you have it exactly right. I was stating that everyone was going crazy over how the Pats ripped off the ignorant Vikes. I went on to say that the 29th pick was worth 640 poits and the combination of picks received was slightly less. I came up with about 620 but might have been 649 as you say. 

 

However... it's a misread of what I said to say I said the Pats didn't receive enough. I was just pointing out that if you go by the value chart , it was not a "rip off." 

[NewColtsFan]

I talked about the point values in another post and I don't think you have it exactly right. I was stating that everyone was going crazy over how the Pats ripped off the ignorant Vikes. I went on to say that the 29th pick was worth 640 poits and the combination of picks received was slightly less. I came up with about 620 but might have been 649 as you say. 

 

However... it's a misread of what I said to say I said the Pats didn't receive enough. I was just pointing out that if you go by the value chart , it was not a "rip off." 

 

Fair enough.....

 

And for what it's worth,  the point levels for two teams in any trade are rarely going to be exact....   the question becomes how far off a match is one team willing to be?    How far below what a team should get is a team willing to settle to do a deal?

 

So,  if NE got 649,  then Minnesota technically gave up too much...

 

But if NEW got 620, as you believe,  then they got a little under what they should have...  

 

Either way,  clearly both sides were satisfied with the deal....

[John Dee]

When has NE EVER done anything with their "goldmine"  ?

 

Really..  Gronk...  Hernandez...       and?  

 

NE still has Boo Koo needs.... 

NEVER EVER trade with New England on draft day.  You never win...

 

How long is it going to take for NFL teams to figure this out...

[dw49]

Fair enough.....

 

And for what it's worth,  the point levels for two teams in any trade are rarely going to be exact....   the question becomes how far off a match is one team willing to be?    How far below what a team should get is a team willing to settle to do a deal?

 

So,  if NE got 649,  then Minnesota technically gave up too much...

 

But if NEW got 620, as you believe,  then they got a little under what they should have...  

 

Either way,  clearly both sides were satisfied with the deal....

 

 

And I do realize that you always can't go by the chart. Miami moved up in the first round for about half the "chart price" getting to 1.3. There was just not that much difference in the first dozen picks this year. So obvs. , you have to throw the chart out the window.  But when you talk about moving from the back end of round one to almost the end of round two , that is a serious "give up " of valuable spots. So about all you can do is look at the chart. 

 

If I had to guess , I would say that NE probably , everything considered , got a good deal. Trouble is the "everything " is evaluating every pick from 29 to around 119 and assigning values to them. But that's only a guess. Anyway , it's a little annoying to hear all the nonsense of how the the pats outsmart the rest of the league. There had to be other GM's between 1.24 and 1.29 that refused this deal.

[NewColtsFan]

 There had to be other GM's between 1.24 and 1.29 that refused this deal.

 

 

Yup.....    and, as you noted,  the Colts might've been one of them!

[dw49]

Yup.....    and, as you noted,  the Colts might've been one of them!

 

 

Minnesota had to be thinking that Houston would for sure be taking him at 27. Had to be just about a given that Houston would go WR when it was there biggest need and only one had come off the board. So if they waited a few picks to save the salary difference between 1.24 and 1.29 , then they are total *s as it's chicken feed.