Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    According to the San Fan Chronicle, Oak is hearing offers of a 2nd this year and a 1st next year for their #8 this year. Now I doubt they take something like that but the article mentioned the Seymour trade leaving them without a 1st pick in 2011 and it got me thinking, what if it's the Pats making the offer trying to move up. I know that people don't like hearing about crazy rumors but if the Pats offered Oak it's 2011 pick back with say #47 and #119 for the #8 pick wouldn't that be fun? Though I'd like to see what was there at #119 this trade would essiential mean we traded Seymour a 2nd and a 4th for a #8 pick that can be used on a Morgan, McCoy (if a miracle happens and he makes it to 8th), or even taking that #8 and dropping back a couple picks getting maybe that 4th or 3rd back and going after JPP, Spiller or Bryant. I know that chances are it would never happen but just the thought makes me smile. Esp considering it would be trading up from a second to a top 10 while still getting good value with their pick. Then they can trade their 1st back for a 2nd and 3rd and would end up basically moving from #22 to #8 and #199 to a 3rd while only giving up Oak's pick next year. Again Al would have to be smoking something feirce to do it but it's a fun trade in my mind.

    Ohh here's the article  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/raiders/detail?&entry_id=60198 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    stranger things have happened, especially when al davis is involved.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheFantasyBaron. Show TheFantasyBaron's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    Oh my goodness that would be awesome. If the Pats could pick up a real blue chipper on defense to go along with what they have already they will be set up for years. Then we find out the guy is related to Len Bias and etc.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick


    I read the article as well. It could be the Pats or possibly a handful of other teams....The question is, if the Pats got the Oakland pick this year, who would they draft?...I think the #8 pick this year is in a weird spot...Guys I would trade that high for are Suh, McCoy, Berry. I would not do so for JPP or Spiller.

    Ideally, I think where the Pats would like to be if they were trading up is right around the 10-15 spot...in there you could get Dan Williams, Rolando McClain, Earl Thomas, Spiller and possibly others....

    So, I say a cool thing if they can pull it off, but I would only do so for the players mentioned above, or use it again to trade down to the 10-15 spot if you can find someone to come up.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BrooklineRob. Show BrooklineRob's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    I know what ifs may not answer this question.  But what if Oakland is worse next year and that pick is in the top 3, which isn't outside the realm of possibility?  Then you essentially traded a top 3 pick overall and a 2nd rounder for the 8th pick?  I think the value chart guys would have a field day.  Oakland could be bad, but Oakland could improve.  So if there is a no-brainer stud at #8 this year, maybe it's not a bad idea.   

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MordecaiBloodmoon. Show MordecaiBloodmoon's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    One HUGE thing I think people are failing to see, that keep mentioning us trading the Oak pick.  I know everyone is talking the depth of this draft possibly being the best in 25 year.  One thing that IS NOT said often is that there is not too much elite talent in this draft.  And there isnt.  The best Rb is undersized.  The best QB is coming off a shoulder injury.  The best WR has been suspended and not of elite speed.  The best CB is not super fast to make him elite.  The best ILB has chrones disease and the 2nd best runs like a turtle.  I can go on and on. 

    I would rather keep the pick, hope oak still stinks and maybe get an elite player.  Even at 8 I dont see one this year unless we are lucky.  And for all those wanting Suh.  Remember Dorsey?  the last best in 10 years DL guy or that guy the Jets traded up for that we were rumored to be looking at as well a few years before that, Robertson I think was his name.  We didnt get either one, and I am glad.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    Mc Clain is good, but at that high a cost I basically want Demarcus Ware (if OLB) or Willis (at ILB opposite Mayo.....oh man). Paul has a ton of raw ability, but is not Ware coming out of college (limited PT at NCAA level). Both Ware and Willis went 11th overall and if you had a do-over draft both would be top 5. The Raiders dangling the 8th overall looks sexy, but it probably won`t amount to much. I think all the enthusiasm about Mc Nabb is overwrought, the Raiders are still a very young mistake-prone team with inferior coaching.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcappy. Show jcappy's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    Why give up an early first rounder, a second round pick, and a fourth round pick for the #8.  I wd only do next year's number one for this year's---everything else is too much.  

    And I agree with several posters that a 12-14 pick makes much more sense for us.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    This doesn't have the Patriot modus operandi on it.  They trade up, and they only trade a few spots up, for a specific player on draft day, not for a pick that may or may not produce any specific player. 

    By the Patriots' way of thinking, the top of the first round is poorly valued by the other 31 teams in terms of performance per dollar, the bottom of the first round is better, the second round is golden, then it slowly goes downhill a bit except the seventh round is so cheaply valued that it pulls in some gems like Julian Edelman and Matt Cassel. 

    If you're trading out of 2010, that's different, because one second rounder in 2010 is worth a first rounder in 2011, which can always be traded later for two second rounders in 2011.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Faucetman. Show Faucetman's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    If we were to make a monumental move like that the only player that makes sense to go after is Suh and we'd have to get to #2 to get him.  That would cost our 22, 2011 OAK pick, our 44, and 47.  The Pats have never showed the desire to give up so much for one player.

    However, I like packaging 22 and 53 to go up and get Dan Williams.  If we are going to use 22 on Tebow, please let us trade up for someone else.

    We are likely going to stay put or make slight moves up or down.
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    To ALL:

    First this:

    "I know everyone is talking the depth of this draft possibly being the best in 25 year.  One thing that IS NOT said often is that there is not too much elite talent in this draft.  And there isnt.  The best Rb is undersized.  The best QB is coming off a shoulder injury.  The best WR has been suspended and not of elite speed.  The best CB is not super fast to make him elite.  The best ILB has chrones disease and the 2nd best runs like a turtle.  I can go on and on. 
    I would rather keep the pick, hope oak still stinks and maybe get an elite player.  Even at 8 I dont see one this year unless we are lucky.  And for all those wanting Suh.  Remember Dorsey
    ?"

    No...  That is to say, wrong.  What I mean is, not close.  Yes, Deeper Elite talent than past several draft classes, and yes-simply insane depth of overall talent.  In any and EVERY Draft Class, certain positions have more talent than others...Crazy huh?  
        
         Quarterback...Did you actually SEE any tape from Sam Bradford's Pro Day?  A few scouts had heartattacks.  The Rams GM praised Jesus on his knees.  Bradford, Clausen, Tebow...THEN Skelton, Snead, McCoy, Brown, and Pike.  Overall, each and EVERY single QB has some weakness...BUT, the idea that you can underwrite EVERY single draftee at an entire position because of one single weakness of one of the top guys, yea...good logic.   
         Runningback...arguably one of the worst positions of this 2010 Draft Class...AND it's as equal in potential talent than ANY recently: Spiller, Matthews, Best, McCluster, Tate, Dwyer, McKnight, Hardesty, Gerhart, Dixon...maybe even Blount & Starks.  1 or 2 guys under 200lbs with only Best @ 170-something being anywhere not barely.  2 guys 5'10 OR below. 
         Wide Reciever...Insane talent and depth.  Bryant, Tate, Benn, LaFell, Williams-ELITE Talent. Gilyard, Mitchel, Roberts, Ford, Thomas, Cooper, Shipley, Easley, Price, Williams, White, Briscoe, Hodge, and maybe Decker, Williams, Alexander...Insanity, and Potential Future Starters.  Overall, the fact that Dez Bryant runs an almost dead bottom 4.5 40, makes it sorta a tough sell underwriting this entire position...perhaps, maybe?
         Cornerback...crazy good.  Elite talent depth and overall depth of potential starters...Which CB's 40?  Haden?  Bad stance when running a track drill @ the combine= mid 4.5.  Stance corrected @ Pro Day= 4.43 40.  Haden, McCourty, Wilson, Then Jackson, Robinson, Ghee, Franks, Owusu-Ansa, Spievey, Jefferson, Cox, Arenas, Murphy, Warren, and Lewis & Cook as FS/CBs.  Joe Haden=Bad stance at Combine=Slow CB=Top CB sux=ALL CBs must s#ck.
         ILB...Another modest position for this 2010 Draft which is STILL equal to or even BETTER than many, many recent Draft Classes @ ILB.  And once again, he fact that the top ILB has 1 potential weakness by being diagnosed with a disease that in almost all-probability will NOT affect his NFL play, THUS means...2010 ILB position is sub-par. To what or when?  Spikes=slow 40=We can completely discount Spikes' 3 years with something above 270+ TTs, almost 20 TFLs, @ least 4 Picks (as a freakin ILB).  AND Spikes in having a slow 40 & McClain with Crohn's, means that overall McClain, Spikes, Angerer, Chaney, Lee, Sharpton, Dillard, and Pawelek WILL and ARE part of an average ILB class & therefore, and average Draft Class.   

    Suh and McCoy=Since scouts were incredibly high on Glen Dorsey a couple years back, and since Dorsey hasn't been anything special, Clearly Suh and McCoy are duds too.  That's great.  Look, Pick a Draft, which draft...5 years, maybe even 10 years?  What position?  Mordecai...Gotta ask a couple things first:  Does it mean THAT having a 5'9 RB who can and will ONLY fit certain NFL schemes (or fit them far better than other schemes & franchises), Now mean that The RB position is cr^mmy overall in elite talentSecond for You Mordecai: Does having a Draft from 8 years ago, which was talented at 1 single position, Now mean that IF you compare it to one of the "worse" positions of this 2010 Draft, Thus MEAN that in total-That this upcoming draft is simply your average draft class...better than none, worse than none-blah, blah, blah?  AND finally Mordecai Is Your Argument That: IF 10 years ago, there was a QB named Peyton Manning, who was rated with 1 differing or even 1 less flaw than Sam Bradford, Thus MEAN that in total-That 1 particular past draft yielded 1 great QB, and so that ENTIRE past draft was equal to this upcoming 2010 Draft Class?  I mean, Is that the sum total of your arguments, Single weaknesses=vast & totally proven Generalizations? 
        
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from aussiewill. Show aussiewill's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    The Pat's are very very unlikely to do this trade. First, in the Seymour trade, they had the option 2010 or 2011 Raider first round pick. They chose the 2011 pick. So if now they go back and trade a second round pick and the 2011 pick, when they could have had the pick straight up, they lose face. Or at least BB would look at it that way, hard to disagree with that. Second they will probably get a great prospect in the second, as this draft is so deep with talent. And the money, they will have to pay the pick is a lot less than what a first will want. If this years draft was skinny with talent , they might do it. But it is deep. IMHO, no chance they give up a second. Now two seconds, that might appeal to both parties. 44 and 51 for number 8. Not as far out as you might think.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from thehub. Show thehub's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    In Response to Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick:
     MordecaiBloodmoon,

    Great post. I agree. Berry looks like the safe pick between 9-15.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    Ok do you know how DUMB that would be.  When the Pats made the original deal with Oakland, the Raiders WANTED to give the Pats this years pick and the Pats insisted on the 2011 pick.

    So now your saying the pats are going to reverse course and throw in a 2nd and 4th round pick when they could have had this pick for just seymour????  NO WAY.  and who is to say the pick next year may not be even better then 8?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaBlade. Show DaBlade's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    I don't remember who said it but I agree with the thought that the Patriots don't trade up unless it is a draft day deal for specific players.... as for how far they trade up I think they trade up as high as they need to to get a player they like and as long as the deal makes sense.  But again they don't make this type of a deal until draft day because they would not want to be stuck with the pick if the player(s) they want are not there.

    This sounds like a potential deal the Patriots might do on draft day if like I said the guy(s) they want is there.

    If they did it I would not expect it to be the Oakland 1st in 2011, more likely the Patriots first in 2011 with #53 this year. If they did that deal I would expect the Patriots to move their own 2010 1st #22 to the top of the second round, first few picks.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    The only trade that BB will make in this draft is to acquire more picks not to give away more picks. If there is a top RB still available when they pick they will trade with San Diego and snag their 1rst round pick and the third round pick they need to balance the board with.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    Patsman and ALL:

    First Patsman, I agree...it would be an id!ot move overall, due to the wasted Draft pick NE would have to use in any way in order to seal the moving-up-in-2010 Deal. 

    BUT, check this out...Here's the thing: Upon first glance NE did DO the correct thing by asking for Oakland's 2011 1st rder, and not Oak's 2010 1st, because: MORE than all, BB knew he already had a grand total of 4 draft selections in the first 2 rounds of the 2010 Year.  Second, Belichick thinks to himself, "Hey, when the new CBA is passed, The Owners are absolutely and positively DEAD-set in agreement and unyielding on 1 Single Thing-A Rookie pay scale...So there'll be No More of these never-played-in-the-NFL 1st rd draftees who might be busts, Gettin' Millions more than some proven NFL veterans."  SO BB quickly deduces very early last season (still in training camp time)-THAT he'll get a Cap bargain by waitin' 1 single year (Cap's ALWAYS an issue) AND having so many early 2010 selections, simply finalized that thought process.

    BUT, Certain Things BB either DIDN'T or COULDN'T count on...  Hindsight's 20-20, and certain factors come to light as this year drew on (and continues to do so with the draft)...

    First, Man...WHO knew that these College kids would be so smart themselves...  Meaning:  Seemingly 3/4's of who would have been 2011 Draft Selections, Have now declared to be Draft Eligible for this, the 2010 Draft Class.  So WHO completely knew, That this 2010 Class would be so insanely deep, and who knew in the summer of '09 that, These mass amouns of underclassmen declaring would thus effect the next class, 2010 Draft Class?

    Second, Wow...Really thought in the Summer of '09 that there'd be at least some new CBA worked out, even a 1 year thing...  WHO knew that there'd be absolutely NO Salary Cap at all, So IF NE did have Oakland's 1st rder this year, NE could then pay handsomely, front-weigh some of their decent rookie contracts, so that WHEN a new CBA is in place and a new team-team salary cap, NE could get away with havin' so many early 2010 Draft picks, and having Oak's as well.  NOONE knew either, at the time, HOW in not having any sort of CBA worked out, NFL Franchises would then be allowed to place mass amounts of tenders on those teams Free Agents.  ALL BB had to work with in summer '09, was seeing what a decent free agent class 2010 was, NOT realizing that to get at most of these free agents now, NE would have to give up 1 or even 2 Draft Picks...so the FA Class this year busted out too. 

    FINALLY (and with ALL the above said), WHO knew Belichick and NE just might be able to land a game-altering super-stud Richard Seymour-esque 3-4 DE with (as it stands at this very moment), There's a distinct possibility of either McCoy OR Suh, falling to a team that perhaps owes Bill Belichick a favor for what he gave them for Matt Cassel and Mike Vrabel, ala Kansas City @ selection No.5 in Rd 1    
         Pick 1 St Louis-Sam Bradford (IF you don't have this, hit yourself with a hammer, Rams-No QB, Bradford-Potential to be just a Ridiculous QB). 
         Pick 2 Detroit-Russel Okung (franchise Left OT to protect young franchise QB. Det has some $ already on D, but can't put 1 point on the scoreboard). 
         Pick 3 Tampa Bay-Suh OR McCoy (Here i gets interesting...TB didn't think they'd get Suh probably, a freak athlete. But McCoy actually fits their d as a 4-3 DT better, and with Suh a bigger game changer, TB might actually go with McCoy with Suh's back injury the final say).    
         Pick 4 Washington-QB Jimmy Clausen (Clausen might not be the best choice, but wow Clausen's the best choice for Washington. NO QB and a trillion dollars on Defense. They might go with a better draftee by getting a good left OT, but why? No QB...doesn't even matter. Gotta go with Clausen). 
         Pick 5 Kansas City...  So here's our boy Scott Pioli owing us a fav..  But, hey He'd like to protect Matt Cassel's blind-side too, OR get a freak 3-4 DE himself.  But Kansas City already has TWO 2nd rders, and at least (I believe), 1 in the 3rd and at least 1 in the 4th rd.  So wow, IF I'm Pioli, boy I'm listenin' about getting NE's 1st rder this year and a 2nd rder (and probably still another late rder), but Man-Piloi's seriously lovin' it IF Kansas City can get Oakland's EARLY 1st rder NEXT year, AND another second rounder THIS year from NE.  That'll give KC somewhere between 5 and maybe 6 Picks in the first 4 Rounds of this 2010 Draft (but no 1st rder).  BUT it's an incredibly deep draft pool.  AND KC now has TWO 1st rders for 2011 (along with all their own), AND in a Draft where there WILL be a Rookie payscale (or lol, a lockout)... 

    ~Hmmm, Makes it at least somewhat interesting at least, right?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaBlade. Show DaBlade's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    KC is a possible trading partner but I don't think they will touch the 2011 Oakland pick they need to protect Cassel now not after next years draft so if they did it they would want #22 from us I can guarantee that. There are several very good OL's available to them at #22 that would immediately start for them.

    So in general I agree with your post but alot has to fall for this to lign up just like the thoughts I have had about Jags and Denvers 1st round picks being traded to Patriots this is announced at the draft just as the pick is on the board.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucky13calistyle. Show lucky13calistyle's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    In Response to Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick:
    Ok do you know how DUMB that would be.  When the Pats made the original deal with Oakland, the Raiders WANTED to give the Pats this years pick and the Pats insisted on the 2011 pick. So now your saying the pats are going to reverse course and throw in a 2nd and 4th round pick when they could have had this pick for just seymour????  NO WAY.  and who is to say the pick next year may not be even better then 8?
    Posted by Patsman2



    sorry to burst your bubble but Oakland was only offerring a 2nd Round pick in 2010 or a 1st rounder in 2011.  A 1st round pick in 2010 was NEVER on the table
    during the Seymour trade talks
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    I'm not sure where people heard that Oak offered a 1st in 2010. From everything I've heard on both 98.5 and WEEI the deal was for either Oak's 2nd round 2010 pick or 2011's 1st and they took the 1st. As far as who they'd move up for here's a short list of who might be there at #8 that the Pats could target:

    Bruce Campbell OT, Bryan Bulaga OT, Gerald McCoy DE, Jason Pierre-Paul OLB, Dan Williams DT (who they brought in to Foxboro), Dez Bryant WR, CJ Spiller RB, Joe Harden CB, Eric Berry S

    All of the above are considered the top of the draft class and would easily be top 10 talent in any draft. We keep talking about a lack of pass rushing. How would this be trading #47 and a 1st (either ours or Oak's) next year to Oak then drafting JPP (from what I hear, one of the best raw OLB's to come out of the draft in th last 5 years) then using #22 on a player they love in Odrick. Right there you fixed the rushing problems while getting a 3 down DE to replace Seymour and a 3 down OLB to play opposite TBC (which should make him much more effective). Then you can use the other 2 2nd picks on a OL and either a WR or RB. To me that sounds like great value for the pick.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    In Response to Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick:
    According to the San Fan Chronicle, Oak is hearing offers of a 2nd this year and a 1st next year for their #8 this year. Now I doubt they take something like that but the article mentioned the Seymour trade leaving them without a 1st pick in 2011 and it got me thinking, what if it's the Pats making the offer trying to move up. I know that people don't like hearing about crazy rumors but if the Pats offered Oak it's 2011 pick back with say #47 and #119 for the #8 pick wouldn't that be fun? Though I'd like to see what was there at #119 this trade would essiential mean we traded Seymour a 2nd and a 4th for a #8 pick that can be used on a Morgan, McCoy (if a miracle happens and he makes it to 8th), or even taking that #8 and dropping back a couple picks getting maybe that 4th or 3rd back and going after JPP, Spiller or Bryant. I know that chances are it would never happen but just the thought makes me smile. Esp considering it would be trading up from a second to a top 10 while still getting good value with their pick. Then they can trade their 1st back for a 2nd and 3rd and would end up basically moving from #22 to #8 and #199 to a 3rd while only giving up Oak's pick next year. Again Al would have to be smoking something feirce to do it but it's a fun trade in my mind. Ohh here's the article  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/raiders/detail?&entry_id=60198  
    Posted by PatsEng

    I didn't think the Raiders were that far off last year. Obviously, they need a QB and some WR playmakers, but they do have a decent OL, RB tandem and TE, as well as a fairly good defense.
    What if they are able to trade for Mcnabb? Does he make that team 8-8 next year lowering the Pats choice to middle of the first rather than top 5?
    I think the trade mentioned is too rich, but it would not surprise me to see the Pats try to move up to #8 using #22 and a later choice...but only could see that happening on draft day if the specific player tha Pats are targeting is on the board at 8. The question is who w/b that player at #8 to entice them? I dont think it is an OL, and certainly a stud w/b available at 8...I dont think the Pats use #8 for a corner or safety (Berry or Haden). I also think that #8 is too rish for Spiller and Bryant what with the Pats RB depth and the draft depth at WR. That leaves Mclain and a DL as the target...So, would you trade #22 and a lower choice for Mclain or one of the DL coming out? 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    Only Suh is worth trading up for-- and Bradyford (Bradford), but we don't need a QB. Brady isn't going anywhere anytime soon. After that, the Pats don't need to give up other picks. I say the Pats trade down to get Kansas City's two number two draft picks. 

    I honestly don't see the difference between Graham, Kindle to Sapp. The needs of the Patriots can be filled in round 2, they don't need a FHOF at every position.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MordecaiBloodmoon. Show MordecaiBloodmoon's posts

    Re: Interesting report on Oak's #8 pick

    Graham is the short one with the great motor, Kindle is the dumb one with the freakish physical skills, Sapp has the knee issues.  I vote for #1.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share