2023 Pats: Offseason

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,297
Ok my memory failed. I do remember thinking for a moment that we might use that pick on him though.
I was definitely rooting for it at the time. That whole draft turned out to be kind of a disaster for the Patriots...

23rd pick
* Acquired from the Rams in the Brandin Cooks trade:
Actually drafted: OT Isaiah Wynn
Next pick: WR DJ Moore
Next of position drafted: OT Brian O'Neill (unless you count Austin Corbett, but I'll call him a guard for dramatic effect)
Other drafted soon after: WR Calvin Ridley

31st pick
Actually drafted: HB Sony Michel
Next pick: QB Lamar Jackson
Next of position drafted: HB Nick Chubb
Other drafted soon after: MLB Shaquille (f/k/a Darius) Leonard

56th pick
*Traded up from #63 (Carlton Davis), giving up #117 (Jordan Whitehead) to do so.
Actually drafted: CB Duke Dawson
Next pick: DT P.J. Hall
Next of position drafted: CB Isaiah Oliver
Other drafted soon after: WR D.J. Chark

I was going to go through the rest of it, but there are a ton of trades & twists & turns, including getting a future 2nd they turned into JoeJuan Williams & a future 3rd they turned into Chase Winovich, so I'll just call it a day.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,467
It's not just the trade, though ... it's the contract. And it's not just the trade and the contract, it's determining whether you have the pieces around Jackson, including on the O-line, to make a seismic change to the style of attack possible.

I like the mouse story, though
Generally agree, but I think any offensive line combination is going to have a much easier time with Lamar than Mac as the QB.
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,370
"I think Bill is exceptional at what he does and I've given him the freedom to make the choices and do the things that need to be done," said Kraft. "His football intellect and knowledge is unparalleled from what I've seen. Just when you talk to him, the small things analytically he looks at. But in the end, this is a business. You either execute and win or you don't. That's where we're at. I think we're in a transition phase."
Seems Kraft didn't think it was a dumb question
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
It's not just the trade, though ... it's the contract. And it's not just the trade and the contract, it's determining whether you have the pieces around Jackson, including on the O-line, to make a seismic change to the style of attack possible.

I like the mouse story, though
We have been spoiled by Brady. Unless we have an elite QB on a rookie deal we are nearly always going to have pay to have an elite QB. That’s not only us but every team…..we’ve been the anomaly for over a decade due to Brady’s sacrifices to get the help he needs to win. That is not the norm.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
We have been spoiled by Brady. Unless we have an elite QB on a rookie deal we are nearly always going to have pay to have an elite QB. That’s not only us but every team…..we’ve been the anomaly for over a decade due to Brady’s sacrifices to get the help he needs to win. That is not the norm.
And I mean, it's not like in the absence of a highly paid quarterback they've built a 49ers/2021 Rams style All-Pro roster you'd have to dismantle to make room for that piece anyway.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,034
Oregon
We have been spoiled by Brady. Unless we have an elite QB on a rookie deal we are nearly always going to have pay to have an elite QB. That’s not only us but every team…..we’ve been the anomaly for over a decade due to Brady’s sacrifices to get the help he needs to win. That is not the norm.
I should extrapolate. I don't think Jackson is a sure enough bet to be an elite quarterback for the length and size of the contract that he will apparently warrant. I worry about his injury luck, and his ability, as his legs deteriorate, to execute from the pocket.
It's not giving out that kind of money out eventually; I just don't think Jackson is worth the risk.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I should extrapolate. I don't think Jackson is a sure enough bet to be an elite quarterback for the length and size of the contract that he will apparently warrant. I worry about his injury luck, and his ability, as his legs deteriorate, to execute from the pocket.
It's not giving out that kind of money out eventually; I just don't think Jackson is worth the risk.
My position is that these type of QB’s don’t become available every day. I posted in another thread months ago about Lamar being a possibility based on Belichick’s apparent feelings for him coming out of Louisville. Of course there is an injury risk for a QB who relies on running as much as he does but I’m of the opinion that a QB’s legs remaining heathy is a skill….or a learned skill, and if anyone can coach him up in this area I’d take my chances on BB.

The alternative is punting the season as a legit contender which I’m not a fan of doing.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,840
Unreal America
Seems Kraft didn't think it was a dumb question
Of course it wasn't a dumb question. Some folks have a reflexive need to defend Bill and attack the media. Which is fine. Bill's more than earned the confidence and the media largely sucks.

But we're also heading into year #4 post-Brady. At a certain point the "transition" becomes "we're just not that good anymore and we're not trending in a positive direction either".

College coaches deserve 4-5 years to get a program in better shape, but you really don't need that kinda time in today's NFL.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Of course it wasn't a dumb question. Some folks have a reflexive need to defend Bill and attack the media. Which is fine. Bill's more than earned the confidence and the media largely sucks.

But we're also heading into year #4 post-Brady. At a certain point the "transition" becomes "we're just not that good anymore and we're not trending in a positive direction either".

College coaches deserve 4-5 years to get a program in better shape, but you really don't need that kinda time in today's NFL.
The reflexive need to jump on the question is even funnier when you consider it was asked by Mike Reiss of all people. Just your run of the mill, softball "what is your message to the fans" off-season question.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,840
Unreal America
The reflexive need to jump on the question is even funnier when you consider it was asked by Mike Reiss of all people. Just your run of the mill, softball "what is your message to the fans" off-season question.
Hahaha. Noted media flamethrower Mike Reiss! Clearly he's in it for da clickz!
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
My mistake, for some reason I thought there were four, not including Richardson, being bandied about.

If only Josh would take Mac/14 for 7
Remember this old conversation years ago? Today former GM Mike Tannenbaum mocked Hendon Hooker (Tennessee) 5th to the Seahawks ahead of Richard with 5 QBs going in the top 11.

I see Hooker as a day 3 guy and I am not a big fan of his. This splits topics. On the one hand we should be talking about QB depth because the Pats might draft a guy and/or might want to think about drafting a guy + we were discussing QB options for them in the draft. I'll ask Dano how he feels about it in the Seahawks thread.

I know Hooker has recently gotten some day 1 buzz but I don't buy it.
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
4,684
Amstredam
Of course it wasn't a dumb question. Some folks have a reflexive need to defend Bill and attack the media. Which is fine. Bill's more than earned the confidence and the media largely sucks.

But we're also heading into year #4 post-Brady. At a certain point the "transition" becomes "we're just not that good anymore and we're not trending in a positive direction either".

College coaches deserve 4-5 years to get a program in better shape, but you really don't need that kinda time in today's NFL.
Maybe I have the reflexive need to defend Bill, but we are heading into year 4 of post-Brady and made the playoffs with a rookie QB 2 years ago and had a team with a top defense last year.
What should we have expected in the last 3 years that did not occur? Because honestly, I think the team has performed above where you would expect a team to perform during a reset.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
My position is that these type of QB’s don’t become available every day. I posted in another thread months ago about Lamar being a possibility based on Belichick’s apparent feelings for him coming out of Louisville. Of course there is an injury risk for a QB who relies on running as much as he does but I’m of the opinion that a QB’s legs remaining heathy is a skill….or a learned skill, and if anyone can coach him up in this area I’d take my chances on BB.

The alternative is punting the season as a legit contender which I’m not a fan of doing.
100% agree with this, Jackson and the current roster makes them a contender (with whatever cuts / restructures to make him fit) and Jones does not. If he wants to come here they should do it since BB will never do any kind of full tear down and rebuild.

I realize that BB will most likely not do this.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,034
Oregon
Remember this old conversation years ago? Today former GM Mike Tannenbaum mocked Hendon Hooker (Tennessee) 5th to the Seahawks ahead of Richard with 5 QBs going in the top 11.

I see Hooker as a day 3 guy and I am not a big fan of his. This splits topics. On the one hand we should be talking about QB depth because the Pats might draft a guy and/or might want to think about drafting a guy + we were discussing QB options for them in the draft. I'll ask Dano how he feels about it in the Seahawks thread.

I know Hooker has recently gotten some day 1 buzz but I don't buy it.
So, you're saying Hooker blows?
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
Remember this old conversation years ago? Today former GM Mike Tannenbaum mocked Hendon Hooker (Tennessee) 5th to the Seahawks ahead of Richard with 5 QBs going in the top 11.

I see Hooker as a day 3 guy and I am not a big fan of his. This splits topics. On the one hand we should be talking about QB depth because the Pats might draft a guy and/or might want to think about drafting a guy + we were discussing QB options for them in the draft. I'll ask Dano how he feels about it in the Seahawks thread.

I know Hooker has recently gotten some day 1 buzz but I don't buy it.
Tannenbaum's mock is interesting because he's not trying to predict what teams will do, but instead is drafting for them based on what he thinks they should do. More interesting imo. There actually weren't many outliers outside of Hooker. Wright to the Pats at 14.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,840
Unreal America
Maybe I have the reflexive need to defend Bill, but we are heading into year 4 of post-Brady and made the playoffs with a rookie QB 2 years ago and had a team with a top defense last year.
What should we have expected in the last 3 years that did not occur? Because honestly, I think the team has performed above where you would expect a team to perform during a reset.
I agree that 2020 and 2021 were good seasons. Last year was a clear step back overall. It's OK, that happens, Parcells went 6-10 in '95 before they made the Super Bowl in '96.

I'm merely suggesting we really should see discernable progress towards being a playoff team with an inkling of title aspirations this season. So asking Bill what there is to be optimistic about for this coming season is not some gotcha nonsense. It's a legit question from the most straight shooting reporter who covers the team.
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
4,463
Worcester

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,297
I guess I don't understand the issue with the answer? Being confident in what you do & with your track record is fine. Do you want a 15-minute answer regarding every single player, coach & scheme he expects to be effective this year? I guess he could say "I have confidence in our players & our system", but that's not really saying anything either, & is less of a flex.

I also don't have any issue with the question. Although it may have yielded a more interesting answer if he asked BB what made him most optimistic about this season rather than what the fans should be optimistic about.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,395
BB would have given him nothing in that case either, JM3. It's just how it goes.

Personally, I see reasons to be very pessimistic about the 2023 season, but also reasons to be optimistic. Kind of like the Red Sox, it feels like a huge wild card.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
Maybe I have the reflexive need to defend Bill, but we are heading into year 4 of post-Brady and made the playoffs with a rookie QB 2 years ago and had a team with a top defense last year.
What should we have expected in the last 3 years that did not occur? Because honestly, I think the team has performed above where you would expect a team to perform during a reset.
Ive always been a big Bill guy but I completely disagree with you on this. I’d expect him to have a better plan post Brady than bringing in Cam Newton at all, never mind in July. If he signed a Bridgewater or Rivers and it didn’t work that’s one thing but he waited until the summer to bring in Newton who couldn’t throw or seeming grasp the offense. Then there’s the coaching nonsense last year setting up Patricia and Judge To fail.

Either one of those blunders would get most coaches/Gms fired.

Bills made some great moves, the defense Is great, I don’t mind the free agents in 2021 not working out, his drafting seems better. Those two crippling moves are obvious mistakes that undermine the rest of the good work
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,297
BB would have given him nothing in that case either, JM3. It's just how it goes.

Personally, I see reasons to be very pessimistic about the 2023 season, but also reasons to be optimistic. Kind of like the Red Sox, it feels like a huge wild card.
I'm sure it would probably be a non-answer, too, but I would expect a different non-answer.

& I think the range of outcomes is much wider for the Red Sox than the Patriots, but who knows? I think there is a baseline of competence on the defense & a baseline of meh on offense that will keep the Pats within a fairly narrow range based on how a few close games go.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,395
I'm sure it would probably be a non-answer, too, but I would expect a different non-answer.

& I think the range of outcomes is much wider for the Red Sox than the Patriots, but who knows? I think there is a baseline of competence on the defense & a baseline of meh on offense that will keep the Pats within a fairly narrow range based on how a few close games go.
I think the range for the Pats, given the schedule, is between 7 wins and 11 wins.

7 wins is a .412 win percentage
11 wins is a .647 win percentage

Project those out over 162 games and here's what you get:

7 NFL wins = .412 win percentage = 67 MLB wins
11 NFL wins = .647 win percentage = 104 MLB wins

I think the Sox' range is closer than 67-104 wins. I think the Sox should be between 75 and 90 wins. That would translate to:

75 MLB wins = .463 = 7.9 NFL wins
90 MLB wins = .555 = 9.5 NFL wins

So basically between 8-10 NFL wins, roughly.

So actually, looked at it this way, the Patriots have a wider range of outcomes than the Sox do.

But I admit that this is kind of a nerdy way of looking at it. What can I say though? I'm kind of a nerd.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,467
Ive always been a big Bill guy but I completely disagree with you on this. I’d expect him to have a better plan post Brady than bringing in Cam Newton at all, never mind in July. If he signed a Bridgewater or Rivers and it didn’t work that’s one thing but he waited until the summer to bring in Newton who couldn’t throw or seeming grasp the offense. Then there’s the coaching nonsense last year setting up Patricia and Judge To fail.

Either one of those blunders would get most coaches/Gms fired.

Bills made some great moves, the defense Is great, I don’t mind the free agents in 2021 not working out, his drafting seems better. Those two crippling moves are obvious mistakes that undermine the rest of the good work
I thought the Cam move was smart. He had no way to get a good QB with the cap space available, he gave Cam a shot because he had by far the biggest upside if his shoulder bounced back, and he let them try out a running QB offense, something they'd never done before, in case a running QB was what was available to them the next year.

Probably worth noting as well that the offense started the year well... then Cam got COVID and teams realized his shoulder what shot. Even then, that was our least talented roster in a long while and they still went 7-9.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,776
Hartford, CT
The BB breakfast interview at the annual owners’ meeting is routinely an exercise in Bill exuding ‘I don’t want to be here answering questions so I’m gonna give you shit’ energy to the max. To the extent anything he says at this meeting sticks in the consciousness for months, or years, it’ll be because the local media repeatedly brings it up as evidence of some theory about Bill’s attitude, fitness to be the head coach, etc.

I just don’t take anything he says in these settings very seriously, and I don’t feel I’m owed, or need, answers as a fan. I also acknowledge that the media has understandably been annoyed by his conduct for years, and pointing out that Bill isn’t taking their questions seriously (see his answer to the question about Lamar Jackson) is their job. But I don’t really think these reporters - assuming they are covering/asking about football matters - are effectively my representatives in a quest to extract Belichick’s views or force him to defend his decisions or football philosophy. If other fans do want that, or at least think it is important to them that Belichick take these interviews seriously, then fair enough.

The Belichick/media dynamic can be entertaining, don’t get me wrong, but its value to me as a fan starts and ends there.
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
2,333
I think the range for the Pats, given the schedule, is between 7 wins and 11 wins.

7 wins is a .412 win percentage
11 wins is a .647 win percentage

Project those out over 162 games and here's what you get:

7 NFL wins = .412 win percentage = 67 MLB wins
11 NFL wins = .647 win percentage = 104 MLB wins

I think the Sox' range is closer than 67-104 wins. I think the Sox should be between 75 and 90 wins. That would translate to:

75 MLB wins = .463 = 7.9 NFL wins
90 MLB wins = .555 = 9.5 NFL wins

So basically between 8-10 NFL wins, roughly.

So actually, looked at it this way, the Patriots have a wider range of outcomes than the Sox do.

But I admit that this is kind of a nerdy way of looking at it. What can I say though? I'm kind of a nerd.
It's more the NFL has a way wider range of outcomes because they play 10% of the games. Outside of outlier years, the worst MLB teams usually win around 40% which is a ~7-10 NFL team and only the best MLB teams ever have won at a 12-5 rate.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,297
I think the range for the Pats, given the schedule, is between 7 wins and 11 wins.

7 wins is a .412 win percentage
11 wins is a .647 win percentage

Project those out over 162 games and here's what you get:

7 NFL wins = .412 win percentage = 67 MLB wins
11 NFL wins = .647 win percentage = 104 MLB wins

I think the Sox' range is closer than 67-104 wins. I think the Sox should be between 75 and 90 wins. That would translate to:

75 MLB wins = .463 = 7.9 NFL wins
90 MLB wins = .555 = 9.5 NFL wins

So basically between 8-10 NFL wins, roughly.

So actually, looked at it this way, the Patriots have a wider range of outcomes than the Sox do.

But I admit that this is kind of a nerdy way of looking at it. What can I say though? I'm kind of a nerd.
But how many standard deviations are we talking about? :)

A 4-win range which I basically agree with, is quite narrow for an NFL team & I think most teams have a far wider range. I think 75 to 90... wins is too small of a window for the Red Sox...the over/under is around 78, so the lower range is certainly below 75, & I don't disagree that 90 (or even higher) is on the table. I think their range of outcomes is much wider than the average MLB team.

It's more the NFL has a way wider range of outcomes because they play 10% of the games. Outside of outlier years, the worst MLB teams usually win around 40% which is a ~7-10 NFL team and only the best MLB teams ever have won at a 12-5 rate.
This is also a good way to look at it.

Last year, the best records in the NFL were 14-3...an .824 winning %, whereas the worst was 3-14 which is .176. In baseball records ranged from .683 to .340. 13 NFL teams fell outside that range.
 
Last edited:

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
So, you're saying Hooker blows?
Brilliant lol!

It's like JP Acosta was saying... they are a Mickey Mouse 7 play offense. Hooker isn't even that great of a processor in that Mickey Mouse offense. So yeah, unfortunately I think he kind of blows.

Tannenbaum's mock is interesting because he's not trying to predict what teams will do, but instead is drafting for them based on what he thinks they should do. More interesting imo. There actually weren't many outliers outside of Hooker. Wright to the Pats at 14.
Dream come true honestly.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,297
I guess there's downside risk of 6 wins with the Patriots? It feels wrong, though. The o/u is 7.5, but there's juice to the over & 7 wins makes up a decent part of their range.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2023-nfl-win-totals-for-all-32-teams-five-best-overunder-bets-including-the-jets-soaring-with-aaron-rodgers/#:~:text=2023 NFL win totals are now available; here's, +105 28 more rows

In terms of the rest of the division, Bills are 10.5 with juice to the over, Jets are 9.5 with juice to the over, & Dolphins are 9.5 with juice to the under.
 

BuellMiller

New Member
Mar 25, 2015
449
But how many standard deviations are we talking about? :)

A 4-win range which I basically agree with, is quite narrow for an NFL team & I think most teams have a far wider range. I think 75 to 90... wins is too small of a window for the Red Sox...the over/under is around 78, so the lower range is certainly below 75, & I don't disagree that 90 (or even higher) is on the table. I think their range of outcomes is much wider than the average MLB team.



This is also a good way to look at it.

Last year, the best records in the NFL were 14-3...an .824 winning %, whereas the worst was 3-14 which is .176. In baseball records ranged from .683 to .340. 13 NFL teams fell outside that range.
I think the starting QB being a much more important player than positions in other sports also plays slightly into this. If 1999-2000 Pedro Martinez could have started every game (or likewise if Tom Brady only got to snap once every five plays), the percentages would be a lot different too. Look at basketball where the star players are also very important and can play ~80% of all minutes, and the seasons last 5x a football season (or 1/2 a baseball season) in terms of games, you see winning percentages closer to football.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
I thought the Cam move was smart. He had no way to get a good QB with the cap space available, he gave Cam a shot because he had by far the biggest upside if his shoulder bounced back, and he let them try out a running QB offense, something they'd never done before, in case a running QB was what was available to them the next year.

Probably worth noting as well that the offense started the year well... then Cam got COVID and teams realized his shoulder what shot. Even then, that was our least talented roster in a long while and they still went 7-9.
It wasn't smart. The smart move would be to realize 2020 was a sunk year with lots of dead money and to just try to develop guys while playing for 2021. With BB's history everyone would have understood this and with COVID there wasn't even a concern about losing gate revenue by having a bad team.

After week 8 they were 2-5 with both games against the Jets remaining; they were in line for a top 3 pick and a huge longshot for the playoffs. You don't get Lawrence but you could have traded down and still gotten Mac or taken Fields maybe picked up a haul from SF and ended up with Parsons, Chase, who knows. But they went 5-4 from then on and for what? As it turned out they got a pocket QB and they had to change their offense back entirely anyway.

BB is never going to tank but if there ever was a guy or a team to do it with it would have been that one.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,101
It wasn't smart. The smart move would be to realize 2020 was a sunk year with lots of dead money and to just try to develop guys while playing for 2021. With BB's history everyone would have understood this and with COVID there wasn't even a concern about losing gate revenue by having a bad team.

After week 8 they were 2-5 with both games against the Jets remaining; they were in line for a top 3 pick and a huge longshot for the playoffs. You don't get Lawrence but you could have traded down and still gotten Mac or taken Fields maybe picked up a haul from SF and ended up with Parsons, Chase, who knows. But they went 5-4 from then on and for what? As it turned out they got a pocket QB and they had to change their offense back entirely anyway.

BB is never going to tank but if there ever was a guy or a team to do it with it would have been that one.
Tanking in football just doesn’t happen because it usually doesn’t work. The NFL is not the NBA.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,409
around the way
I'm sure it would probably be a non-answer, too, but I would expect a different non-answer.

& I think the range of outcomes is much wider for the Red Sox than the Patriots, but who knows? I think there is a baseline of competence on the defense & a baseline of meh on offense that will keep the Pats within a fairly narrow range based on how a few close games go.
FWIW, Bill being a cock in a press conference actually gives me more hope for the upcoming season than less hope. Seems like he's rounding back into typical Bill form.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
Tanking in football just doesn’t happen because it usually doesn’t work. The NFL is not the NBA.
What did Jacksonville to until they got Lawrence? What did Houston do last year? I call that tanking.

I'm not saying they should have or would have lost on purpose, but building an entirely different offense for a questionable QB in a year where you had no wiggle room, little talent and just lost a legend was not really that shrewd.
 

Arroyoyo

New Member
Dec 13, 2021
805
Question.

I keep hearing talking heads say the Patriots could wait until after the draft to trade for Lamar as the next two drafts they’d, in theory, have lower first round picks.

I haven’t seen anyone discuss the Patriots trading down in this year’s draft to accomplish basically the same thing. What if they traded #14 for a late first rounder in 2023 and, say, a couple of second rounders, then trading this year’s now-late first round pick and 2024’s theoretical “later” first round pick for Lamar? You’d pick up additional picks this year - or maybe another first rounder next year - working into it this way then just trading the 2024 and 2025 picks. You’d get better value for #14.

Am I missing something?
 

Bowser

New Member
Sep 27, 2019
400
Count me in, though I don't see how trading down this year nets the Pats "a couple of second rounders." A trade with Jacksonville -- 14 for 24 & 56 -- is close to a wash: 1,100 points vs. 1,080 on this chart. But sure, I'd absolutely trade 24 plus our #1 next year for Lamar. Plenty of high quality players will still be available at 46 & 56.

What you might be missing though is that (a) Baltimore may not want to trade him, or (b) trade him to us, or (c) trade him for merely two first rounders.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
I think the range for the Pats, given the schedule, is between 7 wins and 11 wins.

7 wins is a .412 win percentage
11 wins is a .647 win percentage

Project those out over 162 games and here's what you get:

7 NFL wins = .412 win percentage = 67 MLB wins
11 NFL wins = .647 win percentage = 104 MLB wins

I think the Sox' range is closer than 67-104 wins. I think the Sox should be between 75 and 90 wins. That would translate to:

75 MLB wins = .463 = 7.9 NFL wins
90 MLB wins = .555 = 9.5 NFL wins

So basically between 8-10 NFL wins, roughly.

So actually, looked at it this way, the Patriots have a wider range of outcomes than the Sox do.

But I admit that this is kind of a nerdy way of looking at it. What can I say though? I'm kind of a nerd.
That’s a false equivalency. In mlb, 67 wins might be worst in the league (conference equivalent) and 104 wins might be best in the league.
7 or 11 NFL wins is assuredly neither.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,182
Missoula, MT
Count me in, though I don't see how trading down this year nets the Pats "a couple of second rounders." A trade with Jacksonville -- 14 for 24 & 56 -- is close to a wash: 1,100 points vs. 1,080 on this chart. But sure, I'd absolutely trade 24 plus our #1 next year for Lamar. Plenty of high quality players will still be available at 46 & 56.

What you might be missing though is that (a) Baltimore may not want to trade him, or (b) trade him to us, or (c) trade him for merely two first rounders.
In addition, based on the tag Baltimore placed on him, they have the right to match any offer to Jackson and I would guess they would want some time to consider and weigh options. I would doubt a proposal with 10 minutes on the draft clock would be enough time. Without a deal (picks and refusal to match offer) in place before the draft, I can't see this happening.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
What did Jacksonville to until they got Lawrence? What did Houston do last year? I call that tanking.

I'm not saying they should have or would have lost on purpose, but building an entirely different offense for a questionable QB in a year where you had no wiggle room, little talent and just lost a legend was not really that shrewd.
Jacksonville and Houston both sucked but i don't think either tanked. Houston would actually have the number one pick if they lost their last game of the season (oops).
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,467
I doubt the Patriots get Lamar, but if they do it almost certainly won't be via offer sheet, it would be a trade.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,297
So combining 2 things:

1) The Ravens have 7 days to match any offer sheet on LJax.
2) A team would need a '23 & '24 1st to offer on LJax before the draft & '24 & '25 1st to offer on LJax after the draft.

One would presume that there would be a moratorium on executing an offer sheet from 1 week prior to the draft until after the draft. What the Ravens want doesn't really matter, though. Obviously they would be less likely to match if the team offering has the #1 pick than if they have the #31 pick, but the max compensation they are going to get is whatever the two 1sts the offering team has. The question is, would they accept less than that in order to facilitate a deal and move on.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
I doubt the Patriots get Lamar, but if they do it almost certainly won't be via offer sheet, it would be a trade.
Seems very hard to believe that the Ravens would ever agree to trade Lamar to the Pats. If the Pats want him, they're going to have to sign him and send over the picks.
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
2,333
Seems very hard to believe that the Ravens would ever agree to trade Lamar to the Pats. If the Pats want him, they're going to have to sign him and send over the picks.
If the compensation is good enough, I don't think they're going to be completely averse trading him to an interdivison team they're not guaranteed to see until 2025.
 

Bowser

New Member
Sep 27, 2019
400
Is there a way to structure a contract for Lamar that puts the Ravens in a bind? Is that still a thing? Ravens look to have about $6.7MM in cap space. Pats are at $13MM.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,467
Seems very hard to believe that the Ravens would ever agree to trade Lamar to the Pats. If the Pats want him, they're going to have to sign him and send over the picks.
I think that there are 3 outcomes here for the Ravens:
1. They trade Lamar to the highest bidder he agrees to extend with (he has a lot of leverage there)
2. They call what they hope is his bluff and either he settles for a lower deal or holds out.
3. They give him a contract he wants.

I just don't think there is a team willing to give up 2 1sts, have to clear the space (and escrow the money) for that big capspace hold, and chance not getting him via offer sheet. It's basically never happened. And from the Ravens' perspective, you don't not make a good trade because of what... a half-hearted conference rivalry? It's not even a team in your division you see twice a year.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,467
Is there a way to structure a contract for Lamar that puts the Ravens in a bind? Is that still a thing? Ravens look to have about $6.7MM in cap space. Pats are at $13MM.
That $6.7M includes having Lamar at the $32.4M franchise tag, so not really.