Vikings Select Cordarrelle Patterson with No. 29 Pick in Trade with Patriots
The Vikings just can't get enough of the first round.
After selecting Sharrif Floyd and Xavier Rhodes with their first two picks, the Vikes were able to cut a deal with the New England Patriots in order to select Tennessee wide receiver Cordarrelle Patterson with the No. 29 pick overall.
ESPN's Mike Reiss has the details of the trade:
Patriots get a second-rounder (52), third-rounder (83), fourth-rounder (102) and seventh-rounder (229) from Vikings for first-rounder (29).— Mike Reiss (@MikeReiss) April 26, 2013
Bill Belichick does it again.
The Patriots' crafty head coach is notorious for wheeling and dealing in the first round of the draft, and unsurprisingly, he struck when it appeared Thursday night's trades had come to a halt.
Despite moving down 23 picks, the Pats now have a slew of middle-round picks to either inject some youth into the organization or continuing shopping as we continue into the weekend. They entered Day 1 with just five overall picks.
This trade was good for...
The Vikings, meanwhile, won’t pick again until Saturday, and while it appears like they gave up quite a bit to acquire Patterson, it’s hard to be upset with their overwhelming first-round haul.
They got Floyd—a top-five player on many boards—and Rhodes—a top-15 player—with the No. 23 and No. 25 picks, respectively.
With this trade, they bring in the uber-talented Patterson. The former Volunteer certainly has some question marks, but his potential as a future No. 1 receiver is obviously apparent. As a junior, he pulled in 46 receptions for 778 yards and five touchdowns. He also rushed for 308 and three scores, while proving to be a dynamic returner, as well.
After trading Percy Harvin to the Seattle Seahawks in the offseason, it’s safe to say the Vikings have addressed the void with Patterson and Greg Jennings, their likely 2013 starting wide receivers.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?