PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Pick #32

Next Opp: TBD
THE HUB FOR PATRIOTS FANS SINCE 2000

CURRENT POPULAR DISCUSSIONS:
OT: Zay Flowers: Ravens won't practice as hard
Posted By: Pape
April 17, 2026 at 1:57 pm
Total Replies: 15

# Of Users:10
RobertWeathersRob0729Steve102yukon corneliusPapeFamilyPatsfan1645Ross12WozzyHugepatsfan
Harold Landry Update
Posted By: DaBruinz
April 17, 2026 at 1:53 pm
Total Replies: 81

# Of Users:19
Headcase40yrpatsfanZumaDaBruinzpatfankenRobertWeathersOne-If-By-SeaHuckleberry1Papen1997yRoss12
TODAY'S MOST REACTED POSTS:
manxman26012026 Draft: WR
4 Reactions
04/16 at 8:22 pm

By: manxman2601

Clonamery2026 Pre-Draft Meetings
4 Reactions
04/17 at 4:56 am

By: Clonamery

KenRuinard/USATodayNetworkSouthCarolina/USATODAYNETWORKviaImagnImages
');">
TODAY'S TOP POSTERS:#
manxman260128 posts
DaBruinz19 posts
DoubleDeluxe15 posts
mayoclinic12 posts
Clonamery12 posts
 

If they're still on the board at 32, what do you do?


  • Total voters
    94
Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand that Fant's blocking is improving. However, I think it misguided to compare his blocking skills to that Hock. While he obviously is not as good, Hock would step right in for Gronk when he leaves, filling the same role. I wouldn't have the same expectation for Fant.

So, sure I overstated some. But, I would trade a 1st, 2nd and 3rd for Hock. I wouldn't trade up very far, if at all, for Fant. I might even draft a DL at 32, even with Fant available. How about you?

If Hockenson was Gronk I’d give that up for him, but I don’t believe he’s going to be the greatest TR in history. I think he will be good, and I would go #32 and a 3rd to move up a few spots to get him, but I wouldn’t give up 3 picks for him. I would sit still for Fant, and I wouldn’t go DL unless a prospect dropped out of the top 15 to them. And I wouldn’t touch Simmons.
 
More of a Dexter Lawrance fan, but if he’s gone and miraculously Fant or Hockenson were there, I’d be ok with one of them. Not so sure about Irv Smith. Think I’d be ok with Simmons too if they wanted to wait for the recovery. However it comes with some risk like the other player they gambled on and lost a few years ago. D Easley.
 
Hock will likely take 3 picks. Fant will likely take two picks, needing to use a 3rd or more likely 2nd to move up.

You can wait for Fant at 32. That simply means that he won't play for us.

2019 is an exceptional year. We have a great NEED at TE. It will likely take a year for a player to really work his way into our offense. I don't expect Gronk to be here in 2020; he could be gone for part or all of this year.

If Hockenson was Gronk I’d give that up for him, but I don’t believe he’s going to be the greatest TR in history. I think he will be good, and I would go #32 and a 3rd to move up a few spots to get him, but I wouldn’t give up 3 picks for him. I would sit still for Fant, and I wouldn’t go DL unless a prospect dropped out of the top 15 to them. And I wouldn’t touch Simmons.
 
But, I would trade a 1st, 2nd and 3rd for Hock. I wouldn't trade up very far, if at all, for Fant. I might even draft a DL at 32, even with Fant available. How about you?

That's a lot to give up to move 16 or so spots...but I agree it would take that many to do it. Is Hock worth it? Maybe. I prefer to give up 1 extra pick and move up 10 or so and shoot for Fant or stand Pat and hope Smith makes it to 32. Smith is 1st round talent but after those 3...I think their is a big drop off at TE and better to work on other team needs at that point.
 
Some comparisons for fun...

Hockenson 6-5, 251lb


Fant 6-4, 249lb


Smith 6-2, 242lb
 
Last edited:
If a DT of value falls to 32, Simmons, Lawrence or Tillery, bb needs to run the card up to the table!

Other than that or j Williams, he needs to trade 32 to the very embattled Gettleman for 37 and 108!
 
Some comparisons for fun...

Hockenson 6-5, 251lb


Fant 6-4, 249lb


Smith 6-2, 242lb


You need a good blocking TE. As indicated late last season, we want to run more.
 
Hockenson & Fant will be long gone by 32, but Irv Smith Jr might not be. If he's still available, then Smith will likely be the only player on offense that I would take there. The pick at 32 might therefore very well become Irv Smith or one of the following DLman: 0-tech Dexter Lawrence, 3-tech Jeff Simmons, 5-tech Jerry Tillery or DE Jaylon Ferguson.
 
Hockenson & Fant will be long gone by 32, but Irv Smith Jr might not be. If he's still available, then Smith will likely be the only player on offense that I would take there. The pick at 32 might therefore very well become Irv Smith or one of the following DLman: 0-tech Dexter Lawrence, 3-tech Jeff Simmons, 5-tech Jerry Tillery or DE Jaylon Ferguson.
Lawrence Simmons or trade down or into the next draft for me?
Honestly I'm not 100 percent against making sure we get Isabella in that spot.
 
Lol at people wanting defense...

Our 42 year old QB has no weapons to throw too
 
Lol at people wanting defense...

Our 42 year old QB has no weapons to throw too

There is more than one pick and the most likely candidates for weapons for Brady, namely the two Iowa TEs, could be long gone by 32.
 
Lol at people wanting defense...

Our 42 year old QB has no weapons to throw to.
Both Mississippi WRs (DK Metcalf & AJ Brown) will almost certainly be gone by 32.

The other WR receiving the most 1st-round consideration - Marquise Brown - will probably be gone before 32 also; but even if he isn't I want nothing whatsoever to do with him at that spot.

The next level of WRs - Parris Campbell, Deebo Samuel, N'Keal Harry, Riley Ridley etc - are simply unworthy of 32, though Campbell comes the closest.

I am not drafting a RB at 32 under ANY circumstances whatsoever.

The above scenarios are the reason why defense, especially DL, has to be a consideration at 32, even when our combined TE/WR group is now quite possibly the very Worst in the entire league.
 
Last edited:
Our leading receiving TE in 2007 & 2008 combined (both years) for under 600 yards. Those were McDaniels' last two years before leaving. If we can draft a really good TE, awesome. If not, McDaniels has run that type of offense. The O'Brien years brought the two receiving TE offense.

The "top" WR in this draft suck (relative to normal top WR) but the depth is good. We'll have options on Day 2.
 
Our leading receiving TE in 2007 & 2008 combined (both years) for under 600 yards. Those were McDaniels' last two years before leaving. If we can draft a really good TE, awesome. If not, McDaniels has run that type of offense. The O'Brien years brought the two receiving TE offense.

The "top" WR in this draft suck (relative to normal top WR) but the depth is good. We'll have options on Day 2.

I was wondering about this. Instead of an offense largely centred around a TE, go with a WR orientated offense. My issue with that strategy is that we're developing into a run first offense and that requires Tight End's in the offense and we already tend to signal when we're running or passing. If we don't have an effective TE in that offense, it's harder to disguise when we're running or passing. That, after all, is the advantage of a TE1 that plays inline.
 
I was wondering about this. Instead of an offense largely centred around a TE, go with a WR orientated offense. My issue with that strategy is that we're developing into a run first offense and that requires Tight End's in the offense and we already tend to signal when we're running or passing. If we don't have an effective TE in that offense.
Valid point, the counterpoint being that if we have more speed on the field the defense would be more spread out making run blocking easier.

Ironically when McDaniels came back I wondered how he would do with the more TE based personnel after becoming more of a spread coach in 2007 and 2008.
 
Valid point, the counterpoint being that if we have more speed on the field the defense would be more spread out making run blocking easier.

Ironically when McDaniels came back I wondered how he would do with the more TE based personnel after becoming more of a spread coach in 2007 and 2008.

Well if we go more spread (and I take your point about spreading the D), then we need WRs and we're almost as weak there as we are at TE, Edelman aside. It's going to be interesting to see how BB fixes either/both WR and TE over the coming month or so.
 
If we don't have an effective TE in that offense, it's harder to disguise when we're running or passing. That, after all, is the advantage of a TE1 that plays inline.
That, and the fact that our previous TE was able to knock 280 lb guys into next Tuesday.
 
That, and the fact that our previous TE was able to knock 280 lb guys into next Tuesday.

Michel will certainly miss Gronk. The problem is, we've now lost two TEs that could do that.
 
Well if we go more spread (and I take your point about spreading the D), then we need WRs and we're almost as weak there as we are at TE, Edelman aside.
Definitely But I think it's easier to find a viable WR or 2 than an all around TE.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
MORSE: Patriots Mock Draft 6 – A Week Before the Draft
TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf Pre-Draft Press Conference 4/13
Patriots News 04-12, What To Watch For In The NFL Draft
MORSE: Pre-Draft Patriots News and Notes
MORSE: Patriots Mock Draft 5
MORSE: Patriots Mock Draft 5
Mark Morse
1 week ago
Patriots Part Ways with Another Linebacker as Offseason Roster Shake-Up Continues
Patriots News 04-05, Mock Draft 2.0, Patriots Look For OL Depth
MORSE: 18 Game Schedule and Other Patriots Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Mike Vrabel Press Conference at the League Meetings 3/31
MORSE: Smokescreens and Misinformation Leading Up to Patriots Draft
Back
Top