As of today (2/10), who do you *want* the Pats to draft first?

[Hugepatsfan]

Its a big picture view.

Best case scenario, we get Abdul Carter. Say he does as well as TJ Watt, top of the line player... Gets you 19 sacks a year... What does that net you? In Pittsburgh, its gotten them none and done in Watts four playoff games...

Set the line this year, what does that get you? Protection for your QB. Right now, you have a Top Ten QB... Top 10 in Sack percentage, 14th in yards lost/sacks, Top 10 in int percentage... All that in 12 games

So maybe, thinking big picture here, what would be more beneficial for the team?

Its okay, you can say it...

Fixing the Offensive Line.

You guys worry about "value" waaaayyyy too much. Too worried about what "other" people think. I dont get the need for the reassurance of talking heads saying "you made the right pick" when all that really matters is making the right pick for your team.

If you take a LT and he ends up needing to move to guard or stays at LT and is just average then you aren't fixing or setting the OL though. Solving our OT position doesn't mean just checking a box and taking one. The guy has to actually be a good solution there, and people are questioning that about the prospects in that class.

 

[Hugepatsfan]

Oh, don't get me wrong, there are no Joe Alts in this draft.
I'm not saying these are going to be world beaters at tackle, I don't think any of them are - but I think there are 5 or 6 that can be in that 'perfectly serviceable for 2 contracts'.

Which, by the way, is an incredible improvement over what we have now. Average starter is better than what we got at all 5 positions last year.

If we only land an average starter with our top pick this year that's a huge detriment to building our team moving forward. You need to have elite talent to compete for super bowls. You need a roster littered with guys at the top of their position ranking. Average starters don't do that for you, and we're not going to have too many chances better than the #4 pick to add an elite talent. That outweighs any positional need.

It'd be awesome if we could be one of those 1-year turnaround success stories, but you can't specifically build a team chasing that. Not when you have such a grossly untalented roster as we do at virtually every position. You can't make it about checking a specific box to improve off of last year.

 

[TommyD4207]

If you take a LT and he ends up needing to move to guard or stays at LT and is just average then you aren't fixing or setting the OL though. Solving our OT position doesn't mean just checking a box and taking one. The guy has to actually be a good solution there, and people are questioning that about the prospects in that class.

Ok, but there aren't any of those tackles out there in FA or the draft.

The Patriots won multiple super bowls with Matt Light and Nate Solder at left tackle. Guys who were average to above average at times.

So yes, if you can check a box and get Matt Light for 10 years, then I'm fine with that. I'm *not* fine taking them at 4, although I totally get @Pape and his argument, and a lot of times, I subscribe to it (Sony Michel, for example). But yeah, at #4, you need to get a multiple-time all-pro or a bunch of additional draft capital in a trade down.

 

[Hugepatsfan]

Ok, but there aren't any of those tackles out there in FA or the draft.

The Patriots won multiple super bowls with Matt Light and Nate Solder at left tackle. Guys who were average to above average at times.

So yes, if you can check a box and get Matt Light for 10 years, then I'm fine with that. I'm *not* fine taking them at 4, although I totally get @Pape and his argument, and a lot of times, I subscribe to it (Sony Michel, for example). But yeah, at #4, you need to get a multiple-time all-pro or a bunch of additional draft capital in a trade down.

The harsh reality is that this roster sucks too much for anyone here to realistically think we're going to adequately address every open spot this year. The entire roster outside of Maye and Gonzo and maybe Barmore (health) and White (not really that good yet despite hype) probably needs to be churned over in the next 2-3 years, barring a few of the other recent draft picks recovering from bad starts to their career to stick.

People keep talking about these LTs at #4 and basically accepting the fact that they'll maybe be "average to above average" and saying that's ok because he's better than Lowe. I just can't fathom having the worst roster in the NFL and the priority with the top pick being "who cares if he's not that good, we just need to make sure he's better than Lowe". It's ass backwards. The whole roster is a barren wasteland. We need to start fixing that at some positions. The team can absolutely improve its record next year but there's no way they actually get viable options at every position.

Just like you cite examples of us winning super bowls with average to above average LTs (which is honestly probably inaccurate because it's downplaying Solder and especially Light in their years here, but I digress and accept your premise)... well there are examples of teams winning 8+ games and making the playoffs with below average LT play too. The Bengals made the SB a couple of years ago with below average play, for example. So if there aren't any good LT solutions available, why can't that be us and we use our resources on positions where there are good options.

 

[Pape]

Ok, but there aren't any of those tackles out there in FA or the draft.

The Patriots won multiple super bowls with Matt Light and Nate Solder at left tackle. Guys who were average to above average at times.

So yes, if you can check a box and get Matt Light for 10 years, then I'm fine with that. I'm *not* fine taking them at 4, although I totally get @Pape and his argument, and a lot of times, I subscribe to it (Sony Michel, for example). But yeah, at #4, you need to get a multiple-time all-pro or a bunch of additional draft capital in a trade down.

People are expecting a haul if we trade down. Rightly so, its expected, because it is what has happened in the past.

Based on the very limited number of guys that are considered blue chip players - and I have heard that after the first or second pick, they are just not there, that this is, overall, a weak draft class... there may be depth in the draft. but sure fire day 1 starters? limited selection...

So what do you do? Trade down without reaping a bounty of picks? If the value isn't there, why would teams give up multiple picks to move up?

If I am moving down in the draft, you better be paying me. Otherwise I would rather "reach" than help anyone else fill in their gaps.

 

[Pape]

If you take a LT and he ends up needing to move to guard or stays at LT and is just average then you aren't fixing or setting the OL though. Solving our OT position doesn't mean just checking a box and taking one. The guy has to actually be a good solution there, and people are questioning that about the prospects in that class.

This is not rocket science. You do it again next year until you get it right.

Hopefully the front office isn't filled with idiots who can't spot a prospect.

I have read the draft reports on multiple sites. I know what they are saying about the LTs available. Its also why I included who I would pick.

 

[Pape]

still in a vacuum....you're making it sound like the #4 is the only way this team can get better

vacuum? Look up the ****ing word cuz i don't think you know what it means.

Getting a left tackle in this draft is based on what I consider the order of priority for this team. You can run down every position of need on this team - and I have - and nothing even approaches the need at Left Tackle. It is not even close.

I get it, guys are attracted to the shiny toys. and taking a tackle is a boring pick. but it is necessary to protect the 3rd you spent last year on a QB. You all are talking about draft luxuries... trying to say its a "need" too... Getting a DL or an EDGE is so far down the list of that this team needs to address, its actually shocking to me that this is being pushed so hard.

Carter shouldn't even be a consideration. He would be a useless addition to a team that is no way near ready to compete. (yay, we have a 15 sack guy! we still lost 12 games, but man, we got a bag-o'sacks, didn't we? jfc...

You want to add defensive firepower? Go buy Josh Sweat. Go Get Khalil Mack. Go get Chase Young. Those guys are available as free agents.

You want a receiver? Go make Tee Higgins an offer he can't refuse. Its only money.

You want to fix the OLine in free agency? later in the draft? Good luck with that - you are just going to get a bunch of jamokes and retreads like we did last year.

 

[Steve102]

Ok, but there aren't any of those tackles out there in FA or the draft.

The Patriots won multiple super bowls with Matt Light and Nate Solder at left tackle. Guys who were average to above average at times.

So yes, if you can check a box and get Matt Light for 10 years, then I'm fine with that. I'm *not* fine taking them at 4, although I totally get @Pape and his argument, and a lot of times, I subscribe to it (Sony Michel, for example). But yeah, at #4, you need to get a multiple-time all-pro or a bunch of additional draft capital in a trade down.

Matt Light's measurements:


I think we are way overthinking the draftniks arm measurement BS, and Banks, Campbell or Simmons should be fine additions to the line. I agree with you, not at #4. Now if they blow up at the combine/pro days, then maybe that will change.

I am all for trading back a few slots and taking the best one.

 

[Wax Frog]

Other, AKA RLKAG/I wish the Kraft era was over

 

[Steve102]

For all the "trade back and get a haul" guys (like me, kinda). Depending on how far back you drop will determine your ability to get said haul. Looking at the trade value chart, the real "haul" will be if they drop out of the top 10-12. For instance, if they dropped back to say #6 and made a deal with Brady Mark Davis, you'd probably end up with 6 and 70. Maybe #6, #102 and #134 and a mid round pick in 2026. I think to get a big number of picks back, you'd have to go down to maybe 15, then you might get a second this year and a first next year. Something like that. check it out yourself.
NFL Draft Pick Value Calculator

 

[TomPatriot]

BPA who is not a QB or trade out for an extra top 100 pick or two.

 

[Hugepatsfan]

vacuum? Look up the ****ing word cuz i don't think you know what it means.

Getting a left tackle in this draft is based on what I consider the order of priority for this team. You can run down every position of need on this team - and I have - and nothing even approaches the need at Left Tackle. It is not even close.

I get it, guys are attracted to the shiny toys. and taking a tackle is a boring pick. but it is necessary to protect the 3rd you spent last year on a QB. You all are talking about draft luxuries... trying to say its a "need" too... Getting a DL or an EDGE is so far down the list of that this team needs to address, its actually shocking to me that this is being pushed so hard.

Carter shouldn't even be a consideration. He would be a useless addition to a team that is no way near ready to compete. (yay, we have a 15 sack guy! we still lost 12 games, but man, we got a bag-o'sacks, didn't we? jfc...

You want to add defensive firepower? Go buy Josh Sweat. Go Get Khalil Mack. Go get Chase Young. Those guys are available as free agents.

You want a receiver? Go make Tee Higgins an offer he can't refuse. Its only money.

You want to fix the OLine in free agency? later in the draft? Good luck with that - you are just going to get a bunch of jamokes and retreads like we did last year.

In what world is DL a luxury? In what world is ANY position a luxury. We had one of the worst run defenses in the NFL last year and were last in the league in sacks. People really undersell how bad this roster is. We arguably have the worst OL, receiving corps and front 7 in the NFL. There really aren't any "luxuries" on this team in terms of drafting a certain position.

 

[yukon cornelius]

vacuum? Look up the ****ing word cuz i don't think you know what it means.

Getting a left tackle in this draft is based on what I consider the order of priority for this team. You can run down every position of need on this team - and I have - and nothing even approaches the need at Left Tackle. It is not even close.

I get it, guys are attracted to the shiny toys. and taking a tackle is a boring pick. but it is necessary to protect the 3rd you spent last year on a QB. You all are talking about draft luxuries... trying to say its a "need" too... Getting a DL or an EDGE is so far down the list of that this team needs to address, its actually shocking to me that this is being pushed so hard.

Carter shouldn't even be a consideration. He would be a useless addition to a team that is no way near ready to compete. (yay, we have a 15 sack guy! we still lost 12 games, but man, we got a bag-o'sacks, didn't we? jfc...

You want to add defensive firepower? Go buy Josh Sweat. Go Get Khalil Mack. Go get Chase Young. Those guys are available as free agents.

You want a receiver? Go make Tee Higgins an offer he can't refuse. Its only money.

You want to fix the OLine in free agency? later in the draft? Good luck with that - you are just going to get a bunch of jamokes and retreads like we did last year.

there's not a tackle worthy of a top 12 pick......that's the issue; there's a couple of NCAA OTs who project to G in the NFL in the top 12, and that's not as bad a need......so if you want an OT with your first pick, then trade down, build draft capital, and get someone who can play OT in the mid first round

they need to fix the line on both sides of the ball, they need to protect drake & stop the run; they could do neither this year - that's been my stance all along; i really don't want them to stay at 4, I want a trade down to 8-15, I want more picks, and get your OT one way or another mid-late 1st or early 2nd......there just isn't an actual OT worthy of a #4 pick.......I could care less about shiny toys

but this team could NOT stop the run.......don't stop the run, you don't win games......D front is as big a need as OL........and the OL needs can & should be dealt with via FA & by using draft capital......it's just not worth the #4 pick to take a guy who has to move to G in the NFL

and yes, vacuum is correct....you're identifying ONE need with ONE pick........and 4 ain't the place to deal with that ONE need; this is a team full of needs, and that one isn't going to be filled at the very top end of this draft

 

[tuckeverlasting]

Yup. Like I said, wanting something and it being there are two different things. And frankly, that's doubly so for one of the least talented rosters in the league. We can't be in the business of passing up better players to chase ghosts because we really want it.

I get that is a ****ty draft to be at 4, but it is what it is.

mayo hosed us hard...i used to root for him but not so much since.

 

[JayNM]

As of know, Im leaning towards trading down as my first option.

Hunter is super interesting indeed, but most of the stuff Ive read seems to indicate that he would be best at CB. Also, is it ok if i don't want add another match to gasoline, which is going to be next year?

Densive-wanting posters are still losers in my book, and it's worthless to come at me, don't waste your time

Then Tet, which is my binkie, seems to be a reach at 4th.

Trade down, we need a lot of pieces, if we can get the best consesus OT in the draft I'll be pleased (none of this G conversion to T BS pls, thank you)

 

[40yrpatsfan]

If we only land an average starter with our top pick this year that's a huge detriment to building our team moving forward. You need to have elite talent to compete for super bowls. You need a roster littered with guys at the top of their position ranking. Average starters don't do that for you, and we're not going to have too many chances better than the #4 pick to add an elite talent. That outweighs any positional need.

It'd be awesome if we could be one of those 1-year turnaround success stories, but you can't specifically build a team chasing that. Not when you have such a grossly untalented roster as we do at virtually every position. You can't make it about checking a specific box to improve off of last year.

I agree with the concept about BPA vs positional, but who's to say that #4 is gonna better than say #9 or 10? e.g., Philly was able to trade the #6 pick for Miami's 12th in 2022, and got their 2023 1st rounder. I'd almost rather drop down, pick one of the top OT's, and get extra picks.

 

[Salsalife]

Will Campbell. Protect the qb. Left tackles this year are slim pickings and Defense is plentiful. Drake braa, I got your back literally! These fans are nuts to let you get beat up again. Starter, left tackle, 324 6'6' with attitude....

 

[SlowGettingUp]

If Carter and Hunter are gone by 4, then your choice is Campbell or Graham or trade down. But who exactly wants to trade up with you to get one of these guys or someone else? Pray that there are two QBs that move up the draft rankings.

 

[TommyD4207]

If Carter and Hunter are gone by 4, then your choice is Campbell or Graham or trade down. But who exactly wants to trade up with you to get one of these guys or someone else? Pray that there are two QBs that move up the draft rankings.

ESPN's been trying. It's time for the Patriots to leak stuff to the media like how Dart would be at the top of their draft board if they didn't have Drake Maye.

 

[Keep Up With The Joneses]

The Browns are stuck with Watson for awhile and can't go QB when they need to just figure out how to make their mess work.

Are you sure about this? Watson has been a disaster and is going to miss another huge chunk of time next season. He might not step on the field again for the Browns. They have to pay him no matter what. I'm not saying they should go after Sanders but I would not completely rule out the fact they are looking for their next quarterback, even with Watson on the roster.

If they trade Garrett it is all but an admission they're going into full rebuild mode.