Where Is The Sweet Spot For Us To Draft An LT?

[mgteich]

Where would you like to be when we draft our LT. For example, would we expect to have 3 that we want if we drafted at 8? at 10? at 15?

I don't think that we will draft Campbell at 4. Perhaps, Vrabel has Campbell that high on his board; I think not.

f we were to trade down, where would be the lowest spot where we would have a player who is clearly a LT and is starter material?
========
For example, if we traded to 10, how many LT's would be close to being the BPA? IMO, 7-20 may be close to each other in value as is often the case. An open question is where the 2nd set of studs ends, the first 3 and then the next how many?
========
Then we can consider whether whoever is BPA at 4 is more valuable to us than the BPA at say 10 plus the draft pick that we would get.

 

[jmt57]

A trade down to the 6-8 range this year might get it done, but that's always a risky move.

Plus it takes two to tango; got to make the trade down worthwhile.

No guarantee that the player(s) you are targeting will still be there.
- Will Campbell would probably be gone by then.
- Armond Membou is better suited to be a RT.
- Kelvin Banks would be the best realistic bet in a trade down scenario.





The sweet spot was in the 2024 draft, unfortunately.

Rather than trading down for two unproductive receivers, the Pats should have traded up and back into the first round for a tackle.

The combination of ignoring such a critical position of dire need in both free agency (Chuks? Seriously?) as well as the draft was criminal negligence.

 

[Username]

R3 or 4, or 2026

 

[signbabybrady]

I want to use 4 on BPA.

Assuming Vrabel doesn't think that's Campbell then I want to trade up from 38 to get the best one we can.

I'm hoping somehow that is Josh Simmons but I don't think he'll fall far enough. And if he does then you have to consider the knee is bad.

I'm thinking somewhere between 20-25.

 

[Steve102]

I just said to @bakes781 in the draft forum I can see a scenario where Campbell, Banks, Simmons, Membou, Conley, and Ersery are all gone before #38. I think OT/LT is easily over drafted, even in a thin year like this year. IMO I would not get too cute. If you have, say Campbell or Banks earmarked on your big board behind Hunter and Carter, then if there's no trade partner, you have to pick 'em at #4. If you think Ozzy Trapilo is your future LT, then you can get back in to R2, but you run the risk of not being able to deal to get in.

 

[Patsfan1645]

I have run several draft simulators and always two and sometimes three (Campbell, Banks, Membou) of the top tackles come off the board in round 1 leaving me with most times my pick of Simmons, Zabel or Conerly to take in round two. They are all serviceable and more than likely better than what we currently have. So if there is no Hunter/Carter and no trade at 4 that makes sense then clearly its a BPA situation

 

[Ross12]

I just said to @bakes781 in the draft forum I can see a scenario where Campbell, Banks, Simmons, Membou, Conley, and Ersery are all gone before #38. I think OT/LT is easily over drafted, even in a thin year like this year. IMO I would not get too cute. If you have, say Campbell or Banks earmarked on your big board behind Hunter and Carter, then if there's no trade partner, you have to pick 'em at #4. If you think Ozzy Trapilo is your future LT, then you can get back in to R2, but you run the risk of not being able to deal to get in.

Plan A) Hunter at #4, trade up to late first for LT
Plan B) Trade down from #4 to low single digits, draft LT there
Plan C) Combine 3rd and 4th to move into mid-2nd and take Trapilo

 

[PatsFan2]

Not @ 4.

 

[Patsfan1645]

It just feels like 4 is such a bad spot to be this year. Its like no mans land if the chips fall right the Pats will have make a decision that feels sub-optimal

 

[AQPE]

I am willing to wager based on extensive recent history that at least 6 potential LT prospects will be gone by 37, I agree with @Steve102 it will be Campbell, Banks, Membou, Simmons, Conerly, and Ersery.

I also am in agreement with those that want Hunter or Carter at #4 if they’re there, over any of the LT prospects, but in that scenario I would prefer a trade down staying in the top 15 to take one of the better LT prospects (for me that’s Simmons, Membou, Banks, and Campbell in that order) if it meant adding a 2nd round pick or even a 2026 first round pick.

If they don’t get a good trade down done then I think they need to get to #24 at a minimum to get one of those guys. Allegedly they tried to get back into the 1st round last year for Worthy or Legette, but somehow were outbid by the Queefs for Worthy. This needs to be different this year.

 

[Steve102]

Plan A) Hunter at #4, trade up to late first for LT
Plan B) Trade down from #4 to low single digits, draft LT there
Plan C) Combine 3rd and 4th to move into mid-2nd and take Trapilo

So we are taking for granted that there's viable trade partners for every scenario? Sorry, but I am driving the struggle bus on this one, bud.

Plan A, take Hunter, great. What if no one wants to deal? Then you run the risk of missing your guy at #38
Plan B, pray that Vegas, Jete, Carolina or New Orleans want to pay to move up. If not, then what?
Plan C, again, requires the offer to be accepted. This seems like the most likely, because it's overpayment, but what if no one wants to deal?

I am really uncomfortable planning on a trade. I think there's likely trade partners for Hunter or Carter, but I have my doubts if they are gone at #4. I think you could move way back and get paid, essentially, 50 cents on the dollar because it's a no brainer move for a late R1 team to underpay for the 4th pick, but the Pats gets screwed, miss out on a big pay day, and maybe miss their targeted player to boot. If they don't see the value in #4, why do the other teams? I agree with @Patsfan1645 that this year absolutely sucks to be at #4.

Unless they are overwhelmed with offers for #4, stay put, take your guy. If you opt for Hunter, Carter, Warren, Jeanty or whoever is at the top of their draft board, then you need to be prepared to overpay to get back into R1 for the LT run that will no doubt happen.

 

[Steve102]

Not @ 4.

No ****, offer a solution, numbnuts.

 

[PatsFan2]

No ****, offer a solution, numbnuts.

And it's grape nuts.

 

[Steve102]

 

[Hugepatsfan]

If they think there's a high end starting LT then the sweet spot is #4. Maybe you can trade down, but probably not worth getting cute. Just do it.

If they don't see a high end starting LT then there is no sweet spot for using a high pick one.

It's that simple for me.

 

[PatsFan2]

We'll find a gem on Day 3 @ Left Tackle like Brady @ QB...so there.

 

[Rob0729]

I am not so sure that anyone you can take high in the first is significantly better than who will be available late in the first or early second. So I would probably rather trade up into late first or take someone in the second.

 

[Steve102]

We'll find a gem on Day 3 @ Left Tackle like Brady @ QB...so there.

 

[varjao]

You draft with the pick you have, I like the Daniel Jones example, the consensus was that we should be drafted in the 20's but the Giants had the #6 pick so if you're sold on a player, and you won't have a shot waiting for the next round, and assuming there's no trade market, you make the pick and live with it. I bet NFL organizations and GM's don't care much about the reach thing like fans and people who live of mock drafts.

Attention, I'm not judging or evaluating the Daniel Jones pick as we know he is a terrible QB, just the rationale about making a selection, IN THEORY, earlier than what people expect.

I will not be mad if the Patriots get Campbell at #4, not at all. If that happens and Carter and Hunter are not available, I have to trust they have him, Campbell, bringing more value to the team than the other options, Tet, Warren, the RB, whatever.

I believe Campbell is a safe pick in the sense that it will work out and he will see the field one way or another. If doesn't work out at LT and he slids to LG, this is still a need and then you have a Top LG for the next 5 years, Cole Stranger may be good when healthy but at this point, we might have to consider that that was a bad selection that didn't work out. I'm hoping for a turn around at Center, but can't win games and championships with hope. It's time to consider stability at LG as well as LT.

 

[mgteich]

A trade down to the 6-8 range this year might get it done, but that's always a risky move.

Plus it takes two to tango; got to make the trade down worthwhile.

No guarantee that the player(s) you are targeting will still be there.
- Will Campbell would probably be gone by then.
- Armond Membou is better suited to be a RT.
- Kelvin Banks would be the best realistic bet in a trade down scenario.





The sweet spot was in the 2024 draft, unfortunately.

Rather than trading down for two unproductive receivers, the Pats should have traded up and back into the first round for a tackle.

The combination of ignoring such a critical position of dire need in both free agency (Chuks? Seriously?) as well as the draft was criminal negligence.

have it your way

Why do you believe that the team didn't try to trade into the first for a LT? At the time, the mediots and the posters believed that we tried and failed.