Draft strategy if we pick Carter

[Pacific Coast Patriot]

That would be my analysis, but Vegas odds have Carter going #2 which leaves Sanders #3. Seems Browns would be a Hunter/Sanders choice since Garrett signed. Many scouts now have Carter as the #1 prospect over Hunter but team need seems to line up Hunter with Giants or Browns.

I've been reading the Giants board, honestly it seems to lean Carter over Hunter. Many are suggesting they would trade Thibodeaux. Joe Schoen is a bit of a wild card, not sure he's a very good GM and may make a dumb mistake. I could see them trade down.

Does seem, barring Sanders Pro Day being bad, that the 2 Qb's are going in the top 4, and we likely get 1 of the 2 blue chip prospects. Of course we want offense, but after watching the Eagles defense destroy Mahomes and watching Anfernee Jennings try to pass rush last year I'm not going to cry too much to have an elite NFL pass rusher. With Williams inside and Carter outside could be a dominate pass rush. I think you win on defense the easiest by rushing and getting pressure with 4, and having 7 in coverage.

One executive for an AFC team told ESPN's Jordan Reid that the New York Giants are "praying" the Cleveland Browns use their pick on either Travis Hunter or Abdul Carter so they will have the option of taking Sanders at No. 3 overall.

Yes the Vegas odds are interesting.. because I don't know where the Carter to CLE thing is coming from at this point - it was borne out of the fact that they were going to trade Garrett, but thats not happening now.

I'd be happy if Carter to CLE was true as I want Hunter to come to NE, I just dont see any talking head with anything backing up this theory. I think it's partially the Sanders to NY narrative generates more clicks than CLE.

As you mentioned - I think it all comes down to the Pro Day to confirm it, if Sanders looks good he's a lock to Cleveland.

 

[Love The Drake]

Yes the Vegas odds are interesting.. because I don't know where the Carter to CLE thing is coming from at this point - it was borne out of the fact that they were going to trade Garrett, but thats not happening now.

I'd be happy if Carter to CLE was true as I want Hunter to come to NE, I just dont see any talking head with anything backing up this theory. I think it's partially the Sanders to NY narrative generates more clicks than CLE.

As you mentioned - I think it all comes down to the Pro Day to confirm it, if Sanders looks good he's a lock to Cleveland.

Would Giants take Carter or trade the pick?
That move from 4 to 3 to secure the Player we want may be a necessity.

 

[Pacific Coast Patriot]

If you read between the lines, I think Carter is 99% going to be our pick - so this thread is a good topic.

TEN - Ward is a borderline lock by all accounts

CLE - Myles Garrett "knows who the QB will be" - this means they almost certainly told him they're taking Sanders at 2, there's no chance they sold him on Dart or some other guy that may or may not even be there in R2. If it was a FA they were sure about, they'd have signed them by now. This is the single biggest clue that isn't being talked about enough IMO. Also, if that wasn't enough for you - basically all their fans are in unison that they HAVE to draft a QB at 2 or they're going to burn the building down.

NYG - With Sanders gone... this has to be Hunter who will play CB primarily for them. They're already set at EDGE, with Burns and Thibodeaux, plus their entire fanbase is desperate for Hunter and a trade up for Dart end of R1 to sit behind Winston.


Anything I'm missing as to how this goes differently?

So yes for NE it will be R1 Carter, then R2 tackle, then a R3 WR if I had to bet on it, or they go RB if Diggs signs pre-draft.

Now that Wilson just signed in NY, that backs up what I said yesterday.

NY knows CLE is taking Sanders. NE knows NY is taking Hunter.

No coincidence to the fact the we just signed Diggs and they signed Wilson, an hour apart. The chips are falling now.

 

[Pacific Coast Patriot]

Would Giants take Carter or trade the pick?
That move from 4 to 3 to secure the Player we want may be a necessity.

They take the blue chipper. They're taking Hunter.

 

[Aussie Patriot]

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Straight up draft value chart you are right, but I reality I don’t see anyone dropping from the early 20’s to 38 for just a 3rd round pick. And I doubt throwing in a day 3 pick would convince anyone to do it either. IMO the best way to ensure you can get back into the first in time to get the player you want it will take 2 2nd round picks, from this year:

Taking Carter or Hunter leaves us very vulnerable to missing on the top 6 OT's. We wouldn't be able to sit at 38 and pray, and I've seen several mocks where all 6 are gone in the 20's. The cost of moving up from 38 to at least 28 will be more than 1 third rounder, so it would almost wipe out the rest of our draft.

Carter is a luxury. We have a dire need at OT, plus upgrades needed at other positions. Take the tackle at 4 if there's one we really prefer, or trade down a few spots if there's 2 or 3 we like equally.

The only approach is if Josh/Marrone are sold on a 2nd tier OT prospect like Trapilo, Grant, Williams, Melton, etc.

 

[manxman2601]

Taking Carter or Hunter leaves us very vulnerable to missing on the top 6 OT's. We wouldn't be able to sit at 38 and pray, and I've seen several mocks where all 6 are gone in the 20's. The cost of moving up from 38 to at least 28 will be more than 1 third rounder, so it would almost wipe out the rest of our draft.

Carter is a luxury. We have a dire need at OT, plus upgrades needed at other positions. Take the tackle at 4 if there's one we really prefer, or trade down a few spots if there's 2 or 3 we like equally.

The only approach is if Josh/Marrone are sold on a 2nd tier OT prospect like Trapilo, Grant, Williams, Melton, etc.

Ersery should be there at 38. If they want Conerly then a trade up will probably be needed and the trade chart says a 3rd is enough so we'll see. Considering we seem committed to off-loading him, I wouldn't object to using Joe Milton as a trade piece to the right team (Vikings?/Rams?) depending on what other offers we're getting.

I wouldn't discount Donovan Jackson as an option at 38 either. Try him at LT knowing you have a quality guard there too.

Don't pass on a blue chip prospect unless you get a haul in a trade back.

 

[Rdforty2]

Taking Carter or Hunter leaves us very vulnerable to missing on the top 6 OT's. We wouldn't be able to sit at 38 and pray, and I've seen several mocks where all 6 are gone in the 20's. The cost of moving up from 38 to at least 28 will be more than 1 third rounder, so it would almost wipe out the rest of our draft.

Carter is a luxury. We have a dire need at OT, plus upgrades needed at other positions. Take the tackle at 4 if there's one we really prefer, or trade down a few spots if there's 2 or 3 we like equally.

The only approach is if Josh/Marrone are sold on a 2nd tier OT prospect like Trapilo, Grant, Williams, Melton, etc.

If the Patriots take Trapilo at 38, they must be convinced of his ability to be a starting LT. Obrien and Marrone have coached him. Dante has worked with him. If they all believe in Trapilo, then I believe.

But, I'd say getting top tier talent is better than having extra picks. If it costs one of our 3's to move back up into the 1st round to get an OT, I'm totally fine with that.

If our first two picks were Abdul Carter and Conerly/Simmons/Banks, we've nailed the draft. There's still a 3 to grab a WR or DT. You can't fill every hole in one draft. But landing a franchise difference maker like Carter at 4, and a starting left tackle should be considered a major win on draft day.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Ersery should be there at 38. If they want Conerly then a trade up will probably be needed and the trade chart says a 3rd is enough so we'll see. Considering we seem committed to off-loading him, I wouldn't object to using Joe Milton as a trade piece to the right team (Vikings?/Rams?) depending on what other offers we're getting.

I wouldn't discount Donovan Jackson as an option at 38 either. Try him at LT knowing you have a quality guard there too.

Don't pass on a blue chip prospect unless you get a haul in a trade back.

But what if Ersery is gone? Look at what happened last year when we tried to move up to the late 20's/30 to get a WR and got blocked, then missed the run on OT's at the bottom of the 2nd round. We ended up with leftovers in the 2nd & 3rd rounds who did not succeed.

We have a 3-alarm fire at LT. Our whole draft strategy has to be about solving that, not Carter/Hunter. We also have depth & talent issues at several other positions, so if anything we should be trying to accumulate more top-100 choices, not giving them away which is what taking Carter/Hunter would lead to.

If we can land a top tackle between 7-10 and add a high 2nd rounder in the same move, then we have two high seconds, two high 3rds, and a high 4th to round out this team. And eliminate all the risk with going the other way.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

They wouldn't have to give up anything in '26 to move up. We have 2 3rd's. One of them, plus 38, gets us into the 22-25 range, according to the trade value chart. That's not the end all in the discussion, but it gets you in the ballpark. I'd be willing to bet one of Simmons or Conerly are available at 25, or a few picks later.

To play along, WR just gets put off another year. Or becomes the remaining 3rd round pick. If Maye has time to throw, and the OL allows the ground game to produce, i think the offense will be improved. It gives another year to see exactly what Boutte, Polk, and Baker are made of.

Last year the Chiefs moved up from 32 to 28 to pick Worthy, and it cost them a 3rd (95) for a 4th (133) pick swap, which is pretty significant comp. For us to move from 38 to say 24 would cost at least a 3rd + a 4th, if not more - and there's no certainty there would be a trade partner or that the desired player is still on the board.

 

[Rdforty2]

Last year the Chiefs moved up from 32 to 28 to pick Worthy, and it cost them a 3rd (95) for a 4th (133) pick swap, which is pretty significant comp. For us to move from 38 to say 24 would cost at least a 3rd + a 4th, if not more - and there's no certainty there would be a trade partner or that the desired player is still on the board.

Every year is different.

We moved down from 23 to 37 for a single 3rd, pick 71, when we drafted Dugger.

And for clarification, the details of the Worthy trade were different. The Chiefs gave up 32, 95, and 221 for 28(Worthy), 133, and 248.

They didnt give up 95 and 133. They received 133. They gave up a 3 and 7, for a 4 and a 7, plus the move up.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Every year is different.

We moved down from 23 to 37 for a single 3rd, pick 71, when we drafted Dugger.

And for clarification, the details of the Worthy trade were different. The Chiefs gave up 32, 95, and 221 for 28(Worthy), 133, and 248.

They didnt give up 95 and 133. They received 133. They gave up a 3 and 7, for a 4 and a 7, plus the move up.

no that's what I said, a 3rd for 4th pick swap. The 7th round pick swap was irrelevant.

Our Dugger trade was probably more of an outlier than the Chiefs trade. I think 38 to 24 this year, with OT's and WR's disappearing in the 20's, is going to be more expensive than just a 3rd.

 

[Rdforty2]

no that's what I said, a 3rd for 4th pick swap. The 7th round pick swap was irrelevant.

Our Dugger trade was probably more of an outlier than the Chiefs trade. I think 38 to 24 this year, with OT's and WR's disappearing in the 20's, is going to be more expensive than just a 3rd.

My bad for the confusion.

I still disagree with the rest. Just for reference, the value of dropping from 95 to 133 is 80 points. Thats an early 4. So you're saying it cost an early 4 to move up 4 spots.

Wed be giving up an early 3rd. Thats considerably more value, and theres a trade for historical reference.

As to how it pertains to this draft, I dont think it's going to be more expensive to move up. I think if anything, it will lean cheaper to move up. With many people talking about similar ranked talents from 10-40, moving up isn't going to be as expensive. Just like us with Dugger, that's the guy we wanted. If a team has 10 guys similarly ranked or they know their guy is ranked lower, they'd be willing to move down to get extra value and still get their guy.

 

[manxman2601]

My bad for the confusion.

I still disagree with the rest. Just for reference, the value of dropping from 95 to 133 is 80 points. Thats an early 4. So you're saying it cost an early 4 to move up 4 spots.

Wed be giving up an early 3rd. Thats considerably more value, and theres a trade for historical reference.

As to how it pertains to this draft, I dont think it's going to be more expensive to move up. I think if anything, it will lean cheaper to move up. With many people talking about similar ranked talents from 10-40, moving up isn't going to be as expensive. Just like us with Dugger, that's the guy we wanted. If a team has 10 guys similarly ranked or they know their guy is ranked lower, they'd be willing to move down to get extra value and still get their guy.

Don't forget the Vikings only have four picks. I think they'd be happy to gain a 3rd.

 

[VJCPatriot]

They wouldn't have to give up anything in '26 to move up. We have 2 3rd's. One of them, plus 38, gets us into the 22-25 range, according to the trade value chart. That's not the end all in the discussion, but it gets you in the ballpark. I'd be willing to bet one of Simmons or Conerly are available at 25, or a few picks later.

To play along, WR just gets put off another year. Or becomes the remaining 3rd round pick. If Maye has time to throw, and the OL allows the ground game to produce, i think the offense will be improved. It gives another year to see exactly what Boutte, Polk, and Baker are made of.

There will still be some WR prospects available in round 3. They won't be premium guys but someone like a Royal could contribute. Having Stefon Diggs in the fold means everyone else's job gets easier as long as he comes back fully healthy from the ACL. He's had half a season to recover already so hopefully he's good to go.

I'm happy with taking either Travis Hunter or Abdul Carter at pick #4. Only one of them will be available.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Taking Carter or Hunter leaves us very vulnerable to missing on the top 6 OT's. We wouldn't be able to sit at 38 and pray, and I've seen several mocks where all 6 are gone in the 20's. The cost of moving up from 38 to at least 28 will be more than 1 third rounder, so it would almost wipe out the rest of our draft.

Carter is a luxury. We have a dire need at OT, plus upgrades needed at other positions. Take the tackle at 4 if there's one we really prefer, or trade down a few spots if there's 2 or 3 we like equally.

The only approach is if Josh/Marrone are sold on a 2nd tier OT prospect like Trapilo, Grant, Williams, Melton, etc.

I'll disagree because of one important characteristic - this draft is light on blue chip talent and high on red chip talent.

That means there are very few true home run surefire picks in this draft. Hunter and Carter represent two of those blue chips.

The prospects available from picks 25-40 are the red chip type. So in this type of draft moving around should be cheaper as the talents are comparable in that range. The reason we would move up is position scarcity at LT and need, the reason the team we trade with would move down is that they feel the talent parity is about the same from the 25ish position to the #38 position. If they're not interested in LT, a move down to pick up another 3rd rounder and still pick up a red chip talent makes all the sense in the world.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

I'll disagree because of one important characteristic - this draft is light on blue chip talent and high on red chip talent.

That means there are very few true home run surefire picks in this draft. Hunter and Carter represent two of those blue chips.

The prospects available from picks 25-40 are the red chip type. So in this type of draft moving around should be cheaper as the talents are comparable in that range. The reason we would move up is position scarcity at LT and need, the reason the team we trade with would move down is that they feel the talent parity is about the same from the 25ish position to the #38 position. If they're not interested in LT, a move down to pick up another 3rd rounder and still pick up a red chip talent makes all the sense in the world.

What you and others are saying sounds plausible, but if you're wrong, we miss on landing one of the top OT's. That was what the original conversation was about - whether to pick a LT at 4 (or in the top 10 with a move down), or take Carter/Hunter at 4 and then try to get the OT later. Yeah, the various trade charts show that a 3rd should get us to the mid 20's, but the actual draft may not play out like that. Look at us last year trying to move up for a WR and getting skunked. Minnesota might start off thinking they'd do a trade down, and then someone drops to them, or another team makes a better offer to them and takes the tackle we want. Or that we have to overpay and the rest of our top-106 picks are all used up making the deal. Those outcomes would be disastrous. I'd rather that our decision at 4 not be based on what we THINK can happen with pick 38. Resist the shiny toy at 4, address OT, and still have several high picks to improve in other areas.

 

[bakes781]

I feel we need to double dip at OT regardless but if we get Carter or Hunter for that matter than we are already looking a lot better.

I would be willing to trade up for Josh Simmons but one of the others should be there at 38. Then I'd take a 2nd OT whether it's Trapilo Belton or Pierce just as insurance.

We've addressed the WR spot IMO. If we can fit one in on day 3 great but I'm not ready to give up on Polk and Baker.

LT is the only thing they should be focused on.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

I feel we need to double dip at OT regardless but if we get Carter or Hunter for that matter than we are already looking a lot better.

I would be willing to trade up for Josh Simmons but one of the others should be there at 38. Then I'd take a 2nd OT whether it's Trapilo Belton or Pierce just as insurance.

We've addressed the WR spot IMO. If we can fit one in on day 3 great but I'm not ready to give up on Polk and Baker.

LT is the only thing they should be focused on.

But if we take Carter or Hunter, how is that being focused on LT? Especially when it appears that the top 6 OT's could all be taken before our #38? If we're focused on LT, we do something with that first pick that results in a top LT.

 

[Rdforty2]

But if we take Carter or Hunter, how is that being focused on LT? Especially when it appears that the top 6 OT's could all be taken before our #38? If we're focused on LT, we do something with that first pick that results in a top LT.

The draft is an entire process, not just 1 pick. You have to have a plan for the entire thing and contingencies for everything. You can't just say our biggest need is LT, so we're taking LT in the 1st.

What if we were #1 overall? Do you take an OT? I don't believe so.

You can be focused on multiple things at one time. You absolutely can focus on LT in the draft and go elsewhere in Round 1.

I don't know if 6 tackles go in the top 38. It's ppssible. Thats why the team needs to cultivate trade possibilities. What we don't know is, are those top 6 tackles actually top 7? What if Trapilo is a part of that group? I'm not saying he is. But it's possible the staff has the best possible intel on Trapilo. And if they're set that he's capable at 38, then it frees up a lot of things for the team. Trapilo would be one case where I totally trust them. With Marrone and Obrien coaching him for an entire season and Dante also working with him, there's no better group to discuss things with.

I think last year they failed to see the OT run in round 2 and they panicked on Wallace. I hope this year is different and they're ready to trade up with 38 if we don't get OT in round 1. Unless Trapilo is their guy.