77 plus A) Hunter and 21 or B) OT at 9, and new 2nd, old 2nd, a 3rd and a 4th

[mgteich]

Take Hunter and we'd likely need our 2nd, one 3rd and a 4th to move up to 21 for a starting OT

A) Hunter
OT at 21
77

B) OT at 9
new pick (probably a 2nd)
old 2nd
old 3rd
77
old 4th

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Take Hunter and we'd likely need or 2nd, one 3rd and a 4th to move up to 21 for a starting OT

A) Hunter
OT at 21
77

B) OT at 9
new pick (probably a 2nd)
old 2nd
old 3rd
77
old 4th

I agree that's what it would take to get to the low 20's which is where we'd need to get to.

The trade down is the better strategy for this team: six picks in the top 106, vs three. And we're picking a higher rated OT. The 3 extra picks are 43, 69, and 106. I don't think Hunter is worth that if we draft well.

 

[zimmy]

I reckon I will end up in the minority but I would strongly prefer B for these reasons. The overwhelming need is OT and the only two good ones to me are Membou and Campbell. We are lacking in talent and could really use more picks. The meat of the draft is the 20-80 range and B gives us more options to fill some holes. And finally, I’m a bit of a Hunter sceptic. I don’t think he can really go both ways full time in the NFL and I’m not fully convinced his WR chops are what people say. He looks a much better CB prospect, which we don’t need.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Take Hunter and we'd likely need or 2nd, one 3rd and a 4th to move up to 21 for a starting OT

A) Hunter
OT at 21
77

B) OT at 9
new pick (probably a 2nd)
old 2nd
old 3rd
77
old 4th

OT at 9.

OT runs dry really fast in this draft, and if there is a run and they can’t get a deal done they could end up shut out at OT. Once they get the OT they can relax and let the draft come to them. There are some really good day 2 receivers that they can get at 38 if they have to.

 

[yukon cornelius]

Take Hunter and we'd likely need or 2nd, one 3rd and a 4th to move up to 21 for a starting OT

A) Hunter
OT at 21
77

B) OT at 9
new pick (probably a 2nd)
old 2nd
old 3rd
77
old 4th

B all day

 

[Family]

B all day

Because we were so good with our second and third rounds picks last year?

 

[Ring 6]

Take Hunter and we'd likely need or 2nd, one 3rd and a 4th to move up to 21 for a starting OT

A) Hunter
OT at 21
77

B) OT at 9
new pick (probably a 2nd)
old 2nd
old 3rd
77
old 4th

B then take the 2 plus a 3 (or both seconds if necessary) and trade up to get Egbuka around 20

You can go down further than 9 btw and still get my top choice, Simmons, or still have another good LT there, probably banks

 

[Ring 6]

I reckon I will end up in the minority but I would strongly prefer B for these reasons. The overwhelming need is OT and the only two good ones to me are Membou and Campbell. We are lacking in talent and could really use more picks. The meat of the draft is the 20-80 range and B gives us more options to fill some holes. And finally, I’m a bit of a Hunter sceptic. I don’t think he can really go both ways full time in the NFL and I’m not fully convinced his WR chops are what people say. He looks a much better CB prospect, which we don’t need.

We aren’t really lacking in talent anymore.
We brought in 7-8 new starters and a lot of depth.

 

[WhatJustHappened]

Because we were so good with our second and third rounds picks last year?

What does that have to do with THIS YEAR, with almost an entirely new draft crew Fam?

 

[jmt57]

The "77" in the title was confusing me, because the Patriots have the 3rd round, 77th overall pick in either scenario.
Don't mind me, I'm just doing this because it is a little easier for me to visualize:


Option A - Trade Up Scenario
1st round (4th overall) - WR/CB Travis Hunter, Colorado
1st round (21) - OT
2nd round (38th) -traded away to move up to #21
3rd round (69th) - traded away to move up to #21
3rd round (77)
4th round (106) - traded away to move up to #21
5th (144), 7th (220), 7th (238) - remain the same


Option B - Trade Down Scenario
1st round (9th overall) - OT
2nd round (38)
2nd round (~ 45)
3rd round (69)
3rd round (77)
4th round (106)
5th (144), 7th (220), 7th (238) - remain the same

(#45 is based on the first draft value chart I saw, trading down from #4 to #9)



I don't know.
Adding both Hunter and a first round tackle is extremely enticing, but six of the top 100-ish picks versus only three sounds good too.

I'm going to lean towards Option A



Edit: From everything I have read, overall the 2025 draft class is considered to be relatively weak, overall.

With that in mind, it makes more sense to go quality (trade up, fewer picks) than quantity (trade down).

Give me Hunter and another first round pick to use on the best tackle still available.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

A for me. The potential of maye to hunter for the next 10 years to me is well worth sacrificing what might amount to a couple decent starters (or what could very well end up as busts anyways at that point in the draft).

 

[Ross12]

On one hand, having Hunter would be amazing and the teams really could use him.

On the other hand, Hunter being available means the pick becomes very tradeable; some team would flip their 2nd to jump up and get him, even if they wanted to use him as a corner.

I would probably be happy with either scenario, though the higher quality LT up high is nice, and you’d still be left with so many other picks.

 

[mgteich]

Take Hunter and we'd likely need our 2nd, one 3rd and a 4th to move up to 21 for a starting OT

A) Hunter
OT at 21
77

B) OT at 9
new pick (probably a 2nd)
old 2nd
old 3rd
77
old 4th

I choose B

We lose Hunter. In return we get
1) An OT at 9 instead of 21
2) four picks: a new pick, and the current 2nd, 3rd and 4th [Vrabel would have lots of flexibility with these four picks and 77].
====
In either case, we get 77 and the 5th and 7th round picks
========

 

[Ring 6]

The "77" in the title was confusing me, because the Patriots have the 3rd round, 77th overall pick in either scenario.
Don't mind me, I'm just doing this because it is a little easier for me to visualize:


Option A - Trade Up Scenario
1st round (4th overall) - WR/CB Travis Hunter, Colorado
1st round (21) - OT
2nd round (38th) -traded away to move up to #21
3rd round (69th) - traded away to move up to #21
3rd round (77)
4th round (106) - traded away to move up to #21
5th (144), 7th (220), 7th (238) - remain the same


Option B - Trade Down Scenario
1st round (9th overall) - OT
2nd round (38)
2nd round (~ 45)
3rd round (69)
3rd round (77)
4th round (106)
5th (144), 7th (220), 7th (238) - remain the same

(#45 is based on the first draft value chart I saw, trading down from #4 to #9)



I don't know.
Adding both Hunter and a first round tackle is extremely enticing, but six of the top 100-ish picks versus only three sounds good too.

I'm going to lean towards Option A



Edit: From everything I have read, overall the 2025 draft class is considered to be relatively weak, overall.

With that in mind, it makes more sense to go quality (trade up, fewer picks) than quantity (trade down).

Give me Hunter and another first round pick to use on the best tackle still available.

FYI you would have to get the second round pick the team at 9 has. You can’t get 45 if they don’t have it. Saints have 9 and 40.

 

[stinkypete]

Here is plan C…

Draft Hunter if he falls to 4.

Take the best available LG in round 2.

Sign Tyron Smith.

Find your long term LT in 2026.

 

[Patsfan1645]

Here is plan C…

Draft Hunter if he falls to 4.

Take the best available LG in round 2.

Sign Tyron Smith.

Find your long term LT in 2026.

 

[KCSVEN]

Take Hunter and we'd likely need our 2nd, one 3rd and a 4th to move up to 21 for a starting OT

A) Hunter
OT at 21
77

B) OT at 9
new pick (probably a 2nd)
old 2nd
old 3rd
77
old 4th

Wrong draft to be trading down from an elite player. You would only need to give up the first 3rd rounder to get back to the 20's

You win in the NFL by getting a few elite players and then filling in with average players around them but you first need the elite players.

Let's see the #3 pick (or first non=QB after #3 historically vs 9 and 41 and determine WIN or LOSS by taking at #3. Of course, this draft is amongst the weaker drafts with only 10-12 first round talents so you would less likely want to trade down in a weak draft.

2016-Joey Bosa vs Leonard Floyd and Reggie Ragland-WIN

2017-Solomon Thomas vs John Ross and Dalvin Cook-First round picks is a wash, LOSS due to hitting on Cook who is solid but not a star

2018-Darnald but first non-QB Denzel Ward vs Mike McGlinchey and Harold Landry-LOSS, Ward vs McGlinchey a wash but you get Landry, none are stars

2019-Quinnen Wiliams vs Ed Oliver and Dalton Risner-WIN

2020-Jeff Okudah vs CJ Hendersen and Jon Taylor-LOSS

2021-Trey Lance but first non-QB Kyle Pitts vs Pat Surtain and Levi Onwuzurike-LOSS

2022-Derek Stingley for Charles Cross and Ken Walker-WIN

2023-Will Anderson JR for Jalen Carter and BJ Ojulari-This is really a WIN but I can see the argument. But Anderson is elite, Carter is Very Good, Ojulari is a non-factor. Anderson is better than Carter thus a win.

2024-Drake Maye but first non-QB was MHJ Jr vs Rome Odunze and Kool Aid McKinstry-Based on year 1 slight win but call it a wash because early. Should have been Nabers at that spot and would be clear win

4 WINS and 4 LOSSES and 1 wash that leans towards a win.

The second trade is irrelevant to Hunter. The tackle class is meh, you can draft a tackle in the second round that will be a similar project to one at 21. Both guys will have second round grades. If you love someone and they work out then who cares about giving up the extra third which is like 25% Chance of success anyways?

All that said the reality is Hunter is a possible hall of fame level player, the Tackle at 9 is not even a likely pro bowl player. That's why you take Hunter. The gap from Hunter to pick 9 is enormous. I'd have to get a 1st this year, a first next year and a 3rd this year.

 

[Patsgofor4]

I choose B

We lose Hunter. In return we get
1) An OT at 9 instead of 21
2) four picks: a new pick, and the current 2nd, 3rd and 4th [Vrabel would have lots of flexibility with these four picks and 77].
====
In either case, we get 77 and the 5th and 7th round picks
========

I don't think that there is likely to be a major difference between the guy you are drafting at 9 and the guy you are drafting at 21 in this draft.

Option B looks to me looks like you were playing around with a mock draft simulator.

I'll take option A all day, IF they believe that Hunter has WR1 potential (I do, but perhaps they are concerned about some warts of which I'm not aware). In a draft where there is a consensus that are two elite players and one of them drops to you, you take the elite guy 100% of the time, unless you already have an elite player in his prime at that position.

Vrabel has already stated that if you want a true WR1, you likely have to either draft him or trade for him. Drafting him is obviously a much better scenario, because you save assets and cap space. The Pats have already filled a lot of holes in free agency and if all goes as planned they wouldn't be drafting in the top 10 going forward, so you have to jump at the opportunity to take a guy with top five positional (entire NFL, not draft prospect) talent over accruing day 2 and day 3 picks. As others have pointed out, in scenario B, they still get their potential LT of the future at 21. NOTE: You could also likely save that 4th round pick by targeting 24 (237 points on Rich Hill draft comp chart) instead of 21 (261 points). I'm not sure why you picked 21 in particular.

In my opinion, the Hunter-Garrett Wilson comp is an excellent one. So take these two scenarios (thanks @jmt57):


OPTION A:

Garrett Wilson
1st round (21) - OT
3rd round (77)
5th (144), 7th (220), 7th (238) - remain the same

OPTION B:

1st round (9th overall) - OT
2nd round (38)
2nd round (~45)
3rd round (69)
3rd round (77)
4th round (106)
5th (144), 7th (220), 7th (238) - remain the same

I you look at those two scenarios and choose option B, please head straight to the short bus. The bonus with Hunter is the you don't have to pay him huge money for at least 3 years, whereas Wilson is going to get PAID next offseason.

Finally, a preemptive message to all of the posters who are ready say that they choose option B because they are excited about taking Tet 4.6 at pick 9.

 

[Huckleberry1]

What does that have to do with THIS YEAR, with almost an entirely new draft crew Fam?

I think the reason people keep acting like this is just an extension of Belichick’s drafting history is because there have never been any reports of mass firing if the scouts. I don’t agree with that, but I think that’s the reason.

 

[mike_usagisan]

Who do we assume the Saints are trading up for with us at 4? Are we assuming Hunter is there (probably unlikely) and we're trading it? Or Sanders, whose stock is supposedly falling?