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

[tuckeverlasting]

pick 25-30

 

[JohnJH]

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

Plan A) Hunter at #4, trade up into the 1st Round and pick Josh Conerly Jr. Use some middle to late round picks (and maybe add a middle to late round pick next year to get back into the 2nd Round to get Jayden Higgins. Take Trapilo as a future RT in the 3rd Round, who has LT/RT ability, so he could be our ST. I'd give Wallace most of his camp reps at RG (as he was projected last year to be better suited to RG in the NFL). Then draft a Center who can be not only a solid backup/depth piece, but who could replace Bradbury when the time comes. Especially if they believe that Strange can play LG. Just my 2 Cents.

 

[Hugepatsfan]

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.

Not saying it can't happen, but this presumption that if Campbell fails at LT then he's automatically a top LG is nonsense. It doesn't work like that. Every failed LT prospect doesn't just flourish at Guard. If that were the case, you wouldn't have any busts ever. Guard is a whole new position. The techniques are totally different. Someone had a breakdown a while back talking about how he'd have to totally change his stance because how he lines up at LT won't work inside. 6'6" is tall for a Guard which creates leverage challenges on the inside where you're in a phone booth compared to outside where you want the length/range to adjust to guys having a wider arc to run.

He may very well end up at LG and excel there, but we all need to stop pretending that's automatic.

 

[mgteich]

then you can get back in to R2, but you run the risk of not being able to deal to get in.

this

As was the case in 2024, wanting to trade back into the 1st to get who you want may not b enough.

 

[Ross12]

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.

It's procedural though.

Plan A - You are taking hunter and trying to get back into the late 1st for your LT. That's not super hard to do but even if you can't quite make that happen, you could also combine Plan A + Plan C where you just stick and pick Trapilo in the 2nd, or some other LT you like more, if he's still there.
Plan B - Hunter is gone but Carter is there: you'll get a trade down offer no problem. If Hunter and Carter are both gone, you are reliant on a QB-needy team wanting to come up which is admittedly unlikely. In that scenario you should just take the guy you like best and then move on to Plan C.
Plan C - Shouldn't be an issue because as you said it's a little bit of an overpayment and teams are not usually big sticklers at this point in the draft.

 

[Steve102]

this

As was the case in 2024, wanting to trade back into the 1st to get who you want may not b enough.

At least you can control it. You can overpay, you just gotta hold your nose and bite the bullet. If you decide to trade back, you need to accept whatever chitty offer there is.

 

[Ross12]

At the end of the day if they get Hunter at 4, then the LT problem will be less of an issue. Even if they fail entirely to replace Lowe, McDaniels would be able to protect Lowe and Hunter would provide the offensive weapon that they need. If Hunter is gone and you can't trade down I'd seriously consider Tyler Warren at 4.

 

[mgteich]

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.

When is a LT a pick worth the value of the pick.

You seem to say if not at 4, then not at 10 or at 15. That would be the case only if there was only one LT that we have in the top 15, which may or may not be the case.

 

[Steve102]

It's procedural though.

It's not tho. If everyone knows the pick is for sale, and the market for it sucks because like the Pats, everyone else knows the value between #4 and #10 is essentially the same. So you don't overpay the Pats to pick at #4 if you can get the same player at #8.

Plan A - You are taking hunter and trying to get back into the late 1st for your LT. That's not super hard to do but even if you can't quite make that happen, you could also combine Plan A + Plan C where you just stick and pick Trapilo in the 2nd, or some other LT you like more, if he's still there.
Plan B - Hunter is gone but Carter is there: you'll get a trade down offer no problem. If Hunter and Carter are both gone, you are reliant on a QB-needy team wanting to come up which is admittedly unlikely. In that scenario you should just take the guy you like best and then move on to Plan C.
Plan C - Shouldn't be an issue because as you said it's a little bit of an overpayment and teams are not usually big sticklers at this point in the draft.

The only scenario I find even remotely under their control is they can overpay to move back in. But that means you still need the teams to answer the phone in order to overwhelm them with an offer. Otherwise, the team stands pat and makes their pick. That's the value that Wolf is trying to build now by saying they are going BPA at #4.

Nah, we ain't selling at #4, we are picking. What's that? You have an offer that blows me away? Oh, I guess I'll listen.

 

[patfanken]

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.

Nice response, but I take affront to one comment, which is that Membu is better suited to be a RT. I question whether it's smart to label a 20 year old athletic freak to a single position. 20 years old is incredible young, especially for a guy that size. Who knows what he will do as a pro. If he were 23 or 24 and had 3 or 4 years of playing just one side, I'd think differently. But at 20 he might not be ready to slot in on day one, but he could very well be the LT of the next decade. IIRC Nate Solder played RT at the start of his career. switching from one side to another might not be easy but its hardly impossible for a professional athlete who has full time to train.

Right now Membou is a guy OLman I'm most excited about, but not at 4. Trading down to the 6-12 area and getting him would be fine with me. Personally I'm hopping Carter or Hunter is there at 4.

 

[Urgent]

To answer the question, I think the sweet spot is 25-30 for Conerly, Simmons, or Ersery.
And just like the uncertainty of trading down to 6-8, there is uncertainty of anyone willing to accept a trade up from 38.
As noted multiple times, there are runs on WR's and OT's. They are frequently drafted sooner than the amateur draft rankings.

I think the best possible draft for the Patriots is Hunter at 4 and then Conerly or Ersery with their next pick.
If they sacrifice a third or more to move up 10 slots, I'd do it.
If Hunter is not available, that likely means Shedeur Sanders is, and it's possible someone would bite on a trade down and you take Campbell or Banks lower, with some additional capital to draft a receiver.

 

[Hugepatsfan]

When is a LT a pick worth the value of the pick.

You seem to say if not at 4, then not at 10 or at 15. That would be the case only if there was only one LT that we have in the top 15, which may or may not be the case.

If they see a high end starting LT then that player should probably be #1 on their draft board, though you could argue as low as #3 if you think Carter/Hunter are ***special***. What else could be higher on their board than a high end starting LT? If they see multiple, then ok those guys are #3, #4 and however many you go.

Ok, if there are multiple high end starting caliber LTs all ranked similarly then trade back. But considering it's widely panned as a weak class how likely is it that there are multiple of those on their board? And even if there are, the idea that two prospects are truly "equal" with no preference for one over the other is kind of a made up idea to begin with. I wouldn't get cute, just take the high end starting caliber LT on your board at #4. Don't risk it trading down hoping to get your 2nd or 3rd choice for what is already a pretty shaky projection considering the consensus rankings of these LT prospects. Simple, IMO.

If you don't see a high end starting caliber LT then you shouldn't be using a high pick on a LT. That's another simple answer for me. You can willpower your way into adding a LT but you can't willpower your way into that guy actually being good enough to solve your problems there. If that's not your projection for the player then it's throwing a pick away to take him.

And to play devil's advocate, in a scenario where there are truly absolutely no high end players available when you're on the clock and absolutely no one will trade with you, then LT is the spot I'd throw a dart at blindly. But again, the idea that they truly hate every prospect on the board on day 1 or day 2 and truly see no good options to where they have to just throw spaghetti at the wall seems illogical.

 

[Urgent]

It's not tho. If everyone knows the pick is for sale, and the market for it sucks because like the Pats, everyone else knows the value between #4 and #10 is essentially the same. So you don't overpay the Pats to pick at #4 if you can get the same player at #8.

I agree; I think most of us agree.
The one wildcard is the QB. If there are three QB-needy teams in the 6-10 range, maybe one figures Sanders offers the most upside of those #4-#10 prospects for their team, and is willing to trade a little to guarantee a QB. Huge uncertainty, but possible.

 

[gobesmug]

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

Jalen Travis Draft and Combine Prospect Profile | NFL.com

Jalen Travis is someone i want on day 3.

Dude has the size at 6. 8" 340lbs and 34 7/8 arms length. His athleticism score was 4th among all oline at the combine with the second highest vertical jump at 35".

 

[Sciz]

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.

You’re really glossing over how many people thought the sweet spot in 2024 was Kingsley Suamataia at 34. Yikes.

 

[Ross12]

You’re really glossing over how many people thought the sweet spot in 2024 was Kingsley Suamataia at 34. Yikes.

This board crapped on the Pats for not drafting Suamataia for months and months.

 

[Patriot Missile]

This board crapped on the Pats for not drafting Suamataia for months and months.

all that crapping for a right guard.

 

[Toofy]

If we get Hunter we need to trade up to early 20s to draft conerly else draft Campbell at 4. He might be over drafted but who cares. When 4 to 12 are equally rated like this year, just assume you are picking Campbell at 12 while making pick at 4. Don't get too cute and trade down to get an extra 3rd rounder and miss out on campbell and membou.

 

[Brotherblues]

IMO the 2 guys most likely to be long-term starters at LT are Membou and Simmons. Membou is unlikely to drop beyond 11. Simmons could go top 20. The "sweet spot" is doing whatever you can to secure one of those 2 guys.

Honestly would not mind trading down to 14 and taking less than trade-chart value. Get 14, 45, and 114 from the Colts. Send them 4, a banner that says "fleeced the Pats on trade-chart value" and a rolodex with all the best meth-loving hookers in Indiana. Irsay won't be able to pass it up. They take Sanders. Meanwhile we take Simmons and use the extra ammo to move up for Golden.

 

[Pape]

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?

4. Just do it. dont **** around with it. get it done.