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

[jmt57]

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

No, not at all.

I'm "glossing" over the idea that first Wolf & co. thought Chuks Okorafor was the answer at left tackle, and then ignored the position in the draft. Afterwards we were told that the third round draft pick who played RT throughout college was going to be the fallback starter at LT, based on the information that he had taken a few reps at LT in practices.

The front office seemed to be overly focused on WR, with OT a distant afterthought. Doubled down on WR, didn't try hard enough or succeed in moving up from either 34 to a mid-late first round pick at tackle, or from 68 to late second round pick at tackle - and missed out on runs at the position twice.

 

[mike_usagisan]

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.

I like Warren, but wishing the LT problem away because we have McD seems like more of the same problems we've had for the last two year. I say bite the bullet, get the best LT the scouting department says is the best LT.

 

[mgteich]

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.

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.

So, the players at 4 to 10 are of equal value and you pick 8th and expect to get the same value as at 4. HOWEVER, you would prefer no to wait and hope that those picking 5, 6 and 7 don't take the player or two that you prefer. In that case, you would be willing to trade up.

Let us say that Tet is one of the 7 players about equal between 4 and 10, and you strong preference is to draft Tet, but you pick at 8. You COULD wait and hope, or you could pony up a pick to the team pick at 4, or if the price is too high, wait a couple of picks and hope and then try again with the team at 6.

 

[Ross12]

I like Warren, but wishing the LT problem away because we have McD seems like more of the same problems we've had for the last two year. I say bite the bullet, get the best LT the scouting department says is the best LT.

I’m speaking to the issue of - what if you can’t get a trade down? It seems a little silly to me to take an LT at 4, it’s just too high. I’d rather get an actual offensive chess piece and then try to get your tackle later - and if you can’t, scheme will help.

It’ll be easier to find a solid tackle in the mid 1st in future years than it will be to find a game breaking receiver.

 

[mgteich]

I’m speaking to the issue of - what if you can’t get a trade down? It seems a little silly to me to take an LT at 4, it’s just too high. I’d rather get an actual offensive chess piece and then try to get your tackle later - and if you can’t, scheme will help.

It’ll be easier to find a solid tackle in the mid 1st in future years than it will be to find a game breaking receiver.

so, we couldn't get a LT last year and can't this year, so the solution is to believe that we can get one in future years?

 

[Huckleberry1]

The 10 spot makes the most sense to me. They can move there and still get one of the top tackles, and should get a 2nd round pick for the #4.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I’m speaking to the issue of - what if you can’t get a trade down? It seems a little silly to me to take an LT at 4, it’s just too high. I’d rather get an actual offensive chess piece and then try to get your tackle later - and if you can’t, scheme will help.

It’ll be easier to find a solid tackle in the mid 1st in future years than it will be to find a game breaking receiver.

I think that just depends on the year. Last year there were good players at both all the way through the 1st round. This year it’s sparser.

 

[Brotherblues]

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

If we miss out on Hunter/Carter, yes, Membou at 4 and no messing around.

It's fun to think about trading down and still taking Simmons, but you risk getting too cute and missing both the premier true OTs of this batch.

 

[mike_usagisan]

I’m speaking to the issue of - what if you can’t get a trade down? It seems a little silly to me to take an LT at 4, it’s just too high. I’d rather get an actual offensive chess piece and then try to get your tackle later - and if you can’t, scheme will help.

It’ll be easier to find a solid tackle in the mid 1st in future years than it will be to find a game breaking receiver.

I see your point, but I lean in the opposite direction. I’d rather overpay and have Maye’s blindside protected for the rest of his career.

 

[Huckleberry1]

The strongest likelihood to move the 4 is if Carter is on the board.

 

[Huckleberry1]

If we miss out on Hunter/Carter, yes, Membou at 4 and no messing around.

It's fun to think about trading down and still taking Simmons, but you risk getting too cute and missing both the premier true OTs of this batch.

I would be fine with Membou at 4. He’s got the highest ceiling of any of them. He’s only 20, massive, a great athlete, no arm issues, and he and Campbell were the best athletes of the tackles at the Combine.

 

[Hugepatsfan]

so, we couldn't get a LT last year and can't this year, so the solution is to believe that we can get one in future years?

We could have gotten a LT last year, but we took Maye instead. The following OTs started for their teams last year:

Joe Alt, #5 overall, LAC [played RT]
JC Latham, #7 overall, TEN [played RT]
Taliese Fuaga, #14 overall, NO
Amarius Mims, #18 overall, CIN [played RT]
Tyler Guyton, #29 overall, DAL
Roger Rosengarten, #62 overall, BAL [played RT]
Brandon Coleman, #67 overall, WAS
DJ Glaze, #77 overall, LV [played RT]

Realistically, you weren't going to trade all the way up to #14 or higher so the only realistically attainable LTs were Guyton and Coleman. Guyton didn't play very well as a rookie. Coleman was ok but not good enough that WAS didn't trade for Tunsil. If we had taken them, we'd all be griping that we still need one and we should move those guys to the RT spot instead. None of the other OTs were drafted were thought to be good enough by their teams to start, so questionable that they would be here.

LT is a really, really hard position to fill unless you're using your first pick for it. Last year we (correctly) chose to take a QB instead. No gripes there. Unfortunately, this year looks to be one of the years where the class is weak and they might have to wait. It is what it is.

 

[Pape]

If we miss out on Hunter/Carter, yes, Membou at 4 and no messing around.

It's fun to think about trading down and still taking Simmons, but you risk getting too cute and missing both the premier true OTs of this batch.

Left tackle.

 

[jmt57]

Left tackle.

With the signing of Diggs, I am going to predict that the chances of the first pick being an offensive tackle have vastly improved.

 

[TommyD4207]

15-25 you're guaranteed one of the starters.

 

[gobesmug]

With the signing of Diggs, I am going to predict that the chances of the first pick being an offensive tackle have vastly improved.

Edit. You edited your post and changed your verbiage making my GIF out of place lol

 

[jmt57]

Edit. You edited your post and changed your verbiage making my GIF out of place lol

It's only fair I include the pre-edit for the rest of the forum, because that gif was so incredibly appropriate:

With the signing of Diggs, I am going to safely go out on a strong limb and say that the first draft pick will be an offensive tackle.

 

[gobesmug]

It's only fair I include the pre-edit for the rest of the forum, because that gif was so incredibly appropriate:

With the signing of Diggs, I am going to safely go out on a strong limb and say that the first draft pick will be an offensive tackle.

Thank you good sir.

If Vrable and co feel Campbell can be a franchise LT then he would need to be the pick at #4. If either Hunter or Carfer are available but they still go Campbell that would be very telling how high they are on Campbell.

Originally I wanted Campbell when the Pats were predicted to be drafting around the 8-10 range.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

saints at 9 seems good. Campbell is likely there, if hes not you can pick up more capital and move to 15-20 where you can still land simmons or connerly who might even be better LT prospects anyway, just simmons will miss some time.

If they really love Campbell you try to work something out with vegas at 6, even a 3rd would be a win there. No chance he goes before 6.

 

[VJCPatriot]

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

You can thank Mayo for this predicament! If we were at #1 as we should be, we would be in such a better position to trade down!