What do you want Pats to do with #3?

[bsj]

Regarding that MN trade. Thai team badly needs high end talent and badly needs a QB WR and OT.

Trading down to 11 means the best of all 3.positions gone by the time we.draft.

Only way I do it is if we somehow get JJ involved, possibly in lieu of the 2025 1st. Which I know is a lot.but that's my ask

 

[joe dokes]

I agree that if they dont think the last of the 3 QB's is worth it, they shouldn't take a QB at 3. One thing about *not* taking a QB at 3 that makes the post-draft draft-knowers insufferable is that teams *dont* say things like "We didn't take Maye because he kinda sucked against good teams/couldn't throw the proverbial ball through the proverbial swinging tire/whatever the real reason is." To me, if you can't scrutinize the reasoning, what's the point? (Not talking about Kiper's widow's peak.)

 

[Cellar-Door]

The Athletic posted another beat writer mock and this one had the Patriots trading down with the Vikings.

After WIlson and Daniels went #1 and #2, the Pats traded #3 to the Vikings for #11, #23, a 2025 1st, and a 2026 2nd.

https://theathletic.com/5356654/2024/03/21/nfl-mock-beat-draft-vikings-broncos-mccarthy/

Picks #3 to #10: Maye (QB), MHJ (WR), Nabers (WR), Odunze (WR), Alt (T), McCarthy (QB), Turner (Edge), Bowers (TE).

At #11, the Pats took T Olu Fashanu. At #23, they took Adonai Mitchell.

The haul in picks is not bad - picking up an 2025 1st and 2026 2nd. But unless they really don't like Maye or McCarthy I don't think trading that far down makes sense. I guess if the plan is to tread water for a year, sign Barmore, and stockpile assets, it could work. But I don;t think you can trade out of taking a QB unless you really want no part of the available options.

So reading through it, Graff basically said... "they aren't doing this is my feeling, but let's try it" which fine. I do like him pointing out that trading down then taking a QB at 23 makes little sense, but I think his writeup at 11 is a good reason for why you don't make these trades which is... "well we'll see if we can find a QB in 2025"... and yeah, that's a pretty terrible plan, and the hole in every trade down scenario. If you don't like the top prospects over a several year period, what exactly is your plan next year? Draft a lesser prospect (maybe giving up the 1st you just got to trade up for him?), trade for whom? Dak? Sign Russ Wilson?

 

[rodderick]

I'm going to lose my mind if they trade down with Maye on the board. If it's Daniels, meh.

 

[Curt S Loew]

I'm going to lose my mind if they trade down with Maye on the board. If it's Daniels, meh.

I'm not completely sold on Daniels either, but you have to take him. If he didn't exist I would probably take McCarthy as well(don't think you can get him trading down). The team needs a QB* and this is a very good crop. I don't want to "wait til next year". Just do it.

*Aware they need a ton but none weigh as heavy as QB

 

[rodderick]

I'm not completely sold on Daniels either, but you have to take him. If he didn't exist I would probably take McCarthy as well(don't think you can get him trading down). The team needs a QB* and this is a very good crop. I don't want to "wait til next year". Just do it.

*Aware they need a ton but none weigh as heavy as QB

I'd take Daniels at 3 over trading down as well, but I don't love him so it'd be way easier to deal with it. I think Maye could be special.

 

[sezwho]

I'd take Daniels at 3 over trading down as well, but I don't love him so it'd be way easier to deal with it. I think Maye could be special.

I quite like all the resigns but am genuinely a bit gutted that they haven't sorted LT or WR in FA (yet).

Dont believe you can go into the draft with those three needs (i.e. + QB) at starter, given our draft capital. You are laughing if you can fill even two of those with starters next year.

Take the QB at three and if there still isn't a WR1 by the draft seriously consider using NEXT YEARS draft capital (as necessary) to move back up for two more picks in mid/late firsts where I can get the WR and LT.

These are investments in the QB so I don't mind borrowing a bit of the future, then paper over any holes with money next year.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I'm not completely sold on Daniels either, but you have to take him. If he didn't exist I would probably take McCarthy as well(don't think you can get him trading down). The team needs a QB* and this is a very good crop. I don't want to "wait til next year". Just do it.

*Aware they need a ton but none weigh as heavy as QB

I can see the argument for McCarthy at 3 over Daniels, not sure I make that call, but can see the case.

 

[rodderick]

I quite like all the resigns but am genuinely a bit gutted that they haven't sorted LT or WR in FA (yet).

Dont believe you can go into the draft with those three needs (i.e. + QB) at starter, given our draft capital. You are laughing if you can fill even two of those with starters next year.

Take the QB at three and if there still isn't a WR1 by the draft seriously consider using NEXT YEARS draft capital (as necessary) to move back up for two more picks in mid/late firsts where I can get the WR and LT.

These are investments in the QB so I don't mind borrowing a bit of the future, then paper over any holes with money next year.

I don't hate this plan because the WR class is absolutely stacked and there's a real argument that a player at that position who will be available at, say, 27 in this draft will be better than a receiver that you'll need to draft at 12 in 2025. Tackle class is strong too.

 

[tims4wins]

I quite like all the resigns but am genuinely a bit gutted that they haven't sorted LT or WR in FA (yet).

Dont believe you can go into the draft with those three needs (i.e. + QB) at starter, given our draft capital. You are laughing if you can fill even two of those with starters next year.

Take the QB at three and if there still isn't a WR1 by the draft seriously consider using NEXT YEARS draft capital (as necessary) to move back up for two more picks in mid/late firsts where I can get the WR and LT.

These are investments in the QB so I don't mind borrowing a bit of the future, then paper over any holes with money next year.

I don't hate this plan because the WR class is absolutely stacked and there's a real argument that a player at that position who will be available at, say, 27 in this draft will be better than a receiver that you'll need to draft at 12 in 2025. Tackle class is strong too.

This is an interesting thought. What are you thinking in terms of giving up? 68 this year plus a 2nd rounder next year to get into the top 35 this year? Or 2nd + 3rd rounder next year? It would probably take a decent amount. Would you be willing to give up a 1st rounder next year? I'd be very hesitant considering that pick could be top 10.

 

[E5 Yaz]

You know it's crazy time where you see a mock where the Patriots get Daniels at 11
https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-mock-draft-a-top-qb-prospect-falls-amid-trades-galore-in-the-top-10-205218912.html

 

[DJnVa]

 

[E5 Yaz]

WTF is a "BREAKING NEWS take"?

 

[Cellar-Door]

I quite like all the resigns but am genuinely a bit gutted that they haven't sorted LT or WR in FA (yet).

Dont believe you can go into the draft with those three needs (i.e. + QB) at starter, given our draft capital. You are laughing if you can fill even two of those with starters next year.

Take the QB at three and if there still isn't a WR1 by the draft seriously consider using NEXT YEARS draft capital (as necessary) to move back up for two more picks in mid/late firsts where I can get the WR and LT.

These are investments in the QB so I don't mind borrowing a bit of the future, then paper over any holes with money next year.

How are you getting 2 more 1sts this year? I guess maybe if you traded 34, next year's 1st, next year's 2nd and probably a 2026 1st and get back a day 2/3 pick in the future?

It's just not reasonable.

You could move up from 34 at a reasonable number, though there is an argument that the reason HOU traded back last week is because many teams see 23-40ish as pretty similar, so Patriots may well see 34 as just as good. My guess is if they traded up from 34 it would be for a OT not a WR, OT is likely to go much faster and have a more significant cliff.
What might make sense is trading up from 68.

Edit- the Patriots aren't going to fill every hole with a top 1st round pick in one offseason, it's not a good strategy anyway. They should and likely will, take good players in the top 70 who have a real shot to be good starters. Then they go into next year with some holes filled and if they have hit on QB a lot of flexibility to add.

 

[Justthetippett]

So reading through it, Graff basically said... "they aren't doing this is my feeling, but let's try it" which fine. I do like him pointing out that trading down then taking a QB at 23 makes little sense, but I think his writeup at 11 is a good reason for why you don't make these trades which is... "well we'll see if we can find a QB in 2025"... and yeah, that's a pretty terrible plan, and the hole in every trade down scenario. If you don't like the top prospects over a several year period, what exactly is your plan next year? Draft a lesser prospect (maybe giving up the 1st you just got to trade up for him?), trade for whom? Dak? Sign Russ Wilson?

They need to draft their QB this year when they for sure have an opportunity to do it, see how it goes, likely have a bad record and a high pick next year and then look to do the trade back for a haul of picks in 2025 when some other team needs a Beck, Sanders, Ewers, etc. We need look no further than Arizona and LAC to see how much better they are positioned for a tradeback right now than the Pats. They both have what (they believe) is their QB, and they are now able to supplement their roster with more parts.

 

[j44thor]

WTF is a "BREAKING NEWS take"?

Click bait

 

[j44thor]

They need to draft their QB this year when they for sure have an opportunity to do it, see how it goes, likely have a bad record and a high pick next year and then look to do the trade back for a haul of picks in 2025 when some other team needs a Beck, Sanders, Ewers, etc. We need look no further than Arizona and LAC to see how much better they are positioned for a tradeback right now than the Pats. They both have what (they believe) is their QB, and they are now able to supplement their roster with more parts.

Yes follow the CHI approach from last year where they fleeced CAR and have set themselves up extremely well, would have been even more so if Fields had proven to be a competent QB. Draft your QB this season, hope you end up with a top 4 pick again and profit.

 

[BigJimEd]

If you have a large delta between Maye/Daniels, how aggressively do you try to move up?

 

[tims4wins]

If you have a large delta between Maye/Daniels, how aggressively do you try to move up?

It all depends on intelligence. Like the Celts trading BACK from 1.

 

[sezwho]

How are you getting 2 more 1sts this year? I guess maybe if you traded 34, next year's 1st, next year's 2nd and probably a 2026 1st and get back a day 2/3 pick in the future?

It's just not reasonable.

You could move up from 34 at a reasonable number, though there is an argument that the reason HOU traded back last week is because many teams see 23-40ish as pretty similar, so Patriots may well see 34 as just as good. My guess is if they traded up from 34 it would be for a OT not a WR, OT is likely to go much faster and have a more significant cliff.
What might make sense is trading up from 68.

Edit- the Patriots aren't going to fill every hole with a top 1st round pick in one offseason, it's not a good strategy anyway. They should and likely will, take good players in the top 70 who have a real shot to be good starters. Then they go into next year with some holes filled and if they have hit on QB a lot of flexibility to add.

I don’t think it’s total fantasy - To your point my 2nd (#3) is basically already there so not huge lift to get into 20s…and I may not need to be higher for tackle.

The other mid/late first, if I still see a starter there, is dipping into that next years first + scenario (this third or something). We need premium talent at QB WR1 and LT and I want my Oompa Loompa now!

edit - my own needs aside. I think giving the stud QB an actual fighting chance can be helpful developmentally.

 

[BaseballJones]

CBS' most recent mock has NE taking Daniels at #3, with this comment:

"The Patriots are a trade-out candidate here as well, but like the Commanders, they want to grab their guy in this QB-rich draft, and they do so with the Heisman winner, who pairs nicely with the sneakily unathletic Jacoby Brissett."

"Sneakily unathletic"?? What does that mean? (I get what the words mean, but what does CBS *mean* by this? Why would Brissett's lack of athleticism be surprising?)

 

[yalesoxfan]

Yes follow the CHI approach from last year where they fleeced CAR and have set themselves up extremely well, would have been even more so if Fields had proven to be a

If Brisette is the primary QB with basically the same offense talent, there’s a good chance they are in the top 5 for picks next year. Let your new QB sit and learn, and then get more skill next year.

 

[BaseballJones]

How's the 2025 draft class looking for WRs? Anyone know?

 

[j44thor]

How's the 2025 draft class looking for WRs? Anyone know?

Probably closer to 2023 class. The RB class in 2025 should be much stronger than this season from what I've heard. This is the WR class of the decade.

 

[Toe Nash]

CBS' most recent mock has NE taking Daniels at #3, with this comment:

"The Patriots are a trade-out candidate here as well, but like the Commanders, they want to grab their guy in this QB-rich draft, and they do so with the Heisman winner, who pairs nicely with the sneakily unathletic Jacoby Brissett."

"Sneakily unathletic"?? What does that mean? (I get what the words mean, but what does CBS *mean* by this? Why would Brissett's lack of athleticism be surprising?)

It's because he's a black QB and the unspoken assumption is that any black QB is in the NFL because he's a running threat. This is a sneaky bit of racism, how for a loooong time black baseball players were never labeled as "scrappy" while white utility infielders would get that label.

 

[BaseballJones]

It's because he's a black QB and the unspoken assumption is that any black QB is in the NFL because he's a running threat. This is a sneaky bit of racism, how for a loooong time black baseball players were never labeled as "scrappy" while white utility infielders would get that label.

Yeah, that's.....kinda what I was getting at.

 

[NextBigThing8184]

Probably closer to 2023 class. The RB class in 2025 should be much stronger than this season from what I've heard. This is the WR class of the decade.

2025 will have Burden who could be a top 3 pick, McMillan and Egbuka who are both (as of now) guys who project better than Smith-Njigba. Bond, Stewart and Juice Wells could also get themselves into first round consideration.

It’s not this year’s class certainly but the presence of Burden will make it far superior to 2023 unless he gets hurt or has an unexpected regression. He’d probably go above Odunze this year and would be in the Harrison/Nabers conversation

 

[j44thor]

2025 will have Burden who could be a top 3 pick, McMillan and Egbuka who are both (as of now) guys who project better than Smith-Njigba. Bond, Stewart and Juice Wells could also get themselves into first round consideration.

It’s not this year’s class certainly but the presence of Burden will make it far superior to 2023 unless he gets hurt or has an unexpected regression. He’d probably go above Odunze this year and would be in the Harrison/Nabers conversation

Thanks for the correction, perhaps 2022 is a more apt comparison where you had London, G Wilson, Olave and a few others. I generally don't start paying attention to the next years class until the CFB season at least gets underway, even more confusing now with the transfer portal usage so prolific.

 

[sezwho]

Thanks for the correction, perhaps 2022 is a more apt comparison where you had London, G Wilson, Olave and a few others. I generally don't start paying attention to the next years class until the CFB season at least gets underway, even more confusing now with the transfer portal usage so prolific.

This has been interesting background, thanks for the breakdown on the upcoming class.

I still think there’s got to be an answer to one of the big three needs before week one and I’m doubling down on the variant where we trade for WR1.

Pretty sure we draft QB at three and can still get an LT using #34 plus pick capital from this or next years collection to move up into 20s if needed.

The WR1, if you want the shock and awe, comes from a combo of picks & finally burning money. There are premium talents at WR potentially available (thinking Aiyuk or even Jefferson here) and the trade capital for players like this could even this 3rd plus something top 3 rounds next season.

The haul for Tyreek for reference, five picks and the highest was a #29. I know this is all complicated by the cap spike, so everyone has money, but I’d sure still try.

 

[NextBigThing8184]

This has been interesting background, thanks for the breakdown on the upcoming class.

I still think there’s got to be an answer to one of the big three needs before week one and I’m doubling down on the variant where we trade for WR1.

Pretty sure we draft QB at three and can still get an LT using #34 plus pick capital from this or next years collection to move up into 20s if needed.

The WR1, if you want the shock and awe, comes from a combo of picks & finally burning money. There are premium talents at WR potentially available (thinking Aiyuk or even Jefferson here) and the trade capital for players like this could even this 3rd plus something top 3 rounds next season.

The haul for Tyreek for reference, five picks and the highest was a #29. I know this is all complicated by the cap spike, so everyone has money, but I’d sure still try.

They’re not getting Jefferson for a 3rd and just one pick next year.

Maybe Aiyuk for next year’s 2nd + something on day 3 this year.

Given the good chance of a top 3 or 5 pick next year, I wouldn’t be trading it for anyone until next April.

 

[sezwho]

They’re not getting Jefferson for a 3rd and just one pick next year.

Maybe Aiyuk for next year’s 2nd + something on day 3 this year.

Given the good chance of a top 3 or 5 pick next year, I wouldn’t be trading it for anyone until next April.

Agree on Jefferson, he would be Tyreek+ so the comp would start with this third and next years first, plus a couple mid rounders. I would genuinely consider this as he’s an absolute monster and I think the Pats can get to competitive next year. Yes you can have what I’m smoking (in most states).

The Aiyuk deal I would also absolutely do, and it’s frankly more realistic. Something along these lines though.

To the bolded, yes…but. I would trade it both for Jefferson himself and for what I think it could do developmentally for QB1.

 

[j44thor]

MN isn't trading Jefferson, the owner has come out and said that. They are stockpiling picks to get in position to draft a rookie QB which should make a Jefferson extension palatable. He is basically the face of the franchise at this point. KC didn't need Tyreek with Kelce and Mahomes, MN needs Jefferson to make the rookie QBs life easier.

 

[sezwho]

MN isn't trading Jefferson, the owner has come out and said that. They are stockpiling picks to get in position to draft a rookie QB which should make a Jefferson extension palatable. He is basically the face of the franchise at this point. KC didn't need Tyreek with Kelce and Mahomes, MN needs Jefferson to make the rookie QBs life easier.

Ok fine, it’s almost certainly true Jefferson is wishcasting and everything the Vikes have done since the season ended has made it less likely. I’d still call to confirm, and keep dialing other GMs if the answer is no.

 

[MikeM]

The Aiyuk deal I would also absolutely do, and it’s frankly more realistic. Something along these lines though.

As a guy you are going to end up having to pay Aiyuk raises serious "what does that actually end up looking like away from Shanahan/SF" concerns to me.

The Patriots are also probably one of the current 2024 field favorites to end up with the worst record in the NFL. Which would basically make that surrendered 2nd there more of a backend 1st.

Aiyuk doesn't have nearly the same "go get this guy for your rookie QB" appeal that Keenan Allen did imo. Keeping the pick probably makes more big picture build plan sense to me.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Mayo: We're taking a QB, unless we're not

Which is exactly what he should say

But, it appears it wouldn't be wise to make bold predictions this early, as Patriots head coach Jerod Mayo told NFL Network's Steve Wyche on Sunday at the Annual League Meeting that while quarterback is obviously a focus for the team going into the draft, it's not a bygone conclusion that it's is the only direction they could go with their first pick.
"It's the priority right now," Mayo said. "But with that being said, you have to really be in love with the guy to take him at No. 3. So really all the options are still open for us.

https://www.nfl.com/news/patriots-hc-jerod-mayo-drafting-qb-at-no-3-is-priority-right-now-but-all-the-options-are-still-open-for-us

 

[Saints Rest]

MN isn't trading Jefferson, the owner has come out and said that. They are stockpiling picks to get in position to draft a rookie QB which should make a Jefferson extension palatable. He is basically the face of the franchise at this point. KC didn't need Tyreek with Kelce and Mahomes, MN needs Jefferson to make the rookie QBs life easier.

I wonder if the Vikes can't get the QB they want in any Day One maneuvering, that Jefferson suddenly becomes available that next morning.

 

[NextBigThing8184]

Ok fine, it’s almost certainly true Jefferson is wishcasting and everything the Vikes have done since the season ended has made it less likely. I’d still call to confirm, and keep dialing other GMs if the answer is no.

Jefferson is the best receiver in football and not even 25 yet. If Minnesota didn’t say outright no, their asking price would be astronomical (as it should be). Like 2 first round picks + multiple other picks.

Aiyuk and Higgins would be the most likely trade candidates but I would think both their teams would prefer to keep them and try to win in 2024 unless they got a first rounder back. A playoff contender drafting 24-32 might pony up a first (similar to the Pats for Cooks years ago) but I can’t imagine the Pats giving a first for a WR given how highly they’re selecting and likely to select next year

2025 2nd round pick would be my starting point for any trade target and I just don’t think that’s appealing enough for any meaningful upgrade at WR.

Best case for the Pats is that they nail the QB this year and are as bad as expected and can land the top WR (presumably Burden) next year.

 

[Dave Stapleton]

I'm totally fine with cutting Zappe and just drafting 2 rookies.

This. What’s the point in keeping Zappe? This team isn’t going anywhere next year so you don’t need a stop gap to tread water for a few weeks so go with youth or sign a guy off the street if things are that bad. He’s worse talent wise than what you had last year.

 

[Gash Prex]

I feel its extremely likely they pick the remaining QB at 3 and I’m having a hard time spending much time considering one or the other because it feels less like a choice and more like whatever is left over. And I’d rather not be disappointed if “my guy” isn’t left over. Plus clearly I was wrong about Mac after year 1 so I’m going to do my best to slow my roll on our next QB.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

What do I want them to do with number 3? Why take a lottery ticket on a top flight QB instead of trading down to get Isaiah Wynn, Lawrence Maroney, N'Keal Harry, and Cyrus Jones, of course.

 

[E5 Yaz]

What do I want them to do with number 3? Why take a lottery ticket on a top flight QB instead of trading down to get Isaiah Wynn, Lawrence Maroney, N'Keal Harry, and Cyrus Jones, of course.

The guy who picked those groceries isn't doing it anymore

 

[Ferm Sheller]

The guy who picked those groceries isn't doing it anymore

Yeah, but who is? Someone better, someone worse, someone the same?

 

[E5 Yaz]

Yeah, but who is? Someone better, someone worse, someone the same?

yes

 

[Ferm Sheller]

yes

Right, so roll the dice on the #3 QB instead of getting a pocket full of nickels.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Right, so roll the dice on the #3 QB instead of getting a pocket full of nickels.

Either way you're rolling the dice. Picking the wrong QB at 3, just because he's the one still available, would be more of a crushing blow than getting, say, three 1's from the Vikings and perhaps hitting on 1.
I'm in favor of taking the QB at 3, but only if it's the one they want.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

Either way you're rolling the dice. Picking the wrong QB at 3, just because he's the one still available, would be more of a crushing blow than getting, say, three 1's from the Vikings and perhaps hitting on 1.
I'm in favor of taking the QB at 3, but only if it's the one they want.

Agreed. But I'd rather they roll the dice on the QB they think *could* be the QB for the next decade than trade down to get what's likely Nate Solder, Sony Michel, and Joequan Williams (i.e, good, decent, and bad picks at positions of lesser importance).

But yes, don't pick a QB for the sake of picking a QB.

 

[rodderick]

Either way you're rolling the dice. Picking the wrong QB at 3, just because he's the one still available, would be more of a crushing blow than getting, say, three 1's from the Vikings and perhaps hitting on 1.
I'm in favor of taking the QB at 3, but only if it's the one they want.

Picking the right guy at whatever other non-QB position at 3, or with the first rounders they get for 3 in a trade changes basically nothing for the team's future prospects, though.

I don't understand the idea that a QB failing is that much of a blow. It he sucks you move on, teams aren't really waiting around on players who clearly aren't the guy in that position anymore, they move on by year 2 or 3. And of course if you don't like any of the available QBs at 3, you don't pick one just because you feel like you have to, I just think in this draft in particular, at least one tantalizing prospect will be available at that spot. I mean, I genuinely think even JJ McCarthy could have been the first QB taken in some other classes.

 

[nighthob]

When you draft a guy at 15, moving on is easy. When you bust out at #3, you’re on the treadmill of suck for a long time. Because you gave up the chance at a pile of firsts and an infusion of real talent.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

Because you gave up the chance at a pile of firsts and an infusion of real talent.

Or a pile of not much/nothing.

 

[Caspir]

When you draft a guy at 15, moving on is easy. When you bust out at #3, you’re on the treadmill of suck for a long time. Because you gave up the chance at a pile of firsts and an infusion of real talent.

So they pick the wrong guy at 3 and they’re fucked, but somehow those same people will do better with pick 11, 23 and whatever?

You use the pick unless you get a godfather offer. If it fails, it fails. If you trade out and come away with a basket of nickels, you’re not going to be employed long enough to see how it all works out.