Official Patriots 2024 Draft Pick Watch Thread (#3)

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,466
around the way
Barring something unexpected happening in free agency/trades with the Pats, Washington or Chicago, it’s going to be 10+ weeks of articles and tweets (etc) flip flopping between they will/won’t and should/shouldn’t take a QB at 3

we’re going to hear every possible permutation and every single one of the top 10 QB’s will make sense to someone

Which is really just to say, there will be likely be nothing informative about articles from the senior bowl, combine etc as far as the QB search is concerned - just speculation based on the same set of commonly understood ideas (good QBs in the draft, some guys outside of the top 3 that have some skill, Jones/Zappe suck, Harrison/Alt are great prospects at positions of need etc)

You could probably easily build an AI to write a different write up each week on what the Pats will do at QB and one of them will eventually be proven to be what they actually do.
This is all true.

I do think that we might see movement and find valuable content on the other two important positions, tackle and WR. And maybe to a lesser extent other positions of need like DEs, LB, etc. We have a lot of holes to fill. Hearing that Wilson/McConkey looked great tells us stuff, even if we already liked those guys. Guys will rise and fall throughout this process, and more info is good.

But yeah, at QB it won't be anything useful at all, most likely. The top guys have great arms, some of the others "can make all of the throws" but aren't prime Randy Johnson, etc. A lot of shit we already know.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,404
Setting aside the fact that Purdy is much better than a “plug and play” guy and the fact that Josh Allen was the 3rd QB taken in his draft (as were Ben Roethlisberger, Justin Herbert, Deshaun Watson), the idea that a roster can be so “plug and play” that any competent QB can take a team to a Super Bowl relies on way more things going right than simply nailing the QB

the 49ers have a hall of fame LT who they acquired for pennies on the dollar, a top 3 TE they found in the 5th round, an elite RB they fleeced Carolina for in a trade, high end and (still for now) cheap receivers they managed to hit on above the expected success rate, and a defense built up over 6 years including the 2nd overall pick, multiple mid 1st rounders and several late round studs.

If Purdy is truly a fungible easy to replace part, the 49ers better win soon because replacing their talent is going to need a ton of luck. There’s a reason the Schneider/Carroll Seahawks have won one playoff game in the last decade. Their success was built on a lucky or at least non-replicable run of finding building block talent in unlikely places.
49ers also have an incredible offensive mastermind as their head coach who is known for schemes that are very favorable to the QB.

It’s almost impossible to copy what the 49ers are doing and I hope the Patriots don’t try it
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,466
around the way
49ers also have an incredible offensive mastermind as their head coach who is known for schemes that are very favorable to the QB.

It’s almost impossible to copy what the 49ers are doing and I hope the Patriots don’t try it
While I agree that trying to duplicate the 49ers system would be a hard thing to do overall, I do think that it is important to remember that it is evidence that there a multiple ways to skin a cat. If you have great offensive talent at basically every position, your QB doesn't need to be the love child of Tom Brady and Joe Montana. And if you have the world's best QB, you can still suck if the rest of the offense is hot garbage.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,404
While I agree that trying to duplicate the 49ers system would be a hard thing to do overall, I do think that it is important to remember that it is evidence that there a multiple ways to skin a cat. If you have great offensive talent at basically every position, your QB doesn't need to be the love child of Tom Brady and Joe Montana. And if you have the world's best QB, you can still suck if the rest of the offense is hot garbage.
Absolutely.

My point was more I hope that the Patriots don’t go into the draft with the mindset of “We definitely don’t need a QB in the 1st round because they have high bust rates. We need to wait to take one in the later rounds”

Ultimately, my preference would be to take a QB because top 3 picks are rare occurrences and it’s a chance to really get a difference maker at the position. But you also have to trust the scouts and the work they put in, so if they don’t like Daniels/Maye then you pivot to someone they do like more
On their board
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,466
around the way
Absolutely.

My point was more I hope that the Patriots don’t go into the draft with the mindset of “We definitely don’t need a QB in the 1st round because they have high bust rates. We need to wait to take one in the later rounds”

Ultimately, my preference would be to take a QB because top 3 picks are rare occurrences and it’s a chance to really get a difference maker at the position. But you also have to trust the scouts and the work they put in, so if they don’t like Daniels/Maye then you pivot to someone they do like more
On their board
Agreed completely. I don't think that the Pats think anything of that sort. And while I get the whole mindset of "why draft a rookie QB high who's going to get killed next year on this offense", it's misplaced. You draft the QB, you shore up the OL. That's it. Better QB and someone to protect his ass. Even if he's throwing to this WR/TE group or something similar, the offense is better. They pick high in every round and have cap space up the wazoo.

If folks want to say rosaries over whether the Williams/Maye/Daniels pick is going to be the next dude, have at it. But like with Powerball, you can't win if you don't play.
 

kartvelo

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2003
10,474
At home
Re: not going QB at #3:
I think the conversations here have me leaning toward taking Maye at #3 if available, but the past success of the combo of van Pelt and Brissett makes me wonder about the possibility of signing Brissett as the presumptive starter, taking MHJ at #3 (assuming he's available), horse trading picks to get McCarthy, and loading up at OL wherever possible otherwise.

It's a lot of moving pieces, but if everything fell into place you *might* end up with a good QB/OC duo, a stud WR, and a rookie QB with a lot of upside who can afford to take his time developing - along with whatever else you find for OL/TE/etc. Of course, if one of those moving pieces doesn't go the way you want (Edit: or your OL choices flame out because you started picking them too late in the draft), the whole scheme starts to fall apart, so...
 
Last edited:

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,326
Re: not going QB at #3:
I think the conversations here have me leaning toward taking Maye at #3 if available, but the past success of the combo of van Pelt and Brissett makes me wonder about the possibility of signing Brissett as the presumptive starter, taking MHJ at #3 (assuming he's available), horse trading picks to get McCarthy, and loading up at OL wherever possible otherwise.

It's a lot of moving pieces, but if everything fell into place you *might* end up with a good QB/OC duo, a stud WR, and a rookie QB with a lot of upside who can afford to take his time developing - along with whatever else you find for OL/TE/etc. Of course, if one of those moving pieces doesn't go the way you want, the whole scheme starts to fall apart, so...
I think it's a 99% chance Brissett ends up here regardless if he's willing to. He's the #1 choice in my mind to come here either as a bridge starter for the first 1-10 weeks or as a backup and someone who knows Van Pelt. He may have other options he prefers but I'd fire Mac Jones into the sun and make Zappe the 3rd QB in a second for Brissett.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,563
Re: not going QB at #3:
I think the conversations here have me leaning toward taking Maye at #3 if available, but the past success of the combo of van Pelt and Brissett makes me wonder about the possibility of signing Brissett as the presumptive starter, taking MHJ at #3 (assuming he's available), horse trading picks to get McCarthy, and loading up at OL wherever possible otherwise.

It's a lot of moving pieces, but if everything fell into place you *might* end up with a good QB/OC duo, a stud WR, and a rookie QB with a lot of upside who can afford to take his time developing - along with whatever else you find for OL/TE/etc. Of course, if one of those moving pieces doesn't go the way you want (Edit: or your OL choices flame out because you started picking them too late in the draft), the whole scheme starts to fall apart, so...
I mean, the past success of Brissett and AVP was good for a backup.... they were still not a good team, and certainly not something you build a rebuilding team around. You don't pass on a potential franchise QB on a rookie deal for a journeyman fringe guy in his 30s.

Jacoby Brissett may well be here next year, but that won't have any impact on the QB at 3 decision.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,834
Here
Dear Bob,

Can we not?
Head coach Jerod Mayo began reaching out to candidates shortly after he was hired. It seems likely a new voice will be added to the personnel department, but that role or title is still anyone’s guess.

In-house candidates Eliot Wolf and Matt Groh have also been under consideration. If it’s Wolf running the show, expect the Patriots to give a long, hard look at drafting a left tackle with the No. 3 pick.
https://theathletic.com/5247768/2024/02/03/nfl-draft-senior-bowl-quarterbacks-baker-mayfield-patriots/
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,576
They need a franchise left tackle in the worst way.

They need a franchise QB in a much, much worse way.

And they'll have a highly regarded, top-tier QB prospect available to them at #3.

Don't get cute, Pats.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,142
What's ironic is that the link that is referenced with the phrase "No. 3 pick" brings us to this article:

https://theathletic.com/5245155/2024/02/02/patriots-nfl-draft-senior-bowl/

But the Patriots were already seriously considering drafting a quarterback at No. 3. New coach Jerod Mayo recognizes the advantage of having a quarterback on a rookie contract. And little that occurred in Mobile suggested the Patriots should wait on a quarterback, bypassing Maye or Daniels.
I wonder if there was an editing issue; if the Pats end up taking a tackle as their first pick, it means they almost certainly traded down from #3.

They need a franchise left tackle in the worst way.

They need a franchise QB in a much, much worse way.

And they'll have a highly regarded, top-tier QB prospect available to them at #3.

Don't get cute, Pats.
Agreed.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,317
Hingham, MA
I don't see a LT at #3 if Williams and Maye go 1-2 as "cute". If they don't think Daniels is a legit top-10 capable NFL QB, I am fine with them going in a different direction - so long as they prove to be correct. If they pass on Daniels and he becomes a star, that will hurt.
 

NDame616

will bailey
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,334
At some point we need to look at the "sources" and articles written as just pre draft posturing from teams throwing anything at the media.

I fully expect a national guy to write a "man the Patriots REALLY love Brock Bowers and are strongly considering taking him at 3" article
 
Oct 12, 2023
656
They need a franchise left tackle in the worst way.

They need a franchise QB in a much, much worse way.

And they'll have a highly regarded, top-tier QB prospect available to them at #3.

Don't get cute, Pats.
Wholeheartedly agree with this with one caveat.

I would disagree with the idea they need a “franchise” LT (i.e. a top 3-5 LT in the game). They need a reliable and competent LT absolutely. But it’s a lot easier to win with a “solid starter” tackle than it is to win with a “solid starter” QB

If they could get a Nate Solder quality guy, I’d be happy with it and I think the late 1st (with a small trade up) or early 2nd should yield some of those. They don’t need Joe Thomas, Walter Jones or Trent Williams (who cumulatively have 0 Super Bowl wins, though Williams might finally get one).

It might seem like a matter of semantics but IMO it’s not. Joe Alt could be the second coming of Anthony Munoz, Willie Roaf, Jonathan Ogden or Orlando Pace and it’s not going to dramatically improve the offense unless they also find a high end QB. A premium tackle will help an elite QB achieve his upside but he isn’t going to compensate for a mediocrity at QB.

Andrew Thomas is a good recent example. A home run of a high 1st round pick at tackle and has lived up to his draft hype. Hasn’t transformed the Giants offense when paired with Daniel Jones.
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,314
They need a franchise left tackle in the worst way.

They need a franchise QB in a much, much worse way.

And they'll have a highly regarded, top-tier QB prospect available to them at #3.

Don't get cute, Pats.
Counter argument: likelihood of hitting on the OT pick is higher
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,714
They need a franchise left tackle in the worst way.

They need a franchise QB in a much, much worse way.

And they'll have a highly regarded, top-tier QB prospect available to them at #3.

Don't get cute, Pats.
I tend to agree. We can’t really say Daniels is not worth the #3 pick since it is almost a certainty that someone is taking him at 3 or 4.

One could say there are teams that would certainly value MHJ or OT+pick for their particular circumstance, but it’s hard for me to see the Pats as one of those teams.

If they decide that QB3 is not worth the pick, again, some other team is going to decide he absolutely is. And who is it in the Patriot organization that I’m trusting with that opinion over the opinion of whoever is making the pick for the team that takes him? What track record do they have evaluating QBs coming out of college?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,317
Hingham, MA
I tend to agree. We can’t really say Daniels is not worth the #3 pick since it is almost a certainty that someone is taking him at 3 or 4.

One could say there are teams that would certainly value MHJ or OT+pick for their particular circumstance, but it’s hard for me to see the Pats as one of those teams.

If they decide that QB3 is not worth the pick, again, some other team is going to decide he absolutely is. And who is it in the Patriot organization that I’m trusting with that opinion over the opinion of whoever is making the pick for the team that takes him? What track record do they have evaluating QBs coming out of college?
Impossible to know, but both Groh and Wolf were with the team in 2021, the last time they would have been scouting 1st round QBs. So, they know what their evaluations were of all 5 guys, and whether or not those evaluations proved correct.
 

PRabbit

New Member
Apr 3, 2022
116
Trade down if your scouting/interviews doesn't have glowing reports on Daniels or Maye, get whatever WR kid you like best in the teens or 20s, use the 34 and other draft capital to get McCarthy. BPA the rest of the draft with a preference to OL help.

Get a veteran QB and have McCarthy hold a clipboard for year 1, restock at OL and CB (it's not a given that Gonzalez comes back 100%, and is anyone really good with the depth behind him if he is?).
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,314
Is there any reason to worry about a CB coming back from a shoulder injury? Can’t imagine it having any impact on Gonzalez going forward.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,563
Counter argument: likelihood of hitting on the OT pick is higher
Sure, but hitting on the QB at 3 in what is generally seen as one of if not the best top 3 QB drafts this decade is higher likelihood than any other reasonable path to a franchise QB
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,576
This is game theory, right? I'll make up some numbers just to illustrate.

% chance of hitting a home run with the pick:
#3 pick as QB: 30%
#3 pick as LT: 60%

% of chance - all other things being equal - of being a SB contender with the following "franchise players":
true franchise QB: 40%
true franchise LT: 20%

I don't know if these numbers are close to correct, but it's just the idea. The #3 pick being a LT has a pretty high likelihood of working out very well. Not a ton of misses with high first round tackles. Much higher chance of success than with a #3 pick being a QB.

Yet on the other hand, the likelihood of being a SB contender with a franchise QB in place is much higher than with a franchise LT, all other things being equal.

So it's risk/reward of each choice.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,473
Counter argument: likelihood of hitting on the OT pick is higher
My counter counter argument is that OT is mostly safer not necessarily because the guys are more likely to be great tackles but because there are more paths to success and even if they are mediocre or slightly worse it doesn’t tank a team. You can try guys at RT or kick them inside, etc. Notorious bust Robert Gallery played 8 years, etc. It’s a bigger target so missing the bullseye hurts less.

For me that higher floor and higher chance of getting a serviceable NFL player isn’t enough and puts a lot of pressure on finding alternative means of getting a good QB (if people want to trade for Fields for example I’m not sure why you wouldn’t just draft Daniels).
 

Justthetippett

New Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,421
Sure, but hitting on the QB at 3 in what is generally seen as one of if not the best top 3 QB drafts this decade is higher likelihood than any other reasonable path to a franchise QB
What is the chance each of these guys is better than Fields? Or Mayfield? Has to be considered too (along with the costs). If they go OT, then their QB plan just better be a good one.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,563
This is game theory, right? I'll make up some numbers just to illustrate.

% chance of hitting a home run with the pick:
#3 pick as QB: 30%
#3 pick as LT: 60%

% of chance - all other things being equal - of being a SB contender with the following "franchise players":
true franchise QB: 40%
true franchise LT: 20%

I don't know if these numbers are close to correct, but it's just the idea. The #3 pick being a LT has a pretty high likelihood of working out very well. Not a ton of misses with high first round tackles. Much higher chance of success than with a #3 pick being a QB.

Yet on the other hand, the likelihood of being a SB contender with a franchise QB in place is much higher than with a franchise LT, all other things being equal.

So it's risk/reward of each choice.
Beyond the made up nunbers the problem is that you are saying likelihood you win a SB which isn't really what you sh measure. It's likelihood of that one player turning a non title contender into a contender. And the amount for the OT is zero. Many of the best tackles of all time played large chunks of their careers on teams that couldn't sniff the playoffs nevermind a SB (see Joe Thomas). Having a franchise QB changes the floor and ceiling of a team in a way no other position does.

Edit- the only analysis they need to do is... How likely do I think it is this is a franchise QB? Above my acceptable amount draft him.. Below... Well we're probably screwed
 

Bowser

New Member
Sep 27, 2019
406
There's a lot of talk in this thread about drafting a "top 3 QB" and how it's more likely to give us the best chance of landing a franchise QB. We use this phrase as if it describes something meaningful. It doesn't. It's, like, a statistical abstraction that doesn't actually tell us anything about Daniels or Maye, or whether Daniels > Alt ... or Bowers + McCarthy in a trade down scenario.

Yeah, I get we do this because most of us watch a QB's highlight reel and have no clue what we're looking at (I certainly don't) and yet we have to post something. And so we get excited about drafting a TOP 3 QB (TM). But basing an argument for drafting Daniels on this fact seems like a super low resolution way of going about it.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,576
Beyond the made up nunbers the problem is that you are saying likelihood you win a SB which isn't really what you sh measure. It's likelihood of that one player turning a non title contender into a contender. And the amount for the OT is zero. Many of the best tackles of all time played large chunks of their careers on teams that couldn't sniff the playoffs nevermind a SB (see Joe Thomas). Having a franchise QB changes the floor and ceiling of a team in a way no other position does.

Edit- the only analysis they need to do is... How likely do I think it is this is a franchise QB? Above my acceptable amount draft him.. Below... Well we're probably screwed
I said SB contender, not “win a SB”. Might not seem like a difference to you, but in my mind every year there’s like 6-8 contenders and obviously only one team wins it all.
 
Oct 12, 2023
656
There's a lot of talk in this thread about drafting a "top 3 QB" and how it's more likely to give us the best chance of landing a franchise QB. We use this phrase as if it describes something meaningful. It doesn't. It's, like, a statistical abstraction that doesn't actually tell us anything about Daniels or Maye, or whether Daniels > Alt ... or Bowers + McCarthy in a trade down scenario.

Yeah, I get we do this because most of us watch a QB's highlight reel and have no clue what we're looking at (I certainly don't) and yet we have to post something. And so we get excited about drafting a TOP 3 QB (TM). But basing an argument for drafting Daniels on this fact seems like a super low resolution way of going about it.
I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. “top 3” QB in the context of this draft is really just used to signify “one of 3 guys that the draft community believes are true premium prospects at the position”
This is game theory, right? I'll make up some numbers just to illustrate.

% chance of hitting a home run with the pick:
#3 pick as QB: 30%
#3 pick as LT: 60%

% of chance - all other things being equal - of being a SB contender with the following "franchise players":
true franchise QB: 40%
true franchise LT: 20%

I don't know if these numbers are close to correct, but it's just the idea. The #3 pick being a LT has a pretty high likelihood of working out very well. Not a ton of misses with high first round tackles. Much higher chance of success than with a #3 pick being a QB.

Yet on the other hand, the likelihood of being a SB contender with a franchise QB in place is much higher than with a franchise LT, all other things being equal.

So it's risk/reward of each choice.
not a ton of misses with high tackles? maybe not complete out of the league whiffs but misses in terms of “top 10-12 pick turned mediocre or non impact player”? How many of these guys ended up being worth their draft slot:

Paris Johnson - undecided but rocky first year
Darnell Wright - undecided
Ikem Okonwu - trending towards no
Evan Neal - definitely not
Charles Cross - decent but probably not elite
Penei Sewell - yes
Andrew Thomas - yes
Jedrick Wills - decent but not elite
Mekhi Becton - no
Jonah Williams - no
Mike McGlinchy - no
Ronnie Stanley - borderline yes. One all pro but lots of injuries, took a while to break out
Jack Conklin - no
Laremy Tunsil - yes
Brandon Scherff - no, converted to guard
Ereck Flowers - no
Andrus Peat - no
Greg Robinson - no
Jake Matthews - good but not elite, let’s say yes
Taylor Lewan - maybe, good peak but not consistently a high end player
Eric Fisher - no
Luke Joeckel - no
Lane Johnson - yes
DJ Fluker - no

I don’t know where the idea that high drafted tackles don’t bust comes from. Of the above list, the majority are not/were not franchise players. Lewan has a few years of excellence. Fisher was ok but certainly not elite. A few are studs. A few are quality players. A lot were/are terrible.

Over the same period, here’s the QBs drafted high

Blake Bortles - no
Jameis Winston - no
Marcus Mariota - no
Jared Goff - yes (good QB and netted Stafford)
Carson Wentz - no
Mitch Trubisky - no
Patrick Mahomes - yes
DeShaun Watson - until off field issues yes, the trade value makes him a yes regardless
Baker Mayfield - probably not
Sam Darnold - no
Josh Allen - yes
Josh Rosen - no
Kyler Murray - yes? Could go either way
Daniel Jones - most likely not
Joe Burrow - yes
Tua Tagovailoa - Yes
Justin Herbert - yes
Trevor Lawrence - yes(?)
Zach Wilson - no
Trey Lance - no
Justin Fields - probably not
Bryce Young - undecided
CJ Stroud - yes
Anthony Richardson - undecided

I don’t see a “much” better “hit” result with tackles. And with only a few exceptions, the “hits” for tackles aren’t guys who are consistent all pros or future hall of famers. The floor for tackles might be higher but the notion that early round tackles usually turn out to be impact players or “good” picks (as in reasonably close to their draft slot value) is just not true.

Edit - also worth noting that the two best tackels drafted highly (Sewell and Johnson) are right tackles. They’re fantastic players but RT is an inherently less valuable “hit” than at LT.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,576
I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. “top 3” QB in the context of this draft is really just used to signify “one of 3 guys that the draft community believes are true premium prospects at the position”


not a ton of misses with high tackles? maybe not complete out of the league whiffs but misses in terms of “top 10-12 pick turned mediocre or non impact player”? How many of these guys ended up being worth their draft slot:

Paris Johnson - undecided but rocky first year
Darnell Wright - undecided
Ikem Okonwu - trending towards no
Evan Neal - definitely not
Charles Cross - decent but probably not elite
Penei Sewell - yes
Andrew Thomas - yes
Jedrick Wills - decent but not elite
Mekhi Becton - no
Jonah Williams - no
Mike McGlinchy - no
Ronnie Stanley - borderline yes
Jack Conklin - no
Laremy Tunsil - yes
Brandon Scherff - no, converted to guard
Ereck Flowers - no
Andrus Peat - no
Greg Robinson - no
Jake Matthews - good but not elite, let’s say yes
Taylor Lewan - maybe
Eric Fisher - no
Luke Joeckel - no
Lane Johnson - yes
DJ Fluker - no

I don’t know where the idea that high drafted tackles don’t bust comes from. Of the above list, the majority are not/were not franchise players. Lewan has a few years of excellence. Fisher was ok but certainly not elite. A few are studs. A few are quality players. A lot were/are terrible.

Over the same period, here’s the QBs drafted high

Blake Bortles - no
Jameis Winston - no
Marcus Mariota - no
Jared Goff - yes (good QB and netted Stafford)
Carson Wentz - no
Mitch Trubisky - no
Patrick Mahomes - yes
DeShaun Watson - until off field issues yes, the trade value makes him a yes regardless
Baker Mayfield - probably not
Sam Darnold - no
Josh Allen - yes
Josh Rosen - no
Kyler Murray - yes? Could go either way
Daniel Jones - most likely not
Joe Burrow - yes
Tua Tagovailoa - Yes
Justin Herbert - yes
Trevor Lawrence - yes(?)
Zach Wilson - no
Trey Lance - no
Justin Fields - probably not
Bryce Young - undecided
CJ Stroud - yes
Anthony Richardson - undecided

I don’t see a better “hit” result with tackles. And with only a few exceptions, the “hits” for tackles aren’t guys who are consistent all pros or future hall of famers. The floor for tackles might be higher but the notion that early round tackles usually turn out to be impact players or “good” picks (as in reasonably close to their draft slot value) is just not true.

Edit - also worth noting that the two best tackels drafted highly (Sewell and Johnson) are right tackles. They’re fantastic players but RT is an inherently less valuable “hit” than at LT.
Good post. Thanks for the research.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
701
I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. “top 3” QB in the context of this draft is really just used to signify “one of 3 guys that the draft community believes are true premium prospects at the position”


not a ton of misses with high tackles? maybe not complete out of the league whiffs but misses in terms of “top 10-12 pick turned mediocre or non impact player”? How many of these guys ended up being worth their draft slot:

Paris Johnson - undecided but rocky first year
Darnell Wright - undecided
Ikem Okonwu - trending towards no
Evan Neal - definitely not
Charles Cross - decent but probably not elite
Penei Sewell - yes
Andrew Thomas - yes
Jedrick Wills - decent but not elite
Mekhi Becton - no
Jonah Williams - no
Mike McGlinchy - no
Ronnie Stanley - borderline yes. One all pro but lots of injuries, took a while to break out
Jack Conklin - no
Laremy Tunsil - yes
Brandon Scherff - no, converted to guard
Ereck Flowers - no
Andrus Peat - no
Greg Robinson - no
Jake Matthews - good but not elite, let’s say yes
Taylor Lewan - maybe, good peak but not consistently a high end player
Eric Fisher - no
Luke Joeckel - no
Lane Johnson - yes
DJ Fluker - no

I don’t know where the idea that high drafted tackles don’t bust comes from. Of the above list, the majority are not/were not franchise players. Lewan has a few years of excellence. Fisher was ok but certainly not elite. A few are studs. A few are quality players. A lot were/are terrible.

Over the same period, here’s the QBs drafted high

Blake Bortles - no
Jameis Winston - no
Marcus Mariota - no
Jared Goff - yes (good QB and netted Stafford)
Carson Wentz - no
Mitch Trubisky - no
Patrick Mahomes - yes
DeShaun Watson - until off field issues yes, the trade value makes him a yes regardless
Baker Mayfield - probably not
Sam Darnold - no
Josh Allen - yes
Josh Rosen - no
Kyler Murray - yes? Could go either way
Daniel Jones - most likely not
Joe Burrow - yes
Tua Tagovailoa - Yes
Justin Herbert - yes
Trevor Lawrence - yes(?)
Zach Wilson - no
Trey Lance - no
Justin Fields - probably not
Bryce Young - undecided
CJ Stroud - yes
Anthony Richardson - undecided

I don’t see a “much” better “hit” result with tackles. And with only a few exceptions, the “hits” for tackles aren’t guys who are consistent all pros or future hall of famers. The floor for tackles might be higher but the notion that early round tackles usually turn out to be impact players or “good” picks (as in reasonably close to their draft slot value) is just not true.

Edit - also worth noting that the two best tackels drafted highly (Sewell and Johnson) are right tackles. They’re fantastic players but RT is an inherently less valuable “hit” than at LT.
Even if the hit rate for tackles were actually much higher, the answer to who the Pats should draft remains the same for me.

The goal is not to make the safest pick. The goal is to build a contender. Taking a tackle at 3 in this draft is malpractice.

I start from these fundamental "truths":
1. A top 10ish QB on a rookie deal is the most valuable roster building tool a team can possess.
2. Top 10ish QB's are much much more likely to be found in the first round, particularly at the top of the first round, then in the later rounds.
3. You are more likely to find a very good pass catcher or lineman outside of the top of the first round, then you are to find a very good QB outside of the top of the first round.
4. A top 3 pick requires both an awful football and fair of luck (good or bad depends on your perspective).

This draft has 3 QB's who most draft gurus grade as worthy of a top five pick. Most drafts do not have have multiple QB's deemed worthy of a top 5 pick. I lack the time, knowledge and aptitude to do sufficient film study to come to my own conclusions on any of those QBs. Presumably the same can not be said for the Pats.

Given the above, the only relevant question is: Are the Pat "down" on whomever ends up being QB 3? If No, pick QB 3. If Yes, trade down because: a) there will be another team who needs a QB and sees it differently (ATL?) and b) see truth No. 3 above. However great a prospect Mr. Harrison may be, the gap between him and WR2 and WR3 or Tackles 1 and 2 does not justify staying at 3 given the many other holes on the roster. For a QB stay put, otherwise trade down a few spots and take BPA.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,418
deep inside Guido territory
Keep it simple, guys. Pick Maye or Williams if one of them slides to 3.....if not go with Marvin Harrison Jr. Daniels is not a scheme fit for what the Patriots want to do on offense under Van Pelt. I don't think anybody else is going to value him high enough to trade a bunch of assets to get the 3 pick. One of the top 2 QBs or Harrison fills a clear need. Harrison is a prospect that you will regret passing on in the years to come because he's the type of receiver every team is looking to get on their team.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,201
Keep it simple, guys. Pick Maye or Williams if one of them slides to 3.....if not go with Marvin Harrison Jr. Daniels is not a scheme fit for what the Patriots want to do on offense under Van Pelt. I don't think anybody else is going to value him high enough to trade a bunch of assets to get the 3 pick. One of the top 2 QBs or Harrison fills a clear need. Harrison is a prospect that you will regret passing on in the years to come because he's the type of receiver every team is looking to get on their team.
Harrison’s NFL.com draft profile comp is CeeDee Lamb. Not really sure I see the comparison but, yeah, I’d be good with that.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,398
NH
Keep it simple, guys. Pick Maye or Williams if one of them slides to 3.....if not go with Marvin Harrison Jr. Daniels is not a scheme fit for what the Patriots want to do on offense under Van Pelt. I don't think anybody else is going to value him high enough to trade a bunch of assets to get the 3 pick. One of the top 2 QBs or Harrison fills a clear need. Harrison is a prospect that you will regret passing on in the years to come because he's the type of receiver every team is looking to get on their team.
This is where I'm at. Williams and Maye are the ones to target. If not, then MHJ is the next sure thing. I think we can reasonably target McCarthy and trade up if he looks to go bottom of the first. Then draft olineman. Just a bunch of them.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,563
Keep it simple, guys. Pick Maye or Williams if one of them slides to 3.....if not go with Marvin Harrison Jr. Daniels is not a scheme fit for what the Patriots want to do on offense under Van Pelt. I don't think anybody else is going to value him high enough to trade a bunch of assets to get the 3 pick. One of the top 2 QBs or Harrison fills a clear need. Harrison is a prospect that you will regret passing on in the years to come because he's the type of receiver every team is looking to get on their team.
I don't agree he isn't a scheme fit, AVP has a lot of flexibilty, but basically what he ran in CLE for Brissett with maybe a few more designed runs is almost ideal for Daniels to me.

I also think someone will trade up if we want to move down, and anything to me is worth moving down. I see MHJ at 3 as a bad pick even if he hits his ceiling quickly, absolute best case scenario he's Megatron and you still stink until you get the QB. I honestly think an OT would be a bigger deal. We've seen pretty consistently in recent years that QB play is dominant, but O-line play is the next most important thing. Teams don't make the playoffs with bad pass blocking ratings, basically every year if a team massively underperforms the previous year, it's either a QB injury or the line.
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,201
I don't agree he isn't a scheme fit, AVP has a lot of flexibilty, but basically what he ran in CLE for Brissett with maybe a few more designed runs is almost ideal for Daniels to me.

I also think someone will trade up if we want to move down, and anything to me is worth moving down. I see MHJ at 3 as a bad pick even if he hits his ceiling quickly.
If a star receiver hits his ceiling quickly, I don’t see how it could be a bad pick unless you think his ceiling isn’t that high. I get the value play of trading down but I’d have zero regrets with a MHJ pick if he turned out to be as good as his talent suggests. Only real regret would be Daniels CJ Stroud’ing. And I’d only take MHJ over Daniels if I were very confident in that not happening.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,563
If a star receiver hits his ceiling quickly, I don’t see how it could be a bad pick unless you think his ceiling isn’t that high. I get the value play of trading down but I’d have zero regrets with a MHJ pick if he turned out to be as good as his talent suggests. Only real regret would be Daniels CJ Stroud’ing. And I’d only take MHJ over Daniels if I were very confident in that not happening.
Megatron is the obvious example, he was really good, pretty quickly, the Lions stunk. WRs are nice finishing pieces, but they aren't foundational pieces, their primes tend to be short, and they can be really good without impacting winning, QB and O-line are just far more key to sustained success. I would not draft a WR at 3 because I can move down and get a WR who has a strong chance of being just as good, or an OT which is probably more valuable. History has also shown I can get a really good WR at 34... he might end up close to or as good as MHJ.
A nice recent example.... Jamar Chase is the highest drafted WR in some time. Which would you rather have:
1. Jamar Chase
or
2. Penei Sewell and another pick?

I'd take Sewell 10 out of 10 times and that was a shallow WR draft.

And that doesn't even take into account that he could end up the last top 5 WR before that... Corey Davis. Nice player for his short peak, but no impact on winning.
 
Last edited:

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,418
deep inside Guido territory
Megatron is the obvious example, he was really good, pretty quickly, the Lions stunk. WRs are nice finishing pieces, but they aren't foundational pieces, their primes tend to be short, and they can be really good without impacting winning, QB and O-line are just far more key to sustained success.
A tackle like Jordan Morgan or Patrick Paul can be had either by trading back into the late 1st or at 34. I also think they'll address OL in free agency whether that is re-signing Onwenu or someone from outside the organization. I really believe an interior of Strange-Andrews-Sow is good enough and if you bring back Onwenu and a rookie in I think that's a decent OL. As far as QB if one of the top 2 guys doesn't fall to them at 3 I'm just not forcing a pick because of the need. I'm banking on them signing a veteran QB in the FA market that has the ability to start if need be. It may who you mentioned in Jacoby Brissett. If no Maye or Williams, I'm ok with punting on the position in the top couple of rounds. Bring in a developmental guy who is a system fit and continue to upgrade in other areas of the offense. Upgrading the pass catching unit is an absolute must and shouldn't stop in the draft after a potential Harrison pick. They were a historically bad unit and I'm not sure many people realize just how bad they were.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,563
A tackle like Jordan Morgan or Patrick Paul can be had either by trading back into the late 1st or at 34. I also think they'll address OL in free agency whether that is re-signing Onwenu or someone from outside the organization. I really believe an interior of Strange-Andrews-Sow is good enough and if you bring back Onwenu and a rookie in I think that's a decent OL. As far as QB if one of the top 2 guys doesn't fall to them at 3 I'm just not forcing a pick because of the need. I'm banking on them signing a veteran QB in the FA market that has the ability to start if need be. It may who you mentioned in Jacoby Brissett. If no Maye or Williams, I'm ok with punting on the position in the top couple of rounds. Bring in a developmental guy who is a system fit and continue to upgrade in other areas of the offense. Upgrading the pass catching unit is an absolute must and shouldn't stop in the draft after a potential Harrison pick. They were a historically bad unit and I'm not sure many people realize just how bad they were.
I don't see how any of this is an argument for MHJ at #3. These may be arguments for how to upgrade the team if you think the QB can't be a top 10 starter in the league... but it still doesn't make the case for MHJ. If you really don't believe in QB 3 you should trade down, because MHJ just seems highly unlikely to bring significantly more value to a team basically building the offense from scratch than any of the other top 9 or so offensive players (Alt, Odunze, Nabers, Fashanu, Bowers, etc.) and other draft assets.

I look at past trades:
2023- the #3 pick (plus 105) netted 12, 33, future 1st and future 3rd. So taking that this year, I would much rather have say... the 3rd Tackle (Fuaga, LAtham), and someone at 33 (Paul, Morgan, McConkey, Franklin etc.) plus a future 1st? Also, in 2023, they traded back up from 12 to 6, so you could still get a top 2 tackle or Nabers/Rome, and still hold the future 1st a
2021- the #3 pick fetched... 12, two future 1sts and a 3rd. The team then traded back up to 6.... keeping one fo the future 1sts.
2018- the #3 pick got... 6, 37, 49 and a future 2nd. So that means, someone from the Alt/Nabers/Odunze (or Fashanu or Bowers if you like) group, someone from the Paul, Morgan, Suamataia, McConkey group, someone from the Wilson, Polk, Sanders group, and a future 1. And that assumes you don't go other positions given your extra picks, could grab a sliding defensive player like Trice, Robinson or a corner, maybe Powers-Johnson who everyone agrees is a stud but may fall on positional value, etc. etc.

The value of #3 if you don't want a QB is just way too high to use on a WR, particularly in a class with so many WRs who project well, and some real potential stud tackles.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,201
Megatron is the obvious example, he was really good, pretty quickly, the Lions stunk. WRs are nice finishing pieces, but they aren't foundational pieces, their primes tend to be short, and they can be really good without impacting winning, QB and O-line are just far more key to sustained success. I would not draft a WR at 3 because I can move down and get a WR who has a strong chance of being just as good, or an OT which is probably more valuable. History has also shown I can get a really good WR at 34... he might end up close to or as good as MHJ.
A nice recent example.... Jamar Chase is the highest drafted WR in some time. Which would you rather have:
1. Jamar Chase
or
2. Penei Sewell and another pick?

I'd take Sewell 10 out of 10 times and that was a shallow WR draft.

And that doesn't even take into account that he could end up the last top 5 WR before that... Corey Davis. Nice player for his short peak, but no impact on winning.
I like both Nabers and Odunze basically as much as MHJ so I’m not necessarily against a trade down for either guy while also picking up a 2 or 2+3.

The next group has other intriguing guys as well. Keon Coleman, Brian Thomas, Troy Franklin. Adonai Mitchell has a lot of raw talent but hasn’t put it all together.

So, I get what you’re saying. To me, it’s going to come down to Jayden Daniels or a likely trade down situation for multiple picks.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
73,017
Megatron is the obvious example, he was really good, pretty quickly, the Lions stunk. WRs are nice finishing pieces, but they aren't foundational pieces, their primes tend to be short, and they can be really good without impacting winning, QB and O-line are just far more key to sustained success. I would not draft a WR at 3 because I can move down and get a WR who has a strong chance of being just as good, or an OT which is probably more valuable. History has also shown I can get a really good WR at 34... he might end up close to or as good as MHJ.
A nice recent example.... Jamar Chase is the highest drafted WR in some time. Which would you rather have:
1. Jamar Chase
or
2. Penei Sewell and another pick?

I'd take Sewell 10 out of 10 times and that was a shallow WR draft.

And that doesn't even take into account that he could end up the last top 5 WR before that... Corey Davis. Nice player for his short peak, but no impact on winning.
Very true

Hall of fame WR's and where they were picked:

Rice, #16
Moss, #21
Alworth, #8-NFL,(AFL Round 2)
Berry #232
Biletnikoff #39
Tim Brown #6
I. Bruce #33
Carmichael #161
Cris Carter, Supp Rd. 4
Fears #103
MHS, #19
Hayes #88 (AFL #105)
Irvin #11
Megatron #2
Joiner #93
Largent #117
Lavelli #103
Lofton #6
Maynard #109
McDonald #31
Monk #18
Owens #89
Pearson UDFA
Pihos #41
A. Reed #86
Stallworth #82
Swann #21
Warfield #11

So we have 1 top-5 pick HOF WR (who retired early) (Although trade down to 6-11 for Odunze may make sense)
Sweet spots seem to be picks #16-21, and #80-117
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,547
Keep it simple, guys. Pick Maye or Williams if one of them slides to 3.....if not go with Marvin Harrison Jr. Daniels is not a scheme fit for what the Patriots want to do on offense under Van Pelt. I don't think anybody else is going to value him high enough to trade a bunch of assets to get the 3 pick. One of the top 2 QBs or Harrison fills a clear need. Harrison is a prospect that you will regret passing on in the years to come because he's the type of receiver every team is looking to get on their team.
I agree with keeping it simple, guys.

But simple, is taking a QB.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,418
deep inside Guido territory
I don't see how any of this is an argument for MHJ at #3. These may be arguments for how to upgrade the team if you think the QB can't be a top 10 starter in the league... but it still doesn't make the case for MHJ. If you really don't believe in QB 3 you should trade down, because MHJ just seems highly unlikely to bring significantly more value to a team basically building the offense from scratch than any of the other top 9 or so offensive players (Alt, Odunze, Nabers, Fashanu, Bowers, etc.) and other draft assets.

I look at past trades:
2023- the #3 pick (plus 105) netted 12, 33, future 1st and future 3rd. So taking that this year, I would much rather have say... the 3rd Tackle (Fuaga, LAtham), and someone at 33 (Paul, Morgan, McConkey, Franklin etc.) plus a future 1st? Also, in 2023, they traded back up from 12 to 6, so you could still get a top 2 tackle or Nabers/Rome, and still hold the future 1st a
2021- the #3 pick fetched... 12, two future 1sts and a 3rd. The team then traded back up to 6.... keeping one fo the future 1sts.
2018- the #3 pick got... 6, 37, 49 and a future 2nd. So that means, someone from the Alt/Nabers/Odunze (or Fashanu or Bowers if you like) group, someone from the Paul, Morgan, Suamataia, McConkey group, someone from the Wilson, Polk, Sanders group, and a future 1. And that assumes you don't go other positions given your extra picks, could grab a sliding defensive player like Trice, Robinson or a corner, maybe Powers-Johnson who everyone agrees is a stud but may fall on positional value, etc. etc.

The value of #3 if you don't want a QB is just way too high to use on a WR, particularly in a class with so many WRs who project well, and some real potential stud tackles.
I get what you're saying and the thought of extra picks is fine. But you are assuming that a trade down opportunity will present itself. Will another team that believes in Jayden Daniels enough even need trade up to #3 to get him? Arizona(I think they're sticking with Murray) and the LA Chargers don't need QB's at 4 and 5. Tennessee at 7 seems locked into Will Levis for the time being. The Jets aren't trading up for a QB. Neither are the Vikings if Kirk Cousins comes back. Denver doesn't have the assets to move up very far. That leave a few teams: NY Giants(6), Atlanta(8), and Las Vegas(13). They don't need to go up to 3 to get Daniels so where's your trade partner? Now you're hoping for a team that will trade up to 3 for Harrison or another player. We'll see what happens in free agency and what positions are addressed then priorities may change. But if no trade opportunities(or one good enough to pull the trigger on) are there if I could get the best WR available plus a tackle in the 2nd round that would be an optimal outcome.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,563
I get what you're saying and the thought of extra picks is fine. But you are assuming that a trade down opportunity will present itself. Will another team that believes in Jayden Daniels enough even need trade up to #3 to get him? Arizona(I think they're sticking with Murray) and the LA Chargers don't need QB's at 4 and 5. Tennessee at 7 seems locked into Will Levis for the time being. The Jets aren't trading up for a QB. Neither are the Vikings if Kirk Cousins comes back. Denver doesn't have the assets to move up very far. That leave a few teams: NY Giants(6), Atlanta(8), and Las Vegas(13). They don't need to go up to 3 to get Daniels so where's your trade partner? Now you're hoping for a team that will trade up to 3 for Harrison or another player. We'll see what happens in free agency and what positions are addressed then priorities may change. But if no trade opportunities(or one good enough to pull the trigger on) are there if I could get the best WR available plus a tackle in the 2nd round that would be an optimal outcome.
I think that the odds of no team wanting to trade up are very very slim. I probably would take Alt (actually I'd take Daniels) but I think it kind of makes the point that to get to MHJ as the pick you had to first have them not want the QB (possible) but then also, no other team want to trade up.... that's not how the draft usually works, it's much more often the case that teams can't get anyone in top 5 to trade the pick than that a team in the top 5 wants to move down and can't.
So sure... in the highly unlikely event that they both don't believe in Daniels AND no team in the top 10-14 picks wants to move up.... yeah I guess you can make the case for MHJ.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
701
I get what you're saying and the thought of extra picks is fine. But you are assuming that a trade down opportunity will present itself. Will another team that believes in Jayden Daniels enough even need trade up to #3 to get him? Arizona(I think they're sticking with Murray) and the LA Chargers don't need QB's at 4 and 5. Tennessee at 7 seems locked into Will Levis for the time being. The Jets aren't trading up for a QB. Neither are the Vikings if Kirk Cousins comes back. Denver doesn't have the assets to move up very far. That leave a few teams: NY Giants(6), Atlanta(8), and Las Vegas(13). They don't need to go up to 3 to get Daniels so where's your trade partner? Now you're hoping for a team that will trade up to 3 for Harrison or another player. We'll see what happens in free agency and what positions are addressed then priorities may change. But if no trade opportunities(or one good enough to pull the trigger on) are there if I could get the best WR available plus a tackle in the 2nd round that would be an optimal outcome.
You're missing the Vikings at 11, and that each of those team's decision making depends on those in front and behind them in the draft. For example, if Atlanta wants Daniels, the Falcons have to worry about the Giants taking him or the Vikes or Raiders jumping them in a trade with the Pats.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,563
You're missing the Vikings at 11, and that each of those team's decision making depends on those in front and behind them in the draft. For example, if Atlanta wants Daniels, the Falcons have to worry about the Giants taking him or the Vikes or Raiders jumping them in a trade with the Pats.
Also... that the Patriots will just take him if they can't trade down. OR of course that any of the teams between NE and them gets too good an offer to refuse from someone like New Orleans, Seattle or Pittsburgh.

Also, looking at drafts where 3 QBs went in the top 10-15 picks.....
2023- all 3 went top 4 picks (plus one edge), there was at least 1 tradeup for one of them.
2021- went 1,2,3 at least 1 tradeup
2020- no tradeups all went top 6 (plus an edge and two OTs)
2018- 3 of the top 7 (plus RB, OG, CB,Edge) 2 of the 3 were tradeups... a 4th went #10, also a tradeup
2017- the weird one, 2, 10, 12... all 3 were tradeups (also probably pushed the trend of QBs going higher and tradeups as 10 was Mahomes, 12 was Watson)
2012- 1, 2, 8 one tradeup.

Basically seems like most of the time there are more than 2 first half of the 1st type QB prospects, teams are looking to move up, and it seems to have accellerated the height of the picks since Mahomes.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,616
Melrose, MA
If they think Daniels really isn't as good as the hype, and if they feel certain Hardy, Penix, or Nix will be there in the second round, I think you just about have to take MHJ unless something crazy like Williams or Maye fall to them at 3. Or fuck it, get Wilson or Cousins and trade the 2nd for next year's 1st from a team you know is gonna suck next season and grab the QB project then. Or maybe instead of Cousins or Wilson grab Fields and see if he can be rehabilitated. Or even Lance. See if he can be fixed.

I don't think you can pass up on MHJ, if he is as good as people are saying. The whole 'he's worthless without a QB' stuff is silly because half the QBs in the league are only as good as they are because of the weapons they have; you give any QB a weapon like what they are making this kid out to be, then whoever is calling the plays will be just fine. The Pats are gonna be a defense first team anyway.
I would guess that MHJ won't be high on the priority list for the Pats. My guesses as to the priorities would be:

1. QB, if they like a guy who is there at 3. If they don't...

2. Trade down?
3. T
4. Best player available, which could be MHJ but could also be someone else at a different position

It's just really, really hard to end up with a top 3 pick. The Patriots were putrid this year, and even with that, many of us were sweating bullets down the stretch to see whether they would be able to pull it off. In general, my impression is that there is usually only 1 or 2 QBs in each draft (and sometimes none) that people think have the potential to be franchise QBs. Of course, there are occasionally others who come out of nowhere to be franchise QBs, even though they get picked in the - for example - sixth round, but counting on that would be ridiculous.

If the Patriots were to draft MHJ, and even send him out there with Mac Jones next year - honestly, my expectation is that team would likely win 5-7 games and be drafting in the 6-10 range with absolutely no hope of getting a franchise level QB. So, unless the Patriots really think that Maye and Daniels are both not really franchise potential QBs, I think they pretty much have to draft whichever one is left.
I think they will take Cortez Kennedy, or trade down for Chris SIngleton and Ray Agnew. Yikes, flashback over.

The issue is... do they like a QB who is there for them at 3? If they do I assume they will take him.

If they do not draft a QB, or draft one who they don't want to start right away, I think they will also bring in a veteran.

Here's a little game to play. Every year there are the top 5 QBs (whether they suck or not). Taking the top 5 for the last 4 years where would you place the projection of this years top 5 (Williams, Maye, Daniels,Nix and Penix) and rank the entire group
1.Young 2.Stroud 3. Richardson 4.Levis 5.Hooker 6.Pickett 7.Ridder 8.Willis 9.Corral 10.Zappe 11. Lawrence
12. Z Wilson 13. Lance 14. Fields 15. Jones. 16.Burrow 17.Tua 18.Herbert 19.Love 20.Hurts
Isn't the kid from Michigan below the top 3 but above the Nixes?

My point was more I hope that the Patriots don’t go into the draft with the mindset of “We definitely don’t need a QB in the 1st round because they have high bust rates. We need to wait to take one in the later rounds”
Yes, this would be a huge mistake.

I think it's a 99% chance Brissett ends up here regardless if he's willing to. He's the #1 choice in my mind to come here either as a bridge starter for the first 1-10 weeks or as a backup and someone who knows Van Pelt. He may have other options he prefers but I'd fire Mac Jones into the sun and make Zappe the 3rd QB in a second for Brissett.
99% is high but I do think there is a decent change that they sign Brissett.

1. The Pats have a very good defense, including key guys returning from injury.

2. Brissett is a competent game manager. In 48 starts his career INT% in 1.4. In 3,366 career snaps, he has 23 interceptions.

3. With Brissett, the Pats would have been better last year. Mac's career INT% in 42 starts is 2.8%, twice as high. In 2,530 career snaps, Mac has 36 INT. Zappe's career INT% in 8 starts is 3.9%. In 620 career snaps, Zappe has 12 INT.

He's not "the answer" unless he has a thus far unexhibited level of play he can get to, but he can be a good backup or interim starter or at least better than what they have.

I mean, the past success of Brissett and AVP was good for a backup.... they were still not a good team, and certainly not something you build a rebuilding team around. You don't pass on a potential franchise QB on a rookie deal for a journeyman fringe guy in his 30s.

Jacoby Brissett may well be here next year, but that won't have any impact on the QB at 3 decision.
This is correct, which I say as someone who likes the idea of bringing Brissett back.