The New England Patriots drafted exactly as they should have, by addressing need with their first three picks in the NFL draft. Take that approach rather than the outdated "best player available" theory, and you'll address your weaknesses and at least have a chance to improve.
One analyst, Greg Bedard, doesn't think that even the top three Patriots' picks are likely to contribute in 2026. Though he qualifies his theory, he's wrong. They'll all contribute because they'll have to.
Bedard did get one aspect right: he pointed out that the Patriots drafted for need. Yet, he intimates that it was because this was a weak draft, and so the "best player available" strategy didn't apply. He's wrong there, too. It's never the right strategy.
"In many respects, the Patriots went chalk with their first three draft picks in a very needy approach. Needed a future replacement for Morgan Moses, check (Caleb Lomu). Needed a fourth edge player, check (Gabe Jacas). Needed a future replacement for Hunter Henry, check (Eli Raridon). This wasn't a very strong draft, so I think the 'best player available' approach was pretty much out the window where the Patriots were picking in each round."
In actuality, only a hybrid draft strategy makes sense, and it is always tailored to your team's needs. Otherwise, you'll be wasting picks all over the draft board. The sensible strategy is to always draft for need, and, of course, you take the best player available at that position of need on every pick.
If your objective is to improve underperforming positions on the past year's team, it's the only strategy that makes any sense whatsoever.
Greg Bedard sees little contributions by Patriots top draft picks, unless...
Greg Bedard's supposition that the Patriots' top three picks, offensive tackle Caleb Lomu, defensive edge, Gabe Jacas, and tight end Eli Raridon, won't contribute is flawed.
"... if everything goes right this season, there's the very real chance that the Patriots' top three selections barely contribute this season. Of course, that will depend on injuries. If one of the starting tackles goes down, if Harold Landry develops a flat tire again, or if Henry gets beat up, all three of the rookies are going to see their opportunities increase. Injuries change everything."
Bedard was totally off the mark until he qualified it at the end of his statement. The qualification was that injuries could completely change the dynamic. He redeemed himself with that.
But it's not a real qualification at all. Injuries do happen and will happen to almost every player in the NFL during almost every season to one extent or another.
That reality means these top picks will almost certainly "contribute," at least through their participation. How well they contribute is a horse of a different color. That will be determined by how well they were scouted and how smoothly they'll fit into the systems their coaching staff employs.
In the case of the Patriots' top three picks, both Lomu and Jacas were consensus picks who've played at a high level in college and were rated as such by most. Tight end Raridon, on the other hand, was a reach pick. He'll probably play, and that definitionally is to "contribute".
Yet how successful he will be is far less predictable than either Lomu or Jacas because of the "reach" factor. Reaching is never a sound NFL draft strategy. You draft a consensus, or you'll likely fail.
Add us as a preferred source on Google