The Patriots made 11 picks in this year’s draft.
The New England Patriots had a busy 2025 NFL Draft, making several trades and ending up with 11 total players added. They also had a productive draft, at least according to the evaluators: the Patriots’ haul was generally among the highest-graded by NFL media.
Time will tell whether that optimism is warranted, and if the Patriots’ selections will prove their value relative to their draft position. That more than anything else will ultimately decide if New England’s draft class will be considered a success or not. It is something that can only be properly assessed a few years down the line, naturally.
As for right now, the question of value — oftentimes used as the basis for post-draft analysis — can only be answered in theory. This is exactly where the Consensus Big Board compiled by friend of Pats Pulpit Arif Hasan comes in. It compiles 112 big boards to see how the draft community viewed the prospects beforehand.
Obviously, there are differences between those boards and the ones used by NFL teams; for starters, the clubs have far more information available. That said, more than anything the comparison between those two spheres of scouting illustrates where differences exist and where, for one reason or another, there might be a dissonance between the public evaluation of a player and how the league views him.
So, with that in mind, let’s find out how the Patriots’ 2025 draft class compares to the consensus big board. Minus means the player was drafted before it was believed to be his turn (i.e. a “reach” if that is the word you want to use), while plus means the opposite.
OT Will Campbell (LSU)
Pick: 1-4 | Consensus big board: 5 | Difference: -1
The Patriots opened the draft by addressing their biggest need, and they did so by picking this year’s top offensive line prospect. Will Campbell was seen as a top-5 selection in the draft, and he came off fourth overall. This was not a reach whatsoever; this was a top-tier prospect being selected precisely in the range he was projected to.
RB TreVeyon Henderson (Ohio State)
Pick: 2-38 | Consensus big board: 40 | Difference: -2
The Patriots continued to go pretty much hand-to-hand with the consensus board in Round 2. TreVeyon Henderson was ranked 40th, and he was picked 38th overall. Compared to Will Campbell, however, there was slightly more disagreement within the big board community when it comes to the Ohio State product.
Henderson’s ranking had a variance score of 105.7. What does this mean? The starting point is 100, with everything higher suggesting polarization and everything lower meaning consensus. Will Campbell, for example, had a variance of 96.6. Still, the Patriots choosing him at this particular point in the draft was no surprise.
The bigger surprise might have been that New England went with a running back this early despite having Rhamondre Stevenson and Antonio Gibson atop the position depth chart.
WR Kyle Williams (Washington State)
Pick: 3-69 | Consensus big board: 82 | Difference: -13
Like they did with Will Campbell and TreVeyon Henderson, the Patriots also slightly overdrafted wide receiver Kyle Williams in the third round. Then again, he too was a player where consensus was not necessarily the name of the game: his 120.6 variance score was the 15th-highest among players ranked top-100 on the consensus board.
This sparks two questions: why was Williams seen as more controversial prospect than others, and why did the Patriots pick him at No. 69? The first question might have to do with his profile; Williams is not a high-end athlete at his position like Campbell or Henderson at theirs, for example, but he was still a productive player in college capable of making a positive impact from early on in his career.
It is also clear that the Patriots identified him as somebody who could help them out, and a player fitting what they want to do on the offensive side of the ball.
C Jared Wilson (Georgia)
Pick: 3-95 | Consensus big board: 73 | Difference: +33
The Patriots’ first “steal” of the draft. Jared Wilson was already in consideration at No. 77 overall, but the Patriots decided to trade down from that spot twice. When they were next on the clock at No. 95, Georgia’s one-year starting center was still around — lower than the team initially had him graded, and lower than the consensus big board as well.
His variance of 103.2 also suggests more agreement among the big board creators.
S Craig Woodson (Cal)
Pick: 4-106 | Consensus big board: 197 | Difference: -91
Even though Will Campbell, TreVeyon Henderson and Kyle Williams were slightly drafted ahead of their big board rankings, none of them can be labeled “reaches.” The same might not be true for Craig Woodson, who the Patriots selected 106th overall in the early fourth round.
Woodson was ranked 197th on the big board with a variance of 90.8; few evaluators and prognosticators had him significantly higher or lower than that. New England, meanwhile, felt that he was worthy of becoming an early Day 3 selections.
His ability to play multiple role in their secondary as well as his leadership potential might have been his main selling points. The latter in particular is difficult to measure when it comes to big board creation; the interview process takes place behind closed doors and how it impacts player grades can only be guessed.
DT Joshua Farmer (Florida State)
Pick: 4-137 | Consensus big board: 89 | Difference: +48
Back to the plus side we go. Joshua Farmer, the 137th overall pick in Round 4, was essentially drafted more than one full round after he was believed to come off the board. Why the league was lower on him is anybody’s guess, but New England was happy to put an end to his fall and bring him in as it biggest “steal” up until that point in the draft.
ED Bradyn Swinson (LSU)
Pick: 5-146 | Consensus big board: 68 | Difference: +78
Joshua Farmer did not keep the “biggest steal” title for long. With their very next pick at No. 146 overall, the Patriots selected LSU edge Bradyn Swinson. One of the most disruptive pass rushers in the entire FBS in 2024, Swinson entered the draft as No. 68 on the big board.
Looking at his 119.0 variance, however, we can already see that there were some less enthusiastic about him as a project. The reasons behind that are not known; maybe his relative one-dimensionality as an edge defender played a part in that, maybe maturity concerns were weighed more heavily against him by some and not by others.
The end result was him getting drafted 78 picks or around two rounds worth of draft picks later than his big board ranking would have suggested.
K Andres Borregales (Miami)
Pick: 6-182 | Consensus big board: 307 | Difference: -125
Following the Bradyn Swinson selection, the Patriots started to significantly drift away from the draft community consensus. The first pick in that cluster was kicker Andres Borregales, who was not among the 300 top-ranked players per consensus but was still selected 182nd overall in Round 6.
Borregales was the first kicker of the board, and one of just two players selected at his position. Four picks later, the Baltimore Ravens went after the other kicker, Tyler Loop (consensus rank No. 357).
Could New England have waited until later or even rookie free agency to address the need? Sure, but the team was playing it safe by picking Borregales where it did. At this point in the draft, it’s better to be safe than sorry.
OT Marcus Bryant (Missouri)
Pick: 7-220 | Consensus big board: 375 | Difference: -155
Marcus Bryant, the big-bodied left tackle out of Missouri, was picked by the Patriots at No. 220 to provide depth behind Will Campbell. He too was ranked quite differently on the consensus board, but the team cannot be blamed too much for going off course here: in the seventh round, you are looking for developmental traits more than anything. Bryant has those, at least in New England’s eyes.
LS Julian Ashby (Vanderbilt)
Pick: 7-251 | Consensus big board: 552 | Difference: -301
Julian Ashby became the first long snapper drafted since 2021, despite ranking 552nd on the consensus board. As is the case with Marcus Bryant, it’s all about traits and developmental projection this late in the draft. Players such as these therefore transcend the “reach” or “steal” label, something that is also true for…
CB Kobee Minor (Memphis)
Pick: 7-257 | Consensus big board: 641 | Difference: -384
The final selection in this year’s draft, Minor was not considered as draftable based on the consensus board. Of course, it’s more complicated than that: picks at that point in the draft are not so much investments to directly improve the roster, but rather to bypass the rookie free agency process.
Ultimately, Minor and rest of the Patriots’ draft class all find themselves in the same boat. There were reasons why they came off the board at certain spots relative to the consensus board, even though not all of them are obvious at first glance.
At the end of the day, the debate between steals and reaches can only evaluate picks from the outside. However, teams have their own evaluations and individual, prospect- and club-specific factors that go into player grades — something that is impossible to incorporate without the same information being available.