I've been trying to avoid getting in to arguments over this....but I can't stand the statements revolving around the idea that you absolutely cannot take a G or RT at #9 overall.
I get that WRs/LTs/DEs/DTs are more important...but man...the Gs and RTs and LBs and even RBs...they need to be good for NYG to get back to the top, no? Brandon Scherff and La'el Collins might be best suited inside, but by no means does that mean you can't take them at #9 overall.
I think some people try too hard to map an entire draft class out from the beginning. You can't do that. There are THIRTY ONE other teams trying to build a champion, and you can't predict or control any one of them. Passing on quality players at "non-premium" positions (as if that even existed) is a big part of what put NYG in the personnel nightmare they currently reside in.
So yes...if a guard is my highest graded prospect at #9, bring him in. It would make this team better, end of discussion and on to the next pick.
Beatty-FA-Richburg-Schwartz-Pugh
They'll probably add a vet swing tackle (hopefully better than CB) and a vet backup OG (could be Jerry).
It's not this team's (Reese/TC) MO to expect any rookie to start Day 1. That's not to say they won't grab an OL in the first round but the giant hole (no pun intended) will likely be filled prior to the draft.
That said, Collins sounds like a great guy to throw into the OG/RT battle in camp and eventually groom to replace Beatty, possibly as soon as 2016.
The #9 pick might not yield a blue chip talent from this crop, but we can't afford to not hit on the pick.
I am, unabashedly, one of the great unwashed whose "knowledge" has been acquired by the age-old method of keeping my mouth shut (where possible) and my ears open.
It's ridiculously early to be assigning slots to specific players, but of course we do it anyway.
My own view, at this point, is that the Giants will go either WR, DE, or DT at 9. Of these three, I suspect WR is the most likely, followed by, should the other two primary categories be under-represented, OL. Actually, I think DT is more unlikely than not, but depends on who else is available.
History cannot be ignored. It's the playmakers who get their most intense interest at these premium spots. It isn't that I don't think that a great OL cannot be a "playmaker," but rather that I don 't think the Giants view OL as such
Quote:
In comment 12111167 Simms11 said:
Quote:
unless he was the next Jerry Rice. We have enough WRs and depth now. There's only so many balls to go around and you have One of the best WRs in the league already getting most of them thrown his way. Another WR would be a wasted pick at 9, especially with so many other needs. Good OTs are hard to come by and a guy that can play Guard for a year or two, first, would be an added bonus. To me, it's either Oline or Dline with that first pick and the BPA at either.
You are missing a major component. WRs don't just impact the game with the ball in their hands. The more weapons you have the more you dictate to the defense. The defense's options become very limited and the more attention team pay to the weapons on the outside the easier your running game is. Don't discount the impact of another wide receiver by saying there are only so many balls to go around. They do way more than just catch the ball.
Ok, so you're saying you want to draft another WR to be a decoy? We're not wasting the 9th pick in the draft on a guy that will be primarily a decoy and get like 2 or 3 balls thrown his way a game. I just don't see WR as a critical need. If we go BPA associated with position of need, we should be looking at an Oline or Dlineman. I'm not against drafting another WR later in the draft, but to me the guy should be more of a specialist type; KR, PR third down guy. Im not discounting the need for a WR to help draw the defense. I just think we already have too many other needs and if the QB doesn't have time to get the ball to his receivers, what good would another receiver be anyway?! Remember our QB is extremely immobile and needs a solid pocket. Let's build the two lines up before we start talking about other playmakers on O.
When you draft for "needs" at #9, you lose the lottery.
To what comment are you referring, exactly?
Quote:
So what is your point exactly?
To what comment are you referring, exactly?
Picking for needs. Reese said if need and value intersect they will generally go there. Many first round Reese picks coincided with our greatest need at a premium position. It is not a strict BPA approach.
The other aspect I have not seen accounted for here is the salary cap. Last year I posted a correlation between the Giants top draft picks, and the cost of those players using the franchise tag (average of top 5 paid players at the position). When you look at that you see that TE, S, LB, DT are paid less. QB, DE, WR, and CB are paid the most. Offensive lineman go up and down, with LT being most expensive.
To that end, the Giants have shown a tendency to draft those premium, high paid players. One, because they are hard to get. And two because getting them any other way than the draft is difficult and costly. Drafting them means you get a premium player at a bargain basement price. Look how much they paid JPP in 2011. His rookie deal let Osi and Tuck get their money, and give the Giants a d-line that put pressure on Brady and won the Super Bowl. Also true for Nicks and Cruz, though Cruz was not drafted high.
With regard to this draft, I am in the BPA boat, as most are. Its been noted that there is not a lot of top-end talent in this draft, and so that's accounted for. And maybe the BPA is a guard. But what we can say from experience is that the Giants would not rank that player the same as they would a DE or WR or CB. It's not just about dominating your competition; from what position you dominate has a say as well.
The other aspect I have not seen accounted for here is the salary cap. Last year I posted a correlation between the Giants top draft picks, and the cost of those players using the franchise tag (average of top 5 paid players at the position). When you look at that you see that TE, S, LB, DT are paid less. QB, DE, WR, and CB are paid the most. Offensive lineman go up and down, with LT being most expensive.
To that end, the Giants have shown a tendency to draft those premium, high paid players. One, because they are hard to get. And two because getting them any other way than the draft is difficult and costly. Drafting them means you get a premium player at a bargain basement price. Look how much they paid JPP in 2011. His rookie deal let Osi and Tuck get their money, and give the Giants a d-line that put pressure on Brady and won the Super Bowl. Also true for Nicks and Cruz, though Cruz was not drafted high.
With regard to this draft, I am in the BPA boat, as most are. Its been noted that there is not a lot of top-end talent in this draft, and so that's accounted for. And maybe the BPA is a guard. But what we can say from experience is that the Giants would not rank that player the same as they would a DE or WR or CB. It's not just about dominating your competition; from what position you dominate has a say as well.
Good post Torbor and I mentioned the cap earlier in the thread with similar reasoning to yours.
It's clear that some positions are more valuable then others. Look at salary differences by position. Guards and RTs don't make as much as a lot of other positions on average and therefore a guard or RT prospect should be devalued in the draft also compared to higher paid positions.
Quote:
In comment 12111813 Coach Mason said:
Quote:
So what is your point exactly?
To what comment are you referring, exactly?
Picking for needs. Reese said if need and value intersect they will generally go there. Many first round Reese picks coincided with our greatest need at a premium position. It is not a strict BPA approach.
Exactly Mason. That's my point and to be quite honest I don't think WR is a dire need.
up top - 1st round - it's about #1 WR. we already have one and he's only a year into his rookie deal.
when u study the circumstances we took a WR in the 1st round....
When we took Nicks, we were trying to replace our #1 (Plax). When we took OBJ, we were trying to replace our #1 (Nicks). We are not currently trying to replace our #1 WR. OBJ is the guy teams gameplan for. The guys around him are role players who simply need to beat 1on1 coverage. If Randle isn't your guy - sign a Larry Fitzgerald. Don't burn a top 10 pick.
Don't want to spend on a vet? For a #2/#3 WR, look round 2, or later. That's where value will align with job description.
Under the current set of circumstances, to use a 1st round pick (and top 10!) on a guy who you're only going to throw the ball to if Beckham isn't open is a poor use of extremely limited resources. The value isn't there and I'd be shocked if we go that way!
up top - 1st round - it's about #1 WR. we already have one and he's only a year into his rookie deal.
when u study the circumstances we took a WR in the 1st round....
When we took Nicks, we were trying to replace our #1 (Plax). When we took OBJ, we were trying to replace our #1 (Nicks). We are not currently trying to replace our #1 WR. OBJ is the guy teams gameplan for. The guys around him are role players who simply need to beat 1on1 coverage. If Randle isn't your guy - sign a Larry Fitzgerald. Don't burn a top 10 pick.
Don't want to spend on a vet? For a #2/#3 WR, look round 2, or later. That's where value will align with job description.
Area, you're right on, as far as I'm concerned too.
Under the current set of circumstances, to use a 1st round pick (and top 10!) on a guy who you're only going to throw the ball to if Beckham isn't open is a poor use of extremely limited resources. The value isn't there and I'd be shocked if we go that way!
Quote:
In comment 12111823 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12111813 Coach Mason said:
Quote:
So what is your point exactly?
To what comment are you referring, exactly?
Picking for needs. Reese said if need and value intersect they will generally go there. Many first round Reese picks coincided with our greatest need at a premium position. It is not a strict BPA approach.
Exactly Mason. That's my point and to be quite honest I don't think WR is a dire need.
Historically, the Giants (Reese et al) select for BPA when they hold high-value picks. There's not one example of a "need" pick at a high value slot that wasn't the highest value on their board during the Reese tenure.
ALL picks are "need" picks, but not necessarily immediate need picks; if anyone disputes this they simply haven't paid attention and know little to nothing about how the Giants run their drafts.
I think the more you try to get cute, the more you try to control (in a process where you control very little), the worse your draft will be. There is always room for quality players at every position. Grade them. Stack them. And pick. Go from there.
Yeah, given the history and some of the receivers who may be available (better than Cooper IMO) at 9, I would endorse that approach. Those here who are stuck on "need picks" are sadly unenlightened and just haven't paid attention to the current philosophy.
Whoever they pick at 9, I'm pretty confident that they'll pick a player who advances the cause.
Reese keeping to his mindset has dramatically hurt this team and seen prime years from Eli wasted. Will he stick to it this year? Probably but if it costs Coughlin his job, it should also cost Reese his for being a colossal failure as a GM.
And Reese with his bias, yes it is true and at the same time I don't think that was an off the cuff answer. It was calculated.
Reese keeping to his mindset has dramatically hurt this team and seen prime years from Eli wasted. Will he stick to it this year? Probably but if it costs Coughlin his job, it should also cost Reese his for being a colossal failure as a GM.
Webster, Terrel Thomas, Tuck were all round 2 or 3 and made strong contributions (you can argue TT). He generally doesn't go for that guy with sky high AA high up in round 1.
And Reese with his bias, yes it is true and at the same time I don't think that was an off the cuff answer. It was calculated.
Mara needs to keep his nose out of the draft. Let football people run that side of the team.
A play making game-changing 4-3 LB is quite rare.
Quote:
unless he was the next Jerry Rice. We have enough WRs and depth now. There's only so many balls to go around and you have One of the best WRs in the league already getting most of them thrown his way. Another WR would be a wasted pick at 9, especially with so many other needs. Good OTs are hard to come by and a guy that can play Guard for a year or two, first, would be an added bonus. To me, it's either Oline or Dline with that first pick and the BPA at either.
I disagree.. You have no idea what you have coming with Victor Cruz.. Randle is a FA in 2015 I believe..
So what you have ONE receiver.. big deal.. and if they shut that one down.. or he gets hurt.. then you have jack squat..
Amazes me that Green Bay can have 3-4 quality receivers.. Saints same thing.. Denver.. Same thing...
Giants.. we have ONE guy.. yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay...
If a WR is the highest rated player at #9.. you take the WR.. period..
Randle is signed thru 2015. We also have Harris who impressed throughout training camp until injured coming back and we haven't seen much of Corey Washington. I can't see a definite 1st year contributor in the WR group.
Like Dorsett too but need to see more than just what he did at the Senior Bowl as I am still not sold on his overall route running ability and ability to smoothly accelerate in and out of his breaks.He may not make it out of the 2nd either as many get hypnotized by raw speed.
Mara blames himself partially for past draft mistakes.
Quote:
In comment 12111167 Simms11 said:
Quote:
unless he was the next Jerry Rice. We have enough WRs and depth now. There's only so many balls to go around and you have One of the best WRs in the league already getting most of them thrown his way. Another WR would be a wasted pick at 9, especially with so many other needs. Good OTs are hard to come by and a guy that can play Guard for a year or two, first, would be an added bonus. To me, it's either Oline or Dline with that first pick and the BPA at either.
I disagree.. You have no idea what you have coming with Victor Cruz.. Randle is a FA in 2015 I believe..
So what you have ONE receiver.. big deal.. and if they shut that one down.. or he gets hurt.. then you have jack squat..
Amazes me that Green Bay can have 3-4 quality receivers.. Saints same thing.. Denver.. Same thing...
Giants.. we have ONE guy.. yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay...
If a WR is the highest rated player at #9.. you take the WR.. period..
Randle is signed thru 2015. We also have Harris who impressed throughout training camp until injured coming back and we haven't seen much of Corey Washington. I can't see a definite 1st year contributor in the WR group.
seriously... you cant see a guy who is a first round talent who could contribute over Corey " cant get on the field " Washington and Marcus' I havent caught a ball in a real NFL game yet" Harris.. please..
If they BEST player available is a WR.. you take the WR..
So if Amari Cooper was somehow available you dont take him because you have Marcus Harris and Corey Washington ???
LOL yeah right...
Like Dorsett too but need to see more than just what he did at the Senior Bowl as I am still not sold on his overall route running ability and ability to smoothly accelerate in and out of his breaks.He may not make it out of the 2nd either as many get hypnotized by raw speed.
Coach, I haven't seen enough of Crowder to have a feel for him (aside from his obvious speed) but to me Lockett is ready to contribute right off the bat as a slot receiver. The guy is fast, runs great routes, understands zones, and had fantastic accomplishments as a college receiver in a good conference. He seems to me to be as pro-ready as any WR in the draft aside from Cooper.
however, if you want to draft either a really great guard at #9 ....or a very good tackle who is one of the few who can play great guard...or even a pure, however all pro 'tackle only' type at 9, I am fine with that.
its similar to the logic at DT actually, fine there as well.
We really need to have all the cogs turning properly while we still have a proven QB, and this particular team has always done well with better than average line play....and done poorly with less than average line play - MORE so than some other teams. so you adjust value a touch.
'what if there is player with a significantly higher grade ,#7 points or what have you, above that is not one of the player positions in the pool?'
and which may lead to a trade down.
The issue last year, was possibly - getting that truly great player and then sort of failing to address team balance issues in the rest of the draft, or, overestimating the scouts ability to piece that together at the last minute, Becks drop not having been expected?
2 starting OLs,
2 start quality DLs and
2 safeties.
with 'want' being another RB, a TE and
'love to have' being another wr
It is going to be awfully hard to scout the first 6 if the #9 is the latter.
I suppose -free agency- will have to play a role.
and or, no run game.
There is certainly a school of thought, held by those who have the giants of the 1980s as the main model, who find kick ass front 7 or what have you, on defense, the most engaging and entertaining aspect of the sport, this team in particular and, to us, the most historic here.
Quote:
Lockett and Crowder are probably my favorite round 3 targets so far. A common theme with Reese's draft picks at WR is route running. Both these guys are on the smallish side but don't take alot of square hits and are generally great route runners.
Like Dorsett too but need to see more than just what he did at the Senior Bowl as I am still not sold on his overall route running ability and ability to smoothly accelerate in and out of his breaks.He may not make it out of the 2nd either as many get hypnotized by raw speed.
Coach, I haven't seen enough of Crowder to have a feel for him (aside from his obvious speed) but to me Lockett is ready to contribute right off the bat as a slot receiver. The guy is fast, runs great routes, understands zones, and had fantastic accomplishments as a college receiver in a good conference. He seems to me to be as pro-ready as any WR in the draft aside from Cooper.
yat, I'm loving Lockett. He may drop a bit due to his size but I think he has alot of NFL-maturity to his game and will end up having an immediate impact for the team that drafts him.
I would have no issue even picking him at 40. Round 3 he would be an absolute steal.
If Cruz is thought to make a full recovery it changes the need for sure but Reese sounded very guarded about it.
If Eli is extended and JPP signs long term, we are likely going to have quite a bit of flexibility in FA. Will we add a receiver in FA, high in draft or both? Who knows, but right now the only guy without question marks is OBJ.
If Cruz is thought to make a full recovery it changes the need for sure but Reese sounded very guarded about it.
If Eli is extended and JPP signs long term, we are likely going to have quite a bit of flexibility in FA. Will we add a receiver in FA, high in draft or both? Who knows, but right now the only guy without question marks is OBJ.
We've actually spent more 3rd or higher picks on WRs in the last ten years, 8 in all (two 1sts, three 2nds and three 3rds) versus 6 for the Pack (five 2nds and one 3rd). They have just had a higher success rate. Spending a 2nd or a 3rd on a WR in a deep draft at the position would make a lot of sense, the wisdom of spending the 9th pick on one though would depend on the health of Cruz and where Reese believes the top WRs stack up value-wise.
Quote:
Look to stockpile receivers high in the draft and it has worked out well for them.
If Cruz is thought to make a full recovery it changes the need for sure but Reese sounded very guarded about it.
If Eli is extended and JPP signs long term, we are likely going to have quite a bit of flexibility in FA. Will we add a receiver in FA, high in draft or both? Who knows, but right now the only guy without question marks is OBJ.
We've actually spent more 3rd or higher picks on WRs in the last ten years, 8 in all (two 1sts, three 2nds and three 3rds) versus 6 for the Pack (five 2nds and one 3rd). They have just had a higher success rate. Spending a 2nd or a 3rd on a WR in a deep draft at the position would make a lot of sense, the wisdom of spending the 9th pick on one though would depend on the health of Cruz and where Reese believes the top WRs stack up value-wise.
Agreed about Cruz but if they see the 'Eli window' beginning to close that may change urgencies/priorities a bit too. With the new CBA, having two top 15 picks at WR is more cost effective than previous. I personally am a proponent of an LT @ 9 and then a receiver in round 2 (as this draft is loaded in red chip WRs). However, if the Giants don't like the LT ability/upside of any of the potential OL at 9, I could see them go WR if they are glaring BPA.
As discussed previous, chances are with the way the players are stacking up, it's a WR or OL that will be BPA and best system fit. There are no JPP's (Giant prototype DE's with the AA/production worthy of 9) or dynamic pass rushing DTs (unless they think Shelton will still get enough pass rush in the NFL game), or rare do it all gamechanging 4-3 LBs (Kalil Mack,Willis,Kuechly types).
Combine may help his stock. Right now I don't think he is in the same tier as Collins and Peat.