for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Off today? How about we talk some draft?

Sy'56 : 1/27/2015 11:02 am
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.
I 100% agree  
robbieballs2003 : 1/27/2015 11:07 am : link
However, as of now, I don't see the value in Scherff or Collins at 9. Not because of position but rather because I like other players. I personally would rather address the OL in FA and take a player like Shelton or White at 9. I have to do more research on the DEs.
In my book  
JonC : 1/27/2015 11:07 am : link
if your BPA at #9 is a RT or OG, pick him and focus on the second round.

But, I suspect NYG will lean towards a DE or WR unless the grades are distant from a RT/OG, of course.
I agree but I also suspect position goes into grade.....  
George from PA : 1/27/2015 11:14 am : link
Which is why key positions goes higher, no? A guard mustbe much better then a LT avaiable.
Collins and Scherf look like likely studs at guard  
Dave in Buffalo : 1/27/2015 11:15 am : link
With a good possibility of becoming quality tackles too. If the downside is a strong mauler at guard, that sounds pretty damn good to me at #9.
The idea of taking a projected  
Big Blue '56 : 1/27/2015 11:15 am : link
difference-making OG or ORT at 9 was never an issue for me, if that's your BPA
I agree,  
AnishPatel : 1/27/2015 11:16 am : link
the model has changed. You can take an RT or guard early. It's a passing league, and these guys are on the OL and help in pass protection and run blocking. So if a team feels they are worth it, then by all means draft that player.

Sy, I'd like your opinion on two LBs...  
Klaatu : 1/27/2015 11:18 am : link
Who should be available in the mid-to-late rounds (where the Giants usually go looking for them): Michigan State's Taiwan Jones, and Michigan's Jake Ryan.
Absolutely, Sy.  
yatqb : 1/27/2015 11:21 am : link
Ridiculous to decide against taking an impact player at a position of need for your team. Someone actually asked yesterday if you'd take Alan Faneca at 9. Is he kidding? You'd be landing an all pro for a decade.
So If someone told you that you'd get a guy like Faneca, Shields or  
BLUATHRT : 1/27/2015 11:21 am : link
Hutchinson in their prime and you have to use the 9th pick to get them, you'd pass because they are guards? Not me...
I'm not sure I'd credit that for our roster...  
Dunedin81 : 1/27/2015 11:23 am : link
I think the issue is that for a few drafts we simply missed on some early picks. Whether that is bad luck or poor personnel appraisal (or a willingness to gamble) is debatable, but if they had hit on a few of Barden, Beckum, Sintim, Austin or Jernigan and/or Wilson had been healthy the complexion of things might be different. I have quibbles with Reese's drafting, specifically his willingness to piss away late picks at times (drafting multiple DBs, for instance, when we seemed to have at most one roster spot), but I don't think the issue is their prioritizing certain positions and not others, generally speaking. I think they could have devoted an early pick or two to a conventionally skilled LB and prioritized OL depth more, but it's not like they haven't devoted draft picks to either.
I agree  
BigBlueCane : 1/27/2015 11:23 am : link
with Sy. But I don't see Reese changing his mindset anytime soon.
The question is do you see a OL that might at this early stage  
Defenderdawg : 1/27/2015 11:24 am : link
That would be worthy of a top ten selection...

On a another note I have read one analyst downgrade the quality of the safeties available, suggesting Collins of Alabama could go higher simply because of the dearth of talent there, although he did not feel he was a top ten pick...how do you feel about the quality and depth at that position in the draft?
Given our  
I Love Clams Casino : 1/27/2015 11:33 am : link
deficiencies at the interior positions, I'd think Reese would put a higher value on the position than he normally would.

I don't think he's blind to that....Jerry with Snyder as a backup? That's alarming as hell....Snyder's 2 steps from a nursing home. There' no doubt that something will be done.
RE: Sy, I'd like your opinion on two LBs...  
Sy'56 : 1/27/2015 11:35 am : link
In comment 12111102 Klaatu said:
Quote:
Who should be available in the mid-to-late rounds (where the Giants usually go looking for them): Michigan State's Taiwan Jones, and Michigan's Jake Ryan.


I like Ryan more. He bounced back OK from his knee injury, but still there will be a lack of athletic ability there. I also don't see the instincts and reaction time that I want out of a LB. He is slow to the spot, and he gets caught in traffic. Thats a red flag for me. But I think he can be a solid special teamer and 4th/5th LB on a defense.

Jones is good between the tackles, but for the most part he is just another guy. He hits hard, has some power to him, good size. But he is really limited in coverage, won't always reach the sidelines. Another backup type.
Dearth of Talent is Key  
Samiam : 1/27/2015 11:36 am : link
I think that's a point that is often ignored is the number of quality players at the position. If you can get quality guards in lower rounds but can't get quality players at other positions of need, you're going to factor that in. Also, are we talking a Larry Allen type guard or just a good guard?
Fair enough, Sy. Thanks.  
Klaatu : 1/27/2015 11:38 am : link
The reason I asked is because they both had a good week at the East-West game, and the Giants met with Ryan there.
I really liked what I saw of David Johnson  
BLUATHRT : 1/27/2015 11:39 am : link
in the Senior Bowl. Sy, what round do you think he projects to? Talk about a three-headed monster coming at the o-line if the Giants added him to pair with Jennings and Williams!
d-line  
BLUATHRT : 1/27/2015 11:40 am : link
not o-line.
I mentioned this before  
Phil in LA : 1/27/2015 11:40 am : link
but the rookie cap in the new CBA makes it a lot easier to choose any position you want in the first round -- because there is no longer any danger of him being the highest paid guy on your team.
Sy  
Matt M. : 1/27/2015 11:42 am : link
Drafting backup type LBs makes absolutely no sense to me.
I just cannot see a WR taken at 9  
Simms11 : 1/27/2015 11:50 am : link
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.
RE: I really liked what I saw of David Johnson  
Sy'56 : 1/27/2015 11:54 am : link
In comment 12111146 BLUATHRT said:
Quote:
in the Senior Bowl. Sy, what round do you think he projects to? Talk about a three-headed monster coming at the o-line if the Giants added him to pair with Jennings and Williams!


I think he is a better athlete than he is a football player...and I simply don't like prospects like that. He runs with poor bad level, minimal forward lean. Yeah he he has some tools, but he just isn't the kind of back that I look for.

A back I am really starting to like is Minnesota's David Cobb. Complete opposite of Johnson...not an upper tier athlete but he is a very good football player. Great vision and lean, low pad level, misses tacklers but alos runs through them.
RE: Dearth of Talent is Key  
giants#1 : 1/27/2015 11:55 am : link
In comment 12111142 Samiam said:
Quote:
I think that's a point that is often ignored is the number of quality players at the position. If you can get quality guards in lower rounds but can't get quality players at other positions of need, you're going to factor that in. Also, are we talking a Larry Allen type guard or just a good guard?


As is the cost of filling the position via FA. It's considerably cheaper to sign a FA OG than a FA OT. That's a big reason the Giants tend to emphasize DE/WR/CB in the premium rounds. And Beckham will provide even more value in this department as they don't need to consider bringing in a top FA WR.

Obviously, Russell Wilson is the ultimate example of how filling a premium position via a cost controlled draft pick allows you to use your limited FA $$ to fill other holes.

Sy, I really like Cobb too.  
yatqb : 1/27/2015 11:57 am : link
I wonder whether he'd be there for us in the 4th.
Benardrick Mckinney  
Kurtt : 1/27/2015 11:58 am : link
does he make it to 40? I think he can play MLB in a 4-3.
there are no  
area junc : 1/27/2015 12:00 pm : link
G's in this draft worth a top 10 pick
Stud OL at 9  
Sec 103 : 1/27/2015 12:05 pm : link
sure, is there one?
RE: RE: I really liked what I saw of David Johnson  
Mike in NY : 1/27/2015 12:06 pm : link
In comment 12111172 Sy'56 said:
Quote:
In comment 12111146 BLUATHRT said:


Quote:


in the Senior Bowl. Sy, what round do you think he projects to? Talk about a three-headed monster coming at the o-line if the Giants added him to pair with Jennings and Williams!



I think he is a better athlete than he is a football player...and I simply don't like prospects like that. He runs with poor bad level, minimal forward lean. Yeah he he has some tools, but he just isn't the kind of back that I look for.

A back I am really starting to like is Minnesota's David Cobb. Complete opposite of Johnson...not an upper tier athlete but he is a very good football player. Great vision and lean, low pad level, misses tacklers but alos runs through them.


Cobb also showed potential in pass blocking which I like
RE: I just cannot see a WR taken at 9  
blueblood : 1/27/2015 12:09 pm : link
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..
RE: WR  
JonC : 1/27/2015 12:10 pm : link
You do not assume Cruz's knee will allow him to return at 100%, nor would I assume Randle has turned the corner just yet, not to mention it's quite possible NYG decides his second contract is too expensive.

In short, WR very well could be in play at #9. Think roster building, not just plugging in a player for 2015.
RE: RE: WR  
blueblood : 1/27/2015 12:12 pm : link
In comment 12111206 JonC said:
Quote:
You do not assume Cruz's knee will allow him to return at 100%, nor would I assume Randle has turned the corner just yet, not to mention it's quite possible NYG decides his second contract is too expensive.

In short, WR very well could be in play at #9. Think roster building, not just plugging in a player for 2015.


give that man a Cigar.. two quality receivers on rookie contracts with Eli still in his prime is a GOOD thing..
Who would plug in a player at 9  
Big Blue '56 : 1/27/2015 12:13 pm : link
for 2015?
The notion that you can get a RB or an OL late...  
Dunedin81 : 1/27/2015 12:14 pm : link
is oversold. Their success rates are not very high, while interior OL and RBs drafted high actually do have a high success rate. So if you have a glaring need for either and there is a good value pick in the first, even the high first, it would be folly to pass it over because there is a chance one would be available later.

But teams understandably expect a high draft pick at RB, or OL, or LB (non-pass rusher) to be an above-average starter or better at the position. Conversely, if you get a decent defensive end in the middle of the first, or a starting-caliber OT, you're not disappointed if he's not a perennial Pro Bowler. Is Brandon Graham a disappointment even though he's not a star? I'd say no. But if you draft a guard in the middle of the first round you expect him to be one of the better OGs in the league. It's because quality play at certain positions is harder to come by, more expensive on the free agent market and rarer in the middle rounds.
BPA Versus Need Usually Makes For Interesting Discussions  
Trainmaster : 1/27/2015 12:16 pm : link
I don't think most are saying a G or RT can't be BPA at #9, the argument seems to be that it is less likely that those positions will have the impact that other positions might have at #9 (say QB, WR, DE, LT etc.)

To take the above to the extreme, the best punter (Ray Guy 2.0) or kicker very, very rarely would be overall BPA at #9, while a QB, WR, DE, LT often can be.

The Giants have waited until the 2nd, 3rd and 4th round to take OL recently, with very mixed results. We'd love to get Chris Snee 2.0 in round 2.

The Zach Martin versus Beckham comparisons highlight this issue. Had Beckham been gone in 2014 at #12, Martin seems like he would have been a very solid pick. But Beckham is truly a "game changer (even season changer)". Larry Allen is probably the best guard I have ever seen play. If you could pick Beckham or Larry Allen 2.0 at #12 (or #9) who do you pick? Some might say Larry Allen 2.0 because he can play at a high level longer, but I'm taking Beckham because an all world WR can change the game more than an all world G can.

Based on very limited knowledge of the 2015 draft crop (mostly gather from BBI withh limited college football watching), I don't see anyone close to Larry Allen 2.0 being available at #9.

I think Reese's first round approach, which I'd characterize as "BPA in an impact position", I don't see the Giants taking G or RT at #9.
Agree with Sy too. I'd take a G and definitely a RT  
SomeFan : 1/27/2015 12:17 pm : link
though I wonder if the old "trade down" pipe dream is Reese's real first choice.
BB56  
JonC : 1/27/2015 12:18 pm : link
a big chunk of the general fanbase.
we won't trade down  
area junc : 1/27/2015 12:20 pm : link
Andrus Peat is the only OL i can see us looking at. his position coach thinks he can be as good as Ogden
Brandon scherff has something the OL lacks  
eli10 : 1/27/2015 12:20 pm : link
Toughness.
Trainmaster  
Dunedin81 : 1/27/2015 12:21 pm : link
Beckham illustrates what I'm trying to say. Certainly solid receivers have been found much later in the draft, but the sort of athleticism and body control and ball skills that elite receivers possess are so rare that the truly special ones belong higher on a value board than even very good interior OL prospects.
Give us Peat  
JonC : 1/27/2015 12:21 pm : link
The football Gods owe him to us after not delivering Ogden.
You had to bring that up?  
Big Blue '56 : 1/27/2015 12:24 pm : link
Most fans who followed the draft had Phillips going to the Ravens..
Trainmaster  
JonC : 1/27/2015 12:26 pm : link
Precisely, well done. And I don't mean that in regards to conflicting with or arguing against Sy's OP or other comments here, but as a general bullet of knowledge it's 100% accurate.

Philips to Rams  
JonC : 1/27/2015 12:27 pm : link
was 99% in the bag, we all projected. When Simeon Rice went a little earlier, I got really worried about losing out on Ogden.
It would be hard to define a projected RT.....  
Phlegm : 1/27/2015 12:28 pm : link
as an impact player, let alone a Guard. Based on comments from those in authority, I wouldn't see the Giants looking to fill those positions at #9.
The angle that hasn't been discussed in detail  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 12:30 pm : link
Is the role that the cap plays in this. Notice what arguably the top OG got in FA last year. 4 yrs /16 million. Reese knows what positions command the most money and tries to draft those players and keep them cost controlled as much as possible.

WR, DE, LT, QB, CB, true high level pass rush DT (very rare) these are generally the premium positions that get 10+ mill annually on the open market. Also notice in this passing era all these positions revolve around their impact in the passing game both on offense and defense. If they don't try to allocate most of their top picks here, they will drain your cap very quickly trying to fill these top impact spots in FA.

Are their occasional exceptions? Of course as there are many variables that go into eventually who they will pick. But as some like Jon has alluded to this is the main formula they ascribe to.
We're  
AcidTest : 1/27/2015 12:30 pm : link
going to get a good player. Reese has messed up a lot of drafts, but has a good record with first round picks.

But people need to realize this is mostly a "red chip," not a "blue chip" draft. That is why it's going to be hard to trade down, unless one of the QBs happens to fall to us.

Peat, Collins, and Scherff seem the most likely picks. Mara said they were going to focus on the OL. Remember that they not only need at least one starter, they also need backups, since everyone but Gaines, Herman, and maybe Mosley should be cut or not resigned. Reese says he prefers playmakers, but he saw what everyone else did: a putrid running game. What's the point of signing Jennings and drafting Williams, if nobody can block for them. He's also still got a franchise QB. Mara said they need to build a "wall" around Eli.

I'd prefer Collins or Peat before Scherff, but any would be fine. No player is perfect, and we are entering the silly season, where every player is nitpicked to death. Collins at a minimum can play G and RT. That's good enough for me. Plug him in at LG and go. Doing so also instantly makes Beatty and Richburg better. Go with Schwartz and Pugh on the other side.

If they don't go OL, I think it will be Shelton. Hankins needs help, and two run stuffing DTs would free up the DEs and keep the LBs clean. Jenkins and Patterson are nearing the end. One or both may not even come back. Kuhn is mostly for ST. Shelton also has some pass rush ability, and was an Academic All-American IIRC.

I don't think the Giants will take Ray or Beasley. They look more like OLBs in a 3-4. They will probably franchise JPP, and get a development DE like Trail on Day three.
if we go into the draft  
TommyWiseau : 1/27/2015 12:30 pm : link
Still needing a starting guard or tackle then FA was a failure. Not saying taking an OL in round one isn't a good idea, because it is, just that I will not feel comfortable going into the season having to rely on a rookie who may or may not be ready. Fix the OL in FA and take the BPA in first round. If that olayer is to be an OL then by all means go for it
RE: UFA  
JonC : 1/27/2015 12:35 pm : link
I'd be looking at RT options on the market. Sign one, kick Pugh inside and your projected OGs are set with Richburg at C. Then, you could draft your new LT at #9 if he's the target, and WB is moved to the bench etc when the prospect is ready. Hedge, depth intact and you could still draft an OG later to put in the pipeline and battle daily with Herman, et al.

Draft  
stretch234 : 1/27/2015 12:39 pm : link
I am not an expert at this, but

NO, GB, NE are pretty successful and they do not pick G early in the draft and really do not value G.

A T is completely different. You can move him inside. You can find G all over, you cant find potential LT all over. Historically, You overdraft a T, not a G.

Since 2007 there have been 8 OG selected in the 1st rd. Grubbs, Lupati, Watkins, DeCastro, Zeitler, Cooper, Warmack, Martin. There have been 12 OG selected in the 2nd rd. Every other OL was drafted to play T or C.

You can argue the 2nd rd players are just as good: Osemele, Silatolu, Allen. If Bitonio & martin were switched, Bitonio would get all the hype - he was every bit as good as Martin

If you are sitting there at 9 and Scherff, Collins and Peat are all available, Scherff is not getting picked despite being ranked higher



Sy  
Reale01 : 1/27/2015 12:44 pm : link
Do you have any examples of cases where the Giants passed on an obviously better player to get a "premium" position? I can't remember any in the first round recently. Agree with you and others that a dominant guard is worth #9.

Top needs: Dominant safety (Don't see any), OL (are there any?), DE (Don't think one will get to us), DT (Shelton?).

Don't see any TE,won't take a QB, or RB,

Are there any WR or LBs that have so much ability we would have to take them?
Martin was a T in college  
BLUATHRT : 1/27/2015 12:45 pm : link
and switched to G. Bitonio was good, but Martin graded out as one of the best G's in the NFL this year, if not the best.
So I gather there's no stud/difference-making  
Big Blue '56 : 1/27/2015 12:46 pm : link
LB to be had at 9?
RE: Give us Peat  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 12:47 pm : link
In comment 12111243 JonC said:
Quote:
The football Gods owe him to us after not delivering Ogden.

Area, Jon he could finally be that blue goose LT that has alluded the Giants for years
Bold Ruler  
JonC : 1/27/2015 12:49 pm : link
we need the photo response to LB suggestions!
RE: So I gather there's no stud/difference-making  
Dunedin81 : 1/27/2015 12:51 pm : link
In comment 12111289 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
LB to be had at 9?


A guy like Shaq Thompson could end up in that range. Elite athleticism, a lot of positives on tape (though room for improvement in some areas, not a finished product), if the Giants scoured the tape and were convinced he was the guy I'd be alright with it. But I'm not sure there's another conventional LB (pass rushers like Ray and Beasley excepted, though depending on what Spags has in mind for the defense either could be in the mix) likely to get serious consideration above pick 20 or so, at least not now.
RE: RE: UFA  
giants#1 : 1/27/2015 12:52 pm : link
In comment 12111268 JonC said:
Quote:
I'd be looking at RT options on the market. Sign one, kick Pugh inside and your projected OGs are set with Richburg at C. Then, you could draft your new LT at #9 if he's the target, and WB is moved to the bench etc when the prospect is ready. Hedge, depth intact and you could still draft an OG later to put in the pipeline and battle daily with Herman, et al.


This is the most likely scenario (or signing a FA G and leaving Pugh at RT). Also keep in mind that Beatty becomes a potential cap savings target starting next offseason. Whether it's due to injuries, age, better play from a backup, he could very well be gone before 2016 which would save the Giants over $4m against the cap.

Reese's MO has always involved using the draft to get the backup in place before the starter's play dropped off (the OL deterioration was as much about poor player development).
RE: RE: RE: UFA  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 1:01 pm : link
In comment 12111307 giants#1 said:
Quote:
In comment 12111268 JonC said:


Quote:


I'd be looking at RT options on the market. Sign one, kick Pugh inside and your projected OGs are set with Richburg at C. Then, you could draft your new LT at #9 if he's the target, and WB is moved to the bench etc when the prospect is ready. Hedge, depth intact and you could still draft an OG later to put in the pipeline and battle daily with Herman, et al.




This is the most likely scenario (or signing a FA G and leaving Pugh at RT). Also keep in mind that Beatty becomes a potential cap savings target starting next offseason. Whether it's due to injuries, age, better play from a backup, he could very well be gone before 2016 which would save the Giants over $4m against the cap.

Reese's MO has always involved using the draft to get the backup in place before the starter's play dropped off (the OL deterioration was as much about poor player development).


Maras comments will not fall on deaf ears. If I had to guess , the Giants will likely get one of the top FA OL: one of Franklin (top choice IMO), Iupati, or Boling. Then come back and get an OL with LT ability at 9 if the value is there. Otherwise in the top 3 rounds.
Duned,  
Big Blue '56 : 1/27/2015 1:03 pm : link
thank you
I think a lot of people  
blueblood : 1/27/2015 1:04 pm : link
are expecting these guys that are in the first round as tackles to be top tier guys... Im not that sure that any of these tackles are top notch.. they might be.. I just dont know if their value will be higher than a defensive player or WR in the same area..
BB56  
JonC : 1/27/2015 1:09 pm : link
I'm joking of course, but I'd be shocked if NYG drafted a LB at #9. Hopefully they'll also avoid being tempted by a DE/OLB tweener.

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 agree with Sy. Who cares what the position is as long  
Victor in CT : 1/27/2015 1:12 pm : link
as the pick turns into a real player? I'd happily take a G at #9 if that guy becomes a good 10 yr starter.

Shaq Thompson  
Osix_ : 1/27/2015 1:16 pm : link
just has stud written all over him.

I don't think we draft him at #9, a true 4-3 LB that early isn't the Giants style.

But I really really hope this guy doesn't end up in the NFC East.
RE: I agree with Sy. Who cares what the position is as long  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 1:17 pm : link
In comment 12111342 Victor in CT said:
Quote:
as the pick turns into a real player? I'd happily take a G at #9 if that guy becomes a good 10 yr starter.


Not Reese's usual MO. Unlikely to deviate unless the player is a glaring BPA. I don't see Scherff being that guy over Peat, Collins Flowers or some of the receivers.
RE: I just cannot see a WR taken at 9  
robbieballs2003 : 1/27/2015 1:18 pm : link
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.
Draft dilemma  
Colin@gbn : 1/27/2015 1:20 pm : link
Nice discussion Dave, although I think I would phrase the question slightly differently. I think there is no doubt that if the Giants got on the clock with the 9th pick and a G/T like Scherff was the only player left in their top tier they will take him and the only way they don't is if they can trade down; indeed, the one thing one can always take to the bank on draft day is that the Giants will stay true to their board. The more likely scenario, though, is that there will actually be 4-5 players (including one or two OL) in the Giants top tier when they get on the clock. The question then becomes do you take the OL to fill a need (assuming they haven't done so in FA) or do you take the more impactful player. And we had this discussion a few weeks back in the Zack Martin context when we asked the question if the Giants were given the choice of taking one of Martin, Dez Bryant, DeMarco Murray or Witten off the Dallas roster who makes the biggest impact on making the Giants a better team. And there really is no way one could answer Martin everything else being equal.

In a sense, the problem for OGs and to a lesser extent RTs is that their marginal utility (winnability) isn't very high. More specifically whether one has a good, very good, or elite OG just doesn't make much difference in the overall likelihood of a team being a winner and one can usually get a good one in FA. At the other extreme is QB where you are likely a .500 team with a good QB, a playoff team with a very good one and a SB with an elite one.

Again interesting debate. Keep up the good work!
RE: Shaq Thompson  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 1:21 pm : link
In comment 12111354 Osix_ said:
Quote:
just has stud written all over him.

I don't think we draft him at #9, a true 4-3 LB that early isn't the Giants style.

But I really really hope this guy doesn't end up in the NFC East.


If the Giants feel he could impact the passing game Ala Kuechly or Urlacher and he is BPA it's not out of the realm of possibility. I just don't see it with the other talent available at higher need positions.
Colin  
JonC : 1/27/2015 1:23 pm : link
excellent post.
RE: BB56  
Big Blue '56 : 1/27/2015 1:23 pm : link
In comment 12111336 JonC said:
Quote:
I'm joking of course, but I'd be shocked if NYG drafted a LB at #9. Hopefully they'll also avoid being tempted by a DE/OLB tweener.

The #9 pick might not yield a blue chip talent from this crop, but we can't afford to not hit on the pick.


Yeah, I was feeling out you guys as to whether or not a stud LB might be available to us at 9..Whether we picked one is of course another story..
RE: RE: I just cannot see a WR taken at 9  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 1:25 pm : link
In comment 12111365 robbieballs2003 said:
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.


Agreed. Green Bay has been pretty damn successful stockpiling receivers high in the draft. Reese has shown he will go receiver early and often in similar fashion.
The Giants should trade  
Phil in LA : 1/27/2015 1:25 pm : link
down.
RE: RE: BB56  
JonC : 1/27/2015 1:26 pm : link
In comment 12111372 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 12111336 JonC said:


Quote:


I'm joking of course, but I'd be shocked if NYG drafted a LB at #9. Hopefully they'll also avoid being tempted by a DE/OLB tweener.

The #9 pick might not yield a blue chip talent from this crop, but we can't afford to not hit on the pick.



Yeah, I was feeling out you guys as to whether or not a stud LB might be available to us at 9..Whether we picked one is of course another story..


I don't see one, personally. No MIKE, and Shaq, for example, is a really raw talent. Very few OLBs impact a game strongly enough to warrant a top 10 selection, anymore. And, we know NYG will prefer an edge rusher regardless.
the difference between LT and Guards  
Osix_ : 1/27/2015 1:34 pm : link
every single year I've been on BBI, posters always point out during the season how interior protection/pressure has become such an important aspect of the game now that the quick passing game has become the norm in the NFL. This isn't the 7 step drop NFL, collapsing the pocket quickly from the inside is the key to messing up a QBs timing and rhythm. We saw the perfect example of this 2 years ago with Eli.

But then every single off-season I've been on BBI, I see posters kind of forgetting what they saw during the season and dreaming of Left Tackles even though Guards are extremely valuable these days.

All things being equal, I'd still take a (scale of 1-10) 9.5 LT over a 9.5 Guard/RT. But I'd take a 9.5 Guard over a 9.0 LT every day of the week, something that I probably wouldn't have done 15 years ago.
RE: The Giants should trade  
Osix_ : 1/27/2015 1:37 pm : link
In comment 12111377 Phil in LA said:
Quote:
down.


I'm hoping for a trade down because the talent disparity between pick #9 and pick #29 is pretty small this year. But I think teams realize this and it's going to make trade downs less likely.

Unless Mariota/Winston falls in our laps, which I don't see happening.
Osix_  
JonC : 1/27/2015 1:37 pm : link
here's the rub : NYG doesn't agree with you. So the point, while perhaps worthy of debate, winds up moot, imv.
Good point Osix. And if you watched, the Giants biggest  
Victor in CT : 1/27/2015 1:38 pm : link
problem in passing AND running is that the middle collapses.
I know that  
Osix_ : 1/27/2015 1:49 pm : link
since Accorsi the Giants really haven't valued the OL that much. And the Giants still seem to value the classic "premium positions" that you've mentioned JonC.

But we drafted Snee with the 34th pick, we drafted Richburg with the 43rd pick.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that we draft a G in the 1st round. Now maybe not at #9, but I think it's a possibility especially with Scherff and Collins being two of the more intriguing prospects in our range.
There supposedly interest  
robbieballs2003 : 1/27/2015 1:53 pm : link
In either Cooper or Warmack.
Colin  
Mike in NY : 1/27/2015 1:54 pm : link
Great post although I disagree slightly. An elite OG or RT can help a team because if you have one guy who can consistently occupy one or two rushers it allows you more flexibility to double someone else or get an OL to the second level opening holes in the running game. The difference is that it is really an elite caliber player that can do that and if you are just talking about good versus very good there is not much difference. I think someone like La'el Collins has the upside to be one of those elite players so I would consider him at #9 if other guys I liked were gone and I couldn't work out a trade down. That being said, as I watch more of Scherff I do not consider him on that same level and if we were looking at him as the best option on the OL I think we could get a comparable player in Round 2
RE: the difference between LT and Guards  
giants#1 : 1/27/2015 1:59 pm : link
In comment 12111391 Osix_ said:
Quote:
every single year I've been on BBI, posters always point out during the season how interior protection/pressure has become such an important aspect of the game now that the quick passing game has become the norm in the NFL. This isn't the 7 step drop NFL, collapsing the pocket quickly from the inside is the key to messing up a QBs timing and rhythm. We saw the perfect example of this 2 years ago with Eli.

But then every single off-season I've been on BBI, I see posters kind of forgetting what they saw during the season and dreaming of Left Tackles even though Guards are extremely valuable these days.

All things being equal, I'd still take a (scale of 1-10) 9.5 LT over a 9.5 Guard/RT. But I'd take a 9.5 Guard over a 9.0 LT every day of the week, something that I probably wouldn't have done 15 years ago.


I agree (though I'd probably rank an 8.5 LT = 9.5 G) and a good guard can make your tackles look better, or conversely a bad guard can make your OTs look really bad. If a DE takes an outside speed rush, often the OTs are taught to just ride him beyond the pocket. But if you QB can't step up because your interior is pushed back 3-5 yards, then even a OT doing his job is going to give up sacks (see 2013).

That said, despite the increased importance of solid interior OL play, the price for acquiring top interior OL is still well below the price for top OTs (look what Schwartz got vs the deal McKenzie got almost a decade ago). So when the front office devises their offseason plan (I'm sure it's more a multi-year vision), they have to take that into account. In other words, from a cap management point of view, you are much better off (long term) using your premium picks to get cost controlled assets at the "expensive" positions and using late picks/free agency to fill the holes elsewhere.
La'el Collins  
ryanmkeane : 1/27/2015 2:01 pm : link
looks like the pick for me. Those of you who are saying "you don't take a G at #9" are being very short sighted when it comes to this. He's about as clean an OL prospect as there is, has a nasty streak, and can play any spot on the line except center in a pinch. How is this guy not the pick? Especially with the ties to Beckham, who I'm sure will give him a glowing review. you can IMMEDIATELY slide this guy in at LG or RT (if they move Pugh). It's a no brainer.
RE: I agree with Sy. Who cares what the position is as long  
baadbill : 1/27/2015 2:05 pm : link
In comment 12111342 Victor in CT said:
Quote:
as the pick turns into a real player? I'd happily take a G at #9 if that guy becomes a good 10 yr starter.


It is a rarity for the Giants to have a top 10 draft pick. And when they do, they can't afford to be happy with a "good" starter. That's what you hope for with a late 1st or 2nd round pick. The Giants NEED another player with the impact Beckham has had. Unfortunately, it's not likely. But it's what they need (and it's what they did back in 1979 through 1984 with Simms, LT and Banks - all three top 10 draft picks - and all 3 were superstars that formed the core of the greatness that was to come). The Giants desperately need a similar three now (ok, I'll take 2, Beckham plus one more superstar this year)
The majority aren't saying "you don't take a G at #9"  
JonC : 1/27/2015 2:10 pm : link
plenty of well reasoned posts why you wait to pick interior OL, the biggest one being you want to maximize the potential talent and impact of the player you're choosing, not simply pick a player because you perceive a huge hole in the starting lineup.

That's simply not how the draft is utilized, THAT is ultimately short sighted.
JR prefers the playmaker  
old man : 1/27/2015 2:26 pm : link
so he better get some OL and DL quality starters in FA if he wants one @9; the anti-Walton/Jerry/Brown kind.
And that's just to have a shot at trying to draft Cooper, or some other WR.
I'd prefer a tough LT-in-waiting that can preferably also play G or RT, and start day 1. That may/may not exit in this draft. We need another young OL; otherwise, grab another young DL.
Whoever it is, they need to plug in day1.
You dont need the ball  
Fast Eddie : 1/27/2015 2:40 pm : link
In your hand to be considered a "playmaker". Why do people automatically discount certain positions based on that premise?
RE: You dont need the ball  
giants#1 : 1/27/2015 2:42 pm : link
In comment 12111527 Fast Eddie said:
Quote:
In your hand to be considered a "playmaker". Why do people automatically discount certain positions based on that premise?


That's why most refer to the "premium positions" rather than "playmakers".
to me its not position that decides  
Dankbeerman : 1/27/2015 2:54 pm : link
Wether you take a guy at the top of the draft. It's more that you need to draft a guy that you wouldnt be able to acquire any other way. Guys that will get locked up before they sniff FA or guys that would get franchised so the team that has them won't lose them.

draft a guy like Alex Mack or Zack Martin who aren't even a RT and its fine. Draft a Geoff Schwartz who we could sign in FA and you reached.

Position doesn't matter but the guy better be in the elite talent level for his position. If he is in the second tier he should be at a premium position.

.  
Anakim : 1/27/2015 2:55 pm : link
Take the BPA. If that means taking an OG at #9, so be it. The Eagles took a RT at #4 with Lane Johnson. The Cardinals took OG Jon Cooper #7 overall (and he's run into a lot of injury issues). It's not unheard of. As of now, assuming Leonard Williams, Amari Cooper and Randy Gregory, my top 3 choices for #9 are Andrus Peat, Kevin White and Devante Parker.

Anyway, my pre-Combine mock:

2) S Chris Hackett of TCU (my top rated S and the guy I want for our second round pick. A complete Safety. Good size. Good speed. I don't see many holes in his game.) I'm also a huge fan of his teammate Paul Dawson.

3) RT Rob Havenstein of Wisconsin - I never really noticed him during the season, but he really impressed me during the Senior Bowl (shut down Preston Smith) and during Senior Bowl week. I've become a fan (have him as our 3rd rounder in my mock), though I need to watch more tape on him. TEAM CAPTAIN!!!

4) DE Za'Darius Smith of Kentucky - saw a bit of him during the season, but my main focus was on Bud Dupree. Really impressed me during the East/West Shrine game (though he had an unnoticeable Senior Bowl. He looked decent during the week though). Pretty raw as he's only played a few years of organized football, but great hustle and good size. Another guy who may be intriguing is Cedric Reed. Underachieved at Texas, but many did.
Tough for "playmakers"  
Sy'56 : 1/27/2015 2:56 pm : link
to fulfill their potential without the talent in the trenches, and that goes for both sides of the ball.

The guys up front can make the guys behind them much better. Same can't be said the other way around.
Another thing with Round 1  
Mike in NY : 1/27/2015 2:59 pm : link
It is not so much the position but I do look at what will be there in Rounds 2 and 3. If I can get a comparable player I am not going to take a guy in Round 1 just because he is the highest rated guy at his position. If, hypothetically, we only have one highly rated DE left who will not be available later on and we have other OL comparable to what is left that will be I am not going to say don't pick the DE because the OL left may be ranked higher (although similar) or OL is a bigger need. To maximize value you have to know what quality you will be getting later on because A1 + B2 may be less than B1 + A2
Draft evolution  
Colin@gbn : 1/27/2015 3:00 pm : link
Again really good discussion guys! For the record, I have no idea who the Giants are thinking of taking with their top picks this year. Indeed, when putting together my latest mock (due tomorrow with any luck) I wasn't sure I even had a good feel who might be on their short list. However, further to my earlier comments on the value of the various OL positions I do believe we have seen something of an evolution of how the Giants value the offensive line at the draft in particular as the offense itself evolves from To Coughlin's old base 2-TE scheme to McAdoo's spread. In particular in the old scheme in which as a matter of course the Giants would keep a RB and the second TE into block on just about every play one didn't necessarily need great individual offensive linemen because there were always those extra couple of blockers to help. As the offense morphs into a spread though with more receivers into the route the individual blockers becomes more important. Indeed, I suspect they didn't take Pugh because they liked his versatility or they justed wanted to upgrade the OL, but because they wanted a guy with LT pass-blocking skills at RT. Similarly they didn't take Richburg just for the sake of upgrading the OL, but as Osix suggested like a lot of teams around the league, the Giants are putting a greater value on the C position as it is crucial to lock down the middle of the line if your QB is only taking a short drop. As such, while I am hardly in the 'OL or bust' crowd, I would not be totally shocked if the Giants took a Scherff or La'el Collins with the 9th pick even if they were one of 4-5 guys in their top tier with the idea of locking down another OL position with a guy with LT pas blocking ability. That might especially be the case if they weren't overly excited by the the other 'more impactful' positions guys who were available at that point.

At the same time, the general rule of thumb with OLBs is you don't take one all that early UNLESS that guy has real pass-rush ability. In that vein I keep looking at Vic Beasley and thinking what if ... while he played almost exclusively in college with his hand on the ground and almost never played in reverse he is much more athletic than most of the other hybrid DE/OLBs out there. Plus of course he can get after the QB. And if the Giants are thinking of trying to a field a more aggressive attacking style defense under Spags I can help but imaging lining up a guy like Beasley at WLB with Kennard on the SSLB and bringing them to the line of scrimmage with instructions to get into the backfield and disrupt! One can dream. Stay warm!
Don't  
AcidTest : 1/27/2015 3:12 pm : link
agree with this:

Quote:
In a sense, the problem for OGs and to a lesser extent RTs is that their marginal utility (winnability) isn't very high. More specifically whether one has a good, very good, or elite OG just doesn't make much difference in the overall likelihood of a team being a winner and one can usually get a good one in FA. At the other extreme is QB where you are likely a .500 team with a good QB, a playoff team with a very good one and a SB with an elite one.


Dallas sucked until they started investing in their OL with Smith, Frederick, and Martin. They were really one play away from the NFC championship game.

Reese has repeatedly thought he could get away with using mid round picks on guards, which has only produced the likes of Petrus, Brewer, McCants, Mosley, and Herman. Whether one can get a good guard in FA is debatable. Some years yes, some no. We got Schwartz last year, which will hopefully produce dividends this season, because our run game was putrid. Dallas meanwhile ran over everyone.

It's wrong to say that guards and RTs are not elite playmakers. That has certainly been the philosophy of Reese, and it has been a failure, along with his similar belief regarding LBs. Do we win either SB without Chris Snee? Snee was drafted in the second round, but the Giants had a first round grade on him IIIRC, and a redraft of 2004 would probably put him in the top 15 players selected that year.

I'm not saying we should draft a guard, just that people saying #9 is too high for one are wrong. And a guy like Collins isn't just a guard. He can probably also at a minimum play RT.

This game is won, and lost, in the trenches.
Just  
Eric from BBI : Admin : 1/27/2015 3:13 pm : link
keep in mind what Jerry Reese just said a couple of weeks ago on WFAN. He said if the choice is between a guard and a "play-maker" (his words), he will always take the play-maker.
RE: RE: I just cannot see a WR taken at 9  
Simms11 : 1/27/2015 3:20 pm : link
In comment 12111365 robbieballs2003 said:
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.
RE: Just  
AcidTest : 1/27/2015 3:46 pm : link
In comment 12111582 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
keep in mind what Jerry Reese just said a couple of weeks ago on WFAN. He said if the choice is between a guard and a "play-maker" (his words), he will always take the play-maker.


That is what he said. And my guess is that the Giants correctly taking Beckham over Martin only reinforces the correctness of that philosophy to him. But Beckham notwithstanding, we have otherwise paid a very heavy price for his decision to try and fill out most of the OL with mid round picks and FA rejects.

The problem as I said is that he doesn't view guards as playmakers, which is why he's constantly fishing around in FA for the likes of Jerry and Brown, and also giving us Petrus, Brewer, McCants, and Mosley in the draft. I get that you can't use all your first and second round picks on the OL, but his denial of OL as playmakers has really hurt us. Remember we could have had Cordy Glenn instead of David Wilson.

I wonder at this point if his philosophy is clashing with Mara's obvious desire to upgrade the OL and build a "wall" around Eli.
Acid  
Eric from BBI : Admin : 1/27/2015 3:52 pm : link
I think it's pretty clear that when you give Eli and OL, he'll kill the other team.

But I'm merely posting Reese's bias. You can make a good argument for his bias. You can make a good argument against it. But it is there.
I've said it 100x.....  
drkenneth : 1/27/2015 4:11 pm : link
#1- Fix the OL (Don't care how..need 2 players)

#2- Get Eli another weapon (WR/TE/RB- Don't care which.)

I have no issue with taking a stud G/RT type at #9, as long as they target another weapon at some point.
Drk,  
AnishPatel : 1/27/2015 4:14 pm : link
That's fine, I agree with that, however, I don't care what order we do it. If we go WR first and OL later on, or the order which you have it. Even address it in FA is fine by me. I do think we need more talent on offense at OL and WR/TE/RB. I am not going to stand pat on the current talent at WR and TE. So I hope we upgrade.
I totally agree  
Sy'56 : 1/27/2015 4:15 pm : link
that Reese will consistently go after the high potential athletes as skill positions over a RT or OG. My point is more of my own personal view on how to build this team from this point forward, thats all.
In the end, what matters most about this draft is fixing the OL.  
Red Dog : 1/27/2015 4:15 pm : link
I always take the position that a truly elite player at any position is worth a round one pick, even a high one.

However, they don't have to take an OL in round one this year as long as they get a real talent at a position of need in the first and couple of OLs who can come in and make a difference after that. For instance, they could get a very solid G in the second after taking a defensive player (other than a corner) in round one. And they should get some OL bench strength on the third day, but they absolutely, positively cannot continue to miss on these third day OL picks like they have missed again and again and again and again over the past half dozen years.
RE: I know that  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 4:18 pm : link
In comment 12111416 Osix_ said:
Quote:
since Accorsi the Giants really haven't valued the OL that much. And the Giants still seem to value the classic "premium positions" that you've mentioned JonC.

But we drafted Snee with the 34th pick, we drafted Richburg with the 43rd pick.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that we draft a G in the 1st round. Now maybe not at #9, but I think it's a possibility especially with Scherff and Collins being two of the more intriguing prospects in our range.


Osix you are right that the value of a good guard is also important in todays game but it is also about supply and demand. It is MUCH harder to find a true elite LT than a Guard. A 320 lb guy who can mirror and possesses great lateral agility is much rarer than a guy that can get movement in the run game and operate well in a phone booth.

So all things being equal you take the elite LT everytime (as many can usually play other spots in the line as well).
Excellent analysis as usual Colin  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 4:24 pm : link
Giants place extremely high value on LT versatility. Only problem is I think only Peat and maybe Collins have the elite LT ability you look for in a top 10 pick. If Flowers impresses in the combine maybe him too. However while he may make a very good Gaurd I dont see that LT potential in Scherff at all.
RE: I've said it 100x.....  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 4:31 pm : link
In comment 12111681 drkenneth said:
Quote:
#1- Fix the OL (Don't care how..need 2 players)

#2- Get Eli another weapon (WR/TE/RB- Don't care which.)

I have no issue with taking a stud G/RT type at #9, as long as they target another weapon at some point.


Combining value and the strength of the draft and it may very well fall this way. An OL with LT ability in the first and then a WR/TE in the second and even into third round. T

There are a boatload of red chip Receivers in this draft and a couple interesting TEs that will
be available for or second and third pick.
RE: I've said it 100x.....  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 4:31 pm : link
In comment 12111681 drkenneth said:
Quote:
#1- Fix the OL (Don't care how..need 2 players)

#2- Get Eli another weapon (WR/TE/RB- Don't care which.)

I have no issue with taking a stud G/RT type at #9, as long as they target another weapon at some point.


Combining value and the strength of the draft and it may very well fall this way. An OL with LT ability in the first and then a WR/TE in the second and even into third round. T

There are a boatload of red chip Receivers in this draft and a couple interesting TEs that will
be available for or second and third pick.
LG/RT  
giants#1 : 1/27/2015 4:37 pm : link
(depending on your view of Pugh) is an immediate need for this team. Thus, I'd put the odds of them addressing the position in FA at >75%. I'd be surprised if they don't add another Schwartz level signing to the OL mix and go with:

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.
RE: BB56  
BMac : 1/27/2015 5:10 pm : link
In comment 12111336 JonC said:
Quote:
I'm joking of course, but I'd be shocked if NYG drafted a LB at #9. Hopefully they'll also avoid being tempted by a DE/OLB tweener.

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
Sy's Points  
Percy : 1/27/2015 5:18 pm : link
Agree. The first pick has to be someone who can and will start and be good right away. Just about anywhere. The OL seems to me to be the most important in the 'fix it now" category. Failure to fix this will have more collateral bad effects than any other part of the team in need of repair. DL is probably next in line. (I'd put S in there if there were clear bell ringers for that in this draft, but I don't see any.) The Combine will tell us more and clarify things.
RE: RE: RE: I just cannot see a WR taken at 9  
BMac : 1/27/2015 5:31 pm : link
In comment 12111601 Simms11 said:
Quote:
In comment 12111365 robbieballs2003 said:


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.
bmac  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 5:42 pm : link
So what is your point exactly?
RE: bmac  
BMac : 1/27/2015 5:50 pm : link
In comment 12111813 Coach Mason said:
Quote:
So what is your point exactly?


To what comment are you referring, exactly?
RE: RE: bmac  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 5:55 pm : link
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.
Great discussion  
I wanna be Torbor, sucka : 1/27/2015 5:59 pm : link
I'd say the key point here is that, whether or not the fans agree, the Giants want "playmakers" with top picks, and guards are not playmakers in the way that they use it.

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.
RE: Great discussion  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 6:30 pm : link
In comment 12111830 I wanna be Torbor, sucka said:
Quote:
I'd say the key point here is that, whether or not the fans agree, the Giants want "playmakers" with top picks, and guards are not playmakers in the way that they use it.

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.
I hope the Giants weight their board by positional value  
chris r : 1/27/2015 6:34 pm : link
otherwise you have Raider type moves where a supposed generational kicker gets drafted in the first round.

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.
I'd be happy to see La'el Collins in blue.  
Ira : 1/27/2015 6:43 pm : link
He could do for us at lg what Zack Martin did for Dallas and replace Beatty at lt in a couple of years.
RE: RE: RE: bmac  
Simms11 : 1/27/2015 7:07 pm : link
In comment 12111828 Coach Mason said:
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.
BMac  
JonC : 1/27/2015 7:09 pm : link
We agree it most likely will be WR or LT, and your post is on target, imv. I think it only changes if a DE rises late.
#1WR (there's only 1 football and 1 gameplan)  
area junc : 1/27/2015 7:41 pm : link
i'd be stunned - *stunned* - if we took a WR. throw the remote pick for me.

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!
RE: #1WR (there's only 1 football and 1 gameplan)  
Simms11 : 1/27/2015 7:57 pm : link
In comment 12111968 area junc said:
Quote:
i'd be stunned - *stunned* - if we took a WR. throw the remote pick for me.

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!
The problem is, if you keep taking "playmakers" and ignore the  
Victor in CT : 1/27/2015 8:22 pm : link
OL, you end up with a lot of great highlight film plays that occur in losses.
RE: RE: RE: RE: bmac  
BMac : 1/27/2015 8:24 pm : link
In comment 12111912 Simms11 said:
Quote:
In comment 12111828 Coach Mason said:


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 don't like the salary cap game  
Sy'56 : 1/27/2015 8:26 pm : link
Nor do I like trying to fill spots accroding to "traditional" roster building strategies. I want NYG to fill this team with good players all over the field. I want a bunch of guys that can do their job, plain and simple.

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.
RE: BMac  
BMac : 1/27/2015 8:28 pm : link
In comment 12111916 JonC said:
Quote:
We agree it most likely will be WR or LT, and your post is on target, imv. I think it only changes if a DE rises late.


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's mindset about playmakers  
BigBlueCane : 1/27/2015 8:34 pm : link
leads to him taking flyers on guys who he thinks are playmakers who dropped for different reasons, the most common being often injured. And those guys generally turn out to be often injured and useless.

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.
Reese's bias  
DavidinBMNY : 1/27/2015 9:24 pm : link
Has to get past Mara's ok.

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.

BMac  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 10:08 pm : link
The strength of the draft at 9 at the moment certainly looks like its going to be WR or LT. And ascribing to the front offices drafting patterns that high in the draft, the player will likely be a guy who can greatly impact in the passing game either offensively or defensively. So that excludes almost all but the quite rare LB or pass rush DT defensively, the rare 2 way threat home run RB and run block first OGS like Scherff.
RE: Reese's mindset about playmakers  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 10:13 pm : link
In comment 12112052 BigBlueCane said:
Quote:
leads to him taking flyers on guys who he thinks are playmakers who dropped for different reasons, the most common being often injured. And those guys generally turn out to be often injured and useless.

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.
should read sky high AA and significant injury history  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 10:14 pm : link
...
RE: Reese's bias  
Steve in South Jersey : 1/27/2015 10:15 pm : link
In comment 12112172 DavidinBMNY said:
Quote:
Has to get past Mara's ok.

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.
Mara has his fingers in this  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 10:25 pm : link
But Reese has a strong say. With that said let's see what they do first in FA. OL is going to be a focus one way or the other.
Playmakers  
blueblood : 1/27/2015 10:51 pm : link
doesnt just mean WR.. it could mean DE, CB or LB as well
RE: Playmakers  
Coach Mason : 1/27/2015 11:03 pm : link
In comment 12112267 blueblood said:
Quote:
doesnt just mean WR.. it could mean DE, CB or LB as well


A play making game-changing 4-3 LB is quite rare.
RE: RE: I just cannot see a WR taken at 9  
dguy901 : 1/28/2015 11:18 am : link
In comment 12111205 blueblood said:
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.
To me a guy like Tyler Lockett in the 3rd  
yatqb : 1/28/2015 12:30 pm : link
would be a worthwhile get unless we re-signed Jernigan. I'd like a really good slot guy as protection against Cruz not making it back this year. But we sure don't need another Rd. 1 receiver.
yat  
Coach Mason : 1/28/2015 1:02 pm : link
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.
Steve  
DavidinBMNY : 1/28/2015 9:23 pm : link
Watch Finding Giants and listen to Mara speak. Ross makes a reccomendatin bars on the board, Ross, Coughlin and Reese come to a decision. Mara approves.

Mara blames himself partially for past draft mistakes.
RE: RE: RE: I just cannot see a WR taken at 9  
blueblood : 1/29/2015 12:16 am : link
In comment 12112733 dguy901 said:
Quote:
In comment 12111205 blueblood said:


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...
RE: yat  
yatqb : 1/29/2015 7:43 am : link
In comment 12112964 Coach Mason said:
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.
I am fine with Sy's logic here  
idiotsavant : 1/29/2015 8:51 am : link
there are certainly good, even very good, offensive tackles that make crap guards, and great guards who make crap tackles and so forth.

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.
so, the question regarding my method  
idiotsavant : 1/29/2015 8:58 am : link
of using 'positional pools' would then be,

'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?
acting on an assumption, you can argue,  
idiotsavant : 1/29/2015 9:03 am : link
that the team needs

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.
wr becomes an obvious free agency target  
idiotsavant : 1/29/2015 9:06 am : link
.
If they think based on the offseason program...  
Dunedin81 : 1/29/2015 9:15 am : link
that Cruz will be close to 100%, WR isn't a glaring need. Maybe Randle, maybe a second-tier FA, but it's not something where you need to go out and sign a top-shelf FA or push a pick if you believe the WR in question is a little less of a value pick. But if they don't think Cruz can come back anywhere near full strength you've got a question mark in Reuben Randle, a mediocre pass-catching TE in Donnell and an oft-injured RB (the other RB still very much a work in progress as a pass-catcher) to go along with OBJ. That's a recipe for a lot of attention. At that point someone like Cooper or Parker could start to look like a better pick(assuming the value is similar).
agreed, but  
idiotsavant : 1/29/2015 9:33 am : link
do we really want another season with long stretches of getting run on and not getting pressure or sacks? Thats awfully hard to watch as a NY Giants Fan.

and or, no run game.
We need LBs too, savant.  
yatqb : 1/29/2015 9:52 am : link
.
yes, by all means add those LBs  
idiotsavant : 1/29/2015 10:04 am : link
I guess it all comes down to what the fans feel is more engaging.

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.
RE: RE: yat  
Coach Mason : 1/29/2015 10:29 am : link
In comment 12114001 yatqb said:
Quote:
In comment 12112964 Coach Mason said:


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.
Duned, some teams like GB  
Coach Mason : 1/29/2015 10:35 am : link
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.
RE: Duned, some teams like GB  
Dunedin81 : 1/29/2015 10:43 am : link
In comment 12114318 Coach Mason said:
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.
RE: RE: Duned, some teams like GB  
Coach Mason : 1/29/2015 10:55 am : link
In comment 12114341 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
In comment 12114318 Coach Mason said:


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).
I wouldn't discount TE either...  
Dunedin81 : 1/29/2015 11:03 am : link
I don't think Donnell is the answer, I think he'd be a better 2nd TE than a 1st, and if the value is there it'd be a nice way of hedging bets. If Cruz is back a TE can still see the field, if Cruz isn't a TE can pick up some of the slack from an unproductive slot position.
Duned  
Coach Mason : 1/29/2015 12:26 pm : link
No reason guys like Walford,Boyle and Maxx Williams can't be in the conversation starting round 2. All 3 offer some blocking potential as well.
I want Flowers  
Optimus-NY : 1/30/2015 12:48 pm : link
Ereck Flowers that is...
RE: I want Flowers  
Coach Mason : 1/30/2015 2:36 pm : link
In comment 12116029 Optimus-NY said:
Quote:
Ereck Flowers that is...


Combine may help his stock. Right now I don't think he is in the same tier as Collins and Peat.
Back to the Corner