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.
But, I suspect NYG will lean towards a DE or WR unless the grades are distant from a RT/OG, of course.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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..
In short, WR very well could be in play at #9. Think roster building, not just plugging in a player for 2015.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
Area, Jon he could finally be that blue goose LT that has alluded the Giants for years
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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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..
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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)
That's simply not how the draft is utilized, THAT is ultimately short sighted.
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.
That's why most refer to the "premium positions" rather than "playmakers".
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.
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.
The guys up front can make the guys behind them much better. Same can't be said the other way around.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
#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.
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.
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).
#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.
#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.
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.