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.
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).