The latest GBN 1st Round Mock has the Giants selecting Devante Paker, WR Louisville at #9. I have posted in the past on how I think Parker is a close #2 WR to Cooper in this draft class and how selecting a WR at #9 makes sense if you think Parker fits the Giants scheme and if you think he is a game breaker. Not going to rehash all of that again.
If you look at Parker's performances this year you will see a dominant WR who was at his best in big games. He is also very good after the catch, which I think increases his value, especially to a team like Giants. At 6'2" 214lbs, with sub 4.5 speed, he seems to be everything the Giants hoped Reuben Randle would be and then some. With Cruz and Randle both legit question marks going into 2015 a player like Parker is certainly in the mix, particularly given Reese's comments about preferring playmakers over linemen.
Under this scenario, with Scherff going at 10 and Peat going at 11, you'd have to think the Giants either addressed the OL in FA or will draft one in round 2. I have always thought the Giants will address the starting RT/LG position in FA, leaving options open for the draft.
Colin, if you see this post, would be very interested in your reasoning on the latest projection. Thanks
1st Round Projection - (
New Window )
but at some point, this organization has to learn (if it hasn't been painfully obvious already) that without a solid o-line, this team isn't going anywhere. a good o-line is the key to the offense and the defense (in the sense that if the offense can control the ball, a lot less stress is placed on the defense).
What 5'8ft WRs have you seen mocked to Giants at #9? There's no WR under 6'0 in Colin's top 10 WRs.
Sorry, I don't think you use the #9 overall pick for a "just in case" scenario. That pick has to be one that you believe will be the best choice to improve your team.
You're a good fan. I think at the end of the day we should all feel that way.
It will make the RBs better.
It will make Eli better.
It will even make OBJ better.
No WR can do all that.
Go OLine in the 1st.
Quote:
With Cruz and Randle both legit question marks
Sorry, I don't think you use the #9 overall pick for a "just in case" scenario. That pick has to be one that you believe will be the best choice to improve your team.
I hear you, but I think another thing to consider is the anticipated increased use of 4 WR sets in the MacAdoo offense and the fact Randle is a FA after the season. This is actually a difficult scenario. If Randle regresses, why would the Giants want him back? If Randle's last two games are a forecast of the future and he busts out, do the Giants pay him the money he would command on the open market? In addition to playing making ability at a reasonable price (rookie wage scale) Parker gives you leverage and options.
It will make the RBs better.
It will make Eli better.
It will even make OBJ better.
No WR can do all that.
Go OLine in the 1st.
John, no doubt that OL in the 1st is a more than legit philosophy, it very well could be an OL if the brain trust believes that one of the available OL is the highest rated player on the board. History tells us that is a big hurdle to jump on the Giants draft board.
In response to your list, a WR can certainly do all those things, just in a different way.
1. Makes Cruz and Randle (and OBJ) better by making teams pay for double coverage. Parker is also a big YAC guy so if defenses are going to guard against the vertical routes (Randle and OBJ) Parker and Cruz make them pay.
2. Makes the RBs better by forcing the D to play coverage and leave 7 in the box
3. More top line targets for your QB always makes them better. Trust in playmaking ability is huge. Look at Peyton Manning and Denver.
4. As mentioned in point 1, it makes OBJ better
Does an OL do all those things "better". Sure, but perhaps in a different way is a better way to say it.
It will make the RBs better.
It will make Eli better.
It will even make OBJ better.
No WR can do all that.
Go OLine in the 1st.
If you have been paying attention to Reese, he has a history of filling holes in free agency so that in the draft he doesn't HAVE to overweight a need.
Plus, the Giants history of recent SB wins, doesn't support drafting OL high. It supports using free agency to build the line.
I expect the same. Reese has already said given the choice of adding a play maker or lineman he'll go for the play maker every time.
We don't have to go OL in the 1st round this year if the pick is a reach at #9.
We don't have to go OL in the 1st round this year if the pick is a reach at #9.
And they're addressed 33% of the WR group. They don't have to go WR in the first if that pick is a reach.
Also Reese is full of shit about BPA All GMs are. They try to marry need with ranking. Reese picks WRs every year and this team is full of holes Becuase of it.
We don't have to go OL in the 1st round this year if the pick is a reach at #9.
And you think we did a good job of it?
Of course we should never reach, need or not.
this is the kiss of death.
I must have read 100's of posts on here about how "the Giants aren't drafting a RB in the first round" in the weeks before the David Wilson pick.
Of course the owner wasn't commenting strictly on the draft was he?
No, he wasn't.
Ditto pass-rushing DE, linebacker.
If you have the choice of an elite player or a solid starter at a position of need, you take the elite player. If it's a choice of solid starter or solid starter, then you go for need. Which sounds like what will happen in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.
Quote:
in FA and the Draft.
We don't have to go OL in the 1st round this year if the pick is a reach at #9.
And you think we did a good job of it?
Of course we should never reach, need or not.
Schwartz was IRd virtually the whole year and the rookie Richburg was playing out of position.
You think we didn't attempt to make improvements in the offseason?
The LAST thing this team needs is another damn WR. They've already got a dozen of them. What they don't have is a dominant OLT or a starting Guard to go with Schwartz.
In this scenario, an OL is an absolute no brainer.
How many other injuries has Parker had? That is the most serious one he suffered, it's not like he's injury plagued.
The LAST thing this team needs is another damn WR. They've already got a dozen of them. What they don't have is a dominant OLT or a starting Guard to go with Schwartz.
In this scenario, an OL is an absolute no brainer.
YES. We don't have a single dominant OL. Haven't somce Snee before the injuries. The OL w 2 high picks in the last two years is still one of the worst. This team needs to better on both lines. How many play off wins does Atlanta have. Their OL and DL are a disaster. . It got their coach fired.
No clue why fans constantly don't understand that a) OL has a high bust rate and b) you don't have to use your high first round pick on the OL to improve it.
The Patriots have one 1st round OL on their team. Solder. Stork is a 4th round rookie.
Why not use the Pats as your example instead of Atlanta? It's not exactly like Brady's any more mobile than Eli.
The player the Giants draft needs to be worthy of the spot he is drafted in. It is a bad spot for a reach pick based on need.
I'd love to have "more toys for Eli", but you also have to realize where the playing with the toys, and having the D makes stops so the O sees the field, starts, and that's with the less sexy, less glamourous picks are made. Reese has lost sight of that and I'm not sure TC is so happy about that.
As someone above said, if the line(s) is/are addressed in FA, ok.
btw, JonC, I saw a reply long after you made it as I returned to the thread, and I think it dovetails with the gist here, when you said Reese did what he could with the $$ and FA available--but that's what happens when you shortchange your roster into a corner and leave few if any appealing options. Reese struck out in his re-making of the lines in 2014 (save and except, we hope, Richburg). At some point....
Peat's father, Todd, played six NFL seasons as a squatty guard for the Cardinals and Raiders.
"He's got everything," one scout said. "Size, the bend, the feet, the tenacity."
David Shaw:
"I don't know if there's been anybody else in our conference, in the last eight years, that is as good as Andrus Peat has been and can be. In my entire career, nine years in the NFL, the only offensive lineman that was a step above of where Andrus can be is Jonathan Ogden -- one of the best tackles to ever play," Shaw said Thursday at Pac-12 Media Days. "Besides that special, special player, he's the most talented I've ever been around.
"And he's still scratching the surface. He can be phenomenal. Hopefully we have him for two more years."
Boylhart:
Andrus has the overall athletic talent, size, lateral agility and techniques to be one of the top left tackles who can actually play Left Tackle at the next level for the team that selects him in this draft. His pass blocking techniques are excellent and his ability to mirror his opponent in this draft is one of the best. Andrus seems to take pride in his play and seems to have the mental toughness needed to be a Left Tackle for the next level. What I see when evaluating Andrus on film is the consistency he has in the use of technique with his hands and feet. That is very impressive and very unusual for any offensive tackle at any level. The value of offensive linemen will be very high in this draft no matter what position they play and Andrus will be one of those very highly valued players.
Will this be the year the stars align and the Giants finally draft the best LT they have had since Jumbo?
The LAST thing this team needs is another damn WR. They've already got a dozen of them. What they don't have is a dominant OLT or a starting Guard to go with Schwartz.
In this scenario, an OL is an absolute no brainer.
If you're going to make a fucking point, you'd be better off without the hyperbole. Where's the half dozen WR's on our roster? After Odell all we have are question marks at the position. A good way for GM's to get fired is to bank on players bouncing back from severe injury or hoping an inconsistent performer puts everything together. I wouldn't be opposed to taking a lineman, but to pigeonhole your options to say "OLT or bust" is a good way to set your team back by reaching for a player that doesn't warrant where they are picked.
There's a chance Yat
Had a bit of an underwhelming year relative to previous so that may drop him. He is also viewed as slightly developmental (as Tyron was) so that may drop him down as well.
This past year was unusual with so many receivers blossoming into standouts as rookies. Normally, a first round wideout doesn't begin making an impact until the 2nd half of their rookie seasons. Also, injuries happen in the NFL.
I really want Cooper to fall though I know he won't fall as far as #9 but if the Giants draft board has Parker at the top when their pick comes so be it.
I'd prefer veteran relief for the OL because Eli deserves as much. If the OL is shuffled as Beatty-Schwartz-Richburg-UFA-,Pugh we may have the ability to RUN and PASS.
I can see us taking Peat #1 as well. Or Scherff even. Or Collins. Or Flowers. I mean, at this point it is too early to truly tell.
Orlando Franklin and then Peat@9 and your line becomes:
2015:
Beatty-Pugh-Richburg-Schwartz-Franklin
-With Peat being coached up & ready to jump in in case of injury (Franklin can shift to Gaurd to allow Peat to play RT in case of injury to Pugh or Schwartz).
2016:
Peat-Pugh-Richburg-Schwartz-Franklin
or
Peat-Franklin-Richburg-Schwartz-Pugh
-Save roughly 7 mill in cap space by letting Beatty go.
While Scherff is a mauler he doesn't offer the same position versatility that Peat and Collins do. I'm not as sold on Collins' pure LT ability but love his nasty demeanor and showed very well at the senior bowl. I do believe Collins will be a notch above what Diehl was at LT (when Diehl was still good) at minumum and better in the run game than Peat.
This past year was unusual with so many receivers blossoming into standouts as rookies. Normally, a first round wideout doesn't begin making an impact until the 2nd half of their rookie seasons. Also, injuries happen in the NFL.
I really want Cooper to fall though I know he won't fall as far as #9 but if the Giants draft board has Parker at the top when their pick comes so be it.
I'd prefer veteran relief for the OL because Eli deserves as much. If the OL is shuffled as Beatty-Schwartz-Richburg-UFA-,Pugh we may have the ability to RUN and PASS.
I can see us taking Peat #1 as well. Or Scherff even. Or Collins. Or Flowers. I mean, at this point it is too early to truly tell.
Giants DO know exactly what kind of patellar tendon rupture it (location ,extent etc.) was and therefore know a bit more about how severe and how likely to come back from it is.
Reese sounded a little guarded in the post-season PC about it which makes me a bit nervous. Guess we'll see ,but after OBJ it's a bunch of question marks. A high pick on a WR or TE (top 2 rounds or latest 3) is not unrealistic or overkill in this passing era by any means.
Not sure that's how the Giants would use him, but I also dont think he has to be the left tackle to be a good pick for the Giants.
That said, I'd still rather trade down from 9 than take anyone who's like to be there.
Any one of them would fill a much more pressing need for the G-men than another WR with an injury history. Any one of them would be a better choice.
Reese's strategy of building the line with low round draft choices and free agents has completely and totally failed over the past several seasons. They have to try something else, like investing premium picks in one of the most important units on the team. That idea has certainly worked for Dallas, lifting them from an also-ran to a playoff team.
Again, it just simply does NOT matter who they have as receivers and running backs if the line can't keep Eli upright and open holes for the run game. As Sy '56 points out, good OLs make average ball handlers look good, but it doesn't work the other way around.
The crapola line they have now is the major reason that they have sucked in the red zone for the last several seasons. And it's the major reason that they can't put opponents away with sustained drives late in the game.
The GIANTS won't be a winning team again until they get the OL fixed, and this is an outstanding chance to get a plus player for it, or at least pick up a really good DT that could also make a real difference. They can't blow it by taking a WR.
yat, granted I haven't dissected the tape enough to form a fully confident opinion on all the nuances of Collins' game but often times that is a very correctable flaw . Further, I haven't seen it a high enough recurrence rate to cause alarm.
Same with Peat. There was a little sloppiness to his game especially last year. But he has shown enough to believe he is a complete player with the footwork necessary to play LT at a very high level.
Any one of them would fill a much more pressing need for the G-men than another WR with an injury history. Any one of them would be a better choice.
Reese's strategy of building the line with low round draft choices and free agents has completely and totally failed over the past several seasons. They have to try something else, like investing premium picks in one of the most important units on the team. That idea has certainly worked for Dallas, lifting them from an also-ran to a playoff team.
Again, it just simply does NOT matter who they have as receivers and running backs if the line can't keep Eli upright and open holes for the run game. As Sy '56 points out, good OLs make average ball handlers look good, but it doesn't work the other way around.
The crapola line they have now is the major reason that they have sucked in the red zone for the last several seasons. And it's the major reason that they can't put opponents away with sustained drives late in the game.
The GIANTS won't be a winning team again until they get the OL fixed, and this is an outstanding chance to get a plus player for it, or at least pick up a really good DT that could also make a real difference. They can't blow it by taking a WR.
The Giants were 8th in the NFL in the red zone last year (TD scoring %).
Scheme and play calling had far more to do with the red zone inefficiencies than the OL did. They were 30th in 2013.
but keep clamoring for high draft picks to be used to fix problems you have no clue about even existing.
To me Scherff is a potential pro bowl OG, and Peat a potential pro bowl LT. I wouldn't argue with either if they were there for us.
The way I see our master architect Mr.Reese looking at this starts with the fact that there are no great LTs on this roster currently. And now that the passing game has become more critical than ever , it is arguably the most important position on the line especially with an immobile QB.
I'm reading the tea leaves a bit but with Maras comments we are likely to pick up a new OL in FA but likely a non-LT (as there are no great LT available and they generally cost a ton if they are any good anyways). My guess they will go for a versatile guy like Franklin who can play RT and OG.If so that leaves us with:
3 guys who can play RT- Franklin, Schwartz and Pugh
4 guys who can play OG- Franklin, Schwartz, Pugh, Richburg
2 guys who can play OC- Richburg, Walton
1 guy who can play LT- Beatty (who is expensive, inconsistent, can only play LT, and a bit injury prone)
Where is the biggest weakness?
This is why Peat makes the most sense of all.
I hate tabbing guys early but Beckham looks like a once in a decade (or more) type talent. You don't light the league up like this kid did as a rookie unless you are pretty special.
So if the Giants somehow think that White, Parker , or Cooper are close to that level they would likely be glaring BPA at 9. The Giants like to draft where value meets need but they won't ignore a guy if he is BPA by a wide margin.
I do think that we could be just one or two players away from having an effective OL. A good left guard and Richburg in his second year playing his natural position of center should improve the OL quite a bit.
Peat, Collins, and Scherff all have warts, but are all good players. Another OL to watch for on day two is Ogbuehi. His torn ACL and problems at LT this past season could push him down to round three. A lot of course depends on what the Giants do in FA. Signing another guard like they did with Schwartz last year could indicate that they would lean towards a tackle if they go OL early.
I don't see the Giants drafting Ray or Beasley, who look like they should play OLB in a 3-4.
We also need help at DT, where Shelton could be an option at #9.
This team couldn't run, and couldn't stop the run. The early part of this draft may well be about the lines.
As far as Dorial Green-Beckham is concerned, he has character problems, and didn't play at all in 2014. I'd be stunned if the Giants took him at all, let alone in the second round.
You CAN build a very good OL without spending first round draft picks.. a good OL is far more about consistency and cohesiveness than it is about the individual sum of the talent.
One of the issues that Giants have had over the years besides the injury issue and the quick demise of Snee and Diehl is a lack of consistency. They are constantly changing the OL. They simply cannot develop any cohesiveness.
They need talent..they need cohesiveness and they need consistency.. simply put they need to STOP playing musical chairs with the OL..
Now that being said.. they have done a very very poor job with developing replacements. They have tried.. ineffectively to take players like Brewer, Mosely, etc etc in later round and try to develop them into starters.. when in all honesty they arent even good depth...
And they have had bad luck in the FA pool with Baas being constantly hurt and Schwartz....
However they HAVE invested in the OL the last two years in the draft with Pugh and Richburg and anyone that saw the Finding Giants could see from Ross comments they were definitely looking at OL last year..
I would have no issue if they went a position other that OL in round one.. because you CAN get starting OL talent in round 2 and 3.. especially at the guard/RT position..
I have no issue if they go WR and they can improve their passing attack.. they could go DL as well.. or LB..
they DO have to upgrade the OL.. I just dont believe it has to be done in ROUND ONE.. there is FA and there is more than ONE round in the draft..
Agreed Sy. Despite the gaudy numbers, don't think Parker's skillset (or lack thereof) translates well to the NFL game. I don't see NFL maturity in his route running to get open and I think he'll gets shutdown alot more often by NFL caliber DBs. White on the other hand has more 'feistiness' to his game, fights for the ball better and seems to have some wiggle to get a little better separation (for a man his size).
You CAN build a very good OL without spending first round draft picks.. a good OL is far more about consistency and cohesiveness than it is about the individual sum of the talent.
One of the issues that Giants have had over the years besides the injury issue and the quick demise of Snee and Diehl is a lack of consistency. They are constantly changing the OL. They simply cannot develop any cohesiveness.
They need talent..they need cohesiveness and they need consistency.. simply put they need to STOP playing musical chairs with the OL..
Now that being said.. they have done a very very poor job with developing replacements. They have tried.. ineffectively to take players like Brewer, Mosely, etc etc in later round and try to develop them into starters.. when in all honesty they arent even good depth...
And they have had bad luck in the FA pool with Baas being constantly hurt and Schwartz....
However they HAVE invested in the OL the last two years in the draft with Pugh and Richburg and anyone that saw the Finding Giants could see from Ross comments they were definitely looking at OL last year..
I would have no issue if they went a position other that OL in round one.. because you CAN get starting OL talent in round 2 and 3.. especially at the guard/RT position..
I have no issue if they go WR and they can improve their passing attack.. they could go DL as well.. or LB..
they DO have to upgrade the OL.. I just dont believe it has to be done in ROUND ONE.. there is FA and there is more than ONE round in the draft..
Blueblood very good post. For the most part I agree with everything you said. However current circumstances call for a different, more urgent strategy.
That original line was just the perfect combination of guys all coming together. KMac, though a 3rd round pick was one of the top established RTs on the market and the Giants paid a decent market price for his services. Snee was a high second and considered the best OG in the draft by some analysts. O'Hara was a saavy 'under the radar' player who worked out tremendously. Seubert an UDFA who also worked out . Diehl a fifth round pick steal who you could see from his rookie year was a darn good lineman.
But in the years that followed Reese figured he could stockpile OL depth at the bottom of the draft and develop them since he had such a strong starting line while focusing and strengthening other key areas of the team.
Unfortunately it backfired as low pick after low pick never panned out. They've tried the FA route in recent years and the good luck they had with guys in past years (Kmac,O'Hara) in FA turned into bad luck (Baas,Schwartz). Guys who when they played showed ability but haven't been able to remain healthy. Hopefully it will turn around next year with Schwartz.
Nevertheless, our window is quickly closing as Eli is getting older and more immoble by the minute. We can't putz around much longer trying to solidify a line around Eli which is why you need to make the higher percentage play and go with the early rounds for an OL perhaps in addition to a quality FA signing this off-season.
Quote:
our best OL in recent years didnt have one first round draft pick playing on it.. Diehl was a fifth, Seubert and Ohara were undrafted FA's. Snee was a second.. Kmac was a third..
You CAN build a very good OL without spending first round draft picks.. a good OL is far more about consistency and cohesiveness than it is about the individual sum of the talent.
One of the issues that Giants have had over the years besides the injury issue and the quick demise of Snee and Diehl is a lack of consistency. They are constantly changing the OL. They simply cannot develop any cohesiveness.
They need talent..they need cohesiveness and they need consistency.. simply put they need to STOP playing musical chairs with the OL..
Now that being said.. they have done a very very poor job with developing replacements. They have tried.. ineffectively to take players like Brewer, Mosely, etc etc in later round and try to develop them into starters.. when in all honesty they arent even good depth...
And they have had bad luck in the FA pool with Baas being constantly hurt and Schwartz....
However they HAVE invested in the OL the last two years in the draft with Pugh and Richburg and anyone that saw the Finding Giants could see from Ross comments they were definitely looking at OL last year..
I would have no issue if they went a position other that OL in round one.. because you CAN get starting OL talent in round 2 and 3.. especially at the guard/RT position..
I have no issue if they go WR and they can improve their passing attack.. they could go DL as well.. or LB..
they DO have to upgrade the OL.. I just dont believe it has to be done in ROUND ONE.. there is FA and there is more than ONE round in the draft..
Blueblood very good post. For the most part I agree with everything you said. However current circumstances call for a different, more urgent strategy.
That original line was just the perfect combination of guys all coming together. KMac, though a 3rd round pick was one of the top established RTs on the market and the Giants paid a decent market price for his services. Snee was a high second and considered the best OG in the draft by some analysts. O'Hara was a saavy 'under the radar' player who worked out tremendously. Seubert an UDFA who also worked out . Diehl a fifth round pick steal who you could see from his rookie year was a darn good lineman.
But in the years that followed Reese figured he could stockpile OL depth at the bottom of the draft and develop them since he had such a strong starting line while focusing and strengthening other key areas of the team.
Unfortunately it backfired as low pick after low pick never panned out. They've tried the FA route in recent years and the good luck they had with guys in past years (Kmac,O'Hara) in FA turned into bad luck (Baas,Schwartz). Guys who when they played showed ability but haven't been able to remain healthy. Hopefully it will turn around next year with Schwartz.
Nevertheless, our window is quickly closing as Eli is getting older and more immoble by the minute. We can't putz around much longer trying to solidify a line around Eli which is why you need to make the higher percentage play and go with the early rounds for an OL perhaps in addition to a quality FA signing this off-season.
I would MUCH rather get a veteran who can come in and play right away on the OL.. draft someone in rounds 2-4 for depth..
If they best player on your board is an OL in round one.. then take him.. if the grades are very close together... you can go in a few directions depending on who is there.. OL or DL would both be good choices.. I could see a WR if Cooper was there.. maybe White.. but we all know that WR's will shift around after the combine..
my point is it doesnt have to be first round or bust with the OL..
I'm on record for saying DGB is the best WR prospect in this year's draft, but you're understating his character concerns. He has MAJOR red flags.
1a) OT Andrus Peat
1b) WR Kevin White
2) Devante Parker
So while I would take the other two ahead of Parker, he is still one of my top choices. I didn't even get to see him play to the best of his ability because he had been dealing with foot problems all year, but I came away very impressed with him. Outstanding hands. He caught almost every ball thrown to him that I saw, including jump balls and contested catches.
They need TWO starters on the OL, not ONE.
They need TWO starters on the OL, not ONE.
They certainly need two players who could start, but not necessarily two starters. The Giants are the ones with the most information on whether Schwartz is likely to come back from his latest injury, and if not THEN we'd need two starters for sure.
If they really like an Orlando Franklin at RT, I think they'll spend to get him. If that happens, a UFA OG is unlikely and LT will be in play at #9. They'll draft an OG in 3-4 round range to hedge Schwartz, etc.
I think they need to address both lines before WR.
By the end of April, they'll be in position to draft BPA and not for need. Then, if a WR is the target we certainly can use another weapon. Plan for the worst with Cruz, hedge against Randle's inconsistency and incoming UFA status.
No "we" don't. Unless there is a very good LT prospect, we can use FA or a 2nd round pick for Oline and go BPA again.
I don't know how good these top college Oline guys are but we certainly don't have to go Oline. I'll trust the GM & staff on this one.
Indeed, gong in to this draft I find it hard to believe that the Giants real #1 priority is not going to be finding some playmakers on defense. Unfortunately, the pickings on D at #9 just aren't that great. On the other hand, there is some pretty good depth on defense so they may be able to find some players over there in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Have a great day. Stay warm!
Quote:
as a starter when he spent almost all of the season injured and unable to play.
They need TWO starters on the OL, not ONE.
They certainly need two players who could start, but not necessarily two starters. The Giants are the ones with the most information on whether Schwartz is likely to come back from his latest injury, and if not THEN we'd need two starters for sure.
This is a big part of the reason why I see both a versatile OG/RT brought in via FA and a top pick invested (round 1 or latest 2) on a likely LT-versatile OL. There has been way too much turmoil on the offensive line since the demise of the previous model of stability. Clock is ticking on Eli and the need for better protection is paramount.
Safety @ 9 is pretty rich for the blood but if your looking at a day 1 starter to replace Rolle then you live with it.
DT - Someone paired with Hankins can make a big difference if JPP is still here which he should be.
At the end of the day though for me protecting Eli giving him Romo-like time to throw can keep us in every game. A top o-lineman, TE (more important to me than WR at this point), Safety and RB are the keys to this draft. MLB might be had in FA.
This draft to me is the most important the Giants have had in a decade. If you get this right you set this team up for multiple runs. Get it wrong and I think Mara has a few more fire everyone moments over the next five years. The scouts are on the hot seat.
By the end of April, they'll be in position to draft BPA and not for need. Then, if a WR is the target we certainly can use another weapon. Plan for the worst with Cruz, hedge against Randle's inconsistency and incoming UFA status.
Not sure why this has to come up every thread about the draft. Every single one of them. It should be required reading and all posters must acknowledge they've read and understand it before posting about the draft.
Reese has shown he will go into the draft with the flexibility to NOT have to draft a specific position.
And he said on many occasions he values playmakers over OL.
And stop talking about Dallas or other OL's as the only model to winning. In this Super Bowl the Pats have 1 first round OL and Seattle has two (and none of the three is playing great).
Will Beatty is rated higher by PFF than Nate Solder or Russel Okung (the only 1st round tackles in the Super Bowl).
How is that possible, especially when you read on here "Reese HAS to draft an OL at 9 or he should be fired"
Quote:
the draft is used with an eye more towards the future.
By the end of April, they'll be in position to draft BPA and not for need. Then, if a WR is the target we certainly can use another weapon. Plan for the worst with Cruz, hedge against Randle's inconsistency and incoming UFA status.
Not sure why this has to come up every thread about the draft. Every single one of them. It should be required reading and all posters must acknowledge they've read and understand it before posting about the draft.
Reese has shown he will go into the draft with the flexibility to NOT have to draft a specific position.
And he said on many occasions he values playmakers over OL.
And stop talking about Dallas or other OL's as the only model to winning. In this Super Bowl the Pats have 1 first round OL and Seattle has two (and none of the three is playing great).
Will Beatty is rated higher by PFF than Nate Solder or Russel Okung (the only 1st round tackles in the Super Bowl).
How is that possible, especially when you read on here "Reese HAS to draft an OL at 9 or he should be fired"
Reese certainly doesn't have to especially if the value doesn't line up and/or we bring in a quality FA. Beatty isn't a steaming pile of garbage but he is somewhat inconsistent and has a bit of injury history. How much do you safeguard against that or do you go into the season with similar players on the line hoping for the best?
Even if Cruz is not 100%, any WR they draft will only be a complement to OBJ and not the #1WR. And not just as a rookie, but throughout the length of his rookie deal (assuming OBJ remains healthy). He would then sign his second contract with another team where he could be the #1WR. And chances are it would be after 4 years instead of 5, because the 5th year option will be plenty expensive for a WR drafted in the top ten. And as complementary receivers go, the drop-off between Parker and who the Giants could draft in the 2nd or 3rd or 4th rounds would not be great.
p.s.-- While it's true that the Giants must plan for the possibility that Cruz will never be the same, it doesn't mean they must plan as if it's guaranteed he will never be the same. Ergo, the way to insure against Cruz not returning and Randle continuing to suck is to bring in a quality WR to compete, not to spend your most valuable off-season asset (a top ten pick!) on a complementary receiver who will likely be gone in four years.
No way the Giants draft a WR with the 9th pick. No way.
The draft is not about the current season (only). It's about the future.
I'm not saying the Giants need to draft a WR. Or an OL, or a DL, I'm saying I like that Reese prefers to go into the draft with options to start at all 22 positions and can then draft a player the Giants target instead of a position or the mythological vacuum based BPA which doesn't even exist except on sites like this.
Linking to a write-up on this idea. Phil's not the only one who likes Dorsett. The Jernigan selection makes me think this is on Reese's mind as well.
2015 NFL Draft Prospect Profile: Phillip Dorsett, WR, Miami - ( New Window )
Even if Cruz is not 100%, any WR they draft will only be a complement to OBJ and not the #1WR. And not just as a rookie, but throughout the length of his rookie deal (assuming OBJ remains healthy). He would then sign his second contract with another team where he could be the #1WR. And chances are it would be after 4 years instead of 5, because the 5th year option will be plenty expensive for a WR drafted in the top ten. And as complementary receivers go, the drop-off between Parker and who the Giants could draft in the 2nd or 3rd or 4th rounds would not be great.
p.s.-- While it's true that the Giants must plan for the possibility that Cruz will never be the same, it doesn't mean they must plan as if it's guaranteed he will never be the same. Ergo, the way to insure against Cruz not returning and Randle continuing to suck is to bring in a quality WR to compete, not to spend your most valuable off-season asset (a top ten pick!) on a complementary receiver who will likely be gone in four years.
No way the Giants draft a WR with the 9th pick. No way.
You bring up some salient points but there are arguments the other way too.
-2 cost controlled WR's OBJ and Cooper/White/Parker together who could star in this offense for the next 3-4 years on a rookie contract and for the remainder of Eli's prime.
-Makes Cruz expendable especially when his 7.9 comes into play next year.
I am leaning toward the potential elite LT as I think this helps and solidifies our team more. But it all comes down to the Giants evaluation and draft board. If you go by what Colin,JonC and others are saying early in this draft process the top strength of this draft at 9 may be WR. Many other positons may not carry the same value or aren't good system fits. So if BPA by a considerable margin is a wide-out, I don't think you ignore that and force a pick elsewhere.
blue when the Giants drafted Pugh they mentioned he could potentially play tackle. However, after two years of evaluating his play/potential, we don't know if they still feel that way . Personally I think he can play LT but only in a pinch. I think his skillset lends itself much better to OG or RT.
By drafting Peat or Collins (if the Giants have them ranked highly at LT) it hopefully gives us two above average options at LT (Beatty and Peat/Collins) in 2015-16 and then make Beatty expendable and a possible big cap savings in 2016-17.
Indeed, gong in to this draft I find it hard to believe that the Giants real #1 priority is not going to be finding some playmakers on defense. Unfortunately, the pickings on D at #9 just aren't that great. On the other hand, there is some pretty good depth on defense so they may be able to find some players over there in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Have a great day. Stay warm!
Thanks for weighing in Colin. I've relied on GBN for my draft info for a long long time now (so long I don't want to say how long) and I think the site provides superior insight. You guys are plugged in and do your due diligence. I also like the effort to think like the GM when you do your mocks. I don't always feel like the prominent draftniks do that (despite how good I think someone like Moyock is).
I concur with your assessment that Parker makes the Giants WRs corps crazy scarey good, and it could make it crazy scary good for the next 2-3 seasons depending on whether the Giants resign Randle or not. I completely understand any fan's wish (sometimes demand) for an OL at #9. The OL needs improvement, no question, but I think the fact remains there are zero blue goose tackles in this draft, every top guy has question marks, and you can get what you need in FA for a reasonable price. Dallas had great success with their line, but there is more than one way to build it. Football is about matchups (as we all know) and the benefit of having a unit on your team that is simply unstoppable cannot be understated. There is a certain wisdom in playing to your strengths and turning a position of strength into a position of dominance.
I'm not ruling out an OL at #9, but I keep coming back to the logic that says there will be players of greater value at #9, and Reese is not going to reach on a guy when he can get a difference maker and future pro-bowl player.
You have one guy calling him Matt Millen. Yeah, like Millen ever drafted a WR better than Nicks or ODB?
What the fuck.
The Giants have scouts. Those scouts inform the front office about the college players. The front office makes decisions based on that information. Trust that process. I wanted Martin last year...I thought that was a meeting of talent and need. But Martin would have been a horrendous pick, because Beckham looks at this early stage like one of the best pure athletes the NFL has ever seen.
Trust the process in place. If the scouts are good and their judgment shapes the board, the board will bring in quality more often than not.
Quote:
Pugh is already on the team. All he played in college was LT.
blue when the Giants drafted Pugh they mentioned he could potentially play tackle. However, after two years of evaluating his play/potential, we don't know if they still feel that way . Personally I think he can play LT but only in a pinch. I think his skillset lends itself much better to OG or RT.
By drafting Peat or Collins (if the Giants have them ranked highly at LT) it hopefully gives us two above average options at LT (Beatty and Peat/Collins) in 2015-16 and then make Beatty expendable and a possible big cap savings in 2016-17.
They thought he COULD play tackle..
I disagree.. Pugh IS a tackle.. He doesnt play Left Tackle because Beatty is on the team and Beatty can only play left Tackle.
What they said was they they felt that Pugh could play any position on the OL.. He was already a tackle and he played tackle BETTER than every other tackle drafted ahead of him when he was drafted..
Last year he had to block next to John Jerry.. who SUCKS..
Bottom line as I said before and have said consistently.. the Giants issue on the OL is the INTERIOR not at tackle.. and if you got a decent guard next to Beatty and Pugh both of them would also improve as a result..
But Giants fans again have this fantasy that if we just draft a tackle in the first round all our problems are solved.. which I dont accept as the only way to fix the OL.. Fixing the OL IMO is not fixed by taking a Tackle in round one.. and THEN moving a guy who has NEVER PLAYED GUARD EVER at any level into that position.. Pugh isnt built like a guard.. he is not know as a power player.. but fans keep saying.. I think he can play guard based on ZERO evidence..
I say.. get a guard.. problem solved...
p.s.-- There will be some interesting WR prospects to be had on day two that would also look mighty good feasting off single coverage.
And again, relying on FA isn't this group's strong point. Not just their talent evaluations but the fact that in FA, every team gets to bid on the talent available.
He absolutely shut down Anthony Barr the previous year and other highly rated pass rushers. The question with Peat is why the inconsistency? The talent is there in spades.
A couple analysts feel he is the most talented LT they've seen since Ogden. That is enormous praise. He did have a down year last year and the key is to figure out why and if it is a true red flag for future performance or not.
And again, relying on FA isn't this group's strong point. Not just their talent evaluations but the fact that in FA, every team gets to bid on the talent available.
Picking a position gets you shittier players. That's a fact that's been borne out over and over again since the beginning of time.
We could have taken Martin last year, and we'd be farther away from winning than we are now. If the board this year says an OL is tops, great...take him. But don't force it.
And maybe I just have a bias against Stanford LTs. When I first got into the draft back in the 1970s one of my favorite Giants picks at the time of the draft was Gordon King in 1978. I recall really sweating out the first 9 picks of that draft; I mean he was the real deal as a LT prospect: big, physical and nasty, but also very athletic and as smart as they come, however, for whatever reason it turned out he couldn't play at the next level. But that's the draft for you!
Whatever, bottom line is I just don't see him being in the Giants top tier when they get on the clock on April 30 (which is my birthday by the way! What are the odds!) and if we know anything about the Giants its that they will stay true to their board.
We have zero way of measuring just how better our running game would be with him starting for example.
Personally I would have selected Martin AND Richburg in the draft if for no other reason then to tell Eli Manning, "Come hell or high water, I'm going to protect you".
And Reese has repeated targeted selected certain positions, Matty has detailed his perchant for WR's but Aaron Ross's selection is another example of him doing so.
And maybe I just have a bias against Stanford LTs. When I first got into the draft back in the 1970s one of my favorite Giants picks at the time of the draft was Gordon King in 1978. I recall really sweating out the first 9 picks of that draft; I mean he was the real deal as a LT prospect: big, physical and nasty, but also very athletic and as smart as they come, however, for whatever reason it turned out he couldn't play at the next level. But that's the draft for you!
Whatever, bottom line is I just don't see him being in the Giants top tier when they get on the clock on April 30 (which is my birthday by the way! What are the odds!) and if we know anything about the Giants its that they will stay true to their board.
Colin I think you nailed it. However you can bet the Giants will do their homework to figure out exactly what mental lapses caused him to underwhelm last year. There is so much talent there to pass up if you think it was just part of the growing up process for a young kid.
We have zero way of measuring just how better our running game would be with him starting for example.
Personally I would have selected Martin AND Richburg in the draft if for no other reason then to tell Eli Manning, "Come hell or high water, I'm going to protect you".
And Reese has repeated targeted selected certain positions, Matty has detailed his perchant for WR's but Aaron Ross's selection is another example of him doing so.
I have no problems drafting any OL position high, and I'm a fan of cluster drafting if the board dictates it and the opportunity is there.
But I can't support drafting Zack Martin over Beckham, given what we know now. An argument can be made that Beckham was the single best player in the league once he started playing. He looks like a generational player in the class of Randy Moss or Calvin Johnson...or maybe something better.
There will be other opportunities to find Zack Martin. Reese is unlikely to encounter another Beckham for the remainder of his career.
Beckham was the correct pick. That is indisputable.
Haven't mentioned this before but one thing to take into consideration is that the 2016 draft could be really loaded at OT with guys like Ronnie Stanley, Conklin of Michigan State, Laremy Tunsil of Mississppi, Taylor Decker of Ohio State, Spencer Drango of Baylor, Le'Raven Clark of Texas Tech and LSU's Jerald Hawkins among others likely to be available. Just saying
I'm not saying Martin would have helped any more or less, I'm saying that line of reasoning is dubious if the overall goal is to win the championship not just score a lot of points and rack up stats.
Sorry I reject the notion that Beckham was the correct pick. The correct draft pick and strategy was to rebuild the OL as soon as possible. Now we're stuck waiting another off season to see if they can fix it again.
I'm not saying Martin would have helped any more or less, I'm saying that line of reasoning is dubious if the overall goal is to win the championship not just score a lot of points and rack up stats.
Sorry I reject the notion that Beckham was the correct pick. The correct draft pick and strategy was to rebuild the OL as soon as possible. Now we're stuck waiting another off season to see if they can fix it again.
I'll say again...there were opportunities beyond last year's first round pick to add to the OL. Richburg is an example of that. There were no other opportunities, and there likely won't be again for many years, to add a player of Beckham's quality. You don't make decisions like that for 2014 alone.
Your thinking is what gets you Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan, Jamarcus Russell over Megatron, etc.
Plus- A lot has been invested in this defense:
-DRC/Prince
-Thurmond
-JPP will be resigned/franchised
-Hankins is a player (2nd round pick)
-We let LJ walk (could have paired him with Hankins)
-Moore will be better utilized
-3rd round pick on Bromley
-Wynn + Ayers
-Kennard looks like he may be a keeper.
I'm not saying the defense is set, and wouldn't be against a big time pass-rusher, but the offense needs some love.
Did they have the opportunity to rebuild the OL before last year? Yep, that's part of the problem, they had numerous opportunities and blew them repeatedly reaching on players they thought had bigger upsides or similar justification. Go look up the draft write-ups, we all know the names. Hell Reese's "JPP of TE" is so talented, he's been passed on the depth chart by two undrafted free Agents.
Using Once in a generational talent as your justification doesn't excuse the stupidity of your earlier mistakes. Beckham doesn't cancel out the draft misses on Barden, Beckum, Moss, etc... The most important players in the two SB wins were either Marginal WR's (Tyree) or mistake prone (Manningham) that played out of their minds that day.
Dunedin not the same comparison because every team's situation is different. Taking Beckham away from the WR corp would hurt it yes but there's a very good chance that with both Martin and Richburg (which is what I advacoated for) would have meant a stronger Running game which also helps out.
And Colin, can you remind me about the discussion we had in the Seattle game about how the game of football has changed and it's no longer about winning in the trenches, I seem to have forgotten about that as I watched Lynch and the OL just bend our defense backwards and run them over.
Colin I agree completely. I believe the offense (with the offensive line getting a FA uplift) is good enough to win now.
But I think the defense needs playmakers.
Again though I don't necessarily think that has to come from the draft.
Maybe the Giants make McCourty an offer, bring Thurmond back and Beason comes back healthy. That helps safety, MIKE and slot corner. They need a pass rusher and the D is drastically different - without using #9 on the defense.
If the Giants go defense at #9 I won't complain one bit, but I believe Reese will address the D and OL in free agency (first).
Colin, I have major concerns about the defense, but don't see a surefire difference-maker there at 9 unless Shelton makes it to us, and even he could be a risky pick. I also like Shaq Thompson a lot, but do we want to gamble on Spags finding ways to match him up where his speed will compensate for lack of size when we could get a surer thing at 9?
Do you see any other fits for us on defense at 9? To me guys like Beasley are really 3-4 scheme fits, and Landon Collins is just not "special" imo. I'll argue that Kenny Phillips was at least as good if not a better S prospect than him, and he went 32nd.
If you think those are the most important players in those Super Bowls, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
For one thing, Justin Tuck could have been the MVP of either one. He was a monster.
Offensively, Hakeem Nicks was the Giants biggest weapon in 46 - Patriots didn't have an answer for him.
Did they have the opportunity to rebuild the OL before last year? Yep, that's part of the problem, they had numerous opportunities and blew them repeatedly reaching on players they thought had bigger upsides or similar justification. Go look up the draft write-ups, we all know the names. Hell Reese's "JPP of TE" is so talented, he's been passed on the depth chart by two undrafted free Agents.
Using Once in a generational talent as your justification doesn't excuse the stupidity of your earlier mistakes. Beckham doesn't cancel out the draft misses on Barden, Beckum, Moss, etc... The most important players in the two SB wins were either Marginal WR's (Tyree) or mistake prone (Manningham) that played out of their minds that day.
Dunedin not the same comparison because every team's situation is different. Taking Beckham away from the WR corp would hurt it yes but there's a very good chance that with both Martin and Richburg (which is what I advacoated for) would have meant a stronger Running game which also helps out.
And Colin, can you remind me about the discussion we had in the Seattle game about how the game of football has changed and it's no longer about winning in the trenches, I seem to have forgotten about that as I watched Lynch and the OL just bend our defense backwards and run them over.
Previous errors don't justify making another.
No straw man here. If Beckham were Ramses Barden you would be right. But he looks closer to Jerry Rice.
I'm going to clue you in on something else...if you asked Eli Manning himself he'd tell you Beckham was the right pick.
I agree that OL is not as dire a need as many think, but I would like to see a more consistent running game. I think the Giants will be looking for an OG in rounds 2 or 3. I like Tomlinson from Duke, and the GMEM appear to be interested in Marpet from Hobart.
Colin, where do you see Beasley playing in a 4-3? He seems far to lite for RDE and I have no idea about his coverage ability. If he can play ROLB (both in coverage and moving forward) he would make it that much easier to move on from Williams.
Small-school standout Ali Marpet putting tiny Hobart College on NFL radars - ( New Window )
We'd help Eli AND the defense a bunch if we could develop a true running attack and dominate time of possession.
But the defense is the biggest area of concern in terms of missing parts...we will need to re-sign JPP, land another DT, perhaps 2 LBs, and at least 1 S in order to be a top 15 defense. That's a heck of a lot more than one really good OL, which is (at minimum) what the offense needs if Schwartz comes back healthy.
We'd help Eli AND the defense a bunch if we could develop a true running attack and dominate time of possession.
But the defense is the biggest area of concern in terms of missing parts...we will need to re-sign JPP, land another DT, perhaps 2 LBs, and at least 1 S in order to be a top 15 defense. That's a heck of a lot more than one really good OL, which is (at minimum) what the offense needs if Schwartz comes back healthy.
Oh I never said he did. I think he is just saying that it doesn't "require" a 1st round pick as many on this site think.
I agree with everything you just posted. The running game needs to be more consistent and that is an indictment of the line play, but I think upgrading the OG position (specifically LG) does that. If you move Pugh there, then you get a RT in FA. If Pugh stays at RT I would sign a OG in FA and draft one as well.
The defense absolutely needs more playmakers. Aside from JPP, no one on that front 7 scares anyone. Hankins had a good year, but he is not a disruptive pass rusher, despite his 6 sacks. Kennard is a nice young LOLB, but I'm not ready to anoint him yet. Drafting a disruptive player in the front 7 makes total sense, I just don't know who that player is at #9. I like Randy Gregory and Leonard Williams a great deal, but they ain't making it out of the top 5.
Terps, The irony in your statement is that Reese is poised to do exactly that by neglecting again in favor of another 'playmaker' despite history telling everyone to do likewise is insanity.
Maybe Beckham is Jerry Rice, I don't think he is, I think he'll need to mature quite a bit before attempting that comparison. And regardless, him being on the field doesn't put John Jerry on the bench which is still a major negative.
Fix the OLL and build a good team, and maybe the 'transgenerational' talent this is Odell Beckham will get his chance to wear a ring.
Otherwise he gets to join a long list of supremely talented players, arguably amongst the most gifted athletes every to play the game at their position who didn't because they didn't have good enough teams around them to help. And that would be shame regardless of your feelings on the matter.
Re-sign Eli, free up cap space, and get some of those guys in their primes to beef up the D. That allows us to go in any direction in the 1st round.
At the same time, I confess as I did above that I have no idea who the Giants are going to take with their opening round. My guess is that even the Giants don't have much of an idea who their final pick will be at this point. But I do mocks for a living and had to take someone when I got to #9. And I certainly don't think that the Giants are going to go to the draft planning to draft a WR per se with their top pick. We've heard from more than one of our sources that they think that Parker would have been a top 5 lock this year if he hadn't been injured.
The bottom line, though, is that as Dave Sy has preached on more than one occasion the one thing you can take to the bank when the Giants get on the clock is that they will stay true to their board. As such, the real trick to figuring out their draft at this point is to try and figure out which players are going to be in their top row rather than howling at the moon about this or that player or position that they "just have to take" or coversely will never take.
At the same time, I confess as I did above that I have no idea who the Giants are going to take with their opening round. My guess is that even the Giants don't have much of an idea who their final pick will be at this point. But I do mocks for a living and had to take someone when I got to #9. And I certainly don't think that the Giants are going to go to the draft planning to draft a WR per se with their top pick. We've heard from more than one of our sources that they think that Parker would have been a top 5 lock this year if he hadn't been injured.
The bottom line, though, is that as Dave Sy has preached on more than one occasion the one thing you can take to the bank when the Giants get on the clock is that they will stay true to their board. As such, the real trick to figuring out their draft at this point is to try and figure out which players are going to be in their top row rather than howling at the moon about this or that player or position that they "just have to take" or coversely will never take.
It took me a while Colin to come around and appreciate your perspective and expertise, but looking back at history and commentary (from Reese and others) I believe this is 100% spot on.
Best post I've read in a long time.
He's not Ogden II, but he's my LT target.
and based on the youtube clips I have seen I like White better than Parker..
He's not Ogden II, but he's my LT target.
He's flashed 'Ogden-like' ability in shutting down some amazing edge rushers like Anthony Barr who he absolutely dominated. But then has been beaten badly a couple times too (especially this year). If the Giants think it's mostly correctable stuff and they can get him to play to his immense potential with consistency, then he's worth the pick for sure.
I honestly think the kid is just growing up and CAN become a dominant 'near-Ogden' NFL LT. The way this kid plays when the 'light bulb' is on is a sight to behold.
and based on the youtube clips I have seen I like White better than Parker..
I like White too but I can see why the Giants may like Parker more. Parker has more sloppiness to his game but he cleaned some of that up this year and has the higher overall upside.
If OG is that urgent, they'll sign via UFA.
Btw, the team views RT as more urgent than OG.
If OG is that urgent, they'll sign via UFA.
Btw, the team views RT as more urgent than OG.
Rogers Gaines, bitches!
Is this a serious comment?
If OG is that urgent, they'll sign via UFA.
Btw, the team views RT as more urgent than OG.
JonC I totally get that.. You always have to think long term and maximizing the talent you pick.. totally true.. but IMO you dont spend a top ten pick on a RT or a G.. And I dont know if any of these LT's are worth a top ten pick.. a top ten LT to me is not a guy who needs work.. or needs to clean up all his issue.. IMO a top ten LT is step in and start DAY ONE period..
And in the Giants case I dont see the purpose in drafting a LT to play him at RT and them move Pugh to G a position he as never played so that in two years you can them move that RT to LT.. Thats not a line fix to me.. that creating a constant game of musical chairs.
I keep saying that a OL is as much about cohesiveness and continuity.. why was our OL so good from 2007-2010.. it wasnt just the talent.. it was because they played together and developed cohesion..
I have no dog in the fight.. I just want them to get the best player they can.. This year the #1 pick has to be a step in and start DAY ONE impact player.. You dont get top ten picks very often.. or at least you shouldnt.. unfortunately this looks a very very red chip draft..
Peat is the only LT I see potentially worthy at #9, he is a day 1 starter and plenty good enough. I know others really like Collins and/or Scherff, but they're RTs in my book and I'd pass at #9 unless they're clearly BPA (which I doubt, and Reese confirmed his philosophy in plain English regarding playmakers over certain OL).
Musical chairs is often part of the unit growing pains, and frequently unavoidable, in part, because the salary cap and player contracts are a component/constraint in the overall process.
It is what it is, if Peat is the best player at #9, he makes complete sense to me. Beatty is serviceable at LT, as Pugh is at RT, but BOTH are ultimately upgradeable and you need to leap at the few chances to get to do so.
It will make the RBs better.
It will make Eli better.
It will even make OBJ better.
No WR can do all that.
Go OLine in the 1st.
Beckham did just that and more. He single-handedly transformed the NYG offense in 2014. It was bad in the beginning of the year. Functional at worst and even good down the stretch. Beckham was the biggest reason why.
Draft talent with some exceptions... Don't draft positions.