Latest GBN 1st Round Projection

not sure why, but it's the one thing about him that bugs me. Wouldn't mind the pick, but I have those OL's bunched pretty tightly and it'll probably be taster's choice as to how they go off.

In comment 12113682 yatqb said:

Quote:

is that both he and Scherff will be gone when we're up. I guess Shelton could be a consolation prize, though.

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.

what is your confidence level on Scherff competently playing LT? I just don't see the feet like I do in Peat/ Collins. If he can't play LT, I don't see the Giants taking an OL in the top 10 that can't eventually slide over.

has his weight so far forward that he falls over after about 3 steps. When he latches on he's a beast, but I don't see LT feet. I see OG or RT.

In comment 12113685 SGMen said:

Quote:

If BPA is WR Parker than so be it. You have to remember that we won't know about Cruz until training camp and pre-season games are going on. Also, Randle is in the final year of his contract. 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.

feel like Scherff can do it because he does have better feet than that tape where he was playing after his knee injury and didn't kick like he usually does. He won't be a Walter Jones type LT, but he will battle, and has the strength to win or get a draw even when it seems like he's about to get beat. We like to get our tackles going downfield and he can do that.

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.

In that scenario, they left Scherff, Peat, La'el Collins, Ereck Flowers, and DT Danny Shelton all on the board.

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.

In comment 12113701 yatqb said:

Quote:

has his weight so far forward that he falls over after about 3 steps. When he latches on he's a beast, but I don't see LT feet. I see OG or RT.

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.

Not saying he is as good but if he is, would that make a difference? I don't watch too much college football but one thing I believe strongly is that you don't draft the position, you draft the player. If Parker is much better, or just better, at WR than the available OL or DL at the 9th pick, I have no problem with this pick. And, this is even said in a vacuum since it's highly likely that Reese will address some of the team deficiencies in free agency.

I wouldn't be too upset with him at 9 if the team felt confident in the pick.

In comment 12113716 Red Dog said:

Quote:

In that scenario, they left Scherff, Peat, La'el Collins, Ereck Flowers, and DT Danny Shelton all on the board. 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.

Kevin White before Devante...more polished

our redzone offense was top 10 this year with a new scheme. Our biggest issue with our OL is that we have question marks on the interior. OLT isn't a pressing need, getting Walton off of the starting lineup and figuring out who plays G after Richburg plays his natural position is. I think finding one adequate starter and adding depth and future options at LT will give our OL a huge boost. I'm not saying picking a LT with #9 isn't smart. I'm saying picking a WR high isn't the short sighted, franchise killing selection you make it out to be. Randle will hit the market after this next season, he's still inconsistent, and Cruz is a question mark going into next season.

but I'd be fine with landing a top player at either OG or OT because I feel confident that Pugh could handle the LG spot quite well. While it would be "neatest" to just add an OG in the draft, I'm not sure it's a requirement with Pugh's supposed versatility.

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.

You have to try to think like our front office if you want to try to figure out the highest percentage play.

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.

In comment 12113726 Samiam said:

Quote:

Not saying he is as good but if he is, would that make a difference? I don't watch too much college football but one thing I believe strongly is that you don't draft the position, you draft the player. If Parker is much better, or just better, at WR than the available OL or DL at the 9th pick, I have no problem with this pick. And, this is even said in a vacuum since it's highly likely that Reese will address some of the team deficiencies in free agency.

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.

.

Dorial Green-Beckham...6'5", 225...got some character concerns, but Beckham and Beckham Jr. would make a great tandem!

especially at #9 overall....but he does seem like an NYG type pick.

should read

going to get a good player, but not another Beckham in all likelihood.

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.

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..

In comment 12113853 Sy'56 said:

Quote:

should read

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).

In comment 12113869 blueblood said:

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.

In comment 12113906 Coach Mason said:

Quote:

In comment 12113869 blueblood said: 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..

No. Way.

you probably said the same thing last year.

In comment 12113953 David in LA said:

Quote:

you probably said the same thing last year.

No, I didn't. Last year Mike Evans was my first choice and Taylor Lewan was my second. Last year, WR was a big need. This year, I could see the Giants taking a WR in rounds 2 or 3 or later, but not with the 9th pick in the draft. A WR would have to be the clear cut BPA and I don't see that happening. I see the Giants taking either an OL or a DL with the pick. That is where the need is the greatest and there is no reason to believe that there won't be an OL or DL who is arguably BPA (in other words, represents both need and value--as opposed to just one or the other).

In comment 12113836 SHO'NUFF said:

Quote:

Dorial Green-Beckham...6'5", 225...got some character concerns, but Beckham and Beckham Jr. would make a great tandem!

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.

Assuming Leonard Williams, Gregory, Cooper and Ray are off the board, my preferences are:

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.

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.

In comment 12113965 BigBlueCane said:

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.

The problem has been his UFA choices, he's trying to address the OL very frugally, and essentially has gotten what he's paid for, in broad terms.

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.

LONG TERM solutions on the OL. They have gone the stop gap route for too long. Jon C's comment at 7:46 is spot on.

I think they need to address both lines before WR.

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.

In comment 12113496 SoZKillA said:

Quote:

But we have to go OLine at 9

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.

Morning guys: Thanks again for the plug Emil (and there is no truth to the rumor that we have him on retainer!) Again very interesting discussion. And truth be told I have no clue who the Giants are going to select at #9. I am not even sure who they have on their short list at this point, but what I did was figure that, based on the latest draft intel and the way the Giants have worked in the past (although nothing in that regard is written in stone), that the guys left on their top tier in this mock would be Scherff, Shelton, SS Collins and Parker. In the end, our choice came down to Parker versus Shelton (and it was a very tough choice) but in the end we felt that Parker, who combined with the returning guys the Giants have at WR, has the potential to make your receivers absolutely crazy, scary good - and absolutely crazy scary good is the stuff that wins championships - has the potentialto have the most impact. At the same time, though, one could make a good case for the other guys on the list. We really like Shelton, but worry that he may not be that good a pass rusher in the NFL. Note that based on what we are hearing from our sources around the NFL that we just don't think that Peat (G/T Collins for that matter) are going to be in the Giants top tier at #9. Peat in particular has all the physical potential in the world to be an elite OT, but throw on the tape of Stanford's Utah (gave up 3.5 sacks to Orchard) and/or Notre Dame games and ask yourself if that's how you want to invest the highest pick you have had in a decade.

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!

In comment 12113998 yatqb said:

Quote:

In comment 12113965 BigBlueCane said: 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.

Yup.

and they got it handed to them. I think we have the receivers here already and would be a luxury pick.

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.

In comment 12114022 JonC said:

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"

In comment 12114485 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 12114022 JonC said: 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?

DL or LB would also fill needs if the value is there. Drafting a WR, on the other hand, would represent a poor use of the assets at hand, unless the prospect represents too much value compared to other prospects available at the time. And for several reasons....

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.

to a WR at #9 if it's the BPA? That's a lousy way to look at it. 4-5 years in the NFL is an eternity.

Randle's last year under contract.

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.

In comment 12113654 Phil in LA said:

Quote:

that will include Phillip Dorsett.

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 )

Colin's remark on what the Giants think of Peat.

In comment 12114559 drkenneth said:

Quote:

to a WR at #9 if it's the BPA? That's a lousy way to look at it. 4-5 years in the NFL is an eternity.

Because I find it hard to believe that a WR will be the only prospect to represent BPA. And if there are OL or DL who are in the mix with a WR, they will choose the lineman over the receiver.

In comment 12114555 Milton said:

Quote:

DL or LB would also fill needs if the value is there. Drafting a WR, on the other hand, would represent a poor use of the assets at hand, unless the prospect represents too much value compared to other prospects available at the time. And for several reasons.... 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.

Pugh is already on the team. All he played in college was LT.