Most years I favor a trade down, and to some extent I do this year as well. But I'm concerned that a trade down may make Reese more likely to go after a "measurables" guy, a "low floor" "high ceiling" player. He'll be picking lower in the first round, and will probably have at least one extra day two pick. That could make him more aggressive about taking a player with "upside," especially in a "red chip" draft.
The two players that seem to fit this criteria are Armstead and Clemmings. The simple truth is that Armstead could be the pick at #9. He has the freakish athleticism that Reese craves, and was hampered by an ankle injury for much of 2014. We may also only have JPP for one more year. Reese could view Armstead as his replacement in 2016. I do think somebody will take Armstead early, and Reese may well be tempted to do so if he trades back to the mid to late teens.
Clemmings is raw but has great size, is articulate, dedicated, and has already improved tremendously in only two years at OL. He won't be the pick at #9, but could be at say #19, especially if we get a starting G in FA.
My thought is I'd rather pass on both, and get a player more likely to have a "high floor," even at the expense of a "lower ceiling."
Think OT Ereck Flowers and DT Malcom Brown as guys that could easily go in the top 12.
Flowers time in the 40 pretty much locked up his future as a RT, but he's a Pro Bowl caliber player at that position. Set it and forget it.
Brown was a team leader and grounded. Already married with 2 kids. And he has several game films in which he just dominates the line, including sliding out to end in pass rush situations.
I really would be surprised if Reese traded down. I think the only way he would do it would be if Amari Cooper was still available and he moved down 2 slots to 11 with Minny. The Vikings would love to match up high school teammates Teddy Bridgewater and Amari Cooper.
That said, expect Reese to stay at 9.
You underestimate me. I can be a lot more annoying.
As the author of the thread, I am admittedly biased, but this is a legitimate topic on a sports board. I have read several blurbs or tweets from sportswriters stating that the Giants wanted to take Fowler, or trade down.
I've said before it's going to be hard to trade down in this draft, unless White falls to #9. And even then, I said that I'd take White instead of trading back to #12 for an extra third.
But I think if a trade does happen, it increases the chance that Reese looks for one of his "measurables" guys, especially Armstead. Reasonable people can of course disagree with that conclusion. But if you don't like threads discussing possible trade downs, then don't click on them.
I also wouldn't take Armstead or Clemmings at #9, or #19, or even #40.
I would take those odds, and worry about his replacement next year.
I think that if we traded down, guys like Malcom Brown, Erick Flowers and La'el Collins, each of whom were outstanding in college, would come into play. Armstead did NOTHING despite that body, and I would be shocked if Reese gambled on him in the 1st round. Clemmings is a huge project who will not be able to contribute as a rookie, so he too seems unlikely.
Conversely, if someone slides from 4 to 9 and you never thought you would have a shot at him, then you are jumping all over it.
I think that if we traded down, guys like Malcom Brown, Erick Flowers and La'el Collins, each of whom were outstanding in college, would come into play. Armstead did NOTHING despite that body, and I would be shocked if Reese gambled on him in the 1st round. Clemmings is a huge project who will not be able to contribute as a rookie, so he too seems unlikely.
Oh, I don't think Reese would take Armstead at #9, #12, or #19, but do think the chance he does is greater than most people here. Which is fine. And as I've said, I don't want Armstead, even at #40. Clemmings? Probably not even at #40 as well, although it's closer.
The "gamble picks" you note seem to fall into two categories: (1) character concerns, and (2) players who are largely unproven but have "measureables" and "upside." There is no question we have moved away from players in category (1). The likes of Austin, Hosley, and Hill are done. We are now the team of team captains. But category (2)? I don't know. Witness Bromley last year. Most here were screaming he was over drafted. An extra day two pick could also make him more aggressive in the middle of round one.
I'd like to see NYFG w/2 2nd round picks, trading the 4th, or 5 and 6 or whatever the 'chart' indicates.
Thats not to say I think they are focused solely on OL, but I think a trade down would be an indication that they are going OL.