Just watched the Devon Kennard interview at Giants.com - and watching him come of the edge a few times -- darn it -- it occurred to me how exciting and impactful a great pass rushing Linebacker can be.
Lawrence Taylor used to play everywhere on the line - and while I'm not saying any of the terrific pass rushers that may be available are Lawrence Taylor -- If they are the best player available interns of measurables, talent and versatility -- why not take one??
Would it be that wrong to take Bud, Fowler, Ray, Beasely, Thompson or Gregory ? They are all tremendous athletes that could be used to give the QB fits -- and also do something else -- coverage ?
Link - (
New Window )
These guys are on a different level than Clint Sintim -- I don;t think he is a fair comparison
You're acting like Mario Williams/JJ Watt is available here.
If BPA at 9 is one of the pass rushers, Giants will take him.
In fairness, he was always injured..
I wouldn't mind one of them in the late teens or 20's, but unless Fowler drops, I don't want to go DE.
If you draft one of the edge rushers at #9, you're choosing a tweener that is not only better suited to 3-4 OLB, but he's a player that most likely can't play 4-3 DE, or only in limited snaps.
So then you're praying this prospect can play some snaps on the line, and that he can be transitioned to a 4-3 WILL. No gimme because you're talking kids that played different roles and developed different instincts in college. Very few 4-3 WILLs make an impact in today's NFL, this isn't the 80s.
It's a significant risk that can't be simply ignored.
You're acting like Mario Williams/JJ Watt is available here.
Mario WIlliams and JJ Watt ar e Defensive Lineman -- I identified pass rushing from the linebackers position and being able to play all over the field - which most of these guys seem to be able to do. We've not had a stud Linebacker on the Giants for a while -- and each of these guys could fit that bill
Now if their mindset is good - and they fit the character traits the Giants like and they have the measurables -- why the heck not - A linebacker can certainly be a pass rusher
Devon Kennard has issues in coverage -- we could certainly stand to get a stud that can play better than Kennard -- (and he's exciting in his own right) ---
I'm all for a player that can be a dynamic pass rusher and play coverage too
If you draft one of the edge rushers at #9, you're choosing a tweener that is not only better suited to 3-4 OLB, but he's a player that most likely can't play 4-3 DE, or only in limited snaps.
So then you're praying this prospect can play some snaps on the line, and that he can be transitioned to a 4-3 WILL. No gimme because you're talking kids that played different roles and developed different instincts in college. Very few 4-3 WILLs make an impact in today's NFL, this isn't the 80s.
It's a significant risk that can't be simply ignored.
Jon - Devon Kennard did it - as a rookie -- are you saying that any one of these guys isn't a superior talent to Kennard -
With the caveat that I think mindset is a critical factor -- if they do have the mindset and the ability -- why are they a bigger risk?
There is a difference between a guy pegged into a 3-4 OLB who can rush the passer, than a SSLB or ILB who is pegged as 3-4 only as he isn't quick enough in coverage or agile enough in the pass rush game to be a LB in a 4-3.
Sintim was a BAD choice no matter how you slice it.
Fowler would be a nice choice but not the best option at 9 compared to other need areas and quality talent at those positions.
If you draft one of the edge rushers at #9, you're choosing a tweener that is not only better suited to 3-4 OLB, but he's a player that most likely can't play 4-3 DE, or only in limited snaps.
So then you're praying this prospect can play some snaps on the line, and that he can be transitioned to a 4-3 WILL. No gimme because you're talking kids that played different roles and developed different instincts in college. Very few 4-3 WILLs make an impact in today's NFL, this isn't the 80s.
It's a significant risk that can't be simply ignored.
^This. I don't see how Beasley, Ray, or Gregory fit our system.
Jon -- I hear ifs about almost every choice the Giants can make --- I'm just saying -- if that's the BPA -- why don't not make that pick
I've explained the ifs and the associated risks, you yourself see the ifs.
Pass rusher is also quite strong however not many fit the Giants dynamic (unless significant shift in system or thinking round 2 under Spagnuolo).
You're acting like Mario Williams/JJ Watt is available here.
drk, unfortunately LT doesn't seem to have the preferred prototype the Giants look for either.
Sintim was never projected as a first rounder
But there are at least 3 of these "light in the pants" guys projected to be top 10 picks right now
You guys seem to be saying so what -- they don't fit our scheme -- pass
If they are top ten talent -- I don't think you can just dismiss them --- elite talent and work ethic and the right mind set should be a winning combination
Are you really suggesting that it's not BPA
If those two aren't there, I want Collins or one of the WRs at 9. Gregory is rail thin, Ray is also undersized.
There's 32 pick slots in the first round, but that doesn't mean NYG will have 32 prospects with first round grades. Reese has confirmed that in the past. Pugh was one of ~20 prospects with first round grades in that draft, for example.
Quote:
He led the NCAA in sacks by a linebacker his senior year.
Sintim was never projected as a first rounder
But there are at least 3 of these "light in the pants" guys projected to be top 10 picks right now
You guys seem to be saying so what -- they don't fit our scheme -- pass
If they are top ten talent -- I don't think you can just dismiss them --- elite talent and work ethic and the right mind set should be a winning combination
Are you really suggesting that it's not BPA
Would you really feel comfortable with a 240 lber playing DE in a division with the running games of Washington, Dallas and Philly? He would get mauled.
There is a difference between a guy pegged into a 3-4 OLB who can rush the passer, than a SSLB or ILB who is pegged as 3-4 only as he isn't quick enough in coverage or agile enough in the pass rush game to be a LB in a 4-3.
Sintim was a BAD choice no matter how you slice it.
Fowler would be a nice choice but not the best option at 9 compared to other need areas and quality talent at those positions.
Clint Sintim actually WAS a great blitzer in College (a whopping 27 sacks total). Problem was if you watched him in the drills and games he had very stiff hips and didn't play well moving away from the L.O.S. vs. towards it. Reese hinted at lack of desire with him as well.
If BPA at 9 is one of the pass rushers, Giants will take him.
That said, if the Giants decided that Beasly or Ray could be great LBers or DEs on this defense, then they will take them. Beasly seems more likely of the 2 because while light in the pants, he doesn't seem to lack the requisite strength for DE and he seems to have sufficient movement ability to play LBer in the 4-3. While it might not be the best fit to maximize his talent, it may be the right player to maximize the Giants ROI with the pick.
There's 32 pick slots in the first round, but that doesn't mean NYG will have 32 prospects with first round grades. Reese has confirmed that in the past. Pugh was one of ~20 prospects with first round grades in that draft, for example.
I am not suggesting the Giants draft a "total non-fit" - but I am suggesting that if the criteria is BPA you have to consider these guys -- it's astonishing to me what Coach Mason just implied -- that the Giants seemingly wouldn't draft LT if he was available at 9
That's a serious indictment
Hades, good post.
LT played OLB in a 3-4, a 3-4 will frequently put said player on the DL as the 5th lineman.
We are starting to see teams get more creative being able to do this and TC specifically mentioned that Steve has learned alot more about different types of defenses since his last stop here.
Ravens played some multiple fronts so it's a possibility though I doubt they would play it heavily enough to dedicate such a high pick to it.
radar - seriously - this is one of the most moronic statements I've ever seen out of you -- and that's saying something
Many teams are developing hybrid fronts to incorporate the New Age defensive athletes proliferating as a result of offensive trends in the college game. The question is why not us?
There is some inference to be made from our pursuit of O'Brien Schofield in Free Agency and the apparently high grade Khalil Mack carried in our War Room that as an organization we would be open to such a change.
Steve Spagnuolo has just spent two years operating within this philosophy with the Baltimore Ravens. Coordinators often adapt to incorporate concepts they have success with on the field. Spags has shown the ability to game plan and creatively capitalize on his players strengths.
For me this is where guys like Ray/Beasley/Gregory make sense and could offer great value if they were options when we're on the clock. I don't include DFJ in this category as his superior weight and experience with his hand in the dirt makes me confident he would thrive as a 4-3 DE or edge LB.
We are starting to see teams get more creative being able to do this and TC specifically mentioned that Steve has learned alot more about different types of defenses since his last stop here.
Ravens played some multiple fronts so it's a possibility though I doubt they would play it heavily enough to dedicate such a high pick to it.
Coach Mason,
Spags and Fewell both said they used aspects of the 3 4 in their schemes - if you have a player that can play Sam or Will -- and drop back into coverage and also plant his hand in the ground at the edge -- what's the problem?
Ray had an excellent year and while similar to Beasley, he seems that he could only play DE or 3-4 OLB and doesn't look to have the skill set to drop. Gregory is extremely long and very light @ 235 lbs. He could add 15 lbs and still not have the base to set the edge at a 4-3 DE.
Fowler, Beasley and Dupree can play DE in a 4-3 with Beasley being more of a RDE or WLB candidate.
Quote:
If one is a total non-fit, he won't be on their draft board, or he'll be downgraded.
There's 32 pick slots in the first round, but that doesn't mean NYG will have 32 prospects with first round grades. Reese has confirmed that in the past. Pugh was one of ~20 prospects with first round grades in that draft, for example.
I am not suggesting the Giants draft a "total non-fit" - but I am suggesting that if the criteria is BPA you have to consider these guys -- it's astonishing to me what Coach Mason just implied -- that the Giants seemingly wouldn't draft LT if he was available at 9
That's a serious indictment
Given the current lack of talent on the roster and the fact we've missed the playoffs the last three years, the Giants are not as well positioned as in the past to take risks and draft based on potential rather than performance or to select talent that doesn't necessarily fit the system based on a hope that it can be forced to fit.
I am really interested this year to see if any of the conventional wisdom that shapes our perceptions of what the Giants value or how they draft has changed by some of the recent poor drafts and the poor performance on the field. Failure does have a way of making one rethink their approach to business sometimes.
Vic Beasley has that potenial to impact in a Von Millar kind of way. just do you want to invest a 1st rounder in role player?
LT was a football player - plain a simple -- a great football player. If you have a great impact football player available to you at your pick - you take him --- end of story
Quote:
you don't take Mariota at nine just because he's your BPA. You don't take a kicker in the first because he's your BPA. Come on now.
radar - seriously - this is one of the most moronic statements I've ever seen out of you -- and that's saying something
Given the point of this this thread - that the Giants should draft players and switch their positions at 9 - I don't think your opinion is credible.
What's next - if a CB is the BPA should we draft them and convert them to WR because they are a really good athlete.
Fowler is a possibility as is Beasely.. However I dont see Gregory or Ray fitting into the Giants scheme.
Quote:
In comment 12159070 chris r said:
Quote:
you don't take Mariota at nine just because he's your BPA. You don't take a kicker in the first because he's your BPA. Come on now.
radar - seriously - this is one of the most moronic statements I've ever seen out of you -- and that's saying something
Given the point of this this thread - that the Giants should draft players and switch their positions at 9 - I don't think your opinion is credible.
What's next - if a CB is the BPA should we draft them and convert them to WR because they are a really good athlete.
radar -- as usual you have twisted my words into something I never said to make an asinine off point - touché -
We are starting to see teams get more creative being able to do this and TC specifically mentioned that Steve has learned alot more about different types of defenses since his last stop here.
Ravens played some multiple fronts so it's a possibility though I doubt they would play it heavily enough to dedicate such a high pick to it.
Don't think moving to 4-3 under would be difficult. Many of these pass rushers would be perfect for the Leo role. Moore could also play there. Move JPP to LDE. As I mentioned in another thread, would not be surprise if this is the "sophisticated twist".
Stand them up to play 4-3 LB. None of these guys has any clue about having to play pass defense. They are up the field pass rushers who do not back up.
Asking players to rush up-field is 1 thing. Asking guys to drop back to a space and read and react to receivers is another world. There are so few in the NFL who can do it now, let alone college DE
D. Fowler is the guy to get if available at 9. If he is not there, move on from DE/LB
Quote:
but if your team is structured to be a 4-3 defense, it isn't easy to play the type of hybrid schemes or dedicate the type of resources under the cap that would allow those players to be the most successful.
We are starting to see teams get more creative being able to do this and TC specifically mentioned that Steve has learned alot more about different types of defenses since his last stop here.
Ravens played some multiple fronts so it's a possibility though I doubt they would play it heavily enough to dedicate such a high pick to it.
Don't think moving to 4-3 under would be difficult. Many of these pass rushers would be perfect for the Leo role. Moore could also play there. Move JPP to LDE. As I mentioned in another thread, would not be surprise if this is the "sophisticated twist".
The Giants will have to add some wrinkles into their 4-3 base defense.. Seattle, The Ravens and I believe San Fran all play a 4-3 under.. Seattle and the Ravens use 3-4 looks even though they are a 4-3 team. The Niners are the opposite I believe.. a 3-4 team with 4-3 looks.
The Giants must improve at the linebacker position regardless of what defense they employ.
Stand them up to play 4-3 LB. None of these guys has any clue about having to play pass defense. They are up the field pass rushers who do not back up.
Asking players to rush up-field is 1 thing. Asking guys to drop back to a space and read and react to receivers is another world. There are so few in the NFL who can do it now, let alone college DE
D. Fowler is the guy to get if available at 9. If he is not there, move on from DE/LB
Agreed. Fowler or pass on Beasley, Ray, or Gregory. But I'd be surprised if Fowler is around at #9. Fowler can play DE in the NFL in a 4-3. I don't think the other three can.
Of the other three, I'd take Beasley, but would still prefer to go in another direction. That doesn't mean they aren't good players. They are. Just that they don't fit our system, and we shouldn't use the #9 pick on a player who doesn't in the hope that they will be able to do so. Using a sixth round pick on a DE who has to transition to LB in the NFL like we did with Tracy is totally different. At that point in the draft, you can easily justify taking the chance if the player produced enough in college.
Quote:
but if your team is structured to be a 4-3 defense, it isn't easy to play the type of hybrid schemes or dedicate the type of resources under the cap that would allow those players to be the most successful.
We are starting to see teams get more creative being able to do this and TC specifically mentioned that Steve has learned alot more about different types of defenses since his last stop here.
Ravens played some multiple fronts so it's a possibility though I doubt they would play it heavily enough to dedicate such a high pick to it.
Coach Mason,
Spags and Fewell both said they used aspects of the 3 4 in their schemes - if you have a player that can play Sam or Will -- and drop back into coverage and also plant his hand in the ground at the edge -- what's the problem?
The players with the requisite and broad enough skillset to be able to have the toughness,size and speed to blitz of the edge and then be somewhat capable to play in space in a 4-3 are quite rare. Further it is hard to evaluate some of those guys that have potential to do both like Beasley b/c the film doesn't show enough (i.e the way they were utilized in College may have been slightly different).
That downside is that they can't play DE in a 4-3 and get blown off the line. Read Sy56 reviews. Beasley is "too light in the pants"
"I know everyone will have him pegged as a 3-4 edge guy," the scout said. "But I think 4-3 defenses would be crazy not to consider him as a WILL or SAM who can bump down as an edge rusher in third downs. Denver does it with Von Miller, so why not consider it?"
The Giants could possibly consider it. Beasley check in at 245 at the combine and showed strength on the BP and retained athletic ability..
DeMarcus Lawrence last year looks better than these guys.
Quote:
but if your team is structured to be a 4-3 defense, it isn't easy to play the type of hybrid schemes or dedicate the type of resources under the cap that would allow those players to be the most successful.
We are starting to see teams get more creative being able to do this and TC specifically mentioned that Steve has learned alot more about different types of defenses since his last stop here.
Ravens played some multiple fronts so it's a possibility though I doubt they would play it heavily enough to dedicate such a high pick to it.
Don't think moving to 4-3 under would be difficult. Many of these pass rushers would be perfect for the Leo role. Moore could also play there. Move JPP to LDE. As I mentioned in another thread, would not be surprise if this is the "sophisticated twist".
Hard to know exactly what Giant thinking is currently but Coughlin did make a point to mention Spags has 'evolved' since his coaching tenure here.
Is their vision for next years defense such that they would be willing to invest in a 'tweener' at 9? Do they see Beasley as all they thought Sintim could be and enough of a 'sure thing' to spend a top 10 pick on that hope? Those are just a couple of the big questions I can see without knowing more about their vision moving forward under Spagnuolo.
It's also time to acknowledge that the widespread shift in the collegiate approach to offense is having a wholesale effect on the types of premium athletes you'll need to build around. I don't see this draft crop as a one year thing but rather a typical group coming out.
"I know everyone will have him pegged as a 3-4 edge guy," the scout said. "But I think 4-3 defenses would be crazy not to consider him as a WILL or SAM who can bump down as an edge rusher in third downs. Denver does it with Von Miller, so why not consider it?"
The Giants could possibly consider it. Beasley check in at 245 at the combine and showed strength on the BP and retained athletic ability..
Beasley is fascinating b/c there is alot of subjectivity involved when trying to project him as a 4-3 hybrid LB/DE in the Giants system.
The big thing I like when I look at the film comparing our last failed project (Sintim) to Beasley his ease of lateral movement and c.o.d . The combine drills confirmed this as I was impressed in watching him flip and turn and veer across the field. Lastly when you compare their combine numbers Beasley's are mostly superior across the board.
Is there enough there to bypass the other talent at 9? Guess we'll find out in a few months.
Von Miller played at Texas A & M at 245 lbs
Von Miller dropped back in coverage more than Beasley has done
That is not to say that Beasley is not a great athlete and pass rusher, but Von Miller was much more refined playing LB in college - and he was suspect at coverage
Von Miller played at Texas A & M at 245 lbs
Von Miller dropped back in coverage more than Beasley has done
That is not to say that Beasley is not a great athlete and pass rusher, but Von Miller was much more refined playing LB in college - and he was suspect at coverage
True Beasley however is 245 now.. and he shows good movement skills in the field drills.. I dont think a 4-3 team can necessarily rule him out.. the question is does he fit into YOUR defensive scheme.
Quote:
you don't take Mariota at nine just because he's your BPA. You don't take a kicker in the first because he's your BPA. Come on now.
radar - seriously - this is one of the most moronic statements I've ever seen out of you -- and that's saying something
Moronic is the conclusion you jumped to assert as fact to insult someone. If Mariotta is there at #9 and there are no trades, do you waste your #9 on him knowing Eli will start 4 more years! Lighten-up!
Quote:
In comment 12159070 chris r said:
Quote:
you don't take Mariota at nine just because he's your BPA. You don't take a kicker in the first because he's your BPA. Come on now.
radar - seriously - this is one of the most moronic statements I've ever seen out of you -- and that's saying something
Moronic is the conclusion you jumped to assert as fact to insult someone. If Mariotta is there at #9 and there are no trades, do you waste your #9 on him knowing Eli will start 4 more years! Lighten-up!
It's not a waste to use your #09 pick on a QB clearly at the top of your draft board when you pick - yes you do -- now I don't rate Marotta in that spot and I don't think he would be at the top of my board there, but if the value is there you go for it. For instance - Joey has stated he would absolutely pick Winston at the 9 spot. If Winston is that good then Joey is right.
And to use the example thrown around, if LT is there you draft him and you make the defense fit his talent, because he is a game changer. If the Giants see one of these guys as a total game changer, they may be the only ones who do. I am not an expert at breaking down prospects and will not pretend I know how to, but LT was in the discussion for #1 overall pick and went #2. None of these guys are.
Thankfully, I don't believe the Giants are looking to draft a transitional project at #9, so this is really all moot anyway.
And to use the example thrown around, if LT is there you draft him and you make the defense fit his talent, because he is a game changer. If the Giants see one of these guys as a total game changer, they may be the only ones who do. I am not an expert at breaking down prospects and will not pretend I know how to, but LT was in the discussion for #1 overall pick and went #2. None of these guys are.
Thankfully, I don't believe the Giants are looking to draft a transitional project at #9, so this is really all moot anyway.
you're absolutely right.
and let's hope the Giants agree!!