What's the ideal position to be BPA for the Giants at #9?

are drafting TJ Clemmings in the 1st round and BBI will throw a fit about it

but there doesn't seem to be one. I'm coming around to looking in the 2nd round.

In comment 12195026 area junc said:

Quote:

are drafting TJ Clemmings in the 1st round and BBI will throw a fit about it

what makes you say that aj?

but put me in Bill2's camp and I don't necessarily like it either. I wish there was a top 10 4-3 DE that was worth the #9 pick, but there simply isn't and any attempt to grab one would be a reach. Same thing goes for OT. Some good prospects but nothing close to top 10 talent.

The WRs are a different story and 1 or 2 of them should be available at #9.

Bill2, I would also add that another reason to take WR over an OT at #9 is that the Giants offensive line is really an OG away from being solidified, which should be available in round 2. This calculus would change of a franchise LT was available in the draft, but that is not the case this year.

In comment 12195026 area junc said:

Quote:

are drafting TJ Clemmings in the 1st round and BBI will throw a fit about it

Really doubt it

Unless you have inside info.

might

LT, DE, and then CB.... That goes for any draft although of course QB would be number one if you needed a QB.

and widely agreed perspective. And while it goes beyond Milton's OP, to maximize the result foreseen by Bill in games won, you almost have to go OL at #40 so that there is cushion in the event that the FO assessment of its OL personnel is (yet again!) wrong footed, to make sure those weapons can fly.

Leading up to the FA period, the conventional wisdom was to grab an OL, but it became clear to some that the way to achieve fortification there was to bolster the D in FA, thereby opening up the draft to enhance BPA selection as nearly as possible, and it seems that is the way it is playing out.

Adding a Pro-Bowl-quality OL to the OL unit will mean more to that unit than adding a Pro-Bowl-quality WR to the WR unit will mean.

People point out that there is no assurance that Cruz will ever be the same, but there is also no assurance that he won't. And then you have three Pro-Bowl quality WR's and only one football and the Giants are not about to make the 3 WR set their base offense, not while Coughlin is still head coach. If the goal of drafting a WR is to insure against Cruz's non-return to form, than wouldn't a 2nd or 3rd round pick be a more appropriate price? You don't spend $60,000 insurance on a $60,000 car, do you?

And think about what happens after four years. Because it is a top ten pick, the cost on the 5th year option is practially the equivalent to another franchise tag whether it's a WR or an OL, so given that OBJ is cemented as the team's #1WR going forward, who do the Giants have a better chance to give an extension at Pro Bowl prices, another WR or another OL?

I'm all for adding a rookie WR to the mix, but I think that ideally-speaking, it is rounds 2-4 when we should be looking for one. In my mind, that's the right price to pay in order to find someone to complement OBJ and serve as insurance on Cruz.

It should also be noted by those who are so focused on Cruz's inability to come back 100% that the Giants forced Schwartz to take a paycut in just his second year with the team. A guy doesn't take a paycut unless he knows that the alternative is that he will be released. So chew on that: the Giants are so unsure of Schwartz's health that they were ready to release him and made him agree to a contract that pays him based on games played.

So all of you who think the Giants are okay at four of the five OL spots should start thinking in terms of the Giants OL being okay at three spots. And it's not like the Giants have Pro Bowl players at those three spots, they have Beatty, Pugh, and Richburg. This is a unit that is badly in need of a Pro-Bowl-quality player addition; much more so than the WR unit is in need of a Pro-Bowl-quality addition.

It is now a pay for performance deal. If he doesn't respond he could be on the outside looking in come 2016.

In comment 12195139 Emil said:

Quote:

but put me in Bill2's camp and I don't necessarily like it either. I wish there was a top 10 4-3 DE that was worth the #9 pick, but there simply isn't and any attempt to grab one would be a reach. Same thing goes for OT. Some good prospects but nothing close to top 10 talent. The WRs are a different story and 1 or 2 of them should be available at #9. Bill2, I would also add that another reason to take WR over an OT at #9 is that the Giants offensive line is really an OG away from being solidified, which should be available in round 2. This calculus would change of a franchise LT was available in the draft, but that is not the case this year.

Clemmings fits the ideal size/frame and mobility the Giants look for in an LT versatile tackle but he is very raw with quite a bit of projection for a top 10 pick.

Was it a pay cut or an extension ?

Which Milton?

And please help me understand in what world is an injury of the kind Cruz had is 50/50 likely to be the same?

I acknowledge other views on this but I am having a hard time with the logic of how you get there....unless you know something different about Schwartz and can help me understand how a severe injury in an explosion and flexibility centric player is a 50 50 proposition within 12 months?

I don't so I am asking???.

I also answered the question the way I did because more so than any other unit on the field I believe OL is a matter of unit cohesion and continuity.

To me Wr is more nearly individual talent differentiated.

Lastly the list of things TC won't do but did is kinda long.

I agree that TC won't give up on run pass at close to 50 50 balance.

Area junc's suggestion of TJ Clemmings is interesting but that is a BPA as he would be likely a non starter in 2015.

Good thread Milton

In comment 12195393 Bill2 said:

Quote:

Was it a pay cut or an extension ? Which Milton? And please help me understand in what world is an injury of the kind Cruz had is 50/50 likely to be the same? I acknowledge other views on this but I am having a hard time with the logic of how you get there....unless you know something different about Schwartz and can help me understand how a severe injury in an explosion and flexibility centric player is a 50 50 proposition within 12 months? I don't so I am asking???.

Schwartz was a paycut, clear and simple.

As for Cruz, I'm not a doctor and even if I was, I don't have access to the X-rays or MRI or whatever it is that doctors look at; but from what I've read of the injury, there have been players who've come back from it. It depends on the severity and not enough information on Cruz's injury was revealed for any of us to know if it falls under the category of likely or unlikely to return to 100% (or there-abouts).

And does it really matter if it takes him more than a year to return to full-health as long as he makes it back? The Giants aren't just drafting for the 2015 season and they have more than one pick in the draft. As I said earlier, they can find themselves a talented WR to complement OBJ and insure against Cruz's injury in later rounds. He doesn't need to be a superstar in order to feed off OBJ's double-coverage.

Both of our recent Super Bowl wins came from having 3 elite pass rushers and now we barley have 1. I don't see anyway the Giants don't go after a legit pass rusher if he is there @ 9.

Milton,

Can you support the contention that an injury does not lower the likelihood that future performance will be the same as the past? Yes or no?

Can you support your contention about Schwartz with clauses from his contract?

Can you really cite that Cruz will be fine beyond 2015 and also not use any risk adjustments for Randles FA past 2015?

Seems to me that uncertainty is equal if not more from the Wr unit as the OL unit. Not enough talent for us to be comfortable with either unit. Hence...for this season and in this situation with uncertainty equal from dl OL wr db and lb....If BPA was equal for all units. ..The single greatest way to win more is to put more in the hands of your best potential game winning player. ..Eli.

Imho.


My point of contending your support for OL is that both our contentions are loaded with unknowns. Making assertions about Cruz and Schwartz are assertions ....not greater knowns from which support for the OL opinion can be drawn. There is a point where the interest of the thread premise dwindles into torturing the data into confessing.

I mean I could contend that bringing in Harris tells us they are very concerned about Cruz. You could claim knowledge of Schwartz's contract has a mega import. We don't know. Personaly I think they are in more uncertainty then they let on.

And I don't think they can separate BPA rankings accurately when it comes to some positions...LT...LB and safety. Lastly to me BPA at LT is different than a BPA at say...Center.

I suspect that if they had a BPA on a blue goose cost controlled winner at LT that could anchor a line for 4 year's after a developmental 2015...I agree that is awfully close in value over 5 years than a great wr.
.pending injuries. Just not in 2015.

Take care.

Cruz is one factor...not the factor. Driving the opposing defense back and having more variety and making the blitz truly foolish given all our weapons is a lot of help to any OL.

In comment 12195398 Bill2 said:

Quote:

more so than any other unit on the field I believe OL is a matter of unit cohesion and continuity. To me Wr is more nearly individual talent differentiated.

THANK YOU !!!! Someone gets it..

ONE person will not magically FIX the OL.. the OL is about a unit working together..

Quote:

Can you support the contention that an injury does not lower the likelihood that future performance will be the same as the past?

It's never been my contention that an injury doesn't lower the likelihood that future performance will be the same. My contention is that it doesn't remove the chance of Cruz's return to health altogether. It's one thing to proceed as if there is no assurance that Cruz will return to health, it's another to proceed as if there is no chance that he will return to health. Your draft board is your draft board and you gotta go where it tells you to go, but all things being equal, the ideal way to address the uncertainty surrounding Cruz is via a day two pick.

Quote:

Can you support your contention about Schwartz with clauses from his contract?

From nj.com...
Schwartz had his base salary cut from $3.675 million to $1.675 million. He'll get a chance to earn $1.5 million back in per game (active) bonuses, with another $500K available through a 50-percent playing time incentive. Schwartz also had $500K of his 2016 salary guaranteed.

So Schwartz needs to earn his 2015 salary via playing time rather than have it guaranteed for simply making the opening day roster. That's a paycut.

Quote:

Can you really cite that Cruz will be fine beyond 2015 and also not use any risk adjustments for Randles FA past 2015?

No. But I can say that it's possible he will be.

Quote:

Seems to me that uncertainty is equal if not more from the Wr unit as the OL unit.

Disagree. I think the OL is in much more dire straits than the WR corps and I also think it is more difficult to find quality additions at OL than it will be to add quality at WR.

Quote:

My point of contending your support for OL is that both our contentions are loaded with unknowns.

And I would contend that it isn't just the unknowns along the OL that makes it more pressing than the need at WR, but it is the knowns along the OL that further support my contention.

Take care.

Interesting study is slightly dated having been collated in 2004. I cherry picked this nugget about recovery statistics...

In 19 of the 24 injuries, the player returned to participate in at least 1 game in the NFL. Of those players who returned to play, the average number of games played was 45.4.

Of course it doesn't describe the players ability post procedure as compared to pre-surgery. Link to the study attached for the curious.
Surgical recovery study - ( New Window )

Very good information.

Thanks Milton....I did not find that about Schwartz. Interesting.

Not to be a debater point...but to me...that contention now sounds like a different and good question:

Never mind BPA in 2015 given the shape they are in....should they draft with slightly more need than BPA in mind?

Of course they will tell us they were BPA afterwards.

I am sure we all agree that they got themselves into a horrible talent problem for this year and next. If their RG and LG are all quite questionable and the tackles and center average for 2015...and no safeties....and a one man band at wr...what does BPA even mean for now....they need to find a way to play in 2015 so there is a 2016.

Uggh

I take your actual contention to be: they can't afford BPA in 2015. I answered the question what position makes the most impact in 2015.

The implication of the Schwartz contractual terms has me agree that as long as BPA is not that far a reach...In 2015 it's like the Pugh pick...need over BPA

there really isnt any difference in the RT/G prospects that have a 1st round grade and the ones with a 2nd round grade. Id take Erving out of Florida State who played every spot on the line in the 2nd round before touching any prospect on the line at #9. Drafting a Guard at 9 is a huge reach, smart teams dont reach like that. Top 10 is reserved for LT when speaking the oline. i can only remember Jon Cooper, Chance Warmack, and DJ Fluker going top 10 and not projected LT and they all are still backups on their teams, thats a huge risk
For me itd be WR Cooper WR White CB Waynes LBER McKinnie or WR Beckum Green. I think Green going to go way higher than ppl think.
best situation would probably be to move back and get a hybrid like Shaq Thompson to be in Spags defense