Why (NOT) to draft Scherff!!!!

I'm guessing you posted from your phone because you probably wouldn't move your feet enough to get to your computer.

have had such a pathetic running attack over the past several years has had to do with ability and performance not attitude and mentality

Lost me. It's the old chain/weak link theory. One big upgrade on the OL can have a domino effect and make everyone else better. If Pugh isn't covering for Jerry, or Jerry isn't covering for Walton, then each player can focus on his job instead of making the QB doesn't die. One player on the OL can make a world of difference, and if you don't get that, you really shouldn't watch football anymore.

I do agree that there are enough good OL prospects that we can get a probable starter in rounds 2 or 3, but your premise is simply incorrect.

Sure. Ya fool... Haha

In comment 12207838 chillinman1183 said:

Quote:

Sure. Ya fool... Haha

Brilliant retort, I will consider this exchange over since you choose to stick to your original idiotic premise and just giggle when challenged on a point you failed to make.

In comment 12207845 Joey in VA said:

Quote:

Brilliant retort, I will consider this exchange over since you choose to stick to your original idiotic premise and just giggle when challenged on a point you failed to make.

+1 - a childish response to support an otherwise weak position.

Y'know, I was going to reply that was a solid post with the exception of the first sentence. Then I saw the uncalled for juvenile response to Joey and I'm forced to conclude that someone else wrote the rest of the OP for you.

While I'll agree Walton was a joke last year,and they could certainly use and upgrade over Jerry.
There is plenty of ability on the OL to be successful if they develop that smash mouth attitude.
I never said you don't have to have ability,I just didn't think I had to state the obvious. I said it has just as much to do with developing an attitude and mentality,wich comes from playing togeather as a unit. You can't do that while you have a revolving door at RT,RG,LG.
What I was saying is they have plenty of ability If everyone's healthy,thus the statement about avoiding the injury bug.
My premise is more than correct if everyone stays healthy. availability is the best ability. You'll see this coming season.
You Either misunderstood what I was saying,or simply don't get it.
If you fail to take into consideration the performance of the backs as well you are just as dumb as your statement. Like I said that pathetic line looked pretty decent when Jennings was healthy. not saying they were great but they were adequate until he was injured. What about the year before as I also mentioned above. YOU fail to see the situation as a whole over the past 2 seasons as I stated most of you do.

I thought it was funny.
Am I allowed to step away for a moment and do something other than respond to your narrow minded post right when you want me to. Or does the world simply revolve around you and yours. Talk about childish!!!

D wins championships and our D is weaker then our O. If you can't stop the run you can't win. We can't stop the run!

Scherff will be a perennial All Pro...prozac and football accumen are mutually exclusive.

...With RBs Being Blown Up In The Backfield On A Regular Basis. Yeah, We Don't Need More/Better O-Linemen.

He very well could be an all pro G. I doubt it but it's possible.
I think he will be a solid G and even make a few probowls. I Just don't believe he deserves to be selected in the top 10 or even top 15 as I've stated before.

with Richburg moving to his natural position,Pugh entering his 3rd season (HEALTHY),and hopefully Schwartz staying heathy,they will be an improved group.
AS I stated they could use competiotion and depth at all 5 positions along the OL and could use an upgrade over Jerry,but even if that doesn't happen this season they'll still be better than last. Unless Beatty reverts back to his 2013 form,but I'm confident he wont.
Walton was a big reason a lot of those running plays were being blown up in the backfield last year by the way,and he's gone thankfully. Not to mention the constant shuffeling of the OL throughout the year.
You all fail to realize Jennings was 2nd in the league rushing the ball until he was injured,whle Williams struggled adjusting to the Nfl. As I stated above He showed improvement later in the year. See the Tenn,STL games.
There's no need to panic and reach for scherff at 9 when you'll be able to draft a difference maker like Cooper or Devante parker,or even Beasley if the Giants think he can be a 3 down LB in a 43 defense. We know he can put his hand in the dirt and Rush the QB on 3rd down or on obvious passing downs.
It's not as simple as looking at the #'s and saying we were 30th in rushing and saying it's just simply lack of talent and production. there's other variables involved that I've stated above,and in several of my other posts.
You can't just point to one thing and say fix that and they'll run the ball better. It's just not that simple. the Giants drafting Scherff would have little impact in my opinion. Plus it would be a reach and they'd be passing on a chance to get a difference maker.

Your wrong first of all. We (COULDN'T) stop the run.
We haven't even played a preseason game as of yet,so how do you know we can't stop the run. We have added a big run stuffing DT,some new LB's and have a new DC that will be more aggressive. not to mention we should go into the season Completely healthy. Fingers crossed!! :)
It's a month away from the draft and you are saying we can't stop the run. I guess we're screwed then!!
Maybe we should have the draft and finish adding players then actually play a few games before you make the judgement that we can't stop the run..

it takes time with a OL playing together to jell. However you have to first start with talent. If the talent is not there it does not matter how long they have been playing together. The Giants OL for last few seasons has been made-up of subpar talent. There is still a need to upgrade the talent on the Giants OL. I'm not saying they have to draft a OL in the first round. I am saying they need to upgrade the talent. So somewhere in the first three rounds they need to get a OL. If they feel at 9 the best player on their board is OL, then they have to take him.

Enough said

In comment 12207887 Emlen'sGremlins said:

Quote:

...With RBs Being Blown Up In The Backfield On A Regular Basis. Yeah, We Don't Need More/Better O-Linemen.

I meant to use this a few days agp since it disputed a point a lot of people where making in a thread but couldn't find it. Here is a another analytical site review of offensive lines. They counted the number of times that the running play was "stuffed" for no gain or a loss and it happened to the Giants 20% of the time. That was good for 17th in the league. The league average of "stuffed" running plays was 19%. I feel the stats do not bear out the regular basis statement.

Also note that the Giant's offensive line adjusted sack rate was 10th best in the league. As some have pointed out some of the credit for that belongs to Eli and the play-calling but that was also true for the great 2008 line as well. (Also that defense as well, if one wants to be fair about it)

So while the desire to improve the line is understandable since they are probably an average unit at best right now, the focus on using a first round draft pick as the necessary fix is wrong in my opinion. Get the best player at a premium position on the team in the first round and then draft another lineman with an early pick.


Link - ( New Window )

If he is not the best player available......

We should draft the highest graded player available

Need is part......but not driver

You see an OL worth the #9 pick?

I did not know much about Scherrf until I started researching him about (3) weeks ago. So I come "tabula rasa" (with a clean slate).

I have seen enough of Scherrf to believe that he would be an excellent selection. He is athletic, physical, intelligent, a leader, productive, etc. What else could you ask?

His downside may be a pro bowl caliber guard and his up side a pro bowl caliber tackle. I think that with the exception of Cooper he has the least risk of any of the players that may be available.


If the Giants believe that he is the highest rated player available when they pick, I have no problem with that selection.

I do not like drafting for need. I prefer to draft the best available player with the lowest downside.

In comment 12207973 bc4life said:

Quote:

You see an OL worth the #9 pick?

No I don't. I think one of the available wide receivers or edge rushers will be a better pick. However now that BBI is no longer obsessing that the pick has to be an offensive lineman, you can actually see that Scherff deserves some consideration based on his attributes and not just his position.

Williams and Atlanta takes a DE or LB(pass rusher). Atlanta could surprise and take Shelton.

Think Cooper will be gone - White will still be there at 9.

If scherff is the Giants BPA available and that's who they select I'll be the first to jump on the fan wagon.
In my opinion I just don't see him being the Bpa at 9.
If they do pick him at 9 I hope he turns out to be a parenial all pro and an eventual HOF'er.
There's no denying his strength and physical ability. I think he's going to be one of those guys that what you see now is what you are going to get in the NFL.
I don't see him as a LT in the NFL,only a G. Not to say he couldn't play LT in a pinch,I just think he'd make an average LT. that's why IMO he shouldn't be the selection at 9.

We need to upgrade the OL. Without a better running game, and better pas protection, then Eli and the WR's are playing with half the playbook.

that some who support BPA at WR in round one tend to ignore the fact that, like it or not, such a choice forces ones hand in all. subsequent. rounds. to a greater extent than we realize. In an ironic way, to become a much less 'BPA type' draft overall, once you look at all the picks together:

Going, then, for needs in 2,3,4 in that specific scenario, which you know we would do in such a scenario, might be more restrictive than we realize, since you now would have less slots to do it in.

These positions often fly off the boards faster than we think, which would then force us into reaches and narrow choices.

So, if you say 'BPA in 1' you might end up with 6 reaches and forced picks in 2-7, a much less 'best' type draft overall if you look at the whole draft.

conversely, if you either trade down or bite the bullet in 1, and you are then in the drivers seat for the rest of the draft, you have an additional 14%, or what have you, of additional flexibility all the way down, to grab better players.

look at the 40 pick, and assume that OL has been addressed already, at 9 or 10 or 15 or wherever, prior.

NOW you are in the drivers seat. NOW you can play the entire draft as a whole.

In comment 12207985 Semipro Lineman said:

Quote:

In comment 12207973 bc4life said: Quote: You see an OL worth the #9 pick? No I don't. I think one of the available wide receivers or edge rushers will be a better pick.

I am no longer sure of this.. Many of the edge rushers are tweeners who might not fit what we do. I believe Cooper will be gone.. and I dont know if the Giants will be as high on White.

Great point,everyone is talking about reaching for need in the first round.It could be we would have to reach in the ensuing rounds if we don't fill a need with someone of similar value in the first.There will still be alot of talented players in the next few rounds where BPA could add talent without having to fill a position.

You're argument has improved and it is reasonable, though I am with those who fully disagree with you.

I agree that Scherff is not a great bet to be a good NFL LT, but agree with others that Scherff's floor is pro bowl caliber Guard. I also happen to think he will be a very good NFL RT.

Your thought that he's only a Guard and that a pure Guard is not a great pick at #9 is a reasonable one (though I think he will be at least a RT in pros).

I would be happier with Cooper there and would really like Shelton, but I do not like the DEs and have real concerns with others likely to be there when we pick at 9.

and let's not forget that even with Scherff we are one injury away from Jerry. Jerry as the first back-up is not ideal, but it isn't ridiculous. Having him come to camp as the presumptive starter would be, IMO, ridiculous.

The Giants will upgrade the OL in the draft, if not at 9, by pick 40

(change is bad, ride it out with what we have) is that regardless of who we draft, there's going to be change.

the starting center is gone. we're presuming Westin moves to center. we're presuming Schwartz returns (and hoping he moves to RG). this means that 3 positions will have new starters. So much for continuity from last year.

There might be valid reasons to look elsewhere with the first pick, but continuity isn't one of them. The minimum disruption option is moving Westin to C, Schwartz to LG, leave Jerry at RG. (ok, technically, the minimum minimum is to leave WR at LG, Jerry at RG, and drop S into C, but I doubt anyone is advocating that particular lineup).

This isn't a horrible unit if WR does well at C and Schwartz stays healthy and productive and Pugh returns to productive when healthy. A replacement for Jerry (or moving Pugh inside and replacing RT) could have a massive impact on the line. doesn't mean the replacement has to come in the first round, though.

if OP could use more exclamation points? Maybe use some caps too? That's always cool.

Reese said playmaker. Whatever.There are always exceptions but if you can get a premium or playmaker in the first, it's the preferred choice. OG/OT in two..

In comment 12208180 jLefty said:

Quote:

Reese said playmaker. Whatever.There are always exceptions but if you can get a premium or playmaker in the first, it's the preferred choice. OG/OT in two..

and when the Giants are picking in the top 10 again next year we'll hear some cockadoodles preaching stats despite another 6-10 record. Maybe Matt Millen can be the next GM for the fantasy fans.

So if the Giants draft scherff in the first as opposed to a premium position they will win more games in your opinion?! You think the Giants will be 6-10 without scherff,so how many games do they win with him?! 8 or 9,maybe 10?! If that's what you think then you are delusional. Even if say scherff or Peat came in to play G or T it's not likely to affect the win/loss percentage. Atleast if they drafted say Devante Parker,he would have a chance to impact the game by making a leaping catch in the endzone as time expires,or breaking a tackle for a first down on 3rd and long. Since the OL is so awful there likely to be in 3rd and long early and often right?! Since the OL is so awful. Oh but if they draft one of the top OL they will instantly solidify the OL and they'll be a dominant running team and Eli will have Romo type time to throw back there,and they'll ride scherff all the way to another championship. Haha...

that's right.

the chance of matching need to BPA in 2-7 increases greatly if you either

a) address a glaring need [somewhere in the first round] thus shrinking the list. i.e. adjusting the ratio

or

b) trade down and get exra picks. adjusting the ratio from the other side

either way, you have the luxury of choosing from a pool of what would be closer to rational BPA players at different positions of need, especially this year apparently, where the positional matches the needs in 2-7 fairly well. which choice would always give you a better result?

and 7 picks

you take wr in 1, assume that it is not a glaring need, for the conversation

that gives you

6/4 (1.5) ..if you deduce the chances of addressing those are only in round 2,3 and 4. you have 3/4 a 0.75.

conversely, if you address a need in 1 you then have

6/3 (2.0) or at assumption of 3/3 (a 1.0)

if you trade down once, and address a need still in round 1, but lower,

you get a

7/3 or a 2.3+

and so forth, higher number probably equates to higher chance to hit BPA and Need together.

then add in that BPA may be more likely at certain positions in certain rounds, which could increase that more

of course, someone would have to work the lower numbers in later rounds as well, however, those are partly positional as well.

then all our bases belong to you.

.

If you have to ask the question, you won't understand the answer. I refer to the grammar and format of the OP.

A real good run blocking guard would make the Oline better. A guy who can shove the pile, plow a path for Williams. Very valuable player.

I agree more with Bill2's take on a very good WR having an even more positive impact on the offense this year though.

Stating that one player on the Oline isn't going to make much of a difference is an incorrect opinion.

In comment 12207825 Ryan said:

Quote:

I'm guessing you posted from your phone because you probably wouldn't move your feet enough to get to your computer.

That's funny shit....

.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us - ( New Window )

Does not mean you should...

In comment 12208058 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

that some who support BPA at WR in round one tend to ignore the fact that, like it or not, such a choice forces ones hand in all. subsequent. rounds. to a greater extent than we realize. In an ironic way, to become a much less 'BPA type' draft overall, once you look at all the picks together: Going, then, for needs in 2,3,4 in that specific scenario, which you know we would do in such a scenario, might be more restrictive than we realize, since you now would have less slots to do it in. These positions often fly off the boards faster than we think, which would then force us into reaches and narrow choices. So, if you say 'BPA in 1' you might end up with 6 reaches and forced picks in 2-7, a much less 'best' type draft overall if you look at the whole draft. conversely, if you either trade down or bite the bullet in 1, and you are then in the drivers seat for the rest of the draft, you have an additional 14%, or what have you, of additional flexibility all the way down, to grab better players. look at the 40 pick, and assume that OL has been addressed already, at 9 or 10 or 15 or wherever, prior. NOW you are in the drivers seat. NOW you can play the entire draft as a whole.

With all due respect, I think this is crap. The further down you go in the draft, the more similar the players are talent-wise, therefore the less risky it becomes to emphasize need over BPA. Not to mention the fact that team needs often change drastically from year to year, and most players don't contribute significantly as rookies (especially on the Giants), so drafting for need over talent is generally a bad idea. Teams that are looking to solve their immediate problems through the draft are teams without a coherent plan, ie, losing teams. The first ten picks in the first round are potentially special players; with the obvious exception of the QB position, you absolutely have to pick the highest rated guy on your board that is available.

You took the words right out of my mouth

I can hear all the hollering -we wend for need, we drafter a guard in the top 10...

It won't be because of need, and the issue of OG or OT is not the concern either. There is a very good chance he'll be the best player on the board who will be a huge upgrade for us regardless where they place him.

We passed on Martin last year, this year we pull the trigger.

I would only say that we did exactly what you suggest, last year, and fielded a very unbalanced team as a result,

one that had a loosing record with some very, very dismal statistics.

Not that I don't like the Odell, but, two years in a row of that strategy might not be very productive.


so, with less words, no.

So the Giants picked the rookie of the year in last year's draft, and that's the reason they were 6-10. Okay, got it.

Speaking of drafting for need, tell me, who was Eli going to throw the ball to after Cruz got hurt, if they hadn't drafted Beckham? But Zach Martin would have solved their problems in 2014? Yeah, that's a solid argument.

not many arguments for an OL makes much sense on this site. The arguments usually include just how horrible the OL was last year. So unless you are going to field a playoff caliber team,how likely is it that your rookie class is going to make a difference anyway,especially a OL in the 1st?!
The Giants need to draft an impact player with the 9th pick,and improve there overall talent level. In other words,draft the BPA,and that's likely going to be one of the 3 WR.
In the 2nd or 3rd round I can see drafting one of the G.If the Giants choose to go in that direction the Value and need are far more likely to match up. But to panic and reach at 9 for an OL reeks of desperation and would be the wrong move IMO.
Obviously they need an upgrade over Jerry and depth at all over the OL. There's going to be guys there that would be an instant upgrade such as Tre Jackson,AJ Cann or Laken Tomlinson just to name a few. The 2nd and 3rd rounds are going to be littered with guys who could step in and play.
The OL should be an improved unit this year regardless. with the subtraction of Walton and Richburg sliding to his natural C position That's instantly an upgrade,and is going to raise the play of everyone on the OL.
Pugh is going into his 3rd season (HEALTHY) so he should start to realize his potential as a RT. Contrary to popular belief on here he is not a G. Never has been,and most likely never will be. Beatty had a solid 2014,soif he can continue to improve this year without reverting back to his 2013 form then the Giants will be solid at these 3 positions.
Jerry and Schwartz are both ? IMO. I think this year they are going to live and die with Schwartz and hope he can stay healthy. wich is why it would be ideal to replace Jerry and relegate him to the bench,as that would solve the depth issue at G.
People on BBI seem to forget there's a 7 round draft coming up,with 8 selections overall. Not to mention Rookie free agency after that and camp cuts. There's going to be a lot of good football players available over the next couple months.
The Giants are going to be fine,and I'm extremely confident they will have a nice bounce back season.

We disagree whether that player could be Scherff. I also think Scherff will be versatile enough to play Tackle at the next level. His 3 cone says a lot about his feet and athleticism.

I would be happiest with Cooper at 9 and OL in the 2nd and/or 3rd, but I am not convinced the other WRs are BPA at 9.

I generally agree with the idea that you take a playmaker at 9, but I disagree that an OL can be worthy of the 9 pick.

to be clear - I think an OL (Scherff) is worthy of the 9th pick. I also think he will be all pro Guard, a very good RT and can play LT at the next level. He will greatly improve the OL and hive the flexibility to move Pugh inside.
From what I've read, TC and Reese seem to think Pugh could be moved to Guard.

Ideally I'd want a clear LT at 9, but Scherff is so good I like him at 9. I'm not convinced that the WRs other than Cooper are good (safe) picks at 9.

and to know our stuff, which is just silly, but we do it anyway, because, like it or not, we are dorks.

In truth, the elephant in the room, is

'what sort of football do we enjoy watching?'

- I am from a fairly large contingent of old school NFC East NY Giants Fans that does not like watching a team that gets gashed regularly for long runs and first downs, a team cannot threaten to get sacks against winning opponents,

Or, don't want to watch a team which cannot get a 3rd and short the simple way, or has to resort to chuck and duck and airing it out of necessity rather than opportunity.

We have thrived, in the past, on sacks, on tough line play, and the notion that any team we face will have a long day up front.

We have thrived on the idea that creative chaos on Defense can be a high art form, and that those who practiced it were among our greatest sports heroes.

I also stand by my attitude of looking at whole drafts, as opposed to only the first round or two.

I stand by the idea, more specific, that having good whole drafts and rookie starters in varied spots, is needed, especially right now with the big Eli contract and the new NFL contracts deal, to field balanced teams.

I think people who would sacrifice increasing the chances of that prospect, for a single player in #1, secretly fear that the rest of the draft is 'just a crap shoot'.

Which bores the crap out of me.