Over the years it seems that the accepted wisdom on BBI was "Don't expect too much from rookies. They are really being drafted for the future and do not usually come right in and perform."
While not completely forgotten, I feel like the view on BBI seems to have changed. I feel like the inevitable comments in draft threads about how we can't expect much from our top picks next year seem to have all but disappeared. Discussions these past few months keep focusing on how we need someone who the Giants can plug right in. Maybe not at LT first, but at least at RT (for example - from those who want an OL).
Obviously, not everyone expresses this view. Do you agree that there has been a greater emphasis by BBI posters on getting one or more players who can jump right in? Do you think this is merely because we are drafting earlier? Is it that Pugh and Richburg started right away, and we no longer buy in that rookies (at least premium ones) need seasoning before they can start?
In short, we don't have the luxury of rookies not needing to come in and perform right away. We need starters.
For the Giants 1 and 2 need to play regularly, and you need to get a nice surprise or 2 from 3-7.At least from those who make the 53.
The pro game is so much the college game now but with elite talent that even in this meh draft class 2-3 guys have to get in games early as regulars/regular rotational.
Bromley and Behre from last years class have to step up or a pick this year passes them on the depth chart.And the Giants have so many meh players as poor as this class is, the draftees COULD pass some of them.
On the other hand, there appears to be a greater understanding that a draft pick doesn't buy you a "10-year starter" or such anymore. You get the right to employ a guy for 4 years (maybe 5) at a pretty closely defined (and low) salary, after which further years must be bought at the retail price. As such, if a player isn't likely to be making much of an impact for 20% of his rookie contract, he is a less attractive prospect.
Something good about that is Mosley would have, then, been a starter. Someone who was young and a draftee. You would've just hoped at some point with Walton struggling all season they would have inserted in Richburg. FWIW, I thought Jerry was average at best, but the such pathetic play by Walton hurt them. Pugh's injury was bad, as well.
you cannot make an investment of a premium pick for a player and have them sit the bench for a full year, ease in year two and become a starter year 3 - right when it's time to pay them.
If you pick someone in the first or second round you really need a year 1 contribution
The front office has not produced starters after the second round, even after they wean them for several seasons....
Some will point to Kennard and Williams last year.....but Williams has to make that next big step up the ladder, and Kennard has to skip a rung.....we have seen Guys like JW look promising their rookie year, and never ascend to the next level.....
Maybe there is a different philosophy in how the Giants draft, but it remains to be seen....
This draft has to produce a minimum of two starters, and also guys who can contribute, especially on ST's....
The Draft can't come soon enough.....
Beckham
Richburg
Kennard
Berhe
Plus you have to recognize Andre Williams HAS started 5 games.
Across the NFL historically: picking at the end of the second round (not where the Giants are this year) presents a 50% chance of finding a starter 30% chance end of the third (of finding a starter).
by the time you reach the 5th or later it's like 10 - 20%.
So saying something like this team HAS to get n starters in the current draft just goes against the odds.