This is the time of year where I start to put actual grades next to the names. I try to do the underclassmen first and I have almost all the early declarations done. While certain grades can change between now and the draft, they are almost always fairly close to there I have them now.
NYG may be in a favorable spot this year because I see a ton of talent up top and in terms of depth at DL and LB. Especially the DTs and WLB prospects.
If Reese wants to improve this defense knowing we are looking at the same scheme, he's paying extra attention to the help he can get at those two spots. Easily.
Are there any hands down stud MLB in this draft? I do not see a Luke Kuechley in this draft. Maybe Ragland play MLB in a 4-3?
Quote:
I would rather see the Giants add a stud MLB. I think they would be fine at LB with the rookie in the middle and Kennard and Thomas on the outside. I am a firm believer that a great MLB can elevate the play of the OLB's.
Are there any hands down stud MLB in this draft? I do not see a Luke Kuechley in this draft. Maybe Ragland play MLB in a 4-3?
Back in his draft Kuechly wasn't viewed as the stud he has become.
I'd basically agree so if this is true you are going to draft a MLB who you don't know is ready to play immediately or really ever? Wouldn't signing a MLB who you know can play in FA make more sense?
Quote:
I would rather see the Giants add a stud MLB. I think they would be fine at LB with the rookie in the middle and Kennard and Thomas on the outside. I am a firm believer that a great MLB can elevate the play of the OLB's.
Are there any hands down stud MLB in this draft? I do not see a Luke Kuechley in this draft. Maybe Ragland play MLB in a 4-3?
I don't think the value is there for Ragland at 10 (i.e there will be other guys available who'll be more valuable) and I think he'll be gone by the time we pick in the 2nd round.
Quote:
In comment 12790228 Jay on the Island said:
Quote:
I would rather see the Giants add a stud MLB. I think they would be fine at LB with the rookie in the middle and Kennard and Thomas on the outside. I am a firm believer that a great MLB can elevate the play of the OLB's.
Are there any hands down stud MLB in this draft? I do not see a Luke Kuechley in this draft. Maybe Ragland play MLB in a 4-3?
Back in his draft Kuechly wasn't viewed as the stud he has become.
Wasn't he picked 8th that year? That sounds rather "stud" like to me.
Quote:
In comment 12790228 Jay on the Island said:
Quote:
I would rather see the Giants add a stud MLB. I think they would be fine at LB with the rookie in the middle and Kennard and Thomas on the outside. I am a firm believer that a great MLB can elevate the play of the OLB's.
Are there any hands down stud MLB in this draft? I do not see a Luke Kuechley in this draft. Maybe Ragland play MLB in a 4-3?
I don't think the value is there for Ragland at 10 (i.e there will be other guys available who'll be more valuable) and I think he'll be gone by the time we pick in the 2nd round.
I agree. Myles Jack could probably play any lb position as well as safety. But I doubt he falls to us.
DeForest Buckner is my top DL as of now. Some say he is a DT, some say DE. I think he can be a Mario Williams type 4-3 DE.
CB and S.
I'm just hoping Kenard isn't the latest entry in a long list of guys who fail to live up to our lofty, ultimately unwarranted expectations.
That's my fear as well. I think Jack becomes this year's "prospect who generates a vast amount of debate that ultimately winds up moot because he's chosen before our slot".
I'm speaking of things like a strong family background or Type A personality, etc.
THANK YOU!!!! I say if he some how falls to us at 10, we have to take Jack. Especially if we get a pass rusher in FA.
Jerry, you block head, take note!
Urlacher played a hybrid of safety/LB in college and then when the Bears selected him, they played him at OLB before finally putting him at MLB and the rest is history.
Any comparison to him?
Buckner is intriguing I've got to take a harder look at him.
While CB and S aren't strengths of this class as a whole there are a couple of potential targets for the Giants @ #10 in Hargreaves and Alexander.
Quote:
is an ideal WLB....but in this defense he can play MIKE. I think Jack is going to end up as a top 3 prospect on my board. He is a rare athlete.
THANK YOU!!!! I say if he some how falls to us at 10, we have to take Jack. Especially if we get a pass rusher in FA.
Jerry, you block head, take note!
Again, I don't think we'll even have the opportunity to criticize Reese for not taking Jack.
Urlacher played a hybrid of safety/LB in college and then when the Bears selected him, they played him at OLB before finally putting him at MLB and the rest is history.
Any comparison to him?
If so that would be a no-brainer pick. I think people have forgotten simply how athletic Urlacher really was. Hell, he had like 5 TD's as a kick returner in college!
Of coarse they would have to be valued for the pick.
Which would be about as ugly as possible.
Plus it looks like Bosa and Buckner will be gone before 10.
Should be an interesting top 10
Isn't he a bit light in the pants currently for the MIKE role? I think he could do it but I'd be worried he'd break down at 224 lbs.
Quote:
is an ideal WLB....but in this defense he can play MIKE. I think Jack is going to end up as a top 3 prospect on my board. He is a rare athlete.
Isn't he a bit light in the pants currently for the MIKE role? I think he could do it but I'd be worried he'd break down at 224 lbs.
Last height and weight were 6'1" 242
And he will gain size as he ages
Quote:
is an ideal WLB....but in this defense he can play MIKE. I think Jack is going to end up as a top 3 prospect on my board. He is a rare athlete.
Isn't he a bit light in the pants currently for the MIKE role? I think he could do it but I'd be worried he'd break down at 224 lbs.
He's closer to 244 than 224 imo. I'd guess 237ish. And he has enough power to take on 300lb college OLinemen.
He's not just a slightly larger than usual Safety, he's a legit LBer with Safety speed.
The problem there is those guys don't grow on trees. We were pretty fortunate to get pierce when we did. Those types don't break loose too often.
I'm all aboard the myles jack bandwagon
I'm not saying it's a bad idea I just don't think we'll go that route. Maybe if JPP hadn't blown his hand up or Hankins wasn't recovering from a pec tear. In this roster climate I'm having a tough time buying into any position that isn't on the DL or a CB at #10.
That's generally how he operates.
That's generally how he operates.
And when was the last time he reached for a CB? Oh, never. Thanks. O, and his last "best WR available" pick certainly sucked.
Beckham has the talent but the team still ain't winning anymore then before he was drafted.
Keep swinging though.
Quote:
I would rather see the Giants add a stud MLB. I think they would be fine at LB with the rookie in the middle and Kennard and Thomas on the outside. I am a firm believer that a great MLB can elevate the play of the OLB's.
I'm just hoping Kenard isn't the latest entry in a long list of guys who fail to live up to our lofty, ultimately unwarranted expectations.
I don't think 5th rd. & "lofty" go together. More like hope the best.
I'm speaking of things like a strong family background or Type A personality, etc.
Passion for the game, hands down. Guys that actually love watching football on their bye weeks. Guys that go back to their alma mater on their week off and cheer a team on. Guys that love watching film because its fun.
Urlacher played a hybrid of safety/LB in college and then when the Bears selected him, they played him at OLB before finally putting him at MLB and the rest is history.
Any comparison to him?
Not really. Urlacher was MUCH bigger. Jack is a MUCH better athlete. More short area pop and explosion.
Smith has the more ideal frame. I think he is a better pass rusher, more experience there as well.
Jack is better at pretty much everything else. Faster/quicker/more agile/more explosive. I think Jack has such elite reaction and awareness...he knows the game so well. He has the feel That is so important for a LB and then you match that with elite ability...I think we are talking special My biggest fear is can his frame hold up with the violence he plays with? Or will he break down? He's not a big guy.
Clevelans,SF at 2 and 3, and even the Bears and Miami at 7 and 9 in front of us, could do some unexpected things in the draft, depending how their FA signings go.
Chicago obviously going 3-4 on D could go a lot of different ways in the draft, especially if Goff slides past Cleveland.
Wouldnt be surprised at someone trading into top 10 or better.
As with everyone else, Thanks Sy.
if the critique is light in the pants, and sy has him top 3... im with sy.... sign the kid up--- its our biggest need as well- back 7 playmakers.
I realize it's early, bit I'm curious if you think Billings will be a top 10 prospect.
Quote:
how would you compare Jaylon Smith to Myles Jack as prospects (EXCLUDING Jaylon's injury which will hurt his stock). I'm talking strengths and weaknesses on the field when they played.
Smith has the more ideal frame. I think he is a better pass rusher, more experience there as well.
Jack is better at pretty much everything else. Faster/quicker/more agile/more explosive. I think Jack has such elite reaction and awareness...he knows the game so well. He has the feel That is so important for a LB and then you match that with elite ability...I think we are talking special My biggest fear is can his frame hold up with the violence he plays with? Or will he break down? He's not a big guy.
Mook will get all pissy about this and tell you Jack isn't in the same ballpark as an athlete. :-)
I think it will be hard to talk Jerry Jones out of a QB again. I bet in his mind he thinks drafting Manziel would have been a good move, and he will use last season as proof.
Quote:
I have my sights set on Myles, I'll be crushed if he's not there at 10 at this point.
I think it will be hard to talk Jerry Jones out of a QB again. I bet in his mind he thinks drafting Manziel would have been a good move, and he will use last season as proof.
But he could trade a 6th rd. pick for Manziel and get what he wanted.
Quote:
In comment 12790701 David in LA said:
Quote:
I have my sights set on Myles, I'll be crushed if he's not there at 10 at this point.
I think it will be hard to talk Jerry Jones out of a QB again. I bet in his mind he thinks drafting Manziel would have been a good move, and he will use last season as proof.
But he could trade a 6th rd. pick for Manziel and get what he wanted.
Or he might fall in love with Goff. or Wentz.
An unlikely Manziel trade would change everything but unless that happens I'm predicting QB for Dallas.
..and DL for the Giants. :)
I'd expect us to go with DE/DT/S/Corner before WLB .. unless his grade demands we take him. Jalyn Smith would be an amazing fit no brainer.. but I don't think he'd make it to us. In him your looking at a franchise defender.
Carl in CT : 3:36 pm : link : reply
A quality player.
Please do us all a favor and delete your account.
This is a golden opportunity for them to grab a future franchise QB.
Quote:
In comment 12790228 Jay on the Island said:
Quote:
I would rather see the Giants add a stud MLB. I think they would be fine at LB with the rookie in the middle and Kennard and Thomas on the outside. I am a firm believer that a great MLB can elevate the play of the OLB's.
Are there any hands down stud MLB in this draft? I do not see a Luke Kuechley in this draft. Maybe Ragland play MLB in a 4-3?
I don't think the value is there for Ragland at 10 (i.e there will be other guys available who'll be more valuable) and I think he'll be gone by the time we pick in the 2nd round.
this is the type of reasoning that Reese has been using and look at our LBers right now and for the last 8 years..