Morning guys: Hope everyone is having a nice Easter. Getting recharged up and all that for the final30-day-plus push to the draft. Wanted to let people know if they have not heard already (and I haven't seen it posted) that tomorrow's Ole Miss pro day will be telecast live by the NFL Network starting at 11:30 AM ET. Of course the Ole Miss pro day took on a little added interest here when it was revealed that the Giants will have Rebels' WR Laquon Treadwell in for one of their 30-pre-draft on-site visits. And I hate t break it to the guys involved in that almost 300-post thread debating the merits and demerits of Treadwell that the Giants wouldn't be having him in for a visit this late in the process if they didn't already have a really good grade on him.
One of my favorite aspects of this time of the year is sifting through what we know (which often means reading pretty carefully between the lines) and trying to figure out what the Giants are thinking and where they are headed with their early picks. Sometimes, like 2008 (Phillips), 2010 (JPP) and the past couple of years you can figure it out. Other years like 2011,m 2012, and 2013 when the Giants sent out almost no signals not so much.
So what's it all mean right now. Nothing is written in stone, but there are a couple of things one might deduce. One, the that the Giants will have Treadwell in for a visit and that the only player the Giants had a prime contingent at their pro day was Georgia ER Len Floyd, might give us a hint as to the structure of the Giants value board.
There are currently a couple of competing theories as to what a 'consensus' value board looks like across the NFL. One theory is that its a 10-player draft, generally including QBs Goff and Wentz, RB Elliott, OTs Tunsil and Stanley, DE Bosa, 5T, Buckner, LB Jack, DB Ramsey and CB Hargreaves. In that case, the Giants would be in an interesting situation in fact IF they were going to stay true to their board (and they say they do) then they are almost by definition bound to take the guy from the top ten who is left over when they get on the clock. Given that most people assume that the two QBs, along with Tunsil, Bosa, Buckner, Jack, and Ramsey are almost assuredly going to be taken within the first 7-8 picks, then the giants would be in the situation - again if they were to stick to their as they say they always do - where they would almost have to take whichever of Elliott, Hargreaves or Stanley the teams picking 8th and 9th passed on. None would be a terrible choice, but so far they have paid no attention at all to those players.
In talking with people around the league I get the sense that a hypothetical current consensus NFL board - and remember every team has their own board - that it is closer to a 5-6 player draft. And talking to people around the league I get the sense that consensus board at this time would look something more like (in no particular order):
1st Row: DE Bosa, 5T Buckner, LB Jack, DB Ramsey, OT Tunsil and QB Wentz
2nd Row: QB Goff; RB Elliott; WR Treadwell (and maybe WR Coleman); OTs Stanley and Conklin; DE Lawson; DTs Rankins and Reed; ER Floyd; OLB Lee, ILB Ragland; and CBs Hargraeves and Apple.
If that is closer to the case then the Giants top pick would come from the 2nd row (minus any players selected 7 thru 9) and would be the guy they felt was the best fit of the remaining players which would bring Floyd and Treadwell into play.
One should also not that in addition to ranking players in rows, the Giants likely also blue-flag guys in each row that they particularly like. And my guess based on what they done to date is that their short list from that second row probably includes Floyd and Treadwell. After that though it's anybody's guess.
Combine this with the fact that everything we have seen and heard to date seems to suggest that the Giants still want/plan to upgrade at RT (and very possibly CB) through free agency, and it suggests (screams??) that what the Giants want to do with their early picks this year is add another edge rusher, or at least an impact player on defense, and a receiver to take some of the pressure off Odell.
Its also interesting in that context that whatever the above they don't get in the opening they should have some pretty good options in the second. Indeed, edge rushers who could come into range at #40 include DEs Ogbah, Dodd, Jon Bullard, Noah Spence and Shilique Calhoun and OLBs Kamalei Correa, Kyler Fackrell and Josh Perry, while WRs that could be available @ that spot include Josh Doctson, Will Fuller, Mike Thomas, Tyler Boyd and Sterling Shephard. And while it probably wouldn't be real popular amongst the peanut gallery crowd one shouldn't rule out the Giants trading upo early on the second day if they really liked one of those guys.
Again have a great day everyone
And an awful QB. People need to stop bringing up Atlanta every single time we talk about going WR. The two situations are nothing alike. Unless of course a team having two stud WR is somehow supposed to be an instant championship in your minds. There isn't a player on this draft that is leading this team to a championship all by himself. They will be pieces to the puzzle.
i guess we shouldn't go DL either, because the Jets suck? Or OL because Dallas sucks? It's stupid logic.
I, too, endorse Acid Test's comment: the way the numbers break down raise the suggestion that a trade down a couple of slots might be in the cards with a willing partner, but this has not been in the Giants' mold, even in past drafts when the numbers and value picks in their rows break down similarly.
Based on their values, I guess one could look at the least optimal outcome and determine whether that is an acceptable outcome in combination with the added pick and where it falls. A very wild card in this approach is the not-so-outlier where one or both QBs is not selected in that range.
You too. Your reasoning for not taking a WR is laughable. You say it in every thread regarding WR. Keep up the good fight!
Quote:
Have a nice day.
You too. Your reasoning for not taking a WR is laughable. You say it in every thread regarding WR. Keep up the good fight!
And you're just a dick, which is reinforced with every new post you make.
I have a ship to tend to. Au revoir.
"But, but, but, look at the Falcons!" Haha. Brilliant.
It sure does seem the team remain wed to improving the pass rush at the expense of other units. I think it'll be interesting to see if Hargreaves falls if that changes their mind and I definitely think Treadwell would be a great addition opposite Beckham and they'll have to consider that.
I was personally hoping we'd go OT as I think the depth isn't great there and take a guard in 3 or 4. I certainly think the Giants do plan to take an OT high as there is no depth behind Newhouse. Indeed if I was off a mind to refute your argument I would say that Scherff was our top choice last year and only in the final days before the draft did the private workout become known.
We do know the Giants want to upgrade OT as a priority, have been thwarted thus far in free agency and have a history of doing private workouts with guys they like. I totally agree Floyd looks like a real possibility but I wouldn't rule out an OT yet. Sometimes the evidence comes late on.
However, if the Giants do select him, I will quickly become a Treadwell fan and put my full support behind him, and hope that I was wrong. :)
Still hoping for a trade down and to get a good defensive player, while
However, if the Giants do select him, I will quickly become a Treadwell fan and put my full support behind him, and hope that I was wrong. :)
Still hoping for a trade down and to get a good defensive player, while
just because he is a "#2" WR doesnt mean anything, its still a starter! majority of our formations are 11 personnel or lighter we use a bunch of multi WR sets...treadwell would be a day one starter. if you ask me
#10 and #40 have to be day 1 starters. we have a few holes left and a couple question mark positions we have to hit on these two picks, not saying its treadwell but if it is i will be fine, he will be a very very solid pro WR he is big and strong can block as well, he is a multi dimension guy, i think his speed and quickest are severely underrated.
Quote:
For some time now. Not because I don't think he will be a good player, but because I think that he's not close to #10 value on the board, and that he is a #2 receiver... you don't use a first rounder, much less #10 overall, on a #2 receiver. I believe there will be a lot of very good talent offering much better value at #10 overall. And I think you can get a good value #2 receiver in the 2nd round.
However, if the Giants do select him, I will quickly become a Treadwell fan and put my full support behind him, and hope that I was wrong. :)
Still hoping for a trade down and to get a good defensive player, while
just because he is a "#2" WR doesnt mean anything, its still a starter! majority of our formations are 11 personnel or lighter we use a bunch of multi WR sets...treadwell would be a day one starter. if you ask me
#10 and #40 have to be day 1 starters. we have a few holes left and a couple question mark positions we have to hit on these two picks, not saying its treadwell but if it is i will be fine, he will be a very very solid pro WR he is big and strong can block as well, he is a multi dimension guy, i think his speed and quickest are severely underrated.
Yes, it does mean something, of course it means something. Yes you want the #10 draft pick to be a starter. But if you use the #10 draft pick on a receiver, he should check all the boxes. I don't think Treadwell does that. It's not that I think he won't be a good player in the NFL, it's I can get arguably a similar/just as good player for that position in the 2nd round... with Michael Thomas, Josh Doctson, maybe even Braxton Miller (who I think is underrated). At #10, if you can get a shutdown corner in Hargreaves, for example, or a dominant pass rusher (Dodd?), or a future captain/anchor of your defense like Reggie Ragland (who I'd prefer to get in a trade down scenario), you do that rather than take Treadwell at #10... because of VALUE. Value matters, and my opinion is that Treadwell doesn't offer enough value at #10 overall.
Some people also forget that the draft is more about just next year.
a) This isn't 1990. The game has evolved and you can't get by with just one Michael Irvin or Jerry Rice and a good RB.
b) Our offense requires multiple receiving threats, as Colin mentioned. When our offense stalled last season, it wasn't because we couldn't rush the ball. It was because our other options on the outside were ineffective (Randle, Harris, et al).
c) Odell is arguably a top-3 WR in the league now, which means an AJ Green/Dez Bryant would be a "#2 WR" to Odell. It doesn't make a game breaking outside WR any less valuable, as you would suggest.
d) By all accounts, Treadwell's upside is that of a lead wideout. Irrespective of what you guys think of his long speed or lack of ability to gain seperation.
I see something between Hakeem Nicks + Dez Bryant
He doesn't get good separation. No shit that a #2 is important and is on the field a lot. You won't win an argument for taking that guy at #10 overall if HE'S NOT THAT GOOD.
It's not that other people wouldn't want a player of Dez's caliber or A.J. Green or so forth across the field from Odell. And when that player shows up in the draft, let me know, because some of us don't believe that Treadwell is in that class. Some of us believe you can get a top-shelf corner, or pass rusher, or MLB, or maybe even a OT at #10, that would offer greater value.
If I think Treadwell is a 2nd round talent, not very distinguishable from players like Doctson and Michael Thomas, then why would I pay #10 for him? If I think I can get one of those guys in the 2nd, and they have a chance to be even better than Treadwell, then I'm not going to pull the trigger for him. And yes, I think Doctson is better than Treadwell. And I think Michael Thomas is a better comp to Dez than Treadwell. So no, it's not that people think it's 1990, it's that people don't want to pay 2nd round talent with first round draft picks. Not that hard to understand.
I do not see anything special from Floyd......but Noah, Ogbah in the 2nd.....look like they can pressure the passer.
We can draft the best WR in draft.....
And if they're not as worried about OL as BBI, wouldn't it shock us all if they went all offensive skill positions on the first two days and came away with....
1. WR Laquon Treadwell
2. TE Hunter Henry
3. RB Kenneth Dixon
That would make for a very young and explosive offense.
He doesn't get good separation. No shit that a #2 is important and is on the field a lot. You won't win an argument for taking that guy at #10 overall if HE'S NOT THAT GOOD.
It's not that other people wouldn't want a player of Dez's caliber or A.J. Green or so forth across the field from Odell. And when that player shows up in the draft, let me know, because some of us don't believe that Treadwell is in that class. Some of us believe you can get a top-shelf corner, or pass rusher, or MLB, or maybe even a OT at #10, that would offer greater value.
If I think Treadwell is a 2nd round talent, not very distinguishable from players like Doctson and Michael Thomas, then why would I pay #10 for him? If I think I can get one of those guys in the 2nd, and they have a chance to be even better than Treadwell, then I'm not going to pull the trigger for him. And yes, I think Doctson is better than Treadwell. And I think Michael Thomas is a better comp to Dez than Treadwell. So no, it's not that people think it's 1990, it's that people don't want to pay 2nd round talent with first round draft picks. Not that hard to understand.
Yeah, well. Most everyone who's watched any college football would disagree with your take.
The other more general thought is that the goal here for the Giants is not necessarily to draft the player that fills the biggest hole or need, but to take the guy that they is going to do the most to make them a better team; a team that is more difficult for other teams to play against.
Right or wrong, the Giants have obsessed over finding a pass rushing LB/3rd down DE for a long time. KIWI Sintim Schofield all guys targeted for that role. Floyd has the talent to be the guy that finally successfully fills that responsiblity but as a bonus can actually play well in space and cover too (so he can stay on the field all 3 downs).
I'd be happy with either player.
Neither Tyler nor Coleman run the entire route tree and seem to lack the polish in their game that the Giants usually go for at WR. Round 2 would more likely be Shepard or Thomas followed by Doctson (if they think they freakish talent mitigates the learning curve risk).
Boyd reminds me of former Giant Steve Smith who they selected in round 2. I think Boyd is a guy the Giants will rate high, possibly top 40.
I can see similarities in their excellent hands, disciplined routes and a lack of breakaway speed. The key difference is that Boyd is a significant threat with the ball in his hands. Smith's usual post-catch position was fetal (one notable play in SB XLII notwithstanding). Boyd would also offer depth - at least - on specials. Smith attempted one punt return in his NFL career, and fumbled it.
Quote:
Boyd reminds me of former Giant Steve Smith who they selected in round 2. I think Boyd is a guy the Giants will rate high, possibly top 40.
I can see similarities in their excellent hands, disciplined routes and a lack of breakaway speed. The key difference is that Boyd is a significant threat with the ball in his hands. Smith's usual post-catch position was fetal (one notable play in SB XLII notwithstanding). Boyd would also offer depth - at least - on specials. Smith attempted one punt return in his NFL career, and fumbled it.
Agree on this BBB. Boyd can also play both the X or Y and the Giants may value that versatility as insurance to Cruz.
Even at Southern Cal, I don't think Steve Smith ever showed any of those attributes.
The puzzling thing to me about Boyd is that he seems to be on everyone's "like" list, but nobody's "love" list.
Walter Football on Tyler Boyd - ( New Window )
I like Carroo also and would be okay with him in round 3.
My previous comp Boyd to Steve Smith was more about route running, short area separation, sure hands and a potential 1st down maker which the Giants lacked sorely last year sans OBJ.
Plus very curious to see the 3 cone number.
Hargreaves is the pick if he falls to 10 according to Raanan
And passing on a #2 WR who is going to be a starter because he'll only be the #2 guy but taking a CB who'll start out as a nickel also does not really compute. That said, I do believe that the Giants have some real issues at CB past their top 2 guys and Hargreaves would certainly be a value pick, but the word we hear is that the Giants of him being there at *10 are well below 50%. He
Lastly, bringing Treadwell in for a visit as due diligence in case something develops sounds like an awful lot of work unless you already have some things cooking in the pot.
And passing on a #2 WR who is going to be a starter because he'll only be the #2 guy but taking a CB who'll start out as a nickel also does not really compute. That said, I do believe that the Giants have some real issues at CB past their top 2 guys and Hargreaves would certainly be a value pick, but the word we hear is that the Giants of him being there at *10 are well below 50%. He
Lastly, bringing Treadwell in for a visit as due diligence in case something develops sounds like an awful lot of work unless you already have some things cooking in the pot.
Excellent points. Treadwell the #2 guy? No way!! Hargreaves in the slot?? Sign me up!! It just doesn't make sense. You need playmakers on the field. If we take Treadwell, there will be games when he has more catches than Odell. Today's NFL isn't #1 vs #2 receiver, teams have to gameplan for everybody.
I also agree that Jordan's point is a pretty big stretch. Graziano on the other hand uses the "the defense was the worst in NFL history" line when explaining why they should go defense in round 1. That I agree with, and is a little bit more explainable then "well, they have Odell so they shouldn't go WR.."
Quote:
All do respect to Jordan as he is going to plug in more than I am not much in that analysis makes sense. The Giants aren't going to take a WR at 10 because he's no Odell. Heck, Beckham is close to a once in a lifetime type player. Does that mean the Giants are never going to take another receiver in the opening round as long as Odell is around unless he's the second coming of Jerry Rice!
And passing on a #2 WR who is going to be a starter because he'll only be the #2 guy but taking a CB who'll start out as a nickel also does not really compute. That said, I do believe that the Giants have some real issues at CB past their top 2 guys and Hargreaves would certainly be a value pick, but the word we hear is that the Giants of him being there at *10 are well below 50%. He
Lastly, bringing Treadwell in for a visit as due diligence in case something develops sounds like an awful lot of work unless you already have some things cooking in the pot.
Excellent points. Treadwell the #2 guy? No way!! Hargreaves in the slot?? Sign me up!! It just doesn't make sense. You need playmakers on the field. If we take Treadwell, there will be games when he has more catches than Odell. Today's NFL isn't #1 vs #2 receiver, teams have to gameplan for everybody.
I also agree that Jordan's point is a pretty big stretch. Graziano on the other hand uses the "the defense was the worst in NFL history" line when explaining why they should go defense in round 1. That I agree with, and is a little bit more explainable then "well, they have Odell so they shouldn't go WR.."
.@KingTunsil78 recorded 34 reps on the bench press. #NFLRebels #ProDay
Ole Miss Football þ@OleMissFB · 33m33 minutes ago
.@SuccessfulQuon with an unofficial vertical jump of 33.5"