The Giants can go a lot of ways with the 10th overall pick in the 2016 NFL Draft. Some make more sense than others, but pretty much any position (other than quarterback) can be justified simply by need, even if that's a flawed determining factor.
A wide receiver or playmaker of any sort would fits the bill. It would fill a massive void. So would an offensive lineman. The Giants desperately need help on the right side of their line after cutting Geoff Schwartz and Will Beatty earlier this offseason and have looked at guards and tackles throughout the first three weeks of free agency. So far, they've come up empty... |
The Giants didn't need a linebacker in 1981 either. Thank goodness they didn't follow the logic to draft at another position.
Bottom line is the Giants will take the BPA and no one but knows who that will be until the first 9 picks are made.
Could be a OT, WR, CB, DE, OLB, RB....
Top *TWO* straight Top 10 picks? Three first rounders in a four-year period, with the highest of the three being No. 19? Are you kidding?
And that was just me skimming through it once. Jesus.
If they go OT at #10 this year, that means they've gone OT in the first round three of the last four years. And none of those picks would be lower than #19 overall. Do we really think the Giants are going to go #19, #9, and now #10 overall at OT over the last 4 drafts? That's a wild skewing of resource allocation.
With so many holes they could draft a multitude of positions yet, overall, it was th defense which failed last season.
This pick needs to be a difference maker.
We can add a o-line in the 2nd or 3rd.
no they won't. it's been discussed many times how they draft players.
There is a hole or two on the NYG OL and they can't run the ball because of it. Manning is entering his late 30s. The OL is going to be so vital to their team's success. To say they won't draft an OT because they did in 2015 and 2013 is one that simply spent too much time researching results without having other vital information.
OT is 100% in play for NYG early in this draft as of now with their current personnel.
This drivel absolutely chinches it.
He's an idiot who doesn't know much about football.
This team has holes EVERYWHERE but QB.
If Stanley or Conklin are BPA you take them. Also LT is not always the position going against the defensive teams best edge rusher as teams now line them up all over the field.
so at least people are consistent with flaming Jordan here.
but he's absolutely right. The Giants OL is probably not complete on March 28, but I wouldn't count on the missing pieces coming with pick #10.
If #giants select an OL at 10, they would be only team this century w/back to back O-linemen in top 10.
http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2016/03/why_the_giants_cant_pick_an_offensive_lineman_in_n.html
If the best player is a lineman, make the pick. Don't try to pigeonhole a defensive tackle into the pick for appearances' sake.
They need a safety badly too. That doesn't mean there's one to be had in the first 30-40 picks.
If #giants use 10th pick on OL it would be 4 selections in 4 years w/inTop 45. And you wonder why defense struggles?
http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2016/03/why_the_giants_cant_pick_an_offensive_lineman_in_n.html
so at least people are consistent with flaming Jordan here.
but he's absolutely right. The Giants OL is probably not complete on March 28, but I wouldn't count on the missing pieces coming with pick #10.
Quote:
Jordan Raanan @JordanRaanan 1m1 minute ago
If #giants select an OL at 10, they would be only team this century w/back to back O-linemen in top 10.
http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2016/03/why_the_giants_cant_pick_an_offensive_lineman_in_n.html
And the problem with that is?
They should choose the best player available at a position of need. OT is a position of need.
So the Giants have chosen to use their cap resources to address the horrible D after focusing their draft resources on the O the last few seasons. That trend could certainly reverse though (my gut says #10 is a CB or edge rusher).
The potential problem with go OT at #10 is more in line with what Colin mentioned on another thread...diminishing returns relative to other positions. I think it's reasonable to expect improvement from Flowers (rookie), Pugh (1st year at OG), and Richburg (1st year at C) next season which would help the OL (and offense) immensely. Especially if Flowers makes a huge jump. They can also look to upgrade RG/RT (or at least get competition) via a 3rd-5th round pick.
Quote:
Jordan Raanan @JordanRaanan 1m1 minute ago
If #giants select an OL at 10, they would be only team this century w/back to back O-linemen in top 10.
http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2016/03/why_the_giants_cant_pick_an_offensive_lineman_in_n.html
That's very misleading. How many teams have drafted top 10 2 years in a row with a franchise QB on the roster? Regardless, that's not a reason to go OL is the grade is there
They NEED a FS since they really do not have one. But no FS is worthy of #10
They NEED a #2 WR, but there will be plenty in round #2/#3.
They could use a CB also. Signed Jenkins so they could use a better slot CB.
They could use a DE/pass rusher, but signing JPP and Vernon means they don't NEED a DE.
But it comes down to the BPA at the tier they are in according to the board.
the FS might be Behre, Thompson, or Jackson.
The RT might be Newhouse.
and the team might still improve and maybe even contend for the playoffs without drafting an OT at #10, in fact they might even be better off for it.
Dear, sweet, baby Jeebus, please bring me a vicious middle linebacker with the first round pick to answer all my hopes, dreams, and prayers. I promise I'll never ask you for anything else ever again, until next year when I ask you for that tight end we've always craved but never really had.
Amen.
You could've stopped after the first part. It's reasonable that Stanley could be the BPA and drafting him would be the most intelligent thing to do in that scenario.
the FS might be Behre, Thompson, or Jackson.
The RT might be Newhouse.
and the team might still improve and maybe even contend for the playoffs without drafting an OT at #10, in fact they might even be better off for it.
That theory can be applied to every position based on this teams needs which are at every position except QB.
It's really basic, take BPA at 10 overall and move on to the next rounds to fill positional needs. If Stanley or Conklin are available and BPA at 10 you take one and put a dominant unit on the field for the next 5 years.
He uses the Cowboys to illustrate that building an O-line made of first-rounders doesn't ensure wins. True, but the Cowboys' problems aren't the result of their commitment to the O-line. Their QB has been injured a lot, y'know. On the other hand, all those resources devoted to their O-line, and their QB still got hurt.
He also notes that the Cowboys' D has been lousy. That's a better point. There are only so many draft picks, so many roster spots, so many cap dollars. The more resources devoted to O-line, the fewer available for other parts of the roster. So you can't just throw dollars and draft picks at one problem while you have a bunch of problems to solve.
Yes, they need a bunch of other positions more than they need a stud tackle. But need isn't the crucial factor, especially early in the first round. The Giants should go BPA, which is their philosophy anyway. If the BPA is a tackle, ok. Flowers wasn't terrific as a rookie, so it's not like they are obviously set at LT for the next 10 years.
(Exception, if the BPA is a QB, they should look to trade down with a team that needs one.)
They have OL two spots that need shoring up, RT and RG. (Unless they think Bobby Hart is their OG for 2016.) It's not urgent they solve the RT problem early in the draft. It's urgent they get an elite player at some position.
Besides, good interior linemen can be had in the 2nd and 3rd (Weston Richburg and Chris Snee for example), when the prospects are bunched closer together and need plays a bigger role in choosing the pick. They could get a top guard prospect then.
David Wilson is the closest you get (and an argument could be made with Bradshaw's feet RB was a need) and if anything that just highlights Reese's affinity for play makers.
Pugh is a UFA after this year and Richburg after next (and then Flowers after that) - all three "good" OL they have would need to be re-signed before even the 5 years are up, this is not the old NFL.
Pugh and Richburg are both going to cost some significant coin to re-sign with decent years.
They are no lock to be re-signed. I realize this is a case for drafting their replacements, but both are interior OL, not tackles.
David Wilson is the closest you get (and an argument could be made with Bradshaw's feet RB was a need) and if anything that just highlights Reese's affinity for play makers.
Agree, however all positions are positions of need on this team, so perhaps we get a true BPA.
Mike agree, but the notion that Stanley and Conklin are essentially off the Giants draft board at 10 for reasons in the linked article are absurd.
Quote:
Quote:
Jordan Raanan @JordanRaanan 1m1 minute ago
If #giants select an OL at 10, they would be only team this century w/back to back O-linemen in top 10.
http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2016/03/why_the_giants_cant_pick_an_offensive_lineman_in_n.html
That's very misleading. How many teams have drafted top 10 2 years in a row with a franchise QB on the roster? Regardless, that's not a reason to go OL is the grade is there
Exactly.
And the Titans took back to back OL in 2013 and 2014, 10th and 11th respectively.
that would be worse than drafting an OL at 10 IMO.
Joe Thomas will be 32 during the season.
Quote:
Giants will take the highest rated player at #10, regardless of position.
no they won't. it's been discussed many times how they draft players.
My understanding is that the Giants use FA to fill holes and needs, but that the draft is BPA. Need comes into play if the grades are equal. There were rumors that the Giants violated this rule and jumped David Wilson over Cordy Glenn, but nothing that can be confirmed.
Link
Link
Link
2014 1 11 Taylor Lewan T Michigan
2016 1 1 Laremy Tunsil T Mississippi
The thing is, they have a franchise QB and a hole at one tackle spot. Makes sense to fill it if they can.
So what skill position players are likely to be available and in the giants' top tier when #10 comes around? Hargreaves? Floyd? Lawson? Likely the last two, but Floyd seems a risky pick and Lawson has an injury.
The DTs might be some of the best talent available at 10 aside from OL, but it's hard to imagine the Giants taking a DT at 10.
So no great WRs, likely no top CB unless they have Apple rated higher than most mocks, no outstanding DE prospect, no great FS...so who's left? Floyd or an OT?
Does that seem plausible?
Agree. Seems like he convinced himself to have an opinion on the topic, vs going with his regular and what I think is a great formula of reporting what he hears/sprinkling in his opinion on what they'll do.
Lawson? Maybe, but the draft is deeper at DE than OT, and we still need a starter at RT.
Rankins/Reed/Robinson? I think he would have to be a special talent and/or comfortable letting Hankins walk next year to go with a rotational DT.
Floyd/Lee? Floyd seems like too much of a tweener in our system and Reese simply doesn't value LB's as much as other positions.
No WR, RB, TE, or S is worth the 10th pick.
Stanley/Conklin makes the most sense from a value/impact perspective. It makes the most sense considering the depth of the class at certain positions.
I still say it was a stupid decision not to draft Collins last year at 6 or 7. Absolutely NOTHING to lose except a 6th or 7th rounder. BFD, imo
So what skill position players are likely to be available and in the giants' top tier when #10 comes around? Hargreaves? Floyd? Lawson? Likely the last two, but Floyd seems a risky pick and Lawson has an injury.
The DTs might be some of the best talent available at 10 aside from OL, but it's hard to imagine the Giants taking a DT at 10.
So no great WRs, likely no top CB unless they have Apple rated higher than most mocks, no outstanding DE prospect, no great FS...so who's left? Floyd or an OT?
Does that seem plausible?
I think the term Reese used was play-maker as opposed to skill position. So I think that widens that amount of players available. He also used it in comparison to a guard though (Beckham vs Zack Martin was the first time I'd heard him explain it that way, but it makes sense all the way back to David Wilson vs Cordy Glenn).
First, are we sure the Flowers is the long term LT or is that just wishful thinking? Does he really project to the right side? A healthy year at LT with a little more experience should answer that question.
If we draft another tackle at 10 and he along with Flowers both turn out to be better suited for the right side, the pick may have been wasted.
Better to look at WR, CB or DE, or a trade down if the situation presents itself. There will be opportunity in rounds 2 through 4 to grab a talented Guard to help shore up the right side.
Upside Pro Comparison: Phil Loadholt/MIN
Strong Points: Big and powerful run blocker with the feet and length to play left tackle in the pros. Overwhelming strength and presence to swallow up a defender and take him out of the play. Assertive blocker that can stifle his man with a violent punch to the numbers. Shows rare athletic ability for a player his size. Shows light feet. Can reach the edge with an efficient kick slide. Will stay square to the defender and try to overpower him right away. Looks downfield to make the extra block. Will play with a mean and aggressive style. Shows the desire to put his opponents through the ground.
Weak Points: Inconsistent technique and mechanics. Puts his head down when engaged with a defender. Lapses in concentration, slow reaction to blitzes and stunts. Will neglect the knee bend and try too hard to win the battle with his upper body only. Sloppy set up as a pass blocker, trusts his tool set to get the job done too often.
Summary: Junior entry. Three year starter with experience on the right and left side. Flowers shows the ability to dominate his opponent on every play when he maintains the proper body position and technique. He has all the ability a player needs to be a quality left tackle in the NFL. He moves well, has tremendous power and functional strength in addition to the size to factor as an immediate contributor at the next level. His nasty on-field demeanor and talent can make him one of the top run blocking tackles in the league. He needs to refine his pass blocking technique and mechanics before he is trusted to protect the blind side of a quarterback, though.
*There is a good amount of speculation that Flowers is being targeted by NYG at #9. I havent head anything that gives that rumor credence and I just cant imagine how they could believe he is one of the top 10 overall players in this draft class. I wouldnt say that I dislike him. He is graded as a 2nd round caliber player and I do think he can start for a team, possibly even right away. Flowers has the size and power to factor as a RT day one. I cant watch a quarter of his on tape without seeing significant technique and mechanical issues though. It is pretty maddening. He can improve there with good coaching and a good approach, thus the upside may be a solid starting left tackle. Im just a little scared off by the fact there are more questions than answers with him.
Will the Giants spend another premium pick on an OL? I have no idea, and neither does Jordan. However, to say definitively they can't is just silly conjecture. To be fair, most draft analysis done by people that are not scouts is silly conjecture.
If they take Conklin at 10 and he becomes a starter Day 1 and becomes a mainstay at either tackle spot, it was a good use of resources.
Will the Giants spend another premium pick on an OL? I have no idea, and neither does Jordan. However, to say definitively they can't is just silly conjecture. To be fair, most draft analysis done by people that are not scouts is silly conjecture.
If they take Conklin at 10 and he becomes a starter Day 1 and becomes a mainstay at either tackle spot, it was a good use of resources.
not if teams double or triple Beckham, Donnell fumbles nearly every time he hits the turf, Tye is as slow as his sun dial timed 40, Jennings is jekyll and hyde, Williams turns into Ron Dayne and runs right into the line 9 times out of 10 on short yardage, and the #2 WR has feet for hands. How does Conklin make your team better than other impact players would If, big if, you think your current right tackle is "good enough".
Flowers has the combination of measurables and mindset that say the sky is the limit. Can you say that with certainty about Conklin, or is he more of a lunchpail guy that may or may not be close to his ceiling??
Quote:
what the Giants will do at 10 because we don't know how they have the players graded, and we don't know who will be on the board. Aside from ruling out a QB, kicker and punter, everything else is in play.
Will the Giants spend another premium pick on an OL? I have no idea, and neither does Jordan. However, to say definitively they can't is just silly conjecture. To be fair, most draft analysis done by people that are not scouts is silly conjecture.
If they take Conklin at 10 and he becomes a starter Day 1 and becomes a mainstay at either tackle spot, it was a good use of resources.
not if teams double or triple Beckham, Donnell fumbles nearly every time he hits the turf, Tye is as slow as his sun dial timed 40, Jennings is jekyll and hyde, Williams turns into Ron Dayne and runs right into the line 9 times out of 10 on short yardage, and the #2 WR has feet for hands. How does Conklin make your team better than other impact players would If, big if, you think your current right tackle is "good enough".
Will Tye had a sundial timed 40? Where are you getting your info from? He ran a 4.47. His entire appeal is based on plus athleticism.
This drivel absolutely chinches it.
He's an idiot who doesn't know much about football.
Yeah, he's an idiot! How dare he give his opinion that using your first-round pick five years in a row on offense (and four times on the O-line) is neglecting your defense!
Quote:
In comment 12878180 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
what the Giants will do at 10 because we don't know how they have the players graded, and we don't know who will be on the board. Aside from ruling out a QB, kicker and punter, everything else is in play.
Will the Giants spend another premium pick on an OL? I have no idea, and neither does Jordan. However, to say definitively they can't is just silly conjecture. To be fair, most draft analysis done by people that are not scouts is silly conjecture.
If they take Conklin at 10 and he becomes a starter Day 1 and becomes a mainstay at either tackle spot, it was a good use of resources.
not if teams double or triple Beckham, Donnell fumbles nearly every time he hits the turf, Tye is as slow as his sun dial timed 40, Jennings is jekyll and hyde, Williams turns into Ron Dayne and runs right into the line 9 times out of 10 on short yardage, and the #2 WR has feet for hands. How does Conklin make your team better than other impact players would If, big if, you think your current right tackle is "good enough".
Will Tye had a sundial timed 40? Where are you getting your info from? He ran a 4.47. His entire appeal is based on plus athleticism.
My fault, I retract my Will Tye comment.
Quote:
who didn't know much about football. His columns have consistently contained the kind of errors that showed me that he really didn't know what he was talking about.
This drivel absolutely chinches it.
He's an idiot who doesn't know much about football.
Yeah, he's an idiot! How dare he give his opinion that using your first-round pick five years in a row on offense (and four times on the O-line) is neglecting your defense!
Jordan, to be fair, if we went OL in the first round this year, it would be 3 times, not 4.
In the first round they value Defensive players that affect the passing game. Thats either DE or CB in most cases. The value OT that protect the QB's blindside. They value offensive playmakers.
I dont see the Giants taking a OT in the first round. I dont see them moving Flowers. I think they like what they are building on the left side of the line. An offensive line needs continuity as well as players. And you dont need top picks at every position on the OL to have a good OL.
I can see them taking a CB especially if its Hargreaves. That bolsters their defense. They will be able to match up with three WR sets exceptionally well and they will protect themselves in case of any potential injuries.
And yes because you can never have enough pass rushers I can see them taking either a DE or LB in round one that gives them that ability.
If Treadwell had run under a 4.6 I could have seen him as a potential top ten. However his three cone apparently was good. I think he will slide a bit. Giants COULD take him at ten but I think they would go defense over Treadwell.
Ezekiel Elliot is an outlier IMO. While I could see it.. I just dont see it. If they didnt have Vereen I could because Elliot is a three down back. They have enough talent at the RB position to move on that position LATER in the draft.
Quote:
who didn't know much about football. His columns have consistently contained the kind of errors that showed me that he really didn't know what he was talking about.
This drivel absolutely chinches it.
He's an idiot who doesn't know much about football.
Yeah, he's an idiot! How dare he give his opinion that using your first-round pick five years in a row on offense (and four times on the O-line) is neglecting your defense!
But Jordan to counter your point about the last five years, we went from 2007-2012 using only one premium pick on the OL, and that was Beatty who it is debatable whether he was worthy of a second round pick.
P.S. You're not an idiot!
Barry Sanders was the only guy I have seen who could run consistently behind a putrid offensive line, and he is not in this draft or free agency class. The skill positions need to be upgraded, including a #2 receiver, but the 10th overall pick is a lot for Plan B.
Quote:
In comment 12878049 Red Dog said:
Quote:
who didn't know much about football. His columns have consistently contained the kind of errors that showed me that he really didn't know what he was talking about.
This drivel absolutely chinches it.
He's an idiot who doesn't know much about football.
Yeah, he's an idiot! How dare he give his opinion that using your first-round pick five years in a row on offense (and four times on the O-line) is neglecting your defense!
Jordan, to be fair, if we went OL in the first round this year, it would be 3 times, not 4.
My bad. It was hyperbole. Exaggerating for fun there.
But I'm just kidding around. I enjoy everyone's opinions. That's why I come here to read them.
Barry Sanders was the only guy I have seen who could run consistently behind a putrid offensive line, and he is not in this draft or free agency class. The skill positions need to be upgraded, including a #2 receiver, but the 10th overall pick is a lot for Plan B.
That's the point though, I think the OL protected Eli "good enough" last year. he didn't take a lot of sacks or hits IMO compared with other years, and he wasn't throwing the ball away.
the running game struggled, but I don't know if a tackle is going to change much with this group of RB's or have as much of an impact overall on the team as a WR, CB, DE, LB or S or even a play maker like Elliot (maybe) would. Some of those positions we can eliminate purely based on match to prospect and position.
Giants could draft a OL every year as long as they were Pro Bowl type players. So far we havent seen any of these linemen become All-Pros. Time will tell.
Quote:
Graziano, Colin and many other sports writers think defense at 10 along with many people on this forum. They will address it maybe as early as pick#40. Many good RT types should be left at that point. Unless they get clady somehow? We can all argue all we want but, many of us believe that both Hargreaves and Floyd would be BPA at 10.
Mike agree, but the notion that Stanley and Conklin are essentially off the Giants draft board at 10 for reasons in the linked article are absurd.
It's been reported that the Giants rank players in tiers. So if they have 5 guys in the top tier (all but guaranteed to be gone by #10) and then 10-12 guys in the next tier (including Conklin and Stanley), then the two OL could for all intents and purposes be "off their board" since there's a guarantee that at least 5 of the other players in that 2nd tier will still be there at #10.
When you pick as high as #10, you can essentially mock out all possible scenarios before the draft and know exactly who you're targeting.
That said, Ranaan's argument that it'll be a pick that can have the biggest immediate impact somewhat eliminates CB and DE since there's little to no chance the player would start at those positions in 2016. Gives more credence to the talk surrounding Floyd, who would step in Day 1 at OLB and ER on passing downs (JPP & Vernon have both been successful rushing from DT).
Lawson? Maybe, but the draft is deeper at DE than OT, and we still need a starter at RT.
Rankins/Reed/Robinson? I think he would have to be a special talent and/or comfortable letting Hankins walk next year to go with a rotational DT.
Floyd/Lee? Floyd seems like too much of a tweener in our system and Reese simply doesn't value LB's as much as other positions.
No WR, RB, TE, or S is worth the 10th pick.
Stanley/Conklin makes the most sense from a value/impact perspective. It makes the most sense considering the depth of the class at certain positions.
Well a 3rd CB still probably plays >33% of the snaps, and BBI's asshat hitdog has said the Giants FO "thinks DRC makes a lot of money". Hargreaves definitely could be the pick and fill an immediate need (nickel/slot CB) and a longer term need (#2 CB across from Jenkins).
Therefore immediate impact would be most desired. Hargreaves while a talent is slight of stature and mildly inconsistant. Not the impact that will alter the win loss ratio. Lawson while a good DE is not the length that is desired. To many quality DT to take one at 10. No WR or RB with the, It factor.
So by the process of elimination, what player if added at 10 will have such effect? He would have to start in order to accomplish this. The only spots that meet this criteria are OLB and S. Which brings me back to Floyd, a pass rush and cover LB. Those who keep calling him a tweener need tolook at the tape. Floyd is a LB, while miscast when placed at ILB, was impactful at OLB. Miles Jack is laude for his athleticism and 40" vertical at 6'1 3/4" 245 lbs. Well Floyd's vertical is 39 1/2" at 6'5 3/4 245 lbs.
The vertical and broad jump are true markers of a players explosiveness. Placing such a player with the existing starters on D would allow the DC a multiplicity of options in attacking opposing offenses. At 10 wouldn't we want the player with the highest ceiling?
i dont want another season of newhouse (or jerry) starting on the right side look at the lack of resources applied to the OL in the years preceeding the last span in that article?
they also wasted a first round pick on david wilson and burned 2 picks that could have yielded an OG/OT to get nassib who has seen zero meaningful gametime thus far they also lost chad jones a third round pick that never played and lost simtin to injury and marvin austin another high 2nd round pick was a bust too
they have thier starting DE and DT's they have 2 of the best WR in the game,they have a very good group at RB the only CB probably worthy of a number 10 pick is hargreaves and he probably goes before thier pick anyway the way you see it that boils down to DE or OT as the best use at 10 and the bigger area of need is OL (particularly RT) the best alignment of BPA and need is at OT regardless of any stupid stat in that article
The first-round tilt toward offense has been balanced out somewhat on Day Two:
NYG 2010-2015
Total picks, rounds 1-3: 18
Offensive selections: 7
Defensive selections: 11
Unfortunately, too many of those defensive selections have been, well, offensive.
Successes: 3 (Pierre-Paul, Joseph, Hankins)
Failures: 3 (Austin, Hosley, Moore)
Debatable: 1 (Amukamara)
Ill-fated: 1 (Jones)
TBD: 3 (Collins, Odighizuwa, Bromley)
And it's not as though the team has made up for the misses with hits in the later rounds. Just the opposite.
Meanwhile, of the seven premium picks on offense, Jernigan was the only true bust. Wilson goes in the "Ill-fated" category, and I would call Randle "Debatable", despite all the hate he gets.
Ronnie Stanley and Jack Conklin do not appear to be those kinds of players however. Stanley does have the look of a potential top prospect so maybe I'm off base, but the article did specifically say "neither is that high on the Giants board".
Quote:
who didn't know much about football. His columns have consistently contained the kind of errors that showed me that he really didn't know what he was talking about.
This drivel absolutely chinches it.
He's an idiot who doesn't know much about football.
Yeah, he's an idiot! How dare he give his opinion that using your first-round pick five years in a row on offense (and four times on the O-line) is neglecting your defense!
How is paying for Vernon, JPP, Harrison, and Jenkins neglecting the defense?
They added the best DE's, DT, and CB on the market. In your article you passively commented that none were all-pros or pro-bowlers. So what? How many pro-bowls did Plax and McKenzie have before we signed them? How many all-pros/pro-bowlers actually hit the market?
In the article you suggested an ER, DT, CB, or LB instead of OT at 10. Why take Lawson at 10 when Dodd/Calhoun/Nassib can potentially be had later? Why take a rotational DT at 10? Why take part time CB at 10 when they have so much tied up in Jenkins/DRC? The LBs potentially available at 10 are textbook boom/bust players.
A sound line of reasoning when it comes to debating drafting Floyd (High bust chance) vs Conklin (relatively low bust chance).
So if Stanley or Conklin go on to have HOF careers and a Floyd, Buckner or Robinson is out of the league three years from now, it was still wrong to draft the two OTs instead of the DEs?
God, this draft can't get here soon enough. This pre-draft period makes everyone a little stupid every year.
They cannot be considered exclusive of each other
Everyone says there is no possibility of Ramsey falling to 10, but if he did, I think that would be the pick.
Hargreaves, in my opinion, looks like a hell of a player, and could probably play the nickel right away.
I think we could go pass rusher. I actually like Kevin Dodd a lot.
If it were possible, I think best-case is the Giants trade down a few spots, where they could target Dodd or maybe Reggie Ragland, who I think is going to be a dominant MLB in the NFL for years. I think Ragland has the upside of Ray Lewis, and has a high floor.
A very physical, intimidating defensive player is what I'd like to see in the first round by the Giants.
Quote:
He was talking about the draft, not what they just spent in fa.plus the defense is far from fixed. Olb and fs being big needs.
They cannot be considered exclusive of each other
Many people suggest the spend on defense was a direct result of draft failure/neglect, so they're related but still can be considered exclusive.
It's kind of amazing what a Beckham does for the entire outlook on one side of the ball, if there were a JJ Watt or Von Miller on the other side it could have a similar change of the complexion for the entire unit. Or even another Beckham.
I don't know if that player exists in this draft at 10. No one has a crystal ball.
I will say this and it's the only thing I've read in the thread that I think fairly refutes the "No OT" argument, and that is that OL have the lowest bust rate historically in the first round. Part of that is its impossible to define a bust universally and empirically and teams have a tendency to play highly drafted OL even if they are not good more so than certain defensive positions, but the floor is definitely higher for OL.
You don't have to look much further than Flowers for evidence of this. He played through some injuries and was arguably out of position, but to say he struggled this past season is being polite.
Ronnie Stanley (or better) Jack Conklin makes a lot of sense.
The best drafts are the sweetest blend of Need and BPA; no matter what draft history you have.
Quote:
who didn't know much about football. His columns have consistently contained the kind of errors that showed me that he really didn't know what he was talking about.
This drivel absolutely chinches it.
He's an idiot who doesn't know much about football.
Yeah, he's an idiot! How dare he give his opinion that using your first-round pick five years in a row on offense (and four times on the O-line) is neglecting your defense!
Raanan get blasted for consistent errors regarding NYGs and his response has another bad error, LMAO wow, way to go Raanan.
They will draft a big time playmaker on either side of the ball who can start immediately at #10. Up until today, there were 3 candidates, Laquon Treadwell, WR, Leonard Floyd, LB and Darron Lee, LB. Treadwell took himself out of the equation with a pedestrian 4.63 40 at his Pro Day. That leaves the 2 linebackers. Lee is currently more complete and polished but Floyd may have more upside and the ability to be more disruptive vs offenses with his rush skills. Tough call but it's starting to look like the Carl Banks draft issue may be coming to an end soon.
Quote:
In comment 12878323 Mike B from JC said:
Quote:
He was talking about the draft, not what they just spent in fa.plus the defense is far from fixed. Olb and fs being big needs.
They cannot be considered exclusive of each other
Many people suggest the spend on defense was a direct result of draft failure/neglect, so they're related but still can be considered exclusive.
It's kind of amazing what a Beckham does for the entire outlook on one side of the ball, if there were a JJ Watt or Von Miller on the other side it could have a similar change of the complexion for the entire unit. Or even another Beckham.
I don't know if that player exists in this draft at 10. No one has a crystal ball.
I will say this and it's the only thing I've read in the thread that I think fairly refutes the "No OT" argument, and that is that OL have the lowest bust rate historically in the first round. Part of that is its impossible to define a bust universally and empirically and teams have a tendency to play highly drafted OL even if they are not good more so than certain defensive positions, but the floor is definitely higher for OL.
You don't have to look much further than Flowers for evidence of this. He played through some injuries and was arguably out of position, but to say he struggled this past season is being polite.
Who would you pick at 10?
However, I think Stanley would be hard to pass up if he drops to 10. I agree with Jordan's overall point but I also think you can't let past drafts dictate what you do in this one. If Giants think Stanley can be an all-pro LT, you can't pass him up just because it would be unprecedented to take that many OL that high.
Quote:
In comment 12878344 Sy'56 said:
Quote:
In comment 12878323 Mike B from JC said:
Quote:
He was talking about the draft, not what they just spent in fa.plus the defense is far from fixed. Olb and fs being big needs.
They cannot be considered exclusive of each other
Many people suggest the spend on defense was a direct result of draft failure/neglect, so they're related but still can be considered exclusive.
It's kind of amazing what a Beckham does for the entire outlook on one side of the ball, if there were a JJ Watt or Von Miller on the other side it could have a similar change of the complexion for the entire unit. Or even another Beckham.
I don't know if that player exists in this draft at 10. No one has a crystal ball.
I will say this and it's the only thing I've read in the thread that I think fairly refutes the "No OT" argument, and that is that OL have the lowest bust rate historically in the first round. Part of that is its impossible to define a bust universally and empirically and teams have a tendency to play highly drafted OL even if they are not good more so than certain defensive positions, but the floor is definitely higher for OL.
You don't have to look much further than Flowers for evidence of this. He played through some injuries and was arguably out of position, but to say he struggled this past season is being polite.
Who would you pick at 10?
First I'd hope Goff or Wentz fell to 10 and do the super fan cliche "trade down". I believe the Bears or Rams would trade up to grab either of the top QB's, and the Giants can pick up and extra 2nd + a later pick to move back 1 to 5 spots. If they do that many more players are not as much of a reach since the top 10 seems consistent after that it's all over the place.
If that doesn't happen then obviously it depends on who is available but my plan would be:
I'd target Hargreaves, the pass rush should already be better than last year and a 3rd CB will be essential. One who could start as a rookie (nickel) and eventually replace DRC.
I'd love for Myles Jack to fall, but that's unlikely.
As much as fans don't want to hear it, I can see Reese drafting Elliot if he's there at 10. I don't think he'd be a bad pick, but I hope he's not there at 10, because I think they need help in other areas more.
if none of the tier of players with Hargreaves Elliot or if the Giants have Lee or Lawson tiered there are available then I'd draft an OT like Stanley or Conklin.
I wouldn't not draft an OT just because, there would obviously need to be a similarly rated or ideally higher rated player available when the Giants pick. My position is opposed to the people who say the Giants HAVE to draft an OT at 10.
if you couldn't tell they were running like a different team the last quarter of the season you weren't paying attention.
part of it with an OL is cohesion. I'm not saying they can't be upgraded, but if the last 4 games is an indication of what's to come, then the situation is not as dire as some feel IMO.
Quote:
How dare he give his opinion that using your first-round pick five years in a row on offense (and four times on the O-line) is neglecting your defense!
The first-round tilt toward offense has been balanced out somewhat on Day Two:
NYG 2010-2015
Total picks, rounds 1-3: 18
Offensive selections: 7
Defensive selections: 11
Unfortunately, too many of those defensive selections have been, well, offensive.
Successes: 3 (Pierre-Paul, Joseph, Hankins)
Failures: 3 (Austin, Hosley, Moore)
Debatable: 1 (Amukamara)
Ill-fated: 1 (Jones)
TBD: 3 (Collins, Odighizuwa, Bromley)
And it's not as though the team has made up for the misses with hits in the later rounds. Just the opposite.
Meanwhile, of the seven premium picks on offense, Jernigan was the only true bust. Wilson goes in the "Ill-fated" category, and I would call Randle "Debatable", despite all the hate he gets.
Excellent detail BBB.
Is Raanan actually referencing himself as a third person in his post? I initially thought it was another person defending his piece.
Example #133324659 why I think you're a dumbass. This is simply not true.
Hargreaves remains the longshot hope...slimmer by the day while Ogbah with his meteoric ceiling is the darkhorse.
Hargreaves remains the longshot hope...slimmer by the day while Ogbah with his meteoric ceiling is the darkhorse.
Hargearves, Floyd, Stanley, Treadwell and Conklin - nothing points to Lawson or Ogbah. Elliot is the dark horse.
...no argument about Prince, but I don't think he started in the Super Bowl. Not sure how much he played... if at all?
Quote:
Hargreaves? Maybe, but Reese has a lot of money tied up in two starting CBs as is.
Lawson? Maybe, but the draft is deeper at DE than OT, and we still need a starter at RT.
Rankins/Reed/Robinson? I think he would have to be a special talent and/or comfortable letting Hankins walk next year to go with a rotational DT.
Floyd/Lee? Floyd seems like too much of a tweener in our system and Reese simply doesn't value LB's as much as other positions.
No WR, RB, TE, or S is worth the 10th pick.
Stanley/Conklin makes the most sense from a value/impact perspective. It makes the most sense considering the depth of the class at certain positions.
Well a 3rd CB still probably plays >33% of the snaps, and BBI's asshat hitdog has said the Giants FO "thinks DRC makes a lot of money". Hargreaves definitely could be the pick and fill an immediate need (nickel/slot CB) and a longer term need (#2 CB across from Jenkins).
I don't think it's smart to take a guy 10th overall playing "33% of the snaps," and hedging against injury or a decline in play from Jenkins or DRC. That really doesn't make us better.
Hargreaves remains the longshot hope...slimmer by the day while Ogbah with his meteoric ceiling is the darkhorse.
I'm with you. I think they could go a number of different ways with this pick. I imagine it will be a pass rusher or a tackle. But their are some intriguing prospects at the skill positions that could be the best player on the board when the Giants pick.
Those players comprise, Floyd, Rankins, Chris Jones Darron Lee, maybe Lawson. Interestingly the moves the giants made in FA have no clear upgrade at LB. Therefore, Floyd/Lee could possibly make the most impact. I'm assuming Jack is gone.
Other then that CB,OT,WR all make sense based on who's on the board and at that point OT might have highest value. I wouldn't throw the remote.
My sense is that the Giants do draft players they bring in for visits but not often and not early.
Where as players they talk to at the combine or what have you have a higher hit rate.
When the pick comes, look at who is available, regardless of position (and I say if a top notch QB is available, consider him). IF an OL offers the most value, it is not a mistake to draft another one. We need one, or two, within the next couple of years. we didn't get one in FA, so that means OL is fair game in the draft.
if you ignore an OL simply because he's OL, and he's the top player available, that means you're reaching for another position. That isn't automatically a bad thing. I believe in reaching within a tier, if it makes sense.
and (don't know if it's been said) the article headline was shouldn't, not can't as Eric translated.
Quote:
He was talking about the draft, not what they just spent in fa.plus the defense is far from fixed. Olb and fs being big needs.
They cannot be considered exclusive of each other
I agree with Sy here. Resources are resources and we just put a lot of resources into the defensive side of the ball.
There's still a lot of holes on this team. If the Giants are smart they won't tie their own hands by forcing a pick at any position, Let the picks fall and take the best player.
As for some others commenting about CB. Yes, if Hargreaves is at the top of the board they should take him. DRC isn't getting younger, and we have no depth, no slot corner. We are an injury away from CB being in shambles.
Leaving great players on the board to fill a need is folly, and a good way to stay in the league's basement. This is especially true in the top 10. Take the special player.
Our passing game was good enough without having WR2 - so if we get a better OT - give Eli more time and can run the ball better- at worst the passing attack remains the same of not better. But it will probably improve the running game. That makes the passing game more dangerous.
A real good DE or DT in round 1 or round 2 helps the secondary and probably the linebackers. Win the line of scrimmage.