What would you do if elliott is available at 10?

I would draft him.

syracuse or boston college available???

picking low first and second rounders, you don't trade down, you kind of take the sure thing....if anything, I would use the later draft picks, to move up, and get a guy I want.....we generally don't do well after the second round...

Bust potential and injury rates for RB just too high to take one @#10 unless you can be reasonably sure they have once in a decade potential, and Elliot is just a very good RB, and the best in the draft. I don't know that this draft is that rich up top for RB's, while it's good in the middle and late. He played for a very good team that blocked well. Sound like the Giants?

Options could include entertaining a trade down within the top 20, or taking one of several talented players at other positions who will be there at #10. And by this I mean a solid football player with upside as opposed to an athletic freak who it is hoped can learn to play football and adjust to the NFL game.

He's the best skill position player in the draft.

Him.

With a top five grade on many boards at a position of need even a damn fool can make the right choice.

him.

.

A few weeks ago, someone posted a list of RBs taken in the first round the last few years. It was amazing how most of them had been surpassed by guys taken much later.

A lot of posters here who remember Gants football (strong running game, strong defense) still have an older mindset and have not fully come to terms with how radically the game has changed in tilting toward a short-drop, quick-release passing game.

Same is true of the established media.

And that was the problem with Coughlin: As great a coach as he was, he could never fully break with the idea that you way you operate an offense is to run the ball, throw deep passes to keep the safeties from creeping up too much, and employ play action passes once you have established the run.

That basically was the core offensive philosophy in the NFL from 1970 until very recently.

Also, if you look at the Giants history, they won two SBs with a 7th round RB and a 4th rd RB. The last two RBs taken in the first--David Wilson and Ron Dayne--contributed nothing.

That's not to say Elliot would not contribute. He would. But you can get 80% of what he will give you from late round picks and UDFA. So, he is a good player. He is just not a good value.

What Patrick77 said is right on.

In comment 12886396 Red Dog said:

Quote:

What Patrick77 said is right on.

So you would draft for next year alone?


And even so, what if we sign/trade for guys like Clady, Wisniewski or Vasquez before or after the draft?

I've never been sold that Elliot is that 'special' freakishly athletic type RB that warrants consideration this high in the draft. Not for a second. Draft someone else or trade down.

Someone else

In comment 12886272 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

to clubs about drafting a RB high, not sure what would

BB56 , fair point however I wonder how Richardson would have fared in a winning atmosphere. Cleveland has to be the worst landing spot for any rookie in this league.

And he is an immediate downgrade to Vereen as a pass receiving back in 2016.

If the value is so in your face, other teams should be clamoring to trade up to take him, so for once Reese performs his job in a truly skillful manner and trades down the way NE would and has done in the past.

give this team a secondary leader to build around after Eli retires.

I like Jennings and I know they invested some $ in Vereen but Elliot has a franchise player label

.

but most of the players rumored to be in the mix at 10 aren't blowing me away. I'd take Elliott. By most accounts, he does almost everything well as a back and he would be a great skill player to add in the mix with Beckham and Eli. They obviously have bigger holes but I think you take the guy who can be great for years over filling a need with a good to very good player. The draft isn't one round, anyway. They have other picks to go o-line, WR and defense. Plus there's still a chance they can land a guy like Clady, Boldin, etc.

In comment 12886272 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

to clubs about drafting a RB high, not sure what would

Can't that be said of any position?

In comment 12886272 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

to clubs about drafting a RB high, not sure what would

Elliott is a better prospect than Richardson was coming out, at least IMO. Elliott is multi-dimensional. Richardson was a bit of a one-trick pony.

I don't think Elliott is as good of a prospect as Todd Gurley was last year but he's literally a notch below and he doesn't have the injury concerns that Gurley had last year (and Gurley played very, very well last year). I'd be thrilled if we took Zeke at 10.

I would draft for this year, next year, and many years into the future.

There are many other guys who will be available who will help this team this year and well into the future a lot more than yet another RB running behind a worthless right side of the OL with no TEs that can block worth a damn and maybe not even a FB.

With all the other needs they have and four backs who are at least OK on the roster now, they should not even draft a back this year. Spend the picks fortifying the OL and the defense and get another WR, maybe even a real TE if there are any left to get anymore.

and he's sitting there at 10, it makes a ton of sense.

3rd and 2 looks a lot better than 3rd and 8.

This better than Treadwell but there will be equally rated players there.

Jack is my dream pick. Starting to like Conklin if there aren't sold on Floyd.

It's 2016 not 1986. RBs don't have the value today to be selected top 10.

.

In comment 12886289 Gatorade Dunk said:

Quote:

In comment 12886272 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: to clubs about drafting a RB high, not sure what would And JaMarcus Russell should give clubs pause about QBs. And Jason Smith about OTs. And Vernon Gholston about edge rushers. And Charles Rogers about WRs. And Aaron Curry about LBs. The point is, there are highly drafted busts at every position, just as there are late round finds at every position. Gurley looks pretty good as a RB who was drafted high more recently than Richardson.

You want a RB, fine. But I'm hard-pressed to name too many RBs taken in the top 5 or 10 that have excelled this side of AP in the last 20-25 years..Gurley? Faded near the end, but even if he didn't, the Jury's still out..There have been far more QBs(and probably WRs) taken in the top 5 or 10 than RBs imo and thus you're going to see more failures percentage-wise..You can find your long term RB in the lesser rounds. I believe the draft has proven that time and time again

In comment 12886494 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 12886289 Gatorade Dunk said: Quote: In comment 12886272 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: to clubs about drafting a RB high, not sure what would And JaMarcus Russell should give clubs pause about QBs. And Jason Smith about OTs. And Vernon Gholston about edge rushers. And Charles Rogers about WRs. And Aaron Curry about LBs. The point is, there are highly drafted busts at every position, just as there are late round finds at every position. Gurley looks pretty good as a RB who was drafted high more recently than Richardson. You want a RB, fine. But I'm hard-pressed to name too many RBs taken in the top 5 or 10 that have excelled this side of AP in the last 20-25 years..Gurley? Faded near the end, but even if he didn't, the Jury's still out..There have been far more QBs(and probably WRs) taken in the top 5 or 10 than RBs imo and thus you're going to see more failures percentage-wise..You can find your long term RB in the lesser rounds. I believe the draft has proven that time and time again

I don't want a RB, per se. I'm just not going to rule out one of the best players in the draft based on a one-off example (Richardson) or tired narrative (RBs can be found in the later rounds). Tom Brady was a 6th round pick; Russell Wilson was a 3rd. Should teams stop taking QBs in the 1st?

That's the problem with this medium of communication, I suspect. People tend to assume that any statement of opposition represents a fully opposite position on the topic itself. I just thought your argument was flawed. That doesn't mean that I'm in favor of a RB; I'm in favor of improving the team in any way that presents itself which may or may not include EE in the 1st.

Drafting a RB in the top 5 or even 10 has not been all that successful in the last 20-25 years, imv..Other position comparisons are rather immaterial to the point of this thread..There are far too many successful RBs that were taken later in the draft to make me feel rather comfortable drafting one later. And yes, there are never any guarantees..

We need an OL , WR or Secondary guy more than we need a RB imo..Our stable of backs which certainly can be improved upon and I expect will be, are more than adequate at this point in time I believe

Prospect than Richardson. Richardson also did have some initial success. Then Indy made an even bigger mistake in trading for the guy. squT leg in a round hole there. He's an old style two down runner.

Him

Think we need to go D high in this draft (DL, CB, LB) depending on who available. Can get an upgrade RB (from what we have) in later rounds if they want. A good #2WR will make this offense go.

I don't understand the posters that say Elliot is a luxury pick. If he is what the scouting reports say he is, he would alleviate so many of our offense's problems. We would have a running back that the defense will have to account for. More favorable down and distance. More success on 3rd and short. More success in the redzone. Safeties have to creep up to stop him, which opens up opportunities for Odell. I'd argue that his impact would be much more significant than any of the Tackles available at 10.

Trent Richardson
CJ Spiller
Darren McFadden
Adrian Peterson
Reggie Bush
Ronnie Brown
Steven Jackson
Ladanian Tomlinson
Jamal Lewis

2 hall of famers and a lot of pro bowls in the group.

That's a lot of good players on that list. I'd wager a much lower bust % than other positions.

Richardson gets highlighted because he's been the most recent and the only true bust. He shouldn't (and wont) factor in one bit into the decision.

I wouldn't draft Elliot.

In comment 12886385 Vanzetti said:

Quote:

A few weeks ago, someone posted a list of RBs taken in the first round the last few years. It was amazing how most of them had been surpassed by guys taken much later. A lot of posters here who remember Gants football (strong running game, strong defense) still have an older mindset and have not fully come to terms with how radically the game has changed in tilting toward a short-drop, quick-release passing game. Same is true of the established media. And that was the problem with Coughlin: As great a coach as he was, he could never fully break with the idea that you way you operate an offense is to run the ball, throw deep passes to keep the safeties from creeping up too much, and employ play action passes once you have established the run. That basically was the core offensive philosophy in the NFL from 1970 until very recently. Also, if you look at the Giants history, they won two SBs with a 7th round RB and a 4th rd RB. The last two RBs taken in the first--David Wilson and Ron Dayne--contributed nothing. That's not to say Elliot would not contribute. He would. But you can get 80% of what he will give you from late round picks and UDFA. So, he is a good player. He is just not a good value.

True, but don't tell me Marshawn Lynch was responsible for Seattle's success.

#2 if a player I covet slides a few spots to #10.

if not go with option #3 trade down.

In comment 12886562 Danny Kanell said:

Quote:

Trent Richardson CJ Spiller Darren McFadden Adrian Peterson Reggie Bush Ronnie Brown Steven Jackson Ladanian Tomlinson Jamal Lewis 2 hall of famers and a lot of pro bowls in the group. That's a lot of good players on that list. I'd wager a much lower bust % than other positions. Richardson gets highlighted because he's been the most recent and the only true bust. He shouldn't (and wont) factor in one bit into the decision.

Looking back to 2000 makes the list meaningless. The game changed dramatically the last five years. Look at RBs taken in the first round over that time and you will get a very different story.

1st round get BPA from OT

2nd round DE/ DT pass rusher Jonathan Bullard

3rd Round OLB Correa from Boise State

4th Round BPA of CB Zach Thomas or WR Burbridge or Tajae Sharpe or TE Jerel Adams

5th Round either CB Zach Thomas or WR Burbridge or Tajae Sharpe or Malcolm Mitchell or ILB Scooby Wright

Get a Safety and a Guard in FA. Maybe a WR or CB depending on who we get in 4 or 5.

It's almost impossible to justify taking Elliott if Hargreaves and/or Floyd are available. The defense was simply too ungodly horrific to make that decision.

If both are gone, however, I could see the argument in taking him if they don't have a defensive prospect ranked in that tier.

In comment 12887024 Vanzetti said:

Quote:

In comment 12886562 Danny Kanell said: Quote: Trent Richardson CJ Spiller Darren McFadden Adrian Peterson Reggie Bush Ronnie Brown Steven Jackson Ladanian Tomlinson Jamal Lewis 2 hall of famers and a lot of pro bowls in the group. That's a lot of good players on that list. I'd wager a much lower bust % than other positions. Richardson gets highlighted because he's been the most recent and the only true bust. He shouldn't (and wont) factor in one bit into the decision. Looking back to 2000 makes the list meaningless. The game changed dramatically the last five years. Look at RBs taken in the first round over that time and you will get a very different story.

Of course. The only top 10 worthy picks are AP, LDT and probably Lewis. That's a very scant bunch..Other Backs taken are/were decent to good players, but hardly top tennable

In comment 12886273 Patrick77 said:

Quote:

Elliot running behind Newhouse, Jerry, and Tye doesn't scare anyone.

it could well be that Elliot is exactly the back we need because we have Newhouse, Jerry and Tye

no matter what they say.

People said the same thing about drafting Beckham over that Guard with Dallas. Blah blah blah.

If Elliott is there at 10 and the Giants pick him, I'll be ecstatic. He's going to be a great player in this league for years to come. There are other rounds in the draft. They can net a pass rusher in round 2.

In comment 12887337 Curtis in VA said:

Quote:

no matter what they say. People said the same thing about drafting Beckham over that Guard with Dallas. Blah blah blah. If Elliott is there at 10 and the Giants pick him, I'll be ecstatic. He's going to be a great player in this league for years to come. There are other rounds in the draft. They can net a pass rusher in round 2.

I would be quite unhappy, but, per usual, would support it

If the defensive targets are gone, I'd wager they'll pick EE before an OT.

He is a bit of a luxury pick in the sense that NYG has built its rosters around QB/DE/WR ... pass rush and impact passing attack.

If you are realistic, you realize that the pass receiving part of the game for a RB involves some learning and is not solely based on natural ability.

To believe he is an immediate upgrade over Vereen in that part of the game is ridiculous.

So you get half a back with your 10th pick and it is not even a position of pressing need. Only way you justify that is if your scouts are telling you this is a rare, once every few years type, not just the best of 2015.

I'm just of the opinion the improvement from him over the current RB stable with this roster doesn't put this team over the top.

I wish there was going to be a no brainer tackle or wide receiver available there. Even defensive end is a bit of a luxury pick after the guys the Giants signed, but I'd much rather see a DE, OT, or even a linebacker honestly than grabbing Elliot.

In comment 12887379 Bob in Newburgh said:

Quote:

If you are realistic, you realize that the pass receiving part of the game for a RB involves some learning and is not solely based on natural ability. To believe he is an immediate upgrade over Vereen in that part of the game is ridiculous. So you get half a back with your 10th pick and it is not even a position of pressing need. Only way you justify that is if your scouts are telling you this is a rare, once every few years type, not just the best of 2015.

I don't agree with that, personally.

Firstly, what player comes out of college completely developed in every aspect of their game? Do you think that Leonard Floyd isn't going to have some things to develop during his rookie season? How did Erik Flowers hold up last year? He's got a lot of room to grow and made mistakes. Most players, even top 10 picks - are going to deal with a learning curve. Not everyone is going to be an all-history type player like Beckham.

Bottom line is that Elliott is a 3 down back. He can run. He can catch. He can block. Is he perfect? No. But he's not a part time player or "half a back." He is a full time player who would immediately add a new dimension to the offense.

There are absolutely other areas that need help. But there's nothing wrong with taking this guy at 10. Nothing at all. He improves the teams chances of winning tremendously.

But if he did, I wouldn't be too upset if the Giants drafted him, even though I'm predisposed to avoid drafting RBs in the first round.

You can get a top RB in free angency for 5-7mm a year. A top OT is going to be 10-15mm. You are way ahead capwise not taking a RB.