You have 3 choices.(1) Draft him. Which makes sense.. (2) Draft another player. Which makes sense. The giants have a ton of needs. (3) Trade down and get more picks which makes sense. The giants have a ton of needs.
Elliott may be the key to what the giants do in the 1st rd.
...but if a team is really jones-ing for Elliott, then make them pay through the nose.
We need lots and lots of draft picks.
This roster.
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.
as much as I like Elliot and understand the arguments for him -- it is much more sound football to add a cost-controlled pass rusher -- and I really like the Giants options for that at 10
Quote:
Elliot running behind Newhouse, Jerry, and Tye doesn't scare anyone.
Fair point.
Fixed it for ya.
They very likely aren't getting 3 offensive starters that provide significant run blocking improvements before the season. So until the Giants get the guys to do the dirty work in the run game no one is going to look exceptional. Elliot would be a luxury pick for a team that has done very poorly for a number of years.
So no, round infinity to me is not a reasonable argument to explain why Elliot would be the pick and kick ass for the Giants.
What's the benefit to releasing Jennings? We're not cap strapped.
Quote:
Release Jennings soon after. Elliott/Vereen/Darkwa/Williams would be the RB's we take to camp.
What's the benefit to releasing Jennings? We're not cap strapped.
Allow him to get a job elsewhere. Having Jennings would take carries away from Elliott who, even behind our "work in progress" OL could go for 1,000 yards as a rookie.
Who else is available? How can I pick one when all the options aren't known?
I'd take the following before him:
Hargreaves, Stanley, Floyd, Lawson (plus the obvious top 6 or 7 players)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I like Jennings and I know they invested some $ in Vereen but Elliot has a franchise player label
Can't that be said of any position?
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.
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.
3rd and 2 looks a lot better than 3rd and 8.
Jack is my dream pick. Starting to like Conklin if there aren't sold on Floyd.
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
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.
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