...clearly an area of need! There are no guarantees with all the injuries we have with untested players, and several here on BBI have wondered why no free agents have been secured at this position.
Maybe Giants management has been planning from the get-go to secure a Safety in Round 2 where there is bound to be one (or several) of the following there at #40:
D. Thompson
V. Bell
S. Cravens
K. Neal
K. Joseph
D. Bush
The only issue may be that Thompson is probably the only true Free Safety out of this bunch and that's where we are really hurting.
Time will tell. But to go into the 2016 Season with what we've got now is not a great solution.
I want this guy as well. Seems like the perfect complement to Landon Collins.
Simmons is a day one starter who can play CB in a pinch. He's also the proverbial "draft board riser," so if the Giants want him (and I have zero evidence that they do), they'd better call his name no later than 40.
To me its:
1) WR
2) RT
3) FS
Just like pick #43 was too high for Richburg? When you like a guy, and you believe that there's a good chance he won't be around for your next pick, you take him when you can.
Why no talk of Behre in this thread? Is he not in consideration for the spot opposite Collins?
I've got nothing against Taylor, but is he really in consideration for a starting spot after at two points (start of season and again later in the year after being activated from PS) being waived from the team last year?
To me its:
1) WR
2) RT
3) FS
I think I'm in the minority here on BBI to say that WR is not a top need. Of the three you list, I rank RT first and FS a close second. But I say "RT" hoping Stanley drops to #10 and we move Flowers over to RT.
It's not that simple. For one thing, it depends on the injury. Last year's Safety pick, Thompson, tore an Achilles. That's a devastating injury, a career-threatening injury. Taylor and Jackson have never been healthy. So, yeah, for the Giants it could be that that's exactly how it works. Just like in 2011, when they drafted Tyler Sash after losing 2010's Chad Jones.
We need to use round 1 or 2 on a WR(there will be good options in both rounds). S comes later. Maybe Round 4 or 5 for Davis.
Why no talk of Behre in this thread? Is he not in consideration for the spot opposite Collins?
I've got nothing against Taylor, but is he really in consideration for a starting spot after at two points (start of season and again later in the year after being activated from PS) being waived from the team last year?
I think Nat Behre is, indeed, being considered. But does he come back OK with his calf / blood clot issue?
We need to use round 1 or 2 on a WR(there will be good options in both rounds). S comes later. Maybe Round 4 or 5 for Davis.
Piffle. This draft class is pretty deep at WR, although it doesn't have any bona fide blue-chippers at the top. I wouldn't touch a WR in the first two rounds. There will be plenty of talent in round three and beyond.
We need to use round 1 or 2 on a WR(there will be good options in both rounds). S comes later. Maybe Round 4 or 5 for Davis.
Saw Sean Davis play a few times over the past two years. I'll say this about the guy... he knows how to deliver ferocious hits. Lights out. Can't say anything about his ball skill, however.
We basically have unknowns to play FS.....Reese seems to be gambling that one of the walking wounded can fill the position....I think he is counting more on a better pass rush, to be a cure for his safety problem.....
I think I recall Jon C saying he believed that to be the case.
I've got a big yen for Karl Joseph who may be there at 40, and who has exclusively played strong safety. Though I think he may have enough range and cover ability to convert to FS. Would be ironic if big 'ol Collins wound up as FS, and undersized Joseph continued in the role of SS.
Quote:
Regardless, if it was up to me I'd draft Justin Simmons at 40.
I want this guy as well. Seems like the perfect complement to Landon Collins.
Too early for Simmons based on team needs to compete for the Division. We need OT/WR in rd's 1 & 2 respectively. This is my thought based on who I feel will be a good fit when we pick plus remaining camp fodder. JMHO.
1 Ron Stanley OT
2 Josh Doctson WR
3 Maurice Canady CB
4 Shawn Oakman DE
5 Sean Davis FS
6 Luke Rhodes ILB
FA Terron Beckham RB
UDFA Darrel Greene OG
UDFA Anthony Brown CB
UDFA Connor Wiuciak DT
UDFA Darion Hutcherson TE
UDFA Corey Marshall OLB
UDFA Davonte Bond OLB
UDFA Shiro Davis DE
UDFA BJ Goodson ILB
True... Reese has gone WR in Round One and hasn't devoted too many premium selections to the Safety position. Landon Collins (Top of the 2nd) and Chad Jones (3rd) is about as high as Reese has gone.
And, yet... and, yet... despite all the frustrations of the Giants trying to establish a true #2 after OBJ, it's not as though the Giants had an awful passing attack over the past two seasons.
As for pass defense?
Well, we all know we had a terrible pass rush last season, but we've also had real bad Safety play, except for Landon Collins, and he's a LB disguised as a Safety who has lots and lots of trouble with balls over his head.
So... IMO Safety rings the bell louder for the Giants than WR in the 2016 NFL Draft!
It's not a question of need. It's recognizing that the WR class is much deeper than the FS class. In my opinion, the Giants would be better served taking a top-tier FS early, and a WR later on.
At safety he did the same with Cooper, prefering older vets than giving youth a chance. Cooper was a heathy scratch for the first few games, then cut and put onthe pracrise squad in order to make room for Dahl. Coughlin chose older slower vets because he had to play Collins and didn't want two young safeties starting. So, many have surmised that Cooper can't play. I think that many are in for a pleasant surprise.
That is not to say that Simmons will not be a welcome addition but discounting the personnel on the roster is unwise. Also many here are forgeting about Currie, who was also hurt in the last preseason game. I think that this week we will know more about where we stand as far as available depth on the roster.
What we need to keep in mind about counting on any rookie safety is that in DC Spagnoulo's Defense the safety holds alot of responsibility <aligmnents and calls>. Last year they thought that familiarity and experience in the league would help with adapting to the new defense, which was proved wrong. It is imperative to trust the youth, their intelligence and athleticism or else why have them on the team. For this reason above all others I was relieved to see Coughlin go.
So I say wait in order to determine what the most critical needs are on the team. We should take our keys from the coaching staff, rely on their perception and evaluation.
Shepard in 2
These guys will be ready to play week 1.
To me its:
1) WR
2) RT
3) FS
FS might be ahead of RT just because Newhouse played there last year and Pugh the two years before that. So you have two guys who can play RT. Is there anyone on the roster we know who can play FS?
Collins can't IMO. Ad all the other guys are huge injury question marks.
Ugh... that's right! Forgot all about Kenny Phillips. One in many we lost to injury!!! Double Ugh!
Sure, but shouldn't he want to plug as many holes as possible before his first season as HC?
unless ramsey falls in round 1 or su'a cravens is rated highly enough to select him in round 2 i can see them not drafting a safety at all hope they go OT,CB,DE,OG,TE,WR
(stanley,burns,kaufusi,glasgow,williams,garrett?)
take a vet FA wr to play number 2 wr there are several that would do a job for them till they can draft a wr,LB and DT with the first 3 picks next year
How about disabled veteran?
Quote:
Except the team who has a new coach who has a perspective that is about more than his first year in the position.
Sure, but shouldn't he want to plug as many holes as possible before his first season as HC?
If plugging holes to win in 2016 was the priority, don't you think Reggie Nelson would be a Giant today? McAdoo has stated it is a bout building for the long term, yet for whatever reason many don't believe it. Looking at what they chose not to do (investing heavy resources in older stop gap fixes), I think it's safe to say the priority is clearly building something lasting.
Quote:
In comment 12895553 UberAlias said:
Quote:
Except the team who has a new coach who has a perspective that is about more than his first year in the position.
Sure, but shouldn't he want to plug as many holes as possible before his first season as HC?
Short term fixes, or long term solutions? This is not a team that is a year away and there is no question McAdoo will have greater than a one year window to turn things around.
If plugging holes to win in 2016 was the priority, don't you think Reggie Nelson would be a Giant today? McAdoo has stated it is a bout building for the long term, yet for whatever reason many don't believe it. Looking at what they chose not to do (investing heavy resources in older stop gap fixes), I think it's safe to say the priority is clearly building something lasting.
Seems to me they're doing both...plugging holes with an eye towards the future. They're not following the Redskins model of bringing in aging vets on the decline...they're signing young guys to long-term deals, for the most part, and jettisoning a lot of dead weight. But it's still plugging holes.
Quote:
In comment 12895567 Klaatu said:
Quote:
In comment 12895553 UberAlias said:
Quote:
Except the team who has a new coach who has a perspective that is about more than his first year in the position.
Sure, but shouldn't he want to plug as many holes as possible before his first season as HC?
Short term fixes, or long term solutions? This is not a team that is a year away and there is no question McAdoo will have greater than a one year window to turn things around.
If plugging holes to win in 2016 was the priority, don't you think Reggie Nelson would be a Giant today? McAdoo has stated it is a bout building for the long term, yet for whatever reason many don't believe it. Looking at what they chose not to do (investing heavy resources in older stop gap fixes), I think it's safe to say the priority is clearly building something lasting.
Seems to me they're doing both...plugging holes with an eye towards the future. They're not following the Redskins model of bringing in aging vets on the decline...they're signing young guys to long-term deals, for the most part, and jettisoning a lot of dead weight. But it's still plugging holes.
From the perspective of what they did do, sure. But you also have to consider what they did not do. Despite the initial spending, they still have a lot of needs and they also have a lot of cap space available to address them should they have chosen. There were players in the market who could have "plugged" some of those holes, and the cost was not extraordinary. To me when you contrast how aggressively they invested where they did with the moderation of their interest for investing in other areas of need when it came to older shorter term answers, it is clear to me filling holes to win now is now is not the priority many believe it to be.
I guess you're in favor of quantity over quality
If you went Elliott in the 1st, FS in the 2nd. You could cut down your roster by 5 or 6 players.
If I were Jerry I'd tell the scouts to find me a OT that could start over Newhouse and be around in 4th or 5th rounds. That would free you up to draft Elliott if he's there. But we need five positions. OT, FS, WR, Slot CB, TE.
He had a great Senior Bowl ....
http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2016/1/30/10846838/senior-bowl-2016-ohio-state-tyvis-powell-shines-on-and-off-the-field
He's smart ...
(Read somewhere that he finished college early)
Plays big in big games (against Oregon & Alabama)
And is a great kid (I read somewhere, too that he likes to joke around
with team-mates) I wonder if he's as good a kidder as Eli is ?
2) Emanuel Ogbah DE
3)Braxton Miller
4) TJ Green FS Clemson
Check out Green's Highlight's
Link - ( New Window )
To me its:
1) WR
2) RT
3) FS
I'd suggest even a W Cruz coming in w uncertainly is a better option at the # 2 WR spot than Newhouse at RT Or who ever the line up at FS. WR is a need but they can get a kid like Carroo from Rutgers at 3 more easily than a starter at RT like Conklin who would come in and play day 1. FS is like linebacker for the Giants. They don't place much value on it. Now they do like drafting DBs higher than any other position other than WR and DL but I think Reese likes his cheap later drafted of FA crew for now.
I can see them drafting a S in Rd 2. Now that's depending on who falls out of Rd 1 there will be more than a few guys available at 40 while should/will start for the Giants next fall. Maybe a are like Dodd or a one of the WRs falls as teams nab some of the top tier defensive talent this year.
Offense wins games these days but Denver showed what a dominant defense can do. Manning was a shadow or himself and they won w D. Seattle despite all the Russle Wilson love from the media is also a defensive oriented team who has won the SuperBowl with a less than stellar offensive scheme. Now Seattles run game is/was top tier w Lynch but their D still drives that bus
So while they may need a WR and a RT need a big time They need a S, DE and even a WILL LB too it Myles Jack is available at 10. I think that #2 WRs and RTs can be found in rounds 3-6 much easier than top tier pass rushers and a kid like Jack who God willing slips due to being a true 4-3 LB. heck of the kid from ND Smith's knee holds up in an exam and the nerve damage suggestion is not proven to true. That they need defensive talent just much om D more.
When u sign guys to big FA Contracts you may need cap releif in that position group. So at DE while you have JPP, OO, and now Vernon a young top end DE falls to them at 1 or 2 they should and know Reese's penchant for grabbing DEs early I could still see them picking one up early. JPP is a FA after next season. So they could grab a kid like Dodd or even maybe Ohgbah if he actually falls.
Lots of choices for them at 1,2, and 3 where they maybe can grab 2 starters and a 3rd player who develops into a starter at 3.
There's no way they've spent the last 6 weeks saying "we'll just grab a safety in the second round". No one has any clue who will or won't be available at 40 and pinning your hopes for a position based on that logic is a good way to screw yourself. What if the prospect(s) you targeted are all gone by then? Then you're caught with your pants down. What if a higher ranked player at another position of need slips to 40? Now you're left to choose between a higher ranked player and filling a need with a lesser prospect.
This is why I hate when people state things like "I'd take a (insert position here) in the 3rd round". How can you target a position that specifically when you have absolutely no idea who will be available? That isn't to say teams don't go into the draft targeting certain positions, but they don't don't get that specific about when they will target that position. The draft is simply too unpredictable to use that philosophy.
Quote:
Maybe Giants management has been planning from the get-go to secure a Safety in Round 2 where there is bound to be one (or several) of the following there at #40
There's no way they've spent the last 6 weeks saying "we'll just grab a safety in the second round". No one has any clue who will or won't be available at 40 and pinning your hopes for a position based on that logic is a good way to screw yourself. What if the prospect(s) you targeted are all gone by then? Then you're caught with your pants down. What if a higher ranked player at another position of need slips to 40? Now you're left to choose between a higher ranked player and filling a need with a lesser prospect.
This is why I hate when people state things like "I'd take a (insert position here) in the 3rd round". How can you target a position that specifically when you have absolutely no idea who will be available? That isn't to say teams don't go into the draft targeting certain positions, but they don't don't get that specific about when they will target that position. The draft is simply too unpredictable to use that philosophy.
You're taking the picks people are predicting too literal after round 1. When people are making these picks there has to be a certain assumption made that nearly all the higher board players are gone and if you were selecting it came down to 3 or 4 players that were rated about equal at different positions- who would you take?
In round 2 if you had a QB, RB, and DE as your top 3 in the big board in which the QB was rated higher, then the rb, if you were the Giants, who would you take if their rankings were very close?
...thank you.
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe Giants management has been planning from the get-go to secure a Safety in Round 2 where there is bound to be one (or several) of the following there at #40
There's no way they've spent the last 6 weeks saying "we'll just grab a safety in the second round". No one has any clue who will or won't be available at 40 and pinning your hopes for a position based on that logic is a good way to screw yourself. What if the prospect(s) you targeted are all gone by then? Then you're caught with your pants down. What if a higher ranked player at another position of need slips to 40? Now you're left to choose between a higher ranked player and filling a need with a lesser prospect.
This is why I hate when people state things like "I'd take a (insert position here) in the 3rd round". How can you target a position that specifically when you have absolutely no idea who will be available? That isn't to say teams don't go into the draft targeting certain positions, but they don't don't get that specific about when they will target that position. The draft is simply too unpredictable to use that philosophy.
You're taking the picks people are predicting too literal after round 1. When people are making these picks there has to be a certain assumption made that nearly all the higher board players are gone and if you were selecting it came down to 3 or 4 players that were rated about equal at different positions- who would you take?
In round 2 if you had a QB, RB, and DE as your top 3 in the big board in which the QB was rated higher, then the rb, if you were the Giants, who would you take if their rankings were very close?
Great expansion and I agree with that 100%. It's also pretty funny because I have posted the exact same thing myself leading up to past drafts in debates about need vs BPA and how it's a mix of both, grades are weighted according to need, etc. So we're actually on the same page.
What I mean is that even using that philosophy, there will be times when there are no prospects rated high enough in a particular round. At the same time, i can see how my post could be taken that way or elicit that response.