Who you don't want

.

.

but be a little bored with a CB or even LT selection. Sorry but I want the shiny. Shiny being RB, WR, DE or passrusher. And yes I am fully aware some of those positions might be a reach at ten.

I'd take the LT (RT) over the CB though. CB bores me even though it's a critical position.

In comment 12915413 NYRiese said:

Quote:

.

I agree if the pick stays at 10. I wouldn't mind him later in the first with a trade back or at 40.

Even if he turns out to be a true #1 receiver, the Giants don't need a #1 receiver. They do have needs for a #1 at other positions.

draft would be fine with me..Reese's first round track record is trustworthy

Treadwell and Floyd. I know many people here love Floyd I just have a bad feeling about him.

I would LOVE to see a trade down scenario where they still nab' Conklin.

In comment 12915445 x meadowlander said:

Quote:

I would LOVE to see a trade down scenario where they still nab' Conklin.

I am starting to hope for a trade down IF Jack is gone. If he is there at 10 the Giants shouldn't hesitate. If Jack is gone I would be happy with another 2nd and an OL like Conklin or Decker.

None of these guys are worthy of the top ten pick one due to injury concerns the other two just not special talents.

I kind of still want shaq Lawson.

I'll drop kick my tv off the wall, and it would be more violent than any tackle he has ever made.

Unless we get a young veteran roadgrader for RT, or even RG.
Even then: maybe.

pass on Zeke.

I just think that he will be a bust if not in the perfect system.

If you score, you may win ... if they don't score, you will never lose ... I want a draft like 1986 ... DEFENSE, DEFENSE and more DEFENSE. ... (but maybe a real stud OL would be ok too)

Floyd could be the best of the four IMO.
Elliot will be a good pro but isn't worth the pick. Not unless the blocking improves.
Treadwell would be a second rounder IMO in normal years.
Hargreaves is good but I like Apple better.

Even Bosa (airhead raver?) and Buckner (is he chris Canty or is he Calais Campbell?) aren't slam dunks.

I think Conklin is the safest pick likely but also the one with by far the least upside.

it's hard to pass on a talent that can change a game with one play......so if Elliot is there, I think you take a shot....

Behind this line, as it stands, it's not going to be easy for him....but I saw Jennings run through some holes for 20-30 yards, that Wilson would have taken to the house....and Elliot brings that to the table.....this offense needs more than two playmakers(Eli and OBj)......and with him back there, the defense has to respect the possibility of him getting the ball, thus opening the pass game a little more on 3rd down, or him busting a long one with 8 in the box.....

To add an element like him, to this offense, spreads the field a little more.....and if we can somehow get someone for the right side of the line, it makes him more dangerous.....

Problem is, we can't fix everything......It all depends on who is there at 10, and what the backup plan is, if the guy we want isn't there.....the fix becomes another option....

Let's face it, even if everything falls into place with all the new players, this team is still, at least, another year away, from Eli getting his 3rd ring....I hope we are headed in that direction....

I think Elliot will be a good pro and is worth a top 20 pick any year. My thought is on passing downs you still use vereen, Jennings would still spell him, Williams and darkwa would never see the field. The improvement would be substantial but not as substantial as having a #2 WR an actual linebacker, another coverage safety or corner, a right side to th offensive line, etc...

The long term improvement of adding him is huge. The Giants at some point have to think short term unless they figure they can replace Eli manning.

I can just envision that our 1st Rd pick turns out to be just a situational, 3rd down pass rusher (sort of a Sintim that wasn't hurt). We need an impact player that is on the field all the time.

with an early pick on a wiry-build 3-4 OLB, I don't want anything to do with Floyd.

stud game changing player with no injury history or character issues!

Elliott, Conklin, Lawson, Apple, Stanley, Rankins, all fit that qualification. Would love Bosa, but that's a pipe dream that he'll be there at 10.

1) Hargreaves
2) Jack- yup, jack. He is overrated and is a tweener. Not really a LB'er and not really a safety. Great athlete but just don't see him being an instinctive pro.
3) Elliott

is the one player I really don't want the Giants to draft at #10. No way he is 10th best player on their board.

I won't be thrilled if the pick is Treadwell or Elliot either. We have bigger needs than RB, and Treadwell shouldn't be the 1st WR selected. I like Josh Doctson over him and not sure they should even go WR at #10.

There are better prospects out there.

I think WR is a major need but I think there will be value at that position in the 2nd or 3rd rounds

...rather it's who I prefer to others or where I value them in comparison to the #10 pick.

For example I don't have Top 10 'grades' on Treadwell, Elliot or Floyd. They don't possess that type of resume historically as college prospects imo. Yet the Giants could be forced into choosing among them if they stay at the #10 pick.

The OT debate has gotten very interesting with Conklin apparently closing in on Stanley based primarily on superior intangibles.

The BUST factor.

I go with Zeke - just don't know how much is a function of the lanes the OSU OL opened up.

Not a huge fan of Treadwell but he reminds me a bit of Amani and Hicks. Would we have picked either at 10?

I don't want Floyd, Conklin or Treadwell

In comment 12915641 jvm52106 said:

Quote:

1) Hargreaves 2) Jack- yup, jack. He is overrated and is a tweener. Not really a LB'er and not really a safety. Great athlete but just don't see him being an instinctive pro. 3) Elliott

Jack is a 'tweeter? at 245 lbs, running a 4.6? Are you looking for 265 lb LBs who run a 4.5?

'tweener.

Don't love Conklin or Treadwell, would look at them a little later after a trade down. Prefer Decker at OT.

Would prefer Stanley or Conklin.

Would be ok with Lawson and Buckner.

Would be ok with a WR bc Reese knows WRs.

Would be slightly disappointed with Jack bc of the knee and Hargreaves bc of our roster composition.

Or any OL not named Tunsil

Elliot, Stanley, and Rankins.

no clue who that is

Or Elliott. Give me Floyd or a fully medically cleared jack

Bust potential

Or Lawson at 10

Bust potential

No Sintim like, square peg/round hole and no Derek Brown of OTs please.

in my previous post I thought it was who "I want".

there's plenty of "don't wants" - like any player with an injury history, character issues, high risk, undersized, avg speed, etc..

Don't want with our no. 10 pick:

Jack (inj),
Floyd (hi rsk),
Stanley (undisciplined/hard to motivate),
Nkemdiche, Ogbah, and Spence (character issues)
any QB (no need)

Also Zeke - not a big need right now and not sure how much his ol making huge holes for him to run through had to do with his success.

The kid was 20 years old last year, a rookie and did pretty well. Not perfect but well. Leave him be and let him grow into the position. Use the pick elsewhere.

funny thread...

at all -- better value picks will be there. Plus he was awful against Michigan, I know it's only one game, blah blah blah, but taking a CB with the #10 pick who completely bombed in a big game is a bad idea.

Bosa
Buckner
Tunsil
Lawson
Jack
In that order

a RT. Don't want Floyd.
Not saying I can't be wrong, but I would want Elliott, Hargreaves, and Buckner should he fall (not likely).
Don't want Treadwell, but he could be awesome too.
I want the Defense addressed: DE, S, and CB.
Want a good WR too. Gonna have to take what they can get, can't get all those guys in the first round, especially if they take Elliott, not a need, but the best player IMO if he is there at 10.

In comment 12915970 JohnB said:

Quote:

The kid was 20 years old last year

He turned 21 before he was drafted, let alone played.

He's 22 on Monday.

.

then it's Treadwell if I had to pick someone. I like him, but I don't see a superstar which is what we need with that pick. But if we did go with him, I'll hope I'm wrong and root like hell for him.

terrifies me, and not in a good way.

.

I don't want a WR drafted before the 3rd round.

Don't want Buckner.

Really don't want Treadwell. Even at 40.

But I doubt he gets near our pick.

...I agree. Carroo in Round 3 makes the most sense given the shoddy talent pool at WR and our other needs.

if the Giants go and take another Oline guy with pick #10. I want a guy that can make a big difference on D, like a coverage LB, a pass rushing LB or Dline. If offense, I want a guy that touches the ball often. Since no WRs are worth pick #10, that leaves Elliott as a guy I'd like.

Jack, Floyd, Elliott any of these guys, please.

I want Jack don't want Floyd so that pretty much locks him in as our pick.

.

That's about it.

will be eating those words by the end of 2016.

Personally don't think value/worth it.
Dare I say...overrated

In comment 12915437 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

draft would be fine with me..Reese's first round track record is trustworthy

So you'd be alright with Bootsie Ball, PK, from DeVry?

It's about what I want. I want either an OT or defense at line of scrimmage (DE/DT/LB) that can rush the passer.

I see a lot of Hargreaves around our 10 pick. I don't want that. Would be disappointed is we went with a CB in round 1 unless it is Ramsey who is a Safety anyways. And he won't be at 10.

Player mocked to the NYG......except Floyd. He's about as soft as the Charmin toilet paper I'm about to wipe my ass with...

and a WR in Rd 2

No to Hargreaves and Treadwell.

Yes to Mack, Elliott or Floyd as I believe all three have the potential to be great.

But I would be disappointed if we picked Ogbah at 10 and downright apoplectic if we selected Nkemdiche.

I don't want Stanley unless we're moving Flowers to RT.

I'm OK with anyone else, although I'd prefer we trade down if we're going to select Conklin.

I'm not scared about Floyd...comparing him to Sintim is ridiculous, as he is SO much more athletic and can actually go backwards. It would be nice if his extra weight led to better tackling, but I think that if we took him Spags would find mismatch after mismatch for him. If Spags could do that for Pierce and Mitchell, I can just imagine what he'd do for Floyd.

Not sure I'd want Stanley. He's not known for run blocking. Just a younger Beatty from what I can tell. Conklin in a trade down to play RT would be nice but not this year, please. No Oline again in the 1st.

pick. I can't let myself think like that because no matter who the pick is, I have to get on board and root for thje guy as a Giants fan.

and are guys I feel will disappoint in the pros.

not in love with anyone likely to be available at 10. Of course Beckham wasn't on my radar (ha?) a few years ago either.

Really the guys I don't want are Floyd,Jack,Stanley,Lee.
Guys I love at 10th
Elliot,Buckner,Decker,Treadwell,Ragland,Hargreaves,Treadwell,all these guys I like alot so I would be very happy.