Elliott would be BPA at 10

unless possibly jack is there. Question is there a player you would expect to make a bigger impact in year one than elliot? I don't think so. And with Reese's job on the line, he may pull the trigger. A trio of Eli, Beckham, and Elliot would be lethal

at 10. I believe he goes to the Cowboys at 4. If not, the Dolphins (Trader Tannenbaum)- will trade up for him.

am coming around on Elliott being the choice. If they consider him as good a prospect as Gurley (i think he's better) - and they can wait on defense in rounds 2 and 3...I'm in.

but I have completely come around 180 degrees to really liking Elliott and believe he's a game changer and someone who would give the Giants a two-headed monster for Eli to exploit.

We have a batch of RB's, all with a single purpose and the defense knows what play is on by which RB is in. With Elliott in there; there is unlimited options because he can run, or go out for a play action pass, or go deep, or block like a blocking TE to keep Eli clean, and there is no way to know what play is on simply because he is on the field. He'd create a nightmare for defenses.

Fewer 3 and outs and fewer settling for field goals because we get stuck in the red zone. And the longer the offense keeps the ball in their court, our defense suddenly gets better because they are fresher from not being on the field for an inordinate amount of time risking injury and being winded.

I'd be very happy to have him on our team. And even though he'd be our feature back, we could extend his NFL life by rotating him with our other backs to keep his legs fresh rather than let him take a ridiculous amount of pounding and shortening his career like most feature backs.

You might be right about the BPA thing, but RB is a luxury pick on this team right now. We can get production from guys currently on our roster there. At 10, I'd really prefer we focus on one of the many deficiencies on this roster before going RB.

unclear yet where relative to the other key names discussed.

In comment 12921933 hitdog42 said:

Quote:

unclear yet where relative to the other key names discussed.

I'm itching for info... I need a fix... Lmao!

In comment 12921933 hitdog42 said:

Quote:

unclear yet where relative to the other key names discussed.

Very interesting. To be worth it at 10 this guy needs to be close to the level of Gurley. Is he that? He could be.

how do you know BPA @ 10 when you don't know who is going to be there @ 10

Stanley is in the conversation, but has some effort question marks that have been discussed on BBI (perhaps no where else). Jack is in the conversation, but I'm not willing to ignore a deteriorating knee that could be in sharp decline after one year (could hold up for five, but I'm not taking that chance). Hargreaves seems to have more minuses, even though he has to be the highest ranked CB since the end of the NCAA season for some reason.
I would be happy with any of them, Jack at the bottom of the list. Conklin not in the conversation. His own coach didnt give him a ringing endorsement as far as his ability to play LT in the NFL. Said he could with work, but not a guarantee.

In comment 12921984 shabu said:

Quote:

how do you know BPA @ 10 when you don't know who is going to be there @ 10

Assuming guys like Ramsey and Bosa are gone. Even then, I think Elliott is BPA. He's a top 3 player in this draft IMO.

In comment 12921944 Coach Mason said:

Quote:

In comment 12921933 hitdog42 said: Quote: unclear yet where relative to the other key names discussed. Very interesting. To be worth it at 10 this guy needs to be close to the level of Gurley. Is he that? He could be.

He's better than Gurley, with zero major injury history to boot.

Why do you say he's better than Gurley? I never hear any draftniks say that.

In comment 12922030 mrvax said:

Quote:

Why do you say he's better than Gurley? I never hear any draftniks say that.

Just my opinion, but Elliott is the more complete back. Gurley wins with pure power and explosion in his legs and he's decisive - pretty much a one cut kinda guy but he's great at it. Gurley doesn't give you much from a blocking standpoint but I know some people don't really consider that a negative and that's OK.

Elliott is same height and weight (Gurley may have half an inch on him) - but Elliott's vision and cut back ability is elite - haven't seen a back do the things he does when he's in between the tackles. His blocking ability is second to none in the nation, and he's great out of the backfield. If I'm taking a RB in the top 20 of the draft, I want him to do everything well, and I mean everything. Elliott does nothing poorly, in fact he pretty much does everything at an elite level.

I think he'll be gone by #10.

In comment 12922094 mrvax said:

Quote:

I think he'll be gone by #10.

I agree - and that might not be a terrible thing. The urge for Reese to take Elliott over a defensive difference maker would be incredibly enticing. It'd be a classic "star power RB" vs "our defense sucks" type pick. Ugh.

without an OL creating lots of space.

In comment 12922099 Jay in Toronto said:

Quote:

without an OL creating lots of space.

Another good point - but - sometimes these types of talents can do it on their own (like Gurley in St. Louis with an average line).

to find many analysts who think Elliott is better than Gurley.

Gurley was so good, he went high in the draft despite teams knowing he'd miss some of the season. If he wasn't injured, there was talk he'd go #1.

Elliott is the best back in a weak class of RB's. Let's not make him out to be the next Adrian Peterson. Hell, let's not even make him out to be the next Gurley.

with guys like these to hit a home run and be off to the races. Think of Beckham - he only needs half a second and he's gone. Elliott's vision is something running backs can dream of - he sees a hole for a split second and he's off.

In comment 12922109 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

to find many analysts who think Elliott is better than Gurley. Gurley was so good, he went high in the draft despite teams knowing he'd miss some of the season. If he wasn't injured, there was talk he'd go #1. Elliott is the best back in a weak class of RB's. Let's not make him out to be the next Adrian Peterson. Hell, let's not even make him out to be the next Gurley.

I completely disagree. I watched nearly every OSU game for the past 2 years. The kid is unreal.

in rows or tiers. They then select from the players left in the highest tier on their board.
If they have Elliot in the top tier (likely) and he is the only player left from say, Tunsil, Bosa, Buckner, Ramsey, Jack, and Stanley, then they should take him. (I left out the QBs as I have no idea where they would rate them.)

Now if he is the in second tier with Floyd, Hargreaves, Conklin, Apple, McKenzie etc, they would chose from that list (assuming the entire first tier is gone) and it allows them to fill a need with a BPA.

I believe, from all the articles that I read, that is they way the Giants draft.

if jack is gone then elliot should be the pick. i am also in the group that was hell no to him earlier but i am starting to come around and i am actually excited about him being the potential pick

but it would be easy to prove one point or another.

There aren't many analysts saying Elliott is better than Gurley. Period.

In comment 12922125 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

but it would be easy to prove one point or another. There aren't many analysts saying Elliott is better than Gurley. Period.

FatMan while I respect your opinion - you simply haven't been paying attention. Here's an example...



PFF: Elliott is best, most complete back since Adrian Peterson - ( New Window )

and other ESPN Insiders have been saying Elliott is the best RB prospect in a decade. This stuff is out there.

disagreeing to disagree, fine, I get it. But don't just make comments that have no merit.

In comment 12922109 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

to find many analysts who think Elliott is better than Gurley. Gurley was so good, he went high in the draft despite teams knowing he'd miss some of the season. If he wasn't injured, there was talk he'd go #1. Elliott is the best back in a weak class of RB's. Let's not make him out to be the next Adrian Peterson. Hell, let's not even make him out to be the next Gurley.

No way is he better than Gurley. Gurley was by far the best player on the field almost every game at college. I still think Urban's offense opened up so much for the run game. His spread formations and QB's ability to run and all the weapons (Braxton, M. Thomas). I think he is at worst a solid all-around type of back. If he doesn't run behind a great OL, what's his ceiling?

Here's why: he played on a team with about 12 first round draft picks. They were so dominant, he rarely saw a tackler before he was two or three yards past the LOS. I'm sure he is a quality back, but BPA? I don't buy t.

In comment 12922151 GuzzaBlue said:

Quote:

In comment 12922109 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: to find many analysts who think Elliott is better than Gurley. Gurley was so good, he went high in the draft despite teams knowing he'd miss some of the season. If he wasn't injured, there was talk he'd go #1. Elliott is the best back in a weak class of RB's. Let's not make him out to be the next Adrian Peterson. Hell, let's not even make him out to be the next Gurley. No way is he better than Gurley. Gurley was by far the best player on the field almost every game at college. I still think Urban's offense opened up so much for the run game. His spread formations and QB's ability to run and all the weapons (Braxton, M. Thomas). I think he is at worst a solid all-around type of back. If he doesn't run behind a great OL, what's his ceiling?

We are watching different players then. Elliott can do everything that Gurley can do, and some things better.

was noted by an ESPN article that talked about Monson from PFF having an interesting debate.

But there just aren't many draft guys saying Elliott is better. And ESPN taking note when one does actually say it is notable in the fact that it isn't happening much
Referencing the PFF Article - ( New Window )

well then, agree to disagree. I think Elliott is going to be the best back in the league. I may be wrong, but he's an elite player.

Elliott is better than Gurley, you need to take a step back and re-assess.

In comment 12922174 Jon in NYC said:

Quote:

Elliott is better than Gurley, you need to take a step back and re-assess.

Why?

it's clear that you don't know what you're looking at.

you tell me I'm wrong..I'm not reading anything from you that states the opposite. At least offer an explanation as to why Gurley is "clearly better" than Elliott.

Gurley made the pro bowl despite missing part of the season and Elliott doesnt do a single thing better than Gurley other than maybe pass pro?

I think EE will be a good pro but you're being ridiculous.

I think you are going to get pushback more based on the adamant claim that Elliott is better than anything else.

That's your opinion, and that's fine. But you seem to be inferring that it is also the majority opinion held by experts out there and that isn't the case if you look at mainstream media. (I'm sure the opinion at OSU is different).

What we know is that Gurley made what was once considered to be a possible non-season his rookie year due to injuries and turned in a Rookie of the Year Performance. Nothing indicates he'll regress or is injury prone, although it is possible.

Elliott has none of that history. He is the best back in a relatively weak class and even with the attention of being the top back in 2016, you still aren't seeing a lot of people say he's definitively better than Gurley. It would be difficult to make a case to do so.

In comment 12922218 Jon in NYC said:

Quote:

Gurley made the pro bowl despite missing part of the season and Elliott doesnt do a single thing better than Gurley other than maybe pass pro? I think EE will be a good pro but you're being ridiculous.

Jon you can't really be using the Pro Bowl as a measuring stick can you? And he missed 3 games - not an eternity. He had a really good rookie year, no questions asked. But I'm sorry, Elliott's vision and cut back ability is better.

?? What exactly are you watching? Elliott is the best blocking running back by a long shot - and Gurley wasn't asked to do much blocking at Georgia/even with the Rams - and he's average when asked to do it.

not going to play amateur scout with you.

The fact of the matter is Gurley just put up the best numbers for a rookie running back in a very long time, and EE hasn't taken an NFL snap yet. To claim that he's better than Gurley is batshit insane.

Elliott is better at Gurley at everything. I said he's a more complete back - with elite vision. Thus my opinion of him being better than Gurley.

when discussing Elliott and his average receiving skills, but his above average ability to hold onto the football and his likely impact on a team. An immediate impact is a glowing comment. Let's just not go overboard with the Gurley comp:

Quote:

In three years, Elliott notched 58 receptions, 449 yards and one touchdown. Those numbers aren’t going to blow anyone away, but he was a reliable player who averaged 7.7 yards per catch. Most importantly, Elliott had just one drop in 2015 in 27 total targets, per CFBFilmRoom.com. Having three-down talent is what makes solid backs into great ones. The cherry on top is his ball-carrying ability. Elliott had just three lost fumbles in his college career. With decent blocking, Elliott can carry an NFL offense to respectable levels. If he’s paired with a quality quarterback, then expect a great offense to form. While it’s possible to find a quality back later in the draft, Elliott is a rare running back prospect who will instantly boost an offense.

In comment 12922138 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

In comment 12922125 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: but it would be easy to prove one point or another. There aren't many analysts saying Elliott is better than Gurley. Period. FatMan while I respect your opinion - you simply haven't been paying attention. Here's an example... PFF: Elliott is best, most complete back since Adrian Peterson - ( New Window )

It's not even a question of whether he's better than Gurley, or even Peterson, it's more that he's a more unique running back coming out of the draft than we've seen in some time. He's been called by many one of the best players without the ball in his hands by his coach, and many other scouts and analysts.

To me, he helps an offense out that has a leaky offensive line with his ability to pick up blitzes, chip, and catch the ball out of the backfield.

Will he be as good a runner as AP or Gurley? Who knows, but it's not a stretch to envision it.

I'm just gonna take you to task with some of these comments. Gurley had 1,106 yards as a rookie. Yes, I understand he played in 13 games. Alfred Morris had more, Peterson had more, Lynch had more, Doug Martin had more. Let's not paint Gurley as "the best rookie in a long time" - he wasn't, statistically.

...not even close. He's the best RB in a mediocre top half of the 1st round. This drafts value for cost actually starts around the 15th pick.

He doesn't compare favorably to the elite RB prospects of the past. Whether your talking about Faulk, Peterson or Gurley. He just isn't in the same class. Top end speed, explosion testing you name it he doesn't measure up to those guys.

To take a RB that high he has to be 'special'. Elliot isn't. The bottomline is the Giants should pass on him at #10. The strong probability is they will do just that.

In comment 12922154 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

In comment 12922151 GuzzaBlue said: Quote: In comment 12922109 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: to find many analysts who think Elliott is better than Gurley. Gurley was so good, he went high in the draft despite teams knowing he'd miss some of the season. If he wasn't injured, there was talk he'd go #1. Elliott is the best back in a weak class of RB's. Let's not make him out to be the next Adrian Peterson. Hell, let's not even make him out to be the next Gurley. No way is he better than Gurley. Gurley was by far the best player on the field almost every game at college. I still think Urban's offense opened up so much for the run game. His spread formations and QB's ability to run and all the weapons (Braxton, M. Thomas). I think he is at worst a solid all-around type of back. If he doesn't run behind a great OL, what's his ceiling? We are watching different players then. Elliott can do everything that Gurley can do, and some things better.

Why because we have different opinions? Or basically you are referring that you think Elliot is so much better that you think anyone who disagrees isn't watching the same thing? It's ok to disagree, ya know.

My opinion is based off, if you watch the tape at Georgia and the Rams, Gurley's vision is off the charts. His patience and vision allows him to create his own holes. He also has insanely quick feet to maneuver his way thru the line. Breakaway speed and can take a hit with his size. Also, he ran a pro-style offense in college so IMO it was easier to see he was going to make an impact as an NFL RB. Elliot does everything very well. Ok so he blocks much better and can catch slightly better. I don't think he has the same vision. He ran a spread offense with the nations best talent surrounding and blocking for him. A lot of his long runs he isn't even touched by anyone. I like Eliot, especially better than most 1st rounders recently (Gordon, Richardson). I just think he's tough to gauge how good he will be in the NFL. To me high floor, but if he's put on a team with an average OL, then not sure if he will make the pro bowl.

is a great running back, yes. But he didn't light the NFL on fire. He had a stretch of 5 really good games early in the season and then sort of wore off towards the end. It wasn't an all time rookie year by any stretch.

that was rumored to miss half to 3/4 of his rookie season early on and exceeded that outlook and ran to Offensive Rookie of the Year, it is really reaching to try and downplay Gurley's season.

It's like the idiot Giants fans who were calling OBJ a bust or calling him Becky because he was injured as a rookie.

you're making my point for me. I'm disagreeing - I'm saying Elliott is better - and that is completely OK. I get that Gurley is the choice for some/most others and that's fine. I just don't like it when people say "You think Elliott is better than Gurley? That's fucking stupid" and then don't back it up with any actual comment.

I get your point, but I don't see how a breakaway TD from Gurley is somehow better than a breakaway TD from Elliott.