Draft thoughts and such

...

good read.

Thanks for posting

I thought this was about Annie Apple too.

I liked the writeup and your other contributions. In terms of the Apple vs Hargreaves choice, if the Giants were looking short term, which means looking only for a slot corner, I suspect that Hargreaves would have been the pick. But, thankfully, in my opinion, I think Reese was looking long term and looking for a CB that would play on the outside, where the real long term need is, and as you say, with WRs getting bigger all the time, 2 shorter CBs might not be the answer. In the meantime, as Apple's deficiencies are coachable and given his size and speed, he'll probably also make a great contribution to STs for now something I don't think Hargreaves would do.

I am excited about Goodson too.....but just upgrading our depth is huge compared to last year when you really needed a program to sort out the riff-raff that was out there on D.

This part should be required reading for anyone who sweats prospect rankings and value grades:

Quote:

...one really has to go looking for reasons to dislike any of the Giants’ other picks. Indeed, we were pounding the table for Sterling Shepard when the Giants got on the clock for the 40th pick. Shepard isn’t very big, but he is a quick, fearless inside receiver with great hands and concentration who has the potential to be a great fit in the Ben McAdoo offense.

Why is this so notable? Because GBN ranked Shephard 61st in his class, and the Giants took him at 40. Lousy value, right? Wrong, because he's a great fit and fills a huge need (in theory, of course).

Ironically, I got the spelling - with an 'h' - from the GBN big board.

In comment 12943223 Samiam said:

Quote:

I liked the writeup and your other contributions. In terms of the Apple vs Hargreaves choice, if the Giants were looking short term, which means looking only for a slot corner, I suspect that Hargreaves would have been the pick. But, thankfully, in my opinion, I think Reese was looking long term and looking for a CB that would play on the outside, where the real long term need is, and as you say, with WRs getting bigger all the time, 2 shorter CBs might not be the answer. In the meantime, as Apple's deficiencies are coachable and given his size and speed, he'll probably also make a great contribution to STs for now something I don't think Hargreaves would do.

Plus he's going to mature... he's still pretty young

feeling great about this draft the more I read and added insight into the first round drama was very interesting. I do have a question however, you indicated that Hargreaves was faster then Apple....I thought Apple was faster then Hargreaves? In fact I thought one of the knocks on Hargreaves was the fact that he wasn't fast?!

the Giants made calls and explored options, contrary to the passive, stand-pat approach I and others had feared based on appearances. Thanks Colin!

It seems to me that there are always 1 or 2 year solutions in FA for reserve DT and decent OL.

Even if we can't upgrade OL via FA - We signed several developmental OL who are likely as good or better than anyone we would get after round 3.

Don't see many good DEs, LBs, CBs, safeties, and/or TEs shaking loose on the FA market.

Going with developmental OL and DL in the draft is a luxury we could not afford this year. That may be one of the "changes" reese made.

The other change I see is that we always seemed to draft a couple "would have gone higher if not for an injury" guys on our list. I don't see any this year.

This needs to be pinned.

They made the right call standing pat. They couldnt have topped the Titans deal with Cleveland, and the Tampa Bay trade would have been much worse.

This is a far cry from the running around like chickens without heads as their pick approached as has been portrayed by the media that the moronic fans seem to gobble.

Looks like Floyd was their #1 guy (at the position they wanted to address first) and when the Myles Jack knee situation/media leaks started putting pressure on them they tried to throw out a red herring (Conklin) and/or move-up. When neither worked they moved on to their best guy at the next position they wanted to address.

Text book.

Quote:

Not that Conklin was ever the Giants’ target with the 10th pick – they were never going to use a top ten selection on a RT –

About time this was put to bed. The idea that they were outmaneuvered for or even wanted Conklin at all was a myth.

Colin did say Apple was bigger and faster than Hargreaves in his piece...but also sad that Apple may not be as quick as Hargreaves.

Do you also say "prolly?"

In comment 12943248 Simms11 said:

Quote:

feeling great about this draft the more I read and added insight into the first round drama was very interesting. I do have a question however, you indicated that Hargreaves was faster then Apple....I thought Apple was faster then Hargreaves? In fact I thought one of the knocks on Hargreaves was the fact that he wasn't fast?!

Apple has excellent top-end downfield speed. Hargreaves doesn't. However, Hargreaves has jitterbug feet. He seems uniquely suited to match up with the smaller, shifty WRs

In comment 12943330 Klaatu said:

Quote:

Do you also say "prolly?"

Yeah! What is you ignant?

Colin says that the Giants asked Tampa what it would take to go from 10 to 9 and Tampa wanted a 3rd RD pick. Yet they settled on a 4th RD pick from Chicago, even though that pick was worse than the Giants 4th RD pick. Plus with the Chicago trade Tampa was going from 9 to 11 instead of 9 to 10.

Why wouldn't Tampa have just come back to the Giants to get THEIR 4th RD pick instead of Chicago's 4th?

In comment 12943385 Jim in Tampa said:

Quote:

Colin says that the Giants asked Tampa what it would take to go from 10 to 9 and Tampa wanted a 3rd RD pick. Yet they settled on a 4th RD pick from Chicago, even though that pick was worse than the Giants 4th RD pick. Plus with the Chicago trade Tampa was going from 9 to 11 instead of 9 to 10. Why wouldn't Tampa have just come back to the Giants to get THEIR 4th RD pick instead of Chicago's 4th?

Only way would be if they would have rather dealt with chicago then us unless we paid a signifigantly higher price. Bad blood?

In comment 12943385 Jim in Tampa said:

Quote:

Colin says that the Giants asked Tampa what it would take to go from 10 to 9 and Tampa wanted a 3rd RD pick. Yet they settled on a 4th RD pick from Chicago, even though that pick was worse than the Giants 4th RD pick. Plus with the Chicago trade Tampa was going from 9 to 11 instead of 9 to 10. Why wouldn't Tampa have just come back to the Giants to get THEIR 4th RD pick instead of Chicago's 4th?

Jim, perhaps pick 11 has a lot more value then pick 10. I believe picks 11+ have an 5th year option on the player selected as opposed to 1-10 has only 4 year contract. Also the slot money is a lot less pick 11+ versus 1-10.

In comment 12943399 JPinstripes said:

Quote:

In comment 12943385 Jim in Tampa said: Quote: Colin says that the Giants asked Tampa what it would take to go from 10 to 9 and Tampa wanted a 3rd RD pick. Yet they settled on a 4th RD pick from Chicago, even though that pick was worse than the Giants 4th RD pick. Plus with the Chicago trade Tampa was going from 9 to 11 instead of 9 to 10. Why wouldn't Tampa have just come back to the Giants to get THEIR 4th RD pick instead of Chicago's 4th? Jim, perhaps pick 11 has a lot more value then pick 10. I believe picks 11+ have an 5th year option on the player selected as opposed to 1-10 has only 4 year contract. Also the slot money is a lot less pick 11+ versus 1-10.

You are half right

They both have 5 year options but the 11th pick comes at a lower price

Also, this is my early entry for Subject line of the year

In comment 12943403 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 12943399 JPinstripes said: Quote: In comment 12943385 Jim in Tampa said: Quote: Colin says that the Giants asked Tampa what it would take to go from 10 to 9 and Tampa wanted a 3rd RD pick. Yet they settled on a 4th RD pick from Chicago, even though that pick was worse than the Giants 4th RD pick. Plus with the Chicago trade Tampa was going from 9 to 11 instead of 9 to 10. Why wouldn't Tampa have just come back to the Giants to get THEIR 4th RD pick instead of Chicago's 4th? Jim, perhaps pick 11 has a lot more value then pick 10. I believe picks 11+ have an 5th year option on the player selected as opposed to 1-10 has only 4 year contract. Also the slot money is a lot less pick 11+ versus 1-10. You are half right They both have 5 year options but the 11th pick comes at a lower price

Thanks for that Ron.

GBN used to cover the Giants regularly and then you decided to concentrate on the draft and recommended your followers to come over here. Do you remember when that was? That's when I started lurking here but I have no idea when it was.

I do proofreading and some light writing professionally. For a nominal fee I can proofread your work for you. Let me know.

In comment 12943385 Jim in Tampa said:

Quote:

Colin says that the Giants asked Tampa what it would take to go from 10 to 9 and Tampa wanted a 3rd RD pick. Yet they settled on a 4th RD pick from Chicago, even though that pick was worse than the Giants 4th RD pick. Plus with the Chicago trade Tampa was going from 9 to 11 instead of 9 to 10. Why wouldn't Tampa have just come back to the Giants to get THEIR 4th RD pick instead of Chicago's 4th?

If you were Tampa and had an offer for a 4th and the Giants asked what did you want, would your first response be a 4th? No, start high and maybe negotiate. Giants didn't pursue it.

In comment 12943331 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

In comment 12943248 Simms11 said: Quote: feeling great about this draft the more I read and added insight into the first round drama was very interesting. I do have a question however, you indicated that Hargreaves was faster then Apple....I thought Apple was faster then Hargreaves? In fact I thought one of the knocks on Hargreaves was the fact that he wasn't fast?! Apple has excellent top-end downfield speed. Hargreaves doesn't. However, Hargreaves has jitterbug feet. He seems uniquely suited to match up with the smaller, shifty WRs

I see how he meant it now. It was a little confusing at first. Thanks

Maybe you give us your thoughts on our UDFA, because quite frankly, I'm very intrigued with a half of dozen of them too.

interesting theory/analysis of what went on in the 1st round. Especially choosing Apple over Hargreaves bc of his size

In comment 12943284 Chris684 said:

Quote:

This needs to be pinned. They made the right call standing pat. They couldnt have topped the Titans deal with Cleveland, and the Tampa Bay trade would have been much worse. This is a far cry from the running around like chickens without heads as their pick approached as has been portrayed by the media that the moronic fans seem to gobble. Looks like Floyd was their #1 guy (at the position they wanted to address first) and when the Myles Jack knee situation/media leaks started putting pressure on them they tried to throw out a red herring (Conklin) and/or move-up. When neither worked they moved on to their best guy at the next position they wanted to address. Text book.

Well done. You're on fire today.

Thanks for pinning Eric ... we owe you one

Note re the trade talk with TB for the 9th pick; first the Giants 4th round pick was #109; the Bears traded the Bucs #106 three earlier than the Giants pick. after a series of other trades Chicago actually ended up back at 113, but 106 was the traded pick. In fact, its not clear that the Giants countered TB at all and likely opted to take their chances that Floyd would still be there because they really didn't want to give up any picks and felt they had a pretty good consolation prize in Apple if Floyd was gone.

Willie: I am not sure but it was in the early 2000s when we opted to drop the original Giants Report. Right now I am seriously considering reviving it because bottom line Giants football is what we really love.

And thanks for the offer allstarjim. May have to take you up. Fact is I was an analyst/editor with the national stats agency up here for over 30 years and after having read and reread some of the most boring marerial you can imagine I just can't bring myself to reread stuff, although I keep telling myself I should!!

Any thoughts on Coprich's chances to stick? Emory Hunt had him ranked as the #2 rb in the class. It's crowded back there, but he seems to have the tools for the NFL (not sure we can say as much for Andre Williams).

if we'd traded up for Floyd, and given up a 3rd or a 4th, we wouldn't have both Thompson and Goodson. Who knows whether either of them will be an impact player, but right now most of us would probably prefer Apple+(Thompson & Goodson) to Floyd and just one of those guys.

In comment 12943709 CT Charlie said:

Quote:

if we'd traded up for Floyd, and given up a 3rd or a 4th, we wouldn't have both Thompson and Goodson. Who knows whether either of them will be an impact player, but right now most of us would probably prefer Apple+(Thompson & Goodson) to Floyd and just one of those guys.

Yup, bingo. Maybe Floyd turns out to be all-world and we regret it, but I'm OK with the Giants deciding we needed to preserve our other picks rather than trading up. Giants need several players, we are more than one impact player away

Never really thought this draft was all that deep but given the quality of the guys that were available in the later rounds and now post-draft free agency is starting to tell me different. Again we are talking undrafted guys here who didn't get selected for a reason or reasons, but the Giants have at least a half dozen who have at least a chance of making the team. In fact, Coprich and Roger Lewis were both eminently draftable but may have been passed over for off-field stuff. Coprich, who I believe is currently on probation for selling some pot to an undercover cop, reminds me just a little bit of Ahmad Bradshaw. He's not all that big or smooth, but he has decent speed and quickness and runs hard all the time; he's also a half decent receiver and one would think could give Williams/Darkwa a run for that 4th RB spot. For his part, Lewis plead guilty to a charge of felony rape a few years back but never did jail time (suggesting that maybe he was involved with an underage girlfriend or some such). He's got decent size, and plays more quick than fast, but he seems to be one of those guys who just get open and catch just about everything thrown their way. Both Coprich and Lewis were super productive playing lesser competition. Also thing that Greg Milhouse has a shot at the 4th DT spot; again he's not real big but is very quick and relentless for an interior defender. Also like Mike Rose and Andrew Adams.

Neither Floyd nor Apple. Big talented nasty young bookend tackles would have suited me just fine. Give me the smokescreen. If you wanted to bet the proverbial 1st round farm, shit pick Tunsil.

Of course the rest of the draft went beautifully, so any change in the 1st possibly messes up the who thing. I'll take what we have, but Apple better work the fuck out, REESE!

I see the thinking, it just better work out.

I absolutely expect Shepard, Thompson, and Goodson to be starters quickly. Apple will be a good player for us, but it's arguable if he was the best pick at #10. The following 3 were all great picks.

.

were never inclined to take a RT at #10. File this away fellas.

In comment 12943924 Bama Bish said:

Quote:

Neither Floyd nor Apple. Big talented nasty young bookend tackles would have suited me just fine. Give me the smokescreen. If you wanted to bet the proverbial 1st round farm, shit pick Tunsil. Of course the rest of the draft went beautifully, so any change in the 1st possibly messes up the who thing. I'll take what we have, but Apple better work the fuck out, REESE! I see the thinking, it just better work out.

The bottom line is well-stated in this write-up: You DO NOT spend the number ten pick in the draft on a RG. The LT on this team for the next 6-10 years was picked in the first round of last year's draft. Why is it so hard to understand this? How fucking stupid would Jerry Reese be if he picked the same player with a top ten pick in two consecutive drafts?

A team with next to no drafted talent on it. 2-6 are players from the word go. Apple is a "high upside" project. Unfinished. Projected to hopefully be a finished product. He better damn work out.

Good read.

Apple not a chance. But we can't draft pot heads.

In comment 12944007 xman said:

Quote:

Apple not a chance. But we can't draft pot heads.

Apple not a chance? How much have you seen of Apple? Do you realize he was a starter on a national championship team at 19 years old?

I love the fact that you so arrogantly proclaim that like you have any clue that Apple doesn't have a chance of that. Seriously get over yourself.

who is sounding pretty arrogant and ugly.

thanks for posting.

the 19th pick of the 2013 draft, and the 43rd pick of the 2014 draft. It's possible to put too much money into the offensive line. Better to find a veteran like Shaun O'Hara to hold down a position for a few years and provide some veteran experience.