or take the highest rated non-QB, even if it's a CB. DRC won't be here forever (this could easily be his finally season with the team) and even with DRC they need more CB depth (see GB game).
Never understood those posts. Take BPA, simple solution. "Trading down", if its even an option, means whoever we take likely has less of a chance to become a starting player.
He's who I am leaning towards right now, unless Howard or Njoku are still available. No interest in Ramcyzk. One year of D1 and coming off major hip surgery. And he won't last until our second round pick.
Reese has never traded down. At some point it will likely happen, but I'd need a lot to give up a chance to get Davis. I'd rather see a trade down on day three. Most of those players are long shots, and although he's done well on days one and two, his track record on day three is poor. So get one or two extra day three picks to increase the odds of success.
Other than Flowers, the NYG have drafted pretty well over the last 3 years. I trust they'd choose the correct player if all of BBI's preferred guys are gone.
Never understood those posts. Take BPA, simple solution. "Trading down", if its even an option, means whoever we take likely has less of a chance to become a starting player.
Are you not aware that there is a "trade down button" in every war room?
The trade down people most likely drool when they speak.
While I Agree That 'Trade Down' Is Overly Simplistic
in most situations, IF the Giants find that the BPA(s) are not in need positions or more importantly if QBs that other teams covet are still available (and we've seems teams "reach into the first round to grab QBs" fairly often), getting above market value up to a king's random to trade down needs to be a plausible option.
RE: While I Agree That 'Trade Down' Is Overly Simplistic
in most situations, IF the Giants find that the BPA(s) are not in need positions or more importantly if QBs that other teams covet are still available (and we've seems teams "reach into the first round to grab QBs" fairly often), getting above market value up to a king's random to trade down needs to be a plausible option.
You'd figure that any team who is in love with one of the QBs would have felt the urgency to trade up earlier. On the other hand a team like Cleveland might be tempted by a "bargain" QB at 23 if they've gone defense with their first two picks.
Sounds like... with a defense heavy top 50 overall
One hell of a defender or two will be available. Take him, we have Odell and maybe another 3 years with Eli, offense will turn around, build up this powerhouse defense please.
Trade Down: Who is trading up? For what player/position?
Should be the answer to all of this silliness. Answer? Who knows, it's way too early and we have no idea what the Giants really think. NO ONE had Apple at 10 last year, no one and our top two guys were gone and we still got a good player so why are you all dousing your drawers with worry in the middle of February?
Should be the answer to all of this silliness. Answer? Who knows, it's way too early and we have no idea what the Giants really think. NO ONE had Apple at 10 last year, no one and our top two guys were gone and we still got a good player so why are you all dousing your drawers with worry in the middle of February?
It's not worry for me, Joey. Just the enjoyment of talking draft, and seeing what others think they'd do in various scenarios. This is FUN, buddy!
I would go for Cam Robinson and plug him in at RG.
Never understood those posts. Take BPA, simple solution. "Trading down", if its even an option, means whoever we take likely has less of a chance to become a starting player.
Not always, UConn. If the Giants' draft board has a different ranking than what's being selected, you might make a case for trading down.
what are your thoughts on Dalvin Cook? Running style reminds me of Chris Johnson from his Tennessee days. Also interested in your thoughts on Nico Siragusa.
I'd love to know what the Giants think of McDowell from MSU
The "row" system the Giants use wouldn't have any trouble coping with the situation where the top two TEs, the top OT and the three top WRs are gone.
They rank players in rows. Presumably there only one or a few players in their top row. The rows presumably get bigger as you move along. (Because you're starting at one end of a bell curve of talent and moving toward the middle.) By the time you get to the later rounds, I expect those rows are pretty large.
If they get to pick 23 and there's one guy left from row 4, two from row 5, and five from row 6, they're going to take the guy from row 4, pretty much regardless of position. At this point, they probably would even take a QB if he were a row or two above the other prospects, knowing a rookie QB would probably not play at all in 2017.
The key thing is: They spent months preparing their board, and they follow it. They don't start sweating and going "BUT WE NEED A LEFT TACKLE!!!" or "CRAP, THE TIGHT ENDS ARE GONE" and drop down to row 7 or 8 to get a player at a position of need.
If they get to pick 23 and there are 5 guys from row 6, and nobody from a higher row, then there are 5 guys they can choose from. Need breaks the tie. For example, if they need a tackle most, and there's a tackle in their top row, they'll take the tackle. (I don't know how they'd break a tie between two tackles in the same row. I assume Reese makes that call in the first round.)
RE: I'd love to know what the Giants think of McDowell from MSU
The "row" system the Giants use wouldn't have any trouble coping with the situation where the top two TEs, the top OT and the three top WRs are gone.
They rank players in rows. Presumably there only one or a few players in their top row. The rows presumably get bigger as you move along. (Because you're starting at one end of a bell curve of talent and moving toward the middle.) By the time you get to the later rounds, I expect those rows are pretty large.
If they get to pick 23 and there's one guy left from row 4, two from row 5, and five from row 6, they're going to take the guy from row 4, pretty much regardless of position. At this point, they probably would even take a QB if he were a row or two above the other prospects, knowing a rookie QB would probably not play at all in 2017.
The key thing is: They spent months preparing their board, and they follow it. They don't start sweating and going "BUT WE NEED A LEFT TACKLE!!!" or "CRAP, THE TIGHT ENDS ARE GONE" and drop down to row 7 or 8 to get a player at a position of need.
If they get to pick 23 and there are 5 guys from row 6, and nobody from a higher row, then there are 5 guys they can choose from. Need breaks the tie. For example, if they need a tackle most, and there's a tackle in their top row, they'll take the tackle. (I don't know how they'd break a tie between two tackles in the same row. I assume Reese makes that call in the first round.)
This is how I believe JR does things as well..Well stated, per usual, GD
I dont get the WR talk for round 1 unless it's real value. When you have Beckham and Shepard, you don't need that much at WR to be effective & that's with a shifty OL and TE. You can't have too many pass rushers also & there are greater weaknesses than WR. If the value is WR,I'm fine with it but I'm not looking that way
watching him in games, he seems like he would actually benefit from being an Edge player at the next level. I don't see why he couldn't be a 4-3 DE and be a very good one. I'm not sure I like him as a full-time inside DT. I also wonder how the Giants will view him.
Never understood those posts. Take BPA, simple solution. "Trading down", if its even an option, means whoever we take likely has less of a chance to become a starting player.
Not always, UConn. If the Giants' draft board has a different ranking than what's being selected, you might make a case for trading down.
We have never traded down under Reese, surely that scenario has presented itself before, no?
The overall suggestion to "trade down" doesn't make any sense to me for the reasons I stated. Between us never trading down, not knowing what team would even be a trade down candidate, and the lesser chance of an impact player the further down the road we pick, there's almost no reason to suggest any team trade down unless they own a top pick and don't need a QB.
Every year fans and pundits say the Giants should trade down and collect draft picks and every year it doesn't happen. I suspect it won't happen again this year either, regardless of who's there at 23.
As a first rounder, he would be under team control for five years. The money you pay him would probably be equal to that of a quality backup, so financially it's a wash.
So, you get a backup for Eli and a guy who might be able to replace him down the line. Watson could also be used in certain spots as a WR option who could throw the ball. This offense could use a few trick plays.
That said, I would probably take one of the DLs because that is the real strength of this draft in the bottom part of the first round.
watching him in games, he seems like he would actually benefit from being an Edge player at the next level. I don't see why he couldn't be a 4-3 DE and be a very good one. I'm not sure I like him as a full-time inside DT. I also wonder how the Giants will view him.
I'm a big fan of McDowell. I know he won't go that early, but to me he's one of the five best players in this draft. I don't see the Giants getting him without trading for an earlier pick. If they somehow managed to draft him, the best way to use him would be as a left defensive end to start and moving him inside on passing downs.
could do wonders for our offense. His 4.3 speed would force a Safety to protect his side of the field, and with OBJ on the other, the middle of the field would be left completely to LBs. That would be perfect for McAdoo's offensive scheme.
Oh definitely a DT in a 4-3 - just wonder what there opinions of him are as a player. He was arguably a Top 5 pick before the season started, but now people are saying he's a borderline first rounder
Should be the answer to all of this silliness. Answer? Who knows, it's way too early and we have no idea what the Giants really think. NO ONE had Apple at 10 last year, no one and our top two guys were gone and we still got a good player so why are you all dousing your drawers with worry in the middle of February?
It's not worry for me, Joey. Just the enjoyment of talking draft, and seeing what others think they'd do in various scenarios. This is FUN, buddy!
It's a deep group in the 1st round, a premium position in our scheme, DRC is on his final year and our depth after our starters is garbage(Wade/Snsabaugh)so we have a need there.
about one of the QBs. I have the feeling that Watson, unconventional in some ways as he is, could become a pretty special QB, though both he and Kizer seem like risky picks to me. But if the scouts had a conviction on either I'd bow to that.
yatqb I hear you and if that happens it happens...
...but I hope not. I think we're close and a good year from a 1st round pick could make the difference between winning a title or not. Example: Aaron Ross, not a great pick or player(I would have chosen Dwayne Bowe) but in hindsight I don't believe we would have won that title without him. Some might counter that we could have possibly drafted Eric Wright in Round 2 but the whole draft changes with every pick and that's far from certain.
So I'm in win now mode because I think it's there for the taking if we play our cards right this offseason. A QB isn't going to offer us anything in that regard.
Very true, although it might secure our future for a decade or more
The "row" system the Giants use wouldn't have any trouble coping with the situation where the top two TEs, the top OT and the three top WRs are gone.
They rank players in rows. Presumably there only one or a few players in their top row. The rows presumably get bigger as you move along. (Because you're starting at one end of a bell curve of talent and moving toward the middle.) By the time you get to the later rounds, I expect those rows are pretty large.
If they get to pick 23 and there's one guy left from row 4, two from row 5, and five from row 6, they're going to take the guy from row 4, pretty much regardless of position. At this point, they probably would even take a QB if he were a row or two above the other prospects, knowing a rookie QB would probably not play at all in 2017.
The key thing is: They spent months preparing their board, and they follow it. They don't start sweating and going "BUT WE NEED A LEFT TACKLE!!!" or "CRAP, THE TIGHT ENDS ARE GONE" and drop down to row 7 or 8 to get a player at a position of need.
If they get to pick 23 and there are 5 guys from row 6, and nobody from a higher row, then there are 5 guys they can choose from. Need breaks the tie. For example, if they need a tackle most, and there's a tackle in their top row, they'll take the tackle. (I don't know how they'd break a tie between two tackles in the same row. I assume Reese makes that call in the first round.)
Since no one here has access to their board or is privy to the conversations that go on in the war room this is entirely academic.
Reese can and will say anyone they pick was the highest guy on their board. Anything else would be spun as a need or panic pick.
I doubt it's as simple as sticking to their board. Need will be a factor. Different scouts and personnel will lobby hard for their guy on draft day. They may think a particular position is strong and they can find a comparable guy later. They may have a feel for who teams will be looking at and gamble on a guy falling to their next pick. I think it's a lot more dynamic than just sticking to a spreadsheet.
Need may not be a factor depending on the situation.
Both IMO are development projects. They should sit an entire year regardless of who takes them.
Never understood those posts. Take BPA, simple solution. "Trading down", if its even an option, means whoever we take likely has less of a chance to become a starting player.
He's who I am leaning towards right now, unless Howard or Njoku are still available. No interest in Ramcyzk. One year of D1 and coming off major hip surgery. And he won't last until our second round pick.
Reese has never traded down. At some point it will likely happen, but I'd need a lot to give up a chance to get Davis. I'd rather see a trade down on day three. Most of those players are long shots, and although he's done well on days one and two, his track record on day three is poor. So get one or two extra day three picks to increase the odds of success.
Will see how Barnett tests but doesn't appear to be the quick twitch athlete they prefer at DE, and a tick small.
But from a blind guess I'd go Watson .... he seems to have the tools and being groomed under Eli would only be a boon got him.
Will see how Barnett tests but doesn't appear to be the quick twitch athlete they prefer at DE, and a tick small.
And yet you'd take McKinley over Barnett? A pox on your house!
Agree. If all of these guys are gone by 23, then someone really good (Barnett, Cook, Lattimore) has dropped.
I like him too. Wouldn't be upset with that pick it all.
Could finally add an elite talent in the middle who could take the defense to the next level.
Quote:
who isn't an edge rusher in their preferred mold.
Will see how Barnett tests but doesn't appear to be the quick twitch athlete they prefer at DE, and a tick small.
And yet you'd take McKinley over Barnett? A pox on your house!
I would, he's an explosive, powerful edge rusher who can ruin an edge himself.
Quote:
In comment 13361800 JonC said:
Quote:
who isn't an edge rusher in their preferred mold.
Will see how Barnett tests but doesn't appear to be the quick twitch athlete they prefer at DE, and a tick small.
And yet you'd take McKinley over Barnett? A pox on your house!
I would, he's an explosive, powerful edge rusher who can ruin an edge himself.
Piffle. Double the pox!
Never understood those posts. Take BPA, simple solution. "Trading down", if its even an option, means whoever we take likely has less of a chance to become a starting player.
Are you not aware that there is a "trade down button" in every war room?
The trade down people most likely drool when they speak.
You'd figure that any team who is in love with one of the QBs would have felt the urgency to trade up earlier. On the other hand a team like Cleveland might be tempted by a "bargain" QB at 23 if they've gone defense with their first two picks.
There is a lot that needs to happen in order for a trade down to happen...It's not as simple as BBI makes it out to be.
It's not worry for me, Joey. Just the enjoyment of talking draft, and seeing what others think they'd do in various scenarios. This is FUN, buddy!
I'd push Flowers to the right side to form a power run blocking tandem with Robinson.
Then I'd draft a hulking bruiser in Rd 4 to run the ball and do blitz pickups like it was cake.
His issues though...drugs and guns. Has some bad people in his ear.
Never understood those posts. Take BPA, simple solution. "Trading down", if its even an option, means whoever we take likely has less of a chance to become a starting player.
Not always, UConn. If the Giants' draft board has a different ranking than what's being selected, you might make a case for trading down.
They rank players in rows. Presumably there only one or a few players in their top row. The rows presumably get bigger as you move along. (Because you're starting at one end of a bell curve of talent and moving toward the middle.) By the time you get to the later rounds, I expect those rows are pretty large.
If they get to pick 23 and there's one guy left from row 4, two from row 5, and five from row 6, they're going to take the guy from row 4, pretty much regardless of position. At this point, they probably would even take a QB if he were a row or two above the other prospects, knowing a rookie QB would probably not play at all in 2017.
The key thing is: They spent months preparing their board, and they follow it. They don't start sweating and going "BUT WE NEED A LEFT TACKLE!!!" or "CRAP, THE TIGHT ENDS ARE GONE" and drop down to row 7 or 8 to get a player at a position of need.
If they get to pick 23 and there are 5 guys from row 6, and nobody from a higher row, then there are 5 guys they can choose from. Need breaks the tie. For example, if they need a tackle most, and there's a tackle in their top row, they'll take the tackle. (I don't know how they'd break a tie between two tackles in the same row. I assume Reese makes that call in the first round.)
Looks like a 3-4 DE (4-3 DT).
They rank players in rows. Presumably there only one or a few players in their top row. The rows presumably get bigger as you move along. (Because you're starting at one end of a bell curve of talent and moving toward the middle.) By the time you get to the later rounds, I expect those rows are pretty large.
If they get to pick 23 and there's one guy left from row 4, two from row 5, and five from row 6, they're going to take the guy from row 4, pretty much regardless of position. At this point, they probably would even take a QB if he were a row or two above the other prospects, knowing a rookie QB would probably not play at all in 2017.
The key thing is: They spent months preparing their board, and they follow it. They don't start sweating and going "BUT WE NEED A LEFT TACKLE!!!" or "CRAP, THE TIGHT ENDS ARE GONE" and drop down to row 7 or 8 to get a player at a position of need.
If they get to pick 23 and there are 5 guys from row 6, and nobody from a higher row, then there are 5 guys they can choose from. Need breaks the tie. For example, if they need a tackle most, and there's a tackle in their top row, they'll take the tackle. (I don't know how they'd break a tie between two tackles in the same row. I assume Reese makes that call in the first round.)
This is how I believe JR does things as well..Well stated, per usual, GD
Quote:
for what?
Never understood those posts. Take BPA, simple solution. "Trading down", if its even an option, means whoever we take likely has less of a chance to become a starting player.
Not always, UConn. If the Giants' draft board has a different ranking than what's being selected, you might make a case for trading down.
We have never traded down under Reese, surely that scenario has presented itself before, no?
The overall suggestion to "trade down" doesn't make any sense to me for the reasons I stated. Between us never trading down, not knowing what team would even be a trade down candidate, and the lesser chance of an impact player the further down the road we pick, there's almost no reason to suggest any team trade down unless they own a top pick and don't need a QB.
Every year fans and pundits say the Giants should trade down and collect draft picks and every year it doesn't happen. I suspect it won't happen again this year either, regardless of who's there at 23.
So, you get a backup for Eli and a guy who might be able to replace him down the line. Watson could also be used in certain spots as a WR option who could throw the ball. This offense could use a few trick plays.
That said, I would probably take one of the DLs because that is the real strength of this draft in the bottom part of the first round.
I'm a big fan of McDowell. I know he won't go that early, but to me he's one of the five best players in this draft. I don't see the Giants getting him without trading for an earlier pick. If they somehow managed to draft him, the best way to use him would be as a left defensive end to start and moving him inside on passing downs.
We act like Reese has a big red button on his desk that says "trade down" on it.
They will choose a player from the top remaining tier on their board.
Quote:
.
Looks like a 3-4 DE (4-3 DT).
Oh definitely a DT in a 4-3 - just wonder what there opinions of him are as a player. He was arguably a Top 5 pick before the season started, but now people are saying he's a borderline first rounder
Quote:
Should be the answer to all of this silliness. Answer? Who knows, it's way too early and we have no idea what the Giants really think. NO ONE had Apple at 10 last year, no one and our top two guys were gone and we still got a good player so why are you all dousing your drawers with worry in the middle of February?
It's not worry for me, Joey. Just the enjoyment of talking draft, and seeing what others think they'd do in various scenarios. This is FUN, buddy!
So I'm in win now mode because I think it's there for the taking if we play our cards right this offseason. A QB isn't going to offer us anything in that regard.
I too lean toward the win now option, but If you can land a franchise QB that's a rare opportunity.
They rank players in rows. Presumably there only one or a few players in their top row. The rows presumably get bigger as you move along. (Because you're starting at one end of a bell curve of talent and moving toward the middle.) By the time you get to the later rounds, I expect those rows are pretty large.
If they get to pick 23 and there's one guy left from row 4, two from row 5, and five from row 6, they're going to take the guy from row 4, pretty much regardless of position. At this point, they probably would even take a QB if he were a row or two above the other prospects, knowing a rookie QB would probably not play at all in 2017.
The key thing is: They spent months preparing their board, and they follow it. They don't start sweating and going "BUT WE NEED A LEFT TACKLE!!!" or "CRAP, THE TIGHT ENDS ARE GONE" and drop down to row 7 or 8 to get a player at a position of need.
If they get to pick 23 and there are 5 guys from row 6, and nobody from a higher row, then there are 5 guys they can choose from. Need breaks the tie. For example, if they need a tackle most, and there's a tackle in their top row, they'll take the tackle. (I don't know how they'd break a tie between two tackles in the same row. I assume Reese makes that call in the first round.)
Since no one here has access to their board or is privy to the conversations that go on in the war room this is entirely academic.
Reese can and will say anyone they pick was the highest guy on their board. Anything else would be spun as a need or panic pick.
I doubt it's as simple as sticking to their board. Need will be a factor. Different scouts and personnel will lobby hard for their guy on draft day. They may think a particular position is strong and they can find a comparable guy later. They may have a feel for who teams will be looking at and gamble on a guy falling to their next pick. I think it's a lot more dynamic than just sticking to a spreadsheet.