...at least as far as the Giants second round pick is concerned.
The
CBS Rankings have Dan Feeney, Dorian Johnson, Dion Dawkins, and Taylor Moton all ranked before pick #55.
The Huddle Report has those same four OL all ranked after pick #55.
If the Giants have confidence they can get a good OL prospect in the second round, that may influence their willingness to forego OL in the first round.
On the other hand.... - (
New Window )
Friends? Brothers? Lovers?
Friends? Brothers? Lovers?
How much value does that really carry? Every year we hear this draft is strong/weak overall, (insert position) is strong/weak, etc. Yet the bottom line results and performance don't coincide with the opinions.
Here are some tweets and blurbs from a variety of sources back then..
Big difference for Forrest Lamp today at practice when at OT and OG. Dominant when inside, keep him at guard.
#Villanova DE Tanoh Kpassagnon just showed why length matters - he locked out and ripped #WKU OT Forrest Lamp to the ground in a 1-on-1.
They rank their guys in rows, and within a row (where the prospects are considered equal), need breaks the tie. They might be hoping an OT is there when they draft, but if not, they'll stick to their board regardless.
A scenario where they don't go OT in the first, but do in the second:
When the Giants are on the clock at #23, none of the remaining OTs are on their top row of prospects. If that's the case, they go with someone from their top row. It's not about who they think might be there in the next round, it's just sticking to their board.
But then, when they're on the clock in the 2nd, knowing they didn't get a tackle in the first round, if their top row of remaining prospects includes an OT, they'd almost surely draft him for need.
But again, they're very very unlikely to drop down to a lower row just for need. That's what veteran free agency is for. I think they're actually much more likely to trade up for need if they see a guy they like a lot and they don't feel he'll be there when they pick.
They rank their guys in rows, and within a row (where the prospects are considered equal), need breaks the tie. They might be hoping an OT is there when they draft, but if not, they'll stick to their board regardless.
Picture a situation where let's say they have Reuben Foster as the lone prospect left from their top row and from their second row is left a handful of prospects who are very much worth the 23rd pick, one of which is an OL who they feel can come in and compete for a starting job on day one.
If they felt confident that they could land an OL with the 55th pick that they like a lot, they might feel more comfortable taking Foster with the 23rd pick. On the other hand, if they felt the 23rd pick was going to be their only shot at a starting quality OL, they might be less inclined to take Foster.
p.s.-- When the Giants drafted Jeff Hatch (from my alma mater) in the 3rd round, Accorsi defended the pick by saying that although they didn't have a 3rd round grade on him, they were without a 4th round pick (from the Shockey trade) and Hatch represented the last left tackle on their board with starting quality potential. And how did that turn out?
If need and value match great. There are holes and depth questions everywhere. Passing up value for need gets dangerous. They problem is their OL continues to suck and if they can't add a FA Or two they will most likely have to reach.