Lots of people on this site are supporting throwing yet another premium pick at the OL. There a ton of reasons not to do that. The first is there will be players with much higher ceilings at other positions which will be available at number 23. In fact, with it becoming more clear this week at least 2 QB's will be taken before number 23 it looks to me like it is at least 50/50 that Njoku will be there at our pick. Regardless, one of Njoku, Cook, Reddick, Cunningham, Williams will be there. First round is your opportunity to get a great player not just a player who is good and helps with a need. You need to be thinking the next 8 to 10 years not just about 2017.
The other problem is that a fourth premium pick on OL is REALLY BAD roster construction and cap allocation. You spend a premium pick on a blue goose left tackle...that's it. The other positions are filled by drafting OL in rounds 2 to 5. You draft them in those rounds and you draft them often! Those guys are talented and they are motivated to make a name for themselves. This creates lots of competition and guys pushing each other. More importantly, when a guy becomes over priced you can let him walk because you have guys coming up from below. Have you seen what O-linemen have been paid in free agency??? Its ridiculous. If we pick OL at #23 Jerry will have tried to draft a left tackle on three separate occasions and we could possibly STILL be searching for a LT. Follow the Patriot's model. They draft a solid LT in Solder at #17 and the rest of their OL is is made up of Theiry (3rd round), Andrews (FA), Mason (4th round) and Cannon (5th round). Remember Snee (2nd round) O'Hara (FA) and Seibert (FA). Those guys worked out okay didn't they??? Also, part of the reason the offense has looked bad is that the only true playmaker is OBJ. Use the first round to get difference makers on offense and defense. Use rounds 2 to 5 to pick a couple of OL each year to create a good talent base and maximize competition. Jerry...PLEASE NO OL AT #23!!!!!
Forget the Patriots since no one can get past the Belichick angle, look at the Giants last two Super Bowl wins.
Where was the OL investment? Snee? McKenzie? Baas? O'Hara?
At some point players have to execute and coaches have to coach, can't just fall back to "have to use our 1st round pick on OL" it just a lazy approach to building the roster.
I think the Giants have set themselves up for an OL improvement simply with veteran presence depth of Fluker and the addition of a blocking TE like Ellison. Plus realizing as bad as Flowers has been, guys like Bolles are two years older than Flowers and Flowers already has two years NFL experience. Have to do what you can to get Flowers ready and be prepared for him to be the LT. If he fails it's on the Giants coaches and FO as much as Flowers.
They could draft an OL in the first, but my guess is they don't and I don't think they should.
And I agree.
Howard/Reddick/Humphrey/Njoku is the list and you pluck whichever one of them falls in your lap. In this mock Howard fell.
Dallas did... 3 picks in 4 years, Tyron Smith, Travis Frederick, and Zack Martin. It's the strength of their team and has paid some pretty big dividends recently. The Giants aren't neglecting other positions. They have good skill players, can easily get good RBs in this draft, and are strong at every starting position on the defense with the exception of DT, and you might argue FS because Thompson is unproven (but Adams proved capable last year. Have you seen how expensive OT's have been in free agency? You almost HAVE to draft one, especially if your team has several other players with expensive deals and one mega contract looming (Odell Beckham)
Every team has hits and misses. You can't allow your misses to affect your decision making going forward. If scouts fail consistently, the Giants will get new scouts.
The #23 pick could be an OL and I wouldn't have an issue with that per se (other than thinking it's poor strategy for roster building), but my point is the pick doesn't HAVE to be an OL as others have said.
My point about FA was that's what I would have done, last year and this year, Donald Penn was not a huge contract and there were other affordable options last year, but that horse has left the barn (that's what I was saying was it was too late).
That's his strategy, sure, and he's done a great job at addressing a lot of holes, but as you know, LT is still an issue heading into the draft. I'm not saying pass on a player that is ranked much higher on the board than a LT, but I'm saying draft the LT if it's close. I think Ramczyk and Bolles are immediate LT starters and I think both are players worthy of the #23 pick overall. If they are off the board, sure, go with another position, I wouldn't advocate drafting Forrest Lamp there either, because he's not a LT and likely never will be (short arms). But don't you want Eli to have the time to really make this offense go? Wouldn't it be nice to have Flowers and Fluker and Ellison just blow open the whole right side for Perkins to run wild? Would be great to see. I want a dominant OL line like the Cowboys have. The difference between them and us is we already have the great defense, and they are still playing us tough because we can't get to Dak because of their pass protection. And it's not just us, I saw that line give Dak AGES against a lot of teams last year, and it was, as a football fan and a Cowboy hater, both beautiful and frustrating to watch.
Draft a lineman in the later rounds unless a great one falls in their laps.
It's unusual, but not unheard of, for them to go all-in for a specific position. They did it when they drafted Rivers to trade for Eli. But I don't think OT is like QB, and I don't think they see a franchise OT sitting there for them to trade for.
IF they feel they MUST get a OT in a draft that's thin at that position, I'd look for them to make a trade:
either a trade-up to get in position to get one of the few top prospects at OT (like, maybe, moving up a few spots to get Ramczyk if he falls past #15, if they think he's worth it),
or
a trade down to later in the first, or out of the first altogether (if they think the tackle prospects aren't worth they 23rd pick but they can get a tackle at 30th or 40th).
Otherwise I'd look for them to go OL in the 2nd and/or 3rd, when there's a pretty good chance O-line prospects will be in their top row of available prospects. In that event, need will break the tie.
This is a weak OT draft with only (2-3) LTs.
I do not think that the Giants should reach for a player, however, if a OL is in their qualitative tier they should select him.
The Giants have not be able to find a suitable free agent tackle.
Therefore, the OL will be status quo if non is selected. Basically it is the same line that we had last year with Fluker replacing Newhouse.
The Giants have created this situation by not addressing the OL during free agency both last year and this year.
I do not think that you can be a championship team without a line that can effectively run block and protect an immobile QB.
It may not be the sexy pick but it makes sense.
.
I might take a chance on the bucknell project, Davenport, but that's not a pick for 2017.
Statistically the safer pick is an OL. First round OL tend to be more successful than other positions.
It sounds good to say draft Njoku or Cook, but there is no guarantee that they will be a successful picks.
How would you know? Post the list of 1st round TE's and LB's Reese has drafted below.
He found Kevin Boss in the 5th round in 2007. The guy played pretty well for us before he left for Oakland.
He also found Jon Goff in the 5th round in 2008, who most likely would've replaced Pierce at the MIKE position if he didn't blow his knee out.
I also believe both could be gone before our pick. I think this idea that Bolles needs a year is nonsense. Sure, I would expect him to be better and stronger with time in the NFL, but I'm still waiting for the film of him being dominated by powerful, bull rush types.
I think the "only one year starting" stuff is overblown, also.
If they show they can play over that one year, then who cares?
The OL is by far the weakest unit on the team. It's so weak on paper that it could prevent an otherwise championship caliber team from getting there.
That being said, I don't think the Giants have to force an OL pick in rounds 1 and/or 2. Contrary to popular opinion I do think there's a lot of Diehl types in this draft who could be had in the mid rounds. They really only need one more player to bring the unit together.
As for the Cowboys two points. First their talent evaluators have done a much better job then Reese identifying top level OL talent. Second, I would argue they make the point regarding roster construction. They have NO talent on defense. Picking OL high with three picks has left weaknesses on D and at the offensive skill positions. If you build your line with mid round picks you can have a good offensive line AND have playmakers on defense and at the offensive skill positions.
The OL is by far the weakest unit on the team. It's so weak on paper that it could prevent an otherwise championship caliber team from getting there.
That being said, I don't think the Giants have to force an OL pick in rounds 1 and/or 2. Contrary to popular opinion I do think there's a lot of Diehl types in this draft who could be had in the mid rounds. They really only need one more player to bring the unit together.
Makes perfect sense especially in the context that no other team out of 32, let alone just the 12 playoff participants the past few years (probably more if anyone wants to research it) has invested that much in terms of premium draft picks in their OL.
there is a reason for it.
to be successful, you have to be able to get OL competence outside of the top of the draft.
The premise of the thread is why you don't pick an OL at 23, it's a converse to the thread from last week about why you have to pick an OL at 23.
At some point the OL is what it is and the coaches need to game plan around it and the FO needs enhance the roster in other areas (TE, FB, RB, other legit offensive weapons at WR) so the OL isn't set up to fail.
Keep the other teams defense off-balance with skill position players they have to game-plan for - and I think progress is being made here with Marshall, and if the Giants can add a Njoku or pipe dream Howard, it will help even further, plus I'd like to see a speed WR.
otherwise pinning your teams hopes to a rookie drafted #23 to step in right away and transform your OL seems like a strategy destined to fail.
Since 2010 the Giants have drafted 6 OL after the second round.
These picks include; Petrus (5), Brewer (4), Mosely(4) , McCants (6), Herman (7), and Hart (7). None of these players had starting ability. Hart is still questionable.
The Giants have drafted 3 OL in the first 2 rounds and all three are starting. It appears that if the Giants want to improve the line through the draft it must be a premium pick.
Also this is a particularly weak draft for tackles,
I'm all for giving Flowers a chance to develop, but we still have holes on the OL a low pick could help. And I'm not saying we need one in round 1, or reach if the value isn't there (as the Giants judge the player, not draft boards), but I'd like one by rd 3 to add competition. And I wouldn't mind a round 1 TE, which also may help the OL (along w/Ellison).
The Giants have drafted 3 OL in the first 2 rounds and all three are starting. It appears that if the Giants want to improve the line through the draft it must be a premium pick.
Archer, of those 3, one is "pretty good" (Pugh), one is somewhat questionable (Richburg), and 1 has shown he isn't good at all so far (Flowers).
So, the Giants can waste picks on the Oline at any round and screw it up with the best of 'em. They need better Oline, TE and LB scouts, IMO.
If the Giants have a grade on Robinson, Ramczyk, or Bolles that is equal to or greater than any other prospect available when they are on the clock, they should take the OL. Period. Exclamation Point.
And I suspect they will. Myles Garrett, John Allen, and Solomon Thomas are not making it to pick #23....
...2nd round choice.
We need a talent upgrade along the O-line.
I'll take that wherever and whenever I can.
Round One
Round Two
Round Three
Whatever.
Our O-line has sucked since 2012.
Oh and he works his butt off as I witnessed him reviewing the free agent list and reviewing tape on his iPad while on a treadmill with his very hot girlfriend looking over his other shoulder.
The Giants have not improved the OL this year via free agency.
The Giants need to find at least one more starting quality OL if they intend to improve the OL.
This can be done through the draft, trades, or free agency.
Since the Giants hardly ever trade, and they have not demonstrated an inclination to spend money on a quality free agent OL, it seems that the draft is the Giants only remaining option.
If the intention is to find a player in the draft who can contribute this year, that player would have to be drafted in the first round.
There are only 4-5 OL who are projected to be starters in the first year.
And the odds of finding a quality first year starter diminish significantly each round.
I do not propose that the Giants reach for a player. If there is no quality OL at the time they draft, I would either trade down or draft the best player available.
You can have a good player on a poor unit.
If the Giants draft board looks anything like that, we should be crossing our fingers that one of the three OT's (Robinson, Ramczyk, and Bolles) is still available when the Giants are on the clock.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Giants drafted 2 Oline players. Remember, Pugh is probably looking for the same money Snacks makes and he'll get it somewhere.
Quote:
that OL should be selected in the first few rounds of every draft. constantly build and fortify the line. we've seen what it looks like when it gets neglected.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Giants drafted 2 Oline players. Remember, Pugh is probably looking for the same money Snacks makes and he'll get it somewhere.
Let me know players who are rated 1st rounders that are not 1st round talent. Why we should steer clear of certain players, but not positions. Unless they take a kicker, punter or FB in the 1st I would be open to anything. We need talent, get the coaches the talent and they can win.
But this offseason they restructured almost every major contract they had and still lost heavily in the defensive secondary and failed to sign the free agent pass rusher they craved.
With a defense average at best, and mortgaged up to the hilt, Dallas doesn't look so scary.
Difference was a guy at QB that didn;t make many mistakes, and they added a great RB.
It's not just the OL - Dallas has one virtually nothing with their OL. If Prescot goes down, or goes the way of Nick Foles, their OL won't bail them out, they didn't in 2015. You need top skill players to win Super Bowls.
Giants have simply made some terrible choices over the last ten years in the draft which is why the offensive line has been a weakness the last five years.
There was no replacement in the pipeline for Chris Snee, Sean O'Hara, David Diehl. Will Beatty had durability issues throughout his career. Free Agent pickups like David Baas, JD Walton and Geof Schwartz proved to be stop gap players instead of solutions.
OT, so be it. Another WR, so be it. More talent with game changing upside is a good thing, don't care how deep anyone thinks we are at any 1 position, you are never deep enough in the NFL.
Giants have simply made some terrible choices over the last ten years in the draft which is why the offensive line has been a weakness the last five years.
There was no replacement in the pipeline for Chris Snee, Sean O'Hara, David Diehl. Will Beatty had durability issues throughout his career. Free Agent pickups like David Baas, JD Walton and Geof Schwartz proved to be stop gap players instead of solutions.
My one quibble is that the Giants' row system means that there can be more than one "best player available" on their board at any one time. If the top row left on their board has five guys in it, then there are five BPAs. In that case, need breaks the tie.
I agree 100% that if there's an OT in their top row when they're on the clock in the first, they'll take him. If not, they won't.