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!!!!!
I understand your point but there are a lot of assumptions there.
As a fan, my mindset is no longer in the "next 8-10 years" realm given how often players leave after their first contract has expired
The GIANTS are still paying for years of draft failures after the first two rounds. The OL is still their biggest need, and they have paid the price in the past for not taking an OL with the first pick.
If the right OL is there, he should be the pick. If not, OK, but they still have to reinforce it some how, and signing a couple of rehab projects (Bowie and Fluker) may not work out.
Only the Cowboys have a significant premium DRAFT PICK investment in their OL comparable to what the Giants would have with another 1st round pick in 2017. And the Giants OL still wouldn't be close to Dallas.
Teams like the Seahawks, Falcons, Steelers, Broncos, Packers, etc. do not invest heavily with 1st round picks in their OL's - not to mention the Patriots who are not an outlier in this particular facet, their success otherwise might be an outlier but they build their OL through coaching, development, and FA's like other teams do.
Pretty sure the Giants try to follow this model (which I agree with).
So why then, would you say, "no OL at 23?" Both Ramczyk and Bolles are worthy of pick #23, and project to be good left tackles.
Ask the Titans if they regret taking Conklin at #8 overall last season? Or Taylor Lewan at #11 overall in 2014? No, no they don't. They have 2 OT's that have enabled them to play smash-mouth football, and were on the doorstep of the playoffs, largely because of that offensive line and ability to run the ball right down their opponents' throats.
The Giants' defense is Super Bowl caliber right now. Their offense is clearly holding them back, and pass protection, especially at the blind side tackle spot, is a major problem that is clearly holding them back from scoring points and sustaining drives. There have not been and will not be really any feasible options to address the issue in free agency, because great LT's are very scarce. But if you draft one, not only is he cost-controlled, it finally would allow Eli, who we all know is one of the least fleet of foot QB's in the NFL, a chance to actually have a pocket from which to throw the ball on time and accurately.
If you watched Dak last year, sometimes he had unthinkable 8, 9, 10 seconds to throw the ball. The Cowboys built the strength of their team through the OL. There are THREE first rounders on their line. They won the division last year and at 13-3 had the second best record in the NFL.
So to say let's kick the can down the road when we have a RT, maybe a RG playing at LT, and a 7th round draft pick at RT, who is doing yeoman's work but is not a world beater by any stretch, I think is foolish, especially when the team is strong virtually everywhere else.
No other position would improve this team more than a strong LT would at this point in time with this football team, in the immediate future. And if Flowers excels at RT, then by drafting a strong LT, you improve 2 positions.
I don't think the Giants should force it, but absolutely if the value is there, take Ramczyk or Bolles.
There is one sure player I would take before a OT in the draft... and that is Jonathan Allen.
There are several others that would make it a tough decision... OJ Howard, Reuben Foster, and Leonard Fournette. If all of them are gone, and Ramczyk or Bolles is there, and the Giants don't take one of them, then I won't be a happy camper.
The problem is, Jerry reached and gambled on flowers and it doesn't look promising. The Giants also need a RT.
I'm not saying they should draft a Tackle at 23, but I think there is a good chance the Giants try it again.
They've done a good job overall drafting in the 1st round, I'd much rather trust them to pick the best player than try to address a hole with the best OL player available if they're not one and the same.
Left Tackle maybe, but I'm talking overall OL investment.
Here is just the 2016 - 2017 playoff teams left tackles it's just over 50% acquired with that team's 1st round pick:
NE: Solder (1st)
ATL: Matthews (1st)
GB: Bakthiari (4th)
PIT: Villanueva (UDFA)
SEA: Fant (UDFA)/Sowell (UDFA)
DAL: Smith (1st)
HOU: Brown (1st)
MIA: Albert (UFA)
DET: Decker (1st)
OAK: Penn (UFA)
KC: Fisher (1st)
NYG: Flowers (1st)
Someone mentioned the Seahawks' success without heavy OL investment through the draft. They drafted Ifedi with the 31st overall pick last year. And their lack of a good O-line SIGNIFICANTLY hurt their offense last year as well as Russell Wilson's quality of play.
Eli deserves strong LT play at this point in his career, and the team will be much, much better if he gets it.
Quote:
At one time it was rare to land one outside the 1st, but that was some time ago...not sure where that's at now.
Left Tackle maybe, but I'm talking overall OL investment.
Here is just the 2016 - 2017 playoff teams left tackles it's just over 50% acquired with that team's 1st round pick:
NE: Solder (1st)
ATL: Matthews (1st)
GB: Bakthiari (4th)
PIT: Villanueva (UDFA)
SEA: Fant (UDFA)/Sowell (UDFA)
DAL: Smith (1st)
HOU: Brown (1st)
MIA: Albert (UFA)
DET: Decker (1st)
OAK: Penn (UFA)
KC: Fisher (1st)
NYG: Flowers (1st)
Another way of reading that is 9 out of 12 of those teams either used a 1st rounder for their LT or paid big bucks in free agency to get a proven LT. Out of the three other ones, one panned out in the 4th nicely for the Packers, and Seattle made the playoffs in spite of their poor play on the offensive line (including at LT, those guys aren't solutions), and I don't know much about Villanueva except he is a veteran and on the USAA commercials.
The list is a pretty good indicator that LT is pretty important and the successful teams (almost all of them) make strong investments in the position either in free agency or the draft.
Giants struggle with identifying OL talent, don't keep trying the same exact thing.
If the Giants use a 1st on an OL in the 2017 draft I believe they will be the only team with 4 of the 5 OL drafted in the first two rounds.
And no guarantee the OL is any better, especially throwing a rookie into the fire.
Free agents are a better gamble, and helps to ensure those premium draft picks, representing the best chances at starter quality talent at a low cost are used strategically at the best value positions of need, not forced into a a specific position.
Despite all this, I am not opposed to the Giants using a 1st on the OL, but it has to be clearly the best player on their board, and the Giants just don't draft BPA contrary to the fanspeak on here or anywhere else. Magically somehow BPA always seems to match up with a need for the Giants.
Quote:
In comment 13407097 yatqb said:
Quote:
At one time it was rare to land one outside the 1st, but that was some time ago...not sure where that's at now.
Left Tackle maybe, but I'm talking overall OL investment.
Here is just the 2016 - 2017 playoff teams left tackles it's just over 50% acquired with that team's 1st round pick:
NE: Solder (1st)
ATL: Matthews (1st)
GB: Bakthiari (4th)
PIT: Villanueva (UDFA)
SEA: Fant (UDFA)/Sowell (UDFA)
DAL: Smith (1st)
HOU: Brown (1st)
MIA: Albert (UFA)
DET: Decker (1st)
OAK: Penn (UFA)
KC: Fisher (1st)
NYG: Flowers (1st)
Another way of reading that is 9 out of 12 of those teams either used a 1st rounder for their LT or paid big bucks in free agency to get a proven LT. Out of the three other ones, one panned out in the 4th nicely for the Packers, and Seattle made the playoffs in spite of their poor play on the offensive line (including at LT, those guys aren't solutions), and I don't know much about Villanueva except he is a veteran and on the USAA commercials.
The list is a pretty good indicator that LT is pretty important and the successful teams (almost all of them) make strong investments in the position either in free agency or the draft.
My point was the Giants should make a FA investment in the OL as opposed to forcing a draft pick investment.
FA you know what you're getting. Expensive? probably, but again, less risk. And it's most likely too late for that now, especially at this stage, but the point remains.
This right here.
That's exactly how the Giants draft, and I suspect there may not be an OL in that top row at 23.
Quote:
In comment 13407113 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13407097 yatqb said:
Quote:
At one time it was rare to land one outside the 1st, but that was some time ago...not sure where that's at now.
Left Tackle maybe, but I'm talking overall OL investment.
Here is just the 2016 - 2017 playoff teams left tackles it's just over 50% acquired with that team's 1st round pick:
NE: Solder (1st)
ATL: Matthews (1st)
GB: Bakthiari (4th)
PIT: Villanueva (UDFA)
SEA: Fant (UDFA)/Sowell (UDFA)
DAL: Smith (1st)
HOU: Brown (1st)
MIA: Albert (UFA)
DET: Decker (1st)
OAK: Penn (UFA)
KC: Fisher (1st)
NYG: Flowers (1st)
Another way of reading that is 9 out of 12 of those teams either used a 1st rounder for their LT or paid big bucks in free agency to get a proven LT. Out of the three other ones, one panned out in the 4th nicely for the Packers, and Seattle made the playoffs in spite of their poor play on the offensive line (including at LT, those guys aren't solutions), and I don't know much about Villanueva except he is a veteran and on the USAA commercials.
The list is a pretty good indicator that LT is pretty important and the successful teams (almost all of them) make strong investments in the position either in free agency or the draft.
My point was the Giants should make a FA investment in the OL as opposed to forcing a draft pick investment.
FA you know what you're getting. Expensive? probably, but again, less risk. And it's most likely too late for that now, especially at this stage, but the point remains.
But there are no good free agent options remaining that would help this team next season and beyond. Please don't say Clady, there's likely no tread left on those tires.
I would've agreed with you if Whitworth was still available. But right now, the Giants' options are to draft a LT, sign a LT that isn't likely to be an improvement, or roll with Flowers again next year and hope.
The "weak OL class this year" notion as an argument for not taking a tackle in the first I've read here is silly. If anything, the weak OL class is further reason to draft your OT in the first. If it was a deep class, maybe you could wait until the 2nd or 3rd round. But you can't. So kick the can down the road or bet on Ramczyk or Bolles, and both guys are blue chip guys. People want to say they have flaws, where are they? They are legit first rounders and would be in next year's draft and would've been in last year's draft.
I get the concern with medical, but that gets checked out and the doctors say Ramczyk will be ready for camp.
Fix LT, and it will pay dividends. All this "I'm so scared of another OL bust" in the first is nonsense. Any player can bust. We have a need, these guys will get drafted somewhere around where we pick, we need a LT desperately, pull the trigger.
1: it's a poor allocation of roster building to use 3 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick on the OL in 5 years. The NFL is a copycat league, no other team has done this or really had to do it, plus it neglect other positions forcing the team into bad decisions.
2: The Giants have shown that they just either aren't great at identify OL talent or developing it, why does anyone think drafting one AGAIN would be different?
3: Jerry Reese draft MO is to go into the draft with no week 1 NEEDS giving him supreme draft day flexibility to draft whoever is deemed best fit/player at the most impactful position. Reese himself has said he value play makers over OL and given the option again would draft Beckham over Martin. Now at 23 I doubt there is a clear Beckham or Martin, but the point remains.
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).
Are we really concerned with putting too much capital into one position?
Through FA and extensions, we pay BIG dollars at
QB
DL
CB
We save money at
RB
TE
LB
While we've spent high picks on Pugh, Flowers, and Richburg none of them have outlandish contracts
It's a position of weakness on the team. Don't choose to not improve it because of cap/roster balance. Just get better
If the draft was the only way to add players then sure, you can't over-address one group. But that's not how the league works, especially with a team that's been active in FA like we have
Makes sense. How do you do at picking stocks?
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.