for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Why you DON'T pick an OL with the 23rd pick!

Chris L. : 3/26/2017 12:25 pm
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!!!!!
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
lack of value  
Andrew L : 3/26/2017 4:05 pm : link
i dont have any statistics in front of me BUT i do know that if a pro bowl caliber LT was in this draft they would not be available at 23. I think Lamp is the best one of the bunch but if these lineman were THAT good they'd go where top LT usually go, top 10. Which means there is a decent chance the pick is a bust, which would mean 3 out of the last 5 first rounders have been spent on a LT with the possibility of 0 of them working out at LT.
Archer good posts  
micky : 3/26/2017 4:12 pm : link
.
Chris L  
joeinpa : 3/26/2017 5:06 pm : link
Hard to disagree with your well thought out post. After last season I m all for adding new personal to that line. But Giants would be better to draft more Beckhams and Apple s than another Pugh or Flowers.
OL  
Archer : 3/26/2017 5:32 pm : link
There are those who believe that the Giants can improve their line by drafting OL with late draft picks. This is not supported by the Giants prior drafting.

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,
Archer  
Chris L. : 3/26/2017 6:01 pm : link
who said anything about late round draft picks? Second and third rounders are not late round picks. Part of the problem is that Reese has done nothing in the second through fourth rounds save one fourth rounder.
make that two fourth rounders  
Chris L. : 3/26/2017 6:02 pm : link
two picks in what is it eight years?
It may not be great allocation  
Cenotaph : 3/26/2017 6:12 pm : link
of resources to build a roster, but I'd argue it's making up for failing to find/develop guys on the OL. They've done a good job of finding guys at other positions late or UDFA sometimes, and other positions have been boosted by FA hits. OL is the glaring weakness right now - and we can't go back and fix those past picks at this point.

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).
RE: OL  
mrvax : 3/26/2017 6:25 pm : link
In comment 13407283 Archer said:
Quote:

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.
It's the straw man argument....  
Milton : 3/26/2017 6:58 pm : link
Quote:
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.
You begin with an inaccurate assumption and then let it fly from there. Of course if there are better players at other positions you should take one of them. But Cam Robinson has a higher ceiling than any of the guys you just listed.

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....
Snee was a very high...  
M.S. : 3/26/2017 7:28 pm : link

...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.
Can someone tell me what the big deal about Njoku is?  
Ten Ton Hammer : 3/26/2017 7:34 pm : link
The last love affair we had with a TE was Eric Ebron, and Njoku seems to profile very similarly. Athlete playing TE, drop numbers that make you pause, and isn't a blocker.
Billy B does 2 things no one else does  
Ivan15 : 3/26/2017 7:45 pm : link
He trades draft picks for players before their contracts expire and he always gets a draft pick back.

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.
Ol  
Archer : 3/26/2017 8:09 pm : link
The Giants OL was not good last year.
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.

RE: Argument can be made  
Milton : 3/26/2017 8:59 pm : link
In comment 13407152 Mike B from JC said:
Quote:
At #23 neither ramzyc or bolles, would be the BPA.
And you know this for a fact? You've seen the Giants draft board? For all you know the Giants have Ramczyk, Bolles, and Robinson all in their top twenty and it's their confidence that one of them will be available that has allowed them to forego OT in free agency.
Can we honestly  
ryanmkeane : 3/26/2017 9:20 pm : link
stop saying that Pugh didn't live up to expectations? He's one of the best left guards in the league. What did you expect? The HOF? Christ. Every first round player taken isn't going to be Odell Beckham. If he turns into a really good player, that's fucking fine.
The issue with that is people don't think he's that good because  
Ten Ton Hammer : 3/27/2017 12:43 am : link
the line as a whole isn't.

You can have a good player on a poor unit.
By the way...  
Milton : 3/27/2017 12:54 am : link
Bob McGinn broke down the top 50 prospects into three categories, based on his info from pro scouts and the Packers position in the draft: As Good As Gone, Probably Gone, and The Next Level. There were 14 prospects in the "As Good As Gone" category and Robinson, Ramczyk, and Bolles were among them. There were no OL in the "Probably Gone" category and Forrest Lamp was the only OL in "The Next Level" category.

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.
"As Good As Gone" category and Robinson, Ramczyk, and Bolles  
Torrag : 3/27/2017 12:59 am : link
If we're lucky they'll be gone and we can draft the impact players that got passed over by forcing these guys in front of them.
i dont think  
BlackburnBalledOut : 3/27/2017 7:42 am : link
we must draft an OT in rd 1, but i do think it is our biggest need and we need to draft one earlier then later.
i do think  
BlackburnBalledOut : 3/27/2017 7:48 am : link
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.
RE: i do think  
mrvax : 3/27/2017 8:14 am : link
In comment 13407527 BlackburnBalledOut said:
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.
RE: RE: i do think  
Milton : 3/27/2017 9:18 am : link
In comment 13407536 mrvax said:
Quote:
In comment 13407527 BlackburnBalledOut said:


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.
Pugh, Richburg, and Fluker are all free agents at the end of the year, so there is something to be said for going OL in rounds one and two or one and three. In 1988 the Giants drafted Moore and Elliott in rounds one and two and in 1989 the Giants drafted Williams and Kratch in rounds one and three. In 1990 the Giants won the Super Bowl.
I don't understand all this talk of not picking an OL player  
PatersonPlank : 3/27/2017 11:44 am : link
The line seems to be we have invested in the OL and it still is very average, so lets not do it anymore. If OL is the weak link on the team, then ignoring it will not help the team win. It needs to be improved and fixed. I would submit that not getting another OL player, and not finishing the rebuild, is a worse misuse of resources than ignoring the OL just because we already spent money there.
Too many people get caught up in positions  
Rudy5757 : 3/27/2017 12:01 pm : link
Dont draft an OL in the 1st? Always keep your options open. A strength can become a weakness real fast in the NFL. We are not loaded at any position to steer clear of it. Past drafts have nothing to do with current situations.

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.
One point on the Cowboys  
SB 42 and 46 and ? : 3/27/2017 12:16 pm : link
Their GM looked like a genius last year when putting all those draft picks into the O-Line came together with Zeke and unexpected Dak. A dynasty in the making.

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.
In regards to Dallas  
RollBlue : 3/27/2017 12:42 pm : link
how come they went 4-12 in 2015??? Who was the difference maker last year on the OL to go to 13-3???

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.
The premise of this thread is wrong  
The Tempest : 3/27/2017 1:48 pm : link
Giants draft Best Player Available. If the best player on the Giants draft board is an offensive lineman, then they will draft an offensive lineman.

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.
I'm with adding a tackle at 23  
giantgiantfan : 3/27/2017 1:53 pm : link
we have a need there and it gives us a ton of flexibility on the line. Also okay with Njoku if they feel he is the complete package at tight end meaning we can line him up where ever, good pass catching, and is a competent blocker.
I don't care who we draft  
UConn4523 : 3/27/2017 2:02 pm : link
as long as its BPA in round 1 (unless its a QB, then I'll be left scratching my head).

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.
RE: The premise of this thread is wrong  
81_Great_Dane : 3/27/2017 2:19 pm : link
In comment 13408035 The Tempest said:
Quote:
Giants draft Best Player Available. If the best player on the Giants draft board is an offensive lineman, then they will draft an offensive lineman.

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.
Agree with most of the above. Thank you.

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.
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner