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

Archived Thread

A few (very) random observations about Giants Draft so far

M.S. : 4/29/2017 6:52 am
(1) Based on numerous draft observers, mock drafts, talent evaluators, etc. there is just no way one can honestly say that the Giants forced someone too high with their first three selections. It is a little (make that a lot) cringe-worthy to think about leaving the O-line status quo after three rounds, but the Giants secured decent value so far;

(2) Of the three picks, Tomlinson and Webb were more "need" picks than Engram... Tomlinson an immediate need to replace snaps taken by Hankins; Webb an obvious long-term need for a team that has no legitimate #2 QB, nor a legitimate long-term answer for when Eli retires;

(3) I don't care what one says about Engram's role in the Giants west coast offense (or whatever else you want to call it)... but he was absolutely NOT a pressing need for the 2017 season. His need goes way up once Brandon Marshall retires, but right now he looks like almost a pure "value" selection IMO;

(4) Every time I look at Engram I see the same thing... a guy on rollerblades who is seamless in his every movement. We have nothing like that at TE right now, although I am very excited about the further development of Jerell Adams. But Engram is in a different league. There is zero mechanics to the way he moves. The ball touches his hands and he's off... no break whatsoever in transition. A very smooth roller with jets on his wheels;

(5) I'm very happy about selecting Tomlinson in the second round. He was in fact the most predictable selection by far. Not even close. From Barry Cofield to Linval Joseph, to Johnathan Hankins, to Dalvin Tomlinson. It ain't rocket science. And I don't give a shit if Tomlinson isn't quick twitch and looks stiff, slow and sluggish at times. This guy, with the Leonard Marshall build, will cold-cock the run. And that's all I care about. Teams don't win the NFL without stopping the run. Giants' fans know that best of all... just compare last season versus the three previous miserable ones;

(6) I know jack-shit about what goes into evaluating QB college talent. But Davis Webb has one talent I care about above all else -- he has a fantastic throwing motion; the ball comes out efficiently and he makes beautiful throws. I'll let the Giants staff worry about coaching him up while he watches Eli for a couple of years. But IMO, one glaring reality hit the Giants management real hard: Dallas and Philly probably have their QB answer for the next decade, and Kurt Cousins is still young, and we've got nothing, nada, zero behind a QB who's on the wrong side of 35;

(7) Given what happened in Free Agency and what has transpired so far through three rounds, Giants management is playing a serious game of Russian Roulette with their offensive line in general and Ereck Flowers in particular. If I had to gamble with an NFL unit, offensive line is not the one I'd choose first. It's impact is felt on both sides of the ball. So, keep your fingers crossed that Jerry Reese lucks out with a gold nugget or two along the O-line in Rounds Four thru Seven.
I would go 2 OL, RB and LB with last 4 picks  
Chip : 4/29/2017 7:20 am : link
Hopefully one of the last 4 picks works out for us. Our drafting in these rounds has been bad over the years. The undrafted players will be the key this year. Next year is supposed to be a great year for qbs I am surprised we were not more patient.
OL solutions  
Jesse B : 4/29/2017 7:22 am : link
OL play across the league is poor. There are not many good left tackles the Giants can't make one appear.

What difference does it make if they get poor play out of Flowers or poor play out of Joe Schmo?

We have to face the reality that the Giants don't believe there are any viable options better theme what they have so they have chosen to upgrade ancillary pieces to help the blocking.

Marshall will help block in the run game. Last year he Giants had the smallest WR corps in the league starting and they couldn't block in the run game. Marshall helps a lot.

Last year TE could t help out either enter Rhett Ellison.

And Engrams prescience should pull teams out of cover two a but to get the Giants more favorable opportunities

It's not all about the line, the Giants couldn't uograde the line so they upgraded all around it.
I thing Engram was a need  
jeff57 : 4/29/2017 7:23 am : link
They need someone with height who can get down the seam and catch. They have one now.
All excellent points  
MotownGIANTS : 4/29/2017 7:24 am : link
The Webb pick was not getting tunnel vision on win-now mode. The Engram pick was a smart short and long term move ... the OL is more finesse than power that is not changing in 1 yr not with how FA and the draft was built. So get value and need to get stronger from what we have and who we are ... throw 1st run 2nd team. The cover-2 was killing us that will not happen now just will not be able to defend like that, now what needs to happen Eli has to bounce back and make the right read pre & post snap. The guys he was can make the play in single coverage he just has to get that guy the ball. Also Perkins will have more space to run.
RE: OL solutions  
MotownGIANTS : 4/29/2017 7:26 am : link
In comment 13451603 Jesse B said:
Quote:
OL play across the league is poor. There are not many good left tackles the Giants can't make one appear.

What difference does it make if they get poor play out of Flowers or poor play out of Joe Schmo?

We have to face the reality that the Giants don't believe there are any viable options better theme what they have so they have chosen to upgrade ancillary pieces to help the blocking.

Marshall will help block in the run game. Last year he Giants had the smallest WR corps in the league starting and they couldn't block in the run game. Marshall helps a lot.

Last year TE could t help out either enter Rhett Ellison.

And Engrams prescience should pull teams out of cover two a but to get the Giants more favorable opportunities

It's not all about the line, the Giants couldn't uograde the line so they upgraded all around it.


True ... statement here: "Marshall will help block in the run game. Last year he Giants had the smallest WR corps in the league starting and they couldn't block in the run game. Marshall helps a lot" which sometimes get forgotten or lost in these talks.

Also Engram has very good blocking versus LBs and DBs. Toss in Ellison blocking has been improved just not in a traditional fashion.
My opinion in regard to O line  
joeinpa : 4/29/2017 7:36 am : link
Reese already has two 1 s and a 2 invested in it. If those picks were mistakes, not saying they are, toe don t compound those mistakes by reaching for that unit in this year s draft.

I love the picks up to now, especially Webb. Having a young QB with his potential is a very exciting time.
RE: OL solutions  
M.S. : 4/29/2017 7:38 am : link
In comment 13451603 Jesse B said:
Quote:
OL play across the league is poor. There are not many good left tackles the Giants can't make one appear.

What difference does it make if they get poor play out of Flowers or poor play out of Joe Schmo?

We have to face the reality that the Giants don't believe there are any viable options better theme what they have so they have chosen to upgrade ancillary pieces to help the blocking.

Marshall will help block in the run game. Last year he Giants had the smallest WR corps in the league starting and they couldn't block in the run game. Marshall helps a lot.

Last year TE could t help out either enter Rhett Ellison.

And Engrams prescience should pull teams out of cover two a but to get the Giants more favorable opportunities

It's not all about the line, the Giants couldn't uograde the line so they upgraded all around it.

Well... I guess you can think about this one of two ways: A very strong offensive line unit that upgrades all around it; or, upgrade the periphery to aid the O-line. I much prefer the former. By a lot... not a little.
At this point it's obvious  
LauderdaleMatty : 4/29/2017 7:42 am : link
Reese and his people just don't give a fuck about the OL.

Webb and Engram were luxery picks. Doesn't make them bad picks but the OL is in dire need of a talent infusion.

1 Flowers. Does he make that step or get moved. Or cut like Fluker after his 4 th year. . He's got two after this if the Giants take his 5th year option Can anyone say they know which way he goes?

2. Pugh. Maybe the best of the OL but has missed games again and w the current salary wins by journey men to solid OGs do/can the
even re-sign him?

3. Richberg. Took a step back last year. Very likely due to injury but he needs to be Re-signed. God forbid he goes down. No decent back up.

4. Of all the guys on the OL John Jerry has the longest contract. Reese's sanity should be questioned on that alone. Definition of a JAG

5 Fluker. 1 year flyer. If he plays really well he's going to cost a lot more. If he's not gone. Is a he a guard or a RT. Again who knows and he's. no guanrantee no matter what to be on the team long term

6 Hart. Should be the swing T and Back up OG With the shit the Giants have he may start.

So two years in row and there wasn't one guy when the Giants picked in Rd's 1-3 who may upgrade any of the OL spots?


It's a disgrace

Reese may have it a home rub w all three picks but the OL is a disaster. It's not Russian Roulette. It's suicide. That posiotiion Group is a disaster
Anyone who wanted ol dealt with in draft  
nygiants16 : 4/29/2017 7:45 am : link
was going to be severely dissapointed becaise qhite frankly the oline class this year is dog shit, just not a lot of good players where the fiants have been picking..

yoi could argue go up and get someone but none of them would be better next year then what the giants already have
Matty, you're more than welcome to get on Reese for his picks  
David in LA : 4/29/2017 7:53 am : link
but can't let you slide on manufactured bullshit like Reese and his people not giving a fuck about the OL, when we invested a top 10 pick on Flowers, a 1st on Pugh, and 2nd on Richburg. How can they not give a shit about the OL when they are using premium picks on them?
I'm in the camp that says  
aquidneck : 4/29/2017 7:53 am : link
You don't draft positions, you draft players.

So far Reese and company haven't seen any players on OL worth the risk of a 1st, 2cd or 3rd rdc.
RE: RE: OL solutions  
adamg : 4/29/2017 7:54 am : link
In comment 13451615 M.S. said:
Quote:
In comment 13451603 Jesse B said:


Quote:


OL play across the league is poor. There are not many good left tackles the Giants can't make one appear.

What difference does it make if they get poor play out of Flowers or poor play out of Joe Schmo?

We have to face the reality that the Giants don't believe there are any viable options better theme what they have so they have chosen to upgrade ancillary pieces to help the blocking.

Marshall will help block in the run game. Last year he Giants had the smallest WR corps in the league starting and they couldn't block in the run game. Marshall helps a lot.

Last year TE could t help out either enter Rhett Ellison.

And Engrams prescience should pull teams out of cover two a but to get the Giants more favorable opportunities

It's not all about the line, the Giants couldn't uograde the line so they upgraded all around it.


Well... I guess you can think about this one of two ways: A very strong offensive line unit that upgrades all around it; or, upgrade the periphery to aid the O-line. I much prefer the former. By a lot... not a little.


Except, you're ignoring the qualifiers already included in that outline which state that there are no feasible solutions to the five guys in the middle.

And there's far more than two ways of looking at it. Another could be Reese does nothing. Fortunately, he added four pieces so far to aiding our blocking situation: Marshall on the periphery, Engram in the h back spot, Ellison as an in line TE and HB, and Fluker as another 1st round pick whose had struggles adjusting to the pro game.

All four of those options combined are around the same price of one of the big name FAs out there now. So, we could have Riley Reiff playing RT or those four guys is yet another way of looking at it.
There's some irony when the critics call Reese 'Jerry Reach'  
David in LA : 4/29/2017 7:55 am : link
when they are basically upset that the Giants didn't reach for mediocre OL talent.
RE: Matty, you're more than welcome to get on Reese for his picks  
adamg : 4/29/2017 7:56 am : link
In comment 13451625 David in LA said:
Quote:
but can't let you slide on manufactured bullshit like Reese and his people not giving a fuck about the OL, when we invested a top 10 pick on Flowers, a 1st on Pugh, and 2nd on Richburg. How can they not give a shit about the OL when they are using premium picks on them?


I just can't wait for our offense to perform and then this OL narrative to die while the bandwagon of hate jumps on the next thing. Maybe Davis Webb will like to hang out with Odell and Bieber.
No OLmen was unseating Flowers from this draft class....none  
George from PA : 4/29/2017 7:59 am : link
Possibly a couple could unseating Jerry and Fluker but they were not given and would have been reaches.

So not sure what could have been done.....


We can pick up a couple of developmental OL today
And
I hope some veterans get cut and we add depth......

our tackle depth is horrible.

But we all knew this years draft suck for OL.

We have quicker options for this offense today.
I think the Giants picked scared in the second/third round.......  
Doomster : 4/29/2017 8:00 am : link
I would have gone for a DB in the 3rd round.....

I would have traded up in the second round, where there was still talent......

TE was a need......did the Giants have tunnel vision on Engram?

I have never seen Webb play......you look at the highlights, and he looks good in a clean pocket....how will he react behind this OL, if pressed into service?

I thought this team was in win now mode.....I wouldn't have drafted him......you draft projects in the later rounds.....and he is a project, not the heir apparent as some seem to think.....but now you just live with it, and hope the Giants saw something, that makes this kid special....

Reese was going to have a hard time living up to last season's draft......
RE: At this point it's obvious  
M.S. : 4/29/2017 8:01 am : link
In comment 13451616 LauderdaleMatty said:
Quote:
Reese and his people just don't give a fuck about the OL.

Webb and Engram were luxery picks. Doesn't make them bad picks but the OL is in dire need of a talent infusion.

1 Flowers. Does he make that step or get moved. Or cut like Fluker after his 4 th year. . He's got two after this if the Giants take his 5th year option Can anyone say they know which way he goes?

2. Pugh. Maybe the best of the OL but has missed games again and w the current salary wins by journey men to solid OGs do/can the
even re-sign him?

3. Richberg. Took a step back last year. Very likely due to injury but he needs to be Re-signed. God forbid he goes down. No decent back up.

4. Of all the guys on the OL John Jerry has the longest contract. Reese's sanity should be questioned on that alone. Definition of a JAG

5 Fluker. 1 year flyer. If he plays really well he's going to cost a lot more. If he's not gone. Is a he a guard or a RT. Again who knows and he's. no guanrantee no matter what to be on the team long term

6 Hart. Should be the swing T and Back up OG With the shit the Giants have he may start.

So two years in row and there wasn't one guy when the Giants picked in Rd's 1-3 who may upgrade any of the OL spots?


It's a disgrace

Reese may have it a home rub w all three picks but the OL is a disaster. It's not Russian Roulette. It's suicide. That posiotiion Group is a disaster

If truth be told, I feel even worse about our O-line, but I am staying very philosophical about the situation. Why?
Because you have to remember that -- just two years ago -- the Giants had a Bottom 5 NFL roster from 1 to 53, and there was no way the entire mess could be fixed by now.

So, what do we have? A much better D-Line, Secondary and somewhat improved play at the LB position, as well as an upgraded receiving corp. One day at a time.
RE: Matty, you're more than welcome to get on Reese for his picks  
LauderdaleMatty : 4/29/2017 8:09 am : link
In comment 13451625 David in LA said:
Quote:
but can't let you slide on manufactured bullshit like Reese and his people not giving a fuck about the OL, when we invested a top 10 pick on Flowers, a 1st on Pugh, and 2nd on Richburg. How can they not give a shit about the OL when they are using premium picks on them?


He doesn't value the position. Period. His two highest picks were need picks in Pugh and Flowers.

And I've done this before but you can look at any GM in one year intervals. At least that's my opinion.


I just checked

10 years. 4 premium picks on the OL. 4

DL 8

WR 9

DB. 9

So in the first 3 rounds Reese usually picks those 3 position groups each about twice as often. And When added together nope. He oisss his resources anywhere else.



He's been the GM 10 years. In
You can say he has a poor eye for OL talent, that's fair  
David in LA : 4/29/2017 8:13 am : link
but when we're spending first and second rounders on OL, you can't say they don't value the position. It's bullshit. You never clarified what it was that Reese said to throw Eli under the bus. All I saw was that he said Eli is on the back 9 of his career. Seems like you just really hate Reese so much, you run with fake narratives to fuel your argument.
Those are all widely regarded as the money positions  
David in LA : 4/29/2017 8:14 am : link
you are simply ridiculous
Chris Snee/David Diehl  
Mike in NY : 4/29/2017 8:14 am : link
When you have guys like them anchoring spots on the OL for a decade, the Giants aren't going to spend a lot of premium picks on OL when they are in their prime because they are not looking to fill 5 spots they are only looking to fill 3.
Matty  
Mike from Ohio : 4/29/2017 8:16 am : link
How on earth was Tomlinson a luxury pick? You know we lost Hankins this offseason, and aside from Bromley - who has shown very little - we have nothing, right? DT was a HUGE need.

The offensive line already has two recent first round picks and a second round pick, so Reese has in no way been ignoring the offensive line. Some of those picks may not work out, but they have invested resources. What is your suggested solution? Spend the first pick on another lineman with questions? It is pretty widely known this draft was exceptionally weak at OT. So what do you do, just take whatever is there in the first round until one pans out? See Cleveland and QBs for how that plays out.

You can't draft base on where you have holes alone. It's how you become the Browns. You pick talent based on your needs. This draft is very light on offensive line talent. Using a first rounder on the next disappointing lineman is just a bad strategy.
RE: Matty  
Mike in NY : 4/29/2017 8:20 am : link
In comment 13451656 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
How on earth was Tomlinson a luxury pick? You know we lost Hankins this offseason, and aside from Bromley - who has shown very little - we have nothing, right? DT was a HUGE need.

The offensive line already has two recent first round picks and a second round pick, so Reese has in no way been ignoring the offensive line. Some of those picks may not work out, but they have invested resources. What is your suggested solution? Spend the first pick on another lineman with questions? It is pretty widely known this draft was exceptionally weak at OT. So what do you do, just take whatever is there in the first round until one pans out? See Cleveland and QBs for how that plays out.

You can't draft base on where you have holes alone. It's how you become the Browns. You pick talent based on your needs. This draft is very light on offensive line talent. Using a first rounder on the next disappointing lineman is just a bad strategy.


I have no problems with the first two picks. My question is why Davis Webb over someone like Asiata in Round 3?
RE: You can say he has a poor eye for OL talent, that's fair  
LauderdaleMatty : 4/29/2017 8:21 am : link
In comment 13451650 David in LA said:
Quote:
but when we're spending first and second rounders on OL, you can't say they don't value the position. It's bullshit. You never clarified what it was that Reese said to throw Eli under the bus. All I saw was that he said Eli is on the back 9 of his career. Seems like you just really hate Reese so much, you run with fake narratives to fuel your argument.



It's not a fake narrative. He doesn't value OL like he does WR. Period. Or DB. You can make all the excuses inthe world but he has no problem pickin player after player on those other positions. He just hopes and prays thenguys he picked develop. They haven't. So the OL sucks. Again
If someone doesn't value the position  
David in LA : 4/29/2017 8:23 am : link
then why would they expend a premium pick on one? You're just completely ignoring logic. You're not being very measured about this at all.
Subjective Reactions  
Percy : 4/29/2017 8:24 am : link
Given their position in the draft and their needs (which are multiple), it looks like the Giants have had a sensational draft so far. Who cares what the various, better informed commentators on the draft think?

I watch the Giants religiously and have for many, many years and certainly have some feel for the game and for how well the various positions have been played by different good and not so good players in the league. I have very high hopes for the Giants' future and the contributions I expect from the terrific players they selected last night.
'It's not a fake narrative'...  
Torrag : 4/29/2017 8:27 am : link
Pugh 1st Round. Flowers Top 10 in the 1st Round. Richburg top of the 2nd Round.

It is a fake narrative. You can question the scouting and guys they ultimately chose but they have expended serious Draft capital in recent sesaons on the OL.
Really like the first 2 picks of Engram and Tomlinson  
Rick in Dallas : 4/29/2017 8:33 am : link
Will be on the field a lot next year contributing to Giants success.
Puzzled by the selection of Webb in the third round with some very good running backs and secondary players still available at pick 87 who could contribute on the field this coming year.
Especially since we keep hearing about how good next year's QB class is going to be from Dave and Sy.
Engram  
pjcas18 : 4/29/2017 8:37 am : link
was 100% a need pick. You don't take a tight end in the first round if it's not a need pick. In fact you don't take anyone in the first round that isn't a need pick.

These guys have 4 cost-controlled seasons, every one of your first round picks first 4 years are critical to roster building there isn't a GM on the planet who is taking a TE because he's the "best player available" if it's not a need in the first round.

No one in contention drafts pure BPA, (it's a fan myth) in the first round unless you're a team like Cleveland (not considered a contender yet) with so many holes you can't find someone who isn't a need.
There was only 7 OL taken in the first 3 rounds  
NikkiMac : 4/29/2017 8:41 am : link
What does that tell you? And that's a record low. That tells me 2 things the quality of OL in this draft stinks but there also should be some dood developmental OLplayers still left to be chosen .......I look for the Giants to draft 2OL guys and a RB and a corner .........I also think that year 3 and 4 with these OL playing together in the system they should be better just on that premise alone ........Macadoo believes that Eli could be moving around in the pocket a little better also ..... oops I didn't go there !!!!!
RE: Really like the first 2 picks of Engram and Tomlinson  
M.S. : 4/29/2017 8:42 am : link
In comment 13451691 Rick in Dallas said:
Quote:
Will be on the field a lot next year contributing to Giants success.
Puzzled by the selection of Webb in the third round with some very good running backs and secondary players still available at pick 87 who could contribute on the field this coming year.
Especially since we keep hearing about how good next year's QB class is going to be from Dave and Sy.

A couple of things: (1) I think Webb is well worth a 3rd round pick given his future potential; (2) can't make every selection predicated on a "must-win" now philosophy.
RE: Engram  
M.S. : 4/29/2017 8:50 am : link
In comment 13451697 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
was 100% a need pick. You don't take a tight end in the first round if it's not a need pick. In fact you don't take anyone in the first round that isn't a need pick.

These guys have 4 cost-controlled seasons, every one of your first round picks first 4 years are critical to roster building there isn't a GM on the planet who is taking a TE because he's the "best player available" if it's not a need in the first round.

No one in contention drafts pure BPA, (it's a fan myth) in the first round unless you're a team like Cleveland (not considered a contender yet) with so many holes you can't find someone who isn't a need.

I think you make a good point about 1st round "need", but IMO, if Engram was a "need" pick, it wasn't as a tight end, but rather a wide receiver who can: 1) tear open the middle seam; 2) catch jump balls in the end zone and catch TD passes in heavy traffic.
The Webb Pick  
PaulN : 4/29/2017 8:52 am : link
Is the one that nobody likes and that is because drafting a QB is always something that is not welcomed unless you draft a highly sought after top prospect that is going to start right away. Otherwise it feels like a wasted pick, but when things like Tom Brady, Joe Montana, or Zak Prescott happen, then everyone was on board. LOL. Maybe not right away, but after everyone forgets in a couple of years, then everyone wanted the player. We are just fucking fans, that is all we are in this.
RE: The Webb Pick  
M.S. : 4/29/2017 8:58 am : link
In comment 13451726 PaulN said:
Quote:
Is the one that nobody likes and that is because drafting a QB is always something that is not welcomed unless you draft a highly sought after top prospect that is going to start right away. Otherwise it feels like a wasted pick, but when things like Tom Brady, Joe Montana, or Zak Prescott happen, then everyone was on board. LOL. Maybe not right away, but after everyone forgets in a couple of years, then everyone wanted the player. We are just fucking fans, that is all we are in this.

Well play, Sir!
ALL the OL players in this draft  
Dave on the UWS : 4/29/2017 9:00 am : link
are developmental just to varying deceees. We have plenty of high draft picks that NEED to play better- that's the quickest solution.
RE: RE: Engram  
pjcas18 : 4/29/2017 9:04 am : link
In comment 13451721 M.S. said:
Quote:
In comment 13451697 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


was 100% a need pick. You don't take a tight end in the first round if it's not a need pick. In fact you don't take anyone in the first round that isn't a need pick.

These guys have 4 cost-controlled seasons, every one of your first round picks first 4 years are critical to roster building there isn't a GM on the planet who is taking a TE because he's the "best player available" if it's not a need in the first round.

No one in contention drafts pure BPA, (it's a fan myth) in the first round unless you're a team like Cleveland (not considered a contender yet) with so many holes you can't find someone who isn't a need.


I think you make a good point about 1st round "need", but IMO, if Engram was a "need" pick, it wasn't as a tight end, but rather a wide receiver who can: 1) tear open the middle seam; 2) catch jump balls in the end zone and catch TD passes in heavy traffic.


I agree with that.
RE: 'It's not a fake narrative'...  
HomerJones45 : 4/29/2017 9:05 am : link
In comment 13451678 Torrag said:
Quote:
Pugh 1st Round. Flowers Top 10 in the 1st Round. Richburg top of the 2nd Round.

It is a fake narrative. You can question the scouting and guys they ultimately chose but they have expended serious Draft capital in recent sesaons on the OL.
agreed. And it is fair game to question the scouting and the choices.
RE: 'It's not a fake narrative'...  
HomerJones45 : 4/29/2017 9:06 am : link
In comment 13451678 Torrag said:
Quote:
Pugh 1st Round. Flowers Top 10 in the 1st Round. Richburg top of the 2nd Round.

It is a fake narrative. You can question the scouting and guys they ultimately chose but they have expended serious Draft capital in recent sesaons on the OL.
agreed. And it is fair game to question the scouting and the choices.
Look at the picks  
greek13 : 4/29/2017 9:07 am : link
Maybe the OL class is weak overall and maybe the Giants
Think they have what they need - no idea how- but quit saying value wasn't there - denver (bolles), Seattle(Robinson) New England traded up -all needed ol - picked players within striking distance up or down - anyone who watched our OL last year and thinks we can win it all with them is dreaming - Russian roulette is correct - I don't get it - old can't move around QB- arguably one of the overall worst performing units in the league - and we don't do a damn thing - and don't forget Tomlinson speaks poorly about
Bromley pick too
It's very clear  
Nomad Crow on the Madison : 4/29/2017 9:22 am : link
The OL talent just is not there. The value was not there when the Giants picked, and there was no one worth trading up for. The OL value is in rounds 4-6. We'll see if we can grab some developmental pieces today. There may be some guys who can provide better depth than we have now.
RE: RE: Matty, you're more than welcome to get on Reese for his picks  
Jesse B : 4/29/2017 9:22 am : link
In comment 13451642 LauderdaleMatty said:
Quote:
In comment 13451625 David in LA said:


Quote:


but can't let you slide on manufactured bullshit like Reese and his people not giving a fuck about the OL, when we invested a top 10 pick on Flowers, a 1st on Pugh, and 2nd on Richburg. How can they not give a shit about the OL when they are using premium picks on them?



He doesn't value the position. Period. His two highest picks were need picks in Pugh and Flowers.

And I've done this before but you can look at any GM in one year intervals. At least that's my opinion.


I just checked

10 years. 4 premium picks on the OL. 4

DL 8

WR 9

DB. 9

So in the first 3 rounds Reese usually picks those 3 position groups each about twice as often. And When added together nope. He oisss his resources anywhere else.



He's been the GM 10 years. In


That's misleading a bit though because Snee was entrenched as a starter as was Diehl

Then they spend a good amount of resources on the oline in Schwartz and daivid bass it didn't work out but there have been big resources there
You can get on the Webb pick  
BillT : 4/29/2017 9:22 am : link
Even though it proves that the Giants stay true to their board and will take their BPA even when it doesn't meet an immediate need. But complaining about Tonlinson, who filled a big need at a priority position, is crazy. And given our 1st round pick us as much a WR as a TE that's a priority position as well
RE: I think the Giants picked scared in the second/third round.......  
Jesse B : 4/29/2017 9:25 am : link
In comment 13451633 Doomster said:
Quote:
I would have gone for a DB in the 3rd round.....

I would have traded up in the second round, where there was still talent......

TE was a need......did the Giants have tunnel vision on Engram?

I have never seen Webb play......you look at the highlights, and he looks good in a clean pocket....how will he react behind this OL, if pressed into service?

I thought this team was in win now mode.....I wouldn't have drafted him......you draft projects in the later rounds.....and he is a project, not the heir apparent as some seem to think.....but now you just live with it, and hope the Giants saw something, that makes this kid special....

Reese was going to have a hard time living up to last season's draft......


I've made this point elsewhere but this team Is in win now mode which is why they NEED a talented backup. This is a roster that can carry a backup that can make plays heaven forbid Eli gets hurt. If they trot out geno smith it might cost them some games. If Eli gets hurt Webb might turn out much more valuable then a backup tackle or 4th CB they may have gotten here in the third round.

Backup QB was absolutely a need
Sidestepping the question of whether Reese has ignored  
Reb8thVA : 4/29/2017 9:30 am : link
The OL or not, the problem is that it remains unsettled and in a constant state of flux. Excluding Pugh and Richburg 3/5 of the OL remain large question marks and both of them plus Fluker are free agents next year. Also lets suppose that Flowers is still a problem and not a solution, you face the big question of whether to make a continued investment in him after his contract expires.

Finding OL talent this year was less about finding a starter this year but looking to improve or depth and preparing for next year.

We were fortunate that for most of the last 13 years or so we had a stable and sometimes dominating OL. Individually the pieces may not of been impressive but through continuity they became a force. At some point the organization needs to stabilize the line.




OL  
greek13 : 4/29/2017 9:36 am : link
Nothing nothing nothing works on offense when you play a good team and have a weak OL

Perhaps some of you have never played in the trenches - but that hasn't changed and never will - an overmatched OL is no way to live

We will overmatch many OLs with our DL - probably best in league if healthy- not rocket science!!!!! Blitz us - stunt us - make our OL read and move - ugh - got a Mercedes with a Prius engine
RE: Sidestepping the question of whether Reese has ignored  
M.S. : 4/29/2017 9:46 am : link
In comment 13451823 Reb8thVA said:
Quote:
The OL or not, the problem is that it remains unsettled and in a constant state of flux. Excluding Pugh and Richburg 3/5 of the OL remain large question marks and both of them plus Fluker are free agents next year. Also lets suppose that Flowers is still a problem and not a solution, you face the big question of whether to make a continued investment in him after his contract expires.

Finding OL talent this year was less about finding a starter this year but looking to improve or depth and preparing for next year.

We were fortunate that for most of the last 13 years or so we had a stable and sometimes dominating OL. Individually the pieces may not of been impressive but through continuity they became a force. At some point the organization needs to stabilize the line.




Agreed.

As for the possibility that... "...Flowers is still a problem and not a solution," then there will be no need to worry about... "...face(ing) the big question of whether to make a continued investment in him after his contract expires."

If the light doesn't turn on for Flowers in Year 3, there'll be no second contract with the NYG.
RE: OL  
M.S. : 4/29/2017 9:48 am : link
In comment 13451839 greek13 said:
Quote:
Nothing nothing nothing works on offense when you play a good team and have a weak OL

Perhaps some of you have never played in the trenches - but that hasn't changed and never will - an overmatched OL is no way to live

We will overmatch many OLs with our DL - probably best in league if healthy- not rocket science!!!!! Blitz us - stunt us - make our OL read and move - ugh - got a Mercedes with a Prius engine

P.R.E.C.I.S.E.L.Y.

Been watching football at all levels for well over 50 years, and the fundamental rules still apply "as time goes by."
The Reese-hasn't-addressed-the-O-line narrative  
81_Great_Dane : 4/29/2017 11:11 am : link
is 100% false. But the real narrative is worse.

They've thrown a ton of picks, premium and not, at the O-line, and some high priced free agents.

The problem is not that they haven't tried to fix the line; they've just failed. Failure is worse. It means a lot of draft and free agent busts. It also means you can't tell yourself "I wish the front office would fix the line instead of ignoring it," and figure they'd fix it if they paid attention. They didn't ignore it. They tried to fix the line. You have to say "This front office seems to be lousy at evaluating offensive linemen."
How could  
Mr. Nickels : 4/29/2017 11:12 am : link
you POSSIBLY say that Webb is a need and Engram isn't?

Why is it so hard for posters to comprehend what a "need" is?
Outside of "maybe" one of the top guys, no one was unseating  
PatersonPlank : 4/29/2017 11:19 am : link
Fluker, Flowers, or Jerry on the line this year. I would still take a guy in the 4th/5th round, like Asiata or McDermott, but with no expectation of starting. So having said that I don't view passing on OL as a "flaw" in this draft. Just because we need one doesn't mean we pick anyone and it will work.

Hopefully Fluker plays like a solid vet and Flowers takes a step forward. Then our OL would look pretty good.
RE: The Reese-hasn't-addressed-the-O-line narrative  
Reb8thVA : 4/29/2017 11:24 am : link
In comment 13452045 81_Great_Dane said:
Quote:
is 100% false. But the real narrative is worse.

They've thrown a ton of picks, premium and not, at the O-line, and some high priced free agents.

The problem is not that they haven't tried to fix the line; they've just failed. Failure is worse. It means a lot of draft and free agent busts. It also means you can't tell yourself "I wish the front office would fix the line instead of ignoring it," and figure they'd fix it if they paid attention. They didn't ignore it. They tried to fix the line. You have to say "This front office seems to be lousy at evaluating offensive linemen."


Exactly, there are positions the FO is fairly good at evaluating, CB and WR come to mind, but OL is not their strong suit.
RE: Outside of  
Reb8thVA : 4/29/2017 11:26 am : link
In comment 13452063 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
Fluker, Flowers, or Jerry on the line this year. I would still take a guy in the 4th/5th round, like Asiata or McDermott, but with no expectation of starting. So having said that I don't view passing on OL as a "flaw" in this draft. Just because we need one doesn't mean we pick anyone and it will work.

Hopefully Fluker plays like a solid vet and Flowers takes a step forward. Then our OL would look pretty good.


Patterson, it's not just about this year. It's about creating depth and having someone to step in next year when 3/5 of the OL will be FA.
RE: RE: Outside of  
PatersonPlank : 4/29/2017 11:33 am : link
In comment 13452077 Reb8thVA said:
Quote:
In comment 13452063 PatersonPlank said:


Quote:


Fluker, Flowers, or Jerry on the line this year. I would still take a guy in the 4th/5th round, like Asiata or McDermott, but with no expectation of starting. So having said that I don't view passing on OL as a "flaw" in this draft. Just because we need one doesn't mean we pick anyone and it will work.

Hopefully Fluker plays like a solid vet and Flowers takes a step forward. Then our OL would look pretty good.



Patterson, it's not just about this year. It's about creating depth and having someone to step in next year when 3/5 of the OL will be FA.


I guess I was responding to the folks here who were mad about the Webb pick because he wouldn't start this year.
Back to the Corner