Yeah, it's me that is the angry one. All you ever do is bitch about anything and everything and it's me that needs decaf. Want me to swing by and pick you up some Prozac while I'm getting my Sanka? You could use some positive energy yourself
Yeah, it's me that is the angry one. All you ever do is bitch about anything and everything and it's me that needs decaf. Want me to swing by and pick you up some Prozac while I'm getting my Sanka? You could use some positive energy yourself
Shock, he's kidding...using an old Tom Coughlin quote from ten or eleven years ago to do it.
Googs is okay, but he does stuff like this all the time. You have to take his posts with a huge grain of salt sometimes.
Yeah, it's me that is the angry one. All you ever do is bitch about anything and everything and it's me that needs decaf. Want me to swing by and pick you up some Prozac while I'm getting my Sanka? You could use some positive energy yourself
Shock, he's kidding...using an old Tom Coughlin quote from ten or eleven years ago to do it.
Googs is okay, but he does stuff like this all the time. You have to take his posts with a huge grain of salt sometimes.
Oh I know. Googs is a good dude and solid poster. I just like to give him some good natured digging because he's always so damned negative. We always go back and forth about it. It's all good.
Yeah, it's me that is the angry one. All you ever do is bitch about anything and everything and it's me that needs decaf. Want me to swing by and pick you up some Prozac while I'm getting my Sanka? You could use some positive energy yourself
Shock, he's kidding...using an old Tom Coughlin quote from ten or eleven years ago to do it.
Googs is okay, but he does stuff like this all the time. You have to take his posts with a huge grain of salt sometimes.
Oh I know. Googs is a good dude and solid poster. I just like to give him some good natured digging because he's always so damned negative. We always go back and forth about it. It's all good.
Well then...ask him if drafting Evan Engram at #23 was a reach. :D
Yeah, it's me that is the angry one. All you ever do is bitch about anything and everything and it's me that needs decaf. Want me to swing by and pick you up some Prozac while I'm getting my Sanka? You could use some positive energy yourself
Shock, he's kidding...using an old Tom Coughlin quote from ten or eleven years ago to do it.
Googs is okay, but he does stuff like this all the time. You have to take his posts with a huge grain of salt sometimes.
Yeah, it's me that is the angry one. All you ever do is bitch about anything and everything and it's me that needs decaf. Want me to swing by and pick you up some Prozac while I'm getting my Sanka? You could use some positive energy yourself
Shock, he's kidding...using an old Tom Coughlin quote from ten or eleven years ago to do it.
Googs is okay, but he does stuff like this all the time. You have to take his posts with a huge grain of salt sometimes.
Oh I know. Googs is a good dude and solid poster. I just like to give him some good natured digging because he's always so damned negative. We always go back and forth about it. It's all good.
From Mr. Positive himself. Let me go digging myself for one of your pro-comments about the Giants and another's post. You make a living at be negative about others' being negative....does that make it positive using old fashioned math?
And Engram was a reach. I don't know why its inconceivable that
this player may very well have been taken about a half round or so too early.
There is the value of the player and value of the draft position. When they are aligned, the pick is strong. When the latter is more valuable than the former, its kind of a reach.
We pulled the trigger on him more because of our specific Giant needs than that total value picture.
RE: And Engram was a reach. I don't know why its inconceivable that
this player may very well have been taken about a half round or so too early.
There is the value of the player and value of the draft position. When they are aligned, the pick is strong. When the latter is more valuable than the former, its kind of a reach.
We pulled the trigger on him more because of our specific Giant needs than that total value picture.
Or maybe the Giants scouting department decided after hour upon hour of scouting various players they felt he was the best pick? They just may put in a little more time than your friends at yahoo and CBS that basically take what other people in their industry are saying and tweak it to make it their own? Nah. Can't be. Mel Kiper had him going later so it must be a reach!
This much is true. Engrams could end up being the best player in the draft and you'd STILL claim he was a reach based on your internet studies. No way the Giants knew more than the talking heads at ESPN, right?
majority of the time, a "reach" is only considered such because it doesn't mesh with the picks some of the draft analysts expect a team to make.
But it is easier to call the pick a reach than the draft analyst wrong.
Eli Apple was called a reach by some despite evidence coming out in the days after the draft that two other teams were taking him if the Giants didn't. And even in Engram's case, there was evidence two teams were going to take him before the end of the 1st round.
So not only is the assertion Engram was going to last another 15 picks likely wrong, calling him a reach likely is wrong too.
And the kicker is - even if he lasted 15 picks, the Giants then can't draft him because they didn't have a 2nd round pick until later. I know - they could have traded down - but could they have?
You also just cannot stop being a rude poster adding nothing other than putting down your replyee. Let me go check to see if any other recent ones you have out there now...I have a few minutes and this wont take long.
Evidence Engram was going to be taken by two other teams?
both the Browns and Bills wanted Engram. And the Browns ended up having two picks after the Giants did - and took Njoku with one. Furthermore, the Raiders who picked right after us were thinking of taking Engram to give Carr another weapon.
But basically, if any team took Engram before we had our 2nd round pick, gthen we would have lost out on him.
Unless you want to say that if Team A likes a guy, but could get him later, but not before their next pick, then it is always a reach? Keep in mind that if you think Engram was truly the 40th best player or something there, the Giants can only get him at his "supposed" value if they trade down or trade up, neither of which are scenarios the Giants control.
Then, we'd probably have a debate about giving up too much to get him or not getting enough in return - and the cycle of questioning things just keeps going round and round, especially if Kiper were to say something.
RE: Evidence Engram was going to be taken by two other teams?
You keep asking for evidence yet you haven't supplied one single bit of evidence that he would have lasted much longer. What's you opinion based on? People have posted articles talking about teams that were trying to move up and you brush them off as rumors. what a life. Make unsubstantiated declarations as if they are fact and expect everyone else to prove you wrong. Brilliant.
both the Browns and Bills wanted Engram. And the Browns ended up having two picks after the Giants did - and took Njoku with one. Furthermore, the Raiders who picked right after us were thinking of taking Engram to give Carr another weapon.
Unless you want to say that if Team A likes a guy, but could get him later, but not before their next pick, then it is always a reach? Keep in mind that if you think Engram was truly the 40th best player or something there, the Giants can only get him at his "supposed" value if they trade down or trade up, neither of which are scenarios the Giants control.
Then, we'd probably have a debate about giving up too much to get him or not getting enough in return - and the cycle of questioning things just keeps going round and round, especially if Kiper were to say something.
You make exactly my point. IF you can't get a guy at a supposed value spot and decide to do it early then it could be considered a reach. Not always of course but when we are talking first and second round....hmmm yeah.
You keep asking for evidence yet you haven't supplied one single bit of evidence that he would have lasted much longer. What's you opinion based on? People have posted articles talking about teams that were trying to move up and you brush them off as rumors. what a life. Make unsubstantiated declarations as if they are fact and expect everyone else to prove you wrong. Brilliant.
Not asking anyone to prove me wrong. Posters like you kill me b/c you get so damn bent of shape when anybody posts something that diverges from your own views or that of the Giants. This one is even more comical since if you happen to be a fan that likes Engram..he is on the team so you should be happy no matter when they picked him.
When you have a league where top 5 picks can prove to be busts and I drafted players can have lengthy careers as starters, draft picks are either good football players or they aren't. Who cares what Mel Kipper thinks. If you draft as the consensus you may get a lot of A grades by the pundits, but your destined for mediocrity.
They had him ranked as the highest guy left on the board when it was their turn.
We now have the fastest player in the league at his position and he has excellent ball skills. I don't know how you can knock the pick. There's a clear trend toward this type of player at TE. In game 1 they showcased a few plays how they will use him. They run him across the field behind the LOS and give it to him in space. That shit will work especially for a player with elite speed. As iit works, it will impact coverages and make it easier for everybody on offense.
He will also be a terror over the middle of the field.
When you have a league where top 5 picks can prove to be busts and I drafted players can have lengthy careers as starters, draft picks are either good football players or they aren't. Who cares what Mel Kipper thinks. If you draft as the consensus you may get a lot of A grades by the pundits, but your destined for mediocrity.
Way too many other variables decide whether a team is mediocre, SB champ or last in the division than just the draft. Its not the simple and i know you know that.
I am not saying drafting to the consensus gets you anything but I sure as hell know that poor drafts leave you screwed unless you are Bill Belichick.
Drafting to the consensus may sound like a cop-out approach, but maybe it also helps you stay relevant. And if good coaching, less injuries and few balls bounce your way in playoff game...maybe you will be the one holding the Lombardi Trophy.
They had him ranked as the highest guy left on the board when it was their turn.
We now have the fastest player in the league at his position and he has excellent ball skills. I don't know how you can knock the pick. There's a clear trend toward this type of player at TE. In game 1 they showcased a few plays how they will use him. They run him across the field behind the LOS and give it to him in space. That shit will work especially for a player with elite speed. As iit works, it will impact coverages and make it easier for everybody on offense.
He will also be a terror over the middle of the field.
Engram is going to be a great draft pick.
How do you know they had him as the highest guy on their board? He very well may have been 3rd highest but they were more desperate for an athletic TE than those other position players.
And by the way, I think he will be a really good pick too...
This was a very deep draft for TEs. May be one of the best ever for that position with very talented guys after round 1. No need to reach.
Way too naive to think clubs just set their board and pick. So you think Tomlinson going in Rd 2 had nothing to do with Hankins leaving and questions about Bromley? He was just in the top 55 guys and Reese said "ok"?
Seriously? Teams don't pay big bucks for scouting departments to settle for what any hack with an opinion can read on the internet. Yet that's the standard you are suggesting we should judge "value". That's terribly flawed logic.
Seriously? Teams don't pay big bucks for scouting departments to settle for what any hack with an opinion can read on the internet. Yet that's the standard you are suggesting we should judge "value". That's terribly flawed logic.
No, not saying some mock draft replaces your franchise's approach at all. What I am saying is there has to be some reasoning/testing as to your board and you just know that team's boards and more publicly available lists start converging on many fronts. Of course there are differences, but the list of top 100+ players or so is not a secret.
But more importantly, the complete lack of TE talent on the team,
a key loss of a defensive starter to Free Agency and Eli's age were all major thoughts in the decision of how this last draft played out.
Do you really believe that Engram, Tomlinson and Webb just happended to be the clear #1 guy on the board when the Giants picked? Each pick from each team sends some type of cascading motion in play and decisions by the front office weigh their needs vs who is best available to suite those needs as the Giant draft slot approaches.
This team could have used a player at just about any position except CB in round 1. We haven't drafted a TE high in years. All of a sudden they realized a mistake and forced a pick at the position.
of players and, if they have a need, that gets preference. So, he wasn't necessarily the highest rated player on their board, but he was in the highest tier.
A tight end was a need, granted, but so were offensive linemen. Everyone here was convinced a N OL would be taken before the sixth round. Half of BBI spit beer when the Giants picked Webb in the third.
RE: I thought it's been clear for a while the Giants set up rows, or tiers
of players and, if they have a need, that gets preference. So, he wasn't necessarily the highest rated player on their board, but he was in the highest tier.
A tight end was a need, granted, but so were offensive linemen. Everyone here was convinced a N OL would be taken before the sixth round. Half of BBI spit beer when the Giants picked Webb in the third.
You are exactly correct. But, folks here get confused and think the Giants rank guys 1,2,3, etc.
A reach in round 1 would have been taking OL. I'm sure Engram was in the top tier on their board of players left to draft at their spot. He was no way a reach for the Giants.
RE: I thought it's been clear for a while the Giants set up rows, or tiers
of players and, if they have a need, that gets preference. So, he wasn't necessarily the highest rated player on their board, but he was in the highest tier.
This is correct, but don't think there is exactly "one" need nor are all needs the same weight.
I thought it's been clear for a while the Giants set up rows, or tiers
Lurts : 8/20/2017 9:42 pm : link : reply
of players and, if they have a need, that gets preference. So, he wasn't necessarily the highest rated player on their board, but he was in the highest tier.
A tight end was a need, granted, but so were offensive linemen. Everyone here was convinced a N OL would be taken before the sixth round. Half of BBI spit beer when the Giants picked Webb in the third.
This is how the Giants have run their draft for years, and you have seen it play out in the 1st round many times where they make a pick that isn't necessarily a pick of need because the guy is the best left on the board. Other times, they have a pick of need and a player is still left in the highest tier and they pull the trigger.
Just look at last year - many still look at Apple as a "reach", even though the value at OL was no longer there.
I struggle with ever calling a pick a reach unless the guy is assured to be there the following round, especially if a team looked into trade up or downs and was unsuccessful.Engram most definitely would not have been available in the 2nd round where we picked, and what's teh endgame anyway? If engram becomes a mainstay at TE, will he still be considered a reach because Mike Mayock said so?
32 players of same/similar value imv is way too broad
but if a player is correctly called a reach, it has to mean he'd be available the next time the team picks. I'd say Mykele Thompson was a reach since there were numerous reports he'd go undrafted. Bromley was probably a reach. But unless you really go crazy in the first couple of rounds, it is hard to make a reach pick there. One could effectively argue that TB made the worst draft move in history by not just selecting Aguayo in the 2nd round, but also trading up to get him. That's a colossal fail.
But absent Engram not being there for the 2nd round pick pretty much negates the idea he was a reach, especially given that Reese has never traded down in a draft.
This team could have used a player at just about any position except CB in round 1. We haven't drafted a TE high in years. All of a sudden they realized a mistake and forced a pick at the position.
Come on....
No, the Giants would never force a pick in Rd 1???
"forced picks"? From most accounts, they were in the top tier of giants prospects and they were at positions of need.
That's not forcing a pick.
I'm assuming your post was made in part because of the way Flowers has played - performance is completely different from if the pick was right or not. Teams that have taken shots at franchise QB's are legitimate picks at those slots, regardless of if they pan out or not. The same can be said for any position.
but if a player is correctly called a reach, it has to mean he'd be available the next time the team picks.
We don't agree on this. I am clear on your view, but its not mine.
IF Engram could have made it all the way to pick #54 (just using this b/c its the math in your definition) and the Giants picked him at #23 because they couldn't/wouldn't force a trade, then I would see they reached. Sure they got their guy, but he was picked out his area of value. As mentioned, I think the stakes and value in rounds 1-2 far outweigh the other rounds so even 10 picks later is big value differential...
Sure they got their guy, but he was picked out his area of value
But by what metric is he picked out of the area of value? Is it the Giants metric or Mel Kiper's? Let's say the Giants have a list of 14 players in Tier one and they were all off the board except for Engram. To them, he isn't just the pick they would want at 23, he is a STEAL.
And assessing value is also dependent on the ability to trade down to match the value - and that takes another team willing not only to trade, but also to deliver the appropriate value to move down.
I really think the actual number of reaches in rounds 1 and 2 are few and far in between, not just on the Giants, but for all teams. You might have 1 per year. I mentioned Agauyo, but he might have been the lone one last year.
Basically, the concept of reaches comes up so analysts can assert that a pick that doesn't match their board is a poor pick, whether it truly is or not. It is a talking point for a period of time that is otherwise dead for NFL news. But in the end, it really has little to no meaning.
Yeah I think Flowers was a forced pick, and possibly Pugh
but moreso Flowers. And very possible that they could have been put in the top tier because it was SUCH a position of need. I think very different to separate the two concepts when need becomes NEED.
Pugh being further down the line in draft that year may have gone a bit early, but not egregiously. But there was no way the Giants were not going O-line in Rd 1 that year so maybe he was pulled up over other positional players with higher values.
if a player is slotted between 23 and 54 and you know he isn't going to make it to your next pick, he isn't a reach.
That's not everyone's opinion but mine - it is actually a principle GM's will use.
If you have a player or group of players targeted and their value is similar to your draft position - either above or below, and you know they aren't going to be there in the 2nd round, you take one of those guys.
Again I'll stress the point that trading down is something fans think is easy to do, but it really isn't. Not only do you need a trading partner, but you need to get a return value that makes it worth trading, and that's a lot of stuff that has to happen just so Mel Kiper doesn't call a player a reach, a term that truly has no meaning as it pertains to football ability or performance - it is strictly a term used to confirm one's ability to slot draft prospects.
majority of the time, a "reach" is only considered such because it doesn't mesh with the picks some of the draft analysts expect a team to make.
But it is easier to call the pick a reach than the draft analyst wrong.
Eli Apple was called a reach by some despite evidence coming out in the days after the draft that two other teams were taking him if the Giants didn't. And even in Engram's case, there was evidence two teams were going to take him before the end of the 1st round.
So not only is the assertion Engram was going to last another 15 picks likely wrong, calling him a reach likely is wrong too.
And the kicker is - even if he lasted 15 picks, the Giants then can't draft him because they didn't have a 2nd round pick until later. I know - they could have traded down - but could they have?
The classic reach example for the Giants, was Osi. People were saying he could have been had as an undrafted freeagent after the draft. Did not the Bucs want him also?
are interesting because it brings the ignorance of fans into play. If they've heard of a guy before, he automatically becomes a reach, even if a dozen NFL GM's are prepping to draft him. At the time, Christian Okoye was considered a reach, getting taken in teh 2nd round, and after his first two years, he was being called a bust by some.
That's common for small school players. If a fan hasn't heard of the guy, he's likely considered a reach.
RE: And Engram was a reach. I don't know why its inconceivable that
this player may very well have been taken about a half round or so too early.
There is the value of the player and value of the draft position. When they are aligned, the pick is strong. When the latter is more valuable than the former, its kind of a reach.
We pulled the trigger on him more because of our specific Giant needs than that total value picture.
I don't understand comments like this. Who determines the value of the player? How do you know his value wasn't greater than where he was picked?
Shock, he's kidding...using an old Tom Coughlin quote from ten or eleven years ago to do it.
Googs is okay, but he does stuff like this all the time. You have to take his posts with a huge grain of salt sometimes.
Quote:
Yeah, it's me that is the angry one. All you ever do is bitch about anything and everything and it's me that needs decaf. Want me to swing by and pick you up some Prozac while I'm getting my Sanka? You could use some positive energy yourself
Shock, he's kidding...using an old Tom Coughlin quote from ten or eleven years ago to do it.
Googs is okay, but he does stuff like this all the time. You have to take his posts with a huge grain of salt sometimes.
Oh I know. Googs is a good dude and solid poster. I just like to give him some good natured digging because he's always so damned negative. We always go back and forth about it. It's all good.
Quote:
In comment 13565993 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
Yeah, it's me that is the angry one. All you ever do is bitch about anything and everything and it's me that needs decaf. Want me to swing by and pick you up some Prozac while I'm getting my Sanka? You could use some positive energy yourself
Shock, he's kidding...using an old Tom Coughlin quote from ten or eleven years ago to do it.
Googs is okay, but he does stuff like this all the time. You have to take his posts with a huge grain of salt sometimes.
Oh I know. Googs is a good dude and solid poster. I just like to give him some good natured digging because he's always so damned negative. We always go back and forth about it. It's all good.
Well then...ask him if drafting Evan Engram at #23 was a reach. :D
Quote:
Yeah, it's me that is the angry one. All you ever do is bitch about anything and everything and it's me that needs decaf. Want me to swing by and pick you up some Prozac while I'm getting my Sanka? You could use some positive energy yourself
Shock, he's kidding...using an old Tom Coughlin quote from ten or eleven years ago to do it.
Googs is okay, but he does stuff like this all the time. You have to take his posts with a huge grain of salt sometimes.
Googs is just okay??
Quote:
In comment 13565993 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
Yeah, it's me that is the angry one. All you ever do is bitch about anything and everything and it's me that needs decaf. Want me to swing by and pick you up some Prozac while I'm getting my Sanka? You could use some positive energy yourself
Shock, he's kidding...using an old Tom Coughlin quote from ten or eleven years ago to do it.
Googs is okay, but he does stuff like this all the time. You have to take his posts with a huge grain of salt sometimes.
Oh I know. Googs is a good dude and solid poster. I just like to give him some good natured digging because he's always so damned negative. We always go back and forth about it. It's all good.
From Mr. Positive himself. Let me go digging myself for one of your pro-comments about the Giants and another's post. You make a living at be negative about others' being negative....does that make it positive using old fashioned math?
There is the value of the player and value of the draft position. When they are aligned, the pick is strong. When the latter is more valuable than the former, its kind of a reach.
We pulled the trigger on him more because of our specific Giant needs than that total value picture.
There is the value of the player and value of the draft position. When they are aligned, the pick is strong. When the latter is more valuable than the former, its kind of a reach.
We pulled the trigger on him more because of our specific Giant needs than that total value picture.
Or maybe the Giants scouting department decided after hour upon hour of scouting various players they felt he was the best pick? They just may put in a little more time than your friends at yahoo and CBS that basically take what other people in their industry are saying and tweak it to make it their own? Nah. Can't be. Mel Kiper had him going later so it must be a reach!
This much is true. Engrams could end up being the best player in the draft and you'd STILL claim he was a reach based on your internet studies. No way the Giants knew more than the talking heads at ESPN, right?
But it is easier to call the pick a reach than the draft analyst wrong.
Eli Apple was called a reach by some despite evidence coming out in the days after the draft that two other teams were taking him if the Giants didn't. And even in Engram's case, there was evidence two teams were going to take him before the end of the 1st round.
So not only is the assertion Engram was going to last another 15 picks likely wrong, calling him a reach likely is wrong too.
And the kicker is - even if he lasted 15 picks, the Giants then can't draft him because they didn't have a 2nd round pick until later. I know - they could have traded down - but could they have?
You also just cannot stop being a rude poster adding nothing other than putting down your replyee. Let me go check to see if any other recent ones you have out there now...I have a few minutes and this wont take long.
But basically, if any team took Engram before we had our 2nd round pick, gthen we would have lost out on him.
Unless you want to say that if Team A likes a guy, but could get him later, but not before their next pick, then it is always a reach? Keep in mind that if you think Engram was truly the 40th best player or something there, the Giants can only get him at his "supposed" value if they trade down or trade up, neither of which are scenarios the Giants control.
Then, we'd probably have a debate about giving up too much to get him or not getting enough in return - and the cycle of questioning things just keeps going round and round, especially if Kiper were to say something.
You keep asking for evidence yet you haven't supplied one single bit of evidence that he would have lasted much longer. What's you opinion based on? People have posted articles talking about teams that were trying to move up and you brush them off as rumors. what a life. Make unsubstantiated declarations as if they are fact and expect everyone else to prove you wrong. Brilliant.
Yeah okay rumors...sorry, but you said evidence.
Unless you want to say that if Team A likes a guy, but could get him later, but not before their next pick, then it is always a reach? Keep in mind that if you think Engram was truly the 40th best player or something there, the Giants can only get him at his "supposed" value if they trade down or trade up, neither of which are scenarios the Giants control.
Then, we'd probably have a debate about giving up too much to get him or not getting enough in return - and the cycle of questioning things just keeps going round and round, especially if Kiper were to say something.
You make exactly my point. IF you can't get a guy at a supposed value spot and decide to do it early then it could be considered a reach. Not always of course but when we are talking first and second round....hmmm yeah.
I'm sure they also wouldn't leak a rumor that they wanted Engram if Njoku was there guy. That would be dishonest...
Quote:
where's that?
You keep asking for evidence yet you haven't supplied one single bit of evidence that he would have lasted much longer. What's you opinion based on? People have posted articles talking about teams that were trying to move up and you brush them off as rumors. what a life. Make unsubstantiated declarations as if they are fact and expect everyone else to prove you wrong. Brilliant.
Not asking anyone to prove me wrong. Posters like you kill me b/c you get so damn bent of shape when anybody posts something that diverges from your own views or that of the Giants. This one is even more comical since if you happen to be a fan that likes Engram..he is on the team so you should be happy no matter when they picked him.
I like him too.
The Sporting News draft guide? Is that it?
The Sporting News draft guide? Is that it?
Not particularly, but where did they have Engram pre-draft?
We now have the fastest player in the league at his position and he has excellent ball skills. I don't know how you can knock the pick. There's a clear trend toward this type of player at TE. In game 1 they showcased a few plays how they will use him. They run him across the field behind the LOS and give it to him in space. That shit will work especially for a player with elite speed. As iit works, it will impact coverages and make it easier for everybody on offense.
He will also be a terror over the middle of the field.
Engram is going to be a great draft pick.
Way too many other variables decide whether a team is mediocre, SB champ or last in the division than just the draft. Its not the simple and i know you know that.
I am not saying drafting to the consensus gets you anything but I sure as hell know that poor drafts leave you screwed unless you are Bill Belichick.
Drafting to the consensus may sound like a cop-out approach, but maybe it also helps you stay relevant. And if good coaching, less injuries and few balls bounce your way in playoff game...maybe you will be the one holding the Lombardi Trophy.
We now have the fastest player in the league at his position and he has excellent ball skills. I don't know how you can knock the pick. There's a clear trend toward this type of player at TE. In game 1 they showcased a few plays how they will use him. They run him across the field behind the LOS and give it to him in space. That shit will work especially for a player with elite speed. As iit works, it will impact coverages and make it easier for everybody on offense.
He will also be a terror over the middle of the field.
Engram is going to be a great draft pick.
How do you know they had him as the highest guy on their board? He very well may have been 3rd highest but they were more desperate for an athletic TE than those other position players.
And by the way, I think he will be a really good pick too...
This was a very deep draft for TEs. May be one of the best ever for that position with very talented guys after round 1. No need to reach.
This was a very deep draft for TEs. May be one of the best ever for that position with very talented guys after round 1. No need to reach.
Way too naive to think clubs just set their board and pick. So you think Tomlinson going in Rd 2 had nothing to do with Hankins leaving and questions about Bromley? He was just in the top 55 guys and Reese said "ok"?
come on...
No, not saying some mock draft replaces your franchise's approach at all. What I am saying is there has to be some reasoning/testing as to your board and you just know that team's boards and more publicly available lists start converging on many fronts. Of course there are differences, but the list of top 100+ players or so is not a secret.
Do you really believe that Engram, Tomlinson and Webb just happended to be the clear #1 guy on the board when the Giants picked? Each pick from each team sends some type of cascading motion in play and decisions by the front office weigh their needs vs who is best available to suite those needs as the Giant draft slot approaches.
disagree?
This team could have used a player at just about any position except CB in round 1. We haven't drafted a TE high in years. All of a sudden they realized a mistake and forced a pick at the position.
Come on....
A tight end was a need, granted, but so were offensive linemen. Everyone here was convinced a N OL would be taken before the sixth round. Half of BBI spit beer when the Giants picked Webb in the third.
A tight end was a need, granted, but so were offensive linemen. Everyone here was convinced a N OL would be taken before the sixth round. Half of BBI spit beer when the Giants picked Webb in the third.
You are exactly correct. But, folks here get confused and think the Giants rank guys 1,2,3, etc.
A reach in round 1 would have been taking OL. I'm sure Engram was in the top tier on their board of players left to draft at their spot. He was no way a reach for the Giants.
This is correct, but don't think there is exactly "one" need nor are all needs the same weight.
Lurts : 8/20/2017 9:42 pm : link : reply
of players and, if they have a need, that gets preference. So, he wasn't necessarily the highest rated player on their board, but he was in the highest tier.
A tight end was a need, granted, but so were offensive linemen. Everyone here was convinced a N OL would be taken before the sixth round. Half of BBI spit beer when the Giants picked Webb in the third.
This is how the Giants have run their draft for years, and you have seen it play out in the 1st round many times where they make a pick that isn't necessarily a pick of need because the guy is the best left on the board. Other times, they have a pick of need and a player is still left in the highest tier and they pull the trigger.
Just look at last year - many still look at Apple as a "reach", even though the value at OL was no longer there.
I struggle with ever calling a pick a reach unless the guy is assured to be there the following round, especially if a team looked into trade up or downs and was unsuccessful.Engram most definitely would not have been available in the 2nd round where we picked, and what's teh endgame anyway? If engram becomes a mainstay at TE, will he still be considered a reach because Mike Mayock said so?
But absent Engram not being there for the 2nd round pick pretty much negates the idea he was a reach, especially given that Reese has never traded down in a draft.
This team could have used a player at just about any position except CB in round 1. We haven't drafted a TE high in years. All of a sudden they realized a mistake and forced a pick at the position.
Come on....
No, the Giants would never force a pick in Rd 1???
Several are starting on the offense today...
That's not forcing a pick.
I'm assuming your post was made in part because of the way Flowers has played - performance is completely different from if the pick was right or not. Teams that have taken shots at franchise QB's are legitimate picks at those slots, regardless of if they pan out or not. The same can be said for any position.
We don't agree on this. I am clear on your view, but its not mine.
IF Engram could have made it all the way to pick #54 (just using this b/c its the math in your definition) and the Giants picked him at #23 because they couldn't/wouldn't force a trade, then I would see they reached. Sure they got their guy, but he was picked out his area of value. As mentioned, I think the stakes and value in rounds 1-2 far outweigh the other rounds so even 10 picks later is big value differential...
But by what metric is he picked out of the area of value? Is it the Giants metric or Mel Kiper's? Let's say the Giants have a list of 14 players in Tier one and they were all off the board except for Engram. To them, he isn't just the pick they would want at 23, he is a STEAL.
And assessing value is also dependent on the ability to trade down to match the value - and that takes another team willing not only to trade, but also to deliver the appropriate value to move down.
I really think the actual number of reaches in rounds 1 and 2 are few and far in between, not just on the Giants, but for all teams. You might have 1 per year. I mentioned Agauyo, but he might have been the lone one last year.
Basically, the concept of reaches comes up so analysts can assert that a pick that doesn't match their board is a poor pick, whether it truly is or not. It is a talking point for a period of time that is otherwise dead for NFL news. But in the end, it really has little to no meaning.
Pugh being further down the line in draft that year may have gone a bit early, but not egregiously. But there was no way the Giants were not going O-line in Rd 1 that year so maybe he was pulled up over other positional players with higher values.
Quote:
Sure they got their guy, but he was picked out his area of value
But by what metric is he picked out of the area of value? Is it the Giants metric or Mel Kiper's?
Everybody but yours because your definition has #23 and #54 at the same value.
That's not everyone's opinion but mine - it is actually a principle GM's will use.
If you have a player or group of players targeted and their value is similar to your draft position - either above or below, and you know they aren't going to be there in the 2nd round, you take one of those guys.
Again I'll stress the point that trading down is something fans think is easy to do, but it really isn't. Not only do you need a trading partner, but you need to get a return value that makes it worth trading, and that's a lot of stuff that has to happen just so Mel Kiper doesn't call a player a reach, a term that truly has no meaning as it pertains to football ability or performance - it is strictly a term used to confirm one's ability to slot draft prospects.
Again, we don't agree on the above.
Do agree that trade-downs are not as easy as fans think. But lack of getting one done doesn't eliminate still reaching imv.
But it is easier to call the pick a reach than the draft analyst wrong.
Eli Apple was called a reach by some despite evidence coming out in the days after the draft that two other teams were taking him if the Giants didn't. And even in Engram's case, there was evidence two teams were going to take him before the end of the 1st round.
So not only is the assertion Engram was going to last another 15 picks likely wrong, calling him a reach likely is wrong too.
And the kicker is - even if he lasted 15 picks, the Giants then can't draft him because they didn't have a 2nd round pick until later. I know - they could have traded down - but could they have?
That's common for small school players. If a fan hasn't heard of the guy, he's likely considered a reach.
There is the value of the player and value of the draft position. When they are aligned, the pick is strong. When the latter is more valuable than the former, its kind of a reach.
We pulled the trigger on him more because of our specific Giant needs than that total value picture.
I don't understand comments like this. Who determines the value of the player? How do you know his value wasn't greater than where he was picked?