Yes McAdoo wanted to focus on the run in game 1, but with Josh Johnson at QB, and your top 3 WRs on the bench, Ellison at TE against a tough PIT run D - good luck. It didn't work, but we only played 2 series with the starters, almost broke the 1st play of the game for a TD (Perkins needs to make that guy miss in the open field) and converted a 4th and 1 when they knew we were handing the ball off.
Our ability to run the ball is contingent on Eli at QB and our WRs scaring the sh#t out of the opposing D. We find out if if it works under proper conditions Monday night. If the Browns stone us, we're in trouble.
How about a couple of nice long TD drives with nice mix of run/pass over the first quarter or so.
And then sit everybody but the Offensive Line for the rest of the game. Those guys stay in for another quarter or so and lets figure out this backup QB nonsense now...
Marshall and Ellison are huge upgrades to the running game and a dual threat rookie TE can keep them guessing. Then add in a FB please. I figure Eli is good for at least 30-32 yards this season after seeing how spry he has been in practice.
*Get a 1st look at #1 overall pick RDE Myles Garrett (#95), who lines up across Ereck Flowers. 2nd week in a row Flowers gets a 1st round rookie (Watt last week). Garrett has looked like the real deal in Browns camp.
*The Browns have a tough front 7 with Garrett, Ogbah, NT Danny Shelton and Jamie Collins. Will be interesting to see if we get the run going. They also have excellent depth with familar names like Carl Nassib, Nate Orchard and Larry Ogunjobi. An UDFA named Trevin Coley has been great in camp for them.
*The Browns starting SS is former Giant Justin Currie, who Spags liked but couldn't stay healthy here. Jabrill Peppers is his backup and also starts at KR/PR.
*The Browns are banged up on the O-Line: Joe Thomas won't play, his backup Cam Erving won't play and 5th round rookie Roderick Johnson will start at LT vs. Vernon. LG Joel Bitonio is also out.
*TE David Njoku makes his NFL debut after missing last week's game. He's listed as 3rd on their depth chart and supposedly had a strong week of practice after underwhelming so far.
*Osweiler will start but DeShone Kizer played very well last week, throwing a 45-yard game-winning TD pass in the final 2 minutes. The Browns will wait until the Giants put their 2nd string D in before playing Kizer.
Where's this coming from? Who's saying that they are one of the best defenses of all time? Maybe I missed something?
Just a quick retort on BBWhale's comments on how many good players the Cleveland team has on defense, and how tough they are up front and now they Myles Garret. Nothing to see here really.
Cut back on the caffeine a bit Shock...
I was thinking about McAdoo's 'Rule of 53' and I came up with my own,
Where's this coming from? Who's saying that they are one of the best defenses of all time? Maybe I missed something?
Just a quick retort on BBWhale's comments on how many good players the Cleveland team has on defense, and how tough they are up front and now they Myles Garret. Nothing to see here really.
Cut back on the caffeine a bit Shock...
Oh give me a break. The guy said they have a good front 7, which they do. Do you disagree? You're just preemptively setting up your usual negative post game slamming of the OL for tomorrow night. If they play well, you will say that it was only Cleveland. If they don't play well you get to destroy them because it was Cleveland, who aren't the '85 Bears. Win win for you!
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.
Our ability to run the ball is contingent on Eli at QB and our WRs scaring the sh#t out of the opposing D. We find out if if it works under proper conditions Monday night. If the Browns stone us, we're in trouble.
And then sit everybody but the Offensive Line for the rest of the game. Those guys stay in for another quarter or so and lets figure out this backup QB nonsense now...
I wish we were playing tonight, be honest, but it is what it is so I'll wait. LOL.
*The Browns have a tough front 7 with Garrett, Ogbah, NT Danny Shelton and Jamie Collins. Will be interesting to see if we get the run going. They also have excellent depth with familar names like Carl Nassib, Nate Orchard and Larry Ogunjobi. An UDFA named Trevin Coley has been great in camp for them.
*The Browns starting SS is former Giant Justin Currie, who Spags liked but couldn't stay healthy here. Jabrill Peppers is his backup and also starts at KR/PR.
*The Browns are banged up on the O-Line: Joe Thomas won't play, his backup Cam Erving won't play and 5th round rookie Roderick Johnson will start at LT vs. Vernon. LG Joel Bitonio is also out.
*TE David Njoku makes his NFL debut after missing last week's game. He's listed as 3rd on their depth chart and supposedly had a strong week of practice after underwhelming so far.
*Osweiler will start but DeShone Kizer played very well last week, throwing a 45-yard game-winning TD pass in the final 2 minutes. The Browns will wait until the Giants put their 2nd string D in before playing Kizer.
Where's this coming from? Who's saying that they are one of the best defenses of all time? Maybe I missed something?
Quote:
are they unblockable...
Where's this coming from? Who's saying that they are one of the best defenses of all time? Maybe I missed something?
Just a quick retort on BBWhale's comments on how many good players the Cleveland team has on defense, and how tough they are up front and now they Myles Garret. Nothing to see here really.
Cut back on the caffeine a bit Shock...
On offense, our total number of 2nd and 5s, or better have to outnumber the total number of 2nd and 6s, or worse.
Quote:
In comment 13565923 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
are they unblockable...
Where's this coming from? Who's saying that they are one of the best defenses of all time? Maybe I missed something?
Just a quick retort on BBWhale's comments on how many good players the Cleveland team has on defense, and how tough they are up front and now they Myles Garret. Nothing to see here really.
Cut back on the caffeine a bit Shock...
Oh give me a break. The guy said they have a good front 7, which they do. Do you disagree? You're just preemptively setting up your usual negative post game slamming of the OL for tomorrow night. If they play well, you will say that it was only Cleveland. If they don't play well you get to destroy them because it was Cleveland, who aren't the '85 Bears. Win win for you!
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.