6pm on NFL network. I like this show. Usually Daniel Jeramiah, Bucky Brooks and others do mock war rooms, interviews with prospects and mock drafts.
They alway feature talk on the qbs and top picks. Giants should be on early although they do not go in draft order. Having the most unique position in the draft Hiant talk should be often and plenty.
They discussed trading back and the idea of taking a guard at 2. Jeremiah made a good point about Nelson. Why take Nelson at 2 when they could trade back to 6 and be guaranteed one of Nelson, Barkley, or Chubb plus all the additional picks from the trade.
Specifically mentioned a haul of Chubb, Billy Price, and Austin Corbett versus simply talking Nelson at 2.
They followed up with whom the Colts might target with the #6 pick - Nelson and Chubb were mentioned.
Segue to a more in-depth look at Chubb. The Giants were listed as a wild-card as a landing spot for Chubb.
Barkley is up next.
By highest value, I presume you are referring to the valuation of the position by salary? In which case, between Barkley and Chubb, the clear choice should be Chubb as DE carries a higher value. But to expand the argument, if Quenton is included in the choice, then considering the valuation of all-pro linemen, he would be a close 1b to Chubb's 1a.
Taking advantage of the rookie salary and team building, you have to consider what the players are projected to make in the long-term. The best value of the 3 (RB/OL/DE) would be OL as he would be an immediate every down player. DE would be sharing time while JPP and OV are under contract. And even though Barkley would be a 3-down back, he still would be rotated/sharing time with the other backs.
Chubb was thrown into the mix more as a wild-card based on the Giants history of defense, DG's emphasis on the line, and Shurmur's early foundation of defense. I don't think he was being legitimately considered - more so as a wild-card and to generate a story line on the show.
Even though there was an argument for the seamless transition at QB, the consensus of candidates being considered was Barkley or Nelson. Regarding QB, none were talked about in depth as a possible candidate. It was viewed as more as an opportunity in a QB rich draft and being at the top. But they didn't think that QB was a need and were of the belief that Eli has years left.
Quote:
should be a blend of best player available among the positions of the highest value, and an honest evaluation of the talent that's available to you. If you have conviction that Barkley is an all-pro and Chubb is exceptional but less so than Barkley, what's worth more to you?
By highest value, I presume you are referring to the valuation of the position by salary? In which case, between Barkley and Chubb, the clear choice should be Chubb as DE carries a higher value. But to expand the argument, if Quenton is included in the choice, then considering the valuation of all-pro linemen, he would be a close 1b to Chubb's 1a.
Taking advantage of the rookie salary and team building, you have to consider what the players are projected to make in the long-term. The best value of the 3 (RB/OL/DE) would be OL as he would be an immediate every down player. DE would be sharing time while JPP and OV are under contract. And even though Barkley would be a 3-down back, he still would be rotated/sharing time with the other backs.
Not in a salary sense. I meant skillset rarity, a very good pass rusher or a very good RB? There's plenty evidence that you can find a quality RB without going #2 overall. Given a choice I take the pass rusher over the RB and do my homework in rounds 2/3.
Quote:
In comment 13874841 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
should be a blend of best player available among the positions of the highest value, and an honest evaluation of the talent that's available to you. If you have conviction that Barkley is an all-pro and Chubb is exceptional but less so than Barkley, what's worth more to you?
By highest value, I presume you are referring to the valuation of the position by salary? In which case, between Barkley and Chubb, the clear choice should be Chubb as DE carries a higher value. But to expand the argument, if Quenton is included in the choice, then considering the valuation of all-pro linemen, he would be a close 1b to Chubb's 1a.
Taking advantage of the rookie salary and team building, you have to consider what the players are projected to make in the long-term. The best value of the 3 (RB/OL/DE) would be OL as he would be an immediate every down player. DE would be sharing time while JPP and OV are under contract. And even though Barkley would be a 3-down back, he still would be rotated/sharing time with the other backs.
Not in a salary sense. I meant skillset rarity, a very good pass rusher or a very good RB? There's plenty evidence that you can find a quality RB without going #2 overall. Given a choice I take the pass rusher over the RB and do my homework in rounds 2/3.
I agree with you. I think the hardest projection to make is what Barkley's ceiling. Is he going to be a very good RB which if you do your homework in rounds 2/3, you can find a similar player. Or is he going to be the generational player? My last year playing fantasy football was when I had the chance to draft Tomlinson. I didn't because of the stupid notion that he referred to himself as L.T. Well, I was ass-raped week in and week out as I watched him rack up silly yardage and TDs. Regardless of how long Barkley's career is, if I could sign up for 4 years of cost-controlled L.T. production, I run to the podium. But again, just a very good RB? Pass.
He can mock Nelson all he wants. It would be a big mistake to take a guard with the 2nd pick in the draft. Jeremiah has never been a fan of the Giants.
My picks at #2 at the moment are Darnold/Chubb/Nelson in that order, or if they miss on Darnold and then trade down to secure one of the linemen and some extra picks.