There seems to be a consensus that the Giants need to draft stud OL.
However, if you look around the league many of the top OLs have a lot of old guys on them and not a lot of high draft picks.
Rams have three guys over 30 and two 26 year-olds who were taken in the 7th and 2nd.
Eagles have two guys over 30 and two guys who are 29 and one who is 28. Lane Johnson was a high pick but a lot of the other guys weren't.
2007-11 Giants had a very good OL and Snee was the only high pick. Diehl was a 5th rounder, Seubert and O'Hara were UDFA
Jax and Dallas built their OLs through the draft with high picks but as a result other areas were neglected and each team had one good year and then fell back into mediocrity.
Will Hernandez will probably be a good guard someday but he has been awful this season. Not sure that the answer is to throw a lot of high draft picks at the OL. Didn't Reese try that? And if you want to say Reese sucked. Fine. But those were also organizational picks and it is still mostly the same organization.
Do you agree? Or am I misreading?
Pugh was a first rounder
Richburg was a second rounder
...after QB we MUST fix the O-line and that requires premium draft picks.
There also seem to be a lot of bust at the top of the draft with OLINE. No facts to back it up though.
Pats did spend a #1 on a tackle this year, who promptly tore an Achilles.
Other than that, they hadn't drafted any OL higher than the third round since 2011. That being the great Nate Solder of course.
On other factoid that I noted in the run up to the last draft: the last five OL drafted at #2 overall have never made a single pro bowl.
I would be willing to bet if you look at the late rounders that made it good, they weren't measurable guys in college but succeeded despite a lack of perceived measurable.
Just a guess.
Pugh was a first rounder
Richburg was a second rounder
You find this, over a decade to be high investment?
I disagree. I think they overdrafted all three players because they ignored the line so long they got desperate.
And somehow, Tennessee's OL has managed to be pretty mediocre this year despite looking good last season.
Theres more luck than people want to think that's involved in the draft, particularly in the later rounds. Seattle is a good example. All their picks hit for a couple years and they've come way back down to earth since then with basically the same front office.
It seems that the giants have probably been near the bottom of the league in terms of player development. But it's hard to pinpoint why that is. We've had different coaching staffs overseeing lots of different players with different talent profiles. So it's hard to say theres something systemic.
It's a real bad run when it comes to ol. I don't think anyone really has the answer.
First this team has to draft correctly
And practice, all offseason, the holy fuck outta your basic run blocking which includes zone style and all of the above.
That they haven't done this for ten years is mind boggling.
Pugh was a first rounder
Richburg was a second rounder
George Young was very successful with early O-line selections.
These are his 1st-3rd round OL selections: William Roberts (1), Eric Moore (1), Brian Williams (1), John Elliott (1), Scott Gragg (2) who, when he played for SF, was a big reason the Giants D line couldn't get to Jeff Garcia, Karl Nelson (3), Brian Johnston (3), Bob Kratch (3). Ernie Acorsi drafted Luke Petitgout on the 1st round. The issue is, can the GM and his staff evaluate offensive line players.
So, the answer generally is no.
I have posted this breakdown many times and maybe this year I'll do it again.
but the Giants had more draft pick investment than all 12 playoff teams from last year.
It's not about using "high draft picks" it's about identifying the right talent for your scheme and having a coach to work on them and generating cohesiveness of the OL>
People forget the Giants 2004 OL was almost unanimously named "the worst OL in the NFL". They added McKenzie, Ohara and got Seubert back from injury to Snee and shifted Diehl to tackle and that line played at the time an NFL record 34 consecutive games with the same OL configuration. It might still be a record.
but I think that helped show how an OL can be better when viewed as the sum of its parts vs as individuals, since no one on that line was higher than a 2nd round pick.
OL can be obtained many different ways, to say you should build your OL with high draft picks is very limiting and not an approach I think any GM uses.
I'm surprised that Gettleman didn't draft more OL.
Used to be that conventional wisdom said to leave the OL for later rounds.
IIRC - all of them were round 1 or 2s draft picks. I am not saying all of them have to be that high but, at least 3 of the 5 would make me happy. Especially LT.
IIRC - all of them were round 1 or 2s draft picks. I am not saying all of them have to be that high but, at least 3 of the 5 would make me happy. Especially LT.
How did that work out for Dallas? That OL has won one playoff game.
David Diehl has more playoff wins than the whole Cowboys OL combined.
And Tyron Smith is going to be 29 soon and is in his 8th season.
Do you want to build a good OL or do you want to win?
Pats did spend a #1 on a tackle this year, who promptly tore an Achilles.
Other than that, they hadn't drafted any OL higher than the third round since 2011. That being the great Nate Solder of course.
On other factoid that I noted in the run up to the last draft: the last five OL drafted at #2 overall have never made a single pro bowl.
What does Belichick do -
First and foremost - he operates that team like a mafia family. Those players play with a lot of fear and peer pressure. They know there will be no nonsense tolerated.
Second (and nowhere near the motivator of the first) - it all works because the competitiveness of the professional athlete wants to play for and stay on a team that constantly wins SBs for 2 reasons - personal pride (professional athletes have huge egos (most of them)) and it is a great addition to a resume - for after their Football career. I would bet some of them are thinking about it - personal BRAND.
Quote:
about 2 seasons ago Dallas had 1 of the best lines in the league - maybe the best (this year I believe they lost 2 starters to injuries).
IIRC - all of them were round 1 or 2s draft picks. I am not saying all of them have to be that high but, at least 3 of the 5 would make me happy. Especially LT.
How did that work out for Dallas? That OL has won one playoff game.
David Diehl has more playoff wins than the whole Cowboys OL combined.
And Tyron Smith is going to be 29 soon and is in his 8th season.
Do you want to build a good OL or do you want to win?
C'mon pj - serious? How is this line working out for the Giants? Obviously it takes more than JUST a good OL. 2nd you need a good defense but, I don't care who you put behind our line - they would not have success.
Also - some luck comes into play - we had a great combination of Offense and Defense. We had some stars but no HOF'ers except Strahan and maybe Eli(?) ... and a great Head Coach - Coughlin - who will be in the HOF
So doesn't that say to you it's the players you acquire and the scheme/coaching regardless of where you get them from, more than "high draft picks".
Yes, the current OL needs to be blown up but I don't think using "high draft picks" necessarily make sense.
for the reasons I mentioned above.
Quote:
about 2 seasons ago Dallas had 1 of the best lines in the league - maybe the best (this year I believe they lost 2 starters to injuries).
IIRC - all of them were round 1 or 2s draft picks. I am not saying all of them have to be that high but, at least 3 of the 5 would make me happy. Especially LT.
How did that work out for Dallas? That OL has won one playoff game.
David Diehl has more playoff wins than the whole Cowboys OL combined.
And Tyron Smith is going to be 29 soon and is in his 8th season.
Do you want to build a good OL or do you want to win?
Did you read this sentence -
"I am not saying all of them have to be that high but, at least 3 of the 5 would make me happy. Especially LT."
before you replied?
So doesn't that say to you it's the players you acquire and the scheme/coaching regardless of where you get them from, more than "high draft picks".
Yes, the current OL needs to be blown up but I don't think using "high draft picks" necessarily make sense.
for the reasons I mentioned above.
I think you are right about this -
"but I don't think using "high draft picks" necessarily make sense."
But, winning a Superbowl with a 5th round draft pick and 2 undrafted free agents can't be a formula that can be counted on all the time. They were good players who played themselves onto the team and were able to stay.
But, on paper - this can't be a tried and true formula that any team uses?
I think that was Reese's biggest problem. He was seduced by the thought he could build a SB team with low round draft picks and that is why we are in the position we are in.
Pats did spend a #1 on a tackle this year, who promptly tore an Achilles.
Other than that, they hadn't drafted any OL higher than the third round since 2011. That being the great Nate Solder of course.
On other factoid that I noted in the run up to the last draft: the last five OL drafted at #2 overall have never made a single pro bowl.
Pats have this tremendous built in advantage with Dante Scarnecchia. The greatest oline caoch in the history of the game. An absolute wizard...
Dude - obviously there are a lot of first round failures at every position.
Drafting first round OL at every position will take 5 years to build a OL - IF ALL OF THEM LIVE UP TO THEIR BILLING. We all know that won't happen.
I am just saying we need more higher round picks (on both sides of the line to be honest). I rather go with the odds - but of course there could be and will be failures.
Quote:
is one rule of thumb.
Pats did spend a #1 on a tackle this year, who promptly tore an Achilles.
Other than that, they hadn't drafted any OL higher than the third round since 2011. That being the great Nate Solder of course.
On other factoid that I noted in the run up to the last draft: the last five OL drafted at #2 overall have never made a single pro bowl.
What does Belichick do -
First and foremost - he operates that team like a mafia family. Those players play with a lot of fear and peer pressure. They know there will be no nonsense tolerated.
Second (and nowhere near the motivator of the first) - it all works because the competitiveness of the professional athlete wants to play for and stay on a team that constantly wins SBs for 2 reasons - personal pride (professional athletes have huge egos (most of them)) and it is a great addition to a resume - for after their Football career. I would bet some of them are thinking about it - personal BRAND.
Historically what Belichick has done with the Patriots is to stock pile a lot of higher round draft picks, draft and otherwise acquire players that fit well in their system, and develop them carefully. And generally good coaching doesn't hurt either.
Belichick isn't the only HC who's a hard ass, but he has been uniquely successful in this era.
Quote:
see my comment re: last year's line with 3 of 5 "high draft picks". How did that work out?
Dude - obviously there are a lot of first round failures at every position.
Drafting first round OL at every position will take 5 years to build a OL - IF ALL OF THEM LIVE UP TO THEIR BILLING. We all know that won't happen.
I am just saying we need more higher round picks (on both sides of the line to be honest). I rather go with the odds - but of course there could be and will be failures.
My point is it's probably a bad idea to go into a draft and say "we need to draft an OL with pick X" that is drafting for need. And it results in forcing picks (like Flowers) IMO.
Yes, the Giants need OL. I am just not as adamant as others they have to come from the top of the draft.
Quote:
Giants wanted Lewan and the RT they took the next year.
And somehow, Tennessee's OL has managed to be pretty mediocre this year despite looking good last season.
Haven't they been pretty banged up?
The Giants should be playing their O-line a lot more in the preseason next year than they did this year. If O-line play requires jelling and chemistry, then they need as many reps as possible. It at least tells them that no one's job is safe.
-Pugh
- Richburg
- Flowers
Much less the later rd whiff's that I am not as concerned with.
Quote:
Giants wanted Lewan and the RT they took the next year.
Along with Reese & Ross not being able to STFU pre draft.
And somehow, Tennessee's OL has managed to be pretty mediocre this year despite looking good last season.
Quote:
In comment 14144702 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
see my comment re: last year's line with 3 of 5 "high draft picks". How did that work out?
Dude - obviously there are a lot of first round failures at every position.
Drafting first round OL at every position will take 5 years to build a OL - IF ALL OF THEM LIVE UP TO THEIR BILLING. We all know that won't happen.
I am just saying we need more higher round picks (on both sides of the line to be honest). I rather go with the odds - but of course there could be and will be failures.
My point is it's probably a bad idea to go into a draft and say "we need to draft an OL with pick X" that is drafting for need. And it results in forcing picks (like Flowers) IMO.
Yes, the Giants need OL. I am just not as adamant as others they have to come from the top of the draft.
okay ... point taken. I can't say you are wrong. We have had success that proves you point.
No more David Wilson’s for Cordy Glenn’s
No more passing on Whitworth’s in FA
No more mid round projects or developmental QBs
Personally, I’d target OL in round 2 this year w one of the Wisconsin kids. I’d also look for interior help in the mid to late rounds.
Bottom line I think they’re going to have to get lucky on a late rounder to turn the OL tide. We’re just not seeing the consistent quality in FA we saw 10+ years ago.
So doesn't that say to you it's the players you acquire and the scheme/coaching regardless of where you get them from, more than "high draft picks".
Yes, the current OL needs to be blown up but I don't think using "high draft picks" necessarily make sense.
for the reasons I mentioned above.
Really pjcas? Just because the previous regime could not identify talent or coach it, doesn't mean you stop investing in the OL... As a whole the OL is the most important unit for success... Invest and keep investing until you get it right!
It's a major problem, making building an OL more and more difficult. Which highlights why you need to invest and keep investing in the OL...
High draft choices, middle draft choices, low choices, UDFA, and a UFA here or there to plug a hole. THe problem with UFA's is that team are well aware that OL are becoming more scarce and they are holding on to any decent OL. SO the available UFAs tend not to be very good. Solder is exhibit A. I never expected him to be good, and he started the season at about the middling level I would expect. However he seems to be regressing and has entered Flowers type of bad territory recently.
Quote:
my point is the Giants used two 1st's and a 2nd on their OL last year (Pugh - 1st, Flowers - 1st, Richburg - 2nd) and that draft pick investment was more than any of the 12 playoff teams from last year.
So doesn't that say to you it's the players you acquire and the scheme/coaching regardless of where you get them from, more than "high draft picks".
Yes, the current OL needs to be blown up but I don't think using "high draft picks" necessarily make sense.
for the reasons I mentioned above.
Really pjcas? Just because the previous regime could not identify talent or coach it, doesn't mean you stop investing in the OL... As a whole the OL is the most important unit for success... Invest and keep investing until you get it right!
Show me one example where this strategy has worked. It's not hard to look up. Which franchise continually dumps premium draft picks into their OL neglecting other areas of the team?
Look at the consistently competitive franchises or at least some recently good teams:
Patriots? No. Their current OL has a 3rd round pick, no other prem picks.
Steelers? similar investment to the Giants, only they didn't miss. their other 2 OL UDFA and street free agent
Packers? 1 1st round pick, no other prem picks
Saints? less than the Giants and Steelers
I don't even know if some of these teams count as consistently successful
Ravens? 1st and 2 3rds
Rams? 2 2nds
Chiefs? 1 1st, 1 2nd
Eagles just won a SB. 1 1st round pick
Point is there are many ways to build a successful OL without neglecting other areas of your roster.
So regardless of what past regimes have done, the answer to the OP again is no, you cannot answer the question with a yes that you SHOULD build your OL with high draft picks. I can't stress enough drafting purely for need, like it sounds like is being suggested, is strategy that is likely to fail.
I like the EE pick less and less every game.
Apple is gone already.
Shepard is a good player with some potential moving forward with this team. But he's not a game changer by any means.
Beckham is great but looks like a different player post-injury.
Wilson was a fluke negative.
In terms of skill players, the Giants failed miserably. And so far that doesn't even include a QB.
So far, SB is the best pick since... LT? I don't know.
I hate to trade draft position for need, but the perceived BPA strategy has been an absolute failure.
And now we're seeing money wasted in FA, highlighted by the Solder signing. Just an awful team and an organization that has completely lost its way.
Pugh was a first rounder
Richburg was a second rounder
The GM sucked. Period. 11 years and his drafts were absolute disasters.
He could have picked Cordy Glenn, Max Unger, Howie Long’s other kid who I can’t think of smfirdt name. You need a GM who isn’t given a scholarship for a decade His FA pick ups were bad too. Whitworth was affordable and available. There is no one way to build an OL. But this has been a 10 year nightmare. Reese Couldn’t have done a worse job.
Gettleman was left with nothing. He May not be any better but saying you can’t draft good OL and build a line is just not true.
Quote:
In comment 14144700 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
my point is the Giants used two 1st's and a 2nd on their OL last year (Pugh - 1st, Flowers - 1st, Richburg - 2nd) and that draft pick investment was more than any of the 12 playoff teams from last year.
So doesn't that say to you it's the players you acquire and the scheme/coaching regardless of where you get them from, more than "high draft picks".
Yes, the current OL needs to be blown up but I don't think using "high draft picks" necessarily make sense.
for the reasons I mentioned above.
Really pjcas? Just because the previous regime could not identify talent or coach it, doesn't mean you stop investing in the OL... As a whole the OL is the most important unit for success... Invest and keep investing until you get it right!
Show me one example where this strategy has worked. It's not hard to look up. Which franchise continually dumps premium draft picks into their OL neglecting other areas of the team?
Look at the consistently competitive franchises or at least some recently good teams:
Patriots? No. Their current OL has a 3rd round pick, no other prem picks.
Steelers? similar investment to the Giants, only they didn't miss. their other 2 OL UDFA and street free agent
Packers? 1 1st round pick, no other prem picks
Saints? less than the Giants and Steelers
I don't even know if some of these teams count as consistently successful
Ravens? 1st and 2 3rds
Rams? 2 2nds
Chiefs? 1 1st, 1 2nd
Eagles just won a SB. 1 1st round pick
Point is there are many ways to build a successful OL without neglecting other areas of your roster.
So regardless of what past regimes have done, the answer to the OP again is no, you cannot answer the question with a yes that you SHOULD build your OL with high draft picks. I can't stress enough drafting purely for need, like it sounds like is being suggested, is strategy that is likely to fail.
I never said ignore the rest of the team.
I said you need to invest high, middle, & low draft picks, as well as UDFAs... That does not mean EVERY pick is an OL. but with the line in such a dire situation as the Giants, IMO, they should invest a higher than normal amount in the OL in the short term. Taper it off as the line comes together. But there should be a consistent and continued investment over time, albeit at a lower rate than what they need to do over the next couple of years.
To get to that point you don't need to use high draft picks you just have to hit on the mid-round ones you take and sign decent FA line help.
2008
Diehl - Seubert - O'Hara - Snee - Mckenzie
2012
Beatty - Boothe - Bass - Snee - Diehl
Beatty- 2009 Draft, 2nd round (60th overall) selected by Giants
Diehl- 2003 Draft, 5th round (160th overall) selected by Giants
Baas- 2005 Draft, 2nd round (33rd overall) selected by 49ers
Snee- 2004 Draft, 2nd round (34th overall) selected by Giants
Mckenzie- 2001 Draft, 3rd round (79th overall) select3d by Jets
Boothe- 2006 Draft, 6th round (176th overall) selected by Raiders
Seubert- 2001 Draft, Undrafted signed by Giants
O'Hara- 2000 Draft, Undrafted signed by Browns
Beatty (7 seasons), Diehl (11 seasons), Snee (10 seasons), and Seubert (9 seasons) all lifetime Giants (Beatty played 1 game for Eagles before retiring).
Baas signed in 2011 at 30 years old. Played 3 seasons for the Giants at C
Boothe signed in 2007 at 24 years old. Played 7 seasons for the Giants.
Mckenzie signed in 2005 at 26 years old. Played 7 seasons for the Giants at RT
O'Hara signed in 2004 at 27 years old. Played 7 seasons for the Giants at C
*2008 team had 3 homegrown and 2 FA's
*2012 team had 3 homegrown and 2 FA's
1st Rounders - 0
2nd Rounders - 3
3rd Rounders - 1
4th Rounders - 0
5th Rounders - 1
6th Rounders - 1
Undrafted OL - 2
The one thing Coughlin always preached with the OL was continuity as a unit. I remember reading an article, blurb, newsstory here once on one of the OL's under Coughlin who would eat dinner together frequently. Pretty sure it was when Beatty was there.
This is the one thing I'm sure of...that the OL needs to be a unit who trusts and understands each other. If you have a new 5 every year, chances are there's going to be some issues. Building on that note, Coughlin wasn't a guy who gave up on a person or unit easily. He was willing to move guys around the OL to find out what combo worked best.
Sort of off topic but I didn't really have an opinion one way or another on the Solder signing but I'd be hesitant in the future to sign a LT thats already 30 years old for that money. Maybe as a final piece to a Championship team but that would probably be the only scenario. Any person that size at that age who has played the position for as long as they have, has to have a ton of natural wear and tear on their knees..that's not even taking into account any injury history.