Is Drew Lock in play after going Def @6?

If there was true conviction, why not take the guy at 6?

Because there are impact defenders at #6 and Lock could be the BPA at #17.

I wrote this in the thread below:

17 is wide open. OT, CB, LB, WR, TE are all in play. There is one other wild card possibility, if he drops, that many do not want to consider but I would: Drew Lock

IMO, there is far better value to be had at #6.

he'll be there then. More likely Jones at 2 IMO if they like him enough.

For some reason which I dont know why but have a gut feel if Lock is there at 17 they take him.

Which is the only reason to take him, then not taking him at 6 says just the opposite about him.

Rodegers went #24, Mahomes #10, D Watson #12, Bridgewater #32(before injury was looking real good), Pennington #18(underrated by most), Flacco #18(good comp for Lock imo), Rapeslisberger #11, Cutler #11.

Nothing wrong with waiting until you see value in the player.

I don’t think they like any of these QBs to believe in spending a high 1st or 2nd rounder on.

People also need to stop with this Daniel Jones and Manning/Cutcliffe connection nonsense and how that will generate him into our QB pick.

I would trade down to 11 with Cinn. The rumor has the Bengals hot for Haskin, local Ohio St hero.

Plenty of talent @11 and 17

has given us Nassib, Webb and Lauletta. If you think he can be a franchise guy, take him. If you don't, take the best position player available.

The Broncos, Bengals, Dolphins and Redskins are the teams who need QB. I’d be surprised if Locke made it past all of these teams.

I would think there are a lot of options at 17.
Depends on what the Giants think of the QBs.

...and another small group nipping at their heels. You really don't want top move to #11 as your not going to get the same impact defensive prospects as you'll be seeing at #6.

if the Giants took him at 17 I wouldn't complain. He has the talent to be a franchise QB and if the Giants took him they would obviously be convinced that his flaws are correctable.

I agree. He has some footwork and other technical things to improve on. I also think he has to 'speed things up' which they'll have to determine his mental acuity when they ahve the chance to screen him.

no QB this year. And I think that’s the best move.

seem to have the most interest from Giants

But here is why I wouldn't touch him until the second round - I think there is too much to work on before he is ready to play. As mentioned, Lock needs to further improve his footwork and his ability to manipulate the pocket. All fixable.

At the end of the day, a top pick needs, IMV, to play right away. Otherwise, you lose that critical first year of the rookie contract.

And it's less about production and Ws/Ls that first year; it's about getting experience and reps in real games. That, that is the real dividend in year one.

Lock sort of fits the "approach" it seems - in that he has lot of the tools, but probably needs a little time to refine them before he's ready to be an effective NFL QB.

In that sense, I think it would fit in with the whole "KC model" thing.

Obviously Mahomes v. 2.0 isn't what we should be expecting if the Giants go that route - but it would seem to fall in like with the things Gettleman is saying/doing.

I am not big on Lock and haven't been really at any point.

If we're going to wind up with a QB, I'd prefer it to be a deal for Rosen, moving up for Murray, or Haskins.

this morning you beat me to it :). There’s a difference in reaching for a QB at 6 when you don’t think any are worth it and taking one at 17 as BPA. Most Top 50 prospect boards I’ve read have Lock rated in the later half of the 1st rd so 17 would not be much of a reach (if any) for him, plus there were reports the Giants really likes him at the Senior Bowl. So they may like the player, just not at 6.

In comment 14343214 Bernie said:

Quote:

The Broncos, Bengals, Dolphins and Redskins are the teams who need QB. I’d be surprised if Locke made it past all of these teams.

Exactly. I dont see him making 17. Though one of those teams may take Haskins and Broncos may be happy with Flacco.

we take them at 6 or trade up for them.

You don't play it cute and Gettleman won't.

I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that

If you don't like Murray or Haskins I'd pass on a QB until next year.

You take him at 6 or trade up with Buffalo to 9 from 17. Would do the latter with a defensive stud at 6.

probably pass at #17, but certainly wouldn't be angry or surprised if the Giants took him. But as others have said, it's likely moot since someone, probably Denver, will take him before then.

Threads, the more I realize why taking a running back, even one as good as Barkley, with the #2 pick, in a supposedly good quarterback class, was a very maverick like move.

not.