Devin White at #6?

But I have a bias for linebackers, since the Giants linebackers haven't had an all pro stud in forever. So, that always pushes them up for me.

but I'd like a pass rusher more.

.

says the Giants think #6 is too high for White. I'd rather take Wilkins.

please

and Pass Rush..

DG laid this out already when he reiterated this:


Run the ball
Protect the Quaterback
Rush the Passer

We have the ball carrier and with additions already (plus more to come) we will run better and pass block better. We do not have anything major in place to rush the passer.

Wilkins, Allen, Bosa and Burns would all be names to watch.

My #4 player in the Draft. I think he's an instant game changer.

In comment 14397420 AcidTest said:

Quote:

says the Giants think #6 is too high for White. I'd rather take Wilkins.

That's my opinion on White. They love Wilkins.

I wouldn't be mad if they picked him at 6. Would definitely fill a need.

But I'd still rather them fix this defensive line and the pass rush.

We need playmakers on D, and he's a good one.

The "I'll be looking for $100 million in five years" comment is a big red flag for me. Also I think Bush is the better player.

in Bettcher's scheme. No doubt he can be good, but if we can't maximize his value, there's no point in taking him over an ER or a top DT.

In comment 14397458 RobCarpenter said:

Quote:

The "I'll be looking for $100 million in five years" comment is a big red flag for me. Also I think Bush is the better player.

Agreed.

Dave-Te in his podcast said White is a once in a decade type player and said he has Derrick Brooks type potential.

In comment 14397445 JonC said:

Quote:

In comment 14397420 AcidTest said: Quote: says the Giants think #6 is too high for White. I'd rather take Wilkins. That's my opinion on White. They love Wilkins.

OK.

i agree with SY i think he is best suited as a 4-3 weakside LB. he is not patrick willis

.

but I like Bush just as well. I'd rather have Bush at 17 than White at 6.

..and yes, the "100 million" comment is a little worrisome. I'd rather he was worried about proving himself at the pro level and saying the right things publicly at this point.

football player than White but I don't see him lasting til #17.
Probably another 1st round without selecting LB. With how many holes currently on the roster I have no problem with this

Also, he's a great blitzer, so he is going to help the pass rush. This team could really use a player like him. We could get help at 17 for DL or pass rusher.

If the Giants have him at the top of their board among the available players then he should be the pick at #6. The whole "#6 is too high for player X but #9 is OK" logic seems flawed to me. If he's the best player for your team you take him.

Look at the players taken before Kuechly in 2012. Besides Luck, who on this list is better than Kuechly?

Andrew Luck
Robert Griffin III
Trent Richardson
Matt Kalil
Justin Blackmon
Morris Claiborne
Mark Barron
Ryan Tannehill

Just that I can see the argument for taking him over Kuechly. But in retrospect - not the others.

As previously said I think his instincts are lacking. He's a bit of a pile jumper who relies alot on speed and the superior talent around him that could simply overwhelm many of the opponents LSU faced. That won't happen in the NFL. He's not Kuechly. He reminds me of Sean Weatherspoon who had a decent career with the Falcons but was also picked in the latter part of the first round and as a WLB.

Not a big fan of Bush either. Simply put this isn't a strong LB class

good post.

I like Bush more but think he probably is more a look at 17.

I’ve soured a bit on White when watching his tape and some of the LSU games. I see some issues with how he anticipates and reads that lines up with scouting reports.

I know you need a trade partner, but I feel like we could probably deal with the Broncos, Bengals, or Dolphins if Haskins and/or Lock are still on the board. Bucs got TWO 2nd rounders to move from #7 back to #12 last year (when the Bills traded up for Josh Allen). I don't even care to get that much if we move down. Even if we just get one 2nd rounder, or let's say a 2nd and a 3rd and we give up one of our 5s, I think that would be worth it. The talent at #10-13 is not going to be too far off from the talent available at #6, and this draft is very deep in rounds 2-3.

He would give us pass rusher to aid the DL. He is a superior LB who is very instinctive against the run. He has the speed and quickness to cover TEs and help the secondary.

White would be a home run pick.

would love a sideline to sideline LB who could be an all pro. Wonder if he fits into DGs locker room chemistry. Which is very important to this GM.

In comment 14397552 JonC said:

Quote:

good post.

Thanks JonC

In comment 14397495 LakeGeorgeGiant said:

Quote:

but I like Bush just as well. I'd rather have Bush at 17 than White at 6. ..and yes, the "100 million" comment is a little worrisome. I'd rather he was worried about proving himself at the pro level and saying the right things publicly at this point.

WOuldn't getting a $100m contract be the definition of proving himself? He's a confident guy, this comment displays that. He isn't getting a huge second deal unless he earns it.

White is the better athlete. Prefer the football player.

White has been one. At this point who the hell knows? I will say that though I’m NOT fond of trading down, going from 6 to 10-13 and picking up a couple of premium picks makes a lot of sense for a couple of reasons. 1. Teams wanting a QB (Lock, Haskins) might want to climb over each other and would be willing participants. 2. The Giants have been “rumored” to like a bunch of players that will be available between 10-13. Makes sense to me.

In comment 14397702 Dave on the UWS said:

Quote:

White has been one. At this point who the hell knows? I will say that though I’m NOT fond of trading down, going from 6 to 10-13 and picking up a couple of premium picks makes a lot of sense for a couple of reasons. 1. Teams wanting a QB (Lock, Haskins) might want to climb over each other and would be willing participants. 2. The Giants have been “rumored” to like a bunch of players that will be available between 10-13. Makes sense to me.

Certainly a testament to our needs. There is not one position, other than RB, that we dont need.

In comment 14397927 lecky said:

Quote:

In comment 14397702 Dave on the UWS said: Quote: White has been one. At this point who the hell knows? I will say that though I’m NOT fond of trading down, going from 6 to 10-13 and picking up a couple of premium picks makes a lot of sense for a couple of reasons. 1. Teams wanting a QB (Lock, Haskins) might want to climb over each other and would be willing participants. 2. The Giants have been “rumored” to like a bunch of players that will be available between 10-13. Makes sense to me. Certainly a testament to our needs. There is not one position, other than RB, that we dont need.

Actually also we don't have a need at placekicker and punter.