if we landed Andrew Thomas. Jones would have his franchise LT and they could move Solder over to RT for a year.
If we aren’t in position to land Young than this is what I prefer too. Need to find a C in the middle rounds and I’m happy.
I would consider it a big win if the Giants land either Chase Young or Andrew Thomas. With it a near lock that Solder is back due to his contract they could shift him over to RT for a year.
I would prefer that they signed an inexpensive center like Ted Karras and then use their 3rd round comp pick on a center.
but, when the Mack trade happened, how many people saw the future first round pick compensation from the Bears being a better selection than the Raiders own 1st rd pick?
Seems like the rankings here are more of the preseason and maybe not quite up to date...especially if Burrow plays well on Saturday.
For the Giants it's got to be Young, Thomas, or Wirfs at #6. They have to get this Oline fixed before anything else will work properly. Follow the New England model and focus on Oline and defense in the draft.
He can be cut with a cap savings!! (Dead money doesn't matter if you're getting a cap savings!!) That said they can't cut him if that can't find a replacement that can step in and start at LT. I think Andrew Thomas will go very soon after the QBs.
If Burrow has a big game this weekend against Bama Â
Than edge rusher. If Young or Simmons is available to us, I wouldn’t hesitate. Problem is, if there is a player they really like, they won’t have a third round pick to offer.
He can be cut with a cap savings!! (Dead money doesn't matter if you're getting a cap savings!!) That said they can't cut him if that can't find a replacement that can step in and start at LT. I think Andrew Thomas will go very soon after the QBs.
Dead money absolutely matters, but you're right in that the sunk cost comes from signing mediocre players to exorbitant contracts more so than the cost of getting out from under said contract.
Renegotiating that contract to kick more dead money into the future was awful though - it amplified an already problematic cap situation with Solder.
I don’t think he has the feet to play LT at the next level.
I am a big fan of Thomas. Not sure he is elite but moreso solid. Interesting comment though that you don’t he can even make it as a LT in the pros.
Let’s see how he looks as the SEC comes down to the wire for the Dawgs’
I want OL help more than anyone but I’m not sure he’s the guy you want at LT. I feel the same about Wirfs. I think both are mauler types which is fine if you’re looking to take a RT that high.
If the Giants do nothing at OT in FA then sure, take Thomas or Wirfs and bank on the guy panning out at one of the tackle spots. But if you’re banking on a lock cornerstone LT for the next 10+ years you may be disappointed.
but I also thinking paying for one in free agency is a complete mistake.
We need to improve almost everywhere, we do not need to be elite everywhere...
We’ll see how the off-season goes. I see DG making a big splash at OL unless the top guys sign somewhere else. I don’t see a FA move at LT due to Solder’s contract and the lack of LT’s on the market.
So let’s say DG signs Conklin, Bulaga, etc — pure RT. If they end up taking Thomas or Wirf thinking that’s the LT of the future and he isn’t, that really puts the OL in an awkward spot. The net result could be a marginally better OL despite all the investment. Not a good result. Optimistically, the group may be a kick ass run blocking OL but I doubt we’d see it’s full potential with this staff.
Not sure where you are going with this topic then Â
Definitely not — but replacing him w a prospect better suited at RT doesn’t really solve the problem.
Well if Thomas can play LT then it does (albeit not your opinion but still plausible). If Thomas can only play RT then that is still very helpful since we kind of suck everywhere...
We should trade down. We need more picks in the top 100. Is take a 2nd this year and a 1st next to drop.
So you pass up a blue chip OLT or DE to get more picks???
Not unless the best player at our slot is not a blue chip would I trade back.
If the player at our slot is not a blue chip, the trade down offers are not likely to be enough to get DG's attention.
I understand the reluctance to pass on an opportunity to get another blue chip player - I've made that argument myself. But I also overestimated the ease with which roster depth could be identified and acquired, and I think that's more important to the foundation right now. We simply need more red chip players up and down the roster, and if we can get twice as many red chip players in exchange for the opportunity at a blue chipper, there's some merit to the idea, IMO.
RE: RE: RE: Not sure where you are going with this topic then Â
Definitely not — but replacing him w a prospect better suited at RT doesn’t really solve the problem.
Well if Thomas can play LT then it does (albeit not your opinion but still plausible). If Thomas can only play RT then that is still very helpful since we kind of suck everywhere...
That gets back to my point regarding how the FO attacks FA. If they strike out on OL then picking Thomas is fine because the Giants need a LT and a RT in that scenario. You bank on Thomas working out at one of the spots.
But if they spend money to fix RT in FA and Thomas ends up only being a RT, then using a top 10 pick on him isn’t the best use of resources.
We should trade down. We need more picks in the top 100. Is take a 2nd this year and a 1st next to drop.
So you pass up a blue chip OLT or DE to get more picks???
Not unless the best player at our slot is not a blue chip would I trade back.
If the player at our slot is not a blue chip, the trade down offers are not likely to be enough to get DG's attention.
I understand the reluctance to pass on an opportunity to get another blue chip player - I've made that argument myself. But I also overestimated the ease with which roster depth could be identified and acquired, and I think that's more important to the foundation right now. We simply need more red chip players up and down the roster, and if we can get twice as many red chip players in exchange for the opportunity at a blue chipper, there's some merit to the idea, IMO.
my sentiments exactly...
RE: RE: RE: RE: Not sure where you are going with this topic then Â
That gets back to my point regarding how the FO attacks FA. If they strike out on OL then picking Thomas is fine because the Giants need a LT and a RT in that scenario. You bank on Thomas working out at one of the spots.
But if they spend money to fix RT in FA and Thomas ends up only being a RT, then using a top 10 pick on him isn’t the best use of resources.
Agree wholeheartedly if the scouting doesn't easily project Thomas as a LT at the next level. Maybe not in year 1 but at least year 2.
And then young Daniel will continue coughing up the ball as Solder will man left tackle for yet another season :-)
We could actually be in with a chance of getting Chase Young if we can lose to the Redskins, given that the Bengals and Dolphins look most likely to go quarterback with their first picks.
If we aren’t in position to land Young than this is what I prefer too. Need to find a C in the middle rounds and I’m happy.
Quote:
if we landed Andrew Thomas. Jones would have his franchise LT and they could move Solder over to RT for a year.
If we aren’t in position to land Young than this is what I prefer too. Need to find a C in the middle rounds and I’m happy.
I would consider it a big win if the Giants land either Chase Young or Andrew Thomas. With it a near lock that Solder is back due to his contract they could shift him over to RT for a year.
I would prefer that they signed an inexpensive center like Ted Karras and then use their 3rd round comp pick on a center.
He still stinks.
There is no rational reason to believe he will improve.
He provides no foundation for either SB or JD at RT.
Must be cut before roster bonus due.
If the WISC center is still available at #28, trade up into the first round and get him.
Sorry to say a huge number of BBIers were looking way before 11/7.
For the Giants it's got to be Young, Thomas, or Wirfs at #6. They have to get this Oline fixed before anything else will work properly. Follow the New England model and focus on Oline and defense in the draft.
With WR, ILB, and FS also very high on the list of needs.
Edge rusher too unless we can sign Golden to a reasonable deal.
And FS???? Depends what Bettcher sees in Julian Love's future.
I also think you start the kid at ORT so long as Solder gets another year...
Personally I hope the lower QBs start climbing and the Jets with TB for a boatload of picks and Young falls to us.
...6, CBs, 5 WRs, 5 QBs and 4 OTs going in Round 1. That's over 60% of the selections right there.
Also, 7 players from Alabama! LSU and Ohio State next with 3 apiece.
Dead money absolutely matters, but you're right in that the sunk cost comes from signing mediocre players to exorbitant contracts more so than the cost of getting out from under said contract.
Renegotiating that contract to kick more dead money into the future was awful though - it amplified an already problematic cap situation with Solder.
I am a big fan of Thomas. Not sure he is elite but moreso solid. Interesting comment though that you don’t he can even make it as a LT in the pros.
Let’s see how he looks as the SEC comes down to the wire for the Dawgs’
Quote:
I don’t think he has the feet to play LT at the next level.
I am a big fan of Thomas. Not sure he is elite but moreso solid. Interesting comment though that you don’t he can even make it as a LT in the pros.
Let’s see how he looks as the SEC comes down to the wire for the Dawgs’
I want OL help more than anyone but I’m not sure he’s the guy you want at LT. I feel the same about Wirfs. I think both are mauler types which is fine if you’re looking to take a RT that high.
If the Giants do nothing at OT in FA then sure, take Thomas or Wirfs and bank on the guy panning out at one of the tackle spots. But if you’re banking on a lock cornerstone LT for the next 10+ years you may be disappointed.
We need to improve almost everywhere, we do not need to be elite everywhere...
We need to improve almost everywhere, we do not need to be elite everywhere...
We’ll see how the off-season goes. I see DG making a big splash at OL unless the top guys sign somewhere else. I don’t see a FA move at LT due to Solder’s contract and the lack of LT’s on the market.
So let’s say DG signs Conklin, Bulaga, etc — pure RT. If they end up taking Thomas or Wirf thinking that’s the LT of the future and he isn’t, that really puts the OL in an awkward spot. The net result could be a marginally better OL despite all the investment. Not a good result. Optimistically, the group may be a kick ass run blocking OL but I doubt we’d see it’s full potential with this staff.
Definitely not — but replacing him w a prospect better suited at RT doesn’t really solve the problem.
Quote:
You want to keep Solder as LT?
Definitely not — but replacing him w a prospect better suited at RT doesn’t really solve the problem.
Well if Thomas can play LT then it does (albeit not your opinion but still plausible). If Thomas can only play RT then that is still very helpful since we kind of suck everywhere...
Honestly, its worth a loss to the Jets to take Chase Young IMO.
So you pass up a blue chip OLT or DE to get more picks???
Not unless the best player at our slot is not a blue chip would I trade back.
Quote:
We should trade down. We need more picks in the top 100. Is take a 2nd this year and a 1st next to drop.
So you pass up a blue chip OLT or DE to get more picks???
Not unless the best player at our slot is not a blue chip would I trade back.
If the player at our slot is not a blue chip, the trade down offers are not likely to be enough to get DG's attention.
I understand the reluctance to pass on an opportunity to get another blue chip player - I've made that argument myself. But I also overestimated the ease with which roster depth could be identified and acquired, and I think that's more important to the foundation right now. We simply need more red chip players up and down the roster, and if we can get twice as many red chip players in exchange for the opportunity at a blue chipper, there's some merit to the idea, IMO.
Quote:
In comment 14668835 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
You want to keep Solder as LT?
Definitely not — but replacing him w a prospect better suited at RT doesn’t really solve the problem.
Well if Thomas can play LT then it does (albeit not your opinion but still plausible). If Thomas can only play RT then that is still very helpful since we kind of suck everywhere...
That gets back to my point regarding how the FO attacks FA. If they strike out on OL then picking Thomas is fine because the Giants need a LT and a RT in that scenario. You bank on Thomas working out at one of the spots.
But if they spend money to fix RT in FA and Thomas ends up only being a RT, then using a top 10 pick on him isn’t the best use of resources.
Quote:
In comment 14668167 superspynyg said:
Quote:
We should trade down. We need more picks in the top 100. Is take a 2nd this year and a 1st next to drop.
So you pass up a blue chip OLT or DE to get more picks???
Not unless the best player at our slot is not a blue chip would I trade back.
If the player at our slot is not a blue chip, the trade down offers are not likely to be enough to get DG's attention.
I understand the reluctance to pass on an opportunity to get another blue chip player - I've made that argument myself. But I also overestimated the ease with which roster depth could be identified and acquired, and I think that's more important to the foundation right now. We simply need more red chip players up and down the roster, and if we can get twice as many red chip players in exchange for the opportunity at a blue chipper, there's some merit to the idea, IMO.
my sentiments exactly...
That gets back to my point regarding how the FO attacks FA. If they strike out on OL then picking Thomas is fine because the Giants need a LT and a RT in that scenario. You bank on Thomas working out at one of the spots.
But if they spend money to fix RT in FA and Thomas ends up only being a RT, then using a top 10 pick on him isn’t the best use of resources.
Agree wholeheartedly if the scouting doesn't easily project Thomas as a LT at the next level. Maybe not in year 1 but at least year 2.
And then young Daniel will continue coughing up the ball as Solder will man left tackle for yet another season :-)