a value and a need at 4 BUT the optimal plan would be to get the OL of choice and an extra pick why not simply draft Simmons and field offers for an OL and picks and trade to the highest bidder and if you dont like the offers simply go down route B and get the OL in rds 2 and beyond. We need a OLB that can lead that particular corp especially one that can cover TEs and move forward when call upon to do so ...
But Also why not employ this technique in general when picking in the top 5 range in general IF need and value can be applied to give flexibility and a trading market.
no, I'm sure you're not. The other question though question is how perfect would it be to have Solder, Flemming and Pully starting on the OL.
Something would have had to been in the works going into draft to make what you suggest work.
DG rang the dinner bell a few weeks ago and said he would listen to offers for the #4 pick. Hopefully he is getting some.
I think he's the perfect fit for what this defense needs all around.
He can play uncovered, rush the passer, make plays behind the LOS, and cover the middle of the field/TE's. He has skills we need in coverage and speed to threaten the edge as a blitzer nobody else on the roster has.
There may be a better positional value in their judgement (Okudah, whoever their #1 LT is ) - but as a player I think Simmons is a great fit skills wise for what we don't have. Mainly explosiveness, speed, and playmaking. Who can argue we don't need those 3 things? And what better prospect in the past few years is more of a standout in those 3 areas? Not to mention the championship pedigree at Clemson and the fact that he seemed to excel in big games in the playoff this past year.
Would be really disappointed if we end up with one of the OTs at #4 without getting an extra pick.
Something would have had to been in the works going into draft to make what you suggest work.
DG rang the dinner bell a few weeks ago and said he would listen to offers for the #4 pick. Hopefully he is getting some.
I guess I look at it from the angle of win-win vs trying to "get over" on a GM ... for example IF we could simply get a good 3rd rder back the LW trade is not so bad ..Yea people could say 4 to 7 is worth XYZ but simply getting more picks and what DG deems a better value/need at 7 vs 4 plus an additional pick should be all that matters versus perception of being the ultimate wheeler/dealer GM.
Quote:
between picks. I find it difficult to think Giants can manufacture the best trade on such a complicated deal in minutes with several teams.
Something would have had to been in the works going into draft to make what you suggest work.
DG rang the dinner bell a few weeks ago and said he would listen to offers for the #4 pick. Hopefully he is getting some.
I guess I look at it from the angle of win-win vs trying to "get over" on a GM ... for example IF we could simply get a good 3rd rder back the LW trade is not so bad ..Yea people could say 4 to 7 is worth XYZ but simply getting more picks and what DG deems a better value/need at 7 vs 4 plus an additional pick should be all that matters versus perception of being the ultimate wheeler/dealer GM.
I guess would have the dinner bell rung every draft the more quality you get the better your team is overall. Pick 4 is not better tha having pick 6,17 and and extra 2nd or 3rd IMO. Barring a conviction on a generational talent at an impact position of you need a franchise QB.
Quote:
between picks. I find it difficult to think Giants can manufacture the best trade on such a complicated deal in minutes with several teams.
Something would have had to been in the works going into draft to make what you suggest work.
DG rang the dinner bell a few weeks ago and said he would listen to offers for the #4 pick. Hopefully he is getting some.
I guess I look at it from the angle of win-win vs trying to "get over" on a GM ... for example IF we could simply get a good 3rd rder back the LW trade is not so bad ..Yea people could say 4 to 7 is worth XYZ but simply getting more picks and what DG deems a better value/need at 7 vs 4 plus an additional pick should be all that matters versus perception of being the ultimate wheeler/dealer GM.
Understood. I wasn't advocating you have to shoot for the moon but without question you want the ability to bid things up if possible. Also helps on the market testing as well. But just saying when it involves players and picks then it sounds complicated and needs time.
Quote:
In comment 14846804 LBH15 said:
Quote:
between picks. I find it difficult to think Giants can manufacture the best trade on such a complicated deal in minutes with several teams.
Something would have had to been in the works going into draft to make what you suggest work.
DG rang the dinner bell a few weeks ago and said he would listen to offers for the #4 pick. Hopefully he is getting some.
I guess I look at it from the angle of win-win vs trying to "get over" on a GM ... for example IF we could simply get a good 3rd rder back the LW trade is not so bad ..Yea people could say 4 to 7 is worth XYZ but simply getting more picks and what DG deems a better value/need at 7 vs 4 plus an additional pick should be all that matters versus perception of being the ultimate wheeler/dealer GM.
I guess would have the dinner bell rung every draft the more quality you get the better your team is overall. Pick 4 is not better tha having pick 6,17 and and extra 2nd or 3rd IMO. Barring a conviction on a generational talent at an impact position of you need a franchise QB.
Agreed. A team like the Giants that needs help in so many units (and just drafted a QB) really should be orchestrating such a move. Especially if players grades at those positions are clustered close together.
None of us is an expert, but I believe Simmons will represent the BPA (it 1 - 3 are Burrow, Young, Okudah) and if the Giants take an OT there it will end the BPA vs need discussions.
It just so happens that Simmons is also a need though, so passing on him IMO would be a mistake.
My hope is that Judge & Graham will be able to make best use of Simmons rare speed & size mix.
I’m fine with taking Simmons at 4th overall as BPA inside of going OL at 4th overall as a need pick.
Ideally, the Giants can get minor trade down to 5th or 6th overall and grab Simmons at 5th or 6th and get another 3rd or even 2nd rounder.
None of us is an expert, but I believe Simmons will represent the BPA (it 1 - 3 are Burrow, Young, Okudah) and if the Giants take an OT there it will end the BPA vs need discussions.
It just so happens that Simmons is also a need though, so passing on him IMO would be a mistake.
Well maybe it just so happens that one or more of the OTs are the BPA.
Quote:
stay at 4 and Simmons is there, it will be the perfect test of BPA vs need.
None of us is an expert, but I believe Simmons will represent the BPA (it 1 - 3 are Burrow, Young, Okudah) and if the Giants take an OT there it will end the BPA vs need discussions.
It just so happens that Simmons is also a need though, so passing on him IMO would be a mistake.
Well maybe it just so happens that one or more of the OTs are the BPA.
Teams will always say whoever they pick is BPA.
There is no official list.
I hate how Simmons fails to shed when taking on blocks; I just can’t see him in the middle or setting the edge as an OLB. He’s a great athlete but has his flaws.
Martinez has a knack for plugging up the gaps and at the very least forcing the RB outside for Simmons to chase down like a cheetah. Good cop bad cop, run inside or out play?
Also Simmons will shut down mobile QBs and sweeps that absolutely kill us and has become a regular thing in the league - except for Shumur brilliant Engram and street FA WR sweeps.
You could still get a top OT and an ER which are the biggest needs on the team.
Example #1: Pick#9: Wirfs, Pick #20: Gross-Matos
Example #2: Pick#9: Chaisson Pick#20: Thomas
Example #3: Pick#9: Wills Pick#20: Baun
We have no idea how the draft will play out or how the Giants have these players ranked but if a trade with Jacksonville is possible you can really get your 2 top needs to match value on day 1 of the draft.
Quote:
In comment 14846861 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
stay at 4 and Simmons is there, it will be the perfect test of BPA vs need.
None of us is an expert, but I believe Simmons will represent the BPA (it 1 - 3 are Burrow, Young, Okudah) and if the Giants take an OT there it will end the BPA vs need discussions.
It just so happens that Simmons is also a need though, so passing on him IMO would be a mistake.
Well maybe it just so happens that one or more of the OTs are the BPA.
Teams will always say whoever they pick is BPA.
There is no official list.
Really, you mean DG can't look at ESPN's best available list while the Draft is going on?
Quote:
In comment 14846878 LBH15 said:
Quote:
In comment 14846861 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
stay at 4 and Simmons is there, it will be the perfect test of BPA vs need.
None of us is an expert, but I believe Simmons will represent the BPA (it 1 - 3 are Burrow, Young, Okudah) and if the Giants take an OT there it will end the BPA vs need discussions.
It just so happens that Simmons is also a need though, so passing on him IMO would be a mistake.
Well maybe it just so happens that one or more of the OTs are the BPA.
Teams will always say whoever they pick is BPA.
There is no official list.
Really, you mean DG can't look at ESPN's best available list while the Draft is going on?
If he knew how to use a computer he might be able to, but since he doesn't he's left rifling through Street and Smith's and Athlon rankings.
You can't run analytics 24/7.