|
|
Quote: |
They must draft one of the Core Four offensive tackles — Tristan Wirfs or Mekhi Becton or Andrew Thomas or Jedrick Wills — in the first round and the best available center in the second round with the 36th pick, if it isn’t a reach or if a pass rusher rated considerably higher is still on the board. Jones can use his legs to escape the pocket, but that doesn’t mean anyone should expect him to start 210 straight games and be an Eli-esque Iron Man. The two games he missed as a rookie ought to serve as a reminder. And if Barkley is ever going to silence the analytics crowd that rails against using a second-overall pick on a running back — even if he is a weapon more than just a running back — he will need something more akin to the kind of offensive line Ezekiel Elliott is privileged to have paving a path for him in Dallas, and Barkley needs it yesterday, because he will be entering his third season already. |
I just still hurt over E. Flowers at #10.
I just still hurt over E. Flowers at #10.
No doubt. But that's Young in his own zip code and that's it. There are at least 2 of the 4 OTs that should be in next tier under Young.
Draft an OLinemen
Draft an OLinemen
Did he say both parts or just the 1st part?
It’s that simple. If we run the ball more like it appears they’re going to ..... then the time of possession will be better and as a result, the defense will be better.
Take him at #4. Take him in a trade down. Just take him.
Only Young would qualify and he'll be gone. If by some miracle he isn't then that's the exception to the rule.
You don't pass on Walter Payton 'cause you need a guard. That's what the Colts did in 1975.
The surest way for the Giants to protect Daniel Jones is to improve the football team. That starts not with new players but with a head coach and coaching staff getting more out of the players you already have. The answer is to work hard and improve.
Teams that use the draft to "address their needs" will just be addressing those same needs, over and over. Those are the teams that never get any better.
The Giants were 3-12-1 in 1983. They had the third overall pick in the '84 draft. They had needs everywhere. Everywhere that is except outside linebacker. Lawrence Taylor, Byron Hunt and Andy Headen were all 25 or younger. Yet the Giants wisely didn't "address their needs." They took another outside linebacker, Carl Banks from Michigan State. I don't think George Young or Tom Boisture ever regretted that pick.
The Giants will be picking the players with the highest grades. Why would they do all that work just to disregard it when it counts the most?
You don't pass on Walter Payton 'cause you need a guard. That's what the Colts did in 1975.
The surest way for the Giants to protect Daniel Jones is to improve the football team. That starts not with new players but with a head coach and coaching staff getting more out of the players you already have. The answer is to work hard and improve.
Teams that use the draft to "address their needs" will just be addressing those same needs, over and over. Those are the teams that never get any better.
The Giants were 3-12-1 in 1983. They had the third overall pick in the '84 draft. They had needs everywhere. Everywhere that is except outside linebacker. Lawrence Taylor, Byron Hunt and Andy Headen were all 25 or younger. Yet the Giants wisely didn't "address their needs." They took another outside linebacker, Carl Banks from Michigan State. I don't think George Young or Tom Boisture ever regretted that pick.
The Giants will be picking the players with the highest grades. Why would they do all that work just to disregard it when it counts the most?
Most here are asserting the grade for the OT matches the players that will be there at 4. We aren't talking about an Ereck Flowers reach here. Young as Torrag mentioned is the only non QB in a row by himself and changes the equation.
If you could look into the future and know none of these guys would ever become more than average joes in the NFL would you still take hem at #4?
I have no idea how the Giants have these guys rated, but if they don’t see a guy with all-star potential, I am fine not taking one at the top of the first. The goal is to acquire talent, not a guy marginally better than Nate Solder.
So ur ok with lving DJ hanging in the breeze all year for a pipe dream? Brilliant.
Draft BPA in the 1st round
It’s that simple. If we run the ball more like it appears they’re going to ..... then the time of possession will be better and as a result, the defense will be better.
This statement is simply not true. Our defense was not one of the worst in the league because they were on the field for too long due to an offense they struggled. They sucked because they could not stop anyone. They could not cover anyone because they have zero talent at linebacker.
I'm ok if they pick an OT at 4 if they do not like Simmons and they think one of the OTs are great. But if they like Simmons and unsure about the OTs being a Left Tackle at the NFL level then that would be a grave mistake.
If all things are equal then they need to think who they can get later in the draft and next year's draft/free agency to improve the position they do not take.
A lot of improvements already on that side. We have to see what we have.
I think he probably really likes Slayton, the seem to have a good report. So I would guess OL too, since I bet he didn't like Remmers that much. Plus he is probably sick of fumbling
A QB that struggled with peripheral pass rush transfixing on route development. Not to say he can't improve there but I don't assume it either. I get him tackle protection above everything else.
He'd take CeeDee Lamb before Jeudy
Not saying we don't need a Center but we have Gates who they may see as an OC. He got snaps there in preseason and practices. Zietler also has potential to play in that spot. We currently have no one who can play LT at even an adequate level unless you are assuming a huge rebound for Solder which I'm not banking on.
But it's over-simplification.
Ernie Accorsi regretted not picking Walter Payton, which drove him to pick UCLA's Shaun Williams; oh what a mistake that was (when there was a screaming need for O-line help), passing on eventual multiple-time ALL PRO Alan Faneca.
The best draft starts by identifying and prioritizing needs, then evaluating the available talent in free agency and the draft. I agree, the most critical need right now is protecting Jones (and there's a lot of highly rated OT talent in the draft). The question - are any of those guys worth a top of the draft board pick ? (Recall, the Giants pooped in the bed picking Pugh and Flowers)
If not you go to the next next need, you ask yourself the same question, and so forth ...
Revisionist history. Raanan had Flowers as the NYG pick a month before the draft.
There was a lot of pre-draft discussion about Brandon Scherff but no surprise when Flowers was the pick with Scherff not there. There was no one else who was a consensus "if Scherff is gone" expected pick by the Giants.
And everyone knew the Giants wanted to go OL; Mara had gone public about it at the end of the '14 season.
Raanan a month out:
All of this factors into the equation. It's why I picked Flowers at No. 9 in my mock draft. Most importantly though, it's because the Giants think very highly of him.
nj.com 4/2/15 - ( New Window )
Quote:
That's profoundly mistaken.
You don't pass on Walter Payton 'cause you need a guard. That's what the Colts did in 1975.
The surest way for the Giants to protect Daniel Jones is to improve the football team. That starts not with new players but with a head coach and coaching staff getting more out of the players you already have. The answer is to work hard and improve.
Teams that use the draft to "address their needs" will just be addressing those same needs, over and over. Those are the teams that never get any better.
The Giants were 3-12-1 in 1983. They had the third overall pick in the '84 draft. They had needs everywhere. Everywhere that is except outside linebacker. Lawrence Taylor, Byron Hunt and Andy Headen were all 25 or younger. Yet the Giants wisely didn't "address their needs." They took another outside linebacker, Carl Banks from Michigan State. I don't think George Young or Tom Boisture ever regretted that pick.
The Giants will be picking the players with the highest grades. Why would they do all that work just to disregard it when it counts the most?
Most here are asserting the grade for the OT matches the players that will be there at 4. We aren't talking about an Ereck Flowers reach here. Young as Torrag mentioned is the only non QB in a row by himself and changes the equation.
I just still hurt over E. Flowers at #10.
👍
2. A wide receiver later on.
3. Pile in on the offensive line the rest of the way.
Everyone talks about protecting Jones, which I understand, but an OL that can open holes for Barkley is arguably even more of a priority. If he's not stopped at the line of scrimmage, Barkley is a nightmare for opposing defences to play against.
Where do you come up with shit like this?
The Giants were picking in the mid-20's when Williams was selected. How did missing out on Payton at pick #4 have to do with picking Williams at the end of the 1st??
Furthermore, Williams was part of a Giants team that went to a SB and the playoffs 4 times in his career. It isn't like he was a terrible pick or a terrible player. He was oft-injured at the end of his career, but was very solid for 5 years. It wasn't like he was a bust and a terrible pick.
Personally, I'd rather the Giants take the defensive stud in round one then go heavy offensive line for just about the rest of the draft.
Reaching means you take a guy above a reasonably expected draft spot, foregoing players who are forecast to be a better prospect. Perhaps Flowers falls into that category. But that's not why he was such a bad pick. Had he played anywhere near what he was forecast to, he would have been at least serviceable.
That's what a reach gets you - an OK player instead of a good player (presuming they play according to prediction).
IF we had traded back, and taken Flowers at a spot where he wouldn't be considered a reach, he still would have been a busted pick.
IMO, as long as the reach isn't too drastic, it is acceptable. Don't forego a kick ass prospect in favor of a decent one. But it is rarely that black/white.
Above all, quality prospect analysis is the number one driver in successful drafting. No one is 100%, but failure in that dept is what made Flowers a bad pick, not because he was taken above where he was forecast to be picked.
Pugh was a reach. Flowers was a bust
Quote:
the top 10 and 3 in the top 12 or so. . . they are fair game for #4 and not a reach. Flowers was a reach, everyone was stunned.
Revisionist history. Raanan had Flowers as the NYG pick a month before the draft.
There was a lot of pre-draft discussion about Brandon Scherff but no surprise when Flowers was the pick with Scherff not there. There was no one else who was a consensus "if Scherff is gone" expected pick by the Giants.
And everyone knew the Giants wanted to go OL; Mara had gone public about it at the end of the '14 season.
Raanan a month out:
Quote:
With Flowers' size and skills, there is little doubt that he's an NFL tackle. There is significantly more uncertainty when it comes to Scherff and LSU's La'el Collins. Some teams have them pegged as guards, although the Giants seem to think Scherff is a tackle.
All of this factors into the equation. It's why I picked Flowers at No. 9 in my mock draft. Most importantly though, it's because the Giants think very highly of him.
nj.com 4/2/15 - ( New Window )
I told BBI at the very beginning of March that Flowers was their target. It was no secret.
He worked out OK, with the glaring problem of inability to stay healthy.
We always want a stud, but sometimes just being solid is a victory.
Recall Pugh had some critics as to his size but not big flaws.
Flowers was just a miss by a lot of people and unfortunately Giants took the brunt.
2. A wide receiver later on.
3. Pile in on the offensive line the rest of the way.
Everyone talks about protecting Jones, which I understand, but an OL that can open holes for Barkley is arguably even more of a priority. If he's not stopped at the line of scrimmage, Barkley is a nightmare for opposing defences to play against.
If they have a 'sneaky' high grade on an LT they think they can get in the 2nd or after trade up.....Maybe. I just don't like the risk involved in that route. And yes I am a big Simmons fan.
Recall Pugh had some critics as to his size but not big flaws.
Flowers was just a miss by a lot of people and unfortunately Giants took the brunt.
Injury unless it was pretty clear the guy was an injury risk when he was drafted should not be a reason to label a guy a 'busted' pick. Both Richberg and Pugh showed good ability when healthy. So did Beatty relative to where he was drafted for an LT. So Reese's assessment of the 3 players was spot on.
IF we had traded back, and taken Flowers at a spot where he wouldn't be considered a reach, he still would have been a busted pick.
Bingo. Those two things right there will protect Jones just as much if not more than upgrading the tackle position. Not playing from behind constantly and opening up a BELIEVABLE play action passing game will keep him off the ground.
It isn't for sure but we are playing the percentages here. Wills shows on tape a very polished pass protector with almost no holes in his game from an intangibles/tangibles standpoint.
Quote:
1. Isiah Simmons at #4.
2. A wide receiver later on.
3. Pile in on the offensive line the rest of the way.
Everyone talks about protecting Jones, which I understand, but an OL that can open holes for Barkley is arguably even more of a priority. If he's not stopped at the line of scrimmage, Barkley is a nightmare for opposing defences to play against.
If they have a 'sneaky' high grade on an LT they think they can get in the 2nd or after trade up.....Maybe. I just don't like the risk involved in that route. And yes I am a big Simmons fan.
Sy56's review of Simmons will be out soon. Maybe that will bring you round.
I just believe that this is what the front office is going to do. Draft Simmons at #4, as barring an upset ahead of us, he will still be on the board. I definitely wouldn't rule out a surprise move ahead of us, however.
Quote:
In comment 14853892 Gruber said:
Quote:
1. Isiah Simmons at #4.
2. A wide receiver later on.
3. Pile in on the offensive line the rest of the way.
Everyone talks about protecting Jones, which I understand, but an OL that can open holes for Barkley is arguably even more of a priority. If he's not stopped at the line of scrimmage, Barkley is a nightmare for opposing defences to play against.
If they have a 'sneaky' high grade on an LT they think they can get in the 2nd or after trade up.....Maybe. I just don't like the risk involved in that route. And yes I am a big Simmons fan.
Sy56's review of Simmons will be out soon. Maybe that will bring you round.
I just believe that this is what the front office is going to do. Draft Simmons at #4, as barring an upset ahead of us, he will still be on the board. I definitely wouldn't rule out a surprise move ahead of us, however.
If the OTs were last years crop I'd be in agreement but 2 OTs on my board are in the same row as Simmons. And I do think Simmons is a pro bowl force for the right DC. These OTs also have pro bowl upside with 2 very possibly doing it at the LT position.
But as fans - even particularly dedicated and informed fans - we simply don't have enough information to evaluate draft prospects to even close to the level that the teams (with a whole staff of professionals dedicating their jobs to this) do. So for all I know the Giants have, say, Wirfs graded in the same top quality band as, say, Okudah. In that case, take Wirfs in round 1.
The closest I can come to evaluating draft picks is to "crowd source" information from the opinions of the NFL "talking heads" like Mel Kipper. They probably don't know as much as the teams, but they certainly know more than me or likely any other fan that has a "day job" that does not involve football. And when I do look at their various rankings, none of the o-lineman consistently, if ever, appear in the list of "top five" talents. The prospects who do appear on that "blue chip" list are Burrows and the top 4 defensive players.
This sets up a classic case of "best player" (although in the draft, "best guess player" is probably a better term) versus need. Given that our defense is hardly a dominant unit, if the Giants front office evaluations match what the NFL talking heads say, then if I were DG and company I would pick from the higher-ranked (defensive) group.
Note, too, that passing on o-line help in round one hardly makes it impossible to improve the o-line through the draft. We have two Day 2 picks and a bushel (7 total) Day 3 picks. Indeed, some analysis I have seen (link below - rings true anecdotally) is that o-line is a position group with a good success rate in later rounds of the draft. Think Jason Peters or our own beloved David Diehl, Rich Seubert, and Shaun O'Hara.
So count me in as a fan of improving our o-line through this year's draft. But that does not necessary mean we must draft an offensive tackle in round 1. I would much prefer that DG and company stay true to their board and not reach if a better prospect is available.
Draft Success by Position - ( New Window )
Now let's get that trade-down deal done.
Jeremiah for example has Simmons #3, Okudah at #5 and Becton at #6 with 1 QB in the mix.
Huddle(THR) has Okudah at #4, Simmons #6 and Wirfs at #7 with 2 QB's in the mix.
They're all right there bunched together in a tight knot. Factor in the investment in Jones and Barkley, the overwhelming impact the QB position has on a franchises fortunes and the impact OL improvement has on a running attack(ask Tennessee) and it's easy to see why OT should be the selection both on merit and roster building philosophy.
Jeremiah for example has Simmons #3, Okudah at #5 and Becton at #6 with 1 QB in the mix.
Huddle(THR) has Okudah at #4, Simmons #6 and Wirfs at #7 with 2 QB's in the mix.
They're all right there bunched together in a tight knot. Factor in the investment in Jones and Barkley, the overwhelming impact the QB position has on a franchises fortunes and the impact OL improvement has on a running attack(ask Tennessee) and it's easy to see why OT should be the selection both on merit and roster building philosophy.
Those are great points Torrag. In most of the draft, I agree that players bunched closely are "close enough" so that need should factor in more strongly. If, for example, the consensus picks at numbers 33 to 38 are not playing positions of maximum team need but number 40 is, I would take that prospect ranked at 40 when picking at, say, 37.
But several sources I have seen suggest that the analysis above changes in the top 10. The traditional draft value chart, for one, places a massive premium on the picks at the very top of the draft. A series of very good articles I recently read concludes that, indeed, an analysis of the last 40 NFL drafts confirms that the likelihood of picking a truly elite player (as measured by all-pro, pro-bowl invitations, and Hall-of-Famers) starts highest a pick 1, then declines steeply to about pick 10, then the curve becomes much smoother.
Those analyses suggest to me that the difference between a player consistently rated (by the public commentators) between #2 and #5 overall in this draft (say, Simmons) is much more likely (in the draft we're always talking probabilities, not certainties) to develop into a blue chip player than a player (say, Becton) who is consistently rated between #6 and #14. A bonus factor in that comparison is that success-by-position data I have read (one example below) suggests first-round linebackers have the most success in the NFL (although offensive line 1st round picks do not do badly either). I concede, of course, that the Giants scouting department may not agree with the public commentators, but none of us know what they think or have access to the data they have, so we can't factor in that important unknowable element into our (the fan's) thinking.
In my personal dream all this becomes moot if we can trade down to the bottom of the top 10 in order to stockpile additional day 2 (most importantly) and day 3 picks, and get the offensive lineman we need without reaching. But I am not at all confident the Giants will have the opportunity to trade down.
Bleacher Report on 1st Round Success by Position - ( New Window )