|
|
|
| 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. |
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 )