Could Wirfs start at C?

prepare for the wrath of those who care about "positional value" with their picks.

just filling in at C for now

or at least a RT to then move him inside unless he fails at Tackle. Which would be the final nail in DG's coffin.

I get it. I do too.

He's my starting RT day one and he's looking to unseat Solder at LT depending on how Solder is doing there by the end of the year potentially.

Trade back up into the first by a few spots and take Ruiz in the 2nd.

Nothing would improve this team more IMO.

Not "in the second"

OLT - C - ORT

The OL has not received an infusion of draft talent in forever.

Wirfs and Wilson could be our OT starters opening day next year.

This is a way to put Wirfs to use and address the C opening right away

and open lanes for our young stud RB.

I get that we have many holes on defense, but what difference does it make if we arent keeping our QB upright during his crucial, formative years?

Although it may seem good on paper, saying someone will be C this season and LT next would absolutely hinder development, IMO.

Exactly

But we simply are not spending our first three draft choices this year on OL

This is a way to address two of three weaknesses in our line right now

Solder is not going anywhere with his salary cap hit this year

I am trying to avoid using a valuable second round draft choice on wht appears to be a motley crew of Center prospects

his thoughts on this center class. Multiple starting caliber players at the position, which is rare for a single draft class.

I've heard on BBI today that all the tackles have issues and all the centers have warts... yet they are both plus positions in this draft.

Not sure where the disconnect is...

Both Eli and Jones have had the problem of pressure up the middle and in their face. Time to have a stout C who can hold the center of the line. Let Jones step up in the pocket. I'm not that concerned as much with mobility as size in our next C. To me, C is as important as LT.

He better be mentioned in Pro Bowl discussions.

speak of Wirfs as having Pro Bowl potential at OG

What is the big difference between OG and C?

Wirfs has all the athleticism needed to be an effective C and he also seems to have what it takes between the ears.

IF Wirfs turns out to be a pro bowl C would you say it was an efficient use of the #4 draft pick?

So because Wirfs has been said to possibly be a better Guard, you’re willing to think he can automatically learn a position he has never played and automatically excel at it? Your hope is bc you do that, you don’t have to take a OC round 2 or 3? Are you okay? Ruiz is also mentioned as C who may be a better G.
If Wirfs gets injured because he has to learn a brand new technique in a more than likely shortened offseason, he will not only lose his job, but set this franchise back. If Jones or SB get badly injured due to Wirfs not knowing the proper technique, what would your response be? Giants have what 9 picks in this draft? 4 are in the 7? I’m very certain they will end up making 8 picks UNLESS they trade back in round 1, they will then probably end up with 9. Can see them taking 2 7s and getting a higher 5th round pick or move back into round 4 some way. Or moving up round 3 to have an actual 3rd round pick. You could go for a C mid 3rd round or early 4, but you don’t take at 4 a player who is one of the 4 tackles and hope to plug him as a center. Asking to have both your franchise RB and QB destroyed.

as our starting C or trade to get him and use another valuable resource.

So who is to say that after all that valiant effort that this pick won't get injured ?

Or because he is simply not the athlete that Wirfs is will allow his opponent to get past him to injure our valued qb and/or rb?

Most OC's want to put their best five OL out there.

Should we draft Wirfs he would almost automatically become the most athletic OL the Jints have.

The single most dire need on our OL is C

Why would you not put your most athletic OL at C rather than some third or fourth round draft choice in there to protect your valuable investments at qb and rb?

draft.

they drafted Hernandez in 2018. “Forever” wasn’t that long ago.

maybe not but this is the draft to finally address the OL.
If not now - when?

We have a bunch of holes no doubt about it but I think we can address a lot of them by choosing wisely and drafting into the strength of the draft.

Here is a mock where I choose to trade down with Jacksonville
our #4 for their #9 and #20

#9 Tristan Wirfs OT/C - I would immediately make him my C with the idea of Wirfs moving to OLT next year.

#20 Grant Dellpit FS - Safety is one of the big holes on this team. Our pass D was ranked #28 last year. This draft has the folks for us to improve at this position. Time to do it.

#36 one of Jackson/Wilson/ Wanogho/Niang OT - look for one of these prospects to start at ORT before the end of the season

#99 - Lamar Jackson cb/s - 6'2" 205lbs hybrid corner/safety that can match up with the big wr's so prevalent in the contemporary NFL

#110 - William Gay lb - a legitimate three down lb - not sure what kind of D the Jints are running but this guy is a player who can contribute one way or another

#150 - Anfernee Jennings/Alex Highsmith ER - Jennings is solid against the run. Will hold the edge fearlessly. Although missing a dynamic first step his pass rush is relentless and he will make a bunch of tackles behind the los. Highsmith is a gamble here but this draft does not offer much in ER's outside of the first round

#183 - Tanner Muse lb/s - an athlete from a major program who is athletic enough and versatile enought to place almost anywhere in the back seven

#218 - Kenny Robinson fs - hedging bets on Delpit - say good bye Sean Chandler

#238 - Marquez Callaway/Dezmon Patmon wr - Callaway was a leader in the SEC in re YPC which is a great indicator - think Slayton. Patmon is 64" 4.48 - who can't use a tall and speedy wr?

#247 - Sewo Olonila rb - small tank who can catch

#255 - Aleva Hifo wr - 4.4 forty who can run jet sweeps in addition to providing speed at wr

Draft provides almost equal division of choices between O and D with an emphasis on versatility.

Possibly leaves ER and one OL position to again be addressed by next year but depth is addressed in the back seven of the D which will also address ST coverage.

the book is still out on Hernandez with regard to his pass protect.

I would give serious thought to using a third or fourth round draft choice on OG Logan Stenberg as a possible upgrade to Hernandez

but a rookie playing out of position at center making line blocking calls with a 12 games starting experience QB. What could go wrong?

.

if line calls are the only concern then let the veteran OG Zeitler make the line calls.

We are still looking at a rookie C in lieu of Spencer Pulley manning a most important OL position.

I would rather an extremely athletic smart big dude like Wirfs snapping then one of the touted C's most of whom would not be able to play any other position effectively.

Wirfs has size, speed and athleticism on any of the other C prospects.

Any rookie put into the C position is going to have to learn NFL techniques and nuances. I would rather put the best athlete in there rather then what I deem to be mediocre althernatives

an ideal scenario would be trading down a couple spots, picking up an extra 2nd. Still grabbing Wirfs or Wills to start at RT immediately (and potentially LT).

Take a Center with one of the 2nds. I'd take Hennessy while he is there, although many would accuse me of over drafting him.

Then I'd use another mid pick on another tackle.

In comment 14857558 ChicagoMarty said:

Quote:

just filling in at C for now

Or a more likely ORT.

All Centers leave me underwhelmed.

I find it particularly galling that we would have to muster up a valuable second-round draft choice for such an unathletic player.

Think of all the WR's, safeties, corners and lbs that would significantly upgrade our roster with pick #36.

Then look at what a lug Ruiz is, what a blob Biadasz is, and what lightweights Cushenberry and Hennessey are.

Do we really want one of the above protecting our investment in our brand spanking new qb?

Should we successfully opt for my plan, next year could see Wirfs successfully move over to OLT still on a rookie salary and one of say Wilson or Niang starting at ORT.

Then all DG or his replacement would need to do would be to come up with $5-7M for a vet C to plug in as opposed to paying $15-17M for a FA OLT.

We could then use our top draft picks next year on ER and whatever hole has developed that could not be plugged in FA

He is an instant starter at OT. If things happen with injuries you can move him around but the idea that you would start him at C from day 1 is not realistic. He is an unknown at C at least he has played OT. I think you would be better served moving Gates to C and playing him at OT.

By the way, I don't want this guy. He will be a better Guard and that's where he should play. Take one of the other 3. I would lean towards Becton. I can just see him dominating for years.

You don't take a stud OT that could possibly be protecting you young QB's blind side for years, put him out of position in a position he has never played. Not to mention, learning the shotgun snap is not the easiest thing to do.

Hahaha! you win BBI for today. Nice.

I'm not in love with idea of starting a rookie at center, but bvb this is the situation they've left us in. Imv center should have been among the first things addressed in FA.

with drafting OL and then moving them to positions they've never played before. seems dumb to me.

A variant of this crap popped up on another thread.

OL can’t just be swapped in and out across the line. It’s not 5 interchangeable positions.

Wirfs is a top athlete. Shot put champ. Discus champ.

Baseball player. Swimmer.

This is a guy who should not struggle with learning how to snap.

The question that I asked that has not been addressed is whether or not one of Jackson/Wilson/Wanogho/ or Niang woud make a viable starting ORT as opposed to whether one of Ruiz/Biadasz/Cushenberry/ or Hennessey would make a viable C?

I am suggesting a way to improve two of the three most important OL positions on the team with one draft with the liklihood that we can obtain our starting OT's for the forseeable future.

I didn't give Solder that outrageous contract.
It wasn't me that neglected the C position in FA this offseason.
I can't help it if the draft prospects at C are completely underwhelming.

I do think my solution could work.

Wirfs for C this year OLT next year

Make it happen DG

In comment 14857556 Giantsfan79 said:

Quote:

prepare for the wrath of those who care about "positional value" with their picks.

. Good question there is a group on this site is who are obsessed with taking OL with our 4th pick. Even though they are rated as 10 through 30 value. Thankfully DG is not a fool.

who can play the second most valuable OL position C this year and the most important OL position OLT next year.

The last I looked Versatility is one of the most important traits the new coaching staff values.

Management has either neglected or screwed up the OL for years.

My plan offers a reasonable way out of the morass

Going down with the ship on this one eh? Can't blame you for trying but this idea is a trainwreck.

In comment 14857718 TMS said:

Quote:

In comment 14857556 Giantsfan79 said: Quote: prepare for the wrath of those who care about "positional value" with their picks. . Good question there is a group on this site is who are obsessed with taking OL with our 4th pick. Even though they are rated as 10 through 30 value. Thankfully DG is not a fool.

Jedrick Wills is the #7 ranked player at NFL.com. I'm still waiting for you to back up your assertion that he's a "flawed reach" comparable to Justin Pugh and Ereck Flowers.

Jeremiah has Becton #6 overall.

THR(Huddle Report) has Wills #7 overall.

They must all be idiots.

The most recent NFL football media poll has 75% OT to the Giants. But they don't have the grade! All dummies!

The OT is a 'reach' at #4 argument is probably the dumbest one I've read on BBI in some time.

In comment 14857717 ChicagoMarty said:

Quote:

Wirfs is a top athlete. Shot put champ. Discus champ. Baseball player. Swimmer. This is a guy who should not struggle with learning how to snap. The question that I asked that has not been addressed is whether or not one of Jackson/Wilson/Wanogho/ or Niang woud make a viable starting ORT as opposed to whether one of Ruiz/Biadasz/Cushenberry/ or Hennessey would make a viable C? I am suggesting a way to improve two of the three most important OL positions on the team with one draft with the liklihood that we can obtain our starting OT's for the forseeable future. I didn't give Solder that outrageous contract. It wasn't me that neglected the C position in FA this offseason. I can't help it if the draft prospects at C are completely underwhelming. I do think my solution could work. Wirfs for C this year OLT next year Make it happen DG

That's a big assumption that he can move to OLT at the pro level when he was basically a ORT in college.

I think Wills is a plugin OT

If Jints management had taken care of business and procured a viable C in FA which was completely doable then I would and in fact have advocated for Wills at the pick at #4.

DG dropped the ball in terms of obtaining a McGovern at C in FA

DG is also the culprit for overpaying Solder at OT and obtaining dreck in Fleming as a swing OT.

So what i am advocating is simply drafting the most athletic OL in this draft and perhaps many a draft at #4 with the idea that next year he will replace a played out Solder at OLT but in the mean time address the biggest glaring hole currently on the entire team which is in fact C.

Wirfs is an anomaly as an OL in that he possesses terrific athleticism.

There is not an OL in this draft that compares. There may not be an NFL OL whose athleticism compares. Maybe a young Jason Peters.

So what I am advocating is simply what our coaching staff advocates.
Versatility and athleticicism plus toughness.

The above definition sums up Wirfs.

That type of athleticism and versatility warrants a #4 draft pick.

I want this guy on my side one way or another.

So for now lets go with another.

Maximize Wirf's versatility and athleticism and put him at C in between a couple of experience OG's and fill the void that management has neglected to date.

Next year Wirfs can replace the overpaid Solder at OLT.

There is not another OL in this draft that is capable of doing what I suggest. That alone should make him valued at #4.

Now look at the opportunity that selecting Wirfs at #4 and putting him in the void at C presents to management with their second round selection.

Management can use #36 to select a developmental OT in lieu of a C.

Think about that for a NY minute.

Ot's present a much greater value then C's.

So this approach affords the Jints the opportunity to actually obtain two starting OTs with their #4 and #36 draft choices and upgrade their OL for the next 8-10 years.

The only guy in the draft that you could even think about this approach is Wirfs.

Think about it a bit before reflexivly reacting.

Sleep on it.

Process it

Wirfs at #4 makes a whole lot of versatile sense!

Comes across as tilting at windmills at this point.

In comment 14857797 ChicagoMarty said:

Quote:

I think Wills is a plugin OT If Jints management had taken care of business and procured a viable C in FA which was completely doable then I would and in fact have advocated for Wills at the pick at #4. DG dropped the ball in terms of obtaining a McGovern at C in FA DG is also the culprit for overpaying Solder at OT and obtaining dreck in Fleming as a swing OT. So what i am advocating is simply drafting the most athletic OL in this draft and perhaps many a draft at #4 with the idea that next year he will replace a played out Solder at OLT but in the mean time address the biggest glaring hole currently on the entire team which is in fact C. Wirfs is an anomaly as an OL in that he possesses terrific athleticism. There is not an OL in this draft that compares. There may not be an NFL OL whose athleticism compares. Maybe a young Jason Peters. So what I am advocating is simply what our coaching staff advocates. Versatility and athleticicism plus toughness. The above definition sums up Wirfs. That type of athleticism and versatility warrants a #4 draft pick. I want this guy on my side one way or another. So for now lets go with another. Maximize Wirf's versatility and athleticism and put him at C in between a couple of experience OG's and fill the void that management has neglected to date. Next year Wirfs can replace the overpaid Solder at OLT. There is not another OL in this draft that is capable of doing what I suggest. That alone should make him valued at #4. Now look at the opportunity that selecting Wirfs at #4 and putting him in the void at C presents to management with their second round selection. Management can use #36 to select a developmental OT in lieu of a C. Think about that for a NY minute. Ot's present a much greater value then C's. So this approach affords the Jints the opportunity to actually obtain two starting OTs with their #4 and #36 draft choices and upgrade their OL for the next 8-10 years. The only guy in the draft that you could even think about this approach is Wirfs. Think about it a bit before reflexivly reacting. Sleep on it. Process it Wirfs at #4 makes a whole lot of versatile sense!

In comment 14857556 Giantsfan79 said:

Quote:

prepare for the wrath of those who care about "positional value" with their picks.

You mean people who want to apply "intelligence" and "reason" and "a plan" to efficiency in roster construction?

In comment 14857922 Gatorade Dunk said:

Quote:

In comment 14857556 Giantsfan79 said: Quote: prepare for the wrath of those who care about "positional value" with their picks. You mean people who want to apply "intelligence" and "reason" and "a plan" to efficiency in roster construction?

You know, it IS possible to legitimately disagree on "positional value" . I think C is vastly underrated. And I don't care if the top pick ends up as a OT, G or C, so long as he is a GREAT OT, G or C.

Were they to take Wirfs and he became John Hannah, are you going to complain?

than a prototype tackle body like Wirfs?

In comment 14857951 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

In comment 14857922 Gatorade Dunk said: Quote: In comment 14857556 Giantsfan79 said: Quote: prepare for the wrath of those who care about "positional value" with their picks. You mean people who want to apply "intelligence" and "reason" and "a plan" to efficiency in roster construction? You know, it IS possible to legitimately disagree on "positional value" . I think C is vastly underrated. And I don't care if the top pick ends up as a OT, G or C, so long as he is a GREAT OT, G or C. Were they to take Wirfs and he became John Hannah, are you going to complain?

I happen to agree with you about the value of OC being underrated, but I was responding to the snide use of quotation marks around "positional value" as though that's somehow this wacky concept worthy of scorn and derision. And I do agree with you that it's possible to legitimately disagree about the relative value of positions. I don't think there's a universal agreement on the value of each position, nor does there have to be.

That said, it is NOT possible, IMO, to legitimately disagree with the concept of positional value in and of itself as a general concept. It is not possible to dismiss the idea that different positions do have different inherent values. We can disagree about what those inherent values are or should be, but anyone who tries to claim that all positions are worth the same for an equally talented prospect at each position is either clueless or full of shit, or both.

As for taking an OC at #4 - it he were to turn out to be another John Hannah, that would be worthwhile, but it's still impossible to ignore positional value and simultaneously optimize your draft picks and roster construction. Since OCs tend to be drafted lower, that's a scenario (IMO) where you almost have to trade down at least slightly to pick up additional pick(s) if the targeted prospect is an OC.

In comment 14858174 Gatorade Dunk said:

Quote:

In comment 14857951 Victor in CT said: Quote: In comment 14857922 Gatorade Dunk said: Quote: In comment 14857556 Giantsfan79 said: Quote: prepare for the wrath of those who care about "positional value" with their picks. You mean people who want to apply "intelligence" and "reason" and "a plan" to efficiency in roster construction? You know, it IS possible to legitimately disagree on "positional value" . I think C is vastly underrated. And I don't care if the top pick ends up as a OT, G or C, so long as he is a GREAT OT, G or C. Were they to take Wirfs and he became John Hannah, are you going to complain? I happen to agree with you about the value of OC being underrated, but I was responding to the snide use of quotation marks around "positional value" as though that's somehow this wacky concept worthy of scorn and derision. And I do agree with you that it's possible to legitimately disagree about the relative value of positions. I don't think there's a universal agreement on the value of each position, nor does there have to be. That said, it is NOT possible, IMO, to legitimately disagree with the concept of positional value in and of itself as a general concept. It is not possible to dismiss the idea that different positions do have different inherent values. We can disagree about what those inherent values are or should be, but anyone who tries to claim that all positions are worth the same for an equally talented prospect at each position is either clueless or full of shit, or both. As for taking an OC at #4 - it he were to turn out to be another John Hannah, that would be worthwhile, but it's still impossible to ignore positional value and simultaneously optimize your draft picks and roster construction. Since OCs tend to be drafted lower, that's a scenario (IMO) where you almost have to trade down at least slightly to pick up additional pick(s) if the targeted prospect is an OC.

I think we can agree to disagree. I think a bad C will make the OTs look a lot worse than they are, while a good C will make them look better. Regardless, lets just hope they get a great player with that pick no matter what.

a trade down was completed and Wirfs was taken with #9 not #4 and another first-round pick was obtained #20.

At least you got the most important part right...the team need to invest in the offensive line early and often in this draft. But let's try and keep the Tackles at Tackle, and the Centers at Center.

No need to make history here...lets just put better players on the OL.

In comment 14858027 Coach Red Beaulieu said:

Quote:

than a prototype tackle body like Wirfs?

Wirfs height is fine for center, in effect, I would say most OTs are taller than him. But again, it makes no sense to me to shift him to a position he's never played before.