Posters who do not favor drafting an OT at #4 often cite the fact that among the draft-guru set there's no consensus about which OT is the best one. However, they never explain why that matters. We're not talking about amending the Constitution, where a consensus is a built-in imperative. We're picking football players.
Sure, a consensus on any draft pick should be reached by each individual team's decision-makers after input from scouts and coaches, with BPA, plus team needs, plus positional value factored into the discussion. But from the pundit class? Who cares?
This is not to disparage any single draft analyst. Most of them have my respect, and I value their insights and opinions (some more than others, some I dismiss out of hand), but if I'm a GM, I'm not asking for a show of hands from the myriad of outside observers with varying degrees of expertise and acuity before making my decisions.
Make your case against drafting an OT at #4 all you want. Just don't use "consensus" among the punditry (or a lack thereof) to make it. It's irrelevant, and should have no bearing on any decision made by the Giants or any other team.
The cynical answer is that it’s harder to be fired for a mistake everyone else is making, too.
Of the OT, the one I like the most is Wirfs mainly because he is versatile. You always want to add talent and we know he is athletic. He comes from a program known for churning out NFL quality OL. He has played both RT and LT so there is value and safety in selecting Wirfs.
So for me, it’s Simmons at 4 with Wirfs as 1B. If we go OT I would prefer DG trade down if possible and secure at least a high day 2 pick.
The cynical answer is that it’s harder to be fired for a mistake everyone else is making, too.
But are these guys we read really experts. Most are making their decisions by reading what others have said, just like us. It's not like the average pundit is scouting players and breaking down film. Now, there is more of that kind if thing now but Sy is better than any of the guys we read in the press. Look at what they all said about our QB. All of them wrong and by a wide margin as well.
I would push for a trade down.....for anyone but Chase Young.
As the 2nd round talent seems to fit our needs well
At one time people only wanted pocket passers. Huge OL were more important than guys w quick feet. Etc. there were questions about Urlacher. Aaron Donnel. Etc. I’m fine w an OT at 4. Just better be right be that high because if your wrong the pure odds are you passed on a good to great player
The Cowboys OL consists of first rounders in Smith, Frederick, and Martin; a 2nd rounder in Williams, and Collins, a first round talent that fell due to character concerns. The Cowboys have invested heavily in the OL.
Gettleman actually had an excellent record of drafting OL later in the draft and as undrafted FA in Carolina. Norwell was an undrafted FA I believe. Trai Turner was a 3rd. Darryl Williams was a 4th. That is one of the things I was most looking forward to with him coming to the Giants, but we haven’t seen it yet.
Hopefully between Gettleman, Judge, Garrett, and Columbo, we get the OL turned around quickly
Without it, like last year, people ridicule the Giants and no one wants that.
But note that many mock drafts for day 1 are actually pretty good forecasts. We fans like to rag on the mistakes they make, but there are a lot of sound predictions, which suggests that the pundits are getting feedback from the professionals.
Few question that the top defensive prospects in this draft (Young, Simmons, Okudah and Brown) are the consensus picks at their positions. Cream rises to the top.
But if scouts and talent evaluators can't seem to agree on which of the top four OTs is the consensus pick that tells me that none of the OTs are worthy of being the 4th pick in the draft.
If none of the OTs appear to be talented enough to rise above the other OTs, like the top 4 defenders have...why force the pick just because of need?
Who caaaaayyyyyyeeeesssss.
I tend to stick to 1 or 2 people and their individual rankings or thoughts on the position groups..that's about it.
So, consensus is great, but I think conviction on a single player is more important. Last year, the "consensus" was that Daniel Jones was barely a 1st round draft pick. Well, NYG took him at 6 overall.
Few question that the top defensive prospects in this draft (Young, Simmons, Okudah and Brown) are the consensus picks at their positions. Cream rises to the top.
But if scouts and talent evaluators can't seem to agree on which of the top four OTs is the consensus pick that tells me that none of the OTs are worthy of being the 4th pick in the draft.
If none of the OTs appear to be talented enough to rise above the other OTs, like the top 4 defenders have...why force the pick just because of need?
Good post. Although DG and the other 31 GMs may have an OT worthy of being a top pick. And hell, they may all even have the same guy whether they need one or not.
The draft is mostly a crapshoot. Dexter Lawrence looks like he is on a different level than Quinnen Williams is already, and before that draft, Williams was the 'can't miss/consensus top player' guy.
If you take a player number 4 - he should have the ability to become absolutely elite at their position.
If they truly want to maximize the value of an elite resource like the number 4 pick- they either have to take a defensive player or trade down and accumulate more assets to where one of THESE tackles are worth the value
If you take a player number 4 - he should have the ability to become absolutely elite at their position.
If they truly want to maximize the value of an elite resource like the number 4 pick- they either have to take a defensive player or trade down and accumulate more assets to where one of THESE tackles are worth the value
That's nothing more than your opinion. Why can't there be a top LT? Because you say so?
And its fine if you don't think there are but definitively stating it with absolutely zero context or reason makes for a fairly empty argument.
Few question that the top defensive prospects in this draft (Young, Simmons, Okudah and Brown) are the consensus picks at their positions. Cream rises to the top.
But if scouts and talent evaluators can't seem to agree on which of the top four OTs is the consensus pick that tells me that none of the OTs are worthy of being the 4th pick in the draft.
If none of the OTs appear to be talented enough to rise above the other OTs, like the top 4 defenders have...why force the pick just because of need?
BPA should not exist in a vacuum. Positional value should always be taken into account (which is why I maintain that drafting Barkley at #2 was a mistake, while drafting Daniel Jones at #6 was not). A judicious allocation of resources in a capped league should also factor into your decisions (which is why I would oppose drafting Brown or Okudah). In addition, when premium draft capital has already been invested - right or wrong - in a RB and a QB, a similar investment of premium draft capital should necessarily follow to protect those earlier investments. That didn't happen in 2019, and I'd rather not repeat that mistake in 2020.
Regardless, only the opinions of each individual team's scouts and evaluators should matter. What Drew Boylhart thinks, or Colin and Pigskin Paul, or Walter, or Solak, or Kollmann, or Dave-Te, or McGinn, or me, or you, and, yes, even our own Sy'56 or whomever, shouldn't matter at all, not to the Giants or any other team, which was the point of my OP.
Quote:
Jason Garrett ... no one in the organization knows OL talent better than he does.
The Cowboys OL consists of first rounders in Smith, Frederick, and Martin; a 2nd rounder in Williams, and Collins, a first round talent that fell due to character concerns. The Cowboys have invested heavily in the OL.
Gettleman actually had an excellent record of drafting OL later in the draft and as undrafted FA in Carolina. Norwell was an undrafted FA I believe. Trai Turner was a 3rd. Darryl Williams was a 4th. That is one of the things I was most looking forward to with him coming to the Giants, but we haven’t seen it yet.
Hopefully between Gettleman, Judge, Garrett, and Columbo, we get the OL turned around quickly
Excellent post. So the questions remain:
1. Who do the Giants think the best tackle is?
2. Can this tackle be had with a small trade back
3. If we go with defense in round 1, does NYG think there are viable OT in round 2
4. Do the Giants like an OC in round 2 that would help the line as much as an OT would?
Within the team conviction matters. Outside opinions should only matter to the extent that if they differ dramatically from the team evaluation, the team should double check to see why.
Outside the team, it just give people something to use as ammo to bolster their opinion. Shouldn't matter much to the team.
Definitely a I'm fucking smarter than everyone else pick, as was Daniel Jones.
Josh Allen last year was a consensus pick, and Hakeem Nicks. Donald and Martin were the dual "consensus" bbi picks, don't think anyone would have had a meltdown if either were selected.
So while I completely understand you never want to "reach" - just because we missed on Ereck Flowers, does not mean we shouldn't pick a guy *3 or 4 slots earlier* than he probably should be taken.
It's great to say "wow, great job DG you held firm! we got great value! He's definitely worth the 4th pick!" and then we are doing the same thing in 2021 when we say "gee...eh..none of these OL really hit the mark." And around and around we go. Conviction/pro bowl upside/character/ability to be elite with great coaching/work ethic/background/winner. That should be what we consider with our early 1st round pick. It should not be, well, this guy aint worth 4, but damn I'd be happy with him at 8
But note that many mock drafts for day 1 are actually pretty good forecasts. We fans like to rag on the mistakes they make, but there are a lot of sound predictions, which suggests that the pundits are getting feedback from the professionals.
Fair enough cosmicj. But the experience from our draft last year is still pretty much in my mind. Just what was the "consensus" on Daniel Jones again? Just how bad was it? And Simmons may be a great player but he also a "combine fast riser" based on his workout. The hype for him is very loud. Look at who the hype is on the OL. Becton. Why? Another "combine fast riser". I'm a bit leery.
Or it could indicate that the pundits can't evaluate OL talent to save their lives. I doubt that's true in the draft rooms across the NFL.
Never, not that I can remember - LOL
Simmons, OTOH is the bellwether for how the college defenses are starting to adjust and BBI can see for itself how the greybeards dislike him or discount his ability.
That's why ppl should stop paying attention to them in near future b/c CFB is going one way and they won't adjust.
Simmons, OTOH is the bellwether for how the college defenses are starting to adjust and BBI can see for itself how the greybeards dislike him or discount his ability.
That's why ppl should stop paying attention to them in near future b/c CFB is going one way and they won't adjust.
First of all, you're making a false assumption about those of us who prefer an OT over Simmons (or any defender). I can't speak for everyone of course, but personally I've never disparaged Simmons, in fact I've conceded that he's worth the #4 pick and would make our defense better, but that I'd still draft Jedrick Wills for reasons I've stated in numerous posts.
Second, that wasn't the point of my OP, which was to dismiss the varying opinions of the punditry with regard to a consensus-best OT as a valid reason for not drafting one at #4.
Third, I've got your "greybeard" right here, hangin', Junior.
The cynical answer is that it’s harder to be fired for a mistake everyone else is making, too.
Good post
If you take a player number 4 - he should have the ability to become absolutely elite at their position.
If they truly want to maximize the value of an elite resource like the number 4 pick- they either have to take a defensive player or trade down and accumulate more assets to where one of THESE tackles are worth the value
Consensus and elite are different words; they are not synonyms.
Who was the consensus top LB in the 1996 NFL draft? Kevin Hardy, who was picked #2 overall.
Three other LBs were taken in the 1st round that year: John Mobley, Reggie Brown, and Ray Lewis.
So there were four 1st round picks at that position and there was a clear cut consensus top prospect. Three of the four were named all-pros at some point in their career, and one of the four was a complete bust. Which one wound up being elite?
Quote:
Well, I would hope the pundits are talking to the actual professionals doing the evaluations to check their own (the pundits’) views and work. If they’re not checking with the pros, I totally agree with Klaatu that pundit consensus doesn’t matter.
But note that many mock drafts for day 1 are actually pretty good forecasts. We fans like to rag on the mistakes they make, but there are a lot of sound predictions, which suggests that the pundits are getting feedback from the professionals.
Fair enough cosmicj. But the experience from our draft last year is still pretty much in my mind. Just what was the "consensus" on Daniel Jones again? Just how bad was it? And Simmons may be a great player but he also a "combine fast riser" based on his workout. The hype for him is very loud. Look at who the hype is on the OL. Becton. Why? Another "combine fast riser". I'm a bit leery.
Simmons is not a "combine fast riser" - he has been in the conversation as a top-5 prospect since well before the combine, based on his actual play on the field.
I prefer an OT at #4, but to act like Simmons is just a workout warrior is inaccurate.
Now it appears that Becton has a back issue and that's allegedly let Wirfs jump him as the top OL prospect. That's fine.
I would vastly prefer they take Becton but at this point in time I don't see them passing on Simmons for Wirfs or any other OL unless something changes.
When there is consensus on a guy like Chase Young, for non-experts (everyone on this site not named Sy) you feel better when everyone sees a future star. When it is fairly easy to find experts that look at the OT prospects and say "I wouldn't take this guy at the top of the first" you start to wonder if any of them are worth that pick.
Will all of the top tackles end up being busts? Probably not. But taking an OT at the top of the draft just because you need one and they are there isn't a good strategy. Taking one at the top of the draft because you have a conviction on him is a different story.
I am not pro or against an OT at #4. I have no idea which of these guys would be good or bad. If the Giants take one I will trust they are convinced the guy is good. If they don't? I will be convinced they didn't and be ok with that.
Quote:
In comment 14862412 cosmicj said:
Quote:
Simmons is not a "combine fast riser" - he has been in the conversation as a top-5 prospect since well before the combine, based on his actual play on the field.
I prefer an OT at #4, but to act like Simmons is just a workout warrior is inaccurate.
Ok, that's fair. I didn't mean to imply he wasn't a top prospect he certainly is. Just that the hype around him is combine hype. Just think that the consensus stuff isn't as critical as some might think and given our experience with the (wrong) consensus on Jones. It's something I'm not overly concerned with.
Few question that the top defensive prospects in this draft (Young, Simmons, Okudah and Brown) are the consensus picks at their positions. Cream rises to the top.
But if scouts and talent evaluators can't seem to agree on which of the top four OTs is the consensus pick that tells me that none of the OTs are worthy of being the 4th pick in the draft.
If none of the OTs appear to be talented enough to rise above the other OTs, like the top 4 defenders have...why force the pick just because of need?
You aren’t getting your information from “scouts and talent evaluators.” You’re getting it from the media.
And even if there was some bible that recorded all of the opinions of all of the scouts/evaluators of every player, you’d rarely find a consensus.
Then even if you did find a consensus on a subset of players, there would be plenty that busted with high expectations and plenty that exceeded with low expectations.
So how does a consensus have any value? The only consensus that matters is that everyone in the Giants org is on board with whomever they pick.
That would mean we still need LT if Solder isn't working out. Something tells me Solder is in line for an improved season, with a fresh coaching staff and renewed sense of OL philosophy, but that's probably being really optimistic.
Yet that critique keeps coming.
Yet that critique keeps coming.
I have seen multiple posts that argue not taking an OT is "ignoring the team's most glaring problem" or "kicking the can down the road." Mostly that is because they have a conviction that at least one of these guys, if not more, will be studs. That is their own opinion and they are certainly entitled to it.
There just seem to be several posters who think not coming out of the first round with an OT is a fireable offense, which it absolutely isn't.
Quote:
Jason Garrett ... no one in the organization knows OL talent better than he does.
The Cowboys OL consists of first rounders in Smith, Frederick, and Martin; a 2nd rounder in Williams, and Collins, a first round talent that fell due to character concerns. The Cowboys have invested heavily in the OL.
Yea, Garrett benefited from Will McClay and Stephen Jones. Those two made an assertive effort at improving the offensive line.
That's why I like OT with our first pick. Would be ecstatic with Wirfs or Wills, and I'd be cautiously optimistic about Becton or Thomas if we trade down. But I'm also someone who thinks if there's conviction on a guy, just take him and move along.
I would not like OT with our pick if the talent wasn't there. It is.
The Giants aren't canvassing the media leading up to the Draft or when they're on the clock.
Quote:
just because they need one.
Yet that critique keeps coming.
I have seen multiple posts that argue not taking an OT is "ignoring the team's most glaring problem" or "kicking the can down the road." Mostly that is because they have a conviction that at least one of these guys, if not more, will be studs. That is their own opinion and they are certainly entitled to it.
There just seem to be several posters who think not coming out of the first round with an OT is a fireable offense, which it absolutely isn't.
If those posters opinions are "at least one of these guys if not more will be studs", then they are not saying pick one just because the Giants need one. They are saying they are really good.
Not coming out of the first round with an OT is certainly not a fireable offense. However, not improving the Oline enough for the team to be successful is. It's likely a certainty, especially for a GM that has promised to do so publicly.
What if three of these guys have long careers where they are pro bowlers on different occasions? Would it have been wrong to have taken any of the three, even if different teams had rated them differently going into the draft? Of course not. The only wrong decision would have been picking the fourth guy. DG just has to get it right if he picks an OT, just like with any other pick.