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.
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.