Kiper Mock

Is shoddy at best.

I think Pitts a nice player but if we're going to get a TE, I want an all around TE like Gronk, someone who can block and catch.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Pitts just a better version of Engram? I feel like we can upgrade other positions outside of TE that would be more impactful.

I do agree we need some more weapons for the offense though, especially a game breaking WR.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what we think, since it's obviously up to Gettleman and Judge.

He might be a great receiver but the guy may be a worse blocker than Engram. How many games before someone suggests we move him to WR?

Very interested to get Sy's take. I mentioned last week that I know a VT donor who says that VT staff thinks he's an absolute stud LT and will only get better.

DeVonta Smith at #2 is just crazy high.

Ojulari at the bottom of RD1 is very surprising, especially behind Phillips ("U"), who is even above Rousseau. I really like Ojulari a lot and could see Graham getting very creative with him. But #11 might be too high...

but I think Kiper is flat out awful. He has so many mocks that are so wildly different that he is almost always going to get the right player going to the right team. Maybe the Giants take Pitts at 11, but I’d be very surprised.

Saquon, Slayton, Shepherd, Engram, and Pitts all on the field at once would be extremely hard to defend.

it's behind a paywall.

Lawrence
Fields
Wilson
Lance

but as a Plaxico type WR. He has excellent hands. I do not want Walden.

not Walden

In comment 15134727 No Where Man said:

Quote:

Saquon, Slayton, Shepherd, Engram, and Pitts all on the field at once would be extremely hard to defend.

Forget Engram, you get rid of him if you draft Pitts. p.s.--The Engram experiment is over. Efficacy in Phase 3 trials was dismal. We are better off with a placebo at a much cheaper cost.

If you look for the WR that can stretch the field, don’t you have to have an OL that can protect the QB long enough for the play to develop? And do the Giants have that kind of OL? I don’t think so unless you add help at the OL and I think they need a RT and a guard. Is Peart really a lock to be decent starter? And, watching Lemioux pass block last year was not fun. Maybe they’ll get better. Barkley showed he’s not a good pass blocker and their TEs are not much better. So, the people want the Giants to draft this new toy and we’ll see Jones either running for his life or flat on his butt.

Mel the putz is never right when it comes to the Giants and the last thing we need in the 1st round is another version of EE.

...so yeah.

Are we gonna rely on Ximenes and Carter being our outside pass rushers again?

In comment 15134729 Producer said:

Quote:

it's behind a paywall. Lawrence Fields Wilson Lance

Lawrence - Jax
Fields - Lions
Wilson - Falcons
Lance - FMiC Panthers

#15 to the Pats.

In comment 15134738 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 15134727 No Where Man said: Quote: Saquon, Slayton, Shepherd, Engram, and Pitts all on the field at once would be extremely hard to defend. Forget Engram, you get rid of him if you draft Pitts. p.s.--The Engram experiment is over. Efficacy in Phase 3 trials was dismal. We are better off with a placebo at a much cheaper cost.

Exactly what I was thinking! I'm ready for a placebo!

In comment 15134759 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 15134729 Producer said: Quote: it's behind a paywall. Lawrence Fields Wilson Lance Lawrence - Jax Fields - Lions Wilson - Falcons Lance - FMiC Panthers

Thanks!

so..

1. Lawrence - Jax
4. Wilson - Atl
7. Fields - Det
8. Lance - Car

I think he is not correct about the second QB lasting to #4. But I do agree that Lance's stock is rising and don't think he will be there at #11.

In comment 15134752 sb from NYT Forum said:

Quote:

...so yeah. Are we gonna rely on Ximenes and Carter being our outside pass rushers again?

Seems to me, most of the best TEs of the last 20-40 years, including Gronk (2nd), Kelce (3rd), Bavaro (4th), et al. were NOT taken in the first round. Might have something to do with positional value.

I generally don't want to use the #11 pick on a TE, but especially not on one who can't block.

In comment 15134731 Chip said:

Quote:

but as a Plaxico type WR. He has excellent hands. I do not want Walden.

This is what I see as well. I dont care what he is listed as. The question is how he will be used in an offense.

Then the earlier rounds. Outside of picking the top 100 picks Kiper is strong but he ranks 20th out of 26 analysts per Huddle Report with regards to the top 100

Jeremiah is a big supporter of Lance. Has been since NDSU won the championship last year over JMU. So him going #8 doesn't appear to be an outlier here.

I like Lance, but not this high. A year off for a QB is a downgrade for me.

Yeah, I don't get Smith at #2. However, Chase going #3 isn't crazy to me at all.

Enough said....

is probably more highly regarded within NFL circles than the media. I would be willing to bet the majority of GMs have him higher than Smith

In comment 15134779 Dr. D said:

Quote:

In comment 15134752 sb from NYT Forum said: Quote: ...so yeah. Are we gonna rely on Ximenes and Carter being our outside pass rushers again? Seems to me, most of the best TEs of the last 20-40 years, including Gronk (2nd), Kelce (3rd), Bavaro (4th), et al. were NOT taken in the first round. Might have something to do with positional value. I generally don't want to use the #11 pick on a TE, but especially not on one who can't block.

Kelce had character concerns that possibly hurt his draft status. What a steal for KC...

In comment 15134738 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 15134727 No Where Man said: Quote: Saquon, Slayton, Shepherd, Engram, and Pitts all on the field at once would be extremely hard to defend. Forget Engram, you get rid of him if you draft Pitts. p.s.--The Engram experiment is over. Efficacy in Phase 3 trials was dismal. We are better off with a placebo at a much cheaper cost.

Best short post on BBI in a while.

In comment 15134814 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

is probably more highly regarded within NFL circles than the media. I would be willing to bet the majority of GMs have him higher than Smith

Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if most have him in the middle of round one.

although not sure the quality/value is really there in 2021, then a move for Pitts with #11 pick makes a lot of sense from an offensive impact perspective.

If decide otherwise on WR during free agency, then would absolutely be moving that up the priority scale in round one. They can arguably live another year with Engram & Smith combo at Tight End if they had to, and maybe grab a blocking TE on Day 3 for future development.

If the Offense is going to take it up a few notches would think minimum 2 new starting playmakers should be added by the time Day 2 of the Draft is in the books.

As he predicts with Smith, Chase, Waddle all going top 6, Giants would take Pitts... but, I think we'd pick one of those 3 wr if they are were still on the board. The draft never unfolds like the mocks do anyway, but I think Giants take best impact offensive player on the board.

In comment 15134827 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 15134814 ryanmkeane said: Quote: is probably more highly regarded within NFL circles than the media. I would be willing to bet the majority of GMs have him higher than Smith Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if most have him in the middle of round one.

Really? I know it's early, but most mocks I've seen have Chase in the top 10, many before Smith.

In comment 15134821 Thegratefulhead said:

Quote:

In comment 15134738 Milton said: Quote: In comment 15134727 No Where Man said: Quote: Saquon, Slayton, Shepherd, Engram, and Pitts all on the field at once would be extremely hard to defend. Forget Engram, you get rid of him if you draft Pitts. p.s.--The Engram experiment is over. Efficacy in Phase 3 trials was dismal. We are better off with a placebo at a much cheaper cost. Best short post on BBI in a while.

And a WR in FA...

In comment 15134738 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 15134727 No Where Man said: Quote: Saquon, Slayton, Shepherd, Engram, and Pitts all on the field at once would be extremely hard to defend. Forget Engram, you get rid of him if you draft Pitts. p.s.--The Engram experiment is over. Efficacy in Phase 3 trials was dismal. We are better off with a placebo at a much cheaper cost.

Engram is frustrating and totally unreliable but could he be a useful fourth option in the offense with his excellent athleticism. I say yes. But as a main target - he has failed.

In comment 15134796 bw in dc said:

Quote:

Jeremiah is a big supporter of Lance. Has been since NDSU won the championship last year over JMU. So him going #8 doesn't appear to be an outlier here. I like Lance, but not this high. A year off for a QB is a downgrade for me. Yeah, I don't get Smith at #2. However, Chase going #3 isn't crazy to me at all.

I think you are right that a year off is a downgrade but I think the league is getting wise to the idea that without an elite QB your chances of winning a super bowl in today's NFL are next to nil. I think there is a chance that with trades QBs go 1-2-3, and maybe there is a chance they go 1-2-3-4.

Suggest you give this thread a read. Oh and I don’t see Giants taking TE with first pick either. Just saying...

In comment 15134748 Samiam said:

Quote:

If you look for the WR that can stretch the field, don’t you have to have an OL that can protect the QB long enough for the play to develop? And do the Giants have that kind of OL? I don’t think so unless you add help at the OL and I think they need a RT and a guard. Is Peart really a lock to be decent starter? And, watching Lemioux pass block last year was not fun. Maybe they’ll get better. Barkley showed he’s not a good pass blocker and their TEs are not much better. So, the people want the Giants to draft this new toy and we’ll see Jones either running for his life or flat on his butt.

I agree with this. We have our LT and possibly our C, but the rest of the line is a question especially if we cut Zeitler as a cap savings move. Want those dynamic plays? Want holes for Barkley to run through? Want to give DJ time to throw the ball and not get sacked? He was the 4th most sacked QB in 2020. Finish the line. I'd much rather have Slater or Darrisaw at #11, defense in rounds #2 and #3, and address WR through FA and the middle rounds (it's a very deep class)

taking Chase. They need a stud WR in the worst way. When is the last time they had a legit outside receiver? I can't think of it.

.

And I don’t mean once in a while I mean full time WR. But it can’t be speculation they have to know and know for certain he is an NFL WR. So, that’s the question. As a TE he should be avoided at all costs. As a WR he’s more than a little interesting.

Come on.

Kiper is always wrong and I’m sure that pitts will drop nicely in this draft. Just like simmons last year he’s the new “freak” can’t miss prospect

when he said live on the air that Clint Sintim was a terrible pick for the Giants immediately after the selection.

EE is a perfect hybrid of WR/OL. He blocks like a speed WR, has hands like an OL. Another just like him would be redundant.

In comment 15134955 FanSinceYA said:

Quote:

EE is a perfect hybrid of WR/OL. He blocks like a speed WR, has hands like an OL. Another just like him would be redundant.

LOL that's good. They need a TE. Not a "weapon" or "match up nightmare".

In comment 15134909 cosmicj said:

Quote:

Come on.

Exactly. People are kidding themselves. He'd be like Ramses Barden at WR.

by the time we pick? If so, I'd be somewhat pissed if we took Pitts over him

Saying TE doesn't fall into the great positional value. Ok, after QB and pass protectors, what is? WR is no different than TE since the new rules in place to protect the receivers. If used properly, they can be every bit as dynamic and explosive to an offense as a wide receiver. Look what Jimmy Graham did for the Saints.

I think Garrett did incredible with Witten but he was more of a possession receiver whereas guys like Engram and Pitts are guys who should settle more along the seam or deep crossing patterns. Even screens. If Pitts hands are up to par, I feel he'd be work it. Question is if Judge agrees.

And Belly-Check rode to a couple of SBs with dual TEs playing a significant role in the O. So it wouldn't be a surprise. The team needs significant upgrade at WR, LB/ER, and CB, what they do in the FA market may shed some light on where they may lean in the draft. At 11 there should be some really good talent still available for any of these needs.

In comment 15134962 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

by the time we pick? If so, I'd be somewhat pissed if we took Pitts over him

The only way Surtain gets past Dallas at 10 is if Jerry locks his son in the bathroom before the pick. I think he'll be gone before then, but would be (happily) stunned if he made it past DAL. I think he is the best non-QB in the draft.

In comment 15134894 OdellBeckhamJr said:

Quote:

Quote: You have the Giants taking Florida tight end Kyle Pitts with the 11th pick in your most recent mock draft. Explain to scarred Giants fans why Pitts is not Evan Engram 2.0. I knew it would be a divisive projection for Giants fans — and I heard from plenty of them. It was probably 50-50 in terms of those who loved the pick and those who hated it; there wasn’t much in between. Pitts could be described as a “hybrid” tight end, which will immediately have fans thinking he is another version of Evan Engram, who hasn’t lived up to his draft spot (despite his 2020 Pro Bowl nod). But Pitts is much different and far better than Engram as a player. At 6-6 and 240 pounds, Pitts is what a twitchy big man looks like. His speed and burst are outstanding, which allows him to separate on quick throws or seam patterns. Not only does Pitts have the size and athleticism, but his ball skills and reflexes are remarkable. He can line up outside as a receiver and win over cornerbacks. He can line up inside vs. nickel defenders and create separation. And I won’t even mention what he would do to linebackers. There is no reason why Pitts can’t provide what Plaxico Burress did in a Giants uniform plus more. How the Raiders use Darren Waller is the blueprint for the type of success Pitts can have in the NFL. As a blocker, he doesn’t have the body power to drive block, but he is willing and competitive enough to execute basic blocks. Regardless, teams leaving him at the line of scrimmage aren’t using him correctly.

This is exactly what I said about him on another thread. He's literally Plax+ due to his positional flexibility. I'm seeing that as his floor. You can't teach his size, wingspan, and catching ability, both going up to get it and contested catches. As long as he puts up even mediocre athlete numbers, he's about a sure thing to translate as there is. How is that not worth pick 11? Some people that haven't watched him much I guess are just looking at the history of 1st round tight ends when he doesn't really fit that mold at all. He's an extremely unique player. There's differnce between being a tweener and an Hybrid. Hybrid can play both positions at high level. Tweener doesn't really have a true position.

In comment 15134967 Toth029 said:

Quote:

Saying TE doesn't fall into the great positional value. Ok, after QB and pass protectors, what is? WR is no different than TE since the new rules in place to protect the receivers. If used properly, they can be every bit as dynamic and explosive to an offense as a wide receiver. Look what Jimmy Graham did for the Saints. I think Garrett did incredible with Witten but he was more of a possession receiver whereas guys like Engram and Pitts are guys who should settle more along the seam or deep crossing patterns. Even screens. If Pitts hands are up to par, I feel he'd be work it. Question is if Judge agrees.

Tight ends and running backs don't make the money that WRs due to the shorter nature of both careers. You really don't know when they fall off the cliff. When you sign a guy to a second contract, there's a good chance the last two years of a 5 year deal aren't productive. What they give you on the field is valuable, but the dollars represent the length of their careers. Tight ends is right there with running backs with duration of careers due to the brutal nature of the position. Tight ends careers will certainly lenghten due to the rules, and I wouldn't be suprised to see RBs in there depending on style as well, considering the game is much mroe open.