I was going to add this to a comment on another thread, but felt the subject matter was worth it's own discussion. As I currently see it (and I expect my opinion to change more than a few times between now and the end of April), if you consider WR, TE, OL, CB, and ER as the positions currently of most need, here are the prospects who could possibly be top five on the Giants board but also available with the 11th pick (note: this excludes Lawrence, Wilson, Fields, and Sewell, all of whom may or may not be in the Giants top five, but surely will be gone by 11th pick).
WR: Chase, Smith
TE: Pitts
OL: Slater
CB: Farley, Surtain
ER: Rousseau
So that's seven prospects who I believe have both a shot at being in the top five on the Giants draft board (obviously with some being more possible than others, but for each of them I could picture Gettleman saying they were in their top five and not lying about it). Of the seven, I'm least crazy about Smith (because of his size) and Surtain (because of his speed), but I also think that Smith and Surtain--along with Chase--are the least likely of the seven to make it out of the top ten. But opinions vary enough on Pitts, Slater, Farley, and Rousseau that each could plausibly fall to the Giants (and yet be among the top five or so on their draft board). In fact, Rousseau has fallen to mid-round one in the eyes of some draftniks after being considered a top five or six prospect before opting out and missing a year of showcase. And Rousseau fits the physical profile of a prospect the Giants favor. His interviews will be key.
p.s.-- I think Waddle and (believe or not) Toney are also remote possibilities for the list. Toney strikes me as the kind of talent some team will fall in love with and maybe that team is the Giants. I remember the 1997 draft, it was around February of that year that Ike Hilliard was still considered a borderline first round talent, more like early second round according to Kiper and the like, but by the time draft day rolled around, most mock drafts had him going in the late teens or early twenties. Sure enough the Giants took him with the 7th pick of the draft.
I actually think Rosseau's best position is as a stand-up LB on the weakside. He can move down and put his hand in the dirt occasionally but from his highlights I don't think he's strong enough to play the line full time.
If I thought he was an impact player, it wouldn't even enter my mind...
Quote:
won't draft Rousseau. But if they don't sign Tomlinson and do sign a starting caliber free agent receiver, Rousseau could be the guy.
I actually think Rosseau's best position is as a stand-up LB on the weakside. He can move down and put his hand in the dirt occasionally but from his highlights I don't think he's strong enough to play the line full time.
Quote:
In comment 15153307 Ira said:
Quote:
won't draft Rousseau. But if they don't sign Tomlinson and do sign a starting caliber free agent receiver, Rousseau could be the guy.
I actually think Rosseau's best position is as a stand-up LB on the weakside. He can move down and put his hand in the dirt occasionally but from his highlights I don't think he's strong enough to play the line full time.
I see him as a stand-up ER/OLB, too, but I think he has the size to play either side. He might be more Carl Banks than Lawrence Taylor.
He is not a very fluid, flexible guy. His tackling technique is atrocious and he could easily end up being a Kanavis McGhee KIND OF GUY. Hard pass for me.
Quote:
I see a lot of recent mocks have him falling to us if we want him.
I don't like Parsons. I guess it's possible he could be in the Giants top five and yet fall to them, but I'm not even sure what position he plays. Inside linebacker? Maybe I'll like him better by the time April comes, but there's a lot of projecting needed when it comes to him.
“You” don’t like him so you omit a universally regarding top draft prospect whom quite a few experts feel is the best defensive prospect in the class? Are you Gil Brandt? lol
This is possible. I think NYG wants instant impact players this year.
Quote:
In comment 15153304 NJBlueTuna said:
Quote:
I see a lot of recent mocks have him falling to us if we want him.
I don't like Parsons. I guess it's possible he could be in the Giants top five and yet fall to them, but I'm not even sure what position he plays. Inside linebacker? Maybe I'll like him better by the time April comes, but there's a lot of projecting needed when it comes to him.
“You” don’t like him so you omit a universally regarding top draft prospect whom quite a few experts feel is the best defensive prospect in the class? Are you Gil Brandt? lol
This evaluation is coming from the guy pounding the table for Josh Rosen in 2018, so let that guide the weight you place on this evaluation.
Quote:
In comment 15153316 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 15153304 NJBlueTuna said:
Quote:
I see a lot of recent mocks have him falling to us if we want him.
I don't like Parsons. I guess it's possible he could be in the Giants top five and yet fall to them, but I'm not even sure what position he plays. Inside linebacker? Maybe I'll like him better by the time April comes, but there's a lot of projecting needed when it comes to him.
“You” don’t like him so you omit a universally regarding top draft prospect whom quite a few experts feel is the best defensive prospect in the class? Are you Gil Brandt? lol
This evaluation is coming from the guy pounding the table for Josh Rosen in 2018, so let that guide the weight you place on this evaluation.
Lol, thanks. I understand now.
Generally speaking trade Downs don't work. I'm not sure at the very top of the draft and there's a quarterback there that you don't need. An impact player is worth multiples of good starters.
Pitts, is probably better and safer as a wide receiver than any wide receiver in the draft. And that's before you consider him as a Swiss army knife and hybrid. He won't to be there. Long-armed, fast, yards-after-catch, will win every contested catch, not one drop last year.
Continued maturation of an offensive line that got better by the week, anticipated growth in Jones's game, and the addition of generational talents like Barkley and Pitts would be transformative.
I think that if Pitts winds up in blue The Giants are instant contenders, and even conceding limitations and fallibilities, I don't think you can make that case for any other projects.
The Giants are not a base 3-4 team. The Giants' base defense is... wait for it... multiple.
They can go odd front against certain opponents and even front against others. They can use a 40 over or under shade, they can go wide 9, they can go big nickel, all as base defenses. That's the idea, anyway - scheme versatility is paramount. Saying that Rousseau would be this or that is missing the point. He might be a stand-up edge OLB one week and a 40-front DE the next.
I don't actually think that Rousseau will be their pick no matter what, but it won't be because they'd have to pigeonhole him into a 3-4 DE slot.
He's really not, but it's a quaint thought.
Quote:
In comment 15153316 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 15153304 NJBlueTuna said:
Quote:
I see a lot of recent mocks have him falling to us if we want him.
I don't like Parsons. I guess it's possible he could be in the Giants top five and yet fall to them, but I'm not even sure what position he plays. Inside linebacker? Maybe I'll like him better by the time April comes, but there's a lot of projecting needed when it comes to him.
“You” don’t like him so you omit a universally regarding top draft prospect whom quite a few experts feel is the best defensive prospect in the class? Are you Gil Brandt? lol
This evaluation is coming from the guy pounding the table for Josh Rosen in 2018, so let that guide the weight you place on this evaluation.
I really like Milton, but I have to point out that his Rosen love-fest wasn't even his worst draft crush in the past half-decade. I just chalk it up to praying at the shrine of Boylhart (who is easily the biggest hack draftnik on the planet).
Poster uses a word with r in it and turns into posts about Rousseau.
11 slot and this draft context will make for a lot of uncertainty.
Emotional distance and patience will be a good idea. Imo.
All the best
If I thought he was an impact player, it wouldn't even enter my mind...
so you would take a kicker a #11?
you would draft another safety at #11?
I actually think Waddle is intriguing. But then I realize that BBI would immediately shit their collective pants at the idea of using him as a weapon on specials (where he'd immediately enter the NFL as one of the league's best return men), and I get exhausted at the prospect of arguing with people who would rather use shitty players in important roles because we can afford for those shitty players to be injured.
Short form: I really like Waddle if we're hellbent on a WR at #11, but don't actually trust the Giants to use him properly, and definitely expect fans to whine about using him properly if they do choose to actually value the highest leverage opportunities he can impact.
Quote:
currently on the Giants that would prevent me from picking a guy at #11 who plays a similar position.
If I thought he was an impact player, it wouldn't even enter my mind...
so you would take a kicker a #11?
you would draft another safety at #11?
Position player, wondered who would need that disclaimer...
And yes Safety, if he made the tier grade. Why not?
Quote:
Rousseau and Waddle are the only guys I’d absolutely hate at 11.
I actually think Waddle is intriguing. But then I realize that BBI would immediately shit their collective pants at the idea of using him as a weapon on specials (where he'd immediately enter the NFL as one of the league's best return men), and I get exhausted at the prospect of arguing with people who would rather use shitty players in important roles because we can afford for those shitty players to be injured.
Short form: I really like Waddle if we're hellbent on a WR at #11, but don't actually trust the Giants to use him properly, and definitely expect fans to whine about using him properly if they do choose to actually value the highest leverage opportunities he can impact.
Quote:
In comment 15153320 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
currently on the Giants that would prevent me from picking a guy at #11 who plays a similar position.
If I thought he was an impact player, it wouldn't even enter my mind...
so you would take a kicker a #11?
you would draft another safety at #11?
Position player, wondered who would need that disclaimer...
And yes Safety, if he made the tier grade. Why not?
Quote:
In comment 15153571 GoDeep13 said:
Quote:
Rousseau and Waddle are the only guys I’d absolutely hate at 11.
I actually think Waddle is intriguing. But then I realize that BBI would immediately shit their collective pants at the idea of using him as a weapon on specials (where he'd immediately enter the NFL as one of the league's best return men), and I get exhausted at the prospect of arguing with people who would rather use shitty players in important roles because we can afford for those shitty players to be injured.
Short form: I really like Waddle if we're hellbent on a WR at #11, but don't actually trust the Giants to use him properly, and definitely expect fans to whine about using him properly if they do choose to actually value the highest leverage opportunities he can impact.
I’d rather them take a chance on signing John Ross than drafting Waddle. They are essentially the same player (except Ross had a better college season than any Waddle has had and Ross actually had a 200+ rec game in the NFL an probably would do good with a change of location.)
Ross didn't have to share the ball at UW with quite the same NFL talent that Waddle has had around him at Bama, unless you're going to make a case for the greatness of Dante Pettis, in which case, who needs either of them? We already have Pettis!
I can totally get behind taking a flyer on Ross, but he's a borderline Corey Coleman reclamation project now, IMO.
Quote:
In comment 15153581 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15153571 GoDeep13 said:
Quote:
Rousseau and Waddle are the only guys I’d absolutely hate at 11.
I actually think Waddle is intriguing. But then I realize that BBI would immediately shit their collective pants at the idea of using him as a weapon on specials (where he'd immediately enter the NFL as one of the league's best return men), and I get exhausted at the prospect of arguing with people who would rather use shitty players in important roles because we can afford for those shitty players to be injured.
Short form: I really like Waddle if we're hellbent on a WR at #11, but don't actually trust the Giants to use him properly, and definitely expect fans to whine about using him properly if they do choose to actually value the highest leverage opportunities he can impact.
I’d rather them take a chance on signing John Ross than drafting Waddle. They are essentially the same player (except Ross had a better college season than any Waddle has had and Ross actually had a 200+ rec game in the NFL an probably would do good with a change of location.)
Ross didn't have to share the ball at UW with quite the same NFL talent that Waddle has had around him at Bama, unless you're going to make a case for the greatness of Dante Pettis, in which case, who needs either of them? We already have Pettis!
I can totally get behind taking a flyer on Ross, but he's a borderline Corey Coleman reclamation project now, IMO.
I disagree about Waddle. For WRs I like Chase, Waddle (close) and then Smith.
Smith is 3" taller than Waddle and comes in 8 pounds less. Sure, do I wish Waddle was 6'1"? Yes, but he is incredibly fast and strong. It is like having an extra player on the field with him. Chase I like even more because be does have the size. Just my opinion.
2. TE Pitts. He's a weapon who can win 1v1 and threaten the defense. I've seen him ranked as high as the 2nd overall player so not sure he makes it to 11.
3. An EDGE Rusher, and right now I think Ojulari makes the most sense. He will rise throughout the process and fits the Giants scheme the most. Great technique, young and ascending player who can play in space- something Rousseau is not great at. I worry about Rousseau, don't see him as a true EDGE guy. Did not win there often in college, his production came lined up inside. He doesn't have bend, burst, and doesn't play with great leverage on the edge.
4. CB Surtain- comes from a program that the Giants like. Good pedigree. NFL ready technique. Fits the scheme, has the size to matchup. I believe Judge and co are from the NE school of thought that values cover guys (Gilmore, Revis, Law etc) over dominant EDGE rushers
5.OL Slater- versatile OL, could be BPA and the OL feels like far from a finished product. A bit outside of the box but wouldn't hate the pick.
I don't see Parsons (don't think he's a bad guy, but from interviews/articles I'm not sure he is the type of character that the org has sought after) or Rousseau (raw prospect, limited film, and not sure where he fits). Farley also seems a bit raw with limited film. Gotta remember Giants went with finished products from top tier programs (Thomas, McKinney) over raw guys with untapped potential (Wirfs, Becton) in the first draft of the Judge Era
Quote:
In comment 15153585 GoDeep13 said:
Quote:
In comment 15153581 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15153571 GoDeep13 said:
Quote:
Rousseau and Waddle are the only guys I’d absolutely hate at 11.
I actually think Waddle is intriguing. But then I realize that BBI would immediately shit their collective pants at the idea of using him as a weapon on specials (where he'd immediately enter the NFL as one of the league's best return men), and I get exhausted at the prospect of arguing with people who would rather use shitty players in important roles because we can afford for those shitty players to be injured.
Short form: I really like Waddle if we're hellbent on a WR at #11, but don't actually trust the Giants to use him properly, and definitely expect fans to whine about using him properly if they do choose to actually value the highest leverage opportunities he can impact.
I’d rather them take a chance on signing John Ross than drafting Waddle. They are essentially the same player (except Ross had a better college season than any Waddle has had and Ross actually had a 200+ rec game in the NFL an probably would do good with a change of location.)
Ross didn't have to share the ball at UW with quite the same NFL talent that Waddle has had around him at Bama, unless you're going to make a case for the greatness of Dante Pettis, in which case, who needs either of them? We already have Pettis!
I can totally get behind taking a flyer on Ross, but he's a borderline Corey Coleman reclamation project now, IMO.
Coleman had off the field baggage. Ross just wants an opportunity to get on the field.
He's had opportunities. He's just made of glass.
Quote:
Rousseau and Waddle are the only guys I’d absolutely hate at 11.
I disagree about Waddle. For WRs I like Chase, Waddle (close) and then Smith.
Smith is 3" taller than Waddle and comes in 8 pounds less. Sure, do I wish Waddle was 6'1"? Yes, but he is incredibly fast and strong. It is like having an extra player on the field with him. Chase I like even more because be does have the size. Just my opinion.
Waddle’s best case scenario in my opinion is Brandin Cooks and Cooks was much more productive in his college career than Waddle (who was predominantly used as a 3rd/4th WR, gadget guy, and special teams guy as a sophomore despite having a “great freshman year”. Apparently no one told Saban that he’s better than all his other WRs.)
John Metchie had a better sophomore season than any of Waddle’s seasons!
Would love another second rounder. Gettleman should be able to find good talent.
Dark horse for 11 if they go edge is Kwity Paye. Explosive. Kind of big for a 3-4 OLB but he's explosive, can pass rush from multiple spots, and can bend. I like him more than Rousseau, by a large margin. Paye looks like he will be an impact pass rusher, and he's stout against the run.
He's a guy I think will go higher than expected.
For me, it's Smith or Chase if they are there, but neither probably will be. So if you go defense, to me it's Paye, Surtain, or Parsons. And out of that group, it would be really close between Parsons and Paye.
Quote:
Rousseau and Waddle are the only guys I’d absolutely hate at 11.
I actually think Waddle is intriguing. But then I realize that BBI would immediately shit their collective pants at the idea of using him as a weapon on specials (where he'd immediately enter the NFL as one of the league's best return men), and I get exhausted at the prospect of arguing with people who would rather use shitty players in important roles because we can afford for those shitty players to be injured.
Short form: I really like Waddle if we're hellbent on a WR at #11, but don't actually trust the Giants to use him properly, and definitely expect fans to whine about using him properly if they do choose to actually value the highest leverage opportunities he can impact.
Hi GD. I am interested in your comment above which I put in bold. The Giants not using a player properly falls back on Judge. I am curious why you feel the Giants wouldn't properly use a dynamic playmaker?
This isn't a challenge. I am honestly interested in your view.
Thanks.
3. An EDGE Rusher, and right now I think Ojulari makes the most sense. He will rise throughout the process and fits the Giants scheme the most. Great technique, young and ascending player who can play in space- something Rousseau is not great at. I worry about Rousseau, don't see him as a true EDGE guy. Did not win there often in college, his production came lined up inside. He doesn't have bend, burst, and doesn't play with great leverage on the edge.
I've been on the Ojulari bandwagon for awhile. He seems to have the tools that would fit a Graham prototype front seven player. Lot of pieces add up - very athletic, size, excellent program/competition, good production, etc. Just looks like a guy who fits into today's NFL.
But at #11 seems a stretch. Now if we trade down...well, that's a different story and he comes more into focus.
Quote:
3. An EDGE Rusher, and right now I think Ojulari makes the most sense. He will rise throughout the process and fits the Giants scheme the most. Great technique, young and ascending player who can play in space- something Rousseau is not great at. I worry about Rousseau, don't see him as a true EDGE guy. Did not win there often in college, his production came lined up inside. He doesn't have bend, burst, and doesn't play with great leverage on the edge.
I've been on the Ojulari bandwagon for awhile. He seems to have the tools that would fit a Graham prototype front seven player. Lot of pieces add up - very athletic, size, excellent program/competition, good production, etc. Just looks like a guy who fits into today's NFL.
But at #11 seems a stretch. Now if we trade down...well, that's a different story and he comes more into focus.
LOL at "trade down" - did you forget who our GM is?
Quote:
In comment 15153571 GoDeep13 said:
Quote:
Rousseau and Waddle are the only guys I’d absolutely hate at 11.
I actually think Waddle is intriguing. But then I realize that BBI would immediately shit their collective pants at the idea of using him as a weapon on specials (where he'd immediately enter the NFL as one of the league's best return men), and I get exhausted at the prospect of arguing with people who would rather use shitty players in important roles because we can afford for those shitty players to be injured.
Short form: I really like Waddle if we're hellbent on a WR at #11, but don't actually trust the Giants to use him properly, and definitely expect fans to whine about using him properly if they do choose to actually value the highest leverage opportunities he can impact.
Hi GD. I am interested in your comment above which I put in bold. The Giants not using a player properly falls back on Judge. I am curious why you feel the Giants wouldn't properly use a dynamic playmaker?
This isn't a challenge. I am honestly interested in your view.
Thanks.
Because the Giants, much like their fans, have a history of getting gunshy about using weapons on specials. If you're going to draft someone like Waddle, you better be prepared to deploy him in Deion Sanders/Devin Hester type ways in addition to featuring him in the offense.
But ever since Sehorn's injury, Giants fans (and quite honestly, the front office as well) have had their balls shrink into their taint when it comes to using top-tier players as special teams weapons. They'll change the title of the special teams coach to pretend that that facet of the game is just as important, but then won't actually dedicate the resources of talent from the roster that would make that side of the game a strength.
I agree, but I don't think he gets past Dallas at 10, if he even makes it that far. Surtain would be my top choice, CB is an absolute need for this roster.
I think Surtains measurable are unusually important for him as a prospect.
Quote:
In comment 15153581 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15153571 GoDeep13 said:
Quote:
Rousseau and Waddle are the only guys I’d absolutely hate at 11.
I actually think Waddle is intriguing. But then I realize that BBI would immediately shit their collective pants at the idea of using him as a weapon on specials (where he'd immediately enter the NFL as one of the league's best return men), and I get exhausted at the prospect of arguing with people who would rather use shitty players in important roles because we can afford for those shitty players to be injured.
Short form: I really like Waddle if we're hellbent on a WR at #11, but don't actually trust the Giants to use him properly, and definitely expect fans to whine about using him properly if they do choose to actually value the highest leverage opportunities he can impact.
Hi GD. I am interested in your comment above which I put in bold. The Giants not using a player properly falls back on Judge. I am curious why you feel the Giants wouldn't properly use a dynamic playmaker?
This isn't a challenge. I am honestly interested in your view.
Thanks.
Because the Giants, much like their fans, have a history of getting gunshy about using weapons on specials. If you're going to draft someone like Waddle, you better be prepared to deploy him in Deion Sanders/Devin Hester type ways in addition to featuring him in the offense.
But ever since Sehorn's injury, Giants fans (and quite honestly, the front office as well) have had their balls shrink into their taint when it comes to using top-tier players as special teams weapons. They'll change the title of the special teams coach to pretend that that facet of the game is just as important, but then won't actually dedicate the resources of talent from the roster that would make that side of the game a strength.
Thanks for the response. Going by Judge's words and some action so far I can't imagine he would be ok with this type of thinking with the FO. If what you explain is the case then I can only see a few different ways this situation ends up.
Judge buys into the alleged FO thinking which would be contradictory to his words of using players to their strength.
Judge disagrees and perhaps even soured by lack of reasonable control for a HC and leaves.
The FO changes their thinking and allows Judge to use the players as he wishes.
I am not even sure if any compromise would fit this situation. My thinking is that Judge gets fed up and leaves if what you believe is the truth.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 15154045 crick n NC said:
Quote:
In comment 15153581 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15153571 GoDeep13 said:
Quote:
Rousseau and Waddle are the only guys I’d absolutely hate at 11.
I actually think Waddle is intriguing. But then I realize that BBI would immediately shit their collective pants at the idea of using him as a weapon on specials (where he'd immediately enter the NFL as one of the league's best return men), and I get exhausted at the prospect of arguing with people who would rather use shitty players in important roles because we can afford for those shitty players to be injured.
Short form: I really like Waddle if we're hellbent on a WR at #11, but don't actually trust the Giants to use him properly, and definitely expect fans to whine about using him properly if they do choose to actually value the highest leverage opportunities he can impact.
Hi GD. I am interested in your comment above which I put in bold. The Giants not using a player properly falls back on Judge. I am curious why you feel the Giants wouldn't properly use a dynamic playmaker?
This isn't a challenge. I am honestly interested in your view.
Thanks.
Because the Giants, much like their fans, have a history of getting gunshy about using weapons on specials. If you're going to draft someone like Waddle, you better be prepared to deploy him in Deion Sanders/Devin Hester type ways in addition to featuring him in the offense.
But ever since Sehorn's injury, Giants fans (and quite honestly, the front office as well) have had their balls shrink into their taint when it comes to using top-tier players as special teams weapons. They'll change the title of the special teams coach to pretend that that facet of the game is just as important, but then won't actually dedicate the resources of talent from the roster that would make that side of the game a strength.
Thanks for the response. Going by Judge's words and some action so far I can't imagine he would be ok with this type of thinking with the FO. If what you explain is the case then I can only see a few different ways this situation ends up.
Judge buys into the alleged FO thinking which would be contradictory to his words of using players to their strength.
Judge disagrees and perhaps even soured by lack of reasonable control for a HC and leaves.
The FO changes their thinking and allows Judge to use the players as he wishes.
I am not even sure if any compromise would fit this situation. My thinking is that Judge gets fed up and leaves if what you believe is the truth.
I genuinely hope that Judge is the person who can divorce this front office (including ownership) from some of the staleness in their approach. And I hope it doesn't have to come down to JJ leaving (or threatening to leave) in order for them to shift their thinking.
But a lot of the SOP seems to be so ingrained; many of DG's moves are similar enough to what we saw under Reese that you have to at least wonder if Chris or John is actually the master puppeteer. If that's the case, it's troublesome. And if Judge is the goods and still can't change the management culture, this franchise is a lost cause.
We'll see how it plays out, but it's encouraging to have a HC that we can at least have enough faith in that we're excited to see him push the boundaries for a staid front office.
Anyway, regardless of our differences in briefs, I appreciate your time and attention to our conversation.