do you trade up for him? If we address some of our other positional needs in FA and skip paying a top FA receiver Chase seems like the best WR prospect in this class.
To trade up
If NE calls and gives us a 3&5 to move down to 15, I would do it
Flip Engram to someone for a #3 .
We should have enough picks to restock a lot a holes
At 15, slater, surtain, parsons, USC OG, maybe batemen
I'd prefer to see us acquiring assets rather than giving them up for 1 blue chip player.
This. Trading up in this draft, with only 6 picks, with this crappy team, is a fireable offense IMV. Maybe, just maybe, you trade up if you're trading players. Like, #11 and Darius Slayton to move up to get Ja'Marr Chase. Maybe.
OBJ's time with the Giants showed us what it looks like to have a top receiver on a bad team. Guess what? He was exciting, he was fun, he made the games entertaining, but he didn't really move the needle on wins and losses.
that we don’t trade up. What’s tricky with a young team like ours is not knowing what we have yet with some players. It’s possible we have a lot less holes than we think, which would allow you to gamble on a big time talent via trade up.
However, it’s also possible guys like Hernandez, McKinney, Thomas, etc. don’t pan out.
I would do it in a heartbeat but I don't value draft pick after the 2nd round like some due on this board. For the most part at best they rotate in and don't amount to much at least in the Jerry Reese/Ross era.
OBJ's time with the Giants showed us what it looks like to have a top receiver on a bad team. Guess what? He was exciting, he was fun, he made the games entertaining, but he didn't really move the needle on wins and losses.
Difference is this team has a defense that can win if they ever get points on the board.
but I also think it's irrelevant because I'd be stunned if he slipped to #7. My guess right now is that it will be Waddle if his foot checks out medically. If he's gone, then probably Smith. I don't see the Giants trading down unless both are gone, and even then it's extremely unlikely since they haven't done so since Accorsi traded down to get Kiwi.
RE: The only way that happens if he runs a 4.6 forty
If it was obvious Jones was going to be a bonafide NFL starter then possibly but I would still lean against. We need more talent both in starters and quality depth.
Hypothetical: Jones shows he is not going to take the step and the team wins 7-9 wins. What then? If anything I think the Giants should acquire picks to maybe make a move next year in the draft or trading for a vet.
Given the state of the WRs, do you think that the 2nd best WR in the draft would be an upgrade? What about the 3rd best? I’m guessing there are close to ten WRs in this draft who would be the #1 WR on this team. Also, given the number of weaknesses on this team, why would we trade a draft choice?
Interesting question, although as several people noted probably not relevant as Chase is currently rated as one of the 4 elite prospects in this year's draft. If he did drop the question would be why!
The more pertinent trade question would probably be that if indeed the Giants primary goal this off-season is to add some big-play weapons to the offense and hope to get one of the 4 top ten receivers (Chase, Pitts, Smith and Waddle) with their opening round pick, do you trade up if 4 of the four came off the board say around picks 7-8. I suspect they would certainly consider it, although you could also gamble that Carolina, Denver and Dallas who pick 8-10 have much bigger needs at other positions with quality players on the board that address those needs.
As I mentioned in another thread it would probably cost a 3rd to move up. Which sounds like a lot, but the truth is a rookie 3rd rounder isn't likely going to fill any holes anyway. Fact is that if one wants to ‘fix’ a position one pretty much has to do it in the first two rounds. After that you are really looking at guys who you have to plan are going to be more depth or rotational players. Some may turn out to be starting quality players but you just can’t plan on it. Want to plug a hole, sign a free agent.
I also know its popular to recite the 'we have too many holes' mantra, but my take is that the Giants biggest problem isn't that they have too many holes, its that they just don't have enough impact players. In the end, the team that wins the SB isn't the one with the most complete roster, its the one with the most impact players making impact plays.
And right now my sense is that this off-season is going to be all about getting Jones some weapons on offense. If they can do some other things 'great' but secondary. Note I have also thought about the OBJ issue (and there have been other really good WRs whose teams didn't win a whole lot.) Again it comes back to something I have been talking about and that's units versus positions. When we had OBJ we didn't have much else at WR. However, when we 2-3 really good receivers (think Plax, Toomer, Smith or Nicks, Cruz and Manningham) we won Super Bowls!
Given the state of the WRs, do you think that the 2nd best WR in the draft would be an upgrade? What about the 3rd best? I’m guessing there are close to ten WRs in this draft who would be the #1 WR on this team. Also, given the number of weaknesses on this team, why would we trade a draft choice?
How is it a stupid question on a receiver starved team to consider trading up 4-5 spots to draft the most talented receiver available this year? I didn’t say I thought it was a great idea, but something to consider depending on how 1,) we make out in FA and 2.) how the top of the draft unfolds.
Given the state of the WRs, do you think that the 2nd best WR in the draft would be an upgrade? What about the 3rd best? I’m guessing there are close to ten WRs in this draft who would be the #1 WR on this team. Also, given the number of weaknesses on this team, why would we trade a draft choice?
Given it's a draft deep in WR, and you don't want to draft a shiny hood ornament, we use the #11 pick on a position that helps unless you literally think Jerry Rice is there at #11 (hint: he's not). We can get a WR in the 2nd round.
You don't need a "#1 WR", whatever that actually is. You need functional NFL receivers.
Interesting question, although as several people noted probably not relevant as Chase is currently rated as one of the 4 elite prospects in this year's draft. If he did drop the question would be why!
The more pertinent trade question would probably be that if indeed the Giants primary goal this off-season is to add some big-play weapons to the offense and hope to get one of the 4 top ten receivers (Chase, Pitts, Smith and Waddle) with their opening round pick, do you trade up if 4 of the four came off the board say around picks 7-8. I suspect they would certainly consider it, although you could also gamble that Carolina, Denver and Dallas who pick 8-10 have much bigger needs at other positions with quality players on the board that address those needs.
As I mentioned in another thread it would probably cost a 3rd to move up. Which sounds like a lot, but the truth is a rookie 3rd rounder isn't likely going to fill any holes anyway. Fact is that if one wants to ‘fix’ a position one pretty much has to do it in the first two rounds. After that you are really looking at guys who you have to plan are going to be more depth or rotational players. Some may turn out to be starting quality players but you just can’t plan on it. Want to plug a hole, sign a free agent.
I also know its popular to recite the 'we have too many holes' mantra, but my take is that the Giants biggest problem isn't that they have too many holes, its that they just don't have enough impact players. In the end, the team that wins the SB isn't the one with the most complete roster, its the one with the most impact players making impact plays.
And right now my sense is that this off-season is going to be all about getting Jones some weapons on offense. If they can do some other things 'great' but secondary. Note I have also thought about the OBJ issue (and there have been other really good WRs whose teams didn't win a whole lot.) Again it comes back to something I have been talking about and that's units versus positions. When we had OBJ we didn't have much else at WR. However, when we 2-3 really good receivers (think Plax, Toomer, Smith or Nicks, Cruz and Manningham) we won Super Bowls!
Good post Colin, I agree with all of this.
Most people didn't think Justin Jefferson was worth it last year
Given the state of the WRs, do you think that the 2nd best WR in the draft would be an upgrade? What about the 3rd best? I’m guessing there are close to ten WRs in this draft who would be the #1 WR on this team. Also, given the number of weaknesses on this team, why would we trade a draft choice?
How is it a stupid question on a receiver starved team to consider trading up 4-5 spots to draft the most talented receiver available this year? I didn’t say I thought it was a great idea, but something to consider depending on how 1,) we make out in FA and 2.) how the top of the draft unfolds.
Nothing wrong with considering it...especially if the WR being targeted is in a higher tier on their board than rest of players available.
However, the smart play for a team that also needs investment TE, OL, RB, ER, OLB, ILB and CB is to keep their precious draft picks.
RE: Most people didn't think Justin Jefferson was worth it last year
Exactly. I think some members of this board underestimate the impact of a true #1 receiver. It’s not that the receiver has to put up 100 catches and 1,400 yards to be a #1 receiver. It’s a player whose presence demands the defense to constantly account for where he is and double team on many occasions. It prevents teams from stacking the box and slowing down the running game. It’s the player you know you can go to in clutch situations. We don’t have anyone who fits those characteristics at WR right now.
RE: Most people didn't think Justin Jefferson was worth it last year
Great, if we can take Chase where the Vikings took Jefferson, that would be a fantastic outcome.
There are a lot of dynamics to consider here - if the Giants find themselves with no choice but to tag LW, they're going to be in a bit of a cap crunch this year, so trading away draft picks to move up combined with having a big cap number for LW will make the bottom end of the roster very difficult to fill with anything that resembles quality depth.
And given where we are with this roster, that bottom end of the roster really needs to be filled with players that actually have a chance to develop into legitimate players going forward, even if they never become stars or even starters. Sure, it's possible for UDFAs to become good players - we've seen it here plenty of times, and it happens around the league every year. But the odds are still stacked against it. Most of those guys are camp fodder and nothing more.
We're not at a place with this roster, IMO, to be getting top heavy with big cap numbers and trade-up draftees. We need balance and depth and then to start filling in some big-ticket items (along with hopefully identifying some stars of our own along the way) when this team's identity is a bit more established.
He has the size and Devonta Smith doesn't. But the more I watch them/read about them, the more I actually like Devonta as a prospect outside of frame.
I don't think the size question mark is enough to get me to trade up for Chase if Smith looks like he will be available. Unless you just absolutely don't trust Smith's size to work in the NFL, he's not far off from Chase as a prospect imo.
Interesting question, although as several people noted probably not relevant as Chase is currently rated as one of the 4 elite prospects in this year's draft. If he did drop the question would be why!
The more pertinent trade question would probably be that if indeed the Giants primary goal this off-season is to add some big-play weapons to the offense and hope to get one of the 4 top ten receivers (Chase, Pitts, Smith and Waddle) with their opening round pick, do you trade up if 4 of the four came off the board say around picks 7-8. I suspect they would certainly consider it, although you could also gamble that Carolina, Denver and Dallas who pick 8-10 have much bigger needs at other positions with quality players on the board that address those needs.
As I mentioned in another thread it would probably cost a 3rd to move up. Which sounds like a lot, but the truth is a rookie 3rd rounder isn't likely going to fill any holes anyway. Fact is that if one wants to ‘fix’ a position one pretty much has to do it in the first two rounds. After that you are really looking at guys who you have to plan are going to be more depth or rotational players. Some may turn out to be starting quality players but you just can’t plan on it. Want to plug a hole, sign a free agent.
I also know its popular to recite the 'we have too many holes' mantra, but my take is that the Giants biggest problem isn't that they have too many holes, its that they just don't have enough impact players. In the end, the team that wins the SB isn't the one with the most complete roster, its the one with the most impact players making impact plays.
And right now my sense is that this off-season is going to be all about getting Jones some weapons on offense. If they can do some other things 'great' but secondary. Note I have also thought about the OBJ issue (and there have been other really good WRs whose teams didn't win a whole lot.) Again it comes back to something I have been talking about and that's units versus positions. When we had OBJ we didn't have much else at WR. However, when we 2-3 really good receivers (think Plax, Toomer, Smith or Nicks, Cruz and Manningham) we won Super Bowls!
The constant mantra about the need to trade up is tiring, as is the claim that picks after the first and second rounds are essentially worthless. The argument for trading up is always "quality vs. quantity." But plenty of impact players have been drafted after the second round. The fact that the Giants haven't drafted many doesn't mean that they don't exist, only that we aren't scouting well enough.
Chase and Pitts will be long gone by #11. That leaves Waddle and Smith. Waddle fractured his ankle and had a high ankle sprain last year. Both are also undersized. Assuming Waddle is OK medically, I'm fine taking either at #11, but don't want to trade up for them. If they are gone, then I'd lean towards Surtain or a trade down.
But let's say that either or both of Waddle or Smith are still available at #11, and that at least one of Lance and Jones are as well. Someone calls and offers a #2 to move up to #11. Do you take that deal knowing that both Waddle and Smith will be gone by the time you pick? I don't know, but it's something the Giants should at least consider.
These are the recent trade ups or attempts to do so that I can remember:
(1) Reese traded a fourth and a seventh to trade up for Landon Collins.
(2) Reese traded a seventh to move up to take Adam Bisnowaty.
(3) Reese tried to trade up in the fourth round to take Andre Williams.
(4) Gettleman tried to trade up to take Lorenzo Carter.
(5) Gettleman traded a second, a fourth, and a fifth for DeAndre Baker.
When was the last time the Giants traded up and got an "impact" player? Was it Eli?
Gettleman also traded a fourth and a sixth for Alec Ogletree, and used a fourth on Lauletta, who had 0.0 chance of ever succeeding Eli.
Stay put or trade down. Let the draft come to you, especially since this is a deep WR draft.
Acid: Actually agree on most points. I am certainly not advocating the Giants trade up. In fact I would never advocate anything for them. WTF cares what a guy working out of his basement in Ottawa Canada would do. What I do try and figure out is what the Giants are thinking. And if that scenario presented itself they would almost certainly consider what were the implications of trading up would be. At the same time, there are plenty of reasons not to including the fact that there's a good chance no WR will be picked 8-10; there will be other good options at #11 that address other needs; and you can still address the receiver issue in RDs 2-4 (which you really can't do for other positions.)
At the same time, there is something to be said for quality. One thing I notice when guys talk about possible draft picks they almost always list the red flags and the reasons not to take a guy and then go with the guy with fewest issues. That's not the way NFL teams generally draft though. Sure you take into account the red flags if there are any but the question the pros asks is what can the guy do for us. And anybody who actually watched tape of guys like Chase and Smith just goes 'wow!' Maybe it won't translate to the NFL but you watch them dominate good SEC defenses like the way they have. Hard not to be impressed. Again will it translate who knows. Its why we call it a crap shoot wrapped in a lottery!
He has the size and Devonta Smith doesn't. But the more I watch them/read about them, the more I actually like Devonta as a prospect outside of frame.
I don't think the size question mark is enough to get me to trade up for Chase if Smith looks like he will be available. Unless you just absolutely don't trust Smith's size to work in the NFL, he's not far off from Chase as a prospect imo.
I don't envy the GM with the first choice of Chase / Smith.
Both seem like "obvious" stars in a lot of ways. But neither are slam dunks.
Gun to my head before deeper research I'd take Smith because at the end of the day you can't teach being a flat out playmaker. Could I see NFL corners changing that equation? Absolutely.
Chase isn't shabby in this area either obviously. But things seem a little to easy for him. But that's the tough thing about this scout. Is it too easy for Chase because he's just THAT talented or is it the LSU factor where it's just so hard to guard everyone.
There is something to be said about that and Bama too but I watched plenty of games where they tried to take away Smith and you could see that and they just couldn't or you'd have the right coverage and he'd still make the play.
They could both be great but this is a situation as a GM where you could look VERY stupid. Especially if you go with Chase and Smith turns out to be a similar player in the NFL.
Acid: Actually agree on most points. I am certainly not advocating the Giants trade up. In fact I would never advocate anything for them. WTF cares what a guy working out of his basement in Ottawa Canada would do. What I do try and figure out is what the Giants are thinking. And if that scenario presented itself they would almost certainly consider what were the implications of trading up would be. At the same time, there are plenty of reasons not to including the fact that there's a good chance no WR will be picked 8-10; there will be other good options at #11 that address other needs; and you can still address the receiver issue in RDs 2-4 (which you really can't do for other positions.)
At the same time, there is something to be said for quality. One thing I notice when guys talk about possible draft picks they almost always list the red flags and the reasons not to take a guy and then go with the guy with fewest issues. That's not the way NFL teams generally draft though. Sure you take into account the red flags if there are any but the question the pros asks is what can the guy do for us. And anybody who actually watched tape of guys like Chase and Smith just goes 'wow!' Maybe it won't translate to the NFL but you watch them dominate good SEC defenses like the way they have. Hard not to be impressed. Again will it translate who knows. Its why we call it a crap shoot wrapped in a lottery!
Hi Colin. I think I came off too strong. If so, I apologize. I think we're all interested in what you would do. I watch and learn as much as I can about players, but nowhere near what you and a few others here do.
Another option: Trade Engram and #11 to move up to get Waddle or Smith.
the only trade the Giants should consider is a trade down. they need more draft picks not less. Stay put at 11 and see what is there. I would be very happy if Kyle Pitts is available at 11. If not hope some trade down offers come in. There are a lot of good players that should be available around the 18 spot. I could see Rashod Bateman, Alijah Vera-Tucker, Zaven Collins, nad Jaelan Phillips.
If no offers and no Pitts, I know I'm in the minority but I like Christian Darrisaw and would take him at 11. He is 10 on draftnetwork, 15 on thr value board and 15 on pff. Some press on Darrisaw: He is a three year starter that earned increasing PFF grades each year to an FBS-leading 93.9 as a junior. Darrisaw logged 293 pass-block snaps across 10 starts in 2020, yet he allowed just six pressures, all of which were hurries. He has great play strength. His leg strength can drive defenders back, his grip strength holds defenders, and a core strength to maintain anchor. He has strength compared to Penei Sewell but at 35 lbs lighter. Darrisaw is agile and has good lateral mobility. Darrisaw has great use of his hands. He is a powerful run-blocker and shows a desired nastiness. Darrisaw is said to display one of the top power showings against an opponent.
He has the size and Devonta Smith doesn't. But the more I watch them/read about them, the more I actually like Devonta as a prospect outside of frame.
I don't think the size question mark is enough to get me to trade up for Chase if Smith looks like he will be available. Unless you just absolutely don't trust Smith's size to work in the NFL, he's not far off from Chase as a prospect imo.
I don't envy the GM with the first choice of Chase / Smith.
Both seem like "obvious" stars in a lot of ways. But neither are slam dunks.
Gun to my head before deeper research I'd take Smith because at the end of the day you can't teach being a flat out playmaker. Could I see NFL corners changing that equation? Absolutely.
Chase isn't shabby in this area either obviously. But things seem a little to easy for him. But that's the tough thing about this scout. Is it too easy for Chase because he's just THAT talented or is it the LSU factor where it's just so hard to guard everyone.
There is something to be said about that and Bama too but I watched plenty of games where they tried to take away Smith and you could see that and they just couldn't or you'd have the right coverage and he'd still make the play.
They could both be great but this is a situation as a GM where you could look VERY stupid. Especially if you go with Chase and Smith turns out to be a similar player in the NFL.
Agree with you, interesting article comparing the Smith/Chase decision to past seasons... Link - ( New Window )
As good as I think Chase will be I am not trading up for him. Only WR types you try and trade for are the R. Moss, J. jones types. None of these guys are that
Stay at 11 and get the best player. Someone will drop and give them choices. Would not at all be surprised to see OL Slater picked if available
A WR is clearly needed, but not,at the expense of moving up
If NE calls and gives us a 3&5 to move down to 15, I would do it
Flip Engram to someone for a #3 .
We should have enough picks to restock a lot a holes
At 15, slater, surtain, parsons, USC OG, maybe batemen
OBJ's time with the Giants showed us what it looks like to have a top receiver on a bad team. Guess what? He was exciting, he was fun, he made the games entertaining, but he didn't really move the needle on wins and losses.
However, it’s also possible guys like Hernandez, McKinney, Thomas, etc. don’t pan out.
OBJ's time with the Giants showed us what it looks like to have a top receiver on a bad team. Guess what? He was exciting, he was fun, he made the games entertaining, but he didn't really move the needle on wins and losses.
Difference is this team has a defense that can win if they ever get points on the board.
Hypothetical: Jones shows he is not going to take the step and the team wins 7-9 wins. What then? If anything I think the Giants should acquire picks to maybe make a move next year in the draft or trading for a vet.
The more pertinent trade question would probably be that if indeed the Giants primary goal this off-season is to add some big-play weapons to the offense and hope to get one of the 4 top ten receivers (Chase, Pitts, Smith and Waddle) with their opening round pick, do you trade up if 4 of the four came off the board say around picks 7-8. I suspect they would certainly consider it, although you could also gamble that Carolina, Denver and Dallas who pick 8-10 have much bigger needs at other positions with quality players on the board that address those needs.
As I mentioned in another thread it would probably cost a 3rd to move up. Which sounds like a lot, but the truth is a rookie 3rd rounder isn't likely going to fill any holes anyway. Fact is that if one wants to ‘fix’ a position one pretty much has to do it in the first two rounds. After that you are really looking at guys who you have to plan are going to be more depth or rotational players. Some may turn out to be starting quality players but you just can’t plan on it. Want to plug a hole, sign a free agent.
I also know its popular to recite the 'we have too many holes' mantra, but my take is that the Giants biggest problem isn't that they have too many holes, its that they just don't have enough impact players. In the end, the team that wins the SB isn't the one with the most complete roster, its the one with the most impact players making impact plays.
And right now my sense is that this off-season is going to be all about getting Jones some weapons on offense. If they can do some other things 'great' but secondary. Note I have also thought about the OBJ issue (and there have been other really good WRs whose teams didn't win a whole lot.) Again it comes back to something I have been talking about and that's units versus positions. When we had OBJ we didn't have much else at WR. However, when we 2-3 really good receivers (think Plax, Toomer, Smith or Nicks, Cruz and Manningham) we won Super Bowls!
How is it a stupid question on a receiver starved team to consider trading up 4-5 spots to draft the most talented receiver available this year? I didn’t say I thought it was a great idea, but something to consider depending on how 1,) we make out in FA and 2.) how the top of the draft unfolds.
Given it's a draft deep in WR, and you don't want to draft a shiny hood ornament, we use the #11 pick on a position that helps unless you literally think Jerry Rice is there at #11 (hint: he's not). We can get a WR in the 2nd round.
You don't need a "#1 WR", whatever that actually is. You need functional NFL receivers.
The more pertinent trade question would probably be that if indeed the Giants primary goal this off-season is to add some big-play weapons to the offense and hope to get one of the 4 top ten receivers (Chase, Pitts, Smith and Waddle) with their opening round pick, do you trade up if 4 of the four came off the board say around picks 7-8. I suspect they would certainly consider it, although you could also gamble that Carolina, Denver and Dallas who pick 8-10 have much bigger needs at other positions with quality players on the board that address those needs.
As I mentioned in another thread it would probably cost a 3rd to move up. Which sounds like a lot, but the truth is a rookie 3rd rounder isn't likely going to fill any holes anyway. Fact is that if one wants to ‘fix’ a position one pretty much has to do it in the first two rounds. After that you are really looking at guys who you have to plan are going to be more depth or rotational players. Some may turn out to be starting quality players but you just can’t plan on it. Want to plug a hole, sign a free agent.
I also know its popular to recite the 'we have too many holes' mantra, but my take is that the Giants biggest problem isn't that they have too many holes, its that they just don't have enough impact players. In the end, the team that wins the SB isn't the one with the most complete roster, its the one with the most impact players making impact plays.
And right now my sense is that this off-season is going to be all about getting Jones some weapons on offense. If they can do some other things 'great' but secondary. Note I have also thought about the OBJ issue (and there have been other really good WRs whose teams didn't win a whole lot.) Again it comes back to something I have been talking about and that's units versus positions. When we had OBJ we didn't have much else at WR. However, when we 2-3 really good receivers (think Plax, Toomer, Smith or Nicks, Cruz and Manningham) we won Super Bowls!
Good post Colin, I agree with all of this.
Quote:
Given the state of the WRs, do you think that the 2nd best WR in the draft would be an upgrade? What about the 3rd best? I’m guessing there are close to ten WRs in this draft who would be the #1 WR on this team. Also, given the number of weaknesses on this team, why would we trade a draft choice?
How is it a stupid question on a receiver starved team to consider trading up 4-5 spots to draft the most talented receiver available this year? I didn’t say I thought it was a great idea, but something to consider depending on how 1,) we make out in FA and 2.) how the top of the draft unfolds.
Nothing wrong with considering it...especially if the WR being targeted is in a higher tier on their board than rest of players available.
However, the smart play for a team that also needs investment TE, OL, RB, ER, OLB, ILB and CB is to keep their precious draft picks.
Exactly. I think some members of this board underestimate the impact of a true #1 receiver. It’s not that the receiver has to put up 100 catches and 1,400 yards to be a #1 receiver. It’s a player whose presence demands the defense to constantly account for where he is and double team on many occasions. It prevents teams from stacking the box and slowing down the running game. It’s the player you know you can go to in clutch situations. We don’t have anyone who fits those characteristics at WR right now.
Great, if we can take Chase where the Vikings took Jefferson, that would be a fantastic outcome.
There are a lot of dynamics to consider here - if the Giants find themselves with no choice but to tag LW, they're going to be in a bit of a cap crunch this year, so trading away draft picks to move up combined with having a big cap number for LW will make the bottom end of the roster very difficult to fill with anything that resembles quality depth.
And given where we are with this roster, that bottom end of the roster really needs to be filled with players that actually have a chance to develop into legitimate players going forward, even if they never become stars or even starters. Sure, it's possible for UDFAs to become good players - we've seen it here plenty of times, and it happens around the league every year. But the odds are still stacked against it. Most of those guys are camp fodder and nothing more.
We're not at a place with this roster, IMO, to be getting top heavy with big cap numbers and trade-up draftees. We need balance and depth and then to start filling in some big-ticket items (along with hopefully identifying some stars of our own along the way) when this team's identity is a bit more established.
I don't think the size question mark is enough to get me to trade up for Chase if Smith looks like he will be available. Unless you just absolutely don't trust Smith's size to work in the NFL, he's not far off from Chase as a prospect imo.
The more pertinent trade question would probably be that if indeed the Giants primary goal this off-season is to add some big-play weapons to the offense and hope to get one of the 4 top ten receivers (Chase, Pitts, Smith and Waddle) with their opening round pick, do you trade up if 4 of the four came off the board say around picks 7-8. I suspect they would certainly consider it, although you could also gamble that Carolina, Denver and Dallas who pick 8-10 have much bigger needs at other positions with quality players on the board that address those needs.
As I mentioned in another thread it would probably cost a 3rd to move up. Which sounds like a lot, but the truth is a rookie 3rd rounder isn't likely going to fill any holes anyway. Fact is that if one wants to ‘fix’ a position one pretty much has to do it in the first two rounds. After that you are really looking at guys who you have to plan are going to be more depth or rotational players. Some may turn out to be starting quality players but you just can’t plan on it. Want to plug a hole, sign a free agent.
I also know its popular to recite the 'we have too many holes' mantra, but my take is that the Giants biggest problem isn't that they have too many holes, its that they just don't have enough impact players. In the end, the team that wins the SB isn't the one with the most complete roster, its the one with the most impact players making impact plays.
And right now my sense is that this off-season is going to be all about getting Jones some weapons on offense. If they can do some other things 'great' but secondary. Note I have also thought about the OBJ issue (and there have been other really good WRs whose teams didn't win a whole lot.) Again it comes back to something I have been talking about and that's units versus positions. When we had OBJ we didn't have much else at WR. However, when we 2-3 really good receivers (think Plax, Toomer, Smith or Nicks, Cruz and Manningham) we won Super Bowls!
The constant mantra about the need to trade up is tiring, as is the claim that picks after the first and second rounds are essentially worthless. The argument for trading up is always "quality vs. quantity." But plenty of impact players have been drafted after the second round. The fact that the Giants haven't drafted many doesn't mean that they don't exist, only that we aren't scouting well enough.
Chase and Pitts will be long gone by #11. That leaves Waddle and Smith. Waddle fractured his ankle and had a high ankle sprain last year. Both are also undersized. Assuming Waddle is OK medically, I'm fine taking either at #11, but don't want to trade up for them. If they are gone, then I'd lean towards Surtain or a trade down.
But let's say that either or both of Waddle or Smith are still available at #11, and that at least one of Lance and Jones are as well. Someone calls and offers a #2 to move up to #11. Do you take that deal knowing that both Waddle and Smith will be gone by the time you pick? I don't know, but it's something the Giants should at least consider.
These are the recent trade ups or attempts to do so that I can remember:
(1) Reese traded a fourth and a seventh to trade up for Landon Collins.
(2) Reese traded a seventh to move up to take Adam Bisnowaty.
(3) Reese tried to trade up in the fourth round to take Andre Williams.
(4) Gettleman tried to trade up to take Lorenzo Carter.
(5) Gettleman traded a second, a fourth, and a fifth for DeAndre Baker.
When was the last time the Giants traded up and got an "impact" player? Was it Eli?
Gettleman also traded a fourth and a sixth for Alec Ogletree, and used a fourth on Lauletta, who had 0.0 chance of ever succeeding Eli.
Stay put or trade down. Let the draft come to you, especially since this is a deep WR draft.
At the same time, there is something to be said for quality. One thing I notice when guys talk about possible draft picks they almost always list the red flags and the reasons not to take a guy and then go with the guy with fewest issues. That's not the way NFL teams generally draft though. Sure you take into account the red flags if there are any but the question the pros asks is what can the guy do for us. And anybody who actually watched tape of guys like Chase and Smith just goes 'wow!' Maybe it won't translate to the NFL but you watch them dominate good SEC defenses like the way they have. Hard not to be impressed. Again will it translate who knows. Its why we call it a crap shoot wrapped in a lottery!
I don't think the size question mark is enough to get me to trade up for Chase if Smith looks like he will be available. Unless you just absolutely don't trust Smith's size to work in the NFL, he's not far off from Chase as a prospect imo.
I don't envy the GM with the first choice of Chase / Smith.
Both seem like "obvious" stars in a lot of ways. But neither are slam dunks.
Gun to my head before deeper research I'd take Smith because at the end of the day you can't teach being a flat out playmaker. Could I see NFL corners changing that equation? Absolutely.
Chase isn't shabby in this area either obviously. But things seem a little to easy for him. But that's the tough thing about this scout. Is it too easy for Chase because he's just THAT talented or is it the LSU factor where it's just so hard to guard everyone.
There is something to be said about that and Bama too but I watched plenty of games where they tried to take away Smith and you could see that and they just couldn't or you'd have the right coverage and he'd still make the play.
They could both be great but this is a situation as a GM where you could look VERY stupid. Especially if you go with Chase and Smith turns out to be a similar player in the NFL.
At the same time, there is something to be said for quality. One thing I notice when guys talk about possible draft picks they almost always list the red flags and the reasons not to take a guy and then go with the guy with fewest issues. That's not the way NFL teams generally draft though. Sure you take into account the red flags if there are any but the question the pros asks is what can the guy do for us. And anybody who actually watched tape of guys like Chase and Smith just goes 'wow!' Maybe it won't translate to the NFL but you watch them dominate good SEC defenses like the way they have. Hard not to be impressed. Again will it translate who knows. Its why we call it a crap shoot wrapped in a lottery!
Hi Colin. I think I came off too strong. If so, I apologize. I think we're all interested in what you would do. I watch and learn as much as I can about players, but nowhere near what you and a few others here do.
Another option: Trade Engram and #11 to move up to get Waddle or Smith.
If no offers and no Pitts, I know I'm in the minority but I like Christian Darrisaw and would take him at 11. He is 10 on draftnetwork, 15 on thr value board and 15 on pff. Some press on Darrisaw: He is a three year starter that earned increasing PFF grades each year to an FBS-leading 93.9 as a junior. Darrisaw logged 293 pass-block snaps across 10 starts in 2020, yet he allowed just six pressures, all of which were hurries. He has great play strength. His leg strength can drive defenders back, his grip strength holds defenders, and a core strength to maintain anchor. He has strength compared to Penei Sewell but at 35 lbs lighter. Darrisaw is agile and has good lateral mobility. Darrisaw has great use of his hands. He is a powerful run-blocker and shows a desired nastiness. Darrisaw is said to display one of the top power showings against an opponent.
Quote:
He has the size and Devonta Smith doesn't. But the more I watch them/read about them, the more I actually like Devonta as a prospect outside of frame.
I don't think the size question mark is enough to get me to trade up for Chase if Smith looks like he will be available. Unless you just absolutely don't trust Smith's size to work in the NFL, he's not far off from Chase as a prospect imo.
I don't envy the GM with the first choice of Chase / Smith.
Both seem like "obvious" stars in a lot of ways. But neither are slam dunks.
Gun to my head before deeper research I'd take Smith because at the end of the day you can't teach being a flat out playmaker. Could I see NFL corners changing that equation? Absolutely.
Chase isn't shabby in this area either obviously. But things seem a little to easy for him. But that's the tough thing about this scout. Is it too easy for Chase because he's just THAT talented or is it the LSU factor where it's just so hard to guard everyone.
There is something to be said about that and Bama too but I watched plenty of games where they tried to take away Smith and you could see that and they just couldn't or you'd have the right coverage and he'd still make the play.
They could both be great but this is a situation as a GM where you could look VERY stupid. Especially if you go with Chase and Smith turns out to be a similar player in the NFL.
Agree with you, interesting article comparing the Smith/Chase decision to past seasons...
Link - ( New Window )
Stay at 11 and get the best player. Someone will drop and give them choices. Would not at all be surprised to see OL Slater picked if available
A WR is clearly needed, but not,at the expense of moving up