|
|
|
| Quote: |
ESPN: New York Giants: Draft OT Rashawn Slater with the No. 11 pick The Giants expected to solve their long-term left tackle problem with their 2020 selection of Andrew Thomas with the No. 4 pick. But even allowing for some early struggles after veteran Nate Solder's opt-out forced him into the Week 1 starting lineup, Thomas underwhelmed in his rookie season. His 5.8% blown block rate was the highest among tackles with 300 or more snaps in pass protection, according to Sports Info Solutions charting. That's a major problem for young quarterback Daniel Jones, who, despite cutting his turnover rate in Year 2, tied for the league lead with 11 fumbles thanks in large part to a 9.1% sack rate that was second highest at his position. And it makes tackle Rashawn Slater the perfect choice for the team's top 2021 draft pick, even if it opens the front office up to criticism from the media and fans that might read it as an admission of failure with Thomas. In truth, a Slater selection would not admit failure. His strength and athleticism will likely allow him to play multiple offensive line positions. But it would plan for the possibility of a failure that could derail the franchise given the necessary timing of a Jones extension. The Giants will have to decide on Jones' fifth-year option next offseason, so they need to protect him this season to see if he can protect the football. Slater would provide insurance for the team to make that evaluation in 2021, and he may even be the difference between one bad lineman and two good ones if Thomas is a better fit for right tackle than left. VALENTINE’S VIEW: I disagree with the premise for why the Giants would pick Slater — I don’t think he would supplant Thomas at left tackle. Still, I have said before I think picking Slater at No. 11 would be logical. Why? Offensive line before playmakers, and Slater could end up at left guard, right guard or right tackle for the Giants? |
I want the pick at #11 going into building an identity, rather than “seeing need, addressing need” - keep bolstering the trenches. Or improve the secondary.
A hint is last year's draft when DG drafted the 1st (Peart) and 2nd (Thomas) longest armmed players in entire draft to man the OL
Had a dream last night the giants traded back from 11 into the top of the 2nd round but I didn’t get to see what the compensation was.
Sorry for wasting everyone’s time :)
Slater can play EVERY position on the OL. So there is a lot to like.
Slater can play EVERY position on the OL. So there is a lot to like.
Curveball in the sense of what most prognosticators are picking for us at 11..That kind of curveball.
I'm hoping they cut Zeitler (and Solder) and have Slater play Guard.
Slater can play EVERY position on the OL. So there is a lot to like.
Had a dream last night the giants traded back from 11 into the top of the 2nd round but I didn’t get to see what the compensation was.
Sorry for wasting everyone’s time :)
Quote:
The OL is still below average. I argue that 3/5 of the line is - at best - back-ups right now.
Slater can play EVERY position on the OL. So there is a lot to like.
Thomas is not a back up. Ziegler is not a back up. Gates is not a backup.
I agree Thomas and Gates are NFL starters. Everyone else? TBD - at best.
Zietler is on the back nine of his career. We can do much better at RG right now.
^This. I don't see the Giants picking an OL. Slater is also short armed as someone said, and the Giants drafted the two longest armed OTs in the draft last year. My guess is that it's WR, CB, or Parsons, with the slight chance of a trade down.
Would love to see then look past this especially with a guy like Slater who would be an instant day 1 starter on this OL.
In this case, it's fairly obvious that they're targeting playmakers on offense, and we know RB is locked down, so if we eliminate redundancy, we can fairly expect that the top receivers are going to be high on their draft board.
Is Slater good enough to surpass that bias? IMO, yes. In my guess at the Giants' draft board, probably not. And that's a shame. He's at least better than Waddle, and might be more impactful than Pitts, if DG insists on retaining Engram for his 5y option and we remain stuck in Garrett's uncreative offense.
Did you like Flowers? Do you want another one of him?
Quote:
he is not analyzed as having to go inside like Slater is. From what I read Slater has better technique but physically Darrisaw is a better prospect. Darrisaw can be coached up but the physical aspects cannot be changed.
Did you like Flowers? Do you want another one of him?
Why do you say that? Darrisaw has really impressed me...
This narrative makes sense....I'd be on board. I'm still in denial that Sewell be there though.
He may be on the table anyway. No curveball here at all.
These offensive line picks have to pan out, because they are effecting the development of other positions, and depth on this team.
In the last 7 years, this team has drafted an offensive lineman in the first 3 rounds, 6 times, and the first 2 rounds, 5 times! In addition, almost all of these picks are within the top 5-10 picks in the round!
Andrew Thomas (2020, 1st round, 4th overall)
Matt Peart (2020, 3rd round, 99th overall)
Will Hernandez (2018, 2nd round, 34th overall)
Ereck Flowers (2015, 1st round, 9th overall)
Weston Richburg (2014, 2nd round, 43rd overall)
Justin Pugh (2013, 1st round, 19th overall)
6 picks within the top 100, and 5 picks within the top 45.
This doesn’t even include lineman drafted in later rounds:
Shane Lemieux (2020, 5th)
George Asafo-Adjei (2019, 7th)
Adam Bisnowaty (2017, 6th)
Bobby Hart (2015, 7th)
Eric Herman (2013, 7th)
From that list, zero pro bowls, zero all pro teams. 1 starter, and 2-3 potential starters. Only 4 players from that list, and only 1 player drafted prior to last year are even on the team!
I like Slater, and I’m a proponent of building a team through the trenches from the inside out, but how many more times can this team really afford to spend draft capital on the offensive line?
This is what I was talking about with Peart yesterday. After investing a 3rd round pick, he needs to at least be given an opportunity to win the RT spot. They cannot continue to waste these picks.
Quote:
Did you like Flowers? Do you want another one of him?
From what I can see Flowers was a reach at 9 in 2015. Mel Kiper had him going at 27. I see other mock drafts around 25. However Darrisaw grades at
10 draftnetwork
15 PFF
15 Nflmockdraftdatabase
Bucky Brooks (Top 5 OTs)
1. Sewell
2. Slater
3. Darrisaw
4. Mayfield
5. Hudson
Kiper has Darrisaw going to the Chargers at 13. PFF awarded Darrisaw their Outland Trophy. They had Flowers as a late first round pick. The general consensus among draft analysts like Darrisaw a lot better than they liked Flowers. I don't see the comparison. I've seen Darrisaw comped to Carnal DJ Humphries who has been having two solid seasons the last two years.
Quote:
In comment 15168253 gogiants said:
Quote:
Did you like Flowers? Do you want another one of him?
From what I can see Flowers was a reach at 9 in 2015. Mel Kiper had him going at 27. I see other mock drafts around 25. However Darrisaw grades at
10 draftnetwork
15 PFF
15 Nflmockdraftdatabase
Bucky Brooks (Top 5 OTs)
1. Sewell
2. Slater
3. Darrisaw
4. Mayfield
5. Hudson
Kiper has Darrisaw going to the Chargers at 13. PFF awarded Darrisaw their Outland Trophy. They had Flowers as a late first round pick. The general consensus among draft analysts like Darrisaw a lot better than they liked Flowers. I don't see the comparison. I've seen Darrisaw comped to Carnal DJ Humphries who has been having two solid seasons the last two years.
I couldn't give two fucks about where draftniks have them pegged. I'm talking about their strengths and weaknesses. Darrisaw has a lot of Flowers-esque traits.
Quote:
In comment 15168253 gogiants said:
Quote:
he is not analyzed as having to go inside like Slater is. From what I read Slater has better technique but physically Darrisaw is a better prospect. Darrisaw can be coached up but the physical aspects cannot be changed.
Did you like Flowers? Do you want another one of him?
Why do you say that? Darrisaw has really impressed me...
Here's a TDN write-up that pretty much echoes what I've seen:
- Prone to losing his outside shoulder
- Prone to become top-heavy
- Late with his feet
- Lunges to recover because he can't reset his feet instead
He's a mauler, and he does have talent, but so did Flowers! He just doesn't belong anywhere near the conversation for #11, IMO.
Link - ( New Window )
All of a sudden we have a young, cost controlled line and saquon is that much better
Would definitely need a FA WR and/or draft 1-2 in first 4 rds
Offense would look promising Maybe get 1-2 mid tier defensive FA and draft another cb and ER too
There's a bit of disconnect between your subject and your post - ZM has only been great at G. Not sure how ZM is your base use case for "great at OG or OT" when he hasn't actually shown that at the NFL level.
Did you mean, collegiate OT who became a fantastic NFL OG? That seems reasonable, but it's not either/or.
Pugh was drafted because of his versatility. He was most physically capable of playing LG or maybe LT but was plugged in as an undersized RT.
It was planned to start Flowers at RT but injuries forced him to start at LT at least a year too early. He never learned how to play tackle.
It was also planned to start Thomas at RT, but the Solder opt out forced him to LT. If he doesn’t make substantial improvement this offseason and the seaaon, he will end up at RT anyway.
Slater is definitely attractive because of his versatility and the Giants could draft him because there is question about whether Peart can play RT and because Zeitler may be a cap casualty. So instead of deciding what his best position is, he will be asked to fill in.
The Giants have proven very adept at sidetracking O-line careers. Of course, things haven’t worked out any better when they draft a lineman and start him at the position he is most qualified to play, but at least those guys weren’t first round talents.
Pugh was drafted because of his versatility. He was most physically capable of playing LG or maybe LT but was plugged in as an undersized RT.
It was planned to start Flowers at RT but injuries forced him to start at LT at least a year too early. He never learned how to play tackle.
It was also planned to start Thomas at RT, but the Solder opt out forced him to LT. If he doesn’t make substantial improvement this offseason and the seaaon, he will end up at RT anyway.
Slater is definitely attractive because of his versatility and the Giants could draft him because there is question about whether Peart can play RT and because Zeitler may be a cap casualty. So instead of deciding what his best position is, he will be asked to fill in.
The Giants have proven very adept at sidetracking O-line careers. Of course, things haven’t worked out any better when they draft a lineman and start him at the position he is most qualified to play, but at least those guys weren’t first round talents.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
Zack Martin and Brandon Scherff both entered the league as excellent collegiate OTs and became standout NFL OGs. The precedent, with success, exists. The flag is only in seeing these OL prospects as versatile, IMO. If you're going to convert them to OG, you can do so VERY successfully, but it will require a full commitment to that position for them.
No Way! - ( New Window )
There’s exceptional scouting uncertainty this season with COVID. An$ there’s a very real possibility the Giants pick a complete bust at #11. A selection like Slater would represent a cautious, sensible approach to managing that risk.
I am not sure how many times it needs to be repeated but the Giants have told you what they are looking for at the 2021 draft. To wit, they want to add some big-play weapons on offense. And if they follow the same pattern they did in 2020 along the OL that most likely means they'll be using 2 of their top three picks - and 3 of their first 4-5 picks - on receivers.
The other thing Joe Judge told us is the fact that other than Bradberry they didn't have any corners that could cover and that severly limited what they could on defense last fall. Bottom line given what the FO has said they'll be heading into the opening round of the 2021 draft hoping to get one of those top receivers and if they are gone the fall back is likely to be one of the CBs.
One scenario I could see as more likely would be if the Giants did get one of those top receivers at #11 that they add an interior OL in the second like Wyatt Davis, Creed Humphrey or Leatherwood, each of whom would be much better value at that spot than Slater at #11. At the same time though will also be 3-4 very good receivers available at #42 along with 2-3 quality corners that would be more than guys you would be bringing into compete.
One final comment re the OL. No question it is still very much a work in progress. However, given the limited resources available it is very possible the Giants live with what they have for the upcoming year to find out exactly what they do have, although it would be nice to see them bring in a couple of mid-to-low priced veteran G/T types for depth and insurance. I also feel that the best thing the Giants could do to help the OL would be add some big-play threats to force opposing Ds to back off. Even if you had 5 pro bowlers across the line opposing teams would still be bringing 8-9-10 guys up to the LOS just daring you to go over the top. One of the things I like to say about Saquon, for example, is that he doesn't really need a whole lot of blocking, just a little space and he'll make people miss.
And, hey I'd love to have a disruptive guy like Parsons on the Giants D, but at the same time as I have said before I don't see him as necessarily being a great fit. While the Giants are nominally a 3-4 team and Parsons woul dbe an ideal 3-4 OLB, the fact is they actually play a 4-2 on anywhere from 65-70% of their defensive snaps. In that scheme the OLBs have to slide up and become DEs and at 6-2, 240 I just don't see Parsons being big enough to handle that. And that means he's likley going to end up playing mostly at MLB which doesn't really suit his skill set all that well.
He's a mauler, and he does have talent, but so did Flowers! He just doesn't belong anywhere near the conversation for #11, IMO. Link - ( New Window )
The tdn report you linked is an overall positive report on Darrisaw. They have him ranked as their second OT and graded only 3.5/100 points less than Sewell. If Slater is in the discussion at 11 the Darrisaw should also be.
https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/tdn-2021-consensus-offensive-tackle-rankings - ( New Window )
These offensive line picks have to pan out, because they are effecting the development of other positions, and depth on this team.
This is what I was talking about with Peart yesterday. After investing a 3rd round pick, he needs to at least be given an opportunity to win the RT spot. They cannot continue to waste these picks.
Absolutely Peart needs to be given an opportunity. I think it's just "emotional fan talk" to not give him the shot.
But with that said, Solder was a blunder right from the start. And right now both of them are way too expensive for what they bring.
Big contracts are coming with Barkley and Jones -- got to decide if they are worth it. Getting SLater give you 60% - and drafting one more Tackle in rd 2 or 3 you should be bale ot at least have an idea as to what Jones and Barkley are.
If both need what some are suggesting - several high end free agents along with high pick then they aren't worth it.
The idea of paying an expensive amount of money on a RB and QB - they have to at least show they can overcome something.
Here's a TDN write-up that pretty much echoes what I've seen:
- Prone to losing his outside shoulder
- Prone to become top-heavy
- Late with his feet
- Lunges to recover because he can't reset his feet instead
He's a mauler, and he does have talent, but so did Flowers! He just doesn't belong anywhere near the conversation for #11, IMO. Link - ( New Window )
There were a lot of positives in that link, too. ;)
Too much still has to play out with respect to Giant thought process, free agency, demand for QBs, etc. before you can really start defining this down to just a few names. Not saying we shouldn't have some fun with threads like these but that's really all it is.
Just like Slater may be considered a curveball to many on BBI, he may be also be in the NYG's top tier with a little asterisk next to his name as we speak...
Too much still has to play out with respect to Giant thought process, free agency, demand for QBs, etc. before you can really start defining this down to just a few names. Not saying we shouldn't have some fun with threads like these but that's really all it is.
Just like Slater may be considered a curveball to many on BBI, he may be also be in the NYG's top tier with a little asterisk next to his name as we speak...
Not saying we shouldn't have some fun with threads like these but that's really all it is.
Who’s saying or implying anything different?
I typed my post after seeing a comment above saying something along those lines, and I have seen it a lot lately in other threads. That's all...
As to guessing the direction the Giants will go at #11, there is a good chance Gettleman provides enough info in next week's media session to help with their free agency and/or draft targets. Those will for some interesting threads after that.
Imv, he has done it before...
Quote:
Will be great at Guard or Tackle.
There's a bit of disconnect between your subject and your post - ZM has only been great at G. Not sure how ZM is your base use case for "great at OG or OT" when he hasn't actually shown that at the NFL level.
Did you mean, collegiate OT who became a fantastic NFL OG? That seems reasonable, but it's not either/or.
No. You haven't seen him play tackle in the NFL. He has played right tackle and looked as good as he looked at guard. He did it this past season under Mccarthy due to some injuries. The idea that he is an all pro guard but wouldn't have cut it at tackle is ridiculous. Slater looks like Zack Martin to me. Play him at guard or tackle who cares he is going to be a good player that is my opinion that is all.
Quote:
Here's a TDN write-up that pretty much echoes what I've seen:
- Prone to losing his outside shoulder
- Prone to become top-heavy
- Late with his feet
- Lunges to recover because he can't reset his feet instead
He's a mauler, and he does have talent, but so did Flowers! He just doesn't belong anywhere near the conversation for #11, IMO. Link - ( New Window )
There were a lot of positives in that link, too. ;)
There were a lot of positives in Flowers' write-ups, too.
If we're gonna draft an OG masquerading as an OT, I'd much prefer Slater. If the idea is to find another OT, I would prefer Leatherwood in the 2nd round (if he lasts), and actually think Eichenberg, who can be drafted MUCH later, is a more fundamentally sound OT prospect. Just IMO, of course.
Quote:
In comment 15168264 90.Cal said:
Quote:
Will be great at Guard or Tackle.
There's a bit of disconnect between your subject and your post - ZM has only been great at G. Not sure how ZM is your base use case for "great at OG or OT" when he hasn't actually shown that at the NFL level.
Did you mean, collegiate OT who became a fantastic NFL OG? That seems reasonable, but it's not either/or.
No. You haven't seen him play tackle in the NFL. He has played right tackle and looked as good as he looked at guard. He did it this past season under Mccarthy due to some injuries. The idea that he is an all pro guard but wouldn't have cut it at tackle is ridiculous. Slater looks like Zack Martin to me. Play him at guard or tackle who cares he is going to be a good player that is my opinion that is all.
Ok, I can get behind that. I like Slater a lot.
As to guessing the direction the Giants will go at #11, there is a good chance Gettleman provides enough info in next week's media session to help with their free agency and/or draft targets. Those will for some interesting threads after that.
Imv, he has done it before...
We'll know before dinnertime on Tuesday who the Giants will draft, and then we'll spend the next 6 weeks after that pretending it was a smokescreen from the GM who always says the quiet part out loud.
Quote:
anybody else.
As to guessing the direction the Giants will go at #11, there is a good chance Gettleman provides enough info in next week's media session to help with their free agency and/or draft targets. Those will for some interesting threads after that.
Imv, he has done it before...
We'll know before dinnertime on Tuesday who the Giants will draft, and then we'll spend the next 6 weeks after that pretending it was a smokescreen from the GM who always says the quiet part out loud.
The Barkley pick my dead grandmother could have predicted, no surprise there from DG or anyone..He never let on about DJ at 6
Maybe not which of the 4 OTs, but clear as day he sent plenty of signals that it would be one of them. Disagree?
Quote:
people were all over the board with their predictions for the 4 OTs as our pick. DG never led on there either.
Maybe not which of the 4 OTs, but clear as day he sent plenty of signals that it would be one of them. Disagree?
But even I “knew” we’d take an OT at 4 and I don’t watch college football..I can’t recall too many analysts or BBIers for that matter predicting anything other than an OT for us, so he really gave nothing away.
Oh, it was signaled after the Senior Bowl in 2019. Started to hear rumblings that Ole Dave was hot and lathered up over Jones...
Quote:
In comment 15168919 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
people were all over the board with their predictions for the 4 OTs as our pick. DG never led on there either.
Maybe not which of the 4 OTs, but clear as day he sent plenty of signals that it would be one of them. Disagree?
But even I “knew” we’d take an OT at 4 and I don’t watch college football..I can’t recall too many analysts or BBIers for that matter predicting anything other than an OT for us, so he really gave nothing away.
The fact that every analyst was able to simply and accurately predict OT to the Giants was in itself a giveaway. Giving away the position you intend to draft may not be as egregious a tell as declaring the actual prospect's name, but it still reduces your flexibility on the fly almost as much.
BTW, I know the BBI law firm of Bully and FMiC doesn't like circumstantial evidence, but with Jones the dots were quickly connected with Cutcliffe, Manning camps, similar personality to Eli, etc.
- Daniel Jones
- and last year clearly being an OT, and likely Thomas who was most experienced at left tackle imv
What about big Dexter Lawrence...anything messaged there?
- Daniel Jones
- and last year clearly being an OT, and likely Thomas who was most experienced at left tackle imv
What about big Dexter Lawrence...anything messaged there?
Speaking from my own perspective, I don't remember anything that tipped off Dexter, although I do remember thinking "of course, he was the replacement for Snacks."
But I don't think that's a fair ding against DG; most fans of any team probably can "aha!" a few draft picks after the fact every year.