Hypothetically - Would you be ok with these first 2 picks?

Go BPA among the WR, OL, Edge group in Round 2, and follow-up with best Interior OL in Round 3 if not the selection in Round 2 (e.g. Aaron Banks).

...

otherwise no.

The talent/grade matching what they are looking for (and need) figures to be at WR, Edge, CB. They could address one at #11, move up from #42 to address one or stay put, and address another at #74.

Eg, Smith or Edge at #11, OL at #42, CBt #74 is plausible.

really know), then Slater or Sewell would be enough. They need to turn their attention to other areas as well, imv

I would prefer Sewell but I would be fine with Slater as well. Football games are won in the trenches not with dainty Wide Receivers.

Fine with having a stud lineman in the 1st.

Not fine with trading up for another. Say what you want about Gettleman but he has had some historical success of finding good lineman later in the draft (even college free agents like Gates). He's already spent a #1, #2 and #3. I have no problems with spending a #1 but after that, we need to get some inexpensive pieces.

You need to find mid-to-late round picks and coach them up.

Especially, if they spent a 1st already

but its an incomplete question given that you don't state the cost of the trade up.

I'd much rather this:

-LT Andrew Thomas
-LG Shane Lemieux
-C Nick Gates
-RG Alex Leatherwood, Landon Dickerson or Wyatt Davis via RD2
-RT Matt Peart

Back up IOL: Hernandez, Fulton and Harrison or Murphy
Swing OT: Solder (or Peart if Solder wins RT job)

am constantly amazed at how many people every year want to trade up, especially given the generally poor stature of the roster.

Gonna be a ton of good guards available round 2 and 3 without moving up. Id be ok with slater or sewell but rather we went in the playmaker direction at 11.

... but Nick Gates was damn good.

in the 2nd round. I'd be disappointed if they traded UP into the 1st round to get him, especially when Gates is probably our best OL right now.

whether it is Sewell, Smith Waddle, Surtain, Pitts or Horn.

There will be good players at 42, no need to move up.

If Sewell slipped I assume he is without a doubt highest rated.

I favor the following ofc the ratings need to be near the same: For example if Giants have someone rated ahead Slater between the usual suspects of Pitts, the WR's, Sewell and Parsons I'd be fine. Maybe the top CB's-- maybe but slightly skeptical.

I fear the Edges is more of a draft for need rather BPA. I'm just very, very skeptical of the Giants 1st round draft picks the last 3 years and i think that's where they're going to go. Just hope they are right.

To start with let's just say Sewell will not be available.

1-- Guard imo is 1st need in rd 1.

Then BPA between Edge, WR, and OT in rounds 2-4.

This would be my favorite four.

In comment 15211536 JonC said:

Quote:

otherwise no. The talent/grade matching what they are looking for (and need) figures to be at WR, Edge, CB. They could address one at #11, move up from #42 to address one or stay put, and address another at #74. Eg, Smith or Edge at #11, OL at #42, CBt #74 is plausible.

This is same for me. Although I’m more of a DT guy than an Edge guy (trading up for our second pick). Anyone other than a WR at 11 would depress me. You can move back and get all those equivalent edges.

thanks for asking

Hard for me to imagine that Solder isn’t a starter when it’s all said and done.

....and then trade back up into the 1st Round for Phillips! Best Edge in the Draft!

The cost of the trade, going by chart values, would be the Giants’ third-round pick. The reports on Humphrey are a mixed bag, and I would probably hate this idea even if everyone was calling him the next Kevin Mawae. So... just, no.

In comment 15211542 Chip said:

Quote:

I would prefer Sewell but I would be fine with Slater as well. Football games are won in the trenches not with dainty Wide Receivers.

I'm not arguing against the importance of the trenches, but we have invested quite a lot there recently and i would argue that in '11 our OL was not great (old and beat up) but our WRs, Nicks and Cruz were difference makers.

In comment 15212410 Dr. D said:

Quote:

In comment 15211542 Chip said: Quote: I would prefer Sewell but I would be fine with Slater as well. Football games are won in the trenches not with dainty Wide Receivers. I'm not arguing against the importance of the trenches, but we have invested quite a lot there recently and i would argue that in '11 our OL was not great (old and beat up) but our WRs, Nicks and Cruz were difference makers.

.. and I'm all for drafting an IOL, just preferably not in the first rd. If we were desperate for a tackle, sure, but not for a OG.

Arguably our best OG, at least in my lifetime, was drafted in the 2nd and it seems another good one could be found somewhere other than a high to mid 1st.

Plenty of IOL talent to be had in 2.

One of first two rounds. No trade up

really makes me laugh.