for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Would NYG go Oline w/ 1st 2 picks?

Finch : 4/8/2021 11:51 am
Let’s say 4 QBs, top 3 WR, Pitts, Sewell, + Surtain are drafted in the first 10 picks. NYG have Parsons off their draft board (hypothetically) AND they can’t find a trade partner. From a VALUE perspective, there doesn’t seem to be a ER worth taking. The obvious (maybe?) pick is to take Slater.

Now in the 2nd round, there seem to be a handful of O-lineman that most draft experts expect to go around their 2nd pick. Would Judge/Gettleman double down on O-line? Gettleman has shown he is not afraid to double dip at the same position. And if there is one reason the team falls apart this year outside of injuries or DJ not developing into a franchise QB, O-line looks to be the teams achilles heel. I’m also not suggesting the team draft for NEED. But if the value lined up right, do you think they would do it and would you be happy with that outcome?
Depends on who is there....  
George from PA : 4/8/2021 11:54 am : link
And who they expect will be around in 3rd and 4th RD
.  
Del Shofner : 4/8/2021 11:55 am : link
No and no.

Not against picking OL even with #1, but #s 1 and 2? Not gonna happen.
Value is in rd 2  
Thegratefulhead : 4/8/2021 12:01 pm : link
Seen many mocks. Every single one had great choices for OL at the top of round 2.
Right or wrong...  
Capt. Don : 4/8/2021 12:03 pm : link
DG prides himself on finding mid-late round OL gems. I dont think he goes OL at #11. Maybe in the 2nd - definitely not both.

I think they see the priority in the following order...

Edge, WR/TE weapon, OL.
No  
uconngiant : 4/8/2021 12:04 pm : link
They have too much capital in the last draft. I can see one but not both. Plus there are other needs
It's always fun to speculate  
Bill in UT : 4/8/2021 12:05 pm : link
but none of know what Judge really thinks the most important positions to fill are. Anything could happen. With the influence he seems to have, I don't know if you can go by what DG's past propensities have been
Not fo rme. If that happens, I put Parsons back on the board  
Bill L : 4/8/2021 12:13 pm : link
and live with the risk.

I am a no on Slater. To me this would be Cedric Jones redux; drafting a guy high where due to physical issues he can't play the position where he has history and experience (obviously a different type of physical limitation).

Also on OL high, the reason given is to push or bring competition to the other guys you've invested in. At #11, I don't want to bring a guy in for competition; I want a guy how can be transformative. I still think the margin of difference between the top players and the rest is greatest for the pass-catchers. You want to go OL (or Edge)? Fine then. Drop down, get some picks, and choose form a pool of fairly like guys.
Too many needs  
RAIN : 4/8/2021 12:29 pm : link
And not ready to give up on Peart.

A luxury at this point. If your talking value in 4/5 then great.
would seems to be the wrong word  
GiantsFan84 : 4/8/2021 12:32 pm : link
as the insiders have told you they aren't

should they do it would be a better question
I believe  
PaulN : 4/8/2021 12:32 pm : link
The Giants are going to add 2 guards, Gettleman loves to cluster draft, but I don't believe it will be the top 2 picks, but lets see what happens, I love Slater, Wyatt Davis, and Banks, they would be possible first, second, and third round picks, if they added Davis in round 2 and Banks in round 3, we would have rookies starting at both guard spots, if Parsons fell to us in round 1, this would be what I would love to happen. Then we could add a wide reciever in rounds 4 or 2 in round 6. The guy who could be a sleeper is Ihmir Smith-Marsette. Then we could add a DT, Slayton from Florida, Johnson from Indiana, Goldwire from Louisville, Graham from Texas, and Shelvin from LSU.
I would be happy with  
Chip : 4/8/2021 12:32 pm : link
Smith, Parsons, Sewell, Slater and if Waddles Ankle checks out. I would prefer not to double up the first two picks.
I think the first three picks should OL WR and Edge.
Not likely  
JonC : 4/8/2021 12:38 pm : link
Unless Sewell drops to #11, I don't see OL there. Slater is a bit small for a Giant tackle.

OL should be in the mix starting at #42.
RE: Value is in rd 2  
joeinpa : 4/8/2021 12:43 pm : link
In comment 15213703 Thegratefulhead said:
Quote:
Seen many mocks. Every single one had great choices for OL at the top of round 2.


This is also said to be true of the receivers. For both reasons I think with 11 they BPA
I mean it would send a message for sure  
Jim in Forest Hills : 4/8/2021 12:45 pm : link
and DG would be building an identity. Tons of resource allocation towards it. If they had such a strong feeling towards it, Like these two guys are near can't miss and will really change our offense, I'm all for it.
Everyone with a hard-on for O Lineman  
SirYesSir : 4/8/2021 12:47 pm : link
may be disappointed. I think they like Peart, and while they may add a mid-round guy on the interior, I don't see them giving this type of an investment in the line.

you can argue whether they should, but I don't think they will (unless there's some kind of trade down and they end up with extra picks)
If the draft falls like that the best move would be a trade down,  
Zeke's Alibi : 4/8/2021 12:54 pm : link
possibly for the 5th QB, but there probably wouldn't be any takers unless someone wants that QB.

I'm starting to think Sewell falls and if Pitts and Smith aren't there, he's undoubtedly the pick. The draft never unfolds like people think it does.
I don’t think so  
UConn4523 : 4/8/2021 12:58 pm : link
we already invested #4 and a 3rd last year, among others. We’ve got to hit on later round OL picks - going full Dallas isn’t a strategy I’d use simply because if 1 busts your kinda fucked.

I’ve got zero problem taking 2 lineman in the draft but it can’t be our first 2 picks.
I doubt it  
Beer Man : 4/8/2021 12:59 pm : link
I could see OL at either, but not both. Still need an Edge and possibly a LB; plus with all the QB hungry teams, it will be interesting to see what top-10 talents fall to them at 11
they've  
Ron Johnson : 4/8/2021 1:01 pm : link
set themselves up to go complete BPA. So it could happen.
depending on how it shakes out  
Dankbeerman : 4/8/2021 1:06 pm : link
I could see a double dip in rds 2-4. Unless we trade down I dont see a fit in rd1.

I would love a Creed Humphrey and Aaron Banks double dip but that makes it hard to cover Edge, Corner and WR.

would love to drop down pick an Edge rd and get an extra day 2 pick to adress interior OL. I dont know if Lemuix is a starter long term and he seems to have already passed Hernandez.
RE: .  
Judge_and_Jury : 4/8/2021 1:10 pm : link
In comment 15213693 Del Shofner said:
Quote:
No and no.

Not against picking OL even with #1, but #s 1 and 2? Not gonna happen.


Based on all we've been hearing, very doubtful. It sounds like we value Edge /pass rusher over OL right now AND BPA may be WR at pick #11 especially if a guy in our top tier drops to us.
If Pitts is not there I want to trade down  
LeonBright45 : 4/8/2021 1:11 pm : link
If we go O-line I want RT/G-Teven Jenkins in the 15-23 range and either Freiermuth, Bateman, Najee Harris, or G/C-Quinnn Meinerz at pick 42 and then Nico Collins, RG-Banks out of ND, or TE-Hunter Long out of BC
Oweh  
LeonBright45 : 4/8/2021 1:14 pm : link
could be our sleeper pick at 11 or if we trade down
Doubt it  
Lines of Scrimmage : 4/8/2021 1:17 pm : link
Good point about resources being allocated already. I definitely see a interior guy in round 2 and late round/UDFA additions.

LB/Edge, OL, WR, DL is how I see the first four going. It will be great if they can add a extra 3rd and add a corner/RB BPA.
RE: Not likely  
Finch : 4/8/2021 1:23 pm : link
In comment 15213746 JonC said:
Quote:
Unless Sewell drops to #11, I don't see OL there. Slater is a bit small for a Giant tackle.

OL should be in the mix starting at #42.


You might be right, but let’s say we switched names and Sewell is available instead of Slater. My question really is would taking O-line in the 1st Rd exclude them from taking another lineman in the 2nd round. I’m not so sure...
Strictly speaking BPA  
JonC : 4/8/2021 1:28 pm : link
no, I don't think it would preclude. I just don't think their board or the prospects available will line up as such, and the tea leaves certainly point to them doing homework on WR, Edge, CB primarily.
You draft players  
Mike in Boston : 4/8/2021 1:53 pm : link
Not positions.

That said, Gettleman has drafted OL with a 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd round pick over 3 years, so he isn't adverse to drafting them high.
DG has shown he will draft positions (for need)  
JonC : 4/8/2021 2:02 pm : link
so it's not entirely accurate in recent practice.
you can say that about any GM  
djm : 4/8/2021 2:23 pm : link
if you want to.

Chiefs needed a RB and took one late in round 1 last year. Did they draft for need?

Was Lawrence really a need? They had Tomlinson and Hill.

Giants had about 20 positional needs when DG took over. They were all need picks.
I think most teams think logically  
djm : 4/8/2021 2:24 pm : link
they marry need and value with talent. If they have 3 equally talented players to choose from, take a wild guess which one is getting picked.
Unless OL Is Clearly BPA When The Giants Pick At #11 & #42  
Trainmaster : 4/8/2021 3:24 pm : link
(that would be Sewell still there at #11, and say one of Slater, Vera-Tucker, Darrisaw still there at #42; highly unlikely), I highly doubt OL at #11 AND #42.

I could easily see an OL pick at #11 OR at #42.

don't think DG  
BigBlueCane : 4/8/2021 3:39 pm : link
is running the draft this time.
I'm surprised at how many people  
mittenedman : 4/8/2021 3:53 pm : link
think we need 2 G's. Lemieux struggled in pass pro as almost every rookie does, but he was an animal in the run game and overall brought a nasty, physical element to the squad.

On the whole, what he did as a rookie was damn impressive - particularly with no offseason. I'm bullish on him as the starting LG moving forward.

With Fulton vs. Hernandez at the other spot, and the org high on Murphy, I'm not sure where 2 G's are "needed".
RE: I'm surprised at how many people  
Lines of Scrimmage : 4/8/2021 3:59 pm : link
In comment 15213994 mittenedman said:
Quote:
think we need 2 G's. Lemieux struggled in pass pro as almost every rookie does, but he was an animal in the run game and overall brought a nasty, physical element to the squad.

On the whole, what he did as a rookie was damn impressive - particularly with no offseason. I'm bullish on him as the starting LG moving forward.

With Fulton vs. Hernandez at the other spot, and the org high on Murphy, I'm not sure where 2 G's are "needed".


The draft will be telling. Judge stuck his nose into the OL early in the season so he may think coaching was a big issue. I'm sure the new OL coach will factor into this. It had to be really hard for all the rookie OL especially with how the CBA is with practice time and live reps. That is why I think he used the rotation.
Outside the box answer:  
81_Great_Dane : 4/9/2021 3:19 pm : link
If they are absolutely committed to Daniel Jones past this season, and they are unhappy with their developmental linemen Lemieux, Gates and Peart, then they could go OL at the top of the draft. If they aren't sure about Jones, and they are happy with their developmental linemen (as reported), they need more playmakers at WR, TE and RB to see what he can do with them.
Back to the Corner