The Athletic on our needs and prediction at 11

With the 11th pick. The DL is a weakness in this draft. If it’s BPA it can’t be DL.

I'm so sick of seeing the same topic rehashed over and over and over again. Please make it stop!

Did I do that right?

In comment 15217131 Giant John said:

Quote:

With the 11th pick. The DL is a weakness in this draft. If it’s BPA it can’t be DL.

They said OL, not DL.

That said, depending on if Smith or Waddle are there(or Pitts - doubtful) I think one ER or CB could be the pick.

Could very well see Smith, Waddle, Surtain, Horn or Paye as the choice at #11 and OL at 42/76.

So much for that analysis.

BPA at 11. I don't are what position the player plays, we need to hit on this draft pick.

The Athletic, but I thought that was a totally mediocre article. There was less than anything new and fell into trap of drafting from need.

if Devonta Smith is on the board

Because it isn’t a need. Would another WR help? Yes of course but it’s not a need.

Golladay
Shepard
Slayton
Pettis
Ross
Mack
Sills
Cj board
Bachman

Combine that with the tight ends we have we are alright on the outside

In comment 15217157 TommyWiseau said:

Quote:

BPA at 11. I don't are what position the player plays, we need to hit on this draft pick.

^^THIS^^

In 1981, the New Orleans Saints had the first pick in the draft and needed a running back. So they took George Rogers and filled a need for a couple of years. It led to nothing and they traded him in 1985 to the Redskins for a draft pick that resulted in filling another position of need - linebacker Alvin Toles. Who?

The Giants picked second in the 1981 draft and had an urgent need to get better on offense at a time when their 4-3 defense was strong led by their linebacker corps. But they took Lawrence Taylor, an outside linebacker who was best utilized as an edge rushing linebacker in a 3-4 defense. Why? Because he was unequivocally the best player in the draft pool. And then a certain defensive coordinator changed the scheme to fit their talent and they made the playoffs for the first time in the Super Bowl era that very same year. A cogent argument can be made that the subsequent legacy of four super bowl wins stem from this single decision and the recognition that 1) talent is more important than need and 2) talent must dictate scheme - not vice versa.

In subsequent rounds of that draft, the Giants addressed the offense with "need" picks like Dave Young, John Mistler, Cliff Chatman, Mel Hoover, Ed O'Neill, Louis Jackson, John Powers and Mark Reed. Even the most ardent Giants fans have a difficult time remembering any of these players. They did finally get Billy Ard in the eighth round, almost as an after thought, who turned out to be a mainstay on the 1986 Super Bowl team. Ard is among the best examples in Giants history of why there is NEVER a need to reach - he was there waiting to be taken at precisely the right moment.

The Giants cannot endure a third consecutive year of reaching for need at the top of the draft. The first three picks simply must be the best players available. Past is prologue - get this right!

In comment 15217165 cjac said:

Quote:

if Devonta Smith is on the board

Smith may be a better player, but Slater would be a bigger need. I keep on saying you can draft all the Smiths, and Waddles all you want, but if the O line doesn’t get better it won’t matter, because the offense will still suck. The O line is the key for this team to stop their 4 year losing streak not all the WR people want the team to take.

I'm not sure i would be ok with this at 11.

In comment 15217165 cjac said:

Quote:

if Devonta Smith is on the board

Mixed feelings on this. Like them both. OL is a bigger need. But Eagles would probably grab Smith if Giants don’t.

In comment 15217170 Tuckrule said:

Quote:

Because it isn’t a need. Would another WR help? Yes of course but it’s not a need. Golladay Shepard Slayton Pettis Ross Mack Sills Cj board Bachman Combine that with the tight ends we have we are alright on the outside

We are one Golladay sprained ankle away from going back to having one of the worst WR corps in the league. Not just a need, an important need.

The same can be said of just about every single team in the league if their top WR goes down. It’s a need but a smaller one and more of a long term need when looking at Sheps contract and concussion history.

In comment 15217199 BillT said:

Quote:

In comment 15217170 Tuckrule said: Quote: Because it isn’t a need. Would another WR help? Yes of course but it’s not a need. Golladay Shepard Slayton Pettis Ross Mack Sills Cj board Bachman Combine that with the tight ends we have we are alright on the outside We are one Golladay sprained ankle away from going back to having one of the worst WR corps in the league. Not just a need, an important need.

And one sprained ankle from having Solder at LT, and one sprained ankle from Tae Crowder being the starting MLB, one sprained ankle from Yiadom being CB#2, one sprained ankle from Devontae Booker being the starting RB, one sprained ankle from Mike Glennon, etc...

if they don't pick a WR, and if they're all gone, I'm expecting an Edge. No OL at #11 unless it's Sewell.

and if it's *anybody* other than a WR (Sewell being an exception, as Jon says), then it better darn well not be at #11. Might was well, walk into your porsche store and buy a minivan

I think Payne is going to be really high on the Giants' board.

I think he'll be right there next to D. Smith.

It will be interesting to see what happens if they are both there at #11.

SLater is the wild card - I don't think the staff will be as high on him as much as other teams in the NFL. THat lack of length seems to be a major ding in the current Giant's draft philosophy. I also don't think that his opting out did him any favors.

In comment 15217208 rasbutant said:

Quote:

In comment 15217199 BillT said: Quote: In comment 15217170 Tuckrule said: Quote: Because it isn’t a need. Would another WR help? Yes of course but it’s not a need. Golladay Shepard Slayton Pettis Ross Mack Sills Cj board Bachman Combine that with the tight ends we have we are alright on the outside We are one Golladay sprained ankle away from going back to having one of the worst WR corps in the league. Not just a need, an important need. And one sprained ankle from having Solder at LT, and one sprained ankle from Tae Crowder being the starting MLB, one sprained ankle from Yiadom being CB#2, one sprained ankle from Devontae Booker being the starting RB, one sprained ankle from Mike Glennon, etc...

And none of those injuries would take those units and make them one of the worst units in the league as has already been proven with the WR group.

In comment 15217222 Dnew15 said:

Quote:

I think Payne is going to be really high on the Giants' board. I think he'll be right there next to D. Smith. It will be interesting to see what happens if they are both there at #11. SLater is the wild card - I don't think the staff will be as high on him as much as other teams in the NFL. THat lack of length seems to be a major ding in the current Giant's draft philosophy. I also don't think that his opting out did him any favors.

I assume you mean Paye?

In comment 15217225 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 15217222 Dnew15 said: Quote: I think Payne is going to be really high on the Giants' board. I think he'll be right there next to D. Smith. It will be interesting to see what happens if they are both there at #11. SLater is the wild card - I don't think the staff will be as high on him as much as other teams in the NFL. THat lack of length seems to be a major ding in the current Giant's draft philosophy. I also don't think that his opting out did him any favors. I assume you mean Paye?

and that the Giants read Sy's write-up

In comment 15217157 TommyWiseau said:

Quote:

BPA at 11. I don't are what position the player plays, we need to hit on this draft pick.

Agreed but I just have this feeling that it's a swing for the fences in round 1 with an edge guy and then playing to the strengths of the draft in 2-4 with WR and a double dip at OL in whatever order.

In comment 15217136 Bricktop said:

Quote:

I'm so sick of seeing the same topic rehashed over and over and over again. Please make it stop! Did I do that right?

The HUGE difference, is that the Athletic is a subscription item and thus many do not have access. Yes, it’s the same stuff, but mocks and needs are welcomed because for many of us who do not want to wade through tomes of draft guide material, it is a good learning source..This time of year, mocks and needs are discussed the most..

Posting another Daniel Jones thread when there are 50 others on the front page is nothing new and fields the SAME opinions, from the SAME posters ad nauseam.. The mocks and needs come from different sources throughout the internet and it’s nice to compare and discuss..Not the same with DJ because it’s the same old, same old by THIS forum.

In comment 15217170 Tuckrule said:

Quote:

Because it isn’t a need. Would another WR help? Yes of course but it’s not a need. Golladay Shepard Slayton Pettis Ross Mack Sills Cj board Bachman Combine that with the tight ends we have we are alright on the outside

Some BBIers look at that group and think we are "fine". That is a bad group. Shep is a slot, and he's pretty good. But Slayton is an ill-fitted compliment to Golladay and is fairly one-dimensional.

The rest of the receivers could all be cut and no one would bat an eye.

Even with Golladay, while he's a legit #1, he's not an elite #1 in the NFL, and his production thus far is a little underwhelming for the contract he received.

WR remains a HUGE need. It's a major weakness of this team and if it's not addressed, has the potential to really cap the amount of points this team has the realistic ability to score.

It is still the biggest weakness on this team in terms of on-field impact.

yes Paye.

and Yes - I'm sure the Giants read and adhere to Sy' write ups - to the letter.

In comment 15217237 allstarjim said:

Quote:

In comment 15217170 Tuckrule said: Quote: Because it isn’t a need. Would another WR help? Yes of course but it’s not a need. Golladay Shepard Slayton Pettis Ross Mack Sills Cj board Bachman Combine that with the tight ends we have we are alright on the outside Some BBIers look at that group and think we are "fine". That is a bad group. Shep is a slot, and he's pretty good. But Slayton is an ill-fitted compliment to Golladay and is fairly one-dimensional. The rest of the receivers could all be cut and no one would bat an eye. Even with Golladay, while he's a legit #1, he's not an elite #1 in the NFL, and his production thus far is a little underwhelming for the contract he received. WR remains a HUGE need. It's a major weakness of this team and if it's not addressed, has the potential to really cap the amount of points this team has the realistic ability to score. It is still the biggest weakness on this team in terms of on-field impact.

Couldn’t disagree more..It’s not a HUGE need by any measure..You can cite injuries to major receivers for most any team and the rest of that area would look pedestrian..

Would I be fine as a fan if we drafted one? Absolutely, but it’s NOT a huge need imv..

I believe the DG/Judge draft to improve the OL last year will pay dividends as they develop. Do I know that for sure? Of course not, but I would THINK that OL would still be a bigger need than WR at this point in time..

Again, ANYONE Judge goes with at 11 will be fine with me.

In comment 15217209 JonC said:

Quote:

if they don't pick a WR, and if they're all gone, I'm expecting an Edge. No OL at #11 unless it's Sewell.

Let's hope one of the WRs drop then. I'd love for Rousseau to be the pick, but when you mention EDGE, I'm assuming Paye who doesn't do it for me.

way the Giants take Slater or Smith. I don't think they'd take him over Paye. The only OL I think they'd consider is Sewell.

Golladay, Slayton, and Shepard are our only consistent WRs. Everyone else is a journeyman, including Pettis and Ross. WR is a huge need.

In comment 15217257 AcidTest said:

Quote:

way the Giants take Slater or Smith. I don't think they'd take him over Paye. The only OL I think they'd consider is Sewell. Golladay, Slayton, and Shepard are our only consistent WRs. Everyone else is a journeyman, including Pettis and Ross. WR is a huge need.

Remember, we’ll have Randolph and Barkley coming back, hopefully up to speed, that can’t be dismissed. Yes, they’re not WR’s, but I believe you can’t put receivers in a vacuum..The ENTIRE potential receiving corps should be considered imv..THAT’S what makes our O potentially explosive..

the question is full of question marks and lacks depth, signing KG just takes some of the edge off the pain.

In comment 15217254 UberAlias said:

Quote:

In comment 15217209 JonC said: Quote: if they don't pick a WR, and if they're all gone, I'm expecting an Edge. No OL at #11 unless it's Sewell. Let's hope one of the WRs drop then. I'd love for Rousseau to be the pick, but when you mention EDGE, I'm assuming Paye who doesn't do it for me.

Paye doesn't do it for me either, he is multiple but I think all the Tuck comparisons are off target.

In comment 15217263 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 15217257 AcidTest said: Quote: way the Giants take Slater or Smith. I don't think they'd take him over Paye. The only OL I think they'd consider is Sewell. Golladay, Slayton, and Shepard are our only consistent WRs. Everyone else is a journeyman, including Pettis and Ross. WR is a huge need. Remember, we’ll have Randolph and Barkley coming back, hopefully up to speed, that can’t be dismissed. Yes, they’re not WR’s, but I believe you can’t put receivers in a vacuum..The ENTIRE potential receiving corps should be considered imv..THAT’S what makes our O potentially explosive..

Take out Golliday, and even with Barkley and Rudolph, we are in really scary shape, IMO. I thought the major point of the off-season is to help Jones; not getting another WR will limit him.

the UNIT is full of question marks ...

Quote:

We are one Golladay sprained ankle away from going back to having one of the worst WR corps in the league. Not just a need, an important need.

I'm tired of hearing it. Seems it appears on every thread. It simply isn't true and obviously so and always brings to mind an old quote: "Tell a lie once and it's a lie, tell a lie a thousand times and it's the truth". Jos. Goebbels, Propaganda Minister
This year's Edition has a lot going for it regards the wide receiver unit. They will have a preseason, and a year in the system as well as a markedly better offensive line. Last year will be remembered as the "Perfect Storm".
They add saquon Barkley, John Ross and Dante Pettis. David Sills looked good last year before his injury, he returns.
Evan Ephraim and Darius Slayton had off years and we reasonably can expect Improvement - and dramatic Improvement at that - from these two. I personally think the Darius is a big-time receiver with great measurables (6-1, 4.39) and dedication.
And then there's the huge and not talked of enough addition of Kyle Rudolph.
That might not be an elite unit without Kenny G. But it's a hell of a lot better than anything they trotted out there last year.

We can hope the lightbulb goes on and they fulfill the potential they had when drafted, but there isn't any indication that can happen.

If Golladay does get hurt, the Giants WR corp is back to square one. That doesn't mean you have to spend 11 on a WR (I'd be cool with Slater or Smith), but a WR should be added somewhere in the draft, preferably in the top 4 rounds.

is not a pass catcher that commands attention from the defense at all. Not sure how much of him you saw last year, but he was losing targets to Irv Smith consistently.

we add one guy with an injury history, including one last year and another guy who has never performed while at the professional level, and saying that we need (at Least) one more high quality WR to help a developing QB, stretch the defense away from Golliday or provide depth in case Golliday goes down, is equivalent to Goebbel's???

This place has really gone off the deep end.

In comment 15217272 Bill L said:

Quote:

In comment 15217263 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: In comment 15217257 AcidTest said: Quote: way the Giants take Slater or Smith. I don't think they'd take him over Paye. The only OL I think they'd consider is Sewell. Golladay, Slayton, and Shepard are our only consistent WRs. Everyone else is a journeyman, including Pettis and Ross. WR is a huge need. Remember, we’ll have Randolph and Barkley coming back, hopefully up to speed, that can’t be dismissed. Yes, they’re not WR’s, but I believe you can’t put receivers in a vacuum..The ENTIRE potential receiving corps should be considered imv..THAT’S what makes our O potentially explosive.. Take out Golliday, and even with Barkley and Rudolph, we are in really scary shape, IMO. I thought the major point of the off-season is to help Jones; not getting another WR will limit him.

Or making sure he’s protected even better with a stronger OL..Again, I have no problem making a good unit on paper, stronger..Our receiving skills incl. TE and Barkley make this less of a need than possibly the OL, imo..

Let me be CLEAR: My main objection is to the term HUGE when describing our WR corps as presently constituted, that’s why Zi’ve put it in caps several times. I’m NOT disputing any upgrade/fortification of the WRs.but imo, it is not a HUGE need. That’s more than just a semantic word, imv

I do factor in the return of Saquon. He's a very good pass catcher out of the backfield and really helps the effectivness of play action pass. Golladay also helps move Shepard into the slot which is also a plus. I agree WR is a need, but it's a deep draft the position and we aren't in the sort of position where we need to pass on talent to address the need. With that in mind, good chance WR is the pick based on BPA, if nothing else.

In comment 15217173 The Mike said:

Quote:

In comment 15217157 TommyWiseau said: Quote: BPA at 11. I don't are what position the player plays, we need to hit on this draft pick. ^^THIS^^ In 1981, the New Orleans Saints had the first pick in the draft and needed a running back. So they took George Rogers and filled a need for a couple of years. It led to nothing and they traded him in 1985 to the Redskins for a draft pick that resulted in filling another position of need - linebacker Alvin Toles. Who? The Giants picked second in the 1981 draft and had an urgent need to get better on offense at a time when their 4-3 defense was strong led by their linebacker corps. But they took Lawrence Taylor, an outside linebacker who was best utilized as an edge rushing linebacker in a 3-4 defense. Why? Because he was unequivocally the best player in the draft pool. And then a certain defensive coordinator changed the scheme to fit their talent and they made the playoffs for the first time in the Super Bowl era that very same year. A cogent argument can be made that the subsequent legacy of four super bowl wins stem from this single decision and the recognition that 1) talent is more important than need and 2) talent must dictate scheme - not vice versa. In subsequent rounds of that draft, the Giants addressed the offense with "need" picks like Dave Young, John Mistler, Cliff Chatman, Mel Hoover, Ed O'Neill, Louis Jackson, John Powers and Mark Reed. Even the most ardent Giants fans have a difficult time remembering any of these players. They did finally get Billy Ard in the eighth round, almost as an after thought, who turned out to be a mainstay on the 1986 Super Bowl team. Ard is among the best examples in Giants history of why there is NEVER a need to reach - he was there waiting to be taken at precisely the right moment. The Giants cannot endure a third consecutive year of reaching for need at the top of the draft. The first three picks simply must be the best players available. Past is prologue - get this right!

This might be the best pre draft post ever posted

with literally every position grouping on the Giants in the same vein as the WR position grouping.

What would the CB room be if Jackson OR Bradberry go down with an ankle.

What would the LB room look like if Martinez has an ankle.

HOw about RB? QB? Oline?

Maybe S and DL could survive...but that's really it.

This goes for almost every team in the NFL BTW.

in the long time the Giants have put themselves in a position to draft a player that doesn't necessarily have to start on day one b/c there's at least some sort of NFL proven talent already there.

This allows them to actually draft BPA.

+1 and a must-read as draft philosophy.

your last sentence.

In comment 15217173 The Mike said:

Quote:

In comment 15217157 TommyWiseau said: Quote: BPA at 11. I don't are what position the player plays, we need to hit on this draft pick. ^^THIS^^ In 1981, the New Orleans Saints had the first pick in the draft and needed a running back. So they took George Rogers and filled a need for a couple of years. It led to nothing and they traded him in 1985 to the Redskins for a draft pick that resulted in filling another position of need - linebacker Alvin Toles. Who? The Giants picked second in the 1981 draft and had an urgent need to get better on offense at a time when their 4-3 defense was strong led by their linebacker corps. But they took Lawrence Taylor, an outside linebacker who was best utilized as an edge rushing linebacker in a 3-4 defense. Why? Because he was unequivocally the best player in the draft pool. And then a certain defensive coordinator changed the scheme to fit their talent and they made the playoffs for the first time in the Super Bowl era that very same year. A cogent argument can be made that the subsequent legacy of four super bowl wins stem from this single decision and the recognition that 1) talent is more important than need and 2) talent must dictate scheme - not vice versa. In subsequent rounds of that draft, the Giants addressed the offense with "need" picks like Dave Young, John Mistler, Cliff Chatman, Mel Hoover, Ed O'Neill, Louis Jackson, John Powers and Mark Reed. Even the most ardent Giants fans have a difficult time remembering any of these players. They did finally get Billy Ard in the eighth round, almost as an after thought, who turned out to be a mainstay on the 1986 Super Bowl team. Ard is among the best examples in Giants history of why there is NEVER a need to reach - he was there waiting to be taken at precisely the right moment. The Giants cannot endure a third consecutive year of reaching for need at the top of the draft. The first three picks simply must be the best players available. Past is prologue - get this right!

I thought the Giants already started using the 3-4 in 1979, with George Martin at left end and Gary Jeter at right end. Nose Tackle was a revolving door with John Mendenhall and Curtis McGriff for one year each.

I don't think the Giants think that they reached for Thomas.

It just so happened that positional need for the team matched the strength of the draft.

When it's all said it done - they still might be right with Thomas..we'll have to see.

In comment 15217237 allstarjim said:

Quote:

In comment 15217170 Tuckrule said: Quote: Because it isn’t a need. Would another WR help? Yes of course but it’s not a need. Golladay Shepard Slayton Pettis Ross Mack Sills Cj board Bachman Combine that with the tight ends we have we are alright on the outside Some BBIers look at that group and think we are "fine". That is a bad group. Shep is a slot, and he's pretty good. But Slayton is an ill-fitted compliment to Golladay and is fairly one-dimensional. The rest of the receivers could all be cut and no one would bat an eye. Even with Golladay, while he's a legit #1, he's not an elite #1 in the NFL, and his production thus far is a little underwhelming for the contract he received. WR remains a HUGE need. It's a major weakness of this team and if it's not addressed, has the potential to really cap the amount of points this team has the realistic ability to score. It is still the biggest weakness on this team in terms of on-field impact.

WR may remain a weakness, but the BIGGEST NEED is the O line, and the HUMPTY DUMPTY O line if not addressed will be like the KC Chiefs in the SB, and they have all kinds of weapons that the Giants do not, so while WR is a weakness it is not the biggest, and the O line is.

In comment 15217173 The Mike said:

Quote:

In comment 15217157 TommyWiseau said: Quote: BPA at 11. I don't are what position the player plays, we need to hit on this draft pick. ^^THIS^^ In 1981, the New Orleans Saints had the first pick in the draft and needed a running back. So they took George Rogers and filled a need for a couple of years. It led to nothing and they traded him in 1985 to the Redskins for a draft pick that resulted in filling another position of need - linebacker Alvin Toles. Who? The Giants picked second in the 1981 draft and had an urgent need to get better on offense at a time when their 4-3 defense was strong led by their linebacker corps. But they took Lawrence Taylor, an outside linebacker who was best utilized as an edge rushing linebacker in a 3-4 defense. Why? Because he was unequivocally the best player in the draft pool. And then a certain defensive coordinator changed the scheme to fit their talent and they made the playoffs for the first time in the Super Bowl era that very same year. A cogent argument can be made that the subsequent legacy of four super bowl wins stem from this single decision and the recognition that 1) talent is more important than need and 2) talent must dictate scheme - not vice versa. In subsequent rounds of that draft, the Giants addressed the offense with "need" picks like Dave Young, John Mistler, Cliff Chatman, Mel Hoover, Ed O'Neill, Louis Jackson, John Powers and Mark Reed. Even the most ardent Giants fans have a difficult time remembering any of these players. They did finally get Billy Ard in the eighth round, almost as an after thought, who turned out to be a mainstay on the 1986 Super Bowl team. Ard is among the best examples in Giants history of why there is NEVER a need to reach - he was there waiting to be taken at precisely the right moment. The Giants cannot endure a third consecutive year of reaching for need at the top of the draft. The first three picks simply must be the best players available. Past is prologue - get this right!

Very good post, just one point. It was Edward O'Neal. Can be confusing because the actor Ed O'Neill (Modern Family, Married with Children) actually was also drafted in the NFL by the Steelers. He wasn't a RB and never scored 4 tds in a game to my knowledge though...

There’s a sense around here that the OL is gtg — it isn’t. They need to keep stocking the cupboard.

Edge is the gaping hole on this roster right now. All they have is a bunch of JAGS, and this team won’t be a legitimate contender until they add some legitimate edge talent.

Fact some are cool with relying on Shepard and Ross, Pettis as well, as primary depth is scary. Ross is always injured. Shepard is hurt a lot, as well, and Pettis is a question mark. He needs to earn his spot.

Adding a WR like Smith or Waddle allows the position where Slayton isn't depended on for all production at WR. Too many questions after Slayton and Golladay right now.

In comment 15217349 WillVAB said:

Quote:

There’s a sense around here that the OL is gtg — it isn’t. They need to keep stocking the cupboard. Edge is the gaping hole on this roster right now. All they have is a bunch of JAGS, and this team won’t be a legitimate contender until they add some legitimate edge talent.

This team won’t even get back to being a 9-8 team until the O line gets fixed, and being any kind of legitimate contender is nothing, but a pipe dream until it does. The edge is week, but not what is holding the team back. The O line is.

start listing out the top 10-20 OL in the draft and they are likely to get 1 of them. Jeremiah has 10 OL inside his top 50 overall.

Similar arguments can accurately be made for other positions but edge rushers are generally a lot harder to find after the first round than WR or OL. It's all going to come down to which individual players the NYG has the strongest belief in more than position and IMO that's ideal.

Feel the article views Edge position differently than Graham and Judge view it.

I believe the Giants value a run defender/contain than pure speed rush. Paye may fit that but not so sure at #11, although he has climbed the mocks lately. They also went to UM pro day, if I remember right.

imv

it's very hard to know who they like best and if anyone will carry a grade to win out when they are on the clock, but I'd be really surprised if they don't add an explosive athlete on the edge with 1 of those first 3 picks.

Ranking need based on who might get hurt is a bad strategy at this point. We entered the offseason with a roster that was mediocre at best. The roster is better but could use a great player at any position. Other than S,RB or QB I’m happy with whoever they think is the best player available that fits our team. On day three literally any position will add much needed depth/competition.

I will be fine with a WR. But at this point if the Giants go into this season with the OL not sorted and performing well...they are fools. I expect an OL to be drafted in the first two picks.

In comment 15217366 Toth029 said:

Quote:

Feel the article views Edge position differently than Graham and Judge view it. I believe the Giants value a run defender/contain than pure speed rush. Paye may fit that but not so sure at #11, although he has climbed the mocks lately. They also went to UM pro day, if I remember right.

I've been looking at Carlos Basham for that type of player in the second round, who's had some more production than Paye has. Impressed some at the Senior Bowl. Judging from an interview at his pro day he's trying to market himself as someone who can line up at defensive tackle, 4-3 end, and 3-4 rushbacker.

In comment 15217367 JonC said:

Quote:

imv

Did everyone not see this past SB with Mahomes running for his life, because of his bad, and injured line. That is NO BETTER example of what a O line means, and the Chiefs had all those weapons, which the Giants do not.

If one of them or both of them is there at 11 that's who I want to see in Blue.

In comment 15217388 Old Blue said:

Quote:

In comment 15217367 JonC said: Quote: imv Did everyone not see this past SB with Mahomes running for his life, because of his bad, and injured line. That is NO BETTER example of what a O line means, and the Chiefs had all those weapons, which the Giants do not.

You pretty clearly don't understand draft optimization.

Your racket is familiar too, what was your prior handle(s)?

In comment 15217388 Old Blue said:

Quote:

In comment 15217367 JonC said: Quote: imv Did everyone not see this past SB with Mahomes running for his life, because of his bad, and injured line. That is NO BETTER example of what a O line means, and the Chiefs had all those weapons, which the Giants do not.

Did the NYG bring back Remmers to start at LT or something? I think the 2 situations are a little different.

In comment 15217315 JonC said:

Quote:

+1 and a must-read as draft philosophy.

+2. Great post. FA is for needs. The draft is BPA. Need might factor in if the grades on two potential draftees are extremely close.

In comment 15217394 Eric on Li said:

Quote:

In comment 15217388 Old Blue said: Quote: In comment 15217367 JonC said: Quote: imv Did everyone not see this past SB with Mahomes running for his life, because of his bad, and injured line. That is NO BETTER example of what a O line means, and the Chiefs had all those weapons, which the Giants do not. Did the NYG bring back Remmers to start at LT or something? I think the 2 situations are a little different.

The biggest difference is that the Giants have had a losing record for four years in a row, and so many people on here think this O line as is will just get better, and I don’t. I also don’t want to see their record of losing go to five years in a row, which will happen if the O line isn’t fixed. The best mock I have seen is CBS where Sewell falls to them at 11, which would be the best possible thing to happen.

will actually help the OL and the offense.

Smith and Waddle would (presumably) be tougher to cover than Sheppard, Slaton, Ross, etc. which means DJ wouldn't need as much time to get the pass off.

It would also mean that the opposing D would be less likely to blitz and less likely to stack the box (which helps Barkley and the run game).

There are ways to help the OL (and the offense) without drafting another OL... especially if it means passing on more talented players in RD-1 to force an OL pick.

In comment 15217408 Jim in Tampa said:

Quote:

will actually help the OL and the offense. Smith and Waddle would (presumably) be tougher to cover than Sheppard, Slaton, Ross, etc. which means DJ wouldn't need as much time to get the pass off. It would also mean that the opposing D would be less likely to blitz and less likely to stack the box (which helps Barkley and the run game). There are ways to help the OL (and the offense) without drafting another OL... especially if it means passing on more talented players in RD-1 to force an OL pick.

I see it this way too. The NFL is about matchups and exploiting them - and teams have been teeing off on our QB in part because of the OLine, but also because we've had JAG's at RB when Barkley isn't there and absolutely 0 thread in the passing game. Golladay + Waddle/Smith mean you aren't as often stacking the box, it opens up play action, etc.

We 100% need more talent at WR.

In comment 15217408 Jim in Tampa said:

Quote:

will actually help the OL and the offense. Smith and Waddle would (presumably) be tougher to cover than Sheppard, Slaton, Ross, etc. which means DJ wouldn't need as much time to get the pass off. It would also mean that the opposing D would be less likely to blitz and less likely to stack the box (which helps Barkley and the run game). There are ways to help the OL (and the offense) without drafting another OL... especially if it means passing on more talented players in RD-1 to force an OL pick.

You mean like KC did in the SB??

In comment 15217331 Biteymax22 said:

Quote:

In comment 15217173 The Mike said: Quote: In comment 15217157 TommyWiseau said: Quote: BPA at 11. I don't are what position the player plays, we need to hit on this draft pick. ^^THIS^^ In 1981, the New Orleans Saints had the first pick in the draft and needed a running back. So they took George Rogers and filled a need for a couple of years. It led to nothing and they traded him in 1985 to the Redskins for a draft pick that resulted in filling another position of need - linebacker Alvin Toles. Who? The Giants picked second in the 1981 draft and had an urgent need to get better on offense at a time when their 4-3 defense was strong led by their linebacker corps. But they took Lawrence Taylor, an outside linebacker who was best utilized as an edge rushing linebacker in a 3-4 defense. Why? Because he was unequivocally the best player in the draft pool. And then a certain defensive coordinator changed the scheme to fit their talent and they made the playoffs for the first time in the Super Bowl era that very same year. A cogent argument can be made that the subsequent legacy of four super bowl wins stem from this single decision and the recognition that 1) talent is more important than need and 2) talent must dictate scheme - not vice versa. In subsequent rounds of that draft, the Giants addressed the offense with "need" picks like Dave Young, John Mistler, Cliff Chatman, Mel Hoover, Ed O'Neill, Louis Jackson, John Powers and Mark Reed. Even the most ardent Giants fans have a difficult time remembering any of these players. They did finally get Billy Ard in the eighth round, almost as an after thought, who turned out to be a mainstay on the 1986 Super Bowl team. Ard is among the best examples in Giants history of why there is NEVER a need to reach - he was there waiting to be taken at precisely the right moment. The Giants cannot endure a third consecutive year of reaching for need at the top of the draft. The first three picks simply must be the best players available. Past is prologue - get this right! Very good post, just one point. It was Edward O'Neal. Can be confusing because the actor Ed O'Neill (Modern Family, Married with Children) actually was also drafted in the NFL by the Steelers. He wasn't a RB and never scored 4 tds in a game to my knowledge though...

Awesome point - I never knew Al Bundy was an athlete! Perhaps a Freudian slip on my part. Good catch...

KC lost players during the season/playoffs, just like Green Bay. Both teams it was their starting Left Tackle (KC also lost their RT mid season).

I'll gladly take the SB birth.

like there are no possible candidates in later rounds at the WR position that can make a serious impact.

I have a feeling that the rd 2 and 3 WR grouping will be highly graded as well.

The WR group should get some reinforcements b/c this WR draft class is deep - it doesn't have to be at #11.

Smith, Pitts, Waddle, Paye, in that order

Slater seems like he’s going to be a good pro. But we aren’t drafting a guard at 11. And we also aren’t drafting an OT at 11 unless he’s truly a superior prospect to any of the playmakers, which Slater is absolutely not. I don’t even think he’s that much better or a prospect than Paye, and we all know that we would likely take the edge over the OL because of the resources we’ve spent recently, if all things were equal in the draft room

In comment 15217424 Dnew15 said:

Quote:

like there are no possible candidates in later rounds at the WR position that can make a serious impact. I have a feeling that the rd 2 and 3 WR grouping will be highly graded as well. The WR group should get some reinforcements b/c this WR draft class is deep - it doesn't have to be at #11.

It doesn't have to be #11, but at #11 you might be able to get a top end prospect with traits of serious longevity (Smith) whos graded out far above whoever else will be there. I also think we should look to add 2 WR's because Shepard is an easy cut next year.

Having a deep class is great, but it still doesn't trump top end talent. They will be mid round picks for a reason.

I am BPA at this point. Free agency took care of any glaring needs we had.

good guard at 11 just because we want the OL to be better. Pick the superior prospect who is going to have a much higher impact on the game during a week to week basis.

We are trying to get to a championship contending team. We have high picks invested at OT, we hopefully found our C of the future, and some draft picks at OG that are still coming together. Find some 2nd round/day 3 OG gems and see if they are a better solution to what we have.

In comment 15217425 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

Smith, Pitts, Waddle, Paye, in that order Slater seems like he’s going to be a good pro. But we aren’t drafting a guard at 11. And we also aren’t drafting an OT at 11 unless he’s truly a superior prospect to any of the playmakers, which Slater is absolutely not. I don’t even think he’s that much better or a prospect than Paye, and we all know that we would likely take the edge over the OL because of the resources we’ve spent recently, if all things were equal in the draft room

You won’t have ANY playmakers without a good O line, so Smith, Pitts, and Waddle over Sewell, or Slater all you want.

Tea leaves point to the WRs and Edges carrying the grade for #11, not much mention of OL except if Sewell slips to us. It's been out there consistently ...

I’d be thrilled with Smith or Waddle at 11 from all I’ve learned..Unlike some, I view a “receiving corps” to include a great back/receiver (fingers crossed) and a blocking/receiving TE..So for this fan, an OL fortification is my main choice. If there’s a 10 year OL stalwart to be found in Rd 2 or 3, so be it..

If passes the character test with Judge, Parsons @11 wouldn’t be bad either, imv.

In comment 15217424 Dnew15 said:

Quote:

like there are no possible candidates in later rounds at the WR position that can make a serious impact. I have a feeling that the rd 2 and 3 WR grouping will be highly graded as well. The WR group should get some reinforcements b/c this WR draft class is deep - it doesn't have to be at #11.

Of course we don't know how the Giants see it... but to me, the talent drop-off from Smith/Waddle in RD-1 to whatever WRs are left in RD-2 and 3 is GREATER than the talent dropoff on any OL not named Sewell from rounds 1 to 2 and 3.

Yes, the Giants can possibly still get a "good" WR in rounds 2 or 3, but I prefer that they pick a GREAT one in RD-1... (and I'd rather not pass up that chance to settle for a G at 11.)

In comment 15217438 JonC said:

Quote:

Tea leaves point to the WRs and Edges carrying the grade for #11, not much mention of OL except if Sewell slips to us. It's been out there consistently ...

Its really the way it should be. We can grab another G in the 3rd and he will likely be a good player. WR/EDGE at 11.

Im also pretty surprised at how down on Paye everybody is.

In comment 15217415 The Mike said:

Quote:

In comment 15217331 Biteymax22 said: Quote: In comment 15217173 The Mike said: Quote: In comment 15217157 TommyWiseau said: Quote: BPA at 11. I don't are what position the player plays, we need to hit on this draft pick. ^^THIS^^ In 1981, the New Orleans Saints had the first pick in the draft and needed a running back. So they took George Rogers and filled a need for a couple of years. It led to nothing and they traded him in 1985 to the Redskins for a draft pick that resulted in filling another position of need - linebacker Alvin Toles. Who? The Giants picked second in the 1981 draft and had an urgent need to get better on offense at a time when their 4-3 defense was strong led by their linebacker corps. But they took Lawrence Taylor, an outside linebacker who was best utilized as an edge rushing linebacker in a 3-4 defense. Why? Because he was unequivocally the best player in the draft pool. And then a certain defensive coordinator changed the scheme to fit their talent and they made the playoffs for the first time in the Super Bowl era that very same year. A cogent argument can be made that the subsequent legacy of four super bowl wins stem from this single decision and the recognition that 1) talent is more important than need and 2) talent must dictate scheme - not vice versa. In subsequent rounds of that draft, the Giants addressed the offense with "need" picks like Dave Young, John Mistler, Cliff Chatman, Mel Hoover, Ed O'Neill, Louis Jackson, John Powers and Mark Reed. Even the most ardent Giants fans have a difficult time remembering any of these players. They did finally get Billy Ard in the eighth round, almost as an after thought, who turned out to be a mainstay on the 1986 Super Bowl team. Ard is among the best examples in Giants history of why there is NEVER a need to reach - he was there waiting to be taken at precisely the right moment. The Giants cannot endure a third consecutive year of reaching for need at the top of the draft. The first three picks simply must be the best players available. Past is prologue - get this right! Very good post, just one point. It was Edward O'Neal. Can be confusing because the actor Ed O'Neill (Modern Family, Married with Children) actually was also drafted in the NFL by the Steelers. He wasn't a RB and never scored 4 tds in a game to my knowledge though... Awesome point - I never knew Al Bundy was an athlete! Perhaps a Freudian slip on my part. Good catch...

Yup, drafted by the Steelers but cut in training camp. I believe he played DT.

is his NFL upside as a pass rusher is a big question mark. He is multiple, very coachable, and plays the run at a high level, so perhaps the coaches feel it's enough, relative to the other talent available.

In comment 15217448 JonC said:

Quote:

is his NFL upside as a pass rusher is a big question mark. He is multiple, very coachable, and plays the run at a high level, so perhaps the coaches feel it's enough, relative to the other talent available.

Any other EDGE in consideration besides Paye?

In comment 15217464 UberAlias said:

Quote:

In comment 15217448 JonC said: Quote: is his NFL upside as a pass rusher is a big question mark. He is multiple, very coachable, and plays the run at a high level, so perhaps the coaches feel it's enough, relative to the other talent available. Any other EDGE in consideration besides Paye?

Can't share names right now but figure a trade down would be preferred first.

Muchas Gracias.

In comment 15217448 JonC said:

Quote:

is his NFL upside as a pass rusher is a big question mark. He is multiple, very coachable, and plays the run at a high level, so perhaps the coaches feel it's enough, relative to the other talent available.

I feel the pass rush issue. But on this line he might have more chances to finish. The guy seems like a player. This defense seems more into guys who push the line.

Honest question, does Tuck have the effect he did playing without guys like Osi, Strahan,Kiwi, Cofield, Canty and Pierre-Paul?


I am one of the few that would be okay with Paye. Although, given the position differences, would prefer Ojulari. After a trade down would be a home run.

Don't compare losing your 2 tackles right before the Superbowl the same as going into next year expecting 2nd year players to step up. The most pressure filled game of the year had players playing at positions on the OL they had not seen significant practice ay all year. Or course. Remmers couldn't play a decent RT for us and started at LT in the SB. Of course that impacted the game.

Please no first round WR

coupled with the existing WR core, makes it impossible to stack the box to stop Barkley. You are wasting his talent running him into an 8 man box.

In comment 15217233 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 15217136 Bricktop said: Quote: I'm so sick of seeing the same topic rehashed over and over and over again. Please make it stop! Did I do that right? The HUGE difference, is that the Athletic is a subscription item and thus many do not have access. Yes, it’s the same stuff, but mocks and needs are welcomed because for many of us who do not want to wade through tomes of draft guide material, it is a good learning source..This time of year, mocks and needs are discussed the most.. Posting another Daniel Jones thread when there are 50 others on the front page is nothing new and fields the SAME opinions, from the SAME posters ad nauseam.. The mocks and needs come from different sources throughout the internet and it’s nice to compare and discuss..Not the same with DJ because it’s the same old, same old by THIS forum.

Sarcasm. Look it up.

But you've missed the point entirely - who the hell are you to tell other people what to post or not to post? What. Because you've been here for 30 years, gives you that right? With respect, don't think so pal.

That said, I think a lot of people on this Board over-value WR right now, relative to a bunch of other positions - perhaps just because of recent history.

I also see an assumption that Smith/Waddle are clearly superior players compared to Slater. But when I look at many people's top ratings (not predicted draft), they are clearly bunched together in many people's estimations. Dane Brugler has a good reputations and puts Slater/Smith at #6 and #7 respectively. Jeremiah has Waddle ahead of Smith and Slater only ranked 3 places lower.

Likewise (for example) NFL.com has Sewell and Slater rated almost identically.

Just some food for thought. I'll be interested to compare Sy's ratings for these three (and others).

In comment 15217565 Bricktop said:

Quote:

In comment 15217233 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: In comment 15217136 Bricktop said: Quote: I'm so sick of seeing the same topic rehashed over and over and over again. Please make it stop! Did I do that right? The HUGE difference, is that the Athletic is a subscription item and thus many do not have access. Yes, it’s the same stuff, but mocks and needs are welcomed because for many of us who do not want to wade through tomes of draft guide material, it is a good learning source..This time of year, mocks and needs are discussed the most.. Posting another Daniel Jones thread when there are 50 others on the front page is nothing new and fields the SAME opinions, from the SAME posters ad nauseam.. The mocks and needs come from different sources throughout the internet and it’s nice to compare and discuss..Not the same with DJ because it’s the same old, same old by THIS forum. Sarcasm. Look it up. But you've missed the point entirely - who the hell are you to tell other people what to post or not to post? What. Because you've been here for 30 years, gives you that right? With respect, don't think so pal.

And another supposed “new poster” without the courage to stay with his original handle..With respect.

draft an impact player at 11. If Sewell falls to 11 take him. Otherwise take a WR or Edge rusher. I hoped for Nelson over Barkley and before that Martin over Beckham but now the Giants need difference makers at impact positions. They've spent a fortune in draft picks and money and the OL still stinks. Time to find a few players that can scare the other team.

is very good guidance, albeit LT at #2 vs George Rodgers was a bit of an outlier because there BPA was so far and away not GR as to be historic.

BPA--as a SINGLE player--I continue to argue is a myth. The Giants have their rows and there may well be three in their top row left to select at #11. At that point it becomes not BPA but MVP, depending on relative deltas between each player left and his positional competition, roster construction, and, yes, need.

In comment 15217576 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 15217565 Bricktop said: Quote: In comment 15217233 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: In comment 15217136 Bricktop said: Quote: I'm so sick of seeing the same topic rehashed over and over and over again. Please make it stop! Did I do that right? The HUGE difference, is that the Athletic is a subscription item and thus many do not have access. Yes, it’s the same stuff, but mocks and needs are welcomed because for many of us who do not want to wade through tomes of draft guide material, it is a good learning source..This time of year, mocks and needs are discussed the most.. Posting another Daniel Jones thread when there are 50 others on the front page is nothing new and fields the SAME opinions, from the SAME posters ad nauseam.. The mocks and needs come from different sources throughout the internet and it’s nice to compare and discuss..Not the same with DJ because it’s the same old, same old by THIS forum. Sarcasm. Look it up. But you've missed the point entirely - who the hell are you to tell other people what to post or not to post? What. Because you've been here for 30 years, gives you that right? With respect, don't think so pal. And another supposed “new poster” without the courage to stay with his original handle..With respect.

Wrong. Again.

In comment 15217596 Bricktop said:

Quote:

In comment 15217576 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: In comment 15217565 Bricktop said: Quote: In comment 15217233 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: In comment 15217136 Bricktop said: Quote: I'm so sick of seeing the same topic rehashed over and over and over again. Please make it stop! Did I do that right? The HUGE difference, is that the Athletic is a subscription item and thus many do not have access. Yes, it’s the same stuff, but mocks and needs are welcomed because for many of us who do not want to wade through tomes of draft guide material, it is a good learning source..This time of year, mocks and needs are discussed the most.. Posting another Daniel Jones thread when there are 50 others on the front page is nothing new and fields the SAME opinions, from the SAME posters ad nauseam.. The mocks and needs come from different sources throughout the internet and it’s nice to compare and discuss..Not the same with DJ because it’s the same old, same old by THIS forum. Sarcasm. Look it up. But you've missed the point entirely - who the hell are you to tell other people what to post or not to post? What. Because you've been here for 30 years, gives you that right? With respect, don't think so pal. And another supposed “new poster” without the courage to stay with his original handle..With respect. Wrong. Again.

Well, it around 1:25 EST, how about yet another DJ thread? I am not telling you, just pleading. Thanks

In comment 15217595 ColHowPepper said:

Quote:

is very good guidance, albeit LT at #2 vs George Rodgers was a bit of an outlier because there BPA was so far and away not GR as to be historic. BPA--as a SINGLE player--I continue to argue is a myth. The Giants have their rows and there may well be three in their top row left to select at #11. At that point it becomes not BPA but MVP, depending on relative deltas between each player left and his positional competition, roster construction, and, yes, need.

In comment 15217515 rocco8112 said:

Quote:

Please no first round WR

I tend to agree with this given the depth at WR in this draft. While I feel like we would be overdrafting Ojulari, I think he would fill a role for which we dont have concrete personnel. Carter is a question mark even though he was starting to show last year before Dallas, Ximenes is a role player at best IMO.

I have no doubt Ojulari is a nice player as a pass rusher. His value dramatically increases if he can cover and would be certainly worth 11. If he is like Anthony Barr in that regard, I would love that pick.

In comment 15217596 Bricktop said:

Quote:

In comment 15217576 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: In comment 15217565 Bricktop said: Quote: In comment 15217233 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: In comment 15217136 Bricktop said: Quote: I'm so sick of seeing the same topic rehashed over and over and over again. Please make it stop! Did I do that right? The HUGE difference, is that the Athletic is a subscription item and thus many do not have access. Yes, it’s the same stuff, but mocks and needs are welcomed because for many of us who do not want to wade through tomes of draft guide material, it is a good learning source..This time of year, mocks and needs are discussed the most.. Posting another Daniel Jones thread when there are 50 others on the front page is nothing new and fields the SAME opinions, from the SAME posters ad nauseam.. The mocks and needs come from different sources throughout the internet and it’s nice to compare and discuss..Not the same with DJ because it’s the same old, same old by THIS forum. Sarcasm. Look it up. But you've missed the point entirely - who the hell are you to tell other people what to post or not to post? What. Because you've been here for 30 years, gives you that right? With respect, don't think so pal. And another supposed “new poster” without the courage to stay with his original handle..With respect. Wrong. Again.

Seriously, post what you care to..Not worth arguing over.. I won’t interfere again.

In comment 15217615 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 15217596 Bricktop said: Quote: In comment 15217576 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: In comment 15217565 Bricktop said: Quote: In comment 15217233 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: In comment 15217136 Bricktop said: Quote: I'm so sick of seeing the same topic rehashed over and over and over again. Please make it stop! Did I do that right? The HUGE difference, is that the Athletic is a subscription item and thus many do not have access. Yes, it’s the same stuff, but mocks and needs are welcomed because for many of us who do not want to wade through tomes of draft guide material, it is a good learning source..This time of year, mocks and needs are discussed the most.. Posting another Daniel Jones thread when there are 50 others on the front page is nothing new and fields the SAME opinions, from the SAME posters ad nauseam.. The mocks and needs come from different sources throughout the internet and it’s nice to compare and discuss..Not the same with DJ because it’s the same old, same old by THIS forum. Sarcasm. Look it up. But you've missed the point entirely - who the hell are you to tell other people what to post or not to post? What. Because you've been here for 30 years, gives you that right? With respect, don't think so pal. And another supposed “new poster” without the courage to stay with his original handle..With respect. Wrong. Again. Seriously, post what you care to..Not worth arguing over.. I won’t interfere again.

Sounds good. Have a great day and thanks for understanding.

In comment 15217499 Thegratefulhead said:

Quote:

Don't compare losing your 2 tackles right before the Superbowl the same as going into next year expecting 2nd year players to step up. The most pressure filled game of the year had players playing at positions on the OL they had not seen significant practice ay all year. Or course. Remmers couldn't play a decent RT for us and started at LT in the SB. Of course that impacted the game.

I’m not comparing anything only to say without a good O line it doesn’t matter how many other weapons you have, because you won’t be able to use them, and the SB was the best example of that.

In comment 15217360 Old Blue said:

Quote:

In comment 15217349 WillVAB said: Quote: There’s a sense around here that the OL is gtg — it isn’t. They need to keep stocking the cupboard. Edge is the gaping hole on this roster right now. All they have is a bunch of JAGS, and this team won’t be a legitimate contender until they add some legitimate edge talent. This team won’t even get back to being a 9-8 team until the O line gets fixed, and being any kind of legitimate contender is nothing, but a pipe dream until it does. The edge is week, but not what is holding the team back. The O line is.

The OL should definitely be addressed and likely will, but the class is deep so there’s some flexibility to be a little strategic about attacking the position.

The edge prospects are gonna go quick. If the Giants wait until round 3 or later they’ll likely be looking at another JAG Lorenzo Carter type prospect.

The defense as currently constructed won’t put them in a position for a deep playoff run. The bend but don’t break shit isn’t championship caliber. You can’t scheme pressure once the league has enough tape on you.

In comment 15217595 ColHowPepper said:

Quote:

is very good guidance, albeit LT at #2 vs George Rodgers was a bit of an outlier because there BPA was so far and away not GR as to be historic. BPA--as a SINGLE player--I continue to argue is a myth. The Giants have their rows and there may well be three in their top row left to select at #11. At that point it becomes not BPA but MVP, depending on relative deltas between each player left and his positional competition, roster construction, and, yes, need.

Was watching the "Caught in the Draft" series from NFL Network last night and they had an episode about the 84 draft which might be an even better metaphor of BPA; drafting Carl Banks over a much needed offensive upgrade despite the amount of talent already at the LB position. Then there's a scene in the episode of them talking to Parcells about the Supplementary draft and how he got overruled in taking Reggie White vs Gary Zimmerman just because of how badly the offense needed talent. Not to say Gary Zimmerman was a bad pick considering the career he had, but obviously adding Reggie White and Carl Banks to that defense, the 85 Bears or the 00 Ravens would be clear 2nd fiddle to those 80's Giants teams with that type of a front.

The OL is one of the weakest units on the team, but taking an OG at 11 when there are other talented OGs available in round 2 or 3 that would fill in just as easily as Slater would be draft malpractice.

In comment 15217237 allstarjim said:

Quote:

In comment 15217170 Tuckrule said: Quote: Because it isn’t a need. Would another WR help? Yes of course but it’s not a need. Golladay Shepard Slayton Pettis Ross Mack Sills Cj board Bachman Combine that with the tight ends we have we are alright on the outside Some BBIers look at that group and think we are "fine". That is a bad group. Shep is a slot, and he's pretty good. But Slayton is an ill-fitted compliment to Golladay and is fairly one-dimensional. The rest of the receivers could all be cut and no one would bat an eye. Even with Golladay, while he's a legit #1, he's not an elite #1 in the NFL, and his production thus far is a little underwhelming for the contract he received. WR remains a HUGE need. It's a major weakness of this team and if it's not addressed, has the potential to really cap the amount of points this team has the realistic ability to score. It is still the biggest weakness on this team in terms of on-field impact.

allstarjim you are 10000000000% correct about every word here--it seems so plain to me that this is the case that it's shocking that so many people have been quick to dismiss WR as a major need after the Golladay signing. All that signing did was make it so we're missing 1 starting outside WR instead of 2 -- and having 2 is incredibly important for an offense's ability to function consistently. Slayton should never be any higher on the depth chart than the 3rd outside WR off the bench coming in for a handful of snaps a game.

We are in desperate need of a quality #2, and having one out there with Golladay and Shep and Saquon (and hopefully Rudolph) will make it really tough for defenses to concentrate on nullifying any 1 player. With our roster as it is now with a quality pair of outside CBs, adding one good WR is by far the single addition that will have the most impact on our point differential and winning more games.

In comment 15217253 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 15217237 allstarjim said: Quote: In comment 15217170 Tuckrule said: Quote: Because it isn’t a need. Would another WR help? Yes of course but it’s not a need. Golladay Shepard Slayton Pettis Ross Mack Sills Cj board Bachman Combine that with the tight ends we have we are alright on the outside Some BBIers look at that group and think we are "fine". That is a bad group. Shep is a slot, and he's pretty good. But Slayton is an ill-fitted compliment to Golladay and is fairly one-dimensional. The rest of the receivers could all be cut and no one would bat an eye. Even with Golladay, while he's a legit #1, he's not an elite #1 in the NFL, and his production thus far is a little underwhelming for the contract he received. WR remains a HUGE need. It's a major weakness of this team and if it's not addressed, has the potential to really cap the amount of points this team has the realistic ability to score. It is still the biggest weakness on this team in terms of on-field impact. Couldn’t disagree more..It’s not a HUGE need by any measure..You can cite injuries to major receivers for most any team and the rest of that area would look pedestrian.. Would I be fine as a fan if we drafted one? Absolutely, but it’s NOT a huge need imv.. I believe the DG/Judge draft to improve the OL last year will pay dividends as they develop. Do I know that for sure? Of course not, but I would THINK that OL would still be a bigger need than WR at this point in time.. Again, ANYONE Judge goes with at 11 will be fine with me.

I'm saying fully healthy it's a bad group overall. Without a serious upgrade on the outside the Giants will likely remain a middling offense at best. They need a superb route runner that safeties have to respect deep. There is no one on the roster like that right now. Both Smith and Waddle fit the bill.

As mentioned, you need to open things up for Saquon, but it will also allow Golladay to get a lot of one on ones.

In comment 15218137 allstarjim said:

Quote:

In comment 15217253 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: In comment 15217237 allstarjim said: Quote: In comment 15217170 Tuckrule said: Quote: Because it isn’t a need. Would another WR help? Yes of course but it’s not a need. Golladay Shepard Slayton Pettis Ross Mack Sills Cj board Bachman Combine that with the tight ends we have we are alright on the outside Some BBIers look at that group and think we are "fine". That is a bad group. Shep is a slot, and he's pretty good. But Slayton is an ill-fitted compliment to Golladay and is fairly one-dimensional. The rest of the receivers could all be cut and no one would bat an eye. Even with Golladay, while he's a legit #1, he's not an elite #1 in the NFL, and his production thus far is a little underwhelming for the contract he received. WR remains a HUGE need. It's a major weakness of this team and if it's not addressed, has the potential to really cap the amount of points this team has the realistic ability to score. It is still the biggest weakness on this team in terms of on-field impact. Couldn’t disagree more..It’s not a HUGE need by any measure..You can cite injuries to major receivers for most any team and the rest of that area would look pedestrian.. Would I be fine as a fan if we drafted one? Absolutely, but it’s NOT a huge need imv.. I believe the DG/Judge draft to improve the OL last year will pay dividends as they develop. Do I know that for sure? Of course not, but I would THINK that OL would still be a bigger need than WR at this point in time.. Again, ANYONE Judge goes with at 11 will be fine with me. I'm saying fully healthy it's a bad group overall. Without a serious upgrade on the outside the Giants will likely remain a middling offense at best. They need a superb route runner that safeties have to respect deep. There is no one on the roster like that right now. Both Smith and Waddle fit the bill. As mentioned, you need to open things up for Saquon, but it will also allow Golladay to get a lot of one on ones.

You could be right after all..Again, if a WR is there and Judge wants him, that’s totally fine with me. He has my full trust

He has never led a draft and FA effort at this level and the two big ticket free agent signings have a host of questions about overpaying. He has not earned our full confidence yet.

In comment 15218029 Blue 32 said:

Quote:

In comment 15217237 allstarjim said: Quote: In comment 15217170 Tuckrule said: Quote: Because it isn’t a need. Would another WR help? Yes of course but it’s not a need. Golladay Shepard Slayton Pettis Ross Mack Sills Cj board Bachman Combine that with the tight ends we have we are alright on the outside Some BBIers look at that group and think we are "fine". That is a bad group. Shep is a slot, and he's pretty good. But Slayton is an ill-fitted compliment to Golladay and is fairly one-dimensional. The rest of the receivers could all be cut and no one would bat an eye. Even with Golladay, while he's a legit #1, he's not an elite #1 in the NFL, and his production thus far is a little underwhelming for the contract he received. WR remains a HUGE need. It's a major weakness of this team and if it's not addressed, has the potential to really cap the amount of points this team has the realistic ability to score. It is still the biggest weakness on this team in terms of on-field impact. allstarjim you are 10000000000% correct about every word here--it seems so plain to me that this is the case that it's shocking that so many people have been quick to dismiss WR as a major need after the Golladay signing. All that signing did was make it so we're missing 1 starting outside WR instead of 2 -- and having 2 is incredibly important for an offense's ability to function consistently. Slayton should never be any higher on the depth chart than the 3rd outside WR off the bench coming in for a handful of snaps a game. We are in desperate need of a quality #2, and having one out there with Golladay and Shep and Saquon (and hopefully Rudolph) will make it really tough for defenses to concentrate on nullifying any 1 player. With our roster as it is now with a quality pair of outside CBs, adding one good WR is by far the single addition that will have the most impact on our point differential and winning more games.

Adding at least 1 good OT, and 2 good OG would have the biggest, and most important impact on our offense period. You can add all the WR you want, but without a vastly better O line DJ won’t have time to throw to anyone.

In comment 15218312 Old Blue said:

Quote:

In comment 15218029 Blue 32 said: Quote: In comment 15217237 allstarjim said: Quote: In comment 15217170 Tuckrule said: Quote: Because it isn’t a need. Would another WR help? Yes of course but it’s not a need. Golladay Shepard Slayton Pettis Ross Mack Sills Cj board Bachman Combine that with the tight ends we have we are alright on the outside Some BBIers look at that group and think we are "fine". That is a bad group. Shep is a slot, and he's pretty good. But Slayton is an ill-fitted compliment to Golladay and is fairly one-dimensional. The rest of the receivers could all be cut and no one would bat an eye. Even with Golladay, while he's a legit #1, he's not an elite #1 in the NFL, and his production thus far is a little underwhelming for the contract he received. WR remains a HUGE need. It's a major weakness of this team and if it's not addressed, has the potential to really cap the amount of points this team has the realistic ability to score. It is still the biggest weakness on this team in terms of on-field impact. allstarjim you are 10000000000% correct about every word here--it seems so plain to me that this is the case that it's shocking that so many people have been quick to dismiss WR as a major need after the Golladay signing. All that signing did was make it so we're missing 1 starting outside WR instead of 2 -- and having 2 is incredibly important for an offense's ability to function consistently. Slayton should never be any higher on the depth chart than the 3rd outside WR off the bench coming in for a handful of snaps a game. We are in desperate need of a quality #2, and having one out there with Golladay and Shep and Saquon (and hopefully Rudolph) will make it really tough for defenses to concentrate on nullifying any 1 player. With our roster as it is now with a quality pair of outside CBs, adding one good WR is by far the single addition that will have the most impact on our point differential and winning more games. Adding at least 1 good OT, and 2 good OG would have the biggest, and most important impact on our offense period. You can add all the WR you want, but without a vastly better O line DJ won’t have time to throw to anyone.

He'll have time to throw with the guys we have now.

Plus we're talking about one player. Hard to get 3 starters in one draft any year, much less at one position group. Further, the dismissiveness of the current projected starters is foolish and the pearl-clutching is an overreaction.

In comment 15218994 allstarjim said:
[quote] In comment 15218312 Old Blue said:


Quote:


In comment 15218029 Blue 32 said:


Quote:


In comment 15217237 allstarjim said:


Quote:


In comment 15217170 Tuckrule said:


Quote:


Because it isn’t a need. Would another WR help? Yes of course but it’s not a need.

Golladay
Shepard
Slayton
Pettis
Ross
Mack
Sills
Cj board
Bachman

Combine that with the tight ends we have we are alright on the outside



Some BBIers look at that group and think we are "fine". That is a bad group. Shep is a slot, and he's pretty good. But Slayton is an ill-fitted compliment to Golladay and is fairly one-dimensional.

The rest of the receivers could all be cut and no one would bat an eye.

Even with Golladay, while he's a legit #1, he's not an elite #1 in the NFL, and his production thus far is a little underwhelming for the contract he received.

WR remains a HUGE need. It's a major weakness of this team and if it's not addressed, has the potential to really cap the amount of points this team has the realistic ability to score.

It is still the biggest weakness on this team in terms of on-field impact.



allstarjim you are 10000000000% correct about every word here--it seems so plain to me that this is the case that it's shocking that so many people have been quick to dismiss WR as a major need after the Golladay signing. All that signing did was make it so we're missing 1 starting outside WR instead of 2 -- and having 2 is incredibly important for an offense's ability to function consistently. Slayton should never be any higher on the depth chart than the 3rd outside WR off the bench coming in for a handful of snaps a game.

We are in desperate need of a quality #2, and having one out there with Golladay and Shep and Saquon (and hopefully Rudolph) will make it really tough for defenses to concentrate on nullifying any 1 player. With our roster as it is now with a quality pair of outside CBs, adding one good WR is by far the single addition that will have the most impact on our point differential and winning more games.



Adding at least 1 good OT, and 2 good OG would have the biggest, and most important impact on our offense period. You can add all the WR you want, but without a vastly better O line DJ won’t have time to throw to anyone.



He'll have time to throw with the guys we have now.

Plus we're talking about one player. Hard to get 3 starters in one draft any year, much less at one position group. Further, the dismissiveness of the current projected starters is foolish and the pearl-clutching is an overreaction. [/quote

The guys we have now is HUMPTY Dumpty plus, and so overrated by so many on here. Wishful thinking will not make this line just get better, and if you want to trust this line as is on a winning season go for it, but I would not, and is foolish to think it will.