Heard Mike Tannenbaum on the Rothenberg show this morning in the draft. In terms of the Giants pick, Rothenberg was pushing OL or WR. Tannenbaum had recently in his mock draft had the pick being edge, Alujari (Georgia player) or Kwity. When questioned about the need to give Jones more help, Tannenbaum said they’ve given Jones enough help and now he has to elevate the offense by making everyone around him better. That’s the job of the QB. I had not thought of it that way.
Before you all downplay Tannenbaum, I think he’s the one who drafted Tunsil (sp?) when everyone else passed on him including Reese who badly needed OL help. Bringing Tunsil to Miami probably did as much as anybody in terms of building the team if only for trading him.
I would argue that he has a poor track record as a GM and take what he says with a grain of salt.
Basically "yeah the situation has been bad, but that doesn't give (insert either NY QB here) a complete pass on how they've played"
The Giants have already given him more to work with, and will in some way via the draft as well. I'm fine spending 11 on defense.
Yeah, it is a dumb take because people act like the only way to cure all a team's needs is with the first pick. It is such a dumb argument to say team X did A, B, and C so they now need to draft Player Y. How about, "I am taking Player Z because this player is the player with the highest upside that will give the Giants the best chance to succeed for at least the next 5 year"? This has nothing to do with Daniel Jones specifically. It has to do with the NY Giants.
Hell, the Giants have some major questions surrounding their OL still but that doesn't mean we need to 100% draft an OL at 11. There are other rounds to the draft too.
His opinions are really meaningless.
They also lost Zeitler and haven't replaced him yet.
Yes, the weapons definitely got better but not insanely better. And a reasonable person can argue their OL got worse. So, the net gain may be zero. That means we've done enough on offense to ignore it? Makes no sense. I have no preference when it comes to our first round pick whether it be O or D but to completely eliminate one side is just asinine. We did a really good job of addressing needs in FA but it is still an ongoing process.
One could also argue that adding another playmaker to the D can help Jones too. It's a lot easier to score with a short field.
One could also argue that adding another playmaker to the D can help Jones too. It's a lot easier to score with a short field.
Getting Barkley back doesn't fall under the same category as what Tannenbaum suggested which is they have done enough meaning there is some kind of end game when it comes to a football team. The Giants didn't add Barkley to this team this offseason.
Exactly. And drafting is just as much if not more so for the future as it is now. Especially not knowing who might get hurt. Will Slaton or Golladay get hurt? Who knows, maybe. Get BPA no matter what position he plays. Is he suppose to block for himself too? If it's a WR or Oline so be it.
The overall sense I get is that if Jones is going to be a solid NFL starter he need to overcome adversity. I don't think he thinks simply adding Golladay is enough, but I also don't have the full context to know if that's accurate or not.
They also lost Zeitler and haven't replaced him yet.
Yes, the weapons definitely got better but not insanely better. And a reasonable person can argue their OL got worse. So, the net gain may be zero. That means we've done enough on offense to ignore it? Makes no sense. I have no preference when it comes to our first round pick whether it be O or D but to completely eliminate one side is just asinine. We did a really good job of addressing needs in FA but it is still an ongoing process.
Yep, the upgrades are solid in spots but actual game results may not be up to fan approval. More talent is needed at WR and OL, and it could line up well early in this draft. That said, they could wind with Edge as BPA at #11, then look at WR, OL, and CB in the next few rounds as solid options to infuse talent into the roster.
They also lost Zeitler and haven't replaced him yet.
Yes, the weapons definitely got better but not insanely better. And a reasonable person can argue their OL got worse. So, the net gain may be zero. That means we've done enough on offense to ignore it? Makes no sense. I have no preference when it comes to our first round pick whether it be O or D but to completely eliminate one side is just asinine. We did a really good job of addressing needs in FA but it is still an ongoing process.
robbie - Golladay/Tate that is a huge upgrade.
Losing Gallman, Lewis and Morris means nothing. Booker more than adequately replaces them and RBs can be found anytime.
Rudolph is probably a bigger improvement then people want to concede. He does exactly what you want in a TE - gets open and actually catches the ball, especially in the EZ.
Agree somewhat on oline, but even if Zeitler was the best guard he never really impressed me to what he was supposed to be. But without doubt Oline is the biggest question and as of now I would agree there is no apparent improvement compared to last year....
We need to keep in mind that the strength of the draft is OL and WR. Both positions can be drafted in rounds 2-4 and still get good value and talent.
What we need is a defensive playmaker. Parsons and Ojulari are major targets for that pick.
All these mock drafts try to fill "holes" on teams like they are building a fantasy team without thinking about the actual strengths/weaknesses of the team. The Giants already added depth to their DL and LB corp in FA. Jones has been sacked 83 times in 2 years. If the Giants want Jones to succeed then they need to cut down on the sacks. If Slater is available at 11, then the Giants should take him and look for defensive help in round 2 or 3. The team is not one or two pieces away from the Super Bowl, so they should continue to focus on improving the OL.
The smartest move we could do is bring in a boatload more OLs to create more competition to determine the best starters, and by extension add depth at this critical area of need.
Quote:
They signed Golladay but lost Tate. They signed Booker but lost Gallman, Lewis, and Morris. They signed Rudolph.
They also lost Zeitler and haven't replaced him yet.
Yes, the weapons definitely got better but not insanely better. And a reasonable person can argue their OL got worse. So, the net gain may be zero. That means we've done enough on offense to ignore it? Makes no sense. I have no preference when it comes to our first round pick whether it be O or D but to completely eliminate one side is just asinine. We did a really good job of addressing needs in FA but it is still an ongoing process.
robbie - Golladay/Tate that is a huge upgrade.
Losing Gallman, Lewis and Morris means nothing. Booker more than adequately replaces them and RBs can be found anytime.
Rudolph is probably a bigger improvement then people want to concede. He does exactly what you want in a TE - gets open and actually catches the ball, especially in the EZ.
Agree somewhat on oline, but even if Zeitler was the best guard he never really impressed me to what he was supposed to be. But without doubt Oline is the biggest question and as of now I would agree there is no apparent improvement compared to last year....
I agree that Golladay over Tate is a huge improvement. Still, when you look at it holistically, is anybody besides Tannenbaum satisfied where we can say we don't need to address the offense anymore?
I understand his thought process but look at the offenses the Jets and Miami had under his watch. It is a dumb mentality. Just because a few great NFL QBs raise the level of play around them doesn't mean you stop looking to improve that side of the ball. I would have been fine saying that his edge rusher is a better player or a few other things. When you justify your selection by saying Jones now needs to step up it is dumb.
BINGO
I think he is trying to pivot to television and be cool about what GMs think. He has a weird take because he is trying to be different than Kiper and McShay yet still focuses too much on need.
How about DeVonta Smith for the NYG's Receiving corps in Round 1 and Alex Leatherwood for the right side of the OL in Round 2?
Quote:
this much is clear. To that end, you draft accordingly as this draft provides options for both and in multiple rounds.
How about DeVonta Smith for the NYG's Receiving corps in Round 1 and Alex Leatherwood for the right side of the OL in Round 2?
If I'm picking, I'm looking at Parsons or Edge at #11. Really like Tryon if he's available at #42 or via trade up, then I'm looking OG/WR in rounds 3/4 depending on picks I have left in the gun.
Better said. We have a lot of smart football people on this board but NOBODY in an honesty moment has real clue where this OL is going to be in '21.
To steal a line from Terps, none of these OLs should be "on scholarship".
I'm so exhausted from this decade of OL dystopia I'd draft just OLs in two weeks to increase the odds of finding truly capable ones... ;)
We've all seen that movie before, and yet there's still a sense that people think the OL is good enough at this point. Based on 2020, it really, really isn't.
That is a scary thought.
The smartest move we could do is bring in a boatload more OLs to create more competition to determine the best starters, and by extension add depth at this critical area of need.
Are you speaking specifically about the #11 pick? Because I think that if you're using a top of the draft pick to "create competition, you are wildly misusing the pick. That level pick you should use to, as best as possible, make transform your team. If you do that, then you won't get the chance to pick at the top of the draft as much.
And at #11, only the WRs, Sewell, and (i guess I'm circling back to) Parsons, have that potential. And, none of those guys would merely create competition.
My guess is it's more about drafting BPA vs. "drafting to a strength vs. weakness".
If it's clear the BPA happens to be at a pos. of strength, so be it. But I would guess they hope the BPA is at a pos. of weakness/need.
Quote:
You can never have too many offensive linemen until you're sure you have enough.
Better said. We have a lot of smart football people on this board but NOBODY in an honesty moment has real clue where this OL is going to be in '21.
To steal a line from Terps, none of these OLs should be "on scholarship".
I'm so exhausted from this decade of OL dystopia I'd draft just OLs in two weeks to increase the odds of finding truly capable ones... ;)
There's no way the Giants are done adding OL this off-season. By that I mean the draft. Doubt they pick one in round 1, but I'd be shocked if at least 1 wasn't picked within the first 3 rounds and possibly 2 within the first 3-4 rounds.
You can always get interior OL in the mid rounds. Getting one in round 2 or 3 is close to plug and play.
I think the Giants feel ok at tackle with Solder there to backup either spot. I would think they want at least one young guard to push the holdovers.
Quote:
and assuming we don't add any more skill players, Jones should have more than enough with KG, Shep, Slay, EE to score significantly more points. JFC do we have to create offensive Xanadu for the guy to succeed?
The smartest move we could do is bring in a boatload more OLs to create more competition to determine the best starters, and by extension add depth at this critical area of need.
Are you speaking specifically about the #11 pick? Because I think that if you're using a top of the draft pick to "create competition, you are wildly misusing the pick. That level pick you should use to, as best as possible, make transform your team. If you do that, then you won't get the chance to pick at the top of the draft as much.
I would definitely go OL at #11. And Slater would be the target. I am buying everything he brings - skill and the ability to play all five spots.
Let's be honest, it's gotten to the point in the NFL where good OLs are just as vital as the skill positions. It is getting so hard to find good ones.
The competition point is to challenge ALL of the existing so called starters who have been penciled in. I've said it quite often, but I think 3/5ths of the OL is still very shaky.
At least he knows the draft, though. Like when he traded up to #5 to pick one-and-done Mark Sanchez.
We've all seen that movie before, and yet there's still a sense that people think the OL is good enough at this point. Based on 2020, it really, really isn't.
It's not, but that doesn't mean you should reach for an OL when a better player is on the board.
Quote:
this much is clear. To that end, you draft accordingly as this draft provides options for both and in multiple rounds.
Jon, do you get the feeling that the team needs more (high end) OL? I thought someone fairly interactive with them felt that it wasn't as much a priority as (some) fans do?
I think they're going to grab an OG to plug into the pipeline, and they're hoping Peart seizes RT, Lemieux at LG, Gates at C, and they'll look to add depth to push them. I think they realize the OL is unfinished but they're going to balance adding more talent with giving the young guns they like a chance to get better, similar to much of this young roster.
From everything I've read from you insiders, I accept that OL talk at #11 is purely academic.
But it doesn't mean the strategy is right. I posted last week that the hit rate, per ESPN, for first round OLs is over 2X versus first round WRs - 60% to 27%. Those are material odds that stuck out and would steer me to the OL...
The local media feels the same way. They look at Darnold as a one-year stop gap for a possible draftee.
I'll be surprised if they pick a QB, but it won't be completely unexpected.
Quote:
AFTER trading for Sam Darnold
The local media feels the same way. They look at Darnold as a one-year stop gap for a possible draftee.
I'll be surprised if they pick a QB, but it won't be completely unexpected.
You can still see people overrate Darnold here. Guy is going to be in league a long time if he wants, but he’s a marginal starter at best most likely. Still making the same poor decisions you see out of a high school QB. Rhule traded some picks and I think it’s a good gamble with what they gave up. The offense runs through McCaffrey and hopefully they think he can show enough this year to get a decent return and still draft a guy. Or maybe the guy they draft ends up a pumpkin and keep Darnold for the interim.
The philosophy at 11 should be to find a Great Player, with the only exception being whether you are Drafting or not drafting a QB. Positional Valuation should only be considerd as it affects the ability to fill positional needs later--- "Is It Harder to find a a Great OL versus WR later", as an example. At 11, the present roster should be almost irrelevant.... in this case, there's room and reason to draft "The Best Player" at every roster spot--find "FITS" later.