Leonard 2nd mock draft with no trades

and at least two quarterbacks are taken in the top ten, then either trade the pick to move back in the first round or select one of these nine elite "high floor/high ceiling" players. This would be my order, but arguments can be made for any order:

1. Parsons
2. Chase
3. Horn
4. Surtain
5. Sewell
6. Slater
7. Smith
8. Waddle
9. Pitts

Picking Paye or anyone else at eleven would be reaching for need and would make no sense.

When your strategy is to reach for need, you don't draft players who are in consideration before your pick.

In comment 15221593 The Mike said:

Quote:

and at least two quarterbacks are taken in the top ten, then either trade the pick to move back in the first round or select one of these nine elite "high floor/high ceiling" players. This would be my order, but arguments can be made for any order: 1. Parsons 2. Chase 3. Horn 4. Surtain 5. Sewell 6. Slater 7. Smith 8. Waddle 9. Pitts Picking Paye or anyone else at eleven would be reaching for need and would make no sense.

I would disagree on a few names on your list. Horn and Waddle have low floors. Horn had a great game versus Auburn and killed his Pro Day in shorts, but also had some games this year that looked a lot like Eli Apple. Waddle has a low floor because he has not been able to demonstrate that he is even remotely the same WR he was before his injury. If that never comes back that is a bust at 11.

Get some extra draft capital and hen grab one of those guys. Should still be on the board at 15-16

Scares me a bit, when in reference to Parsons. Devin White has great instincts and closing speed in the run game, but that's really about it.

Tampa Bay resorted to blitzing him on 3rd down almost exclusively due to his piss poor coverage ability. Parsons doesn't have very much tape displaying his coverage skills outside of the bowl game, so the comparison does have merit.

Thats a remote thrower for me

the ankle and incomplete workouts are things to keep in mind.

In comment 15221618 JonC said:

Quote:

the ankle and incomplete workouts are things to keep in mind.

There were some rumors that the Giants want a player at #11 who has the highest likelihood of making an immediate impact. That would rule out most players who opted out, except for players like Chase and Sewell who had already established themselves as top performers. I assume it would also rule out players with injury and character concerns. I'd therefore be surprised if the Giants drafted Parsons, Waddle, Phillips, or Rousseau. My concern is that they will overdraft an EDGE at #11.

I think recent history strongly suggests they could do exactly that ...

In comment 15221618 JonC said:

Quote:

the ankle and incomplete workouts are things to keep in mind.

which could be the biggest clue that he is the guy for the Giants

if they target Paye as one option they would prefer to trade down before pitkcing, I'd suggest he's a player the Vikes could also target at #14. So now you have to make a decision before trading down.

In comment 15221641 Ben in Tampa said:

Quote:

In comment 15221618 JonC said: Quote: the ankle and incomplete workouts are things to keep in mind. which could be the biggest clue that he is the guy for the Giants

I don't think so, more likely imv his ankle drops him a bit. Giants have been better but not great at keeping things silent.

In comment 15221642 JonC said:

Quote:

if they target Paye as one option they would prefer to trade down before pitkcing, I'd suggest he's a player the Vikes could also target at #14. So now you have to make a decision before trading down.

They'd probably want a running mate for Danielle Hunter; Jaelen Phillips has been mocked to go with them a few times. Hunter's been a fine DE but he's coming back from a neck injury (those aren't fun by any means).

In comment 15221642 JonC said:

Quote:

if they target Paye as one option they would prefer to trade down before pitkcing, I'd suggest he's a player the Vikes could also target at #14. So now you have to make a decision before trading down.

I love the way you think.

Lot's of this make sense.

One of the wild cards I see with the Giants is Vera-Tucker...USC isn't the program it once was - but they drafted a PAC-12 guy last year.

Any chance you see the Giants stacking him in there along with D. Smith and K. Paye?

In comment 15221604 Mike in NY said:

Quote:

In comment 15221593 The Mike said: Quote: and at least two quarterbacks are taken in the top ten, then either trade the pick to move back in the first round or select one of these nine elite "high floor/high ceiling" players. This would be my order, but arguments can be made for any order: 1. Parsons 2. Chase 3. Horn 4. Surtain 5. Sewell 6. Slater 7. Smith 8. Waddle 9. Pitts Picking Paye or anyone else at eleven would be reaching for need and would make no sense. I would disagree on a few names on your list. Horn and Waddle have low floors. Horn had a great game versus Auburn and killed his Pro Day in shorts, but also had some games this year that looked a lot like Eli Apple. Waddle has a low floor because he has not been able to demonstrate that he is even remotely the same WR he was before his injury. If that never comes back that is a bust at 11.

Have to assume the Giants would clear Waddle medically before drafting him. Not worried about that issue but I do agree that both Waddle and Smith may be higher injury risks in the NFL amongst this group.

A lot of Horn's bad tape can be attributed to the problem of playing on some bad teams in a tough conference. You are right, there is a bit of a leap of faith needed for him as to his floor, but his talent ceiling is a hybrid of Jaylen Ramsey and Derwin James...

is how much weight do the Giants give to the fact that they can find OL and WR on day 2 that can help. Can't say that about pass rushers. They only get one shot at that and it's at 11.

Waddle/Smith/Surtain and Pitts were all right up there for the Giants.

Anything new that he has posted?

In comment 15221688 chick310 said:

Quote:

Waddle/Smith/Surtain and Pitts were all right up there for the Giants. Anything new that he has posted?

I heard the same, but mostly Smith/Surtain since then.

In comment 15221688 chick310 said:

Quote:

Waddle/Smith/Surtain and Pitts were all right up there for the Giants. Anything new that he has posted?

Word is Cowboys want Pitts really bad and are trying to trade up to get him

Would prefer Waddle but if Parsons ended up being the pick the assumption is that he was vetted with all due diligence and I would not be complaining. Saw most of his games a couple years ago and he was a game changer no matter where he lined up. His speed is tremendous for his size.

In comment 15221642 JonC said:

Quote:

if they target Paye as one option they would prefer to trade down before pitkcing, I'd suggest he's a player the Vikes could also target at #14. So now you have to make a decision before trading down.

I think the question is what are you getting in return. Which is greater, Paye, or the player you get at your new spot plus the other players from the draft capital you receive by trading down? I would say probably the latter unless the offered draft capital is obviously too little.

In comment 15221642 JonC said:

Quote:

if they target Paye as one option they would prefer to trade down before pitkcing, I'd suggest he's a player the Vikes could also target at #14. So now you have to make a decision before trading down.

If you love a guy is the draft capital you gain worth the risk of trading back? Personally I would rather they not get cute if they target someone they think will make an impact in 2021.

you can't just have one target in mind.

For you all "trade down and draft player X" folks, it doesn't work that way. It's trade down and choose one of the following players...

trading down potentially exposes them to missing out on a target. It's an inherent risk.

.

All the "experts" pretty much have us going edge there. They don't always agree on whom, but it's almost always an edge guy.

In comment 15221785 JonC said:

Quote:

trading down potentially exposes them to missing out on a target. It's an inherent risk.

Is it good draft strategy to have a target (or targets), though? Doesn't that possibly result in reaching?

As a matter of policy, I'd rather the Giants try to accumulate as many picks as possible through trading down and staying out of the top of the FA market to net supplemental picks. Then just follow their board.

In comment 15221815 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 15221785 JonC said: Quote: trading down potentially exposes them to missing out on a target. It's an inherent risk. Is it good draft strategy to have a target (or targets), though? Doesn't that possibly result in reaching? As a matter of policy, I'd rather the Giants try to accumulate as many picks as possible through trading down and staying out of the top of the FA market to net supplemental picks. Then just follow their board.

If I were to trade down, I would prefer multiple trades down. I like the bottom of the first top of the second. If I could trade back enough to get an extra pick there. For example, If I could trade back and land (Toney/Moore/Bateman) (Tyron/Oweh/Collins) and a Dickerson...yeah.

In comment 15221815 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 15221785 JonC said: Quote: trading down potentially exposes them to missing out on a target. It's an inherent risk. Is it good draft strategy to have a target (or targets), though? Doesn't that possibly result in reaching? As a matter of policy, I'd rather the Giants try to accumulate as many picks as possible through trading down and staying out of the top of the FA market to net supplemental picks. Then just follow their board.

I think they have their graded tiers and then targets or favorites among them. They clearly wanted Jones and Thomas out of the past two drafts, and you could make the argument both were at least small reaches. Perhaps the best available players at their respective positions, but BPA overall I'd say no.

In comment 15221688 chick310 said:

Quote:

Waddle/Smith/Surtain and Pitts were all right up there for the Giants. Anything new that he has posted?

Nothing I have seen. Been looking as well...

I can see Paye or Ojulari as the pick if Parsons is gone.

Parsons, Smith, Pitts, Paye, Ojulari are 5 names I see as targets with Parsons, Smith and Ojulari as guys I see fitting well in scheme and all have connections to our coaching staff. Keep that in mind.

In comment 15221785 JonC said:

Quote:

trading down potentially exposes them to missing out on a target. It's an inherent risk.

Of course it is. But they're picking at #11. Most of the blue chip players (Pitts, Chase, Sewell, etc.) will likely be gone. Smith, Surtain, Slater, or Waddle might be available. I'm lukewarm on Smith because of his size, we signed Jackson in FA, Waddle isn't fully recovered, and there are rumors that the Giants don't want to use #11 on an OL other than Sewell.

Let's say we trade back to somewhere between 15 and 20. One of Paye, Ojulari, or Oweh, or Davis will likely still be available. We'll also have extra picks.

about their grades on Ojulari then?

In comment 15221815 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 15221785 JonC said: Quote: trading down potentially exposes them to missing out on a target. It's an inherent risk. Is it good draft strategy to have a target (or targets), though? Doesn't that possibly result in reaching? As a matter of policy, I'd rather the Giants try to accumulate as many picks as possible through trading down and staying out of the top of the FA market to net supplemental picks. Then just follow their board.

Totally agree. Teams that draft well get comp picks. They also aren't afraid to trade down. They trust their scouts to find players later on in any round. The Giants don't draft well so have to sign a lot of expensive FAs to compensate. We also rarely find anyone for example on day three of the draft.

but I don't like Ojulari and the Miami Edge prospects scare me. I trust their evaluation of Paye, there's a lot to like even at #11. Don't have a feel for whom else would be among the targets there. Maybe other Edge(s), Slater, not sure.

In comment 15221879 JonC said:

Quote:

but I don't like Ojulari and the Miami Edge prospects scare me. I trust their evaluation of Paye, there's a lot to like even at #11. Don't have a feel for whom else would be among the targets there. Maybe other Edge(s), Slater, not sure.

Jon, do you feel that Paye fits our scheme? He seems like a forced selection if taken.

then nobody would mock him in the 2nd round. Maybe a little lower than 11, but a whole round? We're talking about the 6th best (non-QB) player in the draft; you would think that there would be consensus on his worth.

I think the issue is he doesn't leap off the screen as a pure finisher. He is a physical presence, very strong versus the run, very coachable, team first attitude, is disruptive, plays with explosive, speed and power. He can close with burst on the QB. That could be enough for the coaches to feel like they could use him as multiple, and perhaps he'll grow as a finisher. Maybe he's not a 10+ sack artist out of the chute, but could grow into one.

In comment 15221714 JonC said:

Quote:

In comment 15221688 chick310 said: Quote: Waddle/Smith/Surtain and Pitts were all right up there for the Giants. Anything new that he has posted? I heard the same, but mostly Smith/Surtain since then.

My best stab at Giants current board:

Row #1:
Chase, Pitts, Smith , Sewell (***any of these guys drop to 11 they are the pick in order you see listed)

Row #2:
Paye, Ojulari, Waddle, Surtain (no tier 1 then its likely Edge possibly even over Waddle/Surtain or a slight trade down)

Row #3 (this could vary a bit, but they do seem to be high on Oweh):
Horn, Slater, Teven Jenkins, Jayson Oweh, Elijah Moore

In comment 15221893 JonC said:

Quote:

I think the issue is he doesn't leap off the screen as a pure finisher. He is a physical presence, very strong versus the run, very coachable, team first attitude, is disruptive, plays with explosive, speed and power. He can close with burst on the QB. That could be enough for the coaches to feel like they could use him as multiple, and perhaps he'll grow as a finisher. Maybe he's not a 10+ sack artist out of the chute, but could grow into one.

I think this is the exact reason why Paye would be the choice over some of the edge guys. His ceiling to get a lot better would be greater because of the coachable/character stuff

and you get the best pure talent on defense and perhaps a top 5 talent overall in the draft. that being said - having to worry about the guy staying on task his whole career is not something i'd want to risk on, especially with DG needing to nail this choice

let's be honest here, nobody is getting picked without Judge signing off. Judge might not love Parsons for a variety of reasons

none of these guys are even close to being a finished product, they want players they can mold and coach. Paye seems like that type of guy, even though his ceiling is definitely not as high as Parsons, that is for sure

(and I disagree with the premise of only 2 QBs being drafted; at least 3 QBs will be drafted before #11, that's virtually certain, likely 4 QBs and possibly 5 QBs).

My non-QB ranked list (OL and defense over WR for both need and value):

1. Sewell (almost certainly gone by #11)
2. Pitts (almost certainly gone by #11)
3. Chase(almost certainly gone by #11)
4. Surtain
5. Parsons
6. Slater
7. Paye
8. Smith
9. Waddle

Parsons and Paye. There will be differences of opinion depending on who is ultimately selected, but they will get quality, at least on paper, imv

In comment 15221724 LTIsTheGreatest said:

Quote:

In comment 15221688 chick310 said: Quote: Waddle/Smith/Surtain and Pitts were all right up there for the Giants. Anything new that he has posted? Word is Cowboys want Pitts really bad and are trying to trade up to get him

LT - where did you hear that tidbit on Pitts from?

In comment 15222081 chick310 said:

Quote:

In comment 15221724 LTIsTheGreatest said: Quote: In comment 15221688 chick310 said: Quote: Waddle/Smith/Surtain and Pitts were all right up there for the Giants. Anything new that he has posted? Word is Cowboys want Pitts really bad and are trying to trade up to get him LT - where did you hear that tidbit on Pitts from?

Yeah, first time I’m hearing this as well

After reading Sy’s review, I just get the feeling the brain trust will take him. I could even see them passing on Waddle & Parsons for him causing a BBI uproar. Just gut feel.

In comment 15221953 Trainmaster said:

Quote:

(and I disagree with the premise of only 2 QBs being drafted; at least 3 QBs will be drafted before #11, that's virtually certain, likely 4 QBs and possibly 5 QBs). My non-QB ranked list (OL and defense over WR for both need and value): 1. Sewell (almost certainly gone by #11) 2. Pitts (almost certainly gone by #11) 3. Chase(almost certainly gone by #11) 4. Surtain 5. Parsons 6. Slater 7. Paye 8. Smith 9. Waddle

Pretty close to my list

1. Sewell (almost certainly gone by #11)
2. Pitts (almost certainly gone by #11)
3. Chase(almost certainly gone by #11)
4. Smith
5. Slater
6. Surtain
7. Parsons
8. Paye
9. Waddle

can we really make a bad pick?