|
|
Quote: |
11. GIANTS: Micah Parsons, LB, Penn State Dave Gettleman’s drafts have ignored the Giants’ pass rush for too long. That ends here. Parsons can line up in the middle and on the edge in Pat Graham’s defense and will terrorize opposing QBs, not just RBs. |
I do feel that the breadcrumbs kinda lead to Paye in terms of fit, versatility, work ethic/character. Feels like a Judge guy.
All things considered, you don't need to be a scout to see his talent and he'd be my preference if we went defense at the pick.
Waddle is one of the two or three pure offensive weapons in this draft.
It would be hard to believe that the Jints pass on him.
Just imagine him lining up opposite Golladay!
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.
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.
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.
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.
which could be the biggest clue that he is the guy for the Giants
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.
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).
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?
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...
Anything new that he has posted?
Anything new that he has posted?
I heard the same, but mostly Smith/Surtain since then.
Anything new that he has posted?
Word is Cowboys want Pitts really bad and are trying to trade up to get him
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Anything new that he has posted?
Nothing I have seen. Been looking as well...
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.
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.
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.
Jon, do you feel that Paye fits our scheme? He seems like a forced selection if taken.