Sy, would you take arguably the most talented player

I’d prefer 2 OL at 5 and 7 if possible and try to anchor this line once and for all..I’d love an edge guy, but the OL is far more pressing, imv. We can pick up an edge in round 2 or 3 I would think.

to choose from for the OL and DL, where we need the most help.

kind of player? If so, might be hard to pass on him. But it will be exciting to see how our new regime plays it.

In comment 15562185 clatterbuck said:

Quote:

kind of player? If so, might be hard to pass on him. But it will be exciting to see how our new regime plays it.

No clue. Am just starting to research the guys coming out for the draft

In comment 15562185 clatterbuck said:

Quote:

kind of player? If so, might be hard to pass on him. But it will be exciting to see how our new regime plays it.

Would you rather have Ed Reed or Orlando Pace?

He anticipates super-well and his football IQ is ahead of his age. He's a very good athlete and has awesome ball-skills.

In comment 15562194 BLUATHRT said:

Quote:

He anticipates super-well and his football IQ is ahead of his age. He's a very good athlete and has awesome ball-skills.

So you’d have no problem with taking him at 7, then?

I know it is just one expert, but he was not that high on him, saying he just didn’t see suddenness out of him to be rated in the top tier. So I am also curious to know what Sy thinks.

In comment 15562188 adamg said:

Quote:

In comment 15562185 clatterbuck said: Quote: kind of player? If so, might be hard to pass on him. But it will be exciting to see how our new regime plays it. Would you rather have Ed Reed or Orlando Pace?

Is one of the players opposite Hamilton at 7 “Orlando Pace” or with Ekwanu, Neal & Cross gone already in this mock, there’s no other “Pace” in this draft.

In comment 15562188 adamg said:

Quote:

In comment 15562185 clatterbuck said: Quote: kind of player? If so, might be hard to pass on him. But it will be exciting to see how our new regime plays it. Would you rather have Ed Reed or Orlando Pace?

Orlando Pace but there's no Pace in this draft dropping to 5.

I think the question should be more like, would you rather have Brian Dawkins or Branden Smith (current Colts RT)?

Is not just a “safety”, many folks see him as the top player in this draft… he’s a bigger Ed Reed… at 7 he would be a terrific value.

within the top ten that will not be an LT is absolutely nuts. And know way will the new GM do that. You take the best player with one and trade out of the other and build your oline depth through out the draft and FA.

Players, not positions. Especially early in the 1st. There's obviously an argument for positional value (never draft a RB at 2, for instance).

If there's an OL in the same tier as Hamilton, sure. Factor in the need. But passing on a more talented football player for a lesser talented player at a position of need is a surefire way to maintain a mediocre roster, especially in the Top 10.

I'm not advocating taking Hamilton or any other player at this point, but posters using the approach of "we need to select two OLs, a DL, and an OL with the first 4 picks" without taking into account the actual talent of the players and who is or isn't available is incredibly short sighted.

hell, I'd consider him at 5. Safety MAY be the deepest unit, but that is damning with faint praise. You don't bypass the potential next Rod Woodson because you have Logan Ryan (not saying Hamilton will be that good, just using an example).

We need playmakers. If Hamilton is one of them, sign me up. The idea of pairing him with X would solidify the deep middle of the defense for a decade. What a pair they would be. Both are outstanding CF's and can play in the box. Having 2 safeties be interchangeable like that would be incredibly valuable to a DC.

in terms of using a lottery pick on one. You can find talented safeties in later rounds every year.

Safeties are the RBs of the defense.

In comment 15562188 adamg said:

Quote:

In comment 15562185 clatterbuck said: Quote: kind of player? If so, might be hard to pass on him. But it will be exciting to see how our new regime plays it. Would you rather have Ed Reed or Orlando Pace?

The projection is Neal at #5 and Hamilton at #7. So maybe you get both?

.

To make a lot of plays near the LOS or in the backfield too... Good blitzer, sniffs out screens and swing passes, etc.

In comment 15562225 bw in dc said:

Quote:

in terms of using a lottery pick on one. You can find talented safeties in later rounds every year. Safeties are the RBs of the defense.

Yeah, call up CC Brown and plug and play.

In comment 15562225 bw in dc said:

Quote:

in terms of using a lottery pick on one. You can find talented safeties in later rounds every year. Safeties are the RBs of the defense.

tend to agree here.

i think this should be edge and OL at 5 and 7

So I’d think he would take him.

In comment 15562225 bw in dc said:

Quote:

in terms of using a lottery pick on one. You can find talented safeties in later rounds every year. Safeties are the RBs of the defense.

I disagree with this, in today's NFL. If the Giants are going to compete against the likes of Rodgers, Mahomes, Herbert, Allen, Burrow, etc, elite safeties bring very good value. Pairing Hamilton with McKinney could make our secondary tough to beat for several years

If the players are graded the same I go with the OT, of course. But if Hamilton is graded as a perennial all pro type and they're not sure about how great the tackles are, by all means draft Hamilton with one of our picks, and a tackle or edge player with the other

I'm of course still pained by some of our recent whiffs when forcing a pick for need in the 1st round (hi Erick Flowers). Hopefully we hire a GM who knows how to evaluate these guys

Safety is a position you add when you're ready to win and the Giants are not there. It's like taking a RB in the top 10. No chance. BPA applies but I would exclude RB and Safety from that argument.

In comment 15562288 mfsd said:

Quote:

In comment 15562225 bw in dc said: Quote: in terms of using a lottery pick on one. You can find talented safeties in later rounds every year. Safeties are the RBs of the defense. I disagree with this, in today's NFL. If the Giants are going to compete against the likes of Rodgers, Mahomes, Herbert, Allen, Burrow, etc, elite safeties bring very good value. Pairing Hamilton with McKinney could make our secondary tough to beat for several years If the players are graded the same I go with the OT, of course. But if Hamilton is graded as a perennial all pro type and they're not sure about how great the tackles are, by all means draft Hamilton with one of our picks, and a tackle or edge player with the other I'm of course still pained by some of our recent whiffs when forcing a pick for need in the 1st round (hi Erick Flowers). Hopefully we hire a GM who knows how to evaluate these guys

To be clear(er), I would prefer highly rated OL at 5 and 7 if there, not a highly rated one and an Ereck Flowers, just to get two OL

Coverages are much more important now than ever. Safeties are a LOT more than just guys who didn't have good enough hands to be cornerbacks.


NFL teams spend more time in nickel and dime packages than ever before.

You have to take him. We need all pros doesnt matter where, they make everyone else better

In comment 15562309 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 15562288 mfsd said: Quote: In comment 15562225 bw in dc said: Quote: in terms of using a lottery pick on one. You can find talented safeties in later rounds every year. Safeties are the RBs of the defense. I disagree with this, in today's NFL. If the Giants are going to compete against the likes of Rodgers, Mahomes, Herbert, Allen, Burrow, etc, elite safeties bring very good value. Pairing Hamilton with McKinney could make our secondary tough to beat for several years If the players are graded the same I go with the OT, of course. But if Hamilton is graded as a perennial all pro type and they're not sure about how great the tackles are, by all means draft Hamilton with one of our picks, and a tackle or edge player with the other I'm of course still pained by some of our recent whiffs when forcing a pick for need in the 1st round (hi Erick Flowers). Hopefully we hire a GM who knows how to evaluate these guys To be clear(er), I would prefer highly rated OL at 5 and 7 if there, not a highly rated one and an Ereck Flowers, just to get two OL

Agree with that. If one of the tackles is there and projects to be a 10 year starter and pro bowl caliber, by all means that's your guy.

I just think if they have Hamilton graded as a sure fire all pro guy, no reason not to take him just bc he's a safety. We need elite talent anywhere we can find it

Ed Reed career you’d be stupid not to take him, chances he’s a HOF’er like Reed are very slim though

This team is getting throttled in the trenches and there are lots of good trench players in the 1st round.

That being said - I've never seen a S like Kyle Hamilton. He's special. It would be impossible to get angry taking him. He's nothing like Ed Reed - he personally reminds me of a 6'4" version of Will Hill.

The trenches have been an issue for a decade and here we have people pushing for secondary players at the top of the draft.

Stingley was injured this year but is a close down corner

If Stingley played the way he did in his Freshman year he might be in the conversation as the top pick in the draft.

He has every attribute that you want in a corner.

In comment 15562225 bw in dc said:

Quote:

in terms of using a lottery pick on one. You can find talented safeties in later rounds every year. Safeties are the RBs of the defense.

No disagreement on RBs, but safeties don't require 5 other players to be productive. You can plug an S in and have immediate results.

Therefore if Hamilton truly is an elite S, no issue taking him in top 10. Whatever the pick is, it can't miss

In comment 15562325 WillVAB said:

Quote:

The trenches have been an issue for a decade and here we have people pushing for secondary players at the top of the draft.

When you reach for need, you get Daniel Jones being selected 6th overall.

Which of our potential GM choices would most likely be inclined to take Hamilton at 7, iyo?

In comment 15562325 WillVAB said:

Quote:

The trenches have been an issue for a decade and here we have people pushing for secondary players at the top of the draft.

You can do both. Taking a lesser OL prospect over a safety with game-changing potential because "the trenches have been bad" isn't good management. It's a reach. I don't want to pick an Ereck Flowers just because I feel hurt by 10 years of bad OL play.

Like a guard. If you spend a top 10 pick on a guard and they anchor the line, play 16 games a year at a Pro Bowl level for a decade, isn’t that worth it? Sure, you can find guards later, but great guards don’t just grow on trees, as the giants have learned.

In comment 15562348 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

In comment 15562325 WillVAB said: Quote: The trenches have been an issue for a decade and here we have people pushing for secondary players at the top of the draft. You can do both. Taking a lesser OL prospect over a safety with game-changing potential because "the trenches have been bad" isn't good management. It's a reach. I don't want to pick an Ereck Flowers just because I feel hurt by 10 years of bad OL play.

Agreed, but no one is endorsing that idea, that is, taking an “Ereck Flowers” because of a terrible OL.

In comment 15562355 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 15562348 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: In comment 15562325 WillVAB said: Quote: The trenches have been an issue for a decade and here we have people pushing for secondary players at the top of the draft. You can do both. Taking a lesser OL prospect over a safety with game-changing potential because "the trenches have been bad" isn't good management. It's a reach. I don't want to pick an Ereck Flowers just because I feel hurt by 10 years of bad OL play. Agreed, but no one is endorsing that idea, that is, taking an “Ereck Flowers” because of a terrible OL.

I'm not sure what idea he was presenting with his comment, but the implication is taking OL with both picks, I guess? We have two and we're talking about #7.

In comment 15562306 Doubledeuce22 said:

Quote:

Safety is a position you add when you're ready to win and the Giants are not there. It's like taking a RB in the top 10. No chance. BPA applies but I would exclude RB and Safety from that argument.

I do not understand "don't take that player until you're ready to win" argument. How are you ever going to be ready to win if you pass on good players?

And a safety is absolutely NOT like a RB. They are your last line of defense. A liability back there is a fatal flaw.

In comment 15562354 ThreePoints said:

Quote:

Like a guard. If you spend a top 10 pick on a guard and they anchor the line, play 16 games a year at a Pro Bowl level for a decade, isn’t that worth it? Sure, you can find guards later, but great guards don’t just grow on trees, as the giants have learned.

I think most of us would have been happy taking Scherff in the top 10, but Washington grabbed him before us (5?)

are at odds. That's why it's hard to be consistent when advocating for one or the other religiously. One of these picks has a good chance of being the first domino in the eventual hatred of the new GM

In comment 15562360 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

In comment 15562355 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: In comment 15562348 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: In comment 15562325 WillVAB said: Quote: The trenches have been an issue for a decade and here we have people pushing for secondary players at the top of the draft. You can do both. Taking a lesser OL prospect over a safety with game-changing potential because "the trenches have been bad" isn't good management. It's a reach. I don't want to pick an Ereck Flowers just because I feel hurt by 10 years of bad OL play. Agreed, but no one is endorsing that idea, that is, taking an “Ereck Flowers” because of a terrible OL. I'm not sure what idea he was presenting with his comment, but the implication is taking OL with both picks, I guess? We have two and we're talking about #7.

T2, I was endorsing that, but they BOTH would have to be highly rated, otherwise, no

In comment 15562367 dancing blue bear said:

Quote:

are at odds. That's why it's hard to be consistent when advocating for one or the other religiously. One of these picks has a good chance of being the first domino in the eventual hatred of the new GM

😂😂

Athletic freak and football freak (football IQ). X may be an athletic freak and a football freak, but he is not a physical freak.

A safety in the top 10 would have to have all 3 characteristics. Does Hamilton have them?

In comment 15562225 bw in dc said:

Quote:

in terms of using a lottery pick on one. You can find talented safeties in later rounds every year. Safeties are the RBs of the defense.

Couldn't disagree more. In the modern NFL Safeties are the flexible piece that makes everyone else better. If he projects to be a bigger Ed Reed he would be a great asset to the new DC.

That's what Gettleman was saying about Barkley. He just wasn't as advertised, so it turned out to be a horrible pick.

The same risk is there with Hamilton. In college, he played above the X's and O's and made plays he wasn't supposed to be able to make. If that translates to the pros, nobody's complaining about the pick. If he's average like Barkley, it becomes a huge waste as you can get average S's anywhere.

With OL - even if they're just average starters they still carry pretty significant value. So the reality of them not living up to expectations doesn't sting as bad. In other words, it's lower risk picking OL. JMO.

there will be great players available that are more impactful than a safety. Find them.

Good take.

That has strict position-rules in the draft. Any position is on the table, there is extra emphasis on QB, pass rusher, OL.

But if a safety grades out high enough, he is in the talk, no question. Hamilton is Uber-talented and versatile, but is not flawless and I will not have him graded in the 90+ tier (all pro tier)

In comment 15562367 dancing blue bear said:

Quote:

are at odds. That's why it's hard to be consistent when advocating for one or the other religiously. One of these picks has a good chance of being the first domino in the eventual hatred of the new GM

Because it is almost always a bit of both. If you have an all pro ER, you might pass on Thibideaux even if he is next on your board. It is going in saying "we need to take an OL with one of these picks" that can get you to reach for a plyer.

Interesting. What are Hamilton’s flaws?

In comment 15562218 Cap'n Bluebeard said:

Quote:

Players, not positions. Especially early in the 1st. There's obviously an argument for positional value (never draft a RB at 2, for instance). If there's an OL in the same tier as Hamilton, sure. Factor in the need. But passing on a more talented football player for a lesser talented player at a position of need is a surefire way to maintain a mediocre roster, especially in the Top 10. I'm not advocating taking Hamilton or any other player at this point, but posters using the approach of "we need to select two OLs, a DL, and an OL with the first 4 picks" without taking into account the actual talent of the players and who is or isn't available is incredibly short sighted.

Cap'n, I totally see you're point but if we do not address these glaring needs, needs that you can directly attribute a large lack of success as a team to, how are we ever going to build a winning team? How can this team aquire the O-line players we absolutely must have to even be able to field a team next year if we do not focus and draft positionally?

In comment 15562391 cosmicj said:

Quote:

Interesting. What are Hamilton’s flaws?

Lower body stability, contact presence, high hips.

Hamilton will eventually get hurt, as the defense will be on the field 75% of the snaps. OL/OL then hopefully an impactful LB in the 2nd. Of course, that’s before seeing the draft fall to us but please no S.

In comment 15562395 Sy'56 said:

Quote:

In comment 15562391 cosmicj said: Quote: Interesting. What are Hamilton’s flaws? Lower body stability, contact presence, high hips.

Sy, does that make him out of top 10 for you?
Do you think Devin Lloyd or Nakobe Dean or Ojabo can make more impact than Hamilton?
Thanks always.

Last question from me and I’m not sure you can even tender a guess, but which of the GMs being considered here, might be more inclined to go S at 7?

In comment 15562362 Section331 said:

Quote:

In comment 15562306 Doubledeuce22 said: Quote: Safety is a position you add when you're ready to win and the Giants are not there. It's like taking a RB in the top 10. No chance. BPA applies but I would exclude RB and Safety from that argument. I do not understand "don't take that player until you're ready to win" argument. How are you ever going to be ready to win if you pass on good players? And a safety is absolutely NOT like a RB. They are your last line of defense. A liability back there is a fatal flaw.

A good safety does absolutely nothing for a team with holes on both lines. It would be a gross misuse of draft capital to take a Safety with either pick. Let me ask you a question, if there is a RB rated in their top 5 would you want them to take him? The answer is no because you don't value the position and you already have someone in the spot that is capable.

and don't focus on positional need.

If your evaluation tells you that Hamilton is the next Ed Reed and your highest rated Olineman is good but not great, you take the safety. If the grades are equivalent then you go to the position of greatest need.

Given two top 10 picks, I am hoping those end up as an Olineman and a pass rusher, but will reserve judgment since I am anything but an expert at player evaluations.

...especially on the defensive side.

“As not being ready to take position x”

You win football games by having elite players at a number of positions and a bunch of really good players. It’s how the Titans got the #1 seed despite having an average QB and losing their two best players to injuries for portions of the season.

In comment 15562420 sb from NYT Forum said:

Quote:

...especially on the defensive side.

Not always true. Harrison Smith and Tuck come to mind. Guys who either lived up to the expectations or fell underrated.

In comment 15562388 Sy'56 said:

Quote:

That has strict position-rules in the draft. Any position is on the table, there is extra emphasis on QB, pass rusher, OL. But if a safety grades out high enough, he is in the talk, no question. Hamilton is Uber-talented and versatile, but is not flawless and I will not have him graded in the 90+ tier (all pro tier)

Thanks Sy’

It’s worth a note that you only had 3 players 90+ in last years draft. Do you see more top tier talent this year vs last year?

In comment 15562407 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

Last question from me and I’m not sure you can even tender a guess, but which of the GMs being considered here, might be more inclined to go S at 7?

Adrian Wilson was a safety....ha

I think anyone from BAL and TEN see immense value at S in regard to their current teams. BUF found their guys in the middle rounds, converting CBs to S

In comment 15562440 GiantGolfer said:

Quote:

In comment 15562388 Sy'56 said: Quote: That has strict position-rules in the draft. Any position is on the table, there is extra emphasis on QB, pass rusher, OL. But if a safety grades out high enough, he is in the talk, no question. Hamilton is Uber-talented and versatile, but is not flawless and I will not have him graded in the 90+ tier (all pro tier) Thanks Sy’ It’s worth a note that you only had 3 players 90+ in last years draft. Do you see more top tier talent this year vs last year?

I don't think I am going to have any 90+ guys this year

athlete and not at just football, plays at different speed than others on a Defense. May not be THE most talented player in this Draft, but he is certainly in that conversation.

Not sure if #7 is the right "strike price" as I think Safety does need to be devalued somewhat (not a lot but some).

But let's see how the next couple months play out with QBs moving into the upper slots. If that causes a guy like Hamilton to still be available at about #10 to #12, then buy...

In comment 15562342 BH28 said:

Quote:

In comment 15562325 WillVAB said: Quote: The trenches have been an issue for a decade and here we have people pushing for secondary players at the top of the draft. When you reach for need, you get Daniel Jones being selected 6th overall.

There are several OL prospects rated around where the Giants pick. This is splitting hairs, not reaching for a fringe first rounder.

In comment 15562348 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

In comment 15562325 WillVAB said: Quote: The trenches have been an issue for a decade and here we have people pushing for secondary players at the top of the draft. You can do both. Taking a lesser OL prospect over a safety with game-changing potential because "the trenches have been bad" isn't good management. It's a reach. I don't want to pick an Ereck Flowers just because I feel hurt by 10 years of bad OL play.

It’s not a reach when the consensus is for a guy(s) to go around your pick. That’s need meeting value.

I don’t want to pick another “game changing” Evan Engram because he’s believed to be BPA.

None of these skills guys matter if the foundation isn’t fixed. This is the draft to do it. I don’t see how any fan who’s watched Giants football for the last decade would get pumped over taking a Safety or Corner top 10 in this draft.

as highly, take Hamilton. Reaching and tunnel-vision for positions of need get you Ereck Flowers, Eli Apple and Daniel Jones. This team needs impact players all over the field - get as many as you can.

Don't fall into the same trap yet another time.

Cure what is really wrong with this team or finish last forever.

The foundation of every successful NFL team is the Offensive and defensive lines. Who ever dictates the line of scrimmage is at a distinct advantage.

The O Line talent in this draft is very good. The pass rushers in this draft are very good as well. May be 5 taken in round 1 alone.

The Giants need so many players right now there is almost no bad position to select. Its all about value. The guy that seems to be a stretch at pick 7 is Linderbaum from Iowa. But I also hear that he maybe the best Center to come out in 10 years. We don't know what Gates health situation will be but even if he never got hurt , he could be moved to RT, Rg of LG and draft the best center. It isn't always about positional need, it can be about upgrading the position because the value is too good.

Just look at LT. In 1980, the Giants ran a 4-3 defense and had Carson, Kelley and Van Pelt. The Giants didn't need a LB. But he was the best player on the board. THe Giants then switched to the 3-4 defense and all 4 LB we on the field.

We need to think more about talent and a little less about need.

In comment 15562487 Red Dog said:

Quote:

Don't fall into the same trap yet another time. Cure what is really wrong with this team or finish last forever.

I'm with you on the OL. Unless we make some trades, unfortunately, we don't have the cap space to likely compete for high end FA OLs.

We're not winning more games because we invest in a S. I can’t imagine a S having a high WAR value.

However, we have a much better chance to win games if we draft high end athletes who can block the other team. You know, the key fundamental to executing an offensive play.

Top 10 guy? Not in my eyes.

Quality NFL player? Surely.

So magical!

Ikem. Green. Cross. Lindenbaum. Anyone of those two at 5 and 7

In comment 15562420 sb from NYT Forum said:

Quote:

...especially on the defensive side.

Joker, Tuitt, Smith, about 6 TEs, 5 WRs, 10 OL all overrated. Where exactly are these high ND picks outside of QB that didn’t pan out.

in this draft do you think it would be a good idea to go RB at 5 or 7? Absolutely not. That is where your BPA logic is flawed.

IMO, BPA should be followed from mid-first round on.

If I'm picking in the top 15 (And in the Giants case, 2 in the top 10), I'm heavily leaning against picking: TE, RB, S, DT. I think you have to consider positional value this high in the draft.

In today's NFL, OL, Edge, QB, WR, CB are too impactful to not take position into account when assessing value that high up.

In comment 15562759 Danny Kanell said:

Quote:

IMO, BPA should be followed from mid-first round on. If I'm picking in the top 15 (And in the Giants case, 2 in the top 10), I'm heavily leaning against picking: TE, RB, S, DT. I think you have to consider positional value this high in the draft. In today's NFL, OL, Edge, QB, WR, CB are too impactful to not take position into account when assessing value that high up.

Conventional wisdom always had not taking a Center or Guard early in the draft and RB was a position to be taken. This changes as time goes on.

Avoiding a DT, what if that DT is a fletcher Cox or Donald.
Safety what if it’s a Derwin James or a earl Thomas,

TE was Pitts a bad move by the Falcons?

As teams with TEs like Waller, Andrews, Kelcey, Kittle seem to pose huge problems to the defense does a 6’4 4.4 Safety not make more sense to defend them. If the kid grades out how there is no reason he shouldn’t be an option.

In comment 15562476 WillVAB said:

Quote:

In comment 15562348 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: In comment 15562325 WillVAB said: Quote: The trenches have been an issue for a decade and here we have people pushing for secondary players at the top of the draft. You can do both. Taking a lesser OL prospect over a safety with game-changing potential because "the trenches have been bad" isn't good management. It's a reach. I don't want to pick an Ereck Flowers just because I feel hurt by 10 years of bad OL play. It’s not a reach when the consensus is for a guy(s) to go around your pick. That’s need meeting value. I don’t want to pick another “game changing” Evan Engram because he’s believed to be BPA. None of these skills guys matter if the foundation isn’t fixed. This is the draft to do it. I don’t see how any fan who’s watched Giants football for the last decade would get pumped over taking a Safety or Corner top 10 in this draft.

What makes this draft "the" draft to fix the OL? It's not like the Andrew Thomas year where there were 4 starting NFL tackles to be had in the top 10.

The patriots have a good offensive line without throwing top 5 picks at it. How many top 10 picks play for the Chiefs, or the Rams, or the Bucs OL?

The Giants have a bad OL because we have a bad front office. Picking two more OL in the top 10 is like fixing a flat tire by selling the car and buying a new one.

In comment 15562663 Doubledeuce22 said:

Quote:

in this draft do you think it would be a good idea to go RB at 5 or 7? Absolutely not. That is where your BPA logic is flawed.

BPA is not an absolutet, nor is positional need. If you rated a punter in the top 10 you would not take him in the their either. You consider positional value (not need).

"Fix the Oline" is also not an absolute. If your best rated Olineman had a 4th round grade, you wouldn't draft two of them in the top 10 because fixing the line is the top priority. Both approaches have some nuance.

In comment 15562779 Giants73 said:

Quote:

As teams with TEs like Waller, Andrews, Kelcey, Kittle seem to pose huge problems to the defense does a 6’4 4.4 Safety not make more sense to defend them. If the kid grades out how there is no reason he shouldn’t be an option.

Isaiah Simmons is a 6'4" 4.4 guy who was supposedly going to be a great TE cover in the NFL.

Hasn't worked because his speed does not translate to elite change of direction ability.

Which is generally a problem with tall, high-hipped defenders, who have to react to offensive players who know where they're going at the snap.

And that description also fits Kyle Hamilton.

In comment 15562496 Rjanyg said:

Quote:

The foundation of every successful NFL team is the Offensive and defensive lines. Who ever dictates the line of scrimmage is at a distinct advantage. The O Line talent in this draft is very good. The pass rushers in this draft are very good as well. May be 5 taken in round 1 alone. The Giants need so many players right now there is almost no bad position to select. Its all about value. The guy that seems to be a stretch at pick 7 is Linderbaum from Iowa. But I also hear that he maybe the best Center to come out in 10 years. We don't know what Gates health situation will be but even if he never got hurt , he could be moved to RT, Rg of LG and draft the best center. It isn't always about positional need, it can be about upgrading the position because the value is too good. Just look at LT. In 1980, the Giants ran a 4-3 defense and had Carson, Kelley and Van Pelt. The Giants didn't need a LB. But he was the best player on the board. THe Giants then switched to the 3-4 defense and all 4 LB we on the field. We need to think more about talent and a little less about need.

Didn't the Giants switch to a 3-4 earlier than that? Quite a few sources say the Giants switched as early as 1979, with Martin and Gary Jeter at the ends (Martin at LDE and Jeter at RDE) and John Mendenhall (in '79) and Curtis McGriff (in '80) as the nose tackle.

In comment 15562174 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

I’d prefer 2 OL at 5 and 7 if possible and try to anchor this line once and for all..I’d love an edge guy, but the OL is far more pressing, imv. We can pick up an edge in round 2 or 3 I would think.

I fully admit, I don't follow college football at all, but for those who do follow it, please be so kind as to evaluate my under-educated plan.

We’re definitely in full rebuild mode, but given a new GM and coaching staff, I don’t believe step 1 of the roster rebuild should be deciding our future at QB during the first year while the team is still a dirty mess which needs a first scrubbing. We will have a new offensive scheme for everyone to learn, we don’t have a proven OL to protect a rookie QB, and we don’t have proven playmakers from 2021, let alone proven players for 2022 in a new offense. In fact, I think drafting a QB this year would drastically hamper the rebuild.

So, given that and the fact I’ve heard a lot of the draft experts state 2023 has a much better/deeper pool of QB talent, I’d rather spend a full year of rebuilding the team, beginning with the OL and to see where we’re at in regard to the skill positions. We can also use 2022 to experiment and optimize the offensive scheme with some of the specific 2023 QB front-runners in mind.

This also allows our new GM and HC with presumably much better draft skills, free agency tactics, and cao management to shine during 2022 to build the team up and prepare it for a shiny new franchise QB candidate in 2023. Forcing a QB for 2022 would be dumb in my opinion, since we will have that new offense and a completely ineffective offensive team (or at best, even with free agents and the draft, an unproven offense) coming into 2022.

We can give DJ his final chance to see what he has with a new offense and coaches, which he should be able to handle better since he’s a veteran. If he doesn’t work out, we go for the top QB prospect in 2023 and use the remainder of the 2023 draft to fill in additional holes which remain from the 2022 season, likely to be one of the OG positions as an example.

I know a new GM and coaching staff will be eager to rebuild with their very own QB, so they don’t look like idiots and perform like shit during 2022 because they decided to stick with a QB who hasn’t worked out yet. But, inserting a rookie QB into this situation where everything is new and there’s essentially zero continuity to assist the rookie QB heading into 2022, I believe it just sets up that QB for failure (and that’s not very good for a team in year two of a rebuild).

If this sounds reasonable, then I believe it would make the most sense to select the best OL available at #5. I assume this would be either: 1. Alabama OT/G Evan Neil or 2. Mississippi State OT Charles Cross.

Now, for pick #7, my instinct, based on who is available at the time of course, is to trade down due to our full-fledged rebuild and plenty of need positions to pair with best player available. If the evaluation on the player listed below is accurate**, what are the chances he's available between picks 10 through 20 in order to give us a good number of potential trade partners who may be looking at pick #7 for what may be the class’s top (or 2nd best) QB prospect who is still available? There are other teams out there who need a new QB but have a better foundation to allow that rookie to flourish. Our team doesn’t have that foundation for a rookie QB in 2022.

Quote:

9. IOL TYLER LINDERBAUM, IOWA Linderbaum was the highest-graded center in the country in both 2020 and 2021. His 95.4 overall grade this past year was the highest we’ve ever given to a Power Five center.

** - The quoted evaluation is from a PFF page of overall rankings by talent (https://www.pff.com/news/draft-2022-nfl-draft-board-big-board). I have no idea if this center is as good as they say, or where this guy is projected to go.

But, if this plan is feasible, my thought process involves the importance of having a long term OL "captain" who would have the mental capacity, leadership skills, and "football IQ" to lead the line as a whole and assist the QB in making protection calls hopefully for the next decade or so, while also setting us up at both tackle spots into 2022, and getting another pick or two for the rebuild.

I know Nick Gates was very promising at center, but just one week ago he said he has no idea on his timeline, and still doesn't know if he will be back for 2022, or ever.

In comment 15562846 shyster said:

Quote:

In comment 15562779 Giants73 said: Quote: As teams with TEs like Waller, Andrews, Kelcey, Kittle seem to pose huge problems to the defense does a 6’4 4.4 Safety not make more sense to defend them. If the kid grades out how there is no reason he shouldn’t be an option. Isaiah Simmons is a 6'4" 4.4 guy who was supposedly going to be a great TE cover in the NFL. Hasn't worked because his speed does not translate to elite change of direction ability. Which is generally a problem with tall, high-hipped defenders, who have to react to offensive players who know where they're going at the snap. And that description also fits Kyle Hamilton.

That's a very good point.

At 5 and 7. Or 2 OL. WE HAVE TO FIX THE LINES AND THE PASS RUSH.

Draft nothing but Offensive and Defensive linemen. Seriously. It's that dire.

In comment 15562392 JFIB said:

Quote:

Cap'n, I totally see you're point but if we do not address these glaring needs, needs that you can directly attribute a large lack of success as a team to, how are we ever going to build a winning team? How can this team aquire the O-line players we absolutely must have to even be able to field a team next year if we do not focus and draft positionally?

Multiple ways to acquire talent. Draft choices should always be based on a combination of BPA and need. If need and talent align, that's a perfect scenario. It would be awesome if there were two OL who both warranted their selections at 5 and 7, but it's just not really likely that a superior player won't be available at another position in at least one of those picks.

For example, if you were choosing between Derwin James and Quenton Nelson, sure. This team as it's currently constructed should take Nelson ten times out of ten. But if it's between Derwin James and Ereck Flowers? Flowers might play a position the team desperately needs, but he's terrible at it. So what hole would you have you filled by passing on an elite talent at a "less important" position for a poor talent at a position of need?

That's probably an extreme example, but the point remains. Follow your board, factor in need if the value is close, but otherwise take the better football player.