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.