This is my final appeal to address the OL (and ideally the DL) at the top of the draft:
So far, all the discussion has surrounded which QB or WR they will draft at pick 6. I put it to you that I think there is a better way to go about this.
But first a few reminders/points:
A) If there is one truth in football it is the often cited but never fully embraced adage:
THE GAME IS WON IN TRENCHES
1)You want to draft a young QB? Best way to ruin his confidence/rhythm/learning curve/health is with a poor OLine.
2)You want to draft a shiny new receiver? Best way to make him useless is if he has no time to run a route or the Qb is unable to get him the ball. Then he might eventually have temper tantrum drama in the locker-room
3) You want to run the ball? Can't really do that either. Our star RB Barkley was consistently tackled behind the LOS (watch him ball out with an even diminished Eagles line). We don't even have a star RB atm.
B) A reminder the Giants have probably had the worst OLINE in football for damn near a decade. They were statistically the SECOND WORST IN HISTORY last year. IF that doesn't convince you of our priority need here I don't know what can
But you will retort: "We addressed the oline with FA". To that I say, let's recap: we have a stud LT, two vet guards, a young Center, and a RT with another year under his belt who we hope can be fixed. Does that ring a bell? That's exactly what we said last year before everything proved disastrous.
Sure, the vets we got appear better than Glowniski et al and perhaps can swing tackle but they are by no means Sure bet good starters. And it is the part of prudence not to rely on dreams of Neal improvement. You cannot operate like that. We need a highly regarded/excellent RT/OG. In a draft with one of the best OT classes in memory why would we, who need it more than most, not avail ourselves of it? There will be a run on the OTs in the first round. You will not get the cream of the crop you need if you wait until later. It is an extremely expensive and difficult position to play and find in FA.
Sy has rightly pointed out that good WRs are being pumped out every single year. That has historically NOT been the case with OL (especially at tackle). I think it is not the wisest course of action to get a WR at 6 given these parameters.
As for QB, I think it likely that the top guys they really believe in are out of reach at 6. Perhaps, if they can pick up additional picks they can grab one of the ones they like later in round 1.
Ideally, we can find someone to trade down with and get a top OT/Og and give our team a chance. I am also hoping we get a dominant 3 tech or edge in the top 2 rounds. I also agree with those who think we need to have one standout thing about our team. If we add that last piece to the DLine that could be our strength. Back to the Giants way. Lastly, this will likely help to cover some of the weakness in our secondary (another problem we have to address down the line).
Anyway, I just wanted to say my peace on this and make my final appeal to solidifying the trenches first.
QB, Pass rushers, CB and WR are what you should be getting this high. LT if you need it but we don’t
I wouldn't pick one at 6 because that would mean missing out on a QB or a top WR. However, I'd be okay as early as the second round. Similar to what the OP said, I'd also be okay with a OL if the Giants traded down in the first.
It's too important of a position to depend on "maybes" and the Giants' previous investments / sunk costs shouldn't be factored in when making selections in this years' draft.
And a guy like Fuaga would be my target.
Get the impact player.
Quote:
way I take OL in round one is after trading down.
And a guy like Fuaga would be my target.
I'd like that better than drafting Nabers at 6.
There's also been several instances of OL leaving the giants and performing dramatically better on their new team. Our previous OL coaching staff was abysmal in terms of coaching up the line, so it's not unreasonable to use 2024 to see if a new staff can improve the output. We devoted a lot of resources to it in FA this year and in the draft years prior. We need to see if our problem is scouting or coaching (or both) before we burn another premium pick on the line.
Does it have to be at#6? Ideally, no. Maybe at 11 or later on in the 1st. You trying me Latham wouldn't be worth it?
This is one area in which the Giants have been bad for a while.
2023: JMS (2nd)
2022: Neal (1st), Ezeudu (3rd), McKethan (5th)
2021: NONE
2020: Thomas (1st)
2019: Asafo-Adjei (7th)
2018: Hernandez (2nd)
2017: Bisnowaty (6th)
2016: NONE
2015: Flowers (1st)
2014: Richburg (2nd)
2013: Pugh (1st), Herman (7th)
2012: NONE
2011: Brewer (4th)
2010: Petrus (5th)
Aside from the 1st rounders, in the last 14 drafts:
2nd round: 3
3rd round: 1
4th round: 1
5th round: 2
6th round: 1
7th round: 1
Again, 14 years, only 9 OLs aside from first rounders, and that includes 3 in the last two years alone. As an organization that have been negligent in addressing the OL, with the exception of attempts at the very top of the draft.
Does it have to be at#6? Ideally, no. Maybe at 11 or later on in the 1st. You trying me Latham wouldn't be worth it?
They need to fix their scouting and OL development first.
You keep trying, but punting on Neal after two years is too soon. They hired a new OL coach and Neal figures to be the focal point of ramping up development, they signed Eluemenor as the hedge.
Stick with the plan for now, eat the pain while they stink.
Don't overthink it.
Fellows, stop day dreaming about him all of a sudden turning it on with a new coach. Haven’t you been reading our own “expert”- Sy? He’s been rightfully telling us for years about Neal’s feet and balance and that he ends up on the ground too often.
The messge is loud and clear fellows- Neal may be a decent guard, but he won’t be a decent tackle. So, is the kid from Vegas the real deal, and we don’t need Neal to be out there? If he is not the real deal, then we better get the real deal. Why do you think HURTS has been so good? Partly because of his receivers and partly because he has a great OL.
Bottom line: I prefer a WR at 6, assuming we won’t have the QB we want, so I’m not advocating we draft a OT at 6….but if we trade down a bit and pick up a OL guy, then draft a good WR plus a good CB in round 2, I can live with that.
Cliches become accepted as truth because people don't challenge them, so I will challenge it. Maybe people will stop spewing it.
The game is not won in the trenches. But while the game isn't won in the trenches I will concede it can be lost there. So you need competence but you cannot pour too many resources there or it winds up costing you elsewhere. DAL won one playoff game with one of the best OLs in history - oh, and their DL was pretty great many of those years too.
2023 KC OL was mediocre. Know what wasn't mediocre? their QB.
Even KC's DL was pretty mid (13th per PFF, Giants was rated higher)
Like, perhaps, a stud DL or CB?
Fix the OLine now!
Some of you don't know what you're watching or talking about.
Some of you don't know what you're watching or talking about.
This. Good teams develop OL without burning precious high picks.
Given the OTs on the roster now plus Eluemenor, I don't see them going OT in the first round.