nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

New York Giants Thread

wawaman

We need to get a dedicated tread going for the G-Men !

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

HigginsJ

glued wrote: »

If Eli Apple was the highest player on the board at #10 then Reese should just pack his things already. He may turn out to be a good player but completely unimpressed, yet again, with JR's draft strategy.

Apple doesn't look a natural fit in the slot, neither are Jenkins or DRC. You could have argued Hargreaves would have been a better fit (would not have liked that pick either) With the way things fell it should have been Tunsil or Lawson.

It looks like a poor pick, the way Mayock was talking about him you'd have said he sounded like a 3rd round developmental player.

Beefy78

I've read suggestions that the Bucs had Apple lined up for #11

glued

If Eli Apple was the highest player on the board at #10 then Reese should just pack his things already. He may turn out to be a good player but completely unimpressed, yet again, with JR's draft strategy.

HigginsJ

I watched the draft on fast forward this morning, really really surprised by that pick, better than taking Hargreaves but if we were to go corner William Jackson III really ought to have been the guy.

I wonder how tempted they were by Tunsil? Surely the guy was worth the risk at 10 considering we are pretty much win now and rookie corners usually get cleaned out alot.

I think at this point Jack will have to wait till the very late rounds before anyone touches him.

Ragland wouldn't be terrible in the 2nd but I would love to go WR. Tyler Boyd or my boy Michael Thomas would be ideal.

krustydoyle

I honestly don't know how I feel about that pick

Fair enough things ahead of us didn't fall into place so I'm willing to accept the Apple pick

Reese has to be gone if it doesn't work out

Beefy78

I think they go WR and someone who can play that right side of the OL that you mention.

Personally I'd love us to take Jack in round two and the best pass rusher available round three but I'm not going to beat myself up over Jack again. I've come to terms with him being a Pro-Bowler somewhere else.

Knex*

There was only 1 trade offer, apparently, and it wasn't a good one.

Be interested to see how we go in Round 2 now. Someone like Jack, or even Reggie Ragland, could peak interest, or perhaps trying to sort that right side of the OL.

boccy23

glued wrote: »

Another reach by JR. Howpfully this kid will turn out to be good for us but from the limited tape I've seen, he doesn't impress me at all. Should of really traded back and gotten more value.

Read today that JR has never traded back - never. In 67 picks he has done as a GM, he has never moved back. We do what we always do. Stick and hope!

Beefy78

You can only trade back if you have a partner to trade back with. Elliot going at 4 and then Jack & Tunsil falling really cost the Giants.

I don't think its fair to call it a reach though. Giants went Best-Player-Available (minus those with flags) and stuck to their board. You can argue with the assessment but you've no idea who else had Apple high and where you'd need to drop back to to get him.

Had it been Hargreaves who got the pick I don't think it would have attracted the same criticism and Reese & McAdoo both made clear that they feel that Apple is the better player of the two.

glued

Another reach by JR. Howpfully this kid will turn out to be good for us but from the limited tape I've seen, he doesn't impress me at all. Should of really traded back and gotten more value.

KrustyUCC

Just watched the draft up to our pick

I really hope Jerry Reach is right

Must watch some tape on the kid but it's not good when Mayock mentions lack of experience and bad tape

Reach can spare me the best player available BS

Beefy78

Right whoever we pick I'm going to try to not moan about. I've woken up with a sudden feeling that we should draft Shaq Lawson but whoever! Welcome Eliiot/Floyd/Conklin/whoevs

Beefy78

I think they think that Floyd doesn't make it to 10 now all the Jack knee talk is coming out. There's a definite need on the right side of the line but I'd much prefer a playmaker on Defense.

HigginsJ

Not too familiar with Gary Myers but seems to be well thought of. He is reporting Giants will go with best OT (they expect it to be Conklin) at 10 rather than Floyd.

Conklin is also Mayocks pick.

HigginsJ

Beefy78 wrote: »

I don't agree. Let's be honest - none of us have seen the report and I assume that none of us are Doctors. My understanding though is that this is a potential long-term injury which could shorten his career - in several years time. Show me a player in the draft who you can guarantee will sign a second contract.

He is the best player available in a position of need. It's a no-brainier to me. We shall see.

Totally agree it's guess work but you limit your risk as much as possible.

Beefy78

I don't agree. Let's be honest - none of us have seen the report and I assume that none of us are Doctors. My understanding though is that this is a potential long-term injury which could shorten his career - in several years time. Show me a player in the draft who you can guarantee will sign a second contract.

He is the best player available in a position of need. It's a no-brainier to me. We shall see.

HigginsJ

krustydoyle wrote: »

Exactly so we need to avoid him all day for me

Yea I think we stay well clear

krustydoyle

HigginsJ wrote: »

FYP, his knee has got to be a real worry.

Exactly so we need to avoid him all day for me

HigginsJ

Beefy78 wrote: »

If Jack falls to 10 and we take him, I don't know how I'll get any sleep that night

FYP, his knee has got to be a real worry.

Beefy78

I'm not sure it is unlikely. A lot of the noises are that teams above us are worried and the higher up you go the better the alternatives and the more likely they are to pass.

If Jack falls to 10 and we go with someone else I don't know how I'll get any sleep that night

tgdaly

Ha, I seen a mock draft there now that has Jack falling to us a 10. Highly unlikely but we can dream!! http://walterfootball.com/draft2016.php

Knex*

Floyd rumours comes from Jerry Reese being at his pro day. Same pattern as Flowers, Odell and Pugh, I believe.

Conklin I would take over Stanley, for sure. Definitely rawer in technique, but my God, is he an aggressive, physical fecker. Could end up a guard, however.

HigginsJ

krustydoyle wrote: »

Fox are reporting that we like both of these players at no 10

Leonard Floyd
Jack Conklin

The Floyd one is coming from everywhere, is this a smoke screen or a real interest in the guy? As has been pointed out he doesn't have a home in our D.

I love Conklin (way more than Tunsil). He is a tough SOB and would be a great RT long term. Think we all agree that we can't see Giants going o-line early again.

krustydoyle

Fox are reporting that we like both of these players at no 10

Leonard Floyd
Jack Conklin

HigginsJ

Unsurprisingly the Giants have taken up the 5th year option on Justin Pugh.

HigginsJ

Beefy78 wrote: »

I've not seen much of Floyd but from what I've read and heard he strikes me as a bigger gamble than Jack is. Doesn't seem to have a natural home in a 4-3 system.

Yea looks to be more a 3-4 fit at OLB for me but he has been touted to us quite a bit it seems. He won't need to be an every down player this year, could come in and play maybe 30-40% of the snaps in a type of Nascar package we used to run when we had that really strong rush. Lawson would be a much better fit both short and long term IMO.

Could see Floyd a bit like Irvin was at Seattle, being OK but never really fitting and not lasting past that 1st contract.

Beefy78

I've not seen much of Floyd but from what I've read and heard he strikes me as a bigger gamble than Jack is. Doesn't seem to have a natural home in a 4-3 system.

HigginsJ

tgdaly wrote: »

Going O-line again would definitely be a bad idea, be too much salary cap would be invested into it in my opinion. We hope and pray every year for a good inside linebacker to be drafted but I agree when you say Jack will be long gone, and is probably the only guy worth a pick at 10. If we were to somehow trade down lower and get a few picks and nab Reggie Ragland I'd be a very happy man but it's very unlikely. See a few mock drafts have us taking Vernon Hargreaves who you mentioned above so I'd be ok with us picking him.

Beefy78 wrote: »

I'd take Hargreaves definitely. I want Jack but think we'd pass on him even if he is there at 10 sadly.

I've watched some tape on Treadwell now and could get on board with bringing him in if we can trade back a few places. Looks a real talent.

I can't have Hargreaves at all, I just don't see it. We do need some secondary help but don't want to waste a pick on it in the 1st.

Trading down a few spots would be great but that would depend on who is there. The knee report with Jack scares me a bit, knowing our luck, our 1st LB drafted in the 1st would need a huge knee op & we'd be screwed. Ragland is just a very mediocre player, honestly no better than what we have, we need a cover/rush LB if we are going to draft one.

I like Treadwell the more I watch him, my only thing would be that if the choice s Treadwell in the 1st or Thomas in the 2nd, it has to be Thomas.

Find it hard to get away from completing the work on D in the offseason, one more pass rusher & we are set. I think it'll be Floyd or Lawson

Beefy78

I'd take Hargreaves definitely. I want Jack but think we'd pass on him even if he is there at 10 sadly.

I've watched some tape on Treadwell now and could get on board with bringing him in if we can trade back a few places. Looks a real talent.

tgdaly

HigginsJ wrote: »

So less than a week to the draft, who do we hope to land, who do you want to avoid.

You would assume all of Buckner, Bosa, Ramsey, Tunsil & Jack would all definitely be gone. That could leave us looking at Stanley, Elliot, Hargreaves, Floyd, Conklin & Lawson as maybe the top prospects on the board.

I really can't see us going o-line in the 1st again and there are a few reports backing this up. Elliot, Floyd & Hargreaves are not players I see as top 10 players (we are basically getting the 8th best player in the draft at worst).

If things fell this way I'd take Shaq Lawson & be very happy. In the space of a few weeks we would have gone from having zero pass rush to potentially one of the most fearsome in the league.

Dream scenario in the 2nd then would be one of two Buckeyes. Either Vonn Bell at safety or else Michael Thomas at WR who is probably the best WR prospect on this class, desperately underrated player.

Going O-line again would definitely be a bad idea, be too much salary cap would be invested into it in my opinion. We hope and pray every year for a good inside linebacker to be drafted but I agree when you say Jack will be long gone, and is probably the only guy worth a pick at 10. If we were to somehow trade down lower and get a few picks and nab Reggie Ragland I'd be a very happy man but it's very unlikely. See a few mock drafts have us taking Vernon Hargreaves who you mentioned above so I'd be ok with us picking him.