Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JStar221

Left Tackle or Simmons?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

I think these are the only 2 options if they don't trade down. I don't expect Young or Okudah to be available. 

Full disclosure I want the LT and will identify some reasons. But I know other pov wants Simmons. Just want to know others opinions Simmons over the LT. Is he Ronnie Lott?  

1----  The LT is the most important position on the OLINE. It's very hard to find very good ones, isn't it? SO if GMEN draft one at 4-- more than likely they believe he is a Pro Bowl LT for the future. If you don't believe the LT taken at 4 is a future multi-year Pro Bowl caliber player then I can understand not taking the LT at 4. But if you feel he is, then it makes the points made that "the Giants won't be getting good value at 4" completely wrong, doesn't it? 

2--- What's the most important position on the football field? It's the QB. If you are taking the 6th, 7th or 8th best OT, there is good chance you are getting a below average LT for a few years. So the most important position on the OLINE we want to leave our young potential franchise QB open to becoming ineffective or possibly worse by getting badly beaten up?  And the chances are if you draft the LT with the 4th pick that you're going to enhance Jones effectiveness extremely well. Can you imagine if Jones is a franchise QB, that if you give him good protection what he'll be able to do?  And if he has a running game? 

3-- As for the running game and Barkley- I've heard Barkley called "elite" implying then that because he is elite we should be able to run the football anyways. But what good is it calling him elite if he can't run the football vs. very good defenses in any consistent manner?  He won't perform as an elite unless he gets a good OL. Getting a good OL starts with your Tackles. If Barkley has to dodge players behind or near the LOS, then he isn't going to perform well overall vs the very good defenses. Get him an OL with a good QB in which he doesn't have to dodge defenders at the LOS, then he becomes sooooo much more dangerous. he is "elite" in the open field. Not at the LOS. 

4--- As far as "defense wins" - I looked back a while ago in a site called "footballoutsiders" into their advanced stats called "Offensive and Defensive Efficiency" since 2009 -for teams that made the Super Bowl. Only one year did a team outside the top 8 in offensive offensive efficiency make it to the Super Bowl. Yet on defense there were about 7 or maybe more if I recall. This doesn't mean that you don't need defense. It just means you have to have very good offense. How can you have a very good offense when the weakest part of your offensive line are the two tackles and the center which are the 3 most important positions on the OLINE? So the answer is to "settle" for the 6th, 7th, or 8th best LT while putting our potential QB at risk along with not giving our "elite" RB much of an opportunity to succeed vs very good defensive teams?     

5--- As for Simmons with all of his great versatility -- you would think a player with the versatility he has which I've read of LB, CB and S should be able to supplant Okudah in all these discussions but what I'm reading he is the 3rd or 4th best defender (Why isn't he ranked higher mostly?). So he needs to be "gimmicked" with his versatility to justify his 4th pick? Or do you think he has one position such as Safety in which he is a monster? I don't know - just asking. Same thing with "the gimmick." In other words, is he more of a versatile/gimmick -- or a supreme stud at one spot do you think? 

6--- As for the Giants defense, this year the DL overall is better, the LB's are better and the CB's are better all without any draft picks. While the defense still isn't good it's better. You get the LT this draft then next year you can ensure getting rid of Solder and leaving that much more cap space to get at least one big time defensive difference maker (does a very good LT ever become available? That's why when I hear talk of "in terms of value you can get a good one in rd 2 ."   --   Sure possible but you have to get very lucky.) along with money for other moves along with Giants aren't a playoff team this year anyways, you can probably draft some impact in an early round or 2 on defense.  

Right now imo I believe what the LT brings outweighs what Simmons can bring unless SImmons is expected to be an all-time great not just a pro bowler. Agree? If not, why not? The Giants offense isn't very good and the clock on Barkley is ticking. Trade him instead? 

Edited by JStar221
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed...Jones had a very rough year getting sacked and fumbling the ball way more than someone should.  Behind a better line I'd hope that it increases the production from both Jones and Barkley.  Personally not a fan of Simmons at least not for the Giants.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I’m a firm believer of BPA in regards to positional importance. I used to be very high on OL, and especially LT. I thought it was incredibly important. Recently, I turned away from that. I see across the NFL, good offenses with average OL. I don’t think the difference between a great OT and an average OT is that big.Certainly not a game breaking position to spend a top 5 pick on. I see the OL shifting positions between 6-15. Now the Giants don’t have an average OL, they have a bad one, but reaching for positions is not the smart play when building a garbage team.

2. This point is similar to #1. Why should we take the 6th, 7th, or 8th best player, especially when there are better players available. OL is an important position, it’s not a game breaking position and not worth the #4 pick when there are so many question marks.

3. Barkley had a great year his rookie season, and a solid year last year despite all the injuries and the bad OL. We don’t need an elite OL for him, we just need an average one.

4.  Do you have OL rankings from this? I seem to recall we had a very bad OL during our last Super Bowl.  You don’t need an elite OL, you just need an average one.

5. I don’t understand this point? Just because Simmons can do a lot of things well, doesn’t mean there won’t be better players than him. By this logic if LT is so important, why aren’t they higher on most big boards?

In regards to what position he would play, why can’t he play multiple positions for our  multiple defense. Why can’t he rush the passer, be our big nickel, cover the TE. Don’t be so defined by positions. We see defensive ends in coverage, we see safeties rush the passer, I don’t understand how this is used against him. If our DC can’t figure out how to use an elite player, than he shouldn’t be our DC.

6.  This point makes sense. The Giants used their salary cap on average players. Players that can play solid roles, but won’t take you anywhere. Sadly this is the reason, the Giants will pick an OL. They will convince themselves they “fixed” the defense.

7. I disagree with this point. You are locked into positional value over BPA. Why should we take a lesser player when there are better ones available. It’s not the player, but the position you see.

8. If Giants can get a good draft pick (top 15), I would absolutely support trading Barkley.  It was a stupid decision to draft him and not capitalize on potential assets.

With all that said, I believe the Giants will take an OT at the #4 spot.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I disagree with a lot of your points except the last couple Acgott but I respect them. The last couple of points below I agree with a lot. But probably for a different reason. 

1---- I don't know if there is an accurate way to measure an OL in number terms. For example, I think PFF is a joke. Two years ago they had Vernon rated over Barkley. And before the 2018 draft they had 2 guys on youtube telling everyone that Hernandez was going to be this freak great OL among other things. I just don't know how to trust OL rankings. I do believe in player rankings in draft and team rankings in some manner ofc but I think it best to put draft ranking in tiers vs BPA. And I believe in positional value too. If the guy is going to be an all-pro at LT thus he is going to help the Qb and the running game. I don't care that Simmons is rated ".00005" (or whatever etc) better. What good is taking Simmons if our QB gets knocked out of the game from taking a beating or Barkley can't run? So while I hold no value in an OL rating between one and another that is for example rated as "20.3" vs "19.8" etc -- I can tell when an OL stinks. And if 5 players as a unit stink on an 11 man offense then you aren’t going anywhere but mediocrity at best unless your defense is like that championship Ravens defense or Bears defense from years ago. 

2--- LT is a game changing position for the QB. If the QB gets beat up, eventually he is going to start getting rid of the ball quicker etc -- then the offense is going to stall. IMO for a QB it can't be any more game changing than having time to throw unless you're a gifted scrambler able to throw well on the run.

3--- Barkley had an average year. He was a complete embarrassment blocking. IMO his blocking mirrored some his running last year in too many games. Do you recall when Shurmur chewed him out when he ran out of bounds instead of fighting for extra yardage during one game? It's just one moment of 1 game but its how he ran for too much of the season. I realize he was hurt but being hurt counts too. You are still evaluated if you played well or not. The question is -- did he play great while he was hurt? No. He didn't. And two games this year accounted for 20% of his total rushing attempts and it was 30% of his total yardage. That skewed his numbers. And those were against two of the 4 worst teams in the NFL. SO imo it’s as I said; He can't run well consistently vs the good defensive teams. It doesn't mean he didn't do it on occasion but do you really believe vs. good teams with that OL and how he ran last year that he can run out the clock consistently well enough vs a good defensive team if needed? I didn't. I don't. I think he was soft as was/ and is the OL. He needs a better OL to eb able to run out  the clock vs the good teams with a good d. 

And as for Barkley's hands they are okay but for all the talk when he came up that he had great hands -- he doesn't show it. Secondly, he's small. Not an easy target.  

4--- I don't understand your question. You want me to provide a link? Below is the link for Efficiency if that's what you're looking for. Also -- imo an OL which is why it's so hard it can come down to the QB, the RB and the TE and the WR's. Do you remember Rob Carpenter? Do you remember how imo he transformed the Giants offense? "Thunder and Lightning" weren’t all that hot. And if we want to bring up "you can win with mediocrity on the OL" well you can win with mediocrity at any position, right? But isn't it better chance that your young QB won't take a beating and your elite RB can be even more effective with a good OL vs a mediocre one? How many QB's could take the beating Eli had to go through to beat San Fran in order to get to the SB? Was that all the OL to boot? And how much was it that San Fran's defense might've been sensational going against a pretty good OL? Anyhow, I want to limit the risk of my QB taking that beating that Eli did. 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-offense/2011

 

5--- You’re missing my point. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear enough though. I'll try to clarify. As you are going through and see that the OT's aren't as high on mocks as Simmons etc., - similarly- I see that Simmons isn't as high as Okudah. I was sort of asking-- why? Not arguing. I meant it more as question for you and others- for example maybe if you think he is actually better than Okudah? That’s why I also typed up a follow-up question as well. Not arguing to the specific point- wanted an opinion what others think he is and why wouldn't he be better than Okudah in all these mocks? A multi-versatile player or predominately for example a Safety that can play LB or CB etc. And what is he best at?

 I'm similar to many here- I'm not even close to a scout. Which is why in my 1st few sentences above when I created the thread I also asked "is he Ronnie Lott?"  I look at things differently. I do define positions. I want to. I think its best. For example, I saw how the Titans ran the ball - and I don't see how Simmons can play LB vs that type of heavy rush team. Instead, I feel it best to look at a player and say "This is what he does better than anyone else,- or, -  this is what he is superior at."

           So let me sum this up by asking two questions-- one is Can he play LB vs a heavy rush team do you think? If he can't play LB -- then his best position is probably Safety, correct? 

 6---  I don’t understand your point here. I agree with that they didn't fix the defense. I hope DG isn't that much of an idiot that he thinks he did. But I think he’d be right in choosing the OL because he hasn’t fixed the offense either. They can't run out the clock. Their QB takes too much of a beating. Without getting an OT and a center, imo they will perform terribly vs good defenses then play well vs "Washington" and Miami" and convince themselves that the offense is ok. 

7-- I'm locked into tiers when it comes to drafting and if a player is in same tier and fits a need you get him unless you have no concern at all for trying to win. Need in drafting imo is important. The Qb must be properly protected. The "elite" RB needs a better OL in order to perform at a much higher consistency level than just doing well vs "Washington" and Miami."  If you are going to keep Barkley - try to win in a manner that suits his style just like you'd try to win with moving around Simmons if you think he has weaknesses vs the run etc. . 

8--- I agree! I'm with you. I never wanted Barkley either. Thus if they don’t get an OL- then I think he is vastly wasted. Because he is a miserable blocker, he's not easy to pass to down the field, and he is not a tough runner. As the poster GMen said he is a home run runner. IMO that type of runner needs an OL. I'm with you -with a big IF however. IF they don't give him an OL- you got to trade him. He's not worth the money they are paying him for that position.    

9-- IMO DG has done nearly everything wrong other than draft Jones. So by me saying get the LT—I’m trying to make the best of Jones and Barkley. I think it’s the best way to try to win. Try to win 31-30.  If you don’t try that then trade Barkley. IMO he will not produce in the manner that is needed unless the Giants get a “better-than-average” OL. And the defense is years away from being dominant so you either try to win with offense or dump Barkley. IMO that's the point of positional value as well. I would hear and i agreed with "You don't take a RB with the 2nd overall pick when you are in the beginning of a rebuild." 

 

Edited by JStar221
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't watch college football so have no idea how good these players are. If Simmons can do it all and that means can be a defensive players that can get double digit sacks a season and we can still find a starting tackle with our 2nd round pick, then I am all for drafting Simmons. 

If Simmons can't be that double digit sack player or it is not believed we can't find a starting tackle with our 2nd round pick then I would prefer us to draft a LT. 

I think we will draft a LT.  Dave Gettleman job is on the line. If he draft a LT and a Center we will have a complete offense for once and could win enough games to keep his job with a dominant offense and bend but don't break defense.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I will say this simply. This a very deep tackle class. Whereas this is a quite thin defensive player draft. We have no defensive cornerstones or impact players. Offensive line, you are only good as your weakest link and we have issues pretty much across the board. So if you got a deeep tackle class and a pretty weak defensive player draft then what sense does it make to take a tackle high when you can get great value later on without having miss out on a potential defensive game changer? Let’s face it, we’re not a tackle away from challenging. 

Edited by Kip Smithers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

I will say this simply. This a very deep tackle class. Whereas this is a quite thin defensive player draft. We have no defensive cornerstones or impact players. Offensive line, you are only good as your weakest link and we have issues pretty much across the board. So if you got a deeep tackle class and a pretty weak defensive player draft then what sense does it make to take a tackle high when you can get great value later on without having miss out on a potential defensive game changer? Let’s face it, we’re not a tackle away from challenging. 

I don''t believe though the word "deep" has the meaning you say. It's okay we can agree to disagree. 

IMO there is a big difference between a multi-year Pro Bowl player vs an average LT at a position of the highest value on the OL.  If some don't hold positional value to a high level - okay. But in this case if I do-- then the word "deep" is hollow. I want the multi-year pro bowler.  If you don't think he is going to be a multi-year pro bowler at the 4 pick - ok I can see the point too. I just believe there is a big discrepancy between the best LT vs.the 6th or 8th best etc thus it makes the point of "Deep at this position " not as relevant imo.  

 

Edited by JStar221

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JStar221 said:

I disagree with a lot of your points except the last couple Acgott but I respect them. The last couple of points below I agree with a lot. But probably for a different reason. 

1---- I don't know if there is an accurate way to measure an OL in number terms. For example, I think PFF is a joke. Two years ago they had Vernon rated over Barkley. And before the 2018 draft they had 2 guys on youtube telling everyone that Hernandez was going to be this freak great OL among other things. I just don't know how to trust OL rankings. I do believe in player rankings in draft and team rankings in some manner ofc but I think it best to put draft ranking in tiers vs BPA. And I believe in positional value too. If the guy is going to be an all-pro at LT thus he is going to help the Qb and the running game. I don't care that Simmons is rated ".00005" (or whatever etc) better. What good is taking Simmons if our QB gets knocked out of the game from taking a beating or Barkley can't run? So while I hold no value in an OL rating between one and another that is for example rated as "20.3" vs "19.8" etc -- I can tell when an OL stinks. And if 5 players as a unit stink on an 11 man offense then you aren’t going anywhere but mediocrity at best unless your defense is like that championship Ravens defense or Bears defense from years ago. 

2--- LT is a game changing position for the QB. If the QB gets beat up, eventually he is going to start getting rid of the ball quicker etc -- then the offense is going to stall. IMO for a QB it can't be any more game changing than having time to throw unless you're a gifted scrambler able to throw well on the run.

3--- Barkley had an average year. He was a complete embarrassment blocking. IMO his blocking mirrored some his running last year in too many games. Do you recall when Shurmur chewed him out when he ran out of bounds instead of fighting for extra yardage during one game? It's just one moment of 1 game but its how he ran for too much of the season. I realize he was hurt but being hurt counts too. You are still evaluated if you played well or not. The question is -- did he play great while he was hurt? No. He didn't. And two games this year accounted for 20% of his total rushing attempts and it was 30% of his total yardage. That skewed his numbers. And those were against two of the 4 worst teams in the NFL. SO imo it’s as I said; He can't run well consistently vs the good defensive teams. It doesn't mean he didn't do it on occasion but do you really believe vs. good teams with that OL and how he ran last year that he can run out the clock consistently well enough vs a good defensive team if needed? I didn't. I don't. I think he was soft as was/ and is the OL. He needs a better OL to eb able to run out  the clock vs the good teams with a good d. 

And as for Barkley's hands they are okay but for all the talk when he came up that he had great hands -- he doesn't show it. Secondly, he's small. Not an easy target.  

4--- I don't understand your question. You want me to provide a link? Below is the link for Efficiency if that's what you're looking for. Also -- imo an OL which is why it's so hard it can come down to the QB, the RB and the TE and the WR's. Do you remember Rob Carpenter? Do you remember how imo he transformed the Giants offense? "Thunder and Lightning" weren’t all that hot. And if we want to bring up "you can win with mediocrity on the OL" well you can win with mediocrity at any position, right? But isn't it better chance that your young QB won't take a beating and your elite RB can be even more effective with a good OL vs a mediocre one? How many QB's could take the beating Eli had to go through to beat San Fran in order to get to the SB? Was that all the OL to boot? And how much was it that San Fran's defense might've been sensational going against a pretty good OL? Anyhow, I want to limit the risk of my QB taking that beating that Eli did. 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-offense/2011

 

5--- You’re missing my point. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear enough though. I'll try to clarify. As you are going through and see that the OT's aren't as high on mocks as Simmons etc., - similarly- I see that Simmons isn't as high as Okudah. I was sort of asking-- why? Not arguing. I meant it more as question for you and others- for example maybe if you think he is actually better than Okudah? That’s why I also typed up a follow-up question as well. Not arguing to the specific point- wanted an opinion what others think he is and why wouldn't he be better than Okudah in all these mocks? A multi-versatile player or predominately for example a Safety that can play LB or CB etc. And what is he best at?

 I'm similar to many here- I'm not even close to a scout. Which is why in my 1st few sentences above when I created the thread I also asked "is he Ronnie Lott?"  I look at things differently. I do define positions. I want to. I think its best. For example, I saw how the Titans ran the ball - and I don't see how Simmons can play LB vs that type of heavy rush team. Instead, I feel it best to look at a player and say "This is what he does better than anyone else,- or, -  this is what he is superior at."

           So let me sum this up by asking two questions-- one is Can he play LB vs a heavy rush team do you think? If he can't play LB -- then his best position is probably Safety, correct? 

 6---  I don’t understand your point here. I agree with that they didn't fix the defense. I hope DG isn't that much of an idiot that he thinks he did. But I think he’d be right in choosing the OL because he hasn’t fixed the offense either. They can't run out the clock. Their QB takes too much of a beating. Without getting an OT and a center, imo they will perform terribly vs good defenses then play well vs "Washington" and Miami" and convince themselves that the offense is ok. 

7-- I'm locked into tiers when it comes to drafting and if a player is in same tier and fits a need you get him unless you have no concern at all for trying to win. Need in drafting imo is important. The Qb must be properly protected. The "elite" RB needs a better OL in order to perform at a much higher consistency level than just doing well vs "Washington" and Miami."  If you are going to keep Barkley - try to win in a manner that suits his style just like you'd try to win with moving around Simmons if you think he has weaknesses vs the run etc. . 

8--- I agree! I'm with you. I never wanted Barkley either. Thus if they don’t get an OL- then I think he is vastly wasted. Because he is a miserable blocker, he's not easy to pass to down the field, and he is not a tough runner. As the poster GMen said he is a home run runner. IMO that type of runner needs an OL. I'm with you -with a big IF however. IF they don't give him an OL- you got to trade him. He's not worth the money they are paying him for that position.    

9-- IMO DG has done nearly everything wrong other than draft Jones. So by me saying get the LT—I’m trying to make the best of Jones and Barkley. I think it’s the best way to try to win. Try to win 31-30.  If you don’t try that then trade Barkley. IMO he will not produce in the manner that is needed unless the Giants get a “better-than-average” OL. And the defense is years away from being dominant so you either try to win with offense or dump Barkley. IMO that's the point of positional value as well. I would hear and i agreed with "You don't take a RB with the 2nd overall pick when you are in the beginning of a rebuild." 

 

Nice read...agree with 99%.

Id say Barkley has better receiving skills than given credit but aside from that very nice read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JStar221 said:

I don''t believe though the word "deep" has the meaning you say. It's okay we can agree to disagree. 

IMO there is a big difference between a multi-year Pro Bowl player vs an average LT at a position of the highest value on the OL.  If some don't hold positional value to a high level - okay. But in this case if I do-- then the word "deep" is hollow. I want the multi-year pro bowler.  If you don't think he is going to be a multi-year pro bowler at the 4 pick - ok I can see the point too. I just believe there is a big discrepancy between the best LT vs.the 6th or 8th best etc thus it makes the point of "Deep at this position " not as relevant imo.  

 

Of course there is a difference. Amongst this class likely ONLY one will be an all pro. Just the nature of draft. And you can’t just look at our first pick on it surface. If we had one pick in this entire draft then I’d agree we take tackle. But we don’t. Do we take an elite, rare defensive prospect and get at very least potentially good tackle prospect or do we take a great tackle prospect and a fairly good defensive prospect? Im taking the former. Remember couple years ago when we had the option of a Sam Darnold/Quenton Nelson and Nick Chubb or Saquon and Hernandez? You got a think of it from a combination standpoint. Like I said before, we have ZERO defensive difference makers or impact players. So if we take the latter approach, again we’re gonna go into a season with zero difference makers on the defense side of the ball. 
 

But if the buzz we’re getting is true then looks like this team is gonna do wrong thing and take a tackle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JStar221 Healthy debate is always good, part of the fun of being a fan. We support the same team in the end

1. You support player rankings, but the players rankings show as the OL trading spaces and worse than Simmons. Clearly they all have questions or they would be ranked higher. There is no consensus there. We know the draft is a crap shoot, but shouldn’t we take the higher ranked player, rather than hoping we choose an all pro player and not Ereck flowers 1.5. Now isn’t the time to take a risk. 
 

2. LT may be important, but it’s not game changing position, game saving maybe. You can always use other positions like HB and TE to support the OL. You can’t do that with defense when everyone is terrible. We won Super Bowls with solid LT in Diehl and Beatty, you don’t draft solid at the  #4 position. You draft game breaking.

3. I think I found someone that hates Barkley more than me (I don’t hate him that much). Everyone has good games against bad teams. Barkley needs to improve a lot, no question about that. Barkley is 5’11, 230, one of the bigger HB. A better OL would definitely help, no disagreement there.

4. Sorry Carpenter was before I was born lol. My point was how can you use the stats to separate the players and prove OL is the reason for success? I find the Giants 23 ranking very good for all the injuries they had. If they stay healthy we should be better.

5. No need to apologize! Misunderstandings are bound to happen.

I don’t follow college football at all. Years ago I would watch tape, but the Giants always forget to call me for my opinion. It’s bizarre. I try to get less angry this way. It has not helped.

@YogiBiz knows a lot about the draft, maybe he can fill us in on Okudah vs Simmons in terms of BPA.

In regards to your position point, this is the only argument I have a strong issue with. Don’t fall in love with titles. The NFL has changed. Nickel is used a lot more. Take a look at these stats. 3WR is the majority or close to it for a lot of teams. That means nickel and not your standard 4-3/3-4. A player then can rush the passer, stop the run, and cover the TE is a HUGE asset in today’s NFL, do not under estimate this value.

https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/personnel-grouping-frequency.html

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2019/2018-defensive-personnel-analysis

6. Lol, no one knows what DG will do until Wednesday, when my boy Ralph breaks the news.

7. No issue with tiers, but to me 1-5 is a huge difference to 6-10. If an OL is in the top tier, I would survive that pick, if not, it’s a reach.

8. No argument here.

9.  I agree about DG, disagree about the best way to win. You win with better players not trying to draft players to save mistakes.

 

Whatever happens Thursday, we are in this together. It be an entertaining night. Got no Avengers to distract me in theaters from my anger. Loved reading your posts so far and look forward to debating you in the future,

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

Of course there is a difference. Amongst this class likely ONLY one will be an all pro. Just the nature of draft. And you can’t just look at our first pick on it surface. If we had one pick in this entire draft then I’d agree we take tackle. But we don’t. Do we take an elite, rare defensive prospect and get at very least potentially good tackle prospect or do we take a great tackle prospect and a fairly good defensive prospect? Im taking the former. Remember couple years ago when we had the option of a Sam Darnold/Quenton Nelson and Nick Chubb or Saquon and Hernandez? You got a think of it from a combination standpoint. Like I said before, we have ZERO defensive difference makers or impact players. So if we take the latter approach, again we’re gonna go into a season with zero difference makers on the defense side of the ball. 
 

But if the buzz we’re getting is true then looks like this team is gonna do wrong thing and take a tackle. 

I don't understand what you mean "on it's surface."  I suppose that when you followed it up with the next sentence you meant  if we have just one pick to make in the draft? 

Anyhow you and others have mentioned Simmons is "elite." I am not arguing that. You have just called him "rare." I am not arguing with that. You have called the OT class "deep"-- I am not arguing with that. The words that you say though imo are just generalizations. IMO they don't mean anything. They're just generalizations. 

A LT that is multiple time pro bowl player is elite. So you're calling Simmons elite - but has no meaning vs a LT that will be a multi pro bowl player. They are both "elite."  

And when you say "We need a difference maker on the defensive side of the ball." Why this year vs the LT? Why can't we try to win 31-30 instead? Why can't we have a bend-but-don't-break defense? Why isn't a LT a difference maker by protecting his QB and assisting his RB? 

Why can't we a put a priority in saving our franchise QB? Why wouldn't the top priority be to preserve our franchise QB as long as the LT is close to Simmons? Further, you're assuming "at the very least" the 6th, 7th or 8th OT taken is a "good prospect." Whatever a "good prospect" means. I think it more important to project is she going to be great, good, average , or worse? SO while you say "at the very least he's potentially a good tackle prospect" - as a counter I say "at the very best he is an average LT prospect."  

Bottomline is I don't know what you mean by saying SImmons is rare and elite while in the same breath we can say the OT is elite. So I'd like to ask.  

IS Simmons going to be 10+ sack guy? As a LB will he be "elite" vs a heavy run team? As a CB what type of WR's can he defend? No 1? No 2? No. 3? Is his best position Safety in which he can play it regardless of the opposition? Which positions is he "elite" at or is he rare and elite because he can defend 3 positions at an above-average level? 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


We’re all talking in generalities here, so I don’t know where you’re getting at. And you’re reading wayyyyy to into the word elite. Calling somebody rare is to say that player is does not come around often. Great tackles prospects come and go. And in this draft there are a lot of potential franchise tackles. I don’t get what is so difficult to understand here. 
 

We need a difference maker on defensive side of the ball because we don’t have anything to build around? No cornerstones. Nothing really. If you’re running a team, you want to have at least something to build around or upon on both sides of the ball.
 

And again by not taking a tackle at #4 does not mean we can’t get a tackle in this draft. There is a reason Gettleman and everybody says this is a deep tackle class. It means that we find a franchise tackle potentially late first and early second. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:



 

And again by not taking a tackle at #4 does not mean we can’t get a tackle in this draft. There is a reason Gettleman and everybody says this is a deep tackle class. It means that we find a franchise tackle potentially late first and early second. 
 

Yes there are other tackles in this draft we can draft, but how many of them are starting tackles? If you say  the top 12 tackles in this draft are plug and play tackles, then yes by all means draft Simmons because odds are high one of those 12 are going to drop to us in the second round.

From listening to podcast I am only hearing the top 5 tackles are starting worthy and someone named Wang is a wildcard. This Wang person two years ago pushed Chase Young around but got hurt this year and no one has been able to really check him out medically to see if he has overcome his injury or not.

To me this sounds like 5-6 people are the plug in play starters, just about everyone other tackle to one degree or another is a project.  I  am doubting that the 6th best tackle in this draft will drop to us in the second round.

Edited by Go_Giants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:


 

54 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

We need a difference maker on defensive side of the ball because we don’t have anything to build around? No cornerstones. Nothing really. If you’re running a team, you want to have at least something to build around or upon on both sides of the ball.

 

Whoa  there, I agree with you that we do not have a difference maker on defense, but I think we have two units we can build around. Our defensive line and our corner backs.  We have a good defensive line. As for the secondary, we just signed a 15 million a year corner back that went against Julio Jones and Micheal Thomas twice a year so he should be good. I also believe in the law of averages,  at least one if not two of our very young corner backs that were thrown into the fire last year should gain from that experience and improve this year  to at the very least be average, if not good. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Go_Giants said:

Yes there are other tackles in this draft we can draft, but how many of them are starting tackles? If you say  the top 12 tackles in this draft are plug and play tackles, then yes by all means draft Simmons because odds are high one of those 12 are going to drop to us in the second round.

From listening to podcast I am only hearing the top 5 tackles are starting worthy and someone named Wang is a wildcard. This Wang person two years ago pushed Chase Young around but got hurt this year and no one has been able to really check him out medically to see if he has overcome his injury or not.

To me this sounds like 5-6 people are the plug in play starters, just about everyone other tackle to one degree or another is a project.  I  am doubting that the 6th best tackle in this draft will drop to us in the second round.

After the first notable 4 tackles (Beckton, Thomas, Wirfs and Wills), there are still tackles that can be immediate starters Ezra Cleveland, Josh Jones, Lucas Niang. And Jackson is a wildcard, he’s more boom or bust. I’m hoping we can trade up into the late first if we find the guy we’re looking for or the value is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×