Which is the deepest unit on the NYG roster?

[MightyGiants]

Which unit has the most depth as the Giants prepare for training camp?

[DaveBrown74]

It was close between WR and TE for me, but I went with WR.

We don't have any proven elite, top shelf WRs, but that's not what depth means. The fact is, we have at least one or two WRs we will probably end up cutting this year who are proven, competent NFL players. Guys like Jamison Crowder can play serviceably at this level. Is he making the team? Maybe but not necessarily. A year ago he would have been a lock. Is Shepard going to get a roster spot once he's healthy? For the first time in a while I think we have some real depth at this position. I get that we don't have a Jamaar Chase on the roster, but that's not what this was asking.

[AZGiantFan]

With all the top notch guys Schoen has brought in, maybe it's the front office. 

[Painter]

There's a similar level of depth at WR and CB both of which feature new faces. If we make less distinction between WR and TE, then I would say Receiver for sure, and the same in regard to talent and performance expectation for now at least. Moreover, I feel a similar urge to combine the Secondary as DB for further consideration.

Cheers!

[MightyGiants]

With all the top notch guys Schoen has brought in, maybe it's the front office. 

Rich,

While I like the imports, my hope is that Joe and company develop an environment where they hire young talented people and develop them in-house.

[AZGiantFan]

Rich,

While I like the imports, my hope is that Joe and company develop an environment where they hire young talented people and develop them in-house.

I think the ideal is having both.  Bringing in guys with experience elsewhere brings in different ways of thinking and looking at things.  That reduces the chances of groupthink that can develop if you only have guys who were developed in-house.

[MightyGiants]

I think the ideal is having both.  Bringing in guys with experience elsewhere brings in different ways of thinking and looking at things.  That refused the chances of groupthink that can develop if you only have guys who were developed in-house.

That is a very good point. 

Still, I do like the other part of the article where they hired a Harvard grad (with a degree in economics) to be a scouting assistant.  I could see a guy like that being a future assistant GM and GM export down the road.   It seems to me that two of the teams with the best rosters (the Eagles and the 49ers) are where other teams go to find their top people.  That is a model I would like to emulate.

[DaveBrown74]

There are definitely clear benefits to bringing in external hires for the reason AZ mentioned, and I am sure they will continue to do that when they think it's advantageous to do so, but I agree with MG that a central goal here is to build an organization that develops front office and coaching talent from the "womb" of their NFL careers. To me, having that sort of culture is a key tenet to sustained success. The Pats didn't become what they were by constantly bringing in retread types. They developed their own way of doing things, and they developed talent from early stages.

I totally get the groupthink point and fully agree that groupthink is pernicious to any organization - it's important to bring in fresh ideas and people who will challenge status quos. I would add though that not every internal, hand-picked person you nurture and develop yourself is going to be some conformist yes-man. Everyone is different. So if you hire well at the most junior levels, you'll have people in your organization who will, at least to some extent, challenge the way things are done and offer innovation and new ideas.

[MightyGiants]

There are definitely clear benefits to bringing in external hires for the reason AZ mentioned, and I am sure they will continue to do that when they think it's advantageous to do so, but I agree with MG that a central goal here is to build an organization that develops front office and coaching talent from the "womb" of their NFL careers. To me, having that sort of culture is a key tenet to sustained success. The Pats didn't become what they were by constantly bringing in retread types. They developed their own way of doing things, and they developed talent from early stages.

I totally get the groupthink point and fully agree that groupthink is pernicious to any organization - it's important to bring in fresh ideas and people who will challenge status quos. I would add though that not every internal, hand-picked person you nurture and develop yourself is going to be some conformist yes-man. Everyone is different. So if you hire well at the most junior levels, you'll have people in your organization who will, at least to some extent, challenge the way things are done and offer innovation and new ideas.

Excellent point, Jeff.  You hire the right people, and they will not just learn from the organization but also challenge and contribute to it.

I agree with @AZGiantFan about adding a fresh perspective here and there, but in the end, the core should be developed in-house by finding and cultivating the best people.

I think during the Reese and Gettleman years, they often brought in underqualified people who they could indoctrinate into the "Giants' way" of thinking.  What they should have been doing was hiring the best and the brightest and train/mentor them.  Your goal should be that they eventually are even better than you are.   

[Jclayton92]

I'd assume Dline if we get Smith back ever and Roche steps his game up to the talent around him.

[beaugestus]

My first inclination was WR due to the sheer number of candidates vying for a position to the final roster. But, it came down for me was the proven depth at DL.