Big Blue Huddle

As I suggested in my comments in the "Giants should be able to find top notch player in the second round" thread, it either is encouraging or worrisome that Reese & Co. have had obviously greater success since 2012 than it did in its years before.

If, as was suggested by Seneca (not Wallace but the Roman Stoic), "Luck is where opportunity meets preparation" then bad luck must imply either lack of opportunity or lack of preparation, or perhaps a little bit of both.

Would that leave us encouraged or worried? I don't think it can be a little of both. 

Cheers!

You are supposed to be able to find a topnotch player in the second round no less than in the first round even if we consider that the media only gets about 80 percent of its top-100 rankings right. The Giants picks are 27 and 53.

Is there any reason to think of the Giants as any more or less able to get a topnotch player in Round 2 of this year's Draft as compared to say any of the last five: 2016 Sterling Shepard; 2015 Landon Collins; 2014 Weston Richburg; 2013 Jonathan Hankins; 2012 Rueben Randle.

No, Randle wasn't topnotch but that had little to do with his having been a second rounder in what was a singularly lousy Giants' Draft overall. Indeed, he might be faintly praised as the best of a sorry lot in 2012. I suppose we could view it as either encouraging or worrisome that only since 2012 has Reese & Co done materially better than in its years before.

As we can find as many as 10 Edge Rushers ranked in the Top-10, then should that becomes a position of need, waiting until Round 2 seems plausible.  The quantity/quality distribution among DBs also would admit patience. Of course, the depth in those areas also may make it more likely that others will choose to target those positions we think the Giants will or should be.

Still, whether it's a TE, an OLT, a RB they target in Round 1, they should be able to a topnotch player in Round 2.

Cheers!

Frank played in an era before the staggering commercialism of TV and Fantasy Football gambling when a team would field only 22 players and often a lot less. I sometimes wonder what the ESPN sensation machine would make of a right- handed number 16 sprinting right and throwing a left-handed pass to Kyle Rote much less to what those guys really meant to us in a far better time.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=kyle+rote&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=64D15783CBF3E99DF8C464D15783CBF3E99DF8C4

That may be why some of us old dudes are as cynical of the modern game as we are. And it doesn't just apply to football. isn't that right, Lenn?

Cheers!

Way to go, Rick. That's what this is all about.

Cheers!

The Gifford family released a statement that read, in part: "We rejoice in the extraordinary life he was privileged to live, and we feel grateful and blessed to have been loved by such an amazing human being. We ask that our privacy be respected at this difficult time and we thank you for your prayers."

He was 84, was and always will be my favorite Giants player.  Requiescat in Pace.

Another amazing presentation, Ceri.  Aside from questions about talent at the position, there will be a big experience deficit. Spags will have to find one of them to replace Rolle in making the defensive coverage adjustments.

As for coverage behind what likely will be a frequently rotated Dline with some iterations of the so called, Four Aces package, you might recall Tom Coughlin's comment about Spags's experience with the fire zone blitz when he hired him in '07. With his rehire this time, he mentioned that Spags has since learned a lot about defending the spread offense. That may well suggest that we will see a lot of Cover3 Fire Zone. That will involve 5 DBs, 2 of whom play the seams, two play a tight 3rd, one the middle 3rd. How we label some of those guys: CB, Nickel DB, SS, WS, FS may be less important than is their learning and executing those positions well. We may know who before we know what and whether.     

Cheers!   

The Bucs, you mean. Right, Eli? 

You're not channeling your inner John Mc Kay are you, Ed? 

Cheers!

It is a good reference. Quality stuff, Rich. As you suggest, it almost certainly will be a topic of conversation here.

Your assessment of the three players in terms of alignment is reasonable although coverage could vary widely. In general, it is true that the X is viewed as the No.1 WR, which often reflects big play ability as much or more than number of receptions. It also is true that the X most often is covered by the opponent's best CB, and if he represents a real threat, he may see double or bracket coverage.

As for Manningham in that context, I view him more of up the field X-receiver than route-savvy Z.

But whether the X, or Z sees m2m or zone, press, squat, or off depends on the nature of opponent's defense, and game plan. Moreover, even when the CB presses, it doesn't automatically mean he's playing Man. If the X makes an inside move, and it's Zone, the CB may pass him off. We saw quite a bit of that from Seattle in the SB where their press Cover 3 may have been a counter to Denver running 2x2 and 1x3 sets which they often use to try to exploit m2m coverage with a pick play.

I too will be interested in who sets up where and with how many WRs, and how often. We then may get some idea as to whether there will be a meaningful increase in multiple (3 and 4 WR) sets which might be a first reflection of the difference between the Packer's pass offense and the Giants which otherwise is not all that different. For example, over the past couple of seasons, GB passed out of 3 and 4 WR sets almost 90% of the time compared to the Giants 73%.  While the Pack passed with 3 WRs about 65% to the Giants 60%; they used a lot more 4 WR sets, 25% to the Giants 10%. Perhaps, we will see a bit more in the way of twins and trips.

We know, of course, that TC has never been comfortable with 4 WR sets for reasons of pass protection ever since Eli's has been his QB. That must have been a factor in countering Gilbride's instincts toward the wide open and multiple. Will it be any less so now?

As for motion, neither the Coughlin/Gilbride Giants or the McCarthy/Clements Pack have employed it.

I'm sure that they will try to get the Backs more involved in the passing game, but even so the biggest benefit to the passing offense would result from a solid improvement in the running game.
 
Cheers!

Excellent analysis as always, Ceri. Even with the increasing role and emphasis given to Tight End, there have only been 3 TEs taken in Round 1 in the past five years as compared to 18 OTs, 18 WRs, and 16 DTs. I guess that suggests something about how high Ebron is being rated when considered value at 12.

And while I don't disgree with your assessments of A S-J, Niklas, Amaro, Fiedorowicz et al as later picks, it does makes one wonder whether there were similar reservations and/or doubts responsible for guys like Witten (69) and Findley (91) and Graham (95) lasting until Round 3?

In 2010, Gronkowski went at 43 which coincidently is where Our Heroes are scheduled to pick in Round 2, this year. His durability (back problem) was  big question mark, that I know. I also know that the TE he most often was compared to at the time was Kevin Boss. 

Cheers!

Absolutely spot on about Thomas, and probabably Hosley as well although my thumb is only sideways on him at this point.  And your Draft analysis and projection are nulli secundus as always, CD.

Cheers!

That is an excellent point; I'm glad you added it to the discussion, Rich.  Team's draft boards are layered; they are not just vertical but lateral as well. They will refelect player value, position value, and priority. And as I understand it, some teams color-code board entries in the the first two or three rounds to reflect what they view as higher value combinations.

Where the priority for the OG position is high enough, as many here feel it is for the Giants, it would be hard to argue that Warmack or Cooper wouldn't represent excellent value at 19. It might also be true that an available DE, OT, LB, or DB would be of no greater value; maybe lesser on a vertical scale. But, not only would priority be a factor, but also the ability to match the pick at 19 to the one at 49 in the effort to maximize value. Thus a combo with an OG at 49 with a DE or DB at 19 might tally highest in perceived value

Cheers!     

 

No one does it better than you, Ceri. Not only are the analyses enlightening but the form and content are a  the model pre-Draft reference.

In your OT review, I'll be interested in your assessment of Kevin Pugh as a potential OLG and emergency OLT, and Kyle Long as an OLT/OLG prospect.  As we all know, no team has valued and exploited versatility in their Olinemen more than Our Heroes. They have mined a lot of value from multipositional players like Dave Diehl and Kevin Boothe. But they were 5th and 6th Round picks, respectively. Pugh and Long wont last that long; certainly not past the 3rd Round.   

Much obliged.

Cheers!

  Thanks, Jian.

Cheers!

That's a good explanation of the added difficulty posed by the slot corner position. It always have been a fact; it simply has become much more significant in recent years.  Not long ago, the only time the offense put three WRs on the field was on an occasional 3rd and long, or more likely when they were trying to play catch up. Now they may do it on any down and distance, and at anytime in the game. And so the 3rd receiver, the one in the slot has become a weapon not just a sub.

Correspondingly, the third DB, the guy we have referred to in an almost dismissive manner as the Nickel Back, has become a specialist as well.  He's no longer just a Nickel Back or Nickel Corner; he's the Slot Back.

But we tend to think that the outside, the perimeter Corners have the toughest job because they may be covering the opponents best receiver. True, but when a corner is lined up on the outside, coverage actually can be easier. The opposing receiver is limited as to where he can go. He has the sideline constraining him. A good corner can use the sideline as a defender and pin receivers against it. And he almost always has a Safety behind him.

But unlike perimeter DBs who can often dictate the release of the receiver by their leverage - how far inside or outside of the receiver they line up- the slot DB needs to be quick enough to react to a