Do you agree with where ESPN ranked the Giants roster?

[MightyGiants]

Dov Kleiman
@NFL_DovKleiman
ESPN ranked all 32 NFL teams by rosters, here's their list from best to worst:

1) #Chiefs
2) #Eagles
3) #Bills
4) #Dolphins
5) #Bengals
6) #Cowboys
7) #Chargers
8) #49ers
9) #Browns
10) #Jets
11) #Ravens
12) #Seahawks
13) #Broncos
14) #Steelers
15) #Jaguars
16) #Vikings
17) #Lions
18) #Giants
19) #Saints
20) #Patriots
21) #Raiders
22) #Bears
23) #Packers
24) #Commanders
25) #Panthers
26) #Falcons
27) #Buccaneers
28) #Titans
29) #Texans
30) #Colts
31) #Rams
32) #Cardinals

(via
@MikeClayNFL
,
@SethWalder
)

[Philosophers]

Giants have so many young players that 3-4 show real improvement, then they are say top 12z

[DaveBrown74]

Dov Kleiman
@NFL_DovKleiman
ESPN ranked all 32 NFL teams by rosters, here's their list from best to worst:

I don't have a view on what the actual, exact, precise ranking should be in early July, but 18th seems in the rough zone of where I would rank the teams. I certainly don't think the Giants have a top 10 roster talent wise, and I also don't view them as bottom third. So somewhere in the teens seems fair to me. Whether it should be 18th, 14th, or 16th though I don't know.

[ralphpal1]

It's seems good but like every other team if things falls right we can rise or other teams can rise
I think the saints can have a very good team but there are lot of ifs
The redskins has good players let's see what the QB can do
How do they draft very good wrs

[Bob In PA]

Rich: It's a bit lower than I expected but not out of the realm of reason.

We know the players better than people who are supposedly "experts" on ALL 32 TEAMS at once.

That being said, IMO the better you know the details, the more likely you are to overvalue your players, because there is a tendency to see up-and-coming guys as finished products, and (with regard to declining players) tend to remember them when they were at their best. Luckily, IMO, the Giants have FEW declining players because it's a young team.  I don't have time but if you see this, why not start a thread about naming the players on the current roster who are now (or are likely to soon) start to "fade out."

Bob

[DaveBrown74]

We know the players better than people who are supposedly "experts" on ALL 32 TEAMS at once.

Bob,

That may be true, but do we know the other 31 teams as well as the "experts"? They are certainly a big part of the equation here.

[Bob In PA]

Bob,

That may be true, but do we know the other 31 teams as well as the "experts"? They are certainly a big part of the equation here.

DB: That is more than a fair point. I'm not sure whether or not it's a non sequitur.  Why do I say that? 

Even if your observation is 100% true, I don't think it affects my point.

Maybe someone else will weigh in.  Actually, it's a very confusing conundrum (to me, at least).

Bob

[DaveBrown74]

DB: That is more than a fair point. I'm not sure whether or not it's a non sequitur.  Why do I say that? 

Even if your observation is 100% true, I don't think it affects my point.

Maybe someone else will weigh in.  Actually, it's a very confusing conundrum (to me, at least).

Bob

I guess my point is, unless you have a a very detailed, intimate knowledge of all the other teams, it's kind of hard to say with great conviction whether the Giants should be 18th, 13th, 20th, 16th etc, even if you know all there to know about the Giants specifically.

I think if one has great knowledge about the Giants one is more than capable of saying what tier they might appear in, but I think it's hard to say precisely where they should be ranked without knowing quite a bit about all the others.

Heck, I would argue it's hard to say precisely where ANYONE should be ranked at this stage, intimate knowledge or not.