Big Blue Huddle

The talent available
While there is some top-end talent available the best players this year three of the top four likely to be drafted fit better in 3-4 schemes or a the 1-technique position than at the 3-technique where the Giants needs lie. That said, there is some solid depth available into the third day of the draft with two players ranked in my top 15, two more in my top 40, two more in my top 50, another in my top 64 and two more in my top 100.

What do I think the Giants should do?
The Giants succession planning has been spot on in at the position for more than 15 years with numerous 2nd and 3rd round draft picks invested at the position and the last ounce of flesh squeezed out of a number of veterans at the journeyman point in their careers. It looks like the Giants are finally deciding to get younger. Jonathan Hankins mans the 1-tech spot at RDT and is a young superstar in the making. Veteran 3-tech Cullen Jenkins suffered from injuries and declining play. If he makes the team his biggest value will be as a mentor to the younger players. Fellow veteran Mike Patterson was supposed to provide depth but ended up starting and was overmatched. He won

Quote from: DesG89 on April 11, 2015, 08:17:41 PM
Schwartz being signed last year is what makes me believe Pugh stays at RT. If the plan is to get bigger and more physical inside then that's not Pugh's game. He needs to stay outside where his athleticism and technique can be put to better use. I said it 2 years ago when I first saw him play and I'll say it again here. I look at Pugh I see a more athletic version of Doug Riesenberg. Not the biggest or strongest but a rock solid OT

I'm gonna get splinters in my ass if I sit any more on the fence on this one 

I'm not sure whether the plan is to replicate the 20007/11 line with a pulling LG and powerful RT or create a new version with athletic T's and two bigger Guards. The only thing I know for sure is the C will be the mobile Richburg, Beatty the LT and Schwartz one of the two G's. My belief is the plans are fluid dependent on the players available to them in the first two rounds and whether they go with a playmaker with their first pick.

Quote from: DesG89 on April 11, 2015, 03:48:26 PM
Good read as always Ceri. Like I said in the Tackles thread I'm surprised you started off with the dancing elephants. You normally start with skill positions players then make your way to the guys in the trenches.

We appear to be on the same wavelength regarding Erving. He's the guy I want at 40 if we don't take an O-lineman in the 1st (and I hope we don't. IMO Pugh is a tackle not a guard). I wouldn't have a problem with Tomlinson but I question whether he can play LG or for that matter if he can play for us since we ask all our interior guys to pull.

Doc beat me to my one and only question. Since you don't like Jackson as a prospect, I guess it's safe to say you think even less of his linemate Matias. Or since you have so much on your plate with getting these previews done you forgot him?

Keep up the good work and I look forward to the next installment, which I'm guessing is centers

I normally start with positions of priority need once I'm satisfied I've seen everything I can see and have come to some firm conclusions. T or G are priorities. C certainly isn't. Next up will be DL's.

I know what you mean about Tomlinson but if we're looking to run the ball inside more and outside less you don't need Guards to pull longer distances. Look at the offense in Green Bay and note the Guards are bigger guys who move people off the ball and the C is smaller and mobile. Remember that Schwartz was originally slated to start at LG. I don't think we intended to use him to pull very often. I still think we'll draft a T making the need at G a moot point as Pugh will move. My thinking is if we don't move Pugh  we needed to get bigger/nastier in the interior not draft a lighter bodied pulling Guard because then we'll have four technicians and one power guy. That's too odd a mix.

Matias wasn't forgotten. He's the opposite of Jackson in terms of strengths in his game and he's not much of an athlete. He's going in the late rounds.

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 11, 2015, 11:28:20 AM
Erving may have struggled in his second meeting with Vic Beasley but he had won the first round.  I would also point out that Erving was very raw as an offensive lineman.  He is a guy the Giants could draft start at guard and work to develop him into their future LT (he had won awards as a LT after moving their from the D-line).  Erving is the personification of versatility something the Giants seem to really value.

TomLinson sounds like a good second round pick.  However I am actually troubled by this positive- "he

The talent available
There are two players worthy of mid-late 1st round selection, another one in my top 40, another in my top 50 and one more in the top 75. Plenty of depth on day three with 'too slow' Tackles being converted to Guard

What do I think the Giants should do?
Quite what the Giants plans were at this position last year are unknown as they were disrupted before the season even began by the retirement on the eve of camp of RG Chris Snee, a pre-season injury to UFA Geoff Schwartz (who was scheduled to start at LG) and a combination of injury and a total failure to progress by RG Brandon Mosley. This led led to UFA John Jerry

Quote from: Jaime on April 08, 2015, 11:23:43 AM
Curious, where did u get "bubble butt & tree trunk legs " from?

Description of an ex-girlfriend 

Seriously though, I thnik I heard it on the broadcast at the combine from Mayock. Google the pictures of Peat in Indy and you'll see it's so very apt!

Quote from: Osi72 on April 08, 2015, 10:44:49 AM
Tremendous write up, quick question, does Mckenzie work for us now??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope, but apparently he works out at the same gym as Clemmings. It's not inside information by any means - Jenny Vrentas wrote a piece on Clemmings in the lead up to the Combine for mmqbsi and included that detail.

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 08, 2015, 08:34:34 AM
So for me I am just not sure what the wingspan really tells us.  Arms are a lot easier.  Besides the increased blocking radius those longer arms give a blocker the edge in the who gets to who's chest first in bull rushing and run blocking scenarios.

In my simplistic and non-scientific view of things I simply consider that as wingspan equates to a wider body/shoulders it's advantageous as it makes OL's a longer cab fare to get around (or in the case of DL's taking up even more of the gap) in much the same way that longer arms and bigger hands combined with greater jumping ability provide WR's with a greater catching radius

Quote from: bamagiantfan on April 08, 2015, 09:03:41 AM
Ceri this is beautiful. What's next?

Either G's, DT's or edge rushers (including both DE & tweener OLB types). Not decided on which yet as all are more than part written. Probably won't be until Friday night/Saturday morning though

Quote from: Tomeee on April 08, 2015, 07:07:46 AM
So I'm guessing you see Scherff as a guard and he will be included in that write up.

Yep, definitely a Guard (albeit a good one). I've thought that all along and saw nothing over the weekend to make me change my mind on that

Quote from: DesG89 on April 07, 2015, 08:45:47 PM
I have just one question regarding Donovan Smith. I read his prospect profile on Big Blue View a couple days ago and the writer suggests he doesn't fit us as an OT but could be a plug and play OG. Do you agree with that assessment or do you see him as an OT only?

I see him very much as an OT if he keeps his weight down. I think he only hinted at what he can become at the Senior Bowl where he played LT to a high level. Depending on the scheme he could play Guard but not one requiring pulling ability. We have always asked our LG to pull. He can't do that. We don't need a RG. Schwartz and Jerry play there.

The talent available
Having gotten caught up in the hoopla on length and athletic ability shown at the Combine I spent the Easter weekend watching as much of each of the top players back-to-back-to-back as I could. It changed my mind altogether on some and reaffirmed long held beliefs in others. To me, there isn

Quote from: DesG89 on May 06, 2014, 06:34:37 PM
Good read as always Ceri. I was patiently awaiting this review because I was curious what you thought of Mosely. With just about everyone touting either Lewan, Martin, Donald, Evans or Ebron, I think I'm the only one that wants Mosely with our 1st rounder. I'm a little surprised you think Shazier is possible at 12 but not Mosely. I guess because of the injuries

Actually it's mostly because he fits best at MLB and we have Beason. I don't believe in drafting a guy to play a position other than his best one just because he can...

Overview
With the college offenses becoming more read-option based the defenses have tended to put their best athletes at DE rather than OLB hence many of the better ones being covered in the  OLB/DE (Edge Rushers) preview. There are three top

Overview
A pretty decent year for Safeties with some top end talent and decent depth though there is a big drop-off after the top four players. Until Will Hill once again endangered his employment with an OTF indiscretion the Giants had no needs whatsoever at the position with big-play FS Stevie Brown returning alongside Pro Bowler Antrel Rolle and veteran Quintin Demps added as a UFA. That said, with the team always thinking one year ahead and Rolle still not offered a new contract there is a small possibility that they may be in the market for a future starter at SS. The Giants have a height/size/speed requirement for this position preferring to draft those between 6