Second Round of the Draft

[Bob In PA]

I know this was addressed to Ceri, but I'd still like to take a shot at it.

Tomlinson spent his senior year at Alabama getting double teamed and he still got some sacks. There is no way they can double team him on the Giants line. They already do that to Snacks and have their hands full with JPP on one side and OV on the other. The guy who will draw the least amount of attention on that line is the new kid. I suspect he's finally going to get to manhandle single coverage and get into the backfield. Having that wrestling background makes him already inclined to use an opponents weight and strength against themselves. I think he'll have a heyday because Snacks will be getting what he got in college so that others get single coverage.

This is going to be one nasty defensive line. I doubt your going to see many RB's go up the middle - that's if they even bother trying. We got a serious wall on that side the trench

JBG: There's no penalty for "butting in" at the Big Blue Huddle. LOL  ..... at least none that I know of.... I'd better check my bank account to see if Rich has been levying any fines on me... I do that all the time.  Bob

[Bob In PA]

One of the things that does not seem to be mentioned is that the reason DT (2nd) and DE (5th) were needed in this draft is that two more of Reese's high picks Bromley and OO failed to live up to expectations. As a result, they are constantly trying to fill holes that should have been filled with previously drafted players. Until Reese starts to have a higher success rate with 1-3 round players, they will continue to need to spend draft picks on certain positions that could be better spent on the OL and LB.

Bay: You're right, and the point should not be forgotten, but If we're giving Flowers a pass I suppose OO and Bromley should also get one. You may be in the camp that want to line all of them up for a firing squad, but it's easy to get "spoiled" when a player like Beckham comes along and makes the near-impossible look routine.  Instant NFL success is a relative rarity.  On the other hand, two years of waiting is enough!!!  Bob

[Bob In PA]

Actually I think they wanted two run pluggers in the middle just like last year as by taking up blockers they allow the likes of Landon Collins to have a free role and hide our deficiencies at LB. Penetrating players would change the way we play defense. I like the way it was played just fine!

ceri: I agree with that and believe it is so.

I also read at least one article indicating that the team isn't "worried" about the possibility that Tomlinson's game might lack that element. 

And I can add one more factor.... the Giants needed not only to replace Hankins, but also a BACKUP for Snacks.

Tomlinson is a two-fer IMO.

Bob

[MP21WAYS2PAY]

Ceri, given what a fan you were of Motons, I am glad you prefer Tomlinson for the pick.  Personally, I don't see the dynamism in Tomlinsons game, he looks slow off the snap, and I don't see him having a greater impact on the game than if we had picked up a later round big body, paired with a free agent vet.  Our 2nd round picks have been guys like Strahan, Barber, Osi, Collins, Snee, hopefully DT lives up to that billing.  Also, even as needs go, I think it would have been easier to find a gap plugger, than a 3rd DE, or a capable starting guard.

Anyway, given that Im clearly in the minority on this one, and also hopefully wrong about it, I was not planning to raise it again, but Bob went stirring up the pot again!

[Bob In PA]

Ceri, given what a fan you were of Motons, I am glad you prefer Tomlinson for the pick.  Personally, I don't see the dynamism in Tomlinsons game, he looks slow off the snap, and I don't see him having a greater impact on the game than if we had picked up a later round big body, paired with a free agent vet.  Our 2nd round picks have been guys like Strahan, Barber, Osi, Collins, Snee, hopefully DT lives up to that billing.  Also, even as needs go, I think it would have been easier to find a gap plugger, than a 3rd DE, or a capable starting guard.

Anyway, given that Im clearly in the minority on this one, and also hopefully wrong about it, I was not planning to raise it again, but Bob went stirring up the pot again!

MP:  As of today, no one is right or wrong. 

Let's see how he does when they play the games. 

In fact, the point I was exploring with this thread was my belief that the answer to the question "2nd round: DL or OL?" might depend on how much you like Tomlinson, moreso than on the position he plays.

Bob

[jimv]

As I've been reading this thread's posts, I'm becoming more & more convinced that we might have the best D Line in the League.

[BayAreaGiant]

Bob -

Far from giving Flowers a pass, I believe that they should have already cut bait on him. Going all the way back to the Moss days, Reese tends to stay far too long with his draft picks that are misses as opposed to hits. Although this may have been a down year for OLs, you cannot tell me that there were not at least 2 players out there in the 2nd and 3rd rounds that would not have been significant improvement over what presently exists. I am a strong proponent of the theory that games are won in the trenches. Average backs and QBs can win behind a strong OL. Having a weak line screws up the entire offense. Until they fix the line, I do not see the Giants rising to the next level. 

[Bob In PA]

Bob -

Far from giving Flowers a pass, I believe that they should have already cut bait on him. Going all the way back to the Moss days, Reese tends to stay far too long with his draft picks that are misses as opposed to hits. Although this may have been a down year for OLs, you cannot tell me that there were not at least 2 players out there in the 2nd and 3rd rounds that would not have been significant improvement over what presently exists. I am a strong proponent of the theory that games are won in the trenches. Average backs and QBs can win behind a strong OL. Having a weak line screws up the entire offense. Until they fix the line, I do not see the Giants rising to the next level. 

BA: Yes, Moss was a lemon. Luckily, he wasn't drafted in the top ten of the 1st round. In the salary-cap era, it's very expensive to "throw away" a player drafted high in the 1st-round before his rookie contract expires.  For that and other reasons, I think the decision to give Flowers another year is/was correct. A GM's responsibility involves football AND salary cap management (a built-in conflict, which is very apparent when situations like this Flowers thing arise).  Bob

[XNYrnLA]

I think the Giants were set to Pick Webb in the 3rd, if he was there... That probably dictated taking Tomlinson, who imo was the best DT available at that spot, with our second pick, since by our 4th pick all the starting quality DT prospects would be gone. Based on that thinking, to me if they were set on picking the QB in the 3rd, then they must not have had OT as a need at all! For those of us who viewed OT as an essential need then we either had to grab one in the 1st, or 2nd (where Dawkins was luckily available)... I personally would have gone Robinson in the 1st, highest rated CB and DT in the next 2 rounds and highest rated RB and TE in the 4th and 6th.
Based on my " Need-Position depth " Value board our picks would have been:

1- OT C. Robinson (R2-34 JAGUARS)
2- DT D. Tomlinson (R2-55 GIANTS)
3- CB R. Douglas (R3-99 EAGLES)
4- TE J. Butt (R5-145 Broncos)
5- RB B. Hill (R5-156 FALCONS)
6- DE B. Cox ( UDFA PANTHERS)
7- DL J. Ivie (R7-228 COWBOYS)

Of course personally I like my would-be picks better, but only time would tell and my hope is Reese and our Giants scouting team know better and they got us much better outcome.

[AZGiantFan]

We have pretty well worn out discussion of the first round of the draft, and maybe you've grown tired of talking about the draft as a whole, but if not.....

There's been a lot in the media and on this site about the importance and results in the second round.

Assume the Giants' choice in the 2nd round was between replacing Big Hank and bolstering the offensive line. 

Did they make the right decision, considering the players who were there at the time of the pick?

Bob

PS. My answer: They made the correct choice, both in the abstract and considering the players who they could have chosen. I liked both Tomlinson and Dawkins (as a tackle or guard) a lot, so that consideration was a "tie" IMO  The deciding factors were (a) defense wins championships; (b) stopping the run is a top-three objective in every game plan; and (c) I don't believe any offensive lineman who remained on the board, as a first year player, would have helped the team more than experienced players (no matter what you think of them) Hart, Flowers and Fluker.

I would add one other factor in DT's favor, likelihood of fitting the need.  Dawkins may turn out to be a tackle, and maybe even a left tackle, but there are certainly serious questions about that and he may end up as a guard.  He could end up a successful NFL player but be a bad fit, since we have lots of guards.  He would still help the team but not as much as he would if he was able to play tackle.  So there is some positional downside risk with Dawkins.

While we may have questions about what kind of DT DT becomes, if he is a successful NFL player then we know exactly what he will play and it is a position of absolute need.  There is no positional risk with DT whatsover.  If anything there is some positional upside, since there is at least a possibility that he can be more of a 3-tech than Hank was, which would help the already excellent pass rush.

[Bob In PA]

I would add one other factor in DT's favor, likelihood of fitting the need.  Dawkins may turn out to be a tackle, and maybe even a left tackle, but there are certainly serious questions about that and he may end up as a guard.  He could end up a successful NFL player but be a bad fit, since we have lots of guards.  He would still help the team but not as much as he would if he was able to play tackle.  So there is some positional downside risk with Dawkins.

While we may have questions about what kind of DT DT becomes, if he is a successful NFL player then we know exactly what he will play and it is a position of absolute need.  There is no positional risk with DT whatsover.  If anything there is some positional upside, since there is at least a possibility that he can be more of a 3-tech than Hank was, which would help the already excellent pass rush.

CO: Yes, I agree.  And I hadn't noticed until your post that Tomlinson's initials are DT just like the position he plays.  Bob

[MightyGiants]

CO: Yes, I agree.  And I hadn't noticed until your post that Tomlinson's initials are DT just like the position he plays.  Bob

If ever a guy was born to be a defensive tackle.....

[MP21WAYS2PAY]

If ever a guy was born to be a defensive tackle.....

Not to beat a dead horse but...

Tomlinson had 6 tackles for a loss combined in the past 2 seasons, Jarron Jones had 6 TFLs in one game last season vs. Miami.

Anyway, I am all for both of those guys now, no more draft related negativity from me .... although I do wonder if JJ has a chance to be a better pro.....arghh I did it again!

[MightyGiants]

Not to beat a dead horse but...

Tomlinson had 6 tackles for a loss combined in the past 2 seasons, Jarron Jones had 6 TFLs in one game last season vs. Miami.

Anyway, I am all for both of those guys now, no more draft related negativity from me .... although I do wonder if JJ has a chance to be a better pro.....arghh I did it again!

MP,

When it comes to drafting defensive linemen, I tend to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt.  Admittedly they swung and missed on DT Austin (more like gambled and lost).   The pair of third rounders (Odiggy and Bromley) at best have been disappointing.    However, when you consider this is the team that drafted JPP, Osi, Linval Joseph, Hankinson, and Tuck as well as professionally knew enough to spend big on Vernon and Snacks, I think the front office and coaching staff are pretty good at vetting and developing D-line talent. 

[Hadron]

If there's one area of the team I'll give the Giants the benefit of the doubt? D-line.