NFL free agency and draft thread

[kreidertime]

I'm not a believer if you have cap money, spend it all with big, long term contracts. There are probably only 2 or 3 players you should sign to big money that can help your team. Other players are just probably depth guys who you should give 1 or 2 year deals. Giving them long term deals is a mistake. Giants needed a solid vet CB. Ronde Barber said he believes it takes most CB's 3 years to figure everything out. Giants need to be patient with their young CB's. OL must be built first. Then they can look for pass rushers. I would go LT first round. Then either RT or C in the second round.

 

[RangersFan]

If it was my decision I would pull the franchise tag off of Williams and sign Clowney for 17 mill per. That would give us the pass rusher and difference maker we badly need. Then I would double down on D and draft Simmons with the 4th pick. Everything you see says this kid is going to be a stud difference maker. You add those two guys to the players already added on D, and all of the sudden our D looks pretty darn good.

After that I turn my full focus on OL in rounds 2 & 3. You'll get a good starting level OL early in round 2 I think. And a solid depth OL in round 3.

My opinion is neither of those things happen though. Gettleman won't cut bait with Williams because it will make his trade for him last season look even worse. And I am guessing we'll draft Wirfs or maybe Becton, but thinking they take Wirfs at 4.

The shame of it is the Giants are in the worst spot at 4. If they were 2 they get Young. If they were 3 they trade down for extra picks, and still get a T (I feel some team - Miami most likely - deals up to 3 for Tua). But at 4 they won't have the QB value some team wants to trade up with the Giants. And candidly it is the worst spot to take a T since there are four that are give or take around the same level (Wills, Wirfs, Thomas, Becton). Taking the first T at 4 is just not good value at all. If/when they take a T, if he becomes a good player, that's cool, but still the value is bad. Same with Jones at 6 last year. If he turns out to be real good, and it looks like he may, it still doesn't change the fact that the value was not there to take him at 6.

 

[kreidertime]

They are not in the worst spot at 4. Teams aren't going to trade up with Detroit because they will want too much. I'm guessing they will try to trade up with the Giants who will probably ask less. Miami to move up one spot would have to give up their top 1 and probably a second. Giants could then trade back one spot again and pick up another extra second and still grab the top OL guy. Detroit most likely will be asking for two number 1's. IMO, Detroit as usual will be stupid and make the pick. Clowney is overrated an is not an impact player. He's never had double digit sacks and is injury prone. I'd rather have Williams and wait a year to draft a young pass rusher.

 

[Ranger71]

Detroit seems to like Okudah alot.

 

[RangersFan]

I think Detroit will deal the 3rd pick to a team wanting a QB. It is a fair point if their asking price is way high, maybe we can get in on the trade action, but for Miami to jump from 5 to 3 shouldn't be crazy over the top costly unless Detroit is out of control. My overall point is this. I don't see Tua being there at 4. One way or another I think he goes top 3, I feel Borrow/Young/Tua will be the top 3, most likely in that order. But anything is possible.

As for Williams or Clowney. If Williams is going to play for the 16.2 mill franchise # I rather have Clowney for 1 mill more. If we can get Williams to agree to a new deal for 10-12 mill per, then yeah save over 5 mill and keep Williams. Again we'll see what happens with a potential Williams deal.

 

[kreidertime]

Having Williams next to Lawrence is probably important for the kid. Plus the Giants play the 3-4. I see Clowney as more of a 4-3 guy at this point.

 

[RangersFan]

Lewis Riddick thinks we are crazy if we do not take Simmons. He said the player is perfect for us in everyway, and exactly what we need. He predicted if we pass on him Gettleman will be looking for a job after the season. I agree. We need to take Simmons if we stay at 4. Yes we need an OT, but I don't think we can pass on the potential stud talent Simmons is.

 

[kreidertime]

Riddick is a dumb fuck. Our OL has sucked moose dick for years. We have a franchise QB and RB. You don't take a guy on defense that is a tweener with the 4th pick.

 

[RangersFan]

Where do you come up with this stuff? The guy is 6'4" and 238 lbs. That is not a tweener. If by tweener you mean he can play multiple positions, sure he's a tweener. That's an awful thing providing great flexibility to a D and being able to move him around.

My first choice would be trade down and get some extra quality picks to fill the holes on the team, but if they cannot trade down I take Simmons for sure over a T that is 1 of 4 that will go top 15, and 4 is too high to take the first one. If they trade down for extra draft capital then I can get on board with drafting a T later than 4.

 

[kreidertime]

Every scouting report calls Simmons a tweener. Do some research. The three most important positions on a team are franchise QB, franchise LT and franchise CB. Great defenses don't win jack shit if your teams offensive line blows. You simply don't win titles with a shit offensive line which is what the Giants have had for years. I wouldn't take Simmons over a LT in a million years. You also run the risk of doing to Jones what Indy did with Luck and ruin his career with a crap OL. Not to mention wasting Sequon's career. OL is by far the top priority. Only when it's fixed can the team waste high picks on other positions.

 

[RangersFan]

I have done plenty of research. He is not a tweener. He is a guy that can play multiple positions. I have also seen many people compare him to Derwin James from the Chargers, with more upside. Is he a tweener also?

You are seeing what you want to see. I agree 100% that we need to improve the OL, never said we didn't (it is a huge must). Also why I wrote my # 1 option would be to deal down and add more picks. We are not one player away no matter who that player is. Then I would take one of the similarly rated OT's where their value is in line. I wouldn't take an OT at 4 over a defensive guy who can be a stud just because we need an OT. That is not how you build a winning team when you are still many players away. VALUE.

If we cannot deal down I take Simmons. Then I use my 2nd round pick on an OL. Maybe even my 3rd round pick as well. Over drafting an OT by a few spots at # 4 when we are more than an OT away from being a winning very good team, is not the answer to me. If Gettleman can trade down adding picks and better aligning the value I am all for it.

With that said, if we do draft an OT at 4, I won't flip out, but it will be a sign once again that Gettleman doesn't know how to work a draft or understand value. Just like drafting Jones at 6 last year showed. I like Jones. I think he can be real good. But there was no need to draft him at 6. Drafting Barkley at 2 the prior year is also questionable from a positional value POV. I don't think Gettlemen fully understands value in the NFL draft. Not a good trait for a GM to be missing.

 

[kreidertime]

Playing multiple positions is why you call a tweener. It's because he doesn't project to one position. He's also not needed over a franchise left tackle who will prevent our franchise young QB from ending up like luck. As well as Sequon not getting hit 1 second after he is handed off the ball.

 

[RangersFan]

Then trade down if you want an OT so badly. There are 4 highly rated OT's all in the same ball park give or take. The 4th one will go in the 14-15 range +/-. If you want one badly trade down. From a value POV it makes little sense to take one at # 4. If they trade down and take an OT I have zero issue with that. VALUE.

 

[Greyvtrayn]

Then trade down if you want an OT so badly. There are 4 highly rated OT's all in the same ball park give or take. The 4th one will go in the 14-15 range +/-. If you want one badly trade down. From a value POV it makes little sense to take one at # 4. If they trade down and take an OT I have zero issue with that. VALUE.

Not sure why it is taking so long for this message to sink in, it's pretty clear. If determined to draft OT then find a team looking to trade up to 4th position and take OT with that team's 1st round pick, use the other draft picks acquired to facilitate other/future trades or draft more assets. Tough to argue against that strategy unless the Giants have determined one of the OTs is THEIR GUY.

 

[kreidertime]

I would think they would do that as long as they don't go less than 7th or 8th. They must hope that Miami will trade up one spot offering a second which they are rumored to do in order to get one of the top 3 QB's. Everybody thinks San Diego will trade up to 3. I don't see it. I think Miami and San Diego will wait for the Giants to deal with.

 

[RangersFan]

Same page. As long as they trade down and maximize value I am good. If they stay at 4 you take Simmons I believe. What concerns me is Gettleman has never traded down. Based on taking Jones at 6, and to a lesser extent Barkley at 2, I am not sure he understands maximizing value. He appears to be more of an I'm fixated on a specific player type of guy, which is not ideal, especially when you are multiple players away. That's what has me concerned. But as I wrote, my # 1 option is trade down and then take an OT if that is the desire. I would say anywhere in the top 10 is fine and would guarantee us one of the top 4 OT's.

Let's see if Gettleman has what it takes to understand that, and get it done. So far in his career as a GM he has not shown that skill.

 

[kreidertime]

Dude. There is no fucking way they are taking Simmons. Forget it and move on. They are drafting a LT which is absolutely the right move. The defense is insignificant before the OL when you have a franchise QB and RB who you need to protect.

 

[RangersFan]

Here is the point you are missing. If they stay at 4 and take an OT it proves that Gettleman is clueless, which I think the evidence so far proves. Taking an OT at 4 is a reach. It is terrible value. There is no need to do it. You either trade down and add more draft picks OR you stay at 4 and take the best player, who is Simmons. To stay at 4 and take an OT is stupid. But then again this is the guy who reached at 6 to take Jones and took an RB at # 2. So yeah I think Gettleman will actually do it.

Also you act as if the only way to improve the OL is by taking an OT in round 1. We have a lot of picks. You don't have to take an OT in round 1. If we do not trade down to put us in the sweet spot to take an OT, we should focus on best player as a team that is still many players away from contending. Then load up on OL as the draft moves on. For once I ask Gettleman to be smart.

Option 1 to me is trade down and take one of the OT's.

 

[kreidertime]

I have done plenty of research. He is not a tweener. He is a guy that can play multiple positions. I have also seen many people compare him to Derwin James from the Chargers, with more upside. Is he a tweener also?

You are seeing what you want to see. I agree 100% that we need to improve the OL, never said we didn't (it is a huge must). Also why I wrote my # 1 option would be to deal down and add more picks. We are not one player away no matter who that player is. Then I would take one of the similarly rated OT's where their value is in line. I wouldn't take an OT at 4 over a defensive guy who can be a stud just because we need an OT. That is not how you build a winning team when you are still many players away. VALUE.

If we cannot deal down I take Simmons. Then I use my 2nd round pick on an OL. Maybe even my 3rd round pick as well. Over drafting an OT by a few spots at # 4 when we are more than an OT away from being a winning very good team, is not the answer to me. If Gettleman can trade down adding picks and better aligning the value I am all for it.

With that said, if we do draft an OT at 4, I won't flip out, but it will be a sign once again that Gettleman doesn't know how to work a draft or understand value. Just like drafting Jones at 6 last year showed. I like Jones. I think he can be real good. But there was no need to draft him at 6. Drafting Barkley at 2 the prior year is also questionable from a positional value POV. I don't think Gettlemen fully understands value in the NFL draft. Not a good trait for a GM to be missing.

 

[kreidertime]

0.00% chance the Giants aren't taking a LT. Accept it and move on.

 

[theProdigy223]

To stay at 4 and take an OT is stupid. But then again this is the guy who reached at 6 to take Jones and took an RB at # 2. So yeah I think Gettleman will actually do it.

1. Calling DJ a reach at 6 after 1 year is extremely premature. He showed real potential last year with very little help around him. With a QB, you do not mess around and hope he is there later. You take your guy. Plenty of reports have indicated he would not have lasted to 17, and potentially would not have even gotten past WASH. The fight over DJ is one of the reasons Gruden was fired. He did not want Haskins.

2. I would ideally like to trade down and take a tackle first as well, but it takes 2 teams to trade down. If the choices are stay at 4 and take our top rated tackle or take a shit deal and end up with a lower rated tackle, we may be better off staying at 4 and taking our top rated tacke.

I see the potential in Simmons but I personally am not crazy about him. The red flags I see are a lack of physicality, a lack of motivation to go through people, and really poor tackling form. In college he was the most athletic player on the field and had no problem going around guys (and arm-tackling the ball carrier with that ridiculous wing span). If he's going to be able to play in the box in the NFL he needs to improve in taking on blockers better and using his frame while tackling. These things all worry me about him. You cant draft a guy that high to play LB with those kind of holes in his game.

That said, his physical talent and athleticism are undeniable. Would be hard to get mad about drafting him but I have no idea how Graham would deploy a guy like this. If they take him, they better have a plan or it could blow up in our faces.

 

[RangersFan]

1. Jones was a reach at 6 due to value. I think he is going to be a very good QB, but this is about value. They didn't have to draft him at 6 to get him. They could have traded down 10 picks and still gotten him. He was no where near the 6th rated player in the draft. And again I am a huge Jones fan and believe he will be very good. Value is where I am focused.

2. What is a sh*t deal? Everything I have read says the 4 tackles, or at least 3 of them, are closely rated. You could pick anywhere in the top 12 or so and get one of the tackles. If that is who we want I would argue that even getting middle of the road extra picks is worth it. Maybe a 2nd or a 3rd and another pick. Something like that. Of course there is a line somewhere, but it doesn't have to be a HR to make the deal if we want 1 of the 4 tackles.

And I agree that for a player like Simmons to be maximized you need to move him around. Exploit matchups. Maybe covering TE's on some plays, pass rushing LB on others, maybe even a slot CB on others. He can do many different things very well and be a huge asset, but you need a coach who can maximize that. Don't know if Graham is or isn't that guy.

Last thing, value matters, especially when you are many players away from being a very good team. Taking a player at 2 because you like him, or at 6, or at 4 when their value is lower is not smart. Do that year after year and you are asking for trouble. If we take a tackle at 4 that is minimum two straight years we have done that early in round 1, and you could argue 3 straight since taking a RB at 2 is not ideal. That's my point. Not smart at all to stay at 4 to take a tackle. Trade down if that's what you want. And that would be my move.

 

[theProdigy223]

Haha yes Chuck I understand the concept of draft value. Where I disagree with you is that valuing a potential franchise QB is not subject to the same rules in the same strict sense. It's just not. You dont mess around with the franchise QB and roll the dice that he is still there a few picks later (I strongly disagree with you that he would have been there 10 picks later). The jury is out though on whether they were right on their evaluation of DJ as the franchise QB. What I've seen is encouraging but that isnt enough to vindicate that pick just yet.

The 4 tackles all come out to similar overall draft grades, but there are monumental differences in their games. It will come down to which attributes and styles of player the front office values more than others. Their draft grades may not be nearly as close as all the prognosticators have them. Further, it is unlikely that more than 1 of the big 4 will be there after the top 10. If their grades arent that equal on all of them (given the greater weight the scouts may place on one aspect of their games over others), they may not want to roll the dice that their guy is gone just to get an extra pick. If they have them graded more equally, then it gives you a greater margin of error to drop back. The point is that we just dont know, and it all depends on their big board, their grades, and the scouts.

 

[theProdigy223]

Here's why I think it's hard to say all the tackles are the same, and any of the 4 would be a fit:

- Becton is a mammoth with boom or bust potential. Of the 4, he's the biggest project technique wise. Doesnt bend that well on the edge and has a weak punch for his size, but his sheer strength and size have covered up for that as well as his technique shortcomings. Ive watched him the least though so dont have much to add other than what's been written. ACC football is not my forte.

- Wills is a pure technician with a mean streak. Very accomplished both in pass protection and run protection. Think of him as a more athletic and longer Will Hernandez. He stood out in every Alabama game, but has only played the right side. Yes that was Tua's blind side past couple of years, but do we trust him to make the switch to left as seamlessly as he has played the right? If not, to we justify a 10 year starter at RT with the 4th pick? Maybe. He is in my opinion the most solid lineman of the 4. The only question is whether he can replicate that on the other side - or if we even want him to.

- Thomas is probably the safest, pretty good at everything with no glaring holes and exemplary off the field. If the draft was held the first day after the national championship he probably would have been OT1 (because of the value teams place on LT over RT - not because I think he's better than Wills). Ive been confused as to why his stock has dropped a bit over the offseason. Did very well against the toughest competition in the nation and Georgia runs pro-style protections.

- Wirfs is very polarizing. He's the Simmons of the tackles - freak athlete but might be out of place as a left tackle. Played right tackle more than left last year but the Iowa staff clearly liked and trusted him. His strengths though are his burst, power and athleticism, not technique and length. That's why he's being talked of as a pulling guard and is a risk at LT at the NFL level - especially at 4th overall. Before the combine there was no way he would have been taken before Wills or Thomas. In the Iowa games I saw he was superhuman at getting to the second level - but rather average in engaging once he got there. As I've previously said I watch a ton of big 10 football (it's the conf I played in) so I've seen a lot of him.

You see that all 4 of these guys are very different players, and I dont think it's correct to assume that our scouts will automatically view them all as more or less interchangeable.

 

[RangersFan]

We'll agree to disagree on this one. Jones was nowhere near the 6th rated player in the draft (not saying you wrote that). He was rated much lower. Gettleman got ripped for taking him that early. That was not a smart pick from a value POV. Where would he have gone if we didn't take him at 6, don't know, but taking him that high was a reach. Now where I do agree is if he pans out it makes a lot of this less impactful and reaching for a potential franchise QB is better than other positions, but taking him at 6 was too soon.

As for the tackles, yes they are different players with different strengths and weaknesses, but overall they are rated pretty similarly. Further proving that point is your point on Thomas. You seem to like Thomas the best based on your comments, yet he is rated 4th of the 4 by most. To me that shows even more taking 1 of the 4 at # 4 simply doesn't maximize value.

At days end, I won't flip out if we take a tackle at 4, but to me that would once again show that Gettleman does not understand how to maximize value.

 

[RangersFan]

And I do agree that the Giants need to trade back to no futher than 10 to have a choice at T. I don't think three go in the top 8 or 9. So trade back to 8-10 somewhere in that range, and you'll have a T choice. Staying at 4 and taking a T is what it is. You better hope the guy they take is a stud AND is clearly better than the rest taken 6-15.

 

[theProdigy223]

Further proving that point is your point on Thomas. You seem to like Thomas the best based on your comments, yet he is rated 4th of the 4 by most. To me that shows even more taking 1 of the 4 at # 4 simply doesn't maximize value.

Eh I wouldnt say that I like him the best - and more to the point, it depends on what a team is looking for. Do you have the time and situation to develop a project, along with a competent line as currently constructed such that you can roll protection to one side and provide help? Then Becton might be your guy. Do you have flexibility on where you put someone and a potential hole at guard? Then Wirfs might be your guy. Do you desperately need a franchise LT for the next 10 years and can't afford to miss - or dont have a situation allowing you to ease someone in? Then Wills or Thomas might be your guy, depending on your confidence of Wills' ability to flip his footwork.

Some teams might value these attributes much higher than others - or be in a position such that they do in fact think taking a certain guy at 4 is good value for them instead of, for example, drafting Becton at 12.

I certainly agree with you that I'd like to trade down a couple of spots if possible, but if it doesnt happen I won't rip DG for turning down a trade into the double digits.

 

[RangersFan]

They all have their strengths weaknesses and to me this is about tackle for the Giants, so from your POV that is Wills or Thomas. From what I have seen Wirfs seems to be the highest rated. Then coin flip between Becton and Wills. Then Thomas. But to me this is the point, there is no lock # 1 rated tackle, so why would a team possibly draft the first one at # 4? I think all of your own comments truly prove the point that taking a tackle at 4 is absolutely a stretch reach. Using your own breakdown of essentially who knows/depends on what you want, no tackle is worthy of the 4th pick this year. There is no Joe Thomas stud lock best tackle in this draft.

I target a team in the 5-10 range for a trade down to gain an extra 2nd or 3rd round pick, and maybe an additional 5th or so. You do that and you still have a choice of at least 2 of the tackles, if not 3. And even if you ended up in the 10-12 range I think you'll still have a choice of 2 tackles, but worst case there will be 1 left. But I would agree target 5-10 range.

And like I said, I am sort of with you on Gettleman, but that's only because I don't have much faith in him to understand and maximize value, so I cannot get too worked up over it. If he stays at 4 and drafts a tackle, I think the best thing you can say about his last 3 first round picks is he clearly did not maximize value, so he better hope Barkley, Jones, and the tackle he takes all are studs and clearly the best at their positions in their drafts (Jones has to clearly be better than Haskins or any of the QB's taken after him). Sorry, but that's what Gettleman's draft history shows. And BTW, Gettleman gets ripped as in over his head all over the place, so it is a bit of an outlier that most in here seem to support him. That is counter to popular opinion.

Good discussion in a world with no sports....

 

[kreidertime]

Jones will be a superstar. He has a lot of Mahomes in his game. Picking him at 6 was a steal. You don't judge players based on where dork rejects who aren't playing or coaching the game had a player ranked. You judge them on what you see when they get to the nfl. The kid threw twice as many TD's as INT's with a shit OL, Barkley not healthy 75% of the year. his tin man TE out most of the year, his most proven WR missing a lot of games. His fumbles got better and are easily correctable. It is time to put a top OL in front of him so he doesn't end up like Luck.


I like Wills as well. Wirfs will be the best OL guy IMO Prodigy. His foot work and athletic ability is way above any of the other tackles. He has the size to play left tackle and Iowa has a great track record in the NFL. Scouts, coaches and GM's see things we don't. Which is why I trust what they are saying. Thomas is slipping for a reason. I haven't heard one organization value Thomas over Wirfs yet.

 

[theProdigy223]

Jones will be a superstar. He has a lot of Mahomes in his game. Picking him at 6 was a steal. You don't judge players based on where dork rejects who aren't playing or coaching the game had a player ranked. You judge them on what you see when they get to the nfl. The kid threw twice as many TD's as INT's with a shit OL, Barkley not healthy 75% of the year. his tin man TE out most of the year, his most proven WR missing a lot of games. His fumbles got better and are easily correctable. It is time to put a top OL in front of him so he doesn't end up like Luck.

Agree with you on Jones. I think the Mahomes comparisons are a little much, DJ doesnt have the creativity and raw arm talent to make some of the unconventional throws Mahomes does, but you nailed the situation DJ was put into and it was very encouraging to see him play well. You have to think that the team is only going to improve around him and hopefully that helps his fumbling issues as well.

I like Wills as well. Wirfs will be the best OL guy IMO Prodigy. His foot work and athletic ability is way above any of the other tackles. He has the size to play left tackle and Iowa has a great track record in the NFL. Scouts, coaches and GM's see things we don't. Which is why I trust what they are saying. Thomas is slipping for a reason. I haven't heard one organization value Thomas over Wirfs yet.

Wirfs very well may end up being the best of the group. Ive agreed with a few of the draft guys who see his talents translating best to guard - he has the power and burst to be an all pro at guard. He could still be very good at tackle. The athletic talent is undeniably there. The question with him is level of risk and whether questionable edge technique will translate.

Most of the draft guys have very different incentives than the teams making the picks. All they see is ceiling and dont weigh risk the way team scouts do. Team scouts need to nail the pick or they could be out of a job. Kiper and McShay could bumble their entire mock drafts and still do the same thing next year. Thomas is in my opinion a much safer prospect than Wirfs, but probably with a lower ceiling. That's why a guy like Thomas could me more attractive to team scouts than he is to the talking heads.