Big Blue View: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Headlines: BC Beats BU 4-3 in 58th Beanpot Championship

What they're saying about the Giants' draft

Here is a look around the Inter-Google at what is being said about the New York Giants' draft. I'm not putting stock in any of it, I'm just throwing these opinions out there for your amusement.

ESPN's Todd McShay.

Considering that the Giants were, for the most part, drafting near the bottom of each round, they cleaned house a little bit. They got a potential No. 2 WR in Hakeem Nicks, upgraded their pass rush with OLB Clint Sintim, and TE Travis Beckum and RB Andre Brown could develop into midround steals in time. New York took Beatty about where we projected him, but he is a finesse player who has not played to his potential, and who just doesn't seem to have the same crafty, hardworking attitude the Giants value up front.

SI'com's Peter King.

Sorry. I still can't figure why, with five picks in the top three rounds, they didn't go get Anquan Boldin or Braylon Edwards. Giants fans have every right to have the attitude "In Jerry We Trust'' about GM Jerry Reese, and they'll just have to trust that Hakeem Nicks or the tall drink of water from Cal Poly, Ramses Barden, is going to be a go-to guy for Eli Manning by October. How many times does that happen in the NFL with rookie receivers? Not many.

Walter Football (which graded the draft A+).

Jerry Reese sure knows how to stockpile talent. He grabbed the best receiver left on the board at No. 29. Clint Sintim, a fringe first-rounder, should be the team's new starting strongside linebacker.

The crown jewel of this class, however, came at No. 60, when Reese took advantage of the ineptness of other general managers and grabbed William Beatty off the board. Beatty was the best second-tier left tackle in this class. Even though he doesn't fill a need, he provided way too much positional value to pass up. This is a concept that perennial non-playoff teams like the Lions and Bills haven't grasped.

ESPN's Mel Kiper (B).

The selection of first-round wide receiver Hakeem Nicks could be a good one, but he really needs to keep his weight up to make an impact in the NFL. I like the selection of offensive tackle William Beatty in the second round and wide receiver Ramses Barden in the third round. They made some good selections late in the draft with running back Andre Brown in the fourth and the two defensive backs in the sixth and seventh rounds: DeAndre Wright and Stoney Woodson.

Yahoo! Sports (B).

There are some concerns whether Nicks and Barden will get too heavy on the NFL level, but both give Eli Manning solid targets. With some added weight and strength, Beatty could be the best thing to come out of this class. Bomar has an NFL arm, and that’s not bad for a fifth-round pick.

John Czarnecki, FOX Sports (B).

GM Jerry Reese really analyzed receivers in this draft after the release of big-time playmaker Plaxico Burress. So, Reese's first choice of North Carolina's Hakeem Nicks made a lot of sense. Nicks is polished and played in a pro-style offense. UConn offensive tackle William Beatty has great size and should develop into a reliable backup.

Ramses Barden of Cal Poly could be a real sleeper at wide receiver, considering he is 6-foot-6 and did play well against San Diego State and Wisconsin. South Carolina cornerback Stoney Woodson was a reach even in the seventh round.

Pete Prisco, CBS Sportsline (B-).

  • Best pick: I like Clint Sintim in the second round. He's a good, solid player who will be an impact player early in his career.
  • Questionable move: Taking Hakeem Nicks in the first round. He has speed, but did they force it?
  • Second-day gem: Landing running back Andre Brown in the fourth round is a steal. He's a nice replacement for Derrick Ward.
  • What does any of this prove? Not a darn thing, but it's interesting to read nonetheless.

    0 recs  |  Comment 59 comments |

    Story-email Email Printer Print

    More from Big Blue View

    Comments

    Display:

    Now I'm starting

    to question the Giants draft, since Kiper likes it.

    by potroast on Apr 27, 2009 10:17 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

    Not to worry

    I put this in the category of the blind pig finding the occasional acorn.

    by Tucker Fredrickson on Apr 27, 2009 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Overall the Giants had a pretty good draft, probably in the B+ range. They did the most with their positioning and got Eli a ton of threats that could pay off huge in the long run. While the Braylon Edwards trade didn’t happen like we wanted, he still walked away with a ton of raw talent. Hopefully Nicks and Ramses will develop, Sintim can make an impact as a SAM and Beatty can become a solid complete player. The last two picks in the draft seem like a big reach, maybe one can become a solid special teams player.

    by scotty2129 on Apr 27, 2009 10:43 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

    I don't understand

    All the love for the Jets big 3 picks.

    They were all about the Jets awesome draft last night, and I was like um, at least 50% of 1st round QB’s bust, why is moving up to get a QB so highly praised!

    by Woogie526 on Apr 27, 2009 11:08 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

    sanchez IMO

    is the best QB in the drat.. he’s an intelligent guy, Stafford is very boom or bust.. and i really like the Shonn greene pick for the jets.

    President of the Ramses Barden Fan Club

    http://novafacts.blogspot.com

    by Hoyadestroya85 on Apr 27, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    I agree

    isn’t it kinda hypocritical for us to criticize the Jets for the Sanchez thing considering what we gave up for Eli 5 years ago? The defensive players were organizational fodder, neither of them were going to be an impact and Ratliff is most likely a career backup QB, so the only valuable thing they gave up was next years #2, in order to move up 12 spots and take the only legit #1 QB prospect left on the board. IMO, the Jets gave up less than we gave up for Eli (a 3 that year plus a 1 and a 5 in the following draft), especially when you consider that the Giants could have drafted Rivers or Big Ben for free.

    by cjmulrain on Apr 27, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    THE KING OF HATE

    It’s common knowledge that Peter King has never liked the giants. He likes the glamour teams that always create buzz whether its justified or not. Cowgirls, Patsies,etc.

    What does he know? Did he ever play pro ball? Did her ever coach pro ball? How many super bowl rings does he have?

    In case you are keeping score = Jerry Reese = 1 Peter King = 0

    by dram57 on Apr 27, 2009 11:38 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

    actually..

    Peter King heaped praise on the Giants all of las season

    President of the Ramses Barden Fan Club

    http://novafacts.blogspot.com

    by Hoyadestroya85 on Apr 27, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    King usually does have praise for the Giants.

    I think like most analysts, they are going by what they THINK the fans want, and that’s an immediate replacement for Plax and Toomer.

    But as a Giants fan, and looking at many Giants fans responses on this site, I’ll say that most of us know that trading for one of these WR wasn’t the only option and that with one its doesn’t automatically make the Giants the best team in the league.

    I know that the only true reason no trade went down was cuz the Cards and Browns each required that Kiwinuka was included in any deal, so that’s dead right there.

    I know the thing with rookie WR, but Steve Smith helped out a lot in his rookie season? Hixon in that year was a rook too.

    I don’t think you can underestimate what Reese thinks of Smith and Hixon. Yea rookie WR don’t do much, but Hixon and Smith are 3rd year guys, and they usually break out.

    I usually don’t like it when all except one analyst agrees with the Giants, cuz that’s usually bad, but I personally love the draft so i could care less what they think good or bad.

    by FreeBradshaw on Apr 27, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    seriously

    sportswriters are supposed to try to maintain neutrality, but King’s clearly a Giants fan

    by queler on Apr 27, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    King

    While he doesn’t say it much… King is clearly a Giants fan. Wasn’t he a Giants beatwriter in the 80’s? You can even hear Bill Parcells mention his name in the NFL Films America’s Game: The 1986 NY Giants video. He’s also written many articles about how much he respects the NY Giants organization.

    by uberfunction on Apr 28, 2009 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    hmm

    his bio says NFL beat for Newsday, a NY paper, so make of that what you will. Either way the point is I don’t see how anyone can say Peter King hates the Giants

    by queler on Apr 28, 2009 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Prisco, WTF?

    Questionable move: Taking Hakeem Nicks in the first round. He has speed, but did they force it?

    Now what is soooo questionable about this move Pete? Did the Giants have to give up anything for a more NFL ready WR than say DHB (thank you Al) or Maclin? Besides, i would give up a little speed in a more polished player like Nicks, than just pure track stars in DHB or Maclin with minimal route running or intangibles.

    Nothing like going halfway up in the round for a boom or bust player all for the sake of speed? Now that’s questionable! Thanks again Al . lol

    by Hootman on Apr 27, 2009 12:19 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

    Yea

    I don’t know why he said that. Hakeem Nicks was obviously going to be a Giant if he fell to #29. This is the primary Reason Reese never wanted to trade the first round pick. Nicks was the highest player on the board. THe Giants have liked him for months.

    He also would have been off the board with the #30 pick to the TItans, cuz they saw what the Giants saw. Im sure Kenny Britt was up there too, but obviously Nicks is better according to Reese an the Titans brass, obviously 2 of the best talent evaluating teams in the league, so F Prisco and Peter King.

    by FreeBradshaw on Apr 27, 2009 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    I agree with P King

    I actually agree with him 100%. He’s spot on with his analysis, I think – especially in this case. With the sheer volume of picks to work with, I’m surprised Reese didn’t gun for a PROVEN WR. Buuuuuuuuuuttt…….we’ll just have to wait and see.

    by Cody K on Apr 27, 2009 12:22 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

    There was a big reason

    #1Kiwinuka had to be in any deal

    #2t Reese wanted to keep #29 to draft Nicks which meant he wanted to pair him with Braylon or Boldin.

    1. Contract. Edwards doesn’t want one now, but he will soon and you may only get a one year rental guy if he is merely as good as he’s been in his career (average player…) And why are the Browns trading him anyway?
                    And Boldin wants a huge contract too, that’s why is being talked of being moved.

    by FreeBradshaw on Apr 27, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    This is just me...

    …but I would have had NO problem dealing Kiwi.

    While good, he’s not a core player and can should be looked at as replaceable. Should have moved him + 60th for one of the two (Boldin or Edwards — or even up to take Crabtree). Take Everette Brown with the 45th (would have had to move up a few spots, I believe) and still get Barden in the 2nd.

    by Jonathan. on Apr 27, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Receivers are overrated

    I think the Giants see more value in a sustained pass rush than in a talented wide receiver corps, and I agree. Given that the Giants have substantially less pass attempts than the majority of NFL teams, wide receivers play a relatively smaller role in their overall success than the running backs or the defense. I can understand the thinking that Kiwi is either the third or fourth best DE on the team, and therefore expendable, but with him taking less snaps and being fresh in the fourth quarter, we’ll be able to keep pressure on the other team for the whole game. Think back how much better our pass rush was in the first half of the last Eagles game than it was in the second. I don’t think Edwards or Boldin would have made much of a difference in that game, but that a couple of fresh defensive ends would have.

    by Tucker Fredrickson on Apr 27, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Come on, how can you say that?

    The team has no threats whatsoever if we’re trotting out Hixon and Smith as our top two targets; we’re a one dimensional team w/o Plax and now Eli has to rely upon Nicks and Hixon, neither of whom he has much of a rapport with yet….this is really going to hurt the offense….opposing D’s have absolutely no one to worry about outside of Jacobs and Bradshaw

    So if we cant score enough, then we will need a better defense….I dont care what Nicks does this year, he will never be as good as Edwards or Boldin; so why is the 29th pick suddenly so valuable you wouldnt trade for a Pro Bowl WR just entering his peak seaons (Edwards)?

    Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

    by bren on Apr 27, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    How can you render a judgement like that on Nicks

    when he hasn’t even played a down yet?

    "We were very much aware of that. There was a lot of phone call-type things going on in the room." -- Tom Coughlin

    by Mr. Met on Apr 27, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Because the other two are proven NFL players

    Pro Bowl caliber players at that, and our other biggest weapons are already in their primes, so any time spent waiting for a rookie to “get it”, particularly one at such an important position is time wasted…Edwards or Boldin couldve put us over the top this year, now we have to hope Nicks “gets it” quickly and doesnt eat himself out of the league

    Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

    by bren on Apr 27, 2009 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Boldin OK

    but there are concerns about his future, and he wants a gigantic contract.

    Edwards is a Pro-Bowler? One time ok, but that hardly makes you a good player. Don’t you remember Javon Walker? Same type of player, not at player I want on the Giants. Edwards production may have been better if not for injuries, but that’s not the type of player I want. Plaxico at least played through his injuries.

    by FreeBradshaw on Apr 28, 2009 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Sorry, I didn't know

    I guess I must have left my crystal ball at home. I didn’t realize that Nicks would never be as good as Boldin or Edwards. And if he’s not as good as Edwards was last year, then he really won’t be much of a player.

    Seriously though, you’re overreacting a bit. Smith and Hixon may not yet be stars (and may never be) but they’re not chopped liver. Nicks and Barden have a chance to be very good receivers. In any case, every receiver, no matter how bad they are draws coverage, and opens up the run game. If your wideouts aren’t good you find other targets like the running backs or tight ends. Sure it’s nice if you have a guy like Plax who ties up two defenders almost every time he runs a route, but Boldin and Edwards don’t do that.

    I live in Philly and end up watching a lot of Eagles games. They’ve been consistently successful over the last 9 years, and for the most part they haven’t had receivers that could beat my grandmother’s press coverage. Nor have they had a consistently strong running game — although Westbrook is a real weapon when he’s healthy. The Cowboys had TO and Roy Williams last year and they didn’t go anywhere. The Steelers won a superbowl and their receivers were far from great. Lots of superbowls have been won by teams with mediocre receivers. In fact, except for 2007, the Giants’ receivers were less than overwhelming in their superbowl years.

    A top notch wide out is a nice weapon, but it’s hardly a necessity. The front office obviously didn’t think Boldin and Edwards were worth the price (both interms of what would have to be given up and what they would have to be paid). I think they made the right call.

    by Tucker Fredrickson on Apr 27, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Well said, but the Eagles have one thing we dont..

    McNabb who is superior to Eli,as hard as that is to admit. I dont know how the previous superbowl teams are relevant to this discussion, the Parcells teams were ages ago, passing is more prevalent today than it was then.

    The Steelers title couldve have just as easily been the Cardinals, a team which progressed as far as it did thanks to its receiving core and efficient QB, neither of which we currently possess.

    I’ll agree that top notch receivers are few and far between, but we had one and had legitimate shots at 2 others. Im sure Edwards couldve recaptured his form with the benefit of playing with one QB as opposed to the crapfest of Anderson/Quinn.

    I dont think you need a crystal ball to see that Nicks doesnt have the pure physical attributes of Boldin and Edwards; someone said it earlier on here, what if he’s just as good as Toomer? Which would be fine, but Toomer hardly had opposing teams crying in their cereal

    Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

    by bren on Apr 27, 2009 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    McNabb is good, but he's not superman

    I agree that in his prime Mcnabb was better than Eli. I’ll agree that he still has a stronger arm. But last year, the two were almost identical statistically. The Eagles win because they consistently have good offensive and defensive lines, not because they invest in high priced skill players — other than QB.

    Do you think the Parcells passed less than the current Giants. I haven’t looked it up, but I’ll bet the ratio of passes to runs was about the same. If we were a pass happy team, having an established receiver might be more important. That’s my point. Receivers are less important for this team than they are for the Cardinals or any of the other teams that pass 60% of the time.

    by Tucker Fredrickson on Apr 27, 2009 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Take notice..

    That McNabbs only trip to the superbowl came with T.O.

    My point in all this is that, all signs pointed to Reese having the opportunity to trade for Edwards, and I think we’d be far better off had he done that trade, and using the 29th pick to do so wasnt unreasonable to me….Hakeem Nicks isnt exactly a franchise changer

    Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

    by bren on Apr 27, 2009 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    TO was injured

    TO was injured down the stretch that year. He didn’t play at all in the post season until the superbowl. He helped the Eagles that year but his importance has been greatly exaggerated. And how many NFC championship games have the Eagles been to without him. Last year they made it with a busted up Westbrook, a rookie second round receiver that everybody said was too small and a bunch of guys named Avant Baskett and Reggie Brown. Curtis only played the second half of the season, and was never at full speed. Not exactly names that put the fear of God into any defense. At one stretch of the season. McNabb was playing so poorly that he was benched. They won because they had a great defense, and an offensive system that doesn’t depend on star receivers.

    The cowboys meanwhile had TO, Roy Williams, and Witten along with a respectable quarterback and some good runners and they didn’t do anything. Meanwhile to get Roy Williams they gave up a bunch of picks, and ended up having a horrible draft. that will hurt them over the next few years.

    It’s just hard for me to see that having great receivers is much of a guarantee of success.

    Sure the Cardinals had a nice run based on having two super receivers — their first ever. But if they hadn’t been in the west they wouldn’t even have made the playoffs, then the luck factor took over. I’ll be very surprised if the Cardinals make it back to the NFC championship game again this year.

    We don’t really know what the Browns asked for, so it’s a little hard to judge. If it was just a first round pick and nothing else, sure I’d say I disagreed with Reese’s decision, But I’m guessing the Browns wanted more than that.

    You’re probably right that Nicks is not a franchise changer. I don’t think Edwards would have been either. But Nicks doesn’t have to a franchise changer to be valuable.

    Look,I don’t think I’m going to change your mind, so let’s just agree to disagree.

    by Tucker Fredrickson on Apr 27, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    The Eagles also beat us b/c our offense was horrid

    But I guess we’ll just leave it at that…..interesting on Yahoo Sports they seem to think the deal isnt dead yet, so maybe Reese wanted to deal 2010 picks?

    Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

    by bren on Apr 27, 2009 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    I tend to agree with bren

    It’s true the defense looked butt tired the second half of the Eagles’ game. And the D was banged up. But a main reason for that exhaustion was that the offense couldn’t move the ball because Plax wasn’t there. Even as it was, the defense kept putting McNabb in 3rd and longs, but the tired defense couldn’t close the deal. To me, there was nothing more glaring than missing Plax, and that shows that receivers aren’t overrated (to go back to TF’s original point above). And I think the odds are against BArden or Nicks being a Boldin or even Edwards right out of the box.

    by providence on Apr 28, 2009 8:53 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    You're quick to make judgments, aren't you?

    "I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
    -Tug McGraw

    by squid92 on Apr 27, 2009 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Ill also be quick ....

    to say I told you so, or to admit Im wrong….I suppose Im more upset that they didnt make a deal than I am with Nicks in and of himself, but to expect him to as good as those two, or to be a replacement b/c Reese was unwilling to make a deal, is unreasonable.

    Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

    by bren on Apr 27, 2009 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Short term thinking

    Nobody disputes that Edwards or Boldin would be great additions and would improve the teams chances in the short run. But would either of them guarantee a super bowl? There’s so much luck that goes into winning a super bowl that organizations have to think in terms of long term effects.
    Reese and the Giants obviously felt that the cost to the team long term of giving up what was necessary to get those guys and then to pay them wasn’t worth the incremental improvement those guys might bring in the short term.

    If the Giants don’t win the superbowl this year you can’t say I told you so because there’s no guarantee that Edwards or Boldin would have made a difference. If Nicks and Barden don’t pan out, you can criticizethe talent evaluation, but that still wouldn’t mean the overall philosophy was wrong. I personally think Reese’s strategy will help keep us competitive for a long time.

    by Tucker Fredrickson on Apr 27, 2009 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Of course its short term

    The team is built to win NOW. And Edwards is young enough that he’d be productive for another 8 years or so. How is that not both a long and short term solution?

    No player ensures a Superbowl, thats a lousy counter argument. The point is Edwards is only 26, has been to the Prow Bowl, is 6’3’’ and faster than either Burress or Nicks Edwards clearly gives the team a better chance to win now, and with is youth, stands to do so for years to come.

    Is saving Hakeem Nicks really worth more than Braylon Edwards?

    Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

    by bren on Apr 27, 2009 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    It's not just Nicks

    Do you have any reason to believe that the Browns would have taken just the 29th pick? And you’re still making a lot of assumptions about Edwards’ performance vis a vis Nicks. Edwards has a very short track record. He’s not in the hall of fame yet. The funny thing is I’m not really a big Nicks fan, but where the Giants were drafting, the pick made sense, and I’m certainly going to give him the benefit of the doubt until I see him get a fair chance to show what he can do. I just think when you get too focused on one particular player or position (except for perhaps quarterback) it distorts your thinking and gets the sytem out of whack.

    You make it sound like the Giants are going to fall off a cliff if they don’t win in the next two years. What I see is an organization that is continually renewing itself to be good for the long run, like the Steelers, Pats and yes, even the damn Eagles.

    by Tucker Fredrickson on Apr 27, 2009 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Again, its not Nicks, per se

    Im sure he’ll be, at the very least, adequate. The point being, by all accounts, this trade didnt happen b/c Reese didnt want to give up the 1st round pick.

    As SI puts it:

    if they lose in the playoffs again because Hakeem Nicks and Ramses Barden aren’t able to contribute as rookies this will be a draft that is forever known as the trade that didn’t happen. You can’t tell me Nicks and Barden will be better than Anquan Boldin or Braylon Edwards the next two years. By the time the rookies develop, the window on the Giants’ title hopes might be closed.

    I think it is critical to win now; Jacobs will be a shell of himself in two years, who knows what can happen to the lines 2 years from now…..Again, I just dont think Nicks or the 29th pick is more valuable than Braylon Edwards now or for the foreseeable future, again Edwards is only 26, so he may not have even scratched the surface, remember he played on some lousy teams

    Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

    by bren on Apr 27, 2009 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    I'm wondering

    if Reese’s strategy was to try to trade after the draft when everybody knows what they have. He’s got WRs, LBs, and DBs to trade, but he’s got to do it soon before everybody gets to camp. If he doesn’t, we’ll lose the guys to cuts.

    by TerraByte on Apr 27, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    "In Jerry We Trust"

    I’ve said it before, Peter King reads this site, he just got the quote wrong

    Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers

    Big Blue View: Unofficial New York Giants blog

    by Jim Schmiedeberg on Apr 27, 2009 1:22 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

    LOL

    I laughed when I read that in his article. He’s reading us!

    by potroast on Apr 27, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Everyone

    Should be reading us. LOl!!

    by Ed Valentine on Apr 27, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Im on board with Peter King

    They simply cant be relied upon and this team is built for now; I think he blew a golden opportunity

    Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

    by bren on Apr 27, 2009 2:44 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

    Me too

    Once we kept the 29th pick I was fine with Nicks, but I would have traded a 1 and 3 for Edwards.

    by Mount17 on Apr 27, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    I would think Tiki wouldve given a lower grade

    Afterall the team blossomed once he was gone

    Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

    by bren on Apr 27, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    I've decided Todd McShay>>>>>>>>>>Mel Kiper.

    "I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
    -Tug McGraw

    by squid92 on Apr 27, 2009 4:03 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

    unless you're the owner of a hair gel company

    in which case, Kiper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McShay

    Also, I irrationally hate McShay b/c he didn’t like Flacco at all last year.

    by cjmulrain on Apr 27, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    2012-13

    That’s when we’ll know how successful this draft is.

    Here is who the Giants drafted in 2005:

    Round Pick Player Pos School
    2 11(43) Corey Webster CB LSU
    3 10(74) Justin Tuck DE Notre Dame
    4 9(110) Brandon Jacobs HB S. Illinois
    6 12(186) Eric Moore DE Florida St.

    Justin Tuck is a stud. So is Brandon Jacobs. Corey Webster is a solid player. Eric Moore is now with the St Louis Rams but still in the league.

    I would give this draft a grade of A

    by John W on Apr 27, 2009 5:58 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

    true you really can't say any draft is good or bad until 3-4 years

    I mean sometimes you can tell a little sooner if the guys’ gonna be a player, but there’s always sophmore slumps or breakouts.

    That draft in 05 was my favorite even at the time. I had no idea Tuck was a future All-Pro, Jacobs if he could stay healthy has All-Pro talent, and Webster is one of te most underrated corners in the league (and probably a prime example of a guy who broke out even after looking like a bust).

    But I loved the Jacobs pick, I noticed him on Auburn and after that on SIU I saw a few highlights. On ESPN I saw a few games where the analysts were in awe of a 6"4" 255 Lbs RB.

    And Tuck, Notre Dame of course is always on TV and forces people to watch them, but Tuck was the best player on that defense.

    Travis Beckum reminds me of Justin Tuck, I know they are on different sides of the ball. But Tuck fell for some reason in the draft, I don’t remember (maybe injury…), but that’s why Beckum dropped, but like Tuck if you watched any college game where he played in he was the #1 option on offense, and when he played UW was very good.

    The only thing you can do now when looking at the draft is just notice what they are and what you think they can do.

    To me not a single one of the picks is a reach, in fact guys like Brown, Beckum and Beatty are absolute steals considering who was taken above them and how may other teams could have used them.

    The draft on paper give Eli 2 weapons hopefully right now, and then a situational guy for now in Barden and who knows what else. Sintim could be the starter at SAM, but who knows.

    Beatty is a future startng LT. He has time to develop, but I think he could’ve played right away if needed.

    Andre Brown if anyone was looking at my posts during draft day saw that I thought the Giants would draft him, and that’s cuz he’s exactly a Derrick Ward type player. He’s faster and obviously younger.

    I would NOT be surprised if Andre Brown was the backup to Jacobs this year.

    by FreeBradshaw on Apr 28, 2009 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    WHAT I THINK
    Maybe its just my but I think this was a good, efficient draft. Our concerns at WR were adressed with Nicks and Barden, both of whom should be solid recievers in a few years and Nicks should be a solid #2 WR this season. Clint Sintim will be a starter in a few years and provides security in case Antonio Pierce or someone gets injured. Beatty is a good value , but is unlikely to make a immediate impact due to the depth of our O-line. Travis Beckum is a good reciving TE. Andre Brown is a solid backup to Jacobs. All in all, there is alot of potential for this draft. GO GIANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by subliminalnirvanaist on Apr 27, 2009 6:35 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

    Nicks will either be another mediocre receiver in a team with too many mediocre receivers or he will be a star and make Reese a genius. The other picks are solid, but not great.

    by bongoman19 on Apr 28, 2009 2:14 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

    Here's the problem with these draft grades

    they have no idea.

    The Raiders are bashed for the picks they made, but I like DHB. Yea, its a reach at #7, but still they lacked speed at WR, and DHB has plenty of that. With him McFadden and J-Russ, that’s pretty exciting if they pull it together. Every player is a crapshoot, so why bash it already (why grade it in the first place, but that’s the draft…)

    ANd the Jets are widely PRAISED for drafting Sanchez. Its amazing how quickly Browning Nagle and Ken? O’Brien are forgotten. THESE ARE THE JETS!!!!!!! It wouldn’t matter if his name was Mark MANNING!!, I’ll still make a bet he’s a bust CUZ THEY ARE THE JETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    That’s not reason to bash the pick tho, cuz I like Mark Sanchez, but they are talking about the Jets in the playoffs already.LOL

    by FreeBradshaw on Apr 28, 2009 7:00 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

    Raiders

    the biggest issue I have with their draft isn’t just that they took Heyward-Bey (though I think he’s gonna be a bust) but that they took him with the 7th pick. He likely wasn’t gonna get drafted until the late teens/early 20’s of the draft, so why didn’t the Raiders try to move down a few slots and pick up some extra picks? Then they go and choose a DB in the 2nd round who most people didn’t even think was gonna get drafted. Those are just dumb, dumb moves.

    by cjmulrain on Apr 28, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Its true

    DHB could have been traded down for, but that’s probably cuz no one wanted to trade up that far.

    After Mark Sanchez got snatched up already, Im sure no other team wanted the #7 overall cuz there;s just no one there.

    The Raiders said they wanted DHB for the longest time, so if the price wasn’t right to trade down, you just have to grab your guy and forget about what other ""experts"" and fans say.

    Besides, I remeber a similar situation with the Bills when they grabbed Donte Whitner. A guy people thought was a late first rounder, but cuz of his 40 times and the fact that the Bills needed a safety, they just would grab him right there. Whitner got overpayed of course, but his recent legal issues aside that’s worked out great for the Bills.

    The Michael Mitchel thing was baffling cuz he didn’t even have a 40, at least publicly. From what Kiper said there was 1 mystery team that would have grabbed him in round 3….

    So yea, I think DHB has the early edge on being a bust, this Mitchel guy too, but who knows? The Raiders have been praised in the past for guys like Michael Huff and Robert Gallery so maybe in true Al Davis thinking he went against the “experts” just to see what’s the difference.

    I like DHB and what he gives the Raiders. Yea he’s a reach, but if you can’t trade down to where you expect him, then you just can’t do it. Pretty much their whole draft was reaches. But then again, if the Raiders were smart, the Giants probably wouldn’t end up with William Beatty (cuz the Raiders REALLY REALLY needed a OT…)

    by FreeBradshaw on Apr 29, 2009 7:52 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Ummm,

    are we all forgetting that Edwards led the league in drops last year? Yeah, he’s got talent, and yeah, he would probably be more focused on this team than the Browns. But we always complain about Eli getting screwed over by massive numbers of drops every year (which is true), so do we want to take the chance of adding to that epidemic? Especially not for Kiwi, you don’t weaken your greatest strength on the team for a chance at improving somewhere else. And claiming Edwards will be great for having gone to thePro Bowl is the same argument the Iggles are making for Peters, which is patently rediculous until they prove it more than once. Good draft as I’ve said before, lots of solid contributions for the back end of the draft.

    Homer: Aw, twenty dollars! I wanted a peanut!
    Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts!
    Homer: Explain how!
    Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services!
    Homer: Woo-hoo!

    by bigbluethruandthru on Apr 29, 2009 6:43 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

    Main reason I don't like Edwards

    I think his hands were in question even when he got drafted too.

    Nicks, Barden and Beckum all are praised for their hands. Nicks and Beckum Im sure about that they have great hands so that helps their development right there.

    None of the Giants receivers in the past have had great hands. Steve Smith is probably the best on the team so far, but even he drops easy balls, and never catches the deep ball even when its right on the money.

    If the new guys have as good hands as they are said too, they will be fine in the offense and be better early.

    by FreeBradshaw on Apr 29, 2009 7:44 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    And we didn’t have to mortgage the farm to get them.

    by njgiant on Apr 29, 2009 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

    Comments For This Post Are Closed


    User Tools

    Big Blue View is the best independent site on the Internet for year-round news and discussion about the New York Giants.

    Community Guidelines
    Start posting about the Giants »

    Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

    FanPosts

    Community blog posts and discussion.

    Recent FanPosts

    Small
    Going Out With A Bang
    Small
    Jacobs: I should have had surgery
    Large_flag_of_brazil_small
    Strahan: 'Osi, stop saying stupid stuff!'
    Asu-dance-team-10_small
    Super Bowl in NY (NJ)
    Small
    Best NFL UNIFORMS/HELMET
    Images_small
    Trade options
    Small
    New York Metropolitan area sports
    Giantschampionshiprings_small
    With LDT now announcing he'll most likely definitely be gone from SD...
    Small
    Mike Francessa
    Strahan_small
    Worst Losses in Giant's History

    + New FanPost All FanPosts >

    Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

    SPONSORS

    Get Your Giants' Gear


    Editor-In-Chief

    Bigblueview_small Ed Valentine

    Editors

    Blueshirt_banter_small Jim Schmiedeberg

    Moderators

    Small brisulph