clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Should Giants trade down from 23rd pick?

New, comments

That and more in this week’s mailbag

New York Giants v Washington Redskins Photo by Rob Carr/Getty Images

In case you missed it, yours truly did a Facebook Live session right before the free agency signing period opened on Thursday. I didn’t get to answer every question that came in, so I have plucked a couple of questions from there for this week’s Big Blue View mailbag.

Amy Poisson asks: With only so much time left for Eli do you see the Giants taking the first overall and moving back into the second or third round to get some more quality players?

Ed says: Amy, this is a question that goes right to the heart of the way I believe teams should approach the draft. The “Big Blue View Rules for Draft Success,” written by yours truly, recommend trading down and collecting draft picks rather than trading up and giving them away. The idea is that by collecting picks you give yourself room to manuever and a bigger margin for error is you miss on a pick. The New England Patriots are masters of this method.

In this case, though, I’m not sure trading down is the right idea. The Giants are not the Cleveland Browns, they are not a rebuilding team that needs to take a “volume” approach. They are a good team that might be just a few pieces away from being really, really good. In this case, I think one of those pieces is going to be available at No. 23.

If the Giants don’t like any of their options at 23, then trading down would be fine. This time around, though, I don’t think that is going to be the case.

Matt Buttner asks: Is the Darkwa signing just to have depth or will he see an increased role this season?

Ed says: We’ll see. I suspect the Giants will add a power running back in the middle of the draft, but you never know. I have always thought Orleans Darkwa was a good player who hasn’t been given a full opportunity. If the giants draft someone to pair with Perkins, Darkwa likely gets pushed to the background again.

William Bowman asks (via e-mail): Does Beatty represent a viable alternative at left tackle? This assumes of course that he succeeds in OTA's and summer camp.

Ed says: Why, oh why, are people still asking about Will Beatty? If the Giants thought Beatty was a viable alternative at left, or right, tackle — or even guard — don’t you think they would have put him on the field last season? Beatty used to be a good player. Just because he used to be good doesn’t mean he is still good. The Giants saw him every day in practice last season, and they have clearly given you their answer by not playing him. Forget about left tackle. They judged Marshall Newhouse, Bobby Hart, Brett Jones and even former practice squad player Adam Gettis more worthy of playing time at right tackle and guard than Beatty. The guy has played seven snaps in two years. He isn’t any kind of option at all.

Jeff Bank asks (via e-mail): Why did the Giants not make a run at Whitworth? Yes he is older and the back end of his career, but you can say the same thing about our QB (so we need to win now). He's consistent and does not give up sacks. Could of moved Flowers to RT and drafted a LT for the future. Flowers technique is absolutely awful for him to be your long term solution at LT (unless he makes significant improvements).

Ed says: This is a good question, and I know it’s one many Giants fans want an answer to. We don’t know for sure whether or not the Giants made a run at Whitworth. What we do know is that they never had the salary cap space to match the three-year, $36 million ($15 million guaranteed) deal Whitworth got from the Los Angeles Rams. I would have been on board with going after Whitworth, but the money just wasn’t there. Yes, they probably could have found ways to clear room but they chose not to. It is looking more and more likely that Ereck Flowers remains at left tackle. That would be the Giants’ choice, and they will have to live with the results if that is what happens.