PDA

View Full Version : TE or BPA at 32?



DaveBrown
03-08-2012, 08:57 PM
Most mock drafts have Reese taking one of the 3 TE's - what's the consensus out there? Best player available or drafting a position of need this year?

bLuereverie
03-08-2012, 08:59 PM
BPA involves team needs

Drez
03-08-2012, 09:00 PM
We'll probably draft for highest value.

TheEnigma
03-08-2012, 09:01 PM
I think the best value for TE is around rounds 3-5 myself but I wouldn't be too upset with either Fleener or Allen at #32.

myles2424
03-08-2012, 11:04 PM
I think fleener & Allen had very good chances of becoming early 2nd rounders even prior to their unimpressive combines......I highly doubt either of them will be BPA

tonyt830
03-08-2012, 11:09 PM
If Reese has Fleener as his BPA at 32, great. If not I would not be surprised to see the best available DE or DT drafted.

BlueSanta
03-08-2012, 11:16 PM
clue: whoever we pick, no matter if he was a need or not, Reese will say he was the highest rated remaining player on his board.

slipknottin
03-08-2012, 11:17 PM
They always try to find the mix of the highest rated player and biggest need.

Morehead State
03-08-2012, 11:20 PM
Most mock drafts have Reese taking one of the 3 TE's - what's the consensus out there? Best player available or drafting a position of need this year?</P>


I would be shocked if we took a TE with our first round pick to play in an offense that doesn't use the TE much. Makes no sense at all.</P>

JJC7301
03-08-2012, 11:28 PM
ALWAYS take BPA, especially if its one that surprisingly dropped like Prince did last year.

Personally, I don't want a TE drafted that high. I just don't think it's necessary and this whole "this is a TE league now" is completely blown out of proportion. We just won a SB with an unheralded TE with an injured knee.

I've always loved the TE position, but I think that experts and others are completely pushing this TE bandwagon ridiculously far.

I'm hoping the BPA will be on the o-line, secondary, d-line or WR.

slipknottin
03-08-2012, 11:30 PM
I would be shocked if we took a TE with our first round pick to play in an offense that doesn't use the TE much.* Makes no sense at all.</P>

Doesnt use a TE much? Theyve been forcing UDFA and 5th rounders into 600 yard 5+ TD guys. To me thats an awful lot of use conidering the talent they have at the position has been pretty poor.

myles2424
03-08-2012, 11:46 PM
According to walterfootball....
"Allen has a 2nd round grade,but I wouldn't be surprised to see him fall into the 3rd at this point" - mike mayock at Clemson proday...

gmen46
03-08-2012, 11:54 PM
I would be shocked if we took a TE with our first round pick to play in an offense that doesn't use the TE much.* Makes no sense at all.</P>

Doesnt use a TE much? Theyve been forcing UDFA and 5th rounders into 600 yard 5+ TD guys. To me thats an awful lot of use conidering the talent they have at the position has been pretty poor.

I'm guessing he's referring to comparisons with the TE darling teams like Saints, Pats, Niners, and a handful of others, where over the past couple seasons the TE has been the leading receiver and/or TD maker.

Compared to those teams, we don't use the TE much.

And your point is an excellent reason why we'd be idiots to draft any TE in this class in the first round, even if it is at #32, and supports MS comment quite well.

But I'm also guessing you knew that as well.

Aperspective
03-09-2012, 12:34 AM
Why do we have to go TE. I think we need a running back more then a TE. Bradshaw is one break away from being done. Jacobs is gone or worse, not gone.

We need a new great back.

giantsfan420
03-09-2012, 12:48 AM
I would be shocked if we took a TE with our first round pick to play in an offense that doesn't use the TE much.* Makes no sense at all.</P>

Doesnt use a TE much? Theyve been forcing UDFA and 5th rounders into 600 yard 5+ TD guys. To me thats an awful lot of use conidering the talent they have at the position has been pretty poor.

I'm guessing he's referring to comparisons with the TE darling teams like Saints, Pats, Niners, and a handful of others, where over the past couple seasons the TE has been the leading receiver and/or TD maker.

Compared to those teams, we don't use the TE much.

And your point is an excellent reason why we'd be idiots to draft any TE in this class in the first round, even if it is at #32, and supports MS comment quite well.

But I'm also guessing you knew that as well.

well theres the other side to that argument. Fleener avg 20 ypr, scored 10 td's and is a huge redzone threat. he is also already an ample blocker with room to improve.

If we lose MM, having Fleener force the safeties playing their cover 2 deep shells (that NE played us and will no doubt be the base gameplan for opposing dc's next season) having a guy be able to come in and start right away and be very effective would solve that issue immediately. Plus, our system, the TE technically is a part of our OL and he would improve that.

Then you figure in if we re-sign a guy like Smith, and our receiving options become Nicks, Cruz, Smith and Fleener with Smith and Fleener working the middle of the field, that opens up the outside for Nicks and Cruz, would drafting Fleener be a huge disservice at that point?

I am open to drafting any position, as we are pretty much stacked from top to bottom on our roster (assuming we re-sign most of our own FA's) and TE is included in that especially since Bear Pascoe is the only healthy TE we'll have by week 7 if we're lucky as Beckum and Ballard will start the season on the PUP.

Fleener is a capable deep threat, seam guy, excellent route runner who can run double routes and get seperation at the top of his route, and a servicable blocker...I could actually list a bunch of picks that wouldnt be half as good as picking Fleener would be...we're picking at 32 don't forget that. would u rather reach on the 6th best dt/de of the draft, an OL who grades out to being an avg player if we're lucky, or getting the best TE in the draft with the potential to take our offense to even higher levels???

giantsfan420
03-09-2012, 12:50 AM
Why do we have to go TE. I think we need a running back more then a TE. Bradshaw is one break away from being done. Jacobs is gone or worse, not gone.

We need a new great back.

we should be able to get a solid rb in the 2nd, most mocks i've seen (reliable ones) have us getting the VT rb in round 2 or the Miami rb...the rb position has been devalued severely in the draft, as evident the recent draft trends for rb's

gmen46
03-09-2012, 03:29 AM
I would be shocked if we took a TE with our first round pick to play in an offense that doesn't use the TE much.* Makes no sense at all.</P>

Doesnt use a TE much? Theyve been forcing UDFA and 5th rounders into 600 yard 5+ TD guys. To me thats an awful lot of use conidering the talent they have at the position has been pretty poor.

I'm guessing he's referring to comparisons with the TE darling teams like Saints, Pats, Niners, and a handful of others, where over the past couple seasons the TE has been the leading receiver and/or TD maker.

Compared to those teams, we don't use the TE much.

And your point is an excellent reason why we'd be idiots to draft any TE in this class in the first round, even if it is at #32, and supports MS comment quite well.

But I'm also guessing you knew that as well.

well theres the other side to that argument. Fleener avg 20 ypr, scored 10 td's and is a huge redzone threat. he is also already an ample blocker with room to improve.

If we lose MM, having Fleener force the safeties playing their cover 2 deep shells (that NE played us and will no doubt be the base gameplan for opposing dc's next season) having a guy be able to come in and start right away and be very effective would solve that issue immediately. Plus, our system, the TE technically is a part of our OL and he would improve that.

Then you figure in if we re-sign a guy like Smith, and our receiving options become Nicks, Cruz, Smith and Fleener with Smith and Fleener working the middle of the field, that opens up the outside for Nicks and Cruz, would drafting Fleener be a huge disservice at that point?

I am open to drafting any position, as we are pretty much stacked from top to bottom on our roster (assuming we re-sign most of our own FA's) and TE is included in that especially since Bear Pascoe is the only healthy TE we'll have by week 7 if we're lucky as Beckum and Ballard will start the season on the PUP.

Fleener is a capable deep threat, seam guy, excellent route runner who can run double routes and get seperation at the top of his route, and a servicable blocker...I could actually list a bunch of picks that wouldnt be half as good as picking Fleener would be...we're picking at 32 don't forget that. would u rather reach on the 6th best dt/de of the draft, an OL who grades out to being an avg player if we're lucky, or getting the best TE in the draft with the potential to take our offense to even higher levels???

I am unable to debate the virtues of an individual player, because I admittedly don't follow college ball and I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the combine, the mock drafts. Because, unless one considers following all the pre draft stuff as a hobby--I don't--it's a huge waste of time. There are so many variables that it's impossible to guess with much accuracy, certainly beyond the first round, who our team will pick in the first.

So, I let Jerry do his job and read up on the players we ACTUALLY pick up. I couldn't care less who any other team picks.

However, I am going by those proven draft gurus like Mike Mayock in particular, who have said repeatedly that this is a very weak class for TEs and LBs. Meaning, he has little expectation that ANY TE will go in the first round this year.

As such, it is unlikely Reese will select a TE in the first round--and I'm talking ONLY first round.

Now if Fleener is considered by other teams --even just ONE other team -- in need of a TE to be the best TE in his class, what makes you think he will be available by pick 32?

As for your question concerning "reaching" for a different position--when has Reese ever "reached" in the first round? Of course I don't advocate reaching for any position.

My entire point is that we would not reach for a TE in the first.

giantsfan420
03-09-2012, 04:57 AM
I would be shocked if we took a TE with our first round pick to play in an offense that doesn't use the TE much.* Makes no sense at all.</P>

Doesnt use a TE much? Theyve been forcing UDFA and 5th rounders into 600 yard 5+ TD guys. To me thats an awful lot of use conidering the talent they have at the position has been pretty poor.

I'm guessing he's referring to comparisons with the TE darling teams like Saints, Pats, Niners, and a handful of others, where over the past couple seasons the TE has been the leading receiver and/or TD maker.

Compared to those teams, we don't use the TE much.

And your point is an excellent reason why we'd be idiots to draft any TE in this class in the first round, even if it is at #32, and supports MS comment quite well.

But I'm also guessing you knew that as well.

well theres the other side to that argument. Fleener avg 20 ypr, scored 10 td's and is a huge redzone threat. he is also already an ample blocker with room to improve.

If we lose MM, having Fleener force the safeties playing their cover 2 deep shells (that NE played us and will no doubt be the base gameplan for opposing dc's next season) having a guy be able to come in and start right away and be very effective would solve that issue immediately. Plus, our system, the TE technically is a part of our OL and he would improve that.

Then you figure in if we re-sign a guy like Smith, and our receiving options become Nicks, Cruz, Smith and Fleener with Smith and Fleener working the middle of the field, that opens up the outside for Nicks and Cruz, would drafting Fleener be a huge disservice at that point?

I am open to drafting any position, as we are pretty much stacked from top to bottom on our roster (assuming we re-sign most of our own FA's) and TE is included in that especially since Bear Pascoe is the only healthy TE we'll have by week 7 if we're lucky as Beckum and Ballard will start the season on the PUP.

Fleener is a capable deep threat, seam guy, excellent route runner who can run double routes and get seperation at the top of his route, and a servicable blocker...I could actually list a bunch of picks that wouldnt be half as good as picking Fleener would be...we're picking at 32 don't forget that. would u rather reach on the 6th best dt/de of the draft, an OL who grades out to being an avg player if we're lucky, or getting the best TE in the draft with the potential to take our offense to even higher levels???

I am unable to debate the virtues of an individual player, because I admittedly don't follow college ball and I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the combine, the mock drafts. Because, unless one considers following all the pre draft stuff as a hobby--I don't--it's a huge waste of time. There are so many variables that it's impossible to guess with much accuracy, certainly beyond the first round, who our team will pick in the first.

So, I let Jerry do his job and read up on the players we ACTUALLY pick up. I couldn't care less who any other team picks.

However, I am going by those proven draft gurus like Mike Mayock in particular, who have said repeatedly that this is a very weak class for TEs and LBs. Meaning, he has little expectation that ANY TE will go in the first round this year.

As such, it is unlikely Reese will select a TE in the first round--and I'm talking ONLY first round.

Now if Fleener is considered by other teams --even just ONE other team -- in need of a TE to be the best TE in his class, what makes you think he will be available by pick 32?

As for your question concerning "reaching" for a different position--when has Reese ever "reached" in the first round? Of course I don't advocate reaching for any position.

My entire point is that we would not reach for a TE in the first.

mayock has mocked fleener falling to us. and he's said its a weak te class bc it is but that doesnt mean fleener isnt a 1rst round talent. its a weak lb class but he has kuechley going in the top 15 picks...

my point about reaching for a player is that if fleener is the bpa at 32, just bc he's a te we should pick someone else? thats all i'm saying. i have no doubt reese will do whats best as u do. just saying fleener could very well be the best pick, i personally believe that to be true.

although, i could also see it playing out where fleener could be available but reese believes a guy like allen or theres another good te prospect we could get later and we address another position. wr could be the pick for all we know.

my post was directed at the mentality of "we wont draft fleener bc he's a te" thats all

rainierjef
03-09-2012, 05:18 AM
i think fleener is a better inline blocker than allen. i can care less about speed we don't needa speedster TE. fleener reminds me of a middle class jason witten. the fact that people on here think a TE is not necessary for the offense we run has not been watching 2011 giants football and need to wake the F up.

i think the problem is thae scouts and analyst want to see the next vernon davis combine performance, or the next jimmy graham / gonokowski which is why they say well the TE talent in this draft is not good. but Fleener to me is better suited for giants football, not a diva, can attack the middle showed he has the speed to out run safeties, can block very well, hes a traditional TE not these hybrid WR's with big bodies.

bLuereverie
03-09-2012, 08:44 AM
This whole notion of the Giants not using a TE is a myth.

Tightends don't lack production because they're not used much. They're not used much because Giants have never really had one capable consistently putting up the numbers. Not a shot at Boss or Ballard, but they are what they are.

Shockey was second in receptions for how many seasons under Eli/Gilbride combo?

nygsb42champs
03-09-2012, 08:59 AM
I am sure it will be BPA.

Kruunch
03-09-2012, 09:02 AM
Most mock drafts have Reese taking one of the 3 TE's - what's the consensus out there? Best player available or drafting a position of need this year?

Really depends who falls to us and how we have them rated.

There are about 15-20 locks in the first round this year and then it's a big free for all.

Poor draft class from a first round talent point of view ..... very rich further down (hopefully).

I'd guess TE or OT in the first.

buddy33
03-09-2012, 09:21 AM
I think Reese only picks a TE at 32 if he believes he is worth it and not because they lost a couple TE's due to injury.

He didn't panic last year when Boss left and I don't see him doing so this year. I could see him grabbing a lower priced FA and a late round draft pick.

If there was a CB, Safety, LB, OL, DT or even a DE rated higher than one of those TE's I believe he will draft one of them.

Redeyejedi
03-09-2012, 10:17 AM
I would be shocked if we took a TE with our first round pick to play in an offense that doesn't use the TE much.* Makes no sense at all.</P>

Doesnt use a TE much? Theyve been forcing UDFA and 5th rounders into 600 yard 5+ TD guys. To me thats an awful lot of use conidering the talent they have at the position has been pretty poor.Not only that but a guy Like Fleener is not just a TE. I hate hearing that. The guy averaged almost 20 YPC and scored 10 Touchdowns. He would give the Giants even more room in the Middle of the Field because teams will be worried about him down the seam. Ballards a nice player but he does not threaten the seam like a guy like Fleener does. Giants are losing Manningham another weapon is needed

RagTime Blue
03-09-2012, 10:20 AM
I think besides QB or Kicker any position is a possible first round pick.

Mohann
03-09-2012, 10:21 AM
When we pick we'll be looking at one of two scenarios.

1. multiple players with similar grades. If this happens we'll take the player from that group that best fills a need. (Nicks)

2. Someone we rated high slides and has a higher rating than everyone else that's left when we pick. We'll tale him. (Prince)

Of course you have to use your head too. If the player that slides is a QB, we may trade down if someone else wants him or pass on him if no one wants to trade.

Kruunch
03-09-2012, 10:22 AM
I would be shocked if we took a TE with our first round pick to play in an offense that doesn't use the TE much.* Makes no sense at all.</P>

Doesnt use a TE much? Theyve been forcing UDFA and 5th rounders into 600 yard 5+ TD guys. To me thats an awful lot of use conidering the talent they have at the position has been pretty poor.Not only that but a guy Like Fleener is not just a TE. I hate hearing that. The guy averaged almost 20 YPC and scored 10 Touchdowns. He would give the Giants even more room in the Middle of the Field because teams will be worried about him down the seam. Ballards a nice player but he does not threaten the seam like a guy like Fleener does. Giants are losing Manningham another weapon is needed

I agree.

Furthermore the Giants have been trying to get more work to the TEs over the past 5 years. The Beckum pick was part of that. Problem was, our TEs for as nice a surprise as the unknowns have been, have been consistant enough (this includes Beckum, Boss and Ballard). They're either dropping the ball or injured.

I think the Giants are looking for a genuine and consistant offensive threat from the TE position.

chasjay
03-09-2012, 10:45 AM
Based on the number of times targeted, I agree that TE is not a major part of our passing attack, but I do see it as a very important part. I haven't checked any stats to confirm any numbers, but it seems to me that most all of our TE receptions come on important plays - continuing drives by converting on 3rd down; breaking skinny posts or wheel routes for big gains; td's in the red zone, etc. I think we need a couple good ones, whether they take over a game like Jimmy Graham and Gronkowski or not.

JesseJames
03-09-2012, 11:41 AM
could it be that the reason we don't use the TE that much is because they aren't really that good at getting open. I know Ballard is doing a decent job but whether people want to admit it this is now a time when teams are using the TE a whole lot more in their offense, that is those that have one who can get open and catch the ball . As of right now we have Bear Pasco and after him we have 2 TEs on IR who have just had knee surgery and one more on the practice squad, that sounds to me like we definitely need to go after a starter at TE...

Kruunch
03-09-2012, 01:07 PM
could it be that the reason we don't use the TE that much is because they aren't really that good at getting open. I know Ballard is doing a decent job but whether people want to admit it this is now a time when teams are using the TE a whole lot more in their offense, that is those that have one who can get open and catch the ball . As of right now we have Bear Pasco and after him we have 2 TEs on IR who have just had knee surgery and one more on the practice squad, that sounds to me like we definitely need to go after a starter at TE...

Ding ding ding.

RoanokeFan
03-09-2012, 01:13 PM
Most mock drafts have Reese taking one of the 3 TE's - what's the consensus out there? Best player available or drafting a position of need this year?

They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. If there is a TE there who's near the top of their board, they'll take him. Having signed Ballard, I wonder if they will give Beckum an injury settlement? If they see Ballard as the future, they really may look for a "good" veteran TE for this season and bring Ballard back onto the field when he comes off PUP. That will give them time to evaluate Ballard's health and projected value moving forward.

chasjay
03-09-2012, 02:09 PM
I'm sure that FA Jacob Tamme must have been brought up in a thread or two that I missed. I know he's not going to take over a game, but I see him as a solid guy in a TE mix, if we're going to move on from one of the guys currently on the roster. Not suggesting that we'd sign him instead of drafting a promising young tight end.

PoloGroundsFan
03-09-2012, 02:11 PM
NO, NO to a TE in round1, none are worth it BPA, no question.

Kase-1
03-09-2012, 02:14 PM
I think we're going into the season with Pascoe as our starting TE until Ballard comes off of the PUP, but I really dont believe we're going TE in the 1st 2-3 rounds.

That being said, I think we're going after either one of the OT's or possibly a CB is one of the big prospects drops to us, like Prince last season.

...Then again, BPA is always a viable option