+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: TE or BPA at 32?

  1. #11
    All-Pro slipknottin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    35,201

    Re: TE or BPA at 32?

    [quote user="Morehead State"]


    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.

    [/quote]

    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.

  2. #12
    Veteran myles2424's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    4,405

    Re: TE or BPA at 32?

    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...

  3. #13
    All-Pro gmen46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    5,802

    Re: TE or BPA at 32?

    [quote user="slipknottin"][quote user="Morehead State"]


    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.

    [/quote]

    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.[/quote]

    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.

  4. #14

    Re: TE or BPA at 32?

    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.

  5. #15

    Re: TE or BPA at 32?

    [quote user="gmen46"][quote user="slipknottin"][quote user="Morehead State"]


    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.

    [/quote]

    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.[/quote]

    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.[/quote]

    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???

  6. #16

    Re: TE or BPA at 32?

    [quote user="Aperspective"]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.[/quote]

    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

  7. #17
    All-Pro gmen46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    5,802

    Re: TE or BPA at 32?

    [quote user="giantsfan420"][quote user="gmen46"][quote user="slipknottin"][quote user="Morehead State"]


    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.

    [/quote]

    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.[/quote]

    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.[/quote]

    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???[/quote]

    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.

  8. #18

    Re: TE or BPA at 32?

    [quote user="gmen46"][quote user="giantsfan420"][quote user="gmen46"][quote user="slipknottin"][quote user="Morehead State"]


    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.

    [/quote]

    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.[/quote]

    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.[/quote]

    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???[/quote]

    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.[/quote]

    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

  9. #19
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Lakenheath AFB England
    Posts
    3,606

    Re: TE or BPA at 32?

    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.

    Retweeted by Rueben Randle
    @Katdaddyjay 17h
    @RuebenRandle @OBJ_3 @Giants
    http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g1...ps625a51fb.jpg

  10. #20

    Re: TE or BPA at 32?

    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?

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts