gmenroc

I like it, though I would change our pick to the RB...I'm falling away from Fleener more and more the closer we get to the draft.

I originally liked Jarius Wright in the mid rounds for WR... As for OLine, I would agree 100% that we need to address depth with this draft. If we can bring in one or two guys this offseason, that can be 5-10 year guys on the OLine, I'd call this draft a huge success. As good as Eli is, I'd like for him to (1) be kept as upright as possible and (2) open the running game back up a little bit to get a bit more balance on offense to keep defenses guessing. An OT in the first or 2nd and possibly a second OT in the 6th or 7th would be nice. I think with Petrus and Booth, Snee and Diehl...we're good at OG for some time, depthwise anyhow.

Good points about their QB situation. I had forgotten about Kaepernick. I still think that their WRs don't need as much help as perhaps some other areas. Fleener is an interesting projection here too. But we're in agreement that it's the offense they should be upgrading.

I think the Cowboys offseason was better than some may think...making quiet moves to build their team...much in the way the Giants have been doing for years. But it's the Redskins that seem to be the dark horse per se. They beat us twice last year and are primed to get their franchise QB. They have a decent running game and their defense isn't bad. They'll obviously go as far as Griffen takes them, but should he pan out...the Redskins could be a team to watch out for. My gut says that they'll not make the playoffs this year, but finish in the middle of the pack and make the playoffs handedly in 2013 The Giants though, are in their prime. They have as much of a chance as the other 3 teams.

I like it, but I think there needs to be a WR in there somewhere. Perhaps in place of the Washington OG? Egnew is a very interesting prospect that I like should the Giants not get Fleener in the first. I think in a year or two, you might not notice the difference between he and Fleener. No pass rushers until the 7th....shame on you.

Thank you....obviously sheer stupidity and thoughtlessness irritate the bejeezus out of me.

All that said, if he's there in the 2nd, we should pull the trigger. I'm backing off of him too now in the first.

I can explain, at least in some circumstances. When these kids are 4 or 5, and are blowing guys off the ball because they're 3 times the size of everyone else, and are praised for it...when their parents lie about their weight, to squeak them into the younger group of kids...when they're praised from such an impressionable age that they feel they can do no wrong...when they reach high school and are asked to play both offense and defense and are praised now in the papers and even on ESPN...when they are treated differently in the classroom because they are an exceptional athlete...when they're granted a free college education, that they willingly pass up taking less demanding courses...when they are put on an even higher pedestal and are projected to be a first round draft pick... Their entire lives, they're groomed/parented/coached/trained that they're bigger/better than everyone else. They're to be treated differently. A different set of rules apply to them, or so they believe. Now, if you ask the random NFL player, I doubt they'd admit that flat out...but on a subconscious, not-thinking-about-the-consequences-of-your-actions kind of way...it shows in their behavior. It could be expanded to the guys who go broke 2 years after they get done playing out their multi-million dollar contracts. They're living for the moment, they're living for the next round of praise. They're NOT prepared to live life. These are generalizations and certainly don't apply to every player, but it's not too difficult to understand why guys think it's okay to smoke pot before the biggest (and sometimes only) job audition of their life, knowing full well that audition includes a drug screening. They've rarely faced consequences in the past and if they have, they still haven't learned from them.

Bigblue -- same thing I mentioned to Jim about Hightower...don't see him getting past the Steelers if he's there. Jim brought up a good point about Chandler Jones...he's moving up draft boards and he was already a first rounder. Also, with the 49ers bringing in Manningham too, I don't see them going WR in the first. They could go OLine, backup QB, or DB. Crabtree, Manningham, and Moss...pretty good 3 WR set as it is..

Well, I wasn't going to pick that one apart, but if the Giants pick a WR in the first, I'll be very, very shocked...especially if the Richardson is the only RB taken and if Mike Adams is still available. Massie, I feel, would be a huge reach with the first.

I think it's all pretty reasonable, except that there needs to be some explanation as to why Miami wouldn't take Tannehill. Top 7, I agree with wholeheartedly...unless you want Cox or Poe for Jacksonville...either way Jacksonville addresses DLine. I think you might have Keuchly a bit low and DeCastro a bit high, but certainly not by much and certainly not to the realms of unquestionable. And if Poe is still around when the Steelers pick, I think he's the guy, but I don't know that he'll be there. If he's not, I can't see an organization that prides itself on its linebackers passing on Hightower. Aside from that, it's a nicely put together mock.

It seems it's all about the timing. Show the guy right after he was selected, but not before. Really, I like seeing their reactions too, but like the surprise/anticipation on each pick. I'm hoping that nobody is so eager to see who's selected to be plugged into twitter/all 3 draft coverages/internet all at the same time in order to get the announcement 3 seconds before everyone else.

For the same reasons we have, at times, used Tuck, Osi, and JPP all on the field at the same time. Tuck would drop down to DT with Osi and JPP on the outside. We'd do the same with Tuck, Kiwi, and JPP. Then, when we move Tuck back to DE, we could drop Kiwi back to LB. Kiwi would not start at DE, but would be part of the rotation in the same role as Osi is now. But given Kiwi's talent, the rotation would be from DE to LB...not DE to sideline.

The short turnaround is a concern, but I'm much happier having Carolina after that short time than having say, a division rival, Green Bay, the Saints, or another annually dominant team.

Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles...would all be favored, and rightfully so, in games over Bills, Dolphins, Jets. In comparing the Patriots to the Giants, these 6 games would account for 37.5% of the schedule. That alone makes up a lot of the OVERALL difference in strength of schedule every year.

Certainly seems that way, doesn't it...though it's on a rotational basis. Hell, I'd take the AFC East too, with Buffalo, NY Jets, and Miami. It's somewhat relative though, because our division opponents get the same deal.

It was Carolina that we opened the new stadium against, wasn't it? First half was fairly close and we pretty much dominated the second half. Moore threw 3 picks that game and finished with a sub-40 QB rating. I had to look a little of that up, but I really think that we've improved since then and that despite Cam Newton, Carolina hasn't gotten that much better as their defense and running backs have fallen off a bit.

Cam played well last season, there's no doubt, but I don't think he's the second coming that many are making him out to be. He's certainly not Tom Brady and the Panthers are certainly not the Patriots...and we beat the Pats twice last year. I think we can beat Carolina definitively, but we'll make it close, just because the Giants always seem to go that route. Schedule is tough, but it's doable. I'm not so confident to say we'll repeat, but I think the Giants, as manned right now, is a playoff contender. We should definitely come out with an above .500 record and if some of our wins are against division rivals, that could win the division for us.

I like the fact that we'll have some extra time to prepare for the Eagles the first time we play them and some extra time to prepare for/get healthy for the Packers when we play them. Looking at this, I think 8-2 is definitely possible pre-bye, but probably more likely 7-3. Post bye, I think we could go 3-3, maybe 4-2. I think 9 or 10 wins is definitely doable and we're certainly capable of winning the division.

1...this is the optional part of the offseason. There are lots of players not showing up leaguewide. It's nothing to get your panties ruffled for just yet. 2...Osi is an important part of our defense and his production, albeit in a shortened season for him, was pretty damn impressive. I'd like him to be re-signed too, but not anywhere remotely close to what Mario Williams got...and I don't see the league paying Osi that kind of money due to his lack of run support and his one-trick speed rush (though he gets an awful lot out of that one trick). So, what do we do. We have two options. Honestly, I'd be fine with either. Let him play out his contract this year, happy or not, knowing full well that if he fakes an injury, doesn't play well, or generally works the press as a malcontent...he's only hurting his teammates and is own value for next year. Despite wanting to be paid, I still think Osi is a good teammate. Trade him now. If we were to score a guy like Chandler Jones in the first round, I think this becomes more of an option than it is now. We lost Tollefson and didn't really fill the spot. So trading Osi out, even if we moved Kiwi back to DE, would put a hurting to the strength of our defense. If we get Jones, or someone of that calibur, then Osi becomes expendable at the right price, which the Giants should set at a high level and from which they shouldn't budge, knowing full well they could revert back to #1 above. But again, none of this is an issue until he starts skipping training camp.

I had Fleener, TE in the first; Massie, OT in the second; and Pierce, RB in the third. Could still be the way to go, but again, I'd be okay with moving RB up in draft priority. The problem with moving RB up to round 2, is that I really don't see too much difference between the RBs that'd be available at the end of Round 2 and the RBs available at the end of round 3. Sure there are differences, otherwise they wouldn't be ranked as such, but those differences seem to be minimal. So in round 2, you'd be sacrificing a significant amount of value for minimal difference in talent. That's kinda my take, which is why I think that if we go RB in the first 3 rounds, it'll be the 1st or 3rd round pick that we'd use. As for OT, I think we have some time to groom one, and it'd be more for depth purposes this year, as opposed to the RB who might actually see some carries given Jacob's leaving and not being replaced. So, I'd be okay moving OT to round 1 or 3 (from round 2 where I have it), but that begs the question, what do you take with the 2nd pick? So I move OT to round 1, and then have RB in round 3...what do you do with that 2nd pick? I honestly don't know about TE at the end of the 2nd round. I didn't go quite that far. If we go DE/DT in round 1, OT in round 2, RB in round 3, and TE in round 4...that could be interesting too. I think there are some interesting TE projects in the mid rounds, but they'll seemingly need time to develop. If the Giants think they can get the TE up to speed to start a year from now...I would be fine taking said project in the 4th or 5th. Because really, we don't need a TE to start until next year when Ballard and Bennett are both UFAs.

I don't know about that....I've walked on the field at Giants Stadium and it was all but spongy. When they have the field turf, with the rubber bits under it, it seemed far more giving than grass...especially after that grass/ground started getting cold in November/December. I agree that a lot of the concussions happen when the head hits the ground or when someone catches a random knee in their earhole.

Like I said, I think the injury settlement/end of old deal went hand in hand with the new deal the Giants gave him. Regardless, we got the better end of the deal as it's high potential, low risk

The Locklear signing made it significantly less necessary, I'll give you that. I haven't re-mocked my original from a month ago, perhaps tonight, but I had TE in round 1, OT in round 2, and RB in round 3. I wouldn't mind sticking to that, but with the signing of Locklear, I could stand to move RB up to round 2 and OT back to 3rd round. The argument for TE was lessened, to a lesser extent, by the signing of Bennett. That said, Bennett and Ballard are FA after 2012. Drafting the TE now, would create flexibility next year, and any production we got from the rookie, would be bonus. The same thought could give us DE Chandler Jones too in the first with Osi's potential departure/eventual free agency coupled with Tollefson's leaving. I guess what we can all take away from the process is that the Giants are able to draft in such a way that they're drafting in preparation of what contracts are up on the current team and at the same time, reaping benefits from the players in the interim.

I believe the renogiation was a condition of the trade. One went with the other. Had he not regotiated, we'd not have have traded and he'd have stayed with the Bengals. That's how I read it anyhow, given the last sentence of the article