osi724dasack Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 :worshippy: LOVE NFL NETWORK :worshippy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. P Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 i dont get nfl network and would appreciate you letting us know what was said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osi724dasack Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 its listed on my guide but right now there just talking about T.O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osi724dasack Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 THEY SAID TEAM NEEDS ARE WR S OL LB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osi724dasack Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 SAYS THERE EYEING HAKEEM NICKS, OR JAMES LAURINITIS WITH THE #1 Says AP is slipping in his career. no shit NFL Network Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppodlesny Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Giants are going LB in round one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nas Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Giants are going LB in round one There's a strong possiblity you're right... a welcomed change if you ask me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppodlesny Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 There's a strong possiblity you're right... a welcomed change if you ask me I agree, I cant think of the last time the took a LB in round 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I agree, I cant think of the last time the took a LB in round 1 You know, I kind of think Laurinitis might be available at #45. I do not think that drafting a stud middle linebacker would be a bad idea, and just slotting him in the SAM for one year. However, I'd be more inclined to just get the best SAM available, as Pierce will still be the '09 middle linebacker, and we still have Chase Blackburn who I kind of like as a starting middle linebacker of the future. Does anyone else agree with me that Chase can step in and start at MLB in 2010? If that happens, just get the best SAM available at either 29 or 45. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppodlesny Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 You know, I kind of think Laurinitis might be available at #45. I do not think that drafting a stud middle linebacker would be a bad idea, and just slotting him in the SAM for one year. However, I'd be more inclined to just get the best SAM available, as Pierce will still be the '09 middle linebacker, and we still have Chase Blackburn who I kind of like as a starting middle linebacker of the future. Does anyone else agree with me that Chase can step in and start at MLB in 2010? If that happens, just get the best SAM available at either 29 or 45. I think Blackburn is a nice fill in type of guy, but he is not every week starter material...he will give you 100%, but he's not the guy you would build the LB corps around. I am feeling pretty confident that they might be trading up to get the best LB in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I think Blackburn is a nice fill in type of guy, but he is not every week starter material...he will give you 100%, but he's not the guy you would build the LB corps around. I am feeling pretty confident that they might be trading up to get the best LB in the draft. Well that would mean that they would have to trade up to #2, more than likely, because the best linebacker in the draft is Aaron Curry, and some experts say he is the best PLAYER in the draft, and will definitely be taken with the top 5 picks, probably in the top 3. But I don't see the Giants trading up into the top 10 because then you are talking major dollars that the Giants have already invested in free agency. I think they might trade up a few spots maybe as high as 18 or so, but I don't think any higher. A trade up in my estimation would not be a bad idea as long as they can fill LB AND WR with their first two picks... and they won't be able to do that, in my opinion, by trading up using #45 overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppodlesny Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Well that would mean that they would have to trade up to #2, more than likely, because the best linebacker in the draft is Aaron Curry, and some experts say he is the best PLAYER in the draft, and will definitely be taken with the top 5 picks, probably in the top 3. But I don't see the Giants trading up into the top 10 because then you are talking major dollars that the Giants have already invested in free agency. I think they might trade up a few spots maybe as high as 18 or so, but I don't think any higher. A trade up in my estimation would not be a bad idea as long as they can fill LB AND WR with their first two picks... and they won't be able to do that, in my opinion, by trading up using #45 overall. ok maybe not that far up....but at least 2nd or 3rd best LB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Well that would mean that they would have to trade up to #2, more than likely, because the best linebacker in the draft is Aaron Curry, and some experts say he is the best PLAYER in the draft, and will definitely be taken with the top 5 picks, probably in the top 3. But I don't see the Giants trading up into the top 10 because then you are talking major dollars that the Giants have already invested in free agency. I think they might trade up a few spots maybe as high as 18 or so, but I don't think any higher. A trade up in my estimation would not be a bad idea as long as they can fill LB AND WR with their first two picks... and they won't be able to do that, in my opinion, by trading up using #45 overall. Don't forget the Manning trade deal. It's not out of the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppodlesny Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Don't forget the Manning trade deal. It's not out of the question. I think EA's hairpiece was too tight that day....they could have traded down with the Browns that year at #7, taken Rivers, picked up an additional pick for the following year and still made that deal to get Eli without losing the 1st rounder the following season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I would like to see Rey Maualuga or Brian Cushing. I think we would have to trade up to get either. I know VG likes Clint Sintim a lot, and I wouldn't mind that pick, either, for the SAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Don't forget the Manning trade deal. It's not out of the question. Tree with that deal we only moved up 2 spots. I believe we were sitting at #3 overall. To go from 29 into the top 10 would take a lot of picks and major dollars to sign... I don't see how we would be able to pull it off financially. Maybe so, because I'm not an expert on the cap situation, but I saw something that seemed to suggest that after all the recent signings, the Giants cap space is very limited now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Tree with that deal we only moved up 2 spots. I believe we were sitting at #3 overall. To go from 29 into the top 10 would take a lot of picks and major dollars to sign... I don't see how we would be able to pull it off financially. Maybe so, because I'm not an expert on the cap situation, but I saw something that seemed to suggest that after all the recent signings, the Giants cap space is very limited now. Just for the record, we didn't move at all. We drafted Rivers at #4 and then traded Rivers some picks, (one being our 2005 #1) for Manning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Tree with that deal we only moved up 2 spots. I believe we were sitting at #3 overall. To go from 29 into the top 10 would take a lot of picks and major dollars to sign... I don't see how we would be able to pull it off financially. Maybe so, because I'm not an expert on the cap situation, but I saw something that seemed to suggest that after all the recent signings, the Giants cap space is very limited now. I'm just saying that big, unexpected draft-day deals are not out of the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socalscholar Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 So the experts on NFL network feel it is a 50/50 on WR or LB. Well, unless the Giants move way up, there is no value at LB at #29. The same cannot be said for WR. Heyward-Bey, Nicks, Britt, and Robisikie represent the second tier of WR after Crabtree and Maclin. None of those guys will be there by pick #45. The Giants will move up if necessary to get Nicks in the first and move up again to get the SAM in the early second, probably Sintim. The Giants would have to give their 1st and third to move up pick #22 or #23 according to the value chart. Then to move up in the Second, to pick #34, pick #45 plus our 4th and the 5th rounders. That would leave the Giants with pick #22 or #23, #34, #61, and the potential for a compesatory third on day 1. Day 2, would be whatever compensatory picks and our 6th & 7th rounders. That would leave the Giants with six picks two in the top 34 which would allow for impact players at the two greatest areas of need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 So the experts on NFL network feel it is a 50/50 on WR or LB. Well, unless the Giants move way up, there is no value at LB at #29. The same cannot be said for WR. Heyward-Bey, Nicks, Britt, and Robisikie represent the second tier of WR after Crabtree and Maclin. None of those guys will be there by pick #45. The Giants will move up if necessary to get Nicks in the first and move up again to get the SAM in the early second, probably Sintim. The Giants would have to give their 1st and third to move up pick #22 or #23 according to the value chart. Then to move up in the Second, to pick #34, pick #45 plus our 4th and the 5th rounders. That would leave the Giants with pick #22 or #23, #34, #61, and the potential for a compesatory third on day 1. Day 2, would be whatever compensatory picks and our 6th & 7th rounders. That would leave the Giants with six picks two in the top 34 which would allow for impact players at the two greatest areas of need. Sounds good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Sounds good to me. I like what they came up with. It also seemed to me that value at linebacker at #29 wouldn't be there, because Cushing, Maluauga, Curry, etc, will be gone. Other linebackers like Laurinitis and Sintim don't seem like first rounders. I have been leaning all along for WR in the first for this reason. If Cushing would be anywhere close to #29 that would change my thinking. But missing out on Britt and/or Nicks would be a travesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osi724dasack Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 You know, I kind of think Laurinitis might be available at #45. I do not think that drafting a stud middle linebacker would be a bad idea, and just slotting him in the SAM for one year. However, I'd be more inclined to just get the best SAM available, as Pierce will still be the '09 middle linebacker, and we still have Chase Blackburn who I kind of like as a starting middle linebacker of the future. Does anyone else agree with me that Chase can step in and start at MLB in 2010? If that happens, just get the best SAM available at either 29 or 45. No, Chase is a decent backup but nothing more. He is way to slow sideline to sideline and in space. Lacks ideal strength and has stayed on our roster due to his ST play, high motor, good character, and spelling Pierce. I beleive our future MLB is either Jonathan Goff (real high ceiling) or Bryan Kehl (can play all 3 LB spots in a 4-3) one thing people dont understand about Kehl is that he is really good in coverage. He is an ideal WILL, but has the smarts to me a MLB and has the size (6-3 245) to play SAM (however he needs to be more physical to be a good SAM) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socalscholar Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 This is why WR is the greater need and will be the first thing addressed come the draft. No, Chase is a decent backup but nothing more. He is way to slow sideline to sideline and in space. Lacks ideal strength and has stayed on our roster due to his ST play, high motor, good character, and spelling Pierce. I beleive our future MLB is either Jonathan Goff (real high ceiling) or Bryan Kehl (can play all 3 LB spots in a 4-3) one thing people dont understand about Kehl is that he is really good in coverage. He is an ideal WILL, but has the smarts to me a MLB and has the size (6-3 245) to play SAM (however he needs to be more physical to be a good SAM) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now