FYI: Kiper on the Giants draft

[parlintm]

I'm amazed I have to convince of our need at Left Tackle. For as much as you're emphasized finding Toomer's replacement as a reason to go wide receiver I'd think you'd see this logic. Luke costs us a LOT more to retain next season than Toomer. There is NO possible replacement for Luke on our current roster. Toomer still could be replaced by Carter or Taylor, assuming those guys can step up their game. Thus we have a greater need at Left Tackle than we do WR.

 

And this draft is much deeper at Offensive Tackle than it is at Wide Receiver.

 

Understand that I'm not lobbying for us to get tunnel vision for an OT in the first round. But if we're listing possible draft options, I don't see how this can be ignored.

 

You don't need to convince me of our need at LT, I agree completely. Unfortunately we've got an average player with a pro-bowl salary. He's signed through the next 3 season ($4.5, 5, 5). As you've mentioned, we don't have a legitimate replacement for him. So what are our options? Draft and FA. Signing a quality LT is expensive and so if we're going for value, as you've hinted at, we need to turn to the draft. Lets say we use our first pick on an OT, Marucs Mcneill to put a name on it. So this year he is going to sit on our bench and not play too much. He'll get very little playing time. He'll get a chance to play if/when Luke's back flares up and he has to sit for a game. Mcneill would be Whitfield's backup then.

 

So look ahead to next offseason. We have Luke, still w/ a high salary and an unproven second year player behind him. We should be VERY good by then, given developments of Osi, Gibril, Tuck, Webster and this years draft picks. So we won't be in a rebuilding stage so cutting Luke in favor of an unproven youngster would be a stupid idea. The point is, I dont think we'll be able to cut Luke next year either, even if we use the 25th pick on a LT. For that reason, Id rather use a pick in rounds 2-5 on a guy that we think we can develop to replace Luke after 2 seasons. That way, we can also get better value out of this years first round pick and address needs that we have this year.

[HOUND]

If we draft a first day OT with the mindset that he'll replace Luke, then chances are Whitfield doesn't make the final roster this season.

 

When Luke misses a game or two with back spasms the kid gets valuable playing time. Then we make the decision on whether or not to cut Luke next offseason. Personally, if we find a guy who can man the spot I think we HAVE to cut Luke. If you feel there's no way we can go into next season with an inexperienced guy at Left Tackle then you alos have to likely assume that we won't be able to address needs via free agency thanks to the heavy cap hit we take on LP.

 

It's really two different schools of thought. Mine is that we should get a potential Tackle candidate, assuming proper value is there on the first day of the draft. We cut Luke next offseason or ask him to take a heavy paycut. This still allows us to address needs in free agency.

 

The other school of thought is to hold off on addressing LT for at least another year. Cut Petitgout then and spend the money in free agency on a starting grade LT. This is an awfully big gamble as the past few seasons have shown quality Tackles are VERY expensive. Given the contract interior linemen like Steve Hutchinson signed this year you can bet we'd pay thorugh the nose if we go that route. If you elect not to cut Luke you then swallow his cap hit and basically sign nobody in the offseason.

 

Keep in mind Luke's back has cost him games each of the past three seasons. Many would argue he isn't even an elite tackle. That being said, waiting until we're in a bind to replace him makes no sense to me. The writing is on the wall that Petitgout's best play is behind him. Look no further than last year's Cowboys to see how the loss of a Left Tackle will derail an offense.

 

I think this is a much greater need than many realize. I'd still rather adreess linebacker with the first pick but if the value is better at OT than it's a good move. FWIW, I definitely think Marcus McNeil could start on the left side by next season.

[parlintm]

If we draft a first day OT with the mindset that he'll replace Luke, then chances are Whitfield doesn't make the final roster this season.

 

When Luke misses a game or two with back spasms the kid gets valuable playing time. Then we make the decision on whether or not to cut Luke next offseason. Personally, if we find a guy who can man the spot I think we HAVE to cut Luke. If you feel there's no way we can go into next season with an inexperienced guy at Left Tackle then you alos have to likely assume that we won't be able to address needs via free agency thanks to the heavy cap hit we take on LP.

 

It's really two different schools of thought. Mine is that we should get a potential Tackle candidate, assuming proper value is there on the first day of the draft. We cut Luke next offseason or ask him to take a heavy paycut. This still allows us to address needs in free agency.

 

The other school of thought is to hold off on addressing LT for at least another year. Cut Petitgout then and spend the money in free agency on a starting grade LT. This is an awfully big gamble as the past few seasons have shown quality Tackles are VERY expensive. Given the contract interior linemen like Steve Hutchinson signed this year you can bet we'd pay thorugh the nose if we go that route. If you elect not to cut Luke you then swallow his cap hit and basically sign nobody in the offseason.

 

Keep in mind Luke's back has cost him games each of the past three seasons. Many would argue he isn't even an elite tackle. That being said, waiting until we're in a bind to replace him makes no sense to me. The writing is on the wall that Petitgout's best play is behind him. Look no further than last year's Cowboys to see how the loss of a Left Tackle will derail an offense.

 

I think this is a much greater need than many realize. I'd still rather adreess linebacker with the first pick but if the value is better at OT than it's a good move. FWIW, I definitely think Marcus McNeil could start on the left side by next season.

 

A couple of things:

1) If we draft a LT, Mcneill type, Id still like to see us keep Whitfield. If Luke were to get injured this season, Id like to know that we had a veteran to step in and take his place. We have a tough schedule and to ask a rookie to take on some of the DE's we play against is asking a lot.

2) There's no way that you can predict whether or not an OT will be able to start after a year. Just look back to the draft 2 years ago, when people wanted us to take Gallery with the 4th pick. He was considered an absolute stud and a lock to be great. Now hes playing RT for the Raiders and struggling mightily there. OT is just one of the hardest, if not the hardest, position to gauge how the player will turn out in the NFL. So anybody taken at 25 is not a sure thing. I know you can say that nobody is, but I think the chances of someone like Demeco Ryans being a bust are much slimmer than someone like McNeill.

3) Luke really isnt TOO terrible. He's a great run blocker and a decent pass blocker. His problems lie in the false starts that he commits. If he can get those under control hes a decent player. If he can cut down on the penalties, hed actually be close to his market value. Starting LT's are rare in the NFL so they are expensive. As you pointed out, just check out some of the salaries lately being paid to offensive linemen.

 

So yes, we need a backup... badly. I just think we can afford to wait until the mid rounds... 3rd or 4th seem about right, before we try to find a player that has the potential to be a starting LT for us a few years down the road.