Coach Tuesday Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 http://www.nypost.com/sports/giants/63081.htm This article merely implies it, but I've heard it from a few different places (and remember thinking at the time when they traded down) that they were hoping to land McCargo at #32 to replace Clancy. Makes sense, they have a huge need at DT, and there was a clear dropoff at the position after McCargo went. Also is a good lesson about the risk of trading down - Levy and Co. are being blasted in the national media for staying at #8 to take the guy they wanted - look what happened to the Giants, who gambled and then panicked by taking Eric Flowers the Second (they partially made up for it by getting Sinorice Moss though).
Recommended Posts