Jump to content

Giant Tidbits: Random team discussion & rumors


y*so*blu
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Go_Giants said:

Can also throw in the Browns.

I just don't get strategy of some others here. Draft random QB, pray he becomes the next Aaron Rodgers or Russell Wilson. Wait 4 years to see if the prays are answered. Most the times the prays are not answer, so rinse and repeat this failed strategy.

Or

Build your team up  and get a solid QB  like a Romo, Matt Schaub or Drew Blesdsoe so it can win now and make the playoffs. Use the process to hit on a true Franchise QB and have a team that can now expect to win and advance in the playoffs.

I have no idea why anyone would support the first draft strategy over the second when the second is far more successful.

Dude how are you still not getting this lmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, minutemancl said:

Dude how are you still not getting this lmao

Yea I don't know. He's all over the place. He cited Romo, Schaub, and Bledsoe to "win now" and "advance in the playoffs"

Schaub- 16 season...2 playoff starts (1-1 record)
Romo- 12 seasons 6 playoff starts ( 2-4 record...)
Bledsoe- 13 seasons 6 playoff starts (3-3 record)

Not to mention Bledsoe was a #1 overall pick, Romo was undrafted, Schaub was a 3rd rounder.

Like what is the connection here? Did you just throw out 3 random names that popped in your head?

There is multiple ways to get a franchise QB... keep drafting them til you hit on one, sign one in free agency and pay the going rate for an elite level FA, or trade the farm for one... this is a team that is already facing cap hell with a QB on his rookie contract. They have draft equity but cannot afford the cap hit. The only viable option is to keep drafting til you have your guy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Go_Giants said:

As long as the next GM will apply logic, and not go by the strategy, you, Gettleman and Jets want to use, I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

Two indisputable facts:

1. Finding a franchise altering QB is difficult because those types of players are rare and the draft is ultimately unpredictable, no matter how well of a handle you think you have on it.

2. Improving at the QB position is the fastest, most effective way at improving your team as the QB is the most important position on the team.

However, every counter argument you've offered has come along with some form of "draft a franchise QB", which is in direct contrast with point #1. If obtaining a franchise QB was as easy as waiting until a great QB prospect shows up and either straight up drafting him early with your pick or trading up to draft him early, eventually everyone would have one. But guys bust, even can't-miss QB prospects. There is no way to know how they will turn out. So my take, the strategy of many successful NFL teams, is to 'use logic' and take a QB that you have determined has franchise QB potential until you have a franchise QB.

There is bust potential for any player you take in the draft. A good draft class has 3 players that get 2nd contracts with your team. I'd rather use some of my chances (draft picks) on hitting big on a QB that I like than maybe hitting on another position that is not as important.

And please don't conflate that with me saying I want a QB at every draft pick we have. You need 45 guys that can legitimately play on your roster, and god knows the Giants have a ton of other needs. And obviously, you need to hit on players at those other positions as well to build a good team; that goes without saying. But we should be taking a big swing at a QB in this draft, in my opinion as I like a few of them, because we are in the position to do so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Shockwave said:

Like what is the connection here? Did you just throw out 3 random names that popped in your head?

Would think the the connection is easy. Bet sense you asked I will tell you, all those teams were ready to win.  Schuab was to be the Seahawks and was paid a good contract, he never got a start with the Seahawks cause Russel was better,  the Seahawks were ready to win Schuab, the original plan was not that Russel was going to save the franchise, if it was they never would have signed Schuab.

 The Cowboys built the team up through their offensive line and had a solid QB, the plan was not Dak is going to save them.

Same thing with the Patriots. Each of these team felt they were built up to be able to win. All of them in the later rounds got a QB that was better. There is no reason why the Giants shouldn't do this.

We are not built up to win as we are not but we can be. There is nothing wrong with building up this team so it can win with DJ or bring in a veteran QB to win with while putting ourselves in the position to get the next franchise QB and given him a good team win with, like Dak, Russel and Brady. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, minutemancl said:

2. Improving at the QB position is the fastest, most effective way at improving your team as the QB is the most important position on the team.

However, every counter argument you've offered has come along with some form of "draft a franchise QB", which is in direct contrast with point #1.

I'll try this one last time, so if you don't mind do answer the question the quetsion I am going to ask at the very end. I don't have many problems with taking a swing on a QB. One of the problems I do have is taking a swing on a QB with a bad team.  Lets just say your swing hits and you get a good QB, a Matthew Stafford. This team like with the Lions is not going to be able to do anything with him. It is going to take an elite QB to improve this team. Stafford is very good, Rodgers, Wilson, Herbert they are elite. The odds of taking a swing and hitting on a QB off Stafford level is very low. Just taking a swing with the hope of getting Rodgers, Wilson or Herbert is far far lower. 

I think the solution is pretty simple, build the team up then take your swings. You could miss and draft a Mitch, this does not stop you from drafting a Fields later. Or we can do what the Rams and Bucs have done after they realized their #1 QB picks are not working out. Have a good team and bring in a good QB to win now with. 

If your answer is not taking a swing at a QB and hope to draft the next Rodgers, Herbert of Wilson. Tell me what will make us different from having the same success as the Lions have had with Stafford, if we get just a very good QB instead of an elite QB with that swing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Go_Giants said:

I'll try this one last time, so if you don't mind do answer the question the quetsion I am going to ask at the very end.

If your answer is not taking a swing at a QB and hope to draft the next Rodgers, Herbert of Wilson. Tell me what will make us different from having the same success as the Lions have had with Stafford, if we get just a very good QB instead of an elite QB with that swing.

Is this the question? I cannot understand what you're asking me. I think you're asking "What would be the difference between us and the Stafford led Lions if we draft a good QB instead of an elite QB?". Is that right? I'm assuming you think Stafford is just good and not elite, and you are implying the Stafford led Lions were a rudderless team that was ultimately always bad, but kept afloat by Stafford to an extent. Again, assuming; feel free to correct me because I'm just trying my best to parse that.

The answer is... the rest of the team. The Lions could not draft well and never added sufficient talent to the team around Stafford. You have to hope the Giants can do that... just like every other team hopes they can do every year in the draft. I'm not sure what either of those things have to do with one another. You have a goal of drafting good players at every position in the draft. Using 1 on a QB doesn't mean you throw away all the others. And if we somehow land a good QB but can't draft well for any other position, then we'd just be bad, but better than we would be if we didn't draft that good QB. If we used that pick on any other position, we'd ultimately be way worse, as no other position has that same importance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're also making assumptions, similar to how you cannot grasp point #1, that you can just "draft a good team". That's hard to do too. Guys at positions other than QB bust too, so you will have busts in every draft. It's not as easy as just "draft every other position than QB and in X years you'll have a good team and you can then draft a QB". Why not also draft a QB during those X years to evaluate guys as you go? You're skipping X years of competition and evaluation for no reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Go_Giants said:

Would think the the connection is easy. Bet sense you asked I will tell you, all those teams were ready to win.  Schuab was to be the Seahawks and was paid a good contract, he never got a start with the Seahawks cause Russel was better,  the Seahawks were ready to win Schuab, the original plan was not that Russel was going to save the franchise, if it was they never would have signed Schuab.

Matt Schaub never played for the Seahawks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Go_Giants said:

There is nothing wrong with building up this team so it can win with DJ or bring in a veteran QB to win with while putting ourselves in the position to get the next franchise QB and given him a good team win with, like Dak, Russel and Brady. 

The Cowboys were 4-12 the year before they drafted Dak. They finished with 11 wins with him in his rookie year. 

The Seahawks were 7-9 the 2 prior seasons to Wilson getting there. He led them to 11 wins and a playoff berth.

The Patriots finished 4th in the AFC East in '98, 4th in '99, and 5th in '00 (5-11 record), the year they drafted Brady and the year before he was forced into a starting role, where he led them to their first Super Bowl.

None of what you said tracks. In each of those 3 cases, the QB elevated the team tremendously.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, minutemancl said:

s this the question? I cannot understand what you're asking me. I think you're asking "What would be the difference between us and the Stafford led Lions if we draft a good QB instead of an elite QB?". Is that right? I'm assuming you think Stafford is just good and not elite, and you are implying the Stafford led Lions were a rudderless team that was ultimately always bad, but kept afloat by Stafford to an extent. Again, assuming; feel free to correct me because I'm just trying my best to parse that.

I consider Stafford a top 10 QB. For me elite is top 5. My 5 are Brady, Rodgers and because of their youth arm talent and running ability, Holmes, Hebert and Allen. 

While Stafford is very good, I don't think he would elevate the Giants as they are now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need to stretch the truth here.

8 minutes ago, minutemancl said:

The Cowboys were 4-12 the year before they drafted Dak. They finished with 11 wins with him in his rookie year. 

They went 4-12 because Romo broke his collar bone and missed a ton of games. The year before with Romo they were 12-4

15 minutes ago, minutemancl said:

The Seahawks were 7-9 the 2 prior seasons to Wilson getting there. He led them to 11 wins and a playoff berth.

You are not including that in one of those 2 prior seasons, they made the playoffs and advanced in it.

23 minutes ago, minutemancl said:

The Patriots finished 4th in the AFC East in '98, 4th in '99, and 5th in '00 (5-11 record), the year they drafted Brady and the year before he was forced into a starting role, where he led them to their first Super Bowl.

You do remember that Brady got injured in the first half of playoff game and Bledsoe was able to lead the Patriots the playoff victory. Let also look Tom's first start. Bledsoe gets hurt the Pats lose to the Jets 10-3, next game they blow out the Colts 44-13. You are going to put all of the 34 point difference just on Brady? Was he throwing multiple touchdown passes to himself while all his team mates watched? O

 

31 minutes ago, minutemancl said:

None of what you said tracks. In each of those 3 cases, the QB elevated the team tremendously.

Just about everything tracks, those teams were good or going to be good. Yes the QB brought them to another level to be great (or very good in the Cowboys case).  Which is the point I have been trying to make, lets build ourselves up so a QB can take this team to the next level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Seahawks already had a foundation which was elite defense that was getting better each year. Russell Wilson was an upgrade on what they had but at that stage the success of that team was built on their defense.

Cowboys because they built their foundation (their line), allowing them to draft Dak. If we drafted Dak under our current circumstances he would’ve been a failure. No question. 
 

We have no foundation. There is no problem drafting a QB if hes actually good and worthy enough and if the foundations are in place that will put him in a much better place to succeed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...