Jump to content

Trade Deadline Discussion


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

On 10/24/2022 at 5:10 PM, Forge said:

We haven't mentioned it a lot, but I kind of hope that the Giants get in there now and make a move. They obviously have a clear need in the receiving game. Trade a 6th for Albert 0 from Denver, maybe see if you can get a Nelson Algholor or Kendrick Bourne for a day 3 pick or something. 

This is kind of the conundrum though: The already declined Daniel Jones' 5th year option.  So do they really want to put themselves in a position where they're strong-arming themselves into either tagging Jones or giving him a fat extension (that, let's be real, he doesn't deserve) because he's the only (homely looking) belle left at the ball?  The free agent route isn't fantastic (and it's burned them once already - Kenny G) but they may view their options at actually nailing down a real franchise QB as sitting on their premium picks right now and hoping that an upside (if maybe a little raw) QB prospect falls in the 1st and going up to get him (a la KC with Mahomes).  Now I don't think they'd be going after Brady (I wouldn't rule it out, but just doesn't strike me as Daboll's style), but someone the like of Geno, Jimmy, or Andy Dalton could be a place-warmer in that offense and system while Daboll grooms his guy.  So if they're trading for any WR this deadline - with the assumption it's someone they'll look to have as "training wheels" for a young QB, and then could be had for a Day 3 pick (though that will typically mean taking on either a 1-year rental - not ideal for them - or a pricey 2023 salary - again not ideal, but workable) that does limit the pool of options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Forge said:

There was a report that they turned down two 1sts, so a first and a second is probably right unless they just aren't moving him

I think they stubbornly just don't want to move him.  And, if they've gotten assurances from him that he'll extend next offseason, then I don't blame them.  That said, if they haven't gotten said assurances and are just assuming he'll re-sign (he's on his 5YO next year), this could blow up in their face quickly because he's now seen them burn picks over and over again trying to address the QB position and whiff over and over again.  If they don't show signs of an early homerun on an early QB selection next year, I don't know that Burns is going to have a ton of motivation to re-up; he knows he plays a premium position that's going to get him a fat payday wherever he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Dr LBC said:

This is kind of the conundrum though: The already declined Daniel Jones' 5th year option.  So do they really want to put themselves in a position where they're strong-arming themselves into either tagging Jones or giving him a fat extension (that, let's be real, he doesn't deserve) because he's the only (homely looking) belle left at the ball?  The free agent route isn't fantastic (and it's burned them once already - Kenny G) but they may view their options at actually nailing down a real franchise QB as sitting on their premium picks right now and hoping that an upside (if maybe a little raw) QB prospect falls in the 1st and going up to get him (a la KC with Mahomes).  Now I don't think they'd be going after Brady (I wouldn't rule it out, but just doesn't strike me as Daboll's style), but someone the like of Geno, Jimmy, or Andy Dalton could be a place-warmer in that offense and system while Daboll grooms his guy.  So if they're trading for any WR this deadline - with the assumption it's someone they'll look to have as "training wheels" for a young QB, and then could be had for a Day 3 pick (though that will typically mean taking on either a 1-year rental - not ideal for them - or a pricey 2023 salary - again not ideal, but workable) that does limit the pool of options.

Personally, I think Daniel Jones is back unless he bottoms out rest of season. I think they'll transition tag him or give him the Winston deal where they can get out of it after one year. 

But I think it's good for fans and good for the team just to see the team be in that position

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Forge said:

Personally, I think Daniel Jones is back unless he bottoms out rest of season. I think they'll transition tag him or give him the Winston deal where they can get out of it after one year. 

But I think it's good for fans and good for the team just to see the team be in that position

Franchise tag Barkley, transition tag Jones is where I'm at right now. 

If the Giants end up with a mid-late first round pick, which seems most likely right now, I'd want Anthony Richardson there. 

You're absolutely right though, and even Joe Schoen said it in the preseason- if we are worried about keeping these guys because they are playing well at the end of the season, that's a good problem to have. There are lots of tools teams are given to keep players against their wills if they so choose. 

The crazy result would be if the Giants finish strong, make the playoffs, maybe even win a game, and Schoen moves on from both Barkley and Jones, who are carrying the offense. 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...