Andrew Norwell to giants considered a DONE DEAL?

[celestial]

2 minutes ago, w4rrior723 said:

Still didn't answer my question about how you count your stats...

And once again, Eli has had a much better and longer peak than Cutler. Eli has 3 seasons with 90qbr/4000yards/25TD. Cutler has 0. Cutler doesn't even have a single season with 30 TDs! And only one season with 4k yards! They may have similar career averages. But once again, that can be diluted by other factors. Their peaks are NOT EVEN CLOSE... Math is undefeated bruh.

Eli also has far more career turnovers than Cutler, which counteracts Eli's TDs, and speaks more to Eli throwing more to get more TDs than anything else. Eli does have a higher peak, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about who Eli is now and who he has been for the majority of his career. That is Jay Cutler, inconsistent sprinkled with moments of brilliance. The Eli mathematical average = Cutler. That's who we're talking about now and that's why I questioned investing in the line. Math is undefeated bruh

[w4rrior723]

Just now, celestial said:

Eli also has far more career turnovers than Cutler, which counteracts Eli's TDs, and speaks more to Eli throwing more to get more TDs than anything else. Eli does have a higher peak, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about who Eli is now and who he has been for the majority of his career. That is Jay Cutler, inconsistent sprinkled with moments of brilliance. The Eli mathematical average = Cutler. That's who we're talking about now and that's why I questioned investing in the line. Math is undefeated bruh

We WERE talking about now. But then you brought up their careers and how they are pretty much the same.

Career QBR

Tony Romo: 97.1

Tom Brady: 97.6

They're about the same, right? Same type of careers, right? 

Ur maths is unduhfeeted tho bruh

[celestial]

12 minutes ago, w4rrior723 said:

We WERE talking about now. But then you brought up their careers and how they are pretty much the same.

Career QBR

Tony Romo: 97.1

Tom Brady: 97.6

They're about the same, right? Same type of careers, right? 

Ur maths is unduhfeeted tho bruh

I never said Eli and Cutler's careers are the same. I said they are the same QB overall in terms of ability. That's not the same as saying Cutler has had the same career as Eli. Obviously Cutler hasn't. Eli is a two time SB winner.  

To address your Romo and Brady point, just take away the seasons where Romo played 6 or less games, and adjust for the fact Romo played with more weapons, and Romo's QBR drops. Do the same for Cutler and the QBR he shares with Eli remains about the same or rises. So yeah, math is undefeated. 

[w4rrior723]

18 minutes ago, celestial said:

I never said Eli and Cutler's careers are the same. I said they are the same QB overall in terms of ability. That's not the same as saying Cutler has had the same career as Eli. Obviously Cutler hasn't. Eli is a two time SB winner.  

To address your Romo and Brady point, just take away the seasons where Romo played 6 or less games, and adjust for the fact Romo played with more weapons, and Romo's QBR drops. Do the same for Cutler and the QBR he shares with Eli remains about the same or rises.

What does "they are the same QB in terms of ability" mean exactly? Like, Cutler is capable of making all the same pre-snap adjustments? Cutler is just as good at reading defenses? Cutler is capable of leading his team to winning elimination games? Is that what you mean? 

Your Brady/Romo response also makes absolutely no sense. They are not in the same stratosphere. Please, show me your GOAT(Dez)²/TB+12 = Romo formula in action, Mr. Maths.

EDIT: Still haven't answered my question about how you count tipped passes and dropped TDs.

[celestial]

26 minutes ago, w4rrior723 said:

What does "they are the same QB in terms of ability" mean exactly? Like, Cutler is capable of making all the same pre-snap adjustments? Cutler is just as good at reading defenses? Cutler is capable of leading his team to winning elimination games? Is that what you mean? 

Your Brady/Romo response also makes absolutely no sense. They are not in the same stratosphere. Please, show me your GOAT(Dez)²/TB+12 = Romo formula in action, Mr. Maths.

EDIT: Still haven't answered my question about how you count tipped passes and dropped TDs.

It means that on a game-to-game basis, Eli is expected to perform about as well as Cutler, because that's what his career numbers predict. Neither Eli nor Cutler read defenses well.  I'm not sure why you think Eli reads the game well because  QBs who read defenses don't have among the highest INT and turnover totals. Eli's playoff numbers aren't untouchable. Cutler has put up 87+ average against playoff caliber teams.

And my Brady/Romo response makes sense. Romo played with more weapons than Brady over his career. Brady played mostly with bums and perpetually injured Gronk. QBs with with more weapons will naturally tend to have higher QB rating, but that doesn't make Romo as good as Brady. Romo also has some outlier seasons where he played like 1 game and registered 120+ QB rating, so you have to adjust for that.  Romo, and I hate to say it, is underrated though. 

There's no adjustment that can be made in Eli vs. Cutler's case as they've been played with weapons.

[w4rrior723]

12 hours ago, celestial said:

It means that on a game-to-game basis, Eli is expected to perform about as well as Cutler, because that's what his career numbers predict. Neither Eli nor Cutler read defenses well.  I'm not sure why you think Eli reads the game well because  QBs who read defenses don't have among the highest INT and turnover totals. Eli's playoff numbers aren't untouchable. Cutler has put up 87+ average against playoff caliber teams.

And my Brady/Romo response makes sense. Romo played with more weapons than Brady over his career. Brady played mostly with bums and perpetually injured Gronk. QBs with with more weapons will naturally tend to have higher QB rating, but that doesn't make Romo as good as Brady. Romo also has some outlier seasons where he played like 1 game and registered 120+ QB rating, so you have to adjust for that.  Romo, and I hate to say it, is underrated though. 

There's no adjustment that can be made in Eli vs. Cutler's case as they've been played with weapons.

Except they aren't expected to perform about as well as each other. Most people have had much higher expectations of Eli throughout their careers, and here are just a few points that reflect that:

Eli was picked #1 overall.
Cutler was picked #11 overall.

– Eli was drafted higher because he was expected to have a better career

Eli has made 4 Pro-Bowls
Cutler has made 1 Pro-Bowl

– Eli has made more Pro-Bowls because he is expected to perform better, and HAS performed better

Eli has earned $220m in 14 seasons ($15.7m/year)
Cutler has earned $122m in 12 seasons ($10m/year)

– Eli has been paid more because it is expected he will earn it

Just a few examples proving the difference in expectations of each of them. Even your "survey" about Eli being overrated. Isn't the whole basis of being over-rated based on expectations that are too high? So that's another example of Eli having higher expectations.

______________________

Until you show this perfect formula in action, it proves absolutely nothing. In fact, I'm starting to believe you don't actually have a formula and you made this all up.

But I digress. Spending as much $$$ as possible on the o-line is absolutely necessary. They need to make at least one more key signing and spend at least a 2nd/3rd rounder on one.

EDIT: Hey bro... so I was wondering. Since you count all fumbles as turnovers, do you count all deflected passes as INT's? Do you also count all dropped TD catches as TD passes for the QB? Asking for a friend, definitely not for me.

[Acgott]

Let’s take this conversation back to Norwell. 

[bzane]

4 hours ago, Acgott said:

Let’s take this conversation back to Norwell. 

Good idea. 

Something that I wanted to ask you guys who know more about it than I do: does the signing of Norwell, if indeed it goes through as rumored, rule out, or make far less likely, the drafting of Quenton Nelson? The Giants have been linked to Nelson in a lot of places, and fans like him- but now, with Norwell, would they really allot that much in resources to the guard position, no matter how good it would be to have both of these guys? Seems like the Giants would be more likely to get another O-lineman 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round, rather than first, if they spend all those $$$ on Andrew Norwell, to me. What do you think @Acgott @w4rrior723 @minutemancl @Gmen@Kip Smithers @GEE MEN @GMENNATION @ny92jefferis @YogiBiz @Shockey1979 @Ohbeejay?

Edit: This includes trade-down scenarios, and taking Nelson later in the first. which I think would be more-realistic value than #2-overall.

 

[Acgott]

2 minutes ago, bzane said:

Good idea. 

Something that I wanted to ask you guys who know more about it than I do: does the signing of Norwell, if indeed it goes through as rumored, rule out, or make far less likely, the drafting of Quenton Nelson? The Giants have been linked to Nelson in a lot of places, and fans like him- but now, with Norwell, would they really allot that much in resources to the guard position, no matter how good it would be to have both of these guys? Seems like the Giants would be more likely to get another O-lineman 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round, rather than first, if they spend all those $$$ on Andrew Norwell, to me. What do you think @Acgott @w4rrior723 @minutemancl @Gmen@Kip Smithers @GEE MEN @GMENNATION @ny92jefferis?

 

They shouldn't be drafting a OL with the #2 pick no matter what.

[bzane]

5 minutes ago, Acgott said:

They shouldn't be drafting a OL with the #2 pick no matter what.

Sorry, see my edit to previous post. I meant to add even if they were to trade down from #2-overall and acquire, say, the 5th or 6th or 7th pick in the first, which I think is more realistic value for even so great a guard as Nelson.

[ny92mike]

14 minutes ago, bzane said:

Good idea. 

Something that I wanted to ask you guys who know more about it than I do: does the signing of Norwell, if indeed it goes through as rumored, rule out, or make far less likely, the drafting of Quenton Nelson? The Giants have been linked to Nelson in a lot of places, and fans like him- but now, with Norwell, would they really allot that much in resources to the guard position, no matter how good it would be to have both of these guys? Seems like the Giants would be more likely to get another O-lineman 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round, rather than first, if they spend all those $$$ on Andrew Norwell, to me. What do you think @Acgott @w4rrior723 @minutemancl @Gmen@Kip Smithers @GEE MEN @GMENNATION @ny92jefferis @YogiBiz @Shockey1979 @Ohbeejay?

Edit: This includes trade-down scenarios, and taking Nelson later in the first. which I think would be more-realistic value than #2-overall.

 

I'm a huge fan of Q. Nelson, just drafted him in my mock draft w/ pick 3 (long story on how I got there).  Ideally I'd like to trade down a couple spots and draft him, but I'd take him at two if we couldn't trade down.  He's the best offensive lineman in this and could go back a few drafts to find someone with equal talent.   What he does makes the entire offense better, just look at his tape and see how he impacts that offense.  

I'd keep Nelson at LG and if we signed Norwell push him out to RG, resign Richburg and we got a line to work with.

I also believe that our offensive line issues over the years has been horrible and the main reason we haven't been doing well on either side of the ball.

 

[w4rrior723]

20 minutes ago, bzane said:

Sorry, see my edit to previous post. I meant to add even if they were to trade down from #2-overall and acquire, say, the 5th or 6th or 7th pick in the first, which I think is more realistic value for even so great a guard as Nelson.

No matter where we are drafting, you always want stud players. If you have the opportunity to choose between multiple players you are confident will be studs, then you choose a combination between the positional value and need. For example, in 2013 when we had the opportunity to choose between OBJ, Martin, or Donald. I was honestly confident all three were studs. Amazingly, all three ended up booming. But I would say in terms of positional value it goes Donald > Beckham > Martin. Then for need it probably went Beckham > Martin > Donald. OBJ had the highest score when combining value+need, thus he was the pick. In other words, it all depends on who else is there when we are still picking. If we trade down to 7 and a QB like say, Mayfield or Rosen is still there... You may have to take them over Nelson. But if Nelson is you only player you are confident will be a stud at that pick, then you take him. Then sign Pugh and move him back to T.

[minutemancl]

A lot of things have to happen for us to draft Nelson, even more if we sign Norwell, but it is a possibility.

What I took from Gettleman's press conference at the combine was that, with the draft situation the Giants are in, you need to come away with a potential hall of fame player. I don't think trading down is an option, unless we get an absolutely insane offer that you can't say no to. Giants have been spurned before with players they covet being stolen from under their nose recently and frequently. Sure, if you trade with the Broncos back to 5 you'll still end up with a good player, but what if it isn't the player you want? You could say "at worst we'll end up with Nelson", but what if another team trades up before us and takes him? If you like a guy at 5, take him at 2.

Now, having said that, the scenario in which we draft Nelson that I think is possible is that we don't land Norwell, the Browns take Barkley at 1, and the Giants don't love any of the quarterbacks. Small, small chance all those conditions are met, but it is possible. If we do land Norwell, which by all accounts is incredibly likely, then drafting Nelson would be contingent on receiving and agreeing to an absolutely outrageous trade back deal, as well as the Giants not liking any QBs available at their new spot. The chances of that happening I'd say are less than 1%. 

[Kip Smithers]

I would not be against picking Nelson even if we get Norwell. Could care less about his position because at the end of the day it’s not he makes us a much better UNIT. At end of day you want to get best players, in a few years in a hypothetical redraft you’ll see it’s a good decision. I’m not saying we should definitely pick him but we’d be fools not to consider him. 

[minutemancl]

1 hour ago, Kip Smithers said:

I would not be against picking Nelson even if we get Norwell. Could care less about his position because at the end of the day it’s not he makes us a much better UNIT. At end of day you want to get best players, in a few years in a hypothetical redraft you’ll see it’s a good decision. I’m not saying we should definitely pick him but we’d be fools not to consider him. 

I agree. And with how much Gettleman loves his "hog mollies", you know he is definitely getting some consideration. I keep going back to his hall of fame player quote and there are 2 guys that have HOF potential in this draft: Barkley and Nelson.