Can the Giants seriously pass on a QB at 2??!!

[Shylo3716]

Do the Giants lick their chops now for Bradley Chubb?

[Tugboat]

I absolutely think the Giants could seriously pass on a QB at pick #2.  I think if they're going to do that, they really need to use their leverage and get themselves some juicy extra picks to shore up their team and retool things around Eli...but i don't think it would be an unreasonable thing to do at all.

Really comes down to what you think of Eli though.  Is he still good enough to win with?  How long does he have left? 

I figure he's still good enough to win, with the right supporting cast.  He's still better than 3/4 of the QBs who were playing in the AFC/NFC finals last season.  And while he's old...he very probably still has 2 years left in him.  Drafting a QB #2 overall to "sit" for a year is already a tough sell.  To potentially have that guy sit for 2 years?  That's utter insanity.  You'd be intentionally burning half of that all important rookie deal value.

In today's QB salary market, it's become so critical to set things up to make a run while you've got your franchise QB on that affordable rookie deal.  Once they're out of that...they're either a bust, or they're going to become the highest paid quarterback in the league (or close to it).  Crippling your cap situation and making it hard to contend reliably, unless they flourish into a truly elite QB.  That roughly translates to getting your guy on the field as early as reasonably possible to take their lumps and really "learn on the job".  So they're taking their lumps, and either failing fast, or getting to a point where they're able to be a major contributor in a championship run while still on their rookie deal.  To the point where i think it's seriously weighing against the old notion of letting a QB "sit and learn".  Especially the way NFL offenses are being build to ease the transition from college systems today.

 

Even if you take a QB at 2, sit him for just a year and then let Eli walk...You're very probably handing your new potential "franchise QB" a significantly worse team/surrounding cast than you would be if you just leverage the #2 pick into multiple picks and future impact players, and draft your QB later down the road whenever it is that Eli hangs 'em up.

[Leoric]

6 hours ago, brownie man said:

Oh just like when the Broncos drafted Brock in the 2nd round when they had Peyton Manning 

now look at them 

you got a franchise QB staring you in the face

you'll be in mediocrity and torment you pass on a QB at 2

Raiders did fine with Carr. 

[minutemancl]

22 minutes ago, Boltstrikes said:

Raiders did fine with Carr. 

Dallas did fine with Prescott, Seahawks did fine with Wilson, Garoppolo was acquired for, and was originally, a 2nd round pick, Cousins was a 7th round pick. These are exceptions and not the rule, but you can find your guy later on. 

This question piggybacks off of the OPs question, but how many legitimate franchise QBs do you guys think are in this draft? Do you really think the consensus top 4 guys are all franchise guys? Because I see Darnold as one and Jackson as potentially one with a lot of work, but that's it.

I think Rosen behind our line would be a disaster of David Carr like proportions. He won't get sacked as many times, but he'll have a 50% completion percentage from being flushed out of the pocket and throwing the ball away every other snap. 

[Leoric]

1 hour ago, minutemancl said:

Dallas did fine with Prescott, Seahawks did fine with Wilson, Garoppolo was acquired for, and was originally, a 2nd round pick, Cousins was a 7th round pick. These are exceptions and not the rule, but you can find your guy later on. 

This question piggybacks off of the OPs question, but how many legitimate franchise QBs do you guys think are in this draft? Do you really think the consensus top 4 guys are all franchise guys? Because I see Darnold as one and Jackson as potentially one with a lot of work, but that's it.

I think Rosen behind our line would be a disaster of David Carr like proportions. He won't get sacked as many times, but he'll have a 50% completion percentage from being flushed out of the pocket and throwing the ball away every other snap. 

I don’t think any of these guys are franchise locks. I think 5 guys are potential franchise guys. I’ve got two guys I’d draft with a top ten pick, one guy in the top 20 and the other two are potential late first to second rounders if you stop Over drafting QB for need. There isn’t an Andrew Luck or Eli Manning caliber prospect in this draft. Not that those kind of prospects are guarantees of NFL success. 

 

Ive got as potential long term starters:

Rosen with some huge red flags. 

Darnold

Jackson

Mayfield

Allen

 

Anyone else is too much of a long shot and is likely a career backup or spot starter. Maybe someone Brady’s it. One of those five will slip to the second round and possibly late in the second round. I ranked them from 1-5 but the gap between 1 and 5 is small as far as I’m concerned. 

 

Also of note is I don’t believe in sitting a QB. If you draft them, they need to play. The knock on Ben on draft day was he was raw, faced small school competition and wasn’t ready for the NFL. He did ok his first year. Got to take advantage of that rookie contract. QB’s are expensive to resign. 

 

[INbengalfan]

1 hour ago, minutemancl said:

Dallas did fine with Prescott, Seahawks did fine with Wilson, Garoppolo was acquired for, and was originally, a 2nd round pick, Cousins was a 7th round pick. These are exceptions and not the rule, but you can find your guy later on. 

This question piggybacks off of the OPs question, but how many legitimate franchise QBs do you guys think are in this draft? Do you really think the consensus top 4 guys are all franchise guys? Because I see Darnold as one and Jackson as potentially one with a lot of work, but that's it.

I think Rosen behind our line would be a disaster of David Carr like proportions. He won't get sacked as many times, but he'll have a 50% completion percentage from being flushed out of the pocket and throwing the ball away every other snap. 

Cousins was a fourth, but the point stands

[brownie man]

Their conversation is basically this conversation

QB should be the pick for the long term if they have the guy they like

this team was 3-13 for a reason those loses didnt come by accident fired coach and fired FO their team sucked last year 

If you dont love a QB trade down

Barkley would suck behind their current Oline this isnt the same situation as Dallas and Zeke 

"You can't take full advantage of Saquon's skillset because of the offensive line the NY Giants have right now" No value at the RB position at this spot 

If they stay at 2 I say Nelson or Chubb if you can't trade down 

[Forge]

3 hours ago, minutemancl said:

Dallas did fine with Prescott, Seahawks did fine with Wilson, Garoppolo was acquired for, and was originally, a 2nd round pick, Cousins was a 7th round pick. These are exceptions and not the rule, but you can find your guy later on. 

This question piggybacks off of the OPs question, but how many legitimate franchise QBs do you guys think are in this draft? Do you really think the consensus top 4 guys are all franchise guys? Because I see Darnold as one and Jackson as potentially one with a lot of work, but that's it.

I think Rosen behind our line would be a disaster of David Carr like proportions. He won't get sacked as many times, but he'll have a 50% completion percentage from being flushed out of the pocket and throwing the ball away every other snap. 

NVM, someone already said it

[Soko]

4 hours ago, minutemancl said:

Dallas did fine with Prescott, Seahawks did fine with Wilson, Garoppolo was acquired for, and was originally, a 2nd round pick, Cousins was a 7th round pick. These are exceptions and not the rule, but you can find your guy later on. 

After the draft, you’ll have over 2/3 of NFL starting QBs that are former first rounders. There are obviously good QBs found elsewhere, but the quality is generally in the first. 

Quote

This question piggybacks off of the OPs question, but how many legitimate franchise QBs do you guys think are in this draft? Do you really think the consensus top 4 guys are all franchise guys? Because I see Darnold as one and Jackson as potentially one with a lot of work, but that's it.

Depends on a lot, I think all of the top guys and even some of the mid tier guys (Lauletta, Falk) have that potential. It depends on where they go. Too much weight is on their destinations to make a solid prediction right now IMO. 

Quote

I think Rosen behind our line would be a disaster of David Carr like proportions. He won't get sacked as many times, but he'll have a 50% completion percentage from being flushed out of the pocket and throwing the ball away every other snap. 

You could say that across the board with all the rookies - a god awful OL will stunt their growth to an extent. I imagine the Giants would sit their rookie to start the season and have Eli play it out for as long as possible. Even so, I can think of a number of QBs that came in their rookie years behind shaky offensive lines that didn’t have their confidence ruined ala David Carr (Derek Carr, Russel Wilson, Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, Andrew Luck).

[43M]

Why are some people acting like taking a QB at 2 guarantees the Giants a franchise QB? 

I mean, could it happen?  Obviously, yes.....but none of these QBs are slam dunk prospects by any means.

Now, Im not saying they should definitely pass on a QB.  If there is one they feel especially high on, then by all means, draft them.

However, if they arent notably high on any of the available QBs and you have a team like Buffalo saying "Hey, we'll give you a our 2 first rounders and 2nd rounder this year and our 1st and 2nd rounder in 2019".....I jump on that if Im the Giants, and I dont think twice. 

Everyone is going to have their different viewpoints on this, and thats perfectly fine.   However, some people are acting like the Giants should just draft a QB for the sake of drafting a QB because they have a high pick need a future replacement for Eli.....without considering absolutely everything.  

Sorry, but thats not how good GMs draft.

Bottom line....if its someone they strongly feel can be the future of their franchise....sure, draft them.     But its silly to say it doesnt make sense for the Giants to pass on a QB, especially if they have a huge trade proposal staring them in the face and arent really high on any of the QBs.  

[Deekster37]

Take Barkley! 

[Tugboat]

7 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

After the draft, you’ll have over 2/3 of NFL starting QBs that are former first rounders. There are obviously good QBs found elsewhere, but the quality is generally in the first. 

Depends on a lot, I think all of the top guys and even some of the mid tier guys (Lauletta, Falk) have that potential. It depends on where they go. Too much weight is on their destinations to make a solid prediction right now IMO. 

You could say that across the board with all the rookies - a god awful OL will stunt their growth to an extent. I imagine the Giants would sit their rookie to start the season and have Eli play it out for as long as possible. Even so, I can think of a number of QBs that came in their rookie years behind shaky offensive lines that didn’t have their confidence ruined ala David Carr (Derek Carr, Russel Wilson, Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, Andrew Luck).

Isn't this all a pretty compelling argument for not drafting a QB at pick #2?

I mean, you can say the majority of starting NFL QBs come from the first round...and that's fair.  But at the same time, history tells us probably half these 5 "first round QBs" will either bust, or seriously disappoint.  The quality is weighted toward the first...but the serious investment is as well.  And it's still terrifyingly failure prone.

As to the second point about other later round prospects having that starter upside...but pending landing spot and situation to assess their full potential...isn't that also the point?  Better the landing spot...better the chances of success???

Which ties in with something like that last point, about a QB stepping in behind that porous Giant OLine as is.  Won't a future QB selection (or later QB selection) be coming into a better situation, with a better OLine and surrounding cast...if the Giants find a way to trade back from 2 and acquire more premium picks to spend on really good pieces?  As opposed to taking a QB now instead of better pieces...then trying to scramble to fill out an obviously flawed roster after the fact, while the rookie QB is trying to find their way?

[Soko]

1 hour ago, Tugboat said:

Isn't this all a pretty compelling argument for not drafting a QB at pick #2?

I mean, you can say the majority of starting NFL QBs come from the first round...and that's fair.  But at the same time, history tells us probably half these 5 "first round QBs" will either bust, or seriously disappoint.  The quality is weighted toward the first...but the serious investment is as well.  And it's still terrifyingly failure prone.

History would tell us it’s more likely than not that the non-first rounders also amount to backup level QBs. I’m not saying to use history as the model moving forward, I was responding to the all-too-common “well Brady and Wilson are pretty good” line of thinking. 

Quote

As to the second point about other later round prospects having that starter upside...but pending landing spot and situation to assess their full potential...isn't that also the point?  Better the landing spot...better the chances of success???

Well...yeah. What’s the confusion? He asked how many franchise QBs were in this draft. I don’t think you can really say at this point. Although to expand, I do believe Darnold will have success pretty much wherever he goes - so at least 1. I like Rosen’s chances as well.

Quote

Which ties in with something like that last point, about a QB stepping in behind that porous Giant OLine as is.  Won't a future QB selection (or later QB selection) be coming into a better situation, with a better OLine and surrounding cast...if the Giants find a way to trade back from 2 and acquire more premium picks to spend on really good pieces?  As opposed to taking a QB now instead of better pieces...then trying to scramble to fill out an obviously flawed roster after the fact, while the rookie QB is trying to find their way?

You can word it like that, but if they fill the roster with talented players as expected, what’re the chance that they’ll be bad enough for a top 5 pick again? I hear a lot of people saying something like “well if the Giants are really that bad, they’ll be back here next year” which totally contradicts the notion that they’ll be moving down and loading the team with draft talent. Hell, they regressed big time from 2016 but really had the same roster that made the playoffs. This shouldn’t be a team winning 2-4 games regardless of what they do in the draft. 

Finding a franchise quarterback is the hardest thing when it comes to team building IMO. Some teams haven’t drafted one in 20+ some odd years. It makes more sense to take the piece that’s harder to find when it’s in front of you, than it is to do the rest and then hope the franchise guy falls in your lap. Sometimes you get lucky like Seattle where all your talent falls together with your young QB, but it doesn’t usually happen that way.  

[Tugboat]

4 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

History would tell us it’s more likely than not that the non-first rounders also amount to backup level QBs. I’m not saying to use history as the model moving forward, I was responding to the all-too-common “well Brady and Wilson are pretty good” line of thinking. 

Well...yeah. What’s the confusion? He asked how many franchise QBs were in this draft. I don’t think you can really say at this point. Although to expand, I do believe Darnold will have success pretty much wherever he goes - so at least 1.

You can word it like that, but if they fill the roster with talented players as expected, what’re the chance that they’ll be bad enough for a top 5 pick again? I hear a lot of people saying something like “well if the Giants are really that bad, they’ll be back here next year” which totally contradicts the notion that they’ll be moving down and loading the team with draft talent. Hell, they regressed big time from 2016 but really had the same roster that made the playoffs. 

Finding a franchise quarterback is the hardest thing when it comes to team building IMO. Some teams haven’t drafted one in 20+ some odd years. It makes more sense to take the piece that’s harder to find when it’s in front of you, than it is to do the rest and then hope the franchise guy falls in your lap. Sometimes you get lucky like Seattle where all your talent falls together with your young QB, but it doesn’t usually happen that way.  

Agreed.  Expecting a starting calibre, or especially a franchise calibre QB from outside the top half of the 1st round, is statistically improbable.  But i'm not arguing against that.  I'm shedding light on the other half of that equation...where even a scary number of those "higher percentage of success" top-15 pick QBs...end up as total busts, or backups themselves.  This isn't a simple situation you can boil down to one single angle of argument like that.  Even the "high percentage play" of a Top-10QB...is technically a low percentage play.

Which is where your point about surrounding cast was so pertinent.  Oftentimes, the situation and surrounding cast can be the difference in that fine line between success/failure in the many many QBs who ride that mushy middle between "elite franchise QB" and "total bust".  That's where building up some good pieces around a freshly drafted QB to put them in a less-like-to-fail situation, is desirable.  That's also where you're going to potentially tip the odds of success on less premium picked QBs finding success.  I mean, again...you were literally suggesting that you can't fairly estimate the odds of success of various QBs without seeing the situation of their respective landing spot.  THAT...is the point.

Which is also the justification for the Giants potentially passing on a QB at #2.  ie.  Building themselves into a substantially better landing spot for a QB they eventually do fall in love with, developmental or not.

[minutemancl]

Per Jordan Raanan, "the only QB the Giants would take is Darnold, unless Gettleman disregards his scouts". Do you think there is any chance the Browns move out of #1 and back to #2 for the Giants to draft Darnold? Thats the only scenario in which I see the Giants drafting a QB. That or if the Browns go full Browns and draft Allen or someone else at 1.