Jump to content
Duke5217

What are the G-Men doing at #2?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, pigsooie5 said:

So your plan is to wait until 2020 to maybe get a franchise QB? 

If that’s the case, so be it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

Granted this is obviously a different situation than anything Gettleman dealt with in Carolina, but trading down is something he doesn't do.  I don't think he ever traded down in 4 years here and he would always talk about how he would rather get one great player than trade down for 3-4 picks.  If the Bills offered him a truckload, I'm sure he'd take it, but it also wouldn't surprise me if it is something they aren't considering doing. 

In 3 out of the 4 drafts here, we had only 5 picks.  Even in 2014, it was only 6.  Not sure how that compares to the rest of the league, but its gotta be low.  

The difference here though is he can move down and still get an elite prospect.  It just depends on if he has to have 1 guy or he’s flexible on 2-3 of them.   If it’s 1 then he has to wait out 1.4 (BUF has to get that to make Gettleman know he’s still getting his one guy).  If he sees 2-3 guys the same he could explore moving back to 1.5.  

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

I agree that we should TRY to trade down a few spots. But I’m also happy to stay at 2 and pick Nelson or Chubb if we don’t feel the compensation is good enough

But that’s just dumb if you value those 2 guys the same.  You trade with 1.5 anything decent extra is worth it.  Even if it’s not book value.    Now if you want over the other sure you make sure it’s worth it.  

FTR if they want Chubb then they should stay unless BUF moves to 1.4.  If they want Nelson no way CLE wants him at 1.4.   And maybe DEN doesn’t want to pay up for 1.2.   So nothing is set in stone.   But NYG would be silly not to move down to 1.5 if it nets them anything of value.  It doesn’t have to “good enough” if it’s just bonus extra value and you know you are still getting the guy you want.  

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Broncofan said:

But that’s just dumb if you value those 2 guys the same.  You trade with 1.5 anything decent extra is worth it.  Even if it’s not book value.    Now if you want over the other sure you make sure it’s worth it.  

You’re making it seem like we trade down to 5 at any cost. Nah, that’s dumb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

You’re making it seem like we trade down to 5 at any cost. Nah, that’s dumb. 

Of course not any cost.  Anything of value.   Maybe we are saying the same thing - your good enough makes it sound it has to meet some threshold.  The issue is how high.  It’s just not going to have to be a OMG deal if you are still getting the guy you want.  If it’s 1.12 then BUF has to blow them away to give up that elite player.    If you are set on 1 guy then it doesn’t make as much sense even for 1.5 because risking losing that guy you need more.  

I will say the threshold to move to 1.4 should be much lower.   Because then you know you are getting the same guy whether it’s 1.2 or 1.4.   You just have to set a price that 1.4 is willing to pay to jump IND.  Right now CLE probably doesn’t want to since they will already have their QB.  BUF might.   

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bananabucket said:

Well I assumed you were referring to Barkley, maybe you weren't.  I just think when you have such an elite prospect, you dont turn him down because you're praying you get a Kareem Hunt later on (which is incredibly unlikely anyway).  In my mind it's like passing on Adrian Peterson or Calvin Johnson because you can find "good" guys at the position later.

I'm not sure the same argument applies to an elite guard for the reasons you stated.  I think a RB is far more impactful.

I was referring to RBs in general, although it could certainly apply to Barkley.  I mean, most would view Barkley as a top 3 prospect at worse and the chances of him going in the top 3 are pretty slim unless the Giants are willing to take him.  From 2001 to 2010, we've seen on average 3 RBs go in the first round.  Since 2011, we've seen on average 1.3 RBs go in the 1st round.  Do you think that's by chance chance or would you argue that the RB position has been devalued in recent years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

That’s the point though, you don’t wanna trade down and miss out on the elite prospects in the draft. If you know the drop off is significant between the elite and the rest then you stand pat barring a trade that blows you away. So I somewhat agree with this thinking.

As for the Guards, Nelson is arguably the best player in the draft and is touted so much as a prospect. And the fact that there is precedent for Guards being taken in the top 10 is telling enough. Using history completely ignored the growing importance of the position itself, also the Giants just signed a good LT and to potentially pair him with Nelson solidified that left side for a long time. You can get Guards later and it should be considered but you have to approximate the gap between Nelson and others. 

That's what I was arguing.  IF you're moving down, the price that the team is paying to move up has to be more than the player you're giving up.  Is that worth moving away from that elite prospect?  Depends on who you ask.  For some teams, that might be a 2nd round pick.  For a team like the Giants, they may want their 1st round picks this year, a 1st round pick next year, and more.

Nelson is viewed as most as a top 3 prospect, maybe top 5 at worst.  Yet he's going 5th at best barring some sort of surprise pick.  Teams have found quality guards later in the draft, and your guards are only as good as the rest of the OL around them.  Teams are armed with their highest pick on years, and they're going to take him that high?  No.  He's in for a mini-fall IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

If that’s the case, so be it. 

I can't envision a way that a 37 year old Eli Manning or Davis Webb prevents the Giants from drafting a QB if they feel that one of the prospects is a potential franchise QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I can't envision a way that a 37 year old Eli Manning or Davis Webb prevents the Giants from drafting a QB if they feel that one of the prospects is a potential franchise QB.

They can if they don’t love the QB prospects. So in this case, from what it looks like they only love Darnold and that Eli orcWebb won’t preclude them from drafting him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they like one of these QBs a lot better than Webb, they should draft him. If they don't, they should take the best trade-down offer. Third best option would be Chubb, but I expect they will get some very generous trade offers that will eclipse his value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kip Smithers said:

They can if they don’t love the QB prospects. So in this case, from what it looks like they only love Darnold and that Eli orcWebb won’t preclude them from drafting him. 

There's a stark difference between not believing in the QB prospects, and passing on one because they like the future of Davis Webb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

It’s 1 of 3 possibilities.

1. Find a trade partner.

2. Draft Nelson

3. Draft Chubb.

 

thats it and I like all 3 of those options. We aren’t taking a QB and nor should we.

At least you don’t have Barkley up there 

I still think Rosen is the pick 

they just put him through a workout 

as they should in due diligence but they could not have 

get your QB then maybe trade down in the 2nd pick up some later picks and build as much as you can 

Eli is 37 and the 2019 QB class sucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

There's a stark difference between not believing in the QB prospects, and passing on one because they like the future of Davis Webb.

If they think Davis Webb can be THE guy and they don’t view QB as an immediate need, then that’s perfectly fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

If they think Davis Webb can be THE guy and they don’t view QB as an immediate need, then that’s perfectly fine. 

Other than the fact that they invested a 3rd round pick into him, there's NOTHING to indicate that he's the future starting QB for the Giants.  Every franchise who invests into their QBOTF is always optimistic about their future.  Brett Hundley, Garrett Grayson, Sean Mannion, etc.  The list goes on and on.  There's nothing that makes Davis Webb more likely to avoid the odds that he's the future in New York after Eli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Other than the fact that they invested a 3rd round pick into him, there's NOTHING to indicate that he's the future starting QB for the Giants.  Every franchise who invests into their QBOTF is always optimistic about their future.  Brett Hundley, Garrett Grayson, Sean Mannion, etc.  The list goes on and on.  There's nothing that makes Davis Webb more likely to avoid the odds that he's the future in New York after Eli.

They don’t know he is the future or not, but they are willing to bypass an opportunity to draft a QB because in part they’d like to see what they have in him. Like people act like if we don’t draft a QB now, we’re doomed. Far from the truth. It really depends on how you view the player. Bringing up those examples completely ignores the evaluation of the players. It is very much possible that you draft a QB lower than what you graded. Each case is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×