minutemancl Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 Just now, game3525 said: It is if the Giants actually think any QBs at two are franchise worthy. And by all accounts, the only one they think is good is Darnold. If the Browns pass on Darnold, then the Giants should take him. If he is gone, just take the top player on your board and call it a day. Well put. That said, I'd totally be down for a project QB later on. I like the idea of getting Lamar Jackson either at 34 or in a trade up into the late 1st. Sitting for a year or two, learning from Eli, and getting coached up by Shurmur and Shula is the perfect situation for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minutemancl Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 One thing to consider: Giants FO and coaching staff has said multiple times that he is the starter for this year and could have years left. When is the last time a top-10 QB sat his entire rookie season? That rookie would be starting by midseason if we go QB at 2. That doesn't fit with everything the Giants have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lions017 Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 Even if the Giants think that Eli is still going to be good for a couple of years, I still think that it makes sense to take a QB. If Eli actually is good then they won't be in a top position like this again. Take one now and start him in a year or two when he's ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minutemancl Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 8 minutes ago, Lions017 said: Even if the Giants think that Eli is still going to be good for a couple of years, I still think that it makes sense to take a QB. If Eli actually is good then they won't be in a top position like this again. Take one now and start him in a year or two when he's ready. If Eli is good, why would he stop playing and why would we start someone else? Brady and Brees are both playing into their 40s. The huge upside of having a rookie QB is the cap flexibility it gives you to sign players to big contracts at other positions, like the Rams have done. You lose a lot of that if you sit your QB for 2 years. That's why the only high-picked QB in recent memory who has sat is Mahomes. Wentz was supposed to sit behind Bradford and Trubisky was supposed to sit behind Glennon, and neither of those situations happened because that isn't the way the NFL works anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ6 Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 19 minutes ago, minutemancl said: One thing to consider: Giants FO and coaching staff has said multiple times that he is the starter for this year and could have years left. When is the last time a top-10 QB sat his entire rookie season? That rookie would be starting by midseason if we go QB at 2. That doesn't fit with everything the Giants have said. So taking Barkley at #2 is better than trading with Buffalo and walking away with something like Davenport, Evans, Penny and a 2019 1st? It would be absolutely insane for the Giants to pass that up so they can take a RB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 Barkley. Final answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minutemancl Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, jarren said: So taking Barkley at #2 is better than trading with Buffalo and walking away with something like Davenport, Evans, Penny and a 2019 1st? It would be absolutely insane for the Giants to pass that up so they can take a RB. Cool, didn't know that deal was on the table. Weird how you are the only one who has that information. My point is, you have no idea what is being offered or if anything is being offered at all. In fact, a report today indicates that the Bills don't even have any interest in moving up to 2. It takes 2 to tango. You can't just "trade" like you can select a player at your draft position. It does not work that way, and I'm really tired of this notion from people that it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
game3525 Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 5 minutes ago, jarren said: So taking Barkley at #2 is better than trading with Buffalo and walking away with something like Davenport, Evans, Penny and a 2019 1st? It would be absolutely insane for the Giants to pass that up so they can take a RB. If the Giants have Barkley graded as an elite player then they shouldn't trade down at all. It might seem crazy to some on here, but IMO the gap in talent between teams is marginal at best. The difference between going 11-5 and being 5-11 are elite players at positions of impact. When the Chargers were picking top 5 two years ago, I was against trading down for this very reason. Elite players and difference makers are hard to come by, if you have a chance to take one, you just draft him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minutemancl Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 1 minute ago, game3525 said: If the Giants have Barkley graded as an elite player then they shouldn't trade down at all. It might seem crazy to some on here, but IMO the gap in talent between teams is marginal at best. The difference between going 11-5 and being 5-11 are elite players at positions of impact. When the Chargers were picking top 5 two years ago, I was against trading down for this very reason. Elite players and difference makers are hard to come by, if you have a chance to take one, you just draft him. Gettleman has conceded that he has received a few calls about trading out, but nothing that was worth what he was looking for. This draft has only a few blue chip prospects. A high pick will net us a game changing, "gold jacket" player and Gettleman wants that. I think that is the right choice, unless an offer blows him away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
game3525 Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 4 minutes ago, minutemancl said: Gettleman has conceded that he has received a few calls about trading out, but nothing that was worth what he was looking for. This draft has only a few blue chip prospects. A high pick will net us a game changing, "gold jacket" player and Gettleman wants that. I think that is the right choice, unless an offer blows him away. He is right. Trading down is the right option if you have similar grades on the players in the range you are trading down to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ6 Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 53 minutes ago, game3525 said: If the Giants have Barkley graded as an elite player then they shouldn't trade down at all. It might seem crazy to some on here, but IMO the gap in talent between teams is marginal at best. The difference between going 11-5 and being 5-11 are elite players at positions of impact. When the Chargers were picking top 5 two years ago, I was against trading down for this very reason. Elite players and difference makers are hard to come by, if you have a chance to take one, you just draft him. If there were a Ramsey or Bosa that would be avaliable at #2 then yes keep the pick and make a selection. Im just in the opinion that spending the #2 overall pick on a RB, as good as he is, isnt the smartest use of a very valueable asset. Why? - RBs get injured at a very high rate. - The difference between an elite RB and a good one on a teams success is minimal from all the advance statistics Ive seen. - RBs are one of the cheapest positions to acquire. You can find a good RB in the draft, FA or trade pretty easily compared to other positions. Ontop of that I don't think the Giants are a Barkley away from being a contender. They have quite a few holes and Eli is declining. How many years can you really depend on him? I think theres an arguement that can be made that his time has already passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ6 Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 57 minutes ago, minutemancl said: Cool, didn't know that deal was on the table. Weird how you are the only one who has that information. My point is, you have no idea what is being offered or if anything is being offered at all. In fact, a report today indicates that the Bills don't even have any interest in moving up to 2. It takes 2 to tango. You can't just "trade" like you can select a player at your draft position. It does not work that way, and I'm really tired of this notion from people that it does. I guess we'll see what happens. But from everything I've herd, and common sense, the Giants should be able to recieve a very fair offer for their pick. Keep in mind Getteleman very rarely trades down. So him saying he hasnt received offeres that interest him doesnt say alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomont Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 3 hours ago, minutemancl said: To be fair, I don't think Eli is as bad as his last year was. Look at what he was working with- from personnel to coaching. Mcadoo doesn't even have a job this year. His wide receivers were Roger Lewis and Tavarres King. His offensive line went through over 8 different starting lineups and included studs such as Ereck Flowers, Bobby Hart, and Adam Bisnowaty. He's definitely on the decline, but you can't say he is as bad as he was last year. Thanks for saving me the keystrokes. Anyone who thinks Eli is done either didn't see him play or didn't pay much attention to the team situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 4 hours ago, jarren said: So taking Barkley at #2 is better than trading with Buffalo and walking away with something like Davenport, Evans, Penny and a 2019 1st? It would be absolutely insane for the Giants to pass that up so they can take a RB. If they believe that Barkley is a future HoF player, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
game3525 Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 7 hours ago, jarren said: If there were a Ramsey or Bosa that would be avaliable at #2 then yes keep the pick and make a selection. Im just in the opinion that spending the #2 overall pick on a RB, as good as he is, isnt the smartest use of a very valueable asset. Why? - RBs get injured at a very high rate. - The difference between an elite RB and a good one on a teams success is minimal from all the advance statistics Ive seen. - RBs are one of the cheapest positions to acquire. You can find a good RB in the draft, FA or trade pretty easily compared to other positions. Ontop of that I don't think the Giants are a Barkley away from being a contender. They have quite a few holes and Eli is declining. How many years can you really depend on him? I think theres an arguement that can be made that his time has already passed. True. But on the flip side, we have seen the impact an elite 3-down back can have on a team and it's offense (ex. Zeke in 2016, Gurley last year etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.