for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Weighing drafting at 10 vs dropping 5-10 spots

Coach Mason : 4/16/2016 9:40 am
More reading the clues but here is my stab at what current Giant thinking my be.

Stand Pat at 10:

Floyd (love pass.rush ability combined with true linebacker skills and excellent coverage ability)
Hargreaves
OR a surprise drop like Jack


Trade down a few spots (like the year we drafted Kiwi):

Any of the guys we may have drafted even at 10 if they are still there (like Floyd)
-or-
Conklin
Decker
Treadwell
Darren Lee

If the Giants really like what they think they can get at 15-20 , feel the grade drop (vs. a player at 10) would be smaller than the value of the caliber player(s) they can get with the extra pick(s) they may pull the trigger. This is similar to what they said the last time we traded down to draft Kiwinauka.

Another early 2nd or 3rd in addition to our own nets us TWO guys like Sterling Shephard,Mike Thomas,Doctson,Boyd and maybe one of the Safeties like Joseph,Bell or Simmons. Or a tackle/OG we could really like.

Thus year with our needs and the way the value is stacking up in the top 50 or so picks, I really see it lining up well for a trade down should we find someone willing to give us a strong deal (Tennessee? )
IMO, this organization is desperate  
Giants2012 : 4/16/2016 9:44 am : link
for an extra #2 and needs to hit home runs on their first three picks though two rounds.
Was thinking the Titans myself  
jeff57 : 4/16/2016 9:45 am : link
And prefer to go the drop down route. We need as many players as possible. I don't see anyone likely to be at 10 who is that much better than someone we could get at 15.
This topic has been discusssed to death  
steve in ky : 4/16/2016 9:47 am : link
but IMO they need to keep a top ten pick and do their best to get a game changing type of player. They have had a lot less success with some of their lower picks to believe that trading out of the top ten will be a wiser choice.
How about we trade our 2nd and move up to 5  
larryflower37 : 4/16/2016 9:51 am : link
Choose one of

Ramsey
Jack
Bosa
Buckner
Tunsil

You are guaranteed a game changer that way.
Jeff could be wrong  
Coach Mason : 4/16/2016 9:55 am : link
But the Treadwell interest to me indicates more discerning a hard final value on him and if they would pull the trigger on him via a trade down and not at 10. I think there is a very good chance he goes 15-25 as the slow 40 is a very hard thing for teams to overlook for a top 10 prospect at the WR position even if it is overrated.

Imagine landing Treadwell then 2 highly rated prospects from a FS, combo slot CB/S,DE, OL grouping? Not a bad haul considering our needs.
RE: How about we trade our 2nd and move up to 5  
Coach Mason : 4/16/2016 9:57 am : link
In comment 12905518 larryflower37 said:
Quote:
Choose one of

Ramsey
Jack
Bosa
Buckner
Tunsil

You are guaranteed a game changer that way.


Not the year, Giants are not one player away. We have too many needs. Im thinking the grade would have to be just so ridiculously high to consider that.
RE: How about we trade our 2nd and move up to 5  
jeff57 : 4/16/2016 9:59 am : link
In comment 12905518 larryflower37 said:
Quote:
Choose one of

Ramsey
Jack
Bosa
Buckner
Tunsil

You are guaranteed a game changer that way.

No. And there's no guarantee a 2 would be enough.
RE: Jeff could be wrong  
jeff57 : 4/16/2016 10:00 am : link
In comment 12905521 Coach Mason said:
Quote:
But the Treadwell interest to me indicates more discerning a hard final value on him and if they would pull the trigger on him via a trade down and not at 10. I think there is a very good chance he goes 15-25 as the slow 40 is a very hard thing for teams to overlook for a top 10 prospect at the WR position even if it is overrated.

Imagine landing Treadwell then 2 highly rated prospects from a FS, combo slot CB/S,DE, OL grouping? Not a bad haul considering our needs.

Agree. Although I'd rather take a Shepard or Boyd in the second and take a Conklin or Rankins at 15.
Nope  
UConn4523 : 4/16/2016 10:10 am : link
take BPA at 10 as a day 1 starter at a premium position. Not interest in trading down and have no idea who's even want to trade up to 10 and what the compensation would be. It all sounds nice on paper but generally it doesn't work out that way.
Don't see a DT round 1 unless he is a 'sure fire' elite pass rusher  
Coach Mason : 4/16/2016 10:11 am : link
But would have no issue with Conklin in a trade down if we don't address OT in the next couple weeks (A.Davis).
For that matter,  
Doomster : 4/16/2016 10:12 am : link
why not trade Nassib straight up, for the Rams #1?

All this speculation, like the Giants front office checks in on BBI, as to what they should do...

Lets face it, Reese better have a plan.....hopefully it's the right one....
RE: Nope  
Coach Mason : 4/16/2016 10:16 am : link
In comment 12905531 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
take BPA at 10 as a day 1 starter at a premium position. Not interest in trading down and have no idea who's even want to trade up to 10 and what the compensation would be. It all sounds nice on paper but generally it doesn't work out that way.


You may still be able to get Floyd at 15. As Giants may have a higher grade on him than most. Risk benefit analysis.
RE: IMO, this organization is desperate  
Reb8thVA : 4/16/2016 10:25 am : link
In comment 12905509 Giants2012 said:
Quote:
for an extra #2 and needs to hit home runs on their first three picks though two rounds.
I don't know if they are desperate but we could really use an extra second.
This team doesn't need more  
Mike from Ohio : 4/16/2016 10:26 am : link
Above average talent at many positions, they need game changers. When you draft at 10 you have a chance to get a game changer and you need to take it when your team has only two on the entire roster.

I don't understand the fascination with trade down scenarios on BBI, but I think there is virtually no chance of the a Giants doing it, and in my opinion you don't even consider it unless you get a ridiculous haul from a team that is desperate for a specific player at 10.

The Bears and Saints draft immediately after us. We are likely all in the market for pass rushers. If one drops, then a team further back in R1 may pick up the phone, but otherwise I wouldn't expect a call.
RE: This team doesn't need more  
Coach Mason : 4/16/2016 10:36 am : link
In comment 12905547 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
Above average talent at many positions, they need game changers. When you draft at 10 you have a chance to get a game changer and you need to take it when your team has only two on the entire roster.

I don't understand the fascination with trade down scenarios on BBI, but I think there is virtually no chance of the a Giants doing it, and in my opinion you don't even consider it unless you get a ridiculous haul from a team that is desperate for a specific player at 10.

The Bears and Saints draft immediately after us. We are likely all in the market for pass rushers. If one drops, then a team further back in R1 may pick up the phone, but otherwise I wouldn't expect a call.


At 10 the few tier 1 blue chippers may be all gone anyways. Our tier 2 guys may be a pretty good list. Trade down still get a tier 2 guy and pick up another premium round pick. It's similar to what we did the year we drafted Mathias
It depends, imo, on who is there for us at 10.  
yatqb : 4/16/2016 10:42 am : link
If Reese deems that guy to be a game changer and doesn't want to risk losing him by trading back he will grab the guy at 10. If however the players from 10-20 are rated fairly equally on their board I think he would be more inclined to trade down (something he has never done before, if I remember correctly) knowing that one of Floyd, Treadwell, Decker, Spriggs, Whitehair, Doctson, Fuller, Apple, Jackson or whomever is gonna still be there when he picks.

The reason Accorsi traded down in the Kiwi year is that we had Kiwi VERY high on our board but did not want to draft another DE. After trading down twice, the team felt that they could no longer ignore his talent. Let's face it, there is NO position on this team so deep that we couldn't benefit from another good player...OK, maybe linebacker.

JK, I'll be here all week.
RE: RE: IMO, this organization is desperate  
Giants2012 : 4/16/2016 10:55 am : link
In comment 12905545 Reb8thVA said:
Quote:
In comment 12905509 Giants2012 said:


Quote:


for an extra #2 and needs to hit home runs on their first three picks though two rounds.

I don't know if they are desperate but we could really use an extra second.


When you miss the playoffs for five straight years, had a 6-10 record and still have a roster with a ton of holes I'd hate to see what does qualify as desperate.
What clues?  
Big Blue Blogger : 4/16/2016 10:56 am : link
Quote:
More reading the clues but here is my stab at what current Giant thinking my be.

The only clue - and even this one is sketchy - is that they seem to like Leonard Floyd. They might take him at 10, or later in the first round after trading down, or at 40, or never. Everything else is pure speculation, based on fans' views on Floyd and what they might like the team to do.
2006 draft was Accorsi  
Mike from Ohio : 4/16/2016 10:59 am : link
Not Reese. Reese has shown no inclination to trade back in the draft since he has been in charge.

And the 2006 draft was certainly not something I think you want to try and emulate. Kiwi was an average DE at best. The only other player who produced from that draft class was Cofield who was selected in the 4th round.

If you can move back a few slots and still get the guy you want, then do it. That is just not a scenario that presents itself often, and the team historically has been more apt to trade up than trade down.
the bit of irony coursing implicitly  
ColHowPepper : 4/16/2016 11:11 am : link
through this discussion of trading down and the year we did to select Kiwi is that he proved to be a sometimes serviceable guy at DE/LB, i.e., not the reward or productivity that you would hope to garner for all the machinations that went into the pick.

As we know, the way he was handled by coaching staffs' moving him around did not help his career.
oops, see that Mike  
ColHowPepper : 4/16/2016 11:12 am : link
went earlier at much the same thought I was posting; it's what I get for walking away from the comment window to take care of stuff in the kitchen
I knew you were needed elsewhere CHP  
Mike from Ohio : 4/16/2016 11:19 am : link
I've got your back.
Conkliin...  
dg901 : 4/16/2016 11:31 am : link
is not a Top 10 pick, he is slow/timid in pass protection. IMHO.
RE: What clues?  
Coach Mason : 4/16/2016 11:36 am : link
In comment 12905560 Big Blue Blogger said:
Quote:


Quote:


More reading the clues but here is my stab at what current Giant thinking my be.


The only clue - and even this one is sketchy - is that they seem to like Leonard Floyd. They might take him at 10, or later in the first round after trading down, or at 40, or never. Everything else is pure speculation, based on fans' views on Floyd and what they might like the team to do.


Your friend Ranaan, who nailed the Flowers pick last year when many other pundits thought otherwise, thinks it Floyd. He's not the only one with some insider connections who feels that he along with Hargreaves are the top 2. He fits the bill in a number of ways that have been discussed ad nauseum previously. These are certainly fluid situations with alot of things having to fall a certain way to work out but I'd say it's a little better than 'sketchy'.
RE: 2006 draft was Accorsi  
jeff57 : 4/16/2016 11:39 am : link
In comment 12905564 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
Not Reese. Reese has shown no inclination to trade back in the draft since he has been in charge.

And the 2006 draft was certainly not something I think you want to try and emulate. Kiwi was an average DE at best. The only other player who produced from that draft class was Cofield who was selected in the 4th round.

If you can move back a few slots and still get the guy you want, then do it. That is just not a scenario that presents itself often, and the team historically has been more apt to trade up than trade down.

Yeah, think it's academic because Reese has never done it. It would take too much creativity.
Mike, my wife thanks you!  
ColHowPepper : 4/16/2016 11:42 am : link
As usual when it's her guests and dinner/lunch, I wind up doing most of the cooking stuff and she takes care of the baking.

Let me know when you are in need in turn!

I agree with you, Kiwi was ill-conceived pick to be trading down so far to focus on him. Ngata, Mangold, DeAngelo Williams, Holmes, Cromartie all sitting there, some other decent players too.

Of course, we coupled that mis-step with the choice of the immortal Sinorice Moss with our 2nd pick.
Ngata,Cromartie were gone  
Coach Mason : 4/16/2016 11:48 am : link
But DeAngelo, Holmes and Mangold were there
I don't think it is any great secret  
UberAlias : 4/16/2016 12:25 pm : link
That the team's top choice of outcomes would be to draft an impact player on the defensive side of the ball. Obviously the first nine selections will have a lot to say, and without knowing how their board lays out we are doing a lot of speculating. But odds are there is a player or two they will be high on who will be available.

I would suggest there is a pretty good chance we might see a repeat of last year where they moved up in round 2 to grab a player they are really high on. They will essentially be able to come away with two players of a first round grade and projected day 1 starters. If they are going to be aggressive in going and getting their guy, that is when I would expect to see it.

Mara has said they in need of impact players. I don't see the trade down scenario as consistent with that. A team's core is made up of a handful of key guys, hopefully difference makers, on each side of the ball, it does not consist of 22. My sense is that is how they approached FA and expect the same later this month. They will look to sensibly priced veterans and UDRFA to "fill remaining holes", IMO.
RE: Ngata,Cromartie were gone  
ColHowPepper : 4/16/2016 12:30 pm : link
In comment 12905600 Coach Mason said:
Quote:
But DeAngelo, Holmes and Mangold were there

Coach, based on the Round 2 pick of Moss at 44, the Giants were picking at the 12 slot, which should indicate that Ngata (12th pick) and certainly Cromartie (19th) were still on the board. Perhaps in the case of Ngata, there was a tie in 2005 such that two or more teams rotated their selections, round to round.
but, wait, do I recall now that NYG  
ColHowPepper : 4/16/2016 12:45 pm : link
traded up in the 2nd to select Sinorice?
Every OT  
huygens20 : 4/16/2016 1:32 pm : link
in this draft besides Stanley and tunsil are RTs.

We drafted a RT already last year
All this trade down talk  
MBavaro : 4/16/2016 1:35 pm : link
sounds like its said with the notion that, really, any of that is in the Giant's control.

No one trades down from a top ten pick. Someone has to be desperate enough to TRADE UP and give up what it takes in additional picks to do so.

When you say "pull the trigger" in regards to Reese, you make it sound like his phone has been ringing off the hook with teams looking to move up, and he's said no. If anything, the exact opposite would be true, and no one was bitting on a trade up.
I think a trade down would be good  
Vanzetti : 4/16/2016 2:43 pm : link
Because this is a very Deep draft. Guys like Ashawn Robinson and Nkemdiche are being projected in the 20s. To me, they are a very good prospects--not much below guys like Bosa.

But you have to find a team to trade with. Other teams know the draft is deep so why would they trade up to 10 and give up a second rounder? To me, you only do that for a QB and Goff and Wentz will be long gone by the time the Giants pick
RE: but, wait, do I recall now that NYG  
Coach Mason : 4/16/2016 4:21 pm : link
In comment 12905636 ColHowPepper said:
Quote:
traded up in the 2nd to select Sinorice?


You are correct. NYG traded down in 1st then traded UP in 2nd to select Moss
The Rams trade  
LakeGeorgeGiant : 4/16/2016 6:20 pm : link
makes a Giants trade down even less likely imv. IF Goff and Wentz go 1,2 it is likely a QB hungry team would be looking to go higher than SanFran to grab Lynch.
No trade down  
Rjanyg : 4/16/2016 8:20 pm : link
Just get Floyd in round 1, Shepard in round 2 and go with either Simmons or Calhoun in round 3. I hope it's Calhoun then Simmons in round 4. I could live with Hawkins in round 3. There will be good players available, just have to pick the right ones.

I really want Floyd. I'm scared Tampa takes him at 9.
I think the decision will be easy  
mrvax : 4/16/2016 8:33 pm : link
for the Giants. They will already have their tears set up and they simply cross off the guys already selected.

They will look at their board just after pick 9 and see right away if a guy is there that is significantly better than the players in the next lower tear. Big difference, stay at 10 and select player. Little to no difference in their rankings for the next few picks? Trade down if possible.

It's really not something to be concerned with. The draft is so dynamic as guys come off the board. Remember, even if the Giants decide it would be best to trade down, there has to be a team willing to move up to get pick 10.
2006 is not a good comparison imo  
baadbill : 4/16/2016 9:49 pm : link
The Giants traded down 7 spots to #32. That is completely different than trading away a top 10 pick. There simply isn't any comparison.
RE: 2006 draft was Accorsi  
FStubbs : 4/16/2016 9:51 pm : link
In comment 12905564 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
Not Reese. Reese has shown no inclination to trade back in the draft since he has been in charge.

And the 2006 draft was certainly not something I think you want to try and emulate. Kiwi was an average DE at best. The only other player who produced from that draft class was Cofield who was selected in the 4th round.

If you can move back a few slots and still get the guy you want, then do it. That is just not a scenario that presents itself often, and the team historically has been more apt to trade up than trade down.


To be totally fair, Kiwi flashed early but the Giants arguably destroyed his career moving him all over the place. It was the best for the team but not best for actualizing Kiwi's potential. Sometimes I think their keeping of him beyond his expiration date was partly a way of showing loyalty for what he gave to the team.
The only way I trade down from #10 to #15 is if I get a PLAYER  
SGMen : 4/17/2016 12:07 am : link
and a #3. Let the other team overpay by giving us a starting RT, FS, WR #2 or even WLB.

If you get a "proven" guy with at least two years on his digestible contract you aren't "reaching" - you have a STARTER and that matters on a team with this many holes.

At #15 you still get a quality guy and at #3 you get a quality DL or OL.
Everybody here  
chopperhatch : 4/17/2016 2:02 am : link
Likes to talk about trade downs. Who is going trade up to our spot? I see only the Jets at this point and they can trade up to behind us to land Lynch.

When some of you say " oh we should just trade down" and have no rumored deal, it's just DUMB.
I can see the titans moving up for Stanley  
eli4life : 4/17/2016 3:28 am : link
But I would venture to guess they will try to get ahead of us to do it
RE: For that matter,  
TyFromQueens : 4/17/2016 3:42 am : link
In comment 12905535 Doomster said:
Quote:
why not trade Nassib straight up, for the Rams #1?

All this speculation, like the Giants front office checks in on BBI, as to what they should do...

Lets face it, Reese better have a plan.....hopefully it's the right one....


Because for Christ sakes....Naasib has absolutely no value to any other team but us.

Wait....you were being sarcastic. Sorry.
The fascination with a trade back is  
chillinman1183 : 4/17/2016 8:04 am : link
So you guys can see a couple more picks in the draft because you've got nothing better to do,then next year you'll have something else to bitch about because the Giants missed out on a better player that would have been there at 10.

I can hear it already,because that's the idiocy of most on BBI.

Know virtually nothing about actuall football but love to bitch and act like experts! :)

Stand pat at 10 and draft BPA all day...

We need quality not quanity!!!
This draft arguably has 5-6 bluechippers  
Coach Mason : 4/17/2016 9:00 am : link
And then like 10-15 guys with similar grades.

If we think we can still get a player at a need position with a similar grade and pick up an extra premium pick (considering all our many needs) you pull the trigger
I just don't see them picking Treadwell at 10  
Coach Mason : 4/17/2016 3:23 pm : link
15-20 maybe. If Floyd and Hargreaves are gone (along with the 4-5 non QB bluechippers) I could see them actively seeking a trade down with the wealth of solid redchippers thereaftee.
If Hargreaves is there at #10 I'm picking him. Period.  
Torrag : 4/17/2016 3:36 pm : link
If Stanley is there at #10 it would take a serious offer for me to even consider trading down with Tennessee who was rumored to possibly prefer him to Tunsil..a 2nd Round pick at minimum.

Any other scenario barring the unlikely slide of a Top 5 talent like Bosa or Jack and I'd welcome an offer to trade out in exchange for a 3rd Rounder.

RE: If Hargreaves is there at #10 I'm picking him. Period.  
Coach Mason : 4/17/2016 4:19 pm : link
In comment 12906556 Torrag said:
Quote:
If Stanley is there at #10 it would take a serious offer for me to even consider trading down with Tennessee who was rumored to possibly prefer him to Tunsil..a 2nd Round pick at minimum.

Any other scenario barring the unlikely slide of a Top 5 talent like Bosa or Jack and I'd welcome an offer to trade out in exchange for a 3rd Rounder.


Whether you agree or not, don't think Stanley is high on Giants list. You NEVER hear his name mentioned with anyone with credible connections to the front office.

Hargreaves OTOH is very likely very high on list. I think they would be quite happy with him if they can't get Floyd.
Just about all draft trades are set in motion by two factors:  
Big Blue Blogger : 4/17/2016 4:39 pm : link
1. A team that wants to trade up;

2. A team that is willing to trade down. If the second team is eager to trade down, all the better. But it certainly isn't necessary.

#1 is the big question mark. We don't know which players will be on the board at 10, which teams will want those players, or what sort of price they might offer.

#2 should be easier to fulfill, but history indicates that the current NYG regime is loathe to trade down even when circumstances seem to favor it. They appear to enter the draft with a well-defined set of targets, and if they can get those guys, they don't seem to worry to much about "value" or "over-drafting".

So if they really like Floyd, and he's available at #10, they are much more likely to pick him than to trade down on the assumption that nobody else likes him as much. And that's assuming he really is their guy, which he may or may not be.
By the way, my read on the 2006 trade down...  
Big Blue Blogger : 4/17/2016 4:50 pm : link
...isn't that the Giants expected to pick Kiwanuka at #32. My impression is simply that they didn't want him badly enough to pick him at #25, and didn't particularly mind letting him go elsewhere. The extra picks from Pittsburgh at the end of the third and fourth rounds (Wilkinson and Whimper) were nice, but they wouldn't have swayed Accorsi if he'd had his heart set on Kiwi.
Most of us are looking at this draft  
mrvax : 4/17/2016 5:03 pm : link
and many want to trade down. I'd bet that fans of other teams are thinking the exact same thing.

I don't see another team really wanting to trade up to #10 unless they really want a certain QB.

I hope the Jets will trade #20 to the Giants for #10 and the Jets 2nd rounder (pick 20). Jets move ahead 10 slots in the first round, get their QB and there will be a good pick for the Giants at 20. Maybe even Tredwell. Then the Giants pick 9th and 20th in the second round.

One poster said we need quality, not quantity. I think we need both.

Would anyone else like this trade?
Personall5  
Coach Mason : 4/17/2016 5:10 pm : link
I have no issue taking Floyd or Hargreaves at 10. Question is do the Giants think they can get him at 15 (and would be willing to risk it) or if he's gone do they have a bunch of guys with similar grades therefore would prefer to trade down.
No, that's probably NOT the question  
Big Blue Blogger : 4/17/2016 8:10 pm : link
Coach Mason said:
Quote:
I have no issue taking Floyd or Hargreaves at 10. Question is do the Giants think they can get him at 15 (and would be willing to risk it) or if he's gone do they have a bunch of guys with similar grades therefore would prefer to trade down.

Maybe we'd like it to be the question. Maybe it should be the question. But it's almost certainly not the question, because that's not how this regime operates, as counter-intuitive and irritating as it may be. If you want a team that applies game theory to every draft pick, go root for New England... Or this year, maybe for Tennessee. As a Giant fan, expect them to do what they always do: target specific players, and snag them when the opportunity arises.
RE: How about we trade our 2nd and move up to 5  
Mike in Boston : 4/17/2016 10:04 pm : link
In comment 12905518 larryflower37 said:
Quote:
Choose one of

Ramsey
Jack
Bosa
Buckner
Tunsil

You are guaranteed a game changer that way.



You are never guaranteed a game changer in the draft. And generally, a team that moves up in the draft over pays, and one that moves down makes out better. of course, that requires a trading partner who is more excited about a prospect than he should be.
Back to the Corner