Let me start with I am an Eli Manning apologist. The day he retires will be a sad day for all Giant fans. And I understand we are in 'win now' mode because of Eli's impending twilight years. But if a NFL caliber QB is available at the 23rd pick like Mitch Trubisky, I would not hesitate to pull the trigger for a number of reasons.
A) Watch Trubisky in the pocket. A shotgun QB with truly exceptional ball skills with regards to play action. He is better now than Eli has ever been at faking play action. Truth is, Eli is terrible at it and always has been. Sometimes, I wonder if he is Peyton's brother, at all. Peyton's ball fake skills were amazing. Eli's? Meh, not so much. And that is a big part of freezing the opposing LBs and secondary so that the advantage goes to the WRs/TEs/RBs in pass patterns.
B) His completion percentage was 68.2% last year. 30 TDs with 6 picks. He spreads the ball around and plays taller than his advertised 6'3" in the pocket. Can make all the throws. Quick throwing motion. Little wasted time in delivering the ball.
C) Big and athletic enough to break tackle here and there and run for a first down here and there. Has a good internal clock. Needs to learn to slide. He won't be trucking LBs in the NFL.
D) Cost control for the cap in upcoming years and the ability to learn from a two time Super Bowl MVP whilst on the job. Seattle built that team because they had Wilson on a rookie contract for three years. Cost controlling the QB position helps tremendously.
He is not 6'3" as stated and probably closer to 6'1". But he plays tall and has good feel. BTW, Arrogant Rodgers is about 6'0". He is a one year starter and his throws on the move need work. That is the one part of his game that seems erratic, at times, to me.
I really don't think he falls to 23 with so many QB needy teams, but, if he did, would you consider him at #23? I wouldn't hesitate.
Mitch Trubisky || - (
New Window )
2) If you draft Trubisky, you're going to have a draft choice sit on the bench for at least 3 years and possibly 5. That would put Trubisky behind the eight ball...he'd be rusty beyond belief.
3) If they did draft a QB #1, the expectation would be that the drafted QB would be starting in two years or less. That's the way the NFL works today. Trubisky would likely be out of here after his rookie contract, and the team would have gotten no production out of a #1 draft choice. That's not an option.
4) You would be likely giving up the season. Even with all our draft choices, we are going to have trouble filling up all the holes. And rookie QB's don't win Super Bowls.
This ONLY works if you're going to trade Eli. Not going to happen...you don't trade a franchise QB who has won two Super Bowls and is healthy unless you're 100% sure the guy replacing him can compete for a championship.
If Eli was 38, I could see this happening. Not at 36.
History proves this. San Diego traded Drew Brees, as they were convinced recently drafted Philip Rivers would lead them to a Championship. Remember how that ended?
2) If you draft Trubisky, you're going to have a draft choice sit on the bench for at least 3 years and possibly 5. That would put Trubisky behind the eight ball...he'd be rusty beyond belief.
3) If they did draft a QB #1, the expectation would be that the drafted QB would be starting in two years or less. That's the way the NFL works today. Trubisky would likely be out of here after his rookie contract, and the team would have gotten no production out of a #1 draft choice. That's not an option.
4) You would be likely giving up the season. Even with all our draft choices, we are going to have trouble filling up all the holes. And rookie QB's don't win Super Bowls.
This ONLY works if you're going to trade Eli. Not going to happen...you don't trade a franchise QB who has won two Super Bowls and is healthy unless you're 100% sure the guy replacing him can compete for a championship.
If Eli was 38, I could see this happening. Not at 36.
History proves this. San Diego traded Drew Brees, as they were convinced recently drafted Philip Rivers would lead them to a Championship. Remember how that ended?
Fair points, John. But Eli won't be getting another contract after this one. He'll be 38 after this contract expires. Failing to prepare is preparing to fail. Better to address this sooner than later and not with a 5th round pick (see Rhett Bomar).
Giving up the season is a bit alarmist. Not every draft pick will start nor should they.
History also proves that grooming a QB can work and often times does. Farve/Rodgers. Montana/Young. And so on.
No one is asking a rookie QB to win a SB. You're missing the point. Who said anything about trading Eli?
And San Diego gave up on a HOF QB. Not exactly an equal comparison.
It would be nice to get our guy next draft or the year after that, but the guy may not be available that year. Can't pass up a someone you really see as a replacement because it's a year or two early.
If he develops and looks like he ready to take over in 2018 or 2019, then just show Eli the door a year or two before his contract is up. Jerry had no problem doing that to others of his key players, like Tuck.
It would be nice to get our guy next draft or the year after that, but the guy may not be available that year. Can't pass up a someone you really see as a replacement because it's a year or two early.
If he develops and looks like he ready to take over in 2018 or 2019, then just show Eli the door a year or two before his contract is up. Jerry had no problem doing that to others of his key players, like Tuck.
This. ^
That's what they said about Aaron Rodgers.
Now I know nothing about Trubisky so I am not saying they should draft him. But if the front office believes him - or any other QB in this draft is a franchise guy - you get him if you can and then worry about how long he sits and what you do with Eli.
I love Eli and hope he plays another 5 years, but the Packers model is the right one.
2) If you draft Trubisky, you're going to have a draft choice sit on the bench for at least 3 years and possibly 5. That would put Trubisky behind the eight ball...he'd be rusty beyond belief.
3) If they did draft a QB #1, the expectation would be that the drafted QB would be starting in two years or less. That's the way the NFL works today. Trubisky would likely be out of here after his rookie contract, and the team would have gotten no production out of a #1 draft choice. That's not an option.
4) You would be likely giving up the season. Even with all our draft choices, we are going to have trouble filling up all the holes. And rookie QB's don't win Super Bowls.
This ONLY works if you're going to trade Eli. Not going to happen...you don't trade a franchise QB who has won two Super Bowls and is healthy unless you're 100% sure the guy replacing him can compete for a championship.
If Eli was 38, I could see this happening. Not at 36.
History proves this. San Diego traded Drew Brees, as they were convinced recently drafted Philip Rivers would lead them to a Championship. Remember how that ended?
Two points:
First, the draft is for the future. FA is for filling needs. If you need your draft picks to emerge as immediate, quality starters you aren't a Superbowl team anyhow.
Second, they can't assume that Eli is going to play until he is 40. Father time catches us all. Eli might play until he is 40, or he might get an injury next year that he never fully rebounds from.
If they see their QB they will take him. IF.
History also proves that grooming a QB can work and often times does. Farve/Rodgers. Montana/Young. And so on.
Here's my problem with this statement. You can't name the 2 rare occasions that prove your argument correct and ignore the far greater amount of times that it failed. History does not in fact prove that grooming a QB can work and "OFTEN" times does. It's very much the opposite. You mentioned the two times it worked in 50 years (SB era). There's a far greater number of times that an heir apparent QB was "groomed" behind a great QB and failed. The reason nobody thinks about them is because they weren't worth remembering. Also, I don't see the "And so on" either. What other great QBs were 'groomed' behind other great veteran QBs besides the two mentioned? Might come up with 1 or 2 debatable ones but the level of failures still greatly outweighs the successes.
Quote:
1) Eli just turned 36. He very well could play till 40...no major injuries.
2) If you draft Trubisky, you're going to have a draft choice sit on the bench for at least 3 years and possibly 5. That would put Trubisky behind the eight ball...he'd be rusty beyond belief.
3) If they did draft a QB #1, the expectation would be that the drafted QB would be starting in two years or less. That's the way the NFL works today. Trubisky would likely be out of here after his rookie contract, and the team would have gotten no production out of a #1 draft choice. That's not an option.
4) You would be likely giving up the season. Even with all our draft choices, we are going to have trouble filling up all the holes. And rookie QB's don't win Super Bowls.
This ONLY works if you're going to trade Eli. Not going to happen...you don't trade a franchise QB who has won two Super Bowls and is healthy unless you're 100% sure the guy replacing him can compete for a championship.
If Eli was 38, I could see this happening. Not at 36.
History proves this. San Diego traded Drew Brees, as they were convinced recently drafted Philip Rivers would lead them to a Championship. Remember how that ended?
Fair points, John. But Eli won't be getting another contract after this one. He'll be 38 after this contract expires. Failing to prepare is preparing to fail. Better to address this sooner than later and not with a 5th round pick (see Rhett Bomar).
Giving up the season is a bit alarmist. Not every draft pick will start nor should they.
History also proves that grooming a QB can work and often times does. Farve/Rodgers. Montana/Young. And so on.
No one is asking a rookie QB to win a SB. You're missing the point. Who said anything about trading Eli?
And San Diego gave up on a HOF QB. Not exactly an equal comparison.
Brady will still be playing when Eli retires, and he is almost 40. With that said, I would wait until next year
to draft a QB. I certainly would not in the first round
this year, when you need OL and DL.
Quote:
Transitioning to your next quarterback is hard and if you screw it up you could go three or four or more years with no acceptable quarterback and no chance of winning.
It would be nice to get our guy next draft or the year after that, but the guy may not be available that year. Can't pass up a someone you really see as a replacement because it's a year or two early.
If he develops and looks like he ready to take over in 2018 or 2019, then just show Eli the door a year or two before his contract is up. Jerry had no problem doing that to others of his key players, like Tuck.
This. ^
+2. But I agree that the discussion is moot, because there is zero chance Trubisky is available at #23. Zero point zero.
I am not saying they should draft him either, just an example.
Year____Cap Hit____Dead Money
2017---- $19.7M ---- $18.6M
2018---- $22.2M ---- $12.4M
2019---- $23.2M ---- $6.2M
Now I know nothing about Trubisky so I am not saying they should draft him. But if the front office believes him - or any other QB in this draft is a franchise guy - you get him if you can and then worry about how long he sits and what you do with Eli.
I love Eli and hope he plays another 5 years, but the Packers model is the right one.
Thanks, Mike. You are spot on here.
If we use a pick on a developmental type in the 4th or 5th round looking to strike gold I get it. That's as far as I would go.
If all the QB-needy teams don't think he is so great, what makes you think the Giants scouts will see it differently? Are the Giants scouts that much smarter than the scouts for the QB-needy teams? Are you that much smarter than them?
Unless the Giants have a crystal ball that we don't know about, they won't be taking a QB with the 23rd pick because there won't be a QB prospect worth the 23rd pick when the Giants are on the clock. Period. If there are QB prospects worthy of the 23rd pick, they will be gone by the time the 23rd pick rolls around.
If not for the absence of JPP and the injury to DRC, the Giants would have buried the Packers in the playoffs. The game was already headed in that direction when DRC went out.
You do realize you need a threat of a running game to make play action effective...if you have been as bad rushing the ball as the Giants have been the last 4 years it wouldn't matter if you had Harry Houdini back there...
His play action fakes were dynamite when he had an OL and Tiki, Jacobs, Bradshaw and Ware...
If not for the absence of JPP and the injury to DRC, the Giants would have buried the Packers in the playoffs. The game was already headed in that direction when DRC went out.
I may be overly optimistic, but if we were to re-sign our defensive players and pick up Whitworth, the draft could still add a lot to the team, and taking a QB wouldn't exclude our ability to compete for a SB.
Why can't we get a TE, RB, slot CB, and depth WR in this draft even without a #1? For example: Zay Jones, Leggett, Kareem Hunt and any of the dozens of CBs in this draft (Kazee, Stribling, Elder for example).
And it's not like our #1 is necessarily going to make a huge impact in year one. Often those guys take a while to contribute themselves.
If all the QB-needy teams don't think he is so great, what makes you think the Giants scouts will see it differently? Are the Giants scouts that much smarter than the scouts for the QB-needy teams? Are you that much smarter than them?
Unless the Giants have a crystal ball that we don't know about, they won't be taking a QB with the 23rd pick because there won't be a QB prospect worth the 23rd pick when the Giants are on the clock. Period. If there are QB prospects worthy of the 23rd pick, they will be gone by the time the 23rd pick rolls around.
To counter your argument why did Aaron Rodgers fall to the 25th pick? Why did every team pass on Derek Carr allowing the Raiders to get him in the 2nd round? I agree with anyone who feels that the Giants should wait to draft Eli's replacement for at least another year unless of course they feel any of these QB's have franchise potential. Personally I would draft a developmental QB in the mid to late rounds and just solidify the rest of the roster.
Roster building in the NFL pretty much dictates you cannot allocate that many premium resources (Cap $$ and 1st round picks) to that one position and not get production from that position (a 1st round pick QB sitting on the bench for at least a year or two). The new CBA is different.
you need production from your premium picks or you have to get production elsewhere and the Giants just have not gotten production elsewhere.
The only way you do this is if you don't plan to contend this year.
Jay...
It's not like Walsh knew Montana was going to be a franchise QB but waited until the 3rd round to select him because he was that much smarter than everybody else. In fact, Walsh was planning on taking Phil Simms with his first round pick. So Walsh preferred the relative unknown from Morehead State to the QB from Notre Dame who had just won a national title!
Any QB can turn into a franchise QB. Look at Kurt Warner. But that doesn't mean they were a franchise QB quality prospect at the time of the draft. It just means somebody got lucky.
I would offer NE a #2 for Jimmy G or perhaps a #3 or #4 for AJ McCarron as at least these guys are somewhat proven.
If people can't acknowledge Eli today is not Eli of old they have blinders on. And that's not putting the offense's failures last year all on Eli or saying he can't be successful another couple years, it's my observation from watching games.
If all the QB-needy teams don't think he is so great, what makes you think the Giants scouts will see it differently? Are the Giants scouts that much smarter than the scouts for the QB-needy teams? Are you that much smarter than them?
Unless the Giants have a crystal ball that we don't know about, they won't be taking a QB with the 23rd pick because there won't be a QB prospect worth the 23rd pick when the Giants are on the clock. Period. If there are QB prospects worthy of the 23rd pick, they will be gone by the time the 23rd pick rolls around.
In that case you just pick the straw man.
That's enough of a valuable and knowledgeable opinion to pass nog time on this guy at 23
I'm leaning towards NO ;-).
That's enough of a valuable and knowledgeable opinion to pass nog time on this guy at 23
That is a problem to be sure, and one that few are talking about. I'd like to know more about why that happened.
Quote:
sat behind a guy for two years who wsn't even drafted by the NFL..He said Trubisky could turn out to be a great QB, you never know, but his recommendation? BUYER BEWARE..
That's enough of a valuable and knowledgeable opinion to pass nog time on this guy at 23
That is a problem to be sure, and one that few are talking about. I'd like to know more about why that happened.
That's what Gil said
Remember what happened with Dave Brown over Phil Simms?
I'll go with Eli to the bitter end and deal with it then.
Quote:
There is zero chance Trubisky will be available after the 12th pick of the draft, and I would say less than a 20% chance he gets out of the top 5 picks.
That's what they said about Aaron Rodgers.
"They" are wrong all the time. I'm not.
You also called the guy a shotgun qb with great play fake skills. kind of meaningless since the pro game typically doesn't utilize shotgun on every play. That's just splitting hairs tho.
Take the qb if you love him but the cost controlled aspects don't apply. If anything it's not a cost effective move in the least. It's a pricey and costly long term investment.