If you were the Giants and you had the first overall pick...

make that trade.

Davis Webb can lead you to the promised land why not take the best defensive player in the draft OL in second round

You have to ask who a team is interested in. If it's Darnold, you pass and you just take Darnold.

Perhaps Cleveland is enamored with Rosen or even Saquon Barkley and they want to move up 1 spot. That's fine...get what the Bears gave up for Trubisky, which was two 3rds and a 4th. But you have to Darnold.

Often times those extra picks lead to nothing. How is it working out for the Browns as Wentz looks to be the MVP? Gotta love those extra draft picks! Oh, and they did the SAME THING with Watson this past year! Love those extra picks though.

1000% draft Darnold.

.

In comment 13695566 allstarjim said:

Quote:

You have to ask who a team is interested in. If it's Darnold, you pass and you just take Darnold. Perhaps Cleveland is enamored with Rosen or even Saquon Barkley and they want to move up 1 spot. That's fine...get what the Bears gave up for Trubisky, which was two 3rds and a 4th. But you have to Darnold.

Not worth the risk. Another team could trade up and steal Darnold.

I don't care if someone was offering up 3 #1's. If you draft Darnold, you likely won't pick this high again for perhaps 15 years.

Don't overthink this.

I trade with can't take Darnold. Of course, why would the team with the #2 make that trade? lol

If I have the #1 pick and the team with the #2 pick is worried and uncertain whom I'm going to pick, is it permissible for the two teams to reach an agreement whereby #2 gives #1 value (let's say a #7 pick) in exchange for #1 agreeing NOT to select Player X?

In comment 13695587 baadbill said:

Quote:

I trade with can't take Darnold. Of course, why would the team with the #2 make that trade? lol

And what's stopping the team that traded for that pick to turn around and auction that to 30 other teams without the gentlemen's agreement? If you want a player, take the player. Don't overthink it.

Would you rather have had Eli or some combination of draft picks?
It is rare that a team gets the opportunity to draft a franchise QB

If any of the top QBs are projected to be of s franchise quality you draft him

This is a QB lead league
You need a QB first then build the team

Webb is curious
He was drafted to be Eli's successor but that isn't a sure thing
I believe that the Giants have reservations
But Reese cannot admit that Webb was a mistake

If Webb turns out to be the guy and Darnold is the real deal, you could probably make very good use of that asset.

Next franchise quarterback is not something you get a chance at often , it s not a difficult decision

2018 — 2 firsts, 2 seconds, 1 third

2019 — first and second

The Giants would be stacked with the right guy making the picks. These QBs have too many question marks to stand pat.

If someone else in the top 5 gives me their pick, next years first pick and a 3rd or 4th rounder or a player. Except if my sure thing blue chip/Franchise QB is there like Darnold is then I can't think of any asset worth trading that for.

I heard JR is taking a long hard look at potential special teams standouts with the first pick. There you go, my asshat prediction is in.

and move on with the restructuring plan of this team. If Webb turns out to be value then you have a nice security blanket too.

Don't assume Eli's heir apparent will never miss games like he has avoided...

You would if you thought
NikkiMac : 9:17 am : link : reply
Davis Webb can lead you to the promised land why not take the best defensive player in the draft OL in second round

do you make that determination, if the guy isn't even taking snaps in practice? Based on how he holds a clipboard?

Are there rules prohibiting certain trades of draft picks?
baadbill : 9:58 am : link : reply
If I have the #1 pick and the team with the #2 pick is worried and uncertain whom I'm going to pick, is it permissible for the two teams to reach an agreement whereby #2 gives #1 value (let's say a #7 pick) in exchange for #1 agreeing NOT to select Player X?

But even to move up one spot, will cost more than a 7th rounder....

#2 this and #3 next year.

...why?

Because the Giants are far behind Philly and Dallas, who have secured their franchise QB for the next decade.

Eli is no longer our future. He's our past and stand-in for one more year max.

Unless both Darnold and Rosen go back to school. If they have the 1st overall pick I believe Darnold will declare and be the pick. He would be going to the perfect situation where there isn't pressure for him to start week one.

In comment 13695652 Doomster said:

Quote:

Are there rules prohibiting certain trades of draft picks? baadbill : 9:58 am : link : reply If I have the #1 pick and the team with the #2 pick is worried and uncertain whom I'm going to pick, is it permissible for the two teams to reach an agreement whereby #2 gives #1 value (let's say a #7 pick) in exchange for #1 agreeing NOT to select Player X? But even to move up one spot, will cost more than a 7th rounder....

I don't think that's a trade ... and because I don't think its ever been done, tells me it must be against the rules.

Remember - in my scenario, there is no trading of positions. I keep my #1 pick. I've just agreed NOT to select player X.

without being compensated for giving up on any option.

Go read an economy book about how markets work...

In general short trade downs are great. Also bundles of picks close together. Those would help the staff greatly in terms of focus on value.

But- what willvab said sounds great!

Buffalo's.

In comment 13695687 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

without being compensated for giving up on any option. Go read an economy book about how markets work...

Are you talking about my scenario? If so, I don't know what you mean about not being compensated. I hold the #1 pick. I promise team with #2 pick that I will NOT select player X in exchange for team with #2 giving me compensation (my example they gave me a #7).

...period.

In comment 13695706 Torrag said:

Quote:

...period.

Some like Rosen better... Has better arm talent. Do you think Darnold is the surefire # 1?

until you miss out on more than just the QB of your future.

But only if the trading partner has a decent 1st and we get their 2nd plus another pick.

I don't think Darnold has been all that great this year, nor has any other QB.

Trading down is crap shoot, we all know that. So is taking a QB, Ryan Leaf comes to mind. If you can pick up an extra #1 and choose from the strength of the draft and not the sexy picks too me that's that the way to go. I would look to pick one of the interior OL guys, Billy Price, Mason Cole,Braden Smith with one of the #1's and running back Derrius Guice or a Stud MLB Rashaan Evans with the other. Not sure who has 2 #1's and are they willing to give up both for the number 1 or 2 pick.

In comment 13695704 baadbill said:

Quote:

In comment 13695687 Jimmy Googs said: Quote: without being compensated for giving up on any option. Go read an economy book about how markets work... Are you talking about my scenario? If so, I don't know what you mean about not being compensated. I hold the #1 pick. I promise team with #2 pick that I will NOT select player X in exchange for team with #2 giving me compensation (my example they gave me a #7).

no bill I wasn't crticizing your view, just the theme from earlier in thread above.

Deal couldnt go down like that because can't force a team to take or not take a given player. What if they didn't comply with the deal in the end, does Team #2 go to the NFL commissioner and say they aren't playing fair?

Nevetheless, their are clearly side-deals for sure and some level of comfort is given as to whom they are taking/not taking is discussed. But don't think you can rely on it...

In comment 13695572 Sean said:

Quote:

In comment 13695566 allstarjim said: Quote: You have to ask who a team is interested in. If it's Darnold, you pass and you just take Darnold. Perhaps Cleveland is enamored with Rosen or even Saquon Barkley and they want to move up 1 spot. That's fine...get what the Bears gave up for Trubisky, which was two 3rds and a 4th. But you have to Darnold. Not worth the risk. Another team could trade up and steal Darnold.

You do understand I was talking about a trade down one spot. And San Francisco absolutely knew that the Bears were trading up for Trubisky. You want to move to our pick, you disclose who you are moving up for. Sure, they could lie, but breaking faith with teams that you wish to do business with in the future is not a good idea generally. There's literally no risk in a trade down 1 spot if the team moving up discloses who the player is they want. It only works though if the team trading up is afraid of another team trading up to your spot and grabbing the player they want, though. Saquon Barkley could be that kind of player.

Ideal scenario is that San Francisco is sold on Jimmy Garopollo as their guy for the future, and that teams that have already scored their franchise QB, teams like the Chicago Bears, Texans, and Colts are the teams you are drafting down behind if you make a more significant drop.

Either way, I agree you have to eliminate all the risk to get Darnold. To me he is THE guy.

In comment 13695756 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

In comment 13695704 baadbill said: Quote: In comment 13695687 Jimmy Googs said: Quote: without being compensated for giving up on any option. Go read an economy book about how markets work... Are you talking about my scenario? If so, I don't know what you mean about not being compensated. I hold the #1 pick. I promise team with #2 pick that I will NOT select player X in exchange for team with #2 giving me compensation (my example they gave me a #7). no bill I wasn't crticizing your view, just the theme from earlier in thread above. Deal couldnt go down like that because can't force a team to take or not take a given player. What if they didn't comply with the deal in the end, does Team #2 go to the NFL commissioner and say they aren't playing fair? Nevetheless, their are clearly side-deals for sure and some level of comfort is given as to whom they are taking/not taking is discussed. But don't think you can rely on it...

Actually, my question was really whether a binding agreement can be made whereby team at position X agrees with team at position X+1 not to draft a particular player in exchange for some compensation.

I did a quick lookup and didn't find anything but I have to think such an agreement isn't permitted or else we would have seen it happen before.

After all, I have to believe every draft has multiple occasions of a team about to be on the clock praying a particular player makes it past that one last team such they would be willing to give some form of compensation to guarantee the player drops to them. If it was permitted, we'd have seen it happen before (and I've seen teams in adjacent order swap positions - when really all they needed to do was agree not to draft player X if that was allowed).

and he is surrounded by great talent. Lots of question marks with him if you ask me. I've seen 4 of his games so far, and its not that impressive.

Just to be annoying I'll point this out again. So far Darnold has thrown for 3,100 yds, has 24 TDs, and has 11 Ints.

Webb, in exactly the same conference, threw for 4,300 yards, had 37 TDs, and only 12 Ints. I don't get why everyone is giving up on Webb. He's sitting behind Eli, just as all these guys will be. He needs a chance to show what promise he has, his stats are just as good as anyone's this year.

Build the O-line jury is still out on Flowers take BPA in the trenches maybe a center or another guard then go for
LB DE ..

In comment 13695596 Archer said:

Quote:

Would you rather have had Eli or some combination of draft picks? It is rare that a team gets the opportunity to draft a franchise QB If any of the top QBs are projected to be of s franchise quality you draft him This is a QB lead league You need a QB first then build the team Webb is curious He was drafted to be Eli's successor but that isn't a sure thing I believe that the Giants have reservations But Reese cannot admit that Webb was a mistake

It’s not Reese’s act to admit to... that’s Big Mac’s baby!
But they def should let Webb play the rest of the way I mean if you are considering taking a QB in he 1st you might as well see what your QB on the team can do. Don’t be a Jet about it

Rosen
Mayfield

If we pick top 3.

You can't without a qb. If you have 2 then you can trade 1.

Move back to three or four and take Baker mayfield p

.

is not always the best decision just ask the Browns. Imagine if they had Carson Wentz right now.

In comment 13695605 WillVAB said:

Quote:

2018 — 2 firsts, 2 seconds, 1 third 2019 — first and second The Giants would be stacked with the right guy making the picks. These QBs have too many question marks to stand pat.

Buffalo likely is tanking for a QB and might trade...but they have needs and all that is more than they'd give. Rightly.
They MAY give the early 1, the later 2, and the '19 2..

Mayfield is a top 5 pick. Write it down.

assuming it's top 3 or 4, they should take a qb. You don't get the chance to have a pick that high very often (unless your the Browns) so take a guy that could be a franchise player for years and years to come.

There will be other good players, but would you really rather have a guy like Clowney, or Jalen Ramsey, or Myles Garrett, than a franchise qb? Those guys are impossible to find. If you grab a Kalil Mack then maybe, but more likely you get a Brandon Scherff (or worse) that isn't a game changer.

Keep Webb, he can be our version of Kirk Cousins we can use as either a safety net or trade for value in the future

Take the qb now so you don't have to overpay for a free agent or trade multiple firsts to move up sometime in the future

In comment 13695630 smshmth8690 said:

Quote:

I heard JR is taking a long hard look at potential special teams standouts with the first pick. There you go, my asshat prediction is in.

The JPP of special teams .... I heard the samething.

You take the franchise QB every time, because a team with one is generally competitive and a team without one is doing everything in its power to get one. But is Rosen or Darnald or someone else that franchise QB? The last ten years of draft history suggests teams don't always do a good job judging QB talent, and they assume that because someone is the best of a given draft class (assuming they judge that correctly) that he is a franchise QB. So if we have a shot at one take it. If not, let another team make that mistake and take the draft picks.

In comment 13696410 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

You take the franchise QB every time, because a team with one is generally competitive and a team without one is doing everything in its power to get one. But is Rosen or Darnald or someone else that franchise QB? The last ten years of draft history suggests teams don't always do a good job judging QB talent, and they assume that because someone is the best of a given draft class (assuming they judge that correctly) that he is a franchise QB. So if we have a shot at one take it. If not, let another team make that mistake and take the draft picks.

+1

I copied this from another thread - "I would like for the Giants to not force the pick just because they may have the 1st or 2nd pick in the draft. That shouldn't mean you grab a QB automatically.

I am a college Football fan but, I don't know much about scouting college players. I am reading that the top 2-3 QBs coming out this year are not as strong as previous classes and 2017 may NOT be a very good year to take a QB that high.

I do know (think) that the Giants have a lot of holes that need filling on both side of the ball. When rebuilding a team the more picks you have the better (imho)."

And, another thing - what happens if there is a sure fire future HOF'er stud Linebacker, Defensive lineman, or Offensive Lineman there when we pick at #1 or #2? And, the 2 or 3 Qbs this year all grade out to round 3 or even round 2 talent?

I just don't think that you automatically take a QB when you are picking either #1, #2, or #3 in the draft. This team may take a few drafts to rebuild. The "golden" boy may be there (at perfect value) in 2019 or 2020.

A lot of talent at the position this year, potentially one of the better ones in awhile. It'll depend on who stays and who comes out, how they look in the postseason stuff, etc. The draft took a hit with everyone's dark horse Josh Allen struggling, but someone else could emerge. Lamar Jackson, the kid from Northwestern has some buzz, a lot can change. How many mocks had Wentz where he went at this point in the season?

In comment 13696415 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

A lot of talent at the position this year, potentially one of the better ones in awhile. It'll depend on who stays and who comes out, how they look in the postseason stuff, etc. The draft took a hit with everyone's dark horse Josh Allen struggling, but someone else could emerge. Lamar Jackson, the kid from Northwestern has some buzz, a lot can change. How many mocks had Wentz where he went at this point in the season?

Dune - I had a few last night. After I posted the reply to your post, I re-read what you said and thought - "wait, did I misunderstand what he said?" : ).

offensive tackle or DE if the value is there.