How about a trade with the Browns ?

that they have to jump over the #3 spot?

They draft a QB, we draft a QB ... why would the Browns give up picks to jump in front of the Colts?

allow the Giants to dominate round two with the first three picks. This is only my opinion but its what I would expect at the least.

In comment 13796240 DonQuixote said:

Quote:

that they have to jump over the #3 spot? They draft a QB, we draft a QB ... why would the Browns give up picks to jump in front of the Colts?

Barkley.

Giants could still get Rosen, Darnold or Allen and have the first two picks of the second round. But I doubt the Browns would do it unless they really love Barkley, and one of the QBs over the others.

To me there isn't a player worthy of making that move up - at least for them. Of they want Barkley that bad, they take him at #1. They can still get a QB at #4, be it Allen, Mayfield or whoever the Giants don't pick between Rosen and Darnold.

But I would expect Cleveland to take a QB and Barkley.

In addition to trading back to the 4th pick, I would want pick 33 and the first pick of round 4. Then NYG would have the luxury of having the whole night to review the draft board on day 2 and say 3 and take the top 2 picks on both days. This would also give NYG 6 picks in the first 4 rounds.

An ideal scenario if you ask me.

You would trade up to #2 and use the top two picks on something other than a QB?

isn't exact, but why would the Giants except such low value?

If anything to move down two spots in the 1st and possibly settle for a lesser valued player wouldn't be enough to pick up just a 2nd.

browns have to throw in 2019 2nd too or a 3rd in 2018.

In comment 13796264 Toth029 said:

Quote:

To me there isn't a player worthy of making that move up - at least for them. Of they want Barkley that bad, they take him at #1. They can still get a QB at #4, be it Allen, Mayfield or whoever the Giants don't pick between Rosen and Darnold.

Unless they like one of them a lot more than the others.

will take their QB #1 and be thrilled with either Barkley or Fitzpatrick at 4. If both are gone Chubb is a great option for them. Why trade up?

In comment 13796269 Modus Operandi said:

Quote:

You would trade up to #2 and use the top two picks on something other than a QB?

No, you'd take a QB and Barkley.

In comment 13796277 Pepe LePugh said:

Quote:

will take their QB #1 and be thrilled with either Barkley or Fitzpatrick at 4. If both are gone Chubb is a great option for them. Why trade up?

Because they might love Barkley and fear either the Giants or Colts would take him, or someone trading up with one of them to grab him.

In comment 13796280 Eman11 said:

Quote:

In comment 13796277 Pepe LePugh said: Quote: will take their QB #1 and be thrilled with either Barkley or Fitzpatrick at 4. If both are gone Chubb is a great option for them. Why trade up? Because they might love Barkley and fear either the Giants or Colts would take him, or someone trading up with one of them to grab him.

Understand the concept, but I don't see it happening, especially for Barkley. If they miss on Barkley they can take Fitzpatrick (fills biggest need other than QB) and trade back up for Guice or take Michel later.

all trades considered.

but that's not unusual. How does it work when teams are in draft negotiations. It it simply a gentleman's agreement when it's done by via phone. What's to stop a team from saying, oh we won't take (name the player), but then trick-screwing the other team and going back on their agreement?

can get 2 of the top 4 players and 3 of the top 33. Moving up to number 2 and giving up a chance for basically "another 1st round pick" at 33 doesn't make sense to me.

The only way I trade out of 2 is if we get a first round next year.

but 32 isn't another second round pick?

hate when people use that logic.

33 is a 2nd round pick period - except in years when the Patriots (or another team) get stripped of a pick for some rule violation. All other years, any pick after 32 until the 3rd round is reached is a 2nd round pick. None of them are basically another first.

32 is a first round pick and all the picks before it are 1st round picks. that's it, there is no "basically another first round pick"

I'm in the "stick with Eli for 2 years, see what we have with Webb during that time, these 2018 draft QBs have too many warts to draft #1 or #2, I'd rather draft Barkley" camp.

Therefore, dropping down to #4 creates too big a risk Barkley will be gone by #4.

The only reason to trade up would be to grab Barkley (assuming the Browns would go Barkley at #1 and then go QB at #4). The Giants have too many holes to give up a 2nd rounder to move up one slot.

You never get less value for a #2 pick, NEVER. have you bothered to look at the past drafts, the top picks that have top QB's there get much more value then the chart suggests, not less. At the least the Giants should get the Cleveland 2nd and 3rd round pick, having two picks at the top of the 2nd and 3rd rounds is extremely valuable and we would be in position to trade back more and add even more picks, that is the way to do things in todays NFL. That is the way New England does it all the time, it takes balls and conviction, these people fall in love with certain players and it's the problem with the Giants, the draft is not a science, add more picks and you add more talent, because you are going to be wrong about some players, it's the facts of the draft. Adding picks is the way to go today.

getting the 2nd overall pick. Probably have to give up more than just swapping firsts and their second round, but have the ammo to do it.

Enough is enough. Get your QB and get your star playmaker- Barkeley and Rosen/Darnold/Allen/Mayfield. All of a sudden you have a complete stud at RB with a formidable OL. A star talent at Receiver. A QB to grow with a running game. Also, a couple building pieces on defense. I think a few vets on D could start to bring things together on that side of the ball.

I think you could actually get the fans to be optimistic about a turn-around.

I could see them drafting 2 QB's with picks 1 and 2.



Just to be safe......They've gotta get it right someday...

In comment 13796494 HoustonGiant said:

Quote:

I could see them drafting 2 QB's with picks 1 and 2. Just to be safe......They've gotta get it right someday...

Remember when the Cowboys had Steve Walsh and still drafted Aikman? Turned out to be a good move.

2nd plus 3rd. Or second and and next years 2nd.

In comment 13796431 PaulN said:

Quote:

You never get less value for a #2 pick, NEVER. have you bothered to look at the past drafts, the top picks that have top QB's there get much more value then the chart suggests, not less. At the least the Giants should get the Cleveland 2nd and 3rd round pick, having two picks at the top of the 2nd and 3rd rounds is extremely valuable and we would be in position to trade back more and add even more picks, that is the way to do things in todays NFL. That is the way New England does it all the time, it takes balls and conviction, these people fall in love with certain players and it's the problem with the Giants, the draft is not a science, add more picks and you add more talent, because you are going to be wrong about some players, it's the facts of the draft. Adding picks is the way to go today.

That's all well and good, but none of those past drafts involve trading with a team that also has the #1 overall pick. Cleveland will not be motivated to overpay; in fact, it's incredibly unlikely that they'll be motivated to make this trade at all - it's just something that Giants fans are wishing for.

Trading down could make some sense, depending on how the Giants' brass views the board. But imagining scenarios for a trade opportunity are kind of silly. Historically, when teams have overpaid for the #2 pick, it's for a QB. But in this situation, the Browns already have the #1 pick, so they're not in a position to be desperate to move up for a QB - they can just take their guy at #1 overall. So then you're talking about them moving up for a non-QB prospect, and if you think they're going to pay full price (or more) to displace two teams (Giants and Colts) when there are, by most accounts, 3 non-QB prospects who could be in play for them at #4 (Barkley, Chubb, Fitzpatrick), you're just looking for what you want for the Giants, not what actually makes sense for a trade.

The potential trade partners if the Giants were going to trade down would most likely be Denver and the Jets. I personally think the Jets can basically be eliminated because I don't think the Giants would risk having the franchise QB they pass on share their stadium for the next decade and a half - I acknowledge that others disagree with that, but that's my view. So that would leave Denver as the most likely trading partner. The question there would be whether they'd be willing to trade up for a QB when they're already carrying the sunk cost of the Paxton Lynch pick. Not impossible, but an open question.

It's probably a fool's errand to try to predict who the Giants will select, but I do feel pretty confident in predicting that whoever the Giants pick will be taken at #2 overall.

I'd throw a small sweetener to themand see if they bite. Serious assets to move from one to two? No way. I'll take Josh Allen and be quite happy.

They went winless, yes, but NFL history is dotted with good examples of "rags to riches". IF they don't panic, they have a golden opportunity to do this ....

1. They don't need another young QB to throw into the fire, if they don't think Kizer is ready, they need to do all they can to steal Cousins from the Skins.

2. The biggest reason they failed, last year is that their O-line was injury prone (Thomas, Tretter, Coleman). As a result, QB Kizer played with aching ribs

3. If they pick Chubb #1 (the best player on the board); they instantly have the best young pass rushing combo in the NFL (with Chubb & Myles Garrett)

4. If they pick Barkley #2, they get the 2nd best player on the board and they instantly do the Kizer the best thing any QB can get - an outstanding running game.

From our perspective, we get the 3rd best player on the board with the #4 pick - Nelson

We get the opportunity to get the complimentary receiver that we need (opposite OBJ) OR get a high quality QB (Rudolph), if we think Eli is done (and think Webb is not the answer).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKJ9NYaZp3M

(Our free agent target should be Nate Solder)

I love how BOTH teams manage to leave QBs on the table and the Giants take a guard, no less.

The Browns basically tanked a couple of seasons to load up on picks. They're not going to trade those picks to move up two spots.

If they want Barkley so badly, they can take him first. They can then be sure of getting one of the next three prospects on their board at #4. There are at least five major QB prospects, Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield, Allen, Jackson. They are sure to have their choice of three of them at #4.

And we don't even know how the Browns feel about Kizer. They may not feel that there's a franchise QB there worth moving up for.

1. DeShone Kizer CAN play at a high level (against top competition); he just kept getting the crap beaten out of him because of a depleted line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIo-CeL0eWc

What I'm saying - If you don't believe he's the answer GO GET COUSINS

(Then you avoid getting into the Matt Millen treadmill; remember how he kept making the same mistakes over-and-over again, when he was with the Lions)

2. IF the Giants want another young QB, Mason Rudolph is a damned good one in the 2nd round (so is another 2nd rounder [maybe the next Russell Wilson - Lamar Jackson])

In the history of the NFL draft ...

With Myles Garrett already in place ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQH5u5MJxYk

Then picking Bradley Garrett ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwAfwwzgEMU

Then picking Saquon Barkley ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfMF-uBQGAI

That some serious young AAA talent !

Top it off with Cousins at QB; they could go from "laughingstock" to scary.

.