I thought he made a few interesting points re: Gettleman and what he might do at #2.
The question was presented to him that basically since the end of the season momentum has seemed to shift away from NYG taking a QB at 2. Carlin presented this and I'm sure he was referencing DG's comments about Eli in the last Philly game, his comments about being wrong when taking a QB high, etc.
Garafolo first mentioned how this is DG's first offseason in this role and how that might influence a trade down. Not only are you able to build your foundation along the OL/DL, but you build up some "equity" for the future. You have Eli this year, for which you add Nelson after a trade back, and then maybe with an additional #1 next year (from Denver for example) you have the flexibility to move up/around for a guy you like. Off the top of my head, I think Lynch did this in SF last year as an example. There are probably more.
The other thought relates to Barkley. MG mentioned how just this past year Gettleman took a highly touted RB in the top 10. Granted it was a lesser prospect in a lower slot, but it is interesting if you want to analyze track record. DG is not afraid to take a RB with a premium/top 10 pick.
Although very early and pre-combine, I think we are looking at 3 options right now and I like all of them.
Darnold @ 2
Barkley @ 2
Trade back
The way the board falls this year, the only other player who I see as a possibility for them (without moving back) is Chubb because NYG loves DE as much as any position on the field, but I doubt it.
Just shows how good he is
Mike G's points specific points were:
-Gettleman could be more likely trade down as it's year 1 for him.
-Gettleman took McCaffrey high just last year.
Don't know if it reads that way but beyond those points I was elaborating. Just don't want anyone confused by that.
He is a rare DE. He reminds me of a more athletic more physical Derek Barnett from a year ago.. he could be special and when you are paying your current DE’s $15 million+ per year you have to at least consider it.
Francesa said he heard Gettlemen wants to fix the OL, Peter King saying he's hearing the same thing, now Mike G.
That's three guys with good contacts talking us out of QB.
Trading down to 5 and taking Nelson, Barkley, Chubb or a QB that is left... and getting a #2 and #3, would be something to consider.
Just shows how good he is
So true.
Quote:
to many huge holes on the OL and RB on this team not to mention LB.
He is a rare DE. He reminds me of a more athletic more physical Derek Barnett from a year ago.. he could be special and when you are paying your current DE’s $15 million+ per year you have to at least consider it.
Also need to take into consideration the new DC and his affinity for the 3-4
Quote:
to many huge holes on the OL and RB on this team not to mention LB.
He is a rare DE. He reminds me of a more athletic more physical Derek Barnett from a year ago.. he could be special and when you are paying your current DE’s $15 million+ per year you have to at least consider it.
Another thing to consider in regards to what we already have a DE, apparently, both JPP and OV's contracts are easy to get out of after this year. Me thinks that if JPP has another down year this year, he may be a goner, which leave a huge hole at DE.
Lol
Holy Overreaction.
Quote:
it will be the biggest mistake in Giants history.
Holy Overreaction.
It would be a wasted pick at #2. How many times have we drafted that high? He won't run with our OL, by the time we build him one Eli will be done or close to it. We are going to have to pay OBJ and already have young offensive weapons that need a qb to get them the ball. It is a bad position to pick that high because usually running backs last about 5 premium years. Not to mention how many franchises get the opportunity to have continuity between two franchise qbs, we are staring at that in a draft loaded with qb talent (or there are at least two very promising ones) but we are going to throw it away for RB who we cant really use yet. Besides all those issues, it would be a great pick.
They didn't choose a RB over a QB.
Also them picking McCaffrey should show Gettleman why they shouldn't take a RB. The guy they drafted at 8 was 10th in rush yards behind guys that were drafted in the 3rd, 4th, 5th and even undrafted.
They didn't choose a RB over a QB.
Also them picking McCaffrey should show Gettleman why they shouldn't take a RB. The guy they drafted at 8 was 10th in rush yards behind guys that were drafted in the 3rd, 4th, 5th and even undrafted.
I agree. Carolina had the OL, the QB, and the defense.
DG is in a different situation here.
One never wants to say never in this business, but the absolutely stone cold most likely draft scenario for the Giants on April 26th is that they will take the LA QB - Darnold or Rosen - that the Browns don't. Its what NFL teams that need a QB do. (And the irony is that the only NFL team in that scenario that hasn't done that in recent years are the Browns and they're 1-31 for their troubles.)
It is still possible that the Giants could opt to pass on Rosen if they felt that he really wasn't committed to the game, although we aren't hearing those concerns from any other teams around the league at this point. And my guess is that if they did sour on Rosen that their next option at #2 would be Josh Allen. And in the very unlikely scenario that they did ultimately trade down it would be a few spots so that either Allen or Mayfield would still be in reach.
As I have said in a couple of other places, the really interesting element of the Giants draft will come at #34. With 5-6 QBs likely to go in round one, you will be in position to a get second first-round quality player that you can use to address your needs issues.
2). Letting Lombardi get away.
3). Letting Belichick get away.
4). Letting Landry get away.
5). Hiring Ray Handley
Francesa said he heard Gettlemen wants to fix the OL, Peter King saying he's hearing the same thing, now Mike G.
That's three guys with good contacts talking us out of QB.
Trading down to 5 and taking Nelson, Barkley, Chubb or a QB that is left... and getting a #2 and #3, would be something to consider.
a 2nd and 3rd rounder in a draft where you can grab a big time QB is way to light. That isn't even value on the draft value chart. I assume we would pull higher than the average draft value chart because of the QB situation this draft.
I would need there 1 this year and there 1 next year just to start. Then we can haggle over if we can get a 2 this year or 3 this year as well.
Quote:
to many huge holes on the OL and RB on this team not to mention LB.
He is a rare DE. He reminds me of a more athletic more physical Derek Barnett from a year ago.. he could be special and when you are paying your current DE’s $15 million+ per year you have to at least consider it.
The biggest problem with drafting (or mock drafting) Chubb, IMO, is that we don't really even know what defensive scheme Bettcher plans to run, and if it's a 30 front or even a 30 hybrid, it may not make sense to continue to add to the 4-3 DE position group.
If we are indeed considering a transition to the 3-4, one of the primary benefits of that defense is that OLB/edge rush tweeners are actually a good fit, and they can be had at least slightly lower in the draft.
If we're fully committed to a 4-3, then Chubb absolutely should be in the mix. But that's definitely an open question (at least for us, as we speculate) at this point.
2). Letting Lombardi get away.
3). Letting Belichick get away.
4). Letting Landry get away.
5). Hiring Ray Handley
It shows how little about Giants history you know. Lombardi, Landry, and Belichick had already left when there were head coaches still employed here who had won world titles. Ray Handley was a bad move, but the Giants hand was forced in May and it was two years, hardly a back breaking decision for a franchise who probably was on the decline anyway. You don't draft a franchise qb when you are supposed to you could have 10 bad years of football. But, yes carry on. Let's draft a RB we probably couldn't fully utilize for a year or two until we rebuild our offensive line (assuming we do, let him get beat up in the process and then we will have a 39 year old qb when we are ready to use him. Makes so much sense.
Quote:
media guy tied to NY talk about us taking OL in round one.
Francesa said he heard Gettlemen wants to fix the OL, Peter King saying he's hearing the same thing, now Mike G.
That's three guys with good contacts talking us out of QB.
Trading down to 5 and taking Nelson, Barkley, Chubb or a QB that is left... and getting a #2 and #3, would be something to consider.
a 2nd and 3rd rounder in a draft where you can grab a big time QB is way to light. That isn't even value on the draft value chart. I assume we would pull higher than the average draft value chart because of the QB situation this draft.
I would need there 1 this year and there 1 next year just to start. Then we can haggle over if we can get a 2 this year or 3 this year as well.
Yes, that may be the case. I'm going off of the draft chart, and any team coming up will have that as a rough guide. Getting a top five pick and moving down only three spots, and getting a 2 and 3, would ensure we still get a premium player this year. To get a bigger haul, we would have to have multiple suitors.
Quote:
In comment 13838454 RAIN said:
Quote:
media guy tied to NY talk about us taking OL in round one.
Francesa said he heard Gettlemen wants to fix the OL, Peter King saying he's hearing the same thing, now Mike G.
That's three guys with good contacts talking us out of QB.
Trading down to 5 and taking Nelson, Barkley, Chubb or a QB that is left... and getting a #2 and #3, would be something to consider.
a 2nd and 3rd rounder in a draft where you can grab a big time QB is way to light. That isn't even value on the draft value chart. I assume we would pull higher than the average draft value chart because of the QB situation this draft.
I would need there 1 this year and there 1 next year just to start. Then we can haggle over if we can get a 2 this year or 3 this year as well.
Yes, that may be the case. I'm going off of the draft chart, and any team coming up will have that as a rough guide. Getting a top five pick and moving down only three spots, and getting a 2 and 3, would ensure we still get a premium player this year. To get a bigger haul, we would have to have multiple suitors.
Giants traded 4th overall, a 3rd rounder, and next years 1st rounder for Eli. Minimum for a trade up for a QB is two 1s and other pieces.
Quote:
to many huge holes on the OL and RB on this team not to mention LB.
He is a rare DE. He reminds me of a more athletic more physical Derek Barnett from a year ago.. he could be special and when you are paying your current DE’s $15 million+ per year you have to at least consider it.
Idk if I'd call him rare. Close to it but he isn't in the same class as Garrett or Clowney.
2a. Barkley
2b. Trade down for OL (Nelson).
3. Rosen
If Trey Adams the OT from Washington didn't tear up his knee, I have a feeling he'd be the guy the Giants have their eyes on.
Quote:
In comment 13838440 Chip said:
Quote:
to many huge holes on the OL and RB on this team not to mention LB.
He is a rare DE. He reminds me of a more athletic more physical Derek Barnett from a year ago.. he could be special and when you are paying your current DE’s $15 million+ per year you have to at least consider it.
The biggest problem with drafting (or mock drafting) Chubb, IMO, is that we don't really even know what defensive scheme Bettcher plans to run, and if it's a 30 front or even a 30 hybrid, it may not make sense to continue to add to the 4-3 DE position group.
If we are indeed considering a transition to the 3-4, one of the primary benefits of that defense is that OLB/edge rush tweeners are actually a good fit, and they can be had at least slightly lower in the draft.
If we're fully committed to a 4-3, then Chubb absolutely should be in the mix. But that's definitely an open question (at least for us, as we speculate) at this point.
You beat me to it. Was thinking the same thing since we have hired a 3-4 guy. Do the Giants still value DE as high as we did when running a 4-3?
And it's not like he's any more informed than any of us.
I think 2 scenarios are:
1. Cleveland take Darnold, NY takes Barkley
2. Cleveland takes Darnold, NY trades out.
The trade partners would be Denver or Cleveland. Ideally I would hope Cleveland offers a crap load of picks to get Barkley at pick 2. Pick 4, 33, 35 and the first pick of round 4 is a starting place. NYG could draft Nelson at 4, go after OT, RB and LB in round 2. Rounds 3 and 4 ( 4 picks total ) could help fortify DL, DB, OL. It could really turn out to change this roster.
I think 2 scenarios are:
1. Cleveland take Darnold, NY takes Barkley
2. Cleveland takes Darnold, NY trades out.
The trade partners would be Denver or Cleveland. Ideally I would hope Cleveland offers a crap load of picks to get Barkley at pick 2. Pick 4, 33, 35 and the first pick of round 4 is a starting place. NYG could draft Nelson at 4, go after OT, RB and LB in round 2. Rounds 3 and 4 ( 4 picks total ) could help fortify DL, DB, OL. It could really turn out to change this roster.
Holy. Shit.
Holy. Shit.
Reading isn’t your strong suit.
Francesa said he heard Gettlemen wants to fix the OL, Peter King saying he's hearing the same thing, now Mike G.
That's three guys with good contacts talking us out of QB.
p.s.--He also said there are the teams that have a QB and the teams that are in QB hell. And Eli's age isn't a well kept secret. There are reports of him being 37-years old and I believe them.
Don't kill the messenger! - ( New Window )
Quote:
media guy tied to NY talk about us taking OL in round one.
Francesa said he heard Gettlemen wants to fix the OL, Peter King saying he's hearing the same thing, now Mike G.
That's three guys with good contacts talking us out of QB.
We all heard that Gettleman wants to fix the OL. He said it at his press conference. It's not inside information. It doesn't mean he's going to pass up a franchise QB when one is staring him the face.
p.s.--He also said there are the teams that have a QB and the teams that are in QB hell. And Eli's age isn't a well kept secret. There are reports of him being 37-years old and I believe them.
Franscesa, King, and Garafolo are saying he wants to do early in round one. I'm not a fan of this, but I thought it was interesting that three sources now are saying the same thing. Maybe he changes his mind from looking at tape? He also has his QB purgatory theory he's put out there.
Milton, don't shoot the messenger. I believe Garafolo, king (meh).. but he's been in the game awhile, and Francesa has better sources than I do. If its up to me, I really like Darnold.. and would take him in a heartbeat. He won't be there. Rosen comes with durability concerns , Allen scares me at #2, and Mayfield (no way)... It leaves us with multiple scenario's. I like trading down a bit to take Barkley, Nelson, Rosen, Allen, etc.. lots of options, lots of questions, it hasn't been written yet.
Milton, don't shoot the messenger. I believe Garafolo, king (meh).. but he's been in the game awhile, and Francesa has better sources than I do.
Only Gettleman has inside information on what he will do. The rest is just opinion.
Quote:
1). (Possibly) drafting Saquon Barkley.
2). Letting Lombardi get away.
3). Letting Belichick get away.
4). Letting Landry get away.
5). Hiring Ray Handley
It shows how little about Giants history you know. Lombardi, Landry, and Belichick had already left when there were head coaches still employed here who had won world titles. Ray Handley was a bad move, but the Giants hand was forced in May and it was two years, hardly a back breaking decision for a franchise who probably was on the decline anyway. You don't draft a franchise qb when you are supposed to you could have 10 bad years of football. But, yes carry on. Let's draft a RB we probably couldn't fully utilize for a year or two until we rebuild our offensive line (assuming we do, let him get beat up in the process and then we will have a 39 year old qb when we are ready to use him. Makes so much sense.
If you're going to call someone out for their knowledge of Giants history, you should at least know it yourself. The Giants hand was not forced with Handley in the way you suggest, at least not in the way that you can dismiss both that and letting Belichick get away. George Young was on record that he'd have promoted Handley over Belichick even if BB was still on the staff.
And you obviously painted yourself into a corner with regard to Barkley, much like you did with Gettleman. Oddly, we haven't heard much from you about that since. I suspect we won't hear a peep from you if the Giants draft Barkley and he proves to be successful.
Quote:
Somehow just stated that letting the three greatest head coaches leave the Giants wasn't a terrible mistake but drafting Barkley would be a terrible mistake. And handley, not a mistake.
Holy. Shit.
Reading isn’t your strong suit.
Posting isn't yours, so who's to know where the problem lies?
That's fair, but are you going to take a guy at #2 who would be a 3rd DE when they're in a 40 front, and a tweener in a 30 front? Are you going to stand him up in the 30 and put his hand in the dirt in the 40? Or have him play the Kiwanuka role when they're in the 40 so he can stick to developing as an OLB? It's just a really high pick for those questions, especially when DE is already a position group that has a lot of money tied to it.
The point I was trying to make about the 3-4 is that one of the biggest positive aspects of it is that you can find edge rushers a little bit later in the draft, especially compared to prototypical 4-3 DEs, who typically go very high. If you're running even a hybrid 3-4, you're pissing away one of your advantages by then drafting an ER at #2 overall.
But if he's going to sit behind Eli for at least a year, the "NFL Ready" aspect might be out-weighed by the higher upside of a Darnold.