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.
George Rogers. Good player. RB.
The reason LT was the superior pick isn't position. It was how ELITE he was.
What that tells me is whoever can make the biggest impact in a way that really confounds are opponents is the player to pick. I like Barkley and Fitzpatrick as the 2 players that could really alter the side of the ball they play on and change the entire dimension of that side.
Or else trade back if there's a willing trade partner but do not drop out of the top level of prospects.
Conversely my least favorite draft years for the giants are the years they drafted in rd1:
*Cedric Jones
*Eli Apple
2 players that were picked after the impact players were all gone.
I
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.
Darnold throws too many interceptions for me.
Quote:
In comment 13838610 djm said:
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?
Coming from you I consider that a badge of honor.
Rosen may never get to Rosen's level either if he ends up in a body bag.
Darnolds issues can be correct. Rosen's cannot.
Rosen may very well end up having a long career, but I'll go with Darnold and trust Pat Shurmur can turn him into a winner, as he has done with lesser talent.
Essex : 2/21/2018 4:52 pm : link : reply
it will be the biggest mistake in Giants history.
It is like the offseason just empowers morons to take a stand.
Hyperbole. Shitty take. Terrible poster.
Roll them all up into one in a pithy sentence!
Quote:
If we take Barkley at #2
Essex : 2/21/2018 4:52 pm : link : reply
it will be the biggest mistake in Giants history.
It is like the offseason just empowers morons to take a stand.
Hyperbole. Shitty take. Terrible poster.
Roll them all up into one in a pithy sentence!
I know just like my shitty take that based on the Garafolo tweets the Giants were likely to pick a GM from those they had already interviewed. You wasted a morning of my life arguing with me I didn't know the rules when it was clear that had nothing to do with it and I never said it. Then you argued some absurd definition of due diligence as the reason why they interviewed certain people, not even realizing that it is a legal term. You are the prototypical "genius in his own mind." I won't engage with your stupidity anymore. I backed up why I think it would be colossal error (not with why I will be right or wrong--I might be wrong but I gave my reasons) and need not do it anymore with you.
Your take wasn't that - it was any choice for GM was uninspiring and would be a mouthpiece for the owners, along with a whining about how they only interviewed 4 candidates and none of them were any good and that they needed to expand the search ASAP.
How's that take look now? Pretty fucking shitty.
You can claim until the cows come home that you knew the rules, but you still have yet to give any examples of who they should have or even could have interviewed at that time, which was the context of your B&M session.
And due diligence is more than just a legal term. It's common in business and any other situation where a particular standard/obligation is exercised. But by all means, keep puffing out your chest as though you're somehow correct. You weren't then, you aren't now, and it remains to be seen whether you will be in the future, but with your propensity for favoring "bold" over "prudent" it's unlikely.
Or not, if they have a strong conviction for a specific QB and he's available at #2.