Of all the interviews I've heard Gettleman on, this is the one I have heard the most.
While I have always and will always be in the "Never say never" camp when it comes to someone offering a trade for a player or picks, I do think the idea of trading down gets a tad overrated at times.
This time of year, there are hundreds of prospects that give the notion of hope and repair to a broken team. NYG was as broken as any team in the league last year and while some holes have been plugged, there are still several leaks. Knowing that, the idea of trading down and getting multiple picks falsely leads many to believe that all if these issues will be covered in a single draft.
However if you truly look at draft classes, every single one of them...the 96-100 players taken in rounds 1-3...most of them are not in the league making an impact 4-5 years later. Go ahead...take a look. It is true.
More picks DOES increase your odds of having a draft class like the Saints did last year, absolutely. But odds that will not happen. Some of the best draft minds in the league miss on more prospects than they hit on. But many of you do not realize that in the moment because right now, you have lists and lists of prospects that can be THE guy. They benefit from the unknown.
This brings me back to Gettleman and his approach with the #2 pick. Whether it is a QB or Barkley, the offer has to be overly substantial to move down, especially if it is the Bills and that #12 pick. That is a far drop in comparison to who you can have at #2. Gettleman understands that "getting too cute"...trying to manipulate the draft and hoping your guy falls to this spot and that team takes this guy...it may put them in a very unfavorable position. Extra picks are nice...but they are very far from guaranteed.
What draws me to BUF is potential 2019 1st, as they may very well end up being one of the worst 5 teams in football. That pick next year may be VERY valuable.
But but but WCO is bright and shiny and a lot of other teams is running it!
Eli throws a good deep ball, best at the intermediate balls (absolutely beautiful throws like Manningham pass in SB) and is the worst at short passes and reads. Derp let's bring in the WCO!
Quote:
and what I said aligns with your point that more picks does not = more wins.
The Browns collected a lot of picks of the last couple of years and that got then a winless season. Why? Because they do not have a franchise QB. That is the most important position on the field. More than a RB or a pass rusher. If people here doubt that, all you need to do is look at the leagues top salaries and see how many RBs or pass rushers are paid more than the top QBs in this league.
I also mentioned that while L Bell is considered possibly the best RB in the game, the Steelers scored as many points per game without him as they did with him because they had a QB who could run the offense regardless.
So, getting picks from the Bills is a nice idea but what is the point? In a year or two when you NEED that next QB where will we be selecting? We probably will have to deal just as many (if not more) picks back to get to the top of the draft to select a top QB in what MAY also be a thin QB class.... and unwilling teams to trade with because they may want the guy as well.
If we do not select our QB with this pick, in a year or two we will be giving up way too much, or we will be just another one of those average teams with an average QB that is destined to just have an average season with no shot at a championship.
You aren't wrong with any of that.
But you HAVE to be convinced one of the quarterbacks is THE guy. You can't take one just because...
Yes I agree with not taking a guy "just because". That should be something you never to at any position and at any point in the draft. However, this is a deep QB class and if you cannot find someone that you like in this bunch then I am not sure what they would be looking for. You have about 4 -5 guys who have varying skill sets with varying strengths/weaknesses. That PERFECT QB may never be there for them to even select.
So, we could end up with Kent Graham in two years.
If Papa, King, Schwartz, etc. are correct, it suggests they simply don't have the same grade on these quarterbacks as other teams - right or wrong.
That would be conjecture. They know nothing. All speculation and I have to say that we should kill Papa and the other two for suggesting that just like we would kill someone like Ranaan or Gary Myers for doing the same thing.
so if anything -- the extra attention being paid to the QBs is indicative of just how many questions surround those guys
It means nothing. Stop looking for smoke signals. The reality is this. The guy blew away everyone at the combine. What would you expect to see in a workout this week that would be different?
You have all you need to know about the guy. You are better off sending people to look at guys who are 2nd 3rd round opportunities. Those are harder to figure out and may need another look.
yeah I mentioned him at least once but not as it relates to Webb. Just that we could end up with a JAG at QB in a couple of years and Graham was a good example.
You can wind up with Peyton Manning, or Jamarcus Russell.
We know
Quote:
In comment 13877287 EricJ said:
Quote:
and what I said aligns with your point that more picks does not = more wins.
The Browns collected a lot of picks of the last couple of years and that got then a winless season. Why? Because they do not have a franchise QB. That is the most important position on the field. More than a RB or a pass rusher. If people here doubt that, all you need to do is look at the leagues top salaries and see how many RBs or pass rushers are paid more than the top QBs in this league.
I also mentioned that while L Bell is considered possibly the best RB in the game, the Steelers scored as many points per game without him as they did with him because they had a QB who could run the offense regardless.
So, getting picks from the Bills is a nice idea but what is the point? In a year or two when you NEED that next QB where will we be selecting? We probably will have to deal just as many (if not more) picks back to get to the top of the draft to select a top QB in what MAY also be a thin QB class.... and unwilling teams to trade with because they may want the guy as well.
If we do not select our QB with this pick, in a year or two we will be giving up way too much, or we will be just another one of those average teams with an average QB that is destined to just have an average season with no shot at a championship.
You aren't wrong with any of that.
But you HAVE to be convinced one of the quarterbacks is THE guy. You can't take one just because...
Yes I agree with not taking a guy "just because". That should be something you never to at any position and at any point in the draft. However, this is a deep QB class and if you cannot find someone that you like in this bunch then I am not sure what they would be looking for. You have about 4 -5 guys who have varying skill sets with varying strengths/weaknesses. That PERFECT QB may never be there for them to even select.
So, we could end up with Kent Graham in two years.
that was after they thought Dave Brown was "the guy" and gave up their # 1 in 1993 to take him in the supplemental draft.
You can wind up with Peyton Manning, or Jamarcus Russell.
We know
Or Ryan Leaf..
Quote:
absolutely all-important consideration here is what does Gettleman actually think about the quarterbacks in this draft?
If he has grades on them that would put them in mid- to late-1st round territory in other drafts, then not taking the QB now makes more sense. So what matters is what kind of grade does he have on them?
If Papa, King, Schwartz, etc. are correct, it suggests they simply don't have the same grade on these quarterbacks as other teams - right or wrong.
Now if they do have an extremely high grade on one or two of them, and pass on that guy, I would be very disappointed because teams rarely have the opportunity to nab a franchise QB without giving away the store.
If NYG trades out of the pick, I guarantee you they may be in the same spot as Buffalo next year- frantically trying to trade up to nab a QB.
Not really going out on a limb there are you? Guaranteeing they "may be"?
I dont get what exactly you're saying or guaranteeing. Saying they "may be" kind of cancels out the guarantee, no?
I don’t think the Giants will make up their minds on their board for at least another 2-3 weeks.
You can wind up with Peyton Manning, or Jamarcus Russell.
We know
I agree and disagree on some of these. The Jamarcus Russell's, Akili Smith, David Klingler's etc were one year or two year tops, unique offense types without any real substantial PRO style work. They ran up gawdy numbers in non competitive or non defensive games.
Ryan Leaf was a tough one because he played in a good conference and put up good numbers. Nobody could really get inside his head and see his wiring wasn't designed to handle the stress and expectations of being a high draft pick in the NFL.
Right now the 4 QB's coming out (at the top) all have pluses and minuses. Rosen's are health and potential "commitment". Mayfield's is more attitude and off the field, along with height and the offense he played in. Allen is lower level comp %, offense he played in and winning %. Darnold is a turnover machine and has not played a ton of CFB. However there do not appear to be any J.Rissells, Smith's or Klinglers here.
Pretty sure he had a knee injury as well. Maybe not a major one but one worth looking into,IMO.
My biggest concern is he seems to get injured easily or at least too often for my liking. I can't imagine that gets better on the Pro level.
What nobody can dispute is that the Giants are all in right now checking out the QBs and in fact they are the only players that the Giants appear to be seriously checking out. And as a general rule the guys that NFL teams are seriously checking out barely a month from the draft are guys that they already have a good grade on those guys. That's all we can really say at this time.
I haven't watched a bunch of UCLA's games but I've read articles saying he either didn't play in or didn't finish 12 of his last 20 games at UCLA.
That's a big red flag and a major concern for me. Especially potentially going from an every snap every game Eli, to him. I know I don't want to be holding my breath every time he drops back to pass.
What nobody can dispute is that the Giants are all in right now checking out the QBs and in fact they are the only players that the Giants appear to be seriously checking out. And as a general rule the guys that NFL teams are seriously checking out barely a month from the draft are guys that they already have a good grade on those guys. That's all we can really say at this time.
Thoughts on the QB's Colin. The top 4 guys, what order do you have them in right now? Not where they will be picked but how you rank the 4 QB's.
Well then anyone who works, coaches, or scouts for the NFL must be pretty stupid too.
It's the value of the pick - not Barkley as a prospect. At the #2 slot, which Jints Central has, it is not good value to take a RB. RBs grow on trees. They are everywhere, practically every year. So it's not financially practical to spend #2 slot dollars on a commodity.
Quote:
because I'm really starting to believe Jints Central is stupid enough to take Barkley.
Well then anyone who works, coaches, or scouts for the NFL must be pretty stupid too.
A lot of teams honestly are very stupid.
"Stupid" is strong term.
Thrill will rephrase. A lot of the GMs and head coaches are extremely egotistical and their hubris creates an unbelievable amount of bias and backward thinking. Traditionalism.
Every team will rightfully have a top-5 grade on Barkley. He's awesome.
Smart teams, however, will recognize the opportunity cost of picking a running back so high. In the case of NYG, that means potentially forfeiting a long-term solution at QB. Or turning down a transformative package of picks from Cleveland or Denver to drop down to 4th or 5th.
We can forgive Gettleman and Jints Central if Darnold was their only QB and Cleveland picked him. Taking Barkley instead of making a similar deal to the Jets-Colts (presuming such an offer exists, of course)? It would be an egregiously short-sighted uneconomical backward-thinking reductionist populist move.
Chasing a win-now window that doesn't actually exist. Coming off a 13-loss season.
Thrilly Mays Hayes doesn't always agree with Bw Webb in DC, but the Mssr. bw painted a good picture of what life with Barkley would look like. He'd be routinely awesome and yet we'd be wondering why NYG isn't winning more games.
Nevermind all the data about the shorter lifespans of RBs (based on the brutality of the position) and the economics of the position itself (high supply of talent).
Saquon Barkley would have to be historically great and have historically great longevity to justify the opportunity cost of picking him at #2. But a lot of GMs would be foolish enough to pull the triggers because ...hey highlights.
I hope the Giants see a potential future hall of famer QB or DE at #2 and if not, either take nelson and/or trade down if the price is right.
So need for me to dig up a DG quote to fit my agenda, I don't think any one opinion is wrong here.. as it's said, "There are many ways to skin a cat".
Saquon Barkley would have to be historically great and have historically great longevity to justify the opportunity cost of picking him at #2. But a lot of GMs would be foolish enough to pull the triggers because ...hey highlights.
We posted at the same time. See above.
I think they do think that. Faulk and Tomlinson are good comparisons for him.
1. Picking the wrong guy
2. Having Eli retire and literally having NO successor.
To me #2 is worse. When all is said and done, I’m betting Gettleman sees it that way.
Blue chip to me...only Barkley and Rosen if he checks ALL of the medical boxes.
Sy,
I hear you loud and clear and totally agree. It's Barkley or Bust. He is the only sure bet in the draft at #2. Barkley helps both offense and defense!
Nelson is also a sure bet. But no OG should be a top 3 pick.
Barkley is the only one; not Darnold, not Rosen, not Chubb!!!!
And Gettleman makes it quite clear where his preferences are. Moreover, check past drafts: Gettleman is correct. There are very few who become All-Pros in each year. And the chances of hitting on several extraordinary players in the first three rounds is not good.
Look at the Giants past drafts. How many 2nd and 3rd's have been successful picks over the past 10 years.
We only have two picks left on the roster from 2010-14. Some of that can be blamed on the Reese/Ross regime. They missed on a lot of picks. But in a few drafts during those years, there were few franchise-changing talents among the almost 500 players drafted in Rds 1-3 between 2010-14.
Consequently, if Getty loves Barkley or another player on his board at #2, that's who the Giants should select (unless the Browns usurp our intentions).
[quote] In comment 13877632 One Man Thrill Ride said:
Quote:
Saquon Barkley would have to be historically great and have historically great longevity to justify the opportunity cost of picking him at #2. But a lot of GMs would be foolish enough to pull the triggers because ...hey highlights.
Historically great longevity?
Are you more confident that Rosen will have greater durability and longevity than Barkley?
1. Picking the wrong guy
2. Having Eli retire and literally having NO successor.
To me #2 is worse. When all is said and done, I’m betting Gettleman sees it that way.
Phila. won a Super Bowl with a backup QB (Foles).
Although, I won't downplay the significance of the QB position, you have to surround your QB with other talent.
Surround Eli with an offensive line and a running game and we just might see a different offense and a much more productive Eli.
Moreover, is Davis Webb potentially that terrible a QB; are Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield or Allen that much better than Webb is?
Nobody can answer that as yet. But several things that we do know: Webb is as diligent as they come; he is smart; he is a willing learner and a practice demon!
Are we certain that we are going to see the same dedication and drive from the fabulous(?) 4 QBs?
Quote:
because I'm really starting to believe Jints Central is stupid enough to take Barkley.
You can just write the script...Barkley will have some spectacular moments, will be up some gaudy stats here and there, may make a few Pro Bowls, etc. And maybe we'll be a solid .500 team...
But we won't get over the hump because teams will start stacking the box and making Barkley's life miserable. Oh, sure - he'll beat it once in a while, but not enough. Because when we pushed all the chips into the middle of the table on Webb, the hope was he would the guy.
But Webb just doesn't seem to get it. He's inconsistent from week to week, can't make key third down conversions, over throws too much, etc, etc. For crissakes, it's like watching Kent Graham all over again...
And the conversations will center on the obvious - we don't have the right trigger man. Why didn't we draft Rosen instead? Or Allen?
Oh, and guess what else? The other RBs from the Barkley draft are pretty good too - Johnson, Michel, Jones, etc.
They are putting up some excellent numbers...
But let's be optimistic. We have the 16th pick again! Maybe we can get one of these good Gs and that will make Barkley's life easier!
I still think we go QB. Why is it that it appears that the Bills, Jets, Browns, Broncos and possibly other teams think these QB's are good enough to draft? I'm just not buying that the Giants dont. I think this is them making sure nobody knows their intentions, but I just don't see how all the QB hungry teams are fighting to move to the top of the draft for a QB, but the Giants don't think any fit the bill.
It seems that some of you are more familiar with Webb than Coach Shurmur is?
Yeah, the Giants have to be crazy to draft a generational back like Barkley.
Just as crazy as the Rams were to draft Gurley; the Cowboys to draft Elliott and the Jaguars to draft Fournette.
And none of those teams benefited, right?
[quote] In comment 13877632 One Man Thrill Ride said:
Quote:
Saquon Barkley would have to be historically great and have historically great longevity to justify the opportunity cost of picking him at #2. But a lot of GMs would be foolish enough to pull the triggers because ...hey highlights.
Historically great longevity?
Are you more confident that Rosen will have greater durability and longevity than Barkley?
Rosen? No.
Thrill fears that another concussion could motivate Rosen to retire early. And that will cause The Org to pass on him at #2.
Blue chip to me...only Barkley and Rosen if he checks ALL of the medical boxes.
Sy, I agree with you. It's Rosen or bust!!;).
Phila. won a Super Bowl with a backup QB (Foles).
Although, I won't downplay the significance of the QB position, you have to surround your QB with other talent.
yeah and what you did not mention was that Philly made about 15 off season moves in where virtually every one of them worked out for them. It was actually like hitting the power ball. So, what you saw in Philly was the exception and not the rule.
Having a top franchise QB means you have a chance every year and especially when you have a couple of key players go down. Jordy goes down with Rodgers in the lineup and they can still win games. Sub par OL? Rodgers can still win games. No RB? He can still win games.
People really latch on to buzzwords they hear like a dog with a steak bone.
Grades will be out in 4 weeks.
Who else do they have who can evaluate QBs? I don’t think anyone else in the organization either played or coached the position!
Webb and Barkley, Webb and a trade down, or Darnold, Rosen, Allen or Mayfield.