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.
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.