Schefter says Giants may trade up

I hope this is not true.

Or they may trade down

!

They may take a QB. Or they may not.

Brillant.

unless they stay put. Or trade up.

I guarantee I'm right.

.

thats a good thing...we wank barkley, we will consider trading down, now we want to trade up to secure Darnold...keep em guessing!

Browns prefer Allen (rumors of this for a while) and Giants prefer Darnold. Giants want Darnold (or perhaps Rosen) and don't want to risk the Bills jumping them.

I really hope they don't trade up for Barkley. We don't have enough picks. I would be really disappointed if this was the case. And i'm not someone that is against Barkely at 2 I just think trading up for him is a big mistake if we are trying to win something in the next few years, which taking him absolutely is a signal of.

In comment 13878025 YAJ2112 said:

Quote:

unless they stay put. Or trade up. I guarantee I'm right.

It would almost be worth it for them to pass.

Not really though.

If they believe there is one true franchise QB in this draft and they want to go get him then so be it. It worked out with Eli.

Draft night will be fun.

In comment 13878018 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

I hope this is not true.

Why? I hope this is true. You’ve been saying it’s about conviction with QB, and this would show massive conviction.

In comment 13878025 YAJ2112 said:

Quote:

unless they stay put. Or trade up. I guarantee I'm right.

+1.

In comment 13878034 NoGainDayne said:

Quote:

Browns prefer Allen (rumors of this for a while) and Giants prefer Darnold. Giants want Darnold (or perhaps Rosen) and don't want to risk the Bills jumping them. I really hope they don't trade up for Barkley. We don't have enough picks. I would be really disappointed if this was the case. And i'm not someone that is against Barkely at 2 I just think trading up for him is a big mistake if we are trying to win something in the next few years, which taking him absolutely is a signal of.

I think that you make the same argument for every single player in the draft. Trading up would be the worst possible choice they could make.

and secure a QB. not a single one of these guys proves to be head and shoulders above the rest.

In comment 13878018 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

I hope this is not true.

Why not? If they love Darnold and see him as the next Eli? Dg learner under EA. Who had no 2nd thoughts of trading up for Eli. What if the Giants feel Darnold is the only franchise QB of this draft.

than some other spot in a year or two. If the conviction is there....fine.

.

In comment 13878018 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

I hope this is not true.

Ditto

They will either trade up, trade down, or stay put to draft Barkley, or a QB.

Misinformation campaign it seems.

And Schefter tries to create a rumor that Giants want Darnold and will trade up for him

This has zero credibility

In comment 13878045 Rocky369 said:

Quote:

and secure a QB. not a single one of these guys proves to be head and shoulders above the rest.

They may want to secure THE QB. To many the four QB's are in a similar range, however it is possible the Giants deem one of them head and shoulders above the rest.

In comment 13878038 NYG07 said:

Quote:

If they believe there is one true franchise QB in this draft and they want to go get him then so be it. It worked out with Eli.

+1

And that's a huge advantage.

His body type reminds me of Aikman. It would take some brass balls to go up and get him...

And if Jints Central does, it raises this question - why not play him, then, right away?

That is, if the Browns don’t hold out for the 2 this year.

No thanks.

Because it would amount to us having a one player draft.

Is there really THAT big a difference between Darnold and Rosen? Hell, there may be other QB's in this class who end up being better.

In comment 13878034 NoGainDayne said:

Quote:

Browns prefer Allen (rumors of this for a while) and Giants prefer Darnold. Giants want Darnold (or perhaps Rosen) and don't want to risk the Bills jumping them. I really hope they don't trade up for Barkley. We don't have enough picks. I would be really disappointed if this was the case. And i'm not someone that is against Barkely at 2 I just think trading up for him is a big mistake if we are trying to win something in the next few years, which taking him absolutely is a signal of.

I am in no way an Asshat but I have a family friend that works for the team. We had a brief conversation at the start of FA and he mentioned that Darnold is their #1 QB choice, if they go QB

Yesterday, the consensus among those with contacts was that the Giants were not interested in a QB. Concern was expressed that our plans are often leaked.

If the Giants are not sold on a QB, as the "leaks" have indicated, there would be almost no reason to move up to #1, right? Stay at two and either Barkley or Chubb is there. It seems incredibly unlikely that a move to one would be needed for Barkley.

My thoughts are that the Gmen are now actively engaged in sending out false rumors. Just my two bits.

He was on NFL Live with Ryan Clark and Louis Riddick speculating about the top of the draft. When Darnold said he had dinner with the Giants, Schefter coyly said the Browns may like more than one QB equally and could leverage a trade with the Giants if we covet Darnold. He said he was just throwing it out there, but had this wry smile. Riddick was even calling him out a bit, saying there's always inside info behind his "ideas."

but if there is a guy we love, I can't really get mad. The Bears traded their 3 pick, plus a 3rd and 4th and a 3rd the next year to move up to 2 and take Trubisky.

If the Brown's have 2 qbs rated the same. Let the Giants trade and take one and Brown's take the other at #2 and ï¹°Browns pick up and extra draft pick. Now, I have no idea what the cost would be for one spot, but might work out best for both teams especially if Giants only have one QB rated high and Brown's gave 2.

In comment 13878077 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

Because it would amount to us having a one player draft. Is there really THAT big a difference between Darnold and Rosen? Hell, there may be other QB's in this class who end up being better.

I agree 100% with you. But what if the Giants only view Darnold as a franchise qb? Then you can't blame them for moving up for there guy. They did it with Eli and I'm sure not one Giant fan on this board cares about the cost we gave up for Eli. And this won't cost nearly as much.
Once again I agree with you, but Giants might not.

when everyone was going on about Giants wanting Darnold.

If they feel he is clearly the guy and they know Cleveland wants Allen, then I can see the Giants getting nervous that Jets or another team could jump in front. Cleveland may feel that #4 gets them Allen.

I hope the Giants don't do this. I don't see Cleveland taking that chance.

In comment 13878043 Bill L said:

Quote:

In comment 13878034 NoGainDayne said: Quote: Browns prefer Allen (rumors of this for a while) and Giants prefer Darnold. Giants want Darnold (or perhaps Rosen) and don't want to risk the Bills jumping them. I really hope they don't trade up for Barkley. We don't have enough picks. I would be really disappointed if this was the case. And i'm not someone that is against Barkely at 2 I just think trading up for him is a big mistake if we are trying to win something in the next few years, which taking him absolutely is a signal of. I think that you make the same argument for every single player in the draft. Trading up would be the worst possible choice they could make.

I think trading up for a QB is a different story, that was my caveat of if they plan to compete. (Which some of their moves this off-season have indicated)

Even taking a QB at 2 throws a serious wrench in their ability to compete, so they are divergent strategies.

I am in the trade down or take Barkley at 2 camp because i'm not sold on any of the QBs but if the Giants are I absolutely want them to do everything possible to get it right.

If they have such a huge conviction on Darnold, it would be more palatable. And at the time, the Eli trade sucked too. In hindsight, it was the right move. But damn, we're at the #2 spot... trade up?! Ughh.

give up that much for Eli. We gave up a 3rd in 2004, 1st and 5th in 2005. By today's standards, that is really not much at all to go get your guy.

And the impetus for this could be Bills trying to get to 1 for Rosen.

Maybe they both discovered this during the Bills trade up offer.

that conviction better be rock solid because you lose the ability to improve your team in other areas. You basically bet the entire draft and season on a single player.

In comment 13878073 jeff57 said:

Quote:

That is, if the Browns don’t hold out for the 2 this year. No thanks.

If they just use this year's picks, it would be 3rd, 4th, and 5th round picks. If I'm the Browns, I don't give a shit about 4th and 5th rounders. So either the 3rd this year and 3rd next year, or the Giants will have to give up the 2nd this year. With the likely hood that our 3rd next year won't be high, the Browns should insist on the 2nd.

Regardless of the scenario, I hope DG stays at #2.

In comment 13878025 YAJ2112 said:

Quote:

unless they stay put. Or trade up. I guarantee I'm right.

Spot on.

In comment 13878035 Bill L said:

Quote:

In comment 13878025 YAJ2112 said: Quote: It would almost be worth it for them to pass. Not really though.

Let's hope Shurmur didn't bring THAT from the Vikings!Q!

In comment 13878112 twostepgiants said:

Quote:

And the impetus for this could be Bills trying to get to 1 for Rosen. Maybe they both discovered this during the Bills trade up offer.

Ok I keep seeing people saying this. Can you explain what is behind your belief that the Giants want Rosen?

In comment 13878111 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

give up that much for Eli. We gave up a 3rd in 2004, 1st and 5th in 2005. By today's standards, that is really not much at all to go get your guy.

We didn't have a #1 pick the following year for trading up a few spots. You are correct that in that is now more commonplace, but not having your #1 the following year just to move up a few spots is not cheap.

Giants can only draft a QB if they are 100% convinced or in love with 1 guy over all others

These guys cant seperate for each other so therefore we cant take QB.

But if the Giants do like one over the others?

we cant trade up to #1 because its too much

And thee guys arent too different from each other anyways.

that the Giants really want. Just a gut feeling so I'm probably wrong but if I'm not I wouldn't be stunned to see them move to #1 to lock it down.

In comment 13878069 bw in dc said:

Quote:

And that's a huge advantage. His body type reminds me of Aikman. It would take some brass balls to go up and get him... And if Jints Central does, it raises this question - why not play him, then, right away?

When you say "moose", do you mean a skinny moose? Because Sammy was shorter than Rosen and light in the shorts also.

In comment 13878139 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

In comment 13878111 ryanmkeane said: Quote: give up that much for Eli. We gave up a 3rd in 2004, 1st and 5th in 2005. By today's standards, that is really not much at all to go get your guy. We didn't have a #1 pick the following year for trading up a few spots. You are correct that in that is now more commonplace, but not having your #1 the following year just to move up a few spots is not cheap.

If you pick up Darnold and play him or if Eli is as horrendously inept and toxic as everyone claims, plus you hamstring yourself with lost additional picks, then next year's 1st pick is going to be tremendously valuable.

Is simply a ploy to ensure they get the kicker they want at #2. Gotta sure up those special teams.

a swap with the Giants also guarantees you Saquon Barkley at #4. Giants are moving up for a QB and the Jets are taking a QB. You get Allen or Rosen at #2 and still get Barkley.