Let's say Sam Darnold is who the Giants are in love with like they were with Eli Manning in 2004.
Let's say the Browns want to end up with Barkley and a QB, and Peter King had said the Browns were targeting Allen at 1 prior to the combine. Now we see the Browns linked to Darnold and the Giants with Barkley, especially by those who cover the team ala Kim Jones and Paul Dotino.
What would it cost for the Giants to move up from 2 to 1? Would we have to give up a future 1?
Not advocating this or saying Browns would trade down to 2.
Just wondering...
Nineteen-Ninety Three.
Of course at that point sometimes you have to throw the draft value chart out the window and teams are forced to overpay.
Of course at that point sometimes you have to throw the draft value chart out the window and teams are forced to overpay.
Was just wondering what cost to Giants would be if they traded up to 1 from 2.
Quote:
on the draft value chart it should only cost the Giants 1st and 2nd this year, and that should be more than enough.
Of course at that point sometimes you have to throw the draft value chart out the window and teams are forced to overpay.
The Draft Value Chart is just a starting point. Teams will overpay (sometimes greatly) if there is someone they desperately want and there is a high-demand for that player
Yeah, that's what I said.
I would be unhappy and disappointed if we moved up. Makes no sense to me off of what I’ve read and heard about the QBs that are projected to go high
Yeah because they did so horrible the last time they traded up for a QB...
Yeah, I doubt the Giants would trade up and I would be STUNNED and disappointed if they did. Was just wondering the overall cost if it were to happen.
Chicago dealt the No. 3 pick, their third round pick (No. 67), one of their fourth round picks (No. 111) and a 2018 third-round pick to move up and take Trubisky, considered one of the draft’s top quarterbacks.
So even if it costs us 2 2nd rounders (this and next), you do it.
Quote:
would be PISSED if the giants did this....seriously trading major draft assets for Darnold. I love the kid but THAT much no way...would be fucking disgusted
Yeah because they did so horrible the last time they traded up for a QB...
rick, TOTALLY different situations. thats 1.
2. its moving up ONE pick and we need an influx in talent...trading #34 is a bad move as thats a HUGE asset this year for us...i rather take allen or rosen keep 34...i dont see darnold as THAT much better to mortgage away a 2019 first rounder AND #34.
idgaf what happened in the past. here in the present its a BAD move imo
AND a first the year after that.
Quote:
would be PISSED if the giants did this....seriously trading major draft assets for Darnold. I love the kid but THAT much no way...would be fucking disgusted
Yeah because they did so horrible the last time they traded up for a QB...
It was still the wrong move, though. The best move for the football team in hindsight would've been to take Roethlisberger and continue to improve the team with the picks we kept.
i 100% agree #34 is valuable and in alot of ways i am more excited about it to see who is avail. its a key piece to the team as are BOTH high third rounders....DONT TRADE PICKS!
if anything slide back to 4-7 and pick up picks and take barkley(prob gone) nelson chubb fitz
Or from Denver to move back to 5
BBI Fanbase: We need those extra picks to select random solid players to fill the roster in the middle rounds so Davis Webb can lead them....WOW
BBI Fanbase: We need those extra picks to select random solid players to fill the roster in the middle rounds so Davis Webb can lead them....WOW
wtf are you talking about...nobody said we cant select rosen at 2....nobody said we wouldnt take darnold if there. its simple. i dont want to trade high picks to move up for a QB i dont think is light years above everyone else....
Quote:
In comment 13880556 BleedBlue said:
Quote:
would be PISSED if the giants did this....seriously trading major draft assets for Darnold. I love the kid but THAT much no way...would be fucking disgusted
Yeah because they did so horrible the last time they traded up for a QB...
It was still the wrong move, though. The best move for the football team in hindsight would've been to take Roethlisberger and continue to improve the team with the picks we kept.
This wrong move gave us 2 superbowl rings....no gurantee that would have happened with Big Ben
Quote:
No chance we should trade up to #1 from #2....Many today say what we gave up for Eli was no big deal now...
BBI Fanbase: We need those extra picks to select random solid players to fill the roster in the middle rounds so Davis Webb can lead them....WOW
wtf are you talking about...nobody said we cant select rosen at 2....nobody said we wouldnt take darnold if there. its simple. i dont want to trade high picks to move up for a QB i dont think is light years above everyone else....
With all respect if Darnold worked out to be a 12 year stud at QB, I could care less about trading up. Again that’s a big if and a big risk for Gettleman who seems to want to play it safe.
Quote:
In comment 13880560 Big Rick in FL said:
Quote:
In comment 13880556 BleedBlue said:
Quote:
would be PISSED if the giants did this....seriously trading major draft assets for Darnold. I love the kid but THAT much no way...would be fucking disgusted
Yeah because they did so horrible the last time they traded up for a QB...
It was still the wrong move, though. The best move for the football team in hindsight would've been to take Roethlisberger and continue to improve the team with the picks we kept.
This wrong move gave us 2 superbowl rings....no gurantee that would have happened with Big Ben
Well he won two himself, and who knows, he could've won more here. You can't 'what if' this to death but the bottom line is that Ben Roethlisberger is also a multi-ring QB and has been a better QB in the NFL than Eli Manning. I love Eli, as well, that's not taking anything away from Eli. But Ben is part of the reason why the Steelers have been in the playoffs almost every year since he was drafted. He's had one season with a losing record as a starter and he went 7-8.
I don't want to get into a big debate about it but by every measure except for durability Roethlisberger has been the better pro and has been and still is a better QB.
Quote:
back to 4.
Or from Denver to move back to 5
BB56: Yes that is probably a more likely scenario as well. But I want those 2 early picks in round 2 real bad 33 & 35.
Not sure what else we could get from Cleveland besides those 2 early 2nd rounders.
Denver we should get at least their 2nd rounder and a 5th in addition to pick 5 and I would guess a 1st rounder next year.
Of course at that point sometimes you have to throw the draft value chart out the window and teams are forced to overpay.
Do you think teams actually use that chart when making these draft day trades? For example, this recent trade of the Jets and Indy. Wouldn’t Indy be receiving a heckuva lot more in return than what they gave up (3rd pick)?
Quote:
on the draft value chart it should only cost the Giants 1st and 2nd this year, and that should be more than enough.
Of course at that point sometimes you have to throw the draft value chart out the window and teams are forced to overpay.
The Draft Value Chart is just a starting point. Teams will overpay (sometimes greatly) if there is someone they desperately want and there is a high-demand for that player
Incredibly insightful! thanks!!!
Quote:
on the draft value chart it should only cost the Giants 1st and 2nd this year, and that should be more than enough.
Of course at that point sometimes you have to throw the draft value chart out the window and teams are forced to overpay.
Do you think teams actually use that chart when making these draft day trades? For example, this recent trade of the Jets and Indy. Wouldn’t Indy be receiving a heckuva lot more in return than what they gave up (3rd pick)?
I do think teams use it as a guide as beer man said, especially after the first 10 or so picks, but it's just a guide.
And based on the chart, the Colts got good value for #3 (though some still say not enough).
Based on the chart:
Colts gave up:
pick #3: 2200
jets gave up:
pick #6: 1600
Pick #37: 530
Pick #49: 410
2019 2nd (TBD) say 400 conservatively speaking
= Jets gave up over 2900 draft value point (conservatively - not sure how future years picks are valued).
Thanks...
I agree with most of what you said. However, what if they were selecting the next Eli Manning? Giants gave up a hell of a lot more for Eli and could have selected Big Ben or kept Rivers. If a team is convicted about a QB, it’s not too much. Particularly if the Browns are guaranteed their guy at #2. This could keep the price reasonable. And, the Browns still get to take their #1 non-QB at #4.
Thanks...
most of us only speculate, but I think people who do in fact know say it is used by teams to formulate offers (and then adjust based on how much they want to move).
Quote:
But I think it would be idiotic and a remote thrower if we traded away picks this team desperately needs to move up from 2 to 1
i 100% agree #34 is valuable and in alot of ways i am more excited about it to see who is avail. its a key piece to the team as are BOTH high third rounders....DONT TRADE PICKS!
if anything slide back to 4-7 and pick up picks and take barkley(prob gone) nelson chubb fitz
100% with you on the trade back
We'd have been OK with Rothlisberger (except that he is a rapist), or Rivers. You never know. Love Eli but he is not head and shoulders above those two. From that standpoint, the G-men may have overpaid...not looking back though.