don't think I'd give up pick #34, but as someone said, it's all hypothetical, because none of this will happen. The Giants will stay at #2 in all likelihood.
so basically we give up #2 and #34 for #4 and #22.
how is that horrible? We move up 12 spots to drop 2.
exactly and we are getting 65 (which is the first pick int he 3rd round which is a premium pick).
And if the draft goes:
CLE - Darnold
BUF - QB
NYJ - QB
we would still get our pick of the best positional player (Barkley most likely or Chubb at #4..but moving up to #22 allows us to get another 1st round pick). And add pick 65 giving us now 3 of the 1st 5 picks in the 3rd round. Could easily deal 2 of those picks back into the early 2nd round to draft a player that we wanted to.
the talent drop off from 22 to 34 is not much at all in this draft. Why would we move down 2 spots in the first only to move up 12 spots? Get out of here. Jets gave up 3 second rounders to move up 3 spots and we only move up 12 spots and drop 2?
the talent drop off from 22 to 34 is not much at all in this draft. Why would we move down 2 spots in the first only to move up 12 spots? Get out of here. Jets gave up 3 second rounders to move up 3 spots and we only move up 12 spots and drop 2?
if we are going to take Barkley we would wind up with Barkley anyway two spots down. So we would just get Barkley for a cheaper salary and pick move up 12 spots in the 1st round plus get the 1st pick in the 3rd round.
Like JonC says if Darnold is still on the board this deal is off the table but if CLE goes Darnold we do this deal with CLE/BUF and we still end up with Barkley @4 instead of @2 get him from cheaper and get a few assets along the way.
We'd get the top position player of our choice. Either Barkley,Chubb or Nelson and end up with six of the top 69 players in the draft, including another 1st round pick.
The extra 1st could be one of the top O-Linemen or RB's depending on what they do at 4.
But why on earth would Cleveland do this? They have two top 5 picks in the first two rounds. Unless they are getting premium picks in 2019, it makes no sense. Eventually you have to turn these picks into players. If you keep kicking the can down the road to stock pile draft picks, what are you accomplishing? Dorsey is no fool and he saw the mistakes made by the previous regime resulted in them missing out on Goff/Wentz/Tribusky.
But why on earth would Cleveland do this? They have two top 5 picks in the first two rounds. Unless they are getting premium picks in 2019, it makes no sense. Eventually you have to turn these picks into players. If you keep kicking the can down the road to stock pile draft picks, what are you accomplishing? Dorsey is no fool and he saw the mistakes made by the previous regime resulted in them missing out on Goff/Wentz/Tribusky.
Reasoning :
Cleveland goes from 4 to 12 (1800-1200=600 pts owed)
Cleveland total=600pts owed
NY goes from 2 to 4 (2600-1800=800pts owed)
NY total=800pts owed
So NY goes to 4 and gets 22 + 65 (22=780pt +265 pts=1045 pts)
And Cleveland stays at 1 and goes to 12 and gets 53+ 56 ( 370+ 340 pts=710 pts) and 2019 2nd rd pick (300 pts minimum)= 1010pts
As for why this could work (from George in PA):
Strategic Trade Down while still drafting BPA. Yesterday’s 3-team trade rumor has me intrigued because it is win for all 3 teams. Buffalo seems to be willing to trade away the farm to move up for a QB. The Giants seems to be open to a small trade down (not 12) and The Browns 2 biggest needs are QB and LT. They will get the QB with their 1st pick but their 2nd @ 4 is too early for McGlinchey, possibly the best LT in the draft (or Connor Williams/Kolton Miller), so I understand why moving to 12 is not such a bad idea……and getting a few extra premium picks.
-Cleveland gets their top Qb and then fills their 2nd biggest need LT (likely Kolton Miller or Mike McGlinchey) while getting 3 additional second rounders (2 this year, one in 2019)
-Buffalo gets the 2nd QB off the board and fulfills their 'all-out give up the farm' objective of landing their signal caller for the next 10-15 years.
Three picks in the 60s is not enough incentive to do this. Â
We get pick 22 +65 and likely our top target (or close to it) in Barkley anyways
This is exactly the type of trade they should and only do IMO. Stay in the top 4, get some extra picks including the valuable 22, ( which would give us 3 of the top 34 picks) and end up with their pick of the top position players in the draft.
and if the bills end up at 2 theyre going QB. This would be a value trade assuming were going Barkley Chubb or Nelson and get our pick of all 3. We get our guy anyway, and add some free picks. Im fine with it but of course it would need tweaking
We get pick 22 +65 and likely our top target (or close to it) in Barkley anyways
This is exactly the type of trade they should and only do IMO. Stay in the top 4, get some extra picks including the valuable 22, ( which would give us 3 of the top 34 picks) and end up with their pick of the top position players in the draft.
Win -win IMO.
Agreed small trade down get the top non-Qb in the entire draft and a couple premium picks to boot!
the Browns offered #33 and #35 to move up to #2, this deal is not nearly as good as that. Here, we're moving our current #34 pick up by 12 spots, and getting #65. I'd rather just get the 2 early 2nd rounders AND keep our current 2nd and 3rd rounders (if we're moving to #4)
the Browns offered #33 and #35 to move up to #2, this deal is not nearly as good as that. Here, we're moving our current #34 pick up by 12 spots, and getting #65. I'd rather just get the 2 early 2nd rounders AND keep our current 2nd and 3rd rounders (if we're moving to #4)
wouldn't you rather have...
#4
#33
#34
#35
#66
#69
instead of ...
#4
#22
#65
#66
#69
??
Knee I think the idea here is we get our top target in Barkley vs. 'Settling' for another pick like Chubb.
the Browns offered #33 and #35 to move up to #2, this deal is not nearly as good as that. Here, we're moving our current #34 pick up by 12 spots, and getting #65. I'd rather just get the 2 early 2nd rounders AND keep our current 2nd and 3rd rounders (if we're moving to #4)
wouldn't you rather have...
#4
#33
#34
#35
#66
#69
instead of ...
#4
#22
#65
#66
#69
??
I like the 3-way trade better and here's why:
The Giants get the #22 plus they're guaranteed the best non QB at 4. If they traded with the Browns, the Browns get their choice of QB and position player.
I want the best position player at 4 if DG doesn't want a QB at 2 and trades back.
if you decide it's quantity over quality, I want more than is proposed.
I would want more if its a browns swap with us. Because we know then one of barkley or chubb will be off the board before we pick.
I would settle for this deal in a second if its BUF moving to #2 because that locks in QB, QB, and QB going 1-2-3...so we still get our top rated positional player at a cheaper price and 2 additional assets...thats a great haul for us.
Wants to get their QB and Barkley, and I don't blame them, even they should be a good team with that haul. I am still hoping we move to 4 with Cleveland and get the two second round picks Cleveland has at the top of the second round, to have the top three picks in round two plus the #4 pick would be an excellent move in my opinion. That can be accomplished without a third team. But if this has already been worked out, it is also good.
Quote:
so basically we give up #2 and #34 for #4 and #22.
how is that horrible? We move up 12 spots to drop 2.
exactly and we are getting 65 (which is the first pick int he 3rd round which is a premium pick).
And if the draft goes:
CLE - Darnold
BUF - QB
NYJ - QB
we would still get our pick of the best positional player (Barkley most likely or Chubb at #4..but moving up to #22 allows us to get another 1st round pick). And add pick 65 giving us now 3 of the 1st 5 picks in the 3rd round. Could easily deal 2 of those picks back into the early 2nd round to draft a player that we wanted to.
Its a perfect deal if we aren't going QB.
Look at George's 10:22 post. The trade being discussed doesn't include us giving up the #34
if we are going to take Barkley we would wind up with Barkley anyway two spots down. So we would just get Barkley for a cheaper salary and pick move up 12 spots in the 1st round plus get the 1st pick in the 3rd round.
Like JonC says if Darnold is still on the board this deal is off the table but if CLE goes Darnold we do this deal with CLE/BUF and we still end up with Barkley @4 instead of @2 get him from cheaper and get a few assets along the way.
I'd do it then.
We'd get the top position player of our choice. Either Barkley,Chubb or Nelson and end up with six of the top 69 players in the draft, including another 1st round pick.
The extra 1st could be one of the top O-Linemen or RB's depending on what they do at 4.
LOL. Ok thats alot better now.
I still believe this trade includes getting Barkley but I could be wrong.
Buffalo gets 1
Cleveland gets 2, 12, 53, 56, 65 and 2019 1st from Buffalo.
NYG gets 4 and 22.
Easy no on that trade.
Reasoning :
Cleveland goes from 4 to 12 (1800-1200=600 pts owed)
Cleveland total=600pts owed
NY goes from 2 to 4 (2600-1800=800pts owed)
NY total=800pts owed
So NY goes to 4 and gets 22 + 65 (22=780pt +265 pts=1045 pts)
And Cleveland stays at 1 and goes to 12 and gets 53+ 56 ( 370+ 340 pts=710 pts) and 2019 2nd rd pick (300 pts minimum)= 1010pts
As for why this could work (from George in PA):
Strategic Trade Down while still drafting BPA. Yesterday’s 3-team trade rumor has me intrigued because it is win for all 3 teams. Buffalo seems to be willing to trade away the farm to move up for a QB. The Giants seems to be open to a small trade down (not 12) and The Browns 2 biggest needs are QB and LT. They will get the QB with their 1st pick but their 2nd @ 4 is too early for McGlinchey, possibly the best LT in the draft (or Connor Williams/Kolton Miller), so I understand why moving to 12 is not such a bad idea……and getting a few extra premium picks.
-Cleveland gets their top Qb and then fills their 2nd biggest need LT (likely Kolton Miller or Mike McGlinchey) while getting 3 additional second rounders (2 this year, one in 2019)
-Buffalo gets the 2nd QB off the board and fulfills their 'all-out give up the farm' objective of landing their signal caller for the next 10-15 years.
Not necessarily true in this smokescreen period two days pre-draft
We get pick 22 +65 and likely our top target (or close to it) in Barkley anyways
They wouldn't be giving it up. It was just omitted but later corrected to say they'd be keeping it.
Quote:
Don't settle.
We get pick 22 +65 and likely our top target (or close to it) in Barkley anyways
This is exactly the type of trade they should and only do IMO. Stay in the top 4, get some extra picks including the valuable 22, ( which would give us 3 of the top 34 picks) and end up with their pick of the top position players in the draft.
Win -win IMO.
then trade 12, a 2nd and 2 3rds to move back up to 5 or 6 and take whom ever is left of the 4 qbs Barkely or Chubb and go from there.
Think Denver would move down if no Qb is left, Indy if Barkely is gone
So we would have 8 draft picks with 2 first round, 1 second round. 3 early third round picks, plus the 4th and 5th rounders.
Sign me up.
then trade 12, a 2nd and 2 3rds to move back up to 5 or 6 and take whom ever is left of the 4 qbs Barkely or Chubb and go from there.
Think Denver would move down if no Qb is left, Indy if Barkely is gone
That's the definition of what DG said not to do, and that's "get too cute".
Quote:
In comment 13928039 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
Don't settle.
We get pick 22 +65 and likely our top target (or close to it) in Barkley anyways
This is exactly the type of trade they should and only do IMO. Stay in the top 4, get some extra picks including the valuable 22, ( which would give us 3 of the top 34 picks) and end up with their pick of the top position players in the draft.
Win -win IMO.
Agreed small trade down get the top non-Qb in the entire draft and a couple premium picks to boot!
Quote:
give up a 34. It’s effectively a late 1st rounder.
They wouldn't be giving it up. It was just omitted but later corrected to say they'd be keeping it.
Thank you
Oh, AND we keep our #34? Ummmm yes.
That is a perfect example of having your cake and eating it too.
Because it says what they would end up with, not just "get".
Also the OP later said he omitted including the 34 in his post and said they'd be keeping it.
wouldn't you rather have...
#4
#33
#34
#35
#66
#69
instead of ...
#4
#22
#65
#66
#69
??
wouldn't you rather have...
#4
#33
#34
#35
#66
#69
instead of ...
#4
#22
#65
#66
#69
??
Knee I think the idea here is we get our top target in Barkley vs. 'Settling' for another pick like Chubb.
wouldn't you rather have...
#4
#33
#34
#35
#66
#69
instead of ...
#4
#22
#65
#66
#69
??
I like the 3-way trade better and here's why:
The Giants get the #22 plus they're guaranteed the best non QB at 4. If they traded with the Browns, the Browns get their choice of QB and position player.
I want the best position player at 4 if DG doesn't want a QB at 2 and trades back.
I do this if I’m “all in” on Eli.
I’m not, but I think the NYG are.
No, it's likely for Barkley. The #4 pick is the magic number which will give us our choice between Barkley and Chubb. I would do it.
I would want more if its a browns swap with us. Because we know then one of barkley or chubb will be off the board before we pick.
I would settle for this deal in a second if its BUF moving to #2 because that locks in QB, QB, and QB going 1-2-3...so we still get our top rated positional player at a cheaper price and 2 additional assets...thats a great haul for us.
Buffalo gets 1
Cleveland gets 2, 12, 53, 56, 65 and 2019 1st from Buffalo.
NYG gets 4 and 22.
I would say Cleveland stays at 1 Buffalo gets 2. Giants get 4 and 22. Cleveland gets 53, 56, 65 and 2019 first for moving from 4 to 12.
Giants pick Barkley and an OL with their first two picks. Take BPA at #34 (likely to be some good CB, and OL available at that spot).
Cleveland gets their QB, someone like Vea, Smith, Evans, James, or an OT at #12, and makes a killing with 4 picks in round two.
Buffalo gets their QB.
A great deal for all IMO.
not if you wanted barkley
...will you be bummed if the Giants stay put at 2?
...will you be bummed if the Giants stay put at 2?
Not if its Rosen or Darnold. The top 3-4 picks all have a franchise QB value on them because that is how much teams are willing to pay for them.
Id be disappointed if we drafted Chubb or Nelson their instead of getting a bunch more picks and possibly getting them lower.
Quote:
...will you be bummed if the Giants stay put at 2?
Not if its Rosen or Darnold. The top 3-4 picks all have a franchise QB value on them because that is how much teams are willing to pay for them.
Id be disappointed if we drafted Chubb or Nelson their instead of getting a bunch more picks and possibly getting them lower.
I'm with you.