very possibly.. However, I am starting to think that maybe they are looking to a team that is dumping their players (LAC)- JJ and two #1's for Herbert???
A guy can wish, right..
Unless you think that there is a dropoff after about pick 15 whereby 42 will get you someone identical why not wait until Draft Day to make this sort of deal? What if someone unexpected falls to 23?
Is the Giants 2025 first round pick must be considered the most valuable
man giving up #6 and potentially another top 10 pick next year would be too rich for my taste. We aren't better than Dallas or Philly right now. You would have to be nearly 100% sure that QB is going to be a stud to make that move.
The Giants still have more draft capital than Minnesota does
Unless you think that there is a dropoff after about pick 15 whereby 42 will get you someone identical why not wait until Draft Day to make this sort of deal? What if someone unexpected falls to 23?
At face value it seems weird but if they have 20 guys lumped together than it makes sense. They can also move back up, but have already secured that 2nd next year.
wouldn't want them to try, but I don't think the Giants could match three #1's. My guess is the maximum the Giants would offer to move up is #47 and our #1 next year. That is a lot less than three #1's. As I said, if Minnesota wants to do this, then let them do so. Getting into bidding wars for players is a terrible draft strategy. And none of Williams, Maye, Daniels, or McCarthy should be confused with Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, or Jackson. Stay at six or trade down.
Yup. They will likely offer #11, #23, and their #1 next year IMO to try and get ahead of the Giants. Let him to do so.
Their roster is hot garbage. I don’t like this strategy from Kwesi. Lot of Viking fans think he’s out of his head running a team and he’s struggled filling in roster talent the last year or two. Think they also have Hockenson hurt and gave him huge deal after surrendering bunch of picks.
wouldn't want them to try, but I don't think the Giants could match three #1's. My guess is the maximum the Giants would offer to move up is #47 and our #1 next year. That is a lot less than three #1's. As I said, if Minnesota wants to do this, then let them do so. Getting into bidding wars for players is a terrible draft strategy. And none of Williams, Maye, Daniels, or McCarthy should be confused with Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, or Jackson. Stay at six or trade down.
The Giants 1st and 2nd rounders are more valuable than the 2 Minnesota 1's per this chart so they wouldn't have to match 3 1's necessarily. Minnesota also doesn't have a 2nd or 3rd this year or a 2nd next year Link - ( New Window )
is a trade with the Giants. I'm not convinced that the Giants want McCarthy. They are still talent deficient in many areas. Get two good players at 11 and 23.
RE: The Giants still have more draft capital than Minnesota does
wouldn't want them to try, but I don't think the Giants could match three #1's. My guess is the maximum the Giants would offer to move up is #47 and our #1 next year. That is a lot less than three #1's. As I said, if Minnesota wants to do this, then let them do so. Getting into bidding wars for players is a terrible draft strategy. And none of Williams, Maye, Daniels, or McCarthy should be confused with Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, or Jackson. Stay at six or trade down.
Our 1st and 2nd are worth a little more than 11 & 23 on the draft trade charts.
The irony is that the Vikings look to be running the Bills
wouldn't want them to try, but I don't think the Giants could match three #1's. My guess is the maximum the Giants would offer to move up is #47 and our #1 next year. That is a lot less than three #1's. As I said, if Minnesota wants to do this, then let them do so. Getting into bidding wars for players is a terrible draft strategy. And none of Williams, Maye, Daniels, or McCarthy should be confused with Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, or Jackson. Stay at six or trade down.
The Giants 1st and 2nd rounders are more valuable than the 2 Minnesota 1's per this chart so they wouldn't have to match 3 1's necessarily. Minnesota also doesn't have a 2nd or 3rd this year or a 2nd next year Link - ( New Window )
I don't think a draft chart really matters much in this situation. Three #1's is better than #47 and our #1 next year IMO. Minnesota is likely to be very bad this year, so their #1 next year might well be a top 10 pick. (We could be as well, but I think our roster is better.)
wouldn't want them to try, but I don't think the Giants could match three #1's. My guess is the maximum the Giants would offer to move up is #47 and our #1 next year. That is a lot less than three #1's. As I said, if Minnesota wants to do this, then let them do so. Getting into bidding wars for players is a terrible draft strategy. And none of Williams, Maye, Daniels, or McCarthy should be confused with Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, or Jackson. Stay at six or trade down.
The Giants 1st and 2nd rounders are more valuable than the 2 Minnesota 1's per this chart so they wouldn't have to match 3 1's necessarily. Minnesota also doesn't have a 2nd or 3rd this year or a 2nd next year Link - ( New Window )
I don't think a draft chart really matters much in this situation. Three #1's is better than #47 and our #1 next year IMO. Minnesota is likely to be very bad this year, so their #1 next year might well be a top 10 pick. (We could be as well, but I think our roster is better.)
A team has to want to drop to 11 for it to be more valuable
wouldn't want them to try, but I don't think the Giants could match three #1's. My guess is the maximum the Giants would offer to move up is #47 and our #1 next year. That is a lot less than three #1's. As I said, if Minnesota wants to do this, then let them do so. Getting into bidding wars for players is a terrible draft strategy. And none of Williams, Maye, Daniels, or McCarthy should be confused with Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, or Jackson. Stay at six or trade down.
The Giants 1st and 2nd rounders are more valuable than the 2 Minnesota 1's per this chart so they wouldn't have to match 3 1's necessarily. Minnesota also doesn't have a 2nd or 3rd this year or a 2nd next year Link - ( New Window )
I don't think a draft chart really matters much in this situation. Three #1's is better than #47 and our #1 next year IMO. Minnesota is likely to be very bad this year, so their #1 next year might well be a top 10 pick. (We could be as well, but I think our roster is better.)
I disagree. The Giants will be pretty bad too plus 6 vs 11 is a big drop-off in this draft. Plus the Giants *have* more they could add in that Minnesota doesn't. Minnesota is out a 2nd and 3rd this year and a 2nd next year. Doesn't mean the Giants should or will do it, but they could easily top Minnesota's best offer.
wouldn't want them to try, but I don't think the Giants could match three #1's. My guess is the maximum the Giants would offer to move up is #47 and our #1 next year. That is a lot less than three #1's. As I said, if Minnesota wants to do this, then let them do so. Getting into bidding wars for players is a terrible draft strategy. And none of Williams, Maye, Daniels, or McCarthy should be confused with Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, or Jackson. Stay at six or trade down.
Our 1st and 2nd are worth a little more than 11 & 23 on the draft trade charts.
I still think teams would rather have #11 and #23, but I am also thinking that Minnesota will include their #1 next year.
is a trade with the Giants. I'm not convinced that the Giants want McCarthy. They are still talent deficient in many areas. Get two good players at 11 and 23.
I’d go for that. But there’s no guarantee for Minnesota that a QB they want will be there at 6.
wouldn't want them to try, but I don't think the Giants could match three #1's. My guess is the maximum the Giants would offer to move up is #47 and our #1 next year. That is a lot less than three #1's. As I said, if Minnesota wants to do this, then let them do so. Getting into bidding wars for players is a terrible draft strategy. And none of Williams, Maye, Daniels, or McCarthy should be confused with Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, or Jackson. Stay at six or trade down.
The Giants 1st and 2nd rounders are more valuable than the 2 Minnesota 1's per this chart so they wouldn't have to match 3 1's necessarily. Minnesota also doesn't have a 2nd or 3rd this year or a 2nd next year Link - ( New Window )
I don't think a draft chart really matters much in this situation. Three #1's is better than #47 and our #1 next year IMO. Minnesota is likely to be very bad this year, so their #1 next year might well be a top 10 pick. (We could be as well, but I think our roster is better.)
Why are you counting 3 1s for Minnesota and not the Giants #6 this year?
That's exactly what they are doing.
Would seem like it.
A guy can wish, right..
It's been on for a while.
Yup
Quote:
.
Would seem like it.
Yup. They will likely offer #11, #23, and their #1 next year IMO to try and get ahead of the Giants. Let him to do so.
Quote:
.
It's been on for a while.
No it’s really really on now. Vikings don’t make this trade unless they’ve been told they needed to obtain certain picks to compete in a trade.
man giving up #6 and potentially another top 10 pick next year would be too rich for my taste. We aren't better than Dallas or Philly right now. You would have to be nearly 100% sure that QB is going to be a stud to make that move.
At face value it seems weird but if they have 20 guys lumped together than it makes sense. They can also move back up, but have already secured that 2nd next year.
Quote:
In comment 16432848 Sean said:
Quote:
.
Would seem like it.
Yup. They will likely offer #11, #23, and their #1 next year IMO to try and get ahead of the Giants. Let him to do so.
Their roster is hot garbage. I don’t like this strategy from Kwesi. Lot of Viking fans think he’s out of his head running a team and he’s struggled filling in roster talent the last year or two. Think they also have Hockenson hurt and gave him huge deal after surrendering bunch of picks.
Quote:
In comment 16432848 Sean said:
Quote:
.
Would seem like it.
Yup. They will likely offer #11, #23, and their #1 next year IMO to try and get ahead of the Giants. Let him to do so.
They're not getting to 1 or 2 (probably even 3) with that and if they're cool with Maye or JJM at 4/5, fine by me.
The Giants 1st and 2nd rounders are more valuable than the 2 Minnesota 1's per this chart so they wouldn't have to match 3 1's necessarily. Minnesota also doesn't have a 2nd or 3rd this year or a 2nd next year
Link - ( New Window )
How? Vikings have 2 first round picks now.
Quote:
for a potential trade-up. Do they want to use it is the question
How? Vikings have 2 first round picks now.
See my last comment
Our 1st and 2nd are worth a little more than 11 & 23 on the draft trade charts.
The Bills maneuvered all over the board to get get enough picks to get in position to take Allen.
Broncos reporters say the Broncos aren't trying to move up.
Quote:
wouldn't want them to try, but I don't think the Giants could match three #1's. My guess is the maximum the Giants would offer to move up is #47 and our #1 next year. That is a lot less than three #1's. As I said, if Minnesota wants to do this, then let them do so. Getting into bidding wars for players is a terrible draft strategy. And none of Williams, Maye, Daniels, or McCarthy should be confused with Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, or Jackson. Stay at six or trade down.
The Giants 1st and 2nd rounders are more valuable than the 2 Minnesota 1's per this chart so they wouldn't have to match 3 1's necessarily. Minnesota also doesn't have a 2nd or 3rd this year or a 2nd next year Link - ( New Window )
I don't think a draft chart really matters much in this situation. Three #1's is better than #47 and our #1 next year IMO. Minnesota is likely to be very bad this year, so their #1 next year might well be a top 10 pick. (We could be as well, but I think our roster is better.)
That's what I'm thinking, they couldn't get a better deal?
Quote:
In comment 16432884 AcidTest said:
Quote:
wouldn't want them to try, but I don't think the Giants could match three #1's. My guess is the maximum the Giants would offer to move up is #47 and our #1 next year. That is a lot less than three #1's. As I said, if Minnesota wants to do this, then let them do so. Getting into bidding wars for players is a terrible draft strategy. And none of Williams, Maye, Daniels, or McCarthy should be confused with Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, or Jackson. Stay at six or trade down.
The Giants 1st and 2nd rounders are more valuable than the 2 Minnesota 1's per this chart so they wouldn't have to match 3 1's necessarily. Minnesota also doesn't have a 2nd or 3rd this year or a 2nd next year Link - ( New Window )
I don't think a draft chart really matters much in this situation. Three #1's is better than #47 and our #1 next year IMO. Minnesota is likely to be very bad this year, so their #1 next year might well be a top 10 pick. (We could be as well, but I think our roster is better.)
A team has to want to drop to 11 for it to be more valuable
Quote:
In comment 16432884 AcidTest said:
Quote:
wouldn't want them to try, but I don't think the Giants could match three #1's. My guess is the maximum the Giants would offer to move up is #47 and our #1 next year. That is a lot less than three #1's. As I said, if Minnesota wants to do this, then let them do so. Getting into bidding wars for players is a terrible draft strategy. And none of Williams, Maye, Daniels, or McCarthy should be confused with Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, or Jackson. Stay at six or trade down.
The Giants 1st and 2nd rounders are more valuable than the 2 Minnesota 1's per this chart so they wouldn't have to match 3 1's necessarily. Minnesota also doesn't have a 2nd or 3rd this year or a 2nd next year Link - ( New Window )
I don't think a draft chart really matters much in this situation. Three #1's is better than #47 and our #1 next year IMO. Minnesota is likely to be very bad this year, so their #1 next year might well be a top 10 pick. (We could be as well, but I think our roster is better.)
I disagree. The Giants will be pretty bad too plus 6 vs 11 is a big drop-off in this draft. Plus the Giants *have* more they could add in that Minnesota doesn't. Minnesota is out a 2nd and 3rd this year and a 2nd next year. Doesn't mean the Giants should or will do it, but they could easily top Minnesota's best offer.
Quote:
wouldn't want them to try, but I don't think the Giants could match three #1's. My guess is the maximum the Giants would offer to move up is #47 and our #1 next year. That is a lot less than three #1's. As I said, if Minnesota wants to do this, then let them do so. Getting into bidding wars for players is a terrible draft strategy. And none of Williams, Maye, Daniels, or McCarthy should be confused with Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, or Jackson. Stay at six or trade down.
Our 1st and 2nd are worth a little more than 11 & 23 on the draft trade charts.
I still think teams would rather have #11 and #23, but I am also thinking that Minnesota will include their #1 next year.
I’d go for that. But there’s no guarantee for Minnesota that a QB they want will be there at 6.
The Vikings still have to find a trade partner that would be willing to miss out on the blue chip prospects.
Quote:
In comment 16432884 AcidTest said:
Quote:
wouldn't want them to try, but I don't think the Giants could match three #1's. My guess is the maximum the Giants would offer to move up is #47 and our #1 next year. That is a lot less than three #1's. As I said, if Minnesota wants to do this, then let them do so. Getting into bidding wars for players is a terrible draft strategy. And none of Williams, Maye, Daniels, or McCarthy should be confused with Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, or Jackson. Stay at six or trade down.
The Giants 1st and 2nd rounders are more valuable than the 2 Minnesota 1's per this chart so they wouldn't have to match 3 1's necessarily. Minnesota also doesn't have a 2nd or 3rd this year or a 2nd next year Link - ( New Window )
I don't think a draft chart really matters much in this situation. Three #1's is better than #47 and our #1 next year IMO. Minnesota is likely to be very bad this year, so their #1 next year might well be a top 10 pick. (We could be as well, but I think our roster is better.)
Why are you counting 3 1s for Minnesota and not the Giants #6 this year?
Certainly could be but something seems off from a number of areas.
TBH.