I have to assume that Schoen knew what the parameters would be for a trade up to 3/4 when making the Burns trade. But, he probably didn't anticipate the Vikings acquiring another first round pick when he made the deal.
If NYG does like McCarthy, they'd be in a much better situation with the 39th and 47th pick to offer NE/ARI in a trade up. Having #39 right now would put Schoen in a much more advantageous position.
Do you still make the trade knowing the Vikings would acquire an additional first?
You're sounding ill-informed at this point.
I watched every game of his last year and studied him thoroughly. I'm just not a fan of his game for us, even some scouts said he has a noodle arm. I think he could be good in the right system like with Payton or a west coast offense based on quick strikes, rhythm and timing. He's the one in the top 6 I'm simply not a fan of for our needs, but I still think he could be good in the right offense like I said.
You're sounding ill-informed at this point.
From the Bob Mcginn draft series. I wouldn't be shocked if he went at pick 13 though. I just think he's a system QB and a terrible fit for the system Daboll wants to run.
Why fill the position with a 2-year, $50 million rental on a rebuilding ball club? Why bother? This reeks of Solder and Golladay again. WTF???!!!
Versus paying long-term, elite-$ for a player who likely isn't elite?
Hunter was the better deal - clearly.
The better question, which 331 raised, is if Hunter would have come here.
Quote:
Why fill the position with a 2-year, $50 million rental on a rebuilding ball club? Why bother? This reeks of Solder and Golladay again. WTF???!!!
Versus paying long-term, elite-$ for a player who likely isn't elite?
Hunter was the better deal - clearly.
The better question, which 331 raised, is if Hunter would have come here.
I'd rather have no FA pass rusher than Hunter, personally.
I will say, if we don't get a rookie QB contract in here asap then the trade for Burns makes a lot less sense.
Quote:
Why fill the position with a 2-year, $50 million rental on a rebuilding ball club? Why bother? This reeks of Solder and Golladay again. WTF???!!!
Versus paying long-term, elite-$ for a player who likely isn't elite?
Hunter was the better deal - clearly.
The better question, which 331 raised, is if Hunter would have come here.
Why would a rebuilding ball club with no QB sign a 30-year for two years for $50 million. That make ZERO sense.
The Giants signing the 30-year old (turns 30 in October) Hunter to that same 2 year $49M deal is like lighting $49M on fire. unless you're so delusional you expect the Giants to be contenders in the next two seasons.
Quote:
In comment 16477519 Go Terps said:
Quote:
because he can get a QB at 6 without having to trade up.
Who?
They can sit at 6 and draft Penix or Nix, who I think are as likely to be good (or bust) in the NFL as Maye or McCarthy are.
This is what I think too. In fact I wouldn't mind a small trade down if possible to get another pick somewhere. I'm fine with keeping our picks, getting Nix or Penix, and getting a WR
Why would a rebuilding ball club with no QB sign a 30-year for two years for $50 million. That make ZERO sense.
If would have made sense if the other part of the plan was to draft one of these talented QBs.
Quote:
Why would a rebuilding ball club with no QB sign a 30-year for two years for $50 million. That make ZERO sense.
If would have made sense if the other part of the plan was to draft one of these talented QBs.
We still wouldn't likely get good production from JJM or Maye until 2025 at the earliest. This isn't CJ Stroud we're talking about, they both require time to stew.
The Giants signing the 30-year old (turns 30 in October) Hunter to that same 2 year $49M deal is like lighting $49M on fire. unless you're so delusional you expect the Giants to be contenders in the next two seasons.
I'm not sold on the contract for Burns.
If we added a better QB, who's to say we couldn't be contending in two years?
Quote:
is your preferemnce because you're not sold Burns is an elite player, the Giants would have been better off doing nothing.
The Giants signing the 30-year old (turns 30 in October) Hunter to that same 2 year $49M deal is like lighting $49M on fire. unless you're so delusional you expect the Giants to be contenders in the next two seasons.
I'm not sold on the contract for Burns.
If we added a better QB, who's to say we couldn't be contending in two years?
In 2 years Hunter would be 50 million richer and the contract would be over.
We still wouldn't likely get good production from JJM or Maye until 2025 at the earliest. This isn't CJ Stroud we're talking about, they both require time to stew.
Did you see this Texans turnaround coming with that roster - at the time - and a first time HC and GM?
Let's be careful trying to finesse and revise expectations for the Texans going into 2023...
Quote:
is your preferemnce because you're not sold Burns is an elite player, the Giants would have been better off doing nothing.
The Giants signing the 30-year old (turns 30 in October) Hunter to that same 2 year $49M deal is like lighting $49M on fire. unless you're so delusional you expect the Giants to be contenders in the next two seasons.
I'm not sold on the contract for Burns.
If we added a better QB, who's to say we couldn't be contending in two years?
If the Giants draft Maye, the best scenario for him is to sit his first year. 2025 would be his rookie season as starter.
But say you are right and the Giants start competing for a playoff spot in 2026. In your scenario, 32-year old Hunter's contract is about to expire. Doesn't seem smart to me.
Quote:
is your preferemnce because you're not sold Burns is an elite player, the Giants would have been better off doing nothing.
The Giants signing the 30-year old (turns 30 in October) Hunter to that same 2 year $49M deal is like lighting $49M on fire. unless you're so delusional you expect the Giants to be contenders in the next two seasons.
I'm not sold on the contract for Burns.
If we added a better QB, who's to say we couldn't be contending in two years?
you don't even know how the draft will unfold. What if they do get a QB. Why force the need to look for a premier edge again in two years? the roster is better long-term with this player on this deal.
But...it does come down to the player - if you are not sold on Burns you don't make this trade or contract, clearly Schoen is sold on him, but my point equally was Hunter, with the deal he signed, makes no sense for the Giants to be interested in that player on that contract
In 2 years Hunter would be 50 million richer and the contract would be over.
So?
Did it occur to you if could also be dicey if Burns doesn't hold up his end of the bargain? Why are we assuming his investment is somehow safer?
At the end of the day, hopefully our GM is doing his job and upgrading the roster to account for these situations.
Quote:
In 2 years Hunter would be 50 million richer and the contract would be over.
So?
Did it occur to you if could also be dicey if Burns doesn't hold up his end of the bargain? Why are we assuming his investment is somehow safer?
At the end of the day, hopefully our GM is doing his job and upgrading the roster to account for these situations.
Your retort is to say the Giants will possibly admit the Burns deal was a failure in two years?
That's your comeback?
Acquiring one of the NFL's best pass rushers at the age of 25 for 5 years makes sense for a rebuilding club. Signing a 30-year old for 2-years doesn't. That's the difference.
Quote:
In 2 years Hunter would be 50 million richer and the contract would be over.
So?
Did it occur to you if could also be dicey if Burns doesn't hold up his end of the bargain? Why are we assuming his investment is somehow safer?
At the end of the day, hopefully our GM is doing his job and upgrading the roster to account for these situations.
If Burns produced with minimal pass rush opportunities and minimal talent around him, I think he will do just fine here and build on what is a fantastic start to his career.
If the Giants draft Maye, the best scenario for him is to sit his first year. 2025 would be his rookie season as starter.
But say you are right and the Giants start competing for a playoff spot in 2026. In your scenario, 32-year old Hunter's contract is about to expire. Doesn't seem smart to me.
If we have the right GM, he finds a solution when Hunter leaves. No dead money to worry about, etc.
BTW, I would start Maye as soon as possible in 2024. I'm not waiting...
I'll just leave it at that.
Quote:
In 2 years Hunter would be 50 million richer and the contract would be over.
So?
Did it occur to you if could also be dicey if Burns doesn't hold up his end of the bargain? Why are we assuming his investment is somehow safer?
At the end of the day, hopefully our GM is doing his job and upgrading the roster to account for these situations.
You can play the card you are playing for every single draft pick and every single trade.
It appears many of us thie thread feel the tarde is a lot safer than you. That's not meant as a knock on you - just that many of us hold him in higher regard than you.
Quote:
If the Giants draft Maye, the best scenario for him is to sit his first year. 2025 would be his rookie season as starter.
But say you are right and the Giants start competing for a playoff spot in 2026. In your scenario, 32-year old Hunter's contract is about to expire. Doesn't seem smart to me.
BTW, I would start Maye as soon as possible in 2024. I'm not waiting...
Yeah, that is smart. Throw him out there with crap mechanics and no NFL knowledge...
Your retort is to say the Giants will possibly admit the Burns deal was a failure in two years?
That's your comeback?
Acquiring one of the NFL's best pass rushers at the age of 25 for 5 years makes sense for a rebuilding club. Signing a 30-year old for 2-years doesn't. That's the difference.
I said the Burns deal may not be a good deal. I just don't know why it's being assumed it's this safer investment.
Like I said, spending a second rounder for Burns made a lot of sense. However, I don't think his play supports paying him as one of the top pass rushers in the league where he's making more than TJ Watt and Myles Garrett.
If you want to keep sprinkling magic dust on your TV that Burns is on that level, I think there is a chance you are going to be disappointed.
I could see this going the way of Vernon, who was basically the same guy as a Giant as he was a Dolphin and was viewed as a big disappointment. And he made an All Pro team as a Giant.
It appears many of us thie thread feel the tarde is a lot safer than you. That's not meant as a knock on you - just that many of us hold him in higher regard than you.
I get it. It's just conversation.
Burns is a good player for sure. But with this contract, the expectations should change; and those should entail him putting up significant sack production...IMV.
I could see this going the way of Vernon, who was basically the same guy as a Giant as he was a Dolphin and was viewed as a big disappointment. And he made an All Pro team as a Giant.
Exactly. My guess is he'll be very good, not great, and not worth an outcome where we don't get a QB because we didn't have the ammo.
that's how sports works.
Josh Allen, whose deal was signed after Burns, makes more than Burns, Garrett and Watt.
Watt is a FA in 2026. Garrett in 2027 I believe.
Pretending you don't understand this is disingenuous.
Kyler Murray contract has more average per year and more guaranteed money than Patrick Mahomes.
If Burns puts up 17 sack/50 pressure campaign, everyone will be thrilled.
But as of now, Burns is a lot more potential than performance in regards to a dominant output.
Quote:
It appears many of us thie thread feel the tarde is a lot safer than you. That's not meant as a knock on you - just that many of us hold him in higher regard than you.
I get it. It's just conversation.
Burns is a good player for sure. But with this contract, the expectations should change; and those should entail him putting up significant sack production...IMV.
Why be so focused on what he is making vs if the team can get a great defense? WHy care so much about individual stats vs seeing how overall the team plays on Defense?
You and I aren't the GM. We're fans, right?
2023 Thibs produced in the neighborhood, so maybe two?
that's how sports works.
Josh Allen, whose deal was signed after Burns, makes more than Burns, Garrett and Watt.
Watt is a FA in 2026. Garrett in 2027 I believe.
Pretending you don't understand this is disingenuous.
Kyler Murray contract has more average per year and more guaranteed money than Patrick Mahomes.
Was Burns really next in line?
Allen just had a great year with 17.5 sacks, along with several other good years. So, you should be able to see why Jax made the big investment.
When was Burns' great year?
Quote:
and Garrett because he signed his deal more recently. The Watt and Garrett deals were sign in 2020 and 2021.
that's how sports works.
Josh Allen, whose deal was signed after Burns, makes more than Burns, Garrett and Watt.
Watt is a FA in 2026. Garrett in 2027 I believe.
Pretending you don't understand this is disingenuous.
Kyler Murray contract has more average per year and more guaranteed money than Patrick Mahomes.
Was Burns really next in line?
Allen just had a great year with 17.5 sacks, along with several other good years. So, you should be able to see why Jax made the big investment.
When was Burns' great year?
2 years ago when the rams offered 2 firsts for him? he started the pro bowl that year (2 of the last 3 actually). he is a very very good player who is still ascending at age 25.
he is not garrett or bosa - which is why he got paid $30m less - but he is on that next tier.
Bumping up from what we have to a good QB is worth at least two Burns' (or more) and if the QB is elite it is worth 3 or more Burns'. That's just the math. N o move improves this team more dramatically than getting a great QB. Smart teams don't box themselves out of the hunt.
And I like the idea of moving him to move up for a QB instead of burning a lot of picks. Unlikely though.
Bumping up from what we have to a good QB is worth at least two Burns' (or more) and if the QB is elite it is worth 3 or more Burns'. That's just the math. N o move improves this team more dramatically than getting a great QB. Smart teams don't box themselves out of the hunt.
Some of us recognize that if The Giants really feel that QB 3 or QB 4 is going to be great (QB1 and QB 2 unattainable) then the trading the 2nd rd pick for Burns has zero imapct in acquiring that great QB.
If Burns puts up 17 sack/50 pressure campaign, everyone will be thrilled.
But as of now, Burns is a lot more potential than performance in regards to a dominant output.
As is every young player. Being All_Pro is "performance" however.
2 years ago when the rams offered 2 firsts for him? he started the pro bowl that year (2 of the last 3 actually). he is a very very good player who is still ascending at age 25.
he is not garrett or bosa - which is why he got paid $30m less - but he is on that next tier.
Look, I hope you are right, and the best is yet to come.
What are your expectations? 10-15 sacks?
Quote:
Some of us just don't want to hear that we failed to get Maye or Daniels or we couldn't put together a trade up for Penix because we fell short of ammunition, where #39 might make the difference.
Bumping up from what we have to a good QB is worth at least two Burns' (or more) and if the QB is elite it is worth 3 or more Burns'. That's just the math. N o move improves this team more dramatically than getting a great QB. Smart teams don't box themselves out of the hunt.
Some of us recognize that if The Giants really feel that QB 3 or QB 4 is going to be great (QB1 and QB 2 unattainable) then the trading the 2nd rd pick for Burns has zero imapct in acquiring that great QB.
Well, how do you know that? It's just something you are saying. We already have reports that New England and maybe the Chargers prefer to have the Vikings #11 and #23 over the Giants package of #6 and a 2025 pick. They want picks in THIS draft because it is a strong draft. How can you say #39 will have ZERO impact when we are in a competition with another aggressive suitor?
Quote:
2 years ago when the rams offered 2 firsts for him? he started the pro bowl that year (2 of the last 3 actually). he is a very very good player who is still ascending at age 25.
he is not garrett or bosa - which is why he got paid $30m less - but he is on that next tier.
Look, I hope you are right, and the best is yet to come.
What are your expectations? 10-15 sacks?
That's my expectation. He could disappoint, but I see him being very productive in Bowen's defense with Dexy and KT freeing him up more than he's ever experienced in his NFL career.
Quote:
In comment 16478310 Darwinian said:
Quote:
Some of us just don't want to hear that we failed to get Maye or Daniels or we couldn't put together a trade up for Penix because we fell short of ammunition, where #39 might make the difference.
Bumping up from what we have to a good QB is worth at least two Burns' (or more) and if the QB is elite it is worth 3 or more Burns'. That's just the math. N o move improves this team more dramatically than getting a great QB. Smart teams don't box themselves out of the hunt.
Some of us recognize that if The Giants really feel that QB 3 or QB 4 is going to be great (QB1 and QB 2 unattainable) then the trading the 2nd rd pick for Burns has zero imapct in acquiring that great QB.
Well, how do you know that? It's just something you are saying. We already have reports that New England and maybe the Chargers prefer to have the Vikings #11 and #23 over the Giants package of #6 and a 2025 pick. They want picks in THIS draft because it is a strong draft. How can you say #39 will have ZERO impact when we are in a competition with another aggressive suitor?
I'd imagine Schoen had already been discussing the Patriots trade demands and perhaps realized that wasn't going to happen. The same report you mention from GoDeep said Schoen doesn't want to part with a king's random. In other words, he isn't going to trade up to 3. He already knew that before making this deal for Burns I bet. Maye has too much bust potential to trade the farm for him, simple as that.
If Burns puts up 17 sack/50 pressure campaign, everyone will be thrilled.
But as of now, Burns is a lot more potential than performance in regards to a dominant output.
As is every young player. Being All_Pro is "performance" however.
Huh?
But otherwise, there's a lot of vagueness with the term 'rebuilding'. Until the Giants actually acquire a franchise QB, they really aren't rebuilding as much as renovating and cleaning things up. Still need the keystone that is the Franchise QB.
Quote:
2 years ago when the rams offered 2 firsts for him? he started the pro bowl that year (2 of the last 3 actually). he is a very very good player who is still ascending at age 25.
he is not garrett or bosa - which is why he got paid $30m less - but he is on that next tier.
Look, I hope you are right, and the best is yet to come.
What are your expectations? 10-15 sacks?
My expectations are that he'll make our defense a lot better. I really don't care what he does individually. I figure he'll be disruptive enough to make life a little easier for Thibs, Dex, Okereke, and the rest of the crew.
Not a bad price for a bookend to KT
Quote:
I think the big question is whether Burns has a dominant season like Allen's 2023, in him.
If Burns puts up 17 sack/50 pressure campaign, everyone will be thrilled.
But as of now, Burns is a lot more potential than performance in regards to a dominant output.
As is every young player. Being All_Pro is "performance" however.
Huh?
Any young player you can make the claim they haven't performed unless they have won it all.
Otherwise if a player has been an all-pro he has shown performance, hasn't he?
Someone might arbitrarily define a player is worth it with their own stats they want the player to achieve, but in reality if the Defense plays much better - isn't it more than likely he is part of the reason why?
I want the Giants to win. Why should I care if Burns isn't getting sacks but the defense which he is a part of is performing very well? It would be in part because of him.
Quote:
In comment 16478342 giantstock said:
Quote:
I think the big question is whether Burns has a dominant season like Allen's 2023, in him.
If Burns puts up 17 sack/50 pressure campaign, everyone will be thrilled.
But as of now, Burns is a lot more potential than performance in regards to a dominant output.
As is every young player. Being All_Pro is "performance" however.
Huh?
Any young player you can make the claim they haven't performed unless they have won it all.
Otherwise if a player has been an all-pro he has shown performance, hasn't he?
Someone might arbitrarily define a player is worth it with their own stats they want the player to achieve, but in reality if the Defense plays much better - isn't it more than likely he is part of the reason why?
I want the Giants to win. Why should I care if Burns isn't getting sacks but the defense which he is a part of is performing very well? It would be in part because of him.
Burns has 2 pro Bowls, no all pros.
Quote:
In comment 16478359 christian said:
Quote:
In comment 16478342 giantstock said:
Quote:
I think the big question is whether Burns has a dominant season like Allen's 2023, in him.
If Burns puts up 17 sack/50 pressure campaign, everyone will be thrilled.
But as of now, Burns is a lot more potential than performance in regards to a dominant output.
As is every young player. Being All_Pro is "performance" however.
Huh?
Any young player you can make the claim they haven't performed unless they have won it all.
Otherwise if a player has been an all-pro he has shown performance, hasn't he?
Someone might arbitrarily define a player is worth it with their own stats they want the player to achieve, but in reality if the Defense plays much better - isn't it more than likely he is part of the reason why?
I want the Giants to win. Why should I care if Burns isn't getting sacks but the defense which he is a part of is performing very well? It would be in part because of him.
Burns has 2 pro Bowls, no all pros.
Okay. Not so bad, right? Still my question - Why should I care if Burns isn't getting sacks but the defense which he is a part of is performing very well? I'm not a GM neither is anyone else here.
Don’t forget, draft picks are like stocks….a gamble. Burns is the real deal, safe and sound.