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?
A mistake would be trading up for a QB this year
+1.
+1 x a very big number x that number again.
Quote:
of the Carolina Panthers by Joe Schoen. You don't give up on talent. Burns is the same player as Josh Allen, but a year younger. The right move there, as the Jags demonstrated by resigning Allen, was to sign Burns.
What did Tepper do? He got rid of his best player and his cap headache so he could get weapons for his galactic mistake at quarterback. How do you think the locker room in Carolina feels about this right about now? Oh yes of course. The same way the Giants locker room felt last year when Schoen bet the ranch on our galactic mistake at quarterback.
Allen is considered to be very good against the run and had 17.5 sacks last year. I hope you are looking into your crystal ball and seeing that Burns "will" become the same player as Josh Allen because right now he isn't and it's not even close.
Josh Allen wasn't available and the cost would have been a lot more. The giants needed to add to the pass rush. Burns fit that need. Burns is a known, whereas the draft didn't offer elite talent to consider especially when you want to address other needs.
If we only had one 2nd round pick, then maybe there would be hesitation, but the luxury of two 2nd round picks gave us flexibility to address the pass rush with a young highly productive player that will benefit from others playing alongside him in Dexter and Thibs.
The real issue with Burns is that if he turns out to be Golladay then you have the horrible contract plus the loss of picks. If he turns out to be Leonard Williams you basically break even. For it to be a really good deal, he has to outplay his contract.
But let's see if a team makes a move up to draft a quarterback and what they pay.
Quote:
In comment 16477680 The Mike said:
Quote:
of the Carolina Panthers by Joe Schoen. You don't give up on talent. Burns is the same player as Josh Allen, but a year younger. The right move there, as the Jags demonstrated by resigning Allen, was to sign Burns.
What did Tepper do? He got rid of his best player and his cap headache so he could get weapons for his galactic mistake at quarterback. How do you think the locker room in Carolina feels about this right about now? Oh yes of course. The same way the Giants locker room felt last year when Schoen bet the ranch on our galactic mistake at quarterback.
Allen is considered to be very good against the run and had 17.5 sacks last year. I hope you are looking into your crystal ball and seeing that Burns "will" become the same player as Josh Allen because right now he isn't and it's not even close.
Josh Allen wasn't available and the cost would have been a lot more. The giants needed to add to the pass rush. Burns fit that need. Burns is a known, whereas the draft didn't offer elite talent to consider especially when you want to address other needs.
If we only had one 2nd round pick, then maybe there would be hesitation, but the luxury of two 2nd round picks gave us flexibility to address the pass rush with a young highly productive player that will benefit from others playing alongside him in Dexter and Thibs.
My statement about Allen was in response to The Mike saying Burns is the same player as Allen. I get why the did it and I hope he takes a real step up and elevates the guys around him. I watched a bunch of Panthers games as I had him and Luvu as IDP on my fantasy team and I saw a good edge nothing more. I'm not unhappy he's on the team I just think the draft capital and the massive contract were too much!
The real issue with Burns is that if he turns out to be Golladay then you have the horrible contract plus the loss of picks. If he turns out to be Leonard Williams you basically break even. For it to be a really good deal, he has to outplay his contract.
Well when your drafting is terrible for years and years, you have to selectively add talent in other ways. You wanna wait another 10 years to try and get competitive?
He’s also not good against the run which we were awful defending last year. Blame Wink all you want but he’s had good-to-great run defenses throughout his career and Burns will be replacing snaps from guys who were primarily run-defenders on a line that lost AR and LW.
Are we a more talented team this year because of the trade? Yes. But losing a high-value draft pick and $30M in cap space will have an impact filling holes on a rebuild. He’s too good to call the deal a ‘mistake’ but it’s not unreasonable to have reservations.
Burns will be 26 years old at the start of the 2024 season. He has 46 career sacks in 5 years.
It's a no brainer trade considering this isn't considered a strong EDGE class. Pairing a talented EDGE with Thibodeaux on the other side and Lawrence in the middle is extremely exciting to look forward to watching and see how good they can become.
If we were to keep it and make the pick, the odds extremely slim the player would be anywhere near as productive as Burns.
Burns is not an all-pro. He's a pro bowl player.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
Without a 2024 pick as well? Probably not.
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion.
The Panthers just did this last year, but up to #1 (from #9).
The 49ers did it in 2021 but up to #3 (from 12)
the Giants can go to any spot there is a willing trade partner. They have more than enough draft picks to do it even if it involves future years. Simply having 10 picks is beyond irrelevant, especially if many of the 10 picks are outside the first two rounds where the value markedly drops off.
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
This is a good draft. That's why people think the Vikings can jump The Giants, they have 2 first rounders to offer in this draft.
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
.
Without a 2024 pick as well? Probably not.
They could ADD 2025 picks to their #6 and #47 if they wanted to.
Quote:
In comment 16477771 GFAN52 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
.
Without a 2024 pick as well? Probably not.
They could ADD 2025 picks to their #6 and #47 if they wanted to.
It will be hard to top #23 in this draft, at least one of Verse, Latu, Turner or Murphy will drop to 23.
Quote:
In comment 16477773 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477771 GFAN52 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
.
Without a 2024 pick as well? Probably not.
They could ADD 2025 picks to their #6 and #47 if they wanted to.
It will be hard to top #23 in this draft, at least one of Verse, Latu, Turner or Murphy will drop to 23.
Conversely, the 11th pick won't allow them a chance at Nabers, Odunze or even possibly Alt.
Quote:
In comment 16477788 GFAN52 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477773 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477771 GFAN52 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
.
Without a 2024 pick as well? Probably not.
They could ADD 2025 picks to their #6 and #47 if they wanted to.
It will be hard to top #23 in this draft, at least one of Verse, Latu, Turner or Murphy will drop to 23.
Conversely, the 11th pick won't allow them a chance at Nabers, Odunze or even possibly Alt.
True. But it might get them Bowers or top corner plus one of those linemen. They can remake their defense.
He’s also not good against the run which we were awful defending last year. Blame Wink all you want but he’s had good-to-great run defenses throughout his career and Burns will be replacing snaps from guys who were primarily run-defenders on a line that lost AR and LW.
Are we a more talented team this year because of the trade? Yes. But losing a high-value draft pick and $30M in cap space will have an impact filling holes on a rebuild. He’s too good to call the deal a ‘mistake’ but it’s not unreasonable to have reservations.
Why did Carolina trade him? I’m not sure if you’ve been hiding under a rock but just to clue you in, Carolina is a completely inept franchise right now. They’ve made one poor decision after another the past few seasons
We don't just have an offensive problem. Take away the turnovers (which come and go) and we might have been selecting Caleb Williams on Thursday.
That said, we don’t know if the Giants approached Hunter, and he turned them down.
Quote:
In comment 16477773 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477771 GFAN52 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
.
Without a 2024 pick as well? Probably not.
They could ADD 2025 picks to their #6 and #47 if they wanted to.
It will be hard to top #23 in this draft, at least one of Verse, Latu, Turner or Murphy will drop to 23.
Hard to top the #23? How about taking next year's 1st round pick and by the sound of that, they may be getting a top 10 pick plus and they get one of the top rated wide receivers in the draft.
Put it in reverse, we are the giants in the Cardinals situation. I would want a slight trade down, and still get a top player plus position myself next year with potentially a top 10 draft pick versus a #23. Its not hard to sell or top.
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion.
The Panthers just did this last year, but up to #1 (from #9).
The 49ers did it in 2021 but up to #3 (from 12)
the Giants can go to any spot there is a willing trade partner. They have more than enough draft picks to do it even if it involves future years. Simply having 10 picks is beyond irrelevant, especially if many of the 10 picks are outside the first two rounds where the value markedly drops off.
"this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion."
'And this is a bad opinion and factually incorrect' because YOU say so, that's good stuff. Now tell me how many draft picks did the Panthers have last year? Or the 49ers in 2021? Do you even know how many?
That's just one hypothetical.
That makes zero sense.
There comes a point where the QB doesn't matter because there is no team around him to support him (including defense) and you end up with a wrecked prospect.
If Daniel Jones was on another team, he's probably a much different player.
Agreed. It's a reasonable question. If this team can't score points Burns won't matter. It will be like the Mendenhall/Van Pelt Giants.
So, no, in my opinion trading for Burns wasn't a mistake. A mistake would be not adding another weapon to the defensive arsenal relatively early in the upcoming draft. While I'd prefer a 3-Tech DT to pair with Dexter Lawrence, I could see the Giants opting for a CB depending on how things shake out.
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion.
The Panthers just did this last year, but up to #1 (from #9).
The 49ers did it in 2021 but up to #3 (from 12)
the Giants can go to any spot there is a willing trade partner. They have more than enough draft picks to do it even if it involves future years. Simply having 10 picks is beyond irrelevant, especially if many of the 10 picks are outside the first two rounds where the value markedly drops off.
.
"this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion."
'And this is a bad opinion and factually incorrect' because YOU say so, that's good stuff. Now tell me how many draft picks did the Panthers have last year? Or the 49ers in 2021? Do you even know how many?
You are asking the wrong question. It's not factually incorrect because I said it is, it's factually incorrect because you're wrong.
the 49ers traded 1 pick in the 2021 draft in the trade up for Lance (plus 3 picks from other drafts). 1 in the current draft. So, why does it matter how many they had to "maneuver the draft board"? it's a completely irrelevant question.
they moved up from pick 12 to pick 1 in the 2021 draft, it cost them 4 picks. One of those picks was from the 2021 draft.
that's it.
The Panthers moved up from 9 to 1 in 2023 and used only 2 picks in the current draft to do so, a 1st and a 2nd. they added two picks from future drafts to the trade. So again, why does it matter how many picks they had in the current draft?
So, now do you see how factually incorrect you are and even espousing a bad opinion?
No offense.
Quote:
My point is if NYG lose out in a trade up for Maye to the Vikings because of a lack of draft capital, it's fair to question the deal imo.
Agreed. It's a reasonable question. If this team can't score points Burns won't matter. It will be like the Mendenhall/Van Pelt Giants.
If the team can't stop the other team, the QB won't matter.
The Giants have PLENTY of “draft capital”. That 2nd round pick isn’t moving the needle in a trade up nearly as much as you think. If the Vikings are willing to give up 3 1’s, the Giants would absolutely have to add their 1st in ‘25. You’re making far too much out of a 2nd round pick when the Giants still have a 2nd round pick anyways. The Pats aren’t going to care about that pick. They are going to want the 1st next season
Quote:
In comment 16477782 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion.
The Panthers just did this last year, but up to #1 (from #9).
The 49ers did it in 2021 but up to #3 (from 12)
the Giants can go to any spot there is a willing trade partner. They have more than enough draft picks to do it even if it involves future years. Simply having 10 picks is beyond irrelevant, especially if many of the 10 picks are outside the first two rounds where the value markedly drops off.
.
"this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion."
'And this is a bad opinion and factually incorrect' because YOU say so, that's good stuff. Now tell me how many draft picks did the Panthers have last year? Or the 49ers in 2021? Do you even know how many?
You are asking the wrong question. It's not factually incorrect because I said it is, it's factually incorrect because you're wrong.
the 49ers traded 1 pick in the 2021 draft in the trade up for Lance (plus 3 picks from other drafts). 1 in the current draft. So, why does it matter how many they had to "maneuver the draft board"? it's a completely irrelevant question.
they moved up from pick 12 to pick 1 in the 2021 draft, it cost them 4 picks. One of those picks was from the 2021 draft.
that's it.
The Panthers moved up from 9 to 1 in 2023 and used only 2 picks in the current draft to do so, a 1st and a 2nd. they added two picks from future drafts to the trade. So again, why does it matter how many picks they had in the current draft?
So, now do you see how factually incorrect you are and even espousing a bad opinion?
No offense.
You still evaded the actual question, how many picks did each team have for that draft year? It's much easier to maneuver if you enough draft capital, which you seem not to grasp or choose to ignore.
I don't espouse bad opinions very often, just to be clear.
I'm done here, if you choose to ignore it, on you.
Quote:
In comment 16477782 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion.
The Panthers just did this last year, but up to #1 (from #9).
The 49ers did it in 2021 but up to #3 (from 12)
the Giants can go to any spot there is a willing trade partner. They have more than enough draft picks to do it even if it involves future years. Simply having 10 picks is beyond irrelevant, especially if many of the 10 picks are outside the first two rounds where the value markedly drops off.
.
"this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion."
'And this is a bad opinion and factually incorrect' because YOU say so, that's good stuff. Now tell me how many draft picks did the Panthers have last year? Or the 49ers in 2021? Do you even know how many?
You are asking the wrong question. It's not factually incorrect because I said it is, it's factually incorrect because you're wrong.
the 49ers traded 1 pick in the 2021 draft in the trade up for Lance (plus 3 picks from other drafts). 1 in the current draft. So, why does it matter how many they had to "maneuver the draft board"? it's a completely irrelevant question.
they moved up from pick 12 to pick 1 in the 2021 draft, it cost them 4 picks. One of those picks was from the 2021 draft.
that's it.
The Panthers moved up from 9 to 1 in 2023 and used only 2 picks in the current draft to do so, a 1st and a 2nd. they added two picks from future drafts to the trade. So again, why does it matter how many picks they had in the current draft?
So, now do you see how factually incorrect you are and even espousing a bad opinion?
No offense.
Sorry, my apologies, to be factually correct SF moved up to pick 3 from pick 12, not up to pick 1 to take Lance.
2022: 25th
2023: 27th
Want me to keep going?
Quote:
My point is if NYG lose out in a trade up for Maye to the Vikings because of a lack of draft capital, it's fair to question the deal imo.
The Giants have PLENTY of “draft capital”. That 2nd round pick isn’t moving the needle in a trade up nearly as much as you think. If the Vikings are willing to give up 3 1’s, the Giants would absolutely have to add their 1st in ‘25. You’re making far too much out of a 2nd round pick when the Giants still have a 2nd round pick anyways. The Pats aren’t going to care about that pick. They are going to want the 1st next season
No they don't have plenty of draft capital, you should partner with the other poster here then...
Quote:
In comment 16477833 Sean said:
Quote:
My point is if NYG lose out in a trade up for Maye to the Vikings because of a lack of draft capital, it's fair to question the deal imo.
The Giants have PLENTY of “draft capital”. That 2nd round pick isn’t moving the needle in a trade up nearly as much as you think. If the Vikings are willing to give up 3 1’s, the Giants would absolutely have to add their 1st in ‘25. You’re making far too much out of a 2nd round pick when the Giants still have a 2nd round pick anyways. The Pats aren’t going to care about that pick. They are going to want the 1st next season
.
No they don't have plenty of draft capital, you should partner with the other poster here then...
You’re out of your damn mind. The Giants could trade up if they wanted to. The question is, do they? YOU not wanting to give up the picks it would take is your problem and has nothing to do with the Giants not having enough to make the move. Go back to bed
Quote:
In comment 16477841 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
In comment 16477833 Sean said:
Quote:
My point is if NYG lose out in a trade up for Maye to the Vikings because of a lack of draft capital, it's fair to question the deal imo.
The Giants have PLENTY of “draft capital”. That 2nd round pick isn’t moving the needle in a trade up nearly as much as you think. If the Vikings are willing to give up 3 1’s, the Giants would absolutely have to add their 1st in ‘25. You’re making far too much out of a 2nd round pick when the Giants still have a 2nd round pick anyways. The Pats aren’t going to care about that pick. They are going to want the 1st next season
.
No they don't have plenty of draft capital, you should partner with the other poster here then...
You’re out of your damn mind. The Giants could trade up if they wanted to. The question is, do they? YOU not wanting to give up the picks it would take is your problem and has nothing to do with the Giants not having enough to make the move. Go back to bed
Let's have the Giants trade picks this year AND next year with a roster already devoid of plenty of talent...to move up for a QB this year. Hey, there is no Elway or Marino coming out this year, I'm just telling you. Have a cup of java, maybe you will wake up...
2022: 25th
2023: 27th
Want me to keep going?
Wink was so overrated. Good riddance.
Quote:
In comment 16477813 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477782 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion.
The Panthers just did this last year, but up to #1 (from #9).
The 49ers did it in 2021 but up to #3 (from 12)
the Giants can go to any spot there is a willing trade partner. They have more than enough draft picks to do it even if it involves future years. Simply having 10 picks is beyond irrelevant, especially if many of the 10 picks are outside the first two rounds where the value markedly drops off.
.
"this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion."
'And this is a bad opinion and factually incorrect' because YOU say so, that's good stuff. Now tell me how many draft picks did the Panthers have last year? Or the 49ers in 2021? Do you even know how many?
You are asking the wrong question. It's not factually incorrect because I said it is, it's factually incorrect because you're wrong.
the 49ers traded 1 pick in the 2021 draft in the trade up for Lance (plus 3 picks from other drafts). 1 in the current draft. So, why does it matter how many they had to "maneuver the draft board"? it's a completely irrelevant question.
they moved up from pick 12 to pick 1 in the 2021 draft, it cost them 4 picks. One of those picks was from the 2021 draft.
that's it.
The Panthers moved up from 9 to 1 in 2023 and used only 2 picks in the current draft to do so, a 1st and a 2nd. they added two picks from future drafts to the trade. So again, why does it matter how many picks they had in the current draft?
So, now do you see how factually incorrect you are and even espousing a bad opinion?
No offense.
You still evaded the actual question, how many picks did each team have for that draft year? It's much easier to maneuver if you enough draft capital, which you seem not to grasp or choose to ignore.
I don't espouse bad opinions very often, just to be clear.
I'm done here, if you choose to ignore it, on you.
lol, there is willful ignorance and then there is something worse - whatever this is.
This is what SF had in draft picks prior to trading up from 12 to 1.
What is the real difference maker here that allowed the 49ers to adeptly "maneuver" the draft board like Itzhak Perlman on his Stradivarius.
The Giants currently have a better 1st, similar 2nd, better 3rd, better 4th. Is that those two 5th round comp picks? that's it - in your mind that's how they pulled off this feat? Is it the missing 7th round pick? that's the one?
dude, when you're in a hole, stop digging.
1st round, No. 12 overall
2nd round, No. 43 overall
3rd round, No. 102 overall
4th round, No. 117 overall
5th round, No. 155 overall
5th round, No. 172 overall
5th round, No. 180 overall (from NO)
6th round, No. 194 overall
7th round, No. 230 overall (from NYJ)
Quote:
In comment 16477854 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477841 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
In comment 16477833 Sean said:
Quote:
My point is if NYG lose out in a trade up for Maye to the Vikings because of a lack of draft capital, it's fair to question the deal imo.
The Giants have PLENTY of “draft capital”. That 2nd round pick isn’t moving the needle in a trade up nearly as much as you think. If the Vikings are willing to give up 3 1’s, the Giants would absolutely have to add their 1st in ‘25. You’re making far too much out of a 2nd round pick when the Giants still have a 2nd round pick anyways. The Pats aren’t going to care about that pick. They are going to want the 1st next season
.
No they don't have plenty of draft capital, you should partner with the other poster here then...
You’re out of your damn mind. The Giants could trade up if they wanted to. The question is, do they? YOU not wanting to give up the picks it would take is your problem and has nothing to do with the Giants not having enough to make the move. Go back to bed
.
Let's have the Giants trade picks this year AND next year with a roster already devoid of plenty of talent...to move up for a QB this year. Hey, there is no Elway or Marino coming out this year, I'm just telling you. Have a cup of java, maybe you will wake up...
You don’t seem very bright. I clearly said they have the draft capital to move up if they want to. You clearly keep getting that confused with your own opinion on whether they should. This shouldn’t be this difficult. Your opinion has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not they can make the move. Pull your shit together
2022: 25th
2023: 27th
Want me to keep going?
Quote:
In comment 16477857 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
In comment 16477854 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477841 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
In comment 16477833 Sean said:
Quote:
My point is if NYG lose out in a trade up for Maye to the Vikings because of a lack of draft capital, it's fair to question the deal imo.
The Giants have PLENTY of “draft capital”. That 2nd round pick isn’t moving the needle in a trade up nearly as much as you think. If the Vikings are willing to give up 3 1’s, the Giants would absolutely have to add their 1st in ‘25. You’re making far too much out of a 2nd round pick when the Giants still have a 2nd round pick anyways. The Pats aren’t going to care about that pick. They are going to want the 1st next season
.
No they don't have plenty of draft capital, you should partner with the other poster here then...
You’re out of your damn mind. The Giants could trade up if they wanted to. The question is, do they? YOU not wanting to give up the picks it would take is your problem and has nothing to do with the Giants not having enough to make the move. Go back to bed
.
Let's have the Giants trade picks this year AND next year with a roster already devoid of plenty of talent...to move up for a QB this year. Hey, there is no Elway or Marino coming out this year, I'm just telling you. Have a cup of java, maybe you will wake up...
You don’t seem very bright. I clearly said they have the draft capital to move up if they want to. You clearly keep getting that confused with your own opinion on whether they should. This shouldn’t be this difficult. Your opinion has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not they can make the move. Pull your shit together
Also, a trade up to 4 wouldn't be too much. We're talking pick 6, 70, 2025 2nd at the most. That is absolutely worth it. I wouldn't trade up to 3 for anyone but Daniels though, that's where it gets really expensive.
The example I used was the Giants had 10 picks a few years ago
So who is digging out of anything?
I don't know why I engage with an argumentative person who likes to insult along the way. Somehow, Eric and the others who run this site, don't seem to mind. That wouldn't fly on other sites, that I can assure you.
'Pull my shit together', everybody is a comedian it seems.