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?
Quote:
2021: 21st
2022: 25th
2023: 27th
Want me to keep going?
Wink was so overrated. Good riddance.
I'll admit I wasn't really sold on Wink in the first place. His boasting of being able to scheme pass-rush gave me flashbacks to Dave Gettleman and his emphasis of pressure over sacks reminded me of Patrick Graham. In the latter case pressures felt like making excuses or trying not to sack the quarterback. And then there was the two-lineman front Wink liked to use on a regular basis; judging by what Bowen's liked to do with Tennessee, will he keep using that and let the off-tackle lanes get gashed?
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.
I said "no offense" at the end of my post. That automatically allows me to be truthful in my comments and indicate while the truth may be hurtful I didn't mean it to offend you. It basically allows me to say anything.
your whole premise is flawed b/c you think number of picks matter. If there is ever a time to use the phrase draft capital because somebody doesn't understand picks in different locations have different value this is it. I did not believe such a person existed.
Because you believe that having 10, 12, 14 who knows the upper limit you have picks allows a team more draft maneuverability when it has almost zero bearing on their ability to move up and down (especially near the top of the draft). High picks are all that are really relevant.
I wish you a good day, and hope you can overcome your ignorance. Again, no offense and I will add with all due respect, so I'm covered on all bases.
burns is a 2x pro bowler. what 2x+ pro bowler would you expect to get at pick #39.
any analyst worth a damn talks about the need to build a roster in addition to finding the QB. both need to be done at the same time. check out the 4 defenses in the championship games last year. and note the only one of those QBs who was a top 5 pick was Goff, who was originally considered a bust and secondly considered way overpaid. his 3rd life is positive, and likely only because of the really quality roster campbell assembled around him.
That makes zero sense.
Hunter signed for 2/$49M, I don’t see that as a mega-deal. He’d fill a need until they find someone younger to fill the position.
[quote] In comment 16477879 Carson53 said:
Quote:
had what seems like 9 draft picks in that draft year, okay.
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.
I said "no offense" at the end of my post. That automatically allows me to be truthful in my comments and indicate while the truth may be hurtful I didn't mean it to offend you. It basically allows me to say anything.
your whole premise is flawed b/c you think number of picks matter. If there is ever a time to use the phrase draft capital because somebody doesn't understand picks in different locations have different value this is it. I did not believe such a person existed.
Because you believe that having 10, 12, 14 who knows the upper limit you have picks allows a team more draft maneuverability when it has almost zero bearing on their ability to move up and down (especially near the top of the draft). High picks are all that are really relevant.
I wish you a good day, and hope you can overcome your ignorance. Again, no offense and I will add with all due respect, so I'm covered on all bases.
You hope I can overcome my 'ignorance', you think you're so cute sometimes. You actually are pretty good at being evasive...with the younger crowd.
The Jon Stewart of BBI. If you weren't 'ignorant', you would have realized the previous post wasn't even directed at you.
Am I covered too?
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.
They are virtually identical in size, speed and athleticism. They are both 6'5", Allen is slightly bigger at 260 v Burns at 250, Burns is faster with a 4.5 40 time v Allen's 4.6 40 time and Burns has longer reach and bigger hands. So naturally given his larger weight, Allen is going to be slightly more effective at the point of attack against the rush. But given his superior speed and reach, Burns is the better equipped of the two as a pure pass rusher from the edge.
In terms of on field performance, they were both first round draft picks in 2019, but Burns has played in six more games, has one more sack, six more TFLs, one fewer FR and one fewer forced fumble. Both have been selected to two pro bowls. If there were two virtual clones playing edge in the NFL, these two would be it.
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.
They are virtually identical in size, speed and athleticism. They are both 6'5", Allen is slightly bigger at 260 v Burns at 250, Burns is faster with a 4.5 40 time v Allen's 4.6 40 time and Burns has longer reach and bigger hands. So naturally given his larger weight, Allen is going to be slightly more effective at the point of attack against the rush. But given his superior speed and reach, Burns is the better equipped of the two as a pure pass rusher from the edge.
In terms of on field performance, they were both first round draft picks in 2019, but Burns has played in six more games, has one more sack, six more TFLs, one fewer FR and one fewer forced fumble. Both have been selected to two pro bowls. If there were two virtual clones playing edge in the NFL, these two would be it.
Mike,. I get the physical similarities, but one is considered a very good run defender and his high sack total is 17.5. The other is considered an average at best run defender and his high in sacks is 12.5. I think that Burns is a good player, but in all the games that I have watched him play(20 at least) I don't see a game breaker or true impact player and I think the trade and the contract are a big overpay.
I think poor teams pay good players like great ones. The Giants need an almost entirely new offense and have some big holes on D. Burns will make them better, I'm not arguing that, but I am worried that the $ and picks could have been used better elsewhere. That being said I hope he is fantastic this year and for years after and I worried for nothing.
2022: 25th
2023: 27th
Want me to keep going?
Funny enough if you keep going is the last good scoring defense the Giants have had. For all the flack Graham got, the 2020 team was top 10 in scoring.
I have no love lost for Gettleman, but that was a strong front 7.
A lot of those meltdowns were last second field goals where they couldn't close the door.
But he's put together top 10 scoring defenses in two out of the last four years, which is a fantasy compared to what Martindale did in New York.
Quote:
In comment 16477694 Walker Gillette said:
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.
They are virtually identical in size, speed and athleticism. They are both 6'5", Allen is slightly bigger at 260 v Burns at 250, Burns is faster with a 4.5 40 time v Allen's 4.6 40 time and Burns has longer reach and bigger hands. So naturally given his larger weight, Allen is going to be slightly more effective at the point of attack against the rush. But given his superior speed and reach, Burns is the better equipped of the two as a pure pass rusher from the edge.
In terms of on field performance, they were both first round draft picks in 2019, but Burns has played in six more games, has one more sack, six more TFLs, one fewer FR and one fewer forced fumble. Both have been selected to two pro bowls. If there were two virtual clones playing edge in the NFL, these two would be it.
Mike,. I get the physical similarities, but one is considered a very good run defender and his high sack total is 17.5. The other is considered an average at best run defender and his high in sacks is 12.5. I think that Burns is a good player, but in all the games that I have watched him play(20 at least) I don't see a game breaker or true impact player and I think the trade and the contract are a big overpay.
I think poor teams pay good players like great ones. The Giants need an almost entirely new offense and have some big holes on D. Burns will make them better, I'm not arguing that, but I am worried that the $ and picks could have been used better elsewhere. That being said I hope he is fantastic this year and for years after and I worried for nothing.
Allen is definitely better right now. Nevertheless, Burns is good and it's hard to judge how could he could be based on his time in Carolina with very little pass rushing situations and very little help around him. I'd say wait and see how he does here before judging this as a bad move.
You can't build you strategy hard on what other teams may or may not do, come up with your plan and adjust accordingly.
I think Graham is a solid DC but Giants had some favorable situations that season. Then the following year I agree with Eric's point.
A mistake would be trading up for a QB this year
Agree again.
Who?
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.
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.
Noodle arm Nix at 6, or anywhere before the 3rd round, would be awful.
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.
since they are all equally likely to be good or bad they should save money on all the technology upgrades and pre-draft travel.
just do the same thing they did in buffalo:
I think Graham is a solid DC but Giants had some favorable situations that season. Then the following year I agree with Eric's point.
The average offensive ranking against for the Giants was 17th, and the average offensive PPG by opponents was 24.3.
The Giants held opponents to 2 full fewer points per game than their season average. In 11 of 16 games, the Giants held their opponents to fewer than their season average in scoring.
The Giants held all three top 10 offenses they played (Tampa, Seattle, Baltimore) below their season averages.
In every conceivable measurement, the Giants had a good scoring defense in 2020.
I'm not high on Schoen (yet), but I liked this move.
[quote] In comment 16477879 Carson53 said:
Quote:
had what seems like 9 draft picks in that draft year, okay.
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.
I said "no offense" at the end of my post. That automatically allows me to be truthful in my comments and indicate while the truth may be hurtful I didn't mean it to offend you. It basically allows me to say anything.
your whole premise is flawed b/c you think number of picks matter. If there is ever a time to use the phrase draft capital because somebody doesn't understand picks in different locations have different value this is it. I did not believe such a person existed.
Because you believe that having 10, 12, 14 who knows the upper limit you have picks allows a team more draft maneuverability when it has almost zero bearing on their ability to move up and down (especially near the top of the draft). High picks are all that are really relevant.
I wish you a good day, and hope you can overcome your ignorance. Again, no offense and I will add with all due respect, so I'm covered on all bases.
You hope I can overcome my 'ignorance', you think you're so cute sometimes. You actually are pretty good at being evasive...with the younger crowd.
The Jon Stewart of BBI. If you weren't 'ignorant', you would have realized the previous post wasn't even directed at you.
Am I covered too?
Jon Stewart? Take that back. I never said anything remotely that offensive to you. and you did not even qualify it with "no offense"
The Giants are now very very small steps away from having an Elite Defense.
The problem is that their Offense is atrocious but a great defense for several years can make up for the Offense provided positive steps are made now building it up.
nope that was buffalo's magic 8-ball. mara wouldnt let them buy one here because it's not his preferred color. forced them to make decisions the old fashioned way.
Quote:
would a rebuilding ball club with no quarterback spend a mega deal on a 30-year old edge player?
That makes zero sense.
Hunter signed for 2/$49M, I don’t see that as a mega-deal. He’d fill a need until they find someone younger to fill the position.
They’re not trying to “fill needs” they’re trying to build a good core of young players to build upon.
Signing Hunter would been dumb and worthless. He’d be a FA again when the Giants are hopefully good and on the wrong side of 30.
That said, we don’t know if the Giants approached Hunter, and he turned them down.
I said this exact same thing during the opening of free agency. If we needed a pass rusher, Hunter was the better two-year deal for a more gifted, productive player.
Quote:
In comment 16477832 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
would a rebuilding ball club with no quarterback spend a mega deal on a 30-year old edge player?
That makes zero sense.
Hunter signed for 2/$49M, I don’t see that as a mega-deal. He’d fill a need until they find someone younger to fill the position.
They’re not trying to “fill needs” they’re trying to build a good core of young players to build upon.
Signing Hunter would been dumb and worthless. He’d be a FA again when the Giants are hopefully good and on the wrong side of 30.
You have 2 drafts and/or FA periods to find his replacement. I like Burns, so I’m not going to go crazy about giving up the picks, but I’d rather have them.
Quote:
would a rebuilding ball club with no quarterback spend a mega deal on a 30-year old edge player?
That makes zero sense.
Hunter signed for 2/$49M, I don’t see that as a mega-deal. He’d fill a need until they find someone younger to fill the position.
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???!!!
You're sounding ill-informed at this point.
Quote:
In comment 16477832 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
would a rebuilding ball club with no quarterback spend a mega deal on a 30-year old edge player?
That makes zero sense.
Hunter signed for 2/$49M, I don’t see that as a mega-deal. He’d fill a need until they find someone younger to fill the position.
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???!!!
100%
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.