Would you trade down from 2 to 4

I’d want their other second round pick and their third
I don’t care about the point system. I’d hold them ransom

But I don't think Cleaveland will give up both 33 and 35. I would see them giving one of those and some later picks.

Our best hope is actually Cleveland takes Barkley @ 1. This means the bidding war goes crazy @ 2 for Darnold and then possibly Cleveland goes ahead and makes that deal.

It's going to be an interesting top of the draft.

It would have to also include at least Cleveland's 1st next year and one other Day 2 pick (can be in 2019)

Even here, not that much consensus about #2.

Your talking about basically 4 first rounders if you consider displacement due to teams positional needs aka slight reaches.

Then. The rest of the draft. Great.

is there at 2, I would not do it; otherwise, take Nelson at 4. Take another Olineman, a RB and LB in the 2nd if they are worth it.

In comment 13854521 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

Even here, not that much consensus about #2. Your talking about basically 4 first rounders if you consider displacement due to teams positional needs aka slight reaches. Then. The rest of the draft. Great.

It was at night. They said, "don't do it Bill." I ate the moon. She was hairy. Why is pizza so good? Go Giants.

In comment 13854519 Mike in NY said:

Quote:

It would have to also include at least Cleveland's 1st next year and one other Day 2 pick (can be in 2019)

Mike, that is a lot of comp for going down 2 places. I know we are giving them the ability to draft their future QB and RB, but that is a hefty price.

Why would they pay it unless the value chart is now considered outdated these days?

from a #1 or #2 pick, that chart goes right out the window....

As mentioned, if Cleveland goes Barkley first, that #2 pick becomes a gold mine, if the right team comes a knockin'.

Probably Nelson at 4.

Then you can have a positional pool at top of round 2 x3:

(OG/OT/DT/DE/S/LB) and pick BPA from within that pool. Gaining first round players basically via that flexibility. Repeat within the pool if value screams at you.

I think if we are win now mode, we can secure Nelson at 4, get picks 33, 35 and Clevelands first 4th round pick. Maybe a chance as getting 1st in 2019.

In terms of process:

Having picks in a row, in order.(would be) Really, really great from an organisational thinking point of view. You get to go with your top 3 at that spot positionally, type, value etc. Different concepts about team building, synergy, opportunities you get them all or the ability to repeat.

This is a decent read and I've heard this chart be talked about (basically I think both charts are used and something in the middle is the likely outcome)

Forgive the source being a pats site.

Based on this chart, which is based on recent trades, not that older JJ chart, that is to great a haul.

This is why I think it's somewhere in the middle.

2->4 here is ~ 227 points Which here would be + a high 2 and more but not 2 high 2's. I could see 33 and 64 or 65. The only way they get a 1 next year is not getting a very high 2 this year.
new draft value chart - ( New Window )

The Jets and Broncos will bid with Colts to move up to 3....weigh against how much they want Chubb. If Colts decide with Chubb.

We can get a 2nd ransom from either the Jets and Broncos.....and Buffalo might even be desperare

In comment 13854534 Rjanyg said:

Quote:

I think if we are win now mode, we can secure Nelson at 4, get picks 33, 35 and Clevelands first 4th round pick. Maybe a chance as getting 1st in 2019.

Oh and the only pick I would trade to Cleveland in this would be our 5th rounder this year.

So, they get our 1st and 5th

We get the 4th, 33,35 and there first 4th rounder ( maybe another pick in 2019. )

Gettlemen should be all over this.

I would sit at #2

In comment 13854540 Rjanyg said:

Quote:

In comment 13854534 Rjanyg said: Quote: I think if we are win now mode, we can secure Nelson at 4, get picks 33, 35 and Clevelands first 4th round pick. Maybe a chance as getting 1st in 2019. Oh and the only pick I would trade to Cleveland in this would be our 5th rounder this year. So, they get our 1st and 5th We get the 4th, 33,35 and there first 4th rounder ( maybe another pick in 2019. ) Gettlemen should be all over this.

1st and 10,

Great minds think alike. I offered this scenario a good month ago on BBI and was met with some ridicule. To me, know Gettlemen's history of trading, and the belief he is serious about Eli having years left, the idea of trading back and grabbing THE Hog Mollie if the draft and loading up on 2nd round picks with a night to think about who to select with the first 3 picks of day 2......amazing scenario

Take the picks. Cleveland is going to take a QB so then there is one team the Colts who will take a position player. Hopefully the Colts trade the pick to a QB needy team and we still get the player we want.

If we are not taking a QB it makes little sense to stand pat. There seems to be enough top prospects to move down to 6 and still get one especially if 2 qbs go in the top 4. I might trade down to 4 and then trade again to 5 and get more picks it all depends on how highly the Qbs are valued. Hopefully very high. I don't see Cleveland taking the RB 1st though. They need to get a QB and the only way to guarantee getting the best one is taking him 1st. Plus they may still be stung by the Richardson pick a few years back even though they were bailed out on that one.

Particularly when you consider there should be a lot of value at the top of round 2 at the 3 positions the Giants are at most need (OL, LB, RB)

You can't get so caught up in value. If the Giants really want Nelson and know that he will be there at 4 you take what you can get from Cleveland. Obviously try to get as much as possible. But Nelson and additional picks is always better than just Nelson.

if you're not sold on the QBs (or any other player, let the bidding war begin. Dropping 2 spots and picking up 2 high 2s in such a condition is a no brainer. The only question is whether you can squeeze even more out of them or another team a little further down (the further down, the more golden that haul has to be).

trading, IMO, is not about getting equal chart value. It's about getting better value.

You guys sre pipe dreaming. Theres no bidding war. Too many QBs available. Various teams like them to varying extents. None getting much seperation to justify a huge trade investment.

Simple economic laws.

Supply Up
Demand Down

Price Down

There have been recent years where the top 2 players are clearly separated from the pack (Goff/Wentz, Luck/RG3). That's not the case at all this year--there is no consensus among the top 4 QBs or if they are even worth taking ahead of the other elite prospects (Barkley, Chubb, ...) Knowing that, it seems unlikely a team already in the top 8 would trade a massive haul to move to 2.

In comment 13854558 twostepgiants said:

Quote:

You guys sre pipe dreaming. Theres no bidding war. Too many QBs available. Various teams like them to varying extents. None getting much seperation to justify a huge trade investment. Simple economic laws. Supply Up Demand Down Price Down

Not entirely true. If a team wants a particular QB and can guarantee getting him at #2, then they will pay. Even if two teams want different QBs,(Rosen and Darnold) neither will know what the other wants and may bid against each other to get their QB.
If only one team calls you can not play one against the other, but the Giants would have about 8 minutes to sweat them out...

is a no for me

They will grab the must guy at 1 and take the good player at 4. Swapping 1's with Cleveland is a BBI pipe dream.

took Barkley, signed McCarron, and pick Nelson @ #4. Or trade the #4 for 2019 picks.

like that unless you weigh in the draft grades you have on the players. You can't trade back aimlessly just based on the chart and how many spots you move down. Who will still be available and how you view them are critical elements.

Assume the Giants have Barkley and Darnold rated in a tier by themselves, with a significant drop to the next prospects. The Browns take Barkley at #1. In that case, trading back to 4 for some 2nd rounders is likely not worth it. You would need to get Cleveland's 1st next year.

Now assume that Giants have Barkley in a tier alone, and then have Rosen, Darnold and Nelson in the next tier. Now trading back with that package is more likely because you are still going to land a guy you view as being worthy of that pick.

I would rather lock up my franchise QB.

In comment 13854565 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 13854558 twostepgiants said: Quote: You guys sre pipe dreaming. Theres no bidding war. Too many QBs available. Various teams like them to varying extents. None getting much seperation to justify a huge trade investment. Simple economic laws. Supply Up Demand Down Price Down Not entirely true. If a team wants a particular QB and can guarantee getting him at #2, then they will pay. Even if two teams want different QBs,(Rosen and Darnold) neither will know what the other wants and may bid against each other to get their QB. If only one team calls you can not play one against the other, but the Giants would have about 8 minutes to sweat them out...

Exactly. If Cleveland doesn't take a QB at #1, having the #2 pick guarantees a team the top QB on their board. As the Giants could potentially take a QB if they don't like an offer that will drive up the price

if there isn't a QB I LOVE at 2, and thought I could get Chubb or Nelson, at 4 I would.

In comment 13854524 Brown Recluse said:

Quote:

In comment 13854521 idiotsavant said: Quote: Even here, not that much consensus about #2. Your talking about basically 4 first rounders if you consider displacement due to teams positional needs aka slight reaches. Then. The rest of the draft. Great. It was at night. They said, "don't do it Bill." I ate the moon. She was hairy. Why is pizza so good? Go Giants.

Post of the year.

You guys are grasping at straws.

According to the draft value chart (not written in stone), the cost of moving from 4 to two 2 is 800 points. That would be a 2nd and 3rd. If you don't LOVE your options at #2 you do that trade all day long.
Draft Value - ( New Window )

high 2nd rd picks are very valuable, imo

Absolutely. Some people here are asking for too much. Take the deal. Assuming the Browns take a QB, you're still going to get either Nelson or Chubb.

Actually, that is my worst fear, because it means the Giants lost out on the best player in the draft.

From a trade down standpoint, Cleveland taking Barkely might be better, however, as others have pointed out, that might mean the QBs drop past both the Giants and the Colts (maybe Chubb and Nelson are picked) and Cleveland, Denver and the Jets have the pick of Darnold, Rosen and Allen.

The other point of view for a "best case for trade down" is that Cleveland takes one of Rosen or Darnold. Then a team who wants the other one might be desperate enough to trade up.

The risk is that if Cleveland takes, say, Darnold and the Rosen goes in the Giants slot at 2, the Colts or Cleveland take Barkley and Nelson. The Giants would be at 5th overall at best (if the trade was with Denver).

The Giants would be on the clock at 5th overall with Darnold, Rosen, Barkley and Nelson gone. I guess Chubb wouldn't be a bad "consolation prize", but unless they secured multiple 2018 picks (say a 2nd and a 3rd and a 1st in 2019), it wouldn't be worth it IMHO.

I would consider trade back to 4 for a package that included #33 and their first pick in 4th round plus additional pick either this year or next. First 2 picks on day 2 and first on day 3 are powerful. You have time to restructure your board, sleep on it, and either pick a player who has slipped, or trade with another team that sees a "steal" still on the board.

For giggles we could get Nelson at 4 (so a line of Pugh-Norwell-Jones-Nelson-Flowers/Wheeler), and in the 2nd something like a top RB, an OT, and a LB.

I doubt CLE gives up both #2’s. I’d do the better of this year’s 2’s, a 3rd, and a 2nd next year. That’s a pretty good haul for moving down 2 spots.

is who CLE wants at #2. If they want, let’s say Darnold, and the Giants prefer another QB, they can be pretty sure Indy isn’t taking a QB at #3. And if NYG aren’t taking a QB, they’ll get their pick of Nelson or Chubb. I can live with that, especially with the extra picks.

to find any fan who doesn't want to trade down and accumulate more draft picks this time of year. It's always the popular opinion.

Using my "I have a mancrush on Barkley and Nelson drafting strategy", I would stay at 2 as its quite likely both might not be available at 4.

Of course, the FO could have their on man crushes on other players which might make a trade down worth it.

In comment 13854577 AnnapolisMike said:

Quote:

They will grab the must guy at 1 and take the good player at 4. Swapping 1's with Cleveland is a BBI pipe dream.

Except this idea came up during the NFL Combine between Mayock and Eisen. It is quite possible. It all depends on what Cleveland wants. If they don't want Barkley then it won't happen. They need to draft a QB and should get THE guy they want. If they decide they want there top QB and Barkley, they have enough picks to get it done, plain and simple. Not a pipe dream.

...not if Darnold is there. I'd take him.

In comment 13855454 Rjanyg said:

Quote:

In comment 13854577 AnnapolisMike said: Quote: They will grab the must guy at 1 and take the good player at 4. Swapping 1's with Cleveland is a BBI pipe dream. Except this idea came up during the NFL Combine between Mayock and Eisen. It is quite possible. It all depends on what Cleveland wants. If they don't want Barkley then it won't happen. They need to draft a QB and should get THE guy they want. If they decide they want there top QB and Barkley, they have enough picks to get it done, plain and simple. Not a pipe dream.

And last year during the Combine broadcast, Mayock said that he believed Kamara would be a 1st round pick (you can make the case that Mayock's assessment should have been correct, but that's not how it wound up playing out). They have a lot of airtime to fill.