After yesterday’s trade the GMen are left with only 5 picks ... does anyone else think this shows a strong willingness to trade down and acquire more ?
Only because we have no idea how things will shake out at the draft. Going in and expecting someone to make you an offer that you are looking for is a dangerous proposition.
I doubt the Giants want to follow the model of the Cleveland Browns and acquire picks just to have them.
Although I’m not holding my breath
I don’t think DG has ever traded down
I think it shows confirmation bias.
They will trade up, trade down, or stay where they are based on what their draft board tells them to do as the players come off the board.
they're even related.
Some of you can't possibly imagine the Giants not using a 4th round comp pick and 6th round pick on a player who is unlikely to ever contribute to an NFL game?
face it, they might just make 5 picks in the draft.
Not saying there isn't a chance they trade down, but I severely doubt it's because they feel empty without having the 4th round comp pick their 6th round pick and 7th round pick.
and a 6th round pick for a somewhat proven commodity. Those picks had a very low chance of being actual contributors to this team. So to answer your question, probably not.
Think of it like this, if we don't trade for an inside LB we're probably drafting one.
The 4th comp (basically being a 5) was our pick spent on a LB. The 6th carries little weight.
2nd pick puts us in the catbird seat.
The ratio of cheese-disks to draft picks goes way up the further down the draft board you go.
2nd pick puts us in the catbird seat.
The ratio of cheese-dicks to draft picks goes way up the further down the draft board you go.
But 2nd overall and 34th overall should land us TWO really good players... this just makes it more important to draft keepers and not busts
than the Giants traded their 4th and 6th to move up in the 4th round and draft a LBr? They are still net one player.
You are all over analyzing this stuff.
full on group think crowd who will say no and leave it at that. They won't even consider that it is a possibility. FA will determine a lot. If we go get two or three guys for main roles then we can't sign a lot of depth too. That means we need more draft choices to fill depth. Then yes, a trade down would then seem likely.
Yesterday's move alone doesn't mean it will happen but for anyone to think they haven't thought about the trade down route, thus opening up the possibility of trading some picks for players, is being naive at best.
because you don't get the 6th and 7th round camp fodder from the draft that push out UDFA's that teams have more freedom to keep or not?
If anything it's better IMO to use that 6th/7th round pick on a UDFA because if a GM drafts a player in the 6th or 7th round sometimes they may feel pressure to keep the player vs a UDFA that they don't.
but for consistency sake I will once again post this so you can see the odds you are lamenting about missing out on:
Sorry, but not sorry I don't share the sentiment that is sucks possibly missing out on that 6% chance a 6th round RB starts half the games their in the league for or 3% chance the 7th round DL does.
|Historic Success Chart
The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:
1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)
3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)
5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)
6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)
7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)
I will say that it would awesome if they moved back with Cleveland at 4 and got the 2 high 2nd rounders.
If not, they can add 4 -5 players that will hopefully either start or add depth.
thinking back to 2005, we only had 4 draft picks and got Webster in round 2, Tuck in round 3 and Jacobs in round 4.
Plus our Free agent pick ups were outstanding: McKenzie, Pierce and Burress.
We already traded for Ogletree, tendered Jones and are expected to sign Norwell. I think we can expect a couple of other signings at OL, WR, LB, CB.
If we can mirror that offseason having only 5 picks this year then I'll be very happy.
In comment 13854918
| than the Giants traded their 4th and 6th to move up in the 4th round and draft a LBr? They are still net one player.
You are all over analyzing this stuff.
Agreed. I won't be upset if DG doesn't trade down to get more picks. I also think he has traded down. My complaint with Reese was that he never traded down in any round during his entire tenure as GM. This is really about fans not wanting the draft to end early on Saturday.
if I got this kind of ROI! A 26yr old Pro bowler who is very productive at a position of extreme need? sign me up!!
6th and 7th rounders rarely "make it" in the NFL. After the 3rd round....the percentages really start to plummet.
I think historically, the Giants do a good job with UDFA's.
That will be super important for them this year...as you hope you can grab a couple that stick with the 53. Virtually no difference between a 7th rounder and a UDFA.
In comment 13855014
Dave on the UWS said:
| if I got this kind of ROI! A 26yr old Pro bowler who is very productive at a position of extreme need? sign me up!!
+1, if you can trade anything less than a 3rd rounder for an established player it is pretty much a no brainer. lol at the idea DG would now be committed to trading down to recoup those two low value picks..
We spent a pick and filled a need.
Are there people that think that once you use a pick on a player in the draft, that you've then "lost" that pick? That's the same logic, it seems to me.
they may have the inside track on a high end OG prospect, and three draft picks that should deliver promising trio to plug into the foundation. There will be more UFA help added and cuts made.
In comment 13854907
| But 2nd overall and 34th overall should land us TWO really good players... this just makes it more important to draft keepers and not busts
I had the same concern as the thread when I read of the trade, but then looked at what we got and the relatively nominal cost, and felt better.
This point on the 2 and 34 even better than that.
To get a proven athletic LB in his prime to fill a huge gaping hole in the Defense.
Now instead of having to use draft picks to hopefully maybe get a player who can do the job, it's fixed.
I don't get the idea that draft picks are worth more than an actual solution. This trade enables us to concentrate our top 3 picks towards other positions it gives us more options and that is always a good thing.
Giants had 4 picks, 3 of them turned in to Webster, Tuck, and Jacobs. 2009 they had 9 picks and outside of Nicks, the only players of those 9 that even had mediocre careers were Beatty and Andre Brown and that is being kind to Brown and giving him the benefit of the doubt because he could have been good if he wasn't always hurt.
I would take 3 very good to great players over 7-8 marginal backups/busts any day. The only way I would want to see them trade down is if they traded a few spots back if the Browns took Barkley, to get Nelson.
The giants 4th and 6 round picks for years have been an abomination. Guys like James Brewer. Philip Dillard Adrien Robinson. And other awful awful picks. I am glad our new GM was not scared to trade for a proven player
and they know the Giants are hot for one of the QB,
they might 'force' us to trade up.
The problem for all of us fans & draftniks is that
we don't know how the prospects are rated by Giants.
If we get our future Franchise QB it will be worth
Some of you are obsessed with trading down and having a bunch of picks. To get 2-3 talented starters from this draft would be a homerun IMO. Expectations to grab 5-6 starters from 1 draft are unrealistic
We're picking very high so we should be able to snag our guy in the early rounds.. why trade back and watch other teams snatch the best players? To end up with 3-4 JAGS
They traded a conditional 4th and a sixth and got back a 7th.
They started off with 6 picks because of the Steelers trade, earned a conditional 4th.
That's 7 picks.
Traded two picks. That's 5.
Got a 7th back from the Rams. That's 6.
Did I miss something?
The 7th rounder is for 2019
and 7th round picks on this team now, that are starters, because they deserve to be and not because there is no one else.......
Much ado about nothing....
In comment 13855517
Aaron Thomas said:
| The 7th rounder is for 2019
Before the trade, and as soon as i heard about the trade compensation i thought a trade back was even more likely.
Still need another fast OLB, LT, and a RB to name a few needs.
I look at it as if we picked a quality player with one pick and the other was a freebie that we never had in the first place.