"Several people I've spoken with speculated the #Giants & #Bills likely have a blueprint in place for a trade." -- NFL draft insider Tony Pauline (@DraftAnalyst1) http://draftanalyst.com/nfl-draft-news-notes-april-11 …
but he posted it would get done sometime last month. He got ripped for it when it didnt happen but some pointed out that while a trade didn't happen, its not wild to think the two teams have outline a POSSIBLE trade. Atleast a foundation of what it would take.
Several people I’ve spoken with speculated that the New York Giants and Buffalo Bills likely have a blueprint in place for a trade that would allow the Bills to move up to the second spot in the draft. They also believe that the trade won’t happen until very late in the process, if it happens at all, as the Giants want to field further offers.
RE: If such a trade was going to happen, it probably wouldn't happen until Â
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
Agreed. Any trade is probably continent on Allen being available at #2. The Bills probably won't trade those picks for Darnold. They want a QB who has played in cold weather, not one from USC. And the Giants would probably decline any trade to take Darnold.
are true that the Giants want Darnold then it is possible that if he goes at #1 then the Giants take a deal. I think that framework probably has been put in place.
If we're going to move that far back, throw the value chart out the window (since they are probably targeting a "their guy" at QB). According to the trade chart we should be able to get their #22 pick this year, and both their 2nd rounders this year. BUT - I want their 2019 1st rounder, too. That's the premium you have to pay to get they guy you think will be the face of your franchise for 10-15 years, period.
broncos or colts are involved first as a stepping stone won't they take away valuable picks from us? Would we simply take next year's 1st to swamp from 2 to 5 or 6? Why wouldn't Denver or the Colts demand next year's 1st to trade down from 5 or 6 to 12?
If we're going to move that far back, throw the value chart out the window (since they are probably targeting a "their guy" at QB). According to the trade chart we should be able to get their #22 pick this year, and both their 2nd rounders this year. BUT - I want their 2019 1st rounder, too. That's the premium you have to pay to get they guy you think will be the face of your franchise for 10-15 years, period.
Chart means something if you are trying to move, it means nothing if someone is trying to get you to move. We would get 2 1's this year, a 2 and a 3 and a pick next year to move from 2-12.
but if they are not, the right move is to get a haul of picks in return. I like Chubb and Nelson, but they are not worth staying if you can get multiple first rounders in my opinion
Look at all the dissenting opinions on the quarterbacks...would that be the case if one of the quarterbacks was John Elway? Maybe none of the QBs are blue chips?
I don't know...if we believe in Gettleman's ability to identify talent, I want to get him as many picks as possible. Good players on rookie contracts are worth their weight in gold, and to add six shots for a talented evaluator like Gettleman...to me that's tough to pass up unless one of these quarterbacks is can't miss.
broncos or colts are involved first as a stepping stone won't they take away valuable picks from us? Would we simply take next year's 1st to swamp from 2 to 5 or 6? Why wouldn't Denver or the Colts demand next year's 1st to trade down from 5 or 6 to 12?
If Buffalo gives both 12 and 22 to get to 5 then they could trade the 5 plus a 2nd and 3rd to us to drop from 2 to 5.
If we picked at 5, two 2nd's and three 3rd's and we have something cooking.
If we're going to move that far back, throw the value chart out the window (since they are probably targeting a "their guy" at QB). According to the trade chart we should be able to get their #22 pick this year, and both their 2nd rounders this year. BUT - I want their 2019 1st rounder, too. That's the premium you have to pay to get they guy you think will be the face of your franchise for 10-15 years, period.
Chart means something if you are trying to move, it means nothing if someone is trying to get you to move. We would get 2 1's this year, a 2 and a 3 and a pick next year to move from 2-12.
Who is to say we're "trying to move"?
Also, Buffalo knows we'll have other offers (possibly from Denver). If we don't like the QBs, we could just as well trade the pick to Denver and still get a perennial all-pro in Barkley or Chubb.
I would take the trade you mention above if that "pick next year" is their first rounder. Otherwise, not interested.
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
Agreed. Any trade is probably continent on Allen being available at #2. The Bills probably won't trade those picks for Darnold. They want a QB who has played in cold weather, not one from USC. And the Giants would probably decline any trade to take Darnold.
Totally agree. It is my opinion that the Giants have targeted Darnold. If he is NOT there (taken number one), the Giants will trade down. Parameters of any trade would have to be worked out beforehand- only ten minutes in between picks is certainly not enough time to put together a trade.
If this were to happen, I would expect the Giants to receive the Bills' two first round picks this year and a first in 2019, along with other picks this year.
If the haul is worth it, #12 is not a terrible spot to be. Assuming 4 QBs taken in the top 11 and Barkley, Chubb, Nelson all off the board, AT LEAST one of the following WILL still be available at our pick:
Minkah Fitzpatrick
Tremaine Edmunds
Vita Vea
Derwin James
Roquan Smith
Denzel Ward
I think all six of those guys have potential to be future all-pro players and make our Defense better from day 1.
1) We have committed to ELi, traded for a LB, signed a VET LT, signed a VET RB and seem to be trying to make one more run.
2) Our depth in many areas is weak and our starters in a couple of areas need help
3) Drafting a QB just because makes no sense. If the Giants don't think that guy is head above all others then we need players who can contribute now.
Loading up to win now is not a bad idea while also rebuilding depth that has been depleted due to shitty drafts in the recent past.
Gettleman's initial comments on the draft (at his introductory presser or ensuing media tour) are the most accurate - you don't want to get too cute when trading down, and you don't want to find yourself in "quarterback hell." To me, all signs still point to QB.
broncos or colts are involved first as a stepping stone won't they take away valuable picks from us? Would we simply take next year's 1st to swamp from 2 to 5 or 6? Why wouldn't Denver or the Colts demand next year's 1st to trade down from 5 or 6 to 12?
If Buffalo gives both 12 and 22 to get to 5 then they could trade the 5 plus a 2nd and 3rd to us to drop from 2 to 5.
If we picked at 5, two 2nd's and three 3rd's and we have something cooking.
They'd have to throw in their #1 next year too for me to like that deal. I don't want DG dropping three premier spots just for a 2 and 3.
The Bills would make an awful trading partner. Moving down from 2 to 12 sucks.
People get too caught up in the top picks of the draft. Look back at the last five years. The hype and buzz words make it seem like some of these guys are superman.
Example, Barkley being a "generational back." How much better do they expect him to be than the top backs in the NFL currently? It's hyperbole.
If the giants can get two first rd picks, a second a future first from the bills they'd be fools to not take it UNLESS they're taking a QB.
RE: Is the difference between #2 and #12 that big? Â
Look at all the dissenting opinions on the quarterbacks...would that be the case if one of the quarterbacks was John Elway? Maybe none of the QBs are blue chips?
I don't know...if we believe in Gettleman's ability to identify talent, I want to get him as many picks as possible. Good players on rookie contracts are worth their weight in gold, and to add six shots for a talented evaluator like Gettleman...to me that's tough to pass up unless one of these quarterbacks is can't miss.
Are any of them can't miss?
Agree. Plus if you don’t love a QB you’re getting a top 8 player at 12.
The decision should be QB or trade down. No non-qb player in this draft is worth the draft capital a BUF trade would net.
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
I agree with you. I think they will wait until the are on the clock because they want to see if the Browns take Allen. If they do then the Giants will likely keep the pick and take Darnold. If the Browns take Darnold I could see them moving down. The Giants have all the leverage here. The longer they wait the higher the offers will be on draft day as we know the Jets aren't going to trade down from 3.
The Bills would make an awful trading partner. Moving down from 2 to 12 sucks.
If you prefer to be 8-8 rather than 10-6 year after year, then you are correct.
All the data and analytical work shows that consistently trading down is by far the dominant strategy. Worth about 1.5-2.0 extra wins per season if you consistently trade down.
The Bills would make an awful trading partner. Moving down from 2 to 12 sucks.
If you prefer to be 8-8 rather than 10-6 year after year, then you are correct.
All the data and analytical work shows that consistently trading down is by far the dominant strategy. Worth about 1.5-2.0 extra wins per season if you consistently trade down.
where are you getting this information from?
Have you seen the browns and eagles trade that got them wentz?
moving away from blue chippers IMO isnt smart.
If i am the giants i am asking for
2 2018 1sts
2 2018 2nds
1 2019 1st
thats where i would start. its ten spots...for a franchise QB
Look at all the dissenting opinions on the quarterbacks...would that be the case if one of the quarterbacks was John Elway? Maybe none of the QBs are blue chips?
I don't know...if we believe in Gettleman's ability to identify talent, I want to get him as many picks as possible. Good players on rookie contracts are worth their weight in gold, and to add six shots for a talented evaluator like Gettleman...to me that's tough to pass up unless one of these quarterbacks is can't miss.
Are any of them can't miss?
It is in terms of the Non-QBs. Chubb is THE difference maker defensively and you have no shot at 12. You could get Vita Via or Da'Ron Payne there, even Tremaine Edmunds so the extra picks should enable us to cluster draft if we have to.
And still trade back up to 5-7 and grab a guy you want. Again...the haul has to be there in the first place from the Bills. You also probably decided Barkley is not in play for you.
The Bills would make an awful trading partner. Moving down from 2 to 12 sucks.
If you prefer to be 8-8 rather than 10-6 year after year, then you are correct.
All the data and analytical work shows that consistently trading down is by far the dominant strategy. Worth about 1.5-2.0 extra wins per season if you consistently trade down.
where are you getting this information from?
Have you seen the browns and eagles trade that got them wentz?
moving away from blue chippers IMO isnt smart.
If i am the giants i am asking for
2 2018 1sts
2 2018 2nds
1 2019 1st
thats where i would start. its ten spots...for a franchise QB
"Given that teams, on the whole, are irrationally willing to pay a lot to trade up, smart teams can reap huge benefits by trading down. Even staying put and drafting from your original spot, the researchers' analysis shows, is not a good strategy."
"Again, the data was unequivocal. On average, trading down and getting two players gave a team five more starts per season and slightly more total Pro Bowls.
You could chalk this up to the simple fact that more players start more games, but it's more than that. Even if you imagined that the team trading down could only keep the better one of the two players it drafted, it'd still get slightly more total starts and the same number of Pro Bowls. The truth is that teams are imperfect talent evaluators, so having two later picks is better than a single early one. Risk diversification at work."
"The most straightforward piece of proof for all this analysis is the fact that trading down and amassing more pick value — in terms of the blue line in the graph above — correlates with more wins on the field.
Massey and Thaler came to this conclusion by looking at the number of wins a team had in any given season between 1997 and 2008, and the total value of all picks they'd made in the previous four years (the amount of time, on average, a rookie is under contract for).
They found that one standard deviation in pick value translated to 1.5 more wins per season on the field. Sure, it's a small sample size, and there's a lot of chance and other factors built into the system — a coach's strategy, for instance — but trading down correlates with a significant amount of victories, given that there are only 16 games in a season."
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/7/5683448/how-nfl-teams-ignore-basic-economics-and-draft-players-irrationally Link - ( New Window )
Just a thought, but Flowers appearing to make it clear that he has learned nothing from his BFF Hart being cut effects the equation here. I fully expect that we will be jettisoning a recent number 1 pick. IF we jettison Flowers, there is one more hole on the paper-thin oline. I think that getting 2 #1s, 2 #2s, a #1 next year, and one or two #3s becomes more of an attractive option than second prize in the draft.
If the offer as rumored two 1's, two 2's, two 3's Â
Use a 2 to move from 12 to 6(Colts have said they want to move down). And keep the other picks. Then we have #6, #22 along with an extra 2 and 2 3's. Pretty simple, huh?
I'm sick of hearing about moving to 12. it just increases the risk of bust trading down that far. Quality over quantity is preferred. Can't guarantee Buffalo's 2019 1st pick will be a high 1st rounder. Trading down to #6 is more palatable.
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
Agreed. Any trade is probably continent on Allen being available at #2. The Bills probably won't trade those picks for Darnold. They want a QB who has played in cold weather, not one from USC. And the Giants would probably decline any trade to take Darnold.
Exactly, like when the Giants passed on a QB From Louisiana via Ole Miss. Or the Packers passed on a QB from Cal or when the Bears didnt trade up for a QB from Carolina.
The Bills are not going to pass on a blue chip qb bc he is from a warm weather climate
If Barkley Is Taken By The Browns At 1st Overall Â
then I start listening to the Bills. The Bills need to somehow bring either the Broncos 5th overall (1700) or the Colts 6th (1600) overall in to the trade. The Bills will have to give up the 12th overall (1200), one of their 2nd rounders (370) and their early 3rd rounder (265) for 1835 total.
The 6th overall is worth 1600. The 2nd overall is 2600. The Bill would have to give the Giants the 6th overall (1600), their 22nd overall (780), their 56th overall (340) and probably their remaining 3rd rounder 96th overall (116)
The Giants would have the two firsts, two seconds and three thirds (6th, 22nd, 34th, 56th, 66th, 69th, 96th)
I might still ask for a 2019 pick from the Bills too.
RE: RE: Is the difference between #2 and #12 that big? Â
Look at all the dissenting opinions on the quarterbacks...would that be the case if one of the quarterbacks was John Elway? Maybe none of the QBs are blue chips?
I don't know...if we believe in Gettleman's ability to identify talent, I want to get him as many picks as possible. Good players on rookie contracts are worth their weight in gold, and to add six shots for a talented evaluator like Gettleman...to me that's tough to pass up unless one of these quarterbacks is can't miss.
Are any of them can't miss?
Agree. Plus if you don’t love a QB you’re getting a top 8 player at 12.
The decision should be QB or trade down. No non-qb player in this draft is worth the draft capital a BUF trade would net.
Agreed.
RE: If the offer as rumored two 1's, two 2's, two 3's Â
Use a 2 to move from 12 to 6(Colts have said they want to move down). And keep the other picks. Then we have #6, #22 along with an extra 2 and 2 3's. Pretty simple, huh?
Ballard already said he did not want to move down that far, which is why he traded with the Jets and not the Bills.
If Giants trade with Bills, they have to get 2019 1st rounder. Â
I'm sick of hearing about moving to 12. it just increases the risk of bust trading down that far. Quality over quantity is preferred. Can't guarantee Buffalo's 2019 1st pick will be a high 1st rounder. Trading down to #6 is more palatable.
Hmmm... Your post just assumes there is no BUST chance at 2.. That is a huge false belief...
If this pans out, DaddyM89 is my nominee for Asshat of the year. Â
Asshat of the year material. Dude got plenty of shit for posting this, and took it like a man. He later stated the info might have been the framework for a draft-day trade. Here it is:
"DaddyM89 : 3/14/2018 4:02 pm :
I was told it would be a haul. Probably similar to what we've been hearing around here for a potential trade. If I had to guess.
2 first rounders this year, 2nd rounder, 4th rounder, 2019 first rounder."
I said from the start that I'm sure the Giants were listening seriously to offer. I also was of the opinion that they should wait until they are nearly on the clock (or on the clock) to make a trade.
If the rumors are true that the only QB the Giants like is Darnold and the Bills are high on Allen, it makes sense for both parties to have a trade on the table in the event that the Browns take the Giants guy and pass over the Bills guy.
The drop to 12 is fine, any trade with the Bills is likely to bring in the type of haul that would allow the Giants to move back into the top 10 at will for a "blue chipper".
trade back and then trade up again. I feel like the bills should be the ones leveraging everything, not the giants, if they want allen. Have the Bills trade up to 4, and then the Giants can trade back to 4 with the bills. Bills give cleveland 12, 22, and additional picks, and bills give Giants 4, 2nd rounder and 1st rounder in 2019.
Every one is writing like the trade has to happen pre-draft picks. But the Giants could pick a QB both they and the Bills like, then have contingencies in place depending on who is there when the Bills draft. Basically the Bills would draft who the Giants want and then the trade happens after the Bills pick for the Giants. If guy X is there then send these Y picks. If guy Z is there then send Y picks AND another pick. If the value isn't there then the trade is off and the Giants happily keep the QB or find another partner.
The Eli/Rivers trade was a swap post draft picks. The Chargers almost certainly chose Rivers for the Giants to pick. If you watch the video, right after Eli is picked, Sal Palantonio says if Rivers is there at 4 for the Giants, there would be discussions for a trade. Mort then says after the Rivers pick that he had heard the Giants had Roethlisberger rated higher than Rivers, intimating he was the Giants' pick in name only. The trade is then announced right after the next pick (Sean Taylor) so I assume the deal was done ahead of time.
To me, this is the likeliest scenario since so much can happen between picks 2 and 12. Link - ( New Window )
I'm sick of hearing about moving to 12. it just increases the risk of bust trading down that far. Quality over quantity is preferred. Can't guarantee Buffalo's 2019 1st pick will be a high 1st rounder. Trading down to #6 is more palatable.
Hmmm... Your post just assumes there is no BUST chance at 2.. That is a huge false belief...
It’s about probability my friend. You can’t pass up on blue chippers in the top six. We are decreasing the potential of getting an impact player. You can do better with trading down to five or six. Number 12 is no man’s land. This is about probability. Not truth or fallacies. Can’t wait for an impact player at 12 or below.
RE: Is the difference between #2 and #12 that big? Â
Look at all the dissenting opinions on the quarterbacks...would that be the case if one of the quarterbacks was John Elway? Maybe none of the QBs are blue chips?
If Elway was coming out this year instead of 1983, absolutely. It's a product of the modern media landscape every bit as much as the prospects themselves, IMO.
Elway would be characterized as a diva who wants to demand where he plays, and one who might choose baseball over football. And it would be repeated over and over and over again on every media and social media platform. For all we know, had EA not had a massive man-crush on Elway in spite of that, those concerns could very well have caused a different FO to pass on Elway even in 1983.
The other factor is that dissenting opinions don't necessarily have to translate to negatives; that's just the way we've been trained to argue (on any topic). Even people who believe in this QB class tend to have a preference for a particular prospect, and there becomes a tendency to knock the other prospects in support of the one that someone likes. It's a lazy shortcut to forming an argument, and one that we're all guilty of at times. Just because one QB is not head and shoulders above the others doesn't mean that they might not all be great (although that's statistically unlikely, of course).
1) We have committed to ELi, traded for a LB, signed a VET LT, signed a VET RB and seem to be trying to make one more run.
2) Our depth in many areas is weak and our starters in a couple of areas need help
3) Drafting a QB just because makes no sense. If the Giants don't think that guy is head above all others then we need players who can contribute now.
Loading up to win now is not a bad idea while also rebuilding depth that has been depleted due to shitty drafts in the recent past.
If you honestly believe that Jonathan freaking Stewart signals that we're trying to load up to make one more run, I have a bridge to sell you.
Trade out of the second position with the Browns who select Darnold with the 1st pick someone both teams reportedly love. The Browns select Barkley or Chubb both exceptional value at pick number 2. The Giants receive the Browns 2nd, second round pick, 4th round pick in 2018 and a third round pick in 2019. The Jets at three select one of Rosen, Allen or Mayfield they are the Jets no one knows what they will do.
The Giants are back on the clock at four with a choice combination of these four Allen, Rosen, Barkley and Chubb. It’s time to go BPA or are the phones still ringing loudly IMO it’s sell to the highest bidder time. Three teams are showing signs of QB desperation Broncos, Dolphins and Bills. The Bills seem the most desperate and desperate teams looking for a franchise QB well there desperate. Franchise means your hoping this guy will play for you for the next 10-12 years. In the end the request is the Bills two 1st round picks, a third round pick in 2018, a second and fourth round pick in 2019.
The Giants would have two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks, three third round picks, 2 fourth round picks and one fifth round pick in the 2018 draft. Depending on the OBJ, Oliver, Collins, Jenkins, Apple and Flowers possible trades they could change the future and face of the team. In
addition they would have acquired a second, third and fourth round picks for 2019 draft.
Trade out of the second position with the Browns who select Darnold with the 1st pick someone both teams reportedly love. The Browns select Barkley or Chubb both exceptional value at pick number 2. The Jets at three select one of Rosen, Allen or Mayfield they are the Jets no one knows what they will do.
Why would the Browns trade up when in you own scenario (and reality) either Chubb or Barkley will be there at 4 anyways?
or trade down camp. I think ideally, I’d like to go as far back as 6, but a trade w the bills would set us up big time. They seem desperate and two firsts plus their first next year would be a haul! Like Eric said, you can always trade back up too.
The Giants traded for a 26 year old Alec Ogletree. How is this a win-now and not a rebuild move?
he’s 26! The guy can man the LB position for 4-8 years. Who knows.
He’s a building block for a new foundation.
the Giants committed to Eli.
How so? All they did was not release him. he has a 2 year contract. The broncos just signed Keenan for 2 years, have they committed to him? Why do we people think they will still go QB then? Or maybe even trade up for one?
If the Giants traded or released Eli - they would have needed to sign a vet QB. All the teams drafting QB did so. Denver, browns & Jets. Cards as well. They committed 3rd round draft choices. Huge contracts like 20 mil. Jets have a combined 15 mil at least in McCown/Teddy maybe more. They would have really hurt themselves this year to release Eli (gaining 10 mil) only to need to sign one of these guys as a replacement (McCown got 10). There’s basically no way the Giants gain by releasing him.Why not keep him this year and release next year when the new QB is ready and you can use that 10 mil on a different spot.
Ive mentioned numerous times that a 30 yr Solder LT signing is not evidence of either rebuild or reload. Giants will get 4 years of solid play through his contract here and a be a solid LT for about 3 years of the new QBs time. (Rams inked 36 yr old LT tfor their rookie QB)
BTW- you are also ignoring the JPP trade, DRC release, etc.
You dont need all “potential” and super young guys to rebuild and start cutting or trading all your good players. Thats not what the 2004 Giants did.
RE: I will debunk 2 of those Giants win now narratives Â
The Giants traded for a 26 year old Alec Ogletree. How is this a win-now and not a rebuild move?
he’s 26! The guy can man the LB position for 4-8 years. Who knows.
He’s a building block for a new foundation.
the Giants committed to Eli.
How so? All they did was not release him. he has a 2 year contract. The broncos just signed Keenan for 2 years, have they committed to him? Why do we people think they will still go QB then? Or maybe even trade up for one?
If the Giants traded or released Eli - they would have needed to sign a vet QB. All the teams drafting QB did so. Denver, browns & Jets. Cards as well. They committed 3rd round draft choices. Huge contracts like 20 mil. Jets have a combined 15 mil at least in McCown/Teddy maybe more. They would have really hurt themselves this year to release Eli (gaining 10 mil) only to need to sign one of these guys as a replacement (McCown got 10). There’s basically no way the Giants gain by releasing him.Why not keep him this year and release next year when the new QB is ready and you can use that 10 mil on a different spot.
Ive mentioned numerous times that a 30 yr Solder LT signing is not evidence of either rebuild or reload. Giants will get 4 years of solid play through his contract here and a be a solid LT for about 3 years of the new QBs time. (Rams inked 36 yr old LT tfor their rookie QB)
BTW- you are also ignoring the JPP trade, DRC release, etc.
You dont need all “potential” and super young guys to rebuild and start cutting or trading all your good players. Thats not what the 2004 Giants did.
giants are win now while retooling...
we can win now with what we have if we have a strong draft. we are a season removed from 11-5...say what you want but winning 11 games isnt easy in todays NFL.
our moves dont have a ton to do with #2. we could go barkley, we could go Darnold/Rosen....either way we are getting a heck of a football player
If the rumors are true that the only QB the Giants like is Darnold and the Bills are high on Allen, it makes sense for both parties to have a trade on the table in the event that the Browns take the Giants guy and pass over the Bills guy.
The drop to 12 is fine, any trade with the Bills is likely to bring in the type of haul that would allow the Giants to move back into the top 10 at will for a "blue chipper".
You can certainly try to move back into the top 10, but there's no guarantee a team is willing to trade out.
who run to the media and reveal what our plans are?
Does anyone really think that there is any truth to that at all?
99% of the supposed "inside information" has turned out to be bullshit and all we do is continue to fall for this nonsense.
These reporters are like a weather man who calls for both rain and sunny skies at the same time. Throw enough shit against the wall and you are eventually going to guess right on something.
who run to the media and reveal what our plans are?
Does anyone really think that there is any truth to that at all?
99% of the supposed "inside information" has turned out to be bullshit and all we do is continue to fall for this nonsense.
These reporters are like a weather man who calls for both rain and sunny skies at the same time. Throw enough shit against the wall and you are eventually going to guess right on something.
I am sure gettleman has talked to a lot of teams about trading down..
Also releasing this makes other teams feel like they have to ante up as well
I guess it’s possible that the whispers are coming from the bills side.
The only thing I will say is this...
A brilliant move on our part would be to put false information out there that we are talking seriously to the Bills for them to get the #2 pick. Doing that could force one of the teams in front of the Bills to pay a much higher price to block the Bills. The best scenario is for that team to be the Jets.
All of that said, it makes zero sense for any team to trade with us until after they see who the Browns select at #1. Not unless one of these teams covets two guys and they would be happy with either.
RE: RE: I will debunk 2 of those Giants win now narratives Â
we can win now with what we have if we have a strong draft. we are a season removed from 11-5...say what you want but winning 11 games isnt easy in todays NFL.
our moves dont have a ton to do with #2. we could go barkley, we could go Darnold/Rosen....either way we are getting a heck of a football player
We've lost 10 or more games in 3 of the past 4 years. Say what you want, but 11 wins looks an awful lot like an anomaly.
Andrew Whitworth having a career season at that age is a wild outlier Â
No guarantee, but pretty close. Unless a QB is in play, teams are usually looking to move down and the Giants would have the ammo to be pretty convincing.
broncos or colts are involved first as a stepping stone won't they take away valuable picks from us? Would we simply take next year's 1st to swamp from 2 to 5 or 6? Why wouldn't Denver or the Colts demand next year's 1st to trade down from 5 or 6 to 12?
If Buffalo gives both 12 and 22 to get to 5 then they could trade the 5 plus a 2nd and 3rd to us to drop from 2 to 5.
If we picked at 5, two 2nd's and three 3rd's and we have something cooking.
That's the right thinking. I think we would get more. I would say that 12 and 21 would get the Bills to #5 or #6. Then I would want the 5 or 6 plus two #2 and a 2019 #1.
That would give us a stud player (Nelson, Chubb, Fitz, Barkley) plus three #2 picks and two #3. Two #1 next year could help to get us a QB if it all falls apart this year.
I guess it’s possible that the whispers are coming from the bills side.
The only thing I will say is this...
A brilliant move on our part would be to put false information out there that we are talking seriously to the Bills for them to get the #2 pick. Doing that could force one of the teams in front of the Bills to pay a much higher price to block the Bills. The best scenario is for that team to be the Jets.
All of that said, it makes zero sense for any team to trade with us until after they see who the Browns select at #1. Not unless one of these teams covets two guys and they would be happy with either.
Totally agree with you. It would be a great move if DG could get the Jets #1 next year plus whatever else to drop back a spot to #3 if he doesn't want a QB.
Then possibly leverage Buffalo against Denver for the #3 pick if they want a QB, and end up at #5.
No guarantee, but pretty close. Unless a QB is in play, teams are usually looking to move down and the Giants would have the ammo to be pretty convincing.
Again, there are so many variables in terms of players slipping that those teams in the top ten may well chose to stay where they are. Possible sure, probable hard to say.
Yep, but not in the way people are thinking. A trade down w the bills would net enough of a return to trade up late in the first and end up with 3 first rounders this year while still retaing most of the 2-3 round picks.
If two teams that aren't the Giants make a trade for a pick that happens after the Giants' selection, it affects who the Giants pick? Please try harder.
I don't think trading with the Bills is all that bad.
You have to consider that we would only make the trade if there was the kind of offer we can't refuse. If we traded down, it would be to exploit the demand for QBs.
Should we trade with the Bills, the starting price would likely be both 1sts this year and 2019 1st round pick. (I expect a trade to be something along the lines of 2nd to Buffalo for 12th, 22nd, 56th, 65th and 2019 1st round pick. Which still leaves Buffalo 53rd and 99th on day 2).
I have heard of people not wanting to trade down too far and while I understand the principle, we should consider who could be available at 12.
Given the demand for QBs Allen, Mayfield, Rosen and Darnold will go in the top 10 as will Barkley, Chubb and Nelson. At 12, we will have the choice of LB Roquan Smith, LB Terrell Edmunds, CB Denzel Ward, S Derwin James or DB Minkah Fitzpatrick. Any of these guys are difference makers for our defence, addressing key needs in Bettcher's new scheme with premium talent.
Add to that picks to address a bunch of other needs this year and a 2019 1st round pick to add resources for next year, I can see a reasonable argument to be made for making a trade with the Bills.
I don't think trading with the Bills is all that bad.
You have to consider that we would only make the trade if there was the kind of offer we can't refuse. If we traded down, it would be to exploit the demand for QBs.
Should we trade with the Bills, the starting price would likely be both 1sts this year and 2019 1st round pick. (I expect a trade to be something along the lines of 2nd to Buffalo for 12th, 22nd, 56th, 65th and 2019 1st round pick. Which still leaves Buffalo 53rd and 99th on day 2).
I have heard of people not wanting to trade down too far and while I understand the principle, we should consider who could be available at 12.
Given the demand for QBs Allen, Mayfield, Rosen and Darnold will go in the top 10 as will Barkley, Chubb and Nelson. At 12, we will have the choice of LB Roquan Smith, LB Terrell Edmunds, CB Denzel Ward, S Derwin James or DB Minkah Fitzpatrick. Any of these guys are difference makers for our defence, addressing key needs in Bettcher's new scheme with premium talent.
Add to that picks to address a bunch of other needs this year and a 2019 1st round pick to add resources for next year, I can see a reasonable argument to be made for making a trade with the Bills.
No one knows today which QB they like most speculations is Darnold same with Barkley or Chubb we don’t know. I don’t see any possibility they get both 1st and 2nd, 2018 round picks and additional 2019 picks from the Bills. They are desperate but that’s not desperation that’s utter stupidity and greed on the Giants part IMO but shit happens.
looks like the Giants will take Darnold or trade down if he's not available. I still think dropping to #12 is too far, but I wouldn't hate doing so since the "haul" will presumably be enormous. All those picks would probably also allow us to trade back into the top 10.
Two weeks to go.
As a draft a QB now proponent, I still understand the value of this Â
who run to the media and reveal what our plans are?
Does anyone really think that there is any truth to that at all?
99% of the supposed "inside information" has turned out to be bullshit and all we do is continue to fall for this nonsense.
These reporters are like a weather man who calls for both rain and sunny skies at the same time. Throw enough shit against the wall and you are eventually going to guess right on something.
Of course you could be right, or DG could be using this to drive up the price on someone else?
or it could have leaked from BUF source? Who knows but there are reasons stuff gets leaked.
He also said he could see it still happening but was willing to take his asshat lumps since it didn't happen in the time frame he laid out.
correct, no real advantage to do a deal now. #2 really only got more valuable after a QB needy team slid up to #3.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
Agreed. Any trade is probably continent on Allen being available at #2. The Bills probably won't trade those picks for Darnold. They want a QB who has played in cold weather, not one from USC. And the Giants would probably decline any trade to take Darnold.
That’s where we took Beckham..:)
Agreed though.. No lower than 5 or 6 imo
Chart means something if you are trying to move, it means nothing if someone is trying to get you to move. We would get 2 1's this year, a 2 and a 3 and a pick next year to move from 2-12.
for starters:
2018 two first
2018 two seconds
2018 3rd
2019 first
2019 third
I don't know...if we believe in Gettleman's ability to identify talent, I want to get him as many picks as possible. Good players on rookie contracts are worth their weight in gold, and to add six shots for a talented evaluator like Gettleman...to me that's tough to pass up unless one of these quarterbacks is can't miss.
Are any of them can't miss?
If Buffalo gives both 12 and 22 to get to 5 then they could trade the 5 plus a 2nd and 3rd to us to drop from 2 to 5.
If we picked at 5, two 2nd's and three 3rd's and we have something cooking.
Quote:
If we're going to move that far back, throw the value chart out the window (since they are probably targeting a "their guy" at QB). According to the trade chart we should be able to get their #22 pick this year, and both their 2nd rounders this year. BUT - I want their 2019 1st rounder, too. That's the premium you have to pay to get they guy you think will be the face of your franchise for 10-15 years, period.
Chart means something if you are trying to move, it means nothing if someone is trying to get you to move. We would get 2 1's this year, a 2 and a 3 and a pick next year to move from 2-12.
Who is to say we're "trying to move"?
Also, Buffalo knows we'll have other offers (possibly from Denver). If we don't like the QBs, we could just as well trade the pick to Denver and still get a perennial all-pro in Barkley or Chubb.
I would take the trade you mention above if that "pick next year" is their first rounder. Otherwise, not interested.
Quote:
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
Agreed. Any trade is probably continent on Allen being available at #2. The Bills probably won't trade those picks for Darnold. They want a QB who has played in cold weather, not one from USC. And the Giants would probably decline any trade to take Darnold.
Totally agree. It is my opinion that the Giants have targeted Darnold. If he is NOT there (taken number one), the Giants will trade down. Parameters of any trade would have to be worked out beforehand- only ten minutes in between picks is certainly not enough time to put together a trade.
If this were to happen, I would expect the Giants to receive the Bills' two first round picks this year and a first in 2019, along with other picks this year.
Pretty much everything is speculation regarding DG’s plans with the 2nd overall pick, as it should be. Keep all the other teams guessing.
Minkah Fitzpatrick
Tremaine Edmunds
Vita Vea
Derwin James
Roquan Smith
Denzel Ward
I think all six of those guys have potential to be future all-pro players and make our Defense better from day 1.
1) We have committed to ELi, traded for a LB, signed a VET LT, signed a VET RB and seem to be trying to make one more run.
2) Our depth in many areas is weak and our starters in a couple of areas need help
3) Drafting a QB just because makes no sense. If the Giants don't think that guy is head above all others then we need players who can contribute now.
Loading up to win now is not a bad idea while also rebuilding depth that has been depleted due to shitty drafts in the recent past.
Quote:
broncos or colts are involved first as a stepping stone won't they take away valuable picks from us? Would we simply take next year's 1st to swamp from 2 to 5 or 6? Why wouldn't Denver or the Colts demand next year's 1st to trade down from 5 or 6 to 12?
If Buffalo gives both 12 and 22 to get to 5 then they could trade the 5 plus a 2nd and 3rd to us to drop from 2 to 5.
If we picked at 5, two 2nd's and three 3rd's and we have something cooking.
They'd have to throw in their #1 next year too for me to like that deal. I don't want DG dropping three premier spots just for a 2 and 3.
People get too caught up in the top picks of the draft. Look back at the last five years. The hype and buzz words make it seem like some of these guys are superman.
Example, Barkley being a "generational back." How much better do they expect him to be than the top backs in the NFL currently? It's hyperbole.
If the giants can get two first rd picks, a second a future first from the bills they'd be fools to not take it UNLESS they're taking a QB.
I don't know...if we believe in Gettleman's ability to identify talent, I want to get him as many picks as possible. Good players on rookie contracts are worth their weight in gold, and to add six shots for a talented evaluator like Gettleman...to me that's tough to pass up unless one of these quarterbacks is can't miss.
Are any of them can't miss?
Agree. Plus if you don’t love a QB you’re getting a top 8 player at 12.
The decision should be QB or trade down. No non-qb player in this draft is worth the draft capital a BUF trade would net.
for starters:
2018 two first
2018 two seconds
2018 3rd
2019 first
2019 third
lol so if they say you cant have our third in 18 and 19 you dont take 3 first rd picks and two 2s. Nonsense.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
I agree with you. I think they will wait until the are on the clock because they want to see if the Browns take Allen. If they do then the Giants will likely keep the pick and take Darnold. If the Browns take Darnold I could see them moving down. The Giants have all the leverage here. The longer they wait the higher the offers will be on draft day as we know the Jets aren't going to trade down from 3.
If you prefer to be 8-8 rather than 10-6 year after year, then you are correct.
All the data and analytical work shows that consistently trading down is by far the dominant strategy. Worth about 1.5-2.0 extra wins per season if you consistently trade down.
Quote:
The Bills would make an awful trading partner. Moving down from 2 to 12 sucks.
If you prefer to be 8-8 rather than 10-6 year after year, then you are correct.
All the data and analytical work shows that consistently trading down is by far the dominant strategy. Worth about 1.5-2.0 extra wins per season if you consistently trade down.
where are you getting this information from?
Have you seen the browns and eagles trade that got them wentz?
moving away from blue chippers IMO isnt smart.
If i am the giants i am asking for
2 2018 1sts
2 2018 2nds
1 2019 1st
thats where i would start. its ten spots...for a franchise QB
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
This is what I am hearing
I don't know...if we believe in Gettleman's ability to identify talent, I want to get him as many picks as possible. Good players on rookie contracts are worth their weight in gold, and to add six shots for a talented evaluator like Gettleman...to me that's tough to pass up unless one of these quarterbacks is can't miss.
Are any of them can't miss?
Quote:
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
This is what I am hearing
Finally putting on your asshat again.
Quote:
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
This is what I am hearing
Hearing they'll move it to the Bills or move it in general?
Quote:
In comment 13909646 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
The Bills would make an awful trading partner. Moving down from 2 to 12 sucks.
If you prefer to be 8-8 rather than 10-6 year after year, then you are correct.
All the data and analytical work shows that consistently trading down is by far the dominant strategy. Worth about 1.5-2.0 extra wins per season if you consistently trade down.
where are you getting this information from?
Have you seen the browns and eagles trade that got them wentz?
moving away from blue chippers IMO isnt smart.
If i am the giants i am asking for
2 2018 1sts
2 2018 2nds
1 2019 1st
thats where i would start. its ten spots...for a franchise QB
"Given that teams, on the whole, are irrationally willing to pay a lot to trade up, smart teams can reap huge benefits by trading down. Even staying put and drafting from your original spot, the researchers' analysis shows, is not a good strategy."
"Again, the data was unequivocal. On average, trading down and getting two players gave a team five more starts per season and slightly more total Pro Bowls.
You could chalk this up to the simple fact that more players start more games, but it's more than that. Even if you imagined that the team trading down could only keep the better one of the two players it drafted, it'd still get slightly more total starts and the same number of Pro Bowls. The truth is that teams are imperfect talent evaluators, so having two later picks is better than a single early one. Risk diversification at work."
"The most straightforward piece of proof for all this analysis is the fact that trading down and amassing more pick value — in terms of the blue line in the graph above — correlates with more wins on the field.
Massey and Thaler came to this conclusion by looking at the number of wins a team had in any given season between 1997 and 2008, and the total value of all picks they'd made in the previous four years (the amount of time, on average, a rookie is under contract for).
They found that one standard deviation in pick value translated to 1.5 more wins per season on the field. Sure, it's a small sample size, and there's a lot of chance and other factors built into the system — a coach's strategy, for instance — but trading down correlates with a significant amount of victories, given that there are only 16 games in a season."
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/7/5683448/how-nfl-teams-ignore-basic-economics-and-draft-players-irrationally
Link - ( New Window )
Trading down is the winning move.
Quote:
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
Agreed. Any trade is probably continent on Allen being available at #2. The Bills probably won't trade those picks for Darnold. They want a QB who has played in cold weather, not one from USC. And the Giants would probably decline any trade to take Darnold.
Exactly, like when the Giants passed on a QB From Louisiana via Ole Miss. Or the Packers passed on a QB from Cal or when the Bears didnt trade up for a QB from Carolina.
The Bills are not going to pass on a blue chip qb bc he is from a warm weather climate
The 6th overall is worth 1600. The 2nd overall is 2600. The Bill would have to give the Giants the 6th overall (1600), their 22nd overall (780), their 56th overall (340) and probably their remaining 3rd rounder 96th overall (116)
The Giants would have the two firsts, two seconds and three thirds (6th, 22nd, 34th, 56th, 66th, 69th, 96th)
I might still ask for a 2019 pick from the Bills too.
Quote:
Look at all the dissenting opinions on the quarterbacks...would that be the case if one of the quarterbacks was John Elway? Maybe none of the QBs are blue chips?
I don't know...if we believe in Gettleman's ability to identify talent, I want to get him as many picks as possible. Good players on rookie contracts are worth their weight in gold, and to add six shots for a talented evaluator like Gettleman...to me that's tough to pass up unless one of these quarterbacks is can't miss.
Are any of them can't miss?
Agree. Plus if you don’t love a QB you’re getting a top 8 player at 12.
The decision should be QB or trade down. No non-qb player in this draft is worth the draft capital a BUF trade would net.
Agreed.
Ballard already said he did not want to move down that far, which is why he traded with the Jets and not the Bills.
The Bills could easily suck ass next year.
Hmmm... Your post just assumes there is no BUST chance at 2.. That is a huge false belief...
"DaddyM89 : 3/14/2018 4:02 pm :
I was told it would be a haul. Probably similar to what we've been hearing around here for a potential trade. If I had to guess.
2 first rounders this year, 2nd rounder, 4th rounder, 2019 first rounder."
I agree with this - give us a #2 and next years 1 and swap 2 and 4. We’d will get one of Barkley, Chubb or Nelson at 4
for starters:
2018 two first
2018 two seconds
2018 3rd
2019 first
2019 third
I've said it before: if Buffalo offers up their 2 firsts, the 2 2nds, and the '19 first, their fans will put a contract out on Beane.
Quote:
The Bills would make an awful trading partner. Moving down from 2 to 12 sucks.
That’s where we took Beckham..:)
Agreed though.. No lower than 5 or 6 imo
I hope we dont trade down that far. Pick 5 is fine but i dont want to go down pick 12.
The drop to 12 is fine, any trade with the Bills is likely to bring in the type of haul that would allow the Giants to move back into the top 10 at will for a "blue chipper".
Welcome to BBI
So that's a push.
Then: Your getting an additional pile to hit those inflection or synergy points. So, if as old man says, I'm down. (Expression of affirmation)
The Eli/Rivers trade was a swap post draft picks. The Chargers almost certainly chose Rivers for the Giants to pick. If you watch the video, right after Eli is picked, Sal Palantonio says if Rivers is there at 4 for the Giants, there would be discussions for a trade. Mort then says after the Rivers pick that he had heard the Giants had Roethlisberger rated higher than Rivers, intimating he was the Giants' pick in name only. The trade is then announced right after the next pick (Sean Taylor) so I assume the deal was done ahead of time.
To me, this is the likeliest scenario since so much can happen between picks 2 and 12.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
I'm sick of hearing about moving to 12. it just increases the risk of bust trading down that far. Quality over quantity is preferred. Can't guarantee Buffalo's 2019 1st pick will be a high 1st rounder. Trading down to #6 is more palatable.
Hmmm... Your post just assumes there is no BUST chance at 2.. That is a huge false belief...
It’s about probability my friend. You can’t pass up on blue chippers in the top six. We are decreasing the potential of getting an impact player. You can do better with trading down to five or six. Number 12 is no man’s land. This is about probability. Not truth or fallacies. Can’t wait for an impact player at 12 or below.
If Elway was coming out this year instead of 1983, absolutely. It's a product of the modern media landscape every bit as much as the prospects themselves, IMO.
Elway would be characterized as a diva who wants to demand where he plays, and one who might choose baseball over football. And it would be repeated over and over and over again on every media and social media platform. For all we know, had EA not had a massive man-crush on Elway in spite of that, those concerns could very well have caused a different FO to pass on Elway even in 1983.
The other factor is that dissenting opinions don't necessarily have to translate to negatives; that's just the way we've been trained to argue (on any topic). Even people who believe in this QB class tend to have a preference for a particular prospect, and there becomes a tendency to knock the other prospects in support of the one that someone likes. It's a lazy shortcut to forming an argument, and one that we're all guilty of at times. Just because one QB is not head and shoulders above the others doesn't mean that they might not all be great (although that's statistically unlikely, of course).
1) We have committed to ELi, traded for a LB, signed a VET LT, signed a VET RB and seem to be trying to make one more run.
2) Our depth in many areas is weak and our starters in a couple of areas need help
3) Drafting a QB just because makes no sense. If the Giants don't think that guy is head above all others then we need players who can contribute now.
Loading up to win now is not a bad idea while also rebuilding depth that has been depleted due to shitty drafts in the recent past.
If you honestly believe that Jonathan freaking Stewart signals that we're trying to load up to make one more run, I have a bridge to sell you.
The Giants are back on the clock at four with a choice combination of these four Allen, Rosen, Barkley and Chubb. It’s time to go BPA or are the phones still ringing loudly IMO it’s sell to the highest bidder time. Three teams are showing signs of QB desperation Broncos, Dolphins and Bills. The Bills seem the most desperate and desperate teams looking for a franchise QB well there desperate. Franchise means your hoping this guy will play for you for the next 10-12 years. In the end the request is the Bills two 1st round picks, a third round pick in 2018, a second and fourth round pick in 2019.
The Giants would have two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks, three third round picks, 2 fourth round picks and one fifth round pick in the 2018 draft. Depending on the OBJ, Oliver, Collins, Jenkins, Apple and Flowers possible trades they could change the future and face of the team. In
addition they would have acquired a second, third and fourth round picks for 2019 draft.
Why would the Browns trade up when in you own scenario (and reality) either Chubb or Barkley will be there at 4 anyways?
I think its very possible to trade to 12 netting 3 1st round picks plus and then slide back up to 8 without giving up a 1 or our original 2.
Chicago is rebuilding and need to add multiple pieces.
So much this
Yeah, right. You need to find somebody that wants to trade down. Isn't that easy and may cost a lot.
The Giants traded for a 26 year old Alec Ogletree. How is this a win-now and not a rebuild move?
he’s 26! The guy can man the LB position for 4-8 years. Who knows.
He’s a building block for a new foundation.
the Giants committed to Eli.
How so? All they did was not release him. he has a 2 year contract. The broncos just signed Keenan for 2 years, have they committed to him? Why do we people think they will still go QB then? Or maybe even trade up for one?
If the Giants traded or released Eli - they would have needed to sign a vet QB. All the teams drafting QB did so. Denver, browns & Jets. Cards as well. They committed 3rd round draft choices. Huge contracts like 20 mil. Jets have a combined 15 mil at least in McCown/Teddy maybe more. They would have really hurt themselves this year to release Eli (gaining 10 mil) only to need to sign one of these guys as a replacement (McCown got 10). There’s basically no way the Giants gain by releasing him.Why not keep him this year and release next year when the new QB is ready and you can use that 10 mil on a different spot.
Ive mentioned numerous times that a 30 yr Solder LT signing is not evidence of either rebuild or reload. Giants will get 4 years of solid play through his contract here and a be a solid LT for about 3 years of the new QBs time. (Rams inked 36 yr old LT tfor their rookie QB)
BTW- you are also ignoring the JPP trade, DRC release, etc.
You dont need all “potential” and super young guys to rebuild and start cutting or trading all your good players. Thats not what the 2004 Giants did.
The Giants traded for a 26 year old Alec Ogletree. How is this a win-now and not a rebuild move?
he’s 26! The guy can man the LB position for 4-8 years. Who knows.
He’s a building block for a new foundation.
the Giants committed to Eli.
How so? All they did was not release him. he has a 2 year contract. The broncos just signed Keenan for 2 years, have they committed to him? Why do we people think they will still go QB then? Or maybe even trade up for one?
If the Giants traded or released Eli - they would have needed to sign a vet QB. All the teams drafting QB did so. Denver, browns & Jets. Cards as well. They committed 3rd round draft choices. Huge contracts like 20 mil. Jets have a combined 15 mil at least in McCown/Teddy maybe more. They would have really hurt themselves this year to release Eli (gaining 10 mil) only to need to sign one of these guys as a replacement (McCown got 10). There’s basically no way the Giants gain by releasing him.Why not keep him this year and release next year when the new QB is ready and you can use that 10 mil on a different spot.
Ive mentioned numerous times that a 30 yr Solder LT signing is not evidence of either rebuild or reload. Giants will get 4 years of solid play through his contract here and a be a solid LT for about 3 years of the new QBs time. (Rams inked 36 yr old LT tfor their rookie QB)
BTW- you are also ignoring the JPP trade, DRC release, etc.
You dont need all “potential” and super young guys to rebuild and start cutting or trading all your good players. Thats not what the 2004 Giants did.
giants are win now while retooling...
we can win now with what we have if we have a strong draft. we are a season removed from 11-5...say what you want but winning 11 games isnt easy in todays NFL.
our moves dont have a ton to do with #2. we could go barkley, we could go Darnold/Rosen....either way we are getting a heck of a football player
The drop to 12 is fine, any trade with the Bills is likely to bring in the type of haul that would allow the Giants to move back into the top 10 at will for a "blue chipper".
You can certainly try to move back into the top 10, but there's no guarantee a team is willing to trade out.
Does anyone really think that there is any truth to that at all?
99% of the supposed "inside information" has turned out to be bullshit and all we do is continue to fall for this nonsense.
These reporters are like a weather man who calls for both rain and sunny skies at the same time. Throw enough shit against the wall and you are eventually going to guess right on something.
Does anyone really think that there is any truth to that at all?
99% of the supposed "inside information" has turned out to be bullshit and all we do is continue to fall for this nonsense.
These reporters are like a weather man who calls for both rain and sunny skies at the same time. Throw enough shit against the wall and you are eventually going to guess right on something.
I am sure gettleman has talked to a lot of teams about trading down..
Also releasing this makes other teams feel like they have to ante up as well
The only thing I will say is this...
A brilliant move on our part would be to put false information out there that we are talking seriously to the Bills for them to get the #2 pick. Doing that could force one of the teams in front of the Bills to pay a much higher price to block the Bills. The best scenario is for that team to be the Jets.
All of that said, it makes zero sense for any team to trade with us until after they see who the Browns select at #1. Not unless one of these teams covets two guys and they would be happy with either.
we can win now with what we have if we have a strong draft. we are a season removed from 11-5...say what you want but winning 11 games isnt easy in todays NFL.
our moves dont have a ton to do with #2. we could go barkley, we could go Darnold/Rosen....either way we are getting a heck of a football player
We've lost 10 or more games in 3 of the past 4 years. Say what you want, but 11 wins looks an awful lot like an anomaly.
Quote:
broncos or colts are involved first as a stepping stone won't they take away valuable picks from us? Would we simply take next year's 1st to swamp from 2 to 5 or 6? Why wouldn't Denver or the Colts demand next year's 1st to trade down from 5 or 6 to 12?
If Buffalo gives both 12 and 22 to get to 5 then they could trade the 5 plus a 2nd and 3rd to us to drop from 2 to 5.
If we picked at 5, two 2nd's and three 3rd's and we have something cooking.
That's the right thinking. I think we would get more. I would say that 12 and 21 would get the Bills to #5 or #6. Then I would want the 5 or 6 plus two #2 and a 2019 #1.
That would give us a stud player (Nelson, Chubb, Fitz, Barkley) plus three #2 picks and two #3. Two #1 next year could help to get us a QB if it all falls apart this year.
Quote:
I guess it’s possible that the whispers are coming from the bills side.
The only thing I will say is this...
A brilliant move on our part would be to put false information out there that we are talking seriously to the Bills for them to get the #2 pick. Doing that could force one of the teams in front of the Bills to pay a much higher price to block the Bills. The best scenario is for that team to be the Jets.
All of that said, it makes zero sense for any team to trade with us until after they see who the Browns select at #1. Not unless one of these teams covets two guys and they would be happy with either.
Totally agree with you. It would be a great move if DG could get the Jets #1 next year plus whatever else to drop back a spot to #3 if he doesn't want a QB.
Then possibly leverage Buffalo against Denver for the #3 pick if they want a QB, and end up at #5.
Again, there are so many variables in terms of players slipping that those teams in the top ten may well chose to stay where they are. Possible sure, probable hard to say.
Yep, but not in the way people are thinking. A trade down w the bills would net enough of a return to trade up late in the first and end up with 3 first rounders this year while still retaing most of the 2-3 round picks.
Actually it is #5.
QB
QB
QB
Barkley, Chubb, Nelson, Fitz, the #4 QB could be 4,5,6,7,8 any of those guys would be a nice get for the Giants.
Giants trade 3rd to Denver for their 5th pick, a 2nd and 2019 1st. Denver draft Baker Mayfield.
Cleveland draft Barkley
Giants trade 5th pick to Buffalo for 12th, 22nd, both 2nds and 2019 1st. Buffalo drafts Allen.
Colts draft Chubb at 6
Giants trade back down with Tampa for the 7th for their Buffalo 12, a 2nd and 3rd. Giants draft Nelson.
******************
Giants gets ready for the 22nd, and 3 2nds, 3rd, 4th and 5th.....and armed with 4 2019 1s!!
I really hope this isn’t going to occur. To give up a top 3pick for top 15 picks in the NFL is scary stuff
Giants trade 3rd to Denver for their 5th pick, a 2nd and 2019 1st. Denver draft Baker Mayfield.
Cleveland draft Barkley
Giants trade 5th pick to Buffalo for 12th, 22nd, both 2nds and 2019 1st. Buffalo drafts Allen.
Colts draft Chubb at 6
Giants trade back down with Tampa for the 7th for their Buffalo 12, a 2nd and 3rd. Giants draft Nelson.
******************
Giants gets ready for the 22nd, and 3 2nds, 3rd, 4th and 5th.....and armed with 4 2019 1s!!
Why stop there? Keep trading down. That way we never have to actually make a pick. We can just accumulate picks.
If two teams that aren't the Giants make a trade for a pick that happens after the Giants' selection, it affects who the Giants pick? Please try harder.
You have to consider that we would only make the trade if there was the kind of offer we can't refuse. If we traded down, it would be to exploit the demand for QBs.
Should we trade with the Bills, the starting price would likely be both 1sts this year and 2019 1st round pick. (I expect a trade to be something along the lines of 2nd to Buffalo for 12th, 22nd, 56th, 65th and 2019 1st round pick. Which still leaves Buffalo 53rd and 99th on day 2).
I have heard of people not wanting to trade down too far and while I understand the principle, we should consider who could be available at 12.
Given the demand for QBs Allen, Mayfield, Rosen and Darnold will go in the top 10 as will Barkley, Chubb and Nelson. At 12, we will have the choice of LB Roquan Smith, LB Terrell Edmunds, CB Denzel Ward, S Derwin James or DB Minkah Fitzpatrick. Any of these guys are difference makers for our defence, addressing key needs in Bettcher's new scheme with premium talent.
Add to that picks to address a bunch of other needs this year and a 2019 1st round pick to add resources for next year, I can see a reasonable argument to be made for making a trade with the Bills.
You have to consider that we would only make the trade if there was the kind of offer we can't refuse. If we traded down, it would be to exploit the demand for QBs.
Should we trade with the Bills, the starting price would likely be both 1sts this year and 2019 1st round pick. (I expect a trade to be something along the lines of 2nd to Buffalo for 12th, 22nd, 56th, 65th and 2019 1st round pick. Which still leaves Buffalo 53rd and 99th on day 2).
I have heard of people not wanting to trade down too far and while I understand the principle, we should consider who could be available at 12.
Given the demand for QBs Allen, Mayfield, Rosen and Darnold will go in the top 10 as will Barkley, Chubb and Nelson. At 12, we will have the choice of LB Roquan Smith, LB Terrell Edmunds, CB Denzel Ward, S Derwin James or DB Minkah Fitzpatrick. Any of these guys are difference makers for our defence, addressing key needs in Bettcher's new scheme with premium talent.
Add to that picks to address a bunch of other needs this year and a 2019 1st round pick to add resources for next year, I can see a reasonable argument to be made for making a trade with the Bills.
Btw I meant LB Tremaine Edmunds not his brother
Two weeks to go.
Does anyone really think that there is any truth to that at all?
99% of the supposed "inside information" has turned out to be bullshit and all we do is continue to fall for this nonsense.
These reporters are like a weather man who calls for both rain and sunny skies at the same time. Throw enough shit against the wall and you are eventually going to guess right on something.
Of course you could be right, or DG could be using this to drive up the price on someone else?
or it could have leaked from BUF source? Who knows but there are reasons stuff gets leaked.