Taking a step back from the Odell trade and what the Giants got back in the deal (plus all the other deals they made). And factoring in a few Gettleman choice quotes of "no guts, no glory" and referencing the "Kansas City Model", I think I'm at a place where I believe the Giants will get a QB in this draft.
A team won't send their head coach, offensive coordinator and top scout to see player's pro day, and spend time with him unless there is real interest.
So, if you are of the belief that the Giants are going to go into this season with the heir to Eli, what is out there? A trade for Josh Rosen, which will cost a 2nd or 3rd rounder and is probably the safest route because the Giants will still be able to use their first rounders to fill holes. But there are enough indications the Giants are not considering him due to any of a variety of reasons.
Haskins, Lock, Jones are all decent prospects. And all are generally considered to be at best maybe even but likely below the class of prospects we saw last year, a class that Gettleman didn't want to get involved with and opted for Saquon instead as the safest pick because he didn't want to miss at #2.
And then comes Murray. There were questions about how serious he was about playing football and if he'd go to the A's. Questions about his height and weight and if he was too small. Well, the height and weight show that while undersized, he can still be an NFL QB. He's the best of the QBs in this draft by any and all accounts. Gettleman said you can't find your franchise QB in the middle rounds, you need to draft them high.
Now is where we have to wonder the real trigger in the Odell trade, to build up enough assets to trade up to get Murray. There are only two other teams with multiple first rounders, the Raiders and Packers. The Raiders are sitting at 4, 24, and 27. I see no real way that Mayock will trade 3 first rounders to move up to #1 to get Murray while he still has Carr on the team. They will want to fill out that roster with players. We know the Packers are not trading up to get Murray with Rodgers there. Sitting at 6 and 17, to bring in first rounders this year, the Giants have the best potential immediate package (unless the Raiders trade up)
So, the next question. What would it cost? Let's look at the most recent QB trade ups, Jared Goff and Carson Wentz.
In 2016, the Titans picked #1 and the Rams picked at 15 (a big jump) and the cost was reflective
The Titans got the Rams first round pick, 2 2nd round picks, and a third round pick. The following year it cost their #1 and #3. They got back the first overall (Goff) and the Titans 4th and 6th rounders.
Now the Eagles trade for Wentz with Cleveland.
The Eagles got the Browns #1 (2nd overall) and a 4th rounder the next year.
The Browns got the Eagles 1st, 3rd, 4th round pick, a 1st in 2017, and a 2nd in 2018.
Bottom line, the costs appear to be roughly what you'd expect:
- Need 2 first rounders (check thanks to the Odell trade)
- Need a 3rd rounder (check, thanks to Odell trade)
- looking at a high pick in 2020. Since the Giants have given up 2 firsts already, the price could well be a 2nd next year.
And the Giants have additional picks in the 5th round this year if need be.
Bottom line, the Giants now absolutely have the ammunition to move up to #1 this year because of the Odell trade. And they can offset the go forward cost and hold on to their first rounder next year.
So, would you do the following?
Trade up for #1 and draft Murray
Give up:
Both 2019 First round picks (6 and 17)
- 2019 3rd rounder
- 2019 5th rounder (pick one)
- 2020 2nd rounder
Maybe there are a few 4/5/6s shifting around either way, but those are the bones of the deal.
Would you pull that trigger to get Murray? I think that's the cost. The Giants have the draft capital to do it. They keep Eli to mentor for 2019 and hand the keys to Murray either later in the year or in 2020.
Quote:
capital to do it, can they use real capital or maybe just regular draft picks?
and what is draft capital? People sound like complete douche bags when they say things like draft capital. Is it anything other than draft picks? so why say draft capital? because some asshole on NFL Network or ESPN decided "draft picks" wasn't a fancy enough way to say draft picks?
pj, since I'm a douchebag using that term, but not on the NFL Network. I"m defining it by noting the Giants have a lot of draft picks and they are higher value considering the rounds they are in. It's not like they have a shitload of 6th and 7th round picks that are making up their high number of available picks. That's why I used that term.
I know you did, LOL. It was your balls I was busting.
I think people get the fact you can't trade a 6th round pick to move up. I also think term draft capital is unnecessary and it's similar to corporate buzzwords people use to say something people already understand with an existing word.
Murray will never get past 4 (the Raiders). The price tags start at 1-3, if the Giants want Murray.
Again, to me, given the choice, I either trade up to get Murray at whatever spot they can ahead of the Raiders. Or if the Cardinals take him, I trade for Rosen since I'd rather keep the 6th and 17th picks to help upgrade the talent on the roster. I don't touch Haskins, Lock or Jones because Rosen is pretty much the same prospect, only he's got a year in the league and lower cap hit and won't cost a first round pick to take.
Quote:
In comment 14336530 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
capital to do it, can they use real capital or maybe just regular draft picks?
and what is draft capital? People sound like complete douche bags when they say things like draft capital. Is it anything other than draft picks? so why say draft capital? because some asshole on NFL Network or ESPN decided "draft picks" wasn't a fancy enough way to say draft picks?
pj, since I'm a douchebag using that term, but not on the NFL Network. I"m defining it by noting the Giants have a lot of draft picks and they are higher value considering the rounds they are in. It's not like they have a shitload of 6th and 7th round picks that are making up their high number of available picks. That's why I used that term.
I know you did, LOL. It was your balls I was busting.
I think people get the fact you can't trade a 6th round pick to move up. I also think term draft capital is unnecessary and it's similar to corporate buzzwords people use to say something people already understand with an existing word.
Being in the corporate world for 20+ years now, I can appreciate good corporate speak. My favorite is when I'm in a meeting with a millennial who busts them out and has no clue that
1) they are using buzzwords and the rest of the room sees through it
2) what they actually mean
I could have said the Giants would leverage their draft capital to reallocate resources with a focus on the QB position with a forecast plan of drafting in a different position next year in anticipation of a better record and utilize different assets to fill out the roster and cap space in 2020.
Now that is doucebag corporate speak in NFL'ese.
It is absolutely far fetched to think this sorryass team wins more than 4 games.
Quote:
In comment 14336578 Matt in SGS said:
Quote:
In comment 14336530 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
capital to do it, can they use real capital or maybe just regular draft picks?
and what is draft capital? People sound like complete douche bags when they say things like draft capital. Is it anything other than draft picks? so why say draft capital? because some asshole on NFL Network or ESPN decided "draft picks" wasn't a fancy enough way to say draft picks?
pj, since I'm a douchebag using that term, but not on the NFL Network. I"m defining it by noting the Giants have a lot of draft picks and they are higher value considering the rounds they are in. It's not like they have a shitload of 6th and 7th round picks that are making up their high number of available picks. That's why I used that term.
I know you did, LOL. It was your balls I was busting.
I think people get the fact you can't trade a 6th round pick to move up. I also think term draft capital is unnecessary and it's similar to corporate buzzwords people use to say something people already understand with an existing word.
'
Being in the corporate world for 20+ years now, I can appreciate good corporate speak. My favorite is when I'm in a meeting with a millennial who busts them out and has no clue that
1) they are using buzzwords and the rest of the room sees through it
2) what they actually mean
I could have said the Giants would leverage their draft capital to reallocate resources with a focus on the QB position with a forecast plan of drafting in a different position next year in anticipation of a better record and utilize different assets to fill out the roster and cap space in 2020.
Now that is doucebag corporate speak in NFL'ese.
LOL. If only you'd thrown in a paradigm shift, synergy, cloud, and disruption in there I'd feel like I'm on a work conference call.
Bravo.
The "Kansas City Model" was actually used by the Giants in 1993. They had Dave Brown and Kent Graham behind Phil Simms. The plan was for them to learn under Phil and one of them would win the QB competition in 1994. The problem was, neither of those guys were any good and the Giants roster wasn't good enough to even prop them up. You could say Aaron Rodgers behind Favre was the Kansas City Model too.
All it means is you have an aging QB that you plan on getting rid of, but not just yet. So sit the kid behind him and let him learn instead of throwing him to the wolves. And it also means you expect the aging QB to still be competitive and help your team win, and once they've moved on, the young guy behind him picks up with a ready made team and takes them to the next level go forward.
I'm also going by Gettleman's statement that you need to find your franchise QB early, which to me means in top 10, and probably top 5.
Quote:
They get a couple of breaks along the way and end up 8-8 with a pick around 17? It's not far fetched at all
It is absolutely far fetched to think this sorryass team wins more than 4 games.
There's a lot of off-season left. We could manage .500 with a strong running game. The Giants put up 40,37,35 in 3 of the last 4 games without Odell. I don't count the Titans game because I was in attendance that game was just miserable for both teams. I think some are really under rating what this team can be right now, because of the Odell Trade.
Montana, "no guts, no glory". ;)
Personally I wouldn't mind drafting the kid, although it would be hard to swallow trading away so many picks when there's such a dearth of talent on this team. Oddly enough the height thing doesn't bother me, at least not as much as it bothers others. The game has changed a lot and I'm not going to pretend I know what would and wouldn't work. Kid is an incredible talent.
I'd call their bluff and target the Jets at 3 because I think the Raiders are the real threats. Our two firsts would get it done IMO.
Quote:
I dont expect them to trade up into the top 5 but i wouldn't rule out a trade up from 17 when they see a guy they like start to slide. Everyone likes to throw out the "Kansas city" model sarcastically but this is would be similar to them moving up for Mahomes @ 10. a qb at 17 may not scream franchise potential but weve seen plenty go top 15.
The "Kansas City Model" was actually used by the Giants in 1993. They had Dave Brown and Kent Graham behind Phil Simms. The plan was for them to learn under Phil and one of them would win the QB competition in 1994. The problem was, neither of those guys were any good and the Giants roster wasn't good enough to even prop them up. You could say Aaron Rodgers behind Favre was the Kansas City Model too.
All it means is you have an aging QB that you plan on getting rid of, but not just yet. So sit the kid behind him and let him learn instead of throwing him to the wolves. And it also means you expect the aging QB to still be competitive and help your team win, and once they've moved on, the young guy behind him picks up with a ready made team and takes them to the next level go forward.
I'm also going by Gettleman's statement that you need to find your franchise QB early, which to me means in top 10, and probably top 5.
I probably shouldn't have mentioned "KC model" because its not super relevant to my point. I was more so responding to a few of the comments above about taking Lock or Daniel Jones later in the first would be stupid. we have seen many successful qbs come from the middle of the 1st round. It would be a much more conservative play than going all out for #1. Just in general i think theyre in a really good spot to target someone they value highly that slips past 10 to move up from 17.
and yes DG did say the no guts no glory line which would indicate a top 5 move but he also repeatedly told us OBJ wasnt going to be traded so i dont know what to believe anymore.
We have the worst defense in football. Kind of have to take that into account.
Personally I wouldn't mind drafting the kid, although it would be hard to swallow trading away so many picks when there's such a dearth of talent on this team. Oddly enough the height thing doesn't bother me, at least not as much as it bothers others. The game has changed a lot and I'm not going to pretend I know what would and wouldn't work. Kid is an incredible talent.
In which case, the Giants engaging the Cardinals on Rosen is doubly useful. If the Cardinals are thinking of holding on to Rosen, the Giants will know they aren't going for Murray. If they are talking Rosen, they know they are serious about Murray, and potentially what it would take to pry the pick.
Quote:
if Arizona is as enamored with Murray as we've all been led to believe, it could take more than the standard value deal to get them to trade down.
Personally I wouldn't mind drafting the kid, although it would be hard to swallow trading away so many picks when there's such a dearth of talent on this team. Oddly enough the height thing doesn't bother me, at least not as much as it bothers others. The game has changed a lot and I'm not going to pretend I know what would and wouldn't work. Kid is an incredible talent.
In which case, the Giants engaging the Cardinals on Rosen is doubly useful. If the Cardinals are thinking of holding on to Rosen, the Giants will know they aren't going for Murray. If they are talking Rosen, they know they are serious about Murray, and potentially what it would take to pry the pick.
Sure, but if they really are set on Murray it could take more than the standard, which is already quite a bit, to pry the pick free. If they like him enough they may not even be willing to trade at all.
Conversely, if they are ready to roll with Rosen do you risk trading up to 2 or 3 instead of going all the way to one to save some picks? Or do you leave nothing to chance and ensure you get your guy? I'm guessing the latter.
I'd feel better about trading for Rosen. I liked him last year and it would leave you with more picks to build around him. Admittedly the ceiling isn't as high. It's easy to read too much into this stuff but the guts/glory comment and the Beckham trade does make it feel like they're getting ready to do something wild.
Murray has the option of leaving the NFL for the MLB.
Obviously who they like is who they like, but I'd much rather hear they believe in Haskins at 6 as I believe he'll be there for the taking.
Right, I mean could you ever imagine wanting the shorter QB in this picture? Plus I mean obviously the taller guy is less injury prone, right?
And we have never seen a qb fail at the nfl level because he was too short. Thanks for playing tho.
Quote:
if Arizona is as enamored with Murray as we've all been led to believe, it could take more than the standard value deal to get them to trade down.
Personally I wouldn't mind drafting the kid, although it would be hard to swallow trading away so many picks when there's such a dearth of talent on this team. Oddly enough the height thing doesn't bother me, at least not as much as it bothers others. The game has changed a lot and I'm not going to pretend I know what would and wouldn't work. Kid is an incredible talent.
In which case, the Giants engaging the Cardinals on Rosen is doubly useful. If the Cardinals are thinking of holding on to Rosen, the Giants will know they aren't going for Murray. If they are talking Rosen, they know they are serious about Murray, and potentially what it would take to pry the pick.
Matt: I hope you’re right, and I Love Murray. The problem is you can’t trade OBJ as a first step to moving up in the draft unless you know you can move up. Otherwise if you can’t ultimately move up, you’re left looking like a jackass. They must have numerous thoughts, 1 being moving up. If that doesn’t work, maybe they are ok with just using the picks. Or maybe 17 will go towards a different QB, like Lock or Jones. I have no clue.
The reason I’m ok with the price it would cost to move up is two fold: 1) most importantly, Murray is unreal; and 2) while giving up a high 2nd round pick next year will hurt, we can easily recoup picks by trading down to a QB needy team next season. Miami will be picking towards the top of the draft, but other teams like Cincy, maybe Pitt, etc May want to vault into the top 3 to get their QBs. We could make a killing.
Frankly, DG can think whatever he wants about this roster. It’s awful. Mike Clay put out the metrics, and we are second from the bottom. He can shine it up however he likes, but it’s horrid. We are a 2-14 team. I really believe that.
But man, he is one small QB.
That's right, reverse height discrimination.
But man, he is one small QB.
Right? Watching him, you have two contradictory facts screaming at you. The first is that he's a really, really good football player. The second is that he's just too small to be a really, really good football player.
I wouldn't be upset if they took a shot on him. At least it would feel like they're stepping out of their organizational comfort zone.
In comment 14336593 Foobarbaz said:
Quote:
That's the kind of trade you make for a definitive can't miss prospect. Especially with all the other spots we need help at. That would put this team back 3-4 years
Montana, "no guts, no glory". ;)
LOL...Good point Matt
He's so small but his arm/speed combo is pretty spectacular. We could have the best running game in the sport with Kyler/Barkley if we can finish up the OL, which will lead to openings downfield that Murray has the arm to exploit.
I'm so lukewarm over both Rosen and Haskins. I like Rosen a little more physically and Haskins a little more mentally, but neither guy seems special. I'm rooting for Kyler to the Giants at this point.
He's so small but his arm/speed combo is pretty spectacular. We could have the best running game in the sport with Kyler/Barkley if we can finish up the OL, which will lead to openings downfield that Murray has the arm to exploit.
I'm so lukewarm over both Rosen and Haskins. I like Rosen a little more physically and Haskins a little more mentally, but neither guy seems special. I'm rooting for Kyler to the Giants at this point.
It would be a gigantic swing for the fences... it would be one of the most conservative organizations in the NFL breaking the QB mold in a revolutionary fashion. Boom or bust.
Quote:
It's the type of "swing for the fences" move that this team needs to make. As much as I disliked the Odell move initially, if the extra picks allows us to get Murray then I will understand the motive.
He's so small but his arm/speed combo is pretty spectacular. We could have the best running game in the sport with Kyler/Barkley if we can finish up the OL, which will lead to openings downfield that Murray has the arm to exploit.
I'm so lukewarm over both Rosen and Haskins. I like Rosen a little more physically and Haskins a little more mentally, but neither guy seems special. I'm rooting for Kyler to the Giants at this point.
It would be a gigantic swing for the fences... it would be one of the most conservative organizations in the NFL breaking the QB mold in a revolutionary fashion. Boom or bust.
Look, if Murray is there at #6 (he won't be....) sure, how can you not take a shot at him? If Haskins is there at #6 (or Murray), I feel the Giants may just look to trade down if they can get extra picks. I say this because I see Gettleman as more of a "this is my board, these are my guys, and these QB's have too much risk to risk it..." kine of guy. I mean, if someone gives us a 9 - 13 area type pick plus next year's #1 for Haskins why not???
But I'm getting ahead of myself. I see us taking LB D. White at #6 assuming Bosa, Murray, Haskins, Allen, are all off the board and they likely will be...
D. White starts game 1 and I would NOT be shocked if he played at a probowl level as a rookie. Safe, solid, need pick all wrapped into 1. I hope a RT is there at #17, and round 2 maybe a WR or an OC.
100%. It would be uncharacteristic based on what we know about this franchise. But maybe they've realized that their conservative style has led to long-term mediocrity and it might be time to try something new.
I just don't want to waste Barkley, and I feel like the risk with Murray is worth the reward.
Quote:
It's the type of "swing for the fences" move that this team needs to make. As much as I disliked the Odell move initially, if the extra picks allows us to get Murray then I will understand the motive.
He's so small but his arm/speed combo is pretty spectacular. We could have the best running game in the sport with Kyler/Barkley if we can finish up the OL, which will lead to openings downfield that Murray has the arm to exploit.
I'm so lukewarm over both Rosen and Haskins. I like Rosen a little more physically and Haskins a little more mentally, but neither guy seems special. I'm rooting for Kyler to the Giants at this point.
It would be a gigantic swing for the fences... it would be one of the most conservative organizations in the NFL breaking the QB mold in a revolutionary fashion. Boom or bust.
I don't think Shurmur is conservative and/or tied to the traditional coaching philosophies though. So if they defer to his opinion on the next QB, I could see him loving Murray assuming he passes the blackboard test.
This is very non-Eli like. And I'm sure that we won't be told about the context or content of this discussion until maybe after Eli retires. But based upon the moves the Giants have made since. All the trades. All the moves to get more picks, finishing in the Odell trade, it's not out of the realm that Eli went in and told Gettleman
- I want to try to win, so I'm not in it for a tank job (which Mara will never try to do, sometimes the team just stinks).
- Get me an offensive line so I don't get killed back there (which is what we've seen with the Zeitler trade and looking to find a right tackle)
- And this is the most speculation and that's why I want to see his contract situation. Would Eli tell Gettleman that this is his final season and he's done. So start thinking about finding my replacement.
The last point is the most critical to me, and I said it above. Prior to the past few weeks, we have never seen any sources around the Giants really indicate that they are trying to find the successor. Gettleman starts openly talking about "the KC Model". Even last year, as the Giants did meet with Mayfield, Darnold, Rosen, etc. You never really heard any talk from the team about replacing Eli. In hindsight, the Giants did their due diligence with the QBs, but the real reason they did so was only if the Browns took Barkley. Once they passed on him, it was a no brainer for Gettleman to take him.
But so far we've heard Carl Banks talk about the Giants putting the QB of future on the team this year. Carl goes off script sometimes, but he also will provide the company line. The message to that I'm getting, the signs I'm seeing, is that the Giants are going to get a QB. And if everyone is lukewarm on Haskins and friends, the only one who makes sense for that kind of impact is Murray.
I'm on-board with your thinking. Loved watching Murray perform at OU this past year. The most dynamic offensive player I have ever seen in college. But the risk side of the risk-reward equation is too high for my liking to make an aggressive move up in a trade.
This is a rare, rare year loaded with defensive talent. One of the best in long, long time. We should capitalize on that pool first...
Quote:
I dont expect them to trade up into the top 5 but i wouldn't rule out a trade up from 17 when they see a guy they like start to slide. Everyone likes to throw out the "Kansas city" model sarcastically but this is would be similar to them moving up for Mahomes @ 10. a qb at 17 may not scream franchise potential but weve seen plenty go top 15.
The "Kansas City Model" was actually used by the Giants in 1993. They had Dave Brown and Kent Graham behind Phil Simms. The plan was for them to learn under Phil and one of them would win the QB competition in 1994. The problem was, neither of those guys were any good and the Giants roster wasn't good enough to even prop them up. You could say Aaron Rodgers behind Favre was the Kansas City Model too.
All it means is you have an aging QB that you plan on getting rid of, but not just yet. So sit the kid behind him and let him learn instead of throwing him to the wolves. And it also means you expect the aging QB to still be competitive and help your team win, and once they've moved on, the young guy behind him picks up with a ready made team and takes them to the next level go forward.
I'm also going by Gettleman's statement that you need to find your franchise QB early, which to me means in top 10, and probably top 5.
Matt I think you put together the tea leaves about as good as anyone here.
I see alot of logic in what you are saying to how the Front office may be thinking. They decided on Eli and made a big move , if they decide that Murray is the guy they may pull the trigger. I think the package though you mentioned is huge (even moreso than weve seen when you compare the other deals). I think itll be a little less (not much less but a little less).
Quote:
That's the kind of trade you make for a definitive can't miss prospect. Especially with all the other spots we need help at. That would put this team back 3-4 years
I'm on-board with your thinking. Loved watching Murray perform at OU this past year. The most dynamic offensive player I have ever seen in college. But the risk side of the risk-reward equation is too high for my liking to make an aggressive move up in a trade.
This is a rare, rare year loaded with defensive talent. One of the best in long, long time. We should capitalize on that pool first...
Absolutely
Quote:
They get a couple of breaks along the way and end up 8-8 with a pick around 17? It's not far fetched at all
It is absolutely far fetched to think this sorryass team wins more than 4 games.
Really. First off it’s march. Second, I’ll take that bet with you right now.
The other benefit of having our QB and still being terrible is that we will have the opportunity to a) draft another QB and trade Murray, b) trade the pick to a QB needy team to round out the roster.
If we have Murray and have an opportunity to draft Tua, Miami will give us their next 3 first rounders as Ross is in love with Tua.
Quote:
The guy on the left is the 6' 3" Haskins. The guy on the right is the 6'1" Tua. The guy in the middle who looks like a middle schooler is the guy the OP wants to trade up to get:
And we have never seen a qb fail at the nfl level because he was too short. Thanks for playing tho.
He'd be the shortest guy to take the field as a qb since Eddie Lebaron who was drafted in 1950 in the 10th round and retired in 1962. Now maybe Murray is so great that he'd be the guy to step in after nearly 70 years. At the very least, the Giants would need to install an offense around Murray which means keep him out from under center and play, as he did for OKU, almost exclusively out of the shotgun. That, in turn, changes your running game because you are now featuring the shotgun running game- delays, draws, jet sweeps with little play action which limits your star running back.
I don't think some of you recognize what a gamble it is to go up against 70 years of NFL history and build an offense around a guy who is basically the same size as some middle schoolers. It's a tough decision; if he busts, you are going to be a laughingstock. It would not surprise me to see him drop out of the first round or to have other qb's taken ahead of him.
I think Murray can definitely play, but he hasn't exactly covered himself in glory in the run up to the biggest professional day of his life.
I wouldn't make the trade.
I think Murray can definitely play, but he hasn't exactly covered himself in glory in the run up to the biggest professional day of his life.
I wouldn't make the trade.
Murray is in the same mold of Lamar Jackson in terms of running & most believe he has a far better arm. Murray + Barkley is very enticing to me, but yes it is extremely risky.
Honestly, based on what's happened the past couple days...
I'd prefer the Giants roll with Eli this year, possibly even add a year and draft our replacement in 2020. The QB class in 2020 is outstanding.
Odds are... We should have a record that could warrant one of those QBs without moving up.
So... Keep building the line and the defense. Draft our guy in 2020
Quote:
To make this type of trade I think you have to be 100% certain about the guy.
I think Murray can definitely play, but he hasn't exactly covered himself in glory in the run up to the biggest professional day of his life.
I wouldn't make the trade.
Murray is in the same mold of Lamar Jackson in terms of running & most believe he has a far better arm. Murray + Barkley is very enticing to me, but yes it is extremely risky.
So you’d be comfortable investing the first pick in a 5’10” QB to be a runner in the same sense as Jackson?
If I draft Murray I'm thinking I've got a guy for four years, and I'm not holding back anything he can do. If he gets to the four year mark and he's Mahomes, then I'll break the bank. Otherwise I move on.