I’ll preference this by saying I don’t think the Cardinals pass on Murray but if he were to fall to 2nd overall, SF would be the spot to trade up with to land our QB of the future.
I don’t think it would be crazy for the Giants to trade their 2 1st + 3rd picks to move up to 2 overall and draft Murray. In this scenario, we effectively traded Beckham and 6th overall for Murray and Peppers. If this were “the plan”, what do you guys think? Would the Beckham trade be worth it?
Doesn't seem like a Giants-like move to me.
Don’t reach for QB this year.
I was in support of taking him when it was assumed that he was 5’9 bc a quarter inch doesn’t make any difference.
They definitely value height.
Obviously the Giants have to find a new QB. 2019 will eb Eli's last year. The next QB will have a much better chance to win than Eli did the last 5 years with the OL and DL the Giants have had.
Not a dimunitive QB who also might not be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree who also doesn't NEED to play football and any day can roll over and decide he wants to go play baseball.
If you stay at 6, you're very likely going to get an exceptional talent.
Doesn't seem like a Giants-like move to me.
I agree. I would be shocked if they traded up for Murray. Even if he falls to 6 I don't see it. I could see them trading back if this happens and someone wanted Murray and get extra picks.
Daniel Jeremiahs review - ( New Window )
I like Lock better than Haskins... wouldn't be my favorite pick but I wouldn't be mad if we took him with our first pick
I wouldn't give up two #1's for a Russell Wilson-type QB, but that's me.
Quote:
If he is Russell Wilson 2.0, then I think that would be a win for the Giants. If he ends up being more in line with like Marcus Mariota, then no that would be a bad trade.
I wouldn't give up two #1's for a Russell Wilson-type QB, but that's me.
Eric this is a terrible take. Russ has been a top 5 QB in the league since he was drafted. Accurate, durable, elusive, efficient, and a great leader. You wouldn't give two 1s for someone like that? If the Giants see Kyler in that mold I'd give more than 6 and 17.
Quote:
If he is Russell Wilson 2.0, then I think that would be a win for the Giants. If he ends up being more in line with like Marcus Mariota, then no that would be a bad trade.
I wouldn't give up two #1's for a Russell Wilson-type QB, but that's me.
It's pretty hard to argue that Wilson hasn't been a top 5 quarterback over the last 5 or 6 years. He won 1 Super Bowl, and should have won a 2nd. Seattle hasn't had a losing season since he has been there, his overall record as a starter is 75-36-1. 5x Pro Bowler....you don't think that is worth trading for?
+1
Side note on smaller qb’s the game has definitely changed prototypical guys 5 to 10 years ago doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Seems like a lot of fans here myself included have a hard time embracing this.
Quote:
In comment 14347326 Mike in NJ said:
Quote:
If he is Russell Wilson 2.0, then I think that would be a win for the Giants. If he ends up being more in line with like Marcus Mariota, then no that would be a bad trade.
I wouldn't give up two #1's for a Russell Wilson-type QB, but that's me.
It's pretty hard to argue that Wilson hasn't been a top 5 quarterback over the last 5 or 6 years. He won 1 Super Bowl, and should have won a 2nd. Seattle hasn't had a losing season since he has been there, his overall record as a starter is 75-36-1. 5x Pro Bowler....you don't think that is worth trading for?
Yeah, having the next Russell Wilson would really suck.
So would I trade Beckham and 6th for Peppers and Nick Bosa... Yeah I might.
It's the cost, not the kid. You virtually are giving up 3 early picks in a draft that is loaded with talent at the multitude of spots we need players for.
we have to make this draft count . Who the heck knows
maybe DG likes Lock whom I would feel much better with
rather than Murray I like him better than Haskins
as well but its just an opinion . Too big a risk to
part with high picks in a stacked draft .
Quote:
In comment 14347326 Mike in NJ said:
Quote:
If he is Russell Wilson 2.0, then I think that would be a win for the Giants. If he ends up being more in line with like Marcus Mariota, then no that would be a bad trade.
I wouldn't give up two #1's for a Russell Wilson-type QB, but that's me.
Eric this is a terrible take. Russ has been a top 5 QB in the league since he was drafted. Accurate, durable, elusive, efficient, and a great leader. You wouldn't give two 1s for someone like that? If the Giants see Kyler in that mold I'd give more than 6 and 17.
Russell Wilson has had a top 10 rushing offense pretty much his whole career...not to mention top defenses...in fact Seattle had the #1 defense in the NFL both years they made the SB...
They'll have to pay with 2020 season 1st and 2nd picks to get any of the three or four top rated.
The quarterback is by far the player most influential of whether you win or lose. If he's there next month for two firsts and by "there" I mean that most of the league's best personnel people agree, they you take him and you won't even remember the defensive player you almost took instead, or the extra number one pick it cost you.
Truly hoping Eric's flawed dismissal of Kyler's upside is his own opinion and not at all informed by what he's heard.
Don’t reach for QB this year.
A(F'n)Men....reading comments crying about Beckham and finding WR's. You win at the LOS with and above average QB or better...end of story...year over year
Build a team suitable for a young QB to come into, first. If the QB happens to be there fine, but don't force it. Build the foundation first.
It's the cost, not the kid. You virtually are giving up 3 early picks in a draft that is loaded with talent at the multitude of spots we need players for.
Okay. That makes sense. Thanks Montana.
I could actually see them trading back from #17 to get additional picks for next year, and offer multiple #1s to get to where they need to go.
The idea of Eli being booed off the field in order to get a rookie in, if he's playing poorly, is not something the Giants will want to face.
Doesn't seem like a Giants-like move to me.
A lot of good Giants-like moves did us in recent years... maybe that's the problem.
Quote:
It's the cost, not the kid. You virtually are giving up 3 early picks in a draft that is loaded with talent at the multitude of spots we need players for.
Okay. That makes sense. Thanks Montana.
No problem Exiled!
I keep reading this here. If only it were so easy