DG has never moved down but has moved up a few times for guys that were obvious BPA at a particular position dwindling down a few spots ahead of us.
Like when we moved up for Collins, I could see us move up from 37 for a guy like Cody Ford or a really highly ranked corner or ER left on our board. Could we do it at 6 or 17? Obviously, the price is exponentially higher that high up, so its possible with all our capital but much more likely round 2 and later.
Also in the middle rounds this could happen as well. This draft is super deep in intriguing high upside prospects and Gettleman seems to have guys he targets here and there and is willingly to move up for.
I would expect DG to try to move up in the third round from 95 to midway or get another 4th rounder.
Doesn't "picks" really just tell you the aggregate number of selections each team has, whereas "capital" (whether or not you like the actual term) includes the total relative value of those selections, including which round, slot within the round, etc.?
I'm not defending the term itself, but simply referring to the number of picks does seem overly simplistic if you're trying to determine a team's ability to manipulate the draft in their favor.
You've got to be kidding, right? YOU of all people "dont expect GMEN to be foolish?" Just stop it.
Quote:
I don't expect the Giants to be foolish.
You've got to be kidding, right? YOU of all people "dont expect GMEN to be foolish?" Just stop it.
They're having a great offseason. I'm trying to be optimistic that they finally have their shit together.
But they've done well to trade Beckham and Vernon, as well as staying out of the expensive FA market.
Quote:
draft picks anymore? Who came up with draft capital? Does it sound cooler to say capital instead of pick?
Doesn't "picks" really just tell you the aggregate number of selections each team has, whereas "capital" (whether or not you like the actual term) includes the total relative value of those selections, including which round, slot within the round, etc.?
I'm not defending the term itself, but simply referring to the number of picks does seem overly simplistic if you're trying to determine a team's ability to manipulate the draft in their favor.
That's the first valid explanation for the use of draft capital I've seen. That makes sense actually.
Staying at #6 to take a QB is not as bad, but it's still bad.
The best play is to trade out of #6 or #17.
The next best play is to use use those slots to take any of the two excellent defenders that will be available at those slots.
But they've done well to trade Beckham and Vernon, as well as staying out of the expensive FA market.
Ummm...what about the Tate signing?
Oh, and I've missed you, Game of Terps.
Staying at #6 to take a QB is not as bad, but it's still bad.
The best play is to trade out of #6 or #17.
The next best play is to use use those slots to take any of the two excellent defenders that will be available at those slots.
That’s ridiculous. Either you believe the QB is worth it, or you don’t. Pretty simple. You don’t think they are, so you hate it. But if you think you’re getting a franchise QB, you do what it takes.
Makes sense, any trading up will be in later rounds is my guess
I hope Q. Williams falls to us. He is a wrecker of double teams and would fit at end or inside on passing downs. Allen is another guy we should have our eyes on with our need for rush.
We do not have a defensive identity. We need a feature here. Hopefully this person falls to us, if they don't I hope we get them. I'm not sold on Sweat or White (after hearing him refer to himself in the third person) to be that guy.
I'm not bothered by the Tate contract. It's really just a two year deal and the cap hit is only really higher than his worth in year two.
We haven't agreed on much since the Shockey trade, but we've had some real good debates. It's always been fun.
I hope Q. Williams falls to us. He is a wrecker of double teams and would fit at end or inside on passing downs. Allen is another guy we should have our eyes on with our need for rush.
We do not have a defensive identity. We need a feature here. Hopefully this person falls to us, if they don't I hope we get them. I'm not sold on Sweat or White (after hearing him refer to himself in the third person) to be that guy.
Q.Will would be very hard to pass up. Best player in the draft 2 years in a row? Wow.
If we move up to 4, he might be there for us. Though I think Niners go Q.Will.
Could be. Im sure Gettleman has a few Hog Mollies who have caught his attention. Cody Ford , Tytus Howard and Dieter seem to be 3 of them.
If some of the rumors that Lock could also go top 5 happens then one of QWill, Bosa or Allen will be there. That would be a big time score because all 3 of those guys are instant impact players for next year. We need a big turnaround on D and that would help alot.
Quote:
for Haskins or Murray is GM malfeasance.
Staying at #6 to take a QB is not as bad, but it's still bad.
The best play is to trade out of #6 or #17.
The next best play is to use use those slots to take any of the two excellent defenders that will be available at those slots.
That’s ridiculous. Either you believe the QB is worth it, or you don’t. Pretty simple. You don’t think they are, so you hate it. But if you think you’re getting a franchise QB, you do what it takes.
Normally I would agree. But there is not QB in this draft that has enough quality to make that investment - in my opinion.
Quote:
In comment 14356542 bw in dc said:
Quote:
for Haskins or Murray is GM malfeasance.
Staying at #6 to take a QB is not as bad, but it's still bad.
The best play is to trade out of #6 or #17.
The next best play is to use use those slots to take any of the two excellent defenders that will be available at those slots.
That’s ridiculous. Either you believe the QB is worth it, or you don’t. Pretty simple. You don’t think they are, so you hate it. But if you think you’re getting a franchise QB, you do what it takes.
Normally I would agree. But there is not QB in this draft that has enough quality to make that investment - in my opinion.
QB is a very polarizing topic . Finding the Lucks and Peyton Mannings are few and far between. The no brainer QB that is.
It is true this draft does not have any of those no doubter types. However there are a ton of NFL translatable qualites in the top 3 of Murray, Haskins and Lock.
The chances you draft a no doubter QB unless you tank a season are quite slim. Our plan is not tanking next year. Get the QB now while we pick high.
The Giants would be better off flipping 2-3 of those Day 3 picks for an earlier pick or for 2020 picks. Nine or 10 draft picks seems about right, plus UDFAs.
I would expect DG to try to move up in the third round from 95 to midway or get another 4th rounder.
I hate this term too...
Unless one of the elite pass rushers falls, I’d like to trade down and pick up more picks in 2020.
If he and Murray are gone, take QWilliams, JAllen or BBurns at 6
Andre Dillard or Cody Ford at 17
Small trade up back into the 1st from 37 for Hakeem Butler
6 (DL or OLB)
17 (ILB or DL)
37 (DL/LB/FS)
I would expect a trade up into somewhere between #25 and #64, if at all.
95 (FS or LB)
5ths (OLx3)
Did they not take Dee Ford?
If he and Murray are gone, take QWilliams, JAllen or BBurns at 6
Andre Dillard or Cody Ford at 17
Small trade up back into the 1st from 37 for Hakeem Butler
The offense would be so set up if we did that. Then basically the entire rest of the draft for D lol.
A trade up in round 3 is possible as well. Someone they really love could be there early round 3.
Quote:
the Niners are all but dialed into the #2 for Bosa.
They have Buckner, Armstead, and Solomon Thomas .. all top ten picks at the position. They are thinner on the edge.
Did they not take Dee Ford?
I think the over/under is 8
I would expect DG to try to move up in the third round from 95 to midway or get another 4th rounder.
Yes, it sounds cooler to say draft capital. I’m sticking with it!
I don't think the Giants have enough value in every single remaining pick to move up from 95 to 65, so they are NOT moving up "to the top" of the 3rd round. They could move up maybe 20 slots to 75, and not burn up the entire remainder of their draft.
More likely they make a series of moves to try to get a mid 4th round pick instead of those 7th, 6th and 5th rounders that aren't typically much better than UDFAs.
I think this draft has some depth of potential starters who'll last until the 4th round, and read that opinion elsewhere among the pundits.
Gettleman might try to move from 37 to 33 if a player the Giants love falls out of the first round. On the other hand, the fans of 30 other teams are probably thinking the same thing.
We're all gonna get frustrated as hell watching the picks go by between 37 and 95, many of our "best laid plans" will evaporate in those few hours! Especially among WRs, CBs, and OLs.
Yea I would say something like that makes sense. Or a bigger jump to get using 108 if there is a player that they really love.
And of course Shep to the Pats for 64 was a rumor we heard.
Caveat is teams that are done early with their drafts get on the phones quickly with potential UDFAs and start locking them up verbally even before the draft has concluded in case they aren't selected
I would expect DG to try to move up in the third round from 95 to midway or get another 4th rounder.
We do this in all sports. Used to be in golf I could get a good read on how a putt might break on the green if a player before me had a similar putt; now it s a “teach”
If there is consideration of taking a player at such a key position at the top of the 2nd, then DG needs to trade up into the bottom of the 1st to gain the 5th year option on that player.
Quote:
draft picks anymore? Who came up with draft capital? Does it sound cooler to say capital instead of pick?
I would expect DG to try to move up in the third round from 95 to midway or get another 4th rounder.
We do this in all sports. Used to be in golf I could get a good read on how a putt might break on the green if a player before me had a similar putt; now it s a “teach”
We still call it a read...
I like the thinking, but this would extend their already huge gap between picks 21 and 84 by another 11. Isn’t it more likely that they trade down with their first round pick to get more selections? I do see the Giants moving up from 95 to get in an earlier third round pick.
Quote:
A natural trade that fits with the trade value chart would be the Giants give up the 95th (120 points), 143rd (35 points), and 180th (19 points) picks in exchange for the 84th pick (170 points). The trade would leave the Giants with ten picks nicely spread out (6, 17, 37, 84, 108, 132, 142, 171, 232, 245).
I like the thinking, but this would extend their already huge gap between picks 21 and 84 by another 11. Isn’t it more likely that they trade down with their first round pick to get more selections?