Could he be brilliant enough to be feeding certain asshats with information intended to deflect his interest in Haskins at #6?
It’s common knowledge that some media regularly read Erics bbi and knowing how many media just regurgitate what they hear or read from “sources “.
It just seems weird that Haskins lack of foot speed or agility or whatever you want to call it would cause him to slide. Teams were impressed with his football IQ. Kid has a spotless background, great arm, leadership ability etc etc..... I’m not buying this slide for a minute
This. FWIW I also don't buy the Haskins "slide" and Giants "lack of interest." All the attention they've paid to him, including his visit this week, after they have dropped him down their list? Oh and Gil Brandt backed it up with his opinion re Jones vs. Haskins? Since when is Gil Brandt related to the Giants thought process?
FWIW McShay isn't buying it either, not 100%. He now thinks Haskins has slid on the Giants' draft board, but still rates him as the best QB in his class: most accurate passer, plus arm strength, tremendous improvement during only 1 year as a starter, team leader, played his best ball in the biggest games vs top defenses at the end of the the year, great kid, kills the white board stuff.
Haskins main issue, some footwork stuff, is exactly the kind of thing Shurmur and his staff should refine and improve. How about our asshats' are being fed disinfo re Jones or "defense only" at 6 (jtgiants or JonC)?
Unless there is fear re Haskins' conditioning that he will turn out to be another JaMarcus Russel... but his personality and chalkboard knowledge are nothing like Russel's who was famous for his total disdain for play diagram study or understanding.
If fact right off the bat that was Russel's biggest red flag IIRC. It's one of the Haskins' strong suits.
IMO we are witnessing a masterful job by DG and the FO disseminating disinformation. I am linking McShay's most recent interview re Haskins'. He acknowledges Haskins' slide on the Giants' board relative to some DL players (Oliver, Wilkins, Sweat) but still thinks Haskins is going to be a top 10 pick, and that some team will trade up to get him.
Of course McShay (and I) could be totally wrong. There will be one or another seductive D front 7 player sitting at 6, for sure.
But I still think the Giants want Haskins at 6; they just don't want anyone to trade up above them to get him first. McShay on Haskins, Giants - ( New Window )
This front office hasn't been good at disguising intentions.
Saying that then wouldn't you be saying they love Haskins. They have spent more time on him than any other QB in this draft. I think the reason you don't hear about Haskins is because they are going Def at 6 no matter what and don't think he will be there to take at 17. That is my opinion though.
Its amazing the lengths some people will go to keep supporting Â
a sneaking suspicion the Giants are going to be in on Rosen and go defense at #6 and #17.
This too is a likely scenario IMO, and another one that contradicts jtgiants consistent info.
JT - no personal issue with you and I like others appreciate your info here. But I can't adjust the big picture and what I see with my own eyes to fit some of the info you've been fed. Same with JonC's stance about Haskins sliding to the teens. No way the Bengals don't grab him at 11 if he's still available.
However, nothing at all is pointing to the Giants liking him. Everything, from the local media to BBI insiders with proven track records, are saying the same thing...defense at 6 and Lock/Jones with a pick involving 17 or more defense. If this is a carefully orchestrated smoke screen, then it will be the first one I've seen following the Giants drafts in the internet era.
RE: RE: You guys can choose to believe what you will Â
This front office hasn't been good at disguising intentions.
Saying that then wouldn't you be saying they love Haskins. They have spent more time on him than any other QB in this draft. I think the reason you don't hear about Haskins is because they are going Def at 6 no matter what and don't think he will be there to take at 17. That is my opinion though.
All that matters is who they expect at #6. I haven't heard Haskins name at all, which usually a good barometer of interest. Smokescreens are something this franchise hasn't been good at, if he was a prime target it would be out there in the media.
a sneaking suspicion the Giants are going to be in on Rosen and go defense at #6 and #17.
This too is a likely scenario IMO, and another one that contradicts jtgiants consistent info.
JT - no personal issue with you and I like others appreciate your info here. But I can't adjust the big picture and what I see with my own eyes to fit some of the info you've been fed. Same with JonC's stance about Haskins sliding to the teens. No way the Bengals don't grab him at 11 if he's still available.
Just MHO.
somebody's grabbing Haskins by pick 15, I think a bit higher. A new CBS mock has Washington jumping the giants to get him at 5. Just a week ago teams were described as over "the moon for him". Now nobody wants him? I don't buy it.
RE: RE: You guys can choose to believe what you will Â
QB and also Gettleman has said as much as he wouldn't mind trading up for a QB. To this I would say we can reach the following conclusions:
1) They don't see a QB worthwhile of the 6 pick. We can't say whether or not Murray would be that or they are just assuming he's gone but either way they don't really seem to be looking for a QB @ 6
2) It seems likely that at least one if not more of Lock, Jones, Haskins (I think perhaps even in that order) will be a pick they are happy to make at 17
3) At least one of those 3 mentioned above they would be willing to trade up from 17 at the right price
4) Very possible they are willing to sit tight and think that they can get another impact player if 4 QBs are drafted before 17 (Bush or Dexter Lawrence would be my guesses for guys they would be happy to take at 17)
The vocal majority here didn’t take mayfield seriously until the browns did.
Wake up people.
I don't think this is true. Mayfield had off the field issues that were very concerning. And his size was a concern. He wasn't the cleanest prospect...
Mayfield stock dropped when he was sacked by that cop so easily. Where was the speed and elusiveness. He was not clean at all.
a sneaking suspicion the Giants are going to be in on Rosen and go defense at #6 and #17.
This too is a likely scenario IMO, and another one that contradicts jtgiants consistent info.
JT - no personal issue with you and I like others appreciate your info here. But I can't adjust the big picture and what I see with my own eyes to fit some of the info you've been fed. Same with JonC's stance about Haskins sliding to the teens. No way the Bengals don't grab him at 11 if he's still available.
Just MHO.
Haskins possibly in the teens is my opinion. He could go to the Bengals, but I won't surprised if he's there even at #17.
The vocal majority here didn’t take mayfield seriously until the browns did.
Wake up people.
I don't think this is true. Mayfield had off the field issues that were very concerning. And his size was a concern. He wasn't the cleanest prospect...
Mayfield stock dropped when he was sacked by that cop so easily. Where was the speed and elusiveness. He was not clean at all.
Sorry in the eyes of fans and the media. No one thought with his question marks someone would risk pick #1 on him. Browns were willing to roll the dice and it seems to be paying off.
Last week he said he read heavily into the fact that Chris Mara left the owners' meetings to attend the Duke workout.
Piecing together what we've been hearing, a defensive player at #6 and a trade up in front of Miami at #13 to get Jones seems like a strong possibility. Remember also that Miami is coached by a Belichick disciple...they seem unlikely to trade up. And in any event, the rumor is they are targeting Tua next year.
Lots of ties to Jones:
- Gettleman mentioning "KC Model"
- Cutcliff connection
- Strong Giants contingent at Duke workout
- Kiper has Jones as top QB; Kiper's mentor is Ernie Accorsi
This front office hasn't been good at disguising intentions.
Saying that then wouldn't you be saying they love Haskins. They have spent more time on him than any other QB in this draft. I think the reason you don't hear about Haskins is because they are going Def at 6 no matter what and don't think he will be there to take at 17. That is my opinion though.
All that matters is who they expect at #6. I haven't heard Haskins name at all, which usually a good barometer of interest. Smokescreens are something this franchise hasn't been good at, if he was a prime target it would be out there in the media.
If your contact(JT answer this as well please) were to tell you, "The Giants are very interested in player XXXX and the Giants are afraid someone will jump in front of them to nab player XXXX" would you leak that the Giants are interested in Player XXXX or help the Giants with disinformation on player XXXX?
RE: I think they've been pretty clear that they aren't going to force Â
QB and also Gettleman has said as much as he wouldn't mind trading up for a QB. To this I would say we can reach the following conclusions:
1) They don't see a QB worthwhile of the 6 pick. We can't say whether or not Murray would be that or they are just assuming he's gone but either way they don't really seem to be looking for a QB @ 6
2) It seems likely that at least one if not more of Lock, Jones, Haskins (I think perhaps even in that order) will be a pick they are happy to make at 17
3) At least one of those 3 mentioned above they would be willing to trade up from 17 at the right price
4) Very possible they are willing to sit tight and think that they can get another impact player if 4 QBs are drafted before 17 (Bush or Dexter Lawrence would be my guesses for guys they would be happy to take at 17)
if this is true it is a weird way to approach the qb position. Letting a qb fall to you, is simply bizarre. in the modern nfl you have to make a decision about who you want and go after him. You are suggesting they are just meh on the position and will take whatever scraps are left over. if true i continue to worry that this front office does not know how to valuate the most important position in the game.
I believe the Giants historically send a lot of people out to players they have a lot of question marks about.
I think it was when they drafted Kenny Philips (or another player), Reese said they didn't send anyone b/c they didn't have any questions about him.
The fact that they sent the house to investigate him and are continuing to investigate him as much as they are, could also be viewed as them having a lot more question marks about him.
I believe the Giants historically send a lot of people out to players they have a lot of question marks about.
I think it was when they drafted Kenny Philips (or another player), Reese said they didn't send anyone b/c they didn't have any questions about him.
The fact that they sent the house to investigate him and are continuing to investigate him as much as they are, could also be viewed as them having a lot more question marks about him.
I mean I guess so. Seems like a lot of time and energy spent on a player though that they are reported here as having zero interest in. Just doesn't add up to me.
I believe the Giants historically send a lot of people out to players they have a lot of question marks about.
I think it was when they drafted Kenny Philips (or another player), Reese said they didn't send anyone b/c they didn't have any questions about him.
The fact that they sent the house to investigate him and are continuing to investigate him as much as they are, could also be viewed as them having a lot more question marks about him.
I mean I guess so. Seems like a lot of time and energy spent on a player though that they are reported here as having zero interest in. Just doesn't add up to me.
They also spent a lot of time with Daniel Jones and Kyler Murray this year and Josh Rosen, Aaron Donald, and Josh Allen last year.
I believe the Giants historically send a lot of people out to players they have a lot of question marks about.
I think it was when they drafted Kenny Philips (or another player), Reese said they didn't send anyone b/c they didn't have any questions about him.
The fact that they sent the house to investigate him and are continuing to investigate him as much as they are, could also be viewed as them having a lot more question marks about him.
I mean I guess so. Seems like a lot of time and energy spent on a player though that they are reported here as having zero interest in. Just doesn't add up to me.
They also spent a lot of time with Daniel Jones and Kyler Murray this year and Josh Rosen, Aaron Donald, and Josh Allen last year.
Exactly because they had interest in them. Doesn't mean after they have spent as much time as they have on him to say they have zero interest doesn't add up for me. Doesn't mean they like him better than Daniel Jones or Lock or Murray for example. However to say zero interest with all we have done... Don't be shocked if he is the pick and don't be shocked if he isn't.
I believe the Giants historically send a lot of people out to players they have a lot of question marks about.
I think it was when they drafted Kenny Philips (or another player), Reese said they didn't send anyone b/c they didn't have any questions about him.
The fact that they sent the house to investigate him and are continuing to investigate him as much as they are, could also be viewed as them having a lot more question marks about him.
I mean I guess so. Seems like a lot of time and energy spent on a player though that they are reported here as having zero interest in. Just doesn't add up to me.
They also spent a lot of time with Daniel Jones and Kyler Murray this year and Josh Rosen, Aaron Donald, and Josh Allen last year.
Exactly because they had interest in them. Doesn't mean after they have spent as much time as they have on him to say they have zero interest doesn't add up for me. Doesn't mean they like him better than Daniel Jones or Lock or Murray for example. However to say zero interest with all we have done... Don't be shocked if he is the pick and don't be shocked if he isn't.
It was the same thing with Rosen last year. The Giants even went out to dinner with Rosen. I remember both JonC and hitdog mentioning how weird it was that they hadn't heard anything about Rosen from their sources.
That will probably be on the defensive side of the ball. He wants a difference maker with that pick on defense. The rest of the draft will play out the same way with BPAs till the 5th round. You can create a BPA by trading up or down as well.
That will probably be on the defensive side of the ball. He wants a difference maker with that pick on defense. The rest of the draft will play out the same way with BPAs till the 5th round. You can create a BPA by trading up or down as well.
That will probably be on the defensive side of the ball. He wants a difference maker with that pick on defense. The rest of the draft will play out the same way with BPAs till the 5th round. You can create a BPA by trading up or down as well.
BPA is a fallacy. Whether the Giants take a QB at 6 or pass on one, they are clearly targeting positions they perceive to represent their biggest needs. That’s just the way it is. No one picks via BPA in the draft. All drafting is need-based.
RE: RE: Think DG takes the BPA at #6 no matter what. Â
That will probably be on the defensive side of the ball. He wants a difference maker with that pick on defense. The rest of the draft will play out the same way with BPAs till the 5th round. You can create a BPA by trading up or down as well.
BPA is a fallacy. Whether the Giants take a QB at 6 or pass on one, they are clearly targeting positions they perceive to represent their biggest needs. That’s just the way it is. No one picks via BPA in the draft. All drafting is need-based.
It is a fallacy for a different reason. Smart teams factor in positional value, something DG has said he does not consider, because, you know, computers are stupid nerd things...
and there wasnt the Eli connection, this board would be much more positive on him. just a fact.
for me he is a good player and adds the mobile quality that this offense needs to improve the OL and running game just by having a threat to release the pocket.
I would be fine with Jones at 17
I would add that if Daniel Jones was a Duke QB who wore number 17 we would also feel much better about him. A few of us from the mid 90's have some PTSD from Dave Brown.
Jon, By this statement I am going to assume that we want a Pass Rusher at 6 and a QB at 17 or a slight trade up ( Jones being the target )?
Sound about right?
The first part is what I'm hearing, second part is part tea leaves part opinion ... but I don't have a sense of Jones > Lock or vice versa, for example.
You people need to stop bothering jt, JonC, and the other asshats. Â
That will probably be on the defensive side of the ball. He wants a difference maker with that pick on defense. The rest of the draft will play out the same way with BPAs till the 5th round. You can create a BPA by trading up or down as well.
BPA is a fallacy. Whether the Giants take a QB at 6 or pass on one, they are clearly targeting positions they perceive to represent their biggest needs. That’s just the way it is. No one picks via BPA in the draft. All drafting is need-based.
It is a fallacy for a different reason. Smart teams factor in positional value, something DG has said he does not consider, because, you know, computers are stupid nerd things...
That’s another reason I can’t stand the guy. Knowledge us power, and he openly mocked a reporter who even suggested they look at analytics. When a person blatantly ignores open, free avenues of information, they are not suited for the job. I’m not suggesting you have to be bound by analytics. However, to ignore their existence is malpractice.
In any event, assuming JonC and JT are right, the fact that they are saying we are going this way at 6 and this way at 17 tells you they’re not going BPA. How could they possibly know what BPA will be at 17? They are focused on need and need alone. The D is horrid, and they are focused on getting players to help there. Now, could need align with value? Sure. But make no mistake about it: they are drafting for need and need alone.
DG made it very clear early on in the last draft. Â
He believes the draft should be BPA driven. No need picks. No QB in this draft may be the BPA at #6 in this draft. Believe what you choose. So far so good, with DG for me.
RE: DG made it very clear early on in the last draft. Â
He believes the draft should be BPA driven. No need picks. No QB in this draft may be the BPA at #6 in this draft. Believe what you choose. So far so good, with DG for me.
If you wait to draft a QB for BPA you'll never get one period. Unless you have a guy that you have rated differently than everyone else does. QBs as pure prospects get overdrafted and if you want one, you'll probably have to overdraft. Unless its 2021 and you have the 1st pick. In that case Lawrence may be the BPA.
RE: You people need to stop bothering jt, JonC, and the other asshats. Â
Just call Dave Gettleman directly. I'm sure he'll be happy to talk to you.
That is ridiculous ... You don't think Dave Gettleman is a little busy right now! Come on man. Maybe after the draft I will try and give him a call though.
I believe the Giants historically send a lot of people out to players they have a lot of question marks about.
I think it was when they drafted Kenny Philips (or another player), Reese said they didn't send anyone b/c they didn't have any questions about him.
The fact that they sent the house to investigate him and are continuing to investigate him as much as they are, could also be viewed as them having a lot more question marks about him.
I mean I guess so. Seems like a lot of time and energy spent on a player though that they are reported here as having zero interest in. Just doesn't add up to me.
They also spent a lot of time with Daniel Jones and Kyler Murray this year and Josh Rosen, Aaron Donald, and Josh Allen last year.
Exactly because they had interest in them. Doesn't mean after they have spent as much time as they have on him to say they have zero interest doesn't add up for me. Doesn't mean they like him better than Daniel Jones or Lock or Murray for example. However to say zero interest with all we have done... Don't be shocked if he is the pick and don't be shocked if he isn't.
It was the same thing with Rosen last year. The Giants even went out to dinner with Rosen. I remember both JonC and hitdog mentioning how weird it was that they hadn't heard anything about Rosen from their sources.
Right because we picked 2nd.... We could of had Rosen as 8th best player for all we know after scouting him. This year we have a second pick at 17. Making people like Haskins, Lock, Jones, and all the other players that may be there at 17 more likely than last year when it was Saquon, Sam Darnold, Bradley Chubb, or Nelson.
Right because we picked 2nd.... We could of had Rosen as 8th best player for all we know after scouting him. This year we have a second pick at 17. Making people like Haskins, Lock, Jones, and all the other players that may be there at 17 more likely than last year when it was Saquon, Sam Darnold, Bradley Chubb, or Nelson.
My point is that the two insiders have not heard a single report about the Giants liking Haskins just as two said last year in regard to Rosen. This means that after all the work they work they put into Rosen they didn't like him and obviously still don't if they can now get him for a 2nd round pick. They clearly don't like Haskins either but we do know that they like Lock and Jones.
Right because we picked 2nd.... We could of had Rosen as 8th best player for all we know after scouting him. This year we have a second pick at 17. Making people like Haskins, Lock, Jones, and all the other players that may be there at 17 more likely than last year when it was Saquon, Sam Darnold, Bradley Chubb, or Nelson.
My point is that the two insiders have not heard a single report about the Giants liking Haskins just as two said last year in regard to Rosen. This means that after all the work they work they put into Rosen they didn't like him and obviously still don't if they can now get him for a 2nd round pick. They clearly don't like Haskins either but we do know that they like Lock and Jones.
I don't think we know everything we think we know. But we will soon enough. one week and one day away!
RE: RE: RE: RE: Think DG takes the BPA at #6 no matter what. Â
That will probably be on the defensive side of the ball. He wants a difference maker with that pick on defense. The rest of the draft will play out the same way with BPAs till the 5th round. You can create a BPA by trading up or down as well.
BPA is a fallacy. Whether the Giants take a QB at 6 or pass on one, they are clearly targeting positions they perceive to represent their biggest needs. That’s just the way it is. No one picks via BPA in the draft. All drafting is need-based.
It is a fallacy for a different reason. Smart teams factor in positional value, something DG has said he does not consider, because, you know, computers are stupid nerd things...
That’s another reason I can’t stand the guy. Knowledge us power, and he openly mocked a reporter who even suggested they look at analytics. When a person blatantly ignores open, free avenues of information, they are not suited for the job. I’m not suggesting you have to be bound by analytics. However, to ignore their existence is malpractice.
In any event, assuming JonC and JT are right, the fact that they are saying we are going this way at 6 and this way at 17 tells you they’re not going BPA. How could they possibly know what BPA will be at 17? They are focused on need and need alone. The D is horrid, and they are focused on getting players to help there. Now, could need align with value? Sure. But make no mistake about it: they are drafting for need and need alone.
Drafting a soft Andy Daltonesque qb or literal hot trash QB with the 2nd pick over a HoFer is malpractice.
Just call Dave Gettleman directly. I'm sure he'll be happy to talk to you.
That is ridiculous ... You don't think Dave Gettleman is a little busy right now! Come on man. Maybe after the draft I will try and give him a call though.
He likes you. He told me he did. He'd never be too busy to take your call. Trust me.
It’s common knowledge that some media regularly read Erics bbi and knowing how many media just regurgitate what they hear or read from “sources “.
It just seems weird that Haskins lack of foot speed or agility or whatever you want to call it would cause him to slide. Teams were impressed with his football IQ. Kid has a spotless background, great arm, leadership ability etc etc..... I’m not buying this slide for a minute
This. FWIW I also don't buy the Haskins "slide" and Giants "lack of interest." All the attention they've paid to him, including his visit this week, after they have dropped him down their list? Oh and Gil Brandt backed it up with his opinion re Jones vs. Haskins? Since when is Gil Brandt related to the Giants thought process?
FWIW McShay isn't buying it either, not 100%. He now thinks Haskins has slid on the Giants' draft board, but still rates him as the best QB in his class: most accurate passer, plus arm strength, tremendous improvement during only 1 year as a starter, team leader, played his best ball in the biggest games vs top defenses at the end of the the year, great kid, kills the white board stuff.
Haskins main issue, some footwork stuff, is exactly the kind of thing Shurmur and his staff should refine and improve. How about our asshats' are being fed disinfo re Jones or "defense only" at 6 (jtgiants or JonC)?
Unless there is fear re Haskins' conditioning that he will turn out to be another JaMarcus Russel... but his personality and chalkboard knowledge are nothing like Russel's who was famous for his total disdain for play diagram study or understanding.
If fact right off the bat that was Russel's biggest red flag IIRC. It's one of the Haskins' strong suits.
IMO we are witnessing a masterful job by DG and the FO disseminating disinformation. I am linking McShay's most recent interview re Haskins'. He acknowledges Haskins' slide on the Giants' board relative to some DL players (Oliver, Wilkins, Sweat) but still thinks Haskins is going to be a top 10 pick, and that some team will trade up to get him.
Of course McShay (and I) could be totally wrong. There will be one or another seductive D front 7 player sitting at 6, for sure.
But I still think the Giants want Haskins at 6; they just don't want anyone to trade up above them to get him first.
McShay on Haskins, Giants - ( New Window )
is it your opinion that the Giants are out on Rosen?
Saying that then wouldn't you be saying they love Haskins. They have spent more time on him than any other QB in this draft. I think the reason you don't hear about Haskins is because they are going Def at 6 no matter what and don't think he will be there to take at 17. That is my opinion though.
This too is a likely scenario IMO, and another one that contradicts jtgiants consistent info.
JT - no personal issue with you and I like others appreciate your info here. But I can't adjust the big picture and what I see with my own eyes to fit some of the info you've been fed. Same with JonC's stance about Haskins sliding to the teens. No way the Bengals don't grab him at 11 if he's still available.
Just MHO.
Quote:
This front office hasn't been good at disguising intentions.
Saying that then wouldn't you be saying they love Haskins. They have spent more time on him than any other QB in this draft. I think the reason you don't hear about Haskins is because they are going Def at 6 no matter what and don't think he will be there to take at 17. That is my opinion though.
All that matters is who they expect at #6. I haven't heard Haskins name at all, which usually a good barometer of interest. Smokescreens are something this franchise hasn't been good at, if he was a prime target it would be out there in the media.
Quote:
a sneaking suspicion the Giants are going to be in on Rosen and go defense at #6 and #17.
This too is a likely scenario IMO, and another one that contradicts jtgiants consistent info.
JT - no personal issue with you and I like others appreciate your info here. But I can't adjust the big picture and what I see with my own eyes to fit some of the info you've been fed. Same with JonC's stance about Haskins sliding to the teens. No way the Bengals don't grab him at 11 if he's still available.
Just MHO.
somebody's grabbing Haskins by pick 15, I think a bit higher. A new CBS mock has Washington jumping the giants to get him at 5. Just a week ago teams were described as over "the moon for him". Now nobody wants him? I don't buy it.
Quote:
This front office hasn't been good at disguising intentions.
is it your opinion that the Giants are out on Rosen?
I've heard nothing new indicating interest in Rosen.
?? at #17 (depends on how the draft goes)
- could be a QB like Lock or Jones, another D player, or OT
I think they'd like Lock or Jones, but they don't seem married to it. If the draft is falling a certain way, we may see a trade up or down with #17
Should be interesting
1) They don't see a QB worthwhile of the 6 pick. We can't say whether or not Murray would be that or they are just assuming he's gone but either way they don't really seem to be looking for a QB @ 6
2) It seems likely that at least one if not more of Lock, Jones, Haskins (I think perhaps even in that order) will be a pick they are happy to make at 17
3) At least one of those 3 mentioned above they would be willing to trade up from 17 at the right price
4) Very possible they are willing to sit tight and think that they can get another impact player if 4 QBs are drafted before 17 (Bush or Dexter Lawrence would be my guesses for guys they would be happy to take at 17)
Quote:
The vocal majority here didn’t take mayfield seriously until the browns did.
Wake up people.
I don't think this is true. Mayfield had off the field issues that were very concerning. And his size was a concern. He wasn't the cleanest prospect...
Mayfield stock dropped when he was sacked by that cop so easily. Where was the speed and elusiveness. He was not clean at all.
Quote:
a sneaking suspicion the Giants are going to be in on Rosen and go defense at #6 and #17.
This too is a likely scenario IMO, and another one that contradicts jtgiants consistent info.
JT - no personal issue with you and I like others appreciate your info here. But I can't adjust the big picture and what I see with my own eyes to fit some of the info you've been fed. Same with JonC's stance about Haskins sliding to the teens. No way the Bengals don't grab him at 11 if he's still available.
Just MHO.
Haskins possibly in the teens is my opinion. He could go to the Bengals, but I won't surprised if he's there even at #17.
Quote:
In comment 14389870 djm said:
Quote:
The vocal majority here didn’t take mayfield seriously until the browns did.
Wake up people.
I don't think this is true. Mayfield had off the field issues that were very concerning. And his size was a concern. He wasn't the cleanest prospect...
Mayfield stock dropped when he was sacked by that cop so easily. Where was the speed and elusiveness. He was not clean at all.
Sorry in the eyes of fans and the media. No one thought with his question marks someone would risk pick #1 on him. Browns were willing to roll the dice and it seems to be paying off.
Piecing together what we've been hearing, a defensive player at #6 and a trade up in front of Miami at #13 to get Jones seems like a strong possibility. Remember also that Miami is coached by a Belichick disciple...they seem unlikely to trade up. And in any event, the rumor is they are targeting Tua next year.
Lots of ties to Jones:
- Gettleman mentioning "KC Model"
- Cutcliff connection
- Strong Giants contingent at Duke workout
- Kiper has Jones as top QB; Kiper's mentor is Ernie Accorsi
Quote:
In comment 14390241 JonC said:
Quote:
This front office hasn't been good at disguising intentions.
Saying that then wouldn't you be saying they love Haskins. They have spent more time on him than any other QB in this draft. I think the reason you don't hear about Haskins is because they are going Def at 6 no matter what and don't think he will be there to take at 17. That is my opinion though.
All that matters is who they expect at #6. I haven't heard Haskins name at all, which usually a good barometer of interest. Smokescreens are something this franchise hasn't been good at, if he was a prime target it would be out there in the media.
1) They don't see a QB worthwhile of the 6 pick. We can't say whether or not Murray would be that or they are just assuming he's gone but either way they don't really seem to be looking for a QB @ 6
2) It seems likely that at least one if not more of Lock, Jones, Haskins (I think perhaps even in that order) will be a pick they are happy to make at 17
3) At least one of those 3 mentioned above they would be willing to trade up from 17 at the right price
4) Very possible they are willing to sit tight and think that they can get another impact player if 4 QBs are drafted before 17 (Bush or Dexter Lawrence would be my guesses for guys they would be happy to take at 17)
if this is true it is a weird way to approach the qb position. Letting a qb fall to you, is simply bizarre. in the modern nfl you have to make a decision about who you want and go after him. You are suggesting they are just meh on the position and will take whatever scraps are left over. if true i continue to worry that this front office does not know how to valuate the most important position in the game.
I think it was when they drafted Kenny Philips (or another player), Reese said they didn't send anyone b/c they didn't have any questions about him.
The fact that they sent the house to investigate him and are continuing to investigate him as much as they are, could also be viewed as them having a lot more question marks about him.
Now I have my wet dream scenario that someone jumps ahead of them to take Jones too.
I think it was when they drafted Kenny Philips (or another player), Reese said they didn't send anyone b/c they didn't have any questions about him.
The fact that they sent the house to investigate him and are continuing to investigate him as much as they are, could also be viewed as them having a lot more question marks about him.
I mean I guess so. Seems like a lot of time and energy spent on a player though that they are reported here as having zero interest in. Just doesn't add up to me.
Quote:
I believe the Giants historically send a lot of people out to players they have a lot of question marks about.
I think it was when they drafted Kenny Philips (or another player), Reese said they didn't send anyone b/c they didn't have any questions about him.
The fact that they sent the house to investigate him and are continuing to investigate him as much as they are, could also be viewed as them having a lot more question marks about him.
I mean I guess so. Seems like a lot of time and energy spent on a player though that they are reported here as having zero interest in. Just doesn't add up to me.
They also spent a lot of time with Daniel Jones and Kyler Murray this year and Josh Rosen, Aaron Donald, and Josh Allen last year.
Quote:
In comment 14390315 BigBlueCane said:
Quote:
I believe the Giants historically send a lot of people out to players they have a lot of question marks about.
I think it was when they drafted Kenny Philips (or another player), Reese said they didn't send anyone b/c they didn't have any questions about him.
The fact that they sent the house to investigate him and are continuing to investigate him as much as they are, could also be viewed as them having a lot more question marks about him.
I mean I guess so. Seems like a lot of time and energy spent on a player though that they are reported here as having zero interest in. Just doesn't add up to me.
They also spent a lot of time with Daniel Jones and Kyler Murray this year and Josh Rosen, Aaron Donald, and Josh Allen last year.
Exactly because they had interest in them. Doesn't mean after they have spent as much time as they have on him to say they have zero interest doesn't add up for me. Doesn't mean they like him better than Daniel Jones or Lock or Murray for example. However to say zero interest with all we have done... Don't be shocked if he is the pick and don't be shocked if he isn't.
Quote:
In comment 14390389 Amtoft said:
Quote:
In comment 14390315 BigBlueCane said:
Quote:
I believe the Giants historically send a lot of people out to players they have a lot of question marks about.
I think it was when they drafted Kenny Philips (or another player), Reese said they didn't send anyone b/c they didn't have any questions about him.
The fact that they sent the house to investigate him and are continuing to investigate him as much as they are, could also be viewed as them having a lot more question marks about him.
I mean I guess so. Seems like a lot of time and energy spent on a player though that they are reported here as having zero interest in. Just doesn't add up to me.
They also spent a lot of time with Daniel Jones and Kyler Murray this year and Josh Rosen, Aaron Donald, and Josh Allen last year.
Exactly because they had interest in them. Doesn't mean after they have spent as much time as they have on him to say they have zero interest doesn't add up for me. Doesn't mean they like him better than Daniel Jones or Lock or Murray for example. However to say zero interest with all we have done... Don't be shocked if he is the pick and don't be shocked if he isn't.
It was the same thing with Rosen last year. The Giants even went out to dinner with Rosen. I remember both JonC and hitdog mentioning how weird it was that they hadn't heard anything about Rosen from their sources.
Jon, By this statement I am going to assume that we want a Pass Rusher at 6 and a QB at 17 or a slight trade up ( Jones being the target )?
Sound about right?
BPA is a fallacy. Whether the Giants take a QB at 6 or pass on one, they are clearly targeting positions they perceive to represent their biggest needs. That’s just the way it is. No one picks via BPA in the draft. All drafting is need-based.
Quote:
That will probably be on the defensive side of the ball. He wants a difference maker with that pick on defense. The rest of the draft will play out the same way with BPAs till the 5th round. You can create a BPA by trading up or down as well.
BPA is a fallacy. Whether the Giants take a QB at 6 or pass on one, they are clearly targeting positions they perceive to represent their biggest needs. That’s just the way it is. No one picks via BPA in the draft. All drafting is need-based.
It is a fallacy for a different reason. Smart teams factor in positional value, something DG has said he does not consider, because, you know, computers are stupid nerd things...
Quote:
LOL.
Care to elaborate on this? Laughing at a poster or info being posted? Thanks!
The info being shared, Rick.. A lot of which is intentionally vague, simply not true, or guess work at best.
Quote:
and there wasnt the Eli connection, this board would be much more positive on him. just a fact.
for me he is a good player and adds the mobile quality that this offense needs to improve the OL and running game just by having a threat to release the pocket.
I would be fine with Jones at 17
I would add that if Daniel Jones was a Duke QB who wore number 17 we would also feel much better about him. A few of us from the mid 90's have some PTSD from Dave Brown.
WTF did you have to write his name
Quote:
some of you are trying to dig too deep.
Jon, By this statement I am going to assume that we want a Pass Rusher at 6 and a QB at 17 or a slight trade up ( Jones being the target )?
Sound about right?
The first part is what I'm hearing, second part is part tea leaves part opinion ... but I don't have a sense of Jones > Lock or vice versa, for example.
Quote:
In comment 14390435 TMS said:
Quote:
That will probably be on the defensive side of the ball. He wants a difference maker with that pick on defense. The rest of the draft will play out the same way with BPAs till the 5th round. You can create a BPA by trading up or down as well.
BPA is a fallacy. Whether the Giants take a QB at 6 or pass on one, they are clearly targeting positions they perceive to represent their biggest needs. That’s just the way it is. No one picks via BPA in the draft. All drafting is need-based.
It is a fallacy for a different reason. Smart teams factor in positional value, something DG has said he does not consider, because, you know, computers are stupid nerd things...
That’s another reason I can’t stand the guy. Knowledge us power, and he openly mocked a reporter who even suggested they look at analytics. When a person blatantly ignores open, free avenues of information, they are not suited for the job. I’m not suggesting you have to be bound by analytics. However, to ignore their existence is malpractice.
In any event, assuming JonC and JT are right, the fact that they are saying we are going this way at 6 and this way at 17 tells you they’re not going BPA. How could they possibly know what BPA will be at 17? They are focused on need and need alone. The D is horrid, and they are focused on getting players to help there. Now, could need align with value? Sure. But make no mistake about it: they are drafting for need and need alone.
If you wait to draft a QB for BPA you'll never get one period. Unless you have a guy that you have rated differently than everyone else does. QBs as pure prospects get overdrafted and if you want one, you'll probably have to overdraft. Unless its 2021 and you have the 1st pick. In that case Lawrence may be the BPA.
That is ridiculous ... You don't think Dave Gettleman is a little busy right now! Come on man. Maybe after the draft I will try and give him a call though.
Quote:
In comment 14390404 Jay on the Island said:
Quote:
In comment 14390389 Amtoft said:
Quote:
In comment 14390315 BigBlueCane said:
Quote:
I believe the Giants historically send a lot of people out to players they have a lot of question marks about.
I think it was when they drafted Kenny Philips (or another player), Reese said they didn't send anyone b/c they didn't have any questions about him.
The fact that they sent the house to investigate him and are continuing to investigate him as much as they are, could also be viewed as them having a lot more question marks about him.
I mean I guess so. Seems like a lot of time and energy spent on a player though that they are reported here as having zero interest in. Just doesn't add up to me.
They also spent a lot of time with Daniel Jones and Kyler Murray this year and Josh Rosen, Aaron Donald, and Josh Allen last year.
Exactly because they had interest in them. Doesn't mean after they have spent as much time as they have on him to say they have zero interest doesn't add up for me. Doesn't mean they like him better than Daniel Jones or Lock or Murray for example. However to say zero interest with all we have done... Don't be shocked if he is the pick and don't be shocked if he isn't.
It was the same thing with Rosen last year. The Giants even went out to dinner with Rosen. I remember both JonC and hitdog mentioning how weird it was that they hadn't heard anything about Rosen from their sources.
Right because we picked 2nd.... We could of had Rosen as 8th best player for all we know after scouting him. This year we have a second pick at 17. Making people like Haskins, Lock, Jones, and all the other players that may be there at 17 more likely than last year when it was Saquon, Sam Darnold, Bradley Chubb, or Nelson.
Right because we picked 2nd.... We could of had Rosen as 8th best player for all we know after scouting him. This year we have a second pick at 17. Making people like Haskins, Lock, Jones, and all the other players that may be there at 17 more likely than last year when it was Saquon, Sam Darnold, Bradley Chubb, or Nelson.
My point is that the two insiders have not heard a single report about the Giants liking Haskins just as two said last year in regard to Rosen. This means that after all the work they work they put into Rosen they didn't like him and obviously still don't if they can now get him for a 2nd round pick. They clearly don't like Haskins either but we do know that they like Lock and Jones.
Quote:
Right because we picked 2nd.... We could of had Rosen as 8th best player for all we know after scouting him. This year we have a second pick at 17. Making people like Haskins, Lock, Jones, and all the other players that may be there at 17 more likely than last year when it was Saquon, Sam Darnold, Bradley Chubb, or Nelson.
My point is that the two insiders have not heard a single report about the Giants liking Haskins just as two said last year in regard to Rosen. This means that after all the work they work they put into Rosen they didn't like him and obviously still don't if they can now get him for a 2nd round pick. They clearly don't like Haskins either but we do know that they like Lock and Jones.
I don't think we know everything we think we know. But we will soon enough. one week and one day away!
Quote:
In comment 14390481 Giants38 said:
Quote:
In comment 14390435 TMS said:
Quote:
That will probably be on the defensive side of the ball. He wants a difference maker with that pick on defense. The rest of the draft will play out the same way with BPAs till the 5th round. You can create a BPA by trading up or down as well.
BPA is a fallacy. Whether the Giants take a QB at 6 or pass on one, they are clearly targeting positions they perceive to represent their biggest needs. That’s just the way it is. No one picks via BPA in the draft. All drafting is need-based.
It is a fallacy for a different reason. Smart teams factor in positional value, something DG has said he does not consider, because, you know, computers are stupid nerd things...
That’s another reason I can’t stand the guy. Knowledge us power, and he openly mocked a reporter who even suggested they look at analytics. When a person blatantly ignores open, free avenues of information, they are not suited for the job. I’m not suggesting you have to be bound by analytics. However, to ignore their existence is malpractice.
In any event, assuming JonC and JT are right, the fact that they are saying we are going this way at 6 and this way at 17 tells you they’re not going BPA. How could they possibly know what BPA will be at 17? They are focused on need and need alone. The D is horrid, and they are focused on getting players to help there. Now, could need align with value? Sure. But make no mistake about it: they are drafting for need and need alone.
Drafting a soft Andy Daltonesque qb or literal hot trash QB with the 2nd pick over a HoFer is malpractice.
Quote:
Just call Dave Gettleman directly. I'm sure he'll be happy to talk to you.
That is ridiculous ... You don't think Dave Gettleman is a little busy right now! Come on man. Maybe after the draft I will try and give him a call though.
He likes you. He told me he did. He'd never be too busy to take your call. Trust me.