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.
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.