need to be more ready for Ferrell, Oliver or even Sweatt at 6..
But, honestly, who knows with this draft. If QB hungry teams jump up to get ahead of the GIants and maybe even the Bucs then we could see 2 or even 3 QB's go in first 5 picks. We could also see no QB's go and that would change everything..
The Jets and or Bucs will be target spots for teams looking to move up. Once Murray goes then it becomes a game of chicken for teams outside of the top 6 who feel they have to get a QB. Denver, Cincinnati, Washington and maybe even Miami (though they seem to be playing for next season) could all be looking to jump ahead of the Giants. Tampa Bay could also be eying a QB if they are just playing out the string with Winston. They can't be sold on a guy with his baggage and overall inconsistent play. Plus, Arians will not be around forever as HC so if they are going to get him a developmental QB, HIS QB then they have to do so sooner than later.
here as well. With Stafford starting to get up there in years and his wife's medical issues, they could be looking to hedge their bets and have a guy in the wings if needed.
His lack of productions scares me to get him at 6.....
One of the inconsistencies I see, as a fan who wants the Giants to take a chance on a quarterback, is how the, “you have to be sure” standard does not translate to drafting a position player.
I also don’t get the, “too many needs to take a quarterback “ mantra. In what universe is a young quarterback to groom behind a 38 year old quarterback not a need?
From what I have gathered reading and listening to accounts from draft people, at 6, if things go as expected, their are question marks surrounding a defensive pick
certainly there's validity in your comments, but....
the too many needs to take a QB isn't that simple. it's too many needs that can be filled by a top positional prospect to take a meh QB. No one is saying not to take a top QB prospect. The argument is whether there's a top QB prospect.
You've been answered on the 'why don't other positions fall under the conviction category'. you simply don't like the answers. A QB plays on an island. OK usually isn't good enough, where as other positions you can get by. You usually don't rotate a different player in to mask a defect. It's harder to scheme around a QB deficiency. bottom line is that QB is not the same as other positions. You need a certain amount of conviction to take any given position. I don't think many are arguing otherwise. Surely you're not advocating taking any ole RT just because it's a position of extreme need? Perhaps the level of conviction is unfairly raised for QB, but there are valid reasons for doing so, just as there are valid reasons for not getting too carried away with the height of that conviction.
certainly there's validity in your comments, but....
the too many needs to take a QB isn't that simple. it's too many needs that can be filled by a top positional prospect to take a meh QB. No one is saying not to take a top QB prospect. The argument is whether there's a top QB prospect.
You've been answered on the 'why don't other positions fall under the conviction category'. you simply don't like the answers. A QB plays on an island. OK usually isn't good enough, where as other positions you can get by. You usually don't rotate a different player in to mask a defect. It's harder to scheme around a QB deficiency. bottom line is that QB is not the same as other positions. You need a certain amount of conviction to take any given position. I don't think many are arguing otherwise. Surely you're not advocating taking any ole RT just because it's a position of extreme need? Perhaps the level of conviction is unfairly raised for QB, but there are valid reasons for doing so, just as there are valid reasons for not getting too carried away with the height of that conviction.
Good post, I really hadn’t read or heard that explanation about why it s harder to work around a quarterback, makes sense.
I could see why teams would have concerns.
But, honestly, who knows with this draft. If QB hungry teams jump up to get ahead of the GIants and maybe even the Bucs then we could see 2 or even 3 QB's go in first 5 picks. We could also see no QB's go and that would change everything..
The Jets and or Bucs will be target spots for teams looking to move up. Once Murray goes then it becomes a game of chicken for teams outside of the top 6 who feel they have to get a QB. Denver, Cincinnati, Washington and maybe even Miami (though they seem to be playing for next season) could all be looking to jump ahead of the Giants. Tampa Bay could also be eying a QB if they are just playing out the string with Winston. They can't be sold on a guy with his baggage and overall inconsistent play. Plus, Arians will not be around forever as HC so if they are going to get him a developmental QB, HIS QB then they have to do so sooner than later.
One of the inconsistencies I see, as a fan who wants the Giants to take a chance on a quarterback, is how the, “you have to be sure” standard does not translate to drafting a position player.
I also don’t get the, “too many needs to take a quarterback “ mantra. In what universe is a young quarterback to groom behind a 38 year old quarterback not a need?
From what I have gathered reading and listening to accounts from draft people, at 6, if things go as expected, their are question marks surrounding a defensive pick
the too many needs to take a QB isn't that simple. it's too many needs that can be filled by a top positional prospect to take a meh QB. No one is saying not to take a top QB prospect. The argument is whether there's a top QB prospect.
You've been answered on the 'why don't other positions fall under the conviction category'. you simply don't like the answers. A QB plays on an island. OK usually isn't good enough, where as other positions you can get by. You usually don't rotate a different player in to mask a defect. It's harder to scheme around a QB deficiency. bottom line is that QB is not the same as other positions. You need a certain amount of conviction to take any given position. I don't think many are arguing otherwise. Surely you're not advocating taking any ole RT just because it's a position of extreme need? Perhaps the level of conviction is unfairly raised for QB, but there are valid reasons for doing so, just as there are valid reasons for not getting too carried away with the height of that conviction.
the too many needs to take a QB isn't that simple. it's too many needs that can be filled by a top positional prospect to take a meh QB. No one is saying not to take a top QB prospect. The argument is whether there's a top QB prospect.
You've been answered on the 'why don't other positions fall under the conviction category'. you simply don't like the answers. A QB plays on an island. OK usually isn't good enough, where as other positions you can get by. You usually don't rotate a different player in to mask a defect. It's harder to scheme around a QB deficiency. bottom line is that QB is not the same as other positions. You need a certain amount of conviction to take any given position. I don't think many are arguing otherwise. Surely you're not advocating taking any ole RT just because it's a position of extreme need? Perhaps the level of conviction is unfairly raised for QB, but there are valid reasons for doing so, just as there are valid reasons for not getting too carried away with the height of that conviction.
Good post, I really hadn’t read or heard that explanation about why it s harder to work around a quarterback, makes sense.
Great comp, felt similarly when I initially started looking into Gary
at 17 he’s well worth the risk
Oliver, Sweat, Lawrence, Bush ... I’ll take any of those
Yes I would be fine with Lawrence at 6, I like him that much.