Stillcurtain.com and a guy named Maxwell Chafiian wrote this:
"Now, being that the Giants are not shopping Engram, what would it take to pry him away? While people may be cautious about trading pick 49, it may be worth it in this scenario. Many fans are clamoring for the team to draft a tight end at 49 anyway or sign a new tight end in free agency."
Not sure I'd like to see Engram traded, but I'd think his market value is better than a 49. We spent a 23 on him in '17. Think we'd have to do a good deal better as we have no depth at that position as Ellison is likely gone.
link - (
New Window )
Where do I sign up? I'll drive him to the airport.
Robbie, yeah, Engram causes us a lot of frustration with his missed games.
Maybe a 2nd rounder is the best we could hope for. It's interesting to see he's considered desirable though. That's kind of why I thought we could do a little better. Just wish we had some real depth there to trade from. Think that more than any other reason will force Giants to hold on to him.
Pick 49 could be a stud Center for the next 10 years. It could be a quality OT or ER that slips. I’d much rather have that than a “matchup nightmare” who can’t block or stay on the field.
Never should have drafted him in the first place that fucking draft lined up just right for the giants. Need and availability met and Reese still had to chase the shiny. Can’t bail on him now for pennies on the dollar. We need this guy to emerge.
That said: A lot of guys underrate Engram; there are a ton of first-round busts, and he's not a bust. At the same time, some guys overrate Engram. As the saying goes, the best ability is availability. He hasn't had that.
I think if you strip all that away, #49 seems about fair value for him. I might make that trade. But I can't imagine Pittsburgh doing that. They'd be more likely to trade a player for picks. No idea who that might be.
They might be open to it if they've decided they're going all in on what is likely Roethlisberger's last year. Rolling the dice on Engram might turn out better for that one year than a rookie at #49. (After that, of course, it's terrible).
I think he wins over the Steelers fan fake trade.
I would hate to see him go to another team and thrive just because he's not available due to injury. Injuries are not necessarily a fault of the player. And even in the case where there is a weakness that seems to be responsible for the frequency of the player losing time due to injury, it is also the responsibility of the training staff to do what they can to work on that player's alleged weakness.
Is anyone aware of the determination of the causes behind each of Engram's injuries? If there has been such a determination, then what has staff done to address it? I would let our new staff make this decision based on facts rather than the simple fact he has more time than we fans are happy with.
I think he wins over the Steelers fan fake trade.
Pjacs, seems to be Engram may be coveted then! Again, not pushing for a trade, but really only wondering at what price would most of us say ok? A late first would be great IMO.
You take that in a heartbeat
For Fucks sake.
While this may make you wary of acquiring Engram, the injuries were not as crippling as one may think. With the Giants being nowhere close to playoff contention, it did not make sense for the team to rush him back for nothing and risk a more serious injury.
Engram had to have surgery, and was using a walker to get around a few weeks ago. How in hell were the Giants supposed to "rush him back?"
I think he wins over the Steelers fan fake trade.
That's insane "Gronk wishing" desire
Seriously! Some on this site would not have you draft anyone who plays another position until the OL has five all-pros on it.
OL is absolutely a priority, but some on here confuse that with obsession.
Quote:
In a couple of years our offense will be Daniel Jones and 10 offensive linemen.
Seriously! Some on this site would not have you draft anyone who plays another position until the OL has five all-pros on it.
OL is absolutely a priority, but some on here confuse that with obsession.
Yeah...we're "obsessed" with it because our O-Line has sucked for the past nine years, thanks to a lack of foresight on the part of the previous regime, and a repetition of their mistakes by the current regime.
No problem. I'm always here if you need me. Just dial 1-800-4KLAATU.
Ha! And if we trade Barkley, we can get 12 draft picks and build both sides of the line and 5 years from now, people will bitch that we have to pay them!!
Quote:
In a couple of years our offense will be Daniel Jones and 10 offensive linemen.
Ha! And if we trade Barkley, we can get 12 draft picks and build both sides of the line and 5 years from now, people will bitch that we have to pay them!!
Well, that would actually be a strategy worth pursuing versus what has been going on here lately. Don't you think?
Let me guess - we don't have a plan, right?
But trading for 12 linemen sounds like a reasonable one?
2/20 strikes again.....
1 OL and maybe 1 LB?
People really believe RB's are just interchangable.
Yeah. You wouldn't?
And sadly, the way people view the value around here, they'll be happy to let a back go in his prime for that. I'm hoping the football people aren't as stupid.
And sadly, the way people view the value around here, they'll be happy to let a back go in his prime for that. I'm hoping the football people aren't as stupid.
What do you think we could reasonably get?