|
|
|
| Quote: |
| 2. I think of all the things I read about the draft in the past week, this, from Paul Schwartz of the New York Post about the general manager of the Giants, was most fascinating: Dave Gettleman has presided over seven drafts as a general manager — five with the Panthers and two with the Giants — and has never traded down. Never. He selected 28 players with the Panthers and 16 in his two drafts with the Giants (plus one more in the supplemental draft). Think of that: A GM who has made 45 picks has never traded down to accumulate more picks from any of the 45. That is borderline negligent. Maybe not even borderline. I am incredulous about that. As I documented last week, GM John Schneider of the Seahawks used last year’s 21st overall pick and traded down six times to accumulate six picks, one of whom was wide receiver DK Metcalf, who, as it turned out, produced better value than a 21st pick in most drafts as a rookie. And four other players from the trade played for the Seahawks last season. Trying to not make too much of that, but wow. Just wow. |
Now, he may fail miserably at that, but in and of itself, who cares if he trades down.
I thought Peter King retired.
Well he did say negligent ... which is not a complementary word.
Calling Gettleman borderline negligent simply for not trading down would be considered taking a shot.
Personally, I'm more concerned about the quality players drafted whether or not a GM trades down or not. The next valuable insight Peter King has may be his first.
But the spotlight seems to shine brightest on Gettleman, not just that he hasn't done it, but the perception is that he's adamant against doing so.
King calls not trading done negligent - so is reporting as if Gettleman has refused to trade down.
So trading down 6 times to accumulate 6 picks likely yielded worse results than not trading down at all.
Beyond that you are not likely to get the necessary value. I remember one year the Dallas Cowboys traded down so much they had like 11 or 12 picks from Rounds 3 to 7 and none of them received a second contract with Dallas. In 2019 and 2018 the Giants were not in a position to trade down. 2019 because they needed a QB and could not chance losing out on the one they liked, 2018 because the teams who had the most interest in #2 would have required the Giants trading back too far. If you look at who was desperate to move, the one real team was Buffalo who had the 12th overall pick. You trade back that far who are you taking? Vita Vea? With McGlinchey going at 9 it really would have been a worst case scenario for the Giants as he probably would have been who they were gambling on if they traded down. Unless we were talking about multiple 1st Round picks plus later picks would Vea + picks = Barkley?
It didn't take long for Young to calm down.
"Don't write that in Baltimore, or at least leave out the bleeps," Young said. "He picked a bad day [to call]. I was irritated. It gets tiresome at times."
OK, George, we'll leave out the bleeps, but the outburst was an indication that being an NFL GM these days isn't a day at the beach.
Young has built a couple of Super Bowl championship teams, but he knows his record is only as good as his last victory.
"People saw me after we won the Super Bowls and they don't think I was very excited. I said, 'Don't worry, I'll be dumb next year.' I was correct," Young said. "I learned this living in Baltimore; all the geniuses are from out of town. I'm not a genius. I don't pretend to be. I'm a working stiff trying to do the best I can. I've got a track record. I haven't changed much. Maybe it's a drawback. It doesn't show much growth."
Young figures that criticism goes with the job. He remembers that the fans booed when he made Phil Simms his first draft pick in 1979.
The cameramen even asked then-commissioner Pete Rozelle to announce the pick a second time so they could get the boos on film.
"They went through the whole thing again and they booed more. Pete even started to smile because he knew what was coming, and they said even he was laughing at the Giants' pick," he said.
Despite all that, Young has stood the test of time. When he arrived in New York, all the sports teams had different executives than they do now.
He's still on the job, conducting his 17th draft this weekend and trying to avoid listening to the roar of the crowd.
"You have to look at the draft as a whole, but the writers, fans, TV guys and agents put the emphasis on the first round. Some teams react to the public pressure of 'How can you pass up this guy?' You get into that sometimes. In the other rounds, you're not as affected by the outside influences."
Young had his trouble after the Parcells core aged and fell apart and he had trouble with the cap. But what's lost is that before he left, he built the new core of the team that won the division in 1997 (with Ernie along his side as assistant GM) and ultimately his fingerprints were on the team that went to the Super Bowl in 2000.
Let's see how things play out this year with a new coaching staff.
He is a despicable creature!
But the spotlight seems to shine brightest on Gettleman, not just that he hasn't done it, but the perception is that he's adamant against doing so.
King calls not trading done negligent - so is reporting as if Gettleman has refused to trade down.
Dave’s an easy target. He’s not liked in the media. He’s not liked by a pocket of players. And he’s not liked by, I don’t know, somewhere between maybe 25-40% of his own fan base. He’s brought a lot of that upon himself.
So trading down 6 times to accumulate 6 picks likely yielded worse results than not trading down at all.
Never mind that Seattle supposedly has a top 5 QB who’s prime seems to be being wasted. Sound familiar? Seattle has done a good job overall but takes like this are silly. Did King tell us about Starbucks and his daughters too or has he stopped that stupid shit finally. Stopped reading him long ago. Miss guys like Dr Z and Joel B who actually knew what the fuck they were talking about
Remember the days when it was shocking if a rookie started on offense or defense?
Just because Gettlemen hasn't traded down doesn't mean he won't.
If you think of it, the Giants drafts were pretty bad when he left except for a few 1st round hits.
I don't really care if he doesn't trade down. What I do care about is when I hear him say that he doesn't initiate conversations with teams or doesn't take calls. Conviction is fine, but pick up the phone/take a phone call.
...the Giants sucked long before Gettleman returned.
Smart teams figured this out a while ago. Look at the rosters of the teams that do everything to get more draft picks and then look at the rosters of the teams that stand pat.
Not trading down indicates Gettleman doesn't get this yet. That's negligent.
I don't really care if he doesn't trade down. What I do care about is when I hear him say that he doesn't initiate conversations with teams or doesn't take calls. Conviction is fine, but pick up the phone/take a phone call.
The draft is like a scratch off lottery. Each year you have a certain number of cards and you are trying to reach a certain dollar value. The higher numbered cards are more likely to contain the money needed to reach your desired goal, but it is by no means a guarantee. Trading down to get more cards gives you more leeway to reach your desired dollar value, but since no card is a lock you could be trading a card that would have given you that value for multiple zonks.
My view on this is split. I think it's strange the Giants have never traded down in any round since 2006. But each year is different. Not having traded down since 2006 doesn't mean we should do so this year. But this year does seem to present a good chance to do so. We need more picks, especially after the Williams trade. Other teams may also want to move up to get a QB.
The problem is that I don't see DG trading down from a top five pick, not unless he's offered a ton.
I think the chance of a trade down is about 50/50 right now.
The draft is like a scratch off lottery. Each year you have a certain number of cards and you are trying to reach a certain dollar value. The higher numbered cards are more likely to contain the money needed to reach your desired goal, but it is by no means a guarantee. Trading down to get more cards gives you more leeway to reach your desired dollar value, but since no card is a lock you could be trading a card that would have given you that value for multiple zonks. [/quote]
Yup. I agree with you. I'd be happy if a trade was there and he traded down. But if he doesn't it's not the end of the world. We honestly don't know what is being offered so it's hard to judge these things.
I'm just saying that what I need from my GM is 100% due diligence in exploring options.
When asked about trading down with the #2 overall in 2018, JM said he would want to know the players NYG would be getting with the picks acquired.
Unless you're on the clock and only trading down one spot,that is an impossible standard to meet.
The Giants never traded down with Reese as GM and now they haven't traded down with DG as GM.
JM has been the consistent factor, apart from DG's own history.
newday 3/26/18 - ( New Window )
I’m a fan because he gets very good guests but what you said is 100 percent the truth. Just rambles on when it could be said in a fraction of the time
Round 1) Jones, Lawrence, Baker
Round 3) Ximines
Round 4) Love
Round 5) Connelly, D Slayton
Round 6) Ballentine
Round 7) George, C Slayton
Can an intelligent person complain about that draft? How many teams did better?
Most player evaluations haven't been done. We also don't know what will happen with the draft, especially with Detroit.
But what I don't want to hear is DG dismissing the idea immediately, and saying he wasn't even considering trading down.
The point is that there is no absolute. Gettleman should be open to all options and do the best he can to choose the best option
if Seattle trades down with one pick, gets 6 picks, and one of those picks is a very good player why is that being a genius -- that's like saying here you pick from this pile -- you can touch each one of them and pick out a good one - or I'll remove half of the contents of the barrel, everyone else getting their choice of the best ones in there, and then you can pick 6 of the left-overs. If you find a good one - then you're a genius/
I don't really care if he doesn't trade down. What I do care about is when I hear him say that he doesn't initiate conversations with teams or doesn't take calls. Conviction is fine, but pick up the phone/take a phone call.
This is a very good take, IMO.
The problem with Gettleman isn't so much that he has never traded down - of course that can be circumstantial as much as systemic. But Gettleman has also said a few oddball things about trades, both in draft day trades and in player trades, that should be fair game when wondering whether Gettleman may inadvertently have a negotiating style that simply doesn't lend itself well to trading down.
So that may not exactly be the same thing as refusing to trade down, but for all intents and purposes, it achieves the same result. Whether it's by choice or by style, it's not an unfair question to wonder why Gettleman has never traded down and if there's a reason that may suggest that he'll always be unlikely to do so.
And trading down is not always the right move. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But it's a tool that's available to NFL executives, and to willingly proceed without ever using that tool seems like a voluntary disadvantage.
Much like his bravado in speaking with the media, I think this is a situation where DG would improve with some genuine reflection and self-evaluation. Is there something about his negotiating style that impedes the opportunity to trade down in drafts, and negates what may sometimes be the best option available.
if Seattle trades down with one pick, gets 6 picks, and one of those picks is a very good player why is that being a genius -- that's like saying here you pick from this pile -- you can touch each one of them and pick out a good one - or I'll remove half of the contents of the barrel, everyone else getting their choice of the best ones in there, and then you can pick 6 of the left-overs. If you find a good one - then you're a genius/
I don't think you're looking at it the right way, gidie.
If every player is crap at 4, trading down AND GETTING ADDITIONAL PICKS, while netting that same crap at a lower pick PLUS ADDITIONAL PICKS TO CHOOSE MORE PLAYERS is what makes it better in the instances where it may indeed be the favorable move.
If the players Seattle's GM picked up last year by trading down are crap and do nothing in the NFL, then the trade down was a useless.
It's what you do with the picks you make.
It can be a magic act.
If you select good players,most of the time it doesn't matter.
They left themselves pretty handcuffed for a long stretch between the Baker and Ximines picks, where a number of OL prospects came off the board. And then they only wound up spending one pick on OL, very late and very developmental. Perhaps some additional picks could have been used to maneuver the middle rounds a bit more to pick up an additional OL prospect?
That's a very specific example, but the worst reason to discount the value of additional picks is to count the picks you already have. The only counter argument that really works is considering the cost in trading back to acquire picks comes at the cost of presumably the best prospect in the trade (because if you're trading back, you're giving up the higher pick).
Having plenty of picks already is basically irrelevant if the underlying scenario at that moment still suggests that trading back is the strongest possibility for a successful outcome.
LOL
"scatback that does not move the chains."
I love this place sometimes.
Give the First Take and McShay/Kiper crowd credit for actually taking a side and sticking to their guns. PK is apparently not in their league.
There has never been a pundit so afraid of actual prognostication, so adept at circumlocution and heding, as the great Peter King. Wtf does "borderline negligent" even mean? Are you trying to convince us that he's not negligent... By saying the opposite?
His smarmy signature "Ten things I think I think" column is supposed to sound cute, but it actually disguises exactly this- that he's afraid to put an opinion out there. You're in the wrong business, Peter.
Gettleman is aggressive by nature. But it's a mistake to compare his track record when drafting outside the top ten with his track record drafting inside the top five, because they are two very different animals. Each situation is unique and the Giants current situation is as unique as it gets (if you were to try to find a similar situation in Gettleman's past). Gettleman is a poker player and he won't be opposed to accumulating more chips as long as it doesn't mean passing on a prospect of which he is in full bloom love.
Quote:
The Barkley pick was the time to trade back for a haul and DG blew the second overall pick on a scatback that does not move the chains. He has made some solid draft picks but none of them matter with a weak OL and no pass rush. If he goes for a DB at four he should be fired before second rd pick.
LOL
"scatback that does not move the chains."
I love this place sometimes.
He might have a point.
Those 17 career TD's in two seasons aren't getting us 1st downs!!!
Peter King making two foolish takes above...the unnecessary shot at Gettleman and his salivating over the Seahawks who he is convinced absolutely did the right thing.
With that said, I do think this is a decent year to trade back for the Giants with maybe a small blue-chip draft class but a very strong red-chip group. Further, with the chance that several other teams might be willing to pay a premium to move up to grab a QB we are likely not interested in, and in that fashion we can add multiple players to a weak roster whereas staying and only grabbing one.
We do not know who the Giants will sign in free agency.
What we do know is Gettlemen is not afraid of trading proof being the Vernon/Zeitler trade and the OBJ/ Peppers 1ST AND 3RD trade.
We know he has a brass set of balls in having a conviction on Daniel Jones and so far that seems to be the right selection against what many including myself thought of the pick.
This is a huge offseason for the Giants. They can improve their roster and set up for sustained success if they are smart.
Really the giants only need to accumulate maybe the Williams pick in the third he doesn’t have to trade down besides if the Giants put another 10 rookies on the roster your looking at another top five pick next year , and if you try stashing good players on the practice squad forget about that .....
Quote:
In comment 14817156 averagejoe said:
Quote:
The Barkley pick was the time to trade back for a haul and DG blew the second overall pick on a scatback that does not move the chains. He has made some solid draft picks but none of them matter with a weak OL and no pass rush. If he goes for a DB at four he should be fired before second rd pick.
LOL
"scatback that does not move the chains."
I love this place sometimes.
He might have a point.
Those 17 career TD's in two seasons aren't getting us 1st downs!!!
I realize you are only referring to rushing TD's, but thought it's worth pointing out that when you add in his receiving TD's, he actually has 23 total, in two seasons (29 games). Pretty great for a scatback.
To start, you need someone to trade down with. And what they are offering has to be of equal or greater value. AND, you have to not find good value for those you have pegged at your current position. I could easily see 45 picks going by without those criteria being met.
I think a lot of writers are trying to glom on to the Saquon at #2 decision and using that to take shots at DG. I could be wrong, but these writers do make a living off of site clicks. So until I see a comparable pick history from numerous GM's, not just one cherry picked from Seattle, I will reserve judgment.
Further, should Washington take Young, and Detroit take a non-QB at #3, both of which are possibilities, the chances of a trade down I would think increase significantly. And even if a QB is taken in the #2 or #3 spot, as long as Miami doesn't move up out of #5 before the Giants are on the clock, then the chances of a trade down are still very strong.
I think we Giants' fans are happy with that result for us of the trade UP.
Sometimes more is better. Sometimes one good player is better than 3 bodies.
If the value is there, sure, but it's not always the sure fire slam dunk that fans and dopes like King would have you believe.
The logic is so absolutely stupid. There are a finite number of picks so for every trade down there is a traded up. There are a lot of playoff teams that have traded up to get a QB for example. The eagles have traded down, and up. Complete BS take.
Sometimes more is better. Sometimes one good player is better than 3 bodies.
If the value is there, sure, but it's not always the sure fire slam dunk that fans and dopes like King would have you believe.
You're right, not it's not always a slam dunk. Sometimes trading up is the better move, sometimes staying put is the better move.
But when one GM has never traded down, and one franchise hasn't traded down in the first round in a decade and a half, it's noteworthy. It feels a bit sensationalist to call it negligent, but it's definitely something that may have a correlation to a front office that simply does not pivot especially well.
I love trade downs in theory, but just because someone has never done one doesn't mean that guy is wrong or incompetent or anything else.
I think it's safe to say that if a GM goes 7 years and makes 48 picks without trading down even once, then he doesn't believe in that strategy.
And if you automatically dismiss a strategy that could make your team better, then yes, I agree that it's borderline neglegent.
But after that, most of the talent in any draft is very close in ability and talent. For that super-majority, it then comes down to coaching, team fit, and the player's character.
So unless you have access to that elite pool, it always makes sense to trade down for more. Power in numbers. And hope you get enough good coaching to optimize those players' skills.
The extent of King's research and analysis is reading and repeating whatever is screamed the loudest on bbi.
GiVing Barkley a hole to run through is a barbaric act of terrorism. I haven't quite seen anything like and expect never will again, a guy who routinely breaks long TD every week.
But - I don't think you can go as far as King did unless you see that someone in the same range ended up making a deal that he passed on that materially made their team better. Otherwise, you are just playing revisionist history.
What some of us are concerned about is that he is IGNORANT. Hoe he isn't. But there are signs:
1-- Fighting with the media/ or being a pompous ass in sports -- while in some cases it's cool to do - is overall IGNORANT if you do it frequently and/or continue to lose.
2--- Some of his comments that he's made when he should have just shut the hell up is IGNORANT.
3-- Not a big deal but overall his comments that they hired "Computer guys" - it's not a big deal but he meant more than likely "Analytics." He sounds IGNORANT. I guess "Computer guys" weren't there before? J/K.
4-- I know many on here don;t give a shit about one of his past press conferences but I work in a large company and in a big meeting in front of many guys - if a guy calls out in front of everyone a woman "Honey" he's going to Personnel or maybe get fired. I know he didn't mean it degrading and Kim didn't take it like that. But it's IGNORANT to say it.
5-- As PaulN indicates/implies about DG mentioning that he doesn't pick up the phone - it's a stupid comment and it's a sign of IGNORANCE.
---------------
Overall it means little whether he trades down or not. But imo King might be highlighting this is just another thing to pile on to question if DG is competent. For me I might hate him but I was okay with keeping him. Jones may be the Franchise QB. And I don't even need to see GMEN make the playoffs this year-- just make December football matter. And I don't mean Dec 7th it ends.
There are opportunities here for our potential Franchise QB to impact games as well as our "Gold Jacket RB." There is cap space to get impact defensive players too and early draft picks to boot.
Maybe not. Particularly when you factor in 32 teams with different rating tendencies, risk factors and needs.
But I get where you were going here.
What does he have a stake?
Who holds him accountable for his inaccuracies?
He is doing exactly what he does, writing things to get reaction.
What some of us are concerned about is that he is IGNORANT. Hoe he isn't. But there are signs:
1-- Fighting with the media/ or being a pompous ass in sports -- while in some cases it's cool to do - is overall IGNORANT if you do it frequently and/or continue to lose.
2--- Some of his comments that he's made when he should have just shut the hell up is IGNORANT.
3-- Not a big deal but overall his comments that they hired "Computer guys" - it's not a big deal but he meant more than likely "Analytics." He sounds IGNORANT. I guess "Computer guys" weren't there before? J/K.
4-- I know many on here don;t give a shit about one of his past press conferences but I work in a large company and in a big meeting in front of many guys - if a guy calls out in front of everyone a woman "Honey" he's going to Personnel or maybe get fired. I know he didn't mean it degrading and Kim didn't take it like that. But it's IGNORANT to say it.
5-- As PaulN indicates/implies about DG mentioning that he doesn't pick up the phone - it's a stupid comment and it's a sign of IGNORANCE.
---------------
Overall it means little whether he trades down or not. But imo King might be highlighting this is just another thing to pile on to question if DG is competent. For me I might hate him but I was okay with keeping him. Jones may be the Franchise QB. And I don't even need to see GMEN make the playoffs this year-- just make December football matter. And I don't mean Dec 7th it ends.
There are opportunities here for our potential Franchise QB to impact games as well as our "Gold Jacket RB." There is cap space to get impact defensive players too and early draft picks to boot.
Thank you.
It is safe to say because he hasn't traded down that he doesn't believe in it? What if in 48 picks, he hasn't taken somebody from Texas. Does that mean he's against picking someone from that school? What if in 48 picks, he's only traded up twice? Does he believe in that strategy, or does he only half-heartedly like it?
There are only a handful of tradedowns every draft. If you were to really look at it that way, the sample size of 48 picks really isn't telling you much.
Quote:
have last year? Why would they need to accumulate more?
They left themselves pretty handcuffed for a long stretch between the Baker and Ximines picks, where a number of OL prospects came off the board. And then they only wound up spending one pick on OL, very late and very developmental. Perhaps some additional picks could have been used to maneuver the middle rounds a bit more to pick up an additional OL prospect?
That's a very specific example, but the worst reason to discount the value of additional picks is to count the picks you already have. The only counter argument that really works is considering the cost in trading back to acquire picks comes at the cost of presumably the best prospect in the trade (because if you're trading back, you're giving up the higher pick).
Having plenty of picks already is basically irrelevant if the underlying scenario at that moment still suggests that trading back is the strongest possibility for a successful outcome.
You are right, it’s not a particularly good reason not to trade down, but that said, they made a play for Baker, which may or may not work out. But which offensive lineman would they have drafted to instantly make the offensive line better? Realistically? And please don’t say Orlando. Town JR, who everyone here wouldn’t have touched at the time.
Quote:
I think it's safe to say that if a GM goes 7 years and makes 48 picks without trading down even once, then he doesn't believe in that strategy.
It is safe to say because he hasn't traded down that he doesn't believe in it? What if in 48 picks, he hasn't taken somebody from Texas. Does that mean he's against picking someone from that school? What if in 48 picks, he's only traded up twice? Does he believe in that strategy, or does he only half-heartedly like it?
There are only a handful of tradedowns every draft. If you were to really look at it that way, the sample size of 48 picks really isn't telling you much.
How about belief in the underlying strategy, that the draft is a crapshoot so the more picks you have the better off your team will be? A lot of the comments here assume that a team can do better than other teams in choosing which players are going to be good. That is a losing strategy. Smart teams have figured out that instead of trying 'beat' the system, they should give themselves more shots at picking players.
The Giants need a lot of players to get back in contention. The best way to do that is to have a lot of picks.
My point is, Gettleman has not ever traded down, especially when trading down from 2 seemed to make the most sense. He also traded two picks for 7 game tryout for an interior defensive lineman. He apparently does not treat draft picks the way other, smarter teams do. That is concerning.
The Giants need a lot of players to get back in contention. The best way to do that is to have a lot of picks.
Exactly. And if you are going to continually say that we need to build through the draft - a constant Mara mantra - then do it through quality AND quantity.
Like I said earlier, unless you have access to the elite pool in the draft each year, move down. And then in as many other rounds as you can, move down more.
This team need competition at each position. Plus some layer of depth. So let's start getting as many young players as we can acquire from the draft and the undrafted pool.
Standing pat and just making your predetermined pick is not efficient when you have this many needs.
The extent of King's research and analysis is reading and repeating whatever is screamed the loudest on bbi.
I'm pretty sure they drafted Webb with their own pick in the 3rd round that year. Reese did trade up in that draft though - for Bisnowaty.
I'm also pretty sure that your previous handle used to get the Davis Webb thing wrong frequently also.
If you believe DG when he speaks, he received offers for the #2 pick in 2018.
As for knowing what the offers were, that's a pretty stupid burden of proof to require in order to have a fucking conversation on a message board.
The best times to trade down are when someone overpays you or when you believe that you're going to still get a player of similar value to where you are currently picking.
George Young did not trade down much at all. His comment was that people who trade down are often people who 'can't make decisions'.
Quote:
The Barkley pick was the time to trade back for a haul and DG blew the second overall pick on a scatback that does not move the chains. He has made some solid draft picks but none of them matter with a weak OL and no pass rush. If he goes for a DB at four he should be fired before second rd pick.
LOL
"scatback that does not move the chains."
I love this place sometimes.
Sounds like joe is a little below average.
When the Pats trade down almost every year I'll bet it has absolutely nothing to do with them not being able to make decisions.
That's just a silly reason George Young gave for doing what he wanted to do.
A. passed on a player of need to make the trade
B. did not get what people here think he should have received in return
OR
C. selected players not worthy of trading out of our initial position.
... then DG would be criticized anyway.
Not sure why people always think you are going to get a haul when you trade down.
Quote:
At least DG trades up, what was Reese's first tradeup, Davis Webb? Yeesh.
The extent of King's research and analysis is reading and repeating whatever is screamed the loudest on bbi.
I'm pretty sure they drafted Webb with their own pick in the 3rd round that year. Reese did trade up in that draft though - for Bisnowaty.
I'm also pretty sure that your previous handle used to get the Davis Webb thing wrong frequently also.
Right position, wrong player. Reese traded up for Ryan Nassib in 2013 4th round.
he also traded up for Ramses Barden in 2009.
maybe more.
This means that trading down incurs greater risk.
With greater risk should come a premium for taking on that risk. However, exacting that premium requires negotiating skills.
So effectively trading down requires the guts to take the risk and the skills to make the appropriate deal. If you don't have those traits or the confidence that you have them, trading down may be too much you...
Quote:
And if so, what those offers were?
If you believe DG when he speaks, he received offers for the #2 pick in 2018.
As for knowing what the offers were, that's a pretty stupid burden of proof to require in order to have a fucking conversation on a message board.
LOL...Do you realize how stupid you sound if you're sitting here arguing that now knowing the offers has nothing to do with the claim he just won't trade down?
Seriously, what if he was offered crap and didn't do it? That doesn't come into play? This is basic common sense to want to know what was offered for the trade down in order to judge if it was legit or not. Unless of course, you have an agenda on here to dog the guy.
Basing any opinion on if he was wrong for not doing something ALWAYS involves understanding what were the terms
OfC we have to know the definition of "TRIED."
Because we've heard similar stories for example regarding the trade of Beckham in which there was the possibility that we could've gotten more from San Fran per the links below.
https://giantswire.usatoday.com/2019/04/08/49ers-stunned-new-york-giants-didnt-let-them-up-odell-beckham-offer/
https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/nfl-rumors-giants-gm-didnt-shop-browns-odell-beckham-trade-offer-49ers
So while you seem resigned to the fact that "DG will get criticized anyways"
This is just another example of potential IGNORANCE by DG by not taking an additional step that any idiot can do some further due diligence while some DG supporters on here will hide behind the words that he "TRIED." I'm not saying the articles are right or wrong. Just there is concern with DG unlike some here who continue to bury their heads in the sand.
Quote:
In comment 14817488 montanagiant said:
Quote:
And if so, what those offers were?
If you believe DG when he speaks, he received offers for the #2 pick in 2018.
As for knowing what the offers were, that's a pretty stupid burden of proof to require in order to have a fucking conversation on a message board.
LOL...Do you realize how stupid you sound if you're sitting here arguing that now knowing the offers has nothing to do with the claim he just won't trade down?
Seriously, what if he was offered crap and didn't do it? That doesn't come into play? This is basic common sense to want to know what was offered for the trade down in order to judge if it was legit or not. Unless of course, you have an agenda on here to dog the guy.
Basing any opinion on if he was wrong for not doing something ALWAYS involves understanding what were the terms
For christs sakes montana, do you know how many times I have posted this...
[url]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj24qGepeznAhULheAKHTdOA44QFjAAegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sny.tv%2Fgiants%2Fnews%2Fgettleman-admits-he-received-one-very-reasonable-offer-for-no-2-pick%2F274562184&usg=AOvVaw2iX94YR61--Dajw6oxpZ8J[/url]
So Gettleman himself says it was credible... And he chose *NOT* to chase it down with further negotiations.
Actually he said "reasonable"
Really? What are the odds that in seven drafts, no team ever made an offer of this type to Gettleman?
It's perfectly fine to have a philosophy that favors trading up over trading down. It doesn't mean you never trade down, it just limits the circumstances in which you would find such an offer in the best interest of your team.
The circumstances surrounding the 4th pick in 2020 are very different than the circumstances surrounding the 2nd pick in 2018. How many of you would be clamoring to trade down if Chase Young is still available at pick #4?
It's perfectly fine to have a philosophy that favors trading up over trading down. It doesn't mean you never trade down, it just limits the circumstances in which you would find such an offer in the best interest of your team.
The circumstances surrounding the 4th pick in 2020 are very different than the circumstances surrounding the 2nd pick in 2018. How many of you would be clamoring to trade down if Chase Young is still available at pick #4?
It depends why he's still available, doesn't it.
Quote:
...doesn't make it an offer that it's the best interest of your team. Someone could give you a reasonable offer for your car or house, it doesn't mean you sell it to them.
It's perfectly fine to have a philosophy that favors trading up over trading down. It doesn't mean you never trade down, it just limits the circumstances in which you would find such an offer in the best interest of your team.
The circumstances surrounding the 4th pick in 2020 are very different than the circumstances surrounding the 2nd pick in 2018. How many of you would be clamoring to trade down if Chase Young is still available at pick #4?
It depends why he's still available, doesn't it.
Quote:
In comment 14817898 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14817488 montanagiant said:
Quote:
And if so, what those offers were?
If you believe DG when he speaks, he received offers for the #2 pick in 2018.
As for knowing what the offers were, that's a pretty stupid burden of proof to require in order to have a fucking conversation on a message board.
LOL...Do you realize how stupid you sound if you're sitting here arguing that now knowing the offers has nothing to do with the claim he just won't trade down?
Seriously, what if he was offered crap and didn't do it? That doesn't come into play? This is basic common sense to want to know what was offered for the trade down in order to judge if it was legit or not. Unless of course, you have an agenda on here to dog the guy.
Basing any opinion on if he was wrong for not doing something ALWAYS involves understanding what were the terms
For christs sakes montana, do you know how many times I have posted this...
[url]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj24qGepeznAhULheAKHTdOA44QFjAAegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sny.tv%2Fgiants%2Fnews%2Fgettleman-admits-he-received-one-very-reasonable-offer-for-no-2-pick%2F274562184&usg=AOvVaw2iX94YR61--Dajw6oxpZ8J[/url]
So Gettleman himself says it was credible... And he chose *NOT* to chase it down with further negotiations.
So out of 48 picks we have ONE time he refused to trade down because he wanted Barkley...The horror of it all!
Quote:
In comment 14818082 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 14817898 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14817488 montanagiant said:
Quote:
And if so, what those offers were?
If you believe DG when he speaks, he received offers for the #2 pick in 2018.
As for knowing what the offers were, that's a pretty stupid burden of proof to require in order to have a fucking conversation on a message board.
LOL...Do you realize how stupid you sound if you're sitting here arguing that now knowing the offers has nothing to do with the claim he just won't trade down?
Seriously, what if he was offered crap and didn't do it? That doesn't come into play? This is basic common sense to want to know what was offered for the trade down in order to judge if it was legit or not. Unless of course, you have an agenda on here to dog the guy.
Basing any opinion on if he was wrong for not doing something ALWAYS involves understanding what were the terms
For christs sakes montana, do you know how many times I have posted this...
[url]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj24qGepeznAhULheAKHTdOA44QFjAAegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sny.tv%2Fgiants%2Fnews%2Fgettleman-admits-he-received-one-very-reasonable-offer-for-no-2-pick%2F274562184&usg=AOvVaw2iX94YR61--Dajw6oxpZ8J[/url]
So Gettleman himself says it was credible... And he chose *NOT* to chase it down with further negotiations.
So out of 48 picks we have ONE time he refused to trade down because he wanted Barkley...The horror of it all!
That's one documented time, right? I think it's reasonable that he probably has received offers multiple times - it feels farfetched to think that he has never gotten a viable offer except for this one time.
But I also think DG's POV is pretty clear in that article - once he has zeroed in on a target for a particular pick, he seems to have a tough time reconciling the value of the trade if it means losing out on that player. And I assume that means that his asking price goes up as his attachment to the player he's about to draft grows.
That seems to me like a fairly normal human response to that sort of situation, so I can't kill DG for it, although I would always prefer if my chief negotiator truly did approach everything in purely implied value terms and didn't allow himself to personalize any aspect of it. That's asking a lot though, and I need to do a better job of not criticizing DG for things that the majority of people would be guilty of as well, myself included at times.
Certainly. And all attractive offers are viable but not necessarily vice versa (like squares and rectangles). I find it hard to believe that DG has never received an offer that, objectively, some would find to be to his advantage. I simply suspect that the price tag that he assigns to meet that "advantageous" threshold probably tends to increase as he locks in on a particular target. And I say that fully aware that I am trying to reconcile a single fact (that DG has never traded down) in absence of very few other supporting facts (not knowing what the offers were, only knowing of one documented "reasonable offer," and expanding upon the POV that DG mentioned in that article).
It's hardly the pinnacle of deductive reasoning.
So out of 48 picks we have ONE time he refused to trade down because he wanted Barkley...The horror of it all!
Just to be clear on this...
YOU were the one who was calling Gatorade Dunk stupid because he didn't know the details... However the article makes it clear in Gettleman's own words that he wasn't offerred "crap", as you put it, he indeed received a "very reasonable" offer. In the presser after the pick, Gettleman himself said he CHOSE not to follow up on any offers.
I am just pointing out the facts in a case where you were calling another poster stupid. I am not trying say anything in particular about Gettleman's state of mind for his other 47 picks. Nor am I predicting what he will do in April.
That said, I know GD has seen that article before because we've been involved in discussions where I had to post it then as well. So, GD is well aware of the facts, and clearly you were not.
That is all..
However the article makes it clear in Gettleman's own words that he wasn't offerred "crap", as you put it, he indeed received a "very reasonable" offer. In the presser after the pick, Gettleman himself said he CHOSE not to follow up on any offers.
.
McL - keep in mind that Gettleman gets caught saying a lot questionable things as is nature to be a little mouthy.
With that, the offer he received may have been indeed crap but he didn't want to keep shitting on the other GM that offered it so he softened his wording to "very reasonable" for this quote. And left it with he didn't follow up.
Since we don't/won't know, its all supposition.
Quote:
So out of 48 picks we have ONE time he refused to trade down because he wanted Barkley...The horror of it all!
Just to be clear on this...
YOU were the one who was calling Gatorade Dunk stupid because he didn't know the details... However the article makes it clear in Gettleman's own words that he wasn't offerred "crap", as you put it, he indeed received a "very reasonable" offer. In the presser after the pick, Gettleman himself said he CHOSE not to follow up on any offers.
I am just pointing out the facts in a case where you were calling another poster stupid. I am not trying say anything in particular about Gettleman's state of mind for his other 47 picks. Nor am I predicting what he will do in April.
That said, I know GD has seen that article before because we've been involved in discussions where I had to post it then as well. So, GD is well aware of the facts, and clearly you were not.
That is all..
No Ace, HE was the one who said having that info is a stupid burden of proof. I pointed out not to have that proof is stupid to make any claim that he's done a crappy job at not trading back.
And if you actually took the time to read what I wrote I never said he was offered crap, I said what if? Those are the aspects to this dumb argument that have to be known in order to state he's been negligent or good as a GM on draft day when it comes to trading back.
If you can't understand that basic logic then God help you
Quote:
In comment 14818276 montanagiant said:
Quote:
So out of 48 picks we have ONE time he refused to trade down because he wanted Barkley...The horror of it all!
Just to be clear on this...
YOU were the one who was calling Gatorade Dunk stupid because he didn't know the details... However the article makes it clear in Gettleman's own words that he wasn't offerred "crap", as you put it, he indeed received a "very reasonable" offer. In the presser after the pick, Gettleman himself said he CHOSE not to follow up on any offers.
I am just pointing out the facts in a case where you were calling another poster stupid. I am not trying say anything in particular about Gettleman's state of mind for his other 47 picks. Nor am I predicting what he will do in April.
That said, I know GD has seen that article before because we've been involved in discussions where I had to post it then as well. So, GD is well aware of the facts, and clearly you were not.
That is all..
No Ace, HE was the one who said having that info is a stupid burden of proof. I pointed out not to have that proof is stupid to make any claim that he's done a crappy job at not trading back.
And if you actually took the time to read what I wrote I never said he was offered crap, I said what if? Those are the aspects to this dumb argument that have to be known in order to state he's been negligent or good as a GM on draft day when it comes to trading back.
If you can't understand that basic logic then God help you
Unfortunately for you, I am not the one in need of God's help...
So what if you said "what if he was offered crap"... That is dumb because by his own admission, we know he was not offered crap. So your hypothetical is immediately subverted.
Also, of course we will never know the exact offer, that *IS* a stupid burden of proof. However, we know enough... We know by GD's own admission that it was very reasonable.
Those are simple facts, undisputed by Gettleman himself.
Beyond that I make no further claims.
Yes Dunk did extrapolate further, but he was also careful to say that what he was doing was flimsy at best. But you were calling him stupid, not so much for his conclusion, but even for the exercise saying he didn't know that the offer wasn't crap... In fact, at least Dunk knew that the offer wasn't crap as you were hypothesizing. ONLY you suggested that, ONLY you seem to be unaware of Gettleman's admissions.
You should be more careful telling others *THEY* sound stupid.
That is all..
Quote:
However the article makes it clear in Gettleman's own words that he wasn't offerred "crap", as you put it, he indeed received a "very reasonable" offer. In the presser after the pick, Gettleman himself said he CHOSE not to follow up on any offers.
.
McL - keep in mind that Gettleman gets caught saying a lot questionable things as is nature to be a little mouthy.
With that, the offer he received may have been indeed crap but he didn't want to keep shitting on the other GM that offered it so he softened his wording to "very reasonable" for this quote. And left it with he didn't follow up.
Since we don't/won't know, its all supposition.
Yeah... I don't think so this time. When Gettleman isn't being a buffoon, he speak with quite a lot of candor. This seemed like a moment of candor. Plus it was amid reports that there were multiple credible offers, and he was starting to get some heat. When he gets heat, he tends to stop the blustering.
I have to say I strongly believe him this time.
Let's see here:
1) We don't know how many trade back offers were made to him.
2) We don't know how many were reasonable offers
3) The one he mentions that was reasonable involves a generational player which usually means it needs to be a great offer.
4) The ONLY fact we have is that he claimed that a reasonable offer for the 2nd pick was offered to him.
And yet, you're going to sit here and dog the guy because of that one single time where he chooses to get a can't miss player at a position of need instead of taking a reasonable offer (We still don't even know what the offer is. That is absurd on yours and Peter Kings part to even offer this up as any kind of an argument against DG.
Quote:
In comment 14818529 .McL. said:
Quote:
However the article makes it clear in Gettleman's own words that he wasn't offerred "crap", as you put it, he indeed received a "very reasonable" offer. In the presser after the pick, Gettleman himself said he CHOSE not to follow up on any offers.
.
McL - keep in mind that Gettleman gets caught saying a lot questionable things as is nature to be a little mouthy.
With that, the offer he received may have been indeed crap but he didn't want to keep shitting on the other GM that offered it so he softened his wording to "very reasonable" for this quote. And left it with he didn't follow up.
Since we don't/won't know, its all supposition.
Yeah... I don't think so this time. When Gettleman isn't being a buffoon, he speak with quite a lot of candor. This seemed like a moment of candor. Plus it was amid reports that there were multiple credible offers, and he was starting to get some heat. When he gets heat, he tends to stop the blustering.
I have to say I strongly believe him this time.
But you don't really know do you?
LMAO...This is too funny
Mahomes went to a very ideal situation. This wasn't an Andrew Luck miss.
Wouldn't be quite what he is regarded today anywhere outside KC. Chicago, even SF who could have drafted him easily.
Mahomes is a good QB, but KC was perfect fit. Reid as OC, those weapons, a year redshirting....
Alex Smith's final season there was best of his career, and then his #s with the Skins and last year 49ers were worse than that.
Quote:
In comment 14818545 LBH15 said:
Quote:
In comment 14818529 .McL. said:
Quote:
However the article makes it clear in Gettleman's own words that he wasn't offerred "crap", as you put it, he indeed received a "very reasonable" offer. In the presser after the pick, Gettleman himself said he CHOSE not to follow up on any offers.
.
McL - keep in mind that Gettleman gets caught saying a lot questionable things as is nature to be a little mouthy.
With that, the offer he received may have been indeed crap but he didn't want to keep shitting on the other GM that offered it so he softened his wording to "very reasonable" for this quote. And left it with he didn't follow up.
Since we don't/won't know, its all supposition.
Yeah... I don't think so this time. When Gettleman isn't being a buffoon, he speak with quite a lot of candor. This seemed like a moment of candor. Plus it was amid reports that there were multiple credible offers, and he was starting to get some heat. When he gets heat, he tends to stop the blustering.
I have to say I strongly believe him this time.
But you don't really know do you?
LMAO...This is too funny
If we can only post about the things we know, this board would cease to exist. You do understand the point of a message board, right?
Let's see here:
1) We don't know how many trade back offers were made to him.
2) We don't know how many were reasonable offers
3) The one he mentions that was reasonable involves a generational player which usually means it needs to be a great offer.
4) The ONLY fact we have is that he claimed that a reasonable offer for the 2nd pick was offered to him.
And yet, you're going to sit here and dog the guy because of that one single time where he chooses to get a can't miss player at a position of need instead of taking a reasonable offer (We still don't even know what the offer is. That is absurd on yours and Peter Kings part to even offer this up as any kind of an argument against DG.
I'm gonna dog him because he's a mediocre GM. This just happens to be the topic of this thread.
I was right about the alphabet soup dupe from last night, wasn't I? You should try taking my word for things more often even when it makes you uncomfortable.
Quote:
Now claiming because he mentioned that he had one reasonable offer that means you can extrapolate that out of the 47 other draft picks that may have involved getting offered a trade-down were all reasonable offers?
Let's see here:
1) We don't know how many trade back offers were made to him.
2) We don't know how many were reasonable offers
3) The one he mentions that was reasonable involves a generational player which usually means it needs to be a great offer.
4) The ONLY fact we have is that he claimed that a reasonable offer for the 2nd pick was offered to him.
And yet, you're going to sit here and dog the guy because of that one single time where he chooses to get a can't miss player at a position of need instead of taking a reasonable offer (We still don't even know what the offer is. That is absurd on yours and Peter Kings part to even offer this up as any kind of an argument against DG.
I'm gonna dog him because he's a mediocre GM. This just happens to be the topic of this thread.
I was right about the alphabet soup dupe from last night, wasn't I? You should try taking my word for things more often even when it makes you uncomfortable.
Believe me, there is plenty of stuff to dog him over. This just isn't one of them based on the evidence we completely lack
Let's see here:
1) We don't know how many trade back offers were made to him.
2) We don't know how many were reasonable offers
3) The one he mentions that was reasonable involves a generational player which usually means it needs to be a great offer.
4) The ONLY fact we have is that he claimed that a reasonable offer for the 2nd pick was offered to him.
And yet, you're going to sit here and dog the guy because of that one single time where he chooses to get a can't miss player at a position of need instead of taking a reasonable offer (We still don't even know what the offer is. That is absurd on yours and Peter Kings part to even offer this up as any kind of an argument against DG.
You seem to completely missing the fact that I'm not extrapolating anything.
I'm not making any statements whatsoever about whether DG will or will not trade down.
You on the other had called another poster stupid for not know that the offer wasn't crap. Well according to Dave and public reporting, the offer wasn't crap.
Just stating facts, nothing more...
Quote:
In comment 14818754 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 14818545 LBH15 said:
Quote:
In comment 14818529 .McL. said:
Quote:
However the article makes it clear in Gettleman's own words that he wasn't offerred "crap", as you put it, he indeed received a "very reasonable" offer. In the presser after the pick, Gettleman himself said he CHOSE not to follow up on any offers.
.
McL - keep in mind that Gettleman gets caught saying a lot questionable things as is nature to be a little mouthy.
With that, the offer he received may have been indeed crap but he didn't want to keep shitting on the other GM that offered it so he softened his wording to "very reasonable" for this quote. And left it with he didn't follow up.
Since we don't/won't know, its all supposition.
Yeah... I don't think so this time. When Gettleman isn't being a buffoon, he speak with quite a lot of candor. This seemed like a moment of candor. Plus it was amid reports that there were multiple credible offers, and he was starting to get some heat. When he gets heat, he tends to stop the blustering.
I have to say I strongly believe him this time.
But you don't really know do you?
LMAO...This is too funny
If we can only post about the things we know, this board would cease to exist. You do understand the point of a message board, right?
LOL...Wait a minute didn't you just yesterday bitch some guy out for making an OP that differs from your beliefs? You claim he was a dupe (with zero proof) and claimed his OP was not worth signing up on BBI to post.
You do understand the point of a message board, right?
And by the way, where did I say he shouldn't post? What is it with you two and the lack of reading comprehension?
Quote:
In comment 14818545 LBH15 said:
Quote:
In comment 14818529 .McL. said:
Quote:
However the article makes it clear in Gettleman's own words that he wasn't offerred "crap", as you put it, he indeed received a "very reasonable" offer. In the presser after the pick, Gettleman himself said he CHOSE not to follow up on any offers.
.
McL - keep in mind that Gettleman gets caught saying a lot questionable things as is nature to be a little mouthy.
With that, the offer he received may have been indeed crap but he didn't want to keep shitting on the other GM that offered it so he softened his wording to "very reasonable" for this quote. And left it with he didn't follow up.
Since we don't/won't know, its all supposition.
Yeah... I don't think so this time. When Gettleman isn't being a buffoon, he speak with quite a lot of candor. This seemed like a moment of candor. Plus it was amid reports that there were multiple credible offers, and he was starting to get some heat. When he gets heat, he tends to stop the blustering.
I have to say I strongly believe him this time.
But you don't really know do you?
LMAO...This is too funny
So you are staking a claim that you were or were not a dick for calling Gatorade Dunk stupid on whether or not we should Gettleman was lying about receiving a "very reasonable" offer.
OKEY DOKEY then...
Why is this so damn hard for you to comprehend?
Quote:
In comment 14818873 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 14818754 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 14818545 LBH15 said:
Quote:
In comment 14818529 .McL. said:
Quote:
However the article makes it clear in Gettleman's own words that he wasn't offerred "crap", as you put it, he indeed received a "very reasonable" offer. In the presser after the pick, Gettleman himself said he CHOSE not to follow up on any offers.
.
McL - keep in mind that Gettleman gets caught saying a lot questionable things as is nature to be a little mouthy.
With that, the offer he received may have been indeed crap but he didn't want to keep shitting on the other GM that offered it so he softened his wording to "very reasonable" for this quote. And left it with he didn't follow up.
Since we don't/won't know, its all supposition.
Yeah... I don't think so this time. When Gettleman isn't being a buffoon, he speak with quite a lot of candor. This seemed like a moment of candor. Plus it was amid reports that there were multiple credible offers, and he was starting to get some heat. When he gets heat, he tends to stop the blustering.
I have to say I strongly believe him this time.
But you don't really know do you?
LMAO...This is too funny
If we can only post about the things we know, this board would cease to exist. You do understand the point of a message board, right?
LOL...Wait a minute didn't you just yesterday bitch some guy out for making an OP that differs from your beliefs? You claim he was a dupe (with zero proof) and claimed his OP was not worth signing up on BBI to post.
You do understand the point of a message board, right?
And by the way, where did I say he shouldn't post? What is it with you two and the lack of reading comprehension?
He got banned today.
Like I said, you should take my word for it.
No, the KVRHoljlfkasdl-90u guy.
But your victory lap about Jimmy was definitely your crowing achievement. Well done. You should be proud.
Quote:
LOL
No, the KVRHoljlfkasdl-90u guy.
But your victory lap about Jimmy was definitely your crowing achievement. Well done. You should be proud.
I was, I predicted it 2 weeks ago...It was inevitable that putz's time on here was limited
Quote:
Now claiming because he mentioned that he had one reasonable offer that means you can extrapolate that out of the 47 other draft picks that may have involved getting offered a trade-down were all reasonable offers?
Let's see here:
1) We don't know how many trade back offers were made to him.
2) We don't know how many were reasonable offers
3) The one he mentions that was reasonable involves a generational player which usually means it needs to be a great offer.
4) The ONLY fact we have is that he claimed that a reasonable offer for the 2nd pick was offered to him.
And yet, you're going to sit here and dog the guy because of that one single time where he chooses to get a can't miss player at a position of need instead of taking a reasonable offer (We still don't even know what the offer is. That is absurd on yours and Peter Kings part to even offer this up as any kind of an argument against DG.
You seem to completely missing the fact that I'm not extrapolating anything.
I'm not making any statements whatsoever about whether DG will or will not trade down.
You on the other had called another poster stupid for not know that the offer wasn't crap. Well according to Dave and public reporting, the offer wasn't crap.
Just stating facts, nothing more...
No, it was for not knowing if ANY of the trade back offers were crap or if they were "reasonable", not just the Barkley one. But you keep hanging your hat on that ONE trade back offer without knowing squat about any other ones. I understand, it's an extremely weak argument but it's all you have.
Quote:
In comment 14819046 montanagiant said:
Quote:
LOL
No, the KVRHoljlfkasdl-90u guy.
But your victory lap about Jimmy was definitely your crowing achievement. Well done. You should be proud.
I was, I predicted it 2 weeks ago...It was inevitable that putz's time on here was limited
He was here for years. When you become a true dupe-spotting Jedi, you can peg them within three days.
Quote:
In comment 14818871 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Now claiming because he mentioned that he had one reasonable offer that means you can extrapolate that out of the 47 other draft picks that may have involved getting offered a trade-down were all reasonable offers?
Let's see here:
1) We don't know how many trade back offers were made to him.
2) We don't know how many were reasonable offers
3) The one he mentions that was reasonable involves a generational player which usually means it needs to be a great offer.
4) The ONLY fact we have is that he claimed that a reasonable offer for the 2nd pick was offered to him.
And yet, you're going to sit here and dog the guy because of that one single time where he chooses to get a can't miss player at a position of need instead of taking a reasonable offer (We still don't even know what the offer is. That is absurd on yours and Peter Kings part to even offer this up as any kind of an argument against DG.
You seem to completely missing the fact that I'm not extrapolating anything.
I'm not making any statements whatsoever about whether DG will or will not trade down.
You on the other had called another poster stupid for not know that the offer wasn't crap. Well according to Dave and public reporting, the offer wasn't crap.
Just stating facts, nothing more...
No, it was for not knowing if ANY of the trade back offers were crap or if they were "reasonable", not just the Barkley one. But you keep hanging your hat on that ONE trade back offer without knowing squat about any other ones. I understand, it's an extremely weak argument but it's all you have.
It's a weak argument to extrapolate. It's even weaker to ignore Occam's Razor and assume that which you don't know for certain must not have happened at all. It's got a tinge of flat-earther to it, but maybe that's on brand for you, I don't know.
What if it 10 offers for trading back and 4 were decent offers but he instead stayed put and drafted Connerly, Slayton, Hernandez, Barkley, and Lawrence? Was that a bad move on his part? No.
What if it was 20 times and he could have gotten some true top-shelf talent with the trade backs? Was that wrong on his part? Hell yeah.
Without the facts regarding what and how many offers he received over those 48 picks it's dumb to claim he did a bad job. This is simple logic and rational here
It's a weak argument to extrapolate. It's even weaker to ignore Occam's Razor and assume that which you don't know for certain must not have happened at all. It's got a tinge of flat-earther to it, but maybe that's on brand for you, I don't know.
Whoa buddy, leave us flat-earthers outta this!
What happened?
What happened?
Probably took on someone with the Thin Skinners, made the Thin Skinner uncomfortable, and then that Thin Skinner went to the BBI Gestapo. And begged for retribution.
What if it 10 offers for trading back and 4 were decent offers but he instead stayed put and drafted Connerly, Slayton, Hernandez, Barkley, and Lawrence? Was that a bad move on his part? No.
What if it was 20 times and he could have gotten some true top-shelf talent with the trade backs? Was that wrong on his part? Hell yeah.
Without the facts regarding what and how many offers he received over those 48 picks it's dumb to claim he did a bad job. This is simple logic and rational here
Right. Without an abundance of evidence, you can't logically deduce anything. Like I said, flat earth.
Quote:
Without knowing how many and what the offers were you can't sit here and claim he's a shitty GM for not trading back.
What if it 10 offers for trading back and 4 were decent offers but he instead stayed put and drafted Connerly, Slayton, Hernandez, Barkley, and Lawrence? Was that a bad move on his part? No.
What if it was 20 times and he could have gotten some true top-shelf talent with the trade backs? Was that wrong on his part? Hell yeah.
Without the facts regarding what and how many offers he received over those 48 picks it's dumb to claim he did a bad job. This is simple logic and rational here
Right. Without an abundance of evidence, you can't logically deduce anything. Like I said, flat earth.
You don't even need an abundance, you just need a decent sample size and 1 out of 48 is the poorest sample size you could ask for
Quote:
In comment 14819116 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Without knowing how many and what the offers were you can't sit here and claim he's a shitty GM for not trading back.
What if it 10 offers for trading back and 4 were decent offers but he instead stayed put and drafted Connerly, Slayton, Hernandez, Barkley, and Lawrence? Was that a bad move on his part? No.
What if it was 20 times and he could have gotten some true top-shelf talent with the trade backs? Was that wrong on his part? Hell yeah.
Without the facts regarding what and how many offers he received over those 48 picks it's dumb to claim he did a bad job. This is simple logic and rational here
Right. Without an abundance of evidence, you can't logically deduce anything. Like I said, flat earth.
You don't even need an abundance, you just need a decent sample size and 1 out of 48 is the poorest sample size you could ask for
I understand what you're saying, but again, your burden of proof makes a conversation completely impossible on this topic (which may or may not be your intent). You simply do not hear about the trades that don't get made. You don't hear about the offers that don't get accepted. And you sure as hell don't hear about the phone calls that don't get answered. That doesn't mean none of those things happen simply because they don't get reported. No one has reported what DG has eaten at any point in 2020. By your standard, it would seem that we should take that to mean that he hasn't eaten in 2020.
DG has made plenty of casual references over his time here that suggest that he doesn't always feel the need to even engage in trade talks during the draft. If that's the case, he's doing the team a disservice to not at least explore every option. But DG also says a lot of things that may simply be hyperbole because he tends to be a blowhard.
And I get it, that's another unknown, but that's the point of the debate. I suppose we're probably at an impasse either way because you believe DG is doing a good job and I do not. But I'm hopeful that Judge can institute a different process for doing things that offers more self-evaluation than this front office has done in several years, across multiple GM tenures.
So what if he was offered a reasonable trade-down when you have a player like SB there. Reasonable is not going to get it done, it would have to be a great offer.
The point here is that King basis his weak argument on zero facts. That is hacky sportswriter crap on the same level as Lombardo and completely unfair to DG
This is quite different though than debating whether staying at #2 and picking running back was optimum path.
This is quite different though than debating whether staying at #2 and picking running back was optimum path.
For a team needing a whole lot of restructuring, albeit DG didn't see it that way at the time.
Quote:
argue potential trade down deal with knowing terms, even somewhat.
This is quite different though than debating whether staying at #2 and picking running back was optimum path.
For a team needing a whole lot of restructuring, albeit DG didn't see it that way at the time.
I 100% agree with that. That is a completely valid debate and in hindsight maybe the better move would have been to trade down