|
|
|
| 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. |
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?