If we moved from 11 to 7 because we are convinced Smith is the key to unlocking our offense paired with Golladay what would it cost?
Yesterday’s trade from 12 to 6 between the Eagles and Dolphins involved a swap of a 4th and 5th this year and next years first rounder. That was a 6 spot jump in the first.
This hypothetical trade would be 4 spots. What would that cost using yesterday’s trade as a comp? Maybe just next years first? Or maybe a swap of a third and a fourth this year and a second rounder next year?
Are we going to air it out 40x a game - if so, yes we need play makers everywhere. But then we should trade Barkley - because as great as he is, whats the point if he is only going to touch the ball 12-15x a game? We can get the same type of production with an above average back.
Or are we a run team that hits the play action - in which case I think Golladay was necessary to keep them honest but adding Smith feels like we are flooring it while we are throwing a match on a fire. Does it really make a difference relative to his draft position? I dont think so, not if SB is the focal point.
Standard Trade Value Chart
7th Pick = 1,500 Points
11th Pick = 1,250 Points
Differential is 250 Points which is equivalent to the 4th pick in Round Three (#68.)
So, at minimum, we would have to surrender our 3rd pick, and probably a late rounder this year or next.
Chase will probably be gone early and Pitts is a hot commodity. WRs like Smith and Waddle are available every year and bigger guys are available.
So the only guy worth moving up for is Pitts and he is the guy everyone hoped Engram would be.
The value for the Giants is to trade back....but looks like all QBs will be gone...so not sure a trading partner will be found
The Giants took Shane Lemieux last year, who lined up right next to Sewell at LG. Something tells me they've been scouting Sewell pretty hard.
For a fun highlight reel - check out the below. I can't say I like him more than Quenton Nelson, but right behind him. Remarkably quick and explosive out of his stance. Moves like a bear.
The Most Dominant College O-Lineman of the Decade - ( New Window )
that's why it actually does make sense to trade downward -- but at the very least don't loose any picks
the only reason to trade up in round on eis for a qb - and that's not our need this year
The Giants took Shane Lemieux last year, who lined up right next to Sewell at LG. Something tells me they've been scouting Sewell pretty hard.
For a fun highlight reel - check out the below. I can't say I like him more than Quenton Nelson, but right behind him. Remarkably quick and explosive out of his stance. Moves like a bear. The Most Dominant College O-Lineman of the Decade - ( New Window )
Robert Gallery
I think so too. Especially if Surtain isn’t there at 11. We need an Edge and none of the Edge prospects are that highly rated.
Are we going to air it out 40x a game - if so, yes we need play makers everywhere. But then we should trade Barkley - because as great as he is, whats the point if he is only going to touch the ball 12-15x a game? We can get the same type of production with an above average back.
Or are we a run team that hits the play action - in which case I think Golladay was necessary to keep them honest but adding Smith feels like we are flooring it while we are throwing a match on a fire. Does it really make a difference relative to his draft position? I dont think so, not if SB is the focal point.
There will be no airing anything 40 times a game with this O line.Get real.
Quote:
Smith isn't worth it; and, as others have mentioned, we need to accumulate more picks, not have less.
We need to accumulate more playmakers, not more picks. They need to do what their draft board tells them to do based on the grades they've given the prospects. Trading up or down has nothing to do with your current roster, it's all about the prospects that are available.
Agreed Milton. That’s kind of what I was hinting at with this post. If they value a player as being the next “Harrison”, “Rice”, “Alworth”, etc. no one will care in a few years that you traded up to get them. I have a feeling about Smith because of the rumors we have heard and Judge’s Alabama connection. We’ll see how it all goes down. While I am not saying hell yeah, let’s trade up, I also would understand if they did.
I don't think I want Devonta "No Quads" Smith even if he's there at #11.
I hope Pitts (unlikely) or Surtain are still there when the Giants pick at #11. No low floor / higher risk picks at #11.
I don't think I want Devonta "No Quads" Smith even if he's there at #11.
I hope Pitts (unlikely) or Surtain are still there when the Giants pick at #11. No low floor / higher risk picks at #11.
Not a huge fan of taking a corner at 11. We have Bradberry, Jackson, Holmes, Yiadom, and Love under contract. I get there are injuries but that’s probably one of the deepest corner groups in the league as is. We need a playmaker at 11 in a bad way.
What a stupid old non-factual take
Quote:
Gettleman couldn't figure out how to trade down when 2 qbs were taken right after us and our targeted pick was going to be available 5-10 picks later. DG is picking his guy at 11 and that's it.
What a stupid old non-factual take
Agreed. I’m assuming this is in reference to last years draft? The Dolphins and Chargers both knew we were not taking QB and neither seemed to value Herbert or Tua more than the other based on their behavior. There was really no trade to be made.
Quote:
Smith isn't worth it; and, as others have mentioned, we need to accumulate more picks, not have less.
We need to accumulate more playmakers, not more picks. They need to do what their draft board tells them to do based on the grades they've given the prospects. Trading up or down has nothing to do with your current roster, it's all about the prospects that are available.
We have Golladay, Barkley, Shepherd, Rudolph, Slayton and Engram. If Jones is indeed the right solution at QB that should be more than enough playmakers.
We need a better wall, or more picks to increase the chances of finding more and better players.
Quote:
In comment 15199808 bw in dc said:
Quote:
Smith isn't worth it; and, as others have mentioned, we need to accumulate more picks, not have less.
We need to accumulate more playmakers, not more picks. They need to do what their draft board tells them to do based on the grades they've given the prospects. Trading up or down has nothing to do with your current roster, it's all about the prospects that are available.
We have Golladay, Barkley, Shepherd, Rudolph, Slayton and Engram. If Jones is indeed the right solution at QB that should be more than enough playmakers.
We need a better wall, or more picks to increase the chances of finding more and better players.
Never enough playmakers. Could be Smith, Waddle, Pitts. Could be Surtain, Parsons...