for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

The Athletic: Some possible trade packages with a trade back

Big Blue '56 : 4/13/2021 7:31 am
Assuming who they want isn’t there at 11:

Duggan:


Quote:


Using past trades as a guide, here are five potential deals the Giants could make if they trade back from No. 11:

1. There aren’t any examples of a team trading back from No. 11 in the past 10 years, but there’s a very close parallel for a potential Patriots-Giants swap for a quarterback in the recent past. The Raiders traded the 10th pick in 2018 to the Cardinals in exchange for the 15th pick, a third-round pick (No. 79) and a fifth-round pick (No. 152). Arizona then selected Josh Rosen, who was the fourth quarterback off the board. The Raiders picked left tackle Kolton Miller at No. 15.


Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15, a third-round pick (96) and a fourth-round pick (139); Patriots get No. 11



2. A similar trade occurred in 2011 when Washington sent the 10th pick to the Jaguars for the 16th pick and a second-round pick (No. 49). The Jaguars moved up for Blaine Gabbert, who was the third quarterback selected. Washington picked defensive end Ryan Kerrigan at No. 16.


Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15 and a second-round pick (46); Patriots get No. 11 and a fourth-round pick (116)



3. Trades involving quarterbacks tend to raise the stakes, but here’s another data point from the 2012 draft for consideration: The Seahawks traded the 12th pick to the Eagles for No. 15, a fourth-round pick (114) and a sixth-round pick (172). The Eagles then picked defensive tackle Fletcher Cox. The Seahawks picked defensive end Bruce Irvin at No. 15.


Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15, a fourth-round pick (120) and a fifth-round pick (177); Patriots get No. 11



4. Over the past decade, the only other trade involving a pick near No. 11 centered around a quarterback occurred in 2017. The Bills traded the 10th pick to the Chiefs for No. 27, a third-round pick (No. 91) and a 2018 first-round pick. The Chiefs, of course, selected future MVP Patrick Mahomes with the 10th pick. The Bills picked cornerback Tre’Davious White at No. 27. They then used the 2018 first-round pick as part of a package to move up to take quarterback Josh Allen at No. 7 in 2018.


It would be surprising for Gettleman to drop so many picks in his first trade back. But perhaps he could be persuaded by an additional first-round pick if the Saints, who pick 28th, are determined to move up to find a long-term replacement for Drew Brees.



Proposed trade: Giants get No. 28, a third-round pick (98) and a 2022 first-round pick; Saints get No. 11


5. There aren’t any recent examples of a team trading up from No. 20 to the 11th pick range for a quarterback. But in 2019, the Broncos traded the 10th pick to the Steelers for the 20th pick, a second-round pick (No. 52) and a 2020 third-round pick. The Steelers took linebacker Devin Bush with the 10th pick. The Broncos picked tight end Noah Fant at No. 20.



Proposed trade: Giants get No. 20, a second-round pick (52) and a 2022 third-round pick; Bears get No. 11

Only way a trade is if a WR is not on the board at #11  
Bill L : 4/13/2021 7:51 am : link
either because he's been taken or because need is a greater priority than bpa. I think that they have set themselves up so that the latter is unlikely but , who knows, maybe they just have to have an edge or OL depth.

In that case they *must* trade back. Even an extra third is better value than staying put and picking a non-WR (other than Sewell falling). But, hopefully they can get an extra second. But, if the above are the choices, I would rather not lose a pick to get the second, so I probably do trade #1. Depends on how desperate the Patriots are.
If I were DG  
SCGiantsFan : 4/13/2021 7:52 am : link
and I was thinking of treading back, option #2. I'd pass along the 4th round pick in order to get a more quality player in the 2nd round. All while still targeting the player, or players, at the 15th pick.

My 2 cents. All depends who is on the board when we are on the clock at 11.
Is it rather safe to assume,  
Big Blue '56 : 4/13/2021 7:55 am : link
that the Pats would take Mac Jones, given that he might be one of the 5 QBs to drop there?
This is why no trade backs  
BillT : 4/13/2021 8:03 am : link
“Giants get No. 15, a fourth-round pick (120) and a fifth-round pick (177); Patriots get No. 11”

This, to put it bluntly, sucks. Two day three picks to trade down. Could they throw in some used “K” balls as well.
Some Good Research there  
ZogZerg : 4/13/2021 8:05 am : link
Those are certainly some possibly trade back spots. It all depends on whether there is a player available at 11 that the Giants really want. If there is a group of players then trading back for additional picks is an easy call.
And, of course, there has to be a player at 11 that other teams really want and are afraid will be drafted before they pick.
RE: Is it rather safe to assume,  
beatrixkiddo : 4/13/2021 8:06 am : link
In comment 15218315 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
that the Pats would take Mac Jones, given that he might be one of the 5 QBs to drop there?


I really hope it falls that way, will drive up demand and there are a lot of QB hungry teams in the back of the draft. If we can trade down and still be in the teens, and land an extra 2nd that would huge. We can get an Edge at 1, then OL and WR in the 2nd where the value will be strong. Hope it plays out that way.
Too many focus on the #11  
jvm52106 : 4/13/2021 8:11 am : link
as if that is some magic line between talent. What if the Giants have their sights on Ojulari (assuming Smith is gone and Pitts is long gone)? Then a trade down to 15 and getting a 3rd and 5th is a win (assuming Ojulari is still there).

I know so many of us say the talent at 11 is better BUT, there a number of players- QB's, RB's, S's, DT's and probably even OT's that we aren't picking in the first round period. So it comes down to where we have our targets valued at and what we think we can get for a move down while still getting the player or players we want.
If the Saints are moving up from #28 to #11 ...  
FStubbs : 4/13/2021 8:11 am : link
... they'd probably have to part with their second round pick and next year's 1st round pick to make that happen. That's a huge drop.
If you don't get at least a 2nd  
Chip : 4/13/2021 8:12 am : link
don't trade down unless it is one or two spots. The Saints trade would be awesome it could be a top 5 pick. If one of the QB is still there at 10 Dallas would do the deal any way. It is not going to happen
RE: This is why no trade backs  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 8:14 am : link
In comment 15218322 BillT said:
Quote:
“Giants get No. 15, a fourth-round pick (120) and a fifth-round pick (177); Patriots get No. 11”

This, to put it bluntly, sucks. Two day three picks to trade down. Could they throw in some used “K” balls as well.


I would agree. I really don’t care what the value chart says - if the Pats (in this example) want 11 for their QB then make them pay for it. Some mid round picks don’t do anything for me.
Interesting Decision Point  
HMunster : 4/13/2021 8:18 am : link
Between Options #1 and #2.

Would you rather,

A) Get a 3rd (96) and a 4th (139), or
B) Get a 2nd (46), but lose your 4th (116)

For Option A - I could see Edge in Round 1, a LB in the 2nd and possibly banking on depth in the OL and WR class to get extra options there in the 3rd and 4th, or maybe package some picks together to move up.

For Option B - Basically trading in your 4th for a 2nd, take an Edge in the 1st, and two high quality players in the 2nd, depending on who falls.

Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15, a third-round pick (96) and a fourt  
rasbutant : 4/13/2021 8:19 am : link

The Pats don't have a 3rd round pick.
RE: Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15, a third-round pick (96) and a fourt  
HMunster : 4/13/2021 8:20 am : link
In comment 15218336 rasbutant said:
Quote:

The Pats don't have a 3rd round pick.

Yes they do. Compensatory pick.
What they are missing is the QB tax  
Judge_and_Jury : 4/13/2021 8:22 am : link
And potential competition for that QB.That drives up the price significantly. 11 to 15 if say Chicago and Pats are fighting for the pick could be worth a 2nd and one of the Pats 3 4ths easily.
RE: What they are missing is the QB tax  
HMunster : 4/13/2021 8:23 am : link
In comment 15218339 Judge_and_Jury said:
Quote:
And potential competition for that QB.That drives up the price significantly. 11 to 15 if say Chicago and Pats are fighting for the pick could be worth a 2nd and one of the Pats 3 4ths easily.

True. But you'd have to be willing to drop down to #20. Not sure if the Giants are keen on that.
But the Pff simulator gave me  
Carl in CT : 4/13/2021 8:24 am : link
The Pats first 4 picks for #11. We should at least get that ! ( grin)
RE: RE: Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15, a third-round pick (96) and a fourt  
rasbutant : 4/13/2021 8:31 am : link
In comment 15218337 HMunster said:
Quote:
In comment 15218336 rasbutant said:


Quote:



The Pats don't have a 3rd round pick.


Yes they do. Compensatory pick.


My mistake. They forfeited 77, forgot about the comp pick which would have been 97 but because of the forfeited pick is 96.
Saints should stay put at 28 and draft Davis Mills  
Rick in Dallas : 4/13/2021 8:34 am : link
Let him sit for a year under Sean Peyton's coaching. Mills has all the tools necessary to be a very good QB in the NFL.





I like looking at the hypothetical trades BUT  
Dinger : 4/13/2021 8:36 am : link
everyone then assumes that these are out there to be had and that not only does the other team want to make the trade but that Judge/Gettleman want to make the trade. 11 is a spot to get a solid player and not have to take a chance on a QB. Everyone who likes the tradeback is SURE that they could have done it, picked up an extra player and BOTH players will pan out. I have a feeling the Giants stay put at 11 and pick up one of several solid players that will be available. After the FA they had, they are in an even better spot to just choose BPA.
I would not trade down, even with Pats at 15 - only up  
stoneman : 4/13/2021 8:36 am : link
If you believe these tiers (excluding Farley/Philips due to medicals)

1) Sewell/Chase/Pitts
2) Smith Waddle
3) Surtain/Horn/Paye/Parsons/Ojulari

Even at 15, you are practically into the next tier 4, so it better be worth while missing out on tier 3. Anything beyond 15 would be nuts not including another 1st (or 2). Even at 15, I would be shocked if the Pats 2nd got them there, especially with QBs in play.
Good idea for an article by Duggan  
JB_in_DC : 4/13/2021 8:37 am : link
props! I think that one could hope the 49ers trade up represented a bit of inflation to the cost of what it will take to trade up for a QB, so maybe you could hold out for a bit more than these historical analogies?

It takes two to tango, but then it also only takes one to get desperate.
RE: Saints should stay put at 28 and draft Davis Mills  
Big Blue '56 : 4/13/2021 8:37 am : link
In comment 15218354 Rick in Dallas said:
Quote:
Let him sit for a year under Sean Peyton's coaching. Mills has all the tools necessary to be a very good QB in the NFL.






Well Marino was taken 27th (I know the drug rumors)
RE: RE: Saints should stay put at 28 and draft Davis Mills  
Bill L : 4/13/2021 8:43 am : link
In comment 15218361 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 15218354 Rick in Dallas said:


Quote:


Let him sit for a year under Sean Peyton's coaching. Mills has all the tools necessary to be a very good QB in the NFL.








Well Marino was taken 27th (I know the drug rumors)

Plus he sucked at a QB. Never won a SB.
RE: I would not trade down, even with Pats at 15 - only up  
HMunster : 4/13/2021 8:44 am : link
In comment 15218358 stoneman said:
Quote:
If you believe these tiers (excluding Farley/Philips due to medicals)

1) Sewell/Chase/Pitts
2) Smith Waddle
3) Surtain/Horn/Paye/Parsons/Ojulari

Even at 15, you are practically into the next tier 4, so it better be worth while missing out on tier 3. Anything beyond 15 would be nuts not including another 1st (or 2). Even at 15, I would be shocked if the Pats 2nd got them there, especially with QBs in play.

You have 10 players. 5 QBs would be top 15. Plus you're missing Slater who's likely top 10. Darrisaw might be top 15 as well.

RE: RE: I would not trade down, even with Pats at 15 - only up  
stoneman : 4/13/2021 8:49 am : link
In comment 15218367 HMunster said:
Quote:
In comment 15218358 stoneman said:


Quote:


If you believe these tiers (excluding Farley/Philips due to medicals)

1) Sewell/Chase/Pitts
2) Smith Waddle
3) Surtain/Horn/Paye/Parsons/Ojulari

Even at 15, you are practically into the next tier 4, so it better be worth while missing out on tier 3. Anything beyond 15 would be nuts not including another 1st (or 2). Even at 15, I would be shocked if the Pats 2nd got them there, especially with QBs in play.


You have 10 players. 5 QBs would be top 15. Plus you're missing Slater who's likely top 10. Darrisaw might be top 15 as well.


I hear you - but I don't see any of Det/Car/Den/Dal going Slater/Darrisaw over the available tier 2 and tier 3 guys. Everybody has Oline as a need, but no one is desperate.
If the Giants trade back then you know once and for all  
Heisenberg : 4/13/2021 8:58 am : link
that it's Judge's show around here. I don't believe for a minute that DG would trade back on his own.
trade back for a 2nd....otherwise....why bother  
George from PA : 4/13/2021 9:01 am : link
The chart goes out window when dealing with QBs.

Giants “owe” Patriots a good deal in return for Joe Judge  
Ivan15 : 4/13/2021 9:01 am : link
.
Thanks for posting  
Harvest Blend : 4/13/2021 9:03 am : link
and this is all in good fun and plenty informative but it's really just a big tease since we know it won't happen.
I’d want NE’s  
Giant John : 4/13/2021 9:05 am : link
15th and second second. I’m giving up nothing else.
Hypothetically  
AcesUp : 4/13/2021 9:31 am : link
If the Giants are looking at Paye/Ojulari at 11 and both are still on the board, what does it matter if the Giants make them pay through the nose? One of these players is likely to be there 4 picks later, so you either grab the guy at 11 with nothing else in return or you take the bonus picks. I'd rather get as much juice as possible from the pick than "unanimously win the trade". Paye/Ojulari + two early Day 3 picks >>> Paye/Ojulari and nothing.
And guess what.....  
Carl in CT : 4/13/2021 9:35 am : link
If there is a QB there that NE loves they would give that up in a heart beat and maybe more. (But then again how much longer for Bill B)?
RE: RE: RE: Saints should stay put at 28 and draft Davis Mills  
Big Blue '56 : 4/13/2021 10:02 am : link
In comment 15218366 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 15218361 Big Blue '56 said:


Quote:


In comment 15218354 Rick in Dallas said:


Quote:


Let him sit for a year under Sean Peyton's coaching. Mills has all the tools necessary to be a very good QB in the NFL.








Well Marino was taken 27th (I know the drug rumors)


Plus he sucked at a QB. Never won a SB.


Exactly!
Why are so many of you thinking none of these scenarios  
Mike from Ohio : 4/13/2021 10:16 am : link
apply because it is to get a QB? Do you not see that in the first two scenarios, the team trading up took a QB? Arizona took Rosen and Jacksonville took Gabbert.

If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.
RE: I’d want NE’s  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 10:24 am : link
In comment 15218406 Giant John said:
Quote:
15th and second second. I’m giving up nothing else.


Agreed, makes no sense to drop for anything less IMO.
RE: Why are so many of you thinking none of these scenarios  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 10:27 am : link
In comment 15218561 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
apply because it is to get a QB? Do you not see that in the first two scenarios, the team trading up took a QB? Arizona took Rosen and Jacksonville took Gabbert.

If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.


Well scenario #2 happened and it was for a 2. The 1st have a bit wider gap but the precedence is there. And you have to consider that no one is making us trade the pick - you are allowed to set a price and choose not to execute on a lesser offer which is what I would do if it were me. I would not take a 3rd and change to drop back to 15 and allow the best coach in football to get his QB - he should have to pay a premium for that and based on other shitty trades Belichick has made, it isn't far fetched.
Making  
AcidTest : 4/13/2021 10:33 am : link
excessive demands to trade down is the main reason why we haven't done so since Accorsi drafted Kiwi. We simply ask for too much. "I'm not trading down unless I get a second round pick," "day three picks do nothing for me," or "they're trading up for a QB so they need to pay a premium."

Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.

I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.
RE: RE: Why are so many of you thinking none of these scenarios  
Mike from Ohio : 4/13/2021 10:34 am : link
In comment 15218590 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 15218561 Mike from Ohio said:


Quote:


apply because it is to get a QB? Do you not see that in the first two scenarios, the team trading up took a QB? Arizona took Rosen and Jacksonville took Gabbert.

If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.



Well scenario #2 happened and it was for a 2. The 1st have a bit wider gap but the precedence is there. And you have to consider that no one is making us trade the pick - you are allowed to set a price and choose not to execute on a lesser offer which is what I would do if it were me. I would not take a 3rd and change to drop back to 15 and allow the best coach in football to get his QB - he should have to pay a premium for that and based on other shitty trades Belichick has made, it isn't far fetched.


And it is fine to say that at that offer I wouldn’t make the trade. My point is that there is no reason to expect that the Giants can somehow get more than what is in those trades.
RE: Making  
Big Blue '56 : 4/13/2021 10:36 am : link
In comment 15218606 AcidTest said:
Quote:
excessive demands to trade down is the main reason why we haven't done so since Accorsi drafted Kiwi. We simply ask for too much. "I'm not trading down unless I get a second round pick," "day three picks do nothing for me," or "they're trading up for a QB so they need to pay a premium."

Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.

I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.


How do you know we’ve asked too much? Maybe teams were not offering enough, that is low-balling us?
RE: Making  
AcesUp : 4/13/2021 10:36 am : link
In comment 15218606 AcidTest said:
Quote:
excessive demands to trade down is the main reason why we haven't done so since Accorsi drafted Kiwi. We simply ask for too much. "I'm not trading down unless I get a second round pick," "day three picks do nothing for me," or "they're trading up for a QB so they need to pay a premium."

Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.

I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.


Yeh the tone here doesn't make any sense. Especially if the Giants are looking at a flat pool of players with an almost guaranteed probability of one of them being their at the pick. Sure take that tone with the other team early in the negotiation but walking away from a deal that will help your team just so that you can definitively win the trade is silly.
Interesting exercise, but  
kdog77 : 4/13/2021 10:42 am : link
I don't think teams are going to trade up to #11 if all 5 QBs go in the top 10.
RE: RE: Making  
AcidTest : 4/13/2021 10:45 am : link
In comment 15218614 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 15218606 AcidTest said:


Quote:


excessive demands to trade down is the main reason why we haven't done so since Accorsi drafted Kiwi. We simply ask for too much. "I'm not trading down unless I get a second round pick," "day three picks do nothing for me," or "they're trading up for a QB so they need to pay a premium."

Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.

I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.



How do you know we’ve asked too much? Maybe teams were not offering enough, that is low-balling us?


We haven't traded down since Accorsi did for Kiwi. Reese never traded down. DG never has either, although in all fairness, he was apparently going to do so if McKinney wasn't on the board. Has everybody been "low balling" us, and for well more than a decade?
No, but in fairness, we haven’t in all likelihood  
Big Blue '56 : 4/13/2021 10:57 am : link
been asking for the moon either, year after year..:)
RE: Making  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 11:02 am : link
In comment 15218606 AcidTest said:
Quote:
excessive demands to trade down is the main reason why we haven't done so since Accorsi drafted Kiwi. We simply ask for too much. "I'm not trading down unless I get a second round pick," "day three picks do nothing for me," or "they're trading up for a QB so they need to pay a premium."

Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.

I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.


Those are my words, not Reese or Gettelmans. There are many factors and having 5 guys you like still on the board is certainly a big one of them but I tend to think the actual Giants board has bigger gaps between players than people think. If Surtain is at 11 with an 85 grade and the next handful of guys they like are all around 80, to me that's a significant drop, and would equate to a lower likelihood of getting an all pro caliber player.

Add in that those mid round picks are such a crap shoot and it just isn't something I'd take over getting what I think will be the elite player.
I  
AcidTest : 4/13/2021 11:08 am : link
think the Giants would rather have a particular player than trade down. That is apparently what happened with McKinney last year. It also clearly happened with Barkley. I'm not saying that was the wrong move with them, but it is a mistake to do it year after year.
many/most teams don't trade down  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 11:14 am : link
and of those that do, how much better off have they been? We often do the exercise on who the Giants missed out on by taking X player over another - why don't we do that with trade downs too?

I really don't see how you can say that not trading down is a mistake, and one we repeat over and over. Lots of teams doing it wrong I guess.
Not a difficult concept. Read Aces' post above.  
chick310 : 4/13/2021 11:14 am : link
If the pool of players with similar grade on your board is about equal to the drop in draft position, then make the deal and take the extra picks.

The only reason not to is you didn't set up your board fairly.
RE: RE: Making  
AcidTest : 4/13/2021 11:18 am : link
In comment 15218673 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 15218606 AcidTest said:


Quote:


excessive demands to trade down is the main reason why we haven't done so since Accorsi drafted Kiwi. We simply ask for too much. "I'm not trading down unless I get a second round pick," "day three picks do nothing for me," or "they're trading up for a QB so they need to pay a premium."

Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.

I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.



Those are my words, not Reese or Gettelmans. There are many factors and having 5 guys you like still on the board is certainly a big one of them but I tend to think the actual Giants board has bigger gaps between players than people think. If Surtain is at 11 with an 85 grade and the next handful of guys they like are all around 80, to me that's a significant drop, and would equate to a lower likelihood of getting an all pro caliber player.

Add in that those mid round picks are such a crap shoot and it just isn't something I'd take over getting what I think will be the elite player.


I know those are your words.

My point is not that the Giants should necessarily trade down this year. As I said, let's see who's on the board when we're on the clock. My point is that we haven't traded down in any round since 2006. The Giants have completely eliminated a viable strategy to improve the team. Their denials to the contrary are as disingenuous as they are predictable.
Aces post talks about "winning a trade"  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 11:19 am : link
I couldn't care less about winning a trade - I care about compensation. I have something you want, pay for it.

And please don't make the assumptions that the 2 guys you want are magically going to be there 4 picks later. If it ever leaked that our GM did that and lost his guy there would be years of threads dedicated to the blunder.
You aren't reading the points made in the posts correctly.  
chick310 : 4/13/2021 11:23 am : link
.
RE: If the Giants trade back then you know once and for all  
Milton : 4/13/2021 11:26 am : link
In comment 15218381 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
that it's Judge's show around here. I don't believe for a minute that DG would trade back on his own.
So if they don't trade back, does that mean Gettleman has total authority without regard for anyone else's opinion?
Assumption  
AcesUp : 4/13/2021 11:26 am : link
I am very comfortable making that assumption in this draft if we're talking about Edge prospects. It also boils down to a team overrating its ability to choose the right players, embrace the fact that you are guessing and maximize value. The fact that midround picks are dart throws is precisely why you should have more darts.

This article is about trading up but the principles are the same.
https://overthecap.com/trading-up-to-draft-stars/ - ( New Window )
My opinion  
UGADawgs7 : 4/13/2021 11:27 am : link
Is unless a player you absolutely are in love with is available, should strongly consider a trade down IF you can get a 2 or 3rd rounder. If you have to include a 4th to get a 2nd, it’s a no brainer if only moving down 4 spots. If Slater, Waddle, Smith are on the board at 11, moving down 4 spots you still should get one of them as no other reason for Pats to move up unless it’s a QB.
A better question is...  
Milton : 4/13/2021 11:30 am : link
...what would it take to move up from 11 to 5, 6, or 7? How far does Pitts have to slip before the Giants are in reasonable range to pull off a trade?
RE: You aren't reading the points made in the posts correctly.  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 11:30 am : link
In comment 15218707 chick310 said:
Quote:
.


I read it correctly. I agree that it CAN be a useful strategy and I'm open to a trade down. My problem as its being painted as a glaring deficiency in not just the Giants draft strategy, but apparently any team that doesn't trade down.

Its one of many ways to do things, that's it.
RE: Not a difficult concept. Read Aces' post above.  
Mike from Ohio : 4/13/2021 11:32 am : link
In comment 15218693 chick310 said:
Quote:
If the pool of players with similar grade on your board is about equal to the drop in draft position, then make the deal and take the extra picks.

The only reason not to is you didn't set up your board fairly.


So theoretical question here based on what I think you are saying (and apologies if I am oversimplifying it).

The Giants are on the clock at #11, and they have 4 guys left in their top tier with an 85 grade. A team at #15 reaches out and offers a 6th round pick to swap spots and won't budge off it. Since you will still get a guy rated an 85 with pick #15, you go ahead and make that deal?
RE: RE: You aren't reading the points made in the posts correctly.  
chick310 : 4/13/2021 11:43 am : link
In comment 15218723 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 15218707 chick310 said:


Quote:


.



I read it correctly. I agree that it CAN be a useful strategy and I'm open to a trade down. My problem as its being painted as a glaring deficiency in not just the Giants draft strategy, but apparently any team that doesn't trade down.

Its one of many ways to do things, that's it.


Agree. Not a glaring deficiency of Giants albeit fair to question at some level when they have struggled rebuilding the roster in their other manners.
RE: Not a difficult concept. Read Aces' post above.  
BigBlueShock : 4/13/2021 11:50 am : link
In comment 15218693 chick310 said:
Quote:
If the pool of players with similar grade on your board is about equal to the drop in draft position, then make the deal and take the extra picks.

The only reason not to is you didn't set up your board fairly.

Can you please explain what this means? “The only reason not to is you didn’t set up your board fairly”. What does that mean? What’s a fairly set up board look like? And why is it that if they don’t trade down it automatically means they didn’t set their board up fairly? Are they supposed to focus on setting up their board in a way they don’t believe just to accommodate talking themselves into trading down, to make the board fair?
RE: RE: Not a difficult concept. Read Aces' post above.  
chick310 : 4/13/2021 11:53 am : link
In comment 15218727 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
In comment 15218693 chick310 said:


Quote:


If the pool of players with similar grade on your board is about equal to the drop in draft position, then make the deal and take the extra picks.

The only reason not to is you didn't set up your board fairly.



So theoretical question here based on what I think you are saying (and apologies if I am oversimplifying it).

The Giants are on the clock at #11, and they have 4 guys left in their top tier with an 85 grade. A team at #15 reaches out and offers a 6th round pick to swap spots and won't budge off it. Since you will still get a guy rated an 85 with pick #15, you go ahead and make that deal?


Ha, fair example Mike. I probably oversimplified with "extra picks". I would say I would probably rather have the optionality than the extra 6th which is unlikely to be a guy who won't impact my team. I am also sure somebody on my coaching staff would scream that one of the positional units of the 85-rated guys is in flux and needs a certain player badly!

The calculus obviously changes if the extra pick was a 3rd round or two 4th rounds and the hit rates improve.
Scenario #1...  
Brown_Hornet : 4/13/2021 11:53 am : link
...is the only one that would interest me...and I'd prefer a 2nd.
RE: Assumption  
AcidTest : 4/13/2021 11:55 am : link
In comment 15218716 AcesUp said:
Quote:
I am very comfortable making that assumption in this draft if we're talking about Edge prospects. It also boils down to a team overrating its ability to choose the right players, embrace the fact that you are guessing and maximize value. The fact that midround picks are dart throws is precisely why you should have more darts.

This article is about trading up but the principles are the same. https://overthecap.com/trading-up-to-draft-stars/ - ( New Window )


+1.
RE: RE: If the Giants trade back then you know once and for all  
Heisenberg : 4/13/2021 11:57 am : link
In comment 15218715 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 15218381 Heisenberg said:


Quote:


that it's Judge's show around here. I don't believe for a minute that DG would trade back on his own.

So if they don't trade back, does that mean Gettleman has total authority without regard for anyone else's opinion?


No, that's not as conclusive, IMO. It could be that Judge and Gettleman are in agreement on the player/value at 11 and stay. But, DG has never traded down. He seems (anecdotally) to feel like he knows what the best value is on the board at all times and will feel confident he can pick the right guy and values his ability to do that over the idea of gathering additional assets. But, if he trades down, to me it be an indication that Judge has a strong voice in that room.

Again, all this is just my armchair speculation with no actual knowledge lol.
RE: RE: Not a difficult concept. Read Aces' post above.  
chick310 : 4/13/2021 11:58 am : link
In comment 15218758 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
In comment 15218693 chick310 said:


Quote:


If the pool of players with similar grade on your board is about equal to the drop in draft position, then make the deal and take the extra picks.

The only reason not to is you didn't set up your board fairly.


Can you please explain what this means? “The only reason not to is you didn’t set up your board fairly”. What does that mean? What’s a fairly set up board look like? And why is it that if they don’t trade down it automatically means they didn’t set their board up fairly? Are they supposed to focus on setting up their board in a way they don’t believe just to accommodate talking themselves into trading down, to make the board fair?


Don't overthink it. Just meant the players in the tiers on your board include too many biases creating a somewhat forced rating versus a clean one.
RE: RE: RE: If the Giants trade back then you know once and for all  
AcidTest : 4/13/2021 12:00 pm : link
In comment 15218775 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 15218715 Milton said:


Quote:


In comment 15218381 Heisenberg said:


Quote:


that it's Judge's show around here. I don't believe for a minute that DG would trade back on his own.

So if they don't trade back, does that mean Gettleman has total authority without regard for anyone else's opinion?



No, that's not as conclusive, IMO. It could be that Judge and Gettleman are in agreement on the player/value at 11 and stay. But, DG has never traded down. He seems (anecdotally) to feel like he knows what the best value is on the board at all times and will feel confident he can pick the right guy and values his ability to do that over the idea of gathering additional assets. But, if he trades down, to me it be an indication that Judge has a strong voice in that room.

Again, all this is just my armchair speculation with no actual knowledge lol.


Also agree.
Trades involving the 10th pick under the old CBA are problematic comps  
Big Blue Blogger : 4/13/2021 12:01 pm : link
Taking #1 as an example, the Raiders were motivated to get out of the 10th slot to lower not only Miller's cap hit in years 1-4 but also the cost of his fifth-year option. (Once McGlinchey was off the board at #9, Miller was their clear target, and they were confident he would be there at #15.) The new CBA changed the math for 2018 first-rounders, but there was no way to know that at the time.
RE: RE: RE: I would not trade down, even with Pats at 15 - only up  
Reale01 : 4/13/2021 12:29 pm : link
In comment 15218371 stoneman said:
[quote] In comment 15218367 HMunster said:


Quote:


In comment 15218358 stoneman said:


Quote:


If you believe these tiers (excluding Farley/Philips due to medicals)

1) Sewell/Chase/Pitts
2) Smith Waddle
3) Surtain/Horn/Paye/Parsons/Ojulari

Even at 15, you are practically into the next tier 4, so it better be worth while missing out on tier 3. Anything beyond 15 would be nuts not including another 1st (or 2). Even at 15, I would be shocked if the Pats 2nd got them there, especially with QBs in play.


You have 10 players. 5 QBs would be top 15. Plus you're missing Slater who's likely top 10. Darrisaw might be top 15 as well.




My tiers would be

1) Sewell/Chase/Pitts
2) Smith Slater Surtain Parsons*
3) Darrisaw Waddle* Horn Farley*
4) Paye Ojulari

Asterisk indicates character or injury concern

It would be good to get someone from Tier 2 at 11.
Trade up if it will get you Tier 1.

RE: RE: RE: If the Giants trade back then you know once and for all  
Milton : 4/13/2021 1:35 pm : link
In comment 15218775 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
But, DG has never traded down. He seems (anecdotally) to feel like he knows what the best value is on the board at all times and will feel confident he can pick the right guy and values his ability to do that over the idea of gathering additional assets.
The sample set is too small to conclude that Gettleman would never trade down. Trading down requires a unique set of circumstances that may be in play this draft but had never been before. Like Accorsi before him, Gettleman prefers trading up for a targeted player than trading down because all of his targets are gone, but even Accorsi traded down in 2006 for Kiwanuka.

Quote:
But, if he trades down, to me it be an indication that Judge has a strong voice in that room.
When has Judge ever traded down? Judge may be a bigger proponent of trading up than Gettleman or Accorsi.

Trading up means getting the prospect you covet. Trading down means settling for leftovers. Sometimes you have no other choice, but it's never a good sign.
Reale01: Whether Darrisaw belongs with the red chips or not...  
Big Blue Blogger : 4/13/2021 1:49 pm : link
...he will be very difficult for the Chargers to pass up. And I say that as the guy who passed on him as the Chargers' GM in the BBI mock. He's the one pick likely to be available at #13 for which LAC will not be second-guessed by anyone. At this point, he's practically the default at #13.

Milton: That's a weirdly dismissive generalization about trading down. Scouting isn't a precise science, especially this year. Sometimes, one or two options stand out on a team's board when they go on the clock. Other times, not so much. At those other times, it makes sense to at least listen to offers.
Leftovers can feed a lot of hungry mouths  
Jimmy Googs : 4/13/2021 1:52 pm : link
and its a bonus if the food was good to begin with anyway...

RE: RE: RE: RE: If the Giants trade back then you know once and for all  
Heisenberg : 4/13/2021 2:09 pm : link
In comment 15218960 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 15218775 Heisenberg said:


Quote:


But, DG has never traded down. He seems (anecdotally) to feel like he knows what the best value is on the board at all times and will feel confident he can pick the right guy and values his ability to do that over the idea of gathering additional assets.

The sample set is too small to conclude that Gettleman would never trade down. Trading down requires a unique set of circumstances that may be in play this draft but had never been before. Like Accorsi before him, Gettleman prefers trading up for a targeted player than trading down because all of his targets are gone, but even Accorsi traded down in 2006 for Kiwanuka.



Quote:


But, if he trades down, to me it be an indication that Judge has a strong voice in that room.

When has Judge ever traded down? Judge may be a bigger proponent of trading up than Gettleman or Accorsi.

Trading up means getting the prospect you covet. Trading down means settling for leftovers. Sometimes you have no other choice, but it's never a good sign.


Clearly Gettleman prefers trading up as in 8 drafts he's never traded down. I think we are basically agreeing on that point. Regarding Judge, you are right that we don't know what his philosophy is regarding draft capital. He may agree with DG that getting targeted guys is the best strategy. But when DG was GM for the panthers he made a league low number of selections. Judge spent a considerable time in NE where they definitely view draft capital differently than DG. They constantly have traded down, traded up, traded into additional picks next year. Rather than targeting certain players they've clearly been interested in maximizing the value of the picks they have, even if it means trading down or deferring that value to a future draft year. There's no indication that Gettleman has any interest in moving back or into a future draft. That's why I still think that if it happens and they move back it would indicate that Judge is bringing a different draft valuation than Gettleman's natural inclinations.

Regarding "drafting leftovers", I think that's the wrong way to look at it. If the Giants really are set on improving their Edge in the first round then spending 11 on Paye, Phillips or the kid from Georgia whose name I can't spell is a bad use of the 11th pick. There will almost certainly be teams wanting to move up to 11 to get Horn or Surtain or a WR or the next tier OL after slater/sewell. If they traded back, got assets and then picked a position of greater need, that would indicate to me that the philosophy of maximizing draft value has replaced the "don't get cute" philosophy that made DG pull the trigger on Jones at 6.
that's still a leap, not sure why you are so definitive on it  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 2:44 pm : link
not to beat a dead horse but your draft board not matching up to the Giants draft board is what's really in question here. You think Paye isn't a borderline top 10 player and the Giants may simply disagree with you.

From there the trade down stuff just has too many unknowns to outsiders looking in - unless you gave me a copy of their draft board and showed me who's still left I really can't subscribe to this notion that they are doing it wrong this whole time by never trading down. You can prefer it, but it doesn't make you correct.
Leftovers is harsh...  
Milton : 4/13/2021 3:15 pm : link
But the point is these are prospects you aren't crazy about. If you were "full bloom" over one you wouldn't risk trading down (ergo using the 6th pick on Daniel Jones when most were projecting him much later) and you're never in love with two or more. That's like when a team says they have two starting QBs, it means they don't have any. In Hollywood they would say don't go to a pitch meeting with two pitches, it makes you look like you're just throwing things up against a wall to see what sticks. Better to be strong and wrong than appear weak.

Whether it's sports, chess, poker, war, or the NFL draft, taking an aggressive approach is always the right general strategy/philosophy, it's only under specific circumstances that it pays to play it more conservatively. Gettleman may find himself in one of those specific circumstances on draft day, but it's hard to get excited about a prospect you traded down for.

Interestingly enough, Accorsi found himself in this situation in 2004. He liked all three QBs, but he was only in love with one of them. Ironically, he drafted the one he liked least, but of course that was so he could trade up for the one he loved. He considered accepting a trade down offer from Cleveland that would've netted the Giants the 7th overall pick and an extra 2nd round pick and he would've selected Roethlisberger in that scenario.

In hindsight an argument can certainly be made that trading down would've been the far better result (Eli minus your 2004 3rd round pick and 2005 1st round and 5th round picks vs Roethlisberger plus Cleveland's 2004 2nd round pick), but I have no regrets because Eli was the whole package and Roethlisberger is a creep.

If the Giants wind up drafting one of the edge rushers, I would rather he was taken with the 11th pick than the 15th pick because it would mean he was too good to risk losing out on. Of course, if they took Kadarius Toney with the 15th pick I might feel differently.

RE: RE: This is why no trade backs  
Gatorade Dunk : 4/13/2021 5:50 pm : link
In comment 15218333 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 15218322 BillT said:


Quote:


“Giants get No. 15, a fourth-round pick (120) and a fifth-round pick (177); Patriots get No. 11”

This, to put it bluntly, sucks. Two day three picks to trade down. Could they throw in some used “K” balls as well.



I would agree. I really don’t care what the value chart says - if the Pats (in this example) want 11 for their QB then make them pay for it. Some mid round picks don’t do anything for me.

If the Giants are targeting a few players that are all graded equally that could all be there at #15, and that at least one of whom will definitely be there based on the number of players vs. the number of picks in between, why would you get hung up on extracting so much from the other team that the negotiations fall apart?

For argument's sake, let's just say the Giants have set their sights on Ojulari, but also have three other players graded in the exact same tier, all of whom play various positions that aren't crazy for the Giants to draft. If you could have Ojulari + a 4th and 5th round pick, or just have Ojulari and not get those mid-round picks, does holding your ground help you at all? Could it mean that you end up with Paye or Surtain or Horn instead of Ojulari? Sure, but if you're not ok with that, they shouldn't be on the same tier on your board in the first place.

Sure, I want NYG to get as much as possible if they're going to trade down. But if they find themselves with a lot of equally graded prospects on their board when they're on the clock, it would be silly to talk themselves into one of them at #11 simply for the sake of it, as long as there's a reasonable trade offer available to them.
RE: RE: Why are so many of you thinking none of these scenarios  
Gatorade Dunk : 4/13/2021 6:00 pm : link
In comment 15218590 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 15218561 Mike from Ohio said:


Quote:


apply because it is to get a QB? Do you not see that in the first two scenarios, the team trading up took a QB? Arizona took Rosen and Jacksonville took Gabbert.

If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.



Well scenario #2 happened and it was for a 2. The 1st have a bit wider gap but the precedence is there. And you have to consider that no one is making us trade the pick - you are allowed to set a price and choose not to execute on a lesser offer which is what I would do if it were me. I would not take a 3rd and change to drop back to 15 and allow the best coach in football to get his QB - he should have to pay a premium for that and based on other shitty trades Belichick has made, it isn't far fetched.

If you're taking the same player at #11 that you would likely get at #15, then it's a question of risk vs. reward and should not really involve who the other team is targeting except for confirming that they're not moving up to take the guy you'd have taken if you stayed put.

The way you're describing the dynamics of the trade-down scenario almost sounds like you are treating the draft like it's preordained and the #11 pick is already determined; that this is just an exercise in whether the Giants are getting enough in return to get the 15th best player instead of the 11th.

The optimal trade-down scenarios are those where you are essentially getting the same player a few picks later (or at least a player with the same grade). If you view it through that lens, the haul you receive in return is genuinely additive, and your 1st round guy - if it ends up being the same prospect - is cheaper, too.

If the scenario involves the potential to drop into the next tier on your board, I absolutely agree that you should hold firm and play hardball to extract maximum value. But if you're going to remain in the same tier anyway with a small trade down, that doesn't make the prospect a better player just because you took him four picks earlier.
RE: Reale01: Whether Darrisaw belongs with the red chips or not...  
Reale01 : 4/13/2021 6:08 pm : link
In comment 15218985 Big Blue Blogger said:
Quote:
...he will be very difficult for the Chargers to pass up. And I say that as the guy who passed on him as the Chargers' GM in the BBI mock. He's the one pick likely to be available at #13 for which LAC will not be second-guessed by anyone. At this point, he's practically the default at #13.

Milton: That's a weirdly dismissive generalization about trading down. Scouting isn't a precise science, especially this year. Sometimes, one or two options stand out on a team's board when they go on the clock. Other times, not so much. At those other times, it makes sense to at least listen to offers.


So he would not be there at 15? The best OL at 15 would likely be Vera-Tucker, but he would probably not be the best player. Do you think the Giants would consider Darrisaw at 11?
RE: RE: RE: Why are so many of you thinking none of these scenarios  
AcidTest : 4/13/2021 6:11 pm : link
In comment 15219466 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15218590 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


In comment 15218561 Mike from Ohio said:


Quote:


apply because it is to get a QB? Do you not see that in the first two scenarios, the team trading up took a QB? Arizona took Rosen and Jacksonville took Gabbert.

If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.



Well scenario #2 happened and it was for a 2. The 1st have a bit wider gap but the precedence is there. And you have to consider that no one is making us trade the pick - you are allowed to set a price and choose not to execute on a lesser offer which is what I would do if it were me. I would not take a 3rd and change to drop back to 15 and allow the best coach in football to get his QB - he should have to pay a premium for that and based on other shitty trades Belichick has made, it isn't far fetched.


If you're taking the same player at #11 that you would likely get at #15, then it's a question of risk vs. reward and should not really involve who the other team is targeting except for confirming that they're not moving up to take the guy you'd have taken if you stayed put.

The way you're describing the dynamics of the trade-down scenario almost sounds like you are treating the draft like it's preordained and the #11 pick is already determined; that this is just an exercise in whether the Giants are getting enough in return to get the 15th best player instead of the 11th.

The optimal trade-down scenarios are those where you are essentially getting the same player a few picks later (or at least a player with the same grade). If you view it through that lens, the haul you receive in return is genuinely additive, and your 1st round guy - if it ends up being the same prospect - is cheaper, too.

If the scenario involves the potential to drop into the next tier on your board, I absolutely agree that you should hold firm and play hardball to extract maximum value. But if you're going to remain in the same tier anyway with a small trade down, that doesn't make the prospect a better player just because you took him four picks earlier.


Excellent analysis, especially your discussion about how draft tiers affect the compensation teams should seek to trade down.
RE: RE: RE: Why are so many of you thinking none of these scenarios  
Bill L : 4/13/2021 8:16 pm : link
In comment 15219466 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15218590 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


In comment 15218561 Mike from Ohio said:


Quote:


apply because it is to get a QB? Do you not see that in the first two scenarios, the team trading up took a QB? Arizona took Rosen and Jacksonville took Gabbert.

If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.



Well scenario #2 happened and it was for a 2. The 1st have a bit wider gap but the precedence is there. And you have to consider that no one is making us trade the pick - you are allowed to set a price and choose not to execute on a lesser offer which is what I would do if it were me. I would not take a 3rd and change to drop back to 15 and allow the best coach in football to get his QB - he should have to pay a premium for that and based on other shitty trades Belichick has made, it isn't far fetched.


If you're taking the same player at #11 that you would likely get at #15, then it's a question of risk vs. reward and should not really involve who the other team is targeting except for confirming that they're not moving up to take the guy you'd have taken if you stayed put.

The way you're describing the dynamics of the trade-down scenario almost sounds like you are treating the draft like it's preordained and the #11 pick is already determined; that this is just an exercise in whether the Giants are getting enough in return to get the 15th best player instead of the 11th.

The optimal trade-down scenarios are those where you are essentially getting the same player a few picks later (or at least a player with the same grade). If you view it through that lens, the haul you receive in return is genuinely additive, and your 1st round guy - if it ends up being the same prospect - is cheaper, too.

If the scenario involves the potential to drop into the next tier on your board, I absolutely agree that you should hold firm and play hardball to extract maximum value. But if you're going to remain in the same tier anyway with a small trade down, that doesn't make the prospect a better player just because you took him four picks earlier.

Good stuff. Maybe because I think that after the WRs go, there’s not a white flag difference between any number of players at those “need positions” so I would definitely think it’s criminal not to move down, take what you can get, and pick one of these same guys.
I disagree  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 8:28 pm : link
we see teams pay premiums for QB all the time, why shouldn’t we want the same? If the Pats are trading up to get theirs why wouldn’t we treat it as such?

Maybe you are comfortable leaving value on the table just to get something back, but I’m not.

And I fully understand the risk/reward aspect and how it would work if they had 5 guys ranked the same. My argument is they likely won’t.
RE: RE: RE: This is why no trade backs  
Milton : 4/13/2021 8:33 pm : link
In comment 15219443 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
If the Giants are targeting a few players that are all graded equally that could all be there at #15
I'd be pretty disappointed if the Giants were targeting players that could all be there at #15. I would hope that they are targeting players who have slim and none chances of being available with the 15th pick. Ideally they are targeting players such that there is hope that one of them will be available with the 11th pick.
RE: RE: RE: RE: This is why no trade backs  
Gatorade Dunk : 4/14/2021 11:50 am : link
In comment 15219683 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 15219443 Gatorade Dunk said:


Quote:


If the Giants are targeting a few players that are all graded equally that could all be there at #15

I'd be pretty disappointed if the Giants were targeting players that could all be there at #15. I would hope that they are targeting players who have slim and none chances of being available with the 15th pick. Ideally they are targeting players such that there is hope that one of them will be available with the 11th pick.

Sure, in a perfect world, they'll have a prospect land in their laps that has no business being there. But in reality, that may prove to be an unlikely scenario. They can't make guys grade higher than they do. And this particular draft class has a lot of depth, and a strong top tier, but that top tier may be gone at #11, depending on how the run on QBs goes in the top 10.

There is a very good chance that the Giants will find themselves, by circumstance, with remaining options at #11 that are equally graded to those who - by simple arithmetic alone - will be available at #15, even if there will be fewer of them available at that point.

In this instance that I'm describing, a trade-down outcome only removes some of your options that are equally graded, it doesn't remove the possibility of getting one of those options.

And I stick with my earlier point - if you're not ok with getting any of the players who are in the same tier on your board, then re-tier your board. If they're on the same tier, they carry the same value. That's what "being true to the board" is about.
RE: I disagree  
Gatorade Dunk : 4/14/2021 11:53 am : link
In comment 15219674 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
we see teams pay premiums for QB all the time, why shouldn’t we want the same? If the Pats are trading up to get theirs why wouldn’t we treat it as such?

Maybe you are comfortable leaving value on the table just to get something back, but I’m not.

And I fully understand the risk/reward aspect and how it would work if they had 5 guys ranked the same. My argument is they likely won’t.

Leaving value on the table is what happens when you play hardball and end up with nothing, and take the same guy at #11 that you'd have gotten at #15, with no added value to improve your lot.

The Giants don't have to win draft-day trades, they have to improve their roster. How is getting the same guy at #15 (or an equally graded prospect) that they'd have gotten at #11 PLUS a couple of mid-round picks leaving value on the table? Because the other team didn't give up enough? WTF cares about the other team if the Giants get the same guy they were going to draft anyway AND get a couple more picks on top of it?
Back to the Corner