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

Archived Thread

2 picks in the top 15 = 2 shots at a trade back

adamg : 1/8/2022 10:35 pm
Everyone always talks about how you need a trading partner for the future first haul we all dream of. Well, we have two shots at a 2023 first this year with our and CHI's first rounders. If either pick can yield a 2023 first we have to trade back imo.

There's no QB worth taking in the top 15. 2023 has at least two I'm eyeing (Stroud and Young). Have to make the trade down if it's there. Agreed?
After last seasons' debacle of trading back  
Dave in Hoboken : 1/8/2022 10:40 pm : link
and missing out on Parsons, I seriously doubt they do that again anytime soon.
Nothing wrong with being ahead in picks.  
robbieballs2003 : 1/8/2022 10:56 pm : link
The good teams realize that the draft is a crapshoot. Yes, scouting matters but even the best teams miss often. Give me more opportunities and fixing up the organization. You need a QB. That is no secret. But what seems to be a secret is when you get your QB you want to be ready to hit the ground running while he is on his rookie deal. I like Daniel Jones but there is no way we can pay him to see how he'd be with a competent OL. And, as you said, this is not a great year for QBs. Get this OL fixed and get a pass rusher. If we can do that with future firsts then we are in a great spot to get a QB. And not just get a QB but get one in a position where he can succeed.
People said 2017 was a bad QB draft too..  
Producer : 1/8/2022 11:08 pm : link
that draft yielded Mahomes and Watson.

I suggest refraining from blanket statements about the class. We should do our best to evaluate all the QBs. If the new GM decides they are all second tier, I can live with that. We can't afford to just pass on this QB class out of hand. Meet them, watch them, analyze them. There might be a Mahomes in the bunch.
RE: People said 2017 was a bad QB draft too..  
adamg : 1/8/2022 11:24 pm : link
In comment 15536642 Producer said:
Quote:
that draft yielded Mahomes and Watson.

I suggest refraining from blanket statements about the class. We should do our best to evaluate all the QBs. If the new GM decides they are all second tier, I can live with that. We can't afford to just pass on this QB class out of hand. Meet them, watch them, analyze them. There might be a Mahomes in the bunch.


Who are the Watson and Mahomes of the 2022 draft then?
RE: RE: People said 2017 was a bad QB draft too..  
thomasa510 : 1/8/2022 11:37 pm : link
In comment 15536654 adamg said:
Quote:
In comment 15536642 Producer said:


Quote:


that draft yielded Mahomes and Watson.

I suggest refraining from blanket statements about the class. We should do our best to evaluate all the QBs. If the new GM decides they are all second tier, I can live with that. We can't afford to just pass on this QB class out of hand. Meet them, watch them, analyze them. There might be a Mahomes in the bunch.



Who are the Watson and Mahomes of the 2022 draft then?


I’ll tell you in 5years
RE: After last seasons' debacle of trading back  
AcesUp : 1/8/2022 11:37 pm : link
In comment 15536620 Dave in Hoboken said:
Quote:
and missing out on Parsons, I seriously doubt they do that again anytime soon.


Parsons isn’t the norm at 11 though and I doubt he was the pick even if we stayed put. He wasn’t the target at the pick either, it was Smith. If the Giants aren’t going QB and they can trade down they 100% should. If they don’t go QB this year they almost have to go next year unless DJ has a legitimate pro bowl season.
RE: RE: People said 2017 was a bad QB draft too..  
lax counsel : 1/9/2022 12:41 am : link
In comment 15536654 adamg said:
Quote:
In comment 15536642 Producer said:


Quote:


that draft yielded Mahomes and Watson.

I suggest refraining from blanket statements about the class. We should do our best to evaluate all the QBs. If the new GM decides they are all second tier, I can live with that. We can't afford to just pass on this QB class out of hand. Meet them, watch them, analyze them. There might be a Mahomes in the bunch.



Who are the Watson and Mahomes of the 2022 draft then?


Who were the Watson and Mahomes of the 2017 draft????
This team has a major talent deficiency  
Ten Ton Hammer : 1/9/2022 2:27 am : link
No more trading back. They traded back last year and passed on an all pro lineman they could have desperately used.

Acquire talent.
Three picks in rounds two and three...  
Milton : 1/9/2022 6:31 am : link
That's three more opportunities to trade back and don't get me started on how many opportunities they will have on Day 3!
RE: After last seasons' debacle of trading back  
Milton : 1/9/2022 6:32 am : link
In comment 15536620 Dave in Hoboken said:
Quote:
and missing out on Parsons, I seriously doubt they do that again anytime soon.
Toney will have a better career than Parsons by a wide margin.
RE: RE: After last seasons' debacle of trading back  
CromartiesKid21 : 1/9/2022 7:14 am : link
In comment 15536768 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 15536620 Dave in Hoboken said:


Quote:


and missing out on Parsons, I seriously doubt they do that again anytime soon.

Toney will have a better career than Parsons by a wide margin.


Parsons is a game wrecker and worth 20x more that Toney and a 1st today. So maybe Toney can close the gap next 5 years?
I don’t think they need  
cjac : 1/9/2022 7:19 am : link
To trade back

They have 5 picks in the first 80 picks

3 have to be impact players, and all 5 have to be starters
RE: I don’t think they need  
adamg : 1/9/2022 7:22 am : link
In comment 15536784 cjac said:
Quote:
To trade back

They have 5 picks in the first 80 picks

3 have to be impact players, and all 5 have to be starters


It's not about this draft. It's about 2023.
RE: RE: I don’t think they need  
cjac : 1/9/2022 7:24 am : link
In comment 15536785 adamg said:
Quote:
In comment 15536784 cjac said:


Quote:


To trade back

They have 5 picks in the first 80 picks

3 have to be impact players, and all 5 have to be starters



It's not about this draft. It's about 2023.


Yeah you’re right. We aren’t making the playoffs next year either way, I’d rather have enough draft capital in 2023 to go get whoever they want. Meaning the QB of the future
RE: RE: RE: I don’t think they need  
Milton : 1/9/2022 7:48 am : link
In comment 15536787 cjac said:
Quote:
In comment 15536785 adamg said:


Quote:


In comment 15536784 cjac said:


Quote:


To trade back

They have 5 picks in the first 80 picks

3 have to be impact players, and all 5 have to be starters



It's not about this draft. It's about 2023.



Yeah you’re right. We aren’t making the playoffs next year either way, I’d rather have enough draft capital in 2023 to go get whoever they want. Meaning the QB of the future
And that way, 2023 can be all about 2024. Of course after another two losing seasons, the coaching staff will be fired and the new head coach will have his own ideas about the starting QB. Good times!
RE: RE: After last seasons' debacle of trading back  
Rjanyg : 1/9/2022 8:18 am : link
In comment 15536768 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 15536620 Dave in Hoboken said:


Quote:


and missing out on Parsons, I seriously doubt they do that again anytime soon.

Toney will have a better career than Parsons by a wide margin.


This I doubt
Where/When does the  
section125 : 1/9/2022 8:21 am : link
madness end?
Two picks in the top 10. Unless it is a huge haul, is it worth trading out?
How good is Parsons really?  
giantBCP : 1/9/2022 8:32 am : link
He never sees double teams like a player of his supposed caliber should, and goes missing from games in large stretches.
RE: Where/When does the  
adamg : 1/9/2022 8:56 am : link
In comment 15536825 section125 said:
Quote:
madness end?
Two picks in the top 10. Unless it is a huge haul, is it worth trading out?


No. I agree with you. I'm not saying they should trade out no matter what. I'm saying if we get another deal.like the Bears where a team Is moving up for a QB and giving up a 2023 first to do, you should take that trade.


And to Milton's point. Ideally we can stop moving around every year once we hit on our QB. It's not a matter of always putting off the QB pick. Just this year.
RE: RE: Where/When does the  
Milton : 1/9/2022 9:12 am : link
In comment 15536861 adamg said:
Quote:

And to Milton's point. Ideally we can stop moving around every year once we hit on our QB. It's not a matter of always putting off the QB pick. Just this year.
But who's to say we hit on the QB? And who's to say having two first round picks next year comes even close to guaranteeing we land either of the two QBs you covet or that both of them are even in the draft? You are planning on tanking yet another season for the grand prize of a lottery ticket. That's not a plan I can get behind.

Is there a player in this  
johnnyb : 1/9/2022 10:18 am : link
draft worth trading up for? Trade ps are usUally for a QB, at least at the top of the draft, and I do not see a worthwhile candidate to be a trade up target.
RE: RE: RE: Where/When does the  
adamg : 1/9/2022 10:25 am : link
In comment 15536882 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 15536861 adamg said:


Quote:



And to Milton's point. Ideally we can stop moving around every year once we hit on our QB. It's not a matter of always putting off the QB pick. Just this year.

But who's to say we hit on the QB? And who's to say having two first round picks next year comes even close to guaranteeing we land either of the two QBs you covet or that both of them are even in the draft? You are planning on tanking yet another season for the grand prize of a lottery ticket. That's not a plan I can get behind.


I don't know that it's tanking. If Jones puts the team on his back and carries us to the playoffs, I'm fine sticking with him. I just think we have to be forward looking and hedge our bets.
Having two first round picks in the 2023 draft  
adamg : 1/9/2022 10:27 am : link
where one team is starting a rookie or stop gap QB and the other is the NYG, there's a good chance one or both of those picks is top ten. That almost guarantees we can move up into the top 2 to snag the guy we like. Even if it means adding our 2024 first. It'd be worth it. Imo.
Quantity does not always ensure quality  
JonC : 1/9/2022 10:33 am : link
Got to be careful getting too cute. Good example is passing over Parsons...
RE: Quantity does not always ensure quality  
adamg : 1/9/2022 10:35 am : link
In comment 15537007 JonC said:
Quote:
Got to be careful getting too cute. Good example is passing over Parsons...


I would be a fan of trading back up into the end of the first round this year to grab a better talent with the additional option year even. It's mostly for moving our draft "capital" to 2023 where the QB prospects are much better.
Trading back is fine if the opportunity is there.  
Section331 : 1/9/2022 10:38 am : link
I just don’t understand all of the “TRADE BACK!” demands. It depends on the players available and the offers being made.
The top 20 of this draft  
JonC : 1/9/2022 10:38 am : link
could provide multiple starters at premium positions. I could see rolling the dice with the Bears pick, but not the #5. So 2023 picks would probably not include an extra #1.

Giants will likely stink again in 2022, yielding more high picks in 2023.
RE: Trading back is fine if the opportunity is there.  
adamg : 1/9/2022 10:42 am : link
In comment 15537020 Section331 said:
Quote:
I just don’t understand all of the “TRADE BACK!” demands. It depends on the players available and the offers being made.


I agree with the major point you're making. I just think this is a prime opportunity given the reality of how the QB classes are shaping up and the way our picks are dispersed.
RE: The top 20 of this draft  
adamg : 1/9/2022 10:44 am : link
In comment 15537022 JonC said:
Quote:
could provide multiple starters at premium positions. I could see rolling the dice with the Bears pick, but not the #5. So 2023 picks would probably not include an extra #1.

Giants will likely stink again in 2022, yielding more high picks in 2023.


Mahomes pick (#10 overall) was traded for two ones and a three (22, 27, 91st).
RE: The top 20 of this draft  
JonC : 1/9/2022 10:45 am : link
In comment 15537022 JonC said:
Quote:
could provide multiple starters at premium positions. I could see rolling the dice with the Bears pick, but not the #5. So 2023 picks would probably not include an extra #1.

Giants will likely stink again in 2022, yielding more high picks in 2023.


Reduce, they could still get a future #1 with the Bears pick. But, bowing opportunities like Parsons will kill you for years.
Yeah but two late #1s  
JonC : 1/9/2022 10:46 am : link
to me that's getting too cute.
RE: Yeah but two late #1s  
adamg : 1/9/2022 10:53 am : link
In comment 15537044 JonC said:
Quote:
to me that's getting too cute.


Fair point. The idea would be that we're not making those picks, but using them to move up in the round. But we could be left with no trading partners to move up too. For sure. So, that would be a risk we'd be taking.

I'm also fine going Evan Neal and Linderbaum and calling it a day 1.
I'd wager  
JonC : 1/9/2022 10:57 am : link
they go defense at #5 and possibly OL after, but unlikely picking a center in the top 10.
Better chance of WR  
JonC : 1/9/2022 10:58 am : link
than OC.
RE: I'd wager  
adamg : 1/9/2022 11:01 am : link
In comment 15537088 JonC said:
Quote:
they go defense at #5 and possibly OL after, but unlikely picking a center in the top 10.


Any OL names being mentioned yet?
RE: Better chance of WR  
adamg : 1/9/2022 11:01 am : link
In comment 15537091 JonC said:
Quote:
than OC.


wow. that'd be unpopular.
No not yet  
JonC : 1/9/2022 11:03 am : link
popular means shit. The trade down last year was popular, and rhey handed Parsons to Dallas.
Good stuff  
adamg : 1/9/2022 11:04 am : link
Thanks JonC.

I agree. Just saying. That'd be a ballsy move.
Put me down for  
River Mike : 1/9/2022 11:04 am : link
NO TRADE DOWN. Sure, you can strike gold at any position in the draft, but I'll take the better odds at the high picks. I would like this team to be built by the best players available, not the most players available ... that leads to a mediocre team. And once again, yes you CAN get good players later on, but give me a shot at the very best.
Honest question  
OlyWABigBlue : 1/9/2022 11:09 am : link
given the cap mismanagement can we even afford two top ten picks?...just using last years numbers, the cap hit for the 5 and 8 picks were 5.8m and 3.8m respectively. There is a drop in the rookie wage scale after pick 10. It sucks that we even have to consider this.
We dont need a "haul" of later round picks..  
EricJ : 1/9/2022 11:14 am : link
we need to hit the mark on selecting two solid impact players with our first two picks.
RE: RE: Quantity does not always ensure quality  
giantstock : 1/9/2022 11:55 am : link
In comment 15537012 adamg said:
Quote:
In comment 15537007 JonC said:


Quote:


Got to be careful getting too cute. Good example is passing over Parsons...



I would be a fan of trading back up into the end of the first round this year to grab a better talent with the additional option year even. It's mostly for moving our draft "capital" to 2023 where the QB prospects are much better.


I agree 100%. When you make these type of trades you should never worry about who oyu could have gotten. WHat's most important is who you get.

Sure qty does not always ensure quality but there are seldom ever assurances in the draft. If you take this too far you'll forever be scared of a tradedown by looking back.

The Giants number 1 goal is getting a QB. What other teams get while Giants trying to reach their goal shouldn't be a deterrent.
RE: RE: After last seasons' debacle of trading back  
giantstock : 1/9/2022 11:59 am : link
In comment 15536768 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 15536620 Dave in Hoboken said:


Quote:


and missing out on Parsons, I seriously doubt they do that again anytime soon.

Toney will have a better career than Parsons by a wide margin.


I still am in favor of the tradedown and until we see what the Giants end of doing a few years from now with their picks and the success- you can't even compare Parsons vs Toney. Parsons is light years better.

Your post is an embarrassment. When will posters like you grow up?
RE: We dont need a  
adamg : 1/9/2022 12:00 pm : link
In comment 15537136 EricJ said:
Quote:
we need to hit the mark on selecting two solid impact players with our first two picks.


The point is to trade these picks into a single top 3 pick in 2023. Not sure what haul of picks you're talki ng about in terms of guys we'd be drafting...
RE: We dont need a  
giantstock : 1/9/2022 12:11 pm : link
In comment 15537136 EricJ said:
Quote:
we need to hit the mark on selecting two solid impact players with our first two picks.


No---

We don't.

What you're suggesting is also possible but it's not the only way.
I favor  
Photoguy : 1/9/2022 12:11 pm : link
using our 2 1st rounders in the spots we will have, because it's not 100% certain the targeted quarterback in 2023 will be the franchise guy. We need talent NOW.....what happens down the road can't play into the decision. JMO.
Okay trading one of these two picks back, as long as...  
Jimmy Googs : 1/9/2022 12:11 pm : link
still stay in first round with trade down in 2022 AND get an extra 1st round in 2023...much like this past year's deal with CHI.

Let the new GM navigate the board as best he can in 2022 and add as many red-chips as possible anywhere/everywhere. And then hopefully go shopping for his QB in 2023...
RE: Okay trading one of these two picks back, as long as...  
adamg : 1/9/2022 12:14 pm : link
In comment 15537277 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
still stay in first round with trade down in 2022 AND get an extra 1st round in 2023...much like this past year's deal with CHI.

Let the new GM navigate the board as best he can in 2022 and add as many red-chips as possible anywhere/everywhere. And then hopefully go shopping for his QB in 2023...


This would be closer to the scenario I'm describing yes. I think it might be the most forward looking we.can be while still giving us a shot to.put together a foundation.
I'm not bitching about Parsons in hindsight  
JonC : 1/9/2022 12:19 pm : link
I was saying pick him before and during the draft.
the math is pretty simple  
markky : 1/9/2022 12:25 pm : link
if we trade back with both of our picks this year obtaining later first round picks and 2 first round picks next year, and we do the same with our first round picks every year through 2025 then:

- we will have accumulated 6 first round picks to use in 2026.

- we will still have had 14 first picks to use between now and 2025 (although later first round picks).

2026 is Arch Manning's draft year. 6 first rounders that year will definitely get us Manning.

if we use 13 of the 14 first rounders on OL (the other one being used for EDGE) then we should be in good shape.
RE: RE: Okay trading one of these two picks back, as long as...  
Jimmy Googs : 1/9/2022 12:27 pm : link
In comment 15537284 adamg said:
Quote:
In comment 15537277 Jimmy Googs said:


Quote:


still stay in first round with trade down in 2022 AND get an extra 1st round in 2023...much like this past year's deal with CHI.

Let the new GM navigate the board as best he can in 2022 and add as many red-chips as possible anywhere/everywhere. And then hopefully go shopping for his QB in 2023...



This would be closer to the scenario I'm describing yes. I think it might be the most forward looking we.can be while still giving us a shot to.put together a foundation.


Need QB evals to come better into focus in a few months. Could be okay trading up from Rd 2 into Rd 1 to grab one.

If not, then I want them to be "wheeling and dealing" this draft, hopefully putting some blue up on the board but ensure there is plenty of red...
RE: the math is pretty simple  
adamg : 1/9/2022 12:43 pm : link
In comment 15537305 markky said:
Quote:
if we trade back with both of our picks this year obtaining later first round picks and 2 first round picks next year, and we do the same with our first round picks every year through 2025 then:

- we will have accumulated 6 first round picks to use in 2026.

- we will still have had 14 first picks to use between now and 2025 (although later first round picks).

2026 is Arch Manning's draft year. 6 first rounders that year will definitely get us Manning.

if we use 13 of the 14 first rounders on OL (the other one being used for EDGE) then we should be in good shape.


Thanks for the farcical version of my post
RE: RE: the math is pretty simple  
markky : 1/9/2022 1:13 pm : link
In comment 15537366 adamg said:
Quote:
In comment 15537305 markky said:


Quote:


if we trade back with both of our picks this year obtaining later first round picks and 2 first round picks next year, and we do the same with our first round picks every year through 2025 then:

- we will have accumulated 6 first round picks to use in 2026.

- we will still have had 14 first picks to use between now and 2025 (although later first round picks).

2026 is Arch Manning's draft year. 6 first rounders that year will definitely get us Manning.

if we use 13 of the 14 first rounders on OL (the other one being used for EDGE) then we should be in good shape.



Thanks for the farcical version of my post


i'm only half kidding. i'm trying to show by "proof by absurd" that trading back is actually a good idea.
Ideally I'd use most of those picks right where they are now, but  
Red Dog : 1/9/2022 2:05 pm : link
if I had a chance to trade back a few spots with the Bears first rounder to add another pick in the second or high third round, I'd do it in a minute. That's a few spots, not more than half-a-dozen at most.
RE: I'm not bitching about Parsons in hindsight  
giantstock : 1/9/2022 3:05 pm : link
In comment 15537289 JonC said:
Quote:
I was saying pick him before and during the draft.


Don't think the trade downs had anything to do with your pick of Parsons or mine with Slater. IMO Giants won't take a guy in top ten with any perceived character issues. This is one of the reasons why we know Mara is too attached.

For me with Slater- I felt the same way as I mention to you about Giants selecting Parsons - little-to-no-chance. I sort of felt Slater wasn’t a true "Hog Mollie" and that moron of a GM only would draft Hog Mollies instead of looking at things in terms of good football players.

Neither player was an option.
RE: RE: RE: the math is pretty simple  
giantstock : 1/9/2022 3:06 pm : link
In comment 15537446 markky said:
Quote:
In comment 15537366 adamg said:


Quote:


In comment 15537305 markky said:


Quote:


if we trade back with both of our picks this year obtaining later first round picks and 2 first round picks next year, and we do the same with our first round picks every year through 2025 then:

- we will have accumulated 6 first round picks to use in 2026.

- we will still have had 14 first picks to use between now and 2025 (although later first round picks).

2026 is Arch Manning's draft year. 6 first rounders that year will definitely get us Manning.

if we use 13 of the 14 first rounders on OL (the other one being used for EDGE) then we should be in good shape.



Thanks for the farcical version of my post



i'm only half kidding. i'm trying to show by "proof by absurd" that trading back is actually a good idea.


So trading back is NEVER a good idea?
Problem is if we stayed put  
Carl in CT : 1/9/2022 3:34 pm : link
Our scouting is so bad that Slater or Parsons were not going to be the pick. The USC kid was.
RE: Better chance of WR  
Milton : 1/9/2022 7:35 pm : link
In comment 15537091 JonC said:
Quote:
than OC.
Yeah and I'm not sold on Linderbaum being top 20 worthy given his size. When the Browns were targeting Alex Mack in the first round of the 2009, they traded down three times from the 5th pick before selecting him 21st overall. Interestingly, Eric Wood went 28th overall that year (one slot before the Giants selected Hakeem Nicks), the first time two centers went in the first round of the same draft. I wonder if the Browns liked both Mack and Wood and that's why they felt comfortable they would get at least one of the two as they kept trading down.
p.s.--If I remember correctly, Wood was on my short list that year.
RE: RE: RE: the math is pretty simple  
adamg : 1/9/2022 7:58 pm : link
In comment 15537446 markky said:
Quote:
In comment 15537366 adamg said:


Quote:


In comment 15537305 markky said:


Quote:


if we trade back with both of our picks this year obtaining later first round picks and 2 first round picks next year, and we do the same with our first round picks every year through 2025 then:

- we will have accumulated 6 first round picks to use in 2026.

- we will still have had 14 first picks to use between now and 2025 (although later first round picks).

2026 is Arch Manning's draft year. 6 first rounders that year will definitely get us Manning.

if we use 13 of the 14 first rounders on OL (the other one being used for EDGE) then we should be in good shape.



Thanks for the farcical version of my post



i'm only half kidding. i'm trying to show by "proof by absurd" that trading back is actually a good idea.


If you read through my posts, I addressed that already. But do you, I guess.
Back to the Corner