I have to assume that Schoen knew what the parameters would be for a trade up to 3/4 when making the Burns trade. But, he probably didn't anticipate the Vikings acquiring another first round pick when he made the deal.
If NYG does like McCarthy, they'd be in a much better situation with the 39th and 47th pick to offer NE/ARI in a trade up. Having #39 right now would put Schoen in a much more advantageous position.
Do you still make the trade knowing the Vikings would acquire an additional first?
A mistake would be trading up for a QB this year
Hey Bill, do you still live in the Knoxville area?
There are 22 positions on the football field and the Giants had exactly 1 edge rusher who was any good. All they had to give up to trade and sign a top 10 edge player in the league was the 39th pick in the draft?
You can’t just sacrifice everything for a chance at a QB. Your team won’t be any good if you don’t build it with talented players.
I get it. Burns is a nice player. And we got him at solid value. But the QB and the offense has to be the top priority. And Burns isn't good enough to derail the rebuilding of this offense. He's good but he's not LT. And with the salary we have to pay him, he's not some fantastic bargain. We're talking about an 8 sack guy who doesn't show up to every game. We already have a guy like that -- KT. Again, I think Burns can be part of a good defense, but he's not worth failing to get Drake Maye.
In the lottery? NFW. Not this crop of Edge prospects.
QB would still be the hot topic. If we moved down, then Edge prospects would come more in focus.
The Burns acquisition is still an interesting topic. I don't think forking over the second rounder was a bad idea as much as the contract. Burns is now higher paid than much more accomplished players like Watt, Garrett, Hunter, etc. In other words, he's being paid to be an elite player.
Are you sure he is? I'm not...
I get it. Burns is a nice player. And we got him at solid value. But the QB and the offense has to be the top priority. And Burns isn't good enough to derail the rebuilding of this offense. He's good but he's not LT. And with the salary we have to pay him, he's not some fantastic bargain. We're talking about an 8 sack guy who doesn't show up to every game. We already have a guy like that -- KT. Again, I think Burns can be part of a good defense, but he's not worth failing to get Drake Maye.
You make that trade and don't look back. How do we know the Pats don't take him or they simply like another team's offer better?
Quote:
If not having #39 gets in the way of moving up to #3 and obtaining the QB we want, then I will regret the move.
I get it. Burns is a nice player. And we got him at solid value. But the QB and the offense has to be the top priority. And Burns isn't good enough to derail the rebuilding of this offense. He's good but he's not LT. And with the salary we have to pay him, he's not some fantastic bargain. We're talking about an 8 sack guy who doesn't show up to every game. We already have a guy like that -- KT. Again, I think Burns can be part of a good defense, but he's not worth failing to get Drake Maye.
You make that trade and don't look back. How do we know the Pats don't take him or they simply like another team's offer better?
You can do a lot with #39 in this draft. It can be a piece that lets you trade into the first round to grab Penix/Nix, after selecting Nabers. I would rather have Nabers-Penix than Burns.
Quote:
In comment 16477533 Darwinian said:
Quote:
If not having #39 gets in the way of moving up to #3 and obtaining the QB we want, then I will regret the move.
I get it. Burns is a nice player. And we got him at solid value. But the QB and the offense has to be the top priority. And Burns isn't good enough to derail the rebuilding of this offense. He's good but he's not LT. And with the salary we have to pay him, he's not some fantastic bargain. We're talking about an 8 sack guy who doesn't show up to every game. We already have a guy like that -- KT. Again, I think Burns can be part of a good defense, but he's not worth failing to get Drake Maye.
You make that trade and don't look back. How do we know the Pats don't take him or they simply like another team's offer better?
You can do a lot with #39 in this draft. It can be a piece that lets you trade into the first round to grab Penix/Nix, after selecting Nabers. I would rather have Nabers-Penix than Burns.
Why not all 3?
Quote:
we'd be talking about taking an edge in the first round.
In the lottery? NFW. Not this crop of Edge prospects.
QB would still be the hot topic. If we moved down, then Edge prospects would come more in focus.
The Burns acquisition is still an interesting topic. I don't think forking over the second rounder was a bad idea as much as the contract. Burns is now higher paid than much more accomplished players like Watt, Garrett, Hunter, etc. In other words, he's being paid to be an elite player.
Are you sure he is? I'm not...
I guarantee you we would have a bunch of fans saying edge at #6 or trading down slightly to take an edge.
It wasn't.
It was terrible. 27th in the NFL.
Quote:
we'd be talking about taking an edge in the first round.
In the lottery? NFW. Not this crop of Edge prospects.
QB would still be the hot topic. If we moved down, then Edge prospects would come more in focus.
The Burns acquisition is still an interesting topic. I don't think forking over the second rounder was a bad idea as much as the contract. Burns is now higher paid than much more accomplished players like Watt, Garrett, Hunter, etc. In other words, he's being paid to be an elite player.
Are you sure he is? I'm not...
I don't often agree with you BW, but on the Burns trade we're in lockstep!
Quote:
In comment 16477533 Darwinian said:
Quote:
If not having #39 gets in the way of moving up to #3 and obtaining the QB we want, then I will regret the move.
I get it. Burns is a nice player. And we got him at solid value. But the QB and the offense has to be the top priority. And Burns isn't good enough to derail the rebuilding of this offense. He's good but he's not LT. And with the salary we have to pay him, he's not some fantastic bargain. We're talking about an 8 sack guy who doesn't show up to every game. We already have a guy like that -- KT. Again, I think Burns can be part of a good defense, but he's not worth failing to get Drake Maye.
You make that trade and don't look back. How do we know the Pats don't take him or they simply like another team's offer better?
You can do a lot with #39 in this draft. It can be a piece that lets you trade into the first round to grab Penix/Nix, after selecting Nabers. I would rather have Nabers-Penix than Burns.
They can always trade 2025 picks if they are really intent to trade back into the 1st.
Who they like of the non top 4 QBs will be interesting.
Plus, look at Sy's evals of edge rushers in the draft. Not great. To me it seems like we acquired a talent that was not available in the draft this year.
And yeah, before the deal there were threads before the combine discussing the various top ER available in the draft. Verse vs Dallas Turner vs Latu vs Chop Robinson.
As was mentioned, the defense was awful last year and the glaring hole opposite K. Thibs was something that needed to be addressed.
And I didn’t love the trade at the time. But, with the benefit of time to think about it and without the benefit of hindsight two years from now - it was a good move.
It wasn't.
It was terrible. 27th in the NFL.
Yep, and it's down one of its best players.
So, no. Getting an elite edge rusher for pick 39 and 2025 5th was a great move.
It wasn't.
It was terrible. 27th in the NFL.
I, for one, am happy to have a new DC and to have a legit pass rusher (who can also do the other things a OLB does) opposite KT. The addition of Burns, in my opinion, paves the way for at least one of him, KT, and Lawrence having an absolutel monster year.
We got him for a second round pick and it is an area of need. Why is this even a question?
This was why I was never that opposed when they had signed Vernon who was 25 at the time
A pass rush can make things difficult for the best QBs while lack of a pass rush almost guarantees you defense is on the field way too long
What did Tepper do? He got rid of his best player and his cap headache so he could get weapons for his galactic mistake at quarterback. How do you think the locker room in Carolina feels about this right about now? Oh yes of course. The same way the Giants locker room felt last year when Schoen bet the ranch on our galactic mistake at quarterback.
It will be interesting if he can take his game to that next level like DJ Moore did when he left. Burns has never played next to someone like Dexter Lawrence. He's young, talented, next to the best player he's ever played with, and a good fit for the new defense.
In terms of losing the immediate draft chip I think you don't hesitate when you are getting good value - like was mentioned, one pick needed to go to edge one way or another. If they really need to move up from #6 they can use 2025 picks too.
You seem like a pleasant person.
That said Burns fills a clear need and is better then Any edge who would have been available day 2 and probably the entire draft.
The question is how does the giants use the capital they have, which we find out this week
What did Tepper do? He got rid of his best player and his cap headache so he could get weapons for his galactic mistake at quarterback. How do you think the locker room in Carolina feels about this right about now? Oh yes of course. The same way the Giants locker room felt last year when Schoen bet the ranch on our galactic mistake at quarterback.
Allen is considered to be very good against the run and had 17.5 sacks last year. I hope you are looking into your crystal ball and seeing that Burns "will" become the same player as Josh Allen because right now he isn't and it's not even close.
A mistake would be trading up for a QB this year
+1.
+1 x a very big number x that number again.
Quote:
of the Carolina Panthers by Joe Schoen. You don't give up on talent. Burns is the same player as Josh Allen, but a year younger. The right move there, as the Jags demonstrated by resigning Allen, was to sign Burns.
What did Tepper do? He got rid of his best player and his cap headache so he could get weapons for his galactic mistake at quarterback. How do you think the locker room in Carolina feels about this right about now? Oh yes of course. The same way the Giants locker room felt last year when Schoen bet the ranch on our galactic mistake at quarterback.
Allen is considered to be very good against the run and had 17.5 sacks last year. I hope you are looking into your crystal ball and seeing that Burns "will" become the same player as Josh Allen because right now he isn't and it's not even close.
Josh Allen wasn't available and the cost would have been a lot more. The giants needed to add to the pass rush. Burns fit that need. Burns is a known, whereas the draft didn't offer elite talent to consider especially when you want to address other needs.
If we only had one 2nd round pick, then maybe there would be hesitation, but the luxury of two 2nd round picks gave us flexibility to address the pass rush with a young highly productive player that will benefit from others playing alongside him in Dexter and Thibs.
The real issue with Burns is that if he turns out to be Golladay then you have the horrible contract plus the loss of picks. If he turns out to be Leonard Williams you basically break even. For it to be a really good deal, he has to outplay his contract.
But let's see if a team makes a move up to draft a quarterback and what they pay.
Quote:
In comment 16477680 The Mike said:
Quote:
of the Carolina Panthers by Joe Schoen. You don't give up on talent. Burns is the same player as Josh Allen, but a year younger. The right move there, as the Jags demonstrated by resigning Allen, was to sign Burns.
What did Tepper do? He got rid of his best player and his cap headache so he could get weapons for his galactic mistake at quarterback. How do you think the locker room in Carolina feels about this right about now? Oh yes of course. The same way the Giants locker room felt last year when Schoen bet the ranch on our galactic mistake at quarterback.
Allen is considered to be very good against the run and had 17.5 sacks last year. I hope you are looking into your crystal ball and seeing that Burns "will" become the same player as Josh Allen because right now he isn't and it's not even close.
Josh Allen wasn't available and the cost would have been a lot more. The giants needed to add to the pass rush. Burns fit that need. Burns is a known, whereas the draft didn't offer elite talent to consider especially when you want to address other needs.
If we only had one 2nd round pick, then maybe there would be hesitation, but the luxury of two 2nd round picks gave us flexibility to address the pass rush with a young highly productive player that will benefit from others playing alongside him in Dexter and Thibs.
My statement about Allen was in response to The Mike saying Burns is the same player as Allen. I get why the did it and I hope he takes a real step up and elevates the guys around him. I watched a bunch of Panthers games as I had him and Luvu as IDP on my fantasy team and I saw a good edge nothing more. I'm not unhappy he's on the team I just think the draft capital and the massive contract were too much!
The real issue with Burns is that if he turns out to be Golladay then you have the horrible contract plus the loss of picks. If he turns out to be Leonard Williams you basically break even. For it to be a really good deal, he has to outplay his contract.
Well when your drafting is terrible for years and years, you have to selectively add talent in other ways. You wanna wait another 10 years to try and get competitive?
He’s also not good against the run which we were awful defending last year. Blame Wink all you want but he’s had good-to-great run defenses throughout his career and Burns will be replacing snaps from guys who were primarily run-defenders on a line that lost AR and LW.
Are we a more talented team this year because of the trade? Yes. But losing a high-value draft pick and $30M in cap space will have an impact filling holes on a rebuild. He’s too good to call the deal a ‘mistake’ but it’s not unreasonable to have reservations.
Burns will be 26 years old at the start of the 2024 season. He has 46 career sacks in 5 years.
It's a no brainer trade considering this isn't considered a strong EDGE class. Pairing a talented EDGE with Thibodeaux on the other side and Lawrence in the middle is extremely exciting to look forward to watching and see how good they can become.
If we were to keep it and make the pick, the odds extremely slim the player would be anywhere near as productive as Burns.
Burns is not an all-pro. He's a pro bowl player.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
Without a 2024 pick as well? Probably not.
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion.
The Panthers just did this last year, but up to #1 (from #9).
The 49ers did it in 2021 but up to #3 (from 12)
the Giants can go to any spot there is a willing trade partner. They have more than enough draft picks to do it even if it involves future years. Simply having 10 picks is beyond irrelevant, especially if many of the 10 picks are outside the first two rounds where the value markedly drops off.
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
This is a good draft. That's why people think the Vikings can jump The Giants, they have 2 first rounders to offer in this draft.
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
.
Without a 2024 pick as well? Probably not.
They could ADD 2025 picks to their #6 and #47 if they wanted to.
Quote:
In comment 16477771 GFAN52 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
.
Without a 2024 pick as well? Probably not.
They could ADD 2025 picks to their #6 and #47 if they wanted to.
It will be hard to top #23 in this draft, at least one of Verse, Latu, Turner or Murphy will drop to 23.
Quote:
In comment 16477773 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477771 GFAN52 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
.
Without a 2024 pick as well? Probably not.
They could ADD 2025 picks to their #6 and #47 if they wanted to.
It will be hard to top #23 in this draft, at least one of Verse, Latu, Turner or Murphy will drop to 23.
Conversely, the 11th pick won't allow them a chance at Nabers, Odunze or even possibly Alt.
Quote:
In comment 16477788 GFAN52 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477773 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477771 GFAN52 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
.
Without a 2024 pick as well? Probably not.
They could ADD 2025 picks to their #6 and #47 if they wanted to.
It will be hard to top #23 in this draft, at least one of Verse, Latu, Turner or Murphy will drop to 23.
Conversely, the 11th pick won't allow them a chance at Nabers, Odunze or even possibly Alt.
True. But it might get them Bowers or top corner plus one of those linemen. They can remake their defense.
He’s also not good against the run which we were awful defending last year. Blame Wink all you want but he’s had good-to-great run defenses throughout his career and Burns will be replacing snaps from guys who were primarily run-defenders on a line that lost AR and LW.
Are we a more talented team this year because of the trade? Yes. But losing a high-value draft pick and $30M in cap space will have an impact filling holes on a rebuild. He’s too good to call the deal a ‘mistake’ but it’s not unreasonable to have reservations.
Why did Carolina trade him? I’m not sure if you’ve been hiding under a rock but just to clue you in, Carolina is a completely inept franchise right now. They’ve made one poor decision after another the past few seasons
We don't just have an offensive problem. Take away the turnovers (which come and go) and we might have been selecting Caleb Williams on Thursday.
That said, we don’t know if the Giants approached Hunter, and he turned them down.
Quote:
In comment 16477773 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477771 GFAN52 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
They can use 2025 picks should they target someone they really want in a trade up.
.
Without a 2024 pick as well? Probably not.
They could ADD 2025 picks to their #6 and #47 if they wanted to.
It will be hard to top #23 in this draft, at least one of Verse, Latu, Turner or Murphy will drop to 23.
Hard to top the #23? How about taking next year's 1st round pick and by the sound of that, they may be getting a top 10 pick plus and they get one of the top rated wide receivers in the draft.
Put it in reverse, we are the giants in the Cardinals situation. I would want a slight trade down, and still get a top player plus position myself next year with potentially a top 10 draft pick versus a #23. Its not hard to sell or top.
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion.
The Panthers just did this last year, but up to #1 (from #9).
The 49ers did it in 2021 but up to #3 (from 12)
the Giants can go to any spot there is a willing trade partner. They have more than enough draft picks to do it even if it involves future years. Simply having 10 picks is beyond irrelevant, especially if many of the 10 picks are outside the first two rounds where the value markedly drops off.
"this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion."
'And this is a bad opinion and factually incorrect' because YOU say so, that's good stuff. Now tell me how many draft picks did the Panthers have last year? Or the 49ers in 2021? Do you even know how many?
That's just one hypothetical.
That makes zero sense.
There comes a point where the QB doesn't matter because there is no team around him to support him (including defense) and you end up with a wrecked prospect.
If Daniel Jones was on another team, he's probably a much different player.
Agreed. It's a reasonable question. If this team can't score points Burns won't matter. It will be like the Mendenhall/Van Pelt Giants.
So, no, in my opinion trading for Burns wasn't a mistake. A mistake would be not adding another weapon to the defensive arsenal relatively early in the upcoming draft. While I'd prefer a 3-Tech DT to pair with Dexter Lawrence, I could see the Giants opting for a CB depending on how things shake out.
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion.
The Panthers just did this last year, but up to #1 (from #9).
The 49ers did it in 2021 but up to #3 (from 12)
the Giants can go to any spot there is a willing trade partner. They have more than enough draft picks to do it even if it involves future years. Simply having 10 picks is beyond irrelevant, especially if many of the 10 picks are outside the first two rounds where the value markedly drops off.
.
"this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion."
'And this is a bad opinion and factually incorrect' because YOU say so, that's good stuff. Now tell me how many draft picks did the Panthers have last year? Or the 49ers in 2021? Do you even know how many?
You are asking the wrong question. It's not factually incorrect because I said it is, it's factually incorrect because you're wrong.
the 49ers traded 1 pick in the 2021 draft in the trade up for Lance (plus 3 picks from other drafts). 1 in the current draft. So, why does it matter how many they had to "maneuver the draft board"? it's a completely irrelevant question.
they moved up from pick 12 to pick 1 in the 2021 draft, it cost them 4 picks. One of those picks was from the 2021 draft.
that's it.
The Panthers moved up from 9 to 1 in 2023 and used only 2 picks in the current draft to do so, a 1st and a 2nd. they added two picks from future drafts to the trade. So again, why does it matter how many picks they had in the current draft?
So, now do you see how factually incorrect you are and even espousing a bad opinion?
No offense.
Quote:
My point is if NYG lose out in a trade up for Maye to the Vikings because of a lack of draft capital, it's fair to question the deal imo.
Agreed. It's a reasonable question. If this team can't score points Burns won't matter. It will be like the Mendenhall/Van Pelt Giants.
If the team can't stop the other team, the QB won't matter.
The Giants have PLENTY of “draft capital”. That 2nd round pick isn’t moving the needle in a trade up nearly as much as you think. If the Vikings are willing to give up 3 1’s, the Giants would absolutely have to add their 1st in ‘25. You’re making far too much out of a 2nd round pick when the Giants still have a 2nd round pick anyways. The Pats aren’t going to care about that pick. They are going to want the 1st next season
Quote:
In comment 16477782 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion.
The Panthers just did this last year, but up to #1 (from #9).
The 49ers did it in 2021 but up to #3 (from 12)
the Giants can go to any spot there is a willing trade partner. They have more than enough draft picks to do it even if it involves future years. Simply having 10 picks is beyond irrelevant, especially if many of the 10 picks are outside the first two rounds where the value markedly drops off.
.
"this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion."
'And this is a bad opinion and factually incorrect' because YOU say so, that's good stuff. Now tell me how many draft picks did the Panthers have last year? Or the 49ers in 2021? Do you even know how many?
You are asking the wrong question. It's not factually incorrect because I said it is, it's factually incorrect because you're wrong.
the 49ers traded 1 pick in the 2021 draft in the trade up for Lance (plus 3 picks from other drafts). 1 in the current draft. So, why does it matter how many they had to "maneuver the draft board"? it's a completely irrelevant question.
they moved up from pick 12 to pick 1 in the 2021 draft, it cost them 4 picks. One of those picks was from the 2021 draft.
that's it.
The Panthers moved up from 9 to 1 in 2023 and used only 2 picks in the current draft to do so, a 1st and a 2nd. they added two picks from future drafts to the trade. So again, why does it matter how many picks they had in the current draft?
So, now do you see how factually incorrect you are and even espousing a bad opinion?
No offense.
You still evaded the actual question, how many picks did each team have for that draft year? It's much easier to maneuver if you enough draft capital, which you seem not to grasp or choose to ignore.
I don't espouse bad opinions very often, just to be clear.
I'm done here, if you choose to ignore it, on you.
Quote:
In comment 16477782 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion.
The Panthers just did this last year, but up to #1 (from #9).
The 49ers did it in 2021 but up to #3 (from 12)
the Giants can go to any spot there is a willing trade partner. They have more than enough draft picks to do it even if it involves future years. Simply having 10 picks is beyond irrelevant, especially if many of the 10 picks are outside the first two rounds where the value markedly drops off.
.
"this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion."
'And this is a bad opinion and factually incorrect' because YOU say so, that's good stuff. Now tell me how many draft picks did the Panthers have last year? Or the 49ers in 2021? Do you even know how many?
You are asking the wrong question. It's not factually incorrect because I said it is, it's factually incorrect because you're wrong.
the 49ers traded 1 pick in the 2021 draft in the trade up for Lance (plus 3 picks from other drafts). 1 in the current draft. So, why does it matter how many they had to "maneuver the draft board"? it's a completely irrelevant question.
they moved up from pick 12 to pick 1 in the 2021 draft, it cost them 4 picks. One of those picks was from the 2021 draft.
that's it.
The Panthers moved up from 9 to 1 in 2023 and used only 2 picks in the current draft to do so, a 1st and a 2nd. they added two picks from future drafts to the trade. So again, why does it matter how many picks they had in the current draft?
So, now do you see how factually incorrect you are and even espousing a bad opinion?
No offense.
Sorry, my apologies, to be factually correct SF moved up to pick 3 from pick 12, not up to pick 1 to take Lance.
2022: 25th
2023: 27th
Want me to keep going?
Quote:
My point is if NYG lose out in a trade up for Maye to the Vikings because of a lack of draft capital, it's fair to question the deal imo.
The Giants have PLENTY of “draft capital”. That 2nd round pick isn’t moving the needle in a trade up nearly as much as you think. If the Vikings are willing to give up 3 1’s, the Giants would absolutely have to add their 1st in ‘25. You’re making far too much out of a 2nd round pick when the Giants still have a 2nd round pick anyways. The Pats aren’t going to care about that pick. They are going to want the 1st next season
No they don't have plenty of draft capital, you should partner with the other poster here then...
Quote:
In comment 16477833 Sean said:
Quote:
My point is if NYG lose out in a trade up for Maye to the Vikings because of a lack of draft capital, it's fair to question the deal imo.
The Giants have PLENTY of “draft capital”. That 2nd round pick isn’t moving the needle in a trade up nearly as much as you think. If the Vikings are willing to give up 3 1’s, the Giants would absolutely have to add their 1st in ‘25. You’re making far too much out of a 2nd round pick when the Giants still have a 2nd round pick anyways. The Pats aren’t going to care about that pick. They are going to want the 1st next season
.
No they don't have plenty of draft capital, you should partner with the other poster here then...
You’re out of your damn mind. The Giants could trade up if they wanted to. The question is, do they? YOU not wanting to give up the picks it would take is your problem and has nothing to do with the Giants not having enough to make the move. Go back to bed
Quote:
In comment 16477841 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
In comment 16477833 Sean said:
Quote:
My point is if NYG lose out in a trade up for Maye to the Vikings because of a lack of draft capital, it's fair to question the deal imo.
The Giants have PLENTY of “draft capital”. That 2nd round pick isn’t moving the needle in a trade up nearly as much as you think. If the Vikings are willing to give up 3 1’s, the Giants would absolutely have to add their 1st in ‘25. You’re making far too much out of a 2nd round pick when the Giants still have a 2nd round pick anyways. The Pats aren’t going to care about that pick. They are going to want the 1st next season
.
No they don't have plenty of draft capital, you should partner with the other poster here then...
You’re out of your damn mind. The Giants could trade up if they wanted to. The question is, do they? YOU not wanting to give up the picks it would take is your problem and has nothing to do with the Giants not having enough to make the move. Go back to bed
Let's have the Giants trade picks this year AND next year with a roster already devoid of plenty of talent...to move up for a QB this year. Hey, there is no Elway or Marino coming out this year, I'm just telling you. Have a cup of java, maybe you will wake up...
2022: 25th
2023: 27th
Want me to keep going?
Wink was so overrated. Good riddance.
Quote:
In comment 16477813 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477782 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477768 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477541 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not a mistake. if the Giants want to move up bad enough, they can move to wherever they want to and not having pick #39 is not preventing them from maneuvering even a little.
.
They don't have the draft capital to really move up with only 6 picks. I recall a few years ago they had 10 picks, that's when you can maneuver.
this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion.
The Panthers just did this last year, but up to #1 (from #9).
The 49ers did it in 2021 but up to #3 (from 12)
the Giants can go to any spot there is a willing trade partner. They have more than enough draft picks to do it even if it involves future years. Simply having 10 picks is beyond irrelevant, especially if many of the 10 picks are outside the first two rounds where the value markedly drops off.
.
"this is not just factually incorrect, it is also a bad opinion."
'And this is a bad opinion and factually incorrect' because YOU say so, that's good stuff. Now tell me how many draft picks did the Panthers have last year? Or the 49ers in 2021? Do you even know how many?
You are asking the wrong question. It's not factually incorrect because I said it is, it's factually incorrect because you're wrong.
the 49ers traded 1 pick in the 2021 draft in the trade up for Lance (plus 3 picks from other drafts). 1 in the current draft. So, why does it matter how many they had to "maneuver the draft board"? it's a completely irrelevant question.
they moved up from pick 12 to pick 1 in the 2021 draft, it cost them 4 picks. One of those picks was from the 2021 draft.
that's it.
The Panthers moved up from 9 to 1 in 2023 and used only 2 picks in the current draft to do so, a 1st and a 2nd. they added two picks from future drafts to the trade. So again, why does it matter how many picks they had in the current draft?
So, now do you see how factually incorrect you are and even espousing a bad opinion?
No offense.
You still evaded the actual question, how many picks did each team have for that draft year? It's much easier to maneuver if you enough draft capital, which you seem not to grasp or choose to ignore.
I don't espouse bad opinions very often, just to be clear.
I'm done here, if you choose to ignore it, on you.
lol, there is willful ignorance and then there is something worse - whatever this is.
This is what SF had in draft picks prior to trading up from 12 to 1.
What is the real difference maker here that allowed the 49ers to adeptly "maneuver" the draft board like Itzhak Perlman on his Stradivarius.
The Giants currently have a better 1st, similar 2nd, better 3rd, better 4th. Is that those two 5th round comp picks? that's it - in your mind that's how they pulled off this feat? Is it the missing 7th round pick? that's the one?
dude, when you're in a hole, stop digging.
1st round, No. 12 overall
2nd round, No. 43 overall
3rd round, No. 102 overall
4th round, No. 117 overall
5th round, No. 155 overall
5th round, No. 172 overall
5th round, No. 180 overall (from NO)
6th round, No. 194 overall
7th round, No. 230 overall (from NYJ)
Quote:
In comment 16477854 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477841 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
In comment 16477833 Sean said:
Quote:
My point is if NYG lose out in a trade up for Maye to the Vikings because of a lack of draft capital, it's fair to question the deal imo.
The Giants have PLENTY of “draft capital”. That 2nd round pick isn’t moving the needle in a trade up nearly as much as you think. If the Vikings are willing to give up 3 1’s, the Giants would absolutely have to add their 1st in ‘25. You’re making far too much out of a 2nd round pick when the Giants still have a 2nd round pick anyways. The Pats aren’t going to care about that pick. They are going to want the 1st next season
.
No they don't have plenty of draft capital, you should partner with the other poster here then...
You’re out of your damn mind. The Giants could trade up if they wanted to. The question is, do they? YOU not wanting to give up the picks it would take is your problem and has nothing to do with the Giants not having enough to make the move. Go back to bed
.
Let's have the Giants trade picks this year AND next year with a roster already devoid of plenty of talent...to move up for a QB this year. Hey, there is no Elway or Marino coming out this year, I'm just telling you. Have a cup of java, maybe you will wake up...
You don’t seem very bright. I clearly said they have the draft capital to move up if they want to. You clearly keep getting that confused with your own opinion on whether they should. This shouldn’t be this difficult. Your opinion has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not they can make the move. Pull your shit together
2022: 25th
2023: 27th
Want me to keep going?
Quote:
In comment 16477857 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
In comment 16477854 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 16477841 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
In comment 16477833 Sean said:
Quote:
My point is if NYG lose out in a trade up for Maye to the Vikings because of a lack of draft capital, it's fair to question the deal imo.
The Giants have PLENTY of “draft capital”. That 2nd round pick isn’t moving the needle in a trade up nearly as much as you think. If the Vikings are willing to give up 3 1’s, the Giants would absolutely have to add their 1st in ‘25. You’re making far too much out of a 2nd round pick when the Giants still have a 2nd round pick anyways. The Pats aren’t going to care about that pick. They are going to want the 1st next season
.
No they don't have plenty of draft capital, you should partner with the other poster here then...
You’re out of your damn mind. The Giants could trade up if they wanted to. The question is, do they? YOU not wanting to give up the picks it would take is your problem and has nothing to do with the Giants not having enough to make the move. Go back to bed
.
Let's have the Giants trade picks this year AND next year with a roster already devoid of plenty of talent...to move up for a QB this year. Hey, there is no Elway or Marino coming out this year, I'm just telling you. Have a cup of java, maybe you will wake up...
You don’t seem very bright. I clearly said they have the draft capital to move up if they want to. You clearly keep getting that confused with your own opinion on whether they should. This shouldn’t be this difficult. Your opinion has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not they can make the move. Pull your shit together
Also, a trade up to 4 wouldn't be too much. We're talking pick 6, 70, 2025 2nd at the most. That is absolutely worth it. I wouldn't trade up to 3 for anyone but Daniels though, that's where it gets really expensive.
The example I used was the Giants had 10 picks a few years ago
So who is digging out of anything?
I don't know why I engage with an argumentative person who likes to insult along the way. Somehow, Eric and the others who run this site, don't seem to mind. That wouldn't fly on other sites, that I can assure you.
'Pull my shit together', everybody is a comedian it seems.
Quote:
2021: 21st
2022: 25th
2023: 27th
Want me to keep going?
Wink was so overrated. Good riddance.
I'll admit I wasn't really sold on Wink in the first place. His boasting of being able to scheme pass-rush gave me flashbacks to Dave Gettleman and his emphasis of pressure over sacks reminded me of Patrick Graham. In the latter case pressures felt like making excuses or trying not to sack the quarterback. And then there was the two-lineman front Wink liked to use on a regular basis; judging by what Bowen's liked to do with Tennessee, will he keep using that and let the off-tackle lanes get gashed?
The example I used was the Giants had 10 picks a few years ago
So who is digging out of anything?
I don't know why I engage with an argumentative person who likes to insult along the way. Somehow, Eric and the others who run this site, don't seem to mind. That wouldn't fly on other sites, that I can assure you.
'Pull my shit together', everybody is a comedian it seems.
I said "no offense" at the end of my post. That automatically allows me to be truthful in my comments and indicate while the truth may be hurtful I didn't mean it to offend you. It basically allows me to say anything.
your whole premise is flawed b/c you think number of picks matter. If there is ever a time to use the phrase draft capital because somebody doesn't understand picks in different locations have different value this is it. I did not believe such a person existed.
Because you believe that having 10, 12, 14 who knows the upper limit you have picks allows a team more draft maneuverability when it has almost zero bearing on their ability to move up and down (especially near the top of the draft). High picks are all that are really relevant.
I wish you a good day, and hope you can overcome your ignorance. Again, no offense and I will add with all due respect, so I'm covered on all bases.
burns is a 2x pro bowler. what 2x+ pro bowler would you expect to get at pick #39.
any analyst worth a damn talks about the need to build a roster in addition to finding the QB. both need to be done at the same time. check out the 4 defenses in the championship games last year. and note the only one of those QBs who was a top 5 pick was Goff, who was originally considered a bust and secondly considered way overpaid. his 3rd life is positive, and likely only because of the really quality roster campbell assembled around him.
That makes zero sense.
Hunter signed for 2/$49M, I don’t see that as a mega-deal. He’d fill a need until they find someone younger to fill the position.
[quote] In comment 16477879 Carson53 said:
Quote:
had what seems like 9 draft picks in that draft year, okay.
The example I used was the Giants had 10 picks a few years ago
So who is digging out of anything?
I don't know why I engage with an argumentative person who likes to insult along the way. Somehow, Eric and the others who run this site, don't seem to mind. That wouldn't fly on other sites, that I can assure you.
'Pull my shit together', everybody is a comedian it seems.
I said "no offense" at the end of my post. That automatically allows me to be truthful in my comments and indicate while the truth may be hurtful I didn't mean it to offend you. It basically allows me to say anything.
your whole premise is flawed b/c you think number of picks matter. If there is ever a time to use the phrase draft capital because somebody doesn't understand picks in different locations have different value this is it. I did not believe such a person existed.
Because you believe that having 10, 12, 14 who knows the upper limit you have picks allows a team more draft maneuverability when it has almost zero bearing on their ability to move up and down (especially near the top of the draft). High picks are all that are really relevant.
I wish you a good day, and hope you can overcome your ignorance. Again, no offense and I will add with all due respect, so I'm covered on all bases.
You hope I can overcome my 'ignorance', you think you're so cute sometimes. You actually are pretty good at being evasive...with the younger crowd.
The Jon Stewart of BBI. If you weren't 'ignorant', you would have realized the previous post wasn't even directed at you.
Am I covered too?
Quote:
of the Carolina Panthers by Joe Schoen. You don't give up on talent. Burns is the same player as Josh Allen, but a year younger. The right move there, as the Jags demonstrated by resigning Allen, was to sign Burns.
What did Tepper do? He got rid of his best player and his cap headache so he could get weapons for his galactic mistake at quarterback. How do you think the locker room in Carolina feels about this right about now? Oh yes of course. The same way the Giants locker room felt last year when Schoen bet the ranch on our galactic mistake at quarterback.
Allen is considered to be very good against the run and had 17.5 sacks last year. I hope you are looking into your crystal ball and seeing that Burns "will" become the same player as Josh Allen because right now he isn't and it's not even close.
They are virtually identical in size, speed and athleticism. They are both 6'5", Allen is slightly bigger at 260 v Burns at 250, Burns is faster with a 4.5 40 time v Allen's 4.6 40 time and Burns has longer reach and bigger hands. So naturally given his larger weight, Allen is going to be slightly more effective at the point of attack against the rush. But given his superior speed and reach, Burns is the better equipped of the two as a pure pass rusher from the edge.
In terms of on field performance, they were both first round draft picks in 2019, but Burns has played in six more games, has one more sack, six more TFLs, one fewer FR and one fewer forced fumble. Both have been selected to two pro bowls. If there were two virtual clones playing edge in the NFL, these two would be it.
Quote:
In comment 16477680 The Mike said:
Quote:
of the Carolina Panthers by Joe Schoen. You don't give up on talent. Burns is the same player as Josh Allen, but a year younger. The right move there, as the Jags demonstrated by resigning Allen, was to sign Burns.
What did Tepper do? He got rid of his best player and his cap headache so he could get weapons for his galactic mistake at quarterback. How do you think the locker room in Carolina feels about this right about now? Oh yes of course. The same way the Giants locker room felt last year when Schoen bet the ranch on our galactic mistake at quarterback.
Allen is considered to be very good against the run and had 17.5 sacks last year. I hope you are looking into your crystal ball and seeing that Burns "will" become the same player as Josh Allen because right now he isn't and it's not even close.
They are virtually identical in size, speed and athleticism. They are both 6'5", Allen is slightly bigger at 260 v Burns at 250, Burns is faster with a 4.5 40 time v Allen's 4.6 40 time and Burns has longer reach and bigger hands. So naturally given his larger weight, Allen is going to be slightly more effective at the point of attack against the rush. But given his superior speed and reach, Burns is the better equipped of the two as a pure pass rusher from the edge.
In terms of on field performance, they were both first round draft picks in 2019, but Burns has played in six more games, has one more sack, six more TFLs, one fewer FR and one fewer forced fumble. Both have been selected to two pro bowls. If there were two virtual clones playing edge in the NFL, these two would be it.
Mike,. I get the physical similarities, but one is considered a very good run defender and his high sack total is 17.5. The other is considered an average at best run defender and his high in sacks is 12.5. I think that Burns is a good player, but in all the games that I have watched him play(20 at least) I don't see a game breaker or true impact player and I think the trade and the contract are a big overpay.
I think poor teams pay good players like great ones. The Giants need an almost entirely new offense and have some big holes on D. Burns will make them better, I'm not arguing that, but I am worried that the $ and picks could have been used better elsewhere. That being said I hope he is fantastic this year and for years after and I worried for nothing.
2022: 25th
2023: 27th
Want me to keep going?
Funny enough if you keep going is the last good scoring defense the Giants have had. For all the flack Graham got, the 2020 team was top 10 in scoring.
I have no love lost for Gettleman, but that was a strong front 7.
A lot of those meltdowns were last second field goals where they couldn't close the door.
But he's put together top 10 scoring defenses in two out of the last four years, which is a fantasy compared to what Martindale did in New York.
Quote:
In comment 16477694 Walker Gillette said:
Quote:
In comment 16477680 The Mike said:
Quote:
of the Carolina Panthers by Joe Schoen. You don't give up on talent. Burns is the same player as Josh Allen, but a year younger. The right move there, as the Jags demonstrated by resigning Allen, was to sign Burns.
What did Tepper do? He got rid of his best player and his cap headache so he could get weapons for his galactic mistake at quarterback. How do you think the locker room in Carolina feels about this right about now? Oh yes of course. The same way the Giants locker room felt last year when Schoen bet the ranch on our galactic mistake at quarterback.
Allen is considered to be very good against the run and had 17.5 sacks last year. I hope you are looking into your crystal ball and seeing that Burns "will" become the same player as Josh Allen because right now he isn't and it's not even close.
They are virtually identical in size, speed and athleticism. They are both 6'5", Allen is slightly bigger at 260 v Burns at 250, Burns is faster with a 4.5 40 time v Allen's 4.6 40 time and Burns has longer reach and bigger hands. So naturally given his larger weight, Allen is going to be slightly more effective at the point of attack against the rush. But given his superior speed and reach, Burns is the better equipped of the two as a pure pass rusher from the edge.
In terms of on field performance, they were both first round draft picks in 2019, but Burns has played in six more games, has one more sack, six more TFLs, one fewer FR and one fewer forced fumble. Both have been selected to two pro bowls. If there were two virtual clones playing edge in the NFL, these two would be it.
Mike,. I get the physical similarities, but one is considered a very good run defender and his high sack total is 17.5. The other is considered an average at best run defender and his high in sacks is 12.5. I think that Burns is a good player, but in all the games that I have watched him play(20 at least) I don't see a game breaker or true impact player and I think the trade and the contract are a big overpay.
I think poor teams pay good players like great ones. The Giants need an almost entirely new offense and have some big holes on D. Burns will make them better, I'm not arguing that, but I am worried that the $ and picks could have been used better elsewhere. That being said I hope he is fantastic this year and for years after and I worried for nothing.
Allen is definitely better right now. Nevertheless, Burns is good and it's hard to judge how could he could be based on his time in Carolina with very little pass rushing situations and very little help around him. I'd say wait and see how he does here before judging this as a bad move.
You can't build you strategy hard on what other teams may or may not do, come up with your plan and adjust accordingly.
I think Graham is a solid DC but Giants had some favorable situations that season. Then the following year I agree with Eric's point.
A mistake would be trading up for a QB this year
Agree again.
Who?
Quote:
because he can get a QB at 6 without having to trade up.
Who?
They can sit at 6 and draft Penix or Nix, who I think are as likely to be good (or bust) in the NFL as Maye or McCarthy are.
Quote:
In comment 16477519 Go Terps said:
Quote:
because he can get a QB at 6 without having to trade up.
Who?
They can sit at 6 and draft Penix or Nix, who I think are as likely to be good (or bust) in the NFL as Maye or McCarthy are.
Noodle arm Nix at 6, or anywhere before the 3rd round, would be awful.
Quote:
In comment 16477519 Go Terps said:
Quote:
because he can get a QB at 6 without having to trade up.
Who?
They can sit at 6 and draft Penix or Nix, who I think are as likely to be good (or bust) in the NFL as Maye or McCarthy are.
since they are all equally likely to be good or bad they should save money on all the technology upgrades and pre-draft travel.
just do the same thing they did in buffalo:
I think Graham is a solid DC but Giants had some favorable situations that season. Then the following year I agree with Eric's point.
The average offensive ranking against for the Giants was 17th, and the average offensive PPG by opponents was 24.3.
The Giants held opponents to 2 full fewer points per game than their season average. In 11 of 16 games, the Giants held their opponents to fewer than their season average in scoring.
The Giants held all three top 10 offenses they played (Tampa, Seattle, Baltimore) below their season averages.
In every conceivable measurement, the Giants had a good scoring defense in 2020.
I'm not high on Schoen (yet), but I liked this move.
[quote] In comment 16477879 Carson53 said:
Quote:
had what seems like 9 draft picks in that draft year, okay.
The example I used was the Giants had 10 picks a few years ago
So who is digging out of anything?
I don't know why I engage with an argumentative person who likes to insult along the way. Somehow, Eric and the others who run this site, don't seem to mind. That wouldn't fly on other sites, that I can assure you.
'Pull my shit together', everybody is a comedian it seems.
I said "no offense" at the end of my post. That automatically allows me to be truthful in my comments and indicate while the truth may be hurtful I didn't mean it to offend you. It basically allows me to say anything.
your whole premise is flawed b/c you think number of picks matter. If there is ever a time to use the phrase draft capital because somebody doesn't understand picks in different locations have different value this is it. I did not believe such a person existed.
Because you believe that having 10, 12, 14 who knows the upper limit you have picks allows a team more draft maneuverability when it has almost zero bearing on their ability to move up and down (especially near the top of the draft). High picks are all that are really relevant.
I wish you a good day, and hope you can overcome your ignorance. Again, no offense and I will add with all due respect, so I'm covered on all bases.
You hope I can overcome my 'ignorance', you think you're so cute sometimes. You actually are pretty good at being evasive...with the younger crowd.
The Jon Stewart of BBI. If you weren't 'ignorant', you would have realized the previous post wasn't even directed at you.
Am I covered too?
Jon Stewart? Take that back. I never said anything remotely that offensive to you. and you did not even qualify it with "no offense"
The Giants are now very very small steps away from having an Elite Defense.
The problem is that their Offense is atrocious but a great defense for several years can make up for the Offense provided positive steps are made now building it up.
nope that was buffalo's magic 8-ball. mara wouldnt let them buy one here because it's not his preferred color. forced them to make decisions the old fashioned way.
Quote:
would a rebuilding ball club with no quarterback spend a mega deal on a 30-year old edge player?
That makes zero sense.
Hunter signed for 2/$49M, I don’t see that as a mega-deal. He’d fill a need until they find someone younger to fill the position.
They’re not trying to “fill needs” they’re trying to build a good core of young players to build upon.
Signing Hunter would been dumb and worthless. He’d be a FA again when the Giants are hopefully good and on the wrong side of 30.
That said, we don’t know if the Giants approached Hunter, and he turned them down.
I said this exact same thing during the opening of free agency. If we needed a pass rusher, Hunter was the better two-year deal for a more gifted, productive player.
Quote:
In comment 16477832 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
would a rebuilding ball club with no quarterback spend a mega deal on a 30-year old edge player?
That makes zero sense.
Hunter signed for 2/$49M, I don’t see that as a mega-deal. He’d fill a need until they find someone younger to fill the position.
They’re not trying to “fill needs” they’re trying to build a good core of young players to build upon.
Signing Hunter would been dumb and worthless. He’d be a FA again when the Giants are hopefully good and on the wrong side of 30.
You have 2 drafts and/or FA periods to find his replacement. I like Burns, so I’m not going to go crazy about giving up the picks, but I’d rather have them.
Quote:
would a rebuilding ball club with no quarterback spend a mega deal on a 30-year old edge player?
That makes zero sense.
Hunter signed for 2/$49M, I don’t see that as a mega-deal. He’d fill a need until they find someone younger to fill the position.
Why fill the position with a 2-year, $50 million rental on a rebuilding ball club? Why bother? This reeks of Solder and Golladay again. WTF???!!!
You're sounding ill-informed at this point.
Quote:
In comment 16477832 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
would a rebuilding ball club with no quarterback spend a mega deal on a 30-year old edge player?
That makes zero sense.
Hunter signed for 2/$49M, I don’t see that as a mega-deal. He’d fill a need until they find someone younger to fill the position.
Why fill the position with a 2-year, $50 million rental on a rebuilding ball club? Why bother? This reeks of Solder and Golladay again. WTF???!!!
100%
You're sounding ill-informed at this point.
I watched every game of his last year and studied him thoroughly. I'm just not a fan of his game for us, even some scouts said he has a noodle arm. I think he could be good in the right system like with Payton or a west coast offense based on quick strikes, rhythm and timing. He's the one in the top 6 I'm simply not a fan of for our needs, but I still think he could be good in the right offense like I said.
You're sounding ill-informed at this point.
From the Bob Mcginn draft series. I wouldn't be shocked if he went at pick 13 though. I just think he's a system QB and a terrible fit for the system Daboll wants to run.
Why fill the position with a 2-year, $50 million rental on a rebuilding ball club? Why bother? This reeks of Solder and Golladay again. WTF???!!!
Versus paying long-term, elite-$ for a player who likely isn't elite?
Hunter was the better deal - clearly.
The better question, which 331 raised, is if Hunter would have come here.
Quote:
Why fill the position with a 2-year, $50 million rental on a rebuilding ball club? Why bother? This reeks of Solder and Golladay again. WTF???!!!
Versus paying long-term, elite-$ for a player who likely isn't elite?
Hunter was the better deal - clearly.
The better question, which 331 raised, is if Hunter would have come here.
I'd rather have no FA pass rusher than Hunter, personally.
I will say, if we don't get a rookie QB contract in here asap then the trade for Burns makes a lot less sense.
Quote:
Why fill the position with a 2-year, $50 million rental on a rebuilding ball club? Why bother? This reeks of Solder and Golladay again. WTF???!!!
Versus paying long-term, elite-$ for a player who likely isn't elite?
Hunter was the better deal - clearly.
The better question, which 331 raised, is if Hunter would have come here.
Why would a rebuilding ball club with no QB sign a 30-year for two years for $50 million. That make ZERO sense.
The Giants signing the 30-year old (turns 30 in October) Hunter to that same 2 year $49M deal is like lighting $49M on fire. unless you're so delusional you expect the Giants to be contenders in the next two seasons.
Quote:
In comment 16477519 Go Terps said:
Quote:
because he can get a QB at 6 without having to trade up.
Who?
They can sit at 6 and draft Penix or Nix, who I think are as likely to be good (or bust) in the NFL as Maye or McCarthy are.
This is what I think too. In fact I wouldn't mind a small trade down if possible to get another pick somewhere. I'm fine with keeping our picks, getting Nix or Penix, and getting a WR
Why would a rebuilding ball club with no QB sign a 30-year for two years for $50 million. That make ZERO sense.
If would have made sense if the other part of the plan was to draft one of these talented QBs.
Quote:
Why would a rebuilding ball club with no QB sign a 30-year for two years for $50 million. That make ZERO sense.
If would have made sense if the other part of the plan was to draft one of these talented QBs.
We still wouldn't likely get good production from JJM or Maye until 2025 at the earliest. This isn't CJ Stroud we're talking about, they both require time to stew.
The Giants signing the 30-year old (turns 30 in October) Hunter to that same 2 year $49M deal is like lighting $49M on fire. unless you're so delusional you expect the Giants to be contenders in the next two seasons.
I'm not sold on the contract for Burns.
If we added a better QB, who's to say we couldn't be contending in two years?
Quote:
is your preferemnce because you're not sold Burns is an elite player, the Giants would have been better off doing nothing.
The Giants signing the 30-year old (turns 30 in October) Hunter to that same 2 year $49M deal is like lighting $49M on fire. unless you're so delusional you expect the Giants to be contenders in the next two seasons.
I'm not sold on the contract for Burns.
If we added a better QB, who's to say we couldn't be contending in two years?
In 2 years Hunter would be 50 million richer and the contract would be over.
We still wouldn't likely get good production from JJM or Maye until 2025 at the earliest. This isn't CJ Stroud we're talking about, they both require time to stew.
Did you see this Texans turnaround coming with that roster - at the time - and a first time HC and GM?
Let's be careful trying to finesse and revise expectations for the Texans going into 2023...
Quote:
is your preferemnce because you're not sold Burns is an elite player, the Giants would have been better off doing nothing.
The Giants signing the 30-year old (turns 30 in October) Hunter to that same 2 year $49M deal is like lighting $49M on fire. unless you're so delusional you expect the Giants to be contenders in the next two seasons.
I'm not sold on the contract for Burns.
If we added a better QB, who's to say we couldn't be contending in two years?
If the Giants draft Maye, the best scenario for him is to sit his first year. 2025 would be his rookie season as starter.
But say you are right and the Giants start competing for a playoff spot in 2026. In your scenario, 32-year old Hunter's contract is about to expire. Doesn't seem smart to me.
Quote:
is your preferemnce because you're not sold Burns is an elite player, the Giants would have been better off doing nothing.
The Giants signing the 30-year old (turns 30 in October) Hunter to that same 2 year $49M deal is like lighting $49M on fire. unless you're so delusional you expect the Giants to be contenders in the next two seasons.
I'm not sold on the contract for Burns.
If we added a better QB, who's to say we couldn't be contending in two years?
you don't even know how the draft will unfold. What if they do get a QB. Why force the need to look for a premier edge again in two years? the roster is better long-term with this player on this deal.
But...it does come down to the player - if you are not sold on Burns you don't make this trade or contract, clearly Schoen is sold on him, but my point equally was Hunter, with the deal he signed, makes no sense for the Giants to be interested in that player on that contract
In 2 years Hunter would be 50 million richer and the contract would be over.
So?
Did it occur to you if could also be dicey if Burns doesn't hold up his end of the bargain? Why are we assuming his investment is somehow safer?
At the end of the day, hopefully our GM is doing his job and upgrading the roster to account for these situations.
Quote:
In 2 years Hunter would be 50 million richer and the contract would be over.
So?
Did it occur to you if could also be dicey if Burns doesn't hold up his end of the bargain? Why are we assuming his investment is somehow safer?
At the end of the day, hopefully our GM is doing his job and upgrading the roster to account for these situations.
Your retort is to say the Giants will possibly admit the Burns deal was a failure in two years?
That's your comeback?
Acquiring one of the NFL's best pass rushers at the age of 25 for 5 years makes sense for a rebuilding club. Signing a 30-year old for 2-years doesn't. That's the difference.
Quote:
In 2 years Hunter would be 50 million richer and the contract would be over.
So?
Did it occur to you if could also be dicey if Burns doesn't hold up his end of the bargain? Why are we assuming his investment is somehow safer?
At the end of the day, hopefully our GM is doing his job and upgrading the roster to account for these situations.
If Burns produced with minimal pass rush opportunities and minimal talent around him, I think he will do just fine here and build on what is a fantastic start to his career.
If the Giants draft Maye, the best scenario for him is to sit his first year. 2025 would be his rookie season as starter.
But say you are right and the Giants start competing for a playoff spot in 2026. In your scenario, 32-year old Hunter's contract is about to expire. Doesn't seem smart to me.
If we have the right GM, he finds a solution when Hunter leaves. No dead money to worry about, etc.
BTW, I would start Maye as soon as possible in 2024. I'm not waiting...
I'll just leave it at that.
Quote:
In 2 years Hunter would be 50 million richer and the contract would be over.
So?
Did it occur to you if could also be dicey if Burns doesn't hold up his end of the bargain? Why are we assuming his investment is somehow safer?
At the end of the day, hopefully our GM is doing his job and upgrading the roster to account for these situations.
You can play the card you are playing for every single draft pick and every single trade.
It appears many of us thie thread feel the tarde is a lot safer than you. That's not meant as a knock on you - just that many of us hold him in higher regard than you.
Quote:
If the Giants draft Maye, the best scenario for him is to sit his first year. 2025 would be his rookie season as starter.
But say you are right and the Giants start competing for a playoff spot in 2026. In your scenario, 32-year old Hunter's contract is about to expire. Doesn't seem smart to me.
BTW, I would start Maye as soon as possible in 2024. I'm not waiting...
Yeah, that is smart. Throw him out there with crap mechanics and no NFL knowledge...
Your retort is to say the Giants will possibly admit the Burns deal was a failure in two years?
That's your comeback?
Acquiring one of the NFL's best pass rushers at the age of 25 for 5 years makes sense for a rebuilding club. Signing a 30-year old for 2-years doesn't. That's the difference.
I said the Burns deal may not be a good deal. I just don't know why it's being assumed it's this safer investment.
Like I said, spending a second rounder for Burns made a lot of sense. However, I don't think his play supports paying him as one of the top pass rushers in the league where he's making more than TJ Watt and Myles Garrett.
If you want to keep sprinkling magic dust on your TV that Burns is on that level, I think there is a chance you are going to be disappointed.
I could see this going the way of Vernon, who was basically the same guy as a Giant as he was a Dolphin and was viewed as a big disappointment. And he made an All Pro team as a Giant.
It appears many of us thie thread feel the tarde is a lot safer than you. That's not meant as a knock on you - just that many of us hold him in higher regard than you.
I get it. It's just conversation.
Burns is a good player for sure. But with this contract, the expectations should change; and those should entail him putting up significant sack production...IMV.
I could see this going the way of Vernon, who was basically the same guy as a Giant as he was a Dolphin and was viewed as a big disappointment. And he made an All Pro team as a Giant.
Exactly. My guess is he'll be very good, not great, and not worth an outcome where we don't get a QB because we didn't have the ammo.
that's how sports works.
Josh Allen, whose deal was signed after Burns, makes more than Burns, Garrett and Watt.
Watt is a FA in 2026. Garrett in 2027 I believe.
Pretending you don't understand this is disingenuous.
Kyler Murray contract has more average per year and more guaranteed money than Patrick Mahomes.
If Burns puts up 17 sack/50 pressure campaign, everyone will be thrilled.
But as of now, Burns is a lot more potential than performance in regards to a dominant output.
Quote:
It appears many of us thie thread feel the tarde is a lot safer than you. That's not meant as a knock on you - just that many of us hold him in higher regard than you.
I get it. It's just conversation.
Burns is a good player for sure. But with this contract, the expectations should change; and those should entail him putting up significant sack production...IMV.
Why be so focused on what he is making vs if the team can get a great defense? WHy care so much about individual stats vs seeing how overall the team plays on Defense?
You and I aren't the GM. We're fans, right?
2023 Thibs produced in the neighborhood, so maybe two?
that's how sports works.
Josh Allen, whose deal was signed after Burns, makes more than Burns, Garrett and Watt.
Watt is a FA in 2026. Garrett in 2027 I believe.
Pretending you don't understand this is disingenuous.
Kyler Murray contract has more average per year and more guaranteed money than Patrick Mahomes.
Was Burns really next in line?
Allen just had a great year with 17.5 sacks, along with several other good years. So, you should be able to see why Jax made the big investment.
When was Burns' great year?
Quote:
and Garrett because he signed his deal more recently. The Watt and Garrett deals were sign in 2020 and 2021.
that's how sports works.
Josh Allen, whose deal was signed after Burns, makes more than Burns, Garrett and Watt.
Watt is a FA in 2026. Garrett in 2027 I believe.
Pretending you don't understand this is disingenuous.
Kyler Murray contract has more average per year and more guaranteed money than Patrick Mahomes.
Was Burns really next in line?
Allen just had a great year with 17.5 sacks, along with several other good years. So, you should be able to see why Jax made the big investment.
When was Burns' great year?
2 years ago when the rams offered 2 firsts for him? he started the pro bowl that year (2 of the last 3 actually). he is a very very good player who is still ascending at age 25.
he is not garrett or bosa - which is why he got paid $30m less - but he is on that next tier.
Bumping up from what we have to a good QB is worth at least two Burns' (or more) and if the QB is elite it is worth 3 or more Burns'. That's just the math. N o move improves this team more dramatically than getting a great QB. Smart teams don't box themselves out of the hunt.
And I like the idea of moving him to move up for a QB instead of burning a lot of picks. Unlikely though.
Bumping up from what we have to a good QB is worth at least two Burns' (or more) and if the QB is elite it is worth 3 or more Burns'. That's just the math. N o move improves this team more dramatically than getting a great QB. Smart teams don't box themselves out of the hunt.
Some of us recognize that if The Giants really feel that QB 3 or QB 4 is going to be great (QB1 and QB 2 unattainable) then the trading the 2nd rd pick for Burns has zero imapct in acquiring that great QB.
If Burns puts up 17 sack/50 pressure campaign, everyone will be thrilled.
But as of now, Burns is a lot more potential than performance in regards to a dominant output.
As is every young player. Being All_Pro is "performance" however.
2 years ago when the rams offered 2 firsts for him? he started the pro bowl that year (2 of the last 3 actually). he is a very very good player who is still ascending at age 25.
he is not garrett or bosa - which is why he got paid $30m less - but he is on that next tier.
Look, I hope you are right, and the best is yet to come.
What are your expectations? 10-15 sacks?
Quote:
Some of us just don't want to hear that we failed to get Maye or Daniels or we couldn't put together a trade up for Penix because we fell short of ammunition, where #39 might make the difference.
Bumping up from what we have to a good QB is worth at least two Burns' (or more) and if the QB is elite it is worth 3 or more Burns'. That's just the math. N o move improves this team more dramatically than getting a great QB. Smart teams don't box themselves out of the hunt.
Some of us recognize that if The Giants really feel that QB 3 or QB 4 is going to be great (QB1 and QB 2 unattainable) then the trading the 2nd rd pick for Burns has zero imapct in acquiring that great QB.
Well, how do you know that? It's just something you are saying. We already have reports that New England and maybe the Chargers prefer to have the Vikings #11 and #23 over the Giants package of #6 and a 2025 pick. They want picks in THIS draft because it is a strong draft. How can you say #39 will have ZERO impact when we are in a competition with another aggressive suitor?
Quote:
2 years ago when the rams offered 2 firsts for him? he started the pro bowl that year (2 of the last 3 actually). he is a very very good player who is still ascending at age 25.
he is not garrett or bosa - which is why he got paid $30m less - but he is on that next tier.
Look, I hope you are right, and the best is yet to come.
What are your expectations? 10-15 sacks?
That's my expectation. He could disappoint, but I see him being very productive in Bowen's defense with Dexy and KT freeing him up more than he's ever experienced in his NFL career.
Quote:
In comment 16478310 Darwinian said:
Quote:
Some of us just don't want to hear that we failed to get Maye or Daniels or we couldn't put together a trade up for Penix because we fell short of ammunition, where #39 might make the difference.
Bumping up from what we have to a good QB is worth at least two Burns' (or more) and if the QB is elite it is worth 3 or more Burns'. That's just the math. N o move improves this team more dramatically than getting a great QB. Smart teams don't box themselves out of the hunt.
Some of us recognize that if The Giants really feel that QB 3 or QB 4 is going to be great (QB1 and QB 2 unattainable) then the trading the 2nd rd pick for Burns has zero imapct in acquiring that great QB.
Well, how do you know that? It's just something you are saying. We already have reports that New England and maybe the Chargers prefer to have the Vikings #11 and #23 over the Giants package of #6 and a 2025 pick. They want picks in THIS draft because it is a strong draft. How can you say #39 will have ZERO impact when we are in a competition with another aggressive suitor?
I'd imagine Schoen had already been discussing the Patriots trade demands and perhaps realized that wasn't going to happen. The same report you mention from GoDeep said Schoen doesn't want to part with a king's random. In other words, he isn't going to trade up to 3. He already knew that before making this deal for Burns I bet. Maye has too much bust potential to trade the farm for him, simple as that.
If Burns puts up 17 sack/50 pressure campaign, everyone will be thrilled.
But as of now, Burns is a lot more potential than performance in regards to a dominant output.
As is every young player. Being All_Pro is "performance" however.
Huh?
But otherwise, there's a lot of vagueness with the term 'rebuilding'. Until the Giants actually acquire a franchise QB, they really aren't rebuilding as much as renovating and cleaning things up. Still need the keystone that is the Franchise QB.
Quote:
2 years ago when the rams offered 2 firsts for him? he started the pro bowl that year (2 of the last 3 actually). he is a very very good player who is still ascending at age 25.
he is not garrett or bosa - which is why he got paid $30m less - but he is on that next tier.
Look, I hope you are right, and the best is yet to come.
What are your expectations? 10-15 sacks?
My expectations are that he'll make our defense a lot better. I really don't care what he does individually. I figure he'll be disruptive enough to make life a little easier for Thibs, Dex, Okereke, and the rest of the crew.
Not a bad price for a bookend to KT
Quote:
I think the big question is whether Burns has a dominant season like Allen's 2023, in him.
If Burns puts up 17 sack/50 pressure campaign, everyone will be thrilled.
But as of now, Burns is a lot more potential than performance in regards to a dominant output.
As is every young player. Being All_Pro is "performance" however.
Huh?
Any young player you can make the claim they haven't performed unless they have won it all.
Otherwise if a player has been an all-pro he has shown performance, hasn't he?
Someone might arbitrarily define a player is worth it with their own stats they want the player to achieve, but in reality if the Defense plays much better - isn't it more than likely he is part of the reason why?
I want the Giants to win. Why should I care if Burns isn't getting sacks but the defense which he is a part of is performing very well? It would be in part because of him.
Quote:
In comment 16478342 giantstock said:
Quote:
I think the big question is whether Burns has a dominant season like Allen's 2023, in him.
If Burns puts up 17 sack/50 pressure campaign, everyone will be thrilled.
But as of now, Burns is a lot more potential than performance in regards to a dominant output.
As is every young player. Being All_Pro is "performance" however.
Huh?
Any young player you can make the claim they haven't performed unless they have won it all.
Otherwise if a player has been an all-pro he has shown performance, hasn't he?
Someone might arbitrarily define a player is worth it with their own stats they want the player to achieve, but in reality if the Defense plays much better - isn't it more than likely he is part of the reason why?
I want the Giants to win. Why should I care if Burns isn't getting sacks but the defense which he is a part of is performing very well? It would be in part because of him.
Burns has 2 pro Bowls, no all pros.
Quote:
In comment 16478359 christian said:
Quote:
In comment 16478342 giantstock said:
Quote:
I think the big question is whether Burns has a dominant season like Allen's 2023, in him.
If Burns puts up 17 sack/50 pressure campaign, everyone will be thrilled.
But as of now, Burns is a lot more potential than performance in regards to a dominant output.
As is every young player. Being All_Pro is "performance" however.
Huh?
Any young player you can make the claim they haven't performed unless they have won it all.
Otherwise if a player has been an all-pro he has shown performance, hasn't he?
Someone might arbitrarily define a player is worth it with their own stats they want the player to achieve, but in reality if the Defense plays much better - isn't it more than likely he is part of the reason why?
I want the Giants to win. Why should I care if Burns isn't getting sacks but the defense which he is a part of is performing very well? It would be in part because of him.
Burns has 2 pro Bowls, no all pros.
Okay. Not so bad, right? Still my question - Why should I care if Burns isn't getting sacks but the defense which he is a part of is performing very well? I'm not a GM neither is anyone else here.
Don’t forget, draft picks are like stocks….a gamble. Burns is the real deal, safe and sound.