Jump to content
SportsWrath
Sign in to follow this  
Storm

Realistic question

Recommended Posts

There is a very real chance the Giants get the number one overall. I don’t see them winning against the Dolphins. I don’t see them beating the Redskins. I don’t see them beating the Eagles. 
 

What do we do with it? There’s little incentive in the Dolphins or Skins trading up because they know the Giants aren’t taking a QB. Do the Giants trade down to a QB needy team at 4 or 5 and risk not getting a guy like Chase Young? Or do they make him the first pick of the draft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Iceman_NYG said:

Bengals arent winning another game either.

Forgot about them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They might be able to get a team who wants a QB more than the Dolphins or Bungals to trade up with them to #1 overall however it probably means losing out on Young and Thomas, however we could acquire multiple first and second round picks.

This is probably unlikely though as Getty has no history of trading back in the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2019 at 7:15 AM, CrazedDogs said:

The team has so many holes, there is almost no bad option. That makes three years running I've said that.

Agreed....Which is why part of me hopes they trade down...for more picks.

If they dont need a QB - one of the only benefits of having a #1 or #2 pick is gone....unless there is a once in a generation player to take....a LT...a O. Pace or T. Boslli...Joe Thomas...

Chase Young aint LT.....he's a Bosa.....which means he is going to have a great career...but the Giants need quality bodies....plural.....one Bosa is going to patch one hole. ...they have need a two to three hole solution.

C. Wagon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2019 at 1:23 PM, mastershake said:

Just take Chase Young or Andrew Thomas...in any scenario. I'd be happy with either.

Yep.  Big big addition either way 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

Agreed....Which is why part of me hopes they trade down...for more picks.

If they dont need a QB - one of the only benefits of having a #1 or #2 pick is gone....unless there is a once in a generation player to take....a LT...a O. Pace or T. Boslli...Joe Thomas...

Chase Young aint LT.....he's a Bosa.....which means he is going to have a great career...but the Giants need quality bodies....plural.....one Bosa is going to patch one hole. ...they have need a two to three hole solution.

C. Wagon

Not  just that... you trade down and get say, 3 number 1 picks... and presumably get good players out of that... that's three guys you can get for a fifth-year option on the cheap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chuck Wagon said:

Agreed....Which is why part of me hopes they trade down...for more picks.

If they dont need a QB - one of the only benefits of having a #1 or #2 pick is gone....unless there is a once in a generation player to take....a LT...a O. Pace or T. Boslli...Joe Thomas...

Chase Young aint LT.....he's a Bosa.....which means he is going to have a great career...but the Giants need quality bodies....plural.....one Bosa is going to patch one hole. ...they have need a two to three hole solution.

C. Wagon

The problem is, everyone knows the Giants don't need a QB, so why trade up?

There's no risk of them getting the QB you want, and even the Dolphins mocks now have them not taking a QB.

Having the #1 pick, you pick the best player in the draft, who happens to be Chase Young and fill a massive need for the Giants.

Saying you pass on one player of immense talent for maybe two or three extra players of lesser talent, doesn't make you a good team in the NFL IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Treehugger said:

They trade up to stop another team trading up.

That doesn't make sense if the Giants have no need for a QB though lol

In 2017 when the Bears traded from #3 to #2 for Trubinski, they didn't trade to #1 because Cleveland didn't need or want a QB in that draft, despite the fact someone could of easily traded to #1/#2 before them taking Trubinski.

If anything the Giants getting the #1 pick would make the Dolphins #2/3 pick infinitely more valuable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does make sense though. If you pick at 3 and you think the team at 2 is going to take your guy, you trade to 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9ers didn’t need a qb that year.  Bears didn’t want anyone trading into that spot ahead of them.  

 

Edit never mind i thought they had garrapolo at that point 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlueInCanada said:

The problem is, everyone knows the Giants don't need a QB, so why trade up?

There's no risk of them getting the QB you want, and even the Dolphins mocks now have them not taking a QB.

Having the #1 pick, you pick the best player in the draft, who happens to be Chase Young and fill a massive need for the Giants.

Saying you pass on one player of immense talent for maybe two or three extra players of lesser talent, doesn't make you a good team in the NFL IMO.

But any team could trade up to prevent number 2 or 3 from taking their QB...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Storm said:

But any team could trade up to prevent number 2 or 3 from taking their QB...

Under that logic shouldn't any team that wants to take a QB just trade up to #1 automatically every year? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Herc said:

9ers didn’t need a qb that year.  Bears didn’t want anyone trading into that spot ahead of them.  

 

Edit never mind i thought they had garrapolo at that point 

The Browns didn't have a QB neither did the 49ers really.

They didn't have to worry about trading up to #1 because like the Giants now the Browns have bigger needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlueInCanada said:

Under that logic shouldn't any team that wants to take a QB just trade up to #1 automatically every year? 

No but if you’re three or four and you think either three or four is going to take your QB by either picking him at three or if you’re four, trading into the two spot that makes the Giants draft pick more important and desired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Chuck Wagon said:

Agreed....Which is why part of me hopes they trade down...for more picks.

If they dont need a QB - one of the only benefits of having a #1 or #2 pick is gone....unless there is a once in a generation player to take....a LT...a O. Pace or T. Boslli...Joe Thomas...

Chase Young aint LT.....he's a Bosa.....which means he is going to have a great career...but the Giants need quality bodies....plural.....one Bosa is going to patch one hole. ...they have need a two to three hole solution.

C. Wagon

 

I disagree with the one hole analogy... Have a great player on a unit can change the make up of the entire unit and get others to perform at a higher level.   How many times have you seen a DE shine because teams are double teaming the other DE for example?    Besides that's what the other rounds are for plus free agency... I want us to have a really good defense and it starts with pass rush... we already have a great starting CB unit (at least on paper... they're young and are getting the experience they need).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Shurmur gets canned during the offseason - do you think there is a possibility the new coaching regime looks at Joe Burrow? I for one would NOT be OK with that - Danny Dimes has shown that he has all the traits to be a franchise QB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Iceman_NYG said:

If Shurmur gets canned during the offseason - do you think there is a possibility the new coaching regime looks at Joe Burrow? I for one would NOT be OK with that - Danny Dimes has shown that he has all the traits to be a franchise QB

That’s exactly why no one should be calling for Shurmur’s firing this offseason. Something like that is a distinct possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're convinced there's a QB on the board that is that much better than Jones, then QB it is. It would be the smart pick, QB is that important. 

I can't imagine though, Jones has put some good stuff on film. And his college film looks a lot better now that we have some context on how he looks next to other pro athletes. It's not like he's had a Rosen level rookie season.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 7:34 PM, CrazedDogs said:

If they're convinced there's a QB on the board that is that much better than Jones, then QB it is. It would be the smart pick, QB is that important. 

I can't imagine though, Jones has put some good stuff on film. And his college film looks a lot better now that we have some context on how he looks next to other pro athletes. It's not like he's had a Rosen level rookie season.

 

True - and considering the situation around him and the dumpster fire this team, coaching staff, co-ordinators, OL, WRs, non-existent TE and an injured Barkley - a case can be made that Danny has played better than all the others in this QB class

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...