NFL - Random Opinions

Good points but I don't think any of that would justify the Giants giving up too many picks to move up.

The Giants are in full rebuild mode. Not let's get a QB and roll mode. It's in their best interest to stockpile picks and use their picks to rebuild the roster rather than sacrifice picks.

Personally, I don't think this draft class of QBs is bad....but I don't see any saviors either. I definitely don't see a guy worthy of giving up 2 or 3 top 40 picks for.

 

The Cardinals obviously hold the keys to everything at this moment. They're gonna set the tone for the draft.

 

I've been having a conversation for a couple days about this aspect, and I'm on record in that conversation stating that I believe Murray would be worth that move up. I wouldn't hold it against them if they did the same for Haskins, but I personally wouldn't be as comfortable with it.

The key to it would be not giving up future assets in this draft. If you trade away the #6, #17 and a 3rd round pick you basically flipped Beckham and a first for your projected franchise passer and a starting safety. Not a bad trade off, and it gives you a full season to work that quarterback into the professional realm behind your current starter. The Alex Smith/Patrick Mahomes model is still a solid way to groom a player that you coveted in the draft.

Use the rest of this draft to work on the offensive line and skill positions for your new quarterback and Saquon Barkley.

Then in 2020 with cap space and your full allotment of picks, sign and draft to fill holes on either side of the ball with a continued focus on the offensive line, if necessary.

 

And if that franchise passer is a bust....you flipped Beckham...sacrificed picks that could have filled other holes....and you're back drafting in the top 10 or so searching for answers for the next few years.

At the very least if you don't find your answer at QB in this draft...you can use your picks to fill other areas and make your team stronger overall. You can still draft a QB...but without sacrificing anything.

I think Murray could be an exciting QB. His mechanics are really good and he's an athlete. But I don't think he's gonna be a guy we talk about as being among the NFL's best 5 or 6 years from now.

This I definitely agree with.

 

That's because history has proven time and again, if there is a QB worthy of the top 5 picks, teams will move up to get them...they are sitting at #6 and I am sure they prefer one over the other.

Unless the top two teams need a QB, there is almost always trades to get into position to take those QBs.

Right now, the top 5 teams theoretically don't need QBs. There is some talk of the Cardinals preferring Murray to Rosen, but one year removed, I don't think they are moving on from Rosen. Also talk of the Raiders not being sold on Carr. With 3 first rounders, they can afford to keep Carr AND take one of the two QBs if they are available at #4

However, unless the 49ers are worried about the availability of Garoppolo, they won't be in the market.. so, it boils down to how much is your top player worth? If you want mutliple picks, you will most likely have a trade partner willing to give them to you for the opportunity to draft one of those two QBs. That's the only traditional way to get a QB in this league, trades and free agency are extremely rare to get a quality starter.

 

I think that, if you're drafting in the top 5 or 6, don't have your young franchise QB, and there are QB's worth taking, you get one. Ideally, you won't be as high in the draft next year as you are this year, regardless of who you take. Therefore, this is your best shot to draft a QB high.

Ex: the Giants. Last year, picking #2. This year, #6. You can argue about which QB's are / were taking or trading up for, but if the Giants take their guy last year, there's no trading up necessary, and they can use their capital this year. Instead, they're in a position where they have to give up capital to get their guy this year. Presuming they intend on being better next year, that problem continues to get worse.

Therefore, if I'm the Giants, I'm getting my QB, hands down. If I need to trade up to do it, then so be it. The only reasons I wouldn't:
1) There aren't QB's worth taking
2) No deal presents itself (presuming it's necessary)
3) I think the team will be worse next year than this year

Otherwise, get your guy.

 

Fair point...but the Giants current situation....not other teams history....should dictate their decision.

I'm certainly not qualified to be any teams GM or decision maker....but if I were running the Giants and I had 3 picks inside the top 40 and another one at number 95 of wherever it is....I'm keeping all those picks and trying to add as many blue chip players as I can to my NFL roster.

 

You can either go full tank and lose out to get the #1 overall pick or you have to make a trade up to get the guy you covet. It's the most valuable position on the field so a price will have to be paid at some point to get the player you want.

Right now the Giants are in the position of being able to have a quick turnaround in an East that still has questions to be answered. They have to address it at some point and if the opportunity presents itself in this draft I believe they should make that move.

I understand your reasoning for wanting to slow walk and build with those picks, but I would rather take the risk of making the move for a passer than wait on the possibility that I might be able to make a move in the future, especially considering that waiting probably means I have to lose out or give up future assets to move up.

 

I think all evidence currently points to them not being better next season, strategically.

This is a rebuild.

 

This logic is basically saying you have to have the #1 pick to get your franchise QB. History says otherwise.

The Giants have #6 this year and #17. Barring something crazy they are gonna pick inside the top 10 next year as well.

As it currently stands...they are gonna start some guys next season that are probably barely good enough to play in the XFL.

I think when you trade picks and give them up....it's because you're adding that last piece to the puzzle. The Giants aren't there.

Or you're trading for a QB that is a definite can't miss player. That guy doesn't exist in this draft.

 

That would be for the #2 overall pick, I don't think it's rich enough for the #1 overall...I stated giving up #6, #17, 2nd rounder and future 3rd for the #1 overall.

I think your offer above is fair for #2 pick.

This last sentence is the key to it all... If you don't evaluate a top 5 QB, then you don't do it. Plain and simple.

I have a feeling there will be more than one GM that have both Kyler Murray and Dwayne Haskins in that top 5 evaluation. QB is simply too valuable a position to ignore it.

Now, the argument the Giants are in full rebuild mode...Here is a what if scenario..What if the Giants get a prime pass rusher at #6 because the QBs push him down to them. Then they get another pro bowl caliber player at #17, THEN they get lucky and hit it big with a receiver at #37 that sets the world on fire as a rookie...and they manage to go 8-8 or 9-7 and are looking at the 18th-19th pick in the draft next year....and the year after and the year after that, because they are just good enough to not be in a position to get a QB. This could be the best opportunity to get a quality starting QB for the next 7-10 years.

All I know is, the Browns went 1-31 without a QB...added Baker Mayfield and a couple of key veterans and they go 7-8-1...5-2 down the stretch.

A QB makes your team a contender, every team that doesn't have a QB is a pretender, whether they make the playoffs or not.

It is THE most important position in the NFL.

Which is why teams trade multiple picks to get one they feel is special.

If you don't think there are any special ones, then you are right, don't even consider one...even if they drop to #6

In fact if you would take one at #6, then I'll be damned if you don't think they are worth using multiple picks to move up and secure him.

 

I would think that, if you're taking three players inside the top 40 (presuming good talent evaluation), you will be better next year. I get that they're rebuilding, but if you're adding quality rookies, you want them to make a positive impact.

I don't think any coach or GM bets their job on the fact that they're going to be worse next year, and that's okay. That goes doubly so in a volatile, high-profile team / market. We can look to teams like the Browns for a clear example. Remember, their staff got fired even after openly discussing and agreeing to a "5 year plan". They were given 2 (Jackson got a few months more).

I'm sure the GM and coach want to be better, rebuild or not. Thus, I'd think they'd get their QB now.

 

Give me the last prospect that you would have put this label on, so that we have a reference point.

Not at all.

I'm saying you either have to spend or have that pick in order to guarantee you get the exact passer you want. Rarely do guys slide, and specifically the type of passer you are looking for.

If that's your philosophy, I don't have a problem with it.

I also don't have a problem with giving up assets to move up for coveted players. The only time I take issue with it is when it involves future picks, but for the right player I am good with that as well.

 

This is New York, well really any NFL franchise in this day and age...

If you aren't winning after two seasons, you are being replaced. Whether that's GM or coach. You have two years to turn the franchise in the right direction, or you are out of a job.

So, given that two year window, would you rather take your chances of improving your team without a QB and just adding pieces ENOUGH so that you don't lose your job and eventually luck into getting a QB somehow, or would you rather start your 2 year window with the signal caller and try to improve the team elsewhere from that point on?

That's the real dilemma, you don't have unlimited time in this league.

 

Out of curiosity, are you basing this on personal opinion or on the value chart?

The Cardinals can only set the market to a price that it will pay and they are in turn comfortable with. If they are moving forward with Josh than acquiring two firsts (only moving down 5 spots from their original) and getting a 3rd or a pair of 3rds is probably going to not only be the best compensation available but provides the kind of immediate return needed to build around Josh quickly, IMO.

No other franchise will be able to make that kind of offer without selling their future.

 

Doesn't exist...

 

As much as I would like to disagree with this, I can't.

 

Personal opinion...the value chart is outdated.

Compensation is in the eyes of the beholder.. They might not make a move unless they get future draft picks as part of the compensation. They could easily have such a high value placed on Bosa that the compensation needs to be (3) first rounder..We don't know.

Undervaluing a pick though is a recipe for disaster that most GMs won't do.

Who are you sacrificing to move from #1 to #6 if you aren't taking a QB? For my money, there isn't another player in this draft worth what Bosa is worth, that includes QBs...but we all know QBs are what makes the league hum. For me, I would pay the #6 and #17 for Nick Bosa...and I wouldn't give up the #1 pick(Bosa) for the #6, #17 and #37 picks...which is lower value than what you were offering to move up for the QB.

That's just me, but I feel Bosa is better than Myles Garrett...and I am a HUGE Myles Garrett fan obviously.

 

In that scenario they could also sign an available QB..... Or they could pay a ridiculous price and trade up in the draft at that point.

The Browns can't be held as an example here because they had countless opportunities to get a legit QB and constantly f'ed it up. It wasn't like they went years and years without good draft picks at their disposal.

That's not even a fair argument. If anything....the Browns scenario should deter the Giants from trading their picks because how many times over the years did the Browns draft a QB high in the draft and put all their eggs in that basket only to see the eggs fall on the floor and break?

Teams that piss away draft picks don't seem to win consistently in this league.

 

At QB or any position?

Saquan Barkley was a can't miss prospect just last season.

I think Andrew Luck was the last QB to hold that title. Not that other QBs since haven't been good because they have....but just about everyone breathing knew Luck was going #1 and that Luck was gonna be good. Even though Winston, Goff, and Mayfield have went #1 since that time.....I don't think any of those guys were so highly regarded that barely anyone questioned their worthiness of being picked first.