To break this out further, I don't think he is an upgrade, let alone a significant upgrade to the position currently. I think if he gets drafted he will be the 3rd best player at his position on the roster. I'm not real high on Pickett and Flacco is a fossell, but both I think will be able to stay ahead of Sanders for the foreseeable future. I just don't see what you do in him.
I have seen you crush my dreams and take Carter in both the mocks so I'll bring this one up. What do you think the odds are he's ACTUALLY the Browns target? I kept hearing for a while they were loving Hunter but also those came rumors about the Giants. Today I heard (And yes I know it's lying season but I still think it's fun to discuss) that the Bears are among the teams that reported have been asking about the Browns and Giants picks. Rumor seemed to be they wanted to come up and get Carter specifically. It's a long and expensive way up to 2/3 from #10 overall... I'd strongly consider that offer with my eyes set on Sanders/Dart (who allegedly is Daboll's preference?) at 10... I'm struggling because I really don't like the idea of passing on blue chip guys... but if you are looking at taking a second round player in the top 10 recouping some resources along the way certainly makes it *more* palatable.
I think he is a far superior prospect to Pickett, and we need to see which version of Flacco, but the Indy variant gives me zero confidence. I believe he would represent the best option in that room and would be on the field by week 9, barring a miracle resurgence by Joe. Which in itself, wouldn’t be a bad thing for the Browns or for the long term prospects on Shedeur.
From a pure mathematical point, I get it. But we are talking about the quarterback question, something that neither the Browns or the Giants have the answer for. If you think he can be your guy, pull the trigger. If not, take the prospect you love best. The only algebra involved would be the ‘x factor’ of not being locked in on any of your options, and with that have a willingness to roll the dice and see what a trade down yields. This is probably where several teams in the bottom third of the draft are reworking their calculations.
Yeah this is my thing. I'm *NOT* locked in on any of these QB's and I would rather the Giants stay put and take Carter/Hunter. But they are dead set on leaving this draft with a QB I don't mind rolling the dice on a trade down. I keep hearing "this is a starters draft not a stars draft" and well, the Giants could use a few extra starters QB or no... Normally I am 100% on your side of this argument. Either you believe in them enough to take at 3 or you don't believe in them enough to take at 10 or to trade up to 20 for etc... but I think I'm just trying to mitigate the risk involved if that's the way they are going because I DON'T feel sold. The "Draft Guy" at my local Giants SB Nation site has Sanders and Dart as R1/R2 guys. That's I guess better then he or I had Jones at least? Just doesn't feel good to take that swing at #3 overall and if you have Sanders and Dart clumped together as prospects...
I hope you’re right, despite the ridiculous things coming out about Sanders being a self absorbed, cocky guy, I don’t see that when I hear and see him. I am rooting for the guy if for no other reason, I’d like him to succeed to get out of the shadow of his father. I can’t image the pressure this poor kid has endured throughout his youth. I don’t root for failures in any prospect, I don’t feel the need to be right. But I can’t debate against what I see and my feeling for the expectations when I get to this stage of the process. If they take him at #2, I hope like hell he’s ready to lead by week 9. Again, we will agree to disagree on his readiness to compete at the highest level. If he’s drafted in the first round, I’ll be the first to predict he isn’t given the 5th year option. I just don’t have any confidence his abilities will translate to success in the NFL.
The Dart/Sanders as equals makes zero sense to me, with all due respect to those that have a reason for viewing it that way. Just looking at what they do as passers and removing the scrambling conversation - One is a high processor that goes through progressions quickly, understands what the defense is giving him, typically reads the failure of his own line before it breaks down, throws an extremely accurate ball with touch, leads his receivers so they consistently can gain yards after the catch, and is working with pro level concepts before entering the league. The other has the offense almost completely scripted for him, typically is on a one read two-progression passing scheme, has good zip but doesn't layer well, and is working in a system that simply does not translate to the next level. These are two totally different players.
His board is always Giants specific being a Giants writer almost exclusively. So that might be part of it. I've followed the guy for years at this point, he's a graduate of the scouting academy (though he never worked for a team or anything), and while I don't always agree with him he definitely watches the tape and develops his own reports. His board is always just a tiered board not a numbered ranking or anything so he has Sanders and Dart clumped in the same tier. I went back and pulled his profile and it seems to me he is stressing growth over his time in ole miss (specifically saying he has improved as a processor and *is* making full field reads as a senior) and his ability as a deep ball passer. I have always sort of felt that based on where the Giants seem to WANT to with the offense when it isn't limited by Jones/Devito/Lock is much more vertical. So he seems to be thinking Dart is a better fit for that sort of offense? And he calls Sanders ideal for... the Shanahan / McDaniel style offense. Seems like Sanders arm is something he is just stuck on.
@Campbell seriously, for draft projection contest where does Hunter go? Dealer’s choice? Make him #1 at both WR and CB? You have a preference (as guy posting contest)?
So I had one other fun draft conversation I considered kicking off but never got around to. It's about how teams use their top 30 visits. Some teams I believe interview most of their top 60 projected guys to get a better perspective on each. Others, like my Colts I find in most years try to get a leg up on the competition as far as priority undrafted free agents go. By that I mean 75% or more of their interviews are with guys projected by many as 6th round-UDFA type guys. And maybe not so coincidentally, we have a really good hit rate for finding undrafted free agents who start meaningful games for us, compared to average. Alternatively, some teams might just look really hard at a specific position and then do medical re-checks on 3-6 guys with other visits (I mean in theory all their medical teams get to check things out at the combine, but some injuries you may want to check progress). So my question is, how would you do it?? Just for those who can't get enough draft conversation and want to dive deep into this. Use 2025 team specific examples if you find it helpful.
Two guys who usually have something of a good idea with the Giants both posted their final mock drafts this evening. Both have the Giants taking Carter and trading back into the first for Dart... Someone tell me how he isn't Daniel Jones for my mental well being please lol.
He definitely has more upside than Daniel Jones, both his arm I believe, and his athleticism. I don't see them as very comparable at all. Much more gunslinger mentality with Dart I think.
Fun times... If I were the GM I think I would probably treat it different every year. You want to get to know the guys you are bringing in right so depending on the year I might use it to deep dive at a particular position (Giants brough in ALL the QB's this year). But I think my general approach would be to really try to understand the guys in R3 and back and anyone I have character concerns about. Agents can get a guy to be on script and on point for a 15 minute interview most of the time. But getting them in the building spending some real time with them in a casual setting-- it will give you a better sense of who they really are. Giants have historically really struggled finding real talent in the mid rounds where the "meat and potatoes" of your team tends to come from. I thin I would want to try and improve that in any way possible.
Thank you that was all I needed lol. I haven't really watched him but Tim's description earlier had me having flash backs.
Maybe the best thing to remember. And you can find a few to say it, is Dart improved on his metrics every year he started. So a steady upward trajectory. If I were hypothetically the Giants, you draft him, take a good WR to pair with Nabers in round 2 or 3. Then don't start Dart until at least week 10. Iron out his progressions/footwork in practice. He's far from a sure thing. But look at Caleb year one. Or Kyler 6 years later. Or Darnold. Nothing is a sure thing. You should probably still be more worried about the connection between your front office/coaching staff than which QB lands under center. LoL
This is a fun take. Also, as far as keeping your opponents guessing, I do feel "mixing it up a bit" from year to year is in order. I don't think you want to get too predictable. Makes it easier for teams to jump you and steal your target. Aren't the Steelers kind of historically predictable in round 1 ??
And when you add that with wasting early picks on Daniel Jones and Kardarius Toney it leads to situations like now where you don't have enough cheap, young, in-house talent.
Absolutely true. Honestly Giants fans are putting a little polish on Gettleman right now because he drafted Barkley, Andrew Thomas and Dexter Lawrence. But he really was a HISTORICALLY bad GM. I ran the numbers at one point and there is an argument to be made he is actually the worst GM in modern football. The only thing that might put others in front of him is his tenure was only 4 years... And my absolute FAVORITE is that he didn't want Thomas or Lawrence. Jason Garrett apparently was (possibly literally) standing on the table for Thomas and Getty tried to trade up multiple times to take an edge rusher instead of Lawrence. And if Barkley is his "best" pick... it cost them a shot at Josh Allen (QB) who allegedly both the owner and the HC wanted but Gettleman believed a running back was all they Giants really needed. Reality is during the Jerry Reese years they did well in R1 and R2 but missed on pretty much everything else. So roster depth became a massive problem since they could replenish cheaply and kept turning to FA. Issues between coach and GM caused a few early round misses and everyone got fired. When Getty took over he took the draft approach back to the stone age hid information from the scouts, largely refused to listen to other opinions and then he would randomly decide to "throw the coach a bone" from time to time seemingly at random. And so his picks were a mess. Schoen has drafted almost purely for need and may as well be making his decisions based on positional value for dummies. It's been a wild ride for the last 10 years. Roster is just perpetually thin missing on high value picks, low value picks and everything in between. Also refusing to trade players you had no intention of resigning to try and steal a game or two in a lost season... Fun times...
In retrospect this is probably the same damn story every team with a long period of struggle has... No stability means constant churn, constant churn means little to no development, which leads to more roster rot and change. I like Daboll but am meh at best on Schoen. But it's better for the the organization if they can pull it together this year rather then resetting everything... again.
My closest comparable would be Ryan Grigson I suppose. Was just generally unlikable and arrogant within the building. Very few hits, and he did things that made almost no sense. The one I always reference is coming off a year when we were a top 5 offense, with Luck, T.Y. Hilton, etc. But we had been absolutely run through twice the previous season, including our 40-burger playoff exit, both to the Patriots. They simply lined up a power run game, brought in a 225 Lb scrub who was nobody, and crushed us for 220+ rushing in both contests. Absolutely controlled the clock, and the ball. So how does Grigson solve our issues? He drafts a 5'10" 183Lb WR named Phillip Dorsett 23rd overall, who was no better than a 2nd round pick to begin with. But I assure you, Dorsett did not solve our defensive struggles. And 1-2 seasons later, Grigson was let go. Our current GM dealt with something unprecedented, having Andrew Luck surprisingly retire on us at 28/29. Despite that, we've looked like a top 10 team at times working from the QB retread pile, like Phillip Rivers and Matt Ryan. It's not ideal. But I always defend Ballard because first of all, I believe he's built a good culture in the building. He believes in building through the draft and developing homegrown talent. Second, I know what often happens when you just fire a guy to fire a guy, and by default assume the next one will be better. That's really the biggest part of my counter to those who always scream for Ballard's head. It's like their memory is too short. I've seen enough examples in other teams of what happens next. Honestly feel with Indy we might just be a QB away. I know how the league works, but I truly hope Ballard gets another 3-4 years to get us there. But he was part of the team that drafted A-Rich, and I fear if we don't make the playoffs this year, it might mean his head.
