Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: MightyGiants on May 04, 2024, 12:39:40 PMThe Giants got a 2nd round pick for Leonard Williams.  Do you honestly believe they couldn't get a 3rd or 4th for Barkley?

Yes, I honestly believe there was no one willing to give up a 3rd or 4th for one of the least valued positions in football and for a guy who can't stay healthy and needed to be signed to a contract extension.

I don't see OBJ having an impact. They have 2 guys who will dominate targets, they have a couple of solid slot guys in Berrios and Cracraft, and they have a legit pass catching TE in Smith.

They would have been better served spending that money on their DL.

Quote from: Doc16LT56 on May 04, 2024, 12:20:28 PMNo that's another incorrect assumption on your part. I won't speak for anyone else. My position is if Schoen called every GM of every contending team (excluding those with a healthy and premier RB) and no one wanted to give up a mid-round pick for Barkley, then Schoen did his job. However, if Schoen didn't do that then he failed to do the due diligence needed to create a market. Normally when you make calls to 12-18 GMs, there are numerous leaks that you're shopping the player. Since I didn't see reporting that that was the case, I'm assuming Schoen didn't do the work needed to create a market for a talented player.

That's not what you said, though, and that's not what I opined on. Your statement was that "there absolutely was a market for Barkley."

And your last post is a good example of why my opinion is that perspective is off base. There are a whole lot of "ifs" and "normally" and "I'm assuming" for it to be the basis of a definitive statement that Schoen failed.

It was never intended to be a personal attack. Simply an opinion.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on May 04, 2024, 12:09:07 PMI have seen you criticize front office decisions numerous times and have strong views on what a front office should or should not do. As I see it, there is absolutely zero wrong with that - it's part of being a passionate fan - but it seems a bit pot/kettle to be putting down other fans with "armchair GM" labels when they do precisely the same thing.

When did I ever suggest that I'm not an armchair GM like everyone else? Further, there's a big difference in having an opinion on whether a guy should have been signed or not or who the right starter should be vs. making definitive statements that the Giants failed in not trading someone when there's no evidence to suggest that any team was willing to trade for him. 2 completely different things.

Quote from: Doc16LT56 on May 04, 2024, 12:04:34 PMNo you just made a definitive statement about the different markets as if you aren't every bit an armchair GM  who isn't speculating as much as anyone else. You don't know what they could've gotten for Barkley at the time. As others have pointed out, it's fair to think a playoff team would've given up a pick for him. Yet you seem to think that's an unreasonable take?

Maybe you should go back and read the posts. I clearly said the assumption of a market wasn't a good one. That is far from definitive. I did not say the assumption was wrong.

Whereas you were the one with the definitive claim that "there was a market". And then act as if I attacked you personally simply by pointing out my opinion on the assumptions made.

Quote from: Doc16LT56 on May 04, 2024, 11:45:08 AMUnlike you. A REAL general manager. You have special insights no doubt. Smh.

Give me a break. I'm not the one claiming that a mistake was made when there is 0 evidence to suggest there was a single team with any interest in trading a draft pick for him. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite.

Quote from: Doc16LT56 on May 04, 2024, 10:15:34 AMYep. There was absolutely a market for Barkley. Not trading him during the season seemed odd. In hindsight it looks even worse.

This is one of the biggest blind spots for arm chair GMs. There being a market for someone jn getting a contract and there being a market for someone willing to trade draft picks and pay a guy are 2 completely different things.

Quote from: MightyGiants on May 04, 2024, 10:09:05 AMDid you see what Barkley was paid? 

I did. What does that have to do with a team's willingness to give up draft picks AND pay him?

Quote from: MightyGiants on May 04, 2024, 07:10:57 AMThis! it's not just who a team loses but who the team signs.  That's why the Giants would have been far better-served trading Saquan and McKinney last season at the deadline than letting them walk.

The assumption that there was a willing trade partner looking to trade draft assets for an oft-injured RB on an expiring contract is not a good one.

Quote from: B1GBLUE on May 03, 2024, 03:36:49 PMim pulling for him. you can certainly argue he does deserve an extension/raise, even though he's a bit expendable now with nabers in the fold. i do still think he's our current #2. which is a good role for him

I think he's our #2, as well. Hyatt is not at his level yet. Even still, I'm not interested in signing him to a fair-market extension. If he wants to stay a Giant and accept a hometown discount for 2-3 years, I'm fine with that. But I'm not looking to commit a lot of years or dollars to him.

He's a good guy and easy to root for, but those aren't reasons to sign him long term and the kind of stuff that has gotten the Giants in trouble over the years.

1. I hope the CB2 is not on the roster or else we might be in trouble. Flott is a better fit in the slot, and I don't yet trust Hawkins. Looking good in camp and looking good in actual games are very different.

2. Flott. He played well in the latter half of the year. And I wasn't happy with the Phillips pick and so don't see him competing early.

3. This is a no-brainer - Pinnock and Nubin.

4. McFadden. I see several calling for a full-time role for Simmons but he is not - and has never been - an effective every-down guy. Put him situations to succeed to get the most out of him. And while MM is no superstar, he plays a decent second fiddle next to Bobby.

5. Not on roster. But with hole at CB2 still needing to be filled, might have to go cheap here. In which case it's a Davidson-led rotation.

6. If Nabers isn't Day 1 starter then we really screwed up. Wan'dale is in the slot, with Slayton still a better option than Hyatt at this point.

7. Not a fan of any of them, so don't think it matters. But I'll go with Tracy.

8. Bellinger, with a lot of Johnson sprinkled in on 2-TE sets.

Waller had 1 TD last year on 74 targets. He's a complete waste of cap space.

Give his reps to Bellinger and the new TEs and use that money to sign a competent CB to play alongside Banks.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on April 27, 2024, 05:00:36 PMNot trying to be negative, but none of these picks scream "steal" to me at this stage. That doesn't mean they won't end up being that, of course, but that's just how it feels at this stage.

I went with Nubin. Getting the consensus best pure safety in the draft 47th overall feels like solid value to me. He seems like a really good playmaker who may end up being better than McKinney.

I agree. My pick would be Nubin, although I didn't expect him (or any other safety) to go much higher than 47.

I just don't see any of the bottom 4 picks contributing in any meaningful way - outside of maybe Theo as a blocker or Tracy as a kick returner.

Phillips was a reach and the biggest disappointment IMO. They should have drafted Beebe or Goncalves in the third. And still could have walked away with Tampa (the CB I wanted) in the 4th. Ravens got a steal.

Quote from: uconnjack8 on April 26, 2024, 10:30:28 AMI don't think a 2nd rounder is on the table, especially for this year's draft. There is still several good WRs available and if teams like the Bills that are WR needy pass or miss out (they pick first today) then I could see a trade happening.  At best I think a 3rd or 4th for next years draft could happen.

I think the most likely scenario is a post draft trade which is why I think a 2025 pick is most likely. 

No one is giving up a 3rd or 4th for Slayton.

Quote from: madbadger on April 26, 2024, 11:59:14 AMLook at the Patriots receiver room and tell me that they would have zero interest in a guy who managed to put up 770 yards and four touchdowns while being targeted by guys like DeVito and Taylor. He isn't nearly as bad as your post implies he is. They also would get pick 47 and there will still be good receivers available if they want to continue to add to that group.

I never said he was bad or implied that he was bad. What I said was he has no trade value. Your proposed trade is the opposite of a Pats-type move. They do not give up draft capital for vets in need of a new contract. They move on from guys like Slayton, not trade assets for them.

The Pats could get a talented WR in the third round who is cheaper and younger than Slayton and could produce comparable results. Sane for every other team. And that's why Slayton has no trade value.