And if so, if you could pick between JJ and Maye, whom would you take and why?
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on March 24, 2024, 08:47:17 AMAnd if so, if you could pick between JJ and Maye, whom would you take and why?
DB: I wouldn't complain if they did that to get whatever QB they deemed a perfect fit for the Giants.
A move like that would mean they believe the QB they're taking is better (for them) than at least one of the QB's already off the board (if not both of the QB's already off the board).
Needless to say, I would be ecstatic if they made that trade to get Harrison Jr. instead of a QB for two reasons: (1) it would tell me the doctors believe Jones' leg will be fine (and there's no reason to worry about his neck problem); and (2) it would tell me they agree with me that Harrison is a better player than ANY QB in this draft (and they agree that the Giants need a first-rate WR more than a new QB).
Bob
I personally would not. I don't think the Giants have enough draft picks to trade even one away. Still need to plug too many holes.
Quote from: ozzie on March 24, 2024, 08:56:40 AMI personally would not. I don't think the Giants have enough draft picks to trade even one away. Still need to plug too many holes.
Ozzie,
I have plenty of sympathy for your point, as our roster is bereft of talent in a lot of places and we have already traded away one very valuable pick in this offseason, but I would do this myself If I really felt confident I was getting a QB with a genuinely credible chance of being a franchise QB for us for the next 10-15 years. It's hard to put a price on that, and who knows if we'll be in that position in the next offseason.
Two things I know for sure (at least as I see it):
(1) Our future long term answer at QB is not on the team right now, and
(2) You cannot be a consistent Super Bowl contender in today's NFL without an upper echelon QB.
If I'm going to have to give up an extra third rounder to make it happen this year, I can live with that. But I agree that in general we should not be giving picks away like they're candy.
Quote from: ozzie on March 24, 2024, 08:56:40 AMI personally would not. I don't think the Giants have enough draft picks to trade even one away. Still need to plug too many holes.
oz: Agree, but... getting either a QB or WR whom the Giants consider to be a "sure-fire" hit will go a long way to minimize the need for filling EVERY hole and they can use the remainder of this draft to pick one or two of the other holes and concentrate on filling them... which means they can use next year to finish the job. IMO without either an improvement at the QB position or an elite WR, the Giants can fill all the holes they want this year and it's still unlikely to improve the results for this year. Bob PS. Nothing wrong with doing it the other way around (i.e., filling as many of the non-QB and non-WR holes as possible this year and completing the job next year). Bob
Quote from: ozzie on March 24, 2024, 08:56:40 AMI personally would not. I don't think the Giants have enough draft picks to trade even one away. Still need to plug too many holes.
Schoen already gave up a low third-round pick for an expensive veteran TE and now has given up a high-second-round pick (and misc. draft capital) for an expensive Edge veteran. If Schoen continues this pattern, he is going to run into serious cap problems even with the savings a rookie quarterback would bring (minus the cost of getting DJ's contract this year and the $25 million the following year).
Quote from: MightyGiants on March 24, 2024, 10:06:57 AMSchoen already gave up a low third-round pick for an expensive veteran TE and now has given up a high-second-round pick (and misc. draft capital) for an expensive Edge veteran. If Schoen continues this pattern, he is going to run into serious cap problems even with the savings a rookie quarterback would bring (minus the cost of getting DJ's contract this year and the $25 million the following year).
Rich: You're right, but IMO if Schoen doesn't get a prime-time WR and above-average QB play out of SOME (ANY) QB real soon, he won't have to worry about his cap situation down-the-road, because he'll be out of a job. Bob
I keep harping here about next year. The best approach is to not consider 2024 as anything more than a stepping stone to 2025. They will need a QB one way or the other, this year or next. Though these receivers seem extremely talented, receivers are much easier to find than QBs. And grabbing a QB next year and unless he's CJ Stroud level, delays the rebuild even longer.
Man. It's tough but I think I would. Because I'm under the impression that this team isn't that far off from being pretty good if you add competent QB play. But I wouldn't do it for Maye. I would't think twice doing it for Daniels. JJ would make me consider for a long time but I'd probably go for it. Drake Maye means I pass.
But whatever package the Giants put together the Vikings are going to come over the top anyway. If the Cardinals are willing to trade that pick I think it's going to the Vikings and only them. They are a mostly complete team with a gaping hole at QB. Unless they are somehow infatuated with Penix or Nix and plan to take one of them at 23...I think they will offer whatever it takes to get into the top 5 and jump the Giants for QB4.
Quote from: katkavage on March 24, 2024, 10:16:06 AMI keep harping here about next year. The best approach is to not consider 2024 as anything more than a stepping stone to 2025. They will need a QB one way or the other, this year or next. Though these receivers seem extremely talented, receivers are much easier to find than QBs. And grabbing a QB next year and unless he's CJ Stroud level, delays the rebuild even longer.
kat: You're right about all of that. If the Eagles could find a way to get AJ Brown, I suppose Schoen can find a way to do the same, somewhere, some time soon. But one problem with getting the QB first is the size of Jones' contract. Another is that unless they truly believe Hyatt will "step up" this year, they have never had even a potential elite WR for many years. To me, the WR should come first if it's Harrison. If they can't get him then I'd go for extra 2024 picks (trade down if possible) rather than drafting a QB at Pick Six, but if they do go for a QB without trading down I'll be ok with it because it would likely mean they couldn't get Harrison AND they really like the QB they'd be drafting. It will be very interesting to see what they do. I just hope they don't have to "settle" for trading down. Bob
Giants have so many holes that losing a draft pick to move up seems crazy to me. If no QB is available at 6 then take a great WR, then let 1st round unfold and if they see a Qb toward end of round 1 they like trade up to get him otherwise fill another hole with round 2, 3 and 4 picks. Follow Ravens model, not the panicky teams that trade up and get little in return.
Although I hope it won't happen, I probably would if either Maye or Daniels was the target, but not if it was McCarthy. Quite clearly, it's a matter of my estimation of cost/risk/reward without any second-guesser's chirping about Joe Schoen.
Quite obviously, it can be a decision based on whether any or all of this year's, shall we say, top-4 are thought to be much better prospects than for example, Sanders, Allar, Weigman, and Beck will be after their 2024 seasons? And of course, what kind of support will he then get from that which has been wanting in terms of WR1 and Oline?
But then, I suppose that someone here will have it all figured out just in case Joe Schoen hasn't.
Cheers!
Quote from: Philosophers on March 24, 2024, 10:54:18 AMFollow Ravens model, not the panicky teams that trade up and get little in return.
The Ravens may have a model that emphasizes not trading up in general, but they absolutely traded up to get Lamar. And they gave up decent assets to do it. So I'm actually not sure their model applies to when they feel they are getting a franchise QB in return for the trade-up.
If you see a guy that you think is the guy then you do whatever you need to do to get that guy.
You either have a great qb or you don't in the NFL. That's the big differentiator in the NFL currently.
Quote from: Bob In PA on March 24, 2024, 10:11:38 AMRich: You're right, but IMO if Schoen doesn't get a prime-time WR and above-average QB play out of SOME (ANY) QB real soon, he won't have to worry about his cap situation down-the-road, because he'll be out of a job. Bob
Correct. Most likely a new head coach and the Mara carousel continues to spin.
What was the original mission statement again? Or did it get sucked into the black hole with the rest of them in seasons' past?
It might be time to get the guys with the plane who flew it over the stadium during a game in 1978 with a new banner. Come to think of it, maybe we need to contact their kids or grandkids. Do they still fly Cessnas out of Teterboro these days?
Peace!
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on March 24, 2024, 11:45:21 AMThe Ravens may have a model that emphasizes not trading up in general, but they absolutely traded up to get Lamar. And they gave up decent assets to do it. So I'm actually not sure their model applies to when they feel they are getting a franchise QB in return for the trade-up.
They had their conviction, stuck to it, and are living (and dying) with that decision ever since. In all, with the exception of having to face Kansas City, it's worked out well for John Harbaugh's group.
Peace!
Yes. It'll mean they believe the player will make the Giants incrementally better in the short term and much better in the long term.
You're either going QB or MHJ. And both options are good with me.
Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on March 24, 2024, 01:04:16 PMYes. It'll mean they believe the player will make the Giants incrementally better in the short term and much better in the long term.
You're either going QB or MHJ. And both options are good with me.
It's not about next year. For once the Giants need to focus on the long game.
https://x.com/JeffEBonham/status/1771926984165126499?s=20
https://x.com/Ranger1135/status/1771931043873870103?s=20
https://x.com/EDNJACK53/status/1771932548513366047?s=20
https://x.com/Ranger1135/status/1771935964035707260?s=20
Quote from: katkavage on March 24, 2024, 03:31:36 PMIt's not about next year. For once the Giants need to focus on the long game.
That's why I said "incrementally" better.
With the money they have tied up in Dex and Burns, you can't simply write the year off.
If they are trading up. It's fair to say they ought to be better next year and then far better in the coming years.
Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on March 24, 2024, 03:47:49 PMThat's why I said "incrementally" better.
With the money they have tied up in Dex and Burns, you can't simply write the year off.
If they are trading up. It's fair to say they ought to be better next year and then far better in the coming years.
No but you have to be realistic about results. But if they don't get their QB they take steps back.
Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on March 24, 2024, 03:47:49 PMThat's why I said "incrementally" better.
With the money they have tied up in Dex and Burns, you can't simply write the year off.
If they are trading up. It's fair to say they ought to be better next year and then far better in the coming years.
I agree to a point. They "should" be better next year based on the Burns signing and the additions to the O line, including the new coach.
I don't know that they should be any better if they trade up though versus if they don't. If they trade up, it would obviously be to get a QB, and they might decide to keep that QB on ice for a year rather than throw him to the wolves immediately from week one. McCarthy only just turned 21 a month ago. I could see them holding off on playing him for at least some if not all of the year. They've still got Jones on a $47mm cap hit and they paid non-trivial money for a few backup who has experience starting. So if their rookie QB is sitting, they'll be the same team they would have been were they not to have traded up, minus whatever players they would have gotten with the picks they gave up in the trade. And if they start a rookie QB, no less the 4th QB off the board, it would seem a bit ambitious to expect that player to be good right out of the gates. Hell, Josh Allen was awful as a rookie. Mahomes didn't even play. Burrow got hurt. Lawrence stunk. Tua stunk. Only Herbert and Stroud were good as rookies as far as anyone recent. I guess you have to include Purdy in that too, although he is kind of a unique case and plays on a team and in a system that made Sam Darnold look respectable.
I find it hilarious that there's posters here would be furious if we got JJ with the six overall pick and yet this proposal of taking a quarterback with number four and giving up 70 as well. For me, I would be pretty pissed off.
As far as the question, I think I would go with JJ over Maye........
Personally, I am not trading up for QB4 even if they are QB2 on my Board unless I think I am getting a fair deal not a massive overpay.
Using the Rich Hill model 6, 70 gets 4, 138 and is still a slight overpay. I'd do it for that if QB4 is our QB2 but Minnesota have the assets to overpay severely so would Az accept?
Using the same model I'd rather try to get to 3 using 6, 70 (which is equal value) and throw in a 25 conditional third becomes second if they take half the snaps if I have to sweeten the deal. Again Minnesota's possible ability and willingness to over-pay makes it tough to pull off.
Quote from: londonblue on March 24, 2024, 05:56:23 PMPersonally, I am not trading up for QB4 even if they are QB2 on my Board unless I think I am getting a fair deal not a massive overpay.
Using the Rich Hill model 6, 70 gets 4, 138 and is still a slight overpay. I'd do it for that if QB4 is our QB2 but Minnesota have the assets to overpay severely so would Az accept?
Using the same model I'd rather try to get to 3 using 6, 70 (which is equal value) and throw in a 25 conditional third becomes second if they take half the snaps if I have to sweeten the deal. Again Minnesota's possible ability and willingness to over-pay makes it tough to pull off.
There are clearly multiple teams interested, so whoever gets the trade done will have to overpay at least somewhat. That's pretty normal in trade-up situations in the high end of the draft. The points grid is really just a guideline and kind of goes out the window in these situations.
Overpaying to move up from 6 to get the 4th QB seems a little nuts, but I'm sure Buffalo doesn't regret trading up to get the 4th QB in 2020. Granted they didn't move up from 6, but still.
In a heartbeat. Getting a top WR is like getting a shiny new hood ornament if we still need the main part a QB. You have to secure the future with a QB before adding these ornaments.
Simply put, if you think you can get your QB of the future with the pick, you make the move. I don't care if you have to overpay based on value charts. The right QB can change everything.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on March 24, 2024, 11:45:21 AMThe Ravens may have a model that emphasizes not trading up in general, but they absolutely traded up to get Lamar. And they gave up decent assets to do it. So I'm actually not sure their model applies to when they feel they are getting a franchise QB in return for the trade-up.
They traded up to the back of the 1st round.
Someone posted it somewhere, but trading up into the top 5 to get a QB has a 90% failure rate.
Quote from: AYM on March 24, 2024, 07:42:10 PMThey traded up to the back of the 1st round.
Someone posted it somewhere, but trading up into the top 5 to get a QB has a 90% failure rate.
I get it, but it was still a material trade-up in terms of the assets they gave up.
I wonder how big the sample size is for that supposed 90% failure rate. I can't imagine it's that big.
Can't see that scenario happening. That means trading up for JJ probably. Huh.
Vikings have invested too much not to get a qb..but If it does happen. I'm selecting MHJ in a heartbeat. He'll make Jones or Lock better-anyone. The permutations are all over the place.
Do the Vikings wait to trade with Jim Boy and get JJ or want Maye at 3?
Or do they deal with the Giants at 6?
Do they Norsemen think JJ could last to 11?
Why would our heroes trade up and not take a qb?
Maybe the Cards simply move down and get MHJ anyway.
~X( Getting a mock migraine.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on March 24, 2024, 07:43:58 PMI get it, but it was still a material trade-up in terms of the assets they gave up.
I wonder how big the sample size is for that supposed 90% failure rate. I can't imagine it's that big.
So I'm curious, let me take a look at a 30 year span from 1993-2022 (2023 is too soon to tell). I'll bold the ones that I consider to be busts or disappointments and increase the size of the ones I consider historic/all-time busts.
* - for all intents and purposes
** - he most definitely was a bust from the perspective of the pick used on him
1993 - Drew Bledsoe (1)
1994 -
Heath Shuler (3)
1995 - Steve McNair (3),
Kerry Collins** (5 - traded down from 1)
1996 - None
1997 - None
1998 - Peyton Manning (1),
Ryan Leaf (2 - traded up from 3)
1999 -
Tim Couch (1), Donovan F. McNabb (2),
Akili Smith (3)
2000 - no QBs in the top 5
2001 - Michael Vick (1 - traded up from 5)
2002 -
David Carr (1),
Joey Harrington (3)
2003 - Carson Palmer (1)
2004 - Eli Manning (1 - traded up from 4*), Philip Rivers (4 - traded down from 1*)
2005 -
Alex Smith (1)
2006 -
Vince Young (3)
2007 -
Jamarcus Russell (1)
2008 - Matt Ryan (3)
2009 - Matt Stafford (1),
Mark Sanchez (5 - traded up from 17)
2010 -
Sam Bradford (1)
2011 - Cam Newton (1)
2012 - Andrew Luck (1),
RG3 (2 - traded up from 6)
2013 - None
2014 -
Blake Bortles (3)
2015 -
Jameis Winston (1),
Marcus Mariota (2)
2016 - Jared Goff (1 - traded up from 15),
Carson Wentz (2 - traded up from 8)
2017 -
Mitch Trubisky (2 - traded up from 3)
2018 - Baker Mayfield (1),
Sam Darnold (3 - traded up from 6)
2019 - Kyler Murray (1)
2020 - Joe Burrow (1), Tua Tagovailoa (5)
2021 - Trevor Lawrence (1),
Zach Wilson (2),
Trey Lance (3 - traded up from 12)
2022 - None
In conclusion, it looks like here are the times a team moved up into the top 5 to get a QB:
Mark Sanchez
RG3
Jared Goff
Carson Wentz
Sam Darnold
Trey Lance
Edit AGAIN: Depending on how you look at that, that's a 83% failure rate or a 100% failure rate considering the Rams gave up on Goff. I struggle to classify Goff. (And Wentz for that matter)
I'm not sure where the 90% figure came from. Not a large sample size but interesting.
Trading up is a bad move almost always for a qb. If the Giants have interest from the Cards, I'm trading up for MHJ. He's is as close there is to a surefire success.
Quote from: AYM on March 24, 2024, 08:26:55 PMSo I'm curious, let me take a look at a 30 year span from 1993-2022 (2023 is too soon to tell). I'll bold the ones that I consider to be busts or disappointments and increase the size of the ones I consider historic/all-time busts.
* - for all intents and purposes
** - he most definitely was a bust from the perspective of the pick used on him
1993 - Drew Bledsoe (1)
1994 - Heath Shuler (3)
1995 - Steve McNair (3), Kerry Collins** (5 - traded down from 1)
1996 - None
1997 - None
1998 - Peyton Manning (1), Ryan Leaf (2 - traded up from 3)
1999 - Tim Couch (1), Donovan F. McNabb (2), Akili Smith (3)
2000 - no QBs in the top 5
2001 - Michael Vick (1 - traded up from 5)
2002 - David Carr (1), Joey Harrington (3)
2003 - Carson Palmer (1)
2004 - Eli Manning (1 - traded up from 4*), Philip Rivers (4 - traded down from 1*)
2005 - Alex Smith (1)
2006 - Vince Young (3)
2007 - Jamarcus Russell (1)
2008 - Matt Ryan (3)
2009 - Matt Stafford (1), Mark Sanchez (5 - traded up from 17)
2010 - Sam Bradford (1)
2011 - Cam Newton (1)
2012 - Andrew Luck (1), RG3 (2 - traded up from 6)
2013 - None
2014 - Blake Bortles (3)
2015 - Jameis Winston (1), Marcus Mariota (2)
2016 - Jared Goff (1 - traded up from 15), Carson Wentz (2 - traded up from 8)
2017 - Mitch Trubisky (2 - traded up from 3)
2018 - Baker Mayfield (1), Sam Darnold (3 - traded up from 6)
2019 - Kyler Murray (1)
2020 - Joe Burrow (1), Tua Tagovailoa (5)
2021 - Trevor Lawrence (1), Zach Wilson (2), Trey Lance (3 - traded up from 12)
2022 - None
In conclusion, it looks like here are the times a team moved up into the top 5 to get a QB:
Mark Sanchez
RG3
Jared Goff
Carson Wentz
Sam Darnold
Trey Lance
Edit AGAIN: Depending on how you look at that, that's a 83% failure rate or a 100% failure rate considering the Rams gave up on Goff. I struggle to classify Goff. (And Wentz for that matter)
I'm not sure where the 90% figure came from. Not a large sample size but interesting.
Thanks for doing this. I agree it's interesting despite being a small sample. Most were total failures.
Yeah, drafting a high 1st-round QB is definitely not for the faint of heart. lol
1. We have many holes, but the most difficult one to fill is the QB position. If you don't have the right guy in there, you don't contend.
2. The "right guy" is more likely to be in this draft than the next.
3. The Vikings trading up so long before the draft showed their hand; they're desperate to get a guy, and they probably think that guy is JJ. I'm of the same opinion. But I want him for us, not for them. Call me selfish. :P
For these reasons, the answer is yes. I would make that trade in order to leapfrog the Vikings and draft JJ McCarthy. Admittedly Maye is the better prospect by pretty much every statistic you can measure; he ticks so many boxes that the question is more "how can he fail" than "how can he succeed?" And if we had to start a new guy Week 1, he's the QB I'd take.
Fortunately we're not in that position, and there's more to the game than measurables. Daniel Jones has enough left to hold down the fort while our new QB settles in and learns. So we can afford to take the one who I think has the higher ceiling, McCarthy.
I like McCarthy better than Maye. Maye makes too many questionable throws. McCarthy played big games and adapted to the system as he was asked. Harbaugh loves him. I respect Harbaugh. Yeah I'd move up.
This is why I'm so passionate about trading down instead of trading up.
You're going to give away those assets to move from 6 to 4 when the QB drop off is after the 3rd QB is picked?!
It's just not worth it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Quote from: andrew_nyGiants on March 25, 2024, 02:32:40 PMThis is why I'm so passionate about trading down instead of trading up.
You're going to give away those assets to move from 6 to 4 when the QB drop off is after the 3rd QB is picked?!
It's just not worth it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
If the Giants were to trade with say the Vikings and netted an 11th and 23rd, they could get a true number one WR and possibly a QB like Nix (who I believe will go somewhere in round one) or Penix (who might last to the beginning of round 2)