Rumor or not, talk about being greedy (or just smart)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/arizona-cardinals-set-price-tag-to-move-off-of-fourth-pick-per-reports/ar-BB1llGOF?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=a1ae3f223cc047e4a8cc8a4e3d83a04d&ei=33
𝗥𝗨𝗠𝗢𝗥𝗦: The #Cardinals are seeking three first round picks to move down from #4, per
@ArmandoSalguero
Pass! take one of the elite WR prospects instead. The Giants can't afford to give up that sort of draft capital with their under-talented team. If they pulled off the trade they would only screw up (again) their next QB prospect because they lacked the draft capital to ensure they had a proper team around him.
If they do draft a QB and it misses, it sets us back another 5 years.
We said the same thing when Jones was drafted, if we miss we go back 4-5 years and it has happened, be it for whatever reasons. If we select a QB it has to hit.
Quote from: LennG on April 10, 2024, 01:08:52 PMIf they do draft a QB and it misses, it sets us back another 5 years.
We said the same thing when Jones was drafted, if we miss we go back 4-5 years and it has happened, be it for whatever reasons. If we select a QB it has to hit.
With 2 years with no first-round pick, it's going to set the team back much longer than if the team just drafted a QB with their regular pick
Don't see the Giants paying that price but I could see the Vikings doing it. They now have 2 this year alone and I imagine would have no problems throwing in next year's too. And to be honest they probably should do it. That is a solid team minus the QB.
I'd like to think that with the Giants picking 6 they wouldn't have to pay that much. Since it's entirely possible the Cardinals would still get whoever they were planning on picking at 4 if they move to 6. So I don't think I would completely rule the giants out of moving into that spot, but certainly not if it's going to cost them 3 first round picks.
Quote from: Gmo11 on April 10, 2024, 01:21:02 PMDon't see the Giants paying that price but I could see the Vikings doing it. They now have 2 this year alone and I imagine would have no problems throwing in next year's too. And to be honest they probably should do it. That is a solid team minus the QB.
I'd like to think that with the Giants picking 6 they wouldn't have to pay that much. Since it's entirely possible the Cardinals would still get whoever they were planning on picking at 4 if they move to 6. So I don't think I would completely rule the giants out of moving into that spot, but certainly not if it's going to cost them 3 first round picks.
I heard an interesting comment from Albert Breer. He said Houston, not the Vikings, initiated trade talks. So, I wonder if we are reading too much into the trade in terms of the Viking's desire to trade up for a QB.
No one will give them that. They will have to come way off that if they want to move that pick. I don't blame them for trying. They want Harrison Jr. and know no one will do that deal.
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 10, 2024, 01:11:57 PMWith 2 years with no first-round pick, it's going to set the team back much longer than if the team just drafted a QB with their regular pick
I look at it the other way. If that is the price for #4, what could the Giants get for #6? Maybe 2 firsts and a second? I sure wouldn't mind a 2025 first so they can go QB hunting next year.
Quote from: katkavage on April 10, 2024, 01:39:12 PMNo one will give them that. They will have to come way off that if they want to move that pick. I don't blame them for trying. They want Harrison Jr. and know no one will do that deal.
kat: The Vikings may have a better offer... they currently have two first round picks this year, and they could add to that their first-rounder next year, which IMO is a better offer. Bob
Well they aren't going to say "We'll move out of the #4 spot for a 3rd and conditional 7th rounder".
Quote from: AZGiantFan on April 10, 2024, 01:48:23 PMI look at it the other way. If that is the price for #4, what could the Giants get for #6? Maybe 2 firsts and a second? I sure wouldn't mind a 2025 first so they can go QB hunting next year.
I would be pretty happy if the Giants traded down. For the reasons you mentioned plus the team still has so many needs that more picks would be a good thing.
We will have a shot at one of the 4 QBs at 6. We may also get an attractive offer to trade back.
No reason to panic and trade up.
Personally, I wasn't suggesting the Giants move up and give up all that. Myself, I would take a big-time WR and then maybe move up from #2 to grab one of the 'other' QBs who would be available in the lower part of round 1 or early round 2.
Quote from: AZGiantFan on April 10, 2024, 01:48:23 PMI look at it the other way. If that is the price for #4, what could the Giants get for #6? Maybe 2 firsts and a second? I sure wouldn't mind a 2025 first so they can go QB hunting next year.
If they don't draft a QB, this is what I would do even though there will maybe be a new coach in 2025 because without a solid QB next year the team will struggle.
Quote from: Bob In PA on April 10, 2024, 01:50:03 PMkat: The Vikings may have a better offer... they currently have two first round picks this year, and they could add to that their first-rounder next year, which IMO is a better offer. Bob
They could be sucker enough to do that. They made the infamous Herschel Walker trade, so let them do it. They would be better off, in my opinion, in staying put at 11, drafting Penix, who is much more NFL ready than McCarthy, and keeping their other position to fortify their defense.
Pay the price, we've seen over and over that you can build good teams with out 1st rd picks. The 49ers weren't phased by the multiple 1sts they paid for trey Lance much less all they used to get McCaffrey
That and the Rams won a super bowl with no 1st rd picks for a decade.
You either have a qb or you don't, you have to get the guy if you think he is a guy.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on April 10, 2024, 04:39:05 PMPay the price, we've seen over and over that you can build good teams with out 1st rd picks. The 49ers weren't phased by the multiple 1sts they paid for trey Lance much less all they used to get Mccarthy.
That and the Rams won a super bowl with no 1st rd picks for a decade.
You either have a qb or you don't, you have to get the guy if you think he is a guy.
The irony of "trading multiple 1sts for Lance" as a proof point for success.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on April 10, 2024, 04:39:05 PMPay the price, we've seen over and over that you can build good teams with out 1st rd picks. The 49ers weren't phased by the multiple 1sts they paid for trey Lance much less all they used to get Mccarthy.
That and the Rams won a super bowl with no 1st rd picks for a decade.
You either have a qb or you don't, you have to get the guy if you think he is a guy.
If you are convinced he is your guy, yeah. I agree because the position is worth giving away picks...if it works out. I would easily sacrifice the chance to draft an offensive tackle or receiver in the for round next year if I knew I found my QB for the next decade. That being said, I'm not convinced McCarthy is worth that much because he is who you will get at 4.
They can't be asking for the same compensation from all teams. It's negotiable. If they believe they can get their guy at six, the Giants can offer something significantly less. It depends what on how the draft plays out.
Three 1st rounders ?? Lol
None of these qb's are Peyton Manning coming out of college..Not even close
Quote from: katkavage on April 10, 2024, 05:10:10 PMIf you are convincedhe is your guy
If you are that convinced then go for it. But, I don't think that is the case.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on April 10, 2024, 04:39:05 PMPay the price, we've seen over and over that you can build good teams with out 1st rd picks. The 49ers weren't phased by the multiple 1sts they paid for trey Lance much less all they used to get Mccarthy.
That and the Rams won a super bowl with no 1st rd picks for a decade.
You either have a qb or you don't, you have to get the guy if you think he is a guy.
You can also end up like the Jags and the Chargers where you supposedly have your QB and still not win
Winning meaningless games late in the season killed our chances of getting one of the top 3 quarterbacks.
I get playing safe but thise franchise has played it safe and not taken chances the past decade and where has that gotten us?
If we gave up a 2 1sts and 2 2nds for Josh Allen, no one would think twice. I get it there are risks, but anything is better than trotting out a backup for the 6th year in a row and hope we lose enough again next year to get a qb in a weak qb class.
So if they see a guy that they think is the guy, then yes absolutely. Neal, Wandale, Banks, and JMS are the last 2 1st and 2 2nd round picks, would you not trade an elite Qb for those 4 guys? Absolutely you would.
There is no position in this sport -- perhaps not in any team sport -- that one should be more wiling to make enormous sacrifices to obtain than quarterback.
In my opinion, when a team is in desperate need of QB help, as we are, taking a swing at a QB prospect we are high on and missing is much worse than passing on someone we like a lot due to sticker shock and then having that player become great for someone else.
The former is unfortunate, but a common occupational hazard. The latter is unforgivable and a sound reason to not only be fired but to never get a job as a GM again.
Quote from: katkavage on April 10, 2024, 05:10:10 PMIf you are convinced he is your guy, yeah. I agree because the position is worth giving away picks...if it works out. I would easily sacrifice the chance to draft an offensive tackle or receiver in the for round next year if I knew I found my QB for the next decade. That being said, I'm not convinced McCarthy is worth that much because he is who you will get at 4.
You can be convinced he is your guy and he can still turn out to be a bust.
Quote from: AZGiantFan on April 11, 2024, 03:36:35 AMYou can be convinced he is your guy and he can still turn out to be a bust.
Yeah you can. But does that fear stop you from doing what you think is best?
Quote from: Jclayton92 on April 10, 2024, 09:22:06 PMSo if they see a guy that they think is the guy, then yes absolutely. Neal, Wandale, Banks, and JMS are the last 2 1st and 2 2nd round picks, would you not trade an elite Qb for those 4 guys? Absolutely you would.
.............or you could have given up nothing and gotten a Purdy.
Quote from: jimc on April 11, 2024, 06:14:48 AM.............or you could have given up nothing and gotten a Purdy.
That phenomenon happens about once every quarter decade. In the last 30 years, we've had Brady and Purdy, and the latter failed to beat the NFL's best QB, despite being surrounded by copious talent. In fact, if you review the last 35 years of SB winners, you'll note the overwhelming majority were won by teams with 1st round QBs. The notable exceptions are the aforementioned Brady, R. Wilson and Nick Foles. In the modern NFL, it's all about the QB; Az starting price reflects that reality.
Quote from: kingm56 on April 11, 2024, 06:32:18 AMThat phenomenon happens about once every quarter decade. In the last 30 years, we've had Brady and Purdy, and the latter failed to beat the NFL's best QB, despite being surrounded by copious talent. In fact, if you review the last 35 years of SB winners, you'll note the overwhelming majority were won by teams with 1st round QBs. The notable exceptions are the aforementioned Brady, R. Wilson and Nick Foles. In the modern NFL, it's all about the QB; Az starting price reflects that reality.
Sure, the most SB were won by teams that had 1st round QB's. They were probably won by teams that had 1st round receivers. I wont debate that the QB position is important, but it takes way more than that to win a SB. I think you'll find that teams that win the SB are pretty solid in other areas besides QB. Oh, and there are some 1st round QB's that aren't that good but win SB only because of the other parts of the team were great (Trent Dilfer).
Quote from: jimc on April 11, 2024, 01:06:01 PMSure, the most SB were won by teams that had 1st round QB's. They were probably won by teams that had 1st round receivers. I wont debate that the QB position is important, but it takes way more than that to win a SB. I think you'll find that teams that win the SB are pretty solid in other areas besides QB. Oh, and there are some 1st round QB's that aren't that good but win SB only because of the other parts of the team were great (Trent Dilfer).
I'm not tracking your WR example as most teams have 4 starting WRs, as opposed to 1 starting QB; thus, the former has a much higher probability of possessing 1st round WRs.
Again, in the modern NFL, with very few exceptions, you need a prolific passer to win SBs. When reviewing data over 40 years, the obvious best chance to draft said passer is in the 1st round. Suggesting the Giants can wait until later rounds to find a Brady or Purdy type player seems like a plan based on hope, and not statistical probability (i.e. a plan).
Your Trent Dilfer example is fair, but occurred 24 years ago; the post 2012/2013 rule changes fundamentally changed the game. Said rules have explicitly given offenses the advantage, making the QB even more important. The same paradigm for winning SB that applied 20+ years ago are no longer relevant today. In those days, you could win SB with a strong running game and defense. How many teams in the last decade have won with that formula? Even before the rule changes, 93% of SB winners over the last 40 years were won with HoF-caliber QBs; the noticeable exceptions are Foles, Dilfer, Johnson, and Flacco. I will also note that 3 of those 4 teams each had no less than 4x HoF players on their defenses; though, I suspect under the new rules, if would be far more difficult for defensive-oriented teams to enjoy the same success. SF, for example, is loaded with Def talent but lost to NFLs best QB.
There's a reason KC has played in 6 straight champion games; it's not because they have the best team, it's because they have the best QB....today, that gives you the best chance to win!
Arizona wants an offer they can't refuse. That's the only way they are giving up taking Marvin Harrison.
Quote from: jimc on April 11, 2024, 01:06:01 PMSure, the most SB were won by teams that had 1st round QB's. They were probably won by teams that had 1st round receivers. I wont debate that the QB position is important, but it takes way more than that to win a SB. I think you'll find that teams that win the SB are pretty solid in other areas besides QB. Oh, and there are some 1st round QB's that aren't that good but win SB only because of the other parts of the team were great (Trent Dilfer).
It's nearly impossible to win without great QB play today. As others have mentioned, the game has changed significantly over the past few decades so that Ravens team is kind of irrelevant. Look at some of the top receivers in the game today and you'll find that most were drafted outside of the first round. Of the top 10 Chiefs in receiving yards last year, two were first round picks (Clyde Edwards-Helaire and Kadarius Toney) and they were 9th and 10th on the list. Of the top 10 in the NFL in receiving yards, only 4 were first round picks. Of the positions considered to be "premier positions", wide receiver is probably the easiest to find outside the first round.
If this is true, it is more ridiculous than what Chicago originally wanted for Fields.
I don't think it really matters because as I see it, Schoen and Co have no intention to trade up. Moreover, even if McCarthy is still available at 6- the other 3 won't be- I'm not at all sure, they will roll the dice in his favor.
The 3 teams still speculated as trade-up for a QB candidates are: Vikings at 11, Broncos at 12, and Raiders at 13. If one of them feels that it would be worth such a major investment to achieve immediate competitiveness, then it would seem that its target would be either Daniels or Maye at earlier than the Giants 6th overall.
And so, that begs the (my) question, would one of them otherwise make an offer to Our Heroes to get McCarthy? And if so, would Schoenco- reminds me of a Tight End- be interested? My wag is only if it allowed them to still get Nabers or Odunze. Otherwise, Niet!
Cheers!
Like everyone on this board,I'm not a professional scout, coach, or talent evaluator. But if those who are feel the player is worth sacrificing future picks for, then you do it. You can't win or even compete much with mediocre to subpar play from your QB no matter who you have surrounding him. That is the reality in today's NFL.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on April 10, 2024, 09:22:06 PMI get playing safe but thise franchise has played it safe and not taken chances the past decade and where has that gotten us?
If we gave up a 2 1sts and 2 2nds for Josh Allen, no one would think twice. I get it there are risks, but anything is better than trotting out a backup for the 6th year in a row and hope we lose enough again next year to get a qb in a weak qb class.
So if they see a guy that they think is the guy, then yes absolutely. Neal, Wandale, Banks, and JMS are the last 2 1st and 2 2nd round picks, would you not trade an elite Qb for those 4 guys? Absolutely you would.
If this class offered a generational talent at Quarterback, I could align with your position. But each of the top 4 QBs have their own set of question marks.
Not worth that price to gamble on what could be a colossal bust.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Quote from: andrew_nyGiants on April 12, 2024, 01:16:21 PMIf this class offered a generational talent at Quarterback, I could align with your position. But each of the top 4 QBs have their own set of question marks.
Not worth that price to gamble on what could be a colossal bust.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
The issue is that those guys don't come out too often and the opportunity to trade up for such a player may not be there. You simply can't wait on QBs.
Quote from: jgrangers2 on April 12, 2024, 01:26:27 PMThe issue is that those guys don't come out too often and the opportunity to trade up for such a player may not be there. You simply can't wait on QBs.
That philosophy landed us Daniel Jones.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Quote from: andrew_nyGiants on April 12, 2024, 01:28:08 PMThat philosophy landed us Daniel Jones.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Jones was a projected 3rd Round pick. Gettleman screwed that up. It was his incompetence as a GM, not the philosophy that was the issue.
Quote from: katkavage on April 12, 2024, 01:40:51 PMJones was a projected 3rd Round pick. Gettleman screwed that up. It was his incompetence as a GM, not the philosophy that was the issue.
My point is a reach is a reach. Giving up three 1st round picks and then some for anyone in this class (with the possible exception of Williams) is a massive reach.
Just as DJ @ 6 was a massive reach.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see us upgrade at QB, and I'm open to trading up to make it happen.
But not at AZ's price.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Quote from: andrew_nyGiants on April 12, 2024, 01:16:21 PMIf this class offered a generational talent at Quarterback, I could align with your position. But each of the top 4 QBs have their own set of question marks.
Not worth that price to gamble on what could be a colossal bust.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
No one thought Lamar Jackson, Josh allen, or Pat Mahomes was a generational talent, so who's to say this class doesn't have one or multiple. In fact the great talents that have come out lately have been less than ie Lawrence, Herbert.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on April 12, 2024, 02:11:39 PMNo one thought Lamar Jackson, Josh allen, or Pat Mahomes was a generational talent, so who's to say this class doesn't have one or multiple. In fact the great talents that have come out lately have been less than ie Lawrence, Herbert.
You're willing to bet three 1st round picks plus other picks on that with the condition of this roster?
I'm not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Quote from: andrew_nyGiants on April 12, 2024, 01:28:08 PMThat philosophy landed us Daniel Jones.
Except my philosophy isn't to take a QB just to take a QB. If the Giants drafted Daniel Jones just because they felt they had to take a QB, that was a mistake. I say this to all the people who say they'd be disappointed if we don't come out of this draft with a new QB.
My point is that if you like a QB and believe he can be your franchise QB for the next decade, there's nothing wrong with making your move to get him. You can't just sit around and wait for the next generational QB to fall into your lap.
Quote from: andrew_nyGiants on April 12, 2024, 01:45:15 PMMy point is a reach is a reach. Giving up three 1st round picks and then some for anyone in this class (with the possible exception of Williams) is a massive reach.
Just as DJ @ 6 was a massive reach.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see us upgrade at QB, and I'm open to trading up to make it happen.
But not at AZ's price.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
AZ's price is a joke. They won't get it.
Quote from: jgrangers2 on April 12, 2024, 03:07:29 PMExcept my philosophy isn't to take a QB just to take a QB. If the Giants drafted Daniel Jones just because they felt they had to take a QB, that was a mistake. I say this to all the people who say they'd be disappointed if we don't come out of this draft with a new QB.
My point is that if you like a QB and believe he can be your franchise QB for the next decade, there's nothing wrong with making your move to get him. You can't just sit around and wait for the next generational QB to fall into your lap.
So you're saying that the Giants drafted DJ just to take a QB, that they really didn't believe in him?
That extends FAR BEYOND Gettlemen and if true (which I'm not buying) is very disturbing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Quote from: andrew_nyGiants on April 12, 2024, 03:25:53 PMSo you're saying that the Giants drafted DJ just to take a QB, that they really didn't believe in him?
That extends FAR BEYOND Gettlemen and if true (which I'm not buying) is very disturbing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
And with DJ looking like an Eli clone, you have to wonder about Mara's influence.
Quote from: AZGiantFan on April 12, 2024, 03:38:15 PMAnd with DJ looking like an Eli clone, you have to wonder about Mara's influence.
At least in 2004, it was less about Mara and more about Accorsi righting the John Elway "wrong" from earlier in his career. I remember quite a few of us on the "previous incarnation" of this board giving him the "Rug Doctor" treatment until he stepped aside in 2007, his work complete, and Coughlin and team run the gauntlet for the most magical Super Bowl victory these eyes have ever witnessed. The "It" factor was used often in those days and, despite the inauspicious start in 2004, Manning and his team got there with their now-legendary head coach. To the "rug" go the spoils of a mission deemed complete.
It will be forever more the successes and failures, praises and curses, start at (or near) the top, as they probably should be. To be certain, we, the restless natives, will never miss a beat in that endeavor.
Peace!
Quote from: Painter on April 12, 2024, 12:16:46 PMI don't think it really matters because as I see it, Schoen and Co have no intention to trade up. Moreover, even if McCarthy is still available at 6- the other 3 won't be- I'm not at all sure, they will roll the dice in his favor.
The 3 teams still speculated as trade-up for a QB candidates are: Vikings at 11, Broncos at 12, and Raiders at 13. If one of them feels that it would be worth such a major investment to achieve immediate competitiveness, then it would seem that its target would be either Daniels or Maye at earlier than the Giants 6th overall.
And so, that begs the (my) question, would one of them otherwise make an offer to Our Heroes to get McCarthy? And if so, would Schoenco- reminds me of a Tight End- be interested? My wag is only if it allowed them to still get Nabers or Odunze. Otherwise, Niet!
Cheers!
In my opinion, moving out of top 10 almost assures missing out on one of the top WRs.
:yes:
Quote from: Rosehill Jimmy on April 12, 2024, 05:31:41 PMIn my opinion, moving out of top 10 almost assures missing out on one of the top WRs.
Better odds getting a number one receiver in later rounds than a QB.
Quote from: katkavage on April 12, 2024, 05:41:43 PM:yes: Better odds getting a number one receiver in later rounds than a QB.
Agree entirely but I was simply responding to the scenario posed by Painter
Quote from: katkavage on April 12, 2024, 01:40:51 PMJones was a projected 3rd Round pick. Gettleman screwed that up. It was his incompetence as a GM, not the philosophy that was the issue.
Jones was not a projected 3rd round pick. Argument can be made they could have taken him with 17 (or wherever they got Dexter Lawrence), but he was not dropping further than that.
Quote from: andrew_nyGiants on April 12, 2024, 03:25:53 PMSo you're saying that the Giants drafted DJ just to take a QB, that they really didn't believe in him?
That extends FAR BEYOND Gettlemen and if true (which I'm not buying) is very disturbing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
To a certain extent, yes. Once Herbert went back to school, they turned their attention to Jones.
Ultimately, you shouldn't be afraid to get your guy if you believe in him. That's how the Chiefs got Mahomes and the Bills got Allen. But you also shouldn't draft a QB just to draft one.
Quote from: jgrangers2 on April 13, 2024, 09:14:05 AMTo a certain extent, yes. Once Herbert went back to school, they turned their attention to Jones.
Ultimately, you shouldn't be afraid to get your guy if you believe in him. That's how the Chiefs got Mahomes and the Bills got Allen. But you also shouldn't draft a QB just to draft one.
Which is what I fear the Giants will be doing if the draft one this year.