For all the Eli Mannings, Joe Burrows, JD Strouds , Peyton Mannings, John Elways, first picks in the NFL Draft who have succeeded, the following are either 1st or second picks in the draft who have not:
Jamarous Russell
Sam Darnold
Zach Wilson
David Carr
Sam Bradford
Rick Mirrer
Mitch Trubitsky
Jameis Winston
Tim Couch
Vince Young
Robert Griffin
Ryan Leaf
WE have so many needs , the most glaring being the OL , that maybe drafting a so called ," franchise QB " with our first pick might not be the smartest move.
Jones is being paid $40 million next year and any QB we draft will sit behind him unless he gets hurt, so our first round pick if it is a QB will noit improve our team at all, while an OL if he is the right one , and edge rusher or a legitimate ACE receiver would . As respects the latter only Marvin Harrison JR or Keon Coleman would fit that requirement .
We need 3 more O linemen, not 1 more. Schmitz and Thomas are solid-the rest are 2nd and 3rd string back ups.
Quote from: Brooklyn Dave on November 28, 2023, 10:42:22 AMFor all the Eli Mannings, Joe Burrows, JD Strouds , Peyton Mannings, John Elways, first picks in the NFL Draft who have succeeded, the following are either 1st or second picks in the draft who have not:
Jamarous Russell
Sam Darnold
Zach Wilson
David Carr
Sam Bradford
Rick Mirrer
Mitch Trubitsky
Jameis Winston
Tim Couch
Vince Young
Robert Griffin
Ryan Leaf
WE have so many needs , the most glaring being the OL , that maybe drafting a so called ," franchise QB " with our first pick might not be the smartest move.
Jones is being paid $40 million next year and any QB we draft will sit behind him unless he gets hurt, so our first round pick if it is a QB will noit improve our team at all, while an OL if he is the right one , and edge rusher or a legitimate ACE receiver would . As respects the latter only Marvin Harrison JR or Keon Coleman would fit that requirement .
So you think Schoen has a better track record drafting OL than QB??
A QB will be one of our first three picks. It wouldnt shock me if we trade back in the first round for a QB.
We need one. The Jones Era is over. Blame whoeveer you want, whether or not you think he is good. Its irrelevant now. We need a change in the franchise.
We are an unwatchable product right now. Yes we need WRs. And a TE. And OL. But we need a QB.
Have you seen the list of all the OL, WR, and pass rushers who are busts? Evan Neal, for example, was widely regarded as a can't miss player. Not only has he been terrible his first two years, but he's also gotten injured several times.
As far as a rookie sitting behind Daniel Jones due to Jones' salary, that is highly doubtful. Jones sat behind Eli for what? Two games? That was despite Eli being one of the highest paid players in the league, nevermind that Eli's resume dwarfs Jones'.
Bottom line, there is no guarantee the Giants will be in a position to draft a franchise QB but if they do, Jones' career as the Giants starter is effectively over.
The large caps may be loud enough for Schoen to hear because he's the man you have to convince. I'm sure he's well aware of that. But let's say for example that he trades down and still picks a QB like Nix, McCarthy or Maye who has not played up, later in the first or early second round. And DJ with perhaps better players winds up having a great season and the Giants lead the Division, will Daboll pull Jones late in the season to test his Draft QB?
There is no tried and true order to build a team. Different combinations have failed; different combinations have worked. Every situation that didn't work can be countered by one that did, and vice versa. We all have our preference but it doesn't mean that we are right and others are wrong.
Schoen and his staff need to do their homework and make the best decisions they feel will move this franchise in the right direction. Make the choices and live with them. No matter which direction they take, there will be those who don't agree and will not be happy. Oh well. C'est la vie.
Cool, stand pat with a middling QB (at best), that struggles to stay on the field.
Let's just rinse and repeat because a mistake was made in re-signing him.
If you aren't picking a position because of the chance of it busting, you simply won't be picking any position at all. They all have the potential to bust. They also have the potential to hit. And right now, the biggest problem the Giants have, is at QB. Even bigger than the OL. And, prior to this useless winning streak they had a chance to pick one of the best QBs in one of the best QB drafts in a long time. Now...who knows what will happen.
But if they have a chance to take a QB, a guy like Daniels this year is still better than what's expected to come out next year so they should do it.
Quote from: T200 on November 28, 2023, 11:04:54 AMThere is no tried and true order to build a team.
Tim: Your statement is true, but IMO that's primarily because you're competing with 31 other teams.
They all also know a bit about football, so without dumb luck, you often find yourself in a bind.
My point is... the correct way to build a team IMO is to get the QB last (or in the final stage of building along with the final few other players you need). I believe that almost any college QB from a major school can come in and get his confidence (and therefore succeed) if placed in an ideal situation from the start.
It didn't used to be that way, though. The norm was to get your man one or two years "early" and let him learn from the starter while you added the rest of the players needed to surround the new guy with a solid starting point.
That's not possible in today's salary cap era, IMO.
Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on November 28, 2023, 11:43:43 AMTim: Your statement is true, but IMO that's primarily because you're competing with 31 other teams.
They all also know a bit about football, so without dumb luck, you often find yourself in a bind.
My point is... the correct way to build a team IMO is to get the QB last (or in the final stage of building along with the final few other players you need). I believe that almost any college QB from a major school can come in and get his confidence (and therefore succeed) if placed in an ideal situation from the start.
It didn't used to be that way, though. The norm was to get your man one or two years "early" and let him learn from the starter while you added the rest of the players needed to surround the new guy with a solid starting point.
That's not possible in today's salary cap era, IMO.
Bob
In a perfect world...where you build up the team while also stinking enough to position yourself to draft a QB, in a good QB Draft year, then sure you take the QB last. The problem is it rarely works out that way. If the team around a bad QB is good enough, they won't be in a spot to draft a QB. Look at what the Giants are currently doing just with Devito. That guy isn't good by any stretch of the imagination...but he's won 2 games. And played the Giants right out of the Caleb Williams/Drake Maye conversation.
This is a great year for QBs. If the Giants are in position to take one when it's all said and done they probably should do it. They are good enough around that QB position that even if they aren't great next year they will be significantly better than this year. And if they wait until next season to draft a QB they will be picking one in a much worse year for QBs and likely later in the draft.
Ironically the perfect time for them to have implemented your strategy was the year they drafted Jones. That year was a terrible year for QBs and the Giants were so terrible that picking one likely wouldn't have made much of a difference (it didn't) and the following season was significantly better. So that year they should absolutely have said "we'll build up the team, let Eli have a swan song season, lose a bunch, trade the farm for Tua/Herbert/Burrow if necessary, and bring one of those studs onto team that's somewhat formed.
Quote from: Bob In PA on November 28, 2023, 11:43:43 AMTim: Your statement is true, but IMO that's primarily because you're competing with 31 other teams.
They all also know a bit about football, so without dumb luck, you often find yourself in a bind.
My point is... the correct way to build a team IMO is to get the QB last (or in the final stage of building along with the final few other players you need). I believe that almost any college QB from a major school can come in and get his confidence (and therefore succeed) if placed in an ideal situation from the start.
It didn't used to be that way, though. The norm was to get your man one or two years "early" and let him learn from the starter while you added the rest of the players needed to surround the new guy with a solid starting point.
That's not possible in today's salary cap era, IMO.
Bob
Bob,
I know it's a matter of semantics. To me, if it works, it's correct.
To me, your scenario is ideal. It's like Rich's post about top QBs and the type of environments they went to. Some were QB-friendly and others weren't.
Some years ago, there was talk here of 'shiny hood ornaments' in reference to wide receivers and how the 'car' needs to be pretty much completed before adding flashy accessories. I don't think they've moved up the food chain in terms of importance in team building but in today's passing league, I can see an argument that they have.
I'm of the opinion that if a team is sold on a QB regardless of the current composition of the roster, they have to make reasonable moves to get him.
Quote from: Gmo11 on November 28, 2023, 11:59:09 AMIronically the perfect time for them to have implemented your strategy was the year they drafted Jones. That year was a terrible year for QBs and the Giants were so terrible that picking one likely wouldn't have made much of a difference (it didn't) and the following season was significantly better. So that year they should absolutely have said "we'll build up the team, let Eli have a swan song season, lose a bunch, trade the farm for Tua/Herbert/Burrow if necessary, and bring one of those studs onto team that's somewhat formed.
All of this right here. :ok:
Quote from: Gmo11 on November 28, 2023, 11:59:09 AMIn a perfect world...where you build up the team while also stinking enough to position yourself to draft a QB, in a good QB Draft year, then sure you take the QB last. The problem is it rarely works out that way. If the team around a bad QB is good enough, they won't be in a spot to draft a QB. Look at what the Giants are currently doing just with Devito. That guy isn't good by any stretch of the imagination...but he's won 2 games. And played the Giants right out of the Caleb Williams/Drake Maye conversation.
This is a great year for QBs. If the Giants are in position to take one when it's all said and done they probably should do it. They are good enough around that QB position that even if they aren't great next year they will be significantly better than this year. And if they wait until next season to draft a QB they will be picking one in a much worse year for QBs and likely later in the draft.
Ironically the perfect time for them to have implemented your strategy was the year they drafted Jones. That year was a terrible year for QBs and the Giants were so terrible that picking one likely wouldn't have made much of a difference (it didn't) and the following season was significantly better. So that year they should absolutely have said "we'll build up the team, let Eli have a swan song season, lose a bunch, trade the farm for Tua/Herbert/Burrow if necessary, and bring one of those studs onto team that's somewhat formed.
gm: Maybe you said it better than I did, but essentially we're agreeing almost completely. Bob
Quote from: T200 on November 28, 2023, 12:02:42 PMBob,
I know it's a matter of semantics. To me, if it works, it's correct.
To me, your scenario is ideal. It's like Rich's post about top QBs and the type of environments they went to. Some were QB-friendly and others weren't.
Some years ago, there was talk here of 'shiny hood ornaments' in reference to wide receivers and how the 'car' needs to be pretty much completed before adding flashy accessories. I don't think they've moved up the food chain in terms of importance in team building but in today's passing league, I can see an argument that they have.
I'm of the opinion that if a team is sold on a QB regardless of the current composition of the roster, they have to make reasonable moves to get him.
Tim: I can't disagree with anything you said. Bob
Basically: "Let's not pick a QB who could be a bust, instead let's pick an OL who could also be a bust." Sorry, not buying this.
QB is the most important position on the team and the Giants are woefully undertalented compared to the rest of the league. If you have the opportunity to get a QB, you do it and figure the rest out later. There are no guarantees a guy will be available (or affordably within reach) next season or the season after. Sure, some perfect situation (top-10 OL and WR corps) can prop up an otherwise middling QB... but then you're the Andy Dalton-led Bengals. Congrats on mediocrity. The Bengals climbed out of that hole by taking Burrow first, then Jamarr Chase the next year... not Penei Sewell (to much chagrin at the time).
We've got to stop wanting the franchise to play scared. That's what they've basically done the past 10 years, they played it conservative including resigning Jones which continues to kill this organization.
This isn't the same Era were an above average to good qb will win at a high level. You need an elite qb or you need to draft one until you hit on one.
It's amazing what an elite qb will do for an Oline, Wrs, and the Rb by comparison.
We don't need to draft more olinemen. We need to sign 2 guys in FA that are plug and play instead of hope and develop.
I'd rather we draft a qb every year until we hit on one instead of avoiding the position. Jones is absolutely horrible and there's not assurances that he ever plays again or wouldn't get beat out by a delivery boy, so yeah please draft someone.
Nitpicking 1st Round QBs that didn't work out is easy work.
Most difficult position in all of sports, maybe second only to the goaltender position in hockey to draft and develop.
That's why QBs are drafted as high as they are and really shouldn't be a reach when selecting them. (i.e. Giants 1st pick, 6th overall in 2019)
The Giants have WHIFFED on nearly every 1st round pick since 2005.
Philip Rivers/Eli Manning being their most obvious best selection.
That's nearly 2 decades of ineptitude.
I would argue the Giants biggest need is competent ownership and not much will change, otherwise.
There's a rule of thumb that botching a 1st round pick, especially at the QB position, can set a franchise back 10 years.
Yikes.
I really hope there are no multipliers.
DRAFT A QB.
Running it back, as is, would be negligent at this point.
If Schoen and Daboll find a QB they like and take him in the first round, I'm ok with that and trust them to make a good choice. But if we don't pick a QB this draft, I won't lose any sleep over it. With so many holes to fill, I wouldn't draft a QB just to draft a QB. Make sure the QB you draft is the right one.
Others have commented already so I won't be repetitive, but the aversion some seem to have to drafting a QB this year, given the precise situation we are in, really boggles my mind.
But fair enough - everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on November 28, 2023, 12:21:18 PMBasically: "Let's not pick a QB who could be a bust, instead let's pick an OL who could also be a bust." Sorry, not buying this.
QB is the most important position on the team and the Giants are woefully undertalented compared to the rest of the league. If you have the opportunity to get a QB, you do it and figure the rest out later. There are no guarantees a guy will be available (or affordably within reach) next season or the season after. Sure, some perfect situation (top-10 OL and WR corps) can prop up an otherwise middling QB... but then you're the Andy Dalton-led Bengals. Congrats on mediocrity. The Bengals climbed out of that hole by taking Burrow first, then Jamarr Chase the next year... not Penei Sewell (to much chagrin at the time).
H-T: I do understand your approach, but the salary cap must be included in the analysis. They can only pay one high 1st-round QB at a time in today's NFL. It's not like they're the Steinbrenner Yankees. The Bengals are a good example for your point of view, but IMO they were just plain lucky. If either the QB or the WR had been a bust, then where are they? When you pay for a high first-round player you have to give him every chance to succeed, and if you pick the QB first (1 of 11 guys you need to be really good) then the consequences for the blunder are magnified significantly. Further, the Bengals had an above-average (at least) offensive line before they picked either Burrow or Chase.
I agree it's best to "not pass" on a guy you really believe in, but think that that would be an exception to my asserted "general rule" rather than a standard to follow blindly. In an attempt to further refine my thoughts, I'd say you should need no more than two additional starters on offense at the time you spend a high first-rounder on a QB. In that case, you have the same draft year to hopefully also grab one of the two you need and the next year to take two shots at getting the other, so your QB will be "ready" to earn his keep in two years at most.
The Giants need at least three more players on offense, IMO, probably four. This year is theoretically one year too soon unless they also believe they'll have the money to fill one or two of the non-QB slots during free-agency. In that case, they'll be "ready" to grab a QB in whom they really believe in the 2024 draft, but IMO it's likely they'll have to surrender their 2025 first-round pick to move up high enough to get him.
Bob
To Bob and anyone else who may think it's the wrong time to draft a QB:
There's never going to be a time when you have all of the players you need (OL, WR, RB) and can then go shopping for a QB. It doesn't work like that in the real world. A lot of the players you think will be good won't work out. Some of the players you think are working out will get hurt. There's never going to be a perfect time to draft a QB.
On top of that, you don't really know when you'll have an opportunity to get one. When the opportunity presents itself you have to take it regardless of what the rest of the roster looks like.
Yes, luck is part of the equation. You're going to have to hope your skill and preparation meet at the right opportunity to get lucky.
No one said building a great team would be easy. The problem the Giants face right now is trapping themselves in QB hell by lying to themselves about the quality of their players, especially the QB. Cut your losses and move on. Give the next generation of players a chance to succeed where this group of core players failed.
Daniel Jones and the players around him have failed many times over. Although the team is stuck with him on the roster for one more year, we should all be clear eyed in understanding that he isn't the answer and neither are Tyrod Taylor nor DeVito.
This organization needs a major infusion of talent at the QB position. If this year's draft gives us an opportunity to get a guy, then great, we have a shot. If it doesn't, then we're stuck in QB hell for at least another year.
QB is the position that will elevate the offense more than any other.
We would need to draft at least two OL to upgrade the line
We could draft WR but who is throwing to him?
RB? Forget it
And keep in mind, any OL or WR can bust just as well as any QB. Also, the list of probowl WR and OL are dotted with numerous 2nd and third day picks. QB? Not so much.
One QB will give you more bang for the buck
Quote from: Doc16LT56 on November 28, 2023, 02:01:20 PMTo Bob and anyone else who may think it's the wrong time to draft a QB:
There's never going to be a time when you have all of the players you need (OL, WR, RB) and can then go shopping for a QB. It doesn't work like that in the real world. A lot of the players you think will be good won't work out. Some of the players you think are working out will get hurt. There's never going to be a perfect time to draft a QB.
On top of that, you don't really know when you'll have an opportunity to get one. When the opportunity presents itself you have to take it regardless of what the rest of the roster looks like.
Yes, luck is part of the equation. You're going to have to hope your skill and preparation meet at the right opportunity to get lucky.
No one said building a great team would be easy. The problem the Giants face right now is trapping themselves in QB hell by lying to themselves about the quality of their players, especially the QB. Cut your losses and move on. Give the next generation of players a chance to succeed where this group of core players failed.
Daniel Jones and the players around him have failed many times over. Although the team is stuck with him on the roster for one more year, we should all be clear eyed in understanding that he isn't the answer and neither are Tyrod Taylor nor DeVito.
This organization needs a major infusion of talent at the QB position. If this year's draft gives us an opportunity to get a guy, then great, we have a shot. If it doesn't, then we're stuck in QB hell for at least another year.
In a perfect world, they would want to have an established OLine and a couple of weapons before drafting a QB, but you're right. They will study, scout, and interview every QB in this Draft that they believe has potential and may be right for them. If they find the right QB and it won't devastate the next two drafts, they should get him. If that QB is not there or there are doubts, then they have to pass. There is always a FA out there they can sign for one year. To move up it's going to cost them a second this year and a third and next year's first and second or third depending on how far they have to move up. Of course they may have their guy fall to them.
I think they figured they would give Jones two years and if he improved in 2023 they would give him 2024 and then decide, If they trade or cut him, then would draft a QB in 2025. After this year's performance and the injuries, I'm sure they are taking a hard look at this class.
As for Jones, if he's healthy they will play him and see how the season unfolds. He could be trade bait for a team that needs a QB if he plays well and they have their guy in the wings. It's too bad because if he even played like Tommy did this past game and he got injured, they had a shot at trading him.
Quote from: Bob In PA on November 28, 2023, 01:22:44 PMH-T: I do understand your approach, but the salary cap must be included in the analysis. They can only pay one high 1st-round QB at a time in today's NFL. It's not like they're the Steinbrenner Yankees. The Bengals are a good example for your point of view, but IMO they were just plain lucky. If either the QB or the WR had been a bust, then where are they? When you pay for a high first-round player you have to give him every chance to succeed, and if you pick the QB first (1 of 11 guys you need to be really good) then the consequences for the blunder are magnified significantly.
In your hypothetical, what if the OL the Bengals draft is a bust? Then where are they? You can play that game with anyone picked high. There's nothing to suggest picking a lineman is the "safe" decision. Just conceptually, I don't believe that picking a bad OL would be preferable to a bad QB. Is the QB more "visible"? Sure. But that's not the same as value. We've bemoaned how bad Evan Neal is and how just one truly below-average player on the OL drags the entire unit down. To hide that, you basically need to hit (either FA or draft) on 3 or 4 of the other OL. That takes resources and time as well.
QuoteFurther, the Bengals had an above-average (at least) offensive line before they picked either Burrow or Chase.
The Bengals were absolutely one of the worst offensive line units in Burrows rookie season (https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-final-2020-offensive-line-rankings). They improved it in free agency in 2021 to become roughly average.
QuoteI agree it's best to "not pass" on a guy you really believe in, but think that that would be an exception to my asserted "general rule" rather than a standard to follow blindly. In an attempt to further refine my thoughts, I'd say you should need no more than two additional starters on offense at the time you spend a high first-rounder on a QB. In that case, you have the same draft year to hopefully also grab one of the two you need and the next year to take two shots at getting the other, so your QB will be "ready" to earn his keep in two years at most.
The Giants need at least three more players on offense, IMO, probably four. This year is theoretically one year too soon unless they also believe they'll have the money to fill one or two of the non-QB slots during free-agency. In that case, they'll be "ready" to grab a QB in whom they really believe in the 2024 draft, but IMO it's likely they'll have to surrender their 2025 first-round pick to move up high enough to get him.
Bob
I will say that in this approach, all you're really doing by waiting another year on the QB is getting one more year of his rookie contract in a competitive window. And if you have to surrender significant draft capital to do so, you're then potentially limiting the competitiveness of the team in the coming years.
I appreciate the perspective, I just think the wait-and-build approach has a couple fundamental issues. Primarily, you don't know what the QB pool will actually look like when it arrives and you don't know where you'll be picking (and thus what it may cost to acquire the QB you want). You don't face either of those issues (or at least they're mitigated) when you are choosing close to the top of the draft like the Giants will be this offseason.
OP why the shouting? Why the need to capitalize every letter of your subject header? Are you seeking attention? It's completely unnecessary.
Quote from: Ed Vette on November 28, 2023, 02:26:45 PMIn a perfect world, they would want to have an established OLine and a couple of weapons before drafting a QB, but you're right. They will study, scout, and interview every QB in this Draft that they believe has potential and may be right for them. If they find the right QB and it won't devastate the next two drafts, they should get him. If that QB is not there or there are doubts, then they have to pass. There is always a FA out there they can sign for one year. To move up it's going to cost them a second this year and a third and next year's first and second or third depending on how far they have to move up. Of course they may have their guy fall to them.
I think they figured they would give Jones two years and if he improved in 2023 they would give him 2024 and then decide, If they trade or cut him, then would draft a QB in 2025. After this year's performance and the injuries, I'm sure they are taking a hard look at this class.
As for Jones, if he's healthy they will play him and see how the season unfolds. He could be trade bait for a team that needs a QB if he plays well and they have their guy in the wings. It's too bad because if he even played like Tommy did this past game and he got injured, they had a shot at trading him.
Ed: You know I agree with all of this. My point is there's no absolute.
2024 could virtually DEMAND that they take a QB, depending on what they do in free-agency AND how strongly they believe in the guy they want AND how much of 2025 draft they must surrender to move up far enough to get him.
My view is: neither my ideal plan nor "we-must-take-a-QB-in-2024-no-matter-what" is set in stone at this time.
Bob
Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on November 28, 2023, 02:37:52 PMIn your hypothetical, what if the OL the Bengals draft is a bust? Then where are they? You can play that game with anyone picked high. There's nothing to suggest picking a lineman is the "safe" decision.
H-T: All great points as expected. But for the record, as of today, I want Marvin Harrison, Jr., more than any college QB (that could change depending on how the remainder of the college season goes) and I want him a lot more than another OL unless it costs us next year's 1st-rounder. The exception would be (as I agree with almost everyone else) if Schoen sees a can't-miss QB. I DO see a can't-miss WR in Harrison. Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on November 28, 2023, 03:17:24 PMH-T: All great points as expected. But for the record, as of today, I want Marvin Harrison, Jr., more than any college QB (that could change depending on how the remainder of the college season goes) and I want him a lot more than another OL unless it costs us next year's 1st-rounder. The exception would be (as I agree with almost everyone else) if Schoen sees a can't-miss QB. I DO see a can't-miss WR in Harrison. Bob
MHJ is pretty roundly understood as the top prospect overall in the class. I wouldn't be opposed to it.
I agree, this is the year to go QB. Whether it is with pick #1, 2, or even 3, we have to draft for the future. The problem is, other teams, like the Jets for instance, have been drafting QBs in the top 5 for how many years now and they still don't have a legit one. I'm not knocking the Jets as we all know, we draft what looks like a sure thing, and the next thing we know we may have DJ #2, or any of the other high picks that just can't make the transition. We have no choice, we have to go QB, but with our scouting staff, who knows who will be in blue next year?
Quote from: Brooklyn Dave on November 28, 2023, 10:42:22 AMFor all the Eli Mannings, Joe Burrows, JD Strouds , Peyton Mannings, John Elways, first picks in the NFL Draft who have succeeded, the following are either 1st or second picks in the draft who have not:
Jamarous Russell
Sam Darnold
Zach Wilson
David Carr
Sam Bradford
Rick Mirrer
Mitch Trubitsky
Jameis Winston
Tim Couch
Vince Young
Robert Griffin
Ryan Leaf
WE have so many needs , the most glaring being the OL , that maybe drafting a so called ," franchise QB " with our first pick might not be the smartest move.
Jones is being paid $40 million next year and any QB we draft will sit behind him unless he gets hurt, so our first round pick if it is a QB will noit improve our team at all, while an OL if he is the right one , and edge rusher or a legitimate ACE receiver would . As respects the latter only Marvin Harrison JR or Keon Coleman would fit that requirement .
You act like you don't have busts when you draft other positions. Outside of Thomas every offensive lineman we've drafted the past five years has been a bust. We have two second round picks and cap space to deal with the line.
Quote from: madbadger on November 28, 2023, 04:19:34 PMYou act like you don't have busts when you draft other positions. Outside of Thomas every offensive lineman we've drafted the past five years has been a bust. We have two second round picks and cap space to deal with the line.
The only offensive lineman that I remember drafted number 1 were Jake Long, Eric Fisher and Orlando Pace, so it is not a fair comparison
The 2 positions I don't want them to draft in the first round, assuming no trade down to a lower position, are QB and OL.
I don't want a QB because I think that would be wasting one or more low-cost years because they aren't ready to put enough around him.
And I don't want an OL because I simply think that personnel is not the OL's problem, it is coaching. And they already invested to much in the way of prime resources with very little to show for it. They have a good LT who they almost coached into being a bust, they have a RT that they are coaching into a bust, and they have a "10-year plug and play" center who has been coached up to pretty mediocre (pff is not the be-all of grading, but they a sub-50 grade tells me he has a long way to go to match the hype).
Quote from: Brooklyn Dave on November 28, 2023, 05:43:23 PMThe only offensive lineman that I remember drafted number 1 were Jake Long, Eric Fisher and Orlando Pace, so it is not a fair comparison
We aren't going to be drafting first overall so I don't get your point.
The argument that "we shouldn't draft a QB because so many of them bust" is one I really just don't understand. First off, every position busts. Look at Evan Neal. We took him 7th overall. People said he was a plug-and-play, stone cold lock to be at least a quality starter if not an all pro. He's been an unmitigated disaster so far that insulted the fans. The idea that only QBs bust is just simply false. Secondly, if you don't want to draft a QB in a good QB year when you're picking in the top 10, when exactly DO you want to draft a QB? And, in our case, who exactly will be our QB while we wait for you to want to draft one? Please don't say Daniel Jones.
I also don't like the argument of "let's not draft a QB because we're going to waste a couple years of his rookie deal because we don't have enough other good players." I get the point being made, but a QB is a very long term investment. These guys are still good at 35 and sometimes still good at 40. For me, worrying about trying to thread the needle by bulking up at all other positions and then deciding to try to get a QB when you're picking 19th or something just isn't the way to go about it. Sure, it would be great to already have a good team and then somehow be able to draft Joe Burrow and have him for four years on the rookie contract plus the fifth year option, but that's not really something you can plan for. I think if you don't have a good QB, and you're in a position where you can get one you truly rate as a top talent, you don't pass on that. If you get it wrong you get it wrong. Obviously that's a risk, just the way it was a risk when we drafted Evan Neal 7th overall, Ereck Flowers 9th, and Eli Apple 10th.
Clearly if our scouts and front office don't think that highly of the QBs available to us in this draft, then I 100% think we should not take one. I am in no way advocating forcing the pick. But to pass on a QB you think is going to be a great NFL player because you think your guards or tight ends aren't quite good enough at that moment in time makes very little sense to me.
Quote from: AZGiantFan on November 28, 2023, 05:47:20 PMThe 2 positions I don't want them to draft in the first round, assuming no trade down to a lower position, are QB and OL.
I don't want a QB because I think that would be wasting one or more low-cost years because they aren't ready to put enough around him.
And I don't want an OL because I simply think that personnel is not the OL's problem, it is coaching. And they already invested to much in the way of prime resources with very little to show for it. They have a good LT who they almost coached into being a bust, they have a RT that they are coaching into a bust, and they have a "10-year plug and play" center who has been coached up to pretty mediocre (pff is not the be-all of grading, but they a sub-50 grade tells me he has a long way to go to match the hype).
AZR: One more... guards are not worth spending a high 1st-rounder. Exceptions are extremely rare. Bob
Quote from: AZGiantFan on November 28, 2023, 05:47:20 PMThe 2 positions I don't want them to draft in the first round, assuming no trade down to a lower position, are QB and OL.
I don't want a QB because I think that would be wasting one or more low-cost years because they aren't ready to put enough around him.
And I don't want an OL because I simply think that personnel is not the OL's problem, it is coaching. And they already invested to much in the way of prime resources with very little to show for it. They have a good LT who they almost coached into being a bust, they have a RT that they are coaching into a bust, and they have a "10-year plug and play" center who has been coached up to pretty mediocre (pff is not the be-all of grading, but they a sub-50 grade tells me he has a long way to go to match the hype).
Were the 2-14 Bengal's ready to put a team around Joe Burrow? What about the 1-15 Jags? 4-13 Texans? 5-11 Dolphins? Conversely, the Pats and Jets both had/have superior supporting cast when they drafted thier QBs...doesn't appear to be working out for either team. If you have a shot at a franchise QB, you take it.
This entire thread baffles me; essentially, it states we shouldn't draft a QB because it's hard. Instead, we should continue to draft OL and hope a QB who's started 60+ games becomes something he's never been. In 30+ years, there's not a single example of this type of QB maturation; yet, here we are, pushing the notion....
Quote from: Bob In PA on November 28, 2023, 09:26:02 PMAZR: One more... guards are not worth spending a high 1st-rounder. Exceptions are extremely rare. Bob
Sounds like he's making a two part argument:
1) don't draft a QB because the OL isn't good enough
2) don't draft OL because the OL is good enough with better coaching.
Do you see the problem with the logic listed above? If you bring in better coaching for the OL, why not draft a better QB and go to war with Barkley and Hyatt?
Quote from: Bob In PA on November 28, 2023, 09:26:02 PMAZR: One more... guards are not worth spending a high 1st-rounder. Exceptions are extremely rare. Bob
The other issue is guards, like RB's, when drafted in first round are already being paid more than many vets at the position. When you have the first round QB on a rookie contract, it is a HUGE benefit for the rest of the salary cap. Not the case with a rookie guard making the same money.
Quote from: Doc16LT56 on November 28, 2023, 09:58:42 PMSounds like he's making a two part argument:
1) don't draft a QB because the OL isn't good enough
2) don't draft OL because the OL is good enough with better coaching.
Do you see the problem with the logic listed above? If you bring in better coaching for the OL, why not draft a better QB and go to war with Barkley and Hyatt?
Maybe we can draft an OL coach with the first pick??????
Quote from: coggs on November 28, 2023, 10:00:52 PMMaybe we can draft an OL coach with the first pick??????
It's comforting to know the Giants are just an OL coach from being competitive. There's not a single example of OL coach transforming a bottom 5 OL, without the infusion of significant talent. The Giants have had very good OL coaches, and still fielded terrible units, most notably 2013 thru 2015. The Giants need talent at G and RT and hope thier OC gains strength. Fundamentally, there's a shortage of OL talent as a byproduct of HS and colleges switching to spread offenses. So, finding solid guards is difficult in the modern NFL...
Quote from: kingm56 on November 28, 2023, 10:24:17 PMIt's comforting to know the Giants are just an OL coach from being competitive. There's not a single example of OL coach transforming a bottom 5 OL, without the infusion of significant talent. The Giants have had very good OL coaches, and still fielded terrible units, most notably 2013 thru 2015. The Giants need talent at G and RT and hope thier OC gains strength. Fundamentally, there's a shortage of OL talent as a byproduct of HS and colleges switching to spread offenses. So, finding solid guards is difficult in the modern NFL...
King, you probably know this as well as anyone here. For at least the last 10+ years, folks here have been scapegoating the coaching. Remember when it was Gilbride's fault, even though he was screaming about the OL being a problem? Then it was Caughlin's fault because he should've developed Jerry's players? A certain part of the fan base couldn't admit the problem was lack of talent. They still can't.
Quote from: Doc16LT56 on November 28, 2023, 10:44:21 PMKing, you probably know this as well as anyone here. For at least the last 10+ years, folks here have been scapegoating the coaching. Remember when it was Gilbride's fault, even though he was screaming about the OL being a problem? Then it was Caughlin's fault because he should've developed Jerry's players? A certain part of the fan base couldn't admit the problem was lack of talent. They still can't.
Indeed, Doc; and, when said coaching fails, because thier talent ages or moves on, they simply say "the game has passed them by", which explains why the preferred coach failed. Coaching isn't going to fix the Giants problems, which fundamentally, and most importantly, is a lack of talent.
BTW, if coaching is the missing link, or an important cog, why not hire the best damn QB coach to fix Daniel Jones? If a coach can fix the OL, why can't a top QB coach do the same to DJ? That would be far more efficient, and cheaper than drafting a QB.
Quote from: coggs on November 28, 2023, 10:00:52 PMMaybe we can draft an OL coach with the first pick??????
:funnypost: =))
Quote from: Doc16LT56 on November 28, 2023, 09:58:42 PMSounds like he's making a two part argument:
1) don't draft a QB because the OL isn't good enough
2) don't draft OL because the OL is good enough with better coaching.
Do you see the problem with the logic listed above? If you bring in better coaching for the OL, why not draft a better QB and go to war with Barkley and Hyatt?
Doc: That may be the stronger of the two possible arguments. You're probably on the right track, IMO.
I'm wait-and-see right now. Let's see what they can get in free-agency first to bolster the OL.
If the OL looks to have been improved before draft day, IMO that would further support your argument.
Bob
Quote from: kingm56 on November 28, 2023, 09:57:51 PMThis entire thread baffles me; essentially, it states we shouldn't draft a QB because it's hard. Instead, we should continue to draft OL and hope a QB who's started 60+ games becomes something he's never been. In 30+ years, there's not a single example of this type of QB maturation; yet, here we are, pushing the notion....
OK, but none of this has anything to do with what I said.
If the team has a chance to draft someone they feel strongly can be a franchise QB - They should draft him, I don't think this is complicated or even debatable really (this thread says differently).
Whether you think Daniel Jones is the issue, part of the issue or none of the issue with the offense, I think we can all agree he is not the long-term future of the franchise at this point.
If the team thinks that the QB is only so good that need him to be on his rookie contract to make the rest of the team competitive, then the question is answered about whether or not that is a true franchise QB.
And if there is still big OL questions heading into next year (not sure how there wouldn't be at this point), the rookie can sit for half the season (or however long) while those issues playout or not.
Its a different story if there isn't any QBs available that the team feels fits the bill.
If we're not taking a QB and we can't get Maserati Marv, I wouldn't mind Jared Verse. Look at this play from last night.
Imagine having him and Thibs book-ended for the next decade.
https://twitter.com/_notailedbeast/status/1731203636577894770
The more I watch football, and I have been watching football for longer than many of you have been alive, the more I realize there are no rules. I am right now watching the 49er vs the Eagles who are clearly taking the best teams in the game with Purdy and Hurts as the starting QBs while I am reading here about the absolute need to draft a QB with the 1st pick. Or, we have to draft OL in the 1st as though a 1st is the only chance to improve the OL. The best rule, in my opinion, is draft really talented people emphasizing certain positions of value. We need to add talent at lots of positions
Should have added that the other tv game here has Baker Mayfield and Bryan Young both of whom were the 1st picks in the draft
It still pisses me off that this thread is getting so much traffic and bumped to the top. As I mentioned 3 pages ago the use of ALL CAPS was an cheap attention getter by the OP shout out loud and I wish the mods would put a stop to thread topic like this.
Quote from: TDToomer on December 03, 2023, 08:55:53 PMIt still pisses me off that this thread is getting so much traffic and bumped to the top. As I mentioned 3 pages ago the use of ALL CAPS was an cheap attention getter by the OP shout out loud and I wish the mods would put a stop to thread topic like this.
The guy is pretty new to the board and has started a couple of other thread without all-cap subject lines. So maybe you could give him a break and let it go?
Quote from: AZGiantFan on December 03, 2023, 10:50:09 PMThe guy is pretty new to the board and has started a couple of other thread without all-cap subject lines. So maybe you could give him a break and let it go?
I suppose those other treads weren't gaining enough attraction thus to need to scream for attention. This is the new world we live in. Not everyone needs to create multiple thread. There are plenty of existing ones where this discussion could have went.
Quote from: Quick Kick on November 28, 2023, 10:54:41 AMWe need 3 more O linemen, not 1 more. Schmitz and Thomas are solid-the rest are 2nd and 3rd string back ups.
First there needs to be fundamental changes in how we scout and draft O linemen; we may also have to address the coaching and development, if there is mediocrity there too... not sure about that aspect though.
Quote from: TDToomer on December 04, 2023, 09:16:41 AMI suppose those other treads weren't gaining enough attraction thus to need to scream for attention. This is the new world we live in. Not everyone needs to create multiple thread. There are plenty of existing ones where this discussion could have went.
I was the one who started this thread and the use of Caps was not screaming for any attention nor did it have any meaning whatsoever. I am 80 years old and have been following the Giants probably way before you were born. I had season tickets when they played at Yankee Stadium, at the Yale Bowl and at Giant Stadium. Getting to Met Life now is getting too difficult.
In another post you said that ," you were pissed off " on my using Caps. I can't imagine how you would react to more important things if you are pissed off so easily !!!
Be assured that when and if I post another thread , I will not use all Caps , so you can rest in peace !!!