Big Blue Huddle

Depending upon what the Rams would want , would you be in favor of him as a bridge QB ? Cooper Kupp if we acquired Stafford ?

Quote from: Brooklyn Dave on February 10, 2025, 05:09:22 PMDepending upon what the Rams would want , would you be in favor of him as a bridge QB ? Cooper Kupp if we acquired Stafford ?

Absolutely

He would cost too much to make any form of sense.

I don't personally want to trade for an old QB. We need to be getting more draft capital, if anything. Not giving it away.

Whenever I think of the Giants trading for an aging Quarterback, this memory comes to mind:
Craig Morton for the 1st round pick that gave the Cowboys HOF DT Randy White.

So NO! Please don't compound the stupidity.

Funny this comes up. I was just daydreaming yesterday about both Kupp and Stafford on the Giants next year! Kupp will be a Free Agent.  We sign him and Stafford might not cost as much as you might think in a trade....at least this was my daydream. A #3 this year and a conditional #3 next year that could go to a #2 if certain marks are hit....and maybe Jalin Hyatt is part of the deal. They'll want Dru Phillips but Joe says no. 

And we draft Ward, Sanders or Dart.  Could there be a better QB to sit and learn under than Matt Stafford?  He's got two years left on his contract. Under this scenario, he'd be an expensive back up for the last year....but worth it for the counsel he'd offer the young QB.

I really don't understand the Stafford to the Giants rumors. May be I have been out of loop, but someone please explain these things to me:

1) Where is it coming from that he is available via trade? 
2) Rams have similar cap space to the Giants.  Why would a team that was in the playoffs this year want to trade a franchise QB? 
3)Why wouldn't they want to try and make another Super Bowl run with him?
4) Why would Stafford come to the Giants at this stage of his career?

As for whether I would want him or not, it's a big no.  They need to accumulate draft picks and use them to build a young team. Not trade them for a guy who will retire in a year or two.

Quote from: uconnjack8 on February 10, 2025, 06:57:56 PMI really don't understand the Stafford to the Giants rumors. May be I have been out of loop, but someone please explain these things to me:

1) Where is it coming from that he is available via trade? 
2) Rams have similar cap space to the Giants.  Why would a team that was in the playoffs this year want to trade a franchise QB? 
3)Why wouldn't they want to try and make another Super Bowl run with him?
4) Why wouldn't Stafford come to the Giants at this stage of his career?

As for whether I would want him or not, it's a big no.  They need to accumulate draft picks and use them to build a young team. Not trade them for a guy who will retire in a year or two.

All agreed. I don't have answers to your questions, but I do agree with what you say at the end.

I am actually somewhat taken aback by how many posts I have seen today expressing a desire to use meaningful team resources (including trading draft capital and spending real money) to bring in very old players in the twilight of their careers. I just don't understand why anyone would want to do that with one of the worst teams in the league. Have people forgotten that we are 9-25 in our past two seasons?

We need to build through the draft. Our complete inability to do that over the past decade is the number one reason by far that we are as bad as we are. When you're terrible, which we most certainly are, you don't get better by paying up for a 38 year old QB or a 32 year old wide receiver, particularly if that involves giving away picks.

https://x.com/nflrums/status/1889086048560390520

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 10, 2025, 07:21:16 PMAll agreed. I don't have answers to your questions, but I do agree with what you say at the end.

I am actually somewhat taken aback by how many posts I have seen today express
ing a desire to use meaningful team resources (including trading draft capital and spending real money) to bring in very old players in the twilight of their careers. I just don't understand why anyone would want to do that with one of the worst teams in the league. Have people forgotten that we are 9-25 in our past two seasons?

We need to build through the draft. Our complete inability to do that over the past decade is the number one reason by far that we are as bad as we are. When you're terrible, which we most certainly are, you don't get better by paying up for a 38 year old QB or a 32 year old wide receiver, particularly if that involves giving away picks.

Dave, We tried to build through the draft. How did that work out in our 2022 and 2023 drafts ?

Quote from: Brooklyn Dave on February 10, 2025, 08:19:02 PMDave, We tried to build through the draft. How did that work out in our 2022 and 2023 drafts ?

Poorly. It's still the right way to do it though. We have just had incompetent people doing it.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the right people building my team the right way. I don't want to intentionally do things the wrong way just because we haven't had people capable of doing things the right way.

Quote from: Brooklyn Dave on February 10, 2025, 08:19:02 PMDave, We tried to build through the draft. How did that work out in our 2022 and 2023 drafts ?

It would be one thing if they had a solid team to try and make a run at a Super Bowl but the team is no where close to that.

The Jets have tried signing past their prime QBs multiple times and that hasn't worked. 

Not a believer in signing a past-his-prime, vet QB unless he's the final piece. This team is more than a QB away from being a competitor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you trade for Stafford the Giants will win too many games next year to be in contention to draft a top QB, unless they draft one this year.

Stafford is a hard no for me, too old and we really need to be building for the future, not throwing the future away for the present.

I mean if it's for a 5th rd pick for 2 years to give time for us to groom someone, then sure. I'm not giving up a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd because then you have to pay him.

Also for context, Staffords brother in law is Chad Hall who was the Wrs coach in Buffalo while Daboll and Schoen coached there. They are reuniting with him and making him the Assistant Qb coach, him being Staffords brother in law just gives ppl a chance to have clickbait.

Quote from: Jclayton92 on February 10, 2025, 10:53:56 PMI mean if it's for a 5th rd pick for 2 years to give time for us to groom someone, then sure. I'm not giving up a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd because then you have to pay him.

Totally agree. I did say in my initial post , " depending upon what the Rams want "

Many of them are driven by the Giants hiring his brother-in-law as their new assistant QB coach


Art is throwing fuel on the fire


https://x.com/art_stapleton/status/1889036635569807461


My thoughts on such a trade



1)  Financially, it's not very beneficial for the Rams to move on from Stafford

2)  While the Rams have Garrapollo, they don't have an equal replacement for Stafford

3)  For the currently 37-year-old QB, throwing in sunny LA is a lot better than the brutal cold and winds of the Meadowlands

4)  Stafford is expensive and would chew up most of the Giants cap space

5)  Stafford likes it in LA

If the Giants try and pull this off, I would put this in the category of "desperation moves," something Schoen promised us he wouldn't do to try and save his job.

The only positive, would be that the Giants wouldn't have to reach for a QB in round one and instead could hopefully draft a blue chip prospect.

Stafford to the Giants would be exactly what the Knicks pre-Leon Rose would have done.  Over pay for a declining old player on a bad team that needs ascending youthful players instead.

May as well bring back Kenny Golladay while we're at it.

Quote from: Philosophers on February 11, 2025, 08:56:16 AMStafford to the Giants would be exactly what the Knicks pre-Leon Rose would have done.  Over pay for a declining old player on a bad team that needs ascending youthful players instead.

This is pretty much my feeling. Bringing in Stafford would help make the Giants a middle of the pack team, but doesn't elevate them to one of the better teams in the league. By the time they get there, they'd need a new QB anyway.

Quote from: Philosophers on February 11, 2025, 08:56:16 AMStafford to the Giants would be exactly what the Knicks pre-Leon Rose would have done.  Over pay for a declining old player on a bad team that needs ascending youthful players instead.

I would say Jets.  It would be exactly like bringing in Favre or Rodger's.  Although I would say I thought the Jets had a better roster when they made those moves.

Quote from: andrew_nyGiants on February 10, 2025, 05:37:44 PMWhenever I think of the Giants trading for an aging Quarterback, this memory comes to mind:
Craig Morton for the 1st round pick that gave the Cowboys HOF DT Randy White.

So NO! Please don't compound the stupidity.

Don't worry Andrew if we hadn't made that trade t the Giants would have drafted another Joe Don Looney or Cedric Jones or Rocky Thompson, shall I go on? You get the point, but your point is spot on.

I can't help but think I'm responsible for this rumor.

This morning "rumors" (translation: guess work by talking heads and fans) say that the Rams are critiquing the QB class and are expected to take Kyle McCord with their 2nd rd pick  :-??

I'm sure that Kyle McCord on their roster is more appealing than paying a truck load of money to keep Stafford on the team

Stafford could end up being cut, and some team will probably sign him on the cheap for a 1-2 yr contract. His value is in mentoring a rookie QB (IMO...and what the hell do I know? I'm never right about what NFL teams will do)

Quote from: Ed Vette on February 11, 2025, 02:28:16 PMI can't help but think I'm responsible for this rumor.

Once the Giants signed Stafford's brother-in-law, EVERYONE was thinking the same thing as you. You just were the first to point it out...LOL

Over the hill, average at best QB. Na, I'm good and hopefully the Giants are too.

Quote from: LennG on February 11, 2025, 02:07:47 PMDon't worry Andrew if we hadn't made that trade t the Giants would have drafted another Joe Don Looney or Cedric Jones or Rocky Thompson, shall I go on? You get the point, but your point is spot on.

LOL. Well played Lenn!

Oh and let's not forget, with Stafford, we would need a competent OL (pass and run blockings) so that we could give him a balanced offense. But WAIT, that was our excuse for not keeping Saquon.

https://x.com/geoffschwartz/status/1889786563158016161?s=46&t=1vcQIN8GqF5J2oLdxEVEJQ

I am seeing low quality "insider" information that the Giants are discussing with LA the possibility of a trade for Stafford.

However, some of those claims are being covered with an out.  They claim other teams are in talks as well.  If another team trades for them, the so-called insider can claim the Giants were outbid.

Why would the Rams trade Stafford? They were pretty close to getting to the Super Bowl.  Ridiculous.

Quote from: expatriot on February 13, 2025, 12:37:55 PMWhy would the Rams trade Stafford? They were pretty close to getting to the Super Bowl.  Ridiculous.

That's why I take all of this with a grain of salt.

Even if they want a young QB, they too need a bridge, why get rid of him to help another team do what they should be having him do?

Quote from: expatriot on February 13, 2025, 12:37:55 PMWhy would the Rams trade Stafford? They were pretty close to getting to the Super Bowl.  Ridiculous.

My first thought when I saw the rumors.  This one reeks of media people needing stories to write.

Quote from: uconnjack8 on February 13, 2025, 01:28:50 PMMy first thought when I saw the rumors.  This one reeks of media people needing stories to write.

Plus, plenty of wanna-be insiders figure the whole Stafford brother-in-law hire was a chance to gain credibility.

Could he be a cap casualty??

Dumpster Dan

Quote from: Dumpster Dan on February 13, 2025, 01:40:43 PMCould he be a cap casualty??

Dumpster Dan

Dan,

The way the contract is structured, releasing him or trading him doesn't really free up a lot of true cap space (cut- a little over $300K and trade- around $4 million).  Sure, they could use his release to borrow future cap dollars, but there are other ways to do that, and the team isn't hurting for cap space.

Plus whatever cap space they free up quickly gets eaten up (and more) by his replacement

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 13, 2025, 01:50:45 PMDan,

The way the contract is structured, releasing him or trading him doesn't really free up a lot of true cap space (cut- a little over $300K and trade- around $4 million).  Sure, they could use his release to borrow future cap dollars, but there are other ways to do that, and the team isn't hurting for cap space.

Plus whatever cap space they free up quickly gets eaten up (and more) by his replacement

I was thinking they would just guarantee some of his salary for the next couple of years to make him happy.

As you mentioned they are not up against the cap and his cap number is right in line with other QBs, or compared to some,  a bargain

https://x.com/nflrums/status/1890156219119112692

For a fourth, or lower I don't see the issue. The plan was always to get a vet and draft a rookie. Stafford would be a lot better than any of the other castoffs you hear are available. The key is getting him without mortgaging the future. Hard to do I think.

Stafford was ok but nothing special this year. 13th in passing yards, 15th in passing TDs, 15th in QB rating, 16th in YPA. And this was with some pretty nice talent around him and perhaps the best play caller in the sport in McVay.

From where I am sitting that's a pretty average looking season. It is not clear to me why anyone would expect even a repeat of that performance, let alone something better, from him a year older and on an inferior team with an inferior play caller.

So, is some lesser version of that from a player who is in the final act of his career worth spending significant resources on?

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 13, 2025, 09:36:52 PMStafford was ok but nothing special this year. 13th in passing yards, 15th in passing TDs, 15th in QB rating, 16th in YPA. And this was with some pretty nice talent around him and perhaps the best play caller in the sport in McVay.

From where I am sitting that's a pretty average looking season. It is not clear to me why anyone would expect even a repeat of that performance, let alone something better, from him a year older and on an inferior team with an inferior play caller.

So, is some lesser version of that from a player who is in the final act of his career worth spending significant resources on?

Unfortunately, if your job is on the line, and your seat is as hot as the surface of the sun, then it's worth it to try to buy yourself another year. You may even agree to trade the #3 overall pick and hope Stafford can give you the "improvement" your owner wants to see, at least for a season.

The Giants aren't trading the 3rd overall for Stafford.

I suspect all this talk of Stafford to LA is just hot air and bull crap.  The Rams are just using the threat of trading away Stafford to the NFL version of Syberia as leverage to get him to sign a more team-friendly contract this season.

Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on February 14, 2025, 07:13:43 AMThe Giants aren't trading the 3rd overall for Stafford.

I hope like hell you are correct.

Trading what shoudl be expected to be a foundational long term piece barring a trade down, for a 1-2 rental of a nearly washed up QB well past his prime?

Scary thought.

This would be so bad, I would instantly join others in calling for Schoens job.

Quote from: MrGap92 on February 14, 2025, 09:17:26 AMI hope like hell you are correct.

Trading what shoudl be expected to be a foundational long term piece barring a trade down, for a 1-2 rental of a nearly washed up QB well past his prime?

Scary thought.

This would be so bad, I would instantly join others in calling for Schoens job.

I would too.

I just don't see it happening. This isn't the NHL.

I am not enamored with either Ward and especially Sanders at 3, Not good value that are hardly sure things. Now if it's wifey that him in New York, and for a 3rd rounder..okay. Let's go. At 3, very possible Carter could be there,,or trade down, recoup the Stafford trade and fill holes.

Why are the Giants in conversations clearly with the Rams if they are sold on either Ward or Sanders? They're not and the package team of Daboll/Schoen ain't going to survive another Double Digit loss season with a bridge guy or a rookie starting.

Stafford is a better option. He can still play at a high level and it allows you to keep the 3rd pick..take a terrific star in Carter or trade down with someone in love with Shedurr..add vital talent and needs at the same time.

Not Craig Morton..at all. Just a 3rd..and add a star again in Carter..a corner..another WR..depth on the OL. Another tackle is a need. Free agency might help there But the roster gets a lift from being adrift.
This isn't the Craig Morton scenario..that's was idiotic. Here they give up a 3rd and improve..restore some pride..Not perfect .but aren't we tired of being out of it by Halloween. ???

I would be enraged if this happens.  Would be typical giants xxxxxxxx.  Trade assets we shouldn't be giving up for a guy that's got one foot in his football grave. For what,  a 7-10 season next year? So he can play the Tommy Cutlets role next year and cost us a QB in the 2026 draft.  Which i still maintain is better than taking Ward or Sanders this year. 

Sign Justin Fields to a two year deal and take a QB in the 2026 draft.

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 14, 2025, 09:14:34 AMI suspect all this talk of Stafford to LA is just hot air and bull crap.  The Rams are just using the threat of trading away Stafford to the NFL version of Syberia as leverage to get him to sign a more team-friendly contract this season.

I hope you're right Rich. I was on a plane ride today and listened to a very recent episode of Big Blue Banter, a podcast I know you've said you like, and both Fallato and Schneier were speaking pretty supportively about the idea of bringing Stafford over here. Moreover they were presenting this topic as a bona fide, live possibility, with both teams still talking about it (as of the recording of the pod at least).

For the record, I absolutely HATE this idea, and I am a guy who has really liked Stafford over the years. I think a move like this would be beyond foolish, and it would signify the reality that Mara has set Schoen and Daboll up to max out on the present at the expense of the future by having basically given them a one year ultimatum to win more games.

Trading the #3 pick for Stafford would be the biggest, most moronic move the Giants could make.

https://www.si.com/nfl/giants/big-blue-plus/nfl-talking-head-makes-bold-claims-about-giants-quarterback-thought-process-01jm8b1z21nn

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 17, 2025, 04:59:06 PMI hope you're right Rich. I was on a plane ride today and listened to a very recent episode of Big Blue Banter, a podcast I know you've said you like, and both Fallato and Schneier were speaking pretty supportively about the idea of bringing Stafford over here. Moreover they were presenting this topic as a bona fide, live possibility, with both teams still talking about it (as of the recording of the pod at least).

For the record, I absolutely HATE this idea, and I am a guy who has really liked Stafford over the years. I think a move like this would be beyond foolish, and it would signify the reality that Mara has set Schoen and Daboll up to max out on the present at the expense of the future by having basically given them a one year ultimatum to win more games.

I heard that episode.  I couldn't help but think how embarrassingly bad it was.   The price problem that I saw was Dan gave way too much credence to the fake insiders at BBI.   I mean even BBI acknowledges the issue by referring to them as "asshats"

As for Dan's strong endorsement (Nick, the guy I really respect, less so), I think Dan's desire to end the misery has him giving in to the lure of a quick fix that doesn't solve the problem.

Four pages on something that has zero chance of happening. Okay. :ok:

We all hope it doesnt happen, but to say its 0% is a bit premature, I hope like hell its 0%

Quote from: MrGap92 on February 18, 2025, 08:10:48 AMWe all hope it doesnt happen, but to say its 0% is a bit premature, I hope like hell its 0%

5 percent? That better?

I'd rather draft a QB and grab Fields. Then if the drafted guy isn't looking good draft another QB in 2026. If they move for Stafford I hope its not for a day 3 draft pick (or maybe a 3rdrd tops). We are not just a QB away

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 18, 2025, 05:55:26 AMI heard that episode.  I couldn't help but think how embarrassingly bad it was.   The price problem that I saw was Dan gave way too much credence to the fake insiders at BBI.   I mean even BBI acknowledges the issue by referring to them as "asshats"

As for Dan's strong endorsement (Nick, the guy I really respect, less so), I think Dan's desire to end the misery has him giving in to the lure of a quick fix that doesn't solve the problem.

I agree it was an incredibly poor episode. I almost quit in the middle of it multiple times. I don't listen to these guys that often, and this was a reminder of why. I was on a plane and didn't feel like paying for WiFi so I just went through some downloaded pods, and this was one of them. One brutal take after another for over an hour.

And while Schneier may have been a bit more gung ho, Fallato was supportive of it too.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 18, 2025, 06:50:42 PMI agree it was an incredibly poor episode. I almost quit in the middle of it multiple times. I don't listen to these guys that often, and this was a reminder of why. I was on a plane and didn't feel like paying for WiFi so I just went through some downloaded pods, and this was one of them. One brutal take after another for over an hour.

And while Schneier may have been a bit more gung ho, Fallato was supportive of it too.

Jeff,

It seems like the two of them have lost some of the passion for their podcast.   The latest show was a low-effort show.  The show used to be driven by Nick doing tape breakdowns, but I think this past losing season sort of pushed them off that approach.

Quote from: spiderblue43 on February 14, 2025, 03:57:07 PMI am not enamored with either Ward and especially Sanders at 3, Not good value that are hardly sure things. Now if it's wifey that him in New York, and for a 3rd rounder..okay. Let's go. At 3, very possible Carter could be there,,or trade down, recoup the Stafford trade and fill holes.

Why are the Giants in conversations clearly with the Rams if they are sold on either Ward or Sanders? They're not and the package team of Daboll/Schoen ain't going to survive another Double Digit loss season with a bridge guy or a rookie starting.

Stafford is a better option. He can still play at a high level and it allows you to keep the 3rd pick..take a terrific star in Carter or trade down with someone in love with Shedurr..add vital talent and needs at the same time.

Not Craig Morton..at all. Just a 3rd..and add a star again in Carter..a corner..another WR..depth on the OL. Another tackle is a need. Free agency might help there But the roster gets a lift from being adrift.
This isn't the Craig Morton scenario..that's was idiotic. Here they give up a 3rd and improve..restore some pride..Not perfect .but aren't we tired of being out of it by Halloween. ???

Spider, The Morton comparison was a top 5 pick who turned out to be Randy White (to the Cowboys no less). I have little issue with Stafford as an FA pick-up or a mid-late round pick. But our #3 overall for Stafford looks very much like the Morton for White pick.

I think if the Rams told Stafford they were trading him to the Giants there would be a press conference the next day to announce his retirement.

Giants Daily
@NYGDaily
The problem isn't Matt Stafford. He's a really good QB. It's Joe Schoen trying to build a roster to compete immediately around Stafford. What's Stafford's window 1-2 years? In three years, Joe Schoen's roster isn't as good as the one he inherited in 2022 and those are John Mara's words, not mine.
9:21 AM · Feb 19, 2025
·
24.1K
 Views

https://x.com/NYGDaily/status/1892218061802881520

https://x.com/AdamSchefter/status/1891933853045944336

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 19, 2025, 08:49:25 AMJeff,

It seems like the two of them have lost some of the passion for their podcast.  The latest show was a low-effort show.  The show used to be driven by Nick doing tape breakdowns, but I think this past losing season sort of pushed them off that approach.

Rich,

You're right; I do remember listening to a number of these where Nick provided comprehensive X's and O's game analysis and also had some pretty esoteric takes on draft prospects that seemed sharper than your average stuff you get from most of the pundits.

Schneier seems like he's a nice enough guy, but he strikes me as not really any more additive to a Giants or NFL dialogue than most typical, everyday fans I know. That's not a bad knowledge level, but most everyday fans don't expect significant numbers of people to listen to them talk about stuff they already know about for 80 minutes. Particularly when that 80 minutes includes takes like "the cap doesn't matter."

https://x.com/GiantInsider/status/1892568209804472772


He acts as an NYG mouthpiece and is pretty tied in.   That said, from what I hear, the Ram's first choice is to retain Stafford, so that will have to be derailed before the talks or interest would be meaningful.

I'd be very surprised if any deal includes a pick in this years draft.

I suspect it'll be a conditional pick for future drafts(s) that is tied to advancing to the Super Bowl.

If anyone ponies up a straight up first for Stafford. They are ridiculous.

Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on February 20, 2025, 10:41:37 AMI'd be very surprised if any deal includes a pick in this years draft.

I suspect it'll be a conditional pick for future drafts(s) that is tied to advancing to the Super Bowl.

If anyone ponies up a straight up first for Stafford. They are ridiculous.

I'd do a conditional 2026 3rd that could turn into a 2nd with certain benchmarks.

The Athletic has a good article with Dan Duggan and the Rams beat writer.  It's behind a paywall


https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6146076/2025/02/20/matthew-stafford-trade-giants-rams/

https://x.com/DDuggan21/status/1893302281870709047

My guess is the Rams don't actually want Stafford to leave but may believe there is a disconnect between his perception of his market value and what they believe it to be.

If it proves that Stafford is right and they're wrong, then my guess is they'd be willing to consider trading him.

https://x.com/MikeGarafolo/status/1893378920700903654

Here are some teams that could trade for Stafford:

 Las Vegas Raiders: The team that acquires Stafford will need to pay him, and no quarterback-needy team has more cap space than the Raiders. Tom Brady will be searching for a franchise quarterback, but given that he could be out of reach for Shedeur Sanders and Cam Ward, he may want a short-term solution to make his team relevant.

 Pittsburgh Steelers: Russell Wilson and Justin Fields didn't get the job done last year. They're both impending free agents, so the Steelers don't have a single quarterback on their roster at the moment. Despite the miserable quarterbacking, the Steelers were able to reach the playoffs the past two years. Stafford would give Pittsburgh a massive upgrade at the position and automatically make the team a Super Bowl contender. The Steelers have $60 million in cap space to get this deal done.

 New York Giants: The Giants will probably be able to get one of Sanders or Ward, but if they don't like either very much, they could pull the trigger on a Stafford trade. They have $48 million in cap space, so the financial implications won't be an issue.

 New York Jets: Will the Jets try another veteran quarterback? They don't have the most cap space ($23.8 million), but they are desperate to find an answer at the position. This team went 7-10 with Zach Wilson in 2023, so Stafford should be able to get them to the playoffs.

 Minnesota Vikings: The Vikings must be listed as an option. Not only do they have tons of cap space; Kevin O'Connell is Stafford's former offensive coordinator. However, this trade would only make sense if the Vikings have soured on J.J. McCarthy.

 Tennessee Titans: The Titans have plenty of cap space and a need at quarterback, but I believe they will target Aaron Rodgers.

https://walterfootball.com/nflpossibilities.php

https://x.com/rapsheet/status/1893376733757480984?s=46&t=1vcQIN8GqF5J2oLdxEVEJQ

Dan Duggan
@DDuggan21
Talking to
@JourdanRodrigue
 about Matthew Stafford and the Rams, it's obvious that any fracture would be based on money (as it usually is).

That leads me to two thoughts: 1. They'll probably work it out since that's best for both sides. 2. If the Rams in their position don't want to make the necessary commitment to Stafford how would it make sense for the Giants in their position, especially since they'd also need to part with valuable draft picks?
2:44 PM · Feb 20, 2025
·
39.3K
 Views

I'd much rather trade a 4th rd pick for Joe Milton, than a 2nd for Matt Stafford. Does that make me crazy lol?

https://x.com/JustinPenik/status/1894081867541856282

I still think the most likely scenario is Stafford stays in LA but if we/anyone offer eg $150m base, $115m guaranteed, $80m cash year one plus annual incentives that could add 10% to the contract the Rams might well not want to go there. Something like this (ignoring incentives) is effectively a two year guarantee with a manageable year 3 dead cap penalty to exit:

1 Signing $75m, salary $5m, cap $30m
2.Salary $35m, cap $60m (dead cap $50m)
3. Salary $35m, cap $60m (dead cap $25m)

Stafford and the Steelers seem like a perfect match.

I can see them making this move, then getting someone like Rourke on Day 3.

They would have someone for now, and can groom someone who you know is gonna get good coaching and within probably the best culture in the league.

Quote from: MrGap92 on February 24, 2025, 01:45:24 PMStafford and the Steelers seem like a perfect match.

I can see them making this move, then getting someone like Rourke on Day 3.

They would have someone for now, and can groom someone who you know is gonna get good coaching and within probably the best culture in the league.

The only thing that makes Stafford a good match for the Giants is Schoen's desperation

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 24, 2025, 01:47:16 PMThe only thing that makes Stafford a good match for the Giants is Schoen's desperation

Even then it would be an abomination

Quote from: MrGap92 on February 24, 2025, 01:57:40 PMEven then it would be an abomination

The way I view it, that makes it more of an abomination.

https://x.com/nflrums/status/1894061402098163928

The Giants can be interested all they want. They have not shown an ability to get the guys they want and this will likely be no different. They failed to get him at the deadline too. He's probably using them as a bargaining chip.

The Giants would be fools to acquire a guy who cares far more about money than football


Via Spotrac.com, quarterback Aaron Rodgers has made $381.6 million in his 20-year career. Quarterback Matthew Stafford ranks second on the list, with $364 million in 16 seasons.

Tom Brady is third, with $317.6 million. Matt Ryan lands at fourth, with $306.2 million.

Russell Wilson stands at fifth, with $305.3 million. Kirk Cousins is sixth, at $293.9 million. Both will likely pass Ryan this year. Cousins, given that he's guaranteed to make $27.5 million, will pass Brady, too.

The rest of the top ten are Drew Brees ($273.9 million), Ben Roethlisberger ($266.7 million), Peyton Manning ($247.7 million), and Dak Prescott ($247.6 million).

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/aaron-rodgers-matthew-stafford-look-to-add-to-their-record-career-earnings

Connor Hughes
@Connor_J_Hughes
In all likelihood, Matthew Stafford isn't going anywhere. That's the sentiment shared by most. This permission the Rams granted him to talk to others? It's likely nothing more than a means to figure out his value. He and L.A. will agree to a new deal once he does.

Because ... duh. The Rams are a Super Bowl team with Stafford. Stafford's best chance of another ring is with the Rams. Common sense prevails (eventually).

In no world should that stop Joe Schoen from making a call, though. The Giants general manager boasted from the NFL Scouting Combine his infatuation with "big swings" at the quarterback position. There's no bigger this offseason than Stafford.

So if there's a chance to get him, try to get him.

Within reason, that is.

https://x.com/Connor_J_Hughes/status/1894744730950394048

https://x.com/LARamsey46/status/1894455476500259193

Go get Stafford!...we will make the playoffs with him.

Quote from: Trench on February 26, 2025, 09:21:33 AMGo get Stafford!...we will make the playoffs with him.

Is the goal to just make the playoffs or to be a Super Bowl-contending team?

At 37 (and with his extensive injury history), how do we know if his performance doesn't fall off a cliff ala Rodgers or Cousins?



That all said, I wouldn't be heartbroken if the Giants gave up a 3rd round pick and some conditional 2026 draft capital.  Still, the critical question that MUST be answered if the Giants were to acquire Stafford is what is their 5-year plan at QB.  That must be answered if the Giants are going to give up draft capital and massive salary cap space for a one or two or possibly no-year answer (I am not convinced the inferior NYG medical staff and the poorer weather will have Stafford staying healthy).

Someone help me make sense out of acquiring Stafford. Even if it's giving up very little in terms of draft assets, this front office still has a roster to build for this season and seasons to come.

How can they afford to pay Stafford and build a supporting cast? I just can't see it.

Quote from: andrew_nyGiants on February 26, 2025, 10:31:06 AMSomeone help me make sense out of acquiring Stafford. Even if it's giving up very little in terms of draft assets, this front office still has a roster to build for this season and seasons to come.

How can they afford to pay Stafford and build a supporting cast? I just can't see it.

It depends on one's goals.  If the goal is to increase wins this season, at all costs, to save one's job, Stafford makes sense.  If you are talking about building the team the right way for sustained success, acquiring Stafford makes no sense what-so-ever.

No guarantees with Stafford and the Giants inferior ( to the Rams) coaching and overall foundation, that they find much success together.

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 26, 2025, 10:32:57 AMIt depends on one's goals.  If the goal is to increase wins this season, at all costs, to save one's job, Stafford makes sense.  If you are talking about building the team the right way for sustained success, acquiring Stafford makes no sense what-so-ever.

I would argue that short term success is not even within our grasp.

Our OL and Stafford equals another QB trying to throw off his back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 26, 2025, 10:32:57 AMIt depends on one's goals.  If the goal is to increase wins this season, at all costs, to save one's job, Stafford makes sense.  If you are talking about building the team the right way for sustained success, acquiring Stafford makes no sense what-so-ever.

They would have to really hate the QBs in this year's draft to go out and trade for Stafford.  I mean they'd have to be fairly certain drafting one of those guys would get them fired.  Because we all know that drafting the wrong QB will without question get them fired. 

Stafford is a proven commodity that along with a couple more pieces could be enough to get the Giants into the playoffs as soon as next year.  Though likely not good enough to beat a team like the Eagles when they get there.

So I GUESS, if you're Schoen and your tush is on the line you could talk yourself into getting Stafford for a reasonable price (say a 3rd rounder and some change) and kick the rookie QB can down to next year if you think there are something like 4 or 5 QBs next year that would be more enticing than any of them this year.  Personally, I do not think that and I would be pretty surprised if Schoen did. 

I think they can easily win more games with any of the big 3 QBs in the draft this season. Probably enough to save Schoen's job even if they don't make the playoffs.  That would be the prudent thing to do because if the QB drafted is good enough, between this offseason and next offseason when they have an absurd amount of cap space they can turn this team into a powerhouse fairly quickly.  But only if they get a decent QB.

Quote from: Trench on February 26, 2025, 09:21:33 AMGo get Stafford!...we will make the playoffs with him.

My adult daughter in the past few years has become an enormous Giants fan and NFL fan to the point where she even does these fantasy team things....our Giants connection has made us even closer. I want Stafford simply because I wanna have something to root for in a meaningful game on Sundays. I didn't necessarily want Kurt Warner back in the day but it really helped Eli development and didn't set us back (albeit I don't know what we had up to get him).

The excitement for next season would be wonderful if we got Stafford. He is pro bowl caliber still.

Those are my reasons. Maybe not the smartest reasons but lastly I think having him would help instill a winning mindset and culture. That's huge.

https://x.com/DMRussini/status/1894777721927897127




Dianna Russini
@DMRussini
Matthew Stafford's exploration of his market value the last few weeks has indeed attracted significant interest from teams, notably the Raiders and the Giants, per sources.
Teams are anticipating the Rams will now be driving up the asking price if they decide to move him.

Quote from: andrew_nyGiants on February 26, 2025, 10:44:33 AMI would argue that short term success is not even within our grasp.

Our OL and Stafford equals another QB trying to throw off his back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Our OL with a healthy Thomas and Eluemunor an improved Schmidtz ? Runyon , a FA right guard is not so terrible . Wew need depth however .

https://x.com/MySportsUpdate/status/1894832906457227595

The most I'd give is a 3rd rounder this year and a 3rd next year......maybe sweeten the deal with Wandale Robinson, who might interest them as a Kupp replacement. 
Then the most I offer Stafford is two years, $90M.......AND I draft a QB, either this year or next, to sit and learn under a great mentor. 

If those terms don't get it done with either the Rams or Stafford, fine.  Walk away.  No harm in asking. 

https://x.com/DDuggan21/status/1894837334287229235

Well the Giants interest in Stafford tells me that Schoen and Daboll have been told you need to do better next year or that's it. 

I still have to wonder if Stafford would even agree to play for the Giants at this point of his career. 

Truly hope whatever happens doesn't mortgage the future to have a couple of 7 or 8 win seasons and save some jobs.

https://x.com/RapSheet/status/1894840586626056637

https://x.com/geoffschwartz/status/1894863629779931492?s=46&t=1vcQIN8GqF5J2oLdxEVEJQ

How much better would the line be with Stafford
Now a 3rd this year and next year would be good
But i would be willing to make it a 2nd next year hoping it's a late second pick since we will be in the playoffs
Also do we want to ruin M.Nabers
Look at what the Jets are doing to their top WR
He wants to be traded

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 26, 2025, 10:32:57 AMIt depends on one's goals.  If the goal is to increase wins this season, at all costs, to save one's job, Stafford makes sense.  If you are talking about building the team the right way for sustained success, acquiring Stafford makes no sense what-so-ever.

100% agree with the above.

For the record, I don't have us as a playoff team if we sign Stafford. I certainly think we'll win more games than last year, but I don't think we'll be a winning team. With the schedule we have next year, I see us a 7-10 or 8-9 type team next season with Stafford.

I don't really get the point of that from a fan perspective. I totally get it if you're the one making the decision and your job depends on winning four or five more games next year. Frankly, if I were in Schoen's shoes, and that was the precise situation I was facing, I might very well do the same thing. But I would also know it was not the move to make if the goal was to make the team a true contender in as few years from now as possible.

Quote from: Trench on February 26, 2025, 10:54:21 AMMy adult daughter in the past few years has become an enormous Giants fan and NFL fan to the point where she even does these fantasy team things....our Giants connection has made us even closer. I want Stafford simply because I wanna have something to root for in a meaningful game on Sundays. I didn't necessarily want Kurt Warner back in the day but it really helped Eli development and didn't set us back (albeit I don't know what we had up to get him).

The excitement for next season would be wonderful if we got Stafford. He is pro bowl caliber still.

Those are my reasons. Maybe not the smartest reasons but lastly I think having him would help instill a winning mindset and culture. That's huge.

I can respect this

If we trade for Stafford and keep our #3 overall, I'd be ok with it.  Stafford + a potential new stud on defense (Carter/Hunter/Graham) would, I believe, put us strongly into playoff contention (provided we can, as always, shore up the OL).  We would then be in the market for a QB in next year's draft (and probably should try and pick a developmental prospect in this year's draft also).  That would be a net positive for the organization, in my opinion. 

Quote from: PSUBeirut on February 26, 2025, 06:38:25 PMIf we trade for Stafford and keep our #3 overall, I'd be ok with it.  Stafford + a potential new stud on defense (Carter/Hunter/Graham) would, I believe, put us strongly into playoff contention (provided we can, as always, shore up the OL).  We would then be in the market for a QB in next year's draft (and probably should try and pick a developmental prospect in this year's draft also).  That would be a net positive for the organization, in my opinion. 

If we kept our number 3 overall but had to give up the 34th overall pick and also next year's 2 as well, and then also had to give him a new 3 year deal at around $50mm a year (assume a reasonably manageable but not painless 2 year out), would you be on board?

My understanding is the above is roughly the sort of proposition this is.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 26, 2025, 06:45:19 PMIf we kept our number 3 overall but had to give up the 34th overall pick and also next year's 2 as well, and then also had to give him a new 3 year deal at around $50mm a year (assume a reasonably manageable but not painless 2 year out), would you be on board?

My understanding is the above is roughly the sort of proposition this is.

It wouldn't be my preferred route to go- I'd rather bring in Justin Fields on a reasonable deal and hope to strike gold with him developing into a viable franchise guy, which I believe he can do.  But I do know this- what we've been doing hasn't been working and there are zero slam-dunk QBs in this draft - and I'd be super anxious about assuming there will be any NEXT year either. 

Something needs to change the trajectory of the franchise and, like it or not, Stafford would still have the ability to do it. 

A team as woefully deficient as the Giants cannot give up draft capital on aging players.  That's what the Knicks did under Isiah Thomas.  It's a horrible strategy.  Giants are nowhere near win now so just be patient and build through the draft.

Quote from: PSUBeirut on February 26, 2025, 06:51:46 PMIt wouldn't be my preferred route to go- I'd rather bring in Justin Fields on a reasonable deal and hope to strike gold with him developing into a viable franchise guy, which I believe he can do.  But I do know this- what we've been doing hasn't been working and there are zero slam-dunk QBs in this draft - and I'd be super anxious about assuming there will be any NEXT year either. 

Something needs to change the trajectory of the franchise and, like it or not, Stafford would still have the ability to do it. 

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a true slam dunk QB anymore. Trevor Lawrence and Tua were both viewed that way. One looks like a serious bust, and the other is just ok.

I do agree that nobody in this class is compelling, but that does not mean nobody will pan out, including some names slated to go on day two or later.

While there are obviously no guarantees, next year's class seems more compelling to me, even if Arch doesn't come out. If he does, then it's a very compelling looking class based on what we know today. Obviously we need to see how everyone looks in the upcoming college season, but, at minimum, I think it's not unreasonable to say that the odds favor next year's class being viewed more favorably than this one has been.

I get wanting to get the stink off this franchise as quickly as possible by slapping a Stafford type band-aid on the problem and being an ok team for a year or two. It's been so bad that even 8-9 would probably feel relatively good to people. It seems like that's what Mara wants. I just don't personally see how it does anything good for us on a longer term basis. If it were just to sign him as a high priced, old free agent, I might be able to get my arms around it but I absolutely hate the idea of giving up high quality picks for him in the state we are in right now.

A move that stinks of desperation. I like Stafford but he is 37 and leaving an organization that has one of the best coaching staffs in the NFL. Not a good match for either the Giants or Stafford.

Quote from: katkavage on February 26, 2025, 07:14:14 PMA move that stinks of desperation. I like Stafford but he is 37 and leaving an organization that has one of the best coaching staffs in the NFL. Not a good match for either the Giants or Stafford.

The Rams are one of the smartest front offices and coaching staffs in the sport. The fact that they're wavering on Stafford and don't want to pay him as much as other teams might be willing to tells you something about how they see his trajectory looking for the next couple of seasons.

Enter us: a bad team with a truly desperate GM and head coach who need immediate results at almost any cost.

Pretend you're an outside observer with zero biases. Who do you think would be the favorite to "win" any transaction between both of the above teams?

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 26, 2025, 07:23:01 PMThe Rams are one of the smartest front offices and coaching staffs in the sport. The fact that they're wavering on Stafford and don't want to pay him as much as other teams might be willing to tells you something about how they see his trajectory looking for the next couple of seasons.

Enter us: a bad team with a truly desperate GM and head coach who need immediate results at almost any cost.

Pretend you're an outside observer with zero biases. Who do you think would be the favorite to "win" any transaction between both of the above teams?

I get it.  And I actually agree with you guys, in theory.  However, I am so tired of the same old xxxx, year after year.  I am sick and tired of being completely out of contention by Halloween that I'd be willing to try anything that might actually change that.  And I see almost ZERO options of changing that for next year, outside of Matthew Stafford.  Do you? 

And I'm 100% opposed to the idea that we should just tank next season because maybe....hopefully....there would finally be a QB for us at the top of the draft.  Because a) that QB has to actually exist and I'm not sure he does, and b) we'd have to NOT screw it up or else we will be in the spot where we would have to mortgage a xxxx ton of our future in draft capitol just to have the rights to pick him #1 overall.  And I don't love that option either. 

Blowing up the current situation all over again next year just doesn't give me warm fuzzies that this time...THIS TIME....we'll get it right with a QB/HC/GM trio.  So if it takes a 37-year-old Stafford to act as a bridge and win some games around here then so be it.  We have to have a quarterback one way or the other next year.  There's absolutely no way we go into next year without some sort of NFL-caliber starting QB on the roster- and there aren't a lot of good options out there.

Quote from: PSUBeirut on February 26, 2025, 07:48:10 PMI get it.  And I actually agree with you guys, in theory.  However, I am so tired of the same old xxxx, year after year.  I am sick and tired of being completely out of contention by Halloween that I'd be willing to try anything that might actually change that.  And I see almost ZERO options of changing that for next year, outside of Matthew Stafford.  Do you? 

Probably not, although as I said earlier, given our schedule and other areas of concern I'm not convinced we're a playoff team WITH Stafford next year. And I certainly would not view us as any sort of real threat if we did manage to squeak into the playoffs as a 6 or 7 seed. So to me, the idea of parting with valuable picks to just be the above is not palatable. I understand it may be to others such as yourself, and I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, but that's personally how I feel about it.

Quote from: PSUBeirut on February 26, 2025, 07:48:10 PMAnd I'm 100% opposed to the idea that we should just tank next season because maybe....hopefully....there would finally be a QB for us at the top of the draft. 

Fair enough. Personally, I don't view not being willing to trade high value picks for a 37 year old QB as tanking. Trading down for a 2026 first rounder and then also trading someone like Nabers or Lawrence for draft capital would be tanking. I have not suggested anything like that. I just don't want to give away picks for a late 30s QB who will make us better than last year but not a genuinely good team, and then we'll still be looking for a QB again in a year or two anyway but having had fewer quality picks in the interim. I just don't like that proposition at all. I appreciate some may, including our owner and, due to the position he is in, GM.

A word to the wise: this rolls up to the top.

Mara wants Stafford. He's enamoured. Back when Eli benched himself in 2017, Mara came out and said "who the Giants QB is, is my decision". A peek under the kimono.

In my mind, this is already done unless Stafford has no interest which is entirely understandable.

It aligns with Schoen and Daboll being in win now mode, on the heels of their boss saying the team was no better after 3 top 7 picks, a few max contracts and $350MM+ in guaranteed contracts. Preparing to hear they trade 34 for Stafford and take Hunter or Carter at #3. The Giants spent a lot of time at Colorado. Maybe it wasn't just about Shedeur.

Quote from: 4 Aces on February 26, 2025, 09:02:57 PMA word to the wise: this rolls up to the top.

Mara wants Stafford. He's enamoured. Back when Eli benched himself in 2017, Mara came out and said "who the Giants QB is, is my decision". A peek under the kimono.

In my mind, this is already done unless Stafford has no interest which is entirely understandable.

It aligns with Schoen and Daboll being in win now mode, on the heels of their boss saying the team was no better after 3 top 7 picks, a few max contracts and $350MM+ in guaranteed contracts. Preparing to hear they trade 34 for Stafford and take Hunter or Carter at #3. The Giants spent a lot of time at Colorado. Maybe it wasn't just about Shedeur.

I agree that it feels like it has a pretty realistic chance of happening given the agenda the men leading this team have been handed, which is to improve as much as possible right away. With Stafford, if everything clicks right, they might have an outside shot at being 9-8. I think Mara would be overjoyed with that.

Quote from: 4 Aces on February 26, 2025, 09:02:57 PMA word to the wise: this rolls up to the top.

Mara wants Stafford. He's enamoured. Back when Eli benched himself in 2017, Mara came out and said "who the Giants QB is, is my decision". A peek under the kimono.

In my mind, this is already done unless Stafford has no interest which is entirely understandable.

It aligns with Schoen and Daboll being in win now mode, on the heels of their boss saying the team was no better after 3 top 7 picks, a few max contracts and $350MM+ in guaranteed contracts. Preparing to hear they trade 34 for Stafford and take Hunter or Carter at #3. The Giants spent a lot of time at Colorado. Maybe it wasn't just about Shedeur.

Then give the Rams 34. Get Graham, Hunter or Carter, OR trade out of the 3 overall pick, get a stud guard, draft a CB, DL and get Quinn Ewers to sit for at least one year.

#34 for Stafford seems to be a bit steep of a price especially if it's also going to require a contract extension right after.  For a 3rd this year and next I'd be fine with it though.  Because I think either Graham/Hunter at #3 plus an OL at #34 makes this team primed for a very good season.  That's before free agency where they have a bunch of space to play with.  This team isn't far in most areas besides the QB position. 

Quote from: Gmo11 on February 27, 2025, 09:13:58 AM#34 for Stafford seems to be a bit steep of a price especially if it's also going to require a contract extension right after.  For a 3rd this year and next I'd be fine with it though.  Because I think either Graham/Hunter at #3 plus an OL at #34 makes this team primed for a very good season.  That's before free agency where they have a bunch of space to play with.  This team isn't far in most areas besides the QB position. 

The Giants are not the only team involved. The Steelers and Raiders are as well. Stafford has never been a good cold weather QB. He played most of his career in a dome or L.A. Keep that in mind.

As with any player they are worth whatever someone is willing to pay. If we look at the main four players currently identified they have different perspectives:

Rams
Currently competitive but not genuinely contending; looking to retool for the rest of the decade and are making veterans available for trade to facilitate that; friendly home field for a QB and brilliant coaching

Steelers
Borderline competitive but plateaued; may believe a QB upgrade can make them contenders; older team with some win now pressure but tend to conservative decision-making; tough home field for a QB but strong defence to fall back on

Raiders
Showbiz glamour franchise in QB hell needing a splash; Stafford is not necessarily as marketable as his record so might they prefer eg the Sanders pizazz? Owner has cash constraints but cap is fine; ideal home field for a QB with star TE to target

Giants
QB hell and clear win now pressure; can afford to spend and need to make a splash to protect jobs, get bums on seats; wider market offers significant off field earnings; demanding media and desperate fans; tough home field for a QB but star WR to target

We are likely the most desperate to pay but we are not the most attractive suitor. Does $ or football reasons matter most to Stafford at this late career stage? We will find out.

Quote from: londonblue on February 27, 2025, 10:09:43 AMAs with any player they are worth whatever someone is willing to pay. If we look at the main four players currently identified they have different perspectives:

Rams
Currently competitive but not genuinely contending; looking to retool for the rest of the decade and are making veterans available for trade to facilitate that; friendly home field for a QB and brilliant coaching

Steelers
Borderline competitive but plateaued; may believe a QB upgrade can make them contenders; older team with some win now pressure but tend to conservative decision-making; tough home field for a QB but strong defence to fall back on

Raiders
Showbiz glamour franchise in QB hell needing a splash; Stafford is not necessarily as marketable as his record so might they prefer eg the Sanders pizazz? Owner has cash constraints but cap is fine; ideal home field for a QB with star TE to target

Giants
QB hell and clear win now pressure; can afford to spend and need to make a splash to protect jobs, get bums on seats; wider market offers significant off field earnings; demanding media and desperate fans; tough home field for a QB but star WR to target

We are likely the most desperate to pay but we are not the most attractive suitor. Does $ or football reasons matter most to Stafford at this late career stage? We will find out.

Kudos for bringing up the challenge, or lack there of, of the playing conditions.   I don't think it's always appreciated that some teams have easier physical environments (better weather or indoors) than others (cold weather, windy, or wet conditions).

I think the playing conditions impact older QBs more than younger QBs (consider the ICE Bowl playoff game where a young Eli Manning looked more at home than the home team (but aging) Farve.  Tom Brady was wise enough to move to a warmer climate to play his last few seasons.  It's not just the playing conditions, as someone who lives in the north east and has various muscular and skeletal issues, cold winters are not your friend.  Joints ache, tendons inflame, and muscles seem sorer in the cold miserable winter months.

That all said, Matt Stafford would be wise to stick to LA or go to Las Vegas where the weather would be his friend rather than an enemy.  An older QB is also wise to pick a team with a quality O-line, so he is better protected.  Ask Aaron Rodgers who stuck with a cold weather stadium and poor protection how his old body liked all that.

https://x.com/GetUpESPN/status/1895107304627880085

Maybe we get Hunter and go with Stafford and set sights on a QB next year...or a later round project this year.

Giving up a 3rd round pick or so for an All-Pro QB is not a bad thing. Our team has missed on so many big picks that grabbing Stafford for one of them will make us have some fun because we know what he is. Finally we would have a true QB gunslinger who excels in pressure and 2 minute drill.

I look at top picks we made who were misses or close to a miss and I say let's enjoy some football next year. Ya never know.

All of the following to the best of my knowledge were chosen rounds 1-3....translate that to the upcoming and future draft - there's a good chance who we choose won't be a big time player let alone a star player. Stafford is a star. Give one of these future low round picks, go for a QB in next year draft, and let's enjoy the 2025 season. We may make the playoffs and our star WR will be overjoyed instead of becoming a negative voice.

Would u trade Stafford for any of these players today?...all were taken within in rounds 1-4 I think. There's a great chance a future 3rd round pick may become one of these types.
Evan Neal
JMS
Banks
Thibs
WanDale
Ezudo
Tony
Peart
Flowers
Apple
Hernandez

I'd much rather go with Winston or Fields this year along with a rookie. If the rookie is not a first round pick, then unless he shows amazing promise, go for another QB next year. Stafford is playing the Giants now. I don't blame him. He's a very good QB who has played in ideal climates (Domes or L.A). He will struggle in NY with a team with marginal talent.

Looks like Raiders have the inside track

https://www.si.com/nfl/giants/big-blue-plus/report-raiders-matthew-stafford-reach-common-ground-on-contract-01jn50wbp8zp?utm_source=reddit.com

This whole story enrages me.  And makes me want to give up my tickets forever.  Trade for an old QB who will be retired by the time the giants are super bowl quality again? This sounds just like the Jets with Rodgers, except the Jets were better.

So,  because our GM sucks,  we shouldn't go the build through the draft route? We should just go against the grain to help him keep his job,  win something like 7 games, and be even more in limbo than now?

I would sign him if there was no draft pick capital.  I don't want a QB at number three overall and want to go the veteran route.  But completely against trading for a 37 year old QB that is more of a statue than Eli. That's not the prototype QB nowadays at all.

All this bs because Mara in all his infinite wisdom put a demand on the team for next year,  so instead of having one more bad year and setting up for a QB and better times ahead in 2026 and beyond,  we are going to take the shortcut and move backwards? I sure hope that Raiders rumor is right because this story just absolutely pisses me off.

Stafford had zero interest in coming here, and was using the Giants as a bargaining chip. This is truly rock bottom.

The good news is, the Giants will now use the pick they were going to trade for Stafford and trade up to #1. I just hope it's for Ward.

Quote from: 4 Aces on February 27, 2025, 11:55:42 PMStafford had zero interest in coming here, and was using the Giants as a bargaining chip. This is truly rock bottom.

The good news is, the Giants will now use the pick they were going to trade for Stafford and trade up to #1. I just hope it's for Ward.

I agree about Stafford that he had no interest in coming here. I don't agree about trading up to number 1. Every draft pick is important to us and I don't want to lose any. . The number 1 pick will not get us a Jaden Daniels or an Andrew Luck etc. From what I read the pick was our number 2 this year plus picks next year. No thank you . I will stay at number 3.

Quote from: Brooklyn Dave on February 28, 2025, 01:02:26 AMI agree about Stafford that he had no interest in coming here. I don't agree about trading up to number 1. Every draft pick is important to us and I don't want to lose any. . The number 1 pick will not get us a Jaden Daniels or an Andrew Luck etc. From what I read the pick was our number 2 this year plus picks next year. No thank you . I will stay at number 3.

I'm not sure there will be much interest in that number one pick this year. Unless it's for Hunter. The number 2 pick will get some interest. Cleveland has some leverage.

https://x.com/MikeGarafolo/status/1895311549272858960

https://x.com/DMRussini/status/1895452332026143148

I think ultimately he stays there, but to suggest that Stafford wouldn't make the Giants monumentally better immediately is a bit of a farce to me.  Depending on what it would cost in terms of picks of course.  Because if they were to say get Stafford draft Hunter at 3 and a OG at #34.  I mean...that's a pretty damn good team before we even start talking about free agency.  Where the Giants even with a Stafford contract would have a lot of space to add a couple more starters.

If it were me I wouldn't do it, because I would want to get a rookie in and build around him while he learns on the job.  But I wasn't told by my boss win immediately or we're firing you and all your friends.  So given that mandate from ownership I completely understand trying to get the QB that gave the Eagles their biggest scare in the playoffs last year. 

I think the Giants make the playoffs as a wild card with Stafford next year.  My concern would be the years after that how do they address the QB position when they are likely not going to be terrible enough to actually draft a guy to build a future with.  The team is good enough right now that this could be their last shot unless they openly tank and had Devito the keys.

Quote from: Gmo11 on February 28, 2025, 09:02:40 AMI think ultimately he stays there, but to suggest that Stafford wouldn't make the Giants monumentally better immediately is a bit of a farce to me.  Depending on what it would cost in terms of picks of course.  Because if they were to say get Stafford draft Hunter at 3 and a OG at #34.  I mean...that's a pretty damn good team before we even start talking about free agency.  Where the Giants even with a Stafford contract would have a lot of space to add a couple more starters.

If it were me I wouldn't do it, because I would want to get a rookie in and build around him while he learns on the job.  But I wasn't told by my boss win immediately or we're firing you and all your friends.  So given that mandate from ownership I completely understand trying to get the QB that gave the Eagles their biggest scare in the playoffs last year. 

I think the Giants make the playoffs as a wild card with Stafford next year.  My concern would be the years after that how do they address the QB position when they are likely not going to be terrible enough to actually draft a guy to build a future with.  The team is good enough right now that this could be their last shot unless they openly tank and had Devito the keys.

I'd do it in a heartbeat. We k ow what we get with Stafford but we don't know what we get with a draft pick. I posted a bunch of former picks rounds 1-3 and most have not panned out. Stafford will

Quote from: ViewFromSection129 on February 27, 2025, 11:45:26 PMThis whole story enrages me.  And makes me want to give up my tickets forever.  Trade for an old QB who will be retired by the time the giants are super bowl quality again? This sounds just like the Jets with Rodgers, except the Jets were better.

So,  because our GM sucks,  we shouldn't go the build through the draft route? We should just go against the grain to help him keep his job,  win something like 7 games, and be even more in limbo than now?

I would sign him if there was no draft pick capital.  I don't want a QB at number three overall and want to go the veteran route.  But completely against trading for a 37 year old QB that is more of a statue than Eli. That's not the prototype QB nowadays at all.

All this bs because Mara in all his infinite wisdom put a demand on the team for next year,  so instead of having one more bad year and setting up for a QB and better times ahead in 2026 and beyond,  we are going to take the shortcut and move backwards? I sure hope that Raiders rumor is right because this story just absolutely pisses me off.

Why are you up in arms about speculation during the silly season? There are disinformation campaigns every year to throw people off the trail and avoid giving hints about a team's intentions. I get that there isn't much love for Schoen but he doesn't telegraph his moves a la his predecessor.

Let things play out before you give yourself a coronary!  :cheers:

Quote from: Trench on February 28, 2025, 09:12:56 AMI'd do it in a heartbeat. We k ow what we get with Stafford but we don't know what we get with a draft pick. I posted a bunch of former picks rounds 1-3 and most have not panned out. Stafford will

Yes, 1, maybe 2 years of a QB past his prime and likely declining.

Not worth 50M per year.

Quote from: Gmo11 on February 28, 2025, 09:02:40 AMI think ultimately he stays there, but to suggest that Stafford wouldn't make the Giants monumentally better immediately is a bit of a farce to me.  Depending on what it would cost in terms of picks of course.  Because if they were to say get Stafford draft Hunter at 3 and a OG at #34.  I mean...that's a pretty damn good team before we even start talking about free agency.  Where the Giants even with a Stafford contract would have a lot of space to add a couple more starters.

If it were me I wouldn't do it, because I would want to get a rookie in and build around him while he learns on the job.  But I wasn't told by my boss win immediately or we're firing you and all your friends.  So given that mandate from ownership I completely understand trying to get the QB that gave the Eagles their biggest scare in the playoffs last year. 

I think the Giants make the playoffs as a wild card with Stafford next year. My concern would be the years after that how do they address the QB position when they are likely not going to be terrible enough to actually draft a guy to build a future with.  The team is good enough right now that this could be their last shot unless they openly tank and had Devito the keys.

This is why you do not mortgage the future in any capacity for a flash in the pan.

Retain as much of the young guys and people that contribute as possible, bring in more guys to strengthen and compliment the core, big picture, not small. A solid vet in FA is still lightyears above what we have had with Jones and Devito.

Quote from: MrGap92 on February 28, 2025, 09:27:47 AMYes, 1, maybe 2 years of a QB past his prime and likely declining.

Not worth 50M per year.

How do we know he is likely declining?...he is a perennial pro bowl player.

If we sign him and make the playoffs and win a game or 2, would it be worth it?

Quote from: Trench on February 28, 2025, 09:50:53 AMHow do we know he is likely declining?...he is a perennial pro bowl player.

If we sign him and make the playoffs and win a game or 2, would it be worth it?

No, it wouldn't be worth it, cause in a year or two, we are back to where we are now at QB, with a draft pick once again out of the range of a potential top target guy, or blue chip player at another position

I don't want a flash in the pan playoff appearance that goes nowhere like 2022, I want to see a team built for the long term, to contend for champiosnhips and/or not be a frequent embarrassment every season.

An empty playoff showing does nothing for them.

Quote from: Gmo11 on February 28, 2025, 09:02:40 AMI think ultimately he stays there, but to suggest that Stafford wouldn't make the Giants monumentally better immediately is a bit of a farce to me.  Depending on what it would cost in terms of picks of course.  Because if they were to say get Stafford draft Hunter at 3 and a OG at #34.  I mean...that's a pretty damn good team before we even start talking about free agency.  Where the Giants even with a Stafford contract would have a lot of space to add a couple more starters.

If it were me I wouldn't do it, because I would want to get a rookie in and build around him while he learns on the job.  But I wasn't told by my boss win immediately or we're firing you and all your friends.  So given that mandate from ownership I completely understand trying to get the QB that gave the Eagles their biggest scare in the playoffs last year. 

I think the Giants make the playoffs as a wild card with Stafford next year.  My concern would be the years after that how do they address the QB position when they are likely not going to be terrible enough to actually draft a guy to build a future with.  The team is good enough right now that this could be their last shot unless they openly tank and had Devito the keys.

That's why they need to draft a QB this year, unless they make a deal for a player like Trevor Lawrence. I would love to be able to improve this team with Stafford and draft Dart or Ward. I wouldn't give up the #3 pick for Stafford though because as you outlined it's a two year fix.

Quote from: Trench on February 28, 2025, 09:50:53 AMHow do we know he is likely declining?...he is a perennial pro bowl player.

If we sign him and make the playoffs and win a game or 2, would it be worth it?

He's 37. He will decline - you're rolling the dice on when it happens.

And no, we don't need a repeat of 2022. We want to actually compete.

Quote from: MrGap92 on February 28, 2025, 10:19:33 AMNo, it wouldn't be worth it, cause in a year or two, we are back to where we are now at QB, with a draft pick once again out of the range of a potential top target guy, or blue chip player at another position

I don't want a flash in the pan playoff appearance that goes nowhere like 2022, I want to see a team built for the long term, to contend for champiosnhips and/or not be a frequent embarrassment every season.

An empty playoff showing does nothing for them.

Would you trade the 3 for the 22 and Stafford and then draft a QB? Might have to trade back up though. I'm not sure I would take that chance.

Why would Stafford come to the Giants for a few extra million? To a bad team with a very volatile coaching and front office situation? At least Vegas has a newly hired winning coach. And they play inside. And not from LA his home.

Quote from: Ed Vette on February 28, 2025, 10:27:49 AMWould you trade the 3 for the 22 and Stafford and then draft a QB? Might have to trade back up though. I'm not sure I would take that chance.

I would agree with you. Too risky.

I would hate to trade back myself, and hope that Dart is still there at 22. He might be, but if he isn't I am not taking Milroe, Howard, or McCord that high. Another trade up, and we are losing more capital.

Not saying I want Dart at 3 necessarily. If the Rams pick was 8-10 spots higher, it would be a more interesting decision for me.

Stafford staying with Rams. As someone said it was smoke n mirrors to drive up his price I guess

https://x.com/NFL/status/1895542027288494243

Yup

https://x.com/AdamSchefter/status/1895540332655480944

Never believe the fake insiders at BBI

Rams were one of the 4 best teams in the NFC this year.  Why would they push Stafford out the door when they have drafted some really good young players?

https://x.com/RamsNFL/status/1895540989877764504

Quote from: uconnjack8 on February 28, 2025, 01:34:43 PMRams were one of the 4 best teams in the NFC this year.  Why would they push Stafford out the door when they have drafted some really good young players?

They never were going to.  BBI and the reporters who pushed the nonsensical story have egg on their faces

I for one am relieved

Quote from: MrGap92 on February 28, 2025, 01:37:02 PMI for one am relieved

It didn't matter to me, because the rumors made zero sense.  It made no sense for the Rams to let him walk as they simply don't have another starter on their roster.  It made even less sense for Stafford to come to the Giants.  Going to the Raiders made a little sense.  The whole Giants getting Stafford from the Rams never seemed likely.

Quote from: Trench on February 28, 2025, 01:31:13 PMStafford staying with Rams. As someone said it was smoke n mirrors to drive up his price I guess

Seriously, why would he come to the Giants. They are dysfunctional in so many ways. They have a coach and GM on a very hot seat. They play in a cold weather stadium without a dome. It made zero sense, but he should send flowers to Schoen for helping him get more money from the Rams. The dupe.

Mara keeping Schoen and Daboll on a year prove it mandate is the first problem, it invites this type of thing. 

I am not sold on Ward or Sanders so I guess in that regard I am ok with it. 

6-7 loses this year are wins with Stafford.

The Steelers piece meal their team together time and time and again and compete so if they grab Stafford and do not give up the 3 pick I guess its a plan that could work. Build an O line, grab a defensive stud at 3, and get Stafford; there are worse ideas.

I want to get back to being competitive, I will worry about winning championships another day.

Quote from: babywhales on February 28, 2025, 02:10:09 PMMara keeping Schoen and Daboll on a year prove it mandate is the first problem, it invites this type of thing. 

I am not sold on Ward or Sanders so I guess in that regard I am ok with it. 

6-7 loses this year are wins with Stafford.

The Steelers piece meal their team together time and time and again and compete so if they grab Stafford and do not give up the 3 pick I guess its a plan that could work. Build an O line, grab a defensive stud at 3, and get Stafford; there are worse ideas.

I want to get back to being competitive, I will worry about winning championships another day.

It would have been a disaster for both the Giants and Stafford.

Quote from: katkavage on February 28, 2025, 02:12:35 PMIt would have been a disaster for both the Giants and Stafford.

I will agree with others, I am not sure why Stafford would want to come here?  I see it as a money grab before retirement.

Giants are a disaster so regardless this type of move would not have changed that. 

The trade the 4rd or exchange ist and I will not be happy.   Outside of that sure what the hell. 

They can run the ball and have open receivers; Stafford will pull it together.  

I would rather go defense vs going after Sanders and Ward.