Big Blue Huddle

I'm not sure the Giants would want him, but by the same token, would Darnold want to return to MetLife? I'd imagine there'd be too many bad memories and our team wouldn't exactly set him up for success. I know money is money, but if the Giants were the top bidder, I think I'd go somewhere else for less if it was at least close.

Quote from: Stringer Bell on December 21, 2024, 01:52:34 PMI think the perfect scenario would be to sign someone like Darnold to a contract constructed similar to DJ's (but hopefully not for that high an AAV).

I'm out on this entire draft class. Ewers is the only one I'd consider. I'd not want to use a high 2nd on him but would consider with a 3rd. Other than him, I'd say pass and wait a year.

Signing a vet to a 3-year deal that has a team option in year 3 allows them to pass on this weak class and then allow a 2026 QB the chance to learn (plus add more talent across the roster).

Not sure Darnold would agree to such a contract, but I think that approach would be the best move for the Giants.

And yes, in that scenario I'd race the card to the podium to draft Hunter. Or I would trade down (if blown away by an offer) as low as 5 or 6 and pick Johnson or Carter.

Very good post. I pretty much agree with everything here. My only minor disagreement (which isn't particularly important) is I'm not a fan of Ewers's lack of durability. But if we were talking about a 3rd rounder then I wouldn't really quibble.

I like the idea of getting the best player in the draft (Hunter) and deferring drafting a QB for a year while having a vet on a 3 year with a 2 year out. I like the idea of not having to rush a rookie QB onto the field in week one. The above strategy allows you to do that without having to make a major long term commitment to a vet.

I doubt Darnold will agree to that type of a contract though. Someone will give him a 4-5 year deal.

If we sign darnold I'd be much more interested in trading down and including in that deal some draft capitol for next year.

Quote from: PSUBeirut on December 21, 2024, 02:47:38 PMIf we sign darnold I'd be much more interested in trading down and including in that deal some draft capitol for next year.

You wouldn't draft Hunter?

Who would you be interested in with trading down?

Quote from: T200 on December 21, 2024, 03:27:27 PMYou wouldn't draft Hunter?

Who would you be interested in with trading down?

Edge, OL, DT, CB.  We just have too many holes and I'm not sure 2-way playing will work in today's NFL- so what position will Hunter play the majority of his snaps?  I just don't think we can afford to put a lot of eggs into one basket at this point. 

Quote from: PSUBeirut on December 21, 2024, 03:46:23 PMEdge, OL, DT, CB.  We just have too many holes and I'm not sure 2-way playing will work in today's NFL- so what position will Hunter play the majority of his snaps?  I just don't think we can afford to put a lot of eggs into one basket at this point. 

I agree with those 4 positions of need. I don't think you could trade below 5 or 6 and still guarantee yourself the top CB (Johnson) or edge (Carter). I'd be fine with a trade down for either.

But if we can't get a good deal and stay in top 6, I'd also be fine taking Hunter. I don't think he'll play both ways full time. I see him as an opposite of Champ Bailey - full-time WR, part time CB.

Pairing him with Nabers would give opposing defenses fits. And I could also see him getting 15-20 snaps on D - obvious passing downs, high value situations to maximize impact. He's a difference maker, for sure.

But forced to pick between Hunter or Johnson + 3rd rounder this year + 2nd rounder next year, I'd take the latter.

Quote from: PSUBeirut on December 21, 2024, 03:46:23 PMEdge, OL, DT, CB.  We just have too many holes and I'm not sure 2-way playing will work in today's NFL- so what position will Hunter play the majority of his snaps?  I just don't think we can afford to put a lot of eggs into one basket at this point. 

Makes sense.

I personally would use him in nickel and dime packages on defense, but he'd play more offense than defense.

He'd definitely be a great WR2 to complement Nabers.

Tight race in this poll as of right now!

If darnold is signing for Jones/Mayfield type money - how much better a season does he need (numbers wise) to get a decent return on investment.

If those types of deals are basically the going the right for an absolute middle of the road, at best, NYG QB - is 30% better on jones 2022 enough? Do we need more? Granted whoever starts has Nabers but no excellent RB.

If you're not sold on a QB, I'm more than happy with a well structured bridge contract

Quote from: Stringer Bell on December 21, 2024, 01:52:34 PMI think the perfect scenario would be to sign someone like Darnold to a contract constructed similar to DJ's (but hopefully not for that high an AAV).

I'm out on this entire draft class. Ewers is the only one I'd consider. I'd not want to use a high 2nd on him but would consider with a 3rd. Other than him, I'd say pass and wait a year.

Signing a vet to a 3-year deal that has a team option in year 3 allows them to pass on this weak class and then allow a 2026 QB the chance to learn (plus add more talent across the roster).

Not sure Darnold would agree to such a contract, but I think that approach would be the best move for the Giants.

And yes, in that scenario I'd race the card to the podium to draft Hunter. Or I would trade down (if blown away by an offer) as low as 5 or 6 and pick Johnson or Carter.

Darnold is going to get about $30MM per.  Plus, with him they probably win at least 6 games next year, which will not give them a top-2, 3 pick.  You want to wait for 2026, extend Lock and guarantee the 1st overall.

Are we looking for a bridge QB or a replacement QB to be around for 5 years? If we are looking for a bridge QB or 'placeholder' I would assume the Steelers have to part with either Wilson or Fields. I would take either one as a placeholder and they would be much cheaper. If, again, we are just looking for a placeholder, like Warner was for Eli, I could even see Cousins here, as a one-year mentor. There is no way he stays in Atlanta.

I just have too many doubts about Darnold and he is more than a bridge or placeholder.

Quote from: Stringer Bell on December 21, 2024, 02:14:13 PMWell, I did say not that high of an AAV, so I wouldn't give someone $160M.

And I also said not to draft someone this year. If they drafted someone next year and signed a QB with a 2-year out clause, they would have the rookie sit for 1 year. Which, as I said, would be ideal so they could learn the offense and we could acquire more talent.

Well Darnold will probably get that.

Today a rookie QB cant sit for 2 years.  Rookie contracts are too valuable.

Quote from: Philosophers on December 21, 2024, 09:17:48 PMWell Darnold will probably get that.

Today a rookie QB cant sit for 2 years.  Rookie contracts are too valuable.

Yet again, I said have the rookie sit for 1 year.

Quote from: Stringer Bell on December 21, 2024, 09:26:23 PMYet again, I said have the rookie sit for 1 year.

Giants have no business dropping more than $25 million on a quarterback for one year.  Giants are far from being a competitive team.  Find a $6 million bridge.  Think like a GM with a budget.

Quote from: Philosophers on December 21, 2024, 10:00:42 PMGiants have no business dropping more than $25 million on a quarterback for one year.  Giants are far from being a competitive team.  Find a $6 million bridge.  Think like a GM with a budget.

Because I think putting all your eggs in the basket of a 21 year old kid isn't smart GM'ing either.

Following the Vikings lead is smart. Sign a Darnold-type and draft a guy. You structure the contract such that you can get out of it after 2 years. Or if the vet plays well (like Darnold) then you have a good problem to have with deciding between QBs.

With your approach, you sign a bum and draft a guy, if the draft pick is a miss (which happens more than half the time), then you've set us up for 5 more years of losing.