Would you give 6 and 70 to Arizona for 4 to get a QB?

[kartanoman]

The Ravens may have a model that emphasizes not trading up in general, but they absolutely traded up to get Lamar. And they gave up decent assets to do it. So I'm actually not sure their model applies to when they feel they are getting a franchise QB in return for the trade-up.

They had their conviction, stuck to it, and are living (and dying) with that decision ever since. In all, with the exception of having to face Kansas City, it's worked out well for John Harbaugh's group.

Peace!

[EDjohnst1981]

Yes. It'll mean they believe the player will make the Giants incrementally better in the short term and much better in the long term.

You're either going QB or MHJ. And both options are good with me.

[katkavage]

 

Yes. It'll mean they believe the player will make the Giants incrementally better in the short term and much better in the long term.

You're either going QB or MHJ. And both options are good with me.

It's not about next year. For once the Giants need to focus on the long game.

[MightyGiants]

https://x.com/JeffEBonham/status/1771926984165126499?s=20

https://x.com/Ranger1135/status/1771931043873870103?s=20

https://x.com/EDNJACK53/status/1771932548513366047?s=20

https://x.com/Ranger1135/status/1771935964035707260?s=20

[EDjohnst1981]

It's not about next year. For once the Giants need to focus on the long game.

That's why I said "incrementally" better.

With the money they have tied up in Dex and Burns, you can't simply write the year off.

If they are trading up. It's fair to say they ought to be better next year and then far better in the coming years.

[katkavage]

That's why I said "incrementally" better.

With the money they have tied up in Dex and Burns, you can't simply write the year off.

If they are trading up. It's fair to say they ought to be better next year and then far better in the coming years.

No but you have to be realistic about results. But if they don't get their QB they take steps back.

[DaveBrown74]

That's why I said "incrementally" better.

With the money they have tied up in Dex and Burns, you can't simply write the year off.

If they are trading up. It's fair to say they ought to be better next year and then far better in the coming years.

I agree to a point. They "should" be better next year based on the Burns signing and the additions to the O line, including the new coach.

I don't know that they should be any better if they trade up though versus if they don't. If they trade up, it would obviously be to get a QB, and they might decide to keep that QB on ice for a year rather than throw him to the wolves immediately from week one. McCarthy only just turned 21 a month ago. I could see them holding off on playing him for at least some if not all of the year. They've still got Jones on a $47mm cap hit and they paid non-trivial money for a few backup who has experience starting. So if their rookie QB is sitting, they'll be the same team they would have been were they not to have traded up, minus whatever players they would have gotten with the picks they gave up in the trade. And if they start a rookie QB, no less the 4th QB off the board, it would seem a bit ambitious to expect that player to be good right out of the gates. Hell, Josh Allen was awful as a rookie. Mahomes didn't even play. Burrow got hurt. Lawrence stunk. Tua stunk. Only Herbert and Stroud were good as rookies as far as anyone recent. I guess you have to include Purdy in that too, although he is kind of a unique case and plays on a team and in a system that made Sam Darnold look respectable.

[brownelvis54]

I find it hilarious that there's posters here would be furious if we got JJ with the six overall pick and yet this proposal of taking a quarterback with number four and giving up 70 as well. For me, I would be pretty pissed off.

As far as the question, I think I would go with JJ over Maye........

[londonblue]

Personally, I am not trading up for QB4 even if they are QB2 on my Board unless I think I am getting a fair deal not a massive overpay.

Using the Rich Hill model 6, 70 gets 4, 138 and is still a slight overpay. I'd do it for that if QB4 is our QB2 but Minnesota have the assets to overpay severely so would Az accept?

Using the same model I'd rather try to get to 3 using 6, 70 (which is equal value) and throw in a 25 conditional third becomes second if they take half the snaps if I have to sweeten the deal. Again Minnesota's possible ability and willingness to over-pay makes it tough to pull off.

[DaveBrown74]

Personally, I am not trading up for QB4 even if they are QB2 on my Board unless I think I am getting a fair deal not a massive overpay.

Using the Rich Hill model 6, 70 gets 4, 138 and is still a slight overpay. I'd do it for that if QB4 is our QB2 but Minnesota have the assets to overpay severely so would Az accept?

Using the same model I'd rather try to get to 3 using 6, 70 (which is equal value) and throw in a 25 conditional third becomes second if they take half the snaps if I have to sweeten the deal. Again Minnesota's possible ability and willingness to over-pay makes it tough to pull off.

There are clearly multiple teams interested, so whoever gets the trade done will have to overpay at least somewhat. That's pretty normal in trade-up situations in the high end of the draft. The points grid is really just a guideline and kind of goes out the window in these situations.

Overpaying to move up from 6 to get the 4th QB seems a little nuts, but I'm sure Buffalo doesn't regret trading up to get the 4th QB in 2020. Granted they didn't move up from 6, but still.

[LennG]

 In a heartbeat. Getting a top WR is like getting a shiny new hood ornament if we still need the main part a QB. You have to secure the future with a QB before adding these ornaments.

[jgrangers2]

Simply put, if you think you can get your QB of the future with the pick, you make the move. I don't care if you have to overpay based on value charts. The right QB can change everything.

[AYM]

The Ravens may have a model that emphasizes not trading up in general, but they absolutely traded up to get Lamar. And they gave up decent assets to do it. So I'm actually not sure their model applies to when they feel they are getting a franchise QB in return for the trade-up.

They traded up to the back of the 1st round.

Someone posted it somewhere, but trading up into the top 5 to get a QB has a 90% failure rate.

[DaveBrown74]

They traded up to the back of the 1st round.

Someone posted it somewhere, but trading up into the top 5 to get a QB has a 90% failure rate.

I get it, but it was still a material trade-up in terms of the assets they gave up.

I wonder how big the sample size is for that supposed 90% failure rate. I can't imagine it's that big.

[spiderblue43]

Can't see that scenario happening. That means trading up for JJ probably. Huh.

Vikings have invested too much not to get a qb..but If it does happen. I'm selecting MHJ in a heartbeat. He'll make Jones or Lock better-anyone. The permutations are all over the place.

Do the Vikings wait to trade with Jim Boy and get JJ or want Maye at 3?
Or do they deal with the Giants at 6?
Do they Norsemen think JJ could last to 11?
Why would our heroes trade up and not take a qb?
Maybe the Cards simply move down and get MHJ anyway.

  Getting a mock migraine.