Hot take- Last year's failure to "tank" was worse than this year's

[MightyGiants]

While I am more angry and disappointed with Colt's victory (combined with the likely victory over the Eagles), I am appreciative that there was little they could do to really "tank" legitimately this year.  I guess since Nabers had a toe issue, they could have rested him, but clearly, the toe didn't stop him from having a great game (so much so that you could argue that was the reason the team won).

Beyond that, there is little the Giants can do to prevent these two final victories (or perhaps more accurately called terrible defeats).

On the other hand, last year, Schoen could have "tanked" and did so while collecting more draft capital.  Had Schoen traded away Barkley and McKinney last season, I seriously doubt they win nearly as many games as they did.  So that would have put them in a position to draft one of the three elite QB prospects (something lacking in this year's draft).

So, while the complete lack of a QB on the roster (after the season) drives home the desperation the team has in terms of quarterbacks, the reality is the real damage was done a year ago.

Admittedly, the team wouldn't have Nabers, but with the extra draft capital and a higher draft slot, they could have added more to the WR room.

[DaveBrown74]

Completely agree. This Colts win is nothing compared to the havoc the Devito streak wreaked on our franchise last year. That cost us the ability to get Daniels or Maye, both of whom are franchise-changing talents.

In my personal opinion, there is no QB in this draft who is anywhere near the caliber of those two.

[4 Aces]

They really liked Maye for a long time.

I know Daniels is getting all the hype right now, but I think Maye is quietly going to be the better longterm player. I'm a sucker for pocket passers. Maye is showing everything you want in an NFL QB. Exciting player. He's right up there with Herbert.

[Jclayton92]

I would be happy to get the number 1 overall pick if I knew that we would trade it. I am relieved we didn't get it and force a qb selection. If we stay at 4 I'd run up to the podium and take Abdul Carter, then grab Trey Amos in the 2nd, Cameron Williams in the 3rd, and use our 2 4th round picks to hop into the back end of the 2nd or top of the 3rd to grab Dart.

I think Abdul can be better than Parsons as a true pass rusher.

I also think Amos has a chance to be next years Cooper Dejean.

[Philosophers]

The #4 pick is gold to me as opposed to #1.  Dont want a forced overvalued QB but I do want a great non-QB selection at 4

[DaveBrown74]

The #4 pick is gold to me as opposed to #1.  Dont want a forced overvalued QB but I do want a great non-QB selection at 4

Great point Joe, and I agree. Going from 1 to 4 doesn't bother me that much in this draft. I would love to have Hunter, but I suspect if the Giants were even in a position to take Hunter they would take Ward instead. Going from 4 to 8 or 9 is what will bother me greatly, and there is clearly a very good chance now that that will happen. I can't see us losing tomorrow.

[kartanoman]

Great point Joe, and I agree. Going from 1 to 4 doesn't bother me that much in this draft. I would love to have Hunter, but I suspect if the Giants were even in a position to take Hunter they would take Ward instead. Going from 4 to 8 or 9 is what will bother me greatly, and there is clearly a very good chance now that that will happen. I can't see us losing tomorrow.

Reference your statement, how about with two starting offensive linemen declared out, would you see things a little but differently?

Peace!

[files58]

Daboll should start Boyle "to see what we got" after not taking a snap in practice.  

[UncannyGfan]

I wonder if the NFL should just end the draft.  There is a salary cap, revenue sharing, and roster size limits.  Why can't rookie negotiation be handled the same way as free agency?  Wouldn't it lead to much faster parity? 

Who benefits from the current structure and what's in the best interest of the fans?

stakeholders (feel free to add to this list):
Successful rookies drafted high - minor loss
Successful rookies drafted low - major loss
Unsuccessful rookies drafted high - major win
Unsuccessful rookies drafted low - win
Veteran free agents - win
Do the above five categories need to be broken out by position played?

Team owners - I'm not sure.  How does it play into the player-owner revenue sharing negotiations? Does the current system hedge against devastating contract decisions?   
GMs - Adds a major element of luck (draft position) that less skilled GMs benefit from.  Skill in this sense is properly aligning value to individual players in the context of the particular team's situation.   
Coaches - I'm not sure.
Fans of losing franchise - Lose.  I say this because it has fans either rooting for losses or to actively not see their favorite players perform.  Just a single win/lose can force the team to draft a player who isn't who they need or "mortgage the future" by giving up future draft picks.  This can seem to perpetuate the cycle of losing.
Fans of a winning franchise - neutral.  Patriots and Chiefs didn't need to tank to be as successful as they have been and since they keep selecting low in the draft i'm not sure they care to defend the current system either.

Perhaps a tweak to the salary cap formula for state taxes would be critical if the draft were eliminated.  Maybe this should happen anyway. 

[files58]

I wonder if the NFL should just end the draft.  There is a salary cap, revenue sharing, and roster size limits.  Why can't rookie negotiation be handled the same way as free agency?  Wouldn't it lead to much faster parity? 

Who benefits from the current structure and what's in the best interest of the fans?

stakeholders (feel free to add to this list):
Successful rookies drafted high - minor loss
Successful rookies drafted low - major loss
Unsuccessful rookies drafted high - major win
Unsuccessful rookies drafted low - win
Veteran free agents - win
Do the above five categories need to be broken out by position played?

Team owners - I'm not sure.  How does it play into the player-owner revenue sharing negotiations? Does the current system hedge against devastating contract decisions?   
GMs - Adds a major element of luck (draft position) that less skilled GMs benefit from.  Skill in this sense is properly aligning value to individual players in the context of the particular team's situation.   
Coaches - I'm not sure.
Fans of losing franchise - Lose.  I say this because it has fans either rooting for losses or to actively not see their favorite players perform.  Just a single win/lose can force the team to draft a player who isn't who they need or "mortgage the future" by giving up future draft picks.  This can seem to perpetuate the cycle of losing.
Fans of a winning franchise - neutral.  Patriots and Chiefs didn't need to tank to be as successful as they have been and since they keep selecting low in the draft i'm not sure they care to defend the current system either.

Perhaps a tweak to the salary cap formula for state taxes would be critical if the draft were eliminated.  Maybe this should happen anyway. 

I would take it further. Suppose there is a very rich Giant fan who at this point in his/her life only cares about winning. This individual sets up a company that signs top college performers to personnal service contracts, and then leases these players to the Giants. No difference than any other company/business hiring "consultants". After all we are always reminded the NFL is a business. Middle finger to Goodell and the NFL cartel.

[nb587]

While I am more angry and disappointed with Colt's victory (combined with the likely victory over the Eagles), I am appreciative that there was little they could do to really "tank" legitimately this year.  I guess since Nabers had a toe issue, they could have rested him, but clearly, the toe didn't stop him from having a great game (so much so that you could argue that was the reason the team won).

Beyond that, there is little the Giants can do to prevent these two final victories (or perhaps more accurately called terrible defeats).

On the other hand, last year, Schoen could have "tanked" and did so while collecting more draft capital.  Had Schoen traded away Barkley and McKinney last season, I seriously doubt they win nearly as many games as they did.  So that would have put them in a position to draft one of the three elite QB prospects (something lacking in this year's draft).

So, while the complete lack of a QB on the roster (after the season) drives home the desperation the team has in terms of quarterbacks, the reality is the real damage was done a year ago.

Admittedly, the team wouldn't have Nabers, but with the extra draft capital and a higher draft slot, they could have added more to the WR room.

Agreed.  But, last year at this time, there was little or no talk about firing Daboll.  He was trying win every game because thats what coaches do.  This year, he might be fighting for his job so winning against the Colts and maybe the Eagles will help him survive (I hope so). 

[DaveBrown74]

Reference your statement, how about with two starting offensive linemen declared out, would you see things a little but differently?

Peace!

Not really. The Eagles are playing their scrubs.

[kartanoman]

Not really. The Eagles are playing their scrubs.

Are the Giants' scrubs REALLY better than the Iggles' scrubs?

Asking for a friend. 

[MightyGiants]

Dan Schneier
@DanSchneierNFL
·
2m
The only saving grace for me in the misery that was the #Giants owning the 1st overall pick w just two games left to fall to either 4 (or with a win today 7-9) is I don't have a conviction on these QBs.
If this had happened in LAST year's Qb class, I would be blowing a gasket daily. Oh wait, it already did.. last year. (Well not exactly: Last year they never owned No. 1 but would've been in range for Jayden Daniels or Drake Maye & were at No. 2 when a UDFA QB was their only healthy option to play)