Matthew Stafford

[DaveBrown74]

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. 

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.

[PSUBeirut]

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.

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. 

[Philosophers]

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.

[DaveBrown74]

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. 

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.

[katkavage]

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.

[DaveBrown74]

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.

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?

[PSUBeirut]

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?

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.

[DaveBrown74]

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? 

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.

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. 

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.

[4 Aces]

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.

[DaveBrown74]

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.

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.

[brownelvis54]

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.

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.

[Gmo11]

#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. 

[katkavage]

#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.

[londonblue]

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.

[MightyGiants]

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.

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.