Ambrose83
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2015
- Messages
- 1,786
- Reaction score
- 4
We have such a history of good 1st round picks.....
RiverDog":30ivptzs said:No to Daniel Jones. Looks like another Mitch Turbisky.
I'd rather rebuild like Pete did in 2010. He kept Hass around for a year, got an interim replacement the following season, then drafted Russell in the 3rd round. Granted, we can't expect QB's like Russell to be available in the third round in every draft, but we don't have to spend a top 10 draft pick to get one, either. Deshaun Watson was a #12 overall. Mac Jones was a #15 overall. Lamar Jackson was a #32 overall. I'd rather build our offensive line and defense before we put a QB back on the shooting gallery and ask them to win games for us right out of the gate.
Sgt. Largent":1kgyreug said:RiverDog":1kgyreug said:No to Daniel Jones. Looks like another Mitch Turbisky.
I'd rather rebuild like Pete did in 2010. He kept Hass around for a year, got an interim replacement the following season, then drafted Russell in the 3rd round. Granted, we can't expect QB's like Russell to be available in the third round in every draft, but we don't have to spend a top 10 draft pick to get one, either. Deshaun Watson was a #12 overall. Mac Jones was a #15 overall. Lamar Jackson was a #32 overall. I'd rather build our offensive line and defense before we put a QB back on the shooting gallery and ask them to win games for us right out of the gate.
Daniel Jones would be an inconsequential part of this trade.
You take Jones to get the two very high first rounders. After that, do whatever you want, you've now got 35M to get a placeholder veteran QB while you turn the roster over again.
Trade Jones again if you want for more picks, or keep him to compete for the job.
Who cares, he's not the reason you'd make this Giants trade. You want the picks.
toffee":3oyin9dd said:Sgt. Largent":3oyin9dd said:RiverDog":3oyin9dd said:No to Daniel Jones. Looks like another Mitch Turbisky.
I'd rather rebuild like Pete did in 2010. He kept Hass around for a year, got an interim replacement the following season, then drafted Russell in the 3rd round. Granted, we can't expect QB's like Russell to be available in the third round in every draft, but we don't have to spend a top 10 draft pick to get one, either. Deshaun Watson was a #12 overall. Mac Jones was a #15 overall. Lamar Jackson was a #32 overall. I'd rather build our offensive line and defense before we put a QB back on the shooting gallery and ask them to win games for us right out of the gate.
Daniel Jones would be an inconsequential part of this trade.
You take Jones to get the two very high first rounders. After that, do whatever you want, you've now got 35M to get a placeholder veteran QB while you turn the roster over again.
Trade Jones again if you want for more picks, or keep him to compete for the job.
Who cares, he's not the reason you'd make this Giants trade. You want the picks.
May be Daniel could function as a game manager if we could build a decent running game? Never watched daniel play, but how's he on play actions?
Sgt. Largent":2l3zu6vt said:toffee":2l3zu6vt said:Sgt. Largent":2l3zu6vt said:RiverDog":2l3zu6vt said:No to Daniel Jones. Looks like another Mitch Turbisky.
I'd rather rebuild like Pete did in 2010. He kept Hass around for a year, got an interim replacement the following season, then drafted Russell in the 3rd round. Granted, we can't expect QB's like Russell to be available in the third round in every draft, but we don't have to spend a top 10 draft pick to get one, either. Deshaun Watson was a #12 overall. Mac Jones was a #15 overall. Lamar Jackson was a #32 overall. I'd rather build our offensive line and defense before we put a QB back on the shooting gallery and ask them to win games for us right out of the gate.
Daniel Jones would be an inconsequential part of this trade.
You take Jones to get the two very high first rounders. After that, do whatever you want, you've now got 35M to get a placeholder veteran QB while you turn the roster over again.
Trade Jones again if you want for more picks, or keep him to compete for the job.
Who cares, he's not the reason you'd make this Giants trade. You want the picks.
May be Daniel could function as a game manager if we could build a decent running game? Never watched daniel play, but how's he on play actions?
He's a poor man's Josh Allen.........less athletic, less accurate and far less clutch. I think he's hovering around 60% for CPR. Not good.
Play action? I really have no idea. From what I've watched Jones is not an NFL starting QB........and if I take this deal? It's for the picks, not for Jones.
I'd trade him for a 2nd or 3rd rounder immediately and go out and get a veteran QB for the 2-3 years it'd take to turn the roster over.
Agree except being top ten pick does not guarantee upside. Plenty of top ten busts had no up or whatever sides lolRiverDog":3up64wdh said:Sgt. Largent":3up64wdh said:toffee":3up64wdh said:Sgt. Largent":3up64wdh said:Daniel Jones would be an inconsequential part of this trade.
You take Jones to get the two very high first rounders. After that, do whatever you want, you've now got 35M to get a placeholder veteran QB while you turn the roster over again.
Trade Jones again if you want for more picks, or keep him to compete for the job.
Who cares, he's not the reason you'd make this Giants trade. You want the picks.
May be Daniel could function as a game manager if we could build a decent running game? Never watched daniel play, but how's he on play actions?
He's a poor man's Josh Allen.........less athletic, less accurate and far less clutch. I think he's hovering around 60% for CPR. Not good.
Play action? I really have no idea. From what I've watched Jones is not an NFL starting QB........and if I take this deal? It's for the picks, not for Jones.
I'd trade him for a 2nd or 3rd rounder immediately and go out and get a veteran QB for the 2-3 years it'd take to turn the roster over.
Agreed about Daniel Jones. He's been a disappointment and the Giants are having second thoughts about him, which is how the rumor mill got started in the first place. Although I suffer from no allusions about his being a potential Pro Bowler, he'd be a kicker in a trade with the Giants, with the real value being two top 10 picks in next year's draft. Let him compete for the starting job with Geno and a few others until we get our next QBOTF. He's a former top 10 pick so he has a big upside.
Maelstrom787":3hkpghuw said:See, this is what I mean by "it depends on the trade package" when dealing Russ.
This package is very not good.
I actually like the RB group but this is a great post.Attyla the Hawk":ai5fi7at said:This year's draft is truly poopy. Blue chippers probably end around pick #4. Really aren't any first round QBs in this pool to speak of, so if you're not looking for a QB, you aren't getting other prospects pushed down the list. No really good LT prospects either.
Some good day 2 options -- but they are probably going to end up going about a full 30-45 picks ahead of where they'd go in any of the last three drafts. Honestly, it's not a bad draft to have given up a first rounder in.
Once you get past pick 4, you're looking at guys that have to develop and pop in TC just to be able to contribute at the next level in year one. The 35th pick stands an excellent chance of being as good or better in year one than the 10th pick. Would not be at all surprised to see more than half of R2 players being superior by this time next year than counterparts taken in R1.
CB, Safeties and TE groups looks pretty solid and may be heavily overdrafted in this class. Edge looks great at the top, but drops off a cliff. RB group looks kind of lean with some solid day 2 caliber prospects. OT looks very bad -- worse than 2011. Same story with QBs relative to 2011 (Newton/Locker/Gabbert/Ponder/Dalton/Kaepernick). I'm pretty sure every one of those guys would grade as the top QB in this years' class.
Attyla the Hawk":bgw9tmp1 said:This year's draft is truly poopy. Blue chippers probably end around pick #4. Really aren't any first round QBs in this pool to speak of, so if you're not looking for a QB, you aren't getting other prospects pushed down the list. No really good LT prospects either.
Some good day 2 options -- but they are probably going to end up going about a full 30-45 picks ahead of where they'd go in any of the last three drafts. Honestly, it's not a bad draft to have given up a first rounder in.
Once you get past pick 4, you're looking at guys that have to develop and pop in TC just to be able to contribute at the next level in year one. The 35th pick stands an excellent chance of being as good or better in year one than the 10th pick. Would not be at all surprised to see more than half of R2 players being superior by this time next year than counterparts taken in R1.
CB, Safeties and TE groups looks pretty solid and may be heavily overdrafted in this class. Edge looks great at the top, but drops off a cliff. RB group looks kind of lean with some solid day 2 caliber prospects. OT looks very bad -- worse than 2011. Same story with QBs relative to 2011 (Newton/Locker/Gabbert/Ponder/Dalton/Kaepernick). I'm pretty sure every one of those guys would grade as the top QB in this years' class.
RiverDog":3gghxv93 said:However, due to the pandemic, a lot of players, especially those at the FCS and lower divisions, were given another year's eligibility as there were games and even entire seasons that were canceled, so in theory, this year's draft should be bigger and better.
Attyla the Hawk":3qqf7aqr said:RiverDog":3qqf7aqr said:However, due to the pandemic, a lot of players, especially those at the FCS and lower divisions, were given another year's eligibility as there were games and even entire seasons that were canceled, so in theory, this year's draft should be bigger and better.
It didn't really work out that way. Most players of draftable quality entered last years' draft. Very few opted for a 6th year. At the time they had to declare (Jan 15 2021), the landscape for what the 2021 college season would be was completely obscured. Stadium level gatherings were still banned and there was no reasonable likelihood that the 2021 season wouldn't have been a complete repeat of 2020. Generally those that did take the extra year were fringe draftable upperclassmen hoping to give their stock a boost.
The draft is pretty thick in day three with players like that. I wouldn't even go so far as to state that it's particularly good. There are just a lot of JAGs to choose from in this class. Players that will struggle to make practice squads.
It's just a poor class. Particularly so for positional value prospects (OT/QB). Edge looks nice. WR looks 'ok'. RB looks solid, but not spectacular. CB looks well above average. Safeties look above average. I'd expect runs on those groups happening far earlier than in a normal year. Teams spending a 20th overall for a player that would normally be expected to be on the board at 40. I'd expect a very volatile trade down market as a result. It should be a seller's market for draft picks. Both to get the few top prospects in the desired position group, but also to not be left with the LJ Colliers of any position group too. If a team is looking for need, they're likely going to have to pay a ransom to try and fill it. If they are willing to go BPA, they should be ok.
Next years doesn't look all that much better as of now, but we won't get a better read on it until the season unfolds. Because those that are draft eligible in 2023 actually did lose their first year of college ball for all intents in 2021. And not merely games. They lost spring practice 2020 and 2021. They had very abbreviated fall practice in 2020 and 2021 too. So they just haven't been able to season for long enough to hone their skills either in games or on the practice field.