Giants not going QB @2

[Solar7]

how is signing vets going to keep us from getting lucky in the mid rounds of the draft exactly?

You're the one talking about trading away tons of draft picks and just patching the holes with veteran minimum contracts. If we don't have the picks, we can't get "lucky."

 

[moklerman]

The Redskins were pretty much crippled. It's the sheer luck that Cousins turned out to be really good that saved them. If they didn't have Cousins, they would have been picking in the bottom 10 for years. That roster was really, really bad.

I don't know what you're talking about with the Vikings, unless you're implying Bridgewater is anywhere near the point I'm trying to make about giving up the farm for a QB... the Vikes gave up a 4th round pick to move into the last pick of the first round. If you told me we were going to move from our pick in the 2nd round to the last pick of the 1st and even give up a 3rd, because we liked Lamar Jackson or Mason Rudolph, I'd do it in a flash. That's assets that we have in hand, and won't cripple us.

I already went over the Eagles in this thread or another thread. They re-secured a 1st round pick in trading Bradford, so they really only gave up a couple of mid to late round picks, and a 2nd that won't be used until this year. They didn't break the bank.

As for the Rams, we'll see how it goes. Yes, they had one good year. But in short order, it's going to come time to pay Gurley, that defense is going to have some interesting characters on it... and they won't have assets to build up young talent.


This thinking is how you miss out on the Tyrann Mathieus, David Johnsons, and Antonio Bryants of the world.

Redskins, Eagles, Vikings and Rams are all just examples of trading away premium picks and not being crippled by it. Not necessarily saying specifically trading up in the draft. Viking and Eagles both spent premium picks to try and salvage their immediate QB needs. All of these teams gave up some premium picks and were able to keep moving forward in many different ways. Which is the point.

The Redskins gave up a lot to get RGIII and still managed to find a starting QB after that fact. Still spent a lot in FA and were still able to make whatever moves they wanted to make. That those moves didn't pan out isn't really germane. The point is, trading away picks didn't cripple them.

The Eagles traded away a decent amount to acquire Bradford. True, they reacquired more picks later but the point is, the big trade didn't cripple them. Same thing with the Vikings. The were painted into a corner and spent some premium picks to get Bradford but has that crippled their ability to make more trades or acquisitions?

Maybe the Cardinals don't wheel and deal enough but hypothetically, making a big trade up shouldn't cripple their ability to make moves in the near future.

 

[Solar7]

Redskins, Eagles, Vikings and Rams are all just examples of trading away premium picks and not being crippled by it. Not necessarily saying specifically trading up in the draft. Viking and Eagles both spent premium picks to try and salvage their immediate QB needs. All of these teams gave up some premium picks and were able to keep moving forward in many different ways. Which is the point.

The Redskins gave up a lot to get RGIII and still managed to find a starting QB after that fact. Still spent a lot in FA and were still able to make whatever moves they wanted to make. That those moves didn't pan out isn't really germane. The point is, trading away picks didn't cripple them.

The Eagles traded away a decent amount to acquire Bradford. True, they reacquired more picks later but the point is, the big trade didn't cripple them. Same thing with the Vikings. The were painted into a corner and spent some premium picks to get Bradford but has that crippled their ability to make more trades or acquisitions?

Maybe the Cardinals don't wheel and deal enough but hypothetically, making a big trade up shouldn't cripple their ability to make moves in the near future.

The "premium" you're mentioning for some of these teams is nowhere even slightly close to what we're looking to pay, though. The Redskins gave up a ton and very much struggled to put together a good defense or running game... there's a reason Cousins threw for tope 5 QB numbers and couldn't put together a winning season. Again, that they had him was a miracle. They didn't go out and get him after making their horrendous mistake.

The Eagles didn't give up much for either player they received. Certainly not "premium picks." They gave up Foles, who was dead in the water, a second, and a fourth. I'm more than willing to pay that for our QB. Then they realized they didn't want him anymore, and gave up what isn't all that much in the grand scheme of things, while still picking up a first round pick back for Bradford. They didn't say "oh screw it all" and trade away the next three years of their drafts.

The Vikings actually screwed up with Bradford - so I don't know why you're painting it as a success. They traded one first rounder and ended up with a guy who had one 8-8 year and promptly sat out an entire season while their 3rd stringer took them to the playoffs. Like Cousins in the example above, if their 3rd stringer had been Brandon Weeden instead of Keenum, they'd have probably had a garbage year. Not crippling - but again, they didn't give up as much as you're proposing.

The Rams are too close in to the process for us to know whether or not it worked yet. As of right now, it's looking alright. But if Goff has a down year, or Gurley isn't as amazing as he was this year, the Rams are going to be staring down a difficult contract situation. Even with all of that said - they mostly gave up picks that were out of the way in the first year. They had ammunition to give up. They didn't have as much competition for the pick. We are in no way in that situation, with the absolutely loaded Bills sitting ahead of us.

 

[moklerman]

The "premium" you're mentioning for some of these teams is nowhere even slightly close to what we're looking to pay, though. The Redskins gave up a ton and very much struggled to put together a good defense or running game... there's a reason Cousins threw for tope 5 QB numbers and couldn't put together a winning season. Again, that they had him was a miracle. They didn't go out and get him after making their horrendous mistake.

The Eagles didn't give up much for either player they received. Certainly not "premium picks." They gave up Foles, who was dead in the water, a second, and a fourth. I'm more than willing to pay that for our QB. Then they realized they didn't want him anymore, and gave up what isn't all that much in the grand scheme of things, while still picking up a first round pick back for Bradford. They didn't say "oh screw it all" and trade away the next three years of their drafts.

The Vikings actually screwed up with Bradford - so I don't know why you're painting it as a success. They traded one first rounder and ended up with a guy who had one 8-8 year and promptly sat out an entire season while their 3rd stringer took them to the playoffs. Like Cousins in the example above, if their 3rd stringer had been Brandon Weeden instead of Keenum, they'd have probably had a garbage year. Not crippling - but again, they didn't give up as much as you're proposing.

The Rams are too close in to the process for us to know whether or not it worked yet. As of right now, it's looking alright. But if Goff has a down year, or Gurley isn't as amazing as he was this year, the Rams are going to be staring down a difficult contract situation. Even with all of that said - they mostly gave up picks that were out of the way in the first year. They had ammunition to give up. They didn't have as much competition for the pick. We are in no way in that situation, with the absolutely loaded Bills sitting ahead of us.

Okay, let's try it the other way around. Which are the teams that were crippled that you're basing your prediction on? You're suggesting that it's such a certainty that I assume you've got some comparables in mind.

 

[Solar7]

Okay, let's try it the other way around. Which are the teams that were crippled that you're basing your prediction on? You're suggesting that it's such a certainty that I assume you've got some comparables in mind.

The Redskins are my primary example, because there aren't all that many examples of these trade ups for QBs. The Jets are another good example, who fell off a cliff after two years of AFC Championships, because their QB was awful and couldn't make up for the leaking talent on defense.

I'm not sure I qualify the Falcons as "crippled" by the Vick trade, but the talent around that team was clearly so poor that they rarely found themselves in the playoffs in Vick's time, only to be complete washouts when he was outed as a dog killer. The Jags got stuck with three years of mediocrity for Gabbert, and burned a second round pick, but that's not giving up the farm.

Hell, we even crippled the Chargers back in 1998. Leaf being garbage led them to years and years of futility, while we got David Boston and Corey Chavous.

Outside of QBs, let's look at trades like Derrick Harvey to the Jaguars, and the Saints going up to get Ricky Williams, the Saints being the best example of all of this.

 

[Cheesebeef]

The Redskins are my primary example, because there aren't all that many examples of these trade ups for QBs. The Jets are another good example, who fell off a cliff after two years of AFC Championships, because their QB was awful and couldn't make up for the leaking talent on defense.

I'm not sure I qualify the Falcons as "crippled" by the Vick trade, but the talent around that team was clearly so poor that they rarely found themselves in the playoffs in Vick's time, only to be complete washouts when he was outed as a dog killer. The Jags got stuck with three years of mediocrity for Gabbert, and burned a second round pick, but that's not giving up the farm.

Hell, we even crippled the Chargers back in 1998. Leaf being garbage led them to years and years of futility, while we got David Boston and Corey Chavous.

Outside of QBs, let's look at trades like Derrick Harvey to the Jaguars, and the Saints going up to get Ricky Williams, the Saints being the best example of all of this.

The Falcons... who NEVER made the playoffs in back to back seasons EVER, made the playoffs 3 times in Vick’s first 5 years, won at least one playoff game in two of those trips and an NFC Title game. Trying to say that trade wouldn’t have worked even without the dog-fighting is BS.

That was a woeful franchise... instantly became relevant and a playoff contender.

 

[Broseph]

Cowherds latest mock has us trading to 2 to get Rosen

 

[Solar7]

The Falcons... who NEVER made the playoffs in back to back seasons EVER, made the playoffs 3 times in Vick’s first 5 years, won at least one playoff game in two of those trips and an NFC Title game. Trying to say that trade wouldn’t have worked even without the dog-fighting is BS.

That was a woeful franchise... instantly became relevant and a playoff contender.

2 times. 3 non-winning seasons with Vick as the starter. No doubt was he dynamic and exciting to watch, but he didn't really pay dividends for them.

 

[moklerman]

The Redskins are my primary example, because there aren't all that many examples of these trade ups for QBs. The Jets are another good example, who fell off a cliff after two years of AFC Championships, because their QB was awful and couldn't make up for the leaking talent on defense.

I'm not sure I qualify the Falcons as "crippled" by the Vick trade, but the talent around that team was clearly so poor that they rarely found themselves in the playoffs in Vick's time, only to be complete washouts when he was outed as a dog killer. The Jags got stuck with three years of mediocrity for Gabbert, and burned a second round pick, but that's not giving up the farm.

Hell, we even crippled the Chargers back in 1998. Leaf being garbage led them to years and years of futility, while we got David Boston and Corey Chavous.

Outside of QBs, let's look at trades like Derrick Harvey to the Jaguars, and the Saints going up to get Ricky Williams, the Saints being the best example of all of this.

I guess I don't know what you mean by "crippled" because with the Jets, I don't see how going to two AFC Championships would qualify. Even after Sanchez started to struggle, what is it about drafting him had the team crippled as opposed to say, Ryan's coaching, an aging defense, etc.? I mean, I really don't see how the team was crippled in the short or long term by moving up to draft Sanchez. Seems like a lot of other things.

Same thing with the Falcons. Before Vick became the starter, they had only 1 winning season out of 6. With Vick, they weren't always winners but at what point was the franchise crippled by the move to draft Vick?

Jacksonville has continued to struggle but can we really say it's because they drafted Blaine Gabbert? That organization has had so many problems over the years since Coughlin left that I'd be hesitant to attribute it to taking Gabbert 10th overall.

So, with the Redskins as the closest example, how do we define "crippled"? Because even though they spent what the did to get RGIII, they still were able to draft his eventual replacement, still signed plenty of FA's along the way and still got Alex Smith this year. In the 6 years since drafting RGIII, they've won their division twice and had a winning record 3/6 years. Not a dynasty, but we're talking about them being the reason to not trade up to get a QB. If anything, they illustrate how even when supposedly over-spending for a draft pick a team can still move forward. RGIII was an instant success but blew out his knee and washed out as a Redskin within 3 years. Cousins took over and is now gone. Now, they have Alex Smith.

My first instinct is that spending too much on a draft pick is a bad thing but the more I look at the actual circumstances, it really doesn't seem to hamper a team like we all imagine. What I imagine to be the most lopsided trade in that regard is the 1999 Saints when they traded their entire draft for Ricky Williams. But as bad as that trade was, it didn't keep the team from being competitive or "cripple" them. They were in the playoffs in 2000 and were a .500 team the next 4 years. It didn't keep them from moving on from Williams either. Even after giving up all of those picks they were still able to attain Aaron Brooks, Deuce McCallister and Joe Horn. It's certainly expensive to make a move like this but it isn't the end of a franchise for the next decade afterwards.

But, like I said, it's not the approach I would take so I'm not advocating that the Cardinals do it. I just wouldn't jump off the proverbial ledge if they did wind up spending some picks.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I guess I don't know what you mean by "crippled" because with the Jets, I don't see how going to two AFC Championships would qualify. Even after Sanchez started to struggle, what is it about drafting him had the team crippled as opposed to say, Ryan's coaching, an aging defense, etc.? I mean, I really don't see how the team was crippled in the short or long term by moving up to draft Sanchez. Seems like a lot of other things.

Same thing with the Falcons. Before Vick became the starter, they had only 1 winning season out of 6. With Vick, they weren't always winners but at what point was the franchise crippled by the move to draft Vick.

They weren’t. He’s playing fast and loose with the facts.

As you mentioned, before Vick, they had 1 winning season in 6 years.

Meanwhile, in his second year, first as full time starter, they went 9-6-1 and were the first team to ever beat Favre in Lambeau in the playoffs.

In his third year, he missed the first 12 games, played the last 4 and went 3-1.

In year four, he took them to the Conference Title Game.

In year 5, they were 6-2 and finished 8-8 after a rash of injuries.

Year 6 they were a mediocre 7-9.

Then he got sent to jail. So, during his tenure as full time QB, in 4 full seasons he went to the playoffs twice, went 8-8 once and 7-9 once.

And yes... they were awful in 2007 once they lost Vick... but they lost their QB AND had an awful coach. But complete washouts would imply they were awful for a while and yet ONE YEAR later they were 11-5 back in the playoffs.

Vick hurt the Falcons because he was a piece of garbage. Not because they risked the farm for them. He made them a playoff team his first two full starting years and an 8-8 team in his third. And by the time they were in the NFC Title game, they were long past any effect of losing draft picks... none of which hampered them in the four years after the trade.

 

[Solar7]

I guess I don't know what you mean by "crippled" because with the Jets, I don't see how going to two AFC Championships would qualify. Even after Sanchez started to struggle, what is it about drafting him had the team crippled as opposed to say, Ryan's coaching, an aging defense, etc.? I mean, I really don't see how the team was crippled in the short or long term by moving up to draft Sanchez. Seems like a lot of other things.

Same thing with the Falcons. Before Vick became the starter, they had only 1 winning season out of 6. With Vick, they weren't always winners but at what point was the franchise crippled by the move to draft Vick?

Jacksonville has continued to struggle but can we really say it's because they drafted Blaine Gabbert? That organization has had so many problems over the years since Coughlin left that I'd be hesitant to attribute it to taking Gabbert 10th overall.

So, with the Redskins as the closest example, how do we define "crippled"? Because even though they spent what the did to get RGIII, they still were able to draft his eventual replacement, still signed plenty of FA's along the way and still got Alex Smith this year. In the 6 years since drafting RGIII, they've won their division twice and had a winning record 3/6 years. Not a dynasty, but we're talking about them being the reason to not trade up to get a QB. If anything, they illustrate how even when supposedly over-spending for a draft pick a team can still move forward. RGIII was an instant success but blew out his knee and washed out as a Redskin within 3 years. Cousins took over and is now gone. Now, they have Alex Smith.

My first instinct is that spending too much on a draft pick is a bad thing but the more I look at the actual circumstances, it really doesn't seem to hamper a team like we all imagine. What I imagine to be the most lopsided trade in that regard is the 1999 Saints when they traded their entire draft for Ricky Williams. But as bad as that trade was, it didn't keep the team from being competitive or "cripple" them. They were in the playoffs in 2000 and were a .500 team the next 4 years. It didn't keep them from moving on from Williams either. Even after giving up all of those picks they were still able to attain Aaron Brooks, Deuce McCallister and Joe Horn. It's certainly expensive to make a move like this but it isn't the end of a franchise for the next decade afterwards.

But, like I said, it's not the approach I would take so I'm not advocating that the Cardinals do it. I just wouldn't jump off the proverbial ledge if they did wind up spending some picks.

Let me preface, not all of these were "crippling." They're just the closest you can get, because not many teams have had the cojones to give up as much as we're going to to have to give up to move up to #1.

For the Jets, you called it out right there. The aging defense. The team lacked some players and picks to replenish the aging players. They could have gone to the AFC Championship with any old retread QB, because the defense was so good. I don't know, this is hard here, because they gave up players and not a ton of picks, but that team was on their asses three years in looking for a new guy to start at QB, and hasn't been back to the playoffs since. I'd say 8 years without sniffing the playoffs counts as "crippling."

As for the Falcons, like I said, I didn't want to call it out as "crippling," but it's clear that the franchise didn't have successful talent around their QB. But they only moved up five spots... they didn't jump 15.

The Redskins had a very bad team. I don't know why you're not willing to accept that, but maybe it's because everyone here spent the offseason blaming Kirk Cousins for the reason the Redskins couldn't win. Imagine what that team would be if the Redskins hadn't bothered to move up for RG3, held on to their picks, and then drafted KC. The team would have been more successful,it wouldn't have stumbled through three years of "will he or won't he" with RG3, and the past few years would have been okay. Sure, six years later they're kinda... maybe... back on their feet, but in six years I'm going to be 37. I don't want to make draft choices today that are going to mean I need to wait until I'm almost 40 to clear out the mess from. It'd be like trashing out my credit cards, ruining my credit score, and saying "well, eventually I'll be back up to the 700s and can qualify for a home loan."

The Saints are the same thing... one playoff year, six years of futility. I'm not willing to wait another six years until we go back to the playoffs. It's been two already. This year is likely going to be a third, because we're not that talented. And then we'll have a ton of holes to fill in 2019, but no picks to do it... so we can overpay for castaways, or fill it with bottom barrel FAs.

My whole point is, sure, we may not be crippled for a decade, but we'll be crippled for years. There's nothing worse than walking into a season going "I know this team only has half of the players it needs to compete," which is where we're standing right now. I couldn't be less excited about Cardinal football right now, and giving everything up would only make me more unhappy that I get to watch us overpay to throw a rookie to the wolves.

The only reason I'm jumping off a ledge is because I can't stand to wait another six years knowing we have no future if we make this move.

They weren’t. He’s playing fast and loose with the facts.

As you mentioned, before Vick, they had 1 winning season in 6 years.

Meanwhile, in his second year, first as full time starter, they went 9-6-1 and were the first team to ever beat Favre in Lambeau in the playoffs.

In his third year, he missed the first 12 games, played the last 4 and went 3-1.

In year four, he took them to the Conference Title Game.

In year 5, they were 6-2 and finished 8-8 after a rash of injuries.

Year 6 they were a mediocre 7-9.

Then he got sent to jail. So, during his tenure as full time QB, in 4 full seasons he went to the playoffs twice, went 8-8 once and 7-9 once.

And yes... they were awful in 2007 once they lost Vick... but they lost their QB AND had an awful coach. But complete washouts would imply they were awful for a while and yet ONE YEAR later they were 11-5 back in the playoffs.

Vick hurt the Falcons because he was a piece of garbage. Not because they risked the farm for them. He made them a playoff team his first two full starting years and an 8-8 team in his third. And by the time they were in the NFC Title game, they were long past any effect of losing draft picks... none of which hampered them in the four years after the trade.

Hey, I even said in my post that I didn't necessarily want to call them "crippled" by the trade, because of some of the extenuating circumstances, but like it or not, Vick did not give that team what they expected out of drafting him #1 overall, which was a franchise QB and the new face of the NFL for 10-15 years. Instead, they walked out of it with two playoff victories, a huge public black eye, and trying to start all over again six years after it begun. No one would say that Vick was a successful #1 pick in terms of overall goals.

 

[Stout]

Let's take the Redskins out of the discussion here, because what's really killed them is moronic moves in FA. Overpaying on huge FAs that fail to make an impact. Personnel moves crippled them.

 

[moklerman]

The only reason I'm jumping off a ledge is because I can't stand to wait another six years knowing we have no future if we make this move.

I think in all the examples we've discussed though, each team made the playoffs after making what you considering a crippling mistake. Making a trade-up, historically, hasn't really proved to be a death sentence for teams that have done it.

 

[Solar7]

I think in all the examples we've discussed though, each team made the playoffs after making what you considering a crippling mistake. Making a trade-up, historically, hasn't really proved to be a death sentence for teams that have done it.

Alright. Maybe I should have rephrased it - I don't want to spend 6 years knowing we're just barely good enough to make the wild card and go no further. That's just as bad as languishing at 8-8 to me, or whatever.

And for the umpteenth time in these threads - we would have to give up more than pretty much anyone in history. We are walking into territory no NFL team should tread. Making a trade up, historically, has not worked out for any team besides possibly the Goff/Wentz year. And we don't have enough evidence there yet.

QB desperate teams do not trade away franchise QBs. That's why it never succeeds.

Let's take the Redskins out of the discussion here, because what's really killed them is moronic moves in FA. Overpaying on huge FAs that fail to make an impact. Personnel moves crippled them.

You can't just take the Redskins out here. They made moronic FA moves, and risked too much of their future with draft picks. It's a perfect storm. Why do you think we're going to make much better FA moves if that's our only option and we've burned our draft picks?

 

[moklerman]

Alright. Maybe I should have rephrased it - I don't want to spend 6 years knowing we're just barely good enough to make the wild card and go no further. That's just as bad as languishing at 8-8 to me, or whatever.

And for the umpteenth time in these threads - we would have to give up more than pretty much anyone in history. We are walking into territory no NFL team should tread. Making a trade up, h

I don't disagree about languishing on the cusp of playoff victories but I do disagree about your premise. You seem to be placing all of the responsibility for that lack of success on trading up in the draft and I don't think that's accurate. I think when talking about trading up and the consequences it brings, it boils down to what players were you not able to get because of it. But then it becomes practically impossible to say what would have happened. Things "could" have worked out far better for that team but not necessarily.

Most of these teams have organizational issues much deeper than just a draft day trade. Look at the Browns. They've had more draft capital than anyone else for a long while and they literally can't win a game. Or the Patriots. They've gone some drafts without even having a first round pick but they don't seem to suffer for it.

On it's own, I don't think a trade-up is going to save or destroy the Cardinals. I don't think it's like Keim to actually do it and I don't think he sees someone worth doing it for so I'm not too concerned about it actually happening anyway. I mainly just got into this conversation because I felt a lot like you do about the general idea of making a huge (hypothetical) trade but when I actually looked, was surprised to find out that it's not really that damaging to the foundation or future of a franchise when they actually try it.

 

[Solar7]

I don't disagree about languishing on the cusp of playoff victories but I do disagree about your premise. You seem to be placing all of the responsibility for that lack of success on trading up in the draft and I don't think that's accurate. I think when talking about trading up and the consequences it brings, it boils down to what players were you not able to get because of it. But then it becomes practically impossible to say what would have happened. Things "could" have worked out far better for that team but not necessarily.

Most of these teams have organizational issues much deeper than just a draft day trade. Look at the Browns. They've had more draft capital than anyone else for a long while and they literally can't win a game. Or the Patriots. They've gone some drafts without even having a first round pick but they don't seem to suffer for it.

On it's own, I don't think a trade-up is going to save or destroy the Cardinals. I don't think it's like Keim to actually do it and I don't think he sees someone worth doing it for so I'm not too concerned about it actually happening anyway. I mainly just got into this conversation because I felt a lot like you do about the general idea of making a huge (hypothetical) trade but when I actually looked, was surprised to find out that it's not really that damaging to the foundation or future of a franchise when they actually try it.

Really, all I'm trying to do is point out how dangerous it could be for us to make this huge leap to #1. I truly don't think Keim will do it either.

Honestly, my main concern is that most of the examples we can point out about teams trading up wildly are mostly with teams that are pretty good, which is why they're trading up in the first place. Unfortunately, I don't believe our 2017 record is a good indicator of our talent level, and what our future looks like. I'm braced for impact in 2018 - anticipating a season where we end up as a four or five win team, and in the top 5 for a couple of years here with draft picks. I'm super scared we'll end up like the Texans - a team missing out on elite, top 5 talent, and a pick at the top of the 2nd, while our core ages out and we pray our rookie can make up the difference and more even though our offensive line isn't built to protect him.

I get why people want to trade up, I really do, but I just see the doom and gloom ahead of us and want to reap the rewards of dealing with a couple of crappy years.

 

[Adrian]

Giants beat writer Jordan Raanan believes the team is only interested in USC's Sam Darnold among the QBs at the top of the draft.

Raanan makes the statement with the caveat of "unless Gettleman disregards his scouts (which I guess is possible)." If we are reading this correctly, the Giants scouts are not as into the other quarterbacks as they are Sam Darnold. A few points... It's unlikely all of the scouts the Giants currently employ are close to Gettleman. They might not be his guys. And second, the only grade that matters is the one Gettleman ultimately places on the prospects. As of now the No. 2 pick seems very uncertain.

http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/cfb/81288/Raanan--NYG-might-be-Darnold-or-bust-at-QB