|
Post by vinnie on Mar 19, 2024 12:10:52 GMT -5
Assuming they don’t draft a QB this year, and knowing Jones isn’t the answer, lets say we win 8-9 games this year and are picking in the mid to late teens. When are we supposed to draft our QB of the future?
If it is indeed a weak QB class next year and there are only 2-3 good prospects at best, is it worth giving up years of high future picks to get one instead of giving up a hell of a lot less this year just so we can get a WR?
Or they can roll with Jones for 2 more years, hope he doesn’t get injured and vastly improves. That seems like a horrendous idea. No amount of good blocking or WR’s will make him a SB caliber QB. He’s a weaker version of Dak and they can’t wait to get rid of his ass in Dallas because he’s the weak link. He has had the best O lines, great RB’s, great WR’s, HOF TE, great defenses and he could never rise to the occasion yet he’s still better than Jones just from watching him.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Mar 19, 2024 12:14:13 GMT -5
The Giants won a few games they had business winning so ended up picking #6. That slot is the only reason they may not go QB. Just think… we might be missing out on this year’s Darnold or Zack Wilson. Dammit! I hear Josh Rosen may be available. If he's not busy working on his HOF induction speech.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers13 on Mar 19, 2024 12:53:09 GMT -5
Awesome. So we can draft another Daniel Jones and be in the same place four years from now. Sign me up!! We could also be drafting the next Sammy Watkins.. At the end of the day, we’re going to have to draft a QB at some point and all of those odds of a qb busting are going to be just as true as they are now. And so, if we operate under the idea that we need good QB play to be successful, then if you get to roll the dice twice in, say, 4 years, as opposed to once, then your overall odds are better. Considering he views the draft a crap shoot, primarily b/c he doesn’t watch college football, you think he would be playing the odds you presented. Nope, he doesn’t even propose to trade back for more options.
|
|
|
Post by Danke Schoen on Mar 19, 2024 13:10:54 GMT -5
And there’s the deflection. Mendy/Red like. I can’t wait till something is called “imgrate like.” That’s when you know you’ve made it in life I always see your name and think: Is it a play on "I'm great?" Or is it a play on "ingrate?"
|
|
|
Post by Danke Schoen on Mar 19, 2024 13:12:20 GMT -5
Assuming they don’t draft a QB this year, and knowing Jones isn’t the answer, lets say we win 8-9 games this year and are picking in the mid to late teens. When are we supposed to draft our QB of the future? If it is indeed a weak QB class next year and there are only 2-3 good prospects at best, is it worth giving up years of high future picks to get one instead of giving up a hell of a lot less this year just so we can get a WR? Or they can roll with Jones for 2 more years, hope he doesn’t get injured and vastly improves. That seems like a horrendous idea. No amount of good blocking or WR’s will make him a SB caliber QB. He’s a weaker version of Dak and they can’t wait to get rid of his ass in Dallas because he’s the weak link. He has had the best O lines, great RB’s, great WR’s, HOF TE, great defenses and he could never rise to the occasion yet he’s still better than Jones just from watching him. Taking a QB "because we need one and we have the 6th overall pick" more than likely leads to Daniel Jones 2.0. Can't wait to have this same discussion/dilemma in 2031.
|
|
|
Post by Danke Schoen on Mar 19, 2024 13:13:56 GMT -5
We could also be drafting the next Sammy Watkins.. At the end of the day, we’re going to have to draft a QB at some point and all of those odds of a qb busting are going to be just as true as they are now. And so, if we operate under the idea that we need good QB play to be successful, then if you get to roll the dice twice in, say, 4 years, as opposed to once, then your overall odds are better. Considering he views the draft a crap shoot, primarily b/c he doesn’t watch college football, you think he would be playing the odds you presented. Nope, he doesn’t even propose to trade back for more options. * this is assuming we don't trade back or up Illiteracy and blatant misrepresentation of what a poster actually said. Very Mendy/Red like.
|
|
|
Post by Danke Schoen on Mar 19, 2024 13:15:23 GMT -5
Just think… we might be missing out on this year’s Darnold or Zack Wilson. Dammit! I hear Josh Rosen may be available. If he's not busy working on his HOF induction speech. I love reading all the draft gurus on this forum talk with such absolutes about these draft picks. Can't wait to see a similar "Drew Lock is the Best QB in this year's draft" thread get bumped a few years from now.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers13 on Mar 19, 2024 13:17:38 GMT -5
Considering he views the draft a crap shoot, primarily b/c he doesn’t watch college football, you think he would be playing the odds you presented. Nope, he doesn’t even propose to trade back for more options. * this is assuming we don't trade back or up Illiteracy and blatant misrepresentation of what a poster actually said. Very Mendy/Red like. Must be why you titled the thread as you did and can’t find any post where i mentioned 0-17 despite hanging out here all day. Nice work.
|
|
|
Post by vinnie on Mar 19, 2024 13:55:32 GMT -5
Assuming they don’t draft a QB this year, and knowing Jones isn’t the answer, lets say we win 8-9 games this year and are picking in the mid to late teens. When are we supposed to draft our QB of the future? If it is indeed a weak QB class next year and there are only 2-3 good prospects at best, is it worth giving up years of high future picks to get one instead of giving up a hell of a lot less this year just so we can get a WR? Or they can roll with Jones for 2 more years, hope he doesn’t get injured and vastly improves. That seems like a horrendous idea. No amount of good blocking or WR’s will make him a SB caliber QB. He’s a weaker version of Dak and they can’t wait to get rid of his ass in Dallas because he’s the weak link. He has had the best O lines, great RB’s, great WR’s, HOF TE, great defenses and he could never rise to the occasion yet he’s still better than Jones just from watching him. Taking a QB "because we need one and we have the 6th overall pick" more than likely leads to Daniel Jones 2.0. Can't wait to have this same discussion/dilemma in 2031. But that doesn’t answer my question Danke. Unless you think Jones is the answer we WILL need one in the next year or two and most likely we will have a better record and have to give up a hell of a lot more to get one we like then we would now. Unless you think we’ll find the next Brady, Rogers or Wilson later in the draft. I understand it’s all a gamble so I would rather gamble with a lot less this year then a lot more a year or two from now. I’d also be willing to be there will be good receivers throughout every draft, can’t say that about QB’s.
|
|
|
Post by Danke Schoen on Mar 19, 2024 13:56:27 GMT -5
Illiteracy and blatant misrepresentation of what a poster actually said. Very Mendy/Red like. Must be why you titled the thread as you did and can’t find any post where i mentioned 0-17 despite hanging out here all day. Nice work. You would despise a “meaningless” win. When asked why is it “meaningless” you said “because we’re not competing for a SB so what’s the point in winning? We should lose so that we get a higher draft pick.” So you either think the 2024 Giants are competing for a SB and thus you can cheer for a win. Or stay congruent with your own logic and hope they don’t win any “meaningless” games in 2024. Eg 0-17. Or just be very inconsistent like Miggs.
|
|
|
Post by imgrate on Mar 19, 2024 14:26:14 GMT -5
I can’t wait till something is called “imgrate like.” That’s when you know you’ve made it in life I always see your name and think: Is it a play on "I'm great?" Or is it a play on "ingrate?" Its a play on ingrate. There was quite the notorious thread on the old forums that was titled “Reese you stoopid imgrate” or something like that. I think this was prior to winning SBs, so like his first offseason. I’m sure someone else remembers the details a bit better than me
|
|
|
Post by Danke Schoen on Mar 19, 2024 14:31:23 GMT -5
Taking a QB "because we need one and we have the 6th overall pick" more than likely leads to Daniel Jones 2.0. Can't wait to have this same discussion/dilemma in 2031. But that doesn’t answer my question Danke. Unless you think Jones is the answer we WILL need one in the next year or two and most likely we will have a better record and have to give up a hell of a lot more to get one we like then we would now. Unless you think we’ll find the next Brady, Rogers or Wilson later in the draft. I understand it’s all a gamble so I would rather gamble with a lot less this year then a lot more a year or two from now. I’d also be willing to be there will be good receivers throughout every draft, can’t say that about QB’s. Obviously if Schoen is sold on a QB and they’re there at 6 obviously he’s taking them. I rather pass on a forced overdrafted QB like Jones than dealing with trying to make it work with them for four long years.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers13 on Mar 19, 2024 14:31:53 GMT -5
Must be why you titled the thread as you did and can’t find any post where i mentioned 0-17 despite hanging out here all day. Nice work. You would despise a “meaningless” win. When asked why is it “meaningless” you said “because we’re not competing for a SB so what’s the point in winning? We should lose so that we get a higher draft pick.” So you either think the 2024 Giants are competing for a SB and thus you can cheer for a win. Or stay congruent with your own logic and hope they don’t win any “meaningless” games in 2024. Eg 0-17. Or just be very inconsistent like Miggs. Whine-a-thon of total BS.
|
|
|
Post by Danke Schoen on Mar 19, 2024 15:15:16 GMT -5
You would despise a “meaningless” win. When asked why is it “meaningless” you said “because we’re not competing for a SB so what’s the point in winning? We should lose so that we get a higher draft pick.” So you either think the 2024 Giants are competing for a SB and thus you can cheer for a win. Or stay congruent with your own logic and hope they don’t win any “meaningless” games in 2024. Eg 0-17. Or just be very inconsistent like Miggs. Whine-a-thon of total BS. Typical Mendy/Red reply. You're on a roll.
|
|
|
Post by OrangeGiant on Mar 19, 2024 16:36:36 GMT -5
I tend to agree with this. With Minnesota probably moving up ahead of the Giants that could mean 4 QBs in the first 4 picks. It isnt totally inconceivable that MHJr falls to the Giants at 6.
All depends on if the Chargers value a guy like Joe Alt that high, and they probably take MHJr, but who knows.
At worst they can grab Odunze or Nabers (preferably Odunze for me) I just don't think the QB they really want will be there without trading up and I really don't want them to reach for one.
|
|
|
Post by IrishMike on Mar 19, 2024 17:14:17 GMT -5
I think people put WAY too much stock in the "QB on a rookie deal" thought process. How many teams with QBs on rookie deals have won the SB? Not a lot. With that said I think they go WR at #6 because that is the biggest glaring giant hole on this roster and the players that are the (likely) best available line up perfectly with that. There are two other possible options IMO and that is QB, but I don't think the talent lines up with the draft position and I think this staff has more faith in Jones than the fans do. The other option being OL but this is more about the talent there than anything. All Know is they need a QB that can make every throw and have confidence to to use that arm then they will start to really win Well if Schoen thinks that then he will go QB round 1. Then again if he thought that then I doubt he would have given Jones $40m a year.
|
|
|
Post by IrishMike on Mar 19, 2024 18:37:36 GMT -5
The rookie pay scale has only been in place for 12ish years. Before that, the number 1 overall pick was typically one of, if not, the highest paid player in the league. That said, it is a huge advantage to have high level qb play on a rookie deal, it’s effectively saving you 40mill a year that you can apply to other positions. That’s like signing Onwenu and hunt this offseason… As for the aggregate numbers, I don’t have them TEM , maybe you can pull them to see % of teams with QBs on rookie deals vs non rookie deals made playoffs/sb since the rookie wage scale went into effect vs the 10 years before it went into effect. But really, the numbers don’t matter, its the concept and logic behind it that does, and the logic is sound. There’s alot of pitfalls that can come throughout the process of building a team (missing on FAs, missing on draft picks, injuries, etc.), but having great players on cheap deals, especially players at expensive positions, gives you an advantage to help make up for mistakes. That's not true. In 2004 when Eli Manning was drafted he signed a contract worth $7m a year. That same year Peyton Manning signed a contract worth $14m a year. The rookie pay scale has helped but rookie QBs always made less than the top tier QBs.
Yeah on paper it's a huge advantage but how many actual Super Bowls has that advantage produced? Very few, which makes me question the advantage.
As for the logic, I absolutely agree that it seems to make sense but if it's not working out that way (and it's not) then is there really an advantage? Or maybe QBs that are around a team for longer are truly giving such a huge advantage over those young guns that are good but not veterans. Mahommes was one of the best QBs on a rookie deal, won the MVP and "only" won one Super Bowl, he's won two after signing his massive contract though.
Long story short I agree that it would seem to make sense but in reality it really doesn't work out that way.
|
|
|
Post by lt56 on Mar 19, 2024 19:29:37 GMT -5
very valid point from Kiper on the Giants and what they should do at #6
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on Mar 19, 2024 19:37:55 GMT -5
The rookie pay scale has only been in place for 12ish years. Before that, the number 1 overall pick was typically one of, if not, the highest paid player in the league. That said, it is a huge advantage to have high level qb play on a rookie deal, it’s effectively saving you 40mill a year that you can apply to other positions. That’s like signing Onwenu and hunt this offseason… As for the aggregate numbers, I don’t have them TEM , maybe you can pull them to see % of teams with QBs on rookie deals vs non rookie deals made playoffs/sb since the rookie wage scale went into effect vs the 10 years before it went into effect. But really, the numbers don’t matter, its the concept and logic behind it that does, and the logic is sound. There’s alot of pitfalls that can come throughout the process of building a team (missing on FAs, missing on draft picks, injuries, etc.), but having great players on cheap deals, especially players at expensive positions, gives you an advantage to help make up for mistakes. That's not true. In 2004 when Eli Manning was drafted he signed a contract worth $7m a year. That same year Peyton Manning signed a contract worth $14m a year. The rookie pay scale has helped but rookie QBs always made less than the top tier QBs.
Yeah on paper it's a huge advantage but how many actual Super Bowls has that advantage produced? Very few, which makes me question the advantage.
As for the logic, I absolutely agree that it seems to make sense but if it's not working out that way (and it's not) then is there really an advantage? Or maybe QBs that are around a team for longer are truly giving such a huge advantage over those young guns that are good but not veterans. Mahommes was one of the best QBs on a rookie deal, won the MVP and "only" won one Super Bowl, he's won two after signing his massive contract though.
Long story short I agree that it would seem to make sense but in reality it really doesn't work out that way.
No...He's right. Matt Stafford and Sam Bradford signed ungodly contracts. That's why the league demanded a rookie pay scale when the new contract was negotiated in 2011.
|
|
|
Post by IrishMike on Mar 19, 2024 20:16:21 GMT -5
That's not true. In 2004 when Eli Manning was drafted he signed a contract worth $7m a year. That same year Peyton Manning signed a contract worth $14m a year. The rookie pay scale has helped but rookie QBs always made less than the top tier QBs.
Yeah on paper it's a huge advantage but how many actual Super Bowls has that advantage produced? Very few, which makes me question the advantage.
As for the logic, I absolutely agree that it seems to make sense but if it's not working out that way (and it's not) then is there really an advantage? Or maybe QBs that are around a team for longer are truly giving such a huge advantage over those young guns that are good but not veterans. Mahommes was one of the best QBs on a rookie deal, won the MVP and "only" won one Super Bowl, he's won two after signing his massive contract though.
Long story short I agree that it would seem to make sense but in reality it really doesn't work out that way.
No...He's right. Matt Stafford and Sam Bradford signed ungodly contracts. That's why the league demanded a rookie pay scale when the new contract was negotiated in 2011. I'm not saying they didn't but what he said is still wrong. "The number 1 overall pick was typically one of, if not, the highest paid player in the league". Sam Bradford signed the largest rookie contract in NFL history and still wasn't the highest plaid player in the league.
Either way, we can just agree to look at it since 2012. With all these super cheap rookie QBs saving all this money how many of them have actually won? Out of 13 Super Bowls 4 of them had QBs on rookie deals. It seems to me that the far more important thing is to have a great QB.
Eli Flacco (rookie deal)
Wilson (rookie deal)
Brady Manning Brady Foles (Wentz was on a rookie deal) Brady Mahomes (rookie deal) Brady Stafford Mahomes Mahomes
|
|
|
Post by BigBlueDog42 on Mar 19, 2024 20:58:58 GMT -5
All Know is they need a QB that can make every throw and have confidence to to use that arm then they will start to really win Well if Schoen thinks that then he will go QB round 1. Then again if he thought that then I doubt he would have given Jones $40m a year. I don't think he is gonna get the chance to go QB in RD 1 unless he reaches.
|
|
mendy
Starter
Posts: 3,891
|
Post by mendy on Mar 20, 2024 7:26:55 GMT -5
I had to chuckle with ‘Schoen is building this like a modern franchise. Building oline and pass rush’. That is exactly how the Giants won 4 superbowls. Solid oline. Great pass rush. That’s been working forever. But, but that is old school! This isn't 1986!!!
|
|
|
Post by imgrate on Mar 20, 2024 8:11:50 GMT -5
The rookie pay scale has only been in place for 12ish years. Before that, the number 1 overall pick was typically one of, if not, the highest paid player in the league. That said, it is a huge advantage to have high level qb play on a rookie deal, it’s effectively saving you 40mill a year that you can apply to other positions. That’s like signing Onwenu and hunt this offseason… As for the aggregate numbers, I don’t have them TEM , maybe you can pull them to see % of teams with QBs on rookie deals vs non rookie deals made playoffs/sb since the rookie wage scale went into effect vs the 10 years before it went into effect. But really, the numbers don’t matter, its the concept and logic behind it that does, and the logic is sound. There’s alot of pitfalls that can come throughout the process of building a team (missing on FAs, missing on draft picks, injuries, etc.), but having great players on cheap deals, especially players at expensive positions, gives you an advantage to help make up for mistakes. That's not true. In 2004 when Eli Manning was drafted he signed a contract worth $7m a year. That same year Peyton Manning signed a contract worth $14m a year. The rookie pay scale has helped but rookie QBs always made less than the top tier QBs.
Yeah on paper it's a huge advantage but how many actual Super Bowls has that advantage produced? Very few, which makes me question the advantage.
As for the logic, I absolutely agree that it seems to make sense but if it's not working out that way (and it's not) then is there really an advantage? Or maybe QBs that are around a team for longer are truly giving such a huge advantage over those young guns that are good but not veterans. Mahommes was one of the best QBs on a rookie deal, won the MVP and "only" won one Super Bowl, he's won two after signing his massive contract though.
Long story short I agree that it would seem to make sense but in reality it really doesn't work out that way.
That’s because you’re using SBs as the barometer and SB wins are a statistically irrelevant metric. For instance, using SBs as the metric will say you need mahomes or brady as your qb, and every other win is an anomaly. Additionally, using a sole metric as the barometer does not isolate the impact that good QB play on a rookie deal provides. It affords the team the ability to add more pieces in free agency and/or to retain who they already have. However, just because a team has this built-in advantage, doesnt mean they won’t have squandered it by signing bad players (i.e. solder and golladay), effectively using up the advantage gained. As for your example of Eli was getting 7 in 2004. Our first rd pick, this year, 20 years later of cap increases, will be getting roughly 10/yr. Peyton was getting 2x what Eli was getting… If we drafted a qb, the top qb contract would be 5.5x that amount. That’s a huge difference
|
|
|
Post by imgrate on Mar 20, 2024 8:28:47 GMT -5
No...He's right. Matt Stafford and Sam Bradford signed ungodly contracts. That's why the league demanded a rookie pay scale when the new contract was negotiated in 2011. I'm not saying they didn't but what he said is still wrong. "The number 1 overall pick was typically one of, if not, the highest paid player in the league". Sam Bradford signed the largest rookie contract in NFL history and still wasn't the highest plaid player in the league.
Either way, we can just agree to look at it since 2012. With all these super cheap rookie QBs saving all this money how many of them have actually won? Out of 13 Super Bowls 4 of them had QBs on rookie deals. It seems to me that the far more important thing is to have a great QB.
Eli Flacco (rookie deal)
Wilson (rookie deal)
Brady Manning Brady Foles (Wentz was on a rookie deal) Brady Mahomes (rookie deal) Brady Stafford Mahomes Mahomes “One of, if not the highest” doesnt mean “highest”. Sam Bradford, his second year in the league? He was the second highest paid player.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers13 on Mar 20, 2024 8:31:54 GMT -5
Just think… we might be missing out on this year’s Darnold or Zack Wilson. Dammit! I hear Josh Rosen may be available. If he's not busy working on his HOF induction speech. those who don’t watch college football and only rely on approx Jan-April to learn about prospects get blindsided. No different this year. There were many warning signs with Rosen. Imo, there are too many warning signs with Celeb Williams to feel comfortable.
|
|
|
Post by Danke Schoen on Mar 20, 2024 8:32:03 GMT -5
I had to chuckle with ‘Schoen is building this like a modern franchise. Building oline and pass rush’. That is exactly how the Giants won 4 superbowls. Solid oline. Great pass rush. That’s been working forever. If you use quotation marks you have to quote the exact words used. Which you didn’t. You missed the key words that this thread is predicated upon. Which makes you another mouth breather misrepresenter like Mendy/Red.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers13 on Mar 20, 2024 8:33:49 GMT -5
I'm not saying they didn't but what he said is still wrong. "The number 1 overall pick was typically one of, if not, the highest paid player in the league". Sam Bradford signed the largest rookie contract in NFL history and still wasn't the highest plaid player in the league.
Either way, we can just agree to look at it since 2012. With all these super cheap rookie QBs saving all this money how many of them have actually won? Out of 13 Super Bowls 4 of them had QBs on rookie deals. It seems to me that the far more important thing is to have a great QB.
Eli Flacco (rookie deal)
Wilson (rookie deal)
Brady Manning Brady Foles (Wentz was on a rookie deal) Brady Mahomes (rookie deal) Brady Stafford Mahomes Mahomes “One of, if not the highest” doesnt mean “highest”. Sam Bradford, his second year in the league? He was the second highest paid player. imo, Bradford is the poster child for why the rookie salary cap came into play.
|
|
|
Post by myronguyton29 on Mar 20, 2024 9:59:36 GMT -5
I tend to agree with this. With Minnesota probably moving up ahead of the Giants that could mean 4 QBs in the first 4 picks. It isnt totally inconceivable that MHJr falls to the Giants at 6. All depends on if the Chargers value a guy like Joe Alt that high, and they probably take MHJr, but who knows. At worst they can grab Odunze or Nabers (preferably Odunze for me) I just don't think the QB they really want will be there without trading up and I really don't want them to reach for one. I saw on Mock live last night they had AZ trading down so MHJ might slip to us
|
|
|
Post by myronguyton29 on Mar 20, 2024 10:08:08 GMT -5
I hear Josh Rosen may be available. If he's not busy working on his HOF induction speech. those who don’t watch college football and only rely on approx Jan-April to learn about prospects get blindsided. No different this year. There were many warning signs with Rosen. Imo, there are too many warning signs with Celeb Williams to feel comfortable. i don't watch a lot of college ball and won't claim to be a draft expert by any means but I do watch some of the games some of the time. I watched some of about 4 games Caleb played this year and he sucked in each one lol. That's enough and plus USC's track record ( though sure some will say that doesn't mean one good won't evenatually come from there), but with all of that I'm good on him lmfao.......
|
|
|
Post by Rangers13 on Mar 20, 2024 10:26:17 GMT -5
those who don’t watch college football and only rely on approx Jan-April to learn about prospects get blindsided. No different this year. There were many warning signs with Rosen. Imo, there are too many warning signs with Celeb Williams to feel comfortable. i don't watch a lot of college ball and won't claim to be a draft expert by any means but I do watch some of the games some of the time. I watched some of about 4 games Caleb played this year and he sucked in each one lol. That's enough and plus USC's track record ( though sure some will say that doesn't mean one good won't evenatually come from there), but with all of that I'm good on him lmfao....... none of us are experts and I doubt any of us watch film and go about our lives doing the jobs of scouts for the sole purpose of posting online 🙂 At least you have some info which is a nice contribution when compared to those who never watch yet are hell bent on reminding everybody they aren’t experts and chalk up the draft as some blind crap shoot . . . followed by who they believe the Giants will draft and why lol. Can’t make it up the hypocrisy.
|
|