Wilson to Giant for Daniel Jones & their 2 first round picks

[Ambrose83]

We have such a history of good 1st round picks.....

 

[Sgt. Largent]

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]

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]

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.

 

[James in PA]

(sobbing) Don't badmouth Danny Dimes. If you do that, it's really unfair. That's my (future) quarterback!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WmHBonney]

This would be pretty funny. The Giants Oline may actually be worse than ours.
Someone mentioned Tua. Tua has been royally screwed by Miami in the way he has been handled. And, he has taken it like a pro. I would be far more interested in trading for Tua and Miami's picks than in trading with the Gmen. We all shall just have to wait and see.

 

[RiverDog]

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.

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.

 

[toffee]

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.

Agree except being top ten pick does not guarantee upside. Plenty of top ten busts had no up or whatever sides lol

Sent from my IN2017 using Tapatalk

 

[Elemas]

If you trade Russ, you’re not looking to win in the immediate future. So, does it ultimately matter if you take Jones? I’d still shoot for three firsts and a third…maybe an above average player (wherever he plays…).

In Pete ball, you just need a game manager right?

 

[Maelstrom787]

See, this is what I mean by "it depends on the trade package" when dealing Russ.

This package is very not good.

I changed my mind.

Replace Jones with a 3rd rounder, and I'm in. Jones is replacement level. He has little value. I want both of those firsts this year, though. Blue chip range.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

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.

 

[Tical21]

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.

I actually like the RB group but this is a great post.

Honestly, if we were to do this, I probably use the picks to trade into the top 3 if possible.

 

[RiverDog]

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.

I haven't looked at the draft close enough or read enough of the scouting reports to make any kind of assessment of the quality of the 2022 draft.

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]

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.

 

[RiverDog]

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.

Interesting observations. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

However, in a potential Russell to the Giants trade, we have to keep in mind that we're talking about two top 10's, perhaps better ( I think it's currently a #5 and #6 overall). Even in a poor draft class, with picks that high, we should be able to find a couple impact players that will fill a couple of holes.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

Also, perhaps lost in the angst of not having a first round pick etc.

Seattle currently (by my understanding of record/SOS) stands at the following:

R2: #37 overall
R3: #68 overall
R4: #106 overall (pending 3rd rd comp picks)
R4: #107 overall (see above)

Note there are 4 picks at the end of R3 awarded by the league to teams that hired minority candidates to FO positions in 2022. So the R4 picks are 4 further back than normal.

Which, if in a normal year, would look like we'd been bounced in the first round of the playoffs, and traded back from our first for an early second, a massive swap up in the 3rd round and a bonus 4th round pick.

Which sounds exactly like something we've done for half a dozen seasons or so.

If we're looking at building a new core, rather than filling holes, then we should already be in a position to upgrade the talent on this team fairly well. If we reach for need, then not very likely.

At any rate, our draft pretty much looks like what it would have if we'd won just 3 of these close games we've managed to be on the wrong side of.

 

[HawkOG70’]

I like the idea of acquiring Tua from the Fins a little better. He's quietly been balling out lately and if we can get him and Giseki in a package deal I'd more than kick the tires

 

[olyfan63]

Daniel Jones is a poor man's Josh Allen, nice take! Jones does have moments.

I question whether Russell has that much value any more, 2 firsts, unless Russell leads a 6-2 or better record last 8 games, with great stats, I don't think we get much more than a mid-first for him, maybe less. Unless and until Russ shows he has adapted to the defenses being thrown at him, since the Cardinals game last year.

The league has figured Russell out and he no longer has the athleticism to create the type of miracle plays he used to. Why would a team want to pay a high price for a QB whose current performance is bottom of the league on 3rd down plays? How does consistently failing to convert 3rd downs lead any team to wins?

 

[chris98251]

I don't need a first round failure, rather have a guy that has earned his spot and shown signs of growing and success. Minshew, White, The guy in Washington can't remember or spell his name correctly.

Also they would a lot more cap friendly.

 

[Elemas]

Unless there’s a no shit, gotta take him now type of QB, I think you grab whatever is available. If you trade Russ, you’re rebuilding. You’re not competing for a SB, division or conference championship.

Get a game manager…hell, let Geno run it.

Unload Wagner, Lockett, etc. Try to keep the young guys like Taylor, Brooks, DK. I do think Hawks fans will be shocked when DK gets traded. If you’re rebuilding, he’s a guy that could net a first and a third…maybe a second. A rebuild takes time and if this is indeed the route, trading DK is a good idea.

Keep developing Brown. He’s a stud.

Use the picks from the trades to build from the lines first. Like, legit solid guys. Not Collier and Penny “solids”. No gambling. After that, work your secondary and start looking for a true first round QB type of guy. I know..,those don’t pan out 100%, Russ wasn’t chosen in the first, yada yada…do your homework and look for the guy is all I’m saying. Get the rest of your D squared away. If there’s a guy like CeeDee Lamb, you do what Dallas did and draft the best guy available here and there. Don’t take a project type of guy based on positional need 100% of the time. Receivers next. Finally, go snag a RB. Maybe you take a gamble in later rounds earlier than I probably would but… let DJ carry the load until you’re confident you’ve found one.

If you trade Russ, YOU’RE REBUILDING. Don’t half ass it…

I’d try to unload Adams as well…I like the guy but, if you’re rebuilding, you’ll hopefully get more value by unloading him sooner than later. Even if it’s just a second and third…I know what we gave up for him. It was a win now scenario. It was a mistake. Put your pride aside and do the right thing.

In a rebuild, it’s win later.