Giants acquire Alec ogletree for 2 picks from rams

[TdungyW/12]

Looks as though the giants are loading up on def .... do you think this changes their draft of possibly getting a linemen or bow drafting chubb

[Boiler_Colt]

They needed a LB for sure. I think maybe this may increase the chances that they trade out of #2 to acquire more picks.

[TdungyW/12]

10 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

They needed a LB for sure. I think maybe this may increase the chances that they trade out of #2 to acquire more picks.

You don’t think they draft OL to protect Eli for the next couple years? 

[Boiler_Colt]

1 minute ago, TdungyW/12 said:

You don’t think they draft OL to protect Eli for the next couple years? 

I think they will get Norwell and if they wan't Nelson, they can get him at 4, 5 or 6. Not 2.

[TdungyW/12]

2 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

I think they will get Norwell and if they wan't Nelson, they can get him at 4, 5 or 6. Not 2.

Your blowing up the colts draft at 3 lol. 

 

I want giants to draft Nelson at 2 then we trade with browns for 4 and 2 second rounders then trade with broncos for 5 and 2 more second rounders and then draft Chubb and clean up on day 2 with 5 second round picks!!! 

 

And i hope colts try and outbid for norwell they can deff beat NY. 

[Boiler_Colt]

2 minutes ago, TdungyW/12 said:

Your blowing up the colts draft at 3 lol. 

 

I want giants to draft Nelson at 2 then we trade with browns for 4 and 2 second rounders then trade with broncos for 5 and 2 more second rounders and then draft Chubb and clean up on day 2 with 5 second round picks!!! 

 

And i hope colts try and outbid for norwell they can deff beat NY. 

Haha, not my intention. Just stating what I think is most likely to happen. In fact, I'm of the opinion that at the end of the day perhaps Cleveland ends up with picks 1 and 2 to ensure taking Barkley first and the top QB they want second.

[TdungyW/12]

7 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

Haha, not my intention. Just stating what I think is most likely to happen. In fact, I'm of the opinion that at the end of the day perhaps Cleveland ends up with picks 1 and 2 to ensure taking Barkley first and the top QB they want second.

Well yeah damn that could happen and then the giants at 4 are now sitting with a ton of picks .... let’s just hope nobody from 5-10 wants the giant pick so the giants pick linemen. And now the colts open the phone to anything and everything from 4-7 so they can get a Kong’s randsom and Chubb. 

[Narcosys]

18 hours ago, TdungyW/12 said:

Your blowing up the colts draft at 3 lol. 

 

I want giants to draft Nelson at 2 then we trade with browns for 4 and 2 second rounders then trade with broncos for 5 and 2 more second rounders and then draft Chubb and clean up on day 2 with 5 second round picks!!! 

 

And i hope colts try and outbid for norwell they can deff beat NY. 

 

Why would the browns ever consider moving up one spot when they have an excellent chance at getting the qb they want at 4? Will never happen.

 

Plus moving up one spot does not equal three picks.

[TdungyW/12]

3 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

 

Why would the browns ever consider moving up one spot when they have an excellent chance at getting the qb they want at 4? Will never happen.

 

Plus moving up one spot does not equal three picks.

Because of the browns have their eye on a certain QB and broncos/jets want that guy to then the browns could certainly move up to get “their” guy before the others .... let’s say broncos offer us their 5 and 2 second round picks for #3 to get darnold .... but the browns want darnold they offer us #4 pick and their 2 seconds .... so now we have 3 second rounders and we r sitting at 4. Now say the broncos or jets want Allen or mayfield or whoever they offer us their pick and their second rounder/s then we will be sitting at 5/6 depending on trades and we now have 5 second round picks .... it’s VERY possible especially if a QB hungry team loves a certain QB! Do u not remember what the rams gave up for Goff? So yes it very well could happen. 

 

And the 3 picks includes their spot in the first round plus the 2 second rounders they have ( browns ) 

[Narcosys]

7 minutes ago, TdungyW/12 said:

Because of the browns have their eye on a certain QB and broncos/jets want that guy to then the browns could certainly move up to get “their” guy before the others .... let’s say broncos offer us their 5 and 2 second round picks for #3 to get darnold .... but the browns want darnold they offer us #4 pick and their 2 seconds .... so now we have 3 second rounders and we r sitting at 4. Now say the broncos or jets want Allen or mayfield or whoever they offer us their pick and their second rounder/s then we will be sitting at 5/6 depending on trades and we now have 5 second round picks .... it’s VERY possible especially if a QB hungry team loves a certain QB! Do u not remember what the rams gave up for Goff? So yes it very well could happen. 

 

And the 3 picks includes their spot in the first round plus the 2 second rounders they have ( browns ) 

A whole lot of "if"s thrown around there. From all experts, there's virtually no difference in the top 3 prospects, no stand outs. There is zero incentive for them to do that. And again, the value for picks is not there. No team is going to his up two 2nd rounders for one position. 

 

Your rams example is horrid. They jumped from 15th to 1st, so of course they are going to give up a lot. 

 

I respect your enthusiasm, but your thinking is not realistic.

[TdungyW/12]

1 minute ago, Narcosys said:

A whole lot of "if"s thrown around there. From all experts, there's virtually no difference in the top 3 prospects, no stand outs. There is zero incentive got them to do that. And again, the value for picks is not there. No team is going to his up two 2nd rounders for one position. 

 

Your rams example is horrid. They jumped from 15th to 1st, so of course they are going to give up a lot. 

 

I respect your enthusiasm, but your thinking is not realistic.

My enthusiasm is what keeps me going till the draft lmao! Don’t bring me down. 

 

I dunno I just feel anything is possible when a team NEEDS a QB and there are a few good ones at the top and there are more teams that need QB’s then good QB’s available. 

 

I was just giving an example example of a team giving up when they want something bad enough. 

[shakedownstreet]

BE-EL-EL-EL-EL-EL-EL-ELCH!!!

 

[TomDiggs]

2 hours ago, Narcosys said:

A whole lot of "if"s thrown around there. From all experts, there's virtually no difference in the top 3 prospects, no stand outs. There is zero incentive for them to do that. And again, the value for picks is not there. No team is going to his up two 2nd rounders for one position. 

 

Your rams example is horrid. They jumped from 15th to 1st, so of course they are going to give up a lot. 

 

I respect your enthusiasm, but your thinking is not realistic.

 

Agreed

 

Though the sample of what it took to move up simply one spot has been set last year:

 

SF basically got a 3rd, 4th and future 3rd to move down from 2 to 3 w/ Chicago.

 

So if that were all in a single draft (based on the future year concept of bumping up a round), it would be like a 3rd and (2) 4ths. This makes sense since that crude draft pick value chart says the difference between pick 2 and 3 is about 400 points and a high 3rd and 2 high 4ths totals around 450 or so points.

 

Realistically i don't think we can expect a king's ransom to move down a spot or two unless the top 2 picks before us do not include a QB at all.

 

That is a big if. But if no QB goes 1 or 2 and the #3 spot is basically getting your pick of the litter amongst all of the QBs, then i could see us getting a larger than normal haul for moving the pick. This would be mainly due to the logic that historically QBs go early and often and that #3 pick is similar to the #1 pick in other year's drafts where the QBs would fly off at the very top of the draft.

 

I still believe that if we are moving back from pick 3 to pick 4, 5 or 6 then we should be content simply getting one second round pick this year.

 

The difference between pick 3 and 6 (for example) is around 600 points. A second rounder is a little over 500. So basically we can expect a 2nd and maybe a 4th this year. Or you take that extra pick next year and you move 3 for 6 and a 2nd this year and a 3rd next year.

 

Either way the thing going in our favor this year is that while the draft is considered to have some depth at positions we need, it is not very top heavy. Lots of forum members have echoed this, but plenty of scouts are saying they have 1st round grades on only 20 or so prospects. So it may be worth it for a team that needs a QB to give up a 2nd rounder and then some to move up and get their guy.

 

Personally, if we could move back 1, 2 or 3 spots and still get the guy we want then anything we get to do so is worth it, no matter how little it is.

 

Obviously the risk is that the further we move back the greater likelihood someone jumps us for a guy they think we want. I would hate for us to think we are being smart by trading back with the Jets (for example) to 6, thinking we will still get a guy like Chubb or Nelson and then see a team like TB move up in front of us from 7 to get Chubb or a squad like Chicago move up in front of us from 8 to get Nelson.

 

If someone doesn't blow the doors off on a trade offer, we should stick to our sheet and pick the guy we rank highest if we see a true difference maker there.

[Narcosys]

10 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

 

Agreed

 

Though the sample of what it took to move up simply one spot has been set last year:

 

SF basically got a 3rd, 4th and future 3rd to move down from 2 to 3 w/ Chicago.

 

So if that were all in a single draft (based on the future year concept of bumping up a round), it would be like a 3rd and (2) 4ths. This makes sense since that crude draft pick value chart says the difference between pick 2 and 3 is about 400 points and a high 3rd and 2 high 4ths totals around 450 or so points.

 

Realistically i don't think we can expect a king's ransom to move down a spot or two unless the top 2 picks before us do not include a QB at all.

 

That is a big if. But if no QB goes 1 or 2 and the #3 spot is basically getting your pick of the litter amongst all of the QBs, then i could see us getting a larger than normal haul for moving the pick. This would be mainly due to the logic that historically QBs go early and often and that #3 pick is similar to the #1 pick in other year's drafts where the QBs would fly off at the very top of the draft.

 

I still believe that if we are moving back from pick 3 to pick 4, 5 or 6 then we should be content simply getting one second round pick this year.

 

The difference between pick 3 and 6 (for example) is around 600 points. A second rounder is a little over 500. So basically we can expect a 2nd and maybe a 4th this year. Or you take that extra pick next year and you move 3 for 6 and a 2nd this year and a 3rd next year.

 

Either way the thing going in our favor this year is that while the draft is considered to have some depth at positions we need, it is not very top heavy. Lots of forum members have echoed this, but plenty of scouts are saying they have 1st round grades on only 20 or so prospects. So it may be worth it for a team that needs a QB to give up a 2nd rounder and then some to move up and get their guy.

 

Personally, if we could move back 1, 2 or 3 spots and still get the guy we want then anything we get to do so is worth it, no matter how little it is.

 

Obviously the risk is that the further we move back the greater likelihood someone jumps us for a guy they think we want. I would hate for us to think we are being smart by trading back with the Jets (for example) to 6, thinking we will still get a guy like Chubb or Nelson and then see a team like TB move up in front of us from 7 to get Chubb or a squad like Chicago move up in front of us from 8 to get Nelson.

 

If someone doesn't blow the doors off on a trade offer, we should stick to our sheet and pick the guy we rank highest if we see a true difference maker there.

See, now that makes sense.