Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Daniel Jones — Hypothetical


t96

Recommended Posts

https://www.rotoworld.com/football/nfl/player/49430/justin-herbert

 

Reports of Giants being extremely interested in Herbert who is the “top QB on their board” along with a new coaching staff. Yes DG drafted Jones last year and it’s 99.99% likely that they stick with him, but let’s say hypothetically they want to move on from Jones and take Herbert...

 

Would you be interested in Daniel Jones? What would you be willing to give up? 7 overall? He did show a ton of promise last year with no weapons outside of Barkley and a sh*t OL... Yeah it’s not gonna happen but still an interesting discussion.

 

I personally wouldn’t trade more value for him than the equivalent of a mid to late first round pick. 7 overall would be too much for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't draft a QB at #5 overall if the guy you just drafted last year at #6 overall actually "showed a ton of promise".

In reality, I think this is probably just a comically bad attempt to drum up a trade market for #5 to move down a few spots and still land one of the top OT prospects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

You don't draft a QB at #5 overall if the guy you just drafted last year at #6 overall actually "showed a ton of promise".

In reality, I think this is probably just a comically bad attempt to drum up a trade market for #5 to move down a few spots and still land one of the top OT prospects.

That’s very likely the case but there is a brand new HC there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Hayell no. A third at best. They probably wouldn’t take that, but I wouldn’t offer more. 

If it wasn't for just signing Bridgewater to a stupid deal, I'd happily send them #38. Jones is a helluva lot better (and cheaper) than Bridgewater. He threw for 24 TDs as a rookie in 12 starts than Teddy has ever thrown in a season (that number is 14 by the way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

If it wasn't for just signing Bridgewater to a stupid deal, I'd happily send them #38. Jones is a helluva lot better (and cheaper) than Bridgewater. He threw for 24 TDs as a rookie in 12 starts than Teddy has ever thrown in a season (that number is 14 by the way).

I guess you’re not wrong, I just don’t see him as a guy to build around. I put him on a similar level as Teddy, based on what little I’ve seen.  Maybe I’m wrong though, I didn’t watch a lot of Giants games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teddy is not our QB in 3 years. He's fine for now because, believe it or not, we're not going to win the SB this year... shocking, I know. 

But I would rather have every pick (even trading down to get more) to build our O-line and entire defense, so that when we do get our QB of the future, we actually can protect him and not have to play from behind every game.  Lawrence or Fields, come and play on your feet, not on your back.  Teddy can be our Alex Smith, and Justin Fields can be our Mahomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • I have zero issues with this.  
    • Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
×
×
  • Create New...