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!

     

Fitterer on trading out of the #6 pick


TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

One of the 3 will be there.  

Cross will be there and shouldn’t be taken at 6. I’ve seen him ranked in the 20s by scouts. He also would have trouble sliding over to OG if he struggles at LT giving him a higher bust potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ForJimmy said:

Cross will be there and shouldn’t be taken at 6. I’ve seen him ranked in the 20s by scouts. He also would have trouble sliding over to OG if he struggles at LT giving him a higher bust potential.

The Giants apparently love Cross…but the Giants are pretty nuts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yeah, the Giants have been almost as poorly ran as we've been in recent years. The final nail in the coffin of the "we really screwed up firing Gettleman" argument.

 

Gettleman was really bad for them.  Similar situation with picking Daniel Jones that high.  He reached.  OT drafting was suspect as well.   I think he has a belief in building a team that was behind the curve.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ikey might bust.  We evaluate this dude against competition and he was average.  Lots of reaching blocks and he might have weight issues.  Neal is so much more refined as a player.  Penning is extremely underrated as a LT prospect.  Really good athleticism.  Concerned about his his jump in comp but this dude is huge, strong and nasty.  Do like Penning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It's worked before. Your best bet of landing a legit QB is with a VERY high first round draft pick. So yeah, if #6 overall could get us either a good LT or a spectacularly bad QB, I'll go with option B. We're still a 6-7 win roster with a good LT. That'll be good for a pick in the lower half of the top 10 again. And likely watching those QBs we covet go just out of reach. Again.

 

 

This is such a weird take…if your goal is to put all your eggs in the 2023 basket, then why not Option C - trade #6 for multiple picks in next year’s draft? Your preference is for us to waste a #6 OVR pick on a bust of a QB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

Here's the problem:

We need a QB and LT 

We have the #6 pick but our next selection is #137 

This means we can only solve 1 of those two issues

- we take Pickett/Willis @6 we miss out on a LT

- we take Cross/Ekwonu @6 we miss out on a QB

In this draft, we can take a QB at 6 and miss out on both a LT and QB.  If so, next year we could well be exactly where we are in both positions right now, except maybe with a backup QB on a rookie contract. 

I have no faith in this year's QB class, and even if I did, I have less faith in our ability to evaluate which of them might just turn into an NFL QB.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It's honestly pretty interesting just seeing this pairing play out. Canales’ offenses (Seattle, Tampa) are run-first, under-center, play-action systems built around defined reads and intermediate/deep timing throws. That structure worked when he had QBs like Baker Mayfield or Russell Wilson in a system that created clear launch points and sightlines. His success has always been tied to a credible run game + play-action gravity. You can see that with the Panthers team building philosophy as well. Coker and TMac both are bigger receivers that won't get the best YAC production but thrive as possession receivers in contested scenarios. They're not the best in space and creating additional yardage in such, and would likely fair better systematically with a stronger armed QB who can create better opportunities on those boundary 1v1 matchups with stronger throws. Bryce, on the other hand, is a spread-native QB. His strengths are rhythm, spacing, quick processing, and off-script creation. Asking him to live in condensed formations with long-developing play-action concepts just hasn't been his forte. And well, his boundary throws are limited in velocity which takes a big chunk of the playbook off. And I mean a QB like Bryce can still work, it's just Dave's offensive philosophy and foundation is very much at odds with Young's physical limits and his own experience. So it's certainly still a learning experience for Dave to figure out how he can mesh his offensive philosophy with Young's strengths. He's very inexperienced with maximizing Bryce's strengths with his system. Would love to see us bring in an OC with spread experience and adaptability to implement a cohesive system with Dave to allow Bryce to thrive, as it's obvious we're sticking with him for a bit longer.   
    • Only thing I really agreed with is questioning why we didn’t take any timeouts on their last drive.  I know hindsight is 20/20, but I think it would’ve saved clock bc they were desperate to score as soon as the opportunity presented itself, but I also think it could’ve helped the defense regroup and maybe give us a better chance to stop them.
×
×
  • Create New...