BBV Editor Ed Valentine scans his wallet every week and answers questions posed by the reader. Many of the questions received were so good that they justified their own post. From this week I can answer such a question in a longer post.
This week's contribution is as follows in response to a letter from Bruce Frazer:
If (QB Josh) Rosen is provided by the Cardinals, do you really believe that the Giants would try a trade for him? Apparently, they were not thrilled with their potential over the rest of the 2018 QB class over the past year. The fact that he finished 10th suggests that other QB needy teams may have felt the same. According to what has been reported, it may be that they bring the QB issue to the point next year, when they have the upper limit and the ability to get the QB, which they really get from a superior pool of players want.
Thank you for the question, Bruce. I think there are a few misunderstandings here, so we take your question in turn, clarify it and come to an answer.
First, I really believe that a potential trade for Josh Rosen arrives at the Cardinals. Sell Price (assuming you bring the quarterback to market).
If you want to survive on a first or even a second round, then I do not think the Giants will make the move, as I suspect they want to spend at least two of those three goals on defensive players.
Now the question arises: Will the Cardinals accept a third and a conditional third player next year, and if so, under what conditions?
In this case, I suspect that they would not agree to trade with the Giants because the third round of the New York Round is at the bottom of the round, a total of 95.
Okay So if you're the Giants at this point, you must ask yourself if you really want roses. Would you like to send the number 2 and a conditional number 3 next year?
Or say, "In the second round, is there a lot of value where I do not want to spend it on a player who is likely to be sitting for a year?"
I personally think the Giants continue with Door # 2. If the goal is to be involved in building this year, you do not want to spend a design item on a man who is unlikely to contribute this year.
Bruce wrote, " It seems that last year [Giants] they were not so enthusiastic about its [ Rosen potential over the rest of the 2018-QB class."
We do not know that this is a fact, and I think it would be wrong to make that assumption on the basis of last year's development, considering that everyone knew how Dave Gettleman felt about Saquon Barkley.
What we do know based on what the Giants did is that Barkley was rated higher than all quarterbacks, which is why he was number two overall.
If Barkley had not been there, I believe the Giant's second option would have been offensive lineman Quinton Nelson or marginal kennel Bradley Chubb.
Last point. Bruce said he believed the Giants could "get the QB 1945 issue" until next year when they have the cap and assets to get the QB they really want from a much superior player pool.
The cap will have very little, if any, to do with this decision Remember that rookie deals are currently controlled and depend on where a player is, so you're not talking about a major investment What's worse is that the Giants widen Eli Manning's market value and then swap one of Alex Tanney or Kyle Lauletta for the new quarterback whose cap hit should not be much higher than Tanney's or Lauletta from 2020.
I think it all adds up to finding the right fit at the quarterback and not forcing anything in. Gettleman and Shurmur have worked very hard to redefine the culture in the locker room who hate losing (yes, that's a real thing, by the way).
I do not feel they care about guys who consider themselves a "brand" people who use football to promote themselves.
You're probably looking for a man willing to make the Quest Diagnostics Training Center his second home, as Manning has been doing for years. That's why I do not think they'll crash into decisions.