2024 NFL Draft Position/Tracker - Final Pick #2

[kingdaddy]

45 minutes ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

So why not just stick with Howell at that point? 

That's an option, depending on how the new coach and GM feel about Sam.

[kingdaddy]

2 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

 

But I’ll tell you what we cannot do: Take any of these three, but especially Daniels, and not have addressed OL.

 

Of course, we can get meaningful OL help in the draft, too. So we’ll see how all of this pans out.

Given that we have 5 picks in the first 3 rounds I would think this would be a pretty good year to take a QB at #4 knowing we can still grab linemen in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Plus, if we trade back with either or both of the 2nd round picks we could possibly accrue more picks to address TE and LB?

Keep Sam and groom the rookie QB and let the coaches figure out who they want to keep over the next 2 years. Sam will be up for an extension so we'll have his replacement already groomed an in place should we not want to pay him, or, we can pay him and deal the kid. Not a bad problem to have....as long as we take a kid with good character who won't rock the boat.

[MrJL]

29 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Given that we have 5 picks in the first 3 rounds I would think this would be a pretty good year to take a QB at #4 knowing we can still grab linemen in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Plus, if we trade back with either or both of the 2nd round picks we could possibly accrue more picks to address TE and LB?

Keep Sam and groom the rookie QB and let the coaches figure out who they want to keep over the next 2 years. Sam will be up for an extension so we'll have his replacement already groomed an in place should we not want to pay him, or, we can pay him and deal the kid. Not a bad problem to have....as long as we take a kid with good character who won't rock the boat.

We've taken second and third round OL. The best is Cosmi who's around a B+ player. The rest don't see the field. 

 

Now obviously we can't just use firsts on OL but as far as I'm concerned that shows we can't just be content starting in those rounds

Edited December 21, 2023 by MrJL

[kingdaddy]

1 minute ago, MrJL said:

We've taken second and third round OL. The best is Cosmi who's around a B+ player. The rest don't see the field

Hopefully a new regime puts an end to the high amount of draft misses...free agency can help too. 

[profusion]

1 minute ago, MrJL said:

We've taken second and third round OL. The best is Cosmi who's around a B+ player. The rest don't see the field

 

Obviously, the drafting has to improve no matter what. You don't generally get your franchise LT after the first round, but the other positions typically get drafted after the first. Between the draft and all that cap room, I expect the OL to be significantly better next year. That's where I'd put some of my FA emphasis.

[PlayAction]

13 minutes ago, profusion said:

 

Obviously, the drafting has to improve no matter what. You don't generally get your franchise LT after the first round, but the other positions typically get drafted after the first. Between the draft and all that cap room, I expect the OL to be significantly better next year. That's where I'd put some of my FA emphasis.

 

If the team uses the first-round pick on a QB, it may take the two second-round picks to move up for a premier LT (if available).  Assets dwindle quickly!  

[Koolblue13]

I'm down for whatever, but I want the Raiders to jump the Giants for our pick, to grab Daniels. We can then take Bowers or Fashanu or Alt.

 

I'd really like a LT, RT, TE, C/G, tall fast WR in the first two days.

[markmills67]

2 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I'm down for whatever, but I want the Raiders to jump the Giants for our pick, to grab Daniels. We can then take Bowers or Fashanu or Alt.

 

I'd really like a LT, RT, TE, C/G, tall fast WR in the first two days.

If we beat the Jets to finish 5-12,  and the Giants lose out who gets to pick first ?

[profusion]

18 minutes ago, PlayAction said:

 

If the team uses the first-round pick on a QB, it may take the two second-round picks to move up for a premier LT (if available).  Assets dwindle quickly!  

 

That would be awesome.

 

Personally, I don't think they'll be able to address both QB and franchise LT in the same year. Hopefully, they'll be able to make the OL better overall even if it doesn't have "the guy" yet.

[JamesMadisonSkins]

21 minutes ago, markmills67 said:

If we beat the Jets to finish 5-12,  and the Giants lose out who gets to pick first ?

 

SOS is Tie-Break #1.

 

First, division or conference tiebreakers are applied. If not applicable, or ties exist between teams of different conferences, ties are broken through the following measures, according to the NFL rulebook.

1. Head-to-head, if applicable
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games (minimum of four)
3. Strength of victory in all games
4. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed in all games
5. Best net points in all games
6. Best net touchdowns in all games
7. Coin toss

 

So if we beat the Jets, and tie the Giants on record and SOS, the next tie-break appears to be division record. In that case, we'd be 0-6, Giants would be 2-4, so I think we'd get the higher pick. 

 

There is a decent chance we would finish with the same SOS as the Giants. If you go with straight matchup favorites for the remaining games, and we beat the Jets, you'd be looking at the 5th pick. Now, if the Jets beat the Patriots in Week 18, we'd pick 4th and the Giants 5th. The first image is if the Pats beat the Jets in Week 18. The second image is if the Jets beat the Pats. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by JamesMadisonSkins

[JamesMadisonSkins]

Our rooting interests will definitely change depending on what happens this week with the Jets. 

 

If we beat the Jets, we really want the Patriots to beat the Jets in Week 18. If we lose to the Jets, we want the Jets to beat the Patriots. It all depends on whether we have access to the #2 pick. If we lose to the Jets, the #2 is very much in play. If we beat the Jets, #2 is out of the question and we really want the Jets to get to 6 wins so that we can get back up to #4.

 

If we beat the Jets this weekend and the Bears beat the Cardinals, we actually stay at the #4 pick for the time being. We are going to be bunched with a ton of 5 win teams but at the top. The SOS will change as the final two weeks play out, but at least for a moment in time, we could hang on to our current positioning. If the Cardinals beat the Bears, the Bears SOS puts them at 4 and us at 5. So it's funny --- we want the Cards to beat the Bears IF we lose to the Jets so we leap the Cards. But if we beat the Jets, we want the Bears to beat the Cards so they get to 6 wins. 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by JamesMadisonSkins

[JamesMadisonSkins]

Finally, there's a very realistic scenario that gets us to the #2 pick after this weekend. Again, a snapshot in time, SOS will change in the final two weeks. But if the Pats beat the Broncos, and the Cardinals beat the Bears, if we lose to the Jets we'll go into next week in the #2 slot.

 

If you play out all of the scenarios, our best case is likely #2, and our worst case is probably #7. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by JamesMadisonSkins

[JamesMadisonSkins]

58 minutes ago, PlayAction said:

 

If the team uses the first-round pick on a QB, it may take the two second-round picks to move up for a premier LT (if available).  Assets dwindle quickly!  

 

There are ways to get both in this draft, it would just take assets. We could draft a QB at our earliest pick, then use a future 1st and one of our 2nds to come back into the mid-first for a LT. Or flip that. Draft an OT in the Top 5, then use a future 1 to come back in with one of our 2nds to draft a QB that might fall. Both feel like unrealistic expectations. I would guess the more likely scenario would be to come back up for a LT ... but not sure many here would love the idea of parting with our 2025 1st especially if we strip down for a re-build. I would suspect we add future draft capital versus use it to move back up. Our new FO will likely want to add future assets rather than use them to add talent in this draft. 

 

Maybe if the FO loves one of the QBs slated for the last 1st, they draft an OT in the Top 5 and then pair the two 2nds to come back into the 1st to add a QB. That would be an option without sacrificing future draft capital, but a lot would have to fall into place for that to happen. 

 

The trade value chart indicates that we should be able to trade our pair of 2's to move up anywhere from 16-20. To me, it makes sense that we could draft a Jayden Daniels at #4, and then trade back into the late-middle-1st to get a LT if one is sitting there. 

4. Jayden Daniels, QB LSU

20. Armarius Mims, LT Georgia

Edited December 21, 2023 by JamesMadisonSkins

[JamesMadisonSkins]

I would absolutely love it if this FO let the draft come to them, and really valued future assets. For example:

 

What if we got to the #2 pick, but did not feel we HAD to go QB. We prioritized adding draft capital. What if the Pats are at #4 and we are at #2. We could get their 2nd and future 1st to swap picks. They draft Drake Maye. Cardinals at #3 go Marvin Harrison, Jr. We are back on the clock at #4 ... we now have the option to draft Jayden Daniels at #4 having added a 2025 1st and owning three early 2nd round picks. Draft Jayden Daniels at #4. Package two of the 2nds to move into the middle 1st and draft an OT. You get the QB, LT, maintain a 2/3/3 through Day 2, and add a future potentially high 1st round pick? 

 

This sort of scenario could only play out if the front office took a passive approach to the first pick. Maximize draft capital, and see what happens. But you'd need to go into the draft / this scenario understanding you may not get your future QB. If the Cardinals traded out of #3 and someone came up ahead of us to take Daniels ... well now you go LT with the #4 pick ... and you've still added a future 1st if you want to go QB next year. And you could use your added #2 to get a QB that falls. So many different scenarios could play out with a FO that goes into the draft with the future in mind and not married to a QB. I know I am in fantasy land with this scenario. But that would be a cool approach that could ultimately pay off in spades long term.

Edited December 21, 2023 by JamesMadisonSkins

[kingdaddy]

23 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

The trade value chart indicates that we should be able to trade our pair of 2's to move up anywhere from 16-20. To me, it makes sense that we could draft a Jayden Daniels at #4, and then trade back into the late-middle-1st to get a LT if one is sitting there. 

4. Jayden Daniels, QB LSU

20. Armarius Mims, LT Georgia

Good draft already....Plus we'd have both of them on 5 year contracts if we want. Still have 100 mil in cap room too.

[seantaylor=god]

Great scenario. If we beat the Jets and end up picking 4 or 5, I would also probably trade down as far as 7 because that guarantees you get one of the QBs, MHJ, Brock Bowers, or one of the top OTs. 
 

I really think it makes sense to package those 2s to come back into the first if there is a player you really like. The 5th year is huge.

[Warhead36]

8 minutes ago, seantaylor=god said:

Great scenario. If we beat the Jets and end up picking 4 or 5, I would also probably trade down as far as 7 because that guarantees you get one of the QBs, MHJ, Brock Bowers, or one of the top OTs. 
 

I really think it makes sense to package those 2s to come back into the first if there is a player you really like. The 5th year is huge.

Yeah I'd consider packaging those 2nds to move back up if a LT/RT prospect falls(assuming we don't draft one in the 1st). But I also think we could package a 2nd and 3rd to get into the very end of the 1st and still keep the other 2nd.

[Skinsinparadise]

6 hours ago, MrJL said:

We've taken second and third round OL. The best is Cosmi who's around a B+ player. The rest don't see the field. 

 

Now obviously we can't just use firsts on OL but as far as I'm concerned that shows we can't just be content starting in those rounds

 

We haven't really played that much in recent years in the 2nd and third for O line.  It's actually the sweet spot typically for RT-C-G.  Just not LT.   Years ago, Moses was a third rounder.  Jansen was a stud, 2nd round pick. 

 

We are picking early in the 2nd twice of course.  And will have an early pick in the third.  And I just saw we got the 2nd most cap room in the league.

 

The only limitation we would have if we don't use the first round pick on O line is we'd have to likely ride again with Leno at LT.  Otherwise if anything I'd hate taking a RT or C or Guard with a top 5 pick.  Even if we rode it with Howell, I'd rather take a WR that high.  

[Skinsinparadise]

I am not worried much about the Dallas game right now if the season keeps unfolding like this.  But this Jets game worries me a lot.  The Jets are awful.

 

Lets hope no Leno, Larsen and Robinson.

 

 

 

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

7 hours ago, MrJL said:

We've taken second and third round OL. The best is Cosmi who's around a B+ player. The rest don't see the field. 

 

Now obviously we can't just use firsts on OL but as far as I'm concerned that shows we can't just be content starting in those rounds

Cosmi, Stromberg (jury's still out) the last OL we took in the 2nd or 3rd round was Geron Christian in 2018 and before that Morgan Moses in 2014.

 

So it's not like our OL problems are caused by missing on 2nd and 3rd rounders. 

[skinny21]

Foregoing qb and being on the receiving end of a bidding war for our pick is pretty darn tempting, especially if we only drop back a couple/few slots.  Trade back for a 2025 1st, plus a second day pick this year and we could trade back into the 1st while still holding two 2nds and two 3rds (or one 2nd and three 3rds, etc depending on the trade back compensation).  We’ll probably screw that possibility up by winning vs the Jets of course… sigh.

21 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

We haven't really played that much in recent years in the 2nd and third for O line.  It's actually the sweet spot typically for RT-C-G.  Just not LT.   Years ago, Moses was a third rounder.  Jansen was a stud, 2nd round pick. 

 

We are picking early in the 2nd twice of course.  And will have an early pick in the third.  And I just saw we got the 2nd most cap room in the league.

 

The only limitation we would have if we don't use the first round pick on O line is we'd have to likely ride again with Leno at LT.  Otherwise if anything I'd hate taking a RT or C or Guard with a top 5 pick.  Even if we rode it with Howell, I'd rather take a WR that high.  

I wouldn’t overly mind a RT if 1) they plan for him to flip to LT the following year - I’d rather a semi-competent Leno at LT and a good rookie at RT than a rookie at LT (who may or may not be an immediate upgrade from Leno), and Leno possibly sucking it up at RT (if past is prologue).  2) Skirts your point, but if we trade down a tad first.

 

More importantly, the reason I quoted you - given the apparent depth at tackle and receiver, which makes more sense to target in the 1st vs 2nd?  What if Bowers is also in the mix - Bowers, then OT and WR in the 2nd?  Or possibly trade up into the 1st for one of those 2?

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

We haven't really played that much in recent years in the 2nd and third for O line.  It's actually the sweet spot typically for RT-C-G.  Just not LT.   Years ago, Moses was a third rounder.  Jansen was a stud, 2nd round pick. 

 

We are picking early in the 2nd twice of course.  And will have an early pick in the third.  And I just saw we got the 2nd most cap room in the league.

 

The only limitation we would have if we don't use the first round pick on O line is we'd have to likely ride again with Leno at LT.  Otherwise if anything I'd hate taking a RT or C or Guard with a top 5 pick.  Even if we rode it with Howell, I'd rather take a WR that high.  

You answered first and stole my thunder. 

 

This kind of thing is why people don't like you. 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, skinny21 said:

 

More importantly, the reason I quoted you - given the apparent depth at tackle and receiver, which makes more sense to target in the 1st vs 2nd?  What if Bowers is also in the mix - Bowers, then OT and WR in the 2nd?  Or possibly trade up into the 1st for one of those 2?

 

Tough call.  If we beat the Jets and lets say are out of the top 3 QB sweepstakes.  

 

I am still digesting the Wrs but I think Nabers might end up #2 for me.  I love Bowers.  And I like Fashanu better than some others here.  Ditto Alt.

 

For example Nabers versus Bowers versus Fashanu -- I don't have a strong opinion either way.

 

Lets say we pick 6

 

Bears -- Caleb Williams

Pats -- Drake Maye

Cards -- Marvin Harrison

Jets -- Fashanu

Giants -- Daniels

Washington

 

That's my best guess that would leave Alt, Nabers, Bowers. If you put a gun to my head I'd take Bowers but its close.  I'd trade down if I could.

 

Good depth at WR with Oduzne, Legete, mayne Coleman in a trade down.  Ditto at RT with Mims, Fauga, Latham, Morgan, Guyton.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Stone Cold]

9 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Tough call.  If we beat the Jets and lets say are out of the top 3 QB sweepstakes.  

 

I am still digesting the Wrs but I think Nabers might end up #2 for me.  I love Bowers.  And I like Fashanu better than some others here.  Ditto Alt.

 

For example Nabers versus Bowers versus Fashanu -- I don't have a strong opinion either way.

 

Lets say we pick 6

 

Bears -- Caleb Williams

Pats -- Drake Maye

Cards -- Marvin Harrison

Jets -- Fashanu

Giants -- Daniels

Washington

 

That's my best guess that would leave Alt, Nabers, Bowers. If you put a gun to my head I'd take Bowers but its close.  I'd trade down if I could.

 

Good depth at WR with Oduzne, Legete, mayne Coleman in a trade down.  Ditto at RT with Mims, Fauga, Latham, Morgan, Guyton.

Given that draft scenario, agree 100% the pick should be bowers.  However, I’m only taking bowers after I’ve solicited our pick for a swap, 2d or 3d and next years 1.  Once and or if we’re  out of the top 5, I think it cements Sam as the qb moving forward and the more picks we can accumulate to build around him the better

[Forehead]

10 hours ago, markmills67 said:

If we beat the Jets to finish 5-12,  and the Giants lose out who gets to pick first ?

 

I always appreciate thorough answers like JMS, but here's the simple answer.  Find the three teams we have on our schedule that are uncommon with the Giants.

 

For us, Broncos, Bears, Falcons

 

For them, Packers, Saints, Raiders

 

We need the combined record of our three teams to be worse than their three.  Currently our three are 18 - 24.  Theirs are 19-23.  

 

So exclusive to the Giants, root against the three we played and for the three they played.