MTK
03-13-2019, 10:59 AM
Read it and weep G1
Who won the Odell Beckham Jr. trade (http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26243468/nfl-experts-predict-won-odell-beckham-jr-trade-new-afc-north-favorite)
Rate the Giants on the 1-10 love-it-or-hate-it scale: How did they fare in the deal?
Bowen: 2. I'm struggling to figure out the direction of the franchise -- and the identity the Giants are trying to build -- after trading away Beckham in the prime of his career. Yes, the Giants got multiple picks and Peppers in the deal, but Beckham is a game-changer. Hard to find those guys.
Clay: 1. What on earth are the Giants doing? Dumping Beckham is their most egregious move yet, but they've also moved on from NT Damon Harrison, CB Eli Apple, LB Olivier Vernon and S Landon Collins over the past year. Newcomer Peppers is only 23 and certainly could emerge to become a difference-maker and they've done a nice job upgrading the offensive line, but at what cost? This 38-year-old-quarterback-led roster is officially one of the worst in the league.
Graziano: 1. The Giants are an unmitigated fiasco at this point. You can argue that they should be in rebuild mode and you'd be right. The problem is they should have been in rebuild mode last year and Gettleman insisted (and operated as if) they weren't. If you're in rebuild mode, you don't even sign Beckham to the deal you gave him last summer. Now they're eating $28 million in dead money over the next two years and have paid Beckham a little bit less than $22 million for 12 games. Last year was the QB draft, and they took a running back. This year is the defensive line draft, and they might need to take a QB instead. They're not keeping up with reality.
Kimes: 2. I'm dumbfounded. Unlike Antonio Brown, Beckham didn't force New York's hand. The fact that they're trading him so quickly after extending him (the team will incur $16 million in dead money this year), makes me question the Giants' strategy. It seems possible that they're trying to accrue assets to pursue a young quarterback, but isn't that a need they should've foreseen last year before they paid Beckham?
Reid: 1. I would have gone lower, but the editors didn't provide that option. I've been saying for weeks that the Giants must have a plan. And they do: It just appears to be a really, really bad one. Why did they recommit to Eli Manning for another season and trade Beckham, who received a massive deal last summer? Why didn't they draft a quarterback in last year's quarterback-deep draft? And if they're about to begin a rebuild, why is Manning still atop the roster? What's clear is that Tuna (Bill Parcells), Lawrence Taylor and Phil Simms aren't walking through that door. And even if they did, they couldn't help fix this mess.
Sando: 3. It's usually a terrible sign when an organization led by the same people changes course so abruptly within a one-year span. What is the plan? If the Giants realized they made a mistake by signing Beckham to a rich deal, it's understandable that they might want to undo that mistake. However, they should have known all they needed to know about Beckham before entering into an extension. At least they got something in return.
Seifert: 2. Even if you could make a plausible argument for trading a transcendent player locked into a five-year contract, it's impossible to believe that this is all you could get for him. The only partially redeeming consequence for the Giants will be if they use the first-round pick to move up and draft a quarterback who could replace Manning sooner rather than later.
Yates: 1. This underscores what some around the NFL have believed for quite some time: The Giants were never fully sold on Beckham from the moment they signed him to an extension. In the NFL, it's important to have a clear path, even if it's one that means retooling or rebuilding. What is the Giants' path?
Who won the Odell Beckham Jr. trade (http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26243468/nfl-experts-predict-won-odell-beckham-jr-trade-new-afc-north-favorite)
Rate the Giants on the 1-10 love-it-or-hate-it scale: How did they fare in the deal?
Bowen: 2. I'm struggling to figure out the direction of the franchise -- and the identity the Giants are trying to build -- after trading away Beckham in the prime of his career. Yes, the Giants got multiple picks and Peppers in the deal, but Beckham is a game-changer. Hard to find those guys.
Clay: 1. What on earth are the Giants doing? Dumping Beckham is their most egregious move yet, but they've also moved on from NT Damon Harrison, CB Eli Apple, LB Olivier Vernon and S Landon Collins over the past year. Newcomer Peppers is only 23 and certainly could emerge to become a difference-maker and they've done a nice job upgrading the offensive line, but at what cost? This 38-year-old-quarterback-led roster is officially one of the worst in the league.
Graziano: 1. The Giants are an unmitigated fiasco at this point. You can argue that they should be in rebuild mode and you'd be right. The problem is they should have been in rebuild mode last year and Gettleman insisted (and operated as if) they weren't. If you're in rebuild mode, you don't even sign Beckham to the deal you gave him last summer. Now they're eating $28 million in dead money over the next two years and have paid Beckham a little bit less than $22 million for 12 games. Last year was the QB draft, and they took a running back. This year is the defensive line draft, and they might need to take a QB instead. They're not keeping up with reality.
Kimes: 2. I'm dumbfounded. Unlike Antonio Brown, Beckham didn't force New York's hand. The fact that they're trading him so quickly after extending him (the team will incur $16 million in dead money this year), makes me question the Giants' strategy. It seems possible that they're trying to accrue assets to pursue a young quarterback, but isn't that a need they should've foreseen last year before they paid Beckham?
Reid: 1. I would have gone lower, but the editors didn't provide that option. I've been saying for weeks that the Giants must have a plan. And they do: It just appears to be a really, really bad one. Why did they recommit to Eli Manning for another season and trade Beckham, who received a massive deal last summer? Why didn't they draft a quarterback in last year's quarterback-deep draft? And if they're about to begin a rebuild, why is Manning still atop the roster? What's clear is that Tuna (Bill Parcells), Lawrence Taylor and Phil Simms aren't walking through that door. And even if they did, they couldn't help fix this mess.
Sando: 3. It's usually a terrible sign when an organization led by the same people changes course so abruptly within a one-year span. What is the plan? If the Giants realized they made a mistake by signing Beckham to a rich deal, it's understandable that they might want to undo that mistake. However, they should have known all they needed to know about Beckham before entering into an extension. At least they got something in return.
Seifert: 2. Even if you could make a plausible argument for trading a transcendent player locked into a five-year contract, it's impossible to believe that this is all you could get for him. The only partially redeeming consequence for the Giants will be if they use the first-round pick to move up and draft a quarterback who could replace Manning sooner rather than later.
Yates: 1. This underscores what some around the NFL have believed for quite some time: The Giants were never fully sold on Beckham from the moment they signed him to an extension. In the NFL, it's important to have a clear path, even if it's one that means retooling or rebuilding. What is the Giants' path?