<![CDATA[Giants want to trade up for WR]]>Rumors from SI.com and from NY say the Giants want to move up to obtain a WR. They are looking at middle of the first round knowing that Crabtree and Maclin will both be gone by #8.

Two questions:

Would you be willing to take their #29 and their #45 (from NO) for our #5? the Giants also have pick #60. Knowing that Jacksonville may be willing to trade up also from #8 but that may only get us a 3rd rounder. Philly is also making noise about needing to come away from the draft with a top receiver.

Would you be willing to trade Edwards to the Giants or Philly for their #1?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/topic/3668/giants-want-to-trade-up-for-wrRSS for NodeThu, 01 Oct 2026 03:53:36 GMTWed, 18 Mar 2009 00:18:07 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:19:58 GMT]]>I would trade Edwards to the Giants or Philly or anybody outside our division for their

first round draft pick.

He can't catch the stupid football with consistency. But he will probably start doing it somewhere else... (*&^%%

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53693https://brownsboard.com/post/53693Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:19:58 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:01:08 GMT]]>

@thaak said:

First scenario... no way in hell

#5 pick overall is worth 1,700 points

#29 pick overall is worth 640

#45 pick overall is worth 450.

We'd lose 610 points, which is a late 1st round draft pick (31 is 600 and 30 is 620).

Before you guys start coming up with these scenarios... PLEASE look at the following site.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/ins...tory?id=2410670

Sometimes points don't make as much sense as getting out of something you don't want. IMO, there is more value with two picls at #29 and #45 then one at #5 where we might get forced into a pick for a hybrid DE/OLB that could blow up on us. So, if we are short too many pointrs then add something like a 3rd next year of a player. Hey, it's just a hypothetical anyway. I just think there is a lot of value at the end of the first round and top of the second round. The price players command with the top 6 picks is stupid. The reason it is so hard to trade down.

Maybe it just might be better to give a discount to get out of there.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53462https://brownsboard.com/post/53462Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:01:08 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:49:18 GMT]]>I think the whole draft trade value chart is silly. If anything it has restricted trading more than enabling it. The new one is a little better. If a team thinks its worth it to trade their #5 overall for a #29 overall and a #45 overall then so be it.

I'd be ok with that. Two early draft picks instead of one, without having to overpay for the possibility of a bust at #5. Throw in a late rounder or a player to even if up if ya like I suppose.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53460https://brownsboard.com/post/53460Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:49:18 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:14:48 GMT]]>

@thaak said:

First scenario... no way in hell

Before you guys start coming up with these scenarios... PLEASE look at the following site.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/ins...tory?id=2410670

there's also this draft value chart, which better reflects the insane financial investment that teams have to make at the top of the draft vs. the likelihood of getting a positive return. it's a more realistic representation of how forces have shifted at the top of the draft.

that being said, we still lose 480 points, equivalent to the 42nd overall pick, in this trade, so hell no.

and edwards should bring back multiple picks if we trade him, not just a first. i'd set a first and a fourth or, possibly, two seconds as a minimum of what it would take to get him.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53447https://brownsboard.com/post/53447Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:14:48 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:08:11 GMT]]>

@alendor said:

yes, we traded winslow, cut JJ, stalworth is gone. lets get rid of our last remaining WR, that makes sense.

Gotta say losing Braylon concerns me as it wasn't too long ago we were all lamenting we had no playmakers and our QB's had nobody to throw to.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53386https://brownsboard.com/post/53386Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:08:11 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:26:21 GMT]]>

@ytownbrownsbacker said:

That's the point. If he does go then Crabtree will be there. Also, salary would be freed up and you could go after Holt too.

I like this - I think Holt would be a huge benefit to this team's receivers and QB - whoever they may be.

Holt, Crabtree + another decent veteran FA or pick up someone in FA.

We've also got Hubbard and Steptoe if they can be developed further.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53385https://brownsboard.com/post/53385Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:26:21 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:25:08 GMT]]>

@ytownbrownsbacker said:

Rumors from SI.com and from NY say the Giants want to move up to obtain a WR. They are looking at middle of the first round knowing that Crabtree and Maclin will both be gone by #8.

Two questions:

Would you be willing to take their #29 and their #45 (from NO) for our #5? the Giants also have pick #60. Knowing that Jacksonville may be willing to trade up also from #8 but that may only get us a 3rd rounder. Philly is also making noise about needing to come away from the draft with a top receiver.

Would you be willing to trade Edwards to the Giants or Philly for their #1?

First scenario... no way in hell

#5 pick overall is worth 1,700 points

#29 pick overall is worth 640

#45 pick overall is worth 450.

We'd lose 610 points, which is a late 1st round draft pick (31 is 600 and 30 is 620).

Before you guys start coming up with these scenarios... PLEASE look at the following site.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/ins...tory?id=2410670

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53342https://brownsboard.com/post/53342Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:25:08 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:13:01 GMT]]>

@playgroundlegend said:

The issue is not whether we want Edwards or not, it is whether he wants us. If he wants to leave next year, we get nothing for him.

That's the point. If he does go then Crabtree will be there. Also, salary would be freed up and you could go after Holt too.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53341https://brownsboard.com/post/53341Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:13:01 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:08:51 GMT]]>The issue is not whether we want Edwards or not, it is whether he wants us. If he wants to leave next year, we get nothing for him.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53340https://brownsboard.com/post/53340Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:08:51 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:06:09 GMT]]>Is everyone here taking crazy pills!?!? With Edwards, we already have a very sub par receiving core... without Edwards.. maybe the worst in the NFL. This is a contract year for Edwards.. hopefully he comes alive and becomes the receiver we all hope he would be. I feel like I'm the only one on this board that wants to keep Edwards. However, Crabtree at pick 5!!!???

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53338https://brownsboard.com/post/53338Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:06:09 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:15:07 GMT]]>I think we will be keeping Braylon, but the coaches will realize 1/2 way through the season that they should have got rid of the guy.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53311https://brownsboard.com/post/53311Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:15:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:09:58 GMT]]>I don't think we currently have the, uh... depth... in our WR depth chart to afford to lose another player in that position.

As far as I understand it, Braylon's underwhelming performance last year was not completely his fault. If he can manage to replicate 2007 in any way this year, he is a must have. Mangini seems to be no nonsense enough to whip that boy into shape.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53308https://brownsboard.com/post/53308Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:09:58 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:07:04 GMT]]>yes, we traded winslow, cut JJ, stalworth is gone. lets get rid of our last remaining WR, that makes sense.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53307https://brownsboard.com/post/53307Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:07:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:06:14 GMT]]>

@mr.-t said:

But just taking their #29 and #45 may not be enough, it would really hurt our offense to loose him.

Agreed. I would rather trade them the five for the 29 and 45 and a 2nd next year. Hell, even that doesn't sound like enough.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53306https://brownsboard.com/post/53306Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:06:14 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:58:05 GMT]]>Edwards fits the NY Giants mold, unexpected spectacular catches! 😛

But just taking their #29 and #45 may not be enough, it would really hurt our offense to loose him.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53300https://brownsboard.com/post/53300Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:58:05 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:08:11 GMT]]>Not a bad though.........

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53281https://brownsboard.com/post/53281Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:08:11 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:06:53 GMT]]>Yes.. I would take the 29 and 45..(and a backup saftey or lb.. for good measure. ).. The giants could throw a player at us to make this happen.. I am all for more high picks..

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53279https://brownsboard.com/post/53279Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:06:53 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Giants want to trade up for WR on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:49:29 GMT]]>Yes.....been suggesting that for a few weeks now....Edwards to NY makes sense.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/53273https://brownsboard.com/post/53273Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:49:29 GMT