Giants Draft LSU's Malik Nabers: A Highly Competitive, Passionate Wide Receiver with a Chip on His Shoulder

New York, New York, USA United States of America
Giants prioritized Jones over Barkley in offseason.
Nabers described as highly passionate, highly competitive with a chip on his shoulder.
New York Giants drafted LSU's Malik Nabers as No. 6 pick in NFL Draft.
Giants Draft LSU's Malik Nabers: A Highly Competitive, Passionate Wide Receiver with a Chip on His Shoulder

The New York Giants have made a significant move in the offseason by selecting LSU wide receiver Malik Nabers with the No. 6 pick in the draft. Nabers, who is described as highly passionate, highly competitive, and having a big-time chip on his shoulder, has already piqued interest during the combine. However, there are concerns about how his intense competitiveness will manifest when things aren't going well.

Nabers has stated that he hates losing more than he loves winning and puts in the work during the week. The Giants' scouting department broke down Nabers' character and mental profile during the draft process, noting that they need all the information about the player they can get. They described him as highly compassionate, highly competitive, and someone who plays with a big-time chip on his shoulder.

Despite their interest in Nabers, the Giants prioritized Daniel Jones over Saquon Barkley in the offseason. Barkley was approached by the Giants to re-sign for less money and be a franchise legend, but he ultimately chose to test the free agent market and signed with the Philadelphia Eagles.

The Giants' decision to prioritize Jones over Barkley has been met with criticism from some analysts. However, general manager Joe Schoen made it clear that he didn't want to do the franchise-tag dance with Barkley after last year's tumultuous offseason.

Assistant general manager Brandon Brown noted that Nabers' personality didn't quite match with his on-field demeanor, as he seemed almost reserved compared to his personality on the field. However, the Giants still see him as a player who hates to lose and wants the ball.

In summary, the Giants have made a significant investment in Malik Nabers, seeing him as a highly competitive and passionate player who can help take their offense to the next level. Despite losing Saquon Barkley to free agency, the Giants are confident that they can build a successful team around Jones and Nabers.



Confidence

85%

Doubts
  • It is not clear if there are any injury concerns for Malik Nabers.
  • The article mentions concerns about how Nabers' intense competitiveness will manifest when things aren't going well.

Sources

97%

  • Unique Points
    • New York Giants GM Joe Schoen called Saquon Barkley to ask him to give the team a chance in free agency.
    • Saquon Barkley had previously expressed his desire to be a Giant for life.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

79%

  • Unique Points
    • The second episode of Hard Knocks: Offseason with the New York Giants provided a unique peek behind the curtain to see how NFL free agency unfolds.
    • Joe Schoen made it clear that he didn’t want to do the franchise-tag dance with Saquon Barkley.
  • Accuracy
    • General manager Joe Schoen made it clear that he didn’t want to do the franchise-tag dance with Saquon Barkley.
    • Schoen outlined his plan for negotiating with Barkley, mentioning a price he didn’t plan to blast past to keep the running back in New York.
    • Barkley eventually signed a three-year, $37.75 million deal with the division rival Philadelphia Eagles.
  • Deception (30%)
    The author, Kevin Patra, uses editorializing and selective reporting in this article. He presents the conversation between Joe Schoen and Saquon Barkley's agent as a one-sided negotiation where Schoen is reluctant to pay Barkley what he wants. However, the author fails to mention that Barkley was also given an offer by the Giants before being allowed to test the market. This omission creates a false narrative that Schoen was unwilling to keep Barkley in New York, which is deceptive. Additionally, Patra quotes Schoen's statements about not wanting to go through the franchise tag process again and letting Barkley test the market without mentioning that these decisions were made with input from Barkley and his agent.
    • Given the running back’s clipped responses, it sounded like he knew he’d probably wind up elsewhere
    • In upcoming episodes, we’ll see whether the Giants did, in fact, get a chance to match the Eagles’ offer and how the club reacted to Barkley's departure
    • The GM made it clear he had a price he didn’t plan to blast past to keep the running back in N.Y.
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The author uses an appeal to emotion when Schoen expresses his feelings towards Barkley and the possibility of him leaving. This is a form of informal fallacy as it does not provide any logical reasoning for the reader to accept or reject the statement made.
    • "I still think he can play, and I think he can help us. But I didn't want to come in on a number because I didn't really have a great idea of where the market is. That's why I'm going to let the league tell him what it is, and hey, if you want to come back and be a Giant for life and you're interested in staying here and coming back, just see what your market is and then have Ed come back to us, and we"ll see if we can come to an agreement."
    • "I love you, man. I appreciate everything you did for the organization the two years I was here,"
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

97%

  • Unique Points
    • The Giants described Malik Nabers as ‘highly compassionate’, ‘highly competitive’, and someone who plays with a big-time chip on his shoulder.
    • Malik Nabers stated that he hates losing more than he loves winning and puts in the work during the week.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The article contains a few informal fallacies and an example of a dichotomous depiction. The author presents an extreme statement by Malik Nabers about hating losing more than loving winning, which could be seen as an exaggeration (Hyperbole). Additionally, the author describes Nabers' personality as reserved compared to his on-field demeanor (Opposition). Lastly, there is a dichotomous depiction in the statement where Brian Daboll says, 'I want guys who want the ball, and I want guys who hate losing,' implying that a player must either love winning or hate losing with no middle ground considered. This results in a score of 85 out of 100.
    • Malik Nabers:
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

82%

  • Unique Points
    • The Giants prioritized Daniel Jones over Saquon Barkley in the offseason.
    • Saquon Barkley was approached by the Giants to re-sign for less money and be a franchise legend.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (30%)
    The article contains selective reporting as the author only reports details that support his position. The author states that 'To be fair, the Eagles’ offer was more than the Giants ever offered and more than Schoen even seemed to anticipate.' This implies that the Giants did not offer a competitive salary to Barkley, but it does not mention any specific numbers or offers from either party. Additionally, there is emotional manipulation as Schoen tries to sell Barkley on being a 'legend' with the Giants and being in their 'Ring of Honor.' This is an attempt to appeal to Barkley's emotions and make him feel a sense of loyalty and obligation to the team.
    • The Giants had been negotiating for several years, but it seemed like Schoen and the organization were ready to move on and reallocate their resources.
    • To be fair, the Eagles’ offer was more than the Giants ever offered and more than Schoen even seemed to anticipate.
  • Fallacies (95%)
    The author does not make any explicit fallacious statements in the article. However, there are some potential implicit fallacies that could be present based on the information provided. The author mentions that Herm Edwards disagrees with the Giants' decision to prioritize Jones over Barkley and implies that this was a mistake. This could potentially be an appeal to authority fallacy if it is being implied that Edwards' opinion is more valid or correct than the Giants'. However, without further context or explicit statements from the author, it is difficult to definitively determine if this is a fallacy. Additionally, there are some instances of inflammatory rhetoric used in the article such as
    • The Giants made a mistake prioritizing Daniel Jones and letting Saquon Barkley walk in the offseason.
    • Herm Edwards explains why the Giants made a mistake...
    • To be fair, the Eagles’ offer was more than the Giants ever offered...
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

100%

  • Unique Points
    • The Giants used the No. 6 pick on LSU wide receiver Malik Nabers.
    • Malik Nabers is described as highly passionate, highly competitive, and having a big-time chip on his shoulder.
    • There were concerns about how Nabers’ intense competitiveness will manifest when things aren’t going well.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication