Elliott would be BPA at 10

unless possibly jack is there. Question is there a player you would expect to make a bigger impact in year one than elliot? I don't think so. And with Reese's job on the line, he may pull the trigger. A trio of Eli, Beckham, and Elliot would be lethal

at 10. I believe he goes to the Cowboys at 4. If not, the Dolphins (Trader Tannenbaum)- will trade up for him.

am coming around on Elliott being the choice. If they consider him as good a prospect as Gurley (i think he's better) - and they can wait on defense in rounds 2 and 3...I'm in.

but I have completely come around 180 degrees to really liking Elliott and believe he's a game changer and someone who would give the Giants a two-headed monster for Eli to exploit.

We have a batch of RB's, all with a single purpose and the defense knows what play is on by which RB is in. With Elliott in there; there is unlimited options because he can run, or go out for a play action pass, or go deep, or block like a blocking TE to keep Eli clean, and there is no way to know what play is on simply because he is on the field. He'd create a nightmare for defenses.

Fewer 3 and outs and fewer settling for field goals because we get stuck in the red zone. And the longer the offense keeps the ball in their court, our defense suddenly gets better because they are fresher from not being on the field for an inordinate amount of time risking injury and being winded.

I'd be very happy to have him on our team. And even though he'd be our feature back, we could extend his NFL life by rotating him with our other backs to keep his legs fresh rather than let him take a ridiculous amount of pounding and shortening his career like most feature backs.

You might be right about the BPA thing, but RB is a luxury pick on this team right now. We can get production from guys currently on our roster there. At 10, I'd really prefer we focus on one of the many deficiencies on this roster before going RB.

unclear yet where relative to the other key names discussed.

In comment 12921933 hitdog42 said:

Quote:

unclear yet where relative to the other key names discussed.

I'm itching for info... I need a fix... Lmao!

In comment 12921933 hitdog42 said:

Quote:

unclear yet where relative to the other key names discussed.

Very interesting. To be worth it at 10 this guy needs to be close to the level of Gurley. Is he that? He could be.

how do you know BPA @ 10 when you don't know who is going to be there @ 10

Stanley is in the conversation, but has some effort question marks that have been discussed on BBI (perhaps no where else). Jack is in the conversation, but I'm not willing to ignore a deteriorating knee that could be in sharp decline after one year (could hold up for five, but I'm not taking that chance). Hargreaves seems to have more minuses, even though he has to be the highest ranked CB since the end of the NCAA season for some reason.
I would be happy with any of them, Jack at the bottom of the list. Conklin not in the conversation. His own coach didnt give him a ringing endorsement as far as his ability to play LT in the NFL. Said he could with work, but not a guarantee.

In comment 12921984 shabu said:

Quote:

how do you know BPA @ 10 when you don't know who is going to be there @ 10

Assuming guys like Ramsey and Bosa are gone. Even then, I think Elliott is BPA. He's a top 3 player in this draft IMO.

In comment 12921944 Coach Mason said:

Quote:

In comment 12921933 hitdog42 said: Quote: unclear yet where relative to the other key names discussed. Very interesting. To be worth it at 10 this guy needs to be close to the level of Gurley. Is he that? He could be.

He's better than Gurley, with zero major injury history to boot.

Why do you say he's better than Gurley? I never hear any draftniks say that.

In comment 12922030 mrvax said:

Quote:

Why do you say he's better than Gurley? I never hear any draftniks say that.

Just my opinion, but Elliott is the more complete back. Gurley wins with pure power and explosion in his legs and he's decisive - pretty much a one cut kinda guy but he's great at it. Gurley doesn't give you much from a blocking standpoint but I know some people don't really consider that a negative and that's OK.

Elliott is same height and weight (Gurley may have half an inch on him) - but Elliott's vision and cut back ability is elite - haven't seen a back do the things he does when he's in between the tackles. His blocking ability is second to none in the nation, and he's great out of the backfield. If I'm taking a RB in the top 20 of the draft, I want him to do everything well, and I mean everything. Elliott does nothing poorly, in fact he pretty much does everything at an elite level.

I think he'll be gone by #10.

In comment 12922094 mrvax said:

Quote:

I think he'll be gone by #10.

I agree - and that might not be a terrible thing. The urge for Reese to take Elliott over a defensive difference maker would be incredibly enticing. It'd be a classic "star power RB" vs "our defense sucks" type pick. Ugh.

without an OL creating lots of space.

In comment 12922099 Jay in Toronto said:

Quote:

without an OL creating lots of space.

Another good point - but - sometimes these types of talents can do it on their own (like Gurley in St. Louis with an average line).

to find many analysts who think Elliott is better than Gurley.

Gurley was so good, he went high in the draft despite teams knowing he'd miss some of the season. If he wasn't injured, there was talk he'd go #1.

Elliott is the best back in a weak class of RB's. Let's not make him out to be the next Adrian Peterson. Hell, let's not even make him out to be the next Gurley.

with guys like these to hit a home run and be off to the races. Think of Beckham - he only needs half a second and he's gone. Elliott's vision is something running backs can dream of - he sees a hole for a split second and he's off.

In comment 12922109 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

to find many analysts who think Elliott is better than Gurley. Gurley was so good, he went high in the draft despite teams knowing he'd miss some of the season. If he wasn't injured, there was talk he'd go #1. Elliott is the best back in a weak class of RB's. Let's not make him out to be the next Adrian Peterson. Hell, let's not even make him out to be the next Gurley.

I completely disagree. I watched nearly every OSU game for the past 2 years. The kid is unreal.

in rows or tiers. They then select from the players left in the highest tier on their board.
If they have Elliot in the top tier (likely) and he is the only player left from say, Tunsil, Bosa, Buckner, Ramsey, Jack, and Stanley, then they should take him. (I left out the QBs as I have no idea where they would rate them.)

Now if he is the in second tier with Floyd, Hargreaves, Conklin, Apple, McKenzie etc, they would chose from that list (assuming the entire first tier is gone) and it allows them to fill a need with a BPA.

I believe, from all the articles that I read, that is they way the Giants draft.

if jack is gone then elliot should be the pick. i am also in the group that was hell no to him earlier but i am starting to come around and i am actually excited about him being the potential pick

but it would be easy to prove one point or another.

There aren't many analysts saying Elliott is better than Gurley. Period.

In comment 12922125 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

but it would be easy to prove one point or another. There aren't many analysts saying Elliott is better than Gurley. Period.

FatMan while I respect your opinion - you simply haven't been paying attention. Here's an example...



PFF: Elliott is best, most complete back since Adrian Peterson - ( New Window )

and other ESPN Insiders have been saying Elliott is the best RB prospect in a decade. This stuff is out there.

disagreeing to disagree, fine, I get it. But don't just make comments that have no merit.

In comment 12922109 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

to find many analysts who think Elliott is better than Gurley. Gurley was so good, he went high in the draft despite teams knowing he'd miss some of the season. If he wasn't injured, there was talk he'd go #1. Elliott is the best back in a weak class of RB's. Let's not make him out to be the next Adrian Peterson. Hell, let's not even make him out to be the next Gurley.

No way is he better than Gurley. Gurley was by far the best player on the field almost every game at college. I still think Urban's offense opened up so much for the run game. His spread formations and QB's ability to run and all the weapons (Braxton, M. Thomas). I think he is at worst a solid all-around type of back. If he doesn't run behind a great OL, what's his ceiling?

Here's why: he played on a team with about 12 first round draft picks. They were so dominant, he rarely saw a tackler before he was two or three yards past the LOS. I'm sure he is a quality back, but BPA? I don't buy t.

In comment 12922151 GuzzaBlue said:

Quote:

In comment 12922109 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: to find many analysts who think Elliott is better than Gurley. Gurley was so good, he went high in the draft despite teams knowing he'd miss some of the season. If he wasn't injured, there was talk he'd go #1. Elliott is the best back in a weak class of RB's. Let's not make him out to be the next Adrian Peterson. Hell, let's not even make him out to be the next Gurley. No way is he better than Gurley. Gurley was by far the best player on the field almost every game at college. I still think Urban's offense opened up so much for the run game. His spread formations and QB's ability to run and all the weapons (Braxton, M. Thomas). I think he is at worst a solid all-around type of back. If he doesn't run behind a great OL, what's his ceiling?

We are watching different players then. Elliott can do everything that Gurley can do, and some things better.

was noted by an ESPN article that talked about Monson from PFF having an interesting debate.

But there just aren't many draft guys saying Elliott is better. And ESPN taking note when one does actually say it is notable in the fact that it isn't happening much
Referencing the PFF Article - ( New Window )

well then, agree to disagree. I think Elliott is going to be the best back in the league. I may be wrong, but he's an elite player.

Elliott is better than Gurley, you need to take a step back and re-assess.

In comment 12922174 Jon in NYC said:

Quote:

Elliott is better than Gurley, you need to take a step back and re-assess.

Why?

it's clear that you don't know what you're looking at.

you tell me I'm wrong..I'm not reading anything from you that states the opposite. At least offer an explanation as to why Gurley is "clearly better" than Elliott.

Gurley made the pro bowl despite missing part of the season and Elliott doesnt do a single thing better than Gurley other than maybe pass pro?

I think EE will be a good pro but you're being ridiculous.

I think you are going to get pushback more based on the adamant claim that Elliott is better than anything else.

That's your opinion, and that's fine. But you seem to be inferring that it is also the majority opinion held by experts out there and that isn't the case if you look at mainstream media. (I'm sure the opinion at OSU is different).

What we know is that Gurley made what was once considered to be a possible non-season his rookie year due to injuries and turned in a Rookie of the Year Performance. Nothing indicates he'll regress or is injury prone, although it is possible.

Elliott has none of that history. He is the best back in a relatively weak class and even with the attention of being the top back in 2016, you still aren't seeing a lot of people say he's definitively better than Gurley. It would be difficult to make a case to do so.

In comment 12922218 Jon in NYC said:

Quote:

Gurley made the pro bowl despite missing part of the season and Elliott doesnt do a single thing better than Gurley other than maybe pass pro? I think EE will be a good pro but you're being ridiculous.

Jon you can't really be using the Pro Bowl as a measuring stick can you? And he missed 3 games - not an eternity. He had a really good rookie year, no questions asked. But I'm sorry, Elliott's vision and cut back ability is better.

?? What exactly are you watching? Elliott is the best blocking running back by a long shot - and Gurley wasn't asked to do much blocking at Georgia/even with the Rams - and he's average when asked to do it.

not going to play amateur scout with you.

The fact of the matter is Gurley just put up the best numbers for a rookie running back in a very long time, and EE hasn't taken an NFL snap yet. To claim that he's better than Gurley is batshit insane.

Elliott is better at Gurley at everything. I said he's a more complete back - with elite vision. Thus my opinion of him being better than Gurley.

when discussing Elliott and his average receiving skills, but his above average ability to hold onto the football and his likely impact on a team. An immediate impact is a glowing comment. Let's just not go overboard with the Gurley comp:

Quote:

In three years, Elliott notched 58 receptions, 449 yards and one touchdown. Those numbers aren’t going to blow anyone away, but he was a reliable player who averaged 7.7 yards per catch. Most importantly, Elliott had just one drop in 2015 in 27 total targets, per CFBFilmRoom.com. Having three-down talent is what makes solid backs into great ones. The cherry on top is his ball-carrying ability. Elliott had just three lost fumbles in his college career. With decent blocking, Elliott can carry an NFL offense to respectable levels. If he’s paired with a quality quarterback, then expect a great offense to form. While it’s possible to find a quality back later in the draft, Elliott is a rare running back prospect who will instantly boost an offense.

In comment 12922138 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

In comment 12922125 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: but it would be easy to prove one point or another. There aren't many analysts saying Elliott is better than Gurley. Period. FatMan while I respect your opinion - you simply haven't been paying attention. Here's an example... PFF: Elliott is best, most complete back since Adrian Peterson - ( New Window )

It's not even a question of whether he's better than Gurley, or even Peterson, it's more that he's a more unique running back coming out of the draft than we've seen in some time. He's been called by many one of the best players without the ball in his hands by his coach, and many other scouts and analysts.

To me, he helps an offense out that has a leaky offensive line with his ability to pick up blitzes, chip, and catch the ball out of the backfield.

Will he be as good a runner as AP or Gurley? Who knows, but it's not a stretch to envision it.

I'm just gonna take you to task with some of these comments. Gurley had 1,106 yards as a rookie. Yes, I understand he played in 13 games. Alfred Morris had more, Peterson had more, Lynch had more, Doug Martin had more. Let's not paint Gurley as "the best rookie in a long time" - he wasn't, statistically.

...not even close. He's the best RB in a mediocre top half of the 1st round. This drafts value for cost actually starts around the 15th pick.

He doesn't compare favorably to the elite RB prospects of the past. Whether your talking about Faulk, Peterson or Gurley. He just isn't in the same class. Top end speed, explosion testing you name it he doesn't measure up to those guys.

To take a RB that high he has to be 'special'. Elliot isn't. The bottomline is the Giants should pass on him at #10. The strong probability is they will do just that.

In comment 12922154 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

In comment 12922151 GuzzaBlue said: Quote: In comment 12922109 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: to find many analysts who think Elliott is better than Gurley. Gurley was so good, he went high in the draft despite teams knowing he'd miss some of the season. If he wasn't injured, there was talk he'd go #1. Elliott is the best back in a weak class of RB's. Let's not make him out to be the next Adrian Peterson. Hell, let's not even make him out to be the next Gurley. No way is he better than Gurley. Gurley was by far the best player on the field almost every game at college. I still think Urban's offense opened up so much for the run game. His spread formations and QB's ability to run and all the weapons (Braxton, M. Thomas). I think he is at worst a solid all-around type of back. If he doesn't run behind a great OL, what's his ceiling? We are watching different players then. Elliott can do everything that Gurley can do, and some things better.

Why because we have different opinions? Or basically you are referring that you think Elliot is so much better that you think anyone who disagrees isn't watching the same thing? It's ok to disagree, ya know.

My opinion is based off, if you watch the tape at Georgia and the Rams, Gurley's vision is off the charts. His patience and vision allows him to create his own holes. He also has insanely quick feet to maneuver his way thru the line. Breakaway speed and can take a hit with his size. Also, he ran a pro-style offense in college so IMO it was easier to see he was going to make an impact as an NFL RB. Elliot does everything very well. Ok so he blocks much better and can catch slightly better. I don't think he has the same vision. He ran a spread offense with the nations best talent surrounding and blocking for him. A lot of his long runs he isn't even touched by anyone. I like Eliot, especially better than most 1st rounders recently (Gordon, Richardson). I just think he's tough to gauge how good he will be in the NFL. To me high floor, but if he's put on a team with an average OL, then not sure if he will make the pro bowl.

is a great running back, yes. But he didn't light the NFL on fire. He had a stretch of 5 really good games early in the season and then sort of wore off towards the end. It wasn't an all time rookie year by any stretch.

that was rumored to miss half to 3/4 of his rookie season early on and exceeded that outlook and ran to Offensive Rookie of the Year, it is really reaching to try and downplay Gurley's season.

It's like the idiot Giants fans who were calling OBJ a bust or calling him Becky because he was injured as a rookie.

you're making my point for me. I'm disagreeing - I'm saying Elliott is better - and that is completely OK. I get that Gurley is the choice for some/most others and that's fine. I just don't like it when people say "You think Elliott is better than Gurley? That's fucking stupid" and then don't back it up with any actual comment.

I get your point, but I don't see how a breakaway TD from Gurley is somehow better than a breakaway TD from Elliott.

In comment 12922281 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

I'm just gonna take you to task with some of these comments. Gurley had 1,106 yards as a rookie. Yes, I understand he played in 13 games. Alfred Morris had more, Peterson had more, Lynch had more, Doug Martin had more. Let's not paint Gurley as "the best rookie in a long time" - he wasn't, statistically.

You aren't "taking me to task" for shit. You are knocking a guy for putting up less yards in 13 games than others in 16? Don't be an idiot. You also came up with four names in the past 10 years. Nice work.

Your point is idiotic, and doubling down on it is even more so.

not trying to downplay Gurley's rookie year. It was a very good, if not great one. But to say, like Jon did, that it was the best rookie year of a running back in a very long time, is just factually not true - and isn't really that close to being true.

you gotta relax dude, honestly.

Again, I'm not the one who is making ridiculous claims and then backing them up with poorly researched facts.

super fucking defensive over a disagreement on Elliott vs Gurley. I like Elliott - you like Gurley - but what you said about Gurley isn't accurate. I'm just calling it out, that's all.

In comment 12922322 Jon in NYC said:

Quote:

Again, I'm not the one who is making ridiculous claims and then backing them up with poorly researched facts.

How is it a poorly researched fact? Those 4 names all had better seasons than Gurley. You said Gurley had the best rookie year for a running back in a very long time - did you not?

In comment 12922302 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

is a great running back, yes. But he didn't light the NFL on fire. He had a stretch of 5 really good games early in the season and then sort of wore off towards the end. It wasn't an all time rookie year by any stretch.

Ever take a look at their QB and WR situation? I have and its awful. Gurley had a great rookie season off of a serious injury in a horrible offense.

2900 passing yards with 681 yards receiving leading the team.

Gurley was resonsible for almost 27% of the teams yards and that's all in 12/13 games. For comparison's sake Adrian Peterson was responsible for 33% of the Vikings offense and that's over 16 games; in that regard Gurley was slightly more effective.

who made the initial comment about Gurley having the best season - that was you. I didn't need to come up with the names of those who had better seasons.

In comment 12922324 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

In comment 12922322 Jon in NYC said: Quote: Again, I'm not the one who is making ridiculous claims and then backing them up with poorly researched facts. How is it a poorly researched fact? Those 4 names all had better seasons than Gurley. You said Gurley had the best rookie year for a running back in a very long time - did you not?

Doug Martin played in 3 more games and had one more TD and a lower YPC. That isn't a better season.

Alfred Morris had a great rookie year as well, but that was in a gimmick option offense with RG3 pitching him the ball with yards of open space in front of him. When RG3 left, you saw what happened to Alfred.

I won't even address Lynch and AP, since that was almost a decade ago.

And even so, being the 5th most productive rookie RB in the past decade is remarkable. Especially after he was under a year removed from an ACL surgery and playing with a shitshow of a QB. Much like AP, people were loading the box against him and still couldn't stop him.

Ezekiel Elliot may be a good NFL RB, but the chances of him being better than Gurley are extremely remote. That's the equivalent of saying that Carson Wentz is going to be better than Eli. It's just a dumb claim to make at this point.

everyone is going to disagree with me - I fucking get it. But let's not get our panties in a bunch when facts are presented.

than Peterson in 3/4 less games...

In comment 12922337 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

everyone is going to disagree with me - I fucking get it. But let's not get our panties in a bunch when facts are presented.

They are facts in a vacuum, which in the NFL, and especially college is fucking worthless. If pure stats were everything, Keenan Reynolds would be going in the first round this week. Dude literally set the career mark for most touchdowns in NCAA history.

In comment 12922337 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

everyone is going to disagree with me - I fucking get it. But let's not get our panties in a bunch when facts are presented.

I just presented some indisputable facts. Not trying to pile it on, but Gurley had a remarkable year considering his and his teams circumstances. And you can't just cut out 5 games from his statline when 5 games consisted of almost half his season. If he racked up 400 yards and 6 TD's in 1 game I'd give you that, but that just isn't the case.

rookie year. Everyone loves him cause he runs like his hair is on fire - completely get it. But as I said, statistically, there are backs that were just as good, if not better, in their rookie years.

Thomas Rawls had a 5.6 average his rookie year - are you going to say he was the best? No, obviously not.

In comment 12922312 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

you're making my point for me. I'm disagreeing - I'm saying Elliott is better - and that is completely OK. I get that Gurley is the choice for some/most others and that's fine. I just don't like it when people say "You think Elliott is better than Gurley? That's fucking stupid" and then don't back it up with any actual comment. I get your point, but I don't see how a breakaway TD from Gurley is somehow better than a breakaway TD from Elliott.

I can't stand when people state a fact to disagree with someone else and say "you're an idiot" and do not back their opinion.

I guess it's just the eye test as well. Gurley to me was Peterson-esq. He just dominated games (every other play seemed like he was breaking free). He seemed like a man among boys with his size, speed and vision. Always working his way to finding a hole and just exploding once he hit the second wave of tacklers. With Elliot I don't see the quick feet through the hole or the SAME explosion Gurley had. I saw him taking 25 carries a game and breaking free untouched with a few of them. Of course he had his moments, but Gurley had the Peterson feel watching him. Elliot has the Fred Taylor feel at Florida. Still very good and more well-rounded just not elite. Again I could be way off I'm not an expert by any means, but just my gut feeling.

assumptions, Rawls would have had the best rookie season of all time had he played in every game. You have to go by the games that people actually play.

Zeke fits the New York Football Giants Offense better than Gurley does and that's not even debatable. I'm not getting into whose better but he would be for us.

averaged 40 yards a game in those 3 games he missed, or he could have averaged 100. You don't know, cause he didn't play them..

In comment 12922355 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

assumptions, Rawls would have had the best rookie season of all time had he played in every game. You have to go by the games that people actually play.

And Rawls is clearly a very good player, and saying that Zeke is better than him would be almost as nuts.

turns into Fred Taylor, he'll be considered an elite back.

In comment 12922357 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

averaged 40 yards a game in those 3 games he missed, or he could have averaged 100. You don't know, cause he didn't play them..

Haha, that's your argument? He average 100 yards per game when including his first game back which he only had 6 carries for 9 yards.

His two wost games were in blowouts to Cincy and Arizona where his offense scored 7 and 3 points and they stopped running the ball.

I'm being trolled.

In comment 12922358 Jon in NYC said:

Quote:

In comment 12922355 ryanmkeane said: Quote: And Rawls is clearly a very good player, and saying that Zeke is better than him would be almost as nuts.

Alright Jon...if I can't say that I think Ezekiel Elliott is a better running back than Thomas Rawls (after 1 season in the pros) then I sincerely apologize.

now if you gave me the choice I'm taking Thomas Rawls 10/10 times. We know he's a legit NFL starting RB.

All we know about Elliot is he likes to blame his coaches after losses and he put up big numbers in a spread offense with massive holes in front of him.

Can do everything very well including blocking and catching. Elliot may have more speed and just all around better talent than Stewart. I just think Elliot is that type of back. Please don't kill me for the comparison of stats. It's a completely different system Oregon ran than Urban's and Ohio State had way more talent especially on the line.

In comment 12922365 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 12922357 ryanmkeane said: Quote: averaged 40 yards a game in those 3 games he missed, or he could have averaged 100. You don't know, cause he didn't play them.. Haha, that's your argument? He average 100 yards per game when including his first game back which he only had 6 carries for 9 yards. His two wost games were in blowouts to Cincy and Arizona where his offense scored 7 and 3 points and they stopped running the ball. I'm being trolled.

Gonna have to disagree with you there. His two worst games were when he had 21 carries for 48 yards against Tampa, and 25 carries for 66 against Baltimore. About a 2.2 average in those games. Again, this happens all the time with good backs, but I'm not really counting the games where he had 6 or 7 carries as bad ones.

one of the worst 2 or 3 offenses in the league he may have led the league in rushing (he ended up in 3rd while only playing 12 full games). In a full 16 game season, he like wins it as well even in that horrid offense. The guy averaged almost 5 yards a carry in that offense. What more do you want?

20 players before that beanpole Floyd. Elliott is value at 10. Go defense or OL.

In comment 12922376 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

In comment 12922365 UConn4523 said: Quote: In comment 12922357 ryanmkeane said: Quote: averaged 40 yards a game in those 3 games he missed, or he could have averaged 100. You don't know, cause he didn't play them.. Haha, that's your argument? He average 100 yards per game when including his first game back which he only had 6 carries for 9 yards. His two wost games were in blowouts to Cincy and Arizona where his offense scored 7 and 3 points and they stopped running the ball. I'm being trolled. Gonna have to disagree with you there. His two worst games were when he had 21 carries for 48 yards against Tampa, and 25 carries for 66 against Baltimore. About a 2.2 average in those games. Again, this happens all the time with good backs, but I'm not really counting the games where he had 6 or 7 carries as bad ones.

Disagree all you want. Go look up AP's bad games. 14 carries for 3 yards against San Francisco or 9 for 27 against Washington. You can make an argument he had worse games than Gurley.

Point being, if you aren't going to compare him to his peers, what are you arguing?

In comment 12922380 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

one of the worst 2 or 3 offenses in the league he may have led the league in rushing (he ended up in 3rd while only playing 12 full games). In a full 16 game season, he like wins it as well even in that horrid offense. The guy averaged almost 5 yards a carry in that offense. What more do you want?

Look, all I said was I think Elliott has better vision, and better cut back ability, and clearly is a better blocker (i don't think anyone would dispute this) which is why I think he's an all around better back. What is so hard to understand about this..

disagree about Gurley's worst games. I think his two worst games were the ones I listed - ones where he got a lot of carries, not just 5 or 6.

NFL back so far - no questions asked. I just think Elliott is the better prospect for long term - and will be better in the pros.

shoot me if you want..just my opinion and tried to back it up with reasoning. Apparently, that isn't well liked around here.

it is very hard to gauge a player's NFL ability coming from Urban Meyer's offense. It is the definition of the spread and he is the best recruiter there is. His teams are loaded with talent everywhere and he runs an offense that puts everyone of his elite talents on an island and forces 1 on 1 matchups. Defenses cannot focus on the RB. With 3-5 talented receivers spread out and QB's that can run and throw. Elliot feasted on defenses that were spread across the field.

i'm talking about you saying Gurley didn't have that great of a rookie season...he did.

As for Elliot who'm I like, he'd have big shoes to fill to compare to Gurley's rookie season. Elliot likely goes to a much better offense (Dallas, Eagles, Giants for example), and will still have a hard time equaling what Gurley did on a per game basis.

Long term, I don't see how you can possibly make the decision that Elliot is better. Gurley came back from that injury and showed zero signs of impaired ability. Gurley is the more electric player and I don't really see that as a debatable topic. If you want to say Elliot is more complete, go nuts, but I still don't see how you prove that when he hasn't played a down yet in the NFL.

regarding Rawls...all of us are not GMs, obviously. But I can pretty much say without hesitation that if you asked all 32 GMs right now if they could switch Rawls for Elliott on their team, they'd go ahead and do that. You're saying you'd take Rawls 10/10 times. That's not crazy? Zac Stacy was a low draft pick had a hell of a rookie season, basically the same one Rawls had - similar players. But that didn't mean he was better than every back that was taken the year after him (Jeremy Hill, Carlos Hyde, etc). C'mon, level with me here...;)

he's not a good RB. He's slow and about as un-dynamic as it gets. He hasn't cracked 4 yards per clip yet either. Rawls has speed and can break tackles, I saw none of that with Stacy.

In comment 12922416 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

regarding Rawls...all of us are not GMs, obviously. But I can pretty much say without hesitation that if you asked all 32 GMs right now if they could switch Rawls for Elliott on their team, they'd go ahead and do that. You're saying you'd take Rawls 10/10 times. That's not crazy? Zac Stacy was a low draft pick had a hell of a rookie season, basically the same one Rawls had - similar players. But that didn't mean he was better than every back that was taken the year after him (Jeremy Hill, Carlos Hyde, etc). C'mon, level with me here...;)

You don't know that. I strongly doubt Pete Carroll would trade Rawls for anyone right now after the season he just had.

In comment 12922401 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

shoot me if you want..just my opinion and tried to back it up with reasoning. Apparently, that isn't well liked around here.

Geez, relax guys. I want Elliot badly too! But I do not believe that he is as explosive as Gurley. Remember, Gurley ran behind one of the worst OLines in the NFL last year.

With that said, Elliot still is by far more talented than any RB the Giants have had since Tiki. And that includes Bradshaw (although Ahmad was a different type of RB than Elliot).
Elliot might not have the skill-set of a Gurley, but he's not far off. Where Gurley might be compared to Adrian Peterson, Elliot might be considered to be a little stockier version of Curtis Martin.
Either way, if Zeke falls to us, I doubt JR is going to pass on him if he is serious about keeping his job!

In comment 12922302 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

is a great running back, yes. But he didn't light the NFL on fire. He had a stretch of 5 really good games early in the season and then sort of wore off towards the end. It wasn't an all time rookie year by any stretch.

Exactly.

They released Murray partly because they believe the OL is more important and the offense can still thrive with lesser rb talent. They will draft defense in my view.

He made a lot of non-pro talent LBs look foolish. The space just won't be there for him in the NFL. Yes, he's very good, but I don't think he's a game changing player. He's not for us.

we can grab a good young RB later in the draft.

bottom line is there are plenty of people, former scouts, former GMs, talking as we speak about how great a prospect Elliot is. This is just a fact. Don't believe me? Scour the web or put on NFL radio right now.

Plenty of people believe Elliot is an elite RB talent. Plenty of people believe Elliot is every bit the prospect Gurley was coming out, and he's not hurt.

How bout we settle this debate this way...If the Giants draft Elliot and Elliot is merely being mentioned in the same breath as guys like Peterson and Gurley we will all be thrilled? Fair enough?

who drafts BPA at least not in the first 3 to 4 rounds, they say they do but its BS because it sounds good...

In comment 12922736 djm said:

Quote:

bottom line is there are plenty of people, former scouts, former GMs, talking as we speak about how great a prospect Elliot is. This is just a fact. Don't believe me? Scour the web or put on NFL radio right now. Plenty of people believe Elliot is an elite RB talent. Plenty of people believe Elliot is every bit the prospect Gurley was coming out, and he's not hurt. How bout we settle this debate this way...If the Giants draft Elliot and Elliot is merely being mentioned in the same breath as guys like Peterson and Gurley we will all be thrilled? Fair enough?

Again, I fully support the Elliot pick if that's what we end up doing, but I don't think he's a similar prospect to Gurley. And the only reason I brought up AP on this thread is because he led the league in rushing while Gurley was 3rd, so I was comparing him accordingly when told he didn't have an impressive season.

I can't even chime in...I know Elliot is getting a lot of love but I don't profess to know shit. He looks good, but I know fuck all. I'd love to hear his name called at ten though...can't help but be excited about a big time talent being added to the RB group here.

we need a playmaker back there, that's for sure. I like Elliot's production and I think he's a complete back, but I don't see the blazing speed on film like Gurley. Its also hard to gauge the offense he was in. I do like him and i'd be sold on the pick, but I like/d Gurley more.

Not endorsing Floyd leaves you open for getting bashed this year. I wrote on Sy's post:
I agree with the consensus glaring needs in play at 10.

LB/Pass Rusher, WR, OL, CB

However looking at picks 3-9, the only prime candidates to have Elliot on their radar IMO are:

4. Dallas - would be hard pressed to not take a Pass Rusher or Ramsey.
8. Cleveland - need everything, and probably like Duke Johnson, but need a splash.

Zeke is becoming more possible than I ever wanted or thought 2 months ago. Biggest impact to me, besides a healthy Jack. Tops my wish list.