| The New York Giants (No. 2 overall), Cleveland Browns (Nos. 1 and 4), and Indianapolis Colts (No. 3) are great fits for him based on their schemes and needs at the position. The Giants would give Barkley the chance to play with a two-time Super Bowl MVP (Eli Manning) and the most electrifying playmaker in football (Odell Beckham, Jr.). Barkley would alleviate some of the pressure on Manning to carry the offense while also forcing defensive coordinators to abandon some of their double-coverage tactics on OBJ in order to effectively defend the Giants' rebuilt running game. With the Giants looking to make at least one more run at the Lombardi Trophy with Manning at the helm, the move to get Barkley would enhance the team's chances. |
Well said, and I couldn't agree more. I'm very much on the QB bandwagon but if Darnold goes #1, I can't kill the Giants for taking Barkley over the remaining guys, if they view Barkley as a Marshall Faulk-type of impact player. I felt the same way when Zeke Elliot came out, not knowing just how bad a character he was/is. No such problems with Barkley.
2. Barkley
3. Nelson
4. Chubb
5. Fitzpatrick
If Cleveland takes Darnold I would be happy with Barkley.
1. Browns - QB
2. Broncos - QB
3. Jets - QB
4. Browns - Chubb
5. Giants - Barkley and a ton of picks!
6. Colts - who cares.
Browns will jump all over Barkley at #4.
I would be happy.
There are a number of great players for us to pick from.
We need a lot of help.
A truly elite player is hard to come by. My only fear is if they trade down they go down to far.
Quote:
In comment 13837215 Flem17454 said:
Quote:
But not Nelson?
That makes no sense
I like Nelson, don't get me wrong, but Barkley IMO is a better prospect. People don't realize how great of a receiver he is out of the backfield. He is a game changer, a culture changer as well due to his character.
People act like Nelson is this perfect prospect, and while he is pretty damn good, he is not the perfect guard prospect, just like Barkley is not quite the perfect RB prospect. He is a GREAT mauler, but he does struggle a bit in space. Not too bad, but he is not the fluid mover that a guy like Zack Martin is.
I know Nelson could be an all-pro, but I think the Giants should go after Norwell, a guy who is already an all-pro and only 26 yrs old that will likely be available. Having Norwell and Nelson sounds great, but is not necessary.
Barkley = Reggie Bush 2.0
In no way is he a better prospect than Nelson.
And in no way is RB a bigger need than OL.
Quote:
In comment 13837215 Flem17454 said:
Quote:
But not Nelson?
That makes no sense
When choosing between a guard and a running back that are both very good prospects, you always take the guy who gets the ball in their hands. On any offensive play, Barkley is far more likely to affect the out come of the game than Nelson.
Wrong in every way.
Just wrong.
He's just being nice.
It's because you touch yourself at night.
Obviously I am not privvy to the Giants draft board so if they don't like any of the QB's(I'd be very surprised if that were true) that would change some things. If they don't like one of the QB's, then I'd be all for trading back and accumulating picks.
Obviously I am not privvy to the Giants draft board so if they don't like any of the QB's(I'd be very surprised if that were true) that would change some things. If they don't like one of the QB's, then I'd be all for trading back and accumulating picks.
Quote:
when the shelf life of a RB is so short, just doesn't seem like a smart investment. Especially when you factor in the massive need at QB and the fact that there are a few blue chip QB prospects at the top of this draft.
Obviously I am not privvy to the Giants draft board so if they don't like any of the QB's(I'd be very surprised if that were true) that would change some things. If they don't like one of the QB's, then I'd be all for trading back and accumulating picks.
Keith that's not unreasonable at all either.
I'm sure guys like McCoy, Bell, Peterson, Gurley and David Johnson would be sure-fire top 5 picks if teams knew the impact they would have and could go back in time to re-draft.
PS-AP may be out of the league and missed how much time in his career due to injury? Johnson is a baby and has already missed a season. Lets wait 5 years from now to see if he is truly worth a top pick.
An article re-drafting the 2009 draft from 2016 has McCoy going 2nd overall after Stafford.
One for the 2013 draft has Le'Veon going 5th.
One from 2014 draft released in 2017 has Devonta Freeman going 5th
PS-AP may be out of the league and missed how much time in his career due to injury? Johnson is a baby and has already missed a season. Lets wait 5 years from now to see if he is truly worth a top pick.
Adrian Peterson was taken in the same draft as Megatron, Patrick Willis, and Revis.
He has lasted longer than Megatron and Willis, and has had a career that runs parallel with Revis in terms of production/peak years.
Obviously QB's last longer, but a ton of them also turn out to be busts.
I'd take a great RB over being stuck with a middling QB on the level of a Ryan Tannehill
If you draft a player with the 2nd pick and they are highly productive for 8 to 10 years, I'd call that a win. They can't all be Eli Manning.
I'm also not sure why we are comparing AP to Tannehil. If the Giants think these QB prospects have a ceiling of Tannehil, then I'd never recommend they draft him. I'm ONLY drafting one of these QB's if they think he could be a franchise QB...Tannehill is not a franchise QB.
I'm also not sure why we are comparing AP to Tannehil. If the Giants think these QB prospects have a ceiling of Tannehil, then I'd never recommend they draft him. I'm ONLY drafting one of these QB's if they think he could be a franchise QB...Tannehill is not a franchise QB.
The average career length is 3.3 years, but that is the entire player pool.
I don't know if they have broken it down to top 10 picks or first round picks or by position.
That 3.3 figure is rather meaningless for this specific case
Just look at the examples a few posts up. AP's stopped being a top back at 30. McCoy is 30 now, he's still playing at a high level. Gurley and Johnson are babies who just started their careers and Johnson already had a few major injuries. Lets see what their careers look like 5-7 years from now.
The gist of it, though, and why it intrigues me is that you do get mileage (NPI) out of a RB *if* the RB is good.
Barkley, by almost every account is more than good.
The value is there, the potential for having a superior offense is there. The trade-off is having to look for a QB three years form now.
Link - ( New Window )
I'm also saying that this specific RB gives us a 2 year window with a strong potential for contending for the SB, given our current cast (plus the requisite OL upgrade with someone like Norwell). I'm also probably undervaluing this year's QB list, which I agree is deep but I feel lacks height.
RB's may have a shorter career than other positions but they still provide more than enough production to warrant a top pick - same as any wide receiver.
If you draft a player like Barkley, who is being touted as generational, at 2 - and he plays 8 years or more at that level, you've hit on that pick. That's close to a decade or more of 1,000+ yard production per season for your offense and multiple touchdowns. At the end of career like that, no one is looking back to the day they were drafted and pointing to shelf life as a reason the team should have passed on them.
Just look at the examples a few posts up. AP's stopped being a top back at 30. McCoy is 30 now, he's still playing at a high level. Gurley and Johnson are babies who just started their careers and Johnson already had a few major injuries. Lets see what their careers look like 5-7 years from now.
true, but this avg includes ALL RBs correct? Wouldn't a fairer comparison be to find the average of all 1st Round pick RBs? Or all Top 10 pick RBs? I tried to find it, but I didn't see any stats that went that far.
OTOH, the number 4 pick in the draft was a RB and I jsut have a tough time saying that it was a mistake. In fact, I owuld bet that a Giants re-do would still have them picking a ZRB with the first pick. But they would have picked the other guy.
And never regretted it for a second.
Quote:
I think it was like 2.5 years. Obviously there are so many other factors that go into it. When drafting at 2, I'd like to assume that the player should be a pro bowl caliber player, so I'd rather compare pro bowl RB's vs pro bowl QB's. I would bet by life that pro bowl QB's have a much longer career.
Just look at the examples a few posts up. AP's stopped being a top back at 30. McCoy is 30 now, he's still playing at a high level. Gurley and Johnson are babies who just started their careers and Johnson already had a few major injuries. Lets see what their careers look like 5-7 years from now.
true, but this avg includes ALL RBs correct? Wouldn't a fairer comparison be to find the average of all 1st Round pick RBs? Or all Top 10 pick RBs? I tried to find it, but I didn't see any stats that went that far.
Quote:
In comment 13837950 Keith said:
Quote:
I think it was like 2.5 years. Obviously there are so many other factors that go into it. When drafting at 2, I'd like to assume that the player should be a pro bowl caliber player, so I'd rather compare pro bowl RB's vs pro bowl QB's. I would bet by life that pro bowl QB's have a much longer career.
Just look at the examples a few posts up. AP's stopped being a top back at 30. McCoy is 30 now, he's still playing at a high level. Gurley and Johnson are babies who just started their careers and Johnson already had a few major injuries. Lets see what their careers look like 5-7 years from now.
true, but this avg includes ALL RBs correct? Wouldn't a fairer comparison be to find the average of all 1st Round pick RBs? Or all Top 10 pick RBs? I tried to find it, but I didn't see any stats that went that far.
The table I linked didn't do it by round, but they did it by quality. They selected only RB with at least one 1000 yard season and looked at longevity. So there it's about 7-8 seasons.
Thanks Bill. Good post.
I'm also saying that this specific RB gives us a 2 year window with a strong potential for contending for the SB, given our current cast (plus the requisite OL upgrade with someone like Norwell). I'm also probably undervaluing this year's QB list, which I agree is deep but I feel lacks height.
That's not what I look for in a #2 pick. I want a long term pro bowl caliber player.
RB's may have a shorter career than other positions but they still provide more than enough production to warrant a top pick - same as any wide receiver.
If you draft a player like Barkley, who is being touted as generational, at 2 - and he plays 8 years or more at that level, you've hit on that pick. That's close to a decade or more of 1,000+ yard production per season for your offense and multiple touchdowns. At the end of career like that, no one is looking back to the day they were drafted and pointing to shelf life as a reason the team should have passed on them.
Extremely faulty logic. In fact, it doesn't really make sense to me. All QB's have a longer shelf life than all RB's so we can't compare? That's why QB's are routinely overdrafted in the NFL draft. QB's are vital to sustained success and the investment will pay off for a much longer time. That's a major reason for drafting a QB over a RB. That being said, if we are comparing a great RB to an average QB, then you have a point. We are talking about prospects and going on the assumption that the QB's we are discussing are also great prospects. IF the Giants don't view them as great prospects, then I'm all for passing on a QB.
Would they have drafted him 2 overall with a top level QB on the board? Also, Adrian Peterson's shelf life was a bit longer than most RB's and he was pretty much done at 30. If we didn't have a massive need for a QB and there weren't 4 blue chip QB prospects, I could probably get on board with it.
djm, hell no. Not with a #2 pick I wouldn't.
They get a potential "generational" talent and one of three/four QBs who all have questions, but could be very good.
If we are picking and choosing which RB's to compare this to. Lets do the same with QB's. The Steelers got a lot out of Ben. Would you draft Ben or Adrian? What about Eli? would you draft eli or AP? Rivers? Peyton Manning?
Quote:
In comment 13837274 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Obvious troll is obvious.
And fucking annoying.
Go away.
Who's trolling you bald dipshit?
I'm addressing the original topic.
No, you're pushing this dumb narrative about drafting Nelson @ 2 overall five thousand times a day everywhere you possible can and no one cares.
The Giants aren't taking Nelson 2nd. Deal with it.
Maybe it's a Russian "bot."
Quote:
They certainly get to a super bowl if not for Favre's bonehead INT in '09.
If we are picking and choosing which RB's to compare this to. Lets do the same with QB's. The Steelers got a lot out of Ben. Would you draft Ben or Adrian? What about Eli? would you draft eli or AP? Rivers? Peyton Manning?
In my opinion, if I needed both positions and had to choose between the two, I'm taking the QB first. But drafting Adrian Peterson can't really be considered a bad move.
OTOH, the number 4 pick in the draft was a RB and I jsut have a tough time saying that it was a mistake. In fact, I owuld bet that a Giants re-do would still have them picking a ZRB with the first pick. But they would have picked the other guy.
And never regretted it for a second.
Tucker Frederickson is close to the ultimate "what might have been" were it not for injuries story. The "other guy," Gale Sayers, burned more brightly for a few more years but also had a career curtailed by injury. Sports medicine, especially related to knee injuries, was primitive compared to this era and both players would have benefited from better players around them.