Should you use a #2 pick on a RB?

It doesn't matter who the back is with a piss poor line. I'm also not convinced that Gallman isn't the answer. I'd like to see him with a real OL.

In comment 13838375 Keith said:

Quote:

It doesn't matter who the back is with a piss poor line. I'm also not convinced that Gallman isn't the answer. I'd like to see him with a real OL.

Same here. And I'm fine with replacing/fixing the OL in free agency. Who was it? the Vikings? who had 5 new OL in 2017?

In comment 13838326 Keith said:

Quote:

Lets look at the playoff teams and where they got their RB's.... NE-no high picks, committee KC-Hunt-3rd round Pitt-Bell-2nd round Jax-Fournette-4th overall Buff-McCoy-2nd round Tenn-Murray 3rd round/Henry 2nd round Philly-no top pick Minny-Murray-6th round/McKinnon 3rd round NO-Ingram 28 overall/Kamara 3rd ound Rams-Gurley-10th overall Car-cam makes too much of a difference Atl-4th round

How does this look if you do it for QBs?

BillL I had done this before:

this is where they were drafted, not how acquired since Alex Smith for example was a UFA.

NE - Brady - 6th round
KC - Smith - 1st round
Pitt - Ben - 1st round
Jax - Bortles - 1st round
Buff - Taylor - 6th round
Tenn - Mariotta - 1st round

Philly - Foles* - 3rd round (* here because they have Wentz who was drafted in the 1st round)

Minny - Keenum - UDFA
NO - Brees - 2nd round
Rams - Goff - 1st round
Car - Newton - 1st round
Atl - Ryan - 1st round

You pick the best player available and at the second overall pick, 99 times out of 100, it’s not a running back.... that said, Barkley is still that good and MIGHT BE the BPA when we pick...

He’s the second best player on my board, closely followed by a few others, Darnold stands above the rest as my number one player but if he goes to Cleveland first l, I think Barkley is the best draft choice available.

In comment 13838372 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

I see with Barkley for 2018 is what you saw with Gurley in 2016. If the OL stinks Barkley can be Walter Payton and it's not going to help the Giants in 2018. Gurley, on average, per PFF in 2016 was hit 2.4 times in the backfield every touch before even reaching the line of scrimmage (or something like that). If the Giants don't significantly upgrade the OL, how much does Barkley really upgrade the Giants in 2018. Or, maybe some people feel like the Giants OL is more maligned than they deserve the running game struggles were Perkins, Darkwa, Gallman more than the OL. I don't know the answer, but if I had to guess I'd say the Giants OL was a significant reason for the running game struggles. Giants were 26th in rushing yards per game and 22nd in ypc in 2017 in 2016 they were 29th in rushing yards per game and 30th in rushing yards per carry.

I think this is a bit of an overrated aspect to the Barkley pick. While the OL is not great, they are not a horrible run blocking unit. Look what a replacement level player like Darkwa was able to do behind this line last year. The OL struggles mainly in pass-pro, but Flowers, Jones, Fluker all are better run blockers than they are in pass-pro. Plus, it appears the Giants are going to target Norwell, who would be a significant upgrade over Jerry and would help further improve the OL. Add in a second rounder who can compete at OT and allow Flowers to move inside or to the Right side, and a mid-round guy for the interior, and all of the sudden this isn't too bad of a unit. Probably somewhere around middle of the pack.

for the next 5 years, the answer is yes. Unless, as everyone else says, we're 100% certain there's a can't-miss QB on the board.

In comment 13838410 est1986 said:

Quote:

You pick the best player available and at the second overall pick, 99 times out of 100, it’s not a running back.... that said, Barkley is still that good and MIGHT BE the BPA when we pick... He’s the second best player on my board, closely followed by a few others, Darnold stands above the rest as my number one player but if he goes to Cleveland first l, I think Barkley is the best draft choice available.

There should be many aspects of this decision. The math or science should absolutely factor in. It shouldn't be the only thing, but it should be a factor. We are investing a premium draft pick as well as major money, why wouldn't we factor in the science?

there, take the QB.


If not, I have no problem taking a RB at 2.

How many of the QBs will the Giants view in that regard? If its just Darnold, and Rosen's health scares them, they could take the RB.

It's not what position, it's which player. Meaning: Suppose Rosen or Darnold turns out to be a nice QB who's as good as, say, Matthew Stafford. You can win with that guy. You're set for a starter for a while. But suppose Saquon Barkley turns out to be a Hall of Famer, the next Marshall Faulk. Then who's the better pick?

Nobody knows the future, so it's not a simple decision. Nobody knows how good any of these guys will be in the pros. Even Andrew Luck, who was as close to a can't-miss prospect as we've seen in a long time, has been derailed by injuries. But you want the perennial All-Pro/potential HoFer at any position. If you think Barkley is that guy, you run to the podium. If you have your choice of Barkley and a QB, and you think they're both that guy, then you take the QB. But you take the elite player, position be damned.

Remember the Giants hardly needed a linebacker when they took Lawrence Taylor.

.

is the real deal.

In comment 13838496 TC said:

Quote:

.

Could this not devolve into idiocy for once? Wilson got injured. Do you have anything relevant to add to the conversation?

In comment 13838471 81_Great_Dane said:

Quote:

It's not what position, it's which player. Meaning: Suppose Rosen or Darnold turns out to be a nice QB who's as good as, say, Matthew Stafford. You can win with that guy. You're set for a starter for a while. But suppose Saquon Barkley turns out to be a Hall of Famer, the next Marshall Faulk. Then who's the better pick? Nobody knows the future, so it's not a simple decision. Nobody knows how good any of these guys will be in the pros. Even Andrew Luck, who was as close to a can't-miss prospect as we've seen in a long time, has been derailed by injuries. But you want the perennial All-Pro/potential HoFer at any position. If you think Barkley is that guy, you run to the podium. If you have your choice of Barkley and a QB, and you think they're both that guy, then you take the QB. But you take the elite player, position be damned. Remember the Giants hardly needed a linebacker when they took Lawrence Taylor.

i agree with this. But, you read that about Barkley. Comparisons to HoF guys. You don’t read anything close to that about the QB class. You read it’s deep. Lists of god guys. Only one close to great might be Rosen and he’s an enormous short shelf life risk.

One thing that’s most important about this draft and the Giants. They cannot *miss*.

however some people have a philosophy that no matter who the player is, you don't take some positions at #2, like a guard. More than a few people say Quentin Nelson is the best player in the draft.

Why isn't he taken first then?

I'll tell you why, it's because some positions are weighted more heavily than others vaulting some QB's, DB's, DE's, and possibly RB's ahead of him.

So to have the conversation purely about players loses some context.

Plus, and more to the point of the thread, I personally don't know enough to properly evaluate college players and project their NFL fit. So rather than rely on "draft-niks" and other talking heads mock drafts or rankings, I think the discussion about position is a worthy one.

In the end though based on the search results, I convinced myself position is semi-irrelevant to the Giants plans, and improving the running game should be paramount, even more important than who they take at #2, priority should be improving the overall ground game (via UFA, trade, draft, however).

Of course they can't afford to miss on this pick, but the post helped me see things a little differently.

In comment 13838496 TC said:

Quote:

.

What does this have to do with anything?

David Wilson was selected 32nd overall. Not 2nd.

And David Wilson was never discussed the way Barkley is as a prospect.

The backs that truly make a difference can catch as well as run...Dual threat to run/pass out of the backfield. Kamara, Gurley and Bell are production monsters. Barkley could be better than all of them. Barkley frees up a roster spot, don't need a 3rd down pass catching back.

In comment 13838315 Sy'56 said:

Quote:

He is probably the second best pass catcher on the roster week 1. Nobody mentions that....

As the BBI pro-Barkleys started chirping last month, I watched his highlight videos. The one thing that stood out to me was how fluidly he caught the ball. If he never ran the ball again, he could make a living as a damn good slot receiver.

while any player can, and eventually all players do have injuries to some degree, RB's experience significant injury more often than other positions, and on average, have shorter careers.

I'd say that's relevant to using the #2 pick in the draft to select one.

In comment 13838593 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

In comment 13838496 TC said: Quote: . What does this have to do with anything? David Wilson was selected 32nd overall. Not 2nd. And David Wilson was never discussed the way Barkley is as a prospect.

David Wilson was an electrifying talent when he was here. All-Pro KR as a rookie. Single-game all purpose yards record. 5 YPC as a rookie. Nothing you can do about the degenerative neck condition that he was predisposed that didn't show up in the pre-draft process. But, I feel like he was on his way to stardom.

The Giants offense scoring 52 points vs the Saints that year with tons of big plays between Beckham, Cruz, Nicks, and Bennett- that is what I can envision with Barkley in the fold along with Odell, Shep, and Engram.

on whether or not Davis Webb has the talent to lead this team as a starter, if he does then we would have OBJ and Barkley to make this offense work along with a revamped O line...