I know this has been discussed ad nauseam on this board, but I really do not understand the logic behind this statement. The QB is the only other player on the team that touches the ball more than an every-down RB. I totally get the point that typically there isn't a relatively huge difference in RBs from round 1 to 2 to 3 to 4, but this is not a typical situation. It is EXTREMELY RARE to find a RB who is not only an every-down back that can catch and pass block, but is also a threat to score every time he touches the ball. A guy who is both great in short yardage and can hit the home run at any time is not something that comes around often.
"Running backs are only good until their 30, not worth that big of an investment." Well Barkley turned 21 just two weeks ago. - So 10 years of having an lethal offensive weapon who could touch the ball 30-40 times per game isn't a good investment?
Everyone who says this seems to believe that the only RB in history who would be worth a pick that high is Barry Sanders. You're telling me Adrian Peterson wasn't worth a top 10 pick? To me, Barkley is the best RB prospect to come along since Peterson and before him it was Sanders. The Packers are still kicking themselves for not taking Sanders at #2 and the same can be said for every team that picked before the Vikings (except for maybe the Lions ironically).
To me, Barkley and Nelson are the only two "sure-things" in this draft. We know they will be elite players, it's just a matter of what jersey they're going to be wearing. I don't think that's true of any of the QBs. When you have a chance to get a guy that you know is an elite player, you take him, end of story. Barkley is a top 5 RB and he hasn't even played a down yet.
All this said, I agree that drafting Barkley to run behind the current O-Line isn't ideal, but that's why I would also say we need to go OL at pick #34, and probably OL again in either round 3 or 4, along with making OL our top priority in Free Agency. Point is: The offensive line was bad last year, but it will not be bad for the next 10 years. Sure, the QB situation would still be up in the air, but it will be a lot easier to transition away from Eli with a top 5 WR, a top 5 RB, and head coach who has a great offensive mind and is known for developing and getting the most out of QBs.
There are exceptions to every rule. Certainly very few running backs are worth the #2 pick, but I think Barkley could very well be that exception.
Overall, I think we are in a time and place in the NFL where long held beliefs are being challenged, especially on offense. This is largely because college offenses are dramatically different than NFL offenses. College programs are not going to change their scheme to match the NFL. Despite the combine and draft, college football does not operate like a minor league program for the NFL. What will happen, and what has started to happen, is a new generation of coaches are going to employ more adaptable offensive schemes to fit the talent coming into the league every year.
2. Conversely, rookie QBs, CBs, DEs, and Ts taken at that spot are all paid relatively modest contracts as compared to vets at their positions. Players at those positions provide immense value from a cap perspective if you hit on one.
3. The fact that Barkley is younger doesn't necessarily mean he will play longer. It's not just about the age, but instead, the wear and tear on an RB. Getting a guy at RB for 10 years is getting more and more rare.
4. RB probably more than any other position can be filled with a committee/lesser resources. Again, coupled with how much Barkley will cost at #2, this really undercuts his value.
But then who is our QB in 2020?
Pass on Barkley. If the Giants staff thinks the franchise QB of the future is there, draft him. If not, trade down -- preferably more than once.
1. Shelf life. The shelf life of the average RB is shorter than all other positions. In fact, even the "good" players that last long, still fall off big time around 30. #2 pick is a major investment, I want the best possible return for the longest possible time.
2. Money. With salaries being slotted based on draft position, a #2 back will automatically be paid top RB money. A QB being drafted at 2 will not.
Specifically for the Giants....you could have Jim Brown in his prime and he'd struggle with this line. Fix the line first, then get that guy. Also, specifically to the Giants, we have a kid in Gallman that could do the job.
Before we go and say that Gurley was a hit, shouldn't we wait to see where he's at in a few years. There are a ton of RB's that have huge success and then disappear. CJ2K, remember him. Gurley had a great season and he's a great talent, but lets wait 5 years before we say it was a good pick.
Quote:
compare to Todd Gurley? We passed on Gurley for Flowers. I know Gurley had the ACL tear. Hypothetically, not taking into account the season he just had, if Gurley didn't have an ACL tear how much higher would he have been picked in the 2015 draft?
Before we go and say that Gurley was a hit, shouldn't we wait to see where he's at in a few years. There are a ton of RB's that have huge success and then disappear. CJ2K, remember him. Gurley had a great season and he's a great talent, but lets wait 5 years before we say it was a good pick.
So we have to wait 8 years to determine whether or not a draft pick was a good pick?
But then who is our QB in 2020?
Figure that out in 2020.
Again, this is only if they think he's the best player and a can't miss RB that will change our offense. We have the cash and a high 2nd to upgrade our line rather quickly.
That said I still wouldn't do it. The beating that position takes is not something I'd put that big of an investment in.
But then who is our QB in 2020?
You know who I think fits well in the Shurmur regime and would be low budget insurance if Davis Webb can't replace Eli. Teddy Bridgewater. Just a thought.
I'd tend to trading the pick, and stocking up in the trenches, picking up a RB late, or as an UDFA, if the Giants aren't convinced one of these QB's is the future.
As mentioned, drafting a RB high is always a greater risk because of the greater prevalence of injury curtailed careers for that position.
Quote:
I think having Barkley on this team would be amazing.
But then who is our QB in 2020?
Figure that out in 2020.
Smart teams don't think that way.
Pass on Barkley. If the Giants staff thinks the franchise QB of the future is there, draft him. If not, trade down -- preferably more than once.
David Wilson was not an exceptional talent. The guy was just fast, he did not do many other things that well. Doug Martin was taken with the 31st pick (that doesn't scream exceptional talent either).
Quote:
In comment 13839396 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
I think having Barkley on this team would be amazing.
But then who is our QB in 2020?
Figure that out in 2020.
Smart teams don't think that way.
Eric, what smart teams pay a guy top of the market money before he ever plays a down in the NFL?
Quote:
In comment 13839396 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
I think having Barkley on this team would be amazing.
But then who is our QB in 2020?
Figure that out in 2020.
Smart teams don't think that way.
That's a fair point. But if we take the example of the smartest team out there for the past 15 years, the New England Patriots, you don't necessarily have to spend a first round pick on your future QB either. The ideal model is to find that mid-round prospect that you like and can develop. The Pats had the situation under control with Garrappolo, but problem is Brady is still playing at a high level.
I'm not saying Webb is that guy, but if you believe Eli is your QB until 2020, then you have two years to develop Webb and someone else. The Giants could be looking at a 2nd or 3rd round QB year, and maybe even jump into the latter half of the 1st round if a QB slips.
Quote:
In comment 13839396 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
I think having Barkley on this team would be amazing.
But then who is our QB in 2020?
Figure that out in 2020.
Smart teams don't think that way.
You act like our only opportunity to replace Eli is the 2nd overall pick. There are two more drafts before 2020, and there is also free agency. You can also find talented players in the 2nd (Garapolo), 3rd (Wilson), and 4th (Cousins) rounds. You also have two years to develop Webb as another poster mentioned.
Same way we'd do it if we don't spend the 2nd overall this year. By one of the many options I listed above.
Quote:
In comment 13839396 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
I think having Barkley on this team would be amazing.
But then who is our QB in 2020?
Figure that out in 2020.
Smart teams don't think that way.
True Eric, but smart owners, especially after a train wreck of a previous season whereby fans were going crazy not only fire an owner mid-season, will do whatever it takes to immediately get back into the playoffs...even if for only 2 years. They aren't likely going to go into a QB rebuild process in 2018 and have the fan-base...again next season when a generational talent like Barkley could be available.
Then again, if the Browns (or somebody else) grabs Barkley first, and they decide not to trade down :-( who knows. We will find out soon enough.
Picking anyone is risky. But the ceiling of picking a great QB far exceeds the ceiling of picking a RB, from both a cost and production standpoint. The floor is basically the same.
(2) Davis Webb hasn't played in a meaningful game since 2016. And when he did last play in college, the reviews were not great.
(3) Even if they suck again in 2018, the Giants are not likely to have a top 5 pick next year or anytime soon. Picking top three is a rarity for most teams.
(4) QBs are THE MOST IMPORTANT players in the game. Period. There is no debate on this subject. If you don't have a quarterback in today's game, you are screwed.
Cliff Note's Version: Teams rarely get an opportunity to draft a franchise QB. When you get that chance - especially when your QB situation is completely up in the air - you look a bit foolish not taking advantage of that situation unless you don't like any of the QBs.
It's not that hard to figure out.
So our best example is 14 years ago and pre-rookie scale (and, oh btw, a QB and not an RB)?
I think both are laudable goals but I truly believe this draft presents and either/or. With Barkley, I really believe we reopen Eli's window, which was precisely our strategy heading into training camp last summer. Draft Eli's replacement (among this group) and I think we bumble around for several years.
As far as 2020 and figuring it out then, I think Eric is right in that smart teams don't do that. But, I would want to poll which is the better strategy for a Denver who figured it out in the last minute and won a SB with the corpse of Peyton Manning but now picks at the top of the draft fro lack of being smart. Was it worth it?
You can also say that the Eagles figured it out at the last minute this year with Foles, but were fortunate enough to have both options (the last minute and the future QB).
(2) Davis Webb hasn't played in a meaningful game since 2016. And when he did last play in college, the reviews were not great.
(3) Even if they suck again in 2018, the Giants are not likely to have a top 5 pick next year or anytime soon. Picking top three is a rarity for most teams.
(4) QBs are THE MOST IMPORTANT players in the game. Period. There is no debate on this subject. If you don't have a quarterback in today's game, you are screwed.
Cliff Note's Version: Teams rarely get an opportunity to draft a franchise QB. When you get that chance - especially when your QB situation is completely up in the air - you look a bit foolish not taking advantage of that situation unless you don't like any of the QBs.
It's not that hard to figure out.
But then who is our QB in 2020?
Worry about that in 2020 and enjoy the ride until then. With Barkley on the team and an assumed improved oline is there much doubt that it should be an exciting team?
Let the scouting process play out.
But if the Giants see another Manning or Roethlisberger in this draft, you almost have to take him. If you don't, you miss a once-in-a-decade (or more) opportunity.
People love to keep claiming this, but the Giants #2 pick will have an estimated cap number of $5.7MM in 2018 - that's currently #10 among RBs in 2018.
If the Giants were to spend the #2 pick on a CB, he would immediately have the 28th highest cap number in the league; 24th among DEs (41st among all edge rushers); 36th among OTs. I'm not even listing QB, because obviously that's the biggest bargain. Ultimately, your point is correct, but you do need to hit on the pick at those positions in order for it to be a bargain. So that begs the question, on some level, of which position is a rookie most likely to step right in and make a significant impact? RB seems like it might be the answer to that specific question.
This is accurate, but is it relevant? We know that RB tends to be a position with a short shelf life, but does that minimize the impact of a truly outstanding RB even in a 5 year window? An excellent player at any position will become expensive on their second contract and beyond, so if you're also using rookie wage scale as a factor, shouldn't we be limiting our consideration to the impact within their rookie contract? I'd leave QB out of this simply because the vast majority of successful QBs never hit the open market. That's not the case at other positions.
This is probably the essential point, right? That the marginal value of even an outstanding RB is not as significant as it is at other positions. Compared, for example to QB, where you can't really patch together a committee successfully, and at OL, where a mediocre player can submarine the effectiveness of all those around him.
Fundamentally, I understand all the reasons why it's not the most sound allocation of resources to draft a RB at #2. But I don't think that necessarily means that you eliminate a RB from consideration; rather, you factor all of that into the consideration and set the bar higher for a RB at that draft slot. In other words, a RB would have to really, really, really be worth it in order to be drafted at #2.
Some feel that no RB could possibly be worth it enough to justify that pick. And that's fine - it's all speculation and opining for us. Personally, I think that a RB could be worth it, if he met that increased standard for consideration. Is Barkley good enough to be worth it? I don't know for sure, but I know that he's pretty damn intriguing for me, even at #2. That's just my opinion.
I'd love to take Barkley, but if the franchise QB is there, how do you pass on that - especially given our QB situation?
Meanwhile in 2012, you had Luck and Griffin go 1 and 2 and one is out of the league and the other could be close behind. In 2014, Bortles was #3 and just now had a solid season. 2015 was the year of Mariota and Winston with middling returns. 2016 had Goff and Wentz which looks pretty damn solid now.
Pretty much, not much can be drawn from a consensus argument standpoint.
Meanwhile in 2012, you had Luck and Griffin go 1 and 2 and one is out of the league and the other could be close behind. In 2014, Bortles was #3 and just now had a solid season. 2015 was the year of Mariota and Winston with middling returns. 2016 had Goff and Wentz which looks pretty damn solid now.
Pretty much, not much can be drawn from a consensus argument standpoint.
Which is why you let the evaluation process play out.
Sy is high on the RB now because he's convinced the RB is better than the QBs in this draft.
But if the Giants consider a QB or two in the franchise mode...
Thread winner.
(2) Davis Webb hasn't played in a meaningful game since 2016. And when he did last play in college, the reviews were not great.
(3) Even if they suck again in 2018, the Giants are not likely to have a top 5 pick next year or anytime soon. Picking top three is a rarity for most teams.
(4) QBs are THE MOST IMPORTANT players in the game. Period. There is no debate on this subject. If you don't have a quarterback in today's game, you are screwed.
Cliff Note's Version: Teams rarely get an opportunity to draft a franchise QB. When you get that chance - especially when your QB situation is completely up in the air - you look a bit foolish not taking advantage of that situation unless you don't like any of the QBs.
It's not that hard to figure out.
All of this is assuming this QB class is good. What if they draft QB, solely based on need, and they whiff on the QB. Then where does that leave 2020? Now granted if they strongly feel that one of these QB's is the next coming then by all means but I don't think that can be said about the guys at least rated at the top.
What sets back a franchise more is whiffing on a #2 overall. Nothing is guaranteed but Barkley is as close to a home run sure thing as you're going to get.
Yeah I guess you could go QB and sit him for a year or two and HOPE he turns out to be something. Or you can draft Barkley and add him to an improved oline and try to win now. Afterall if the plan is to sit the potential rookie QB you draft how many more elite years do you think OBJ has in him?
I don't think its prudent to waste years waiting on someone that MAY become something when a). You have a vet QB already on the roster who at the very very least can manage an offense and b) you have a rookie QB on the roster already. Supposedly you have a QB guru who made Case Keenum look like a championship QB. Could he not conceivably do the same with Davis?
jtgiants, I am operating under the legitimate possibly that we've seen the best of Eli. He's been on a downward trend for two years now. Unlike many who want to blame everything but Eli for the Giants' offensive woes, I saw him as part of the problem the past two years. (And again, Eli is one of my favorite Giants of all time). Could he have a 1993-like Phil Simms renaissance? Sure. But even the Giants cut Phil after that tremendous season.
My guess is Eli is here one more year. I don't think it is far-fetched at all to assume our starting QB in 2019 is not yet on the roster.
Quote:
I think having Barkley on this team would be amazing.
But then who is our QB in 2020?
Figure that out in 2020.
That's a pretty good way to suck in 2020 and, possibly, in 2021 and beyond if you're not able to figure it out. It's great if there's a Wentz or Goff sitting there. But what if the top QB prospect in the 2020 draft is a Bortles instead?
I don't think you can (or should) execute a run-to-failure strategy for your QB succession plan.
Just don't select a freegin' guard at #2.
The offensive line alone is a disaster. We are not the Cowboys, who did a great job of building their front.
As for your comments about the risks of drafting a QB, I think I already addressed that a number of times above. Let the evaluation process play out.
What a mistake that was!
Quote:
In comment 13839396 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
I think having Barkley on this team would be amazing.
But then who is our QB in 2020?
Figure that out in 2020.
That's a pretty good way to suck in 2020 and, possibly, in 2021 and beyond if you're not able to figure it out. It's great if there's a Wentz or Goff sitting there. But what if the top QB prospect in the 2020 draft is a Bortles instead?
I don't think you can (or should) execute a run-to-failure strategy for your QB succession plan.
Ahhh but what if all the QB's in this class are Bortles? We're talking about chances here. All these QB's could be something or they could be nothing. I see serious red flags in all of them outside of Darnold but even he could be a mirage.
Whats the best chance of success? Is it not Barkley? Seriously if you're career, reputation and the fate of the franchise lies on not missing on this pick who do you roll the dice with? I'd rather go with what is more of a sure thing.
But your opinion is just that at this point. That's why you need to let the evaluation process play out.
I remember a time on BBI when EVERYONE - and I do mean EVERYONE - thought we'd be crazy to pass on Robert Gallery if available.
While you can be easily enticed by Fournette, Gurley or Elliott's success, it's the running game overall, not the RB specifically IMO that is more important.
And when looking at the playoff teams the RB's overwhelmingly did not come from the first round. Too many Bell's (2nd round), Kamara (3rd round), Kareem Hunt (3rd round), LeSean McCoy (2nd round), Devonta Freeman (4th round), Demarco Murray (3rd round), Derrick Henry (2nd round) - and this again is just playoff teams, and overwhelmingly the QB's on those 12 playoff teams came from the 1st round.
So the point is, you can absolutely take a RB #2 overall, however it's much easier to find a solid RB later in the draft than it is to find a QB later in the draft. And based on the career longevity and injury factor it might be a wiser investment later in the draft.
but the Giants need to fix the running game. Period.
The offensive line alone is a disaster. We are not the Cowboys, who did a great job of building their front.
As for your comments about the risks of drafting a QB, I think I already addressed that a number of times above. Let the evaluation process play out.
Yes they were pretty bad but there were a lot of injuries and lets be honest they mailed it in after they went 0-3, 0-4 0-5. They're human they know the season is pretty much over. On top of that they didn't have any kind of leadership to get them out of that rut and maybe go 6-10 like a TC could pull.
The team is 1 year removed from going 11-5. So which is the mirage?
Yeah the line is nowhere near where the Cowboys are but how did the Cowboys and Dak look WITHOUT their stud RB?
Stud players can hide a lot of warts. We have to assume we are going to improve the oline somewhat this offseason. It cant get much worse. Add a stud player like that which makes the offense dynamic there is no reason why this team can't be competitive.
2012-2015, 2017 were not.
Quote:
I think having Barkley on this team would be amazing.
But then who is our QB in 2020?
Worry about that in 2020 and enjoy the ride until then. With Barkley on the team and an assumed improved oline is there much doubt that it should be an exciting team?
Yes. I love Eli as much as anyone on this board and I beg anyone to find a negative thing I have said about him. He is my favorite Giant of all time and always will be for the crap he had to deal with. But, let's be fair--his game over the last two years has not inspired confidence. I do think that the second Philadelphia game when he was throwing intermediate routes looked more like the old Eli than I saw all year, but I just can't say for certain that his decline will not be even more significant this season. I hate to say it, but its time to make sure this franchise is protected for the next 10 to 15 years.
Now, of course, our qb that we take might be a bust, any pick entails risk and is a crapshoot, but picking a running back at number is just a bad idea in the way this league runs. How many super bowls did Barry Sanders and Eric Dickerson play in without above average qbs? Those were the best two running backs in my lifetime. Now, how many did Emmitt Smith play in? He played with a Hall of Fame QB. You get the QB and then find the rb. The smart decision is to find a qb and get him.
But your opinion is just that at this point. That's why you need to let the evaluation process play out.
I remember a time on BBI when EVERYONE - and I do mean EVERYONE - thought we'd be crazy to pass on Robert Gallery if available.
LOL I was in the Sean Taylor camp but only cuz I didn't think we had a chance at getting Eli. As soon as we got Eli I was excited as hell honstely mostly because of the pedigree. I don't feel that kind of excitement about any of these guys.
That said the QB that seems to impress me the most is Darnold and if hes there and they take him I can't knock that.
But I'm basing my opinion mostly on the Browns taking Darnold #1 leaving us the rest of the board. At that point, IMO, it needs to be Barkley all the way because the other QB's have too many red flags for me to gamble on them at that spot.
The NFL Champions live in our division. And they are a team that has owned our asses for a decade now as well. They'll sweep us again in 2018.
Then they are delusional in my opinion. If that's true, combined with ownership's decision-making in January 2016, makes me shudder for the future.
The NFL Champions live in our division. And they are a team that has owned our asses for a decade now as well. They'll sweep us again in 2018.
I don't know about that, they were in last place in our division in 2016 and we should have beat them twice. They will probably beat us, but in this NFL, things change rapidly.
Quote:
In comment 13839415 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 13839396 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
I think having Barkley on this team would be amazing.
But then who is our QB in 2020?
Figure that out in 2020.
That's a pretty good way to suck in 2020 and, possibly, in 2021 and beyond if you're not able to figure it out. It's great if there's a Wentz or Goff sitting there. But what if the top QB prospect in the 2020 draft is a Bortles instead?
I don't think you can (or should) execute a run-to-failure strategy for your QB succession plan.
Ahhh but what if all the QB's in this class are Bortles? We're talking about chances here. All these QB's could be something or they could be nothing. I see serious red flags in all of them outside of Darnold but even he could be a mirage.
Whats the best chance of success? Is it not Barkley? Seriously if you're career, reputation and the fate of the franchise lies on not missing on this pick who do you roll the dice with? I'd rather go with what is more of a sure thing.
Those are all valid points. But it doesn't change the fact that Eli is 37 and has been, at least on the surface, in decline for the past couple of years. They need to be looking for his successor now, not in 2020. That doesn't mean drafting one at #2 just for the sake of being able to say they took a QB; it just means that the QB succession plan is and should remain one of the most important things for this team to focus on until they have their next franchise QB.
"Figure that out in 2020" is a horrible strategy.
You don't just kick the can down the road when your QB is 37. And you especially don't do it when your QB is 37, carries a big cap number, may potentially be in decline, your offensive scheme is changing, and your GM and HC have as much rope as they will have at any point in their tenure until they win a Super Bowl.
Again, it doesn't mean that you draft a QB at #2 just to draft one. Either the prospect is worth the pick or he's not, and that's true of any position. And if he's not worth it, you pick the player who most improves the team and the QB search continues. What you absolutely don't do is just table the discussion for two years.
The NFL Champions live in our division. And they are a team that has owned our asses for a decade now as well. They'll sweep us again in 2018.
Good point and its also a team we played with both times. Carson is coming off an injury he probably will get back to form in due time but was BOTH of our performances against them a mirage also?
I think the mirage was this last year when the wheels fell off quickly due to many reasons.
Clearly it all depends on what you think you have. If you think we have an 11-5 team that just failed due to injuries, bad start, bad leadership then I think you have to take Barkley if there.
If you think we are years away then you might take a QB and don't resign OBJ and prepare to clear the roster of a lot of the vets cuz whats the point if its a rebuild job.
Things may change rapidly in the NFL, but not in terms of that rivalry.
Got to run now... great discussion.
No, but if you take a QB at #2, you dump Eli in a year.
Quote:
In comment 13839483 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 13839415 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 13839396 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
I think having Barkley on this team would be amazing.
But then who is our QB in 2020?
Figure that out in 2020.
That's a pretty good way to suck in 2020 and, possibly, in 2021 and beyond if you're not able to figure it out. It's great if there's a Wentz or Goff sitting there. But what if the top QB prospect in the 2020 draft is a Bortles instead?
I don't think you can (or should) execute a run-to-failure strategy for your QB succession plan.
Ahhh but what if all the QB's in this class are Bortles? We're talking about chances here. All these QB's could be something or they could be nothing. I see serious red flags in all of them outside of Darnold but even he could be a mirage.
Whats the best chance of success? Is it not Barkley? Seriously if you're career, reputation and the fate of the franchise lies on not missing on this pick who do you roll the dice with? I'd rather go with what is more of a sure thing.
Those are all valid points. But it doesn't change the fact that Eli is 37 and has been, at least on the surface, in decline for the past couple of years. They need to be looking for his successor now, not in 2020. That doesn't mean drafting one at #2 just for the sake of being able to say they took a QB; it just means that the QB succession plan is and should remain one of the most important things for this team to focus on until they have their next franchise QB.
"Figure that out in 2020" is a horrible strategy.
You don't just kick the can down the road when your QB is 37. And you especially don't do it when your QB is 37, carries a big cap number, may potentially be in decline, your offensive scheme is changing, and your GM and HC have as much rope as they will have at any point in their tenure until they win a Super Bowl.
Again, it doesn't mean that you draft a QB at #2 just to draft one. Either the prospect is worth the pick or he's not, and that's true of any position. And if he's not worth it, you pick the player who most improves the team and the QB search continues. What you absolutely don't do is just table the discussion for two years.
Of course but its just a cute and fast way of saying find another way. We could always draft another rookie QB later. A couple of those Seniors in the Senior bowl did pretty well. We could always pick someone up in FA. Then of course there is the draft next year and offseason next year. By then we should know what we have in Davis Webb and we have Shurmur who can make Keenum look pretty good.
My point is the Cowboys won with Dak who, I feel, was exposed this year when he didn't have his stud RB blanket. If we don't draft a QB #2 that doesn't mean we won't find someone other ways. Shurmur found Keenum and made Foles look awesome when he had him. I think we could find somebody.
Got to run now... great discussion.
Good stuff Eric. Imagine the conversations going on in Met Life. lol
My point is the Cowboys won with Dak who, I feel, was exposed this year when he didn't have his stud RB blanket. If we don't draft a QB #2 that doesn't mean we won't find someone other ways. Shurmur found Keenum and made Foles look awesome when he had him. I think we could find somebody.
Yes, those two made the playoffs, and Foles won a SB, but do you really think their success is sustainable, predictable or the way to build your team?
Foles is a 29 year old journeyman on the cusp of retirement before signing with the Eagles (again) his 4th NFL team.
Keenum was a UDFA and also a journeyman, he's 30 years old and on his 5th team.
If your roster building plan is draft Barkley #2 and "find a QB because Foles and Keenum had success" then when you go almost 20 years with no QB like Miami (who took Ronnie Brown #2 and watched Aaron Rodgers drop to the 20's (not that I want to play the draft 2nd guessing game)) or the Bills who have had a similar no franchise QB stretch then you get what you deserve.
Even Prescott is an anomaly and as mentioned he struggled this year. Will he rebound? I don't know, but I know Wentz will, and Goff looks great.
Quote:
In comment 13839415 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 13839396 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
I think having Barkley on this team would be amazing.
But then who is our QB in 2020?
Figure that out in 2020.
That's a pretty good way to suck in 2020 and, possibly, in 2021 and beyond if you're not able to figure it out. It's great if there's a Wentz or Goff sitting there. But what if the top QB prospect in the 2020 draft is a Bortles instead?
I don't think you can (or should) execute a run-to-failure strategy for your QB succession plan.
Ahhh but what if all the QB's in this class are Bortles? We're talking about chances here. All these QB's could be something or they could be nothing. I see serious red flags in all of them outside of Darnold but even he could be a mirage.
Whats the best chance of success? Is it not Barkley? Seriously if you're career, reputation and the fate of the franchise lies on not missing on this pick who do you roll the dice with? I'd rather go with what is more of a sure thing.
Why does it have to be Bortles as the example? Bortles had his team in the AFC Championship and nearly the Super Bowl this year. Bortles is doing a lot better than us, and by the way, had a better year than Eli. Why can't the example be, I don't know, Jimmy Clausen? Or Chris Weinke? Or EJ Manuel, Jake Locker, or Mark Sanchez?
In conclusion, LEAVE MY BLAKE-Y ALONE!
Elliot - Ran behind the best run blocking line in the league 2 years ago (also, imo, a big reason Dak was able to be so successful). People will point to them faltering this year as evidence that he was the straw that stirs the drink. However, imo, the real issue was not having a healthy Tyron Smith for most of their down stretch was just as big of a factor. I'd argue this team would probably be better overall if they had instead taken Jalen Ramsey and committed a later pick or some FA bucks to an RB.
Fournette - The legend of this guy is really something. He averaged under 4 yards a carry. The team was 3-0 without him in the lineup (and 7-6 with him in it). Is he a good rb? Yes. Is he what propelled this team to the AFC championship? No. IMO, that was the historically good defense. Again, put most starting caliber RBs on this team and I don't think the results of their season are much different.
yeah, those 10 carries for 17 yards were the difference maker.
Faulk was incredible, but covering Holt, Bruce and Faulk receiving the ball won the super bowl, and of them all Faulk probably contributed the least to the SB. His 5 catches for 90 yards were 3rd on the team in the game.
Holt and Bruce were unstoppable and not because of play action. They threw the ball 45 times.
I don't understand how you can make the assumption that Eli is safe through the end of his contract. You can hope. However there is no basis to make that assumption. He's 37, coming off 2 bad years with an extremely vulnerable contract next year. I'm actually ok writing off the last 2 years to management incompetence but even if you do that, you are projecting 34 year old Eli 2-3 years out.
Maybe you can say "sitting 2 years" another time in this thread.
If the Giants take a QB at #2, he's sitting for one year, max.
See, anyone can just state their opinion as fact!
The offensive line alone is a disaster. We are not the Cowboys, who did a great job of building their front.
As for your comments about the risks of drafting a QB, I think I already addressed that a number of times above. Let the evaluation process play out.
I *absolutely* believe that with Barkley with Norwell (plus a bit more OL adjustments) with OBJ with Shep with Engram and *with* Eli, they are a win now team. I think the O would be elite and the defense would likely be more than adequate. This was supposed to be a SB team last year and obviously they sucked. But I think there’s enough thread there that with a bellwether rushing attack, they could be right up there.
If we take a QB at #2, with the loaded expectations and $ involved in taking that player, Eli would need to perform like peak Eli to stick. I don't even think the 2015 version of Eli is worth keeping at that point when looking at the big picture.
People have selective fucking memories.
Quote:
without Marshall Faulk.
yeah, those 10 carries for 17 yards were the difference maker.
Faulk was incredible, but covering Holt, Bruce and Faulk receiving the ball won the super bowl, and of them all Faulk probably contributed the least to the SB. His 5 catches for 90 yards were 3rd on the team in the game.
Holt and Bruce were unstoppable and not because of play action. They threw the ball 45 times.
In fairness, I don't think you can ignore the 2400 yards from scrimmage that he had during the regular season - that helped them get home field advantage in the playoffs, which helped them get to the Super Bowl. So it's not inaccurate to suggest that they probably don't win the Super Bowl without Marshall Faulk.
Tell that to Alex Smith who just had the highest passer rating in the NFL last year.
You're letting your fandom interfere with your ability to process objective thought.
First of all, they still could cut Eli. They haven't yet, and probably won't, but they could. I doubt they will, but it is in no way a reflection of whether or not they're rebuilding. Nor is it an indication of what their succession plan is at the QB position.
Also, *you're.
When you look at the successful teams in the NFL, very few have spent high picks on their backs and a large portion have on their QB's. You want to point to Case Keenum?? Is the goal a flash in the pan season or sustained success?? Wake me up in 3 years when Keenum is holding a clip board somewhere. Ohhh, the cowboys drafted a rb high and a qb late, look at them...1. one good year. 2. clearly the qb isn't good enough to carry them. 3. they have the best line in football. 4. Was there a blue chip QB at 4 when the cowboys picked?
There is no exact science, but if you are going by trends, history and past success, it's a very rare situation where you take a RB 2.
Quote:
I agree w them. You watch this team will bounce back and win 10 or 11 games. I really believe that. You still aren't answering my question though. Would you be ok w the #2 pick in the draft sitting for 2 years If you were wrong and they are a bounce back team?
No, but if you take a QB at #2, you dump Eli in a year.
Totally agree with Eric here. The benefit of having a 1st round QB is the savings for their first 5 years. I wouldn't want to piss away 2 of those years. I can understand having the kid holding a clipboard for a year coming from a college offense.
If the Giants wanted to cut Eli and JPP in 2019, the savings alone will be $29M! That could go to good use.
I started a post a few weeks ago about how cool it would be to team Barkley with Odell. And if they do that, I will be excited and hope it works out.
But I'd also be extremely worried about the QB position moving forward. I want our own Wentz. I don't want a Kirk Cousins type in 2020.
Quote:
without Marshall Faulk.
yeah, those 10 carries for 17 yards were the difference maker.
Faulk was incredible, but covering Holt, Bruce and Faulk receiving the ball won the super bowl, and of them all Faulk probably contributed the least to the SB. His 5 catches for 90 yards were 3rd on the team in the game.
Holt and Bruce were unstoppable and not because of play action. They threw the ball 45 times.
Guy with 107 yards total offense in the Super Bowl a non-factor. Gotcha. Anyway, even if you say he was a non-factor in the Super Bowl, which is dumb to say, btw, do you realize he had 2,429 scrimmage yards that year (regular season), which is 2nd most in NFL history? Do you? Do you think that without him they would have won a Super Bowl? That question is not soley about the game.
Quote:
without Marshall Faulk.
yeah, those 10 carries for 17 yards were the difference maker.
Faulk was incredible, but covering Holt, Bruce and Faulk receiving the ball won the super bowl, and of them all Faulk probably contributed the least to the SB. His 5 catches for 90 yards were 3rd on the team in the game.
Holt and Bruce were unstoppable and not because of play action. They threw the ball 45 times.
Guys guys guys...the Rams would've won the Super Bowl without Marshall Faulk...he was a non-factor according to pjcas...he was only NFL Offensive Player of the year and put up one of the greatest offensive seasons in NFL history. No big.
Video - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13839536 allstarjim said:
Quote:
without Marshall Faulk.
yeah, those 10 carries for 17 yards were the difference maker.
Faulk was incredible, but covering Holt, Bruce and Faulk receiving the ball won the super bowl, and of them all Faulk probably contributed the least to the SB. His 5 catches for 90 yards were 3rd on the team in the game.
Holt and Bruce were unstoppable and not because of play action. They threw the ball 45 times.
In fairness, I don't think you can ignore the 2400 yards from scrimmage that he had during the regular season - that helped them get home field advantage in the playoffs, which helped them get to the Super Bowl. So it's not inaccurate to suggest that they probably don't win the Super Bowl without Marshall Faulk.
Even if I allow this, the Rams didn't even draft Faulk. They traded 2nd and 5th round picks for him, so to be apples to apples the Giants would trade a 2nd round pick for Todd Gurley. I support that.
The Colts did draft Faulk and they're a great example, they replaced Faulk with another high pick Edgerrin James, and only won a SB once James left and was replaced with Joseph Addai.
If they really do love one of the QBs then they should take the QB. I think most people are not sold on any of them, however.
Barkley could be really special. Worth the risk of possibly "overdrafting" him. He could be a really special piece. One less item that we need.
Two years from now, if all you need is a QB, then you have the ability to go and get him, the same as Acorsi did with Eli. You may overpay, but if you get another two SB's out of it, then it will be worth it. Hell, let's give Eli a couple of more shots to get some more.
Maybe I am over optimistic, but I really do believe that through a solid draft and smart free agency, plus motivating some of the under performers, this team will contend this coming season.
I'm not going to waste time explaining to you the myriad metrics that show Eli's decline, mostly because you wouldn't understand them (and would attempt to dismiss them out of hand), but also because I don't have the energy to deal with the pitchforks that come out when the sacred cow is questioned.
Also, still *you're.
People have selective fucking memories.
I'm sure the irony of using your own selective memory to ignore the past two years of Eli's career is lost on you.
Quote:
As if all sure thing in the NFL draft is really a thing.
People have selective fucking memories.
I'm sure the irony of using your own selective memory to ignore the past two years of Eli's career is lost on you.
Shit, I read jlukes as jtgiants. jlukes, I apologize.
If they really do love one of the QBs then they should take the QB. I think most people are not sold on any of them, however.
Barkley could be really special. Worth the risk of possibly "overdrafting" him. He could be a really special piece. One less item that we need.
Two years from now, if all you need is a QB, then you have the ability to go and get him, the same as Acorsi did with Eli. You may overpay, but if you get another two SB's out of it, then it will be worth it. Hell, let's give Eli a couple of more shots to get some more.
Maybe I am over optimistic, but I really do believe that through a solid draft and smart free agency, plus motivating some of the under performers, this team will contend this coming season.
I agree. Maybe 2 SB's is pushing it but I really do believe they can make a run at 1 and Eli doesn't have to be great to do it. Look at Peyton his last year. Granted much better defense, but with a special player like Barkley, a rebuilt O-line and at the very least a good defense, this team can make a run at competing. Isn't that what this is all about?
This team is NOT retooling. You don't gut the front office and coaching staff if you're doing that.
From what I've read Barkley is NOT great running between the tackles. His weakness is vision and instincts????? Doesn't that make ANYONE else besides me nervous.
You have to avoid QB hell at ALL costs. There is every chance one of these guys is worth the #2 pick. Selecting this high WITH a 37 yr old starter is very good fortune. It our "reward" for the wonderful season we just witnessed.
Now if come draft time the front office decides none of these guys is th right choice than you go to Plan B. But I HIGHLY doubt it will come to that.
Quote:
I would like to see them take Barkley and roll the dice with Eli for 2 more years.
If they really do love one of the QBs then they should take the QB. I think most people are not sold on any of them, however.
Barkley could be really special. Worth the risk of possibly "overdrafting" him. He could be a really special piece. One less item that we need.
Two years from now, if all you need is a QB, then you have the ability to go and get him, the same as Acorsi did with Eli. You may overpay, but if you get another two SB's out of it, then it will be worth it. Hell, let's give Eli a couple of more shots to get some more.
Maybe I am over optimistic, but I really do believe that through a solid draft and smart free agency, plus motivating some of the under performers, this team will contend this coming season.
I agree. Maybe 2 SB's is pushing it but I really do believe they can make a run at 1 and Eli doesn't have to be great to do it. Look at Peyton his last year. Granted much better defense, but with a special player like Barkley, a rebuilt O-line and at the very least a good defense, this team can make a run at competing. Isn't that what this is all about?
Well, when you say it like that. Seems like a guarantee we will win with Barkley so might as well draft him.
There is a difference...
2019 Draft look at QBs like Finley out of N.Carolina St., or J. Hansen out of Arkansas? Both prolific passers, think Hansen is 6’,3’?
Anyway think the answer of drafting Barkley at 2 is looking to see who’s getting drafted next year. I’ve watched a total of like 4 games with these guys so I don’t pretend to be an expert here.
Just trying to give some discussion pointers around who do we draft as QB if we go RB at #2 and Webb doesn’t fit into long term plans.
You don't draft a RB at #2.
You don't draft linebackers in the first round.
These are such lazy, regurgitated, group-think declarations.
Eli was trash last year. He has one more season TOPS.
We won a Super Bowl in 2007 without great linebackers so BBI decided they aren't important enough to draft in the first round.
We also won a Super Bowl with a 7th round RB, so BBI decided that RB's are "a dime a dozen" and aren't worthy of a 1st round selection either.
Maybe you missed them while you were banned, but they definitely existed :p
Quote:
Unless your ok w a kid qb sitting 2 years, in not, it makes no sense to take one. To me, if you go qb, in today's nfl he has to play right away. Two years is an eternity in the nfl
Why on Earth do people think Eli has "2 years" left?
Eli was trash last year. He has one more season TOPS.
If he was trash last year (I disagree but whatever...) then how can he have one more season?
Quote:
The best part is most of those are mantras that you just made up!
We won a Super Bowl in 2007 without great linebackers so BBI decided they aren't important enough to draft in the first round.
We also won a Super Bowl with a 7th round RB, so BBI decided that RB's are "a dime a dozen" and aren't worthy of a 1st round selection either.
Maybe you missed them while you were banned, but they definitely existed :p
There’s a massive difference between a “1st round RB” and picking one at 2 overall. You know that, right?
Quote:
In comment 13839893 Keith said:
Quote:
The best part is most of those are mantras that you just made up!
We won a Super Bowl in 2007 without great linebackers so BBI decided they aren't important enough to draft in the first round.
We also won a Super Bowl with a 7th round RB, so BBI decided that RB's are "a dime a dozen" and aren't worthy of a 1st round selection either.
Maybe you missed them while you were banned, but they definitely existed :p
There’s a massive difference between a “1st round RB” and picking one at 2 overall. You know that, right?
Yes. That's why I pointed both of them out in my original post.
I really don't see shelf life as an issue. The shelf life of a RB isn't that small, and the historical statistic that is used to support the idea is incredibly skewed. There are so many RB's in the league that are still producing into their early 30's.
If you get 8 to 10 years of quality production out of a RB that you drafted #2, then you've hit on that pick. Its not that different from many WR's.
But if the right one isn't and Barkley is sitting there - its a no-brainer.
Secondly, if 4 guys say something, is it a bbi mantra? I haven't read anwhere that you shouldn't draft a LB in rd 1. Are you referring to the Reese mantra? Did you need a 3rd "mantra" to make your point and you ran out of ideas?
The only thing semi true is the "mantra" that you shouldn't draft a RB #2, but to try and make your point, you made things up.
Secondly, if 4 guys say something, is it a bbi mantra? I haven't read anwhere that you shouldn't draft a LB in rd 1. Are you referring to the Reese mantra? Did you need a 3rd "mantra" to make your point and you ran out of ideas?
The only thing semi true is the "mantra" that you shouldn't draft a RB #2, but to try and make your point, you made things up.
I'm sorry that you didn't read it, but it was here and it was more than 4 guys. Its since been proven wrong over the past 10 years which is why you don't read it anymore.
For one, it's just not the norm for RB's to last that long.
Secondly, you would need to re-sign the RB to a likely massive deal during this time frame to make it to 8 to 10 and then, as we see right now with Le'Veon Bell he's up for a pay day abs very possibly the Steelers 8 - 10 year RB might wind up a 5 year RB.
Third, as sure as everyone is that Barkley is the next Marshall Faulk, sometimes can't miss players miss.
These 8 - 10 year statements are grandiose plans that that rarely happen.
Ron Dayne and Tyrone Wheatley were supposed to be 8 to 10 year RB's too.
I'm not saying Barkely can't defy the odds and be one of them, but people type it like it's matter-of-fact.
I'd love to see the list of 10-year RB's with the same team who are currently active:
the longest active RB's right now that lasted 10 years (or more) are:
Frank Gore (two teams)
Adrian Peterson (three teams)
LeSean McCoy (two teams)
Marshawn Lynch (three teams)
Matt Forte (two teams)
Chris Johnson (three teams)
Jamaal Charles (two teams)
Jonathan Stewart***
______________ (less than 10 years)
DeMarco Murray (three teams)
LaGarette Blount (four teams)
Alfred Morris (two teams)
Darren McFadden (two teams)
forgetting that many of these guys are not "franchise backs" many have had injuries (AP, CJ2k, Charles, etc.), suspensions (AP, and maybe they weren't drafted as high as #2, but the point remains.
For one, it's just not the norm for RB's to last that long.
Secondly, you would need to re-sign the RB to a likely massive deal during this time frame to make it to 8 to 10 and then, as we see right now with Le'Veon Bell he's up for a pay day abs very possibly the Steelers 8 - 10 year RB might wind up a 5 year RB.
Third, as sure as everyone is that Barkley is the next Marshall Faulk, sometimes can't miss players miss.
These 8 - 10 year statements are grandiose plans that that rarely happen.
Ron Dayne and Tyrone Wheatley were supposed to be 8 to 10 year RB's too.
I'm not saying Barkely can't defy the odds and be one of them, but people type it like it's matter-of-fact.
I'd love to see the list of 10-year RB's with the same team who are currently active:
the longest active RB's right now that lasted 10 years (or more) are:
Frank Gore (two teams)
Adrian Peterson (three teams)
LeSean McCoy (two teams)
Marshawn Lynch (three teams)
Matt Forte (two teams)
Chris Johnson (three teams)
Jamaal Charles (two teams)
Jonathan Stewart***
______________ (less than 10 years)
DeMarco Murray (three teams)
LaGarette Blount (four teams)
Alfred Morris (two teams)
Darren McFadden (two teams)
forgetting that many of these guys are not "franchise backs" many have had injuries (AP, CJ2k, Charles, etc.), suspensions (AP, and maybe they weren't drafted as high as #2, but the point remains.
Providing a list of *current* RB's that have lasted 10 years or more doesn't really prove anything. You'd need a bigger sample size. You'd also need to compare that sample size to other positions in the same time period. You'd also need to analyze where they were all drafted, why the others retired early, and a slew of other variables if you really wanted to be thorough. Good luck. At the end of it all you'll probably see that the *shelf life* for RB's is plenty long enough to get a return on the investment.
You're basically saying, don't draft this player with the 2nd pick because we won't be able to afford him when his rookie deal is up and he'll go to a different team. He also might get injured or suspended and miss time.
That's ridiculous.
Maybe the Giants should draft mediocre players only - so at least they know they'll be able to afford them when they become free agents. Drafting truly great players is too expensive.
Don't over-think it. Pick the best players. Worry about future contracts and injuries later.
If so, then shouldn't we look at the positional salary?
Next year:
At RB we'd be paying roughly 8M for all RBs with Barkley.
At QB we'd be paying roughly 24M.
With Barkley we'd get 5 actual years of play from the pick (assuming no injuries)
With a QB we'd get 3-4 years (assuming no injuries) I assume Eli plays all of 2018, and my gut says they keep him for 2019 as a transitional year.
But for argument's sake let's say Eli gets cut in 2019, and both Barkley or a QB is phenomenal
Over 5 years we are still 16M more at the position with a QB.
After 5 years if Barkley plays an addition 5 years maybe he makes 18M a year.
A QB will be making 30+ M a year at that point.
So if the argument is he is too expensive, the numbers say otherwise.
I'd prefer Barkley myself, I won't lie, and I'd probably take Logan Woodside in like the 4th only because I think he's a sleeper and would provide that competition at QB
That being said, if you did the same research that pj just did about RB's, I'm sure you'd have a much different analysis on QB's.
Not to be to pedantic, but there is no penalty if you have less. The only penalty is if there are too many players on the field. Rule 5 Section 1 - " If a snap, free kick, or fair-catch kick is made while a team has fewer than 11 players on the field of play or the end zone, the ball is in play, and there is no penalty."
If so, then shouldn't we look at the positional salary?
Next year:
At RB we'd be paying roughly 8M for all RBs with Barkley.
At QB we'd be paying roughly 24M.
With Barkley we'd get 5 actual years of play from the pick (assuming no injuries)
With a QB we'd get 3-4 years (assuming no injuries) I assume Eli plays all of 2018, and my gut says they keep him for 2019 as a transitional year.
But for argument's sake let's say Eli gets cut in 2019, and both Barkley or a QB is phenomenal
Over 5 years we are still 16M more at the position with a QB.
After 5 years if Barkley plays an addition 5 years maybe he makes 18M a year.
A QB will be making 30+ M a year at that point.
So if the argument is he is too expensive, the numbers say otherwise.
I'd prefer Barkley myself, I won't lie, and I'd probably take Logan Woodside in like the 4th only because I think he's a sleeper and would provide that competition at QB
I'm not really following what you are trying to say. If you are factoring in salaries, you need to compare them to other salaries at the same position. For example....
Ezekial Elliot who was the 4th pick two years ago is currently a top paid RB compared to all the other RB's. He'll probably even be top 3 at the position. Trubisky, who was the #2 pick last year is currently #25 amongst QB's. If you draft a RB #2, he's going to be one of the highest paid RB's within a year or 2. If you draft a QB, you'll get 4 years are major savings at the position. See the difference?
Quote:
Rules say you have to have 11 men on the field.
Not to be to pedantic, but there is no penalty if you have less. The only penalty is if there are too many players on the field. Rule 5 Section 1 - " If a snap, free kick, or fair-catch kick is made while a team has fewer than 11 players on the field of play or the end zone, the ball is in play, and there is no penalty."
Remember when Sean Taylor died, didn't the skins put 10 players on the field? Then proceed to give up a big play.
Quote:
with this "8 to 10 years" stuff.
For one, it's just not the norm for RB's to last that long.
Secondly, you would need to re-sign the RB to a likely massive deal during this time frame to make it to 8 to 10 and then, as we see right now with Le'Veon Bell he's up for a pay day abs very possibly the Steelers 8 - 10 year RB might wind up a 5 year RB.
Third, as sure as everyone is that Barkley is the next Marshall Faulk, sometimes can't miss players miss.
These 8 - 10 year statements are grandiose plans that that rarely happen.
Ron Dayne and Tyrone Wheatley were supposed to be 8 to 10 year RB's too.
I'm not saying Barkely can't defy the odds and be one of them, but people type it like it's matter-of-fact.
I'd love to see the list of 10-year RB's with the same team who are currently active:
the longest active RB's right now that lasted 10 years (or more) are:
Frank Gore (two teams)
Adrian Peterson (three teams)
LeSean McCoy (two teams)
Marshawn Lynch (three teams)
Matt Forte (two teams)
Chris Johnson (three teams)
Jamaal Charles (two teams)
Jonathan Stewart***
______________ (less than 10 years)
DeMarco Murray (three teams)
LaGarette Blount (four teams)
Alfred Morris (two teams)
Darren McFadden (two teams)
forgetting that many of these guys are not "franchise backs" many have had injuries (AP, CJ2k, Charles, etc.), suspensions (AP, and maybe they weren't drafted as high as #2, but the point remains.
Providing a list of *current* RB's that have lasted 10 years or more doesn't really prove anything. You'd need a bigger sample size. You'd also need to compare that sample size to other positions in the same time period. You'd also need to analyze where they were all drafted, why the others retired early, and a slew of other variables if you really wanted to be thorough. Good luck. At the end of it all you'll probably see that the *shelf life* for RB's is plenty long enough to get a return on the investment.
You're basically saying, don't draft this player with the 2nd pick because we won't be able to afford him when his rookie deal is up and he'll go to a different team. He also might get injured or suspended and miss time.
That's ridiculous.
Maybe the Giants should draft mediocre players only - so at least they know they'll be able to afford them when they become free agents. Drafting truly great players is too expensive.
Don't over-think it. Pick the best players. Worry about future contracts and injuries later.
No, you completely missed the point, it's the position specifically.
You can do the same exercise with QBs and find a whole lot of them who have been with their team 10 years:
Brady
Eli
Ben
Rivers
Brees
Rodgers
Stafford (10th year this year)
Flacco
and more likely to last 10 years too.
So the point is the 8 - 10 year plan is more likely for some positions than others. like QB vs RB.
Also maybe noteworthy is 6 of those 8 guys have won Super Bowls.
What it comes down to for me, if you can get a position player that can be a Top 5-10 guy at his position right off the bat, that is a huge plus. Barkley looks to have the goods, and we have seen what great RBs can do for offenses that have mediocre QBs(think we can all agree that Eli is at least mediocre when given tools around him to succeed). It not only makes the offense better, but it keeps the defense off the field and refreshed, so it benefits the team two-fold.
The real factor here is Shurmur. Who's to say that just because we do not draft a QB at number 2, that we cant draft a QB later? Why cant this team draft Lamar Jackson or Mason Rudolph with their 2nd round pick and let Shurmur mold both Webb and the incoming rookie to take over after Eli?
Shurmur has molded lesser QBs before and has proven to be a great playcaller that schemes around his players. And guess what, having a Top 5-10 back behind a new QB will help ease the pressure off the newbie.
Last point, the last time Eli was provided a decent offensive line and a weapon at RB was arguably 2010. We can all say Eli is done, but I would like to at least give the guy at least ONE more shot with a viable offense around him before we shovel dirt on the guy. I think he deserves that much. Personally, I think he still has the talent left to be a Top 10 QB if he has a good (not great) offense around him.
Quote:
In comment 13839933 Bill L said:
Quote:
Rules say you have to have 11 men on the field.
Not to be to pedantic, but there is no penalty if you have less. The only penalty is if there are too many players on the field. Rule 5 Section 1 - " If a snap, free kick, or fair-catch kick is made while a team has fewer than 11 players on the field of play or the end zone, the ball is in play, and there is no penalty."
Remember when Sean Taylor died, didn't the skins put 10 players on the field? Then proceed to give up a big play.
I do. While there is no penalty for having less, it is recommended that teams field 11 players on any given snap.
If so, then shouldn't we look at the positional salary?
Next year:
At RB we'd be paying roughly 8M for all RBs with Barkley.
At QB we'd be paying roughly 24M.
With Barkley we'd get 5 actual years of play from the pick (assuming no injuries)
With a QB we'd get 3-4 years (assuming no injuries) I assume Eli plays all of 2018, and my gut says they keep him for 2019 as a transitional year.
But for argument's sake let's say Eli gets cut in 2019, and both Barkley or a QB is phenomenal
Over 5 years we are still 16M more at the position with a QB.
After 5 years if Barkley plays an addition 5 years maybe he makes 18M a year.
A QB will be making 30+ M a year at that point.
So if the argument is he is too expensive, the numbers say otherwise.
I'd prefer Barkley myself, I won't lie, and I'd probably take Logan Woodside in like the 4th only because I think he's a sleeper and would provide that competition at QB
The argument is the cost now for Barkley is that of a top paid RB if he's drafted at 2. For a QB, we'd be getting one for cheap and IF the QB replaces Eli next season (who we'd cut or trade), we would have 4 years of cheap QB play before making a big investment (one that we hope we have to do as it would mean the pick was a good one and we have a new franchise QB).
Total dollars isn't the point. The point is total dollars against the league average at the position.
That being said, if you did the same research that pj just did about RB's, I'm sure you'd have a much different analysis on QB's.
Except that I don't have an issue taking a QB at 2, if its the right one. I get the logic behind drafting Rosen or Darnold. I'm not disputing it. Personally, if I had to choose between Barkley and one of those QB's, I'd take Barkley. He's simply a better player than anyone else. Period. But its not as if there isn't a solid case for picking the QB.
I simply refuse to say the Giants *need* to go with a QB because they have the #2 pick.
"We wont be in this position ever again!"
Says who? And these QB's aren't generational players like Barkley is. They're only at the top of the board this April because there aren't better options.
Quote:
without spending a #2 overall.
If you're good at your (management) job, you can say the same about virtually every position.
Quote:
isn't just...do you ever take a RB at #2 because I'd have a different opinion if we had Carson Wentz or Goff under center. The question is more about should the Giants select a rb #2 and with the massive need at QB, we may never get as good of an opportunity to get a QB as our QB is just about done(if not done already).
That being said, if you did the same research that pj just did about RB's, I'm sure you'd have a much different analysis on QB's.
Except that I don't have an issue taking a QB at 2, if its the right one. I get the logic behind drafting Rosen or Darnold. I'm not disputing it. Personally, if I had to choose between Barkley and one of those QB's, I'd take Barkley. He's simply a better player than anyone else. Period. But its not as if there isn't a solid case for picking the QB.
I simply refuse to say the Giants *need* to go with a QB because they have the #2 pick.
"We wont be in this position ever again!"
Says who? And these QB's aren't generational players like Barkley is. They're only at the top of the board this April because there aren't better options.
When you need to twist words, it tells me that your argument is weak. You are responding to me, so I will assume that you think I said "we wont be in this position ever again", when I clearly said "we may never get as good of an opportunity to get a QB as our QB is just about done(if not done already)."
I can get on board with Barkley - it would mean they don't like the available QB's in which case we shouldn't take one just to take one. But I don't think that will be the case.
Quote:
The argument is the cost now for Barkley is that of a top paid RB if he's drafted at 2. For a QB, we'd be getting one for cheap and IF the QB replaces Eli next season (who we'd cut or trade), we would have 4 years of cheap QB play before making a big investment (one that we hope we have to do as it would mean the pick was a good one and we have a new franchise QB).
Total dollars isn't the point. The point is total dollars against the league average at the position.
Got it, Thanks!
If the Giants are sold on both SD and Barkley, and only SD as a franchise QB, and if Cleveland picks SD.. (a lot of ands I know)
Then you need to take Barkley at #2 as Indy probably takes him at #3 or Cleveland at #4
If Cleveland takes Rosen or Barkley at #1.. You go SD
If the Giants are not sold on either, trade back. There will be the run at QBs and dropping to 7 or 8 Won't be too harmful in my opinion.
I can get on board with Barkley - it would mean they don't like the available QB's in which case we shouldn't take one just to take one. But I don't think that will be the case.
Maybe you aren't advocating it. But a lot of people are. And I don't disagree with your second point.
Quote:
In comment 13840009 Keith said:
Quote:
isn't just...do you ever take a RB at #2 because I'd have a different opinion if we had Carson Wentz or Goff under center. The question is more about should the Giants select a rb #2 and with the massive need at QB, we may never get as good of an opportunity to get a QB as our QB is just about done(if not done already).
That being said, if you did the same research that pj just did about RB's, I'm sure you'd have a much different analysis on QB's.
Except that I don't have an issue taking a QB at 2, if its the right one. I get the logic behind drafting Rosen or Darnold. I'm not disputing it. Personally, if I had to choose between Barkley and one of those QB's, I'd take Barkley. He's simply a better player than anyone else. Period. But its not as if there isn't a solid case for picking the QB.
I simply refuse to say the Giants *need* to go with a QB because they have the #2 pick.
"We wont be in this position ever again!"
Says who? And these QB's aren't generational players like Barkley is. They're only at the top of the board this April because there aren't better options.
When you need to twist words, it tells me that your argument is weak. You are responding to me, so I will assume that you think I said "we wont be in this position ever again", when I clearly said "we may never get as good of an opportunity to get a QB as our QB is just about done(if not done already)."
"We won't be in this position ever again" is the general sentiment. It wasn't directed specifically at you.
I agree with you. We may not be in as good a position to get a QB. But I guess that depends on how good you think these QB's are.
Quote:
In comment 13839920 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
without spending a #2 overall.
If you're good at your (management) job, you can say the same about virtually every position.
true. But, there are only so many quarterbacks. There are RBs every year.
Sometimes they're not very great...in fact, I was looking at the draft the last time the Giants had the #2 pick (and took LT, if you recall). They could have taken a top QB; they had Simms going into his third year and he was still fighting with Brunner for playing time, so I'm not all that sure that he wasn't a Davis Webb player at that point. But while there literally were QB's in that draft, figuratively there weren't any. The only guys I even knew were Neil Lomax and Mark Hermann. Lomax wasn't bad, but there was not a stellar guy.
But, again reading comments and evaluations, while there are a lot of solid QB's (potentially) in this draft, it doesn't look to be a Manning, Big Ben, Rivers draft. Maybe one of these guys can be Lomax ;-)
Point is still that thee's always going to be guys and if you are good at your evaluation job then you can find them. QB's are not all coming down with terminal illnesses after this draft. And some, like Peyton in Denver, Foles, etc don't always need to be drafted to get you to a SB. Again, it really depends on what your end goal and priorities are. Do you value continuity over a Maybe singular) championship, or vice versa?
But, again reading comments and evaluations, while there are a lot of solid QB's (potentially) in this draft, it doesn't look to be a Manning, Big Ben, Rivers draft. Maybe one of these guys can be Lomax ;-)
[/quote]
This is wrong. Opinions vary but the general consensus is that this is a very strong QB draft at the top. Eli, Ben and Rivers were all flawed prospects entering the '04 draft, just like these guys are.
I'm not saying the Giants should force a pick, if their evaluations stray from then consensus then by all means try like hell to trade down or go Barkley. However, this is strong draft at QB if we're judging the general opinion.
Quote:
In comment 13840043 Brown Recluse said:
Quote:
In comment 13840009 Keith said:
Quote:
isn't just...do you ever take a RB at #2 because I'd have a different opinion if we had Carson Wentz or Goff under center. The question is more about should the Giants select a rb #2 and with the massive need at QB, we may never get as good of an opportunity to get a QB as our QB is just about done(if not done already).
That being said, if you did the same research that pj just did about RB's, I'm sure you'd have a much different analysis on QB's.
Except that I don't have an issue taking a QB at 2, if its the right one. I get the logic behind drafting Rosen or Darnold. I'm not disputing it. Personally, if I had to choose between Barkley and one of those QB's, I'd take Barkley. He's simply a better player than anyone else. Period. But its not as if there isn't a solid case for picking the QB.
I simply refuse to say the Giants *need* to go with a QB because they have the #2 pick.
"We wont be in this position ever again!"
Says who? And these QB's aren't generational players like Barkley is. They're only at the top of the board this April because there aren't better options.
When you need to twist words, it tells me that your argument is weak. You are responding to me, so I will assume that you think I said "we wont be in this position ever again", when I clearly said "we may never get as good of an opportunity to get a QB as our QB is just about done(if not done already)."
"We won't be in this position ever again" is the general sentiment. It wasn't directed specifically at you.
I agree with you. We may not be in as good a position to get a QB. But I guess that depends on how good you think these QB's are.
Full disclosure, I know very little about these prospects. I am basically looking at the investments side of things.
Quote:
In comment 13839922 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 13839920 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
without spending a #2 overall.
If you're good at your (management) job, you can say the same about virtually every position.
true. But, there are only so many quarterbacks. There are RBs every year.
I can't recall a draft where there no QB's at all.
Sometimes they're not very great...in fact, I was looking at the draft the last time the Giants had the #2 pick (and took LT, if you recall). They could have taken a top QB; they had Simms going into his third year and he was still fighting with Brunner for playing time, so I'm not all that sure that he wasn't a Davis Webb player at that point. But while there literally were QB's in that draft, figuratively there weren't any. The only guys I even knew were Neil Lomax and Mark Hermann. Lomax wasn't bad, but there was not a stellar guy.
But, again reading comments and evaluations, while there are a lot of solid QB's (potentially) in this draft, it doesn't look to be a Manning, Big Ben, Rivers draft. Maybe one of these guys can be Lomax ;-)
Point is still that thee's always going to be guys and if you are good at your evaluation job then you can find them. QB's are not all coming down with terminal illnesses after this draft. And some, like Peyton in Denver, Foles, etc don't always need to be drafted to get you to a SB. Again, it really depends on what your end goal and priorities are. Do you value continuity over a Maybe singular) championship, or vice versa?
Of course I was speaking figuratively. If you believe in George Young's 'Planet' theory, that there are only so many quality, athletic big men that can excel at offensive line and they should be looked at as rare currency, you can subscribe the same sort of theory to quarterbacks. There are only so many legitimately quality QB prospects. Some years there are none. Some years there's one. Sometimes more.
Everyone's opinions on these quarterbacks seem to be lower than I think is the reality. Last year, when Giants fans were not paying attention to college QBs, these guys were looked at as stars based on the seasons they put up. We wouldn't be having the "he's not worth a #2 pick" if this draft is in April 2017. For various reasons, some of which the result of the team around them, not the QB themselves, Darnold and Rosen didn't have the same sort of standout years. I'm not sold that that suddenly means they're not good.
For instance, if Barkley is a guy that puts up 2000 scrimmage yards, which I think he's capable of, how does his contract look in the context of production? Then perhaps the cost isn't as prohibitive.