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.