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.
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.