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.
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.