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.
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.