With Brown's signing Hyde, is it qb at #1 for them?

the QB's are over rated if barkley is there unless there is a deal too good to pass for a move back they should take him he will do more for the giants than zeke did in dallas

Cle-QB
Giants-QB
Colts-Trade with the Bills
Cle-RB or trade back more

let's take Barkley to put on a 6-10 team and then when we build the pieces for him in a couple of years we won't have a qb. Taking Barkley would really be mind-boggling stupid.

too much about what Cleveland will do at #1 to determine what we will do at #2. The real direction will be revealed over the next few days and no more than two weeks as we see what we are able to sign in FA.

If we come up empty in FA at Oline then we just need to blow this up (trade away vets and take dead money hit now) and rebuild with many many draft picks.

I'll add it here as well..

For what its worth, a few weeks ago when I heard Cleveland was going for Hyde (I shared that with you guys in one of these threads) it was partially tied to Cleveland taking Darnold at 1.

no matter how good they are never are drafted toward the top of the draft is because they are usually the last building piece, one that can be gotten in numerous different ways. Drafting a RB when your team is bad is just a dumb move. The cowboys when they drafted Elliot was the perfect example of a team exercising smarts with a pick. The cowboys OL was already in place and they could use him immediately. Now, they got lucky because Romo got hurt and Dak was able to fill in and they were still successful, but it made sense. Now, look at the Rams, what did Gurley do for them before they got Goff?

and I know it's early so not being an alarmist or overly dramatic I don't see how the Giants have improved the 3 - 13 roster enough to contend in 2018, so I'm not saying to start the tank before OTAs but I feel like the Giants are closer to the bottom than the top.

So, I'd take Barkley if the Browns don't and know that 2018 is going to likely be a long year and the Giants will be in position to draft a QB again in 2019.

It goes against almost everything I thought I believed about the football draft to take a RB at 2, but if you're going to be at 2 again in a year I don't have an issue with it.

It’s not a no brained for us to take him.

And does this really mean the Browns won’t take Barkley? Hyde has had some injury concerns, and he didn’t exactly sign a mega deal with the Browns. The Giants just signed Jonathan Stewart, does that mean we won’t take Barkley?

In comment 13864155 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

and I know it's early so not being an alarmist or overly dramatic I don't see how the Giants have improved the 3 - 13 roster enough to contend in 2018, so I'm not saying to start the tank before OTAs but I feel like the Giants are closer to the bottom than the top. So, I'd take Barkley if the Browns don't and know that 2018 is going to likely be a long year and the Giants will be in position to draft a QB again in 2019. It goes against almost everything I thought I believed about the football draft to take a RB at 2, but if you're going to be at 2 again in a year I don't have an issue with it.

Yeah, but it took an epically bad season for us to be this bad. Crazy injuries, piss poor coaching, bad lockerrom....the chances that we are THIS bad again where we are picking top 3(which is where you really need to be to get the bluechip QB's) are very, very slim.

In comment 13864142 Keith said:

Quote:

Cle-QB Giants-QB Colts-Trade with the Bills Cle-RB or trade back more

That's what Ive been thinking for a while now. Cleveland comes away with their first choice at QB and the best RB in the draft.

And then pray Lamar Jackson slips and we steal him with our 2nd round pick. I still think Jackson ends up the best QB in this draft.

In comment 13864155 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

and I know it's early so not being an alarmist or overly dramatic I don't see how the Giants have improved the 3 - 13 roster enough to contend in 2018, so I'm not saying to start the tank before OTAs but I feel like the Giants are closer to the bottom than the top. So, I'd take Barkley if the Browns don't and know that 2018 is going to likely be a long year and the Giants will be in position to draft a QB again in 2019. It goes against almost everything I thought I believed about the football draft to take a RB at 2, but if you're going to be at 2 again in a year I don't have an issue with it.

I'm starting to think the same as well. The other part, for me atleast, is i want to watch fun players. I know that doesn't mean its better for the team, but fuck it, I'm trying to be entertained for 3 hours.

think DG will take Barkley, which is fine, but I would probably trade down.

Allen to NYG, or the reverse. Been my prediction for months.

assuming someone wants to give us the farm to do so. Roll with Eli another year and see what happens with Webb.

In comment 13864173 yankeeslover said:

Quote:

And then pray Lamar Jackson slips and we steal him with our 2nd round pick. I still think Jackson ends up the best QB in this draft.

I don't understand the fascination with a QB who can't drive the ball outside the hash marks. Teams will sit inside and eliminate passing lanes knowing he can't hurt them outside the 17 yard Lane in the middle of the field. He is not a good passer for the pro game.

In comment 13864185 DonQuixote said:

Quote:

Allen to NYG, or the reverse. Been my prediction for months.

Allen is my toss the remote pick

Not a preference.

I don’t know enough to have a preference.

In comment 13864138 msh said:

Quote:

the QB's are over rated if barkley is there unless there is a deal too good to pass for a move back they should take him he will do more for the giants than zeke did in dallas

Unless we get to swap o-lines with Dallas with this draft pic, you're out of your mind. Zeke is a great talent - Barkley might be even better, i dont know - but a large part of Zeke's success the past 2 years is he's often untouched before he reaches the second level.

In comment 13864155 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

and I know it's early so not being an alarmist or overly dramatic I don't see how the Giants have improved the 3 - 13 roster enough to contend in 2018, so I'm not saying to start the tank before OTAs but I feel like the Giants are closer to the bottom than the top. So, I'd take Barkley if the Browns don't and know that 2018 is going to likely be a long year and the Giants will be in position to draft a QB again in 2019. It goes against almost everything I thought I believed about the football draft to take a RB at 2, but if you're going to be at 2 again in a year I don't have an issue with it.

Pjcas, you'll be getting about 30% of team back from IR.
You have a completely new front office & coaching staff.

The draft hasn't happened yet.

We'll have an easier schedule.

We've identified all the 'weakness' that is not talent
related. Bad apples, even bad eli's, are being removed

I doubt 2019 we will be drafting lower than 16-24
We get QB now. No QB, we'll be bidding for the Cousins
and Bridgewaters next year.

but of the 4 big QBs, Allen is the 4th of my preferences. I've heard too many interviews that say his accuracy is an issue and he looked lost at times during senior bowl practices.

In the end, who knows?

He's going to be an impact player and a very good to elite NFL RB.

Assuming Darnold goes #1, it really comes down to Rosen or Barkley.

In comment 13864243 Giants1956 said:

Quote:

In comment 13864155 pjcas18 said: Quote: and I know it's early so not being an alarmist or overly dramatic I don't see how the Giants have improved the 3 - 13 roster enough to contend in 2018, so I'm not saying to start the tank before OTAs but I feel like the Giants are closer to the bottom than the top. So, I'd take Barkley if the Browns don't and know that 2018 is going to likely be a long year and the Giants will be in position to draft a QB again in 2019. It goes against almost everything I thought I believed about the football draft to take a RB at 2, but if you're going to be at 2 again in a year I don't have an issue with it. Pjcas, you'll be getting about 30% of team back from IR. You have a completely new front office & coaching staff. The draft hasn't happened yet. We'll have an easier schedule. We've identified all the 'weakness' that is not talent related. Bad apples, even bad eli's, are being removed I doubt 2019 we will be drafting lower than 16-24 We get QB now. No QB, we'll be bidding for the Cousins and Bridgewaters next year.

I like the optimism, but you have the Giants as a playoff team in 2018?

I don't see it, but absolutely agree it's early.

I just think instead of patch-working the OL with aging veterans like Solder that the Giants are settling for after their first choice OL went elsewhere reeks of desperation.

I'd rather just do very little, and let that coaching staff and front office implement their system and start building players in their mold.

To do that requires patience though and next year when the team has their system implemented and more cap space get the players they target not the ones they settle for.

this off-season is critical to the Giants long-term future, it's bigger than just 2018 and I hate to see the team mired in mediocrity because they couldn't be terrible for one more year and build the "right way".

I have no conclusions though, just my sense of the way things appear.

Cutting DRC was the move that led me to believe this more than missing on Norwell.

saw him as a sort of a younger Stewart, similar running style. And now McKinnon is off to the 9ers. Market is drying up pretty quickly...

In comment 13864259 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 13864243 Giants1956 said: Quote: In comment 13864155 pjcas18 said: Quote: and I know it's early so not being an alarmist or overly dramatic I don't see how the Giants have improved the 3 - 13 roster enough to contend in 2018, so I'm not saying to start the tank before OTAs but I feel like the Giants are closer to the bottom than the top. So, I'd take Barkley if the Browns don't and know that 2018 is going to likely be a long year and the Giants will be in position to draft a QB again in 2019. It goes against almost everything I thought I believed about the football draft to take a RB at 2, but if you're going to be at 2 again in a year I don't have an issue with it. Pjcas, you'll be getting about 30% of team back from IR. You have a completely new front office & coaching staff. The draft hasn't happened yet. We'll have an easier schedule. We've identified all the 'weakness' that is not talent related. Bad apples, even bad eli's, are being removed I doubt 2019 we will be drafting lower than 16-24 We get QB now. No QB, we'll be bidding for the Cousins and Bridgewaters next year. I like the optimism, but you have the Giants as a playoff team in 2018? I don't see it, but absolutely agree it's early. I just think instead of patch-working the OL with aging veterans like Solder that the Giants are settling for after their first choice OL went elsewhere reeks of desperation. I'd rather just do very little, and let that coaching staff and front office implement their system and start building players in their mold. To do that requires patience though and next year when the team has their system implemented and more cap space get the players they target not the ones they settle for. this off-season is critical to the Giants long-term future, it's bigger than just 2018 and I hate to see the team mired in mediocrity because they couldn't be terrible for one more year and build the "right way". I have no conclusions though, just my sense of the way things appear. Cutting DRC was the move that led me to believe this more than missing on Norwell.

I could not agree more; I always go back to the Red Aureback line where he said something like "do you realize how short one year is" when he took Larry Bird but Bird would not be available for another year for the Celtics. Last year was brutal and I don't want to have another year like that, but I will take it if it means four or five very good years because we did it the right way.

You can grab Nick Chubb in like the third. or Sony Michel. I don't care if Barkley is a generational talent - you take Rosen or Darnold, who by all accounts, are projected to be franchise QBs.

QB is the most important position in all of sports. RBs do not elevate their teams like QBs do, and don't even have the potential to elevate them for ten years.

In comment 13864368 Sonic Youth said:

Quote:

You can grab Nick Chubb in like the third. or Sony Michel. I don't care if Barkley is a generational talent - you take Rosen or Darnold, who by all accounts, are projected to be franchise QBs. QB is the most important position in all of sports. RBs do not elevate their teams like QBs do, and don't even have the potential to elevate them for ten years.

Do you think the Cowboys looked different with Elliott and without him?

If Barkley is supposed to be better than Elliott I think you might be slightly wrong about RB's elevating a team.

Sure he's a risk, but so are these college QB's. There have been 100's of threads on here pointing out both. I will trust the Giants evaluation process on Webb and Rosen. If they pass for Barkley, which means they like Webb, then I go with it. They know a lot better than me.

In comment 13864173 yankeeslover said:

Quote:

And then pray Lamar Jackson slips and we steal him with our 2nd round pick. I still think Jackson ends up the best QB in this draft.

I think there is a very real chance that LJ doesn't play QB for long, and almost no chance that he will be the best QB in this draft. People get overly enamored with college stats and videos, when QB's have WR's running wide open over the middle of the field. That doesn't happen in the NFL.

I've watched some of his video, and I've seen nothing that shows he can make an NFL throw. Now maybe it was the offense he played at Louisville, but his combine certainly didn't help.

In comment 13864375 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 13864368 Sonic Youth said: Quote: You can grab Nick Chubb in like the third. or Sony Michel. I don't care if Barkley is a generational talent - you take Rosen or Darnold, who by all accounts, are projected to be franchise QBs. QB is the most important position in all of sports. RBs do not elevate their teams like QBs do, and don't even have the potential to elevate them for ten years. Do you think the Cowboys looked different with Elliott and without him? If Barkley is supposed to be better than Elliott I think you might be slightly wrong about RB's elevating a team.

But they were in a better position to use Elliot. They had a QB in Romo, they had a stud OL, they had Dez and the only real question marks on that team were on the defensive side. Much different situation. Is Barkley going to be so much better than Gurley??? If they are somewhat comparable, the Rams did not get good with Gurley until Goff started producing. So, now we bring Barkley here, we draft an OL in the next two or three years and then when that happens we need a qb? It seems Barkley is a shiny car we just have to pass on for a QB.

In comment 13864375 pjcas18
Do you think the Cowboys looked different with Elliott and without him?

If Barkley is supposed to be better than Elliott I think you might be slightly wrong about RB's elevating a team. [/quote]

I think the counterargument is that RB's have such a short shelf life that selecting one before you have an OL in place, or a franchise QB would waste his prime years. Dallas was a different situation, they had a pretty good team, and Zeke made the offense more dynamic. Personally, I think they would have been better served taking Jalen Ramsey.

In comment 13864468 Section331 said:

Quote:

In comment 13864375 pjcas18 Do you think the Cowboys looked different with Elliott and without him? If Barkley is supposed to be better than Elliott I think you might be slightly wrong about RB's elevating a team.

I think the counterargument is that RB's have such a short shelf life that selecting one before you have an OL in place, or a franchise QB would waste his prime years. Dallas was a different situation, they had a pretty good team, and Zeke made the offense more dynamic. Personally, I think they would have been better served taking Jalen Ramsey. [/quote]

I struggle with taking a RB at 2 as I mentioned above. It's counter to everything I always thought about the draft. That being said, my rationale was the expectation the Giants will be picking top 5 again in 2019. If they love a QB then they'll take them at 2, but missing on a QB is probably worse than taking a RB.

except that they have two years to get a QB.

Nothing changes for me as far as there is still too great a talent differential between Barkley and the other QBs that way exceeds the positional need. They need to improve but IMO, the only way to be a great team is to get great players. They'll have less chance to add this type of talent going forward, IMO, than to get an equivalent type of good or solid QB going forward.

The Hyde signing is the best thing I've heard today (admittedly, my real life is having it tough today, but still....)

In comment 13864473 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

I struggle with taking a RB at 2 as I mentioned above. It's counter to everything I always thought about the draft. That being said, my rationale was the expectation the Giants will be picking top 5 again in 2019. If they love a QB then they'll take them at 2, but missing on a QB is probably worse than taking a RB.

That's a good point, missing on a QB at 2 would be a lot to recover from. At this point, next year's QB class looks worse than this one.

In comment 13864480 Bill L said:

Quote:

except that they have two years to get a QB. Nothing changes for me as far as there is still too great a talent differential between Barkley and the other QBs that way exceeds the positional need. They need to improve but IMO, the only way to be a great team is to get great players. They'll have less chance to add this type of talent going forward, IMO, than to get an equivalent type of good or solid QB going forward. The Hyde signing is the best thing I've heard today (admittedly, my real life is having it tough today, but still....)

When was the last generational talent at RB to win a Super Bowl--Walter Payton, Terrell Davis? How many super bowls did Barry Sanders or AP win, in fact how many playoff wins did Barry Sanders or AP have. RB is one of the least consequential positions in football

. . .

is indicative of the Giants leaning Barkley. Add Hernandez or Wynn in the 2nd and the offense begins to look a lot more dynamic.

best rb prospect in 25 years??!! Holy hyperbole.

Whatever you hear about a Penn State rb, discount it by 50%. They have been hyping RB there since before Franco Harris and 90% of them have turned out to be huge busts.

Barkley makes it better for the QB, WRs and TEs ... he will drawn a DB into the box. Also he his pass-pro is good already, that will help the OL and they need all the help they can get. Not to mention play-action.

He'll do all those things with Eli and his replacement in a 1 or 2 yrs.

Barkley @ 2 is the way to go.

In comment 13864154 Essex said:

Quote:

no matter how good they are never are drafted toward the top of the draft is because they are usually the last building piece, one that can be gotten in numerous different ways. Drafting a RB when your team is bad is just a dumb move. The cowboys when they drafted Elliot was the perfect example of a team exercising smarts with a pick. The cowboys OL was already in place and they could use him immediately. Now, they got lucky because Romo got hurt and Dak was able to fill in and they were still successful, but it made sense. Now, look at the Rams, what did Gurley do for them before they got Goff?

Lol... you’re making shit up. Love it.

Dallas record before zeke was?
Jags record before fournette was?
Giants record and ground game was before trading for Rob carpenter?
Jets record before and after drafting Freeman McNeil (i should get bonus pts for this one)

Shall I continue?

Get so fucking weird ?

The guy touches the ball 25-30 times. He’s important. Good backs mask offensive issues. Great backs mask even bigger issues.

Since when do you have to draft a rb in some weird particular cosmic order? Wtf happened to just drafting the best rb and moving on? Over thinking maniacs...

In comment 13864509 Essex said:

Quote:

In comment 13864480 Bill L said: When was the last generational talent at RB to win a Super Bowl--Walter Payton, Terrell Davis?

Furthermore, Terrell Davis was a round (6th?) round pick. Walter Payton is the last 1st round feature RB to win the SB and most would say that with their defense, they could've won it with refrigerator Perry as their RB.

I'm not totally against taking Barkley, but your point is valid.

In comment 13864822 Dr. D said:

Quote:

In comment 13864509 Essex said: Quote: In comment 13864480 Bill L said: When was the last generational talent at RB to win a Super Bowl--Walter Payton, Terrell Davis? Furthermore, Terrell Davis was a round (6th?) round pick. Walter Payton is the last 1st round feature RB to win the SB and most would say that with their defense, they could've won it with refrigerator Perry as their RB. I'm not totally against taking Barkley, but your point is valid.

Maybe you're forgetting Marshall Faulk. He was a 1st round pick, and a feature back and won a SB, and came within an unlikely comeback of winning a 2nd.

with a different team though. Not sure how much that matters for this conversation, but the team that drafted him early traded him.

In comment 13864826 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 13864822 Dr. D said: Quote: In comment 13864509 Essex said: Quote: In comment 13864480 Bill L said: When was the last generational talent at RB to win a Super Bowl--Walter Payton, Terrell Davis? Furthermore, Terrell Davis was a round (6th?) round pick. Walter Payton is the last 1st round feature RB to win the SB and most would say that with their defense, they could've won it with refrigerator Perry as their RB. I'm not totally against taking Barkley, but your point is valid. Maybe you're forgetting Marshall Faulk. He was a 1st round pick, and a feature back and won a SB, and came within an unlikely comeback of winning a 2nd.

Or marshawn lynch. Or Ricky waters. Or emmitt smith. Or Jamal Lewis.

Leveon bell can’t win a super bowl? He’s one of the reasons why pitt is in the mix every year.

Please stop.

which of those RB's won without a franchise QB? I can name a plethora of QB's that have won without a top RB.

In comment 13865114 Keith said:

Quote:

with a different team though. Not sure how much that matters for this conversation, but the team that drafted him early traded him.

True, not sure what it changes though.

Not a lot of highly drafted WR's won Super Bowls.

Not a lot of highly drafted OL won Super Bowls.


the point is specious. 1 team wins the Super Bowl each year and a lot needs to break right just to make that happen.


Here is the list of WR's drafted #5 or higher since 1971, how many rings? Keyshawn and Desmond Howard? And neither with their original team either.

Year Pick Player Team School
2011 4 A.J. Green Cincinnati Bengals Georgia
2007 2 Calvin Johnson Detroit Lions Georgia Tech
2005 3 Braylon Edwards Cleveland Browns Michigan
2004 3 Larry Fitzgerald Arizona Cardinals Pittsburgh
2003 2 Charles Rogers Detroit Lions Michigan State
2003 3 Andre Johnson Houston Texans Miami (Fla.)
2000 4 Peter Warrick Cincinnati Bengals Florida State
1996 1 Keyshawn Johnson New York Jets USC
1995 4 Michael Westbrook Washington Redskins Colorado
1992 4 Desmond Howard Washington Redskins Michigan
1984 1 Irving Fryar New England Patriots Nebraska
1984 4 Kenny Jackson Philadelphia Eagles Penn State
1980 2 Lam Jones New York Jets Texas
1979 5 Jerry Butler Buffalo Bills Clemson
1978 3 Wes Chandler New Orleans Saints Florida
1972 4 Ahmad Rashad St. Louis Cardinals Oregon
1971 4 J.D. Hill Buffalo Bills Arizona State

Franchise QB.

In comment 13865187 Keith said:

Quote:

Franchise QB.

Agree.

If you look the last twenty years, as the NFL has gone pass happy, half the SB teams had a guy who rush for close to 1200 yards that season. Its worth noting the teams that made it more than once. For what its worth.


XXXIII Jan. 31, 1999 Denver : Davis
XXXIV Jan. 30, 2000 St. Louis : Faulk
XXXV Jan. 28, 2001 Baltimore : Jamal Lewis
XXXVI Feb. 3, 2002 New England : Antoine Smith
XXXIX Feb. 6, 2005 New England: Corey Dillon
XL Feb. 5, 2006 Pittsburgh: Willie Parker
XLVII Feb. 3, 2013 Baltimore Ravens: Rice
XLVIII Feb. 2, 2014 Seattle Seahawks: Lynch
LI Feb. 5, 2017 New England Patriots: Blount

you have to be able to run the ball. Followed closely by, you have to be able to stop the run.

Blind adherence to dogma ultimately kills you, no matter what the situation, sports or non-sports.

Just because you force a guy on your team and label him your franchise Qb, does not mean that he is a franchise QB.

Talent *always* wins out. Always. The positional need has to be so much greater than the talent differential to make even contemplating the sacrifice in ability. It's not even close in this case; and, not so much because there isn't a positional need.

*However* the need, while obvious, is lessened by the imposed two year time frame and also the extent of team to team QB turnover each year.