Reasonable to assume Giants turned down 3 2s to move to 6. They either love a QB or made an awful decision. Their actions up until now dont say they are picking a QB
I think we can be pretty confident QBs will be drafted 1 and 3 at this point. And I think probably 2 as well, whether it's by the Giants or someone who trades up for the pick.
Jfc what actions? How can anyone base anything off of what the giants did in FA? So they should not have signed a LT if they were going to draft a qb at 2??? Wtf.
for three 2s as well. Simply not enough, and thats before factoring in that he 2 pick is more valuable than the 3 especially if you think heres a big droop off from the top 2 QBs and the rest.
Unless we have an offer consisting of multiple firsts with multiple 2s and 3s, its not worth listening to.
you do it when you are on the clock. That is when the other teams get desperate just like Acorsi was when we traded for Eli.
Once Cleveland makes their first selection, THAT is when the offers will come. If a team farther back wants a player, why would they trade with us today without knowing whether he will still be there at #2?
Jfc what actions? How can anyone base anything off of what the giants did in FA? So they should not have signed a LT if they were going to draft a qb at 2??? Wtf.
like the QBs could go in the first 4 picks. Teams are climbing all over themselves to get in a position to pick one. They are climbing all over themselves to get in the position we are already in...pick a QB!!!!!!
you do it when you are on the clock. That is when the other teams get desperate just like Acorsi was when we traded for Eli.
Once Cleveland makes their first selection, THAT is when the offers will come. If a team farther back wants a player, why would they trade with us today without knowing whether he will still be there at #2?
Yup.
Said it before and I'll say it again. Maybe the Jets guy is there at 2 but worry Denver or someone else trades with the Giants and jumps them, and the Jets offer their 1 next year to move up to 2.
you do it when you are on the clock. That is when the other teams get desperate just like Acorsi was when we traded for Eli.
Once Cleveland makes their first selection, THAT is when the offers will come. If a team farther back wants a player, why would they trade with us today without knowing whether he will still be there at #2?
Agree, with one exception: Those offers will be made in advance. You can line up a potential trade, wait until you're on the clock to see if a better offer comes in, then either pull the trigger on the original offer, take the new one, or make the pick.
And the trade talks probably continue after the pick is made. If you take, say, Rosen, you can still trade him, as the Chargers picked Eli and traded him.
like the QBs could go in the first 4 picks. Teams are climbing all over themselves to get in a position to pick one. They are climbing all over themselves to get in the position we are already in...pick a QB!!!!!!
Why do it if they're not sold on one of them? Just because other teams are falling over themselves doesn't mean the Giants have to take one of them.
If anything it makes their pick way more valuable to one of the team's falling all over themselves.
Let's say for arguments sake the Giants don't love one of these QBs. If they can trade back to say 5, they would still get a top talent player this year and pick up at least another 1 next year plus a pick this year.
They'd have another full year to evaluate Webb with Shurmur, and if he's not in their plans going forward,they'd have two 1's next year to make a move if they wanted, plus they'd still have the Blue Chip player for this year, and any other picks they get for #2.
you do it when you are on the clock. That is when the other teams get desperate just like Acorsi was when we traded for Eli.
Once Cleveland makes their first selection, THAT is when the offers will come. If a team farther back wants a player, why would they trade with us today without knowing whether he will still be there at #2?
Exactly... there are 3 or 4 top QBs in the draft. Not one clear top prospect. Teams will likely give them different grades, and will have a different favorite. Once the Browns pick their guy, teams who graded the remaining 2 or 3 higher, and have the ammo to trade up would be more willing to do so, even at a steeper price. Same applies to Barkley if the Browns dont pick him #1 (doubt they will, the Jets trade forces their hand to take a QB I think). This works out great for the Giants. I wouldnt even entertain an offer till after the Browns pick. Talk to us then.
Jfc what actions? How can anyone base anything off of what the giants did in FA? So they should not have signed a LT if they were going to draft a qb at 2??? Wtf.
If anything there actions show they are going to take a QB. Mara knows Eli is almost done that's why he allowed him to be benched last year.
They went out and go a QB guru as their HC.
That QB guru came out and said he wanted an OC whose worked with QBs before. That's exactly what they did when hiring an OC. They went out an got an OC that developed the 1st overall pick from his rookie year through his 7th season. Which he did a damn good job. The QB he developed has a career record of 64-47 with 4 playoff appearances in 7 season. He turned into an MVP and has been to a SB.
The GM who hired those 2 guys specifically stated they didn't want to be in a QB hell and if they don't draft one that is exactly where they will be. They'll have a 39 year old whose on the downside of his career making 23.2 million and a 3rd round pick who couldn't beat out Geno Smith. They don't draft a QB and they'll be in the same boat as the Cardinals or Broncos signing average QBs to a deal worth 20 million a year.
The Giants didn't bring in 2 QB gurus for a 15 year vet whose nearing 40 years old. They did it so they can draft and develop a new franchise QB.
If those things didn't make their intentions obvious I think the Jets trade did. If the Giants wanted Barkley/Nelson/Chubb they could have picked up 4 extra picks and still got there man at 6. Instead the Jets has to settle for picking behind us, because obviously we didn't want a QB needy team ahead of us.
But for health, Rosen might supplant him next season. The others? Almost universally people say they need to sit and learn. Then, learn again, by fire, for a year..so, except for Rosen, who likely would be retired by then, you get two years before youre in a Cousins/Washington situation.
The other irony is that, we need a qb now because of our current qb, but if we take someone else and keep our current qb then we will win so much that we will never be in a position to pick a an again? Wtf
Jfc what actions? How can anyone base anything off of what the giants did in FA? So they should not have signed a LT if they were going to draft a qb at 2??? Wtf.
If anything there actions show they are going to take a QB. Mara knows Eli is almost done that's why he allowed him to be benched last year.
They went out and go a QB guru as their HC.
That QB guru came out and said he wanted an OC whose worked with QBs before. That's exactly what they did when hiring an OC. They went out an got an OC that developed the 1st overall pick from his rookie year through his 7th season. Which he did a damn good job. The QB he developed has a career record of 64-47 with 4 playoff appearances in 7 season. He turned into an MVP and has been to a SB.
The GM who hired those 2 guys specifically stated they didn't want to be in a QB hell and if they don't draft one that is exactly where they will be. They'll have a 39 year old whose on the downside of his career making 23.2 million and a 3rd round pick who couldn't beat out Geno Smith. They don't draft a QB and they'll be in the same boat as the Cardinals or Broncos signing average QBs to a deal worth 20 million a year.
The Giants didn't bring in 2 QB gurus for a 15 year vet whose nearing 40 years old. They did it so they can draft and develop a new franchise QB.
If those things didn't make their intentions obvious I think the Jets trade did. If the Giants wanted Barkley/Nelson/Chubb they could have picked up 4 extra picks and still got there man at 6. Instead the Jets has to settle for picking behind us, because obviously we didn't want a QB needy team ahead of us.
the last paragraph anyway, makes a lot of sense and is about the most logical indicator that they will go qb that I can think of. It that I find, with this group, it to be a logical decision, but I do believe they are looking at it like you.
prospects. You can't ignore the fact that it is obvious MANY teams LOVE these QB prospects. I submit that makes it more likely (not certain but more likely) that Gettleman also thinks they are pretty good. Also, if he doesn't like any of them it is also becoming increasing clear he is swimming against the grain based on what other GM's think.
Jfc what actions? How can anyone base anything off of what the giants did in FA? So they should not have signed a LT if they were going to draft a qb at 2??? Wtf.
If those things didn't make their intentions obvious I think the Jets trade did. If the Giants wanted Barkley/Nelson/Chubb they could have picked up 4 extra picks and still got there man at 6. Instead the Jets has to settle for picking behind us, because obviously we didn't want a QB needy team ahead of us.
I don't think it made anything obvious except the fact they think the # 2 is worth more than what the Jets offered.
Maybe they do like one of Barkley/Nelson/Chubb but feel the one they like won't be there at 6. Maybe they feel they could get a lot more to drop to say 5 with Denver.
I don't see how not trading with the Jets is a guarantee the Giants are taking a QB. It's possible they do want one, but passing on that trade doesn't confirm that to me.
prospects. You can't ignore the fact that it is obvious MANY teams LOVE these QB prospects. I submit that makes it more likely (not certain but more likely) that Gettleman also thinks they are pretty good. Also, if he doesn't like any of them it is also becoming increasing clear he is swimming against the grain based on what other GM's think.
No doubt. I'm just talking on the condition DG isn't sold on one of the QBs, and just because others are, doesn't mean he has to be.
Or if DG loves one of them but what if the Browns love the same guy and take him at 1? Does he take a QB he doesn't love just because other teams are falling over themselves for one? I'd hope not.
The fact it seems others are, makes the #2 even more valuable if the Giants aren't sold on a QB or if he's gone at 1. Either way the Jets trade made this pick way more valuable and the Giants are sitting even prettier now IMO.
Jfc what actions? How can anyone base anything off of what the giants did in FA? So they should not have signed a LT if they were going to draft a qb at 2??? Wtf.
If anything there actions show they are going to take a QB. Mara knows Eli is almost done that's why he allowed him to be benched last year.
They went out and go a QB guru as their HC.
That QB guru came out and said he wanted an OC whose worked with QBs before. That's exactly what they did when hiring an OC. They went out an got an OC that developed the 1st overall pick from his rookie year through his 7th season. Which he did a damn good job. The QB he developed has a career record of 64-47 with 4 playoff appearances in 7 season. He turned into an MVP and has been to a SB.
The GM who hired those 2 guys specifically stated they didn't want to be in a QB hell and if they don't draft one that is exactly where they will be. They'll have a 39 year old whose on the downside of his career making 23.2 million and a 3rd round pick who couldn't beat out Geno Smith. They don't draft a QB and they'll be in the same boat as the Cardinals or Broncos signing average QBs to a deal worth 20 million a year.
The Giants didn't bring in 2 QB gurus for a 15 year vet whose nearing 40 years old. They did it so they can draft and develop a new franchise QB.
If those things didn't make their intentions obvious I think the Jets trade did. If the Giants wanted Barkley/Nelson/Chubb they could have picked up 4 extra picks and still got there man at 6. Instead the Jets has to settle for picking behind us, because obviously we didn't want a QB needy team ahead of us.
Its stupid to make the trade now unless you are bowled over by an offer. You already know that the Bills are positioning themselves to move up and its not inconceivable that Denver may now feel under pressure to move up.
Jfc what actions? How can anyone base anything off of what the giants did in FA? So they should not have signed a LT if they were going to draft a qb at 2??? Wtf.
If anything there actions show they are going to take a QB. Mara knows Eli is almost done that's why he allowed him to be benched last year.
They went out and go a QB guru as their HC.
That QB guru came out and said he wanted an OC whose worked with QBs before. That's exactly what they did when hiring an OC. They went out an got an OC that developed the 1st overall pick from his rookie year through his 7th season. Which he did a damn good job. The QB he developed has a career record of 64-47 with 4 playoff appearances in 7 season. He turned into an MVP and has been to a SB.
The GM who hired those 2 guys specifically stated they didn't want to be in a QB hell and if they don't draft one that is exactly where they will be. They'll have a 39 year old whose on the downside of his career making 23.2 million and a 3rd round pick who couldn't beat out Geno Smith. They don't draft a QB and they'll be in the same boat as the Cardinals or Broncos signing average QBs to a deal worth 20 million a year.
The Giants didn't bring in 2 QB gurus for a 15 year vet whose nearing 40 years old. They did it so they can draft and develop a new franchise QB.
If those things didn't make their intentions obvious I think the Jets trade did. If the Giants wanted Barkley/Nelson/Chubb they could have picked up 4 extra picks and still got there man at 6. Instead the Jets has to settle for picking behind us, because obviously we didn't want a QB needy team ahead of us.
Why must "drafting a QB" be part of your "draft and develop" statement? Why can't it to be to just develop the young QB they have on the roster already? Maybe they know Webb IS a franchise QB if taught correctly and they are putting the pieces in place to make that happen.
I'm just throwing it out there.... food for thought.
inconsequential. Who cares what he thinks. I think they would have wanted more than 3 - #2s.
Maybe they really want a QB or Barkley.
Thats what I think it comes down to. They either really like a quarterback at #2 or they really like Barkley at #2. They are not interested in trading down unless there is an offer they cant refuse. Gettleman is going to be busting some balls in order to give up the #2 pick.
inconsequential. Who cares what he thinks. I think they would have wanted more than 3 - #2s.
Maybe they really want a QB or Barkley.
Thats what I think it comes down to. They either really like a quarterback at #2 or they really like Barkley at #2. They are not interested in trading down unless there is an offer they cant refuse. Gettleman is going to be busting some balls in order to give up the #2 pick.
Exactly right. It would have to be something RIDICULOUS. Like 3 #1s, 3 #2s to SWAP picks this year. That might be what it takes to get Denver to move up. Buffalo might have to give us both ones this year, both 2s, 1st and 2nd next year, 1st and and 3rd in '20 and a player....like Tre'Davious White. I doubt they would ever do that too, but you dont know their desperation. We obviously value this pick big time and are not willing to budge unless its for something ridiculous.
It is obvious Giants are going QB at #2. Many don't want to believe that and want a lot of extra picks they can mock with...
Absolutely agree. You don't trade down and accumulate extra picks, only to have to use those same picks to move up the following year. Look at Buffalo. They bypassed Mahomes and Watson and are now trying to use the first round pick they got by moving down - and other picks - to get up and get a QB. Now, maybe they didn't like Mahomes or Watson, and that's fine. But I have a really, really tough time believing that the Giants do not like any of the four QBs who will go in the top 5 picks.
It is obvious Giants are going QB at #2. Many don't want to believe that and want a lot of extra picks they can mock with...
Absolutely agree. You don't trade down and accumulate extra picks, only to have to use those same picks to move up the following year. Look at Buffalo. They bypassed Mahomes and Watson and are now trying to use the first round pick they got by moving down - and other picks - to get up and get a QB. Now, maybe they didn't like Mahomes or Watson, and that's fine. But I have a really, really tough time believing that the Giants do not like any of the four QBs who will go in the top 5 picks.
Maybe they do like one but what if he's the same one the Browns like and take at 1? I don't see them going with a QB if they're not really high on him and it's definitely possible they're really only high on one of them.
I think this is the likely case. If Cleveland takes who the Giants are targeting, then its Barkley or trade down. I think that QB is Darnold.
It's Rosen. Darnold is not a Giants type qb. Rosen checks all the boxes. I'm sure the Giants have had his Heath cleared. Browns are not taking Rosen.
If you are a Giants staffer, I will believe you; otherwise, the last time I recalled, Jerry Reese is is no longer the GM, so how can you say Darnold is not the Giants type?
I think this is the likely case. If Cleveland takes who the Giants are targeting, then its Barkley or trade down. I think that QB is Darnold.
It's Rosen. Darnold is not a Giants type qb. Rosen checks all the boxes. I'm sure the Giants have had his Heath cleared. Browns are not taking Rosen.
If you are a Giants staffer, I will believe you; otherwise, the last time I recalled, Jerry Reese is is no longer the GM, so how can you say Darnold is not the Giants type?
its not as mind-boggling as knowing how the Giants evaluated a persons medical report and made a decision. So, he pretty much has to be a Giants staffer, right? And one whose feelings about HIPAA are murky at best.
they will have once again failed in the front office. People need to stop looking at the "shiny object" in Barkley. Stop getting drawn in by his combine workout and just look at it logically.
The QB is far more important than the RB... period. The QB is far more valuable too. If you have a top QB and a solid OL you can win with MANY RBs.
We are looking at Leveon Bell right now who (many would say has been the best RB in the game) is already the highest paid RB and is looking for more. He has played 5 seasons and people are already questioning how much longer he can play effectively. Maybe two more years to bring it to 7 then play at a significantly reduced roll? A top QB will start and play every snap for 15 yrs. Meanwhile, the Steelers have scored exactly the same number of points per game with and without Bell playing. What does that tell you?
they will have once again failed in the front office. People need to stop looking at the "shiny object" in Barkley. Stop getting drawn in by his combine workout and just look at it logically.
The QB is far more important than the RB... period. The QB is far more valuable too. If you have a top QB and a solid OL you can win with MANY RBs.
We are looking at Leveon Bell right now who (many would say has been the best RB in the game) is already the highest paid RB and is looking for more. He has played 5 seasons and people are already questioning how much longer he can play effectively. Maybe two more years to bring it to 7 then play at a significantly reduced roll? A top QB will start and play every snap for 15 yrs. Meanwhile, the Steelers have scored exactly the same number of points per game with and without Bell playing. What does that tell you?
Qb is more shiny object because youre picking a position without caring about intrinsic value of the person. Thats pretty much the definition of shiny object and the opposite of Barkley. Barkley is more like titanium...adamantium even
they will have once again failed in the front office. People need to stop looking at the "shiny object" in Barkley. Stop getting drawn in by his combine workout and just look at it logically.
The QB is far more important than the RB... period. The QB is far more valuable too. If you have a top QB and a solid OL you can win with MANY RBs.
We are looking at Leveon Bell right now who (many would say has been the best RB in the game) is already the highest paid RB and is looking for more. He has played 5 seasons and people are already questioning how much longer he can play effectively. Maybe two more years to bring it to 7 then play at a significantly reduced roll? A top QB will start and play every snap for 15 yrs. Meanwhile, the Steelers have scored exactly the same number of points per game with and without Bell playing. What does that tell you?
The Cowboys sure looked like shit when Elliott was out last year. An all around back can work wonders for an offense.
because their 4th round QB cant throw well downfield. Roetglisberger can hence his importance to the Steelers compared to Bell.
You can slice this any way you want. QBs are the prized possession. If you have the opportunity to take one that you think is your next franchise QB, you do it. Maybe they think that in Webb - doubtful but possible. If thats the case then go Barkley. Otherwise take the shot at QB you cover most and go from there.
I like Barkley and I like Nelson. Neither are premium positions and both can be filled later much more easily than QB.
It is obvious Giants are going QB at #2. Many don't want to believe that and want a lot of extra picks they can mock with...
Absolutely agree. You don't trade down and accumulate extra picks, only to have to use those same picks to move up the following year. Look at Buffalo. They bypassed Mahomes and Watson and are now trying to use the first round pick they got by moving down - and other picks - to get up and get a QB. Now, maybe they didn't like Mahomes or Watson, and that's fine. But I have a really, really tough time believing that the Giants do not like any of the four QBs who will go in the top 5 picks.
If you trade down with Buffalo, and you have Buffalo's 2019 1st rounder, who's to say they don't go 1-15 playing A.J. McCarron and a rookie and you don't end up with the first overall pick next year. Hell, there's no guarantee that Shurmur is going to get everyone on the same page this year, we could be sitting in a situation like Cleveland is this year, with two top 5 picks.
because their 4th round QB cant throw well downfield. Roetglisberger can hence his importance to the Steelers compared to Bell.
You can slice this any way you want. QBs are the prized possession. If you have the opportunity to take one that you think is your next franchise QB, you do it. Maybe they think that in Webb - doubtful but possible. If thats the case then go Barkley. Otherwise take the shot at QB you cover most and go from there.
I like Barkley and I like Nelson. Neither are premium positions and both can be filled later much more easily than QB.
that just argues you need quality in both places and a great one can compensate for the other. We look at it as either/or but its really both. And, I dont think both have to be great or if a specific one has to be great. Its most important that they be complementary.
If you knew you could have Matt Ryan or Barry Sanders for the duration of their career, who would you pick?
It comes down to that really. If you feel these QBs aren't franchise guys, but Barkley is a generational RB, what do you do? How valuable is a generational RB compared to an okay to decent QB?
they will have once again failed in the front office. People need to stop looking at the "shiny object" in Barkley. Stop getting drawn in by his combine workout and just look at it logically.
The QB is far more important than the RB... period. The QB is far more valuable too. If you have a top QB and a solid OL you can win with MANY RBs.
We are looking at Leveon Bell right now who (many would say has been the best RB in the game) is already the highest paid RB and is looking for more. He has played 5 seasons and people are already questioning how much longer he can play effectively. Maybe two more years to bring it to 7 then play at a significantly reduced roll? A top QB will start and play every snap for 15 yrs. Meanwhile, the Steelers have scored exactly the same number of points per game with and without Bell playing. What does that tell you?
The Cowboys sure looked like shit when Elliott was out last year. An all around back can work wonders for an offense.
It's pretty simple... Dak was NEVER a good QB so when Elliott left they had NOTHING. I was saying it all along. When they won all of those games that year he did not do much at all. So, put a good QB on their team and see what they do when Elliott does not play.
If you knew you could have Matt Ryan or Barry Sanders for the duration of their career, who would you pick?
It comes down to that really. If you feel these QBs aren't franchise guys, but Barkley is a generational RB, what do you do? How valuable is a generational RB compared to an okay to decent QB?
How many Superbowl rings does Barry Sanders have? How many "generational RBs" carried the team to a championship with a sub par QB? The answer is NONE to both unless you go back to a time when the league was a "pound the rock" time in its history.
Also... who the fuck says that Barkley is a generational RB? Who invented that term anyway? It is bullshit and this guy has not taken a snap in the NFL yet and yet some of you guys are putting him in the hall of fame already. Give that man a trophy for winning the combine.
If you knew you could have Matt Ryan or Barry Sanders for the duration of their career, who would you pick?
It comes down to that really. If you feel these QBs aren't franchise guys, but Barkley is a generational RB, what do you do? How valuable is a generational RB compared to an okay to decent QB?
How many Superbowl rings does Barry Sanders have? How many "generational RBs" carried the team to a championship with a sub par QB? The answer is NONE to both unless you go back to a time when the league was a "pound the rock" time in its history.
Also... who the fuck says that Barkley is a generational RB? Who invented that term anyway? It is bullshit and this guy has not taken a snap in the NFL yet and yet some of you guys are putting him in the hall of fame already. Give that man a trophy for winning the combine.
That's cool - no one really knows how these guys will do and it's all guesswork so we could be doing something better than chatting on these boards, yada, yada, whatever. Are you saying you think Barkley is a bust?
You also didn't answer the question. Matt Ryan or Barry Sanders. Which would you prefer having?
If you knew you could have Matt Ryan or Barry Sanders for the duration of their career, who would you pick?
It comes down to that really. If you feel these QBs aren't franchise guys, but Barkley is a generational RB, what do you do? How valuable is a generational RB compared to an okay to decent QB?
How many Superbowl rings does Barry Sanders have? How many "generational RBs" carried the team to a championship with a sub par QB? The answer is NONE to both unless you go back to a time when the league was a "pound the rock" time in its history.
Also... who the fuck says that Barkley is a generational RB? Who invented that term anyway? It is bullshit and this guy has not taken a snap in the NFL yet and yet some of you guys are putting him in the hall of fame already. Give that man a trophy for winning the combine.
Reggie Bush was a generational talent as well. Guy ended up being a third down back. Giants fans absolutely love to overrate players, Webb and Barkley amongst the top.
I'll bet you anything though, these same people clamorimg for Webb and Barkley are going to be screaming when Barkley is a third down back and Webb turns out to be a dud- when the Giants could have had a top qb this year.
Both Sanders and Ryan are the reasons their teams were relevant
Sanders never led his team anywhere, then retired early.
Ryan took his team to a super bowl on an MVP caliber season.
It's not an easy question, but in terms of team results, it's Ryan who wins here. Unless we want to play fantasy sports and guess at what Sanders would have done on a different team. But it would just be guessing.
These are all hindsight things. These 4 QBs are as likely overrated, and their current rating doesnt match Barkleys to begin with. For all of us, this is just so much blather since nobody knows how these players will finish their careers until they do.
Barkley could just as likely be overrated himself.
Sanders never led his team anywhere, then retired early.
Ryan took his team to a super bowl on an MVP caliber season.
It's not an easy question, but in terms of team results, it's Ryan who wins here. Unless we want to play fantasy sports and guess at what Sanders would have done on a different team. But it would just be guessing.
I remember that year. Ryan played 22 positions, albeit only 11 simultaneously. He was frickin amazing.
RE: Barkley could just as likely be overrated himself.
If you knew you could have Matt Ryan or Barry Sanders for the duration of their career, who would you pick?
It comes down to that really. If you feel these QBs aren't franchise guys, but Barkley is a generational RB, what do you do? How valuable is a generational RB compared to an okay to decent QB?
How many Superbowl rings does Barry Sanders have? How many "generational RBs" carried the team to a championship with a sub par QB? The answer is NONE to both unless you go back to a time when the league was a "pound the rock" time in its history.
Also... who the fuck says that Barkley is a generational RB? Who invented that term anyway? It is bullshit and this guy has not taken a snap in the NFL yet and yet some of you guys are putting him in the hall of fame already. Give that man a trophy for winning the combine.
That's cool - no one really knows how these guys will do and it's all guesswork so we could be doing something better than chatting on these boards, yada, yada, whatever. Are you saying you think Barkley is a bust?
You also didn't answer the question. Matt Ryan or Barry Sanders. Which would you prefer having?
I am going to answer your question as this year's Giants' GM because the state of this team matters when answering your question. I would select Matt Ryan and would not think twice. The team needs a QB and that is the most important position on the field. Otherwise, in two years you have a great RB and no QB and we have become the Lions.
On the other hand, if you are the Eagles you select Barry Sanders every time because you already have your franchise QB for the next decade or more.
Wouldnt we be drafting at the top in 3 years under that scenario?
The thread started with an "assumption" that the Giants turned down that deal that the Colts got. How does anyone know that? And the "assumptions" that this trade means the Giants are definitely going QB? Really?
It would only impact the Giants if the Colts were picking 2nd and the Giants were picking 3rd - ANY deals below your pick are meaningless.
I have a feeling the Giants trade down BUT only if they get more than
they "should" based on compensation projections / point systems. Personally, I hope Rosen is there and we do take him because he is a bonafide NFL ready guy. Concussions do worry me a little but you take a chance on him if there.
they "should" based on compensation projections / point systems. Personally, I hope Rosen is there and we do take him because he is a bonafide NFL ready guy. Concussions do worry me a little but you take a chance on him if there.
whi knows with this new guy but the old management passed on a tackle of need because they were worried he would have to miss 6 weeks for substance abuse. I cant see them risking it on a guy who could walk away in a year.
they "should" based on compensation projections / point systems. Personally, I hope Rosen is there and we do take him because he is a bonafide NFL ready guy. Concussions do worry me a little but you take a chance on him if there.
whi knows with this new guy but the old management passed on a tackle of need because they were worried he would have to miss 6 weeks for substance abuse. I cant see them risking it on a guy who could walk away in a year.
If they select Rosen or any QB for that matter, it's doubtful they even see the field much if at all in their first year with Eli still here.
DG is in a win now mode & thinks they can squeeze another year or 2 out of Eli & put QB off until sometime later. Another maybe is they have a higher opinion of Webb than we think. All this assuming Cle. takes a QB. If they take Barkly then that forces our hand on a QB. Barring trade offers of course.
I'm trying to figure out why not doing a lowball trade offer
That offer is a joke if you have the 2nd pick in the draft and the Giants would have been idiots to make it at this stage. I even think it's a lowball offer for the Colts, should have been both this year's 2nd rd picks and next years 1st rd pick at the least.
There will be a few more much better offers coming down the pipe for that 2nd pick.
The next positive thing he says about the Giants will be his first. Can't believe this moron was a Giants beat writer.
Graziano dislikes the NYG organization and it bugged me to hear his snark and disrespect when he was on the beat BUT he was 100% dead on when he called out the lack of talent on the team at a time when NYG fans were still believing in Reese.
they will have once again failed in the front office. People need to stop looking at the "shiny object" in Barkley. Stop getting drawn in by his combine workout and just look at it logically.
The QB is far more important than the RB... period. The QB is far more valuable too. If you have a top QB and a solid OL you can win with MANY RBs.
We are looking at Leveon Bell right now who (many would say has been the best RB in the game) is already the highest paid RB and is looking for more. He has played 5 seasons and people are already questioning how much longer he can play effectively. Maybe two more years to bring it to 7 then play at a significantly reduced roll? A top QB will start and play every snap for 15 yrs. Meanwhile, the Steelers have scored exactly the same number of points per game with and without Bell playing. What does that tell you?
You nailed it. Well done.
I'm telling you right now, Mara feels so guilty about the Eli and GenoGate that he may just be stupid enough to think Eli actually has longer term value. And Gettleman, who is probably so glad to have another job thanks to the spell Accorsi still holds on Mara, will fall in line and act accordingly...
The Colts didnt get the Jets #1 next year plus additional picks. Would have been a minimum requirement for me. Dont want to trade a #1? Good luck with Teddy B.
If the Bills want to move up from their spot I want four #1s. 12 and 22 this year plus 2019 and 2020. If not, no problem Ill take a QB myself or give Elway a call.
Dan Graziano
Verified account @DanGrazianoESPN
I think we can be pretty confident QBs will be drafted 1 and 3 at this point. And I think probably 2 as well, whether it's by the Giants or someone who trades up for the pick.
That's patently ridiculous to claim
Exactly.
The Giants obviously feel they can get a better deal if they're not going QB.
Maybe they really want a QB or Barkley.
Unless we have an offer consisting of multiple firsts with multiple 2s and 3s, its not worth listening to.
That's patently ridiculous to claim
^This. It's worth a lot more because at #2 you are guaranteed to be able to choose between two of the "big three."
Once Cleveland makes their first selection, THAT is when the offers will come. If a team farther back wants a player, why would they trade with us today without knowing whether he will still be there at #2?
I hope they did.
Why does he have credibility again?
I know.
The dude is just throwing darts.
Once Cleveland makes their first selection, THAT is when the offers will come. If a team farther back wants a player, why would they trade with us today without knowing whether he will still be there at #2?
Yup.
Said it before and I'll say it again. Maybe the Jets guy is there at 2 but worry Denver or someone else trades with the Giants and jumps them, and the Jets offer their 1 next year to move up to 2.
Wonder what Banner would say then.
Once Cleveland makes their first selection, THAT is when the offers will come. If a team farther back wants a player, why would they trade with us today without knowing whether he will still be there at #2?
And the trade talks probably continue after the pick is made. If you take, say, Rosen, you can still trade him, as the Chargers picked Eli and traded him.
Why do it if they're not sold on one of them? Just because other teams are falling over themselves doesn't mean the Giants have to take one of them.
If anything it makes their pick way more valuable to one of the team's falling all over themselves.
Let's say for arguments sake the Giants don't love one of these QBs. If they can trade back to say 5, they would still get a top talent player this year and pick up at least another 1 next year plus a pick this year.
They'd have another full year to evaluate Webb with Shurmur, and if he's not in their plans going forward,they'd have two 1's next year to make a move if they wanted, plus they'd still have the Blue Chip player for this year, and any other picks they get for #2.
Once Cleveland makes their first selection, THAT is when the offers will come. If a team farther back wants a player, why would they trade with us today without knowing whether he will still be there at #2?
Exactly... there are 3 or 4 top QBs in the draft. Not one clear top prospect. Teams will likely give them different grades, and will have a different favorite. Once the Browns pick their guy, teams who graded the remaining 2 or 3 higher, and have the ammo to trade up would be more willing to do so, even at a steeper price. Same applies to Barkley if the Browns dont pick him #1 (doubt they will, the Jets trade forces their hand to take a QB I think). This works out great for the Giants. I wouldnt even entertain an offer till after the Browns pick. Talk to us then.
If anything there actions show they are going to take a QB. Mara knows Eli is almost done that's why he allowed him to be benched last year.
They went out and go a QB guru as their HC.
That QB guru came out and said he wanted an OC whose worked with QBs before. That's exactly what they did when hiring an OC. They went out an got an OC that developed the 1st overall pick from his rookie year through his 7th season. Which he did a damn good job. The QB he developed has a career record of 64-47 with 4 playoff appearances in 7 season. He turned into an MVP and has been to a SB.
The GM who hired those 2 guys specifically stated they didn't want to be in a QB hell and if they don't draft one that is exactly where they will be. They'll have a 39 year old whose on the downside of his career making 23.2 million and a 3rd round pick who couldn't beat out Geno Smith. They don't draft a QB and they'll be in the same boat as the Cardinals or Broncos signing average QBs to a deal worth 20 million a year.
The Giants didn't bring in 2 QB gurus for a 15 year vet whose nearing 40 years old. They did it so they can draft and develop a new franchise QB.
If those things didn't make their intentions obvious I think the Jets trade did. If the Giants wanted Barkley/Nelson/Chubb they could have picked up 4 extra picks and still got there man at 6. Instead the Jets has to settle for picking behind us, because obviously we didn't want a QB needy team ahead of us.
The other irony is that, we need a qb now because of our current qb, but if we take someone else and keep our current qb then we will win so much that we will never be in a position to pick a an again? Wtf
Quote:
Jfc what actions? How can anyone base anything off of what the giants did in FA? So they should not have signed a LT if they were going to draft a qb at 2??? Wtf.
If anything there actions show they are going to take a QB. Mara knows Eli is almost done that's why he allowed him to be benched last year.
They went out and go a QB guru as their HC.
That QB guru came out and said he wanted an OC whose worked with QBs before. That's exactly what they did when hiring an OC. They went out an got an OC that developed the 1st overall pick from his rookie year through his 7th season. Which he did a damn good job. The QB he developed has a career record of 64-47 with 4 playoff appearances in 7 season. He turned into an MVP and has been to a SB.
The GM who hired those 2 guys specifically stated they didn't want to be in a QB hell and if they don't draft one that is exactly where they will be. They'll have a 39 year old whose on the downside of his career making 23.2 million and a 3rd round pick who couldn't beat out Geno Smith. They don't draft a QB and they'll be in the same boat as the Cardinals or Broncos signing average QBs to a deal worth 20 million a year.
The Giants didn't bring in 2 QB gurus for a 15 year vet whose nearing 40 years old. They did it so they can draft and develop a new franchise QB.
If those things didn't make their intentions obvious I think the Jets trade did. If the Giants wanted Barkley/Nelson/Chubb they could have picked up 4 extra picks and still got there man at 6. Instead the Jets has to settle for picking behind us, because obviously we didn't want a QB needy team ahead of us.
Obviously they called tbe Bills
What the Bills were offering or could potentially offer wasnt good enough to get to the 3
So it isnt enough to get to the 2
Quote:
Jfc what actions? How can anyone base anything off of what the giants did in FA? So they should not have signed a LT if they were going to draft a qb at 2??? Wtf.
If those things didn't make their intentions obvious I think the Jets trade did. If the Giants wanted Barkley/Nelson/Chubb they could have picked up 4 extra picks and still got there man at 6. Instead the Jets has to settle for picking behind us, because obviously we didn't want a QB needy team ahead of us.
I don't think it made anything obvious except the fact they think the # 2 is worth more than what the Jets offered.
Maybe they do like one of Barkley/Nelson/Chubb but feel the one they like won't be there at 6. Maybe they feel they could get a lot more to drop to say 5 with Denver.
I don't see how not trading with the Jets is a guarantee the Giants are taking a QB. It's possible they do want one, but passing on that trade doesn't confirm that to me.
No doubt. I'm just talking on the condition DG isn't sold on one of the QBs, and just because others are, doesn't mean he has to be.
Or if DG loves one of them but what if the Browns love the same guy and take him at 1? Does he take a QB he doesn't love just because other teams are falling over themselves for one? I'd hope not.
The fact it seems others are, makes the #2 even more valuable if the Giants aren't sold on a QB or if he's gone at 1. Either way the Jets trade made this pick way more valuable and the Giants are sitting even prettier now IMO.
Quote:
Jfc what actions? How can anyone base anything off of what the giants did in FA? So they should not have signed a LT if they were going to draft a qb at 2??? Wtf.
If anything there actions show they are going to take a QB. Mara knows Eli is almost done that's why he allowed him to be benched last year.
They went out and go a QB guru as their HC.
That QB guru came out and said he wanted an OC whose worked with QBs before. That's exactly what they did when hiring an OC. They went out an got an OC that developed the 1st overall pick from his rookie year through his 7th season. Which he did a damn good job. The QB he developed has a career record of 64-47 with 4 playoff appearances in 7 season. He turned into an MVP and has been to a SB.
The GM who hired those 2 guys specifically stated they didn't want to be in a QB hell and if they don't draft one that is exactly where they will be. They'll have a 39 year old whose on the downside of his career making 23.2 million and a 3rd round pick who couldn't beat out Geno Smith. They don't draft a QB and they'll be in the same boat as the Cardinals or Broncos signing average QBs to a deal worth 20 million a year.
The Giants didn't bring in 2 QB gurus for a 15 year vet whose nearing 40 years old. They did it so they can draft and develop a new franchise QB.
If those things didn't make their intentions obvious I think the Jets trade did. If the Giants wanted Barkley/Nelson/Chubb they could have picked up 4 extra picks and still got there man at 6. Instead the Jets has to settle for picking behind us, because obviously we didn't want a QB needy team ahead of us.
Good post
Quote:
Jfc what actions? How can anyone base anything off of what the giants did in FA? So they should not have signed a LT if they were going to draft a qb at 2??? Wtf.
If anything there actions show they are going to take a QB. Mara knows Eli is almost done that's why he allowed him to be benched last year.
They went out and go a QB guru as their HC.
That QB guru came out and said he wanted an OC whose worked with QBs before. That's exactly what they did when hiring an OC. They went out an got an OC that developed the 1st overall pick from his rookie year through his 7th season. Which he did a damn good job. The QB he developed has a career record of 64-47 with 4 playoff appearances in 7 season. He turned into an MVP and has been to a SB.
The GM who hired those 2 guys specifically stated they didn't want to be in a QB hell and if they don't draft one that is exactly where they will be. They'll have a 39 year old whose on the downside of his career making 23.2 million and a 3rd round pick who couldn't beat out Geno Smith. They don't draft a QB and they'll be in the same boat as the Cardinals or Broncos signing average QBs to a deal worth 20 million a year.
The Giants didn't bring in 2 QB gurus for a 15 year vet whose nearing 40 years old. They did it so they can draft and develop a new franchise QB.
If those things didn't make their intentions obvious I think the Jets trade did. If the Giants wanted Barkley/Nelson/Chubb they could have picked up 4 extra picks and still got there man at 6. Instead the Jets has to settle for picking behind us, because obviously we didn't want a QB needy team ahead of us.
Why must "drafting a QB" be part of your "draft and develop" statement? Why can't it to be to just develop the young QB they have on the roster already? Maybe they know Webb IS a franchise QB if taught correctly and they are putting the pieces in place to make that happen.
I'm just throwing it out there.... food for thought.
Maybe they really want a QB or Barkley.
Thats what I think it comes down to. They either really like a quarterback at #2 or they really like Barkley at #2. They are not interested in trading down unless there is an offer they cant refuse. Gettleman is going to be busting some balls in order to give up the #2 pick.
I think this is the likely case. If Cleveland takes who the Giants are targeting, then its Barkley or trade down. I think that QB is Darnold.
This would ensure that the Browns get Darnold and Barkley and the Giants would take Nelson. Then DG would have the top 2 picks in round 2.
Quote:
inconsequential. Who cares what he thinks. I think they would have wanted more than 3 - #2s.
Maybe they really want a QB or Barkley.
Thats what I think it comes down to. They either really like a quarterback at #2 or they really like Barkley at #2. They are not interested in trading down unless there is an offer they cant refuse. Gettleman is going to be busting some balls in order to give up the #2 pick.
Exactly right. It would have to be something RIDICULOUS. Like 3 #1s, 3 #2s to SWAP picks this year. That might be what it takes to get Denver to move up. Buffalo might have to give us both ones this year, both 2s, 1st and 2nd next year, 1st and and 3rd in '20 and a player....like Tre'Davious White. I doubt they would ever do that too, but you dont know their desperation. We obviously value this pick big time and are not willing to budge unless its for something ridiculous.
Absolutely agree. You don't trade down and accumulate extra picks, only to have to use those same picks to move up the following year. Look at Buffalo. They bypassed Mahomes and Watson and are now trying to use the first round pick they got by moving down - and other picks - to get up and get a QB. Now, maybe they didn't like Mahomes or Watson, and that's fine. But I have a really, really tough time believing that the Giants do not like any of the four QBs who will go in the top 5 picks.
Quote:
It is obvious Giants are going QB at #2. Many don't want to believe that and want a lot of extra picks they can mock with...
Absolutely agree. You don't trade down and accumulate extra picks, only to have to use those same picks to move up the following year. Look at Buffalo. They bypassed Mahomes and Watson and are now trying to use the first round pick they got by moving down - and other picks - to get up and get a QB. Now, maybe they didn't like Mahomes or Watson, and that's fine. But I have a really, really tough time believing that the Giants do not like any of the four QBs who will go in the top 5 picks.
Maybe they do like one but what if he's the same one the Browns like and take at 1? I don't see them going with a QB if they're not really high on him and it's definitely possible they're really only high on one of them.
Quote:
we like 1 QB at 2. If he goes 1 all bets are off.
I think this is the likely case. If Cleveland takes who the Giants are targeting, then its Barkley or trade down. I think that QB is Darnold.
It's Rosen. Darnold is not a Giants type qb. Rosen checks all the boxes. I'm sure the Giants have had his Heath cleared. Browns are not taking Rosen.
They either love a QB or made an awful decision.
Or they love Barkley.
Quote:
In comment 13871694 Dankbeerman said:
Quote:
we like 1 QB at 2. If he goes 1 all bets are off.
I think this is the likely case. If Cleveland takes who the Giants are targeting, then its Barkley or trade down. I think that QB is Darnold.
It's Rosen. Darnold is not a Giants type qb. Rosen checks all the boxes. I'm sure the Giants have had his Heath cleared. Browns are not taking Rosen.
If you are a Giants staffer, I will believe you; otherwise, the last time I recalled, Jerry Reese is is no longer the GM, so how can you say Darnold is not the Giants type?
Quote:
In comment 13871740 DonnieD89 said:
Quote:
In comment 13871694 Dankbeerman said:
Quote:
we like 1 QB at 2. If he goes 1 all bets are off.
I think this is the likely case. If Cleveland takes who the Giants are targeting, then its Barkley or trade down. I think that QB is Darnold.
It's Rosen. Darnold is not a Giants type qb. Rosen checks all the boxes. I'm sure the Giants have had his Heath cleared. Browns are not taking Rosen.
If you are a Giants staffer, I will believe you; otherwise, the last time I recalled, Jerry Reese is is no longer the GM, so how can you say Darnold is not the Giants type?
The QB is far more important than the RB... period. The QB is far more valuable too. If you have a top QB and a solid OL you can win with MANY RBs.
We are looking at Leveon Bell right now who (many would say has been the best RB in the game) is already the highest paid RB and is looking for more. He has played 5 seasons and people are already questioning how much longer he can play effectively. Maybe two more years to bring it to 7 then play at a significantly reduced roll? A top QB will start and play every snap for 15 yrs. Meanwhile, the Steelers have scored exactly the same number of points per game with and without Bell playing. What does that tell you?
The QB is far more important than the RB... period. The QB is far more valuable too. If you have a top QB and a solid OL you can win with MANY RBs.
We are looking at Leveon Bell right now who (many would say has been the best RB in the game) is already the highest paid RB and is looking for more. He has played 5 seasons and people are already questioning how much longer he can play effectively. Maybe two more years to bring it to 7 then play at a significantly reduced roll? A top QB will start and play every snap for 15 yrs. Meanwhile, the Steelers have scored exactly the same number of points per game with and without Bell playing. What does that tell you?
The QB is far more important than the RB... period. The QB is far more valuable too. If you have a top QB and a solid OL you can win with MANY RBs.
We are looking at Leveon Bell right now who (many would say has been the best RB in the game) is already the highest paid RB and is looking for more. He has played 5 seasons and people are already questioning how much longer he can play effectively. Maybe two more years to bring it to 7 then play at a significantly reduced roll? A top QB will start and play every snap for 15 yrs. Meanwhile, the Steelers have scored exactly the same number of points per game with and without Bell playing. What does that tell you?
The Cowboys sure looked like shit when Elliott was out last year. An all around back can work wonders for an offense.
You can slice this any way you want. QBs are the prized possession. If you have the opportunity to take one that you think is your next franchise QB, you do it. Maybe they think that in Webb - doubtful but possible. If thats the case then go Barkley. Otherwise take the shot at QB you cover most and go from there.
I like Barkley and I like Nelson. Neither are premium positions and both can be filled later much more easily than QB.
Quote:
It is obvious Giants are going QB at #2. Many don't want to believe that and want a lot of extra picks they can mock with...
Absolutely agree. You don't trade down and accumulate extra picks, only to have to use those same picks to move up the following year. Look at Buffalo. They bypassed Mahomes and Watson and are now trying to use the first round pick they got by moving down - and other picks - to get up and get a QB. Now, maybe they didn't like Mahomes or Watson, and that's fine. But I have a really, really tough time believing that the Giants do not like any of the four QBs who will go in the top 5 picks.
If you trade down with Buffalo, and you have Buffalo's 2019 1st rounder, who's to say they don't go 1-15 playing A.J. McCarron and a rookie and you don't end up with the first overall pick next year. Hell, there's no guarantee that Shurmur is going to get everyone on the same page this year, we could be sitting in a situation like Cleveland is this year, with two top 5 picks.
You can slice this any way you want. QBs are the prized possession. If you have the opportunity to take one that you think is your next franchise QB, you do it. Maybe they think that in Webb - doubtful but possible. If thats the case then go Barkley. Otherwise take the shot at QB you cover most and go from there.
I like Barkley and I like Nelson. Neither are premium positions and both can be filled later much more easily than QB.
It comes down to that really. If you feel these QBs aren't franchise guys, but Barkley is a generational RB, what do you do? How valuable is a generational RB compared to an okay to decent QB?
Quote:
they will have once again failed in the front office. People need to stop looking at the "shiny object" in Barkley. Stop getting drawn in by his combine workout and just look at it logically.
The QB is far more important than the RB... period. The QB is far more valuable too. If you have a top QB and a solid OL you can win with MANY RBs.
We are looking at Leveon Bell right now who (many would say has been the best RB in the game) is already the highest paid RB and is looking for more. He has played 5 seasons and people are already questioning how much longer he can play effectively. Maybe two more years to bring it to 7 then play at a significantly reduced roll? A top QB will start and play every snap for 15 yrs. Meanwhile, the Steelers have scored exactly the same number of points per game with and without Bell playing. What does that tell you?
The Cowboys sure looked like shit when Elliott was out last year. An all around back can work wonders for an offense.
It's pretty simple... Dak was NEVER a good QB so when Elliott left they had NOTHING. I was saying it all along. When they won all of those games that year he did not do much at all. So, put a good QB on their team and see what they do when Elliott does not play.
It comes down to that really. If you feel these QBs aren't franchise guys, but Barkley is a generational RB, what do you do? How valuable is a generational RB compared to an okay to decent QB?
How many Superbowl rings does Barry Sanders have? How many "generational RBs" carried the team to a championship with a sub par QB? The answer is NONE to both unless you go back to a time when the league was a "pound the rock" time in its history.
Also... who the fuck says that Barkley is a generational RB? Who invented that term anyway? It is bullshit and this guy has not taken a snap in the NFL yet and yet some of you guys are putting him in the hall of fame already. Give that man a trophy for winning the combine.
Quote:
If you knew you could have Matt Ryan or Barry Sanders for the duration of their career, who would you pick?
It comes down to that really. If you feel these QBs aren't franchise guys, but Barkley is a generational RB, what do you do? How valuable is a generational RB compared to an okay to decent QB?
How many Superbowl rings does Barry Sanders have? How many "generational RBs" carried the team to a championship with a sub par QB? The answer is NONE to both unless you go back to a time when the league was a "pound the rock" time in its history.
Also... who the fuck says that Barkley is a generational RB? Who invented that term anyway? It is bullshit and this guy has not taken a snap in the NFL yet and yet some of you guys are putting him in the hall of fame already. Give that man a trophy for winning the combine.
That's cool - no one really knows how these guys will do and it's all guesswork so we could be doing something better than chatting on these boards, yada, yada, whatever. Are you saying you think Barkley is a bust?
You also didn't answer the question. Matt Ryan or Barry Sanders. Which would you prefer having?
Quote:
If you knew you could have Matt Ryan or Barry Sanders for the duration of their career, who would you pick?
It comes down to that really. If you feel these QBs aren't franchise guys, but Barkley is a generational RB, what do you do? How valuable is a generational RB compared to an okay to decent QB?
How many Superbowl rings does Barry Sanders have? How many "generational RBs" carried the team to a championship with a sub par QB? The answer is NONE to both unless you go back to a time when the league was a "pound the rock" time in its history.
Also... who the fuck says that Barkley is a generational RB? Who invented that term anyway? It is bullshit and this guy has not taken a snap in the NFL yet and yet some of you guys are putting him in the hall of fame already. Give that man a trophy for winning the combine.
Reggie Bush was a generational talent as well. Guy ended up being a third down back. Giants fans absolutely love to overrate players, Webb and Barkley amongst the top.
I'll bet you anything though, these same people clamorimg for Webb and Barkley are going to be screaming when Barkley is a third down back and Webb turns out to be a dud- when the Giants could have had a top qb this year.
Ryan took his team to a super bowl on an MVP caliber season.
It's not an easy question, but in terms of team results, it's Ryan who wins here. Unless we want to play fantasy sports and guess at what Sanders would have done on a different team. But it would just be guessing.
Ryan took his team to a super bowl on an MVP caliber season.
It's not an easy question, but in terms of team results, it's Ryan who wins here. Unless we want to play fantasy sports and guess at what Sanders would have done on a different team. But it would just be guessing.
I remember that year. Ryan played 22 positions, albeit only 11 simultaneously. He was frickin amazing.
Absolutely. Thats why well only know when we know.
Quote:
In comment 13871951 FStubbs said:
Quote:
If you knew you could have Matt Ryan or Barry Sanders for the duration of their career, who would you pick?
It comes down to that really. If you feel these QBs aren't franchise guys, but Barkley is a generational RB, what do you do? How valuable is a generational RB compared to an okay to decent QB?
How many Superbowl rings does Barry Sanders have? How many "generational RBs" carried the team to a championship with a sub par QB? The answer is NONE to both unless you go back to a time when the league was a "pound the rock" time in its history.
Also... who the fuck says that Barkley is a generational RB? Who invented that term anyway? It is bullshit and this guy has not taken a snap in the NFL yet and yet some of you guys are putting him in the hall of fame already. Give that man a trophy for winning the combine.
That's cool - no one really knows how these guys will do and it's all guesswork so we could be doing something better than chatting on these boards, yada, yada, whatever. Are you saying you think Barkley is a bust?
You also didn't answer the question. Matt Ryan or Barry Sanders. Which would you prefer having?
I am going to answer your question as this year's Giants' GM because the state of this team matters when answering your question. I would select Matt Ryan and would not think twice. The team needs a QB and that is the most important position on the field. Otherwise, in two years you have a great RB and no QB and we have become the Lions.
On the other hand, if you are the Eagles you select Barry Sanders every time because you already have your franchise QB for the next decade or more.
Franchise QBs dont hit free agency unless its a very rare scenario like with Bree and Favre.
It would only impact the Giants if the Colts were picking 2nd and the Giants were picking 3rd - ANY deals below your pick are meaningless.
Franchise QBs dont hit free agency unless its a very rare scenario like with Bree and Favre.
Maybe they really want a QB or Barkley.
Banner thinks three 2s is worth going from two to six? Thats why hes not in the league. Colts fucked up.
Quote:
they "should" based on compensation projections / point systems. Personally, I hope Rosen is there and we do take him because he is a bonafide NFL ready guy. Concussions do worry me a little but you take a chance on him if there.
whi knows with this new guy but the old management passed on a tackle of need because they were worried he would have to miss 6 weeks for substance abuse. I cant see them risking it on a guy who could walk away in a year.
If they select Rosen or any QB for that matter, it's doubtful they even see the field much if at all in their first year with Eli still here.
That offer is a joke if you have the 2nd pick in the draft and the Giants would have been idiots to make it at this stage. I even think it's a lowball offer for the Colts, should have been both this year's 2nd rd picks and next years 1st rd pick at the least.
There will be a few more much better offers coming down the pipe for that 2nd pick.
Graziano dislikes the NYG organization and it bugged me to hear his snark and disrespect when he was on the beat BUT he was 100% dead on when he called out the lack of talent on the team at a time when NYG fans were still believing in Reese.
The QB is far more important than the RB... period. The QB is far more valuable too. If you have a top QB and a solid OL you can win with MANY RBs.
We are looking at Leveon Bell right now who (many would say has been the best RB in the game) is already the highest paid RB and is looking for more. He has played 5 seasons and people are already questioning how much longer he can play effectively. Maybe two more years to bring it to 7 then play at a significantly reduced roll? A top QB will start and play every snap for 15 yrs. Meanwhile, the Steelers have scored exactly the same number of points per game with and without Bell playing. What does that tell you?
You nailed it. Well done.
I'm telling you right now, Mara feels so guilty about the Eli and GenoGate that he may just be stupid enough to think Eli actually has longer term value. And Gettleman, who is probably so glad to have another job thanks to the spell Accorsi still holds on Mara, will fall in line and act accordingly...
If the Bills want to move up from their spot I want four #1s. 12 and 22 this year plus 2019 and 2020. If not, no problem Ill take a QB myself or give Elway a call.