For the past 3 months I've read all these posts and there isn't any majority on one QB. What does that tell all of you? Maybe you don't care, you just want to throw darts at the board and hope the QB that falls to the Giants works out. Of course there is no consideration for the consequences if DG chooses the wrong guy. Many of you will say that's what he gets paid to do, find the right guy. Well what if the right guy isn't in this draft or at least isn't one of these top 4 prospects? Because usually by now, in mid to late March, after the combine and the pro days, there is a consensus can't miss guy. But this year there isn't. But still, many of you want to force the issue just because the player has "QB" next to his name. Doesn't matter who he is, just get me one. And they'll be posters here defending the merits of all 4: size, strength, footwork, velocity, athleticism, etc. But still there isn't one guy we can all agree on. So tell me, what are the odds that all four of these QBs pan out? Because you all have no clue who DG may take. I say stop forcing the QB issue and take the generational player (Barkley) or try and rebuild the roster if teams like Denver or Buffalo offer a bunch of draft picks. And if they don't, take the sure thing, Barkley. He seems to be the only player in this draft that everyone can agree is the best player.
You speak of consequences. Consider the consequences of Webb being a bust and Allen, Darnold, and Rosen turn out to be Rivers, Ben and Eli, and the Giants missed out.
Trading back is fine.
They are all different paths to accomplishing the same goal and they all can work if done correctly.
People love being right though, above all else. So even if there is more than one way to achieve something - if its not their way, then its wrong.
Be it sports, politics, religion, etc.
You don’t think these debates were humming during Manning/Leaf? When we needed a QB in 2004, there were similar debates taking sides on Roeth, Manning, and Rivers...
And since the draft is more art than science, it’s impossible to get these obtuse notion of a consensus on a message board.
DG was endorsed by Accorsi. Mara hired Accorsi to consult and find the best GM. And that exercise was a total farce because most of us knew Accorsi wanted DG the minute he was hired. It was faiti compli.
So DG is under the gun to get it right because this is the most pivotal time in the transition from Eli to the future...
What it comes down to is, aside from Sy and Dave Te, we are just fans and even Sy and Dave don't agree.
Each fan looks at one or two traits and make their decision based on his/her preferences. And each QB has flaws that eliminate him from that fan's acceptance and those flaws maybe just perceived or minor.
Rosen - injuries, character
Allen - inaccurate, poor technique
Darnold - little experience, turnovers
Mayfield - short, off field
Jackson - field vision
Fans are not trained to make complete evals or know what flaws can be corrected and which are lethal.
We couldn't even get a consensus to root against the Eagles in the Super Bowl, so trying to decide the best QB? Good luck.
You don’t think these debates were humming during Manning/Leaf? When we needed a QB in 2004, there were similar debates taking sides on Roeth, Manning, and Rivers...
And since the draft is more art than science, it’s impossible to get these obtuse notion of a consensus on a message board.
DG was endorsed by Accorsi. Mara hired Accorsi to consult and find the best GM. And that exercise was a total farce because most of us knew Accorsi wanted DG the minute he was hired. It was faiti compli.
So DG is under the gun to get it right because this is the most pivotal time in the transition from Eli to the future...
There was not much debate over Manning/Leaf. Manning was the Consensus. Manning/Ben/Rivers also was not much debate. Manning was #1 with mostly Ben at #2 with Rivers mostly the #3 choice. We only drafted Rivers to trade for Eli, otherwise we would have taken Ben. Can you place the top 3 QB's in this draft into 3 majority bins? Meaning can you look around and see who most "experts" think are 1,2,3?
To me that is the OP's point. There is not even a 60-70% consensus of who is #1 let alone #2 or #3. I'm not saying we wont take a QB, but the reasoning of there is no consensus #1,2 or 3 is there.
1. Weber Grills are the best
2. People (in general and on here as a microcosm of our society) simply have different opinions and cannot unanimously agree with each other and it usually results in personal insults when the disagreements happen.
that's it.
literally.
The fact people here don't agree which QB the Giants should draft says something to you?
The Giants get to decide between 3 of them. That's a pretty good position to be in.
A traditional pro style power run team? Pick Rosen or Darnold. WCO? Allen or Mayfield. A hybrid complex system requiring high football iq? Take Rosen.
There are only a couple of actual "scouts" here, Dave-Te put out his overview of the QB class last week and he seems to think that Allen and Darnold are a cut above the rest. I am looking forward to seeing SY weigh in on the QB class as well. If they come too any sort of consensus then that will be the best indicator to me over anything else I'll read on here.
There are only a couple of actual "scouts" here, Dave-Te put out his overview of the QB class last week and he seems to think that Allen and Darnold are a cut above the rest. I am looking forward to seeing SY weigh in on the QB class as well. If they come too any sort of consensus then that will be the best indicator to me over anything else I'll read on here.
This would be the first reason. Another is that there aren't usually 4 quality QB's available at the top of the draft. If any 2 of these guys were available, there would be talk of which one to take, like last year with Goff and Wentz.
The only thing you should notice is what other teams are doing and thinking. Why are there multiple QB hungry teams trying to get to the top of this draft??
If you're on the "Anti-Qb Draft", you're likely to be right--wherever a QB is Drafted.
As for disagreement here.... Most guys here have never been within 10,000 feet of any of these guys. The Scouts and GM's are in a Crap Shoot...slight less than Us BBI'ers.
And why can nobody on this board agree on the best guy? Likely because a) we are a bunch of idiot fans; and b) there is not always a clear cut #1.
It sucks that there are no easy answers for people with limited information, but that does not at all drive what the professional should be doing.
A lot swore up and down that Rivers was a bust, Eli overrated, and there were questions about Ben's competition.
In short it was no different than this year. What does that tell you?
The fact that there isn't a consensus best QB doesn't mean that none of them are good.
Christ, people around here suck st logic. How do you function in the real world?
You don’t think these debates were humming during Manning/Leaf? When we needed a QB in 2004, there were similar debates taking sides on Roeth, Manning, and Rivers...
And since the draft is more art than science, it’s impossible to get these obtuse notion of a consensus on a message board.
DG was endorsed by Accorsi. Mara hired Accorsi to consult and find the best GM. And that exercise was a total farce because most of us knew Accorsi wanted DG the minute he was hired. It was faiti compli.
So DG is under the gun to get it right because this is the most pivotal time in the transition from Eli to the future...
There wasn't so much a debate about the 3 QB's as there
were many Giant fans in 2004 who wanted Robert Gallery,
Sean Taylor or Larry Fitzgerald. They felt Collins
would return them to SB with the addition of a few
'pieces'
Having agreement on BBI on #2 selection really isn't important. The hope here is that the DG regimes will make
the best possible choice.
There are only a couple of actual "scouts" here, Dave-Te put out his overview of the QB class last week and he seems to think that Allen and Darnold are a cut above the rest. I am looking forward to seeing SY weigh in on the QB class as well. If they come too any sort of consensus then that will be the best indicator to me over anything else I'll read on here.
I think the argument is that we are not professionals, the better argument is that the professionals are so bad at it, what makes us think we can be good at it. Jerry Reese was a two time Super Bowl champion and he got fired. A couple of years ago Ozzie Newsome couldn't do anything wrong, he now I think has a named replacement and his team has made the tournament in a few years. The point is that all this stuff is cyclical and some may have a little bit better track records than others, but, by in large, these guys have very little clue what makes a good college player a great one. My final point is to look at free agency, it is even hard projecting if a guy who had success in the NFL on one team will equal that success on another. I feel like GM success is largely luck, but that is just my opinion. On the other hand, I do not think coaching is luck, give Belichick any roster and he will nail it, same went for Parcells, etc.
The GIants picked what 5th or 6th and wanted the consensus one, this year the Giants, as long as they don't salivate over Darnold, do not have to pay the farm for anyone, including the guy I think they are going to take--Josh Rosen. If the Giants take Barkley, my guess is that this regime will be done within 2-3 years. That is how dumb a pick Barkley would be given our current roster.
I don't understand how your logic concluded that getting an immediate positive impact player is worse for the current regime than having our pick ride the bench for likely the whole 2018 season
I don't understand how your logic concluded that getting an immediate positive impact player is worse for the current regime than having our pick ride the bench for likely the whole 2018 season
because we won't win this year or next with Barkley given all of the holes in our roster, that we play with an Eagles team that is going nowhere, etc. At best, we would be a fringe playoff team (which I doubt we would even be) for the next season or two and then Eli is 39-40 and is probably done. So, yes, I think drafting Barkley would be smart for many teams, including actually the Colts (because they have their qb) but they traded out of that spot. Even assuming Barkley is a generational player, I think you need the qb before you get that type of player. I don't think QB's are interchangeable, but I do kind of think that if you can't find a qb this year you are going to have a hard time finding one in other drafts. In addition, the cost of moving up to get that QB in future drafts will be astronomical. We are here in a position where we won't get fleeced and where we can secure our future. But, by all means, pick a RB.
I don't understand how your logic concluded that getting an immediate positive impact player is worse for the current regime than having our pick ride the bench for likely the whole 2018 season
Not to mention that 1999 had 3 QB's in the top 3 and 5 in the top 12 and the best out of those 5 was Donovan McNabb. I do think though that Tim Couch, if he was on a team that had an OL, could have been a good NFL QB (David Carr was another that failed miserably because of lack of an OL)
Here is what Shurmur has said about the quarterbacks: “We know what we’re looking for. We know when we see it.”
If they see it in one of these prospects, and he's available at 2, they will take him. The consensus can chime in on their post draft grades. Those are always as fun as they are pointless.
Quote:
You're confirming the OP. You're basically saying the QBs are equal and interchangeable.
I don't understand how your logic concluded that getting an immediate positive impact player is worse for the current regime than having our pick ride the bench for likely the whole 2018 season
because we won't win this year or next with Barkley given all of the holes in our roster, that we play with an Eagles team that is going nowhere, etc. At best, we would be a fringe playoff team (which I doubt we would even be) for the next season or two and then Eli is 39-40 and is probably done. So, yes, I think drafting Barkley would be smart for many teams, including actually the Colts (because they have their qb) but they traded out of that spot. Even assuming Barkley is a generational player, I think you need the qb before you get that type of player. I don't think QB's are interchangeable, but I do kind of think that if you can't find a qb this year you are going to have a hard time finding one in other drafts. In addition, the cost of moving up to get that QB in future drafts will be astronomical. We are here in a position where we won't get fleeced and where we can secure our future. But, by all means, pick a RB.
I am sure the Seahawks thought that when they took Rick Mirer at #2, the Chargers thought that when they took Ryan Leaf at #2, the Bengals thought that when they took Akili Smith at #3, etc.
Quote:
In comment 13873628 Tim in VA said:
Quote:
You're confirming the OP. You're basically saying the QBs are equal and interchangeable.
I don't understand how your logic concluded that getting an immediate positive impact player is worse for the current regime than having our pick ride the bench for likely the whole 2018 season
because we won't win this year or next with Barkley given all of the holes in our roster, that we play with an Eagles team that is going nowhere, etc. At best, we would be a fringe playoff team (which I doubt we would even be) for the next season or two and then Eli is 39-40 and is probably done. So, yes, I think drafting Barkley would be smart for many teams, including actually the Colts (because they have their qb) but they traded out of that spot. Even assuming Barkley is a generational player, I think you need the qb before you get that type of player. I don't think QB's are interchangeable, but I do kind of think that if you can't find a qb this year you are going to have a hard time finding one in other drafts. In addition, the cost of moving up to get that QB in future drafts will be astronomical. We are here in a position where we won't get fleeced and where we can secure our future. But, by all means, pick a RB.
I am sure the Seahawks thought that when they took Rick Mirer at #2, the Chargers thought that when they took Ryan Leaf at #2, the Bengals thought that when they took Akili Smith at #3, etc.
That is a silly argument because those teams got it wrong we should pick a rb. Also, Saquon Barkley had plenty of bad games at Penn State, so this thought that he is a lock to be successful is silly--he has bust pontential like anyone else. Thus, picking a qb, will never remove the fac that you will get it wrong, but in a draft of all these qbs, you are telling me that they don't see one potential franchise qb? Look, if Gettleman comes out and says we don't think any of these qbs would be a franchise qb and they would all be busts, I guess you shouldn't take a qb. But just because other teams messed it up should not scare you from doing the organizational building blocks in the right order and we are especially in a bad place to take a guy like Barkley because in the middle of his prime, years 3-5 we will be transitioning to a new QB. It makes almost no sense to pick him.
Quote:
In comment 13873642 Essex said:
Quote:
In comment 13873628 Tim in VA said:
Quote:
You're confirming the OP. You're basically saying the QBs are equal and interchangeable.
I don't understand how your logic concluded that getting an immediate positive impact player is worse for the current regime than having our pick ride the bench for likely the whole 2018 season
because we won't win this year or next with Barkley given all of the holes in our roster, that we play with an Eagles team that is going nowhere, etc. At best, we would be a fringe playoff team (which I doubt we would even be) for the next season or two and then Eli is 39-40 and is probably done. So, yes, I think drafting Barkley would be smart for many teams, including actually the Colts (because they have their qb) but they traded out of that spot. Even assuming Barkley is a generational player, I think you need the qb before you get that type of player. I don't think QB's are interchangeable, but I do kind of think that if you can't find a qb this year you are going to have a hard time finding one in other drafts. In addition, the cost of moving up to get that QB in future drafts will be astronomical. We are here in a position where we won't get fleeced and where we can secure our future. But, by all means, pick a RB.
I am sure the Seahawks thought that when they took Rick Mirer at #2, the Chargers thought that when they took Ryan Leaf at #2, the Bengals thought that when they took Akili Smith at #3, etc.
That is a silly argument because those teams got it wrong we should pick a rb. Also, Saquon Barkley had plenty of bad games at Penn State, so this thought that he is a lock to be successful is silly--he has bust pontential like anyone else. Thus, picking a qb, will never remove the fac that you will get it wrong, but in a draft of all these qbs, you are telling me that they don't see one potential franchise qb? Look, if Gettleman comes out and says we don't think any of these qbs would be a franchise qb and they would all be busts, I guess you shouldn't take a qb. But just because other teams messed it up should not scare you from doing the organizational building blocks in the right order and we are especially in a bad place to take a guy like Barkley because in the middle of his prime, years 3-5 we will be transitioning to a new QB. It makes almost no sense to pick him.
I am not saying that the choice is either a QB or Saquon Barkley. What I am against is saying that because we are picking #2 we must take a QB.
Quote:
In comment 13873658 Mike in NY said:
Quote:
In comment 13873642 Essex said:
Quote:
In comment 13873628 Tim in VA said:
Quote:
You're confirming the OP. You're basically saying the QBs are equal and interchangeable.
I don't understand how your logic concluded that getting an immediate positive impact player is worse for the current regime than having our pick ride the bench for likely the whole 2018 season
because we won't win this year or next with Barkley given all of the holes in our roster, that we play with an Eagles team that is going nowhere, etc. At best, we would be a fringe playoff team (which I doubt we would even be) for the next season or two and then Eli is 39-40 and is probably done. So, yes, I think drafting Barkley would be smart for many teams, including actually the Colts (because they have their qb) but they traded out of that spot. Even assuming Barkley is a generational player, I think you need the qb before you get that type of player. I don't think QB's are interchangeable, but I do kind of think that if you can't find a qb this year you are going to have a hard time finding one in other drafts. In addition, the cost of moving up to get that QB in future drafts will be astronomical. We are here in a position where we won't get fleeced and where we can secure our future. But, by all means, pick a RB.
I am sure the Seahawks thought that when they took Rick Mirer at #2, the Chargers thought that when they took Ryan Leaf at #2, the Bengals thought that when they took Akili Smith at #3, etc.
That is a silly argument because those teams got it wrong we should pick a rb. Also, Saquon Barkley had plenty of bad games at Penn State, so this thought that he is a lock to be successful is silly--he has bust pontential like anyone else. Thus, picking a qb, will never remove the fac that you will get it wrong, but in a draft of all these qbs, you are telling me that they don't see one potential franchise qb? Look, if Gettleman comes out and says we don't think any of these qbs would be a franchise qb and they would all be busts, I guess you shouldn't take a qb. But just because other teams messed it up should not scare you from doing the organizational building blocks in the right order and we are especially in a bad place to take a guy like Barkley because in the middle of his prime, years 3-5 we will be transitioning to a new QB. It makes almost no sense to pick him.
I am not saying that the choice is either a QB or Saquon Barkley. What I am against is saying that because we are picking #2 we must take a QB.
I think my key points are this:
1) Saquon Barkley makes no sense for the Giants unless we have miraculously determined that Davis Webb is the QB of the future
2) when you pick second and need a qb in the next 1-3 years, picking one at 2 is ideal provided that they are franchise worthy.
3)I find it hard to believe in this crop of qbs, we can't find one
4)If we judge that they are not good, trade away and just get more building blocks for the future.
Thus, I got back to 1, the worst thing we can do given our situation is to pick a RB (unless DG and PS have figured out Davis Webb is the future).
I really don't think Ben McAdoo's personnel choices are indicative of anything considering he got canned after less than two seasons as a head coach by a franchise that is notoriously slow for making moves
Quote:
is to know for a fact that Davis Webb is your QB of the future. And, if he was that good, he should have played last year so our judgment could be better informed.
I really don't think Ben McAdoo's personnel choices are indicative of anything considering he got canned after less than two seasons as a head coach by a franchise that is notoriously slow for making moves
I think there is a theory (because we have no clue if this is true or not) that I think is plausible that John Mara misread the public sentiment on Eli and that is why Davis Webb didn't start last season and why we will not pick a qb this year. I hope that's not true and I have no idea if that theory is true, but it would be an extremely large misread of what irked the public when Eli was benched.
Second it tells me that there are a number of posters (like me) who feel the Giants need to secure their future QB at 2 and if the Giants agree with that assessment, then we are content to "let" them choose from those QBs...even though we have our own preferences.
Your thread premise that since there is no consensus #1 QB that none of them are worthy of being picked at 2 and that we should therefore choose the player that you want (Barkley?) is incredibly flawed.
Every year different groups of people have their favorite
You speak of consequences. Consider the consequences of Webb being a bust and Allen, Darnold, and Rosen turn out to be Rivers, Ben and Eli, and the Giants missed out.
Your thread premise that since there is no consensus #1 QB that none of them are worthy of being picked at 2 and that we should therefore choose the player that you want (Barkley?) is incredibly flawed.
Amen.
In their defense - the Barkley Brigade - at least SB would touch the ball, so he has direct impact. But not to the degree a QB would...
The Nelson Crew are completely out of their minds wanting to take a G at #2.
I think that's mostly right. There were a few that firmly in the RG3 camp, and he did have a terrific rookie year, but Luck had the prototype body, could move, was tough, had a good arm, won, good football acumen, and he was a leader...
with those guys in place they dont need to find the next manning you would only need a good QB who doesnt turn the ball over much. much like our division rivals now all have with foles/wentz,smith and prescott the redskins just brought in smith because he will turn the ball over less than cousins did they all run the ball well as did every playoff team last year.dallas is only doing as well under prescott because of zeke they can add someone better than zeke possibly and they should,zeke was a high pick and dallas only had a broken down romo and still took him the giants at least have webb to fall back on too
in 2011 it was the improvement in the running game during the post season that made them contenders plus the secondry came together and fixed the coverage slip ups that let too many points be scored as well but it was the ability to run the ball that turned them around on offence,perkins and gallman and stewart can be good change of pace backs and role players but none of them is a cook,gurley or zeke
the only 1 of the 4 i would have wanted was rosen but his injury history and having to face the passrushers in the NFCE is a scary prospect especially until we see if that rebuilt OL is actually as advertised i think it is and once they add another OG somewhere in the draft with bisnowaty,dunker and wheeler as backups or pushing to start i beleive they have fixed the OL but we wont know until they actually show us,i also think shurmur will make way better use of the personnel than macadoo did,using screens and playaction passes to prevent defences just pinning their ears back and going after the QB the way they had done
then there is also the consideration that both rosen and mayfield are locker room cancers as well to complicate the issue further
shurmur will mitigate the hole at outside WR2 by using more double TE sets,ellison was criminally under used especially once injuries hit the WR all at once,engram will be the move TE he should have been but macadoo was too inept to implement correctly
had macadoo just accepted that the season was lost he would possibly still be the coach it was the fact he tried to blame everything on eli that got him sacked,it wasnt the fact they benched eli in my view it was WHO they benched him for, geno that was the problem. had he started webb to see what they had or how he coped with the pressure in a lost season anyway you can justify that but to do that for a backup QB that we knew was a backup? you would show you were planning how to correct the mistakes and move forward instead reese and macadoo tried to shift the blame and they paid for it
i think that group of QB's are more winston,bridgewaters,bortles and winston than eli,big ben and rivers guys like that will hold you back and be worse you are then not good enough to win or not bad enough to get another QB without giving up the earth to get a high enough pick to go after a goff,wentz or luck at the top of the draft better to either hit on a good QB or miss completely and suck enough to pick top 5 to try again
whats more several of the giants players have said they dont need to draft a QB that webb is the guy and most of them are defensive players that said that,if they want to hedge their bets with another QB somewhere in rounds 2-5 then fine i always though geno was a totally wasted roster spot you know the guy is never going to be good enough so why clog up a vauable roster spot for a dud? i would rather they added another late round QB or even an undrafted one from a lower level to try out than throw money at an already washed up QB that was never good enough in the first place
OR
2. There are NO franchise QBs in this draft.
OR
3. BBI is a fan site where people who don't get paid to evaluate talent pretend to evaluate talent.
Quote:
was the last consensus QB coming out?? Luck? good luck waiting around for that 7 year cycle to pop up.
I think that's mostly right. There were a few that firmly in the RG3 camp, and he did have a terrific rookie year, but Luck had the prototype body, could move, was tough, had a good arm, won, good football acumen, and he was a leader...
I would say in 2015 the consensus was Winston then Mariota although a few may have had it flipped
Quote:
In comment 13874025 JINTin Adirondacks said:
Quote:
was the last consensus QB coming out?? Luck? good luck waiting around for that 7 year cycle to pop up.
I think that's mostly right. There were a few that firmly in the RG3 camp, and he did have a terrific rookie year, but Luck had the prototype body, could move, was tough, had a good arm, won, good football acumen, and he was a leader...
I would say in 2015 the consensus was Winston then Mariota although a few may have had it flipped