But I still don’t want him at the 2. Good running backs can be had later in the draft, no one, not even Barks, is a sure thing, and unless Webb is the goods (what’s the probability?) we almost certainly need a new QB. I don’t argue that Barks isn’t a talented player (though again, there are no sure things in the NFL), I just don’t see using the second overall pick on a RB.
that barkley is the most dynamic player in the draft. He 100% is. The real question is football is a cap/longevity game.
Look at the Bell situation in Pitt right now. He's the best running back in the league and they are even worried about giving him long term guaranteed money at the age of 26.
Running backs shelf life is so small and we would lucky to be able to get Barkley to 30 like LaDanian Tomllinson got for the Chargers (he started to slow down by age 29).
So you have more of a 7-8 year window with Barkley. Is that enough of a window to warrant turning down a possible trade down scenario where we could acquire multiple 1st round picks and multiple assets to build a roster. Especially in a deep RB draft?
But I still don’t want him at the 2. Good running backs can be had later in the draft, no one, not even Barks, is a sure thing, and unless Webb is the goods (what’s the probability?)
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
But I still don’t want him at the 2. Good running backs can be had later in the draft, no one, not even Barks, is a sure thing, and unless Webb is the goods (what’s the probability?)
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
Wouldn't 32 be the better denominator?
Also, I would think that just getting there should count Â
But I still don’t want him at the 2. Good running backs can be had later in the draft, no one, not even Barks, is a sure thing, and unless Webb is the goods (what’s the probability?)
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
Wouldn't 32 be the better denominator?
no, the denominator would be the total # of QBs drafted after position 10. then compare to the ratio (or probability) for QBs drafted 10 or higher (which will have a different denominator).
of course you could then perform this same exercise for RBs.
but it's a pretty sure thing that the percentages will favor QBs drafted high versus other positions. it's simply a more important position. the most important in team sports.
Look at the Bell situation in Pitt right now. He's the best running back in the league and they are even worried about giving him long term guaranteed money at the age of 26.
Yeah, but Bell has some other issues that are likely making the Steelers hesitant. I'd be surprised if Barkley misses any games due to suspension.
But I still don’t want him at the 2. Good running backs can be had later in the draft, no one, not even Barks, is a sure thing, and unless Webb is the goods (what’s the probability?)
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
Jim, that isn't the right way to look at that statistically. If 50 percent were won by QBs from picks 1-10 vs picks 11-230...look at the odds. That's 10 picks vs 219 picks. From a math point of view you would need 20 picks between picks 11-20 to match 1 pick in the top 10.
BTW. I like Barkley too, but QB super bowl success is definitely favored by the top 10 picks in the draft. Not to mention when doing stats you should normally throw out the high and low. Removing Brady's 5 rings really makes this favor the top 10 even more, however even without doing that it still favors the top 10.
It's going to be fun on this board if the Giants pass on both Â
there have been a lot of posters this spring running down Barkley on BBI simply to support the notion of taking a QB at #2. It is fine to believe that the Giants should take a QB without also minimizing the potential of Barkley. He is a gifted and special talent. And yes you can find quality RBs later in the draft (just like some of the best QBs have been taken later in the draft).
Gotta admit I go back and forth between him and a QB. But Â
Look at the Bell situation in Pitt right now. He's the best running back in the league and they are even worried about giving him long term guaranteed money at the age of 26.
Yeah, but Bell has some other issues that are likely making the Steelers hesitant. I'd be surprised if Barkley misses any games due to suspension.
fair enough. Barkley is by far the cleaner athlete which you would feel much more comfortable committing long term. But injury concerns and longevity concerns really damper the idea of going running back this early.
Barkley could be that good where that doesn't matter. It's up to the front office to decide especially waying whatever trade offers they have on the table as well.
But I still don’t want him at the 2. Good running backs can be had later in the draft, no one, not even Barks, is a sure thing, and unless Webb is the goods (what’s the probability?)
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
Wouldn't 32 be the better denominator?
no, the denominator would be the total # of QBs drafted after position 10. then compare to the ratio (or probability) for QBs drafted 10 or higher (which will have a different denominator).
of course you could then perform this same exercise for RBs.
but it's a pretty sure thing that the percentages will favor QBs drafted high versus other positions. it's simply a more important position. the most important in team sports.
Well, seems odd when you say won by 32 QB's but then reference the 52 total SB wins.
So of the 32 different QB's what is the split for #10 or higher and those after the 3rd round?
I for one am pretty pumped about the idea of Barkley, Beckham, Engram, and Shepard on the same field together with hopefully, a competent OL. He's what OBJ is to the receiver position, an absolute nightmare and threat to take it the distance every time he's out there. Draft him.
they state emphatically that “you can get a RB in the later rounds.”
Really? Please tell us exactly which players will be available in the other rounds and why in those rounds, those players would be a better selection than whoever else is available at that time.
Oh you dont know because you dont have a crystal ball? What a surprise.
The amount of conjecture people use as facts anymore is astounding.
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
Jim, that isn't the right way to look at that statistically. If 50 percent were won by QBs from picks 1-10 vs picks 11-230...look at the odds. That's 10 picks vs 219 picks. From a math point of view you would need 20 picks between picks 11-20 to match 1 pick in the top 10.
Not only is Jim in NH's theory skewed by Tom Brady, it's also skewed by QBs from a very different era including Joe Montana, Bart Starr and Roger Staubach (who was drafted late because of his Navy commitment).
If you look at the last 25 years and the hundreds of QBs drafted and remove Tom Brady from the equation, the stats don't support Jim in NH's theory.
I understand the argument regarding RB longevity, but Â
Does free agency and the five year contract for first round draft choices mitigate that argument.
In other words, if a team can't really control a player for more than five years plus two years of free agency, should the longevity of QBs be that important a consideration?
Pick your RB, get your 5-7 years and he's done. Pick a QB, groom him for a year or so, and he leaves in free agency in 5-7 tears. MAYBE, you can re-sign him, maybe not, but the team can't control it. If he decides to leave, in the end, you either sign a free agent or have a player in the wings.
RE: Do people realize how ridiculous they sound when Â
they state emphatically that “you can get a RB in the later rounds.”
Really? Please tell us exactly which players will be available in the other rounds and why in those rounds, those players would be a better selection than whoever else is available at that time.
Oh you dont know because you dont have a crystal ball? What a surprise.
The amount of conjecture people use as facts anymore is astounding.
To me it's pretty simple. The league doesn't really value RB's that high so they don't get drafted as early as they should.
Does free agency and the five year contract for first round draft choices mitigate that argument.
In other words, if a team can't really control a player for more than five years plus two years of free agency, should the longevity of QBs be that important a consideration?
Pick your RB, get your 5-7 years and he's done. Pick a QB, groom him for a year or so, and he leaves in free agency in 5-7 tears. MAYBE, you can re-sign him, maybe not, but the team can't control it. If he decides to leave, in the end, you either sign a free agent or have a player in the wings.
maybe you can re-sign him? huh? When do good QB's ever get to FA...Cousins is a different animal because the WASH owner is a nut job.
But most good QB's never make it to FA's. No one has ever had an issue signing there QB if they really want them to stay.
are gonna bitch no matter who the pick is. For my money this #2 pick has to have the absolute highest floor and almost no bust potential, even though that is nearly impossible to say. Coupled with that, he has to be an elite level talent. That player in this draft is Barkley.
are gonna bitch no matter who the pick is. For my money this #2 pick has to have the absolute highest floor and almost no bust potential, even though that is nearly impossible to say. Coupled with that, he has to be an elite level talent. That player in this draft is Barkley.
I don't htink anyone in the NFL drafts like this, nor should they. Each position is valued differently. You can't compare RB's to QB's because QB's are the most important position in sports, QB's always get picked higher than their "potential" and they get paid so muich more than everyone else. It's not this simple.
I kinda agree but look what happens when you just take a QB because you need one even though there’s not much of a consensus on that player. Guys like Ponder, Locker, Gabbert, etc. Plenty of examples where it didn’t workout, especially in the top of the draft. They weren’t elite level prospects and yet teams took them over better talent.
I kinda agree but look what happens when you just take a QB because you need one even though there’s not much of a consensus on that player. Guys like Ponder, Locker, Gabbert, etc. Plenty of examples where it didn’t workout, especially in the top of the draft. They weren’t elite level prospects and yet teams took them over better talent.
Yep, def risks taking QB's high. Teams reach because QB's are vital to sustained success. Can anyone name any team in the NFL that has had sustained success without a franchise QB? Teams understand this and add value to the position. It's just how it is.
the same argument can be made for guys like Peterson, Elliott, Fournette, Gurley etc. They were all taken top 10. Their impact is seen on every down.
Did any of them ever win a Superbowl? We won 2 recent Super bowls with late rd rbs. I want the guy that touch's the ball every snap before the guy that touches it less than 50% of the time. You build the team around a QB, not around a rb. So how many top 10 rbs have won Super bowls in the last 20 years as opposed to other rounds.
The NFL has shown in recent years that rbs are not as valuable as most other positions. It's also easier to get a RB in the draft because there are more available. Only 1 qb starts per team. Many teams play 2-4 rbs in a game so you can get some specialists. I would say on offense alone RB is probably one of the lowest value positions except maybe center and guard. But even guards are now paid better than most rbs.
It's about getting the most out of your picks, RB doesn't offer good value
A rushing game is valuable. A great individual rusher, maybe not. Â
One thing that makes Barkley an attractive pick is that he's a dynamic receiver out of the backfield. I remember that Earl Campbell wasn't a good receiver so you could take him out of the game if you got a lead on the Oilers. Not true of a Marshall Faulk or other good receiving backs.
In my view, the danger of picking Barkley is that if he turns out to be a great back, there's a good chance the rest of the offense is underdeveloped. Everybody gets used to leaning on the one guy and his playmaking ability. It's not a winning formula.
So if the Giants take him, it's really incumbent on everybody -- Eli, Shurmur, Gettelman -- to build an offense that can come from behind against a playoff defense, and that means passing. You can rely on your great RB to take pressure off the QB, but he can't become the focus of the offense.
When Eli's former teammates go for someone other then the QB. They don't want their QB to be replaced and I understand that, but if they don't think a QB is the best for the team long term then they are dumb. We really can't leave ourselves in a position without a QB. Especially picking this high in a good QB draft.
When Eli's former teammates go for someone other then the QB. They don't want their QB to be replaced and I understand that, but if they don't think a QB is the best for the team long term then they are dumb. We really can't leave ourselves in a position without a QB. Especially picking this high in a good QB draft.
why does it sound like everyone has some devious, duplicitous, or just plain errant motivation except the people who share the same wants and views of #2 as you do?
But I still don’t want him at the 2. Good running backs can be had later in the draft, no one, not even Barks, is a sure thing, and unless Webb is the goods (what’s the probability?)
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
In comment 13876247 Peter from NH (formerly CT) said:
Quote:
there have been a lot of posters this spring running down Barkley on BBI simply to support the notion of taking a QB at #2. It is fine to believe that the Giants should take a QB without also minimizing the potential of Barkley. He is a gifted and special talent. And yes you can find quality RBs later in the draft (just like some of the best QBs have been taken later in the draft).
Just like there are a lot posters that suggest the QB's aren't that good and they flat out just don't know either.
I for one am pretty pumped about the idea of Barkley, Beckham, Engram, and Shepard on the same field together with hopefully, a competent OL. He's what OBJ is to the receiver position, an absolute nightmare and threat to take it the distance every time he's out there. Draft him.
The opposing defense will stack the line, and our QB won't be bale to deliver the ball to OBJ.
RE: Do people realize how ridiculous they sound when Â
they state emphatically that “you can get a RB in the later rounds.”
Really? Please tell us exactly which players will be available in the other rounds and why in those rounds, those players would be a better selection than whoever else is available at that time.
Oh you dont know because you dont have a crystal ball? What a surprise.
The amount of conjecture people use as facts anymore is astounding.
Do you say the same thing for those that think the Giants will be fine with Webb? Or the other comment I love-- "we'll just trade up 2 years from now and get the QB."
RE: A rushing game is valuable. A great individual rusher, maybe not. Â
One thing that makes Barkley an attractive pick is that he's a dynamic receiver out of the backfield. I remember that Earl Campbell wasn't a good receiver so you could take him out of the game if you got a lead on the Oilers. Not true of a Marshall Faulk or other good receiving backs.
In my view, the danger of picking Barkley is that if he turns out to be a great back, there's a good chance the rest of the offense is underdeveloped. Everybody gets used to leaning on the one guy and his playmaking ability. It's not a winning formula.
So if the Giants take him, it's really incumbent on everybody -- Eli, Shurmur, Gettelman -- to build an offense that can come from behind against a playoff defense, and that means passing. You can rely on your great RB to take pressure off the QB, but he can't become the focus of the offense.
In Earl Campbell's prime handing the ball off to him was juts as good as trying to throw the ball down the field.
RE: RE: A rushing game is valuable. A great individual rusher, maybe not. Â
In Earl Campbell's prime handing the ball off to him was juts as good as trying to throw the ball down the field.
It's been a long time, but I remember being baffled that the Oilers would take him out of the game, or stop handing off to him, if they were down two or more scores in the fourth quarter. If they had to score fast or run a 2-minute offense, he wasn't part of it.
But I still don’t want him at the 2. Good running backs can be had later in the draft, no one, not even Barks, is a sure thing, and unless Webb is the goods (what’s the probability?)
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
Do you post anything besides this?
~150 QBs have been drafted in the top 10 over the past 50 years. >500 QBs have been drafted outside the top 10 during the past 50 years. If you think that equates to a 50/50 probability, then you really suck at math.
Look at the Bell situation in Pitt right now. He's the best running back in the league and they are even worried about giving him long term guaranteed money at the age of 26.
Running backs shelf life is so small and we would lucky to be able to get Barkley to 30 like LaDanian Tomllinson got for the Chargers (he started to slow down by age 29).
So you have more of a 7-8 year window with Barkley. Is that enough of a window to warrant turning down a possible trade down scenario where we could acquire multiple 1st round picks and multiple assets to build a roster. Especially in a deep RB draft?
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
Quote:
But I still don’t want him at the 2. Good running backs can be had later in the draft, no one, not even Barks, is a sure thing, and unless Webb is the goods (what’s the probability?)
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
Quote:
In comment 13876206 trueblueinpw said:
Quote:
But I still don’t want him at the 2. Good running backs can be had later in the draft, no one, not even Barks, is a sure thing, and unless Webb is the goods (what’s the probability?)
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
Wouldn't 32 be the better denominator?
no, the denominator would be the total # of QBs drafted after position 10. then compare to the ratio (or probability) for QBs drafted 10 or higher (which will have a different denominator).
of course you could then perform this same exercise for RBs.
but it's a pretty sure thing that the percentages will favor QBs drafted high versus other positions. it's simply a more important position. the most important in team sports.
Look at the Bell situation in Pitt right now. He's the best running back in the league and they are even worried about giving him long term guaranteed money at the age of 26.
Yeah, but Bell has some other issues that are likely making the Steelers hesitant. I'd be surprised if Barkley misses any games due to suspension.
Quote:
But I still don’t want him at the 2. Good running backs can be had later in the draft, no one, not even Barks, is a sure thing, and unless Webb is the goods (what’s the probability?)
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
Jim, that isn't the right way to look at that statistically. If 50 percent were won by QBs from picks 1-10 vs picks 11-230...look at the odds. That's 10 picks vs 219 picks. From a math point of view you would need 20 picks between picks 11-20 to match 1 pick in the top 10.
BTW. I like Barkley too, but QB super bowl success is definitely favored by the top 10 picks in the draft. Not to mention when doing stats you should normally throw out the high and low. Removing Brady's 5 rings really makes this favor the top 10 even more, however even without doing that it still favors the top 10.
Quote:
Look at the Bell situation in Pitt right now. He's the best running back in the league and they are even worried about giving him long term guaranteed money at the age of 26.
Yeah, but Bell has some other issues that are likely making the Steelers hesitant. I'd be surprised if Barkley misses any games due to suspension.
fair enough. Barkley is by far the cleaner athlete which you would feel much more comfortable committing long term. But injury concerns and longevity concerns really damper the idea of going running back this early.
Barkley could be that good where that doesn't matter. It's up to the front office to decide especially waying whatever trade offers they have on the table as well.
Quote:
In comment 13876217 Jim in NH said:
Quote:
In comment 13876206 trueblueinpw said:
Quote:
But I still don’t want him at the 2. Good running backs can be had later in the draft, no one, not even Barks, is a sure thing, and unless Webb is the goods (what’s the probability?)
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
Wouldn't 32 be the better denominator?
no, the denominator would be the total # of QBs drafted after position 10. then compare to the ratio (or probability) for QBs drafted 10 or higher (which will have a different denominator).
of course you could then perform this same exercise for RBs.
but it's a pretty sure thing that the percentages will favor QBs drafted high versus other positions. it's simply a more important position. the most important in team sports.
Well, seems odd when you say won by 32 QB's but then reference the 52 total SB wins.
So of the 32 different QB's what is the split for #10 or higher and those after the 3rd round?
College stats really don't mean anything for NFL projection.
Really? Please tell us exactly which players will be available in the other rounds and why in those rounds, those players would be a better selection than whoever else is available at that time.
Oh you dont know because you dont have a crystal ball? What a surprise.
The amount of conjecture people use as facts anymore is astounding.
Quote:
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
Jim, that isn't the right way to look at that statistically. If 50 percent were won by QBs from picks 1-10 vs picks 11-230...look at the odds. That's 10 picks vs 219 picks. From a math point of view you would need 20 picks between picks 11-20 to match 1 pick in the top 10.
Not only is Jim in NH's theory skewed by Tom Brady, it's also skewed by QBs from a very different era including Joe Montana, Bart Starr and Roger Staubach (who was drafted late because of his Navy commitment).
If you look at the last 25 years and the hundreds of QBs drafted and remove Tom Brady from the equation, the stats don't support Jim in NH's theory.
In other words, if a team can't really control a player for more than five years plus two years of free agency, should the longevity of QBs be that important a consideration?
Pick your RB, get your 5-7 years and he's done. Pick a QB, groom him for a year or so, and he leaves in free agency in 5-7 tears. MAYBE, you can re-sign him, maybe not, but the team can't control it. If he decides to leave, in the end, you either sign a free agent or have a player in the wings.
Really? Please tell us exactly which players will be available in the other rounds and why in those rounds, those players would be a better selection than whoever else is available at that time.
Oh you dont know because you dont have a crystal ball? What a surprise.
The amount of conjecture people use as facts anymore is astounding.
To me it's pretty simple. The league doesn't really value RB's that high so they don't get drafted as early as they should.
In other words, if a team can't really control a player for more than five years plus two years of free agency, should the longevity of QBs be that important a consideration?
Pick your RB, get your 5-7 years and he's done. Pick a QB, groom him for a year or so, and he leaves in free agency in 5-7 tears. MAYBE, you can re-sign him, maybe not, but the team can't control it. If he decides to leave, in the end, you either sign a free agent or have a player in the wings.
maybe you can re-sign him? huh? When do good QB's ever get to FA...Cousins is a different animal because the WASH owner is a nut job.
But most good QB's never make it to FA's. No one has ever had an issue signing there QB if they really want them to stay.
I don't htink anyone in the NFL drafts like this, nor should they. Each position is valued differently. You can't compare RB's to QB's because QB's are the most important position in sports, QB's always get picked higher than their "potential" and they get paid so muich more than everyone else. It's not this simple.
If it's Chubb, I think that's actually sell-able.
I won't throw up in my mouth and break my remote. I'll just break my remote...
Yep, def risks taking QB's high. Teams reach because QB's are vital to sustained success. Can anyone name any team in the NFL that has had sustained success without a franchise QB? Teams understand this and add value to the position. It's just how it is.
Quote:
Was held under 100 yards in 61% of his career games. That seems really bad to me for a college RB who people want to take top 5.
College stats really don't mean anything for NFL projection.
Agreed...look how Andre Williams worked out for us
God help BBI if that occurs.
Did any of them ever win a Superbowl? We won 2 recent Super bowls with late rd rbs. I want the guy that touch's the ball every snap before the guy that touches it less than 50% of the time. You build the team around a QB, not around a rb. So how many top 10 rbs have won Super bowls in the last 20 years as opposed to other rounds.
The NFL has shown in recent years that rbs are not as valuable as most other positions. It's also easier to get a RB in the draft because there are more available. Only 1 qb starts per team. Many teams play 2-4 rbs in a game so you can get some specialists. I would say on offense alone RB is probably one of the lowest value positions except maybe center and guard. But even guards are now paid better than most rbs.
It's about getting the most out of your picks, RB doesn't offer good value
In my view, the danger of picking Barkley is that if he turns out to be a great back, there's a good chance the rest of the offense is underdeveloped. Everybody gets used to leaning on the one guy and his playmaking ability. It's not a winning formula.
So if the Giants take him, it's really incumbent on everybody -- Eli, Shurmur, Gettelman -- to build an offense that can come from behind against a playoff defense, and that means passing. You can rely on your great RB to take pressure off the QB, but he can't become the focus of the offense.
and how many superbowls do they have combined? Not knocking just playing devils advocate...aren't you playing to win superbowls?
Quote:
But I still don’t want him at the 2. Good running backs can be had later in the draft, no one, not even Barks, is a sure thing, and unless Webb is the goods (what’s the probability?)
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
Ridiculous.
Just like there are a lot posters that suggest the QB's aren't that good and they flat out just don't know either.
The opposing defense will stack the line, and our QB won't be bale to deliver the ball to OBJ.
Really? Please tell us exactly which players will be available in the other rounds and why in those rounds, those players would be a better selection than whoever else is available at that time.
Oh you dont know because you dont have a crystal ball? What a surprise.
The amount of conjecture people use as facts anymore is astounding.
Do you say the same thing for those that think the Giants will be fine with Webb? Or the other comment I love-- "we'll just trade up 2 years from now and get the QB."
In my view, the danger of picking Barkley is that if he turns out to be a great back, there's a good chance the rest of the offense is underdeveloped. Everybody gets used to leaning on the one guy and his playmaking ability. It's not a winning formula.
So if the Giants take him, it's really incumbent on everybody -- Eli, Shurmur, Gettelman -- to build an offense that can come from behind against a playoff defense, and that means passing. You can rely on your great RB to take pressure off the QB, but he can't become the focus of the offense.
In Earl Campbell's prime handing the ball off to him was juts as good as trying to throw the ball down the field.
Quote:
But I still don’t want him at the 2. Good running backs can be had later in the draft, no one, not even Barks, is a sure thing, and unless Webb is the goods (what’s the probability?)
Well, 52 Super Bowls have been won by 32 QBs. Of the 52 wins, 26 were by QBs drafted #10 in Round One or higher, 26 by QBs drafted after position 10 in round one, most of them by QBs drafted in Rounds 3-6 or undrafted.
So, one way to look at your question about Webb and probability would be, 50-50.
Do you post anything besides this?
~150 QBs have been drafted in the top 10 over the past 50 years. >500 QBs have been drafted outside the top 10 during the past 50 years. If you think that equates to a 50/50 probability, then you really suck at math.