for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Top of the Draft QB vs. RB

bobtucker38 : 3/21/2018 6:46 am
Barkley or a QB??????
Look at the results then decide. Look at the drafts in super bowl era. In the first 5 picks of the first round, there were 48 QBs taken. Three of them made the hall of fame, Bradshaw, Elway and Aikman. Among the duds were Art Schlichter, Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Tim Couch, Joey Harrington, Vince Young, Jemarcus Russell, Mark Sanchez and Robert Griffin. Now look at the numbers 6 percent were hall of farmers and 23 percent were duds. Now as far as RBs there were 36 taken in the top 5 picks. Eight of them were hall of famers, Simpson,Payton,Dorsett,Campbell, Dickerson,Sanders,Faulk and Tomlinson. Duds included Trent Richardson,Ki-Jana Carter, Curtis Ennis, Blair Thomas, Alonzo Highsmith,Brent Fullwood and Bo Mathews. So 22 percent were hall of farmers vs 6 percent qbs. 19 percent were duds compared to 23 percent Qbs.......Also the RB s that made the hall had careers that lasted 10 years.

There is no debate for me TAKE BARKLEY!!!!!
does it make any difference  
section125 : 3/21/2018 7:57 am : link
that of the "failed" RBs mentioned, 3 were from Penn State?
RE: does it make any difference  
Eman11 : 3/21/2018 8:04 am : link
In comment 13876943 section125 said:
Quote:
that of the "failed" RBs mentioned, 3 were from Penn State?


I don't think it's something in the air there. More of a system and coaching thing which Barkley is far removed from.

I'm not saying he received the best coaching because I don't know, it's just a different staff all the way around. I don't see anything in common on the field with the "failed" RBs other than the uniform.
RE: does it make any difference  
Victor in CT : 3/21/2018 8:04 am : link
In comment 13876943 section125 said:
Quote:
that of the "failed" RBs mentioned, 3 were from Penn State?


Well, is it still true that Penn State produces great LBs? Probably not. It's all ancient history. "Linebacker U" is a memory, same as Blair Thomas being a bust 28 years ago is. Irrelevant.
Little known fact..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 3/21/2018 8:33 am : link
Bo Matthews played briefly for the Giants.
RE: Little known fact..  
Victor in CT : 3/21/2018 8:37 am : link
In comment 13876976 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Bo Matthews played briefly for the Giants.


In that era, why am I not surprised? :-)
You worry about winning, not hoping for HOF  
giantstock : 3/21/2018 8:49 am : link
If the RB doesn't have a good QB -- you load up the line and you're not going to win enough big games.

That's why you take the QB. A guy as great as Walter Payton was didn't win until his team had a freak defense.

The good QB provides balance. Balance is more important than HOF. Anyways Eli wasn't always super and he's going into the HOF.

RE: You worry about winning, not hoping for HOF  
allstarjim : 3/21/2018 9:01 am : link
In comment 13877002 giantstock said:
Quote:
If the RB doesn't have a good QB -- you load up the line and you're not going to win enough big games.

That's why you take the QB. A guy as great as Walter Payton was didn't win until his team had a freak defense.

The good QB provides balance. Balance is more important than HOF. Anyways Eli wasn't always super and he's going into the HOF.


With our receiving weapons, please load up that line. Bring them see safeties down.
Your theory is so flawed....  
Keith : 3/21/2018 9:09 am : link
First off, I think Barkley is the safest pick to be a star player. It's certainly not a sure thing as some are saying, but I agree that he's the safest bet to be a star. All that being said...winning a SB in the NFL is very hard and very hard to predict. So much is based on health, luck, and timing. The only thing an NFL team should do is build a team for sustained success. Please name me one team in recent history that has had sustained success with a star RB and without a franchise QB? I can name a plethora of teams that have had sustained success with a franchise QB and without a franchise RB. Now that that's out of the way, most peoples next argument is...well, we can get a QB elsewhere. So my next question is, please find me the QB that was found elsewhere on a team that was actively looking for a franchise QB. Russell Wilson was drafted late when Seattle didn't "need" a franchise QB. Cousins was drafted late when they thought RGMe was their franchise. Prescott went to Dallas when they thought Romo had a lot of time left. Brady went to the Pats when Bledsoe was their franchise QB. When you need a franchise QB, you don't take a flier with a 3rd round pick and hope he pans out. I think there are a few QB's that fit this bill, but they are very few and far between.

RB's have been devalued for a reason. A strong running game is vital to offensive success(for the most part), but a top tier RB in todays' NFL when there are a ton of RBC's isn't. It's just piss poor value when we need a franchise QB and we are sitting at the top of the draft with a few blue chip prospects. Don't overthink it.
If Rosen had no health concerns  
Coach Red Beaulieu : 3/21/2018 9:13 am : link
Or Giants medical staff gives the green light, take him. If not I'll be more than happy with Barkley at two.

An elite 3 down RB is absolute murder on a defebse, there's no way to stop them. Faulk is the obvious comparison, but to make it clearer to Giants fans, think of Westbrook and McCoy and how they would kill us and we can do little to stop it.

Imagine combining that with an OBJ and Engram.
RE: Your theory is so flawed....  
Victor in CT : 3/21/2018 9:19 am : link
In comment 13877038 Keith said:
Quote:
First off, I think Barkley is the safest pick to be a star player. It's certainly not a sure thing as some are saying, but I agree that he's the safest bet to be a star. All that being said...winning a SB in the NFL is very hard and very hard to predict. So much is based on health, luck, and timing. The only thing an NFL team should do is build a team for sustained success. Please name me one team in recent history that has had sustained success with a star RB and without a franchise QB? I can name a plethora of teams that have had sustained success with a franchise QB and without a franchise RB. Now that that's out of the way, most peoples next argument is...well, we can get a QB elsewhere. So my next question is, please find me the QB that was found elsewhere on a team that was actively looking for a franchise QB. Russell Wilson was drafted late when Seattle didn't "need" a franchise QB. Cousins was drafted late when they thought RGMe was their franchise. Prescott went to Dallas when they thought Romo had a lot of time left. Brady went to the Pats when Bledsoe was their franchise QB. When you need a franchise QB, you don't take a flier with a 3rd round pick and hope he pans out. I think there are a few QB's that fit this bill, but they are very few and far between.

RB's have been devalued for a reason. A strong running game is vital to offensive success(for the most part), but a top tier RB in todays' NFL when there are a ton of RBC's isn't. It's just piss poor value when we need a franchise QB and we are sitting at the top of the draft with a few blue chip prospects. Don't overthink it.


Your claim is missing one vital point: that the GM doesn't think the QBs are worthy of the pick. All this you said is true IF AND ONLY IF you have the 2 players rated equally. If so then you take the QB. If not you take the RB. And don't compare taking a QB un the 3rd, 4th and 6th rounds to taking one with the 2nd overall pick. That's a ridiculous comparison.
Im not even sure of the point you are making.  
Keith : 3/21/2018 9:23 am : link
What is a ridiculous comparison? Even if the RB is rated higher, if the QB is rated at a certain level, I'm still taking the QB. Lets use a madden example for illustrative purposes(I know this isn't how teams do it).

Lets say Barkley is rated as a 93 and the Giants have a QB rated at 88, I'm still taking the QB. The value of QB's in the NFL dwarfs the value of RB's by a massive margin.

Again Victor, please name me the NFL team in recent history that has had sustained success with a star RB and without a franchise QB? People are comparing RB to QB and thinking it's an equal value, it's not.
RE: does it make any difference  
DeepBlueJint : 3/21/2018 9:27 am : link
In comment 13876943 section125 said:
Quote:
that of the "failed" RBs mentioned, 3 were from Penn State?
Yeah, and Franco Harris, Lydell Mitchell and Larry Johnson were woe-be-gones.
I'm kind of coming around to everyone's POV  
Bill L : 3/21/2018 9:28 am : link
if Ladanian Tomlinson and Andre Brown are interchangeable, then maybe it isn't that great an idea to draft a RB. Bolster QB and other spots and stay with what we have or get some arena guy after the draft.
The debate is pointless  
Tim in VA : 3/21/2018 9:31 am : link
We're not drafting a position, we're drafting a prospect. There is no guarantee that there will be a franchise QB among this group. Same for RB. The Giants are going to pick who they feel will help the team most.
If you have a proven QB AND a star RB that doesn't hurt.  
jsuds : 3/21/2018 9:32 am : link
Ask Hall of Famer John Elway.
RE: If you have a proven QB AND a star RB that doesn't hurt.  
Keith : 3/21/2018 9:40 am : link
In comment 13877105 jsuds said:
Quote:
Ask Hall of Famer John Elway.


John Elway, 1st overall pick, Terrell Davis 196th overall.

Still, of course you want both, but the franchise QB is so much harder to find because teams value them more than any other position. When you are in a good position like this, you don't take the RB first.
RE: The debate is pointless  
Keith : 3/21/2018 9:41 am : link
In comment 13877103 Tim in VA said:
Quote:
We're not drafting a position, we're drafting a prospect. There is no guarantee that there will be a franchise QB among this group. Same for RB. The Giants are going to pick who they feel will help the team most.


This is so untrue. Do you not see how the NFL works? QB's aren't the same as other positions. Teams draft the QB position every single year. QB's get overdrafted because they are valued much higher. It's very common.
RE: RE: The debate is pointless  
Victor in CT : 3/21/2018 9:46 am : link
In comment 13877136 Keith said:
Quote:
In comment 13877103 Tim in VA said:


Quote:


We're not drafting a position, we're drafting a prospect. There is no guarantee that there will be a franchise QB among this group. Same for RB. The Giants are going to pick who they feel will help the team most.



This is so untrue. Do you not see how the NFL works? QB's aren't the same as other positions. Teams draft the QB position every single year. QB's get overdrafted because they are valued much higher. It's very common.


Yes, the road is littered with reaches like EJ Manuel, Christian Ponder, Ryan Tannehill, Mark Sanchez. The list is endless. Reaching can be as harmful as ignoring.
What good are star QB's, WR's and RB's when your OL sucks?  
AnnapolisMike : 3/21/2018 9:55 am : link
Our 2 time Super Bowl winning QB has been stuck behind an under performing OL for 5 years. Have we learned nothing? We would rather draft a sexy RB and spend $15M plus per year on a WR.

The #2 pick gives you the opportunity to grab the QB you covet and need to be a good team 5-10 years down the road. If that QB is not there . . . do what you need to do to regain control of the line of scrimmage.



RE: What good are star QB's, WR's and RB's when your OL sucks?  
Keith : 3/21/2018 10:10 am : link
In comment 13877193 AnnapolisMike said:
Quote:
Our 2 time Super Bowl winning QB has been stuck behind an under performing OL for 5 years. Have we learned nothing? We would rather draft a sexy RB and spend $15M plus per year on a WR.

The #2 pick gives you the opportunity to grab the QB you covet and need to be a good team 5-10 years down the road. If that QB is not there . . . do what you need to do to regain control of the line of scrimmage.




Thats how I see things too. QB is top priority only because it's the hardest thing to get, but OL is the next most important thing on a team, IMO.
What I'm saying is  
Tim in VA : 3/21/2018 10:46 am : link
You can't look at history and get a statistical analysis of which position is better at a particular point in the draft and let that decide who you're going to draft. Every draft is different. Ultimately you can think about these things, but at the end of the day you just have to trust your scouting.
Top of the draft  
bobtucker38 : 3/21/2018 1:51 pm : link
I guess I didn't make it clear....taking the RB is a better statistical venture........the chances of drafting a bust at QB is much higher then at RB. Look if Giants feel strongly about 1 QB and he is there take him....but if they are not sure then draft Barkley
RE: Top of the draft  
Keith : 3/21/2018 2:05 pm : link
In comment 13877900 bobtucker38 said:
Quote:
I guess I didn't make it clear....taking the RB is a better statistical venture........the chances of drafting a bust at QB is much higher then at RB. Look if Giants feel strongly about 1 QB and he is there take him....but if they are not sure then draft Barkley


Sure, if we already had our franchise QB. I've now asked this a number of times to the pro-Barkley camp and I've yet to get an answer or an example. Franchise QB's are the most valuable players in all of sports so teams will reach a little bit. The goal is to build a team thats geared for sustained success. Please name me the team in the NFL that has had sustained success with a star RB WITHOUT a franchise QB. I can't think of any.
RE: What I'm saying is  
Keith : 3/21/2018 2:06 pm : link
In comment 13877383 Tim in VA said:
Quote:
You can't look at history and get a statistical analysis of which position is better at a particular point in the draft and let that decide who you're going to draft. Every draft is different. Ultimately you can think about these things, but at the end of the day you just have to trust your scouting.


Are you trying to suggest that franchise QB's are no longer more valuable than RB's? There are 3/4 guys at the top of this draft that other teams seem to be fighting themselves to draft. Isn't that enough of a recent history?
RE: RE: You worry about winning, not hoping for HOF  
giantstock : 3/21/2018 9:42 pm : link
In comment 13877023 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 13877002 giantstock said:


Quote:


If the RB doesn't have a good QB -- you load up the line and you're not going to win enough big games.

That's why you take the QB. A guy as great as Walter Payton was didn't win until his team had a freak defense.

The good QB provides balance. Balance is more important than HOF. Anyways Eli wasn't always super and he's going into the HOF.




With our receiving weapons, please load up that line. Bring them see safeties down.


SUre -- keep pretending Webb will deliver the ball as the defense blitzes him to hell.
RE: Top of the draft  
giantstock : 3/21/2018 9:51 pm : link
In comment 13877900 bobtucker38 said:
Quote:
I guess I didn't make it clear....taking the RB is a better statistical venture........the chances of drafting a bust at QB is much higher then at RB. Look if Giants feel strongly about 1 QB and he is there take him....but if they are not sure then draft Barkley


Thee is a reason why the QB position is regarded as most important position. Thus it wouldn't make a difference if Barkley was better. The QB can affect the game much more. There are a lot of RB's that were better than Eli. But when ELi got hot for the 2 super bowls-- it's something most great RB's could never do in a series of playoff games leading up the title.
Back to the Corner