Are Barkley/Chubb/Nelson skills more impactful than a QB

Whether it's more like Fitz vs. JP Losman is what some are wondering.

is whether Giants would trade Eli's career for Fitz's knowing what they know now.. the answer is an emphatic no.

In comment 13880544 widmerseyebrow said:

Quote:

Whether it's more like Fitz vs. JP Losman is what some are wondering.

And I don't mean to pick an overly extreme example. Take any 1st round QB that was even "above average."

My main point is that all 1st round QBs get a 3-4 year leash. It's purgatory if you don't pick a franchise guy, and you miss out on potential franchise QBs in the meantime. It's a double whammy.

than a bad QB. Probably more impactful than a league-average QB, and not as impactful as a very good QB.

The idea is to assess the risk of who is who among the QBs. If there is significant risk that the QBs available will not fall into the latter category...then you know the rest.

are going to be impactful players, we will also have to assume that the top 4 QBs are going to produced as well. If you think that Darnold/Allen/Rosen/Mayfield are that of a JP Losman - then I dont know what to say.

There is a reason why these 4 QBs are in play as a top 5 pick, whatever order they are picked. So even if they arent as good as the 3 players mentioned in the title - are they still worth the pick at 2?

Tom Brady is the best QB

Who had more impact?

Or put it another way: would the Eagles trade Wentz straight up for Zeke Elliot or Fournette or any other RB?

and how it affects Dak when Zeke plays and when Zeke doesn't play. I don't think there's many QBs in existence that would've been able to offset the protection and running game issues this team has had for the last 4-5 seasons.

NYG thinks the answer is yes, unless it's a smokescreen.

I would fantasize trades or 3-way in getting picks #4 and #5 to get two of these 7.3 rated prospects.

Let the three QBs go 1-2-3

Call me nuts but I rather have Barkley play year one at WR and deal Beckham to get there.

My team will not win paying obscene cash for anyone but an OL, DE, LB or QB. Cap busting! Harder to get a ring...

Look at the huge $$ savings NE Pats has in salaries QB, RB and WR!
Then they let skilled positions walk every year. They just traded for a wide out from Oak, last year the Saints.

Odell can not block to my satisfaction and need be I need cap next year to pay Collins

GET ME BARKLEY AND CHUBB!

The question is would you rather build around (assuming no trade down):

Webb + Barkley/Chubb
QB from this draft class

In comment 13880576 JonC said:

Quote:

NYG thinks the answer is yes, unless it's a smokescreen.

Its going to be very interesting IMO. There are times where I think the Giants should just take Rosen or Darnold at 2. Then there are times I imagine what Barkley could bring.

If the Giants do in fact like Chubb and Barkley - if I am Gettleman, I am going to Denver and say - lets make a deal. I know Denver has their eyes on Nelso - but they probably thought they wouldnt get a QB. But if they like Rosen or if Darnold slips to 2 - the Giants MUST trade back. Cause they are then guaranteed either Barkley or Chubb and you would be able to pick some extra picks.

In comment 13880568 dep026 said:

Quote:

are going to be impactful players, we will also have to assume that the top 4 QBs are going to produced as well. If you think that Darnold/Allen/Rosen/Mayfield are that of a JP Losman - then I dont know what to say. There is a reason why these 4 QBs are in play as a top 5 pick, whatever order they are picked. So even if they arent as good as the 3 players mentioned in the title - are they still worth the pick at 2?

The QB positional value is already factored in to where they are drafted. You can't assume that any QB is going to be good and produce, because the position demands are greater than any other position on the football team, and the jump from the college game to the pro game is the biggest for a QB.

You can safely assume that Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson are going to be impact players, IMO. Is the possibility there that one could bust? Yes. Chubb would be the one out of the three that has the most bust potential, imo, but I still think he's a safer bet than any QB, and a MUCH safer bet than any QB not named Sam Darnold.

You just can't make assumptions on QBs like you can elite prospects that are positional talents. It's just not the same, but the reward and value to a team for the QB is also much bigger.

If every position's value and importance was weighted equally, no QB would be taken until maybe middle or even late in the first round.

In comment 13880572 Vanzetti said:

Quote:

Tom Brady is the best QB Who had more impact? Or put it another way: would the Eagles trade Wentz straight up for Zeke Elliot or Fournette or any other RB?

This is spot on.

In other words, to the OP - NFW that Barkley/Chubb/Nelson could have more impact on that a QB. Laughable.

If I can not get the QB I want, if he would not be the #2 overall pick almost every year, I would not only seek that in Chubb but focus on the most expensive position. A top DL gets $20m and a top RB gets $14m.
How often does a great DE get to the open market anyway?

this is what I keep screaming from the mountain tops! No. Even the best non-QB's don't have the impact of a very good QB. The Steelers would be nothing without Big Ben. With him, they are perennial contenders. Leveon Bell is great, but they'd never have this success without a top QB.

If everyone in the NFL was put into a pool of players and there was a fantasy draft, the QB's would be the first 15 players taken! NFL QB's are by far more valuable than any other position, which is why they get paid so much more, which is why good QB's always get drafted higher than their draft grade and why there are 5 teams dying to trade to the top of this draft.

In comment 13880568 dep026 said:

Quote:

are going to be impactful players, we will also have to assume that the top 4 QBs are going to produced as well. If you think that Darnold/Allen/Rosen/Mayfield are that of a JP Losman - then I dont know what to say. There is a reason why these 4 QBs are in play as a top 5 pick, whatever order they are picked. So even if they arent as good as the 3 players mentioned in the title - are they still worth the pick at 2?

All four going in the top 5 is media driven imo. I would bet that isn't the case. Its easy to say in retrospect that Losman is trash, but he was highly regarded then. Roethlisberger went 12. Losman 22. And that was a far superior class imo.

the top RB's would be drafted at the end. I pray we aren't dumb enough to draft Barkley at 2, would be mind bogglingly stupid.

the evaluations of DG and PS of ELI playing out his contract as the starter and how much potential Webb has. We will not know till after the draft moves are made. Nobody knows now and I like that. WE have to have a good off season to be competitive again. Which means a complete overhaul of a lot of personnel and schemes. Two years ago we were 11 and 5 so there is hope . Exciting stuff.

And my phrasing may be shitty. What I mean is the difference between an average QB and a good QB is much, much greater in terms of impact than the difference between an average DL or OG and a good one. RB that is generally true as well, though guys like Peterson have been the difference between a loser and a playoff team. Likewise, a team can do reasonably well with a below average G, DE or RB but it is rare to see a team win with bad QB play. The issue is and has long been whether any of these guys is a franchise QB, and we have to trust the FO to make that call.

In comment 13880611 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

And my phrasing may be shitty. What I mean is the difference between an average QB and a good QB is much, much greater in terms of impact than the difference between an average DL or OG and a good one. RB that is generally true as well, though guys like Peterson have been the difference between a loser and a playoff team. Likewise, a team can do reasonably well with a below average G, DE or RB but it is rare to see a team win with bad QB play. The issue is and has long been whether any of these guys is a franchise QB, and we have to trust the FO to make that call.

Dunedin, your last line is the key. I just find it hard to believe that we don't think any are, yet so many other teams clearly do. That's why I am convinced that everything is a smokescreen and we are taking a QB.

In comment 13880572 Vanzetti said:

Quote:

Tom Brady is the best QB Who had more impact? Or put it another way: would the Eagles trade Wentz straight up for Zeke Elliot or Fournette or any other RB?

That's only valid if you think these current players can approach those levels. But what if you feel that Barkley = Faulk and Darnold/Rosen = Alex Smith. Then what?

.

It may be that the only QB the Giants are sold on is Darnold and two years watching Eli may be ideal.

Has anyone looked at Davis Webb’s 2017 Prospect Profile?
He did jump around and did not get many reps at Cal.
If Gettleman is sold on Reese’s pick of Webb what would that say?

In comment 13880611 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

And my phrasing may be shitty. What I mean is the difference between an average QB and a good QB is much, much greater in terms of impact than the difference between an average DL or OG and a good one. RB that is generally true as well, though guys like Peterson have been the difference between a loser and a playoff team. Likewise, a team can do reasonably well with a below average G, DE or RB but it is rare to see a team win with bad QB play. The issue is and has long been whether any of these guys is a franchise QB, and we have to trust the FO to make that call.

That is the key. Well that and their opinion of Webb and whether or not he can be a franchise QB.

Though I will say that it's difficult to win with below average DEs (pass rushers) and the Eagles (strong rush, though in no small part Cox, below average QB) did just beat the Pats (shitty pass rush, GOAT QB). :=)

In comment 13880616 giants#1 said:

Quote:

In comment 13880572 Vanzetti said: Quote: Tom Brady is the best QB Who had more impact? Or put it another way: would the Eagles trade Wentz straight up for Zeke Elliot or Fournette or any other RB? That's only valid if you think these current players can approach those levels. But what if you feel that Barkley = Faulk and Darnold/Rosen = Alex Smith. Then what?

Does Faulk win anything without Peyton and Warner? So Webb is the Peyton and Warner to Barkely?

Yes..three players would be more impact than one single player.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In comment 13880630 froggerjoe said:

Quote:

Yes..three players would be more impact than one single player. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

sorry more impactful

In comment 13880601 Keith said:

Quote:

If everyone in the NFL was put into a pool of players and there was a fantasy draft, the QB's would be the first 15 players taken!

That is a very interesting thought. It could be as high as 20.

Let's see, assuming the duration is a one year season only (no order) - Rodgers, JimG, Brady, Brees, Wilson, Watson, Roeth, Goff, Wentz, Dak, Luck, Cousins, Rivers, Carr, Newton, Ryan, ASmith, Winston, Stafford, Cousins...

That's 20 - left out notables: Eli, Mariota, Bortles, Flacco, Dalton...

what allstarjim wrote.

Not if you hit on the QB. Personally I feel Darnold will become the best player to come out of this Draft. That doesn't mean he'll start his first game or win the ROTY. Long term I believe he'll lead a franchise to compete for and win Superbowls.

In comment 13880627 NYSports1 said:

Quote:

Does Faulk win anything without Peyton and Warner? So Webb is the Peyton and Warner to Barkely?

Personally, I think Faulk was much more important to those teams than Warner.

That said, if the Giants FO thinks any of these QBs are the next Warner (i.e. future HOF) then the pick is a no brainer.

Cases of franchise RBs in the modern era(mid 80s-to present) having greater than or similar impact to franchise QB on a Super Bowl winning team:

Emmitt Smith - Troy Aikman

Marshall Faulk - Kurt Warner

Terrell Davis - John Elway

Marshawn Lynch - Russell Wilson

Walter Payton - Jim McMahon

Willie Parker/Jerome Bettis - Ben Roethlisberger

Ray Rice - Joe Flacco

Marcus Allen - Jim Plunkett

(and I have been a QB proponent).

Underlying your argument seems to be a base assumption that all of the QBs will be above average to great QBs simply because they are in consideration for top 5 picks. There's no reason to assume that's true.

2002 - David Carr (1), Joey Harrington (3)
2003 - Byron Leftwich (7)
2006 - Vince Young (3), Matt Leinart (10)
2007 - Jamarcus Russel (1)
2009 - Mark Sanchez (5)
2010 - Sam Bradford (1)
2011 - Jake Locker (8), Blaine Gabbert (10)
2012 - Robert Griffin (2), Ryan Tannehill (8)
2014 - Blake Bortles (3)

All of these guys were top 10 picks. All would probably be traded for high impact positional players by the teams that drafted them if they could go back and do it again.

That any position is as likely to contribute to a team's overall success as a QB, I think you can pretty reasonably argue that you can often get such a QB without spending a top 5, too 10, or even top 20 pick.

Shit, I bet quite a few recent Super Bowl teams even did so.

Eli- love him or not is 37. The Giants need to get a great QB to replace him soon. Drafting at #2 doesn't happen often. If they don't like the 4 highly rated QBs, then they really should hedge their bets by taking a QB in round 2.

It makes football sense.

In comment 13881379 santacruzom said:

Quote:

That any position is as likely to contribute to a team's overall success as a QB, I think you can pretty reasonably argue that you can often get such a QB without spending a top 5, too 10, or even top 20 pick. Shit, I bet quite a few recent Super Bowl teams even did so.

Sounds great and all, but the part that you and many seem to be missing, when teams NEED a QB, they go up and get that QB. All of these SB teams that you are referring to, got their QB's when they didn't need that QB. They could afford to take a flier on a guy. Brady was drafted as a flier when Bledsoe was the franchise guy. Wilson was drafted as a flier in the same offseason they gave Matt Flynn huge money. Aaron Rodgers was drafted because the value was too damn good, despite having Brett Favre. When teams need QB's, they go get em. As will the Giants.

Also, to the guy posting the great RB's that played along side great QB's, please list all those great RB's that won consistently without a franchise QB.

In comment 13881394 Keith said:

Quote:

Wilson was drafted as a flier in the same offseason they gave Matt Flynn huge money.

Indeed, the Seahawks were able to get TWO QB's in one offseason without spending a top pick.

I'm not against the Giants drafting a QB at #2 by ANY means, but I don't agree with the notion that's the only way they'll get a quality one who can man the team for the next 10 years.

The 2006 Saints were coming off a 3-13 season and drafted 2nd. Imagine how much worse a team they would have been (and likely still would be) if they'd drafted Vince Young or Matt Leinart instead of signing Drew Brees.

In comment 13881415 santacruzom said:

Quote:

The 2006 Saints were coming off a 3-13 season and drafted 2nd. Imagine how much worse a team they would have been (and likely still would be) if they'd drafted Vince Young or Matt Leinart instead of signing Drew Brees.

Well, gee, that was't a tough call for the Saints. Brees was 27 in 2006 with a proven track record of high level NFL production...

Yes, a QB can be obtained outside of the first round. That doesn't mean teams should assume they will be able to do so. There's also been a chart floating around that I believe shows that more superbowl QBs have come from the first round in the past 30 years than have come from all the other rounds combined.

Yes, a great QB is more impactful than a great position player. That doesn't mean you have to draft whoever the top rated QB is in a given year over the top rated position player if you don't believe THAT QB is the goods. I do worry that the Giants may pass on a QB DG might otherwise like because of the way management is dealing with the end of Eli's career. That would be a mistake. But if they're just not sold on these QBs, the fact that Eli is old and you don't often get to pick at #2 doesn't mean you should overlook your evaluation.

In comment 13881421 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 13881415 santacruzom said: Quote: The 2006 Saints were coming off a 3-13 season and drafted 2nd. Imagine how much worse a team they would have been (and likely still would be) if they'd drafted Vince Young or Matt Leinart instead of signing Drew Brees. Well, gee, that was't a tough call for the Saints. Brees was 27 in 2006 with a proven track record of high level NFL production...

In fairness, Brees was coming off a torn labrum on his throwing shoulder that scared off Saban & the 'Fins from signing him.

In comment 13881455 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

In fairness, Brees was coming off a torn labrum on his throwing shoulder that scared off Saban & the 'Fins from signing him.

Hey - kudos to the Saints for trusting their doctors.

Saban actually wanted him, the Fins medical staff weren't sure, so I think they went with Culpepper.

In comment 13881460 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 13881455 SFGFNCGiantsFan said: Quote: In fairness, Brees was coming off a torn labrum on his throwing shoulder that scared off Saban & the 'Fins from signing him. Hey - kudos to the Saints for trusting their doctors. Saban actually wanted him, the Fins medical staff weren't sure, so I think they went with Culpepper.

Yup. Imagine if Brees had gone to the 'Fins & been the Brees he was in NOLA. Saban probably never leaves.

In comment 13881407 santacruzom said:

Quote:

In comment 13881394 Keith said: Quote: Wilson was drafted as a flier in the same offseason they gave Matt Flynn huge money. Indeed, the Seahawks were able to get TWO QB's in one offseason without spending a top pick. I'm not against the Giants drafting a QB at #2 by ANY means, but I don't agree with the notion that's the only way they'll get a quality one who can man the team for the next 10 years.

I agree there is no easy way to predict who will succeed. The RBs in the SB were nothing special, so do we need barkley? The two best rookie RBs last year were taken in round 3. OL have been found in every round and UDFA pool as well. Is Chubb that much of a difference maker.

Ill put it another way. If we were to grade all the played on 1-10. And lets just say Barkley, Nelson, and Chubb graded out 9.5 and Rosen/Darnold graded out as 8.5. Is that too much of a gap? Even though the value of a QB is much higher than any other position?

I dont have an answer, just thought aout this earleir today.

In comment 13881421 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 13881415 santacruzom said: Quote: The 2006 Saints were coming off a 3-13 season and drafted 2nd. Imagine how much worse a team they would have been (and likely still would be) if they'd drafted Vince Young or Matt Leinart instead of signing Drew Brees. Well, gee, that was't a tough call for the Saints. Brees was 27 in 2006 with a proven track record of high level NFL production...

Whether it was a tough call for them isn't germane to the argument. The point is, a QB of his caliber became available via a method having nothing to do with spending a top-15 pick. Had another team beaten them to it, or if he wasn't available for some other reason, they probably would have taken Young or something and would have regretted it. Or, perhaps they would have stuck with Aaron Brooks for another year, finished poorly enough to take the top-ranked QB the following year (Jamarcus Russell), and regretted that.

In comment 13881447 Giantfan in skinland said:

Quote:

Yes, a QB can be obtained outside of the first round. That doesn't mean teams should assume they will be able to do so. There's also been a chart floating around that I believe shows that more superbowl QBs have come from the first round in the past 30 years than have come from all the other rounds combined.

Here's the way I see it: more importantly than drafting the right QB or the best overall player, a team just needs either consistently competent management, or they just need to make the right moves more often than not for a few years in a row. Drafting an elite QB by itself won't circumvent that requirement.

hope Guice drops to our 2 pick. If Darnold is gone, trade back to 4-6, and take whichever the best player left out of Barkley/Chubb/Nelson or even Fitzpatrick is left on the board.