I think at the end of the day the best approach is to take the best player available this year. We have a lot of needs and all of these QB’s have concerns which has been discussed at length on here. Rosen (concussions, takes bad hits), Darnold (turnover machine), Allen (accuracy), and Mayfield (ego, off field, system QB). QB’s are as risky as any pick, even the “can’t miss” ones. For every Peyton Manning and Carson Wentz there’s a Ryan Leaf and Tim Couch. If the Giants have one of the QB’s rated the highest on their board take him, but you can’t take a QB just to take a QB if there are higher rated players on your board, that is irresponsible.
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
I disagree with that statement. I have read several posts where the opinion is Barkley is the best player in the draft, but you can’t pass up on a QB. That’s the narrative I am referencing. That’s a great way to force a pick and run your team into the ground. I myself am in the Barkley camp, but I don’t blame others for wanting a QB.
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
I keep thinking that the NFL stands for Not For Long adage.
and
as long as he believe that he can win with Eli......he is not thinking about the QB of the future.
The owners will be only ones knocking the table for the next franchise QB.
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
You have not read anything by firedbytheboss?
The key elements of consideration are:
- the degree of impact the position has on winning games
- the degree of difficulty in addressing the position with a good player (how hard it is to find a good one)
- the contract cost for paying a good player at the position (in general the bigger contract the position commands, the greater the cap benefit for locking the player into a rookie contract)
The QB position rates very highly in all 3. That does t mean you take one regardless of grade, but ignoring these factors in the decision making process is beyond irresponsible.
Quote:
To me the Barkley move makes a ton of sense if we do want any chance of winning in the next few years. Followed by fortifying/adding competition to the right side of the off line in the next few rounds. Eli is still s good QB, he is a play action guy that hasn’t had a good RB or offensive line in like 6 years. You give him a RB like Barkley and protection we will all be happy.
So what? Brees and Brady are in their 40’s. Roethlisberger and Rivers are the same age as Eli. And all of those guys have had injuries aside from Rivers. I don’t see any of them panicking about taking a QB. They also understand the importance of putting together a good offensive line.
The key elements of consideration are:
- the degree of impact the position has on winning games
- the degree of difficulty in addressing the position with a good player (how hard it is to find a good one)
- the contract cost for paying a good player at the position (in general the bigger contract the position commands, the greater the cap benefit for locking the player into a rookie contract)
The QB position rates very highly in all 3. That does t mean you take one regardless of grade, but ignoring these factors in the decision making process is beyond irresponsible.
Agreed, I am taking that into account in terms of draft board rankings. I would figure a QB would be graded differently overall than a RB, but if a RB or other position has an exceptional talent they may still be ranked higher than QB.
The key elements of consideration are:
- the degree of impact the position has on winning games
- the degree of difficulty in addressing the position with a good player (how hard it is to find a good one)
- the contract cost for paying a good player at the position (in general the bigger contract the position commands, the greater the cap benefit for locking the player into a rookie contract)
The QB position rates very highly in all 3. That does t mean you take one regardless of grade, but ignoring these factors in the decision making process is beyond irresponsible.
Quote:
The positions on the football field are all important but they don’t all impact the game equally and addressing needs does not cary the same level of difficulty for all positions. Ignoring these and treating like all positions are the same would be foolish.
The key elements of consideration are:
- the degree of impact the position has on winning games
- the degree of difficulty in addressing the position with a good player (how hard it is to find a good one)
- the contract cost for paying a good player at the position (in general the bigger contract the position commands, the greater the cap benefit for locking the player into a rookie contract)
The QB position rates very highly in all 3. That does t mean you take one regardless of grade, but ignoring these factors in the decision making process is beyond irresponsible.
thats incomplete. Even with all that, you have to factor in the ability of the alternatives. What you wrote is true but its a handicap or fudge factor. Usually it would wrk in favor of the QB if you bumped them up by all that. I don’t think so this year. Barkley is just that good.
I agree, he changes direction at full speed more fluidly than any 230 pound RB I have ever seen. It’s the same type of quickness Beckham displays that allows him to break so many long TD’s off of short routes.
Quote:
In comment 13904143 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
To me the Barkley move makes a ton of sense if we do want any chance of winning in the next few years. Followed by fortifying/adding competition to the right side of the off line in the next few rounds. Eli is still s good QB, he is a play action guy that hasn’t had a good RB or offensive line in like 6 years. You give him a RB like Barkley and protection we will all be happy.
So what? Brees and Brady are in their 40’s. Roethlisberger and Rivers are the same age as Eli. And all of those guys have had injuries aside from Rivers. I don’t see any of them panicking about taking a QB. They also understand the importance of putting together a good offensive line.
Quote:
In comment 13904151 LakeGeorgeGiant said:
Quote:
In comment 13904143 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
To me the Barkley move makes a ton of sense if we do want any chance of winning in the next few years. Followed by fortifying/adding competition to the right side of the off line in the next few rounds. Eli is still s good QB, he is a play action guy that hasn’t had a good RB or offensive line in like 6 years. You give him a RB like Barkley and protection we will all be happy.
So what? Brees and Brady are in their 40’s. Roethlisberger and Rivers are the same age as Eli. And all of those guys have had injuries aside from Rivers. I don’t see any of them panicking about taking a QB. They also understand the importance of putting together a good offensive line.
The Patriots had a young QB and traded him for yesterday’s garbage to keep a 40+ Brady.
If we start factoring in the Jets decisions into our drafting process we are truly screwed.
Exactly my point in the original post
Our drafting strategy should be based on not letting the Jets have their choice of QBs. Mayfield or trade down!
Quote:
If the Giants don't take a qb, and the Jets do at #3, and he turns out to be a wunderkind, OMG!
Our drafting strategy should be based on not letting the Jets have their choice of QBs. Mayfield or trade down!
Our drafting strategy should be based on what gets the Giants Super Bowl rings and whatever happens to the Jets, if we got a ring that season they didn't.
I keep thinking that the NFL stands for Not For Long adage.
and
as long as he believe that he can win with Eli......he is not thinking about the QB of the future.
The owners will be only ones knocking the table for the next franchise QB.
You don't just keep thinking it. You keep repeating it.
They all had professional caliber players on their respective offensive lines. We did not thanks to Mr. Reese.
I remember hearing the same nonsense in 04: "Collins is fine, draft Gallery!"
I'm seriously tired of having this conversation because so many of you can't smell your own shit. Instead of looking at evidence and drawing a conclusion you bend the evidence to fit the conclusion that you want.
You've convinced yourselves that 37 year old Eli is the answer simply because you want Barkley or a boat load of picks "more picks, because more is better!!".
If you'd rather have Barkley or a trade down, great, but let's not pretend that this isn't a good class. Let's not pretend that you've weighed the evidence in anything close to an objective fashion.
You don't take a QB just for the sake of it, but by all accounts (from people far more knowledgeable than you dipshits) this is a good QB class,and there should be a couple good options.
Stop with this bullshit strawman that people want a QB just for the sake of it.
Quote:
In comment 13904143 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
To me the Barkley move makes a ton of sense if we do want any chance of winning in the next few years. Followed by fortifying/adding competition to the right side of the off line in the next few rounds. Eli is still s good QB, he is a play action guy that hasn’t had a good RB or offensive line in like 6 years. You give him a RB like Barkley and protection we will all be happy.
So what? Brees and Brady are in their 40’s. Roethlisberger and Rivers are the same age as Eli. And all of those guys have had injuries aside from Rivers. I don’t see any of them panicking about taking a QB. They also understand the importance of putting together a good offensive line.
Roethlisberger and Rivers are both basically a full year younger than Eli.
Besides, not all players age at the same pace or in the same way. And none of those teams are in a position to draft a QB without expending additional draft capital beyond their existing 1st round pick. None of those teams went 3-13 last year.
It's not a panic move to strongly consider taking a QB early in the draft when you have the #2 overall pick, are coming off a 3-13 season and your incumbent QB is 37. It's naïve to pretend as though it shouldn't be a consideration right now, or that the QB position will not need to be addressed in the very near future.
I remember hearing the same nonsense in 04: "Collins is fine, draft Gallery!"
I'm seriously tired of having this conversation because so many of you can't smell your own shit. Instead of looking at evidence and drawing a conclusion you bend the evidence to fit the conclusion that you want.
You've convinced yourselves that 37 year old Eli is the answer simply because you want Barkley or a boat load of picks "more picks, because more is better!!".
If you'd rather have Barkley or a trade down, great, but let's not pretend that this isn't a good class. Let's not pretend that you've weighed the evidence in anything close to an objective fashion.
You don't take a QB just for the sake of it, but by all accounts (from people far more knowledgeable than you dipshits) this is a good QB class,and there should be a couple good options.
Stop with this bullshit strawman that people want a QB just for the sake of it.
All of these QB’s have red flags. Every week one of them is apparently better than the others. What makes this QB class so good exactly? Don’t you think it’s odd that there is no consensus as to who the top 1 or even 2 QB’s are? You take the best player available, and if the Giants think it’s a QB than so be it. But I don’t think it’s a bullshit straw man for anyone to question whether we should be thinking about taking a player at another position.
Quote:
In comment Sure all these teams are not big into a QB. That's because with their draft position they are in no position to get one. 13904159 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
In comment 13904151 LakeGeorgeGiant said:
Quote:
In comment 13904143 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
To me the Barkley move makes a ton of sense if we do want any chance of winning in the next few years. Followed by fortifying/adding competition to the right side of the off line in the next few rounds. Eli is still s good QB, he is a play action guy that hasn’t had a good RB or offensive line in like 6 years. You give him a RB like Barkley and protection we will all be happy.
So what? Brees and Brady are in their 40’s. Roethlisberger and Rivers are the same age as Eli. And all of those guys have had injuries aside from Rivers. I don’t see any of them panicking about taking a QB. They also understand the importance of putting together a good offensive line.
The Patriots had a young QB and traded him for yesterday’s garbage to keep a 40+ Brady.
Against the HC/GM's wishes, the owner mandated that. Let's not act like that's guaranteed to be a sage move.
Quote:
In comment 13904177 nochance said:
Quote:
In comment Sure all these teams are not big into a QB. That's because with their draft position they are in no position to get one. 13904159 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
In comment 13904151 LakeGeorgeGiant said:
Quote:
In comment 13904143 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
To me the Barkley move makes a ton of sense if we do want any chance of winning in the next few years. Followed by fortifying/adding competition to the right side of the off line in the next few rounds. Eli is still s good QB, he is a play action guy that hasn’t had a good RB or offensive line in like 6 years. You give him a RB like Barkley and protection we will all be happy.
So what? Brees and Brady are in their 40’s. Roethlisberger and Rivers are the same age as Eli. And all of those guys have had injuries aside from Rivers. I don’t see any of them panicking about taking a QB. They also understand the importance of putting together a good offensive line.
The Patriots had a young QB and traded him for yesterday’s garbage to keep a 40+ Brady.
Against the HC/GM's wishes, the owner mandated that. Let's not act like that's guaranteed to be a sage move.
I think it was a stupid move. He played well when Brady was suspended. They should have kept him. Careful believing that ESPN report, no official evidence has confirmed Kraft ordered that move.
Read this thread and please check the links...
http://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=567167
He’s one of the best RB prospects in years. Could he be a bust? Sure. But I like the odds of Barkley being successful more than any of these QB’s.
Read this thread and please check the links...
http://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=567167
This is not about taking Barkley at #2. This is about the fact that there is the real possibility that there is no QB who amounts to anything more than Donovan McNabb. How many Super Bowls did he win? If there is no QB that our scouting staff has deemed worthy of the #2 pick don't force the pick. A great player at a lesser position helps the franchise more than a bust at a key position. Granted a great player at a key position helps us the most, but the fact is we need great players period.
Quote:
taking a QB because they want instant results.
I remember hearing the same nonsense in 04: "Collins is fine, draft Gallery!"
I'm seriously tired of having this conversation because so many of you can't smell your own shit. Instead of looking at evidence and drawing a conclusion you bend the evidence to fit the conclusion that you want.
You've convinced yourselves that 37 year old Eli is the answer simply because you want Barkley or a boat load of picks "more picks, because more is better!!".
If you'd rather have Barkley or a trade down, great, but let's not pretend that this isn't a good class. Let's not pretend that you've weighed the evidence in anything close to an objective fashion.
You don't take a QB just for the sake of it, but by all accounts (from people far more knowledgeable than you dipshits) this is a good QB class,and there should be a couple good options.
Stop with this bullshit strawman that people want a QB just for the sake of it.
All of these QB’s have red flags. Every week one of them is apparently better than the others. What makes this QB class so good exactly? Don’t you think it’s odd that there is no consensus as to who the top 1 or even 2 QB’s are? You take the best player available, and if the Giants think it’s a QB than so be it. But I don’t think it’s a bullshit straw man for anyone to question whether we should be thinking about taking a player at another position.
What does consensus have to do with the overall strength of the QB class? If a group of people can't agree on their preference between a Mercedes, BMW, Audi or Lexus, does that make them bad cars?
Of all the arguments people make to try to knock this QB class, the lack of consensus on the order is probably the weakest by a fair margin. Can we reach consensus on that?
Quote:
In comment 13904218 LakeGeorgeGiant said:
Quote:
taking a QB because they want instant results.
I remember hearing the same nonsense in 04: "Collins is fine, draft Gallery!"
I'm seriously tired of having this conversation because so many of you can't smell your own shit. Instead of looking at evidence and drawing a conclusion you bend the evidence to fit the conclusion that you want.
You've convinced yourselves that 37 year old Eli is the answer simply because you want Barkley or a boat load of picks "more picks, because more is better!!".
If you'd rather have Barkley or a trade down, great, but let's not pretend that this isn't a good class. Let's not pretend that you've weighed the evidence in anything close to an objective fashion.
You don't take a QB just for the sake of it, but by all accounts (from people far more knowledgeable than you dipshits) this is a good QB class,and there should be a couple good options.
Stop with this bullshit strawman that people want a QB just for the sake of it.
All of these QB’s have red flags. Every week one of them is apparently better than the others. What makes this QB class so good exactly? Don’t you think it’s odd that there is no consensus as to who the top 1 or even 2 QB’s are? You take the best player available, and if the Giants think it’s a QB than so be it. But I don’t think it’s a bullshit straw man for anyone to question whether we should be thinking about taking a player at another position.
What does consensus have to do with the overall strength of the QB class? If a group of people can't agree on their preference between a Mercedes, BMW, Audi or Lexus, does that make them bad cars?
Of all the arguments people make to try to knock this QB class, the lack of consensus on the order is probably the weakest by a fair margin. Can we reach consensus on that?
Based on sales volume, I think we could rank people’s preference on those makes of vehicles. That being said, I feel like the consensus on each of these QB’s having red flags is unanimous, more so than I can remember in the last several drafts.
You only have $500 to spend. An auto body friend of yours said he could paint your car to look new for $500 (family deal) which is a really good value. OR...you can buy 4 new tires because the once perfect Pirelli's you have are almost worn down to nothing. If you blow one of those tires which can happen at any time, you will have to drive around on your spare.
You only have $500 to spend. An auto body friend of yours said he could paint your car to look new for $500 (family deal) which is a really good value. OR...you can buy 4 new tires because the once perfect Pirelli's you have are almost worn down to nothing. If you blow one of those tires which can happen at any time, you will have to drive around on your spare.
Maybe the vehicle just needs a new alignment (offensive line) and the tires rotated to even out the wear evenly.
To me there are several players worthy of the second pick, so position value has to be factored in.
With a new GM and a new Head Coach, drafting a new QB is pretty obvious.
Going QB in round 1 makes the 2nd and 3rd round picks very important to hit on.
Quote:
In comment 13904228 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
In comment 13904218 LakeGeorgeGiant said:
Quote:
taking a QB because they want instant results.
I remember hearing the same nonsense in 04: "Collins is fine, draft Gallery!"
I'm seriously tired of having this conversation because so many of you can't smell your own shit. Instead of looking at evidence and drawing a conclusion you bend the evidence to fit the conclusion that you want.
You've convinced yourselves that 37 year old Eli is the answer simply because you want Barkley or a boat load of picks "more picks, because more is better!!".
If you'd rather have Barkley or a trade down, great, but let's not pretend that this isn't a good class. Let's not pretend that you've weighed the evidence in anything close to an objective fashion.
You don't take a QB just for the sake of it, but by all accounts (from people far more knowledgeable than you dipshits) this is a good QB class,and there should be a couple good options.
Stop with this bullshit strawman that people want a QB just for the sake of it.
All of these QB’s have red flags. Every week one of them is apparently better than the others. What makes this QB class so good exactly? Don’t you think it’s odd that there is no consensus as to who the top 1 or even 2 QB’s are? You take the best player available, and if the Giants think it’s a QB than so be it. But I don’t think it’s a bullshit straw man for anyone to question whether we should be thinking about taking a player at another position.
What does consensus have to do with the overall strength of the QB class? If a group of people can't agree on their preference between a Mercedes, BMW, Audi or Lexus, does that make them bad cars?
Of all the arguments people make to try to knock this QB class, the lack of consensus on the order is probably the weakest by a fair margin. Can we reach consensus on that?
Based on sales volume, I think we could rank people’s preference on those makes of vehicles. That being said, I feel like the consensus on each of these QB’s having red flags is unanimous, more so than I can remember in the last several drafts.
The reason why each of the QBs have flags of some sort or another is because we live in a 24/7 news cycle with things like social media and NFL Network, etc. There's a lot of air to fill, a lot of access to info, a lot of repeating of the same things from supposedly different sources, and so these "flags" get amplified in the sports media (and social media) echo chamber.
If the class of 1983 or 2004 came out in today's environment, they'd all have supposed red flags too, IMO. Could the reason why you don't necessarily remember the red flags on recent QB classes be as simple as the Giants not being in a position to draft a QB anyway (and with each year going backwards, Eli being younger) so you didn't pay attention to it?
Last year, Trubisky had only played one year as a starter; Mahomes was smallish and played in a spread offense and had a funky delivery (all flags that are present in this year's class); Watson had a high number of INTs and showed historically low velocity at the combine, and had a number of injuries in college (including a torn ACL).
Two years ago, Goff played in an air raid spread offense, threw some bad INTs and took a high number of sacks in college; Wentz had a low level of competition and an injury history.
Three years ago, Winston had notable character concerns; Mariota played in a spread option offense and had a high number of fumbles in college.
Four years ago, the top QBs were Bortles and Manziel - enough said?
So, your point that there are either more flags on this current class or that it's more agreed upon is false on its face, don't you think?
The offensive line has been a joke for years. That is responsible for at least 75% of the offenses problems along with shitty coaching. Mac calling out Eli was his attempt to save his ass. It clearly backfired. Almost every analyst agreed that the Giants line was the worst in the league last year, I have heard commentators literally laughing at Flowers being s RT.
Quote:
One of the VERY few things that Mac got right is that Eli needed to play better with "dirty pockets". NOBODY has a consistently good OL anymore. There were plenty of times Eli had time, especially this past year, and he had guys open but executed a poor throw. Yeah, maybe six years of crap in front of him has beaten it out of him, but he's not magically at 37 going to turn the clock back. He's the QB going forward (probably for this whole season, but not necessarily). If they get lucky with either Webb or a high pick, they can cut bait next off season and move forward.
The offensive line has been a joke for years. That is responsible for at least 75% of the offenses problems along with shitty coaching. Mac calling out Eli was his attempt to save his ass. It clearly backfired. Almost every analyst agreed that the Giants line was the worst in the league last year, I have heard commentators literally laughing at Flowers being s RT.
Quote:
Suggesting the Giants should take a quarterback just to take a quarterback
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
You have not read anything by firedbytheboss?
thanks for the shout out. I don't think firedbytheboss ever said draft a QB just to draft a QB.
1. The Giants need a QB and there are possibly four potential franchise QBs to be had at the top of the first round. It is an exciting class and many around the NFL agree.
2. Given the option to draft a top QB prospect it is insane to waste the 2nd pick on a RB. RB's are a dime a dozen. It is a fungible resource. There are great RB options available later that cost far less in draft capital. Oftentimes, we have seen great rushing teams built around two mediocre running backs that outpace teams with a stud RB. Investing in high-priced rbs is kind of a stupid allocation of resources.
3. Since the Giants have an advanced analytics team who are expert in the areas of math and economics, I am sure they already know that it would be stupid to spend draft capital on a running back at 2, especially since they have a dire need at QB and in other areas.
4. Please consider that the state of the NFL is trending to a more QB heavy league. And you can see the importance of the running back vs the QB in how NFL teams spend their dollars. The Vikings just gave Kirk Cousins, an average NFL QB $84M fully guaranteed. Meanwhile the Steelers won't give a contract to Leveon Bell, the best RB in the NFL. The league is telling you that RBs are a bad investment especially when compared to the value of a QB.
Do you want the Giants to waste their money, cap space, draft capital and pass on the immense opportunity to draft a game-changing QB? If so, I don 't know what to say to you. It is a stupid thing to do. Objectively stupid.
Sorry you don't see the wisdom of grabbing one of these QBs at number 2. I am sure this is what they are going to do. They have analytics eggheads that will assure them that drafting a running back is a dumb idea. And they will listen to the eggheads. Just as Doug Peterson did in his run to win the super bowl. I am sorry the egg heads are now taking over your macho game, but the math and analytics now win out.
Quote:
In comment 13904095 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Suggesting the Giants should take a quarterback just to take a quarterback
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
You have not read anything by firedbytheboss?
thanks for the shout out. I don't think firedbytheboss ever said draft a QB just to draft a QB.
1. The Giants need a QB and there are possibly four potential franchise QBs to be had at the top of the first round. It is an exciting class and many around the NFL agree.
2. Given the option to draft a top QB prospect it is insane to waste the 2nd pick on a RB. RB's are a dime a dozen. It is a fungible resource. There are great RB options available later that cost far less in draft capital. Oftentimes, we have seen great rushing teams built around two mediocre running backs that outpace teams with a stud RB. Investing in high-priced rbs is kind of a stupid allocation of resources.
3. Since the Giants have an advanced analytics team who are expert in the areas of math and economics, I am sure they already know that it would be stupid to spend draft capital on a running back at 2, especially since they have a dire need at QB and in other areas.
4. Please consider that the state of the NFL is trending to a more QB heavy league. And you can see the importance of the running back vs the QB in how NFL teams spend their dollars. The Vikings just gave Kirk Cousins, an average NFL QB $84M fully guaranteed. Meanwhile the Steelers won't give a contract to Leveon Bell, the best RB in the NFL. The league is telling you that RBs are a bad investment especially when compared to the value of a QB.
Do you want the Giants to waste their money, cap space, draft capital and pass on the immense opportunity to draft a game-changing QB? If so, I don 't know what to say to you. It is a stupid thing to do. Objectively stupid.
Sorry you don't see the wisdom of grabbing one of these QBs at number 2. I am sure this is what they are going to do. They have analytics eggheads that will assure them that drafting a running back is a dumb idea. And they will listen to the eggheads. Just as Doug Peterson did in his run to win the super bowl. I am sorry the egg heads are now taking over your macho game, but the math and analytics now win out.
I think many on here don’t have a problem with drafting a QB, but like myself they have reservations about these particular QBs. I like Barkley but it wouldn’t upset me to see them trade down and stockpile players at multiple positions which would definitely help the team now and in the long term.
Best value equates to getting the next franchise quarterback for the next 10 to 15 years.
Do you really believe anyone is advocating taking a quarterback just because they are a quarterback and not because they believe they can be the next guy?
Quote:
In comment 13904128 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 13904095 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Suggesting the Giants should take a quarterback just to take a quarterback
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
You have not read anything by firedbytheboss?
thanks for the shout out. I don't think firedbytheboss ever said draft a QB just to draft a QB.
1. The Giants need a QB and there are possibly four potential franchise QBs to be had at the top of the first round. It is an exciting class and many around the NFL agree.
2. Given the option to draft a top QB prospect it is insane to waste the 2nd pick on a RB. RB's are a dime a dozen. It is a fungible resource. There are great RB options available later that cost far less in draft capital. Oftentimes, we have seen great rushing teams built around two mediocre running backs that outpace teams with a stud RB. Investing in high-priced rbs is kind of a stupid allocation of resources.
3. Since the Giants have an advanced analytics team who are expert in the areas of math and economics, I am sure they already know that it would be stupid to spend draft capital on a running back at 2, especially since they have a dire need at QB and in other areas.
4. Please consider that the state of the NFL is trending to a more QB heavy league. And you can see the importance of the running back vs the QB in how NFL teams spend their dollars. The Vikings just gave Kirk Cousins, an average NFL QB $84M fully guaranteed. Meanwhile the Steelers won't give a contract to Leveon Bell, the best RB in the NFL. The league is telling you that RBs are a bad investment especially when compared to the value of a QB.
Do you want the Giants to waste their money, cap space, draft capital and pass on the immense opportunity to draft a game-changing QB? If so, I don 't know what to say to you. It is a stupid thing to do. Objectively stupid.
Sorry you don't see the wisdom of grabbing one of these QBs at number 2. I am sure this is what they are going to do. They have analytics eggheads that will assure them that drafting a running back is a dumb idea. And they will listen to the eggheads. Just as Doug Peterson did in his run to win the super bowl. I am sorry the egg heads are now taking over your macho game, but the math and analytics now win out.
I think many on here don’t have a problem with drafting a QB, but like myself they have reservations about these particular QBs. I like Barkley but it wouldn’t upset me to see them trade down and stockpile players at multiple positions which would definitely help the team now and in the long term.
Trade down is totally logical. I agree. I think on balance trading down is the wrong move. Getting a star QB is worth more than anything we could get. There is no haul in my opinion worth trading Tom Brady or P Manning. If we get offered three first rounders from Buffalo I wouldnt take it. But I don't denigrate the idea. I totally understand it is a tough call. It's not the one I would make. We are here now... the QBs are there for us. We don't want to be in the position a few years from now, desperate for a QB and having to trade a giant haul to get one or pay a guy like Cousins 84 mil.
Best value equates to getting the next franchise quarterback for the next 10 to 15 years.
Do you really believe anyone is advocating taking a quarterback just because they are a quarterback and not because they believe they can be the next guy?
100%
Quote:
In comment 13904347 firedbytheboss said:
Quote:
In comment 13904128 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 13904095 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Suggesting the Giants should take a quarterback just to take a quarterback
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
You have not read anything by firedbytheboss?
thanks for the shout out. I don't think firedbytheboss ever said draft a QB just to draft a QB.
1. The Giants need a QB and there are possibly four potential franchise QBs to be had at the top of the first round. It is an exciting class and many around the NFL agree.
2. Given the option to draft a top QB prospect it is insane to waste the 2nd pick on a RB. RB's are a dime a dozen. It is a fungible resource. There are great RB options available later that cost far less in draft capital. Oftentimes, we have seen great rushing teams built around two mediocre running backs that outpace teams with a stud RB. Investing in high-priced rbs is kind of a stupid allocation of resources.
3. Since the Giants have an advanced analytics team who are expert in the areas of math and economics, I am sure they already know that it would be stupid to spend draft capital on a running back at 2, especially since they have a dire need at QB and in other areas.
4. Please consider that the state of the NFL is trending to a more QB heavy league. And you can see the importance of the running back vs the QB in how NFL teams spend their dollars. The Vikings just gave Kirk Cousins, an average NFL QB $84M fully guaranteed. Meanwhile the Steelers won't give a contract to Leveon Bell, the best RB in the NFL. The league is telling you that RBs are a bad investment especially when compared to the value of a QB.
Do you want the Giants to waste their money, cap space, draft capital and pass on the immense opportunity to draft a game-changing QB? If so, I don 't know what to say to you. It is a stupid thing to do. Objectively stupid.
Sorry you don't see the wisdom of grabbing one of these QBs at number 2. I am sure this is what they are going to do. They have analytics eggheads that will assure them that drafting a running back is a dumb idea. And they will listen to the eggheads. Just as Doug Peterson did in his run to win the super bowl. I am sorry the egg heads are now taking over your macho game, but the math and analytics now win out.
I think many on here don’t have a problem with drafting a QB, but like myself they have reservations about these particular QBs. I like Barkley but it wouldn’t upset me to see them trade down and stockpile players at multiple positions which would definitely help the team now and in the long term.
Trade down is totally logical. I agree. I think on balance trading down is the wrong move. Getting a star QB is worth more than anything we could get. There is no haul in my opinion worth trading Tom Brady or P Manning. If we get offered three first rounders from Buffalo I wouldnt take it. But I don't denigrate the idea. I totally understand it is a tough call. It's not the one I would make. We are here now... the QBs are there for us. We don't want to be in the position a few years from now, desperate for a QB and having to trade a giant haul to get one or pay a guy like Cousins 84 mil.
If you think one of these guys is a star you stay put and take them. That is the real question. Do any of these guys really seem like they could be a star? The answers to that question forms the QB vs. Barkley/Chubb/Trade down divide between the fans.
Quote:
In comment 13904357 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
In comment 13904347 firedbytheboss said:
Quote:
In comment 13904128 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 13904095 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Suggesting the Giants should take a quarterback just to take a quarterback
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
You have not read anything by firedbytheboss?
thanks for the shout out. I don't think firedbytheboss ever said draft a QB just to draft a QB.
1. The Giants need a QB and there are possibly four potential franchise QBs to be had at the top of the first round. It is an exciting class and many around the NFL agree.
2. Given the option to draft a top QB prospect it is insane to waste the 2nd pick on a RB. RB's are a dime a dozen. It is a fungible resource. There are great RB options available later that cost far less in draft capital. Oftentimes, we have seen great rushing teams built around two mediocre running backs that outpace teams with a stud RB. Investing in high-priced rbs is kind of a stupid allocation of resources.
3. Since the Giants have an advanced analytics team who are expert in the areas of math and economics, I am sure they already know that it would be stupid to spend draft capital on a running back at 2, especially since they have a dire need at QB and in other areas.
4. Please consider that the state of the NFL is trending to a more QB heavy league. And you can see the importance of the running back vs the QB in how NFL teams spend their dollars. The Vikings just gave Kirk Cousins, an average NFL QB $84M fully guaranteed. Meanwhile the Steelers won't give a contract to Leveon Bell, the best RB in the NFL. The league is telling you that RBs are a bad investment especially when compared to the value of a QB.
Do you want the Giants to waste their money, cap space, draft capital and pass on the immense opportunity to draft a game-changing QB? If so, I don 't know what to say to you. It is a stupid thing to do. Objectively stupid.
Sorry you don't see the wisdom of grabbing one of these QBs at number 2. I am sure this is what they are going to do. They have analytics eggheads that will assure them that drafting a running back is a dumb idea. And they will listen to the eggheads. Just as Doug Peterson did in his run to win the super bowl. I am sorry the egg heads are now taking over your macho game, but the math and analytics now win out.
I think many on here don’t have a problem with drafting a QB, but like myself they have reservations about these particular QBs. I like Barkley but it wouldn’t upset me to see them trade down and stockpile players at multiple positions which would definitely help the team now and in the long term.
Trade down is totally logical. I agree. I think on balance trading down is the wrong move. Getting a star QB is worth more than anything we could get. There is no haul in my opinion worth trading Tom Brady or P Manning. If we get offered three first rounders from Buffalo I wouldnt take it. But I don't denigrate the idea. I totally understand it is a tough call. It's not the one I would make. We are here now... the QBs are there for us. We don't want to be in the position a few years from now, desperate for a QB and having to trade a giant haul to get one or pay a guy like Cousins 84 mil.
If you think one of these guys is a star you stay put and take them. That is the real question. Do any of these guys really seem like they could be a star? The answers to that question forms the QB vs. Barkley/Chubb/Trade down divide between the fans.
I think there is a strong chance that all four of these guys will be at least league average. Top-15. I think there is a chance more than one of them will be top-5. I am excited about this class. The NFL is excited too. They are not saying they are excited because they don't want to hurt their draft capital. But Cleveland, Miami, Buffalo, the Jets, Denver, Arizona, New England, San Francisco, and Baltimore have all shown interest in this class. I know the Giants seem blase, I am hoping and thinking this is a smokescreen. My guess is they run to the podium with a QBs name on draft night.
Quote:
In comment 13904365 firedbytheboss said:
Quote:
In comment 13904357 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
In comment 13904347 firedbytheboss said:
Quote:
In comment 13904128 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 13904095 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Suggesting the Giants should take a quarterback just to take a quarterback
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
You have not read anything by firedbytheboss?
thanks for the shout out. I don't think firedbytheboss ever said draft a QB just to draft a QB.
1. The Giants need a QB and there are possibly four potential franchise QBs to be had at the top of the first round. It is an exciting class and many around the NFL agree.
2. Given the option to draft a top QB prospect it is insane to waste the 2nd pick on a RB. RB's are a dime a dozen. It is a fungible resource. There are great RB options available later that cost far less in draft capital. Oftentimes, we have seen great rushing teams built around two mediocre running backs that outpace teams with a stud RB. Investing in high-priced rbs is kind of a stupid allocation of resources.
3. Since the Giants have an advanced analytics team who are expert in the areas of math and economics, I am sure they already know that it would be stupid to spend draft capital on a running back at 2, especially since they have a dire need at QB and in other areas.
4. Please consider that the state of the NFL is trending to a more QB heavy league. And you can see the importance of the running back vs the QB in how NFL teams spend their dollars. The Vikings just gave Kirk Cousins, an average NFL QB $84M fully guaranteed. Meanwhile the Steelers won't give a contract to Leveon Bell, the best RB in the NFL. The league is telling you that RBs are a bad investment especially when compared to the value of a QB.
Do you want the Giants to waste their money, cap space, draft capital and pass on the immense opportunity to draft a game-changing QB? If so, I don 't know what to say to you. It is a stupid thing to do. Objectively stupid.
Sorry you don't see the wisdom of grabbing one of these QBs at number 2. I am sure this is what they are going to do. They have analytics eggheads that will assure them that drafting a running back is a dumb idea. And they will listen to the eggheads. Just as Doug Peterson did in his run to win the super bowl. I am sorry the egg heads are now taking over your macho game, but the math and analytics now win out.
I think many on here don’t have a problem with drafting a QB, but like myself they have reservations about these particular QBs. I like Barkley but it wouldn’t upset me to see them trade down and stockpile players at multiple positions which would definitely help the team now and in the long term.
Trade down is totally logical. I agree. I think on balance trading down is the wrong move. Getting a star QB is worth more than anything we could get. There is no haul in my opinion worth trading Tom Brady or P Manning. If we get offered three first rounders from Buffalo I wouldnt take it. But I don't denigrate the idea. I totally understand it is a tough call. It's not the one I would make. We are here now... the QBs are there for us. We don't want to be in the position a few years from now, desperate for a QB and having to trade a giant haul to get one or pay a guy like Cousins 84 mil.
If you think one of these guys is a star you stay put and take them. That is the real question. Do any of these guys really seem like they could be a star? The answers to that question forms the QB vs. Barkley/Chubb/Trade down divide between the fans.
I think there is a strong chance that all four of these guys will be at least league average. Top-15. I think there is a chance more than one of them will be top-5. I am excited about this class. The NFL is excited too. They are not saying they are excited because they don't want to hurt their draft capital. But Cleveland, Miami, Buffalo, the Jets, Denver, Arizona, New England, San Francisco, and Baltimore have all shown interest in this class. I know the Giants seem blase, I am hoping and thinking this is a smokescreen. My guess is they run to the podium with a QBs name on draft night.
I respect your opinion, but I feel kind of the opposite with this draft class. I feel like 1 or 2 may end up being good, but it’s hard to tell who that would be. And I feel like at least one is going to be a bust. It’s hard to predict, and it’s rare to see more than one or two QB’s end up being really good in one draft. That’s why the class of ‘84 is always touted so much.
Quote:
In comment 13904371 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
In comment 13904365 firedbytheboss said:
Quote:
In comment 13904357 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
In comment 13904347 firedbytheboss said:
Quote:
In comment 13904128 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 13904095 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Suggesting the Giants should take a quarterback just to take a quarterback
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
You have not read anything by firedbytheboss?
thanks for the shout out. I don't think firedbytheboss ever said draft a QB just to draft a QB.
1. The Giants need a QB and there are possibly four potential franchise QBs to be had at the top of the first round. It is an exciting class and many around the NFL agree.
2. Given the option to draft a top QB prospect it is insane to waste the 2nd pick on a RB. RB's are a dime a dozen. It is a fungible resource. There are great RB options available later that cost far less in draft capital. Oftentimes, we have seen great rushing teams built around two mediocre running backs that outpace teams with a stud RB. Investing in high-priced rbs is kind of a stupid allocation of resources.
3. Since the Giants have an advanced analytics team who are expert in the areas of math and economics, I am sure they already know that it would be stupid to spend draft capital on a running back at 2, especially since they have a dire need at QB and in other areas.
4. Please consider that the state of the NFL is trending to a more QB heavy league. And you can see the importance of the running back vs the QB in how NFL teams spend their dollars. The Vikings just gave Kirk Cousins, an average NFL QB $84M fully guaranteed. Meanwhile the Steelers won't give a contract to Leveon Bell, the best RB in the NFL. The league is telling you that RBs are a bad investment especially when compared to the value of a QB.
Do you want the Giants to waste their money, cap space, draft capital and pass on the immense opportunity to draft a game-changing QB? If so, I don 't know what to say to you. It is a stupid thing to do. Objectively stupid.
Sorry you don't see the wisdom of grabbing one of these QBs at number 2. I am sure this is what they are going to do. They have analytics eggheads that will assure them that drafting a running back is a dumb idea. And they will listen to the eggheads. Just as Doug Peterson did in his run to win the super bowl. I am sorry the egg heads are now taking over your macho game, but the math and analytics now win out.
I think many on here don’t have a problem with drafting a QB, but like myself they have reservations about these particular QBs. I like Barkley but it wouldn’t upset me to see them trade down and stockpile players at multiple positions which would definitely help the team now and in the long term.
Trade down is totally logical. I agree. I think on balance trading down is the wrong move. Getting a star QB is worth more than anything we could get. There is no haul in my opinion worth trading Tom Brady or P Manning. If we get offered three first rounders from Buffalo I wouldnt take it. But I don't denigrate the idea. I totally understand it is a tough call. It's not the one I would make. We are here now... the QBs are there for us. We don't want to be in the position a few years from now, desperate for a QB and having to trade a giant haul to get one or pay a guy like Cousins 84 mil.
If you think one of these guys is a star you stay put and take them. That is the real question. Do any of these guys really seem like they could be a star? The answers to that question forms the QB vs. Barkley/Chubb/Trade down divide between the fans.
I think there is a strong chance that all four of these guys will be at least league average. Top-15. I think there is a chance more than one of them will be top-5. I am excited about this class. The NFL is excited too. They are not saying they are excited because they don't want to hurt their draft capital. But Cleveland, Miami, Buffalo, the Jets, Denver, Arizona, New England, San Francisco, and Baltimore have all shown interest in this class. I know the Giants seem blase, I am hoping and thinking this is a smokescreen. My guess is they run to the podium with a QBs name on draft night.
I respect your opinion, but I feel kind of the opposite with this draft class. I feel like 1 or 2 may end up being good, but it’s hard to tell who that would be. And I feel like at least one is going to be a bust. It’s hard to predict, and it’s rare to see more than one or two QB’s end up being really good in one draft. That’s why the class of ‘84 is always touted so much.
I agree with your assessment about this class
I respect your opinion, but I feel kind of the opposite with this draft class. I feel like 1 or 2 may end up being good, but it’s hard to tell who that would be. And I feel like at least one is going to be a bust. It’s hard to predict, and it’s rare to see more than one or two QB’s end up being really good in one draft. That’s why the class of ‘84 is always touted so much.
yea.. hey nobody has a crystal ball. Though many don't agree here, Barkley is not a sure thing either. I mean I think he will be really good but he has some warts that everyone seems to ignore, like he likes to bounce most of his runs outside, he doesn't have a track record of fighting for tough yards, etc..
I don't think misfiring on the pick to try and get a franchise altering QB is so bad. I am sure the Giants have more than one guy that they like. An d they have set the table for exactly this. They hired a QB whisperer HC. They hired a QB-handler OC. They did these things because they are drafting a QB. And when they did these things they knew they were picking second. Sit back and let's see who they like.
Quote:
I respect your opinion, but I feel kind of the opposite with this draft class. I feel like 1 or 2 may end up being good, but it’s hard to tell who that would be. And I feel like at least one is going to be a bust. It’s hard to predict, and it’s rare to see more than one or two QB’s end up being really good in one draft. That’s why the class of ‘84 is always touted so much.
yea.. hey nobody has a crystal ball. Though many don't agree here, Barkley is not a sure thing either. I mean I think he will be really good but he has some warts that everyone seems to ignore, like he likes to bounce most of his runs outside, he doesn't have a track record of fighting for tough yards, etc..
I don't think misfiring on the pick to try and get a franchise altering QB is so bad. I am sure the Giants have more than one guy that they like. An d they have set the table for exactly this. They hired a QB whisperer HC. They hired a QB-handler OC. They did these things because they are drafting a QB. And when they did these things they knew they were picking second. Sit back and let's see who they like.
Why do you always think it is QB vs. Barkley? Someone like Nelson could make a number of existing players better
Quote:
In comment 13904387 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
I respect your opinion, but I feel kind of the opposite with this draft class. I feel like 1 or 2 may end up being good, but it’s hard to tell who that would be. And I feel like at least one is going to be a bust. It’s hard to predict, and it’s rare to see more than one or two QB’s end up being really good in one draft. That’s why the class of ‘84 is always touted so much.
yea.. hey nobody has a crystal ball. Though many don't agree here, Barkley is not a sure thing either. I mean I think he will be really good but he has some warts that everyone seems to ignore, like he likes to bounce most of his runs outside, he doesn't have a track record of fighting for tough yards, etc..
I don't think misfiring on the pick to try and get a franchise altering QB is so bad. I am sure the Giants have more than one guy that they like. An d they have set the table for exactly this. They hired a QB whisperer HC. They hired a QB-handler OC. They did these things because they are drafting a QB. And when they did these things they knew they were picking second. Sit back and let's see who they like.
Why do you always think it is QB vs. Barkley? Someone like Nelson could make a number of existing players better
I like Nelson. Not at 2. And not more than drafting a QB. We need a QB. Otherwise I would be in favor of trading down to a spot where we can get Nelson and a few more picks.
Quote:
In comment 13904391 firedbytheboss said:
Quote:
In comment 13904387 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
I respect your opinion, but I feel kind of the opposite with this draft class. I feel like 1 or 2 may end up being good, but it’s hard to tell who that would be. And I feel like at least one is going to be a bust. It’s hard to predict, and it’s rare to see more than one or two QB’s end up being really good in one draft. That’s why the class of ‘84 is always touted so much.
yea.. hey nobody has a crystal ball. Though many don't agree here, Barkley is not a sure thing either. I mean I think he will be really good but he has some warts that everyone seems to ignore, like he likes to bounce most of his runs outside, he doesn't have a track record of fighting for tough yards, etc..
I don't think misfiring on the pick to try and get a franchise altering QB is so bad. I am sure the Giants have more than one guy that they like. An d they have set the table for exactly this. They hired a QB whisperer HC. They hired a QB-handler OC. They did these things because they are drafting a QB. And when they did these things they knew they were picking second. Sit back and let's see who they like.
Why do you always think it is QB vs. Barkley? Someone like Nelson could make a number of existing players better
I like Nelson. Not at 2. And not more than drafting a QB. We need a QB. Otherwise I would be in favor of trading down to a spot where we can get Nelson and a few more picks.
We need great players. We do not need a QB bust
Quote:
In comment 13904404 Mike in NY said:
Quote:
In comment 13904391 firedbytheboss said:
Quote:
In comment 13904387 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
I respect your opinion, but I feel kind of the opposite with this draft class. I feel like 1 or 2 may end up being good, but it’s hard to tell who that would be. And I feel like at least one is going to be a bust. It’s hard to predict, and it’s rare to see more than one or two QB’s end up being really good in one draft. That’s why the class of ‘84 is always touted so much.
yea.. hey nobody has a crystal ball. Though many don't agree here, Barkley is not a sure thing either. I mean I think he will be really good but he has some warts that everyone seems to ignore, like he likes to bounce most of his runs outside, he doesn't have a track record of fighting for tough yards, etc..
I don't think misfiring on the pick to try and get a franchise altering QB is so bad. I am sure the Giants have more than one guy that they like. An d they have set the table for exactly this. They hired a QB whisperer HC. They hired a QB-handler OC. They did these things because they are drafting a QB. And when they did these things they knew they were picking second. Sit back and let's see who they like.
Why do you always think it is QB vs. Barkley? Someone like Nelson could make a number of existing players better
I like Nelson. Not at 2. And not more than drafting a QB. We need a QB. Otherwise I would be in favor of trading down to a spot where we can get Nelson and a few more picks.
We need great players. We do not need a QB bust
With all due respect, when was the last time a guard was taken with the second pick. Also this draft is loaded with interior lineman. You can get guys almost as good as Nelson in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Get yoiur QB then get your guard.
To me there are several players worthy of the second pick, so position value has to be factored in.
If you don't like the QBs in this class, you're never going to like a QB prospect again, IMO. I really think this class has been nitpicked because of how historic this class was expected to be, but also because just the new normal. QBs make for good headlines, they're recognizable names, they generate clicks, etc.
Every QB class going forward will be at least as criticized as this one, IMO. So unless you think the game is likely to fundamentally change in a way that reduces the significance of having a franchise QB, I don't know if you're likely to see a prospect now or in the future that doesn't appear to have some sort of flaws, which will be repeated over and over again in the collective echo chamber of social media and 24/7 NFL coverage.
If I had the money though, I would have owned a Mercedes.
And despite what everyone thinks, every company rolls out a new model every year.
Rolls....um, actually Rolls is more apt for the RB. Yeah, not not Mercedes because the differential is too close to the Accord and not really analogous to this. Rolls, is much better.
We are at the auction and we have one of the first cracks at the new cars. Let’s go get one.
It's now next year and it's the same narrative being pushed.
This is a good read:
QBs - ( New Window )
Barkley is the best player in the draft IMO and I don't think its close . I think Browns go Darnold and the Giants will go Rosen if they think he is worth it .
If the go QB so be it..
The top candidates are so picked apart, I'm hoping we trade down and pick someone I never heard of.
One other point, the # 2 pick may have historically high value this year-because of the QBs. If some team offers a ridiculous package of high picks this year and next, then trading down and evaluating Webb this year may be the better play. That's for the braintrust to figure out.
Bill, your my new hero! I agree with you completely. How ‘bout them Red Sox!
And I see Chris Borland.
Quote:
Ive been saying all along that Barkley indeed is *that* much better. If he was a JARB I’d be more in the QB camp at the spot we were in. Conversely, if it Barkley versus Luck, then I’d also be in that camp. I just done see that here. Maybe Rosen, but I wouldn’t touch Rosen for anything.
Bill, your my new hero! I agree with you completely. How ‘bout them Red Sox!
I'm actually not so sure about that.
Laughable.
You have 5 QB's projected to go in 1st round--- but to some like the OP -- "They're all going to be scrubs." Yeah .. right.
Quote:
Suggesting the Giants should take a quarterback just to take a quarterback
I'm actually not so sure about that.
You're just being argumentative.
Laughable.
You have 5 QB's projected to go in 1st round--- but to some like the OP -- "They're all going to be scrubs." Yeah .. right.
Yes, there are experts saying this is the deepest QB class in a few years but some of the Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson fans say that none of these QB's are worth the #2 pick. As you mentioned every QB coming out has question marks. Goff and Wentz had several questions coming out.
Quote:
Gotta love the OP and others that don't want to take a QB. They pretend that every QB in the history of the sport that was taken top 5 NEVER had ANY red flags.
Laughable.
You have 5 QB's projected to go in 1st round--- but to some like the OP -- "They're all going to be scrubs." Yeah .. right.
Yes, there are experts saying this is the deepest QB class in a few years but some of the Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson fans say that none of these QB's are worth the #2 pick. As you mentioned every QB coming out has question marks. Goff and Wentz had several questions coming out.
It’s clear that we all place different values on people and that we all weigh things differently. Nothing wrong with that. For myself, while I have my own (stated) views the only people I’m taking issue with are those speaking in absolutes and, even more so, those saying that the Giants *will do* or *won’t do* or tha the Giants “believe...” or “view..”...because all of those people are talking out of their asses.
Because our current QB can play QB, but cannot really win games for us anymore.
Because there are several promising QBs in this draft that should be able to in the future.
Because with the #2 pick we can take advantage of picking one that maybe able to do so in the very near future.
And finally, because when you restructure an organization, you won't be successful until you address the core issues...
I don't have that confidence with the QBs, and I have had greater confidence in QBs in different drafts. I would take Darnold over Barkley, but he is the only QB I would pick at #2. He has "it".
And all the criticism of Rosen's O-line, Darnold's 2017 O-line was twice as bad. There were no Kolton Miller's protecting his blindside, for one.
I don't believe Rosen is as good a player as Darnold. So I'm not against a QB, but if I think that I have no confidence that the QB I can get at #2 is going to be a top 10 NFL QB, I am going with the player I have a high degree of confidence is going to be a transcendent offensive playmakers and see what I have in Webb and re-evaluation the QB position next year, because afterall, Eli Manning is the 2018 quarterback and potentially the 2019 QB as well.
Quote:
In comment 13904095 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Suggesting the Giants should take a quarterback just to take a quarterback
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
You have not read anything by firedbytheboss?
thanks for the shout out. I don't think firedbytheboss ever said draft a QB just to draft a QB.
1. The Giants need a QB and there are possibly four potential franchise QBs to be had at the top of the first round. It is an exciting class and many around the NFL agree.
2. Given the option to draft a top QB prospect it is insane to waste the 2nd pick on a RB. RB's are a dime a dozen. It is a fungible resource. There are great RB options available later that cost far less in draft capital. Oftentimes, we have seen great rushing teams built around two mediocre running backs that outpace teams with a stud RB. Investing in high-priced rbs is kind of a stupid allocation of resources.
3. Since the Giants have an advanced analytics team who are expert in the areas of math and economics, I am sure they already know that it would be stupid to spend draft capital on a running back at 2, especially since they have a dire need at QB and in other areas.
4. Please consider that the state of the NFL is trending to a more QB heavy league. And you can see the importance of the running back vs the QB in how NFL teams spend their dollars. The Vikings just gave Kirk Cousins, an average NFL QB $84M fully guaranteed. Meanwhile the Steelers won't give a contract to Leveon Bell, the best RB in the NFL. The league is telling you that RBs are a bad investment especially when compared to the value of a QB.
Do you want the Giants to waste their money, cap space, draft capital and pass on the immense opportunity to draft a game-changing QB? If so, I don 't know what to say to you. It is a stupid thing to do. Objectively stupid.
Sorry you don't see the wisdom of grabbing one of these QBs at number 2. I am sure this is what they are going to do. They have analytics eggheads that will assure them that drafting a running back is a dumb idea. And they will listen to the eggheads. Just as Doug Peterson did in his run to win the super bowl. I am sorry the egg heads are now taking over your macho game, but the math and analytics now win out.
By the way, this is a long way of saying to take a QB just to take a QB. Nowhere in that long, rambling post did you justify a specific QB to be taken would justify that draft position. You could use the same logic you just used to draft Robert Griffin III or Blake Bottles at #2. The Giants will be drafting a specific player, not a position. That's what matters. All that analysis about position is worthless if you miss on the specific player.
Barkley is the clear BPA in the draft, no doubt, closely followed by Nelson and Chubb. I think both Nelson and Barkley have competition from their players at their position that are not far behind in capability. So you could find a very good starting guard or RB in the 2nd round. Chubb appears to be farther away from his competitors in ability than Barkley and Nelson are from theirs.
There are 4 QBs that will be drafted in the top 12 picks. There will be no 2nd round QB that comes close in ability with the top 4. There is no second chance to get a starting QB in this draft. (Maybe Jackson and Rudolph eventually round into starters, but at what level?)
I will not argue which of the top 4 is the best, that has been done ad nauseum already. And of the top 4, I really think for the Giants it is top 3 (Rosen, Darnold, Allen).
IMHO, it comes down to:
1.) Can Eli play 2 or 3 more years at a high level
2.) Do the Giants feel Davis Webb can supplant Eli within that 2 to 3 years
3.) Are any of the 4(3) top QBs likely to be better than Webb
In the end, while Barkley may be the best player in the draft, I think it will be between one of the QBs and Chubb seeing as how the Giants are likely to be able to get a starting guard with pick #34 and a chance to get a starting RB in the 3rd round.
My personal preference is Josh Rosen over Darnold, because Rosen is already head and shoulders in ability to start right now over Darnold. If Rosen never improves, he will be a better NFL QB than Darnold if Darnold does not improve dramatically. I heard/read that Darnold has a higher ceiling than Rosen, but many a pro prospect has had a higher ceiling only to never reach it and Darnold has a lot of areas to improve on in order to just be NFL ability.
That said, I'd be very happy with either Rosen or Darnold.
IMHO, it comes down to:
1.) Can Eli play 2 or 3 more years at a high level
2.) Do the Giants feel Davis Webb can supplant Eli within that 2 to 3 years
3.) Are any of the 4(3) top QBs likely to be better than Webb
Simple...
1. Eli has not played at a "high level" (top 10) for the past couple of years so not sure how/why he will turn it around at the end of his career.
2. Webb has not even practiced with the first team. If the Giants thought that highly of him, he would have surpassed Geno in the depth chart last year.
3. The QBs we are looking at performed in college at a higher level than Webb. Also, no other team thought Webb was good enough to draft in the first couple of rounds so yeah they are likely better.
Simple...
1. Eli has not played at a "high level" (top 10) for the past couple of years so not sure how/why he will turn it around at the end of his career.
2. Webb has not even practiced with the first team. If the Giants thought that highly of him, he would have surpassed Geno in the depth chart last year.
3. The QBs we are looking at performed in college at a higher level than Webb. Also, no other team thought Webb was good enough to draft in the first couple of rounds so yeah they are likely better.
Pt #1 - Give Eli a decent line and he will definitely better.
Pt #2 - Forget the Webb couldn't pass Geno on the depth chart reasoning. McAdoo said Webb would do nothing last year, it was a red shirt year for him.
Point #3 - Likely you are correct.
And, in an absolute talent sense, Barkley is leagues ahead of anyone else but Nelson. Certainly more than these QBs so the positional handicap has to be ginormous to make it worth it. That’s the crux f the argument. Some people have a positional handicap of infinity and others don’t.
Don’t get me wrong, this appears to be a good class of QBs. But the risk with Allen is huge as he’s a project right now. Darnold less of a risk but still one. And Rosen, IMO, carries the greatest risk of all and it’s a fatal one wrt my personal draft board.
EricJ : 4/7/2018 4:08 pm : link : reply
Automobiles.
You only have $500 to spend. An auto body friend of yours said he could paint your car to look new for $500 (family deal) which is a really good value. OR...you can buy 4 new tires because the once perfect Pirelli's you have are almost worn down to nothing. If you blow one of those tires which can happen at any time, you will have to drive around on your spare.
But your engine has a lot of miles on it, how does paint help? As for buying tires, you are fixing one part of the car and hoping with the mileage on it that nothing else happens....as it stands, it looks like you are only buying one LF(LT) and hoping for the best....
With the mileage on the car, it's probably time for a new one and I'd use it as part of the down payment on a new car/qb.....
This is where the analogy fails, IMO. Next year's model is not always the same, and it definitely doesn't always carry the same price.
Quote:
In comment 13904128 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 13904095 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Suggesting the Giants should take a quarterback just to take a quarterback
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
You have not read anything by firedbytheboss?
thanks for the shout out. I don't think firedbytheboss ever said draft a QB just to draft a QB.
1. The Giants need a QB and there are possibly four potential franchise QBs to be had at the top of the first round. It is an exciting class and many around the NFL agree.
2. Given the option to draft a top QB prospect it is insane to waste the 2nd pick on a RB. RB's are a dime a dozen. It is a fungible resource. There are great RB options available later that cost far less in draft capital. Oftentimes, we have seen great rushing teams built around two mediocre running backs that outpace teams with a stud RB. Investing in high-priced rbs is kind of a stupid allocation of resources.
3. Since the Giants have an advanced analytics team who are expert in the areas of math and economics, I am sure they already know that it would be stupid to spend draft capital on a running back at 2, especially since they have a dire need at QB and in other areas.
4. Please consider that the state of the NFL is trending to a more QB heavy league. And you can see the importance of the running back vs the QB in how NFL teams spend their dollars. The Vikings just gave Kirk Cousins, an average NFL QB $84M fully guaranteed. Meanwhile the Steelers won't give a contract to Leveon Bell, the best RB in the NFL. The league is telling you that RBs are a bad investment especially when compared to the value of a QB.
Do you want the Giants to waste their money, cap space, draft capital and pass on the immense opportunity to draft a game-changing QB? If so, I don 't know what to say to you. It is a stupid thing to do. Objectively stupid.
Sorry you don't see the wisdom of grabbing one of these QBs at number 2. I am sure this is what they are going to do. They have analytics eggheads that will assure them that drafting a running back is a dumb idea. And they will listen to the eggheads. Just as Doug Peterson did in his run to win the super bowl. I am sorry the egg heads are now taking over your macho game, but the math and analytics now win out.
By the way, this is a long way of saying to take a QB just to take a QB. Nowhere in that long, rambling post did you justify a specific QB to be taken would justify that draft position.
It's not what he said. And he doesn't owe you a name. He's speaking generalities and for posters such as yourself to use a little common sense. The Giants have the 2nd pick of the draft. To try to twist it change the narrative in the deceptive manner you are doing is weak. Grow up. HE is not saying take a QB to take a QB. He is willing to let the Giants decide what they feel would be the best. There are 4QB's thought to be around top 10. He doesn't "OWE YOU" the selection. HE did ask you thought to try to use your brain a little and not be so thick. He is trusting that of the 4 QB's the Giants getting dibs at probably the 2nd one- that if they make the right choice it will be the best move for the team int he long run based on factors such as positional value.
I hope now you aren't going to twist my comment of positional value meaning I would take a 7th round talent with the 2nd pick. But that's what you've just tried to do with the other poster.
And, in an absolute talent sense, Barkley is leagues ahead of anyone else but Nelson. Certainly more than these QBs so the positional handicap has to be ginormous to make it worth it. That’s the crux f the argument. Some people have a positional handicap of infinity and others don’t.
Don’t get me wrong, this appears to be a good class of QBs. But the risk with Allen is huge as he’s a project right now. Darnold less of a risk but still one. And Rosen, IMO, carries the greatest risk of all and it’s a fatal one wrt my personal draft board.
And I think Rosen is lock eventually to be at least very good provided he gets the right support just as it is with every player being drafted in the NFL. I think Allen is the biggest risk (I wouldn't touch him) and I think your red flags on Rosen might be possible but are overblown. HE's not playing next year for the giants. Give him a good offensive line he'll be fine.
Webb fans will swear he's an answer. If he's not, the only way to get another QB worth a damn is suffer through another 2-4 win season and hope you have a QB worth getting.
If Webb's ok but not good enough, you're in the same boat as all the other teams that are trying to win something without a QB, which is a waste of everyone's years and time. This is called QB hell. There's really no indicator right now that suggests Davis Webb is anything more than the latest good college QB who works hard but isn't a starter at this level. Plenty of guys put up numbers in college and aren't NFL starters. We've drafted several.
Take the QB you like the best (or second best) in this draft and lets get him a uniform to start competing asap...
Which is the correct approach.
Quote:
In comment 13904347 firedbytheboss said:
Quote:
In comment 13904128 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 13904095 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Suggesting the Giants should take a quarterback just to take a quarterback
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
You have not read anything by firedbytheboss?
thanks for the shout out. I don't think firedbytheboss ever said draft a QB just to draft a QB.
1. The Giants need a QB and there are possibly four potential franchise QBs to be had at the top of the first round. It is an exciting class and many around the NFL agree.
2. Given the option to draft a top QB prospect it is insane to waste the 2nd pick on a RB. RB's are a dime a dozen. It is a fungible resource. There are great RB options available later that cost far less in draft capital. Oftentimes, we have seen great rushing teams built around two mediocre running backs that outpace teams with a stud RB. Investing in high-priced rbs is kind of a stupid allocation of resources.
3. Since the Giants have an advanced analytics team who are expert in the areas of math and economics, I am sure they already know that it would be stupid to spend draft capital on a running back at 2, especially since they have a dire need at QB and in other areas.
4. Please consider that the state of the NFL is trending to a more QB heavy league. And you can see the importance of the running back vs the QB in how NFL teams spend their dollars. The Vikings just gave Kirk Cousins, an average NFL QB $84M fully guaranteed. Meanwhile the Steelers won't give a contract to Leveon Bell, the best RB in the NFL. The league is telling you that RBs are a bad investment especially when compared to the value of a QB.
Do you want the Giants to waste their money, cap space, draft capital and pass on the immense opportunity to draft a game-changing QB? If so, I don 't know what to say to you. It is a stupid thing to do. Objectively stupid.
Sorry you don't see the wisdom of grabbing one of these QBs at number 2. I am sure this is what they are going to do. They have analytics eggheads that will assure them that drafting a running back is a dumb idea. And they will listen to the eggheads. Just as Doug Peterson did in his run to win the super bowl. I am sorry the egg heads are now taking over your macho game, but the math and analytics now win out.
By the way, this is a long way of saying to take a QB just to take a QB. Nowhere in that long, rambling post did you justify a specific QB to be taken would justify that draft position.
It's not what he said. And he doesn't owe you a name. He's speaking generalities and for posters such as yourself to use a little common sense. The Giants have the 2nd pick of the draft. To try to twist it change the narrative in the deceptive manner you are doing is weak. Grow up. HE is not saying take a QB to take a QB. He is willing to let the Giants decide what they feel would be the best. There are 4QB's thought to be around top 10. He doesn't "OWE YOU" the selection. HE did ask you thought to try to use your brain a little and not be so thick. He is trusting that of the 4 QB's the Giants getting dibs at probably the 2nd one- that if they make the right choice it will be the best move for the team int he long run based on factors such as positional value.
I hope now you aren't going to twist my comment of positional value meaning I would take a 7th round talent with the 2nd pick. But that's what you've just tried to do with the other poster.
The thing about common sense is that it's not that common.
Barkley is the best player in the draft IMO and I don't think its close . I think Browns go Darnold and the Giants will go Rosen if they think he is worth it .
If the go QB so be it..
ding ding, and their perspective struggles to look beyond 2018.
I'd pick Darnold and no other QB, for example.
The tricky part is having faith in either Barkley or a QB. Unlike religious faith, faith in the draft is based on visible evidence.