Don't want someone from QB bust factory USC, we need someone with his nose in the play book and not thinking of how to build a hot tub in his dorm room, and don't need a crotch grabbing bar room brawler outlaw fugitive munchkin.
Who look at him and see an unrefined product but are projecting what they believe he can become with coaching. They may be saying to themselves, coach this guy up and he’s going to have the best career of them all.
RE: I suspect that they're not even interested in some of the players Â
Shurmur and Giants have stated the Eli has "years" left.
If he has a good year this year, he's going to be the QB next year, which means if they draft a QB at #2 this year; he's likely to sit for 2 years...not 1...but 2.
Is it or is it NOT a waste spend the #2 pick on a QB that could sit for 2 years? When the team has so many holes.
Andy, it's the most important position..I think we can agree on that. And if the Giants think that's the guy to lead them at that point, you take him.
Remember, the Giants are going to try and build this thing back up...and their first pick this upcoming draft is not the end all.
They can draft a QB, continue to build the team, and have that QB take over in two/three years.
the Shurmur is here so he will develop this QB or that QB into a star. A lot of people were touting McAdoo too with all the "great" stats we had in TC's last year here. Prove it first. I am not ready to annoint anyone without actual proof.
I think Shurmur has way more credible history working with QBs and offenses than Mac ever did.
Shurmur has worked with some of the best...........
McAdoo was hired early, with the idea he was the next whiz kid IMO.
the Shurmur is here so he will develop this QB or that QB into a star. A lot of people were touting McAdoo too with all the "great" stats we had in TC's last year here. Prove it first. I am not ready to annoint anyone without actual proof.
I think Shurmur has way more credible history working with QBs and offenses than Mac ever did.
Shurmur has worked with some of the best...........
McAdoo was hired early, with the idea he was the next whiz kid IMO.
Shurmur isn't that.
I really think now the Giants thought they were getting Andy Reid Part 2 in McAdoo. Green Bay connection. Someone introverted (at least publicly). West Coast offense.
Who look at him and see an unrefined product but are projecting what they believe he can become with coaching. They may be saying to themselves, coach this guy up and he’s going to have the best career of them all.
And that's what gets teams into trouble. "We can fix this guy!"
RE: RE: RE: RE: I've wanted Darnold from the get go Â
Best combination of tools, character and production. Really he's the only 'clean' QB prospect that checks all the boxes.
I think his work ethic deserves scrutiny. Why did he perform so poorly in the athletic testing at the combine? And if it's true that teams were disappointed with how he did on the whiteboard, what does that say? If I'm Pat Shurmer, I don't want a QB who improvises, I want one who remembers his lines and delivers them on cue.
So poorly? Weren't his athletic metrics roughly equivalent to a certain world-class tennis prodigy?
I should clarify, I mean poorly in terms of expectations. Of the two, Darnold was supposed to be head and shoulders above Rosen athletically speaking. He was expected to be bigger, stronger, faster--a veritable Steve Austin compared to Rosen. Rosen turned out to be bigger (taller, heavier, and with larger hands); their 40-times were roughly equivalent (if you go by the hand-timed number which oddly enough is considered more accurate than the official time); and Rosen bested Darnold in the three events which Gettleman cited as most telling: the vertical jump, broad jump, and short shuttle.
So the question is: is Rosen actually the better athlete or did he just do a better job of preparing for the events at the combine? I suspect it's the latter. Which I thinks speaks to both of their work ethics.
No way! Shocking that you would position this as a knock against Darnold even though you have been singing the praises of Rosen's athleticism for months.
If I could bet on the content of your posts, I'd be as wealthy as the Rosen family.
Of the banter. What got tiresome was posters wanting a certain scenerio and presenting supporting arguments based on opinions as if they were fact.
McL
I have linked 20 or more studies and statistical analysis. Having done research, has led to a POV regarding overall team building. As recently as Wilson I was good with drafting RBs. The analytical data out there changed my mind. I daresay that none of you read the available information I linked. To say that I backed my position with only opinion is at best disingenuous.
I would surmise that there is an equal amount of data Â
that says that if you put a QB, (WR, OL,DE, CB, etc) on the field with everyone else being a substandard player, you don't win very many championship. Or that if you have a weaker version of any of those players, but everyone else is of championship quality, then you win more often than not.
I would also surmise that there is lots and lots and lots of data to suggest that the more complete a team is, the more successful it is.
RE: RE: Allen is probably seeing support from coaches Â
Who look at him and see an unrefined product but are projecting what they believe he can become with coaching. They may be saying to themselves, coach this guy up and he’s going to have the best career of them all.
And that's what gets teams into trouble. "We can fix this guy!"
Frequently, yes, that is true. And that's everyone's big concern when it comes to Allen. At the same time, when it's your head coach who has a track record in developing QBs saying it, it is at least a consideration.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I've wanted Darnold from the get go Â
No way! Shocking that you would position this as a knock against Darnold even though you have been singing the praises of Rosen's athleticism for months. If I could bet on the content of your posts, I'd be as wealthy as the Rosen family.
First of all, I've always said that Rosen was more athletic than given credit for, not that he was more athletic than the others, who are praised for their mobility and athleticism while Rosen is wrongly dismissed as a statue in the pocket. So the focus is on expectations versus performance. Rosen's performance exceeded expectations, Darnold's disappointed vs. expectations. So leaving Rosen out of it for the moment, the question with Darnold is why did he underperform vs expectations? Was it the expectations or the performance that was at fault?
Second of all, I don't understand your fascination with my choice of posts. Why continually make it about me? Why not just comment on the content of what I'm saying or just not comment at all? Besides that, you're wrong. I've commented on a number of topics other than Rosen, but since the most important decision the team will be making in the very near future revolves around what they will do with the #2 pick, it shouldn't be a surprise to you or anyone that the majority of my posts are going to center around that specific topic and who I believe to be the best choice for that pick. I think you'll find that's true of just about everyone on BBI including yourself.
Best combination of tools, character and production. Really he's the only 'clean' QB prospect that checks all the boxes.
I think his work ethic deserves scrutiny. Why did he perform so poorly in the athletic testing at the combine? And if it's true that teams were disappointed with how he did on the whiteboard, what does that say? If I'm Pat Shurmer, I don't want a QB who improvises, I want one who remembers his lines and delivers them on cue.
So poorly? Weren't his athletic metrics roughly equivalent to a certain world-class tennis prodigy?
I should clarify, I mean poorly in terms of expectations. Of the two, Darnold was supposed to be head and shoulders above Rosen athletically speaking. He was expected to be bigger, stronger, faster--a veritable Steve Austin compared to Rosen. Rosen turned out to be bigger (taller, heavier, and with larger hands); their 40-times were roughly equivalent (if you go by the hand-timed number which oddly enough is considered more accurate than the official time); and Rosen bested Darnold in the three events which Gettleman cited as most telling: the vertical jump, broad jump, and short shuttle.
So the question is: is Rosen actually the better athlete or did he just do a better job of preparing for the events at the combine? I suspect it's the latter. Which I thinks speaks to both of their work ethics.
Tennis players are amazing athletes.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I've wanted Darnold from the get go Â
Of the banter. What got tiresome was posters wanting a certain scenerio and presenting supporting arguments based on opinions as if they were fact.
McL
I have linked 20 or more studies and statistical analysis. Having done research, has led to a POV regarding overall team building. As recently as Wilson I was good with drafting RBs. The analytical data out there changed my mind. I daresay that none of you read the available information I linked. To say that I backed my position with only opinion is at best disingenuous.
The post McL is referencing was one of the best, well sourced and logically reasoned posts ever on BBI. I learned much reading all of the links. The sources are now bookmarked and I refer to them frequently. I think most people do not read what is linked or presented. They often admit they stop reading once they encounter a single thing they do not agree with. Everyone is in such a rush to prove they are right, or better yet, that you are wrong, that they fail to consider something new that could strengthen their beliefs or allow themselves the discovery of a paradigm changing insight by considering they might themsleves be wrong. How did admitting you are wrong about something become so rare and avoided? IE "I stopped reading once I read XXXX" Too many people turn off their ability to learn because they think they know everything. "Wisdom is the Awareness of Ignorance" Socrates There is so much I do not know about football, it is staggering.
Maybe only I find this interesting but here's a scouting report on Donovan McNabb coming out:
Played in a freeze-option offense, which means he faced mostly man-on-man coverage and did not have to do that much reading of defenses. Generally, when he did have to read defenses, he just had to read half the field. Can still be a streaky and erratic passer. Needs work on his drop-back techniques. Still must improve timing, touch and anticipation of receiver. Tends to hold on to the ball too long and must learn when to unload. Gets sloppy with the ball at times and is very sloppy when he comes up under center to handle the exchange, leading to unnecessary fumbles. Played in a domed stadium in college and has not had to play in a lot of bad weather. Needs to work on his deep passing. May not be tough enough with his teammates and may be too nice of a guy.
Why is that interesting? Well for one, Shurmur was his QB coach for a long time. Second, McNabb only completed 54.7% of his passes in his junior year. Some of those concerns sound like Darnold and some sound like Allen. Now for the grand finale...
I'm not an asshat, I have zero sources and don't claim to. I do happen to live on the same block as Ernie Acorsi and I've seen him at a coffee shop nearby a few times. I saw him there over the weekend and decided to approach him. He seemed nice and friendly enough so I took a shot and asked him about the Giants draft plans. He said he hasn't spoken to Dave about it and he doesn't think Dave would tell him anything if he asked but he said he'd be surprised if they didn't take a quarterback. "Darnold or Allen is my guess" is what he said.
Take that FWIW. He may have been messing with me, he may have been guessing OR as I like to believe, he may have spoken to Gettlemen about this already given how close they are. For anyone curious, I live on the UES.
Of the banter. What got tiresome was posters wanting a certain scenerio and presenting supporting arguments based on opinions as if they were fact.
McL
I have linked 20 or more studies and statistical analysis. Having done research, has led to a POV regarding overall team building. As recently as Wilson I was good with drafting RBs. The analytical data out there changed my mind. I daresay that none of you read the available information I linked. To say that I backed my position with only opinion is at best disingenuous.
The post McL is referencing was one of the best, well sourced and logically reasoned posts ever on BBI. I learned much reading all of the links. The sources are now bookmarked and I refer to them frequently. I think most people do not read what is linked or presented. They often admit they stop reading once they encounter a single thing they do not agree with. Everyone is in such a rush to prove they are right, or better yet, that you are wrong, that they fail to consider something new that could strengthen their beliefs or allow themselves the discovery of a paradigm changing insight by considering they might themsleves be wrong. How did admitting you are wrong about something become so rare and avoided? IE "I stopped reading once I read XXXX" Too many people turn off their ability to learn because they think they know everything. "Wisdom is the Awareness of Ignorance" Socrates There is so much I do not know about football, it is staggering.
He just seems like a very risky pick at or near the top of this draft.
Finding comparisons for Josh Allen - ( New Window )
Smart move
Don't want someone from QB bust factory USC, we need someone with his nose in the play book and not thinking of how to build a hot tub in his dorm room, and don't need a crotch grabbing bar room brawler outlaw fugitive munchkin.
I buy this to an extent, but they are picking #2.
If he has a good year this year, he's going to be the QB next year, which means if they draft a QB at #2 this year; he's likely to sit for 2 years...not 1...but 2.
Is it or is it NOT a waste spend the #2 pick on a QB that could sit for 2 years? When the team has so many holes.
Andy, it's the most important position..I think we can agree on that. And if the Giants think that's the guy to lead them at that point, you take him.
Remember, the Giants are going to try and build this thing back up...and their first pick this upcoming draft is not the end all.
They can draft a QB, continue to build the team, and have that QB take over in two/three years.
I think Shurmur has way more credible history working with QBs and offenses than Mac ever did.
Shurmur has worked with some of the best...........
McAdoo was hired early, with the idea he was the next whiz kid IMO.
Shurmur isn't that.
Quote:
the Shurmur is here so he will develop this QB or that QB into a star. A lot of people were touting McAdoo too with all the "great" stats we had in TC's last year here. Prove it first. I am not ready to annoint anyone without actual proof.
I think Shurmur has way more credible history working with QBs and offenses than Mac ever did.
Shurmur has worked with some of the best...........
McAdoo was hired early, with the idea he was the next whiz kid IMO.
Shurmur isn't that.
I really think now the Giants thought they were getting Andy Reid Part 2 in McAdoo. Green Bay connection. Someone introverted (at least publicly). West Coast offense.
Turned out to be a bust.
Smart move
Ooor...
They're looking at all the top QBs just IN CASE the Browns take Barkley at #1.
Quote:
theyre going to start looking at all the QBs the Browns like so they dont mess this thing up and draft Barkley @1.
Smart move
Ooor...
They're looking at all the top QBs just IN CASE the Browns take Barkley at #1.
Oooor....they are looking at all the top QBs because they would like to take one if he's there at #2.
And that's what gets teams into trouble. "We can fix this guy!"
Quote:
In comment 13915667 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 13915631 Torrag said:
Quote:
Best combination of tools, character and production. Really he's the only 'clean' QB prospect that checks all the boxes.
I think his work ethic deserves scrutiny. Why did he perform so poorly in the athletic testing at the combine? And if it's true that teams were disappointed with how he did on the whiteboard, what does that say? If I'm Pat Shurmer, I don't want a QB who improvises, I want one who remembers his lines and delivers them on cue.
So poorly? Weren't his athletic metrics roughly equivalent to a certain world-class tennis prodigy?
I should clarify, I mean poorly in terms of expectations. Of the two, Darnold was supposed to be head and shoulders above Rosen athletically speaking. He was expected to be bigger, stronger, faster--a veritable Steve Austin compared to Rosen. Rosen turned out to be bigger (taller, heavier, and with larger hands); their 40-times were roughly equivalent (if you go by the hand-timed number which oddly enough is considered more accurate than the official time); and Rosen bested Darnold in the three events which Gettleman cited as most telling: the vertical jump, broad jump, and short shuttle.
So the question is: is Rosen actually the better athlete or did he just do a better job of preparing for the events at the combine? I suspect it's the latter. Which I thinks speaks to both of their work ethics.
No way! Shocking that you would position this as a knock against Darnold even though you have been singing the praises of Rosen's athleticism for months.
If I could bet on the content of your posts, I'd be as wealthy as the Rosen family.
Quote:
Of the banter. What got tiresome was posters wanting a certain scenerio and presenting supporting arguments based on opinions as if they were fact.
McL
I have linked 20 or more studies and statistical analysis. Having done research, has led to a POV regarding overall team building. As recently as Wilson I was good with drafting RBs. The analytical data out there changed my mind. I daresay that none of you read the available information I linked. To say that I backed my position with only opinion is at best disingenuous.
I would also surmise that there is lots and lots and lots of data to suggest that the more complete a team is, the more successful it is.
Quote:
Who look at him and see an unrefined product but are projecting what they believe he can become with coaching. They may be saying to themselves, coach this guy up and he’s going to have the best career of them all.
And that's what gets teams into trouble. "We can fix this guy!"
No way! Shocking that you would position this as a knock against Darnold even though you have been singing the praises of Rosen's athleticism for months. If I could bet on the content of your posts, I'd be as wealthy as the Rosen family.
Second of all, I don't understand your fascination with my choice of posts. Why continually make it about me? Why not just comment on the content of what I'm saying or just not comment at all? Besides that, you're wrong. I've commented on a number of topics other than Rosen, but since the most important decision the team will be making in the very near future revolves around what they will do with the #2 pick, it shouldn't be a surprise to you or anyone that the majority of my posts are going to center around that specific topic and who I believe to be the best choice for that pick. I think you'll find that's true of just about everyone on BBI including yourself.
Quote:
In comment 13915913 sharpshooter66 said:
Quote:
theyre going to start looking at all the QBs the Browns like so they dont mess this thing up and draft Barkley @1.
Smart move
Ooor...
They're looking at all the top QBs just IN CASE the Browns take Barkley at #1.
Oooor....they are looking at all the top QBs because they would like to take one if he's there at #2.
LOL! That was what I was trying to imply.
Quote:
In comment 13915667 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 13915631 Torrag said:
Quote:
Best combination of tools, character and production. Really he's the only 'clean' QB prospect that checks all the boxes.
I think his work ethic deserves scrutiny. Why did he perform so poorly in the athletic testing at the combine? And if it's true that teams were disappointed with how he did on the whiteboard, what does that say? If I'm Pat Shurmer, I don't want a QB who improvises, I want one who remembers his lines and delivers them on cue.
So poorly? Weren't his athletic metrics roughly equivalent to a certain world-class tennis prodigy?
I should clarify, I mean poorly in terms of expectations. Of the two, Darnold was supposed to be head and shoulders above Rosen athletically speaking. He was expected to be bigger, stronger, faster--a veritable Steve Austin compared to Rosen. Rosen turned out to be bigger (taller, heavier, and with larger hands); their 40-times were roughly equivalent (if you go by the hand-timed number which oddly enough is considered more accurate than the official time); and Rosen bested Darnold in the three events which Gettleman cited as most telling: the vertical jump, broad jump, and short shuttle.
So the question is: is Rosen actually the better athlete or did he just do a better job of preparing for the events at the combine? I suspect it's the latter. Which I thinks speaks to both of their work ethics.
Quote:
In comment 13915563 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Of the banter. What got tiresome was posters wanting a certain scenerio and presenting supporting arguments based on opinions as if they were fact.
McL
I have linked 20 or more studies and statistical analysis. Having done research, has led to a POV regarding overall team building. As recently as Wilson I was good with drafting RBs. The analytical data out there changed my mind. I daresay that none of you read the available information I linked. To say that I backed my position with only opinion is at best disingenuous.
He just seems like a very risky pick at or near the top of this draft. Finding comparisons for Josh Allen - ( New Window )
Played in a freeze-option offense, which means he faced mostly man-on-man coverage and did not have to do that much reading of defenses. Generally, when he did have to read defenses, he just had to read half the field. Can still be a streaky and erratic passer. Needs work on his drop-back techniques. Still must improve timing, touch and anticipation of receiver. Tends to hold on to the ball too long and must learn when to unload. Gets sloppy with the ball at times and is very sloppy when he comes up under center to handle the exchange, leading to unnecessary fumbles. Played in a domed stadium in college and has not had to play in a lot of bad weather. Needs to work on his deep passing. May not be tough enough with his teammates and may be too nice of a guy.
Why is that interesting? Well for one, Shurmur was his QB coach for a long time. Second, McNabb only completed 54.7% of his passes in his junior year. Some of those concerns sound like Darnold and some sound like Allen. Now for the grand finale...
I'm not an asshat, I have zero sources and don't claim to. I do happen to live on the same block as Ernie Acorsi and I've seen him at a coffee shop nearby a few times. I saw him there over the weekend and decided to approach him. He seemed nice and friendly enough so I took a shot and asked him about the Giants draft plans. He said he hasn't spoken to Dave about it and he doesn't think Dave would tell him anything if he asked but he said he'd be surprised if they didn't take a quarterback. "Darnold or Allen is my guess" is what he said.
Take that FWIW. He may have been messing with me, he may have been guessing OR as I like to believe, he may have spoken to Gettlemen about this already given how close they are. For anyone curious, I live on the UES.
Quote:
In comment 13915588 Canton said:
Quote:
In comment 13915563 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Of the banter. What got tiresome was posters wanting a certain scenerio and presenting supporting arguments based on opinions as if they were fact.
McL
I have linked 20 or more studies and statistical analysis. Having done research, has led to a POV regarding overall team building. As recently as Wilson I was good with drafting RBs. The analytical data out there changed my mind. I daresay that none of you read the available information I linked. To say that I backed my position with only opinion is at best disingenuous.
The post McL is referencing was one of the best, well sourced and logically reasoned posts ever on BBI. I learned much reading all of the links. The sources are now bookmarked and I refer to them frequently. I think most people do not read what is linked or presented. They often admit they stop reading once they encounter a single thing they do not agree with. Everyone is in such a rush to prove they are right, or better yet, that you are wrong, that they fail to consider something new that could strengthen their beliefs or allow themselves the discovery of a paradigm changing insight by considering they might themsleves be wrong. How did admitting you are wrong about something become so rare and avoided? IE "I stopped reading once I read XXXX" Too many people turn off their ability to learn because they think they know everything. "Wisdom is the Awareness of Ignorance" Socrates There is so much I do not know about football, it is staggering.
Thank You!