He thinks its "inevitable" and that the Giants want to be a run first team again, and he's the "overwhelming" choice per Giants brass from sources he's talked to around the league.
Lots of smoke here.. too much so that its a smoke screen?... 8 days to go.
Barber was the only reason they were even 8-8. It was probably a 4-5 win team without him.
You can find great players on bad teams pretty easily throughout history. It's still a team sport and if most of the team sucks, you're not going anywhere.
Quote:
Tiki Barber was the face of the Giants, the best player on the Giants, and the offense most certainly went through him. And the Giants finished 8-8. A year later, with a couple of Day 3 RBs sharing the load in place of Tiki, the Giants won the Super Bowl.
Milton: This is really a fantastic post (I'm being serious). When Indy had Faulk, they were amongst the worst teams in the league. When we had Tiki, we never advanced past the wildcard round. It was not until Eli came into his own that we made our move and won SBs. And we did it - ironically enough - the year after our franchise RB retired.
What people seem to be missing here is that unlike the early 2000s, when there was no rookie cap, is the cap advantage to picking a QB. If you pick a QB early and hit, you get huge cap savings. If you pick a RB and hit, you are still paying that RB top 5 RB money. Simply put, there is no reason to pick a RB early in the draft, unless you think he is the last piece to a contending team (like the Jags thought last season with Fournette).
I could not agree with both of these posts more. I will also add, we would have to be really lucky for Barkley to ever be as good as Tiki was from 2002-2006.
Quote:
Barkley was a more productive pass catcher in college than Bell was @ MSU. Now Bell is the best pass catching/two-way RB in the league.
I don't think Barkley is overrated in the pass game at all.
So? College doesn’t equal pros. Barkley won’t sniff Bell’s production in the pros.
Barber was the only reason they were even 8-8. It was probably a 4-5 win team without him.
You can find great players on bad teams pretty easily throughout history. It's still a team sport and if most of the team sucks, you're not going anywhere.
Ding ding. Exactly. The Giants were only 8-8 because they had a back like Barber.
All of the other prospects have been debated endlessly but Barkleys name has been at the top this whole process, as DG says, lets not get cute, lets go the easy way here and start stacking this roster with great players to go with OBJ and Collins.
All of the other prospects have been debated endlessly but Barkleys name has been at the top this whole process, as DG says, lets not get cute, lets go the easy way here and start stacking this roster with great players to go with OBJ and Collins.
+1
Quote:
The 2006 Giants just weren't a good football team. Barber was one of the only bright spots. The defense sucked and that team had no business playing a playoff game.
Barber was the only reason they were even 8-8. It was probably a 4-5 win team without him.
You can find great players on bad teams pretty easily throughout history. It's still a team sport and if most of the team sucks, you're not going anywhere.
Ding ding. Exactly. The Giants were only 8-8 because they had a back like Barber.
are you kidding with this? The Giants completely underachieved in 2006, whatever the reason the talent was not 8-8. You cannot look at one year to the next because the turnover is great in the NFL from season to season and I know the Giants did well with the draft in 2007, but it was not a bad roster, by any stretch. Many people thought after we went 6-2 when we beat Dallas in Tony Romo's first game we were headed to the Super Bowl in 2006. The wheels came off and it was largely because the coach lost the team. He also came within a whisker of being fired at the end of 06, so to say that that was 4-5 win team is absurd.
Maybe just maybe DG and the Giants see big dents in those cans re:QBs in this draft,and feel the shiny toy is a much better option?
Quote:
I can see us going for the shiny new toy to provide instant excitment for the fan base. Its kicking the can down the road re: a QB tho...
Maybe just maybe DG and the Giants see big dents in those cans re:QBs in this draft,and feel the shiny toy is a much better option?
Wait, what? You mean Josh Rosen isn’t really the greatest QB prospect in the history of the NFL? (Sarcasm off).
Quote:
I can see us going for the shiny new toy to provide instant excitment for the fan base. Its kicking the can down the road re: a QB tho...
Maybe just maybe DG and the Giants see big dents in those cans re:QBs in this draft,and feel the shiny toy is a much better option?
I want a qb, but have no issue with the Giants not taking one if that is what they believe based on their scouting. I do think, though, that you can avoid taking a qb and improve our long term prospects much more by trading down and getting a guy like Nelson. Honestly, and maybe I am wrong, but if forced to pick at 2, I would just go Nelson because he could be good for 15 years. Both a RB and a Guard shouldn't be drafted at 2 and we should trade down, but if I had to go in one direction there I would just take the Guard because his football career will be much longer and he has a much better chance at contributing when we have come close to rebuilding the roster. I would also point out, that I would take Barkley if Eli was 31-32 and see where the chips fall, but the fact that we have to replace him in two years combined with the fact that we have an incomplete offensive line makes the Barkley pick not very smart.
Quote:
In comment 13919100 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
The 2006 Giants just weren't a good football team. Barber was one of the only bright spots. The defense sucked and that team had no business playing a playoff game.
Barber was the only reason they were even 8-8. It was probably a 4-5 win team without him.
You can find great players on bad teams pretty easily throughout history. It's still a team sport and if most of the team sucks, you're not going anywhere.
Ding ding. Exactly. The Giants were only 8-8 because they had a back like Barber.
are you kidding with this? The Giants completely underachieved in 2006, whatever the reason the talent was not 8-8. You cannot look at one year to the next because the turnover is great in the NFL from season to season and I know the Giants did well with the draft in 2007, but it was not a bad roster, by any stretch. Many people thought after we went 6-2 when we beat Dallas in Tony Romo's first game we were headed to the Super Bowl in 2006. The wheels came off and it was largely because the coach lost the team. He also came within a whisker of being fired at the end of 06, so to say that that was 4-5 win team is absurd.
No, it isn't absurd at all.
Michael Strahan missed 7 games in 2006, Osi missed 5, Tuck missed 10. All 3 of those guys were MASSIVE reasons why we won the Super Bowl the next year.
Having those guys healthy + the 2007 draft and signing a guy like Kawika Mitchell made that defense much, much better.
It was garbage in 2006. That team wasn't good.
And this was also before Corey Webster broke out. He was still struggling mightily at this point.
Quote:
In comment 13919103 UESBLUE said:
Quote:
I can see us going for the shiny new toy to provide instant excitment for the fan base. Its kicking the can down the road re: a QB tho...
Maybe just maybe DG and the Giants see big dents in those cans re:QBs in this draft,and feel the shiny toy is a much better option?
I want a qb, but have no issue with the Giants not taking one if that is what they believe based on their scouting. I do think, though, that you can avoid taking a qb and improve our long term prospects much more by trading down and getting a guy like Nelson. Honestly, and maybe I am wrong, but if forced to pick at 2, I would just go Nelson because he could be good for 15 years. Both a RB and a Guard shouldn't be drafted at 2 and we should trade down, but if I had to go in one direction there I would just take the Guard because his football career will be much longer and he has a much better chance at contributing when we have come close to rebuilding the roster. I would also point out, that I would take Barkley if Eli was 31-32 and see where the chips fall, but the fact that we have to replace him in two years combined with the fact that we have an incomplete offensive line makes the Barkley pick not very smart.
No player is a sure thing, including Nelson. He’s just as risky as Barkley, and could be a worse value at that pick. In terms of our offensive line, the left side has been solidified, and Jones was respectable at Center late last year. There are a ton of good guards that can be taken in round 2 or 3. The only real question mark is RT where our buddy Flowers is sitting right now. This is where we have to trust Gettleman and his reputation for being excellent at finding offensive lineman in late rounds and even as UDFA. Bill Polian noted on NFL Radio a few weeks ago that Gettleman was one of the best off line evaluators in the league.
Quote:
In comment 13919110 Brown Recluse said:
Quote:
In comment 13919100 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
The 2006 Giants just weren't a good football team. Barber was one of the only bright spots. The defense sucked and that team had no business playing a playoff game.
Barber was the only reason they were even 8-8. It was probably a 4-5 win team without him.
You can find great players on bad teams pretty easily throughout history. It's still a team sport and if most of the team sucks, you're not going anywhere.
Ding ding. Exactly. The Giants were only 8-8 because they had a back like Barber.
are you kidding with this? The Giants completely underachieved in 2006, whatever the reason the talent was not 8-8. You cannot look at one year to the next because the turnover is great in the NFL from season to season and I know the Giants did well with the draft in 2007, but it was not a bad roster, by any stretch. Many people thought after we went 6-2 when we beat Dallas in Tony Romo's first game we were headed to the Super Bowl in 2006. The wheels came off and it was largely because the coach lost the team. He also came within a whisker of being fired at the end of 06, so to say that that was 4-5 win team is absurd.
No, it isn't absurd at all.
Michael Strahan missed 7 games in 2006, Osi missed 5, Tuck missed 10. All 3 of those guys were MASSIVE reasons why we won the Super Bowl the next year.
Having those guys healthy + the 2007 draft and signing a guy like Kawika Mitchell made that defense much, much better.
It was garbage in 2006. That team wasn't good.
Our offense still had the Oline that would go on to dominate for years, we had Plax and Toomer, we had Shockey at Tight end and Tiki in the backfield. Our defesne definitely had some issues and if I remember correctly Strahan came back at the end of the year (I have a vivid memory of him in the Saints game), but to act like that was a four win roster is crazy.
Quote:
In comment 13919122 Essex said:
Quote:
In comment 13919110 Brown Recluse said:
Quote:
In comment 13919100 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
The 2006 Giants just weren't a good football team. Barber was one of the only bright spots. The defense sucked and that team had no business playing a playoff game.
Barber was the only reason they were even 8-8. It was probably a 4-5 win team without him.
You can find great players on bad teams pretty easily throughout history. It's still a team sport and if most of the team sucks, you're not going anywhere.
Ding ding. Exactly. The Giants were only 8-8 because they had a back like Barber.
are you kidding with this? The Giants completely underachieved in 2006, whatever the reason the talent was not 8-8. You cannot look at one year to the next because the turnover is great in the NFL from season to season and I know the Giants did well with the draft in 2007, but it was not a bad roster, by any stretch. Many people thought after we went 6-2 when we beat Dallas in Tony Romo's first game we were headed to the Super Bowl in 2006. The wheels came off and it was largely because the coach lost the team. He also came within a whisker of being fired at the end of 06, so to say that that was 4-5 win team is absurd.
No, it isn't absurd at all.
Michael Strahan missed 7 games in 2006, Osi missed 5, Tuck missed 10. All 3 of those guys were MASSIVE reasons why we won the Super Bowl the next year.
Having those guys healthy + the 2007 draft and signing a guy like Kawika Mitchell made that defense much, much better.
It was garbage in 2006. That team wasn't good.
Our offense still had the Oline that would go on to dominate for years, we had Plax and Toomer, we had Shockey at Tight end and Tiki in the backfield. Our defesne definitely had some issues and if I remember correctly Strahan came back at the end of the year (I have a vivid memory of him in the Saints game), but to act like that was a four win roster is crazy.
The team chemistry in 2006 on top of all of the injuries was very poor. You had Shockey bitching about getting the ball more, Tiki not backing Eli, and a young QB who was still developing in Eli. They were very much a 5-6 win team I would say without some Barber heroics.
Not sure how that logic really makes any sense.
The 2007 team winning the Super Bowl doesn't mean the 2006 team was good.
Look at the Panthers the last 5 years. It happens.
No LBs, defense was soft in bigger games.
Quote:
In comment 13919122 Essex said:
Quote:
In comment 13919110 Brown Recluse said:
Quote:
In comment 13919100 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
The 2006 Giants just weren't a good football team. Barber was one of the only bright spots. The defense sucked and that team had no business playing a playoff game.
Barber was the only reason they were even 8-8. It was probably a 4-5 win team without him.
You can find great players on bad teams pretty easily throughout history. It's still a team sport and if most of the team sucks, you're not going anywhere.
Ding ding. Exactly. The Giants were only 8-8 because they had a back like Barber.
are you kidding with this? The Giants completely underachieved in 2006, whatever the reason the talent was not 8-8. You cannot look at one year to the next because the turnover is great in the NFL from season to season and I know the Giants did well with the draft in 2007, but it was not a bad roster, by any stretch. Many people thought after we went 6-2 when we beat Dallas in Tony Romo's first game we were headed to the Super Bowl in 2006. The wheels came off and it was largely because the coach lost the team. He also came within a whisker of being fired at the end of 06, so to say that that was 4-5 win team is absurd.
No, it isn't absurd at all.
Michael Strahan missed 7 games in 2006, Osi missed 5, Tuck missed 10. All 3 of those guys were MASSIVE reasons why we won the Super Bowl the next year.
Having those guys healthy + the 2007 draft and signing a guy like Kawika Mitchell made that defense much, much better.
It was garbage in 2006. That team wasn't good.
Our offense still had the Oline that would go on to dominate for years, we had Plax and Toomer, we had Shockey at Tight end and Tiki in the backfield. Our defesne definitely had some issues and if I remember correctly Strahan came back at the end of the year (I have a vivid memory of him in the Saints game), but to act like that was a four win roster is crazy.
You're wrong actually. We had Tim freaking Carter for half the season. Losing Toomer was a huge blow.
Just look at the offensive production in 2006:
Tiki Barber had QUADRUPLE the yardage that anyone else had on that offense besides Plaxico.
Barber 2217 yards
Burress 988 yards
Shockey 623 yards
Jacobs 572 yards
Toomer 360 yards
Carter 253 yards
I hope you are right. Eli’s got a lot more left in his tank than his brother had the last few years in Denver. He’s not done.
Not sure how that logic really makes any sense.
The 2007 team winning the Super Bowl doesn't mean the 2006 team was good.
Look at the Panthers the last 5 years. It happens.
If your point is that we would have been a better team in 2007 with Tiki Barber than without him. I agree with that 100%. However, another point I am making is that a generational RB and if you look at Tiki's production from 2002-2006 he was pretty darn close to HOF caliber, doesn't really help put you where you need to be. My only criticism of that post was that it was not a 4-5 win roster. If it was, TC would not have been in such jeopardy. We found ways to lose games, most notably that Titan game when were up by like 21 points in the fourth quarter and lost. I can still see TC yelling at Kiwanuka on that bs personal foul.
Quote:
So, they were 8-8 with Barber being their best player and a shit ton of injuries - but if Barber wasn't on the team that year, they wouldn't have won less games?
Not sure how that logic really makes any sense.
The 2007 team winning the Super Bowl doesn't mean the 2006 team was good.
Look at the Panthers the last 5 years. It happens.
If your point is that we would have been a better team in 2007 with Tiki Barber than without him. I agree with that 100%. However, another point I am making is that a generational RB and if you look at Tiki's production from 2002-2006 he was pretty darn close to HOF caliber, doesn't really help put you where you need to be. My only criticism of that post was that it was not a 4-5 win roster. If it was, TC would not have been in such jeopardy. We found ways to lose games, most notably that Titan game when were up by like 21 points in the fourth quarter and lost. I can still see TC yelling at Kiwanuka on that bs personal foul.
TC was under pressure because this is NY. It’s the same reason he’s not our coach today. The leash is shorter here than it is with many other organizations. It’s the same reason half the fan base is trying to push Eli out of town even though he hasn’t had the tools around him to be successful for the last few years.
But Eli cant throw swing passes or screens, so that cuts half of the value that Barkley brings.
Quote:
In comment 13919004 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Barkley was a more productive pass catcher in college than Bell was @ MSU. Now Bell is the best pass catching/two-way RB in the league.
I don't think Barkley is overrated in the pass game at all.
So? College doesn’t equal pros. Barkley won’t sniff Bell’s production in the pros.
See bullshit like this is what makes arguments against him spurious. You can't know that, no one can, so you are using a thing you have predicted to back a point? Are you really that stupid?
Based on what I’ve seen of Barkley and the fact that Bell is hands down the best back in the NFL, yes he won’t sniff Bell’s production. I think it’s a pretty safe bet a rookie RB won’t come in and out perform the best RB in the league.
Quote:
In comment 13919024 WillVAB said:
Quote:
In comment 13919004 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Barkley was a more productive pass catcher in college than Bell was @ MSU. Now Bell is the best pass catching/two-way RB in the league.
I don't think Barkley is overrated in the pass game at all.
So? College doesn’t equal pros. Barkley won’t sniff Bell’s production in the pros.
See bullshit like this is what makes arguments against him spurious. You can't know that, no one can, so you are using a thing you have predicted to back a point? Are you really that stupid?
Based on what I’ve seen of Barkley and the fact that Bell is hands down the best back in the NFL, yes he won’t sniff Bell’s production. I think it’s a pretty safe bet a rookie RB won’t come in and out perform the best RB in the league.
The way your post read it sounded more like he won’t be as good from a career standpoint, not just his rookie year. Barkley looks damn good, he may never hit Bell’s stats, but I wouldn’t say he couldn’t come close or has no chance. He’s got more speed than Bell. Bell has some mileage on him too, MSU ran that guy over 40x per game on multiple occasions. It’s likely one of the main reasons the Steelers don’t want to give him mega dollars.
Quote:
one thing about Barkey as a number of BBIers, including SY, have pointed out...he's two players in one. The guy is like having an extra WR on the field.
But Eli cant throw swing passes or screens, so that cuts half of the value that Barkley brings.
No it doesnt. Please make it stop. Eli did fine throwing to Tiki Barber and just a few years ago Jennings and Vereen combined for almost 800 yards recieving. The problem wasn't *entirely* Eli. Maybe he's not an "All Pro RB Passer" but, we haven't had any backs who were that good at running routes besudes Barber and Vereen.
Quote:
In comment 13918880 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
one thing about Barkey as a number of BBIers, including SY, have pointed out...he's two players in one. The guy is like having an extra WR on the field.
But Eli cant throw swing passes or screens, so that cuts half of the value that Barkley brings.
No it doesnt. Please make it stop. Eli did fine throwing to Tiki Barber and just a few years ago Jennings and Vereen combined for almost 800 yards recieving. The problem wasn't *entirely* Eli. Maybe he's not an "All Pro RB Passer" but, we haven't had any backs who were that good at running routes besudes Barber and Vereen.
Vereen, what a waste of money, he looked like he had lead shoes on as soon as he got the ball in his hands. I’ll never forget the one perfectly executed screen pass to Jennings either where he caught it, turned around and just dropped the ball on the ground.
Be nice if he was more like an extra Offensive Lineman
Wilson ran tough... lowering his head and initiating contact...I don't see Barkley doing that... which is why he'll last a long time in this league.
Pretty sad, and if you read this board for a few hours you would think Josh Rosen was the next Peyton Manning or Tom Brady.
No more ridiculous than the comparisons to Barry Sanders his drooling fans constantly make.
Barkley isn't just sent out as an outlet receiver. Penn State threw him VERTICALLY down the field with great success.
Quote:
to the point in the draft process where Saquon Barkley is compared to David Wilson. I thought it would never arrive but I should have known
No more ridiculous than the comparisons to Barry Sanders his drooling fans constantly make.
This was a comparison I didn't get when I saw it. I don't see anything similar to Sanders in ability or style. I haven't seen a RB close to Sanders before or since. That guy was like a god.
If he goes #2, he'll begin his career as the 4th highest paid RB in the league
https://twitter.com/JustinFreeman18/status/986632734142550017
He can return kicks as well :)
I wouldn’t want to do that....and don’t want him at 2
I wouldn’t want to do that....and don’t want him at 2
I'm fairly certain the fifth year option is based on the average of the position.
It won't be 18-20, but by the time it comes up it'll be over $10 million.
Barkley isn't just sent out as an outlet receiver. Penn State threw him VERTICALLY down the field with great success.
This is an overstatement.
Great success? Let's look at a few plays.
Play #1: slot right isolated vs a linebacker 9-McCray; gets easy separation despite a clumsy route; bobbles an easy catch into a near-drop
Play #2: wheel route vs. 9-McCray. wide open bc the #1 receiver picks the linebacker. drop.
Play #3: wheel route vs. iowa LB 41-Bower. same concept as above, opposite side of the field, this time 12-Godwin setting the pick. Barkley catches this one for a TD
Barkley TD vs Iowa
____
Obviously his open field speed pops on tape, but these examples don't show a dominant vertical receiver. They show inferior defensive design, perhaps two OPIs, and some shaky ball skills.
Things will not be that easy in the NFL. Saquon has the movement skills to *potentially* be a Le'Veon Bell-type mismatch but he's not nearly there yet.
As an underneath screen / checkdown / option route RB, he will certainly do some damage early. Hopefully he can impact like Alvin Kamara
Alvin vs Rams - 2:28 option route vs Barron / 2:52 makes our own Alex Ogletree look like an actual tree
Kamara was a 3rd rd pick, btw
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/2017/10/saquon_barkleys_five_plays_vs.html (scroll down to #5)
44 yd TD vs Iowa
https://www.landof10.com/penn-state/not-satisfied-saquon-barkley-wants-more-monster-day-with-iowa
So with bell, Zeke, Gurley signing long term deals soon....maybe 13-15
Quote:
Barkley will be the face of the team and the league we will build our team around.
What was the last team to win a Super Bowl that was built around a RB? Barry Sanders was the face of the Lions back in the 90's, how far did that get them? More recently, Adrian Peterson was the face of the Vikings, how far did that get them?
Can you name any players other than Lomas Brown, Herman Moore, Mel Gray & Chris Spielman who played w/ Sanders his whole career?In Sanders' 10 year career Brown, Moore, Eddie Murray, punting legend Jim Arnold, Mel Gray were the only other Lions to be All Pros. Gray & Moore were 3 times, the others once. Just a slight chance that the reason the Lions went nowhere was that the rest of his teams sucked royally.