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.
and Friday it will be Allen
The carousel goes round and round...
And on BBI, we will have endless threads from all the posters who think the Giants know less about the prospects than them.
That will be even more tedious than this.
-Fills a need
-Helps the offensive line
-Addresses offense
-Supports Eli's final run
-Franchise player to build with if OBJ leaves
-Justified as the 2nd overall pick
Does anyone think Barkley isnt anywhere near as good as he is said to be?
It helps them look better though. So people will Think they are better.
I don't.
p.s.--Has Ed Witten offered up an opinion yet on the draft?...
Nobody is more in the know than Ed Witten - ( New Window )
The Barkley prediction may have a better chance of coming true. But McShay is too inclined to hype the certainty of whatever he is predicting to put too much stock in it.
-Fills a need
-Helps the offensive line
-Addresses offense
-Supports Eli's final run
-Franchise player to build with if OBJ leaves
-Justified as the 2nd overall pick
Barkley is a no-brainer with our huge leadership and character hole amongst our young players.
Barkley will be the face of the team and the league we will build our team around and will revitalize the NFL's flagship team and the league that Reese, Mara, and Goodell wrecked.
You really think this guy is just making shit up?
A strong running game will help pass blocking schemes.
Quote:
...and somehow McShay has a pipeline into them as well. C'mon.
You really think this guy is just making shit up?
There's a difference between just making something up and coming to conclusions based on other reporters' work. McShay likely falls into the latter camp. When has he ever nailed a Giants pick? His final mock from last year on draft day is brutal. He gets Garrett and Fournette right and swings and misses on everything else. I would expect him to get at least more than 2 of the first 7-8 picks right.. Watson was his 1st QB off the board and yet he was the third in the actual draft.
McShay's final 2017 mock - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
+1
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?
He will take us a hell of a lot further than an injured Rosen. Take Rudolph in round 2 and let him and Webb fight it out to be Elis successor in a few years.
Quote:
This is beyond unbearable... the draft can't get here soon enough.
+2
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?
Big Bens first super bowl against the Seahawks. Ben was awful that year and that offense was centered around Bettis and Parker. Hell even the team on the otherside (Seahawks) were built around Alexander.
If NYG thinks Barkley can be an elite RB, there's nothing wrong with taking him @ 2.
ARZ had pitiful QB play this year, but their poor season also had a lot to do with losing David Johnson in Week 1.
Bell does so much for the PIT offense. If Barkley can be on that level, I'm good with taking him.
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?
Lewis, Bettis, Faulk, Rice, dunn/alstott?
Quote:
In comment 13918813 Coach Red Beaulieu said:
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?
Lewis, Bettis, Faulk, Rice, dunn/alstott?
You mean Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson werent superstar QBs? Lol
Lewis, Bettis, Faulk, Rice, dunn/alstott?
If I thought that Barkley was the missing piece to a championship I would have no concerns about drafting him.
But,I fear that the Giants are years away from a championship.
I don't want to over emphasize the fact that running backs have a short career. Not only do running backs have short careers, but, statistically they peak after (4) years or at age 26.
Running backs come with injury risks that are disproportionately higher than other positions.
This applies to all running backs not named Emmett Smith. Even great running backs start to decline after (4) years. In the new age of football there are very few running backs who run for over 1,000 yards and who are over 30.
Look and see how many first round running backs have signed their second contracts with the same team.
Take Laveon Bell for example, Pittsburgh is not inclined to give him a long term contract. Pittsburgh is concerned that Bell has an injury history and may start to see a decline in his performance. It is likely we have seen the best of Bell yet he wants to be compensated based upon his past.
So if the Giants do not win within the next 1-2 years, they will find themselves in the precarious position of looking to rebuild without the prospect of a franchise QB.
Some horrible misses like Had Corey Davis at 18 and he went 5, Had OJ Howard at 6 and went 19, Had John Ross at 9 went 3.
In 2016 he was 1 of 8 in top 10 in final mock as top 2 were already known.
So clearly McShay has no history of inside knowledge.
This also tells us that what the media is saying isnt really on track.
That's it. Remember we have unknowns after OBJ and SS.
@WBG84
According to Mike Freeman, most NFL sources he has spoken with believe the #Giants will take a QB with the No. 2 overall pick, or trade out of the spot and take a quarterback lower in the first round.
Per Freeman, most teams don't buy the Giants not taking a QB. #GiantsPride
Does anyone think Barkley isnt anywhere near as good as he is said to be?
Me.. i think he is over hyped, He runs soft which will limit him in the NFL IMO
Quote:
Faulk was the best player on the 99 Rams. Hands down.
He was a great player, so was Kurt Warner, so was Torry Holt. But that's not the point. He wasn't the face of the team and while he surely played a major role in the success of the offense, it was not built around him. You don't win the NFL building your team around a RB.
That team absolutely WAS built around him. He was their best player and touched the ball more than anyone else did.
Whether or not you want to call him the "face" of the team is really irrelevant, honestly.
He wasn't just the best player on the Rams that year, he was probably the best player in football. He was offensive player of the year and should have been MVP too.
He rushed for over 1300 yards, averaged 5.5 yards a carry and he also caught 87 balls for over 1000 yards.
Quote:
Would be mad if Barkley was the pick. Maybe you do really want a QB, or this guy, or that guy, whatever... but you cant be mad at having Barkley on this team.
Does anyone think Barkley isnt anywhere near as good as he is said to be?
Me.. i think he is over hyped, He runs soft which will limit him in the NFL IMO
He carved up Michigan.
Whether or not you want to call him the "face" of the team is really irrelevant, honestly.
Quote:
He was their best player and touched the ball more than anyone else did.
Whether or not you want to call him the "face" of the team is really irrelevant, honestly.
a) He didn't touch the ball more than Kurt Warner (or Andy McCollum for that matter) and calling him the face of the team is hardly irrelevant since that was what I was responding to and why the only two examples I could think of were Barry Sanders and Adrian Peterson, both of whom fit the criteria of "face of the organization" and "offense built around them."
Faulk was as QB friendly a player in 1999 as has ever existed in this league. Replace him with a JAG and Warner doesn't see anywhere near the same level of success nor do they win the Super Bowl.
I don't think it's even debatable that Faulk was the best player on that team or that the offense went through him.
A season like that was basically unprecedented for a running back in 1999.
You can spin this however you'd like - I know it's going to make its way back to Josh Rosen somehow. But you're diminishing Marshall Faulk's 99 season in a big way here.
and that has me torn be because Barkley is the guy I really want with the #2 pick, but I cant help but think giants are manufacturing this message to try and force browns into passing on Darnold.
All of a sudden the Giants plugged all the leaks and are sending out false information.
Not likely
He was ridiculously good in 2000 and 2001 too.
He scored 26 times in 2000.
A great player can be a difference maker at virtually any position. I think people who want to force picks because of positions are going in the wrong direction.
If Barkley is as good as advertised, there's nothing wrong with drafting him @ 2.
I don't think it's even debatable that Faulk was the best player on that team or that the offense went through him.
A season like that was basically unprecedented for a running back in 1999.
You can spin this however you'd like - I know it's going to make its way back to Josh Rosen somehow. But you're diminishing Marshall Faulk's 99 season in a big way here.
1999: Led the NFL in YPC (5.5), and scrimmage yards (2429), caught 87 passes for 1048 yards as a running back
2000: Led the NFL in YPC (5.4), and total TD's with 26. He did this in 14 games
2001: Led the NFL in YPC (5.3), rush YPG (98.3), and total TD's (21)
If a player can do things like this as a running back or anything close to this, he's worthy of the 2nd overall pick. You don't pass on this just because he isn't a QB.
I don't know if Barkley will or won't be this good. But if the Giants believe he will be, they should draft him.
But Warner was far and away at his best in StL - with Faulk.
His receiving ability is overrated.
I don't think Barkley is overrated in the pass game at all.
Quote:
In comment 13918913 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
He was their best player and touched the ball more than anyone else did.
Whether or not you want to call him the "face" of the team is really irrelevant, honestly.
a) He didn't touch the ball more than Kurt Warner (or Andy McCollum for that matter) and calling him the face of the team is hardly irrelevant since that was what I was responding to and why the only two examples I could think of were Barry Sanders and Adrian Peterson, both of whom fit the criteria of "face of the organization" and "offense built around them."
Faulk was as QB friendly a player in 1999 as has ever existed in this league. Replace him with a JAG and Warner doesn't see anywhere near the same level of success nor do they win the Super Bowl.
I don't think it's even debatable that Faulk was the best player on that team or that the offense went through him.
A season like that was basically unprecedented for a running back in 1999.
You can spin this however you'd like - I know it's going to make its way back to Josh Rosen somehow. But you're diminishing Marshall Faulk's 99 season in a big way here.
Tory Holt and Isaac Bruce were elite talents. The entire WR corps was stacked at that time. Sick OL as well.
Faulk was an excellent player but lets not rewrite history as if he carried the Rams back then.
Warner was fantastic - not debating that at all. I just always felt like Faulk was the focal point of those high-octane Rams offenses. He was the cog that made everything else spin.
Sanders and Peterson both spent most of their careers playing with really crappy QB's. So, naturally the entire offense had to go through them because there was no other option.
Faulk would have been the same story in Detroit or Minnesota.
My only point is that I wouldn't force a QB pick if they think Barkley is the best player in the draft.
I don't know what the Giants think or don't think - I just don't think they should pass on Barkley if he's as highly-graded as some think.
Quote:
In comment 13918925 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 13918913 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
He was their best player and touched the ball more than anyone else did.
Whether or not you want to call him the "face" of the team is really irrelevant, honestly.
a) He didn't touch the ball more than Kurt Warner (or Andy McCollum for that matter) and calling him the face of the team is hardly irrelevant since that was what I was responding to and why the only two examples I could think of were Barry Sanders and Adrian Peterson, both of whom fit the criteria of "face of the organization" and "offense built around them."
Faulk was as QB friendly a player in 1999 as has ever existed in this league. Replace him with a JAG and Warner doesn't see anywhere near the same level of success nor do they win the Super Bowl.
I don't think it's even debatable that Faulk was the best player on that team or that the offense went through him.
A season like that was basically unprecedented for a running back in 1999.
You can spin this however you'd like - I know it's going to make its way back to Josh Rosen somehow. But you're diminishing Marshall Faulk's 99 season in a big way here.
Tory Holt and Isaac Bruce were elite talents. The entire WR corps was stacked at that time. Sick OL as well.
Faulk was an excellent player but lets not rewrite history as if he carried the Rams back then.
Didn't say that.
I said he was the best player on the team that year. He was probably the best player in all of football.
That doesn't mean Holt, Bruce, Hakim or even Prohel had no impact - of course they did. They were stacked offensively.
But Faulk was probably the least-replaceable player.
I don't think Barkley is overrated in the pass game at all.
So? College doesnt equal pros. Barkley wont sniff Bells production in the pros.
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 doesnt equal pros. Barkley wont sniff Bells production in the pros.
Yes, so many people knew that Bell would be the player he is now coming out that he was drafted 48th overall.
Cmon, there's absolutely no way to know this right now. It's an opinion being framed as a fact.
Quote:
In comment 13918936 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 13918925 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 13918913 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
He was their best player and touched the ball more than anyone else did.
Whether or not you want to call him the "face" of the team is really irrelevant, honestly.
a) He didn't touch the ball more than Kurt Warner (or Andy McCollum for that matter) and calling him the face of the team is hardly irrelevant since that was what I was responding to and why the only two examples I could think of were Barry Sanders and Adrian Peterson, both of whom fit the criteria of "face of the organization" and "offense built around them."
Faulk was as QB friendly a player in 1999 as has ever existed in this league. Replace him with a JAG and Warner doesn't see anywhere near the same level of success nor do they win the Super Bowl.
I don't think it's even debatable that Faulk was the best player on that team or that the offense went through him.
A season like that was basically unprecedented for a running back in 1999.
You can spin this however you'd like - I know it's going to make its way back to Josh Rosen somehow. But you're diminishing Marshall Faulk's 99 season in a big way here.
Tory Holt and Isaac Bruce were elite talents. The entire WR corps was stacked at that time. Sick OL as well.
Faulk was an excellent player but lets not rewrite history as if he carried the Rams back then.
Didn't say that.
I said he was the best player on the team that year. He was probably the best player in all of football.
That doesn't mean Holt, Bruce, Hakim or even Prohel had no impact - of course they did. They were stacked offensively.
But Faulk was probably the least-replaceable player.
Arc is right. What you have to remember with a dual threat like Faulk and Barkley is that its not just what they rack up in terms of stats, its the threat/decoy effect. If you have a guy like that in the backfield to worry about you cant drop six guys into coverage all the time and have the other 5 tee off on the QB. This is the crap that Eli has been dealing with for 6 years now. Teams know they dont have to fear a running game so they cover everyone downfield and tee off on Eli with a base four or five guys. A guy like Barkley opens up so many options for an offense and takes an immense amount of pressure off of a QB.
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 doesnt equal pros. Barkley wont sniff Bells production in the pros.
Yes, so many people knew that Bell would be the player he is now coming out that he was drafted 48th overall.
Cmon, there's absolutely no way to know this right now. It's an opinion being framed as a fact.
The opinion being framed as fact is the commentary surrounding Barkley. Theres way too many people acting as if its a given Barkley will be a HoF back in the NFL. I dont think he will be.
But obviously until he is, it's just a guess.
All I am saying is that if the team has come to the conclusion that this is a truly special player, they shouldn't pass on him just because he's a running back.
It's "easy" at the college level to get outside and be gone, but not in the NFL. He has to be able to run inside, with power, and absorb the wear and tear. Big jump in that respect in the NFL.
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 doesnt equal pros. Barkley wont sniff Bells production in the pros.
Yes, so many people knew that Bell would be the player he is now coming out that he was drafted 48th overall.
Cmon, there's absolutely no way to know this right now. It's an opinion being framed as a fact.
The opinion being framed as fact is the commentary surrounding Barkley. Theres way too many people acting as if its a given Barkley will be a HoF back in the NFL. I dont think he will be.
Come on with this tripe. No one is saying its a given. Some of you love to twist things around to try and improve your argument. All thats ever been said is that he checks off the boxes and has that kind of ability.
But obviously until he is, it's just a guess.
All I am saying is that if the team has come to the conclusion that this is a truly special player, they shouldn't pass on him just because he's a running back.
And you are correct. The Rosen fan club cant bear the thought of drafting anyone else. I just want us to take an excellent player regardless of position and not take a QB just to say we took one, ignoring injury histories, etc.
My only point is that I wouldn't force a QB pick if they think Barkley is the best player in the draft.
In terms of top end speed, yes. But I never witnessed Wilson change direction at full speed the way this guy does. This guy breaks ankles.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
My only point is that I wouldn't force a QB pick if they think Barkley is the best player in the draft.
I wouldn't force a QB pick either, but positional value is a very real consideration. So I would switch the semantics from best player to most valuable player available. So if you have a higher grade on a RB than you do a QB, but both grades are Pro Bowl level, you probably want to draft the QB over the RB if you have a need at both positions.
I don't disagree - I am not against them taking a QB at all. If they love one of these QB's take him. Obviously it's the more important position and more difficult to fill.
Im not sure a pound and ground runner is a good fit with a line in transition. We may be better off with a dual threat guy like Barkley that has the ability to create vs a back who relies on strong blocking like Fournette at this stage.
Quote:
Which says both good and bad things about him.
I've been thinking the same thing, but was afraid to post for fear of the abuse I would take. He's kind of a rich man's David Wilson.
Except he runs routes and catches like a WR and has instincts as a running back. Wilson was basically a kick returner.
87 catche's and 1000 yds is a good slot receiver #s. Basic geometry dictates a good shifty receiver in the middle of the formation is virtually unstoppable. It will be like having Steve Smith and the 2008 Giants offense, the best Giants offense I ever seen.
Quote:
In comment 13919064 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Which says both good and bad things about him.
I've been thinking the same thing, but was afraid to post for fear of the abuse I would take. He's kind of a rich man's David Wilson.
Except he runs routes and catches like a WR and has instincts as a running back. Wilson was basically a kick returner.
And Wilson couldnt hold onto the football, which got him in TCs doghouse early.
Barkley is an incredible athlete in his own right - but I don't see the same over-reliance on that.
I liked David Wilson more than most - but I think he had a relatively low football IQ.
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).
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 doesnt equal pros. Barkley wont sniff Bells 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 isnt 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. Hes 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. Elis got a lot more left in his tank than his brother had the last few years in Denver. Hes 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. Its the same reason hes not our coach today. The leash is shorter here than it is with many other organizations. Its the same reason half the fan base is trying to push Eli out of town even though he hasnt 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 doesnt equal pros. Barkley wont sniff Bells 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 Ive seen of Barkley and the fact that Bell is hands down the best back in the NFL, yes he wont sniff Bells production. I think its a pretty safe bet a rookie RB wont 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 doesnt equal pros. Barkley wont sniff Bells 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 Ive seen of Barkley and the fact that Bell is hands down the best back in the NFL, yes he wont sniff Bells production. I think its a pretty safe bet a rookie RB wont come in and out perform the best RB in the league.
The way your post read it sounded more like he wont be as good from a career standpoint, not just his rookie year. Barkley looks damn good, he may never hit Bells stats, but I wouldnt say he couldnt come close or has no chance. Hes got more speed than Bell. Bell has some mileage on him too, MSU ran that guy over 40x per game on multiple occasions. Its likely one of the main reasons the Steelers dont 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. Ill 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 wouldnt want to do that....and dont want him at 2
I wouldnt want to do that....and dont 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.