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 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 let’s 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 let’s 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 doesn’t equal pros. Barkley won’t sniff Bell’s 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 doesn’t equal pros. Barkley won’t sniff Bell’s 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 let’s 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 it’s not just what they rack up in terms of stats, it’s the threat/decoy effect. If you have a guy like that in the backfield to worry about you can’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t equal pros. Barkley won’t sniff Bell’s 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. There’s way too many people acting as if it’s a given Barkley will be a HoF back in the NFL. I don’t 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 doesn’t equal pros. Barkley won’t sniff Bell’s 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. There’s way too many people acting as if it’s a given Barkley will be a HoF back in the NFL. I don’t 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 can’t 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.
I’m 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 couldn’t hold onto the football, which got him in TC’s 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 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