Just look at his reaction when someone in the media asks if they are releasing Brandon Marshall, and he is caught off guard. It is the one moment in the press conference where he pauses and then admits it.
During this whole process, Gettleman has allowed the media to hear what he wants them to hear. What does he have to gain by screaming Barkley's praises unless it is as a smokescreen? Could the lone smokescreen be to get Cleveland to take Barkley at one? Sure. But is it also possible that he is touting Barkley so highly for another reason - one that Colin suggested.
I don't know what will happen. I don't think anyone here really does. But I can say this with certainty: if we pick a RB at 2, it will be a franchise altering mistake.
Barkley is the guy, but at running back. It's the opposite from the QBs. They're the QBs, but who's the guy?
The QB's are all talented but are all different and all have things they need to work on. There is no Peyton Manning, Andrew Luck or Carson Wentz. No clear top QB. So, all this clamoring to take a QB because of where you are picking sounds good but you wouldn't be taking the best player available.
I would be very happy with Barkley.
Funny, no one thought Wentz was Wentz when he came out. He was considered to have warts and potentially a reach at 2. But I guess revisionist history is easy when it works out.
There's plenty of consensus. The three best QBs are Rosen, Darnold, and Mayfield, and they're all predicted to go somewhere in the top 5. The Jets and bills have been climbing over each other to get into the top 5.
Quote:
Both on offense and both start from day one and make your team instantly better: Barkley and Nelson. If you take Barkley at 2 he will be worth the pick. Trade down and get Nelson in the 4-6 range.
The QB's are all talented but are all different and all have things they need to work on. There is no Peyton Manning, Andrew Luck or Carson Wentz. No clear top QB. So, all this clamoring to take a QB because of where you are picking sounds good but you wouldn't be taking the best player available.
I would be very happy with Barkley.
Funny, no one thought Wentz was Wentz when he came out. He was considered to have warts and potentially a reach at 2. But I guess revisionist history is easy when it works out.
We will see how long Wentz lasts. He seems to be a little bit dumb in terms of avoiding contact. What QB in today’s NFL runs into a LB instead of sliding on a broken play?
I’ll take Mayfield over the other guys, at least he has a winning track record.
Funny, no one thought Wentz was Wentz when he came out. He was considered to have warts and potentially a reach at 2. But I guess revisionist history is easy when it works out.
Great point. People like to act like he was a sure thing but he was coming out of North Dakota State and there were quite a few fans that mocked the Eagles for trading up.
Quote:
Its the QBs. There is no consensus with them. Not with any experts, front offices or any fan base. There is no conviction, almost no talk about any of the teams picking towards the top & in need of a QB trying to move to #1 to get "the guy". Giants pick 2nd and nobody has mentioned them trying to move to #1 for "the guy".
There's plenty of consensus. The three best QBs are Rosen, Darnold, and Mayfield, and they're all predicted to go somewhere in the top 5. The Jets and bills have been climbing over each other to get into the top 5.
Who is the best?
Why not climb to #1 for them?
Exactly 🤔🤔
Quote:
In comment 13927350 Motley Two said:
Quote:
Its the QBs. There is no consensus with them. Not with any experts, front offices or any fan base. There is no conviction, almost no talk about any of the teams picking towards the top & in need of a QB trying to move to #1 to get "the guy". Giants pick 2nd and nobody has mentioned them trying to move to #1 for "the guy".
There's plenty of consensus. The three best QBs are Rosen, Darnold, and Mayfield, and they're all predicted to go somewhere in the top 5. The Jets and bills have been climbing over each other to get into the top 5.
Who is the best?
Why not climb to #1 for them?
Well, the draft hasn't happened yet. Last year the Bears made a huge trade to do the same thing you're waiting to see: identify a guy at QB and go trade up for him.
It's a lot of chatter to fill airtime while nothing is going on. Draft season is lying season.
Anyone convinced that zeke Elliot will be gone in 2 more years? Can I get that guaranteed? I guess Gurley will be done after 2018 am I right? David Johnson won’t come back from this injury? Promise? What about Jonathan Stewart? He’s 30. Or frank gore who’s older than 30 and still kicking. Or legarious Blount? Or leveon bell? Is this his last season? Doubt it. What about recently retired Matt forte who had a terrific 10 year career? Shall I go on? How about Adrian Peterson? Did he play long enough to dispel the myth? Is that enough names? Carlos Hyde just signed a second contract. I guess he’s done too.
Even if five years is all we get it’s likely to be a great ride. And it doesn’t have to be only five.
JT: When I say it cripples a franchise, I am stating my belief. What I take objection to is people stating with certainty that the pick will not be a QB. I guess we will see if your sources are wrong.
By the way, how many playoff games have the Cowboys won since they drafted Zeke? I'll give you a hint, it's less than 1.
My problem with Barkley isn't so much with taking a RB at #2 in general, it's taking a #2 back in the Giants current situation and also my concerns about Barkley in general.
If the Giants had their future QB in place or if Eli were a few years younger, taking a top running back, someone like Todd Gurley, made perfect sense to me. I've always felt, going back to the '90s Cowboys days, that to get the most out of a good RB, you should have a WR, QB and OL in place already and in or close their primes. RBs reach their primes almost immediately and, for the most part, their careers are far shorter. So in order to maximize the RB's value vis-a-vis having a winning team, it is best to have all the other pieces in place first. That is, a RB will almost never be the first piece to the puzzle of a great team -- at least not in today's NFL -- but he often can be one of the last missing pieces. Gurley was drafted when the Rams traded Sam Bradford for Nick Foles, who they thought would be their heir apparent. The Cowboys still had Tony Romo who they thought had a good number of years left until he got injured. And the Jags have Blake Bortles who they hadn't given up on yet, as well as the making of a dominant defense. It was nearly the perfect time to capitalize on drafting a RB. The Giants are far from that perfect situation.
As for Barkley, I just get scared by a big back who plays more like a scat back. It often doesn't translate to the next level as well as it did in college. I'd rather see a grind it out back with some wiggle and a top gear--unless the RB is actually Barry Sanders or Marshall Faulk--and I have a hard time seeing that in Barkley.
Quote:
You say with certainty taking Barkley is a mistake. Fine. I disagree but your opinion. The issue I have w you is someone responds its the right move and you get mad saying how can he say that. Its his opinion. I was told today what I've heard all along. Barkly/Chubb. Only way we trade down is top 6. Is what I heard right? Well see.
JT: When I say it cripples a franchise, I am stating my belief. What I take objection to is people stating with certainty that the pick will not be a QB. I guess we will see if your sources are wrong.
By the way, how many playoff games have the Cowboys won since they drafted Zeke? I'll give you a hint, it's less than 1.
And what is the cowboys record with and without Elliott? How many playoff games did the jaguars win with fournette?
Quote:
In comment 13927369 jtgiants said:
Quote:
You say with certainty taking Barkley is a mistake. Fine. I disagree but your opinion. The issue I have w you is someone responds its the right move and you get mad saying how can he say that. Its his opinion. I was told today what I've heard all along. Barkly/Chubb. Only way we trade down is top 6. Is what I heard right? Well see.
JT: When I say it cripples a franchise, I am stating my belief. What I take objection to is people stating with certainty that the pick will not be a QB. I guess we will see if your sources are wrong.
By the way, how many playoff games have the Cowboys won since they drafted Zeke? I'll give you a hint, it's less than 1.
And what is the cowboys record with and without Elliott? How many playoff games did the jaguars win with fournette?
Alfred Morris killed it when Zeke was out. Zeke's time out coincided with Tyron Smith missing time. His being out was far more important than Zeke missing time.
it is about science. it is about math.
40 years ago there was a revolution in our understanding of baseball. Bill James put many of our sacred cows on trial: the importance of a walk, the myth of clutch hitting etc. People who understood this revolution knew from this point on that high batting average hitters with low obp were not good leadoff hitters even if they were a little bit speedy. The naysayers stuck to their old ideas but eventually were proved wrong. Now we all look at obp when we decide who is a good leadoff hitter.
This is a similar situation. The math, the science, the numbers, the analytics (which is now invading football) tells us that drafting a RB (even one as good as Barkley) is a terrible allocation of draft capital.
Why?
QBs have longer and more productive careers. Even average QBs are more valuable than elite RBs. RBs are often replaceable by a mediocre committee. RBs suffer injuries at higher rates. The game is trending toward QBs more and more with precision schemes and offenses. etc etc etc.
The people who are excited by Barkley don't want to hear it. They want to stick to the notion that a great running back really matters most. They don't want to hear that Michel, Guice, Jones, Penney, etc etc are highly likely to be 90% of Barkley or even better than Barkley. Whereas there is a very low probability that any QB you select late will be a tenth as good as an elite selection or a quarter as good as an average selection.
Barkley may seem like a safe pick but it is a cowardly pick and not the kind of pick that distinguishes great franchises. The upside is limited. If we hit on Rosen (or Mayfield), however, we can be the Patriots. We need bold leadership that understands the analytics and makes dynamic proactive moves that can catapult this franchise.
Another thing we know, is that there is an analytics guy in DG's ear, telling him this, if he doesn't already know it. We think DG is smart and has the best info and good judgement. We think he is bold enough to know that he has to figure out which of these qbs can be a franchise leader, after Darnold is off the board. And we are afraid that if DG picks the RB in this situation rather than making the affirmative move to win the jackpot that we have found an old school mind. The kind of mind that would bat the .300 hitter with the .310 obp in the leadoff spot just because he is speedy.
Gettleman has set the standard for what he is looking for. He wants an impact player. It does not matter if it's a quarterback, a running back, an offensive lineman or whatever. Impact blue chip player.
If Gettleman does not believe in a quarterback that is available, then he won't draft him. If he believes a player is that good and dynamic, he will take them.
Taking a running back is not a franchise altering mistake. Taking a quarterback for the sake of taking one is.
I don't know what the giants will do. They have done an incredible job of keeping all of the players part of the conversation. You can disect his words and interpret it to mean anything you want, but in the end he will make the best decision for the team going forward.
We have some really smart people who know a thing about evaluating talent, so let's leave what they think isn't franchise altering mistakes to them.
+1
it is about science. it is about math.
40 years ago there was a revolution in our understanding of baseball. Bill James put many of our sacred cows on trial: the importance of a walk, the myth of clutch hitting etc. People who understood this revolution knew from this point on that high batting average hitters with low obp were not good leadoff hitters even if they were a little bit speedy. The naysayers stuck to their old ideas but eventually were proved wrong. Now we all look at obp when we decide who is a good leadoff hitter.
This is a similar situation. The math, the science, the numbers, the analytics (which is now invading football) tells us that drafting a RB (even one as good as Barkley) is a terrible allocation of draft capital.
Why?
QBs have longer and more productive careers. Even average QBs are more valuable than elite RBs. RBs are often replaceable by a mediocre committee. RBs suffer injuries at higher rates. The game is trending toward QBs more and more with precision schemes and offenses. etc etc etc.
The people who are excited by Barkley don't want to hear it. They want to stick to the notion that a great running back really matters most. They don't want to hear that Michel, Guice, Jones, Penney, etc etc are highly likely to be 90% of Barkley or even better than Barkley. Whereas there is a very low probability that any QB you select late will be a tenth as good as an elite selection or a quarter as good as an average selection.
Barkley may seem like a safe pick but it is a cowardly pick and not the kind of pick that distinguishes great franchises. The upside is limited. If we hit on Rosen (or Mayfield), however, we can be the Patriots. We need bold leadership that understands the analytics and makes dynamic proactive moves that can catapult this franchise.
Another thing we know, is that there is an analytics guy in DG's ear, telling him this, if he doesn't already know it. We think DG is smart and has the best info and good judgement. We think he is bold enough to know that he has to figure out which of these qbs can be a franchise leader, after Darnold is off the board. And we are afraid that if DG picks the RB in this situation rather than making the affirmative move to win the jackpot that we have found an old school mind. The kind of mind that would bat the .300 hitter with the .310 obp in the leadoff spot just because he is speedy.
Perfectly said.
1. Of the Qbs that remain at 2, do the Giants have a franchise grade on any?
2. How firm are their convictions on Webb being the heir apparent?
3. With this draft potentially being extremely even historically deep at the QB position, how high a grade do they have on others that can be had after #2? (Like Lauletta)
4. Do they behind closed doors truly feel Eli has a mimumum of 2-3 years left? (as theyve been saying publicly)
5. How close do they feel they are to being competitive again? (It sounds like they want to take advantage of Eli's remaining window of championship level football as Ernie Accorsi put it)
Depending on the answer to the above questions a potential instant impact transformational player like Barkley may not be a bad play at all.
Obviolusy if Dg goes away from the QB I'm going to hope he is right. ANd I do think Barkley can be an exciting "get."
But I'm highly skeptical and believe it to be the wrong decision. If he does make the move with Barkley - I expect it will be the wrong move. So for those who say Barkley is the right or safe choice, please don't try to change the narrative several years later if for the many of that knew he should have taken the QB want him fired for blundering the pick IF the team is unsuccessful. I expect it to be but hopeful it won't.
The right move here is either Rosen or Mayfield. We'll just have to accept that the scouts know what they're doing if they pass on these 2 players. I hope they know. Because I don't want to have to be part of the mob ripping into DG a few years from now.
Obviolusy if Dg goes away from the QB I'm going to hope he is right. ANd I do think Barkley can be an exciting "get."
But I'm highly skeptical and believe it to be the wrong decision. If he does make the move with Barkley - I expect it will be the wrong move. So for those who say Barkley is the right or safe choice, please don't try to change the narrative several years later if for the many of that knew he should have taken the QB want him fired for blundering the pick IF the team is unsuccessful. I expect it to be but hopeful it won't.
The right move here is either Rosen or Mayfield. We'll just have to accept that the scouts know what they're doing if they pass on these 2 players. I hope they know. Because I don't want to have to be part of the mob ripping into DG a few years from now.
What if we win a SuperBowl with Eli in the next 2-3 years with Barkley playing a big role but then find out Rosen was the real deal for 10 years. Still worth it? For a Supe I say yes.
Quote:
IS that many fans don't understand or dont' want to understand positional value. Thus they make up "red flags" yet every Qb in the history of the game has had them.
Obviolusy if Dg goes away from the QB I'm going to hope he is right. ANd I do think Barkley can be an exciting "get."
But I'm highly skeptical and believe it to be the wrong decision. If he does make the move with Barkley - I expect it will be the wrong move. So for those who say Barkley is the right or safe choice, please don't try to change the narrative several years later if for the many of that knew he should have taken the QB want him fired for blundering the pick IF the team is unsuccessful. I expect it to be but hopeful it won't.
The right move here is either Rosen or Mayfield. We'll just have to accept that the scouts know what they're doing if they pass on these 2 players. I hope they know. Because I don't want to have to be part of the mob ripping into DG a few years from now.
What if we win a SuperBowl with Eli in the next 2-3 years with Barkley playing a big role but then find out Rosen was the real deal for 10 years. Still worth it? For a Supe I say yes.
maybe, but the problem with your hypothetical is that the giants are terrible and Eli has been awful for two years. Now is the time to rebuild. Adding a RB doesn't make this team a Super Bowl winner it just prolongs the inevitable and fumbles an opportunity to begin the hard work. I don't see how anybody can think adding Barkley to this team will get us a championship in three years.
1. Of the Qbs that remain at 2, do the Giants have a franchise grade on any?
2. How firm are their convictions on Webb being the heir apparent?
3. With this draft potentially being extremely even historically deep at the QB position, how high a grade do they have on others that can be had after #2? (Like Lauletta)
4. Do they behind closed doors truly feel Eli has a mimumum of 2-3 years left? (as theyve been saying publicly)
5. How close do they feel they are to being competitive again? (It sounds like they want to take advantage of Eli's remaining window of championship level football as Ernie Accorsi put it)
Depending on the answer to the above questions a potential instant impact transformational player like Barkley may not be a bad play at all.
Here are my answers:
1. Many teams do value all 4 qbs as they are falling over themselves to get one, including the Jets, Bills, Dolphins, Cards and Patriots. The Patriots, a pretty smart organization, wants Josh Rosen. If the Giants can't find a possible starting qb among the remaining 3 maybe the problem is the Giants, not the qbs.
2. Webb couldn't sniff the practice field on a bumbling 3-13 team. Webb is not an NFL starting QB. Let's stop pretending he is anything more.
3. Why do we want to get a deeply flawed qb when we can get a premium prospect? Kyle Lauletta for instance does not have an NFL arm.Rosen and MAyfield are ten times the prospect that Lauletta is.
4. No, I think they are lying and being nice. I think behind closed doors they know that Eli is close to done and they need to prepare for a succession as the Patriots have done with Tom Brady.
5. If they think they can be competitive with this team they are seriously delusional and we have really big problems.
Like DG basically said, if you are a student do you want to get an A+, a C+, a C, and a C- or would you rather have an A-, a B+, a B and a B- ??
The later could be the wiser choice.
The Giants are 26-38 over the past four years and have double-digit losses in three of the past four seasons, but their one winning record in that span wasn't a fluke?
Sure, if you say so.
1. Of the Qbs that remain at 2, do the Giants have a franchise grade on any?
2. How firm are their convictions on Webb being the heir apparent?
3. With this draft potentially being extremely even historically deep at the QB position, how high a grade do they have on others that can be had after #2? (Like Lauletta)
4. Do they behind closed doors truly feel Eli has a mimumum of 2-3 years left? (as theyve been saying publicly)
5. How close do they feel they are to being competitive again? (It sounds like they want to take advantage of Eli's remaining window of championship level football as Ernie Accorsi put it)
Depending on the answer to the above questions a potential instant impact transformational player like Barkley may not be a bad play at all.
Does the fact that this is regarded as a historically deep RB draft impact your thinking the same way? Because I'd argue that the fact that RB is historically deep makes it even smarter for us to pass on Barkley in Round 1 (and draft a QB there), as the premium QBs don't fall to Round 2, while there should be plenty of premium RBs available in Round 2 and possibly Round 3. There always are (see Hunt and Kamara last year, for example).
As for anyone suggesting this team is ready to win now, even with Barkley, that is some leap of faith. We are in the same division as the Super Bowl Champions and the Cowboys, who are one year removed from a 13-3 season (and, in this thread, everyone was falling over how good they have been since they drafted Zeke). The Conference also has the Rams, who have a primed Goff and a loaded roster, the Vikings with Cousins and Cook returning, and the Niners who won their last five games with Jimmy G. at the helm. And that doesn't even mention the Packers and Saints, both of whom are good teams. We may not even be in the top half of the conference, let alone a playoff team.
And all that is accepting that Eli is capable of rebounding and playing at a pro bowl level after two subpar years. That everything that happened was scheme, injuries to others, etc. Because if he doesn't, we just passed on a QB to give him one last go, and he wasn't worthy. And before you say, well, the Giants must not have liked any of them, I find that hard to believe. As one poster said, the Jets traded to 3 because they like at least 3. Several teams are trading like heck to move up. Many scouts - including our own Sy - have VERY high rankings on several of these guys.
I love what Eli has done for this team, but it is time to accept that he may be finished, and we need to find his successor. For all Shurmur did with those QBs in Minnesota last year, the team moved on from all of them because they found the opportunity to get a better one. The Giants' 11-5 record two years ago was a mirage, and their lone winning season in quite a while. We couldn't score even 20 points down the stretch. We were winning by not turning it over, ODB taking one slant to the house, punting, and relying on the D to allow 10 points or fewer. Does that sound like a winning formula to you, even if we have better offensive coaching now?
Obviously, if Giants take Barkley he was being honest. If they don't then he has played one heck of a poker game.
Like DG basically said, if you are a student do you want to get an A+, a C+, a C, and a C- or would you rather have an A-, a B+, a B and a B- ??
The later could be the wiser choice.
He gets a pick at the top of each round. If there's no trade down and he just plays the draft straight, he'd better do better than an A+ at #2, and then a bunch of C players. That's on him.
Anyone convinced that zeke Elliot will be gone in 2 more years? Can I get that guaranteed? I guess Gurley will be done after 2018 am I right? David Johnson won’t come back from this injury? Promise? What about Jonathan Stewart? He’s 30. Or frank gore who’s older than 30 and still kicking. Or legarious Blount? Or leveon bell? Is this his last season? Doubt it. What about recently retired Matt forte who had a terrific 10 year career? Shall I go on? How about Adrian Peterson? Did he play long enough to dispel the myth? Is that enough names? Carlos Hyde just signed a second contract. I guess he’s done too.
Even if five years is all we get it’s likely to be a great ride. And it doesn’t have to be only five.
Frank Gore and Stewart aren't good anymore.
The running back position has the shortest average career length, it's a statistical fact. Pointing out exceptions doesn't make it not true that their careers last shorter on average
Quote:
can not be argued. But there are multiple variables that go into this:
1. Of the Qbs that remain at 2, do the Giants have a franchise grade on any?
2. How firm are their convictions on Webb being the heir apparent?
3. With this draft potentially being extremely even historically deep at the QB position, how high a grade do they have on others that can be had after #2? (Like Lauletta)
4. Do they behind closed doors truly feel Eli has a mimumum of 2-3 years left? (as theyve been saying publicly)
5. How close do they feel they are to being competitive again? (It sounds like they want to take advantage of Eli's remaining window of championship level football as Ernie Accorsi put it)
Depending on the answer to the above questions a potential instant impact transformational player like Barkley may not be a bad play at all.
Does the fact that this is regarded as a historically deep RB draft impact your thinking the same way? Because I'd argue that the fact that RB is historically deep makes it even smarter for us to pass on Barkley in Round 1 (and draft a QB there), as the premium QBs don't fall to Round 2, while there should be plenty of premium RBs available in Round 2 and possibly Round 3. There always are (see Hunt and Kamara last year, for example).
As for anyone suggesting this team is ready to win now, even with Barkley, that is some leap of faith. We are in the same division as the Super Bowl Champions and the Cowboys, who are one year removed from a 13-3 season (and, in this thread, everyone was falling over how good they have been since they drafted Zeke). The Conference also has the Rams, who have a primed Goff and a loaded roster, the Vikings with Cousins and Cook returning, and the Niners who won their last five games with Jimmy G. at the helm. And that doesn't even mention the Packers and Saints, both of whom are good teams. We may not even be in the top half of the conference, let alone a playoff team.
And all that is accepting that Eli is capable of rebounding and playing at a pro bowl level after two subpar years. That everything that happened was scheme, injuries to others, etc. Because if he doesn't, we just passed on a QB to give him one last go, and he wasn't worthy. And before you say, well, the Giants must not have liked any of them, I find that hard to believe. As one poster said, the Jets traded to 3 because they like at least 3. Several teams are trading like heck to move up. Many scouts - including our own Sy - have VERY high rankings on several of these guys.
I love what Eli has done for this team, but it is time to accept that he may be finished, and we need to find his successor. For all Shurmur did with those QBs in Minnesota last year, the team moved on from all of them because they found the opportunity to get a better one. The Giants' 11-5 record two years ago was a mirage, and their lone winning season in quite a while. We couldn't score even 20 points down the stretch. We were winning by not turning it over, ODB taking one slant to the house, punting, and relying on the D to allow 10 points or fewer. Does that sound like a winning formula to you, even if we have better offensive coaching now?
Giants I am not necessarily arguing in favor of drafting Saquon (Im torn on him and Rosen) but moreso what Giant thinking seems to be (for better or worse)
Quote:
Both on offense and both start from day one and make your team instantly better: Barkley and Nelson. If you take Barkley at 2 he will be worth the pick. Trade down and get Nelson in the 4-6 range.
The QB's are all talented but are all different and all have things they need to work on. There is no Peyton Manning, Andrew Luck or Carson Wentz. No clear top QB. So, all this clamoring to take a QB because of where you are picking sounds good but you wouldn't be taking the best player available.
I would be very happy with Barkley.
Funny, no one thought Wentz was Wentz when he came out. He was considered to have warts and potentially a reach at 2. But I guess revisionist history is easy when it works out.
It is a team game - the Eagles won the super bowl despite losing their vaunted "franchise quarterback Wentz" because third round quarterback Nick Foles was perfectly fine in leading a well balanced team to victory. The Giants did the same thing in SBXXV with third round pick Jeff Hostetler when first round franchise quarterback Simms got hurt... Did it matter that Hostetler was slightly less talented than Simms? No.
We are fine at quarterback for the foreseeable future with Eli and Webb. If an Andrew Luck prospect comes along at some point, we would indeed be stupid not to grab him and never look back. But none of these prospects are Andrew Luck. And Barkley is a transcendent level talent. Have we not learned our lesson about reaching for need yet after Flowers? Apple? Pugh?
The Browns themselves are dumb enough not to understand this. With their number one NFL draft selection, the most coveted asset in all of sports, instead of taking the transcendent player, they will select the latest successor in the long line of glorious "first round quarterback busts" - Couch, Quinn, Weeden, Manziel and TBD! It matters not who they pick - he will be a bust.
The Eli Manning Giants have won 116 games in 14 years. By comparison, the Lawrence Taylor Giants won 115 games in 13 years. To say that our team has been a disaster under Eli is ridiculous. Yes the Giants have been 26-38 over the last four "cherry picked" years. But can you imagine Jared Goff in this offense with our brutal supporting cast during this same time period? I can. We need only look to the "first round quarterback draft machine Browns" and their 11-53 record during the same time frame to know exactly what it would have been like.
And what it will be like around here if we don't focus every asset on winning now with Eli.
Quote:
In comment 13927344 Rjanyg said:
Quote:
Both on offense and both start from day one and make your team instantly better: Barkley and Nelson. If you take Barkley at 2 he will be worth the pick. Trade down and get Nelson in the 4-6 range.
The QB's are all talented but are all different and all have things they need to work on. There is no Peyton Manning, Andrew Luck or Carson Wentz. No clear top QB. So, all this clamoring to take a QB because of where you are picking sounds good but you wouldn't be taking the best player available.
I would be very happy with Barkley.
Funny, no one thought Wentz was Wentz when he came out. He was considered to have warts and potentially a reach at 2. But I guess revisionist history is easy when it works out.
It is a team game - the Eagles won the super bowl despite losing their vaunted "franchise quarterback Wentz" because third round quarterback Nick Foles was perfectly fine in leading a well balanced team to victory. The Giants did the same thing in SBXXV with third round pick Jeff Hostetler when first round franchise quarterback Simms got hurt... Did it matter that Hostetler was slightly less talented than Simms? No.
We are fine at quarterback for the foreseeable future with Eli and Webb. If an Andrew Luck prospect comes along at some point, we would indeed be stupid not to grab him and never look back. But none of these prospects are Andrew Luck. And Barkley is a transcendent level talent. Have we not learned our lesson about reaching for need yet after Flowers? Apple? Pugh?
The Browns themselves are dumb enough not to understand this. With their number one NFL draft selection, the most coveted asset in all of sports, instead of taking the transcendent player, they will select the latest successor in the long line of glorious "first round quarterback busts" - Couch, Quinn, Weeden, Manziel and TBD! It matters not who they pick - he will be a bust.
The Eli Manning Giants have won 116 games in 14 years. By comparison, the Lawrence Taylor Giants won 115 games in 13 years. To say that our team has been a disaster under Eli is ridiculous. Yes the Giants have been 26-38 over the last four "cherry picked" years. But can you imagine Jared Goff in this offense with our brutal supporting cast during this same time period? I can. We need only look to the "first round quarterback draft machine Browns" and their 11-53 record during the same time frame to know exactly what it would have been like.
And what it will be like around here if we don't focus every asset on winning now with Eli.
It's a different game than when the Giants won with LT. And the Eagles won because Foles played out of his mind football in the NFC title game and SB. Did you not notice that he won SB MVP? You can not cite the exceptions to the rule and then pass them off as the rule.
The Broncos had an all-world D last year and cratered as they watched their QBs bring their team into oblivion. Don't make any mistake about it; this is a QB driven league.
Almost every year, the Pats and Steelers vie for the right to represent the AFC in the SB, and that is because of Brady and Big Ben. The Niners last year were 1-10. Jimmy G steps on the field with the same players, and the team goes 5-0, including an absolute destruction of the Jags and their D. Aaron Rodgers almost single handedly propels the Packers to contention with his play. Last year, the Seahawks were awful, but Wilson kept them afloat with his MVP level play. You saw the difference a year makes for Goff (along with a new system), and what that did for the Rams. And the Vikings just went out and gave Cousins a fully guaranteed $84 million deal because they felt they needed a better QB, even after our own new coach led Keenum to a year in which he threw 22 TDs and 7 INTs or something like that.
You simply cannot sit here and tell me that we are fine with Eli and Webb going forward. No one knows what we have in Webb. The coaches flat out said that. As for Eli, he has played subpar football for two years, is 37 now, and has 2 years left on a hefty contract. It is football malpractice to not plan for the future.
This is the second time in the past 51 years that the Giants have picked second or higher. I understand that the first time we drafted LT, and that worked out very well. But it's a different game now, and there are - what I regard - as franchise QBs out there. Yes, that is the operative question. But we will probably not be drafting this high again, and we may need to give up several 1st round picks to move up to get our new QB when we need one. Unless we take one now.
If Gettleman goes quarterback he is declaring his belief that we cannot win with Eli. We will sink immediately into quarterback hell because you can't sit a top ten quarterback for a year, let alone two years, and we will not win a Lombardi trophy again for a decade.
This team is simply not good enough to assign our most important asset to an insurance policy that may or may not ever pay off. More than 95% of the quarterbacks drafted in the top ten have never won a conference championship let alone a super bowl. The hubris that we are somehow smarter than this average is what will send this team back to the ruins of the early '70s... Stick with Eli and take Barkley.
There’s no right way to look at it so I certainly respect alternative opinions. My own is that it’s a result of the fact that there are 4 guys all of which a case can be made for to be the first pick in this draft or some past ones. That’s really unique and something we haven’t seen in a very long time. They’re also wildly different (as DG pointed out). Last year for example, the order of the three first round qbs was all over the place. They aren’t at the same level as prospects than the guys this year but they went in an order that few predicted, mainly because they were quite different and “beauty was in the eye of the beholder”.
How many times are you going to post this same thought?
I feel like I can't read any thread revolving around QB's where you don't show up and tell everyone you still think Eli is the guy and can still play and insist that NYG feels the same way?
I think everyone here knows you feel that way now.
If Gettleman goes quarterback he is declaring his belief that we cannot win with Eli. We will sink immediately into quarterback hell because you can't sit a top ten quarterback for a year, let alone two years, and we will not win a Lombardi trophy again for a decade.
This team is simply not good enough to assign our most important asset to an insurance policy that may or may not ever pay off. More than 95% of the quarterbacks drafted in the top ten have never won a conference championship let alone a super bowl. The hubris that we are somehow smarter than this average is what will send this team back to the ruins of the early '70s... Stick with Eli and take Barkley.
Can anyone really say that with certainty though? Granted, it's an extremely small sample size, but was the offense significantly worse with Geno than with Eli last season?