is the problem for those - like me - who have said you have to draft a franchise QB if there is a franchise QB there. Fact is, all of these guys may be too risky to take at #2:
"Gettleman’s analogy about Ben & Jerry’s, while one he’s used before, is particularly apt this year; opinions and preferences about the top QBs vary widely. As teams have gathered for their pre-draft meetings the past few weeks, it hasn’t been uncommon for the top decision-makers on a team—owner, GM, head coach, college scouting director—to each rank the top QBs in a different order. One AFC personnel executive described the top four QBs—Allen, Darnold, Mayfield and Rosen—as legitimate top 15 players in any class because they have the skills to be starters in the NFL. On the other hand, two evaluators on teams with an incumbent franchise QB said they were glad they did not need to take a QB this year, because each of the top signal-callers has a substantial question mark."
We've seen far riskier players be taken at the same point Â
Let's be frank. The Giants are in a lot of trouble. They have botched a series of drafts. If they blow this pick, we're going to be bad for a long time.
are paid a lot of money to figure out which one is the best. It’s a rick but it’s your job. What Gettleman never likes to say is how many years does passing on a franchise QB set you back? It could be a lot more than 5. You don’t know when you can get into position again.
Let's be frank. The Giants are in a lot of trouble. They have botched a series of drafts. If they blow this pick, we're going to be bad for a long time.
Ernie Accorsi blew many first round picks, and they weren't bad for a long time.
There's always risk in picking players. Everyone wants the comfort of a guarantee when there never is one.
are paid a lot of money to figure out which one is the best. It’s a rick but it’s your job. What Gettleman never likes to say is how many years does passing on a franchise QB set you back? It could be a lot more than 5. You don’t know when you can get into position again.
He's also getting paid a lot of money to determine IF there is a "franchise" QB available and, based on the wildly divergent opinions on this class, it certainly isn't unreasonable to suggest he may not think there is one.
skills that can make them successful in the NFL. Yes, they have flaws - but what player doesnt? It doesnt matter what position you play, you are not going to be perfect.
If Shurmur is the QB guru that everyone claims to be, he can fix Darnolds turnovers, AllenÅ› accuracy, Mayfields fixation on a receiver, etc.
Paralysis by analysis. All 4 of these QBs would have been the number 1 QB last year and next year as well. They are all just out in the same year which is causing them to be under the microsope even more.
are paid a lot of money to figure out which one is the best. It’s a rick but it’s your job. What Gettleman never likes to say is how many years does passing on a franchise QB set you back? It could be a lot more than 5. You don’t know when you can get into position again.
Wrong. The job is to find the best player at # 2, not the best QB and take him there regardless of whether or not he is worthy of that pick. Reaching leads to disaster.
I want the Giants to pick whoever John and Chris Mara don't want Â
the GM to pick. Kidding sort of. I don't buy the whole thing about if they miss on this pick they'll be bad for 5 years. Why? It's a year to year league and if they're 4-12 in 2018 they'll have a top 5-7 pick next year.
is the problem for those - like me - who have said you have to draft a franchise QB if there is a franchise QB there. Fact is, all of these guys may be too risky to take at #2:
"Gettleman’s analogy about Ben & Jerry’s, while one he’s used before, is particularly apt this year; opinions and preferences about the top QBs vary widely. As teams have gathered for their pre-draft meetings the past few weeks, it hasn’t been uncommon for the top decision-makers on a team—owner, GM, head coach, college scouting director—to each rank the top QBs in a different order. One AFC personnel executive described the top four QBs—Allen, Darnold, Mayfield and Rosen—as legitimate top 15 players in any class because they have the skills to be starters in the NFL. On the other hand, two evaluators on teams with an incumbent franchise QB said they were glad they did not need to take a QB this year, because each of the top signal-callers has a substantial question mark."
Every quarterback has warts coming out of college. I think every year, as the draft gets closer, all people hear about are the negatives, but who's to say any of these guys can't be HOF quarterbacks? Not many people were praising Carson Wentz before the draft, and there were plenty of people knocking Andrew Luck down a bunch over his lack of arm strength.
I guess what I'm saying is, if the QB's go in the top 5, it's usually for a reason.
TTH... We're talking about the #2 pick with a team that has six picks and has blown most of their drafts in recent years. The margin for error here is razor thin... especially if we have any hope of catching the Eagles anytime soon. If you think we can afford to blow this pick, we'll agree to disagree.
Mattblue.. there are not sure things. But there is a dramatic difference between taking more of a chance with a mid-round 1st rounder and the #2 pick in the draft. If you're not convinced a QB is going to be a stud, you can't take him with the #2 pick. You just can't. (and I've been an advocate of drafting a QB for months)
That's the job of an nfl gm. Working with his coaches, Â
are paid a lot of money to figure out which one is the best. It’s a rick but it’s your job. What Gettleman never likes to say is how many years does passing on a franchise QB set you back? It could be a lot more than 5. You don’t know when you can get into position again.
I've seen a number of well written comparisons between this class and the QB class of 1999. There were 5 QB's taken in the 1st, 1 in the 2nd, and 1 in the 3rd. Really only 1 of the QB's panned out to be worth the pick, however all were "highly rated franchise guys". It was a case of teams over reaching just because these guys were QB's.
#1 Tim Couch - bust (unanimous top QB)
#2 McNabb - worth it
#3 Akili Smith - bust
#11 Culpepper - ok and got hurt
#12 Cade McCown - career backup
skills that can make them successful in the NFL. Yes, they have flaws - but what player doesnt? It doesnt matter what position you play, you are not going to be perfect.
If Shurmur is the QB guru that everyone claims to be, he can fix Darnolds turnovers, AllenÅ› accuracy, Mayfields fixation on a receiver, etc.
Paralysis by analysis. All 4 of these QBs would have been the number 1 QB last year and next year as well. They are all just out in the same year which is causing them to be under the microsope even more.
Very well said. This amount of time leads to over analyzing.
are paid a lot of money to figure out which one is the best. It’s a rick but it’s your job. What Gettleman never likes to say is how many years does passing on a franchise QB set you back? It could be a lot more than 5. You don’t know when you can get into position again.
Wrong. The job is to find the best player at # 2, not the best QB and take him there regardless of whether or not he is worthy of that pick. Reaching leads to disaster.
I agree. I am firmly entrenched in the view that you should always try to get the best players on your team. Invariably, the teams that have the most talent across the board win the most games, whereas if you strive for mediocrity, you generally don't end up being very successful in what counts.
To pick a "hopeful" so called franchise QB. Many teams have what could be called second teir QBs that can manage a game good enough to go deep into the playoffs or even a SB that are backups now or lower than first round picks. I remember one called hostetler, or Brady to name two. But if you miss on that so called franchise QB of which there are many examples...you are indeed screwed for many years. The Giants aren't taking a QB as their first pick.
"All 4 of these QBs would have been the number 1 QB last year and next year as well."
I'm not sure that is true.
Trubinsky came in with a huge amount of question marks last year. One year starter. Reading defenses. Could he throw within a pocket, etc. It didnt hesitate the Bears in trading up one spot to secure him. Deshaun Waton looked great, but had injury issues prior to being drafted and was deemed to have a weak arm. Mahommes came from a spread offense and his reading of defenses was very scrutinized.
Next years class as of right now, is not very good at all. With all of the experts needing to be right, you are going to see over analyzation to its highest. These QBs are very good. It doesnt mean they are going to be amazing, but if put in the right position, the ycan be very good - and thats all you can ask.
The Giants traded back a couple of time for a ton of picks. Cleveland gave them 2+ to move back to 2 and Buffalo down to 4.... and they end up drafting Lamar Jackson....as Shurmur is convinced he could turn him into a QB.
Then you don't roll the dice on a guy you are not completely sold on. A Giants QB not only has to have the skills to be a QB in the NFL, he has to have the demeanor to be a NYG QB. Big Ben is probably a better all around QB than Eli...but I think the problems he had in Pittsburgh would have been magnified many times over if he was the QB of the Giants.
The Giants have a chance to get a really good player(s) in this draft. This pick needs to be a good one.
I've seen a number of well written comparisons between this class and the QB class of 1999. There were 5 QB's taken in the 1st, 1 in the 2nd, and 1 in the 3rd. Really only 1 of the QB's panned out to be worth the pick, however all were "highly rated franchise guys". It was a case of teams over reaching just because these guys were QB's.
#1 Tim Couch - bust (unanimous top QB)
#2 McNabb - worth it
#3 Akili Smith - bust
#11 Culpepper - ok and got hurt
#12 Cade McCown - career backup
and who can forget Jake Locker, Christian Ponder, Ryan Tannehill, Johnny Manziel, EJ Manuel, Brandon Weedon, Blaine Gabbert, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman,. All guys who had no business going even in the 1st round, some taken in the top 10, because "you have to get a QB". Reaching is an organizational death sentence.
I heard a lot of people say Ereck Flowers had a lot of physical ability and that a good coaching staff could turn him into a really good player. Flowers is now on his third head coach.
The Giants traded back a couple of time for a ton of picks. Cleveland gave them 2+ to move back to 2 and Buffalo down to 4.... and they end up drafting Lamar Jackson....as Shurmur is convinced he could turn him into a QB.
I'd love to be able to trade down and still get a guy who the coaching staff loves.
I heard a lot of people say Ereck Flowers had a lot of physical ability and that a good coaching staff could turn him into a really good player. Flowers is now on his third head coach.
I dont know if the comparison works, because Flowers wasnt a dominant player in college. From everything coming in about FLowers people were worried about work ethic and attitude. These QBs seem to have strong work ethics, and yeah Rosen/Mayfield seem to have attitudes, but it has to do with winning more so than coaching.
I know everyone is using DGÅ› line if you take a QB and he fails, it sets you back 5 years. But what if Eli is done AND Webb is not the answer. Then what? You are risking taking fliers on QBs who may be viewed worse than this years crop. There is 2 side to every coin.
Then you don't roll the dice on a guy you are not completely sold on. A Giants QB not only has to have the skills to be a QB in the NFL, he has to have the demeanor to be a NYG QB. Big Ben is probably a better all around QB than Eli...but I think the problems he had in Pittsburgh would have been magnified many times over if he was the QB of the Giants.
The Giants have a chance to get a really good player(s) in this draft. This pick needs to be a good one.
That would have had to have said that 2-3 years about Eli for it to be at all true.
with the idea that they have a good enough coaching staff to fix the issues which is why you see so many dumb decisions in taking a qb
rosen checks every single box with the exception of missing games
if he stays healthy it'll be a great pick and if he busts, the organization is probably in a better spot to bottom out and get another high pick as opposed to taking barkley and potentially be a middling team stuck in the picks 8-17 mediocrity
I've advocated for a QB at #2 (if the Giants feel there is a true franchise QB there) because I think Eli is done. I don't think he has 2-3 years left of playing high-quality football.
But even if that is true, you can't force the pick at #2. If the Giants draft a QB at #2 who ends up being a 10-year NFL starter but who always is just a middle-of-the-pack QB, then it's a bad pick.
Again, I want them to draft Eli's replacement. But I'm not convinced that guy is there. Everyone of these guys has a significant question mark... it's not just cherry-picking over over-analyzing.
In any case, it does not matter so much what the fans think...it matters what the front office and coaching staff think. Can they put Eli in a position to successfully QB this team for a few more years? Or do they think his window has effectively closed and they need to find a replacement now. It makes a difference on how much risk the franchise is willing to take when drafting a QB.
ps. I am not saying that Eli has 2-3 years left...because I don't know.
I've seen a number of well written comparisons between this class and the QB class of 1999. There were 5 QB's taken in the 1st, 1 in the 2nd, and 1 in the 3rd. Really only 1 of the QB's panned out to be worth the pick, however all were "highly rated franchise guys". It was a case of teams over reaching just because these guys were QB's.
#1 Tim Couch - bust (unanimous top QB)
#2 McNabb - worth it
#3 Akili Smith - bust
#11 Culpepper - ok and got hurt
#12 Cade McCown - career backup
And as you can see by your example, the team picking second got it right.
RE: RE: These QB's are not slam dunks to be good Â
I've advocated for a QB at #2 (if the Giants feel there is a true franchise QB there) because I think Eli is done. I don't think he has 2-3 years left of playing high-quality football.
But even if that is true, you can't force the pick at #2. If the Giants draft a QB at #2 who ends up being a 10-year NFL starter but who always is just a middle-of-the-pack QB, then it's a bad pick.
Again, I want them to draft Eli's replacement. But I'm not convinced that guy is there. Everyone of these guys has a significant question mark... it's not just cherry-picking over over-analyzing.
We will have to wait and see. QBs are scrutinized to the highest, and I would sure hate to pass on a guy who becomes a really, really good QB cause he had a few too many TOs, or cause he was too short, or cause he is outspoken.
Its not slam dunk Chubb, Barkley, or Nelson is a guarantee superstar either. Give me Darnold or ROsen at the precious age of 20 and 21, and let them grow.
there was a quote from someone inside the Giants organization saying that they couldn't imagine Rosen making it through an NFL 16 game schedule without getting hurt. I think that is indicative of this draft. To me, Rosen is the only QB in the draft who, on talent, you can feel really good about. The problem is that a hurt QB is not having a QB.
the whole argument that your franchise is set back 5 years is less relevant today with the rookie cap.
-If your probability is 50% of having a stud, but you had to make him one of your top paid guys on the roster, that's risky.
-If it's 50% chance of a stud on the rookie cap, you go for it 100% of the time, every time, full stop.
that taking one of these guys at #2 means you are either getting a Peyton Manning, or a Ryan Leaf. There is a huge spectrum in between that may be even more likely. I think the higher likelihood is that we could take any one of these guys at #2 and they turn into a Donovan McNabb, Alex Smith, or Carson Palmer. Not a stud, but not a guy who washes out of the league in 3 years.
When we talk about "missing" on this pick I think you have to frame it a little more. The guy may not turn into a true franchise QB and be considered a "bust" by where he was taken, but not leave the team a smoldering pile of ashes for five years either.
that there are thinking people (presumably) on this site that have no problem rolling the dice with the #2 overall pick. Sure, they'll argue that any draft pick is a roll of the dice but I don't necessarily believe that to be the case. You can't take a flyer on a QB just because you're in a position to do so especially when you consider the many holes on this team. And for those that think Webb does not somehow factor into the decision as to who the pick is, I think you're sadly mistaken.
What if it’s apparent Eli’s decline is further along than we think and by Columbus Day we are essentially out of playoff contention and his play is that of a bottom tiered player? Webb gets reps in the 2nd half and struggles mightily. Knowing the QB crop appears to pretty much suck next draft do we sit on our hands next spring hoping the 2020 draft has better options at QB? Or are we going to pony up and pay a middling QB franchise QB money (think Kirk Cousins).
but you also have to recall that the same professionals that you're quoting are saying things like "there's no carson wentz in this draft" also didn't know carson wentz was in his draft.
The only time there's a universally loved prospect is when he comes from a major program that did a lot of winning. And that's simply not the formula for projecting pro QBs.
I've advocated for a QB at #2 (if the Giants feel there is a true franchise QB there) because I think Eli is done. I don't think he has 2-3 years left of playing high-quality football.
But even if that is true, you can't force the pick at #2. If the Giants draft a QB at #2 who ends up being a 10-year NFL starter but who always is just a middle-of-the-pack QB, then it's a bad pick.
Again, I want them to draft Eli's replacement. But I'm not convinced that guy is there. Everyone of these guys has a significant question mark... it's not just cherry-picking over over-analyzing.
We will have to wait and see. QBs are scrutinized to the highest, and I would sure hate to pass on a guy who becomes a really, really good QB cause he had a few too many TOs, or cause he was too short, or cause he is outspoken.
Its not slam dunk Chubb, Barkley, or Nelson is a guarantee superstar either. Give me Darnold or ROsen at the precious age of 20 and 21, and let them grow.
TTH... We're talking about the #2 pick with a team that has six picks and has blown most of their drafts in recent years. The margin for error here is razor thin...
They can't be much worse than 3 wins. There's no cliff to drop off from. Even in the worse case scenario they get another very high pick next year. I guess I'm just not seeing how it would get worse than what it is now? They don't trade off draft picks and they do spend money, so they'll always have the means to get better.
is correct. the personality of the qb is vital too. ny would of eaten ben alive. thats what makes me weary of rosen and mayfield--who i cant see them taking anyways. if shurmur can make keenum a pretty decent qb, he should be able to improve darnold even more, if he is even there. barkley is a beast and could give eli another year or two. dont forget the injuries on offense last year when considering eli. and that joke of an o-line. all i do know is these next two days will be interesting.
I've advocated for a QB at #2 (if the Giants feel there is a true franchise QB there) because I think Eli is done. I don't think he has 2-3 years left of playing high-quality football.
But even if that is true, you can't force the pick at #2. If the Giants draft a QB at #2 who ends up being a 10-year NFL starter but who always is just a middle-of-the-pack QB, then it's a bad pick.
Again, I want them to draft Eli's replacement. But I'm not convinced that guy is there. Everyone of these guys has a significant question mark... it's not just cherry-picking over over-analyzing.
We will have to wait and see. QBs are scrutinized to the highest, and I would sure hate to pass on a guy who becomes a really, really good QB cause he had a few too many TOs, or cause he was too short, or cause he is outspoken.
Its not slam dunk Chubb, Barkley, or Nelson is a guarantee superstar either. Give me Darnold or ROsen at the precious age of 20 and 21, and let them grow.
the whole argument that your franchise is set back 5 years is less relevant today with the rookie cap.
-If your probability is 50% of having a stud, but you had to make him one of your top paid guys on the roster, that's risky.
-If it's 50% chance of a stud on the rookie cap, you go for it 100% of the time, every time, full stop.
Ironically, the Giants current GM has said multiple times that he doesn't agree with you.
"Gettleman’s analogy about Ben & Jerry’s, while one he’s used before, is particularly apt this year; opinions and preferences about the top QBs vary widely. As teams have gathered for their pre-draft meetings the past few weeks, it hasn’t been uncommon for the top decision-makers on a team—owner, GM, head coach, college scouting director—to each rank the top QBs in a different order. One AFC personnel executive described the top four QBs—Allen, Darnold, Mayfield and Rosen—as legitimate top 15 players in any class because they have the skills to be starters in the NFL. On the other hand, two evaluators on teams with an incumbent franchise QB said they were glad they did not need to take a QB this year, because each of the top signal-callers has a substantial question mark."
But that's no defense of rolling the dice.
Let's be frank. The Giants are in a lot of trouble. They have botched a series of drafts. If they blow this pick, we're going to be bad for a long time.
nfl-draft-qb-rankings-execs - ( New Window )
Quote:
in previous years.
But that's no defense of rolling the dice.
Let's be frank. The Giants are in a lot of trouble. They have botched a series of drafts. If they blow this pick, we're going to be bad for a long time.
Ernie Accorsi blew many first round picks, and they weren't bad for a long time.
There's always risk in picking players. Everyone wants the comfort of a guarantee when there never is one.
He's also getting paid a lot of money to determine IF there is a "franchise" QB available and, based on the wildly divergent opinions on this class, it certainly isn't unreasonable to suggest he may not think there is one.
If Shurmur is the QB guru that everyone claims to be, he can fix Darnolds turnovers, AllenÅ› accuracy, Mayfields fixation on a receiver, etc.
Paralysis by analysis. All 4 of these QBs would have been the number 1 QB last year and next year as well. They are all just out in the same year which is causing them to be under the microsope even more.
Wrong. The job is to find the best player at # 2, not the best QB and take him there regardless of whether or not he is worthy of that pick. Reaching leads to disaster.
"Gettleman’s analogy about Ben & Jerry’s, while one he’s used before, is particularly apt this year; opinions and preferences about the top QBs vary widely. As teams have gathered for their pre-draft meetings the past few weeks, it hasn’t been uncommon for the top decision-makers on a team—owner, GM, head coach, college scouting director—to each rank the top QBs in a different order. One AFC personnel executive described the top four QBs—Allen, Darnold, Mayfield and Rosen—as legitimate top 15 players in any class because they have the skills to be starters in the NFL. On the other hand, two evaluators on teams with an incumbent franchise QB said they were glad they did not need to take a QB this year, because each of the top signal-callers has a substantial question mark."
Every quarterback has warts coming out of college. I think every year, as the draft gets closer, all people hear about are the negatives, but who's to say any of these guys can't be HOF quarterbacks? Not many people were praising Carson Wentz before the draft, and there were plenty of people knocking Andrew Luck down a bunch over his lack of arm strength.
I guess what I'm saying is, if the QB's go in the top 5, it's usually for a reason.
Mattblue.. there are not sure things. But there is a dramatic difference between taking more of a chance with a mid-round 1st rounder and the #2 pick in the draft. If you're not convinced a QB is going to be a stud, you can't take him with the #2 pick. You just can't. (and I've been an advocate of drafting a QB for months)
I'm not sure that is true.
#1 Tim Couch - bust (unanimous top QB)
#2 McNabb - worth it
#3 Akili Smith - bust
#11 Culpepper - ok and got hurt
#12 Cade McCown - career backup
If Shurmur is the QB guru that everyone claims to be, he can fix Darnolds turnovers, AllenÅ› accuracy, Mayfields fixation on a receiver, etc.
Paralysis by analysis. All 4 of these QBs would have been the number 1 QB last year and next year as well. They are all just out in the same year which is causing them to be under the microsope even more.
Very well said. This amount of time leads to over analyzing.
My strong preference is to come out of this draft with Eli's replacement. But is there a sure-bet here at QB? I don't know.
Quote:
are paid a lot of money to figure out which one is the best. It’s a rick but it’s your job. What Gettleman never likes to say is how many years does passing on a franchise QB set you back? It could be a lot more than 5. You don’t know when you can get into position again.
Wrong. The job is to find the best player at # 2, not the best QB and take him there regardless of whether or not he is worthy of that pick. Reaching leads to disaster.
I agree. I am firmly entrenched in the view that you should always try to get the best players on your team. Invariably, the teams that have the most talent across the board win the most games, whereas if you strive for mediocrity, you generally don't end up being very successful in what counts.
I'm not sure that is true.
Trubinsky came in with a huge amount of question marks last year. One year starter. Reading defenses. Could he throw within a pocket, etc. It didnt hesitate the Bears in trading up one spot to secure him. Deshaun Waton looked great, but had injury issues prior to being drafted and was deemed to have a weak arm. Mahommes came from a spread offense and his reading of defenses was very scrutinized.
Next years class as of right now, is not very good at all. With all of the experts needing to be right, you are going to see over analyzation to its highest. These QBs are very good. It doesnt mean they are going to be amazing, but if put in the right position, the ycan be very good - and thats all you can ask.
The Giants have a chance to get a really good player(s) in this draft. This pick needs to be a good one.
#1 Tim Couch - bust (unanimous top QB)
#2 McNabb - worth it
#3 Akili Smith - bust
#11 Culpepper - ok and got hurt
#12 Cade McCown - career backup
and who can forget Jake Locker, Christian Ponder, Ryan Tannehill, Johnny Manziel, EJ Manuel, Brandon Weedon, Blaine Gabbert, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman,. All guys who had no business going even in the 1st round, some taken in the top 10, because "you have to get a QB". Reaching is an organizational death sentence.
I'd love to be able to trade down and still get a guy who the coaching staff loves.
I dont know if the comparison works, because Flowers wasnt a dominant player in college. From everything coming in about FLowers people were worried about work ethic and attitude. These QBs seem to have strong work ethics, and yeah Rosen/Mayfield seem to have attitudes, but it has to do with winning more so than coaching.
I know everyone is using DGÅ› line if you take a QB and he fails, it sets you back 5 years. But what if Eli is done AND Webb is not the answer. Then what? You are risking taking fliers on QBs who may be viewed worse than this years crop. There is 2 side to every coin.
The Giants have a chance to get a really good player(s) in this draft. This pick needs to be a good one.
That would have had to have said that 2-3 years about Eli for it to be at all true.
rosen checks every single box with the exception of missing games
if he stays healthy it'll be a great pick and if he busts, the organization is probably in a better spot to bottom out and get another high pick as opposed to taking barkley and potentially be a middling team stuck in the picks 8-17 mediocrity
But even if that is true, you can't force the pick at #2. If the Giants draft a QB at #2 who ends up being a 10-year NFL starter but who always is just a middle-of-the-pack QB, then it's a bad pick.
Again, I want them to draft Eli's replacement. But I'm not convinced that guy is there. Everyone of these guys has a significant question mark... it's not just cherry-picking over over-analyzing.
ps. I am not saying that Eli has 2-3 years left...because I don't know.
#1 Tim Couch - bust (unanimous top QB)
#2 McNabb - worth it
#3 Akili Smith - bust
#11 Culpepper - ok and got hurt
#12 Cade McCown - career backup
And as you can see by your example, the team picking second got it right.
How many Super Bowls did McNabb win again?
But even if that is true, you can't force the pick at #2. If the Giants draft a QB at #2 who ends up being a 10-year NFL starter but who always is just a middle-of-the-pack QB, then it's a bad pick.
Again, I want them to draft Eli's replacement. But I'm not convinced that guy is there. Everyone of these guys has a significant question mark... it's not just cherry-picking over over-analyzing.
We will have to wait and see. QBs are scrutinized to the highest, and I would sure hate to pass on a guy who becomes a really, really good QB cause he had a few too many TOs, or cause he was too short, or cause he is outspoken.
Its not slam dunk Chubb, Barkley, or Nelson is a guarantee superstar either. Give me Darnold or ROsen at the precious age of 20 and 21, and let them grow.
This is a very weird year.
-If your probability is 50% of having a stud, but you had to make him one of your top paid guys on the roster, that's risky.
-If it's 50% chance of a stud on the rookie cap, you go for it 100% of the time, every time, full stop.
When we talk about "missing" on this pick I think you have to frame it a little more. The guy may not turn into a true franchise QB and be considered a "bust" by where he was taken, but not leave the team a smoldering pile of ashes for five years either.
The only time there's a universally loved prospect is when he comes from a major program that did a lot of winning. And that's simply not the formula for projecting pro QBs.
Quote:
I've advocated for a QB at #2 (if the Giants feel there is a true franchise QB there) because I think Eli is done. I don't think he has 2-3 years left of playing high-quality football.
But even if that is true, you can't force the pick at #2. If the Giants draft a QB at #2 who ends up being a 10-year NFL starter but who always is just a middle-of-the-pack QB, then it's a bad pick.
Again, I want them to draft Eli's replacement. But I'm not convinced that guy is there. Everyone of these guys has a significant question mark... it's not just cherry-picking over over-analyzing.
We will have to wait and see. QBs are scrutinized to the highest, and I would sure hate to pass on a guy who becomes a really, really good QB cause he had a few too many TOs, or cause he was too short, or cause he is outspoken.
Its not slam dunk Chubb, Barkley, or Nelson is a guarantee superstar either. Give me Darnold or ROsen at the precious age of 20 and 21, and let them grow.
+1
They can't be much worse than 3 wins. There's no cliff to drop off from. Even in the worse case scenario they get another very high pick next year. I guess I'm just not seeing how it would get worse than what it is now? They don't trade off draft picks and they do spend money, so they'll always have the means to get better.
#1 Tim Couch - bust (unanimous top QB)
#2 McNabb - worth it
#3 Akili Smith - bust
#11 Culpepper - ok and got hurt
#12 Cade McCown - career backup
Culpepper was better than good. Before the injury he was a top 5 QB and probably should have won MFL MVP in 2004.
Quote:
I've advocated for a QB at #2 (if the Giants feel there is a true franchise QB there) because I think Eli is done. I don't think he has 2-3 years left of playing high-quality football.
But even if that is true, you can't force the pick at #2. If the Giants draft a QB at #2 who ends up being a 10-year NFL starter but who always is just a middle-of-the-pack QB, then it's a bad pick.
Again, I want them to draft Eli's replacement. But I'm not convinced that guy is there. Everyone of these guys has a significant question mark... it's not just cherry-picking over over-analyzing.
We will have to wait and see. QBs are scrutinized to the highest, and I would sure hate to pass on a guy who becomes a really, really good QB cause he had a few too many TOs, or cause he was too short, or cause he is outspoken.
Its not slam dunk Chubb, Barkley, or Nelson is a guarantee superstar either. Give me Darnold or ROsen at the precious age of 20 and 21, and let them grow.
Completely agree.
-If your probability is 50% of having a stud, but you had to make him one of your top paid guys on the roster, that's risky.
-If it's 50% chance of a stud on the rookie cap, you go for it 100% of the time, every time, full stop.
Ironically, the Giants current GM has said multiple times that he doesn't agree with you.