The more I think about it, the less and less Saquon Barkley, Chubb, or Nelson make sense to me at 2.
Whatever your position is on drafting a QB, I think they have to take a QB at 2 if they want one. The only exception might be a trade down to 4 with Cleveland (though that still runs the risk of the Jets taking their guy). That's the market and if there's a guy they have conviction on there, I'm ok with the price.
However, if they are not going QB, I'm having a very hard time justifying using the #2 pick on one of the other guys I listed. I get the comments on not getting cute/securing a blue chip player. However, when I look at the top of the board, there are A LOT of guys that I think would look good in blue even if dropping down to the Bills' 12th pick. Couple that with the return to move back and I just can't understand how Barkley, Nelson, or even Chubb justify foregoing the additional compensation.
Guys I would be thrilled with at (just for arguments sake) #12:
Minkah Fitzpatrick and Derwin James - Maybe not the ideal pairing with Collins, but I think both are more than athletic enough that they could handle more of a coverage role (while providing really interesting flexibility with Collins, who himself can flip to a coverage role in doses). The idea of having that kind of safety duo is pretty intriguing to me.
Roquan Smith - One of my favorite guys at the top of the draft.
Tremaine Edmunds - Athletic freak with coverage and rush ability. Could be very interesting in this defense.
Denzel Ward - We're gonna need some help at corner.
Pair one of those guys with an additional first or high second (plus maybe more) and I just don't see how the gap between them and Barkley, Nelson, or Chubb justifies staying put.
We are going to draft a guy who is one of the highest paid players at his position right away, a position proven to not be difference making, with a short shelf life, when we dont have a line worth a shit?
I get the flash and excitement but this is a team that needs substance and power. Take a QB or restock the shelves.
If the eagles took Michel or Guice at the end of rd 1 I'd bet my dog that he was as productive or more productive then Barkley next year
Why? Because the value of something is determined by how much someone is willing to pay for it.
Teams believe there will be a franchise QB at that spot. So to get maximum value you either take that QB yourself or get the value of a franchise QB in picks from another team.
The wild-card is there a transformational player at a non-QB position available in this draft. The LT's, The Barry Sanders, The Odell Beckhams, The JJ Watt types?
The answer there is just one guy with that potential: Barkley.
Does a transformational players grade come close to the franchise QB? If so take the transformational player if you don't want one of the Qbs.
Quote:
Regarding the #2 pick from an Eagle POV, this is what they don’t want the NYG to do. They’d prefer we take Barkley.
If the eagles took Michel or Guice at the end of rd 1 I'd bet my dog that he was as productive or more productive then Barkley next year
That's another reason I'm not sold on Barkley. He could be flat out amazing, but the difference in production between him and one of the other great RBs in the draft, probably will not be as drastic as some predict.
Why? Because the value of something is determined by how much someone is willing to pay for it.
Teams believe there will be a franchise QB at that spot. So to get maximum value you either take that QB yourself or get the value of a franchise QB in picks from another team.
The wild-card is there a transformational player at a non-QB position available in this draft. The LT's, The Barry Sanders, The Odell Beckhams, The JJ Watt types?
The answer there is just one guy with that potential: Barkley.
Does a transformational players grade come close to the franchise QB? If so take the transformational player if you don't want one of the Qbs.
Only makes sense if that transformational player is an edge rusher, tackle or WR. It doesn't make sense to draft a RB that high, not in today's NFL
Quote:
In comment 13930312 The_Boss said:
Quote:
Regarding the #2 pick from an Eagle POV, this is what they don’t want the NYG to do. They’d prefer we take Barkley.
If the eagles took Michel or Guice at the end of rd 1 I'd bet my dog that he was as productive or more productive then Barkley next year
That's another reason I'm not sold on Barkley. He could be flat out amazing, but the difference in production between him and one of the other great RBs in the draft, probably will not be as drastic as some predict.
This is a great point and something a lot don't consider. It's not that Barkley might not be great it's that even if he is great, the production you get out a mid round back is likely to be somewhat close. That's just not enough to devoting that much cap space to a rookie running back who would immediately be amongst the highest compensated rbs in the NFL.
I'm onboard with blue chip talent at #2, or a trade down where we still get it.
Quote:
is Franchise Qb value. Period.
Why? Because the value of something is determined by how much someone is willing to pay for it.
Teams believe there will be a franchise QB at that spot. So to get maximum value you either take that QB yourself or get the value of a franchise QB in picks from another team.
The wild-card is there a transformational player at a non-QB position available in this draft. The LT's, The Barry Sanders, The Odell Beckhams, The JJ Watt types?
The answer there is just one guy with that potential: Barkley.
Does a transformational players grade come close to the franchise QB? If so take the transformational player if you don't want one of the Qbs.
Only makes sense if that transformational player is an edge rusher, tackle or WR. It doesn't make sense to draft a RB that high, not in today's NFL
Tell that to Dallas and the Jaguars. And if Gurley doesnt have the ACL he doesnt just go top 10 but higher.
They all played key roles in helping their teams to the playoffs.
Barkley also impacts the passing game.
I'm onboard with blue chip talent at #2, or a trade down where we still get it.
I agree with you here. If they do trade down they can't go farther than 5 or 6. That would guarantee them one out of Rosen, Chubb, or Barkley. One player I like a lot if Vita Vea if they did move down to 12. The Ngata comps for Vea are exciting especially when you put him next to Harrison. That would be a dominant 3 man front and would make life alot easier for the LB's.
What article? Could you provide a link please.
Kareem Hunt lead the league as a rookie RB last year in yards.
Jordan Howard, was top 6.
2 examples of late round draft picks that broke 1k in rushing yards.
Gurly finally started to look like a top 10 pick this year, because of the Rams finally have an O-line. He wasn't nearly as good before that.
Kareem Hunt lead the league as a rookie RB last year in yards.
Jordan Howard, was top 6.
2 examples of late round draft picks that broke 1k in rushing yards.
Gurly finally started to look like a top 10 pick this year, because of the Rams finally have an O-line. He wasn't nearly as good before that.
We can cherry pick examples like this for EVERY position. Truth is your success rate goes down drastically in later rounds and you are talking the difference from a good back and a potential generational one. If there was an LT prospect in this draft he'd be the pick over Barkley. But there isn't; Chubb is not that kind of transformational player.
They think that they’ll take either Barkley or Chubb. Both think that they should take Chubb.
I don't disagree with this point. I hate the idea of picking Barkley 2nd but I'm not going to lie and say I won't want to watch him this fall. It would be exciting, but incredibly short sited. Like dating the crazy hot girl that you end up dumping in a few months, but what a few months!
Any lower and you probably are not getting a blue chip that also fills a need, Nelson perhaps being the last one available. DG's history suggests Fitzpatrick not a target.
Of the 9 1000k runners 4 were 1st rounders.
Even if Barkely was the #1 rusher in the league, he still wouldn't be worth a top #2 draft pick. Why? Because unless he is the next Jim Brown you are extremely over paying for the position.
Ideally, you would want them to move down to 4 or 5 so that they could secure Barkley or Chubb who are presumably tops on their board. You're counting on the Giants tempting the Browns to jump for Barkley or the Broncos to move ahead of the Jets for Mayfield. However, there's a chance that this trade isn't there. If that is the case, I'm perfectly okay moving down to 12 if the Bills are offering a bounty provided you can get their first next year. They're likely to suck, that can very easily be a Top 5 pick as well. Additionally, you probably grab their two 2nd rounders, which gives you plenty of ammunition to trade back up to grab your blue chipper. The Broncos, Colts and Bears have been heavily rumored to want to move down. Odds are high that you can move back up and still nab a Chubb, Barkley, Nelson, Ward, Minkah or James.
We are going to draft a guy who is one of the highest paid players at his position right away, a position proven to not be difference making, with a short shelf life, when we dont have a line worth a shit?
I get the flash and excitement but this is a team that needs substance and power. Take a QB or restock the shelves.
I agree with all of this and this is coming from a huge Penn State and Barkley fan.
I'm onboard with blue chip talent at #2, or a trade down where we still get it.
Agreed. But let's say the Browns draft Darnold at #1, and then offer #4, #33, and #35 for #2. Do you make that trade, knowing they might take Chubb? I would, but I'm not sure DG wouldn't just stay at #2. "Don't get cute."
I'm onboard with blue chip talent at #2, or a trade down where we still get it.
Jon, that was really at the heart of my post. Not just trading down for trade down's sake. But when I look at the names likely available later in the top 10, I see blue chip talent. The point of my post was really that staying put at 2 doesn't make sense to me BECAUSE I think it's basically guaranteed that there's blue chip talent that is going to slide into the 8-12 range.
For example, Mike Mayock's top 6 players are:
1. Saquon Barkley, RB, Penn State
2. Quenton Nelson, OG, Notre Dame
3. Bradley Chubb, DE, N.C. State
4. Roquan Smith, LB, Georgia
5. Minkah Fitzpatrick, S, Alabama
6. Derwin James, S, Florida State
I'm in full agreement with him and would be thrilled with any of these guys and because of the Qbs, think it should be doable to move back and still get one.
Mayock's Top Prospects - ( New Window )
They think that they’ll take either Barkley or Chubb. Both think that they should take Chubb.
George young didnt have to deal with free agency.
Glad the Giants hired a dinosaur who just got fired because he'd be a yes man to ownership.
Any lower and you probably are not getting a blue chip that also fills a need, Nelson perhaps being the last one available. DG's history suggests Fitzpatrick not a target.
This idea that they cant get a blue chip player at 12 is complete nonsense. In all likelyhood you're taking the 8th position player in the draft. If the Giants cant find a blue chip player in that scenario they dont know what the hell they're doing.
We should then let Buffalo move up for their choice of the remaining QBs. We should let them off the hook for next year by basically taking all of their remaining picks this coming weekend.
We should trade up from 12 & 22 to secure Nelson & McGlinchey. With the remainder of the draft we should secure our favorite Center, RG & RT candidates (Price or Ragnow, Hernandez or B.Smith, Brown or Okorafor)
We could really use some big guys up front on D and another inside LB or two. Corner, RB, FS, & TE we go with what we have. #2 WR TBD later... (veteran)
We should then let Buffalo move up for their choice of the remaining QBs. We should let them off the hook for next year by basically taking all of their remaining picks this coming weekend.
We should trade up from 12 & 22 to secure Nelson & McGlinchey. With the remainder of the draft we should secure our favorite Center, RG & RT candidates (Price or Ragnow, Hernandez or B.Smith, Brown or Okorafor)
We could really use some big guys up front on D and another inside LB or two. Corner, RB, FS, & TE we go with what we have. #2 WR TBD later... (veteran)
Totally agree on maximizing value. However IMO Barkley provides close to franchise Qb value in that he is the only potential 'transformational' non-Qb in this draft.
Quote:
Yep, on paper I'm stopping at #5 but they'd have to gamble on three QBs going early so they feel strongly about a drop to #6.
Any lower and you probably are not getting a blue chip that also fills a need, Nelson perhaps being the last one available. DG's history suggests Fitzpatrick not a target.
This idea that they cant get a blue chip player at 12 is complete nonsense. In all likelyhood you're taking the 8th position player in the draft. If the Giants cant find a blue chip player in that scenario they dont know what the hell they're doing.
General consensus has been there's 6-8 blue chips in this draft, according to the professionals. YMMV, but I'd disagree with you, and finding one later in the draft is possible but less likely.
Lower than that, I don't think DG would do it largely because the big blue chip linemen are probably gone, and he seems to prefer the value route for DBs.
Lower than that, I don't think DG would do it largely because the big blue chip linemen are probably gone, and he seems to prefer the value route for DBs.
Jon- if you were a betting man, whose wearing an NYG hat tomorrow at 8:20pm?
You think Barkley is a smokescreen, or Chubb is graded higher given position/DG philosophy? Based on this, I’d assume-
1. Darnold
2. Chubb
3. Barkley
Think you are going to get a confirmation on the pick before 8 tomorrow?
Quote:
I think it's Darnold or Chubb.
Think you are going to get a confirmation on the pick before 8 tomorrow?
Dunno, it's quiet!
We watch because we feel happy, sad, angry, frustrated, excited, triumphant, etc... Football pulls all these emotions from us.
We are bombarded by ads but we still watch the day's highlights. We click on links, still bombarded by ads to read about our team or favorite players. Some bet on various aspects of the game. Some draft their own fantasy teams and are heavily invested in that aspect of it.
We hear announcers quoting statistics like YPC, and X team hasn't allowed a 100 yard rusher this year, or Y team has had so and so rush for at least 100 yards in every win.
Every week we see some RB breaking free for a 50+ yard score. These are the plays we tune in to see. And when we see Gurley, McCoy, Kamara, Hunt etc have these seemingly superhuman plays, we say to ourselves, "Damn!!!! I wish I had that on my team!"
The fact is that those plays are extremely rare from your RBs, and much more common from the passing game. But we don't care, we see it... We want it! We make logical/analytical sounding arguments about moving safeties around, and having linebackers crashing the LOS. The reality is, team swill play the same way against the team that drafts Barkley until that team shows that they are more efficient using Barkley than throwing to other players. At that point, the DCs will come up with some scheme to change that equation to reduce the threat. BUt to achieve that level of threat is something that no RB has been able to achieve in the past 25 years. Look at what Belichick did in SB XXV, let TT run for over 100 yards, that hurts less than the passing game.
As fans we should be rooting for wins. Highlights are fun. But wins are better.
If you don't get a QB they should come away with a blue chip, namely Nelson, Barkley, or Chubb. They won't get that at 12.
The notion that more picks fills more holes usually isn't accurate. They would have more bodies to inadequately fill more positions.
Unfortunately, I think you may be right.