| Penn State running back Saquon Barkley. The Giants seem to really believe Eli Manning has "years" left and they feel the right thing to do is load up for one last Super Bowl run before they have to move on. That means taking the one player in the draft that can have an instant and dynamic impact on their team. Their offense, in theory, would be unstoppable -- the kind of two-dimensional attack they've been lacking for years. No one else in the draft -- including the best defender, N.C. State DE Bradley Chubb -- can have that kind of impact. What about a future quarterback? Well, it's a concern -- even for many in the organization. But unless this has been an enormous smokescreen, Gettleman apparently believes that he can put that decision off a year or two. |
Nothing is more important than a quarterback. Nothing. And if the Giants pass on a quarterback here, where are they going to find Manning's successor? Their hope is they won't be picking this high again any time soon. They know finding a quarterback in free agency is basically impossible. Finding one outside of the Top 10 or so of the draft is really a crapshoot.
So yes, Barkley is a tremendous pick. But the right pick is a quarterback. The future of the franchise is more important than the present.
Agreed, the win now move is a big mistake.
Is there enough of a push in the organization to convince Gettleman to take a quarterback? Giants co-owner John Mara isn't going to overrule Gettleman, but his own history suggests he understands the importance of finding the next franchise quarterback, even with a current one in place. And with Manning already 37, Mara has openly talked about his admiration for the Brett Favre-Aaron Rodgers transition in Green Bay -- messy at times, but it kept the Packers in contention without missing a beat. If the Browns take Darnold, maybe this won't matter. But if Darnold is there, taking a quarterback could be a big draw. In the end, it's a mystery how much Gettleman can be swayed.
Quote:
Nothing is more important than a quarterback. Nothing. And if the Giants pass on a quarterback here, where are they going to find Manning's successor? Their hope is they won't be picking this high again any time soon. They know finding a quarterback in free agency is basically impossible. Finding one outside of the Top 10 or so of the draft is really a crapshoot.
So yes, Barkley is a tremendous pick. But the right pick is a quarterback. The future of the franchise is more important than the present.
The third round quarterback of the Eagles just beat the sixth round quarterback of the Patriots to win the super bowl. The first round is no less of a crap shoot than any other round...
If, and this is a big if, Barkley is Marshall Faulk 2.0, then wouldn't that pick ensure the health of the franchise going forward?
Quote:
health of the franchise, not just the next 2 to 3 years.
If, and this is a big if, Barkley is Marshall Faulk 2.0, then wouldn't that pick ensure the health of the franchise going forward?
If Peyton Manning in his prime is the QB.
If Peyton Manning in his prime is the QB.
Except that Faulk had is best years away from Manning, with an undrafted QB.
Quote:
In comment 13933148 Kevin in Annapolis said:
If Peyton Manning in his prime is the QB.
Except that Faulk had is best years away from Manning, with an undrafted QB.
You're right. My mistake. With an undrafted Hall of Fame QB.
Quote:
health of the franchise, not just the next 2 to 3 years.
If, and this is a big if, Barkley is Marshall Faulk 2.0, then wouldn't that pick ensure the health of the franchise going forward?
Would it? I think it's arguable. I loved watching Tiki Barber play, but even at his absolute best as a top RB, the Giants still needed the defense and enough QB play to win, and they didn't have that.
Even Marshall Faulk was traded at one point during his career, and he won his title by playing for one of the greatest passing offenses in history. And how many All-Pro RBs in the past decade can say they won super bowls? It certainly seems to be a team accomplishment that can be achieved without having a marquee player at that particular position.
Mindboggling how incorrect this is.
Mindboggling how incorrect this is.
Hard to believe they can really be that delusional.
Quote:
In comment 13933133 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
health of the franchise, not just the next 2 to 3 years.
If, and this is a big if, Barkley is Marshall Faulk 2.0, then wouldn't that pick ensure the health of the franchise going forward?
Would it? I think it's arguable. I loved watching Tiki Barber play, but even at his absolute best as a top RB, the Giants still needed the defense and enough QB play to win, and they didn't have that.
Even Marshall Faulk was traded at one point during his career, and he won his title by playing for one of the greatest passing offenses in history. And how many All-Pro RBs in the past decade can say they won super bowls? It certainly seems to be a team accomplishment that can be achieved without having a marquee player at that particular position.
I'm not disagreeing. Only attempting to present a counter argument that there is more than one way to do it. Maybe not so successfully
It's off the record.
Quote:
In comment 13933148 Kevin in Annapolis said:
Quote:
In comment 13933133 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
health of the franchise, not just the next 2 to 3 years.
If, and this is a big if, Barkley is Marshall Faulk 2.0, then wouldn't that pick ensure the health of the franchise going forward?
Would it? I think it's arguable. I loved watching Tiki Barber play, but even at his absolute best as a top RB, the Giants still needed the defense and enough QB play to win, and they didn't have that.
Even Marshall Faulk was traded at one point during his career, and he won his title by playing for one of the greatest passing offenses in history. And how many All-Pro RBs in the past decade can say they won super bowls? It certainly seems to be a team accomplishment that can be achieved without having a marquee player at that particular position.
I'm not disagreeing. Only attempting to present a counter argument that there is more than one way to do it. Maybe not so successfully
I don't mind the discussion. Don't take it to mean I'm attacking the idea. Sorry if it came off that way.
Quote:
I don't mind the discussion. Don't take it to mean I'm attacking the idea. Sorry if it came off that way.
TTH, I didn't take it that way, but thank you for clarifying.
2 or 3 years is an eternity for an NFL franchise why shouldn't they focus on that time frame?
If GM's and HC's don't win in that time frame chances are they will be gone...
Quote:
health of the franchise, not just the next 2 to 3 years.
2 or 3 years is an eternity for an NFL franchise why shouldn't they focus on that time frame?
If GM's and HC's don't win in that time frame chances are they will be gone...
Coming off a 3-13 season, you think they're going to clean house after 2-3 years?
He's a safe pick from an organization that always plays it safe. It's not always sexy but we are still averaging one championship per decade for the past 4 decades, so their "system" does work. Sometimes we as fans just want a little sizzle, but that doesn't always lead to titles, which is what this is all about isn't it?
Last year nobody really knew much about Josh Allen, Josh Rosen and Baker Mayfield, all of who are now expected to be top 5 draft picks. My point is that there are always going to be highly touted QB's coming out of college, and personally I think Webb will be just as good if not BETTER than all of the QB's not named Darnold coming out this year.
Webb wasn't a slouch at this exact time last year he was seen as a Lamar Jackson level prospect- a late 1st rounder. Now maybe circumstances of team needs or other value for other teams let him slip to the third, but there is no need for us to apologize for that.
Quote:
In comment 13933133 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
health of the franchise, not just the next 2 to 3 years.
2 or 3 years is an eternity for an NFL franchise why shouldn't they focus on that time frame?
If GM's and HC's don't win in that time frame chances are they will be gone...
Coming off a 3-13 season, you think they're going to clean house after 2-3 years?
Depends what happens...if they have 3-13 seasons they are def gone...
I was saying this in response to the argument if they are focusing on winning the next 2 or 3 seasons they are doomed...
Someone could come up out of nowhere next year, but if you don't like these QBs, next year you'd be picking from a crop that has less years and less of a track record, with perhaps a one-year wonder resume.
Someone could come up out of nowhere next year, but if you don't like these QBs, next year you'd be picking from a crop that has less years and less of a track record, with perhaps a one-year wonder resume.
Rosen was in the spotlight since high school -- the #2 QB in the class, long before any of them, including Darnold. As Rosen said, the next superstar QB at USC was supposed to be Ricky Town. Then there was Max Browne, who was also a 5 star prospect, who beat Darnold out in summer practice two years ago. Darnold was a 4 star recruit who took over as the starter early last year after Max Browne struggled mightily against Alabama, etc.
Barkley helps Eli and a young QB....the young QB even more so .... you saw Dak's play fall off without EE ...
Barkley is the best pick short and long term...if getting a stud RB was so easy we'd have one ... look at all the picks and FA picks but yet we STILL need a RB
I agree 100%. The Giants have a rare opportunity here.
Mara and Jints Central are determined to f-ck up the most golden of golden opportunities.
To me it's trust there judgement , It's not like they din't do there homework on all of the 5 viable QB's picks I don't
feel like Mayfield or Allen are locks . Jackson is a very risky pick . Neither Darnold or Rosen knock my socks off
hold a gun to my head then I take Rosen .
The more I think about a trade down is the way to go as much as I would love to see Barkley in blue . It would take the heat off Eli and Odell and this offense could be scary . I think we need a stud RB if the go QB then I wouldn't mind a Nick Chub I don't think Guice makes it out of the 1st round . Then we O-line LB/Edge rusher or CB . With as many spots that need upgrading extra picks make sense .
Picking a QB projected to go in the top 5 wouldn't be forcing a pick.