I keep reading this, “Since Barkley was picked at 2, there is incredible pressure to win within the next 2 years.”
I’ve also read that picking Barkley means NYG is fully committed to Eli.
Why is it that Saquon cannot make an impact beyond Eli? Why can’t he be part of a solution here after Eli is gone? You’d think he only has a 2 year contract the way people are speaking.
Barkley can make life tremendously easier for the next QB whether it is Webb, Lauletta or anyone else. Again, I continue to look back at the Vikings model. Based on what DG has said, it’s about winning in the trenches and running the football, it will make the QB position much more manageable for whoever is playing it. With that in mind:
Case Keenum & Blake Bortles both made conference title games last year.
I’m just so tired of the argument that Barkley means NYG is throwing all their eggs into Eli and has not thought beyond his career. It is such a lazy argument.
On a side note, I still can’t believe the Vikings gave Cousins all that money. They had a nice thing going.
What young QB wouldn't benefit from a weapon like that in two years or so?
Stupid.
I think the complaint is they drafted him because they were all in on making a run with Eli as opposed to setting themselves up for Eli s successor.
Some of us just believe the quarterback position is the most important position on the team.
I wanted them to pass on a quarterback because they didn t believe in them, not because they are in a win now mode.
I think the complaint is they drafted him because they were all in on making a run with Eli as opposed to setting themselves up for Eli s successor.
Some of us just believe the quarterback position is the most important position on the team.
I wanted them to pass on a quarterback because they didn t believe in them, not because they are in a win now mode.
I don’t think the leash on Eli is as long as you think. There is a lot of pressure on him this year. And regardless of what Shurmur says after the fact, I don’t think the QB’s up top grades out well enough. And, based on recent history, 2 of them are likely to bust anyway.
What young QB wouldn't benefit from a weapon like that in two years or so?
Stupid.
Bingo!
I think the complaint is they drafted him because they were all in on making a run with Eli as opposed to setting themselves up for Eli s successor.
Some of us just believe the quarterback position is the most important position on the team.
I wanted them to pass on a quarterback because they didn t believe in them, not because they are in a win now mode.
You build an entire team, not just one player. And you need overall strength and balance. When you do that and when you prioritize getting the *best* players, rather than the ones that tug at your emotions, you look like you're setting up to win now...and you actually, truly are...but you are also building the best team to compete for the long haul.
Pretty much every thread is “this is a win now pick”. I always ask why we can’t also win later with Barkley and never really get an answer.
If Barkley was rated the exact same as the top QB on their board if probably be upset we went the route we did. But by the looks of it it wasn’t very close so picking the lower ranked QB just to do so is what many people still want the Giants to do. Fine, if that’s how people feel that’s cool. But to say this is only a win now pick is preposterous. If he has a short career due to injury than that will suck for the short and long term. If he plays out his entire contract plus a tag year, he helps us greatly in the short or long term.
The debates here in five years on whether to pay Barkley will be interesting.
Googs, think back. There were posters who said that by drafting SB, we were in win now mode or words to that effect. It was baffling
Again, I ask for some examples of posters saying that and also saying SB is done after year 2. I just haven't noticed but you all I presume have.
Have you listened to WFAN? It’s been a big theme.
When a new QB enters the situation, it is going to be a very attractive spot to be in. Whether it be a FA or a draft pick.
Very attractive for our QBs right now...
Not really the same. Dallas had the best OL in the league so Elliot’s addition created something no other team in the league has. Adding Barkley will be a plus but nothing like what Dallas has.
When a new QB enters the situation, it is going to be a very attractive spot to be in. Whether it be a FA or a draft pick.
Good point, but let's hope that the OL will be a competent unit. That will be the other piece.
Very attractive for our QBs right now...
The question is whether Eli will make it a winning foursome...
I like this one better, average playing career of an NFL player that makes one pro bowl is 11.7 years.
Everyone assumes the worst case scenario for a RB(small window) and best case scenario for QB(I've heard picking QB sets Giants up for next 14 years.) Eli's career is rare, maybe Barkely's career will be as well.
For the umpteenth time: 1) The Browns selected Mayfield over Darnold - why? Because after spending six months evaluating the quarterbacks, the Browns concluded that "Johnny Manziel II" was a better risk than Darnold! I genuinely feel sorry for Darnold who is under inordinate pressure developing in "Jets quarterback hell" and must now live with the Mark Sanchez comparisons on a daily basis; 2) The Broncos who are more desperate for a quarterback than the Giants, passed on both Rosen and Allen - why? Because both have inordinate risks - Rosen for injury and Allen for accuracy. It will take ten years to determine whether this was the right decision for the Giants but it appears we will be adjudicating it on a daily basis around here...
I agree completely that Shurmur's offense is built on a balanced offensive attack that leverages both a quarterback's ability AND sensibility in running the offense. Eli will be superb in running Shurmur's offense just as Keenum was solid in running it for Minnesota. This is the offense that Gilbride should have been directed to build for Eli in 2013 rather than being blamed and fired. Bringing in McAdon't was the worst thing that could have happened to Eli.
Keenum was actually a very good quarterback for Shurmur and letting him go for Cousins is a monumental error by the Vikings. They will rue the day they passed on the one guy who could have finally delivered that elusive super bowl win. Watch how much better the Broncos are this year with both Keenum and the second best player in the draft, Bradley Chubb. Cousins is an overpaid "spotlight hogger" who will usher in resentment and divisiveness for the Vikings. They will fall short in 2018 of where they finished in 2017 and continue to be one of the most unsuccessful franchises in the super bowl era.
Barring injury, Barkley will be a mainstay for the Giants over the next decade or so. Winning a super bowl over the next several years should be table stakes. I expect him to be part of the next era in multiple super bowl winning Giants football teams, succeeding the "LT Era" and the "Eli Era". Once they win their next Lombardi Trophy, it will become known for posterity simply as the "Saquon Era"...
Seems to be more of an embellishment of the theme RB vs QB argument from what I can tell...
The debate has gone on for months and is not likely to be quieted for quite some time as the chips fall. It will be interesting, not the least in the sense that Darnold is a co-tenant with Eli and SB. Eli's play will have a say in the matter.
The other issue is present value; just like in finance, performance next year has much more "value" in a decision than 5 years down the road (use draft picks as an example).
BUT
What if everyone was right? It'll be interesting to see what happen if SQ ends up being an All-Pro along with the 4 QBs...what an interesting NFL roster building analysis opportunity for the entire league.
Dan Blue : 7:06 am : link : reply
to throw cold water on the pick. He’s going to be criticized his entire career by some just so they can try and prove a point.
There are actually posters on BBI who relish in the down times so they can either pat themselves on the back for predicting failure or for bring an "objective" viewpoint to the table.
Wishing to see a draft pick fail or even having it as a side desire just to claim one was right about criticizing the pick is complete horseshit.
You know even if Barkley is a great RB, some of these fuckers will still go on and on about his impending contract, the cap impact and what great players we will lose out on and an assortment of other things. Just like many people who called OBJ "Becky" continue to look at him as a liability.
- The team believes Eli has years left. This has been sited as a factor in their decision.
- PS confirmed that they really liked some of the QBs. This was not simply the case of their not liking them, as many on here have said.
- They have acknowledged that Davis Webb is an unknown. It is not a matter of their passing on the QBs on the basis of their conviction for Webb.
- They do not expect to be drafting in the top 5 again any time soon.
- Consequentially, they do not expect to have their pick of QBs in draft again.
So as far as the QB position goes, and I think we can all agree having a good QB is important, we have a short window where the position is set. After that, there is a whole lot of uncertainty. They will need to find an answer. And if they didn't get very lucky with one of these young guys, they will need to find one without the benefit of the opportunity they just passed up.
I am not being judgmental here. But this is the risk they took. They had a chance to lock in Eli's successor --instead they chose a different path that has a different set of benefits. So we just need to see how it plays out. But let's at least read the situation correctly.
That last part is unfortunately the really, really hardest part.
Apparently they didn't think so.
The Barkley pick is, on paper, less of a risk than any of the QBs.
BTW, were the Rams wrong in taking Gurley, Dallas in taking Elliot?
There wasn't a better prospect in the draft. He's now a Giant.
Good times...~
Neither have I uber. But yet that is the title/premise of this thread...
Key word here is likely - it's possible that we move on to the next QB with no drop in play - but that's really the rare exception in the NFL more than it is the norm.
So take 2-3 years, add a lost year or two - and we're 4-5 years into Barkley's career. If he goes for 8-10 years? Not a problem. If he has 6 years of high performance production in him and starts to drop off - then he has a limited window to produce post-Eli.
That's not an agenda, it's what you can project given what we've seen in the past from teams that change QBs.
Quote:
the roster should be well set for a new QB to step in in two years ...
That last part is unfortunately the really, really hardest part.
It is for sure, you've got to believe in that prospect.
Barkley fits that mold because he will be pretty much plug and play, he has an NFL-ready game. There is no reason to think he won't be productive 5 years from now, and he would be a bad pick if he isn't.
Apparently they didn't think so.
That's not true at all. Here is what PS said of the QBs before the draft: “Time will tell,” the head coach of the Giants with the No. 2 overall selection said on Tuesday at the NFL’s annual meeting, “but these are all very talented guys who have a chance to be really, really good players.”
Here is what he said after the draft:
"We really liked the quarterbacks that everybody’s talking about."
The did like them. They felt it was better to go with the top player on their board. Was that the right decisions? In time, we'll see.
Kurt Warner- Marshall Faulk
Big Ben- Jerome Bettis
Rivers- Tomlinson
Eli- Tiki Barber
Matt Ryan- Michael Turner
Joe Flacco- Ray Rice
Russell Wilson- Beast Mode
Ect.
Maybe a little over the top there - more like Win Now or limited window to win later. I don't see anyone really dumping on Barkley the player enough to justify a 'never win' scenario.
Meanwhile, many were proponents of taking a QB with multiple concussions, and another QB who runs almost as much as a RB.
What young QB wouldn't benefit from a weapon like that in two years or so?
Stupid.
It dont matter, SB can be special after Eli and if the Giants have no franchise qb, the team will suck and SB will just be a stats compiler on a bad team.
At that point the Giants might have to trade 3 1st round picks to get a new qb, or pay 120 million to a FA qb.
This means that in 2018 the Giants drafted a lambo and have no gas for it.
Apparently they didn't think so.
The Barkley pick is, on paper, less of a risk than any of the QBs.
BTW, were the Rams wrong in taking Gurley, Dallas in taking Elliot?
There wasn't a better prospect in the draft. He's now a Giant.
Good times...~
Exactly. No one has a response when it comes to Gurley and Elliott, and even Fournette - because it goes against their narrative. Those teams drafted RB's high and suddenly, their QB's look a lot better and they're winning games. No one cares about 3 or 5 years down the road because no one knows what the league (or salary cap) will look like in 3 to 5 years.
Quote:
Only shortsighted, agenda driven posters see it that way.
What young QB wouldn't benefit from a weapon like that in two years or so?
Stupid.
It dont matter, SB can be special after Eli and if the Giants have no franchise qb, the team will suck and SB will just be a stats compiler on a bad team.
At that point the Giants might have to trade 3 1st round picks to get a new qb, or pay 120 million to a FA qb.
This means that in 2018 the Giants drafted a lambo and have no gas for it.
Didn't cost three first rounders for anybody to get a QB in this draft class. Not even close.
But now they've added one of the largest contracts to an Oline ever, drafter another Oline they had a first round grade on, and used the #2 overall pick on a player delivered from heaven who is supposed to make everyone better. And they passed on possible successors with acknowledged uncertainty on Webb or the guy they just drafted. So is there pressure here to see dramatic improvement in the play at QB? You bet.
Tierney is the typical fan who points to the salary cap and what paying this player is going to look like 3 or 5 years later as reasons not to draft the RB. And Tiki is the guy who's been there, telling him - it doesn't matter. Best player in the draft - bar none. And he makes their team exponentially better now.
Giants Select Saquon Barkley - ( New Window )
Quote:
...?
Apparently they didn't think so.
The Barkley pick is, on paper, less of a risk than any of the QBs.
BTW, were the Rams wrong in taking Gurley, Dallas in taking Elliot?
There wasn't a better prospect in the draft. He's now a Giant.
Good times...~
Exactly. No one has a response when it comes to Gurley and Elliott, and even Fournette - because it goes against their narrative. Those teams drafted RB's high and suddenly, their QB's look a lot better and they're winning games. No one cares about 3 or 5 years down the road because no one knows what the league (or salary cap) will look like in 3 to 5 years.
Harder to compare those situations. Elliot and Gurley were both drafted as complementary pieces (in particular in Dallas, they already had a huge OL capable of opening holes for the running game). Gurley was drafted later on, to a team that already had a young QB.
Fournette's close, but the Jaguars also had a good (certainly nowhere near Dallas) OL and a younger QB (albeit one that was still a question mark).
This is similar to adding Zeke to the Cowboys with Romo, except that we don't have their OL. And that's a big caveat - if it takes another year or two to sort out the OL (I sure hope not), we've exhausted whatever's left of Eli's career.
I think most feel the opportunity was perfect to draft Eli's successor. They had their pick of any QB, given all the "flavors" (I think we can all agree Baker was not their #1), Eli buys them time to develop whoever they pick and we have coaches known for developing QBs. If that was the direction they chose, this was a huge opportunity for them, and they won't get another like it.
I think that's all most people are saying. And there are many knowledgeable people in the business who feel that's the way they should have gone, so this is not just a matter of unknowledgeable fans spitting out nonsense. There is legitimate controversy on the decision which none of us knows how it will play out for several years.
The folks spitting out "you must draft a QB" are clearly off base, but those entrenched in the opposing extreme refuting any notion that the decision could be highly regretted one day are equally off base.
There is not settling the debate today. We need to see how it plays out over several years.
Tomlinson - 11 years
AP - 12 years
Faulk - 12 years
McCoy- still going strong entering year 10
Lynch - 11 years
Gore - 13 years
The better backs know how to not take the big hits. One of the knocks on Barkley is that he doesnt always finish his runs and goes out of bounds. If that is going to add another 3-4 years to his career, I say so be it.
Spare me on the contract issues as well. Eli's contract will be done, the cap will be raised more than likely, and Kevin Abrams is a master at manipulating the cap.
I like this one better, average playing career of an NFL player that makes one pro bowl is 11.7 years.
Everyone assumes the worst case scenario for a RB(small window) and best case scenario for QB(I've heard picking QB sets Giants up for next 14 years.) Eli's career is rare, maybe Barkely's career will be as well.
The problem is that career back-up QB's in the Ryan Fitzpatrick/Josh McCown/Drew Stanton/Brian Hoyer mold can last awhile because teams want veteran back-ups. At RB if you are not an every down player teams want to go as cheap as possible and if starter goes down they will get by with RB by committee. You can't have QB by committee if your starter goes down.
If the Giants are winning games and the Jets aren't, no one will care about Barkley vs Darnold.
Quote:
...?
Apparently they didn't think so.
That's not true at all. Here is what PS said of the QBs before the draft: “Time will tell,” the head coach of the Giants with the No. 2 overall selection said on Tuesday at the NFL’s annual meeting, “but these are all very talented guys who have a chance to be really, really good players.”
Here is what he said after the draft:
"We really liked the quarterbacks that everybody’s talking about."
The did like them. They felt it was better to go with the top player on their board. Was that the right decisions? In time, we'll see.
I would be more than happy to have SB prove me wrong, to see one of our QBs emerge or rebound, etc.
I doubt there are many people will root against the Giants just to be proven correct when posting on a message board a draft a couple years back.
Quote:
that no QB picked outside the top 5 will ever amount to much with the hand-wringing people have done about us needing to trade into the very top of the draft to get the next QB.
FMiC - Come on, is anyone saying that, really?
I think most feel the opportunity was perfect to draft Eli's successor. They had their pick of any QB, given all the "flavors" (I think we can all agree Baker was not their #1), Eli buys them time to develop whoever they pick and we have coaches known for developing QBs. If that was the direction they chose, this was a huge opportunity for them, and they won't get another like it.
I think that's all most people are saying. And there are many knowledgeable people in the business who feel that's the way they should have gone, so this is not just a matter of unknowledgeable fans spitting out nonsense. There is legitimate controversy on the decision which none of us knows how it will play out for several years.
The folks spitting out "you must draft a QB" are clearly off base, but those entrenched in the opposing extreme refuting any notion that the decision could be highly regretted one day are equally off base.
There is not settling the debate today. We need to see how it plays out over several years.
Agree with Uber...again.
Always love the extreme post to stir up the debaters. Like goose-stepping down the streets of Berlin...
Still waiting to read all the posts that state "SB is a bad pick because he is only valuable for 2 years".
Quote:
many of the RB retractions treat this as a Win or Never Win scenario while RB supporters see Barkley fit Win now and/or Win Later.
Maybe a little over the top there - more like Win Now or limited window to win later. I don't see anyone really dumping on Barkley the player enough to justify a 'never win' scenario.
I don’t agree. The weeks leading up to the draft and post draft The was/is a core group that thinks Barkley can’t possibly help long term. If he plays well out of the gates and through his entire contract, that’s potentially 5+ years of high level play that we haven’t had at RB in a decade it seems. That will help Eli and then whoever is next. And it’s entirely possible he has a long career, it’s not this unheard of feat that you would be led to believe from some people.
That said, there are other ways to build a winner. With Barkley, as corny as it sounds, I think you look at him as your QB. You load up on the OL and run the offense through him. If that means chintzing on the QB and banking on luck or "game managers", so be it. The odds are strongly against either Lauletta or Webb turning into "the guy" and the odds of finding one in FA or outside the Top 5-10 of the draft are just as slim. However, if we have the right coaching/system in place, Webb or Lauletta are serviceable and Barkley is 90% of what he's billed to be? You have a window that extends a few years beyond Eli, you're just committing your resources in different areas.
So while I favor the first approach, I do understand what this team is trying to do here. We're at least committing to an identity, even if it's not the one I wanted, at least there's a clear plan here. There's cause for optimism.
And what if Barkley turns into an All-Pro like Gurley, and Webb is a pretty good QB? Thats a win for me
Quote:
In comment 13950481 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
that no QB picked outside the top 5 will ever amount to much with the hand-wringing people have done about us needing to trade into the very top of the draft to get the next QB.
FMiC - Come on, is anyone saying that, really?
I think most feel the opportunity was perfect to draft Eli's successor. They had their pick of any QB, given all the "flavors" (I think we can all agree Baker was not their #1), Eli buys them time to develop whoever they pick and we have coaches known for developing QBs. If that was the direction they chose, this was a huge opportunity for them, and they won't get another like it.
I think that's all most people are saying. And there are many knowledgeable people in the business who feel that's the way they should have gone, so this is not just a matter of unknowledgeable fans spitting out nonsense. There is legitimate controversy on the decision which none of us knows how it will play out for several years.
The folks spitting out "you must draft a QB" are clearly off base, but those entrenched in the opposing extreme refuting any notion that the decision could be highly regretted one day are equally off base.
There is not settling the debate today. We need to see how it plays out over several years.
Agree with Uber...again.
Always love the extreme post to stir up the debaters. Like goose-stepping down the streets of Berlin...
Still waiting to read all the posts that state "SB is a bad pick because he is only valuable for 2 years".
Feel free to show me differently
Feel free to show me differently
I think that what was asked for were posts showing that there is a short utility for SB. Prior to the draft it was hotly debated.
Quote:
that no QB picked outside the top 5 will ever amount to much with the hand-wringing people have done about us needing to trade into the very top of the draft to get the next QB.
FMiC - Come on, is anyone saying that, really?
I think most feel the opportunity was perfect to draft Eli's successor. They had their pick of any QB, given all the "flavors" (I think we can all agree Baker was not their #1), Eli buys them time to develop whoever they pick and we have coaches known for developing QBs. If that was the direction they chose, this was a huge opportunity for them, and they won't get another like it.
I think that's all most people are saying. And there are many knowledgeable people in the business who feel that's the way they should have gone, so this is not just a matter of unknowledgeable fans spitting out nonsense. There is legitimate controversy on the decision which none of us knows how it will play out for several years.
The folks spitting out "you must draft a QB" are clearly off base, but those entrenched in the opposing extreme refuting any notion that the decision could be highly regretted one day are equally off base.
There is not settling the debate today. We need to see how it plays out over several years.
Uber...Appreciate your excellent, well-reasoned posts in this thread.
Agree that it will take years to get an answer as to which "side" was right.
So far, I haven't seen all these posts...
What's the average career length for any football player? WRs? DE?
How long did Nicks last? Cruz? Tiki? How long was JPP an elite DE? Or Tuck?
Most elite players have an elite window of about 5 years. That's just how things go in the NFL.
Talkies need a hot take. Fans lap it up. The Giants take a RB and right away the talkies go to the well.
Does anyone here think Zeke Elliot is going to be a fat slow slob of a RB this time next year? Anything could happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Just enjoy the ride with Barkley. We got a gift. Enjoy and worry about 2022 when it gets here.
Quote:
effect on Prescott. Drafting Berkeley was the thing to do. The only thing I would have wanted more was at Raytown and then drafting Barkley though I don't see how that could have happened with the Browns at 4.
Not really the same. Dallas had the best OL in the league so Elliot’s addition created something no other team in the league has. Adding Barkley will be a plus but nothing like what Dallas has.
That's a bullshit take. Dallas doesn't have Beckham and Engram. Oh, and they don't have Eli Manning.
Dallas OL is by far the most overrated unit in NFL history. It's a great unit but how many playoff games have they won exactly? All I have heard since 2014 is how awesome that unit is. 2 playoff wins, one of them a gift. And that amazing OL got Tony Romo killed.
The 2007 Dallas OL was better.
That's the question I'd have about the thought process, because if they couldn't believe in one or two of the quarterback options in this draft, when will they be able to?
So far, I haven't seen all these posts...
I’m not searching for specific posts as multiple people have stated the same within this thread. There has clearly been the idea that picking Saquon puts a lot of pressure on NYG to win within Eli’s remaining playing career. I don’t see as many points referencing Saquon beyond Eli.
Quote:
In comment 13950272 Jint Fan in Buc Land said:
Quote:
effect on Prescott. Drafting Berkeley was the thing to do. The only thing I would have wanted more was at Raytown and then drafting Barkley though I don't see how that could have happened with the Browns at 4.
Not really the same. Dallas had the best OL in the league so Elliot’s addition created something no other team in the league has. Adding Barkley will be a plus but nothing like what Dallas has.
That's a bullshit take. Dallas doesn't have Beckham and Engram. Oh, and they don't have Eli Manning.
Dallas OL is by far the most overrated unit in NFL history. It's a great unit but how many playoff games have they won exactly? All I have heard since 2014 is how awesome that unit is. 2 playoff wins, one of them a gift. And that amazing OL got Tony Romo killed.
The 2007 Dallas OL was better.
Dallas OLine in 2016 was pretty damn good. Not so good last year. Losing Free was a big deal to them. He solidified the RT spot. He wasnt a pro bowl type player but he brought his lunch pail every day. It allowed them to do a lot of different things. Much like Kareem McKenzie was a guy who never made a pro bowl for us, we would have been nowhere without him.
Quote:
but apparently not enough to draft one ahead of the top player on their board. You've got to believe in the QB big time, otherwise you're surrendering the option to grab a potentially very special player regardless of position.
That's the question I'd have about the thought process, because if they couldn't believe in one or two of the quarterback options in this draft, when will they be able to?
When there isn’t a far better talent available that also happens to be a massive need.
That was not my impression of the situation leading up to the draft based on everything I'd read, so my question then would be about the evaluation.
On the other side of things you have the constant recycling of mid to late round picks in a RBBC backfield that simply isn’t working. Not a single player we have back there takes pressure off of the passing game. Beckham and Engram immediately get “better” because of the threat of Barkley. That in turn makes life easier for Eli and a lesser talented QB (Webb/Lauletta if it comes to it).
Long winded answer but I think some of this is maybe right player but wrong time.
I like this one better, average playing career of an NFL player that makes one pro bowl is 11.7 years.
Everyone assumes the worst case scenario for a RB(small window) and best case scenario for QB(I've heard picking QB sets Giants up for next 14 years.) Eli's career is rare, maybe Barkely's career will be as well.
While they don’t last the 15+ like some lineman do I think the number is skewed a bit. The rb position is so overpopulated and most don’t last past a few years because they aren’t that good thus is not a very good argument except for those with an agenda as stated above
Quote:
And that was asking for all these posts that say SB is only good for really 2 years (2 years being my interpretation of how long folks on BBI reasonably default to as to how long Eli can play at starter-level in the NFL).
So far, I haven't seen all these posts...
I’m not searching for specific posts as multiple people have stated the same within this thread. There has clearly been the idea that picking Saquon puts a lot of pressure on NYG to win within Eli’s remaining playing career. I don’t see as many points referencing Saquon beyond Eli.
Ok, its your OP title suggesting the overly-used limitation of SB value term. Not mine.
If it matters, I think there should be a lot of pressure to win now based on what just occurred in this draft and FA. In fact, how could you think other-wise?
I also think there should clearly be value in SB after Eli is gone. In fact, how could you think other-wise?
I also think, there is a very small minority that thinks SB has limited value after Eli unless they think Eli is going to play for 7 more years...
Quote:
In comment 13950605 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
And that was asking for all these posts that say SB is only good for really 2 years (2 years being my interpretation of how long folks on BBI reasonably default to as to how long Eli can play at starter-level in the NFL).
So far, I haven't seen all these posts...
I’m not searching for specific posts as multiple people have stated the same within this thread. There has clearly been the idea that picking Saquon puts a lot of pressure on NYG to win within Eli’s remaining playing career. I don’t see as many points referencing Saquon beyond Eli.
Ok, its your OP title suggesting the overly-used limitation of SB value term. Not mine.
If it matters, I think there should be a lot of pressure to win now based on what just occurred in this draft and FA. In fact, how could you think other-wise?
I also think there should clearly be value in SB after Eli is gone. In fact, how could you think other-wise?
I also think, there is a very small minority that thinks SB has limited value after Eli unless they think Eli is going to play for 7 more years...
Personally if I were in Gettleman's shoes I would have been more likely to explore one of two options:
1) Draft Darnold and find some way to move Eli (I'm not a believer in drafting a QB at #2 and having him sit)
2) Weigh my trade down options, as surely Gettleman had at least a couple to choose from
Considering the front office had decided on Eli prior to this draft (a strange decision process IMO), it's likely scenario 1 was never even a consideration.
5 - first rounders (manning, manning, rodgers, roth, flacco)
1 - second rounders (brees)
2 - third rounders (foles, wilson)
1 - sixth rounder (brady)
I think 6 or 7 of those guys will end up in the HOF. The odds of a late guy developing into a QB good enough to win a championship are long, which is why if you have a guy already (manning) you try and win while you have him. I don't think we should take it for granted that Lauletta or Webb are going to develop into the heir apparent for Eli, although i hope they do.
Yes, Bortles and Keenum made the conference championship games. Clearly the Vikings did not think Keenum's play was sustainable, or the front office is dumb for letting him go. People are still calling for Bortles' ouster and you can argue that Jacksonville's success was in spite of Bortles. We laugh at Minny giving all that money to Cousins, but if Lauletta or Webb don't pan out, we have all these pieces except QB, and then we are overpaying for a mediocre QB to what we hope is the final piece for a championship run
In summary, it isn't a given that we will be successful finding an heir apparent to Eli (just look at the garbage after Simms). Yes Barkley will make the successor to Eli's job easier, but IMO QB play will still be the controlling factor in NYG's championship windows.
Personally if I were in Gettleman's shoes I would have been more likely to explore one of two options:
1) Draft Darnold and find some way to move Eli (I'm not a believer in drafting a QB at #2 and having him sit)
2) Weigh my trade down options, as surely Gettleman had at least a couple to choose from
Considering the front office had decided on Eli prior to this draft (a strange decision process IMO), it's likely scenario 1 was never even a consideration.
The trade value just wasn't there.
the Jets gave up 3 2nd's to go from 6 to 3. Cleveland shopped the 4th, no takers. Denver shopped the 5th, no takers.
Gettleman said he didn't get anything that outweighed the value of the pick. I'm of the opinion that any trade that didn't involve next year's 1st round pick was not worth their time.
Because the Jets only had to give up 3 2's to move from the 6 position to 3, and in 2012 the Redskins had to give up 3 1's AND a 2 to move from 6 to 2, it's clear that the value just wasn't there this year.
You have to have an offer worth considering before you consider it.
Personally if I were in Gettleman's shoes I would have been more likely to explore one of two options:
1) Draft Darnold and find some way to move Eli (I'm not a believer in drafting a QB at #2 and having him sit)
2) Weigh my trade down options, as surely Gettleman had at least a couple to choose from
Considering the front office had decided on Eli prior to this draft (a strange decision process IMO), it's likely scenario 1 was never even a consideration.
I get the impression, if you really look at their draft and, especially, in light of management's commentary, that they didn't exactly use a tier system like we are used to. Their list almost seems vertical to me and that they just went straight down it.
Even if they did use a tier system, it is pretty clear that it would have been more of a pyramid and there was only one name at the top with a lot of bricks, wattle, stone and mortar buffering that tier before you get to the second one.
5 - first rounders (manning, manning, rodgers, roth, flacco)
1 - second rounders (brees)
2 - third rounders (foles, wilson)
1 - sixth rounder (brady)
I think 6 or 7 of those guys will end up in the HOF. The odds of a late guy developing into a QB good enough to win a championship are long, which is why if you have a guy already (manning) you try and win while you have him. I don't think we should take it for granted that Lauletta or Webb are going to develop into the heir apparent for Eli, although i hope they do.
Yes, Bortles and Keenum made the conference championship games. Clearly the Vikings did not think Keenum's play was sustainable, or the front office is dumb for letting him go. People are still calling for Bortles' ouster and you can argue that Jacksonville's success was in spite of Bortles. We laugh at Minny giving all that money to Cousins, but if Lauletta or Webb don't pan out, we have all these pieces except QB, and then we are overpaying for a mediocre QB to what we hope is the final piece for a championship run
In summary, it isn't a given that we will be successful finding an heir apparent to Eli (just look at the garbage after Simms). Yes Barkley will make the successor to Eli's job easier, but IMO QB play will still be the controlling factor in NYG's championship windows.
You do realize that Minnesota has taken 2 1st round QB's since 2011 (Ponder and Bridgewater), both of whom stunk and both are no longer on the team. That's why they're having to pay Cousins all that money.
To me, if Denver had offered us three 2nd round picks to move from 2 to 5 I would take that deal in a heartbeat. I'd have done it probably for one 2nd round draft pick, give that I didn't see any difference between the top 6 or 7 prospects in this draft. It's not impossible that we could have moved down to Denver's pick and still grabbed Barkley.
It just seemed to me like Gettleman took too myopic a view with regard to picking Barkley at #2.
You take your shot with the best player in the draft, IMO, unless somebody blows you away with an offer you can't refuse.
What does?
Quote:
Without knowing what the offers were it's tough to say one way or the other. What we do know comes from Gettleman's comments, and to me they don't sound like optimal draft management.
What does?
Gettleman's comments. It sounds to me like he was locked in on Barkley at #2 come hell or high water.
I would make that trade 100 times out of 100.
5 - first rounders (manning, manning, rodgers, roth, flacco)
1 - second rounders (brees)
2 - third rounders (foles, wilson)
1 - sixth rounder (brady)
I think 6 or 7 of those guys will end up in the HOF. The odds of a late guy developing into a QB good enough to win a championship are long, which is why if you have a guy already (manning) you try and win while you have him. I don't think we should take it for granted that Lauletta or Webb are going to develop into the heir apparent for Eli, although i hope they do.
Yes, Bortles and Keenum made the conference championship games. Clearly the Vikings did not think Keenum's play was sustainable, or the front office is dumb for letting him go. People are still calling for Bortles' ouster and you can argue that Jacksonville's success was in spite of Bortles. We laugh at Minny giving all that money to Cousins, but if Lauletta or Webb don't pan out, we have all these pieces except QB, and then we are overpaying for a mediocre QB to what we hope is the final piece for a championship run
In summary, it isn't a given that we will be successful finding an heir apparent to Eli (just look at the garbage after Simms). Yes Barkley will make the successor to Eli's job easier, but IMO QB play will still be the controlling factor in NYG's championship windows.
Your post says to me that almost half (4/9) of those winning quarterbacks were taken in the 2nd round our later. Lauletta and Webb were both graded as 2nd rounders according to a wide number of sources, and Lauletta going in the 4th round I think had a lot to do with this being a QB-heavy class. We have TWO possible heirs to Eli's throne. I don't think it's out of the question that we can win with one of them.
To say we should not have drafted Saquon and gone QB instead, you would have to convince me that the Giants can only one a super bowl in the next 10 years with either Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen. Obviously NYG did not believe that was the case based on their analysis.
Quote:
I think the argument for an Eli window is that at end of the day, this is still a QB driven league and you need good QB play to win championships. It's hard to develop good QBs in this league. In the past 15 years, 9 different QBs have won championships:
5 - first rounders (manning, manning, rodgers, roth, flacco)
1 - second rounders (brees)
2 - third rounders (foles, wilson)
1 - sixth rounder (brady)
I think 6 or 7 of those guys will end up in the HOF. The odds of a late guy developing into a QB good enough to win a championship are long, which is why if you have a guy already (manning) you try and win while you have him. I don't think we should take it for granted that Lauletta or Webb are going to develop into the heir apparent for Eli, although i hope they do.
Yes, Bortles and Keenum made the conference championship games. Clearly the Vikings did not think Keenum's play was sustainable, or the front office is dumb for letting him go. People are still calling for Bortles' ouster and you can argue that Jacksonville's success was in spite of Bortles. We laugh at Minny giving all that money to Cousins, but if Lauletta or Webb don't pan out, we have all these pieces except QB, and then we are overpaying for a mediocre QB to what we hope is the final piece for a championship run
In summary, it isn't a given that we will be successful finding an heir apparent to Eli (just look at the garbage after Simms). Yes Barkley will make the successor to Eli's job easier, but IMO QB play will still be the controlling factor in NYG's championship windows.
You do realize that Minnesota has taken 2 1st round QB's since 2011 (Ponder and Bridgewater), both of whom stunk and both are no longer on the team. That's why they're having to pay Cousins all that money.
That just bolsters the point that drafting/developing good QBs in this league is hard...which is why we shouldn't hang our hats on Lauletta or Webb developing post Eli; although we all hope that they do.
Key word here is likely - it's possible that we move on to the next QB with no drop in play - but that's really the rare exception in the NFL more than it is the norm.
So take 2-3 years, add a lost year or two - and we're 4-5 years into Barkley's career. If he goes for 8-10 years? Not a problem. If he has 6 years of high performance production in him and starts to drop off - then he has a limited window to produce post-Eli.
That's not an agenda, it's what you can project given what we've seen in the past from teams that change QBs.
Nailed it. Amazing that people need it explained, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
S Justin Reid
OT Geron Christian
DE Rasheem Green
Those three guys + Chubb don't equal Barkley?
Quote:
In comment 13950688 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Without knowing what the offers were it's tough to say one way or the other. What we do know comes from Gettleman's comments, and to me they don't sound like optimal draft management.
What does?
Gettleman's comments. It sounds to me like he was locked in on Barkley at #2 come hell or high water.
I don’t disagree but if the lack of a legit trade down package being there is legitimate, which it seems like it was, then it doesn’t really matter how locked in he was.
I’m not searching for specific posts as multiple people have stated the same within this thread. There has clearly been the idea that picking Saquon puts a lot of pressure on NYG to win within Eli’s remaining playing career. I don’t see as many points referencing Saquon beyond Eli.
This is silly. The fact that drafting Saquon (more directly, not drafting a QB and keeping Eli) means the Giants expect to win now doesn't imply that they don't think SB will have value post-Eli.
The Giants expect to win now with Eli, and also expect SB to have a HOF-quality career. Both statements can be true.
S Justin Reid
OT Geron Christian
DE Rasheem Green
Those three guys + Chubb don't equal Barkley?
Not for me. I would take the single transcendent player over a bunch of good, even very good to excellent guys always.
Then again, I am on the side of never letting OBJ go, even if offered Mike Lynn type deals, whereas I am sure you would take a different view. I just think talent is everything.
Exactly. I wanted a QB at 2, but my reasoning for that wasn't that I didn't think Barkley would have a long career. Looking at career averages at a certain position is fruitless, since it includes marginal players who may not last a season, if that.
Quote:
I’m not searching for specific posts as multiple people have stated the same within this thread. There has clearly been the idea that picking Saquon puts a lot of pressure on NYG to win within Eli’s remaining playing career. I don’t see as many points referencing Saquon beyond Eli.
This is silly. The fact that drafting Saquon (more directly, not drafting a QB and keeping Eli) means the Giants expect to win now doesn't imply that they don't think SB will have value post-Eli.
The Giants expect to win now with Eli, and also expect SB to have a HOF-quality career. Both statements can be true.
If people are going to play dumb and pretend that this narrative didn't exist pre-draft, then there's no point even having the conversation.
The reality is that like most things, BBI as a whole was very black or white on the subject. QB meant build for the future, any other postion meant all in on Eli.
Now some of you are telling me that BBI was nuanced right down the middle, that you were building for both?
Right.
Quote:
It might not turn out to be an issue - but RBs don't have the longest shelf lives. If Eli's here for 2-3 years and we transition, there's likely a lost season or two moving from Eli to his successor.
Key word here is likely - it's possible that we move on to the next QB with no drop in play - but that's really the rare exception in the NFL more than it is the norm.
So take 2-3 years, add a lost year or two - and we're 4-5 years into Barkley's career. If he goes for 8-10 years? Not a problem. If he has 6 years of high performance production in him and starts to drop off - then he has a limited window to produce post-Eli.
That's not an agenda, it's what you can project given what we've seen in the past from teams that change QBs.
Nailed it. Amazing that people need it explained, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
We don’t since it’s a thoughtout and reasonable explanation. Problem is we don’t often get that. Instead it’s blanket statements making it seem like any and all RBs legs fall off by their 25th birthday.
But the MAJORITY, it was one or the other. And the fun thing is, it's all archived.
That was a beautifully written insult, and I greatly enjoyed it. However, one thing I would like to know, as a Saquon supporter and a guy who believes it is time to move on from Eli, is, then, which one of the QB's should we have taken? At least say which one it is out of those that were available that were going to pan out and be a franchise QB.
Because the Giants are picking only one player at #2, and they are picking a specific player, not a position, "draft a QB" doesn't cut it. Have some conviction on who it is they should've drafted. If it's Rosen, fine. Darnold, fine. Allen, fine. Whoever it is, doesn't matter. But at least go on record, as some others have, with who that player is that should've been taken over Saquon.
From my perspective, Saquon is too great of a player to pass up, not when you have Eli who is going to start for another year at least, and you have a guy in Davis Webb who still may end up being the successor. Now we have Lauletta as well. We may not end up picking at 2 again for a long time. But that doesn't mean we won't be in position again to get a premier QB. There will be others next year and the year after that.
In the meantime, let's see what this offense can do when you plug a freak of nature RB into it.
If people are going to play dumb and pretend that this narrative didn't exist pre-draft, then there's no point even having the conversation.
The reality is that like most things, BBI as a whole was very black or white on the subject. QB meant build for the future, any other postion meant all in on Eli.
Now some of you are telling me that BBI was nuanced right down the middle, that you were building for both?
Right.
That wasn't my point, Britt. The OP is asking why the SB pick is limited to Eli's window. No one, and I mean NO ONE is saying that it is. Yes, the decision to keep Eli means the Giants are all in to win now, but that doesn't mean that they don't anticipate Barkley being productive after Eli leaves. That is patently ridiculous.
This is very off the cuff research but it shows how productive RBs can be well into the back half of their careers. And if your game revolves around pass catching and avoiding contact (Bell, McCoy, etc) the likelihood to have an extended shelf life rises.
Does he make the team better? Hell Yes!
More than a QB I wanted to watch a team that is able to regularly convert 3rd & 4th and short. These are momentum changing plays in a game. Will Hernandez WILL move people off the ball, right now. Barkley or Stewart will get tough yards.
Whoever our QB is will benefit greatly when Barkley is on the field. Moving Barkley around will tell the QB what kind of defense they are playing. Into the slot or out wide, the kid can run routes extremely well. He has great hands. He is an excellent pass blocker.
The Giants will be more fun to watch this year. They will win more games, I guarantee it. For those of you who appreciate character in a man. Barkley is your guy. I thinkh e will become the best player on the team. When the best player, has that much character, and works as hard as that young man does, it has a large impact on a team.
You might not have gotten a Xbox one for Christmas, but you got a PS4 Pro. Don’t throw a fit until you get to play with it, you might find it to be just as good, if not better. You will not know until you try.
It's not so much that (in truth I still think Lamar Jackson ends up the best of the bunch). I just felt (and still feel) that the time has never been better to move on at quarterback. We have a new GM, new coach, new offense, and a draft where the top tier of players included anywhere from 2 to possibly 5 (if you include Jackson like I do) quarterbacks. Put another way, if this exact draft came along in two years would we still have taken Barkley? I'm not sure we would have.
None of this is a knock on Eli, who I love eternally and unconditionally.
Now, could not taking a QB become a disaster? Sure and I'm sure they are aware of that. They have two young guys they can try and develop and hopefully when Eli is done (very possibly after this year) one of them can at least be a game manager for them.
I ask this question. What if they took a QB and he busts and Barkley becomes a Pro-Bowler? That would suck just as much. He's a guy that affects the ENTIRE team. That can be overstated.
And for the record I wanted them to pick Rosen.
Quote:
If people are going to play dumb and pretend that this narrative didn't exist pre-draft, then there's no point even having the conversation.
The reality is that like most things, BBI as a whole was very black or white on the subject. QB meant build for the future, any other postion meant all in on Eli.
Now some of you are telling me that BBI was nuanced right down the middle, that you were building for both?
Right.
That wasn't my point, Britt. The OP is asking why the SB pick is limited to Eli's window. No one, and I mean NO ONE is saying that it is. Yes, the decision to keep Eli means the Giants are all in to win now, but that doesn't mean that they don't anticipate Barkley being productive after Eli leaves. That is patently ridiculous.
Agree section. I have said the same and have asked for such proof.
One of the bigger problems of the folks that get entrenched in the Eli-debate, is that the views become marred with extremisms that really aren't what folks are saying...
Your post says to me that almost half (4/9) of those winning quarterbacks were taken in the 2nd round our later. Lauletta and Webb were both graded as 2nd rounders according to a wide number of sources, and Lauletta going in the 4th round I think had a lot to do with this being a QB-heavy class. We have TWO possible heirs to Eli's throne. I don't think it's out of the question that we can win with one of them.
To say we should not have drafted Saquon and gone QB instead, you would have to convince me that the Giants can only one a super bowl in the next 10 years with either Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen. Obviously NYG did not believe that was the case based on their analysis.
It's more of a crap shoot after the first round. 5 of the 9 were first rounders. You could argue that Brees was a first rounder if you want, he was the 32nd pick that year, the niners lost their first round selection. The odds of a first rounder developing are better than anyone single round after that.
To your second point, I'm not saying that we should have taken those QBs over Barkley. My argument was that with a proven QB, yes there is a window to win now as we don't know what we will have in the future at QB. We all hope we have a successful transition post Manning
Ok, its your OP title suggesting the overly-used limitation of SB value term. Not mine.
If it matters, I think there should be a lot of pressure to win now based on what just occurred in this draft and FA. In fact, how could you think other-wise?
I also think there should clearly be value in SB after Eli is gone. In fact, how could you think other-wise?
I also think, there is a very small minority that thinks SB has limited value after Eli unless they think Eli is going to play for 7 more years...
The last is a bit of a paradox because the people who devalue Barkley that much are the same who think that Eli won't (and shouldn't) last out the week.
So then think about the minority of folks that portray that view as conviction, and why it bothers you so much. Does it really matter??
Quote:
sounds like you talked yourself into Darnold. I agree with your premise about keeping Eli, I never felt it made sense to keep Eli & draft a QB at 2.
It's not so much that (in truth I still think Lamar Jackson ends up the best of the bunch). I just felt (and still feel) that the time has never been better to move on at quarterback. We have a new GM, new coach, new offense, and a draft where the top tier of players included anywhere from 2 to possibly 5 (if you include Jackson like I do) quarterbacks. Put another way, if this exact draft came along in two years would we still have taken Barkley? I'm not sure we would have.
None of this is a knock on Eli, who I love eternally and unconditionally.
Agreed entirely. I also think it is reasonable to keep Eli, I don’t think the decision is clearly one-sided. I also think Shurmur is a guy who is very system oriented, I’d bet if he was still in Minnesota he’d vouch to keep Keenum and stick to what they were doing.
If you look at the system Shurmur likes to run & Lauletta’s skillset, I think Shurmur vouched for him strongly (unlike Webb who I think may have been more of a random pick). I’d be fine going from Eli to more of a system QB with a strong roster in place.
Quote:
Ok, its your OP title suggesting the overly-used limitation of SB value term. Not mine.
If it matters, I think there should be a lot of pressure to win now based on what just occurred in this draft and FA. In fact, how could you think other-wise?
I also think there should clearly be value in SB after Eli is gone. In fact, how could you think other-wise?
I also think, there is a very small minority that thinks SB has limited value after Eli unless they think Eli is going to play for 7 more years...
The last is a bit of a paradox because the people who devalue Barkley that much are the same who think that Eli won't (and shouldn't) last out the week.
So then think about the minority of folks that portray that view as conviction, and why it bothers you so much. Does it really matter??
I'll only say, if Darnold becomes an All Pro QB for 15 years then passing was a mistake.. especially letting the Jets get him, double mistake
Fortunately, I think Gettleman was correct, I don't think Darnold is a future all pro but he sure could be.
I believe Barkley will give us a hall of fame career.
I expect 2500+++ yards from scrimmage from year 1
Tiki was one of the strongest pound for pound guys in NFL history in his later years. Tiki was absolutely a HOF caliber player in his later days.
As you know I'm a big believer in keeping the QB cap hit down and spreading that money to the rest of the roster. If that's the approach after Eli is gone I'm all for it.
That's the kind of thing that to me is a window into Gettleman's mindset, and is sort of annoying.
That's the kind of thing that to me is a window into Gettleman's mindset, and is sort of annoying.
Agree with that. There is no downside to waiting just in case someone makes some crazy offer. None.
But the MAJORITY, it was one or the other. And the fun thing is, it's all archived.
No it really wasn’t.
The best battle of camp is very likely going to be for the #2 QB spot.
Quote:
I think the argument for an Eli window is that at end of the day, this is still a QB driven league and you need good QB play to win championships. It's hard to develop good QBs in this league. In the past 15 years, 9 different QBs have won championships:
5 - first rounders (manning, manning, rodgers, roth, flacco)
1 - second rounders (brees)
2 - third rounders (foles, wilson)
1 - sixth rounder (brady)
I think 6 or 7 of those guys will end up in the HOF. The odds of a late guy developing into a QB good enough to win a championship are long, which is why if you have a guy already (manning) you try and win while you have him. I don't think we should take it for granted that Lauletta or Webb are going to develop into the heir apparent for Eli, although i hope they do.
Yes, Bortles and Keenum made the conference championship games. Clearly the Vikings did not think Keenum's play was sustainable, or the front office is dumb for letting him go. People are still calling for Bortles' ouster and you can argue that Jacksonville's success was in spite of Bortles. We laugh at Minny giving all that money to Cousins, but if Lauletta or Webb don't pan out, we have all these pieces except QB, and then we are overpaying for a mediocre QB to what we hope is the final piece for a championship run
In summary, it isn't a given that we will be successful finding an heir apparent to Eli (just look at the garbage after Simms). Yes Barkley will make the successor to Eli's job easier, but IMO QB play will still be the controlling factor in NYG's championship windows.
You do realize that Minnesota has taken 2 1st round QB's since 2011 (Ponder and Bridgewater), both of whom stunk and both are no longer on the team. That's why they're having to pay Cousins all that money.
Absolutely right... But then these are facts so I am sure they will not let them get in the way of the narrative...
Absolutely right... But then these are facts so I am sure they will not let them get in the way of the narrative...
What narrative is that?
I think most feel the opportunity was perfect to draft Eli's successor. They had their pick of any QB, given all the "flavors" (I think we can all agree Baker was not their #1), Eli buys them time to develop whoever they pick and we have coaches known for developing QBs. If that was the direction they chose, this was a huge opportunity for them, and they won't get another like it.
People are saying that we lost the chance at getting a QB. Not just that but people are indeed saying that we'll have to trade up to get one. Heck, I pulled the original quote from this very thread.
Here's the thinking that I've seen - We will be a mediocre team for the next two years and won't have a shot at drafting a quality QB. We've wasted the chance we had this year and will have to expend picks to move up to be in a decent position to draft Eli's successor.
So many assumptions, but that's basically been the talk track of many posters who disliked drafting Barkley.
We can agree they had an opportunity to draft a QB - but the idea that the opportunity isn't just lost, but that we'll have to move up to draft a QB when Eli is replaced is unlikely.
The argument for not taking a QB seems to be "There wasn't a slam dunk pick at QB to make". If that's the case, and that's the criteria for drafting a QB, then when you get to a year where that QB is in the draft, then there's no chance you're getting that guy. Because no one's allowing you to trade up to get an Andrew Luck prospect.
You just would like to rely on that a bit less...
You just would like to rely on that a bit less...
Quote:
enough to take the team to the promised land.
You just would like to rely on that a bit less...
But it doesn't seem like management felt like it would be less lucky this year. So, what would they be relying upon exactly?
Idk, maybe they are convinced Eli is the man, or maybe Shurmur is confident he doesn't need "the franchise guy", or maybe they can only deal with so many issues at once.
whats your observation?
Rush the passer
The same reasoning applies for any position, with running backs being possibly the strongest example. Last year alone the third round netted Alvin Kamara and Kareem Hunt. And wasn't this draft considered strong at running back?
To put it in the words of Mike Lombardi, the Giants got a Bentley when they could have waited and gotten a Porsche.
DG made it easy on himself...and he is in-charge.
So, maybe a Chevette?
So, maybe a Chevette?
If that's how they approach the draft then their approach is REALLY flawed.
arniefez : 3:38 pm : link : reply
Of course the Giants can draft a QB next year or the year after but the price will probably be much higher than just 1 draft pick.
There is a thought train out there that you simply can't get a QB unless you trade up for one.
Also, a trade down offer looks a lot better if the Giants are moving out of a position where several players are rating alike vs. one guy standing out.
That's what people have to accept. Barkley was chosen because he stood out above everyone else.
But only if Barkley was gone. DG was in love...