Long article basically saying the Giants overvalued Barkley and should have gone with Darnold, summed up with this statement:
Quote:
Time will tell if Gettleman and the Giants made the right choice, but if history is any guide, it was a shortsighted move that could keep the team at the bottom of the standings for the foreseeable future.
is that all the predictions and bullshit will be exposed when we see the on field play. Amazing how keeping score and stats reveal things of importance beyond jersey sales and popularity polls.
the Barkley pick because he had “the same stats or worse” as some of the other running backs. Now he doesn’t like Barkley because he went to Penn State. Just wait until Barkley has a 50 yard game.
RE: RE: RE: There's like three different debates happening in this thread Â
all at once, but it's really stunning to me how quickly we're willing to forget about things that happened on championship teams only ten years ago.
With a strong offensive line a few middling runningbacks did some excellent, important work for this franchise en route to a championship season and, until someone went stupid and shot himself in the leg, what looked like a repeat season in the making.
And again, apparently there is only one way to build a team...
I keep getting told that it’s a different game now, but then get told to look at our teMs from a decade ago. Depends on whoever’s agenda I guess
Is agenda some kind of catch-all excuse for dismissing things? I don't follow. What part of having a strong offensive line doesn't translate across years?
So are you saying that having a potentially great RB prevents them from putting together a good OL? Not sure of your point. My point was that just because we won with mid round RBs a decade ago doesn’t mean that’s the only way to build a winner. Drafting a shitty QB at 2 is sure a good way to screw it up though...
or outliers. Doesn’t make you right or smart. Just be open minded. No one wants to be left in the dust in the NFL - just going along with the same old blueprint isn’t wise especially f you try and force it.
the Barkley pick because he had “the same stats or worse” as some of the other running backs. Now he doesn’t like Barkley because he went to Penn State. Just wait until Barkley has a 50 yard game.
It’s going to be unbearable. Greg is the absolute worst poster on the site when he decides he doesn’t like a player. There will never be another Giants thread without him pissing and moaning about the pick. There is no changing his mind, it’s already made up and this entire board will suffer because of it
Greg and others who didn't like the Barkley pick.. Â
Will you be rooting against Barkley next season? Some of the arguments against Barkley (ex. "We'll see, won't we?" - in reference to being as good as Tiki) give me the impression that you won't enjoy in Barkley turns out to be really good. You'll almost take more pleasure in Barkley not being successful. Just my observation. Curious to your thoughts on that.
the entire value nonsense is blown completely out of proportion. Value is a philosophical opinion based on a lot of individual factors such as scheme, the players talent, character, leadership, and more things than you cam count on both hands. In the system that Shurmer wants to run, in the situation theyre in, Saquon Barkley had by far the most value of any other player in this particular draft, at this time. Period. There is nothing else to argue now. Now its just crying.
the Giants could draft an inanimate carbon rod and arguments would be made here about how it was a good pick.
That's not to knock Barkley, who I expect to be really good. It's just that since Thursday some odd shit is being said that no one would have said last Wednesday.
1. Running backs are easier to find than quarterbacks (and nearly every other position).
2. Running backs tend to have a shorter shelf life.
You could have made those two statements on BBI two weeks ago and the responses would have generally been along the lines of, "No shit." Now we're seeing those generally accepted statements being challenged.
Perceptions and observations seem to get clouded around here when it involves questioning the Giants. I noticed it first on BBI when we signed Lavar Arrington years ago. He was openly mocked as a punchline when he was on the Redskins, but when we signed him it was a great pickup.
Questioning the strategy behind the Barkley pick, and what it says about the front office's perception of where this team actually is, is more than fair.
An even older maxim is that “the team with the best players usually wins”. A corollary would be that to be good you need to have good players and the better players you have, the better off you’ll be. Yet this draft season people ran away from that as fast as their legs would carry them.
the entire value nonsense is blown completely out of proportion. Value is a philosophical opinion based on a lot of individual factors such as scheme, the players talent, character, leadership, and more things than you cam count on both hands. In the system that Shurmer wants to run, in the situation theyre in, Saquon Barkley had by far the most value of any other player in this particular draft, at this time. Period. There is nothing else to argue now. Now its just crying.
It also ignore teams blindly spending at QB just because you have to have one to win. Fuck that. I’d rather pay Barkley that $31 million than Kirk Cousins for basically 1 year. Go ahead and think about that people.
If I’m not getting a top 5 QB, I’d rather have a middling QB and beef up all other positions, prioritizing the run game which would help a less talented QB the most. Alex Smith will be a nice case study of this from KC to Washington.
RE: RE: RE: RE: There's like three different debates happening in this thread Â
all at once, but it's really stunning to me how quickly we're willing to forget about things that happened on championship teams only ten years ago.
With a strong offensive line a few middling runningbacks did some excellent, important work for this franchise en route to a championship season and, until someone went stupid and shot himself in the leg, what looked like a repeat season in the making.
And again, apparently there is only one way to build a team...
I keep getting told that it’s a different game now, but then get told to look at our teMs from a decade ago. Depends on whoever’s agenda I guess
Is agenda some kind of catch-all excuse for dismissing things? I don't follow. What part of having a strong offensive line doesn't translate across years?
So are you saying that having a potentially great RB prevents them from putting together a good OL? Not sure of your point.
My point is we've seen it done consistently over recent years for about a decade plus that teams don't need to throw money and high draft picks at star RBs to get quality production. It's not conjecture or opinion it's fact. And it's happened more than often enough to not turn a blind eye to it.
Pittsburgh owns the best RB in the league and doesn't want to break the bank to keep him. The Patriots have never gone after high priced RBs or drafted one higher than 20th. The Giants won without them. The Packers won without one. Seattle took Marshawn Lynch from Buffalo's scrap pile and made themselves into a run-first team.
There's more than one way to build a team. No one's disputing that. The coach that wins more than anyone, and who was born and raised and taught in the old school of how important running the football is, clearly has a preference in this area. So we know, if all those other examples and the examples that won titles here weren't sufficient, that that particular way certainly works.
Also, calling these QBs "shitty" is a strawman argument. No one thinks that, and no one thought that. That's why all of them, even the one that had the biggest 'bust in the making' banner flying off his neck, went in the first round.
Barkley wasn't "a consensus early-first-round pick in the 2018 NFL draft,"... he was the consensus BEST PLAYER IN THE ENTIRE DRAFT. How can I take the argument or article seriously if the writer ignores that? Nearly everyone who tries to make the argument against choosing Barkley first chooses to ignore that fundamental piece of the discussion.
As I've said a thousand times, I would've taken Darnold. However, we can't leave out the fact Darnold was hardly the unanimous top QB, let alone the top prospect. The idea that the Giants were supposed to select a QB they didn't love or trade for lesser players than Barkley is moronic.
Because it's 3rd hand. I know a UCLA player who knows Barkley and he told me that Barkley purposely under achieved at the Combine so as not to force Cleve. to pick him if he actually tested full out. He tells me Barkley is sub 4.3 forty and bench presses 225 35+ times and his vertical at the combine was at his low end.
He was determined NOT to go Cleve. so he sand-baged just enough. Interesting.
If I’m not getting a top 5 QB, I’d rather have a middling QB and beef up all other positions, prioritizing the run game which would help a less talented QB the most. Alex Smith will be a nice case study of this from KC to Washington.
The reason to not chase the QB position is the prohibitive salary. I agree the absolute worst situation to be in is to be paying someone like Cousins or Tannehill $20+ M/year. I think to pay any player that money at any position is dangerous given the violent nature of the sport.
And that's part of what is vexing about the Giants' strategy. Had they been able to move Eli this offseason or during last season we could be drafting a talented quarterback at a fraction of Eli's cost, and have him locked in at a relatively low cost for 4 or 5 years. We'd essentially be in the situation Philly and Dallas find themselves.
Watch those two teams over the next couple years. If they're really serious about establishing something sustainable they will refrain from paying Wentz and Prescott huge QB dollars. Remember, the QB market got another jolt upwards by the ridiculous Stafford contract and then again by the Garoppolo deal...and Cousins just got his entire contract guaranteed.
As Giants fans we should have our fingers crossed that Philly and Dallas make the same mistakes and set the next bar with their contracts. If I were running Philly I would have drafted Lamar Jackson (who might already be more dangerous in that offense than Wentz) and trade Wentz for a boatload of picks to the next team stupid enough to pay him $40M/per against the cap.
RE: Some of you should really find some highlights of Tiki Barber Â
I agree, but Wentz is a wildcard. The ability is there but he will always be an injury risk so from that standpoint I agree.
As for he Giants they could have cut Eli this offseason and ripped the bandaid off but I’m guessing there were question marks on these QBs from the get go, coupled with giving Eli the benefit of the doubt after the Reese McAdoo debacle.
Regardless of Eli though if they rabked Darnold or whoever considerably lower than I still support that line of thinking. Shurmur is he wildcard - if he’s as good as advertised than we can afford to need up the team elsewhere and let him do his thing with a mid round pick or cheaper FA QB if it comes down to that.
RE: I'm not going to stard a new thread about this Â
Because it's 3rd hand. I know a UCLA player who knows Barkley and he told me that Barkley purposely under achieved at the Combine so as not to force Cleve. to pick him if he actually tested full out. He tells me Barkley is sub 4.3 forty and bench presses 225 35+ times and his vertical at the combine was at his low end.
He was determined NOT to go Cleve. so he sand-baged just enough. Interesting.
Barkley was disappointed he didn’t run a sub 4.4, he said as much in the ESPN special on him and Chubb.
But there is no doubt he wanted the Giants to draft him.
In any event he could have bombed at the combine and I’d still have wanted him. His game tape is what jumps out, the combine demonstrates what an awesome athlete he is.
It's worth wondering what Garoppolo's contract will do to the league Â
In 2018 he will account for a ridiculous 17.5% of the 49ers' salary cap. It drops down to a "reasonable" 13%-14% after that.
If a guy that's started 7 games in 4 seasons can get that type of deal, what are the agents for Wentz and Prescott going to want?
If ever there were a time for a team to change the way things are done, it's now. And the timeline is lining up well for the Giants. Abandon the model after Eli.
RE: I have disdain for the pick because I wouldn't pick ANY RB at #2 Â
and because the hype for this guy is so absurdly over the top and ridiculous, and so far out of proportion to his actual accomplishments. And, out of complete disclosure, because I despise that Penn State's football program even exists anymore, and I can't fathom that any decent person would want to be a part of that cult, so I'd rather not have any of their players on the team I cheer for.
So if he had chosen Rutgers instead of Penn State you’d have been OK with the pick?
Everyone involved in the scandal is gone.
RE: It's worth wondering what Garoppolo's contract will do to the league Â
In 2018 he will account for a ridiculous 17.5% of the 49ers' salary cap. It drops down to a "reasonable" 13%-14% after that.
If a guy that's started 7 games in 4 seasons can get that type of deal, what are the agents for Wentz and Prescott going to want?
If ever there were a time for a team to change the way things are done, it's now. And the timeline is lining up well for the Giants. Abandon the model after Eli.
Haven’t they basically done that by having Webb and Lauletta in waiting?
the Giants could draft an inanimate carbon rod and arguments would be made here about how it was a good pick.
That's not to knock Barkley, who I expect to be really good. It's just that since Thursday some odd shit is being said that no one would have said last Wednesday.
1. Running backs are easier to find than quarterbacks (and nearly every other position).
2. Running backs tend to have a shorter shelf life.
You could have made those two statements on BBI two weeks ago and the responses would have generally been along the lines of, "No shit." Now we're seeing those generally accepted statements being challenged.
It isn't those statements being challenged in a vacuum - it is the idea that somehow selecting Barkley, widely regarded as one of the best RB prospects in history is a poor decision. I almost think if you assigned a probability of the draftees this year being HoF'ers and some BBI'ers saw Barkley at the top of that list (which he probably is), they'd say it was a poor pick because of some mantra like Never pick a RB at #@
So many people are missing the point. Before the draft it was that a QB needed to be drafted to replace Eli. Now that the pick has been made, it is that a RB is a terrible value and middling RB's can duplicate the output of a good one.
And yet the main point is that the Giants had the highest grade on Barkley by far. Their decision was made to draft him because he was the best talent available. I really don't know how that is a bad thing.
On top of that, the main guys people wanted, Darnold and Rosen were ignored by at least two teams needing a QB (in Rosen's case, about 6 teams).
This is the most I've ever seen a top pick get marginalized. Not because he's considered a bad player or even because people think he has a high bust rate, but because of his economic value and the lost opportunity to draft a QB.
Step back and think about that. He's been called a terrible pick by many posters (fortunately, not many actual football people), not because he's expected to fail, but because he's a RB.
preferences were a small trade down or Barkley. Darnold is the only QB I would have considered at #2, and would have been fine if the Giants picked him, Chubb, or Nelson. Allen and Mayfield were the only two I didn't want.
We apparently weren't offered anything worthwhile to trade down, so Barkley was an easy choice, especially given his status as the best RB by far in the draft. People forget or minimize how much his receiving skills will help us, out of the backfield, and in the slot as a WR.
Relax. We got a potentially great player.
And once again, extreme views weigh-in to just stir the pot Â
From everything I’ve read, the majority of people felt Saquon was the best player in the draft; however, I would have supported Darnold as well.
I was never of the belief Eli was interested in mentoring his replacement. Just go back and listen to him answer that same exact question back from January. Eli thinks he still has 3 years left, which is not crazy when you look around the league. Having Eli & Darnold would have been a shitshow if this team started shaky. It would have been reasonable to rip the bandaid off completely, but also to keep Eli.
DG has said he is not interested in winning the draft, he takes players he has convictions on. I think trading down is romanticized by fans, if anything I prefer trading up.
I don’t even remember who NYG traded for Eli, Merriman? Nate Kaeding?
Who did the Browns yield for Julio Jones & Carson Wentz?
Who did the Rams yield for RGIII?
The Pats haven’t been particularly strong drafting with regards to accumulating picks.
I just think fans assume all picks will be hits, and it just doesn’t work out that way. I’m glad DG has conviction and took Barkley.
Plenty of reasonable arguments have been made questioning the rationale behind the pick. The arguments make sense, as does wondering if Gettleman had so much conviction in the pick that he ignored other possible equal or perhaps better options.
Gettleman didn't cover himself in glory with the way he handled the draft or the way he spoke about it afterward.
is really a tired argument at this point. Gurley was essentially the league MVP, Fournette ran over the entire Steelers defense twice this season (including the playoff game), Elliott has a tremendous impact on the Cowboys, etc. Barkley will completely change the way we operate as an offense and how the defense plays.
History does go back further than the last 3 years. How about the previous say 15 years?
Its a mistake to examine this on a strictly RB basis Â
Eli has many weaknesses and some top 1-3 in the game strengths.
Two of those strengths are preparation and reading a defense.
Barkley, ( unlike Gallman or Darkwa) in combination with Eli, OBJ and Engram makes it easier for Eli to examine the lean, the eyes and the spacing of the safeties and backers.
Barkley means one step back, one step closer to the sidelines, one half second slower on defense after the snap devoted to reading.
Who knows whose stats line benefits? We wont really know.
One way to get better is to pick a differential advantage and make it stronger.
its a game where 6-8 plays are the difference in winning and losing.
RE: RE: The “don’t draft a RB in the first round” Â
is really a tired argument at this point. Gurley was essentially the league MVP, Fournette ran over the entire Steelers defense twice this season (including the playoff game), Elliott has a tremendous impact on the Cowboys, etc. Barkley will completely change the way we operate as an offense and how the defense plays.
History does go back further than the last 3 years. How about the previous say 15 years?
Sure. Jamal Lewis. Fred Taylor. LaDainian Tomlinson. Marshawn Lynch. Adrian Peterson. Edgerrin James. Eddie George. Ricky Williams.
yes I'm hard pressed to see a return on the investment
One last thought, although Eli is historically not good at short passes, Barkley can run wide...so he widens up the lateral spacing and the awareness of coverage wide not just stacking the center of the field.
Whats OBJ with even a little more space? Whats Barkley with a weapon like OBJ to get defense one step back?
This fascination with positional value is like devotion to measuring with a micrometer even though its missing by a mile. Its a team game. Always will be
GoTerps and RobCarpenter are on the right track. Â
The Giants have a short and long term strategy and it doesn’t involve overpaying for a potential future QB.
After Eli, you may see three QBs on the roster and a Mid round QB drafted every other year until they find one they like. I think this has as much to do with Shurmur being zHC as anything else. If Shurmur is not successful developing a future QB, the next coach may want a different approach.
the Giants could draft an inanimate carbon rod and arguments would be made here about how it was a good pick.
That's not to knock Barkley, who I expect to be really good. It's just that since Thursday some odd shit is being said that no one would have said last Wednesday.
1. Running backs are easier to find than quarterbacks (and nearly every other position).
2. Running backs tend to have a shorter shelf life.
You could have made those two statements on BBI two weeks ago and the responses would have generally been along the lines of, "No shit." Now we're seeing those generally accepted statements being challenged.
It isn't those statements being challenged in a vacuum - it is the idea that somehow selecting Barkley, widely regarded as one of the best RB prospects in history is a poor decision. I almost think if you assigned a probability of the draftees this year being HoF'ers and some BBI'ers saw Barkley at the top of that list (which he probably is), they'd say it was a poor pick because of some mantra like Never pick a RB at #@
So many people are missing the point. Before the draft it was that a QB needed to be drafted to replace Eli. Now that the pick has been made, it is that a RB is a terrible value and middling RB's can duplicate the output of a good one.
And yet the main point is that the Giants had the highest grade on Barkley by far. Their decision was made to draft him because he was the best talent available. I really don't know how that is a bad thing.
On top of that, the main guys people wanted, Darnold and Rosen were ignored by at least two teams needing a QB (in Rosen's case, about 6 teams).
This is the most I've ever seen a top pick get marginalized. Not because he's considered a bad player or even because people think he has a high bust rate, but because of his economic value and the lost opportunity to draft a QB.
Step back and think about that. He's been called a terrible pick by many posters (fortunately, not many actual football people), not because he's expected to fail, but because he's a RB.
He's been called a terrible pick because of the two statements I made earlier:
1. Running backs are easier to find than quarterbacks (and nearly every other position).
2. Running backs tend to have a shorter shelf life.
Someone mentioned Le'Veon Bell and it's a good point: if he's not the best RB in the NFL, he's close...yet the Steelers aren't showing any interest in paying him a second contract. What does that tell you about how teams feel about the position? If a team had the best quarterback in the league and he was 26 years old, do you think they'd be hesitating to sign him to a new long term deal?
Look at this objectively:
- Team A has a quarterback that is 37 years old and has shown signs of decline
- The draft quarterback class is considered the strongest in over a decade, with 4 or even 5 legit first round quarterback prospects
- Team A has the second pick in this draft
Team A has had an incredible turn of good fortune. But Team A drafts a running back.
You can disagree with the people questioning that draft management, but to call it insane?
It is one thing to disagree with the pick or the direction. But to make absolute statements that it is a terrible pick based on value or that the positional value of a RB makes it one of the worst picks in the draft is the argument.
I rarely argue with reasonable takes. It is reasonable to question the Barkley pick. It is not reasonable to call it a bad pick or a terrible pick. It is not reasonable to say the pick was made because of the directive from Mara to save face from last year. It is not reasonable to say we'll now have to waste draft picks to trade up and get eli's successor a couple years from now.
they definitely want to pay him a second contract. They just gave him almost 2 years of money on the tag. Bell wants WR money, that’s what the issue is.
It's no less reasonable to call it a bad pick than it is to call it a great pick, and there has been plenty of that everywhere.
And it's certainly reasonable to question the rationale. I'll repeat that Gettleman did not cover himself in glory last week. Rushing the pick was silly (and possibly even very foolish), and he sounded like a Luddite afterwards.
The people who call it a great pick, base it on Barkley the person Â
Neither is viewing the two people involved in a vacuum.
Your entire bolded points were based upon generalizations. It dictates that all decisions must be rooted in dogma and must never vary. Eventually, dogma will kill you; at least, it's historically killed many.
Those generalizations are made based on a robust data set, and also considering how the Giants run their team.
In a vacuum I'm all for taking the BPA with every selection regardless of position. I think such an approach taken over several drafts would yield top results. But that's an academic exercise and not how things are actually done.
FMIC said above that he thinks "it is not reasonable to say we'll now have to waste draft picks to trade up and get eli's successor a couple years from now." I don't agree with this. I think it's a very realistic possibility. I'd love it if it weren't the case, because it would reflect a change in thinking in the front office. But based on listening to Gettleman speak I'm expecting the opposite. I think this team is going to continue to do things the way it has been, and that is possibly going to mean a potentially very expensive quarterback search in a year or two.
I have my fingers crossed that Shurmur is as good as advertised when it comes to developing quarterbacks. Because if he can't make something out of Webb and/or Lauletta I think we have a big problem.
Receivers are worth it, they are rage. This kid will be every bit as dangerous catching a slant or short pass as OBJ. I hope he catches 60+ passes. I would send him out wide, into the slot, out of the backfield. He runs excellent routes and has huge, great hands. He can 80 yards in between the tackles as well. This is not your average back. He brings a threat that defenses must account for. He changes games just by being on the field. It is far too much of a simplification to say you can get 85% of his production from a middling back, they get those yards because the defense is happy when the ball is their hands. They encourage you to run by emptying the box. The box will be fucking full with Barkley on the field, bet on it.
Gettleman didn't cover himself in glory with the way he handled the draft or the way he spoke about it afterward.
Some of the same people who bang Reese for having an arrogant attitude can't wait to heap praise on a guy who's done nothing but has the arrogance of an executive with two championships. He at times makes fun of himself and other times seems to think he invented the sport. It's concerning.
Some of the same people who bang Reese for having an arrogant attitude can't wait to heap praise on a guy who's done nothing but has the arrogance of an executive with two championships
The guy has been part of teams that have appeared in 9 SB's, including being the personnel guy in NY for 3 SB's and the Panthers for a 4th.
I don't really see him as arrogant, but to act like he's just a guy working for shitty teams is a terrible take.
Those generalizations are made based on a robust data set, and also considering how the Giants run their team.
In a vacuum I'm all for taking the BPA with every selection regardless of position. I think such an approach taken over several drafts would yield top results. But that's an academic exercise and not how things are actually done.
FMIC said above that he thinks "it is not reasonable to say we'll now have to waste draft picks to trade up and get eli's successor a couple years from now." I don't agree with this. I think it's a very realistic possibility. I'd love it if it weren't the case, because it would reflect a change in thinking in the front office. But based on listening to Gettleman speak I'm expecting the opposite. I think this team is going to continue to do things the way it has been, and that is possibly going to mean a potentially very expensive quarterback search in a year or two.
I have my fingers crossed that Shurmur is as good as advertised when it comes to developing quarterbacks. Because if he can't make something out of Webb and/or Lauletta I think we have a big problem.
I still say that you have to put individual names into it if you want to make your point. Otherwise, we are back to you picking Craig Kupp over Jim Brown to build your team.
Quote:
In comment 13951397 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
all at once, but it's really stunning to me how quickly we're willing to forget about things that happened on championship teams only ten years ago.
With a strong offensive line a few middling runningbacks did some excellent, important work for this franchise en route to a championship season and, until someone went stupid and shot himself in the leg, what looked like a repeat season in the making.
And again, apparently there is only one way to build a team...
I keep getting told that it’s a different game now, but then get told to look at our teMs from a decade ago. Depends on whoever’s agenda I guess
Is agenda some kind of catch-all excuse for dismissing things? I don't follow. What part of having a strong offensive line doesn't translate across years?
So are you saying that having a potentially great RB prevents them from putting together a good OL? Not sure of your point. My point was that just because we won with mid round RBs a decade ago doesn’t mean that’s the only way to build a winner. Drafting a shitty QB at 2 is sure a good way to screw it up though...
It’s going to be unbearable. Greg is the absolute worst poster on the site when he decides he doesn’t like a player. There will never be another Giants thread without him pissing and moaning about the pick. There is no changing his mind, it’s already made up and this entire board will suffer because of it
That's not to knock Barkley, who I expect to be really good. It's just that since Thursday some odd shit is being said that no one would have said last Wednesday.
1. Running backs are easier to find than quarterbacks (and nearly every other position).
2. Running backs tend to have a shorter shelf life.
You could have made those two statements on BBI two weeks ago and the responses would have generally been along the lines of, "No shit." Now we're seeing those generally accepted statements being challenged.
Perceptions and observations seem to get clouded around here when it involves questioning the Giants. I noticed it first on BBI when we signed Lavar Arrington years ago. He was openly mocked as a punchline when he was on the Redskins, but when we signed him it was a great pickup.
Questioning the strategy behind the Barkley pick, and what it says about the front office's perception of where this team actually is, is more than fair.
It also ignore teams blindly spending at QB just because you have to have one to win. Fuck that. I’d rather pay Barkley that $31 million than Kirk Cousins for basically 1 year. Go ahead and think about that people.
If I’m not getting a top 5 QB, I’d rather have a middling QB and beef up all other positions, prioritizing the run game which would help a less talented QB the most. Alex Smith will be a nice case study of this from KC to Washington.
Quote:
In comment 13951532 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
In comment 13951397 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
all at once, but it's really stunning to me how quickly we're willing to forget about things that happened on championship teams only ten years ago.
With a strong offensive line a few middling runningbacks did some excellent, important work for this franchise en route to a championship season and, until someone went stupid and shot himself in the leg, what looked like a repeat season in the making.
And again, apparently there is only one way to build a team...
I keep getting told that it’s a different game now, but then get told to look at our teMs from a decade ago. Depends on whoever’s agenda I guess
Is agenda some kind of catch-all excuse for dismissing things? I don't follow. What part of having a strong offensive line doesn't translate across years?
So are you saying that having a potentially great RB prevents them from putting together a good OL? Not sure of your point.
My point is we've seen it done consistently over recent years for about a decade plus that teams don't need to throw money and high draft picks at star RBs to get quality production. It's not conjecture or opinion it's fact. And it's happened more than often enough to not turn a blind eye to it.
Pittsburgh owns the best RB in the league and doesn't want to break the bank to keep him. The Patriots have never gone after high priced RBs or drafted one higher than 20th. The Giants won without them. The Packers won without one. Seattle took Marshawn Lynch from Buffalo's scrap pile and made themselves into a run-first team.
There's more than one way to build a team. No one's disputing that. The coach that wins more than anyone, and who was born and raised and taught in the old school of how important running the football is, clearly has a preference in this area. So we know, if all those other examples and the examples that won titles here weren't sufficient, that that particular way certainly works.
Also, calling these QBs "shitty" is a strawman argument. No one thinks that, and no one thought that. That's why all of them, even the one that had the biggest 'bust in the making' banner flying off his neck, went in the first round.
As I've said a thousand times, I would've taken Darnold. However, we can't leave out the fact Darnold was hardly the unanimous top QB, let alone the top prospect. The idea that the Giants were supposed to select a QB they didn't love or trade for lesser players than Barkley is moronic.
Don’t even know what you are being sarcastic about
He was determined NOT to go Cleve. so he sand-baged just enough. Interesting.
The reason to not chase the QB position is the prohibitive salary. I agree the absolute worst situation to be in is to be paying someone like Cousins or Tannehill $20+ M/year. I think to pay any player that money at any position is dangerous given the violent nature of the sport.
And that's part of what is vexing about the Giants' strategy. Had they been able to move Eli this offseason or during last season we could be drafting a talented quarterback at a fraction of Eli's cost, and have him locked in at a relatively low cost for 4 or 5 years. We'd essentially be in the situation Philly and Dallas find themselves.
Watch those two teams over the next couple years. If they're really serious about establishing something sustainable they will refrain from paying Wentz and Prescott huge QB dollars. Remember, the QB market got another jolt upwards by the ridiculous Stafford contract and then again by the Garoppolo deal...and Cousins just got his entire contract guaranteed.
As Giants fans we should have our fingers crossed that Philly and Dallas make the same mistakes and set the next bar with their contracts. If I were running Philly I would have drafted Lamar Jackson (who might already be more dangerous in that offense than Wentz) and trade Wentz for a boatload of picks to the next team stupid enough to pay him $40M/per against the cap.
+++
As for he Giants they could have cut Eli this offseason and ripped the bandaid off but I’m guessing there were question marks on these QBs from the get go, coupled with giving Eli the benefit of the doubt after the Reese McAdoo debacle.
Regardless of Eli though if they rabked Darnold or whoever considerably lower than I still support that line of thinking. Shurmur is he wildcard - if he’s as good as advertised than we can afford to need up the team elsewhere and let him do his thing with a mid round pick or cheaper FA QB if it comes down to that.
He was determined NOT to go Cleve. so he sand-baged just enough. Interesting.
Barkley was disappointed he didn’t run a sub 4.4, he said as much in the ESPN special on him and Chubb.
But there is no doubt he wanted the Giants to draft him.
In any event he could have bombed at the combine and I’d still have wanted him. His game tape is what jumps out, the combine demonstrates what an awesome athlete he is.
If a guy that's started 7 games in 4 seasons can get that type of deal, what are the agents for Wentz and Prescott going to want?
If ever there were a time for a team to change the way things are done, it's now. And the timeline is lining up well for the Giants. Abandon the model after Eli.
So if he had chosen Rutgers instead of Penn State you’d have been OK with the pick?
Everyone involved in the scandal is gone.
If a guy that's started 7 games in 4 seasons can get that type of deal, what are the agents for Wentz and Prescott going to want?
If ever there were a time for a team to change the way things are done, it's now. And the timeline is lining up well for the Giants. Abandon the model after Eli.
Haven’t they basically done that by having Webb and Lauletta in waiting?
That's not to knock Barkley, who I expect to be really good. It's just that since Thursday some odd shit is being said that no one would have said last Wednesday.
1. Running backs are easier to find than quarterbacks (and nearly every other position).
2. Running backs tend to have a shorter shelf life.
You could have made those two statements on BBI two weeks ago and the responses would have generally been along the lines of, "No shit." Now we're seeing those generally accepted statements being challenged.
It isn't those statements being challenged in a vacuum - it is the idea that somehow selecting Barkley, widely regarded as one of the best RB prospects in history is a poor decision. I almost think if you assigned a probability of the draftees this year being HoF'ers and some BBI'ers saw Barkley at the top of that list (which he probably is), they'd say it was a poor pick because of some mantra like Never pick a RB at #@
So many people are missing the point. Before the draft it was that a QB needed to be drafted to replace Eli. Now that the pick has been made, it is that a RB is a terrible value and middling RB's can duplicate the output of a good one.
And yet the main point is that the Giants had the highest grade on Barkley by far. Their decision was made to draft him because he was the best talent available. I really don't know how that is a bad thing.
On top of that, the main guys people wanted, Darnold and Rosen were ignored by at least two teams needing a QB (in Rosen's case, about 6 teams).
This is the most I've ever seen a top pick get marginalized. Not because he's considered a bad player or even because people think he has a high bust rate, but because of his economic value and the lost opportunity to draft a QB.
Step back and think about that. He's been called a terrible pick by many posters (fortunately, not many actual football people), not because he's expected to fail, but because he's a RB.
That's insanity to me.
We apparently weren't offered anything worthwhile to trade down, so Barkley was an easy choice, especially given his status as the best RB by far in the draft. People forget or minimize how much his receiving skills will help us, out of the backfield, and in the slot as a WR.
Relax. We got a potentially great player.
Many posters are not calling Barkley a terrible pick.
Its not many, nor are they stating its terrible...
I was never of the belief Eli was interested in mentoring his replacement. Just go back and listen to him answer that same exact question back from January. Eli thinks he still has 3 years left, which is not crazy when you look around the league. Having Eli & Darnold would have been a shitshow if this team started shaky. It would have been reasonable to rip the bandaid off completely, but also to keep Eli.
DG has said he is not interested in winning the draft, he takes players he has convictions on. I think trading down is romanticized by fans, if anything I prefer trading up.
I don’t even remember who NYG traded for Eli, Merriman? Nate Kaeding?
Who did the Browns yield for Julio Jones & Carson Wentz?
Who did the Rams yield for RGIII?
The Pats haven’t been particularly strong drafting with regards to accumulating picks.
I just think fans assume all picks will be hits, and it just doesn’t work out that way. I’m glad DG has conviction and took Barkley.
Gettleman didn't cover himself in glory with the way he handled the draft or the way he spoke about it afterward.
History does go back further than the last 3 years. How about the previous say 15 years?
Two of those strengths are preparation and reading a defense.
Barkley, ( unlike Gallman or Darkwa) in combination with Eli, OBJ and Engram makes it easier for Eli to examine the lean, the eyes and the spacing of the safeties and backers.
Barkley means one step back, one step closer to the sidelines, one half second slower on defense after the snap devoted to reading.
Who knows whose stats line benefits? We wont really know.
One way to get better is to pick a differential advantage and make it stronger.
its a game where 6-8 plays are the difference in winning and losing.
Quote:
is really a tired argument at this point. Gurley was essentially the league MVP, Fournette ran over the entire Steelers defense twice this season (including the playoff game), Elliott has a tremendous impact on the Cowboys, etc. Barkley will completely change the way we operate as an offense and how the defense plays.
History does go back further than the last 3 years. How about the previous say 15 years?
Sure. Jamal Lewis. Fred Taylor. LaDainian Tomlinson. Marshawn Lynch. Adrian Peterson. Edgerrin James. Eddie George. Ricky Williams.
One last thought, although Eli is historically not good at short passes, Barkley can run wide...so he widens up the lateral spacing and the awareness of coverage wide not just stacking the center of the field.
Whats OBJ with even a little more space? Whats Barkley with a weapon like OBJ to get defense one step back?
This fascination with positional value is like devotion to measuring with a micrometer even though its missing by a mile. Its a team game. Always will be
After Eli, you may see three QBs on the roster and a Mid round QB drafted every other year until they find one they like. I think this has as much to do with Shurmur being zHC as anything else. If Shurmur is not successful developing a future QB, the next coach may want a different approach.
Quote:
the Giants could draft an inanimate carbon rod and arguments would be made here about how it was a good pick.
That's not to knock Barkley, who I expect to be really good. It's just that since Thursday some odd shit is being said that no one would have said last Wednesday.
1. Running backs are easier to find than quarterbacks (and nearly every other position).
2. Running backs tend to have a shorter shelf life.
You could have made those two statements on BBI two weeks ago and the responses would have generally been along the lines of, "No shit." Now we're seeing those generally accepted statements being challenged.
It isn't those statements being challenged in a vacuum - it is the idea that somehow selecting Barkley, widely regarded as one of the best RB prospects in history is a poor decision. I almost think if you assigned a probability of the draftees this year being HoF'ers and some BBI'ers saw Barkley at the top of that list (which he probably is), they'd say it was a poor pick because of some mantra like Never pick a RB at #@
So many people are missing the point. Before the draft it was that a QB needed to be drafted to replace Eli. Now that the pick has been made, it is that a RB is a terrible value and middling RB's can duplicate the output of a good one.
And yet the main point is that the Giants had the highest grade on Barkley by far. Their decision was made to draft him because he was the best talent available. I really don't know how that is a bad thing.
On top of that, the main guys people wanted, Darnold and Rosen were ignored by at least two teams needing a QB (in Rosen's case, about 6 teams).
This is the most I've ever seen a top pick get marginalized. Not because he's considered a bad player or even because people think he has a high bust rate, but because of his economic value and the lost opportunity to draft a QB.
Step back and think about that. He's been called a terrible pick by many posters (fortunately, not many actual football people), not because he's expected to fail, but because he's a RB.
That's insanity to me.
Not just to you. I completely agree.
1. Running backs are easier to find than quarterbacks (and nearly every other position).
2. Running backs tend to have a shorter shelf life.
Someone mentioned Le'Veon Bell and it's a good point: if he's not the best RB in the NFL, he's close...yet the Steelers aren't showing any interest in paying him a second contract. What does that tell you about how teams feel about the position? If a team had the best quarterback in the league and he was 26 years old, do you think they'd be hesitating to sign him to a new long term deal?
Look at this objectively:
- Team A has a quarterback that is 37 years old and has shown signs of decline
- The draft quarterback class is considered the strongest in over a decade, with 4 or even 5 legit first round quarterback prospects
- Team A has the second pick in this draft
Team A has had an incredible turn of good fortune. But Team A drafts a running back.
You can disagree with the people questioning that draft management, but to call it insane?
It is one thing to disagree with the pick or the direction. But to make absolute statements that it is a terrible pick based on value or that the positional value of a RB makes it one of the worst picks in the draft is the argument.
I rarely argue with reasonable takes. It is reasonable to question the Barkley pick. It is not reasonable to call it a bad pick or a terrible pick. It is not reasonable to say the pick was made because of the directive from Mara to save face from last year. It is not reasonable to say we'll now have to waste draft picks to trade up and get eli's successor a couple years from now.
And it's certainly reasonable to question the rationale. I'll repeat that Gettleman did not cover himself in glory last week. Rushing the pick was silly (and possibly even very foolish), and he sounded like a Luddite afterwards.
The people who disdain or disparage the pick do it based upon (generic) RB and (generic) QB.
To me, that's not a well-founded argument.
Your entire bolded points were based upon generalizations. It dictates that all decisions must be rooted in dogma and must never vary. Eventually, dogma will kill you; at least, it's historically killed many.
In a vacuum I'm all for taking the BPA with every selection regardless of position. I think such an approach taken over several drafts would yield top results. But that's an academic exercise and not how things are actually done.
FMIC said above that he thinks "it is not reasonable to say we'll now have to waste draft picks to trade up and get eli's successor a couple years from now." I don't agree with this. I think it's a very realistic possibility. I'd love it if it weren't the case, because it would reflect a change in thinking in the front office. But based on listening to Gettleman speak I'm expecting the opposite. I think this team is going to continue to do things the way it has been, and that is possibly going to mean a potentially very expensive quarterback search in a year or two.
I have my fingers crossed that Shurmur is as good as advertised when it comes to developing quarterbacks. Because if he can't make something out of Webb and/or Lauletta I think we have a big problem.
Gettleman didn't cover himself in glory with the way he handled the draft or the way he spoke about it afterward.
Some of the same people who bang Reese for having an arrogant attitude can't wait to heap praise on a guy who's done nothing but has the arrogance of an executive with two championships. He at times makes fun of himself and other times seems to think he invented the sport. It's concerning.
The guy has been part of teams that have appeared in 9 SB's, including being the personnel guy in NY for 3 SB's and the Panthers for a 4th.
I don't really see him as arrogant, but to act like he's just a guy working for shitty teams is a terrible take.
In a vacuum I'm all for taking the BPA with every selection regardless of position. I think such an approach taken over several drafts would yield top results. But that's an academic exercise and not how things are actually done.
FMIC said above that he thinks "it is not reasonable to say we'll now have to waste draft picks to trade up and get eli's successor a couple years from now." I don't agree with this. I think it's a very realistic possibility. I'd love it if it weren't the case, because it would reflect a change in thinking in the front office. But based on listening to Gettleman speak I'm expecting the opposite. I think this team is going to continue to do things the way it has been, and that is possibly going to mean a potentially very expensive quarterback search in a year or two.
I have my fingers crossed that Shurmur is as good as advertised when it comes to developing quarterbacks. Because if he can't make something out of Webb and/or Lauletta I think we have a big problem.
I still say that you have to put individual names into it if you want to make your point. Otherwise, we are back to you picking Craig Kupp over Jim Brown to build your team.
Washington Post has fake news in all departments
Quote:
I'll take the RB
Washington Post has fake news in all departments
No, it doesn't. WaPo isn't "fake news". What a stupid fucking comment. Can't let that shit slide.