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.
Honestly I watch him play and I just don't see an NFL QB. I just don't see consistent NFL-level accuracy that all of the great ones have. Weird baseball-like wind-up, and so many of his passes look wobbly- I think he benefited from having very good receivers at USC who could adjust to the ball and make plays. People say he's great at moving and throwing on the run, but it also just often seemed like he was always so intent on leaving the pocket immediately to make a throw on the run, like he just never seems to be comfortable just standing there in the pocket. Also turnovers are an absolute killer in the NFL.
Rosen always looked way more like an NFL QB to me, but he had injury concerns and those are probably even more of a red flag.
Point is this: The 4 teams that drafted the 4 QBs in the top 10 have won exactly zero super bowls in the last 50 years and I think the last "Franchise Quarterback" any one of those teams had was Jim Kelly for the Bills (...obviously not counting Kurt Warner for the Cards because as good as he was he was only there for like 2 years).
many people suggesting a similar argument. This guy at the ringer does as well.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here. The Ringer - ( New Window )
Clark’s argument on The Ringer was all over the place. He first argues that taking a RB high doesn’t make financial sense, which is a fairly common argument people are making. If that’s his stance, fine, but later in the article he says the smart choice would have been to choose a QB to have sit behind Manning. So it is more financially responsible to pay a guy to sit on the bench for the next 3 years than it would be to pay a potential All-Pro RB?
The second argument he makes is that he doesn’t have a problem taking Barkley, but only after a trade down. This completely disregards the possibility that there weren’t any good offers to move down, or that they were afraid if they moved down further than 4 that they would lose the player. If you have conviction about a guy, why risk losing him over a subpar package if that’s all that’s out there?
He should worry about Washington’s QB situation. Â
so we will have numerous chances to rectify the mistake he thinks we made.
OTOH, if the team is improving, it means we are winning. Not sure what's so bad about that.
At any rate, I would venture that it wouldn't be a long limb to climb if we were to say that we will finish ahead of his Redskins this year.
Bill, such a good point! We'll be in last place every year because we didn't take Darnold. So that means we'll be picking at the top of the draft every year, but unfortunately Darnold is apparently the last Franchise QB that will ever come out of college for the next 15 years.
Although I would have preferred to trade down, the players seemed to line up pretty well for Giants.
Again, there was NO reason for Giants to take a QB at #2 with Eli still viable for 2 years. Teams do not draft QB at #2 if they will sit for 2 years.
The difference between this years QB's is slight. NO front runner.
Giants have Eli for 2 years, and 2 young QB's that have 2 years to prove themselves. One will be the replacement.
Barkley, unless injured, will be a 1,000 yard rusher and 500 yard receiver for at least the next 4 years.
If Giants can fill remaining Ol/DL/LB holes this year and next . Very possible Eli can go out on top.
Long term I think Allen and Jackson will be the best of this QB draft.
Do you really need to read things only approve of what the Giants did? If Darnold leading the Jets to the promised land many will curse the Giants for passing on Darnold...no matter what Barkley ends up accomplishing.
RE: I perosonally think Darnold was the one who was overvalued Â
Honestly I watch him play and I just don't see an NFL QB. I just don't see consistent NFL-level accuracy that all of the great ones have. Weird baseball-like wind-up, and so many of his passes look wobbly- I think he benefited from having very good receivers at USC who could adjust to the ball and make plays. People say he's great at moving and throwing on the run, but it also just often seemed like he was always so intent on leaving the pocket immediately to make a throw on the run, like he just never seems to be comfortable just standing there in the pocket. Also turnovers are an absolute killer in the NFL.
Rosen always looked way more like an NFL QB to me, but he had injury concerns and those are probably even more of a red flag.
Point is this: The 4 teams that drafted the 4 QBs in the top 10 have won exactly zero super bowls in the last 50 years and I think the last "Franchise Quarterback" any one of those teams had was Jim Kelly for the Bills (...obviously not counting Kurt Warner for the Cards because as good as he was he was only there for like 2 years).
Bingo! Brilliant insight... Each of the four teams that took a quarterback in the top ten have not even been to a super bowl in 25 years and have just six super bowl appearances and a combined record of 1-5. And each of the five teams that did not take a quarterback - Giants, Broncos, Colts, Bears, 49ers - have been to the super bowl at least once in the last 12 years and have 21 super bowl appearances and a combined record of 13-8... Wow - says it all...
is the least valuable position on the field other than kicker and punter. It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story. If Darnold is a star, the Giants decision is a disaster regardless of what Barkley does.
My impression in the days leading up to the draft was that this board was split pretty close to 50-50 on this question of drafting a quarterback versus another position. Yet now there are threads calling out anyone for even having the audacity to question taking a running back with the second pick. I realize with the draft over there is a natural instinct to coalesce around the draft pick and break out the pom poms. But if we're being honest, the jury is very much still out on the Giants decision and will be for a long time.
many people suggesting a similar argument. This guy at the ringer does as well.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here. The Ringer - ( New Window )
Clark’s argument on The Ringer was all over the place. He first argues that taking a RB high doesn’t make financial sense, which is a fairly common argument people are making. If that’s his stance, fine, but later in the article he says the smart choice would have been to choose a QB to have sit behind Manning. So it is more financially responsible to pay a guy to sit on the bench for the next 3 years than it would be to pay a potential All-Pro RB?
QB's get paid the most money out of any position, so having him sit for 1 season to develop is perfect. Look at Wentz and Goff. Goff redshirted came in and lighted it up. Wentz played as a Rookie and the following year he was a MVP.
Both teams took the money they would be using on a QB and invested in Weapons around them because they had the money to do so.
I don't get what's so hard to comprehend there. Easier transition, and more money to distribute to other players to make a better overall team.
Instead of overpaying a rookie at a position that is least valuable, and more injury riddled then any other position on the field offense or defense (excluding of course punters and kickers).
I don't think that it keeps us at the bottom of the standings. If anything, it would keep us as a middling team, good enough to avoid the cellar and the premium pick that comes with it but without a clear replacement for Eli if and when he hangs it up, or his performance suggests that he should.
I don't fully understand is why this idea passing on the available QB's means the Giants can't land their future QB next season. I realize a guy like Jackson has his detractors but had the Giants wanted him they easily could have moved up. If the Giants are so good they aren't in range to move up for a QB of the future (if they love one) then that's a good problem to have. That doesn't even include a move like adding a Cousins type, or a Garoppolo move. Why is it "pick a QB 2nd this year or else?". Finally, not that BBI is the end all be all but most people on here seemed most intrigued by Rosen (who fell all the way to 10) and Mayfield (wasn't an option), so while Darnold might end up fantastic it's not as if the Giants passed on some perceived sure thing.
It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story.
Yet the top 10 rushing leaders from last year included:
- First Rounders 4
- Second rounders 2
- Third Rounders 1
- Fifth Rounder 3
Ezekiel Elliott was in the top 3 in YPC
The top 10 QB's by yardage were:
- First Rounder 6
- Second Rounder 1
- Fifth Rounder 1
- Sixth Rounder 1
- Undrafted 1
Both had 3 players from the 5th round or later. It isn't like you have guys popping off their couches and becoming great. Well, maybe Kurt Warner (with a K, not a C).....
many people suggesting a similar argument. This guy at the ringer does as well.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here. The Ringer - ( New Window )
Clark’s argument on The Ringer was all over the place. He first argues that taking a RB high doesn’t make financial sense, which is a fairly common argument people are making. If that’s his stance, fine, but later in the article he says the smart choice would have been to choose a QB to have sit behind Manning. So it is more financially responsible to pay a guy to sit on the bench for the next 3 years than it would be to pay a potential All-Pro RB?
QB's get paid the most money out of any position, so having him sit for 1 season to develop is perfect. Look at Wentz and Goff. Goff redshirted came in and lighted it up. Wentz played as a Rookie and the following year he was a MVP.
Both teams took the money they would be using on a QB and invested in Weapons around them because they had the money to do so.
I don't get what's so hard to comprehend there. Easier transition, and more money to distribute to other players to make a better overall team.
Instead of overpaying a rookie at a position that is least valuable, and more injury riddled then any other position on the field offense or defense (excluding of course punters and kickers).
Goff played his rookie year and wasn't that good. He wasn't really good to start the season this past year either, but played very well towards the end...I know what you probably meant, but Wentz did not win MVP. He can also eat a bag of dicks just like the rest of his team and all their fans.
Also, We were going to pay Eli this next season no matter what. We also added OL help this off season and our running game will be a strength.
There are QB's that will be drafted in the next 3 or 4 years that we haven't even heard of yet. Some people on here make it sound like this is the last draft the Giants will ever get to draft a good QB.
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.
I don't like the pick because it's too much money for a RB long term and it's a short shelf life for a RB. I think the GM has made the pick even worse with all of the stupid things he's said about being touched by god and crapping on analytics but I disagree 100% with anyone making the case that this makes the Giants weaker in the short term.
It's exactly the opposite. Drafting a great RB is probably the best way for the Giants to get better in the short term. Which is exactly what anyone should expect when a team hires a 67 year old GM. He has a short time and he's thinking short time.
The Giants as only the Mara's can do have reversed the GM/Head Coach dynamic. They have a GM who is a short termer and a Head Coach thinking long term.
DG has said that he wasn't sold on any of the QB at 2 Â
and that if you have to talk yourself into loving QB that it will be a bad pick. Also said that a QB mistake at the top of the draft is a 5 year mistake. He took the consensus best player in the draft who he did love.
are you can't look at them in a vacuum. Example is Darkwa rushed for more yards (751) than Kamara did (728) last year. Let's be honest, it's much easier to find a good RB later in the draft than it is to find a QB.
It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story.
Yeah. Its absolutely one of the dumbest and most ill-informed things I've ever heard. Yet there is actually a fair number of people that believe it.
The Orleans Darkwa/Wayne Gallman platoon had more rushing yards than every running back other than Kareem Hunt, Todd Gurley, and Le'Veon Bell last year. The two of them had combined 282 carries for 1,227 yards. The fourth leading rusher in the NFL last year was LeSean McCoy (by all accounts a top running back). He had more carries (287) and less yards (1,138) than the Darkwa/Gallman platoon.
It just doesn't matter that much who your running backs are.
are you can't look at them in a vacuum. Example is Darkwa rushed for more yards (751) than Kamara did (728) last year. Let's be honest, it's much easier to find a good RB later in the draft than it is to find a QB.
It comes down to something so simple that its astounding to me how difficult it is for people to grasp.
The Giants just didn't like any of the QB's. Period. End of story. Pat Shurmur said before the draft, that they'll know it when they see it - and they didn't see it in this group. So they're rolling with what they've got and will see what happens over the next few years.
is the least valuable position on the field other than kicker and punter. It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story. If Darnold is a star, the Giants decision is a disaster regardless of what Barkley does.
That is spot on. The RB position may be more fungible than the K position. The K position is extremely difficult to find one who can consistently deliver and handle the enormous stress since most games, I believe, are separated by less than a 6 points.
so now we are actually trying to use the aggregate totals to show that late round backs are just as good??
Replace McCoy with Gallman and Darkwa and tell me how successful Buffalo would be.
That should be the argument - not looking at yardage in a vacuum.
Why is that an unreasonable point? McCoy had more carries than the two of them combined last year and was less productive with those carries. Assuming Darkwa and Gallman are replacement level running backs, how much value are we assigning McCoy over replacement level?
It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story.
Yeah. Its absolutely one of the dumbest and most ill-informed things I've ever heard. Yet there is actually a fair number of people that believe it.
The Orleans Darkwa/Wayne Gallman platoon had more rushing yards than every running back other than Kareem Hunt, Todd Gurley, and Le'Veon Bell last year. The two of them had combined 282 carries for 1,227 yards. The fourth leading rusher in the NFL last year was LeSean McCoy (by all accounts a top running back). He had more carries (287) and less yards (1,138) than the Darkwa/Gallman platoon.
It just doesn't matter that much who your running backs are.
probably it’s just me but I think it’s a sucky use of resources for the Giants to need two people to equal one man. Maybe that’s why they did poorly last year. They needed a 104 man roster and the league wouldn’t allow it.
in the passing game. If you don't understand why a 1000+ yard runner who can also get 400-500 yards or more through the air is considerably more valuable than two guys who combine for 1227/309, I don't know what to tell you. Neither was a homerun threat, their long receptions were 13 (Darkwa) and 11 (Gallman), respectively. A guy who can run, catch and block and is a homerun threat changes a defensive gameplan. I like Darkwa and Gallman, but nobody was plotting defensive strategy around the need to contain either one.
Darnold too. It’s not an outlandish claim to make.
I’m happy with Saquon though and look forward to watching him play.
It’s definitely not an outlandish claim to prefer darnold or any qb to Barkley. I was torn but the fans that make it seem like like the giants were complete fools aren’t thinking rationally. Barkley is an insane prospect. None of the qbs are Andrew luck or even Eli Manning coming out. And that’s a fact. Doesn’t mean one or two of these qbs don’t pan out in a big way, but it’s not an exact science. Here’s the thing though, Barkley is exact. He’s about as close to perfect as you’re gonna get.
so now we are actually trying to use the aggregate totals to show that late round backs are just as good??
Replace McCoy with Gallman and Darkwa and tell me how successful Buffalo would be.
That should be the argument - not looking at yardage in a vacuum.
When Darkwa and Gallman were in the backfield, the were not much of a threat to catch a pass. That makes a big difference. What makes Gurley, Kamara and McCoy great are their ability to make BIG impacts in the passing game. Very important in today's NFL.
Some of you should really find some highlights of Tiki Barber Â
is the least valuable position on the field other than kicker and punter. It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story. If Darnold is a star, the Giants decision is a disaster regardless of what Barkley does.
My impression in the days leading up to the draft was that this board was split pretty close to 50-50 on this question of drafting a quarterback versus another position. Yet now there are threads calling out anyone for even having the audacity to question taking a running back with the second pick. I realize with the draft over there is a natural instinct to coalesce around the draft pick and break out the pom poms. But if we're being honest, the jury is very much still out on the Giants decision and will be for a long time.
Crap.
RE: Some of you should really find some highlights of Tiki Barber Â
were to argue that the QBR didn't suffer when Romo was replaced by Prescott, when Foles replaced Wentz or when the Cardinals team of QB's replaced Palmer, people would have a hard time keeping a straight face.
When that same reasoning is used to say Darkwa and Gallman are as good as McCoy, people are like, "Fuck yeah!!!"
RE: RE: Some of you should really find some highlights of Tiki Barber Â
to jog your memory - so you can remember what a back like Barkley can do that fringe journeymen like Darkwa, Jennings, and Gallman can't.
Odds are that Barkley is never as good as Tiki was, because very few are.
Normally I'd agree with you, because few have the same ability and desire to be. Barkley does though. Thats why they picked him. Whether he actually gets there is entirely up to him, barring some freak injury.
were to argue that the QBR didn't suffer when Romo was replaced by Prescott, when Foles replaced Wentz or when the Cardinals team of QB's replaced Palmer, people would have a hard time keeping a straight face.
When that same reasoning is used to say Darkwa and Gallman are as good as McCoy, people are like, "Fuck yeah!!!"
The point isn't that Darkwa and Gallman are as good as McCoy. The point is that the difference between elite and replacement level running backs is not that dramatic. You can get 85% of what an elite running back gets you without having to invest anything. That is not true at positions like quarterback, let tackle, defensive end, cornerback. That is why the opportunity cost of taking a running back so high in the draft is, in my opinion, unreasonably high.
RE: RE: Some of you should really find some highlights of Tiki Barber Â
to jog your memory - so you can remember what a back like Barkley can do that fringe journeymen like Darkwa, Jennings, and Gallman can't.
Odds are that Barkley is never as good as Tiki was, because very few are.
If he stays healthy he'll be much better than Tiki was. He's a much, much better receiver than Tiki - as in he can run WR type routes, which I don't remember Tiki doing. And he's faster, stronger, and bigger than Tiki.
Also don't forget that Tiki had a major fumbling problem before Coughlin.
But rb is not the 3rd least valuable position. Cmon. Hr hitting field tilters help teams win and win big. Barkley is much more than a luxury. He’s a difference maker.
Tiki Barber posted the third-best yards from scrimmage season of all time in 2005. What exactly constitutes "much better" than that?
See, this is what's amusing about the hype bandwagon. The same people making these absurd statements also are tut-tutting about how unfair it will be when people consider anything less than 2000 yards rushing to be a successful season for poor Saquon. You can't have it both ways - either he's the bestest super-dee-duper player ever to grace an NFL field, or he's not. He either lives up to the ludicrous hype, or he doesn't.
RE: RE: Some of you should really find some highlights of Tiki Barber Â
to jog your memory - so you can remember what a back like Barkley can do that fringe journeymen like Darkwa, Jennings, and Gallman can't.
Odds are that Barkley is never as good as Tiki was, because vergy few are.
I would say the giants and most scouts don’t agree. Let’s not forget tiki needed two full seasons to even become a pro out there. Then he needed one more year to become a star. Then he went through the fumbles and didn’t reach his peak until his 7th season.
is the least valuable position on the field other than kicker and punter. It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story. If Darnold is a star, the Giants decision is a disaster regardless of what Barkley does.
That is spot on. The RB position may be more fungible than the K position. The K position is extremely difficult to find one who can consistently deliver and handle the enormous stress since most games, I believe, are separated by less than a 6 points.
So if Darnold is a star and SB is a star and the Giants win 2 Super Bowls but the Jets also win 2, then the pick was a disaster? That doesn't make sense.
and high draft picks at the position bust because of injury or just the speed of the pro game. Additionally, longevity in a running back is rare, especially lately (go back five years, see how many of the top RBs are still top RBs, or are even still in the game). But the difference between elite production for a running back, especially one who catches passes as well, and a "replacement level back" is still quite substantial.
who’s replacing LeVeon Bell even at 85%? No one. Put Darkwa and Perkins over there and have fun watching Brown get tripled again.
How did Kerwyn Williams and AP do backing up David Johnson? THey barely sniffed 50% of his 2016 production for yardage and it’s not even worth discussing the TDs.
Tiki Barber posted the third-best yards from scrimmage season of all time in 2005. What exactly constitutes "much better" than that?
See, this is what's amusing about the hype bandwagon. The same people making these absurd statements also are tut-tutting about how unfair it will be when people consider anything less than 2000 yards rushing to be a successful season for poor Saquon. You can't have it both ways - either he's the bestest super-dee-duper player ever to grace an NFL field, or he's not. He either lives up to the ludicrous hype, or he doesn't.
I think if he gets more than 1,500 total yards combined in rushing and passing that would be 'much better' than Tiki did -- and about 200 more than Tiki had in his first two seasons combined.
Tiki was a good player but Barkley -- like OBJ -- is a home run threat every time he has the ball. Tiki wasn't.
You're saying he'd be much better than rookie 2nd round pick Tiki Barber? You're probably right....but who cares? Is he going to be much better than 2005 Tiki Barber?
For a guy who supposedly wasn't a home-run hitter, Tiki sure broke a shitload of really long runs.
The point is that the difference between elite and replacement level running backs is not that dramatic. You can get 85% of what an elite running back gets you without having to invest anything
If you replace a LB with a lesser player, you'll likely get at least 85% of the total in tackles in return. Same with most defensive positions.
That's why this line of argumentation is pretty poor. The recent trend is to say RB's aren't valuable, but if you have a damn good RB, the past few years have shown you'll be in the hunt.
Trying to say two mediocre players can replace a great player in certain stats is pretty useless. You can do it for almost any position, including QB. Prescott isn't as good as Romo, but his rookie year TD/INT ratio I think was better than Romo's ever was.
Yes, he did, and no, they generally don't last very long. All of that is part of what made Tiki so exceptional. However, as I know you're very well aware, his relatively few carries in his first three seasons likely contributed greatly to his durability and longevity at an age when most RBs decline significantly. Barkley isn't going to have those lightly used years at the beginning of his career.
RE: OK, if that's the case then I don't get the comparison Â
You're saying he'd be much better than rookie 2nd round pick Tiki Barber? You're probably right....but who cares? Is he going to be much better than 2005 Tiki Barber?
For a guy who supposedly wasn't a home-run hitter, Tiki sure broke a shitload of really long runs.
Tiki seems to be an anomaly. I don’t really get it anyway, that was year 10 for him when RBs are considered dead and forgotten. Let’s all hope we get that from Barkley year 10 but the argument here is Barkley has the talent to do that year 1.
RE: OK, if that's the case then I don't get the comparison Â
You're saying he'd be much better than rookie 2nd round pick Tiki Barber? You're probably right....but who cares? Is he going to be much better than 2005 Tiki Barber?
For a guy who supposedly wasn't a home-run hitter, Tiki sure broke a shitload of really long runs.
When he wasn't fumbling the ball.
I'm saying if you are comparing the players you should be comparing how they do as rookies.
And I'll go out on a limb and say if he stays healthy he'll have better career stats than Tiki.
who’s replacing LeVeon Bell even at 85%? No one. Put Darkwa and Perkins over there and have fun watching Brown get tripled again.
How did Kerwyn Williams and AP do backing up David Johnson? THey barely sniffed 50% of his 2016 production for yardage and it’s not even worth discussing the TDs.
I don't understand why my comparison of Darkwa/Gallman to McCoy is unfair. McCoy had more carries than both of them combined, and the Darkwa/Gallman platoon was slightly more productive with its carries. There are only so many plays in a game. If McCoy gets 30 carries in a game and Darkwa/Gallman get 15 each - what difference does it make?
Some people have brought up McCoy's ability to catch passes and I think that is a fair point, so I've tried to clarify that I'm not saying there is zero difference between McCoy and the Giants platoon. What I'm saying is the difference is not worth heavy investment in terms of dollars and draft picks to have the elite running back when you could be addressing more important positions on the field that also have holes.
I would also point out that this entire discussion assumes that Saquon Barkley is instantly a top 3 to 5 running back in the league. His entire value to the team is premised on that fact. If you getting anything less than that from him, the pick is a bust based on what you invested. So, the margin of error with picking him is virtually zero. Another reason why I don't think selecting a running back so high is a good idea.
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.
because Darkwa and Perkins suck and don’t deserve 30 carries a game. If they were any good we’d be a run heavy offense to take pressure off the QB. Just amassing a decent YPC doesn’t = production.
Care to address why AP and Williams didn’t even sniff what David Johnson is capable of? I’m dying to hear this.
many people suggesting a similar argument. This guy at the ringer does as well.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here. The Ringer - ( New Window )
Clark’s argument on The Ringer was all over the place. He first argues that taking a RB high doesn’t make financial sense, which is a fairly common argument people are making. If that’s his stance, fine, but later in the article he says the smart choice would have been to choose a QB to have sit behind Manning. So it is more financially responsible to pay a guy to sit on the bench for the next 3 years than it would be to pay a potential All-Pro RB?
QB's get paid the most money out of any position, so having him sit for 1 season to develop is perfect. Look at Wentz and Goff. Goff redshirted came in and lighted it up. Wentz played as a Rookie and the following year he was a MVP.
Both teams took the money they would be using on a QB and invested in Weapons around them because they had the money to do so.
I don't get what's so hard to comprehend there. Easier transition, and more money to distribute to other players to make a better overall team.
Instead of overpaying a rookie at a position that is least valuable, and more injury riddled then any other position on the field offense or defense (excluding of course punters and kickers).
There are 2 issues with this line of thinking. First, it seems pretty apparent from everything that has been reported and all of the actions that the franchise has made this offseason that they think Eli Manning has 2 good years left at a minimum. If that is their evaluation of him, why would we take a quarterback and let him sit on the bench for 2 full seasons? Teams in that situation don't take a QB top 5 in the draft.
Second, where are the contending teams that are spending a significantly lower than normal percentage of their salary cap on the QB position? According to Vegas, these are the teams with the best odds to win this year:
1. New England (12.15%)
2. Pittsburgh (12.27%)
3. Philadelphia (9.25%)
4. Minnesota (12.87%)
5. Green Bay (11.84%)
6. New Orleans (12.86%)
7. Oakland (12.96%)
8. Atlanta (11.33%)
9. LA Rams (4.22%)
10. Seattle (13.39%)
The number in parenthesis is the percentage of the salary cap that each team has allocated to their starting quarterbacks. So of the predicted 10 best teams in the league, 1 of them is paying a small amount to the QB.
Sure the Eagles did it last year, but they are the outlier, and not even a good example at that. They won the Super Bowl behind a strong defense, and the number 3 rushing attack in the league.
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.
not only that, but it directly contradicts what has been accepted CW Â
here for a long time, which was that a quality OL is the key to a good running game much more so than a star running back. The best Giants rushing attack of my lifetime featured a 4th round pick, a 7th round pick, and a castoff 7th round pick from another team.
sports writer experts often use sports analytics to prove there arguments never to consider the impact of such a talent that will gain full attention of the defensive from many aspects of the game. Analytics cannot measure how the opposing teams adjust to a RB that can split out into the slot and run an accurate route or pass protect picking up a blitz or force a defense to respect the run. It’s all about impacting the game.
RE: Some of you should really find some highlights of Tiki Barber Â
Without a RB on the roster making more than $750,000. We just drafted a RB to pay him $31 million, all guaranteed.
For all of you discussing Tiki, incidentally, we found him in the 2nd round. We were also pretty good when we had Bradshaw carrying the load, and we got him in the 7th round. We also coaxed 1000 yard seasons out of Jacobs (4th round) and Derrick Ward, neither of whom were even close to 1st round draft picks.
You don't need anything close to a 1st round pick to succeed at the RB position in the NFL.
cases where production was high using less resources, which anyone can do for any position.
It comes down to the highest ranked QB not being close to where Barkley was ranked AND said QB possibly sitting for 2 years. It also doesn’t factor in Shurmur and how he just might be comfortable with and able to get good QB play without investing in a top pick.
Blast the pick all you want, but there’s many factors that exist outside of the talent of the players in question.
And we just might be seeing a shift in this sport. I’ve said it countless times, who’s taking the reigns from Brady, Rodgers, Brees and the 2004 class? Wilson, Wentz who just got injured and who else?
Teams will be finding new ways to win without having to strap themselves with Kirk Cousins contracts, I guarantee it.
Tiki Barber posted the third-best yards from scrimmage season of all time in 2005. What exactly constitutes "much better" than that?
See, this is what's amusing about the hype bandwagon. The same people making these absurd statements also are tut-tutting about how unfair it will be when people consider anything less than 2000 yards rushing to be a successful season for poor Saquon. You can't have it both ways - either he's the bestest super-dee-duper player ever to grace an NFL field, or he's not. He either lives up to the ludicrous hype, or he doesn't.
You are Eh of the few guys that I’m actually shocked with by your disdain for the Barkley pick. You really wanted a freakin QB just for the sake of taking a QB? Brilliant. But knowing you, you’d have bitched about that too. Especially if the one they chose turns out to be a turd, which they obviously felt was likely
Teams will be finding new ways to win without having to strap themselves with Kirk Cousins contracts, I guarantee it.
You can say a lot about the NFL, but there isn't a whole lot of revolutionizing the game going on. Even the most coldly unemotional and non-sentimental franchise and by far the finest head coach and football mind in the history of the sport understands how important that QB is to their process.
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.
Go terps, you make an excellent point. It's incredible how the fans here fall in line and think the organization is beyond question. When a poster suggests that selecting a running back with the second pick with an aging qb who has lead this team to 4 losing seasons of the last 5 - with the one good season featuring one of the worst offenses in the NFL- might now be prudent, they are immediately dismissed, or, worse, personally attacked.
You would think with this being one of the worst run franchises in the NFL over the past half decade plus, posters questioning the direction of the franchise would not be met with such contempt and derision.
If you were to take a poll of the general fan base prior to the start of the 2017 season, without hindsight of the disaster that 2017 became, I bet more than half would question picking a running back with the number 2 overall pick. Now that Gettlemen told us it's all ok, the decline of the qb was just in our heads, he must be right! How dare anyone question this team.
Then I come across posters on this thread making legit points that you can find running back value easier in later rounds than at the qb and they are immediately dismissed and mocked. However, the defense one Giants can do no wrong poster uses is David Johnson- a freakin late THIRD round pick- as justification for taking a running back early and/or duplicating value value at the position by committee is mind boggling.
It's amazing the well reasoned opposing view points are so quickly dismissed. But if we're all happy using DG hollow one line platitudes as justification that all is well in Giants land, so be it. Good luck.
RE: not only that, but it directly contradicts what has been accepted CW Â
here for a long time, which was that a quality OL is the key to a good running game much more so than a star running back. The best Giants rushing attack of my lifetime featured a 4th round pick, a 7th round pick, and a castoff 7th round pick from another team.
So, there’s only one way to build a team? Super Bowl teams have won with shitty QBs too. You can say the same about any position. again, drafting a QB that they didn’t think was any good would be asinine and a whiny fan base shouldn’t influence these decisions
Teams will be finding new ways to win without having to strap themselves with Kirk Cousins contracts, I guarantee it.
I've been calling for this approach for a couple years and gotten killed for it by several posters, including you I think.
I’ve been with you on this one. Paying market value at QB is pointless unless you are getting a top player at the position. You can get away with paying top dollar at other positions and having the value not work out, but you can’t at QB.
RB contracts are a value right now, IMO. They are super low because they were devalued for so long and I think that will shift, especially when we are talking about dual threats like Bell, Johnson and hopefully Barkley.
sports writer experts often use sports analytics to prove there arguments never to consider the impact of such a talent that will gain full attention of the defensive from many aspects of the game. Analytics cannot measure how the opposing teams adjust to a RB that can split out into the slot and run an accurate route or pass protect picking up a blitz or force a defense to respect the run. It’s all about impacting the game.
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.
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.
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
because Darkwa and Perkins suck and don’t deserve 30 carries a game. If they were any good we’d be a run heavy offense to take pressure off the QB. Just amassing a decent YPC doesn’t = production.
Care to address why AP and Williams didn’t even sniff what David Johnson is capable of? I’m dying to hear this.
Sure, David Johnson had a phenomenal statistical season in 2016. It is better to have a player like David Johnson than to not have a player like David Johnson. But that says nothing about what it makes sense to give up to have a player like David Johnson on your team.
David Johnson was a late third round pick. The team went 7-8-1 in 2016 and he missed virtually the entire 2017 team. Maybe he comes back this year looking like the same player. Maybe he does not. Should the Titans have taken him second over Marcus Mariotta? Now, I personally think that Mariotta stinks. But David Johnson's best year might very well be behind him and Marcus Mariotta still has a chance to be a franchise quarterback. At this point, I still think you'd rather have the quarterback than the running back.
I am not saying that I wouldn't like the Giants to have a star running back. I am saying I wouldn't spend the second pick in the draft to try to get that. You can always find someone to competently run the ball (and if for one season you can't because your star running back got hurt and you had invested nothing in the backup - you can get one the next season). However, you can't always find someone to competently quarterback an offense, rush the quarterback, or cover a wide receiver.
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?
prefer QB over Barkley at 2. But to say that you can’t take Barkley (the best RB prospect in a really long time) at #2, that is just extremely short sighted and stupid, quite honestly. Plenty of amazing running backs in the history of the league get taken high.
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.
I’m with ya on Penn State, but Barkley didn’t have anything to do with that and by all accounts is an incredible human being. I’m not sure how anyone on the planet would have an issue having this kind of person on the team
because Darkwa and Perkins suck and don’t deserve 30 carries a game. If they were any good we’d be a run heavy offense to take pressure off the QB. Just amassing a decent YPC doesn’t = production.
Care to address why AP and Williams didn’t even sniff what David Johnson is capable of? I’m dying to hear this.
Sure, David Johnson had a phenomenal statistical season in 2016. It is better to have a player like David Johnson than to not have a player like David Johnson. But that says nothing about what it makes sense to give up to have a player like David Johnson on your team.
David Johnson was a late third round pick. The team went 7-8-1 in 2016 and he missed virtually the entire 2017 team. Maybe he comes back this year looking like the same player. Maybe he does not. Should the Titans have taken him second over Marcus Mariotta? Now, I personally think that Mariotta stinks. But David Johnson's best year might very well be behind him and Marcus Mariotta still has a chance to be a franchise quarterback. At this point, I still think you'd rather have the quarterback than the running back.
I am not saying that I wouldn't like the Giants to have a star running back. I am saying I wouldn't spend the second pick in the draft to try to get that. You can always find someone to competently run the ball (and if for one season you can't because your star running back got hurt and you had invested nothing in the backup - you can get one the next season). However, you can't always find someone to competently quarterback an offense, rush the quarterback, or cover a wide receiver.
We aren’t going to agree. You’d rather pay Cousins and have Darkwa/Perkins and I’d rather pay Bell and have Case Keenum.
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.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here.
The Ringer - ( New Window )
I’m happy with Saquon though and look forward to watching him play.
Rosen always looked way more like an NFL QB to me, but he had injury concerns and those are probably even more of a red flag.
Point is this: The 4 teams that drafted the 4 QBs in the top 10 have won exactly zero super bowls in the last 50 years and I think the last "Franchise Quarterback" any one of those teams had was Jim Kelly for the Bills (...obviously not counting Kurt Warner for the Cards because as good as he was he was only there for like 2 years).
OTOH, if the team is improving, it means we are winning. Not sure what's so bad about that.
At any rate, I would venture that it wouldn't be a long limb to climb if we were to say that we will finish ahead of his Redskins this year.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here. The Ringer - ( New Window )
Clark’s argument on The Ringer was all over the place. He first argues that taking a RB high doesn’t make financial sense, which is a fairly common argument people are making. If that’s his stance, fine, but later in the article he says the smart choice would have been to choose a QB to have sit behind Manning. So it is more financially responsible to pay a guy to sit on the bench for the next 3 years than it would be to pay a potential All-Pro RB?
The second argument he makes is that he doesn’t have a problem taking Barkley, but only after a trade down. This completely disregards the possibility that there weren’t any good offers to move down, or that they were afraid if they moved down further than 4 that they would lose the player. If you have conviction about a guy, why risk losing him over a subpar package if that’s all that’s out there?
Washington Post has fake news in all departments
OTOH, if the team is improving, it means we are winning. Not sure what's so bad about that.
At any rate, I would venture that it wouldn't be a long limb to climb if we were to say that we will finish ahead of his Redskins this year.
Bill, such a good point! We'll be in last place every year because we didn't take Darnold. So that means we'll be picking at the top of the draft every year, but unfortunately Darnold is apparently the last Franchise QB that will ever come out of college for the next 15 years.
Again, there was NO reason for Giants to take a QB at #2 with Eli still viable for 2 years. Teams do not draft QB at #2 if they will sit for 2 years.
The difference between this years QB's is slight. NO front runner.
Giants have Eli for 2 years, and 2 young QB's that have 2 years to prove themselves. One will be the replacement.
Barkley, unless injured, will be a 1,000 yard rusher and 500 yard receiver for at least the next 4 years.
If Giants can fill remaining Ol/DL/LB holes this year and next . Very possible Eli can go out on top.
Long term I think Allen and Jackson will be the best of this QB draft.
Rosen always looked way more like an NFL QB to me, but he had injury concerns and those are probably even more of a red flag.
Point is this: The 4 teams that drafted the 4 QBs in the top 10 have won exactly zero super bowls in the last 50 years and I think the last "Franchise Quarterback" any one of those teams had was Jim Kelly for the Bills (...obviously not counting Kurt Warner for the Cards because as good as he was he was only there for like 2 years).
Bingo! Brilliant insight... Each of the four teams that took a quarterback in the top ten have not even been to a super bowl in 25 years and have just six super bowl appearances and a combined record of 1-5. And each of the five teams that did not take a quarterback - Giants, Broncos, Colts, Bears, 49ers - have been to the super bowl at least once in the last 12 years and have 21 super bowl appearances and a combined record of 13-8... Wow - says it all...
Who again are the smartest guys in the room?
My impression in the days leading up to the draft was that this board was split pretty close to 50-50 on this question of drafting a quarterback versus another position. Yet now there are threads calling out anyone for even having the audacity to question taking a running back with the second pick. I realize with the draft over there is a natural instinct to coalesce around the draft pick and break out the pom poms. But if we're being honest, the jury is very much still out on the Giants decision and will be for a long time.
Quote:
many people suggesting a similar argument. This guy at the ringer does as well.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here. The Ringer - ( New Window )
Clark’s argument on The Ringer was all over the place. He first argues that taking a RB high doesn’t make financial sense, which is a fairly common argument people are making. If that’s his stance, fine, but later in the article he says the smart choice would have been to choose a QB to have sit behind Manning. So it is more financially responsible to pay a guy to sit on the bench for the next 3 years than it would be to pay a potential All-Pro RB?
QB's get paid the most money out of any position, so having him sit for 1 season to develop is perfect. Look at Wentz and Goff. Goff redshirted came in and lighted it up. Wentz played as a Rookie and the following year he was a MVP.
Both teams took the money they would be using on a QB and invested in Weapons around them because they had the money to do so.
I don't get what's so hard to comprehend there. Easier transition, and more money to distribute to other players to make a better overall team.
Instead of overpaying a rookie at a position that is least valuable, and more injury riddled then any other position on the field offense or defense (excluding of course punters and kickers).
Yet the top 10 rushing leaders from last year included:
- First Rounders 4
- Second rounders 2
- Third Rounders 1
- Fifth Rounder 3
Ezekiel Elliott was in the top 3 in YPC
The top 10 QB's by yardage were:
- First Rounder 6
- Second Rounder 1
- Fifth Rounder 1
- Sixth Rounder 1
- Undrafted 1
Both had 3 players from the 5th round or later. It isn't like you have guys popping off their couches and becoming great. Well, maybe Kurt Warner (with a K, not a C).....
Quote:
It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story.
Yeah. Its absolutely one of the dumbest and most ill-informed things I've ever heard. Yet there is actually a fair number of people that believe it.
Quote:
In comment 13951046 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
many people suggesting a similar argument. This guy at the ringer does as well.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here. The Ringer - ( New Window )
Clark’s argument on The Ringer was all over the place. He first argues that taking a RB high doesn’t make financial sense, which is a fairly common argument people are making. If that’s his stance, fine, but later in the article he says the smart choice would have been to choose a QB to have sit behind Manning. So it is more financially responsible to pay a guy to sit on the bench for the next 3 years than it would be to pay a potential All-Pro RB?
QB's get paid the most money out of any position, so having him sit for 1 season to develop is perfect. Look at Wentz and Goff. Goff redshirted came in and lighted it up. Wentz played as a Rookie and the following year he was a MVP.
Both teams took the money they would be using on a QB and invested in Weapons around them because they had the money to do so.
I don't get what's so hard to comprehend there. Easier transition, and more money to distribute to other players to make a better overall team.
Instead of overpaying a rookie at a position that is least valuable, and more injury riddled then any other position on the field offense or defense (excluding of course punters and kickers).
Goff played his rookie year and wasn't that good. He wasn't really good to start the season this past year either, but played very well towards the end...I know what you probably meant, but Wentz did not win MVP. He can also eat a bag of dicks just like the rest of his team and all their fans.
Also, We were going to pay Eli this next season no matter what. We also added OL help this off season and our running game will be a strength.
There are QB's that will be drafted in the next 3 or 4 years that we haven't even heard of yet. Some people on here make it sound like this is the last draft the Giants will ever get to draft a good QB.
I don't like the pick because it's too much money for a RB long term and it's a short shelf life for a RB. I think the GM has made the pick even worse with all of the stupid things he's said about being touched by god and crapping on analytics but I disagree 100% with anyone making the case that this makes the Giants weaker in the short term.
It's exactly the opposite. Drafting a great RB is probably the best way for the Giants to get better in the short term. Which is exactly what anyone should expect when a team hires a 67 year old GM. He has a short time and he's thinking short time.
The Giants as only the Mara's can do have reversed the GM/Head Coach dynamic. They have a GM who is a short termer and a Head Coach thinking long term.
Not sure how words could make it a worse pick.
So they went for talent. I can't see how you can fault them for that.
The idea that backs in the 6th and 7th round are common while 1st rounders are scarce is such a myth.
Quote:
Quote:
It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story.
Yeah. Its absolutely one of the dumbest and most ill-informed things I've ever heard. Yet there is actually a fair number of people that believe it.
The Orleans Darkwa/Wayne Gallman platoon had more rushing yards than every running back other than Kareem Hunt, Todd Gurley, and Le'Veon Bell last year. The two of them had combined 282 carries for 1,227 yards. The fourth leading rusher in the NFL last year was LeSean McCoy (by all accounts a top running back). He had more carries (287) and less yards (1,138) than the Darkwa/Gallman platoon.
It just doesn't matter that much who your running backs are.
It comes down to something so simple that its astounding to me how difficult it is for people to grasp.
The Giants just didn't like any of the QB's. Period. End of story. Pat Shurmur said before the draft, that they'll know it when they see it - and they didn't see it in this group. So they're rolling with what they've got and will see what happens over the next few years.
Time to move on.
Replace McCoy with Gallman and Darkwa and tell me how successful Buffalo would be.
That should be the argument - not looking at yardage in a vacuum.
That is spot on. The RB position may be more fungible than the K position. The K position is extremely difficult to find one who can consistently deliver and handle the enormous stress since most games, I believe, are separated by less than a 6 points.
Replace McCoy with Gallman and Darkwa and tell me how successful Buffalo would be.
That should be the argument - not looking at yardage in a vacuum.
Why is that an unreasonable point? McCoy had more carries than the two of them combined last year and was less productive with those carries. Assuming Darkwa and Gallman are replacement level running backs, how much value are we assigning McCoy over replacement level?
Quote:
In comment 13951183 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Quote:
It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story.
Yeah. Its absolutely one of the dumbest and most ill-informed things I've ever heard. Yet there is actually a fair number of people that believe it.
The Orleans Darkwa/Wayne Gallman platoon had more rushing yards than every running back other than Kareem Hunt, Todd Gurley, and Le'Veon Bell last year. The two of them had combined 282 carries for 1,227 yards. The fourth leading rusher in the NFL last year was LeSean McCoy (by all accounts a top running back). He had more carries (287) and less yards (1,138) than the Darkwa/Gallman platoon.
It just doesn't matter that much who your running backs are.
I’m happy with Saquon though and look forward to watching him play.
It’s definitely not an outlandish claim to prefer darnold or any qb to Barkley. I was torn but the fans that make it seem like like the giants were complete fools aren’t thinking rationally. Barkley is an insane prospect. None of the qbs are Andrew luck or even Eli Manning coming out. And that’s a fact. Doesn’t mean one or two of these qbs don’t pan out in a big way, but it’s not an exact science. Here’s the thing though, Barkley is exact. He’s about as close to perfect as you’re gonna get.
Nothing wrong with picking that kind of player.
Replace McCoy with Gallman and Darkwa and tell me how successful Buffalo would be.
That should be the argument - not looking at yardage in a vacuum.
My impression in the days leading up to the draft was that this board was split pretty close to 50-50 on this question of drafting a quarterback versus another position. Yet now there are threads calling out anyone for even having the audacity to question taking a running back with the second pick. I realize with the draft over there is a natural instinct to coalesce around the draft pick and break out the pom poms. But if we're being honest, the jury is very much still out on the Giants decision and will be for a long time.
Crap.
Odds are that Barkley is never as good as Tiki was, because very few are.
When that same reasoning is used to say Darkwa and Gallman are as good as McCoy, people are like, "Fuck yeah!!!"
Quote:
to jog your memory - so you can remember what a back like Barkley can do that fringe journeymen like Darkwa, Jennings, and Gallman can't.
Odds are that Barkley is never as good as Tiki was, because very few are.
Normally I'd agree with you, because few have the same ability and desire to be. Barkley does though. Thats why they picked him. Whether he actually gets there is entirely up to him, barring some freak injury.
What’s next, adding up tackles of 2 shitty safeties if we didn’t want to resign Collins?
When that same reasoning is used to say Darkwa and Gallman are as good as McCoy, people are like, "Fuck yeah!!!"
The point isn't that Darkwa and Gallman are as good as McCoy. The point is that the difference between elite and replacement level running backs is not that dramatic. You can get 85% of what an elite running back gets you without having to invest anything. That is not true at positions like quarterback, let tackle, defensive end, cornerback. That is why the opportunity cost of taking a running back so high in the draft is, in my opinion, unreasonably high.
Quote:
to jog your memory - so you can remember what a back like Barkley can do that fringe journeymen like Darkwa, Jennings, and Gallman can't.
Odds are that Barkley is never as good as Tiki was, because very few are.
If he stays healthy he'll be much better than Tiki was. He's a much, much better receiver than Tiki - as in he can run WR type routes, which I don't remember Tiki doing. And he's faster, stronger, and bigger than Tiki.
Also don't forget that Tiki had a major fumbling problem before Coughlin.
But rb is not the 3rd least valuable position. Cmon. Hr hitting field tilters help teams win and win big. Barkley is much more than a luxury. He’s a difference maker.
See, this is what's amusing about the hype bandwagon. The same people making these absurd statements also are tut-tutting about how unfair it will be when people consider anything less than 2000 yards rushing to be a successful season for poor Saquon. You can't have it both ways - either he's the bestest super-dee-duper player ever to grace an NFL field, or he's not. He either lives up to the ludicrous hype, or he doesn't.
Quote:
to jog your memory - so you can remember what a back like Barkley can do that fringe journeymen like Darkwa, Jennings, and Gallman can't.
Odds are that Barkley is never as good as Tiki was, because vergy few are.
I would say the giants and most scouts don’t agree. Let’s not forget tiki needed two full seasons to even become a pro out there. Then he needed one more year to become a star. Then he went through the fumbles and didn’t reach his peak until his 7th season.
Barkley won’t need 7 seasons.
Quote:
is the least valuable position on the field other than kicker and punter. It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story. If Darnold is a star, the Giants decision is a disaster regardless of what Barkley does.
That is spot on. The RB position may be more fungible than the K position. The K position is extremely difficult to find one who can consistently deliver and handle the enormous stress since most games, I believe, are separated by less than a 6 points.
So if Darnold is a star and SB is a star and the Giants win 2 Super Bowls but the Jets also win 2, then the pick was a disaster? That doesn't make sense.
How did Kerwyn Williams and AP do backing up David Johnson? THey barely sniffed 50% of his 2016 production for yardage and it’s not even worth discussing the TDs.
See, this is what's amusing about the hype bandwagon. The same people making these absurd statements also are tut-tutting about how unfair it will be when people consider anything less than 2000 yards rushing to be a successful season for poor Saquon. You can't have it both ways - either he's the bestest super-dee-duper player ever to grace an NFL field, or he's not. He either lives up to the ludicrous hype, or he doesn't.
I think if he gets more than 1,500 total yards combined in rushing and passing that would be 'much better' than Tiki did -- and about 200 more than Tiki had in his first two seasons combined.
Tiki was a good player but Barkley -- like OBJ -- is a home run threat every time he has the ball. Tiki wasn't.
For a guy who supposedly wasn't a home-run hitter, Tiki sure broke a shitload of really long runs.
If you replace a LB with a lesser player, you'll likely get at least 85% of the total in tackles in return. Same with most defensive positions.
That's why this line of argumentation is pretty poor. The recent trend is to say RB's aren't valuable, but if you have a damn good RB, the past few years have shown you'll be in the hunt.
Trying to say two mediocre players can replace a great player in certain stats is pretty useless. You can do it for almost any position, including QB. Prescott isn't as good as Romo, but his rookie year TD/INT ratio I think was better than Romo's ever was.
Yes, he did, and no, they generally don't last very long. All of that is part of what made Tiki so exceptional. However, as I know you're very well aware, his relatively few carries in his first three seasons likely contributed greatly to his durability and longevity at an age when most RBs decline significantly. Barkley isn't going to have those lightly used years at the beginning of his career.
For a guy who supposedly wasn't a home-run hitter, Tiki sure broke a shitload of really long runs.
Tiki seems to be an anomaly. I don’t really get it anyway, that was year 10 for him when RBs are considered dead and forgotten. Let’s all hope we get that from Barkley year 10 but the argument here is Barkley has the talent to do that year 1.
For a guy who supposedly wasn't a home-run hitter, Tiki sure broke a shitload of really long runs.
When he wasn't fumbling the ball.
I'm saying if you are comparing the players you should be comparing how they do as rookies.
And I'll go out on a limb and say if he stays healthy he'll have better career stats than Tiki.
How did Kerwyn Williams and AP do backing up David Johnson? THey barely sniffed 50% of his 2016 production for yardage and it’s not even worth discussing the TDs.
I don't understand why my comparison of Darkwa/Gallman to McCoy is unfair. McCoy had more carries than both of them combined, and the Darkwa/Gallman platoon was slightly more productive with its carries. There are only so many plays in a game. If McCoy gets 30 carries in a game and Darkwa/Gallman get 15 each - what difference does it make?
Some people have brought up McCoy's ability to catch passes and I think that is a fair point, so I've tried to clarify that I'm not saying there is zero difference between McCoy and the Giants platoon. What I'm saying is the difference is not worth heavy investment in terms of dollars and draft picks to have the elite running back when you could be addressing more important positions on the field that also have holes.
I would also point out that this entire discussion assumes that Saquon Barkley is instantly a top 3 to 5 running back in the league. His entire value to the team is premised on that fact. If you getting anything less than that from him, the pick is a bust based on what you invested. So, the margin of error with picking him is virtually zero. Another reason why I don't think selecting a running back so high is a good idea.
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.
Care to address why AP and Williams didn’t even sniff what David Johnson is capable of? I’m dying to hear this.
Quote:
In comment 13951046 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
many people suggesting a similar argument. This guy at the ringer does as well.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here. The Ringer - ( New Window )
Clark’s argument on The Ringer was all over the place. He first argues that taking a RB high doesn’t make financial sense, which is a fairly common argument people are making. If that’s his stance, fine, but later in the article he says the smart choice would have been to choose a QB to have sit behind Manning. So it is more financially responsible to pay a guy to sit on the bench for the next 3 years than it would be to pay a potential All-Pro RB?
QB's get paid the most money out of any position, so having him sit for 1 season to develop is perfect. Look at Wentz and Goff. Goff redshirted came in and lighted it up. Wentz played as a Rookie and the following year he was a MVP.
Both teams took the money they would be using on a QB and invested in Weapons around them because they had the money to do so.
I don't get what's so hard to comprehend there. Easier transition, and more money to distribute to other players to make a better overall team.
Instead of overpaying a rookie at a position that is least valuable, and more injury riddled then any other position on the field offense or defense (excluding of course punters and kickers).
There are 2 issues with this line of thinking. First, it seems pretty apparent from everything that has been reported and all of the actions that the franchise has made this offseason that they think Eli Manning has 2 good years left at a minimum. If that is their evaluation of him, why would we take a quarterback and let him sit on the bench for 2 full seasons? Teams in that situation don't take a QB top 5 in the draft.
Second, where are the contending teams that are spending a significantly lower than normal percentage of their salary cap on the QB position? According to Vegas, these are the teams with the best odds to win this year:
1. New England (12.15%)
2. Pittsburgh (12.27%)
3. Philadelphia (9.25%)
4. Minnesota (12.87%)
5. Green Bay (11.84%)
6. New Orleans (12.86%)
7. Oakland (12.96%)
8. Atlanta (11.33%)
9. LA Rams (4.22%)
10. Seattle (13.39%)
The number in parenthesis is the percentage of the salary cap that each team has allocated to their starting quarterbacks. So of the predicted 10 best teams in the league, 1 of them is paying a small amount to the QB.
Sure the Eagles did it last year, but they are the outlier, and not even a good example at that. They won the Super Bowl behind a strong defense, and the number 3 rushing attack in the league.
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.
Or Bradshaw, one of my favorite Giants.
I watch this from time to time just to jog my memory. Great burst, power, elusive. WAY underrated.
Lonk - ( New Window )
For all of you discussing Tiki, incidentally, we found him in the 2nd round. We were also pretty good when we had Bradshaw carrying the load, and we got him in the 7th round. We also coaxed 1000 yard seasons out of Jacobs (4th round) and Derrick Ward, neither of whom were even close to 1st round draft picks.
You don't need anything close to a 1st round pick to succeed at the RB position in the NFL.
It comes down to the highest ranked QB not being close to where Barkley was ranked AND said QB possibly sitting for 2 years. It also doesn’t factor in Shurmur and how he just might be comfortable with and able to get good QB play without investing in a top pick.
Blast the pick all you want, but there’s many factors that exist outside of the talent of the players in question.
And we just might be seeing a shift in this sport. I’ve said it countless times, who’s taking the reigns from Brady, Rodgers, Brees and the 2004 class? Wilson, Wentz who just got injured and who else?
Teams will be finding new ways to win without having to strap themselves with Kirk Cousins contracts, I guarantee it.
I've been calling for this approach for a couple years and gotten killed for it by several posters, including you I think.
See, this is what's amusing about the hype bandwagon. The same people making these absurd statements also are tut-tutting about how unfair it will be when people consider anything less than 2000 yards rushing to be a successful season for poor Saquon. You can't have it both ways - either he's the bestest super-dee-duper player ever to grace an NFL field, or he's not. He either lives up to the ludicrous hype, or he doesn't.
You are Eh of the few guys that I’m actually shocked with by your disdain for the Barkley pick. You really wanted a freakin QB just for the sake of taking a QB? Brilliant. But knowing you, you’d have bitched about that too. Especially if the one they chose turns out to be a turd, which they obviously felt was likely
Teams will be finding new ways to win without having to strap themselves with Kirk Cousins contracts, I guarantee it.
You can say a lot about the NFL, but there isn't a whole lot of revolutionizing the game going on. Even the most coldly unemotional and non-sentimental franchise and by far the finest head coach and football mind in the history of the sport understands how important that QB is to their process.
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.
Go terps, you make an excellent point. It's incredible how the fans here fall in line and think the organization is beyond question. When a poster suggests that selecting a running back with the second pick with an aging qb who has lead this team to 4 losing seasons of the last 5 - with the one good season featuring one of the worst offenses in the NFL- might now be prudent, they are immediately dismissed, or, worse, personally attacked.
You would think with this being one of the worst run franchises in the NFL over the past half decade plus, posters questioning the direction of the franchise would not be met with such contempt and derision.
If you were to take a poll of the general fan base prior to the start of the 2017 season, without hindsight of the disaster that 2017 became, I bet more than half would question picking a running back with the number 2 overall pick. Now that Gettlemen told us it's all ok, the decline of the qb was just in our heads, he must be right! How dare anyone question this team.
Then I come across posters on this thread making legit points that you can find running back value easier in later rounds than at the qb and they are immediately dismissed and mocked. However, the defense one Giants can do no wrong poster uses is David Johnson- a freakin late THIRD round pick- as justification for taking a running back early and/or duplicating value value at the position by committee is mind boggling.
It's amazing the well reasoned opposing view points are so quickly dismissed. But if we're all happy using DG hollow one line platitudes as justification that all is well in Giants land, so be it. Good luck.
So, there’s only one way to build a team? Super Bowl teams have won with shitty QBs too. You can say the same about any position. again, drafting a QB that they didn’t think was any good would be asinine and a whiny fan base shouldn’t influence these decisions
Quote:
Teams will be finding new ways to win without having to strap themselves with Kirk Cousins contracts, I guarantee it.
I've been calling for this approach for a couple years and gotten killed for it by several posters, including you I think.
I’ve been with you on this one. Paying market value at QB is pointless unless you are getting a top player at the position. You can get away with paying top dollar at other positions and having the value not work out, but you can’t at QB.
RB contracts are a value right now, IMO. They are super low because they were devalued for so long and I think that will shift, especially when we are talking about dual threats like Bell, Johnson and hopefully Barkley.
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
Care to address why AP and Williams didn’t even sniff what David Johnson is capable of? I’m dying to hear this.
Sure, David Johnson had a phenomenal statistical season in 2016. It is better to have a player like David Johnson than to not have a player like David Johnson. But that says nothing about what it makes sense to give up to have a player like David Johnson on your team.
David Johnson was a late third round pick. The team went 7-8-1 in 2016 and he missed virtually the entire 2017 team. Maybe he comes back this year looking like the same player. Maybe he does not. Should the Titans have taken him second over Marcus Mariotta? Now, I personally think that Mariotta stinks. But David Johnson's best year might very well be behind him and Marcus Mariotta still has a chance to be a franchise quarterback. At this point, I still think you'd rather have the quarterback than the running back.
I am not saying that I wouldn't like the Giants to have a star running back. I am saying I wouldn't spend the second pick in the draft to try to get that. You can always find someone to competently run the ball (and if for one season you can't because your star running back got hurt and you had invested nothing in the backup - you can get one the next season). However, you can't always find someone to competently quarterback an offense, rush the quarterback, or cover a wide receiver.
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?
I’m with ya on Penn State, but Barkley didn’t have anything to do with that and by all accounts is an incredible human being. I’m not sure how anyone on the planet would have an issue having this kind of person on the team
Quote:
because Darkwa and Perkins suck and don’t deserve 30 carries a game. If they were any good we’d be a run heavy offense to take pressure off the QB. Just amassing a decent YPC doesn’t = production.
Care to address why AP and Williams didn’t even sniff what David Johnson is capable of? I’m dying to hear this.
Sure, David Johnson had a phenomenal statistical season in 2016. It is better to have a player like David Johnson than to not have a player like David Johnson. But that says nothing about what it makes sense to give up to have a player like David Johnson on your team.
David Johnson was a late third round pick. The team went 7-8-1 in 2016 and he missed virtually the entire 2017 team. Maybe he comes back this year looking like the same player. Maybe he does not. Should the Titans have taken him second over Marcus Mariotta? Now, I personally think that Mariotta stinks. But David Johnson's best year might very well be behind him and Marcus Mariotta still has a chance to be a franchise quarterback. At this point, I still think you'd rather have the quarterback than the running back.
I am not saying that I wouldn't like the Giants to have a star running back. I am saying I wouldn't spend the second pick in the draft to try to get that. You can always find someone to competently run the ball (and if for one season you can't because your star running back got hurt and you had invested nothing in the backup - you can get one the next season). However, you can't always find someone to competently quarterback an offense, rush the quarterback, or cover a wide receiver.
We aren’t going to agree. You’d rather pay Cousins and have Darkwa/Perkins and I’d rather pay Bell and have Case Keenum.
That happened when SB was 14
NFL.
And they also won with Nick Foles at QB. Which pretty much cancels out your entire point.
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.