Â
|
|
Quote: |
Jordan Raanan & #8207; Verified account @JordanRaanan 23m23 minutes ago John Mara on passing on a QB for Barkley: "You always have reservations but the opinion in our draft room was unanimous that he was the best player in the draft." #Giants |
No it wasn't - Eli didn't approve.
Quote:
to bench Eli
No it wasn't - Eli didn't approve.
Eli benched himself! I'd take that as an approval.
Not start to bench Eli for geno fuckin smith.
That’s on tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber.
It’s pretty clear.
If the entire front office, coaching staff, and scouting department agreed on the pick that's a problem. Hopefully Mara want actually accurate in that statement.
If the entire front office, coaching staff, and scouting department agreed on the pick that's a problem. Hopefully Mara want actually accurate in that statement.
💤💤💤💤💤💤
If the entire front office, coaching staff, and scouting department agreed on the pick that's a problem. Hopefully Mara want actually accurate in that statement.
Boy, you really can turn just about anything into a negative...
I'm almost... impressed.
No. It has to be mindless group think.
I'm fairly certain if Darnold was graded as high as Peyton Manning, we would've taken him, and not only would there be overwhelming glee, but the narrative would be he was a consensus best player.
We actually pick the consensus best player and it's like we didn't just make a mistake, but have a room full of yes men.
Did you already forget radar?? Being a contrarian might sound great in theory. In practical terms, a lot of times it is just moronic babbling.
Or worse.. if Gettleman loved Barkley, but John Mara forced his hand on a QB instead.
I'm not sure how or why this is a bad thing. It tells me they were unanimous on this guy and had very strong conviction on him - that should give fans confidence, not pause.
Whether or not Barkley pans out remains to be seen - but if the entire war room wanted this guy and everyone was on the same page, I feel better about it.. not worse.
Or worse.. if Gettleman loved Barkley, but John Mara forced his hand on a QB instead.
I'm not sure how or why this is a bad thing. It tells me they were unanimous on this guy and had very strong conviction on him - that should give fans confidence, not pause.
Whether or not Barkley pans out remains to be seen - but if the entire war room wanted this guy and everyone was on the same page, I feel better about it.. not worse.
It’s really not better or worse. Ultimately their collective genius or incompetency will be determined by what Barkley does on the field. If he’s great then everyone involved in the process will be lauded. If he sucks then we’ll hear everything — dinosaur scouting staff/process, antiquated approach to team building, groupthink, short sighted, etc.
Just like the decision to hire McAdoo
Wait so now Barkley is Cedric Jones?! Giants picked the consensus best player in the draft, not a one eyed reach
What’s the alternative? Just question everything on a message board hoping they read it and change the way they do things?
Knowing what you are doing and a situation working out, when it comes to sports, are not mutually exclusive. Simply too many variables. I’ll question various things in sports for a brief moment but after that it’s a futile exercise.
I don’t really see much value in questioning every move a team makes especially with limited to no information.
It doesn't matter now why the decisions was made, whether it was a consensus pick based on Barkley s talent or a lack of belief in the quarterbacks.
Giants took Barkkey, we ll see if they were right.
Relevance? George Young did this
Quote:
MUST know what they're doing, but isn't this the same franchise that drafted a player who was blind in one eye 5th overall?
Relevance? George Young did this
The relevance is that credible professionals get it wrong, sometimes wildly wrong, too. People who are tired of discussing the draft and just want something to cheer for seem to want to argue that just because the people who are in charge made the decision that should mean they know best. Given the subjectivity and margin for error of scouting players, it's a silly position to take even without considering that the Giants are where they are precisely due to a string of bad player and personnel department decisions. We won't know if they got it right for some time.
Quote:
In comment 13958824 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
MUST know what they're doing, but isn't this the same franchise that drafted a player who was blind in one eye 5th overall?
Relevance? George Young did this
The relevance is that credible professionals get it wrong, sometimes wildly wrong, too. People who are tired of discussing the draft and just want something to cheer for seem to want to argue that just because the people who are in charge made the decision that should mean they know best. Given the subjectivity and margin for error of scouting players, it's a silly position to take even without considering that the Giants are where they are precisely due to a string of bad player and personnel department decisions. We won't know if they got it right for some time.
There are reasons the draft is called a crapshoot..Players fail to live up to the scouting reports all the time, so yes Barkley could bust. That said, very FEW of high draft picks (save for some QBs through the years) bring with them the label of GENERATIONAL that Barkley does. Guarantees nothing, but the odds would SEEM to be exponentially higher in this case, than other highly regarded draft choices, that he’s the real goods. And yes, we shall see
Ten Ton Hammer : 1:45 am : link : reply
MUST know what they're doing, but isn't this the same franchise that drafted a player who was blind in one eye 5th overall?
Using this standard of argumentation, why not just go back to the #2 pick of LT??
I'm pretty sure I know why, but since apparently the decisions made on the #5 player a couple decades ago are fodder for yuks, why not go back further for the example??
Why? Because it doesn't paint the decision makers as blithering idiots....
And I have a real hard time saying Barkley was/is a better football player than Fitzpatrick or even Derwin James. They are tremendous football players on the defensive side of the ball.
But I digress.
Since the QB position is so valuable, even if you have Barkley rated the best, there should be very healthy debate at Jints Central to take the QB - Darnold, Rosen, etc - over the RB. That value debate was going on everywhere - here, ESPN, FS1, NFLN, radio, etc. As it should.
Unless Gettleman doesn’t promote an environment of encouraging dissenting opinion, which could be the case since he sounds fairly old school, then it does seem a bit strange for everyone to fall so comfortably in line with a decision that will be such a watershed for the franchise...
Right on target BBB. Was going to type the same thing...
I didn't.
Per Gettleman's post draft reaction, and it was a dandy, the decision was so easy that it basically wasn't a decision.
This should not have been an easy decision...IMV.
I would also guess that the Giants deep down probably wish the QB prospects were a bit more tempting at number 2. They just werent. Neither Darnold nor Rosen lived up to the pre-season hype. Allen is a project. Mayfield has some size/character warts.
The Giants took the best football player available. Period.
Elway, armed with only Case Keenum passed. The Colts with about a million questions regarding the health of Luck's throwing arm passed. When the Saints traded up everyone thought they were getting involved. They weren't.
What seems to be more the case isn't the complexity of making the decision, but satisfying several posters who steadfastly hold to the notion that the ownership and decision makers are incompetent.
And while the ultimate decision may have been easy for Gettleman, the process wasn't based on what we heard. The Giants did their due diligence on all the QBs from the various scouting trips, discussions, and interviews, etc. In the end, nobody in the Front Office got Gettleman comfortable in picking anybody other than Saquon Barkley, so he went with the easy pick...
It's not like QBs went #1, 3,4,5 and 7 or 8. After months of some speculation that they may come off in the top 4, or so, picks they were spread out pretty sparsely (compared to how they were thought to perhaps be taken) throughout the top 10 picks and no team that did trade up for one top 4 guys had to make some huge jump in order to get their guy (relatively speaking). As I've said before, to me that means that the QBs weren't as high in demand to the professionals as they were to the guys who are not. The last of the top 5 guys almost made it out of the first round.
If anything I think that confirms that the Giants... as of right now... maybe are correct in their thinking that none of the QBs that were available in this draft were on the same level as a Peyton, Luck or even Goff/Wentz... which had been stated numerous times by some analyst. Which makes the idea of picking a QB just to pick one because the Giants had a high pick kind of silly. One way one could look at it is that perhaps... despite the plethora of potential franchise QBs who came out this past draft... this WASN'T a good year to have a high pick in the draft if you needed a QB. Even the guy who went #1 had his detractors... how often is that said about the first QB taken in any draft?
Usually you'll have a guy or two top QBs available... and most will agree that either that one guy... or both of them... are highly rated as franchise caliber guys and it's a matter of picking which one you think will be the better of the two (see Winston/Mariotta and/or Goff/Wentz). But in this draft, it was a matter of trying to figure out which QB would be the least likely to fail... not most likely to have the most success or be the better of the two. Which also ties into Gettleman's 'If you have to talk yourself into taking a guy, you don't take that guy.' statement.
And while 4 QBs did go in the top 10. Look at who they went to.
Cleveland, NYJ, Buffalo, and Arizona had nothing more than poop on a stick at the QB position prior to making the pick.
And while 4 QBs did go in the top 10. Look at who they went to.
Cleveland, NYJ, Buffalo, and Arizona had nothing more than poop on a stick at the QB position prior to making the pick.
Agree and meant to add that to my post... the teams who did select QBs were DESPERATE for one. We were not.
There are legitimate positions on both sides of the fence. Most (or at least many) of the regular contributors in this debate refuse to accept that. They see one POV, and that's it.
This is going to be debated for a long time and will not be settled for years, if ever. There are no answers today, and there isn't going to be for some time.
It doesn't rule out that Barkley might bust, but it certainly supports why the player was taken and why it seemed like such conviction was made in the pick.
From my perspective, too many people are focusing on the fact that we didn't take a QB rather than the fact we took who we had rated as the top player in the draft, and reportedly a top rated player of all-time.
It is almost like some are so disappointed that we didn't select a QB, whether the pick would've been forced or not, that they are just going from thread to thread throwing a wet blanket on Barkley.
He felt that he has enough at QB now, that paired with the OL he will build, and the potential star he drafted at RB, that this offense will be successful.
The people who wanted a QB can whine all they want and can keep starting threads, but like it's been said numerous other times, this debate will not see a "winner" this year. Not sure why we keep beating a dead horse when we know nothing yet.
Make no mistake about it - people here will deep down hope that Barkley isn't that good (or even busts) so that they can say they were right.
It's very crazy, but some people really are bigger fans of their own opinions than they are the Giants.
We tend to look back at the early to mid '90s as a brutal period for the Giants. There was Ray Handley (many posters won't even type his name without asterisks), then Dan Reeves turning the Giants into the Broncos. It wasn't good. The record from '91-'96 was 45-51.
Well the record from '12-'17 was 42-54. For every fan about 45 years or younger this is the worst era of Giants football they've ever seen. I don't think ownership or the front office deserves any benefit of the doubt. On the field the team has been a joke, and off it as well. I think that's fair after 5 years of dogshit football from a group of players that's been pretty damn unlikable to boot.
Quote:
to bench Eli
Just like the decision to hire McAdoo
The Eagles bamboozled us into hiring Slick and going on to a championship.
Drafting the next Andrew Luck would've been optimal, but it was not an option.
Ryan: $30M 95-63 (.601)
Cousins: $28M 26-30-1 (.456)
Garoppolo: $27.5M 7-0 (.100) ($27.5M for 7 career starts!)
Stafford: $27M 60-65 (.480)
Carr: $25M 28-34 (.450)
Brees: $25M 142-106 (.573)
Luck: $24.5M 43-27 (.614)
Smith: $23.5M 88-62-1 (.583)
Flacco: $22M 92-62 (.597)
Rodgers: $22M 94-48 (.662)
Wilson: $21.9M 65-30-1 (.677)
Big Ben: $21.9M 135-63 (.682)
Eli: $21M 111-103 (.519)
Rivers: $20.8M 106-86 (.552)
Newton: $20.8M 62-45-1 (.574)
Brady: $20.5M 196-55 (.781)
9-7 = .563
10-6 = .625
Also keep in mind that drafting a QB at #2 for the "long term" would've meant punting on at least the 2018 season, if not the next 2+ seasons in a sport where even the best players are looking at 8-10 top years. By the time that QB was ready, we'd have several key players likely past their primes (Snacks, Solder, Jenkins, Vernon, etc) and the windows for others getting shorter (Collins, Beckham, Shepard, etc).
Cleveland, NYJ, Buffalo, and Arizona had nothing more than poop on a stick at the QB position prior to making the pick.
I dont understand this line of thinking. There are new coaches, GMs, and management in place than who took prior QBs. Just because they failed in the past, it has no bearing on what they did now.
Its like saying taking a PSU RB early is a bad decision based on their history ;)
Quote:
Elway, armed with only Case Keenum passed. The Colts with about a million questions regarding the health of Luck's throwing arm passed. When the Saints traded up everyone thought they were getting involved. They weren't.
It's not like QBs went #1, 3,4,5 and 7 or 8. After months of some speculation that they may come off in the top 4, or so, picks they were spread out pretty sparsely (compared to how they were thought to perhaps be taken) throughout the top 10 picks and no team that did trade up for one top 4 guys had to make some huge jump in order to get their guy (relatively speaking). As I've said before, to me that means that the QBs weren't as high in demand to the professionals as they were to the guys who are not. The last of the top 5 guys almost made it out of the first round.
If anything I think that confirms that the Giants... as of right now... maybe are correct in their thinking that none of the QBs that were available in this draft were on the same level as a Peyton, Luck or even Goff/Wentz... which had been stated numerous times by some analyst. Which makes the idea of picking a QB just to pick one because the Giants had a high pick kind of silly. One way one could look at it is that perhaps... despite the plethora of potential franchise QBs who came out this past draft... this WASN'T a good year to have a high pick in the draft if you needed a QB. Even the guy who went #1 had his detractors... how often is that said about the first QB taken in any draft?
If the Jets didn't stoopidly trade up to be left with sloppy seconds Darnold, it's likely the QB picks would have been even sparser, stoopid must draft a QB-freaks.
Heh, if so, it's likely Cleveland would take Barkley.
That can be the only explanation for all of the hand wringing here over picking the best player in the draft. The experts agree, the public at large agrees, it's only here that I read that this was a mistake pick, or picked for some other strange fantasy reason other than the player just simply being good.
Drafting the next Andrew Luck would've been optimal, but it was not an option.
One thing I hate is comparing players from one draft to another. People saying there wasnt a Luck or a Wentz in the draft is crazy. I am sure the Pats, Seahawks, and Saints are quite alright with their non-Luck/Wentz projects.
And I am not saying you Jon, I am speaking in generalities.
For my part, I thought there was two transformative players in the draft -Darnold and Barkley. I have a feeling we might regret passing on Darnold, but others more informed than me feel differently, and I am otherwise super happy with the player we got. I also hope the QB transition strategy doesn't come back to bite us, but there is no denying a player of SB's talents will make things that much easier for whoever that person may prove to be.
That can be the only explanation for all of the hand wringing here over picking the best player in the draft. The experts agree, the public at large agrees, it's only here that I read that this was a mistake pick, or picked for some other strange fantasy reason other than the player just simply being good.
They're as angries as Mr. Glass Rosen at 9 teams.
dep, I'm using it as a means to express to those who don't seem to understand the actual value of the QBs that were in this draft. In other words, they didn't live up to billing when all was said and done.
But there was a very vocal group, and it wasn't exactly small.
Hey buddy. I think Mara has his rightful opinions as owner. I have never heard (outside of BBI, media speculations/opinions) that he has had any definitive input on the draft. Could he technically sign off on the draft pick? I guess. He does most likely sign off on FAs given that it is his money, but I think it’s mostly symbolic signing off of draft picks. He will go with the pros on this I would believe
They were wrong in how highly the QBs would grade out, myself included.
Bill Walsh had a quote...that quote should be applied unthinkingly to all situations due to its universal infallibility? Sometimes decisions are obvious and you don't need someone to be a contrarian just for the sake of being a contrarian.
If you like people making counter arguments to common sense just to see disagreement, turn on C-Span and watch your congress work.
They were wrong in how highly the QBs would grade out, myself included.
My problem was that they refused to listen to any alternate viewpoint, especially when it came to the value of these particular QB's, and how important it was for the Giants to have conviction in one of them.
dep, I'm using it as a means to express to those who don't seem to understand the actual value of the QBs that were in this draft. In other words, they didn't live up to billing when all was said and done.
Bingo. If there was, in their opinion, a franchise QB to be had, they would have drafted him. There wasn’t according to their choice, imv
Quote:
but the point is their position wasn't really wrong in the sense of the actual value of that rare draft pick.
They were wrong in how highly the QBs would grade out, myself included.
My problem was that they refused to listen to any alternate viewpoint, especially when it came to the value of these particular QB's, and how important it was for the Giants to have conviction in one of them.
Understood, there is/was a significant QB or bust crowd, to go along with the OL or bust crowd.
Basically most narratives that have been debated this offseason center around that group's insistence that the team is incompetent and that all of their decisions must be treated that way.
I get being frustrated, but some of these posters are so focused on illustrating that the team is run by a bunch of idiots that they fail to recognize any other points. Which is ironic because after the shitshow the past few seasons, the team did exactly what they asked of it - clean house.
What this offseason shows is you can:
- Clean house and people will still say things are run business as usual
- Pick the consensus #1 rated player in the draft and poke holes to make it appear to be a poor selection
- Take a GM who lost his last job for refusing to bend to ownership and maintain he's going to ride the train to retirement as a yes man for Mara
The inconsistencies in the argumentation are mind-boggling.
There are many posters on this site that view every decision made by the organization as wrong. There are just as many that see every decision by the organization as right. Both groups are just as blinded by prejudice, just on opposite ends of the spectrum. I'd suggest to anyone who finds themselves in one camp or the other to challenge themselves to think a little more critically.
But even if you disagree with a decision made, it is weird to almost hope it turns out to be wrong just so you are vindicated in your opinion. We are all (ok maybe mostly) Giants fans. The team succeeding should be more important than winning some obscure BBI debate nobody will remember in a week.
I was hoping for either Darnold (not any of the QBs...Darnold) or a trade down, as based on what I'd heard and read from experts like Sy, Dave Te, and others it seemed likely that an excellent prospect or two would still be there at #12 (Buffalo - who had been rumored as wanting to trade up). Well Tampa was smart enough to make that trade and get both of Buffalo's second rounders, and STILL draft Vea, who I believe Sy had as his third or fourth best prospect in the draft.
What might we have gotten from Buffalo? We can use the Tampa trade as a baseline, but after not even using our entire 10 minutes Gettleman preferred to make food jokes and mock analytics.
I have super high hopes for Barkley and will be rooting for him unlike FMIC and arcarsenal imply. I hope we build the team around him starting immediately. But rooting for him and questioning our draft management in our most important draft since 2004 can be independent things.
This is very funny, and galacticly stupid.
Since you cite “Jints Central”, I’m going to assume I am a target of your stupidity, I have never once suggested that I want Barkley to fail. My position has always been that he was the WRONG selection.
I have been a PSU for for over 30 years. I root for all PSU players who get drafted or signed as a FA, to have nothing but great success.
So some friendly poster advice - put down the stupid pills and get some rest...
Quote:
they STILL are refusing to listen to any alternate viewpoint
So why continue the effort?
I'm not. Just pointing it out.
The price was too steep. They were content to wait for one of these QBs to inevitably fall out of the top 5 which 3 of them ultimately did.
Based on what NYG looks for in a QB, pretty much only Darnold would even be in play. Jackson, Rosen and Mayfield would pretty much be excluded based on size/character/maturity/injury/style of play concerns.
Darnold had an underwhelming year. He also spent the least amount of time under center. He was also passed over as the #1 pick. It's also been reported that while fans think the Jets "lucked out", the Jets themselves traded to #3 with every intention of taking Mayfield and the Browns basically blew up their #1 plan.
The 3 best football players in this draft were Barkley-Nelson-Chubb in that order.
Not only did the Giants draft the best football player who happens to be a RB. They complimented the pick by taking a road grading Guard who figures to start from day 1 in round 2. They addressed the pass rush. They drafted a viable replacement for Eli in the 4th round.
Here's an overview of what the Giants did.
Took the consensus best player in the draft.
Rebuilt the trenches 3 picks along OL/DL.
Addressed the pass rush.
Took a QB Shurmur apparently really likes.
If you listened to Gettleman talk the last 3 months, there were zero surprises in this draft. None.
Quote:
Cleveland, NYJ, Buffalo, and Arizona had nothing more than poop on a stick at the QB position prior to making the pick.
I dont understand this line of thinking. There are new coaches, GMs, and management in place than who took prior QBs. Just because they failed in the past, it has no bearing on what they did now.
Its like saying taking a PSU RB early is a bad decision based on their history ;)
I think you missed the point of that post.
Quote:
Drafting the next Andrew Luck would've been optimal, but it was not an option.
One thing I hate is comparing players from one draft to another. People saying there wasnt a Luck or a Wentz in the draft is crazy. I am sure the Pats, Seahawks, and Saints are quite alright with their non-Luck/Wentz projects.
And I am not saying you Jon, I am speaking in generalities.
I think you're missing the point in this one too. LOL!
This is simply not the case, or at least I do not seem to read them as you do. Show me the posts that "don't lie" and state they want Barkley to fail.
I will make it really easy...show me 1 or 2.
Serious question - didn't Gettleman himself says he was old school?
You say the price for #2 was too steep for Buffalo...who set that price? We did. And we also don't know what other trades may have been on the table.
But what does seem to be clear is that you're right...Gettleman seemed to be dead set on what he was going to do with the pick for quite a while come hell or high water.
Quote:
I'm guessing we will always have people talking past one another when a very vocal group maintains the team is led by a bunch of idiots, that the GM is "old school" and a mouthpiece for the owners, and that "Jints Central" lives on strong.
Serious question - didn't Gettleman himself says he was old school?
He did.
After Thursday night, some were arguing the Barkley pick sucked because of our terrible OL. Well, after stealing Hernandez in round 2, one can argue combined with Solder and Omameh, this OL has a chance to be a strength.
The biggest gripe, the one that automatically puts NYG in QB hell because they passed on Darnold, Rosen, etc. Maybe they liked Lauletta better in round 4? Taking a look back at 2012, did anyone think Russell Wilson would be rock solid and Luck and RGIII would have turned out this way due to injury or otherwise?
Quote:
In comment 13959152 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
I'm guessing we will always have people talking past one another when a very vocal group maintains the team is led by a bunch of idiots, that the GM is "old school" and a mouthpiece for the owners, and that "Jints Central" lives on strong.
Serious question - didn't Gettleman himself says he was old school?
He did.
Yeah he did.
At the end of the day I want this team to succeed, and yes maybe I'm a blind fan but this offseason has given me hope.
Why? Is the world ending in 2 years?
I wish Barkley to be all that his ardent admirers hope and that a successor to Eli comes from one of these two qb's if nothing else but to spare us from further ministrations from the owners' box.
Did you pull a Rip Van Winkle from 2000-2011, or were you too busy trying to figure out how to work "Jawn" into every fucking post??
I know it doesn't fit the narrative that we're a bumbling, incompetent franchise, but hey - you have a point you've driven into the ground, so why not just make more shit up??
Are we somehow destined for failure beyond that time frame?
Is it set in stone that neither Webb nor Lauletta can play?
Also, if we truly are trotting out Eli's corpse, then I guess we will be picking high again?
Just want to make sure I know what the future holds so I can prepare myself.
At the end of the day I want this team to succeed, and yes maybe I'm a blind fan but this offseason has given me hope.
All good - no worries.
For everyone who says ownership shouldn’t be involved, you should be relieved that this appears to be a DG call.
After Thursday night, some were arguing the Barkley pick sucked because of our terrible OL. Well, after stealing Hernandez in round 2, one can argue combined with Solder and Omameh, this OL has a chance to be a strength.
The biggest gripe, the one that automatically puts NYG in QB hell because they passed on Darnold, Rosen, etc. Maybe they liked Lauletta better in round 4? Taking a look back at 2012, did anyone think Russell Wilson would be rock solid and Luck and RGIII would have turned out this way due to injury or otherwise?
I think Rosen cultists would straight up trade Luck and RG3 for Barkley. Teh sabermetrics puhsitional valyou!
Quote:
I get why people need to feel like the people making these decisions
Ten Ton Hammer : 1:45 am : link : reply
MUST know what they're doing, but isn't this the same franchise that drafted a player who was blind in one eye 5th overall?
Using this standard of argumentation, why not just go back to the #2 pick of LT??
I'm pretty sure I know why, but since apparently the decisions made on the #5 player a couple decades ago are fodder for yuks, why not go back further for the example??
Why? Because it doesn't paint the decision makers as blithering idiots....
You don't have to go back that far to find examples of them getting it right. I didn't suggest they've never made correct decisions.
Bad teams have bad years for a reason. When you have a string of bad decisions, which the Giants absolutely do, it's perfectly reasonable to not rush to judgement that just because the people in the offices changed that everything is going to be okay.
I realize it’s a message board and these things are to be discussed, but to basically downplay everything until proven otherwise is a very taxing and unproductive. Unless you think the Giants will react based on a message board I really don’t know what some posters want to see happen.
I realize it’s a message board and these things are to be discussed, but to basically downplay everything until proven otherwise is a very taxing and unproductive. Unless you think the Giants will react based on a message board I really don’t know what some posters want to see happen.
I think it's mostly that we all just miss radar so much, that we've collectively decided to become him.
There's a very simple set of success criteria for this pick, though. Or in this case, failure criteria. The pick was a bad move if:
- Barkley ends up not being as good as advertised, and not significantly better than other backs in the draft
- Barkey ends up being good, but the wheels fall off Eli and we're in need of a QB sooner than later AND one of the QBs picked early turns out to be a franchise quality QB.
- Barkley busts
I'm hopeful that the third bullet isn't likely, given how universally he was touted. If Barkley ends up being really good - preferably, one of the top 5 backs in the NFL on a yearly basis - then it was a good pick. Yes, you'd like a generational player with a top 5 pick, but that's unrealistic to expect to hit on every single time. If it wasn't, the cost to get into the top 5 would be far more prohibitive than it is.
I just hope we don't look back on Barkley and see that he was a just a good but not great back, or that his career was shortened due to injury, and we passed on a QB making our transition from Eli more difficult. I don't like to call draft picks busts when injuries are involved, but some of the concern with picking a RB high is the fact that RBs take a lot more abuse than most other positions. That's why many were concerned with taking a RB at #2 overall.
There's a very simple set of success criteria for this pick, though. Or in this case, failure criteria. The pick was a bad move if:
- Barkley ends up not being as good as advertised, and not significantly better than other backs in the draft
- Barkey ends up being good, but the wheels fall off Eli and we're in need of a QB sooner than later AND one of the QBs picked early turns out to be a franchise quality QB.
- Barkley busts
I'm hopeful that the third bullet isn't likely, given how universally he was touted. If Barkley ends up being really good - preferably, one of the top 5 backs in the NFL on a yearly basis - then it was a good pick. Yes, you'd like a generational player with a top 5 pick, but that's unrealistic to expect to hit on every single time. If it wasn't, the cost to get into the top 5 would be far more prohibitive than it is.
I just hope we don't look back on Barkley and see that he was a just a good but not great back, or that his career was shortened due to injury, and we passed on a QB making our transition from Eli more difficult. I don't like to call draft picks busts when injuries are involved, but some of the concern with picking a RB high is the fact that RBs take a lot more abuse than most other positions. That's why many were concerned with taking a RB at #2 overall.
Rough way of evaluating our choice at #2 , 4 or 5 years from now....
Possible Scenarios
Positives:
1. Giants win a SuperBowl in Elis remaining window of quality QB play. Barkley plays a major role. (This justifies the move in itself, regardless of anything else)
2. Giants come close to winning a SuperBowl in Elis remaining few years and Barkley is a strong contributor.
3. Webb or Lauletta become franchise level starters i.e. top 10 QB in the NFL and play well for next 8+ years.
4. Barkley is a beast RB who is on the level or surpasses level of LdT or Tiki in his prime years for 7 or more years.
5. Lauletta or Webb become decent NFL starters on level of like a Joe Flacco.
6. Barkley becomes a decent RB with decent level impact for next 5 or more years.
Negatives:
1. One of the top QBs we passed up at 2 ,Sam Darnold ,Josh Rosen or Allen become durable franchise QBs for the next 10+ years.
2. One of the top QBs we passed up at 2 ,Sam Darnold ,Josh Rosen or Allen becomes a viable starter on the level of like a Joe Flacco.
In 4 or 5 years from now: Whichever ones come true from the negative grouping are weighed with the true statements from the positives. If you end up w/ positive outweighing negative taking Barkley was likely the best choice. If you end up in the negative, Barkley likely was NOT the right choice.