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.