I was on the draft a QB or bust bandwagon and was even upset when we drafted Barkley. But the linked article talks about how inexact drafting a QB is. Maybe it was worth not taking QBs in a draft where all of them had warts and taking the guy that's more of a sure thing. Now granted this guy didn't do a study on RBs so maybe the RBs are even more inexact, but something to think about.
Excerpt:
In the end, it doesn't appear that anything NFL teams look at does a good job predicting future performance. In a forthcoming study, I observe that there isn't much of a correlation between where an NFL quarterback is selected in the draft and how he performs. Yes, quarterbacks selected earlier get more playing time. But draft position and per-play performance aren't really related.
Again, that shouldn't be surprising. The list of quarterbacks selected in the first round who failed is very long. Likewise, teams have won Super Bowls with quarterbacks many teams passed on (like Tom Brady, Russell Wilson and Kurt Warner).
So what can the Browns do? Again, what we know today about these prospects doesn't predict NFL performance. In addition, we should remember that it's very hard to simply predict the performance of veteran quarterbacks in the NFL who switch teams. So if you can't be sure how a veteran quarterback will perform when they switch teams in the NFL, maybe there is really no way to predict how a drafted quarterback will do when that quarterback has never faced an NFL team in his life.
Link - (
New Window )
The Browns got, who they thought they were getting - when they drafted Manziel.
The difference is Mayfield loves the game and will be a good player for them.
The Browns already announced that Tyrod Taylor will be the starting QB in 2018 but, I would bet a small amount of money ($1.00?) that Mayfield wins the job when the season starts. He has got a competitive spirit that is so strong it might be harmful at times (to him and his team).
Anyway, (no crystal ball) just my perception/vibe.
Tyrod Taylor to start - ( New Window )
The Browns got, who they thought they were getting - when they drafted Manziel.
The difference is Mayfield loves the game and will be a good player for them.
The Browns already announced that Tyrod Taylor will be the starting QB in 2018 but, I would bet a small amount of money ($1.00?) that Mayfield wins the job when the season starts. He has got a competitive spirit that is so strong it might be harmful at times (to him and his team).
Anyway, (no crystal ball) just my perception/vibe.
Tyrod Taylor to start - ( New Window )
yeah, I know - I spelled "opinion" wrong.
I ve stated my opinion before, but:
If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions
Not only will there be a difference in opinion in first round picks , but even those players who are consensus sure things, fail almost 50% of the time.
It is expected that the QB position would have significant differing opinions. The QB position requires a combination of divergent skills and ,therefore, the position has the most variables for success or failure.
Different teams and scouts place varying significance and emphasis on different skills. It is possible that a QB can be successful with one team and a flop with another.
The role that a QB plays in a specific offense requires different skill sets.
What if Barkley is a solid RB for the next decade and while Darnold, Allen or Rosen have solid "franchise" careers, none of them wins a SB, drafting Barkley will be a blunder of historic proportions??
History somehow keeps getting exaggerated.
What a blunder for DG and the Giants...
I ve stated my opinion before, but:
If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions
Why do the Giants have to win a SB, but those 3 only need to be 'franchise guys'? And what is a 'franchise guy'? Kirk Cousins just got $27M per season. Is he a franchise QB?
Drafting a QB, RB or long-snapper involves a reasoned decision process with probability, but no certainty...
Secondly, they may feel that there is a better chance that they will find their future QB before Darnold becomes a winning QB.
I ve stated my opinion before, but:
If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions
The point is with how inexact it is why not take the player who most scouts think is closer to a sure thing and possibly generational when you have the opportunity and get a quarterback when you don't get a chance to draft someone like that?
Guess I should have been more specific. If any of those quarterbacks turn out to be an Eli, Rivers or Rithlisberger, bad mistake by Giants
Not following the logic.
THANKS for ruining it!
Secondly, they may feel that there is a better chance that they will find their future QB before Darnold becomes a winning QB.
I believe that's over simplified.
It's more like the Giants calculated that their team would be more competitive with Barkley along with Eli, Webb, and a later QB selection (who turned out to be Lauletta), than they would have by selecting Darnold #2.
We can each evaluate the decision differently, by I think that was the conservative choice.
Of course, then we delude ourselves into thinking that we knew it all along and that's the paradigm.
In evaluating Darnold's Need factor, one has to estimate in how many years Darnold could likely replace Eli. Let's assume not in 2018 or 2019, and Eli retires in 2020.
If more than two yrs away, then need to estimate when Darnold could replace Eli's current replacement ie Webb? And what 2020 value added over Webb?
If there was not much estimated upside of Darnold over Webb in 2020, that makes Darnold's Need factor pretty low compared to Barkley's Need factor who is estimated to start immediately over his replacement say Stewart.
Then applying Darnold's low Performance score (turnovers, poor decisions)
and high Positional Value of QB v RB combined with a low Need score puts
Barkley ahead of Darnold on the Draft score tiers.
Great article. Also the one on lack of correlation of vet QBs performqnces when they move teams.
Using your logic and assumptions, you have only a 1 in 3 chance of avoiding "a blunder of historic proportions."
If I had a QB rated as high as Barkley, then that's when I would've taken one.
My point was to joeinpa that if Barkley becomes a successful player, how the hell can it be classified as a terrible mistake to select him?
If I had a QB rated as high as Barkley, then that's when I would've taken one.
My point was to joeinpa that if Barkley becomes a successful player, how the hell can it be classified as a terrible mistake to select him?
And since the QB Position factor is much higher than RB, offsetting the slightly higher Need factor,
Then it boils down to Barkley's much higher Performance factor and slightly higher Need Factor v Darnold offsetting higher Poition Factor.
I can still see the rationale for a higher overall Draft tier score for Barkley even in the scenario that Eli is done.
Secondly, if the Giants don t win a Super Bowl with the guys we have now, and one of the three quarterbacks becomes a star, I think it will have been a colossal mistake.
By the way, Bob Papa shared a similar point of view yesterday on Sirius yesterday, I had that view prior to hearing him speak.
Seems like some of you who wanted Barkley, don t like the standard I ve set for evaluating the decision in the draft.
I think it s fair, but that s me
Guess I should have been more specific. If any of those quarterbacks turn out to be an Eli, Rivers or Rithlisberger, bad mistake by Giants
But there will be other drafts. Drafting Barkley won't preclude us from getting a possible franchise guy on a different draft or maybe we got one in Webb or Lauletta.
A bad actual outcome does not make a good decision into a bad one.
For example: let's assume you had a choice of betting $1000 at one of two roulette tables. Table A gives you 1/20 odds of winning while Table B gives 1/5 odds. You choose Table B and lose. Was that a blunder? No.
It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them.
Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.
It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them.
Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.
I'm OK with that, but taking comfort from a 3rd and a 4th round pick being liked by the Giants as a potential future starter at QB seems misplaced.
Maybe it's just me, maybe I carry the name Mike Cherry around for too long, or I remember that they picked Dave Brown in the first round. Something about the Giants inability to set themselves at QB, aside from drafting high enough to pick Rivers (and trade for Eli) just does not allow me to believe the Giants are planning for this accordingly.
Quote:
but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high.
It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them.
Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.
I'm OK with that, but taking comfort from a 3rd and a 4th round pick being liked by the Giants as a potential future starter at QB seems misplaced.
Maybe it's just me, maybe I carry the name Mike Cherry around for too long, or I remember that they picked Dave Brown in the first round. Something about the Giants inability to set themselves at QB, aside from drafting high enough to pick Rivers (and trade for Eli) just does not allow me to believe the Giants are planning for this accordingly.
I'm not settling on them either, but it suggests they didn't feel the new prospects were worth the extra investment and bypassing the best prospect in the draft at the same time.
Drafting the future QB at #2 looks like the right strategy on paper, but if the talent isn't actually there ... then go where the talent is.
Is there more to it?
Inability to set themselves at QB?
Aside from 4 or so years after Simms, this team has had a good to great quarterback for the past 35 years.
The vast majority of teams in the league would sign up for Simms/Hoss -> Collins -> Manning
Side note, Collins doesn't get the love he deserves here. Never got us a ring and not a HOFer but he was a gamer and tough as nails
I ve stated my opinion before, but:
If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions
Stupid argument is stupid. DG can't draft all 3 QBs. What if Lamar Jackson or Mason Rudolph wins the SB, you have teh 31 brain dead moronic front offices derp!
Not following the logic.
That's because the logic is ridiculous. If Barkley turns out to be Faulk and the best of the QBs (Mayfield aside) turn out to be Rivers (great regular season stats, no SBs), then the Giants made the right choice.
Now, if one of the QBs turn out to be Eli/Big Ben and win a couple SBs while Barkley is *just* Tiki, then it was the wrong decision.
It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them.
Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.
Let's also not underrate them either. I think stating that Barkley was clearly the top prospect is a case of revisionist history from those that want to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt. Gettleman may have graded Barkley higher, but that was not the consensus view.
I ve stated my opinion before, but:
If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions
God you are such a drama queen. Even if Darnold or Allen or Rosen win a super bowl that never would have guaranteed the Giants would have won one with that guy. If Saquon turns out to be a bust or just average or just a “situational back” like Reggie Bush then yeah the Giants fucked it up, if he turns out to be a perennial all-pro then it was a great pick regardless of what the QBs go on to do. It’s as simple as that, just like any other draft pick, the stakes are simply a bit higher because we had the #2 pick.
And what about when Bradley Chubb wins a super bowl with Denver, as the leader of that defense, but Barkley doesn’t win a super bowl but still has a great career... that would also be a blunder of historic proportions.
Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Quote:
but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high.
It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them.
Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.
Let's also not underrate them either. I think stating that Barkley was clearly the top prospect is a case of revisionist history from those that want to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt. Gettleman may have graded Barkley higher, but that was not the consensus view.
Wrong. I can easily find you like 20 of the most respected draft sources who had Barkley rated #1 and I don’t even have to look hard. Maybe it wasn’t consensus in the sense that it was every single person but it was the majority of people and everyone agrees on that.
Why do you think the Browns wanted to trade 2 2nd round picks to live up 2 damn spots? Barkley was the most coveted player in the draft but Dorsey knew he couldn’t fuck up choosing the QB he wanted, everyone knew that.
Quote:
but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high.
It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them.
Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.
Let's also not underrate them either. I think stating that Barkley was clearly the top prospect is a case of revisionist history from those that want to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt. Gettleman may have graded Barkley higher, but that was not the consensus view.
that is why the passed on Phillip Rivers andBen Roethlisberger and drafted Robert Gallery
I wonder how much of that could be attributed to circumstance though. Many of the teams picking in the top 10 (Cleveland's #4 pick, Indy, SF, Chicago) weren't going to pick a QB. The one that surprised a bit was Denver, but I could see the appeal of pairing Chubb with Miller.
In the next two years (presumably Eli's remaining time here) it is unlikely we'll have a shot to draft a QB prospect as good as Darnold. Not impossible, but pretty unlikely. As a result, the long term picture for the team hinges on a couple questions:
1. Will our coaches be able to develop Webb and/or Lauletta into a viable NFL starting QB?
2. What will be the approach to team building as we enter the post-Eli era?