I'm paraphrasing, but she raised an interesting point that I think some folks on BBI have mentioned. She thinks the Giants are doing a disservice to Barkley and the team by over-hyping Barkley. My guess is she was mostly talking about Gettleman's comments, but it raises an interesting question.
Would a 1,200 yard rookie season be a disappointment for most fans? How about 10 touchdowns?
What is YOUR expectation level with Barkley.
60 catches for 550 yards
12 TDs
65 catches for 500 yards, 2 TD
I think Barkley is going to rack up a lot of yards in the passing game. It's this versatility that makes him an immense prospect for the Giants, IMO.
If he gets 1,200 on the ground and another 500-700 in the passing game, I'd be more than satisfied.
Best prospect since Peyton Manning?
Kind of unfair to the kid.
Disagree with you about Elliott, who was also called a once in a generation running back. If he's on par with Elliott(minus the off the field), that would be spectacular.
If Barkley fails I won't bitch and moan about the "hype train". I'll be disappointed the #2 overall pick wasn't good.
Quote:
but I do think he's more talented then Elliott, Fournette, Gurley, etc.
Disagree with you about Elliott, who was also called a once in a generation running back. If he's on par with Elliott(minus the off the field), that would be spectacular.
Elliott is a very good pro tailback, a throwback of sorts. But, he lacks the explosion, change of direction, and top gear s SB has.
But think about it: the Giants draft the #2 pick, all the writers ask constantly about him, so the Giants say, yeah, they like him a lot and think he's going to be good. So then they're over-hyping him. I think that's a bunch of crap.
The NFL will knock the "new" off Barkley quickly enough, but I think he's got enough mental fortitude to weather through it and make his presence known. It's only the fans who may be disappointed by their own unrealistic expectations.
If Barkley fails I won't bitch and moan about the "hype train". I'll be disappointed the #2 overall pick wasn't good.
I think the more valid question is if the Giants might be doing him a disservice focusing on him so much. It's a lot of pressure and if he's merely a top 10 back it might cause some idiots to knock him. I guess on the field concern would be him trying to do too much.
Faulk's rookie year he rushed 314 times for 1282 yds. and caught 52 passes for 522 yds. I don't expect him to get 314 carries, so 1100 rushing and 522 passing would be just fine with me.
The rest is just fodder for talking heads
65 catches for 500 yards, 2 TD
That would be almost what the entire RB Corp put up last year and even better as far as TDs go.
They ran for 1549 yds with 6 rushing TDs, and had 608 receiving yds with only 1 TD.
Sign me up for your numbers right now.
Are you still going to have your lips surgically attached to his ass if he is a fairly ordinary back?
"Are ya feelin' lucky?" -- C.E.
Looking through the lens of a talent evaluator, there isnt a box Barkley didnt check. I would imagine those are hard to come by for people in that profession.
If you're scouting Barkley, where is his weakness? It's not size, speed, athleticism, production, character, work ethic, health, pass pro, catching the ball, vision.
None of that means he's a lock in the pros. It just means he was the smart, obvious pick to make.
He does have better hands, but didn't Elliott run a similar 40 time? Coming out of OSU, Elliott was known for being great with and without the ball in his hands. A great blocker, an extremely physical back, and he was/is able to go the distance.
All I'm saying is if you really think he's gonna be better than Elliott, those are some pretty high expectations.
But there's a chance he does, and if he struggles people are going to be regurgitating those lines repeatedly. He's still a human being, regardless of which hand God decided to molest him with.
Quote:
who actually cares or pays attention to "hype"? I never understood this phenomenon, whether it be sports, movies, etc.
If Barkley fails I won't bitch and moan about the "hype train". I'll be disappointed the #2 overall pick wasn't good.
I think the more valid question is if the Giants might be doing him a disservice focusing on him so much. It's a lot of pressure and if he's merely a top 10 back it might cause some idiots to knock him. I guess on the field concern would be him trying to do too much.
He seems like a guy who can handle himself well when criticized. If he can't, then we have bigger problems than hype.
No, they don't tell the whole story, I can't agree with you you there regarding explosion. Barkley can definitely make sharper cuts, and he's quicker in smaller spaces, that is the strength of his game, but Elliott often looks like he's shot out of a cannon.
... but I'm not all that interested in the numbers. In a perfect world, I imagine his numbers will be up and down, with the REAL impact coming (I hope) from the Giants' ability to take whatever the defense is willing to give.
If the Giants have at least a relatively successful season, and Barkley's numbers aren't out of this world, I'm certain that a sect of idiotic fans will be critical and not see the big picture. That'll be too bad.
But unless its "good yards"...meaning it happens with consistency, especially during first halves and moves the chains, it will be somewhat meaningless. Giants need to get people committed to stopping the run with more than just the 4 down-lineman. That will create an efficient passing offense that Eli should be able to handle, and put up way more points on the board.
And as to Kay Adams...if she's talking then you should be watching.
For me, I would have a huge problem if he did not immediately become our feature back. I would also have a problem if he was splitting the touches. Even a 60/40 split in his favor is unacceptable. Why put an inferior back in there? The only answer to that question I would accept is Barkley's stamina and ability to endure a full load in a 16 game season for the first time in his life. The beating on his body will be something he has never experienced before.
If he's healthy I'd be disappointed if he didn't break Beckham's Giants record for total yards from scrimmage as a rookie, remembering that Beckham set that while missing 4 games.
If Barkley makes a big, consistent contribution to the Giants winning games, then it was a great pick. It's as simple as that, whether you wanted the Giants to draft him or not. It's not about a stat line, and it's not about his reaching some non-quantifiable bar of extraordinary talent.
Tune out this nonsensical media noise.
With the Giants selecting a RB with the second over all pick, passing up on the potential franchise signal caller for the best player in the draft, you expect to see the offense on an all together different level, day 1.
His presence changes how the OC will design plays. His overall effectiveness will dictate how the OC calls plays.
He can have a huge impact at 1,200 yards.
He could just be window dressing at 1,700 yards.
We'll see~
Looking forward to whatever it is...
^This. His presence isn't just about his numbers. He should also help the WRs (and Eli). To that end, one thing to look at will be Beckham's yard/rec numbers. He averaged 14.3 y/r as a rookie and then 15.1 y/r in 2015 before dropping to 13.5 and 12.1 the last 2 seasons (granted last season doesn't really count). So with a little less focus on him, can Beckham get back up to 14.5-15.0 y/r?
An extra 1.0-1.5 y/r may not seem like a lot, but that's an extra 100-150 yards over the season and could be the difference between extending some drives and punting.
It might be unfair, but they drafted him over a QB. And we know that RBs traditionally have about an 8-10 year window and tend to have immediate impacts. So where he was drafted and who he was drafted over as well as what other comparable picks have done in the league lead me to these expectations.
I don't think you can pin that on "over-hyping" by the Giants.
He was top rated prospect in the draft and all the sports folks are hyping him up.
1.) 1,500+ rushing yards
2.) 65+ catches for 800+ yards
3.) 14 + TDs
4.) > 2 fumbles , 15+ games played
5.) Grade A pass protection, plays 85%+ of all snaps
With the Giants selecting a RB with the second over all pick, passing up on the potential franchise signal caller for the best player in the draft, you expect to see the offense on an all together different level, day 1.
Well said. No excuses.
David Johnson averaged about 4+ yds per carry for 1200 plus for a full season, 80 catches and 20 TDs, behind an ordinary offensive line. I see no reason Barkley shouldn't be able to top that if he's a generational player.
Fans will spend less time discussing the 3 TDs he might score in a game and talk about how he came up short on that 3rd down in the 1st quarter as the reason they lost 24-21.
"BUT LOOK AT THE DATA.....!!"
1.) 1,500+ rushing yards
2.) 65+ catches for 800+ yards
3.) 14 + TDs
4.) > 2 fumbles , 15+ games played
5.) Grade A pass protection, plays 85%+ of all snaps
Why do you want more than 2 fumbles?
And how is 2300+ yards from scrimmage "conservative"? That's a top 10 all time season!
Link - ( New Window )
I don't think you can pin that on "over-hyping" by the Giants.
He was top rated prospect in the draft and all the sports folks are hyping him up.
This.
Not the Giants, the media.
and yes I expect him to rock our world...
David Johnson averaged about 4+ yds per carry for 1200 plus for a full season, 80 catches and 20 TDs, behind an ordinary offensive line. I see no reason Barkley shouldn't be able to top that if he's a generational player.
Our Oline has some work to just get to ordinary. Couple that with a new coach and scheme. 1200 yards is reasonable, but i agree that the "hype train" needs to be walked back a bit for the sake of the player.
According to the Sports Illustrated NFL Draft cover story on Barkley this is how they both see things.
"It's Kobe, LeBron, Jordan, Tiger, Serena....and Saquan."
Anyway, as to expectations for Barkley, I quote Bill Parcells: "Let's not put him in Canton yet"
100% agree with this. Forcing teams to honor the running game will do wonders for the passing game, especially the play action passing. Safteys will be biting hard on the play fake along with LB's and it should make passing lanes open up.
Not worried about hyping him, the kid will have no issue dealing with it. I expect him to fall within the top 5 RB's in the league. I would love 8 to 10 rushing Td's and 4 receiving td's and 1,300 rushing yards for the year. He does that he will meet all the hype and Eli will look like he is 30 again.
It's fair as well, he wanted to be drafted as high as possible and he has not shied away from spotlight or pressure. This is what comes with the kind of hype and expectations that got him drafted at 2.
"BUT LOOK AT THE DATA.....!!"
When the draft was over and the Giants had chosen Barkley over a QB, the "QB > RB" posters (myself included) were called whinny bitches, butt-hurt, snowflakes and various other names, whenever we tried to continue the discussion.
Now you're calling us out because we've "disappeared"???
You can't have it both ways.
The Giants made their choice. Why would we continue the debate weeks after the draft, when it will take at least a couple of years to determine whether or not the correct choice was made?
According to the Sports Illustrated NFL Draft cover story on Barkley this is how they both see things.
"It's Kobe, LeBron, Jordan, Tiger, Serena....and Saquan."
This as well. He's marketing himself, as he should be.
Quote:
(most of whome have for some reason disappeared after the draft ended) to come back after the season and tell us how they were right and the Giants were wrong in not taking a QB just because Barkley didn't hit some sort of "statistical success measurement."
"BUT LOOK AT THE DATA.....!!"
When the draft was over and the Giants had chosen Barkley over a QB, the "QB > RB" posters (myself included) were called whinny bitches, butt-hurt, snowflakes and various other names, whenever we tried to continue the discussion.
Now you're calling us out because we've "disappeared"???
You can't have it both ways.
The Giants made their choice. Why would we continue the debate weeks after the draft, when it will take at least a couple of years to determine whether or not the correct choice was made?
I think that this is pertinent. His number may actually not match up to our dreams or even our expectations. But I would be willing to bet that there will be a lot of hidden numbers.
If Eli or OBJ, or Engram, etc all of the sudden start putting up ridiculous stats, then maybe some of their numbers are actually Barkley's.
It might just be that the way to evaluate Barkley's worth and impact, is to look and see how the offense performs in toto.
"BUT LOOK AT THE DATA.....!!"
I was one of the guys saying we needed to draft a QB. I have not disappeared. The difference is that the draft is over moron and there is no point in discussing what the Giants SHOULD HAVE DONE. They made the pick so now I am on board with doing whatever it takes to win with what we have.
Shit.. if people were here still screaming about the selection then that would be ridiculous. I hope Barkley ends up being the best RB in Giants history. Who would not want that to happen at this point?
1.) 1,500+ rushing yards
2.) 65+ catches for 800+ yards
3.) 14 + TDs
4.) > 2 fumbles , 15+ games played
5.) Grade A pass protection, plays 85%+ of all snaps
More than two fumbles? Why would you root for that?
And I don't think he's going to play 85% of snaps - that's a really high number.
Quote:
(most of whome have for some reason disappeared after the draft ended) to come back after the season and tell us how they were right and the Giants were wrong in not taking a QB just because Barkley didn't hit some sort of "statistical success measurement."
"BUT LOOK AT THE DATA.....!!"
I was one of the guys saying we needed to draft a QB. I have not disappeared. The difference is that the draft is over moron and there is no point in discussing what the Giants SHOULD HAVE DONE. They made the pick so now I am on board with doing whatever it takes to win with what we have.
Shit.. if people were here still screaming about the selection then that would be ridiculous. I hope Barkley ends up being the best RB in Giants history. Who would not want that to happen at this point?
Quote:
(most of whome have for some reason disappeared after the draft ended) to come back after the season and tell us how they were right and the Giants were wrong in not taking a QB just because Barkley didn't hit some sort of "statistical success measurement."
"BUT LOOK AT THE DATA.....!!"
I was one of the guys saying we needed to draft a QB. I have not disappeared. The difference is that the draft is over moron and there is no point in discussing what the Giants SHOULD HAVE DONE. They made the pick so now I am on board with doing whatever it takes to win with what we have.
Shit.. if people were here still screaming about the selection then that would be ridiculous. I hope Barkley ends up being the best RB in Giants history. Who would not want that to happen at this point?
This is exactly how I feel. I wanted a QB, didn't happen, so I'm on board with the Barkley pick. I want him to succeed, just like I want Eli to succeed.
On the other hand, if you say you expect production commensurate with the hyperbole, his fan club sputters about how unfair the expectations are. Either he IS what his boosters say he is, or he isn't.
On the other hand, if you say you expect production commensurate with the hyperbole, his fan club sputters about how unfair the expectations are. Either he IS what his boosters say he is, or he isn't.
On the other hand, if you say you expect production commensurate with the hyperbole, his fan club sputters about how unfair the expectations are. Either he IS what his boosters say he is, or he isn't.
Can't wait for the 1,500 total yards / 11 TD rookie season debates.
My guess is if we start playing winning football and the disaster of last season starts to be washed from people's memories, if Barkley plays at or near a pro bowl level, people will quickly forget about overly hyped expectations and just be happy he is a Giant.
If next year we have another dismal season (which I don't think will happen), then nothing Barkley does will be good enough.
Said no one ever.
Quote:
(most of whome have for some reason disappeared after the draft ended) to come back after the season and tell us how they were right and the Giants were wrong in not taking a QB just because Barkley didn't hit some sort of "statistical success measurement."
"BUT LOOK AT THE DATA.....!!"
I was one of the guys saying we needed to draft a QB. I have not disappeared. The difference is that the draft is over moron and there is no point in discussing what the Giants SHOULD HAVE DONE. They made the pick so now I am on board with doing whatever it takes to win with what we have.
Shit.. if people were here still screaming about the selection then that would be ridiculous. I hope Barkley ends up being the best RB in Giants history. Who would not want that to happen at this point?
Moron? Haha. Anyway...
If you're still here then clearly you're not one of the people I'm referring to. There were a lot of posters that popped in a few months before the draft and banged their drum about QB over RB. They stuck around for a week or so after the draft to keep whining and then they disappeared.
link - ( New Window )
On the other hand, if you say you expect production commensurate with the hyperbole, his fan club sputters about how unfair the expectations are. Either he IS what his boosters say he is, or he isn't.
This is fair.
He was taken number 2 overall and is already paid like a top 5 RB. No excuses, he needs to produce as advertised.
Quote:
he's the greatest running back prospect to ever grace a football field, a hybrid of Jim Brown and Barry Sanders only better
Said no one ever.
Didn't follow those threads too closely, did you?
On the other hand, if you say you expect production commensurate with the hyperbole, his fan club sputters about how unfair the expectations are. Either he IS what his boosters say he is, or he isn't.
Pedo State. Pedo State. Blah blah blah. Virginia sucks. Blah. Blah.
Quote:
In comment 13964570 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
he's the greatest running back prospect to ever grace a football field, a hybrid of Jim Brown and Barry Sanders only better
Said no one ever.
Didn't follow those threads too closely, did you?
Link me to one.
"BUT LOOK AT THE DATA.....!!"
This post sucks on a few levels. First off, I was one who was pretty adamant about not drafting a RB at 2. I still feel like it was a bad decision. I haven't really mentioned it since the draft because:
A. I like to root for Giants players to succeed
and
B. I don't want to keep harping on something that is over and I have no control over.
Have I disappeared??? Would you rather I continually post about why I think it's a bad idea? Also, just because the Giants ended up drafting a RB doesn't mean it was the right move. Time will tell.
I'd retort, but then I would have to read your posts to know what they read like. I see "Chris684" and my eyes glaze over
As pointed out, receiving yard but also as another threat to cover, as tiring out the D with the run game, as creating a credible 'sell' for play action passes etc etc
Quote:
Your posts read like the ramblings of an angry, delusional old man.
I'd retort, but then I would have to read your posts to know what they read like. I see "Chris684" and my eyes glaze over
lol, this is funny. However, its obviously not true as you clearly read this post.
So, so true. She's very attractive, she seems smart, she loves football and she plays fantasy. She's a catch(no pun intended?)
Quote:
(most of whome have for some reason disappeared after the draft ended) to come back after the season and tell us how they were right and the Giants were wrong in not taking a QB just because Barkley didn't hit some sort of "statistical success measurement."
"BUT LOOK AT THE DATA.....!!"
When the draft was over and the Giants had chosen Barkley over a QB, the "QB > RB" posters (myself included) were called whinny bitches, butt-hurt, snowflakes and various other names, whenever we tried to continue the discussion.
Now you're calling us out because we've "disappeared"???
You can't have it both ways.
The Giants made their choice. Why would we continue the debate weeks after the draft, when it will take at least a couple of years to determine whether or not the correct choice was made?
The lot of them were called whiny bitches because thats exactly how they were acting afterwards (I'm not saying you specifically, but in general). Prior to the draft, they were so adamant that they were right and anything else would be wrong. I even recall one poster saying how everyone would look so stupid when the Giants picked a QB over a RB.
When arrogance is humbled, oftentimes the result is "whiny, butt-hurt bitching." I did find some measure of satisfaction in seeing the meltdown, because they were making this place miserable prior to the pick.
On the other hand, if you say you expect production commensurate with the hyperbole, his fan club sputters about how unfair the expectations are. Either he IS what his boosters say he is, or he isn't.
Said booster here. I expect that he will reach 2000 yard scrimmage seasons early in his career. As a reasonable expectation for his rookie season, what I expect is better numbers than a 1200 yard, 10 TD season. Would I be disappointed if he *only* has a 1200 yard, 10 TD season? No...those are extraordinary numbers for a rookie RB, and it would be a very good season to build upon. I think he is capable of much more, though. I also don't think the expectations are unfair. You were drafted number 2 overall, he knows how good he is. When it's time, I don't think pressures are going to get to him, I think he's going to play some great football.
Quote:
She is definitely a contender for most beautiful woman on earth. Talk about being touched by the hand of God.
Well that's just great. God's gonna get fired because of MeToo
Quote:
(most of whome have for some reason disappeared after the draft ended) to come back after the season and tell us how they were right and the Giants were wrong in not taking a QB just because Barkley didn't hit some sort of "statistical success measurement."
"BUT LOOK AT THE DATA.....!!"
This post sucks on a few levels. First off, I was one who was pretty adamant about not drafting a RB at 2. I still feel like it was a bad decision. I haven't really mentioned it since the draft because:
A. I like to root for Giants players to succeed
and
B. I don't want to keep harping on something that is over and I have no control over.
Have I disappeared??? Would you rather I continually post about why I think it's a bad idea? Also, just because the Giants ended up drafting a RB doesn't mean it was the right move. Time will tell.
Yeah you were pretty adamant about not drafting a RB, but you were also open to other options - so you don't really qualify.
Quote:
She is definitely a contender for most beautiful woman on earth. Talk about being touched by the hand of God.
Well that's just great. God's gonna get fired because of MeToo
Haha. Who's going to fire God, though? Is it a triumvirate of Kanye, Charlie Sheen, and Alec Baldwin? "We are going to have to let you go, Lord." *Lightning Bolt* "You were saying?"
Quote:
She is definitely a contender for most beautiful woman on earth. Talk about being touched by the hand of God.
Well that's just great. God's gonna get fired because of MeToo
Nice job!!!
It's like you guys are just waiting to pounce. It almost seems like you want him to fail because you'd rather be right than have the Giants do well or have Barkley succeed.
Quote:
In comment 13964437 Brown Recluse said:
Quote:
(most of whome have for some reason disappeared after the draft ended) to come back after the season and tell us how they were right and the Giants were wrong in not taking a QB just because Barkley didn't hit some sort of "statistical success measurement."
"BUT LOOK AT THE DATA.....!!"
When the draft was over and the Giants had chosen Barkley over a QB, the "QB > RB" posters (myself included) were called whinny bitches, butt-hurt, snowflakes and various other names, whenever we tried to continue the discussion.
Now you're calling us out because we've "disappeared"???
You can't have it both ways.
The Giants made their choice. Why would we continue the debate weeks after the draft, when it will take at least a couple of years to determine whether or not the correct choice was made?
The lot of them were called whiny bitches because thats exactly how they were acting afterwards (I'm not saying you specifically, but in general). Prior to the draft, they were so adamant that they were right and anything else would be wrong. I even recall one poster saying how everyone would look so stupid when the Giants picked a QB over a RB.
When arrogance is humbled, oftentimes the result is "whiny, butt-hurt bitching." I did find some measure of satisfaction in seeing the meltdown, because they were making this place miserable prior to the pick.
There was one poster who claimed that us Barkley supporters would look like fools because it was so obvious that you don't take a RB over this opportunity to take a QB, and that Gettleman is smarter than that. Then, when Barkley was taken..."Gettleman is not the man I thought he was." LMAO. It looks like he deleted his account.
BW in DC is still here, though. Good for you, BW. We are all rooting for the success of the franchise, and even though you weren't a big believer even in the talent, trust me, you are about to see why you were wrong here in about 4 months.
Quote:
On the one hand, he's the greatest running back prospect to ever grace a football field, a hybrid of Jim Brown and Barry Sanders only better, "touched by the hand of God" and assorted other silliness.
On the other hand, if you say you expect production commensurate with the hyperbole, his fan club sputters about how unfair the expectations are. Either he IS what his boosters say he is, or he isn't.
This is fair.
He was taken number 2 overall and is already paid like a top 5 RB. No excuses, he needs to produce as advertised.
100%. When the GM and head coach are talking this guy up as much as they are and he's picked where he was picked, of course there are going to be very high expectations. We've heard from the GM and head coach he is going to make the entire offense better. Even the defense, due to keeping them off the field.
Great. Now, we have to see it. There's nothing wrong with that.
expectations and I believe he will put forth 100% effort to
help this team compete. That is all you can ask for. Sure
there is big expectations after what this team has been
through. It is not just one man it is a team effort.
Quote:
In comment 13964570 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
On the one hand, he's the greatest running back prospect to ever grace a football field, a hybrid of Jim Brown and Barry Sanders only better, "touched by the hand of God" and assorted other silliness.
On the other hand, if you say you expect production commensurate with the hyperbole, his fan club sputters about how unfair the expectations are. Either he IS what his boosters say he is, or he isn't.
This is fair.
He was taken number 2 overall and is already paid like a top 5 RB. No excuses, he needs to produce as advertised.
100%. When the GM and head coach are talking this guy up as much as they are and he's picked where he was picked, of course there are going to be very high expectations. We've heard from the GM and head coach he is going to make the entire offense better. Even the defense, due to keeping them off the field.
Great. Now, we have to see it. There's nothing wrong with that.
Yep. People are giving Greg from LI shit but he’s right. Barkley supporters can’t move the bar once the season begins. The GM said you take a HoF caliber player 2 overall. Barkley has been hyped as a transcendent player. He needs to live up to those expectations or there will be scrutiny — which would be completely fair in my opinion.
It's like you guys are just waiting to pounce. It almost seems like you want him to fail because you'd rather be right than have the Giants do well or have Barkley succeed.
It doesn't "almost seem" that way. It is exactly that.
What's even funnier is that no specific QB is even named as the one who should have been taken instead of Barkley. Just "a QB" should have been taken. So we don't even know if Sam "Turnovers" Darnold, Josh "The Concussion Kid" Rosen, or Josh "50-Something %" Allen is the one who should have been drafted to kick Eli to the curb. Safer to just wait and see which of the three turns out best and say, "Should have taken that guy!"
Not to mention that an intriguing QB prospect was taken in a later round by NYG. God forbid both Barkley AND Lauletta work out for the Giants! Worst-case scenario!
Quote:
In comment 13964596 WillVAB said:
Quote:
In comment 13964570 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
On the one hand, he's the greatest running back prospect to ever grace a football field, a hybrid of Jim Brown and Barry Sanders only better, "touched by the hand of God" and assorted other silliness.
On the other hand, if you say you expect production commensurate with the hyperbole, his fan club sputters about how unfair the expectations are. Either he IS what his boosters say he is, or he isn't.
This is fair.
He was taken number 2 overall and is already paid like a top 5 RB. No excuses, he needs to produce as advertised.
100%. When the GM and head coach are talking this guy up as much as they are and he's picked where he was picked, of course there are going to be very high expectations. We've heard from the GM and head coach he is going to make the entire offense better. Even the defense, due to keeping them off the field.
Great. Now, we have to see it. There's nothing wrong with that.
Yep. People are giving Greg from LI shit but he’s right. Barkley supporters can’t move the bar once the season begins. The GM said you take a HoF caliber player 2 overall. Barkley has been hyped as a transcendent player. He needs to live up to those expectations or there will be scrutiny — which would be completely fair in my opinion.
The funniest part is someone calling out other Giants fans. The same people who when Eli got benched, claimed to be bigger Eli fans than Giants fans, and that he 'proud of it.'
Irony. Hypocrisy. We got it all today!
OBJ is very talented but this team still seemed lost in more games then one should expect why we just don’t know. It’s a team sport but we don’t have many special players Barkley could be one but to as him to be really special in year number 1, seems very unfair. We took the HB he should get 1000 yards but if we had taken a QB he would have sat all year as planned.
Wow.
The "Should Have Taken a QB at #2" crowd can't have it both ways, either. They need to specify which one out of Darnold, Rosen, and Allen should have been taken at #2. They can't just try to skate by with "a quarterback," because the Giants couldn't send "A Quarterback" on the card to the podium.
And then if that specific QB doesn't end up a Hall of Famer, they were wrong.
Works both ways.
Pointing them out is "mocking"?
JFC.
Quote:
are you still going to hate Barkley now that he's a Giant?
You've mellowed considerably!
Are you still going to have your lips surgically attached to his ass if he is a fairly ordinary back?
Pointing them out is "mocking"?
JFC.
My post went directly over your head. I just found it funny that a 20 year old (and younger in his previous years) was being presented as someone the Giants (or anyone else) shouldn't have taken based on TOs committed at that young of an age when we've had a QB that's committed more than his fair share of TOs in his career and still managed to win 2 SBs earlier in his career. It's just...funny.
Quote:
Barkley supporters can’t move the bar once the season begins. The GM said you take a HoF caliber player 2 overall. Barkley has been hyped as a transcendent player. He needs to live up to those expectations or there will be scrutiny — which would be completely fair in my opinion.
The "Should Have Taken a QB at #2" crowd can't have it both ways, either. They need to specify which one out of Darnold, Rosen, and Allen should have been taken at #2. They can't just try to skate by with "a quarterback," because the Giants couldn't send "A Quarterback" on the card to the podium.
And then if that specific QB doesn't end up a Hall of Famer, they were wrong.
Works both ways.
A QB pick is completely irrelevant to this discussion. This is about Barkley and whether he will prove to be worth 2 overall. I wanted a trade down, but I hope Barkley is everything his supporters claim him to be. He’s a Giant now and the draft is over.
If he isn’t clearly better than every other RB in this class, there will be scrutiny. If he isn’t better than just about every RB in the league, there will be scrutiny. The GM and HC gave a hard sell to the fan base re: Barkley being a gold jacket guy and everything else. If he doesn’t live up to those expectations, fair or not, the decision will be criticized and deservedly so.
We definitely don't want to disappoint those heavy hitters Dave in Hoboken or Greg!!
Quote:
over a QB is something to behold.
It's like you guys are just waiting to pounce. It almost seems like you want him to fail because you'd rather be right than have the Giants do well or have Barkley succeed.
It doesn't "almost seem" that way. It is exactly that.
What?? Who is posting above and saying "exactly that" or intimating they want Barkley to fail because DG should have taken a QB?
Cooks numbers in Shurmurs system last year:
4 games (before injury):
Cook is 5’10 / 215 (Barkley 5’11 / 230)
Rushing 74 ATT 354 Yards
Receiving 11 CAT 90 Yards
Extrapolated over 16 games:
296ATT 1416YDS
Receving 44 CT 360 YDS
TOTAL YDS from scrimmage:1776 YDS
I would anticipate the receiving yards to be better but this would be a good floor I think of what to expect if he plays all 16 games. The Vikes OL wasnt some conglomerate of probowlers and was similarly overhauled the offseason before.
Yep. People are giving Greg from LI shit but he’s right.
Are you sure he's not getting shit because everything and everyone from Penn State is a pedophile by default?
Anything else is icing on the cake.
Such a back is pretty easily found later on in the draft.
I’m looking for the offense to produce first. Barkley’s numbers don’t have to be amazing for his impact to be great. That’s all we should ask for.
Not many teams have this kind of opportunity -- I plan on enjoying every minute of it
GO GIANTS!!!!
Yeah Baby!!!
End of story.
It's his overall impact on the offense that matters. Should be huge.
Moron? Haha. Anyway...
If you're still here then clearly you're not one of the people I'm referring to. There were a lot of posters that popped in a few months before the draft and banged their drum about QB over RB. They stuck around for a week or so after the draft to keep whining and then they disappeared.
I have been here for a while. Not going anywhere and not going to flip flop on what I believe is right without admitting that I was wrong. So, where we are now is that I truly hope I was wrong. I hope Barkley develops into a HOF running back for the Giants and that one of these two QBs on our roster are good enough to replace Eli and be a top 10 QB in the league.
Meanwhile, if there was an edit option in these threads, I would have removed the moron comment. Apologize for that.
It's not only the Giants overhyping him.
Though, in a rare moment, the media has it right.
Hunt, 1327 yards, 8td's, 53 catches 455 yards and 3 td's. (geez, did the Chiefs luck out getting that guy in the 3rd round).
Cook is an exercise in extrapolation as he only ran the ball 74 times. The Vikes were 2-2 with Cook playing. They lost one game with Murray as the starting back. It's a question as to whether the Vikings were better with Murray getting the carries.
SB needs to be in Fournette-Hunt territory as a second round pick to be considered a success.
If they establish the run like they want to - look for everyone's numbers to be very good, but no one will be breaking records because of spreading the pill around.
The issue is not just the # of Yards SB gets but if he is dangerous enough to make teams game plan for him, hence Shurmur's comments about legitimate run game = realistic chance of play action working. He could have around 1000 yards and help the offense tremendously because they have to play the run honestly every play.
And they are working towards building a line that anyone could run behind
But, it all begins with the run game.
Link - ( New Window )
Good for the teams that got good RBs later, unfortunately it hasn’t been us for a while.
It's like you guys are just waiting to pounce. It almost seems like you want him to fail because you'd rather be right than have the Giants do well or have Barkley succeed.
Post of the year so far re: Barkley/draft.
He’s a special fucking talent. The GM, EVERY GM agrees. So he said Barkley is a blessed human being!! Shut the fuck up and hope for the best and enjoy it. Some of you have placed a bullseye on the GM because he told the fans the truth?
No one gives the LA Rams shit for taking Dickerson at pick 2 when 3-4 good or great QBs were drafted after.
I believe the Giants were in every way a 3-13 team, and do not have the talent nor time to improve to playoff caliber in the time Manning has left as a competent NFL QB.
I don't believe the improvements to the line are all that transformative and that one of John Jerry or Erick Flowers will be an opening day starter.
I'm curious to see if Manning is asked to change his drop-back and footwork in the new system, and I will not be surprised if the new system and 4-5 new starters on the line create growing pains that last a lot of the season.
I also feel that a new system on defense will have bumps and the beginning of the year will look pretty bad on that side of the ball.
I expect a 9-7 type year with a late rebound. I expect the same type of year in 2019 as the QB declines more.
I don't think Barkley is enough to pull this team from awful to championship contender.
I fully expect Barkley to have fine rush numbers. I don't see how he'll improve the QB's ability to throw accurately short, so I don't expect big number in the pass game.
In a league where average QB play can cost 20M, I would have opted for the chance of above average QB play at 6M.
I'll be absolutely thrilled if I'm wrong. I love when the Giants are good, and I don't care much how and with whom.
We’ve got our first legit LT and RB in ages, that alone would be a great offseason but we also upgraded at LB and likely LG right out of the gates. Add in a healthy Beckham and you have a really good foundation with 2 new coaches who seem to be ahead of the curve with their respective units.
Don’t know why anyone wouldn’t be optimistic.
He’s a special fucking talent. The GM, EVERY GM agrees. So he said Barkley is a blessed human being!! Shut the fuck up and hope for the best and enjoy it. Some of you have placed a bullseye on the GM because he told the fans the truth?
He's a paid professional speaking as a representative for a his franchise at a press conference. It's an entirely different scenario than some knucklehead on BBI declaring Barkley an instant hall of famer because football fans act like football fans. There's no situation where the people who actually have their finger on the big red button should be acting like the average fan.
Also, take a pill. It's a discussion board. If you're sick of talking about a particular topic go take a walk.
I'd be fine with this take if we held players to the same standard, but we don't. When players say something other than nothing at press conferences, people get bent out of shape about that.
Outside of being outlandishly rude or vulgar, these press conferences mean absolutely nothing and shouldn’t be used as a barometer for competence.
Outside of being outlandishly rude or vulgar, these press conferences mean absolutely nothing and shouldn’t be used as a barometer for competence.
I entirely agree with you.
Quote:
people care way too much about press conferences. We have a GM who’s a bit of an oddball comedian, yet we want to take everything he says as gospel? Makes no sense. He picked the best player in the draft, I couldn’t care less what he said. Move on.
I'd be fine with this take if we held players to the same standard, but we don't. When players say something other than nothing at press conferences, people get bent out of shape about that.
The funny part about your post is that it is mostly (if not completely) the QB crowd that is taking an obvious joking statement and making this some huge deal. If Gettleman said that Darnold was touched by the hand of God, those on that side would be pumping their fists in agreement. But since they didn’t get the player they wanted, Gettleman is now a bungling idiot that talks too much.
I wanted a QB too, but there is a segment on this site that have lost their damned minds
Quote:
In comment 13964890 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
people care way too much about press conferences. We have a GM who’s a bit of an oddball comedian, yet we want to take everything he says as gospel? Makes no sense. He picked the best player in the draft, I couldn’t care less what he said. Move on.
I'd be fine with this take if we held players to the same standard, but we don't. When players say something other than nothing at press conferences, people get bent out of shape about that.
The funny part about your post is that it is mostly (if not completely) the QB crowd that is taking an obvious joking statement and making this some huge deal. If Gettleman said that Darnold was touched by the hand of God, those on that side would be pumping their fists in agreement. But since they didn’t get the player they wanted, Gettleman is now a bungling idiot that talks too much.
I wanted a QB too, but there is a segment on this site that have lost their damned minds
Even if you pushed the entire topic of the draft aside, I think he does like to work a room a bit too much. And why not, he learned at Ernie Accorsi's feet. Another guy who could have made a career out of public speaking.
It can be just as bad a thing as the GM that says nothing and avoids the media like a plague. Accorsi got bitten by his chatterbox nature.
But to your point, yeah, I think there is some pushback. There is a fraction of the membership here that is set on thinking that just because the last guy was fired that decisions going forward are the right ones and aren’t worth discussing. When the team is way under .500 over the past five years, sure, any hire and any draft pick can be questioned. It might be a good hire or it might now. The team hasn’t given reason for anyone to trust blindly.
But to your point, yeah, I think there is some pushback. There is a fraction of the membership here that is set on thinking that just because the last guy was fired that decisions going forward are the right ones and aren’t worth discussing. When the team is way under .500 over the past five years, sure, any hire and any draft pick can be questioned. It might be a good hire or it might now. The team hasn’t given reason for anyone to trust blindly.
If that’s how you choose to go through life, have at it
If he puts up 1,700 yards and 10 TDs and we only win 6 games, it’s fair to assume that he isn’t the problem.
Was Barkley drafted to save this franchise or to play his part and help his team succeed? I’m starting to think many here expect 16-0 or bust. It makes no damn sense the world some of you live in.
Did football suddenly become an individual sport? We can’t be happy with the player moving forward yet unhappy with the team results? When did this all happen? We have resorted to one single rookie leading a 3-13 team to the playoffs all by himself? Is this serious?
Quote:
And a NYG playoff berth and I’d consider it a disappointment. Say he accounts for 1700 yards and scores 8-10 tds while we go 6-10 or 7-9. Are we going to be happy?
If he puts up 1,700 yards and 10 TDs and we only win 6 games, it’s fair to assume that he isn’t the problem.
Was Barkley drafted to save this franchise or to play his part and help his team succeed? I’m starting to think many here expect 16-0 or bust. It makes no damn sense the world some of you live in.
It is becoming apparent that all these guys fully expect Darnold, Rosen and Allen to lead their teams to undefeated records this season.
Considering youre an Eagles fan, yea. Id be thrilled.
Eat a horse shit flavored dick you schmendrick.
Quote:
And a NYG playoff berth and I’d consider it a disappointment. Say he accounts for 1700 yards and scores 8-10 tds while we go 6-10 or 7-9. Are we going to be happy?
Considering youre an Eagles fan, yea. Id be thrilled.
Eat a horse shit flavored dick you schmendrick.
I’m no Eagle fan. Maybe one day your stupid ass will figure it out. Until then, go fuck your fist and find a cock to tickle your tonsils with.
Quote:
And a NYG playoff berth and I’d consider it a disappointment. Say he accounts for 1700 yards and scores 8-10 tds while we go 6-10 or 7-9. Are we going to be happy?
If he puts up 1,700 yards and 10 TDs and we only win 6 games, it’s fair to assume that he isn’t the problem.
Was Barkley drafted to save this franchise or to play his part and help his team succeed? I’m starting to think many here expect 16-0 or bust. It makes no damn sense the world some of you live in.
It really is amazing. So if Barkley puts up the numbers that The_Boss suggests and the Giants end up 7-9, it is ABSOLUTELY a bad pick! Never mind the 60000 reasons the season could have gone down the tubes. Maybe the defense sucks ass and they lose games by giving up 30 points per game? Maybe the OL still sucks balls? Maybe special teams continue to be an embarrassment?
Nope, doesn’t matter. Barkley needs to lead this 3-13 team to the playoffs this season because he only signed a one year deal and his contributions end after this season. Unlike one of the QBs. Those guys would have led us to a Super Bowl this season, AND, the best part about drafting a QB rather than a RB is that QBs will actually be around after this season! No matter how awful they may end up, they get to sign longer rookie deals than RBs so that is awesome. So Barkley has to be the best player ever, but everyone else can suck because I wanted those other guys, damn it!
We’ve got our first legit LT and RB in ages, that alone would be a great offseason but we also upgraded at LB and likely LG right out of the gates. Add in a healthy Beckham and you have a really good foundation with 2 new coaches who seem to be ahead of the curve with their respective units.
Don’t know why anyone wouldn’t be optimistic.
I won't be shocked if the team is better, but I will be shocked if they are a championship-type team in the next 2 years. Frankly, I don't believe the quarterback play will be good enough to carry the team, and don't believe the talent will be there to carry him.
This has been my take since before the draft.
I'm not staking any claims on my opinion. Just how I feel.
I would have started fresh with a new QB, because I think the team has all the markings of a really bad team.
New coach, new system, and yes some better players. But I don't think it's 8 games better. I think Barkley is a complete stud, and a tremendous kid. And I think when there is a better QB he has a chance to win a ring.
Quote:
while you could very well be right, you can easily be wrong. Fortunes change on a dime in the NFL, happens every year. And 3-13 is pretty irrelevant for me. Injuries and a complete and utter disaster of a HC and GM played the biggest role there. It’s amazing what new leadership does, happens often.
We’ve got our first legit LT and RB in ages, that alone would be a great offseason but we also upgraded at LB and likely LG right out of the gates. Add in a healthy Beckham and you have a really good foundation with 2 new coaches who seem to be ahead of the curve with their respective units.
Don’t know why anyone wouldn’t be optimistic.
I won't be shocked if the team is better, but I will be shocked if they are a championship-type team in the next 2 years. Frankly, I don't believe the quarterback play will be good enough to carry the team, and don't believe the talent will be there to carry him.
This has been my take since before the draft.
I'm not staking any claims on my opinion. Just how I feel.
I would have started fresh with a new QB, because I think the team has all the markings of a really bad team.
New coach, new system, and yes some better players. But I don't think it's 8 games better. I think Barkley is a complete stud, and a tremendous kid. And I think when there is a better QB he has a chance to win a ring.
So who’s your QB? You gonna pick one or are you just gonna take the popular choice around here of picking them all, and seeing which one turns out the best so you can say “ I told you! We should have drafted him!”?
Maybe the guy the Giants picked (if they went tat route)turns out to be dog shit? Would you be happy just because they folded to the masses and picked a QB that they didn’t believe in just because the mass hysteria from the fans said they had to take one?
So who’s your QB? You gonna pick one or are you just gonna take the popular choice around here of picking them all, and seeing which one turns out the best so you can say “ I told you! We should have drafted him!”?
Maybe the guy the Giants picked (if they went tat route)turns out to be dog shit? Would you be happy just because they folded to the masses and picked a QB that they didn’t believe in just because the mass hysteria from the fans said they had to take one?
Just scroll up champ:
..
christian : 7:34 pm : link : reply
I'll go on record to say I wanted Darnold, and believe the Jets will win a playoff game before the Giants.
...
I'll be absolutely thrilled if I'm wrong. I love when the Giants are good, and I don't care much how and with whom.
Not worried about hyping him, the kid will have no issue dealing with it. I expect him to fall within the top 5 RB's in the league. I would love 8 to 10 rushing Td's and 4 receiving td's and 1,300 rushing yards for the year. He does that he will meet all the hype and Eli will look like he is 30 again.
I don't know who the hell you are, but fuck you
Barkley’s success or failure isn’t really about a bright line stats benchmark. It’s about how successful or impactful he is relative to the backs in the class and the other players the Giants could’ve drafted.
This team has upgraded almost all the critical components to having a championship contending team. From coaching to system to personnel. I am quite excited for the next couple of years.
Barkley’s success or failure isn’t really about a bright line stats benchmark. It’s about how successful or impactful he is relative to the backs in the class and the other players the Giants could’ve drafted.
No. Only one thing matter; just one. Is the team better set for sustained winning.
But this.... This ongoing reaction... I said several times that I was going to enjoy the freak out if we passed on a QB, but this was beyond my imagination. I feel like some of you have gone off the deep end with this. You need to get yourselves in check. It's getting a little embarrassing.
But this.... This ongoing reaction... I said several times that I was going to enjoy the freak out if we passed on a QB, but this was beyond my imagination. I feel like some of you have gone off the deep end with this. You need to get yourselves in check. It's getting a little embarrassing.
Who on this thread is going off the deep end? Seems like a generally benign conversation and most folks are being consistent with their opinions pre and post draft.
Second, if the OL holds up, well, Barkley will have an outstanding season.
My take is he'll run for 4.8+ ypc; 70 catches for 600+ yards; and, he'll protect Eli very well.
I also agree that over-hyping a player is not a good idea.
But this.... This ongoing reaction... I said several times that I was going to enjoy the freak out if we passed on a QB, but this was beyond my imagination. I feel like some of you have gone off the deep end with this. You need to get yourselves in check. It's getting a little embarrassing.
Britt, for every poster that has taken a reasonable approach (particularly post-draft), there are still some who were anti-QB who have asked where all the pro-QB posters are now, asking if they have changed their tune or disappeared, etc.? Several posters (and this has been my feeling) engaged in the pre-draft debates because it was an open question at the time and we were discussing what we thought the Giants should/would/could do. Now that the draft is over, it's not productive to continue to pound the drum of whether you got the players you wanted (or didn't) in the draft, although some posters choose to do exactly that.
There are some fans that wanted a QB, but will root enthusiastically for Barkley to be an absolute superstar. There are some that wanted a QB and will look for excuses to be able to puff out their chest and say they were right all along. There are some fans who will root for every single player on the team with no room for criticism. There are some who will look to criticize every single player on the roster. There are some fans who trust Gettleman's judgment implicitly. There are some who are waiting to pounce on Gettleman as an extension and example of some sort of Mara cronyism.
The only universal truth of BBI, IMO, is that there is no way to bucket any particular category of posters together.
- all the Eli-haters think Barkley stinks
- can't believe all the guys that still want a QB
- you all think Darnold is going to go undefeated
- this "negative reaction" is beyond my imagination
- Gettleman talks to God about his picks
- its amazing how they all want the Giants to fail
the BBI sewing-circle...
Second, if the OL holds up, well, Barkley will have an outstanding season.
My take is he'll run for 4.8+ ypc; 70 catches for 600+ yards; and, he'll protect Eli very well.
I also agree that over-hyping a player is not a good idea.
Underrated quality will be pass protection.
I'm not convinced the offense line has turned the corner. I don't believe Omameh is much of an upgrade over Jerry and I won't be surprised if Flowers starts at RT.
If Jerry, Flowers, and Jones are 3 of the best 5 and out there playing, I am not going to be down on Barkley if his numbers aren't off the charts.
Ten Ton Hammer : 5/15/2018 8:25 pm : link : reply
To this point, I don’t think it’s impossible to see how he might rub people the wrong way, coupled with the fact that he came with the reputation of doing so in his last job as well.
He really didn't have the reputation of rubbing people the wrong way in Carolina. The guys who didn't like him were the ones he cut or traded. He worked in an organization that had a drunk for a GM before him who put them in a salary cap mess (and has them headed there again), and an owner who has terrible lapses in judgement since his heart transplant years ago.
Gettleman still has one of the best lines I've heard from a GM. When he was fired for looking at what to do with Thomas Davis and Olsen (and that didn't mean he was going to trade or release them - he was just exploring the options), Richardson told him to just do his job. Gettleman told him "You aren't letting me do my job".
That's the kind of attitude I want here.
Quote:
If we had taken a QB, do you think the guys that wanted Barkley wouldn't be on board, and hopeful that he turned out great? No, pretty much everybody would have been hopeful that he was the guy to take the reigns from Eli in a year or two, because Eli's career is in fact winding down.
But this.... This ongoing reaction... I said several times that I was going to enjoy the freak out if we passed on a QB, but this was beyond my imagination. I feel like some of you have gone off the deep end with this. You need to get yourselves in check. It's getting a little embarrassing.
Britt, for every poster that has taken a reasonable approach (particularly post-draft), there are still some who were anti-QB who have asked where all the pro-QB posters are now, asking if they have changed their tune or disappeared, etc.? Several posters (and this has been my feeling) engaged in the pre-draft debates because it was an open question at the time and we were discussing what we thought the Giants should/would/could do. Now that the draft is over, it's not productive to continue to pound the drum of whether you got the players you wanted (or didn't) in the draft, although some posters choose to do exactly that.
There are some fans that wanted a QB, but will root enthusiastically for Barkley to be an absolute superstar. There are some that wanted a QB and will look for excuses to be able to puff out their chest and say they were right all along. There are some fans who will root for every single player on the team with no room for criticism. There are some who will look to criticize every single player on the roster. There are some fans who trust Gettleman's judgment implicitly. There are some who are waiting to pounce on Gettleman as an extension and example of some sort of Mara cronyism.
The only universal truth of BBI, IMO, is that there is no way to bucket any particular category of posters together.
Agree with that. It just seems that the bolded, while not an incredibly large contingent, are the most vocal and therefore get the most attention... whereas the unbolded in your description are more likely to just do this:
Quote:
To this point, I don’t think it’s impossible to see how he might rub people the wrong way, coupled with the fact that he came with the reputation of doing so in his last job as well.
But to your point, yeah, I think there is some pushback. There is a fraction of the membership here that is set on thinking that just because the last guy was fired that decisions going forward are the right ones and aren’t worth discussing. When the team is way under .500 over the past five years, sure, any hire and any draft pick can be questioned. It might be a good hire or it might now. The team hasn’t given reason for anyone to trust blindly.
If that’s how you choose to go through life, have at it
It's not how I go through life. It's just how I look at a football team that's been bad for half a decade. There's a big difference between opting for a wait and see approach and just assuming everything is going to be okay. There is a lot that has to be figured out with this ball club.
That's what people wanted, right? A housecleaning? You got it. Now we just have to sit back and see what happens.
Just stop.
Quote:
You’re going to really hold gettleman to those comments he made about Hall of fame and touched by god or whatever... and what, if Barkely tweaks a hammy or turns an ankle or merely plays at a very good slightly under elite Level his first 20 games or so, then what? Pitchforks and constant fucking bitching. And why? Because the GM loved the player and told the fan base he loved the player?
He’s a special fucking talent. The GM, EVERY GM agrees. So he said Barkley is a blessed human being!! Shut the fuck up and hope for the best and enjoy it. Some of you have placed a bullseye on the GM because he told the fans the truth?
He's a paid professional speaking as a representative for a his franchise at a press conference. It's an entirely different scenario than some knucklehead on BBI declaring Barkley an instant hall of famer because football fans act like football fans. There's no situation where the people who actually have their finger on the big red button should be acting like the average fan.
Also, take a pill. It's a discussion board. If you're sick of talking about a particular topic go take a walk.
So he shouldn't tell everyone that he loves the player's potential and skill set? WTF are you talking about?
I'm sick of miserable fans that need to get mad at something, anything..don't like it? Stop being miserable.
Barkley will be great if he stays healthy. He won't fail because the GM told everyone that he's a special talent and it's not unprofessional to say what he said, not in the least. It's childish to get worked up over those comments.
Pollyanna rules, everyone else is dead to me.
The Giants may have drafted the best 2 players in the draft....
...or not.
~
I think a lot of fans are putting him in a spot where he's probably doomed just because they wanted a QB.
So, what you hear those fans say are things like "this guy better be the best RB in football right away otherwise it's a bad pick!"
All types of stuff like that.
"He better have 2k+ scrimmage yards as a rookie!"
Saquon is coming into this where he almost has to be perfect because anything less will be considered disappointing and that's not his doing at all. So, that kinda sucks. But - it comes with the territory of being selected this high.
Here's Mr. QB is a stone cold lock at 2, himself. Deflect, deflect, deflect. I'm enjoying your squirming.
Quote:
is nothing compared to the freak-out when Eli got benched for a game. Talk about embarrassing..
Here's Mr. QB is a stone cold lock at 2, himself. Deflect, deflect, deflect. I'm enjoying your squirming.
Your reading comprehension sucks, bro.
But at least you don't see me starting threads claiming I'm a bigger fan of a particular player than the actual team when my favorite player gets benched for a game. Now *that* was embarrassing.
None at all.
By the way, weren't you one of the "Eli throws high slants and gets Beckham hurt" guys?
He's been called on it many times by many posters.
To me, McAdoo was the biggest problem with the team last year. By a wide margin. He lost the team, had several defensive players rebel and shit on the franchise QB.
Recognizing those points under the heading of "Eli Apologist" seems like a lot of horseshit. It should be more under the heading of "McAdoo Hater".
To me, McAdoo was the biggest problem with the team last year. By a wide margin. He lost the team, had several defensive players rebel and shit on the franchise QB.
Recognizing those points under the heading of "Eli Apologist" seems like a lot of horseshit. It should be more under the heading of "McAdoo Hater".
Maybe because that one person in particular even created a thread claiming he was a bigger fan of the player than the actual team, and that he was proud of it?
Which NAME should they have sent instead of Saquon Barkley?
Once we have that name on record, we can all sit back and watch his Hall of Fame career unfold, while Barkely, on the other hand, reveals himself to be no more than a guy the Giants could have "easily" gotten in the fourth or fifth round.
Which NAME should they have sent instead of Saquon Barkley?
Once we have that name on record, we can all sit back and watch his Hall of Fame career unfold, while Barkely, on the other hand, reveals himself to be no more than a guy the Giants could have "easily" gotten in the fourth or fifth round.
Nah. They could've picked any of Rosen, Allen, or Darnold. They were available at 2.
Sadly, if have a feeling some posters will actually want to look at the draft as a miss.
Probably the same that are throwing shade at posters for being fans of players instead of the team.
I find that ironically contradictory, but they probably won't.
I would have been happy with either of Darnold or Rosen.
Sadly, if have a feeling some posters will actually want to look at the draft as a miss.
Probably the same that are throwing shade at posters for being fans of players instead of the team.
I find that ironically contradictory, but they probably won't.
I'm not accusing anyone of saying it. They said it themselves.
Wasn't that the argument? That we had to take a QB because when would be ever pick in the Top 5 again?
Quote:
.
I would have been happy with either of Darnold or Rosen.
But if you had to pick one (as the Giants had to)...
Quote:
be funny to see people latch on to any of the 3 as "misses" if they turn out serviceable, even if Barkley is a stud.
Sadly, if have a feeling some posters will actually want to look at the draft as a miss.
Probably the same that are throwing shade at posters for being fans of players instead of the team.
I find that ironically contradictory, but they probably won't.
I'm not accusing anyone of saying it. They said it themselves.
Still waiting on this thread. Please post it? I'm having a hard time believing that I said specifically "I"m a bigger Eli fan than I am Giants fan". Please post where I said that, and I'll stand corrected. I've posted drunk several times on BBI over the years, especially on game day, so I wouldn't be surprised. But I'd still like to see it.
Otherwise we would have just force-picked a player we didn't love simply because he's a QB.
Losing strategy.
Quote:
In comment 13965589 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
be funny to see people latch on to any of the 3 as "misses" if they turn out serviceable, even if Barkley is a stud.
Sadly, if have a feeling some posters will actually want to look at the draft as a miss.
Probably the same that are throwing shade at posters for being fans of players instead of the team.
I find that ironically contradictory, but they probably won't.
I'm not accusing anyone of saying it. They said it themselves.
Still waiting on this thread. Please post it? I'm having a hard time believing that I said specifically "I"m a bigger Eli fan than I am Giants fan". Please post where I said that, and I'll stand corrected. I've posted drunk several times on BBI over the years, especially on game day, so I wouldn't be surprised. But I'd still like to see it.
You want me to waste time looking for a thread of yours from 6-7 months ago?
Except the name they sent to the podium was Todd Blackledge.
The pick has to be more than just the right position. It's gotta be the right name, too.
Except the name they sent to the podium was Todd Blackledge.
The pick has to be more than just the right position. It's gotta be the right name, too.
And we don't know that it isn't. Let's see how these guys turn out over the next few years.
Quote:
the Chiefs "got a QB" at #7. Given that loaded QB class, it seems smart, right?
Except the name they sent to the podium was Todd Blackledge.
The pick has to be more than just the right position. It's gotta be the right name, too.
And we don't know that it isn't. Let's see how these guys turn out over the next few years.
Exactly. We have to see how all of these guys turn out.
Were the Rams wrong in that same 1983 draft when they took Eric Dickerson at #2? They could have taken Jim Kelly or Dan Marino. I don't think the Rams, or Bills, or Dolphins were unhappy with their picks. It may very well be the case that the Giants, Jets, and Cardinals all end up very happy with their 2018 1st-round picks.
Will it play out that way? No one can be sure. Doesnt change the decision.
Darnold had an underwhelming season. The Jets wanted Mayfield more.
Rosen is an asshole as evidenced by his calling out those picked before him as "mistakes" and also comes with a nice concussion history. Makes perfect sense that a Giants fan who bitches about Eli Manning would want a guy who is an asshole and has injury issues.
Dave in Hoboken : 12/17/2017 8:32 pm : link
He's going to be 37 for next season and we're picking very high in the upcoming draft with a bunch of good QBs in this years draft. They're picking a QB, and even that QB doesn't start next year, he's still getting picked in this year's draft.
Dave in Hoboken : 12/17/2017 8:43 pm : link
See how that works? When you can't do that, there's this little thing in law called libel. Luckily for you, BBI is not a court of law.
They're taking a QB 12/17/17 - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13965604 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
the Chiefs "got a QB" at #7. Given that loaded QB class, it seems smart, right?
Except the name they sent to the podium was Todd Blackledge.
The pick has to be more than just the right position. It's gotta be the right name, too.
And we don't know that it isn't. Let's see how these guys turn out over the next few years.
Exactly. We have to see how all of these guys turn out.
Were the Rams wrong in that same 1983 draft when they took Eric Dickerson at #2? They could have taken Jim Kelly or Dan Marino. I don't think the Rams, or Bills, or Dolphins were unhappy with their picks. It may very well be the case that the Giants, Jets, and Cardinals all end up very happy with their 2018 1st-round picks.
If I were a Rams fan from back then, as great as Dickerson was, I'd still much prefer one of those QBs.
Quote:
It literally doesn't matter.
Dave in Hoboken : 12/17/2017 8:32 pm : link
He's going to be 37 for next season and we're picking very high in the upcoming draft with a bunch of good QBs in this years draft. They're picking a QB, and even that QB doesn't start next year, he's still getting picked in this year's draft.
Quote:
They're drafting a QB.
Dave in Hoboken : 12/17/2017 8:43 pm : link
Quote:
Oh, and he'll sit a year at most, hate to be the bearer of even more bad news for you
See how that works? When you can't do that, there's this little thing in law called libel. Luckily for you, BBI is not a court of law. They're taking a QB 12/17/17 - ( New Window )
2 things:
1) I also said quite a few times after that, that I think they should take a QB and that they might not and I wouldn't agree with it.
2) They did draft a QB, just not in the 1st round.
Were the Rams wrong in that same 1983 draft when they took Eric Dickerson at #2? They could have taken Jim Kelly or Dan Marino. I don't think the Rams, or Bills, or Dolphins were unhappy with their picks. It may very well be the case that the Giants, Jets, and Cardinals all end up very happy with their 2018 1st-round picks.
If I were a Rams fan from back then, as great as Dickerson was, I'd still much prefer one of those QBs.
Even after Eric Dickerson set rookie rushing records his first season?
(Which I am NOT predicting Barkley will do!)
Quote:
In comment 13965612 Mr. Bungle said:
Were the Rams wrong in that same 1983 draft when they took Eric Dickerson at #2? They could have taken Jim Kelly or Dan Marino. I don't think the Rams, or Bills, or Dolphins were unhappy with their picks. It may very well be the case that the Giants, Jets, and Cardinals all end up very happy with their 2018 1st-round picks.
If I were a Rams fan from back then, as great as Dickerson was, I'd still much prefer one of those QBs.
Even after Eric Dickerson set rookie rushing records his first season?
(Which I am NOT predicting Barkley will do!)
Damn, he was great.
But if one of the QBs I can take is Dan Marino, then yes.
I hope people keep that in mind when they start complaining after Darnold has his first 2 TD game, even if Barkley is leading the league in rushing.
I hope people keep that in mind when they start complaining after Darnold has his first 2 TD game, even if Barkley is leading the league in rushing.
Yeah. Nevermind stats, though, I think it has more to do with stuff like playoff appearances. If, for example,a few years from now, the Jets are making the postseason every year, and the Giants aren't, that could be a problem. If Webb and Lauletta turnout to not be the next QB in a couple of years and both bomb, and we're looking for a QB for those years, that would be a problem.
But if the Jets (or Cards) are still the same teams that they've been, and the Giants find their next franchise QB (whether it be Webb/Lauletta, or someone else) rather quickly, that would be the preferred scenario, obviously.
Were the Rams wrong in that same 1983 draft when they took Eric Dickerson at #2? They could have taken Jim Kelly or Dan Marino. I don't think the Rams, or Bills, or Dolphins were unhappy with their picks. It may very well be the case that the Giants, Jets, and Cardinals all end up very happy with their 2018 1st-round picks.
If I were a Rams fan from back then, as great as Dickerson was, I'd still much prefer one of those QBs.
Even after Eric Dickerson set rookie rushing records his first season?
(Which I am NOT predicting Barkley will do!)
Damn, he was great.
But if one of the QBs I can take is Dan Marino, then yes.
Except you're using hindsight with Marino. He was taken 27th overall in that 1st round. FIVE quarterbacks were taken ahead of him, including the aforementioned Blackledge, Ken O'Brien (lol Jets), and Tony Eason. The way people view Marino now as a QB god is not the same as how they viewed him as a prospect.
That's why it's important to specify now -- before any of these careers unfold -- which name you would have sent to the podium, if you were in that position.
What we know after the draft.
Cleveland (with Dorsey) a more capable GM than they've had in awhile passed.
The Jets plan A was Mayfield, not Darnold.
The Colts sat out the QBs entirely with all of Luck's arm issues.
Elway with only Keenum on his roster and an arm's length away from a trade up was fine to sit out the QBs.
Mayock said he saw no "Luck or Wentz" in this draft.
Darnold spent the lowest % of snaps from under center.
What slam dunk am I missing with Darnold or any of these guys?
Quote:
It literally doesn't matter.
Dave in Hoboken : 12/17/2017 8:32 pm : link
He's going to be 37 for next season and we're picking very high in the upcoming draft with a bunch of good QBs in this years draft. They're picking a QB, and even that QB doesn't start next year, he's still getting picked in this year's draft.
Quote:
They're drafting a QB.
Dave in Hoboken : 12/17/2017 8:43 pm : link
Quote:
Oh, and he'll sit a year at most, hate to be the bearer of even more bad news for you
See how that works? When you can't do that, there's this little thing in law called libel. Luckily for you, BBI is not a court of law. They're taking a QB 12/17/17 - ( New Window )
Those posts wound up being incorrect, but how are they libelous in any way?
He said it wasn't on him to produce the quote/thread where I said that, even though he stated numerous times on this thread that I had in fact said that.
I said in law, that would be described as libel. Then I proceeded to show him how easy it was to back something up with a quote. His own.
I was always on the Josh Rosen bandwagon. I didn't love some of his comments immediately before and after the draft, but accepted that he was frustrated with all of the extra attention on him for non-football related issues and his drop in the draft that may have related to those issues. That said, I always felt that if the Browns had taken Darnold at #1, Rosen would have gone to the Jets at #3. And if the Giants had gone QB, they most likely would have taken Darnold or Rosen--Rosen having been my choice, but I wouldn't have been upset with Darnold if he was available. Ultimately, if either Mayfield wasn't drafted #1 or if the Giants had taken a QB at #2, Rosen probably would have gone #3. So, for what it's worth, Rosen was my preferred pick.
But that said, I have to agree with all of those who said that the draft is over. The Giants picked Barkley. No point in continuing to voice disagreement with that choice. At this point, you just hope that Barkley can be the type of transcendent player and make the type of impact on the team that the Giants seem to believe.
I do think that the Giants front office (really just Gettleman, I have no problem with Shurmer's comments) has fed into the media over-hyping of Barkley, setting extraordinarily high standards, with the "touched by the hand of God" type comments. I think the standards the Giants and the media have set for him exceed those of a typical #2 overall pick. They seem to be higher than the standards that were set for Reggie Bush coming out of college, and I have a hard time seeing Barkley as a better college running back than Reggie Bush. A lot of these expectations seem to be based on the combination of his on-field college production and his combine numbers.
I'm not sure he needs to meet some of the absurd expectations to be a good draft pick, but he probably needs to be a Hall of Fame running back in order to justify the pick over Rosen or Darnold.
Quote:
In comment 13965635 Mr. Bungle said:
Were the Rams wrong in that same 1983 draft when they took Eric Dickerson at #2? They could have taken Jim Kelly or Dan Marino. I don't think the Rams, or Bills, or Dolphins were unhappy with their picks. It may very well be the case that the Giants, Jets, and Cardinals all end up very happy with their 2018 1st-round picks.
If I were a Rams fan from back then, as great as Dickerson was, I'd still much prefer one of those QBs.
Even after Eric Dickerson set rookie rushing records his first season?
(Which I am NOT predicting Barkley will do!)
Damn, he was great.
But if one of the QBs I can take is Dan Marino, then yes.
Except you're using hindsight with Marino. He was taken 27th overall in that 1st round. FIVE quarterbacks were taken ahead of him, including the aforementioned Blackledge, Ken O'Brien (lol Jets), and Tony Eason. The way people view Marino now as a QB god is not the same as how they viewed him as a prospect.
That's why it's important to specify now -- before any of these careers unfold -- which name you would have sent to the podium, if you were in that position.
I think outside of Elway, Marino was generally seen as the next best QB in the class and a potential star. He had off the field baggage though, concerns that he was too much of a partier and cocaine rumors. That seemed to be why he fell below O'Brien and others.
Really?
Bush always seemed like a glorified 3rd down back.
What should they be based on?
Even if Rosen and Darnold bust?
Ha, don't want to find a thread from a half a year ago but bring up a Hixon vs. Plaxico thread I made in 2008?
You continue to be hilarious entertainment. Keep doing you, Dave.
Which NAME should they have sent instead of Saquon Barkley?
Once we have that name on record, we can all sit back and watch his Hall of Fame career unfold, while Barkely, on the other hand, reveals himself to be no more than a guy the Giants could have "easily" gotten in the fourth or fifth round.
bungle - there were plenty of pre-draft polls taken on BBI if you need to revisit who wanted to who. I think we all kind of get your play here anyway to shrink the odds to a head-to-head argument. So feel free to sit back now.
I was gunning for Rosen myself, but definitely wanted Gettleman to get out of that #2 spot if he wasn't going QB. DG didn't do either, but getting Barkley should be great.
And to that point.... He slipped to ten. Not top five, but ten.
That goes to show, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, if you consider Rosen a "top franchise QB", he's proof that they're available outside the top 5.
The Giants picked at 9 and 10 the previous two drafts. Prior to that, they were in the low to mid teens several years before that.
Bottom line, this wasn't a once in a decade opportunity to get a QB. We didn't have to take one because we were picking at 2. They fall all the time.
QBs don't fall all the time, and it could cost us a lot to secure one.
Possibly. Or maybe not if your view that the league is changing on that front is correct...
Read the SI feature by King and it breaks down the draft process for the Jets. They were floored darnold fell.
Time will tell but I think there will be a wake up call on how teams handle the position sooner rather than later.
When you have Gettleman deifying Barkley immediately after the draft that sets the tone right there. It was almost like DG was trying to convince himself that he made the right pick. I fail to recall any GM ever coming out with such strong, bizarre words. I think this was one of the strangest things I have seen by a GM (almost in the company of a drunk Bill Tobin telling Mel Kiper he was clueless).
Essentially what DG said was it's fait accompli - SB is on the road to Canton and everyone should make hotel reservations for 2036. That is a heavy, heavy burden.
So if Jints Central is marketing this guy as God in Pads then expect some heavy, heavy criticism if Barkley isn't great instantly.
Quote:
A lot of these expectations seem to be based on the combination of his on-field college production and his combine numbers.
What should they be based on?
Quote:
he probably needs to be a Hall of Fame running back in order to justify the pick over Rosen or Darnold.
Even if Rosen and Darnold bust?
I'm not suggesting that those are bad factors to consider. I'm saying that with his on-field college performance, he looked a lot like a scat back at the NFL level rather than a power back and every down back. Then the combine came, and he weighed in at 230 lbs and ran a 4.40 40 yard dash, and then he became the perfect featured back. To me, Derrius Guice and Nick Chubb looked like better pure running backs. They weren't really used in the passing game at all -- maybe that was partially scheme or maybe lack of open field instincts and elusiveness -- but as far as being a pure running back, they looked to be more the part on the field than Barkley, to me at least. There are at least a handful of evaluators, if not more, who agreed with that assessment.
A lot of people on this site have raised concerns about Jerry Reese placing too much emphasis on measurables. I personally think measurables are important, though I think 40 time is possibly overemphasized for running backs, in particular.
Quote:
would name one guy -- be it Darnold, Rosen, or Allen -- who was the right choice at #2. The Giants had to send a NAME to the podium, not a position.
Which NAME should they have sent instead of Saquon Barkley?
Once we have that name on record, we can all sit back and watch his Hall of Fame career unfold, while Barkely, on the other hand, reveals himself to be no more than a guy the Giants could have "easily" gotten in the fourth or fifth round.
bungle - there were plenty of pre-draft polls taken on BBI if you need to revisit who wanted to who. I think we all kind of get your play here anyway to shrink the odds to a head-to-head argument. So feel free to sit back now.
I was gunning for Rosen myself, but definitely wanted Gettleman to get out of that #2 spot if he wasn't going QB. DG didn't do either, but getting Barkley should be great.
I just don't see how he's wrong. The Giants would only go for one guy and the odds on favorite is Darnold. It seems like more than one guy because we all here have different names to throw into the mix. The Giants did not. So, for them the comparison has to be either this guy or that guy (Barkley).
If you're going to open it up to it could be any QB instead of Barkley at 2 then you're going to say they fucked up by not taking Mason Rudolph instead of Barkley at #2 if Rudolph turns out to be the franchise QB in the draft. That's a terrible game to play because then, retrospectively, you're saying that they made 5 or 6 blunders in the Brady draft because they missed the quintessential QB. That game requires them not just to do research and decide wisely but also to be psychic.
The reality is, that if QB was even on a small part of their table...and honestly, I don't think one was...that the comparison has to be with that QB and Barkley and not other. It's not reducing the field so you don't have to claim that they made the wrong decision, it's actually stating that these were the specific choice from which a decision had to be made and it was (just considering a QB pick here) a binary choice.
Asking for... myself.
Asking for... myself.
I can speak to this - easily less than 50% of the time! ;)
Quote:
Do any of bee dubs posts not mention "Jints Central" ?
Asking for... myself.
I can speak to this - easily less than 50% of the time! ;)
Seems like a low estimation!
Really?
Bush always seemed like a glorified 3rd down back.
I think everyone and their mother was sure that Reggie Bush was the next Gale Sayers. He wasn't a big back, but he was electrifying and his stop/start ability seemed to rival Sayers and Barry Sanders. As a running back in college, despite having a big passing game and Lendale White in the backfield, his college numbers his junior year were almost Barry Sanders-level. 1740 rushing yards at 8.7 ypc and 478 receiving yards at 12.9 ypr is not a glorified third down back. Those are Heisman trophy numbers. They didn't make him a great pro, but I think the talk about him throughout his entire junior year was that he would be the next coming--and his play on the field that year seemed to back that up.
When you have Gettleman deifying Barkley immediately after the draft that sets the tone right there. It was almost like DG was trying to convince himself that he made the right pick. I fail to recall any GM ever coming out with such strong, bizarre words. I think this was one of the strangest things I have seen by a GM (almost in the company of a drunk Bill Tobin telling Mel Kiper he was clueless).
Essentially what DG said was it's fait accompli - SB is on the road to Canton and everyone should make hotel reservations for 2036. That is a heavy, heavy burden.
So if Jints Central is marketing this guy as God in Pads then expect some heavy, heavy criticism if Barkley isn't great instantly.
Well, I'd say that Mike Ditka trading his entire draft for Ricky Williams and then buying fake dreds probably beats Gettleman's quotes by a long shot. Ricky Williams, btw, was extremely talented, he just didn't like football that much. The guy wasn't really that into it, yet rushed for 1800 yards in a season. Imagine how he would have done if he actually really enjoyed playing football in the NFL.
It’s a different NFL, and the 2 players have a different skill set. And even if they were identical as far as style and talent, would that somehow mean Barkley is destined to have the same career?
Well, I'd say that Mike Ditka trading his entire draft for Ricky Williams and then buying fake dreds probably beats Gettleman's quotes by a long shot. Ricky Williams, btw, was extremely talented, he just didn't like football that much. The guy wasn't really that into it, yet rushed for 1800 yards in a season. Imagine how he would have done if he actually really enjoyed playing football in the NFL.
Indeed that was insane. But Ditka was the coach not the GM...
Quote:
Well, I'd say that Mike Ditka trading his entire draft for Ricky Williams and then buying fake dreds probably beats Gettleman's quotes by a long shot. Ricky Williams, btw, was extremely talented, he just didn't like football that much. The guy wasn't really that into it, yet rushed for 1800 yards in a season. Imagine how he would have done if he actually really enjoyed playing football in the NFL.
Indeed that was insane. But Ditka was the coach not the GM...
he was both in New Orleans
You may not like it, DG may not like it, and it may not even be fair.
But them's the facts...
he was both in New Orleans
I'll stand corrected, but I could have sworn it was Kuharich - at least in title.
It’s a different NFL, and the 2 players have a different skill set. And even if they were identical as far as style and talent, would that somehow mean Barkley is destined to have the same career?
How do they have different skill sets?
Bush had 200 carries his junior year. Barkley had 217 carries his junior year. Each played 13 games their senior year. So Barkley had barely over 1 carry more per game than Bush. How was Bush never a workhorse in college but Barkley was? Yes, over the course of their college careers, Barkley had significantly more carries, but the talent and competition levels at USC at the time and Penn State were vastly different.
Bush had 37 receptions his junior year; Barkley had 54 receptions, definitely a good amount more. But their sophomore years, Bush had 43 receptions and Barkley had 28. They both were big time receiving threats out of the backfield and in the slot in college.
I'm not saying that Barkley is destined to have a career similar to Bush's (which wasn't bad, just not great). But I do think it's useful to look back at the actual facts rather than peg players into the narrative we've created for them years later.
In college, Barkley looked more like Reggie Bush than like Ezekiel Elliot or Todd Gurley in terms of how they played in college and their strongest skill sets.
Bush had 200 carries his junior year. Barkley had 217 carries his junior year. Each played 13 games their senior year. So Barkley had barely over 1 carry more per game than Bush. How was Bush never a workhorse in college but Barkley was?
Bush split carries 50/50 with Lindale White, especially in 2005. White was a terrific between the tackles RB at the college game (just didn't translate to the pros because he liked food too much).
Granted, SC killed a lot of people that year and White likely got more carries that way. But White had more carries than Bush in the championship game against TX. He played a helluva game.
Personally, my own opinion on Bush is that he could have been much better than he was if not for injuries. He somehow magically became a better back in Miami and Detriot when he was available for pretty much the whole season and received more carries. I think people gloss over his numbers and don't look any further than that.
Regardless, Barkley is not Bush. That is an incomplete assessment.
Quote:
and played in a far more talented offense. He also came into the league 12 years ago so now, what’s the point of comparing the 2 anyway?
It’s a different NFL, and the 2 players have a different skill set. And even if they were identical as far as style and talent, would that somehow mean Barkley is destined to have the same career?
How do they have different skill sets?
Bush had 200 carries his junior year. Barkley had 217 carries his junior year. Each played 13 games their senior year. So Barkley had barely over 1 carry more per game than Bush. How was Bush never a workhorse in college but Barkley was? Yes, over the course of their college careers, Barkley had significantly more carries, but the talent and competition levels at USC at the time and Penn State were vastly different.
Bush had 37 receptions his junior year; Barkley had 54 receptions, definitely a good amount more. But their sophomore years, Bush had 43 receptions and Barkley had 28. They both were big time receiving threats out of the backfield and in the slot in college.
I'm not saying that Barkley is destined to have a career similar to Bush's (which wasn't bad, just not great). But I do think it's useful to look back at the actual facts rather than peg players into the narrative we've created for them years later.
In college, Barkley looked more like Reggie Bush than like Ezekiel Elliot or Todd Gurley in terms of how they played in college and their strongest skill sets.
Bush was much lighter, couldn’t run in between tackles and couldn’t ever carry a full load of touches. In terms of athletecism, go nuts comparing them, but they are 2 different players. Bush’s usage at USC was evidence enough of this even before the NFL.
And again, this was 12 years ago, why even bother comparing them?
Quote:
In comment 13965965 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
and played in a far more talented offense. He also came into the league 12 years ago so now, what’s the point of comparing the 2 anyway?
It’s a different NFL, and the 2 players have a different skill set. And even if they were identical as far as style and talent, would that somehow mean Barkley is destined to have the same career?
How do they have different skill sets?
Bush had 200 carries his junior year. Barkley had 217 carries his junior year. Each played 13 games their senior year. So Barkley had barely over 1 carry more per game than Bush. How was Bush never a workhorse in college but Barkley was? Yes, over the course of their college careers, Barkley had significantly more carries, but the talent and competition levels at USC at the time and Penn State were vastly different.
Bush had 37 receptions his junior year; Barkley had 54 receptions, definitely a good amount more. But their sophomore years, Bush had 43 receptions and Barkley had 28. They both were big time receiving threats out of the backfield and in the slot in college.
I'm not saying that Barkley is destined to have a career similar to Bush's (which wasn't bad, just not great). But I do think it's useful to look back at the actual facts rather than peg players into the narrative we've created for them years later.
In college, Barkley looked more like Reggie Bush than like Ezekiel Elliot or Todd Gurley in terms of how they played in college and their strongest skill sets.
Bush was much lighter, couldn’t run in between tackles and couldn’t ever carry a full load of touches. In terms of athletecism, go nuts comparing them, but they are 2 different players. Bush’s usage at USC was evidence enough of this even before the NFL.
And again, this was 12 years ago, why even bother comparing them?
Here's an interesting article I read before the draft, for what it's worth. I'm not all in on analytics, but it provides an interesting perspective.
Why Saquon Barkley is closer to Reggie Bush than Ezekiel Elliot - ( New Window )
Now that doesn't mean for one second that Barkley won't live up to expectations but it is a cautionary tale for folks who were terrified of picking a QB because none of them were sure things.
Now that doesn't mean for one second that Barkley won't live up to expectations but it is a cautionary tale for folks who were terrified of picking a QB because none of them were sure things.
The difference being, people are saying that the QBs aren’t slam dunks because, we’ll, the QBs themselves. They all have warts and question marks. It seems the only thing people can drum up on Barkley is...Reggie Bush. Nothing to do with the player himself, just, Reggie Bush.
The guy who wrote that doesn’t believe a RB should be taken high. Perfectly fine opinion, but that’s really all that article is about. I happen to think that line of thinking is outdated, which is why comparing this draft class to 2006 is pretty worthless.
The guy who wrote that doesn’t believe a RB should be taken high. Perfectly fine opinion, but that’s really all that article is about. I happen to think that line of thinking is outdated, which is why comparing this draft class to 2006 is pretty worthless.
Exactly. Sports are always evolving, changing. This idea that RBs don’t get taken high is all because people are conditioned to think that way. But it’s been proven recently that times are changing. Elliott and Fournette were both drafted in the top 5. Gurley was top 10 only because of his gruesome injury. Had he been healthy he would have absolutely been a top 5 pick. And all of them are huge parts of their teams success. The Rams didn’t have an OL when they drafted Gurley either but they took him and then got a line in front of him. There is no magical formula. You add pieces one at a time and it doesn’t matter the order. You take the best players then add pieces around them. I’m not sure why that’s so hard for some people to grasp.
That’s just my opinion however, which doesn’t mean much.
The reality is no player is can't miss. A number of things can happen. Lots of players can't translate what they were great at in college to the pros. No one projected Trent Richardson to be an absolutely terrible NFL player. Maybe his talent wasn't top 3, but he didn't show any signs that he literally couldn't play pro football.
Barkley is going to be bad at things, he's a rookie. The game is going to be really fast for him, he's going to blow blitz pick-ups, he's going to fumble the ball, he's going get his ass kicked. And when that happens the media and even some of the fans on this thread will shit on him. A number of people on this thread, seemingly in favor of the pick expect 11 or 12 hundred yards. Only 7 backs in the league hit that. That's going to take great health, consistentancy, and productivity. Is that realistic to expect year 1?
He's going to have unwarranted expectations as the no. 2 overall pick, in New York, on a team trying to get the heroic QB one more shot.
Gettleman needs to know better than the perfect prospect, hand of God stuff. What value does that serve other than make him feel like the tits for picking him?
Quote:
that article sucks. It goes right into “analytics” without even talking about the talent disparity that the RBs played with. It then goes on to talk about PFF which, to me, isn’t exactly analytics. They have their own system and I have no idea how they break things down, and they are always questioned by not only Giants fans, but in articles of other teams as well.
The guy who wrote that doesn’t believe a RB should be taken high. Perfectly fine opinion, but that’s really all that article is about. I happen to think that line of thinking is outdated, which is why comparing this draft class to 2006 is pretty worthless.
Exactly. Sports are always evolving, changing. This idea that RBs don’t get taken high is all because people are conditioned to think that way. But it’s been proven recently that times are changing. Elliott and Fournette were both drafted in the top 5. Gurley was top 10 only because of his gruesome injury. Had he been healthy he would have absolutely been a top 5 pick. And all of them are huge parts of their teams success. The Rams didn’t have an OL when they drafted Gurley either but they took him and then got a line in front of him. There is no magical formula. You add pieces one at a time and it doesn’t matter the order. You take the best players then add pieces around them. I’m not sure why that’s so hard for some people to grasp.
I was never on the don't draft a RB high wagon. I loved Todd Gurley coming out of college, thought he was the best back since Adrian Peterson and he was my #1 choice for the Giants that year. I remember my friends laughing when I flipped out when the Giants didn't take him. That said, having Gurley and Eli still in his prime could have given the Giants five years of a great RB and very good QB combo. I don't think many people would say Eli has 5 years left now.
It's also not about size, but about running style. Many evaluators pointed out that Barkley too often tried to bounce outside even when the blocking was there for designed inside runs, and that he did not have a lot of yards after contact, despite his size. I think that's where the Combine, specifically the 230 lb weigh-in, moved Barkley from being a top running back prospect to a "generational" back.
Ron Dayne and Jerome Bettis were about the same size (259, 248 lbs) and had close 40 times at the combine (4.65, 4.70). Dayne actually was bigger and faster, but they had different running styles. Yes physics do matter, but running style matters a lot too. Barkley will likely need to rely less on his instincts to bounce it outside than he did in college and develop a stronger, more violent downfield running style. I don't know if that's very possible to change or if it's so ingrained that in his running instincts that it'll be a challenge to change. I'm hoping the former.
Quote:
In comment 13966111 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
that article sucks. It goes right into “analytics” without even talking about the talent disparity that the RBs played with. It then goes on to talk about PFF which, to me, isn’t exactly analytics. They have their own system and I have no idea how they break things down, and they are always questioned by not only Giants fans, but in articles of other teams as well.
The guy who wrote that doesn’t believe a RB should be taken high. Perfectly fine opinion, but that’s really all that article is about. I happen to think that line of thinking is outdated, which is why comparing this draft class to 2006 is pretty worthless.
Exactly. Sports are always evolving, changing. This idea that RBs don’t get taken high is all because people are conditioned to think that way. But it’s been proven recently that times are changing. Elliott and Fournette were both drafted in the top 5. Gurley was top 10 only because of his gruesome injury. Had he been healthy he would have absolutely been a top 5 pick. And all of them are huge parts of their teams success. The Rams didn’t have an OL when they drafted Gurley either but they took him and then got a line in front of him. There is no magical formula. You add pieces one at a time and it doesn’t matter the order. You take the best players then add pieces around them. I’m not sure why that’s so hard for some people to grasp.
I was never on the don't draft a RB high wagon. I loved Todd Gurley coming out of college, thought he was the best back since Adrian Peterson and he was my #1 choice for the Giants that year. I remember my friends laughing when I flipped out when the Giants didn't take him. That said, having Gurley and Eli still in his prime could have given the Giants five years of a great RB and very good QB combo. I don't think many people would say Eli has 5 years left now.
It's also not about size, but about running style. Many evaluators pointed out that Barkley too often tried to bounce outside even when the blocking was there for designed inside runs, and that he did not have a lot of yards after contact, despite his size. I think that's where the Combine, specifically the 230 lb weigh-in, moved Barkley from being a top running back prospect to a "generational" back.
Ron Dayne and Jerome Bettis were about the same size (259, 248 lbs) and had close 40 times at the combine (4.65, 4.70). Dayne actually was bigger and faster, but they had different running styles. Yes physics do matter, but running style matters a lot too. Barkley will likely need to rely less on his instincts to bounce it outside than he did in college and develop a stronger, more violent downfield running style. I don't know if that's very possible to change or if it's so ingrained that in his running instincts that it'll be a challenge to change. I'm hoping the former.
All that said, I'm in his corner. I'm hoping he becomes the best RB in the NFL very quickly and helps makes the Giants a playoff and Super Bowl contender year in and year out for 7-10 years.
You know what Reggie Bush's main problem was? Staying healthy. He only played in all 16 games two times. One was his rookie year where he had 88 receptions, which is damn good.
And let's not act as if Bush was a bust. He's a guy who played 10 years, with 54TD's.
He was only healthy one of the 5 years he was in New Orleans.
Barkley could maintain the same style as in college and be successful. Basically - we need him to stay healthy.
He actually was a pretty good player and stuck around for a much longer time than people thought he would.
He was also quite productive when he did play.
If Barkley is a more durable, more versatile version of Bush, it'll be a very good pick.
He actually was a pretty good player and stuck around for a much longer time than people thought he would.
He was also quite productive when he did play.
If Barkley is a more durable, more versatile version of Bush, it'll be a very good pick.
I don't disagree. My first post on this string was that Reggie Bush had a very good (just not a great) career. He was a good player, just didn't live up to the immense expectations that were set for him.
But I can't see how anyone would think comparing Barkley to Bush makes any sense whatsoever. It's a really, really, really bad comparison.
This point cannot be stated enough. Even if one chooses to fixate on the similarities between Bush and Barkley, if they do so without acknowledging that Barkley posseses the physical attributes to translate those skills to the NFL where Bush could not, they're either being disingenuous or willfully obtuse.
I hope that is true -- but Barkley hasn't failed on a large scale in the NFL yet. He will soon enough, and when he does Gettleman's hyperbole certainly won't help keep the noise down.
Quote:
don't let the media chatter affect them. Barkley does not seem like the type who will care what the callers on WFAN or posters here say about him. Therefore, I don't think it matters (in this case).
I hope that is true -- but Barkley hasn't failed on a large scale in the NFL yet. He will soon enough, and when he does Gettleman's hyperbole certainly won't help keep the noise down.
Only because fans that wanted a QB are taking Gettlemans obvious joking statement so seriously. It’s been mentioned numerous times on this thread but there is a segment of fans that are just waiting to sit back and holler “I told you so!”. It is amazing to me that people are taking those comments so seriously. If the stupid fans would chill out there would be no issue. Where is the noise going to come from? Fans that don’t like the pick. Blame them for overreacting, not Gettleman or Barkley
Quote:
In comment 13966226 Mike from SI said:
Quote:
don't let the media chatter affect them. Barkley does not seem like the type who will care what the callers on WFAN or posters here say about him. Therefore, I don't think it matters (in this case).
I hope that is true -- but Barkley hasn't failed on a large scale in the NFL yet. He will soon enough, and when he does Gettleman's hyperbole certainly won't help keep the noise down.
Only because fans that wanted a QB are taking Gettlemans obvious joking statement so seriously. It’s been mentioned numerous times on this thread but there is a segment of fans that are just waiting to sit back and holler “I told you so!”. It is amazing to me that people are taking those comments so seriously. If the stupid fans would chill out there would be no issue. Where is the noise going to come from? Fans that don’t like the pick. Blame them for overreacting, not Gettleman or Barkley
That's a very simplistic and intellectually flimsy argument.
If Barkley comes out flat (whether his fault or not), and the back cover headline in the Post is 'Touched by the Hand of God' -- that will be because some fans didn't like the pick?
It will have nothing to do with a rookie playing poorly and the GM having gone overboard praising how great the pick was?
I think you drastically underestimate how critical the press here is, and that Barkley is not going to get a semblance of a break no matter how much some fans like him.
I think Barkley is going to have a fine year, but I think the line will still be a big problem, and the offense will have growing pains in a new system and not much depth at WR.
I think Barkley is going to have rough moments and when he does the professional critics will pounce and Gettleman has given them fodder, just like a every Reese hyperbolic praise turned into a jab.
If Barkely is completely impervious to criticism and pressure in New York, as a top 2 pick, on a team coming off an awful season with an aging and flawed hero at QB and the GM effectively annointing him, he's more perfect than Gettleman even graded.
The NY Giants gave it a shot but its obvious that this was never going to work...
Ask and ye shall receive:
Yup.
Reggie Bush was a better draft pick than both Vince Young and Matt Leinart. Not even debatable.
Quote:
with a high pick it's probably fair to point out that Vince Young was #3 just behind Bush and Matt Leinart was the other qb drafted in the top 10 that year. There are no guarantees in an NFL draft regardless if position.
Yup.
Reggie Bush was a better draft pick than both Vince Young and Matt Leinart. Not even debatable.
Yeah but those other two guys were highly touted QBs, isn’t that the only thing that matters? From reading BBI, I’ve learned that an ordinary QB is more valuable than a very good RB.
Why people don't ever discuss the gray middle ground is what rabbit holes a lot of these discussions.
Why people don't ever discuss the gray middle ground is what rabbit holes a lot of these discussions.
Come on man. If Barkley doesn’t run for 4000 yards and lead the Giants to the playoffs in year one he is an utter failure because the GM said he was touched by the hand of God. I’ll be foaming at the mouth if this guy doesn’t end up the best RB ever because our GM gushed about him. I’m sitting here just waiting to pounce because the Daily News May post an article picking on Gettleman and Barkley if he doesn’t run for 300 yards every week.... and I take the articles that some fat slob from the Daily News writes seriously, man.
Every time Barkley doesn't have a spectacular showing, we'll have to hear about how God must have taken the day off or how "DSG" is clueless.
Can't wait!
I know you all as good posters too when it comes to football, but you can't tell me you don't get some interest or "jollies" out of the argumentative battles you take on.
just sayin' (again)...
Beyond that, I suppose if we all agreed on everything, there wouldn't be much to talk about. :)
;-)
Why people don't ever discuss the gray middle ground is what rabbit holes a lot of these discussions.
Would you really say that a runningback picked 2nd overall and played 10 years, finishing with 5500 rushing yards, and only actually got a full time starter's share of carries in three of those 10 years turned out to be a quality pick?
Put another way, think of an NFL player who you would describe as fully average. Not special, not bad. Solid starter.
Would picking that player 2nd overall be classified as a success? If Justin Pugh was drafted 2nd overall, would that not equate to a wasted pick?
He only had two 1,000 yard seasons and he had nearly 500 receptions in his career.
What part of the gray area I was talking about above is confusing? He's neither a bust, nor a guy who lived up to the #2 position. He was neither a wasted pick nor a terrible one.
I don't even get the connection to Pugh. Pugh was drafted much lower and many here look at him as a wasted pick. Not sure what the exercise of drafting him at #2 illustrates.
I expect Barkley to be better, but people talk about Bush like he was some massive bust which wasn't the case at all.
Reggie Bush was a All pro RB? Or a All Pro special teams player who played on a SB winning team
U honestly would be happy if Barkley is nothing more then a dynamic scat back and great special teams player?
Expectations for the 2nd overall pick have to be much higher