Since 2000... only one QB drafted in the top 10 picks has won a super bowl...
His name? Eli Manning.
No wonder so many Giants fans think that to win a super bowl, you need to draft a QB when in the top 5 when you have the rare opportunity to do so... because the last time we did it we won two super bowls. Well go look at the % of QBs drafted in the top 5 who went on to win a super bowl. It's pretty damn low. Why? Because winning a super bowl has nothing to do with what pick in the draft your QB was drafted. It has everything to do with your full team and your coaching staff.
Yes Roethlisberger was #11 overall, I know that's a technicality, but he also wasn't the MVP of either super bowl he won, just sayin'.
Many will say: well Brady in the 6th round could never have been predicted. True. Who could have ever known Brees or Rodgers would be so good. True. But look at the general history of quarterbacks drafted ANYWHERE in the draft, including in the top 5, the top 10, whatever... it's hard to find an elite QB, PERIOD.
My point is this: Yes, quarterback is the most important position on the football field and QB has high "positional value" when making a draft pick. But clearly the Giants brass did not see a QB that was worth the #2 pick more than Barkley was (the highest rated RB prospect in 10 years), in spite of that "positional value" of the position.
Is it any coincidence that none of the 4 teams that drafted QBs in the top 10 in 2018 have won a super bowl in the past 50 years, have one super bowl in total (Jets SB III), and haven't sniffed a "franchise" QB themselves in decades?
The QBs just weren't great prospects. They all had some characteristic that made them an extremely risky pick at #2. We all agreed on that here on BBI. You don't just take a QB at #2 just because you need one, even if you don't like the prospects, that's such a defeatist attitude. Take the guy that will give your team the best chance at winning.
Some people here seem to believe taking a QB in the top 5 guarantees you a super bowl in the next 15 years just because it happened to our team once before, I'm glad those people aren't running this team.
In the case of a top 10 choice the player's downside becomes almost as important as his upside.
What really separates Darnold and the others to Lauletta, to Webb? The fact that Darnold did not get better this past year is a major red flag. Allen has basically the same red flags as Webb. Rosen and Lauletta have similar traits minus the concussions.
Selecting a QB in the top 5 is as risky as it gets. There are no guarantees. The Giants feel they got a stud that checked all the boxes @2. Plus a stud Olmen, Dlmen and edge....plus a developmental QB!
They had as good a draft as possible.....imo
If any one of them emerges more valuable than Barkley, by your logic, the 2 pick decision was wrong. That is false logic.
It is fair to take a decision now -- choosing one of 2 players now (not with the benefit of hindsight) and 10 years from now assess which was best.
Not whether some other player not named Mayfield outperformed him.
If for example he gets injured and quits it will be obvious that the outcome was bad. Whether the decision was bad depends on their pre-draft assessment of his pre-draft injury history and health. If that was correct, their decision was too.
Frankly DG over-hyped Barkley's future performance so badly -- gold jacket, touched by God etc etc -- to justify his pick that it is unlikely anyone not named Jim Brown could live up to that. But as many here have said he has a high standard of metrics to achieve.
Suck for Luck works when there is a good enough QB prospect to tank for. Seemed like there was no Luck this year, which is a pretty universal thought. Doesnt mean the QBs wont be good, but from a prospect standpoint, they arent close to his equal.
Suck for Luck works when there is a good enough QB prospect to tank for. Seemed like there was no Luck this year, which is a pretty universal thought. Doesnt mean the QBs wont be good, but from a prospect standpoint, they arent close to his equal.
This. Suck for Luck was only a thing because Luck was the surest QB prospect since Elway.
I was not a huge fan of the Wilson pick.....but got intrigued by the back flips...the neck made the choice mute.
We tend to over react to draft picks...
My feeling, with a new coach, who is viewed as a QB whisperer, who won with a guy named Keenum after losing their starter....the odds of going QB @2 was slim. My feeling was they were going to get the most talent possible and see what happened.....which is exactly what they did....the fact that draft fell into place for them was great....
It appears to me that some in the "Make another run with Eli" camp, are becoming uncomfortable with the idea that if Darnold becomes a stud, it means the Giants goofed
I keep reading of the red flags these quarterbacks had, ok no argument. However, there is also risk in not taking one.
Many Giants fans applauded the choice, some like me want it to be the right choice.
But there is risk associated with the choice and part of that risk is, the Giants might have missed on their next Eli, and he might be wearing Jet green.
You can spin it however you like, but how Darnold develops definitely must factor in the evaluation of this draft.
addeessing the Achilles heel of this team with FA and Draft was vital....but as we know....addressing it and fixing it are very different. This OL must be fixed...7 freaking years!
Most importantly, it was the Giants who pounded the table..😎
I will be looking out for your future posts...
I dont really agree on your BBI point. That group you are talking about contends that there was no slam dunk QB prospect at 2 and that its possible Eli has some game left coupled with Shurmurs ability to get the most out of less talented QBs boding well for one of Webb/Lauletta. Rational people see that theres many factors, not just fist pounding that a pick is great or is terrible. The only posters who are like this are those that emphatically think going RB is a waste without realizing the guy we took isnt just a RB.
Quote:
And we are circling back over points which are not very compelling. This team didnt see Sam Darnold worth the number 2 pick. We are going to see if that was a good choice. At a time with major uncertainty at the QB position they had an opportunity to select a QB of their preference. They passed on the chance. Whats done is done. We have a vocal voice if BBI regulars pounding the table telling us the team made the right decision passing on the QB. I sure hope theyre right. I remember the days of shoddy QB play. It wasnt pretty.
Most importantly, it was the Giants who pounded the table..😎
Quote:
And we are circling back over points which are not very compelling. This team didnt see Sam Darnold worth the number 2 pick. We are going to see if that was a good choice. At a time with major uncertainty at the QB position they had an opportunity to select a QB of their preference. They passed on the chance. Whats done is done. We have a vocal voice if BBI regulars pounding the table telling us the team made the right decision passing on the QB. I sure hope theyre right. I remember the days of shoddy QB play. It wasnt pretty.
I dont really agree on your BBI point. That group you are talking about contends that there was no slam dunk QB prospect at 2 and that its possible Eli has some game left coupled with Shurmurs ability to get the most out of less talented QBs boding well for one of Webb/Lauletta. Rational people see that theres many factors, not just fist pounding that a pick is great or is terrible. The only posters who are like this are those that emphatically think going RB is a waste without realizing the guy we took isnt just a RB.
Or won the SB without an out of his mind performance in the playoffs by Foles. Far from a guarantee that Wentz would have won in the playoffs, imv
There was no one like Eli, no red flags checks off all the boxes except foot speed, and comes up big against better opponents.
Too many herp derp sabermetrics teh positional value guys infesting this site.
I am fine with Barkley as the pick, I m even coming around to believing it was the correct move. (I want it to be, unlike some here, my rooting priority is for the Giants to win, not to be proven right. )
However, I am adamant in my own right in believing that Darnold s success or lack there of, is a big part of evaluating the Giants draft.
Seems that irritates some.
It appears to me that some in the "Make another run with Eli" camp, are becoming uncomfortable with the idea that if Darnold becomes a stud, it means the Giants goofed
I keep reading of the red flags these quarterbacks had, ok no argument. However, there is also risk in not taking one.
Many Giants fans applauded the choice, some like me want it to be the right choice.
But there is risk associated with the choice and part of that risk is, the Giants might have missed on their next Eli, and he might be wearing Jet green.
You can spin it however you like, but how Darnold develops definitely must factor in the evaluation of this draft.
Keeping Eli & Darnold was never realistic. It was either keep Eli and go the developmental QB route until another option becomes available, or cut Eli after the 2017 season and start over. Go back and listen to Eli answer the question if he wants to mentor a young QB, he did not give an enthusiastic answer back in January. For the record, I would have been fine with either option. After last years disaster, NYG was not going to deal with another firestorm (start 3-5 & everyone screaming for Darnold to start for example).
Assuming Webb/Lauletta dont pan out, there will be other opportunities which we are not aware of now. Always works out this way. Best thing is just to wait and see at this point.
Quote:
it was felt, along with the Giants, that there was no Eli in this group and so they turned to the overwhelming consensus of who the best player in the draft was.
There was no one like Eli, no red flags checks off all the boxes except foot speed, and comes up big against better opponents.
Too many herp derp sabermetrics teh positional value guys infesting this site.
You'd know, given that you've only been here since March.
👍👍
Suck for Luck works when there is a good enough QB prospect to tank for. Seemed like there was no Luck this year, which is a pretty universal thought. Doesnt mean the QBs wont be good, but from a prospect standpoint, they arent close to his equal.
I don't really understand the need to urgently stop talking about it, but no one's really forcing you to read or participate in such discussions.
So we agree, Barkley is going to be a very good player and was the right choice for Giants ~given their draft board.~ Clearly other teams had stronger conviction for the QBs, particularly Darnold. So did they make the right choice is passing up on QB? This is what we are going to find out.
Quote:
And we are circling back over points which are not very compelling.
I don't really understand the need to urgently stop talking about it, but no one's really forcing you to read or participate in such discussions.
The optimism this Spring is unarguably greater. This is an identity changing year, from a 3-4 on defense, to a run first, or at least, a balanced attack, with a respected play-action again. Why can we not believe Barkley, Solder, & Hernandez can not make this a transcendent year.Nobody is hurt yet.
Your using all or nothing thinking. It isn't that a top 5 QB pick will guarantee you a superbowl.
It's that a franchise QB will consistently give your team a winning record , and give you a chance at making the playoffs every year.
That's the distinction.
And this is coming from a guy who actually likes Barkley...
Quote:
...and I agree with the logic that if the Giants war room couldn't agree on which QB was worth the #2 pick, then no QB was worth the #2 pick.
I agree with this. If they couldnt come to agreement on a QB, then they made the right decision for their room. Now will that decision prove to be correct, that remains to be seen. The Giants not have had conviction on San Darnold at #2, but there is no denying he was a highly viable candidate. Darnold went #3 overall. He has been reportedly top guy gor both Jets and Denver. For some within the Giants organization he was top QB, the just wasnt a consensus. Even the Browns, he was top on their list from start of last football season through end. When it came to in person evaluations Mayfield just blew them away, but Darnold was highly regarded there too, and was their top guy based on Om field evaluations.
So we agree, Barkley is going to be a very good player and was the right choice for Giants ~given their draft board.~ Clearly other teams had stronger conviction for the QBs, particularly Darnold. So did they make the right choice is passing up on QB? This is what we are going to find out.
that's one narrative. What's more likely is Jets traded up in hopes of getting Mayfield and got shafted with Sloppy Seconds Darnold.
Your using all or nothing thinking. It isn't that a top 5 QB pick will guarantee you a superbowl.
It's that a franchise QB will consistently give your team a winning record , and give you a chance at making the playoffs every year.
That's the distinction.
And this is coming from a guy who actually likes Barkley...
To sdxca's point, it isn't about one man guaranteeing a Super Bowl win. This isnt basketball. There are some awfully good Qbs who never had good enough coaching and/or talent around them that could have easily won Super Bowls if they had a better supporting cast. Marino,Luck (before injury),Elway (until very late in his career) etc.
However the reverse side is IF you don't have a good QB, then no matter how good the team around him is you almost can never win a SuperBowl.
The true distinction is this: is the QB good enough that you can win a SuperBowl with without having to give him an absolute all star cast around him. Those guys rarely win unless they have a very rare and special cast around them I.E Trent Dilfer, McMahon.
That is why Accorsi specifically stated Eli has 'years of championship level football left' . He is basically saying if you put a decent cast around him he is still a good enough Qb to steer this team to a championship.
I agree with that assessment. And that is the main reason why we bypassed Qb. A strong argument can be made that 3 of the top 4 Qb were good enough Qbs to win championships with.
Right or wrong, We didnt want any b/c ownership didn't want to jump off the Eli ship to soon and strongly beleives with the right moves this team can contend as soon as next year.
I also agree with them. We have decent to elite talent at the core positions QB,Edge rush,LT,CB, receiving game and have upgraded coaching in all 3 phases. Now no team in the salary cap era, has all stars at every position and ridiculous depth but we have a done a good job minimizing glaring weaknesses and adding at least some depth.
There were a lot of Darnold and Rosen fans, and I was one of them. But I can't blame our GM for taking a shot on one of the most exciting players in the draft, especially if it nets us one more Super Bowl.
But if he averages 1 interception per game and 5 or 6 fumbles per season, the Jets will still be outside the playoffs and wondering where they went wrong.
And he was the only QB that most of BBI thought was Giants worthy.
But if he averages 1 interception per game and 5 or 6 fumbles per season, the Jets will still be outside the playoffs and wondering where they went wrong.
And he was the only QB that most of BBI thought was Giants worthy.
Ivan he looked better his first year which many call a negative but I actually deem it a positive. When you peel the layers of the onion, you see he had a much better cast around him and he flourished. His cast last year was significantly worse. It put him in tough spots and he tried to hero ball too much. Eli is a turnover machine at times and so was Favre yet their teams have won mutliple Super Bowls. Now if the Jets don't put a cast around him thats not a knock on him, but Darnold IS going to be a Qb good enough to win SuperBowls with and thats the key factor here.
I am generally against taking RBs high in the draft at all. But this year underscored that view with at least 10 quality RBs in the pool. And let's face it, they just don't last long. Most RBs have a short expiration date.
So I was all about draft management and taking advantage of that RB supply later in the draft. If you are in the rare spot of being at #2, it's worth rolling the dice and taking a QB in a year with a deep crop. Plus, that opportunity was further compounded by the fact we have a QB deep on the back nine of his career. And it's just a better long term investment.
I am generally against taking RBs high in the draft at all. But this year underscored that view with at least 10 quality RBs in the pool. And let's face it, they just don't last long. Most RBs have a short expiration date.
So I was all about draft management and taking advantage of that RB supply later in the draft. If you are in the rare spot of being at #2, it's worth rolling the dice and taking a QB in a year with a deep crop. Plus, that opportunity was further compounded by the fact we have a QB deep on the back nine of his career. And it's just a better long term investment.
I am almost always in the same camp you are bro. However the Giants are banking on Barkley being the very rare Marshall Faulk, LDT 2 way game breaker type. If he is that level , I have no qualms taking that kind of impact that high.
The example is under scored by this: Lets say there is one Reggie White but 10 Linval Josephs in the next draft. Do you bypass Reggie White at the top of the draft for one of the 10 Linval Josephs?
Barkley was the most elite talent of this particular draft and carries that rare special game changer potential at a non QB position.
Lawrence Taylor, Reggie White, Barry Sanders, Walter Payton those guys had that type of talent.
Right or wrong, Giants took him at 2 because they feel the upside approaches the RB greats before him.
Quote:
This is faulty logic.
Your using all or nothing thinking. It isn't that a top 5 QB pick will guarantee you a superbowl.
It's that a franchise QB will consistently give your team a winning record , and give you a chance at making the playoffs every year.
That's the distinction.
And this is coming from a guy who actually likes Barkley...
To sdxca's point, it isn't about one man guaranteeing a Super Bowl win. This isnt basketball. There are some awfully good Qbs who never had good enough coaching and/or talent around them that could have easily won Super Bowls if they had a better supporting cast. Marino,Luck (before injury),Elway (until very late in his career) etc.
However the reverse side is IF you don't have a good QB, then no matter how good the team around him is you almost can never win a SuperBowl.
The true distinction is this: is the QB good enough that you can win a SuperBowl with without having to give him an absolute all star cast around him. Those guys rarely win unless they have a very rare and special cast around them I.E Trent Dilfer, McMahon.
That is why Accorsi specifically stated Eli has 'years of championship level football left' . He is basically saying if you put a decent cast around him he is still a good enough Qb to steer this team to a championship.
I agree with that assessment. And that is the main reason why we bypassed Qb. A strong argument can be made that 3 of the top 4 Qb were good enough Qbs to win championships with.
Right or wrong, We didnt want any b/c ownership didn't want to jump off the Eli ship to soon and strongly beleives with the right moves this team can contend as soon as next year.
I also agree with them. We have decent to elite talent at the core positions QB,Edge rush,LT,CB, receiving game and have upgraded coaching in all 3 phases. Now no team in the salary cap era, has all stars at every position and ridiculous depth but we have a done a good job minimizing glaring weaknesses and adding at least some depth.
Big Blue in the Bronx
Thanks , same to you
I am generally against taking RBs high in the draft at all. But this year underscored that view with at least 10 quality RBs in the pool. And let's face it, they just don't last long. Most RBs have a short expiration date.
So I was all about draft management and taking advantage of that RB supply later in the draft. If you are in the rare spot of being at #2, it's worth rolling the dice and taking a QB in a year with a deep crop. Plus, that opportunity was further compounded by the fact we have a QB deep on the back nine of his career. And it's just a better long term investment.
BW
I get your logic , and it makes sense.
Thanks for sharing
But if he averages 1 interception per game and 5 or 6 fumbles per season, the Jets will still be outside the playoffs and wondering where they went wrong.
And he was the only QB that most of BBI thought was Giants worthy.
It was because I believe Saquon Barkley will not live up to his #2 pick to put it nicely.
I think trading down or taking OG Quentin Nelson would have been the smarter decision. He's going to be a HOFer!
He was also the #1 overall player in the draft & a huge need for the Giants.
We took Sherff high and he's a stud. Multi pro bowler.
You could have Nate Solder, Quentin Nelson.
Then got Hernndez in the 2nd like you did?
Or grabbed any of the very deep RB's on the board in the 2nd round.
Instead, your draft doesn't fall on Darnold, Rosen or Allen success.
It falls on Barkley having an Adrien Peterson career, to justify taking him @#2.
With him as a Penn St. Alumn, I would be nervous.
Your best pick may turn out to be a 2nd round guard who's pretty good. Maybe even a couple of pro bowl seasons.
The Giants should have taken the trade down offer or Nelson @2, imo.
Barkley faced 8 men in the box 5% of the time against defenses.
Guice faced 8 men in the box 31% of the time. We selected him @#59.
Who do you think, is gonna be better. Just sayin'...
First, Accorsi has said that if they didn't think they could make a deal with San Diego, Roethlisberger would've been the pick.
The criteria used to form this point is not very logical.
It's like saying, "John won the Powerball last week. He bought his ticket on his lunch hour, after he ate his tuna melt. It was a Monday afternoon and he was wearing green pants. Therefore, next Monday we should wear green pants, get a tuna melt for lunch, and buy a Powerball ticket for our best chance to win."
First of all, there are not blue chip QB prospects in every draft, and more than a few drafts since 2000 no QB went in the top 10. We are talking about a relatively small group of QBs, and of course not many of them are going to win a Super Bowl in this time frame. Then you have a fair percentage in that group that are still playing that may yet still win a Super Bowl. And the fact that Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning, and Eli Manning have won 11 of the 18 possible Super Bowls in that time frame further diminishes the point.
The criteria is ridiculously narrow. You are saying draft picks since 2000 only, which is silly. If you just looked at Super Bowl winners since 2000, which is also pretty useless and narrow criteria, then top 10 Quarterbacks that have won the Super Bowl include Trent Dilfer, Peyton Manning, as well as Eli. And I think Wentz deserves to be mentioned, even though he didn't play. I don't think Philadelphia gets in the playoffs without Wentz, and I think their road in the playoffs would've been much more difficult without him even if by chance they would've snuck in.
It was because I believe Saquon Barkley will not live up to his #2 pick to put it nicely.
I think trading down or taking OG Quentin Nelson would have been the smarter decision. He's going to be a HOFer!
He was also the #1 overall player in the draft & a huge need for the Giants.
We took Sherff high and he's a stud. Multi pro bowler.
You could have Nate Solder, Quentin Nelson.
Then got Hernndez in the 2nd like you did?
Or grabbed any of the very deep RB's on the board in the 2nd round.
Instead, your draft doesn't fall on Darnold, Rosen or Allen success.
It falls on Barkley having an Adrien Peterson career, to justify taking him @#2.
With him as a Penn St. Alumn, I would be nervous.
Your best pick may turn out to be a 2nd round guard who's pretty good. Maybe even a couple of pro bowl seasons.
The Giants should have taken the trade down offer or Nelson @2, imo.
Barkley faced 8 men in the box 5% of the time against defenses.
Guice faced 8 men in the box 31% of the time. We selected him @#59.
Who do you think, is gonna be better. Just sayin'...
Ace you are correct in that to take him at 2 as a RB he has to be a rare gamebreaker type to validate taking that position that high.
However I do believe he WILL fulfill that expectation if he remains healthy. My eyes see a guy with OBJ like elusiviness and speed with 30lbs more muscles.Thats special.
The OP says the QB's weren't "great prospects." Well- according to who along with what does "great prospect" mean to the OP?
I want my the giants to be contenders. Yet the OP in his twisted narrative view
"Some people here seem to believe taking a QB in the top 5 guarantees you a super bowl in the next 15 years just because it happened to our team once before,"
He is making things up to fit his narrative. This is just another example why so many of us feel the QB should have been taken. look at the type of extreme comments the OP is making about "guarantee" to try to justify his narrative.
It was because I believe Saquon Barkley will not live up to his #2 pick to put it nicely.
I think trading down or taking OG Quentin Nelson would have been the smarter decision. He's going to be a HOFer!
He was also the #1 overall player in the draft & a huge need for the Giants.
We took Sherff high and he's a stud. Multi pro bowler.
You could have Nate Solder, Quentin Nelson.
Then got Hernndez in the 2nd like you did?
Or grabbed any of the very deep RB's on the board in the 2nd round.
Instead, your draft doesn't fall on Darnold, Rosen or Allen success.
It falls on Barkley having an Adrien Peterson career, to justify taking him @#2.
With him as a Penn St. Alumn, I would be nervous.
Your best pick may turn out to be a 2nd round guard who's pretty good. Maybe even a couple of pro bowl seasons.
The Giants should have taken the trade down offer or Nelson @2, imo.
Barkley faced 8 men in the box 5% of the time against defenses.
Guice faced 8 men in the box 31% of the time. We selected him @#59.
Who do you think, is gonna be better. Just sayin'...
Where are you getting those percentage stats? Further, they are useless. You are probably talking pre-snap, but a lot of teams crashed down as soon as the snap was made, essentially meaning at the time of the hand-off, there were 8 in the box (or more). It was (much) more than 5% if you look at it in terms of when the hand-off was made rather than pre-snap. This is easy to see if you've done film study of the player. Barkley's effect on opposing defenses was ENORMOUS. McSorley would run a fake hand off keeper and pick up 20 yards, because everyone was crashing down on Barkley, ignoring the QB assignment.
Barkley will have the better career. He's a better player than Guice. Guice is also had a character flag, Barkley has tremendous character.
Barkley is another LaDainian Tomlinson. Guice has a chance to be another Marshawn Lynch, a very good player in his own right. But I'll take the Tomlinson guy every day of the week and twice on Sundays. And while nothing is guaranteed, Guice invites a lot of contact, Barkley does not often take big hits, he knows how to avoid them. This gives Barkley a much better chance of having a long career as opposed to Guice.
The OP says the QB's weren't "great prospects." Well- according to who along with what does "great prospect" mean to the OP?
I want my the giants to be contenders. Yet the OP in his twisted narrative view
"Some people here seem to believe taking a QB in the top 5 guarantees you a super bowl in the next 15 years just because it happened to our team once before,"
He is making things up to fit his narrative. This is just another example why so many of us feel the QB should have been taken. look at the type of extreme comments the OP is making about "guarantee" to try to justify his narrative.
What part of the Giants DID NOT consider any of the QBs worthy of drafting at 2 dont you continually not understand? What will it take, FINALLY, for you to understand that it doesnt matter what we at BBi think? It ONLY matters what the Giants think. They have spoken
What really separates Darnold and the others to Lauletta, to Webb? The fact that Darnold did not get better this past year is a major red flag. Allen has basically the same red flags as Webb. Rosen and Lauletta have similar traits minus the concussions.
The problem is that Eli is the Golden Child
Until he leaves no other QB will even see a mop up down in regular play.......its a catch-22 situation
no way out
Selecting a QB in the top 5 is as risky as it gets. There are no guarantees. The Giants feel they got a stud that checked all the boxes @2. Plus a stud Olmen, Dlmen and edge....plus a developmental QB!
They had as good a draft as possible.....imo
Quote:
I want ot add that this is "my opinion." SO will the OP and others twist this into their own narrative that "I'm pissed?"
The OP says the QB's weren't "great prospects." Well- according to who along with what does "great prospect" mean to the OP?
I want my the giants to be contenders. Yet the OP in his twisted narrative view
"Some people here seem to believe taking a QB in the top 5 guarantees you a super bowl in the next 15 years just because it happened to our team once before,"
He is making things up to fit his narrative. This is just another example why so many of us feel the QB should have been taken. look at the type of extreme comments the OP is making about "guarantee" to try to justify his narrative.
What part of the Giants DID NOT consider any of the QBs worthy of drafting at 2 dont you continually not understand? What will it take, FINALLY, for you to understand that it doesnt matter what we at BBi think? It ONLY matters what the Giants think. They have spoken
Can't I offer an opinion that I think the Giants made a mistake?
When posters say none for he QB's were top notch-- does that mean we should believe them?
Are you trying to say I and others can't disagree with a GM's choice or when a poster makes what I feel is a false comment?
The OP made things up on this thread imo. I'm not allowed to challenge what he's made up?
Can't I offer an opinion that I think the Giants made a mistake?
Of course you can, but are you saying or implying that you know these QBs BETTER than the Giants do? That you know the QBs body of work anywhere near what the Giants and their scouts know?
You say the Giants made a mistake. Sure, it happens all the time where teams misplace value, but the odds of them getting it right much more than we can, are stacked pretty much in their favor, imo.
You have been emphatically stating that the Giants MADE A MISTAKE, as if its a fait de complit. Had you said I BELIEVE they made a mistake and backed it up with facts, then youd have a point there.
When posters say none for he QB's were top notch-- does that mean we should believe them?
No, of course not. But the Giants are EFFECTIVELY saying that. Thats the difference
http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/alltimeno1
No one is suggesting you need to take a QB in the top 10 to win a championship. However, if you expand your incredibly narrow scope to beyond top 10 picks and beyond the turn of the decade, the odds of hitting on a first round pick at QB are higher than all of the other rounds.
For every Tom Brady, there are dozens of Drew Hensons. We all hope Webb or Lauletta develop into an Eli successor, but statistically speaking, the odds are long.
If i am playing devil's advocate to your thread premise: No RB taken since 2000 in the top 10 has won a championship; therefore taking RB at 2 is a waste.
There are logical points for taking/not taking QB at 2 versus taking/not taking RB; your argument is not one of them.
Quote:
I want ot add that this is "my opinion." SO will the OP and others twist this into their own narrative that "I'm pissed?"
The OP says the QB's weren't "great prospects." Well- according to who along with what does "great prospect" mean to the OP?
I want my the giants to be contenders. Yet the OP in his twisted narrative view
"Some people here seem to believe taking a QB in the top 5 guarantees you a super bowl in the next 15 years just because it happened to our team once before,"
He is making things up to fit his narrative. This is just another example why so many of us feel the QB should have been taken. look at the type of extreme comments the OP is making about "guarantee" to try to justify his narrative.
What part of the Giants DID NOT consider any of the QBs worthy of drafting at 2 dont you continually not understand? What will it take, FINALLY, for you to understand that it doesnt matter what we at BBi think? It ONLY matters what the Giants think. They have spoken
That's not true, I think they had Darnold rated pretty high, but they just had Barkley higher. I know people have mentioned if it wasn't going to be Barkley, it would have been Chubb, but who knows if that's true.
Of course you can, but are you saying or implying that you know these QBs BETTER than the Giants do? That you know the QBs body of work anywhere near what the Giants and their scouts know?
You say the Giants made a mistake. Sure, it happens all the time where teams misplace value, but the odds of them getting it right much more than we can, are stacked pretty much in their favor, imo.
You have been emphatically stating that the Giants MADE A MISTAKE, as if its a fait de complit. Had you said I BELIEVE they made a mistake and backed it up with facts, then youd have a point there.
It's hard not to be dubious with Jints Central considering how poorly they have managed this team for the last 5-8 years - from personnel to coaching to management. That's essentially a "fact".
So just because there is a new regime doesn't mean that suddenly all is well. Mara just faked a GM search by bringing in Accorsi who recommended his friend Gettleman in about, oh, 5 minutes.
Basically, you are saying Mara finally got it right. And this draft proves it. Did you get a new rabbit's foot for Christmas or are you still digging around in your yard for four leaf clovers?
And one more thing - there is plenty of opinion our there is the post-draft ether that the Giants did in fact mismanage the draft by not going QB. That the better route was either QB/DL/trade down, especially with such a large lot of quality RBs. So the concern some of us have lodged isn't something whipped up just to create a stir, or to be accused of "trolling". These are legitimate counter points that your side of the aisle ignores because it's convenient.
I have no idea how Barkley/Darnold/whoever will turn out, but bring up Maras past is going to uncover plenty of ups along with some downs. In other words, its a stupid thing to reference.
Quote:
Can't I offer an opinion that I think the Giants made a mistake?
Of course you can, but are you saying or implying that you know these QBs BETTER than the Giants do? That you know the QBs body of work anywhere near what the Giants and their scouts know?
You say the Giants made a mistake. Sure, it happens all the time where teams misplace value, but the odds of them getting it right much more than we can, are stacked pretty much in their favor, imo.
You have been emphatically stating that the Giants MADE A MISTAKE, as if its a fait de complit. Had you said I BELIEVE they made a mistake and backed it up with facts, then youd have a point there.
Quote:
When posters say none for he QB's were top notch-- does that mean we should believe them?
No, of course not. But the Giants are EFFECTIVELY saying that. Thats the difference
I am saying guys like Greg Cossel in some cases know better than DG does. The guy from ourlads too. Tell me-- did you think reese made a mistake not drafting OLienmen? Does this mean you knew more than Reese?
And tell me-- do you know as a point of fact that there was no socut that said take a QB?
Camp hasnt even started, holy shit.
We're on this website offering our opinions and some of you reply with "Well that's what the giants say" as soem type of evidence they're right?
Some of you have to realize that it's not like just posters from here are saying they should have taken a QB, right?
There were some analysts and scouts that think so too, right?
What do you mean about Mara being wrong about Eli?
I blame the Reese era on Reese. I blame Mara for not acting quicker to end the Reese era.
Quote:
If you are blaming Mara for the Reese era then where are you giving him credit?
What do you mean about Mara being wrong about Eli?
I blame the Reese era on Reese. I blame Mara for not acting quicker to end the Reese era.
You really arent worth replying to since you are completely irrational. So our GM search was fake, our first round pick sucked, and what else am I missing today?
Impossible to have a conversation with you. Theres plenty of people in this board who disagree but when you are so dense, its pointless.
And I'm all about what the team can do with Barkley. His impavt should be immediate.
You really arent worth replying to since you are completely irrational. So our GM search was fake, our first round pick sucked, and what else am I missing today?
Impossible to have a conversation with you. Theres plenty of people in this board who disagree but when you are so dense, its pointless.
Interesting. Let's recap - you replied to me, so I replied to you. But since I replied I am completely irrational, etc, etc. Good one.
As for your other part of your diatribe, fair enough.
Im genuinely curious.
Im genuinely curious.
I've been at BBI since the mid-90s. I get into many topics - the college game, draft prospects, roster management, the NFL in general, the history of this franchise.
The goings-on at Jints Central has always fascinated me. And a lot of posters like you get very irritated with me for criticizing them. So I am used to this. But, no, I don't get tired of it.
Do you ask those who think this organization is utopia and think Eli is infallible the same question? Because there are a lot of posters who are on the other side of the spectrum.
I do look forward to the season but I also think it is a fair game to wonder "what if", especially at such an interesting time when the organization just had the #2 pick in the draft...
I have no idea what Jints Central is, by the way.
I have no idea what Jints Central is, by the way.
Jints Central is a term I got from the NY Daily News in the '80s and '90s to describe the decision making body for the Giants.
That's funny - it's the same uninformed refrain - I hate every move. For this offseason, I have credited the move to acquire Ogletree, drafting Carter, drafting McIntosh, the potential upside of Lauletta, etc, etc. For some reason, that gets lost in the sauce when I harp on these more sensitive issues.
Accomplish? Not sure what this means. This is essentially a debate site - in my eyes. So I try to debate my position as strongly as I can.
Camp hasnt even started, holy shit.
Are you kidding me??? Vegas has odds out on which teams will win etc. From day one after the draft no one can talk about predictions for the upcoming season even though we know even Vegas has odds? Vegas closed their eyes and picked a number?
Last year before the season the team was 11--5 so you said the same thing to posters who were predicting an even better outcome? What about the ones that predicted doom? Predictions are made a lot from player to team. Did you just arrive on Earth this weekend?
My question has been very simple, if we talk about what the Giants should have done enough, does anything come of it? Some people enjoy repeating themselves - to me thats strange but just my opinion.
My question has been very simple, if we talk about what the Giants should have done enough, does anything come of it? Some people enjoy repeating themselves - to me thats strange but just my opinion.
You mean when people say it's a mistake that we didn't take a QB- that's not a prediction?
Weren't you pretty incredulous that people were predicting that the pick of a rb was a mistake? WOuldn't that be a prediction?
The people who wanted Barkley (including the Giants) wanted to win as many games as possible THIS season and Barkley was the best opportunity for that.
But here we are and the Giants picked a guy who should help us beyond 2018. You think Webb/Lauletta/whoever will need more or less weapons when Eli is done?
The people who wanted Barkley (including the Giants) wanted to win as many games as possible THIS season and Barkley was the best opportunity for that.
Marty:
The people who wanted Barkley (including the Giants) wanted to win as many games as possible THIS season and Barkley was the best opportunity for that.
He is not in his 30s, if hes as advertised, he will open things up for the entire offense and make almost any QB productive for MANY YEARS TO COME, imo. Not sure why hes put in any win now narrative
BillT : 5/20/2018 9:33 am : link : reply
And maybe it was. But three years from now with Eli retired, if Darnold or Rosen or Allen are franchise QBs and neither of ours are (which Sy has already said is going to be true for Webb), Gettleman should be fired for the Barkley pic no matter how good Barkley has become.
so let me get this straight - even if Barkley is an excellent back, if Darnold, Allen OR Rosen become a franchise guy, the pick was so bad that Gettleman should be fired?
What if the Giants win SB's with Barkley here?
basically, the Barkley pick is only going to be as good as the other QB's in the draft and Lauletta and Webb?
Holy fucking shit.
We never had a shot at Mayfield so even if he's the next Brady it's irrelevant.
So we get a prospect almost as good as the guys who went in the top 10 and get an incredible prospect at RB as well. I'll sign up for that.
You disagree?
Does Phillip Rivers or SD get crapped on?
Also, people keep hedging their bets that if any of the 3 QB's selected after are great, then the pick of Barkley was a bad one, no matter what Barkley does. That's just horrendous logic.
If Barkley's excellent, you'd have to have Darnold be a 2 time SB MVP and the Giants keep missing the playoffs to say gettleman screwed up, and even then, that would be fan reaction, not my reaction.
But even if Barkley proves to be an outstanding player - if we're struggling to put together decent performance at the QB position, arguably the most important position in football, and any of the QBs we passed on turn out to be good or better, then we will regret passing on a QB.
I will be looking out for your future posts...
Not slamming fans that wanted a QB but rather slamming fans that continue to whine about not taking one.
Quote:
that wanted to draft a QB because of your rational, and then mock them for being glad they don't run the team??
I will be looking out for your future posts...
Not slamming fans that wanted a QB but rather slamming fans that continue to whine about not taking one.
well, isn't that special...
Does Phillip Rivers or SD get crapped on?
Also, people keep hedging their bets that if any of the 3 QB's selected after are great, then the pick of Barkley was a bad one, no matter what Barkley does. That's just horrendous logic.
If Barkley's excellent, you'd have to have Darnold be a 2 time SB MVP and the Giants keep missing the playoffs to say gettleman screwed up, and even then, that would be fan reaction, not my reaction.
And if you don't think that SD/Rivers are looked upon differently than Giants/Eli & Pittsburg/Ben you're simply nuts...
But I warmed up to RB after reading about Barkley the player and the man. Hes a top notch prospect that isnt just a RB and has the attitude and demeanor of Eli Manning.
I think we got a special player and if Shurmur is as good as advertised he will not only showcase Barkley but he will find out if one of Elis backups is good enough to win some games in the future.
Thats what I look forward to. If you dont, that sucks.
I didn't say SD isn't looked at differently. I said that if Barkley becomes an excellent player, calling him a bad pick will be ridiculous, especially if the argument is based on a sole QB taken below as a guy the Giants missed out on.
Excellent players should be looked at as excellent picks. Period.
If the Cowboys never win a playoff game with Elliott as their back, will he be called a terrible pick? If Baker Mayfield restores the Browns to respectability, even if he just consistently gets them to .500 will he be called a terrible pick?
And yes SD/Rivers are looked at critically because they haven't won Superbowls like the others have. You're mistaken.
Replace Barkley with that pick...put in Chubb or Nelson or the a punter who becomes the next "Ray Guy". Lets say each one of them goes into the Hall of Fame...are you going to puff your chest out on those guys and say we made an excellent pick while the others guys in NY are celebrating superbowls??
But if Darnold, or whoever, becomes a 2 time Superbowl MVP, it will be solely because of him?
Because if it is the team around him, which it usually is in addition to the QB's performance, who says that because Darnold became a 2 time Superbowl MVP that it would happen here?
Did the Chargers make a mistake trading Eli for Rivers and picks because Eli became a 2 time Superbowl MVP and Rivers didn't? Because that's what your logic would say.
I didn't say SD isn't looked at differently. I said that if Barkley becomes an excellent player, calling him a bad pick will be ridiculous, especially if the argument is based on a sole QB taken below as a guy the Giants missed out on.
Excellent players should be looked at as excellent picks. Period.
If the Cowboys never win a playoff game with Elliott as their back, will he be called a terrible pick? If Baker Mayfield restores the Browns to respectability, even if he just consistently gets them to .500 will he be called a terrible pick?
Youre wrong FMIC. Look at San Diego. They traded away a 2x super bowl mvp and didnt draft a 2x SB winning QB. They went with Philip Rivers. Terrible...
So many "what if's" have to take place in this argument anyway.
I responded to the initial point by BillT that even if Barkley is an excellent back, it is a fireable offense if ANY of the QB's taken below him become franchise guys. He didn't even qualify that with a lack of team success. So basically, Barkley could be an excellent back, the giants could be annual playoff participants and even champions, but if ANY of the QB's selected below turn out OK, Gettleman should be fired?
Name a Top 5 pick who turned into an excellent player where the team or the player are roundly criticized. For selecting the player or for not selecting another player. The ones who get shit are those who pick a shit player and let a great player slip through their hands.
Excellent players are not terrible picks. Period.
But if Darnold, or whoever, becomes a 2 time Superbowl MVP, it will be solely because of him?
Because if it is the team around him, which it usually is in addition to the QB's performance, who says that because Darnold became a 2 time Superbowl MVP that it would happen here?
Did the Chargers make a mistake trading Eli for Rivers and picks because Eli became a 2 time Superbowl MVP and Rivers didn't? Because that's what your logic would say.
Way too many suppositions...but on the last point I absolutely think the Chargers were thinking "what if..." when Eli was watching the balloons come down in 2007 and 2011.
I mean, 2 time Superbowl MVP's aren't the common, you know....
Excellent players are not terrible picks. Period.
Excellent players are excellent players.
A Barkley pick over a 2-Time Winning SuperBowl MVP QB on the very next pick is going to get plenty of criticism. Add in that the team has a 37-year old QB on the decline and it easily becomes a terrible pick.
I mean, 2 time Superbowl MVP's aren't the common, you know....
it wasn't mine...it was FMICs
For instance, if the Giants hold on to beat the Eagles in 2010 (the M Vick comeback and Desean Jackson walk off punt return game), the Packers never make the playoffs and win the Superbowl. And Aaron Rodgers has zero Superbowls.
You can just say, if I put John Elway on the Browns the Browns would have one two Superbowls instead of the Broncos.
Just because a QB wins a Superbowl elsewhere doesn't mean he would win it here.
For instance, if the Giants hold on to beat the Eagles in 2010 (the M Vick comeback and Desean Jackson walk off punt return game), the Packers never make the playoffs and win the Superbowl. And Aaron Rodgers has zero Superbowls.
You can just say, if I put John Elway on the Browns the Browns would have one two Superbowls instead of the Broncos.
totally agree...and not at all relevant to latest posts.
And yes SD/Rivers are looked at critically because they haven't won Superbowls like the others have. You're mistaken.
I find it very difficult to hammer the Rivers pick as a bad one. You can criticize it, sure. But his body of work has been sensational, and has been a better QB than Manning.
They should have been an 11 or 12 win team last year but their FG kicker had the yips the first three weeks of the season.
And they were the best team in football in 2006 but that imbecile Schottenheimer called one of the worst games ever in the divisional playoff game at home against the Pats. Killed a great opportunity to advance deep into those playoffs.
Quote:
Barkley isn't a bad player if he becomes an excellent back. If Darnold becomes a 2-time Super Bowl MVP per your post, then DG/Giants will absolutely be criticized as making a bad pick...you may not like it but that is where football public-opinion will come down.
And yes SD/Rivers are looked at critically because they haven't won Superbowls like the others have. You're mistaken.
I find it very difficult to hammer the Rivers pick as a bad one. You can criticize it, sure. But his body of work has been sensational, and has been a better QB than Manning.
They should have been an 11 or 12 win team last year but their FG kicker had the yips the first three weeks of the season.
And they were the best team in football in 2006 but that imbecile Schottenheimer called one of the worst games ever in the divisional playoff game at home against the Pats. Killed a great opportunity to advance deep into those playoffs.
Haha, what? They were 14-2, and had what should have been the game winning interception until the CB fumbled it instead of just going down.
Its amazing to me that people are voluntarily going to spend the next 5 years angry and just waiting to pounce at the first signs Darnold/Rosen/Allen success. Hell, some people arent even waiting for that...
While I am pleased NYG stuck to their value board and, in their estimation, did not reach for a QB or other position .... but, here's hoping Barkley outshines the QB prospects in the future.
Its amazing to me that people are voluntarily going to spend the next 5 years angry and just waiting to pounce at the first signs Darnold/Rosen/Allen success. Hell, some people arent even waiting for that...
Of course Shock. Nothing wrong debating the hypothetical that was tossed out here though. It wasn't mine.
And no need to throw out people are actually waiting for Giant demise to say I told you so...you know they aren't fans or ones that you care about anyway.
And i have plenty of energy this morning so happy to debate other bad hypotheticals posters want to throw up..i mean out.
well, there seems to be some thoughts around it...
Here's a hypothetical for you: Instead of Rivers, what if the Chargers drafted Larry Fitzgerald?
Drew Brees, Ladanian Tomlinson, Larry Fitzgerald, Antonio Gates.
That might have been a pretty good team.
That remains to be seen.
I think the scenarios that might call into question the decision would be if one or more of the QBs they passed up on prove to be elite, or they passed on a franchise QB and the team struggles to find one. If the Giants find a good answer for the future of the QB position it would be hard to argue against their decision barring one of the QBs they passed on developing into something special (or Barkley not living up to expectations).
I'll be honest, I remain a bit skeptical about the decision to pass on Darnold (Barkley was by far my 2nd choice), but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt as they know more than I do and, of course, hope for the best.
Here's a hypothetical for you: Instead of Rivers, what if the Chargers drafted Larry Fitzgerald?
Drew Brees, Ladanian Tomlinson, Larry Fitzgerald, Antonio Gates.
That might have been a pretty good team.
Who called Rivers a great pick?
That remains to be seen.
Yep, but that wasn't the debate above.
Quote:
I also don't see how you can call Philip Rivers a great pick for the Chargers when they already had Drew frickin Brees on the roster in only his third year.
Here's a hypothetical for you: Instead of Rivers, what if the Chargers drafted Larry Fitzgerald?
Drew Brees, Ladanian Tomlinson, Larry Fitzgerald, Antonio Gates.
That might have been a pretty good team.
Who called Rivers a great pick?
I was responding to bw, who said Rivers was a better pick QB than Manning, which I would consider a great pick.
That remains to be seen.
What is your definition of a franchise QB?
Quote:
lock of a "franchise" QB available in this draft.
That remains to be seen.
Yep, but that wasn't the debate above.
There are so many hypotheticals being tossed around these days it's hard to separate one thread from the next.
I would suggest we start discussing what is actually real and tangible instead of "what if's", but I don't want to tell people how to post.
These threads are all starting to bleed together and won't really be able to be discussed until 5 years down the road, anyways.
That remains to be seen.
Picking the legit franchise QB in the rare air of a #2 overall pick would be optimal.
But, I'd agree it doesn't look like that prospect was present this year. Plenty of other ways to build a SB winning team ...
Time will tell, indeed.
Quote:
lock of a "franchise" QB available in this draft.
That remains to be seen.
What is your definition of a franchise QB?
Andrew Luck was the last one that I remember.
Tall
Big time arm: can make all the throws.
Cerebral: The ability to read a defense and change the play at the line of scrimmage
Played in a Pro Style Offense and therefor can take snaps under center, play action, good footwork.
Quote:
In comment 13969696 bBritt in VA said:
Quote:
lock of a "franchise" QB available in this draft.
That remains to be seen.
Yep, but that wasn't the debate above.
There are so many hypotheticals being tossed around these days it's hard to separate one thread from the next.
I would suggest we start discussing what is actually real and tangible instead of "what if's", but I don't want to tell people how to post.
These threads are all starting to bleed together and won't really be able to be discussed until 5 years down the road, anyways.
It wasn't my hypothetical but another poster used it to make his point so I chimed in because it was suspect at best. If you're not following it or confused, then start your own thread and discuss the real tangible stuff.
Quote:
In comment 13969696 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
lock of a "franchise" QB available in this draft.
That remains to be seen.
What is your definition of a franchise QB?
Andrew Luck was the last one that I remember.
Tall
Big time arm: can make all the throws.
Cerebral: The ability to read a defense and change the play at the line of scrimmage
Played in a Pro Style Offense and therefor can take snaps under center, play action, good footwork.
I just asked who is a franchise QB. So you wouldn't have taken Wentz or Goff with the 2nd pick? They aren't franchise QB's?
Andrew Luck's rating was off the charts. SO if he isn't Luck off-the-charts your definition is that he isn't a franchise QB?
Quote:
In comment 13969693 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
I also don't see how you can call Philip Rivers a great pick for the Chargers when they already had Drew frickin Brees on the roster in only his third year.
Here's a hypothetical for you: Instead of Rivers, what if the Chargers drafted Larry Fitzgerald?
Drew Brees, Ladanian Tomlinson, Larry Fitzgerald, Antonio Gates.
That might have been a pretty good team.
Who called Rivers a great pick?
I was responding to bw, who said Rivers was a better pick QB than Manning, which I would consider a great pick.
i think they were both great picks, players and QBs. And would have Manning as the better one despite all the other variables that go into winning superbowls...simply because Eli can show has as the QB for 2 of them.
Goff had a nice sophomore season. Was he worth the first overall pick? Time will tell.
As opposed to being as placid as it is now?
On the Goff situation, we'll have a nice case study to look at with regards to he and Gurley.
If Gurley gets injured and the Rams struggle, it might show what the main driver was in their success last year. If Goff continues to develop, he'll be shown as a good pick.
They were terrible two years ago and both Goff and Gurley struggled. Was it the OL sucking or a combination of learning the game and a poor OL?
On the Goff situation, we'll have a nice case study to look at with regards to he and Gurley.
If Gurley gets injured and the Rams struggle, it might show what the main driver was in their success last year. If Goff continues to develop, he'll be shown as a good pick.
They were terrible two years ago and both Goff and Gurley struggled. Was it the OL sucking or a combination of learning the game and a poor OL?
Agreed. Of course the PC was much better than it was under Fisher
Quote:
lock of a "franchise" QB available in this draft.
That remains to be seen.
Picking the legit franchise QB in the rare air of a #2 overall pick would be optimal.
But, I'd agree it doesn't look like that prospect was present this year. Plenty of other ways to build a SB winning team ...
Time will tell, indeed.
So yes, that is not how the Giants board lined up, but it is not like there is universal acceptance among the professionals that that guy wasn't there. Only that there was not such a consensus in the Giants room.
Goff had a nice sophomore season. Was he worth the first overall pick? Time will tell.
You're out of your mind.
First you speak of "conviction" -- how you've twisted that to having any relevance to our conversation is mind-boggling.
Secondly, you're the only one I've heard so far to suggest anything about Wentz and "pause."
Third- what you've seen of Noles- he checks your boxes doesn't he? What about Super Bowl winner Jeff Hostetler?
Fourth-- the jury may still be out on Goff but after year two he looks like it. You do realize when you draft a QB more than likely year 1 or year 2 they aren't going to prove they are a franhcise QB if you don't think Goff is one, right? SO wiht you practically eveyr QB doesn't fit your grade.
Fifth-- Goff's 2nd year ratign has suprassed Luck's best year. SO pelase exaplin which "boxes" Goff has not checked off for you?
IMO you are making things up to justify the rb selection. Would you say right now Goff is worthy of the number. Giving pause with Wentz is just too much. And which boxes does he check as a franchise QB that Goff doesn't in your view? I'm not saying Goff is better. But you brought up the boxes. WHich boxes means Goff is questionable" while Wentz is? Though you can't even tell em 100% that Wentz is which I think absurd.
As far as the draft-- imo Goff was worth it - in that you can't know 100%. But right now what we know-- are you going to say you wouldn't have taken him number 2?
Well, the difference would be Sanchez had a great team around him, and Darnold I feel pretty good about saying he's got a shitty team around him right now. That said, I'd be pretty shocked if Darnold came in right away and lit up the NFL, seems pretty unlikely.
Quote:
in the two weeks leading up to the draft. Doesn't make a lot of sense if Darnold was at the top of their board. Shouldn't they have been trying to trade up?
Maybe. Maybe they did explore that. NYG admitted they received some calls. But I think it's clear Cleveland and Jets were both going QB and I don't think anyone expected him to fall pas both of those teams.
I think the value for a trade up wasn't there, and to me, that speaks to what people thought of these QB's.
Washington traded 3 1st's and a 2nd to trade up from 6 to 2 in 2012.
This year, the Jets traded 3 2nd rounders to move from 6 to 3.
Uh, Breed was not Brees when Rivers was drafted. Let's not paint this picture that this was Brees/HoF Version.
Ironically, he blossomed in 2004 when Rivers was drafted.
Quote:
I also don't see how you can call Philip Rivers a great pick for the Chargers when they already had Drew frickin Brees on the roster in only his third year.
Uh, Breed was not Brees when Rivers was drafted. Let's not paint this picture that this was Brees/HoF Version.
Ironically, he blossomed in 2004 when Rivers was drafted.
They were impatient with him. He was only in his 3rd year when they gave up on him.
Quote:
and the Eagles had the CONVICTION to trade up for him, but if you read about him you understand why, he checks/checked all the boxes. But even then, does it give you pause that Nick Foles stepped right in after Wentz was hurt and they didn't skip a beat?
Goff had a nice sophomore season. Was he worth the first overall pick? Time will tell.
You're out of your mind.
First you speak of "conviction" -- how you've twisted that to having any relevance to our conversation is mind-boggling.
Secondly, you're the only one I've heard so far to suggest anything about Wentz and "pause."
Third- what you've seen of Noles- he checks your boxes doesn't he? What about Super Bowl winner Jeff Hostetler?
Fourth-- the jury may still be out on Goff but after year two he looks like it. You do realize when you draft a QB more than likely year 1 or year 2 they aren't going to prove they are a franhcise QB if you don't think Goff is one, right? SO wiht you practically eveyr QB doesn't fit your grade.
Fifth-- Goff's 2nd year ratign has suprassed Luck's best year. SO pelase exaplin which "boxes" Goff has not checked off for you?
IMO you are making things up to justify the rb selection. Would you say right now Goff is worthy of the number. Giving pause with Wentz is just too much. And which boxes does he check as a franchise QB that Goff doesn't in your view? I'm not saying Goff is better. But you brought up the boxes. WHich boxes means Goff is questionable" while Wentz is? Though you can't even tell em 100% that Wentz is which I think absurd.
As far as the draft-- imo Goff was worth it - in that you can't know 100%. But right now what we know-- are you going to say you wouldn't have taken him number 2?
strong post..but well done
They were impatient with him. He was only in his 3rd year when they gave up on him.
It's easy to say in hindsight knowing what we know now. At the time, Brees was a shorter than ideal QB with an average arm.
Quote:
They were impatient with him. He was only in his 3rd year when they gave up on him.
It's easy to say in hindsight knowing what we know now. At the time, Brees was a shorter than ideal QB with an average arm.
They took him at the top of the 2nd round right after they drafted Tomlinson. They must have seen something in him to draft him there.
Having conviction is not relevant to the conversation?
Did you listen to Dave Gettleman talk about QB's at all this offseason?
They took him at the top of the 2nd round right after they drafted Tomlinson. They must have seen something in him to draft him there.
I understand the history. But a lot of teams have invested high picks in QBs and then looked for other solutions after three years of mixed, at best in Brees's case, results. Brees was awful in 2003 and lost his job to Doug Flutie.
Again, you are looking back with a lens knowing what you know now.
"With the second pick, we're going to take the best player," Gettleman said. "They screamed at me in Carolina, 'You've got to draft a tackle, you've got to draft a tackle.' If the value's not there when you pick, you're going to make a mistake. You'll make a mistake. We're going to set ourselves up so that we can take the best player available. And if the best player available is a quarterback, then that's what we're going to do."
That's having conviction.
After the draft:
No conviction.
I do. I have surmised the same exact thing here.
by Joel Corry
Apr 17, 2017 5 min read
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
NFL executives making decisions about first-round draft choices should heed this warning particularly when there isn't a strong group of quarterbacks available like this year.
The search for the ever elusive franchise quarterback drives NFL teams to select passers higher than they should. Sustaining success in the NFL is hard enough, but infinitely more difficult without good quarterback play.
The 2017 quarterback class doesn't have any players on par with those in the 2015 and 2016 drafts when passers were taken with the first- and second-overall picks. Despite this, it's conceivable that four quarterbacks will be selected in the first round for the first time since 2012.
North Carolina's Mitchell Trubisky, Clemson's Deshaun Watson, Texas Tech's Patrick Mahones, California's Davis Webb and Notre Dame's DeShone Kizer are considered as potential first-round picks by a majority of draft prognosticators. Trubisky is rumored to be a candidate to be taken first overall by the Browns even though he only started one season in college and Texas A&M defensive end Myles Garrett is a safer bet. Other first-round spots where quarterbacks could be a possibility are sixth (Jets), 10th (Bills) 12th (Browns-if Trubisky isn't first), 13th (Cardinals), 25th (Texans), 27th (Chiefs) and 32nd (Saints). Watson is generally considered as the next best prospect after Trubisky.
The first round of the 2004 NFL Draft is modern day gold standard for finding long term solutions at quarterback. Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger and J.P. Losman were selected first, fourth, 11th and 22nd. The first three have spent their entire NFL careers with the same team. Manning, a four-time Pro Bowler, has won two Super Bowls with the Giants in six playoff appearances. He was named MVP of both Super Bowl victories. Rivers, who has earned six Pro Bowl berths, has gotten the Chargers to the playoffs five times in 13 seasons. The Steelers have won two Super Bowls in three appearances with Roethlisberger under center. The five-time Pro Bowler has been to playoffs nine times as a Steeler. Losman had an eight-year NFL career where he started 33 games with the Bills, who drafted him. His biggest professional football achievement was leading the Las Vegas Locomotives to a championship in the now defunct United Football League's inaugural season in 2009.
The 2004 quarterback draft class is an anomaly as the chart below listing the 26 quarterbacks taken in the first round in the last 10 drafts demonstrates.
Quarterbacks taken in the first round
2007
1: JaMarcus Russell, Raiders
22: Brady Quinn, Browns
2008
3: Matt Ryan, Falcons
18: Joe Flacco, Ravens
2009
1: Matthew Stafford, Lions
5: Mark Sanchez, Jets
17: Josh Freeman, Buccaneers
2010
1: Sam Bradford, Rams
25: Tim Tebow, Broncos
2011
1: Cam Newton, Panthers
8: Jake Locker, Titans
10: Blaine Gabbert, Jaguars
12: Christian Ponder, Vikings
2012
1: Andrew Luck, Colts
2: Robert Griffin III, Redskins
8: Ryan Tannehill, Dolphins
22: Brandon Weeden, Browns
2013
16: EJ Manuel, Bills
2014
3: Blake Bortles, Jaguars
22: Johnny Manziel, Browns
32: Teddy Bridgewater, Vikings
2015
1: Jameis Winston, Buccaneers
2: Marcus Mariota, Titans
2016
1: Jared Goff, Rams
2: Carson Wentz, Eagles
26: Paxton Lynch, Broncos
For every successful first-round quarterback pick in recent years, there are almost twice as many failures. A conclusion can be drawn with 19 of the first-round picks. Only seven, or 36.8 percent, arguably could be considered a success.
Sam Bradford and Ryan Tannehill get categorized as successes under a broad definition of quarterbacks that could consistently put a team in position to make the playoffs more often than not under favorable circumstances or surrounded by the right pieces rather than being the catalyst of a playoff berth.
Joe Flacco is the only first-round quarterback drafted in the last 10 years to win a Super Bowl. He had a stellar postseason run during the 2012 season in which he threw 11 touchdowns without an interception and had a 117.2 passer rating en route to being named Super Bowl XLVII MVP. This led to Flacco briefly becoming the NFL's highest-paid player with the six-year, $120.6 million contract containing $51 million in guarantees he signed in 2013.
Matt Ryan and Cam Newton have earned NFL MVP honors in each of the last two seasons while leading their respective teams to the Super Bowl.
Andrew Luck, arguably the biggest can't-miss quarterback prospect since John Elway in 1983, found instant success. The Colts went from a league-worst 2-14 record in 2011 before Luck's arrival to the playoffs in 2012 with 11 wins. Luck re-set the NFL pay scale with the five-year extension he received from the Colts last offseason. The contract averages $24.594 million per year and contains $87 million in guarantees, of which $47 million was fully guaranteed at signing.
Matthew Stafford is in line to become the NFL's first $25 million per year player at some point this offseason after demonstrating he could thrive without six-time Pro Bowl wide receiver Calvin Johnson, who prematurely retired after the 2015 season.
A common denominator with Luck, Newton, Ryan and Stafford is they were top-three picks. Ryan is the only one that wasn't the first pick of his draft.
JaMarcus Russell is at the other end of the spectrum. He is widely considered as one of the biggest draft mistakes in NFL history. Russell only produced seven victories in 25 starts. He was benched midway during the 2009 season, his final season with the Raiders. He became the poster boy for a flawed rookie compensation system, which has been changed, that rewarded unproven high draft picks like Pro Bowlers. Russell made $39.365 million during his three NFL years, all in Oakland.
The jury is still out on the eight quarterbacks taken in the first round of the last three drafts except Manziel, who imploded, because it's too soon to reach a conclusion about these players. Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota could eventually be thought of as best quarterbacks to go one-two of a draft in league history. Blake Bortles is at an early career crossroads after a disappointing 2016 season. There's no guarantee that the Jaguars will pick up his fifth year option for 2018 worth $19.053 million by the May 2 deadline. Teddy Bridgewater is trying to rebound from the career threatening knee injury he sustained last preseason.
Teams may be better served exercising more restraint with quarterbacks in the first round instead of reaching for a player because it's the game's most important position. There have been too many first-round quarterbacks that haven't panned out for the drafting team in recent years.
First-round quarterbacks that aren't overdrafted can pay dividends. Seventy-three of the 120 playoff teams (60.8 percent) over the last 10 years have gotten to the postseason with quarterbacks taken in the first round. Forty-four times the quarterback was a top-five pick. Additionally, six of the last 10 Super Bowl winners have had quarterbacks that were first-round picks.
Link - ( New Window )
The top 4 QB's taken (Mayfield, Darnold, Rosen, Allen) all have the upside to be within the top 5 qb's in the league if they develop well. That probably won't happen though.
I think what excites Jets fans with Darnold is that he's not scatterbrained or too wrapped up in being a celebrity/coverboy like Sanchez. He's steady, confident and poised and seems to be a much harder worker. Sanchez at 23 had a slow processor, made bad pre snap reads, didn't keep his eyes down field, could be baited into bad throws, and had no feel for the pocket (and didn't climb it like SD). Darnold at just 20 has all of that.
The NFL nowadays is a league where backs are disposable, always get hurt, and are rotated in and out. Cycled through by teams every three years or so. And it's a league that constantly takes step to make sure it's QB driven and that they're well protected. I don't see greatness in this class but I think it will be a dynamic and successful one. Darnold reminds me of a little bit of Roethlisberger and a little bit of Romo. If he can give us play like that over the next 14-15 years I'd be elated. I think he will.
The Giants haven't had a serviceable back since Jacobs and Bradshaw.
Part of the Seahawks struggles come from trying to replace Lynch.
The Redskins keep rotating guys in and out and haven't been able to replace Alfred Morris' production.
The Ravens have had a couple guys show promise and still can't get the output they did from Ray Rice, a huge issue on missing the playoffs.
There are a lot of excellent RB's out there, and great RB's do elevate their team. Especially in the past few years where we've seen playoff teams get pushes from a running attack.
The Giants haven't had a serviceable back since Jacobs and Bradshaw.
Part of the Seahawks struggles come from trying to replace Lynch.
The Redskins keep rotating guys in and out and haven't been able to replace Alfred Morris' production.
The Ravens have had a couple guys show promise and still can't get the output they did from Ray Rice, a huge issue on missing the playoffs.
There are a lot of excellent RB's out there, and great RB's do elevate their team. Especially in the past few years where we've seen playoff teams get pushes from a running attack.
Oh sure a great back can really elevate a team. No doubt. But you also have to take into consideration their relatively short peaks. Morris had a dynamic rookie season. But that was his peak and he's steadily declined since. Ray Rice turned in 4 great years and was pretty much done in 2013. Plus you always seem to find very good backs in later rounds. Arian Foster went undrafted. Michael Turner 5th round. Gore 3rd round, Charles 3rd round, Lamar Miller 4th round. But you know if Barkley is as special as Gettleman says and churns out seasons where he hits 2,000+ yards total rushing/receiving then it will be hard to argue with the pick, because I do think Eli still has it and that will just open up the field for the Giants to use more of their weaponry
Quote:
In comment 13969696 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
lock of a "franchise" QB available in this draft.
That remains to be seen.
Picking the legit franchise QB in the rare air of a #2 overall pick would be optimal.
But, I'd agree it doesn't look like that prospect was present this year. Plenty of other ways to build a SB winning team ...
Time will tell, indeed.
Regarding doesn't look like that prospect was present... that remains to be seen. There is much to suggest that Darnold was at least a very viable option. I've been told the Jets were thrilled to have Darnold available @3. It was also reported he was top on Denver's board. He was the #1 guy on Cleveland's board from beginning of the college season through the end, and was more a matter of Mayfield blowing them away when it came to the in person phase that he jumped ahead of Darnold. And although the Giants never reached a consensus, he did have his supports in the organization.
So yes, that is not how the Giants board lined up, but it is not like there is universal acceptance among the professionals that that guy wasn't there. Only that there was not such a consensus in the Giants room.
Uber, I've been banging the same drums, we're on the same page. I was calling for Darnold since his marvelous 2016 season. On draft night, I'd heard the same thing I'd heard in early March ... the board was SB, Chubb, Nelson.
At the end of the day, I've moved on to the hoping they know more than we do stage and rooting for SB to be the motor they build around, and that their top player is indeed the best player.
I do have concerns they're banking too heavily on Eli, but the pick's been made and it's time to go to war.
The Giants haven't had a serviceable back since Jacobs and Bradshaw.
Part of the Seahawks struggles come from trying to replace Lynch.
The Redskins keep rotating guys in and out and haven't been able to replace Alfred Morris' production.
The Ravens have had a couple guys show promise and still can't get the output they did from Ray Rice, a huge issue on missing the playoffs.
There are a lot of excellent RB's out there, and great RB's do elevate their team. Especially in the past few years where we've seen playoff teams get pushes from a running attack.
Lagarette Blount has won 3 of the last 4 SBs.
Quote:
In comment 13969721 JonC said:
Quote:
In comment 13969696 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
lock of a "franchise" QB available in this draft.
That remains to be seen.
Picking the legit franchise QB in the rare air of a #2 overall pick would be optimal.
But, I'd agree it doesn't look like that prospect was present this year. Plenty of other ways to build a SB winning team ...
Time will tell, indeed.
Regarding doesn't look like that prospect was present... that remains to be seen. There is much to suggest that Darnold was at least a very viable option. I've been told the Jets were thrilled to have Darnold available @3. It was also reported he was top on Denver's board. He was the #1 guy on Cleveland's board from beginning of the college season through the end, and was more a matter of Mayfield blowing them away when it came to the in person phase that he jumped ahead of Darnold. And although the Giants never reached a consensus, he did have his supports in the organization.
So yes, that is not how the Giants board lined up, but it is not like there is universal acceptance among the professionals that that guy wasn't there. Only that there was not such a consensus in the Giants room.
Uber, I've been banging the same drums, we're on the same page. I was calling for Darnold since his marvelous 2016 season. On draft night, I'd heard the same thing I'd heard in early March ... the board was SB, Chubb, Nelson.
At the end of the day, I've moved on to the hoping they know more than we do stage and rooting for SB to be the motor they build around, and that their top player is indeed the best player.
I do have concerns they're banking too heavily on Eli, but the pick's been made and it's time to go to war.