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