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.
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 Hernández 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 Hernández 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 Hernández 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 don’t you continually not understand? What will it take, FINALLY, for you to understand that it doesn’t 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 don’t you continually not understand? What will it take, FINALLY, for you to understand that it doesn’t 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 it’s a fait de complit. Had you said I BELIEVE they made a mistake and backed it up with facts, then you’d 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. That’s 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 don’t you continually not understand? What will it take, FINALLY, for you to understand that it doesn’t 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 it’s a fait de complit. Had you said I BELIEVE they made a mistake and backed it up with facts, then you’d 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, it’s 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 it’s a fait de complit. Had you said I BELIEVE they made a mistake and backed it up with facts, then you’d 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. That’s 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 hasn’t 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 aren’t 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. There’s plenty of people in this board who disagree but when you are so dense, it’s pointless.
And I'm all about what the team can do with Barkley. His impavt should be immediate.
You really aren’t 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. There’s plenty of people in this board who disagree but when you are so dense, it’s 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.
I’m genuinely curious.
I’m 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 hasn’t 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 that’s 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 that’s 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 he’s 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 he’s 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. He’s a top notch prospect that isn’t 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 Eli’s backups is good enough to win some games in the future.
That’s what I look forward to. If you don’t, 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.