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.
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?
You’re wrong FMIC. Look at San Diego. They traded away a 2x super bowl mvp and didn’t 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.
It’s 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 aren’t 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.
It’s 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 aren’t 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.