who think drafting a running back regardless who the hell he is would be a smart move with the 2nd overall pick in the draft. I would not draft a rb with a first round pick. What a back can give you so can the next one and the backs are only as good as the oline. Barkeley also has just 4 100 yard games this whole year yet we get on Darnold for throwing picks and Eli gets benefit of the doubt by blaiming weapons or lack thereoff or receivers running wrong routes.
Matthew Stafford threw far more picks over Darnold.
Giants have a shot at securing their next 15 years of their most important position but some of you think that Eli should be qb for next 10 years or something.
Imagine Eli being average or worst next year which is what is most likely to happen and Webb is not the answer, we are stuck with no qb and being the Jets for the next decade. When we had a shot at the 2nd pick and top qb prospect.
Many here I feel are just afraid to say goodbye to Eli and know that a qb round 1 in top 2 means Eli is close to being done next year or this off season. No chance you give 2nd overall pick the Webb treatment when eli is leading is to multiple no score games.
What has Eli done the last 2 years to show that he is the qb to lead to a SB or playoff run? Nothing
I hope Gettleman is smart and does what a smart GM would do and not waste a terrible year on taking a RB with a premium pick....
NYG needs a major homerun at #2 overall. It can be a QB/OL/DL/DB/RB/WR....whatever. They need so many things. To say they can't take this position or have to take that position is just foolish. There are no rules, there is no set science or equation you can create to strengthen that argument.
I wouldn’t be upset with the Penn State RB especially given the fact that there aren’t any Olineman worthy of the #2 pick. The Oline will get fixed withloqer levels picks and free agency.
NYG needs a major homerun at #2 overall. It can be a QB/OL/DL/DB/RB/WR....whatever. They need so many things. To say they can't take this position or have to take that position is just foolish. There are no rules, there is no set science or equation you can create to strengthen that argument.
Great point Sy. Giants need to hit on a great player at #2, regardless of position
NYG needs a major homerun at #2 overall. It can be a QB/OL/DL/DB/RB/WR....whatever. They need so many things. To say they can't take this position or have to take that position is just foolish. There are no rules, there is no set science or equation you can create to strengthen that argument.
This. Take the best player on the board and do not get cute.
NYG needs a major homerun at #2 overall. It can be a QB/OL/DL/DB/RB/WR....whatever. They need so many things. To say they can't take this position or have to take that position is just foolish. There are no rules, there is no set science or equation you can create to strengthen that argument.
We're fans, on an Internet forum, simply stating our opinion. And if "there are no rules and there is no science" to all of this, then I don't know why our opinions would bother you so much.
Quote:
Be open minded to everything at this point. I think some people are so in to pushing their own agenda and opinion...they feel the need to say "Have to do this...." or "Can't do that..."
NYG needs a major homerun at #2 overall. It can be a QB/OL/DL/DB/RB/WR....whatever. They need so many things. To say they can't take this position or have to take that position is just foolish. There are no rules, there is no set science or equation you can create to strengthen that argument.
This. Take the best player on the board and do not get cute.
+2.
Obviously if there aren’t any franchise QBs there at 2 you can’t force it. But if there is, this should not even remotely be a debate. If there is a guy they have conviction is a franchise QB, you take him. Use other picks and FA to address other needs and build around him.
Discussing anything about “need”at #2 is moronic.
If they don't see it there at 2, I would not be upset at Barkley as he is a true game changer.
I also would not mind trading back in the round for the right package of picks as we have a ton of holes.
I don't know how the Giants see the available QBs and who they think matches their needs, but a failure to take one can be fine if they make the most of what hopefully is their last high draft pick for a while.
NYG needs a major homerun at #2 overall. It can be a QB/OL/DL/DB/RB/WR....whatever. They need so many things. To say they can't take this position or have to take that position is just foolish. There are no rules, there is no set science or equation you can create to strengthen that argument.
This
There is no chance CLE would ever do that.
Nelson would be in the discussion if he is one of the top 5 graded players in the draft, yes.
Take a page from Jerry Reese. Reese was never shocked at ANYTHING. Ever.
Jerry, were you shocked/surprised that:
<whoever> was still available?
NO
<whoever> jumped ahead of you in the draft and picked your guy -- LIKE THEY KNEW you were gonna draft him?
NO
That your kicker abused his wife?
NO
That your wife screwed the kicker?
NO
That Tom got fired and you stayed?
NO
That Adrien Robinson didn't turn out to be the JPP of TEs.
NO
That JPP turned out to me the Mickey Mouse hand of DEs?
NO
That Marc Ross really suggested you draft Flowers and Apple?
NO
That Eli was upset when the GIants benched him for Geno fucking Smith?
NO
When you peed in the the electrical outlet?
NO
Never be shocked. Or surprised.
There are clearly a lot of people who want to believe in a fairy tale ending here with #10.
And they get nit picky about the qb prospects showing as you say their hypocrisy. Or bring up the fact this player may bust (which has zero relevance) or how unlikely this player is to being as successful as our current one (also has zero relevance to the fact Giants have to address this position).
Sy is right but qb has to be weighed much more than other positions. RBs are not as hard to find and good ones are routinely taken in third, fourth round. Not as true with qbs.
The truth is a guard makes much more sense with a first pick if you are drafting in the 20a and a qb makes a ton of sense if you are in top 5.
Hell I won’t be shocked if Indy takes a qb given luck shoulder.
Are you willing to force a pick for someone thats lower on your board because they may give you another 2-3 years? If you think you have a generational talent at rb you take him unless theres another player of similar talent on your board.
At 2 overall, you're looking for special, not just good. And that's still tough to find and can help your team a great deal. If Barkley is special, I'd be all for drafting him. There isn't just one school of thought for runningbacks. In 06 the Giants had the offensive line to be able to make runningbacks, so it's never been a concern here. But a great runningback is still a dangerous weapon in a league that's more and more specializing to stop the pass.
NYG needs a major homerun at #2 overall. It can be a QB/OL/DL/DB/RB/WR....whatever. They need so many things. To say they can't take this position or have to take that position is just foolish. There are no rules, there is no set science or equation you can create to strengthen that argument.
question..what is the most important position in football of all?
Hopefully this will be a lesson in speaking in absolutes.
As for the latest idea that "people want to Eli Manning to continue to start at any cost..." Well, this is amusing and dumb, because fans don't make the decisions, so what does it matter what people want?
However, it's becoming a clear reality that taking a QB isn't the stone cold mortal lock that a lot of people thought a week or two ago. And it ain't the fans making that decision. Like I said, start hedging those bets!
question..what is the most important position in football of all?
question..what do you do if those QBs have looming question marks?
I personally feel this is a big opportunity to get our long-term QB post-Eli, but I'm not going to be mad if they take the best player on the board and it's not a QB.
I personally feel this is a big opportunity to get our long-term QB post-Eli, but I'm not going to be mad if they take the best player on the board and it's not a QB.
Well said, arc.
--There is nothing mututally exclusive about drafting a QB at #2 and Manning continuing to play while the kids gets ready.
-- The Manning slander by some on this site is just outrageous. As Sy and others have noted, few if any Qbs would have had a chance to be successful with the lack of support afforded Manning.
-- McAdoo's offensive scheme sucked. His play calling sucked. Reese's refusal to upgrade the offensive line amounted to football malfeasance.
-- If the Giants draft a QB at #2 it better be the right one. Same with any other position.
-- This isn't about Manning nostalgia. It's about the future of the Giants. Keep blaming Manning for all that ails the Giants and keep being wrong.
--There is nothing mututally exclusive about drafting a QB at #2 and Manning continuing to play while the kids gets ready.
-- The Manning slander by some on this site is just outrageous. As Sy and others have noted, few if any Qbs would have had a chance to be successful with the lack of support afforded Manning.
-- McAdoo's offensive scheme sucked. His play calling sucked. Reese's refusal to upgrade the offensive line amounted to football malfeasance.
-- If the Giants draft a QB at #2 it better be the right one. Same with any other position.
-- This isn't about Manning nostalgia. It's about the future of the Giants. Keep blaming Manning for all that ails the Giants and keep being wrong.
Mic drop.
--There is nothing mututally exclusive about drafting a QB at #2 and Manning continuing to play while the kids gets ready.
-- The Manning slander by some on this site is just outrageous. As Sy and others have noted, few if any Qbs would have had a chance to be successful with the lack of support afforded Manning.
-- McAdoo's offensive scheme sucked. His play calling sucked. Reese's refusal to upgrade the offensive line amounted to football malfeasance.
-- If the Giants draft a QB at #2 it better be the right one. Same with any other position.
-- This isn't about Manning nostalgia. It's about the future of the Giants. Keep blaming Manning for all that ails the Giants and keep being wrong.
Really? I saw Jimmy G go 5-0 with a worst lineup than we had first 5 games of the year when we went 0-5. Where is the great talent on the niners offense that led JG to go 5-0 and make the world of a difference from that awful team. Last year made the playoffs due to defense but Eli had no injuries on offense and this year 0-5 with full staff and great weapons. But we slander Eli because it was BM fault and oline fault and receivers fault and defense fault. But we can degrade all the qb prospects for any bad play this year and cream our pants for a running back who had 4 100 yard game all year just because ESPN showed a few highlights....Great
Quote:
--Noone expects Manning to be QB for more than 1-2 years, at best.
--There is nothing mututally exclusive about drafting a QB at #2 and Manning continuing to play while the kids gets ready.
-- The Manning slander by some on this site is just outrageous. As Sy and others have noted, few if any Qbs would have had a chance to be successful with the lack of support afforded Manning.
-- McAdoo's offensive scheme sucked. His play calling sucked. Reese's refusal to upgrade the offensive line amounted to football malfeasance.
-- If the Giants draft a QB at #2 it better be the right one. Same with any other position.
-- This isn't about Manning nostalgia. It's about the future of the Giants. Keep blaming Manning for all that ails the Giants and keep being wrong.
Mic drop.
Mic drop from the biggest Eli defender....Nice one...If it was up to you, you would want the Giants to extend Eli for another 100 million 6 more years
Quote:
--Noone expects Manning to be QB for more than 1-2 years, at best.
--There is nothing mututally exclusive about drafting a QB at #2 and Manning continuing to play while the kids gets ready.
-- The Manning slander by some on this site is just outrageous. As Sy and others have noted, few if any Qbs would have had a chance to be successful with the lack of support afforded Manning.
-- McAdoo's offensive scheme sucked. His play calling sucked. Reese's refusal to upgrade the offensive line amounted to football malfeasance.
-- If the Giants draft a QB at #2 it better be the right one. Same with any other position.
-- This isn't about Manning nostalgia. It's about the future of the Giants. Keep blaming Manning for all that ails the Giants and keep being wrong.
Really? I saw Jimmy G go 5-0 with a worst lineup than we had first 5 games of the year when we went 0-5. Where is the great talent on the niners offense that led JG to go 5-0 and make the world of a difference from that awful team. Last year made the playoffs due to defense but Eli had no injuries on offense and this year 0-5 with full staff and great weapons. But we slander Eli because it was BM fault and oline fault and receivers fault and defense fault. But we can degrade all the qb prospects for any bad play this year and cream our pants for a running back who had 4 100 yard game all year just because ESPN showed a few highlights....Great
Right... If the Giants don't take him at two, I'm sure Barkley will just fall out of round one because he's only had a handful of 100 yard games and a few ESPN highlights. He's nothing special....
I don't need to backtrack because I never painted myself into a corner with QB or bust.
--There is nothing mututally exclusive about drafting a QB at #2 and Manning continuing to play while the kids gets ready.
-- The Manning slander by some on this site is just outrageous. As Sy and others have noted, few if any Qbs would have had a chance to be successful with the lack of support afforded Manning.
-- McAdoo's offensive scheme sucked. His play calling sucked. Reese's refusal to upgrade the offensive line amounted to football malfeasance.
-- If the Giants draft a QB at #2 it better be the right one. Same with any other position.
-- This isn't about Manning nostalgia. It's about the future of the Giants. Keep blaming Manning for all that ails the Giants and keep being wrong.
Well said. Just wanted to add that it's not like any of the top QB prospects are surefire, can't miss types. Each one of them has warts. And as we go through the offseason they will get analyzed over and over and I'm sure more flaws will be exposed and brought to light. To say on January 1st that we must be locked into a certain need-based draft strategy for April is just ludicrous.
Quote:
You shouldnt force the pick. None of these qbs seem like a sure thing..barkley, fitzpatrick, and chub are much less of risk. You do not wate a 1st rounder in a qb just because
. I don’t think anyone wants to force a pick just because. At the same time, acting like the value to the organization for a RB or OL or or anything else compares to franchise QB is foolish. It is nearly impossible to have sustained success without a quality QB. The good stable teams all have them, the bad or inconsistent teams don’t and there are very few exceptions. Some here have obviously forgotten what’s it’s like not having a franchise QB.
Yes, I agree. However, some on here believe that taking a running back or a guard with the pick this year would be foolish (under all circumstances) which I completely disagree with.
That's a dumb thought, sorry. Gettleman has proven to be a guy that cuts guys when needed, and is non sentimental to the fanbase.
Is that going to be the excuse going forward if we don't go QB in round 1? That they were afraid of fan backlash? Laughable.
Where I’m most interested to see Gettleman work is in the later rounds of the draft which is where Reese missed almost every year.
@NYsports—It’s a mike drop from a lot of us. Did you read where clutterbuck said that no one expects Eli to play more than a year or two? The problems with the team run deep. Don’t think s new QB is a cure-all.
The era of the dominanting RB is over. Now, you win with a RB by committee and good OL and a passing game that keeps the D from stacking against the run.
Basically, that is how Belicheck has won 5 SBs and created an offensive model that everyone else is trying to copy.
With this OL, DG is not taking a RB #2.
Sy suggests that some say there are not because they have the agenda of wanting Eli to remain the quarterback, I think he s correct.
There are no guarantees at any position. But as was suggested on this thread, #2 pick gives you an opportunity you don t get often.
I m for taking a quarterback. As for Barkley, great as he is, Penn State could not run the ball to close out games. If they could they would have been playing today.
The era of the dominanting RB is over. Now, you win with a RB by committee and good OL and a passing game that keeps the D from stacking against the run.
Basically, that is how Belicheck has won 5 SBs and created an offensive model that everyone else is trying to copy.
Steelers without bell, bills without mccoy, rams without gurley? All of those teams except for kaybe pittsburgh would not be in the playoffs without their rb
With this OL, DG is not taking a RB #2.
Quote:
The last two games he ran for 97 and 104 yards. The Cowboys scored 12 and 6 points in those games, respectively.
The era of the dominanting RB is over. Now, you win with a RB by committee and good OL and a passing game that keeps the D from stacking against the run.
Basically, that is how Belicheck has won 5 SBs and created an offensive model that everyone else is trying to copy.
With this OL, DG is not taking a RB #2.
Steelers without bell, bills without mccoy, rams without gurley? All of those teams except for kaybe pittsburgh would not be in the playoffs without their rb
Both can probably be had at the beginning of rd 3.
Not sure that now is that time though and not sure people are weighing how crucial and franchise altering the decision to draft a qb is. You don’t do it in the top 2 unless you are head over heels for the kid. Missing here can ruin your franchise and I’m not sure I see the guy worth the gamble
Quote:
Would you trade spots with Cleveland ( pick 2 for 4 ) plus the first pick of round 2, another 2 and a 4 and take Nelson at 4?
There is no chance CLE would ever do that.
Nelson would be in the discussion if he is one of the top 5 graded players in the draft, yes.
Ok. I am just going off the trade NYG gave SD for Manning: swap 1st round picks, give SD a 3rd round pick, and next years 1st and 5th round picks. What would Cleveland give to move up?
Not sure that now is that time though and not sure people are weighing how crucial and franchise altering the decision to draft a qb is. You don’t do it in the top 2 unless you are head over heels for the kid. Missing here can ruin your franchise and I’m not sure I see the guy worth the gamble
Most folks forget how close Eli was to being a bust. The mockery his first several years was merciless when comparing to his brothers accomplishments.
Are the scouts going to find Barkley the physical beast he appears to be? Will he test that way at the combine?
Are any of the DE including Chubb the game changing type DE that can go top 3?
How are the big four Allen, Mayfield, Rosen, Darnold going to stack up after going through the ringer and are any of them going to be dubbed franchise changing QB’s?
I will probably be more tuned to this draft than I have any other since the Eli Manning draft....
It’s gonna be fun to see what happens!
Quote:
--Noone expects Manning to be QB for more than 1-2 years, at best.
--There is nothing mututally exclusive about drafting a QB at #2 and Manning continuing to play while the kids gets ready.
-- The Manning slander by some on this site is just outrageous. As Sy and others have noted, few if any Qbs would have had a chance to be successful with the lack of support afforded Manning.
-- McAdoo's offensive scheme sucked. His play calling sucked. Reese's refusal to upgrade the offensive line amounted to football malfeasance.
-- If the Giants draft a QB at #2 it better be the right one. Same with any other position.
-- This isn't about Manning nostalgia. It's about the future of the Giants. Keep blaming Manning for all that ails the Giants and keep being wrong.
Really? I saw Jimmy G go 5-0 with a worst lineup than we had first 5 games of the year when we went 0-5. Where is the great talent on the niners offense that led JG to go 5-0 and make the world of a difference from that awful team. Last year made the playoffs due to defense but Eli had no injuries on offense and this year 0-5 with full staff and great weapons. But we slander Eli because it was BM fault and oline fault and receivers fault and defense fault. But we can degrade all the qb prospects for any bad play this year and cream our pants for a running back who had 4 100 yard game all year just because ESPN showed a few highlights....Great
Please go back and read what I wrote. I haven't passed any kind of judgment on the college Qbs, primarily because I don't watch college football and don't know enough to make even a half-assed valid opinion. My points were, if Giants have a conviction on a QB at #2 or any other position player at #2 they better be right because a mistake will be devastating. As far as Eli Manning, the offfensive line sucked last year. It sucked this year. McAdoo's offense was terrible. There was no running game. Giants were #3 in dropped passes. There's no question Manning is on the downside of his career but he can still play and blaming him for all that is wrong with this team doesn't make any sense. I'll say it one more time: What does make sense if the Giants draft a QB is for Manning to continue playing until the newbie is ready.
Hopefully this will be a lesson in speaking in absolutes.
As for the latest idea that "people want to Eli Manning to continue to start at any cost..." Well, this is amusing and dumb, because fans don't make the decisions, so what does it matter what people want?
However, it's becoming a clear reality that taking a QB isn't the stone cold mortal lock that a lot of people thought a week or two ago. And it ain't the fans making that decision. Like I said, start hedging those bets!
It's a discussion board. That's it's whole purpose for existing. Also, based on some of the comments I've seen, I absolutely think there are some people who'd prefer Eli was the QB for as long as his arm was attached to his torso. We still have people who think Tom Coughlin had the right to coach as long as he wanted to.
Agree. When your current QB is in the twilight of his career and has not played well, you have the number 2 pick in the draft without needing to trade up, and there is franchise QB talent available, your team had better take the gamble on a QB in round 1. Doing anything else is malpractice and lunacy. DG is not a lunatic; we will be drafting a QB. No need to be open about anything. We will draft one of the QBs.
Quote:
rated as high first round picks wrong about all of them? Unless Giants feel very strongly that Webb can be a winner it would be malpractice not to pick a QB.
Agree. When your current QB is in the twilight of his career and has not played well, you have the number 2 pick in the draft without needing to trade up, and there is franchise QB talent available, your team had better take the gamble on a QB in round 1. Doing anything else is malpractice and lunacy. DG is not a lunatic; we will be drafting a QB. No need to be open about anything. We will draft one of the QBs.
QBs get over drafted every year. It’s probably the most poorly evaluated position from the college to the pros. Sometimes it’s not really the evaluators fault — bad scheme fit, poor supporting cast, etc but just because scouts say something doesn’t make it gospel.
If there was a clean QB prospect at 2 then it would be reasonable to pull the trigger. None of these QBs are clean. 1 or 2 may end up being good pros, but that’s too much of a gamble for my taste for a pick the organization can’t afford to get wrong.
As a Giants fan, what I won't be sitting back and laughing at is if the team puts the Manning farewell plan above getting quickly and directly on the route to a championship level team.
That's my suspicion, and I'd love to be horribly wrong.
Quote:
In comment 13766453 Rjanyg said:
Quote:
Would you trade spots with Cleveland ( pick 2 for 4 ) plus the first pick of round 2, another 2 and a 4 and take Nelson at 4?
There is no chance CLE would ever do that.
Nelson would be in the discussion if he is one of the top 5 graded players in the draft, yes.
Ok. I am just going off the trade NYG gave SD for Manning: swap 1st round picks, give SD a 3rd round pick, and next years 1st and 5th round picks. What would Cleveland give to move up?
What would Cleveland's motivation be to make that trade? Typically, you only see a price like that paid for a franchise QB prospect, but with Cleveland possessing the #1 pick, why would they get cute at that spot if there's a QB they like?
Quote:
that is starting to occur, and the bets that are being hedged after all the guarantees for the past 8 weeks are... amusing to say the least.
Hopefully this will be a lesson in speaking in absolutes.
As for the latest idea that "people want to Eli Manning to continue to start at any cost..." Well, this is amusing and dumb, because fans don't make the decisions, so what does it matter what people want?
However, it's becoming a clear reality that taking a QB isn't the stone cold mortal lock that a lot of people thought a week or two ago. And it ain't the fans making that decision. Like I said, start hedging those bets!
It's a discussion board. That's it's whole purpose for existing. Also, based on some of the comments I've seen, I absolutely think there are some people who'd prefer Eli was the QB for as long as his arm was attached to his torso. We still have people who think Tom Coughlin had the right to coach as long as he wanted to.
It's a discussion board. Except when people disagree with your view, then the only reason is because they are Eli lovers and Coughlin jock sniffers, not because they had a well reasoned take on the situation that turned out to be pretty accurate in hindsight.
How in the world does anyone on BBI know "all the scouts ... have 4 or 5 QBS rated as high first round picks"?
It seems to me is all BBI knows is that a bunch of non-NFL amateurs have 4-5 QBs ranked. The professional NFL scouts aren't telling you or anyone else on BBI one darn thing about their value boards.
--There is nothing mututally exclusive about drafting a QB at #2 and Manning continuing to play while the kids gets ready.
-- The Manning slander by some on this site is just outrageous. As Sy and others have noted, few if any Qbs would have had a chance to be successful with the lack of support afforded Manning.
-- McAdoo's offensive scheme sucked. His play calling sucked. Reese's refusal to upgrade the offensive line amounted to football malfeasance.
-- If the Giants draft a QB at #2 it better be the right one. Same with any other position.
-- This isn't about Manning nostalgia. It's about the future of the Giants. Keep blaming Manning for all that ails the Giants and keep being wrong.
+1
At #2, you take the guy who can have the greatest impact on the team. If it is a QB, great, if not that is great too. Forcing a position is the Jerry Reese way (even though he denied it every year).
Quote:
rated as high first round picks wrong about all of them? Unless Giants feel very strongly that Webb can be a winner it would be malpractice not to pick a QB.
How in the world does anyone on BBI know "all the scouts ... have 4 or 5 QBS rated as high first round picks"?
It seems to me is all BBI knows is that a bunch of non-NFL amateurs have 4-5 QBs ranked. The professional NFL scouts aren't telling you or anyone else on BBI one darn thing about their value boards.
So you are telling me that the actual draft ends up being very diffferent than the pre-draft consensus? Is there history of a draft where several qbs are rated very highly by published draft analysts and none of those QBs are picked that high?
At #2, you take the guy who can have the greatest impact on the team. If it is a QB, great, if not that is great too. Forcing a position is the Jerry Reese way (even though he denied it every year).
I get the thrust of your post, but I have to object to your distortion about Simms. There was zero chance the Giants were drafting a QB in 1981. Zero.
Same with a guard.
If they drafted a tackle or defensive end or stud lb I would be fine with it. I’d be less happy with RB but not if the tape showed an upside like Gurley or Peterson or even a Forte.
That said, I have been adamant about not taking 1st round RB's in the past, mainly on the tails of the David Wilson pick, which I felt was forced. The one caveat I had, was that if you were in position to take a really, really top RB like an Adrian Peterson.... If you believe them to be a game changer in that aspect, and Elliott appears to be to some extent, if you have that level of conviction then I think it's okay to take them.
Barkley is arguably the best player in the entire draft from what I can tell. This isn't like the David Wilson pick. Furthermore, it would be coming from the new GM that values running the ball.
I just want the guy that makes the Giants better from the day he steps in the facility. OL, DE, RB, or QB... Just make us better. Barkley excites me as a fan.
There isn't anything unusual about being wrong, everyone is about a lot of different things. Just have enough class to say you're changing your mind.
To mention each assembled team doesn't work the same, although comparisons can be made, you don't look at team A and say, team A can do it, so team B should be able to do it. While in simple theory you can say that, but not much should rely on that comparison
And what if you win Super Bowl in that span?
Quote:
For a RB in the NFL is what? Are you willing to invest the overall 2nd pick in that??
And what if you win Super Bowl in that span?
When was the last time an NFL team won the Super Bowl on the back of a RB?
Quote:
In comment 13766534 JINTin Adirondacks said:
Quote:
For a RB in the NFL is what? Are you willing to invest the overall 2nd pick in that??
And what if you win Super Bowl in that span?
When was the last time an NFL team won the Super Bowl on the back of a RB?
Well we are emerging from an era where less emphasis was put on the position and many teams opted for two man backfields, so unless Minnesota won the super bowl with Adrian Peterson there would be just about no satisfactory response for you. We can talk about
Seattle with lynch as a recent example but needless to say there has historically been no shortage of RB making big contributions for SB winners the further back you go. And the league has been making a return to that in recent years with a wave of young RBs. A bunch of teams in the playoffs right now rode their back to get there
Quote:
In comment 13767122 Section131 said:
Quote:
In comment 13766534 JINTin Adirondacks said:
Quote:
For a RB in the NFL is what? Are you willing to invest the overall 2nd pick in that??
And what if you win Super Bowl in that span?
When was the last time an NFL team won the Super Bowl on the back of a RB?
Well we are emerging from an era where less emphasis was put on the position and many teams opted for two man backfields, so unless Minnesota won the super bowl with Adrian Peterson there would be just about no satisfactory response for you. We can talk about
Seattle with lynch as a recent example but needless to say there has historically been no shortage of RB making big contributions for SB winners the further back you go. And the league has been making a return to that in recent years with a wave of young RBs. A bunch of teams in the playoffs right now rode their back to get there
I agree with you, believe that it is cyclical, and we're circling back around.
The spread QB's coming out of college, no matter how highly rated, will continue to be a risk because you just can't predict whether they will be able to handle the learning curve to taking the snaps from under center, and more importantly, being able to read an NFL defense and audible at the LOS, not to mention identifying coverages.
A strong offensive line and running game is a benefit to every team in the NFL. It never hurt a young QB to have one, and that's what we should focus all of our resources into building first, IMO.
RBs and running games are making a comeback. And if you have a guy who can also catch 50+ balls like a Barkley? All the better
Like Nathan Peterman or Brad Kaaya vs. Deshaun Watson? Like Kevin Hogan or Connor Cook vs. Jared Goff?
I agree that the spread makes QB evaluation (much like OL evaluation) more difficult, but I don't think it's necessarily accurate to claim that late-round pro-style QBs are more successful or safer picks than their spread counterparts. Talent is talent, after all. The learning curve is more challenging, and there are definitely inherent risks in translating college spread offense experience to the NFL, but it's more that that's just a necessary evil at this point, IMO.
How about how many teams this century have won a SB with a QB they drafted in the top 2? The answer is 1, the 2006 colts, and even that team won the sb with a down playoffs from Peyton. Yea I’ll even let you include the Giants even though we technically didn’t draft Eli
And that’s not a reason not to draft a qb high either. I’m just pointing out that arguments like this aren’t particularly persuasive
How about how many teams this century have won a SB with a QB they drafted in the top 2? The answer is 1, the 2006 colts, and even that team won the sb with a down playoffs from Peyton. Yea I’ll even let you include the Giants even though we technically didn’t draft Eli
And that’s not a reason not to draft a qb high either. I’m just pointing out that arguments like this aren’t particularly persuasive
It's a good point about being able to slice and dice the data however you want.
In response to your version of the data, the 2006 Colts, 2010 Saints, and 2015 Broncos are the only SB winner this century who even had a #1 or #2 overall draft pick in the past 20 years (prior to their SB of course), so that kind of skews the data set a bit, doesn't it?
For the record, the Saints took Reggie Bush in 2006 and the Broncos took Von Miller in 2011 (both at #2 overall). So I guess we can either take a QB, Saquon Barkley or Bradley Chubb. Anything else and we'll obviously be screwed - history doesn't lie!
13 of the 23 SBs won by QBs drafted outside of the 1st round were won by Starr (2), Staubach (2), Montana (4) and Brady (5). Another two were won by guys who weren't actually their team's intended starter for that season (Hostetler and Warner, although Trent Green was an 8th round pick himself).
If there's one bright side to this disastrous season, it's having a reason to dig in on some of this historical draft info. It's definitely interesting stuff.
At #2, you take the guy who can have the greatest impact on the team. If it is a QB, great, if not that is great too. Forcing a position is the Jerry Reese way (even though he denied it every year).
No analogy at all.
There is a reason teams move up for qbs. In fact that even suggests nyg should move down if the pick is not a qb.
Also note the recent draft history skews even harder to top qbs going early hence NYG really better have good reason to stay put and draft a non qb.
And that is no judgement on Barkley btw who may or may not be a worthwhile pick.
Number 1, they signed him as a FA like 15 years later... nor was he a key part of that team either. If Jameis Winston gets cut by the bucs 5 years from now and then goes on and helps the broncos win a title do we hold that up as further evidence that drafting QBs at 1 pays off? That’s a reach to me.
Even so, I believe Eli and Peyton are the only QBs even drafted in the top 10 to win a SB since 2001. And let’s be real Eli played well in the 2007 playoffs but that wasn’t a qb centric team itself, certainly not like 2011
Again this isn’t a reason not to draft a QB
Number 1, they signed him as a FA like 15 years later... nor was he a key part of that team either. If Jameis Winston gets cut by the bucs 5 years from now and then goes on and helps the broncos win a title do we hold that up as further evidence that drafting QBs at 1 pays off? That’s a reach to me.
Even so, I believe Eli and Peyton are the only QBs even drafted in the top 10 to win a SB since 2001. And let’s be real Eli played well in the 2007 playoffs but that wasn’t a qb centric team itself, certainly not like 2011
Again this isn’t a reason not to draft a QB
QBs drafted in the 6th round have won 5 superbowls over that span. We clearly should wait until the 6th round for our guy.
Kirk cousins here we come! History proves it
Obviously being sarcastic
I'm not even getting into how tiny the sample size is when there's a historical outlier in Brady scooping up almost a 3rd of those titles.
This is actually not true whatsoever. By my count 14 of the 32 starters (going by the teams starters when everyone is healthy) were drafted in the top 10. And if you were to expand that ever so slightly to the top 12 or 13, it’s close to 2/3
Again none of this is a reason not to draft a qb. It’s just silly the way some of the arguments have been centered around taking one based on the study of past champs
Win one for Eli was definitely not the mindset of at least the past two seasons. McAdoo designed his offense for Aaron Rodgers, an Aaron Rodgers type (or maybe a Geno Smith) not Manning. I'm coming to the conclusion McAdoo's unwillingness to compromise on offensive scheme was part of a plan to get rid of Manning as quickly as possible. Hence, his push to trade up for Mahomes, and when that didn't fly, draft Webb. He threw Manning under the bus and in public every chance he got and stubbornly refused to address the poor play of Flowers (case in point, the Lions game). McAdoo had an agena and it didn't include Eli Manning.
guess who they picked that year? It doesn't happen often.
Some people like myself, just feel they need to draft
the next QB here. It seems kind of obvious, it's not
about 'pushing your own agenda and opinion', it's about doing what most feel is the right thing for the organization.
To me, the organization comes first, not
any ONE individual player. Although drafting a
RB at No.2 with this current O Line would make zero sense, you can draft an Elliot, when you have
3 Pro Bowlers upfront, far from the case here.
So I would agree with the original poster as it relates to a RB!
My guess is Dave G. will draft a QB or somebody like
a Bradley Chubb. There is no Anthony Munoz or John Hannah in this draft.
The 1983 class produced more super bowl participants at qb than the history of many other rounds.
There is a reason teams even overpay to get a qb early. Three teams traded a future first rounder to move up last year(and more) to select qb.
This recent jockeying is why NYG cannot simply sit still and take a player like Nelson. Or not consider a trade down as teams willingly overpay for qbs.
Quote:
even taken in later rounds, than highly touted spread QB's being taken at the top of round 1.
Like Nathan Peterman or Brad Kaaya vs. Deshaun Watson? Like Kevin Hogan or Connor Cook vs. Jared Goff?
I agree that the spread makes QB evaluation (much like OL evaluation) more difficult, but I don't think it's necessarily accurate to claim that late-round pro-style QBs are more successful or safer picks than their spread counterparts. Talent is talent, after all. The learning curve is more challenging, and there are definitely inherent risks in translating college spread offense experience to the NFL, but it's more that that's just a necessary evil at this point, IMO.
These QB's in college nowadays don't even do the basic
friggin things that QB's do in the NFL.
Do they take a snap from center, nope.
Do they call plays, nope, look to the sidelines.
Do they audible, nope. So while I agree with the spread
offense being part of the issue for these guys coming out, a bigger issue might be what I listed above!
These guys have to also learn basic QB football 101.
Quote:
In comment 13767286 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
even taken in later rounds, than highly touted spread QB's being taken at the top of round 1.
Like Nathan Peterman or Brad Kaaya vs. Deshaun Watson? Like Kevin Hogan or Connor Cook vs. Jared Goff?
I agree that the spread makes QB evaluation (much like OL evaluation) more difficult, but I don't think it's necessarily accurate to claim that late-round pro-style QBs are more successful or safer picks than their spread counterparts. Talent is talent, after all. The learning curve is more challenging, and there are definitely inherent risks in translating college spread offense experience to the NFL, but it's more that that's just a necessary evil at this point, IMO.
.
These QB's in college nowadays don't even do the basic
friggin things that QB's do in the NFL.
Do they take a snap from center, nope.
Do they call plays, nope, look to the sidelines.
Do they audible, nope. So while I agree with the spread
offense being part of the issue for these guys coming out, a bigger issue might be what I listed above!
These guys have to also learn basic QB football 101.
When's the last time a QB called his own plays? And when has a college QB had autonomy to audible? So it's really about taking snaps from under center, right?
The Giants had zero debate. They couldn’t take Rogers. He wasn’t available to them. New Orleans took him with the 1st pick.
Not Peterson over a franchise QB, no.
But Sanders, all day everyday.
The kid from Penn State is neither of them.
He's the poster child of why you don't overdraft and overpay backs.
Dallas will be in a similar conundrum with Elliott and Dak soon enough.
He's the poster child of why you don't overdraft and overpay backs.
Dallas will be in a similar conundrum with Elliott and Dak soon enough.
Are you kidding? You're analyzing Peterson at the very end of his career. He was the only reason they were even borderline relevant forever. Your analysis is madness.
$100 million dollars on a back makes it hard to have an expensive qb.
There is a reason teams shied away from star backs....and while that has started swinging back to taking really good backs eariier in the draft I dont think we will see it go back to the 80s and 90s where it was commonplace.
He's the poster child of why you don't overdraft and overpay backs.
Dallas will be in a similar conundrum with Elliott and Dak soon enough.
That's dishonest. He didn't have to get out the way. The truth is that they wasted his best years out of incompetence.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/adrian-peterson-quietly-terrible-contract-132546435.html
It is insane to put a lot of resources into a back in the salary cap era unless they have special output.
They may have not done him favors as a team but his contract was no favor to them.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/adrian-peterson-quietly-terrible-contract-132546435.html
It is insane to put a lot of resources into a back in the salary cap era unless they have special output.
They may have not done him favors as a team but his contract was no favor to them.
When you draft major talent at any position, it's always going to be a challenge to keep them or replace them. It's easy to say now that they should have let him go and not paid him, but he was also the only reason they were ever in any position to compete for anything. One year after signing that contract he produced a 2000 yard rushing season and averaged 130 yards per game. He was a ridiculous player. The vikings might have already had a super bowl of Favre didn't INT it away in 09.
He was phenomenal. But he is a prime example of backs being overvalued in the traditional bell cow role and how long a back is really truly prime.
There is a reason that Leveon Bell, Devonte Freeman, Lesean McCoy, David Johnson, etc are picked after #40 on the board. There have been some more recent examples of first rounders but backs productivity can be replaced much easier than a qb or an elite tackle or pass rusher.
I’d say 8 elite seasons
You want to make an argument about not drafting a rb high then fine. To use Peterson as evidence to support that claim is nonsensical
And I use him because there is caution even in his story-read the article I posted earlier about replacing production and AP’s actual value-and I agree this is for one of the best backs in our generation.
What is the likelihood a Barkley even turns out as good as an AP-and for how long?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1822892-nfl-draft-why-selecting-running-back-in-first-round-is-never-a-good-idea
I agree!!
Check out the link on Eli's stats. Even with 2 SB wins, he's never broken the 94.0 QBR. Compare his overall stats against the best QBs in the NFL. It is unreal that they are considering keeping him for another year. Philly figured it out years ago, "Make Eli beat you." 10-20 since he's been Giants QB. Good news is that he is 15-14 against the cowboys.
This year's pick is going to be either a franchise changer- can't go much further down the slope at this point - I'm just happy that we no longer have to worry about Reese picking a #1 because he had a cool name and debatable talent.
As far as a running back goes: OJ Simpson said it all years ago. His first year with the Bills he thought he was a god. That was until the O-line taught him a lesson and didn't block for two plays. He learned then to take care of them, because without an O-line, nobody can be a god. As much as I hate the Boys, they have for decades been able to draft and keep some of the best O-lines in the NFL. Without a solid foundation to build on, you can't build a house that will stand up for long.
Link - ( New Window )