Long article basically saying the Giants overvalued Barkley and should have gone with Darnold, summed up with this statement:
Quote:
Time will tell if Gettleman and the Giants made the right choice, but if history is any guide, it was a shortsighted move that could keep the team at the bottom of the standings for the foreseeable future.
Honestly I watch him play and I just don't see an NFL QB. I just don't see consistent NFL-level accuracy that all of the great ones have. Weird baseball-like wind-up, and so many of his passes look wobbly- I think he benefited from having very good receivers at USC who could adjust to the ball and make plays. People say he's great at moving and throwing on the run, but it also just often seemed like he was always so intent on leaving the pocket immediately to make a throw on the run, like he just never seems to be comfortable just standing there in the pocket. Also turnovers are an absolute killer in the NFL.
Rosen always looked way more like an NFL QB to me, but he had injury concerns and those are probably even more of a red flag.
Point is this: The 4 teams that drafted the 4 QBs in the top 10 have won exactly zero super bowls in the last 50 years and I think the last "Franchise Quarterback" any one of those teams had was Jim Kelly for the Bills (...obviously not counting Kurt Warner for the Cards because as good as he was he was only there for like 2 years).
many people suggesting a similar argument. This guy at the ringer does as well.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here. The Ringer - ( New Window )
Clark’s argument on The Ringer was all over the place. He first argues that taking a RB high doesn’t make financial sense, which is a fairly common argument people are making. If that’s his stance, fine, but later in the article he says the smart choice would have been to choose a QB to have sit behind Manning. So it is more financially responsible to pay a guy to sit on the bench for the next 3 years than it would be to pay a potential All-Pro RB?
The second argument he makes is that he doesn’t have a problem taking Barkley, but only after a trade down. This completely disregards the possibility that there weren’t any good offers to move down, or that they were afraid if they moved down further than 4 that they would lose the player. If you have conviction about a guy, why risk losing him over a subpar package if that’s all that’s out there?
He should worry about Washington’s QB situation. Â
so we will have numerous chances to rectify the mistake he thinks we made.
OTOH, if the team is improving, it means we are winning. Not sure what's so bad about that.
At any rate, I would venture that it wouldn't be a long limb to climb if we were to say that we will finish ahead of his Redskins this year.
Bill, such a good point! We'll be in last place every year because we didn't take Darnold. So that means we'll be picking at the top of the draft every year, but unfortunately Darnold is apparently the last Franchise QB that will ever come out of college for the next 15 years.
Although I would have preferred to trade down, the players seemed to line up pretty well for Giants.
Again, there was NO reason for Giants to take a QB at #2 with Eli still viable for 2 years. Teams do not draft QB at #2 if they will sit for 2 years.
The difference between this years QB's is slight. NO front runner.
Giants have Eli for 2 years, and 2 young QB's that have 2 years to prove themselves. One will be the replacement.
Barkley, unless injured, will be a 1,000 yard rusher and 500 yard receiver for at least the next 4 years.
If Giants can fill remaining Ol/DL/LB holes this year and next . Very possible Eli can go out on top.
Long term I think Allen and Jackson will be the best of this QB draft.
Do you really need to read things only approve of what the Giants did? If Darnold leading the Jets to the promised land many will curse the Giants for passing on Darnold...no matter what Barkley ends up accomplishing.
RE: I perosonally think Darnold was the one who was overvalued Â
Honestly I watch him play and I just don't see an NFL QB. I just don't see consistent NFL-level accuracy that all of the great ones have. Weird baseball-like wind-up, and so many of his passes look wobbly- I think he benefited from having very good receivers at USC who could adjust to the ball and make plays. People say he's great at moving and throwing on the run, but it also just often seemed like he was always so intent on leaving the pocket immediately to make a throw on the run, like he just never seems to be comfortable just standing there in the pocket. Also turnovers are an absolute killer in the NFL.
Rosen always looked way more like an NFL QB to me, but he had injury concerns and those are probably even more of a red flag.
Point is this: The 4 teams that drafted the 4 QBs in the top 10 have won exactly zero super bowls in the last 50 years and I think the last "Franchise Quarterback" any one of those teams had was Jim Kelly for the Bills (...obviously not counting Kurt Warner for the Cards because as good as he was he was only there for like 2 years).
Bingo! Brilliant insight... Each of the four teams that took a quarterback in the top ten have not even been to a super bowl in 25 years and have just six super bowl appearances and a combined record of 1-5. And each of the five teams that did not take a quarterback - Giants, Broncos, Colts, Bears, 49ers - have been to the super bowl at least once in the last 12 years and have 21 super bowl appearances and a combined record of 13-8... Wow - says it all...
is the least valuable position on the field other than kicker and punter. It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story. If Darnold is a star, the Giants decision is a disaster regardless of what Barkley does.
My impression in the days leading up to the draft was that this board was split pretty close to 50-50 on this question of drafting a quarterback versus another position. Yet now there are threads calling out anyone for even having the audacity to question taking a running back with the second pick. I realize with the draft over there is a natural instinct to coalesce around the draft pick and break out the pom poms. But if we're being honest, the jury is very much still out on the Giants decision and will be for a long time.
many people suggesting a similar argument. This guy at the ringer does as well.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here. The Ringer - ( New Window )
Clark’s argument on The Ringer was all over the place. He first argues that taking a RB high doesn’t make financial sense, which is a fairly common argument people are making. If that’s his stance, fine, but later in the article he says the smart choice would have been to choose a QB to have sit behind Manning. So it is more financially responsible to pay a guy to sit on the bench for the next 3 years than it would be to pay a potential All-Pro RB?
QB's get paid the most money out of any position, so having him sit for 1 season to develop is perfect. Look at Wentz and Goff. Goff redshirted came in and lighted it up. Wentz played as a Rookie and the following year he was a MVP.
Both teams took the money they would be using on a QB and invested in Weapons around them because they had the money to do so.
I don't get what's so hard to comprehend there. Easier transition, and more money to distribute to other players to make a better overall team.
Instead of overpaying a rookie at a position that is least valuable, and more injury riddled then any other position on the field offense or defense (excluding of course punters and kickers).
I don't think that it keeps us at the bottom of the standings. If anything, it would keep us as a middling team, good enough to avoid the cellar and the premium pick that comes with it but without a clear replacement for Eli if and when he hangs it up, or his performance suggests that he should.
I don't fully understand is why this idea passing on the available QB's means the Giants can't land their future QB next season. I realize a guy like Jackson has his detractors but had the Giants wanted him they easily could have moved up. If the Giants are so good they aren't in range to move up for a QB of the future (if they love one) then that's a good problem to have. That doesn't even include a move like adding a Cousins type, or a Garoppolo move. Why is it "pick a QB 2nd this year or else?". Finally, not that BBI is the end all be all but most people on here seemed most intrigued by Rosen (who fell all the way to 10) and Mayfield (wasn't an option), so while Darnold might end up fantastic it's not as if the Giants passed on some perceived sure thing.
It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story.
Yet the top 10 rushing leaders from last year included:
- First Rounders 4
- Second rounders 2
- Third Rounders 1
- Fifth Rounder 3
Ezekiel Elliott was in the top 3 in YPC
The top 10 QB's by yardage were:
- First Rounder 6
- Second Rounder 1
- Fifth Rounder 1
- Sixth Rounder 1
- Undrafted 1
Both had 3 players from the 5th round or later. It isn't like you have guys popping off their couches and becoming great. Well, maybe Kurt Warner (with a K, not a C).....
many people suggesting a similar argument. This guy at the ringer does as well.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here. The Ringer - ( New Window )
Clark’s argument on The Ringer was all over the place. He first argues that taking a RB high doesn’t make financial sense, which is a fairly common argument people are making. If that’s his stance, fine, but later in the article he says the smart choice would have been to choose a QB to have sit behind Manning. So it is more financially responsible to pay a guy to sit on the bench for the next 3 years than it would be to pay a potential All-Pro RB?
QB's get paid the most money out of any position, so having him sit for 1 season to develop is perfect. Look at Wentz and Goff. Goff redshirted came in and lighted it up. Wentz played as a Rookie and the following year he was a MVP.
Both teams took the money they would be using on a QB and invested in Weapons around them because they had the money to do so.
I don't get what's so hard to comprehend there. Easier transition, and more money to distribute to other players to make a better overall team.
Instead of overpaying a rookie at a position that is least valuable, and more injury riddled then any other position on the field offense or defense (excluding of course punters and kickers).
Goff played his rookie year and wasn't that good. He wasn't really good to start the season this past year either, but played very well towards the end...I know what you probably meant, but Wentz did not win MVP. He can also eat a bag of dicks just like the rest of his team and all their fans.
Also, We were going to pay Eli this next season no matter what. We also added OL help this off season and our running game will be a strength.
There are QB's that will be drafted in the next 3 or 4 years that we haven't even heard of yet. Some people on here make it sound like this is the last draft the Giants will ever get to draft a good QB.
Of course the Giants can draft a QB next year or the year after but the price will probably be much higher than just 1 draft pick.
I don't like the pick because it's too much money for a RB long term and it's a short shelf life for a RB. I think the GM has made the pick even worse with all of the stupid things he's said about being touched by god and crapping on analytics but I disagree 100% with anyone making the case that this makes the Giants weaker in the short term.
It's exactly the opposite. Drafting a great RB is probably the best way for the Giants to get better in the short term. Which is exactly what anyone should expect when a team hires a 67 year old GM. He has a short time and he's thinking short time.
The Giants as only the Mara's can do have reversed the GM/Head Coach dynamic. They have a GM who is a short termer and a Head Coach thinking long term.
DG has said that he wasn't sold on any of the QB at 2 Â
and that if you have to talk yourself into loving QB that it will be a bad pick. Also said that a QB mistake at the top of the draft is a 5 year mistake. He took the consensus best player in the draft who he did love.
are you can't look at them in a vacuum. Example is Darkwa rushed for more yards (751) than Kamara did (728) last year. Let's be honest, it's much easier to find a good RB later in the draft than it is to find a QB.
It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story.
Yeah. Its absolutely one of the dumbest and most ill-informed things I've ever heard. Yet there is actually a fair number of people that believe it.
The Orleans Darkwa/Wayne Gallman platoon had more rushing yards than every running back other than Kareem Hunt, Todd Gurley, and Le'Veon Bell last year. The two of them had combined 282 carries for 1,227 yards. The fourth leading rusher in the NFL last year was LeSean McCoy (by all accounts a top running back). He had more carries (287) and less yards (1,138) than the Darkwa/Gallman platoon.
It just doesn't matter that much who your running backs are.
are you can't look at them in a vacuum. Example is Darkwa rushed for more yards (751) than Kamara did (728) last year. Let's be honest, it's much easier to find a good RB later in the draft than it is to find a QB.
It comes down to something so simple that its astounding to me how difficult it is for people to grasp.
The Giants just didn't like any of the QB's. Period. End of story. Pat Shurmur said before the draft, that they'll know it when they see it - and they didn't see it in this group. So they're rolling with what they've got and will see what happens over the next few years.
is the least valuable position on the field other than kicker and punter. It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story. If Darnold is a star, the Giants decision is a disaster regardless of what Barkley does.
That is spot on. The RB position may be more fungible than the K position. The K position is extremely difficult to find one who can consistently deliver and handle the enormous stress since most games, I believe, are separated by less than a 6 points.
so now we are actually trying to use the aggregate totals to show that late round backs are just as good??
Replace McCoy with Gallman and Darkwa and tell me how successful Buffalo would be.
That should be the argument - not looking at yardage in a vacuum.
Why is that an unreasonable point? McCoy had more carries than the two of them combined last year and was less productive with those carries. Assuming Darkwa and Gallman are replacement level running backs, how much value are we assigning McCoy over replacement level?
It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story.
Yeah. Its absolutely one of the dumbest and most ill-informed things I've ever heard. Yet there is actually a fair number of people that believe it.
The Orleans Darkwa/Wayne Gallman platoon had more rushing yards than every running back other than Kareem Hunt, Todd Gurley, and Le'Veon Bell last year. The two of them had combined 282 carries for 1,227 yards. The fourth leading rusher in the NFL last year was LeSean McCoy (by all accounts a top running back). He had more carries (287) and less yards (1,138) than the Darkwa/Gallman platoon.
It just doesn't matter that much who your running backs are.
probably it’s just me but I think it’s a sucky use of resources for the Giants to need two people to equal one man. Maybe that’s why they did poorly last year. They needed a 104 man roster and the league wouldn’t allow it.
in the passing game. If you don't understand why a 1000+ yard runner who can also get 400-500 yards or more through the air is considerably more valuable than two guys who combine for 1227/309, I don't know what to tell you. Neither was a homerun threat, their long receptions were 13 (Darkwa) and 11 (Gallman), respectively. A guy who can run, catch and block and is a homerun threat changes a defensive gameplan. I like Darkwa and Gallman, but nobody was plotting defensive strategy around the need to contain either one.
Darnold too. It’s not an outlandish claim to make.
I’m happy with Saquon though and look forward to watching him play.
It’s definitely not an outlandish claim to prefer darnold or any qb to Barkley. I was torn but the fans that make it seem like like the giants were complete fools aren’t thinking rationally. Barkley is an insane prospect. None of the qbs are Andrew luck or even Eli Manning coming out. And that’s a fact. Doesn’t mean one or two of these qbs don’t pan out in a big way, but it’s not an exact science. Here’s the thing though, Barkley is exact. He’s about as close to perfect as you’re gonna get.
so now we are actually trying to use the aggregate totals to show that late round backs are just as good??
Replace McCoy with Gallman and Darkwa and tell me how successful Buffalo would be.
That should be the argument - not looking at yardage in a vacuum.
When Darkwa and Gallman were in the backfield, the were not much of a threat to catch a pass. That makes a big difference. What makes Gurley, Kamara and McCoy great are their ability to make BIG impacts in the passing game. Very important in today's NFL.
Some of you should really find some highlights of Tiki Barber Â
is the least valuable position on the field other than kicker and punter. It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story. If Darnold is a star, the Giants decision is a disaster regardless of what Barkley does.
My impression in the days leading up to the draft was that this board was split pretty close to 50-50 on this question of drafting a quarterback versus another position. Yet now there are threads calling out anyone for even having the audacity to question taking a running back with the second pick. I realize with the draft over there is a natural instinct to coalesce around the draft pick and break out the pom poms. But if we're being honest, the jury is very much still out on the Giants decision and will be for a long time.
Crap.
RE: Some of you should really find some highlights of Tiki Barber Â
were to argue that the QBR didn't suffer when Romo was replaced by Prescott, when Foles replaced Wentz or when the Cardinals team of QB's replaced Palmer, people would have a hard time keeping a straight face.
When that same reasoning is used to say Darkwa and Gallman are as good as McCoy, people are like, "Fuck yeah!!!"
RE: RE: Some of you should really find some highlights of Tiki Barber Â
to jog your memory - so you can remember what a back like Barkley can do that fringe journeymen like Darkwa, Jennings, and Gallman can't.
Odds are that Barkley is never as good as Tiki was, because very few are.
Normally I'd agree with you, because few have the same ability and desire to be. Barkley does though. Thats why they picked him. Whether he actually gets there is entirely up to him, barring some freak injury.
were to argue that the QBR didn't suffer when Romo was replaced by Prescott, when Foles replaced Wentz or when the Cardinals team of QB's replaced Palmer, people would have a hard time keeping a straight face.
When that same reasoning is used to say Darkwa and Gallman are as good as McCoy, people are like, "Fuck yeah!!!"
The point isn't that Darkwa and Gallman are as good as McCoy. The point is that the difference between elite and replacement level running backs is not that dramatic. You can get 85% of what an elite running back gets you without having to invest anything. That is not true at positions like quarterback, let tackle, defensive end, cornerback. That is why the opportunity cost of taking a running back so high in the draft is, in my opinion, unreasonably high.
RE: RE: Some of you should really find some highlights of Tiki Barber Â
to jog your memory - so you can remember what a back like Barkley can do that fringe journeymen like Darkwa, Jennings, and Gallman can't.
Odds are that Barkley is never as good as Tiki was, because very few are.
If he stays healthy he'll be much better than Tiki was. He's a much, much better receiver than Tiki - as in he can run WR type routes, which I don't remember Tiki doing. And he's faster, stronger, and bigger than Tiki.
Also don't forget that Tiki had a major fumbling problem before Coughlin.
But rb is not the 3rd least valuable position. Cmon. Hr hitting field tilters help teams win and win big. Barkley is much more than a luxury. He’s a difference maker.
Tiki Barber posted the third-best yards from scrimmage season of all time in 2005. What exactly constitutes "much better" than that?
See, this is what's amusing about the hype bandwagon. The same people making these absurd statements also are tut-tutting about how unfair it will be when people consider anything less than 2000 yards rushing to be a successful season for poor Saquon. You can't have it both ways - either he's the bestest super-dee-duper player ever to grace an NFL field, or he's not. He either lives up to the ludicrous hype, or he doesn't.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here.
The Ringer - ( New Window )
I’m happy with Saquon though and look forward to watching him play.
Rosen always looked way more like an NFL QB to me, but he had injury concerns and those are probably even more of a red flag.
Point is this: The 4 teams that drafted the 4 QBs in the top 10 have won exactly zero super bowls in the last 50 years and I think the last "Franchise Quarterback" any one of those teams had was Jim Kelly for the Bills (...obviously not counting Kurt Warner for the Cards because as good as he was he was only there for like 2 years).
OTOH, if the team is improving, it means we are winning. Not sure what's so bad about that.
At any rate, I would venture that it wouldn't be a long limb to climb if we were to say that we will finish ahead of his Redskins this year.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here. The Ringer - ( New Window )
Clark’s argument on The Ringer was all over the place. He first argues that taking a RB high doesn’t make financial sense, which is a fairly common argument people are making. If that’s his stance, fine, but later in the article he says the smart choice would have been to choose a QB to have sit behind Manning. So it is more financially responsible to pay a guy to sit on the bench for the next 3 years than it would be to pay a potential All-Pro RB?
The second argument he makes is that he doesn’t have a problem taking Barkley, but only after a trade down. This completely disregards the possibility that there weren’t any good offers to move down, or that they were afraid if they moved down further than 4 that they would lose the player. If you have conviction about a guy, why risk losing him over a subpar package if that’s all that’s out there?
Washington Post has fake news in all departments
OTOH, if the team is improving, it means we are winning. Not sure what's so bad about that.
At any rate, I would venture that it wouldn't be a long limb to climb if we were to say that we will finish ahead of his Redskins this year.
Bill, such a good point! We'll be in last place every year because we didn't take Darnold. So that means we'll be picking at the top of the draft every year, but unfortunately Darnold is apparently the last Franchise QB that will ever come out of college for the next 15 years.
Again, there was NO reason for Giants to take a QB at #2 with Eli still viable for 2 years. Teams do not draft QB at #2 if they will sit for 2 years.
The difference between this years QB's is slight. NO front runner.
Giants have Eli for 2 years, and 2 young QB's that have 2 years to prove themselves. One will be the replacement.
Barkley, unless injured, will be a 1,000 yard rusher and 500 yard receiver for at least the next 4 years.
If Giants can fill remaining Ol/DL/LB holes this year and next . Very possible Eli can go out on top.
Long term I think Allen and Jackson will be the best of this QB draft.
Rosen always looked way more like an NFL QB to me, but he had injury concerns and those are probably even more of a red flag.
Point is this: The 4 teams that drafted the 4 QBs in the top 10 have won exactly zero super bowls in the last 50 years and I think the last "Franchise Quarterback" any one of those teams had was Jim Kelly for the Bills (...obviously not counting Kurt Warner for the Cards because as good as he was he was only there for like 2 years).
Bingo! Brilliant insight... Each of the four teams that took a quarterback in the top ten have not even been to a super bowl in 25 years and have just six super bowl appearances and a combined record of 1-5. And each of the five teams that did not take a quarterback - Giants, Broncos, Colts, Bears, 49ers - have been to the super bowl at least once in the last 12 years and have 21 super bowl appearances and a combined record of 13-8... Wow - says it all...
Who again are the smartest guys in the room?
My impression in the days leading up to the draft was that this board was split pretty close to 50-50 on this question of drafting a quarterback versus another position. Yet now there are threads calling out anyone for even having the audacity to question taking a running back with the second pick. I realize with the draft over there is a natural instinct to coalesce around the draft pick and break out the pom poms. But if we're being honest, the jury is very much still out on the Giants decision and will be for a long time.
Quote:
many people suggesting a similar argument. This guy at the ringer does as well.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here. The Ringer - ( New Window )
Clark’s argument on The Ringer was all over the place. He first argues that taking a RB high doesn’t make financial sense, which is a fairly common argument people are making. If that’s his stance, fine, but later in the article he says the smart choice would have been to choose a QB to have sit behind Manning. So it is more financially responsible to pay a guy to sit on the bench for the next 3 years than it would be to pay a potential All-Pro RB?
QB's get paid the most money out of any position, so having him sit for 1 season to develop is perfect. Look at Wentz and Goff. Goff redshirted came in and lighted it up. Wentz played as a Rookie and the following year he was a MVP.
Both teams took the money they would be using on a QB and invested in Weapons around them because they had the money to do so.
I don't get what's so hard to comprehend there. Easier transition, and more money to distribute to other players to make a better overall team.
Instead of overpaying a rookie at a position that is least valuable, and more injury riddled then any other position on the field offense or defense (excluding of course punters and kickers).
Yet the top 10 rushing leaders from last year included:
- First Rounders 4
- Second rounders 2
- Third Rounders 1
- Fifth Rounder 3
Ezekiel Elliott was in the top 3 in YPC
The top 10 QB's by yardage were:
- First Rounder 6
- Second Rounder 1
- Fifth Rounder 1
- Sixth Rounder 1
- Undrafted 1
Both had 3 players from the 5th round or later. It isn't like you have guys popping off their couches and becoming great. Well, maybe Kurt Warner (with a K, not a C).....
Quote:
It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story.
Yeah. Its absolutely one of the dumbest and most ill-informed things I've ever heard. Yet there is actually a fair number of people that believe it.
Quote:
In comment 13951046 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
many people suggesting a similar argument. This guy at the ringer does as well.
And for the same reasons many fans discussed on here. The Ringer - ( New Window )
Clark’s argument on The Ringer was all over the place. He first argues that taking a RB high doesn’t make financial sense, which is a fairly common argument people are making. If that’s his stance, fine, but later in the article he says the smart choice would have been to choose a QB to have sit behind Manning. So it is more financially responsible to pay a guy to sit on the bench for the next 3 years than it would be to pay a potential All-Pro RB?
QB's get paid the most money out of any position, so having him sit for 1 season to develop is perfect. Look at Wentz and Goff. Goff redshirted came in and lighted it up. Wentz played as a Rookie and the following year he was a MVP.
Both teams took the money they would be using on a QB and invested in Weapons around them because they had the money to do so.
I don't get what's so hard to comprehend there. Easier transition, and more money to distribute to other players to make a better overall team.
Instead of overpaying a rookie at a position that is least valuable, and more injury riddled then any other position on the field offense or defense (excluding of course punters and kickers).
Goff played his rookie year and wasn't that good. He wasn't really good to start the season this past year either, but played very well towards the end...I know what you probably meant, but Wentz did not win MVP. He can also eat a bag of dicks just like the rest of his team and all their fans.
Also, We were going to pay Eli this next season no matter what. We also added OL help this off season and our running game will be a strength.
There are QB's that will be drafted in the next 3 or 4 years that we haven't even heard of yet. Some people on here make it sound like this is the last draft the Giants will ever get to draft a good QB.
I don't like the pick because it's too much money for a RB long term and it's a short shelf life for a RB. I think the GM has made the pick even worse with all of the stupid things he's said about being touched by god and crapping on analytics but I disagree 100% with anyone making the case that this makes the Giants weaker in the short term.
It's exactly the opposite. Drafting a great RB is probably the best way for the Giants to get better in the short term. Which is exactly what anyone should expect when a team hires a 67 year old GM. He has a short time and he's thinking short time.
The Giants as only the Mara's can do have reversed the GM/Head Coach dynamic. They have a GM who is a short termer and a Head Coach thinking long term.
Not sure how words could make it a worse pick.
So they went for talent. I can't see how you can fault them for that.
The idea that backs in the 6th and 7th round are common while 1st rounders are scarce is such a myth.
Quote:
Quote:
It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story.
Yeah. Its absolutely one of the dumbest and most ill-informed things I've ever heard. Yet there is actually a fair number of people that believe it.
The Orleans Darkwa/Wayne Gallman platoon had more rushing yards than every running back other than Kareem Hunt, Todd Gurley, and Le'Veon Bell last year. The two of them had combined 282 carries for 1,227 yards. The fourth leading rusher in the NFL last year was LeSean McCoy (by all accounts a top running back). He had more carries (287) and less yards (1,138) than the Darkwa/Gallman platoon.
It just doesn't matter that much who your running backs are.
It comes down to something so simple that its astounding to me how difficult it is for people to grasp.
The Giants just didn't like any of the QB's. Period. End of story. Pat Shurmur said before the draft, that they'll know it when they see it - and they didn't see it in this group. So they're rolling with what they've got and will see what happens over the next few years.
Time to move on.
Replace McCoy with Gallman and Darkwa and tell me how successful Buffalo would be.
That should be the argument - not looking at yardage in a vacuum.
That is spot on. The RB position may be more fungible than the K position. The K position is extremely difficult to find one who can consistently deliver and handle the enormous stress since most games, I believe, are separated by less than a 6 points.
Replace McCoy with Gallman and Darkwa and tell me how successful Buffalo would be.
That should be the argument - not looking at yardage in a vacuum.
Why is that an unreasonable point? McCoy had more carries than the two of them combined last year and was less productive with those carries. Assuming Darkwa and Gallman are replacement level running backs, how much value are we assigning McCoy over replacement level?
Quote:
In comment 13951183 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Quote:
It has been proven time and again that you can find guys off the street who can ably play that position. Quarterback is a very different story.
Yeah. Its absolutely one of the dumbest and most ill-informed things I've ever heard. Yet there is actually a fair number of people that believe it.
The Orleans Darkwa/Wayne Gallman platoon had more rushing yards than every running back other than Kareem Hunt, Todd Gurley, and Le'Veon Bell last year. The two of them had combined 282 carries for 1,227 yards. The fourth leading rusher in the NFL last year was LeSean McCoy (by all accounts a top running back). He had more carries (287) and less yards (1,138) than the Darkwa/Gallman platoon.
It just doesn't matter that much who your running backs are.
I’m happy with Saquon though and look forward to watching him play.
It’s definitely not an outlandish claim to prefer darnold or any qb to Barkley. I was torn but the fans that make it seem like like the giants were complete fools aren’t thinking rationally. Barkley is an insane prospect. None of the qbs are Andrew luck or even Eli Manning coming out. And that’s a fact. Doesn’t mean one or two of these qbs don’t pan out in a big way, but it’s not an exact science. Here’s the thing though, Barkley is exact. He’s about as close to perfect as you’re gonna get.
Nothing wrong with picking that kind of player.
Replace McCoy with Gallman and Darkwa and tell me how successful Buffalo would be.
That should be the argument - not looking at yardage in a vacuum.
My impression in the days leading up to the draft was that this board was split pretty close to 50-50 on this question of drafting a quarterback versus another position. Yet now there are threads calling out anyone for even having the audacity to question taking a running back with the second pick. I realize with the draft over there is a natural instinct to coalesce around the draft pick and break out the pom poms. But if we're being honest, the jury is very much still out on the Giants decision and will be for a long time.
Crap.
Odds are that Barkley is never as good as Tiki was, because very few are.
When that same reasoning is used to say Darkwa and Gallman are as good as McCoy, people are like, "Fuck yeah!!!"
Quote:
to jog your memory - so you can remember what a back like Barkley can do that fringe journeymen like Darkwa, Jennings, and Gallman can't.
Odds are that Barkley is never as good as Tiki was, because very few are.
Normally I'd agree with you, because few have the same ability and desire to be. Barkley does though. Thats why they picked him. Whether he actually gets there is entirely up to him, barring some freak injury.
What’s next, adding up tackles of 2 shitty safeties if we didn’t want to resign Collins?
When that same reasoning is used to say Darkwa and Gallman are as good as McCoy, people are like, "Fuck yeah!!!"
The point isn't that Darkwa and Gallman are as good as McCoy. The point is that the difference between elite and replacement level running backs is not that dramatic. You can get 85% of what an elite running back gets you without having to invest anything. That is not true at positions like quarterback, let tackle, defensive end, cornerback. That is why the opportunity cost of taking a running back so high in the draft is, in my opinion, unreasonably high.
Quote:
to jog your memory - so you can remember what a back like Barkley can do that fringe journeymen like Darkwa, Jennings, and Gallman can't.
Odds are that Barkley is never as good as Tiki was, because very few are.
If he stays healthy he'll be much better than Tiki was. He's a much, much better receiver than Tiki - as in he can run WR type routes, which I don't remember Tiki doing. And he's faster, stronger, and bigger than Tiki.
Also don't forget that Tiki had a major fumbling problem before Coughlin.
But rb is not the 3rd least valuable position. Cmon. Hr hitting field tilters help teams win and win big. Barkley is much more than a luxury. He’s a difference maker.
See, this is what's amusing about the hype bandwagon. The same people making these absurd statements also are tut-tutting about how unfair it will be when people consider anything less than 2000 yards rushing to be a successful season for poor Saquon. You can't have it both ways - either he's the bestest super-dee-duper player ever to grace an NFL field, or he's not. He either lives up to the ludicrous hype, or he doesn't.