Giants more than most organizations are huge on character this is especially magnified in round 1 and then even moreso if you are picking top 5. In that range they want a guy who has it 'all': character, production, measurables, work ethic etc.
They also tend to prefer the high impact player/position which is why while we heard they liked Nelson alot, they werent going to pick an OG at 2. Which of the blue chip non QBs left Saquon or Chubb . RBs for the most part ARE a lower impact position until you find the rare game changing types with home run speed and playmaking ability and-or ones that are legitimate receiving threats out of the backfield.
Barkley is both those things and an extremely high character player to boot.
Now in regards to the QB position. I think multiple things were going on there which led to them going non QB. As we all know if you think there is a franchise QB AND your organization has decided it is an immediate (or almost immediate) need, that QB should trump everything else.
So breaking down those two factors: Was there a franchise QB in the Giants opinion? I beleive the answer is yes but it was only one of the 4 top options: Sam Darnold. We spoke about character earlier and its even more magnified when we are talking a face of the franchise player.
Right or wrong I believe that dropped Rosen and Mayfield out of the picture entirely. To take a QB at #2 for the Giants, he will need to be Eli squeaky clean. Look at their recent history of QB picks: Eli,Simms,Brown,Webb,Laulletta . All guys with squeaky clean character.
The two guys that fit that bill were Darnold and Allen. However in Allens case I think there was enough doubt about how raw he was and if he would be able to correct all his mechanical stuff more so than Darnold. Darnold showed tremendous accuracy despite some flaws , Allen was very inconsistent. Also Allen did not show a high level of anticipation and D reading ability while Darnold was much better in this department. With all that said, at the end of the day, I think the ONLY QB with a top of the draft franchise grade was Darnold.
Now to the second point and why the Giants didnt pick him: QB was NOT deemed an immediate need. All the quotes from Gettleman to Shurmur to Accorsi kept repeating one mantra; Eli has years left. Also despite being unproven, Webb is doing everything right. That did not sound like an organization ready to part with their 2 time Super Bowl winning MVP QB at the end of this year. And making the investment at #2 in the entire draft at QB usually means the kid is playing sometime year 1 or latest year 2.
Now we may or may not agree with ownerships logic/decision but this is very likely what happened. Sam Darnold being available at 2 and them passing on him was case in point. If you still doubt, ask yourself this question: If they truly thought Eli was done, in drastic decline, or right on the precipice of it, do you honestly think they bypass Sam Darnold at #2 ? Further, knowing this is also a very prideful organization that doesnt believe it will be picking at #2 anytime soon again?
DG gave his folks plenty of opportunities to convince him to go with another player but nobody was able to.
He also was never going to trade that pick.
Therefore, we have Saquon Barkley.
Lets play ball...
This thread's original intent was not to question the pick but moreso to see if we could figure out Giants thinking behind it.
Obviously there are many variables but the big one in my estimation is they believe Eli has years left AND that they could compete for a championship in his remaining window. Otherwise, I just don't see them passing up Darnold at #2.
Quote:
and Kim Jones also reported there's a plan in place to quickly rebuild over the next 2-3 years. You could say that's a view that suggests the window is open now and they're trying to keep it open for whatever Eli's got left, as well as bring a QB along during the process.
Many here have a problem with the word rebuild ... this wasn't a tear down start from scratch rebuild. But, they are rebuilding the defense, the OL, and the offensive scheme, as well as depth/specials.
Which is a big reason why they chose Barkley and not Darnold. B/C if they didnt feel they could 'win now' (or soon) they likely don't pass up on the franchise talent of Darnold.
I was one of Darnold's biggest supporters here, and even I don't think that statement is truth, and all the other facts and logic suggest the contrary.
They stayed true to their board and conviction on SB.
DG said Barkley was graded as high as Peyton Manning. They've basically said without saying that Barkley carried a much higher grade than the other QB's (Chubb was supposedly the next closest).
It's ponderous that you're trying to figure out something that's already been laid out pretty clearly.
But I'm guessing it will be 100 more threads before it finally sinks in.
Quote:
a great player with minimal to no risk.
DG gave his folks plenty of opportunities to convince him to go with another player but nobody was able to.
He also was never going to trade that pick.
Therefore, we have Saquon Barkley.
Lets play ball...
This thread's original intent was not to question the pick but moreso to see if we could figure out Giants thinking behind it.
Obviously there are many variables but the big one in my estimation is they believe Eli has years left AND that they could compete for a championship in his remaining window. Otherwise, I just don't see them passing up Darnold at #2.
I gave you all the thinking you need behind it.
Papa: But if the Giants bring home another trophy in two to three years it was worth it.
Both have strong arguments. Papa’s has the lower chance of success IMO as I feel the odds are greater that Rosen or Darnold have a higher percentage chance of being franchise QBs than the Giants winning a Super Bowl in the next few years. Modern-day NFL wisdom says you go with the potential franchise QB.
Giants picked #2 in 1981 and got LT. I was a newly-minted teen when LT was drafted so I don’t remember what the pre-draft chatter was before the 1981 draft. Were people calling for a QB?
The only two QBs hat has any NFL success out of that draft were Neil Lomax and Wade Wilson, and only one was drafted in the first round at #6.
Sounds like the decision to go non-QB was pretty damn easy compared to this year. What I’m rambling on about is I find myself on both sides of the fence: wanted a QB but damn excited to see SB on the field. It just is what it is.
The bottom line is, the dust hasn’t settled and it won’t settle for a long time, if ever. This decision has the fodder that will last the players’ careers and becomes football lore that will be hotly debated for possibly decades.
Papa: But if the Giants bring home another trophy in two to three years it was worth it.
This is the crux of the Giants thinking. Eli has a window and we are going for it. If we win with Barkley playing a key role they made the right decision , if we don't then it can be questioned especially if one of Darnold,Rosen or Allen end up being franchise/super star Qbs.
Quote:
Ross Tucker: If the Giants passed on a franchise QB for Barkley, it was shortsighted.
Papa: But if the Giants bring home another trophy in two to three years it was worth it.
This is the crux of the Giants thinking. Eli has a window and we are going for it. If we win with Barkley playing a key role they made the right decision , if we don't then it can be questioned especially if one of Darnold,Rosen or Allen end up being franchise/super star Qbs.
Believe what you will. I wanted Darnold to wear Blue, but they know better than me if he's going to be a better pro than SB.
Could they be wrong and you right? Sure, it happens of course. But the odds of them being wrong and you right? Just sayin’/askin’.
This is the crux of the Giants thinking. Eli has a window and we are going for it. If we win with Barkley playing a key role they made the right decision , if we don't then it can be questioned especially if one of Darnold,Rosen or Allen end up being franchise/super star Qbs.
You seem intent to push the idea that the Barkley decision was all about DG saying that Eli is his guy for some reason. Maybe he is...maybe he isn't but you don't know.
For all you know, DG just simply loved Barkley and Eli is going to be cut next year with the offense turned over to another QB on the roster (or player to be named later).
Or maybe even DG doesn't know but this was the least risky path in his new job.
You want me to keep going with other maybes?
Papa: But if the Giants bring home another trophy in two to three years it was worth it.
This has been the Giants' approach to team building since they traded for Eli Manning in 2004. If their organizational philosophy could be summed up in a phrase, it would be "make one more run with Eli." I believe that is once again the current approach.
I also believe that approach is flawed, and the biggest reason why the Giants are only 8 games over .500 (111-103) with Eli as their quarterback. That is a lower winning percentage than his draft contemporaries Ben Roethlisberger (135-63) and Phillip Rivers (106-86).
Because the plan (if it can even be called that) hasn't changed, I don't expect the results to change. We'll be a middling team whose success or failure will be determined by a few lucky or unlucky breaks here and there. What I don't expect to be repeated is Eli miracling our asses to a title. I think those days are behind him.
This is a reactive, unimaginative organization.
Quote:
Ross Tucker: If the Giants passed on a franchise QB for Barkley, it was shortsighted.
Papa: But if the Giants bring home another trophy in two to three years it was worth it.
This has been the Giants' approach to team building since they traded for Eli Manning in 2004. If their organizational philosophy could be summed up in a phrase, it would be "make one more run with Eli." I believe that is once again the current approach.
I also believe that approach is flawed, and the biggest reason why the Giants are only 8 games over .500 (111-103) with Eli as their quarterback. That is a lower winning percentage than his draft contemporaries Ben Roethlisberger (135-63) and Phillip Rivers (106-86).
Because the plan (if it can even be called that) hasn't changed, I don't expect the results to change. We'll be a middling team whose success or failure will be determined by a few lucky or unlucky breaks here and there. What I don't expect to be repeated is Eli miracling our asses to a title. I think those days are behind him.
This is a reactive, unimaginative organization.
Very similar to the BoM song.
The only QB talk I heard was Darnold was the only one they really liked, but it appears he was not any higher than #4 on their board, behind SB, Chubb, Nelson.
They stayed true to their board.
JonC,
Well-said and simply put. The only way they were picking a QB would have been Darnold, but they probably didn't think he was worth the #2 pick. However, they knew another team did think he was worth a very high pick, so it's not like they could trade down and still get him. Barkley was #1 on their board, but he would not have lasted past pick #4, I believe, so they stayed put and took him. When you can get the #1 player at the #2 pick, and that player also fills a glaring need, you trust your process and make the selection and never look back.
Lots of varying views of this draft. It will be interesting in 3 or 4 years to look back.
This is a great insight and one I hadn't really thought of: Beckham, Engram, and Barkley are all players that bring a combination of skills and physical gifts that almost no else has. They could possibly create a new type of offense that we've never even seen before. Imagine how hyped an offensive guru like Shurmur must be about that?
Quote:
This is the crux of the Giants thinking. Eli has a window and we are going for it. If we win with Barkley playing a key role they made the right decision , if we don't then it can be questioned especially if one of Darnold,Rosen or Allen end up being franchise/super star Qbs.
You seem intent to push the idea that the Barkley decision was all about DG saying that Eli is his guy for some reason. Maybe he is...maybe he isn't but you don't know.
For all you know, DG just simply loved Barkley and Eli is going to be cut next year with the offense turned over to another QB on the roster (or player to be named later).
Or maybe even DG doesn't know but this was the least risky path in his new job.
You want me to keep going with other maybes?
Don't doubt he loved Barkley. Not at all.
But so did the Browns and they went QB#1. Why?
Because they don't believe Tyrod Taylor is the answer at QB. Giants right or wrong believe Eli is STILL the answer at Qb for at least a few more years.
Believe what you will. I wanted Darnold to wear Blue, but they know better than me if he's going to be a better pro than SB.
As Daniel Jeremiah said you take the B+ Qb over the A non-QB every time if you deem it's an immediate (or near immediate need). Thats the importance of the position.
I find it hard to believe that Darnold was not at least a 'B+' guy on their board.
Bottomline it wasn't deemed an immediate need b/c basically all those with the biggest voices in the org basically all said Eli has 'years left'.
Quote:
Ross Tucker: If the Giants passed on a franchise QB for Barkley, it was shortsighted.
Papa: But if the Giants bring home another trophy in two to three years it was worth it.
This has been the Giants' approach to team building since they traded for Eli Manning in 2004. If their organizational philosophy could be summed up in a phrase, it would be "make one more run with Eli." I believe that is once again the current approach.
I also believe that approach is flawed, and the biggest reason why the Giants are only 8 games over .500 (111-103) with Eli as their quarterback. That is a lower winning percentage than his draft contemporaries Ben Roethlisberger (135-63) and Phillip Rivers (106-86).
Because the plan (if it can even be called that) hasn't changed, I don't expect the results to change. We'll be a middling team whose success or failure will be determined by a few lucky or unlucky breaks here and there. What I don't expect to be repeated is Eli miracling our asses to a title. I think those days are behind him.
This is a reactive, unimaginative organization.
Translation: The Giants didn't move on from Eli many years ago when I thought they should, and now they're doomed for all eternity.
So be it.
Sometimes this place feels like the Twilight Zone.
Quote:
In comment 13957925 Big_Blue_in_the_Bronx said:
Quote:
This is the crux of the Giants thinking. Eli has a window and we are going for it. If we win with Barkley playing a key role they made the right decision , if we don't then it can be questioned especially if one of Darnold,Rosen or Allen end up being franchise/super star Qbs.
You seem intent to push the idea that the Barkley decision was all about DG saying that Eli is his guy for some reason. Maybe he is...maybe he isn't but you don't know.
For all you know, DG just simply loved Barkley and Eli is going to be cut next year with the offense turned over to another QB on the roster (or player to be named later).
Or maybe even DG doesn't know but this was the least risky path in his new job.
You want me to keep going with other maybes?
Don't doubt he loved Barkley. Not at all.
But so did the Browns and they went QB#1. Why?
Because they don't believe Tyrod Taylor is the answer at QB. Giants right or wrong believe Eli is STILL the answer at Qb for at least a few more years.
You keep repeating this over and over again like it's some revelation when the team has TOLD all of us that... nearly word for word... over the past few months.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to get out of this thread Joe. The Giants believing... rightly or wrongly... that Eli still has some years left could still mean they MIGHT HAVE gone with Barkley regardless if they didn't think he (Eli) had any years left for different reasons... from:
- Barkley being too good of a prospect to pass up (which is what they've said)
- faith that Eli has a few good year left (which is what they've also said)
- faith that either Webb is good enough to lead the team moving forward or another good QB could be acquired if need be (which although they didn't say could certainly be a possibility)
And maybe another one or two reasons I haven't thought of.
I just don't know what you're trying to get at with this thread Joe. You're either answering a lot of your own questions... or can simply choose to believe the various answers that have been given to you by not only various posters here have given you but the GM and coach themselves have given you. So what are you trying to figure out?
Sometimes this place feels like the Twilight Zone.
No way. With his salary? Well...color me shocked, and let me apologize.
Quote:
Quote:
Ross Tucker: If the Giants passed on a franchise QB for Barkley, it was shortsighted.
Papa: But if the Giants bring home another trophy in two to three years it was worth it.
This has been the Giants' approach to team building since they traded for Eli Manning in 2004. If their organizational philosophy could be summed up in a phrase, it would be "make one more run with Eli." I believe that is once again the current approach.
I also believe that approach is flawed, and the biggest reason why the Giants are only 8 games over .500 (111-103) with Eli as their quarterback. That is a lower winning percentage than his draft contemporaries Ben Roethlisberger (135-63) and Phillip Rivers (106-86).
Because the plan (if it can even be called that) hasn't changed, I don't expect the results to change. We'll be a middling team whose success or failure will be determined by a few lucky or unlucky breaks here and there. What I don't expect to be repeated is Eli miracling our asses to a title. I think those days are behind him.
This is a reactive, unimaginative organization.
Translation: The Giants didn't move on from Eli many years ago when I thought they should, and now they're doomed for all eternity.
I love how Rivers is held in high esteem here, despite the fact that the Chargers have made the playoffs once in the last 8 seasons - even worse than the Giants. Why isn't Terps calling out the Chargers for not trying to replace Rivers at this point?
Quote:
In comment 13957951 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
In comment 13957925 Big_Blue_in_the_Bronx said:
Quote:
This is the crux of the Giants thinking. Eli has a window and we are going for it. If we win with Barkley playing a key role they made the right decision , if we don't then it can be questioned especially if one of Darnold,Rosen or Allen end up being franchise/super star Qbs.
You seem intent to push the idea that the Barkley decision was all about DG saying that Eli is his guy for some reason. Maybe he is...maybe he isn't but you don't know.
For all you know, DG just simply loved Barkley and Eli is going to be cut next year with the offense turned over to another QB on the roster (or player to be named later).
Or maybe even DG doesn't know but this was the least risky path in his new job.
You want me to keep going with other maybes?
Don't doubt he loved Barkley. Not at all.
But so did the Browns and they went QB#1. Why?
Because they don't believe Tyrod Taylor is the answer at QB. Giants right or wrong believe Eli is STILL the answer at Qb for at least a few more years.
You keep repeating this over and over again like it's some revelation when the team has TOLD all of us that... nearly word for word... over the past few months.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to get out of this thread Joe. The Giants believing... rightly or wrongly... that Eli still has some years left could still mean they MIGHT HAVE gone with Barkley regardless if they didn't think he (Eli) had any years left for different reasons... from:
- Barkley being too good of a prospect to pass up (which is what they've said)
- faith that Eli has a few good year left (which is what they've also said)
- faith that either Webb is good enough to lead the team moving forward or another good QB could be acquired if need be (which although they didn't say could certainly be a possibility)
And maybe another one or two reasons I haven't thought of.
I just don't know what you're trying to get at with this thread Joe. You're either answering a lot of your own questions... or can simply choose to believe the various answers that have been given to you by not only various posters here have given you but the GM and coach themselves have given you. So what are you trying to figure out?
Point is Barkley wasnt just picked because he was a great grade. Thats only part of the story. Darnold was bypassed because they didnt want to give up on Eli too soon. Darnold is likely our pick at #2 if they thought Eli was done. Darnold very likely had plenty a good enough grade if ownership considered QB a need.
Not sure why, but I have now reached the moment when I say,
whatever...
I'm not really sure what you're trying to get out of this thread Joe. The Giants believing... rightly or wrongly... that Eli still has some years left could still mean they MIGHT HAVE gone with Barkley regardless if they didn't think he (Eli) had any years left for different reasons... from:
He develops an assumption. Beats it to death no matter what the dissenting evidence is and pollutes the board with multiple threads on the same variation of his assumption.
He's not going to gain anything out of it and BBI is going to be littered with useless threads pretty much saying the same thing, all started by the same guy.
Look - he acts like he wants to be definitively told what the Giants were thinking, but he already thinks he knows what they were thinking. It's lunacy.
Quote:
Ross Tucker: If the Giants passed on a franchise QB for Barkley, it was shortsighted.
Papa: But if the Giants bring home another trophy in two to three years it was worth it.
This has been the Giants' approach to team building since they traded for Eli Manning in 2004. If their organizational philosophy could be summed up in a phrase, it would be "make one more run with Eli." I believe that is once again the current approach.
I also believe that approach is flawed, and the biggest reason why the Giants are only 8 games over .500 (111-103) with Eli as their quarterback. That is a lower winning percentage than his draft contemporaries Ben Roethlisberger (135-63) and Phillip Rivers (106-86).
Because the plan (if it can even be called that) hasn't changed, I don't expect the results to change. We'll be a middling team whose success or failure will be determined by a few lucky or unlucky breaks here and there. What I don't expect to be repeated is Eli miracling our asses to a title. I think those days are behind him.
This is a reactive, unimaginative organization.
At what point (what season?) do you think the Giants should've gone in a different direction Terps?
You say that the Giants have had this philosophy since Eli's been drafted... which has given the team two Super Bowl titles (the same amount as Ben and 2 more than Rivers... despite the records of the franchises with the respective QBs in charge)... meanwhile pointing out the winning percentages of the franchises. Which doesn't make much sense to me because I'm pretty sure you aren's suggesting that the team should've been looking to replace Eli after his rookie and/or fourth (after the first Super Bowl win) seasons. So are you suggesting that they should've been looking to go into a different directions after the second win? Two years after that? Two years ago? Last year? When?
Point is Barkley wasnt just picked because he was a great grade. Thats only part of the story. Darnold was bypassed because they didnt want to give up on Eli too soon. Darnold is likely our pick at #2 if they thought Eli was done. Darnold very likely had plenty a good enough grade if ownership considered QB a need.
You don't KNOW that though dude. Maybe he WAS picked simply because he was the best player on the board. I mean... I wouldn't be surprised if their belief that Eli has some years left played a role as well... but maybe it didn't play as much of a role as you seem to think and DG said 'Damn that... I got to get this kid (Barkley) on my team come hell or high water!' and decided to take him. AND, maybe DG didn't think that any of the other QBs were enough of a 'sure thing' to take over what most considered to be one of the few 'sure things' in the draft (that also hit a position of need).
I'm not sure why this matters to be honest.
I gotta be real with ya Joe... this seems to be the point of this thread in a nutshell.
Yeah we've got two Super Bowls and I wouldn't trade them for anything, but can we really say those were great teams that were the result of a great team building model? Should we use those experiences to inform our decisions going forward?
We had the extremely rare good fortune of having probably the best quarterback in the history of the team healthy for 14 years straight. That is an incredible advantage over the rest of the league in that time period. And we're 8 games over .500 with him. We've won 12 games once in those 14 years. I think there's a failure there somewhere, and if I were running the team I'd want to identify that failure so I don't repeat it going forward.
Lots of varying views of this draft. It will be interesting in 3 or 4 years to look back.
I bet they would. Cleveland wouldn't.
Mayfield is a better prospect than Jackson. His biggest red flags are his height and personality. He can play. (And I'm someone who liked Jackson more than many here going into the draft)
Kind of a pointless hypothesis anyway - it's not like BAL would ever admit that.
Yeah we've got two Super Bowls and I wouldn't trade them for anything, but can we really say those were great teams that were the result of a great team building model? Should we use those experiences to inform our decisions going forward?
We had the extremely rare good fortune of having probably the best quarterback in the history of the team healthy for 14 years straight. That is an incredible advantage over the rest of the league in that time period. And we're 8 games over .500 with him. We've won 12 games once in those 14 years. I think there's a failure there somewhere, and if I were running the team I'd want to identify that failure so I don't repeat it going forward.
Regarding your first paragraph... I gotta be honest with you... I felt similarly at the very end of last season and wouldn't have been mad (maybe a lil disappointed because I'm REALLY excited to see a Barkley/Beckham/Engram combo) had we gone QB in this draft because of that thought process. So I can't argue too much with your first paragraph. I just wanted to know when you thought he time to change was.
Regarding your second and third paragraphs though... I'm not sure I 100% agree with them. I mean... besides the Pats how many other teams have been able to keep the level of sustained success that you keep holding against the Giants as a franchise? And to a point it can be argued that the Pats sustained success can be attributed in one part having perhaps the greatest HC/QB duo in league history and the other being in a criminally pathetic division throughout that HC\QB's tenure. How many other division in the league can say that they've had the same team win it as often as the Pats have during the Belichick\Brady run? Meanwhile, most of the other divisions (except for perhaps the NFC West during the Seahawks' heydays a few years ago) had one team be so dominant within their division?
It seems to be you're somewhat holding the norm (no dominant teams in any division) against the Giants when it's the exception (the Pats) that's rare. In many of the winning Super Bowl team's seasons, it's been the team that 'got hot at the right time' that has won it, it seems to me.
Lastly, let's not forget that the QB deserves some of the blame for some of those bad seasons the team has had. It's not like Eli has consistently always played like a top 3-5 QB throughout his Giants career.
I'm not trying to judge you Joe. I actually enjoy and appreciate some of your threads. It's just... like Fatman said... sometimes it seems you post these threads almost like you just want to see your name in lights. I have no beef with you Joe... I'm just saying, in THIS CASE... with THIS THREAD... I'm not really sure what your point is. No offense playa.
Quote:
badly enough we can always find a way.....
I'm not trying to judge you Joe. I actually enjoy and appreciate some of your threads. It's just... like Fatman said... sometimes it seems you post these threads almost like you just want to see your name in lights. I have no beef with you Joe... I'm just saying, in THIS CASE... with THIS THREAD... I'm not really sure what your point is. No offense playa.
Its all good bro. I love and pray for everyone here. I was forgiven much through the blood of Christ so I dont judge others but Love them!
Quote:
In comment 13958117 Big_Blue_in_the_Bronx said:
Quote:
badly enough we can always find a way.....
I'm not trying to judge you Joe. I actually enjoy and appreciate some of your threads. It's just... like Fatman said... sometimes it seems you post these threads almost like you just want to see your name in lights. I have no beef with you Joe... I'm just saying, in THIS CASE... with THIS THREAD... I'm not really sure what your point is. No offense playa.
Its all good bro. I love and pray for everyone here. I was forgiven much through the blood of Christ so I dont judge others but Love them!
Well that took a bit of an unexpected turn... but AMEN!
Quote:
Ross Tucker: If the Giants passed on a franchise QB for Barkley, it was shortsighted.
Papa: But if the Giants bring home another trophy in two to three years it was worth it.
This has been the Giants' approach to team building since they traded for Eli Manning in 2004. If their organizational philosophy could be summed up in a phrase, it would be "make one more run with Eli." I believe that is once again the current approach.
I also believe that approach is flawed, and the biggest reason why the Giants are only 8 games over .500 (111-103) with Eli as their quarterback. That is a lower winning percentage than his draft contemporaries Ben Roethlisberger (135-63) and Phillip Rivers (106-86).
Because the plan (if it can even be called that) hasn't changed, I don't expect the results to change. We'll be a middling team whose success or failure will be determined by a few lucky or unlucky breaks here and there. What I don't expect to be repeated is Eli miracling our asses to a title. I think those days are behind him.
This is a reactive, unimaginative organization.
This isn’t about “one more run with Eli.” DG has been pretty transparent regarding his philosophy to team building — run the ball, stop the run, rush the passer. Every move he’s made since stepping in as GM has been in line with that philosophy.
If you disagree that’s fine. But there’s nothing short sighted or reactive about his approach.
Papa: But if the Giants bring home another trophy in two to three years it was worth it.
Both have strong arguments. Papa’s has the lower chance of success IMO as I feel the odds are greater that Rosen or Darnold have a higher percentage chance of being franchise QBs than the Giants winning a Super Bowl in the next few years. Modern-day NFL wisdom says you go with the potential franchise QB.
Giants picked #2 in 1981 and got LT. I was a newly-minted teen when LT was drafted so I don’t remember what the pre-draft chatter was before the 1981 draft. Were people calling for a QB?
The only two QBs hat has any NFL success out of that draft were Neil Lomax and Wade Wilson, and only one was drafted in the first round at #6.
Sounds like the decision to go non-QB was pretty damn easy compared to this year. What I’m rambling on about is I find myself on both sides of the fence: wanted a QB but damn excited to see SB on the field. It just is what it is.
The bottom line is, the dust hasn’t settled and it won’t settle for a long time, if ever. This decision has the fodder that will last the players’ careers and becomes football lore that will be hotly debated for possibly decades.
To me there is a flaw in Ross's thinking. People seem to think the NFL is the NFL of the 80's before Free Agency. In the past you could draft a quarterback and build around them. That NFL is gone. You have to pick the best players now and not worry about 15 years from now. You have no idea what will happen year to year. We went from 11-5 to 3-13. You don't know when a player will retire, shoot off their hand or have a career threatening injury. You always have to get the best players now. It's not like we can take a QB now and we know for certain the rest of the team is going to stay the same and gradually improve each year. There are hundreds of variables in place so go with the best people now.
To me there is a flaw in Ross's thinking. People seem to think the NFL is the NFL of the 80's before Free Agency. In the past you could draft a quarterback and build around them. That NFL is gone. You have to pick the best players now and not worry about 15 years from now.
Teams still draft QBs and build around them. What do you mean by this? What team hasn't drafted a QB and then proceeded to build around them?