Article on how inexact drafting a QB is

The Browns got, who they thought they were getting - when they drafted Manziel.

The difference is Mayfield loves the game and will be a good player for them.

The Browns already announced that Tyrod Taylor will be the starting QB in 2018 but, I would bet a small amount of money ($1.00?) that Mayfield wins the job when the season starts. He has got a competitive spirit that is so strong it might be harmful at times (to him and his team).

Anyway, (no crystal ball) just my perception/vibe.


Tyrod Taylor to start - ( New Window )

In comment 13959928 short lease said:

Quote:

The Browns got, who they thought they were getting - when they drafted Manziel. The difference is Mayfield loves the game and will be a good player for them. The Browns already announced that Tyrod Taylor will be the starting QB in 2018 but, I would bet a small amount of money ($1.00?) that Mayfield wins the job when the season starts. He has got a competitive spirit that is so strong it might be harmful at times (to him and his team). Anyway, (no crystal ball) just my perception/vibe. Tyrod Taylor to start - ( New Window )

yeah, I know - I spelled "opinion" wrong.

Because it is an inexact science has not stopped NFL teams from drafting franchise guys.

I ve stated my opinion before, but:

If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions

You can do a similar analysis of all players and you will find a disparate opinion by scouts and management.

Not only will there be a difference in opinion in first round picks , but even those players who are consensus sure things, fail almost 50% of the time.

It is expected that the QB position would have significant differing opinions. The QB position requires a combination of divergent skills and ,therefore, the position has the most variables for success or failure.


Different teams and scouts place varying significance and emphasis on different skills. It is possible that a QB can be successful with one team and a flop with another.

The role that a QB plays in a specific offense requires different skill sets.

Quote:

If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions

What if Barkley is a solid RB for the next decade and while Darnold, Allen or Rosen have solid "franchise" careers, none of them wins a SB, drafting Barkley will be a blunder of historic proportions??

History somehow keeps getting exaggerated.

What if Barkley and all the said QBs have major injuries early next year and basically become backups for most of their careers. But 5 years from Darnold comes off the bench in the 4QTR of the Superbowl when the starter gets hurt and helps win the game for his team?

What a blunder for DG and the Giants...

In comment 13959993 joeinpa said:

Quote:

Because it is an inexact science has not stopped NFL teams from drafting franchise guys. I ve stated my opinion before, but: If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions

Why do the Giants have to win a SB, but those 3 only need to be 'franchise guys'? And what is a 'franchise guy'? Kirk Cousins just got $27M per season. Is he a franchise QB?

are an inexact science. There are no guarantees in the NFL or in life... the alternative is to curl-up in a ball, suck your thumb and rock gently isn't very appealing.

Drafting a QB, RB or long-snapper involves a reasoned decision process with probability, but no certainty...

Took the biggest risk in the draft by not taking a QB. It was a calculated risk that Eli gives them a better chance for the super Bowl than Darnold would have.

Secondly, they may feel that there is a better chance that they will find their future QB before Darnold becomes a winning QB.

In comment 13959993 joeinpa said:

Quote:

Because it is an inexact science has not stopped NFL teams from drafting franchise guys. I ve stated my opinion before, but: If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions

The point is with how inexact it is why not take the player who most scouts think is closer to a sure thing and possibly generational when you have the opportunity and get a quarterback when you don't get a chance to draft someone like that?

In your scenerio if the quarterbacks aren't franchise guys like an Eli, then it s was a goo le move for Giants.

Guess I should have been more specific. If any of those quarterbacks turn out to be an Eli, Rivers or Rithlisberger, bad mistake by Giants

one turns out to be Rivers with very good seasons, but no titles, even if barkley is an excellent back, it was a terrible mistake?

Not following the logic.

Here's the executive summary: You can't predict the future.

that has been proven in all of this debating, it's that when it comes to drafting you should go with your convictions and never be afraid of mistakes.

In comment 13960071 Marty in Albany said:

Quote:

RE: For those of you who don't have the time to read the article. Here's the executive summary: You can't predict the future.

THANKS for ruining it!

the Jets

In comment 13960039 Ivan15 said:

Quote:

Took the biggest risk in the draft by not taking a QB. It was a calculated risk that Eli gives them a better chance for the super Bowl than Darnold would have. Secondly, they may feel that there is a better chance that they will find their future QB before Darnold becomes a winning QB.

I believe that's over simplified.
It's more like the Giants calculated that their team would be more competitive with Barkley along with Eli, Webb, and a later QB selection (who turned out to be Lauletta), than they would have by selecting Darnold #2.

We can each evaluate the decision differently, by I think that was the conservative choice.

Because a player is part of a championship on one team doesn't mean by it would happen on another team. There are lots of variables in football.

half the time it works out.

Of course, then we delude ourselves into thinking that we knew it all along and that's the paradigm.

Let's assume Draft Score = Performance score x Positional Factor x Need Factor.

In evaluating Darnold's Need factor, one has to estimate in how many years Darnold could likely replace Eli. Let's assume not in 2018 or 2019, and Eli retires in 2020.

If more than two yrs away, then need to estimate when Darnold could replace Eli's current replacement ie Webb? And what 2020 value added over Webb?

If there was not much estimated upside of Darnold over Webb in 2020, that makes Darnold's Need factor pretty low compared to Barkley's Need factor who is estimated to start immediately over his replacement say Stewart.

Then applying Darnold's low Performance score (turnovers, poor decisions)
and high Positional Value of QB v RB combined with a low Need score puts
Barkley ahead of Darnold on the Draft score tiers.

Great article. Also the one on lack of correlation of vet QBs performqnces when they move teams.

Which QB should we have picked?

Using your logic and assumptions, you have only a 1 in 3 chance of avoiding "a blunder of historic proportions."

I was fine with them taking Barkley.

If I had a QB rated as high as Barkley, then that's when I would've taken one.

My point was to joeinpa that if Barkley becomes a successful player, how the hell can it be classified as a terrible mistake to select him?

In comment 13960101 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

I was fine with them taking Barkley. If I had a QB rated as high as Barkley, then that's when I would've taken one. My point was to joeinpa that if Barkley becomes a successful player, how the hell can it be classified as a terrible mistake to select him?

Because even if that happens and even if we win 2 SB championships, the year after Eli retires the most pressing thing will be that we had a chance to take a QB this year and failed to do it and thus made a horrific blunder.

after a bad 2018, then Darnold's Need factor is almost as high as Barkley's.
And since the QB Position factor is much higher than RB, offsetting the slightly higher Need factor,
Then it boils down to Barkley's much higher Performance factor and slightly higher Need Factor v Darnold offsetting higher Poition Factor.
I can still see the rationale for a higher overall Draft tier score for Barkley even in the scenario that Eli is done.

.

You guys realize it s only my opinion, right.

Secondly, if the Giants don t win a Super Bowl with the guys we have now, and one of the three quarterbacks becomes a star, I think it will have been a colossal mistake.

By the way, Bob Papa shared a similar point of view yesterday on Sirius yesterday, I had that view prior to hearing him speak.

Seems like some of you who wanted Barkley, don t like the standard I ve set for evaluating the decision in the draft.

I think it s fair, but that s me

The Giants did not feel that any of thes QBs were special. From the Giants POV it wasn't a good year to take a QB high. Only time will tell if they were right.

In comment 13960059 joeinpa said:

Quote:

In your scenerio if the quarterbacks aren't franchise guys like an Eli, then it s was a goo le move for Giants. Guess I should have been more specific. If any of those quarterbacks turn out to be an Eli, Rivers or Rithlisberger, bad mistake by Giants

But there will be other drafts. Drafting Barkley won't preclude us from getting a possible franchise guy on a different draft or maybe we got one in Webb or Lauletta.

A blunder is when you make a bad decision. A bad decision is when you choose a lower risk adjusted expected value instead of a higher one.
A bad actual outcome does not make a good decision into a bad one.

For example: let's assume you had a choice of betting $1000 at one of two roulette tables. Table A gives you 1/20 odds of winning while Table B gives 1/5 odds. You choose Table B and lose. Was that a blunder? No.

Is if you take a guy and miss you are doomed for years. With the rookie pay scale you have a bad year or two start over and move on. Granted at the top of the draft they make a little more but it’s like everyone forgot how it used to be top pick was getting 100 mil +. Now that set teams back for years

Both Tables pay $10,000 if you win.

but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high.

It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them.

Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.

In comment 13960134 JonC said:

Quote:

but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high. It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them. Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.

I'm OK with that, but taking comfort from a 3rd and a 4th round pick being liked by the Giants as a potential future starter at QB seems misplaced.

Maybe it's just me, maybe I carry the name Mike Cherry around for too long, or I remember that they picked Dave Brown in the first round. Something about the Giants inability to set themselves at QB, aside from drafting high enough to pick Rivers (and trade for Eli) just does not allow me to believe the Giants are planning for this accordingly.

In comment 13960146 jcn56 said:

Quote:

In comment 13960134 JonC said: Quote: but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high. It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them. Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects. I'm OK with that, but taking comfort from a 3rd and a 4th round pick being liked by the Giants as a potential future starter at QB seems misplaced. Maybe it's just me, maybe I carry the name Mike Cherry around for too long, or I remember that they picked Dave Brown in the first round. Something about the Giants inability to set themselves at QB, aside from drafting high enough to pick Rivers (and trade for Eli) just does not allow me to believe the Giants are planning for this accordingly.

I'm not settling on them either, but it suggests they didn't feel the new prospects were worth the extra investment and bypassing the best prospect in the draft at the same time.

Drafting the future QB at #2 looks like the right strategy on paper, but if the talent isn't actually there ... then go where the talent is.

and nobody convinced him the QBs were a better pick.

Is there more to it?

In comment 13960146 jcn56 said:

Quote:

Something about the Giants inability to set themselves at QB

Inability to set themselves at QB?

Aside from 4 or so years after Simms, this team has had a good to great quarterback for the past 35 years.

The vast majority of teams in the league would sign up for Simms/Hoss -> Collins -> Manning

Side note, Collins doesn't get the love he deserves here. Never got us a ring and not a HOFer but he was a gamer and tough as nails

In comment 13959993 joeinpa said:

Quote:

Because it is an inexact science has not stopped NFL teams from drafting franchise guys. I ve stated my opinion before, but: If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions

Stupid argument is stupid. DG can't draft all 3 QBs. What if Lamar Jackson or Mason Rudolph wins the SB, you have teh 31 brain dead moronic front offices derp!

Did teams that traded up to draft Qbs in first round made made mistakes of historical proportions?

In comment 13960062 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

one turns out to be Rivers with very good seasons, but no titles, even if barkley is an excellent back, it was a terrible mistake? Not following the logic.

That's because the logic is ridiculous. If Barkley turns out to be Faulk and the best of the QBs (Mayfield aside) turn out to be Rivers (great regular season stats, no SBs), then the Giants made the right choice.

Now, if one of the QBs turn out to be Eli/Big Ben and win a couple SBs while Barkley is *just* Tiki, then it was the wrong decision.

In comment 13960134 JonC said:

Quote:

but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high. It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them. Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.

Let's also not underrate them either. I think stating that Barkley was clearly the top prospect is a case of revisionist history from those that want to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt. Gettleman may have graded Barkley higher, but that was not the consensus view.

The NFL has spoken tho and every QB other than Mayfield was there for the Giants to pick, and they stuck with the prospect rumored to be their #1 player since early March. Rosen fell, Allen would've fallen if the Bills hadn't moved up, and it seems the NFL didn't love the QBs in the way the pundits thought. The pundits and fans overrated the QBs, imv, myself included with regards to Darnold.

In comment 13959993 joeinpa said:

Quote:

Because it is an inexact science has not stopped NFL teams from drafting franchise guys. I ve stated my opinion before, but: If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions

God you are such a drama queen. Even if Darnold or Allen or Rosen win a super bowl that never would have guaranteed the Giants would have won one with that guy. If Saquon turns out to be a bust or just average or just a “situational back” like Reggie Bush then yeah the Giants fucked it up, if he turns out to be a perennial all-pro then it was a great pick regardless of what the QBs go on to do. It’s as simple as that, just like any other draft pick, the stakes are simply a bit higher because we had the #2 pick.

And what about when Bradley Chubb wins a super bowl with Denver, as the leader of that defense, but Barkley doesn’t win a super bowl but still has a great career... that would also be a blunder of historic proportions.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.

and Barkley becomes the next Faulk, Thurman THomas, or Bell, it was a waste? You do realize that this means 3 out of the 4 QB's were busts. How do you know we would have picked that one and not the other 75%? We don't get all 4 you know.

In comment 13960284 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13960134 JonC said: Quote: but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high. It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them. Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects. Let's also not underrate them either. I think stating that Barkley was clearly the top prospect is a case of revisionist history from those that want to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt. Gettleman may have graded Barkley higher, but that was not the consensus view.

Wrong. I can easily find you like 20 of the most respected draft sources who had Barkley rated #1 and I don’t even have to look hard. Maybe it wasn’t consensus in the sense that it was every single person but it was the majority of people and everyone agrees on that.

Why do you think the Browns wanted to trade 2 2nd round picks to live up 2 damn spots? Barkley was the most coveted player in the draft but Dorsey knew he couldn’t fuck up choosing the QB he wanted, everyone knew that.

In comment 13960284 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13960134 JonC said: Quote: but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high. It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them. Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects. Let's also not underrate them either. I think stating that Barkley was clearly the top prospect is a case of revisionist history from those that want to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt. Gettleman may have graded Barkley higher, but that was not the consensus view.

As long as consensus doesn't mean unanimous and as long as rating means talent/ability, I'm pretty sure it was. At least a my recollection of services and publications was that it was.

***

I am sure the Oakland Raiders thought the same thing about lack of QB talent in 2004 draft
that is why the passed on Phillip Rivers andBen Roethlisberger and drafted Robert Gallery

Little sensitive there pal.

In comment 13960288 JonC said:

Quote:

The NFL has spoken tho and every QB other than Mayfield was there for the Giants to pick, and they stuck with the prospect rumored to be their #1 player since early March. Rosen fell, Allen would've fallen if the Bills hadn't moved up, and it seems the NFL didn't love the QBs in the way the pundits thought. The pundits and fans overrated the QBs, imv, myself included with regards to Darnold.

I wonder how much of that could be attributed to circumstance though. Many of the teams picking in the top 10 (Cleveland's #4 pick, Indy, SF, Chicago) weren't going to pick a QB. The one that surprised a bit was Denver, but I could see the appeal of pairing Chubb with Miller.

In the next two years (presumably Eli's remaining time here) it is unlikely we'll have a shot to draft a QB prospect as good as Darnold. Not impossible, but pretty unlikely. As a result, the long term picture for the team hinges on a couple questions:

1. Will our coaches be able to develop Webb and/or Lauletta into a viable NFL starting QB?

2. What will be the approach to team building as we enter the post-Eli era?

and we've seen his previous work with Foles, Keenum, etc, hopefully he's got a solid read on his QBs.

In comment 13960011 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

What if Barkley and all the said QBs have major injuries early next year and basically become backups for most of their careers. But 5 years from Darnold comes off the bench in the 4QTR of the Superbowl when the starter gets hurt and helps win the game for his team? What a blunder for DG and the Giants...

LOL.

I mean, David Carr went #1 overall to Houston and he won a ring. But I don't think Houston was happy with that pick.

I don t remember saying any of the three quarterbacks Giants passed and Super Bowls

I stated if they become franchise guys

I don t get your point.

Besides we all set our own standards for success. It will bother me if Darnold becomes a star and things don t pan out for Eli, Webb or Lauletta

Know what, if that happens it will bother a lot of Giants fans. It s not an outrageous opinion

In comment 13960750 joeinpa said:

Quote:

I don t remember saying any of the three quarterbacks Giants passed and Super Bowls I stated if they become franchise guys I don t get your point. Besides we all set our own standards for success. It will bother me if Darnold becomes a star and things don t pan out for Eli, Webb or Lauletta Know what, if that happens it will bother a lot of Giants fans. It s not an outrageous opinion

im not one of those fans. It will bother me if things don’t pan out for Eli, Webb, or Lauletta. Because I care about the Giants. Don’t give a shit how Darnold pans put. That doesn’t impact me and I’m t doesn’t impact the Giants one iota. Not directly and not even indirectly. Nobody affiliated with the team and I had, up to this point assumed for the fans as well, was so freaking insecure that we measured ourselves not by our success or failures but those of others.

In comment 13960742 FStubbs said:

Quote:

In comment 13960011 Jimmy Googs said: Quote: What if Barkley and all the said QBs have major injuries early next year and basically become backups for most of their careers. But 5 years from Darnold comes off the bench in the 4QTR of the Superbowl when the starter gets hurt and helps win the game for his team? What a blunder for DG and the Giants... LOL. I mean, David Carr went #1 overall to Houston and he won a ring. But I don't think Houston was happy with that pick.

The GM who put that team together is routinely cited as an "expert".

Charlie Casserly destroyed the career of his #1 overall QB by completely failing to put any kind of offensive line around that kid, thus subjecting him to an impossible number of hits and sacks taken.

In comment 13960755 Bill L said:

Quote:

In comment 13960750 joeinpa said: Quote: I don t remember saying any of the three quarterbacks Giants passed and Super Bowls I stated if they become franchise guys I don t get your point. Besides we all set our own standards for success. It will bother me if Darnold becomes a star and things don t pan out for Eli, Webb or Lauletta Know what, if that happens it will bother a lot of Giants fans. It s not an outrageous opinion im not one of those fans. It will bother me if things don’t pan out for Eli, Webb, or Lauletta. Because I care about the Giants. Don’t give a shit how Darnold pans put. That doesn’t impact me and I’m t doesn’t impact the Giants one iota. Not directly and not even indirectly. Nobody affiliated with the team and I had, up to this point assumed for the fans as well, was so freaking insecure that we measured ourselves not by our success or failures but those of others.

It would bother me as Giants fan if they end up mediocre over the next 5 years while one the QB's they passed on leads his team to a high degree of success for many.

You may choose to be oblivious to what some of feel it should have been obvious to take the QB. -- What I just said is an opinion. - Anyhow- ff we're mediocre "at best" then some of us Giants fan won't be as accepting/forgiving as you.

If you aren't as accepting for mediocrity then I find it hard to fathom you would completely avoid the point of the QB position. I mean you follow football, right? You (or DG) think the most important position on the football field isn't a QB and now we see as fans that our GM blew the pick and now we suffer though mediocrity and you're trying to say with a straight face that you wouldn't want DG fired?

Wouldn't mediocrity after several years show he didn'tknow what he was doing? so you're trying to say you want to remain oblivious as to why the team failed? Woudln't you be afraid that if he stayed he'd commit that same stupid mistakes? If you're okay with an incompetent GM and you choose to remain oblivious as to why he was, imo many of us would think you aren't much of a fan.

I never said I was ok with mediocrity. In fact, i said the exact opposite.

To restate, the Giants being mediocre would bother me. The QBs they have not being good enough would bother me. A general lack of success of the Giants would bother me.

None of that...not a little bit, not a scintilla, n-o-n-e is remotely dependent or affected by the success or failure of a player on another team,

The lack of success and how I, the Giants management assuredly, and most fans feel, is 100% determined by the *Giants* and nothing else. Not how Darnold does, not how Rosen does, not how Allen does, not how Chubb does, not by the Jets record, not by the powerball numbers they didn’t play, and not by the fiber count of their breakfast cereal.

Their success stands on its own.

So if any of those QBs go on to do great things, you wouldn't be affected whatsoever knowing that's a player that they failed to properly evaluate and could have had?

That's exceptional perspective.

We passed on Brady, we passed on Foles even...I’m not bitter.

Based upon how envious you are of someone else.

In comment 13960802 Bill L said:

Quote:

The lack of success and how I, the Giants management assuredly, and most fans feel, is 100% determined by the *Giants* and nothing else. Not how Darnold does, not how Rosen does, not how Allen does, not how Chubb does, not by the Jets record, not by the powerball numbers they didn’t play, and not by the fiber count of their breakfast cereal. Their success stands on its own.

I think you speak for a minority of fans not the majority. We can agree to disagree. The team's failure also stands on it's own. And I think it would bother most fans that they are mediocre several years in a row from now AND a possible reason why is that the team has a lousy QB / has had lousy QB play from the most important position on the field.

THAT failure also drives fans to "care" a lot. Just as they care about play calling. And who to take in the draft etc. If our team is mediocre or worse many fans will look at other teams and compare those to ease to the Giants and want to know why it went so wrong. And the 1st thing most fans will look at is the QB not only because it is the most important position on the field but they had a chance to fill the hardest position in football to succeed at.

In comment 13960847 giantstock said:

Quote:

In comment 13960802 Bill L said: Quote: The lack of success and how I, the Giants management assuredly, and most fans feel, is 100% determined by the *Giants* and nothing else. Not how Darnold does, not how Rosen does, not how Allen does, not how Chubb does, not by the Jets record, not by the powerball numbers they didn’t play, and not by the fiber count of their breakfast cereal. Their success stands on its own. I think you speak for a minority of fans not the majority. We can agree to disagree. The team's failure also stands on it's own. And I think it would bother most fans that they are mediocre several years in a row from now AND a possible reason why is that the team has a lousy QB / has had lousy QB play from the most important position on the field. THAT failure also drives fans to "care" a lot. Just as they care about play calling. And who to take in the draft etc. If our team is mediocre or worse many fans will look at other teams and compare those to ease to the Giants and want to know why it went so wrong. And the 1st thing most fans will look at is the QB not only because it is the most important position on the field but they had a chance to fill the hardest position in football to succeed at.

I don't believe I said anything different from that. I think it doesn't even need to be a charitable reading to say that when I said their success stands on its own, the same would hold true for their failure. And I did say that their failure would disturb me. Poor QB play would disturb me. But, that has nothing to do with Darnold or any other player in the league. Darnold (or anyone else) coulld succeed or fail and it has nothing to do with the Giants success (or failure) and my enjoyment (or anger) over it. I am not going to get caught up in irrelevant things and, I believe, neither would the team's management.

In comment 13960011 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

What if Barkley and all the said QBs have major injuries early next year and basically become backups for most of their careers. But 5 years from Darnold comes off the bench in the 4QTR of the Superbowl when the starter gets hurt and helps win the game for his team? What a blunder for DG and the Giants...

When obvious sarcastic posts like this become confusing, its time for some of you to take a little time off of BBI.

To make fun of this idea of all the events that could happen in the future of these draft picks, I made a fairly extreme one where all the players the Giants could have taken had non-valuable careers sans one guy who had a fleeting moment and pulls down a Super Bowl ring. And then put it back on the Giants who screwed up in not drafting him.

yet it goes a mile above your heads...

In comment 13960880 Bill L said:

Quote:

In comment 13960847 giantstock said: Quote: Poor QB play would disturb me. But, that has nothing to do with Darnold or any other player in the league. Darnold (or anyone else) coulld succeed or fail and it has nothing to do with the Giants success (or failure) and my enjoyment (or anger) over it. I am not going to get caught up in irrelevant things and, I believe, neither would the team's management.

You mean for example you got upset with a coach such as Ray Handley's awful coaching yet then totally ignored that the Giants could have had Bill Belchick or similar?

If so, oyu think your view is a "majority" view?

And you think the incompetence of a GM is irrelevant? He said choosing the wrong QB could cost the team 5 years. Well wouldn't it possibly be opposite view too>? SO if he's incompetent and you see a team (you watch football other than the Giants, don't you? You don't bury yourself under a rock, do you?) doing great with a QB we passed on. You wouldn't CARE that we have the same incompetence GM saying the same things several years later?

Anyways, how would you EVER come to a conclusion that the GM's philosophy of not taking the QB was wrong if the team disappoints while for example the Jets Darnold becomes a star and is tremendously successful? IF YOU DON"T CARE ABOUT THAT-- do you think that's a majority view?

Why does it matter if ANY of the three QBs have success? Any of them? Why? Unless the Giants were taking all 3 of them with the second pick, why does it matter if any of them have success? They could only take one, not all three. The only QB that was mentioned by all the insiders as bein a possibility was Darnold. Allen and Rosen were never an option for them. If you want to follow Darnold career and compare to Barkley, fair enough. Put to put all of the QBs in one group and sit back and wait to see which one succeeds is disingenuous, at best. It just screams out that you are all just looking for a reason to bitch over time. And why stop at just the three? They passed on many other QBs too. If Rudolph becomes the best of the bunch, do we get to spend the next 15 years bitching about the Giants incompetence too?

When you say that if any of the QBs become a franchise guy the Giants made a huge mistake, it absolutely proves that you’re just looking for a reason to be angry. They could only take one. And the one that each and every one of you preferred just may end up being the worst of the bunch. You all had a particular favorite so own up to it and let’s not have revisionist discussions down the road and kill the Giants for not taking all 3.

In comment 13960284 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13960134 JonC said: Quote: but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high. It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them. Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects. Let's also not underrate them either. I think stating that Barkley was clearly the top prospect is a case of revisionist history from those that want to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt. Gettleman may have graded Barkley higher, but that was not the consensus view.

It continues to amaze me that the guy that is adamant about getting away from the franchise QB model is so upset about not taking the next “franchise Q”. Unless the guy turns out to be the next Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers you have stated numerous times that you wouldn’t pay anybody franchise QB money. So basically no matter what, you aren’t signing this guy to a second contract unless he’s so mediocre that it wouldn’t cost much to resign him. In which case, isn’t that the poster child for a blown pick? You spend the number two overall pick for a guy that you wouldn’t even resign unless he performs bad enough to come cheaply?

I m not angry in the least, your tone seems angry at my take on the situation though.

It s simple for men Quarterback is the foundation of a winning organization. If any of these three guys are franchise guys, it was Gettlemen s job to know it.

Pickingbat #2 is a rare opportunity l. They got a great player, I just don t believe a running back supercedes the quarterback position.

We ll see, maybe he was correct to pass on them.

In comment 13960896 giantstock said:

Quote:

... You mean for example you got upset with a coach such as Ray Handley's awful coaching yet then totally ignored that the Giants could have had Bill Belchick or similar? If so, oyu think your view is a "majority" view? And you think the incompetence of a GM is irrelevant? He said choosing the wrong QB could cost the team 5 years. Well wouldn't it possibly be opposite view too>? SO if he's incompetent and you see a team (you watch football other than the Giants, don't you? You don't bury yourself under a rock, do you?) doing great with a QB we passed on. You wouldn't CARE that we have the same incompetence GM saying the same things several years later? Anyways, how would you EVER come to a conclusion that the GM's philosophy of not taking the QB was wrong if the team disappoints while for example the Jets Darnold becomes a star and is tremendously successful? IF YOU DON"T CARE ABOUT THAT-- do you think that's a majority view?

This is what I think...a take it as a free life-lesson for you too...

Be as informed as reasonably possible, think, weigh options carefully...make a decision. Be accountable. Accept the consequences of your decision and, if they are negative, figure out how to remedy them. Move forward. Everything else is irrelevant and a distraction. You gain nothing by looking backwards with regret or by looking sideways at your neighbor with envy. Just man up and move on.

been saying the same thing all offseason.

If there is an Andrew Luck, you take him, but there hasn't been an Andrew Luck since Andrew Luck.

In comment 13960907 BigBlueShock said:

Quote:

In comment 13960284 Go Terps said: Quote: In comment 13960134 JonC said: Quote: but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high. It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them. Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects. Let's also not underrate them either. I think stating that Barkley was clearly the top prospect is a case of revisionist history from those that want to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt. Gettleman may have graded Barkley higher, but that was not the consensus view. It continues to amaze me that the guy that is adamant about getting away from the franchise QB model is so upset about not taking the next “franchise Q”. Unless the guy turns out to be the next Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers you have stated numerous times that you wouldn’t pay anybody franchise QB money. So basically no matter what, you aren’t signing this guy to a second contract unless he’s so mediocre that it wouldn’t cost much to resign him. In which case, isn’t that the poster child for a blown pick? You spend the number two overall pick for a guy that you wouldn’t even resign unless he performs bad enough to come cheaply?

He actually questioned even paying Rodgers the current franchise QB money

and can't wait to watch Barkley, but even if Barkley is a good to great RB and we bypassed a franchise QB (Top 10 in the league) for 15 years and we don't get a similar type qb for years after Eli. Barkley is a mistake. All positions are not created equal. I do concede and allow for the fact that Barkley may be so good that he has the same effect as a franchise qb, but I have not seen that RB yet and think it is incredibly unlikely that Barkley is that RB. In other words, Gettleman made a judgment call that these QBs were not good enough to be in the top 10 of this league; if he is right, he should be congratulated and praised. If he is wrong, he made a colossal error. However, for now, it's over and let's just hope he was right!

In comment 13960907 BigBlueShock said:

Quote:

In comment 13960284 Go Terps said: Quote: In comment 13960134 JonC said: Quote: but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high. It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them. Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects. Let's also not underrate them either. I think stating that Barkley was clearly the top prospect is a case of revisionist history from those that want to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt. Gettleman may have graded Barkley higher, but that was not the consensus view. It continues to amaze me that the guy that is adamant about getting away from the franchise QB model is so upset about not taking the next “franchise Q”. Unless the guy turns out to be the next Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers you have stated numerous times that you wouldn’t pay anybody franchise QB money. So basically no matter what, you aren’t signing this guy to a second contract unless he’s so mediocre that it wouldn’t cost much to resign him. In which case, isn’t that the poster child for a blown pick? You spend the number two overall pick for a guy that you wouldn’t even resign unless he performs bad enough to come cheaply?

It amazes you because you've never correctly understood what I've said, and I'm not going to explain it to you again.

for some NYG football that counts.

if you were given the choice of two options:
a) being guaranteed that choosing one of three QBs would be good and two would bust, each guaranteed equally likely to succeed, and you had to choose one.
OR
b) being guaranteed that a RB had a 50% chance of being great and a 50% chance of being good, and you had to choose him.

Let's also take as given the following values in million $:
good QB = 100
bust QB = 0
great RB = 60
good RB = 30

From what you have said you woild take option a) - right?

And make a wrong decision. Even if the QB you chose turned out to be great. You made a bad decision and just got lucky.

.

In comment 13961343 Wazzat said:

Quote:

if you were given the choice of two options: a) being guaranteed that choosing one of three QBs would be good and two would bust, each guaranteed equally likely to succeed, and you had to choose one. OR b) being guaranteed that a RB had a 50% chance of being great and a 50% chance of being good, and you had to choose him. Let's also take as given the following values in million $: good QB = 100 bust QB = 0 great RB = 60 good RB = 30 From what you have said you woild take option a) - right? And make a wrong decision. Even if the QB you chose turned out to be great. You made a bad decision and just got lucky.

If I got to be a GM with a load of football experience with lots of success with a bunch of pro scouts working for me and I had the 2nd pick overall I don't think my chances would be 30%. Teams like the Jets, Bill and the Browns of the past skew the numbers. So while you say "30%" - I say a good GM's hit rate would be much better.

If I passed on the QB's and took the RB I would have felt the QB's not worth the risk. Can you define to me 23% confidence vs 39%?

You can't. You've asked an unanswerable question to justify your bias by looking at something through your own compact-sized window.

Were those 70% busts the result of a coach like McAdoo? Or an owner like Mike Brown who thoughts he's a football scout back in the day? If a GM like Jerry Reese were to draft a QB, whats the chance of his success if he's a pocket QB and Jerry Reese doesn't go after quality OLinemen?

In comment 13960910 Bill L said:

Quote:

In comment 13960896 giantstock said: Quote: ... You mean for example you got upset with a coach such as Ray Handley's awful coaching yet then totally ignored that the Giants could have had Bill Belchick or similar? If so, oyu think your view is a "majority" view? And you think the incompetence of a GM is irrelevant? He said choosing the wrong QB could cost the team 5 years. Well wouldn't it possibly be opposite view too>? SO if he's incompetent and you see a team (you watch football other than the Giants, don't you? You don't bury yourself under a rock, do you?) doing great with a QB we passed on. You wouldn't CARE that we have the same incompetence GM saying the same things several years later? Anyways, how would you EVER come to a conclusion that the GM's philosophy of not taking the QB was wrong if the team disappoints while for example the Jets Darnold becomes a star and is tremendously successful? IF YOU DON"T CARE ABOUT THAT-- do you think that's a majority view? This is what I think...a take it as a free life-lesson for you too... Be as informed as reasonably possible, think, weigh options carefully...make a decision. Be accountable. Accept the consequences of your decision and, if they are negative, figure out how to remedy them. Move forward. Everything else is irrelevant and a distraction. You gain nothing by looking backwards with regret or by looking sideways at your neighbor with envy. Just man up and move on.

But you DO gain knowledge from past mistakes. So you MUST look at the past too. You learn so you don't make the same mistakes again.Thus most fans will correctly look at these QB's that were passed on and compare them Barkley.

Each year if the Giants were to underperform, most fans (and ownership) WILL look back and see if the picks panned out ALONG WITH other key franchise decision the GM made that could have shaped the team in a different direction.

In comment 13960289 Knee of Theismann said:

Quote:

In comment 13959993 joeinpa said: Quote: Because it is an inexact science has not stopped NFL teams from drafting franchise guys. I ve stated my opinion before, but: If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions God you are such a drama queen. Even if Darnold or Allen or Rosen win a super bowl that never would have guaranteed the Giants would have won one with that guy. If Saquon turns out to be a bust or just average or just a “situational back” like Reggie Bush then yeah the Giants fucked it up, if he turns out to be a perennial all-pro then it was a great pick regardless of what the QBs go on to do. It’s as simple as that, just like any other draft pick, the stakes are simply a bit higher because we had the #2 pick. And what about when Bradley Chubb wins a super bowl with Denver, as the leader of that defense, but Barkley doesn’t win a super bowl but still has a great career... that would also be a blunder of historic proportions. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Respectfully-- I think you are looking at things wrong such as I think you're taking joeinpa too literal. I'm probably doing the same with you-- but as for joe - I agree with a lot of what he says because I believe when he speaks of championship, he doesn't mean a QB that wins in he playoffs by only putting up 14 points in several games and he doesn't throw the ball much.

Secondly, the point of Barkley being all-pro is "it don't mean shit" if he doesn't win. This is where I'm probably taking you too literal-- but just to make sure/point out-- the reason why many of think the QB would have been the better option is that Barkley may very likely have more "all-pro's" but the RB position can't affect he game as much as the QB. SO the plus you are giving Barkley is the minus many of us feel for taking a QB.

It's why QB's get paid a ton more. It;s why positional value is important and all-pro not as important. The RB can't affect the game. All-pros at each position are not the same.

In comment 13961392 giantstock said:

Quote:

In comment 13960289 Knee of Theismann said: Quote: In comment 13959993 joeinpa said: Quote: Because it is an inexact science has not stopped NFL teams from drafting franchise guys. I ve stated my opinion before, but: If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions God you are such a drama queen. Even if Darnold or Allen or Rosen win a super bowl that never would have guaranteed the Giants would have won one with that guy. If Saquon turns out to be a bust or just average or just a “situational back” like Reggie Bush then yeah the Giants fucked it up, if he turns out to be a perennial all-pro then it was a great pick regardless of what the QBs go on to do. It’s as simple as that, just like any other draft pick, the stakes are simply a bit higher because we had the #2 pick. And what about when Bradley Chubb wins a super bowl with Denver, as the leader of that defense, but Barkley doesn’t win a super bowl but still has a great career... that would also be a blunder of historic proportions. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Respectfully-- I think you are looking at things wrong such as I think you're taking joeinpa too literal. I'm probably doing the same with you-- but as for joe - I agree with a lot of what he says because I believe when he speaks of championship, he doesn't mean a QB that wins in he playoffs by only putting up 14 points in several games and he doesn't throw the ball much. Secondly, the point of Barkley being all-pro is "it don't mean shit" if he doesn't win. This is where I'm probably taking you too literal-- but just to make sure/point out-- the reason why many of think the QB would have been the better option is that Barkley may very likely have more "all-pro's" but the RB position can't affect he game as much as the QB. SO the plus you are giving Barkley is the minus many of us feel for taking a QB. It's why QB's get paid a ton more. It;s why positional value is important and all-pro not as important. The RB can't affect the game. All-pros at each position are not the same.

I made a couple of typos:

SO the plus you are giving Barkley is the minus many of us feel for taking a QB. I said the following:

"It's why QB's get paid a ton more. It;s why positional value is important and all-pro not as important. The RB can't affect the game. All-pros at each position are not the same."

I meant to say The RB can't affect the game as much as the QB thus his all-pro's don't mean as much.

In comment 13961386 giantstock said:

Quote:

In comment 13960910 Bill L said: Quote: In comment 13960896 giantstock said: Quote: ... You mean for example you got upset with a coach such as Ray Handley's awful coaching yet then totally ignored that the Giants could have had Bill Belchick or similar? If so, oyu think your view is a "majority" view? And you think the incompetence of a GM is irrelevant? He said choosing the wrong QB could cost the team 5 years. Well wouldn't it possibly be opposite view too>? SO if he's incompetent and you see a team (you watch football other than the Giants, don't you? You don't bury yourself under a rock, do you?) doing great with a QB we passed on. You wouldn't CARE that we have the same incompetence GM saying the same things several years later? Anyways, how would you EVER come to a conclusion that the GM's philosophy of not taking the QB was wrong if the team disappoints while for example the Jets Darnold becomes a star and is tremendously successful? IF YOU DON"T CARE ABOUT THAT-- do you think that's a majority view? This is what I think...a take it as a free life-lesson for you too... Be as informed as reasonably possible, think, weigh options carefully...make a decision. Be accountable. Accept the consequences of your decision and, if they are negative, figure out how to remedy them. Move forward. Everything else is irrelevant and a distraction. You gain nothing by looking backwards with regret or by looking sideways at your neighbor with envy. Just man up and move on. But you DO gain knowledge from past mistakes. So you MUST look at the past too. You learn so you don't make the same mistakes again.Thus most fans will correctly look at these QB's that were passed on and compare them Barkley. Each year if the Giants were to underperform, most fans (and ownership) WILL look back and see if the picks panned out ALONG WITH other key franchise decision the GM made that could have shaped the team in a different direction.

If it were as easy as your saying then why have the Browns not had a good QB since Kosar or why have the Bills struggled with QB's since Kelly left? Most teams struggle with finding QB's.

In comment 13961413 JOrthman said:

Quote:

In comment 13961386 giantstock said: Quote: In comment 13960910 Bill L said: Quote: In comment 13960896 giantstock said: Quote: ... You mean for example you got upset with a coach such as Ray Handley's awful coaching yet then totally ignored that the Giants could have had Bill Belchick or similar? If so, oyu think your view is a "majority" view? And you think the incompetence of a GM is irrelevant? He said choosing the wrong QB could cost the team 5 years. Well wouldn't it possibly be opposite view too>? SO if he's incompetent and you see a team (you watch football other than the Giants, don't you? You don't bury yourself under a rock, do you?) doing great with a QB we passed on. You wouldn't CARE that we have the same incompetence GM saying the same things several years later? Anyways, how would you EVER come to a conclusion that the GM's philosophy of not taking the QB was wrong if the team disappoints while for example the Jets Darnold becomes a star and is tremendously successful? IF YOU DON"T CARE ABOUT THAT-- do you think that's a majority view? This is what I think...a take it as a free life-lesson for you too... Be as informed as reasonably possible, think, weigh options carefully...make a decision. Be accountable. Accept the consequences of your decision and, if they are negative, figure out how to remedy them. Move forward. Everything else is irrelevant and a distraction. You gain nothing by looking backwards with regret or by looking sideways at your neighbor with envy. Just man up and move on. But you DO gain knowledge from past mistakes. So you MUST look at the past too. You learn so you don't make the same mistakes again.Thus most fans will correctly look at these QB's that were passed on and compare them Barkley. Each year if the Giants were to underperform, most fans (and ownership) WILL look back and see if the picks panned out ALONG WITH other key franchise decision the GM made that could have shaped the team in a different direction. If it were as easy as your saying then why have the Browns not had a good QB since Kosar or why have the Bills struggled with QB's since Kelly left? Most teams struggle with finding QB's.

Can you please point out that I said it was easy? Please provide the quote that I said it was easy.

Are you implying that we shouldn't hold GM's to a high standard because teams like the Browns haven't? Otherwise why should we care about the Browns?

I didn't say anywhere a GM's job was easy did I? But do they get paid dirt cheap salaries so we shouldn't expect much?

that everyone looks to the past and learns. Did your last two sentences directly say it? No, but it is implied in the language you used.

And yes, he gets paid a lot of money so we SHOULD expect a lot. And the guy we are paying a lot of money to to make those decisions decided that none of the QBs had enough “guarantee” in them to pick one of them.

You just can’t come to terms with that because you wanted a QB so bad that you can’t fathom any other scenario. How about you sit back and see what happens? There’s a very good chance that you very well could be wasting a whole bunch of energy bitching about the GMs decision. Is it too much to ask to let this play out? You wanted a QB just for the sake of thinking you had a QB. Great. They decided differently so at what point do we look forward? Is it really that important to you to put your stamp on the “I WANTED A QB DAMN IT!!!” side? We get it. Now can we move on?

In comment 13961470 BigBlueShock said:

Quote:

And yes, he gets paid a lot of money so we SHOULD expect a lot. And the guy we are paying a lot of money to to make those decisions decided that none of the QBs had enough “guarantee” in them to pick one of them. You just can’t come to terms with that because you wanted a QB so bad that you can’t fathom any other scenario. How about you sit back and see what happens? There’s a very good chance that you very well could be wasting a whole bunch of energy bitching about the GMs decision. Is it too much to ask to let this play out? You wanted a QB just for the sake of thinking you had a QB. Great. They decided differently so at what point do we look forward? Is it really that important to you to put your stamp on the “I WANTED A QB DAMN IT!!!” side? We get it. Now can we move on?

Just like jorthman you're making things up that I said when I didn't say it. It seems like you guys just don't want to hear any alternative views expect your own.

I think he made a mistake. IS that so wrong to say that? And part of my argument on this thread was Bill L who thinks the majority of fans think like him in regards to not looking at the QB vs RB comparison in the future.

You know there are alternative views on here. It's possible DG was wrong, you understand that, right? But if you have posters such as Bill L (he's a classy good poster- no offense to him) who doesn't want to look at how the QB's do in the future vs the RB and feels the majority of fans feel like he does-- imo he's wrong.

If posters are making wrong statements which I feel Bill L is-- and I hope I'm not getting any vibe that because DG has a hard job we can't criticize him-- how else can someone express a post on here if they feel those like Bill L or those that think Barkley should have been taken are wrong?

The thread opened this discussion up. I get a post from some dude making up a sports game fantasy scenario so he could justify to himself that Barkley was the right choice - and I'm not supposed to say something in return?

SOme of you are mistaking "potential future criticism of DG" as "complaining." It isn't or it's very little. This is pro sports. It's fun. Did he make the right move? IS his philosophy the correct one that could lead the Giants to being a strong team? If anyone is trying to imply/suggest "poor DG he has a tough job." They need to stop that garbage right now. He's in New York with a team who's won several Super Bowls since 86. Next year The Gmen go under the cap by quite a bit with opportunities to sign good to great players.

Dg is getting paid to help lead this team into being a strong team for many years. Probably won't happen this upcoming year. But please let's stop any nonsense by making any big deal that "DG has a tough job." His job is to eventually win. If he doesn't he gets fired. The fun is the games are highly competitive and to see if in the case of DG if he can build a strong team- then see the player's perform. Right now we're at the building block stage. It's fun to think about. And this is his job. If he doesn't win, get someone else eventually, right?

you expect to be a top notch GM, who has an army of scouts, who heard the opinions of coaches you expect to be good...that guy decided Barkely was a better choice to help this team.

If you expect he should be able to sort the good qb from the bad, you also have to expect he would be able to see that none of the qbs were a better option than SB.

And I second the emotion of whoever pointed out that it's really unfair to compare SB with the success of any of the QBs other than Mayfield. using that logic, if any of the hundreds of players selected after SB turn out to be better, it was a bad pick. Two can play that game: I say the opposite should also hold true. If any of the QBs bust, Gettleman made the right choice.

the busts in an NFL draft??

Quite the ceiling you have set...

That should the team fail or should the QB fail then I will be sad. If they succeed I will be happy. Through all of that, if Darnold fails or succeeds I will feel the same. Not happier or sadder. Because I will not be thinking of Darnold at all. Not with whist and not with regret.

As I also said, you have to make your best decision and then live with the consequences. That decision will stand on its own and not on “what might have been”. If you get caught up in that you will never progress to the future. And, none of that means that you don’t reflect ...clinically... on how you could improve or make a better *future* decision It’s just that you don’t have to revisit this one with emotion. You be an adult and be accountable.

In comment 13961641 fkap said:

Quote:

If any of the QBs bust, Gettleman made the right choice.

Ridiculous.

If ONE of the QB's is really good and the GM passed on him while Barkley didn't help the team win enough to be successful then it's DG's fault eh passed on him.

You are trying way too hard just because yo want to give DG a pass.

SO for example what you're saying is if Darnold turns into superstar while Allen busts while the Giants go nowhere with Barkley who winds up being good but not great then because DG skipped over Allen too - you don't balst him for bypasing Darnold?

In comment 13959993 joeinpa said:

Quote:

Because it is an inexact science has not stopped NFL teams from drafting franchise guys. I ve stated my opinion before, but: If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions

Meh, dramatic much? In today’s NFL we are going to see a lot of solid QB play across the board, he rules are so heavily in their favor that it’s bound to keep trending in that direction.

Unless Rosen or Darnold have epic careers the Giants won’t regret it.

In comment 13961679 Bill L said:

Quote:

That should the team fail or should the QB fail then I will be sad. If they succeed I will be happy. Through all of that, if Darnold fails or succeeds I will feel the same. Not happier or sadder. Because I will not be thinking of Darnold at all. Not with whist and not with regret. As I also said, you have to make your best decision and then live with the consequences. That decision will stand on its own and not on “what might have been”. If you get caught up in that you will never progress to the future. And, none of that means that you don’t reflect ...clinically... on how you could improve or make a better *future* decision It’s just that you don’t have to revisit this one with emotion. You be an adult and be accountable.

I realize Bill but here is what you said too--

"The lack of success and how I, the Giants management assuredly, and most fans feel, is 100% determined by the *Giants* and nothing else. Not how Darnold does, not how Rosen does,"

My reply was

"And I think it would bother most fans that they are mediocre several years in a row from now AND a possible reason why is that the team has a lousy QB / has had lousy QB play from the most important position on the field."

****Most Giants fans will care if the Giants aren't very good for 5 years and the QB turns out to be terrific. If the Giants aren't very good for 5 years and for example the Jets are and Darnold and/or Rosen has led his team's to a high degree of playoff success while the Giants are going nowhere - you mean to tell me you'd look ot bury your head in the sand for future drafts regarding the QB vs RB?

In comment 13961776 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 13959993 joeinpa said: Quote: Unless Rosen or Darnold have epic careers the Giants won’t regret it.

Understate the point joeinpa made much?

They NEED "EPIC" careers?

IS that you Mrs. Gettleman?

What I, and others, are trying to say is that you can't have ALL the other QBs to compare SB to. You only get one. you have to pick him now. You don't get to pick him in a couple years, and say that's the one the Giants should have taken.

Do we have any inkling at all which QB the Giants were eyeing as an alternative to SB? They had to have one at the top of the QB board. That's the one SB has to compared to. Not every single QB available at #2

In comment 13961855 fkap said:

Quote:

What I, and others, are trying to say is that you can't have ALL the other QBs to compare SB to. You only get one. you have to pick him now. You don't get to pick him in a couple years, and say that's the one the Giants should have taken. Do we have any inkling at all which QB the Giants were eyeing as an alternative to SB? They had to have one at the top of the QB board. That's the one SB has to compared to. Not every single QB available at #2

JonC makes it sound like Darnold was their top QB

In comment 13961855 fkap said:

Quote:

What I, and others, are trying to say is that you can't have ALL the other QBs to compare SB to. You only get one. you have to pick him now. You don't get to pick him in a couple years, and say that's the one the Giants should have taken. Do we have any inkling at all which QB the Giants were eyeing as an alternative to SB? They had to have one at the top of the QB board. That's the one SB has to compared to. Not every single QB available at #2

Noooooooo-- you're making the mistake of the argument being between you and I. That is not the correct way to look at it point. The issue is what should DG have done. Not our argument.

The point is DG SHOULD KNOW the right QB to be pick IF there is one. If there isn't one then he assessed correctly. It is his job TO KNOW. It's a tough job but that's why he is GM for the Giants and I'm sure rewarded with an outstanding salary and many fine people reporting to him. You don't get that job if it's easy.

Based on talent, ability to help the giants win games now and for the future.

Oh wait...he did.