Kay Adams: "Giants over-hyping Saquon Barkley"

In comment 13966187 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

People talk about Reggie Bush like he was a complete nobody. He actually was a pretty good player and stuck around for a much longer time than people thought he would. He was also quite productive when he did play. If Barkley is a more durable, more versatile version of Bush, it'll be a very good pick.

I don't disagree. My first post on this string was that Reggie Bush had a very good (just not a great) career. He was a good player, just didn't live up to the immense expectations that were set for him.

then that's not very good and I don't know how you could spin it otherwise. Yes, Bush found a role in the league but that certainly doesn't make it worth it now that his career is in the books.

But I can't see how anyone would think comparing Barkley to Bush makes any sense whatsoever. It's a really, really, really bad comparison.

In comment 13966127 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

is 30 pounds heavier and otherwise has many of the same attributes, saying they are the same back really ignores the physics of what that 30 pound differential means.

This point cannot be stated enough. Even if one chooses to fixate on the similarities between Bush and Barkley, if they do so without acknowledging that Barkley posseses the physical attributes to translate those skills to the NFL where Bush could not, they're either being disingenuous or willfully obtuse.

don't let the media chatter affect them. Barkley does not seem like the type who will care what the callers on WFAN or posters here say about him. Therefore, I don't think it matters (in this case).

In comment 13966226 Mike from SI said:

Quote:

don't let the media chatter affect them. Barkley does not seem like the type who will care what the callers on WFAN or posters here say about him. Therefore, I don't think it matters (in this case).

I hope that is true -- but Barkley hasn't failed on a large scale in the NFL yet. He will soon enough, and when he does Gettleman's hyperbole certainly won't help keep the noise down.

will fail soon?

In comment 13966260 christian said:

Quote:

In comment 13966226 Mike from SI said: Quote: don't let the media chatter affect them. Barkley does not seem like the type who will care what the callers on WFAN or posters here say about him. Therefore, I don't think it matters (in this case). I hope that is true -- but Barkley hasn't failed on a large scale in the NFL yet. He will soon enough, and when he does Gettleman's hyperbole certainly won't help keep the noise down.

Only because fans that wanted a QB are taking Gettlemans obvious joking statement so seriously. It’s been mentioned numerous times on this thread but there is a segment of fans that are just waiting to sit back and holler “I told you so!”. It is amazing to me that people are taking those comments so seriously. If the stupid fans would chill out there would be no issue. Where is the noise going to come from? Fans that don’t like the pick. Blame them for overreacting, not Gettleman or Barkley

In comment 13966270 BigBlueShock said:

Quote:

In comment 13966260 christian said: Quote: In comment 13966226 Mike from SI said: Quote: don't let the media chatter affect them. Barkley does not seem like the type who will care what the callers on WFAN or posters here say about him. Therefore, I don't think it matters (in this case). I hope that is true -- but Barkley hasn't failed on a large scale in the NFL yet. He will soon enough, and when he does Gettleman's hyperbole certainly won't help keep the noise down. Only because fans that wanted a QB are taking Gettlemans obvious joking statement so seriously. It’s been mentioned numerous times on this thread but there is a segment of fans that are just waiting to sit back and holler “I told you so!”. It is amazing to me that people are taking those comments so seriously. If the stupid fans would chill out there would be no issue. Where is the noise going to come from? Fans that don’t like the pick. Blame them for overreacting, not Gettleman or Barkley

That's a very simplistic and intellectually flimsy argument.

If Barkley comes out flat (whether his fault or not), and the back cover headline in the Post is 'Touched by the Hand of God' -- that will be because some fans didn't like the pick?

It will have nothing to do with a rookie playing poorly and the GM having gone overboard praising how great the pick was?

I think you drastically underestimate how critical the press here is, and that Barkley is not going to get a semblance of a break no matter how much some fans like him.

I think Barkley is going to have a fine year, but I think the line will still be a big problem, and the offense will have growing pains in a new system and not much depth at WR.

I think Barkley is going to have rough moments and when he does the professional critics will pounce and Gettleman has given them fodder, just like a every Reese hyperbolic praise turned into a jab.

If Barkely is completely impervious to criticism and pressure in New York, as a top 2 pick, on a team coming off an awful season with an aging and flawed hero at QB and the GM effectively annointing him, he's more perfect than Gettleman even graded.

needs a lot more Kay Adams, and a lot less everything else.

is anything like Ezekiel Elliott, the only time the headlines might use the term Touched By the Hand of God is if he's accused of assault......

the expectations...the media...the GM comments...the pressure of being the pick instead of a franchise-QB. Its all too much.

The NY Giants gave it a shot but its obvious that this was never going to work...

In comment 13966300 JonC said:

Quote:

needs a lot more Kay Adams, and a lot less everything else.

Ask and ye shall receive:

regardless of size, but strictly based on style of play. Honestly you have to do that a bit when finding comparisons with Barkley because his playing style uses so much shiftiness and elusiveness, guys his size don't usually have that trait. However, Barkley and Bush really have nothing in common other than they are both really fast and are good at catching footballs. Go back and watch Bush USC highlights, he runs really nothing at all like Barkly. It's not a good comparison. For being such a phenomenal athlete, Bush wasn't exceptionally shifty, he was insanely explosive and fast, but LeSean McCoy had much more shake than Reggie, and Barkely runs much more like McCoy than Bush, except he has Bush's speed(and yes, bot those guys were 200lb runningbacks oh by the way).

with a high pick it's probably fair to point out that Vince Young was #3 just behind Bush and Matt Leinart was the other qb drafted in the top 10 that year. There are no guarantees in an NFL draft regardless if position.

In comment 13967045 steve in ky said:

Quote:

with a high pick it's probably fair to point out that Vince Young was #3 just behind Bush and Matt Leinart was the other qb drafted in the top 10 that year. There are no guarantees in an NFL draft regardless if position.

Yup.

Reggie Bush was a better draft pick than both Vince Young and Matt Leinart. Not even debatable.

In comment 13967056 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

In comment 13967045 steve in ky said: Quote: with a high pick it's probably fair to point out that Vince Young was #3 just behind Bush and Matt Leinart was the other qb drafted in the top 10 that year. There are no guarantees in an NFL draft regardless if position. Yup. Reggie Bush was a better draft pick than both Vince Young and Matt Leinart. Not even debatable.

Yeah but those other two guys were highly touted QBs, isn’t that the only thing that matters? From reading BBI, I’ve learned that an ordinary QB is more valuable than a very good RB.

is that a RB who played 10 years in the NFL was a bust and a terrible pick.

Why people don't ever discuss the gray middle ground is what rabbit holes a lot of these discussions.

In comment 13967067 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

is that a RB who played 10 years in the NFL was a bust and a terrible pick. Why people don't ever discuss the gray middle ground is what rabbit holes a lot of these discussions.

Come on man. If Barkley doesn’t run for 4000 yards and lead the Giants to the playoffs in year one he is an utter failure because the GM said he was touched by the hand of God. I’ll be foaming at the mouth if this guy doesn’t end up the best RB ever because our GM gushed about him. I’m sitting here just waiting to pounce because the Daily News May post an article picking on Gettleman and Barkley if he doesn’t run for 300 yards every week.... and I take the articles that some fat slob from the Daily News writes seriously, man.

Unfortunately, that's where we're going next.

Every time Barkley doesn't have a spectacular showing, we'll have to hear about how God must have taken the day off or how "DSG" is clueless.

Can't wait!

jump on the "weak, non-sensical" posts/posters...at least to some degree.

I know you all as good posters too when it comes to football, but you can't tell me you don't get some interest or "jollies" out of the argumentative battles you take on.

just sayin' (again)...

LOL, well I don't think that's why I come here - I come here primarily to talk about the Giants (and sports in general), but sometimes the stupid is too difficult to ignore.

Beyond that, I suppose if we all agreed on everything, there wouldn't be much to talk about. :)

as I know the ideal view is to talk Giant football. Reality is its more to argue about Giant football...

;-)

22 years here just to get my jollies arguing while the Giant talk/info is secondary.

In comment 13967067 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

is that a RB who played 10 years in the NFL was a bust and a terrible pick. Why people don't ever discuss the gray middle ground is what rabbit holes a lot of these discussions.

Would you really say that a runningback picked 2nd overall and played 10 years, finishing with 5500 rushing yards, and only actually got a full time starter's share of carries in three of those 10 years turned out to be a quality pick?

Put another way, think of an NFL player who you would describe as fully average. Not special, not bad. Solid starter.

Would picking that player 2nd overall be classified as a success? If Justin Pugh was drafted 2nd overall, would that not equate to a wasted pick?

receiving numbers as well. And I think he was a pretty decent punt returner, at least early in career.

healthy enough to play a full 16 games two times in his career. One of those seasons was his rookie year where he only started 8 games and yet amassed 88 receptions.

He only had two 1,000 yard seasons and he had nearly 500 receptions in his career.

What part of the gray area I was talking about above is confusing? He's neither a bust, nor a guy who lived up to the #2 position. He was neither a wasted pick nor a terrible one.

I don't even get the connection to Pugh. Pugh was drafted much lower and many here look at him as a wasted pick. Not sure what the exercise of drafting him at #2 illustrates.

is right about him being a PR. He had 4 punt return TD's in his career and he led the league with a 13.5 average once.

Why the hell is Reggie Bush being discussed...because he is comparative to what we should expect from Barkley?

and foregoing everything else is useless. It’s the epitome of cherry picking. Bush had some really good years in the nfl, and despite his injuries a fairly long career for his position.

I'd sign up for that.

Because people keep using Reggie Bush as some sort of disparaging comparison for Barkley. Bush had a pretty solid career for a RB.

I expect Barkley to be better, but people talk about Bush like he was some massive bust which wasn't the case at all.

and some in this fan base/the NFL are going to be on him throughout his career unless he turns into Barry Sanders 2.0.

In comment 13967206 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

I'd sign up for that.

Reggie Bush was a All pro RB? Or a All Pro special teams player who played on a SB winning team
U honestly would be happy if Barkley is nothing more then a dynamic scat back and great special teams player?
Expectations for the 2nd overall pick have to be much higher