Decent article speculating why Gettleman and crew took Barkley over a QB. An interesting point he makes is that one reason could be that they didn't want to waste high-money investments on the defensive side waiting for a rookie QB to be ready.
Another good point he brings up is that the NFC is loaded, and going for it with a slightly better than average team may not be the best play in this environment.
The Beckham situation may blow the whole thing up. Had they taken a QB, they might have set themselves up to pay Beckham because their QB was on a rookie deal.
Can the Giants Transition Into a New Era While Clinging to Their Past? - (
New Window )
Wouldn't it be easier to pay Beckham (or anyone else) if our QB was on a rookie deal and therefore not as big a cap hit? This assumes Eli is totally off the books, obviously, which wouldn't happen right away.
Quote:
After the combines he was the highest graded player on most Teams boards. In Fact the G-men gave him a PERFECT score....case closed. You don't pass up the highest graded player just for the sake of taking another possible "franchise" QB who would start out as another clip board holder behind Eli. The talk that the Giants must take a QB to be a successor to Eli was just plain stupid when Barkley was sitting there at #2. It was a NO-BRAINIER. Besides the Giants got a young capable QB later in the Draft.There is no guarantee that any QB will become a "FRANCHISE" QB. Tom Brady was a SIXTH ROUND draft pick.
This post is awful
I can see the merits of the post, arguing that you take the highest rated player. Nonetheless, until there is some sort finality to this draft- which could take years- the decision of Barkley vs Qb will be hotly debated and rightfully so. It changed the course of the next 10-15 years for the Giants. If they were wrong, the decisions will be amplified if for no other reason than they took a running back at 2 while simultaneously gift wrapping a highly rated qb to the Jets.
Highly regarded or not, taking a running back at 2 is a very large gamble, given shelf life and injury risk. If the Giants were wrong, and this turns out to be similar to the 2004 qb class, the 30 for 30 headline writes itself "what if I told you the Giants had a shot at... and took a running back."
Let the games begin!
👍👍
Quote:
our QB is making. I really dont understand that comment.
Wouldn't it be easier to pay Beckham (or anyone else) if our QB was on a rookie deal and therefore not as big a cap hit? This assumes Eli is totally off the books, obviously, which wouldn't happen right away.
No because hes getting paid regardless. We wouldnt just cave to his demands simply because we have more cap room without Eli. Theres a price we are willing to pay, which is going to be slightly more than the current highest paid WR, and its something we can afford regardless of who we are paying at QB.
Elis salary effects FA signings, vet signings, etc. it has no bearing on being able to afford our best player.
I was a proponent of taking a QB, but only IF the team flet that the QB was a franchise guy. It seems clear that the team wasn't certain of that with the QBs remaining when they were picking. And they were certain about Barkley. I just hope they're right about the QBs (and the two young ones on our roster.
I hate the term "win now". The Giants are going to put out the best team possible (within reason) each year and they are going to try to win every game they play.
Full tear downs are rebuilds rarely happen in the NFL and are even more rare for a high profile franchise like NYG
For all the talk about an Eli window, and about the shelf life of a RB, the reality is their is a Beckham window too and to expect Beckham to play at the level he's played at for another 7-10 years isn't an expectation grounded in reality. Any Giants future with a QB at #2, the QBs best years would be spent without Beckham or likely with a declining Beckham.
My guess is that only 1 of the top 4 QB's will be a star, and at most two of them will be 5-year starters in the NFL. Each had potential flaws or shortcomings, which seemed comparable to those of Davis Webb as of May 2018. By comparison, Barclay was a sure thing.
Kinda essential to have at least one of those things to be good at Play-Action. Furthermore, McAdoo's dumbass offense didnt include much PA to begin with for the past 3 years.
Truth is, nobody knows how good this offense is going to run, but they have all the tools to be highly successful if Eli has ANYTHING left.
Lastly, what always fails to get mentioned in the debate for the Giants passing over the QBs is what they think they have in Webb, and now Lauletta. If they think either can adequately run this offense with all the stars and a good OL, that is just as big of a factor as how good Barkley is.
My guess is that only 1 of the top 4 QB's will be a star, and at most two of them will be 5-year starters in the NFL. Each had potential flaws or shortcomings, which seemed comparable to those of Davis Webb as of May 2018. By comparison, Barclay was a sure thing.
How does anyone know Barkley is a sure fire star? I've read knocks on him that he isn't a great pure runner in between the tackles like Zeke or Fortunette and that he's more of a great multipurpose back. What if he's Reggie Bush 2.0, that would be a major disappointment.
I think we're al hopeful that he's great, but he's not a sure thing quite yet.
I actually have a bit more concern for the defensive transition. It took quite a while for Spag's defense to take hold in 2007, and that wasn't a big change in the system, just a change in philosophy.
Quote:
we should have taken a QB instead of Saquon, I want to ask, "Which one?" Mayfield, Darnold, Rosen or Allen.
My guess is that only 1 of the top 4 QB's will be a star, and at most two of them will be 5-year starters in the NFL. Each had potential flaws or shortcomings, which seemed comparable to those of Davis Webb as of May 2018. By comparison, Barclay was a sure thing.
How does anyone know Barkley is a sure fire star? I've read knocks on him that he isn't a great pure runner in between the tackles like Zeke or Fortunette and that he's more of a great multipurpose back. What if he's Reggie Bush 2.0, that would be a major disappointment.
I think we're al hopeful that he's great, but he's not a sure thing quite yet.
Reggie Bush 2.0 minus the injuries is actually a really good player. If thats Barkleys floor then...
But I still dont see the similarities, Barkley is bigger, stronger, and probably just as fast. Hes a bell cow, Bush never was in College or the Pros.
Totally agree. I think the article has some interesting points, but saying Eli is not a good play action QB misses the point that:
1. The Giants running backs have sucked for the past 5 years
2. The OL has sucked for the past 5 years
3. The Giants offense was entirely predictable since TC left.
Eli has actually been one the best play action QBs in the league when the giants have had even a competent running game.